Post on 16-Apr-2022
American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research 2016; 3(4): 46-55
http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/fsnr
ISSN: 2381-621X (Print); ISSN: 2381-6228 (Online)
Chemical, Rheological, Microbial and Microstructural Characteristics of Jameed Made from Sheep, Goat and Cow Buttermilk or Skim Milk
Mohamed N. Hamad1, Magdy M. Ismail
2, *, Reham K. A. El-Menawy
2
1Department of Dairying, Faculty of Agriculture, Damietta University, Damietta, Egypt 2Dairy Technology Department, Animal Production Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Dokki, Giza, Egypt
Email address
magdy250@yahoo.com (M. M. Ismail) *Corresponding author
To cite this article Mohamed N. Hamad, Magdy M. Ismail, Reham K. A. El-Menawy. Chemical, Rheological, Microbial and Microstructural Characteristics of
Jameed Made from Sheep, Goat and Cow Buttermilk or Skim Milk. American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research.
Vol. 3, No. 4, 2016, pp. 46-55.
Received: May 19, 2016; Accepted: May 29, 2016; Published: June 22, 2016
Abstract
Jameed is basically a hard cheese-like product considered a very stable and safe dried fermented milk product. It is usually
made from sheep buttermilk. The aim of this study was using goat and cow buttermilk or skim milk in preparing of jameed
instead of sheep buttermilk. Five treatments of jameed were made from sheep, goat and cow buttermilk and also from goat and
cow skim milk. The obtained results showed that yield, total solids, ash, salt in moisture, total protein and non-protein-nitrogen
values of jameed made from sheep buttermilk were higher than that of jameed prepared from goat or cow butter and goat or
cow skim milk. Sheep buttermilk jameed contained low acidity values than those in jameed prepared from goat and cow
buttermilk. Utilization of goat and cow skim milk in jameed making decreased titratable acidity and water soluble nitrogen and
increased pH values. Jameed made from goat skim milk had the highest fat contents. Utilization of goat and cow buttermilk in
jameed manufacture increased total viable bacterial count, lactic acid bacteria and proteolytic bacteria. Sheep buttermilk
jameed showed the best wetability followed by goat and cow skim milk jameed. Levels of jameed syneresis were higher in
goat and cow buttermilk jameed than that of jameed made from sheep buttermilk. All values of the textural properties were
higher in sheep buttermilk jameed than those of the other treatments. From scanning electron microscopy, it is observed that
the protein structure was completely different among stored jameed samples. Jameed with good properties can be made from
goat and cow buttermilk or skim milk.
Keywords
Jameed, Cow Buttermilk, Rheological and Microstructural Characteristics, Skim Milk
1. Introduction
Fermented dairy foods have constituted a vital part of
human diet in many regions of the world since times
immemorial. They have been consumed ever since the
domestication of animals. Evidence for the use of fermented
milks comes from archeological findings associated with the
Sumerians and Babylonians of Mesopotamia, the Pharoses of
northeast Africa and the Indo-Aryans of the Indian
subcontinent. It was reported that consuming fermented dairy
products caused to longevity [1, 2].
Jameed is a fermented dried dairy product in the form of
stone hard balls or other shapes. It has a long history with the
Bedouin life style and had long been known for its easy
preparation and storage for future use. Jameed is widely used
as a common traditional food in several Mediterranean
countries including Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and
Egypt. Several names are being given to jameed, i.e. oggott
in Arab Gulf States and jameed in Jordan and Syria. Jameed
is used mainly in the preparation of the popular traditional
dish called ‘‘mansaf’’. ‘‘Mansaf’’ is made from rice and meat
47 Mohamed N. Hamad et al.: Chemical, Rheological, Microbial and Microstructural Characteristics of Jameed Made from Sheep,
Goat and Cow Buttermilk or Skim Milk
and sauce. The sauce is made by adding cooked meat to
dissolving jameed (reconstituted with warm water) then
boiling the mixture for about 15 min to produce the sauce
named ‘‘sharap’’ [3]. In this sense, Al Groum [4] showed that
jameed is one of the main fermented milk product produced
in Jordan. It is usually prepared at household scale by the
traditional method which depends on fermentation of milk
then churning for separating butter. The resulted buttermilk is
used for jameed production.
Several techniques were used by Quasem et al. [5] to
improve the solubility of solar-dried jameed by addition of
additives and application of heat treatment for buttermilk. It
was reported that the best results could be achieved by
heating the buttermilk for 3 min at 55ºC, and addition of
carrageenan (0.15%) as additive. Jameed powder produced
by spray-drying technique was studied by Shaker et al. [6]
using concentrated partially defatted yogurt ‘‘makheed’’.
Jameed is usually made from sheep buttermilk using
traditional methods which may be take long time in
processing and at the same time the amount of sheep milk is
no longer sufficient to meet the growing demand of jameed.
Therefore the current study aim was to make a big boost in
jameed production through using goat and cow buttermilk or
skim milk instead of sheep buttermilk.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
Fresh sheep’s, goat’s and cow's milks were obtained from
El-Serw Animal Production Research Station, Animal
Production Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center,
Egypt. A commercial classic yoghurt starter containing
Streptococcus thermophillus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii
subsp. bulgaricus (1:1) (Chr. Hansen’s Lab A/S Copenhagen,
Denmark) was used. Starter cultures were in freeze-dried
direct-to-vat set form and stored at –18°C until used.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Jameed Manufacture
Jameed treatments were made according to the traditional
method described by Quasem et al. [5]. Five treatments of
jameed were made from sheep, goat and cow butter or skim
milk as follow:
� Treatment A: Jameed made from sheep buttermilk
(control),
� Treatment B: Jameed made from goat buttermilk,
� Treatment C: Jameed made from goat skim milk,
� Treatment D: Jameed made from cow buttermilk and
� Treatment E: Jameed made from cow skim milk.
Figure 1 illustrates the jameed manufacturing procedure in
the arena of bromatology. The shaped jameed balls were
placed on trays lined with cheesecloth and dried in the shade
for 24h thin direct sun to constant weigh (~15 days). The
dried jameed balls were packaged in cloth bags which were
put in plastic containers and stored at room temperature for 6
months. Samples were analyzed when fresh (jameed curd)
and after 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 days of storage
period.
2.2.2. Methods of Analysis
(1) Chemical Analysis
Total solids, fat, total nitrogen and ash contents of samples
were determined according to the AOAC method [7].
Titratable acidity in terms of % lactic acid was measured by
titrating 10g of sample mixed with 10ml of boiling distilled
water against 0.1 N NaOH using a 0.5% phenolphthalein
indicator to an end point of faint pink color [8]. The pH of the
sample was measured at 17 to 20°C using a pH meter
(Corning pH/ion analyzer 350, Corning, NY) after calibration
with standard buffers (pH 4.0 and 7.0). Water soluble
nitrogen (WSN) and non-protein-nitrogen (NPN) of jameed
were estimated according to Ling [9]. The Volhard’s method
as described by Richardson [10] was used to determine the
salt content of jameed. Salt in moisture percentage of the
cheese was estimated as follow:
(Salt percentage x 100) / (moisture percentage + Salt
percentage)
(2) Microbiological Analyses
Jameed samples were analyzed for total viable bacterial
count (TVBC), lactic acid bacteria (LAB), coliform,
proteolytic bacteria, moulds and yeast counts according to
the methods described by the American Public Health
Association [11].
(3) Textural Measurements
Force and torque measurements of jameed treatments
stored for six months were measured using a Texturometer
model Mecmesin Emperor TMLite 1.17(USA). Mechanical
primary characteristics of hardness, springiness, gumminess
and cohesiveness and also the secondary characteristic of
chewiness (hardness x cohesiveness x springiness) were
determined from the deformation Emperor TMLite Graph.
Because jameed samples were very hard, they were soaked in
distilled water for 6h at room temperature before
measurements.
(4) Wetability Test
A cube weighing ca. 45 g of jameed was cut using a hand
saw from a whole jameed ball; 315 ml water were added to
the piece placed in 500 ml cup and soaked for 24 h [5]. The
excess free water was carefully decanting weighed to
calculate the soaked amount as follows:
Absorbed water (%) = [(315 ml water-X) /Weight of cubs
in g] x 100
X= the weight of excess water in g.
(5) Syneresis (Whey Separation) Test
The soaked cube (45 g) was mixed with (315 ml water) for
2 minutes using electrical hand mixer (Hinari, model FM2,
China) with the whipping accessory. The dispersed jameed
was transferred to a 100 ml graduated cylinder and the clear
zone was measured after 1 h and 24 h [5]. Syneresis (whey
separation) was calculated, as follow:
American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research 2016; 3(4): 46-55 48
Syneresis (%) = (X/Y) ×100
Where;
X= the height of the clear zone and
Y= total height of jameed dispersion.
(6) Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
Examination
Jameed samples were prepared for SEM according to the
method of Brooker and Wells [12]. The specimens were
viewed in a scanning electron microscope (JXA-840A
Electron Probe Microanalyzer-JEOL-Japan) after dehydrated
using Critical Point Dried instrument and coating with gold
using S150A Sputter Coater-Edwards England.
(7) Statistical Analysis
The obtained results were statistically analyzed using a
software package [13] based on analysis of variance. When
F-test was significant, least significant difference (LSD) was
calculated according to Duncan [14] for the comparison
between means. The data presented, in the tables, are the
mean (± standard deviation) of 3 experiments.
Fig. 1. The processing steps for jameed made from sheep, goat and cow butter or skim milk.
49 Mohamed N. Hamad et al.: Chemical, Rheological, Microbial and Microstructural Characteristics of Jameed Made from Sheep,
Goat and Cow Buttermilk or Skim Milk
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Chemical Composition of Milk Used in
Jameed Manufacture
Sheep buttermilk is richer in total solids, fat, protein and
solids-not-fat (SNF) than goat or cow buttermilk (Table 1).
Park et al. [15] showed that the differences in the content of
solids between sheep and goat milk also affect their physical
properties. Density and titratable acidity and viscosity of
sheep milk are higher than of goat milk, while the freezing
point of sheep milk is lower than in goat milk.
As it is expected, acidity concentrations of buttermilk were
the greatest between various samples. Among buttermilk
treatments, sheep buttermilk recorded the highest acidity
level.
Regarding skim milk, TS contents of goat and cow skim
milk were cloth to each other. However, the fat and total
protein values were higher in the former than those of the
latter. On the other side, TS levels of goat or cow skim milk
were higher than those measured in buttermilk resulted from
the same milks. This may be due to lowering of lactose
contents in buttermilk as a result of fermentation and
producing lactic acid. Because fat globules of goat’s milk
don’t easily separate by separator as occurred in cow’s milk,
fat concentration of goat skim milk was the highest as
compared with those found in buttermilk or cow skim milk.
Total protein contents were slightly lower in goat and cow
skim milk than that of buttermilk.
Table 1. Chemical composition of milk used in jameed manufacture.
Treatments Acidity % pH values TS % Fat % Total Protein % SNF %
Sheep buttermilk 0.99a 5.92b 7.81de 0.7c 5.10a 6.50ab
Goat buttermilk 0.93a 6.15b 6.61e 0.6c 3.20a 6.11b
Goat skim milk 0.17b 6.60a 9.97dbc 0.9c 3.05a 9.07ab
Cow buttermilk 0.90a 6.19b 6.71de 0.5c 3.25a 6.21ab
Cow skim milk 0.18b 6.58a 9.47dec 0.4c 2.98a 8.97ab
abcde Letters indicate significant differences between milk treatments
3.2. Chemical Composition of Jameed During
Storage Period
However sheep buttermilk had higher acidity ratios than those
of goat and cow buttermilk, but jameed made from of sheep
buttermilk contained low acidity values as compared with those
measured in jameed prepared from goat and cow buttermilk
(Table 2). In fresh jameed (paste) and during storage period, cow
buttermilk jameed possessed the highest acidity values.
Utilization of goat and cow skim milk in jameed making
(treatments C and E respectively) decreased titratable acidity and
increased pH values. Cow skim milk jameed recorded the lowest
acidity values among various treatments. Furthermore, the rates
of acidity development within storage were lower in skim milk
jameed than that of buttermilk one.
As a result of high TS and fat contents of sheep buttermilk,
jameed manufactured from it had higher values of these
components than those of goat or cow buttermilk jameed.
Results in Table 1 indicate that goat and cow skim milk
contained the greatest TS content. In spite of that outcomes
of Table 2 clear that goat and cow skim milk jameed had the
lowest TS levels. This discrepancy in results might be
interpreted on the bases that skim milk contained high lactose
concentration comparing with buttermilk. During jameed
manufacturing, the majority of lactose content was fermented
to lactic acid which loosed in the whey within draining. On
the other hand, jameed made from goat skim milk contained
the highest fat values. This may be attributed to the high fat
content of goat skim milk (0.9%). As it well known, fat
globules in goat’s milk are difficult to be separated by
separator. Regarding to the ash concentrations, sheep
buttermilk jameed had the highest whereas cow skim milk
jameed contained the lowest. In the same trend, salt in
moisture values were high in sheep buttermilk jameed and
low in skim milk one.
On the whole, the chemical composition values of jameed
obtained in this study were within ranges described by
Alu’Datt et al. [16] while were lower than stated by Bawadi
and Al-Sahawneh [17]. Alu’Datt et al. [16] showed that fat
and ash values of salted sun-dried jameed were 10.1 and
15.5% respectively. Conversely, Bawadi and Al-Sahawneh
[17] stated that carbohydrate, protein and fat levels of jameed
were 3.4, 57.02 and 22.25% respectively.
Al-Omari et al. [18] and Mazahreh et al. [19] reported that
jameed has a high nutritive value, with a protein content of
about (48–54%), fat (18–22%) and ash (12–13%) and
characterized with its long shelf life.
Regardless of milk type used in jameed production,
acidity, pH, TS, fat, ash, salt and salt in moisture values of
various samples increased during storage period. The most
vivid increasing was occurred through the drying period (15
days). Increasing of acidity and decreasing of pH values of
course due to the activity of the starter culture while moisture
evaporation was the main cause for increasing of TS, fat, ash,
salt and salt in moisture concentrations of jameed.
3.3. Changes in Nitrogen Fractions of
Jameed during Storage Period
The effect of milk type or storage period on nitrogen
fractions of jameed was significant (P<0.001).
Concentrations of total protein were higher in sheep
buttermilk jameed than those of jameed made from goat and
cow buttermilk (Table 3). Using goat buttermilk slightly
American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research 2016; 3(4): 46-55 50
decreased total protein values in jameed as compared with
cow buttermilk one. Surprisingly, sharp decline in total
protein content was noticed in jameed paste prepared from
goat or cow skim milk. After 15 days and toward the end of
storage period, total protein values of skim milk jameed were
also lower than that of buttermilk jameed but with lesser
extent from fresh paste. These findings refer to higher
moisture content in paste of skim milk jameed so, higher
evaporation rates within draying process. Levels of total
protein of treatments C and E after 30 days of storage were
46.37 and 48.96% respectively.
In contrast to the results of total protein, concentrations of
water soluble nitrogen (WSN) raised in goat and cow
buttermilk jameed comparing with that of sheep buttermilk
jameed. At the beginning and during storage, goat buttermilk
jameed contained the highest WSN values followed by cow
buttermilk one. Not only were those, but also goat and cow
buttermilk jameed possessed the greatest rates of WSN
development during storage period. On the other side, using
goat or cow skim milk in jameed manufacture reduced WSN
values. Cow skim milk jameed recoded the lowest WSN
content between different samples.
The trend of NPN data was similar to that of total protein.
Sheep buttermilk had higher NPN levels than that of jameed
made from goat and cow milk. Also, as was noted in total
protein, skim milk jameed especially prepared from goat
skim milk contained the lowest concentrations of NPN.
Generally, in various jameed treatments, total protein, WSN
and NPN contents significantly increased during storage
period. Increasing of WSN and NPN contents may be due to
the degradation in jameed protein during storage due to
starter bacteria activity.
Table 2. Effect of using goat and cow buttermilk or skim milk on some physicochemical properties of jameed.
Properties Treatments Storage period (days)
Means Fresh 15 30 60 90 120 150 180
Acidity
%
A 2.05 3.48 4.11 4.46 4.78 5.01 5.25 5.36 4.31a
B 2.15 3.60 4.32 4.67 4.90 5.17 5.39 5.55 4.47a
C 1.80 2.58 2.95 3.22 3.48 3.67 3.90 4.05 3.20b
D 2.18 3.64 4.39 4.75 4.98 5.22 5.45 5.64 4.53a
E 1.75 2.50 2.87 3.13 3.39 3.63 3.84 3.96 3.13b
Means 1.98C 3.16CB 3.73AB 4.05AB 4.31AB 4.54A 4.77A 4.91A
pH
values
A 4.98 4.43 4.19 3.91 3.70 3.55 3.41 3.36 3.94a
B 4.91 4.28 4.01 3.79 3.55 3.44 3.36 3.24 3.82a
C 5.30 4.77 4.65 4.52 4.43 4.27 4.15 4.05 4.52a
D 4.90 4.25 3.95 3.71 3.50 3.40 3.32 3.20 3.78a
E 5.39 4.80 4.70 4.61 4.50 4.32 4.24 4.13 4.59a
Means 5.10A 4.51AB 4.30AB 4.11AB 3.94AB 3.80B 3.70B 3.60B
TS
%
A 48.67 82.00 84.95 86.12 87.08 87.87 88.58 89.06 81.79a
B 42.23 79.33 81.94 83.73 84.70 85.59 86.23 86.85 78.82b
C 32.21 75.30 77.82 78.93 80.06 80.85 81.48 82.07 73.59c
D 44.20 80.25 83.11 84.35 85.24 86.25 86.80 87.43 79.70b
E 33.92 76.05 78.67 79.75 80.77 81.64 82.25 82.94 74.49c
Means 40.25F 78.59E 81.30D 82.58CD 83.57CB 84.44AB 85.07A 85.67A
Fat
%
A 3.85 10.50 10.94 11.27 11.35 11.44 11.53 11.75 10.33ab
B 3.80 10.56 10.91 11.10 11.24 11.35 11.48 11.64 10.26ab
C 4.24 11.23 11.52 11.65 11.80 11.94 12.12 12.26 10.84a
D 3.51 9.97 10.23 10.24 10.31 10.46 10.53 10.67 9.49b
E 3.12 9.86 9.98 10.13 10.25 10.35 10.41 10.54 9.33b
Means 3.70B 10.42A 10.72A 10.88A 10.99A 11.11A 11.21A 11.37A
Ash
%
A 11.50 14.87 14.95 15.38 15.59 15.81 16.04 16.14 15.03a
B 10.21 13.62 13.75 13.97 14.19 14.43 14.59 14.64 13.67b
C 10.05 13.49 13.73 13.91 14.17 14.34 14.47 14.60 13.59b
D 10.13 13.75 13.95 14.23 14.49 14.78 14.83 14.97 13.89b
E 9.88 13.25 13.47 13.65 13.88 14.19 14.35 14.59 13.41b
Means 10.35B 13.80A 13.97A 14.23A 14.46A 14.71A 14.86A 14.99A
Salt
%
A 7.02 10.23 10.58 10.62 10.78 10.87 10.95 11.07 10.26a
B 6.18 9.40 9.81 9.92 10.07 10.18 10.25 10.38 9.52ab
C 6.34 9.61 10.04 10.15 10.25 10.38 10.47 10.55 9.72ab
D 6.08 9.05 9.23 9.48 9.83 9.97 10.10 10.25 9.52b
E 5.83 9.57 9.73 9.98 10.08 10.23 10.37 10.51 9.54ab
Means 6.29B 9.57A 9.88A 10.03A 10.20A 10.33A 10.43A 10.55A
Salt in
moisture
%
A 12.03 36.23 41.27 43.34 45.48 47.26 48.94 50.29 40.60a
B 9.66 31.26 35.19 37.87 39.69 41.39 42.67 44.11 35.23b
C 8.55 28.00 31.16 32.51 33.95 35.15 36.11 37.04 30.31c
D 9.83 31.42 29.71 37.72 39.97 42.03 43.34 44.91 34.87b
E 8.10 28.55 31.32 33.01 35.44 35.78 36.87 38.12 30.90c
Means 9.63G 31.09F 33.73E 36.89D 38.91C 40.32B 41.59B 42.89A
abcde Letters indicate significant differences between jameed treatments ABCD Letters indicate significant differences between storage times
51 Mohamed N. Hamad et al.: Chemical, Rheological, Microbial and Microstructural Characteristics of Jameed Made from Sheep,
Goat and Cow Buttermilk or Skim Milk
3.4. Changes in Microbial Counts of Jameed
During Storage
Results of Table 4 show the enumeration of total viable
bacterial count (TVBC), lactic acid bacteria (LAB),
proteolytic bacteria, moulds and yeast during storage of
jameed. Coliform bacteria were not detected over the storage
period in various samples. These outcomes confirm the
hygienic conditions of the manufacture. Counterproductive
were reported by Al Omari et al. [18] who showed that the
coliform counts in sheep or cow buttermilk jameed were <
10. They considered these low numbers of coliform indicate
that Jameed is a safe food, from the microbiological point of
view even if it’s produced under relatively uncontrolled
condition as done by the Bedouins and farmers. Several
preserving factors contribute to this safety. The low water
activity due to its low moisture content and high salt
concentration, a pH below 4.0 and the combined effect of salt
and lactic acid that inhibit the growth of pathogens and most
spoilage microorganisms, make the Jameed a safe product for
consumer health.
Utilization of goat and cow buttermilk in jameed
manufacture significantly (P<0.05) increased TVBC in fresh
product and during storage period. Jameed made from skim
milk had the lowest numbers of these microorganisms. On
the contrary, rates of survival loss of TVBC through storage
period were higher for jameed made from goat and cow skim
milk than that of buttermilk jameed. Values of loss of
survival for samples A, B, C, D and E were 85.07, 81.39,
85.45, 83.54 and 87.50% respectively. Numbers of TVBC
obtained in our study were higher than those found by Al
Omari et al. [18] who mentioned that the standard plate
counts were 7 x 102 and 5 x 10
2 CFU/g for solar dried
Jameed from sheep and cow buttermilk respectively. As
cleared from Table 4, counts of TVBC of jameed at the end
of storage period were 10 x 103 and 13 x 10
3 for sheep and
cow buttermilk jameed respectively.
Table 3. Effect of using goat and cow buttermilk or skim milk on nitrogen fractions of jameed.
Properties Treatments Storage period (days)
Means Fresh 15 30 60 90 120 150 180
Total protein
%
A 29.55 51.13 53.05 53.16 53.31 53.61 53.70 53.81 50.16a
B 24.61 48.80 50.05 50.98 51.22 51.54 51.62 51.77 47.57c
C 15.01 44.86 46.37 46.80 47.21 47.45 47.59 47.68 42.87e
D 26.99 49.98 51.55 51.87 52.13 52.39 52.54 52.64 48.76b
E 17.53 46.98 48.96 49.28 49.59 49.77 49.89 50.04 45.25d
Means 22.74C 48.35B 49.99A 50.42A 50.69A 50.95A 51.07A 51.19A
WSN
%
A 0.468 1.401 1.435 1.463 1.478 1.492 1.510 1.521 1.346c
B 0.481 1.433 1.473 1.505 1.523 1.541 1.565 1.587 1.388a
C
D
0.454
0.474
1.180
1.419
1.198
1.456
1.218
1.486
1.230
1.502
1.241
1.520
1.256
1.539
1.267
1.550
1.135d
1.368b
E 0.443 1.157 1.174 1.190 1.201 1.212 1.225 1.239 1.104e
Means 0.472G 1.318F 1.347E 1.372D 1.387C 1.401B 1.419A 1.431A
WSN/TN
%
A 10.10 17.49 17.26 17.26 17.70 17.76 17.95 18.04 16.73b
B
C
12.49
19.32
18.75
16.78
18.78
16.50
18.83
16.61
18.99
16.64
19.09
16.70
19.34
16.85
19.65
16.96
18.23a
17.04b
D 11.20 18.12 18.04 18.27 18.38 18.51 18.69 18.78 17.50ab
E 16.16 15.72 15.30 15.41 15.45 15.53 15.68 15.68 15.62c
Means 13.85B 17.37A 17.18A 17.34A 17.43A 17.52A 17.70A 17.80A
NPN
%
A 0.089 0.271 0.280 0.290 0.298 0.310 0.317 0.325 0.272a
B 0.084 0.263 0.269 0.276 0.282 0.290 0.296 0.302 0.258b
C 0.077 0.242 0.247 0.253 0.258 0.265 0.270 0.276 0.236d
D 0.081 0.259 0.266 0.274 0.281 0.288 0.293 0.301 0.25bc
E 0.079 0.249 0.256 0.264 0.270 0.277 0.283 0.289 0.24dc
Means 0.082F 0.257E 0.264ED 0.217CD 0.278CB 0.286AB 0.292A 0.299A
NPN/TN
%
A 1.92 3.38 3.36 3.48 3.56 3.69 3.76 3.85 3.37a
B 2.18 3.44 3.43 3.51 3.51 3.59 3.65 3.72 3.38a
C 3.27 3.44 3.40 3.45 3.49 3.56 3.62 3.69 3.49a
D 1.87 3.30 3.29 3.37 3.43 3.50 3.56 3.64 3.24a
E 2.88 3.51 3.33 3.41 3.47 3.55 3.62 3.68 3.43a
Means 2.42B 3.36AB 3.41AB 3.44AB 3.49AB 3.58AB 3.64AB 3.72A
abcde Letters indicate significant differences between jameed treatments ABCD Letters indicate significant differences between storage times
It could be seen from data of Table 4 that higher counts of
lactic acid bacteria were detected in goat and cow buttermilk
jameed than those found in sheep buttermilk one. Goat and
cow skim milk jameed contained the lowest numbers of
American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research 2016; 3(4): 46-55 52
lactic acid bacteria. Generally, goat buttermilk jameed had
the highest counts while cow skim milk jameed had the
lowest numbers of lactic acid bacteria. Values of the loss of
survival for lactic bacteria during jameed storage possessed
the opposite trend where increased in skim milk jameed than
that of buttermilk one. Comparing the numbers of TVBC and
lactic acid bacteria revealed that the dominant
microorganisms in jameed are lactic acid bacteria.
The results of microbial tests showed that few numbers of
proteolytic bacteria were detected in various jameed samples.
As it noted in TVBC and lactic acid bacteria, counts of
proteolytic bacteria were higher in goat and cow buttermilk
jameed than those of control (treatment A). Also, goat and
cow skim milk jameed had the lowest counts proteolytic
bacteria. It is worth to note that the outcomes of proteolytic
bacteria in Table 4 are compatible with the results of WSN in
Table 3. Higher counts of proteolytic bacteria in goat and
cow buttermilk jameed caused more protein degradation
consequently more WSN production in these treatments.
Till 60 days of storage, moulds and yeasts were not
detected in different jameed samples. They appeared on the
ninety day and increased during storage period. Using goat
and cow buttermilk in jameed preparation increased the
counts of moulds and yeasts whereas using goat and cow
skim milk reduced them.
Whilst storage time progressive, counts of TVBC, lactic
acid bacteria and proteolytic bacteria lowered in various
jameed treatments. This decrease could be evidently
attributed to the decreasing of moisture and increasing in salt
and acidity levels which controlled the rate of bacterial
growth or acted as bactericidal agent.
3.5. Changes in Solubility of Jameed During
Storage
Data of the effect of using sheep, goat and cow buttermilk
and goat or cow skim milk on solubility of jameed are shown
in Table 5. At the end of drying stage (after 15 days) and
within storage, sheep buttermilk jameed showed the best
results of solubility as measured by wetability. Goat skim
milk jameed followed by cow skim milk one gave the second
wetability grades whereas cow buttermilk jameed had the
lowest wetability values. Generally, the results of wetability
are in the ranges reported by Quasem et al. [5].
In adversely trend to wetability, levels of jameed syneresis
determined after 1 or 24 h of mixing with water were higher
in goat and cow buttermilk jameed than that of jameed made
from sheep buttermilk. At the end of storage period, values of
syneresis of jameed made from sheep buttermilk or goat and
cow skim milk were close to each other. As it is expected,
values of syneresis determined after 24h were higher than
those measured after 1h. General speaking, values of
wetability and syneresis increased gradually during storage
period to reach the maximum after 180 days.
Table 4. Effect of using goat and cow buttermilk or skim milk on some microbial groups of jameed.
Properties Treatments Storage period (days)
Means Fresh 15 30 60 90 120 150 180
TVBC
(x 103)
A 67 35 29 22 18 15 13 10 26.75c
B 86 44 37 28 25 21 19 16 34.50a
C 55 21 18 16 15 13 10 8 19.50d
D 79 40 33 25 20 17 16 13 30.37b
E 48 17 15 13 11 10 7 6 15.87e
Means 67.0A 32.4B 26.4C 20.8D 17.8E 15.2F 13.0G 10.6H
Lactic acid bacteria
(x 103)
A 55 28 21 16 13 10 9 8 20.00c
B
C
74
41
39
18
34
16
24
12
20
10
15
9
12
7
10
3
28.50a
14.50d
D 65 32 28 20 16 12 10 9 24.00b
E 33 13 10 9 7 5 4 0.8 10.22e
Means 53.6A 26.0B 21.8C 16.2D 13.2E 10.2F 8.4G 6.2H
Proteolytic
bacteria (x 103)
A 6 0.9 0.7 0.30 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.02 1.69bc
B 10 2.0 1.0 0.80 0.60 0.30 0.20 0.09 1.87a
C 4 0.5 0.3 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.63dc
D 8 1.0 0.8 0.50 0.20 0.14 0.08 0.05 1.35b
E 3 0.2 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.43d
Means 6.20A 0.92B 0.58BC 0.35BC 0.29C 0.12C 0.07C 0.04C
Mould
&
Yeast (x103)
A ND* ND ND ND 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.22ab
B ND ND ND ND 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.13 0.42a
C ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.17ab
D ND ND ND ND 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.34a
E ND ND ND ND 0.09 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.04b
Means ND ND ND ND 0.28CD 0.38CB 0.62AB 0.73A
abcde Letters indicate significant differences between jameed treatments ABCD Letters indicate significant differences between storage times
* ND: not detected
53 Mohamed N. Hamad et al.: Chemical, Rheological, Microbial and Microstructural Characteristics of Jameed Made from Sheep,
Goat and Cow Buttermilk or Skim Milk
Table 5. Effect of using goat and cow buttermilk or skim milk on wetability and syneresis of jameed.
Properties Treatments Storage period (days)
Means 15 30 60 90 120 150 180
Wetability
(%)
A 210.85 220.73 225.22 227.12 228.79 230.91 233.34 225.28a
B 189.56 198.22 203.05 207.17 209.00 211.05 213.34 204.48b
C 198.33 204.70 211.06 214.37 217.00 219.35 220.15 212.14b
D 169.60 175.33 177.02 178.59 180.00 182.64 184.21 176.77c
E 190.75 201.14 208.27 211.06 215.70 216.36 218.11 208.77b
Means 191.81C 200.00CB 204.92AB 207.66AB 210.10AB 210.06AB 213.83A
Syneresis %
(after 1h of
mixing with
water)
A 39.84 47.87 48.03 51.97 54.67 55.84 57.92 50.88b
B 45.56 52.90 54.03 57.12 59.67 60.35 62.56 56.03b
C 41.88 48.22 49.09 52.81 55.78 57.16 58.28 51.89d
D 50.89 56.08 58.14 60.04 62.00 63.10 64.34 59.23a
E 44.60 50.73 51.22 54.72 56.81 57.90 58.83 53.54c
Means 44.55E 51.16D 52.10D 55.33C 57.79B 58.87B 60.39A
Syneresis %
(after 24h of
mixing with
water)
A 42.42 50.00 50.11 54.65 57.14 60.12 63.16 53.94d
B 47.88 55.03 57.56 59.85 62.16 63.85 65.07 58.84b
C 43.78 50.84 51.76 54.18 57.00 59.87 63.10 54.36d
D 52.98 58.08 61.94 63.33 65.05 66.76 67.87 62.29a
E 47.00 53.08 53.70 56.84 58.76 60.81 63.87 56.51c
Means 46.81G 53.51F 55.11E 57.77D 60.02C 62.38B 64.71A
abcde Letters indicate significant differences between jameed treatments ABCD Letters indicate significant differences between storage times
3.6. Changes in Textural Characterizes of
Jameed at the end of Storage Period
All values of the textural properties were higher in sheep
buttermilk jameed (sample A) than those of the remaining
treatments (Table 6). A comparison between results of
textural properties of jameed made from goat and cow
buttermilk or goat and cow skim milk show that cow
buttermilk jameed (sample D) followed by goat buttermilk
jameed (sample B) had the highest hardness, cohesiveness,
gumminess and chewiness values, but the lowest springiness
values. Quite opposite trend was noticed in jameed prepared
from goat and cow skim milk where the levels of springiness
were the highest and values of other textural properties were
the lowest. On the other hand, the hardness, cohesiveness,
gumminess and chewiness values were higher while
springiness values were lower in cow skim milk jameed than
that of goat skim milk one. Lobato-Calleros et al. [20]
showed that the instrumental textural characteristics of
hardness and adhesiveness were negatively correlated to
cohesiveness and springiness.
Increasing of hardness in buttermilk jameed may associate
with high acidity and low pH in these samples (Table 2). In
supplementary, Thomas [21] stated that with low pH of the
processed cheese, the protein aggregates and firmness
increased. Also, Awad et al. [22] found that the hardness
increased with decreasing the pH in block processed cheese.
Table 6. Textural properties of jameed at the end of storage period.
Treatments Hardness
(N)
Cohesiveness
(B/A area) Springiness (mm) Gumminess (N) Chewiness (N/mm)
A 22.10a 0.309a 1.497a
6.846a 9.573a
B 19.80a 0.183a 0.615b 5.504b 8.949a
C 14.95b 0.156a 0.754b 3.251d 6.421b
D 20.10a 0.238a 0.593b 6.678a 9.202a
E 15.87b 0.170a 0.624b 4.365c 6.854b
abcde Letters indicate significant differences between jameed treatments
3.7. Microstructure of Jameed at the end of
Storage Period
Differences between jameed samples at the end of storage
period could be visually observed in images obtained by
scanning electron microscopy (Figure 2).
From scanning electron microscopy, it is observed that the
protein structure was completely different among stored
jameed samples. In sample A (sheep buttermilk jameed), the
protein matrix became more large and compact with very
small spaces occupied by the fat globules. This probably
explained the harder texture as mentioned in Table 6. This
dense protein structure observed in sheep buttermilk jameed
may be due to the high protein content (Table 3). This is in
close agreement with the report of Ong et al. [23] who stated
that the microstructure of the gel of Cheddar cheese with
5.8% w/w milk protein was denser with smaller pores than
that with ~3.7%–4.8% w/w milk protein. This dense network
might arise due to the increased aggregation of casein
micelles. The high concentration of protein in the samples
decreased the mean free distance between casein micelles,
resulting in a densely aggregated casein micelles network.
In the scanning electron micrographs of sample B (goat
buttermilk jameed), the protein matrix was small and open as
compared with that of sheep buttermilk jameed. The numbers
American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research 2016; 3(4): 46-55 54
of spaces occupied by the fat globules increased. With quite
dissimilarity, the image of cow buttermilk jameed (sample D)
showed the protein matrix as plates stacked over each other
with large pores filled with fat globules. Concerning the
microstructure of the jameed samples made from goat and
cow skim milk, the protein matrix characterized with coarse
structure especially in goat skim milk jameed. Small and
large void spaces, which are scattered uniformly over the
jameed matrix, can be observed, indicating the probable
location of fat globules within the matrix. Similar trend was
reported by Tsigkros et al. [24] who cleared that micrographs
of the Feta cheese samples containing 30% caprine milk
showed a marked difference from those of 100% ovine milk.
In particular, the casein network appeared to be less porous
and more aggregated. This would explain the increase in
cheese hardness observed in the 30% caprine milk feta
sample.
4. Conclusion
Jameed is usually made from sheep buttermilk but because
of shortage of sheep milk especially in summer and
increasing demand of jameed, our study tried to solve this
problem by using goat and cow buttermilk or skim milk in
jameed manufacture. However variation in chemical
composition and microbial properties, data of wetability and
textural characteristics indicated the possibility of making
jameed with good quality from goat and cow buttermilk or
skim milk.
Fig. 2. Scanning electron micrographs of jameed at the end of storage period.
55 Mohamed N. Hamad et al.: Chemical, Rheological, Microbial and Microstructural Characteristics of Jameed Made from Sheep,
Goat and Cow Buttermilk or Skim Milk
References
[1] Tamime AY, Robinson RK. (2007) Yogurt Science and Technology, 3rd edition. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[2] Chandan RC, Nauth KR. (2012) Yogurt. In: Hui, Y. H. and Chandan, R. C., editors. Handbook of Animal-based Fermented Food and Beverage Technology, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Chapter 12. pp. 213–233.
[3] Al-Saed AK, Al-Groum RM, Al-Dabbas MM. (2012) Implementation of hazard analysis critical control point in jameed production. Food Sci. and Tech. Int. 18: 229-239.
[4] Al Groum, Rania M. (2006) A Study of Predominant Microorganisms in the Fermentation of Milk Used in Jameed Production. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jordan.
[5] Quasem JM, Mazahreh AS, Afaneh IA, Al Omari A. (2009) Solubility of solar dried jameed. Pakistan J Nutrition, 8(2): 134-138.
[6] Shaker RR, Jumah RY, Tashtoush B, Zraiy AF. (1999) Manufacture of jameed of using a spray drying process: a preliminary study. Int. J. Dairy Tech. 52(3): 77-80.
[7] AOAC. (2000) Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed, Washington, DC, USA.
[8] Parmar R. (2003) Incorporation of acid whey powders in probiotic yoghurt. M. Sc. Thesis. Major in Biological Sciences, Specialization in Dairy, South Dakota State University, U.S.A.
[9] Ling ER. (1963) A Text - Book of Dairy Chemistry. Vol. 2, Practical, 3rd ed. Champan and Hall, London, England.
[10] Richardson GH. (1985) Standard Methods of the Examination of Daity Products. 15th ed. American Public Health Assocition. Washington, DC.
[11] American Public Health Association. (1992) Standard methods for the examination of dairy products. Amer. Publ. Health Assoc. Inc.12th ed., New York, USA.
[12] Brooker BE, Wells K. (1984) Preparation of dairy products for scanning electron microscopy: etching of epoxy resin-embedded material. J. Dairy Res. 51: 605-613.
[13] SAS. 91991) SAS User’s guide: statistics. SAS Inst, Inc, Cary, NC.
[14] Duncan DB. (1955) Multiple Range and Multiple F-test. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.
[15] Park YW, Juárez M, Ramos M, Haenlein GFW. (2007) Physico-chemical characteristics of goat and sheep milk. Small Ruminant Research, 68: 98-113.
[16] Alu’datt MH, Al-Rabadi GJ, Al-Ismail KM, Althnaibat RM, Ereifej K, Rababah T, Alhamad MN, Torley PJ. (2015) Characterization and biological properties of dry fermented product (jameed) manufactured from cow milk: comparison of sun and freeze drying. J. Food Processing and Preservation, 39: 282-291.
[17] Bawadi Hiba A. Al-Sahawneh Safa’a A. (2008) Developing a meal-planning exchange list for traditional dishes in Jordan. J. the American Dietetic Association, 108 (5): 840-846.
[18] Al-Omari A, Quasem JM, Mazahreh AS. (2008) Microbiological analysis of solar and freeze-dried jammed produced from cow and sheep milk with the addition of carrageenan mix to the jameed paste. Pakistan J. Nut. 7: 726–729.
[19] Mazahreh AS, Al Shawabkeh AF and Quasem JM. (2008) Evaluation of the chemical and sensory attributes of solar and freeze-dried jameed produced from cow and sheep milk with the addition of carrageenan mix to the jameed paste. American J. Agr. and Bio. Sci. 3(3): 627-632.
[20] Lobato-Calleros C, Vernon-Carter EJ, Hornelas-Uribe Y. (1998) Microstructure and texture of cheese analogs containing different types of fat. J. Text. Stud. 29: 569–586.
[21] Thomas MA. (1970) Use of calcium co-precipitates in processed cheese. Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 25: 23-26.
[22] Awad RA, Abdel-Hamid LB, El-Shabrawy SA. Singh RK. (2002) Texture and microstructure of block type processed cheese with formulated emulsifying salt mixtures. LWT - Food Sci. and Tech. 35: 54-61.
[23] Ong L, Dagastine RR, Sandra E Kentish, Sally L Gras. (2013) Microstructure and composition of full fat Cheddar cheese made with ultrafiltered milk retentate. Foods, 2: 310-313.
[24] Tsigkros D, Folland E, Moate R. Brennan CS. (2003) Feta cheese texture: the effect of caprine and ovine milk concentration. Int. J. Dairy Tech. 56: 233-236.