Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T12:22:01.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of dairy powders fortification on yogurt textural and sensorial properties: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2013

Marie Celeste Karam
Affiliation:
Université de Lorraine, LIBio (Laboratoire d'Ingénierie des Biomolécules), 2 avenue de la Forêt de Haye, BP 172, 54505 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
Claire Gaiani*
Affiliation:
Université de Lorraine, LIBio (Laboratoire d'Ingénierie des Biomolécules), 2 avenue de la Forêt de Haye, BP 172, 54505 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
Chadi Hosri
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, P.O. Box 446 – Jounieh, Lebanon
Jennifer Burgain
Affiliation:
Université de Lorraine, LIBio (Laboratoire d'Ingénierie des Biomolécules), 2 avenue de la Forêt de Haye, BP 172, 54505 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
Joël Scher
Affiliation:
Université de Lorraine, LIBio (Laboratoire d'Ingénierie des Biomolécules), 2 avenue de la Forêt de Haye, BP 172, 54505 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: claire.gaiani@univ-lorraine.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yogurts are important dairy products that have known a rapid market growth over the past few decades. Industrial yogurt manufacture involves different processing steps. Among them, protein fortification of the milk base is elemental. It greatly enhances yogurt nutritional and functional properties and prevents syneresis, an undesirable yogurt textural defect. Protein enrichment can be achieved by either concentration process (evaporation under vacuum and membrane processing: reverse osmosis and/or ultrafiltration) or by addition of dairy ingredients. Traditionally, skim milk powder (SMP) is used to enrich the milk base before fermentation. However, increased quality and availability of other dairy ingredients such as milk protein isolates (MPI), milk protein concentrates (MPC) whey protein isolates (WPI) and concentrates (WPC), micellar casein (MC) and caseinates have promoted their use as alternatives to SMP. Substituting different dry ingredients for skim milk powder in yogurt making affects the yogurt mix protein composition and subsequent textural and sensorial properties. This review focuses on various type of milk protein used for fortification purposes and their influence on these properties.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2013 

Abbreviations:
MPC

Milk Protein Concentrate

SMP

Skim Milk Powder

WP

Whey Powder

WPC

Whey Protein concentrate

WPI

Whey Protein Isolate

MC

Micellar Casein

NaCn

Sodium Caseinates

CaCn

Calcium Caseinate

Yogurt is a very popular fermented dairy product widely consumed all over the world (Lucey & Singh, Reference Lucey and Singh1998; Verman & Sutherland, Reference Verman and Sutherland2004; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). Three major types are found: drinking, set and stirred yogurt. The typical yogurt manufacturing process changes milk properties in an irreversible way and consists of different processing steps (Fig. 1). First, the milk base fat content is standardised to the desired level by mixing cream and skim milk powder (Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). Afterward, the non-fat total solid content is traditionally increased to achieve a protein concentration between 40–50 g/kg (Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Montella and Tong2005). Fortification of the milk base is one of the most important steps that enhances functional and nutritional properties and prevents textural defects such as poor gel firmness and syneresis as assessed by sensory evaluations and instrumental measurements (Dave & Shah, Reference Dave and Shah1998; Schkoda et al. Reference Schkoda, Hechler and Hinrichs2001; Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Séverin & Wenshui, Reference Séverin and Wenshui2005; Marafon et al. Reference Marafon, Sumi, Granato, Alcantara, Tamine and Nogueira de Oliveira2011). Dry matter fortification can be achieved by either concentration process (evaporation under vacuum) followed by membrane processing (ultrafiltration or reverses osmosis) or by the addition of dairy ingredients including skim milk powder (SMP), whey proteins, caseins and caseinates (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000; Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). The fortified milk is then homogenised at 10–20 and 5 MPa at first and second stage respectively with a temperature ranging between 55 and 65 °C (Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). This processing step generates fat globules with new surface layer formed by the caseins and whey proteins thus increasing the number of possible structure-binding components in yogurt products (Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). The milk base is subsequently submitted to a drastic heat treatment. In fact, it is usually heated at 85 °C for 30 min, at 90–95 °C for 5–10 min or at 115 °C for 3 s (Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003). Heat treatment causes whey protein denaturation and complex formation (whey protein–whey protein or whey protein–casein micelles) through disulphide bonding, which initiates gelation (Ozer et al. Reference Ozer, Robinson, Grandison and Bell1998; Vasbinder et al. Reference Vasbinder, van Mil, Bot and de Kruif2001; Reference Vasbinder, van de Velde and de Kruif2004; Lakemonda & van Vliet, Reference Lakemonda Catriona and van Vliet2007; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010; Matumoto-Pintro et al. Reference Matumoto-Pintro, Rabiey, Robitaille and Britten2011). Subsequently, the milk base is cooled to the incubation temperature (40–45 °C) (Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003) prior to inoculation with a mixture of two homofermentative bacterial cultures: Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subs. bulgaricus (Tamime et al. Reference Tamime, Kalab and Davies1984; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009) which convert lactose to lactic acid. The AFNOR standards define for yogurt ‘appellation’ a minimum level of 10 million living microorganism per gram of product at the time of consumption. Throughout fermentation growth of Strep. thermophilus is stimulated by Lactobacilli proteolytic activity, Lb. bulgaricus releases formic acid and CO2. In the final count Strep. thermophilus is dominant over Lb. bulgaricus (Birollo et al. Reference Birollo, Reinheimer and Vinderola2000; Oliviera et al. Reference Oliveira, Sodini, Remeuf and Corrieu2001; Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009). As the pH of the milk base drops (from 6·7 to 4·6, which usually takes 2 to 6 h) the net negative charge on the casein micelles decreases, the rate of solubilised colloidal calcium phosphate increases leading to the removal of the ‘hairy’ layer of k-casein (De Brandere & De Baerdemader, Reference De Brabandere and De Baerdemaeker1999; Vasbinder & de Kruif, Reference Vasbinder and de Kruif2003; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). This results in decreases in electrostatic repulsion and steric stabilisation and increases in casein–casein interactions leading to the formation of a three-dimensional network consisting of casein clusters, chains and strands (Fig. 2) (Ozer et al. Reference Ozer, Robinson, Grandison and Bell1998; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010; Marafon et al. Reference Marafon, Sumi, Granato, Alcantara, Tamine and Nogueira de Oliveira2011; Patel, Reference Patel2011). Finally, fruits, flavouring ingredients, thickeners and stabilisers (where regulations permit) are added before blast chilling and cold storage. The primary aim of stabiliser addition is their ability to form linkage with protein particles resulting in viscosity and texture enhancement as well as mouth feel improvement (Everett & McLeod, Reference Everett and McLeod2005; Ares et al. Reference Ares, Gonçalvez, Pérez, Reolon, Segura, Lema and Gambaro2007). It is important to note that set and stirred yogurt are formed during incubation in retail pots and large fermentation tanks respectively. The latter being usually disrupted by agitation (stirring) and pumped through a screen (Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). It is obvious from the previous description that yogurt manufacture and properties are primary dependant on the level, nature and relative proportion of milk proteins. Indeed, methods of milk enrichment affect yogurt mix composition and impart the buffering capacity, the extent of protein interactions, the length of fermentation as well as the microstructure and hence the resulting textural and sensorial properties of the coagulum. These latter attributes are determinant features, defining yogurt quality and consumer acceptability (Kristo et al. Reference Kristo, Biliaderis and Tzanetakis2003; Soukoulis et al. Reference Soukoulis, Panagiotidis, Koureli and Tzia2007; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). In this review, the effects of milk fortification with various dairy ingredients on gel formation as well on physical and sensorial properties of yogurt products are described and discussed.

Fig. 1. Main processing steps of the two majors yogurt types: set and stirred yogurt (adapted from Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010; Pesic et al. Reference Pesic, Barac, Stanojevic, Ristic, Macej and Vrvic2012; Berton-Carabin et al. Reference Berton-Carabin, Elias and Coupland2013). Confocal scanning electron microscopy images are taken from Corredig et al. (Reference Corredig, Sharafbafi and Kristo2011).

Fig. 2. Typical pH profiles during the fermentation process of yogurt (adapted from De Brandere & De Baerdemader, Reference De Brabandere and De Baerdemaeker1999).

Textural properties of yogurt gels

Yogurt is organised as a concentrated dispersion of protein particles, aggregates, chains and clusters (Tamime et al. Reference Tamime, Kalab and Davies1984; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Remeuf, Haddad and Corrieu2004; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). Yogurt texture defines the disposition of the different part of the system and represents the rheological, microstructural and sensorial properties assigned by mechanical, visual and instrumental attributes (Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Remeuf, Haddad and Corrieu2004). Yogurt textural characteristics are affected by several parameters such as temperature and time of heat treatment, type and amount of starter bacteria, temperature of fermentation, storage conditions and more particularly protein composition of the milk base (Lucey et al. Reference Lucey, Tamehana, Singh and Muuro1998; Kristo et al. Reference Kristo, Biliaderis and Tzanetakis2003; Marafon et al. Reference Marafon, Sumi, Granato, Alcantara, Tamine and Nogueira de Oliveira2011). Indeed, protein bonds formation and rearrangements as well as protein interactions with other compounds (i.e. flavour compounds) by reversible and irreversible bindings define the gel network and determine the yogurt aroma (characterised by the presence of specific carbonyl compounds) and consumer acceptance (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000; Guichard, Reference Guichard2002; Lucey, Reference Lucey2004; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006; Saint-Eve et al. Reference Saint-Eve, Lévy, Martin and Souchon2006).

Yogurt gel network can be assessed by a wide range of non-Newtonian effect such as shear-thinning, yield stress and thixotropic flow behaviours, visual observation of microstructure, physical (water holding capacity and syneresis) and sensorial attributes (thickness, smoothness or lumpiness, graininess, and flavour) (Tamime et al. Reference Tamime, Kalab and Davies1984; Gastaldi et al. Reference Gastaldi, Lagaude, Marchesseau and Torodo De la Fuente1997; Lucey et al. Reference Lucey, Teo, Munro and Singh1997; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Remeuf, Haddad and Corrieu2004; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010).

Effect of dairy powders addition on yogurt textural properties

Addition of milk powder

The use of SMP to fortify yogurt is preferable to whole milk powder, the latter being involved in oxidised flavour (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007). The addition of SMP for fortification purposes appears to be by far the most common practice in yogurt industry (Lucey & Singh, Reference Lucey and Singh1998; Sodini & Béal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Soukoulis et al. Reference Soukoulis, Panagiotidis, Koureli and Tzia2007; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009) and is considered as the standard process for yogurt preparation (Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009). Addition rates of SMP in the yogurt mix ranges from as slight as 1% to as high as 6% with a recommended level of 3–4% (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007). In general, addition of 2% of SMP is considered appropriate for improving yogurt textural quality (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007; Soukoulis et al. Reference Soukoulis, Panagiotidis, Koureli and Tzia2007). The addition of important amounts of SMP exceeding 6% w/w engenders a powdery taste in yogurt products (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000). Addition of SMP has produced good quality yogurt and assisted in increasing yogurt viscosity and gel strength when compared with yogurt produced without fortification (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009; Patel, Reference Patel2011). Indeed, addition of 1, 2 and 3% of SMP has increased yogurt viscosity by 22, 43 and 70% respectively (Patel, Reference Patel2011). Furthermore the use of SMP for dry matter fortification seems to not affect the pH profile and development during yogurt fermentation (the sigmoidal pH decrease has occurred from the beginning of the fermentation) despite the remarkable increase in buffering capacity near the pH vicinity of 5·8 to 4·1 (De Brabandere & De Baerdemaecher, Reference De Brabandere and De Baerdemaeker1999; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). Enrichment of yogurt mix with SMP has led to a very low graininess, lumpiness and important water holding capacity in yogurts (Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006). Further, SMP fortified yogurts display an irregular gel organisation with short and individualised casein filaments in addition to marked micelles fusion and numerous pores heterogeneous in size with a considerable amount (up to 50%) of small pores (Fig. 3) (Modler & Kalab, Reference Modler and Kalab1983; Guzmán-González et al. Reference Guzmán-González, Morais, Ramos and Amigo1999; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009). Finally, yogurts prepared from SMP have been characterised as having a marked fermented, cereal-type flavour and astringency as assessed by sensory evaluations (Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006). SMP-fortified products have also been distinguished by their rich mineral composition (in calcium, magnesium, copper, zinc, potassium and manganese) as well as their tyrosine content (Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2008).

Fig. 3. Microstructure of yogurt prepared with milk fortified with skim milk powder (a), sodium caseinates (b), whey protein concentrates (c) and calcium caseinates (d) by Remeuf et al. (Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003).

In conclusion, standardisation of the total solid content of the milk base with SMP and the specifications of the SMP used seem to be insufficient to produce yogurt of consistent physical attributes over the season. Moreover, the potential development of excess acidity of the final product, a consequent of the high lactose content of the powder, remains the limiting factor for the use of SMP (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007; Patel, Reference Patel2011). Excessive acidification below the pH of 4 might enhance whey separation and gel defects in the final products (Jaros & Rohm, Reference Jaros and Rohm2003).

Addition of whey powder

Whey proteins are the class of milk proteins that remains soluble after rennet or acid precipitation (Considine et al. Reference Considine, Noisuwan, Hemar, Wilkinson, Bronlund and Kasapis2011). They are a by-product from cheese industry, processed generally by ultrafiltration and spray drying (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Montella and Tong2005). These globular structured proteins are of many types: whey protein concentrates (WPC), whey protein isolates (WPI) and whey protein hydrolysates (WPH). Their characteristics differ regarding the processing conditions practiced before drying such as demineralisation, lactose removal, whey protein concentration or straightforward drying (Boudier & Schuck, Reference Boudier and Schuck2010). The addition of whey proteins to fortify yogurt mixes has gained interest because of their nutritional and functional attributes (Séverin & Wenshui, Reference Séverin and Wenshui2005; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Montella and Tong2005; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006). Indeed, whey proteins are valuable dairy ingredients with their high protein (branched amino-acids), mineral (calcium, potassium) content (Ha & Zemel, Reference Ha and Zemel2003; Séverin & Wenshui, Reference Séverin and Wenshui2005; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Montella and Tong2005), functional properties of emulsification, water-holding, foaming, thickening and gelling characteristics (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002). Moreover, whey protein may form a tightly-packed viscoelastic structure at their interfaces, hence favouring long term stability (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000).

Whey protein powder was used to fortify yogurt mixes at levels ranging between 0·6 to 4% w/w (considered as an upper limit) (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). However the recommended level of whey protein addition to dairy products is around 1 to 2% w/w since higher levels may impart an undesirable whey flavour as well as under some conditions a grainy texture (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002; Lucey & Singh, Reference Lucey and Singh1998; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000). Addition of WPC to milk bases seems to be a more popular practice than WPI addition even though these latter powders contain higher whey protein content and branched-amino acids (>90 vs. 60–85%) and relatively lower concentration of lactose and minerals (Considine et al. Reference Considine, Noisuwan, Hemar, Wilkinson, Bronlund and Kasapis2011). The effect of replacement of SMP by whey proteins on physical and textural properties of yogurts have been studied by many authors (Modler & Kalab, Reference Modler and Kalab1983; Lucey et al. Reference Lucey, Munro and Singh1999; Guzmán-González et al. Reference Guzmán-González, Morais, Ramos and Amigo1999; González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002; Puvanenthiran et al. Reference Puvanenthiran, Williams and Augustin2002; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Montella and Tong2005; Amatayakul et al. Reference Amatayakul, Sherkat and Shah2006; Herrero & Requena, Reference Herrero and Requena2006; Aziznia et al. Reference Aziznia, Khosrowshahi, Madadlou and Rahimi2008; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009) and a range of inconsistent effects have been reported. First, according to González-Martínez et al. (Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002). yogurt samples fortified with WP showed a slower decrease in pH values in the first fermentation stage. This behaviour can be attributed to the lower lactose concentration in WP fortified yogurts (Penna et al. Reference Penna, Baruffaldi and Oliveira1997). While Penna et al. (Reference Penna, Baruffaldi and Oliveira1997), Lee & Lucey (Reference Lee and Lucey2010), Lucey et al. (Reference Lucey, Teo, Munro and Singh1997), Soukoulis et al. (Reference Soukoulis, Panagiotidis, Koureli and Tzia2007), found a reduction in acidification/gelation time for yogurt mix supplemented with WPC, an opposite effect was reported by Puvanenthiran et al. (Reference Puvanenthiran, Williams and Augustin2002) and Damin et al. (Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009). For their part, Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer (Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006) reported that milk fortification with WP isolates did not affect fermentation time (t pH4·7). A similar tendency was observed by Marafon et al. (Reference Marafon, Sumi, Granato, Alcantara, Tamine and Nogueira de Oliveira2011) in WPC fortified probiotic yogurt. The observed decrease in fermentation in yogurt mix fortified with WPC can be explained by WPC susceptibility to heat coagulation (Thomopoulos et al. Reference Thomopoulos, Tzia and Milkas1993; Shaker et al. Reference Shaker, Abu-Jdayil, Jumah and Ibrahim2001) related to their high calcium content, making the solution unstable (Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010). In contrast, the observed increase in fermentation time has been explained by an increase in buffering capacity of the mix when the casein to whey ratio is altered (Puvanenthiran et al. Reference Puvanenthiran, Williams and Augustin2002). To continue, addition of WPC to yogurt mix seems to sustain a constant cell count of the typical starter culture (Strep. thermophilus and Lb. bulgaricus) in the inoculum with the dominance of Strep. thermophilus strain over Lb. bulgaricus (Lucey et al. Reference Lucey, Tamehana, Singh and Muuro1998; Birollo et al. Reference Birollo, Reinheimer and Vinderola2000; Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Sodini, Remeuf and Corrieu2001; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2008; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009). Nevertheless, and according to McComas & Gilliland (Reference McComas and Gilliland2003) and Tamime & Robinson (Reference Tamime and Robinson2007), an enhanced growth of some probiotic species (Lb. acidophilus and Bifidobacterium longum) was observed in yogurt with mix supplemented with WPC. Whereas in some studies WP addition favoured yogurt viscosity, firmness and gel strength (G′) and reduced syneresis (Lucey et al. Reference Lucey, Munro and Singh1999; Bhullar et al. Reference Bhullar, Uddin and Shah2002; Haque & Ji, Reference Haque and JI2003; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010, it seems in others insufficient to improve yogurt quality profile (Guzmán-González et al. Reference Guzmán-González, Morais, Ramos and Amigo1999; González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Montella and Tong2005). Many mechanisms may be put forward to explain these inconsistencies. Heat treatment of yogurt mix fortified with WP leads to a high level of cross-linking within the gel network, explaining the observed increase in yogurt viscosity and water holding capacity (Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003). As the casein to whey ratio decreases, the gel network becomes finer, the cross-link denser and pores smaller resulting in a decreased amount of syneresis (Puvanenthiran et al. Reference Puvanenthiran, Williams and Augustin2002). On the other hand, some authors have reported that interactions between serum proteins and k-caseins, make micelles less sensitive to the pH decrease enhancing their solvatation rather than their aggregation and contributing to weaker gels (Oldifield et al. Reference Oldfield, Singh, Taylor and Pearce2000; González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002). Some researchers believe that the more open gel structure formed with low casein content will make the aggregate network more sensitive to syneresis (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002).

Besides, the replacement of SMP by WPC imparted yogurt's microstructure (Fig. 3). Some studies describe a WPC-enriched matrix as a very fine network containing a lot of very small pores (Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Saint-Eve et al. Reference Saint-Eve, Lévy, Martin and Souchon2006) and where casein micelles appear as individual (not fused) entities and casein micelle chains are less apparent (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003). Others described it as a more compact flocculated protein matrix with more obvious micelle chains (Modler & Kalab Reference Modler and Kalab1983) and larger pore and whey protein aggregates (Krzeminski et al. Reference Krzeminski, Groayhable and Hinrichs2011). These different microstructure observations can be explained with respect to WPC isolation method: ultrafiltration and ion exchange (representing an individual micelle structure delimited by flocculated proteins) or electrodialyses (compact flocculated matrix with apparent micelle chains) (Modler & Kalab, Reference Modler and Kalab1983).

Finally, WPC-fortified yogurts are characterised by limited acetaldehyde content according to Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, (Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2008) and important acetaldehyde content according to Tamime & Robinson (Reference Tamime and Robinson2007), a subtle fermented and creamy flavour, a pronounced whey flavour and an appreciable sweetness (Isleten & karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006). In addition, WPC-enriched yogurts are distinguished by a homogeneous fluid, a soft gel exempt of lumps and a yellowish aspect (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002). In terms of consumer acceptance, the data is also conflicting: WPC fortified products were preferred by panellist in some studies and rejected in others (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006).

Two main conclusions can be drawn from what was previously reported. These apparent contradictions in the literature are primary due to the different methods used to determine the physical and rheological properties of yogurts in these studies and to the variation in functional properties of WPC. For instance, the increase and decrease in fermentation time may be explained by the demineralised whey fraction; fermentation time being reduced in line with increases in demineralised whey (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002). The degree of whey protein denaturation, the level of non-protein nitrogen in WPC (Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Montella and Tong2005) as well as the casein to whey ratio (Puvanenthiran et al. Reference Puvanenthiran, Williams and Augustin2002) can explain some inconsistencies between studies. As a final point, WPC fortification of the milk base appears very suitable for drinking yogurt production (Ozen & Kilic, Reference Ozen and Kilic2009).

Addition of casein powder

Caseins are the most important class of proteins in bovine milk (Walstra et al. Reference Walstra, Geurts, Noomem, Jellema and Van Boekel1999; Hussain et al. Reference Hussain, Gaiani and Scher2012). They are recognised for their binding, foaming, gel forming, thickening and emulsifying capacities (Walstra et al. Reference Walstra, Geurts, Noomem, Jellema and Van Boekel1999). This later property is mainly due to its high proline content (Chen, Reference Chen and Gennadios2002; Khwaldia et al. Reference Khwaldia, Banon, Desobry and Hardy2004). Micellar caseins (or native phosphocaseins) are prepared by microfiltration (to reduce whey protein concentration) and have undergone extensive diafiltration (Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). For their part, caseinates are obtained by skim milk acidification to pH 4·6 (leading thus to casein precipitation) followed by water washing (to remove the soluble components) and final pH neutralisation (Fabra et al. Reference Fabra, Talens and Chiralt2010). Regarding the alkali used to adjust the pH, the recovered caseinate fraction is termed sodium (NaCn), calcium (CaCn), magnesium (MgCn) or potassium caseinate (KCn) when NaOH, CaOH, MgOH or KOH are respectively used (Fabra et al. Reference Fabra, Talens and Chiralt2010). Among these, NaCn and CaCn are the most commonly used in dairy industries. Nevertheless, due to variations in their aggregates state, CaCn have less emulsifying abilities than NaCn, ultimately limiting their use in dairy applications (Fabra et al. Reference Fabra, Talens and Chiralt2010). Addition rate of MC and caseinate in yogurt mix is between 1 to 2% w/w. Higher amounts of caseinate addition impart uncontrolled thickening (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000). The addition of MC to yogurt mix greatly increases the buffering capacity around pH 5 during acidification consistent with high concentration of total calcium and insoluble calcium content (Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). In contrast, addition of sodium caseinates considerably decreased the buffering capacity in the vicinity of pH 5 during acidification. Addition of NaCn might have solubilised some of the colloidal calcium phosphate from the casein micelles in milk. Indeed, it has been reported that NaCl addition to milk can lead to exchange of colloidal calcium by sodium (Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). The increased buffering capacity in MC fortified yogurt justifies the different observed pH profiles and the slow rate of decrease in pH close to 5. This is probably accountable for the longer fermentation time (Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). Fermentation time (t pH4·5) was decreased in yogurt mix enriched with NaCn according to Damin et al. (Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009). However, Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer (Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006) and Peng et al. (Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009) reported a constant fermentation time for yogurt supplemented with different dairy powders (SMP, WPC and NaCn). Furthermore, yogurt fortification with NaCn does not seem to affect the ultimate bacterial counts of yogurt cultures (Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Marafon et al. Reference Marafon, Sumi, Granato, Alcantara, Tamine and Nogueira de Oliveira2011). In terms of rheology, MC fortified yogurt displayed the lowest G′ and yield stress values (Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). Contrarily, acid-induced gels made from NaCn had the maximal loss tangent, yield stress and G′ values (Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). In fact, many authors reported that yogurt fortification with NaCn resulted in higher viscosity, firmness and stronger networks and less syneresis than yogurt fortified with different types of milk protein ingredients (Rohm, Reference Rohm1993; Guzmán-González et al. Reference Guzmán-González, Morais and Amigo2000; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). The slow solubilisation during fermentation process of high amounts of CCP, may have contributed to the decrease in G′’ values. Tamime et al. (Reference Tamime, Kalab and Davies1984) have concluded that NaCn fortification of the milk base is the most effective means of increasing yogurt firmness. This latter finding is believed to be caused by the partial removal of CCP (subsequent to NaCn addition) affecting the internal structure of caseins micelle, increasing their mobility, contact area and thus the elastic modulus (Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). The structure of yogurt enriched with casein-based ingredients differs from that fortified with other milk proteins ingredients (Fig. 3). To our knowledge, the microstructure of yogurt made with MC has not been assessed. Nonetheless, Peng et al. (Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009) reported the highest permeability values for yogurt supplemented with MC. Once again, this could be related to the extended time at pH values near 5 which allowed particle rearrangement after gelation. High permeability value reflects inhomogenities in gel network and implies a coarse gel with larger pores (Lucey et al. Reference Lucey, Teo, Munro and Singh1997; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). The milk supplementation with NaCn seems to impact severely on yogurt microstructure (Modler & Kalab, Reference Modler and Kalab1983). NaCn fortified yogurts have fewer pores and exhibit a relatively coarse and loose structure with the largest casein micelles and extensive micelle clusters (Tamime et al. Reference Tamime, Kalab and Davies1984; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2000; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009). Some authors reported that CaCn fortified yogurts showed a dense, more compact and finely performed microstructure comparable with that of yogurt prepared with WPC (Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Akalain et al. Reference Akalain, Unal, Dinkci and Hayaloglu2008).

Finally, NaCn fortified yogurts are characterised by a poor content of some minerals such as copper, magnesium, potassium and iron. However, they present a considerable content of calcium, sodium and zinc (Guzmán-González et al. Reference Guzmán-González, Morais and Amigo2000; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009). They are also characterised by a flat lumpiness, an important acetaldehyde amount, a pronounced animal like, cereal and cardboard flavour, a marked aftertaste, an astringency taste and finally, a poor sweetness flavour (Lucey et al. Reference Lucey, Tamehana, Singh and Muuro1998; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006). In terms of consumer acceptance, while some panellist in some studies preferred NaCn fortified yogurts (Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2008), others reject it and found it unacceptable (Tamime et al. Reference Tamime, Kalab and Davies1984).

In conclusion, the difference effect on yogurt products between MC and NaCn could be explained by the very different physicochemical properties of both powders as well as the micellar state of casein in these powders and the non-micellar soluble form of caseins present in NaCn.

The Table 1 recapitulates the most common dairy powder listed above and used in yogurt formulation as well as their influence on product textural attributes.

Table 1 Summary of the three most common dairy powders added in yogurt formulation and their main influences on products textural properties from Guzman-Gonzalez et al. Reference Guzmán-González, Morais, Ramos and Amigo1999; Gonzalez-Martinez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002; Remeuf et al. Reference Remeuf, Mohammed, Sodini and Tissier2003; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2006; Tamine & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, Reference Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer2008; Damin et al. Reference Damin, Alcântara, Nunes and Oliveira2009; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Serra, Horne and Lucey2009)

Addition of other dairy ingredients and protein blends

The addition of other dairy ingredients (than WP, casein and caseinates) has been reported during yogurt manufacture in some instance. The addition of milk protein hydrolysates (in the range of 0·3–0·5 g/100 g) (casein and whey) reduced the fermentation time, increased yogurt viscosity, decreased yogurt graininess and syneresis and resulted in a more open gel microstructure with fewer branched proteins (Sodini & Beal, Reference Sodini and Béal2003; Zhao et al. Reference Zhao, Wang, Zhao, Jiang and Chun2006; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007).The addition of casein hydrolysates stimulated the growth of Strep. thermophilus (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007) and enhanced the cell counts of probiotic microorganisms in yogurt (Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Fernandes, Neto, Fonseca, Silva and Balian2002; Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Lucas, Oliveira, Remeuf and Corrieu2002; McComas & Gilliland, Reference McComas and Gilliland2003; Lucas et al. Reference Lucas, Sodini, Monnet, Jolivet and Corrieu2004; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007). Furthermore, milk protein concentrates and isolates have been added to increase the protein content of yogurt mix (Chandan & Shahani, Reference Chandan and Shahani1995) and produced firm yogurts (Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007). Addition of MPC improved viscosity and gel strength up to 100 and 50% respectively when comparing with SMP-fortified yogurts (Patel, Reference Patel2011). Fresh buttermilk powder was used up to 50% as a replacement of SMP in yogurt manufacture and produced an acceptable soft and smooth textured yogurt. The use of fresh buttermilk powder concentrated by ultrafiltration has also been reported in the literature. The yogurt products obtained present a denser matrix and a lower syneresis, but an impaired flavour and aroma (Sodini et al. Reference Sodini, Morin, Olabi and Jiménez-Flores2006; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007; Lee & Lucey, Reference Lee and Lucey2010).

Blends of different type of milk protein (such as SMP and sweet whey powder in a ratio of 75 : 25; whey and casein in a 1 : 1 ratio; CaCn and WP in a ratio of 1 : 1; SMP and WPC in a ratio of 1·5 : 0·5; and finally blends of NaCn and CaCn) have been used in yogurt manufacture and resulted in an overall good quality product in terms of sensory and texture profiles as well as extent of syneresis (González-Martínez et al. Reference González-Martínez, Becerra, Cháfer, Albors, Carot and Chiralt2002; Augustin et al. Reference Augustin, Cheng, Glagovskaia, Clarke and Lawrence2003; Tamime & Robinson, Reference Tamime and Robinson2007).

Conclusion

Miscellaneous dairy ingredients can be added to the yogurt milk bases for fortification purposes. These methods of milk protein enrichment will not have the same consequences on the protein and mineral composition of the milk base, the length of fermentation process, extent of proteins interactions and the microstructure of the coagulum. Fortification with SMP seems insufficient to produce yogurts of consistent physical properties over the entire season. Addition of WPC seems to be highly dependent on the specifications of the powders employed and appears definitely appropriate for drinking yogurt production. Addition of NaCn seems to be the most effective means of increasing yogurt textural characteristics. Lastly, using blends of different dairy ingredients in a proper ratio appears as a useful and interesting perspective for yogurt mix fortification.

References

Akalain, AS, Unal, G, Dinkci, N & Hayaloglu, AA 2008 Microstructural, textural, and sensory characteristics of probiotic yogurts fortified with sodium calcium caseinate or whey protein concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science 95 36173628Google Scholar
Amatayakul, T, Sherkat, F & Shah, NP 2006 Physical characteristics of set yoghurt made with altered casein to whey protein ratios and EPS-producing starter cultures at 9 and 14% total solids. Food Hydrocolloids 20 314324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ares, G, Gonçalvez, D, Pérez, C, Reolon, G, Segura, N, Lema, P & Gambaro, A 2007 Influence of gelatin and starch on the instrumental and sensory texture of stirred yogurt. International Journal of Dairy Technology 60 263269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustin, MA, Cheng, LJ, Glagovskaia, O, Clarke, PT & Lawrence, A 2003 Use of blends of skim milk and sweet whey protein concentrates in reconstituted yogurt. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 58 3035Google Scholar
Aziznia, S, Khosrowshahi, A, Madadlou, A & Rahimi, J 2008 Whey protein concentrate and Gum tragacanth as fat replacers in Nonfat Yogurt: chemical, physical, and microstructural properties. Journal of Dairy Science 91 25452552Google Scholar
Berton-Carabin, C, Elias, RJ & Coupland, JN 2013 Reactivity of a model lipophilic ingredient in surfactant-stabilized emulsions: effect of droplet surface charge and ingredient location. Colloids and Sufaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 418 6875Google Scholar
Bhullar, YS, Uddin, MA & Shah, NP 2002 Effects of ingredients supplementation on textural characteristics and microstructure of yoghurt. Milchwissenschaft 57 329332Google Scholar
Birollo, GA, Reinheimer, JA & Vinderola, GC 2000 Viability of lactic acid microflora in different types of yoghurt. Food Research International 33 799805Google Scholar
Boudier, JF & Schuck, P 2010 Les laits en poudres. Science des Aliments 29 5160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandan, RC & Shahani, KM 1995 Other fermented dairy products. Biotechnology: Enzymes, Biomass, Food and Feed 9 385418Google Scholar
Chen, H 2002 Formation and properties of casein films and coatings. In Proteins-based Films and Coatings, pp. 181211 (Ed. Gennadios, A). New York: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Considine, T, Noisuwan, A, Hemar, Y, Wilkinson, B, Bronlund, J & Kasapis, S 2011 Rheological investigations of the interactions between starch and milk proteins in model dairy systems: a review. Food Hydrocolloids 25 20082017Google Scholar
Corredig, M, Sharafbafi, N & Kristo, E 2011 Polysaccharide-protein interactions in dairy matrices, control and design of structures. Food Hydrocolloids 25 18331841Google Scholar
Damin, MR, Alcântara, MR, Nunes, AP & Oliveira, MN 2009 Effects of milk supplementation with skim milk powder, whey protein concentrate and sodium caseinate on acidification kinetics, rheological properties and structure of nonfat stirred yogurt. Food Science and Technology 42 17441750Google Scholar
Dave, RI & Shah, NP 1998 The influence of ingredient supplementation on the textural characteristics of yogurt. Australien Journal of Dairy Technonolgy 53 180184Google Scholar
De Brabandere, AG & De Baerdemaeker, JG 1999 Effects of process conditions on the pH development during yogurt fermentation. Journal of Food Engineering 41 221227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, DW & McLeod, RE 2005 Interactions of polysaccharide stabilisers with casein aggregates in stirred skim-milk yoghurt. International Dairy Journal 15 11751183Google Scholar
Fabra, MJ, Talens, P & Chiralt, A 2010 Influence of calcium on tensile, optical and water vapour permeability properties of sodium caseinate edible films. Journal of Food Engineering 96 356364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastaldi, E, Lagaude, A, Marchesseau, S & Torodo De la Fuente, B 1997 Acid milk gel formation as affected by total solids content. Journal of Food Science 62 671687Google Scholar
González-Martínez, C, Becerra, M, Cháfer, M, Albors, A, Carot, JM & Chiralt, A 2002 Influence of substituting milk powder for whey powder on yoghurt quality. Trends in Food Science and Technology 13 334340Google Scholar
Guichard, E 2002 Interactions between flavour compounds and food ingredients and their influence on flavor perception. Food Reviews International 18 4970Google Scholar
Guzmán-González, M, Morais, F, Ramos, M & Amigo, L 1999 Influence of skimmed milk concentrate replacement by dry dairy products in a low fat set-type yoghurt model system. I: use of whey protein concentrates, milk protein concentrates and skimmed milk powder. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79 11171122Google Scholar
Guzmán-González, M, Morais, F & Amigo, L 2000 Influence of skimmed milk concentrate replacement by dry dairy products in a low-fat set-type yoghurt model system. Use of caseinates, co-precipitate and blended dairy powders. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 80 433438Google Scholar
Ha, E & Zemel, MB 2003 Functional properties of whey, whey components, and essential amino acids: mechanisms underlying health benefits for active people (review). Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 14 251258Google Scholar
Haque, ZU & JI, T 2003 Cheddar whey processing and source: II. Effects on non-fat ice cream and yogurt. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 38 463473Google Scholar
Herrero, AN & Requena, T 2006 The effect of supplementing goats milk with whey protein concentrate on textural properties of set-type yogurt. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 41 8792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, R, Gaiani, C & Scher, J 2012 From high milk protein powders to the rehydrated dispersions in variable ionic environments: a review. Journal of Food Engineering 113 486503Google Scholar
Isleten, M & Karagul-Yuceer, Y 2006 Effects of dried dairy ingredients on physical and sensory properties of Nonfat Yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science 89 28652872Google Scholar
Isleten, M & Karagul-Yuceer, Y 2008 Effects of functional dairy based proteins on nonfat yogurt quality. Journal of Food Quality 31 265280Google Scholar
Jaros, D, Rohm, H 2003 The Rheology and Textural Properties of Yoghurt. Cambridge, UK: CRC PressWoodheadGoogle Scholar
Khwaldia, K, Banon, S, Desobry, S & Hardy, J 2004 Mechanical and barrier properties of sodium caseinate-anhydrous milk fat edible films. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 39 403411Google Scholar
Kristo, E, Biliaderis, CG & Tzanetakis, N 2003 Modelling of the acidification process and rheological properties of milk fermented with a yogurt starter culture using response surface methodology. Food Chemistry 83 437446Google Scholar
Krzeminski, A, Groayhable, K & Hinrichs, Jr 2011 Structural properties of stirred yoghurt as influenced by whey proteins. Food Science and Technology 44 21342140Google Scholar
Lakemonda Catriona, MM & van Vliet, T 2007 Acid skim milk gels: the gelation process as affected by preheating pH. International Dairy Journal 18 574584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, WJ & Lucey, JA 2010 Formation and physical properties of Yogurt. Asian – Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 23 11271136Google Scholar
Lucas, A, Sodini, I, Monnet, C, Jolivet, P & Corrieu, G 2004 Probiotic cell counts and acidification in fermented milks supplemented with milk protein hydrolysates. International Dairy Journal 14 4753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucey, JA 2004 Formation, structural properties and rheology of acid-coagulated milk gels. In Cheese: chemestry, Physics and Microbiology, Vol. 1, 3rd edition, pp. 105122. London: Elsevier Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Lucey, JA & Singh, H 1998 Formation and physical properties of acid milk gels: a review. Food Research International 30 529542Google Scholar
Lucey, JA, Teo, CT, Munro, PA & Singh, H 1997 Rheological properties at small (dynamic) and large (yield) deformations of acid gels made from heated milk. Journal of Dairy Research 64 591600Google Scholar
Lucey, JA, Tamehana, M, Singh, H & Muuro, PA 1998 a comparison of the formation, rheological properties and microstructure of acid skim milk gels made with a bacterial culture or glucono-δ-lactone. Food Research International 31 147155Google Scholar
Lucey, JA, Munro, PA & Singh, H 1999 Effects of heat treatment and whey protein addition on the rheological properties and structure of acid skim milk gels. International Dairy Journal 9 275279Google Scholar
Marafon, AP, Sumi, A, Granato, D, Alcantara, MR, Tamine, AY & Nogueira de Oliveira, M 2011 Effects of partially replacing skimmed milk powder with dairy ingredients on rheology, sensory profiling, and microstructure of probiotic stirred-type yogurt during cold storage. Journal of Dairy Science 94 53305340Google Scholar
Matumoto-Pintro, PT, Rabiey, L, Robitaille, G & Britten, M 2011 Use of modified whey protein in yoghurt formulations. International Dairy Journal 21 2126Google Scholar
McComas, KA & Gilliland, SE 2003 Growth of probiotic and traditional yogurt cultures in milk supplemented with whey protein hydrolysate. Journal of Food Science 68 20902095Google Scholar
Modler, HW & Kalab, M 1983 Microstructure of yogurt stabilized with milk proteins. Journal of Dairy Science 66 430437Google Scholar
Oldfield, DJ, Singh, H, Taylor, MW & Pearce, KN 2000 Heat-induced interactions of ß-lactoglobulin and α-lactalbumin with the casein micelle in pH-adjusted skim milk. International Dairy Journal 10 509518Google Scholar
Oliveira, MN, Sodini, I, Remeuf, F & Corrieu, G 2001 Effect of milk supplementation and culture composition on acidification, textural properties and microbiological stability of fermented milks containing probiotic bacteria. International Dairy Journal 11 935942Google Scholar
Oliveira, CAF, Fernandes, AM, Neto, OCC, Fonseca, LFL, Silva, EOT & Balian, SC 2002 Composition and sensory evaluation of whole yogurt produced from milk with different somatic cell counts. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 57 192196Google Scholar
Ozen, AE & Kilic, M 2009 Improvement of physical properties of nonfat fermented milk drink by using whey protein concentrate. Journal of Texture Studies 40 288299Google Scholar
Ozer, BH, Robinson, RK, Grandison, AS & Bell, AE 1998 Gelation properties of milk concentrated by different techniques. International Dairy Journal 8 793799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, S 2011 Evaluating the Effect of Milk Protein Concentrates (MPC) Fortification on Rheological Properties of Nonfat Set Yogurt Using Vane Rheometry Vol. Master of Science: The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-StoutGoogle Scholar
Peng, Y, Serra, M, Horne, DS & Lucey, JA 2009 Effect of fortification with various types of milk proteins on the rheological properties and permeability of nonfat set yogurt. Journal of Food Science 74 666673Google Scholar
Penna, ALB, Baruffaldi, R & Oliveira, MN 1997 Optimization of yogurt production using demineralized whey. Journal of Food Science 62 846850Google Scholar
Pesic, MB, Barac, MB, Stanojevic, SP, Ristic, MN, Macej, OD & Vrvic, MM 2012 Heat induced casein-whey protein interactions at natural pH of milk: a comparison between caprine and bovine milk. Small Rumin Research 108 7786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puvanenthiran, A, Williams, RPW & Augustin, MA 2002 Structure and visco-elastic properties of set yoghurt with altered casein to whey protein ratios. International Dairy Journal 12 383391Google Scholar
Remeuf, F, Mohammed, S, Sodini, I & Tissier, JP 2003 Preliminary observations on the effects of milk fortification and heating on microstructure and physical properties of stirred yogurt. International Dairy Journal 13 773782Google Scholar
Rohm, H 1993 Influence of dry matter fortification on flow properties of yogurt. 1. Evaluation of flow curves. Milchwissenschaft 48 556560Google Scholar
Saint-Eve, A, Lévy, C, Martin, N & Souchon, I 2006 Influence of proteins on the perception of flavored stirred yogurts. Journal of Dairy Science 89 922933Google Scholar
Schkoda, P, Hechler, A & Hinrichs, J 2001 Influence of the protein content on structural characteristics of stirred fermented milk. Milchwissenschaft-Milk Science International 56 1922Google Scholar
Séverin, S and Wenshui, X 2005 Milk biologically active components as nutraceuticals: review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 45 645656Google Scholar
Shaker, RR, Abu-Jdayil, B, Jumah, RY & Ibrahim, SA 2001 Rheological properties of set yogurt during gelation process: II. Impact of incubation temperature. Milchwissenschaft 56 622625Google Scholar
Sodini, I & Béal, C 2003 Fabrication des yaourts et lait fermentés Technique de l'ingénieurGoogle Scholar
Sodini, I, Lucas, A, Oliveira, MN, Remeuf, F & Corrieu, G 2002 Effect of milk base and starter culture on acidification, texture, and probiotic cell counts in fermented milk processing. Journal of Dairy Science 85 24792488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sodini, I, Remeuf, F, Haddad, S & Corrieu, G 2004 The relative effect of milk base, starter, and process on yogurt texture: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 44 113137Google Scholar
Sodini, I, Montella, J & Tong, SP 2005 Physical properties of yogurt fortified with various commercial whey protein concentrates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85 853859Google Scholar
Sodini, I, Morin, P, Olabi, A & Jiménez-Flores, R 2006 Compositional and functional properties of buttermilk: a comparison between sweet, sour, and whey buttermilk. Journal of Dairy Science 89 525536Google Scholar
Soukoulis, C, Panagiotidis, P, Koureli, R & Tzia, C 2007 Industrial yogurt manufacture: monitoring of fermentation process and improvement of final product quality. Journal of Dairy Science 90 26412654Google Scholar
Tamime, AY & Robinson, RK 2000 Yogurt Science and Technology. Washington, DC: CRC Press WoodheadGoogle Scholar
Tamime, AY & Robinson, RK 2007 Tamime and Robinson's Yoghurt Science and Technology, 3rd edition. Cambridge, UK: CRC PressWoodheadGoogle Scholar
Tamime, AY, Kalab, M & Davies, G 1984 Microstructure of set-style yoghurt manufactured from cow's milk fortified by various methods. Food Microstructure 3 8392Google Scholar
Thomopoulos, C, Tzia, C & Milkas, D 1993 Influence of processing of solids-fortified milk on coagulation time and quality properties of yogurt. Milchwissenschaft 48 426430Google Scholar
Vasbinder, AJ & de Kruif, CG 2003 Casein-whey protein interactions in heated milk: the influence of pH. International Dairy Journal 13 669677Google Scholar
Vasbinder, AJ, van Mil, PJJM, Bot, A & de Kruif, CG 2001 Acid induced gelation of heat treated milk studied by diffusing wave spectroscopy. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 21 245250Google Scholar
Vasbinder, AJ, van de Velde, F & de Kruif, CG 2004 Gelation of casein-whey protein mixtures. Journal of Dairy Science 87 11671176Google Scholar
Verman, AH & Sutherland, JP 2004 Quality of yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science 2 79Google Scholar
Walstra, P, Geurts, TJ, Noomem, A, Jellema, A & Van Boekel, MAJS 1999 Dairy Technology. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
Zhao, QZ, Wang, JS, Zhao, MM, Jiang, YM & Chun, C 2006 Effect of casein hydrolysates on yogurt fermentation and texture properties during storage. Food Technol Biotechnol 44 429434Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Main processing steps of the two majors yogurt types: set and stirred yogurt (adapted from Sodini & Béal, 2003; Lee & Lucey, 2010; Pesic et al. 2012; Berton-Carabin et al. 2013). Confocal scanning electron microscopy images are taken from Corredig et al. (2011).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Typical pH profiles during the fermentation process of yogurt (adapted from De Brandere & De Baerdemader, 1999).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Microstructure of yogurt prepared with milk fortified with skim milk powder (a), sodium caseinates (b), whey protein concentrates (c) and calcium caseinates (d) by Remeuf et al. (2003).

Figure 3

Table 1 Summary of the three most common dairy powders added in yogurt formulation and their main influences on products textural properties from Guzman-Gonzalez et al. 1999; Gonzalez-Martinez et al. 2002; Remeuf et al. 2003; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, 2006; Tamine & Robinson, 2007; Isleten & Karagul-Yuceer, 2008; Damin et al. 2009; Peng et al. 2009)