Georgia Small Ruminant Research and Extension Center, Fort Valley State University, The University System of Georgia, Fort Valley 31030.
Georgia Small Ruminant Research and Extension Center, Fort Valley State University, The University System of Georgia, Fort Valley 31030.
J Dairy Sci. 2019 Apr;102(4):2890-2902. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15427. Epub 2019 Feb 7.
In this study, we manufactured 3 types of caprine milk Cheddar cheese: a control cheese (unfortified) and 2 iron-fortified cheeses, one of which used regular ferrous sulfate (RFS) and the other used large microencapsulated ferrous sulfate (LMFS). We then compared the iron recovery rates and the microstructural, textural, and sensory properties of the 3 cheeses under different storage conditions (temperature and duration). Compositional analysis included fat, protein, ash, and moisture contents. The RFS (FeSO·7HO) and LMFS (with 700- to 800-μm large particle ferrous sulfate encapsulated in nonhydrogenated vegetable fat) were added to cheese curds after whey draining and were thoroughly mixed before hooping and pressing the cheese. Three batches of each type of goat cheese were stored at 2 temperatures (4°C and -18°C) for 0, 2, and 4 mo. We analyzed the microstructure of cheese using scanning electron microscopy and image analysis software. A sensory panel (n = 8) evaluated flavors and overall acceptability of cheeses using a 10-point intensity score. Results showed that the control, RFS, and LMFS cheeses contained 0.0162, 0.822, and 0.932 mg of Fe/g of cheese, respectively, with substantially higher iron levels in both fortified cheeses. The iron recovery rates of RFS and LMFS were 71.9 and 73.5%, respectively. Protein, fat, and ash contents (%) of RFS and LMFS cheeses were higher than those of the control. Scanning electron microscopy analyses revealed that LMFS cheese contained smaller and more elongated sharp-edged iron particles, whereas RFS cheese had larger-perimeter rectangular iron crystals. Iron-fortified cheeses generally had higher hardness and gumminess scores than the control cheese. The higher hardness in iron-fortified cheeses compared with the control may be attributed to proteolysis of the protein matrix and its binding with iron crystals during storage. Control cheese had higher sensory scores than the 2 iron-fortified cheeses, and LMFS cheese had the lowest scores for all tested sensory properties.
在这项研究中,我们制造了 3 种山羊奶切达干酪:一种对照奶酪(未强化)和 2 种铁强化奶酪,其中一种使用普通硫酸亚铁(RFS),另一种使用大微胶囊硫酸亚铁(LMFS)。然后,我们比较了在不同储存条件(温度和时间)下这 3 种奶酪的铁回收率以及微观结构、质地和感官特性。组成分析包括脂肪、蛋白质、灰分和水分含量。RFS(FeSO·7HO)和 LMFS(用非氢化植物油包裹 700-800μm 大颗粒硫酸亚铁)在乳清排出后添加到凝乳中,并在箍和压奶酪之前充分混合。每批 3 种类型的山羊奶酪在 2 种温度(4°C 和-18°C)下储存 0、2 和 4 个月。我们使用扫描电子显微镜和图像分析软件分析奶酪的微观结构。一个感官小组(n=8)使用 10 分强度评分评估了奶酪的风味和整体可接受性。结果表明,对照、RFS 和 LMFS 奶酪分别含有 0.0162、0.822 和 0.932mg Fe/g 奶酪,强化奶酪中的铁含量显著更高。RFS 和 LMFS 的铁回收率分别为 71.9%和 73.5%。RFS 和 LMFS 奶酪的蛋白质、脂肪和灰分(%)含量高于对照奶酪。扫描电子显微镜分析显示,LMFS 奶酪含有更小、更狭长的锐利铁颗粒,而 RFS 奶酪则具有更大周长的矩形铁晶体。强化奶酪的硬度和胶粘性通常高于对照奶酪。与对照奶酪相比,强化奶酪的硬度较高可能归因于储存过程中蛋白质基质的蛋白水解及其与铁晶体的结合。对照奶酪的感官评分高于 2 种铁强化奶酪,而 LMFS 奶酪在所有测试的感官特性中得分最低。