Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Chemical and physical properties of cow milk and plant-based milk – A comparative study

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12305
Submitted
16 October 2025
Published
30-04-2026

Abstract

Plant-based milk alternatives are becoming increasingly popular because they are lactose-free, gluten-free and suitable for people with food allergies or special dietary needs. Common plant-based milks include soy, almond and rice-based beverages. Most research has focused on mature grains or legumes, while milk made from immature rice-harvested during the milky stage-has been less studied, even though it may have higher protein and other beneficial nutrients. The present study compared the chemical and physical properties of cow’s milk (raw and pasteurised) with selected plant-based milk alternatives, including immature rice milk, almond milk and soy milk. Key parameters, including titratable acidity, pH, electrical conductivity, viscosity and density, were measured using standardised methods, while protein, fat, solids-not-fat (SNF) and lactose were analysed using a milk analyser. Results showed that almond and soy milk contained lower protein (0.09 ± 0.02 % and 1.79 ± 0.03 %, respectively), fat (0.66 ± 0.02 % and 1.46 ± 0.01 %, respectively) and SNF (0.27 ± 0.03 % and 5.14 ± 0.04 %, respectively) compared to cow’s milk (protein: raw 2.94 ± 0.07 %, pasteurised 3.18 ± 0.05 %; fat: raw 5.61 ± 0.08 %, pasteurised 3.43 ± 0.07 %; SNF: raw 7.86 ± 0.19 %, pasteurised 8.82 ± 0.31 %). Lactose was present in cow’s and soy milk, but negligible in almond and immature rice milk. Immature rice milk showed a high protein content (10.0 ± 1.09 %) with low fat (0.40 ± 0.08 %). Cow’s milk exhibited higher acidity and electrical conductivity than plant-based milks, while viscosity was highest in almond milk, followed by soy milk, cow’s milk and immature rice milk. Density values were similar across all samples (1.01–1.09 g/cm³). These findings highlight the distinct compositional differences between animal and plant-based milks. Immature rice milk, with its combination of high protein and low fat, may serve as a functional plant-based alternative suitable for dietary applications where protein enrichment is desired without increasing fat intake. Understanding these differences can help consumers and food producers choose the right milk for nutrition and functional uses.

 

References

  1. 1. Foroutan A, Guo AC, Vazquez-Fresno R, Lipfert M, Zhang L, Zheng J, et al. Chemical composition of commercial cow’s milk. J Agric Food Chem. 2019;67:4897–914. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00204
  2. 2. Fox PF, Uniacke-Lowe T, McSweeney PLH, O’Mahony JA. Dairy chemistry and biochemistry. Cham (CH): Springer International Publishing; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14892-2
  3. 3. Vallath A, Shanmugam A, Rawson A. Prospects of future pulse milk variants from other healthier pulses as alternatives to soy milk. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2022;124:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.03.028
  4. 4. Antunes IC, Bexiga R, Pinto C, Roseiro LC, Quaresma MAG. Cow’s milk in human nutrition and the emergence of plant-based milk alternatives. Foods. 2023;12(1):99. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010099
  5. 5. Leialohilani A, de Boer A. EU food legislation impacts innovation in the area of plant-based dairy alternatives. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;104:262–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.07.021
  6. 6. Das A, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R. Cereal-based functional food of the Indian subcontinent: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2012;49(6):665–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0474-1
  7. 7. Kundu P, Dhankhar J, Sharma A. Development of non-dairy milk alternatives using soymilk and almond milk. Curr Res Nutr Food Sci. 2018;6(1):203–10. https://doi.org/10.12944/CRNFSJ.6.1.23
  8. 8. Sethi S, Tyagi SK, Anurag RK. Plant-based milk alternatives: an emerging segment of functional beverages-a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2016;53(9):3408–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-016-2328-3
  9. 9. Pointke M, Albrecht EH, Geburt K, Gerken M, Traulsen I, Pawelzik E. A comparative analysis of plant-based milk alternatives-part 1: composition, sensory and nutritional value. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7996. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137996
  10. 10. Alozie YE, Udofia US. Nutritional and sensory properties of almond (Prunus amygdalus var. dulcis) seed milk. World J Dairy Food Sci. 2015;10(2):117–21.
  11. 11. Mazumder AR, Begum AA. Soymilk as a source of nutrients for malnourished populations in developing countries: a review. Int J Adv Sci Tech Res. 2016;5(6):192–203.
  12. 12. Kim SY, Lee H. Effect of quality characteristics on brown rice produced from paddy rice with different moisture contents. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem. 2013;56(3):289–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13765-012-3151-9
  13. 13. Seck PA, Diagne A, Mohanty S, Wopereis MCS. Crops that feed the world 7: rice. Food Secur. 2012;4:7–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0168-1
  14. 14. Zhang H, Yu C, Hou D, Liu H, Zhang H, Tao R. Changes in mineral elements and starch quality of grains during the improvement of japonica rice cultivars. J Sci Food Agric. 2018;98(1):122–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8446
  15. 15. Lin P, Lai HM. Bioactive compounds in rice during grain development. Food Chem. 2011;127(1):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.12.092
  16. 16. Jiamyangyuen S, Nuengchamnong N, Ngamdee P. Bioactivity and chemical components of Thai rice at five stages of grain development. J Cereal Sci. 2017;74:136–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2017.01.021
  17. 17. Jeske S, Zannini E, Arendt EK. Past, present and future: the strength of plant-based dairy substitutes based on gluten-free raw materials. Food Res Int. 2021;146:110486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110486
  18. 18. Aydar EF, Tutuncu S, Ozcelik B. Plant-based milk substitutes: bioactive compounds, processing and consumer acceptance. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;96:340–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.01.008
  19. 19. Zhu F. Starch structure, physicochemical properties and functionality of rice starch during grain development. Food Chem. 2021;340:127962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127962
  20. 20. Obadi M, Li C, Li Q, Li X, Qi Y, Xu B. Changes in starch fine structure and antioxidant activity of rice during grain filling. J Cereal Sci. 2020;95:103047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2020.103047
  21. 21. Goufo P, Trindade H. Rice antioxidants: phenolic compounds and health benefits. Food Chem. 2021;345:128766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128766
  22. 22. McClements DJ. Development of next-generation plant-based milk alternatives: structure, functionality and processing challenges. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2022;13:21–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-052720-103129
  23. 23. Walstra P, Wouters JTM, Geurts TJ. Dairy science and technology. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2022.
  24. 24. Tewari G, Juneja VK. Advances in thermal processing of milk and dairy products. J Food Sci Nutr. 2021;62:101–12.
  25. 25. Wong FC, Xiao J, Wang S, Ee KY, Chai TT. Effects of pasteurisation on the physicochemical and nutritional properties of milk. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;98:256–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.012
  26. 26. Sethi S, Tyagi SK, Anurag RK. Plant-based milk alternatives: analytical and compositional considerations. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2021;61(18):3015–31.
  27. 27. Tian Y, Taha A, Zhang P, Zhang Z, Hu H, Pan S. Effects of starch structure and protein–polysaccharide interactions on beverage viscosity. Food Hydrocoll. 2021;118:106784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106784
  28. 28. Vanga SK, Raghavan V. How well do plant-based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow’s milk? J Food Sci. 2022;87:2073–90.
  29. 29. Hu J, Zhu L, Yin X, Chen X, Zhang H, Zhang Y. Effects of protein morphological structures on cereal processing, sensorial property and starch digestion: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2025;65(17):3365–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2024.2365354
  30. 30. Zhang X, Yang L, Li Z, Tu D. Effects of premature harvesting on grain weight and quality: A field study. Agronomy. 2025;15(4):846. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040846
  31. 31. Fox PF, McSweeney PLH. Advanced dairy chemistry. Vol 3, Lactose, water, salts and minor constituents. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92585-7
  32. 32. Sethi S, Tyagi SK, Anurag RK. Plant-based milk alternatives: an emerging segment of functional beverages. J Food Sci Technol. 2021;58:3943–57.
  33. 33. Marouf AAS, Elmhal SI. Monitoring pH during pasteurisation of raw cow’s milk using Nd: YAG laser. Int J Adv Res Phys Sci. 2017;4(12):1–4.
  34. 34. Henningsson M, Ostergren K, Dejmek P. The electrical conductivity of milk: effect of dilution and temperature. Int J Food Prop. 2014;8:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1081/JFP-200048143
  35. 35. Mäkinen OE, Uniacke-Lowe T, O’Mahony JA, Arendt EK. Physicochemical and acid gelation properties of commercial UHT-treated plant-based milk substitutes and lactose-free bovine milk. Food Chem. 2015;168:630–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.07.036

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.