Quality evaluation of mozzarella cheese prepared from blends of Cow and Buffalo milk

Introduction

Experts in cheese technology have long debated whether cow or buffalo milk makes superior mozzarella [1] . Cow milk yields a softer, paler cheese that melts readily on pizza, while buffalo milk-with its higher fat and casein-produces a denser, stretchier product with greater yield per litre [2] . In Pakistan, both species contribute roughly equally to total milk production (26.4 and 42.8 million tonnes in 2022-23), yet most mozzarella sold domestically is made from buffalo milk alone, partly because imported pizza recipes assume cow-milk properties [3] . Blending the two milks in defined ratios could combine the functional merits of each: buffalo's casein network for stretch and yield with cow's softer texture and better browning [4] . A few earlier reports tested blends at 80:20 or 60:40, but data from the Pakistani context-where Sahiwal cattle and Nili-Ravi buffaloes produce milk of variable composition-are missing [5] . This research evaluated four milk sources for mozzarella manufacture and identified the blend ratio that best balances functional, compositional, and sensory quality.

Material and Methods

Material

Fresh cow milk (Sahiwal-Friesian cross, 4.2% fat, 3.3% protein) and buffalo milk (Nili-Ravi, 7.1% fat, 4.4% protein) were collected from the university dairy farm, Faisalabad, Punjab, during August-November 2023. Direct-vat-set mesophilic starter culture (Streptococcus thermophilus + Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) and microbial rennet (Mucor miehei) were sourced from Chr. Hansen (Lahore). Calcium chloride (food-grade) was used at 0.02% [6] .

Methods

Four treatments were prepared: T 1 = 100% cow, T 2 = cow: buffalo 70:30, T 3 = cow: buffalo 50:50, T 4 = 100% buffalo.

Milk was standardised to the natural fat:casein ratio of each blend, pasteurised (63 °C, 30 min), cooled to 37 °C, inoculated with 1.5% starter, and held until pH 5.2-5.3 was reached (~45 min). Rennet was added; the curd was cut after 30 min, cooked at 42 °C, and drained at pH 5.2. Curd was stretched in hot water (78 °C) until smooth and elastic, moulded into 250 g balls, and brined (20% NaCl, 4 °C, 2 h). Cheese was vacuum-packed and stored at 4 °C. Proximate composition (AOAC), yield, stretchability (fork test at 60-80 °C), meltability (Schreiber disc method), free oil (modified Gerber), colour (HunterLab), and texture profile analysis (TA.XT Plus, Stable Micro Systems) were measured at day 7. Sensory evaluation used a 9-point hedonic scale with 12 trained panellists [7] . Three independent batches were prepared per treatment. Data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey's HSD (p<0.05) using R v 4.3.1.

Results

Cheese yield increased linearly with buffalo milk proportion: from 12.4% (T 1 ) to 14.2% (T 4 ), reflecting the higher total solids of buffalo milk. Moisture moved in the opposite direction, being highest in cow-milk cheese (46.2%) and lowest in buffalo (43.8%).

Comprehensive Interpretation

The 50:50 blend (T 3 ) achieved the best overall sensory score (7.9) by combining adequate stretchability (44 cm), good texture, and moderate colour. Pure buffalo cheese had the longest stretch but was penalised for dark colour and excessive chewiness. Pure cow cheese melted well but lacked stretch.

Discussion

The superior stretchability of buffalo mozzarella arises from its higher casein content and the stronger calciumparacasein matrix formed during pasta filata stretching-a relationship well described by Kindstedt et al. [1] . The 50:50 blend preserved most of this advantage while reducing chewiness, likely because the smaller fat globules of cow milk disrupt the continuous protein matrix and soften the body [4] .

International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com

Meltability showed the reverse trend: cow-milk cheese melted furthest because its lower casein concentration and higher moisture create a weaker gel that flows more readily upon heating [8] . From a pizza-performance standpoint, the 50:50 blend hit the sweet spot between stretch and melt-a balance that pure-milk cheeses could not achieve individually.

The yield advantage of buffalo milk (14.2% vs 12.4% for cow) translates directly into manufacturing economics. Even the 50:50 blend yielded 8% more cheese than pure cow milk, which could justify the slightly higher procurement cost of buffalo milk in regions where both species are available [9] .

Conclusion

This research set out to compare mozzarella cheese prepared from cow milk, buffalo milk, and their blends at two ratios. The 50:50 cow: buffalo blend delivered the best functionalsensory compromise: adequate stretchability (44 cm at 70 °C), good meltability (58.7%), and the highest overall sensory score (7.9/9), along with an 8% yield advantage over pure cow-milk mozzarella. Pure buffalo cheese excelled in stretch and yield but was too chewy and dark for broad consumer appeal. These results recommend a 50:50 blend as a practical formulation for mozzarella manufacturers in Pakistan's north-eastern dairy belt. Future work should assess the blend's performance on commercial pizza ovens, monitor functional changes during 30-day cold storage, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis at the dairyplant scale.

References

1. Kindstedt PS, Caric M, Milanovic S. Pasta filata cheeses. Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology. 2004;2:251-277.
2. Ahmad S, Gaucher I, Rousseau F. Effects of acidification on physico-chemical characteristics of buffalo milk: a comparison with cow's milk. Food Chemistry. 2008;106(1):11-17.
3. DAHD. Annual report 2022-23. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of Pakistan. 2023.
4. Jana AH, Mandal PK. Manufacturing and quality of mozzarella cheese: a review. International Journal of Dairy Science. 2011;6(4):199-226.
5. Hussain I, Bell AE, Grandison AS. Comparison of the rheology of mozzarella-type curd made from buffalo and cows' milk. Food Chemistry. 2011;128(2):500-504.
6. Fox PF, Guinee TP, Cogan TM, McSweeney PLH. Fundamentals of cheese science. 2nd ed. Springer, New York. 2017.
7. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 20th ed. AOAC International, Rockville, MD. 2016.
8. Guinee TP, Feeney EP, Auty MAE, Fox PF. Effect of pH and calcium concentration on some textural and functional properties of mozzarella cheese. Journal of Dairy Science. 2002;85(7):1655-1669.
9. Sameen A, Anjum FM, Huma N, Nawaz H. Quality evaluation of mozzarella cheese from different milk sources. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 2008;7(6):753756.
10. Francolino S, Locci F, Ghiglietti R. Use of milk protein concentrate for mozzarella cheese manufacture. International Dairy Journal. 2010;20(3):185-191.
11. De Marchi M, Dal Zotto R, Cassandro M, Bittante G. Milk coagulation ability of five dairy cattle breeds. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;90(8):3986-3992.
12. Sheehan JJ, Guinee TP. Effect of pH and calcium level on the biochemical, textural and functional properties of reduced-fat mozzarella cheese. International Dairy Journal. 2004;14(2):161-172.
13. Rehman SU, Farkye NY, Yim B. Use of dry milk protein concentrate in pizza cheese. Journal of Dairy Science. 2003;86(12):3841-3848.
14. Park YW. Rheological characteristics of goat and sheep milk. Small Ruminant Research. 2007;68(1-2):73-87.