4.5 Article

Microbial characterisation of the traditional Spanish blue-veined Cabrales cheese:: identification of dominant lactic acid bacteria

期刊

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 223, 期 4, 页码 503-508

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-005-0230-8

关键词

farmhouse cheese; traditional cheeses; blue-veined cheese; indigenous lactic acid bacteria; yeasts and moulds; Penicillium roqueforti

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The investigation included six batches of artisan Cabrales cheese manufactured at different times of the year by two different producers and followed over a 90-day ripening period. Profound variations were found between batches due to the different mixtures of milk used from cow, goat and sheep and due to differences in temperature and humidity during ripening. Lactococci became dominant early after manufacture reaching approximately 4.0 x 10(9) cfu g(-1) by day 3 and remained so throughout the ripening period. Lactobacilli remained at a lower level corresponding to about 3.2 x 10(8) cfu g(-1) by day 3. Dextran-producing Leuconostoc were present in numbers of 1.0 x 10(6) to 1.0 x 10(7) cfu g(-1). Large populations of coliforms (approximate to 1 x 10(7) cfu g(-1)) were present throughout manufacture in all batches, but only the latter continued to grow during ripening, and mostly on the surface (up to 1.6 x 10(7) cfu g(-1)). Filamentous fungi, among which P. roqueforti was a majority, reached their maximum (around 5.0 x 10(8) cfu g(-1)) between day 15 and day 30. By molecular methods, all lactococcal isolates were identified as Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis. Fifty two percent of the lactobacilli were classified as Lactobacillus plantarum or Lactobacillus paraplantarum and a further 27% as Lactobacillus casei or Lactobacillus paracasei. Dextran-producing Leuconostoc mesenteroides (58%), Leuconostoc citreum (24%) and Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides (12.5%) were identified from the MSE agar plates, although strains of non-producing Leuconostoc lactis were also isolated from MRS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据