Content uploaded by Carolina Ramirez Lopez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carolina Ramirez Lopez on Sep 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Effect of Goat and Cow Milk Ratios on the
Physicochemical, Rheological, and Sensory
Properties of a Fresh Panela Cheese
Carolina Ram´
ırez-L´
opez and Jorge Fernando V´
elez-Ruiz
Abstract: Fresh cheeses, Panela type, were manufactured from cow milk and with goat milk incorporation, constituting
4blendsofmilks(G10:C90,G20:C80,G30:C70,G40:C60,v/v).Thecheeseswereanalyzedtodeterminetheeffectof
the different goat milk ratios on the physicochemical, textural, rheological, and sensory properties over 15 d of storage.
Significant differences in protein (14.6% to 18.5%), fat (13.0% to 19.4%), and moisture contents (51.7% to 61.3%), pH
(6.38 to 6.67), color (Lh>64.4, ah>1.06, bh>5.14), textural (σf>14.8 kPa, εC: 0.77 to 0.79, elasticity modulus >
13.5 kPa), and rheological parameters (G′>G′′,G
′:10.6to31.9kPa,G
′′:2.39to7.31kPa,tanδ:0.21to0.24)were
detected as a function of the milks ratio, as well as a function of the storage time. The incorporation of goat milk improved
the overall quality in the formulation of Panela cheese, enhancing the texture, flavor and aroma, commonly associated
with hand-crafted cheeses when they are used in the proper ratio. Furthermore, the nutritional value of the cheese is
increased with the incorporation of goat milk, which can contribute to a better consumer health.
Keywords: fresh Panela cheese, goat and cow milk, physicochemical and rheological properties, sensorial analysis
Introduction
Traditional, artisanal, or fresh cheeses have been produced lo-
cally or regionally for many generations, and they hold an im-
portant place in food culture and consumer demand. In Mex-
ico, the production of fresh cheese is remarkable, with several
types representing approximately 80% of purchased cheese prod-
ucts (Jim´
enez-Guzm´
an, Flores-N´
ajera, Cruz-Guerrero, & Garc´
ıa-
Garibay, 2009). Panela cheese is a soft cheese produced by en-
zymatic or/and acid coagulation, without ripening, with little or
without starter culture, and with an average yield of 13 to 14 kg
of cheese per 100 L of pasteurized milk; it is usually made with
whole cow milk to ensure a sweet fresh-milk flavor. The chemical
composition of Panela cheese varies depending on the raw materi-
als and processing conditions; typically, the chemical composition
lies in the following ranges: 50% to 60% moisture, 13% to 25% fat,
16% to 20% protein, and 1.3% to 1.8% salt with pH values of 5.6 to
6.4 (Caro et al., 2014; Escobar et al., 2012; Van Hekken & Farkye,
2003). In other countries as well as in Mexico and the Hispanic
community of the United States, Panela cheese is one of the most
consumed dairy products (Saxer, Schwenninger, & Lacroix, 2013;
Tu n i c k & Va n H e k k e n , 2 0 1 0 ; Va n H e k ke n & F a r k y e , 2 0 0 3 ) .
For fresh cheese manufacturing, and particularly for Panela
cheese, cow milk is commonly used and preferred because it is
more abundant, readily available, and less expensive than goat
milk. In recent years, the importance of goat milk for use in
Panela cheese production has been emphasized, due to its sensory
JFDS-2017-1053 Submitted 7/1/2017, Accepted 4/29/2018. Authors Ram´
ırez-
L´
opez and V´
elez-Ruiz are with Dept. de Ingenier´
ıa Qu´
ımica y Alimentos, Univ.
de las Am´
ericas Puebla, Exhacienda Sta. Catarina M´
artir S/N, Cholula, Puebla,
C.P. 72810 , M´
exico. Author Ram´
ırez-L´
opez is also with Inst. Polit´
ecnico Nacional,
Centro de Investigaci´
on en Biotecnolog´
ıa Aplicada, Exhacienda San Juan Molino
Km 1.5 Carretera estatal Sta. In´
es Tecuexcomac-Tepetitla, Tlaxcala, C.P. 90700,
M´
exico. Author V´
elez-Ruiz is also with FN Consultores, S.A. de C. V. Institute de
Desarrollo e Innovaci´
on y Desarrollo Tecnol´
ogico, Boulevard del Ni˜
no Poblano 2901,
Unidad Territorial Atlixcayotl, Puebla, C.P. 72197, M´
exico. Direct inquiries to author
Ram´
ırez-L´
opez (E-mail: carolina.ramirezlz@udlap.mx).
attributes and nutritional contributions (Masotti, Battelli, & De
Noni, 2012; Park, Ju´
arez, Ramos, & Haenlein, 2007). Although
Mexico is one of the largest producers of goat milk (FAOSTAT,
2012), there is little information regarding its contribution to the
quality of several dairy products as well as dairy production plants.
Certain properties of goat milk are known to be nutritionally
superior when compared to those of cow milk (Turkmen, 2017).
Humans have a greater tolerance to goat milk, which is derived
from the whey protein content and structural differences in the
insoluble and soluble proteins (Abbas, Hassan, Abd El-Gawad, &
Enab, 2014). Among goat and cow milks, one of the most impor-
tant differences are the characteristics of the gel and the coagulation
time, which is due to the relationship between the content of the
coagulable proteins and each type of casein present. Goat milk
contains more β-casein and α-s2 fraction than cow milk, whereas
cow milk contains more αs1-casein; this leads to during coagula-
tion, the gel from goat milk with equal casein content is not firm
as cow milk, although the renneting time is shorter (Sheehan,
Patel, Drake, & McSeeney, 2009). It also has a higher proportion
of small fat globules, providing a better cheese digestibility (Attaie
&Richter,2000;Bertonetal.,2012;Queirogaetal.,2013).
The physicochemical, rheological, and sensory properties of
cheese are developed during the formulation and processing steps,
and they have an important influence on the texture and consumer
acceptance of the product (Foegeding, Brown, Drake, & Daubert,
2003). During cheese manufacturing, the formation of the cheese
matrix results from physically and chemically changes in milk.
The production of acids, lipolysis, proteolysis and water loss, along
with other changes, continue during ripening due to microbial
activity (Sousa, Ard¨
o, & McSweeney, 2001; Zalazar et al., 2002).
The cheese properties are given in terms of its composition
and interaction strengths between the structural elements. The
compositional, microstructural, physicochemical, and textural
information is very useful to characterize and differentiate a
variety of cheeses and their formulations (Guerra-Mart´
ınez,
Montejano, & Mart´
ın-del-Campo, 2012; Tunick, 2000).
C⃝2018 Institute of Food Technologists R⃝
1862 Journal of Food Science !Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018 doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.14195
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
The texture of cheese, in particular, is one of the most important
attributes to determine its identity (Bourne, 2002). Additionally,
from a cultural point of view, the texture of Panela cheese in
Mexico and many countries drives to consumer-purchasing deci-
sions. Texture parameters, measured by instruments or by sensory
assessments, are very important to follow product performance
in the food industry and to identify consumer acceptance as well.
As it has been recognized by several researchers, some texture
measurements may be related to the oral perception (Bourne,
2002; Foegeding et al., 2011; Queiroga et al., 2013; V´
elez-Ruiz,
2009). For the characterization of cheese texture, techniques
such as uniaxial compression, creep-relaxation, and textural
profile analysis (TPA) are most commonly used. The viscoelastic
properties can be measured using creep, stress relaxation, and
dynamics tests, and they provide valuable information about the
cheese products (Bourne, 2002; Foegeding et al., 2011; Queiroga
et al., 2013; V´
elez-Ruiz, 2009).
Previous reports have been published on the characterization
of the nutritional, textural, rheological and sensory properties
for certain types of fresh cheeses. Van Hekken and Farkye (2003)
recognized the importance of the textural attributes and their
correlation to sensory evaluations. They measured the textural
parameters of 4 fresh Mexican cheeses, in which a wide range
of characteristics were quantified: 17 to 56 N for hardness, 19
to 230 mJ for masticability, 14 to 56 N.s for rigidity, and 1 to
2.4 N for meltability. Guerra-Mart´
ınez et al. (2012) analyzed
Panela cheese made from cow milk in order to determine the
relationship between its physicochemical properties and textural
changes during storage for 15d, and they found significant
differences in all the evaluated physicochemical parameters as well
as in cohesiveness and springiness values. Queiroga et al. (2013)
reported that less than a 50% substitution of goat milk on a type
of fresh cheese (Coalho) consumed in Brazil, did not produce
any changes in the physicochemical and instrumental texture
results, except for the hardness, which decreased. Additionally,
milk blending improved the sensory acceptability of Coalho
cheese. Chemical composition, sensory and functional properties
of selected Mexican cheeses, including Panela cheese from
regional dairy plants in Central Mexico, were reported by Caro
et al. (2014), who found a high variability in these parameters
as a result of a lack standardization of milk and cheese-making
process.
Although related studies exist, more research is required to
understand and characterize traditional fresh cheeses as well as
modified formulations and to determine the associated properties
and changes. Therefore, the objective of this research was to
evaluate the use of different volumetric ratios of goat and cow
milk on the physicochemical, textural, rheological, and sensory
characteristics of both fresh and stored samples of 4 different kinds
of Panela cheese.
Materials and Methods
Milk
Pasteurized and nonhomogenized goat milk (63 °C/30 min)
was collected on two occasions from a local farmer (Rancho El
Sahuaro, Tecamachalco, Puebla, Mexico) during the 1st half of
the year; meanwhile, trademark pasteurized and homogenized
cow milk (LalaTM) was also used and acquired from a local
supermarket.
The milk compositions, obtained from a MilkoScanTM dairy
analyzer (model S50, FOSS Electric, Hillerød, Denmark), were:
3.71 fat, 3.24 protein, 4.45 lactose, and 8.57% nonfat solids (NFS)
obtained as mean values for goat milk; while 3.40% fat, 3.29%
protein, 4.58% lactose, and 8.70% NFS, also obtained as mean
values for cow milk.
Cheese manufacture
Four milk blends were prepared to manufacture Panela cheese
through the partial substitution of cow milk (C) by goat milk
(G). They are identified as G10:C90, G20:C80, G30:C70, and
G40:C60 (v/v) and correspond to the goat and cow milk ratios.
Additionally, Panela cheese was prepared from only cow milk
(C100) as a control.
A batch of 8 L of milk was used for each formulation. The
general procedure was to warm up the milk at 35 ±2°C, adding 8
mL of a solution with 10% CaCl2in continuous agitation as well as
800 µL of a microbial rennet (CHY-MAX R⃝,strength1:10000,
Chr. Hansen, Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.A.). The milk was allowed to
stand for 30 min, and after the curd formation, it was cut in 1 cm2
squares. The curd remained at rest for 5 min before draining and
was then stirred at 80 to 100 rpm for 25 min at 42 °C to achieve
grain formation, in which approximately 50% of the serum was
drained off. After this step, table salt was incorporated into the
curd at 1.2% (w/v) with respect to initial volume of milk. Then,
the curd was placed in perforated plastic molds (14.5 ×10.5 ×
8.0 cm), filling in around three-fourth of its capacity (approxi-
mately 10.5 oz) to allow free draining (by gravity) during 30 min,
after which the curd was turned over in the same mold and allowed
to stand for another 30 min before packaging. Finally, each bar of
cheese with proximally 280 g of drained mass was vacuum-packed;
the air removal was carried out at 150 mbar without generation
of modified atmosphere in high-barrier polyethylene bags and
stored under refrigeration (4 to 7 °C) for further analysis.
Composition and physicochemical parameters
The fat and protein contents were determined by extraction and
digestion, respectively, following two official methods, 989.05 and
920.123 (American Organization of Analytical Chemists [AOAC]
International, 2005). The pH was determined by the immersion
of a previously calibrated digital potentiometer (Conductronic
S.A., Puebla, MEXICO) using 10 g of cheese and 10 mL of
distilled water (NOM-121-SSA1-1994 Official Mexican Norm,
1994). The acidity was determined by titration with NaOH fol-
lowing the method 920.124 (AOAC International, 2005), and the
moisture content was determined by water evaporation according
to the method 948.12 (AOAC International, 2005). Finally, the
water activity (Aw) was determined for each formulation using a
Decagon AquaLab meter (Model 3 TE, Pullman, WA, U.S.A.).
All determinations were performed in triplicate.
The color was measured with a Gardner Color System/05 col-
orimeter (Hunter Labs, Reston, VA, U.S.A.) based on a procedure
described by Tunick, Van Hekken, Iandola, and Tomasula (2012).
After stabilizing the cheese temperature at 15 °C overnight, a slice
of 40 mm in height and 30 mm in length was cut from the inner
part of the cheese bar for the color determination. A 3.5-cm-thick
layer was covered with the white standard plate (X=78.50; Y=
83.32; Z=87.94) to measure at reflection mode using a 10 mm di-
aphragm aperture. The results are given in the Hunter scale system
for an illuminant D 65 and a 10°angle of vision. Color measure-
ments from the Hunter tri-stimulus scale with Lh(brightness), ah
(redness), bh(yellowness) were collected and used to calculate the
chroma (Cab), hue angle (hab), and total color change (&E) from
Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018 !Journal of Food Science 1863
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
Eq. (1) to (3) (Guo, Van Hekken, Tomasula, Shieh, & Tunick,
2011; V´
elez-Ruiz, 2013); each sample was run in triplicate.
Cab =!a2
h+b2
h(1)
hab =tan−1(ah+bh)(2)
&E=!(Lh−L0)2+(ah−a0)2+(bh−b0)2(3)
In Eq. (3), &Erepresent the differences between the color
parameters of the blended and control Panela cheeses, in which
Lh,a
h,and bhare for the different cheeses, and Lh0,ah0,andbh0
designate the control Panela cheese (C100 =100% cow milk)
parameters.
Instrumental texture parameters
The sample preparation and testing were based on methods
cited by Tunick and Van Hekken (2010) and Buffa, Trujillo,
Pavia, and Guamis (2001). A Texture Analyzer TA.XT2 (Texture
Technologies Corp., Scarsdale, NY, U.S.A.) was used for the tex-
tural determinations, using a stainless steel probe with a diameter
of 35 mm, a load cell of 25 kg, and using the Texture Expert
software version 1.22. Cylindrical samples of 15 mm diameter and
height were cut and held at room temperature (21 ±2°C) for
3 hr before carrying out the textural tests. The textural properties
of all cheese samples were determined after 1, 8, and 15 days of
storage. Each test was completed six times for each cheese sample.
Uniaxial compression test. In the simple uniaxial compres-
sion test, a downward force was applied to a cheese sample using
a plate device, and three textural parameters were obtained. The
samples were compressed to 80% of their original height at a con-
stant descendent speed of 1.3 mm/s. The resulting deformation
was expressed as the Cauchy strain (εC) and calculated from Eq.
(4) (Calzada & Peleg, 1978; V´
elez-Ruiz, 2013).
εc=&L
L=L0−L
L0
(4)
In Eq. (4), εC=Cauchy strain (dimensionless), &L=
dimension change (m), L0=initial dimension (m), and L=final
dimension (m).
Concurrently, the fracture stress was computed from the ap-
plied force and contact surface area of the sample at a specific time
according to Eq. (5) (Buffa et al., 2001; Calzada & Peleg, 1978):
σf=F
A(5)
In Eq. (5), σf=fracture stress (Pa), F=applied force (N),
and A=contact area (m2)attime(t). Finally, the elastic or
Young’s modulus was determined as the maximum slope of the
compression curve relating the stress and strain (Bourne, 2002;
V´
elez-Ruiz, 2009, 2013).
Creep test or recovery curve. In the creep test, a constant
stress was applied to a cheese sample, and its strain was measured
as a function of time (Steffe, 1992; V´
elez-Ruiz, 2013). The creep
test was performed at a 10% compression of the sample over
150 s, with a downward speed of 3.3 mm/s for the plate device
(Buffa et al., 2001). From the plot of the strain or compliance data
compared with time for each sample cheese, the creep-relaxation
curves were constructed. The creep test has been used previously
to study the viscoelastic properties of fresh cheese and mainly to
follow its evolution during the aging stage (Foegeding et al., 2003).
Textural Profile Analysis (TPA). For TPA, cheese samples
were compressed to 75% of their original height with a plate
descending at a constant speed of 1.6 mm/s using a standardized
method provided with the instrument. Four of the most rep-
resentative parameters were taken from the TPA performance:
hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, and chewiness.
Rheological parameters
The rheological parameters were determined from small
amplitude oscillatory shear analyses using a controlled stress
rheometer ARES RF-SIII (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE,
U.S.A.), with a serrated parallel plate geometry with a 25 mm
dia (Guo et al., 2011). Once the rheometer was calibrated, the
cheese samples (of a cylindrical shape 28 to 30 mm in diameter
and 2 to 3 mm in height) were placed down with a correspondent
separation of 2 to 3 mm between plates; then, the cheese samples
were allowed to stand for 5 min for relaxation to occur.
The oscillatory tests were handled with the computer software
control Orchestrator version 8.03 (TA Instruments). Initially,
these tests were carried out to detect the stress sweep cor-
responding to the linear region; and eventually, the sweep
frequency was performed from 0.1 to 100 rad/s to obtain the
correspondent viscoelastic parameters. The measurements were
performed in duplicate at a controlled temperature of 21 ±0.5 °C
using a water recirculating system (Thermo Haake, Karlsruhe,
Germany).
Sensory analysis of texture
The textural sensory evaluation of the cheeses was carried
out 24 hr after processing by applying the technique known
as “Quantitative Descriptive Analysis” (QDA) with a trained
panel consisting of 15 selected assessors (11 women and 4 men),
between 21 and 45 years old. A 5-point scale was employed to
express the perceived intensity of each textural property ranging
from “null” to “extreme” (Murray, Delahunty, & Baxter, 2001;
Stone, 1992). Descriptive sensory analysis is a tool for evaluating
qualitative and quantitative aspects of texture, differentiating
samples, and defining the relationship between the sensory and
instrumental perceptions of cheese texture (Foegeding et al.,
2003, 2011; Queiroga et al., 2013).
The group of panelists was trained to identify and quantify the
attributes of both reference samples, that is, the cheeses made with
100% goat milk and 100% cow milk. A total of 6 training sessions
were completed (20 hr) to reach the goal such the panelists
could identify the next textural attributes: firmness (shear force
applied by molars), elasticity (ability of the cheese to recover its
original shape after defor mation), shear (force required to cut the
cheese with a knife), and chewiness (number of chews required to
swallow the sample). Additionally, the adhesiveness (force required
to remove the material that adheres to the mouth), cohesiveness
(stimuli during mastication), and creaminess (smoothness after
chewing) were evaluated as QDA establishes (Eymery & Pangborn,
1988).
Before evaluation, the samples were stabilized for 1 hr at 14 ±
2°C (test temperature) and presented as a parallelepipeds geometry
(1.5 ×2×7 cm) in closed Petri dishes in the case of aroma eval-
uation or placed on red plates for descriptive analysis. The samples
were identified with a code of three-digit numbers at random
and were different for each trial. All panelists worked individually
with 3 samples per session, analyzing each sample in triplicate.
1864 Journal of Food Science !Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
Table 1–Proximal composition, physicochemical and color characteristics of Panela cheeses made from blends of cow and goat
milks during storage at 4 °C.
Experimental cheeses (goat:cow milk ratio)
Parameter Days Control G10:C90 G20:C80 G30:C70 G40:C60
Fat (g/100 g) 1 13.21Ca ±0.76 16.60Ba ±0.37 18.61Aa ±0.116 18.81Aa ±0.11 19.40Aa ±0.35
8 13.13Ca ±0.80 16.30Ba ±0.06 18.43Aa ±0.27 18.66Aa ±0.30 19.37Aa ±0.37
15 12.98Ca ±0.89 16.19Ba ±0.15 18.24Aa ±0.12 18.46Aa ±0.41 19.12Aa ±0.26
Protein (g/100 g) 1 15.73Ca ±0.28 15.18Ca ±0.62 16.38BCa ±0.45 17.43ABa ±0.23 18.52Aa ±0.20
8 15.92ABa ±0.27 14.65Ba ±0.48 15.74ABa ±0.71 16.44ABb ±0.18 17.08Ab ±0.44
15 16.14Ba ±0.03 15.70Ba ±0.15 16.34ABa ±0.61 16.74ABab ±0.01 17.34Aab ±0.19
Moisture (g/100 g) 1 61.35Aa ±1.43 56.34Ca ±1.77 56.73BCa ±1.08 60.06ABa ±1.82 58.27ABa ±0.49
8 59.71Aa ±1.39 56.06Ba ±0.80 56.19Bab ±0.91 57.44ABab ±0.78 57.49BCa ±0.81
15 51.72Cb ±1.97 52.56BCb ±1.11 53.81ABCb ±1.06 56.35Ab ±0.59 55.41ABb ±0.63
pH 1 6.57BCa ±0.01 6.53Db ±0.01 6.67Aa ±0.01 6.55CDb ±0.01 6.58Ba ±0.01
86.46
Cb ±0.01 6.53Bb ±0.01 6.38Dc ±0.01 6.57Aa ±0.01 6.54Bb ±0.01
15 6.43Cc ±0.01 6.71Aa ±0.01 6.64Bb ±0.01 6.35Ec ±0.00 6.37Dc ±0.01
Lactic acid (g/100 g) 1 0.07Bc ±0.00 0.06Bb ±0.02 0.11Bb ±0.00 0.07Bb ±0.00 0.08ABc ±0.02
80.13
Bb ±0.02 0.12Ba ±0.02 0.13Bb ±0.02 0.20Aa ±0.02 0.14Bb ±0.00
15 0.22Aa ±0.00 0.17Ba ±0.02 0.19ABb ±0.02 0.19ABa ±0.02 0.18ABa ±0.00
Aw1 0.980Aab ±0.001 0.978Bc ±0.001 0.980Aa ±0.000 0.981Ab ±0.001 0.978Bb ±0.001
8 0.982Ca ±0.001 0.984ABa ±0.000 0.980Da ±0.001 0.984Aa ±0.001 0.982BCb ±0.001
15 0.980Ab ±0.001 0.980Ab ±0.001 0.979Aa ±0.001 0.979Ab ±0.001 0.979Ab ±0.001
Lh1 65.07Bb ±0.75 64.39Bb ±0.59 66.22ABb ±0.47 64.19Bb ±1.97 68.61Ab ±1.20
8 71.65Aa ±0.02 71.44Ca ±0.33 70.93DCa ±0.05 70.55Ba ±0.11 70.95Ba ±0.05
15 70.46Aa ±0.33 70.50Aa ±0.43 70.55Aa ±0.45 70.87Aa ±0.40 70.01Aab ±0.19
ah(–) 1 1.53Aa ±0.04 1.48Aa ±0.09 1.54Aab ±0.10 1.61Ab ±0.32 1.63Aa ±0.10
81.80
Cb ±0.04 1.47Ba ±0.03 1.41Ba ±0.02 1.06Aa ±0.06 1.70Ca ±0.03
15 1.57Aa ±0.13 1.70Ab ±0.07 1.62Ab ±0.02 1.59Ab ±0.04 1.73Aa ±0.02
bh1 5.48
Ab ±0.25 6.04Ab ±0.53 5.84Ab ±0.27 5.14Ab ±0.65 5.69Ac ±0.23
86.65
Aa ±0.03 6.04Cb ±0.10 6.11BCb ±0.05 5.93Cab ±0.19 6.34Bb ±0.03
15 6.79Ba ±0.24 7.20Aa ±0.19 6.26Ca ±0.05 6.20Ca ±0.09 7.17ABa ±0.07
hab 1 74.36Ab ±0.64 76.14Aa ±1.84 75.23Ab ±0.24 72.30Aa ±5.38 73.98Ab ±0.65
8 74.87Cb ±0.28 76.36Ba ±0.43 76.97Ba ±0.08 79.90Aa ±0.22 74.97Cb ±0.24
15 76.97Aa ±0.64 76.71Aa ±0.60 75.46Bb ±0.04 75.58Ba ±0.21 76.44ABa ±0.23
Chroma (Ch) 1 5.69
Ab ±0.25 6.22Ab ±0.50 6.04Ab ±0.29 5.40Ab ±0.53 5.92Ac ±0.24
86.89
Aa ±0.04 6.22Cb ±0.09 6.27Cab ±0.05 6.02Cab ±0.19 6.57Bb ±0.03
15 6.97Ba ±0.26 7.39Aa ±0.18 6.47Ca ±0.05 6.40Ca ±0.09 7.38ABa ±0.07
&E– 0.885 1.162 1.963 2.541
Va l u e s re p r e s e n t e d b y m e a n ±standard deviation.
Different superscript capital letters within row denote significant differences (P<0.05) between the formulations according to Tukey’s ANOVA.
For each trial, different superscript lowercase letters within a column denote significant differences (P<0.05) between each variable value obtained for different days of storage
according to Tukey’s ANOVA.
Statistical analysis
Variance analysis was applied for every determined parameter
to know any significant differences among the cheese samples
made from the four blends with respect to the control, and among
the different number of storage days for the five cheeses. The
means were compared using the Tukey test with a significance
level of P<0.05, using the Minitab R⃝Statistical Package version
16 (State College, PA, U.S.A.).
Results and Discussion
Composition of the milk blends
Both milk types with different compositions each influenced
the characteristics of the manufactured Panela cheese, as expected.
The higher fat content in the goat milk consequently increased
the amount of fat in the blend (3.43% to 3.66%), in contrast
the protein content decreased slightly (3.28% to 3.26%). Both
milk components in the Panela cheese showed a significant
effect (P<0.05) from the milk ratio. With lactose and NFS,
no significant differences were observed. Similar values for
composition of goat and cow milks has been reported by Park
et al. (2007) and Chac´
on-Villalobos and Pineda-Castro (2009).
Cheese composition and physicochemical properties
The compositions for Panela cheeses are shown in Table 1,
with the corresponding physicochemical and color characteristics.
In general terms, the manufactured cheeses from blends with goat
milk (10% to 40%) showed significant differences with respect
to the control cheese made exclusively from cow milk. The milk
ratio had a significant effect (P<0.05) on these parameters.
For fresh cheese samples (day 1), the observed contribution
from the partial substitution of bovine by caprine milk resulted
in cheeses with lower moisture (56.34 to 60.06%), higher fat
(16.60% to 19.40%) and protein contents of 15.18% to 18.52%,
showing a significant influence (P<0.05) of the blends in
comparison with control cheese.
The difference in the ratio of fat/dry matter (FMD) expressed
in g/100 g cheese results from the cow and goat milk relationship
because the increasing of the amount of goat milk in the blend
had an effect on the fat content into Panela cheese. The ratio is
lower in the control cheese (34.18 at day 1) produced exclusively
with cow milk and a linear tend of increase according to amount
of goat milk was observed in the experimental cheeses (38.02 for
aG10:C90ratio,43.01foraG20:C80ratio,47.10forG30:C70,
and 46.49 for G40:C60 ratios, respectively, at day 1), clearly
Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018 !Journal of Food Science 1865
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
showing the influence of the milk ratio on the Panela cheese fat
content. Sheehan et al. (2009) and Queiroga et al. (2013) reported
comparable results of FMD 48.66 and 55.69, respectively, for
cheeses made with mixtures of cow and goat milk (1:1 ratio).
The pH values for all cheeses made with a proportion of goat
milk were slightly different even though they exhibited significant
effect from blending. The control sample and the G20:C80 and
G40:C60 blends had similar pH (!6.57 at day 1), which differed
from the pH of the other two blends. In general, the pH values
of the manufactured blend cheeses were greater than the pH of
the control cheese. This effect can be explained by the higher
alkalinity and buffering capacity of goat milk associated with the
protein, primarily casein and phosphate systems in comparison
to cow milk, which is mainly related to the associated casein and
phosphate systems (Park et al., 2007).
For the lactic acid content and water activity, although signif-
icant differences (P<0.05) were computed in this study, there
were not clear effects from the addition of goat milk, which is
indicated by similar values for these parameters among all cheeses.
All properties aforementioned were measured during the typical
Panela cheese consumption period (15 days) corresponding to
its shelf life. Throughout this time, we observed decrease in the
moisture and water activity as a consequence of syneresis from
cheese, an effect that was attributed by McSweeney (2004) to
changes in water molecule bonds resulting from new carboxyl
and amino acid groups formed during hydrolysis through storage.
Protein and fat contents also showed a subtle reduction during
storage, the loss of these components in whey during syneresis
is a possibility, although it may also be due to a high microbial
activity according to viable account of native microorganism such
as Lactobacillus,Lactococcus,andLeuconostoc (data not included),
which is also related to the obtained low values for pH and
titratable acidity. Overall, these results are consistent with ranges
reported for Panela cheese, with moisture content of 53% to 58%,
fat content of 16% to 21%, protein content of 15% to 20%, and
pH of 5.6 to 6.4 by Guo et al. (2011), Van Hekken and Farkye
(2003), and Guerra-Mart´
ınez et al. (2012).
Color analysis
Values for color evaluation parameters of Panela cheeses made
from different goat and cow milk ratios during storage per iod of
15 d at 4 °C are also included in Table 1. The instrumental de-
terminations of Lh,ah,andbhwere collected and used to calculate
the chroma (Cab), hue angle (hab), and total color change (&E)in
5 Panela samples after 1, 8, and 15 d; &Ewas only computed with
respect to the control cheese on the last day of the storage period.
In general, small color changes in the cheeses resulted as a
function of the milk formulation and storage time, reflecting
the satisfactory stability in the color of cheeses made from milk
blends, with lightness being the parameter with more noticeable
changes. The brightness (Lh>64) and yellowness (bh>5.14)
parameters increased over 15 days of storage; these results were
related to cheeses with higher goat milk content; meanwhile, the
redness (ah) value was higher than the control cheese.
According to Sheehan et al. (2009) and Queiroga et al. (2013),
the increase in ahvalues in cheeses is directly related to the
addition of goat milk and has been mainly attributed to their
fatty acids profiles, while increase in bhvalues has been related
to the occurrence of proteolysis and the Maillard reaction, which
decrease the luminosity due to the production of browning
compounds. However, the three color parameters exhibited the
characteristic colors of fresh cheeses white to creamy tonalities;
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
02468101214
Stress (N)
Strain (mm)
Day 1 Day 8 Day 15
80% compression point
Figure 1–Uniaxial compression force-strain curve for Panela cheese made
with 40% of goat milk (G40:C60) as a function of storage time.
this is partly due to the absence of β-carotene in goat milk, which
causes greater whiteness (Park et al., 2007; Sheehan et al., 2009).
On the other hand, the color parameters varied over the
storage period, with slight changes occurring. At the last day, the
magnitude of the net change of color (&E) as an overall parameter
including the 3 measured parameters, expressed the effect of both
of the studied variables, the blend ratio and the storage time. &E
varied as a function of goat milk incorporation; a value of &E=
0.885 was obtained for cheese with a G10:C90 ratio and &E=
2.541 corresponded to cheese with a G40:C60 ratio.
Additionally, the chroma values (Ch) ranging from 5.40 to 7.39
were similar for the blend cheeses and control cheese (without
significant effects of the formulation) at day 1, and these values
increased significantly during storage for all cheeses, reflecting
increasing changes in both ahand bhparameters, which is in
agreement with results reported by Guo et al. (2011) for Queso
fresco. The hue angle (hab) of the samples varied from 72.30
to 76.14°at day 1, without significant differences among the
different cheeses. However, significant differences were observed
for all samples at days 8 and 15 with a range of 74.97 to 79.90°
in which all of them were located in the yellow quadrant, as
expected for this dairy product.
Textural and rheological parameters
For food industry, texture and rheology properties represent
an important aspect of cheese quality and acceptability. There are
several techniques for cheese texture evaluation; however, none of
them have been able to replace sensory evaluation, which defines
the specific attributes of a product when consumed. In this way,
instrumental texture analysis is a tool that in combination with the
sensory analysis allows describing the attributes of food (Bourne,
2002).
Uniaxial compression test. During the uniaxial com-
pression test, the fracture parameters are especially useful for
quantifying cohesion because they reflect the macroscopic effect
of the internal bonds. The creep test measures the strain or
compliance values caused by a specific load during a certain range
of time, and then, data from the creep test is used to determine
parameters that are useful characteristic descriptors of the tested
material (Foegeding et al., 2011).
The texture evolution measurements and parameters obtained
by the uniaxial compression test are shown in Figure 1 and listed
1866 Journal of Food Science !Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
Table 2–Uniaxial compression and TPA parameters for Panela cheeses made from blends of cow and goat milks during the storage
at 4 °C.
Experimental cheeses (goat:cow milks ratio)i
Test Parameter Day Control G10:C90 ii G20:C80 G30:C70 G40:C60
Uniaxial compression Fracture stress σf(kPa) 1 14.81Bc ±2.11 16.93ABb ±1.06 17.71ABb ±2.68 10.34Cb ±3.04 19.61Ab ±3.47
8 18.96Aa ±1.51 17.58Db ±1.03 20.50Ca ±1.08 15.25Da ±1.37 22.74Bb ±1.32
15 20.25Bb ±0.02 19.20BCa ±0.00 15.77Db ±0.19 16.53CDa ±0.03 26.62Aa ±0.19
Strain (εC) 1 0.78Aa ±0.01 0.78Aab ±0.01 0.76Aa ±0.00 0.76Aa ±0.01 0.77Aa ±0.01
(dimensionless) 8 0.77Aa ±0.01 0.77Aa ±0.01 0.77Aa ±0.01 0.77Aa ±0.01 0.76Aa ±0.00
15 0.79Ab ±0.00 0.79Ab ±0.00 0.79Ab ±0.01 0.79Ab ±0.00 0.79Ab ±0.01
Elasticity modulus (kPa) 1 19.07Ac ±2.87 21.69Ab ±1.18 23.20Ab ±3.50 13.47Bb ±3.96 25.35Ab ±4.43
8 24.65Aa ±2.02 20.25 Cc ±1.62 26.62Ba ±1.75 19.80Ca ±1.66 29.76Bb ±1.72
15 25.47Bb ±1.80 24.17BCa ±1.20 19.97Db ±1.60 20.78CDa ±2.72 33.72Aa ±2.29
TPA
Hardness (N) 1 13.51Aa ±2.43 7.98CDb ±1.90 10.83ABb ±1.60 5.41Dc ±0.52 9.24BCc ±1.27
8 14.42Ba ±0.92 9.89Cb ±0.54 14.45Ba ±0.03 10.96Cb ±1.33 19.31Ab ±1.89
15 15.63Ca ±0.84 18.45Bb ±1.49 12.01Dab ±1.55 14.21Ca ±0.69 23.57Aa ±1.07
Springiness (mm) 1 0.79ABa ±0.00 0.76ABa ±0.07 0.71BCa ±0.09 0.79ABa ±0.05 0.86Aa ±0.00
8 0.52
Bb ±0.07 0.62ABa ±0.11 0.69Aa ±0.12 0.57ABb ±0.11 0.68ABb ±0.06
15 0.57Ab ±0.09 0.39Ab ±0.14 0.76Aa ±0.75 0.46Ab ±0.10 0.56Ac ±0.10
Cohesiveness 1 0.28Ba ±0.01 0.30ABa ±0.02 0.29ABa ±0.02 0.34Aa ±0.03 0.32ABa ±0.04
(Dimensionless) 8 0.24Ab ±0.02 0.23Ab ±0.01 0.22Ab ±0.01 0.22Ab ±0.01 0.22Ab ±0.01
15 0.21Ac ±0.02 0.18Bc ±0.03 0.20ABb ±0.01 0.20ABb ±0.02 0.20ABb ±0.01
Chewiness (J) 1 2.96Aa ±0.54 1.83BCa ±0.68 2.226Ba ±0.32 1.44Ca ±0.23 2.51ABa ±0.18
81.78
BCb ±0.22 1.41Ca ±0.30 2.204Ba ±0.23 1.37Ca ±0.19 2.94Aa ±0.46
15 1.86Ab ±0.39 1.29Aa ±0.54 1.825Aa ±1.79 1.31Aa ±0.35 2.61Aa ±0.43
iMilks ratio v/v.
iiVa l u e s r e p r e s e n t e d b y m e a n ±standard deviation.
Different superscript capital letters within row denote significant differences (P<0.05) between the formulations according to Tukey’s ANOVA.
For each trial, different superscript lowercase letters within a column denote significant differences (P<0.05) between each variable value obtained for different days of storage
according to Tukey’s ANOVA.
in Table 2. Figure 1 shows data of a compression test for Panela
cheese made with 40% goat milk (blend G40:C60 ratio); whereas,
Table 2 includes three calculated parameters for all cheeses.
Considering that the fracture stress includes the force required to
fracture the cheese matrix, an increased stress proportional to the
amount of goat milk in the cheese formulation was observed for
three of the four cheese samples at day 1. Additionally, the longer
the storage time, the greater the resistance to deformation was, and
a higher force was required to show where the structure begins
to collapse and then fractures (26.62 kPa for sample G40:C60 at
day 15 compared with 14.81 kPa for control cheese at day 1).
Foegeding et al. (2011) related this textural response to the
presence of casein, the main component that builds up the
structure and gives the solidity to the cheese. Although goat milk
has the same proteins as cow milk, their proportions and genetic
polymorphisms differ greatly, which explains the different gelling
capabilities, rennetabilities, and texture parameters when both
milks are combined. A similar increasing trend was observed for
the Young’s modulus, in most of the combinations (11 of 12)
with respect to the control cheese at day 1. The Cauchy strain
that describes the deformability of the cheese was not affected
(P>0.05) by the presence of goat milk, and the results were
basically constant (0.76 to 0.79). Even though the milk ratios
varied, the deformation was almost the same; thus, the five
cheeses may be considered as exhibiting an equivalent structure.
During the storage period, the fracture stress increased from day
1 to 15, indicating a significant effect (P<0.05) from this factor.
Further, the same increasing trends were observed for the fracture
stress and Young’s modulus in almost all of the samples (Table 2).
According to Buffa et al. (2001) and Queiroga et al. (2013), the loss
of the structural elements during storage or r ipening, as effect of
proteolysis, causes a decrease in the amount of available water into
protein network, which could result in the modification on the
cheese texture. Considerable textural and rheological variations
have been observed through cheese making (Park, 2007).
Creep test. Creep test has been scarcely used to study the vis-
coelastic properties of cheeses affected by a variety of factors, such
as the storage time, in which the percentage of creep recovery sug-
gests a certain degree of elasticity (Foegeding et al., 2003; Steffe,
1992; Tunick & Van Hekken, 2010). Therefore, in our study, the
creep test highlighted the effects of formulation and storage time.
As expected, the formulation as well as the storage time
influenced this mechanical response in a different degree. Thus,
an increase in the amount of goat milk caused an increase in the
shear strain between cheeses G10:C90 and G40:C60 (data not
shown).
The effect of storage on the viscoelastic behavior (Figure 2) of
cheese with respect to the strain also presented clear differences.
The deformations of the cheeses with a G40:C60 ratio were very
similar between days 1 and 8 (with strains of 3.30 ±0.41 mm and
2.98 ±0.17 mm, respectively). However, there was a significant
effect on the cheese deformability on day 15, in which the strain
decreased to 1.64 ±0.06 mm; this change was likely related to
both the moisture loss and changes in the protein network (Tu-
nick, 2011). The creep analysis showed a storage time-dependent
trend, in which the stored cheeses exhibited significant differences
(P<0.05), especially at the end of the storage.
The creep assay, to study the effects of formulation changes on
the properties of Queso Blanco, was reported by Lobato-Calleros,
Aguirre-Mandujan, Vernon-Carter, and S´
anchez-Garc´
ıa (2000),
resulting very useful for characterizing the different cheese
formulations.
The evolution of the strain compared with time in the creep
or the stress compared with time in the stress relaxation curves
Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018 !Journal of Food Science 1867
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
050100150200250300
Strain (mm)
Time (s)
Figure 2–Creep-relaxation curve for Panela cheese made with 40% of goat
milk (G40:C60) at 1 (!), 8 (!), and 15 (O) d of storage.
1
2
3
4
5
Hardness
Springiness
Degree of
breakdown
ChewinessAdhesiviness
Cohesiveness
Creaminess
(10:90) (20:80) Cow cheese
1
2
3
4
5
Hardness
Springiness
Degree of
breakdown
ChewinessAdhesiviness
Cohesiveness
Creaminess
(30:70) (40:60) Cow cheese
A
B
Figure 3–(A) Textural attributes for experimental Panela cheeses:
G10:C90 ( ), G20:C80 ( ), control cow cheese ( ). (B) Textural attributes
for experimental Panela cheeses: G30:C70 ( ), G40:C60 ( ) compared
with control cow cheese ( ).
is very useful. Particularly, for a creep curve, it is very interesting
to observe how the viscoelastic response of a cheese is identified,
by a flat or horizontal response corresponding to an ideal elastic
material or by an inclined response (approximately 30°) corre-
sponding to an ideal viscous material (Bourne, 2002; Steffe, 1992;
V´
elez-Ruiz, 2013). Therefore, a sample with a response close to
a flat line is more solid, and a response close to an inclined line
corresponds to a more liquid consistency. From the creep test, the
five studied Panela cheeses exhibited a clear viscoelastic nature.
Test Profile Analysis (TPA). The evolution of texture
properties monitored by TPA is also given in Table 2. The Panela
cheese samples showed general trends in the TPA parameters
resulting from the formulation and storage period. The hardness
and chewiness data showed a decreasing effect as a function of
goat milk content, the cohesiveness values increased, and the
springiness data did not exhibit a trend. However, a significant
effect from blending was obtained, and therefore, the TPA
parameters were affected by the presence of goat milk.
When those parameters are observed as a function of the storage
period, the hardness increased for all samples in contrast to the
other three textural parameters, which diminished with storage
time. Storage did show a significant effect (P<0.05) on texture
and was similar to values (6 to 16 N) for hardness in fresh cheese
reported by Tunick and Van Hekken (2010) and Guo et al. (2011).
Queiroga et al. (2013) reported values of 10 to 36 N for hardness,
0.8 to 2.0 J for chewiness, and 0.5 to 0.8 (dimensionless) for cohe-
siveness for Coahlo cheese manufactured with blends of cow and
goat milk. These tendencies obtained for TPA parameters are also
similar to the results reported by Guerra-Mart´
ınez et al. (2012).
Small amplitude oscillatory shear analysis (SAOSA).
SAOSA, a nondestructive test for analyzing the viscoelastic
properties of cheese, varies either with stress or strain har-
monically with respect to time (Park et al., 2007). Magnitudes
corresponding to this oscillatory test for the studied cheeses for
two determinations (day 1 and 8) are included in Table 3.
On day 1 after manufacturing, the different formulations of the
cheeses showed an increase in G′and η∗,inwhichtanδ(G′′/G′)
was very similar. The amount of goat milk did have a significant
effect (P<0.05) in particular for one of the formulations
(G20:C80) with respect to the loss modulus. Meanwhile, at day 8
a trend is more clearly observed; the values for these rheological
parameters were different among all cheeses (P<0.05), indicating
changes in the cheese matrix affecting both viscoelastic properties
(G′and G′′) of the Panela cheeses.
The tan δvalues were very similar and <1 confirming the
viscoelastic nature of the samples, an increase in tan δwas
observed at day 8 for the cheese sample G40:C60, indicating that
the material was reacting to an external stress in a relatively more
viscous and less elastic manner (Gunasekaran & Ak, 2003).
Over the storage time, the cheese samples with the ratios
of G10:C90 and G30:C70 were the most stable formulations,
without significant changes (P>0.05) for most of the viscoelastic
properties. According to Guo et al. (2011), the viscoelastic values
depend not only on the quantity of casein but also on the number
and characteristics of the bonds entrapped in the casein matrix.
The obtained values of the G′and G′′ moduli were similar to
those reported: 14.5 to 18.9 kPa and 4.1 to 5.3 kPa by Guo et al.
(2011) and 13.2 to 15.0 kPa and 3.4 to 4.1 kPa, by Van Hekken,
Tunick, Leggett, and Tomasula (2012), respectively. In both cases,
the analyzed Queso Fresco with high moisture content (54.2% to
57.2%), was similar to the moisture content of our cheeses.
1868 Journal of Food Science !Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
Table 3–Rheological properties for Panela cheeses (at 10 rad/s) from different blends of goat and cow milk and stored at 4 °C.
Experimental cheeses (goat:cow milks ratio)i
Parameterii Day Control G10:C90 G20:C80 G30:C70 G40:C60
Storage modulus (G′, kPa) 1 12.18Ab ±3.60 12.28Aa ±0.14 10.56Ab ±0.09 14.09Aa ±3.36 15.75Ab ±4.75
8 31.91Aa ±6.13 14.17Ba ±2.75 13.54Ba ±0.28 12.33Ba ±2.24 30.06Aa ±8.57
Loss modulus (G′′, kPa) 1 2.89ABb ±0.72 2.73Ba ±0.04 2.39Bb ±0.02 3.26Aa ±0.75 3.53ABb ±0.94
86.84
Aa ±1.25 3.15Ba ±0.61 3.04Ba ±0.04 2.87Ba ±0.47 7.31Aa ±2.12
Tan g e n t d e l t a ( t a n δ) 1 0.23Aa ±0.01 0.22Aa ±0.00 0.23Aa ±0.00 0.23Aa ±0.00 0.23Ab ±0.01
80.21
Db ±0.00 0.22Ca ±0.00 0.22Ca ±0.00 0.23Ba ±0.01 0.24Aa ±0.00
Complex viscosity (η∗,kPas) 1 1.31
Ab ±0.37 1.25Aa ±0.01 1.45Ab ±0.34 1.45Aa ±0.34 1.61Ab ±0.48
83.26
Aa ±0.63 1.45Ba ±0.28 1.39Ba ±0.03 1.84Ba ±0.23 3.09Aa ±0.88
iMilks ratio v/v.
iiVa l u e s r e p r e s e n t e d b y m e a n ±standard deviation at a frequency of 10 rad/s.
Different superscript capital letters within row denote significant differences (P<0.05) between the formulations according to Tukey’s ANOVA.
For each trial, different superscript lowercase letters within a column denote significant differences (P<0.05) between each variable value obtained for different days of storage
according to Tukey’s ANOVA.
All tested Panela cheeses were characterized by a solid-type
behavior (G′>G") in the used frequency range, and, in general,
they exhibited an increase in the values of G′and G′′ with an
increase in the goat milk in the formula and with the storage
period progress. Increases in the G′modulus may result from
the fusion of casein particles due to changes to the inter- and
intramolecular forces (O’Callaghan & Guinee, 2004).
Sensory evaluation of texture
The sensory quality of cheese depends of various interrelated
factors such as the physicochemical and biological characteristics
of the raw materials and the conditions of the manufacturing
process and ripening. The Panela cheeses made from cow milk,
and their blends with goat milk, were assessed for their sensory
texture attributes using QDA after 1 day of storage at 7 °C.
For better data comparison, the cheese samples were divided
into two couples, cheeses lower in goat milk, such as 10% and
20% goat milk content, and samples with higher content of goat
milk, such as 30% and 40%. From the figure for the first group
(Figure 3A), the first two samples appear to be very similar to
the control cheese; whereas, in the case of the second couple
(Figure 3b), values for hardness and chewiness, and the degrees of
breakdown, cohesiveness and adhesiveness are greater than those
from the control cheese.
The analysis of the QDA results for cheeses made with 30% or
more goat milk exhibited scores that were significantly different
(P<0.05) for hardness, chewiness, elasticity, and degree of
breakdown with respect to those from the control cheese. In
the same samples, the adhesiveness and cohesiveness were lower
compared to the control as well as the cheeses made with 10%
and 20% goat milk.
The chewiness values for cheeses with more goat milk required
more effort to swallow, an increase that might be due to a change
in fat globules and protein dispersions, because the structure and
texture of cheeses are affected by interactions between the surfaces
of the milk fat globules and the casein matrix (Foegeding et al.,
2011; Tunick, 2011). The creaminess and springiness parameters
for the 30:70 formulations were acceptable and similar to those
of the control cheese. No significant differences were found for
either attribute. Furthermore, and as one of the most important
QDA results, the cheeses with the highest proportions of goat
milk (G40:C60 ratio) were not well accepted by consumers, who
described them as harder products with a pungent aroma that
is not commonly associated with the Panela cheese flavor. In
this sense, the G30:C70 ratio was the one that achieved the best
acceptance by having a better balance between flavor and texture.
Conclusions
Panela cheeses were made from different blends of cow and goat
milk. Although it is not a common practice to use the mixture
of these types of milk for Panela cheese production, in this study
their combined use revealed useful and interesting changes in
the evaluated physicochemical, textural, rheological, and sensory
parameters when they were measured during a reasonable storage
period of 2 weeks, typically the shelf life considered for a fresh
cheese. Based on the results, a partial substitution of cow milk with
goat milk in a proportion greater than 30% resulted in cheeses with
chemical, textural, and sensory characteristics that may provide a
health alternative to consumers desiring fresh goat cheese, and may
increase opportunities for local markets demands contributing to
the economical sustainability of the region, mainly of rural areas.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank CONACyT (Natl. Council of Science
and Technology) of Mexico for the scholarship awarded to
Ram´
ırez-L´
opez. Moreover, the authors wish to thank Mariana
Ram´
ırez Gilly from Univ. Nacional Aut ´
onoma de M´
exico for
assistance in cheese oscillatory measurements.
References
Abbas, H. M., Hassan, F. A. M., Abd El-Gawad, M. A. M., & Enab, A. K. (2014). Physico-
chemical characteristics of goat’s milk. Life Science Journal,11(1), 307–317.
American Organization of Analytical Chemists (AOAC) International. (2005). Official methods of
analysis (18th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
Attaie, R., & Richter, R. L. (2000). Size distribution of fat globules in goat milk. Journal of Dairy
Science,83, 940–944.
Berton, A., Rouvellac, S., Robert, B., Rousseau, F., Lopez, C., & Crenon, I. (2012). Effect
of the size and interface composition of milk fat globules on their in vitro digestion by the
human pancreatic lipase: Native versus homogenized milk fat globules. Food Hydrocolloids,29,
123–134.
Bourne, M. C. (2002). Food texture and viscosity: Concept and measurement.SanDiego,CA:
Academic Press.
Buffa, M. N., Trujillo, A. J., Pavia, M., & Guamis, B. (2001). Changes in textural, microstructural,
and colour characteristics during r ipening of cheeses made from raw, pasteurized or high-
pressure-treated goats’ milk. International Dairy Journal,11, 927–934.
Calzada, J. F., & Peleg, M. (1978). Mechanical interpretation of compressive stress-strain rela-
tionships of solid foods. Journal of Food Science,43, 1087–1092.
Caro, I., Soto, S., Fuentes, L., Guti´
errez-M´
endez, N., Garc´
ıa-Islas, B., Monroy-Gayosso, K. E.,
& Mateo, J. (2014). Compositional, functional and sensory characteristics of selected Mexican
cheeses. Food & Nutrition Science,5(4), 366–375.
Chac´
on-Villalobos, A., & Pineda-Castro, M. L. (2009). Chemical, physical and sensory charac-
teristics of a goat adapted cheese from the “Crottin de Chavignol” type. Agron Mesoam,20(2),
297–309. [In Spanish]
Escobar, M. C., Van Tassell, M. L., Mart´
ınez-Bustos, F., Singh, M., Casta˜
no-Tostado, E., Amaya-
Llano, S. L., & Miller, M. J. (2012). Characterization of a Panela cheese with added probiotics
and fava bean starch. Journal of Dairy Science,95(6), 2779–2787.
Eymery, O., & Pangborn, R. M. (1988). Influence of fat, citric acid, and sodium chloride on
texture and taste of a cheese analogue. Sciences des Aliments,8, 15–32.
Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018 !Journal of Food Science 1869
Food Engineering, Materials
Science, & Nanotechnology
Fresh Panela cheese . . .
FAOSTAT. (2012). Food and agricultura data. Retrieved from https://faostat3.fao.org/
browse/Q/QL/S.
Foegeding, E. A., Brown, J., Drake, M. A., & Daubert, C. R. (2003). Sensory and mechanical
aspects of cheese texture. International Dairy Journal,13(8), 585–591.
Foegeding, E. A., Daubert, C. R., Drake, M. A., Essick, G., Trulsson, M., Vinyard, C. J., & Van
De Velde, F. (2011). A comprehensive approach to understanding textural properties of semi-
and soft-solid foods. Journal of Texture Studies,42(2), 103–129.
Guerra-Mart´
ınez, J. A., Montejano, J. G., & Mart´
ın-del-Campo, S. T. (2012). Evaluation of
proteolytic and physicochemical changes during storage of fresh Panela cheese fromQueretaro,
Mexico and its impact in texture. CyTA - Journal of Food,10(4), 296–305.
Gunasekaran, S., & Ak, M. M. (2003). Cheese rheology and texture.NewYork,NY:CRCPress.
Guo, L., Van Hekken, D. L., Tomasula, P. M., Shieh, J., & Tunick, M. H. (2011). Effect of
salt on the chemical, functional, and rheological properties of Queso Fresco during storage.
International Dairy Journal,21(5), 352–357.
Jim´
enez-Guzm´
an, J., Flores-N´
ajera, A., Cruz-Guerrero, A. E., & Garc´
ıa-Garibay, M. (2009).
Use of an exopolysaccharide-producing strain of Streptococcus thermophilus in the manufacture
of Mexican Panela cheese. Food Science and Technology,42(9), 1508–1512.
Lobato-Calleros, C., Aguirre-Mandujan, E., Vernon-Carter, E. J., & S´
anchez-Garc´
ıa, J. (2000).
Viscoelastic properties of white fresh cheese filled with sodium caseinate. Journal of Texture
Studies,31(4), 379–390.
Masotti, F., Battelli, G., & De Noni, I. (2012). The evolution of chemical and microbiological
properties of fresh goat milk cheese during its shelf life. Journal of Dairy Science,95(9), 4760–
4767.
McSweeney, P. L. H. (2004). Biochemistr y of cheese ripening. International Journal of Dairy
Te c h n o l o g y ,57(2–3), 127–144.
Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M., & Baxter, I. A. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis: Past,
present and future. Food Research International,34, 461–471.
NOM-121-SSA1-1994 Official Mexican Norm. (1994). Benefits and services. Fresh cheeses,
ripened and processed. Sanitary specifications. [In Spanish]
O’Callaghan, D. J., & Guinee, T. P. (2004). Rheology and texture of cheese. In P. F. Fox, L.
H. McSweeney, & T. P. Cogan (Eds.), Cheese: chemistry, physics and microbiology (pp. 511–540).
London, England: Elsevier.
Park, Y. W. (2007). Rheological characteristics of goat and sheep milk. Small Ruminant Research,
68, 73–87.
Park, Y. W., Ju´
arez, M., Ramos, M., & Haenlein, G. F. W.(2007). Physico-chemical character istics
of goat and sheep milk. Small Ruminant Research,68(1), 88–113.
Queiroga, R. C. R. E., Melo-Santo, B., Pereira-Gomes, A. M., Monteiro, M. J., Teixeira, S. M.,
Souza, E. L., . . . Estevez-Pintado, M. (2013). Nutritional, textural and sensory properties
of Coalho cheese made of goats’, cows’ milk and their mixture. LWT - Food Science and
Te c h n o l o g y ,50, 538–544.
Saxer, S., Schwenninger, S. M., & Lacroix, C. (2013). Characterization of the microflora of
industrial Mexican cheeses produced without added chemical preservatives. Food Science and
Te c h n o l o g y ,53, 314–320.
Sheehan, J. J., Patel, A. D., Drake, M. A., & McSeeney, P. L. H. (2009). Effect of par-
tial or total substitution of bovine for caprine milk on the compositional, volatile, non-
volatile and sensory characteristics of semi-hard cheeses. International Dairy Journal,19, 498–
509.
Sousa, M. J., Ard¨
o, Y., & McSweeney, P. L. H. (2001). Advances in the study of proteolysis
during cheese ripening. Inter national Dairy Journal,11(4–7), 327–345.
Steffe, J. (1992). Rheological methods in food process engineering (pp. 169–176). East Lansing, MI:
Freeman Press.
Stone, H. (1992). Quantitative descriptive analysis. In R. C.Hootman (Ed.), Manual on descr iptive
analysis testing for sensory evaluation (pp. 15–21). Baltimore, MD: ASTM International.
Tunick, M. H. (2000). Rheology of dairy foods that gel, stretch, and fracture. Dairy products
rheology symposium. Journal of Dairy Science,83, 1892–1898.
Tunick, M. H. (2011). Small-strain dynamic rheology of food protein networks. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry,59, 1481–1486.
Tunick, M. H., & Van Hekken, D. L. (2010). Rheology and texture of commercial Queso Fresco
cheeses made from raw and pasteurized milk. Journal of Food Quality,33, 204–215.
Tu n i c k , M. H . , Va n H e k k e n , D. L. , I a n d o l a , S . K. , & To m a s u l a , P. M . ( 2 0 1 2 ) . C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
of Queso Fresco during storage at 4 and 10°C. Journal of Food Research,1(1), 308–318.
Tu r k m e n , N . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . C h a p t e r 3 5 – T h e n u t r i t i o n a l v a l u e a n d h e a l t h b e n e fi t s o f g o a t mi l k
components. In R. W. Ronald, J. C. Robert, & V. R. Preedy (Eds.), Nutrients in Dairy
and Their Implication on Health and Disease (pp. 441–449). London, England: Academic
Press/Elsevier.
Van Hekken, D. L., & Farkye,N. (2003). Hispanic cheeses: The quest for Queso. Food Technology,
57(1), 32–38.
Va n H e k ke n , D . L . , Tu n i c k , M . H . , L e g g e t t , L . N. , & To m a s u l a , P. M . ( 2 0 1 2 ) . I m p a c t o f c u r d
milling on the chemical, functional, and rheological properties of starter-free Queso Fresco.
Journal of Dairy Science,95(10), 5527–5535.
V´
elez-Ruiz, J. F. (2009). Rheology and texture of cheese. In M. E. Sosa-Morales & J. F. V´
elez-
Ruiz (Eds.), Food processing and engineering topics (pp. 87–122). New York, NY: Nova Science
Publishers.
V´
elez-Ruiz, J. F. 2013. Introduction to physical properties of foods (pp. 140–145). Saarbr ¨
ucken,
Germany: Editorial Acad ´
emica Espa˜
nola. [In Spanish]
Zalazar, C. A., Zalazar, C. S., Bernal, S., Bertola, N., Bevilacqua, A., & Zaritzky, N. (2002).
Effect of moisture level and fat replacer on physicochemical,rheolog ical and sensory properties
of low fat soft cheeses. International Dairy Journal,12(1), 45–50.
1870 Journal of Food Science !Vol. 83, Iss. 7, 2018
