## 3 Results and Discussion
### Variations in Microbial Counts of Fermented Milled \"Ibyer\" Beverage Enhanced with Ginger Powder
Particularly between the blend samples FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{5}\) and FMF\({}_{70}\)GP\({}_{30}\), decreasing trend was found in sensory appearance (from 7.60 \(\pm\) 1.05 to 5.58 \(\pm\) 1.80), aroma (from 7.30 \(\pm\) 0.98 to 5.84 \(\pm\) 1.64), mouthfeel (from 7.85 \(\pm\) 0.98 to 4.74 \(\pm\) 2.07), and taste (from 7.40 \(\pm\) 1.23 to 4.32 \(\pm\) 1.97), but not so for consistency (from 8.05 \(\pm\) 1.93 [FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{5}\)] to 4.75 \(\pm\) 1.86 [FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{15}\)], then to 6.25 \(\pm\) 2.12 [FMF\({}_{80}\)GP\({}_{20}\)], and then to 5.47 \(\pm\) 1.98 [FMF\({}_{70}\)GP\({}_{30}\)]) attributes. These individual decreasing trends probably cumulated to that obtained at the overall acceptability (from 8.80 \(\pm\) 1.25 to 4.47 \(\pm\) 1.89). As ginger powder was added, the consistency, mouthfeel, and overall acceptability of control sample FMF \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Moisture** & **Ash** & **Crude Fat** & **Crude Fibre** & **Protein** & **Carbohydrate** \\
**Code** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline
716 & 8.13 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.66 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.05\(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 3.87 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 80.89 \(\pm\) 1.75 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline
924 & 8.30 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 3.23 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.48 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 5.43 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 77.63 \(\pm\) 0.85 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline
839 & 8.46 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 3.66 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 3.33 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 2.82 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 6.82 \(\pm\) 0.76 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 74.91 \(\pm\) 0.88 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline
746 & 8.56 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.73 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 3.39 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 2.87 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 6.87 \(\pm\) 0.71 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 74.58 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline
958 & 8.86 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 4.43 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 4.03 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.41 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 7.12 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 72.15 \(\pm\) 1.60 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ \hline
469 & 8.96 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.56 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 4.15 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.51 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 7.91 \(\pm\) 1.25 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 70.91 \(\pm\) 1.21 \({}^{\text{de}}\) \\ \hline
577 & 9.43 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.66 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.24 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.58 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.27 \(\pm\) 1.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 69.82 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \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\({}_{85}\)GP\({}_{15}\), 958 = FMF\({}_{80}\)GP\({}_{20}\), 469 = FMF\({}_{75}\)GP\({}_{25}\), 577 = FMF\({}_{70}\)GP\({}_{30}\). FMF = Fermented millet flour; GP=Ginger powder.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Pasting properties of fermented millet \"_Ibyer_\" beverage enhanced with ginger powder. statistically differed (_p_ < 0.05) compared to blend sample FMF\({}_{95}\)GP\({}_{5}\). Further, the mouthfeel of food particles, as mentioned in Okoye and Ojobor [44], could depend on such sensory attributes like coarseness, crunchiness, size, and viscosity.