Textural and Rheological Properties of Processed Cheese

Abstract

Cheddar cheeses made from ultra filtered (UF) as well as vacuum condensed milks (CM) containing two protein levels (4.5 and 6.0%) were used to manufacture processed cheeses. These processed cheeses were evaluated for instrumental textural profile analysis (TPA), stress relaxation characteristics using Sintech universal testing machine, and visco elastic characteristics (Elastic modulus-G 0 and viscous modulus-G 00) using a Haake Viscometer. A small amplitude oscillatory shear test was employed to assess the visco elastic characteristics. Peleg model and six elements Maxwell model were used to assess stress relaxation characteristics of the cheese. Results indicated that the instrumental TPA hardness of UF2 cheeses made from high protein UF milk was highest (149 N) as compared to cheeses made from low protein UF milk (125 N), high and low protein vacuum condensed milks (103 and 62 N, respectively), and control (53 N). The values of elastic and viscous moduli of cheeses made utilizing high protein UF milk were 3.53 and 2.32 MPa respectively, which indicated its higher viscoelastic nature. The UF2 cheese also showed higher values of modulus

Texture evaluation of block-type processed cheese as a function of chemical composition and in relation to its apparent viscosity

“…Similar results were observed by Marshall (1990) for Young's modulus, maximum stress and work to maximum stress and Joshi et al (2004) for hardness and gumminess of cheese analogues and processed cheese, respectively. In contrast, Joshi et al (2004) reported that cohesiveness, adhesiveness and springiness values for all the samples were statistically at par (P < 0.05) indicating no differences in these processed cheeses characteristics.…”

“…Similar results were observed by Marshall (1990) for Young's modulus, maximum stress and work to maximum stress and Joshi et al (2004) for hardness and gumminess of cheese analogues and processed cheese, respectively. In contrast, Joshi et al (2004) reported that cohesiveness, adhesiveness and springiness values for all the samples were statistically at par (P < 0.05) indicating no differences in these processed cheeses characteristics. As the concentration of casein in the cheese matrix increases, the intra-and inter-strand linkages become more numerous and the matrix displays greater elasticity and it is more difficult to Table 3 The average values of the textural properties of processed cheese samples that derived from the TPA test (the standard deviations are given in parenthesis) Means within a column with no common letters differ significantly (P < 0.05).…”

“…Lee, Anema, and Klostermeyer (2004) studied the influence of moisture content on the viscoelastic properties of processed cheese spreads also by the use of dynamic rheology. The stress relaxation test has been applied to a number of natural cheeses (Bertola, Bevilacqua, & Zaritzky, 1995;Bertola, Califano, Bevilacqua, & Zaritzky, 2000;Hort & Le Grys, 2001;Mpagana, 1986;Venugopal & Muthukumarappan, 2001) in order to evaluate their viscoelastic properties, as affected by different parameters, but its use in processed cheese is very rare (Joshi et al, 2004). Furthermore, no attempt has been made so far in order to relate rheological properties of processed cheese during processing to the texture of the final product.…”

“…The effect of chemical composition on the textural properties of processed cheeses and cheese analogues using texture profile analysis (TPA) (Joshi, Jhala, Muthukumarappan, Acharya, & Mistry, 2004), uniaxial compression (Marshall, 1990;Pereira, Bennett, Hemar, & Campanella, 2001;Stampanoni & Noble, 1991) and other tests (Eymery & Pangborn, 1988;Green et al, 1986) has been widely examined. Young's modulus (Green et al, 1986;Marshall, 1990;Pereira et al, 2001), hardness, adhesiveness (Joshi et al, 2004;Stampanoni & Noble, 1991), springiness, gumminess (Joshi et al, 2004), cohesiveness, chewiness (Eymery & Pangborn, 1988;Joshi et al, 2004), maximum stress, work to maximum stress (Marshall, 1990), peak stress, area to peak stress and total area in compression (Pereira et al, 2001) are the textural parameters that were determined.…”

“…Young's modulus (Green et al, 1986;Marshall, 1990;Pereira et al, 2001), hardness, adhesiveness (Joshi et al, 2004;Stampanoni & Noble, 1991), springiness, gumminess (Joshi et al, 2004), cohesiveness, chewiness (Eymery & Pangborn, 1988;Joshi et al, 2004), maximum stress, work to maximum stress (Marshall, 1990), peak stress, area to peak stress and total area in compression (Pereira et al, 2001) are the textural parameters that were determined. Though, the variation of moisture, fat and protein content within the experimental samples was limited.…”