Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass
stirring
Sérgio Augusto de Sousa Campos
1
; Giovana Maria Pereira Assumpção
2
; Luiz Ronaldo de Abreu
3
; Sandra
Maria Pinto 4*
Abstract
Was evaluated the use of dairy protein concentrate (dpc) and the role of mass stirring in the manufacture yield of the cheese
type Camembert. Two whey protein concentrate, and two milk protein were used. The stirring or not of the mass in schema
split plots in treatments was evaluated. The milk characterization was evaluated in relation to its average values. The cheeses’
chemical composition; fat loss and protein in whey; g/L coefficient; yield in L/kg. The dpc addition, promoted no difference
in yeld, did not influence in isolation way in the cheese composition and way in the fat loss in the whey, promoted less loss of
protein in whey in treatments with milk protein, in transfer of solids. Stirring or not mass did not change the yield, influenced in
isolation way in the fat content of the cheese, presenting them without stirring the higher values, did not influence in isolation
way in the fat loss in whey. M1 and M2 treat- ments showed less loss of protein and fat in whey. It is suggest to manufacture
cheeses without stirring, reducing 30 to 40 minutes the manufacture time.
Keywords
: Dairy protein. Solids transfer. Fat loss. Protein loss.
Rendimento de queijo tipo Camembert com adição de extensores de proteínas com e sem
mexedura da
massa
Resumo
Foi avaliado o uso de concentrado proteico lácteo (dairy protein concentrate - dpc) e o papel da agitação em massa no
rendimento de fabricação do queijo tipo Camembert. Foram utilizados dois concentrados de proteína de soro e dois de
proteínas de leite. A agitação ou não da massa em parcelas subdivididas, em esquema nos tratamentos também foi avaliada. A
caracterização do leite foi avaliada em relação aos seus valores médios. A composição química dos queijos; perda de gordura e
proteína no soro de leite; coeficiente g / L; rendimento em L / kg, também foram examinadas. A adição de dpc, não
promoveu diferença ao rendimento, não influenciou isoladamente na composição do queijo e na perda de gordura no soro,
promoveu menor perda de proteína no soro nos tratamentos com proteína do leite, na transferência de sólidos. A agitação ou
não da massa não alterou o rendimento, influenciado de forma isolada no teor de gordura do queijo, apresentando-os sem agitar
os valores mais altos, não influenciou de forma isolada na perda de gordura no soro de leite. Os tratamentos M1 e M2
apresentaram menor perda de proteína e gordura no soro de leite. Sugere-se fabricar queijos sem mexer, reduzindo de 30 a 40
minutos o tempo de fabricação.
Palavras-chave:
Proteína láctea. Transferência de sólidos. Perda de peso. Perda de proteína.
1Universidade Federal de Lavras. Lavras, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7518-5343
2Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Sudeste de Minas - Campus Barbacena. Barbacena, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7200-5044
3Universidade Federal de Lavras. Lavras, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8142-415X 4Universidade
Federal de Lavras. Lavras, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8431-6034
*Autor para correspondência: sandra@dca.ufla.br
Recebido para publicação em 02 de novembro de 2019. Aceito para publicação em 24 de janeiro de 2020.
e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 2447-6218. Atribuição CC BY.
CADERNO DE CIÊNCIAS AGRÁRIAS
Agrarian Sciences Journal
2
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
Introduction
Cheese production is the most important use of
milk produced in many countries and technological
parameter percentage of cheese yield (the quantity of
cheese
obtained from a given quantity of processed milk, expressed as
a percentage) is the trace of greater economic
importance to the
dairy industry (Emmons, 1993).
Dairy protein concentrate
The dairy protein concentrate (dpc) was provided by
the company Tate & Lyle Gemacom Tech, from Juiz de
Fora,
MG. Two milk protein concentrate and two whey protein
concentrate in two protein concentration were used, as
identified: M1 (milk protein concentrate with
47.53% of
protein content), M2 (milk protein concentrate with 54.45% of
protein content), W1 (whey protein con-
centrate with 49.3%
of protein content) and W2 (whey protein concentrate with
76.69% of protein content).
According to Milkpoint website (2014), the
Brazilian cheese market, which is expected to handle
approximately $ 19 billion in 2014, has been advancing
consistently in recent years and has attracted the attention
of
foreign companies, which see growth opportunities in the
country.
Milk samples were analyzed in the laboratory of
physical-chemical analysis of the dairy from the Food
Science Department of the Federal University of Lavras -
MG.
Cheese production is increased while the fat
content and milk protein is increased by maintaining or whey
reincorporation, and through integration of other
milk
components such as proteins, lactose or ash, as well
as water,
called these, extenders (Costa Júnior, 2006).
Physical-chemical analysis for milk selection for cheese
manufacture
The protein present in cheese is responsible for
retaining almost all of the moisture from the cheese. In
terms of yield, this means that any loss of protein also
was
lost-water that would be retained by this mass (Viotto
and
Cunha, 2006).
Fat: (% m/v) Gerber butyrometric method; den- sity
at 15 °C (g/L); protein: Kjeldahl method, total solids:
Ackermann calculator disc, titratable acidity: titration
method with sodium hydroxide 0,11mol/L (Dornic so-
lution), using the alcoholic phenolphthalein indicator
solution, 1% (m/v) neutralized; pH: it was determined by
potentiometric method with potentiometer Tecnal brand (Tec-
3MP template) previously calibrated, making up four
readings
per sample, fixed mineral residue (ash) m/m:
determined by
incineration at 550 °C, lactose percentage
content (m/v): it
was determined by the Chloramine T method (Brasil, 2006).
The work carried out with the curds in the tank can
influence the cheese yield and should be observed carefully,
the cutting speed and the grain size, intensity and time of the
mass stirring; factors influencing solids losses, as observed
in studies of Everard et al. (2008).
In the specialized literature, there are few stu- dies
on the use of whey protein concentrate (wpc) and milk
protein concentrate (mpc) in cheeses matured by fungi on
the surface, especially the cheese type Camem- bert. Given
the above, this work aims to research the cheese yield type
Camembert manufactured with the addition of different
dairy protein concentrate (mpc and wpc) to the milk for the
manufacture and evaluation of mechanical role work with
curd (stirring or not of the cheese mass), in the same
parameter mentioned above.
Determination of the
dpc
chemical composition
Percentage content (m/m) of moisture and total
solids: method in an oven at 85 ± 2 °C; percentage content (m/m)
of protein: obtained by Kjeldahl method; percenta- ge content of
(m/m) of fat: Roese-Gottlieb method, fixed
mineral residue
(ash) m/m: sample incineration after drying, lactose
percentage content (m/v): Chloramine T method (Brasil,
2006).
Material and methods
Dairy protein concentrate definition for cheese manu-
facture type
Camembert and extension levels
It was collected milks cows freshly milked in the
dairy herd at the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA). The
present dairy herd selected for the experiment has
specialized accompanying certification with veterina- rians,
in order to ensure the quality of the raw material. The group
of cows is composed of 30 (thirty) lactating females, with
pedominance of the Dutch breed. The physicochemical
quality stands out for the quality in the percentiles of fat and
protein, guaranteed mainly by proper nutrition, sanitary
management and well-being. Practical hygienics during and
after mechanical milking corroborate those resolved.
Pre-laboratory tests were conducted with dairy
protein concentrate in different extension levels compared
to
milk protein content. To define the extension levels for each
dpc, it was used past evaluations and results carried out and
described in the study of Costa Júnior
(2006) with protein
extenders in Minas fresh cheese and
the following extension
levels were tested: 100%, 80% 60%, 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%
and 10%. The amounts, in grams, of dpc added to the milk
for obtaining mixtures
with the desired extension levels were
calculated by mass
balance.
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
3
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
In this step, the characteristics of curds and whey
in
each treatment were evaluated. It was established 90
minutes
with the maximum time for coagulation according
to
technology proposed by Furtado and Lourenço Neto (1994).
It was used 500 mL of milk for each treatment.
Kjeldahl method, percentage content (m/m) of fixed
mineral residue (ash): determined by incineration at 550 °C;
lactose percentage content (m/v): Chloramine T method IN
nº 68 (Brasil, 2006).
Manufacture of the cheese type Camembert
Mixtures analysis (milk and dpc) and the standar-
dized
milk
The cheeses were manufactured according to
Furtado and Neto (1994) with modifications according to
Figure 1.
Content percentage (m/m) of fat: Gerber butyro-
metric method; percentage content (m/m) of protein:
Figure 1 – Flowchart of cheese manufacture type Camembert with and without dpc addition, with and without mass stirring.
*Manufacture with stirring; ** Manufacture without stirring
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
4
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
Whey analysis
TW1, TW2 and CT. Considering the manufacture with and
without mass stirring, for cheeses of a production day, it
was used the schema split plot in the treatments. The
experiments were performed in three replicates the
experimental unit consisted of a cheese.
Analyses of fat, density, total nitrogen and total
solids were carried out following the methodologies
described in item physico-chemical analysis for milk
selection.
The milk characterization was evaluated in re-
lation to its average values. The chemical composition data
of cheeses with and without stirring with one day of
manufacture; fat loss and protein in whey; g/L coef- ficient;
cheese yield in L/kg were submitted to variance
analysis
(ANOVA) and when significant applied the Tukey
test at 5%
probability. The software used for statistical evaluation was
Statistical Analysis System, SAS (2001).
Calculation of Camembert cheese yield
The manufacture of cheese yield, expressed in
liters of milk per kg of cheese (L/kg) was obtained by
dividing the total volume of milk (L) by the total mass of
cheese (kg) after 24 hours of manufacture.
The yield was adjusted to the moisture content of
51% according to Furtado (2003) using the formula
described by Furtado (2005).
Results and discussion
According to the results obtained of the milk phy-
sico-chemical evaluation aspects used in the fabrication of
cheese type Camembert, (data not shown) they met the
standards set out in the Normative Instruction n°62
December 2011, MAPA (Brasil, 2011).
where: V = volume of milk in liters; Dm=% of desired moisture; CP
= cheese production (kg); TS = total solids.
The dpc protein content are close to those found
by
Tamine (2009) which ranks as a product with a very high
protein content, whey concentrate with values bet- ween 72-
81% of protein content, fitting in this reference the dpc of
whey W2 (76.69%) and the dpc W1 (49.3%) classified as
medium protein content. The milk protein
concentrate do not
have ratings as the protein content, but mpc M1 with 47.53%
and M2 54.42% of protein content
present similar values to
those found by the author cited
above. Both milk and whey
dairy protein concentrate also
have similar compositions to
cited by Tamine (2009) in relation to fat, carbohydrate, ash,
total dry matter and
moisture. Similar compositions for the
dpc of whey were
found by Yada (2004) and USDEC
(2002).
The ciphers of fat loss (1) and protein (2) in whey
were calculated according to Furtado (2005) as the formulas
below:
(Eq. 1)
)Eq. 2)
where: kgl = kilograms of milk; Cp = cheese production in kilograms; Wf =%
whey fat; Md (density at 15 °C) of milk; Mf =% milk fat; Wd = whey density
(15 °C). (2) It was used the same formula (1), replacing the fat content by
the whey protein content.
The final recovery of total solids cheese per
liter of milk working (g/L coefficient) by formula
g TS/1=TSxCpx10 (Eq.3) V
TS = total solids; Cp = cheese production in kilograms; V = volume of milk
in liters.
Tables 1 and 2 show the average values of the
physico-chemical characteristics of the standardized milk
and
mixtures used for cheese manufacture with and without
stirring, respectively.
Characterization of cheese type Camembert with a
day of
manufacture
Variance analysis showed a significant difference
among the compositions of all mixtures (milk standardi- zed +
dpc). These results may have been influenced in
function of
the dpc composition used presented significant
amounts of
these components, contributing to the major differences in
mixtures.
Moisture: gravimetric method and calculated by
difference (100% - percentage of total dry extract), total
protein: Micro Kjeldahl method, fixed mineral residue
(ash): determined by the elimination of organic matter at
temperature 550 °C; pH: determined with potentiometer
Tecnal brand (Tec-3MP model); total fat: Gerber butyro-
metric method (m/m) for cheese, fat in dry matter (FDM)
was
calculated by dividing the content of fat cheese for
their total
dry matter content; percentage content (m/m)
lactose:
Chloramine-T method (Brasil, 2006).
Regarding protein content, small differences,
smaller or larger, in relation to the intended extension levels
were also observed.
Differences were observed among treatments, in
the
coagulation time in curds characteristics, and whey
produced in each manufacture.
Experimental design and statistical analysis
The experimental design was completely rando-
mized
(CRD), that compared five treatments TM1, TM2,
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
5
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
Table 1 – Physico-chemical parameter average content of standardized milk and mixtures (dpc + standardized milk) for cheese
manufacture with stirring.
Treatment with stir-
ring*
Fat %
m/m
Protein
% m/m
Moisture
% m/m
D.M.
% m/m
Ash
% m/m
Lactose
% m/m
control
treatment
MM1
MW1
MW2
MM2
CV
3.20c
4.00c
87.30a
12.70c
0.70b
4.80c
3.56b
4.26a
3.52b
3.24c
1.69%
5.21a
5.56a
4.50b
5.61a
4.29%
84.90c
84.23c
86.14b
84.35c
0.57%
15.10a
15.77a
13.86b
15.65a
1.64%
0.87ab
0.75b
0.76ab
0.89a
6.99%
5.46a
5.20b
5.08bc
5.46a
1.74%
*MM1: mixture milk standardized+milk protein at 47.53% of protein content; MW1: mixture milk standardized + whey protein at 49.3% of protein content,
MW2: mixture milk standardized + whey protein at 76.69% of protein content, MM2: mixture milk standardized + milk protein at 54.42% protein content.
Average followed by the same letter in the column do not differ each other by Tukey test at 5%
Table 2 – Physico-chemical parameter average content of standardized milk and mixtures (dpc + standardized milk) for cheese
manufacture without stirring.
Treatment without
stirring
* Fat
% m/m
Protein
% m/m
Moisture
% m/m
D.M
% m/m
Ash
% m/m
Lactose
% m/m
control treatment
MM1
MW1
MW2
MM2
CV
3.20c
3,57b
4.30a
3.50b
3.32c
1.61%
4.00cd
5.22ab
5.41a
4.35bc
5.50a
6.87%
87.19a
84.97c
84.87c
86.32b
84.21c
0.43%
12.81c
15.02a
15.13a
13.68b
15.79a
2.62%
0.71b
0.77b
0.91a
0.75b
0.91a
7.46%
4.90c
5.46a
5.10b
5.08bc
5.46a
1.74%
*MM1: mixture milk standardized + milk protein at 47.53% of protein content; MW1: mixture milk standardized + whey protein at 49.3% of protein
content, MW2:
mixture milk standardized + whey protein at 76.69% of protein content, MM2: mixture milk standardized + milk protein at 54.42% protein content. Average
followed by the same letter in the column do not differ each other by Tukey test at 5%.
In treatments which were used the dpc W1 and
M2
at 40% extension, curds and whey were obtained with
normal
aspects and M1 and W2 treatments with 30% and 10% of
extension respectively, all with 40 minutes coagulation. CT
reached coagulation in 40 minutes. In other extension
percentages used there was no coagula-
tion of the milk
(100%, 80%, 60%, 50%) or fragile curds
were obtained
without satisfactory characteristics to be worked (40% for
W1 and W2), (30%, W1, W2 and M2), (20% for all dpc
tested), (10% W1, M1 and M2).
(p<0.05), i.e, there is influence of the treatments on
stirring and vice versa (Table 3).
It was observed that the higher fat content in whey
was influenced by does not mass stirring in treat-
ment with
dpc of milk used in smaller percentage of TM1
extension.
The fact that does not mass stirring the trend of the
consistency is become more fragile with greater
possibilities of loss of milk constituents in whey. The
stirring contributes to firmness and when performed in
appropriate speed and time, may also contribute to the
reduction of excessive output of the cheese mass
components. Among the manufacture with stirring the fat
values showed no statistically significant difference among
them (p>0.05).
With these results, it was decided to work with the
following dpc and extension levels: W2 (dpc whey
at76.69% protein content at 10% extension); W1 (dpc whey
at 49.3% protein content at 40% extension); M1
(dpc milk at
47.53% protein content at at 30% extension)
and M2 (milk
protein at 54.42% protein content at 40% extension).
In the evaluations of the parameters, protein,
variance analysis indicated statistically significant diffe-
rences among the treatments (p<0.05) (Table 4).
In the variance analysis for variable fat, there was a
significant interaction between stirring and treatments
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
6
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
Table 3 – Whey fat average content of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc in the treatments’ unfolding
within the stirring levels.
Treatment without
stirring*
Treatment with stirring*
Average (%)
Average (%)
control treatment
TW2
TM1
TW1
TM2
0.26a
0.28a
0.30a
0.34a
0.43a
control treatment
TM2
TW1
TW2
TM1
0.50b
0.53b
0.56b
0.60ab
0.79a
*TM1: standardized milk+dpc milk at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk+dpc whey at 49.3% protein content; TW2: standardized milk+dpc
whey at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk+dpc milk at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column do not differ
each other by Tukey test at 5%.
Table 4 – Whey protein average content of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc addition with and
without stirring mass.
Tratament*
Protein (% m/m)
TM1
TW2
TW1
TM2
control treatment
2.95a
2.14ab
2.07b
2.05b
1.65b
*TM1: standardized milk + dpc milk at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk + dpc whey at 49.3% protein content; TW2: standardized milk + dpc
whey at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk + dpc milk at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column do not
differ each other by Tukey test at 5%.
The major content of protein and lactose in whey
were presented in TM1, which also showed the highest
contents of these components in the mixtures observing the
influence of the increase from these components in the
increasing content thereof in whey. Protein is an important
component of milk related to cheese yield.
When is smaller
the presence of this component in whey,
higher will be the
cheese yield.
and without stirring (p>0.05) among the treatments
(p>0.05)
nor the interaction between stirring*treatments
(p>0.05)
showing that the ash content in whey were not affected by
the treatments, of the stirring or not the mass, and nor
interaction among these factors.
Variance analysis indicated statistically significant
difference in the interaction Stirring*Treatment for fat in
dry matter of cheese (Table 5).
For the variable ash, there was no statistically
significant difference between the manufacturing with
Table 5 – Percentage average level of fat in dry matter of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc addition in
the treatments’ unfolding within the stirring levels.
Treatments with stirring
Average (%)
Treatments without stirring
Average (%)
TW1
TW2
TM1
control treatment
TM2
40.51a
37.13b
32.28c
32.16d
30.61e
control treatment
TW1
TM1
TW2
TM2
37.39a
35.73b
34.11c
31.48d
31.45e
*TM1: standardized milk + milk protein at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk + whey protein at 49.3% protein content; TW2: stan- dardized milk
+ whey protein at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk + milk protein at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column
do not differ each other by Tukey test at 5%.
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
7
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
It was observed that the higher fat content of the
mixture TW1 may have influenced the highest content of this
component in the cheese, this treatment also showed
less fat
content in whey. It was observed that in TM2, with lower
fat content, was the one with the lowest fat
content in the
mixture and may have influenced the lower
content of this
component in cheese.
not used dpc, with lower fat content. It does not stirring
influenced in the larger mass output from those treatments
with
higher content of this component, it is inferred.
The Camembert cheese must present fat in dry
matter upper to 40%. Only TW1 treatment with stirring mass
reached the percentage of fat within the parameter cited by the
authors, Spinnler and Gripon (2004).
The treatments’ behavior without stirring does not
followed the same pattern for the treatments with stirring.
In the treatments without stirring mass the lar- gest fat value
was obtained by the treatment which was
Variance analysis for the variable protein sho- wed
a significant statistical difference (p<0.05) in the interaction
Stirring*Treatment (Table 6).
Table 6 – Average protein content of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc addition in the
treatments’ unfolding within the stirring levels.
Treatments with stirring
Average (%)
Treatments without stirring
Average (%)
TM2
TM1
control treatment
TW1
TW2
27.05a
26.69a
20.38b
19.77b
19.43b
control treatment
TW1
TM2
TW2
TM1
19.37a
21.08a
22.50a
22.75a
23.67a
*TM1: standardized milk + dpc milk at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk + dpc whey at 49.3% protein content; TW2: standardized milk + dpc
whey at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk + dpc milk at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column do not
differ each other by Tukey test at 5%.
It was observed that in the treatments with stirring
mass the lowest protein value was recorded in
manufactured with added of dpc whey (TW1 and TW2
treatments) can infer that larger amount of soluble pro- teins
may have been lost in whey and loss was enhanced
by the
mechanical action of stirring and vice versa. Higher
proteins
values were obtained in the treatments manu- factured with
the addition of dairy protein concentrate of milk. So, it was
observed the influence of the stirring
mass on the dpc type
used, in the cheese protein content.
without stirring, was the one with the highest protein
content in mixture and lower protein in whey.
Lower protein values in relation to the present
study were obtained by Dias (2007) (18%) and Pereira
(2014) (15.90% - summer and 20.14% winter), in tra-
ditional Camembert cheese. Cheeses manufactured in
different regions of France have higher protein content
between 18.7 to 22.8%, but still lower than those obtained
in the
present study.
It was observed that the treatments with the
highest TM2 protein content in manufacture with or
There was a statistically significant difference
(p<0.05) in the interaction Stirring*Treatment, when
performed the variance analysis for moisture variable
(Table 7).
Table 7 – Average moisture content of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc addition in the treatments’
unfolding within the stirring levels.
Treatment WS
Average (%)
Treatment WOS
Average (%)
TW2
TW1
TM2
TM1
control treatment
59.59a
59.25a
53.18b
50.43b
49.75b
TW2
TM1
TW1
TM2
control treatment
52.36a
53.12a
53.83a
54.43a
56,79a
*TM1: standardized milk + dpc milk at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk + dpc whey at 49.3% protein content; TW2: standardized milk + dpc
whey at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk + dpc milk at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column do not
differ each other by Tukey test at 5%. WS = with stirring. WOS = without stirring.
In this work was observed the moisture content
under the influence of mechanical action and the type of
protein used, since the lower content in the treatments added
dpc of milk showed no statistically significant dif-
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
8
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
ference in relation to the control cheese. It does not mass
stirring did not influence the cheese moisture content,
regardless of the dpc type used.
The functional property of fixing water of the
proteins is in part related to its amino acid composition,
whereas amino acid residues with charged groups fix more
water than the uncharged residues and nonpolar. The higher
the number of charged amino acid residues
greater its
hydration capacity (Dias, 2007). Higher mois-
ture contents
obtained in treatments with dpc added of whey may be
related to the amino acid composition of these proteins
which presents among others, charged amino acids, it is
inferred.
According to Furtado (2003) Camembert cheese
manufacturing a day should present between 51 and 52% of
moisture to have greater durability in the mar- ket. Cheeses
evaluated in this study does not fit in this profile, presenting
the TM1 treatments with stirring and TW2 without stirring
nearby values, being 50.43% and 52.36%, respectively.
Variance analysis showed no statistically sig-
nificant difference (p>0.05) between the manufacture with
and without stirring to the ash variable, as well between
treatments (p>0.05) and in the interaction
Stirring*Treatment (p>0.05), i.e, there is no dependency
between stirring and treatments which means that there is no
influence of treatments in stirring and vice versa.
Increased moisture in cheese was observed in a
study with Minas fresh cheese manufactured with added
protein extenders compared to the control treatment,
63.02% and 61.43%, respectively in working of Costa
Júnior (2006). The same behavior was observed in Che- ddar
cheeses manufactured with adding whey proteins
compared
to the control cheese, by Baldwim et al (1985).
In the present
study this behavior was also observed in
the treatments with
dpc addition compared to the control
cheese.
The interaction Stirring*Treatment was signifi-
cant (p<0.05) for the variable lactose, i.e, there is de-
pendence between stirring and treatments which means that
there is influence of the treatments on stirring and vice versa
(Table 8).
Table 8 – Average lactose content of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc addition in the
treatments’ unfolding within the stirring levels.
Treatment with stirring
Average (%)
Treatment without stirring
Average (%)
TW2
TM2
control treatment
TW1
TM1
3.39a
3.50a
3.55a
3.70a
3.82a
TW2
TW1
TM2
TM1
control treatment
4.79a
3.89b
3.66bc
3.61bc
3.35c
*TM1: standardized milk+dpc milk at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk+dpc whey at 49.3% protein content; TW2: standardized milk+dpc
whey at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk+dpc milk at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column do not differ
each other by Tukey test at 5%. WS = with stirring. WOS = without stirring.
It was observed that the lactose content were
influenced by the types of dpc and by does not stirring
mass
in these conditions, the TW2 added of whey dpc, had the highest
lactose content. It was also noted that among
dpc the highest
average for the lactose were obtained in the treatments added
dpc of whey and also in manufac- ture without stirring, the
control treatment showed the lower lactose content. Stirring
mass did not influence in the lactose content of the different
treatments.
Stirring*Treatments (Table 9), in relation to fat loss,
indicating dependence among the factors.
In the unfolding of interaction treatment with
stirring, there was a higher percentage of fat loss in whey
in
the TM2 treatment. This treatment was also which
presented the lowest fat content in cheese and higher fat
content in whey. The lower fat loss percentage was
observed in the CT treatment that showed no significant
difference compared to TW2 and TM1 treatments. It was
observed in this result a tendency to decrease the fat
recovery when the fat level of the mixture was less and
the
protein higher (the TM2 treatment was manufactured
with the
highest protein content and lower fat content
and the CT
treatment with less fat and protein). A similar
result was
obtained by Caro et al. (2011) when evaluate Oaxaca cheese
yield manufactured using nonfat milk or powdered milk
protein concentrate.
Most of the milk lactose is lost in whey as lactose
or
lactate during manufacture of the cheese, not having a direct
influence on manufacture cheese yield. This disaccharide
has an important role in the formation of texture and the
final pH of the cheese mass (Mcsweeney and Fox, 2004).
The variance analysis indicated significant sta-
tistical differences (p<0.05) in the interaction between
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
9
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
Table 9 – Average values of fat loss in whey of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc addition in the
treatments’ unfolding within the stirring levels.
Treatment WS
Average (%)
Treatment WOS
Average (%)
TM2
TW1
TM1
TW2
control treatment
17.02a
10.40ab
8.74b
8.21b
6.56b
TW1
TM1
TW2
TM1
control treatment
19.28a
16.54a
14.66a
13.99a
12.29a
*TM1: standardized milk + dpc milk at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk + dpc whey at 49.3% protein content; TW2: standardized milk + dpc
whey at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk + dpc milk at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column do not
differ each other by Tukey test at 5%. WS = with stirring. WOS = without stirring.
Fat recovery in the cheese depends on factors
related to milk composition and mechanical handling
during
the process (Callaman, 1991). According to Lucey
and Kelly
(1994) clot mechanical treatment is one of the factors that
most influence in the whey fat recovery.
According to Mietton (1991) the fat cheese reco-
very of industrial Camembert is from 93 to 95%. Among the
results of this study, only the CT treatment with stir-
ring
mass reached this average. Variance analysis showed
difference (p<0.05) among the treatments (Table 10).
Among the treatments without stirring no sig-
nificant differences were observed for the fat loss, while the
lowest loss percentage value is in accordance with the
highest fat content in cheese and lower fat content in whey
for CT.
The most protein loss observed in the TW2 treat-
ment, added dpc of whey may be related to the characte- ristic
of increased solubility of the whey proteins compared
to caseins
and with that lower protein content may have been retained in
the mass.
Table 10 –
Average values of protein loss in the whey of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without
dpc and stirring mass in treatment.
Treatment
Average (%)
TW2
TW1
TM1
control treatment
TM2
51.37a
38.97ab
33.26b
33.05b
28.88b
*TM1: standardized milk + dpc milk at 47.53% protein content; TW1: standardized milk + dpc whey at 49.3% protein content; TW2: standardized milk + dpc
whey at 76.69% protein content; TM2: standardized milk + dpc milk at 54.42% protein content. Average followed by the same letter in the column do not
differ each other by Tukey test at 5%.
This result agrees with those obtained for the
highest protein content in whey and lower in cheese for the
same treatment TW2.
the interaction among these factors, because the variance
analysis showed no statistically significant difference
(p>0.05) in these assessments.
According to Mietton (1991) the average of pro-
tein
recovery in industrial manufacture of cheese type
Camembert is from 76% to 77%. Based on these results all
treatments have lower use rates of this component,
showing
the TM2 treatment the best performance among
all evaluated
with 71.12% protein recovery rate. The CT
showed no
significant statistical difference between TM1
and TM2
treatments.
The average values for the g/L coefficient in the
treatments with and without stirring mass were 76.88% and
84.93%, respectively.
In study of Costa Júnior (2006) g/L coefficient
values for Frescal cheese with added extensors was
68.98%,
against 59.16% in cheese manufactured without extenders.
Compared to the values obtained in this study, treatments with
and without stirring mass showed higher
g/L coefficients.
According to Furtado10 the ideal g/L
coefficient should be
determined for each manufacturing,
as is influenced by the
milk composition (casein and fat,
It was not observed influences in the stirring action
or not of the mass at in the end use of solid in cheese
compared for each liter of working milk (g/L Coefficient),
as well as the addition of different dpc and
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
10
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
in particular) and of all the factors of manufacture that can
alter the final composition of the cheese.
and whey) added to the milk it was concluded that the lower
losses of protein and fat in whey and that there is no
statistically significant difference in fat loss in whey
when
does not stirring mass, it can be inferred that using dairy
protein concentrate base on milk protein, treatments
stand out
among the others evaluated. Of the analyzed concentrates,
those of milk were the ones that stood out in relation to the
others.
There was no statistically significant difference
(p>0.05) for the cheese yield in L/kg to be carried out or not
stirring mass of the cheese. The average for the manufacture
with stirring was 6.10 and for manufacture
without stirring
was 5.55. The same behavior was obser-
ved (p>0.05) among
the treatments.
Considering that stirring or does not the mass did not
influenced in the manufacturing yield, it is suggested
that the
manufacture are carried out without stirring, which
represents a reduction of 30 to 40 minutes in the
manufacturing time.
According to Mietton (1991) the manufacture
average yield for the traditional Camembert cheese is from
6.66 to 7.14 L/kg and 8.0 to 8.5 L/kg according to
Furtado
and Lourenço Neto (1994) The volumes obtained in this study
were lower compared to that recommended
by the authors.
Acknowledgments
Conclusion
We thank you for the federal university of La-
vras, the postgraduate program in food science and the
foundation for the support of the Minas Gerais general
research (FAPEMIG) for research support.
Based on the yield of Camembert cheeses made
from the addition of different protein concentrates (milk
References
Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. 2006.
Instrução Normativa nº 68 de 12 de dezembro de 2006. Available in:
http://www.in.gov.br/materia/-/asset_publisher/Kujrw0TZC2Mb/
content/id/29896222/do1-2018-07-13-instrucao-normativa-n-30-de- 26-de-
junho-de-2018-29896212.
Furtado, M. M.; Lourenço Neto, J.P. 1994. Tecnologia de queijos:
manual
técnico para a .produção industrial de queijos. Dipemar Editora,
São Paulo.
Furtado, M. M. 2005. Principais problemas dos queijos: causas e
prevenção. Fonte Comunicações, São Paulo.
Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento. 2011.
Instrução Normativa nº 62, de 29 de dezembro de 2011. Available in::
https://cienciadoleite.com.br/noticia/151/instrucao-normativa-n--62-
de-29-de-
dezembro-de-2011.
Furtado, M. M. 2003. Queijos finos maturados por fungos. Ed. Milk Bizz,
São Paulo.
Lucey, J.; Kelly, J. 1994. Cheese yield. International Journal Dairy
Technology. 47:1–14.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0307.1994.
tb01264.x.
Callaman, T. 1991. Recovery of milk constituents in cheesemaking
(relation to process control). Internatational Dairy Federation, Brussels.
Caro, I, Soto S, Franco MJ, Meza-Nieto M, Alfaro-Rodríguez RH and
Mateo J, 2011. Composition, yield, and functionality of reduced- fat
Oaxaca cheese: effects of using skim milk or a dry milk protein
concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science, 94:580–588. Doi: https://dx.doi.
org/10.3168/jds.2010-3102.
Mcsweeney, P. L.H.; Fox, P.F. 2004. Metabolism of residual lactose and of
lactate and citrate. In: Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology. Eds.
Fox, P.F.; Mcsweeney, P. L. H.; Cogan, T. M.; Guinee, T. P. Elsevier,
London,
pp. 361–372.
Mietton, B.1991. Courses on Cheesemaking Technology. National Dairy
School of Poigny, Poligny, France.
Costa Júnior, L. C.G. 2006. Uso de extensores na fabricação de queijo
Minas frescal. Lavras: Universidade Federal de Lavras. Thesis
.Doctor in Food Science. Available in: http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/
bitstream/1/3132/1/TESE_Uso%20de%20extensores%20na%20
fabrica%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20de%20queijo%20minas%20frescal.pdf.
Milkpoint. 2014. Valor Econômico. Mercado de queijos cresce no país e
atrai estrangeiros. Available in: https://www.milkpoint.com.br/ noticias-e-
mercado/giro-noticias/mercado-de-queijos-cresce-no-pais- e-atrai-
estrangeiros-91686n.aspx?r=755629300#.
Dias, G. 2007. Influência do uso de Geotrichum Candidum, nas
características físico-químicas e sensoriais do queijo tipo camember.
Viçosa: Universidade Federal de Viçosa .Dissertation .Master in Food
Science and Technology.Available in: https://www.locus.ufv.br/
handle/123456789/2826.
Pereira, A. C. P. 2014. Características físicas, químicas e microbiológicas
de
queijos tipo Brie e tipo Camembert produzidos no Brasil. Ponta Grossa:
Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa Dissertation. Master in Food
Science and Technology. Available in: https://tede2.uepg.br/
jspui/handle/prefix/635.
Emmons, D. B. 1993. Economic importance of cheese yield. Factors
affecting the yield of cheese. Ed. D.B. Emmons, Brussels.
SAS- Statistical Analysis System, User‘s guide: version 9.0. 2001. 40 ed.
SAS, institute, INC, North Caroline.
Everard, C.D.; Callaghan, D. J. O.; Mateo, M.J.; Donnell, C.P.; Castillo, M.;
Payne, F.A. 2008. Effects of cutting intensity and stirring speed on syneresis
and curd losses during cheese manufacture. Journal of Dairy
Science,91:2575-2582. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0628.
Spinnler, H. E.; Gripon, C. 2004Surface mould-ripened cheeses cheese:
chemistry, physics and microbiology. In: Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and
Microbiology. Eds. Fox, P.F.; Mcsweeney, P. L. H.; Cogan, T. M.; Guinee,
T. P. Elsevier, London, pp. 25-68.
Fennema, O.R.; Parkin, K.L.; Damodaran, S. 2010. Química de Alimentos
de
Fennema. 4 ed. Artmed, Porto Alegre.
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
11
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
Tamine, A. Y.2009. Dairy Powders and Concentrated Products. Wiley-
Blackwell, United Kingdom.
Viotto, W.H.; Cunha, C.R. 2006.Teor de sólidos do leite e rendimento
industrial. In: Albenones, J. M.; Dürr, J. W.; Coelho, K. O (Ed.).
Perspectivas e avanços da qualidade do leite no Brasil. Goiânia: Talento,
p.
241-258.
USDEC. United States Dairy Export Council. 2002. Características,
funções e novas aplicações das proteínas do soro e suas novas frações. Food
Ingredients 17:50-56.
Yada, R.Y. Protein in Food processing. Woodhar Publishing, England.
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
