Wine Produced From Fermentation of Honey Slurry and Dates Palm Fruit Juice Blend Using Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolated From Palm Wine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at evaluating the fermentative performance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolated from palm wine on honey slurry and dates palm fruit juice blend for wine production. The yeast was isolated from palm wine on saboraud dextrose agar (SDA) using pour plate technique and was identified using microscopic and standard biochemical techniques. Physicochemical parameters were determined during 21 days fermentation using standard procedures. The proximate composition of the blend before fermentation and the produced wine was evaluated. The microbiological and sensory evaluations of the produced wine was investigated. The yeast strain was identified as Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The fermentation recorded total viable yeast count from 2.5x106 to 13.0 x 106 CFU/mL. The physicochemical parameters revealed that during the fermentation, the pH values ranged from 4.3 to 5.4, percentage titratable acidity (TTA) ranged from 5.2 to 9.4. The temperature of the fermentation ranged from 24 to 29°C and the specific gravity values decreased steadily from 1.100 to1.010. Proximate composition of the date fruit revealed low protein content between 1.00 and 1.05, but high moisture content (82.43%). The produced wine contained reasonable amount of total carbohydrate A (19.59%), B (25.28%), C (22.7%) and D (21.88%). There were variations on other proximate compositions observed. The produced wine was not contaminated with bacteria and fungi. Sensory evaluation of the wine revealed acceptable aroma/flavor and taste. This study indicates that Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain from the palm wine have good fermentative performance which suggested that it could be used for fruit wine production and other industrial applications preceded by further experiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".