The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0034-6659.htm

Microbiological, physico-chemical
and sensorial quality of small-scale
produced stirred yoghurt on the
market in Kampala city, Uganda

Quality of
yoghurt in
Uganda
409

I.M. Mukisa and R. Kyoshabire

Department of Food Science and Technology, Makerere University,
Kampala, Uganda
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the quality of selected small-scale produced
yoghurt brands on the market in Kampala city, Uganda.
Design/methodology/approach Four samples of each of four brands of small-scale produced
yoghurt were purchased from different shops in Kampala on four different occasions within a period
of one month. Physico-chemical, microbiological and rheological analyses were carried out on each of
the samples. An untrained sensory panel was also used to assess their acceptability and purchase
index. A premium brand (Fresh dairy yoghurt) was used as a control.
Findings Lactobacilli counts ranged from 7.12-9.25 log cfu ml1 while lactococci ranged from
6.29-6.8 log cfu ml1 in the small-scale yoghurt brands. All the small-scale yoghurt brands were
contaminated with fungi and coliforms at levels beyond the acceptable minimum, indicating insufficient
process hygiene and also raising concerns of consumer safety. The protein, ash, carbohydrate and
titratable acidity were not significantly different from the control. Fat, total solids, pH, viscosity
and syneresis varied significantly between brands. The small-scale produced brands were less viscous
and exhibited more syneresis. All the small-scale yoghurt brands were less acceptable compared with the
control and two of them were disliked. The variation in their purchase index was related to their
acceptability.
Practical implications Regulatory and standards agencies should strengthen the surveillance of such
products and the premises where they are produced. They should also work with other stakeholders in
training small-scale processors to ensure that their products meet both quality and safety requirements.
Originality/value The paper assesses the quality of one of the many small-scale produced products
on the market in Kampala city.
Keywords Uganda, Food products, Dairy products, Microbiology, Product quality
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In Uganda today, commercial processing of most food products is no longer a preserve
of large and reputable companies. Many small-scale processors have now joined the
food industry, a trend that has partly been driven by the need for individuals to create
their own jobs in order to earn a living or to supplement their meagre incomes. With
a modest capital, one quickly establishes a small-scale business, usually within their
homes. A number of yoghurt brands on the market in Kampala city and other parts of
the country have actually been born this way. Since such businesses often operate
without quality management systems in place, the quality of their products may be
questionable.
The authors appreciate the technical assistance rendered by the technicians in the Departments
of Food Science & Technology and Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Makerere University,
Kampala.

Nutrition & Food Science

Vol. 40 No. 4, 2010
pp. 409-418
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0034-6659
DOI 10.1108/00346651011062069

NFS
40,4

410

Yoghurt is a product obtained through the fermentation of milk by the symbiotic

cultures of Streptococcus salvarius subsp. thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii
subsp. bulgaricus (Codex, 2003). These organisms lead to a reduction of pH with or
without coagulation. The composition of the milk may or may not be modified.
The word yoghurt is derived from the Turkish word Jugurt, which refers to
fermented foods with an acidic taste (Younus et al., 2002). Although it is a traditional
beverage in the Balkans and Middle East, its popularity has spread to other parts of
the world (Ghandge et al., 2008). In Uganda, yoghurt has gradually replaced the sale of
traditional cultured milk products, such as Bongo, that have since time immemorial
been produced and consumed by pastoral communities. There are currently two types
of yoghurt on the market in Uganda namely, set and stirred yoghurt. Stirred yoghurt is
more common on the market.
The increase in popularity of yoghurt could be attributed to its characteristic taste
and aroma, unique nutritional quality and claimed therapeutic properties. Yoghurt
contains high-quality protein, is a good source of calcium and phosphorous, and its
carbohydrate can be utilised easily by those intolerant to lactose (Staff, 1998; Younus
et al., 2002; Alakali et al., 2008; Ghandge et al., 2008). Its consumption is also reported to
aid in curing intestinal disorders (Younus et al., 2002).
The success of any product on the market is dependent on its quality and the
derived consumer satisfaction. Flavour (aroma and taste) and adequate firmness
without syneresis are among the important quality parameters of yoghurt (Kroger,
1975; Khan et al., 2008; Mehmood et al., 2008). Microbiologically, yoghurt should be free
from contamination with coliforms and fungi (Kroger, 1975; El-Diasty and El-Kaseh,
2007; Oyeleke, 2009). For the assessment of yoghurt quality, a combination of sensory,
physico-chemical and microbiological analyses is recommended (Kroger, 1975; Tamime
and Robinson, 1985).
Several authors have reported on the quality of commercial yoghurt in countries
such as the USA (Kroger, 1975), Pakistan (Younus et al., 2002; Khan et al., 2008), Egypt
(El-Diasty and El-Kaseh, 2007), Sudan (Haj et al., 2007) and Nigeria (Oyeleke, 2009).
There are, however, no available studies on the quality of commercial yoghurt in
Uganda. Little is also known about the quality of the ever increasing brands of
small-scale produced yoghurt. Two small-scale yoghurt processors that we talked to
complained about counterfeiting in the yoghurt business. An unscrupulous processor
may use anothers package to pack inferior quality yoghurt. There is also a report
of milk in Uganda being contaminated with coliforms and faecal coliforms such as
Escherichia coli right from the farm (Grimaud et al., 2007). It is therefore possible that
inadequate sanitary conditions in, especially home-based, small-scale establishments
and insufficient technical knowledge may result in low-grade and unsafe products.
The objective of this study, therefore, was to assess the microbiological, physicochemical and sensorial quality of selected small-scale produced yoghurt brands on the
market in Kampala city.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 Study area
Kampala is the largest city and capital of Uganda. It was chosen for this study because
it is surrounded by several suburbs, which are often the source of most of the smallscale produced food products on the market in the city and adjoining areas. Cases of
adulteration, counterfeiting and inferior products have been reported in some of these
areas.

2.2 Yoghurt samples

Four small-scale produced yoghurt brands on the market in Kampala were randomly
selected for this study. One premium quality yoghurt sample, Fresh Dairy yoghurt,
produced by a reputable large-scale company (Sameer Agriculture and Livestock Ltd)
was selected as a control. Four samples of each brand of yoghurt were randomly
purchased from different shops at four different occasions within a period of one
month. The samples were immediately taken to the Department of Food Science and
Technology, Makerere University for further analyses. Sensory evaluation, microbial
analysis, syneresis and viscosity determinations were done immediately. Samples
for other analyses were frozen at 18  C for not more than two weeks prior to analysis.
2.3 Microbiological analysis
Enumeration of Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus was carried
out by pour plating on M17 and MRS media, respectively. The plates were incubated
anaerobically at 30  C for 48 h. Total coliform counts were determined by the pour plate
technique using Violet Red Bile Agar. The plates were incubated at 30  C for 24 h.
Yeasts and moulds were enumerated by spread plating on Rose Bengal
Chloramphenicol Agar. Incubation was done at 25  C for two to five days. Diluent and
media were supplied by Merck, Darmstadt Germany.
2.4 Physico-chemical analysis
Fat, total solids, ash, protein content and titratable acidity were determined according
to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists methods (AOAC, 1990). Carbohydrate
content was determined by subtracting the sum of proteins per cent, fat per cent and ash
per cent from total solids per cent, while the solid not fat was determined by subtracting
fat from total solids. The pH values were determined using a pH-meter (Corning Pinnacle,
model 5A3i, Corning Incorporated, USA) and the viscosity (per cent) was measured by a
Brookfield viscometer (Brookfield, model LVDV-II P, Middleboro, USA). Syneresis was
determined using the method described by Stelios and Emmanuel (2004). Total soluble
solids ( Brix) were determined by using a refractometer (Westover, model RHB-90, USA).
2.5 Sensory evaluation
One sample of each of the five yoghurt brands was used for this part of the study. A
30-member untrained sensory panel comprising regular yoghurt consumers who were
students from the Department of Food Science and Technology, Makerere University was
used. A 9-point hedonic scale (9 like extremely, 5 neither like nor dislike,
1 dislike extremely) was used to rank the acceptability (overall, appearance, aroma,
taste and mouth feel) of the yoghurt. Panellists also expressed their willingness to buy each
brand by using a 9-point scale (1 extremely unwilling, 5 neither willing nor unwilling,
9 extremely willing). The panellists were also asked to give any comments about the
samples. After product evaluation, 23 of the panellists agreed to answer a few questions
regarding the quality of small-scale produced yoghurt on the market in Kampala.
2.6 Data analysis
Using S PLUS software (Version 8.0.4 for Windows) means of physico-chemical
analyses, microbial counts as well as panellists scores for consumer acceptability and
willingness to buy were computed. These were then subjected to analysis of variance
to test for significant differences (p < 0.05). The Tukeys test was used to determine
which means were significantly different. Descriptive statistics (frequencies) were used
for consumers views on yoghurt quality.

Quality of
yoghurt in
Uganda
411

NFS
40,4

412

Table I.
Microbial counts of
different yoghurt brands
in Kampala

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Microbiological analysis
The microbial counts of the different yoghurt brands are shown in Table I. Lactobacillus
counts ranged from 7.12 log cfu ml1 (in brand OF) to 9.67 log cfu ml1 (in the control).
Lactococci ranged from 6.29 log cfu ml1 (in brand GD) to 9.71 log cfu ml1 (in the
control). According to the Codex standard for fermented milks (Codex, 2003), yoghurt
should contain a minimum of 7 log cfu ml1 as the total of microorganisms constituting
the starter culture. All the yoghurt samples satisfied this requirement.
Yeasts and moulds were not detected in the control but were present in the smallscale produced yoghurts at levels of 3.11 to 4.16 log cfu ml1. These values were
above the limits of 1 and 2 log cfu ml1 for moulds and yeasts, respectively (Tamime
and Robinson, 1985). Some authors have also reported the presence of
unsatisfactory levels of fungi in yoghurt (El-Diasty and El-Kaseh, 2007; Oyeleke,
2009). Fungi may be introduced into yoghurt through the addition of flavourants
such as fruits (Kroger, 1975; Downes and Ito, 2001). Fungal contamination in milk
from the environment may also carry over due to insufficient heat treatment of the
yoghurt base (El-Diasty and El- Kaseh, 2007). Inadequate post-fermentation
hygiene may also contribute to fungal contamination, especially prior to packaging.
Beyond 3 log cfu ml1 fungi accelerate in-pack deterioration (Tamime and Robinson,
1985). The presence of moulds in yoghurt is of concern to human health
mainly with regard to mycotoxin producing species (El-Diasty and El-Kaseh, 2007;
Oyeleke, 2009).
Coliforms were not detected in the control but were observed to range from 1.35
to 3.44 log cfu ml1 in the other yoghurt brands. These results are similar to those
reported by Younus et al. (2002) and El-Diasty and El-Kaseh (2007). These counts are
above the limit of 1 log cfu ml1 for milk and fermented milk products (Jay, 1992).
Coliforms are indicators of poor hygiene and possible contamination with
microorganisms of faecal origin (Jay, 1992). Coliforms may be present in milk from
cows with sub-clinical mastitis (El-Diasty and El-Kaseh, 2007). Raw milk in Uganda
has actually been reported to contain faecal coliforms such as E. coli (Grimaud et al.,
2007). Coliforms have been reported to decrease to undetectable levels in some
fermented products, including yoghurt, within 24-72 hours of fermentation (Jay, 1992;
Mugula et al., 2003; Muyanja et al., 2003; Namugumya and Muyanja, 2009). Their
disappearance is attributed to the combined effect of pH dropping below 4.5 and the
action of antimicrobial substances produced by lactic acid bacteria (Mugula et al., 2003;
Muyanja et al., 2003). Since coliforms are sensitive to pasteurisation (Kroger, 1975),

Yoghurt brand

Lactobacili

Counts (log cfu ml1)

Lactococci
Yeasts and moulds

Coliforms

FD Control
OF
KA
GD
WM

9.67  0.04
7.12  0.54
8.85  0.21
9.25  0.41
8.97  0.19

9.71  0.08
6.80  0.11
6.65  0.07
6.29  0.60
6.62  0.12

ND
3.29  0.16
1.35  0.06
3.44  1.51
3.15  0.62

ND
4.16  1.33
3.11  0.13
3.50  0.13
3.38  0.16

Notes: Values are mean  standard deviation of four independent determinations; ND not
detected

their presence in the final product is a result of insufficient heat processing or post heat
treatment contamination.
3.2 Physico-chemical analysis
The physico-chemical properties of the different yoghurt brands are shown in Table II.
Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed for most of the parameters with the
exception of protein, ash and titratable acidity.
3.2.1 Fat. The fat content ranged from undetectable limits (brand OF) to 3.31 per cent
(Table II). Other authors have reported values ranging between 2.17 and 4.51 (Younus
et al., 2002; Haj et al., 2007). WM had significantly higher contents of fat compared to the
rest of the brands. Brands KA (1.45  1.62) and GD (1.13  1.3) had high standard
deviations, possibly indicating wide variations between batches. The variation in fat
could be attributed to variations in the raw milk, treatments to reduce fat or practices
such as adulteration of milk by adding water. Basing on fat content, yoghurts can be
classified into whole milk yoghurt (min. 3 per cent fat), fat reduced (0.5-3 per cent fat)
or fat free (<0.5 per cent fat) (COMESA, 2009). Staff (1998) also reports the fat content
based categorisation of yoghurt in various countries. Whereas the control, FD, is
marketed as reduced fat yoghurt and labelled as such, there was no such labelling on the
packages of the small-scale produced brands.
3.2.2 Protein. The protein content did not differ significantly and ranged from 2.32
to 2.99 per cent (Table II). Values in the range of 2.66 to 4.16 have been reported (Haj
et al., 2007; Alakali et al., 2008; Khan et al., 2008). The Codex standard for milk and
fermented milks specifies a minimum of 2.7 per cent protein (Codex, 2003). According
to Kroger (1975), protein contents below 3.4 per cent may be associated with syneresis,
thus necessitating fortification or the use of stabilisers.
3.2.3 Ash. The ash content of the small-scale produced yoghurts, which ranged from
0.55 to 0.65 per cent, was not significantly different from the control (Table II). These
values are close to those reported by other authors (Haj et al., 2007; Mehmood et al., 2008).
3.2.4 Carbohydrate. The carbohydrate content (Table II) of the small-scale produced
yoghurt brands was not significantly different from the control. Values ranged from
10.62 per cent (WM) to 14.57 per cent (GD). These values were close to those reported
by Haj et al. (2007) but higher than those given by other studies (Khan et al., 2008;

Quality of
yoghurt in
Uganda
413

Property

FD (Control)

OF

Yoghurt brands
KA

GD

WM

Fat (%)
Protein (%)
Ash (%)
Carbohydrate (%)
Total solids (%)
SNF (%)
TSS ( Brix)
pH
Viscosity (%)
Syneresis (%)

0.90  0.34a
2.99  0.54a
0.77  0.01a
12.38  0.42ab
17.28  0.17a
16.38  0.51a
13.65  0.19a
3.93  0.02a
64.6  1.41a
29.47  0.56a

ND
2.50  0.17a
0.62  0.01a
10.92  0.84b
13.92  0.46d
13.92  0.46b
9.6  0.23d
4.35  0.04c
57.00  0.85ac
35.28  1.97ac

1.45  1.62a
2.34  0.08a
0.65  0.00a
11.38  1.60ab
15.48  0.41c
14.03  1.35b
12.15  0.10c
3.96  0.04a
53.85  3.61bc
41.30  9.23c

1.13  1.3a
2.32  0.64a
0.62  0.02a
14.57  0.55a
18.57  0.10b
17.45  1.27a
14.3  0.35b
4.16  0.03b
47.25  2.47b
53.63  0.38b

3.31  0.33b
2.38  0.17a
0.55  0.05a
10.62  0.01b
17.00  0.29a
13.69  0.62b
13.2  0.16a
4.66  0.01d
58.50  1.27ac
52.60  0.36b

Table II.

Notes: Values are mean  standard deviation of four independent determinations; values in a row
with similar superscript letters are not significantly different (p > 0.05); ND not detected

Physiochemical
properties of different
yoghurt brands

NFS
40,4

414

Mehmood et al., 2008). Since the carbohydrate content in this study was obtained by
subtraction (Carbohydrate TSS  (Protein Fat Ash)), it would be misleading
to refer to it as the lactose content as other authors have done previously (Haj et al.,
2007; Khan et al., 2008). This is because the difference could also account for the added
stabiliser and any other adjuncts that processors may add to increase the total solids.
3.2.5 Total solids. The total solids content ranged between 13.92 and 18.57 per cent
(Table II). WM was comparable to the control while brands OF and KA had
significantly lower values. These values are in agreement with those reported by other
studies (Haj et al., 2007; Alakali et al., 2008; Khan et al., 2008). Besides the concentration
and fortification of the yoghurt base, the type and amount of stabiliser used may also
influence the total solids content (Alakali et al., 2008; Mehmood et al., 2008).
3.2.6 Solids-non-fat. The solids-non-fat (SNF) content ranged between 13.69 and
17.45 per cent (Table II). With the exception of GD, the SNF values of the other brands
were significantly lower than the control. All these values are, however, comparable
with those reported by other authors (Younus et al., 2002; Haj et al., 2007; Alakali et al.,
2008; Khan et al., 2008) and above the proposed minimum of 8.2 per cent for East
and Southern Africa (COMESA, 2009). Values between 12 and 15 per cent may be
necessary to achieve desirable texture (Staff, 1998). Variation in SNF is influenced by
both the fat content and the total solids (Kroger, 1975).
3.2.7 Total soluble solids. Total soluble solids (TSS) ranged from 9.6 to 14.3 per cent.
There were significant differences between all the samples with the exception of FD and
WM. The levels of TSS could be used to compare the sweetness of different yoghurt
brands.
3.2.8 pH. The pH values were in the range 3.93 to 4.66 (Table II). Although there
were significant differences in pH values, all brands, with the exception of WM, had
their pH values below 4.5. Other authors have presented similar findings (Younus et al.,
2002; Haj et al., 2007; Mehmood et al., 2008). According to Kroger (1975) an optimum
final pH of 4.1 to 4.4 is desirable. This not only facilitates flavour production by the
Lactobacilli and development of a good coagulum (Kroger, 1975) but also prevents the
growth of spoilage and pathogenic microbes (Downes and Ito, 2001).
3.2.9 Titratable acidity. The values of titratable acidity did not differ significantly
and ranged from 0.31 to 0.37 per cent. Values close to these have been reported for rice
and soy yoghurts (Haj et al., 2007; Jimoh and Kolapo, 2007). These values are, however,
lower than those obtained by other authors (Younus et al., 2002; Haj et al., 2007;
Mehmood et al., 2008). A minimum acidity of 0.6 per cent is recommended (Codex, 2003)
since the formation of a coagulum is reported to start at this level of acidity (Kroger,
1975). A lower acidity results in less milk protein coagulation and thus lower viscosity.
The level of acidity should also be based on market research as consumers may prefer
different levels of acidity (Kroger, 1975; Tamime and Robinson, 1985).
3.2.10 Viscosity. The viscosity of the yoghurt brands ranged from 47.25 to 64.6 per
cent (Table II). The viscosity of brands OF and W was similar to the control while those
of KA and GD was significantly lower. These values are close to those observed by Haj
et al. (2007) for stirred yoghurts in Sudan but lower than those reported by Younus et al.
(2002) for yoghurts from Pakistan. Viscosity, which is a very important quality
parameter of yoghurt, is influenced by total solids, fat content, processing and addition
of stabilisers (Najgebauer-Lejko et al., 2007). Viscosity can be improved by increasing
milk solids through heating or fortification and the use of stabilisers (Kroger, 1975).
Much as the increase in solids is vital, it can be noted that yoghurt brand GD, which
had the highest total solids content, had the least viscosity while brand OF, which

had the lowest total solids, had the higher viscosity value. Therefore in selecting
fortificants, consideration should be given to their effects on viscosity.
3.2.11 Syneresis. Average syneresis ranged from 29.47 in the control to 53.63 per cent
in brand GD. Syneresis in brand OF was not significantly different from the control.
Brands GD and WM had the highest levels of syneresis. Values of 22.8 to 29.64 per cent
have been reported for commercial yoghurt in Pakistan (Younus et al., 2002). Syneresis is
an undesirable phenomenon in yoghurt as it can result in the leakage of water from the
product (Kroger, 1975). It may result from insufficient heat treatment of the milk (Ranken
and Kill, 1993; Staff, 1998). Heat treatment promotes protein denaturation, which
increases water binding and viscosity. Other causes of syneresis include rough handling
of the coagulum, low protein, low fat and low mineral content, and low acid formation.
On top of addressing these causes, syneresis can also be reduced by the use of stabilisers
(Kroger, 1975; Younus et al., 2002). The extent of syneresis is also influenced by the type
of fortificant used (Athar et al., 2000).

Quality of
yoghurt in
Uganda
415

3.3 Sensory evaluation and consumer views on yoghurt quality

The acceptability of the selected small-scale produced yoghurts and consumers
willingness of purchase are shown in Figure 1. Panellists commented on FD as being
excellent, having a good taste, good mouth feel, good consistency and the best
flavour, thus justifying its choice as a control. FD was actually considered by 16 out of
the 23 respondents to be the best brand on the market.
All the small-scale produced yoghurts received significantly lower scores than
the control for all attributes with the exception of appearance. In terms of overall
acceptability, two of the brands (WM and GD) were disliked (scores less than 5). The

Figure 1.
Scores for consumer
acceptability and
willingness to buy for
different yoghurt brands

NFS
40,4

416

appearance of all the small-scale produced brands was liked as much as the control
with the exception of WM, which was neither liked nor disliked.
In case of aroma acceptability, brands KA and OF received similar but significantly
higher scores than GD which was disliked. One of the panellist noted that GD had a
burnt milk odour. This could have contributed to its low scores for aroma acceptability.
Aroma (19/23) was ranked as the most important quality attribute of yoghurt followed
by taste (13), viscosity/mouth feel (11), colour (9), consistency (7) and appearance (4).
These observations are in line with earlier reports (Kroger, 1975; Khan et al., 2008;
Mehmood et al., 2008).
Brand OF received significantly higher scores for taste than KA, WM and GD.
The taste of all these brands was acceptable. The taste of GD was, however, disliked.
Panellists noted that the small-scale brands were generally too sweet. Brand GD
actually had the highest content of total soluble solids (Table II). Panellists also noted
that GD had an unpleasant, pungent and sour taste while WM, which neither liked
nor disliked, had a spoilt-milk taste. Brands KA and OF received significantly higher
acceptability scores for mouth feel compared to WM and GD, which were disliked.
Surprisingly, GD had the highest SNF content while that of WM was equivalent to both
OF and KA. Although the addition of stabilisers contributes to the SNF content, thus
affecting mouth feel, the type of stabiliser used also matters (Alakali et al., 2008). Some
panellists observed that WM had solid particles while both WM and GD were quite
thin. Brands GD and WM probably contained stabilisers with a low water holding
capacity or suffered mechanical damage as can be seen from their relatively high level
of syneresis (Table II). The panellists were more willing to buy brands OF and KA
and quite unwilling to purchase brands WM and GD. This can be attributed to the
consumer perception of the aroma, taste and mouth feel of these brands (Figure 1).
Most of the respondents (15/23) expressed disatisfaction with the quality of smallscaled yoghurts citing problems such as poor packaging (8), poor flavour (5) and
early spoilage (3). Other deficiencies noted include inconsistencies in taste, lack of
traceability, absence of expiry dates on the packages, excessive sweetness and often too
much use of flavourants. It was also observed that most yoghurt manufacturers do not
adhere to the general guidelines for labelling (Codex, 1985) especially in regards to
declaration of fat content, date marking and lot identification. The absence of lot
markings renders traceability impossible. Although yoghurt may be bought off the
shelf long before its expiry date, some processors may deliberately avoid date marking
as a safeguard against product rejection on the shelf. This is possible when consumers
realise that the product is close to or past its expiry date.
4. Conclusions
This study has shown that there are variations in the quality of small-scale produced
yoghurts on the market in Kampala with some of the brands being quite inferior. Some
of the quality problems include excessive sweetness and sourness, off odours, thin
consistency, syneresis, short shelf life and microbial contamination. Fungi and coliform
contamination in these yoghurts indicates insufficient process sanitation and also
raises concerns of consumer safety especially with regards to pathogens and
mycotoxins, respectively. The high fungi counts could be responsible for the problem
of short shelf life of these products. Because of improper labelling, the consumer is
not well informed. It also renders it impossible to execute product recall in cases of
defective products. It is consequently recommended that stakeholders should

strengthen surveillance and plan trainings for small-scale processors to ensure that
their products meet both quality and safety requirements.
References
Alakali, J.S., Okonkwo, T.M. and Iordye, E.M. (2008), Effect of stabilizers on the physicochemical and sensory attributes of thermized yoghurt, African Journal of Biotechnology,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 158-63.
AOAC (1990), Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed., Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Washington, DC.
Athar, I.H., Shah, M.A. and Khan, U.N. (2000), Effect of various stabilizers on whey separation
(Syneresis) and quality of yoghurt, Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 8,
pp. 1336-8.
Codex (1985), General standard for the labelling of prepackaged foods, Codex Stan 1-1985,
available at: www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/32/CXS 001e.pdf (accessed
25 August 2009).
Codex (2003), Codex standard for fermented milks 242-2003, available at: www.
codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/400/CXS_243e.pdf (accessed 13 August 2009).
COMESA (2009), Draft COMESA/East African Standard yoghurt specification, available
at: www.dairyafrica.com/documents/EAS%2033%20yoghurt%20cleaned.pdf (accessed
11 August 2009).
Downes, F.P. and Ito, K.A. (Eds) (2001), Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological
Examination of Foods, 4th ed., American Public Health Association, Washington, DC,
p. 659.
El-Diasty, M.E. and El-Kaseh, M.R. (2007), Microbiological studies on raw milk and yoghurt in
El-beida city, Research Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 2, pp. 34-8.
Ghandge, P.N., Prasad, K. and Kadam, P.S. (2008), Effect of fortification on the physico-chemical
and sensory properties of Buffalo milk yoghurt, Electronic Journal of Environmental,
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 2890-9.
Grimaud, P., Sserunjogi, M.L., and Grillet, N. (2007), An evaluation of milk quality in Uganda:
value chain assessment and recommendations, African Journal of Food, Agriculture,
Nutrition and Development, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1046-59.
Haj, M.H.M., El Owni, O.A.O. and El Zubeir, I.E.M. (2007), Assessment of chemical and
microbiological quality of stirred yoghurt in Khartoum State, Sudan, Research Journal of
Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 2, pp. 56-60.
Jay, J.M. (1992), Modern Food Microbiology, 4th ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, p. 701.
Jimoh, K.O. and Kolapo, A.L. (2007), Effect of different stabilizers on acceptability and shelf
stability of soy-yoghurt, African Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 1000-3.
Khan, K., Rehman, S.U., Khan, M.A., Anwar, F. and Bhadar, S. (2008), Physical and chemical
quality appraisal of commercial yoghurt brands sold at Lahore, ARPN Journal of
Agricultural and Biological Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 14-21.
Kroger, M. (1975), Quality of yoghurt, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 344-450.
Mehmood, S.T., Masud, T., Mahmood, T. and Maqsud, S. (2008), Effect of different additives
from local source on the quality of yoghurt, Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 695-9.
Mugula, J.K., Nnko, S.A.M., Narvhus, J.A. and Srhaug, T. (2003), Microbiological and
fermentation characteristics of togwa, a Tanzanian fermented food, International Journal
of Food Microbiology, Vol. 80, pp. 187-99.

Quality of
yoghurt in
Uganda
417

NFS
40,4

418

Muyanja, C.M.B.K., Narvhus, J.A., Treimo, J. and Langsrud, T. (2003), Isolation, characterization
and identification of lactic acid bacteria from bushera: a Ugandan traditional fermented
beverage, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 201-10.
Najgebauer-Lejko, D., Sady, M., Grega, T., Faber, B., Domagaa, J. and Machaczka, B. (2007),
Effect of addition of starches of different botanical origin on the texture and rheological
properties of set-style yoghurts, Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, Vol. 23 Nos. 5/6,
pp. 95-102.
Namugumya, B.S. and Muyanja, C.M.B.K. (2009), Traditional processing, microbiological,
physiochemical and sensory characteristics of Kwete, a Ugandan fermented maize-based
beverage, African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 1046-59.
Oyeleke, S.B. (2009), Microbial assessment of some commercially prepared yoghurt retailed in
Minna, Niger State, African Journal of Microbiology Research, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 245-8.
Ranken, M.D. and Kill, R.C. (Eds) (1993), Food Industries Manual, 23rd ed., Blackie Academic and
Professional, London. p. 596.
Staff, M.C. (1998), Cultured milk and fresh cheeses, in Early, R. (Ed.), The Technology of Dairy
Products, 2nd ed., Blackie Academic and Professional, London, p. 446.
Stelios, K. and Emmanuel, A. (2004), Characteristics of set type yoghurt made from caprine or
ovine milk and mixtures of the two, International Journal of Food Science and Technology,
Vol. 39, pp. 319-24.
Tamime, A.Y. and Robinson, R.K. (1985), Yoghurt; Science and Technology, 21st ed., Pergamon
Press, Oxford, p. 431.
Younus, S., Masud, T. and Aziz, T. (2002), Quality evaluation of market yoghurt/dahi, Pakistan
Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 226-30.
About the authors
I.M. Mukisa graduated with a BSc Food Science and Technology degree from Makerere
University, Kampala, Uganda in 2003. He worked as Food Quality Personnel in the fish industry
in Uganda from 2003 to 2005 before joining the Department of Food Science & Technology as a
Teaching Assistant. He completed a Master of Science degree in Food Technology from the
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Universiteit Gent (Belgium) in 2007. He subsequently
embarked on a PhD at the Norwegian University of Life Science in Norway. His PhD research
involves the development of starter cultures for Obushera, a traditional fermented beverage from
Uganda. He is currently an Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Food Science and
Technology Makerere University. His work involves lecturing, conducting and supervising
research. His areas of interest includes food microbiology, sensory evaluation and improvement
of local products. I.M. Mukisa is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
ivanmukisa@agric.mak.ac.ug
R. Kyoshabire has just completed her four-year undergraduate course in Food Science and
Technology at Makerere University. This study was done as a fulfilment of part of the
requirements for the award of the BSc Food Science and Technology degree from Makerere
University.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints