Effect of Mechanical Treatment on the Free Fatty Acid
Content of Raw Milk'
ABSTRACT
The relative effect of different milking
procedures, physical handling, and pump-
ing on lipolytic activity in milk was in-
vestigated. Six cows were selected by
their stage of lactation fiom the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin dairy herd. Samples of
raw milk were collected daily from indiv-
idual cows and from each point where
physical abuse occurred as milk passed to
the bulk tank
Samples were refrigerated rapidly and
analyzed to determine concentration of
FFA. The method of W t h and Fitzger-
ald was used to obtain FFA concentra-
tions initially and after refrigerated stor-
age at 4'C for 24, 48, and 72 h. A milk
pump that contained a rotor turning at
3500 rpm was replaced with one turning
at 1750 rpm. Analysis of FFA was re-
peated in individual milk samples.
Results show a higher concentration of
FFA in milk moved by a pump turning at
3500 rpm. Significantly greater incre-
ments of rancidity were observed in these
samples after storage. Recommendations
are given to minimize lipolysis caused by
mechanical abuse on raw milk in farms
and plant handling systems.
(Key words: lipolysis, raw milk, free
fatty acids)
INTRODUCTION
Greater mechanization in handling milk on
d a q farms is a contributing factor in the in-
creased incidence of lipolysis in raw milk.
Once the concentration of FFA in milk reaches
Received December 11,1989.
Accepted March 7,1990.
'Research supported by the College of Agricultural and
Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin,Madison 53706.
1990 J Dairy Sci 73:205&2060
0. J. ESCOBAA and R. 1. BRADLEY, JR.
Department of Food Science
University of Wisconsin
Madison 53706
the flavor threshold, the rancid flavor defect
becomes apparent.
With the combination of temperature and
mechanical abuse, many modem milking sys-
tems have been identified as promoting lipoly-
sis in raw milk Problem factors include admit-
ting air to the milk line to simplify automatic
removal of inflations, elevation of warm milk
with a high air to milk ratio to overhead pipe-
lines, controllers that cause delay in pump shut-
off, and use of centrifugal pumps that revolve
at 3500 rpm. Although some of these factors
can be eliminated by proper installation, main-
tenance, and operation, the benefits of design
changes remain a source of debate. Conse-
quently, modem milking and milk handling
techniques needed to be reviewed. Changes
were ma& in the design of a typical millring
operation to reduce the speed of a milk pump,
to replace the check valve, and to control the
former levels of activation.
The fat globule membrane (FGM) protects
milk triglycerides from attack by lipase. En-
zyme access is further impaired by its associa-
tion with casein micelles, and perhaps by the
presence of inhibitors (10). Thus, native lipase
enzyme is well partitioned from the triglyceride
substrate. Little or no lipolysis should occur in
fresh milk, because the enzyme usually cannot
make contact with the substrate. Interfacial ten-
sion on globules is so low that the enzyme
cannot p e t r a t e the membrane to gain contact
with fat. However, when the membrane is
damaged and locally replaced by plasma pm-
teins, interfacial tension is increased and pro-
tection consequently reduced (7).
Milk fiom individual cows differs in its
tendency to develop rancidity (11). For natu-
rally active milk, spontaneous lipolysis may be
initiated by as little as prompt cooling. This
phenomenon is the least understood aspect of
lipolysis. Susceptibility of this milk to produce
elevated levels of FFA is highly variable and
depends on several predisposing factors in the
animal and biochemical changes in milk (16).
2054
 MECHANICAL TREATMENT AND PREE FA"Y ACIDS
Conversely, induced lipolysis in raw milk is
caused by any physical disruption of the protec-
tive FGM, thereby exposing fat to lipase action.
Damage to the FGM may be caused by
mechanical agitation and certain temperature
fluctuations. Once induced by agitation, lipoly-
sis proceeds rapidly for a relatively short time,
followed by no further accumulation of FFA.
Downey and Cogan (9) attributed this to ac-
cumulation of FFA at the fat globule interface,
and failure of the enzyme to desorb from the
interface. However, if vigorous agitation is re-
peated, accumulated FFA are swept from the
interface. Formation of a new enzymesubstrate
complex leads to resumption of lipolysis until
the interface again becomes blocked. Converse
ly, freshly secreted millcs contain a very labile
enzymatic activity capable of catalyzing syn-
thesis of triglycerides (23).
Compounding the adverse effects of vigor-
ous mechanical agitation and the existence of
naturally active milks is protracted storage of
raw milk: up to 2 to 3 d o n the farm and up to
3 d at the factory. During this holding time,
psychotropic bacteria have ample oppoxtunity
to multiply in cooled milk and produce heat-
stable enzymes that generally will survive pas-
teurization and even UHT treatments (4, 26).
The problem of lipolytic flavor in raw milk
was recognized as early as 1913 (24). However,
recent evidence suggests that the problem is
still persistent. In 1974 and 1975, the Intema-
tional Dairy Federation held symposia to dis-
cuss the problem and its probable solutions (13,
14). Numerous reports indicate the severity of
this flavor defect (1, 2, 8, 27, 30).
The rate of lipolysis in milk stored at low
temperatures is dependent upon the temperature
to which milk was cooled (12). Kelley and
Dunkley (21) determined the levels of induced
lipolysis in milk at 10, 20, 30, and 49'C after
passing through a 1.52-m vertical sanitary tube.
Maximum activation was at 30'C and least
activation at 20'C. Johnson and Von Gunten
(18) determined changes in FFA concentrations
as the temperature of milk stored in bulk farm
tanks was reduced from 8.3 to 5.5, 2.7, and
0'C. Other studies suggest that maximum acti-
vation of milk lipase occurred at 37'C (22) with
marked decreases at temperatures above 37'C
and below 15'C. The effect of pumping milk
with and without air inclusion and holding at 5
and 32'C on the rate of lipolysis was found to
2055
produce two to three times more FFA at 32
than at 5'C. Temperature dependence of lipase-
induced activation of susceptible milk during
agitation and foaming was further examined by
Deeth and Fitzgerald (6). Although rapid cool-
ing of milk retads production of FFA, rewarm-
ing followed by recooling is likely to enhance
lipolytic activity. The effect of mechanical agi-
tation on the rate of lipolysis depends on the
previous temperature history of the milk, tem-
perature during activation, nature and severity
of mechanical treatment, and characteristics of
the milk.
Thomas et al. (29), in a 1955 survey, com-
pared different types of milking systems and
linked excessive hydrolytic rancidity with milk
from farms using pipeline milking systems and
bulk tanks. In 1956 and 1964, Jokay and Jensen
(19) and Jensen (17) described how high FFA
levels could be reduced by eliminating risers,
long pipelines, and especially minimizing air
admission into pipelines. Kankare and Antila
(20) collected samples of milk from 12 cows in
the same stage of lactation in a parlor at various
points between the claw and bulk tank. Results
showed small, additive increments in FFA
through the milking system, except at the milk
pump where a large increase in FFA occurred.
In evaluating modern milking systems, re-
search evidence has been disregarded by some
manufacturers. Researchers (3, 15, 29) have
concluded that although excessive lipolysis ap-
peared most frequently in milk from farms
using pipeline milkers, the bulk tank had no
significant influence in the acceleration of the
rate of lipolysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling
Six cows were selected by stage of lactation
from the University of Wisconsin dairy herd,
two early (Holsteins), two middle (Holsteins),
and two late (one Holstein and one Ayrshire).
Samples of milk were collected daily in dupli-
cate 175-ml Whirl-Pak bags filled to capacity
to minimize agitation during handling. Samples
were drawn by hand from individual cows after
udder preparation for milking and from each
point where physical abuse occurred as milk
passed through pipeline and milk pump to the
bulk refrigerated tank (Figure 1).
J o d of Dairy Science Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990
205 6 ESCOBAR AND BRADLEY, JR.

M I L K I N G PARLOR DIAGRAM

I =
c

1L Fl

C = CLUSTER
CS COW STANDING LEVEL
FL = FLOOR LEVEL
ML = MILK LINE
R = RISERS
WJ = WEIGH JAR
CJ = COLLECTION JAR
CP = CENTRIFUGAL M I L K PUMP
BT = BULK TANK
SP = SAMPLING POTNT

Figure 1. Representation of the milking parlor showing sampling points.

Mechanically undamaged milk (drawn by described by Thomas et al. (28) was used to
hand) from individual cows and other samples provide measures of hydrolytic rancidity, which
collected daily at individual weigh j a r s were are more readily understood by the US dairy
refrigerated rapidly and analyzed within 1 h to industry (25). Acid degree values (ADV)from
determine the initial concentration of FFA. milk collected specifically from cow H-3079
Subsequent determinations were conducted af- were used to correlate results of the Deeth and
ter storage of samples at 4‘C for intervals of 24, Fitzgerald analyses and thus provide a basis for
48, and 72 h.
A second phase involved collection of sam- comparison between the two series of results
ples after replacement of the 3500 rpm pump from the two procedures.
with one rated at 1750 rpm. Other samples
were collected after replacing the Neoprene Standard Plate Counts
“flapper-type” check valve with a stainless ball
check valve. Standard plate counts (SPC) were secured
from the University of Wisconsin dairy plant
FFA Determlnatlons
quality control laboratory for all tank truck
The FFA were determined by the method of samples a n d y d A check on SPC was neces-
Deeth and Fitzgerald (5). Also, the procedure sary to establish whether microbial contamina-
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990
 MECHANICAL TREATMENT AND FREE FATTY ACIDS 2057
TABLE 1. Reproducibility of the Deeth and Fikgerald method (5) with miLk samples from different cows.

cow No. of FPA Deviation

number replicates Mean Ranse from mean

H-3066 5 .49 .48-.5 1 .02

H-3067 5 .49 .41-.5 1 .M
H-3120 5 .49 .41-50 .a2
H-3114 5 .49 .46-.5 1 .M

TABLE 2. The FPA (arithmetic mean)l from milk samples obtained at weigh jars.
cow No. of
number replicates Initial Range SD 24 h2 Range SD

H-3066 50 .49 .46-.52 .15 50 .40-.53 .15

H-3067 50 .49 .&5 1 .19 50 .46-.55 .12
H-3120 50 SO .45-54 .I4 .5 1 .47--56 .14
H-3114 50 .49 .46-52 .15 .49 .44-.53 .17
A41 50 .48 .45-51 .15 .49 .46-.52 .16
83079 50 .41 AS50 20 .49 .45-.54 .18
'As determined by the method of Deeth and Fitzgerald (5).
2Samples in storage at CC.

tion may have been responsible for changes in matic measurement of milk production per cow
FFA developed during storage. in individual weigh jars (Figure 1). The system
operated with a standard vacuum ratio of 60:40
Milking System on rear quarters and 5050 on the front at a rate
of 50 pulses/min. At each station, milk entry
Milking equipment installed at the Univer- into the weigh jar was longitudinally downward
sity of Wisconsin Dairy Cattle Research Center and then vertically upward through risers into
was used during this research. This equipment the overhead milk line. The milk line extended
featured four milking stations with automatic 9 m horizontally from the point of connection
take-off units, high line installation, and auto- with the first station down to the receiver jar.

TABLE 3. The FFA (arithmetic mean)' of mil^ samples drawn manuuly.

cow
number Replicates Initial Range SD 24 h2 Range SD
1-
H-3066 60 .48 .44-51 .ll .49 .45-.5 1 .19
H-3067 60 .47 .45-SO .14 .a .44-.52 .12
H-3 120 60 .48 ,4550 .19 .48 .46-.5 1 .16
H-3 114 60 .48 .44-.49 .17 .48 .44-.53 20
A41 50 .41 .46-.49 .09 .47 .43-SO .15
H-W9 49 .45 .43-.48 21 .46 A1-SO .17
'As determiraed by the method of Decth and Fitzgexald (5).
2Samples held in storage at 4'C.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990

2058 ESCOBAR AND BRADLEY. JR.

ITA collcentration (ammetic mean)' from tach sampling pia2

TABLE 4. ~nitial
b P
cow Weigh 1750 3500 Ballcheck Bulk vw4 Daily
number Udder iar rn mm valve3 tauk tank

Mixed herd ... ... ... ... ... 51 .52

63066 .48 .49 41 54 34
H-3067 .47 .49 53 55 55
H-3120 .48 SO 55 37 .54
8 3 1 14 .48 .49 54 .55 54
A41 .47 .48 .55 57 .55
H-3U79 .45 .47 54 .55 .54
'As determined by the method of Dee& and Fitzgerald (5).
2 ~ i f i yreplicates were analyzed at tach sampling.
3Ball check valve used with the 1750 rpm pump only.
'+university of wiisconsin.

Risers, one per station, were 1.83 m high. An
additional I-m riser elevated the milk from the
centrifugal pump into a 5.5-m horizontal pipe
leading to the bulk tank (Figure 1).
Other specifications of the milking system
included: 1) a vacuum pump (5 hp, 1725 rpm)
rated at 1.20 m3/min at 1.05 kg/cm2 of head
pressure capacity; 2) Alfa Laval model EC-600
bulk tank (Alfa Laval, Kansas City, MO),
575-L capacity with 32,000 BTUh at 2.8"/C;
and 3) a pipeline receiver assembly consisting
of a 50-L capacity glass receiver jar, a
11.4-L moisture trap receptacle, an automatic
drain valve with manual shutoff, a 3500-rpm
centrifugal milk pump, and an automatic on-off
control.
.52 ! I I
0 24 48 72
STORAGE TIME: ( h )
Figure 2. Effects of pumping (0,1750 rpm; e, 3500 increases was not a factor, since SPC did not
rpm) and storage on FFA (H-3066).
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990
During phase 1 of the experiment, a
1-hp, 3500-rpm centrifugal pump rated at 1.05
kg/cm2 head pressure capacity was used In
phase 2, a lS-hp, 1750-rpm cenaifugal pump
(Tri-Clover, Inc., Kenosha, WI) with similar
ratings was installed
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reproducibility of results by the method of
Deeth and Fitzgerald (5) was determined with
samples from four different cows. Average
deviation from the mean ranged from .15 to
.021 c ~ e qFFA/ml fat with a standard deviation
of .018 (Table 1).
Also,duplicate samples from one cow were
analyzed and compared using the two proce-
dures (5,28). These were correlated using s h -
ple regression analysis; a correlation coefficient
of .95 resulted with a pooled deviation of .026.
From the regression line, the perception thresh-
old value for lipolyzed flavor as determined by
the Deeth and Fitzgerald method could be pre-
dicted. Threshold ADV for lipolyzed flavor
detected by the Thomas method have been
reponed to range from 1.2 to 1.5 (24, 28, 29).
The corresponding threshold value using the
Deeth and Fitzgerald method are in the range of
.80 to .98 pq FFNml fat. However, for this
relationship to hold, milks must be standardized
I I to the same fat contents.
No evidence was found to link increased
FFA during storage to spontaneous lipolysis.
Morevoer, bacterial lipase involvement in FFA
exceed 10" c W d in any samples.
 MECHANICAL TREATMENT AND FREE FA”Y AClDS 2059
TABLE 5. ‘Iht FTA (arithmetic mean)’ in milk samples pumped at 1750 and 3500 r p n 2

cow 1750 rpm 3500 rpm

Mmber Time@) Mean Range SD hacan Ranse SD
w4m2
H-3066 1 54 53-36 .09 .54 .5 1-.57 .16
24 57 3-59 .12 .60 56.62 .15
48 .59 52-57 .13 .63 .61-.65 .12
72 .61 sa.63 .IS .64 .62-.67 .13
H-3067 1 .53 50-56 .18 55 5 1-.59 .2 1
24 .57 ss.60 .15 .60 .58-.63 .12
48 .58 S6.61 .14 .63 .60-.65 .13
72 .60 sa.63 .16 .65 .62-.68 .15
H-3120 1 55 52-57 .15 .57 .55-.59 .14
24 .6 1 59764 .I5 .61 .59-.63 .12
48 -64 .60-.66 .I5 .64 .62-.66 .12
72 .66 .63-.68 .14 .67 .65-.69 .12
H-3114 1 54 52-.56 .13 55 .5 1-.57 .16
24 56 5449 .13 .60 5 G.62 .13
48 .57 .55-.60 .16 .62 .59-.65 .16
72 .58 S6.62 .14 .63 .6&.66 .13
A41 1 .54 52-.59 .20 57 .54-.60 .15
24 .57 .5.5-.60 .I4 .61 ~6.63 .I6
48 .6 1 .59-.64 .I4 .63 .61-.65 .ll
72 .63 .60-.65 .I3 .65 .62-.68 .16
H-3079 1 .54 52-.56 .I4 55 .53-.59 .15
24 .59 .56-.63 .I8 .62 5.9-.65 .17
48 .62 .60-.64 .13 .65 .63-.67 .I2
72 .65 .62-.67 .12 .68 .63-.71 .18
‘Data are from 50 replicate samplings.
2As determined by the method of Deeth and FitzgeraJd (5).

Results in Table 2 are summaries of data
collected at individual weigh jars at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Dairy Cattle Research Center.
When averaged, initial values differed from
those obtained by hand milking (Table 3) by
.015 peq/ml. The tangential flow of milk as it
entered the jar minimized excessive agitation
and foaming.
Results obtained from samples collected at
each point as milk flowed from the claw to the
bulk tank, and University of Wisconsin dairy
plant are presented in Table 4. From these data,
each stage of the milking system apparently
had a relatively similar and cumulative effect
on increased FFA values. Samples collected at
the milk pump had the greatest increases in
FFA both initially and after storage. Neither
substitution of the check valve nor transfer of
milk to a tank truck for movement from the
experimental farm to the University of Wiscon-
sin dairy plant had a measurable effect.
Results summarized in Table 5 are from
analysis of samples collected after pumps
which had impellers that revolved at 1750 and
3500 rpm,while Figure 2 is a graphic represen-
tation of the two mechanical treatments on the
FFA levels of milks from one individual cow.
When data from milk samples, collected from
individual cows and exposed to centrifugal
pumps turning at 1750 and 3500 rpm, were
regressed and correlated for all storage time
periods, differences (.01<p<.05) were found
between physical abuse created by the two
pumps. As anticipated, the pump tuming at
3500 rpm induced greater amounts of FFA.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of this research show good correla-
tion between the two procedures used for assay
of FFA (.95 correlation coefficient with a
pooled deviation of .026), and results are in
agreement with earlier work relating the addi-
tive effect of mechanical abuse on FFA induced
by certain milking procedures. Furthermore, be-
cause FFA levels reflect differences in degree
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990
2060 ESCOBAR AND BRADLEY, JR.
of agitation and foaming during pumping of
milk to the bulk tank, milk is exposed to the
severest treatment with the higher speed pump.
Inclusion of air into the milk had some influ-
ence on disruption of the fat globule membrane.
Any unnecessary inclusion of air by mechanical
treatment must be minimized Milk lines should
be kept as low as possible to eliminate risers
and avoid surging of milk into the vacuum
breaker jar and the bulk milk tank.
REFERENCES
1 Bandler,D. K., R.0. Brown, and E. T. Wolff. 1975. Milk
quality in New York Public School System.J. Milk Food
Technol. 38:223.
ZBarnard, S.E. 1974.Flavorandshelf-lifeoffluidmilk.J.
Milk Food Techwl. 37346.
3Brown. D. C., and W. R. Thomas. 1961. Effect of
pipelim milking and bulk handliug on the =id degree of
raw milk. J. Milk Fwd Technol. 24:204.
4 Cogan, R M.1977. A review of heat resistant lipases and
proteinases and the quality of dairy products. Ir. J. Food
Sci. Technol. 495.
5 Deeth, H. C., and C. H. Fitzgdd. 1975. A convenient
method for detesmining the extent of lipolysis in milk.
Aust. J. Dairy Technol. Tech. Note 109.
6 Deeth, H. C., and C. H. R t z g d d . 1977. Some factors
involved in milk lipase activation by agitation. J. Dairy
Res. 44:569.
7Deeth, H. C., and C. H. Fitzgdd. 1978. Effects of
mechanical agitation of raw milk on the fat globule
membrane in relation to the level of induced lipolysis. J.
Dairy Res. 45:373.
8 Downey, W. K. 1974. The intluence of the physical
treatment of milk inmilking machine systems and during
cream qwation on the lipolysis of -at. S. Afr. J.
Dairy Techol. 6:215.
9 Downey,W. K., and J. M. Cogan. 1980. Flavor impair-
ment from pre- and post-manufacture lipolysis in milk
and dairy products. J. Dairy Res. 47337.
10 Domey,W. K., and R F.Murphy. 1975.Roc. Lipolysis
Symposium. Int. Dairy Fed, Annu. Bull. Doc. 86:19.
11 Frankel, E.N., and N. P. Taras& 1955,Technicalnotes
on the mechanism of activation of lipolysis and the
stability of lipase system in n o d milk.J. Dairy Sci.
38:438.
12Herringtoq B. L., and V. N. Krukovsky. 1942. The
influence of the rate of cooling upon the subsqumt rate
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73, No. 8, 1990
of lipolysis in milk stored at low temperatures. J. Dairy
Sci. 25:241.
13 InternationalDairy Federation Symposium. 1974. Roc.
Lipolysis Symposium,Int. Dairy Fed.Anuu. Bull., Doc.
82.
14 htematm ' nal Dairy Federation Symposium. 1975. Roc.
Lipolysis Symposium. Int. Dairy Fed.Annu. Bull., Doc.
86.
15 Irvin, H. 1959. Hydrolytic rancidity in pipeline milkers
and bulk tanks. Am. Milk Rev. 21:82.
16 Jellema, A. 1975. Note on the susceptibility of bovine
milk to lipolysis. Neth. Milk Dairy J. 29165.
17Jensen, R. G. 1964. Lipolysis. J. Dairy Sci. 47:210.
18 Johnson. P. E., and R L.Von Gunten. 1962. A study of
factors involved in developmentof rancid flavor in milk.
Oklahoma State Univ. Bull. B-593, Stillwater.
19 Jokay, L., and J. M.Jensen. 1956. Effects of variants in
pipeline installations on the acid degree value of milk. I.
Dairy Sci. 39927.
20 Kankare, V., and V. Antila. 1978. Influence of pipeline
miLking machines on lipolysis in farm milk. 20th Znt.
Daixy Congr. Roc. 132.
21Kelley, L. A., and W. L. Dunkley. 1954. Hydrolytic
rancidity induced in pipeline milkers. J. Milk Food
Technol. 17:306.
22Kitchen, B. J., and J. W. Aston. 1970. Milk lipase
activation. Aut. J. Dairy Technol. 25:lO.
23 patton, S. 1964. Biosynthesis of glycerides in freshly
secreted milk. Nature. 202347.
24 Pillay, V.T., A. N. Myh, and J. I. Gray. 1980. Lipolysis
in milk. XI. Effect of milking systems. J. Dairy Sci. 6 3
1219.
25 Richardson, G. A,, ed. 1985. Staudaxd methods for the
examinationofdairyproducts.15thed.Am.Pobl.Health
Assoc., Washington, Dc.
26Shipe. W. F., and G. F. Senyk. 1981. Effects of
processing conditions on lipolysis in milk. J. Dairy Sci.
M2146.
27 Shipe,W. F.,and G. F. Sen+ 1980.Flavor and chemical
evaluations of fresh and aged market milk. J. Dairy Sci.
63(Suppl. 1):43. (Abstr.).
28 Thomas, E. L.,A. C. Nielseo, and J. C. Olson,Jr. 1955.
Hydrolytic rancidity - A simplified method for estimat-
ing the extent of its developmnt. Am. =Rev. 17(1):
50.
29 ?homas,E. L.,A. J. Nielsen. and I. G. Olson, Jr. 1955.
Observationson theextent of lipolysisin milk suppliesas
related to various milk handliq procedures. J. Dairy Sci.
38:5%.
30 Woo,A. H., and R C. Lindsay. 1980. Use of acid degrec
value in estimatingand mhimkhg lossesin warehoused
cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1058.