QUALITY OF SOUR CREAM AND NON-BUTTERFAT SOUR DRESSING A Cooperative Study by the Connecticut Department of Agriculture and The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station By Lester Hankin, Donald Shields, and J. Gordon Hanna BULLETIN 795 © THE CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION NEW HAVEN e APRIL 1981Lester Hankin end J. Gordon Henna are on the staff of The Connectiout Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven. Donald Shields ison the staff of the Dairy Division, Connecticut Department of Agriculture, in Hartford. Requests for additional copies should be addressed to Publications, ‘The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 7.0, Box 1106, New Haven, CT 06504.QUALITY OF SOUR CREAM AND NON-BUTTERFAT SOUR DRESSTNG By Lester Hankin, Donald Shields, and J. Gordon Hanna Sour cream is enjoyed by many persons who use it in diverse manners such as 2 base for chip dips, as a dressing for baked potatoes, a5 a topping on fruit or vegetables, and as an ingredient in cooking and baking.’ In 1978 the average annual consumption of sour cream and dips wes 817 grans (1.8 pods) per per- son, about a three-fold increase fron 1954 (1). This compares closely with yogurt con sumption of 1185 grams (2.6 pounds). Nore recently, other sour products have been offered for sale. These incluie sour dress- ings, sour half and half, and non-butterfat, sour ‘dressings. Sour crean is made either by using lactic acid bacteria to produce acid and flavor con- pounds ina milk product or by acidifying the milk mixture with food grade acids, with or without the use of lactic acid bacteria or enzymes (usually rennin). The former product is labelled cultured sour creas and the lat~ ter acidified sour creas. — In Connecticut, sour crea must contain st least 18% milk fat. (7). Sour half and half and acidified sour half end helf is made like sour erean and acidified sour crean, but reguletions allow less milk fat (10.5 "to 18.0%). The acidity of all soured products must not be lees than 0.5% expressed as lactic acid (7). There are no specific regulations for non-butterfat sour dressings except that. wholesome ingredients must be used and Lebelling and listings of ingredients must comply with State reguletions (8). Tais study details by brand nave microbial and chenical analyses of soured products offered for sale in food stores in Connecticut. METHODS Twenty-one samples of sour cream (includ~ ing one sour half and half) and seven samples of non-butterfat sour dressing were collected at food stores in Conneetiout during Ootober through December 1980. The coll microbiological and chemical analyses, and calculations have been described in our pre~ vious Bulletins on quality of yopurt (2), Juice drinks (3), egg nog (4), cottage and Tieotta cheese (5), and chip dips (6). RESULTS AND DISCUSSTON Additives: All seven of the non-butterfat, sour dressings but only 5 of the 21. sour creas stated on the label that a stabilizer or mulsifier was used (Table 1). Stabiliz~ ers thicken the product and enuisitiers help keep fat dispersed. The usual stabilizers, vegetable gus and carrageenen, and the enul— sifiers mono- and diglycerides were used. The use of tapioca flour was declared on the labels of two samples (numbers 23. and 27), presumably added to thicken and enhance the consistency. Labels on two samples (numbers.Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 795 table 1. cade rtd, detred alive, an lets fond In sur cram an sur dressing i md rand and esnufeturer ee Il sour or POO BP ky gree our crn {rest 847 Ten. Whar, 1 ee 4 tetrd's atarl sue cram (roy Fens, Wiaintan, ar 43 haart sur crn ith sed ontons(Croniey Fans Btehtpton, 17) se 4 tore sur ef (Bard Ory Baris Stison era, ey 5 bronstnes, Ht tral sar cram (raf aly ron, Ui.) a) 6 Cnertnd Forms. grade A sur erm (trl petal Prost, era A) ee) 1 ptryesa itr cu cram (nryen speci Proicts,fervon, »o@ 8 tathecountry pctge sour cron (lara enity Drier. Roby 37) eee 2) Eraetpr arte A soir ren (erlenip Bry Potts, Maple a 2 1b iterator Sty, sou eam ervey Foss, Sight, a Grand Onin, nur erm (Cray Tos, Bighorn, Hf) Bw 12 od sur crow (PH Berton om {3 the ufare tur He nt tat CHF, ody Eston, 8) 0 2 14 eset Fre trys naturliy Maored sor eran (niyo Scie Proce, fac, 4) na TE fatinaric soe coan (ica Baty Fars, Unon, $7) eo 1 et ony, al ata eur eran (loot Pode, fonts, #7) sf 17 deatest, ai ata sor eran (era Duty rp, Hoth Latent, ¥) ao 1S stop tte later) au con (tant Processing Go Anton, PX Bom 19 Stop & Shope eran Tuene Dy are, Sean A) es 20 atone tur evn (Eurs Ht Erna Gon Pratt, oar 2 nat nat sur roan (EAE Daly Group Herth Lee, a 2 Aor-uttertat so dest 12 retstore's, etre sur cessing (rt Onry Srp, Helton, Mt) 2 4 2 haere) iatenare,ro-btterfat sor resin eran Wig! Prot. HE aren, WW) 7D 24 ateh, Brisk "eBoy mnbtarit sour desing (Orie Coty Deen, Rr A) » 8 {Seton sur eave cate snr daring (ste fod, Leh 1) aes i 26 Kop Sour, sobuterst sor resp econ pn Probes, Me eae noo8 21 ‘iny Sour, sncbetterat sour Great iog ath chver(nercan ite Praferss. Yeron, gH) TOP foie initation sor rem, Hctry Fores (Oesiten foods to Cartesian, Wt non 1 Rat Sour cra but otaced fn ths group sick 4€ 8 a cultured prodst an conteinemfTeft.Quality of Sour cream A ot eet att at eat ete ge wp petit eta OP OMe Bel we WO oat - 18.8 a a * ca 00 1B 3.10.4 arars» one cance (aout? ublesnaonConnecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 795 tebe 2 Mlcrojeiogeat onlyeis and sorbate contnt of sour cree ad ronebuterfat sour dressing beans “ 2 “ AD atid RATED Gor wt otal seve cro PSP Ss ESE a ot hail 1 ane ea00 wo 8 ° "0 2 natrets 70 ano ®t smc 3 fares eh ate tos % Rigi eo Pan est eioa femurs sto a0 me ° st © rere Fre “to ao amo ° 0 otaeen a0 2 ° ve 11 ean ion 0 mw ° 0 eet so 100.0 0 ° 3.00 13 tots sou WF on is 0 ° 7 1 uae Fores, : so ae ® 18 test Ceey 0 sto nano ° »® Paar 5s ae “10 ase na. 18 stop 8 Sp 1.20.90 9 te a tn ° aie ore ag ve ontario 2 thterewt toes ao motte at 1, A zero Yevel mean Tess than 8.0013quality of Sour cream 5 3and 27) stated that hydrolyzed vegetable protein was added. Nonhydrolyzed soy protein was clained as an ingredient in sample 28. ‘Two samples, numbers 24 and 27, showed on the Label thet 5 sweetening agent was used: dex- trose snd sugar, respectively. labels on all of the non-butterfat sour dressings indicated that hydrolyzed vegetable ofl was the fat component. Either skim milk or water was the first ingredient listed (the component in the highest concentration) . None of the dairy sour cresm labels listed use of artificial color or flavor, but most. of the non-butterfat products declared their use (Table 1). Labels on’ samples 22, 26, 27, and 28 Listed use of an acidulant (lactic or citrie acid or vinegar) probably to provide tart~ hess. Cultured skim milk as listed as an ingredient for samples 22, 2u, and 25). Sodium citrate was a declared ingredient in three samples (numbers 1, 8, and 22). This material is called @ flavor precursor, since, in products cultured with lactic acid bacteria, the bacteria transform the sodium citrate to desirable flevor compounds. Nonosodiun glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer reputed to act by stimulating the taste buds, was stated as being used in san— ple 3, Sodium easeinate, derived from milk, was Listed as an ingredient in sample 22. Code periods: The code periods (days from manufacture to date stamped on the container) for sour creams averaged 39 days but the range was wide, from 25 to 60 days (Table 1). For non-butterfat sour dressings the code periods averaged 66 days; the range being from 30 to 90 days. The age of all somples at purchase varied fron 2 to 70 days. All samples were of satisfactory quality when purchases. Microbial analysis: The total number of aerobic bacteria per gras of sour cream or non-butterfat sour dressing varied considera~ bly anong brands (Table 2). There are no bacterial standards for these products, but for exemple, a total aeroble count of $0,000 per gran is acceptable in pasteurized crean, Thus, only tuo samples were above the stan— dard for pasteurized cream (Table 2). The umber of acid-producing bacteria docs not always coincide with the total aerobic count. The lactic acid bacteria used to foment dairy products are fastidious in their growth requirenents. If they are present in the manufactured product, most will not grow on the medium used for ‘the total aerobic count. Bacteria other than lectic acid bacteria can produce acid. Thus, for example, in sanple 19 the acid producers may not be lactic acid bacteria since the total aerobic count is high, Conversely, in sample 2, the total aerobic count is low and the number of acid Producers high, indicating a large nuaber of Lactic acid bacteria in the product. The low number of acid producers in the non-butterfat, sour dressings probably is not important to keeping quality. Contamination by yeasts and molds varied among samples (Table 2). Yeasts greater than 50 per gran are considered important. Mold contamination, except for a few samples was mininal. fn excessive nimber of coliforn bacteria (greater than 10 per gran) is not considered satisfactory and could indleate poor packaging technique. We elso tested for gran negative bacteria able to degrade proteins and fats, the major components of sour cream and dressing. Many of these gran negative bacteria are paychro- trophic, i.e., able to grow at refrigeration tenperatures ‘and cause spoilage. Few of these bacteria were found in the samples, indicating that any bacterial contamination detected by the totel aerobic count was by gran positive bacteria, which are Less likely. to cause spoilage then the gren negative bac teria. Nutrient quality: The percentage of fat, in “the sour creas (sample 13 excluded) varied from 16.3 to 22.0%; averaging 19.1% (Table 1). Quly two samples (numbers 11 and 26) contained less than the 18% bubterfat required. The non-butterfat sour dressing averaged 18.6% fat. The number of calories in the sour creams averaged 55 per 28. grams (one ounce or about 2 tablespoons) and UB in the non-but= terfat sour dressings, The protein content. avereged 3.7% for the sour creams and 3.4, for the non-butterfat dressings. The cerbah— yarate content averaged 3.W% for the sour creams and 5.38 for the sour dressings (Table ». The average sodium content of the sour creans (excluding sample 3) was 67 milligrams Per 100 grams, ranging fron 83 to 113. The hon-butterfat ‘sour dressings (excluding saa ple 27) averaged 68 milligrams per 100 grans, ranging fron 38 to 120. Samples 3 and 27 were high in sodium content (520 and 248 mil- Ligrans per 100 arans, respectively). Their Labels listed hydrolyzed vegetable protein, which ean contain considerable salt, a well as salt as the third or fourth ingredient. Sorbate, a food preservative used” to6 Connecticut agricul tural Experiment Station comteract yeast and mold growth, was found in only 6 samples, It was not present in 2 samples that listed it on the label, however it was present in 2 samples that did not declare its use (Table 2). Acidity of the sour creams, a measure of tartness ranged fron 2 low of 0.55% to a high of 0.95% (average 0.79%). All sour cresns were within the reguiation requiring at least D.SE acidity calculated as lactic acid. Roidity of the non-butterfat sour dressings ranged fron 0.70 to 0.968 (average 0.808). Tus, eech type of product generally had abou! the sane tartness, ‘CONCLUSIONS, Two types of sour products are sold in Connecticut; deiry sour erem, 9 cultured Product; and non-butterfat sour dressing. Gode periods (days fran manufacture to date stamped on the container) ranged from 25 to 90 days. Twenty-eight senples were tested. Fat ‘content averages 19,18 for sour cream and 1.6% for non-butterfat sour dressings Sodium’ content of sonples averaged 67 milligrans per 100 grams. Samples containing hydrolyzed vegetable protein were higher in soditm content. Non-butterfat products gen- erally contained more additives than the sour ereans, Two samples thet did not declare the se of sorbate on the label contained this preservative, Microbial contamination veried among, types of products and brands. Only two san- ples contained 2 high nunber of aerobic bac teria. Seven samples contetned susatential yeast contamination, Twelve samples con— ned 2 high number (greater than 10 per gran) of coliform bacteria. Bulletin 795 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Susan Marafino, Sunrae NeLean, Momie Pyles, Jonn Heyes, and’ Richard Hastings for the microbial and chemical analyses and Weather Leary for help in collecting the sam= ples. REFERENCES 1, Dairy Situation (DS 376). USDA Foononies, Statistics, Service, Washington, DC. 2, tankin, L. and'D. shields. 1990. quality of Yogurt. The Conn, Agricul tural Experiment, auly 1979. ‘and Cooperative Station, lew Haven, Bulletin 785 3. Hankin, L., D. Shields, and J. Gordon Hanha, 1980. Quality of Juice Drinks. The Conn. Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Bulletin 790, 4. ‘Wankin, Le, D. Shields, and J. Gordon Henna, 1980. Quality of Egg tog. The conn Agricultural Experiment Station, Yew Haven. Bulletin 793. 5. ankin, L., D. Shields, and J. Honna, 1980. Quality of Gttage Ch Ricotta Cheese. The Conn. Agricultural Exper~ iment Station, New Haven, fulletin 791 6. Bankin, L., D. Shields, and J, Gordon Henna. 1981, Quality of Chip Dips. The Conn. Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven. Bulletin 794. Regulations of the Milk fegulation Board. Adopted July 17, 1974. Conn. Depart= ment of Agriculture, Hartford. 8. Uniform Food,” Drug, and Cosnetic Act, chapter 342, General Statutes of Connecticut. Revised to 1981.