2014
DOI: 10.1002/9781118598634
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From Milk By‐Products to Milk Ingredients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The amount of WP generated by scenarios A and B was only 44% and 32%, respectively, of the amount generated by scenario C. The WP composition produced by scenarios A and B was similar (relative variations less than 2%, except for fat), but differed from that of scenario C ( Table 2 ). In scenario C, the WP composition was very similar to the results presented by De Boer [ 3 ] for sweet cheese whey. For scenarios A and B, the protein content of the WP was almost twice as high as that of scenario C.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The amount of WP generated by scenarios A and B was only 44% and 32%, respectively, of the amount generated by scenario C. The WP composition produced by scenarios A and B was similar (relative variations less than 2%, except for fat), but differed from that of scenario C ( Table 2 ). In scenario C, the WP composition was very similar to the results presented by De Boer [ 3 ] for sweet cheese whey. For scenarios A and B, the protein content of the WP was almost twice as high as that of scenario C.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…The smaller masses of whey and their lower lactose and mineral content in scenarios A and B is thus due to the reduced content of lactose and minerals in cheese milk and the higher vat yields of these scenarios ( Table 2 ). In return, the WP was enriched in serum proteins ( Table 2 ), which explains why the TP content of the WPs were higher than reported by De Boer [ 3 ]. Similarly, the lower rejection coefficients combined with the greater number of DV in scenario B explained the higher TP content of its permeate powder ( Table 2 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Skim milk UF is a common pressure-driven membrane process in the dairy industry that concentrates milk proteins by partially removing the water, lactose, salts, peptides, and other solutes (Cheryan, 1998). The benefits of concentrating milk proteins using membrane processes include retention of high concentrations of protein (de Boer, 2014) and the potential for a less energy-intensive process, compared with evaporation or drying (Cheryan, 1998). Today, UF concentrates are mainly used to improve the efficiency of cheesemaking by increasing cheese milk protein concentration (Govindasamy-Lucey et al, 2005;Guinee et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to pre-concentrating milk for cheese making, UF is also widely used to produce milk protein concentrates (MPC; Rosenberg, 1995;Pouliot, 2008;de Boer, 2014). High protein-containing MPC (over 80% total protein on a dry weight basis) are typically produced by UF in combination with diafiltration (DF), which introduces water to the feed at the same volumetric flow rate as that of the permeate (Asbi and Cheryan, 1992; Lapointe-Vignola and Fondation de Technologie Laitière du Québec Inc., 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%