Introduction
Cheese is a generic name for various groups of coagulated milk-based foods which are being produced in more than 500 varieties throughout the world. Due to its dietary benefits, ingestible consistency, longer shelf life and moderate taste, fermented food products are growing day by day in the developing world [1]. These fermented food products include proteins and fat obtained from the milk of specific dairy animals [2]. Cream cheese is a fresh, smooth, consistent, lactic acid-coagulated, unripen and sweet product which is commonly used in many bakery items. Cheese is widely used by the people because of its pleasant taste, diversified flavor, nutritional value and positive impact on health [3]. Cream cheese is normally prepared from homogenized and pasteurized milk or cream (fat content of 8–14%) with mesophilic culture [2, 3]. Cream cheese prepared using the dairy fat can leads to conditions like high fat content and lactose intolerance. In Europe and America, consumption of fat rich dairy products is too high which results in numerous health issues. However, people were reluctant to replace the desire dairy product with slightly healthier low fat dairy blends [4]. To reduce these limitations, Cream Cheese analogue is prepared by the addition of dairy fat and proteins, but these dairy ingredients can be replaced partially or completely with the non-diary ones without considerable change in the taste of final product [5]. Demand and manufacturing of cream cheese are increasing rapidly from the past few decades because of its use as a primary ingredient in assorted recipes such as dips, spreads, cheese cakes and other desserts [6]. Pakistan produces cream cheese on a small scale to meet its demand while Pakistan mostly imports cream cheese from other countries like China, Gulf countries and European Union. According to an estimate, Pakistan spends almost 14.7 million of dollars in a year to import cream cheese despite being fourth largest milk producer in the world and is having the raw material potential to support its local production. Over the past few years, the total demand of cream cheese has considerably increased in the country due to the growing demand of western food along with increase in economic growth, raising the size of middle-class population and increase in the urbanization. Estimated increase in the future demand of cream cheese will further increase its imports [7]. To promote its local production on small and commercial scale, we need to figure out a cost-effective raw material solution for its production based on a blend of vegetable and animal fat [8]. Fat content also has impact on the texture of cream cheese including spreadness, firmness, hardness, stickiness, gumminess, cohesiveness of mass [9]. pH directly affects the microstructure characteristics (firmness) of cream cheese [10]. Moreover, it contains large number of proteins that help to retain a greater proportion of moisture in the cream cheese. So, decreasing fat content in cream cheese requires interaction between salt and proteins as it has impact on the milk proteins aggregation [11]. Shelf life is one of the significant characteristics of any perishable product. Cream cheese has relatively low shelf life when compared with other dairy products. Usually, the proportions of primary ingredients are directly proportional to the texture and shelf life of the product. This research will carry out comparison studies using different fat blends to study its impact on the texture and the shelf life of cheese analogue. This study is aimed to produce cream cheese using different proportions of vegetable and milk fats to support an efficient way for the commercial and small-scale production.
Material and methods
Materials
Fresh cow and buffalo milk samples were obtained from milk processing unit, B Block, UVAS, Ravi Campus, Pattoki, Pakistan and Mesophillic culture Flora Danica (Chris Hansen Company) was obtained from market, Lahore, Pakistan. Salt (NaCl) and stabilizers (Cremodane) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich Company, Germany. Vegetable fat (cocoa butter substitute fat) was purchased from “Cargill Company”. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of UVAS Lahore, ethical committee.
Experimental station
The present study was performed in the department of Dairy Technology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Ravi Campus, Pattoki and research samples were manufactured at The Artisan cheese factory based in Lahore, Pakistan.
Cream cheese making
For preparation of cream cheese; milk, cream and other components were mixed together to get cream cheese. Heat treatment was carried out at 75 °C for 2–3 min and homogenized for 5–6 min with hand mixture. Then, it was cool down to 20–25 °C for acidification and then mesophilic starter (0.1% wt/wt) culture was added into it for acidification. Cream cheese was incubated until pH reached (4.6–4.7). Salt (1% wt/wt) and stabilizer (0.33% wt/wt) were during curd agitation for 30 min and constant temperature (75 °C) was maintained during this process. Curd was further heated and shearing was performed at 80–82 °C. In the last, filling and packing were performed together with optimum storage temperature 4 °C [12].
Experimental design
All samples were prepared with different concentrations of milk cream; T0: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (100%) (Control Sample), T1: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (75%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (25%), T2: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (50%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (50%) and T3: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (25%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (75%). Cream cheese stored at 4 °C and shelf life was analyzed after at time intervals of 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 days. Every test was performed in triplicate.
Physicochemical analysis of cream cheese
Cream Cheese was analyzed for its physicochemical aspects i.e., fat%, pH, titratable acidity%, protein and moisture using standard methods defined by AOAC [13].
Fat %
All samples at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of storage period were analysed for fat% using the method of AOAC [12]. For the determination of fat%, cheese butyrometer (80%) was taken and filled with 10 ml of Sulphur acid (d = 1.83 g/cm3). After this, 3.00 g of cream cheese sample was put in to butyrometer and 2 ml of isoamyl alcohol was added. Distilled water was also added into the same butyrometer to make up the volume. Butyrometer was closed using rubber cork. The contents of butyrometer were shaken vigorously. Butyrometer was then put into Gerber Machine at 1100 rpm and 65 °C for 6 min. After 6 min, fat % of the sample was measured by reading the graduations of transparent region of butyrometer containing fat [14].
pH
The samples were analysed for pH at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of storage according to procedure given by AOAC [12]. First, pH meter was calibrated with buffers (4.01 and 7.01). For the estimation of pH, 20 g of each sample was taken and kept it at room temperature. After this, pH of cream cheese samples was directly measured using the electrode of pH meter without diluting it [13, 14].
Acidity %
Acidity % of all samples was analysed using acid–base titration method (Method No. 920.124; AOAC, [12]. For this purpose, 9 g cheese with 9 mL water was withdrawn in a small beaker. 2 to 3 drops phenolphthalein indicator was added to this sample and titrated against 0.1N NaOH till the light pink color appeared. The burette reading was noted and acidity % was estimated using the given formula [14].
Acidity % =
Protein
Protein contents of cheese were determined by kjeldhal method. 2.5 g grinded cheese sample was taken in digestion flask, then added 25 ml sulfuric acid and 2 digestion tablets in it. Then, it is placed on heating mantle until clear solution obtained [14]. Both 40% sodium hydroxide solution and boric acid were used to trap ammonia gas when titrated against 0.1 N hydrochloric acid to determine nitrogen %. Formula was following:
Nitrogen (%) =
Protein % = N % × 6.38.
Free fatty acids profile of cream cheese samples
Free fatty acid profiling of cream cheese samples was performed using GC–MS model 7890B Agilent Technologies and mass spectrophotometer model 5977B [14].
Sensory analysis
Sensory characteristics like color, taste, appearance, bitterness, consistency and odour of cream cheese samples were determined by a 9-point Hedonic scale after 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of storage period. All these parameters were sensory evaluated by semi trained judges (10) and results were obtained by filling the proforma, wherein the values were put on a Hedonic scale from 1 to 9 (9 is maximum for a given tested parameter). Water and crackers were served for cleansing the oral cavity of the judges between the testing of different samples according to the standard guidelines [14, 15].
Microbiological evaluation of cream cheese
Total viable count
The total number of microorganisms in prepared cream cheese was done using total plate count (TPC) method [16]. Plate Count Agar (PCA) medium was used for cultivation of microbes. Analysis was performed in Microbiology Laboratory, UVAS Ravi Campus AOAC [13].
Coliform count
To check the hygiene in prepared cream cheese, coliform count was performed in Microbiology Laboratory using Violet Red Bile Agar (VRBA) AOAC [13].
Statistical analysis
Data was statistically analysed (n = 3 × 10; ± SD) with ANOVA technique, 2 factor factorial under completely randomized design [17]. Least significant difference (LSD) test was applied to determine the significant difference among the treatment by SAS 9.1 statistical software (Analytical software, Tallahassee, FL). The significance was checked at 5% probability (P < 0.05).
Results and discussion
Physicochemical analysis
Protein % test
ANOVA results of protein percentage values indicated significant differences among storage days (p < 0.001) and treatments (p < 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 7.50 ± 0.01% and 10.63 ± 0.00% respectively, while; mean values of T1 were 5.03 ± 0.04% and 10.23 ± 0.02% at 0 and 60 day respectively. Mean values of T2 were 10.63 ± 0.00% and 8.12 ± 0.00% respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 10.05 ± 0.09% and 7.55 ± 0.04% at 0 and 60 days respectively (Table 1). This decrease in protein content was due to bacterial activity and acid coagulation. Results of cream cheese samples indicated that storage days and treatments had significant effect on the protein percentage of different cream cheese samples (p < 0.001). Protein content improves the quality and acceptance of cheese due to coagulation effect. Cream cheese consists of large amount of proteins however the interactive properties between salt content. Protein content is important when cheese is being produced by less fat content as salt has impact on the aggregation of protein [4, 18]. Pseudo-protein particles such as casein participate in polymerization like acid coagulation [19].
Table 1. Physiochemical changes in cream cheese prepared using blend of dairy and vegetable fat during 60 days storage period
Item | Storage days | Treatment 0 | Treatment 1 | Treatment 2 | Treatment 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fat (%) | 0 | 29.5 ± 0.50 | 28.37 ± 0.32 | 27.17 ± 0.29 | 27.83 ± 0.58 |
15 | 29.67 ± 0.29 | 28.50 ± 0.50 | 27.50 ± 0.00 | 27.67 ± 0.29 | |
30 | 29.83 ± 0.29 | 28.33 ± 0.29 | 27.83 ± 0.29 | 28.33 ± 0.29 | |
45 | 29.17 ± 0.29 | 28.33 ± 0.29 | 27.83 ± 0.29 | 27.17 ± 0.29 | |
60 | 29.17 ± 1.04 | 28.33 ± 0.29 | 28.17 ± 0.58 | 28.33 ± 0.29 | |
Protein (%) | 0 | 7.50 ± 0.01 | 5.03 ± 0.04 | 10.63 ± 0.00 | 10.05 ± 0.09 |
15 | 7.49 ± 0.03 | 3.13 ± 0.01 | 11.26 ± 0.01 | 11.87 ± 0.01 | |
30 | 6.27 ± 0.02 | 9.33 ± 0.04 | 10.66 ± 0.05 | 8.80 ± 0.07 | |
45 | 9.38 ± 0.01 | 4.32 ± 0.09 | 8.74 ± 0.01 | 10.63 ± 0.00 | |
60 | 10.63 ± 0.00 | 10.23 ± 0.02 | 8.12 ± 0.00 | 7.55 ± 0.04 | |
Hardness (%) | 0 | 1.75 ± 0.02 | 14.23 ± 0.05 | 2.03 ± 0.02 | 3.73 ± 0.58 |
15 | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 2.77 ± 0.21 | 0.54 ± 0.02 | 0.92 ± 0.06 | |
30 | 0.75 ± 0.03 | 3.29 ± 0.24 | 0.47 ± 0.02 | 0.89 ± 0.03 | |
45 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 1.05 ± 0.04 | 0.53 ± 0.31 | 0.95 ± 0.03 | |
60 | 0.44 ± 0.03 | 2.03 ± 0.03 | 0.54 ± 0.03 | 0.96 ± 0.58 | |
pH | 0 | 4.81 ± 0.35 | 4.64 ± 0.02 | 4.85 ± 0.28 | 4.73 ± 0.39 |
15 | 5.12 ± 0.14 | 4.89 ± 0.02 | 5.11 ± 0.12 | 4.68 ± 0.11 | |
30 | 3.62 ± 0.82 | 4.11 ± 0.1 | 4.84 ± 0.44 | 4.65 ± 0.15 | |
45 | 4.28 ± 0.83 | 3.51 ± 0.55 | 4.06 ± 0.23 | 3.80 ± 0.66 | |
60 | 4.28 ± 0.83 | 3.64 ± 0.80 | 3.66 ± 0.45 | 4.03 ± 0.83 | |
Acidity | 0 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.07 ± 0.01 |
15 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | |
30 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | |
45 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | |
60 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | |
Gumminess | 0 | 75.83 ± 0.55 | 674.33 ± 3.91 | 120.43 ± 0.21 | 68.6 ± 74.55 |
15 | 18.53 ± 0.55 | 28.44 ± 0.45 | 9.60 ± 0.20 | 21.6 ± 0.3 | |
30 | 8.47 ± 0.41 | 62.57 ± 0.32 | 12.50 ± 0.40 | 14.63 ± 0.38 | |
45 | 8.66 ± 0.12 | 4.17 ± 0.38 | 18.57 ± 0.21 | 25.47 ± 0.31 | |
60 | 16.37 ± 0.06 | 13.11 ± 0.01 | 23.3 ± 0.70 | 13.47 ± 0.41 | |
Free FAs % | 0 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.35 ± 0.01 |
15 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | |
30 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | |
45 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.54 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | |
60 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.43 ± 0.09 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 |
T0: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (100%) (Control Sample)
T1: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (75%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (25%)
T2: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (50%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (50%)
T3: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (25%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (75%)
pH test
ANOVA results of pH values showed significant differences among storage days with level of significance less than 0.001. Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 4.81 ± 0.35 and 3.56 ± 0.44 respectively, while; mean values of T1 were 4.64 ± 0.02 and 3.64 ± 0.80 at 0 and 60 days respectively. Mean values of T2 were 4.85 ± 0.28 and 3.66 ± 0.45 at 0 and 60 days respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 4.73 ± 0.39 and 4.03 ± 0.83 at 0 and 60 days respectively (Table 1). Results of cream cheese samples indicated that storage days had effect on the pH of cream cheese samples (p < 0.001) but treatments had not big impact on the pH of cream cheese samples (p = 0.24). pH has not big effect on cream cheese acceptability as in different processing steps show controlled pH range 4.4–4.9. While, cream cheese showed impact on texture acceptability at different pH ranges [20]. Table 1 indicated that treatments of cheese samples showed no significant differences in pH values (p = 0.24).
Acidity test
ANOVA results of acidity values showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.03) and treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 0.05 ± 0.00 and 0.11 ± 0.05 respectively, while; T1 mean values were 0.06 ± 0.01 and 0.06 ± 0.02 at 0 and 60 day. Mean values of T2 were 0.06 ± 0.02 and 0.06 ± 0.01 at 0 and 60 days respectively, while, mean values of T3 were 0.07 ± 0.01 and 0.06 ± 0.01 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 1). Results of cheese samples indicated that storage days and treatments had effect on the acidity of cream cheese samples (p = 0.01). In the same way, T3 had slight high acidity value than T1. So, the concluded order of acidity was T0 > T2 > T3 > T1. Texture, stretching, melting and structure of cheese were important factors that depended on acidity of cheese [21]. Conversion of lactose into lactate produced acidity in cheese [22]. Acidity was also increased due to lactose sugar because sugar converted into acids [23]. After ripening of cheese up to 4 months, the acidity was decreased due to lactate converted into other compounds due to higher rate of lipolysis and proteolysis [21–23].
Fat test
ANOVA results of fat test showed significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 29.50 ± 0.50% and 29.17 ± 1.04% respectively, while; mean values of T1 were 28.37 ± 0.32% and 28.83 ± 0.29% at 0 and 60 days. T2 mean values were 27.12 ± 0.29% and 28.17 ± 0.58% at 0 and 60 days respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 27.83 ± 0.58% and 28.33 ± 0.29% at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 1). Results showed that storage days had no effect on the fat percentage (p = 0.06) but treatments had significant effect on fat percentage of cream cheese (p = 0.001). Fat shows significant impact on all attributes related to sensory impacts like texture as well as physicochemical properties [4]. Cream cheese containing lower fat showed impact on viscosity of cream cheese; spread ability and friction increase as well [24]. Table 1 showed fat that no significance differences among different storage times as significant value showed 0.05. Fat content had impact on cream cheese during storage conditions [25].
Free fatty acids (FFAs) test
ANOVA results of FFAs test indicated significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 0.23 ± 0.01% and 0.33 ± 0.10% respectively, while; T1 mean values were 0.36 ± 0.01% and 0.43 ± 0.09% at 0 and 60 days, respectively. T2 were showed 0.52 ± 0.01% and 0.57 ± 0.01% at 0 and 60 days respectively, while; values of T3 were 0.35 ± 0.01% and 0.36 ± 0.01% at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 1). Results of cream cheese samples showed that storage days and treatments combined had very little effect on the percentage of free fatty acids (p = 0.08). Free Fatty Acids of cream cheeses increased during storage due to pH decrease and with increase in free fatty acids. So, there was change in sensory evaluation. During another study, free fatty acids range from 64 to 1448 ppm were observed during storage [26]. Table 1 showed that free fatty acids contents value of all samples of cream cheese showed significance difference among treatments and storage times. Results showed that storage days and treatments had effect on the FFAs of cream cheese samples according to two ways ANOVA.
Hardness
ANOVA results of hardness showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 1.75 ± 0.02 and 0.44 ± 0.03 respectively, while; T1 mean values were 14.23 ± 0.05 and 2.03 ± 0.03 at 0 and 60 days respectively. T2 mean values were 2.03 ± 0.02 and 0.54 ± 0.03 at 0 and 60 days, while; mean values of T3 were 3.73 ± 0.58 and 0.96 ± 0.58 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 2). Results of cream cheese samples showed that storage days and treatments combined had significant effect on the hardness of cream cheese samples (p = 0.001). Full fat cream cheese was more elastic, harder and more cohesive due to presence of larger number of total solids in it as compared to cream cheeses which were having low fat content and these types of cheese showed different rheological properties [9]. By increasing bound water content hardness decreased as both the amount and strength structure of bound water increased [26]. So, T0 showed less hardness than T1 and T3 whereas T1 showed more hardness than T2. The order of hardness was T0 < T2 < T3 < T1.Thus,100% dairy fat cream cheese showed the least hardness and 50% dairy and 50% vegetable fat (cocoa butter substitute fat) showed highest hardness. Product compact ability, hardness, spread ability, chewiness and gel strength generally correlated with high fat, low moisture content and a compact microstructure [27, 28].
Table 2. Sensory evaluation of in cream cheese prepared using blend of dairy and vegetable fat during 60 days storage period
Item | Storage days | Treatment 0 | Treatment 1 | Treatment 2 | Treatment 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Color | 0 | 8.07 ± 0.05 | 7.98 ± 0.07 | 8.11 ± 0.95 | 5.95 ± 1.05 |
15 | 8.54 ± 0.52 | 7.6 ± 0.55 | 7.91 ± 0.12 | 7.46 ± 0.64 | |
30 | 7.69 ± 0.53 | 7.4 ± 0.59 | 6.74 ± 0.46 | 5.77 ± 1.09 | |
45 | 7.98 ± 0.95 | 7.47 ± 0.35 | 6.92 ± 1.18 | 6.28 ± 0.54 | |
60 | 7.71 ± 0.54 | 7.22 ± 0.38 | 5.93 ± 0.66 | 4.76 ± 0.58 | |
Appearance | 0 | 9.7 ± 0.3 | 9.69 ± 0.53 | 7.81 ± 0.42 | 7.33 ± 1.15 |
15 | 9.02 ± 0.04 | 9.67 ± 0.52 | 7.29 ± 0.51 | 6.62 ± 0.36 | |
30 | 9.03 ± 0.03 | 9.09 ± 1.34 | 6.63 ± 0.56 | 6.54 ± 0.47 | |
45 | 8.39 ± 0.57 | 7.2 ± 0.2 | 7.55 ± 0.51 | 6.57 ± 0.89 | |
60 | 8.39 ± 1.11 | 7.02 ± 0.18 | 7 ± 0.22 | 5.78 ± 1.46 | |
Taste | 0 | 8.77 ± 1.07 | 9.53 ± 0.48 | 7.87 ± 1.02 | 5.72 ± 0.62 |
15 | 8.38 ± 0.58 | 7.74 ± 0.57 | 7.98 ± 0.03 | 4.08 ± 1.01 | |
30 | 8.05 ± 0.98 | 7.24 ± 0.66 | 7.27 ± 0.68 | 3.69 ± 0.56 | |
45 | 8.00 ± 0.05 | 7.53 ± 0.5 | 6.43 ± 0.65 | 2.92 ± 0.17 | |
60 | 7.55 ± 1.55 | 7.22 ± 0.38 | 6.63 ± 0.66 | 3.79 ± 0.47 | |
Flavor | 0 | 9.03 ± 0.04 | 8.31 ± 0.59 | 8.3 ± 1.1 | 4.58 ± 1.23 |
15 | 7.56 ± 0.44 | 8.99 ± 0.97 | 8.2 ± 0.31 | 4.11 ± 0.19 | |
30 | 7.59 ± 0.51 | 7.98 ± 0.06 | 7.09 ± 0.73 | 4.02 ± 0.95 | |
45 | 6.69 ± 0.55 | 6.86 ± 0.15 | 6.48 ± 0.95 | 4.23 ± 0.57 | |
60 | 6.37 ± 0.56 | 7.23 ± 0.37 | 5.96 ± 0.91 | 5.57 ± 0.57 | |
Bitterness | 0 | 9.2 ± 1.04 | 7.93 ± 0.93 | 7.93 ± 0.93 | 7.09 ± 0.85 |
15 | 7.61 ± 0.67 | 7.26 ± 1.21 | 7.26 ± 1.21 | 7.72 ± 1.15 | |
30 | 8 ± 0.49 | 6.07 ± 0.45 | 6.07 ± 0.45 | 6.57 ± 1.18 | |
45 | 7.47 ± 0.44 | 7.35 ± 0.5 | 7.35 ± 0.5 | 4.26 ± 0.92 | |
60 | 7.68 ± 0.54 | 7.7 ± 0.84 | 7.7 ± 0.84 | 4.95 ± 1.05 | |
Consistency | 0 | 9.47 ± 0.47 | 7.98 ± 0.09 | 8.66 ± 1.14 | 7.06 ± 0.95 |
15 | 9.03 ± 0.94 | 7.26 ± 0.28 | 8.17 ± 0.33 | 5.7 ± 0.43 | |
30 | 9.03 ± 0.96 | 6.52 ± 0.49 | 7.2 ± 0.38 | 4.49 ± 1.36 | |
45 | 7.89 ± 0.28 | 6.77 ± 0.62 | 6.52 ± 0.36 | 2.05 ± 0.1 | |
60 | 6.71 ± 0.57 | 7.92 ± 1.06 | 6.25 ± 0.82 | 2.47 ± 1.46 | |
Overall acceptability | 0 | 9.73 ± 0.17 | 9.52 ± 0.47 | 8.1 ± 1.1 | 4.64 ± 0.53 |
15 | 7.71 ± 0.55 | 8.14 ± 0.74 | 8.01 ± 0.02 | 5.12 ± 1.03 | |
30 | 7.96 ± 0.1 | 7.36 ± 0.41 | 7.33 ± 0.29 | 6.09 ± 0.19 | |
45 | 7.49 ± 0.85 | 6.81 ± 0.25 | 7.21 ± 0.74 | 4.34 ± 1.6 | |
60 | 6.36 ± 0.57 | 7.33 ± 0.57 | 6.24 ± 1.17 | 4.38 ± 1.07 |
T0: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (100%) (Control Sample)
T1: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (75%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (25%)
T2: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (50%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (50%)
T3: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (25%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (75%)
Gumminess
ANOVA results of Gumminess showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean value of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 75.83 ± 0.3.91 and 16.37 ± 0.06 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 674.33 ± 3.91 and 13.11 ± 0.01 respectively. Mean values of T2 were 120.43 ± 0.21 and 23.30 ± 0.70 at 0 and 60 days, respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 68.60 ± 74.55 and 13.47 ± 0.41at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 1). Results of cream cheese samples showed that storage days and treatments combined had effect on the Gumminess of cream cheese samples (p = 0.001). Results of gumminess showed that storage days and treatments had significant effect as well as not significant effects on the gumminess of cream cheese. There was significance difference between T0 and T1 (p = 0.001), T1 and T2, T1 and T3 treatments in terms of gumminess, while; T0 showed less gumminess than T1, T2, T3. In a same way T1 showed more gumminess than T2, T3 whereas, T2 showed more gumminess than T3 the overall gradient of stringiness length is T0 < T3 < T2 < T1 with level of significance less than 0.001 [3].
Sensory evaluation
Appearance
ANOVA results of appearance showed significant differences among storage days and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 9.70 ± 0.30 and 8.39 ± 1.11 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 9.69 ± 0.53and 7.02 ± 0.18 respectively. Mean value of T2 was 7.81 ± 0.42 and 7.00 ± 0.22 at 0 and 60 days, respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 7.33 ± 1.15 and 5.78 ± 1.46 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 2). Results showed that storage days and treatments combined had effect on the appearance of cream cheese samples (p = 0.04). Cream cheese samples after addition of dairy and vegetable fat (cocoa butter substitute fat) were analysed for its sensory evaluation and following observations were observed using 9 points hedonic scale. The appearance of T0 was not significantly different from T1. The appearance of all other combinations was significantly different from each other. T0 has highest ranking appearance wise while, T3 has the lowest ranking. The overall ranking was T0 > T1 > T2 > T3.Thus the higher the proportion of vegetable fat the lesser the appearance acceptability was observed.
Taste
ANOVA results of taste of cheese samples showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant difference among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 8.77 ± 1.07and 7.55 ± 1.55 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 9.53 ± 0.48 and 7.22 ± 0.38 respectively. Mean value of T2 were 7.87 ± 1.02 and 6.63 ± 0.66 at 0 and 60 days, respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 5.72 ± 0.62 and 3.79 ± 0.47 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 2). Results of cream cheese analysis showed that storage days and treatments combined had not a big effect on the taste of cream cheese samples (p = 0.19). The taste of T0 was not significantly different from T1. In the same way the taste of T1 was not significantly different from T2. The tastes of all other combinations were significantly different from each other. T0 has highest ranking taste wise while, T3 has the lowest ranking. The overall ranking was T0 > T1 > T2 > T3.Thus the higher the proportion of vegetable fat the lesser the taste acceptability was observed [4].
Color
ANOVA results of color of cheese samples showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 8.07 ± 0.053 and 7.71 ± 0.54 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 7.98 ± 0.07 and 7.22 ± 0.38 respectively. Mean values of T2 were 8.11 ± 0.95and 5.93 ± 0.66 at 0 and 60 days respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 5.95 ± 1.05 and 4.76 ± 0.58 at 0 and 60 days respectively (Table 2). Results of cream cheese samples showed that storage days and treatments combined had no big effect on the color of cream cheese samples (p = 0.19). The color of T0 was not significantly different from T1. In the same way, the color of T1 was not significantly different from T2. The color of all other combinations was significantly different from each other. T0 has highest color acceptability, while; T3 has the lowest color acceptability. The overall color ranking was T0 > T1 > T2 > T3.Thus the higher the proportion of vegetable fat, the lesser the color appearance was observed.
Flavor
ANOVA results of flavor indicated significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 9.03 ± 0.04 and 6.37 ± 0.56 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 8.31 ± 0.59 and 7.23 ± 0.37 respectively. Mean values of T2 were 8.30 ± 1.10 and 5.96 ± 0.91 at 0 and 60 days, respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 4.58 ± 1.23 and 5.57 ± 0.57 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 2). Results of cheese samples showed that storage days and treatments combined had significant effect on the flavor of cream cheese samples (p = 0.001). The flavor of T0 was not significantly different from T1 and T2. The flavor of all other combinations was significantly different from each other. T1 has highest flavor acceptability, while; T3 has the lowest flavor acceptability. The overall flavor ranking was T1 > T0 > T2 > T3.
Bitterness
ANOVA results of bitterness indicated significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 9.20 ± 1.04 and 7.68 ± 0.54 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 7.93 ± 0.93 and 7.70 ± 0.84 respectively. Mean values of T2 were 8.86 ± 0.97 and 6.40 ± 0.62 at 0 and 60 days respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 7.09 ± 0.84 and 4.95 ± 1.05 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 2). Results of cream samples showed that storage days and treatments had significant effect on the bitterness of cream cheese samples (p = 0.01). Bitterness of all other combinations was significantly different from each other. T0 has highest ranking bitterness wise, while; T3 has the lowest ranking. The overall ranking was T0 > T2 > T1 > T3.Thus the higher the proportion of vegetable fat the lesser the bitterness acceptability was observed [4].
Consistency
ANOVA results of consistency showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 9.47 ± 0.47 and 6.71 ± 0.57 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 7.98 ± 0.09 and 7.92 ± 1.06 respectively. Mean values of T2 were 8.66 ± 1.14 and 6.25 ± 0.82 at 0 and 60 days, respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 7.06 ± 0.95 and 2.47 ± 1.46 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 2). Results of cream cheese samples indicated that storage days and treatments combined had significant effect on the consistency of cream cheese samples (p = 0.001). The consistency of T1 was not significantly different from T2 (p = 0.001). The consistency of all other combinations was significantly different from each other. T0 had highest ranking consistency wise while, T3 had the lowest ranking. The overall ranking was T0 > T2 > T1 > T3.
Overall acceptability
ANOVA results of overall acceptability showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 9.73 ± 0.17% and 6.36 ± 0.57% respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 9.52 ± 0.47% and 7.33 ± 0.57% respectively. Mean values of T2 were 8.10 ± 1.10% and 6.24 ± 1.17% at 0 and 60 days, respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 4.64 ± 0.53% and 4.38 ± 1.07% at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 2). Results of cheese samples indicated that storage days and treatments combined had significant effect on the overall acceptability of cream cheese samples (p = 0.01). Thus, the higher the proportion of vegetable fat, the lesser the appearance acceptability was observed. Post hoc analysis of Tukey’s HSD and LSD were carried out to establish that whether there was significant difference between treatments. Cream cheese sample analysis showed that the overall acceptability of T0 was not significantly different from T1 and T2. In the same way, overall acceptability of T1 was not significantly different from T2. The overall acceptability of all other combinations was significantly different from each other. T0 had highest overall acceptability, while; T3 had the lowest color acceptability [4, 28].
Microbial analysis
Total viable count and coliform
ANOVA results of total viable count showed significant differences among storage days (p = 0.001) and also significant differences among treatments (p = 0.001). Mean values of control T0 at 0 and 60 days were 7.8 ± 0 and 7.75 ± 0.00 respectively, while; mean values of control T1 at 0 and 60 days were 6.867 ± 0.03 and 6.57 ± 0.03 respectively. Mean values of T2 were 6.3 ± 0.00 and 6.24 ± 0.00 at 0 and 60 days, respectively, while; mean values of T3 were 5.73 ± 0.03 and 5.53 ± 0.03 at 0 and 60 days, respectively (Table 3). Results of cheese sample indicated that storage days and treatments combined had significant effect on the overall acceptability of cream cheese samples (p = 0.001) while T0 was of best quality. Results of coliform test showed zero value for all treatments and all storage days which showed that all samples had good quality while storing (Table 3).
Table 3. Microbiological changes in cream cheese prepared using blend of dairy and vegetable fat during 60 days storage period
Item | Storage days | Treatment 0 | Treatment 1 | Treatment 2 | Treatment 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total plate count (TPC) | 0 | 7.80 ± 0.00 | 6.87 ± 0.03 | 6.30 ± 0.00 | 5.73 ± 0.03 |
15 | 7.90 ± 0.00 | 6.67 ± 0.03 | 6.13 ± 0.00 | 5.63 ± 0.03 | |
30 | 7.90 ± 0.00 | 6.80 ± 0.03 | 6.30 ± 0.00 | 5.66 ± 0.03 | |
45 | 7.89 ± 0.00 | 6.66 ± 0.03 | 6.03 ± 0.00 | 5.58 ± 0.03 | |
60 | 7.75 ± 0.00 | 6.57 ± 0.03 | 6.24 ± 0.00 | 5.53 ± 0.03 | |
Coliform count (CC) | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
15 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
30 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
45 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
60 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
T0: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (100%) (Control Sample)
T1: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (75%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (25%)
T2: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (50%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (50%)
T3: Cream cheese with addition of Dairy fat (25%) and Cocoa butter substitute fat (75%)
Conclusion
Cream cheese which was made from dairy fat (75%) and cocoa butter substitute (25%) fat had more springiness, smoothness, gumminess, more pleasant taste, color, flavor and aroma than other samples. This combination of dairy fat (75%) and cocoa butter substitute (25%) will be good future prospect in cream cheese industry in Pakistan. Although cream cheese which was manufactured with dairy fat (50%) and cocoa butter fat substitute (50%) had higher level of hardness which was not a desirable attribute as cream cheese while cream cheese which was made from dairy fat (75%) and cocoa butter substitute (25%) fat was selected as a good dairy cream cheese in Pakistani market.
Acknowledgements
Authors are highly thankful to Department of Dairy Technology, Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pakistan for their full support and facilitation during research.
Author contributions
Muhammad Junaid has designed the research project. Tasbeeha Rehman has performed all analysis of research work, Muhammad Imran has helped in analysis, writing and proof reading of the manuscript, Saima Inayat and Hifz Ur Rehman have guided students in some analysis. Ehsan Ullah, Shahzad Muzamil and Umair Younas have helped in statistical analysis of data.
Funding
Not applicable.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All experiments were carried out under the guideline of Ethical committee of UVAS, Lahore, Pakistan. This research is approved by ethical committee of University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore with letter no. 23/2022. This study is also approved by departmental Board of studies with consent of all members.
Consent for publication
All authors are fully agreed to publish this article.
Competing interests
Authors declare no competing interests. Animals are not involved during this research.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Johnson, ME. A 100-year review: cheese production and quality. J Dairy Sci; 2017; 100,
2. Fox PF, Guinee TP, Cogan TM, McSweeney PLH. Whey and whey products. In: Fundamentals of Cheese science. 2017; pp. 755–769;
3. Perveen, K; Alabdulkarim, B; Arzoo, S. Effect of temperature on shelf life, chemical and microbial properties of cream cheese. Afr J Biotechnol; 2011; 10,
4. Wendin, K; Langton, M; Caous, L; Hall, G. Dynamic analyses of sensory and microstructural properties of cream cheese. Food Chem; 2000; 71,
5. Bemer, HL; Limbaugh, M; Cramer, ED; Harper, WJ; Maleky, F. Vegetable organogels incorporation in cream cheese products. Int Food Res J; 2016; 85, pp. 67-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.04.016]
6. Cunha, CR; Dias, AI; Viotto, WH. Microstructure, texture, colour and sensory evaluation of a spreadable processed cheese analogue made with vegetable fat. Int Food Res J; 2010; 43,
7. Raja RH. Pakistan smallholder dairy production and marketing. Smallholder dairy production and marketing—Opportunities and constraints. 2001;47.
8. Olmedo, RH; Nepote, V; Grosso, NR. Preservation of sensory and chemical properties in flavoured cheese prepared with cream cheese base using oregano and rosemary essential oils. LWT-Food Sci & Tech; 2013; 53,
9. Brighenti, M; Govindasamy-Lucey, S; Lim, K; Nelson, K; Lucey, JA. Characterization of the rheological, textural and sensory properties of samples of commercial US cream cheese with different fat contents. J Dairy Sci; 2008; 91,
10. Monteiro, RR; Tavares, DQ; Kindstedt, PS; Gigante, ML. Effect of pH on microstructure and characteristics of cream cheese. J Food Sci; 2009; 74,
11. Sanchez, C; Beauregard, JL; Chassagne, MH; Duquenoy, A; Hardy, J. Rheological and textural behaviour of double cream cheese. Part II: effect of curd cooling rate. J Food Eng.; 1994; 23,
12. Pombo, AFW. Cream cheese: historical, manufacturing, and physico-chemical aspects. Int Dairy J; 2020; 117, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2020.104948]
13. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Rockville MD: AOAC Int. 2016; ISBN: 978–0–935584–87–5.
14. Junaid, M; Inayat, S; Gulzar, N; Khalique, A; Shahzad, F; Irshad, I; Imran, M. Physical, chemical, microbial, and sensory evaluation and fatty acid profiling of value-added drinking yogurt (laban) under various storage conditions. J Dairy Sci; 2023; 106,
15. Larmond E. Laboratory methods for sensory evaluation of food. Research Branch, Canada Dept. of Agriculture. 1977.
16. Andic, S; Boran, G; Tunçtürk, Y. Effects of carboxyl methyl cellulose and edible cow gelatin on physico-chemical, textural and sensory properties of yoghurt. Int J Agricult & Biol; 2013; 15,
17. Steel, RG. Principles and procedures of statistics a biometrical approach. No. 519.5 S8. Italian Cheese Varieties. J Dairy Sci; 1997; 67,
18. Michaelidou, AM; Alichanidis, E; Polychroniadou, A; Zerfiridis, G. Migration of water-soluble nitrogenous compounds of Feta cheese from the cheese blocks into the brine. Int Dairy J; 2005; 15,
19. Xiong, YL; Aguilera, JM; Kinsella, JE. Emulsified milkfat effects on rheology of acid-induced milk gels. J Food Sci; 1991; 56,
20. Ong, L; Kentish, SE; Gras, SL. Small scale production of cream cheese: a comparison of batch centrifugation and cloth bag methods. Int Dairy J; 2018; 81, pp. 42-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2018.01.008]
21. Mcsweeney, PL. Biochemistry of cheese ripening. Int J Dairy Technol; 2004; 57,
22. Parente E, Cogan TM, Powell IB. Starter cultures: general aspects. Cheese. 4th Edition. 2017; pp. 201–226.
23. Amarita, F; Requena, T; Taborda, G; Amigo, L; Pelaez, C. Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus plantarum initiate catabolism of methionine by transamination. J Appl Microbiol; 2001; 90,
24. Ningtyas, DW; Bhandari, B; Bansal, N; Prakash, S. A tribological analysis of cream cheeses manufactured with different fat content. Int Dairy J; 2017; 73, pp. 155-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2017.06.005]
25. Gliguem, H; Ben Hassine, D; Ben Haj Said, L; Ben Tekaya, I; Rahmani, R; Bellagha, S. Supplementation of double cream cheese with Allium roseum: effects on quality improvement and shelf-life extension. Foods.; 2021; 10,
26. Woo, AH; Lindsay, RC. Concentrations of major free fatty acids and flavor development in Italian cheese varieties. J Dairy Sci; 1984; 67,
27. Poursharif, K; Fadaei, V; Daneshi, M. Effects of the substitution of inulin for fat on textural characteristics and sensory evaluation of reduced-fat wheyless cream cheese. Int J Biol & Biotech; 2013; 10,
28. Macdougall, PE; Ong, L; Palmer, MV; Gras, AL. The microstructure and textural properties of Australian cream cheese with differing composition. Int Dairy J; 2019; 2019,
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Cream cheese analogue is a soft cheese with a slightly sweet and pleasantly tangy taste. It is prepared using the substitutes of dairy fats and proteins partially or completely. Cream cheese analogue ingredients are purchased carefully keeping in mind the required specifications. For the above-mentioned research, different samples of cream cheese (T0, T1, T2 and T3) were manufactured with standardized fat and protein and the moisture was maintained at 50–55% during these trials. All ingredients were added in a large container for mixing and cooking treatment for 1–2 min at 75 °C and homogenized for 5–6 min with the help of a hand mixture until completely homogenous sample was obtained. Samples were then transferred in to another container and allowed them to attain temperature between 20 and 25 °C. After that, samples were incubated with the addition of mesophilic culture until desired pH (4.6–4.7) was achieved. Later samples were heated at 50–55 °C for 2–3 min and then placed in a muslin cloth and left overnight for whey drainage. Physicochemical, microbial analysis were performed while sensory evaluation was performed using different parameters and scales. Sample prepared using 75% dairy cream and 25% cocoa butter substitute fat (T1) showed good results. T1 had better consistency which was considered desirable characteristics of cream cheese. This research proved the cost effective as cream cheese prepared with plant-based fat which made its production possible at industrial level. Cream cheese which was made from dairy fat (75%) and cocoa butter substitute fat (25%) had more springiness, smoothness, gumminess, more pleasant taste, color, flavor and aroma than other samples. This dairy product can be used in future in Pakistan.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Dairy Technology, Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412967.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 0609 0799)
2 University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biosciences, Lahore, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412967.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 0609 0799)
3 University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Livestock, Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412967.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 0609 0799)
4 University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412967.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 0609 0799)
5 Superior University, Department of Human Nutrition and Food Technology, Lahore, Pakistan (GRID:grid.444934.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0608 9907)
6 Cholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Livestock Management, FAPT, Bahawalpur, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412967.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 0609 0799)