Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T07:13:06.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dye-binding methods for estimation of protein in milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

R. M. Dolby
Affiliation:
The Dairy Research Institute (N. Z.), Palmerston North, New Zealand

Summary

The amido black and orange G methods for protein estimation in milk were investigated. The quantity of dye required for complete precipitation of a given quantity of milk protein was determined.

Dye samples of various degrees of purity all gave a linear relation between protein and dye precipitation, as determined by optical density, but with the less pure samples slightly less dye was bound per unit weight of protein.

Amido black, though reacting with protein in the same molar ratio as orange G, gave a much more sensitive optical indication of protein content.

In milks of individual cows there was a relatively constant relationship between dye values and Kjeldahl protein from 3 to 4 days after calving until 3 to 4 weeks before the end of lactation. Late lactation milks gave about 5% higher dye values than did normal milks of the same protein content.

The relation of dye precipitation to Kjeldahl nitrogen was the same for casein as for total nitrogen in normal milks.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1961

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

Ashworth, U. S. & Seals, R. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 227.Google Scholar
Ashworth, U. S., Seals, R. & Erb, R. E. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conn, H. J. (1946). Biological Stains. Geneva, N.Y., U.S.A.: Biotech. Publications.Google Scholar
Fraenkel-Conrat, H. & Cooper, M. (1944). J. biol. Chem. 154, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadland, G. & Johnsen, O. (1959 a). Meieriposten, 48, 433, 451.Google Scholar
Hadland, G. & Johnsen, O. (1959 b). Meieriposten, 48, 826, 849, 882, 914.Google Scholar
McRae, H. F. & Baker, B. E. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, E. J. (1959). Dairy Ind. 24, 990.Google Scholar
Raadsveld, C. W. (1957). Off. Org. K. ned. Zuivelb. 49, 823.Google Scholar
Raadsveld, C. W. (1958). Off. Org. K. ned. Zuivelb. 50, 146.Google Scholar
Rowland, S. J. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schober, R. & Hetzel, H. F. (1956). Milchwissenschaft, 11, 123.Google Scholar
Steinsholt, K. (1957 a). Meieriposten, 46, 259, 279.Google Scholar
Steinsholt, K. (1957 b). Meieriposten, 46, 901.Google Scholar
Treece, J. M., Gilmore, L. O. & Fechheimer, N. S. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 727.Google Scholar
Treece, J. M., Gilmore, L. O. & Fechheimer, N. S. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udy, D. C. (1956 a). Nature, Lond., 178, 314.Google Scholar
Udy, D. C. (1956 b). Anal. Chem. 28, 1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar