Determination of the Chemical and Proximate Properties of Fresh Milk Samples From Small Holder Dairy Cows and Large Mechanized Dairy Cows in Parts of Kaduna State, Nigeria.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3385449/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Determination of the Chemical and Proximate Properties of Fresh Milk Samples From Small Holder Dairy Cows and Large Mechanized Dairy Cows in Parts of Kaduna State, Nigeria.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3385449/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Chemical and Proximate composition of different raw fresh milk samples from small holder dairy cows and large mechanized dairy cows in Zaria and Kaduna in Kaduna State, Nigeria were determined using standard methods and EDRXF spectrophotometer. The mean values of the pH based on farm locations ranged between 6.71 ± 0.03–6.81 ± 0.02 and the titratable acidity ranged from 0.15 ± 0.04–0.17 ± 0.03. From the various farms, while the mean values of the proximate composition of milk from the various farms ranged from 86.30 ± 0.01–87.94 ± 0.04 for moisture up to 12.51 ± 0.01–13.82 ± 0.01 for Total solids. Based on the different farm management locations, the proximate values for moisture ranged from 86.38 ± 0.01–87.25 ± 0.18 while that of Total solids ranged from 12.96 ± 0.12–13.49 ± 0.02. The statistical analysis of the obtained result at 0.05 probability value showed significant differences between pH values, between acidity values as well as in the values of the proximate characteristics from the different farm locations which were attributable to the differences in the farm management practices.

General Microbiology

Proximate analysis

Small holder dairy cattle

Large mechanized dairy cattle

Milk

Kaduna

The milk of domesticated animals (especially cow) is an important food source for humans, either as fresh fluids or processed into a number of dairy products such as yoghurt butter or cheese because it is nature’s most nearly perfect food, deficient only in iron (Blood et al., 2007).

It is designed by nature to give a complete food to very young animals and therefore has exceptionally high nutritional value containing carbohydrate, fat, protein vitamins and minerals, which is equally an excellent culture medium for many kinds of microorganisms (Rampone et al, 2003).

Milk has distinct physical, chemical and biological characteristics which justifies its high quality for consumption (Hemalatha and Shanti, 2010). Nigeria, like other developing countries has its dairy industry facing a major problem of low demand for raw milk, this is partly because of public health concern over its safety and quality.

The chemical and proximate analysis of milk will help ascertain the product safety and quality. However, if efforts are made to produce safe and quality milk, it would not only protect public health, but also stimulate growth of the dairy industry in Nigeria.

Determination of the chemical and Proximate properties of milk samples:

The fresh milk samples were analysed for pH, Titratable acidity, Moisure, Ash content, Protein, Fat, Carbohydrate, Crude fibre, Lactose and Total solids by the standard method of Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 2013).

pH

The pH of the milk samples were measured through electronic digital pH meter. Buffer solutions of pH 4 and 7 were used to calibrate the pH meter. Milk sample was taken in a beaker, electrode of pH meter was immersed in the sample to determine pH.

Titratable Acidity (as lactic acid)

Acidity was determined by taking 9ml of milk sample in a titration flask and 3 drops of 1% phenolphthalein indicator were added to it. The sample containing indiator was titrated against O.1 N Sodium hydroxide (NaoH) until light pink end point appeared. Volume of O.1 N NaoH used was recorded to determine acidity of milk in terms of lactic acid by using the expression:

% Acidity (as lactic acid) = \(\frac{\text{V}\text{o}\text{l}\text{u}\text{m}\text{e} \text{o}\text{f} \text{N}\text{a}0\text{H} \left(\text{m}\text{l}\right) \text{x} 0.009 }{\text{V}\text{o}\text{l} \text{o}\text{f} \text{m}\text{i}\text{l}\text{k} \text{s}\text{a}\text{m}\text{p}\text{l}\text{e}}\)x100

Moisture content

A gram of milk sample was weighed into a clean dried porcelain evaporating dish, this was placed on an oven maintained at 105⁰C for 6h. The evaporating dish was cooled in desiccator to room temperature and then, this was reweighed and recorded. Weight of moisture was calculated by subtracting the weight of dried samples from the fresh.

Ash content

A well mixed and homogenized milk sample (5ml) was taken in a crucible and the moisture was evaporated to dryness of sample on steam bath. Then the crucible containing the ash was placed in a desiccator for 30 minutes and weighed.

Ash (%) = \(\frac{\text{R}\text{e}\text{s}\text{i}\text{d}\text{u}\text{e} \text{w}\text{e}\text{i}\text{g}\text{h}\text{t} }{\text{S}\text{a}\text{m}\text{p}\text{l}\text{e} \text{w}\text{e}\text{i}\text{g}\text{h}\text{t}}\) x100

Crude protein

This was determined by Kjeldahl’s method as China outlined by the AOAC 2000. One ml of milk sample was digested in digestion tubes using 2 digestion tablets and 20ml of sulphuric acid. Digested sample was distilled with 40% NaoH. The distillate was collected in 50ml 4% Boric acid solution and titrated against 0.1 N Hcl. The protein content in the milk was estimated by multiplying the percentage nitrogen with 6.38.

Protein = % N x 6.38

Fat/Lipid

Ten ml of sulphuric acid was dispensed into a butyrometer, to this, 11ml of milk and 1ml of amyl alcohol were added. It was closed with rubber cork and shaken severally until all the milk was digested by the acid. Then the butyrometer was placed in a water bath at 65⁰C for 5 minute.

The sample was then centrifuged at 1100rpm for 5 minutes. Finally the sample was returned back to the water bath at 65⁰C for 5 more minutes and the fat percentages was read from the butyrometer scale.

Carbohydrate (Bydifference)

This was determined by subtracting from 100, the sum of the percentage Moisture, Ash, Protein and Fat. The remainder value gave the Carbohydrate content.

Carbohydrate (%) = 100- (Sum of % moisture, protein, ash & fat)

Crude Fibre

Two grams of the milk sample was weighed into sterile container, this was then defatted. This defatted sample was boiled with 200ml (1.25%) H₂S0₄ for 30m. It was further filtered and washed with boiling water until the washing was no longer acidic. The residue was boiled in a round bottom flask with 200ml (1.25%) NaoH for another 30m, filtered again and washed with boiling water until the washing was no longer alkaline.

The residue was scrapped into a previously weighed crucible and dried at 100⁰C. It was left in a desiccator to cool and then weighed. It was thereafter incinerated in a muffle furnace at 600⁰C, left in a desiccators to cool and then weighed from where the crude fibre content was calculated.

Lactose

Lactose was determined by the copper reduction method. A gram of milk was weighed into 250ml volumetric flask, it was diluted with hot water and allowed to stand for 30 minutes. It was then cooled and 4ml of carrez I solution was added, it was mixed and another 4ml of carrez II solution also added to it. Finally, it was diluted to the mark and then filtered. The lactose content was then determined by the Lane and Eynone’s method, using standard Fehling solution.

Total Solids

Fresh cow milk sample was thoroughly mixed and 5g was transferred to a pre weighed and dried flat bottom crucible. The milk samples were dried in a hot air oven at 120⁰C for 3h. Finally the dried samples were taken out of the oven and placed in desiccators to cool down to room temperature. The samples were weighed again and total solids were calculated, using the relationship

Total Solids = \(\frac{\text{C}\text{r}\text{u}\text{c}\text{i}\text{b}\text{l}\text{e} \text{W}\text{t} + \text{O}\text{v}\text{e}\text{n} \text{d}\text{r}\text{i}\text{e}\text{d} \text{s}\text{a}\text{m}\text{p}\text{l}\text{e} \text{W}\text{t}- \text{C}\text{r}\text{u}\text{s}\text{i}\text{b}\text{l}\text{e} \text{W}\text{t} }{\text{S}\text{a}\text{m}\text{p}\text{l}\text{e} \text{W}\text{t}}\)X 100

2 Chemical and Proximate Composition of Milk Samples

The mean values of the chemical properties of the fresh milk samples were shown in Table 4.5. The pH values ranged from 6.71\(\pm\)0.03 which was the least in large mechanized dairy farm (LMDF) Kaduna, to 6.81\(\pm\)0.02 which was the highest small holder dairy farm, Kaduna. Anova showed a statistical significant difference between the pH values of fresh milk from different farm management types at p\(\le\)0.05.

Table 4.5

Mean values of the chemical properties of fresh milk samples
Mean ± SEM
Variables	N	LMDF-Kaduna	SHDF-Kaduna	SHDF-Zaria	LMDF-Zaria	LOS
pH	12	6.71 ± 0.03b	6.81 ± 0.02a	6.72 ± 0.05b	6.73 ± 0.06b	0.001**
Acidity	12	0.15 ± .004	0.15 ± .004	0.16 ± .003	0.17 ± .003	0.0005**

a, b = Means with different superscript in the same row differ significantly (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01)

Key:

SEM - Standard Error of Mean

N - Number of Samples Tested

LOS - Level of significance

LMDF - Large Mechanized Dairy Farm

SHDF - Small Holder Dairy Farm

The mean values of the acidity of the milk samples ranged from 0.15\(\pm\).004 which was the least in both LMDF Kaduna and small holder dairy farm (SHDF) Kaduna, to 0.17\(\pm\).003 which was the highest for LMDF Zaria. Statistical significant difference existed among the sampling points at p\(\le\)0.05.

The mean values of the physical properties i.e acidity and pH of the milk samples from various farms were shown in Table 4.6. There were significant differences at (p\(\le\)0.05) in the acidity in all the farm locations, but there was no significant differences (p \(\ge\)0.05) in the pH of the different farm locations.

Table 4.6

Mean (± SEM) Acidity and pH of fresh cow milk from different farms in Kaduna and Zaria
	Farm Location	Acidity	pH
LMDF Kaduna	X1	0.14 ± 0.01b	6.78 ± 0.01
LMDF Kaduna	X2	0.15 ± 0.01ab	6.64 ± 0.00
SHDF Kaduna	X3	0.15 ± 0.01ab	6.52 ± 0.01
	X4	0.15 ± 0.01ab	6.64 ± 0.01
	X5	0.16 ± 0.01ab	6.96 ± 0.02
	X6	0.16 ± 0.01ab	6.75 ± 0.01
SHDF Zaria	Y1	0.16 ± 0.01ab	6.41 ± 0.01
	Y2	0.17 ± 0.01a	6.83 ± 0.01
	Y3	0.17 ± 0.01a	6.97 ± 0.01
	Y4	0.16 ± 0.01ab	6.72 ± 0.01
LMDF Zaria	Y5	0.15 ± 0.01ab	6.78 ± 0.03
LMDF Zaria	Y6	0.14 ± 0.01b	6.84 ± 0.01
	Pvalue	7.76	0.53
	LOS	0.001**	0.67ns

Means with different superscript in the same column differ significantly (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01)

Key:

SEM - Standard Error of Mean

LOS - Level of significance

ns - not significant

LMDF - Large Mechanized Dairy Farm

SHDF - Small Holder Dairy Farm

Table 4.7 is the mean values of the proximate composition of the milk samples. The values ranged from 87.27\(\pm\)0.01–87.94\(\pm\)0.04 for moisture, 0.84\(\pm\)0.01–0.89\(\pm\)0.01 for ash etc. significant differences existed (p\(\le\)0.05) in all the values of the proximate characteristics from all the farm locations. Anova was also used to test for the effect of farm management type/location on the proximate composition of the milk samples (Table 4.8) significant difference (at p\(\le\)0.05) existed in all the proximate parameters from the different farm management types, except in crude fibre where there was no significant difference (at p\(\le\)0.05). Farm management/location or sampling point has effect on proximate composition.

Table 4.7

Mean values (± SEM) of the proximate composition of fresh milk samples
	Proximate parameters (%)
	Farm Location	Moisture	Ash	Protein	fat	Carbohydrate	Crude fibre	lactose	Total solids
LMDF Kaduna	X1	86.43 ± 0.01h	0.88 ± 0.01ab	4.50 ± 0.01b	4.06 ± 0.01i	4.23 ± 0.01f	0.28 ± 0.01e	4.72 ± 0.01d	13.41 ± 0.01e
LMDF Kaduna	X2	86.62 ± 0.01f	0.86 ± 0.00ab	4.32 ± 0.00c	4.15 ± 0.01j	4.41 ± 0.01e	0.23 ± 0.01f	4.58 ± 0.01f	13.32 ± 0.01f
SHDF Kaduna	X3	87.34 ± 0.01d	0.84 ± 0.01c	3.43 ± 0.01g	4.42 ± 0.01e	5.35 ± 0.01d	0.16 ± 0.01gh	4.43 ± 0.01g	12.84 ± 0.00h
	X4	87.45 ± 0.01c	0.85 ± 0.01c	3.37 ± 0.01h	4.38 ± 0.01f	5.68 ± 0.01c	0.14 ± 0.01h	4.34 ± 0.01i	13.46 ± 0.01c
	X5	87.28 ± 0.01de	0.86 ± 0.01bc	3.24 ± 0.01i	5.61 ± 0.01a	5.57 ± 0.01c	0.34 ± 0.01d	5.16 ± 0.01b	12.75 ± 0.00i
SHDF Zaria	X6	86.52 ± 0.01g	0.85 ± 0.00c	3.06 ± 0.01j	4.34 ± 0.01g	5.42 ± 0.01d	0.42 ± 0.01b	4.20 ± 0.01j	13.82 ± 0.01a
	Y1	87.24 ± 0.01e	0.85 ± 0.01c	3.41 ± 0.01g	5.62 ± 0.01a	6.61 ± 0.01a	0.45 ± 0.01a	4.40 ± 0.01h	12.64 ± 0.01j
	Y2	86.30 ± 0.00j	0.86 ± 0.01bc	3.38 ± 0.01h	4.24 ± 0.01h	5.40 ± 0.01d	0.39 ± 0.01c	4.61 ± 0.01e	13.28 ± 0.01g
	Y3	87.94 ± 0.04a	0.86 ± 0.01bc	3.52 ± 0.01e	5.51 ± 0.01b	5.32 ± 0.01d	0.26 ± 0.01e	5.35 ± 0.01a	12.51 ± 0.01k
	Y4	87.52 ± 0.01b	0.84 ± 0.01c	3.49 ± 0.01f	4.90 ± 0.01d	6.24 ± 0.01b	0.17 ± 0.01g	4.72 ± 0.01d	13.42 ± 0.01de
LMDF Zaria	Y5	86.40 ± 0.01ih	0.89 ± 0.01a	4.62 ± 0.01a	4.03 ± 0.01k	4.51 ± 0.01e	0.26 ± 0.01e	4.83 ± 0.01c	13.53 ± 0.01b
	Y6	86.36 ± 0.01ij	0.88 ± 0.01ab	3.81 ± 0.01d	5.41 ± 0.01c	4.47 ± 0.01e	0.28 ± 0.01e	4.63 ± 0.01e	13.44 ± 0.01dc
	Pvalue	3.13	17.09	60.96	4.00	39.20	3.35	1.21	3.45
	LOS	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**

Means with different superscript in the same column differ significantly (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01)

Significant differences in means were separated using Turkey HSD test

Key:

SD - Standard Error of Mean

LOS - Level of significance

LMDF - Large Mechanized Dairy Farm

SHDF - Small Holder Dairy Farm

Table 4.8

Mean values (± SEM) of the proximate composition of fresh milk samples from different points in Kaduna and Zaria
Farm Management type/location
Parameters	LMDF Kaduna	SHDF Kaduna	SHDF Zaria	LMDF Zaria	LOS
Moisture	86.53 ± 0.04b	86.38 ± 0.01b	87.15 ± 0.11a	87.25 ± 0.18a	0.0004**
Ash	0.87 ± 0.01b	0.89 ± 0.01a	0.85 ± 0.01c	0.85 ± 0.01c	0.0001**
Protein	4.41 ± 0.04a	4.22 ± 0.18ab	3.27 ± 0.04b	3.45 ± 0.06b	0.0001**
Fat	4.11 ± 0.02c	4.72 ± 0.31b	4.69 ± 0.16b	5.08 ± 0.17a	0.02*
Carbohydrate	4.32 ± 0.04d	4.49 ± 0.01bc	5.50 ± 0.04a	5.89 ± 0.17b	0.0001**
Crude fibre	0.26 ± 0.01	0.27 ± 0.01	0.27 ± 0.04	0.32 ± 0.03	0.51
Lactose	4.65 ± 0.08b	4.73 ± 0.11a	4.53 ± 0.11b	4.77 ± 0.11a	0.03*
Total solid	13.37 ± 0.02b	13.49 ± 0.02a	13.22 ± 0.13b	12.96 ± 0.12c	0.03*

Means with different superscript in the same row differ significantly (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01)

Significant differences in means were separated using Turkey HSD test

Key:

SEM - Standard Error of Mean

LOS - Level of Significance

LMDF - Large Mechanized Dairy Farm

SHDF - Small Holder Dairy Farm

Chemical and Proximate composition of milk samples

The mean pH values of fresh cow milk samples obtained from farms in Kaduna and Zaria ranged from 6.71\(\pm\)0.03 to 6.81\(\pm\)0.02, these values were within the normal pH range of fresh cow milk which according to O’connor, 1995 should be in the range of 6.6–6.8.

Milk pH gives an indication of the milk hygiene as, according to O’connor (1995), pH values higher than 6.8 indicates mastitic milk while pH values below 6.6 indicates acidity due to bacterial multiplication. However in other studies, various rates of pH readings were reported for raw cow milk as between 6.44\(\pm\)0.030–6.98\(\pm\)1.2, (Grant et al; 2003, Obi and Ikenebomeh, 2007 and Ogbanna et al; 2012). The pH values in this study were within the range reported by those other researchers.

The test of acidity is important in milk hygiene because the percentage of acid present in milk is a rough indicator of its age and the manner in which it has been handled (Walstra et al; 2007). Normal fresh milk should have an apparent acidity of 0.14–0.16% as lactic acid (O’mahony, 1988). The mean titratable acidity values in this study ranged from 0.14\(\pm\)0.01–0.17\(\pm\)0.04 for milk samples from Kaduna and Zaria, these values were relatively high, this high titratable acidity values obtained suggests bacterial contamination and subsequent multiplication during handling and transportation. Nevertheless, in a similar study, Asaminew, 2007 reported a higher total acidity of 0.23\(\pm\)0.01 for milk samples in Ethiopia.

In proximate analysis, the values of the main milk constituents/composition are known to vary considerably depending on the individual animal i.e it’s genetic make up, Its breed, stage of lactation, age, Feed, health status, herd management practices and environmental conditions (Mathewman, 1993).

The mean values of the moisture content varied from 86.30\(\pm\)0.00–87.94\(\pm\)0.04 in the different farms sampled in Kaduna and Zaria. These values were lower than the 89.30% reported by Etitohu and Alicho (2010) in Nasarawa state. The difference may be due to differences in diet or environmental conditions. Water is the main constituent of milk and much milk processing is designed to remove water from milk or reduce the moisture content because a high moisture content implies high water activity which supports mirobial growth and consequently reducing the shelflife of the milk sample (Ajai et al; 2012).

The mean ash content of the milk samples differed significantly (p\(\le\)0.05) from each other based on the different sampling points, ranging from 0.84\(\pm\)0.01–0.89\(\pm\)0.01. The FAO/WHO 2007 recommended standard for milk ash lies at 0.90\(\pm\)0.10–1.00\(\pm\)0.01. The values from this findings therefore fall below the recommended standard. Other researchers have reported different ash values e.g higher values of 1.0 and 1.2% by Workneh, 1997 in Ethiopia and Olorunsomo et al., (2014) in Abeokuta, Nigeria and relatively lower value of 0.73 by Asaminew (2007) in Ethiopia. The differences may be due to differences in experimental locations or feeding. The ash value is an empirical measurement of the mineral constituents of foodstuff volatile component which is very essential in nutrition, in essence, the ash content is the reflection of the mineral composition of the milk.

The crude fibre content of all the samples did not differ significantly (p\(\le\)0.05) from each other. According to Schneeeman (2002), the crude fibre contributes to the health of the gastro intestinal` system and metabolic system in man such as prevention of constipation.

The mean carbohydrate values ranged from 4.23\(\pm\)0.01–6.61\(\pm\)0.01. This is rather low when compared to those of other workers who reported mean carbohydrate values of 10.56\(\pm\)1.56–13.20\(\pm\)2.48 (Web et al; 1994). The low carbohydrate values could be attributed to bacterial contamination which helped to breakdown some of the carbohydrate during metabolism (Ehirim and Ndimatang, 2004).

The values for protein ranged from 3.06\(\pm\)0.01–4.62\(\pm\)0.01. The FAO/WHO, 2007 standard for protein in raw fresh milk is 4.00\(\pm\)0.10 most of the values obtained in this work were below the standard. This could also be attributable to protein metabolism from bacterial contamination of the milk samples. However, the values were within the range of 3.25–4.05% reported by Mohammed et al., 2005 and Tayo et al., 2005 but even higher than the 3.16 and 3.18% reported by Alemede and Sadiq (2005) and Olafadehan and Adewunmi (2010).

Results of the mean fat content on this study revealed a reasonably high fat content in the milk samples, ranging from 4.03\(\pm\)0.01–5.61\(\pm\)0.01 as the United States Public Health Services (USPHS) milk ordinance and code recommended a minimum of 3.25% butterfat milk fat for fluid whole milk (Richardson, 1985). The high fat content could be due to the environment or stage of lactation in the cattle, because, fat content of milk has been found to vary considerably with stage of lactation (O’mahony, 1988). Fat of milk is the most valuable constitution of milk. Milk having a fair amount of fat is more valuable as a food than milk which is poor in fat (Kearson, 2005).

According to the European union standard, lactose content of fresh raw cow milk should not be less than 4.2% (Tamine, 2009). The lactose content of milk samples in this study ranged in value from 4.20\(\pm\)0.01–5.35\(\pm\)0.01. The analysed milk samples are therefore within the recommended standards. Generally the lactose content of milk is usually less subject to variations (O’mahony, 1998).

The mean total solid component of the analysed milk samples ranged from 12.51\(\pm\)0.01–13.53\(\pm\)0.01. This is in proximity to the 13.5% and 13.7% reported by Olafadehan and Adewunmi (2010) but higher than the 10.48% reported by Ojedapo et al., 2014 and yet less than the 15.0% reported by Olorunsomo et al., 2014. Differences in nutrition and herd management could influence the variation in percentage total solids in milk (Mathewman, 1993).

The European Union established quality standard stipulated that total solid content of raw cow milk should not be less than 12.5% (FAO/WHO, 2007). Therefore the values in the present study were still within the recommended level.

The knowledge of the chemical & proximate composition of milk is very important in order to know the milk with the right quality because a contaminated milk usually have values that differ from recommended levels and is unsuitable for consumption and may be discarded; as it tends to endanger public health from the infectious agents causing disease conditions leading to the changes and the resultant antibiotics used in treatment.

Milk that is abnormal or contaminated with antibiotics is unsaleable; there are veterinary and antibiotic costs; a higher culling rate and occasional fatalities. The milk processing industry also incurs losses because of problems that result from antibiotics in milk and the reduced chemical and bacterial quality of mastitic milk which affects the suitability of milk for processing.

Competing interests : The authors declare no competing interests.

Ajai, A.L., Ochigbo, S. S., Ndamitso, M. M. and Olaoluwajuwon, J. (2012) Proximate and mineral compositions of different raw cow’s milks in Minna, Niger state, Nigeria. European Journal of Applied Engineering and Scientific Research, 1 (1):23-29
Alamede, I.C. and Sadiq, H. (2008) “Yield and proximate analysis ofmilk sample obtained from Hostein Friesian and Bunaji cows under two different management systems” proceeding 33^rd, Annual conference of Nigerian society for animal production. Olabisi Onabanjo University: Ago Iwoye, Nigeria 222-223.
Asaminew, T. (2007) Microbial quality of raw cow’s milk collected from farmers and dairy cooperatives in Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha district, Ethiopia. Agri. Bio. J. North America. 2(1):29-33
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (2000) Official Methods of Analysis 15th edition Washington, D.C
Blood, D. C. Student, V.P. and Gay, C.C (2008), Sauders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary. Third edition, Saunders Elsevier. P. 1153.
Etonihu, A.C. and Alicho, J.O. (2010) Proximate and heavy metal compositions of milk from Ewe, cow, goat and human. Sciencia Acta xaveriana, (An International science journal) 1 (2): pp 41--50.
FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United National/World Health Organization(2007) Milk and Milk products. 1^st edition FAO/WHO of the United Nations.Rome Italy.
Grant, H.M., Westlesen, A. Mutukumira, A. N., Rukure, G., and Narvhus, J. A. (2003) Ocurrrence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk, cultured pasteurized milk and naturally soured milk produced at small scale diaries in Zimbabwe. Food control, 14: 539-544.
Hemalatha, S. and Shanthi,S. (2010) in vitro characterization of bacteriocin producing Bacillus subtilis from milk samples. African journal of Microbiology Research(19): 2004-2010.
Kearson, D. (2005) The Chemical Analysis of food 7^th edition chemical pulishers co. Berlin pp 9-11.
Matthewman, R. W. (1993) Dairying. Macmillan Tropical Agric Service, University of Edinburgh: U.K.
Muhammad, B. F., Abubakar, M.M. and Adegbola, T. A. (2005) “Butter fat composition of Bunaji cattle under Extensive Management System in outskirt of Bauchi Metropolis”. Bulletin of Science Association of Nigeria. 22: 43-47.
O’ Mahoney, M. (1998) Sensory Evaluation of Food (Statistical Methods and procedures). Published by Marcel Dekker, Inc New York and Basel p 8—23.
O’ Mahony, F. (1988) “Rural Diary Technology Experiences in Ethiopia”. Diary Technology Unit, ILRI Manual No. 4, International Livestock centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 64.
O’connor, C.B. (1995) Rural Diary Technology ILRI Training Manual 1, International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Obi, C.N., and Ikenebomeh, M.J. (2007) Studies on the Microbiology and Nutritional Qualities of a Nigerian fermented milk product (Nono) International Journal of Diary Science 2 1: 95-99.
Ogbanna, I.O., David, A. B., Waba, J.T., and Eze, P. C. (2012) Microbiological Quality Assessment of Briadon, Kesham and Kindirimo; Milk Products Sold in Naiduguri, Nigeria. Int J,. Diary Sci.7 (1): 11-19
Olafadehan, O.A. and Adewunmi, M.K. (2010) Mil production and Economic impactof strategic supplementation of prepartum Bunaji cows in the peri-urban areas of derived Savanna of South estern Nigeria. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20 (3): 123-126.
Olorunisomo, O.A. Ososanya, T.O., and Adedeji, O.Y. (2014) “Homogenization of milk and its effect on sensory and physicochemical properties of yoghurt” African Journal of Food Science. 8 (9): 465-470.
Rampone, H Bogni, C. Giraudo, J, and Calzori, A. (2003). Indentification of staphylococci from bovine milk in Argentina. Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologic: International Journal of Medical Microbiology 279: 537-543.
Richardson, H. G. (2005) Standard Methods for the examination of diary products 12^th edition American Public health Association. Washington D. C pp 133-150
Schneeman, B. O. (2002) Gastrointestinal physiology and functions. British Journal of Nutrition, 88 (2): 159-163.
Tamime, A. Y. (2009) Milk processing and quality management. Society of Diary technology United Kingdom.
Tayo, O. G., Anaeto,M. and Adurogbangba (2005) “Comparative Composition ofWHite Fulani cattle and Muturu cows Milk ACTA-SATECH 2 (2): 46-49.
Walstra, P., Wouters, J. T. M. and Geurts T. J (2006) Diary Science and Technology, 2 CRC press. Taylor and Francis group, Bocca Raton.
Workneh, A. (1997) Assessment of nutritive value and customer preference for some varieties of cheese made from goat ilk. M.Sc Thesis presented to the school of Graduate studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia P 108.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Determination of the Chemical and Proximate Properties of Fresh Milk Samples From Small Holder Dairy Cows and Large Mechanized Dairy Cows in Parts of Kaduna State, Nigeria.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Determination of the chemical and Proximate properties of milk samples:

pH

Titratable Acidity (as lactic acid)

Moisture content

Ash content

Crude protein

Fat/Lipid

Carbohydrate (Bydifference)

Crude Fibre

Lactose

Total Solids

RESULTS

2 Chemical and Proximate Composition of Milk Samples

DISCUSSION

Chemical and Proximate composition of milk samples

CONCLUSION

DECLARATION

REFERENCES

Status:

Version 1