Invited review: A commentary on predictive cheese yield formulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictive cheese yield formulas have evolved from one based only on casein and fat in 1895. Refinements have included moisture and salt in cheese and whey solids as separate factors, paracasein instead of casein, and exclusion of whey solids from moisture associated with cheese protein. The General, Barbano, and Van Slyke formulas were tested critically using yield and composition of milk, whey, and cheese from 22 vats of Cheddar cheese. The General formula is based on the sum of cheese components: fat, protein, moisture, salt, whey solids free of fat and protein, as well as milk salts associated with paracasein. The testing yielded unexpected revelations. It was startling that the sum of components in cheese was <100%; the mean was 99.51% (N × 6.31). The mean predicted yield was only 99.17% as a percentage of actual yields (PY%AY); PY%AY is a useful term for comparisons of yields among vats. The PY%AY correlated positively with the sum of components (SofC) in cheese. The apparent low estimation of SofC led to the idea of adjusting upwards, for each vat, the 5 measured components in the formula by the observed SofC, as a fraction. The mean of the adjusted predicted yields as percentages of actual yields was 99.99%. The adjusted forms of the General, Barbano, and Van Slyke formulas gave predicted yields equal to the actual yields. It was apparent that unadjusted yield formulas did not accurately predict yield; however, unadjusted PY%AY can be useful as a control tool for analyses of cheese and milk. It was unexpected that total milk protein in the adjusted General formula gave the same predicted yields as casein and paracasein, indicating that casein or paracasein may not always be necessary for successful yield prediction. The use of constants for recovery of fat and protein in the adjusted General formula gave adjusted predicted yields equal to actual yields, indicating that analyses of cheese for protein and fat may not always be necessary for yield prediction. Composition of cheese was estimated using a predictive formula; actual yield was needed for estimation of composition. Adjusted formulas are recommended for estimating target yields and cheese yield efficiency. Constants for solute exclusion, protein-associated milk salts, and whey solids could be used and reduced the complexity of the General formula. Normalization of fat recovery increased variability of predicted yields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".