Quality Characteristics of Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) Milk Candy as Affected by Different Ratios of Sucrose and Glucose Syrup as Humectant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This research evaluates the effect of the different proportions of sucrose and glucose syrup (100:0, 85:15, 70:30, and 55:45) on the overall quality of buffalo milk candy. The objective was to identify the optimal ratio that enhances both its microbial stability and sensory appeal. Methods: Buffalo milk candy was kept at room temperature, and samples were drawn for microbial testing, moisture, water activity (Aw), and sensory analysis. Results: A visible mold growth was observed in 100:0 (Day 30), 85:15 (Day 40), and 70:30 (Day 52), and therefore, other analyses were discontinued. Moisture content and Aw of all the treatments were significantly different throughout the storage period. However, with the increase in glucose syrup, Aw decreases consistently with time, thus enhancing the product's safety and stability. On the other hand, sensory evaluation did not show significant differences across all parameters in all treatments during the storage period. Conclusion: In conclusion, the addition of a higher proportion of glucose syrup, specifically 55:45, improved both the shelf-life and maintained the sensory quality of buffalo milk candy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".