Editing Effect of Oats and Millet composition in Gluten-free Nutrient wafer (section)

== '''3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION''' ==
The results obtained from the work on development of wafers supplemented with pearl millet flour and oats flour in different ratios are presented in this work. The results of this study are tabulated and discussed keeping in view the various objectives of the study.

'''3.1 Textural Properties of Wafers'''

Physical analyses show that it has a thickness range of 5 mm, bulk density around 0.2 gm / cc and for crushing it requires 0.8-1.5 N of mechanical force. Type C requires force around 0.8 N and Type A requires force around 1.5 N. While Type B requires force around 1.1 N as observed in Texture analyser. The values may be correlated to the variations in millet and oats content. Higher the oats content lesser is the force required probably due to more fiber content.

'''3.2 Proximate Analysis of Wafer Formulations (A, B, C)'''

'''3.2.1 Moisture content'''

The three formulations of wafer, A,B, and C showed a very mild variation in the moisture contents. It could be due to the difference in the quantity of water used for batter and by the influence of increasing percentage of the content of pearl millet flour. Moisture Content was highest in sample formulation A (60% pearl millet flour) with7.5% moisture value. The moisture content was found to increase by 1-2% in 3 months preserved wafer.

'''3.2.2 Protein content'''

The protein content is contributed mainly by millet flour as well as by oats. The protein content was highest (12%) in sample A due to the highest pearl millet flour content in the composition.

'''3.2.3 Carbohydates'''

The carbohydrate content was found to be the highest (69 - 70 %) in formulations A and B. It could be due to the increased content of the pearl millet flour and added oats. Both are rich in carbohydrates.

'''Table 1. Table of composition of the wafers'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! '''Optimised formulation A for Single layer % of total weight'''
! '''Optimised formulation B'''

'''% of total weight'''

! '''Optimised formulation C'''

'''% of total weight'''

! '''Time of heating'''
! '''Wattage'''

KWH

|-
| Pearl Millet
| 60
| 50
| 40
| rowspan="6"| 30 minutes
| rowspan="6"| 1000
|-
| Oats
| 20
| 30
| 40
|-
| Sugar / Honey
| 7
| 7
| 7
|-
| Butter/ Refined oil
| 10
| 10
| 10
|-
| Water
| As required for batter preparation
| As required for batter preparation
| As required for batter preparation
|-
| Milk Powder /peanut (Optional)
| 3
| 3
| 3
|}

'''Table 2. Table for sensory analysis of the wafers'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! colspan="6"| '''Sensory score (Average of 25 panellists) 0-9 Hedonic scale'''
|-
| '''Sensory Profile'''
| '''Wafer'''

'''Composition A (Before Preservation)'''

| '''Wafer Composition A (After Preservation)'''
| '''Wafer Composition B (Before Preservation)'''
| '''Wafer Composition B (After Preservation)'''
| '''Wafer Composition C (Before Preservation)'''
| '''Wafer Composition C (After Preservation)'''
|-
| Colour
| 9
| 9
| 9
| 9
| 9
| 9
|-
| Crispiness
| 9
| 8
| 9
| 8
| 9
| 9
|-
| Flavour
| 8
| 8
| 8
| 7
| 8
| 7
|-
| Surface Texture
| 8
| 8
| 8
| 8
| 8
| 8
|-
| Mouthfeel
| 8
| 7
| 8
| 7
| 8
| 7
|-
| Overall appearance
| 7
| 7
| 8
| 7
| 7
| 7
|}

'''Fig. 1. Market Survey Report of Millet based Nutri-Wafer'''

'''3.2.4 Fat content'''

The fat content was almost similar in samples A, B, C.

'''3.2.5 Ash Content'''

The mineral content was found to be highest (1.6%) in sample A followed by sample B. It could be due to higher percentage of millet.

'''3.2.6 Crude fiber'''

Fiber content increased in the order of A&lt;B&lt;C due to oats and pearl millet flour composition. Crude fiber content is highest (5.6 %) in the formulation C with 40 % pearl millet flour and 40 % oats followed by formulation B with 30% oats flour and 50 % pearl millet and so on.

'''3.3 Microbial Analysis'''

Microbial analyses of various wafers formulations A, B, and C was done mainly tested for any Fungal growth on storage in terms of CFU/gm.

Any considerable increase in bacterial or fungal count was not observed. The range of microbial count found from hemocytometer counting is within 10-100 CFU / gm of the wafer even in the preserved one.

'''3.4 Nutrirional Analysis'''

The nutri-wafer found to be healthy nutrition rich food. Nutritional analysis with the following level of calorie score are given below.

Composition A

Calorie from

# Total fat-100 Cal / 100 gm of
# Total protein 25 cal / 100 gm
# Total carbohydrate-282 cal /100 gm

Composition B

Calories from

# Total fat-100 Cal / 100 gm
# Total protein -23.25 cal / 100 gm
# Total carbohydrate-270 cal/ 100 gm

(Fiber content increased due to contribution from oats)

Composition C

Calorie from

# Total fat-100cal / 100 gm
# Total protein -21 cal/100 gm
# Total carbohydrate-260cal/100 gm
# (Fiber content increased due to contribution from oats)

'''3.5 Cost Calculation for Wafer'''

For cost calculation total Material cost and Energy Cost was considered in actuation. But for scaleup and industrial implementation the cost calculation included the raw material energy, labour, establishment costs. The total actual cost for our production came to be Rs 40-42 per 100 gm, while on scale up and large scale production it came around Rs. 45-48 per 100 gm which is at per the market cost of existing wafers depending on the compositions.

'''3.6 Sensory Analysis'''

Sensory Characteristics of wafers incorporated with pearl millet flour and oats flour The three formulations were subjected to sensory evaluation. The sensory scores suggested that composition B (50 % pearl millet flour + 30 % oats flour) had highest acceptability for mainly for the textural characteristics crispiness, colour and flavour. Nutritionally and organoleptically (Taste) the other formulations were also effective but their visual appearance was negatively affected due to increased intensity of Color compared to the control. (Table 2) Averaging the value of 25 panelists.

'''3.7 Market Potential Analysis of Gluten based Nutri- wafer'''

It was observed that about 68 % of the consumers gave their opinion came up with the acceptability of the product. About 14 % have no idea about the millet based food or wafers, so people needs to get trained further and know the values of consumption of millet based wafers. (Fig. 1). The cost was even lower than the currently marketed products.