## 2 Results and Discussion  
### Physicochemical Analysis  
The physicochemical analysis of CRMP is illustrated in Table 1. In general, _S. thermophilus_ TM11 led to a slight increase in cheese yield by 4.6%. This minor increase was due to the production of EPS. Similar results were reported by [PERSON] _et al_. [12] in Mozzarella cheese, by [PERSON] _et al_. [13] in Cheddar cheese, and by [PERSON] _et al_. [21] in Panela cheese. On contrary to the direct acidified cheese (DAC), the effect of _S. thermophilus_ SP1.1 on the yield was insignificant (\(p>0.05\)).  
Moisture of DAC decreased during storage (\(p<0.05\)). Meanwhile, the cheese made with _S. thermophilus_ TM11 showed no change in moisture, and the cheese made with _S. thermophilus_ SP1.1 showed a slight decrease. On days 21 and 45, compared to cheese made with _S. thermophilus_ TM11, DAC significantly decreased (\(p<0.05\)) cheese moisture by 5.7% and 9.1%, respectively. The results suggested that EPS-producing _S. thermophilus_ TM11 had a strong capacity of moisture retention and could be used in CRMP to solve the problem of whey leakage during storage.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & **Yield** & **Protein** & **Salt** & **Moisture** & \multirow{2}{*}{**pH**} & **Lactococci counts** \\  & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & & **[LogCFU/g]** \\ \hline Direct-acidified cheese & & & & & & \\ Day 1 & 23.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 25.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.71 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 65.0 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 6.32 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & - \\ Day 21 & - & - & - & 62.5 \(\pm\) 0.9 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 6.28 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & - \\ Day 45 & - & - & - & 59.9 \(\pm\) 1.3 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 6.29 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & - \\ Cheese with _S. thermophilus_ TM11 & & & & & & \\ Day 1 & 24.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 23.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 66.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 5.13 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 7.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ DayCRMP produced by _S. thermophilus_ TM11 had a slightly lower protein content than other cheeses (\(p<0.05\)). The increased moisture retention was the main reason, although the drain processing also caused the loss of total protein. The protein percentage (%), calculated as the ratio of the protein content to the total solids content, had no difference among the cheeses: 41.6% for TM11 cheese, 41.8% for SP1.1 cheese and 42.3% for DAC (\(p>0.05\)).  
_S. thermophilus_ SP1.1 has a higher capacity to proliferate and acidify than _S. thermophilus_ TM11. CRMP made with _S. thermophilus_ SP1.1 had higher lactococci counts and lower pH value than that of _S. thermophilus_ TM11. The difference in strain counts may be due to the continuous proliferation during the cooling of cheese made with strain SP1.1, or due to the loss of bacteria with whey in drain processing of cheese made with strain TM11. The pH of cheese made with _S. thermophilus_ SP1.1 decreased slightly during storage, and a statistically significance was found between the pH on days 1 and 45 (\(p<0.05\)).