See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292988580

cow milk

Article · June 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 3,451

1 author:

Ramani Hitesh
Main Cotton Research Station, NAU, Surat
14 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Screening of Cotton for drought, Salinity, Fatty acid profiling and biochemical marker for GMS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramani Hitesh on 05 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________

Comparative Study of Nutrients Profile of Cow Milk at Different Lactation:

A Case Study of Gir Cow Milk

N. H. Garaniya, H. R. Ramani*, Dr. B. A. Golakiya

Department of Biochemistry, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, Gujarat, India

ABSTRACT

To assess the biochemical study of Gir cow milk, a total of 24 healthy cows were selected from the herd of
cattle breeding farm, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh. All the biochemical parameters were
done of fresh cow milk in their different stages of lactation from 1 to 8. Milk samples were collected early
in the morning between 4.00 to 5.00 am. Trace elements (Iron, zinc, manganese and copper) were higher
in buffalo milk than that of cow milk. Macro elements (sodium, potassium, calcium,) remained almost
same in each of the lactation stage in cow. There were no significant differences found in milk. All the
biomolecules almost remained same in each of the lactation.

Keywords: Lactation (L), Cattle Breeding Farm (CBF)

Author for Correspondence E-mail: hiteshramani2007@gmail.com

1. INTRODUCTION Department of Biochemistry, Junagadh

Cow’s milk is being used form a very early
period. It is being used in many processes of
medicinal and spiritual purposes.It is being
used as an essential part of panchamrit” which
is being distributed as Prasad
Satyanarayan pooja. The practice of drinking
cow's milk is ancient, thought to date back
as early as 6,000-8,000 B.C. Milk and other
dairy products were so highly valued in
ancient Egypt that only the very wealthy could
afford to consume them. Beginning in the 5th
century A. D., the milk of cows and sheep
began to be especially prized in Europe, but it
was’nt until the 14th century that the demand
for cow's milk began to outpace that of milk
from sheep.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study was conducted
Agricultural University, Junagadh. The
samples of milk were collected from 24 cows
(1 to 8 lactation stages). Three animals were
selected in each lactation stage. The samples
were provided by Cattle Breeding farm,
after Agricultural University, Junagadh. 200 ml
sterile bottles were used for the sample
collection. The milk samples of each species
were collected on alternate days.
2.1. Milking Routines
The cows were hand-milked twice daily at
4.00 am and 4.00 pm. Milking was performed
by the same five persons throughout the
experiment, in accordance with normal
milking management at the experimental
farm. The milking routine began with cleaning
of the teats with water and then drying them
with a towel. After teat cleaning, cow’s own
calf was used for stimulation of milk ejection.
at The calves were allowed to suckle all four

© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved Page 19

 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________

teats during pre-stimulation. After 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

stimulation, the milker tied the calf near his
mother and started milking. If flow of milk
stopped before the udder was considered to be
empty, the calves were used for a short time
again, to stimulate a milk ejection. The cows
were fed cottonseed cake during milking.
After milking, the calves were allowed to
suckle the residual milk. The calves were then
separated from their mothers. After evening’s
milking and suckling, the calves were kept
apart from the cows during the night.
The results of pH, fat, protein, solid not fat
(SNF), lactose and density of cow’s milk is
shown in Table I. pH of cow’s milk ranged
from 6.61 to 6.65 and highest value was
observed in lactation no.4 (L4) as shown in
Figure 1. The pH of cow milk in present study
was supported by previous study [17, 7].

2.2. Sample Analysis

The milk yield from each individual cow was
recorded on regular basis. The samples were
transferred to the Department of Biochemistry,
Junagadh Agricultural University, where milk
was analyzed for biochemical study (pH, Fat,
Protein, Solid Not Fat, Density, and Lactose)
by using milk analyzer called EKOMILK
ULTRAPRO [12, 17] in the instrumentation
laboratory at CBF. pH was determined by
using pH meter [1,17].
The macro elements like sodium and
potassium were determined by using flame
photometer [2, 3, 4]. Calcium was determined
by Versenate EDTA method. For the
determination of macro element, wet digestion
of milk was required.[15]
Milk was analyzed for microelements (Fe, Zn,
Cu and Mn). Spectr AA 220 type atomic The fat content in cow milk ranged from 4.44
absorption spectroscopy was used for the to 4.88 gm% in different stages of lactation
determination of the microelements [14, 11]. and the highest content was found in lactation
Ash preparation is required for this study [15]. no.6 (L6) as shown in Figure 2. These value
were similar to those have been reported

© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved Page 20

 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________

9.8

Lactose content (mg%)

L1
9.6
4.25 L1
9.4 L2
SNF (mg%)

4.2
L2
9.2
L3 4.15
9 4.1 L3
L4
8.8 4.05 L4
8.6 L5 4
L5
8.4 3.95
L6
8.2 3.9 L6
1 1
L7
L7

L8
Stages of Lactation Stages of Lactation L8

Fig.3 SNF(mg% ) at different stages of Lactation Fig.5 Lactose content (mg% ) at different stages of Lactation

4.1 L1 29 L1
Protein content (mg%)

Density (gm/L)

4
28.5
3.9 L2 L2
3.8 28
3.7 L3 27.5 L3
3.6
27
3.5 L4 L4
3.4 26.5
3.3 L5 L5
26
3.2
3.1 L6 25.5 L6
1 1

L7 L7

Stages of Lactation Stages of Lactation

L8 L8

Fig.4 Protein content (mg% ) at different stages of Lactation Fig.6 Density(gm/L) at different stages of Lactation

earlier [9, 17,
observed in cow was slightly higher than that
of previous study on Bostauras dairy cow [22,
21]. The SNF in milk ranged from 8.73 to
9.37 gm% and the highest value was observed
in L3.
Similar value of SNF (Figure 3) had been
reported earlier by [17]. The protein content in
cow milk ranged from 3.45 to 4.01 gm% and
the highest value was observed in L7 (Figure
4).
19, 23]. The fat content The protein content found were similar to
that of in earlier study [5, 19, 23, 6 and 16]
and the same value were found to be slightly
higher than that in previous study done by [8]
Lactose content in cow milk ranged from 4.01
to 4.19 gm% as shown in Figure 5 and highest
content observed in L8. These values of
lactose were supported by earlier study [17, 6
and 9].Density in cow milk ranged from 26.61
to 28.68-g/l. The highest values were observed
in L7 (Figure 6).

© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved Page 21

 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________

Table I: Biochemical constituents of Gir cow milk.

Stage of Lactation pH Fat Protein SNF Lactose Density

(mg%) (mg%) (mg%) (mg%) (gm/L)
L1 6.62 4.60 3.58 9.24 4.14 27.78
L2 6.65 4.85 3.47 9.34 4.08 28.01
L3 6.64 4.56 3.46 9.38 4.16 28.43
L4 6.62 4.77 3.69 9.32 4.14 27.61
L5 6.61 4.44 3.81 9.72 4.06 26.72
L6 6.63 4.88 3.82 9.03 4.19 26.73
L7 6.62 4.69 4.01 8.79 4.00 28.68
L8 6.61 4.72 3.67 8.73 4.00 28.51
S.Em ± 0.0447 0.2923 0.1811 0.3702 0.1411 1.4774
C.D. N.S. N.S. 0.509 1.039 N.S. N.S.
CV% 1.509 13.947 10-978 9.125 7.702 11.878

The result of macronutrients content of Gir in L3 (Figure 8). Potassium in this study was
cow milk is shown in Table II. Sodium in cow slightly higher than that of reported in the
milk ranged 483.00 to 547.20 ppm, as can be previous study by Li-Qiang Qin, et al. [14].
made out in Figure 7, the highest value was The Calcium in cow milk ranged from
reported in L3. Na in cow milk was in 1068.47 to 1221.53 ppm, the highest value
accordance with the study done by [14] was observed in L5 (Figure 9). The calcium
Potassium in cow milk ranged from 1026.33 to content observed in present study was
Fig.1ppm,
1081.73 Sodium content
and (ppm)
highest at different
value stages
was reported supported by [14].
Fig.2 Potassium content (ppm) at different
of Lactation stages of Lactation

L8 494.8 L8 1035.47
L7 485.47 L7 1036
Stages of Lactation

Stages of Lactation

L6 485.33 L6 1031.53
L5 522.6 L5 1052.6
L4 483 L4 1026.33
L3 547.2 L3 1081.73
L2 515.67 L2 1074.8
L1 499.2 L1 1081
Sodium content (ppm) Potassium content (ppm)

.
Fig. 7: Sodium Content (ppm) at Different Fig. 8: Potassium content (ppm) at Different
Stages of Lactation Stages of Lactation

© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved Page 22

 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
Fig.3 Calcium content (ppm) at different
________________________________________________________________________________________
stages of Lactation

. L8 1151.2
L7 1143.93

Stages of Lactation
L6 1068.47
L5 1221.53
L4 1110
L3 1169.93
L2 1085.47
L1 1187.67
Ca lcium conte nt (ppm)

Fig. 9: Calcium Content (ppm) at Different Stages of Lactation.

Table.II. Macronutrient Constituents in Gir Cow Milk.

STAGES OF LACTATION SODIUM POTASSIUM CALCIUM

L1 499.20 1081.00 1187.67
L2 515.67 1074.80 1085.47
L3 547.20 1081.73 1169.93
L4 483.00 1026.33 1110.00
L5 522.60 1052.60 1221.53
L6 485.33 1031.53 1068.47
L7 485.47 1036.00 1143.93
L8 494.80 1035.47 1151.20
S.Em ± 55.589 63.5213 56.39
C.D. N.S. N.S. 158.337
CV% 24.65 13.496 11.040

Table III: Micronutrient Content in Gir Cow Milk.

Stages of Lactation Copper (ppm) Zinc (ppm) Manganese (ppm) Iron (ppm)
L1 0.182 0.968 0.052 1.444
L2 0.171 0.922 0.078 1.660
L3 0.157 1.017 0.071 1.946
L4 0.138 0.853 0.069 1.788
L5 0.153 0.907 0.076 1.936
L6 0.164 0.779 0.053 0.994
L7 0.118 0.791 0.069 1.482
L8 0.109 0.742 0.067 1.534
S.Em ± 0.0398 0.1454 0.0205 0.2004
C.D. N.S. N.S. N.S. 0.563
CV% 59.679 37.260 68.614 28.036

© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved Page 23

 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________
The result of all the micronutrients content is
shown in Table III for cow milk. Copper in
cow milk ranged from 0.109 to 0.182 ppm and
highest value was reported in L1 (Figure 10).
The present value of copper content was
supported by previous study done by [24, 20,
10 and 11]. Zinc in cow milk ranged from
0.742 to 1.017 ppm and highest value was
observed in L3 (Figure 11). This value of Zn
was supported by previous study [18] and
lower than that has been reported by others
Fig.10: Copper Content (ppm) at Different
Stages of Lactation.
Fig.11: Zinc Content (ppm) at Different Stages
of Lactation.
© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved
[13, 24, 14] Manganese ‘ranged from 0.052 to
0.078 ppm and the highest value was observed
in L2 (Figure 12). The value of Mn in present
study was in accordance with the previous
study done by [18] and the same was slightly
lower than the value reported by [14 and 24].
Iron in cow milk ranged from 0.994 to 1.946
ppm and highest value was observed in L3.
The Fe content in cow milk was slightly lower
than that was reported previous (Figure 13;
[18, 14]).
Fig.12: Manganese Content (ppm) at
Different Stages of Lactation.
Fig.13: Iron Contesnt (ppm) at Different
Stages of Lactation.
Page 24
 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________
4. CONCLUSION
The present investigation on “Biochemical study
of Gir Cow Milk at different stages of lactation”
has been done at Department of Biochemistry,
Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh. All
the parameters were done of fresh cow milk of
different stages of lactation from 1 to 8. From each
stage, three cows were selected and milk samples
were collected early in the morning between 4.00
to 5.00 am. pH of cow milk almost remained same
with each lactation stage. The fat percentage of
cow milk did not significantly vary with different
stages of lactation (4.60 to 4.87%). The density of
cow milk (26.71 to 28.67 g/l) did not varied
significantly with different lactation stages. In
protein, lactose, and solid not fat, no significant
variation has been found in cow milk with
different stages of lactation. From the above result,
we can conclude that there was no significant
variation in macro-elements (Ca, Na, K) content in
each stage of lactation. The macronutrient content
of cow milk almost remained same in all the
lactation stages. Also, no significant variation has
been found in micro-elements (Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe)
content in each stage of lactation. The
micronutrient content in Gir cow milk almost
remained same in all the lactation stages.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I am greatly indebted to Dr. B. A.
Golakiya, Head of the Bio-Chemistry Department,
Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh for
allowing me to undertake the present dissertation
study, for suggesting an interesting topic for
© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved
dissertation work and permitting me to use the
institute’s facilities.
I sincerely wish to thank Dr. M. K. Mandavia,
Professor, Department of Bio-chemistry, Junagadh
Agricultural University, Junagadh for helpingme
in writing my thesis, and suggestions during my
work.
I would also like to thank Mr.U .K. Kandoliya Dr.
M. K. Sharma, Dr. H. P. Gajera, and Dr. R. S.
Tomar, Junagadh Agricultural University,
Junagadh, for providing valuable guidance in day
to day execution of the study in spite of their prior
preoccupation and helped in statistical analysis.
I also wish to thank Dr. D. N. Vakhariya,
Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh for
scientific discussions which has profusely helped
me in shaping up my scientific temperament in
general as well as dissertation in particular.
I would like to wish thanks Prof. R. G. Koria,
Asstt. Research Scientist and Mr. P. B. Busa,
Agricultural Officer, Mr. Sakaravadiya,
Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil
Science, Junagadh Agricultural University,
Junagadh for providing me valuable guidance in
minerals estimation throughout my work.
I would like to thank Dr. K. S. Murthi, Mr.
Yadav, Cattle Breeding Farm, Junagadh
Agricultural University, Junagadh for helping in
understanding the veterinary aspect during my
work.
I would also like to thank all the M.Sc. students in
this department for their help and support.
I must be failing in my duties if I do not express
my gratitude to Dr. K. S. Rao, Head of the
Bhanuben and Ratilal Doshi School of
Biosciences, Sardar Patel University, Vallabh-
Page 25
 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________

vidyanagar; Dr. Kiran Kalia, Dr. Vasudev

Thakkar, Dr. M. Nataraj and Dr. R. B. 10. Kira C. S. and Maihara V. A. Food
Subramanian who have assiduously and ardently Chemistry. 2007. 100. 390–395p.
encouraged and supported me in my M.Sc. study. 11. Kondyle E., Katsiari M. C. and
Vouysinas L. P. Food Chemistry.
REFERENCES 2007. 100. 226–230p.
12. Lampert L. M. Modern Dairy Products.
1. Anonymous. Official Methods of Analysis. N.Y., USA. Chemical Publishing
Arlington. VA. 1990. 212–220p. Company Inc. 1965. 345–350P.
2. Barnes R. B., Richardson D., Berry J. 13. Licata P., Trombetta D., Cristani M. et
W. et al. Industrial and Engineering al. Environment International 2004.
Chemistry, Analytical Edition, 1945. 30. 1–6p.
17. 600–611p. 14. Li-Qiang Qin, Xiao-Ping Wang., Wei
3. Berry J. W., Chappell D. G. and LI. et al. Journal of Health Science.
Barnes R. B. Indus. Eng. Chem. 1946. 2008. 55(2) 300–305p.
6. 605p. 15. Patricia Cunniff. Official Methods of
4. Bills C. E., McDonald F. D., Aanalysis. Edn. 16. Arlington,
Niedermeier W.et al. Analytical Virginia, USA. AOAC International.
Chemistry, 1949. 21. 1076–1080p. 1955. 13–31p.
5. Bonfoh B., Zinsstag J., Farah Z. et al. 16. Pein J. Industrial and Engineering
Journal of Food Composition and Chemistry, Analytical Edition 1970. 18.
Analysis. 2005. 18(1) 29–38p. 19–24p.
6. Eckles C. H., Combs W. B. and Macy 17. Kanwal R.,, Ahmed T., and Mirza B. .
H. Milk and Milk Products. Edn. 4. N.Y., Asian Journal of Plant Science 2004. 3(3)
USA. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc. 300–3005p.
1957. 12. 988–992p. 18. Birghila S., Dobrinas S., Stanciu G. et
7. Gervilla R., Felipe X., Ferragut V. et al. al. Environmental Engineering and
Journal of Dairy Science.1997. 80. 2297– Management Journal 2008..7(6) 805–
2303p. 808p.
8. Gilbert G. R., Hargrove G. L. and 19. Sidibe-Anago A. G., Ouedraogo G. A. and
Kroger M. Journal of Dairy Science.1972. Ledin I. Tropical Animal Health and
56. 409–419p. Production. 2006. 38. 563–570p.
9. Hanjra S. H., Akram M. and Khan B. 20. Simsek O., Gultekin R., Oksuz O. et
B. National Symposium on Dairy al. Nahrung 2000. 44. S360–S363p.
Technology held at NARC, Ishlamabad, 21. Sjaunja L.O. International Committee for
Pakistan. 1989. 55–59p. Recording the Productivity of Milk

© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved Page 26

 Research & Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science & Technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 19-27
________________________________________________________________________________________
th
Animals (ICRPMA). 25 Session. Research. 2009. 4(3) 151–155p.
22. Syrstad O. Livestock Production 24. Dobrzanski Z., Kolacz R., Gorecka H.
Science.1977. 4. 141–151p. et al. Journal of Environmental
23. Millogo V. Ouédraogo G. A., Agenäs S. Studies. 2005. 14(5) 685–589p.
et al. African Journal of Agricultural

© STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved Page 27

View publication stats