Content uploaded by Rewati Raman Bhattarai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rewati Raman Bhattarai on Oct 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
94
RESEARCH PAPER
J. Food Sci. Technol. Nepal, Vol. 6 (94-101), 2010
ISSN: 1816-0727
*Correspondingauthor, E-mail: noble_rewinem1@yahoo.com
Introduction
Cheese making is simply a separation of curd from whey and
kneading into a mould able consistency. Cheese is a
concentrated form of milk consisting of fat, protein, salt, minor
milk components and moisture (Lincourt et al., 2009). The
important varieties of cheese produced in Nepal are yak
cheese, Kanchan cheese, mozzarella like cheese and processed
cheese (Colavito, 1994).
Mozzarella cheese is an unripened, soft and white cheese
whose melting and stretching properties are highly suitable
for pizza making (Kindstedt, 1995). It belongs to the family,
classified as Pasta-filata which involves the principles of
skillfully stretching the curd in hot water to get smooth texture,
and lively surface in cheese (Kosikowski, 1982). World cheese
production has doubled in less than 25yrs from 1961-1994
(Farkye, 2004). Industrial cheese production is continuously
growing. World cheese production in 2004, 2005, and 2006
were 28.4, 29 and 29.8 million MT respectively (IDF, 2007).
Mozzarella cheese production in 2007/08 in Nepal was 22000
kg/ year. The projected production for the year 2008/09 was
66000 kg/year (Bajracharya, 2009) (by Personal
Communication). The demand for mozzarella cheese all over
the world is increasing due to expansion of pizza parlours and
fast food chains. In Nepal, cheese is produced mainly from
cow milk. The use of pure buffalo milk for cheese production
in Nepal is not successful in commercial scale. Therefore, to
optimize a process using different milk sources and improve
quality of local cheese is the dire need of time. Buffalos milk is
ranked second in the world after cows milk being more than
12% of the worlds milk production (Ahmed et al., 2008). In
Nepal, buffalo milk is 70% of the total milk produced. Due to
high vitamin A, protein and low cholesterol in buffalo milk, it
can be more preferred species in cheese production (Zicarelli,
2004). The fat and protein content in cheese made of buffalo
milk is higher (Sameen et al., 2008) due to higher total solids in
buffalo milk than cow milk (Ganguli, 1992). Mozzarella cheese
produced from buffalo milk is highly priced in most of the
world (Sameen et al., 2008). No researches have been
conducted in Nepal in the field of mozzarella cheese making
using cow, buffalo and their mix milk. Due to various reasons,
the quality of mozzarella cheese made locally in Nepal does
not remain consistent (Acharya, 2010). Some commercially
produced cheeses have poor functional quality and yield. The
best milk source for mozzarella cheese making for use in pizza
toping is not known. Also no standard process has been
developed to manufacture mozzarella cheese of good quality
from cow, buffalo and milk of both.
Preparation and quality evaluation of mozzarella cheese from
different milk sources can be a boost to the dairy farmers and
industries. This can provide answer to the problem which milk
source is best for manufacturing pizza toping mozzarella
cheese. The study also helps the farmers to prepare mozzarella
cheese traditionally at farm level. A process optimization in
Nepalese context will be a boon to Nepal for producing
consistent mozzarella cheese. The process standardization for
buffalo milk will solve the problem related to cheese production
and a good competent quality cheese can be launched
commercially in market.
Materials and Methods
Milk samples: Cow (hybrid i.e. cross of Jersery and local cow)
and buffalo, (local i.e. buffalo from Terai region of Nepal) milk
samples were obtained from local area of Dharan, Sunsari,
Nepal.
Starter culture and rennet: The starter culture, DL culture
was obtained from DDC, Kathmandu and the yoghurt culture
from DDC, Biratnagar. Rennet was collected from local cheese
makers of Pashupatinagar, Illam.
Preparation and Quality Evaluation of Mozzarella Cheese from
Different Milk Sources
REWATI RAMAN BHATTARAI*and PUSHPA PRASAD ACHARYA
Tribhuvan University, Institute of Science and Technology, Central Campus of Technology, Dharan, Nepal
Three mozzarella cheeses were prepared from three different milk sources i.e. cow (C), buffalo (B) and their mix (A) milks using
DL (Streptococcus lactis and cremoris; S. Diacetalactic, Leuconostoc cremoris) and yoghurt cultures. Milk was standardized to
C/F: 0.90/0.92 and process optimized for using all milk sources. The samples were analyzed for physico-chemical and functional
properties, sensory attributes and protein and fat losses. Except ash and yield at 50% moisture; fat, protein, actual yield, pH,
acidity and moisture were significantly influenced by milk sources. From sensory result, cow and mix cheeses were significantly
superior, whereas functional properties were superior for cow cheese but buffalo and mix cheeses had higher nutritive value.
From overall comparison, cow mozzarella cheese was ranked most suitable for pizza topping.
Keywords: Mozzarella cheese, Process optimization, Yield, Chemical and functional properties, Sensory quality
95
Methodology
The basic cheese making procedure was followed according
to Lincourt et al., (2009) with slight modifications (Barbano et
al., 1994; FAO 1995; Innovations in dairy 1998, 1999; Adhikari
and Bhandari, 2064 and Basnet, 2009) for different milk sources
which is given in Figure 1, 2 and 3.
Milk Freshly drawn, organoleptic test.
Acidity: 0.16%, temp. 19°C
Fat: 3.8%, SNF: 9%, sp.gr. 1.032
Standardized and Pasteurized C/F: 0.90; 15s, 72°C
Cooled to 40°C
Cultured @ 1.5% starter culture, 1% yoghurt culture and stirred
Maintained till pH falls to 5.6 in
2.5g/100 L milk
Maintained at 33-36°C for 30 min about 40 min, test: milk clot appeared, slow agitation
Rennetting at 33°C @ till curds were firm and set was good, no agitation
Cutting horizontally, healing for 2 min and cutting vertically to 1 cm
3
sized curds
Healing for 10 min
Stirring for 15 min
Draining whey 45%
Cooking at 42-45°C with stirring till pH dropped to 5.4
Draining whey
Cheddaring of curd for 5 min or till pH dropped to 5.1
Milling of curd into finger size
Stretching in 75-80°C hot water
Moulding
Cold water washing
Brining (20% NaCl + 10% CaCl
2
chilled water)
Leaving for 24 hrs
Vacuum packaging
Milk Mix of cow and buffalo, organoleptic test.
Fat: 3% and protein 3.43% (by avr.)
Standardized and Pasteurized C/F:0.91; 15s, 72°C
Cooled to 40°C
Cultured @ 2% starter culture, 1.25% yoghurt culture and stirred
Maintained till pH falls to 5.8 in about 40 min, test: milk clot appeared, slow agitation
Rennetting at 35°C @ 2.40g/100 L milk
Maintained at 33-38°C for 30 min till curds were firm and set was good, no agitation
Cutting horizontally, healing for 2 min and cutting vertically to 1 cm
3
sized curds
Healing for 10 min
Stirring for 15 min
Draining whey 60%
Cooking at 42-45°C with stirring till pH dropped to 5.4
Draining whey
Cheddaring of curd for 5 min or till pH dropped to 5.2
Milling of curd into finger size
Stretching in 80-82°C hot water
Moulding
Cold water washing
Brining (20% NaCl + 10% CaCl
2
chilled water)
Leaving for 24 hrs
Vacuum packaging
Fi gur e 1. Pre par ati on o f Mozza rel la c hee se f rom cow mil k
Milk Freshly drawn, organoleptic test.
Acidity: 0.16%, temp. 20°C
Fat: 7.2%, SNF: 11%, sp.gr. 1.034
Standardized and Pasteurized C/F: 0.92; 15s, 72°C
Cooled to 40°C
Cultured @ 2.5% starter culture, 1.5% yoghurt culture and stirred
Maintained till pH falls to 5.8 in about 45 min, test: milk clot appeared, slow agitation
Rennetting at 36°C @ 2.25g/100 L milk
Maintained at 36-38°C for 35 min till curds were firm and set was good, no agitation
Cutting horizontally, healing for 2 min and cutting vertically to 1 cm
3
sized curds
Healing for 10 min
Stirring for 15 min
Draining whey 50-60%
Cooking at 40-43°C with stirring till pH dropped to 5.5
Draining whey
Cheddaring of curd for 5 min or till pH dropped to 5.3
Milling of curd into finger size
Stretching in 82-85°C hot water
Moulding
Cold water washing
Brining (20% NaCl + 10% CaCl
2
chilled water)
Leaving for 24 hrs
Vacuum packaging
Figure 2. Preparation of mozzarella cheese from buffalo milk
Figure 3. Preparation of mozzarella cheese from mix milk
In this study, milk was standardized to 3% fat and casein 2.72
- 2.76% having C/F 0.90 -0.92. It was pasteurized to 72°C for 15
seconds and cooled to 40°C. It was cultured by 1.5-2.5% of
starter culture and 1-1.5% of yoghurt culture with continuous
agitation (1.5,1% for cow milk, 2.5,1.5% for buffalo milk and
2,1.25% for mix milk respectively) to pH 5.6- 5.8 (5.6 for cow, 5.8
for buffalo and 5.8 for mix milks respectively). Then the
coagulum was cut first horizontally and then vertically. After
5-10 min of healing, stirring was done for 10-15 min. About 45-
60% of whey was drained. The temperature of curd was slowly
raised from 38°C to 42-45°C with stirring to expel whey until
pH reaches 5.4-5.3. Whey was then drained. The curds were
left for matting or cheddaring till pH drops 5.3-5.0. The matted
curds were milled by the knife into a finger sized cut. Hot water
@ 75-85°C (82-85°C for buffalo curd, 80-82°C for mix curd and
75-80°C for cow curd) was added to curds. The mass was then
stretched and molded to shape. The hot, molded cheeses were
cooled in chilled water and brined in saturated salt solution
(20% NaCl) with 10% CaCl2for 24 hrs or till desired salt level.
Then it was vacuum packed in the sterile plastic (LDPE, 200μm)
pouch, weighed and cooled to 5°C in freezer.
Sampling: The sampling method of analysis was according
to NDDB, 2001. Cheese samples were stored at 5°C±2°C until
analyses were completed.
Chemical analysis: Fat content was determined by Gerber
method (NDDB, 2001) in milk and by Van Gulik method (NDDB,
2001) in cheese; total protein by Formal titration in milk and by
Kjeldahl method in cheese; pH by a pH meter both in milk and
cheese (NDDB, 2001); acidity in milk as per NDDB, (2001) and
in cheese as per AOAC, (2005); calcium contents by volumetric
Bhattarai & Acharya : J. Food Sci. & Technol. Nepal, 6 (94-101), 2010
96
method (K.C. and Rai, 2007); ash content as per Ranganna,
(2000); salt content as per NDDB, (2001); moisture contents
by oven drying method, DDC (1979) and yield as per Van
Slyke and Price, (1979).
Functional properties
Meltability: A suitable modification on Schrieber test was
made for the testing of the mozzarella cheese meltability.
Stretchability: Stretchability test was carried out based on
the principle of stretch test (Kosikowski, 1982) modified by
Ghosh and Singh, (1990) due to its simplicity.
Sensory evaluation of cheese: Mozzarella cheese samples were
evaluated by a selected panel of 9 judges on a 9-point hedonic
rating scale for appearance, texture, flavor, taste and overall
acceptability according to Ranganna, (2000).
Statistical data analysis: The data were analyzed by Genstat
programming (Genstat Discovery version) at 5% level of
significance. The means were compared using LSD and the
best treatment was selected.
Results and Discussion
Preliminary trials: During the preliminary trials for different
milk sources used in the experiment. Different amounts of
culture (range 1-1.5%) and rennet (2-2.5g/100L of milk) were
used to prepare cow, buffalo and mix cheeses. The rennetting
temperature, stretching pH and temperatures for different milks
used were varied in some trials. The stretchability, fat losses
in whey and stretched water, protein retention and losses,
flavor and taste profile (i.e. bitterness) and texture (i.e. smooth,
fibrous and shiny or coarse, rubbery and tough) were taken as
the basis for optimization of the process.
The key conclusion from the preliminary trials has been shown
in flow diagrams in (Table 1 and Figure1, 2 and 3) for different
milk sources which were the optimum conditions for mozzarella
cheese preparation using different milk sources. In general, it
can be concluded that culture of 1.5-2.5% starter culture and
1-1.5% yoghurt culture, rennet 2-2.5 g/100L milk, rennetting
temperature of 33-36°C, initial whey drainage of 45-60%,
cooking temperature of 40-45°C, stretching pH of 5.1-5.3 and
stretching hot water of 75-85°C were optimum conditions for
preparation of mozzarella cheese from cow, buffalo and mix
milk sources.
Cheese yields: The average actual yield of mozzarella cheese
was 11.02% whereas the average yield for the cheese adjusted
to 50% moisture was 10.75% (Table 2).
Table 2. Yield of mozzarella cheese from different milk sources
Parameters* A B C LSD
Yield (%) 10.94
a
(0.29) 10.71
a
(0.38) 11.45
c
(0.23) 0.302
Yield at 50% MC 10.63
a
(0.07) 10.84
a
(0.33) 10.77
a
(0.02) 0.1912
*Mean having different superscripts letters are significantly different (p<0.05), Standard
deviations are in parentheses. A-Sample of cow and buffalo milk, B- Sample of buffalo
milk C- Sample of cow milk, MC, Moisture content.
Table 1. Key conclusion for preparation of cow, buffalo and mix mozzarella cheeses
Parameters Cow cheese Buffalo cheese Mix cheese
Milk (C/F) 0.90 0.92 0.91
Culture (Starter + Yoghurt) 1.5% + 1% 2.5% + 1.5% 2.0% +1.25%
pH falls 5.6 in 40 Min 5.8 in 45 Min5.8 in 40 Min
Renneting (T°C @ g/100L milk) 33°C @ 2.5g 36°C @ 2.25g 35°C @ 2.40g
Keep 33-36°C/ 30 Min 36-38°C/ 35 Min33-38°C/ 30 Min
Draining whey 45% 50-60% 60%
Cooking 42-45°C / pH 5.4 40-43°C / pH5.4 42-45°C / pH 5.4
Cheddaring of curd 5 Min/ pH 5.1 5 Min/ pH 5.3 5 Min/ pH 5.2
Stretching water 75-80°C 82-85°C 80-82°C
Bhattarai & Acharya : J. Food Sci. & Technol. Nepal, 6 (94-101), 2010
97
Significant difference (p<0.05) was found in the actual yields
between A and C and B and C but non significant in yield
between A and B. Significant difference in the actual yield of
the cheese might be due to the increase in the moisture content
of sample-C. Non significant difference was found in yield at
moisture adjusted to 50% for all samples. Despite non-
significant differences in the yield between the samples,
sample-C can be regarded as better in terms of economic
aspects. Cow milk having lower solids is easier to manufacture
cheese requiring less culture and manufacturing time. This
saves great deal of cost and energy.
Chemical composition: The chemical composition of
mozzarella cheese prepared from different milk sources has
been shown in Table 3. The prepared cheeses were in
accordance with the Codex Standards 262-2007, (2009) for
mozzarella cheese. From the time period of addition of coagulant
to stretching was 109, 120 and 107min, respectively, for mix,
buffalo and cow milk cheeses (Table 3). The moisture retained
was decreased significantly (p<0.05) as time period longer.
One of the approaches to increase cheese moisture was to
shorten the total time for cheese-making process, thus
decreasing the time for syneresis and increasing the moisture
content of the cheese. To shorten total cheese-making time,
the amount of culture was increased for faster acid
development (Barbano et al., 1994).
Moisture and fat contents were within the legal requirements
for mozzarella cheese. The pH, acidity and salt concentration
Table 3. Chemical composition of mozzarella cheese from different milk sources
Parameters* A B C LSD
MC (%) 51.41
a
(1.30) 49.41
b
(1.77) 53.43
c
(0.95) 1.348
Fat (% db) 45.62
a
(0.72) 45.85
a
(0.09) 42.41
c
(1.34) 0.859
Protein(% db) 49.59
a
(2.57) 48.30
ac
(1.18) 46.76
c
(1.57) 1.823
M:P 2.17
a
(0.09) 1.93
b
(0.30) 2.45
c
(0.06) 0.183
Ash 3.86
a
(0.11) 3.92
a
(0.28) 3.79
a
(0.09) 0.181
Salt (%) 1.76
a
(0.05) 1.80
b
(0.06) 1.71
c
(0.07) 0.002
Ca(mg/100g) 503
a
(5.65) 512
b
(8.63) 485
c
(10.87) 8.42
*The values with different superscripts letters in same row are significantly different (p<0.05).Figures in the
parentheses are the standard deviation. A-Sample of cow and buffalo milk, B- Sample of buffalo milk, C-
Sample of cow milk, MC, Moisture content
of these cheeses were within the range for commercial cheeses.
There was significant difference (p<0.05) between samples in
salt content. Similarly, there was significant difference (p<0.05)
between the samples for calcium content. Cow cheese with
highest moisture content had low calcium content (485 mg/
100g) compared to others. The moisture content was found
inversely related to calcium content of the cheese. This
complies with Keller et al., 1973; Barbano et al., 1994; Joshi et
al., 2004 and Sameen et al., 2008.
Similarly, no significant difference (p<0.05) was found in fat
content between sample A and B on dry basis whereas
significant difference was found between samples A and C
and B and C. Similarly, significant difference was found in
protein content between sample A and C on dry basis. This
would be due to higher total solids in buffalo milk than cow
milk (Ganguli, 1992).
Fat and protein retention in cheeses: The samples differ
significantly (p<0.05) in terms of fat and protein retention (Table
4). The average fat retention in this study was somewhat lower
(80%). It might be due to lack of homogenization (Demott,
1983).
Significant difference (p<0.05) was found in fat lost in whey
and stretching water (Table 5) between samples A, B and C.
Similarly, significant differences (p<0.05) in protein losses was
found for samples A and B with C; the losses being highest for
cow cheese. The lower protein retention and higher losses
might be due to soft curd in cheese making.
Table 4. Fat and protein retention of mozzarella cheese from different milk sources
Parameters* A B C LSD
Fat retention (%) 81.07
a
(1.84) 83.83
b
(1.460) 75.25
c
(1.81) 1.67
Protein retention (%) 77.22
a
(2.67) 76.53
a
(2.57) 72.96
c
(1.73) 2.302
*The values with different superscripts letters in same row are significantly different (p<0.05). Figures in the
parentheses are standard deviation. A-Sample of cow and buffalo milk, B- Sample of buffalo milk, C-
Sample of cow milk
Bhattarai & Acharya : J. Food Sci. & Technol. Nepal, 6 (94-101), 2010
98
Table 7. Functional properties of mozzarella cheese from different milk sources
Parameters* A B C LSD
Meltability 4.05
a
(0.11) 3.06
b
(.027) 4.33
c
(0.26) 0.2442
Stretchability 3.50
a
(0.83) 3.00
a
(0.81) 4.50
ac
(0.83) 1.054
*The values with different superscripts letters in same row are significantly different (p<0.05). Figures in the
parentheses are standard deviation. A-Sample of cow and buffalo milk, B- Sample of buffalo milk, C-
Sample of cow milk
Acidity and pH: The pH, acidity and calcium content of cheese
are the important parameters in cheese structure, texture,
functionality and flavor quality (Table 6). Significant differences
were found in acidity and pH of all cheese samples at p<0.05.
Statistically, pH of the sample B was significantly higher than
sample A and C. The higher pH in sample B could be the
reason that it contains higher calcium content than others.
Similarly, acidity of the sample B was significantly lower than
A and C which have non-significant difference (p<0.05). High
acid (or low pH) cheeses A and C have less calcium in finished
cheese. Hence, they are fewer firms and have high functional
properties. The flavor, taste and overall acceptance for high
acid cheeses A and C were significantly higher than low acid
cheese B.
Cheese firmness is associated with its calcium content, and its
firmness decreased as calcium content decreases. During the
cheese making process, the decrease in curd pH plays an
important role in solubilizing the colloidal calcium phosphate
from the casein matrix, thus freeing a large proportion of calcium
from the curd, losing it to the whey (Joshi et al., 2003). Because
firmness is a highly influential attribute on shredding quality,
it is important to retain sufficient calcium in the cheese so it is
not too soft and gummy when shredded.
The acidity on the other hand prevents the growth of spoilage
organisms, affects the activity of coagulant during
manufacturing and ripening, solubilizes the colloidal calcium
phosphate, promotes syneresis and influences the activity of
enzymes. Thus it affects cheese texture and flavor quality
(Sameen et al., 2008).
Functional properties: The functional properties of the
mozzarella cheese prepared by using different milk sources
have been presented in Table 7. Significant difference (p<0.05)
was found in meltability for samples A, B and C. Significant
difference was found in stretchability for samples B and C
only.
Table 6. Acidity and pH in mozzarella cheese in different milk sources
Parameters* A B C LSD
Acidity 0.76a(0.02) 0.73b(0.02) 0.78a(0.01) 0.0232
pH 5.15a(0.07) 5.21b(0.06) 5.07c(0.04) 0.058
*The values with different superscripts letters in same row are significantly different (p<0.05). Figures in the
parentheses are standard deviation. A-Sample of cow and buffalo milk, B- Sample of buffalo milk, C-
Sample of cow milk
Table 5. Fat and protein losses in mozzarella cheese in different milk sources
Parameters* A B C LSD
Fat lost in whey (%) 12.1
a
(0.35) 9.84
b
(0.55) 13.9
c
(0.69) 0.539
Fat lost in stretched water (%) 5.88
a
(0.27) 6.2
b
(0.31) 8.7
c
(0.38) 0.318
Protein lost (Overall %) 22.77
a
(2.67) 23.46
a
(2.57) 27.04
c
(1.73) 2.302
*The values with different superscripts letters in same row are significantly different (p<0.05). Figures in the
parentheses are standard deviation. A-Sample of cow and buffalo milk, B- Sample of buffalo milk, C-
Sample of cow milk
Bhattarai & Acharya : J. Food Sci. & Technol. Nepal, 6 (94-101), 2010
99
Meltability and fat leakage: Meltability of different cheeses
is presented in Table 7. On 5th day of storage, sample C had the
maximum meltability followed by A and B which had 4.33, 4.05
and 3.06 respectively. The cheese sample C had highest
meltability ratio due to the decreased calcium content and due
to higher amount of moisture present (Mc Mahon and Oberg,
1990; Fife et al., 1996) compared to sample B and A.
The fresh cheese was typically firm and has poor melting
properties and although it was stretchable. However as the
cheese matures, the texture softens and there is an increase in
melt (Rowney et al., 1999). The improvement in meltability is
due to dislodgement of para-casein matrix (Sheehan and
Guinee, 2004). As the time period increased the meltability of
all cheese samples increased significantly but the trend of
increase remained same (Sameen et al., 2008).
There was significant difference (p<0.05) between samples in
salt content. Melting profile can be correlated to fat leakage
i.e. (free oil formation) and salt content. In this study, meltability
was highest with cow cheese having low salt content (hence
increased fat leakage) compared to mix and buffalo cheese
(Kindstedt and Kailey, 1992). The present study was performed
with unhomogenized milk. Unhomogenized state of milk fat
also increases fat leakage (Tunick, 1994; Rudan et al., 1999).
Stretchability: The statistical analysis shows that the samples
were significantly different (p<0.05). The LSD values indicate
that the sample C was significantly different from sample B
but there was no significant difference between samples A
and B and A and C. Stretchability of sample C was found to be
highest as shown in Table 7. According to Joshi et al., (2004),
decrease in the calcium content would lead to the decreased
structural rigidity of the cheese matrix consequently increasing
the stretchability. The obtained result complies with the
Gunasekaran and Kuo, (2002), who concluded cheese with
greater meltability had the higher stretchability.
There was significant difference (p<0.05) between samples for
moisture to protein ratio. The ratio was found to be highest for
sample C followed by A and B. With the increase of M: P ratio,
the functionality of mozzarella cheese is found to be increased.
This complies well with Merrill et al., 1994 and Fife et al., 1996.
Sensory evaluation of cheese: The sensory scores of the
mozzarella cheese are Graphically in Table 8. The statistical
analysis shows that the flavor, texture, taste and overall
characteristics are significantly different (p<0.05). Due to
variation in milk sources, appearance was not significantly
affected (p<0.05). Appearance of the cheese samples was
found to be white and shiny. The texture of the cheese sample
was soft. However, sample B was slightly hard and rubbery.
This might be due to the higher calcium content in the cheese.
Among sensory attributes the flavor is considered to be the
most important factor in determining consumers response.
Flavor of all samples on 5th days of storage improved because
during ripening the metabolic processes are responsible for
the basic flavor and texture changes (Smith et al., 2005). In
cheeses when biochemical reactions continued for breakdown
of fat and protein by activity of microbial and residual rennet
more flavoring compound were produced and casein was
hydrolyzed which give smooth texture (Barbano et al., 1994).
Most of the panelists liked the flavor of sample C followed by
A and B. Similarly, proportionately higher amount of lactic
acid produced by the natural flora of mix milk sample A could
be the reason for the highest score for taste. Slight bitter taste
was observed with the sample B. This might be due to higher
amount of calcium content as compared to others. The sample
C had the second higher score for taste. The results revealed
higher overall acceptance, flavor, texture and taste for cow
and mix cheese than buffalo cheese (Table 8).
Table 8. Mean score of sensory attributes of mozzarella cheese
Parameters* A B C LSD
Flavor 7.67a(1.00) 6.77b(0.83) 7.77a(0.83) 0.703
Appearance 7.66a(1.11) 7.00a(0.86) 7.88a(0.78) 0.983
Taste 8.33a(0.71) 7.00b(0.86) 7.66ab (1.00) 0.79
Texture 7.55a(0.52) 7.00a(0.71) 7.33a(0.71) 0.732
Overall 8.00a(0.86) 6.67b(1.00) 8.00a(0.71) 0.865
*The values with different superscripts letters in same row are significantly different (p<0.05). Figures in the
parentheses are standard deviation. A-Sample of cow and buffalo milk, B- Sample of buffalo milk, C-
Sample of cow milk
Bhattarai & Acharya : J. Food Sci. & Technol. Nepal, 6 (94-101), 2010
100
Conclusion
Cheese made from buffalo and mix milk had higher nutritive
value i.e. higher fat and protein content than cow cheese.
Cheese made from cow milk had higher functional scores.
Hence it is more suitable for pizza topping than cheese from
buffalo and mix milk. On sensory evaluation, cheese made
from cow and mix milk had higher overall scores. Hence mix
cheese can alternately used to pizza topping. The fat and
protein losses in all cheese samples were minimized by bringing
variation in process, technology and ingredients for mozzarella
cheese making which were better than commercial process
employed. A process has been optimized to produce mozzarella
cheese from different milk sources of uniform composition.
References
Acharya P. P. (2010). Textbook of Dairy Technology, Prasanti
publication. Putalisadak, Kathmandu
Adhikari R. P. and Bhandari C. (2064). Production Technology
of Dairy Products. Gyanjyoti Pustak Pasal, Kathmandu,
pp 68-70.
Ahmed S. I., Gaucher, F., Rousseau E., Beaucher M. Piot,
Grongnet J. F. and Graucheron F. (2008). Effects of
acidification on physic-chemical characteristics of buffalo
milk, a comparison with cows milk. Food Chem., 106: 11-
17.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2005). Official
Methods of Analysis. 18th edn, USA.
Bajracharya G. (2009). Personal Communication. Dairy
Technologist, Chief Technical Officer, Dairy Development
Corporation, Kathmandu.
Barbano D. M., Yun J. J. and Kindstedt P. S. (1994). Mozzarella
cheese making by a stirred curd, no brine procedure. J.
Dairy Sci., 77: 2687-2694.
Basnet G. B. (2009). Personal Communication, Dairy
Development Corporation, Kathmandu.
Codex standard 262-2007 (2009). Codex standards for
mozzarella. Available at: www.foodnara.go.kr/pollution/
lib/fboard_down.jsp?seq=136andfseq, accessed on 30th
December 2009.
Colavito A. L. (1997). High hill yak cheese production in Nepal.
Ph. D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, USA.
DDC (1979). Quality Control Handbook, Dairy Development
Corporation, DDC, Nepal.
Demott B. J. (1983). Recovery of Milk Constituents in a
Mozzarella-Like Product Manufactured from Nonfat Dry
Milk and Cream by Direct Acidification at 4 and 35°C. J.
Dairy Sci., Vol (66) No. 12: 2501-2506.
FAO (1995). Manual on the production of traditional buffalo
mozzarella cheese. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/
AGAInfo/subjects/socuments/milk/mozzarella.pdf,
accessed on 13th November 2009.
Farkye N. Y. (2004), Cheese technology. J. Soc. Dairy Technol.,
57: 91-98.
Fife R. L., McMahon D. J. and Oberg C. J. (1996). Functionality
of low fat Mozzarella cheese. J. Dairy Sci., 79:1903-1910.
Ganguli N.C., (1992). Milk processing and marketing. In: N. M.
Tulloh and J. H. G. Holmes (Eds), Buffalo production in
subseries: production system approach, pp 393-411.
Ghosh B. C. and Singh S. (1990), Effect of heat treatment on
the quality of mozzarella cheese from buffalo milk. Indian
J. Food Sci. Technol., 27(4): 218-220.
Gunasekaran S. and Kuo M. I. (2002). Effect of frozen storage
on physical properties of pasta filata and nonpasta filata
mozzarella cheeses. J Dairy Sci., 86: 1108-1117.
IDF (2007). World dairy situation. International Dairy
Federation Bulletin, No 423/2007
Innovations in dairy (1998). Improving mozzarella Manufacture
and Quality Part I, Processing technologies for efficient
manufacture of high-quality mozzarella cheese, available
at: http://www.dairyinfo.com/mozzarella1. pdf Accessed
on 25th November 2008.
Innovations in dairy (1999). Improving mozzarella Manufacture
and Quality Part II, Ingredient technologies for
enhancing the quality of mozzarella cheese. Available at:
http://www.dairyinfo.com/mozzarella2.pdf Accessed on
25th November 2008.
Joshi N. S., Muthukumarappan K. and Dave R. I. (2003).
Understanding the role of calcium in functionality of part
skim Mozzarella cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 19181926
Joshi N. S., Muthukumarappan K. and Dave R. I. (2004). Effect
of calcium on microstructure and meltability of part skim
mozzarella cheese. J. Dairy Sci., 87: 1975-1985.
K. C., J. B. and Rai B. K. (2007). Basic food analysis handbook,
(1st edn), Prompt Printers Pvt. Ltd., Kathmandu, Nepal.
Keller B., Olson N. F. and Richardson T. (1973). Mineral
retention and rheological properties of mozzarella cheese
made by direct acidification. J. Dairy Sci., 57(2): 174-180.
Kindstedt P. S. and L. J. Kiely. (1992). Revised protocol for the
analysis of melting properties of Mozzarella cheese by
helical viscometry. J. Dairy Sci., 75: 676-682.
Kosikowski F. V. (1982). Cheese and fermented milk foods.
Edwards Bros. Inc. Michigan USA.
Lincourt D, Reddy D. and Smith L. (2009). Natural Cheese
Training, Organized by FAO in Pokhara Model Dairy,
April.
Bhattarai & Acharya : J. Food Sci. & Technol. Nepal, 6 (94-101), 2010
101
McMahon D. J. and C. J. Oberg (1998). Influence of fat, moisture
and salt on functional properties of Mozzarella cheese.
Aust. J Dairy Technol., 53: 98-101.
Merrill R. K., Oberg C. J. and McMahon D. J. (1994). A method
for manufacturing reduced fat mozzarella cheese. J Dairy
Sci., 77:1783-1789.
NDDB (2001). Laboratory Handbook for Dairy Industry. NDDB.
Ranganna S. (2000). Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control
for Fruit and Vegetable Products, Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Co. Ltd, pp 1038-1040, 1052-1054
Rowney M. K., Roupas P., Hickey M. W. and Everett D. W.
(1999). Factors affecting functionality of Mozzarella
cheese. Aust. J. Dairy Tech., 54: 94-102
Rudan M. A., D. M. Barbano J. J. Yun and P. S. Kindstedt.
(1999). Effect of fat reduction on chemical composition,
proteolysis, functionality, and yield of Mozzarella cheese.
J. Dairy Sci., 82: 661-672.
Sameen A., Anjum F. M., Huma N. and Nawaz H. (2008). Quality
Evaluation of Mozzarella Cheese from Different Milk
Sources. Pakistan J. Nutri., 7 (6): 753-756.
Sheehan J. J. and Guinee T. P. (2004). Effect of pH and calcium
level on the biochemical, textural and functional
properties of reduced-fat Mozzarella cheese. Int. Dairy
J., 14: 161-172.
Smith G., Smith B. A., Wim J. M. and Engels J. M. (2005). Flavor
formation by lactic acid bacteria and biochemical flavor
profiling of cheese products. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.,29:
591-610.
Tunick M. H. (1994). Effects of homogenization and proteolysis
on free oil in Mozzarella cheese. J. Dairy Sci., 77: 2487-
2493
Van Slyke L.L. and Price W. V. (1979). Cheese. Ridgeview
Publication Co., Atascadero, CA.
Zicarelli L. (2004). Buffalo Milk: Its properties, Dairy yield and
Mozzarella Production. Vet. Res. Comm., 28:127-135.
Bhattarai & Acharya : J. Food Sci. & Technol. Nepal, 6 (94-101), 2010
