Nata de coco is a complementary treat of beverages made from coconut milk or water which was fermented by Acetobacter Xylinum bacteria. Although most nata are generally made with coconut milk or water, nata de coco can be made using other ingredients such as coconut milk, molasses or molasses, and other juices such as melons, pineapples, oranges, bananas, guavas, strawberries etc. This study was undertaken to design, construct and develop a new Strawberry flavored Nata De Coco and Nata De Coco drink and its comparative quality assessment respect to comparative quality evaluation of Nata De Coco drink. Best quality Nata De Coco were obtained by using 71.34% water, 13% Sugar, 15% Nata De Coco, 0.03% Gellan Gum, 0.06% Sodium Citrate, 0.12% Calcium Lactate, 0.01% Ascorbic Acid, 0.03% Potassium Sorbate, 0.012% Sodium Benzoate, 0.12%,Strawberry Flavor, 0.23% Citric Acid Anhydrous, 0.05% Liquid Cap. Overall analysis shows that Nata De coco Drinks which are produced with 15% Nata De Coco shows the best results and for other parameters results are respectively 0.23%, 0.0144 acidity; 13 ± 0.2 °Brix and pH 3.6± 0.1. As per evaluation of three samples, average value of taste of sample S3 is accepted. Because we used less citric acid in S1, more less citric acid in S3. Taste of S3 is accepted because taste quality of S1 & S2 is not perfect as per standard. Flavor of sample S3 is better than S1 & S3.Organoleptic test of S3 is better than S1 & S2. At the end of all evaluation, S3 is accepted for manufacturing. Because it is tasted well among the samples are made.

No abstract

The study was conducted to develop value added product, coconut bar from coconut. The coconut was collected from local market. Then the coconut was analyzed for their composition. The coconut contains moisture 45.26%, ash 2.76%, protein 4.23%, fat 30.84%, and carbohydrate 16.91%. Total 5 types (C1= Coconut bar, C2 = Coconut bar with peanut, C3= Coconut milk extracted bar, C4= Coconut bar with sesame, C5= Coconut bar with egg) of coconut bars with different ingredients were prepared. The C1 sample contained moisture 12.11%, ash 1.6%, protein 1.62%, fat 3.4%, and carbohydrate 81.25%. The C2 sample contained moisture 4.81%, ash 1.8%, protein 2.24%, fat 5.2%, and carbohydrate 85.88%. The C3 sample contained moisture 9.3%, ash 1.5%, protein 0.67%, fat 2.7%, and carbohydrate 85.69%. The C4 sample contained moisture 9.8%, ash 1.7%, protein 0.53%, fat 4.1%, and carbohydrate 83.74%. The C5 sample contained moisture 15.04%, ash 1.7%, protein 2.6%, fat 6.6%, and carbohydrate 73.96%. A testing panel consisting 15 panelists studied the acceptability of the samples. The consumer’s preferences were measured by statistical analysis of the scores obtained from the response of the panel. Among the samples the C5 (Coconut bar with egg) sample was awarded the highest score by the panelist

This research conducted with the fully fresh, ripe and sound tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) was collected then washed, peeled, seeds removed and transferred to the juice extractor. Sugar, preservatives were added to the extracted filtrated juice. Then the juice was heated, cooled and bottled for preservation. Tomato juice was prepared with three different treatments. Among the three treatments T1, T2 and T3 sample were prepared with no preservative, Na-benzoate preservative and potassium meta-bisulphite (KMS) preservative respectively. The organoleptic observation of this tomato juice was studied for 60 days storage period. Chemical analysis and sensory tests were carried out during the 30 days at an interval of 15 days to assess the effect of chemical additives on the shelf life of tomato juice. Negligible Change in chemical constituents except vitamin C was observed in the prepared juice throughout the 30 days storage period. Color was gradually faded and slightly off flavor develops at the end of the storage periods. The treatment T2 secured highest score for color, flavor, taste and overall acceptability and ranked as “Like very much” by a taste testing panel. Tomato juice prepared with no preservative (T1) spoiled after 45 days storage and juice prepared with KMS preservative (T3) spoiled after 60 days storage. Total number of viable bacteria was highest in tomato juice treated with no preservative (T1) and KMS preservative (T3). Tomato juice with Na-benzoate preservative (T2) contained least viable bacteria which was better than T1 and T3 sample. Considering all the parameters, Na-benzoate tends to be better additives than potassium meta-bisulphite (KMS) for preservation of tomato juice.