CADERNO DE CIÊNCIAS AGRÁRIAS
Agrarian Sciences Journal
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.
1
Universidade Federal de Lavras. Lavras, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7518-5343
2
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Sudeste de Minas - Campus Barbacena. Barbacena, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7200-5044
3
Universidade Federal de Lavras. Lavras, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8142-415X
4
Universidade 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 / © 2009, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Todos os direitos reservados.
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
2
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
Material and methods
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.
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).
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.
Physical-chemical analysis for milk selection for cheese
manufacture
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).
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).
Dairy protein concentrate definition for cheese manu-
facture type Camembert and extension levels
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.
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
3
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
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.
Mixtures analysis (milk and dpc) and the standar-
dized milk
Content percentage (m/m) of fat: Gerber butyro-
metric method; percentage content (m/m) of protein:
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
The cheeses were manufactured according to
Furtado and Neto (1994) with modifications according
to Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Flowchart of cheese manufacture type Camembert with and without dpc addition, with and without mass
stirring.
*Manufacture with stirring; ** Manufacture without stirring
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
4
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
Whey analysis
Analyses of fat, density, total nitrogen and total
solids were carried out following the methodologies
described in item physico-chemical analysis for milk
selection.
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).
where: V = volume of milk in liters; Dm=% of desired moisture; CP
= cheese production (kg); TS = total solids.
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.
Characterization of cheese type Camembert with a
day of manufacture
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).
Experimental design and statistical analysis
The experimental design was completely rando-
mized (CRD), that compared five treatments TM1, TM2,
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.
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
5
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
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 3.20c 4.00c 87.30a 12.70c 0.70b 4.80c
treatment
MM1 3.56b 5.21a 84.90c 15.10a 0.87ab 5.46a
MW1 4.26a 5.56a 84.23c 15.77a 0.75b 5.20b
MW2 3.52b 4.50b 86.14b 13.86b 0.76ab 5.08bc
MM2 3.24c 5.61a 84.35c 15.65a 0.89a 5.46a
CV 1.69% 4.29% 0.57% 1.64% 6.99% 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 3.20c 4.00cd 87.19a 12.81c 0.71b 4.90c
MM1 3,57b 5.22ab 84.97c 15.02a 0.77b 5.46a
MW1 4.30a 5.41a 84.87c 15.13a 0.91a 5.10b
MW2 3.50b 4.35bc 86.32b 13.68b 0.75b 5.08bc
MM2 3.32c 5.50a 84.21c 15.79a 0.91a 5.46a
CV 1.61% 6.87% 0.43% 2.62% 7.46% 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).
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 variance analysis for variable fat, there was
a significant interaction between stirring and treatments
(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).
In the evaluations of the parameters, protein,
variance analysis indicated statistically significant diffe-
rences among the treatments (p<0.05) (Table 4).
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
6
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
Table 3 – Whey fat average content of cheese type Camembert manufactured with and without dpc in the treatments’
unfolding within the stirring levels.
Treatment with stirring* Average (%)
Treatment without
stirring*
Average (%)
control treatment 0.26a control treatment 0.50b
TW2 0.28a TM2 0.53b
TM1 0.30a TW1 0.56b
TW1 0.34a TW2 0.60ab
TM2 0.43a TM1 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 2.95a
TW2 2.14ab
TW1 2.07b
TM2 2.05b
control treatment 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.
For the variable ash, there was no statistically
significant difference between the manufacturing with
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).
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 40.51
a
control treatment 37.39a
TW2 37.13b TW1 35.73b
TM1 32.28c TM1 34.11c
control treatment 32.16d TW2 31.48d
TM2 30.61e TM2 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%.
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
7
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
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.
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
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).
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 27.05a control treatment 19.37a
TM1 26.69a TW1 21.08a
control treatment 20.38b TM2 22.50a
TW1 19.77b TW2 22.75a
TW2 19.43b TM1 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.
It was observed that the treatments with the
highest TM2 protein content in manufacture with or
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.
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 59.59a TW2 52.36
a
TW1 59.25a TM1 53.12
a
TM2 53.18b TW1 53.83
a
TM1 50.43b TM2 54.43
a
control treatment 49.75b control treatment 56,79
a
*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-
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
8
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 3.39a TW2 4.79a
TM2 3.50a TW1 3.89b
control treatment 3.55a TM2 3.66bc
TW1 3.70a TM1 3.61bc
TM1 3.82a control treatment 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.
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
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.
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
9
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
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 17.02a TW1 19.28a
TW1 10.40ab TM1 16.54a
TM1 8.74b TW2 14.66a
TW2 8.21b TM1 13.99a
control treatment 6.56b control treatment 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.
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.
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).
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 51.37a
TW1 38.97ab
TM1 33.26b
control treatment 33.05b
TM2 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.
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.
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
the interaction among these factors, because the variance
analysis showed no statistically significant difference
(p>0.05) in these assessments.
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,
de Sousa Campos, S. A. et al.
10
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
in particular) and of all the factors of manufacture that
can alter the final composition of the cheese.
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.
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.
Conclusion
Based on the yield of Camembert cheeses made
from the addition of different protein concentrates (milk
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.
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.
Acknowledgments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Emmons, D. B. 1993. Economic importance of cheese yield. Factors
affecting the yield of cheese. Ed. D.B. Emmons, Brussels.
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.
Fennema, O.R.; Parkin, K.L.; Damodaran, S. 2010. Química de Alimentos
de Fennema. 4 ed. Artmed, Porto Alegre.
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.
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.
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.
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#.
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.
SAS- Statistical Analysis System, User‘s guide: version 9.0. 2001. 40
ed. SAS, institute, INC, North Caroline.
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.
Yield of cheese type Camembert with addition of protein extenders with and without mass stirring
11
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–11, 2020. e-ISSN: 2447-6218 / ISSN: 1984-6738
Tamine, A. Y.2009. Dairy Powders and Concentrated Products. Wiley-
Blackwell, United Kingdom.
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.
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.
Yada, R.Y. Protein in Food processing. Woodhar Publishing, England.