Chicken Pepsin and Rennet Gels: Internal Bonds, Rheology and Microstructure

Benyahia-Krid, F. A.; Aissaoui-Zitoun, Ouarda; Boughellout, H.; Adoui, Faiza; Harkati, Amani; Siar, El Hocine; Zikiou, Abdellah; Attia, Hamadi; Zidoune, Mohamed Nasser Eddine

doi:10.9734/bpi/cravs/v3/1956f

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, various clotting agents are important as substitutes for calf rennet, but these sources are not suitable for quality cheese production since they produce extremely bitter tastes (Neelakanta et al, 1999;Walsh and Li (2000); Kumar et al, 2006) Recombinant chymosin can also be used to produce cheese, but its use may be limited for consumer concern regarding genetically engineered foods (Egito et al, 2007). As animal clotting agents, there are studies that prove the ability to use camel rennet (Boudjenah-Haroun et al, 2011;Boudjenah-Haroun et al, 2014;Hattem et al, 2017), goat rennet (Zhang and Wang, 2007) and chicken pepsin (Benyahia-Krid et al, 2016) for bovine milk coagulation.…”

Section: Optimization Of Flocculation and Clotting Time Of Camel Milk...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of flocculation and clotting time of camel milk with camel and goat rennets, and chicken pepsin in comparison with cow milk using response surface method (RSM)

Bouras

Aïssaoui-Zitoun

2022

Emir J Food Agric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To solve the difficulty of coagulation of camel milk, three animal coagulating enzymes: Camel rennet, goat rennet, and chicken pepsin were used. The study was focused on the optimization of two milk coagulation key parameters: pH and temperature using the response surface methodology. The cow milk is used as reference. Characterization of the coagulating enzymes extract showed that the protein content is higher in chicken pepsin [20 ± 0.00 mg/ml] followed by camel and goat’s extracts [15.4 ± 0.00 mg/ml, 8.8 ± 0.00 mg/ml]. However, coagulating and specific activities were more important in camel rennet [111.12 ± 1.23 UP.ml-1, 7.21 ± 0.03 UP.mg-1] than in goat’s rennet and chicken pepsin. On the other hand, coagulant strength was for camel rennet 1/4166.67 SU, goat rennet 1/2531.64 SU, and chicken pepsin 1/6153.85 SU. Moreover, results of pH and temperature optimization of camel milk flocculation showed the following pairs: [X1 = 5.35, X2 = 42] for camel rennet, [X1 = 5.48, X2 = 30] for goat rennet and [X1 = 5.49, X2 = 39.45] for chicken pepsin. Also, the coagulation showed the following couples: [X1 = 5.37, X2 = 39.09] for camel rennet, [X1 = 5.36, X2 = 38.84] for goat rennet and [X1 = 5, X2 = 42] for chicken pepsin. The conclusion was flocculation and coagulation optimum points of camel and cow milk with coagulating enzymes studied are different based on surface plot analysis and the relationship between response and variables

show abstract