Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 89, Issue 8 , Pages 2817-2832 , August 2006

Calibration of Infrared Milk Analyzers: Modified Milk Versus Producer Milk1

  • K.E. Kaylegian

      Affiliations

    • Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center Department of Food Science, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853
  • ,
  • G.E. Houghton

      Affiliations

    • Kestrel Software Consulting, Berkshire, NY 13736
  • ,
  • J.M. Lynch

      Affiliations

    • Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center Department of Food Science, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853
  • ,
  • J.R. Fleming

      Affiliations

    • USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Texas Milk Marketing Area, P. O. Box 110939 Carrollton 75011
  • ,
  • D.M. Barbano

      Affiliations

    • Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center Department of Food Science, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.

Received 2 October 2005 ,Accepted 4 January 2006.

  • Image Result

    Flow chart of milk processing steps for manufacture of modified milk calibration samples. The gravity-separated cream, the 2× UF retentate, and the UF permeate are the end products that are used in co

    Flow chart of milk processing steps for manufacture of modified milk calibration samples. The gravity-separated cream, the 2× UF retentate, and the UF permeate are the end products that are used in combinations with water and lactose to formulate the modified milk calibration samples.

  • Image Result
    Residual plot of differences between instrument predictions and reference chemistry for Fat B for a) a modified milk calibration set expected calibration error, and b) a producer milk calibration set

    Residual plot of differences between instrument predictions and reference chemistry for Fat B for a) a modified milk calibration set expected calibration error, and b) a producer milk calibration set expected calibration error as a function of the predicted fat concentration.

  • Image Result
    Correlation of percent fat and protein content of a) producer milk calibration samples, and b) modified milk calibration samples used in Experiment 1.

    Correlation of percent fat and protein content of a) producer milk calibration samples, and b) modified milk calibration samples used in Experiment 1.

  • Image Result
    Protein slope for an infrared analyzer calibrated with a) modified milk samples, and b) producer milk samples in Experiment 1 plotted as a function of study day. Filled (sets 1 and 3 for modified and

    Protein slope for an infrared analyzer calibrated with a) modified milk samples, and b) producer milk samples in Experiment 1 plotted as a function of study day. Filled (sets 1 and 3 for modified and sets 1, 3, 5, and 7 for producer) and empty symbols (sets 2 and 4 for modified and sets 2, 4, and 6 for producer) represent alternating calibration sets in a series.

  • Image Result
    Protein intercept for an infrared analyzer calibrated with a) modified milk samples, and b) producer milk samples in Experiment 1 plotted as a function of study day. Filled (sets 1 and 3 for modified

    Protein intercept for an infrared analyzer calibrated with a) modified milk samples, and b) producer milk samples in Experiment 1 plotted as a function of study day. Filled (sets 1 and 3 for modified and sets 1, 3, 5, and 7 for producer) and empty (sets 2 and 4 for modified and sets 2, 4, and 6 for producer) symbols represent alternating calibration sets in a series.

  • Image Result
    Protein slope for an infrared analyzer calibrated with a) modified milk samples, and b) producer milk samples in Experiment 2 plotted as a function of study day. Filled (sets 1 and 3 for modified and

    Protein slope for an infrared analyzer calibrated with a) modified milk samples, and b) producer milk samples in Experiment 2 plotted as a function of study day. Filled (sets 1 and 3 for modified and set 2 for producer) and empty (set 2 for modified and sets 1 and 3 for producer) symbols represent alternating calibration sets in a series.

PII: S0022-0302(06)72555-3

doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72555-3

Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 89, Issue 8 , Pages 2817-2832 , August 2006