The suitability of milk obtained from Simmental cows having different initial weight for yogurt production to microbiological standards

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/10/2018
Views (783)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

The suitability of milk obtained from Simmental cows having different initial weight for yogurt production to microbiological standards

Özlem Ertekin, Murat Çimen, Burhan Tekdemir
J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 13(4), 207-210, October 2018.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2018; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

In the study, 10 Simmental cows (total 30 cows) for each group (light, medium and heavy) were used. Statistical control on somatic cell counts (SCC) and pH values of milk obtained from dams having different initial live weight was applied for determination of suitability to standard of yogurt production. Somatic cell counts in light, medium and heavy dams were 79571, 53285 and 52598(cells/ml) respectively. Milk pH values in above mentioned different live weight groups were 6.56, 6.55 and 6.59 respectively. The somatic cell counts in raw milk obtained from all groups were statistically lower (p<0.001) for reference value (400000cells/ml) of yogurt production. This low SCC is ideal for the desired standards. The pH values of all groups were compatible with the reported standards (between 6.5-6.7) for yogurt making. According to findings of the research, we can say that milk samples obtained from dams having different live weight in early lactation period were suitable for reference values of yogurt production.

Bansal BK, Hamann J, Lind O, Singh ST, Dhaliwal PS. 2007. Somatic cell count and biochemical components of milk related to udder health in buffaloes. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 6(2), 1035-1038.

Barbano DM, Rasmussen RR, Lynch JM. 1991. Influence of milk somatic cell count and milk age on cheese yield. Journal of Dairy Science 74(2), 369-388.

Bar-Peled U, Robinzon B, Maltz E, Tagari H, Folman Y, Bruckental I, Voet H, Gacitua H, Lehrer AR. 1997. Increased weight gain and effects on production parameters of Holstein heifer calves that were allowed to suckle from birth to six weeks of age. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2523-2528.

Berry DP, Buckley F, Dillon P. 2007. Body condition score and live weight effects on milk production in Irish Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Animal 1(9), 1351-1359.

Çimen M. 2015. Fen ve Sağlık Bilimleri Alanlarında Spss uygulamalı Veri Analizi. Palme Yayıncılık, Yayın No: 905, ISBN: 978-605-355-366-3. Sıhhıye, Ankara.

Gaunt SN. 1980. Genetic variation in the yields and contents of milk constituents. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 125, 73-75.

Le Marechal C, Thiery R, Vautor R, Le Loir Y. 2011. Mastitis impact on technological properties of milk and quality of milk products – a review. Dairy Science and Technology 91, 247-282.

Lindmark-Mansson H, Svensson U, Paulson M, Alden G, Frank B, Johnsson G. 2000. Influence of milk components, somatic cells and supplemental zinc on milk processability. International Dairy Journal 10, 423-433.

Linn JG. 1988. Factors Affecting the Composition of Milk from Dairy Cows. National Research Council (US) Committee on Technological Options to Improve the Nutritional Attributes of Animal Products. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).

Ntoumanis NA. 2005. Step-by-Step Guide to SPSS for Sport and Exercise Studies. Published in the USA and Canada by Routledge Inc. ISBN: 0-415-24978-3. (Print Edition) 29 West 35 th Street, New York, NY 10001.

Vianna PCB, Mazal G, Santos MV, Bolini HMA, Gigante ML. 2008. Microbial and sensory changes throughout the ripening of Prato cheese made from milk with different levels of somatic cells. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1743–1750.

Related Articles

Reptile diversity in agroecosystem and ecotourism area of Aliwagwag Protected Landscape, Davao Oriental, Philippines

Juliet Tilan Cervantes*, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 214-221, June 2026.

Geo-space monitoring technology and gis based predictive modeling of land use/land cover dynamics

E. Ahuchaogu Udo*, U. Duru Uchenna, E. Njoku Richard, G. Ogbonna Chukwuemeka, C. Okoboji Anthony, E. F. Onyeagoro, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 202-213, June 2026.

Carbon emissions and removals from land-use and land-cover change in the Djoum, Mintom, Ngoyla, and Yokadouma forest block, Cameroon (Congo Basin)

Pascal Freddy Bikono*, Zachée Ambang, Joseph Armathé Amougou, Lucas Dominique Bembong Ebokona, Garga Amadou, Rose Ngo Makak, Richard Russell Akoulou Ze Mballa, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 170-184, June 2026.

Characterization of macroplastics in the mangrove ecosystems of Baganga, Davao Oriental, Philippines

Marlone M. Barrete*, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 150-169, June 2026.

In vitro assessment of Bambara groundnut M3 mutant genotypes for resistance to Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. in the seedling stage in Burkina Faso

Brahime Tingueri*, Souleymane Ouattara, Adjima Ouoba, Romain W. Soalla, Mahamadi Hamed Ouedraogo, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 141-149, June 2026.

Impact of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae on biochemical and antioxidant enzymes in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) infesting oil palm

M. Malarvizhi, N. Santhana Bharathi, K. Sujatha*, A. Vijaya Anand, R. Manikandan, J. P. Antony Prabhu, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 129-140, June 2026.

Typhoon risk perception and preparedness after Sendong in Bayug Island

Dinah Millendez*, Lex Rei Brendon Hilario, Jay Rey Alovera, Elizabeth Edan Albiento, Melgie Alas, Peter Suson, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 120-128, June 2026.