4.7 Article

Growth of lactic acid bacteria and Rhizopus oligosporus during barley tempeh fermentation

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 3, Pages 249-256

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.03.005

Keywords

ergosterol; hyphal length; Lactobacillus plantarum; tempe; fungal biomass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The zygomycete Rhizopus oligosporus is traditionally used to ferment soybean tempeh, but it is also possible to ferment other legumes and cereals to tempeh, The traditional soybean tempeh harbours a multitude of microorganisms with potentially beneficial or detrimental effects on quality. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have positive effects on the safety of soybean tempeh, but the effects of LAB on R. oligosporus growth have not been investigated. We have developed a cereal grain tempeh by fermenting pearled barley with R. oligosporus ATCC 64063. Four LAB species, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactococcus lactis were assessed for their growth abilities and their effects on R. oligosporus growth during barley tempeh fermentation. Growth of LAB was assayed as colony forming units (cfu), while growth of R. oligosporus was measured as ergosterol content and hyphal length. The two fungal measurements highly correlated (r=0.83, P < 0.001, n = 90). The ergosterol content of fungal mycelia ranged from 11.7 to 30.1 mg/g fungal dry matter. L. plantarum multiplied from 4.8 to 7.4 log cfu/g dry tempeh and L. fermentum increased from 4.4 to 6.8 log cfu/g during 24 h incubation at 35 degrees C. L. reuteri and L. lactis had significantly slower growth, with increases from 4.8 to 5.6 log cfu/g and 5.0 to 5.4 log cfu/g, respectively. The growth of R. oligosporus and the final pH (4.9) in barley tempeh were not significantly influenced by any of the LAB investigated. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available