Cảm Quan Sữa

J. Dairy Sci.
100:9966–9986
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13031
© American Dairy Science Association®, 2017.
A 100-Year Review: Sensory analysis of milk1

A. N. Schiano, W. S. Harwood, and M. A. Drake2
Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh 27695
ABSTRACT documentation of evaluations to successfully address

areas of concern.
Evaluation of the sensory characteristics of food Though formal sensory analysis as we know it today
products has been, and will continue to be, the ulti- is a relatively new practice, sensory measures of food
mate method for evaluating product quality. Sensory quality have been practiced and documented through-
quality is a parameter that can be evaluated only by out history (see Appendix Table A1). As early as the
humans and consists of a series of tests or tools that 1800s, studies focused on understanding human psycho-
can be applied objectively or subjectively within the metrics (the study of quantitatively explaining human
constructs of carefully selected testing procedures and perceptions and decision making) and psychology as
parameters. Depending on the chosen test, evaluators well as the statistical relevance on which those stimuli
are able to probe areas of interest that are intrinsic should be judged (Fechner, 1860; Thurstone, 1931).
product attributes (e.g., flavor profiles and off-flavors) Eventually, those theoretical practices gave way to a
as well as extrinsic measures (e.g., market penetration practical desire for understanding consumer percep-
and consumer perception). This review outlines the tions, especially as they applied to food. By the 1940s,
literature pertaining to relevant testing procedures and affective consumer testing approaches, in conjunction
studies of the history of sensory analysis of fluid milk. with the US Army Corps of Engineers’ 9-point hedonic
In addition, evaluation methods outside of traditional scale methodologies for measuring acceptability (Pery-
sensory techniques and future outlooks on the subject am and Pilgrim, 1957), had become a regular practice
of sensory analysis of fluid milk are explored and pre- among many US food companies. Sensory evaluation
sented. of milk traditionally has been based on the identifica-
Key words: sensory analysis, flavor, fluid milk tion of off-flavors or defects. The dairy product score-
card for fluid milk quality, which was based on defect
INTRODUCTION identification, was first proposed by the Federal Dairy
Division in the early 1900s, although several scorecards
Sensory evaluation is critical for every application of relating to milk handling and cleanliness were in circu-
milk. It is necessary to understand the sensory qualities lation well before (North, 1917; Harding, 1921). Newer
of milk in part because of the widespread familiarity of mainstream sensory approaches have been applied to
fluid milk and its typical sensory profile. Sensory evalu- fluid milk research and investigations into predicting
ation of the flavor or at least the aroma of raw milk and preserving acceptable milk quality. This review ad-
can identify handling or production problems before dresses a holistic view of the sensory history of fluid
milk is processed. In the processing and preparation of milk as well as the constituents, processes, and other
commercial milk products, fluid milk may be exposed factors that have contributed, and continue to contrib-
to multiple unit operations at varying temperatures. In ute, to the sensory properties of fluid milk.
turn, sensory evaluation of the finished milk product
helps identify deviations in processing or handling. In
SENSORY EVALUATION TECHNIQUES
many cases, the deviation of quality may not be signifi-
cant day-to-day changes but rather a drift over time, Quality Judging
which requires frequent sensory evaluation and strong
The first standardized method for the sensory evalu-
ation of dairy products was dairy product judging and
Received April 15, 2017. the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA)
Accepted July 7, 2017. scorecard system (Clark and Costello, 2008). As brand-
1
This review is part of a special issue of the Journal of Dairy Science
commissioned to celebrate 100 years of publishing (1917–2017). ing became an established concept in the early 20th
2
Corresponding author: [email protected] century, companies began to turn to officially recog-
9966
100-YEAR REVIEW: SENSORY ANALYSIS OF MILK 9967
Table 1. Undesirable flavors in milk, 19341
Defect Description
Barny, cowy Conveys the suggestion of an unclean, poorly ventilated cow stable
Bitter Associated with milk from cows far advanced in lactation
Cardboard Resembles freshly dampened cardboard
Cooked Suggestive of boiled milk; results from improper pasteurization
Disinfectant Differs by disinfectant
Feedy, silage Characteristic cleanliness after expectoration distinguishes feedy from barny and cowy flavors
Flat, watery A reference may be made by adding water to a sample of milk
Garlic, leek, onion Characterized by intensity and offensiveness
Lacking richness Sufficient flavor but lacking in creamy smoothness and exhibiting slightly greater sweetness; found in milk from
which butterfat has been removed
Malty Malty, walnut, or maple flavor, which may be attributable to the action of microorganisms
Metallic Puckery feeling obtained when a piece of tinfoil or new metal is rotated within the mouth
Musty, stale Suggests a damp, moldy, poorly ventilated cellar
Rancid, strong Undesirable; often sour, soapy, or bitter
Salty Associated with milk from cows far along in the lactation period or cows with mastitis
Sour Detectable by odor sooner than taste due to fermentation
Unclean Characterized by an unclean, unpleasant, and unwholesome aftertaste
1
Data from Nelson and Trout (1934).
nized standards of quality to promote their quality to defects, it typically is assigned a flavor score based on
consumers. In 1917, when the first National Collegiate the most serious defect (Alvarez, 2009).
Dairy Products Evaluation Contest was held for milk, Many of the sensory defects found on the modern
a USDA-developed, ADSA-approved scorecard was scorecard have remained unchanged from the 1934 ver-
used that considered flavor as well as bacterial content, sion, although some changes have been made. Due to
sediment, temperature, acidity, and bottle and cap ap- modern dairy sanitation measures, cowy, barny, and
pearance (Clark and Costello, 2008). In addition to the unclean flavors are rarely found in samples to be judged
ASDA scorecard system, several other scoring systems and therefore are not usually printed on the scorecard,
were used in the 1920s and 1930s, and there was often and musty/stale has been removed as a defect entirely.
debate within the industry about how scorecards should Astringent, a defect added after 1934, is also rarely
be used. By the early 1930s, the ADSA scorecard had encountered and not usually printed (Alvarez, 2009).
become the standard scorecard for judging fluid milk Cardboard and disinfectant attributes have been re-
(Nelson and Trout, 1934; see Table 1). moved from the scorecard and are now considered part
Traditional quality judging techniques are defect of the defect foreign, a defect term used to refer to
oriented and use 1 or 2 trained judges to document atypical off-flavors or aromas from varied sources not
defects rather than profile the intensities of sensory at- commonly found in milk. The metallic defect has been
tributes. By this approach, a large number of samples clarified as metal oxidized, and light oxidized has been
can be rapidly screened for recognized sensory defects. added as a defect. The defect cooked, once perceived
Early sensory studies on milk used quality judging as a severe defect before the widespread pasteurization
techniques because better techniques were not yet of milk, is now viewed with far less criticism (Alva-
available (Weaver et al., 1935; Hening and Dahlberg, rez, 2009). When dairy judging contests first began,
1939; Kratzer et al., 1987). These tests were designed raw whole milk was evaluated. Eventually, pasteurized
to link a designated sensory defect with a specific root whole milk and, subsequently, pasteurized 2% milk re-
cause. Quality judging techniques are useful for on-the- placed raw whole milk in dairy judging contests (Clark
spot evaluations of quality in industrial settings and and Costello, 2008). Lacking richness, a defect from the
for judging dairy competitions, but they are of limited 1934 scorecard associated with skim milk, has been re-
utility for research for numerous reasons that have been moved from the modern scorecard, perhaps due to the
reviewed previously (Drake, 2004, 2007; Alvarez, 2009). change to evaluating reduced-fat milks instead of whole
The modern ADSA milk and cream scorecard grades milks. Flat, a term on the current scorecard, was added
milk on a 0-to-10 scale, placing milks into categories of to recognize the rare adulteration of milk with water.
excellent (10), good (7–9), fair (4–6), poor (1–3), and Descriptive sensory analysis, developed in the 1950s,
unacceptable (0; see Table 2; Alvarez, 2009). Points are has slowly replaced quality judging techniques for all
deducted for specific defects and their perceived inten- published research due to its versatility, specificity,
sities. In cases where a milk sample exhibits multiple and statistical robustness. Descriptive analysis uses
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

9968 SCHIANO ET AL.
a group of 6 to 12 trained individuals to document with that of a descriptive analysis panel. Given the
intensities of the sensory attributes of a product (Table same amount of training, the descriptive analysis panel
3). Claassen and Lawless (1992) compared the ability was more sensitive to differences than the traditional
of a defect-oriented system panel to detect differences judging panel. Although traditional quality judging
in light-oxidized, metallic-oxidized, and rancid milk methods imply hedonics, they are not good indicators
Table 2. The 2005 ADSA scoring guide for off-flavors and defects of milk and cream1
Flavor defect Description Training reference

Acid Sour off-flavor due to acid-producing organisms such as Add 6–7 mL of a 10% lactic acid solution to ~600
Lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris mL of milk.
Astringent2 Puckering sensation on tongue and lining of the mouth; NA3
rare in milk but associated with rancidity
Cowy/barny/unclean2 Distinct cow breath–like odor and unpleasant, medicinal, NA
or chemical aftertaste; suggestive of a poorly maintained
barn
Bitter Persistent bitter taste detected at the base of the tongue; Add 2–2.5 mL of a 0.1% quinine sulfate solution to
commonly caused by specific weeds consumed as part of ~600 mL of milk.
roughage by cows or by proteolysis of milk proteins by
microorganisms (especially psychrotrophic bacteria)
Cooked Sulfurous, heated, caramelized, or scorched flavors Heat a working quantity of milk in a vessel to 80°C
and hold for 1 min.
Feed Aromatic taints resulting from cows consuming some Add 4–7 mL of a prepared “tea” (brew alfalfa in
feeds within a critical time frame before milking; have a water) to 600 mL of milk.
characteristic cleanliness note and a mild aftertaste that
disappears quickly
Fermented/fruity May resemble the odor of sauerkraut, vinegar, pineapple, Mix 6 parts pineapple juice and 1 part vinegar. Add
apple, or other fruit; commonly caused by the growth of 3–4 mL of mixture to 600 mL of milk.
microorganisms
Flat Simulated by adding water to a sample of milk and Add ~20% water to 2% milk.
noticing the alteration of mouthfeel of the mixture
Foreign/chemical Chemical flavor that may be caused by improper use Add 2 mL of a 200-μL/L chlorine solution to 600
of detergents, disinfectants, and sanitizers; exposure mL of milk immediately before presentation.
to gasoline or kerosene fumes; or contamination from
insecticides or medicines
Garlic/onion Weedy, pungent odors and somewhat persistent aftertaste Add 2 mL of a 1% garlic powder mix (in water) to
the milk; infuse a clove of garlic for 2 h and then
either decant the milk or retrieve the clove.
Lacks freshness Stale, chalky flavor, lack of sweetness Open a carton of milk and store in the refrigerator
for ≥7 d; use an unopened carton 1 wk beyond the
pull date; add 10–15 g of skim milk powder to 600
mL of milk.
Malty Suggestive of malt or Grape Nuts cereal; generally caused Add 1 g of malt powder to 1 L of warm milk; add
by growth of Streptococcus lactis ssp. maltigenes 15 g of Grape Nuts to 100 mL of milk and infuse
for 20–30 min before adding aliquots to ~600 mL
of milk.
Oxidized, light Burnt, burnt protein/feather-like, cabbage-like, medicinal, Transfer milk to a clear glass bottle and place on a
or chemical off-flavors resulting from light exposure windowsill exposed to direct, bright sunlight for a
duration proportional to the intensity of the defect.
Oxidized, metal Metallic, oily, cappy, cardboard, stale, tallowy, painty, or Immerse a copper penny or wire in milk overnight;
fishy off-flavor commonly induced by the catalytic action add several drops of 1% copper sulfate solution to
of certain metals; characterized by a puckery mouthfeel 600 mL of milk and leave in a refrigerator for 24 h.
Rancid Baby burp, feta cheese, or butyric acid aromas formed as Add 0.5 g of lipase powder to ~600 mL of milk,
a result of lipid hydrolysis agitate, and hold at 21°C for 1 h; add a few drops of
dilute butyric acid solution to ~600 mL of milk.
Salty Commonly associated with milk from cows in advanced Dissolve 0.25–0.5 g of table salt in 600 mL of milk.
stages of lactation or with clinical mastitis, resulting in
an increase of NaCl in the milk and a decrease of other
mineral salts
Unclean Offensive odor suggesting extreme staleness, mustiness, Combine rancid, fruity, and bitter milks; mix
dirty socks, or foul stable air; may develop due to the spoiled milk (≥7–10 d beyond sell by date) with
action of certain psychrotrophic bacteria fresh milk.
1
Data from Alvarez (2009).
2
Uncommon defect; therefore, not printed on the 2005 ADSA scorecard.
3
NA = not applicable or not listed.

Table 3. Trained panel sensory attributes for fluid milk1
Term Definition Reference

Aroma intensity The overall orthonasal effect of the sample NA2
Sweet aromatic Sweet aromatics generally associated with materials Vanillin, caramelized sugar
also having a sweet taste
Cooked Aromatics associated with cooked milk Skim milk heated to 85°C for 30 min
Sulfur/eggy Aromatics associated with sulfurous compounds Boiled egg, H2S bubbled through water, freshly struck
match
Milk fat/lactone Aromatics characteristic of milk fat, lactones, and Fresh coconut meat, heavy cream, δ-dodecalactone (40
coconut mg/kg)
Caramelized Aromatics associated with caramel Sweetened condensed milk, burnt sugar
Butterscotch Aromatics associated with butterscotch candies Butterscotch candies
Feed/malty/silage Aromatics associated with a mixture of grains and Corn silage, malt extract, freshly kilned malt, 2/3
fermented hay and cattle feed methyl butanal
Grassy Green, sweet aromatics associated with cut grass Fresh-cut grass, hay, cis-3-hexanol (50 mg/kg)
Cowy/barny/phenolic Aromas associated with barns and stock trailers; Band-Aids, cresol (160 mg/kg)
indicative of animal sweat and waste
Metallic/serum Aromatics associated with metals or juices of raw or Fresh raw beef steak or ground beef or juices from
rare beef seared beef steak
Fruity Aromas associated with fruit (e.g., pineapple, Fresh pineapple, fresh strawberries
strawberry)
Cardboard Aromatics associated with the aroma of wet cardboard Wet cardboard
Carroty Aromatics associated with canned carrots Canned carrots
Sweet taste Fundamental taste sensation elicited by sugars Sucrose (5% in water)
Bitter taste Bitter basic taste Caffeine (0.08% in water)
Metallic mouthfeel The aftertaste or feeling on the oral surfaces Copper sulfate diluted (1%) in water or milk
associated with CuSO4 solution and many nonnutritive
sweeteners
Opacity Visual term denoting the degree of opacity Water = 0.0; whole-fat milk = 12
Yellow color Degree of yellow color visible to the human eye Behr paint chips: Ultra-Pure White (PPU18-06) = 0.0;
Glass of Milk (P260-1u) = 3.5
Astringency Chemical feeling factor on the tongue or oral cavity Alum (1% in water)
described as puckering or dry
Viscosity Amount of force required to slurp 4.93 mL (1 tsp.) of Water = 1.0; heavy cream = 3.2
liquid from a spoon over the lips
1
Sources: Russell et al. (2006), Croissant et al. (2007), Brothersen et al. (2016), Lee et al. (2017), McCarthy et al. (2017a), and Yeh et al. (2017a).
2
NA = not applicable.
of consumer liking (McBride and Hall, 1979; Bodyfelt, simple tests that aim to identify whether a significant
1981; Sidel et al., 1981; Drake, 2004). Lawless and difference exists between 2 or more samples, and re-
Claassen (1993) compared the correlation of consumer sults can easily be ascertained by referencing published
liking scores with data generated by traditional dairy significance tables based on the binomial distribution
judging and descriptive analysis panels and reported (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). The most common dis-
that descriptive analysis was more likely to correlate crimination tests used in the study of fluid milk have
with consumer liking (although the method itself does been paired-preference, duo-trio, and triangle testing,
not attempt to predict consumer liking). Defect quality although tetrad testing has also been used (Carlisle,
judging remains a useful industrial quality test; its limi- 2014). Bierman et al. (1956) used triangle testing meth-
tations and the role of modern sensory techniques have ods to evaluate whether irradiation treatments resulted
been reviewed elsewhere (Drake, 2004, 2007; Bodyfelt in noticeable differences in milk and cream products.
et al., 2008). In addition, Modler et al. (1977) used triangle tests to
determine whether consumers could notice differences
Analytical Sensory Tools between milks with varying feed flavor intensities fol-
lowed by paired-preference tests to determine whether
Analytical sensory tests are objective sensory tests noticeable differences were preferred. Consumers could
that document sensory profiles, sample variability, or distinguish control 2% milks from milks with pro-
other product features free from liking considerations. nounced feed flavors, and they preferred control milk
These methods can be used to objectively profile prod- samples. Difference testing is still widely used in qual-
ucts and have been applied extensively to fluid milk. ity control capacities for the milk industry as well as in
Among the most common analytical sensory tests academic research (Lee et al., 2016; McCarthy et al.,
used are discrimination tests. Discrimination tests are 2017a; Yeh et al., 2017a).

9970 SCHIANO ET AL.
Descriptive analysis techniques are valuable methods ing question type pertaining to product development
for quantitatively and objectively profiling the sensory is the just-about-right scale. These scales are an excel-
attributes of fluid milk. Descriptive analysis requires lent tool for understanding the influence of individual
training of panelists before data collection (Chambers sensory attributes or product qualities on overall lik-
et al., 2004). Panel training may take several hours; ing. They evaluate individual attributes of a product
however, this extensive training is done in the hopes and deviation from just-about-right categorization to
that the panel may produce objective data that are determine effects of those attributes on overall liking.
consistent and sensitive, analogous to an instrument. Just-about-right scales have been used extensively in
Many fluid milk studies have used descriptive analysis studies investigating consumer acceptance of functional
to evaluate and differentiate samples (Claassen and or flavored milk beverages, such as probiotic milks (Vil-
Lawless, 1992; Lawless and Claassen, 1993; Phillips et legas et al., 2010), regionally flavored milks (Zhi et al.,
al., 1995a; Watson and McEwan, 1995; Chapman and 2016), and coffee-flavored milks (Li et al., 2014, 2015a),
Boor, 2001; Francis et al., 2005; Chung et al., 2008; as well as different pasteurization methods (Chapman
McCarthy et al., 2017a; Lee et al., 2017). Furthermore, and Boor, 2001; Lee et al., 2017).
descriptive analysis data can be paired with consumer Though no technological advance or survey ques-
panel data in a technique known as preference map- tionnaire can ever truly replace the human evalua-
ping to better understand drivers of liking in a product tion of food products in determining sensory qualities
(MacFie and Thomson, 1988; Thompson et al., 2004). and preferences, surveys provide a cost-effective way
to reach large numbers of consumers. Several studies
Consumer-Focused Sensory Tests: have exposed that perception has a significant effect
Affective Sensory Tests on the eventual sensory evaluation of food and bever-
age products (Liem et al., 2012; Norton et al., 2013;
Evaluation of consumer acceptance has been inte- Fernqvist and Ekelund, 2014). Survey techniques can
gral to ensuring the acceptability of various fluid milk effectively probe these perceptions in several ways.
products and treatments since the inception of hedonic Simple usage and attitude questions can be asked and
scaling methods in the 1940s. Consumer tests may be liking and purchase intent related to concepts or photos
administered many ways with fluid milk, but central can be examined to elucidate consumer tendencies, as
location tests and home usage tests are the tests most exemplified in studies by Allen and Goddard (2012). In
frequently used. True to their title, consumer evalua- addition, surveys can apply complex statistical designs
tions are administered to untrained populations who to design tradeoff exercises or product optimization ex-
represent the true consumer base of a product. Early ercises such as maximum difference scaling or conjoint
studies on the hedonic qualities of fluid milk attempted analysis; these methods have been applied directly to
to extrapolate consumer acceptance from trained pan- fluid milk studies (Bai et al., 2007; Amadou and Baky,
elists; however, deficiencies in the ability of trained 2015; McCarthy et al., 2017b). These survey methods
panelists to predict the preferences of consumer popu- give insight into the relative importance of product
lations were well documented (Bierman et al., 1956; attributes and help identify factors that significantly
Ellis, 1969). Practical uses of consumer tests include influence consumer choice.
examining the effects of various processing methodolo- Early initiatives in probing consumer attitudes of
gies (Horner et al., 1980; Gandy et al., 2008; Lee et al., milk related strongly to understanding consumer beliefs
2017), flavor additions or fortifications (Campbell et as they pertained to milk nutritional qualities, with
al., 2003; Achanta et al., 2007), and shelf life (Hansen little focus on relation to sensory properties or hedonics
et al., 1980) of fluid milks to maintain adequate con- (Martin et al., 2005). Although these insights mirror
sumer acceptance and lead new product development. beliefs of the time, they ultimately convey more utili-
Consumer studies may also focus on qualitative as- tarian information about milk consumption. With the
pects of the consumer experience. Qualitative consumer growth of consumer-focused testing in the 1950s, survey
data are often collected in the form of free-response objectives became more centered on the psychology of
comments, check-all-that-apply questions, or, in some the consumer; however, there remained a perceived lack
cases, organized interview methods such as focus of focus on understanding flavor perceptions in milk
groups. In studies of light-induced oxidation effects on (Trout, 1956). In a study of milk consumers, Swope
consumer liking of 2% milks, Walsh et al. (2015) used and Nolan (1959) reported that taste, not nutrition,
emotional check-all-that-apply questions and found was the leading factor in consumption of milk follow-
that significantly higher frequencies of terms such as ing a questioning of 1,393 milk consumers, echoing the
happy, safe, warm, and whole corresponded with higher need for consumer insight in a changing market. Ef-
hedonic scores. One particularly useful consumer test- forts to screen milk products for flavor defects played
a large part in assuaging these concerns for the general Instrumental Analysis of Flavors
consumer. By the late 1960s, sentiments about fluid
milk had become increasingly influenced by factors Sensory techniques have developed alongside instru-
beyond the milk itself. A marketing research survey mental techniques. Although instruments do not mea-
report by the USDA (Fallert, 1971) revealed that milk sure flavor, instrumental data can go hand in hand with
consumers were primarily influenced by brand recog- sensory data and be applied to more clearly identify
nition and availability in their purchasing tendencies. sources of flavors. As new instrumental methods for
Similar tendencies have been observed in subsequent identifying and quantifying volatile compounds have
decades with surveys focused on certain aspects of the developed, they have been applied as tools for under-
final fluid milk product—for example, rBST free milk standing the mechanisms behind sensory differences.
(Puetz, 2013), organic milk (Brooks and Lusk, 2010; However, no instrumental method can stand on its own
Schroeter et al., 2016), and locally farmed milk (Pirog, without sensory data because, ultimately, the human
2004)—many of which do not play a significant role in palate is more sensitive and able to grasp complex
increasing sensory acceptance when not explicitly re- sensations far more effectively than any technology
vealed to the consumer (Grobe et al., 1996; Boppanna, developed.
2007; Kouřimská et al., 2014). Volatile compounds are the source of aromas in fluid
Conjoint analysis can clarify the dichotomy between milk, so GC is an excellent tool for identifying possible
preconceived perceptions and actual sensory evaluation. sources of milk flavors. Partition chromatography was
Conjoint analysis uses discrete-choice data of tradeoff one of the predecessors to CG, developed in the 1940s.
scenarios to build multiattribute utility models for the Prior to partition chromatography, paper chromatogra-
prediction of consumer choice in a hypothetical market phy methods were sometimes used to analyze volatiles
(Green et al., 2001). Although conjoint analysis tech- in milk; however, these methods were extremely time
niques have been used in marketing capacities since the consuming, required large sample volumes, and were
1970s, modern computational strength allows for more difficult to reproduce (Wong and Patton, 1962). An
streamlined and even adaptive approaches at gauging early, pre-GC-olfactometry method for determining fla-
consumer perception of different product attributes vor significance of volatile compounds used a threshold
(Cunningham et al., 2010). Adaptive conjoint methods test that involved spraying samples into the mouths of
use algorithms to generally remove undesirable concepts 5 trained panelists, with the threshold determined to be
for a given consumer as the ballot progresses. Based on the 50% positive response level (Patton and Josephson,
previous answers, these adapted choices are weighted 1957).
depending on their position in the survey and are de- Modern GC was developed in 1952. Methods papers
signed to better understand differentiating features of published after the development of GC technology at-
product concepts using less time, a smaller number of tempted to standardize sampling procedures and mini-
questions, and a smaller number of panelists compared mize contamination from sources outside the sample
with traditional conjoint analysis. Using conjoint anal- (Sundararajan et al., 1967). During the 1960s and 1970s,
ysis, Bai et al. (2007) identified attributes such as low many dairy studies used GC or GC-MS technology to
fat content, HTST pasteurization, and natural taste as focus on feed flavors in milk, measuring the volatiles
drivers of liking for fluid milk. In a study by Boesch of the milk, blood, or urine of cows fed different feeds
(2013), Swiss milk consumers preferred milk that was (Loney et al., 1963; Bassette et al., 1966; Gordon and
GMO free (a particular concern) and of local origin. Morgan, 1972). Milk fat flavor and heat-induced flavor
More recently, McCarthy et al. (2017b) used a con- changes, very relevant to industrial processing, were
joint analysis survey with 702 dairy consumers followed also studied (Scanlan et al., 1968). Other efforts sought
by individual interviews with 172 consumers to probe to quantify levels of volatile compounds identified in
consumer key drivers for purchase, beliefs, and values milk to get a baseline for further research (Bassette and
for milk compared with plant-based beverages. Tast- Ward, 1974).
ing has not traditionally been a component of conjoint At this time, descriptive sensory analysis was still
analysis in foods. Some recent studies have examined very new, and there were no clearly established meth-
the validity of a tasting component in conjoint analysis, ods for combining instrumental and sensory data. As
although none have yet done so in relation to fluid milk quality judging was still a common research practice,
specifically (Vickers, 1993; Haddad et al., 2007). Use some studies attempted to relate instrumental data to
of innovative survey methods for understanding con- the flavor scores of the milk assigned by trained dairy
sumer perception, such as conjoint, is likely to expand judges. Keller and Kleyn (1972) related total peak ar-
in coming years because of the insight they give into eas of gas chromatograms with haylage flavor (a feed
the sensory experience of consumers. flavor defect) scores, finding a correlation between total
9972 SCHIANO ET AL.
chromatogram area and intensity of off-flavor. Reddy Visual, texture, and flavor attributes of milk are
et al. (1967) found that methyl sulfide concentrations all influenced by milk fat (Phillips et al., 1995a; Mc-
were negatively correlated with flavor quality scores for Carthy et al., 2017a). Descriptive sensory analysis of
raw milk and that commercial pasteurization removed fluid milks of varying fat percentages demonstrated
95% of the methyl sulfide. These papers suggested that that opacity, thickness, mouthcoating, viscosity, milk
GC could be used as an objective method for quan- fat flavor, and yellow color increased with fat content
tifying off-flavors in fluid milk, not fully taking into (Phillips et al., 1995a; Francis et al., 2005; McCarthy et
account the limitations of GC. As descriptive analysis al., 2017a). Nonfat milk was described as more chalky,
became more common, it fulfilled the need for an objec- less viscous, less sweet, and higher in sour aromatic
tive measure of off-flavors and allow for more robust flavor than whole milk (Francis et al., 2005). When
correlations of instrumental and sensory data. milks were tasted without visual cues, panelists were
Difference testing was also frequently used to provide not able to perceive texture differences as clearly (Phil-
context for instrumental data. Gordon and Morgan lips et al., 1995a; McCarthy et al., 2017a). Fortifying
(1972) used retronasal and orthonasal duo-trio tests to milk with nonfat dry milk powder increased the viscos-
determine the threshold of principal volatile compounds ity and mouthcoating of reduced-fat milks but did not
detected with GC in feed-flavored milk. Researchers increase the visual whiteness and opacity (Phillips et
were unable to recreate the exact feed flavor by adding al., 1995b). Although texture may play a role in dif-
in isolated volatiles they detected, demonstrating that ferentiation of milk products at very high fat levels,
although GC technology was excellent for detecting and research suggests that visual cues are most important
quantifying volatiles in a sample, it was no substitute for determination of fat content at the lower fat levels
for sensory analyses. Forss (1969) noted in his review typically encountered by consumers (0–4%; Pangborn
the difficulties of interpreting GC data, noting that in and Dunkley, 1964a, b; Pangborn and Giovanni, 1984;
some cases the human nose was the best detector. Pangborn et al., 1985; Mela, 1988; Phillips et al., 1995b;
McCarthy et al., 2017a).
MILK COMPONENTS RELATING Visual and texture cues may account for much of the
TO SENSORY QUALITY consumer ability to distinguish between fat contents of
milk, but research has also demonstrated that milk fat
Fluid bovine milk has been lauded throughout his- contributes to flavor (McCarthy et al., 2017a). Milk
tory for its nutritional qualities, especially in the ado- fat comprises 98% 26–54 carbon triglycerides and 2%
lescent demographic. However, the macronutrient and volatile lactones, ketones, and aldehydes, which con-
mineral components are not the only factors that help tribute most of the flavor (Schaap and Badings, 1990).
determine the sensory profile of milk. The process of Creaminess—a desirable consumer attribute for dairy
bringing milk to grocery vendors includes several fac- products, including milk—is defined by high-fat dairy
tors such as the feed for cattle, the cattle themselves, products with cream aroma, butter aroma, and sweet
pasteurization techniques, vitamin fortification, and aromatic/vanilla flavor, indicating that desirable fla-
packaging. All of these factors may affect the flavor of vor attributes are closely associated with fat content
fluid milk. (Richardson-Harman et al., 2000). Consumers rated
1% milks as thicker and creamier after the addition of
Macronutrient Components vanilla extract (Lawless and Clark, 1992). Milk fat has
been reported to improve the aftertaste of milk; this
The sensory perception of fluid milk is heavily influ- is associated with increased consumer liking because
enced by the balance of its macronutrient components. unpleasant aftertaste is a driver of dislike for fluid skim
Milk fat plays a critical role in the sensory perception milk (Porubcan and Vickers, 2005). Higher fat milks
of fluid milk. Milk fat is preferred by all consumer had more sweet-related attributes in the aftertaste
segments at varying levels and is considered to be a compared with lower fat milks as well as fewer cooked
contributor to creaminess, which is positively corre- flavors (Francis et al., 2005). Tepper and Kuang (1996)
lated with product liking (Richardson-Harman et al., used multidimensional scaling techniques to evaluate
2000; McCarthy et al., 2017a). However, many consum- the effect of addition of natural cream flavor to a skim
ers purchase reduced-fat milk despite a preference for milk base with fat added as bland vegetable oil and
whole milk due to health reasons, and 2% reduced-fat reported that the addition of cream flavor provided the
milk has outsold whole milk every month since January sensation of higher fat content. McCarthy et al. (2017a)
2005 (Brewer et al., 1999; Economic Research Service, conducted qualitative interviews with milk consumers;
2014; Bakke et al., 2016). both skim and 2% milk drinkers reported 2% milk to be

creamier and to have a fuller flavor. In contrast, skim tions were more likely to be affected than flavor. When
milk was described as watery and having a high after- protein content was altered using reverse osmosis, the
taste intensity. In general, milk consumers preferred a SNF content also changed, resulting in significant sen-
slightly higher percentage of milk fat than the milk fat sory differences (lower SNF samples were perceived as
percentage they typically bought but began to dislike watery). The author’s primary concern, however, was
the higher fat milk when the thickness increased too far to investigate the feasibility of protein standardization,
past that of their typically purchased milk. not its effect on sensory qualities of the milk (Poulsen,
In an attempt to understand the contribution of vari- 1978). Later studies investigated the effects of alter-
ous milk attributes to the perception of milk fat, Bom ing protein levels on physical properties of fluid milk
Frøst et al. (2001) used descriptive analysis data to such as freezing point. Sensory differences between
study the synergistic effects of additives to mimic milk samples were minimal and were primarily driven by
fat. They reported that the addition of thickener and visual attributes rather than flavor (Rattray and Jelen,
whitener and the homogenization of milk resulted in 1996; Quiñones et al., 1997, 1998). The vast major-
an increased perception of fat content and suggested ity of research on ultrafiltration of milk over the past
that although whitener and thickener contributed to 50 yr has evaluated the resulting effects on milk as
fattiness, homogenization had only a very slight effect. an ingredient for other dairy products, such as cheese
Adding aroma compounds increased the intensity of and yogurt, or investigated technical aspects of milk
creamy smell and flavor attributes, which were also cor- filtration (Covacevich and Kosikowski, 1978; Yan et al.,
related with milk fat. They reported that creamy smell 1979; Kapsimalis and Zall, 1981; Trachoo and Mistry,
and flavor, sweet taste, thickness (visual and oral), glass 1998; Méthot-Hains et al., 2016). The sensory proper-
coating, and residual mouthfeel all correlated with total ties and consumer acceptance of ultrafiltered milk have
fattiness of milk, as did yellowness to a small degree. not been widely documented.
Protein also contributes to the flavor of fluid milk. Increased availability of cheaper advanced filtration
Protein content of fluid milk can be adjusted by using systems has renewed interest in studies of filtered fluid
the ultrafiltered permeate and retentate of skim milk. milk. Recent studies used sophisticated filtering meth-
Ultrafiltration separates milk components due to mo- ods to investigate differences in the type of protein in
lecular size, with lactose, soluble minerals, and water fluid milk and protein beverage products. Misawa et
passing through a membrane to become the permeate; al. (2016) reported that increasing the level of CN as
larger particles such as CN and whey protein cannot a percentage of true protein in reduced-fat milk had
pass through and become the retentate (Yan et al., more effects on visual sensory attributes than increas-
1979). Today, ultrafiltration can be used to increase ing the percentage of true protein in the milk. Trained
protein content while decreasing the lactose content of panelists detected increased mouthcoating and throat
milk products, resulting in dairy beverages that appeal cling in increased-CN 2% fat milks even when visual at-
to consumer health concerns without added ingredients. tributes of the samples were masked. As the popularity
Other types of membrane fractionation such as micro- of protein-enriched products increases and individual
filtration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis have been protein components of milk increase in value, it is likely
used to fractionate bacteria and spores, somatic cells, that research investigating the sensory changes that
proteins, salts, and water in milk (Brans et al., 2004). result from changing protein levels in milk will increase.
Adjusting the levels of milk components can have huge Lactose is the primary carbohydrate component
effects on the overall flavor of milk and can significantly of fluid milk. It is estimated that 70 to 90% of the
affect consumer liking. As use of these filtration tech- world’s population is lactose intolerant, creating a
nologies has expanded, so has research into the sensory large potential market for commercial lactose-free dairy
qualities of filtered fluid milk. The sensory qualities of products (Harrington and Mayberry, 2008; Adhikari et
adjusted protein levels are of particular interest due al., 2010). Lactose-hydrolyzed milk products became
to growing consumer demand for higher protein dairy commercially available in the 1960s and 1970s. Enzy-
products (Özer and Kirmaci, 2010). matic hydrolysis of lactose via addition of lactase is
Early research on ultrafiltered fluid milk evaluated the process by which lactose reduction traditionally
the effects of protein content on sensory attributes of is achieved and has been shown to produce milk with
milk. Poulsen (1978) noted that fat was standardized less than 0.01% lactose in modern applications (Jelen
for fluid milk products and investigated the feasibility and Tossavanien, 2003). Lactose hydrolysis results in a
of standardizing fluid milk protein content through ul- milk that is sweeter than traditional milk because glu-
trafiltration. He found that varying the protein content cose and galactose are sweeter than lactose (Li et al.,
between 3.1 and 6.4% resulted in no significant sensory 2015b). In an early study on lactose-hydrolyzed milk,
differences and that texture and surface gloss altera- Paige et al. (1975) reported this increased sweet taste
9974 SCHIANO ET AL.
as well as increased staleness and sourness. Rather than Fortification

focusing specifically on sensory properties, however, the
authors’ main focus was evaluating differences in blood Fortification is defined as the process of adding mi-
sugar increase and lactose malabsorption when lactose- cronutrients such as essential vitamins to food. For-
intolerant panelists consumed lactose-hydrolyzed milk tification of fluid milk began in the 1930s and 1940s
as opposed to regular milk (Paige et al., 1975). The when milk provided 10% of American consumer food
consumers compared the lactose-hydrolyzed milk with energy (Yeh et al., 2017b). Vitamin D fortification
fresh whole cow milk using a 7-point scale in which became common after the American Medical Associa-
they could specify only a single attribute in which the tion’s Council on Foods and Nutrition recommended
lactose-hydrolyzed milk differed from the fresh whole the practice to reduce rickets in children (Stevenson,
milk. The type of pasteurization used was not speci- 1955). The popularity of vitamin D-fortified milk led
fied. The sensory methods used in this study were not to fortification of reduced fat and fat-free milks with
validated or repeatable, thus weakening the sensory vitamin A (Public Health Service, 1940). Today, for-
conclusions of the study. tification of reduced-fat milks with vitamin A and D
In a more recent study using trained descriptive is mandatory to replace the fat-soluble vitamins lost
analysis panelists, Chapman et al. (2001) reported that when the cream is skimmed from the milk. Vitamin D
the increased sweetness of lactose-free milks could be fortification of whole milk is optional yet widespread
causing a halo effect, resulting in a perceived increase (PHS/FDA, 2015).
in viscosity. In the United States today, lactose-free Not many studies have examined the sensory ef-
milks are typically ultrapasteurized (UP), resulting fects of vitamin fortification in fluid milk. Hanson and
in more cooked and sulfurous flavors than traditional Metzger (2010) reported that vitamin D fortification
HTST milk, which is a confounding factor when com- of 100 to 250 IU per serving did not affect the sensory
paring the sensory attributes of regular and lactose-free characteristics of HTST-processed 2% unflavored milk,
milks (Adhikari et al., 2010). Compared with HTST UHT-processed 2% chocolate milk, or low-fat strawber-
milks, UP lactose-free milks have higher intensities ry yogurt. However, other studies have suggested that
of chalky texture, lack of freshness, light-oxidized fla- vitamin A fortification might contribute off-flavors, such
vor, and processed flavor, all of which are perceived as oily or haylike notes (Weckel and Chicoye, 1954; Fell-
as negative attributes by consumers (Adhikari et al., man et al., 1991; Whited et al., 2002). Recently, Yeh et
2010). However, these differences are not necessarily al. (2017a) reported that when skim milk was fortified
attributable to lactose hydrolysis and may be due to with vitamin A concentrates at levels near the upper
the UP pasteurization process, packaging and storage, limits of what is allowed by law (3,000 IU/quart or
or a combination of these factors (Antunes et al., 2014). 1.65 mg/946 mL), consumers could detect differences
No recent published studies have evaluated the effect between unfortified and fortified milks. The type of vi-
of lactose hydrolysis as an isolated component on the tamin concentrate used affected flavor; consumers were
sensory profile of milk. able to more easily detect differences in milks fortified
Trace minerals in milk impart a salty taste to milk with water-dispersible premixes. Sensory evaluation by
and milk products. Minerals impart a background salty trained panelists confirmed that the flavor in fortified
taste to fluid milk that is not directly noticeable but milks was described as carrot-like or perfumey. Con-
can be more clearly perceived in milk or whey perme- sumers were not able to distinguish between fortified
ates. Sodium and potassium, the largest contributors to and unfortified 2% milks or milks fortified with only
salty taste, are found in milk at concentrations of 391 to vitamin D. More studies utilizing sensory methodology
644 and 1,212 to 1,681 mg/kg, respectively (Gaucheron, are needed to understand the effects of vitamin fortifi-
2005). Milk permeate has a salty taste intensity on par cation on fluid milk flavor and consumer acceptability.
with that of Cheddar whey—less than that of cottage To increase milk consumption during a period of
cheese whey permeates, Mozzarella whey permeates, or declining dairy consumption, some companies have
delactosed permeates but still clearly detectable (Smith turned to fortification with other ingredients thought
et al., 2016). Li et al. (2015b) added lactose-hydrolyzed by consumers to be health promoting. Calcium, iron,
whey permeates to chocolate milk to increase the antioxidant vitamins C and E, fiber, multivitamin
sweetness of the milk but found that the increase in mixes, and PUFA have been investigated for use in
saltiness that resulted from the permeate minerals was fortified milk beverages (Chandan, 1999). Kwak et al.
too intense to make this a viable alternative sweetening (2003) fortified fluid milk with microencapsulated iron;
method. Other trace components such as calcium, mag- sensory differences in astringency, metallic flavor, color,
nesium, chlorine, and organic acids may also contribute and overall quality scores were reported. In chocolate
to milk basic taste (Smith et al., 2016). milk, iron fortification with a variety of iron compounds
resulted in persistent off-colors (Douglas et al., 1981). silage had on sensory characteristics of fresh milk.
The type of iron compound used for fortification affects They reported that silage feeds such as alfalfa and le-
the development of off-flavors: ferric compounds have gumes had the ability to impart rank or undesirable
been reported to produce few off-flavors, whereas fer- qualities to milk when fed to cows before milking. The
rous compounds produce initial off-flavors that reduce eventual use of GC in the 1960s became essential for
across storage time (Douglas et al., 1981). van Aardt quantitation of volatile compounds causing off-flavors
et al. (2005b) fortified reduced-fat milk with 0.025% that were specific to milks from certain feeds (Woods
α-tocopherol and 0.025% ascorbic acid. A triangle test and Aurand, 1963). In addition, expanded descriptive
did not show any significant sensory differences be- analysis techniques provided more concise and quantifi-
tween the fortified and unfortified milks; however, after able sensory profiles for studies focused on milk flavor
10 h of exposure to fluorescent light, significant sensory and the role of cow feed (Croissant et al., 2007; Lawless
differences were found between unfortified and unforti- and Heymann, 2010).
fied milk. There were no significant differences between Chapman et al. (2001) used descriptive analysis
light-exposed unfortified milk and milk fortified with terms such as malty/grainy and metallic to describe fla-
only α-tocopherol, suggesting that the combination of vors commonly associated with cattle feed in UP milks.
antioxidants rather than the α-tocopherol alone pre- More modern studies examining the effect of feed on the
vented the development of light-oxidized flavor in the flavor of milk have explored the relationship between
milk. specific volatile compounds in certain milks and the
Docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid sensory ramifications. Croissant et al. (2007) examined
are long-chain PUFA found in fish and marine algal the sensory properties and volatile compounds of milk
oils that have been reported to decrease the risk of from cows fed a pasture-based diet with those fed more
cardiovascular disease and autoimmune inflammatory conventional TMR diets and reported that milk from
diseases (Nelson and Martini, 2009). Conjugated lin- pasture-raised cows had higher intensities of grassy and
oleic acid (CLA) is another fatty acid associated with cowy/barny flavors compared with milk from conven-
reduced risk of cancer, obesity, and inflammation (Nel- tionally fed cows. With heightened demand in the US
son and Martini, 2009). Fluid milk can be fortified with market for organic, locally farmed, and pasture-raised
these fatty acids either by altering the diet of the cows milk products, continued investigation into the influ-
to change the fatty acid composition of the milk or by ence of feed on sensory perception of milk will likely be
adding oils rich in fatty acids directly to raw milk. Nel- an enhanced area of research (DuPuis, 2000).
son and Martini (2009) reported that when eicosapen- Aside from the sensory effects that differences in feed
taenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, and CLA content in have on fluid milk, the effect of cattle feed on milk
pasteurized whole milk was increased by replacing part autoxidation has persisted as an area of great concern.
of the cows’ diets with inert calcium salts of fish oil, a Autoxidation of fluid milk, or autoxidized off-flavor, is
trained descriptive analysis panel could not detect any a sensory defect that is described as metallic or tallowy
significant sensory differences between the treatments and is often associated with an increase in bitter taste
and control after 3 and 10 d of storage. Direct addi- (Alvarez, 2009). The flavor defect is purportedly caused
tion of fatty acid-rich oils to fluid milk has not been as by spontaneous oxidation of milk fat. The flavor defect
successful. Campbell et al. (2003) reported that CLA- and its cause are distinct from light-oxidized off-flavor
fortified milks exhibited a grassy or vegetable oil flavor. (described later). Some debate exists over whether
Omega-3 PUFA fortification in other dairy products spontaneous oxidized flavors in fluid milk are attribut-
has been reported to cause fishy and other undesirable able to enzymes, metal catalysts, or a combination of
off-flavors that can be masked only by strong added both (Day, 1960). It is widely speculated that metallic
flavors, suggesting that it is a poor choice for fluid milk catalysts such as copper likely play a part (Gutierrez,
(Kolanowski and Weißbrodt, 2007). 2014). Studies aimed at understanding the catalytic
effect that common metals have on milk lipids first
Feed came to light in the early 20th century (Golding and
Feilman, 1905; Hunziker and Hosman, 1917); however,
Cattle feed is of obvious importance in the flavor these studies primarily addressed the contamination of
profile of fluid milk and has been widely studied. Feed- trace metals resulting from processing surfaces instead
related flavors generally appear in fluid milk within 2 of naturally occurring concentrations in bovine milk.
to 4 h directly after cow ingestion of feed and tradi- In experiments to quantify concentrations of natu-
tionally have been explained using defect terms from rally occurring metal in fluid milk, Supplee and Bellis
dairy scorecard grading (Hedrick, 1955). Gamble and (1922) reported that fluid milk naturally contained
Kelly (1922) presented reports on the effect that corn up to 0.4 mg of copper/100 g, although amounts were
9976 SCHIANO ET AL.
highly variable. Subsequent studies have expanded on expected because modern objective sensory methods
the sensory consequences of autoxidation by identifying did not exist at this time.
sensory defects such as metallic, tallowy, or even fishy Early attempts at vitamin D fortification in the late
to identify the phenomenon (Elvehjem et al., 1929; 1920s and early 1930s sought to increase vitamin D
Greenbank, 1948; Alvarez, 2009). Forss et al. (1967) content through irradiation of milk, sparking renewed
further explored the formation of these metallic flavors interest in investigating light-induced off-flavors in
in autoxidized milk fat, reporting that formation of dairy products (Stull, 1953). Several studies published
vinyl ketones from PUFA was a likely mechanism to from 1930 to 1950 noted that there appeared to be a
explain the phenomenon. Homogenization greatly re- dual nature of light-induced flavor defects. The first
duced the risk of autoxidation in fluid milk (Walstra type of flavor was a fatty, oxidized, tallowy note, where-
and Jenness, 1984). In addition, studies have identified as the second was a burnt, cabbage, mushroom note
that autoxidation is related to vitamin E deficiency (Stull, 1953). As with earlier studies, studies published
in cows during the winter and spring months, which during this time were limited by their lack of sensory
increased susceptibility of milk to oxidation. Focant et methodology. Trade journals made claims about tem-
al. (1998) showed that the addition of approximately perature, bottle type, and season of milking affecting
9,616 IU of vitamin E/d to cow diets was an effec- light-oxidized flavor, but results were often conflicting
tive method for reducing oxidation. Feeds resulting in (Tracy and Ruehe, 1931; Doan and Myers, 1936). Be-
increased PUFA composition in milk (especially spent cause sensory methodology was not documented and
distillers grains) have also received attention in regard often no uniform system was used, there was no way to
to spontaneous oxidized flavors in fluid milk (Granelli objectively compare the results of the studies.
et al., 1998; Timmons et al., 2001). These studies sug- Once the off-flavors were linked to sunlight, sub-
gest that increased PUFA concentrations are directly sequent studies sought to identify the components
related to lower oxidative stability (Liu et al., 2010); responsible for the light-activated flavor and investi-
however, results of studies by Li (2013) and Testroet gate the effect of light exposure on other properties of
et al. (2015) reported that feeding cows dried distill- milk, such as vitamin content (Greenbank, 1948; Stull,
ers grains did not significantly decrease milk oxidative 1953). Weinstein et al. (1951) investigated the fact that
stability or alter sensory profile following sensory and homogenized milk was more susceptible to light oxida-
chemical analyses, suggesting further that autoxidation tion than nonhomogenized milk, reporting that a whey
may not be attributable to a single factor. protein fraction was responsible for the light-activated
flavor rather than a lipid fraction. Riboflavin (vitamin
Light Oxidation B2) was characterized in the 1930s and was determined
to be an essential vitamin in 1939 (Northrop-Clewes
Flavor changes in milk due to light exposure have and Thurnham, 2012). Studies throughout the 1970s
been of interest to researchers since the earliest stud- investigated this water-soluble vitamin and eventually
ies on fluid milk were published. Home refrigerators determined that photooxidation of riboflavin was the
began entering the market in the early 1900s but did root cause of light-induced off-flavors in fluid milk
not become common until the mid-1940s, when new (Korycka-Dahl and Richardson, 1978; Allen and Parks,
design elements and mass production made them a 1979; Bradley, 1980). While searching for additional
common household appliance (Higgins, 2001). During potential photosensitive components of milk, research-
the winter months, consumers would often leave fluid ers realized that added vitamin A and D could both
milk and other dairy products outside to keep them function as photosensitizers. However, the effect of vi-
cold. Early studies on light-oxidized flavor in milk were tamin fortification on light-oxidized milk flavor was not
prompted by complaints from consumers whose milk studied in depth at this time (Wishner, 1964). From
developed off-flavors after storage outside in the sun- here, researchers investigated whether artificial light
light. These early studies sought mainly to characterize sources produced the same detrimental effects, report-
off-flavors and to prove that they were directly related ing that they did (Smith and MacLeod, 1955, 1957).
to light exposure and not the manufacturing practices Later published studies began to incorporate modern
(Frazier, 1928). The use of amber glass bottles to block sensory methodology. Studies often compared trained
sunlight exposure was also investigated (Hammer and panel data against data from consumer preference or
Cordes, 1920). These early studies failed to describe difference testing, reporting that both could detect dif-
their sensory methodology, leaving us to assume that ferences between light-exposed and non-light-exposed
the conclusions on flavors detected were derived from milk, although the trained panels could detect it
the sensory experiences of the authors alone. This is much sooner—often after less than 15 min of exposure

(Coleman et al., 1976; Bray et al., 1977; White and al., 2009). Exposure to light from light-emitting diodes
Bulthaus, 1982). De Man (1978) measured the intensity (purportedly less detrimental than fluorescent or sun-
of fluorescent light in retail dairy display cases before light exposure) also results in light-oxidized flavor and
exposing milk in different packages to realistic light in- vitamin degradation in fluid milk (Brothersen et al.,
tensities of various Kelvin color temperatures of light. 2016; Martin et al., 2016). The type of plastic packag-
The Kelvin color temperature scale expresses the color ing used as well as the shade of packaging can affect
of light in terms of Kelvin and indicates which wave- light absorption and therefore light-oxidized flavor
lengths are emitted from the light source. A trained (Potts et al., 2017).
panel was used to quantify light-induced flavors. De These studies on light-oxidation flavor integrated
Man (1978) found that warm white light and opaque sensory methods to varying degrees. Mestdagh et al.
packaging resulted in the least vitamin degradation (2005) described the use of a trained sensory panel
and off-flavor development, but many grocery stores screened for sensitivity to light-activated flavor to de-
today use cool white light, and most milk is sold in tect differences between milk stored in different variet-
transparent plastic cartons. Olsen and Ashoor (1987) ies of polyethylene terephthalate bottles. Although the
used 25 untrained panelists to evaluate light-exposed author described the use of a triangle test to determine
milk on a 9-point hedonic scale. Although a consumer sensory differences, the number of panelists and the
testing method is appropriate for evaluating consumer training methods were not documented. Chapman et
liking of light-exposed fluid milk, their sample size was al. (2002) determined the duration of exposure needed
far smaller than is recommended today. They reported to produce light-oxidized flavor detected by a trained
that container type, container size, and fat content had panel and consumers. Training procedures for a 10-per-
no significant effect on the flavor and riboflavin con- son sensory panel were documented, and samples were
tent of milk, indicating that perhaps a more sensitive analyzed by untrained consumers using a paired dif-
sensory method, such as descriptive analysis, would ference method. They found that consumers were able
have been more appropriate. Other studies continued to detect light-oxidized flavor after an exposure time
using the ADSA dairy judging system at the expense of 54 min to 2 h, whereas a trained panel was able to
of sensitivity. Reif et al. (1983) judged 304 samples of detect light-oxidized flavor after as little as 15 to 30
fluid milk collected from retail stores in California on min of exposure. Moyssiadi et al. (2004) used a trained
a 5-point scale for flavor. The frequency of criticism of panel of 17 people to scale off-flavors in light-exposed
light-induced off-flavor for milk in cardboard containers milk stored in several types of high-density polyethyl-
was compared with that for milk in plastic containers. ene (HDPE) and polyethylene terephthalate bottles.
The study deducted more defect points for the plastic The panel was trained to differentiate between only
containers for light-induced flavor; however, the study 2 attributes—burnt (light oxidized) and stale (lack
was limited in its ability to pull apart small variations of freshness)—but clear differences between samples
in flavor. were found. Brothersen et al. (2016) used a descriptive
Advances in instrumental techniques allowed for the analysis panel to obtain a reliable picture of all the
association of specific chemical compounds with light- sensory characteristics of light-exposed milk. Further
oxidized flavor, including methionine, acetaldehyde, n- studies on light oxidation may probe deeper into pro-
pentanal, and n-hexanal (Bradley, 1980; Kim and Morr, tection offered by packaging, the effects of type and
1996; van Aardt et al., 2005a). Within the past 15 yr, color temperature of light, and the interactions between
studies have combined sensory and this baseline instru- vitamin fortification and light exposure.
mental volatile analysis to increase understanding of
the effect of light exposure on fluid milk. Vitamin and Microbial Considerations
lipid degradation and off-flavors increased with light in-
tensity (Whited et al., 2002). Acetaldehyde, methyl sul- Microbes can have profound effects on milk flavor
fide, dimethyl disulfide, propanal, 2-methyl-propanal, whether the contamination occurs before or after pas-
2-butanone, 2-pentanone, 2-hexanone, 2-heptanone, teurization. Raw milk quality can affect the rate of
and 2-nonanone were associated with light-induced fla- development of off-flavors (Ma et al., 2000; Barbano et
vor (Webster et al., 2009). Triangle tests with untrained al., 2006). Lipases and proteases from somatic cells and
consumers (30–35 consumers) demonstrated that the bacteria can cause free fatty acid flavor and bitter taste
consumers could detect light-induced off-flavors in fluid (Santos et al., 2003). In evaluations by trained descrip-
milk after 2 h of light exposure, although packaging tive analysis panelists, high-SCC raw milk taken from
materials, fat, flavorings, and antioxidants can delay cows with mastitis (an inflammation of the udder due
the onset of detection (Chapman et al., 2002; Mestdagh to bacterial infection) developed unpleasant sensory de-
et al., 2005; van Aardt et al., 2005a, b; Webster et fects such as rancidity and bitterness up to 7 d sooner
9978 SCHIANO ET AL.
than milk taken from the same cows postinfection (Ma safety and quality standardization. Contact with any
et al., 2000). Microorganisms allowed to grow in raw surface in processing can noticeably affect the flavor of
milk can affect the sensory quality of the milk before fluid milk, but areas of chief importance in fluid milk
pasteurization. Malty flavors are produced by growth of processing, in sequential order, are milk fat separation,
Streptococcus lactis var. maltigenes, and musty potato fat content standardization, pasteurization, homogeni-
aromas can be attributed to pyrazine compounds pro- zation, and packaging (Goff and Griffiths, 2006).
duced by Pseudomonas perolens (Morgan, 1976). Pasteurization, named for French microbiologist
Bacterial growth is a common cause of premature Louis Pasteur, refers to the heating of food or beverage
milk spoilage. Off-flavors due to bacterial growth have products to kill microbes that would otherwise jeopar-
been well documented. Early studies on bacterial spoil- dize safety or shelf life. Following government mandates
age lacked both the sensory and analytical methods for pasteurization of the US milk supply in the early
needed to draw conclusions about the off-flavors caused 1900s, the process of pasteurization has played a large
by specific species of bacteria. Sadler et al. (1929) at- role in dictating the flavor profile of fluid milk. A variety
tempted to isolate the bacteria responsible for a feed of pasteurization methods are acceptable for achieving
flavor in milk. Although the researchers were able to legally pasteurized milk. Those methods generally are
isolate a culture of bacteria that they reported produced separated into the following 3 groups: vat pasteuriza-
the same aroma as the feed flavor they were investigat- tion, HTST pasteurization, and ultrapasteurization or
ing, they were unable to identify the bacteria, and no UHT pasteurization.
sensory methodology was reported. Because modern Vat pasteurization is defined under the Pasteurized
sensory methodology did not exist at this time, one Milk Ordinance (FDA, 2015) as the heat treatment of
can assume that the similarity of the odor produced by milk at a minimum of 63°C (145°F) for a minimum
the bacteria to the feed odor was judged only by the hold time of 30 min. Vat pasteurization is no longer a
researchers during benchtop testing. In addition, the major method of commercial pasteurization; however,
term feedy was used at the time to describe a variety it is often used by smaller family farms. The minimal
of defects, so the results are not clearly linked to one heat load of vat pasteurization has been described as
specific off-flavor. having a notably lower cooked flavor compared with
The genus Pseudomonas consists of psychrotrophic, other pasteurization methods (Claeys et al., 2013).
gram-negative rod bacteria that are responsible for the High temperature, short time pasteurization is a
majority of postpasteurization contamination of fluid continuous flow method of milk pasteurization and is
milk (Walker, 1988; Ternström et al., 1993; Ralyea et defined under the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance as the
al., 1998). Milk contaminated with Pseudomonas is heat treatment of milk at a minimum of 72°C (161°F)
characterized by a fruity (pineapple- or strawberry- for a minimum hold time of 15 s, although treatments
like) off-flavor as well as lower levels of sour, rancid, up to 100°C meet HTST standards. High temperature,
and soapy flavors (Whitfield et al., 2000). Hayes et al. short time pasteurization is widely regarded as the most
(2002) studied the aroma profile of pasteurized skim common pasteurization method of milk in the United
and whole milks after inoculation with 1 of 3 Pseu- States. MacCurdy and Trout (1940) reported that com-
domonas species and storage at 4°C for 3 wk. They pared with raw milk samples, HTST-pasteurized milks
reported that specific spoilage aromas such as barny, had higher cooked, oxidized, and heated flavors but
fruity, shrimpy, cheesy, and rotten were influenced by that other off-flavors such as feed flavors were elimi-
species, milk fat, and time. Hayes et al. (2002) used a nated or masked. Other early studies on pasteurization
descriptive panel that allowed documentation of subtle sensory effects showed that pasteurization eliminated
differences in flavors produced by bacterial species that the existence of undesirable barny flavors in the milk
might have been missed if a quality judging system was (Tracy and Ruehe, 1931). Today, the flavor of HTST
used. Spores, typically from gram-positive rods such as milk is widely accepted, and deviations are generally
Paenibacillus and Bacillus species, are also of concern disliked by US consumers. In experiments comparing
for pasteurized milk (Fromm and Boor, 2004). Spores different pasteurization temperatures, Gandy et al.
can survive HTST pasteurization and cause sensory (2008) reported that increased cooked flavors in fluid
spoilage within 25 to 30 d even when total bacteria milk due to increased HTST temperatures were associ-
counts are below 20,000 cfu/mL (Barbano et al., 2006). ated with a marked decrease in overall consumer liking.
Ultrapasteurization is defined under the Pasteur-
Processing ized Milk Ordinance as the heat treatment of milk at
a minimum of 138°C (280°F) for at least 2 s, resulting
Before fluid milk ever reaches the consumer, it is sub- in a product with extended shelf life. Similarly, UHT
jected to multiple processing steps to ensure consumer pasteurization meets the same thermal standards of
ultrapasteurization and has the added features of asep- product. Since the inception of commercial homogeni-
tic transfer and packaging systems postpasteurization, zation in the early 1900s, it has been well documented
resulting in a product that is commercially sterile and that homogenization increases the oxidative stability of
shelf stable (Burton, 1977; Boor and Murphy, 2002). fluid milk (Thurston et al., 1936; Zahar et al., 1986).
The flavor of UP and shelf-stable milks is typically Furthermore, homogenization enhances sensory at-
differentiated from that of traditional HTST milk by tributes in fluid milk such as color, creaminess, and
higher cooked, sulfur or eggy, and caramelized flavors; mouthfeel (Richardson et al., 1993; Feng et al., 2011).
lingering aftertaste; stale flavor; and higher viscosity These positive flavor and texture attributes are gener-
(Andersson and Ôste, 1995; Chapman et al., 2001; ally preserved in homogenized milk throughout shelf
Valero et al., 2001; Clare et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2017). life, assuming that the milk is appropriately refriger-
Blake et al. (1995) reported that the increased cooked ated and shielded from light (Alvarez, 2009).
and caramelized character of direct steam and indirect Although the use of packaging materials for the final
plate-exchanged UHT whole milk treatments was gener- milk product is intended to slow the onset of off-flavors
ally undesirable to American consumers. Furthermore, (e.g., light oxidation) in fluid milk, there are some flavor
subsequent studies by Valero et al. (2001) reported that considerations related to packaging. Due to the direct
the extent to which these off-flavors were perceived was contact between packaging surface and the fluid milk, it
higher in skim milk compared with reduced-fat milks. In is reasonably likely that flavor components from pack-
consumer acceptance testing among American children, aging materials may be transferred to the milk. The
Chapman and Boor (2001) reported that traditional oxygen permeability of selected packaging material can
HTST milk was significantly preferred over UP and present as a limiting factor of milk quality over shelf life
UHT milk. Suggested explanations for the observed (Gilbert, 1985). The 2 most common packaging types
preference of HTST milk over UP milk included greater for fluid milk are HDPE jugs and polyethylene-coated
familiarity with HTST milk flavor and the creation of paperboard cartons. In experiments on the sensory ef-
off-flavors (Chapman and Boor, 2001; Valero et al., fects of polyethylene-coated paperboard cartons, Leong
2001). In a recent series of consumer tests (children et al. (1992) reported that noticeable packaging flavors
and adults) comparing HTST skim and 2% milks with were imparted to test milks within 1 d of filling when
direct steam and indirect UP milks, Lee et al. (2017) analyzed by a trained panel. The HDPE containers
reported that UP milk treatments received significant present minimal risk of flavor leaching; however, several
penalties to overall liking for having too much flavor studies have reported that HDPE packages are related
and for being too thick. Adult and child US consumers to higher risk of light oxidation than other light-shield-
still preferred HTST milk over UP milk. In addition, ed package types (Cladman et al., 1998; van Aardt et
UP milks had significantly higher sulfur or eggy flavors, al., 2001; Amin et al., 2016). Evaluation of packaging
suggesting that the intensity of cooked flavors in UP modifications by Johnson et al. (2015) has suggested
milks is likely an influential detractor from consumer that HDPE packaging with greater than 1.3% titanium
acceptance. dioxide is effective in diminishing the light oxidation
Besides flavor, a significant point of difference be- risk of HDPE packaging.
tween HTST and UP processed milks is the viscosity or
thickness. Chapman et al. (2001) used a trained panel SUMMARY
to determine that the viscosity of nonfat UP milks was
approximately the same as that of 1% HTST milks. Sensory analysis tools are the definitive means for
Lee et al. (2017) confirmed this observation, suggesting ensuring sensory quality, assessing acceptability, and
that the differences in viscosity could be attributable to identifying faults in fluid milk. Furthermore, the ap-
denaturation of proteins induced after UP pasteuriza- plication of powerful sensory analysis techniques has
tion. Other studies suggest that these results bode well significantly benefited research, marketing, and the
for UP milks in regard to consumer approval because general understanding of fluid milk properties through-
milk consumers prefer the viscosity or thickness of 2%- out history. Application of sensory methodologies is
fat milks to those with lower or no fat content even if extensive and can range from simple difference tests
the consumers typically drink skim milk (Pangborn et with untrained panelists to trained panel profiling of
al., 1985; McCarthy et al., 2017a). specific off-flavors, complex survey techniques, and
Homogenization of fluid milk can also affect fluid much more. The majority of sensory tests are easy to
milk sensory qualities, especially over shelf life. Homog- conduct and provide powerful results when correctly
enization is the application of pressure and shear to applied. Studies on the sensory properties of milk, their
diminish fat globule size so that milk fat is homoge- sources, and consumer perception have evolved with
neously and stably dispersed throughout the final milk these technologies to provide a broad understanding of
9980 SCHIANO ET AL.
fluid milk flavor. Future work with fluid milk should Bierman, G. W., B. E. Proctor, and S. A. Goldblith. 1956. Radiation
preservation of milk and milk products. II. Off flavors in milk and
address the application of processing techniques such cream induced by ionizing radiations as judged by organoleptic
as membrane fractionation or packaging in conjunction tests. J. Dairy Sci. 39:379–390.
with trained panels and consumer research to design Blake, M., B. Weimer, D. J. McMahon, and P. Savello. 1995. Sensory
and microbial quality of milk processed for extended shelf life by
fluid milk and fluid milk beverages with desirable sen- direct steam injection. J. Food Prot. 58:1007–1013.
sory properties. Bodyfelt, F. W. 1981. Dairy product score cards: Are they consistent
with principles of sensory evaluation? J. Dairy Sci. 61:2303–2308.
Bodyfelt, F. W., M. A. Drake, and S. A. Rankin. 2008. Developments
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in dairy foods sensory science and education—From student con-
tests to impact on product quality. Int. Dairy J. 18:729–734.
Funding was provided in part by the National Dairy Boesch, I. 2013. Preferences of processing companies for attributes of
Swiss milk: A conjoint analysis in a business-to-business market.
Council (Rosemont, IL). The use of trade names does J. Dairy Sci. 96:2183–2189.
not imply endorsement or lack of endorsement of those Bom Frøst, M., G. Dijksterhuis, and M. Martens. 2001. Sensory per-
not mentioned. ception of fat in milk. Food Qual. Prefer. 12:327–336.
Boor, K. J., and S. C. Murphy. 2002. Microbiology of market milks.
Pages 91–122 in Dairy Microbiology Handbook: The Microbiology
REFERENCES of Milk and Milk Products. 3rd ed. R. K. Robinson, ed. Wiley
Interscience, New York, NY.
Achanta, K., C. A. Boeneke, and K. J. Aryana. 2007. Characteristics Boppanna, N. 2007. Evaluating the difference between organic milk
of reduced fat milks as influenced by the incorporation of folic and cheese and inorganic milk and cheese based on sensory percep-
acid. J. Dairy Sci. 90:90–98. tion. PhD Thesis. University of Wisconsin, Stout.
Adhikari, K., L. M. Dooley, E. Chambers IV, and N. Bhumiratana. Bradley, R. L. 1980. Effect of light on alteration of nutritional value
2010. Sensory characteristics of commercial lactose-free milks man- and flavor of milk: A review. J. Food Prot. 43:314–320.
ufactured in the United States. Food Sci. Technol. (Campinas) Brans, G., C. G. P. H. Schroë, R. G. M. van der Sman, and R. M.
43:113–118. Boom. 2004. Membrane fractionation of milk: State of the art and
Allen, C., and O. W. Parks. 1979. Photodegradation of riboflavin in challenges. J. Membr. Sci. 243:263–272.
milks exposed to fluorescent light. J. Dairy Sci. 62:1377–1379. Bray, S. L., A. H. Duthie, and R. P. Rogers. 1977. Consumers can de-
Allen, S., and E. Goddard. 2012. Consumer preferences for milk and tect light-induced flavor in milk. J. Food Prot. 40:586–587.
yogurt attributes: How health beliefs and attitudes affect choices. Brewer, J. L., A. J. Blake, S. A. Rankin, and L. W. Douglass. 1999.
Pages 1–45 in Proc. Agricultural and Applied Economics Associa- Theory of reasoned action predicts milk consumption in women. J.
tion Annual Meeting. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc., Seattle, WA. Am. Diet. Assoc. 99:39–44.
Alvarez, V. B. 2009. Fluid milk and cream products. Pages 73–133 Brooks, K., and J. L. Lusk. 2010. Stated and revealed preferences for
in Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products. 2nd ed. Springer, New organic and cloned milk: Combining choice experiment and scan-
York, NY. ner data. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 92:1229–1241.
Amadou, Z., and A. D. Baky. 2015. Consumers’ preferences for quality Brothersen, C., D. J. McMahon, J. Legako, and S. Martini. 2016.
and safety attributes of milk products in Niger: A best-worst scal- Comparison of milk oxidation by exposure to LED and fluorescent
ing approach. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 5:635–642. light. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2537–2544.
American Dairy Science Association. 2017. History of ADSA. Ac- Burton, H. 1977. Subject: The review of UHT treatment and aseptic
cessed Sep. 4, 2017. https://www.adsa.org/AboutADSA/ packaging in the dairy industry. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 30:135–142.
MoreAboutADSA/History.aspx. Campbell, W., M. A. Drake, and D. K. Larick. 2003. The impact of
Amin, K. N., M. L. Johnson, J. B. Phillips, S. Duncan, H. Potts, S. fortification with conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) on the quality of
F. O’Keef, J. E. Marcy, and K. Mallikarjunan. 2016. Differences fluid milk. J. Dairy Sci. 86:43–51.
in high-density polyethylene milk packaging performance under Carlisle, S. L. 2014. Comparison of triangle and tetrad discrimination
light emitting diode and fluorescent retail storage. J. Anim. Sci. methodology in applied, industrial manner. MS Thesis. University
94(Suppl. 5):338. (Abstr.) of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Andersson, L., and R. Ôste. 1995. Sensory quality of UHT milk. Pag- Chambers, D. H., A. A. Allison, and E. Chambers. 2004. Training
es 318–330 in Heat-Induced Changes in Milk (IDF Special Issue effects on performance of descriptive panelists. J. Sens. Stud.
9501). International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium. 19:486–499.
Antunes, A. E. C., A. T. S. Alves, D. A. Gallina, F. K. H. S. Trento, Chandan, R. C. 1999. Enhancing market value of milk by adding cul-
P. B. Zacarchenco, A. G. F. Van Dender, I. Moreno, R. C. S. C. tures. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2245–2256.
Ormenes, and L. M. Spadoti. 2014. Development and shelf-life de- Chapman, K. W., and K. J. Boor. 2001. Acceptance of 2% ultra-
termination of pasteurized, microfiltered, lactose hydrolyzed skim pasteurized milk by consumers, 6 to 11 years old. J. Dairy Sci.
milk. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5337–5344. 84:951–954.
Bai, J., T. I. Wahl, and P. R. Wandschneider. 2007. Valuing attributes Chapman, K. W., H. T. Lawless, and K. J. Boor. 2001. Quantitative
of fluid milk using choice-based conjoint experimental design. Pa- descriptive analysis and principal component analysis for sensory
per presented at the Am. Agric. Econ. Assoc. Annual Meeting, characteristics of ultrapasteurized milk. J. Dairy Sci. 84:12–20.
Portland, OR. Chapman, K. W., L. J. Whited, and K. J. Boor. 2002. Sensory thresh-
Bakke, A. J., C. V. Shehan, and J. E. Hayes. 2016. Type of milk typi- old of light-oxidized flavor defects in milk. J. Food Sci. 677:2770–
cally consumed, and stated preference, but not health conscious- 2773.
ness affect revealed preferences for fat in milk. Food Qual. Prefer. Chung, S. J., C. R. Lim, and B. S. Noh. 2008. Understanding the sen-
49:92–99. sory characteristics of various types of milk using descriptive anal-
Barbano, D. M., Y. Ma, and M. V. Santos. 2006. Influence of raw milk ysis and electronic nose. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 40:47–55.
quality on fluid milk shelf life. J. Dairy Sci. 89:E15–E19. Claassen, M., and H. T. Lawless. 1992. Comparison of descriptive
Bassette, R., M. E. Turner, and G. Ward. 1966. Volatile compounds terminology systems for sensory evaluation of milk. J. Food Sci.
in blood, milk, and urine of cows fed silage-grain, bromegrass pas- 57:596–621.
ture, and hay-grain test meals. J. Dairy Sci. 49:811–815. Cladman, W., S. Scheffer, N. Goodrich, and M. W. Griffiths. 1998.
Bassette, R., and G. Ward. 1974. Measuring parts per billion of vola- Shelf-life of milk packaged in plastic containers with and without
tile materials in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 58:428–429. treatment to reduce light transmission. Int. Dairy J. 8:629–636.

Claeys, W. L., S. Cardoen, G. Daube, J. De Block, K. Dewettinck, K. Focant, M., E. Mignolet, M. Marique, F. Clabots, T. Breyne, D. Dale-
Dierick, L. De Zutter, A. Huyghebaert, H. Imberechts, P. Thiange, mans, and Y. Larondelle. 1998. The effect of vitamin E supplemen-
and Y. Vandenplas. 2013. Raw or heated cow milk consumption: tation of cow diets containing rapeseed and linseed on the preven-
Review of risks and benefits. Food Contr. 31:251–262. tion of milk fat oxidation. J. Dairy Sci. 81:1095–1101.
Clare, D. A., W. S. Bang, G. Cartwright, M. A. Drake, P. Coronel, and Forss, D. A. 1969. Flavors of dairy products: A review of recent ad-
J. Simunovic. 2005. Comparison of sensory, microbiological, and vances. J. Dairy Sci. 52:1023–1027.
biochemical parameters of microwave versus indirect UHT fluid Forss, D. A., P. Angelini, M. L. Bazinet, and C. Merritt. 1967. Volatile
skim milk during storage. J. Dairy Sci. 88:4172–4182. compounds produced by copper-catalyzed oxidation of butterfat.
Clark, S., and M. Costello. 2008. Dairy products evaluation compe- J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 44:141–143.
titions. Pages 43–71 in Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products. Francis, L. L., D. H. Chambers, S. H. Kong, G. A. Milliken, I. J. Jeon,
2nd ed. S. Clark, M. Costello, M. A. Drake, and F. Bodyfelt, ed. and K. A. Schmidt. 2005. Serving temperature effects on milk
Springer. New York, NY. flavor, milk aftertaste, and volatile compound quantification in
Coleman, W. W., G. H. Watrous Jr., and P. S. Dimick. 1976. Organo- nonfat and whole milk. J. Food Sci. 70:S413–S418.
leptic evaluation of milk in various containers exposed to fluores- Frazier, W. C. 1928. A defect in milk due to light. J. Dairy Sci. 11:375–
cent light. J. Food Prot. 39:551–553. 379.
Covacevich, H. R., and F. V. Kosikowski. 1978. Mozzarella and ched- Fromm, H. I., and K. J. Boor. 2004. Characterization of pasteurized
dar cheese manufacture by ultrafiltration principles. J. Dairy Sci. fluid milk shelf-life attributes. J. Food Sci. 69:M204–M214.
61:701–709. Gamble, J. A., and E. Kelly. 1922. The effect of silage on flavor and
Croissant, A. E., S. P. Washburn, L. L. Dean, and M. A. Drake. 2007. odor of milk. Bulletin No. 1097. USDA, Washington, DC.
Chemical properties and consumer perception of fluid milk from Gandy, A. L., M. Schilling, P. Coggins, C. White, Y. Yoon, and V. Ka-
conventional and pasture-based production systems. J. Dairy Sci. madia. 2008. The effect of pasteurization temperature on consum-
90:4942–4953. er acceptability, sensory characteristics, volatile compound com-
Cunningham, C. E., K. Deal, and Y. Chen. 2010. Adaptive choice- position, and shelf-life of fluid milk. J. Dairy Sci. 91:1769–1777.
based conjoint analysis. Patient 3:257–273. Gaucheron, F. 2005. The minerals of milk. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 45:473–
Day, E. A. 1960. Autoxidation of milk lipids. J. Dairy Sci. 43:360–365. 483.
De Man, J. M. 1978. Prevention of light-induced quality loss of milk. Gilbert, S. G. 1985. Food/package compatibility. Food Technol. 39:54–
J. Inst. Can. Sci. Technol. Aliment. 11:152–154. 56.
Doan, F. J., and C. H. Myers. 1936. Effect of sunlight on some milk Goff, H. D., and M. W. Griffiths. 2006. Major advances in fresh milk
and cream products. Milk Dealer 26:76–82, 84–87. and milk products: Fluid milk products and frozen desserts. J.
Douglas, F. W., N. H. Rainey, N. P. Wong, L. F. Edmondson, and D. Dairy Sci. 89:1163–1173.
E. LaCroix. 1981. Color, flavor, and iron bioavailability in iron- Golding, J., and E. Feilman. 1905. Taint in milk due to contamination
fortified chocolate milk. J. Dairy Sci. 64:1785–1793. by copper. J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 24:1285–1286.
Drake, M. 2004. ADSA Foundation Scholar Award: Defining dairy Gordon, D. T., and M. E. Morgan. 1972. Principal volatile compounds
flavors. J. Dairy Sci. 87:777–784. in feed flavored milk. J. Dairy Sci. 55:905–912.
Drake, M. A. 2007. Invited review: Sensory analysis of dairy foods. J. Granelli, K., P. Barrefors, L. Björck, and L. A. Appelqvist. 1998. Fur-
Dairy Sci. 90:4925–4937. ther studies on lipid composition of bovine milk in relation to
Drake, M. A., S. Drake, F. Bodyfelt, S. Clark, and M. Costello. 2008. spontaneous oxidised flavour. J. Sci. Food Agric. 77:161–171.
History of sensory analysis. Pages 1–6 in Sensory Evaluation of Green, P. E., A. M. Krieger, and Y. Wind. 2001. Thirty years of con-
Dairy Products. 2nd ed. Springer, New York, NY. joint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31:S56–S73.
DuPuis, M. 2000. Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of organic milk. Greenbank, G. R. 1948. The oxidized flavor in milk and dairy prod-
Agric. Human Values 17:285–295. ucts: A review. J. Dairy Sci. 31:913–933.
Economic Research Service. 2014. Data files: Dairy products: Grobe, D., R. Diuthitt, and L. Zepeda. 1996. Consumer risk percep-
Per capita consumption, United States (annually). Ac- tion profiles for the food-related biotechnology, recombinant bo-
cessed Feb. 20, 2017. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1 vine growth hormone (rbGH). Pages 157–170 in Transitions in
.0/ a ms . fetchTemplateData . do ? startIndex = 1 & t emplate Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy. University of Con-
= TemplateV & n avID = I ndustryMarketingandPromotion necticut, Storrs.
& l e f t N av = I n d u s t r y M a r ke t i n g a n d P r o m o t i o n & p a g e = Gutierrez, A. M. 2014. Effects of lipid oxidation initiators and anti-
FluidMilkSalesDataMonthlyandYeartoDate&acct=dmktord. oxidants on the total antioxidant capacity of milk and oxidation
Ellis, B. H. 1969. Acceptance and consumer preference testing. J. products during storage. MS Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames.
Dairy Sci. 52:823–831. Haddad, Y., J. Haddad, A. Olabi, N. Shuayto, T. Haddad, and I.
Elvehjem, C. A., H. Steenbock, and E. B. Hart. 1929. The effect of diet Toufeili. 2007. Mapping determinants of purchase intent of con-
on the copper content of milk. J. Biol. Chem. 83:27–34. centrated yogurt (labneh) by conjoint analysis. Food Qual. Prefer.
Fallert, R. F. 1971. Survey of central milk programs in Midwestern 18:795–802.
food chains. Market Res. Rep. 944. US Department of Agriculture, Hammer, B. W., and W. A. Cordes. 1920. A study of brown glass milk
Washington, DC. bottles with special reference to their use in preventing abnormal
FDA. 2015. Grade “A” pasteurized milk ordinance 2015. Ac- flavors due to light. J. Dairy Sci. 36:99–111.
cessed Jan. 29, 2017. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ Hansen, A. P., K. R. Swartzel, and F. G. Giesbrecht. 1980. Effect of
GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ temperature and time of processing and storage on consumer ac-
Milk/UCM513508.pdf. ceptability of ultra-high-temperature steam injected whole milk. J.
Fechner, G. V. 1860. Elemente der Psychophysik. Breitkopf und Här- Dairy Sci. 63:187–192.
tel, Leipzig, Germany. Hanson, A. L., and L. E. Metzger. 2010. Evaluation of increased vita-
Fellman, R. L., P. S. Dimick, and R. Hollender. 1991. Photooxidative min D fortification in high-temperature, short-time-processed 2%
stability of vitamin A fortified 2% lowfat milk and skim milk. J. milk, UHT-processed 2% fat chocolate milk, and low-fat straw-
Food Prot. 54:113–116. berry yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 93:801–807.
Feng, H., G. V. Barbosa-Cánovas, and J. Weiss. 2011. Ultrasound Harding, H. A. 1921. Should we have a new milk score card? J. Dairy
Technologies for Food and Bioprocessing. Vol. 1. Springer, New Sci. 4:73–77.
York, NY. Harrington, L. K., and J. F. Mayberry. 2008. A re-appraisal of lactose
Fernqvist, F., and L. Ekelund. 2014. Credence and the effect on con- intolerance. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 62:1541–1546.
sumer liking of food—A review. Food Qual. Prefer. 32:340–353. Hayes, M. G., and A. L. Kelley. 2003. High pressure homogenisation
Fillion, L., and S. Arazi. 2002. Does organic food taste better? A claim of raw whole bovine milk (a) effects of fat globule size and other
substantiat ion approach. Nutr. Food Sci. 32:153–157. properties. J. Dairy Res. 70:297–305.

9982 SCHIANO ET AL.
Hayes, W., C. H. White, and M. A. Drake. 2002. Sensory aroma char- Li, X. E., K. Lopetcharat, Y. Qiu, and M. A. Drake. 2015b. Sugar
acteristics of milk spoilage by Pseudomonas species. J. Food Sci. reduction of skim chocolate milk and viability of alternative sweet-
67:448–454. ening through lactose hydrolysis. J. Dairy Sci. 98:1455–1466.
Hedrick, R. R. 1955. Feed flavor transmission to milk. MS Thesis. Liem, D. G., A. N. Toraman, and E. H. Zandstra. 2012. Effects of
Montana State University, Bozeman. health labels on expected and actual taste perception of soup.
Hening, J. C., and A. C. Dahlberg. 1939. The flavor of milk as affected Food Qual. Prefer. 25:192–197.
by season, age, and the level of feeding dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. Ligon, B. L. 2002. Biography: Louis Pasteur: A controversial figure in a
22:883–888. debate on scientific ethics. Semin. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. 13:134–141.
Higgins, A. 2001. The refrigerator revolution. Machine Des. 73:60. Liu, Q., J. Wang, D. Bu, K. Liu, H. Wei, L. Zhou, and D. C. Beitz.
Horner, S. A., S. E. Wallen, and F. Caporaso. 1980. Sensory aspects 2010. Influence of linolenic acid content on the oxidation of milk
of UHT milk combined with whole pasteurized milk. J. Food Prot. fat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58:3741–3746.
43:54–57. Loney, B. E., R. Bassette, and G. M. Ward. 1963. Some volatile com-
Hunziker, O. F., and D. F. Hosman. 1917. Tallowy butter—Its causes ponents in milk, blood, and urine from cows fed silage, bromegrass,
and prevention. J. Dairy Sci. 1:320–346. and hay and grain. J. Dairy Sci. 46:922–926.
Jelen, P., and O. Tossavanien. 2003. Low lactose and lactose-free milk Ma, Y., C. Ryan, D. M. Barbano, D. M. Galton, M. A. Rudan, and
and dairy products—Prospects, technologies and applications. K. J. Boor. 2000. Effects of the somatic cell count on quality and
Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 58:161–165. shelf-life of pasteurized fluid milk. J. Dairy Sci. 83:264–274.
Johnson, D. S., S. E. Duncan, L. M. Bianchi, H. H. Chang, W. N. MacCurdy, R. D., and G. M. Trout. 1940. The effect of holder and
Eigel, and S. F. O’Keefe. 2015. Packaging modifications for pro- flash pasteurization on some flavors of milk. I. The effect on mis-
tecting flavor of extended-shelf-life milk from light. J. Dairy Sci. cellaneous flavors common to commercial raw milk. J. Dairy Sci.
98:2205–2214. 2:843–854.
Kapsimalis, D. J., and R. R. Zall. 1981. Ultrafiltration of skim milk at MacFie, H. J. H., and D. M. H. Thomson. 1988. Preference mapping
refrigerated temperatures. J. Dairy Sci. 64:1945–1950. and multidimensional scaling. Pages 381–409 in Sensory Analysis
Keller, W. J., and D. H. Kleyn. 1972. Headspace gas chromatography of Foods. J. R. Piggott, ed. Elsevier Applied Science, New York,
for objectively determining intensity of haylage flavor in raw milk. NY.
J. Dairy Sci. 55:574–576. Martin, N., N. Carey, S. Murphy, D. Kent, J. Bang, T. Stubbs, M.
Kim, Y. D., and C. V. Morr. 1996. Dynamic headspace analysis of Wiedman, and R. Dando. 2016. Exposure of fluid milk to LED
light activated flavor in milk. Int. Dairy J. 6:185–193. light negatively affects consumer perception and alters underlying
Kolanowski, W., and J. Weißbrodt. 2007. Sensory quality of dairy sensory properties. J. Dairy Sci. 99:4309–4324.
products fortified with fish oil. Int. Dairy J. 17:1248–1253. Martin, R. M., D. J. Gunnell, J. Pemberton, S. Frankel, and G. D.
Korycka-Dahl, M., and T. Richardson. 1978. Photogeneration of su- Smith. 2005. The Boyd Orr cohort: A historical cohort study based
peroxide anion upon illumination of bovine milk serum proteins on the 65 year follow-up of the Carnegie Survey of Diet and Health
with fluorescent light in the presence of riboflavin. J. Dairy Sci. (1937–39). Int. J. Epidemiol. 34:742–749.
62:183–188. Mayol, A. R., and T. E. Acree. 2001. Advances in gas chromatogra-
Kouřimská, L., V. Legarová, Z. Panovská, and J. Pánek. 2014. Qual- phy-olfactometry. Pages 1–10 in Gas Chromatography—The State
ity of cow’s milk from organic and conventional farming. Czech J. of the Art. 1st ed. J. V. Leland, P. Schieberle, A. Buettner, and T.
Food Sci. 32:398–405. E. Acree, ed. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Kratzer, D. D., C. F. Foreman, A. E. Freeman, E. W. Bird, W. S. McBride, R. L., and C. Hall. 1979. Cheese grading versus consumer
Rosenberger, and F. E. Nelson. 1987. Important sources of flavor acceptability: An inevitable discrepancy. Aust. J. Dairy Technol.
variation in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 50:1384–1389. 34:66–68.
Kwak, H. S., K. M. Yang, and J. Ahn. 2003. Microencapsulated iron McCarthy, K. S., K. Lopetcharat, and M. A. Drake. 2017a. Milk fat
for milk fortification. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:7770–7774. threshold determination and the effect of milk fat content on con-
Lawless, H. T., and M. R. Claassen. 1993. Validity of descriptive and sumer preference for fluid milk. J. Dairy Sci. 100:1702–1711.
defect-oriented terminology systems for sensory analysis of fluid McCarthy, K. S., M. Parker, A. Ameerally, S. L. Drake, and M. A.
milk. J. Food Sci. 58:108–112, 119. Drake. 2017b. Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plant based al-
Lawless, H. T., and C. C. Clark. 1992. Psychological biases in time- ternatives: What are consumer perceptions of fluid milk? J. Dairy
intensity scaling. Food Technol. 11:81–90. Sci. 100:6125–6138.
Lawless, H. T., and H. Heymann. 2010. Pages 79–100 and 227–257 Mela, D. J. 1988. Sensory assessment of fat content in fluid dairy prod-
in Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. 2nd ed. ucts. Appetite 10:37–44.
Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Mestdagh, F., B. De Meulenaer, J. De Clippeleer, F. Devlieghere, and
Lee, A. P., D. M. Barbano, and M. A. Drake. 2016. Short communi- A. Huyghebaert. 2005. Protective influence of several packaging
cation: The effect of raw milk cooling on sensory perception and materials on light oxidation of milk. J. Dairy Sci. 88:499–510.
shelf life of high-temperature, short-time (HTST)–pasteurized Méthot-Hains, S., S. Benoit, C. Bouchard, A. Doyen, L. Bazinet, and
skim milk. J. Dairy Sci. 99:9659–9667. Y. Pouliot. 2016. Effect of transmembrane pressure control on en-
Lee, A. P., D. M. Barbano, and M. A. Drake. 2017. The influence of ergy efficiency during skim milk concentration by ultrafiltration at
ultra-pasteurization by indirect heating versus direct steam injec- 10 and 50°C. J. Dairy Sci. 99:8655–8664.
tion on skim and 2% fat milks. J. Dairy Sci. 100:1688–1701. Misawa, N., D. M. Barbano, and M. A. Drake. 2016. Influence of casein
Leong, C. M. O., B. R. Harte, J. A. Partridge, D. B. Ott, and T. W. as a percentage of true protein and protein level on color and tex-
Downes. 1992. Off-flavor development in milk packaged in poly- ture of milks containing 1 and 2% fat. J. Dairy Sci. 99:5284–5304.
ethylene-coated paperboard cartons. J. Dairy Sci. 75:2105–2111. Modler, H. W., D. B. Emmons, F. C. Commins, L. Hurd, and K. S.
Li, B., J. E. Hayes, and G. R. Ziegler. 2014. Just-about-right and ideal Crowley. 1977. Consumer evaluation of two-percent milk contain-
scaling provide similar insights into the influence of sensory attri- ing added feed-flavor. J. Dairy Sci. 60:1355–1362.
butes on liking. Food Qual. Prefer. 37:71–78. Morgan, M. E. 1976. The chemistry of some microbially induced flavor
Li, B., J. E. Hayes, and G. R. Ziegler. 2015a. Maximizing overall lik- defects in milk and dairy foods. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 18:953–965.
ing results in a superior product to minimizing deviations from Moyssiadi, T., A. Badeka, E. Kondyli, T. Vakirtzi, I. Savvaidis, and
ideal ratings: An optimization case study with coffee-flavored milk. M. G. Kontominas. 2004. Effect of light transmittance and oxy-
Food Qual. Prefer. 42:27–36. gen permeability of various packaging materials on keeping quality
Li, G. 2013. Oxidative stability evaluation of milk from cows fed dried of low fat pasteurized milk: Chemical and sensorial aspects. Int.
distillers grains with solubles, by sensory and chemical analysis. Dairy J. 14:429–436.
MS Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames. Nelson, J. A., and G. M. Trout. 1934. Judging market milk. Pages
31–49 in Judging Dairy Products. Olsen, Milwaukee, WI.

Nelson, K. A. S., and S. Martini. 2009. Increasing omega fatty acid Reddy, M. C., R. Bassette, G. Ward, and J. R. Dunham. 1967. Rela-
content in cow’s milk through diet manipulation: Effect on milk tionship of methyl sulfide and flavor score of milk. J. Dairy Sci.
flavor. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1378–1386. 50:147–150.
North, C. E. 1917. A survey of dairy score cards. Am. J. Public Health Reif, G. D., A. A. Franke, and J. C. Bruhn. 1983. Retail dairy foods
(N. Y.) 7:25–39. quality—An assessment of the incidence of off-flavors in California
Northrop-Clewes, C. A., and D. I. Thurnham. 2012. The discovery milk. Dairy Food Sanit. 3:44–46.
and characterization of riboflavin. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 61:224–230. Richardson, N. J., D. A. Booth, and N. L. Stanley. 1993. Effect of
Norton, J. E., P. J. Fryer, and J. A. Parkinson. 2013. The effect of homogenization and fat content on oral perception of low and high
reduced-fat labelling on chocolate expectations. Food Qual. Prefer. viscosity model creams. J. Sens. Stud. 8:133–143.
28:101–105. Richardson-Harman, N. J., R. Stevens, S. Walker, J. Gamble, M. Mill-
Olsen, J. R., and S. H. Ashoor. 1987. An assessment of light-induced er, and A. McPherson. 2000. Mapping consumer perceptions of
off-flavors in retail milk. J. Dairy Sci. 70:1362–1370. creaminess and liking for liquid dairy products. Food Qual. Prefer.
Özer, B. H., and H. A. Kirmaci. 2010. Functional milks and dairy 11:239–246.
beverages. Int. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1–12. Rosati, A., A. Tewolde, and C. Mosconi. 2007. Animal production in
Paige, D. M., T. M. Bayless, S. Huang, and R. Wexler. 1975. Lactose the USA: the role of science. A historical perspective of Animal
hydrolyzed milk. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 28:818–822. Science Societies. Page 15–18 in Animal Production and Animal
Pangborn, R. M., K. E. O. Bos, and J. S. Stern. 1985. Dietary fat Science Worldwide. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wagenin-
intake and taste responses to fat in milk by under, normal, and gen, the Netherlands.
overweight women. Appetite 6:25–40. Russell, T. A., M. A. Drake, and P. D. Gerard. 2006. Sensory proper-
Pangborn, R. M., and W. L. Dunkley. 1964a. Difference-preference ties of whey and soy proteins. J. Food Sci. 71:S447–S455.
evaluation of milk by trained judges. J. Dairy Sci. 47:1414–1416. Sadler, W., M. L. Irwin, and N. S. Golding. 1929. An alleged “feed”
Pangborn, R. M., and W. L. Dunkley. 1964b. Sensory discrimination flavor in milk caused by specific bacteria. Milk Dealer 19:117–122.
of fat and solids-not-fat in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 47:719–726. Santos, M. V., Y. Ma, Z. Caplan, and D. M. Barbano. 2003. Sensory
Pangborn, R. M., and M. E. Giovanni. 1984. Dietary intake of sweet threshold of off-flavors caused by proteolysis and lipolysis in milk.
foods and of dairy fats and resultant gustatory responses to sugar J. Dairy Sci. 86:1601–1607.
in lemonade and to fat in milk. Appetite 5:317–327. Scanlan, R. A., R. C. Lindsay, L. M. Libbey, and E. A. Day. 1968.
Patton, S., and D. V. Josephson. 1957. A method for determining Heat-induced volatile compounds in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 51:1001–
significant of volatile flavor compounds in foods. J. Food Sci. 1007.
22:316–318. Schaap, J. E., and H. T. Badings. 1990. Extraction of flavors from milk
Peryam, D. R., and F. J. Pilgrim. 1957. Hedonic scale method of mea- fat with supercritical carbon dioxide. J. Supercrit. Fluids 3:15–19.
suring food preferences. Food Technol. 11:9–14. Schroeter, C., C. F. Nicholson, and M. G. Meloy. 2016. Consumer
Phillips, L. G., M. L. McGiff, D. M. Barbano, and H. T. Lawless. valuation of organic and conventional milk: Does shelf life matter?
1995a. The influence of fat on the sensory properties, viscosity, and J. Food Dist. Res. 47:118–133.
color of lowfat milk. J. Dairy Sci. 78:1258–1266. Schweikart, L., and L. P. Doti. 2009. Birth of the rail age. Pages 97–99
Phillips, L. G., M. L. McGiff, D. M. Barbano, and H. T. Lawless. in American Entrepreneur: The Fascinating Stories of the People
1995b. The influence of nonfat dry milk on the sensory properties, who Defined Business in the United States. AMACOM, New York,
viscosity, and color of lowfat milk. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2113–2118. NY.
PHS/FDA (Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration). Sidel, J. L., H. Stone, and J. Bloomquist. 1981. Use and misuse of
2015. Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. US Government sensory evaluation in research and quality control. J. Dairy Sci.
Printing Office, Washington, DC. 64:2296–2303.
Pirog, R. S. 2004. Consumer Perceptions of Pasture-Raised Beef and Smith, A. C., and P. MacLeod. 1955. Effects of artificial light on milk
Dairy Products: An Internet Consumer Study. Leopold Center for in cold storage. J. Dairy Sci. 38:870–874.
Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames. Smith, A. C., and P. MacLeod. 1957. Effects of pasteurization tem-
Porubcan, A. R., and Z. M. Vickers. 2005. Characterizing milk after- peratures and exposure to light on homogenized milk. J. Dairy Sci.
taste: The effects of salivation rate, PROP taster status, or small 40:862–866.
changes in acidity, fat, or sucrose on acceptability of milk to milk Smith, S. T., L. Metzger, and M. A. Drake. 2016. Evaluation of whey,
dislikers. Food Qual. Prefer. 16:608–620. milk, and delactosed permeates as salt substitutes. J. Dairy Sci.
Potts, H. L., K. N. Amin, and S. E. Duncan. 2017. Retail lighting and 99:8687–8698.
packaging influence consumer acceptance of fluid milk. J. Dairy Society of Sensory Professionals. 2017. Spectrum descriptive analysis.
Sci. 100:146–156. Accessed Sep. 4, 2017. http://www.sensorysociety.org/knowledge/
Poulsen, P. R. 1978. Feasibility of ultrafiltration for standardizing pro- sspwiki/Pages/Spectrum%20Descriptive%20analysis.aspx.
tein in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 61:807–814. Stevenson, E. H. 1955. Importance of vitamin D milk. J. Am. Med.
Public Health Service. 1940. Milk Ordinance and Code, Recommended Assoc. 159:1018–1019.
by the US Public Health Service, 1939. Public Health Bulletin No. Stone, H., and J. L. Sidel. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices. 3rd ed.
220. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Puetz, C. M. 2013. Consumer perception of organic milk. PhD Diss. Stull, J. W. 1953. The effect of light on activated flavor development
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. and on the constituents of milk and its products: A review. J.
Quiñones, H. J., D. M. Barbano, and L. G. Phillips. 1997. Influence Dairy Sci. 36:1153–1164.
of protein standardization by ultrafiltration on the viscosity, col- Sundararajan, N. R., J. Tobias, and R. M. Whitney. 1967. Quanti-
or, and sensory properties of skim and 1% milk. J. Dairy Sci. tative procedure for gas chromatographic analysis of head-space
80:3142–3151. vapor over sterile concentrated milk. J. Dairy Sci. 51:1169–1176.
Quiñones, H. J., D. M. Barbano, and L. G. Phillips. 1998. Influence Supplee, G. C., and B. Bellis. 1922. The copper content of cows’ milk.
of protein standardization by ultrafiltration on the viscosity, col- J. Dairy Sci. 5:455–467.
or, and sensory properties of 2% and 3.3% milks. J. Dairy Sci. Swope, D. A., and F. L. Nolan. 1959. Basic appeals in consumer ac-
81:884–894. ceptance of milk. Bulletin No. 656. Pennsylvania State University,
Ralyea, R. D., W. Weidmann, and K. J. Boor. 1998. Bacterial track- State College.
ing in a dairy production system using phenotypic and ribotyping Tepper, B. J., and T. Kuang. 1996. Perception of fat in a milk model
methods. J. Food Prot. 61:1336–1340. system using multidimensional scaling. J. Sens. Stud. 11:175–190.
Rattray, W., and P. Jelen. 1996. Freezing point and sensory quality of Ternström, A., A. M. Lindberg, and B. Molin. 1993. Classification
skim milk as affected by addition of ultrafiltration permeates for of the spoilage flora of raw and pasteurized bovine milk, with
protein standardization. Int. Dairy J. 1:569–579.

9984 SCHIANO ET AL.
special reference to Pseudomonas and Bacillus. J. Appl. Bacteriol. ability of light-induced oxidation flavor in milk. Food Res. Int.
75:25–34. 76:293–300.
Testroet, E. D., G. Li, D. C. Beitz, and S. Clark. 2015. Feeding dried Walstra, P., and R. Jenness. 1984. Lipids. Pages 58–96 in Dairy Chem-
distillers grains with solubles affects composition but not oxidative istry and Physics. Wiley, New York, NY.
stability of milk. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2908–2919. Watson, M. P., and J. A. McEwan. 1995. Sensory changes in liquid
Thompson, J. L., M. A. Drake, K. Lopetcharat, and M. D. Yates. milk during storage and the effect on consumer acceptance. J. Soc.
2004. Preference mapping of commercial chocolate milks. J. Food Dairy Technol. 48:1–8.
Sci. 69:S406–S413. Weaver, E., A. H. Kuhlman, and E. L. Fouts. 1935. The effect of alfalfa
Thurston, L. M., W. C. Brown, and K. B. Dustman. 1936. Oxidized hay on milk flavor. J. Dairy Sci. 18:55–61.
flavor in milk: II. The effects of homogenization, agitation and Webster, J. B., S. E. Duncan, J. E. Marcy, and S. F. O’Keefe. 2009.
freezing of milk on its subsequent susceptibility to oxidized flavor Controlling light oxidation flavor in milk by blocking riboflavin ex-
development. J. Dairy Sci. 19:671–682. citation wavelengths and interference. J. Food Sci. 74:S390–S398.
Thurstone, L. L. 1931. Multiple factor analysis. Psychol. Rev. 38:406– Weckel, K. G., and E. Chicoye. 1954. Factors responsible for the de-
427. velopment of hay-like flavor in vitamin A fortified lowfat milk. J.
Timmons, J. S., W. P. Weiss, D. L. Palmquist, and W. P. Harper. Dairy Sci. 37:1346–1352.
2001. Relationship among dietary roasted soybeans, milk com- Weimar, M. R., and D. P. Blayney. 1994. Landmarks in the U.S. Dairy
ponents, and spontaneous oxidized flavor of milk. J. Dairy Sci. Industry. Agriculture information bulletin number 694. USDA,
84:2440–2449. Washington, DC.
Trachoo, N., and V. V. Mistry. 1998. Application of ultrafiltered sweet Weinstein, B. R., C. W. Duncan, and G. M. Trout. 1951. The solar-ac-
buttermilk and sweet buttermilk powder in the manufacture of tivated flavor of homogenized milk. IV. Isolation and characteriza-
nonfat and lowfat yogurts. J. Dairy Sci. 81:3163–3171. tion of a whey constituent capable of producing the solar-activated
Tracy, P. H., and H. A. Ruehe. 1931. The relation of certain plant flavor. J. Dairy Sci. 34:570–576.
processes to flavor development in market milk. J. Dairy Sci. White, C. H., and M. Bulthaus. 1982. Light activated flavor in milk.
14:250–267. J. Dairy Sci. 65:489–494.
Trout, G. M. 1956. Have we properly emphasized flavor in the quality Whited, L. J., B. H. Hammond, K. W. Chapman, and K. J. Boor.
yard stick? J. Dairy Sci. 39:613–618. 2002. Vitamin A degradation and light-oxidized flavor defects in
US Food and Drug Administration. 2017. Bovine Somatotropin (SST). milk. J. Dairy Sci. 85:351–354.
Accessed Sep. 4, 2017. https://www. fda.gov/animalveterinary/ Whitfield, F. B., N. Jensen, and K. J. Shaw. 2000. Role of Yersinia
safetyhealth/productsafetyinformation/ucm055435.htm. intermedia and Pseudomonas putida in the development of a fruity
Valero, E., M. Villamiel, B. Miralles, J. Sanz, and I. Martinez-Castro. off-flavor in pasteurized milk. J. Dairy Res. 67:561–569.
2001. Changes in flavour and volatile components during storage Wishner, L. A. 1964. Light-induced oxidations in milk. J. Dairy Sci.
of whole and skimmed UHT milk. Food Chem. 72:51–58. 47:216–221.
van Aardt, M., S. E. Duncan, J. E. Marcy, and T. E. Long. 2005a. Wong, N. P., and S. Patton. 1962. Identification of some volatile
Aroma analysis of light exposed milk stored with and without compounds related to the flavor of milk and cream. J. Dairy Sci.
natural and synthetic antioxidants. J. Dairy Sci. 88:881–890. 45:724–728.
van Aardt, M., S. E. Duncan, J. E. Marcy, T. E. Long, and C. R. Woods, A. E., and L. W. Aurand. 1963. Volatile compounds in Ladino
Hackney. 2001. Effectiveness of poly (ethylene terephthalate) and clover and off-flavored milk. J. Dairy Sci. 46:656–659.
high-density polyethylene in protection of milk flavor. J. Dairy Sci. Yan, S. H., C. G. Hill, and C. H. Amundson. 1979. Ultrafiltration of
84:1341–1347. white milk. J. Dairy Sci. 62:23–40.
van Aardt, M., S. E. Duncan, J. E. Marcy, T. E. Long, S. F. O’Keefe, Yeh, E. B., D. M. Barbano, and M. A. Drake. 2017b. Vitamin fortifica-
and S. R. Nielsen-Sims. 2005b. Effect of antioxidant (α-tocopherol tion of fluid milk. J. Food Sci. 82:856–864.
and ascorbic acid) fortification on light-induced flavor of milk. J. Yeh, E. B., A. N. Schiano, Y. Jo, D. M. Barbano, and M. A. Drake.
Dairy Sci. 88:872–880. 2017a. The effect of vitamin concentrates on the flavor of pasteur-
Vickers, Z. M. 1993. Incorporating tasting into a conjoint analysis of ized fluid milk. J. Dairy Sci. 100:4335–4348.
taste, health claim, price and brand for purchasing strawberry Zahar, M., D. E. Smith, and J. J. Warthesen. 1986. Effect of carrier
yogurt. J. Sens. Stud. 8:341–352. type and amount on vitamin A light degradation in fortified lowfat
Villegas, B., A. Tárrega, and E. Costell. 2010. Optimizing accept- and skim milks. J. Dairy Sci. 69:2038–2044.
ability of new prebiotic low-fat milk beverages. Food Qual. Prefer. Zhi, R., L. Zhao, and J. Shi. 2016. Improving the sensory quality of
21:234–242. flavored liquid milk by engaging sensory analysis and consumer
Walker, S. J. 1988. Major spoilage micro-organisms in milk and dairy preference. J. Dairy Sci. 99:5305–5317.
products. J. Soc. Dairy Technol. 41:91–92.
Walsh, A. M., S. E. Duncan, H. Potts, and D. L. Gallagher. 2015.
Comparing quality and emotional responses as related to accept-

APPENDIX
Table A1. Major milestones in sensory analysis of milk
Date Milestone Reference
1810 Cooperative dairying begins among butter producers in Goshen, Connecticut. Weimar and Blayney, 1994
1842 New York receives its first railway shipment of milk, marking the first major Schweikart and Doti, 2009
transportation of fluid milk in the industrial United States.
1856 Following his experiments with pasteurization, Louis Pasteur announces his Ligon, 2002
discovery that heating postpones milk souring.
1865 First vacuum-type milking machine patented. Milking machines would not become Weimar and Blayney, 1994
widely accepted until the Mehring milking machine became popular in the 1890s.
1884 First glass milk bottles are patented. Weimar and Blayney, 1994
1895 Commercial pasteurization begins with the introduction of commercial Weimar and Blayney, 1994
pasteurization machines
1900 The first homogenizer is presented by Auguste Gaulin at the Paris World’s Fair. Hayes and Kelley, 2003
1906 Founding of the National Association of Dairy Instructors and Investigators; the Rosati et al., 2007
association’s name was formally changed to American Dairy Science Association in
1916.
1906 First single-serve disposable paper milk cartons are patented. Weimar and Blayney, 1994
1908 Chicago becomes the first major US city to pass laws requiring pasteurization.
1916 First collegiate dairy judging contest is conducted on butter. Clark and Costello, 2008
1917 Journal of Dairy Science is first published. Milk is added to the collegiate dairy Drake et al., 2008;
products judging contest. American Dairy Science
Association, 2017
1932 Paper milk cartons are introduced for commercial milks.
1934 Journal of Dairy Science begins monthly publication. American Dairy Science
Association, 2017
1940s The triangle difference test is developed and introduced. Drake et al., 2008
1944 The US Army Quartermaster establishes the Food Acceptance Research Branch in Drake et al., 2008
order to assess acceptability of various food products and rations.
1948 The modern plastic-coated paperboard carton is developed. Weimar and Blayney, 1994
1949 The US Army Quartermaster Laboratory develops the hedonic scale. Drake et al., 2008
1957 Tilgner publishes the first book on sensory analysis basics.
Continued

9986 SCHIANO ET AL.
Table A1 (Continued). Major milestones in sensory analysis of milk
Date Milestone Reference
1957 Arthur D. Little Co. introduces the flavor profile method, the foundation for modern Drake et al., 2008
descriptive analysis.
1963 Rothe develops the odor activity value concept. Mayol and Acree , 2001
1964 Fuller and colleagues publish the first design for GC-olfactometry equipment. Mayol and Acree, 2001
1964 Plastic milk cartons gain popularity commercially. Weimar and Blayney, 1994
1971 Green and Rao publish the first marketing-related conjoint study, the foundation of Green et al., 2001
current consumer conjoint methods.
1973 Institute of Food Technology forms the Sensory Evaluation Division. Drake et al., 2008
1974 Tragon Corp. creates quantitative descriptive analysis. Stone and Sidel, 2004
1979 Gail Civille presents the spectrum descriptive analysis method at Institute of Food Society of Sensory
Technology’s sensory evaluation courses. Professionals, 2017
1988 First edition of The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products is published. Drake et al., 2008
1993 The US Food and Drug Administration approves the use of Monsanto’s recombinant US Food and Drug
bST for commercial milks. Administration, 2017
2002 Descriptive sensory analysis studies find no significant differences between the Fillion and Arazi, 2002
flavor profiles of organic and conventional milks.
2009 Second edition of The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products is published. Drake et al., 2008

Cảm Quan Sữa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cảm Quan Sữa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cảm Quan Sữa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J. Dairy Sci.

A 100-Year Review: Sensory analysis of milk1

ABSTRACT documentation of evaluations to successfully address

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Flavor defect Description Training reference

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Term Definition Reference

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

as well as increased staleness and sourness. Rather than Fortification

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Table A1. Major milestones in sensory analysis of milk

Date Milestone Reference

1932 Paper milk cartons are introduced for commercial milks.

1957 Tilgner publishes the first book on sensory analysis basics.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

Table A1 (Continued). Major milestones in sensory analysis of milk

Date Milestone Reference

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 100 No. 12, 2017

You might also like