Storage related changes in ghee-based low-fat spread

Abstract

In order to assess the shelf life of a low fat spread (LFS) based on ghee, the product with (PS) and without (CS) added 0.05 % (w/w) preservative potassium sorbate and packaged in 200 g polystyrene tubs was stored at 5°C and evaluated for changes in sensory, physico-chemical and microbiological properties. On the basis of flavour score, the PS spread could be stored for 10 weeks without appreciable loss in quality as against the CS spread which could be stored only for 5 weeks. From the point of view of spreadability, body and texture and colour, the CS product was acceptable even after 11 weeks of storage. Use of preservative had an inhibitory effect on the development of free fatty acids (FFA) and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) reactive substances. While both the products showed an increasing tendency to whey off during storage, CS wheyed off more than PS. The two spreads showed similar oiling off, which increased slightly during the storage. Microbiologically, the ghee-based low fat spreads with and without preservative was stable for 9 and 3 weeks, respectively, from the view point of yeast and mould growth; but the preservative had little effect on the total viable count. Coliforms were absent in all the samples in fresh and during storage.

Effects of pH values on the properties of buffalo and cow butter-based low-fat spreads

“…Sensory evaluations of the samples (B-LFS ad C-LFS) were carried out according to Patange et al (2013) using a panel of 12 judges selected from Egypt, Sudan and Yemen. Both B-LFS and C-LFS samples were approximately 30 g and were presented to the panelists at refrigeration temperature (4 °C).…”

“…The decline in body and texture scores of pH treatments (B-LFS and C-LFS) during the storage periods is presumably due to the proteolytic action for microorganisms in the non-fat portion of the table spread (Patange et al 2013).…”

Effect of Calcium Chloride on the Preparation of Low-fat Spreads from Buffalo and Cow Butter

“…Scores for body and texture declined after CaCl 2 treatments (B-LFS and C-LFS) during storage due to the proteolytic action of microorganisms in the nonfat portion of the sample [8]. In addition, the changes in spreadability scores of the treatments during storage may be attributed to protein degradation and/or decreased water holding capacity by the nonfat fraction, resulting in increased softening of the spread, particularly towards the end of storage [8].…”

“…In addition, the changes in spreadability scores of the treatments during storage may be attributed to protein degradation and/or decreased water holding capacity by the nonfat fraction, resulting in increased softening of the spread, particularly towards the end of storage [8]. On the other hand, the decline in flavor scores during storage may be attributed to a loss of freshness [8]. The bitter flavor imparted by CaCl 2 treatments (B-LFS and C-LFS) appeared at higher concentrations (0.06 and 0.08%), whereas there was no bitterness detected in either 0.02 or 0.04% CaCl 2 when compared with the control samples.…”

“…The sensory evaluation tests for CaCl 2 treatments (B-LFS and C-LFS) were carried out according to Patange et al [8] using a panel of 14 judges selected from Egypt, Sudan, and Yemen. Samples of CaCl 2 treatments were approximately 30 g and presented to panelists at refrigeration temperature (4°C).…”