Acceptability of Ice Cream Made with Processed Wheys and Sodium Caseinate 1
J. G. PARSONS, S. T. O Y B I N G , 2 D. S. C O D E R ?
ABSTRACT
Dry sweet whey, whey protein con-
centrate, and sodium caseinate were used
in this study to replace the nonfat dry
milk in ice cream. Either whey protein
concentrate, a blend of whey protein
concentrate and dry sweet whey, or a
blend of dry sweet whey and sodium
caseinate were used to replace the milk
solids-not-fat at 50 or 100%. All the
experimental ice creams were com-
pared to control ice creams using nonfat
dry milk to increase the milk solids-not-fat.
All mixes were manufactured to
produce an ice cream having 10.5% fat,
22% total milk solids, 13% sucrose, 3%
corn syrup solids, and .3% stabilizer-
emulsifier. The ice cream was manu-
factured in 114-kg batches, the mix being
blended, pasteurized (72°C for 30 rain),
homogenized with a two-stage homog-
enizer (1080 kg/cm2), cooled to 4°C,
flavored with pure vanilla extract, and
frozen in a continuous freezer. The ice
cream was packed in 1-L containers, then
stored at - 3 0 ° C .
The final products were evaluated for
compositional analyses on two subsamples
of each batch of mix; a panel evaluation
for flavor, body, and texture by trained
panelists; and a 52 family consumer
evaluation to determine overall preference.
The compositional analyses of ice cream
averaged 10.5% fat, 3.9% protein, 5.7%
lactose, .94% ash, and total solids of
38.7%. Standard deviations of these
analyses were less than 1.00.
Received January 14, 1985.
1Published with the approval of the Director of
the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station
as Publication 2035 of the Journal Series.
~Scientist, Land O'Lakes, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
3A. O. Smith, North Country Harvestore, P.O. Box
268, Middlebury, VT.
1985 J Dairy Sci 68:2880-2885 2880
K. R. SPURGEON, and S. W. SEAS
South Dakota State University
Brookings 57007-0647
The panel evaluation showed no
significant differences (P>.05) in flavor,
body, and texture among the various ice
creams. Sandiness was not judged a
problem with any of the ice creams.
Fifty-two families were randomly
selected from the City of Brookings, SD,
for consumer evaluation of the ice
creams. The 14-wk evaluation was con-
ducted with each family receiving 5 L of
ice cream as five 1 L cartons each week.
Each week's ice cream delivery contained
one sample from each of three treatment
mixes, a control sample, and a duplicate
of one of the other four samples. The
samples of ice creams were rated on a
nine-point hedonic scale (1 best, 9 worst).
No significant differences were found
in the consumer flavor ratings among the
ice creams made with dry sweet whey,
whey protein concentrate - dry sweet
whey blend (at both the 50% and 100%
replacement levels), and the control. The
ice cream made with the dry sweet
whey-sodium caseinate blend received a
significantly higher hedonic rating
(P<.01), indicating a poorer quality
product.
INTRODUCTION
Ice cream is a frozen dessert made by
freezing a pasteurized mix of milk solids, sugar,
corn syrup, flavoring, stabilizer, emulsifer,
with or without eggs (4). The Federal Standards
of Identity require ice cream to contain at least
10% milk fat and at least 20% milk solids (3).
Usually the required milk solids are met by the
addition of nonfat dry milk (NFDM) to the ice
cream mix. However, the relatively high cost of
NFDM has increased interest in using dry sweet
whey (DSW), whey protein concentrate (WPC),
or caseinate as an alternative source of milk
solids.
Dry sweet whey often has been used success-
fully in ice cream at low concentrations (21,
 ICE CREAM
23, 25). The use of DSW has been reported to
enhance the product flavor and improve whip-
ping ability (25). However, the use of large
quantities of DSW in an ice cream formulation
has frequently promoted the development of
sandiness (10, 18, 22). Researchers have reported
that from 25 to 35% of the milk solids-not-fat
can be replaced with DSW without danger of
increased sandiness (5, 17, 20).
Whey protein concentrates show the most
promise in replacing NFDM since WPC can be
manufactured with protein, lactose, and ash
concentrations equal to NFDM. The lower
lactose concentration of WPC should allow
usage at higher levels without increasing the
danger of developing sandiness in the ice cream.
In previous reports (8, 12, 19) products made
with varying amounts of WPC has had excellent
flavor, body, and heat shock stability. However,
Tobias (25) found that WPC had an adverse
effect upon ice cream.
Caseinates are not usually used as a complete
milk solids replacer due to their pronounced
flavors. Usually these products are produced as
sodium or calcium caseinate, although now a
rennet caseinate also is available (16). Bird et al.
(9) have reported that low amounts of sodium
caseinate used in ice cream mixes reduced
whipping time and increased the initial overrun.
However, the amount of milk protein addition
required to produce the improvement in
whipping ability, body, and texture scores
made sodium caseinate usage questionable.
The objective of this research was to deter-
mine the feasibility of using dry sweet whey,
whey protein concentrate, and caseinates
as replacements for NFDM as milk solids in ice
cream. Consumer acceptance of ice creams
made with blends of these ingredients was
evaluated by randomly selected families from
Brookings, SD.
4U & I Sugar, U & 1 Inc.,Salt Lake City, UT 84110.
SCorn Syrup Solids, Staleydex R 333 Dextrose,
A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co., Decatur, IL 62525.
6MP18EE Stabilizer-Emulsifier Blend, Milk Pro-
teins, Inc., Troy, MI 48084.
7Manton-Gaulin Homogenizer, Manton-Gaulin Mfg.
Co., Inc., Everett, MA.
8Northville Gold Label-Pure Vanilla Extract 2
fold, Northville Laboratories, Inc., Northville, MI
48167.
9VogtR V-103 Instant Freezer, Cherry BurreUR
Corp., Cedar Rapids, IA.
2881
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ice Cream Manufacture
The ice creams prepared for this study were
manufactured from a mix formulated to
produce products with 10.5% fat, 22% total
milk solids, 13% sucrose, 4 3% corn syrup
solids, s and .3% stabilizer-emulsifier6 by the
method of Arbuckle (4). A single source of
cream, sucrose, corn syrup solids, and stabilizer-
emulsifier was maintained for all the ice cream
formulations. The source of milk solids-not-fat
(MSNF) of each formulation was varied to
assess the effect of the experimental blends:
whey protein concentrate, whey protein
concentrate and dry sweet whey, and dry sweet
whey and sodium caseinate. Each blend was
substituted for 50% of the milk solids-not-fat
and then for 100% of the milk solids-not-fat.
The fluid ingredients were placed into a
450-L vat into which all the dry ingredients for
a given mix were incorporated with the use of a
powder funnel. All mixes were then pasteurized
in the vat at 72°C for 30 min. Each mix was
then homogenized with a two stage homog-
enizer 7 at 900 kg/cm 2 pressure on the first
stage and 180 kg/cm 2 pressure on the second
stage. A plate cooler was then used to cool the
mix to 4°C at which time samples were taken
for compositional analysis. All mixes were
stored overnight at 3°C in cleaned and sanitized
37.8-L milk cans.
Four separate mixes were blended and
frozen at four different times over 8 wk for a
total of 16 batches of ice cream at the 100%
replacement level. At 50% replacement, four
separate mixes were blended and frozen at
three different times over 6 wk. Therefore,
28 batches of ice cream were made during the
study.
Pure vanilla extract s was added to each mix
at 5.3 cc/L in the flavor tank. The mixes were
frozen by a single-barrel continuous freezer 9
with a drawing temperature of - 6 ° C . Samples
were weighed on a scale to determine overrun
by the weight-volume method of Arbuckle (4).
Overrun was adjusted to 100%. The frozen ice
creams were then packaged into coded liter
cartons and stored in the hardening room at
- 2 9 ° C until delivered to consumers for evalua-
tion. Samples of finished ice creams were set
aside for organoleptic evaluation by members
of the Dairy Science Department staff.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 68, No. 11, 1985
2882
Compositional Analyses
Two subsamples from each batch of ice
cream mix were analyzed for fat and total
solids by the Mojonnier method described by
Atherton and Newlander (7); protein, by the
Kjeldahl procedure (6); ash, by the official
method (6); and water by determining the
difference between the solids and total weight
in the mix. Lactose content was determined by
difference.
Organoleptic Evaluations
A random selection of 52 families were
chosen in the consumer survey. Each family
was given five 1-L samples of ice cream each
week and asked to rate the samples for overall
preference on a nine-point hedonic scale
(l=best; 9=worst). Each week's samples included
one sample from each of three treatment mixes
and a control sample made with 100% NFDM,
plus a duplicate of one of the other four
samples. Participants received samples with
100% replacement of NFDM for the first 8 wk
and samples with 50% replacement of NFDM
for the last 6 wk.
The trained panel judged samples from each
batch of mixes made over the trial period using
the official American Dairy Science Association
- Dairy and Food Industry Supply Association
(ADSA-DFISA) score card. Four evaluations
were conducted for the 100% replacement
study and three evaluations were conducted for
the 50% replacement study. This panel also
performed an evaluation of the ability of the
ice cream to resist lactose crystallization due to
storage temperature fluctuation. Samples were
TABLE 1. Composition of the ingredients used to provide milk solids-not-fat for ice cream.
Component NFDM1
Total solids 96.5
Fat 1.1
Protein 33.5
Lactose 54.9
Ash 8.0
J Nonfat dry milk and dry sweet whey; Land O'Lakes, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
2Whey protein concentrate; Lynn Proteins, Inc., Granton, Wl.
3Sodium caseinate; New Zealand Milk Products, Inc., Rosemont, IL.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 68, No. 11, 1985
PARSONS ET AL.
placed in a home freezer with a varying temper-
ature from - 1 . 5 to - 4 ° C . Each week for 3 mo,
samples were judged for sandiness.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance
according to Steel and Torrie (24) with dif-
ferences in flavor and body and texture com-
pared for batch, treatment, and panel judge.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Mix Formulation
The composition of the ingredients used to
provide milk solids-not-fat for the experimental
ice creams is provided in Table 1. To maintain
the ice cream protein content at or above 2.7%
in the final product, as recommended as part of
the proposed standards of identity (2), the
blended mixes were formulated on a protein
basis using Pearson's Square (4). The WPC
contained 34.7% protein, which was similar to
the NFDM (33.5% protein). Because the DSW
contained only 11.9% protein, a more con-
centrated source of protein had to be added.
Whey protein concentrate or sodium caseinate
(CAS), both concentrated sources of protein,
were then blended with DSW to increase the
protein concentration as the nonfat milk solids.
Because WPC is not as concentrated a protein
source as CAS (34.7 vs. 91.0%), the WPC-DSW
blend should have less protein than the other
mixes, yet was calculated to meet 3.4% protein.
WPC2 DSW3 CAS4
(%)
97.7 96.5 95.5
2.2 1.2 .7
34.7 11.9 91.0
53.5 74.7 .1
7.3 8.7 3.7

Compositional Analysis of the lee Cream Mixes
Results of the compositional analyses of the
ice cream mixes are reported in Tables 2 and 3.
When 100% of NFDM was replaced, the WPC
mixes had the highest percentages of fat
(10.59%), total solids (39.58%), and protein
(4.21%). The DSW/CAS mixes had the lowest
ash (.92%) and total solids (38.22%); and the
WPC/DSW mixes had the lowest average protein
percentage (3.42%). The WPC/DSW mixes
contained 6.34% lactose, which was the highest
percentage in any of the mixes; this was not
surprising since two-thirds of the blend was
made of DSW, which contained 74.7% lactose.
Lactose in the NFDM control ice cream mix
compared very closely with that in the DSW/
CAS mix.
When 50% of NFDM was replaced in ice
cream mixes (Table 3), the DSW/CAS mixes
had the highest fat (10.84%) and the control
the highest protein (4.08%). The WPC mixes
most closely matched the protein, fat, and
lactose composition of the NFDM control
mixes. Again, as expected, the WPC/DSW mixes
contained the least amount o f protein with
only 3.67% and the greatest amount of lactose,
5.96%.
Panel Evaluation of the lee Creams
Overall, an expert panel of three using the
ADSA score card could detect no significant
TABLE 2. Average compositional analysis of the ice cream mixes made with NFDM (control) and three experi-
mental mixes at 100% replacement.
Component NFDM 1 WPC~
Fat 10.41 10.59
Protein 3.94 4.21
Lactose 5,65 5.62
Ash .98 .95
Total solids 38.88 39.58
1Nonfat dry milk control ice cream.
2Whey protein concentrate.
3Blend of WPC and dry sweet whey (DSW) equivalent to 20% protein.
4 Blend of DSW and sodium caseinate (CAS) equivalent to 34% protein.
s Standard deviation of three experimental mixes and the control mix.
6 Duplicates were not run on lactose, a calculated value.
ICE CREAM 2883
differences for treatments. Other research
panel studies have used both trained judges (1,
8, 13, 14) and consumers with no previous
experience (1, 11, 14, 15). A least-cost formu-
lated ice cream containing whey solids was
evaluated against a NFDM control ice cream by
Frazeur et al. (14). An expert panel could not
distinguish a difference (P<.05) among the
different ice cream formulations (14). Crowe
(11) reported that whey could be used at 75%
of the serum solids of a mix without a signifi-
cant flavor, body, or texture difference being
noticed by a panel of expert judges. Frazeur
(13) reported differences (P<.05 and P<.01)
when ice creams made from excellent flavor
whey and average flavor whey were evaluated
against a NFDM control. The two wheys both
produced an inferior quality product compared
with the NFDM ice cream (I3). Bhusri and
Jordan (8) found a preference for ice cream
made with DSW and modified whey blend over
NFDM as a source of MSNF. Another study (1)
evaluated a blend of WPC and DSW and a blend
of fresh curd caseinate with DSW against a
control. No difference (/>>.05) was found
between the ice cream scores when judged by
an experienced taste panel (1).
These findings countradict the earlier
research by Leighton (18) in which only very
low NFDM replacement with whey solids
were recommended for fear of sandiness
occurring in the final ice cream. Reid and
WPC/DSW
3 D S W / C A4S ~ SD s
(%)
10.49 10,23 10.43 .302
3.42 4.01 3.89 .171
6.34 5.59 5.80 . . .6
.96 .92 .95 .032
38.72 38.22 38.85 .845
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 68, No. 11, 1985
2884 PARSONS ET AL.

TABLE 3. Average compositional analysis of the ice cream mixes made from NFDM (control) and three ex-
perimental mixes at 50% replacement.

Component NFDM 1 WPC 2 WPC/DSW a DSW/CAS 4 X SD s

(%)
Fat 10.44 10.52 10.68 10.84 10.62 .215
Protein 4.08 3.99 3.67 3.91 3.91 .103
Lactose 5.62 5.59 5.96 5.05 5.55 . . .6
Ash 1.01 .94 .94 .82 .93 .634
Total solids 38.38 39.23 39.14 38.58 38.58 .634

Nonfat dry milk control ice cream.

2Whey protein concentrate.
3 Blend of WPC and dry sweet whey (DSW) equivalent to 20% protein.
4 Blend of DSW and sodium caseinate (CAS) equivalent to 34% protein.
s Standard deviation of three experimental mixes and the control mix.
6 Duplicates were not run on lactose, a calculated value.

Shaffer (22) f o u n d sandiness d e v e l o p e d in ice Previous c o n s u m e r studies (8, 15, 19) have
cream c o n t a i n i n g 10% w h e y solids as storage s h o w n favorable a c c e p t a n c e o f ice creams m a d e
t i m e l e n g t h e n e d . Since d e v e l o p m e n t o f b e t t e r w i t h p r o c e s s e d w h e y s and m o d i f i e d wheys. T h e
m e t h o d s f o r stabilization o f ice cream in t h e d i f f e r e n c e s ( P < . 0 1 ) in ice creams m a d e with a
1960's (20), t h e r e has b e e n l i m i t e d o c c u r r e n c e b l e n d o f CAS and DSW in this s t u d y agreed
o f s a n d y ice cream. with a c o m p a r i s o n o f fresh curd caseinate t o a
N F D M c o n t r o l ice c r e a m in a c o n s u m e r s t u d y
Consumer Evaluation of the lee Creams (15). The ice cream c o n t a i n i n g caseinate scored
lower in quality for each study.
T r e a t m e n t m e a n scores o f t h e c o n s u m e r
evaluations o f t h e ice creams are in Table 4. A t
100% r e p l a c e m e n t , t h e lowest flavor score was
given t h e WPC/DSW ice cream. The lowest TABLE 4. Treatment mean scores given by the partici-
flavor score at 50% r e p l a c e m e n t evaluation was pants in the consumer evaluation of ice cream.
given to the WPC ice cream. In b o t h r e p l a c e m e n t
evaluations DSW/CAS ice creams received t h e NFDM Replacement
highest flavor score. The o n l y significant Ice cream 100% 2 50% 3
d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e flavor scores o f all t h e
samples o c c u r r e d for t h e DSW/CAS blend. Ice NFDM (control) 4 3.54 3.40
creams c o n t a i n i n g this b l e n d w e r e s h o w n to WPCs 3.48 2.99
have a less desirable flavor t h a n t h o s e w i t h t h e WPC/DSW6 3.30 3.25
DSW/CAS 7 3.99" * 3.72"*
o t h e r blends. T h e r e were no significant dif-
Standard error .126 .094
f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e WPC, WPC/DSW blend,
and t h e c o n t r o l ice creams.
~Nine-point hedonic scale used (l=the best; 9=the
Analysis o f variance ( A O V ) was p e r f o r m e d worst).
o n t h e data f o r d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t r e a t m e n t , z Ice cream scores are means of eight replications.
b a t c h , week w i t h i n b a t c h , and family, including a Ice cream scores are means of six replications.
all i n t e r a c t i o n s . The f a c t o r o f family s h o w e d a 4Nonfat dry milk control ice cream.
s Whey protein concentrate.
d i f f e r e n c e ( P < . 0 1 ) , which, w h e n evaluated to 6Blend of WPC and dry sweet whey DSW equi-
find t h e t r e a t m e n t ( s ) d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o t h e r valent to 20% protein.
t r e a t m e n t ( s ) , s h o w e d ice creams c o n t a i n i n g 7Blend of DSW with sodium caseinate (CAS),
DSW/CAS were inferior t o t h e o t h e r t h r e e ice equivalent to 34% protein.
creams. P<.O1.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 68, No. 11, 1985

 ICE CREAM
CONCLUSION
The c o n s u m e r s t u d y o f 52 families r a t e d t h e
WPC and WPC/DSW ice creams are equal o r
slightly b e t t e r t h a n t h e N F D M c o n t r o l ice
c r e a m at b o t h 50 and 100% r e p l a c e m e n t . The
same c o n s u m e r s evaluated ice cream c o n t a i n i n g
s o d i u m caseinate as p o o r e r in quality. During
t h e 14 w k evaluation, c o n s u m e r s m a d e various
c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e ice cream samples con-
taining WPC as being " c r e a m i e r " and " s m o o t h -
e r " tasting. T h e y also i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e ice
cream samples c o n t a i n i n g t h e w h e y b l e n d were
" s w e e t e r " and very similar in taste to soft serve
ice cream p r o d u c t s . The a f t e r t a s t e o f s o d i u m
caseinate in t h e ice cream samples was d e s c r i b e d
b y s o m e p a r t i c i p a n t s as " s o u r " or " b i t t e r " .
A l t h o u g h t h e use o f t h e s e w h e y p r o d u c t s is
feasible and have b e e n a c c e p t e d in s u b s t i t u t i o n s
up t o 100% r e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e milk solids-
n o t - f a t , o n l y DSW can n o w be legally used in
ice cream to replace 25% o f t h e MSNF.
REFERENCES
1 Anonymous. 1976, Quality frozen desserts.., and
a savings of 12 cents per gallon. Food Process.
37(7):50.
2 Anonymous. 1977. Frozen desserts definitions
and Standards of Identity. Fed. Reg. 42 (Apr.
12):19127.
3 Anonymous. 1984. Ice cream and frozen custard.
Code Fed. Regul., No. 21, US Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
4 Arbuckle, W. S. 1977. Ice cream. 3rd ed. AV1 Pubi.
Co., Inc., Westport, CT.
5 Arbuckle, W. S. 1978. Whey solids in frozen
dessert formulations. Dairy Rec. 79:56.
6 Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984.
Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Washington,
DC.
7 Atherton, H. V., and J. A. Newlander. 1977.
Chemistry and testing of dairy products. 4th ed.
AVI Publ. Co., Inc., Westport, CT.
8 Bhusri, A. S., and W. K. Jordan 1977. Modified
wheys and whey blends in ice creams. Dairy Ice
Cream Field 196(3):56.
2885
9 Bird, E. W., A. W. Sandier, and C. A. Iverson.
1935. The preparation of a non-desiccated sodium
caseinate sol and its use in ice cream. Iowa Agric.
Exp. Sm. Res. Bull. 187.
10 Cosgrove, C. J. 1974. Consider ice cream mix
formulations when varying the ingredients. Am.
Dairy Rev. 36(5):24B.
11 Crowe, L. K. 1960. Results obtained with a panel
preference evaluation of ice cream. Ice Cream Field
75(1):10.
12 Dalurn, O. V. 1976. Application of whey in the
manufacture of ice cream. Pages 39-42 in Danish
dairy industry worldwide. K. M. Christensen, ed.
Danish Dairy Eng. Assoc., ftjallese, Denmark.
13 Frazeur, D. R. 1967. The use of wheys in frozen
desserts. Ice Cream Field Ice Cream Trade J.
149(8):22.
14 Frazeur, D. R., C. E. French, and L. M. Eisgruber.
1960. Electronic brain employed to determine ice
cream mix formula. Ice Cream Field 76(11):58.
15 Frazeur, D. R., and R. B. Harrington. 1967.
Consumer perference for frozen desserts containing
wheys. Ice Cream Field Ice Cream Trade J. 149(9):
40.
16 Hugunin, A. G., and N. L. Ewing. 1977. Dairy
based ingredients for food products. Dairy Res.,
Inc., Rosemont, IL.
17 Khalafalla, S. M., G. A. Mahran, L. B. Abdel-tfamid,
and F. M. Fares. 1975. The use of whey solids in
ice cream. Egypt. J. Dairy Sci. 3(1):43.
18 Leighton, A. 1944. Use of whey solids in ice cream
and sherbets. Ice Cream Rev. 27(6): 18.
19 Loewenstein, M. 1975. Using milk solids-not-fat in
ice cream. Dairy Ice Cream Field 158(6):42.
20 Nickerson, T. A. 1962. Lactose crystallization in
ice cream. IV. Factors responsible for reduced
incidence of sandiness. J. Dairy Sci. 45:354.
21 Nilson, K. M. 1975. The role of whey solids in the
ice cream industry. Am. Dairy Rev. 37(7):42.
22 Reid, W.H.W., and L. O. Shaffer. 1947. The use of
dehydrated whey solids in the manufacture of
different flavored ice creams. Page 6 in Vol. 2 Proc.
43rd Annu. Cony. Int. Assoc. Ice Cream Manuf.
23 Rothwell, J. 1974. Alternative MSNF ingredients
for use in ice cream. Ice Cream Frozen Confect.
27(3):178.
24 Steel, R.G.D., and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles
and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Brook
Co., Inc., New York, NY.
25 Tobias, J. 1970. Use of whey in frozen desserts.
Page 63 in Proc. 35th Washington State Univ. Inst.
Dairying, Washington State Univ., Pullman.
Journal of Dairy Science Voi. 68, No. 11, 1985