See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324414228

Evaluation of butter manufacture process-Mass balance approach to assess

fat conversion process in a dairy processing unit

Poster · March 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,709

4 authors, including:

Puneet Parmar John Thomas Tobin

TEAGASC - The Agriculture and Food Development Authority TEAGASC - The Agriculture and Food Development Authority
14 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 863 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a Process based milk processing sector Model for the Irish Dairy Industry View project

Teagasc Dairy Industry Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Puneet Parmar on 10 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation of butter manufacture process – Mass balance approach to
assess fat conversion process in a dairy processing unit

Puneet Parmar1,2, Seamus O'Mahony3, John Tobin4, Laurence Shalloo1

1Livestock Systems Department, AGRIC, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland

2Dairy Processing Technology Centre (DPTC), University of Limerick, Ireland

3Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College, Cork

4Food Chemistry and Technology Department, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy

• Dairy Industry is one of Ireland’s most indigenous industries. Dietary preferences and scientific research on product formulations has brought milk fat into limelight.
• Payments to milk producers is based on A+B-C multiple component pricing and quantities of fat, protein in milk, therefore it affects the revenue and profitability of milk processors in the Irish Dairy Industry.
• Mass balance is fundamental to processing as it regulates yields of products and waste generated and is represented as

𝐹𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 = 𝐹𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠 + 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 + 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑡*

• The fat conversion process from intake to separation to butter manufacture, along with side-streams i.e. buttermilk, skim milk and desludge was analysed at a dairy processing site.
• This study helped to identify and account losses and estimated a lower fat loss percentage than assumed by the industry whilst identifying the reasons accountable for higher values. A single density conversion
factor for weight-volume calculations also posed challenges in mass balance approach.

• A total of 56 samples were tested from site . 118000 gallons • Fat results from tankers obtained at site averaged 4.032% while lab results were 3.992% (fig 1).
of milk was passed through the system from intake to • Silo average results at site were 4.033% and Moorepark average was 4.0319% (fig 2).
butter output. A total of approx 46 tonnes of cream and ~ • Average fat content in cream was 47.644% for Moorepark(MPK) results and 48.583% for site. The volumes and quantity of input and output were
25 tonnes of butter were produced. recorded and entered into mass balance (fig 3).
• Samples* collected from site included raw whole milk,
skim milk, cream, butter, butter milk, desludges generated
from separator and butter churn. Fat is calculated from RG
method using formula
𝑤 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑡
𝐹𝑎𝑡 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 = × 100
𝑤 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑘
• Representative samples were collected and tested on
Milkoscan at site. Rose Gottlieb was used to test fat content
in the lab at Teagasc, Moorepark.
Fig 1 Milk fat results(tankers) Fig 2 Milk fat results(Silos) Fig 3 Cream Results

Average Fat Results

Whole
milk
Milk from farm Desludge
Collected in Site Milk(tanker) Milk(Silos) Cream Skim Milk Butter Buttermilk Desludge churn
Separator
tankers to site
Moorepark 3.992 4.032 47.644 0.038 82.147 0.724 41.866 36.66
Site 1 4.032 4.033 48.583 0.069 82.25 0.757
Milk collection at farm

Passed
samples
accepted
and stored

Composite whole milk

Milk Storage sample tested for antibiotic
Cream and skim
residue Fig4 Skim milk results Fig 5 Butter Results Fig 6 Buttermilk Results
production
1): PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS Mass balance Calculations
Tankers Silos

Mass balance In percentage In tonnes In percentage In tonnes

Separation process
Fat in milk 3.992 22.051 4.032 22.271
Butter produced in
25kgs blocks (-) Skim 99.112 21.855 99.102 22.072
(-) Desludge fat 99.105 21.853 99.095 22.07
Fig.4(a). Mastersizer Hydro MV, Malvern
Samples* Fig.4(c). LUMiSizer 6112 (L.U.M. GmbH, (-) Butter fat 3.083 0.68 4.026 0.897
Instruments Ltd, Malvern, UK Berlin, Germany)
(SOP: 670 g x 20s x 3h x 25 °C) (-) Buttermilk 2.39 0.527 3.34 0.744
2): VISCOSITY MEASUREMENTS 4): STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
(-) Steamed Fat ex Churn 1.115 0.246 2.078 0.463

(-) Steamed Cream 0.445 0.098 1.414 0.315

Unaccounted Fat 0.445 98 kgs 1.414 315 kgs

• Fat mass obtained at each sub-process were quantified with butter accounting for approx. 21.173(~82.147%) tonnes of fat . Fat mass in cream was
21.855 tonnes from tankers results, and 22.072 tonnes from silo results (multiplying fat percentage with volume produced).
Milkoscan by Foss Rose Gottlieb test
• Steaming of butter churn and cream silo yielded 281 kilos and 159 kilos (recycled fat). The range of losses which was unaccounted was between
Composite sample rapid Composite sample 98 kilos and 315 kilos (0.445% to 1.414%) against estimated values of 562 kilos (an initial estimate of 2-2.5%).
tested for milk profile standard tested on Rose
• Skim and cream streams generated from separation reflected the biggest variations in fat content. Rose Gottlieb test is a standard fat testing
(fat,Controlled
Fig.4(c). protein etc.)
stress rheometer Gottlieb method
Fig. 4(d). SPSS for fat
(IBM SPSS 24.0 for
(AR2000ex Rheometer, TA Instruments, content
Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) for
method used as reference for fat analysis. However, the equipment used in industry might need periodic calibration.
Crawley, UK) ANOVA and Tukey’s test. • The differences observed in fat content at separation could be attributed to variations in testing methodology and respective tolerance limits of
Measurements were carried out at 300s-1 Measurements were carried out in equipment. Secondly, the variation in fat content may also be present due to the use of a single density conversion factor for weight-volume
shear rate and 25° C triplicates.
calculations.

✓ Errors were observed under weight-volume conversion. This can be attributed to the usage of a single conversion factor – 1.035 for milk density
for the entire season.
✓ Mass balance approach helped to identify loss points and pinpoint the causes of loss. The actual unaccounted fat in the process was only 0.44-
1.41% instead of 2-2.5% as initially assumed.
Data generated from sampling and tests was ✓ Standard testing techniques like Rose-Gottlieb are recommended to validate results periodically.
analysed using a Mass balance method developed
as a Macro on MS-Excel and Visual Basic. ✓ Variations in testing results attributed to seasonal fluctuations in milk composition. A comprehensive year-round study is planned to study the
compositional changes in milk profile and its impact on milk density.
View publication stats