S

P

Ma

Mb

c

M

a

ARRAA

KCLSMN

1

tc2necTwratpa

0h

Small Ruminant Research 106 (2012) 154– 159

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Small Ruminant Research

jou rna l h omepa g e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /smal l rumres

hort communication

hysicochemical study of Murcia al Vino cheese

.B. Lópeza,∗, E. Ferrandinia, M. Rodriguezb, J.D. Rocaa, E. Habac, A. Lunac, S. Roviraa

Departamento de Tecnología de Alimentos, Nutrición y Bromatologia, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo E-30071,urcia, SpainInstituto Murciano de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario y Alimentario (IMIDA), Calle Mayor, s/n, E-30150, La Alberca, Murcia, SpainConsejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen de Queso de Murcia y Queso de Murcia al Vino, Avda. de Levante, 53, Entresuelo 9, E-30520 Jumilla,urcia, Spain

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 29 June 2011eceived in revised form 17 April 2012ccepted 17 April 2012vailable online 7 May 2012

a b s t r a c t

This study provides information on the physicochemical properties of “Murcia al Vino”cheese, and the extent to which they are affected by different manufacturers and seasons.All the physicochemical parameters showed significant differences between cheeses. It wasobserved that the season affects cheese composition, including the total fatty acid profile,particularly in the summer months, although no significant differences were found forany of the proteolysis parameters. The results of this study showed that cheeses made in

eywords:heeseipid profileeasonanufactureritrogen fractions

spring have the best physicochemical composition with lower NaCl content, better fattyacid profile and the same degree of proteolysis. The amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids(5.16%) found was higher than that mentioned by other authors for this type of cheese.The polyunsaturated fatty acid profile may be considered an added value in Murcia al Vinocheeses.

. Introduction

The intake of small ruminant milk is low compared tohe intake of cow milk, but is gradually increasing, as is theonsumption of goat milk products (Ribeiro and Ribeiro,010). In Spain, within the wide range of protected desig-ation of origin (PDO) cheeses, only five cheeses are madexclusively with goat milk. One of them is Murcia al Vinoheese from the province of Murcia, in south-eastern Spain.his cheese is a washed-curd, semi-hard pressed cheeseith a cylindrical shape, which is ripened for 45 days. The

ind is smooth and bathed in red wine, due to its widecceptance by consumers, especially outside Spain, and tohe nutritional and health benefits exhibited by goat milk

roducts in general, Murcia al Vino cheese has become anttractive and commercially interesting product.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 868 88 3694; fax: +34 868 88 4147.E-mail address: mbelen@um.es (M.B. López).

921-4488/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.04.008

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Several authors have studied the use of alternative ren-nets, such as plant coagulants (Tejada et al., 2008a,b) andrennet paste (Ferrandini et al., 2011), for making Murciaal Vino cheese. However, the lack of scientific informationconcerning this cheese points to the need to further studyits chemical and nutritional properties and proteolytic pat-terns, as in other protected designation cheeses. Moreover,there is no scientific evidence linking the physicochemicalproperties of Murcia al Vino cheese with different manu-facturing plants and the climatic conditions, which wouldbe of great interest for the industry in order to guaranteeproducts quality and profitability.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize Mur-cia al Vino cheese made by various manufacturing plantsand in different seasons to study the impact of both factorson the physicochemical properties of cheese.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Samples and cheese manufacture

Twelve samples of 45-day ripened PDO cheese manufactured in fourdifferent cheese factories (three samples per manufacturer) in spring,

inant Re

M.B. López et al. / Small Rum

autumn and summer (four samples per season) were analyzed. Each 2 kgsample was cut into 150 g pieces and frozen at 80 ◦C until the physico-chemical analyses were carried out.

Pasteurized (75 ◦C, 20 s) goat milk was tempered until a constant tem-perature of 30–34 ◦C. Stirring slowly, CaCl2, starter and rennet were added(the concentration and doses depended on the different manufacturers).After cutting, two stirring (5 min) and pitching (5 min) cyclees were car-ried out followed by a washing and cooking step (38 ◦C), and a final stirring.The curd was then moulded, pressed, salted in a brine bath, bathed withred wine and ripened (70–90% relative humidity; 9–13 ◦C).

2.2. Physicochemical characterization

Physicochemical determinations were conducted in the University ofMurcia Food Technology laboratories. The frozen samples were thawedat 3–4 ◦C for ∼15 h and cut. The parts close to the rind (∼5 mm) were dis-carded and the cheese samples were then grated. The samples were keptrefrigerated (3–4 ◦C) until analysis, which was always performed within24 h of thawing. All the analyses were made in triplicate.

The pH determinations were made in grated cheese (5 g ± 0.1 mg)suspended in 30 mL of distilled water and stirred for 10 min untilcomplete homogenization, using a Crison® pH meter (micropH 2001,Barcelona). For dry matter content measurements, grated cheese sam-ples (3 g ± 0.1 g) were dried to constant weight (IDF, 2004). The chloridein cheeses, expressed as NaCl, was determined using Mohr’s method(Barrios Rodríguez, 1994). The total nitrogen concentration was deter-mined using the Kjeldahl method (IDF/RM, 2008). The aw was measuredwith Novasina® equipment (TH 200, Switzerland). For the fat content,samples were analysed using Van Gulik’s method (ISO, 2008). To deter-mine the fatty acid composition of milk samples, a lipid extraction wasperformed before derivatization, identification and quantification by gaschromatography (ISO, 1990). From the total nitrogen content of thecheeses, the following soluble nitrogen fractions were determined asdescribed by Bütikofer et al. (1993): water soluble nitrogen (WSN); pH4.4 (pH 4.4 SN); 12% trichloroacetic acid soluble nitrogen (TCASN 12%);5% phosphotungstic acid soluble nitrogen (PTASN 5%) and 28.5% ethanolsoluble nitrogen (ETSN 28.5%).

2.3. Statistical analysis

The statitical analysis was carried out using the General Linear ModelUnivariate/Multivariate Statistix statistical package for Windows (version8.0, Analytical Software, USA). A descriptive analysis, a one-way ANOVAand a Tukey contrast test were carried out for the statistical analysis.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Physicochemical parameters

The average values of the physicochemical compositionof Murcia al Vino cheese are shown in Table 1. The averagepH (5.61) of the cheeses is higher than the results pub-lished for Murcia al Vino cheese by Tejada et al. (2008a)(5.02) and by Ferrandini et al. (2011) (5.31), but it is lowerthan the pH 6.38 of Cacioricotta cheese (Albenzio et al.,2006) due to the different manufacturing design and, in thecase of Ferrandini et al. (2011), due to the experimentalscale (different vat properties, and different cutting, stir-ring, pitching, salting and pressing conditions).

The differences in the dry matter content of the cheesesunderline the wide heterogeneity of the cheeses. For thesame period of ripening, some authors determined highervalues than those obtained in this study (60.80%): forexample, the 64.21% mentioned by Ferrandini et al. (2011)

and the 63.17% found by Tejada et al. (2008a). However,lower values (57.20%) were determined in Cacioricottagoat cheese (Albenzio et al., 2006), which is a “high-cooked” cheese variety with shorter ripening time than is

search 106 (2012) 154– 159 155

used for Murcia al Vino cheese. The average protein value(20.71%) was lower than other mean values determined byFerrandini et al. (2011) in the same type of cheese (22.19%)and by Fresno et al. (1996), in Armada cheese ripenedfor 60 days and higher than the mean value reported inCacioricotta goat cheese (16.8%) after one week of ripen-ing (Albenzio et al., 2006). The mean fat content (36.68%)was similar to that for the same type of cheese (37.86%)(Ferrandini et al., 2011). As regards the water activity, dif-ferent authors have published a mean of 0.95 for bothMurcia al Vino and Cacioricotta cheese (Ferrandini et al.,2011; Albenzio et al., 2006), which is higher than the valueobtained in this study (0.92). These higher values may berelated to the differences between the cheese processingprocedures and the goat milk composition.

The relationships between the physicochemical com-position of the cheeses, the manufacturers and the seasonsare shown in Table 1. There were no significant differences(P > 0.05) in the physicochemical parameters of the cheesesstudied related with the manufacturer. However, signifi-cant differences (Tukey test, P < 0.05) were found betweendairies A–D when pH was considered. As can be seen inTable 1, the highest pH level corresponded to cheese plantA (5.78) while the lowest was determined in manufacturerD (5.51). This could be explained by the more intensivewashing process that was carried out during cheesemakingin plant A or by the higher activity of the lactic acid bacte-ria used by manufacturers C and D (which would lowerthe pH). The results shown in Table 1 suggest that, in gen-eral, there is great homogeneity among the cheeses despitebeing made in different cheese plants.

The pH, dry matter, fat, aw and NaCl, but not the pro-tein content, varied significantly (95%) with the season.The lowest pH values were determined in autumn (5.44),compared with the results for spring and summer (5.65).The higher pH in spring and summer cheeses could berelated with the higher water content of the cheese, whichis affected by milk composition and, particulary, by synere-sis during cheese manufacture. The dry matter content washighest (61.75%) in the cheeses produced during the sum-mer and lowest (59.44%) in spring, this last value beingsimilar to that obtained in Cacioricotta goat cheese pro-duced in this season (Albenzio et al., 2006).

As regards the contrast analysis shown at the bottomof Table 1, no statistically significant differences in pHwere found between cheeses made in spring and thosemade in summer and autumn, while statistically significantdifferences were observed between cheeses made in sum-mer and autumn. Significant differences were observed fordry matter content between cheeses made in spring andsummer, and for water activity between cheeses manufac-tured in spring and summer and between those made insummer and autumn. As regards the salt and fat contentof cheeses, the differences were also significant betweenspring, and autumn and summer (P < 0.05) as observed byother authors (Soryal et al., 2005).

3.2. Nitrogenous fractions

The different soluble nitrogen fractions in the cheesesstudied and the relationships with cheese makers and

156 M.B. López et al. / Small Ruminant Research 106 (2012) 154– 159

Table 1Physicochemical composition of Murcia al Vino cheese. Influence of cheese making plant and season.

Cheese pH (pH units) Dry matter (%) Protein (%) Fat (%) aw (non-dimensional) NaCl (%)

Mean 5.61 60.80 20.71 36.68 0.92 2.02SEMb 0.02*** 0.17*** 0.15*** 0.15*** 0.00*** 0.01***

Dairya

n 9 9 9 9 9 9A 5.78 ± 0.02 60.90 ± 2.42 36.88 ± 1.13 21.13 ± 0.93 0.92 ± 0.00 2.08 ± 0.62B 5.60 ± 0.23 60.36 ± 1.76 36.40 ± 1.54 20.30 ± 1.13 0.92 ± 0.00 2.03 ± 0.23C 5.54 ± 0.19 61.61 ± 1.28 36.44 ± 0.72 21.18 ± 1.79 0.92 ± 0.00 2.08 ± 0.30D 5.51 ± 0.19 60.62 ± 2.06 39.57 ± 0.51 20.51 ± 1.20 0.93 ± 0.00 1.87 ± 0.36SEMb 0.0NS 0.7NS 0.4NS 0.4NS 0.1NS 0.0NS

SECc

A vs B 0.0NS 0.9NS 0.5NS 0.6NS 0.2NS 0.0NS

A vs C 0.11* 1.1NS 0.6NS 0.7NS 0.2NS 0.0NS

A vs D 0.11* 1.1NS 0.6NS 0.7NS 0.2NS 0.0NS

B vs C 0.0NS 0.9NS 0.5NS 0.6NS 0.2NS 0.0NS

B vs D 0.0NS 0.9NS 0.5NS 0.6NS 0.2NS 0.0NS

C vs D 0.1NS 1.1NS 0.6NS 0.7NS 0.2NS 0.0NS

Seasond

n 12 12 12 12 12 121 5.65 ± 0.26 59.44 ± 0.95 36.44 ± 0.17 19.13 ± 0.62 0.93 ± 0.00 1.67 ± 0.272 5.65 ± 0.15 61.75 ± 1.52 36.61 ± 1.16 21.80 ± 0.44 0.92 ± 0.00 2.26 ± 0.253 5.44 ± 0.17 60.40 ± 2.36 37.15 ± 1.72 20.25 ± 0.25 0.92 ± 0.01 1.91 ± 0.34SEM 0.06* 0.55** 0.3NS 0.16*** 0.09*** 0.00***

SEC1 vs 2 0.0NS 0.71** 0.5NS 0.20*** 0.12*** 0.00***

1 vs 3 0.1NS 0.8NS 0.6NS 0.25*** 0.1NS 0.00**

2 vs 3 0.09* 0.7NS 0.5NS 0.23*** 0.13* 0.00NS

NS, non significant.a A–D, manufacturers.b SEM, standard error of means.c SEC, standard error of contrast.d 1, Spring; 2, Summer; 3, Autumn.*

sh(da(

fct2c1tdtobcsdim

Twm

P < 0.05.** P < 0.01.

*** P < 0.001.

easons are detailed in Table 2. The values obtained areigher than the results reported for this type of cheeseFerrandini et al., 2011), which may be related with theifferent animal rennets used for cheesemaking, as wells the cheese vat configuration and processing detailsstirring speed, temperature, etc.).

In the bibliography, only references to WSN have beenound for goat milk cheese. This parameter is commonlyonsidered as a ripening index for cheese since it reflectshe degree of proteolysis that has taken place (Tejada et al.,008a,b). A WSN value of 0.95% was found in Caciori-otta goat cheese (Albenzio et al., 2006), corresponding5.96% of the total nitrogen content, which is lower thanhe value found in this study. This may be related to theifference between the cheese pH and the optimum pH ofhe enzymes used, particularly chymosin and plasmin, asccurs in Cacioricotta cheese with its lower WSN contentut higher pH. The 17.63% WSN content of the goat milkheese made with calf rennet (Tejada et al., 2008a,b) is con-iderably lower than that measured in this study, probablyue to the amount of rennet retained in the curd, which

s affected by pH at the time of whey drainage and theoisture content of the curd.

The differences observed between cheeses in ETSN,

CASN and PTASN highlight the variability of proteolysisithin the same cheese variety, even though the cheesesay be made following almost the same technological

steps. Although the particular cheese factory did not appar-ently affect the WSN content, significant differences werefound (Tukey test, P < 0.05) between producer A and bothB and C. No significant differences were found for pH4.4 SNbetween cheesemakers, while the individual dairies had asignificant effect on the ETSN fraction (P < 0.05), the high-est values being observed for manufacturer C (14.75%, v/v)and the lowest for A (10.79%, v/v). Also TCASN values var-ied significantly with the manufacturer (P < 0.05), whichreflects the different exopeptidase activity of the startercultures used. The highest TCASN value was observed inmanufacturer C (11.08%, v/v) and the lowest in A (6.83%,v/v). Significant differences (P < 0.01) were determined inthe PTASN fraction between cheesemakers, as shown inTable 2. Statistical contrast analysis pointed to significantdifferences between manufacturers C and (A–D) with a sig-nificance level of 99%.

No significant differences were found for any of theproteolysis parameters studied between the seasons evenwhen an analysis of contrast was applied.

3.3. Total fatty acids

The mean values of the total fatty acids content aredescribed in Table 3. The results shown are consistentwith those reported for the same type of cheese (80.03%)by Ferrandini et al. (2011), although lower values have

M.B. López et al. / Small Ruminant Research 106 (2012) 154– 159 157

Table 2Impact of the cheese making plant and season on cheese nitrogen soluble fractions (% total nitrogen).

Cheese WSN (%, w/v) pH4.4 SN (%, w/v) ETSN (%, v/v) TCASN (%, v/v) PTASN (%, v/v)

Mean 24.03 23.32 13.10 9.38 2.08SEM 0.27*** 0.30*** 0.16*** 0.14*** 0.03***

Dairya

n 9 9 9 9 9A 21.37 ± 1.46 19.68 ± 3.91 10.79 ± 1.08 6.83 ± 0.53 1.17 ± 0.09B 24.86 ± 1.18 23.79 ± 3.95 13.47 ± 2.09 9.68 ± 2.48 1.91 ± 0.63C 25.35 ± 5.99 24.82 ± 7.65 14.75 ± 3.46 11.08 ± 2.99 3.82 ± 2.67D 23.96 ± 1.78 24.66 ± 0.73 13.12 ± 1.01 9.72 ± 1.63 1.53 ± 0.24SEMb 1.1NS 1.7NS 0.82* 0.84* 0.49**

SECc

A vs B 1.56* 2.3NS 1.11* 1.13* 0.66NS

A vs C 1.74* 2.6NS 1.24** 1.26** 0.74**

A vs D 1.7NS 2.6NS 1.24NS 1.26* 0.74NS

B vs C 1.5NS 2.3NS 1.11NS 1.13NS 0.66**

B vs D 1.5NS 2.3NS 1.11NS 1.13NS 0.66NS

C vs D 1.7NS 2.6NS 1.11NS 1.26NS 0.74**

Seasond

n 12 12 12 12 121 22.90 ± 0.97 23.72 ± 1.55 13.03 ± 1.06 9.10 ± 2.19 1.74 ± 0.532 23.79 ± 4.25 22.15 ± 5.96 12.66 ± 2.94 9.11 ± 2.60 2.49 ± 2.103 26.06 ± 0.50 22.49 ± 4.25 14.22 ± 2.43 10.36 ± 2.96 1.56 ± 0.25SEM 1.0NS 1.6NS 0.8NS 0.8NS 0.5NS

SEC1 vs 2 1.3NS 2.1NS 1.0NS 1.1NS 0.6NS

1 vs 3 1.6NS 2.5NS 1.3NS 1.4NS 0.8NS

2 vs 3 1.5NS 2.3NS 1.2NS 1.2NS 0.7NS

NS, non significant.a A–D, manufacturers.b SEM, standard error of means.c SEC, standard error of contrast.d 1, Spring; 2, Summer; 3, Autumn.* P < 0.05.

**

P < 0.01.*** P < 0.001.

been also reported for other Murciano-Granadina goat milkcheeses (67.58%) (Tejada et al., 2008a,b) and Robiola di Roc-caverano goat milk cheese (70.63%) (Bonetta et al., 2008),which may be related to differences in the goat’s milk com-position and cheese ripening.

Few references were found to total fatty acids in goatcheese, and the studies that do exist are based on thefree fatty acid composition, which can not be comparedwith our study (total fatty acids). If the results of thisresearch are compared with those determined for othercheeses made from goat milk or mixtures of goat and cowmilk, it can be seen that in Rocamadour variety (madefrom un-pasteurized milk, drained for 12 h and then com-bined with salt, molded manually and refined in the cellarat 10 ◦C for a minimum of six days), similar percentageswere found for saturated fatty acids (Lucas et al., 2008b).However, higher values of C8 and C10, which are consid-ered to provide the characteristic flavor (Chilliard et al.,2003), were found in Murcia al Vino cheeses after lipolysis.Our results for monounsaturated fatty acids are similar tothose published for the same type of cheese (17.61%) byFerrandini et al. (2011) and to those determined in other

goat cheeses (18.27%) (Lucas et al., 2008a). The amount ofpolyunsaturated fatty acids (5.16%) was higher than thosementioned for Rocamadour cheese (2.66%) (Lucas et al.,2008b) and those recorded by other authors for Murcia al

Vino cheese (2.36%) Ferrandini et al. (2011), which under-lines the importance of individual dairies in this respectand how different manufacturing techniques may affect thepolyunsaturated fatty acids content.

As can be observed in Table 3, significant differences(P < 0.001) between all the cheeses considered were foundfor all the fatty acids analysed. As regards the degree of sat-uration, the highest values corresponded to the saturatedfatty acids content, with an average of 75.76%. The rela-tion between the total fatty acids content and the differentmanufacturers are also reflected in this table. No signifi-cant differences were determined in C6, C16, C16:1 or C18.1.The constrast analysis pointed to few differences betweenmanufacturers. Statistically significant differences wereobserved in C8 and C10 between dairy D and all the othermanufacturers (A–C), in C12 and C14 between manufactur-ers A and B, A and D and, C and D. Also, C17 and C18:2 showedsignificant differences between manufacturer D and both Aand C. The C18 fatty acid only differed significantly betweenmanufacturers A and D.

The seasons had no effect on the content of almost allthe fatty acid, except C12, C14, C16, C18 and C18:1. Statistical

contrast analysis identified differences between spring andsummer for C6, C16 and C18:1, between spring and autumnfor C12, C14, C18 and C18:1 and, finally, between summer andautumn for C12, C14 and C18.

158M

.B. López

et al.

/ Sm

all R

uminant

Research

106 (2012) 154– 159

Table 3Impact of the cheese plant and season on cheese total fatty acid profile (%).

Cheese C6 C8 C10 C12 C14 C16 C16:1 C17 C18 C18:1 C18:2

Mean 1.74 2.97 10.83 4.31 14.82 26.09 0.33 2.75 12.29 18.70 5.16SEM 0.05*** 0.21*** 0.11*** 0.03*** 0.05*** 0.07*** 0.06*** 0.04*** 0.08*** 0.11*** 0.16***

Dairya

n 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9A 1.67 ± 0.24 2.65 ± 0.19 10.14 ± 0.65 3.94 ± 0.16 14.06 ± 0.36 25.68 ± 0.85 0.48 ± 0.00 3.11 ± 0.06 13.33 ± 1.29 19.15 ± 0.60 5.81 ± 1.12B 1.74 ± 0.03 2.85 ± 0.06 10.82 ± 0.34 4.44 ± 0.45 15.01 ± 0.67 25.82 ± 0.95 0.34 ± 0.21 2.77 ± 0.42 12.29 ± 1.45 18.71 ± 1.95 5.22 ± 1.01C 1.67 ± 0.05 2.83 ± 0.11 10.63 ± 0.14 4.11 ± 0.22 14.49 ± 0.56 26.67 ± 1.14 0.28 ± 0.22 3.18 ± 0.20 12.22 ± 0.72 17.78 ± 0.62 6.16 ± 1.45D 1.88 ± 0.24 3.60 ± 1.12 11.73 ± 1.38 4.73 ± 0.38 15.66 ± 0.87 26.29 ± 2.14 0.23 ± 0.25 1.94 ± 1.51 11.33 ± 0.44 19.16 ± 1.25 3.44 ± 2.01SEMb 0.0NS 0.21* 0.29** 0.13** 0.25** 0.5NS 0.0NS 0.30* 0.43* 0.5NS 0.64*

SECc

A vs B 0.0NS 0.2NS 0.4NS 0.18** 0.35** 0.7NS 0.1NS 0.4NS 0.5NS 0.7NS 0.8NS

A vs C 0.0NS 0.3NS 0.4NS 0.1NS 0.3NS 0.7NS 0.1NS 0.4NS 0.6NS 0.7NS 0.9NS

A vs D 0.0NS 0.31** 0.43** 0.19** 0.37** 0.7NS 0.1NS 0.44* 0.63* 0.7NS 0.94*

B vs C 0.0NS 0.2NS 0.4NS 0.1NS 0.3NS 0.7NS 0.1NS 0.4NS 0.5NS 0.7NS 0.8NS

B vs D 0.0NS 0.29* 0.40* 0.1NS 0.3NS 0.7NS 0.1NS 0.4NS 0.5NS 0.7NS 0.8NS

C vs D 0.0NS 0.31** 0.43* 0.19** 0.37** 0.7NS 0.1NS 0.44* 0.6NS 0.7NS 0.94*

Seasond

n 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 121 1.63 ± 0.12 2.72 ± 0.16 10.41 ± 0.52 4.15 ± 0.24 14.43 ± 0.23 25.17 ± 0.84 0.35 ± 0.21 2.93 ± 0.42 12.83 ± 1.42 19.80 ± 1.53 5.58 ± 1.092 1.80 ± 0.21 3.18 ± 0.87 11.03 ± 1.21 4.21 ± 0.49 14.68 ± 1.03 26.81 ± 1.47 0.30 ± 0.22 2.59 ± 1.21 12.44 ± 1.15 18.12 ± 1.07 4.84 ± 2.563 1.76 ± 0.07 2.89 ± 0.10 10.98 ± 0.29 4.74 ± 0.21 15.64 ± 0.21 25.87 ± 0.48 0.37 ± 0.18 2.84 ± 0.31 11.27 ± 0.46 18.39 ± 0.71 5.24 ± 0.63SEM 0.0NS 0.2NS 0.3NS 0.13* 0.25* 0.39** 0.0NS 0.3NS 0.39* 0.40** 0.6NS

SEC1 vs 2 0.07* 0.2NS 0.4NS 0.1NS 0.3NS 0.52** 0.0NS 0.4NS 0.5NS 0.53** 0.8NS

1 vs 3 0.0NS 0.3NS 0.4NS 0.20** 0.39** 0.6NS 0.1NS 0.4NS 0.61* 0.63* 1.0NS

2 vs 3 0.0NS 0.3NS 0.4NS 0.19** 0.36* 0.5NS 0.1NS 0.4NS 0.57* 0.5NS 0.9NS

NS, non significant.a A–D, manufacturers.b SEM, standard error of means.c SEC, standard error of contrast.d 1, Spring; 2, Summer; 3, Autumn.* P < 0.05.

** P < 0.01.*** P < 0.001.

inant Re

Salguero, J., 2008a. Proteolysis in goats’ milk cheese made with calf

M.B. López et al. / Small Rum

4. Conclusion

The physicochemical composition did not differ sig-nificantly between manufacturers although they had asignificant effect on the nitrogen fractions. The season sig-nificantly affected physicochemical composition of cheesesbut not proteolysis, which is of great importance for cheesequality and, therefore, profitability. This study suggeststhat the spring is more favourable for Murcia al Vinocheese production when cheese physicochemical compo-sition improves in terms of the salt content and fatty acidprofile. The polyunsaturated fatty acid content of Murcia alVino cheese is higher than that observed in other industri-ally manufactured cheeses.

References

Albenzio, M., Caroprese, M., Marino, R., Muscio, A., Santillo, A., Sevi, A.,2006. Characteristics of Garganica goat milk and Cacioricotta cheese.Small Rumiant Res. 64, 35–44.

Barrios Rodríguez, M.J., 1994. Estudio micotoxicológico de quesos deEspana (Región sur). Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba.

Bonetta, S., Coïsson, J.D., Barile, D., Travaglia, F., Piana, G., Carraro, E.,Arlorio, M., 2008. Microbiological and chemical characterization ofa typical Italian cheese: robiola di roccaverano. J. Agric. Food Chem.56, 7223–7230.

Bütikofer, U., Rüegg, M., Ardö, Y., 1993. Determination of nitrogen fractions

in cheese: evaluation of a collaborative study. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.26, 271–275.

Chilliard, A., Ferlay, J., Rouel, Lamberet, G., 2003. A review of nutritionaland physiological factors affecting goat milk synthesis and lipolysis. J.Dairy Sci. 86, 1751–1770.

search 106 (2012) 154– 159 159

Ferrandini, E., López, M.B., Castillo, M., Laencina, J., 2011. Influence of anartisanal lamb rennet paste on proteolysis and textural properties ofMurcia al Vino cheese. Food Chem. 124, 583–588.

Fresno, J.M., Tornadijo, M.E., Carballo, J., González-Prieto, J., Bernardo, A.,1996. Characterization and biochemical changes during the ripeningof a Spanish craft goat’s milk cheese (Armada variety). Food Chem. 55,225–230.

IDF, 2004. Cheese and processed cheese products. Determination of totalsolids content. In: International Dairy Federation. Brussels, Standard5534.

IDF/RM, 2008. Determination of the protein content of processed cheeseproducts. In: International Dairy Federation. Brussels, Standard 25.

ISO, 1990. Animal and Vegetables Fat and Oils. Analyses by GasChromatography of Methyl Esters of Fatty Acids. International Orga-nization for Standardization, Geneva, Standard 5508.

ISO, 2008. Determination of Fat Content. Van Gulik Method. InternationalOrganization for Standardization, Geneva, Standard 3433.

Lucas, A., Andueza, D., Ferlay, A., Martin, B., 2008a. Prediction of fattyacid composition of fresh and freeze-dried cheeses by visible-near-infrared reflectace spectroscopy. Int. Dairy J. 18, 595–604.

Lucas, A., Coulon, J.B., Agabriel, C., Chilliard, A., Rock, E., 2008b. Rela-tionship between the conditions of goatıs milk production and thecontents of some components of nutritional interest in Rocamadourcheese. Small Rumin. Res. 74, 91–106.

Ribeiro, S.D.A., Ribeiro, A.C., 2010. Specialty products made from goat milk.Small Rumin. Res. 89, 225–233.

Soryal, K., Beyene, F.A., Zeng, S., Bah, B., Tesfai, K., 2005. Effect of goatbreed and milk composition on yield, sensory quality, fatty acidconcentration of soft cheese during lactation. Small Rumin. Res. 58,275–281.

Tejada, L., Abellán, A., Cayuela, J.M., Martínez-Cacha, A., Fernández-

rennet and plant coagulant. Int. Dairy J. 18, 139–146.Tejada, L., Abellán, A., Prados, F., Cayuela, J.M., 2008b. Compositional char-

acteristics of Murcia al Vino goat’s cheese made with calf rennet andplant coagulant. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 61, 119–125.