Estimation of buffalo cheese yield by using the chemical-physical parameters of the milk

• Main Authors: B. Gasparrini, R. Di Palo, C. Caso, A. Coletta, M. Di Rubbio, L. Zicarelli, A. Potena
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2010-02-01
• Series: Italian Journal of Animal Science
• Subjects: Buffalo, Milk, Cheese yield
• Online Access: http://www.aspajournal.it/index.php/ijas/article/view/1199

The aim of this study was to estimate cheese yield by using the chemical- physical parameters of the milk. Analysis were performed on 325 milk samples with 80-219 days in milk interval. Furthermore, buffaloes which showed a ratio between theoretical cheese yield (calculated by Altiero formula) and real cheese yield at 28 hours higher (Group A) or lower (Group B) than 0.983, were compared taking into account 5 hypothetical analytical potentialities of laboratories: 1) Fat percentage; 2) Protein and fat percentages; 3) Protein and fat percentages, pH and SH; 4) Protein and fat percentages, pH, SH, urea, protein percentage corrected per urea, lactose, solids-not-fat (SNF) and SCC; 5) Protein and fat percentages, pH, SH, urea, protein percentage corrected per urea, lactose, SNF, SCC, TAMF, milk DM percentage, ash percentage and casein percentage. Correlation and regression analyses with stepwise method were performed for curd quantity in relation to the physic-chemical ad microbiological milk composition by using SPSS 15.0. As expected, R2 value was such high as the number of variables included in the calculation. A higher R2 value was observed in those samples characterized by a ThCY/28CY ratio < 0.983. ThCY calculated according to Altiero et al (1989), underestimated 28CY of +1.8 g/litre in all samples, whereas a difference between &ndash;2.2 (Laboratory 2) and +1.0 (Laboratory 3) g/litre was registered if the actual formula is utilized. According to Altiero formula, 28CY was overestimated of 9.6 g/litre in Group A, whereas it was underestimated of 1.8 g/litre in Group B. According to our study, the estimation of 28CY showed a difference between &ndash;9.3 (Laboratory 2) and 9 (Laboratory 1) g/litre in Group A and &ndash; 3.5 (Laboratory 1) e 0.0 (Laboratory 5) g/litre.