Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T09:51:16.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

315. The effects of commercial processing and of storage on some nutritive properties of milk. Comparison of full-cream sweetened condensed milk and of evaporated milk with the original raw milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Kathleen M. Henry ,
J. Houston ,
S. K. Kon  and
S. Y. Thompson
Kathleen M. Henry
Affiliation:
The National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
J. Houston
Affiliation:
The National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
S. K. Kon
Affiliation:
The National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
S. Y. Thompson
Affiliation:
The National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Full-cream unsweetened condensed milk (evaporated milk) and full-cream sweetened condensed milk (condensed milk) were prepared simultaneously on several occasions each time from a common bulk of raw milk. Heat treatment in the preparation of evaporated milk is, of course, much more severe than with condensed milk.

(a) There was no loss of vitamin A, carotene or riboflavin in either of the processes.

(b) The mean loss of vitamin C as compared with the raw milk was 10% for condensed and 60% for evaporated milk.

(c) The vitamin B1 losses were 3·5 and 27% respectively.

(d) Tests on rats showed that the biological values and true digestibilities of the proteins of the raw, condensed and evaporated milks were respectively 85·6 and 94·2, 84·6 and 98·8, 84·1 and 93·7. The differences in biological value are without statistical significance but the digestibility of the condensed milk was significantly higher than that of the other two milks.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 1944 , pp. 329 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1944

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

(1)National Institute for Research in Dairying and Rowett Research Institute (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
(2)Kon, & Henry, (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 1, 6, 12, 17, 22, 185, 188, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Henry, Houston, , Kon, & Osborne, (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Houston, , Kon, & Thompson, (1940). J. Dairy Res. 11, 67.Google Scholar
(5)Kon, & Watson, (1936). Biochem. J. 30, 2273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Knight, Dutcher, & Guerrant, (1939). Science, 89, 183.Google Scholar
(7)Houston, Kon, & Thompson, (1940). J. Dairy Res. 11, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Henry, Kon, , Gillam, & White, (1938). J. Dairy Res. 10, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Golding, (1934). Analyst, 59, 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Mitchell, (1924). J. biol. Chem. 58, 873.Google Scholar
(11)Mitchell, & Carman, (1926). J. biol. Chem. 68, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Henry, Kon, & Watson, (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I, p. 37. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
(13)Henry, & Kon, (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)White, (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I, p. 64. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
(15)Willard, & Blunt, (1927). J. biol. Chem. 75, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Souders, , Hunscher, , Hummel, & Maoy, (1939). Amer. J. Dis. Child. 58, 529.Google Scholar
(17)Fairbanks, & Mitchell, (1935). J. agric. Res. 51, 1107.Google Scholar
(18)Hume, (1921). Biochem. J. 15, 163.Google Scholar
(19)Woessner, Elvehjem, & Schuette, (1940). J. Nutrit. 20, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Schlutz, & Knott, (1939). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 40, 532.Google Scholar
(21)Knott, (1942). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 32, 1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Daniels, (1941). Amer. J. Dis. Child. 62, 127.Google Scholar