Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-fb4gq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:35:02.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Milk products and substitutes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

S. J. Taylor*
Affiliation:
Volac Ltd, Orwell, Royston, Hertfordshire
Get access

Abstract

Refinements in the techniques used for incorporation of fat and spray drying have improved the nutritional value of milk substitutes. The significance of these developments in protein separation and evaporation/spray drying technology are demonstrated in the new range of substitutes for colostrum which not only have a high nutritional value but also contain active immunoglobulins.

Whilst milk replacers still remain a necessary outlet for excess skim milk powder production, progress has been made in the quality of novel ingredients available. The effect of European Community policy on the formulations used has been to divide milk replacers into two groups, those which do, and those which do not, contain at least 500 g/kg skim milk powder.

A whole range of products based on high protein whey powders has been developed in order to replace skim milk protein in milk replacers. Differences in these whey products reflect the method of manufacture and this has repercussions on their nutritional value. The benefits of ultrafiltration technology, developed for the human food industry, have recently become available to the whey-based milk replacer market.

Although the majority of milk substitutes are used for feeding calves, specific products have been developed for other species. Milk substitutes for lambs were introduced in the 1970s but there has been little commercial incentive for the use of alternatives to skim milk protein in the United Kingdom. Sow milk replacers are a more recent innovation and have taken advantage of developments in whey processing technology.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1992

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

Andrews, A. H. 1990. Colostrum, part of nature's survival kit. The Feed Compounder, 10, pp. 2346.Google Scholar
Haines, D. M., Chelach, J. and Naylor, J. 1990. Canadian Veterinary Journal 31: 3637.Google Scholar
Holland, B., Unwin, I. D. and Bus, D. H. 1988. Milk products and eggs. 4th supplement to Composition of foods, 4th ed., Royal Society of Chemistry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. 1990. Meeting colostrum needs of newborn lambs. In Practice, pp. 239245.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1990. EEC Dairy Facts and Figures 1990. Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. 1980. The calf. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Woode, G. M., Bew, M. E. and Dennis, M. J. 1978. Studies on cross protection induced in calves by rotavirus from calves, children and foals. Veterinary Record 103: 3234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed