Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:55:39.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

513. The effect of different cream treatments during the pasteurization process on the size distribution of fat globules in cream and butter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

R. M. Dolby
Affiliation:
The Dairy Research Institute (N.Z.), Palmerston North, New Zealand

Extract

A method for determining the size distribution of fat globules in cream has been described. A thin film (20 μ) of the diluted cream on a microscope slide is preferred to a deeper preparation (0·1 mm.) in a counting chamber in which rise of fat globules to the upper surface is necessary for easy observation. The latter method is less convenient and can give too low an estimate of the proportion of the smallest globules (1 μ and under).

Cream should be diluted 1 in 50 and the concentration of gelatin in the dilution should be sufficient (4–6%) to give a rapid gel formation. The mixture should be cooled till the gelatin thickens before being transferred to the slide if it is to give the most uniform distribution of globules.

It is shown that Vacreator-treatment of cream causes a considerable increase in the proportion of fat present as globules less than 2 μ and a small increase in the proportion present as globules over 10 μ in diameter. Flash-pasteurization, on the other hand, causes a slight decrease in the proportion of fat present as small globules and a considerable increase in that present as large globules.

Butter from flash-pasteurized cream contains numerous large fat globules and fat aggregates, while butter from Vacreator-treated cream contains few large globules. It is suggested that the more uniform subdivision of fat in butter from Vacreator-treated cream explains why butter from Vacreator-treated cream is superior in texture to butter from flash-pasteurized cream.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Hoyos, R. (1951). Milchwissenschaft, 6, 201.Google Scholar
(2)King, N. (1947). Ned. melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 1, 19.Google Scholar
(3)King, N. (1949). Milchwissenschaft, 4, 100.Google Scholar
(4)Kreveld, A. van (1941). Rec. Trav. chim. Pays-Bas, 61, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Kreveld, A. van (1941). Rec. Trav. chim. Pays-Bas, 61, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Lyons, J. (1950). Econ. Proc. R. Dublin Soc. 3 (18), 249.Google Scholar
(7)Rahn, O. (1924). Milchw. Forsch. 1, 363.Google Scholar
(8)Rahn, O. (1925). Milchw. Forsch. 2, 383.Google Scholar
(9)Sargent, J. D. (1935). Quoted by McDowall, F. H. (1938). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 19, 682.Google Scholar
(10)Schmidt, H. (1951). Milchwissenschaft, 6, 424.Google Scholar
(11)Schneck, A. & Kohlhardt, G. (1930). Milchw. Forsch. 9, 186.Google Scholar
(12)Turner, C. W. & Haskell, A. C. (1929). Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 130.Google Scholar
(13)Van Dam, W. & Sirks, H. A. (1922). Method described by Rahn (8).Google Scholar
(14)Whittlestone, W. G. (1951). Proc. N.Z. Dairy Sci. Ass. p. 40.Google Scholar
(15)Whittlestone, W. G. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar