This document describes a study that formulated and analyzed brown rice pudding and white rice pudding for their physical, chemical, and sensory properties. Brown rice pudding and brown rice flour pudding were found to have higher protein, fat, and ash content than their white rice counterparts. All puddings were evaluated for appearance, texture, mouthfeel, flavor, and overall acceptability. Tasters rated brown rice pudding as the most acceptable option and it was deemed nutritionally suitable for consumption. The study thus demonstrated that brown rice can be successfully used to make puddings with improved nutrition and satisfactory sensory qualities.

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281272052
To formulate and analyze brown rice pudding for
its physico-chemical and sensory attributes.
CONFERENCE PAPER · NOVEMBER 2014
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Shruti Puri
Guru Nanak Dev University
9 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Bhavnita Dhillon
Guru Nanak Dev University
10 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Bhavnita Dhillon
Retrieved on: 06 October 2015

2. 10
To Formulate and Analyze Brown Rice Puddings for its Physico-
Chemical and Sensory Attributes
Shruti Puri, Bhavnita Dhillon*and Sidhant Banura
Department of Food Science and Technology, Guru Nanak Dev University, Punjab 143005, India
*corresponding author: Bhavnita Dhillon, Email: bhavnita.dhillon@msn.com, Telephone/ Mobile No.
+91-9465865000
Abstract
Rice (Oryzae sativa L.) is one of the staple food grains. Brown rice has different components such as dietary fibers, vitamins, γ-amino butyric
acid (GABA), phytic acids, γ-oryzanol etc. which promotes health. It helps in reducing high cholesterol levels and prevents atherosclerosis.
Brown rice is obtained by dehulling paddy. Polishing i.e. removal of bran and germ from brown rice leads to formation of white rice. Puddings
are starch pastes based on milk protein having semisolid texture. Formulations of brown rice/flour puddings were prepared and their physico-
chemical properties were compared with white rice/flour pudding. The moisture content was highest in white rice pudding but the protein, and fat
of brown rice pudding was higher than white rice pudding by 22.16% and 42.59%. Ash content of brown rice flour pudding was 30.59% higher
than white rice flour pudding. All puddings were analyzed for its appearance, texture, mouthfeel, flavor and overall acceptability. Brown rice
pudding received the highest overall acceptability score by the panel and was found nutritionally fit for consumption. Hence, brown rice can be
successfully incorporated in production of puddings with improved nutritional quality and adequate sensory attributes.
Keywords Brown Rice, Milling, Pudding, Physico-chemical analysis, Sensory analysis
1. Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the imperative food crop for a vast part
of world’s population [1]. It is considered the most important
grain especially due to its calorie intake, as it provides more than
one-fourth of the calories consumed worldwide by the human
species [2]. Brown rice is unmilled or partly milled rice, a kind of
whole grain. It has a mild nutty flavor, but is chewier than white
rice. Brown rice becomes rancid more quickly but is far more
nutritious than white rice [3]. Brown rice production involves
removal of only the hull, i.e. outermost layer of the rice kernel and
is the least damaging to its nutritional value. Complete milling
operation and polishing can destroy 67% vitamin B3, 80% of
vitamin B1, 90% vitamin B6, half of the manganese, half of the
phosphorus, 60% of iron, dietary fibre fraction and essential fatty
acids. As compared to white rice, brown rice has different
components such as dietary fibers, vitamins, γ-amino butyric acid
(GABA), phytic acids, γ-oryzanol etc. which promotes health. Rice
can be used to produce various processed foods, such as infant
foods, puffed grains, breakfast cereals and most importantly
pudding and kheer [4].
Puddings are starch pastes based on milk protein having semisolid
texture. It is basically a suspension of deformed particles
(swelled starch granules) which could be dispersed in a medium
containing milk protein as a gelling agent. Consumer
acceptance of puddings largely depends on appearance, flavour
and texture [5]. Rice pudding was produced traditionally in
Greece as a homemade product, but nowadays it is commercialized
to an increasing extent [6]. Since the different types of puddings
have been made with different cereals, but very less research
has been done on brown rice pudding. So keeping in view the
above mentioned advantages of brown rice over white rice, this
study was opted with the objective of preparing brown
rice/brown rice flour pudding and white rice/white rice flour
pudding in milk along with their nutritional/physico-chemical
and sensory analysis.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Procurement of Material
Paddy was purchased from the local market of Amritsar, Punjab. All
other ingredients required in pudding preparation i.e. Full fat milk of
“Verka”, super refined sugar and cardamom were procured from local
market of Amritsar on the requirement basis.
2.2. Rice milling
Firstly paddy was cleaned manually using sieves of Mesh Size 16 BSS
to remove all dirt, dust and extraneous matter from it in order to
facilitate dehusking process. After cleaning, husk was removed using
Sample Sheller (KI-370, Khera Instruments, Delhi, India). After
removing husk, the brown rice sample was manually cleaned for any
leftover paddy. A 500g sample was ground using a mixer grinder to
obtain the flour. This flour was passed through the sieve to obtain the
uniform particle sized flour.
2.3. Pudding Preparation
Four different types of puddings were prepared using brown rice, brown
rice flour, white rice and white rice flour. The amount of ingredients
were: Rice/Rice flour (100 gm), Sugar (65 gm), Salt (1 gm), Milk (300
ml), Cardamom (2-3 pcs) and distilled water (400 ml). The pudding was
prepared as per the guidelines of National Heart Lung and Blood
Institute (NHLBI) [7]. Soaking of rice was done at normal room
temperature for 20 minutes. Brown rice was boiled in water for 30 min
and white rice for 15 min. Then sugar, salt and cardamom are added
and cooked till the product thickens. The temperature of the heating
medium was maintained at 100 0
C. After cooking, the pudding was
allowed to cool and set and stored in an air tight container at 7 0
C till
further analysis.
2.4. Compositional Studies
Moisture content was evaluated by oven drying the sample at
105°C till a constant weight. Fat content was calculated by solvent
extraction method (petroleum ether) using soxhlet apparatus.
Crude protein was evaluated by micro-kjeldhal method with 5.95
as nitrogen to protein conversion factor. Ash content was
calculated after sample incineration and then putting it in muffle
furnace at 550 °C [8].

3. 11
2.5. Sensory evaluation
Evaluation of puddings was done for color, texture, appearance and
overall acceptability using hedonic scale rating from 1 to 9 varying
from “like extremely” to “dislike extremely”.
2.6. Statistical Evaluation
The results were evaluated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) at
95% level of confidence. The Duncan’s multiple range test was used to
find statistical significance of difference between mean of treatments.
Statistical software SAS 9.1 (SAS Inst. Inc., Car, N.C., U.S.A.) was
used to analyze data.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Proximate composition of brown rice flour and white rice flour
Moisture, ash, fat and protein content of brown rice flour was 12.49%,
1.37%, 1.73%, 8.11%, while white rice flour showed moisture, ash, fat
and protein content of 11.20%, 0.98%, 1.13%, and 6.85% respectively
(Fig. 1). The moisture content, ash, fat and protein content of white rice
flour was 10.33%, 28.47%, 34.68% and 15.53% lower than that of
brown rice flour (Fig. 1). In a study, composition of brown rice flour
and white rice flour showed moisture content of 12.88 and 12.08 %, ash
content 0.55 and 0.39%, fat content 1.74 and 1.24%, and protein
content 6.48 and 5.96% [2]. Other researchers found that the proximate
composition of brown rice was 12.60% moisture, 6.85% protein, 2.65%
fat and 1.21% ash, respectively. For white rice it had 11.10% moisture,
6.66% protein, 0.50% fat and 0.47% ash [9].
Fig. 1: Composition of flours. BRF = Brown Rice Flour; WRF =
White Rice Flour
3.2. Composition of Rice Puddings
The puddings formulated with brown rice and white rice and their
flours showed significant variations in moisture content from each
other. The moisture content of brown rice pudding (BRP) was 47.28%
(wb) whereas for white rice pudding (WRP) it was 48.54% (Fig. 2). The
higher moisture content in WRP could be signified because of the
removal of the husk from brown rice, which allowed more water
absorption in white rice grains. Among the brown rice flour pudding
(BRFP) and white rice flour pudding (WRFP) there were much higher
variation observed, though moisture content was much lower than both
the whole grain puddings. The moisture content of BRFP was 30.35%,
whereas for WRFP it was 34.68% (Table 1, Fig. 2). The higher
percentage in WRFP could be signified same as above. On comparison
of flour puddings and whole grain puddings, lower percentage of
moisture in flour puddings can be attributed to the less ability of flour to
absorb moisture as compared to whole rice grains because of the
disrupted starch structure in flours. It was reported that the white rice
puddings showed moisture content of 74.12% on an average [6]. The
study on the soy protein-based pudding showed that the moisture
content was in the range of 59.1-69% [10].
The protein content of puddings formulated with brown rice and white
rice and their flours varied significantly from each other. The protein
content of BRP was 7.11%, whereas, for WRP it was 5.82% (Table 1,
Fig. 2). Among BRFP and WRFP, very less variation was observed in
protein content. The protein content of BRFP was 6.74%, whereas for
WRFP it was 6.15% (Fig. 2). The low protein content in WRP and
WRFP is because it decreased linearly with increasing degree of polish
which showed that the protein content was mainly concentrated in the
peripheral layers of the kernel [11]. The decrease in percentage of
protein content of BRFP from BRP could be because of processing
conditions like grinding and sieving, which could have led to removal
of some bran and proteins of the grains. In a study, it was reported that
the protein content of white rice pudding prepared was 3.31% [6]. In a
study, protein content of soy protein-based pudding was estimated to be
in the range of 70-90% because of soy protein [10].
The ash content of puddings formulated with brown rice and white rice
and their flours also showed significant variations. The ash content of
brown rice pudding BRP was 0.95%, whereas for WRP it was 0.76%.
Among BRFP and WRFP, large variation was observed in ash content.
The ash content of BRFP was 1.11 whereas for WRFP it was 0.85%
(Table 1, Fig. 2). Different studies showed that mineral content
decreased with increasing degree of polish, as minerals are mainly
concentrated in the bran of the kernel which resulted in higher ash
content in BRP and BRFP as compared to WRP and WRFP
respectively. Limited studies are available regarding moisture content
of rice puddings.
The fat content of puddings formulated with brown rice and white rice
and their flours varied significantly from each other. The fat content of
brown rice pudding BRP was 8.67 whereas for WRP it was 6.05%.
Among BRFP and WRFP, significant variation was observed in fat
content. The fat content of BRFP was 6.89%, whereas for WRFP it was
5.49%. (Table 1, Fig. 2) The lower fat content in WRP and WRFP is
because bran and part of germ are removed during polishing process.
These two fractions are rich in fatty acids [11]. In a study, it was
reported that the fat content of white rice pudding was 11.79% [6].
Table 1: Proximate composition of puddings
BRFP=Brown Rice Flour Pudding, WRFP=White Rice Flour
Pudding
All readings were taken in triplicates at (P<0.05)
Means followed by same superscripts in a row do not differ
significantly
Parameters BRP WRP BRFP WRFP
Moisture (%) 47.28 ± 0.06 b
48.54 ± 0.12 a
30.35 ± 0.01 d
34.68 ± 0.03 c
Ash (%) 0.95 ± 0.04 b
0.76 ± 0.01 d
1.11 ± 0.02 a
0.85 ± 0.03 c
Fat (%) 8.67 ± 0.07 a
6.08 ± 0.04 c
6.89 ± 0.03 b
5.49 ± 0.04 d
Protein (%) 7.11 ± 0.03 a
5.82 ± 0.08 d
6.74 ± 0.07 b
6.15 ± 0.06 c

4. 12
Fig. 2- Composition of puddings
BRP=Brown Rice Pudding, WRP=White Rice Pudding,
BRFP=Brown Rice Flour Pudding, WRF= White Rice Flour
Pudding.
3.3. Sensory characteristics of cookies
BRP had received higher sensory scores for texture, appearance, flavour
and overall acceptability as compared to other puddings. The score of
appearance, decreased in flour puddings because of the low moisture
content and semi-solid formulation as compared to whole grain
puddings. Mouth-feel of grain puddings was better than flour puddings
and scores were lowest in BRFP, possibly due to the gritty feeling of
the flour left due to less grinding and sieving leaving larger particles in
the pudding (Fig 3).
Fig. 3: Sensory Evaluation of rice puddings
BRP=Brown Rice Pudding, WRP=White Rice Pudding,
BRFP=Brown Rice Flour Pudding, WRFP=White Rice Flour
Pudding
4. Conclusion
Traditionally puddings are made using white rice. This research
aimed at replacing the white rice with brown rice in the
formulations. Brown rice as replacement had a considerable effect
on physico-chemical and sensory properties of puddings. Brown
rice flour was found more nutritious in comparison to white rice
flour. Among various puddings, moisture content of WRP was
highest, protein and fat content was highest in BRP and ash content
was highest in BRFP. The BRFP was preferred by the people on
appearance, mouth feel and overall acceptability. But texture of
WRFP was slightly liked more by the people as compared to
BRFP. Among all, BRP was the most acceptable pudding having
the highest overall acceptability. Consumption of brown rice
puddings was found nutritionally fit. It could be concluded from
the above study that brown rice was successfully integrated in
pudding production of enriched nutritional quality with adequate
sensory attributes. Hence, such functional foods should be
developed and utilized so as to improve the nutritional quality of
the population, moreover it will help people suffering from various
degenerative diseases. More studies should be done to find the
option for using brown rice as an ingredient in other food products
to produce a value added food product.
5. References
[1] E.Q. Jafar, M. Dababneh, B.F. Maha, M.A. Jaber, K.I.
Ereifej, Variation in physio-chemical characteristics,
mineral concentrations and cookability of rice marketed
in Jordan, Pak J. Nutri. 7 (2008) 141-145.
[2] R. Thomas, W. Nadiah, W. Aldinger, R. Bhat, Physico-
chemical properties, proximate composition, and
cooking qualities of locally grown and imported rice
varieties marked in Penang, Malaysia, Int. Food Res. J.
20 (2013) 1345-1351.
[3] http://livewell.jillianmichaels.com/unmilled-vs-milled-
rice-5206.html.
[4] V.P. Oinkonomopoulou, M.K. Krokida, V.T.
Karathanos, Structural properties of freeze-dried rice, J.
Food Eng. 107 (2011) 326-333.
[5] C. Alamprese, M. Mariotti, Effects of different milk
substitutes on pasting, rheological and textural
properties of puddings, LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 44
(2011) 2019-2025.
[6] D.K. Papageorgiou, D.S. Melas, A. Abrahim, K.
Koutsoumanis, Growth and survival of Aeromonas
hydrophila in rice pudding (milk rice) during in storage
at 40
C and 120
C, Food Micro. 20 (2003) 385-390.
[7] http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/.
[8] AOAC official methods of analysis, 17th
ed.,
Association of official analytical chemists, Washington,
DC, 2000.
[9] R.J.B. Heinemann, P.L. Fagundes, E.A. Pinto, M.V.C.
Penteado, U.M.L. Marquez, Comparative study of
nutrient composition of commercial brown, parboiled
and milled rice from Brazil, J. Food Comp. Anal. 18
(2005) 287-296.
[10] H.S. Lim, G. Narsimhan, Pasting and rheological
behaviour of soy protein-based pudding, LWT-Food
Sci. Technol. 39 (2005) 343-349.
[11] V. Pal, J.P. Pandey, P.C. Sah, Effect of degree of
polish on proximate composition of milled rice, J. Food
Sci. Technol-Mysore 36 (1999) 160-162.