Soybean variety and storage effects on soymilk flavour and quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Soymilk prepared from five soybean cultivars, grown in Ontario, were analysed for protein, oil, mineral composition, viscosity, colour, lipoxygenase (LOX) activities and flavour profile. Among the five soybean cultivars, the Vinton 81 variety contained the highest protein and the lowest fat. The yield of soymilk from all five cultivars was similar. Major differences were observed in viscosity and in the composition of both the soymilk and the okara. Higher protein and fat extractability was found in soymilk made from S08‐80 and Vinton 81 varieties. Their okara protein contents were also among the highest. Minimum extractability was observed with S03W4 cultivar. Soymilk made from S 03W4 and Vinton 81 cultivars had the whitest colour (lowest ΔE values). Viscosity values were the highest for S08‐80, FG1 and S20‐20 varieties. Headspace solid‐phase microextraction gas chromatography was used to analyse volatile compounds in soymilk. A total of fourteen volatiles were identified, among which aldehydes and their corresponding alcohols were the major compounds. Similar volatile compounds were identified in all the samples analysed but at different concentrations. The highest LOX activity was observed in the Vinton 81 and S20‐20 soybean cultivars, which had the highest total volatile and hexanal contents. A positive correlation (correlation coefficient = 0.82) between enzymatic activity and the total volatiles was observed. Vinton 81 cultivar was subjected to storage (at 18 °C and 50% relative humidity) for a period of 10 months. Soymilk was prepared at different times during storage. The results showed that the soymilk colour, LOX and total volatiles were significantly (P < 0.05) affected by the storage of the soybeans over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".