## 3 Results and Discussion
### Variations in Microbial Counts of Fermented Milled \"Ibyer\" Beverage Enhanced with Ginger Powder
Besides similar increased peak time (\(p>\) 0.05), the peak pasting temperature in blend samples with 30% ginger powder were significantly (\(p<\) 0.05) higher compared to control. Variations in Proximate Composition of Fermented Millet \"Ibyer\" Beverage Enhanced with Ginger Powder  
Table 4 shows the proximate composition of fermented millet \"Ibyer\" beverage enhanced with ginger powder. The control FMF\({}_{100}\) obtained lower moisture (8.13%), ash (2.66%), fat (2.40%), crude fiber (2.05%), and protein (3.87%), but higher in carbohydrate (80.89%) contents compared to the blend samples. Particularly between blend samples FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{5}\) and FMF\({}_{70}\)GP\({}_{30}\), significant (\(p<\) 0.05) increases occurred in moisture (from 8.13 to 9.43%), ash (from 3.23 to 4.66%), fat (from 2.93 to 4.24%), crude fiber (from 2.48 to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample Code**} & **Bacteria Counts** & **Fungi Counts** \\  & **(CFU/mL) \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\)** & **(CFU/mL) \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\)** \\ \hline
716 & 3.40 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{a}\) & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{a}\) \\ \hline
924 & 2.80 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{b}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{ab}\) \\ \hline
839 & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{bc}\) & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{bc}\) \\ \hline
746 & 2.20 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{c}\) & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{c}\) \\ \hline
958 & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{c}\) & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{c}\) \\ \hline
469 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{d}\) & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{c}\) \\ \hline
577 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{d}\) & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{c}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Values are means \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) of triplicate determinations; Means with the same superscript in the same column are not significantly (\(p>\) 0.05) different. KEY: 716 = FMF\({}_{100}\) (Control), 924 = FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{5}\), 839 = FMF\({}_{90}\)GP\({}_{10}\), 746 = FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{15}\), 958 = FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{20}\), 469 = FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{25}\),577 = FMF\({}_{70}\)GP\({}_{30}\) where, FMF = Fermented millet flour; GP = Ginger powder.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Microbial counts of fermented millet \"_Ibyer_\" beverage enhanced with ginger powder. 3.58%), and crude protein (from 5.43 to 8.27%), but decreases were found only in carbohydrate (from 77.63 to 69.82%) contents. Increases in the ash contents might suggest the measured food samples to be a good mineral [44]. Across the blend samples, the crude fat increased (\(p<0.05\)) significantly with ginger powder (Table 4), which [PERSON] [45] has attributed to (presence of crude fat in) the (ginger) rhizomes. Significant increase (\(p<0.05\)) in protein content across blend samples (Table 4) could be owed to the millet bio-fermentation process [45], probably accounting for gradual increases in moisture content, and other noticeable changes in chemical composition [17; 18]. The moisture of control FMF\({}_{100}\) (8.13 \(\pm\) 0.30%) resembled (\(p>0.05\)) the blend sample FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{5}\) (8.30 \(\pm\) 0.10%), but significantly differed (\(p<0.05\)) from other proximate contents. Carbohydrate content decreased as ginger powder increased (Table 4). Decreases in carbohydrate content with millet flour makes this current \"_Ibyer_\" beverage blend very promising for diabetic management. Moreover, this blend beverage formulation could increase micronutrient absorption and nutrient utilization. Variations in Sensory Attributes of Fermented Millet \"_Ibyer_\" Beverage Enhanced with Ginger Powder  
Table 5 shows sensory attributes of fermented millet \"_Ibyer_\" beverage enhanced with ginger powder.