## 4 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Properties** & **PP5** & **PP6** & **PP7** & **UP5** & **UP6** & **UP7** \\ \hline Total solid [\%] & 36.48 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.11 & 36.69 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.16 & 36.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.38 & 36.49 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.28 & 36.86 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.27 & 36.53 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.18 \\ pH & 6.43 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.44 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.46 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.37 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.43 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.45 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\ Protein [g.(100 g)\({}^{-1}\)] & 13.80 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 12.76 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.08 & 12.34 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 13.77 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.09 & 12.80 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.07 & 12.31 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 \\ Fat [g.(100 g)\({}^{-1}\)] & 11.25 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.08 & 12.65 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.08 & 13.80 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.07 & 10.15 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.09 & 11.93 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.07 & 12.55 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 \\ Ash [g.(100 g)\({}^{-1}\)] & 3.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.03 & 2.83 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 2.70 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 3.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 2.84 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 2.70 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\ Carbohydrate [g.(100 g)\({}^{-1}\)] & 34.57 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.03 & 35.51 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.03 & 40.88 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 57.07 \({}^{\text{f}}\)\(\pm\) 0.07 & 49.78 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 45.86 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 \\ Dietary Fibre [g.(100 g)\({}^{-1}\)] & 21.97 \({}^{\text{f}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 18.62 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 13.17 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 15.47 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 17.74 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 18.35 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 \\ Caloric value & 339 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.40 & 344 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.27 & 363 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.57 & 406 \({}^{\text{f}}\)\(\pm\) 0.79 & 393 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.51 & 382 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.35 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{\text{a}-d}\) Means in the same line indicated by different letters were significantly different (\(p\) value \(<\) 0.05). The results are expressed as mean \(\pm\) SD (\(n\) = 3).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Chemical properties and energy value of the tested ice cream. denaturation of casein micelles, and the formation of aggregates between k-casein and whey proteins (\(\beta\)-lactoglobulin) [31; 32; 33]. Statistically significant differences in the digestible carbohydrate content were observed in the samples. The carbohydrate content ranged from 20.51 to 57.07 g \(\times\) (100 g)\({}^{-1}\). The ultrasound-treated ice cream showed a higher content of assimilated carbohydrates. Based on the chemical composition analysis of the tested samples, statistically significant differences in the fiber content were found. Sample PP5 (with 5% odeoel and subjected to traditional pasteurization) showed the highest amount of dietary fiber. Its ash content ranged from 2.70 to 3.06 g \(\times\) (100 g)\({}^{-1}\). The higher the proportion of odeogel in the ice cream, the higher the ash content. The highest ash content was observed in sample PP5. The calorific value of ice cream depends on the amount and type of ingredients (sucrose, fat, protein, and other ingredients). Among the tested samples, sample UP5 showed the highest calorific value, whereas sample PP6 showed the lowest. The pH value ranged from 6.37 to 6.46. Neither the variable proportion of odeogel nor the ultrasound as an alternative to traditional pasteurization had a statistically significant influence on the pH change in all samples, except for sample UP5. The pH range was similar to those reported [34; 35].