Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:42:53.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of elevated somatic cell count on casein distribution and cheese-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Ali E. Ali
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9 AT
Anthony T. Andrews
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9 AT
Gordon C. Cheeseman
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9 AT

Summary

The effects of increased somatic cell count, whether caused by infection or by experimental infusion of bacterial endotoxin, on the distribution in milk of caseins between the micellar and soluble forms were investigated. The relationship of somatic cell count to some cheese-making parameters was also studied. With quite modestly elevated cell counts (2–3 × 106/ml) increases of up to 37% in total casein in the soluble phase were observed, most of which was contributed by β-casein, while κ- and αs1-caseins increased only slightly. With storage at 4°C, the concentrations of all the caseins, Ca and phosphate in the soluble phase increased substantially during the first 48 h, but this was followed by a slight decline on further storage. Rennet clotting time, losses of fat in whey, curd moisture, and losses in curd yield and rigidity were all greater the higher the somatic count. Clear differences were detectable in these parameters between milks of very low cell count (e.g. 5 × 104 cells/ml) and milks with counts more typical of those found in bulk supplies (e.g. about 5 × 105 cells/ml). If these findings can be reproduced in commercial practice even a modest reduction in bulk milk somatic cell counts might be expected to bring definite benefits.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1980

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

Ali, A. E. (1979). Thesis, University of Reading, England.Google Scholar
Ali, A. E., Andrews, A. T. & Cheeseman, G. C. (1980). Journal of Dairy Research 47, 383391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. & Andrews, A. T. (1977). Journal of Dairy Research 44, 223235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H. R. & Burnett, J. (1972). Dairy Industries 37, 207211.Google Scholar
Downey, W. K. & Murphy, R. F. (1970). Journal of Dairy Research 37, 361372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, R. E., Hampton, O. & Randolph, H. E. (1972). Journal of Dairy Science 55, 298301.Google Scholar
Haenlein, G. F. W., Schultz, L. H. & Zikakis, J. P. (1973). Journal of Dairy Science 56, 10171024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, O. & Randolph, H. E. (1969). Journal of Dairy Science 52, 15621565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A. H. (1974).ln Fundamentals of Dairy Chemistry, 2nd edn, pp. 157.(Eds Webb, B. H., Johnson, A. H. and Alford, J. A..) Westport, Conn.: Avi Publishing Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Kisza, J., Karwowicz, E. & Sobina, A. (1964). Mikhwissenschaft 19, 437441.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J., Dodd, F. H. & Neave, F. K. (1960). Journal of Dairy Research 27, 115120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randolph, H. E., Erwin, R. E. & Richter, R. L. (1974). Journal of Dairy Science 57, 1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. (1967). Process Biochemistry 2(2), 510.Google Scholar
Sharma, K. K. & Randolph, H. E. (1974). Journal of Dairy Science 57, 1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, H. H. & Matsen, H. (1935). Journal of Dairy Science 18, 741749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallamy, P. T., Randolph, H. E. & Dill, C. W. (1969). Journal of Dairy Science 52, 980983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar