Servicios Personalizados
Revista
Articulo
Indicadores
-
Citado por SciELO
-
Accesos
Links relacionados
-
Similares en SciELO
Compartir
Agrociencia
versión On-line ISSN 2521-9766versión impresa ISSN 1405-3195
Agrociencia vol.52 no.3 Texcoco abr./may. 2018
Food Science
Sensorial and physicochemical profile of chihuahua cheese considering consumer preferences
1Laboratorio de Ciencias de los Alimentos, Departamento de Ciencias Químico-Biológicas, Instituto de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. Anillo Envolvente del Pronaf y Estocolmo s/n. 32310. Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, México.
The milk industry and its derivatives are an important Mexican productive sector. This agroindustry sector in Chihuahua, Mexico, is one of the most important in the economy of the region. Chihuahua cheese is a dairy product that distinguishes the state. Because of its characteristics, it is the second most commercialized and consumed in the country, after the “panela” cheese. The objective of this study was to assess the sensory, physicochemical characteristics of Chihuahua cheese and its relationship with consumer preferences. Ten trained judges evaluated the odor, taste and mouthfeel attributes on 10 cheese samples produced in Chihuahua. The proximate composition, pH, acidity, sodium content and protein profile were determined. We assessed the preference via preference-ranking and acceptance tests with 120 consumers. The Chihuahua cheese was characterized by its medium to medium-high odor of fresh milk, cooked milk, and melted butter; with medium-low intensity taste, firmness, moistness and fat character. The composition and other characteristics varied between samples. The protein profile showed peptides from 24.0 to 34.7 kDa. The physicochemical properties of the cheese determine its sensory profile, the consumer preferences, and the acceptance or rejection of the product. From the consumer preferences in this study, we elaborated a physicochemical and sensory profile model of Chihuahua cheese, which can support the standardization of Chichuahua cheese manufacturing, quality and acceptance.
Keywords: Chihuahua cheese; consumer preferences; sensory profile; physicochemical profile; cheese composition
La industria de la leche y sus derivados son parte importante del sector productivo de México. Este sector agroindustrial en Chihuahua, México, es uno de los de mayor aportación en la economía de la región. El queso Chihuahua es uno de los derivados lácteos que distingue a la entidad, por sus características es el segundo queso, después del queso panela, con comercialización y consumo mayor en el país. El objetivo de este estudio fue la caracterización sensorial, y fisicoquímica de queso Chihuahua y su relación con las preferencias del consumidor. Diez jueces entrenados evaluaron atributos de olor, sabor y táctil en boca a 10 muestras de queso producido en Chihuahua. La composición proximal, el pH, la acidez, el contenido de sodio y el perfil proteico se determinaron. Las preferencias se evaluaron con pruebas de preferencia por ordenación y nivel de agrado con la participación de 120 consumidores. El queso Chihuahua se caracterizó por el olor medio a medio-alto de leche fresca, leche cocida y mantequilla fundida; con intensidad media-baja de sabor, firmeza, humedad y carácter graso. La composición y otras características variaron entre las muestras. El perfil proteico mostró péptidos de 24.0 a 34.7 kDa. Las propiedades fisicoquímicas del queso determinan su perfil sensorial, las preferencias del consumidor, y la aceptación o el rechazo del producto. A partir de las preferencias del consumidor en este estudio se elaboró un modelo fisicoquímico y sensorial del queso Chihuahua, que puede apoyar en la estandarización de la manufactura, calidad y aceptación de este queso.
Palabras clave: queso Chihuahua; preferencias de consumidor; perfil sensorial; perfil fisicoquímico; composición del queso
Introduction
Chihuahua cheese is also known as Menonita or Chester cheese; it is Mexican and traditional in the state of Chihuahua (González-Córdova et al., 2016). This cheese has a soft or semi-hard texture obtained by enzymatic coagulation of pasteurized milk, whole or standardized in fat, until a texturized, acidified and pressed paste is obtained (COFOCALEC, 2011). Chihuahua cheese is produced in Mexico in medium or large plants with the material and technical infrastructure to perform milk pasteurization and addition of lactic ferments and the necessary additives (Hervás, 2012). This cheese is also produced by small and micro companies that, in some cases, use raw or unpasteurized milk and have production methods variability and in the control parameters in the manufacturing process and the finished product (Tunick et al., 2008; Villegas de Gante, 2012; González-Córdova et al., 2016).
Chihuahua cheese has characteristics that distinguish it; however, differences in the control and standardization of the raw material and the manufacturing process (González-Córdova et al., 2016) cause variations that generate a diversity of cheeses with particular physical, chemical and sensory properties (Van Hekken et al., 2006; Olson et al., 2011). In order to unify the Chihuahua cheese characteristics marketed in Mexico, standardization and product specifications have been promoted (COFOCALEC, 2011). However, the regulation is not applied and only partially fulfilled. Empirical and traditional assessments are the main causes of product heterogeneity (Olson et al., 2011; González-Córdova et al., 2016).
The persistence of multiple variations in the cheese even if small, represents an important effect on the sensory attributes of the Chihuahua cheese (Van Hekken et al., 2006; Olson et al., 2011) and determines the product’s acceptance or rejection by consumers. The objective of this study was to determine the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of Chihuahua cheese, produced in the state of Chihuahua, and its relationship with consumer preferences. We hypothesized that the consumer’s preference for the cheese directly relates to the sensory attributes derived from the physicochemical characteristics of the product.
Materials and Methods
Experimental design
Chihuahua cheese samples were selected considering the following criteria: that the product had been made at the state of Chihuahua, vacuum packed, with labeling and manufacturer data, of easy acquisition for the consumer in convenience stores, and that its expiration date was greater than 15 days after the purchase. The Chihuahua-like cheese products were not included in the sampling. We assessed the physicochemical characteristics by triplicate and the sensory evaluations (descriptive analysis) by duplicate. The variables were: moisture content, protein, fat, ash, total carbohydrates, sodium, acidity, and pH. Sensory attributes included odor intensity, odor description, moistness, fat character and firmness in mouthfeel, and sweetness, saltiness, bitterness, and acid taste and acid-bitter, acid-sweet and sweet-bitter interactions, preference and acceptance tests.
Obtaining the samples
According to the inclusion criteria, we sampled ten brands of Chihuahua cheese obtained in four supermarkets at Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. From each, 3.3 kg were purchased in 0.55 or 1.10 kg presentations, all from the same batch. We transported the samples in a cooler, identified them with three-digit random codes and stored them in refrigeration (2 to 4 °C) until analysis.
Sensory characterization
Samples were sensory characterized with a descriptive analysis by a trained panel of 10 judges. The attributes in the olfactory phase were odor intensity, first impression and odor description. In the oral phase, mouthfeel characteristics were considered, such as moistness and fat character, mechanical, such as firmness, taste and interactions, such as sweet, salty, bitter and acidic, and acid-bitter, acid- and bitter-sweet (Chamorro and Losada, 2002).
First, the judging panel trained in each attribute for 6 weeks, with two weekly sessions. To estimate the perception intensity of each attribute they used a 9-point linear scale, labeled at the end as “weak” and “strong”. The slices for each panelist were 10 g of cheese in ≈30 mL plastic glasses, identified with three-digit random numbers at room temperature. The samples were hand over in individual booths, in a balanced and randomized form, together with evaluation sheets. The judges rinsed their mouths with purified water (Aurrera®) at the beginning and between samples. Each attribute evaluated in different sessions (Chamorro and Losada, 2002; Lawless and Heymann, 2010).
Physicochemical characterization
The physicochemical determinations were carried out in 50 or 100 g samples; the total sample per trademark was 300 g. We sectioned the samples with a commercial cheese grater, homogenized and placed in identified plastic containers. The moisture, ash and protein content were determined following the AOAC (2000) standardized methods, 926.08, 935.42 and 920.123-1920, respectively. We then quantified the total fat content with the Gerber-Van Gulik method (DGN, 1984). The total carbohydrates were determined by the difference of the total product composition (FAO, 2002). The sodium content was estimated by stoichiometry of NaCl, with the Volhard method (935.43 AOAC). Acidity was determined via the volumetric method (920.124 AOAC) (AOAC, 2000) and expressed as a lactic acid percentage. The pH was determined with a potentiometer (DGN, 1970).
The protein profiles of the cheese samples were evaluated by electrophoresis in polyacrylamide gels, in denatured and reduced conditions (SDS-PAGE). The gels were polyacrylamide, discontinuous with a 12 % separation gel (Laemmli, 1970). We performed the protein separation with a 110 V constant voltage. The molecular mass markers were a broad range (Bio-Rad®). The gels were then stained with Coomasie blue R-250 (Bio-Rad®), following Merril (1990). The protein profiles analysis were performed by densitometry using the 1D Image Analysis software (Kodak, USA) (Bahan, 1987).
Consumer preferences
Preference-ranking test
The preference and acceptance tests were carried out by 120 university students (66 women and 54 men), with an average age of 22.8±2.6 years. The inclusion criteria to participate in the study were consuming Chihuahua cheese at least once a week (direct verbal confirmation with each participant), not having a cold or illness that affected the taste sense, such as taste buds damage, infections in respiratory system pathways or ingesting a drug that would affect his gustatory perception. The preference-ranking test took place in two sessions, with five samples each. After analyzing the data from the first two sessions, a third session was held with the most preferred samples from the previous sessions. For these tests, consumers were asked to order the samples from most to least preferred. Each sample was presented in two 1.8 g portions each (1X1X1.5 cm), except in the third session, in which three cheese portions were provided. In these tests, samples were in ≈30 mL plastic glasses, identified with three-digits random numbers, at room temperature in a balanced and randomized manner for each consumer. The participants tested the samples from left to right and arrange them from the most to the least preferred. In all tests, consumers rinsed their mouths at the beginning and between samples. Consumers could taste samples again after having tried them all (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). At the third session, after the consumers ordered the samples, they tested them again and recorded the magnitude of their preference on a 15-points linear scale, labeling the ends as 1: "least preferred" up to 15: "most preferred" (Meilgaard et al., 2006).
Acceptance test
To evaluate the consumer degree of linking for cheese, the highest preference samples from sessions one and two were selected, presented at room temperature, randomly and in monadic form. The participants registered their degree of linking on a 9-point hedonic scale, ranging from “Like extremely” to “Dislike extremely” (Meilgaard et al., 2006, Lawless and Heymann, 2010).
Data analysis
Intensity data from attributes in sensory descriptive analysis were analyzed by a repeated measure ANOVA. The physicochemical data and the acceptance test were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA, and Fisher’s multiple comparisons in both cases. For the ANOVA, the data were previously analyzed with the Levene test. When it was significant, they were compared with the t-Student for unequal variances test. Protein profile data were analyzed by k proportions comparisons with the Chi-square test and pairwise comparisons with the z test. The nonparametric data from the preference tests were analyzed with the Friedman test and comparisons by Nemenyi. The Pearson correlation coefficient test was used to analyze the relationship between the acceptability data and the preference magnitude. To estimate the relationship between the composition of the samples and the sensory analysis data, a linear regression analysis performed with an ANOVA (type III sum of squares) test (selecting the best model and adjusting R2) was also used. All the analyzes were done with the XLSTAT program, version 2015.1 (Addinsoft® Paris, France). The results are presented in mean values ± standard deviation (SD). The criterion to set statistical significance was p≤0.05.
Results and Discussion
Sensory characterization
Cheese is a product whose sensory characteristics are the result of multiple factors involved in its production such as the raw material quality, the type of the process, the native and added microbial cultures and the maturation time of the product. The biochemical transformation of cheese components such as lactose, fat and proteins, by the action of coagulants, milk enzymes and added lactic acid bacteria (LAB) contribute to the sensory characteristics that identify each cheese (Marchesseau et al., 1997; McSweeney and Souza, 2000). Six samples had high-intensity odor, three (Q2, Q4 and Q5) had an attenuated odor and only one (Q8) had a weak odor (p≤0.01) (Table 1).
Table 1 Sensory profile of different samples of Chihuahua cheese.
Atributo | Descriptor | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Olor | Intensidad general | 5.3±2.2abc | 4.75±3.2bc | 6.5± 2.7ab | 4.3±1.4c | 4.3±1.8c | 6.0±2.6abc | 7.0±1.8a | 2.0±1.0d | 5.0±2.1abc | 6.3±2.1abc | <0.01 |
Leche fresca | 1.4± 1.2ab | 1.8±1.6ab | 1.8±1.6ab | 1.4±1.2ab | 3.0± 1.3a | 2.2±1.9ab | 1.8±1.6ab | 1.0±0.0b | 1.8± 1.6ab | 2.6±1.8ab | 0.03 | |
Cuajada fresca | 2.6±1.8a | 1.0±0.0b | 1.8±1.6ab | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 1.4±0.9ab | 1.4±0.9ab | 1.0±0.0b | 1.4±1.2ab | 0.01 | |
Mantequilla fresca | 1.0±0.0b | 1.4±1.2ab | 1.0±0.0b | 2.2±1.2ª | 1.0±0.0b | 1.4±1.0ab | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 2.2±1.9a | 0.02 | |
Leche cocida | 1.0±0.0b | 2.2±1.7ab | 1.8±1.3ab | 1.4±1.2ab | 2.2±1.1ab | 2.6±1.2ab | 1.0±0.0b | 1.8±1.6ab | 1.8±1.6ab | 2.8±1.7a | 0.03 | |
Mantequilla fundida | 1.6±1.3bc | 2.0±1.7bc | 3.4±1.7ab | 1.8±1.6bc | 1.0±0.0c | 3.4±2.4ab | 1.4±1.2bc | 1.8±1.6bc | 2.2±1.5abc | 4.2±3.1a | 0.03 | |
Cuajada acidificada | 2.6±1.7b | 1.0±0.0c | 2.2±1.3bc | 1.8±1.6bc | 1.0±0.0c | 1.4±1.2bc | 5.4±3.5a | 1.0±0.0c | 1.0±0.0c | 1.0±0.0c | <0.01 | |
Yogurt | 1.8±0.7ab | 1.4±1.2ab | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 1.8±1.6ab | 1.0±0.0b | 2.4±1.9a | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 0.02 | |
Lactosuero acidificado | 1.2±0.6a | 1.0±0.0a | 1.0±0.0a | 1.4±1.2 | 1.4±1.2a | 1.4±1.2a | 1.4±1.2a | 1.0±0.0a | 1.4±1.2a | 1.0±0.0a | 0.87 | |
Sabor | Dulce | 2.6±1.2a | 3.6±2.9a | 2.7±2.1a | 3.3±2.3a | 2.1±1.9a | 2.1±1.5a | 1.6±1.5a | 3.0±2.4 | 2.7±2.4a | 3.9±2.8a | 0.79 |
Salado | 5.2±2.5a | 2.2±1.9c | 3.6±2.9abc | 2.6±2.2bc | 3.2±2.8abc | 3.4±2.7abc | 3.0±2.9abc | 2.2±2.1c | 5.0±3.5ab | 4.0±3.3abc | 0.03 | |
Ácido | 3.4±2.2bc | 3.6±2.5bc | 3.6±2.5bc | 3.0±1.8bc | 2.0±1.4c | 4.0±2.7b | 6.8±2.7a | 2.8±1.9bc | 3.6±2.8bc | 4.2±2.8b | <0.01 | |
Amargo | 3.6±1.8ab | 2.0±1.7b | 4.0±2.5a | 4.6±3.0a | 4.8±3.1a | 3.4±2.4ab | 3.6±2.5ab | 3.8±2.3ab | 4.0±3.0a | 3.4±3.0ab | 0.02 | |
Interacciones | Ácido-amargo | 4.0±2.5ab | 2.8±2.2ab | 3.4±2.6ab | 3.8±3.1ab | 3.6±2.8ab | 4.8±2.5a | 4.4±2.6a | 3.4±2.0ab | 2.2±2.1b | 3.8±3.1ab | 0.03 |
Ácido-dulce | 1.0±0.0c | 4.4±3.1a | 2.8±2.5abc | 3.0±2.8a | 1.8±1.6bc | 1.8±1.3bc | 1.8±1.5bc | 1.0±0.0c | 2.0±1.5bc | 2.6±1.9abc | 0.04 | |
Dulce -amargo | 1.6±1.4ab | 1.0±0.0b | 2.6±1.6a | 1.0±0.0b | 1.0±0.0b | 2.0±1.7ab | 1.0±0.0b | 1.2±0.6b | 1.2±0.6b | 1.0±0.0b | <0.01 | |
Táctil en boca | Firmeza | 2.6±0.5d | 3.5±0.8abc | 3.3±1.1bcd | 3.5±1.2abc | 3.5±0.7abc | 3.0±0.6cd | 4.4±1.3a | 2.9±0.7cd | 4.1±0.9ab | 3.5±1.2abc | 0.02 |
Humedad | 3.3±0.8a | 3.3±0.4a | 3.2±0.7ab | 2.7±0.4bc | 2.5±0.5cd | 2.8±0.4abc | 2.0±0.6d | 2.9±0.7abc | 3.5±1.0a | 3.1±0.8abc | <0.01 | |
Carácter graso | 3.8±1.9a | 3.0±0.9a | 4.1±1.5a | 3.5±1.7a | 3.2±1.2a | 3.3±1.4a | 1.6±0.4b | 4.0±2.1a | 2.0±0.8b | 2.6±1.5ab | <0.01 |
Q: samples of Chihuahua cheese. Means ± SD (SD=0, all judges indicated 1 as the minimum perception of the attribute or descriptor). 9-point linear scale (1: Weak, 9: Strong). Different letters indicate statistical difference (p≤0.05).
Weak smell or its absence in a cheese can be related to ferments with low lipolytic action (Navarro, 2015) or short maturation time (Gamboa et al., 2013). Milk lipases and esterases action (lipoprotein lipase) and LAB in cheese fat appear to be the main agents involved in the catabolism of medium and short chain free fatty acids. This generates compounds such as methyl ketones, lactones, esters, alkanes and secondary alcohols, which contribute to the olfactory-taste set of the product (Chamorro and Losada, 2002; Collins et al., 2003). The panel established nine odor descriptors; the odor of fresh milk (p=0.03) and cooked milk (p=0.03) stood out. Q3, Q6 and Q10 samples stood out for their melted butter odor (p=0.03) and Q7 for the acidified curd and yogurt odor (p≤0.01), the latter also being the most acidic compared to the others (p≤0.01). The metabolism of lactose by LAB produces L- and D- lactate, which contributes to the acid taste of cheese, particularly in those of short maturation (McSweeney and Souza, 2000). The excessive acidity can be due to the fact that previously acidified milk was used, since it favors curd draining and allows the necessary acidity to obtain compact, smooth and elastic pastes (“cheddarization”) and decreases the time of the process (Villegas de Gante, 2012). Other causes of increased acidity are uneven curd cuts, high curing temperature or low salt percentage (Keating, 2007). The cheese obtained from unpasteurized milk is more acidic, and in some cases generates a prickle mouthfeel (Van Hekken et al., 2006). The relevance of controlling the acidification of cheese is because it determines microorganism’s growth and enzymatic activity during maturation and indirectly affects the taste of cheese (Collins et al., 2003).
The salty most taste corresponded to Q1 and Q9, which contrasted with that of Q2 and Q8 (p=0.03). This may be due to the amount of NaCl added or the salting method. Salt contributes to the cheese flavor, partly determines the quality and acceptance by the consumer. Saltiness, pH, water activity and redox potential help to minimize the deterioration and growth of pathogenic microorganisms in cheese (Ramírez-Navas et al., 2017). In some cases, more salt is added to regulate the development of lactic acid and proteolytic microflora in the cheese (Tunik et al., 2008). Significant reduction of salt in the cheeses can generate a bitter taste. In our study the samples were characterized by certain bitter notes, Q2 (p=0.02) was the lowest. Proteolysis directly contributes to the cheese taste, in both, desirable and undesirable sapid characteristics, such as bitterness. The influence of bacterial proteases from the cultures is relevant in the cheese elaboration. Bitter taste may be due to the peptides type (mainly hydrophobic) and free amino acids (FAA) from casein hydrolysis and other milk proteins, by enzymes of the coagulant (chymosin, pepsin or fungal or plant proteinases), from milk (plasmin, cathepsin D and other somatic cell proteinases), LAB and exogenous proteinases used to accelerate cheese maturation. The secondary metabolism of peptides, FAA and changes in the cheese matrix facilitates bitter compounds release during chewing (McSweeney and Souza, 2000). The bitter taste by certain peptides is determined by their terminal amino acid; when its concentration exceeds the perception threshold, it may constitute a defect in the cheese (Chamorro and Losada, 2002). Q4 and Q5 exhibited a higher fraction of peptides ranging from 12.0 to 23.9 kDa compared to Q2 (p≤0.01).
In the taste interactions, Q9 showed a less acid-bitter taste (p=0.03), Q2 and Q4 had higher acid-sweet taste compared to Q1 and Q8 (p=0.04). Q3 had a sweet-bitter interaction greater than Q2, Q4, Q5, Q7, Q8, Q9 and Q10 (p≤0.01). The taste interactions allow to establishing the effect of one taste over another in food (Chamorro and Losada, 2002). In our study, the judges perceived less bitter taste when they evaluated the interaction with acid and sweet, than when they evaluated this taste separately in the same sample. That is, the adequate balance of sweet and acid taste in Chihuahua cheese has a suppressive effect on the bitter taste and can contribute to generate its typical flavor.
Samples showed medium-low balance in mouthfeel attributes (Table 1). This is characteristic of young cheese or that in a young maturation stage (Moushumi et al., 2012). Q1 showed the lowest firmness (p=0.02), Q5 and Q7 were perceived as those with the lowest moistness (p≤0.01) and Q7 and Q9 had the lowest fat character among the samples (p≤0.01). The protein matrix in cheese plays a major role in its characteristics and functional properties, controls the water content and the balance of components within the matrix and influences the firmness and homogeneity of the fat globules (Ramírez-López and Vélez-Ruiz, 2012). The composition of fatty acids in milk fat can significantly affect firmness and cheese taste (Caro et al., 2014).
Physicochemical characteristics
The sample’s moisture content was between 38.8 % (Q9) and 44.9 % (Q10) (p≤0.01) (Table 2). All cheeses had the established moisture for Chihuahua cheese (45 % max.) (COFOCALEC, 2011). Protein content was 17.6 % (Q4) to 21.4 % (Q5) (p≤0.01). None of the sampled cheeses had the minimum protein content (23 %) established for Chihuahua cheese (COFOCALEC, 2011). The protein material is one of the main components for its nutritional value and influence cheese yield. Protein content in milk can vary between seasonal periods, breeds and animal feed, or other factors. The milk used to produce cheese should be standardized in its casein / fat ratio, but standardization is usually only carried out by adjusting the fat content, on the assumption that the protein content does not change between successive or seasonal milking; this, causes variability in the product quality. The moisture, fat and protein content influence the sensory characteristics from cheese, mainly its texture (Caro et al., 2014). In our study, a linear regression analysis indicated significance between the firmness perceived by the sensory panel and the protein, fat and mineral content (p=0.02, adjusted R2=0.72).
Table 2 Physicochemical composition of Chihuahua cheese.
Muestra | Humedad (%) | Proteína (%) | Grasa (%) | Cenizas (%) | Carbohidratos totales (%) | Sodio (mg/100 g) | Acidez† (% EAL) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | 42.0 ± 0.4bc | 21.3±0.7ab | 28.7±0.8d | 3.7±0.1b | 4.3±0.5cde | 610.8±9.0a | 7.5±0.1c | 6.1 |
Q2 | 41.9±0.8bc | 20.0±0.6bcde | 31.2±0.8c | 3.5±0.0de | 3.4±0.8de | 398.5±1.8e | 3.8±0.1g | 6.0 |
Q3 | 42.0±0.5bc | 20.8±0.6abc | 30.7±0.3c | 3.3±0.0f | 3.3±0.6e | 475.0±3.5c | 8.1±0.0b | 5.8 |
Q4 | 41.6±0.3bc | 21.4±0.6a | 28.3±0.3de | 3.6±0.1cd | 5.1±0.6bcd | 508.8±8.3bc | 7.5±0.2c | 5.8 |
Q5 | 42.6±0.3b | 17.6±0.3f | 32.3±0.3b | 3.7±0.0b | 3.8±0.8de | 594.5±3.6a | 4.1±0.0f | 6.3 |
Q6 | 42.2±0.6bc | 20.5±0.3abcd | 27.7±0.3e | 3.6±0.1c | 6.0±0.7abc | 442.7±2.0d | 9.1±0.1a | 5.8 |
Q7 | 41.9±0.8c | 20.7±0.1abc | 28.5±0.5de | 3.4±0.0ef | 6.4±1.5ab | 288.9±11.1f | 9.0±0.2a | 5.9 |
Q8 | 40.3±1.1d | 18.6±0.5ef | 34.2±0.8a | 3.3±0.0f | 3.6±2.1de | 443.8±8.4cd | 5.2±0.1e | 6.0 |
Q9 | 44.9±0.2a | 19.2±1.8de | 26.2±0.8f | 3.3±0.1f | 6.4±0.8ab | 319.1±8.5f | 2.7±0.1h | 6.5 |
Q10 | 38.8±0.5e | 19.7±1.2cde | 30.7±0.3c | 3.8±0.0a | 7.0±1.2a | 518.7±1.5b | 6.9±0.1d | 6.1 |
†Titratable acidity (% EAL: lactic acid equivalent). Average values ± SD (SD indicated as 0.0 means SD≤0.1). Different letters indicate significant difference between columns at p≤0.05.
During the cheese manufacture, fat globules are trapped in a protein network. This prevents the protein from forming aggregates and determines the cohesion and elasticity of the gel, which in turn modulates the pH and ionic strength of cations, such as Na+ and Ca+2. Small changes in these conditions can greatly affect the structure of the cheese and consequently affect its sensorial properties (Marchesseau et al., 1997). The fat content was between 26.2 % (Q9) and 34.2 % (Q8) (p≤0.01). The gustatory perception of the fat character was closely related to the fat, protein and mineral content of the cheese (p=0.03, R2 adjusted = 0.71). The minimum fat content for Chihuahua cheese is 28.0 % (COFOCALEC, 2011), due to its fatty matter it has a great influence on the development and organoleptic quality of cheese; this because it dissolves components that release odor and modifies the perception thresholds and interferes in the balance of the dissociated and non-dissociated forms of fatty acids (Chamorro and Losada, 2002). In contrast, the high fat content in a weak protein matrix (Q8) affected the sensory properties. Therefore, this feature can be a limiting factor in the final product acceptance. Higher fat-protein proportion affects the interaction between proteins, causes weak texture, which can be a defect on the product (Jonhson et al., 2009).
The assessed samples had sodium contents from 288.9 mg per 100 g in sample (Q1) to 610.8 mg per 100 g in sample (Q5) (p≤0.01). The sodium content is related to the salting process of the paste; 70 to 85 % is attributed to Na+ and 15 to 30 % to Cl- (Villegas de Gante, 2012; Ramírez-Navas et al., 2017). The samples identified as the saltiest were Q1 and Q9, but the sodium content in Q9 was one of the lowest. Linear regression analysis showed no significant relationship between both variables. The difference between sensory perception and sodium content could be related to the cheese composition; particularly, Q9 had the lowest fat content and the highest moisture and pH. In reduced fat cheeses, greater taste has been detected when the salt-moisture ratio increases (Jonhson et al., 2009). The pH higher than 5.8 promotes excess Ca+2 ions linked to the paracasein molecules, which causes excessive Na+ incorporation in the molecule and affects its microstructure (Ramírez-Navas et al., 2017). Thus, salting can cause undesirable effects on flavor (Hernández-Morales et al., 2010) and stop the natural maturation process of the cheese (Villegas de Gante, 2012).
The titratable acidity was between 2.7 % (Q9) and 9.1 % (Q6 and Q7) from lactic acid (p≤0.01). In Chihuahua cheese, the acidification of the paste allows to obtain an adequate texture and maturation process. The products derived from this process are responsible for some of the changes in the appearance, texture, odor, taste and aroma of cheese (Chamorro and Losada, 2002). During lactose fermentation by LAB, some pyruvate intermediates transformed into compounds that contribute to flavor, such as diacetyl, acetoin, acetaldehyde and acetic acid (Smith et al., 2005). Acidity increases to the maximum in the first hours or days and then decreases, because the lactic acid combines with calcium and other salts in the cheese. The high acidity of the samples could relate to young cheeses or short maturation periods (Villegas de Gante, 2012). Only Q7 was rated as the most acidic. However, the relation between the sensory perception in acidity and the composition of the cheese was not significant; although, a tendency of the mineral and carbohydrate content of the cheese was observed (p=0.09). The low acidity of the cheese may be due to the very low salt content, among other factors (Keating, 2007). This could relate to the low sodium content of Q7. Salt reduction can also cause negative changes in LAB growth and risk of increased pathogenic microorganisms in cheese (Ramírez-Navas, 2017).
The pH of the samples ranged between 5.8 and 6.5 (Q9). The pH of all the samples was higher than the interval for Chihuahua cheese (5.0 to 5.5) (COFOCALEC, 2011) and similar to that of fresh, young cheeses (Ramírez-López and Vélez-Ruiz, 2012). If the curd is not properly acidified during cheese making process (~pH 6.0) and pressing time is short, the cheese pH is not sufficiently reduced and its melting capacity is affected (Marchesseau et al., 1997). The suggested maturation for Chihuahua cheese is at least 7 days; although, this type of cheese develops better organoleptic characteristics with greater than a month maturation lapses (Villegas de Gante, 2012). In the practice, cheese is immediately packed after pressing (Cervantes et al., 2006), this avoids the aeration phase, which is important to reduce moisture, increase acidity and reduce pH.
These factors contribute to the development of the characteristics that distinguish this cheese.
Thirteen protein bands were identified and corresponded to estimated masses from 6.7 up to 34.7 kDa (Figure 1).
![](/img/revistas/agro/v52n3//2521-9766-agro-52-03-361-gf4.jpg)
Figure 1 Profiles and peptide intervals in Chihuahua cheese. St: standard. Peptide intervals bands according to their estimated mass. Comparison between samples of the same range bands interval. Different letters indicate significant difference (p≤0.05).
Three intervals of the peptide sizes as a function of their estimated mass were identified: small mass peptides, up to 11.9 kDa (A), medium mass peptides, from 12.0 to 23.9 kDa (B) and high mass peptides, from 24.0 to 36.0 kDa (C). Overall, the analyzed samples showed higher peptide content with estimated mass between 24.0 and 36.0 kDa. These results agree with those found in one-week maturation Chihuahua cheese samples (Olson et al., 2011) and corresponds to typical fresh cheeses (Tunik et al., 2008, Moushumi et al., 2012). Q2, Q4 and Q5 had the lowest small peptides proportion and Q1, Q3, Q6 and Q10 the highest (p≤0.01). Q2, Q6 Q7, Q9 and Q10 showed the lowest medium mass peptides proportion and Q5 the highest (p≤0.01). Q5 and Q1 had the lowest high mass peptides proportion; Q2 had the highest proportion of these peptides (p≤0.01).
The coagulant and the lactic acid, sodium chloride and milk enzymes carry out the first proteolysis. During cheese maturation, peptides are generated and amino acids released by the action of endopeptidases, aminopeptidases and carboxypeptidases. The peptides and generated FAA contribute to the development of the basic olfactory-tasting characteristics of the product. The bitter taste in cheese correlates with the hydrophobicity of peptides generated in the cheese matrix (Ramírez-López and Vélez-Ruiz, 2012), specifically in the proteolysis of αs1-casein and β-casein (Moushumi et al., 2012). This characteristic was mainly identified at Q4 and Q5, which had the highest peptide content, between 12.0 and 23.9 kDa. This could be because the cheeses did not have a greater enzymatic hydrolysis phase of these peptides, due to insufficient stage of maturation, which eliminated them along with their bitter taste (Olson et al., 2011). Another cause of intensive proteolysis may be the excessive addition of coagulant together with sodium chloride or lactic cultures (Keating, 2007). Q4 and Q5 had particularly higher sodium content. The fraction of smaller mass peptides was homogeneous among the cheeses; in this fraction, free amino acids can be broken down into amines, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methanethiol, alcohols and other compounds that influence the cheese flavor and color (Chamorro and Losada, 2002). Several short peptides, less than 1000 Da, give umami taste to cheese (Moushumi et al., 2012).
Consumer preferences
At the first preference test Q2, Q3 and Q5 were the most preferred (p≤0.01) (Figure 2a); in the second test Q6 and Q10 (p≤0.01) were the most preferred (Figure 2b). A joint analysis of the ten samples indicated that Q8 was intermediate between the most preferred and the least preferred cheese (p≤0.01); therefore, this sample was included in the last preference test. Thus, we confirmed that, out of the six samples, Q8 was the least preferred one (p≤0.01) (Figure 2c). The acceptance of these samples by the consumers relates to their protein, fat, minerals and carbohydrates content (p≤0.01, adjusted R2=0.77).
![](/img/revistas/agro/v52n3//2521-9766-agro-52-03-361-gf5.jpg)
Figure 2 Preference-ranking test for Chihuahua cheese samples. a) First preference test. b) Second preference test. c) Third preference test on the most preferred samples in a) and b). Means and medians of position in the ranking (ranks). Different letters indicate significant difference (p≤0.05).
The analysis of preference magnitude between the samples allowed identifying the differences between the samples with greater preference (Figure 3a). In this test, Q2 and Q3 were the most preferred and Q8 the least (p≤0.01). The acceptance test showed that Q2, Q3 and Q6 were most accepted, and Q8 was the least (p≤0.01) (Figure 3b). The preference magnitude of the six samples significantly correlated with the consumer acceptance test (r=0.85, p=0.03).
![](/img/revistas/agro/v52n3//2521-9766-agro-52-03-361-gf6.jpg)
Figure 3 Preference and acceptance (±SD) of Chihuahua cheese. a) Estimation of preference magnitude with a 15-points linear scale. b) Acceptance test with a 9-point hedonic scale.
In our study, the use of a 15-points linear scale to estimate the magnitude of the preferences and the 9-point hedonic scale to measure the acceptability of the samples, allowed to determine among the samples the most preferred by the consumers. The comparison of both methods has shown that the hedonic scale is superior to the magnitude estimation (Moskowitz and Sidel, 1971; Warren et al., 1982). In our study both tests had an important correlation and confirmed consumer preferences by two different methods.
The descriptive analysis (trained judges) and consumer tests (affective tests) together allowed identifying that the variability in the cheese attributes, perceived by the judges, was related to the acceptance or rejection of the product by the consumers. Thus, high acidity (Q7), salty taste (Q1, Q9), weak odor, high fat content (Q8) or bitter taste (Q4, Q5) were factors that limited the consumer preferences. With the information on consumer preferences, physicochemical (Table 3) and sensory profile (Table 4) models characterizing the cheeses of this study were elaborated.
Table 3 Physicochemical profile model of Chihuahua cheese considering consumer preferences.
Unidad | Media† | Intervalo† | Requerimiento NMX-738§ | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Humedad | % | 42.0 | 41.9 a 42.2 | 45.0 máx |
Proteína | % | 20.4 | 20.0 a 20.8 | 23.0 min |
Cenizas | % | 3.5 | 3.3 a 3.6 | NE |
Grasa total | % | 29.8 | 27.6 a 31.2 | 28.0 min |
Carbohidratos totales | % | 4.2 | 3.3 a 6.0 | NE |
Sodio | mg/100 g | 438.7 | 398.5 a 475.0 | NE |
Acidez | % EAL | 7.0 | 3.8 a 9.1 | NE |
pH | 5.9 | 5.8 - 6.0 | 5.5 | |
Péptidos (0 a 11.9 kDa) | % | 8.3 | 2.6 a 11.9 | - |
Péptidos (12.0 a 23.9 kDa) | % | 17.8 | 14.3 a 22.7 | - |
Péptidos (24.0 a 36.0 kDa) | % | 73.8 | 66.8 a 83.1 | - |
EAL: lactic acid equivalent. NE: non-specified value. †Average value and interval based on the average values of the most preferred cheeses (Q2, Q6 and Q3). §(COFOCALEC, 2011).
Table 4 Sensory profile model of Chihuahua cheese considering consumer preferences.
Atributo | Familia | Subfamilia | Descriptor | Media† | Intervalo† | Intensidad§ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Olor | Intensidad general | 5.8 | 4.8-6.5 | Media-Media alta | |||
Láctica | L. fresca | Leche fresca | 1.9 | 1.8-2.2 | Media baja | ||
Cuajada fresca | 1.3 | 1.0-1.8 | Débil | ||||
Nata | 1.1 | 1.0-1.4 | Débil | ||||
Mantequilla fresca | 1.3 | 1.0-1.4 | Débil | ||||
L. acidificada | Leche cocida | 2.2 | 1.8-2.6 | Media baja | |||
Mantequilla fundida | 2.9 | 2.0-3.4 | Media baja | ||||
Cuajada acidificada | 1.5 | 1.0-2.2 | Débil | ||||
Yogurt | 1.1 | 1.0-1.4 | Débil | ||||
Lactosuero acidificado | 1.1 | 1.0-1.4 | Débil | ||||
Sabor | Dulce | 2.8 | 2.1-3.6 | Media baja | |||
Salado | 3.1 | 2.2-3.6 | Media baja | ||||
Ácido | 3.7 | 3.6-4.0 | Media baja | ||||
Amargo | 2.9 | 2.0-3.4 | Media baja | ||||
Ácido-amargo | 3.7 | 2.8-4.8 | Media baja | ||||
Ácido-dulce | 3.0 | 1.8-4.4 | Media baja | ||||
Dulce-amargo | 1.9 | 1.0-2.6 | Media baja | ||||
Táctil en boca | Firmeza | 3.3 | 3.0-3.5 | Media baja | |||
Humedad | 3.1 | 2.8-3.3 | Media baja | ||||
Carácter Graso | 3.5 | 3.0-4.1 | Media baja |
†Average value and intervals based on the average values of the most preferred cheeses (Q2, Q6 and Q3) on a 9-point linear scale. §Interpretation criterion of the linear scale: 1 weak, 2 to 4 medium-low, 5 medium, 6 to 8 medium-high, 9 high.
These models can be the basis for standardizing Chihuahua cheese manufacturing based on consumer preferences and current Mexican regulations. The proposed models allow identifying how close or far a product is respect to the product preferred by the consumers (Ojeda et al., 2015). The information on the product position helps direct the producers to reformulate or modify the cheese making process (López-Velázquez et al., 2012; Almanza-Rubio et al., 2013). The sensory and physicochemical profile models of the product also provide reference characteristics that Chihuahua cheese must meet to be within the consumer’s preferences.
Conclusions
The variability in the physicochemical parameters of the Chihuahua cheese affects its sensory profile and with it, the consumer preferences, which can determine the product´s acceptance or rejection.
The consumer preferences detected in this study allowed to establish sensory and physicochemical profile models as a support tool to standardize the characteristics of Chihuahua cheese, with an unique quality and recognized acceptance.
Literatura Citada
Almanza-Rubio, J L., R E. Orozco-Mena, and N. Gutiérrez-Méndez. 2013. Assessing consumer preference toward Chihuahua cheese and Chihuahua-type cheese. Tec. Chih. 7: 123-131. [ Links ]
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 2000. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 17th Ed. Official methods cheese. Gaithersburg, MD, USA. pp: 69-88. [ Links ]
Bahan, S B. 1987. Drying and Storage of Polyacrylamide Slab Gels: A Simple Procedure. Anal. Biochem. 163: 42-44. [ Links ]
Caro, I., S. Soto, L. Fuentes, N. Gutiérrez-Méndez, B. García-Islas, and J M. Monroy-Gayoso. 2014. Compositional, functional and sensory characteristics of selected Mexican cheeses. Food Nutr. Sci. 5: 366-375. [ Links ]
Cervantes, F., A. Villegas de Gante, A. Cesín, and A. Espinoza. 2006. Los quesos mexicanos genuinos: un saber hacer que se debe rescatar y preservar. III Congreso Internacional de la Red SIAL “Alimentación y Territorios”. España. 38 p. [ Links ]
Chamorro, M C., y M M. Losada. 2002. El análisis sensorial de los quesos. Tecnología de Alimentos. Mundi-Prensa. España. 235 p. [ Links ]
COFOCALEC (Consejo para el Fomento de la Calidad de la Leche y sus Derivados A.C.). 2011. Norma Mexicana NMX-F-738-COFOCALEC-2011 Sistema Producto Leche-Alimentos-Lácteos-Queso-Chihuahua-Denominación. Especificaciones y Métodos de Prueba. Diario Oficial de la Federación 18(DCXCIII): 70 p. [ Links ]
Collins, Y F., P L H. McSweeney, and M G. Wilkinson. 2003. Lipolysis and free fatty acid catabolims in cheese: a reviwe of current of current knowledge. Int. Dairy J. 13: 841-866. [ Links ]
DGN (Dirección General de Normas). 1970. NMX-F-099-1970. Método de prueba para la determinación de pH en quesos procesados. http://goo.gl/w4brQb (Consulta: febrero 2015). [ Links ]
DGN (Dirección General de Normas). 1984. NMX-F-100-1984. Alimentos. Lácteos. Determinación de grasa butírica en quesos. http://goo.gl/4uO3KP (Consulta: febrero 2015). [ Links ]
FAO. 2002. Food and nutrition paper. Food energy-Methods of analysis and conversión factors. Report of a Technical workshop, Roma. http://goo.gl/uOq0i6 (Consulta: enero 2016). [ Links ]
Gamboa, J G., D. Rojas, L G R. Canul, and E J. Ramírez. 2013. Determination of the quality of cheese “Chihuahua” type: Sensory and physicochemical approaches. Food Sci. Nutr. 25: 409-417. [ Links ]
González-Córdova, A F., C. Yescas, A M. Ortiz-Estrada, A De la Rosa-Alcaraz, A. Hernández-Mendoza, and B. Vallejo-Córdova. 2016. Invited review: Artisanal Mexican cheeses. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 3250-3262. [ Links ]
Hernández-Morales, C., A. Hernández-Montes, E. Aguirre-Mandujano, and A. V. De Gante. 2010. Physicochemical, microbiological, textural and sensory characterization of Mexican Añejo cheese. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 63: 552-560. [ Links ]
Hervás, A. 2012. El mercado del queso en México. Oficina Económica y Comercial de la Embajada de España en México. ICEX Instituto Español de Comercio Exterior. México. 33 p. http://goo.gl/vIbHpN (Consulta: noviembre 2015). [ Links ]
Johnson, M E., R. Kapoor, D J. McMahon, D R. McCoy, and R G Narasimmon, 2009. Reduction of sodium and fat levels in natural and processed cheeses: Scientific and technological aspects. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. F. 8: 252-268. [ Links ]
Keating, P F. 2007. Introducción a la Lactología. 2da. ed. Limusa. México. 266 p. [ Links ]
Laemmli, U K. 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227: 680-685. [ Links ]
Lawless, H T., and H. Heymann. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices. 2nd. ed. Springer. USA. 587 p. [ Links ]
López-Velázquez, J., T. Gómez-Alvarado, M, Hernández-Cervantes, R. Santiago-Cabrera, G. Ramón-Canul, J M. Juárez-Barrientos, and E. D. J. Ramírez-Rivera, 2012. Mapas externos de preferencias de jueces entrenados y consumidores: comparación del desempeño y determinación de la preferencia. Tecnociencia Chih. 6: 9-21. [ Links ]
Marchesseau, S., E. Gastaldi, A. Lagaude, and J L. Cuq. 1997. Influence of pH on protein interactions and microstructure of process cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 80: 1483-1489. [ Links ]
McSweeney, P L H., and M J. Sousa. 2000. Biochemical pathways for the production of flavor compunds in cheeses during ripening: A review. Lait 80: 293-324. [ Links ]
Meilgaard, M., G V. Civille, and B T. Carr. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 4th. ed. CRC Press. USA. 464 p. [ Links ]
Merril, C R. 1990. Gel-staining techniques. In: Deutscher, MP. Guide to Protein Purification. Academic Press. USA. pp: 477-488. [ Links ]
Moskowitz, H R., and J L. Sidel. 1971. Magnitude and hedonic scales of food accept ability. J. Food Sci. 36: 677-680. [ Links ]
Moushumi, P., A. Nuñez, D L. Van Hekken, and J A. Renye. 2012. Sensory and protein profiles of Mexican Chihuahua cheese. J. Food Sci. Technol. 51: 3432-3438. [ Links ]
Navarro, A. 2015. Quesos Sabores y Olores. Defectos en Sabores y Olores. http://goo.gl/8dW8Qh (Consulta: noviembre 2015). [ Links ]
Ojeda, M., I. Etaio, M P. Fernández, M. Albisu, J. Salmerón, and F J. Pérez. 2015. Sensory quality control of cheese: going beyond the absence of defects. Food Control 51: 371-380. [ Links ]
Olson, D W., D L. Van Hekken, M H. Tunick, P M. Tomasula, F J. Molina-Corral, and A A. Gardea. 2011. Mexican Queso Chihuahua: Functional properties of aging cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 94: 4292-4299. [ Links ]
Ramírez-López, C., y J Vélez-Ruiz. 2012. Quesos frescos: propiedades, métodos de determinación y factores que afectan su calidad. Temas Selectos Ing. Alimentos 6: 131-148. [ Links ]
Ramírez-Navas, J S., J. Aguirre-Londoño, V A. Aristizabal-Ferrerira, y S. Castro-Narváez. 2017. La sal en el queso: Diversas interacciones. Agron. Mesoam. 28: 303-316. [ Links ]
Smith, G., B A. Smith, and W J M. Engels, 2005. Flavour formation by lactic acid bacteria and biochemical flavour profiling of cheese products. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 29: 591-610. [ Links ]
Tunick, M H., D L. Van Hekken, F J. Molina-Corral, P M. Tomasula, J. Call, J. Luchansky, and A A. Gardea. 2008. Queso Chihuahua: Manufacturing procedures, composition, protein profiles, and microbiology. International J. Dairy Technol. 61: 62-69. [ Links ]
Van Hekken, D L., M. Drake, F J M. Corral, V M G. Prieto, andA A. Gardea. 2006. Mexican Chihuahua cheese: sensory profiles of young cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 3729-38. [ Links ]
Villegas de Gante, A. 2012. Tecnología Quesera. 2da. ed. Trillas. México. 408 p. [ Links ]
Warren, C., J. Pearce, and B. Korth, 1982. Magnitude estimation and category scaling. ASTM Stand. News 10: 15-16. [ Links ]
Received: August 2016; Accepted: July 2017