Comparison of Effect of Vacuum-Condensed and Ultrafiltered Milk on Cheddar Cheese

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of vacuum-condensed (CM) and ultrafiltered (UF) milk on some compositional and functional properties of Cheddar cheese. Five treatments were designed to have 2 levels of concentration (4.5 and 6.0% protein) from vacuum-condensed milk (CM1 and CM2) and ultrafiltered milk (UF1 and UF2) along with a 3.2% protein control. The samples were analyzed for fat, protein, ash, calcium, and salt contents at 1 wk. Moisture content, soluble protein, meltability, sodium dodecyl sulfate-PAGE, and counts of lactic acid bacteria and nonstarter lactic acid bacteria were performed on samples at 1, 18, and 30 wk. At 1 wk, the moisture content ranged from 39.2 (control) to 36.5% (UF2). Fat content ranged from 31.5 to 32.4% with no significant differences among treatments, and salt content ranged from 1.38 to 1.83% with significant differences. Calcium content was higher in UF cheeses than in CM cheeses followed by control, and it increased with protein content in cheese milk. Ultrafiltered milk produced cheese with higher protein content than CM milk. The soluble protein content of all cheeses increased during 30 wk of ripening. Condensed milk cheeses exhibited a higher level of proteolysis than UF cheeses. Sodium dodecyl sulfate-PAGE showed retarded proteolysis with increase in level of concentration. The breakdown of alphas1- casein and alphas1-I-casein fractions was highest in the control and decreased with increase in protein content of cheese milk, with UF2 being the lowest. There was no significant degradation of beta-casein. Overall increase in proteolytic products was the highest in control, and it decreased with increase in protein content of cheese milk. No significant differences in the counts of lactic starters or nonstarter lactic acid bacteria were observed. Extent as well as method of concentration influenced the melting characteristics of the cheeses. Melting was greatest in the control cheeses and least in cheese made from condensed milk and decreased with increasing level of milk protein concentration. Vacuum condensing and ultrafiltration resulted in Cheddar cheeses of distinctly different quality. Although both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, the selection of the right method would depend upon the objective of the manufacturer and intended use of the cheese.

Microstructure of pasteurized process cheese manufactured from vacuum condensed and ultrafiltered milk

“…Joshi et al [5] observed a smoothening of partskim Mozzarella cheese surface, as seen by scanning electron microscopy, with a reduction in calcium of cheese. Though the calcium content of Process cheeses was not measured, that of base Cheddar showed a lowest level in control cheeses relative to those from concentrated milks [1]. Higher calcium cheeses (such as those from concentrated milks) have poor meltability because of lower hydration and increased protein-protein aggregation [5].…”

“…1) as described earlier [1]. Formulation of Process cheese was done using young and aged Cheddar cheese, butteroil and 3% disodium phosphate (DSP) to obtain approximately 400 g·kg -1 moisture in the final product.…”

“…These techniques produce milks of distinctly different properties that also influence the characteristics of cheese from such milks [1]. The quality attributes of Process cheese are greatly influenced by the composition and nature of base cheeses.…”

Characterization of rennet coagulation of milk concentrated by vacuum condensing and ultrafiltration

“…Samples of milk were analyzed for total solids, fat, protein, ash, Ca, and pH; and casein was estimated as 75% of the protein. Details of analytical procedures have also been described previously (Acharya and Mistry 2004). Average composition of the standardized milk samples used in experiment 1 has been previously published (Acharya and Mistry 2004), and for experiment 2 is presented in Table 1.…”

“…A detailed description of the milk-processing protocols that were followed to obtain the five treatments was described previously (Acharya and Mistry 2004). Samples of milk were analyzed for total solids, fat, protein, ash, Ca, and pH; and casein was estimated as 75% of the protein.…”