NewBioWorld A Journal of Alumni Association of Biotechnology (2026) 8(1):53-59
RESEARCH
ARTICLE
Comparative
Analysis of Protein Concentration and Casein Extraction from Cow, Buffalo, and
Goat Milk
Sakshi Pawar, Rakhi Bajpai, Bhumika Yadu*
School of Life and Allied Sciences, ITM University,
Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
*Corresponding Author Email- bhumikay@itmuniversity.org
|
ARTICLE INFORMATION
|
|
ABSTRACT
|
|
Article history:
Received
05 May 2026
Received in revised form
03 June 2026
Accepted
Keywords:
Milk protein;
Casein extraction;
Acid precipitation;
Pyne’s method
|
|
Milk
proteins are nutritionally and industrially significant biomolecules, with
casein constituting the major fraction responsible for many functional
properties of milk. The current study aimed to estimate the total protein
content and compare the casein yield of cow, buffalo, and goat milk using a
colorimetric protein estimation method and acid precipitation technique.
Fresh milk samples were assessed for total protein content using Pyne’s
method, while casein was isolated by adjusting the milk to its isoelectric
point through dilute acetic acid treatment. The results demonstrated marked
interspecies variation in protein composition. Among all milk types studied,
buffalo milk exhibited the highest total protein content (5.44 g/100 mL) and
maximum casein yield (1.80 g/100 mL), followed by goat milk (4.25 g/100 mL
total protein and 0.80 g/100 mL casein). Cow milk exhibited the least values
for both total protein (3.40 g/100 mL) and casein yield (0.70 g/100 mL). The
higher recovery of casein from buffalo milk highlights its superior
suitability for dairy processing and protein-based industrial applications.
Goat milk, despite lower casein yield than buffalo milk, demonstrated higher
protein content than cow milk and is nutritionally advantageous due to its better
digestibility. Overall, the study confirms that milk source significantly
influences protein and casein content, emphasizing the importance of
selecting appropriate milk types based on nutritional, pharmaceutical, and
industrial requirements. The findings of this study have practical
significance in selecting suitable milk sources for nutritional
supplementation, dairy processing, and protein-based industrial applications.
The higher protein and casein content observed in buffalo milk suggests its
potential use in cheese production and pharmaceutical formulations, whereas
goat milk may be preferred for improved digestibility and nutritional
applications.
|
|
|
Graphical
abstract
Figure 1: Comparative Analysis of Milk Proteins across Cow,
Buffalo, and Goat Species.
DOI: 10.52228/NBW-JAAB.2026-8-1-5
|
Introduction
Milk is a nutritionally complete biological fluid and is a
rich source of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals
(Vaishali et al., 2024). Due to its high biological content, milk is an
important component not only in human nutrition but also in food and
pharmaceutical industries (Xiang et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2023). Milk
proteins can be generally categorized into casein and whey proteins, which
constitute approximately 80% and 20% of the total protein content, respectively
(Himaja et al., 2020; Ofuani & Destiny 2023). Despite the variations in the composition of milk
among different species, stages of lactation, and environmental conditions,
proteins, especially casein and whey proteins, remain the major functional
constituents of milk, and hence, their estimation and analysis are of prime
importance in the dairy industry (Abd El-Salam et al., 2014; Le et al., 2017).
In recent years, the consumption of milk has been increased
due to its micro- and macro-nutrients and their uses in functional and
therapeutic products (Acquavia et al., 2025). Milk proteins contain all the
necessary amino acids for growth, repair, and metabolism, thus emphasizing
their importance in infant nutrition, adult nutrition, and clinical food
products (Ji et al., 2025). Moreover, the differences in milk protein
composition allow it to be used for the production of a variety of dairy
products (Warakaulle et al., 2024). The protein composition of milk differs
considerably across mammalian species like cow, buffalo, and goat, thus
affecting its nutritional and functional properties; higher protein and fat
content is desirable for cheese and processed dairy products, while lower fat
content is preferable for direct consumption (Katz et al., 2016).
Cow milk is the most widely consumed milk in the world and
has a protein content of 3.3-3.5 g per 100 mL, mainly consisting of casein
(≈80%) and whey proteins (≈20%) (Sarode et al., 2022). The characteristic white
color of milk is caused by casein micelles (Bhat et al., 2016). Because of its
well-balanced amino acid composition, cow milk is widely used in the dairy
industry for the production of cheese, yogurt, and other fermented milk
products. However, cow milk has a relatively higher proportion of αs1-casein,
which has been linked to milk protein allergy in some individuals. On the other
hand, buffalo milk is regarded as more nutritious and has the highest protein
content among the three species, ranging from 4.0 to 4.5 g per 100 mL (Nepolean
et al., 2023). Its high protein and mineral content make it even more valuable
and ideal for dairy products like cheese and paneer. Due to its high casein and
mineral levels, buffalo milk is rich in calcium and phosphorus, which makes it
industrially important; however, high mineral levels make it less ideal for
some dairy uses (Rajanna et al., 2024). Goat milk has about 3.3-3.6 g of
protein per 100 mL and has a different composition from cow and buffalo milk
because of its low αs1-casein level, which causes it to produce softer curds
and be more digestible (Himaja et al., 2020). Therefore, goat milk is more
digestible for infants, young people, and those who are sensitive to milk
proteins. Even though the total protein content is lower in goat milk compared
to buffalo milk, the functional and hypoallergenic value of goat milk makes it
more nutritionally important as a protein source (Sun et al., 2023).
Of the three
milk types, the buffalo milk has the greatest protein concentration and yield,
while the goat milk has the highest digestibility and lowest allergenicity
owing to its distinct protein structure. The cow milk has a moderate protein
concentration but is the most abundant and widely consumed type of milk
globally. The current study compares the protein concentration of milk produced
from different breeds of animals, such as cow, buffalo, and goat, to assess
their nutritional potential (Sarode et al., 2022). Similar comparisons have
also been reported by Sahariah et al., (2023) and Tarr et al., (2025) regarding
the casein and total protein concentration in different types of milk.
Materials and Methods
Reagents
For the
preparation of Pyne’s reagent, the following chemicals were used: sodium
carbonate, sodium hydroxide, copper sulfate, sodium potassium tartrate, and
distilled water.
Sample Collection and Storage
Milk samples
from cow, buffalo, and goat were collected from a local dairy farm in Pune,
Maharashtra, India, for protein estimation. The milk samples were transported
to the laboratory (National Agriculture & Food Analysis & Research Institute,
Pune, Maharashtra, India) under refrigeration and analyzed for protein content
within 24 hours of sample collection. The protein content was estimated using
Pyne’s method. The milk samples were stored in the refrigerator at a
temperature of 4 °C until the time of analysis.
Preparation of Pyne’s Reagent for
Protein Estimation
Pyne’s reagent
was prepared according to the established protocols for protein estimation
using alkaline copper–based reagents employed in Biuret- and Lowry-type
spectrophotometric assays (Walker, 1994; Sapan et al., 1999; Muraka et al.,
2023; Tirkey et al., 2025). Briefly, 20 g of sodium carbonate and 4 g of sodium
hydroxide were dissolved in distilled water to obtain an alkaline solution. In
a separate container, 1 g of sodium potassium tartrate was dissolved in
distilled water, to which 0.2 g of copper sulfate pentahydrate was gradually
added. The copper-tartrate solution was then slowly added to the alkaline
sodium carbonate solution with constant stirring to obtain a clear blue-colored
reagent. The prepared Pyne’s reagent was stored in a clean, air-tight bottle
until further use (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Pyne’s
reagent preparation for protein estimation of cow, buffalo, and goat milk
Protein Estimation of Milk Samples
Milk samples
from cow, buffalo, and goat (100 mL each) were collected separately in
individual flasks and kept at room temperature prior to analysis (Figure 3).
For protein estimation, 1 mL of each milk sample was transferred into separate
test tubes. To each tube, 5 mL of freshly prepared Pyne’s reagent was added,
and the reaction mixture was allowed to stand at room temperature for 10
minutes for the development of violet coloration due to the formation of
copper–protein complexes in alkaline medium. The absorbance of each sample was
measured at 540 nm using a UV-Visible spectrophotometer against a reagent
blank. Pyne's method was selected for protein estimation because it is a
simple, rapid, cost-effective, and reliable colorimetric technique commonly used
for the determination of proteins in dairy samples. The method is based on the
formation of copper–protein complexes in alkaline conditions, producing
measurable color intensity proportional to protein concentration. In addition,
the method requires minimal instrumentation and reagent preparation, making it
suitable for routine laboratory analysis. Copper-based alkaline colorimetric
methods for protein estimation in milk and dairy samples are well established
and continue to be widely applied in recent analytical and food biochemistry
studies (Sapan et al., 1999). All measurements were carried out in triplicates
to ensure accuracy and reproducibility.
Casein
Extraction
Casein was isolated from the milk of cows, buffaloes, and
goats using the acid precipitation technique. Fresh samples of milk were taken
in individual beakers and filtered to remove any foreign matter. The filtered
samples of milk were then heated to 40-45°C with constant stirring. Dilute
acetic acid was then added gradually to precipitate the casein. The solution
was left to stand for 15-20 minutes to complete the coagulation process. The
precipitated casein was separated using filter paper, and the whey was
discarded. The precipitated casein was then washed twice with distilled water
to remove any remaining lactose and other soluble impurities. The casein was
then dried at room temperature (Nayik et al., 2024) (Figure 4).
Statistical
Analysis
All the
experiments were performed in triplicates, and the results were expressed as
mean ± standard deviation to ensure reliability and reproducibility of the
data.
Figure 3: Milk samples
used for protein estimation by Pyne’s method [Here- A) Cow Milk B) Buffalo Milk
and C) Goat Milk]
Figure 4: Casein
extraction from A) cow, B) buffalo, and C) goat milk by the acid precipitation
method.
Results
The total protein content and casein yield of milk samples
obtained from cow, buffalo, and goat were analyzed using Pyne’s method and acid
precipitation, respectively. The results revealed distinct interspecies
variations in both total protein concentration and casein recovery.
Total Protein
Content
Buffalo milk exhibited the highest total protein
content, measuring 5.44 g per 100 mL, followed by goat milk with 4.25 g per 100
mL. Cow milk showed the lowest total protein concentration at 3.40 g per 100
mL. These results indicate that buffalo milk is the richest source of total
protein among the three milk types studied (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Comparative
analysis of total protein concentration (g/100 mL) in cow, buffalo, and goat
milk samples (mean ± SD, n = 3).
Casein Yield
Casein extraction by acid precipitation showed significant
variation among the milk samples. Buffalo milk yielded the highest amount of
casein (1.80 g per 100 mL), followed by goat milk (0.80 g per 100 mL) and cow
milk (0.70 g per 100 mL). The higher casein yield in buffalo milk reflects its
greater proportion of casein within total milk protein (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Comparative analysis of casein yield
(g/100 mL) in cow, buffalo, and goat milk samples (mean ± SD, n = 3).
Comparative
Analysis
A comparative evaluation of total protein and casein content
demonstrated that buffalo milk not only contains the highest protein
concentration but also provides the maximum casein yield, making it highly
suitable for dairy processing and industrial applications. Goat milk exhibited
moderate levels of both total protein and casein, while cow milk consistently
showed the lowest values (Table 1). The results confirm that the portion of
casein within total milk protein differs significantly among species.
Table 1:
Comparative total protein and casein content of cow, buffalo, and goat milk
|
Milk type
|
Total protein (g/100 mL)
|
Casein yield (g/100 mL)
|
|
Cow
|
3.40
|
0.70
|
|
Buffalo
|
5.44
|
1.80
|
|
Goat
|
4.25
|
0.80
|
Overall, the findings highlight buffalo milk as the most
efficient source for casein extraction, followed by goat milk, with cow milk
being comparatively less efficient. These variations underline the importance
of selecting appropriate milk sources based on nutritional and industrial
requirements.
Discussion
The present study investigated and compared the total protein
content and casein yield of cow, buffalo, and goat milk using the acid
precipitation technique. The results demonstrated clear species-dependent
variations in both total protein concentration and casein extraction
efficiency. These findings are consistent with previous reports emphasizing
that milk protein composition varies significantly among animal species due to
differences in mineral content, protein structure, and genetic factors.
Buffalo milk exhibited the highest casein yield among the
three species evaluated. This result closely corresponds with findings reported
by Sarode et al., (2022) and Barman et al., (2025), who attributed the higher
casein content in buffalo milk to its elevated levels of calcium and
phosphorus, which promote stronger casein micelle formation. Similarly, Rajanna
et al., (2024) reported a greater proportion of casein fractions in buffalo
milk, enhancing its suitability for dairy processing and protein isolation
applications. These findings further corroborate the work of Aydogdu et al.,
(2023), who highlighted the technological advantages of buffalo milk in protein
extraction processes.
The present
findings are also consistent with previous investigations reported by Vaishali
et al. (2024), who observed relatively greater casein recovery from buffalo
milk compared to cow milk. Similarly, Emakpor et al. (2024) reported
compositional and technological advantages of buffalo milk and suggested its
suitability for dairy product preparation due to its higher protein and
nutritional characteristics. These observations further support the present
findings and strengthen the reliability of the experimental results.
Besides its higher casein content, buffalo milk has been
found to exhibit antimicrobial properties, particularly against lactic acid
bacteria, which is advantageous in fermented dairy product formulation. Studies
by Abd El-Aziz et al., (2022) and Habiba et al., (2025) emphasized the
functional significance of buffalo milk in fermented systems. The consistency
between these studies and the present results confirms that buffalo milk
represents a superior raw material for casein isolation, especially for
nutritional and industrial applications (Barakat et al., 2021).
Conversely, cow milk displayed the lowest casein yield and
total protein concentration in the present investigation. This finding is in
agreement with reports by Holt & Carver (2022) and Petrova et al., (2022), who documented that
cow milk generally contains a lower proportion of casein relative to other
ruminant species. The comparison between the present data and earlier studies
reinforces the conclusion that cow milk is comparatively less efficient for
casein extraction when evaluated alongside buffalo and goat milk.
Similar
findings have been reported by Pamarthy et al. (2016), where cow milk showed
comparatively lower protein fractions and reduced casein content than buffalo
milk. Such species-dependent variation may arise due to differences in genetic
and physiological characteristics influencing milk composition.
Buffalo milk exhibited the highest total protein content, a
finding that is consistent with earlier studies by Kapadiya et
al., (2016) and is further supported by Felice et al.,
(2021) and Ji et al., (2025). These studies reported
that buffalo milk contains higher levels of whey proteins and associated
bioactive compounds, contributing to enhanced nutritional quality and
digestibility. However, the present findings indicate that a higher total
protein concentration does not necessarily correlate with increased casein
recovery, highlighting the importance of protein composition rather than
protein quantity alone.
Recent
proteomic studies have corroborated that variations in milk protein profiles
significantly influence functional properties, digestion behavior, and
bioactive peptide generation (Dabo et al., 2024; Warakaulle et al., 2024). Although the present study focused primarily on casein
yield and extraction efficiency, the observed species-specific differences are
consistent with these advanced proteomic findings, suggesting broader
implications for dairy nutrition and processing technologies.
Overall, the strong agreement between the present results and
earlier reports by Holt et al., (2013), Sarode et al., (2022), Rajanna et al.,
(2024) and Barman et al., (2025) supports the reliability and effectiveness of
the acid precipitation method employed in this study. The findings clearly
demonstrate that buffalo milk is the most efficient source for both total
protein and casein extraction, whereas cow milk contains comparatively lower
levels of these components. This comparative assessment gives valuable resource
for selecting appropriate milk sources based on specific nutritional,
functional, and industrial requirements (Hassoun et al., 2023).
Conclusion
The
findings of the present study demonstrate that milk obtained from different
animal sources exhibits significant variation in total protein and casein
content. Among the species examined, buffalo milk showed the highest casein
concentration, indicating its strong potential for applications in the dairy
and pharmaceutical industries where high casein yield is required. Although
goat milk contained lower casein levels than buffalo milk, it exhibited higher
total protein and casein content than cow milk, highlighting its superior
nutritional value. Furthermore, the relatively lower α-S1 casein fraction in
goat milk contributes to improved digestibility, making it a suitable option
for individuals with digestive sensitivity. In contrast, cow milk was found to
contain comparatively lower levels of both total protein and casein. The
successful isolation of casein using the acid precipitation method confirms the
effectiveness and reliability. Overall, these results emphasize the importance
of selecting appropriate milk sources based on specific nutritional,
functional, and industrial objectives.
Future studies
may focus on employing advanced analytical approaches such as proteomics,
electrophoretic profiling, and chromatographic techniques for detailed
characterization of milk proteins. Furthermore, large-scale investigations
involving different breeds and environmental conditions may provide additional
insights into milk protein composition and industrial applicability.
Acknowledgments
The authors
would like to express their sincere gratitude to the National Agriculture &
Food Analysis & Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra, India, for providing
the necessary laboratory facilities and technical support to carry out this
research work.
Conflict of interest Author declares
that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding information not
applicable.
Ethical
approval not applicable.
References
Abd El-Aziz M, Kassem JM, Aasem
FM, & Abbas HM (2022). Physicochemical properties and health benefits of
camel milk and its applications in dairy products: A review. Egyptian
Journal of chemistry, 65(5), 101-118.
Abd El‐Salam MH (2014).
Application of proteomics to the areas of milk production, processing and
quality control–A review. International Journal of Dairy
Technology, 67(2), 153-166.
Acquavia MA, Villone A, Rubino R,
& Bianco G (2025). A Comprehensive Review of Milk Components: Recent
Developments on Extraction and Analysis Methods. Molecules, 30(9),
1994.
Aydogdu T, O’Mahony JA, &
McCarthy NA (2023). pH, the fundamentals for milk and dairy processing: A
review. Dairy, 4(3), 395-409.
Barakat H, Mohamed A, Gemiel DG,
& Atallah AA (2021). Microstructural, volatile compounds, microbiological
and organoleptical characteristics of low-fat buffalo milk yogurt enriched with
whey protein concentrate and Ca-caseinate during cold
storage. Fermentation, 7(4), 250.
Barman M, Tripathi\ M, &
Singh R (2025). Comparative study of casein protein content from milk of cow,
buffalo, and goat using isoelectric precipitation. International Journal of
Engineering Research & Technology, 13(6), 112–118.
Bhat V, Pamarthy J, Shobham &
Sukumaran MK (2016). A Comparative Study on the Yields of Casein and Albumin in
Buffalo and Two Dairy Milk Samples. International Journal of Current
Research in Biosciences and Plant Biology, 3(12), 95-98.
Dabo KF, Chèné C, Prevost S,
Fameau AL, & Karoui R (2024). Low Demineralized Caseins to Replace Sodium
Caseinate for Application in Whipped Creams. Foods, 13(23), 3897.
Emakpor, O. L., Edo, G. I.,
Jikah, A. N., Ikpekoro, V. O., Agbo, J. J., Ainyanbhor, I. E., Essaghah, A. E.
A., Ekokotu, H. A., Oghroro, E. E., & Akpoghelie, P. O. (2024). Buffalo
milk: an essential natural adjuvant. Discover Food, 4, 38.
Felice VD, Owens RA, Kennedy D,
Hogan SA, Lane JA (2021). Comparative Structural and Compositional Analyses of
Cow, Buffalo, Goat and Sheep Cream. Foods, 10(11), 2643.
Habiba MU, Augustin MA, Varela C,
Morris H, Rahman MM, & Bozkurt H (2025). Probiotic dairy innovations:
Exploring buffalo milk potential for food product
development. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety, 24(4), e70236.
Hassoun A, Garcia-Garcia G,
Trollman H, Jagtap S, Parra-López C, Cropotova J, ... & Aït-Kaddour A
(2023). Birth of dairy 4.0: Opportunities and challenges in adoption of fourth
industrial revolution technologies in the production of milk and its
derivatives. Current research in food science, 7, 100535.
Himaja D, Kumar M, Shaik HR,
Manjunath SY, & Sen S (2020). Method Development and Validation for
Estimation of Casein in Milk. Indo Global Journal of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, 10(4), 27-31.
Holt C, & Carver J A (2022).
Quantitative multivalent binding model of the structure, size distribution and
composition of the casein micelles of cow milk. International Dairy
Journal, 126, 105292.
Holt C, Carver JA, Ecroyd H,
& Thorn DC (2013). Invited review: Caseins and the casein micelle: Their
biological functions, structures, and behavior in foods. Journal of dairy
science, 96(10), 6127-6146.
Ji Z, Yu Z, Du Q, Fan R, Wang J,
Han R, & Yang Y (2025). Comparative proteomic study of casein micelles in
human and animal milks for infant nutrition improvement. LWT, 220,
117560.
Kapadiya DB, Prajapati DB, Jain
AK, Mehta BM, Darji VB, Aparnathi KD (2016). Comparison of Surti goat milk with
cow and buffalo milk for gross composition, nitrogen distribution, and selected
minerals content. Veterinary World, 9(7), 710-6.
Katz G, Merin U, Bezman D, Lavie
S, Lemberskiy-Kuzin L, & Leitner G (2016). Real-time evaluation of
individual cow milk for higher cheese-milk quality with increased cheese
yield. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(6), 4178-4187.
Le TT, Deeth HC, & Larsen LB
(2017). Proteomics of major bovine milk proteins: Novel
insights. International Dairy Journal, 67, 2-15.
Muraka S, Sahu B, & Kolla A
(2023) Fermentation of Tomato Juice with S. cerevisiae has enhanced
nutrition and shelf-life. NewBioWorld, 5(2), 14-20.
Nayik GA, Gull A, Masoodi L,
Navaf M Muhammed,….. & Mugabi R (2024). Milk proteins: chemistry,
functionality and diverse industrial applications. Cogent Food &
Agriculture, 10(1).
Nepolean R, Mariyammal R,
Jeyavalli A, Karthika V, Samsath Begam A, Tamilselvam B, & Vinayagam E
(2023). ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF CASEIN FROM VARIOUS SOURCES OF MILK.
World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 12(5), 1442-1454.
Ofuani AG, & Destiny EC
(2023). Quantitative Determination of Casein and Lactose in Processed and
Unprocessed Milk Samples from Ogwashi-Uku, Delta State. IPS Journal of
Nutrition and Food Science, 2(2), 82-85.
Pamarthy, J., Bhat, V., &
Sukumaran, M. K. (2016). A Comparative Study on Casein and Albumin Contents in
Cow and Commercial Milk Samples. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences
(IOSR-JDMS), 15(1), 102–106.
Petrova SY, Khlgatian SV,
Emel’yanova OY, Pishulina LA, & Berzhets VM (2022). Current data about milk
caseins. Russian Journal of Bioorganic Chemistry, 48(2), 273-280.
Rajanna M, Jayaprakasha HM, &
Nagamani A (2024). Effect of Milk Sources on Whey Protein and Fractions of
Casein. Archives of Current Research International, 24(5), 370-376.
Sahariah BJ, Ghosh K, &
Bhattacharya K (2023). Determination of Casein in Milk Samples Available in
Guwahati, Assam, India. Indian Journal of Natural Sciences, 13(76),
52103-52109.
Sapan CV, Lundblad R L, &
Price NC (1999). Colorimetric protein assay techniques. Biotechnology and
Applied Biochemistry, 29(2), 99–108.
Sarode, TK, Kulkarni TC & Kumbhar
DS (2022). Comparative Study of Casein Protein Content of Milk of Different
Domesticated Cow, Buffalo and Goat Breeds from South-West Part of Karjat
Tehsil, Ahmednagar District, Maharashtra, India. Asian Journal of Research
in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 5(3), 159–164.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajravs/2022/v5i3200.
Singh A, Duche RT, Wandhare AG,
Sian JK, Singh BP, Sihag MK, ... & Panwar H (2023). Milk-derived
antimicrobial peptides: overview, applications, and future
perspectives. Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 15(1), 44-62.
Sun X, Yu Z, Liang C, Xie S, Wen
J, Wang H, ... & Han R (2023). Developmental changes in proteins of casein
micelles in goat milk using data-independent acquisition-based proteomics
methods during the lactation cycle. Journal of Dairy Science, 106(1),
47-60.
Tarr B, Tőzsér J, Szabó I, &
Revoly A (2025). Estimation of Milk Casein Content Using Machine Learning
Models and Feeding Simulations. Dairy, 6(4), 35.
Tirkey S, Verma S, Dhiver T,
& Shukla K (2025). Species-Specific Variation in Nutrients and Antioxidant
Activity among Calocybe Mushrooms. NewBioWorld, 7(1), 19-26.
Vaishali Sonika, Shivani Dhayal,
NK, Singh L, & Sharma S (2024). Isolation and identification of casein from
the various source of milk: A comparative study. Glocal Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 1–14.
Walker JM (1994). The
bicinchoninic acid (BCA) and Lowry protein assays. Methods in Molecular
Warakaulle S, Mohamed H,
Ranasinghe M, Shah I, Yanyang X, Chen G, ... & Kamal-Eldin A (2024).
Advancement of milk protein analysis: From determination of total proteins to
their identification and quantification by proteomic approaches. Journal
of Food Composition and Analysis, 126, 105854.
Xiang J, Liu F, Wang B, Chen L,
Liu W, & Tan S (2021). A literature review on maillard reaction based on
milk proteins and carbohydrates in food and pharmaceutical products:
advantages, disadvantages, and avoidance strategies. Foods, 10(9),
1998.