Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:44:34.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

633. The effect of commercial sterilization on the nutritive value of milk as determined in experiments with rats and baby pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

A. P. de Groot  and
C. Engel
A. P. de Groot
Affiliation:
Central Institute for Nutrition Research T.N.O., Utrecht, The Netherlands
C. Engel
Affiliation:
Central Institute for Nutrition Research T.N.O., Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The nutritive value of milk sterilized according to the Stork procedure has been studied in laboratory experiments by the method of Mitchell, the rat-repletion method and growth trials with rats and baby pigs.

2. Determinations of biological value of the milk proteins with three groups of six rats by the Mitchell method yielded mean values of 87·0, 88·0 and 85·1 for raw, pasteurized and sterilized milk respectively. The corresponding digestibilities amounted to 96·8, 96·3 and 94·4. The differences were not statistically significant.

3. The relative nutritive value of the three types of milk for the repletion of protein-depleted rats was studied with three groups of eight rats. The average weight gain on feeding daily 40 ml. of either raw, pasteurized or sterilized milk during 5 days was 27·7, 26·3 and 22·9 g. respectively. Again these differences were not statistically significant.

4. No differences in growth rate were obtained if three groups of twelve male and twelve female young rats were fed on raw, pasteurized or sterilized milk supplemented with trace minerals for a period of 6 weeks. The growth rate of rats on exclusive milk diets was, however, far below normal.

5. In growth experiments with baby pigs, fed equal amounts of pasteurized or sterilized milk supplemented with trace minerals, small but statistically non-significant differences in weight gain were found, in favour of the pasteurized milk. The average weight gain on sterilized milk in four separate growth trials amounts to 97, 95, 98 and 98% of that on pasteurized milk. The average 3% less gain on sterilized milk was ascribed partly to more difficult adaptation and less intake of milk solids.

6. These experiments failed to demonstrate a significant decrease in nutritive value of milk sterilized according to the Stork procedure.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1956 , pp. 257 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1956

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)Bartlett, S., Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1940). J. Dairy Res. 11, 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Bixby, J. N., Bosch, A. J., Elvehjem, C. A. & Swanson, A. M. (1954). J. agric. Fd Chem. 2, 978–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Dyrendahl, S., Swahn, O., Björck, G. & Hellving, L. (1953). Acta agric. Scand. 3, 334–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Forshaw, R. P., Maddock, H. M., Homeyer, P. G. & Catron, D. V. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 263–70.Google Scholar
(5)Frost, D. V. & Sandy, H. R. (1949). J. Nutr. 39, 427–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 22–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 185–7.Google Scholar
(8)Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Henry, K. M., Ikin, E. W. & Kon, S. K. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 188–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Hodson, A. Z. (1952). Food Res. 17, 168–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Hodson, A. Z. (1954). Food Res. 19, 224–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Jochims, J. & Wilckhaus, I. (1954). Z. Kinderheilk. 74, 530–46.Google Scholar
(13)Kemmerer, A. R., Elvehjem, C. A., Hart, E. B. & Fargo, J. M. (1932). Amer. J. Physiol. 102, 319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Mitchell, H. H. (1924). J. biol. Chem. 58, 873–903.Google Scholar
(15)Mijll Dekker, L. P. van der & Engel, Chr. (1952). Ned. Melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 6, 104–8.Google Scholar
(16)Mossel, D. A. A. & Drion, E. F. (1954). Ned. Melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 8, 106–14.Google Scholar
(17)Roine, P., Gyllenberg, H., Rossander, M. & Vuokila, R. (1954). Nature, Lond., 174, 519.Google Scholar
(18)Schroeder, L. J., Iacobellis, M. & Smith, A. H. (1953). J. Nutr. 49, 549–61.Google Scholar
(19)Weybrew, J. A., Stewart, H. A., Matzone, G. & Peterson, W. J. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 207–23.Google Scholar