Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T22:42:04.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes during storage in stability and composition of ultra-heat-treated aseptically-packed cream of 18% fat content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

M. Anderson ,
B. E. Brooker ,
T. E. Cawston  and
G. C. Cheeseman
M. Anderson
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
B. E. Brooker
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
T. E. Cawston
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
G. C. Cheeseman
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The stability of homogenized ultra-heat-treated (UHT) aseptically-packed cream of 18 % fat content when added to hot coffee was indirectly monitored in 10 batches of cream, stored for 10 weeks at different temperatures. A tendency to coagulate under standard conditions (instability) is known as feathering. Stability was determined by a procedure in which acetate buffer instead of coffee solution was used as the test solution. The distribution of components between the fat and aqueous phases of the stored cream was also monitored. Feathering score (stability) decreased during storage but was not accompanied by any increase in non-protein nitrogen levels. The amount of casein and Ca in the fat phase of the cream increased with time and was inversely related to feathering score. Some batches of cream contained 0·1 % Na2CO3 and 0·1 %Na citrate as stabilizers and these additions were found to improve feathering scores early in the storage period. Initially, the fat phase of these creams contained less casein and Ca than those without the additives, but after 10 weeks the differences in feathering score and in casein and Ca distribution, between the 2 types of cream diminished. Examination by electron microscopy showed that casein micelles were associated with fat globules, apparently linking several globules together, which was less in the creams containing additives, but after 10 weeks the appearance of all creams was similar. Electrophoretic separation of the fat globule membrane (FGM) proteins by SDS-polyacrylamide-gel electrophoresis showed that casein was the principal protein component, but that β-lactoglobulin and native FGM proteins were aslo present.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 1977 , pp. 111 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, M., Cawston, T. E. & Cheeseman, G. C. (1974). Biochemical Journal 139, 653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, P. S. Jr, Toribara, T. Y. & Warner, H. (1956). Analytical Chemistry 28, 1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. S. & Gelda, C. S. (1974). Journal of Dairy Science 57, 1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doan, F. J. (1929). Journal of Dairy Science 12, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doan, F. J. (1931). Journal of Dairy Science 14, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folch, J., Lees, M. & Sloane Stanley, G. H. (1957). Journal of Biological Chemistry 226, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, K. K., Holsinger, V. H., Caha, J. & Pallansch, M. J. (1960). Journal of Dairy Science 43, 1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glazier, L. R. (1967). American Dairy Review 29 (2), 70.Google Scholar
Greenbank, G. R. & Pallansch, M. J. (1961). Journal of Dairy Science 44, 1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henstra, S. & Schmidt, D. G. (1970). Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 24, 45.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. H. & Brunner, J. R. (1960). Journal of Dairy Science 43, 912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koops, J. & Tarassuk, N. P. (1959). Netherlands Milk and Daiiy Journal 13, 180.Google Scholar
Lang, C. A. (1958). Analytical Chemistry 30, 1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. E., Van Winkle, Q. & Gould, I. A. (1963). Journal of Dairy Science 46, 1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, G. H., Norton, R. S. & Sawyer, W. H. (1971). Journal of Dairy Research 38, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, H. & Walstra, P. (1974 a). Technical Communication, Commonwealth Bureau of Dairy Science and Technology, No. 4, p. 92.Google Scholar
Mulder, H. & Walstra, P. (1974 b). Technical Communication, Commonwealth Bureau of Dairy Science and Technology, No. 4, p. 175.Google Scholar
Reynolds, E. S. (1963). Journal of Cell Biology 17, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, D. (1962). Journal of Dairy Science 45, 1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samel, R., Weaver, R. W. V. & Gammack, D. B. (1971). Journal of Dairy Research 38, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, W. H. (1969). Journal of Dairy Science 52, 1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, D. G., Buchheim, W. & Koops, J. (1971). Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 25, 200.Google Scholar
Thomas, E. L., Nielsen, A. J. & Olson, J. C. Jr (1955). American Milk Review 17 (1), 50.Google Scholar
Tracey, P. H. & Ruehe, H. A. (1928). Creamery and Milk Plant Monthly 17 (5), 21.Google Scholar
Webb, B. H. (1931). Journal of Dairy Science 14, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, B. H. & Holm, G. E. (1928). Journal of Dairy Science 11, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar