Determination of the effect of a milk booster on milk quality parameters of Buffalo milk

1. Determination of the effect of a milk booster on
milk quality parameters of Buffalo milk
L..T.R.S.M.Wijayawardhana

2. Introduction
The agriculture sector contributes around 10.8 % to the National GDP.
Livestock subsector contributes 0.8 % to the National GDP.
The total national milk production grew by 3.2 %, 396.2 million Litres in 2017,
compared to 2016.
Cow milk, 82.7 % of the total milk production, increased by 3.1 % to 327.6 million
litres
Buffalo milk production, increased by 3.7 % to 68.6 million litres.

3. Introduction cont’d
The largest cattle populations are found in the country’s dry and intermediate zones.
The dry zones produce 50 % more milk than the wet and wet intermediate zones.
The buffalo population in Sri Lanka was 283 550 in 2017.
Total milking buffalo population was 86 490
Hambantota District buffalo population was 41 100
It represents 14.5 % in total buffalo population in Sri Lanka.

4. Objectives
To determine the milk yield of buffaloes kept on a milk
booster
To evaluate the effect of milk booster on fat and SNF of
buffalo milk

5. Materials and Method
from August 2018 to October 2018
NLDB Weerawila Farm
milk collecting centre laboratory of MILCO (pvt) Ltd
Location
Time Duration

6. Randomly
Selected 12
Buffaloes
Experiment
(6 Buffaloes)
Fed With Milk
Booster (with
Kiriton)
Collected Milk
Collected
Sample A
Lactometer
Value
SNF
FAT
Control
(6 Buffaloes)
Fed Without Milk
Booster (without
Kiriton)
Collected Milk
Collected
Sample B
Lactometer
Value
SNF
FAT
Materials and Method cont’d

7. Materials and Method cont’d

8. Materials and Method cont’d
Stainless Steel Container
Stainless Steel
Sample Collecting Cup
Lactometer
Milk Sample Collector

9. Materials and Method cont’d
Milk Booster ( Kiriton)

10. Materials and Method cont’d
Mineral content
of
Milk booster

11. Materials and Method cont’d
Concentrates Feeding during Milking

12. Materials and Method cont’d
Feeding Bucket with concentrates feed

13. Materials and Method cont’d
Milk Price Determination Chart

14. Results
Milk samples were analysed on every three day interval and the following
data were collected
Fat Content of the collected milk sample
SNF content of the collected milk sample
Sale price of the collected milk sample
Milk yield of the milk sample

15. Results cont’d
A – Fed With Booster
B – Fed Without Booster
Sample 19/8/18 24/8/18 27/8/18 30/8/18 2/9/18 10/9/18 13/9/18 19/9/18 23/9/18
FAT
A- With Booster 6.7 6.1 6.7 6.6 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.7
B -Without Booster 6.5 5.9 6 6 5.8 5.9 6.4 6.1 6.2
SNF
A- With Booster 9.19 9.56 9.29 9.27 9.25 9.23 9.25 9.22 9.49
B -Without Booster 9.25 9.34 9.19 9.01 9.02 9.09 9.05 8.9 7.29
price
A- With Booster 81.50 80.50 82.00 81.50 80.00 79.50 80.00 80.50 83.00
B -Without Booster 81.00 78.50 78.00 77.50 76.50 77.00 79.50 77.50 79.50
Yield
(Kg)
A- With Booster 21.00 20.75 21.75 22.00 22.50 20.20 25.00 22.00 22.25
B -Without Booster 21.50 20.25 20.00 19.75 19.00 19.25 21.50 20.25 19.25

16. Results & Discussion
Sample Mean STD SEM n p value
FAT Treatment 6.4125 0.229518 0.0937 6
Control 6.075 0.249285 0.10177 6 0.013783
SNF Treatment 9.2825 0.11622 0.047447 6
Control 9.10625 0.143918 0.058754 6 0.017972
Price Of
Milk
Treatment 80.6875 0.883883 0.360844 6
Control 78.1875 1.462324 0.596991 6 0.001499
Total Milk
Yield
Treatment 21.9 1.465557 0.598311 6
Control 20.1875 0.923406 0.376979 6 0.016382
SEM = Standard Error of the MeanSTD = Standard Error

17. Results & Discussion cont’d
There was a statistically a significant increase of Total Daily Milk Yield in the treatment
group ( p<0.01)
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
21.5
22
22.5
1 2
Treatment Control
TotalDailyMilkYield(L)

18. There was a statistically a significant increase of milk fat in the treatment group ( p<0.01)
Results & Discussion cont’d
5.9
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
1 2
Treatment Control
MilkFat%

19. Results & Discussion cont’d
There was a statistically a significant increase of SNF in the treatment
group ( p<0.01)
9
9.05
9.1
9.15
9.2
9.25
9.3
1 2
Treatment Control
SNF%

20. There was a statistically a significant increase of Price of a Liter of milk for the
treatment group ( p<0.001)
Result & Discussion cont’d
76.5
77
77.5
78
78.5
79
79.5
80
80.5
81
1 2
Treatment Control
PriceperLitre(Rs)

21. Conclusions
All milk quality parameters which included total daily milk yield, milk fat
content and SNF value were significantly increased due to the feeding of
the milk booster
However, it was depicted economically since there was no substantial
increase in the milk yield though the increase was statistically significant.

22. Acknowledgements
Prof. Gamika Prathapasinghe, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Livestock, Fisheries and Nutrition,
Wayamba University of Sri Lanka
Dr. Anura Jayasooriya, Senior Lecturer, School of Medicine, University of West Indies, Trinidad,
West Indies
Prof. D.C.Abeysinghe, Dean , Faculty of Agriculture and Plantation Management, Wayamba
University of Sri Lanka.
Dr. H.A.W.S.Gunathilake, Course Coordinator, External Degree Program, Faculty of Agriculture and
Plantation Management, Wayamba University of Sri Lanka.
Mr. K.Liyanaarachchi , Farm Manager, NLDB Farm , Weerawila.
Mr. A.A Chandrasiri , Farm Supervisor, NLDB Farm , Weerawila.

23. References
Adhikari A.M.J.B , Kumari K.A.D.S.M.C , Mangalika U.L.P, (2007).Evaluation of Reliability of Lactometer
for the calculation of solid Non Fat of cow and Buffalo milk , Animal Nutrition Division , Veterinary
research Institute, Peradeniya.
Hitihamu .S, Epasinghe S ( 2015). Socio – Economic Condition of Dairy Industry in Mahaweli H Area.
HARTI, Sri Lanka.
Hitihamu H.M.S.J.M , Samantha N.P.G, Rathnayake R.MG.K.B (2007).Factor Affecting the cost of production
of milk in the Kurunegala District, HARTI, Sri Lanka.
Thomas C.S, (2004). Milking Management of Dairy Buffaloes, Swedish University Of Agriculture Science