Texture of Cheddar Cheese as Influenced by Fat Reduction

A. BRYANT, 2. USTUNOL, and J. STEFFE

ABSTRACT (1976) reported when firmness was evaluated, results depended

on the compression behavior of the samples as modified by fric-
Cheddar cheeseswith five different fat levels (34, 32, 27, 21, and 13 %)
tional effects. Goh and Sherman (1987) investigated stress re-
were manufactured in a randomized block design experiment and repli-
laxation behavior of Gouda cheese using unldbricated and
cated four times. Cheeseswere ripened for 4 months at 7°C. Micros-
lubricated plates. Other studies include the effect of lubrication
tructure was studied using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Tex-
ture characteristics (adhesiveness, cohesiveness, hardness, and of samples with mineral oil (Ak and Gunasekaran, 1992) or
springiness) were determined by Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) using
bonding of sampleswith cyanoacrylate ester adhesive (Casiraghi
the Instron Universal Testing Machine and a trained sensorypanel. Scan-
et al., 1985). Brennan and Boume (1994) reported on cheese
ning electron micrographs showed that the open-intricate microstructure
and frankfurter samples that were subjected to a :50% uniaxial
of the cheeses was lost with a decrease in fat content. Hardness and
springiness increased while adhesiveness and cohesiveness of the
compression between flat plates and artificial molars, mounted
on a Texture Analyzer. They concluded that the frictional effect
cheesesdecreasedwith decreasing fat content. Texture attributes were
of the cusps on the molar teeth was greater than the effect of
influenced by the nature of the protein matrix that resulted due to fat
removal. lubrication. Observations made when samples were compressed
between the molar teeth confirmed their observation that com-
Key Words: texture, cheddar cheese,fat, microstructure pression of foods in the mouth followed the nonhlbricated pat-
tern although lubrication was provided by saliva.
Cheesetexture is largely determined by microstructure, which
INTRODUCTION on natural cheeses has been studied extensively using Trans-
TEXTURE is an important characteristic of Cheddar cheese in mission Electron Microscopy and Scanning Electron Micros-
determining consumer acceptability and quality (McEwan et al., copy. Emmons et al. (1980) observed the microstructure of full
1989). Much research has been published on cheese texture. and reduced fat cheesesmade from homogenized milk. Green
Chen et al. (1979) used the Instron to evaluate 6 textural char- et al. (198 1) observed microstructural changesin cheddar cheese
acteristics (hardness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, springiness, made from concentrated milk. Kiely et al. (1993) studied age
gumminess and chewiness) of 11 cheese varieties ranging from related changes in microstructure of mozzarella cheese and re-
Parmesan to cream cheese. Measurements closely correlated ported that porosity of the paracasein matrix decr’easedthrough
with composition and pH. Green et al. (1981) analyzed textural ripening. They attributed growth of matrix cavities to proteolytic
characteristics of Cheddar cheesemade from concentrated milk destruction of protein. Taneya et al. (1992) observed the mi-
using the In&on. Instrumental firmness, cohesiveness,force re- crostructure of string cheeseconcluding that stringiness was sig-
quired for fracture and adhesivenessincreased as concentration nificantly associatedwith a uniform, longitudinal orientation of
of milk increased, whereas springiness did not change. Stam- the protein matrix, and fat was dispersed between the protein
panoni and Noble (199 1) used the In&on to evaluate the effects strands.
of fat, acid and salt on textural attributes of cheese analogs. Thirty-six percent of all reduced fat dairy products introduced
Analogs containing higher amounts of fat were softer, less in 1992 were cheeses (O’Donnell, 1993). Poor texture, slow
springy, and more cohesive and adhesive. Increasing acid or salt flavor development and poor keeping quality have been com-
increased firmness, but decreasedcohesivenessand springiness. mon problems in reduced fat cheeses.Milk fat makes multiple
Correlations of instrumental analysis and sensory data, are contributions to cheesetexture, but not all are well understood.
limited to a particular product or cheesevariety, and often can- Reduced-fat cheesestend to .be harder, more elastic and more
not be extrapolated to other products. Instrumental measure- adhesive than their full fat counterparts (Schulz et al., 1952;
ments have not always correlated well with sensory analysis Kay, 1965; Davis, 1965; Emmons et al., 1980; Lawrence and
(Eves et al., 1988; Jack et al., 1993). Some reasons for seeking Gilles, 1987; Olson and Johnson, 1990). Increasing moisture
correlation, difficulties encountered and developments in this content has been generally recommended to improve texture of
area were reviewed by Szczesniak (1987). reduced fat cheeses.Our objective was to investigate the intlu-
Brennan et al. (1975) studied three mechanical properties of ence of reduction in milk fat on microstructure and on percep-
five cheeses,using both the Texturometer and In&on, and re- tion of texture attributes in cheddar cheese, and to correlate
ported the highest correlation coefficient was between sensory sensory data with measurements from the Insiron Universal
evaluation and the In&on. Stampanoni and Noble (1991) ob- Testing Machine.
served a positive correlation between sensory and instrumental
measurements in studies with cheese analogs. Lakhani et al.
(1991) found no correlation between instrumental and sensory MATERIALS & METHODS
characteristics of cheddar cheese made from ultrafiltered milk. Cheese manufacture
Poor correlation of instrumental measurementswith sensory Cheddar cheesewith varying fat levels, 34, 32, 27,21, and 13%, was
data may be partially due to uncontrolled surface friction be- manufactured from standardizedmilk with 3.8, 3.2, 2.4, 1.6, and 0.8%
tween sample and compression plates. Culioli and Sherman fat respectively. Milk was warmed to 31°C and inoculated with 0.02%
DVS (Direct Vat Set) culture (DVS #980, Chr. Hansen’s Laboratory,
Inc., Milwaukee, WI). Milk was ripened for 1 hr, and 0.01% chymosin
Author Ustunol is with the Dept. of Food Science & Human No-
(Chymax-Double strength, Pfizer, Milwaukee, WI) was added to clot
trition, Michigan State Univ., 165 S. Anthony Hall, E. Lansing, Ml
milk in 30 min. Cheddar cheesewas manufactured by the standard pro-
48824. Author Steffe is with the Dept. of Agricultural Engineering,
cedure outlined in Kosikowski (1982). Curd for all cheeseswas milled
Michigan State Univ. Author Bryant’s current address: Nabisco
at the same pH. It was salted, hooped and pressed for 18 hr. Manufac-
Co., 200 DeForest Ave., P.O. Box 1944, East Hanover, NJ 07936.
tured cheeseswere vacuum packaged the next day and ripened at 7°C
Direct inquiries to Dr. i’. Ustunol.
for 4 mo. Cheese manufacturing for all treatments wits replicated four
,
1216-JOiJRNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 60, No. 6, 1995
times. Cheeseswere assayedfor fat using the Babcock procedure, protein
using the Kjeldahl method and moisture, as described in StandardMeth-
ods for Examination of Dairy Products (Marshall, 1992).
Instrumental texture profile analysis
Cheddar cheesewas cut into cylindrical samplesof 20 X 20 m m using
a cork borer and a wire cutter, placed in plastic cups, sealed (to prevent
dehydration), and stored at 9°C overnight. A two-bite compression test
was performed using the In&on Universal Testing Machine (Model
4202, Canton, MA) with a 10 kN load cell. An 80% compression was
used and crossheadspeed was 10 mm/min. Samples were lubricated by
placing one drop of vegetable oil on the top and bottom surfaces.Hard-
ness, cohesiveness,and adhesivenesswere determined in triplicate from
the texture profile curve as describedby Bourne (1967). Springinesswas
determined in triplicate using a 55% compression test iimilar to that
described bv Stamuanoni and Noble (1991). Height of the samole was
measured before and after compression. Springiness was expressed as
percent of sample returned to its original height.
Sensory determination
Texture was evaluated using a 15-member trained sensory panel con-
sisting of faculty and graduate students at Michigan State University.
They were selectedthrough a screeningprocess for ability and reliability
to distinguish the tested cheese attributes. The panelists participated in
one orientation and four training sessions. They were trained to judge
cheesetexture as described by Civille and Szczesniak(1973). The train-
ing involved practice with 20 different cheesespurchased at local gro-
cery stores that varied in sensory attributes being tested.Panelistsalso
practiced using the structured rating scale to quantify tested attributes
and were providedfeedbackon their ratings.Data collectionsessions
were held twice a day with five test samplesevaluated/session.
A ref-
erencesamplewas also providedat eachsession.All training and data
collectionwas done in a climate-controlledsensoryanalysislaboratory
equipped with individual testing booths. Panelists were provided water
(at room temperature)
andunsaltedcrackersfor rinsingandpalateclean-
ing. Cheesesampleswerecut into 20 X 20 m m cylindersthe day before
testing and stored in covered plastic cups at 9°C overnight. The cups
were identifiedby random3-digit numbers.
The panel was instructed to evaluate samples for adhesiveness,co-
hesiveness,hardnessand springiness.To determineadhesiveness,pan-
elistswere advisedto placethe samplebetweenthe molars,chewit five
times, press it with the tongue to the roof of the mouth and evaluate the
force required to remove sample with the tongue. Cohesiveness was
evaluatedby placing the samplebetweenmolars,compressingit fully
and noting the degreeto which it deformedratherthan crumbledor fell
apart.To determinehardnesspanelistswere advisedto placethe sample
between molars, bite through it once and evaluate the force required to
bite into the cheese.For springiness,the panelistswere advisedto place
the samplebetweenmolars,compressit partially without breakingthe
structure,releasethe toothpressureand evaluatethe degreeto which the
cheesereturnedto its original shape.Panelistsevaluatedeachcharacter-
istic using a structured 9-point intensity scale, where 1 indicated the
lowest and 9 the highest intensity of an attribute. Each attribute was
rated on a separateballot. Sensory texture scores were averaged for 15
judges for each treatment (for all 4 replicates) and attribute tested.
Microstructure determination
Microstructurewas evaluatedusing ScanningElectron Microscopy
(SEM). Cheese slices were cut and primary fixed in 4% buffered glu-
teraldehyde for 1.5 hr, washed in O.lM phosphate buffer for 30 min.
They were post fixed in bufferedosmiumtetroxidefor 2 hr and washed
for 30 min in 0.2M phosphate buffer. Samples were dehydrated in in-
creasing concentrationsof ethanol and water solutions, 25%, 50%, 75%,
and 100% for 30 min in eachsolution.They werethen quick frozenand
fracturedin liquid nitrogento exposean uncut surfaceand placed in
100%ethanol.Sampleswere critical point dried in a BalzersCritical
Point Dryer and coated with a thin layer of gold in an Emscope Sputter
Coater EM 500. A JEOL Scanning Electron Microscope, at 15 KV ac-
celerating voltage, was used to view each sample. Microstructure of all
the cheeses was evaluated.Micrographsof reprensentative replicates
were selected for presentation.
Volume 60, No. 6, 1995-JOlJRNAL
Statistical analysis
The experiment was replicated four times in a randomized block de-
sign. Days were blocked. All tests for TPA were conducted in triplicate.
Sensory Analysis was done using 15 trained panelists. Microcomputer
Statistical Program (MSTAT) (Michigan State University, E. Lansing,
MI) was used for statisticalanalysisof the data,to determinedifferences
between treatment means and correlation coefficients. A separate AN-
OVA was conducted for each characteristic tested. Treatment means
were consideredsignificantly different at P $ 0.05 unless differently
stated.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
COMPOSITIONAL DATA of the manufactured cheesesshowed, as
expected, that moisture and protein content of the cheeses in-
creased (P < 0.05) when fat was removed. Moisture content
(wet basis) of the cheesescontaining 34 & 2.9,32 _+2.3,27 2 1.4,
21% 1.9, and 13+ 1.9% fat were 38.5? 1.34, 39.7-C 1.89, 40.8
2 1.35, 40.8* 1.81, and 44.7+2.16%, respectively. Protein
contents of these cheeses were 22.3 -t 1.74, 24.3 2 1.06, 27.9
It_1.53, 32.7 +_1.26, and 36.4 f 1.06%, respectively. Cheddar
cheeseis a viscoelastic solid in which the caseins form a protein
network with entrapped fat and moisture. The level of milk fat
in the cheese had a significant effect on the protein matrix as
determined by SEM (Fig. l), thus, impacting various textural at-
tributes (Tables 1 and 2).
Hardness. Hardness (force necessaryto attain a given defor-
mation) is most commonly evaluated when determining cheese
texture. Hardness of cheddar cheese, as determined both by In-
stron and sensory panel increased with decrease in fat content
(Table 1 and 2). However, cheesescontaining 34, 32, and 27%
were similar in hardness as determined by In&on. When the fat
level in the cheese was reduced to 21%, hardness increased (P
< 0.05). The cheese containing 13% fat was the hardest (P <
0.05) (Table 1).
Cheesescontaining 34 and 32% fat received similar hardness
scores by the trained sensory panel. Judges scored the cheeses
as increasing in hardness (P < 0.05) as fat level decreased(Ta-
ble 2). There was a positive, and significant correlation (r =
0.95), between Instron determination of hardness and sensory
ratings (P < 0.01).
Scanning electron micrographs indicated that cheeseswith 34
and 32% fat had similar microstructures. The protein matrix was
loose and open with spaces occupied by the fat globules dis-
persed through the protein network providing a lace-like ap-
pearance (Fig. 1). Microstructure of the cheese containing 27%
fat was distinctly different from cheeseswith 34 and 32% fat.
This cheesehad a more compact protein matrix with less open
spaces that would be occupied by milk fat globules. Compact
appearanceof the protein network increased and number of milk
fat globules dispersed within the network decreasedwith reduc-
tion in fat content of cheeses.This probably explained the hard
texture observed with the lower fat cheeses (Tables 1 and 2),
even though they were significantly higher in moisture content.
Banks et al. (1989) observed an increase in hardness of reduced
fat Cheddar cheesecontaining 25% and 16% fat and 42.9% and
47.2% moisture, respectively, compared to their full fat coun-
terparts. Stampanoni and Noble (1991) also observed an in-
crease in hardness of cheese analogs (manufactured with rennet
casein, deionized water and melted vegetable fat) with decrease
in fat content. Prentice (1987) reported a direct relationship be-
tween firmness and cheese moisture. Tunick et al. (1991) re-
ported on increase in the hardness of Mozzarella cheese with
decreasedfat content. The effect was more pronounced at higher
cooking temperatures. Their study also showed that reduced
moisture levels resulted in greater hardness. They hypothesized
that firmer texture was due to the alteration in the casein matrix,
as well as water acting as either a lubricant or plasticizer be-
tween the proteins. Our micrographs showed that higher mois-
ture cheddar cheeses (with reduced fat) had a compact very
dense protein matrix. Higher moisture content of these cheeses
OF FOOD SCIENCE-1217
TEXTURE OF REDUCED FAT CHEDDAR CHEESE. ..
did not soften the protein matrix. The removal of fat altered the
protein matrix resulting in a compact and dense appearance.
Chen et al. (1979) showed that hardnessof cheesevarieties with
varying composition correlated most closely with protein con-
tent and not fat or moisture. The ranges they tested were: fat
l&32% and moisture 4430%.
Springiness. Springiness is the rate and extent to which a
deformed material goes back to its undeformed condition after
the deforming force is removed (Civille and Szczesniak, 1973).
Springiness of the cheesesincreased with decreasein fat content
as determined by both the Instron and sensory panel. Cheddar
cheesescontaining 34 and 32% fat were similar in springiness
as determined by Instron. When the fat level in the cheese was
reduced to 27, 21 and 13 % it became springier (P < 0.05). The
trained sensory panel also could not detect differences in spring-
iness between cheesescontaining 34 and 32% fat. The sensory
1216-JOLJRNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 60, No. 6, 1995
Fig. I-Scanning Electron micrographs of Cheddar
cheese containing 34% (A), 32% (B), 27% (C),21% (D).
and 13% (E) fat. Magnification 800X.
panel scored cheese as increasing in springiness (I’ < 0.05) for
cheese containing 27%, 21%, and 13% fat. The :Instron deter-
mination of springiness positively and highly correlated (r =
0.95), with sensory determination of springiness (P < 0.01). The
protein matrix was more flexible and elastic as fat was removed
shown by springiness scores (Tables 1 and 2) regardless of
higher moisture of the reduced fat cheeses.Stampanoni and No-
ble (1991) observed an increase in springiness of cheeseanalogs
with decrease in fat. Tunick et al. (1993) also reported an in-
crease in springiness of mozzarella cheese with dIecreasein fat.
A linear decrease in elasticity of mozzarella cheese was also
reported as the ratio of fat to solids-not-fat increafjed (Masi and
Addeo, 1986). Emmons et al. (1980) demonstrated.low fat ched-
dar cheese was springier than full fat cheddar cheese hypothe-
sizing that reducing fat content resulted in fewer fat globules
with more casein being deformed per unit volume evidenced by
Table l-Influence of milk fat on texture profile analysis (TPA) parameters low-fat cheesesexhibiting a higher degree of stickiness when
of Cheddar cheese as determined by lnstron
masticated. This was particularly evident in samples with fat
Treatments Adhesive- Cohesive- Spring- contents of 15% or less and after aging. Since moisture contents
Cheese fat ness ness Hardness iness
(%) (N mm) (ratio) (N) (%)
of low-fat cheesesare higher and proteins are degraded during
ripening such cheesewere expected to be more adhesive. How-
34 1.15a 0.14a 193.7a 58.1a
(0.31) (0.03) (66.5) 13.3)
ever, in our study low fat cheesesthat were ripened for 4 mo
were less adhesive regardlessof moisture content. According to
32 1.13a o.i3a 260.7a 57.8a
(0.40) (0.03) (95.4) (7.2) our micrographs, removal of fat which increasedprotein content,
27 1.18a o.i5a 280.0a 71.5”
altered the protein matrix, making it more compact and therefore
(0.36) (0.02) (60.3) (6.0) less adhesive. Protein content has been the dominant factor in-
21 0.53” 0.19” 468.7b 789 fluencing adhesiveness of cheese with varying composition
(0.44) (0.03) (98.9) (8.2) (Chen et al., 1979).
13 0.49 o.zb 762.3c 88.1d Cohesiveness.As fat content of cheesesdecreased,cohesive-
KL40) (0.04) (96.5) (6.5) ness (the extent to which they could be deformed before they
a-d Means with standard’deviations in parentheses. Means with the same superscript ruptured) increasedas determined by In&on (Table 1). Cheeses
are not significantly different (P i 0.05). Comparisons are made only within the containing 34, 32, and 27% fat were similar in cohesiveness.
Same column. Treatments were replicated four times, each test was conducted in Cheesescontaining 21 and 13% fat were also similar in cohe-
triplicate.
sivenessand were more cohesive than those containing 34, 32,
and 27% fat. In contrast, sensory cohesivenessdecreasedas fat
Table 24nfluence of milk fat on texture characteristics of Cheddar cheese content decreased(Table 2), but not consistently. Only the 34
as determined by a trained sensory panel and 13% fat cheesesdiffered in cohesiveness.Stampanoni and
Treatments Noble (1991) reported a decrease in cohesiveness with de-
Cheese fat Adhesive- Cohesive- Spring- creasedfat content of cheese analogs. Tunick et al. (1991) re-
(%) ness ness Hardness iness ported that reduced moisture content in mozzarella cheese
34 6.9a 5.7a 2.7a decreasedits cohesiveness.
(1.6) (2.6) (1.2) (::E; The nature of the protein matrix and the extent of fat disper-
32 6.3a 5.oabc 2.9a 2.5a sion may contribute to cohesivenessor the tendency of cheese
(1.7) (2.2) (1.6) (1.5) to adhere to itself (Fig. 1, Tables 1 and 2). Cohesivenessis
27 5.Y’ 5.3ab &lb 3.6” somewhat difficult to evaluate, because as fat was removed the
(1.9) (2.0) (1.7) (1.8)
cheesebecame more springy. A springy cheese resisted defor-
21 wbc 5.6c 5.3c mation and did not rupture easily, thus it was more cohesive by
(K (1.6) (1.5) (1.9)
Instron measurement.However, the more compact reduced fat
13 2.ld 4.5bc 7.od 6.9d
(2.1) (1.4) (1.7)
cheesesseemedto crumble and break more easily according to
(1.3)
sensory panelists, thus they were perceived as less cohesive. It
a-d Means with the same superscript are not significantly different (P < 0.05). Compar-
isons are made only within the same column. Means with standard deviations in
is also possible that the very slow speed of the In&on and the
parentheses: n = 60 for all treatments (4 replicates x 15 judges). flat compression plate compared to the sharpnessof molars and
speed of the teeth in the sensory evaluation was responsible for
the low correlation between the two in this respect.Instrumental
electron micrographs. However, increasing homogenization pres- and sensory determinations for cohesivenessdid not correlate (r
sure decreasedelasticity of reduced fat cheesesdue to the higher = -0.41).
moisture content (Emmons et al., 1980). Tunick et al. (1991)
reported greater values for springiness with reduced moisture
levels in mozzarella cheese.Our results showed that increase in CONCLUSION
moisture did not decrease springiness of reduced fat cheddar As FAT IN CHEESE DECREASED, and moisture increased,hardness
cheese.This was consistent with the observation of Chen et al. and springiness increased and adhesivenessand cohesiveness
(1979), that protein level was the dominant component affecting decreased.This occured although moisture increased. Scanning
elasticity of cheesevarieties. electron micrographs indicated that the nature of the protein ma-
Adhesiveness. Adhesiveness(work necessaryto overcome at- trix, which is affected by fat content of the cheeses,influenced
tractive forces between surface of cheese and surface of con- texture attributes. Manufacturing acceptable,reduced fat cheeses
tacting material) of cheeses decreased with decreasing fat requires controlling the dense microstructure that results from
content (Table 1). However, adhesivenessvalues for cheeses high concentration of protein undisrupted by fat. Disruption of
containing 34, 32, and 27% fat were similar. These scoreswere the casein-caseininteractions by fat to loosen the protein matrix
higher (P < 0.05) than for cheesescontaining 21 and 13% fat. appears essential to achieve desirable texture. Increasing mois-
The sensory panel evaluated the force required to remove the ture content or modification of milk fat globules alone did not
cheesethat adheredto the roof of the mouth (Civille and Szczes- improve cheddar cheesetexture.
niak, 1973). Adhesiveness scores decreasedas fat content de-
creased (Table 2). Cheeses containing 34 and 32% fat were
similar in adhesivenessand were the most adhesive (P < 0.05) REFERENCES
among those tested. Cheeses containing 27, 21, and 13% fat Ak, M.M. and Gunasekaran, S. 1991. Stress-strain curve analysis for ched-
decreased(P < 0.05) in adhesivenesswith decreasing fat con- Banks, dar cheese under uniaxial compression. J. Food Sci. 57: 10781081.
J.M., Brechany, E.Y., and Christie, W.W. 1989. The production of
tent. The In&on determination of adhesivenessalso correlated lowfat cheddar-type cheese. J. Sot. Dairy Technol. 42: 6-10.
positively (r = 0.73) with sensory determinations (P < 0.01). Bourns, M. 1967. Deformation testing of foods. I. A precise technique for
performing the deformation test. J. Food Sci. 32: 601-605.
For high correlation between instrumental and sensory analysis Bourns, M., Moyer, J.C., and Hand, D.B. 1966. Measurement of food texture
many factors are critical: uniform lubrication of compression with a Universal Testing Machine. Food Technol. 20: 17&177.
plates, uniform sample size and geometry, % deformation, and Brennan, J.G. and Bourne, M.C. 1994. Effect of lubrication on the compres-
sion behaviour of cheese and frankfurters. J. Texture Stud. 25: 139-150.
surface friction. Brsnnan, J.G., Jowitt, R., and Williams, A. 1975. An analysis of the action
Scanning electron micrographs indicated that the most adhe- Bryant, of the General Foods Texturometer. J. Texture Stud. 1: 167-170.
A.C. 1993. Microstructure, sensory and textural characteristics of
sive cheeseswere those containing an open and loose protein cheddar cheese as influenced by milk fat. M.S. thesis, Michigan State Uni-
matrix as in the higher fat cheeses(Fig. 1). As the protein matrix versity,, E. Lansing.
became increasingly more compact the cheeses lost adhesive- Casiraghr, Mozzarella,
E.M., Bagley, E.B., and Christianson, D.D. 1985. Behavior of
Cheddar and processed cheese spread in lubricated and
ness (Fig. 1; Tables 1 and 2). Olson and Johnson (1990) reported bonded unmxial compression. J. Texture Stud. 16: 281307.
--Continued on page 1236
Volume 60, No. 6, 1995-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-1219