Observational analysis shows potential for reducing processing time in cheese production while minimizing fat loss.
Background The production of rennet cheeses is based on the formation of a milk gel, followed by cutting, mixing, cooking and the production of cheese grains and curd. Milk coagulation traditionally occurs in a prolonged static state, which leads to time and energy inefficiencies and necessitates additional processing. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of eliminating the cutting, mixing and cooking stages of milk gel during cheese production. Methods This study employed a hydrodynamic (wave) method to induce forced oscillations in milk during coagulation, with an oscillation amplitude of 8 mm and a frequency range of 0.5–2 Hz. The protein and fat content in the whey was assessed at a significance level of 0.05. Major findings It was found that hydrodynamic oscillations produced cheese grain and curd in milk. At low oscillation frequencies, the fat content of whey is 0.08%, well below the typical value of 0.4%. At higher frequencies, fat loss into the whey increased. The protein content in the whey remained frequency‐independent and did not exceed 0.8%. The observed relationship allows for an assessment of the milk coagulation process under forced oscillations. The study demonstrates that with an appropriate selection of oscillation frequency—considering the size and shape of the container—cheese curd suitable for further processing via traditional methods can be obtained. Cheese samples produced using the hydrodynamic method exhibited similar characteristics to those produced via conventional techniques. Scientific and industrial implications This research enhances understanding of the interactions between destabilised casein micelles under forced oscillation conditions. The findings suggest that the hydrodynamic method holds promise for industrial cheese curd production, as it reduces processing time (by 0.5–1.5 hours) and minimises milk fat losses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
И. Т. Смыков (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: