HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by O'Dell, W. T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by O'Dell, W. T.

Comparison of Acid and Nonacid Volumetric Methods for Determining the Percentage of Butterfat in Raw Milk¹

Department of Dairy Science, Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station, University Park

ABSTRACT

Raw milk of varied fat content was comparatively analyzed by the Gerber, Dairy Products Section (DPS), TeSa, Schain, Babcock, and Mojonnier procedures. The Babcock, Gerber, and DPS averaged higher than the Mojonnier: .054, .077, and .003% butterfat, respectively, whereas the TeSa and Schain were lower, .064 and .053%. All of the above differences, except that for the DPS, were statistically significant (P < 0.01). When compared with the Babcock, the Gerber test was slightly higher (.023%), while the DPS, TeSa, and Schain tests were lower: .038, .082, and .044%, respectively. Only the TeSa and Schain differences were statistically significant. The Gerber, DPS, TeSa, and Schain tests were more closely correlated with the Babcock than they were with the Mojonnier.

More Gerber tests agreed within ±0.1% of the Babcock (93.9%) than did those of the other methods, DPS (86.1%), TeSa (72.2%), and Schain (57.2%). The TeSa test showed more tester variation than did the other methods studied.

As the test of the milk increased from 2.5 to 7.0% fat, the differences obtained by the Gerber and DPS were increasingly higher; whereas, those obtained by the TeSa and Schain methods were increasingly lower than the Mojonnier. The Babcock did not show a similar nomogram effect compared to the. Mojonnier.

¹ Authorized for publication August 18, 1960, as paper No. 2482 in the journal series of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station.