United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA 600 2 79-189
079
and Development
&EPA
Wine
Production from
Cheese Whey
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-189
October 1979
WINE PRODUCTION FROM CHEESE WHEY
by
Gaylord M. Palmer
Foremost McKesson, Inc.
Dublin, California 94566
Grant No. S-803863
Project Officers
Max W. Cochrane
and
Kenneth A. Dostal
Food and Wood Products Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on
our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
This report describes the pilot plant studies on conversion of cheese
whey into a by-product wine. The results were successful and an economic
evaluation estimates the cost at $0.66 to $0.94 per liter of bottled pro-
duct.
For further information regarding this study, contact the Food and
Wood Products Branch, Industrial Pollution Control Division, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory-Ci, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this project was to demonstrate commercial feasibility of
producing an alcoholic beverage by wine yeast fermentation of supplemented
cheese and cottage cheese wheys.
An experimental pilot scale winery was established to produce alcoholic
beverages by fermenting supplemented wheys in 1,100 liter quantities.
Auxiliary processing equipment was assembled to clarify, demineralize,
flavor and carbonate the beverages.
The fermenting organism exclusively was the Montrachet strain of wine yeast;
the fermentable carbohydrate was dextrose.
Results indicated that the preferred processing route was (1) fractionation
of the whey into protein concentrate and permeate by ultrafiltration;
(2) supplementation of permeate with twenty two percent dextrose on the
permeate weight; (3) fermentation in stirred fermentors for seven to ten
days at 20°-22°C.; (4) clarification of the ferment by centrifugal means
followed by pressure filtration; (5) demineral'ization of the ferment by
ion exchange; (6) formulation of the beverage by addition of natural fruit
flavor concentrates, invert syrups, malic acid, and water to standardize
alcohol content at about eight percent by volume; (7) polishing filtration
through diatomaceous earth and a 0.45 micron membrane filter; (8) carbona-
tion with two volumes of carbon dioxide and (9) bottling with a pressure
retaining cap.
A beverage made by the preferred process was tested by an independent
market research group against Annie Green Springs Berry Frost in paired
comparisons at three geographic locations in the United States - using
450 respondents in all. .The conclusion of the test was that, "in terms of
both the levels of strong, positive response, as well as the mean ratings,
there was no significant differences between the two products."
Economic evaluation - projected from the pilot study - indicates that the
cost of manufacture of whey wine falls into the range of $0.66 to $.94
per liter of bottled product.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. S-803863 by Foremost
Me Kesson, Inc. under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, This report covers the period October 14, 1975 to June 30, 1978.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract
Figures
Tables
Acknowledgements viii
I Introduction 1
II Summary 3
III Conclusions 5
IV Experimental Plant 6
V Methods and Procedures 8
Sensory Evaluation 8
Marketing Research 19
VI Process Development 25
Confirming Oregon State University Benchtop Results 25
Deproteinization 25
Supplementation of the Permeate 28
Fermentation 2 8
Removal of Yeast Biomass 28
Demineralization 30
Polishing Filtration 38
Carbonation 33
VII Process Flow and Material Balances 39
VIII Flavored FWB (FFWB) Development 42
Selecting the Target Wine 42
Selecting the Flavor System 42
Developing the Flavoring System 43
IX Sensory Evaluation 45
Descriptive Flavor Analysis 45
Paired Comparison Preference Tests 45
Applications to Process Development 45
X Economic Evaluation 45
XI Marketing Research 43
XII Legal Requirements 49
References 50
Appendices
A. Descriptive Flavor Analysis 51
B. Economics of Fermented Whey Beverage Processing 54
-------
FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
1. Wine taste test questionnaire used in in-house sensory
evaluation testing H
2. Wine taste test questionnaire used in consumer sensory
evaluation testing 14
3. Wine taste test questionnaire used in marketing research
central location testing 20
4. Process flow diagram and material balances for FFWB
from acid whey 40
5. Process flow diagram and material balances for FFWB
from sweet whey 41
vi
-------
TABLES
NUMBER PAGE
1. Example of Descriptive Flavor Profiles 9
2. Analysis of UF Permeates From Whey 27
3, Refractometer Solids and pH Measurements with Time Showing
the Course of Normal Fermentation of Permeate 29
4. Refractometer Solids and pH Measurements with Time Showing
Lack of Fermentation in IE Permeate, and Fermentation
Following Supplementation with Whole Whey 32
5. Refractometer Solids and pH Measurements with Time Showing
Effects of Added Supplements to IE Permeate on Fermentation
Rates 33
6. Refractometer Solids and Titratable Acidity Measurements
with Time Showing Effect of Percent Demineralization
of Permeate by ED on Fermentation Rates 34
7. Sensory Evaluation Report Showing Comparability of
Electrodialysed FFWB and Ion Exchanged FFWB in Terms
of OVERALL and PREFERENCE Ratings 35
8. Sensory Evaluation Report Showing Comparability of
Electrodialysed FFWB and Ion Exchnaged FFWB in Terms
of ATTRIBUTE Ratings 36
9. Summary of Processing/Bottling Costs for FFWB Product 47
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was supported by a demonstration grant from the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the assistance of Max W. Cochrane and Kenneth A.
Dostal (Project Officers) is acknowledged with thanks.
Recognition for assistance in the success of the project must go to other
members of the Foremost Research and Development group: to William A.
Hoskins for his help in administering the project; to Donald F. Wilcox for
initial screening of flavoring systems; to Robert F. Marquardt for his un-
tiring efforts in developing processing and optimizing the flavor system,
developing material and energy balances and processing costs; and to Kathy
A. Wolfe for the several types of sensory evaluation required in pursuit
of the goal.
Thanks are also extended to Richard Wood of Foremost Foods Marketing Research
for central location consumer tests which demonstrated marketability of the
product.
viii
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
Based on information published* by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), 13,6 billion kilograms of whey were produced in the United States in
1973, as by-products of the manufacture of hard cheeses such as cheddar, moz-
zarella, jack and swiss and of cottage cheese. Of that whey, USDA estimated
that although 7.7 billion kilograms were recovered in the forms of dried whey
and modified whey, whey concentrates and lactose, 5.9 billion kilograms were
unutilized. Reports for 1976 indicate 5 billion kilograms were unutilized.
That unutilized portion became either an environmental pollutant — being
sprayed onto wasteland or dumped into rivers, streams or unused gravel pits —
or an added consumer cost — being cycled to municipal wastewater treatment
facilities for purification prior to discharge to ground water systems.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act
of 1965, has led to development of extensive water quality control programs
at federal, state and local levels to control the disposal of materials such
as whey. Compliance with those water quality standards, in a manner which
will permit their business to survive, is a major concern to the small cheese
manufacturer, isolated from the major whey processors who convert whey into
useable and profitable products.
Cheese production, and as a consequence, whey production, is increasing yearly;
USDA reported^ production of 16.8 billion kilograms of whey in the United
States in 1976, in contrast to 13.6 billion kilograms in 1973, an increase of
nearly 25 percent in three years.
Although more whey is being recovered as useable products, the pollution
problem has not diminished significantly.
To convert whey into useful dried products requires large amounts of energy
(a) to remove the water from the dilute raw whey (about 6.5 percent total
solids content) (b) in thermal evaporation and (c) in spray drying
operations. It also requires collection and transport of that whey to central
whey processors, which is costly in energy.
Much of the reason for whey pollution lies in the unfavorable economics of
collecting and transporting it from small or isolated cheese manufacturers in
small communities located in or near the rural milk producing areas.
-------
To circumvent those economics and to find a way to convert whey — at its source
— into a useful and marketable product, Oregon State University (OSU) working
under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant No. 803301, demonstrated
the technical feasibility of fermenting supplemented whey into an alcoholic
beverage.
Based on the success of that project, Foremost Foods Company a Division of
Foremost McKesson, Inc., was granted the subject project to demonstrate commer-
cial feasibility of producing an alcoholic beverage by wine yeast fermentation
of cheese whey or supplemented cheese whey followed by flavoring.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY
Processing of either sweet cheese whey Cfrom hard cheese manufacture) or acid
whey (from cottage cheese manufacture) into a marketable flavored fermented
whey beverage (FFWB) has been demonstrated as a means to reduce environmental
pollution and to provide the cheese manufacturer a revenue producing product
from whey.
The process produces, from either type of whey, a fermented whey beverage base
(FWB) characterized by Descriptive Flavor Analysis (DFA) as having a slight to
moderate alcohol taste, a slight sweet taste and threshold to slight sour and
fruity notes. By analysis the FWB has about 9.5 percent alcohol and the FFWB
an 8 percent alcohol by volume.
The FFWB is produced by flavoring the FWB with natural fruit flavor concen-
trates, sweetening with 50% invert syrup, acidifying slightly with malic acid,
standardizing to the required alcohol content with water, filtering to remove
haze components, carbonating to 1.8 volumes of carbon dioxide and bottling.
The process comprises eight major steps from whey to FFWB
deproteinization by ultrafiltration to produce a whey protein concen-
trate by-product (WPG) and a water clear deproteinized whey permeate
(Permeate) for fermentation,
supplementation with dextrose as a fermentable carbohydrate,
fermentation by wine yeast,
clarification by centrifugation and/or filtration,
demineralization by ion exchange or electrodialysis,
formulating into FFWB,
carbonating and
bottling.
-------
Although the process requires several steps, each in its own right is simple
and straight-forward and requires little in the way of process control.
The process by-products consist of:
a protein rich WPC from the deproteinization step,
a yeast rich concentrate from the clarification step,
mineral rich effluent stream from the de-mineralization step.
The protein rich by-product is of the nature that is currently an article of
commerce (in the dried form) or an article of recycle into cheese product
manufacture or other dairy use.
The yeast rich concentrate is small in quantity, but is suited to recycle to
dairy farm operations as a feed supplement.
The mineral rich effluent is low in BOD; and is suitable for cycling to
treatment systems directly.
-------
SECTION III
CONCLUSIONS
1. Commercial feasibility of manufacturing a fermented alcoholic beverage
from sweet cheese or cottage cheese whey has been demonstrated by pro-
duction on a semi-commercial scale in an experimental winery followed
by consumer testing.
2. Manufactured cost of flavored, sweetened and carbonated FWB — based
on the system developed in this project — projected from the semi-
commercial scale, are indicated to be in the neighborhood of $0.61 to
$0.88 per liter of finished product, bottled in one liter bottles.
3. Pollution reduction due to manufacture of FWB in preference to sewering
the whey is on the order of 75% - 90%.
4. In terms of both the levels of strong, positive response, as well
as the mean ratings, there were no significant differences between
the FFWB and the commercial target wine (Annie Green Springs Berry
Frost).
-------
SECTION IV
EXPERIMENTAL PLAN
PRINCIPLE OBJECTIVE
The principle objective of the study is to demonstrate commercial feasibility
of producing an alcoholic beverage by wine yeast fermentation of sweet and acid
cheese wheys, or supplemented wheys, followed by flavoring.
SUBORDINATE OBJECTIVES
1. To transfer a bench scale "whey wine" fermentation process developed
by OSU under EPA Project No. R-803301 to a pilot process, making use of
applicable dairy and cheese plant equipment and technology; and deter-
mine consumer response to the product of that transfer.
2. To adjust the pilot process to:
fermentation of cheese wheys other than cheddar,
fermentation of cottage cheese (acid) whey,
fermentation by a selected lactose fermenting yeast,
fermentation of wheys deproteinized by membrane processing, and
. other processing steps as time permits and experience warrants.
3. To relate the process adjustments to the resultant products by means of
analytical and sensory evaluation and select at least one process vari-
ant for final development based on those evaluations.
4. To develop a flavored variant of the whey wine — with or without car-
bonation — and determine consumer acceptance, comparing it with a leading
commercial flavored wine.
5. To develop production economics, by projecting from pilot experience,
for the OSU process and product and for other processes and/or product
variations, including flavored and unflavored products.
6. To characterize residues, if any, of the selected processes and recommend
potential end uses.
-------
7. To determine legal requirements to ferment alcoholic beverages in a dairy
or cheese plant environment; and labeling requirements for the products.
-------
SECTION V
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
SENSORY EVALUATION
Throughout this project, two basic sensory testing methodologies were used to
guide product and process development; Descriptive Flavor Analysis (DFA) and
preference/acceptance testing. These are briefly described below, and in more
detail in Appendix B.
The Foremost Descriptive Flavor Analysis Panel uses a method of analysis de-
veloped by Arthur D. Little Company. DFA describes in proper perspective all
detectable characteristics of the aroma and flavor of a product. The method
provides a complete word description ("analysis" or "profile") of a sample
(Table !.)• The Profile method requires a panel of four to six trained flavor
analysts who function as a unit under the direction of a panel leader to produce
a word description of the product. The panel assigns intensity levels to each
character note using a 7-point scale ranging from threshold to strong. Thus,
specific sensory differences between two or more products can be identified and
quantified.
Paired comparison preference/acceptance testing was conducted with either a
minimum of 30 Foremost R&D employees or a minimum of 50 naive, male and female
adult consumers who had consumed a "pop wine" within the past month and had a
positive or neutral attitude towards berry flavor. Employees were used in early
and middle stages of product formulation (Figure 1.), while consumers were used
in the latter stages, as the formulation/process became more finalized (Figure 2.)
In either case, the preference and/or acceptance test is conducted comparing
two products. These can be served side-by-side or sequentially, each coded
with different randomly selected, two digit numbers. The samples are served
chilled and in balanced order, each being served first an equal number of
times, to prevent positional bias. Normally, white lights are used since color
differences, if any, contribute to the overall preference/acceptance rating.
However, in some preference tests with employees, red/blue lights were used to
mask color differences. In these tests, color identified whether the sample
was a "Foremost" or the commercial product. In order to maintain a "blind"
test (products not identified), color was necessarily masked.
-------
TABLE 1. EXAMPLE OF DESCRIPTIVE FLAVOR PROFILES
DESCRIP
No
Mozz.
Whey
#012.771
1-2
X-l
X-l
X-l
1
-
1
X-l
-
-
TIVE FLAVOR ANALYSIS
Whey Wine
AROMA
Ion Exchange
Jack Cheese*
Whey
#062.76
2
X-l
X-l
X-l
1
X-l
1
X-l
-
-
994-RG
2/14/77
Ion Exchange
Mozz. Jack Cheese*
Whey Whey
#012.772 #077.76
1-2
X-l
-
X-l
X-l
-
X-l
1
-
—
1-2
X-l
-
—
1
1
1
X-l
1
1
Alcohol
Briny
Yeasty
Whey
Wine/fruity
Acid
Fermented
Sweet
Sulfur Compounds
Resinous
Feeling Factor
Slightly astringent + + + +
Thinner +
Scale
X = Threshold
1 = Slight
2 = Moderate
3 • Strong
* These two products were profiled at an earlier time on 3/31/76. They
are included here for ease of comparison.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
DESCRIPTIVE FLAVOR ANALYSIS
Whey Wine
994-RG
2/14/77
FLAVOR-BY-MOUTH
No Ion
Mozz.
Whey
#012.771
1-2
X-l
1-2
1
X-l
X-l
-
Exchange
Jack Cheese*
Whey
#062.76
1-2
1
1
X-l
X-l
X-l
1
Ion
Mozz.
Whey
#012.772
1-2
X-l
X
X
-
1
X-l
Exchange
Jack Cheese*
Whey
#077.75
1-2
1
X
-
X
1
1
Alcohol
Sour
Salty
Whey
Bitter
Sweet
Fruity
Aftertaste
Sour + - +
Salty + + - +
Alcohol + + + 4-
Sweet +
Key For Symbols
+ = Present
- = Not Present
* These two products were profiled at an earlier time on 3/30/79. They are
included here for ease of comparison.
10
-------
Date Project No. 994-RG
Name
WINE
You have in front of you two samples of wine. Taste each wine from left to
right, drinking some water in between.
1. Please rate each wine on the following scale:
# #
Like extremely
Like very much
Like moderately
Like slightly
Neither like nor dislike
Dislike slightly
Dislike moderately
Dislike very much
Dislike extremely
2. Now, please rate each wine on the following attributes:
# #
Definitely too sweet
Slightly too sweet
SWEETNESS Just right
Slightly not sweet enough
Definitely not sweet enough
Figure 1. Wine Taste Test Questionnaire Used In In-'House Sensory
Evaluation Testing. (continued)
11
-------
Figure 1. (continued)
STRENGTH OF
BERRY
FLAVOR
SOURNESS/
TARTNESS
CARBONATION
3. Which one
Definitely too strong /
Slightly too strong /
Just right /
Slightly too weak /
Definitely too weak /
#
Definitely too sour/ tart /
Slightly too sour/ tart
Just right /
Slightly not sour /tart enough /
Definitely not sour/tart enough /
//
Definitely too carbonated /
Slightly too carbonated /
Just right /
Slightly not carbonated enough /
Definitely not carbonated enough /
do you prefer? (please check one.)
# II t
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
9
1 1 1
1 1 1
II 1
1 1 1
\\
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 I
1 1 1
1 1
(continued)
12
-------
Figure 1. (continued)
4. Please comment on why you preferred the wine you did. Please be as
specific as possible.
5. When was the last time you consumed wine of any kind? (please check one)
At least once within the past two weeks / /
At least once within the past month / /
At least once within the past three months / /
Less frequently / /
Never _/_ /
6. When was the last time you consumed a "pop" wine? (please check one)
At least once within the past two weeks / /
At least once within the past month /
At least once within the past three months /
Less frequently /
Never /
7. If you consume "pop" wine, what flavor do you normally consume?
Thank You!
13
-------
BERRY-FLAVORED WINE
INSTRUCTIONS; You will be asked to taste two samples of berry-flavored
wine. The samples will be served one at a time. Taste the sample that
is in front of you. Drink as much as you need to answer the following
questions:
1. How much do you LIKE or DISLIKE this sample, #
EVERYTHING CONSIDERED? (Please check one.)
Like extremely PJ
Like very much PJ
Like moderately PJ
Like slightly FJ
Neither like nor dislike PJ
Dislike slightly PJ
Dislike moderately PJ
Dislike very much PJ
Dislike extremely PJ
2. How would you rate the SWEETNESS of this sample?
(Please check one.)
Definitely too sweet PJ
Slightly too sweet PJ
Just right FT
Slightly not sweet enough PJ
Definitely not sweet enough PJ
Figure 2. Wine Taste Test Questionnaire Used In Consumer (continued)
Sensory Evaluation Testing.
14
-------
Figure 2. (continued)
3. How would you rate the STRENGTH OF BERRY FLAVOR of
this sample? (Please check one.)
Definitely too strong Q
Slightly too strong Q
Just right Q
Slightly too weak Q
Definitely too weak j~]
4. How would you rate the TARTNESS of this sample?
(Please check one.)
Definitely too tart Q
Slightly too tart Q
Just right r~|
Slightly not tart enough r~j
Definitely not tart enough rn
5. How would you rate the CARBONATION of this
sample? (Please check one.)
Definitely too carbonated T~]
Slightly too carbonated r~j
Just right r~]
Slightly not carbonated enough r~~]
Definitely not carbonated enough T~~\
* After you have completed these questions, please drink some water, *
* eat the cracker on your tray and wait a few minutes. When you are *
* ready to receive your second sample, please raise your hand. You *
* will then be served your second sample. *
Please turn page.
15
-------
Figure 2. (continued)
Now, please taste your second sample, drinking as much as you need to
answer the following questions:
6. How much do you LIKE or DISLIKE this sample,
EVERYTHING CONSIDERED? #
Like extremely
Like very much
Like moderately
Like slightly
Neither like nor dislike
Dislike slightly
Dislike moderately
Dislike very much
Dislike extremely
7. How would you rate the SWEETNESS of this sample?
(Please check one.)
Definitely too sweet
Slightly too sweet
Just right.
Slightly not sweet enough...
Definitely not sweet enough.
8. How would you rate the STRENGTH OF BERRY FLAVOR of
this sample? (Please check one.)
Definitely too strong
Slightly too strong
Please turn page.
16
-------
Figure 2. (continued)
Just right rj
Slightly too weak FTi
Definitely too weak r~|
9. How would you rate the TARTNESS of this sample? //
(Please check one.)
Definitely too tart FJ
Slightly too tart rj
Just right rj
Slightly not tart enough FT]
Definitely not tart enough PI
10. How would you rate the CARBONATION of this
sample? (Please check one.)
Definitely too carbonated [""]
Slightly too carbonated rj
Just right r~\
Slightly not carbonated enough {""]
Definitely not carbonated enough Fl
11. Now that you have tasted both samples of berry-flavored wine,
which ONE do you prefer? (Please check one.)
First sample tasted, # PI
Second sample tasted, # PI
12. Do you prefer that sample...?
A lot more than the other sample FJ
Please turn page.
17
-------
Figure 2. (continued)
A little more than the other sample
About the same as the other sample
13. Why do you prefer that sample. Please be as specific as possible.
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING! Please leave your tray and turn in your
questionnaire to the panel director upon leaving.
18
-------
MARKETING RESEARCH
This test was a central location paired comparison test (Figure 3.) using FFWB
and Annie Green Springs Berry Frost, the objectives being to determine consumer
attitudes toward the FFWB, and a comparison to Annie Green Springs Berry Frost.
The test was conducted at three geographic locations during February, 1978.
The three locations were Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. The total of 468 res-
pondents were stratified by color, sex, and age. All respondents were of legal
drinking age and had personally consumed a "pop" wine within the month pre-
ceding the test.
In each test, approximately three ounces of each sample, chilled, were pre-
sented without brand identification, and the first sample served was
systematically rotated to eliminate positional or order of tasting bias.
Respondents in the tests were asked to rate each product, using a nine point
hedonic "like/dislike" scale of words as their best description of how they
liked the product, all things considered. They were further asked to rate
each product on the five attributes; color, strength of berry flavor, sweet-
ness, effervescence, and tartness.
19
-------
PRC #1443
WINE TASTE TEST QUESTIONNAIRE
Group
Rotation Order
Tried 1st
Tried 2nd
PRINT
Respondent Name:
Address:
Phone NO.
City:
Interviewer:
Length of Interview:
Hello, I'M
from Parker Research Corporation. Today we're going
No
to ask you some questions about wine.
1. Which of the following wine brands have you drunk within the past month?
(READ LIST)
Yes
T. J. Swann
Annie Green Springs
Boone's Farm
Ripple (red or white)....
D
• • • • I
— C
IF "YES" TO AT LEAST ONE OF ABOVE BRANDS, CONTINUE; IF "NO" TO ALL OF THE
ABOVE BRANDS, TERMINATE.
2. Does anyone in your immediate household work for a food company, an ad-
vertising agency, a good manufacturer or a food broker?
Yes...Q (TERMINATE) No...Q (CONTINUE)
3. Have you participated in a taste test within the past 6 months?
Yes..Q (TERMINATE) No...Q (CONTINUE)
4. Would your age be under 21, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35 or over 35 years?
Under 21 (TERMINATE)
21 - 25.
26 - 30.
31 - 35.
Over 35.
(CONTINUE)
(CONTINUE)
(CONTINUE)
(TERMINATE)
Figure 3. Wine Taste Test Questionnaire Used in Marketing Central Location
Research Testing. , ,.
(continued)
20
-------
Figure 3. (continued)
ESCORT RESPONDENT TO TASTING AREA.
You will be asked to taste two samples of berry flavored wine. The samples
will be served one at a time.
HAND RESPONDENT FIRST SAMPLE INDICATED AT THE TOP OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
5. I'd like for you to taste this sample of wine. First, please take a bit
of cracker and a drink of water. Please drink as much of the sample as
you need to form an opinion.
(HAND RESPONDENT "RATING" CARD.) All things considered, which statement
on this card best describes how much you like or dislike this product?
Like extremely ...................... Q)
Like it very much ................... Q
Like it moderately .................. Q
Like it slightly .................... Q
Neither like nor dislike it ......... Q
Dislike it slightly ................. Q
Dislike it moderately ............... Q
Dislike it very much ................ r~)
Dislike it extremely ................ [j
6. How would you rate the color? (READ CHOICE)
Too light ........................... Q
Just right .......................... r~j
Too dark ............................ £]
7. How would you rate the strength of the berry flavor? (READ CHOICES)
Too strong
Just right
Not strong enough
8. How would you rate this product on sweetness? (READ CHOICES)
Too sweet
Just right
Not sweet enough
9. How would you rate the carbonation of this product? (READ CHOICES)
Too much carbonation
Just right
Not enough carbonation
(continued)
21
-------
Figure 3. (continued)
10. How would you rate the tartness of this product? (READ CHOICES)
Too tart Q
Just right
Not tart enough
lla. Was there anything about this product that you dislike?
Yes... Q (ASK Q. lib.) No... [] (SKIP TO Q.12)
lib. (IF "YES" TO Q. lla. ASK;) What did you dislike? (PROBE)
(continued
22
-------
Figure 3. (continued)
REMOVE FIRST SAMPLE.
HAND RESPONDENT SECOND SAMPLE.
12. Now I'd like for you to taste another sample of wine. First, please take
a bite of cracker and drink of water. Please drink as much of the sample
as you need to form an opinion.
(HAND RESPONDENT "RATING"CARD.) All things considered, which statement
on this card best describes how much you like or dislike this product?
Like it extremely Q
Like it very much Q
Like it moderately Q
Like it slightly Q
Neither like nor dislike it [J
Dislike it slightly Q
Dislike it moderately £]
Dislike it very much Q
Dislike it extremely Q
13. How would you rate the color? (READ CHOICES)
Too light Q
Jus t right Q
Too dark £]
14. How would you rate the strength of the berry flavor? (READ CHOICES)
Too strong Q]
Just right []]
Not strong enough Q
15. How would you rate this product on sweetness? (READ CHOICES)
Too sweet Q
Just right Q
Not sweet enough Q
16. How would you rate the carbonation of this product? (READ CHOICES)
Too much carbonation Q
Just right Q
Not enough carbonation Q]
(continued)
23
-------
Figure 3. (continued)
17. How would you rate the tartness of this product? (READ CHOICES)
Too tart Q
Just right Q
Not tart enough Q
18a. Was there anything about this product that you dislike?
Yes... Q (ASK Q. 18b) No... Q (SKIP TO Q.19)
18b. (IF "YES" TO Q. 18a, ASK:) What did you dislike? (PROBE)
19a. Now that you've tasted both products, did you notice any difference
between the two products?
Yes ... Q] (ASK Q. 19b) No ... Q (SKIP TO Q. 20)
19b. What was the difference between the two products? (PROBE FOR PARTICULAR
PRODUCT.)
20. Now that you have tasted both products, which one do you prefer?
Product Tried First # Q
Product Tried Second // Q
21. Do you prefer that product....(REAP CHOICES)
A lot more than the other product r~]
A little more than the other product.. Q]
About the same as the other product... Q
22. Why did you prefer that product? (PROBE AND IDENTIFY PRODUCT NUMBER
REFERRED TO.)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
24
-------
SECTION VI
PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
CONFIRMING OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY BENCHTOP RESULTS
The thrust of this confirmation study was to demonstrate a direct transfer of
the fermentation of supplemented whey by a wine yeast from benchtop scale to
semi-production scale using commercial dairy and cheese plant equipment where-
ever possible.
Jack cheese whey was procured from a local source at about pH 6.0. The
residual milk fat was removed by processing through a milk separator and
1,100 liters of the clarified whey was supplemented with 22 percent added
dextrose and lOOppm sulfur dioxide from potassium metabisulfite, and placed in
a 1,500 liter stainless steel vertical dairy processing tank with slow sweep
agitator and stainless steel cover. It was cooled to 21°C using water on the
jacket.
Active dry Montrachet Wine Yeast was added at a rate of 12 grams per 54
kilograms of supplemented whey, and the agitator was started to disperse and
suspend the yeast. The temperature in the tank was maintained at 20°-22°C
and agitation was continued until active fermentation began (about a day) at
which time mechanical agitation was stopped, the fermentation action providing
its own agitation to completion.
The fermentation was monitored by reduction of refractometer solids and was
essentially complete within 7-8 days as shown by no change in refractometer
solids on two succeeding days. At this time, alcohol was determined to be
between nine and ten percent by volume.
No special sanitary precautions were taken during this test. The whey was
pasteurized; the separator, product lines and fermentation tank were cleaned
and sanitized in accordance with good dairy plant practice and the tank cover
was in place during the course of fermentation.
In view of the procedures and the results, OSU technology had been satisfact-
orily transferred to semi-commercial scale.
DEPROTEINIZATION
OSU had demonstrated preparing whey for fermentation into a clear beverage by
heat denaturation of the heat labile portion of whey protein followed by
25
-------
separation. This was tested on 1,100 liter batch of jack cheese whey by
heating to 185°F through a tubular heater into a 1,500 liter tank, followed
by cooling to less than 6°C and holding for sedimentation without agitation.
Twenty-four hour holding resulted in incomplete separation of the denatured
protein resulting in a cloudy fermentation medium. Clarification by centri-
fugal means (a dairy clarifier) failed to improve the clarity significantly.
In another experiment, chemical treatment, using sodium pyrophosphate and
calcium chloride, followed by heating to 90°C for 15 minutes then cooling,
gave better results; but still unsatisfactory insofar as protein removal was
concerned.
A third approach to deproteinization of whey yielded a water clear permeate
(Table 2) for fermentation and a protein rich WPC by-product composed of
undenatured whey protein (highly functional and nutritious) with other whey
constituents. This approach utilized ultrafiltration (UF). Ultrafiltration is
a process in commercial use by the whey industry and others, to partition low
molecular weight components (as lactose, minerals, water) from high molecular
weight components (as protein) by means of selective and designed porosity
of a semi-permeable membrane.
In simple practice, whey is pumped through a semi-permeable membrane system
under pressure, and part of the water, minerals, nonprotein nitrogen and lactose
(milk sugar) pass through the membrane walls into a receiving vessel while
the protein, composed of large molecules, is retained in the system together
with the remaining permeable materials.
The amount of permeate separated, and the concentration of the protein in the
whey retained, are dependent upon many factors. Suffice it to say, that
concentration of protein to 50 percent on a moisture free basis is practically
accomplished by several commercial UF systems available in a variety of sizes.
This normally results in about 90 percent of the original whey being passed
as permeate for fermentation.
One added process step may or may not be required for deproteinization of
whey by UF; centrifugal clarification and separation. This pretreatment step,
prior to UF, was included in the study because other experience (not reported
here) has shown that fine curds in cottage cheese whey and milk fat remaining
in sweet cheese wheys can interfere with trouble free operation of UF systems,
by coating or plugging the membranes, limiting the duration of the UF
operation and requiring excessive cleaning of the membranes to restore optimum
operability.
The by-product of UF, the protein rich concentrate, is an article of commerce
in the dried form and is currently recycled (together with the waste removed'
by the clarifier/separator pre-treatment) into the cheese making operation or
into other dairy products. It has, therefore, the true connotation of a by-
product instead of a waste product. As a last resort, it can be recycled to
the dairy operation as an animal feed supplement.
26
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYSIS OF PERMEATE
From Cottage Cheese and Sweet Whey
ro
Total Solids
Acid
Total Nitrogen
NPN
Total N. as prc
Ash
Fat
Lactose
Calcium
Phosphorus
Sodium
Potassium
PH
Cottage
(Liquid, %)
5.71
0.46
0.041
0.037
i (x 6.38) 0.264
0.706
0.0024
4.22
0.109
0.073
0.037
0.141
4.5
Cheese Whey
(Dry Basis, %)
97.25
8.06
0.718
0.648
4.62
12.36
0.042
73.86
1.91
1.28
0.71
2.47
4.5
Sweet Whey
(Liquid, %)
5.70
0.25
0.049
0.02
0.25
0.55
0.001
4.86
0.099
0.154
0.055
0.119
6.0-6.3
(Dry Basis, %)
97.25
4.37
0.858
0.35
4.40
9.60
0.018
85.0
1.73
0.95
0.96
2.05
6.0-6.3
-------
SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE PERMEATE
Permeate consists of water containing lactose, milk minerals, nonprotein
nitrogen and miscellaneous vitamins and other materials from cows milk. The
lactose is a sugar, but it is not fermented by the Montrachet wine yeast select-
ed for this study; nor in fact by any other wine yeast. To ferment the lactose
into alcohol requires a specialized yeast type, a longer fermentation and
results in a yield only about two percent alcohol, if completely fermented.
Thus, the processing would require further supplementation with lactose to
derive a ferment containing the necessary 8-10 percent alcohol.
Lactose is an expensive sugar as compared to other available and fermentable
sugars. All things being considered, supplementation of permeate with lactose
for fermentation by a nonwine yeast was rejected as costly, slow and requiring
microbial technology beyond that normally available in a cheese plant environ-
ment. Alternatively, to supplement permeate with sugar fermentable by the
Montrachet yeast was selected as the route of choice, leaving the lactose
intact to provide some sweetness and other flavor notes to the finished product.
OSU supplementation technology was adapted to this study and was not further
researched. It consists of adding 22 percent dextrose to permeate as a
fermentable carbohydrate and 100 parts per million (ppm) sulfur dioxide in
the form of potassium metabisulfite as a preservative and flavor adjunct in
the finished product.
FERMENTATION
As in the case of permeate supplementation, OSU technology for fermentation
was transferred almost directly without further research, and was unchanged
throughout the study. This involved inoculating the supplemented permeate
with 0.02 percent Montrachet wine yeast by weight and fermenting at 20°-22°C
until the refractometer solids remained relatively constant for a day, at
which time the fermentation was considered complete (Table 3).
Fermentation was conducted many times during the course of the study, with
sweet cheese whey permeates and cottage cheese whey permeates as the raw
materials. No difficulty in fermentation was noted (except in one experi-
ment to be reported in the subsection titled Demineralization) and no
extraneous microbial growth was found. The fermentations were all complete
within a period of seven to ten days, and no atypical ferments were discovered.
REMOVAL OF YEAST BIOMASS
Following fermentation, removal of the yeast cells added to and formed in the
fermentation is required to provide a clear FWB. This step can be accomplished
by sedimentation in the fermentation tank followed by decantation. However,
this is costly in time, requiring several days to complete the sedimentation,
and is relatively incomplete, requiring addition of fining agents (bentonite)
and further sedimentation or "racking" to provide a clear FWB.
28
-------
TABLE 3. REFRACTOMETER SOLIDS AND pH MEASUREMENTS WITH TIME
SHOWING THE COURSE OF NORMAL FERMENTATION OF PERMEATE
Fermentation Time
Days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Refractometer Solids
*
20
20.1
18.6
-
-
14.6
12.0
10.3
9.0
8.6
-
9.0
8.6
PH
6.1
5.4
4.6
-
-
3.6
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.3
-
3.1
3.3
29
-------
Two other methods consistent with dairy or cheese plant operations were tested,
and both were found speedy and efficient. These are centrifugal separation
and filtration.
Centrifugal separation using a dairy clarifier resulted in a clear FWB and
a concentrate of yeast cells and other fermentation debris; pressure fil-
tration using a plate and frame filter press with diatomaceous earth filter
aid resulted in a clear FWB and a filter cake containing the yeast and
fermentation debris in a matrix of filter aid.
Experience with both sweet and acid whey fermentations showed that between
1.5 and 4.5 percent of the ferment weight was removed by either of the
separation technics, leaving 95.5 - 98.5 percent of the weights as clarified
ferment.
Either of the by-products (clarifier concentrate or filter cake) is suit-
able for dairy feed supplementation and can be disposed of in that manner
at no cost. In the event that other disposal is required, the clarifier
concentrate can be cycled to wastewater treatment and the filter cake to
sanitary land fills. In either case the COD — as compared to that of the
whey from which it came — is low.
DEMORALIZATION
Demineralization of fermented permeates was discovered to be a necessary
process step to yield FWB that was not too salty to be considered palatable,
either in the native FWB form or in flavored versions.
Two methods of demineralization were explored, and each performed satis-
factorily to reduce the salty taste to levels below sensory detection in the
FWB base. Both are commercially used — ion exchange (IE) in purification
of brackish waters for potable uses and electrodialysis (ED) in demineraliza-
tion of whey for modified whey product manufacture.
Exploring ion exchange, a system was configured of two resin beds, the first
being a strong acid cation exchanger (Chempro C25) and the second a weak
base deacidifier (Chempro A6). Both of the resins are commercially used
by the starch reduction industry to demineralize corn syrups. The operation,
as carried out in this study, consists of passing the FWB through the cation
exchanger bed to convert the mineral salts to acids, and then through the
deacidifier bed to adsorb the acid, resulting in a more'or less neutral FWB
with 90% or more of the mineral salts removed.
Testing this procedure on jack cheese whey fermented into FWB base, and
comparing it to the undemineralized FWB base, it was found that the IE
treatment had reduced the bitterness and markedly reduced the saltiness; and
further, had removed the whey flavor notes, providing a much cleaner tasting
FWB for flavoring.
Considering that IE prior to fermentation might be preferred to IE after
fermentation, a test was set up wherein the clarified permeate was subjected
to the IE treatment prior to supplementation. Upon inoculation of the
30
-------
supplemented IE permeate with Montrachet yeast and incubation, fermentation
failed to occur (Table 4.). until whole whey was added. Testing whether or not
this was the result of some unknown factor or the IE processing, the IE of
clarified permeate was repeated and following supplementation and inocula-
tion with the Montrachet yeast, the batch was split into several small portions,
To one portion, the control, nothing was added. To other portions quantities
of the varied milk minerals native to the permeate were added back. To yet
another, a combination of milk minerals plus an inorganic nitrogen source were
added.
Upon incubation it became clear that the IE process had depleted the permeate
of essential nutrients: although the control again failed to ferment
satisfactorily and the portions with mineral salts only marginally better,
the portion supplemented with the combination of milk mineral salts plus the
nitrogen source fermented normally (Table 5.). These results made it amply
clear the IE must be performed after fermentation.
It was adviseable to test the second method of demineralizing, and compare the
results in the FWB. Electrodialysis, in contrast, to IE, can be operated to
affect any degree of demineralization in whey from 25 to 90 percent.
Testing whether ED prior to fermentation had the same inhibitory effect as
IE, a series of ED permeates were made at varying degrees of demineralization
from zero to 90% mineral removal. Those were supplemented, inoculated and
incubated in the normal fashion. The results showed that fermentations were
normal in all cases up to 86% removal of minerals; the one case showing
inhibition being at 90% removal of minerals. In the latter case fermentation
did occur, but slowly, and was not yet complete at 12 days, whereas the others
were essentially finished at 7 days (Table 6.).
Tasting the FWB ferments, using the project team members as an informal panel,
it was agreed that 50% removal of minerals from the permeate reduced the
saltiness to a satisfactory level as compared to IE FWB.
It appeared that two optional points in processing would permit ED demineral-
ization. Testing whether ED prior to fermentation was in any sense different
from ED after fermentation, the informal panel tested FWB made by each process
from a common lot of whey and agreed that they were essentially the same.
To compare ion exchange with electrodialysis as demineralizing methods, FWB
from mozzarella cheese whey was split, processed by each route and the
products compared (both base and flavored) by preference/acceptance testing.
Results indicated that IE produced a somewhat cleaner (less whey flavor) FWB
base then did ED to fifty percent mineral removal, while the reverse seemed
to be true for the flavored versions (Tables 7. and 8.). However, the differ-
ences were slight .and in summary it was agreed that flavoring system adjustment
could make the two demineralizing processes optionally equivalent. The
flavored versions were made from the base versions by adding a Black Currant
With Other Natural Flavors (BC WONF) flavor concentrate, sweetening with
50% invert syrup and carbonating to about two volumes of carbon dioxide. No
attempt was made at this time to optimize the flavoring system to achieve
31
-------
TABLE 4. REFRACTOMETER SOLIDS AND pH MEASUREMENTS WITH TIME
SHOWING LACK OF FERMENTATION IN IE PERMEATE, AND
FERMENTATION FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTATION WITH WHOLE
WHEY
Fermentation Time Refractometer Solids
Days %
0
1
2
3
4
5 Whey added
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
21.0
20.5
20.5
-
-
15.8
13.9
12.8
11.5
11.4
-
11.4
PH
4.55
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.6
-
-
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.1
3.9
-
4.1
32
-------
TABLE 5. REFRACTOMETER SOLIDS AND pH MEASUREMENTS WITH TIME
SHOWING EFFECTS OF ADDED SUPPLEMENTS TO IE PERMEATE
ON FERMENTATION RATES
IE Permeate IE Permeate IE Permeate Plus
Control Plus Minerals Minerals Plus NH7
Fermentation Time
Days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
RS*
%
20.1
20.0
20.0
-
-
18.9
18.5
18.0
17.7
17.5
-
17.2
16.4
15.9
14.7
15.0
-
-
13.8
-
12.5
-
11.6
PH
4.2
4.1
4.3
-
-
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
-
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.6
-
-
3.5
-
3.3
-
3.6
RS
1
20.0
20.1
19.3
-
-
18.1
17.4
16.5
15.8
15.2
-
14.1
13.3
12.8
12.0
11.2
-
-
9.6
-
9.1
-
8.8
pH
5.7
5.4
4.9
-
-
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
-
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.7
-
-
3.6
-
3.6
-
3.8
RS
%
20.0
20.1
18.5
-
-
14.4
12.0
10.3
9.0
8.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PH
6.1
5.4
4.6
-
-
3.6
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
* Refractometer solids
33
-------
OJ
-p-
TABLE 6. REFRACTOMETER SOLIDS AND TITRATABLE ACIDITY MEASUREMENTS
WITH TIME SHOWING EFFECT OF PERCENT DEMINERALIZATION OF
PERMEATE BY ED ON FERMENTATION RATES
Percent Demineralization of Permeate
0 52 74 86 90
Fermentation RS- TA- RS TA RS TA RS TA RS TA
Days % % % % %%%%%%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
21
17
15
13
10
10
9
9
.0
.8
.4
-
.1
-
.5
.0
-
.3
-
-
.5
.34
.43
.53
-
.59
-
.54
.62
-
.63
-
-
.50
20.6
17.0
15.0
-
12.3
-
10.4
9.6
-
9.1
-
-
8.9
.30
.38
.52
-
.54
-
.54
.54
-
.52
-
-
.45
20.6
18.0
15.9
-
12.8
-
11.1
10.0
-
9.0
-
-
10.1
.25
.38
.45
-
.47
-
.45
.48
-
.49
-
-
.51
20.9
18.0
16.4
-
13.4
-
11.0
10.1
-
9.0
-
-
9.0
.22
.29
.41
-
.44
-
.46
.48
-
.48
-
-
.42
20.8
20.6
20.2
-
19.3
-
18.8
17.6
-
16.0
-
-
13.0
.07
.12
.17
-
.22
-
.33
.32
-
.31
-
-
.41
I/ Refractometer solids
2/ Titratable acidity
-------
TABLE 7. SENSORY EVALUATION REPORT SHOWING COMPARABILITYOF
ELECTRODIALYSED ED FFWB AND IE ION EXCHANGED FFWB IN
TERMS OF OVERALL AND PREFERENCE RATINGS
A Percentage Distribution of OVERALL Ratings for Wine
Like extremely 9
Like very much 8
SUBTOTAL
Like moderately 7
Like slightly 6
Neither like nor dislike 5
Dislike slightly 4
Dislike moderately 2
Dislike very much 2
Dislike extremely 1
TOTAL
Mean rating
#994E277A(IE)
vs. #994E277E(ED)
N-31
(0)
(1)
(1)
(7)
(8)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
Statistical analysis was done using Student
difference was found.
0%
3
3%
23
26
16
13
6
10
3
100%
5.1
's t-Test
A Percentage Distribution of PREFERENCE
(0)
(5)
(5)
(7)
(9)
(1)
(6)
(3)
(0)
(0)
. However,
Ratings
0%
16
16%
23
29
3
19
10
0
0
100%
5.8
no significant
K-31
//994277A(IE)
#994277B(ED)
No Preference
TOTAL
(15)
(15)
( 1)
48%
48
4
100%
35
-------
TABLE 8. SENSORY EVALUATION REPORT SHOWING COMPARABILITY OF
ELECTRODIALYSED FFWB AND ION EXCHANGED FFWB IN TERMS
OF ATTRIBUTE RATINGS
A Percentage Distribution of ATTRIBUTE ratings for Wine
SWEETNESS
Definitely too sweet
Slightly too sweet
Just right
Slightly not sweet enough
Definitely not sweet enough
TOTAL
Mean rating
STRENGTH OF BERRY FLAVOR
Definitely too strong
Slightly too strong
Just right
Slightly too weak
Definitely too weak
TOTAL
Mean rating
SOURNESS/TARTNESS
Definitely sour/tart
Slightly too sour/tart
Just right
Slightly not sour/tart enough
Definitely not sour/tart enough
No answer
TOTAL
Mean rating
#994E277A(IE) vs #994E27B(ED)
N=31
(3)
(7)
(13)
(8)
(0)
CD
(5)
(14)
(8)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(16)
(4)
(1)
(0)
10%
3
41
26
0
100%
3.2
3%
16
45
26
10
100%
2.8
13%
19
52
13
3
0
100%
3.3
(3)
(5)
(18)
(5)
(0)
(2)
(1)
(15)
(10)
(3)
(0)
(10)
(13)
(6)
(1)
(1)
10%
16
58
16
0
100%
3.2
6%
3
49
32
10
100%
2.8
0%
33
42
19
3
3
100%
3.1
36
-------
TABLE 8. (continued)
A Percentage Distribution of ATTRIBUTE Ratings for Wine
CARBONATION
Definitely too carbonated 5 (1) 3% (0) 0%
Slightly too carbonated 4 (6) 19 (5) 16
Just right 3 (19) 62 (20) 65
Slightly not carbonated enough 2 (4) 13 (3) 10
Definitely not carbonated 1 (1) 3 (2) 6
enough
No answer (0) 0 (1) 3
TOTAL 100% 100%
Mean rating 3.1 2.9
Statistical analysis was done using Student's t-Test. However, no
significant difference was found.
37
-------
the most pleasing balance of flavor and sweetness, nor were any efforts ex-
pended to optimize removal of sediment and haze contributed by the flavor
concentrate.
POLISHING FILTRATION
To make a sparkling clear beverage from the flavored FWB required removal of
sediment contributed by the BC WONF flavor concentrate. It was found that on
some occasions filtration through an 0.45 micron filter preceded by a fibrous
prefilter was satisfactory, but on other occasions the filtration rate was so
slow that prefiltration through a plate and frame filter with the help of a
small amount of diatomaceous earth filter aid was a definite advantage.
In either case, the 0.45 micron membrane filter performed satisfactorily in
terms of removing haze components and residual yeast cell matter and providing
a sparkling clear beverage for carbonation and bottling.
CARBONATION
Samples of the commercial target wine were tested for carbonation level and
found to vary somewhat from bottle to bottle. Overall, the level appeared to
be in the range of 1.8 - 2.0 volumes of carbon dioxide.
A flavored FWB product (FFWB) was carbonated to 1.7, 2.1, 2.5 and 2.9 volumes
and tested against the target wine for perceived carbonation level. The results
indicated that a level between 1.7 and 1.9 volumes of carbon dioxide in the
FFWB was perceived to be the same as the target wine. Consequently, 1.8
volumes of carbon dioxide was selected as our product target.
38
-------
SECTION VII
PROCESS FLOW AND MATERIAL BALANCES
Process flow charts, projected to 4,000 liter ferments based on experience
with 1,135 liter ferments, are presented in Figures 4. and 5. for acid whey
and sweet whey respectively.
Comparing the two flow charts points out that a greater input of chemical
regenerants is required to demineralize the acid whey FWB than to demineralize
the sweet whey FWB. This in part can be explained by the greater content of
organic acid in the acid whey which requires a greater volume of the deacidi-
fying resin component per unit volume of FWB to satisfactorily remove the
minerals.
The material balances as presented in the flow charts are exemplary, based on
experience with single sources of whey used in this study. Variations in the
cheesemaking process from plant to plant, day to day and month to month, as
well as changes in the whey due to seasonal variations in the milk supply and
geographic location will all bear on the material balances found in practice.
39
-------
CLARIFIED ACID WHEY
4,000 liters
4,106 kilograms
DEXTROSE
YEAST
793 kilograms
.79 kilograms
ULTRAFILTRATION
PERMEATE
3,512 liters
3,602 kilograms
FILTER AID 6.13 kilograms
FERMENTATION
FKKHKNTKl) PERMEATE
4,060 liters
4,070 kilograms
SODIUM HYDROXIDE 36 kilograms
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 8.7 kilograms
WATER 18675 kilograms
CLARIFICATION
FWB
3,838 liters
3,806 kilograms
ION EXCHANGE
IE FWB
4,196 liters
4,308 kilograms
FLAVOR 137 kilograms
INVERT SYRUP 355 kilograms
MALIC ACID 13.4 kilograms
FORMULATION
FFWB
4,800 liters
4,813 kilograms
POLISHING^
POLISHED FFWB
4,800 liters
4,813 kilograms
CARBON DIOXIDE 28.5 kilograms
WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE
488 liters
504 kilograms
FILTER CAKE
178 kilograms
IE EFFLUENT
18,212 liters
18.223 kilograms
COD - 1.450 me/liter
HAZE COMPONENTS
TRACE
CARBONATING AND BOTTLING
BOTTLED FFWB
4,800-1,000 ml Bottles
400 Cases
Figure 4. Process flow diagram for FFWB from acid whey.
40
-------
SEPARATED SWEET WHET
4,000 liters
4,107 kilograms
ULTRAFILTRATION
DEXTROSE 827 kilograms
YEAST .79 kilograms
PERMEATE
3,428 liters
3,490 kilograms
FERMENTATION
FERMENTED PERMEATE
3,816 liters
3,913 kilograms
[FILTER AID 9.1 kilograms
SODIUM HYDROXIDE 23 kilograms
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 5.7 kilograms
WATER 11,350 kilograms
CLARIFICATION
FWB
3,800 liters
3,897 kilograms
FLAVOR 130 kilograms
INVERT SYRUP 340 kilograms
MALIC ACID 12.5 kilograms
ION EXCHANGE
IE FWB
3,984 liters
4,086 kilograms
FORMULATION
FFWB
4,552 liters
4,568 kilograms
CARBON DIOXIDE 26.8 kilograms
POLISHING
POLISHED FFWB
4,552 liters
4,568 kilograms
WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE
572 liters
617 kilograms
FILTER CARE
62 kilograms
IE EFFLUENT
11,184 liters
11.190 kilograms
COD - 1.060 me/liter
HAZE COMPONENTS
TRACE
CARBONATING AND BOTTLING
BOTTLED FFWB
4,552-1,000 ml Bottles
379.3 Cases
Figure 5. Process flow diagram for FFWB from sweet whey.
41
-------
SECTION VIII
FLAVORED FWB (FFWB) DEVELOPMENT
SELECTING THE TARGET WINE
Selection of a target flavored wine to compete with in demonstrating parity
acceptance of FWB with commercial product by consumers was accomplished
relatively early in the study. The prime criteria set up in advance, were
that the target wine must be a market leader in the flavored wine class, and
that it must be a fruit flavored wine.
To select the market leaders, we consulted available sales volume reports and
selected three fruit flavored wines which showed the greatest sales record at
that time, and a fourth which had a steep growth curve, but was a relative
newcomer. The flavors of the select group included berry, plum, peach, and
strawberry.
An informal panel of project team members was assembled to select, from that
group, the kind of flavor we thought would be most compatible with FWB, and set
that as our target.
The strawberry flavored wine was rejected based on its semi-artificial
flavor, and difficult past experiences with strawberry flavors in other
food and beverage applications. The peach flavored wine was rejected as
being clearly a nonpeach flavor, in the opinion of the panel.
A currant flavored wine, Annie Green Spring (ACS) Berry Frost TM, was selected
as our prime target. It is identified as being composed of grape wine and
natural currant and other natural flavors. As a backup, and a parallel
target in preliminary studies, ACS Plum Hollow TM was selected.
SELECTING THE FLAVOR SYSTEM
To elicit a series of flavor concentrates to test in FWB, several flavor
suppliers were provided with quantities of ion exchanged FWB and the two target
wines purchased at the local supermarket. They were asked to respond with
flavor concentrates compatible with the FWB and similar to the target wines in
flavor and balance.
The response provided us with several flavor concentrates from a number of
suppliers. These were screened by the informal panel by adding to the FWB,
roughly balancing sweetness and carbonation and testing chilled.
42
-------
Two "berry" flavored concentrates and one "plum" concentrate were first selected.
They were prepared as FFWB's and compared with the representatively flavored
target wines by a panel of thirty or more R&D people. In all cases, the com-
mercial wine was preferred to the FFWB.
Based on the results of that study (comments) and further informal panel
testing, the three acceptable concentrates were reduced to two by the elimin-
ation of one "berry" concentrate. Following this, DFA profiles were developed
for both target wines and FFWB's based on ion exchanged jack cheese FWB with
the two remaining concentrates. Based on the study and the summary evaluations
indicating that the "berry" flavored FWB more closely matched its target wine
in flavor profile than did the "plum" version, the "berry" flavored concentrate
was selected, and the target became ACS Berry Frost.
DEVELOPING THE FLAVORING SYSTEM
The selected flavor concentrate was characterized as Black Currant With Other
Natural Flavors (BC WONF). During the course of the study, as processing of
the FWB was adjusted, the flavoring system was modified twice, to achieve the
best processing and flavor balance compatible with the FWB at that time.
By the time the final IE or ED version of the FWB was developed, it became
apparent that, particularly in the case of the IE version, increased acidity
was required to round out the flavor- system.
Several levels of lactic, citric and malic acid were tested and malic acid was
selected at about 0,3 percent level as optimizing the flavor system and
giving the cleanest flavored FWB.
The BC WONF concentrate was tested at various levels, as was sweetening with
50% invert syrup to give the most pleasing balance to the flavored FWB.
During the flavor system development, it became apparent that the BC WONF
concentrate developed a precipitate in the FFWB on standing, even though it
had been polished through the 0.45 micron membrane filter to sparkling clarity.
Reporting this to the flavor concentrate manufacturer resulted in submission
of a second generation system, essentially the same in flavor as the first,
but with markedly reduced precipitation in the finished beverage.
As the flavor system development moved with the process development, a third
version of BC WONF was provided, which had a brighter berry flavor and was
perceived by the preference/acceptance panels as more closely approximating
in like/dislike terms the target wine.
The final flavor system, which was used in the consumer test against the target
wine, was added as follows to an IE version of cottage cheese permeate FWB:
50 percent invert syrup at 77% total solids 8.25% W/V
version 3 of BC WONF concentrate 3.18% V/V
malic acid 0.31% W/V
43
-------
purified water sufficient to adjust alcohol 8.0% V/V
carbonation to 1.8 - 2.0 volumes
44
-------
SECTION IX
SENSORY EVALUATION
DESCRIPTIVE FLAVOR ANALYSIS
This method (described in Appendix A) of flavor analysis was used on nine
key occasions throughout the study to establish aroma and flavor-by-mouth
profiles of target wine(s) and developing FFWB's and to quantify specific
sensory differences between the targets and experimental FFWB's.
It proved of great value in helping to direct development efforts, both of the
FWB and the flavored versions, toward a beverage that in the end was to
demonstrate parity acceptance with ACS Berry Frost in a selected market.
PARIED COMPARISON PREFERENCE TESTS .
This method of sensory analysis was used on sixteen occasions with R&D panels
and twice with selected consumers. Again, this proved of great value in
pointing out consumer responses to the developing FFWB in comparison to the
target wine.
APPLICATIONS TO PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
Sensory evaluation was the key response leading to the following conclusions
during process development:
1. Demineralization of FWB was required to remove salty taste to
satisfactorily develop FFWB.
2. Electrodialysis (50% or greater) was comparable in removal of
salty taste to ion exchange.
3. Demineralized sweet whey FWB's (from jack or mozzarella whey)
or demineralized acid whey (from cottage cheese) were
equivalent as bases for flavoring into beverages.
4. Ion exchanged FWB required greater supplementation with (malic)
acid to equal supplemented electrodialysed for flavoring into
fruit flavored beverage.
45
-------
SECTION X
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Projecting to commercial production from pilot experience, the direct cost
of manufacturing flavored fermented whey beverage into one liter wine bottles
is:
$0.98 per bottle for 3,785 liter per day plant or,
$0.69 per bottle for 378,500 liter per day plant.
Of these costs, processing accounts for 19 percent; formulating and carbonat-
ing for 39 percent; and bottling and capping for 42 percent.
Taking credit for whey protein concentrate as a replacement for nonfat milk
(at $0.75 per pound solids); sewering the IE effluents only, and taking
credit for reduced sewerage cost (at $1.10/kilogram COD); and routing the
filter cake to a garbage dump reduces the net costs to:
$0.92 per bottle for 3,785 liter per day plant or,
$0.63 per bottle for 378,500 liter per day plant.
Table 9. presents summary of costs for FFWB for 3,785 liter per day and
378,500 liter per day plants, and Appendix B presents the details of that
summary.
46
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING/BOTTLING COSTS FOR FFWB PRODUCT
COSTS
ELEMENTS
I. Processing
Separation
Ultrafiltration
Fermentation
Ingredients
Process
Clarification
Filtration
Deashing
Ion Exchange
Electrodialysis
Processing Subtotal
II. Formulation Costs
Flavoring
Invert Syrup
Malic Acid
Formulation Subtotal
III. Carbonation Costs
Carbon Dioxide
Process
Carbonation Subtotal
IV. Bottling Cost
Bottles
Caps
Process
Bottling Subtotal
Direct COSTS per LITER FINISHED
PRODUCT
Savings in sewerage treatment costs
Credit for WPC at $1.65 per kg. solids
Costs per Liter
3,785 liters FWB
BASE/DAY
$0.0056
0.0119
0.1368
0.0873
0.0495
0.0056
0.0111
0.0146
0.0146
0.0182
$0.1856
$0.1211
0.2094
0.0386
$0.3691
$0.0059
0.0149
$0.0208
$0.2527
0.0134
0.1397
$0.4058
$0.9813
$0.0299
0.0301
Finished Product
378,500 liters FWB
BASE/DAY
$0.00024
0.0013
0.1227
0.0873
0.0354
0.00024
0.00024
0.0027
0.0054
0.0027
$0.1275
$0.0969
0.1468
0.0275
$0.2712
$0.0006
0.0004
$0.0010
$0.1969
0.0112
0.0847
$0.2928
$0.6925
$0.0299
0.0301
Net cost per liter bottle finished
product
$0.9213
$0.6325
47
-------
SECTION XI
MARKETING RESEARCH
Parker Research. Corporation, South Pasedena, California, was commissioned
to do the Market Research study to compare flavored FWB with Berry Frost
in terms of acceptance.
Their conclusions from the study were reported:
1, In terms of both the levels of strong, positive response, as well
as the mean ratings, there were no significant differences between
the FFWB and the commercial target wine.
2. The flavor strength and tartness of whey wine was, essentially,
acceptable. However, whey wine was generally considered to be "too
light" in color and "too sweet". There was also a slight indication
that whey wine was somewhat "too carbonated".
The report is available from EPA, IERL — Cincinnati, Ohio.
48
-------
SECTION XII
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Legal requirements for housing, production and labeling of FWB fall under
applicable federal, state and local wine regulations. Federal requirements
fall under several titles of 26 CFR (1954) Part 231 and 27 CFR (1972) Part
4.25.
In the final analysis, legal counsel recommends that the preferred course of
action for initiating fermentation of FWB and marketing in any form would be
consultation with local Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of the
Treasury Department prior to any action or decision.
As a general guideline, it appears that to ferment FWB at a cheese plant or
whey processing location will require at least separate facilities, isolated
from the primary operation in specific ways.
Labeling requirements, as interpreted, do not make it clear that the FWB can
or cannot be called a "wine"; in any event it would probably have to be
identified as "whey wine", but might have to be handled by a "product name"
route, listing whey as one of the major ingredients.
49
-------
REFERENCES
United States Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting Board.
SRS, USDA - Da 2-1 (74).
Unites States Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting Board.
SRS, USDA - Da 2-1 (77).
Utilization of Cheese Whey for Wine Production. Department of Food
Science and Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
97331. EPA Grant No. R-803301.
Federal Taxpaid Wine Bottling Houses Regulations. 26CFR (1954)
Part 231.
Federal Wine Labeling and Advertising. 27CFR (1972) Part 4.25
50
-------
APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTIVE FLAVOR ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTIVE FLAVOR ANALYSIS PANEL
The Foremost Descriptive Flavor Analysis Panel uses a method of analysis
developed by the Arthur D. Little Company in 1949. It involves 4-6 highly
trained personnel who analyze products by describing their sensory character-
istics. The Foremost panel is trained to objectively analyze aroma, flavor
and texture of food and some non-food products such as Pharmaceuticals. Also,
aroma and flavor contributions, if any, of packaging materials on food products
can be analyzed.
1. SCOPE AND APPLICATION
Descriptive flavor analysis describes in proper perspective all detec-
table characteristics of the aroma and flavor of a product. The method
provides a complete word description ("analysis" or "profile") of a
sample. Several analyses can be compared to show differences among a
group of samples. Or, for a particular sample, the panel can define the
product's characteristics in descriptive terminology, which can in turn
be used in the development of consumer questionnaires or as an aid in
defining consumer responses. The panel can also define in descriptive
terms the effect of ingredient or process changes on total flavor impress-
ion of a product and/or its individual character notes. Other areas in
which Foremost has found the Profile Panel to be of assistance are:
as a guide in assessing new processing methods and equipment and their
effect on the flavor of a product; in monitoring products on a year-to-
year basis for flavor changes; in determining when the laboratory form-
ulation has achieved the flavor goal established for a new product; and
in defining the flavor, aroma and textural characteristics of competitive
products.
2. SUMMARY OF METHOD
The Profile method requires a panel of four to six trained flavor
analysts who function as a unit under the direction of a panel leader to
produce a word description of the product. During the first phase of each
panel session (referred to as the closed session), panel members analyze
their samples independently. Subsequently, the panel leader initiates
the second phase (open session), during which individual findings are
discussed, with references to standards if necessary, to help achieve
unanimity of expression. Since the word "analysts" implies an objective
approach by definition, panel members merely record all perceptible
sensations with no reference whatsoever to preference.
51
-------
Profile analysts are individuals who, through a screening procedure, have
demonstrated the three basic qualifications for panel membership:
1. Normal ability to taste and smell,
2. Above average interest in odor and flavor, and
3. Certain personality requirements.
Further, they are individuals who have undergone extensive training;
individuals who, through daily participation in a panel training work
program, have been exposed to a wide variety of experiences; individuals
who, through use of reference standards, resolve differences in termin-
ology, and thus, speak a common language.
The flavor profile consists of five basic parts:
1. The character notes,
2. Their intensities,
3. Order of appearance,
4. Initial overall impression or amplitude, and
5. Aftertaste
Character notes are the sensations perceived by the senses of taste,
smell and feel. In aroma, character notes include aromatics and feeling
factors; and in flavor, they include both these elements plus the basic
tastes of sweet, sour, salty and bitter. Aftertaste or persistent flavor
is also reported. The panel assigns intensity levels to each character
note using a 7-point scale ranging from threshold to strong. The panel
also assigns an overall impression or amplitude rating of the products
evaluated. The amplitude rating involves all of the qualities of the
basic character as well as the non-analyzable portion, which together
create the general flavor effect. The amplitude rating is high when
the following hold true:
1. Early impact of appropriate flavor,
2. Rapid development of full flavor in the mouth, i.e., well
blended.
3. No early or late off-notes in the aroma or flavor pattern
(order of appearance),
4. Pleasant mouth sensations, and
5. Clean aftertaste and quick clean up of aftertaste.
52
-------
Amplitude is a quality rating and not a preference score. A simple,
constant word scale is used for the amplitude rating. The scale is as
follows: L=Low, LM=Low to Medium, M=Medium, MH=Medium High and H=High,
53
-------
APPENDIX B. ECONOMICS OF FERMENTED WHEY BEVERAGE PROCESSING
This section presents costs involved in manufacturing a fermented whey
beverage product, projected from pilot experience. Consideration is given
to the costs of processing, formulating and bottling. Thus, the costs are
for bottled product going into storage. Costs for tax, warehousing, dis-
tribution, advertising and other business costs will not be considered at this
time.
Processing Costs
For this analysis, two distinct scales of wine production will be used as
examples. To represent the small, independent cheese manufacturer with
limited capability for distribution of a Fermented Whey Beverage (FWB) pro-
duct, the conversion of 3,785 liters of whey per day, 250 days per year is
considered. On the other hand, for the commercial dairy/cheese plant attempt-
ing a third business area for expansion, a 378,500 liters per day, 350 day
per year enterprise is evaluated.
General Assumptions of Cost Estimates
The following general assumptions will be made for costing purposes:
1. Processing on continuous equipment will involve 20 hours per day
when applicable, leaving four hours for cleaning and/or sanitizing.
2. The following operating cost assumptions will be made:
a. Building Costs: Estimate process operation area, in square
meters, and charge $646 per square meter building costs. This
is depreciated over 25 years on a straight line basis.
b. Equipment Costs: Estimate equipment costs and depreciation over
ten years on a straight line basis.
c. Labor Costs: Operator labor figured at $10 per hour, including
fringe benefits.
d. Maintenance Costs: Maintenance labor costs figured at 5% of
yearly capital depreciation amount for the equipment.
e. Spare Parts: Supply of spare parts figured at 1.0% of original
capital costs.
f. Power: Figured at $0.025 per Kwhr.
54
-------
g. Water: Figured at $0.25 per 3,785 liters.
h. Acid Material: Figured at $10 per 45.4 kilograms.
i. Caustic Material: Figured at $18 per 45.4 kilograms.
Some specific cost factors may apply to particular unit operations and
will be enumerated at that time.
55
-------
SEPARATION
COST 3,785 LITERS /DAY
ELEMENTS OPERATION
1.
2.
t
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Equipment
a. Capacity, liters per minute
b. Cost
c. Yearly Depreciation
Power
a. HP Requirement
b. Kwhr Requirement
c. Yearly Cost
Labor
a. Daily Manhours
b. Yearly Cost
Maintenance
a. 5% of Yearly Capital Depreciation
Subtotal
Overhead
a. 40% of Subtotal
Yearly Cost for Separation
Cost per Liter FWB Base
13.25
$20,000*
$ 2,000
10
9.0
$ 338
0.5
$ 1,250
$ 175
$ 3,763
$ 1,505
$ 5,278
$ 0.0056
378,500 LITERS/DAY
OPERATION
454
$115,000
$ 11,500
50
36.0
$ 5,040
1.5
$ 5,250
$ 575
$ 22,365
$ 8,946
$ 31,311
$ 0.00024
* Only one-half of clarifier costs included here because the same machine is
used for clarifying ferment, and the second half of costs are included at
that point.
56
-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
COST 3,785 LITERS/DAY
ELEMENTS OPERATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Equipment
a. Membrane Area, Square Meters
b. System Cost
c. Yearly Depreciation
Building
a. Area, Square Meters
b. Yearly Depreciation
Power
a. HP Requirements
b. Kwhr Requirements
c. Yearly Costs
Labor
a. Daily Manhours
b. Yearly Costs
Maintenance
a. 5% of Capital Depreciation
Membrane Lease/Rental
a. $96.87/Square Meter /Year
Cleaning Supplies
a. Acid: 1 lb/9.3 Square Meters
Membrane - Day
b. Caustic: 5 lb/9.3 Square Meters
Membrane - Day
Water
Subtotal
Overhead
a. 40% of Subtotal
Yearly Cost for Ultrafiltration
Cost Per Liter FWB Base
13.9
$17,000
$ 1,700
9.3
$ 240
7.5
8.3
$ 518
1.5
$ 3,750
$ 85
$ 1,350
$ 75
$ 337.50
$ 25
$ 8,080.50
$ 3,232
$11,312
$ 0.0119
378,500LITERS/DAY
OPERATION
465
$250,000
$ 25,000
186
$ 4,800
75
50.0
$ 8,750
4.0
$ 14,000
$ 1,200
$ 45,000
$ 3,500
$ 15,750
$ 1,000
$119,000
$ 47,600
$166,600
$ 0.0013
57
-------
FERMENTATION
COST 3,785 LITER/DAY 378,500 LITER/DAY
ELEMENTS OPERATION OPERATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Equipment
a. Fermentor Capacity, Liters
b. Costs
c. Yearly Depreciation
Ingredients
a. Whey
b. Dextrose
1. 0.22 kg/liter FWB base
2. $0.068 kilogram
c. Yeast & Potassium Metabifulfite
1. $0.0132/liter FWB base
Building
a. Area, Square Meters
b. Cost at 323 Square Meter
c. Yearly Depreciation
Power
a. HP Requirement
b. Kwhr Requirement
c. Yearly Cost
Labor
a. Daily Manhours
b. Yearly Costs
Maintenance
a. 5% of Capital Depreciation
Subtotal
Overhead
a. 40% of Subtotal
Yearly Cost for Fermentation
Cost Per Liter FWB Base
37,850
$ 25,000
$ 2,500
$ 0.00
212.245 kg
$ 70,125
$ 12,500
232
$ 75,000
$ 3,000
20
19.0
$ 475
1.5
$ 3,750
$ 125-
$ 92,475
$ 36,990
$129,465
$ 0.1368
3,785,000
$ 333,000
$ 33,300
$ 0.00
29,714,300 kg
$9,817,500
$1,750,000
-
150
125.34
$ 4,386
2.5
$ 8,750
$ 1,665
$11,615,601
$ 4,646,240
$16,261,841
$ 0.1227
58
-------
CLARIFICATION
COST
ELEMENTS
3,785 LITERS/DAY
OPERATION
378,500 LITERS/DAY
OPERATION
Cost/Liter FWB Base*
$0.0056
$0.00024
* Cost considered same as initial separation
59
-------
FILTRATION
COST 3,785 LITERS /DAY
ELEMENTS OPERATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Equipment
a. Capacity, Liters per Minute
b. Cost
c. Yearly Depreciation
Building
a. Area, Square Meters
b. Cost
c. Yearly Depreciation
Power
a. HP Required
b. Kwhr Required
c. Yearly Cost
Labor
a. Daily Manhours
b. Yearly Cost
Maintenance
a. 5% of Capital Depreciation
Supplies
a. Pad and Aid
Subtotal
Overhead
a. 40% of Subtotal
Cost for Filtration
Cost/Liter FWB Base
13.25
$ 7,800
$ 780
4.65
$ 3,000
$ 120
1.0
1.09
$ 41
2.0
$ 5,000
$ 39
$ 1,500
$ 7,480
$ 2,992
$10,472
$ 0.0111
378,500 LITERS /DAY
OPERATION
454
$ 26,000
$ 2,600
9.29
$ 6,000
$ 240
5.0
5.25
$ 248
3.0
$ 10,500
$ 130
$ 8,000
$ 21,718
$rt £_ ft *7
8,687
$ 30,405
$ 0.00024
60
-------
DEASHING (ION EXCHANGE vs ELECTRODIALYSIS)
COST
ELEMENTS
3,785 LITERS/DAY 378,500 LITERS/DAY
OPERATION OPERATION
IE
ED
IE
ED
1.
2.
3.
4.
Equipment
a. System Cost
b. Yearly Depreciation
Building
a. Area, Square Meters
b. Cost
c. Yearly Depreciation
Labor
a.
b.
Daily Manhours
Yearly Cost
Power
a. HP Required
b. Kwhr Required
c. Yearly Cost
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
Maintenance
a. 5% Capital Deprecia
Water
a. Yearly Cost
Chemicals
a. Acid
b. Caustic
c. Yearly Cost
Subtotal
Overhead
a. 40% Subtotal
Yearly Cost for Deashing
Cost Per Liter FWB Base
$13,000 $65,000 $200,000 $611,000
1,300 6,500 20,000 61,100
23.23 23.23 92.94 92.94
$15,000 $15,000 $ 60,000 $ 90,000
$ 600 $ 600 $ 2,400 $ 3,600
1.33 1.33 8.0 8.0
$ 3,325 $ 3,325 $ 28,000 $ 28,000
0.5 - 10.0
746/yr 17,000/yr 52,220/yr 2.1 Mil/yr
$ 19 $ 425 $ 1,306 $ 52,500
$ 65 $ 325 $ 1,000 $ 3,055
$ 31 $ 100 $ 3,100 $ 10,000
$ 1,167
$ 3,373
$ 4,540
$ 9,880
$ 1,000
$12,275
$116,700
$337,300
$454,000
$509,806
$100,000
$258,255
$ 3,952 $ 4,910 $203,922 $103,302
$13,832 $17,185 $713,728 $361,557
$ 0.0146 $ 0.0183 $ 0.0054 $ 0.0027
61
-------
SUMMARY OF FWB BASE PROCESSING ECONOMICS
COST
ELEMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reparation
Ultrafiltration
Fermentation (includes ingredients)
Clarification
Filtration
Deashing
a. ED
b. IE
Processing Cost/Liter FWB Base
0.0056
0.0119
0.1368
0.0056
0.0111
0.0146
0.0182
0.0146*
0.1856
0.0024
0.0013
0.1227
0.00024
0.00024
0.0027
0.0027*
0.0054
0.1275
* Method Selected
62
-------
FORMULATING COST
(Based on National Market Test Formulation)
COST 3,785 LITERS/DAY 378,500 LITERS/DAY
ELEMENTS 250 DAY OPERATION 350 DAY OPERATION
1. Flavoring Material
a. 946,250 Liter *3.18%* $119,159
$3.96/Liter
b. 132,475,000 Liters *3.18%*
$3.17/Liter $13,354,275
2. Invert Syrup
a. 946,250 Liters *8.25%* $206,093
$2.65/Liter
b. 132,475,000 Liters *8.25%*
$1.85/Liter $20,218,997
3.
4.
5.
6.
Malic Acid
a. 946,250 Liters *0.0026
$15.42/Kg.
b. 132,475,000 Liters
*0.0026 Kg/Liter
$11. 00 /Kg.
Alcohol Adjustment Water
Total Formulation Costs
Costs per Liter Formulated
Kg. /Liter
37,937
$ 3,788,785
No cost, assuming feremented to
proper alcohol level.
$363,189
Wine $ 0.3691
$37,362,057
0.2712
One Liter FWB Base =1.04 Liters Formulated Wine Product
63
-------
CAKBONATION
COST 3
ELEMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Equipment
a. System Cost
b. Yearly Depreciation
Building
a. Area, Square Meters
b. Yearly Depreciation
Labor
a. Daily Manhours
b. Yearly Cost
Carbon Dioxide
a. Quantity Gas per Liter
b. Yearly Quantity, Liter
c. Cost per Liter C0£
d. Yearly Cost
Power
a. HP Required
b, Kwhr Required
c. Yearly Cost
Maintenance
a. 5% of Yearly Capital
Depreciation
Subtotal
Overhead
a. 40% Subtotal
Yearly Cost for Carbonation
Cost Per Liter Flavored Wine
,785 LITERS /DAY
OPERATION
$ 7,500
750
14
$ 360
3.0
$ 7,500
1.8 Volumes
1,958,738
$ 0.0030
$ 5,830
3.0
2.97
$149
$38
$14,626
$ 5,851
$20,478
$ .0216
378,500 LITERS/DAY
OPERATION
$ 55,000
5,000
186
$ 4,800
3.0
$ 7,500
1.8 Liters C02/ LITER
274,223,250
$ 0.00030
$ 81,128
20.0
18.91
$946
$275
$100,148
$ 40,059
$140,207
$ 0.001018
64
-------
BOTTLING
COST 3,785 LITERS /DAY
ELEMENTS OPERATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Equipment
a. Filler Cost
b. Yearly Depreciation
Building
a. Area, Square Meters
b. Yearly Depreciation
Labor
a. Daily Manhours
b. Yearly Cost
Bottles
a. Yearly Quantity
b. Cost per Bottle
c. Yearly Cost
Caps
a. Yearly Quantity
b. Cost per Cap
c. Yearly Cost
Power
a. HP Required
b. Kwhr Required
c. Yearly Cost
$ 25,000
$ 2,500
28
720
8.0
$ 20,000
$984,100
$ 0.2527
$248,682
$984,100
$ 0.0134
$ 13, 187
1.0
1.10
$ 55
Maintenance
a. 5% Yearly Capital Depreciation $ 125
Subtotal
Overhead
a. 40% of Subtotal
Yearly Costs for Packaging
Cost per Liter Flavored Wine
$285,269
$114,108
$399,377
$ 0.4058
378,500 LITERS/DAY
OPERATION
$ 1,000,000
100,000
465
12,000
8.0
$ 28,000
$137,774,000
$ 0.1969
$ 27,127,700
$137,774,000
$ Oi0112
$ 1,543,069
40.0
36.29
2,540
5,000
$ 28,818,309
$ 11,527,324
$ 40,345,633
0.2928
65
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-189
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
WINE PRODUCTION FROM CHEESE WHEY
5. REPORT DATE
October 1979 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Gaylord M. Palmer
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Foremost McKesson, Inc.
Dublin, California 94566
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S-803863
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report 10/75 - 6/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The objective of this project was to demonstrate commercial feasibility of
producing an alcoholic beverage by wine yeast fermentation of supplemented
cheese and cottage cheese wheys.
Results indicated that the preferred processing route was (1) fractionation
of the whey into protein concentrate and permeate by ultrafiltration;
(2) supplementation of permeate with twenty two percent dextrose on the
permeate weight; (3) fermentation in stirred fermentors for seven to ten
days at 20°-22°C.; (4) clarification of the ferment by centrifugal means
followed by pressure filtration; (5) demineralization of the ferment by
ion exchange; (6) formulation of the beverage by addition of natural fruit
flavor concentrates, invert syrups, malic acid, and water to standardize
alcohol content at about eight percent by volume; (7) polishing filtration
through diatomaceous earth and a 0.45 micron membrane filter; (8) carbona-
tion with two volumes of carbon dioxide and (9) bottling with a pressure
retaining cap.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Food Industry
Cheese
Byproduct
Economics
Whey
Wine Production
96 B
98 H
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
74
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220.1 (Rev. 4-77)
66
* U.S. GOVERNMENT HUNTING OFFICE, 1979 -657-146/5479
------- |