*

* . ..
113 . mohamadalshehabi@yahoo.com :

. 1
18 )
, , ,( CH1
,%4 6 45
)
( . ) 3 %26 %6,
%5, ( .
) (
:

.

) ( 102 5.125
) 102 6.6 10 9.75
. (E.coli 1.0 10
.

) (.

: , ,,, , .

The utilization of direct technique to produce labaneh

without filtering and compared it with traditional labaneh
Mohamad Alshehabi*
* General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research,
Department of food technology. Douma P. O. Box 113, Damascus,
Syria. E-mail: mohamadalshehabi@yahoo.com

Abstract
18 mixtures of labneh which are different from the percentage
and kind of added solids (skimmed milk powder, whole milk powder,
cream, whey powder) were produced to identify the optimal
percentage of solids and fat in the labneh made in the direct
way(direct control of structure). It seems that mixture 3, which
contains 26% of total solids and 6% fat,5% whey powder is the best
mixture in terms of sensory properties. By comparing labneh made in
the direct way (direct control of structure) to labneh made in the
traditional way (cloth bags) and labneh taken from market, it has
been found the following: Chemically speaking, it was no significant
differences in the percentage of acidity and fat between labneh made
in the direct way, and both of labneh made in the traditional way and
labneh taken from market. Microbiologically speaking, labneh which
made in the direct way comes first then labneh made in the
traditional way comes second (number of molds and yeast was 5.125
10 cfu/g) . Finally, Labneh taken from market comes third
(number of molds and yeasts 6.6 10 cfu/g ,and number of coliform
was 9.75 10 cfu/g , and the number of E.coli was 1.0 10 cfu/g) .
Sensorially speaking, it has been found that there were no significant
2

differences between labneh made in the direct way, and both of

labneh made in the traditional way and labneh taken from market.
As for the costs of production, the cost of labneh made in the direct
way was less than labneh which made in the traditional way (manual
filling or auto filling).

Key words: labneh, direct way, mixture, starter,

total solids, traditional way.

 . 2:


);Shaker et al., 2000; Mohameed et al., 2004
.(Haddad et al., 2007

, ) Tamime & Robinson
( 1978
)Tamime & Robinson ,
, ( 1999 , ,
.
)1993 ,
( Tamime
)( ,
.
20 , 5 .
: , %10
, %14,8 , %0,5 %0,8 , %26,1

. ((Tamime&Robinson,1999

.2.1 :
.2.1.1 :
,
) , (&Amer et al., 1997 AL- Sheikh, 1989 ; Hamad
%1
) ,( Amer et al., 1997 PH
). (El Tahra et al., 1999a

 )(1989

Al-Skeikh & Hamed

18.5 16.5 5.14 2.12

, ELSamragy ) (b 1988
% 28 24 20
6 8 10
.

.2.1.2 :
%5 ) 20 60
/ 2,2( ,
) ,(Mohameed et al., 2004
%24,2 et (2004 ,. %17,9
.(al Mohameed

.3.1.2 :
) Tamime
( &Robinson,1978 %16 ,
%26 1300 /
3 ) 1978

& Tamime

, (, Robinson %20
) ( %25
%16
14 ) CH1
Robinson,1978 &) (S.thermophilus&L.delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus
. (Tamime %14
%11,5
. (Amer et al., 1997) %16

 .4.1.2 :



)90 5( ) Amer et al.,1997 ; et
. (al.,1992a AbouDonia 1992 ; .,Hefinway et al

.3 ): (Materials & Methods

.1.3 :
)
( ) (
) ,
, , ( .
2007-2006

.2.3 :
. 1 :

.2 : Aria Foods Ingredients
)(
.3 : ) Agri Best(
.4 : ) Consignment(
. 5 :
)( :CH1 & S.thermophilus
.bulgaricus L.delbrueckii subsp


.6 :

.3.3 :
.1. 3.3 :
6

 5 100 ) (%11
43
.

. 3.32. :
)%12 %4 ,
( 90
45 CH1 44 4-3

5
%0.5 5 22 et al.,2002) (Al-kadamany
6 .

.3.3.3 ) (:

)
(, 40 )
60(
90 5 45
45 )
( ) 20-15(
6 ) 18-14( .
, .%0.36
) (1

. 4 .3.3
:

 ) ( ,
) ( ,
:
- 1 ) ,, ,) PH
)( .
-2 E.coli
.
-3 .
-4 .
- 5 ) ( ,
) ( ) (
, .

. 4.3 :
.1.4.3 :
: ) (Viscotester 7 200
rpm 15 , 100
0,05+20 )et al., 2002 , zer 2004
. ( & Shaker et al., Tashtoush , 2000 Shaker

. 2.4.3 :
-1 : AOAC . 2002
-2 : ) (Pearson , 1970

%50 ). (Ling , 1963
-3 :PH PH , PH 20
0,05 ). (Eberhard & Albrecht , 2007
-4 : AOAC
.2002

 -5 :
).,.Shaker et al ) 2002

-3.4.3 :
-1 :E . coli )(Davies,1951
-2 : )Al-kadamany et al., 2003; Abou-Jaber,
.(& 1994 Yamani

.4.4.3 :
24
) , (El-tahra et al.,1999a )Ahmad & (1978

Ismail

) ( ) 60(, ) 30( , ) 10(

) 100( . )30
( ) (
) ( , )
(Lawless&Heymann,1999 :
9 8 7 6 5

4 3 2 .1

.5.3 :
General Linear Model
)Designes (RCD

Complete Randomized

) .Range Test Duncans, Multiple (DMRT

0.01
0.05
.

.4 )(Results & Discussion

. 4.1 ) ,
,(:
18 ) ( . ) (2 ) (3

 ) (0.43%28.47 11
14 ) (0.03%0.0235.29%35.35 .
17 ) .(0.03%26.31 )
(0.19%6.53 .
.(0.25%10.20) 18 15 )
.(0.18 %4.00
18 ) , (0.05 %38.65
.(0.01%15.05) 15
) (0.02%1.35
P < 0.05 ,r2 0.56
16 15 4 1 ,14 11
.r2 0.80
PH 4.6 14 13 11 PH
) (4.7 0.01 4.80.01 4.90.02 . 12 9 3
.5 4 PH ).(0.144.54
PH
r2 PH .0.98
) (2654018 . 14 )
(5518633. 18 ) (5291600.

.2.4 :
) ,(4
) (9 - 8.4
) , (0.06 ). (0.06 8.7
) , (0.11
.P < 0.01
4 3 .18 14 13 12 11 10 8 6
(1.450.8353.753.7) 4 3 ,
4 3 ) 89.1 1.3189.1
(1.95 .

. 3.4 :
10

 E.coli
)90 5(
Amer ). (1997

.4.4 :
) (4 4 3
. ) (5 3
4 .
(4.9) 3 (8.5) 4
(4.7) 3 (6.9) 4
3 .

. 5.4
:
.1.5.4 :


).(6

11

 .2.5.4 :
E.coli

102 5.125/ )
( ,E.coli
102 6.6/ 9.75
10/ E.coli 1.0 10/ ).(7

.3.5.4 :
)(8
.
P <0.05
. 4.5.4 : )(%99.58
) (
).(%64.57
.5.5.4 : ) (9
) 69.( )
( ) 73.82. 80.23 ,.( .

.5 :Recommendations
.1 ) (
, )(
.
.2
.3 .

) ( 1

12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
80
76.5
73
80
76.5
73
83.5
83.5
83.25
82

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5
7
10.5
11.5
4
0
0

13.5
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.5
7.5
6.5
15
18.5
22
11.5
11.5
11.5
0
7.5
9.5
6.75

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.25
6.25

26.49
26.49
26.46
26.51
26.41
26.5
26.51
26.51
29.41
32.35
35.29
29.40
32.31
35.23
26.53
26.59
26.27
26.34

7.06
6.73
6.46
6.20
5.94
5.69
5.31
5.14
7.05
7.82
8.6
6.13
6
5.79
3.99
5.92
8.03
10.25

) (2 ) (

0.1026.52 ed

0.127.07 d

0.1026.52 ed

0.066.63 ef

0.0926.50 ed

0.176.50 gf

**%

0.131.46 a 0.3326.64 c
0.1325.02 d

0.081.40

%
0.495.50 a

0.024.53fgh

404

0.275.27 a

0.034.48def

bc

ab

0.131.42 0.5724.53 ed

13

***

PH

5567
500

bcde

0.455.37 a

0.014.41abc

3600
305

ab

0.1326.52 ed

0.176.20 gh

0.1226.51 ed

0.235.93hgi

0.1026.54 ed

0.175.70 j

0.1026.55ed

0.585.33 k

0.1026.55 ed

0.235.13 ab

0.0229.49 c

0.236.97 ed

10

0.0332.43 b

0.237.67 c

11

0.0235.35 a

0.238.47 b

12

0.0429.46 c

0.586.13 hi

13

0.0332.38 b

0.175.90 hij

14

0.0335.29 a

0.175.80 ij

15

0.0326.57ed

0.184.00 l

16

0.0226.64 d

0.215.90 hij

17

0.0326.31f

0.198.00 c

18

0.0226.39 ef

0.2510.20 a

0.061.47 a 0.5523.38 ef
0.7622.39 gf
0.5721.48

0.101.40

cde

0.425.28 a

0.024.44cde

fgh

0.121.39

0.465.22

0.014.54

ab

0.1420.09 ij
0.8019.33 j
0.8023.63 e
0.7323.64 e

0.1720.82

0.5518.22 k

0.161.35

0.605.09 ab

3000
252

0.014.49ef

ab

0.161.42

0.635.33 a

0.221.35

abc

0.744.58

3433
611

0.024.51f

ab
a

0.014.37

ab

32607cde
498
bcde

0.181.28

0.063.94bcd

4663
222

0.014.57gh

cde

ab

0.071.38

0.163.14 d

0.071.21

2533
242

0.014.77k

bcd

5167
577

0.024.38ab 0.244.68 abc

ab
cd

0.223.72

0.014.67

5067bcd
145
ab

ab

0.091.520

0.273.11 d

0.024.93l

0.355.71 a

0.014.52fg

0.101.21

6633
551

0.021.51a 0.0222.15 g
0.0330.41 b

3200cde
917

cde

0.101.10 b 0.5016.44 l
0.0115.05

3033
360

cde

0.061.11 b 0.6623.95 ed

0.034.43

ab

gh

hi

0.225.54

bcd

3833bcde
551

0.085.65

0.014.50

8633
215

3767bcde
300
vde

0.374.58 abc

3000
158

0.014.64ij

de

ab

0.321.43 ab 0.0238.65a

0..235.43 a

0.014.59hi

1600e

0.01

< P

* ** ***

) :(3

%
%
%
%

P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005

14

2333
529

0.005
0.024
0.250
0.017

r2
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.56

0.005

%
PH
/

0.000
0.000

0.236
0.001
1494891

0.80
0.98
0.73

) (4 ) (

1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
P

0.328.9 a
0.228.4 a
0.268.7 a
0.268.7 a
0.228.4 a
0.238.9 a
0.318.5 a
0.159.0 a
0.218.7 a
0.238.9 a
0.318.6 a
0.308.7 a
0.238.9 a
0.178.5 a
0.218.7 a
0.188.9 a
0.159.0 a
0.841
0.57
0.06

0.6625.2 a
1.0225.5 a
0.7026.7 a
0.7026.7 a
0.8025.8 a
0.9225.2 a
1.0424.3 a
0.6426.1 a
1.0124.9 a
1.2324.6 a
0.9225.8 a
1.0225.8 a
1.0225.8 a
0.6424.9 a
0.6024.6 a
0.7824.0 a
1.1122.8a
0.298
8.1
0.11

1.0150.1abc
1.0451.3ab
0.8353.7a
1.4553.7a
1.1950.1abc
1.2849.2bcd
1.9048.0bcd
1.2049.5abcd
1.4748.6bcd
1.0246.2cde
1.4349.2bcd
1.4545.3de
1.4343.8e
1.6251.9ab
1.8049.8abc
1.0150.1abc
0.9447.7bcde
0.000
17.7
0.28

1.3984.2 abc
1.8185.2 ab
1.3189.1 a
1.9589.1 a
1.5484.3 abc
1.5383.3 abc
2.7280.8 bc
1.8084.6 abc
2.4482.2 bc
2.3079.7 bc
2.0183.6 abc
2.2979.8 bc
2.3278.5 c
2.1585.3 ab
2.2483.1 abc
1.3583.0 abc
1.2979.5 bc
0.002
37.0
0.20

r2

P < 0.05

15

):(5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

3.2
3.3
2.6
4.6
3.8
4
4.3
6
3.8
4.6
3.2
4.5
4.6
4.5
5.1
5.7
3.2
3

6.3
6.4
4.9
8.5
7.5
8.2
8.5
12.5
7.7
9.6
7
9.2
10.1
10.3
9.8
11.4
6.3
6.3

1
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
1
0.5
0.7
0.7
1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5

2.1
11.2
3.2
8.3
2.2
9.5
2.2
9.5
2.5
8.3
2.9
8.3
3.2
9
3.3
11.4
2
5.2
3.2
7.8
3.9
8.3
2.9
11.2
3.2
10.9
3.2
8.3
2
6.2
1.9
7.8
2.4
6.4
3.5
5.2

5.2
6.7
4.7
6.9
5.8
5.8
4.8
10.7
6.7
9.4
9.1
7.6
9.1
9.3
8
8.5
5.1
5.1

4.4
8.3
5.7
12.7
4.1
8.3
6.2
8.3
4.9
9.8
4.8
11.5
4.1
12.5
8.6
13.6
5.7
7.8
7.7
12.8
7.3
16.1
6.3
11.2
7.2
12.5
7.3
12.5
6.8
8.1
7.1
7.7
4.3
10.2
4.1
15.4

) :(6

%
0.3925.28b

%
0.697.55a

*%
0.161.20a

** %
2.2430.99a

***%
0.614.92a

0.1026.41

0.136.78

0.071.22

0.5125.66

0.264.63

0.672.65
1.3929.18
0.170.67 0.327.40 0.2425.38

P < 0.01
ab

* ** ***

) :(7

102 5.125

16

0.00

E.coli
0.00

0.00
102 6.6

0.00
10 1.00

0.00
10 9.75

) :(8


0.17.8a
0.17.7a
0.17.6a

) :(9

400

)
+ +
)
+ ++

.
.

19.
240.
115.

7.
15%

25%

22800
1200
308
12
23108
404
57.19
7
64.19
9.63

16.04

13.8

73.82

17

/

22800 1200
308
12
23108 404
57.19
7
64.19

6346
334
11040
46
2300
20
400
16
20056
416
48.20
7
55.20

80.23

69

:REFERENCES6.

Abou Donia, S.A., Attia, I.A., Khattab, A.A. and El Khadragy, S.M
(1992) Characteristics of Labneh manufactured using different
lactic starter cultures Egyptian Journal of Food Science 20: 1.
Al Kadamany, E., Khattar, M., Haddad, Th., Toufili, I., (2002).
Determination of Shelf life of concentrated yoghurt Produced by inBag Straining of Set Yogurt Using Hazard Analysis. Journal of Dairy
Science, 85:1023-1030 .
Al Kadamany, E., Khattar, M., Haddad, Th., Toufili, I., (2003).
Estimation of Shelf life of concentrated yoghurt by monitoring
selected microbiological and physicochemical changes during

18

storage, leben smittel Wissen Schaft und Technologie 36(4): 407414.

Amer S.N, Girgis Es, Taha S.H and Abd- El- Moeety S.H (1997) Effect of
Milk Total Solids and Type of Starter on the Quality of Labneh,
Egyptian Journal of Dairy Science 25 179-192.
AOAC. Association of official Analytical Chemistry. (2002). Official
Methods of Analysis, 17th ed., Margland: AoAc International.
Davies, J.G. (1951), Milk Testing. Dairy Industries Ltd., London.
Eberhard, D.G. & Albrecht, B. (2007). Rhelogical characterization of set
yoghurt produced with additives of native whey proteins,
International Dairy Journal.
El Samragy, Y.A., Khorshied, M.A., Abd Rabou, N.S. and Mahran,
G.A. (1988). the Utilization of butter milk in the preparation of
yoghurt cheese (Labneh). Dairy and Food Sanitation 8: 30.
El Tahra, M.A., Ammar El Shazly, A.A., Nasr, M.M. and Omar, I.M.I.
(1999) comparative study on recombined Labneh, with buffalo and
cow milk Labneh. II. Effect of salt level on consumer acceptability.
Egyptian J. Dairy Sci., 27: 127-139.
Haddad, Y., Haddad., J., Olagi, A., Shuayto, N., Haddad, T., and Toufeili,
I. (2007) Mapping determinate of purchase intent of concentrated
yoghurt (Labneh) by conjoint analysis. Food Quality and preference
18: 795-802.
Hamad, A.M. and Al Sheikh, S.S. (1989). Effect of milk solids
concentration and draining temperature on the yield and the quality
of Labneh (concentrated yoghurt). Culture. Dairy production
Journal. 24(1): 25.
Hefinway, Sh. A., Ibrahim. S.A. and Abdel Kader. S. (1992). A study on
composition and properties of concentrated yoghurt (Labneh)
manufactured from recombined milk with different vegetable oils,
Egyptian Journal Dairy Science 20: 351.

19

Ling, E.R. (1963) A Text Book of Dairy Chemistry Vol. 11, 3rd ed.,
Chapman and Hall Ltd., London.
Mohameed, H., Abu Jdayil, B. and Al- Shawabkeh, A. (2004) Effect of
Solids Concentration on the rheology of Labneh (concentrated
yoghurt) produced from sheep milk. Journal of food Engineering
61(3): 347-352.
zer, A.H. (2004). Destructive Effects of Classical Viscosimeter on the
Microstructure of Yoghurt Gel. Turk Journal Agriculture, 28, 19-23.
Shaker, R.R., Tashtoush, B. (2000), Modeling of Yogurt Viscosity During
Coagulation Process. Egyptian Journal of Dairy Science 28: 49-57.
Pearson, D. (1970). The Chemical analysis of Foods 6th edition. J. & A.
Churchill, 104 Cloucester Place, London, U.K.
Shaker RR., Obeidat, B. and Abu Ishmais, M.A. (2002), Influence of
Coagulum PH at draining on the quality and yield of concentrated
yoghurt (Labneh). Egyptian Journal of Dairy Science 30: 27-34.
Tamime, A.Y. and R.K. Robinson. (1978). Some aspects of the production
of concentrated Yogurt (Labaneh) Popular in the Middle East. Milk
Science Inernational, 33:209.
Tamime, A.Y. (1993) in Encyclopedia of Food Science, Food Technology
and Nutrition, Vol. 7, PP. 57 152. Macrae, R. Robinson, R.K. and
Sodler, M.J, eds. London: Academic Press.
Tamime A.Y and Robinson RK (1999) Yoghurt: Science and Technology
2nd ed. (historical background pp1. UK. LLCi woodhead publishing
Ltd and CRC Press . Chapter 1,P.P.:1, chapter 2 ,P.P.:21-31,chpter 5,
P.P.: 326-335,chapter 6, P.P.:389-390,404 ,chapter 7,P.P.:437-443,
chapter 9,P.P.:521-524
Yamani, M. and Abu Jaber, M.M, (1994) Yeast Flora of Labneh
Produced in-bay Straining of cow milk set yoghurt. Journal of Dairy
Science 77: 3558-3564.

20

21