Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:35:49.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Serological differentiation of cow's, buffalo's, goat's and sheep's milks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

F. C. Pinto
F. C. Pinto
Affiliation:
Governmemt Analyst's Laboratory, Colombo 7, Ceylon*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Milks of the closely related species ox, buffalo, goat and sheep were differentiated by the precipitin test using antisera to blood serum proteins. The antisera were made specific for the homologous species by absorption. The component of milk tested was the lactalbumin–lactoglobulin fraction present in whey. Fraudulent sale of diluted buffalo's milk, cow's milk–buffalo's milk–water mixtures and reconstituted whole and skim-milk powders as genuine cow's milk was detected. Of 270 milks serologically tested, 233 were cow, 26 buffalo, 1 goat, 3 cow–buffalo mixtures, 2 reconstituted whole-milk powders and 5 reconstituted skim-milk powders. Of the samples serologically identified as cow, 135 had analytical figures for fat and solid-not-fat (SNF) only just outside or within the buffalo range.

Milk from any one species was detected in a concentration of 5% (v/v) in milk of a related species. Species identification was made of human milk stains in 2 medicolegal cases. Fresh cow's milk, reconstituted whole-milk powder and reconstituted skim-milk powder were differentiated.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 129 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ambrosino, C., Liberatori, J. & Ubertalle, A. (1963 a). Ricerca scient. II-B, 3, 49.Google Scholar
Ambrosino, C., Liberatori, J. & Ubertalle, A. (1963 b). Ricerca scient. II-B, 3, 54.Google Scholar
Ambrosino, C., Liberatori, J. & Ubertalle, A. (1965). Ricerca scient. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Aschaffenburg, R. & Sen, A. (1963). Nature, Lond., 197, 797.Google Scholar
Bordet, J. et al. (1909). Studies in Immunity, translated by Gay, F. P.. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Brüning, A. & Kraft, B. (1927). Z. Unters. Lebensmittel, 54, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, L. V. & Grogan, F. T. (1960). Am. J. Dis. Child. 100, 581.Google Scholar
Dutheil, H. (1959). 15th Int. Dairy Congr. 3, 1521.Google Scholar
Johke, T., Hageman, E. C. & Larson, B. L. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, P. G. & Iya, K. K. (1962). Milchwissenshaft, 17, 477.Google Scholar
Nair, P. G., & Malik, S. S. & Singh, M. (1965). Indian Dairym. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1904). Blood Immunity and Blood Relationships. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinto, F. C. (1961). Br. vet. J. 117, 540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, M. B. (1964). Nature, Lond., 201, 1217.Google Scholar
Sen, A. & Sinha, N. K. (1961). Nature, Lond., 190, 343.Google Scholar
Singh, B. S., Yadav, P. C. & Pathak, R. C. (1963). Indian J. Dairy Sci. 16, 121.Google Scholar
Soldberg, P. & Hadland, C. (1953). 13th Int. Dairy Congr. 3, 1287.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, G. (1960). Mitt. Geb. Lebensmittelunters. u. Hyg. 51, 151.Google Scholar