A Comparison of the Buttermilk Solids Functional Properties to Nonfat Dried Milk, Soy Protein Isolate, Dried Egg White, and Egg Yolk Powders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicochemical (i.e., sulfhydryl group, protein, and total solubility) as well as functional properties (i.e., water-holding and fat-absorption capacity, foaming and emulsification capacity, and stability) of commercial buttermilk solids (BMS) were compared to nonfat dried milk, soy protein isolate, and dried egg yolk and egg white powders on an equivalent protein basis. BMS showed limited functional properties in water-holding capacity (0.75 g water/g protein) and fat-absorption capacity (1.2 g of oil/g of protein), and foaming capacity (0.5 ml of foam/ml of solution) and stability. However, emulsifying capacity and stability of BMS was not significantly different from other dried protein powders. Results indicated that 0.9 g of protein (approximately 0.45%, wt/vol, concentration) from BMS was needed to emulsify a maximum oil concentration of 50% in water at temperatures up to 50 degrees C. Denaturation of protein, quantified by free sulfhydryl groups, was a critical factor affecting the functionality of BMS and all other protein powders tested. The milk fat globule membrane present in BMS did not enhance either emulsifying capacity or stability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".