Next Article in Journal
ProAKAP4 as Indicator of Long-Lasting Motility Marker in Post-Thaw Conditions in Stallions
Previous Article in Journal
Gut Microbiota Analysis in Silkworms (Bombyx mori) Provides Insights into Identifying Key Bacterials for Inclusion in Artificial Diet Formulations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring Breed-Specific Milk Coagulation in Spanish Dairy Sheep: A Canonical Correlation Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/ani14091262
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Parity and Somatic Cell Count Threshold on Udder Morphology, Milkability Traits, and Milk Quality in Canarian Goats

by
Mario Salomone-Caballero
,
María Fresno
,
Sergio Álvarez
and
Alexandr Torres
*
Unit of Animal Production, Pasture, and Forage in Arid and Subtropical Areas, Canary Islands Institute for Agricultural Research (ICIA), 28260 Tenerife, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2024, 14(9), 1262; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14091262
Submission received: 21 March 2024 / Revised: 12 April 2024 / Accepted: 22 April 2024 / Published: 23 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Lactation Physiology and Milk Quality of Small Ruminants)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Parity can affect milk yield, milk emission kinetics, and somatic cell count in milk (SCC) in dairy animals, because the mammary gland plays an important role in milk storage capacity between primiparous and multiparous animals. On the other hand, European regulations provide specific SCC limits for cow milk due to it is a well-established indicator of udder health, but lack such criteria for goat or sheep milk. This research paper addresses the effects of parity and SCC threshold on the udder morphology, milkability traits, and milk composition during mid-lactation in Canarian goats. Results showed a positive association between SCC and total bacterial count with the parity, indicating an impairment of the udder epithelial tissue, as well as a greater susceptibility to bacterial infections in older goats. The proximity of the udder to the floor was negatively affected by the SCC threshold, and needs to be taken into consideration for the udder health of dairy goats.

Abstract

The effects of parity and somatic cell count in milk (SCC) threshold on the udder morphology, milkability traits, and milk composition was evaluated in 41 Canarian goats in mid-lactation. The animals were divided according to parity (1st, 2nd, and 3rd), and a SCC threshold of 2000 × 103 cells/mL in milk was set to evaluate the effect of this factor on the different measured parameters. Results showed that primiparous goats had the udder smaller and less distended than multiparous goats, but no differences were detected on milk flow parameters. Furthermore, SCC and total bacterial count (TBC) tended to be higher when the parity increased. On the other hand, goats with SCC ≤ 2000 × 103 had higher cistern-floor distance (CF) and lower TBC values compared with those goats with a count above the predetermined threshold. The results suggest that a reduction in SCC can be achieved by a selection of udder morphological traits. Moreover, milk flow parameters do not seem to be a tool to determine the udder health status in Canarian goats, but long-term studies are needed to verify it.

1. Introduction

In dairy animals, milk production and milking kinetics can vary depending on extrinsic factors such as milking machine characteristics, milking routine, and environmental conditions [1,2], along with intrinsic factors such as breed, stage of lactation, and parity [3,4]. In the case of parity effect, several studies have reported that the mammary gland of primiparous animals has a lower secretory capacity and a lower milk storage capacity compared with multiparous animals [5,6], and may affect milking flow rate parameters and milking duration.
Moreover, milk yield and milking speed depend also on udder anatomy [7]. In the case of small ruminants, they have proportionally larger cisterns on a relative basis than dairy cows, which play an important role in the storage of milk and can greatly affect the removal of milk at the time of milking [8]. Furthermore, udder conformation of many goat and sheep breeds is characterized by teats positioned more horizontally [9,10], a circumstance that implies manual intervention by the milker for a complete milk removal and affecting the milk ejection curve [11].
On the other hand, somatic cell count (SCC) of milk is a representative of the udder health and is widely used for evaluating milk quality [12]. In European countries, a legal threshold of 400 × 103 cells/mL is set for raw cow’s milk [13]; in the US, it is 750 × 103 cells/mL for cows and sheep, and 1500 × 103 cells/mL for goats [14]. However, the European Union and most other countries around the world have yet to regulate SCC limits in small ruminant’s milk for various reasons related to sanitary control and quality aspects [15].
Somatic cells are a natural component of milk, and they comprise epithelial cells and white blood cells. It is well referenced that intramammary bacterial infections are the predominant cause of SCC increase [16]. However, apocrine milk secretion in goats and sheep implies higher amounts of epithelium cells and their fragments, arising from epithelial desquamation and physiological regeneration of mammary alveoli [17]. Furthermore, Canarian goats have a high proportion of machine stripping milk (around 20%) due to their udder morphology [18]. This milk is obtained by lifting the udder at the intramammary groove, while applying gentle downward traction to the teat cups, and then by brief manual massage of both udder halves [19]. This intervention may cause a higher epithelial desquamation, and therefore an increase in SCC in healthy animals.
Finally, several authors have studied the relationship between SCC and milkability traits in cows [20], sheep [21], and goats [7]. Nevertheless, the relation of these factors with the udder characteristics and milk quality is controversial. In this way, this trial aimed to study the effects of parity and SCC threshold on udder morphology, milkability traits, and milk composition during the mid-lactation period in Canarian goats. Goat production is an important economic resource in the livestock sector of the Canary Islands, where most of produced milk is used for the cheese industry. Therefore, knowledge about milk quality and safety parameters for goat milk may help to establish standards in the EU, considering the situation of the different regions that comprise it.

2. Materials and Methods

Animal procedures were conducted in strict accordance with the current European Animal Welfare Legislation (ART13TFEU).

2.1. Animals and Management

The present study was performed in the experimental farm of the Canary Islands Institute for Agricultural Research (ICIA, Tenerife, Spain) on 41 Canarian dairy goats in mid-lactation (106 ± 11 DIM). The animals were allocated into three groups according to parity (n = 14 in 1st parity, n = 13 in 2nd parity, and n = 14 in 3rd parity). The ration was formulated to cover requirements for lactating goats using INRAtion 4.0 software [22], and it consisted of commercial concentrate, corn grain, lucerne pellets, which were provided twice daily, and alfalfa hay offered for ad libitum consumption. Clean water and vitamin-mineral blocks were freely available for all animals.
Goats were milked in a double 12-stall parallel milking parlour (Alfa Laval Iberia SA, Madrid, Spain) equipped with recording jars (4 L ± 5%) and a low-line milk pipeline. Milking was performed at a vacuum pressure of 42 kPa, a pulsation rate of 90 pulses/min, and a pulsation ratio of 60/40 [23]. The milking routine included machine milking and stripping milking, performed by the same operator to remove the remaining milk from the udder before cluster removal, and teat dipping in an iodine solution (P3-cide plus; Henkel Hygiene, Barcelona, Spain). All animals were observed daily by an animal technician in order to detect any signs of disease.

2.2. Data Collection

During a 12-week period, data from milk flow parameters were recorded every two weeks, using a LactoCorder® device (WMB, AG, Balgach, Switzerland) in the long milk tube. The variables computed were: total milk yield (MGG, kg), duration of total milking (tMGG, min), maximal milk flow rate (HMG, kg/min), amount of milk within the first minute (1 MG, kg), average milk flow (AvMF, MGG/tMGG, kg/min), and time to reach 500 g (tS500, min).
Milk samples (50 mL) were analysed immediately after collection to determine milk composition, SCC, and total bacterial count (TBC). Fat, protein, lactose, and total solids (TS) percentages were determined using a MilkoScan Mars® (Foss Iberia S.A, Barcelona, Spain), SCC using a DeLaval Cell Counter® (DeLaval International AB, Tumba, Sweden), and TBC using a BactoScan™ (Foss Iberia S.A., Barcelona, Spain).
Udder morphology measurements of each goat were taken just before the first (week 1) and the last milking (week 12) of the experimental period, and were taken in the stalls of the milking parlour before the pre-milking routine. The variables measured were: udder length (UL, cm), udder circumference (UC, cm) (both measured with a flexible tape), teat length (TL, cm), cistern-floor distance (CF, cm), and teat- floor distance (TF, cm) (measured with a rigid tape), on both halves. Criteria and measurement method were based on [10].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

An SCC threshold of 2000 × 103 cells/mL in milk was set to evaluate the effect of this factor on the different measured parameters. Thus, two groups were formed according to the means of SCC recorded during the experiment: goats with SCC ≤ 2000 × 103 cells/mL (n = 22, of which 11 were primiparous and 11 were multiparous) and goats with SCC > 2000 × 103 cells/mL (n = 19, of which 3 were primiparous and 16 were multiparous). This threshold was established in accordance with previous studies, where milk SCC from goats free of intramammary infections ranged between 270 and 2000 × 103 [24], while milk SCC from infected goats ranged between 2000 and 4000 × 103 [25].
All statistical estimations were determined using SPSS 15.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The normal distribution of all variables was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. Data of SCC and TBC were calculated and expressed as a logarithmic scale (log10) to achieve normal distribution. Parity effect was evaluated using a multiple comparison test by the Tukey’s post hoc method, while SCC threshold effect was assessed using a t-test. Statistical differences were considered significant at p < 0.05. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations.

3. Results

3.1. Parity

The effects of parity on udder morphological measurements, milk flow parameters, and milk quality are shown in Table 1. Parity significantly affected all udder morphological measurements. Thus, primiparous goats exhibited lower values of UL, UC, and TL respect to multiparous goats (p < 0.05), indicating that their udders are smaller. Furthermore, primiparous animals had higher values for CF and TF than multiparous animals (p < 0.05), evidencing that udder suspension becomes weaker with increasing age of the animals. No statistical significances were detected on milk flow parameters, nor on fat, protein, and TS percentages in milk. Nevertheless, the milk lactose fraction was higher in primiparous goats compared with multiparous goats (p < 0.05). Finally, SCC and TBC values tended to be higher when the parity increased, thus goats in first parity had significantly lower SCC and TBC than goats in third parity.

3.2. SCC Threshold

The effects of SCC threshold on udder morphological measurements, milk flow parameters, and milk quality are shown in Table 2. No significant differences were found for UL, UC, and TF measurements due to the SCC threshold factor, but goats with a count of ≤2000 × 103 cells/mL in milk had lower and higher values for TL and CF, respectively, than goats with a count of >2000 × 103 cells/mL in milk. Moreover, milk flow parameters and milk composition were not affected by the SCC threshold factor (p ≥ 0.05). However, TBC value was significantly higher in goats with a count above of 2000 × 103 cells/mL in milk compared with those goats with a count below the predetermined threshold.

4. Discussion

4.1. Parity

Several studies have shown that udder morphology traits are significantly influenced by parity in dairy animals, which is consistent with the present findings. Third-parity goats had greater UL and UC and lower CF and TF compared with first-parity goats, which reflects an enlargement of the mammary cistern with increasing age. It has been reported that multiparous animals have larger cisterns than primiparous animals (in cows [26], ewes [27], and goats [5]). In the first lactation, the mammary gland of dairy animals is still developing and it tends to undergo modifications achieving a more well-developed and balanced structure during the subsequent lactations [28,29].
It is well known that cistern size plays an important role in the milk yield of dairy animals [9], and multiparous animals have a higher cisternal capacity than primiparous animals [5]. However, no significant differences in milk production were found among first-, second- and third-parity goats in the present study. Ref. [30] did not find differences in milk yield between primiparous and multiparous goats, and inferred that Canarian primiparous goats may have an optimal intramammary compliance and cisternal cavities. In any case, the similar milk yields between parities may be due to genetic factors reflecting an acceptable milk production level for the first-parity animals in mid-lactation.
Although in the present study milkability traits were not significantly affected due to parity factor, it has been reported that number of parity influences most of milk flow parameters. In dairy cows, Refs. [31,32] found that primiparous animals had a lower HMG and tMGG compared with older animals. Ref. [33] suggested that the cistern of primiparous animals remains full throughput milking due to its relatively constrained capacity, so milk is continuously resupplied from the alveoli, which combined with a smaller teat than that of multiparous animals, results in a more uniform curve and lower maximum milk flow rate.
On the contrary, Refs. [11,34] reported that AvMF and HMG had a decreasing trend with parity number in dairy ewes. These authors explained that milkability worsens because of the progressive deterioration of the degree of udder suspension with the age of the ewes. In agreement with the present results, Refs. [35,36] showed no significant differences in AvMF in dairy goats. It should be noted that Canarian goats store approximately 80% of total milk in the cisternal compartment [18], which may have minimized the parity effect on milk flow parameters.
In dairy goats, it has been reported that the lactose content of milk decreased with parity [37,38], which is in accordance with the present results. Ref. [30] found that multiparous goats had lower concentrations of milk lactose than primiparous goats upon milk stasis, and hypothesized it may be due to lactose passing from milk into blood through impaired tight junction. Ref. [39] interpreted this decline in milk lactose level in dairy ewes as the result of changes in the endocrine ± metabolic status as the number of lactations advances.
The positive association between SCC and parity in goats has been described in several studies [24,40,41]. This was confirmed in this study with a significant increase from first parity to third parity. Ref. [42] explained that the history of exposure to udder pathogens may partly explain the parity effect in goats because older animals may have chronic changes in the udder epithelial tissue, leading to having higher SCC. Previously, Ref. [43] found no evidence of this effect in goats for halves infected by minor and major pathogens where alterations of SCC caused by bacterial infection masked the effect of parity.

4.2. SCC Threshold

The SCC threshold group had a significant effect on some udder morphological measurements such as TL and CF. In dairy goats, Ref. [44] found that the udder shape, symmetry, degree of suspension, and degree of separation parameters showed to be different depending on SCC. These authors revealed that udder depth, and therefore its proximity to the floor, was different between the groups with low SCC (<1300 × 103 cells/mL in milk) and high SCC (>6000 × 103 cells/mL in milk), meaning that more attached udders presented lower SCC. This agrees with the findings of Ref. [45], who found that somatic cell score was genetically correlated with udder floor position in Alpine and Saanen breeds, and with teat length, teat width, and teat form in the Saanen breed. Additionally, Ref. [46] concluded that dairy ewes with a more horizontal teat position and larger teats had higher SCC, since they are more prone to develop subclinical mastitis. Therefore, the present results suggest that a reduction in SCC can be achieved by a selection of udder morphological traits.
Moreover, milk flow parameters were not significantly affected by the SCC threshold factor. This is in agreement with previous findings in cows [47] and ewes [21], where different SCC levels were set for each species. However, it has been reported that the shape of the milk ejection curve in dairy cows can be related to SCC levels, so the milk flow curve could give some information about udder health [48]. Thus, Ref. [31] found that from low SCC to high SCC there was a significant decrease in milk yield, time of plateau phase, and time of decline phase, and an increase in the maximum flow rate. In dairy goats, several studies also found that high SCC negatively influenced milk production and suggested the need for SCC monitoring in goat farms [49,50]. In this connection, Ref. [51] reported the existence of a positive genetic correlation between milk flow rate and SCC in Alpine and Saanen goats, indicating that the selection of animals with high milk flow would lead to deterioration in the udder health status.
Milk composition was also not significantly affected by the SCC threshold factor. Likewise, Ref. [21] found no significant effect of three SCC levels on content of fat, lactose, and TS in milk of dairy ewes, and Ref. [52] highlighted that milk composition did not change when milk SCC varied from 214 × 103 to 1450 × 103 cells/mL in milk in Alpine goats without evidence of clinical mastitis. On the other hand, Ref. [53] reported that the fat and lactose contents in the sheep milk of the higher SCC group (>1000 × 103 cells/mL in milk) were lower than that of the lower SCC group (<1000 × 103 cells/mL in milk), while protein and casein contents were not affected by the SCC level. Furthermore, Ref. [49] showed that goats with a higher SCC registered lower fat content and higher protein content in milk. Ref. [17] was able to show the evidence for changes in milk quality with SCC > 600 × 103 cells/mL, and recommended that it should be routinely screened by dairy manufacturers to assure the consumer of high end-product quality.
Finally, it has been confirmed the positive relationship between SCC and TBC in Canarian goats. Ref. [54] reviewed that SCC is an indicator of the goat udder health and was strongly associated with bacterial growth in milk samples. In this way, Ref. [38] indicated that the lowest total SCC was found in milk samples free from any pathogens or with low number of environmental bacteria. Consistent with the above mentioned, Ref. [55] showed that total bacterial count is significantly correlated with the number of SCC in bulk milk. Nevertheless, Ref. [56] reported that no udder pathogens were found in goats with a high SCC (>1500 × 103 cells/mL in milk), and positive results for udder pathogenic bacteria were obtained in goats with low SCC (≈850 × 103 cells/mL in milk). Ref. [38] also showed that the bacterial pathogens were present in about 20% of goat milk samples containing low SCC (<1000 × 103 cells/mL in milk). In addition, Ref. [57] suggested that the SCC and especially TBC in raw goat milk are at relatively low levels when strict selection against mastitis, regular health checks, and strict adherence to milking hygiene are applied. Therefore, there is still controversy regarding whether the SCC is a good indicator of bacterial infection of the mammary gland in goats.

5. Conclusions

According to our findings, there was an enlargement of the mammary gland with increasing age of animals, evidencing that udder suspension becomes weaker. However, this fact was not reflected in an increase of the milk yield among first-, second-, and third-parity goats. Surprisingly, milk flow parameters were not affected between parities, suggesting that the greatest milk storage capacity in the cisternal compartments of Canarian goats may have a minimal effect on milk flow emission. Furthermore, the positive association between SCC and TBC with the parity is clear, indicating an impairment of the udder epithelial tissue as well as a greater susceptibility to bacterial infections in older goats. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the proximity of the udder to the floor needs to be taken into consideration not only for the suitability of dairy goats for machine milking, but also for the udder health due to higher SCC and TBC values. Finally, it is not altogether certain that milk flow parameters may be used as a tool to determine the SCC threshold and help to determine the udder health status in Canarian goats. Nevertheless, long-term studies are needed to verify it.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T. and M.F.; methodology, A.T. and M.F.; software, A.T. and M.S.-C.; validation, M.F. and S.Á.; formal analysis, A.T.; investigation, A.T., M.S.-C. and M.F.; resources, A.T., M.S.-C. and S.Á.; data curation, A.T. and M.S.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.-C.; writing—review and editing, A.T.; visualization, M.F. and S.Á.; supervision, M.F. and S.Á.; project administration, A.T. and M.F.; funding acquisition, M.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Gobierno de Canarias, CAIA 2019-2020-0004-00-00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Laboratorio de Sanidad Animal del Gobierno de Canarias for the assistance with the milk analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Zucali, M.; Tamburini, A.; Sandrucci, A.; Gislon, G.; Bava, L. Effect of vacuum level on milk flow and vacuum stability in Alpine goat milking. Small Rumin. Res. 2019, 171, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Costa, A.; Boselli, C.; De Marchi, M.; Todde, G.; Caria, M. Milkability traits across milk flow curve types in Sarda sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 2022, 206, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tamburini, A.; Bava, L.; Piccinini, R.; Zecconi, A.; Zucali, M.; Sandrucci, A. Milk emission and udder health status in primiparous dairy cows during lactation. J. Dairy Res. 2010, 77, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arnal, M.; Robert-Granié, C.; Larroque, H. Diversity of dairy goat lactation curves in France. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 11040–11051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Salama, A.A.K.; Caja, G.; Such, X.; Peris, S.; Sorensen, A.; Knight, C.H. Changes in cisternal udder compartment induced by milking interval in dairy goats milked once or twice daily. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 1181–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lang, S.L.; Iverson, S.J.; Bowen, W.D. Primiparous and multiparous females differ in mammary gland alveolar development: Implications for milk production. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 2904–2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Blasco, E.; Gómez, E.A.; Vicente, C.; Vidal, G.; Peris, C. Factors affecting milking speed in Murciano-Granadina breed goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 10102–10108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Marnet, P.G.; McKusick, B.C. Regulation of milk ejection and milkability in small ruminants. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2001, 70, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rovai, M.; Caja, G.; Such, X. Evaluation of udder cisterns and effects on milk yield of dairy ewes. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 4622–4629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Torres, A.; Castro, N.; Hernández-Castellano, L.E.; Argüello, A.; Capote, J. Effects of milking frequency on udder morphology, milk partitioning, and milk quality in 3 dairy goat breeds. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 1071–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Casu, S.; Marie-Etancelin, C.; Robert-Granié, C.; Barillet, F.; Carta, A. Evolution during the productive life and individual variability of milk emission at machine milking in Sardinian× Lacaune back-cross ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 2008, 75, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Silanikove, N.; Merin, U.; Leitner, G. On effects of subclinical mastitis and stage of lactation on milk quality in goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 122, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Regulation EC 2004 No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Off. J. Eur. Union 2004, 47, 55–255.
  14. Food and Drug Administration. Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance US Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  15. Raynal-Ljutovac, K.; Pirisi, A.; de Crémoux, R.; Gonzalo, C. Somatic cells of goat and sheep milk: Analytical, sanitary, productive, and technological aspects. Small Rumin. Res. 2007, 68, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Granado, R.J.; Rodríguez, M.S.; Arce, C.; Estévez, V.R. Factors affecting somatic cell count in dairy goats: A review. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 12, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Podhorecká, K.; Borková, M.; Šulc, M.; Seydlová, R.; Dragounová, H.; Švejcarová, M.; Peroutková, J.; Elich, O. Somatic cell count in goat milk: An indirect quality indicator. Foods 2021, 10, 1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Torres, A.; Castro, N.; Argüello, A.; Capote, J. Comparison between two milk distribution structures in dairy goats milked at different milking frequencies. Small Rumin. Res. 2013, 114, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McKusick, B.C.; Thomas, D.L.; Berger, Y.M. Effect of omission of machine stripping on milk production and parlor throughput in East Friesian dairy ewes. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 680–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tančin, V.; Ipema, A.H.; Hogewerf, P. Interaction of somatic cell count and quarter milk flow patterns. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 2223–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mačuhová, L.; Tančin, V.; Mačuhová, J.; Uhrinčať, M.; Oravcová, M.; Vršková, M.; Tvarožková, K. Effect of somatic cell count on milkability and milk composition of ewes. Slovak J. Food Sci. 2020, 14, 1035–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. INRA. INRAtion: Version Professionnelle Intégrale 4.0; Educagri Editions: Theix, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  23. Torres, A.; Hernández-Castellano, L.E.; Morales-delaNuez, A.; Sánchez-Macías, D.; Moreno-Indias, I.; Castro, N.; Capote, J.; Argüello, A. Short-term effects of milking frequency on milk yield, milk composition, somatic cell count and milk protein profile in dairy goats. J. Dairy Res. 2014, 81, 275–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Paape, M.J.; Poutrl, B.; Contreras, A.; Marco, J.C.; Capuco, A.V. Milk somatic cell count and lactation in small ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, E237–E244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Min, B.R.; Tomita, G.; Hart, S.P. Effect of subclinical intramammary infection on somatic cell counts and chemical composition of goats’ milk. J. Dairy Res. 2007, 74, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Walsh, S.; Buckley, F.; Berry, D.P.; Rath, M.; Pierce, K.; Byrne, N.; Dillon, P. Effects of breed, feeding system, and parity on udder health and milking characteristics. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 5767–5779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dzidic, A.; Kaps, M.; Bruckmaier, R.M. Machine milking of Istrian dairy crossbreed ewes: Udder morphology and milking characteristics. Small Rumin. Res. 2004, 55, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stanton, T.L.; Jones, L.R.; Everett, R.W.; Kachman, S.D. Estimating milk, fat, and protein lactation curves with a test day model. J. Dairy Sci. 1992, 75, 1691–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Adegoke, E.O.; Ezekwe, A.G.; Agaviezor, O.B. Effect of parity and birth type on udder characteristics and milk yield of West African Dwarf sheep. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2015, 4, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  30. Torres, A.; Castro, N.; Suárez-Trujillo, A.; Argüello, A.; Capote, J. Interrelationships among the length of milk stasis, tight junction permeability to lactose and monovalent cations, rate of milk secretion and composition in dairy goats traditionally milked once a day. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 137, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sandrucci, A.; Bava, L.; Tamburini, A.; Zanini, L. Milking procedures, milk flow curves and somatic cell count in dairy cows. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 4, 215–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Edwards, J.P.; Jago, J.G.; Lopez-Villalobos, N. Analysis of milking characteristics in New Zealand dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hillerton, J.E. Control of peak flow rate of milk from the cow’s teat. In Mastitis Research into Practice, Proceedings of the 5th IDF Mastitis Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, 21–24 March 2010; Hillerton, J.E., Ed.; VetLearn: Wellington, New Zealand, 2010; pp. 449–453. [Google Scholar]
  34. Marie-Etancelin, C.; Manfredi, E.; Aurel, M.R.; Pailler, F.; Arhainx, J.; Ricard, E.; Lagriffoul, G.; Guillouet, P.; Bibe, B.; Barillet, F. Genetic analysis of milking ability in Lacaune dairy ewes. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2006, 38, 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Šlyžienė, B.; Juozaitienė, V.; Šlyžius, E. Relationship between milk yield, milking parameters, and udder evaluation of Czech White goats. Vet. Zootec. 2016, 73, 128–132. [Google Scholar]
  36. Romero, G.; Panzalis, R.; Ruegg, P. Relationship of goat milk flow emission variables with milking routine, milking parameters, milking machine characteristics and goat physiology. Animal 2017, 11, 2070–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Olechnowicz, J.; Sobek, Z. Factors of variation influencing production level, SCC, and basic milk composition in dairy goats. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2008, 17, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bagnicka, E.; Winnicka, A.; Jóźwik, A.; Rzewuska, M.; Strzałkowska, N.; Kościuczuk, E.; Prusak, B.; Kaba, J.; Horbańczuk, J.; Krzyżewski, J. Relationship between somatic cell count and bacterial pathogens in goat milk. Small Rumin. Res. 2011, 100, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sevi, A.; Taibi, L.; Albenzio, M.; Muscio, A.; Annicchiarico, G. Effect of parity on milk yield, composition, somatic cell count, renneting parameters and bacteria counts of Comisana ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 2000, 37, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Leitner, G.; Merin, U.; Lavi, Y.; Egber, A.; Silanikove, N. Aetiology of intramammary infection and its effect on milk composition in goat flocks. J. Dairy Res. 2007, 74, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yusuff, A.T.; Badmos, A.A.; Awofadeju, E.V.; Akintunde, A.A.; Alli, O.I.; Chimezie, V.O.; Fayeye, T.R. Somatic cell and cheesemaking variables of WAD goat milk: Influence of parity and lactation stage. Trop. Anim. Sci. J. 2021, 44, 502–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Smistad, M.; Sølverød, L.; Inglingstad, R.A.; Østerås, O. Distribution of somatic cell count and udder pathogens in Norwegian dairy goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 11878–11888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Luengo, C.; Sánchez, A.; Corrales, J.C.; Fernández, C.; Contreras, A. Influence of intramammary infection and non-infection factors on somatic cell counts in dairy goats. J. Dairy Res. 2004, 71, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Margatho, G.; Quintas, H.; Rodríguez-Estévez, V.; Simões, J. Udder morphometry and its relationship with intramammary infections and somatic cell count in Serrana goats. Animals 2020, 10, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rupp, R.; Clément, V.; Piacere, A.; Robert-Granié, C.; Manfredi, E. Genetic parameters for milk somatic cell score and relationship with production and udder type traits in dairy Alpine and Saanen primiparous goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 3629–3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Margetin, M.; Spanik, J.; Milerski, M.; Capistrak, A.; Apolen, D. Relationships between morphological and functional udder traits and somatic cell count in milk of ewes. In Proceedings of the International Conference Physiological and Technical Aspects of Machine Milking, Nitra, Slovakia, 26–28 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
  47. Porcionato, M.A.D.F.; Soares, W.V.B.; Reis, C.B.M.D.; Cortinhas, C.S.; Mestieri, L.; Santos, M.V.D. Milk flow, teat morphology and subclinical mastitis prevalence in Gir cows. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2010, 45, 1507–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zucali, M.; Bava, L.; Sandrucci, A.; Tamburini, A.; Piccinini, R.; Daprà, V.; Tonni, M.; Zecconi, A. Milk flow pattern, somatic cell count and teat apex score in primiparous dairy cows at the beginning of lactation. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Barrón-Bravo, O.G.; Gutiérrez-Chávez, A.J.; Ángel-Sahagún, C.A.; Montaldo, H.H.; Shepard, L.; Valencia-Posadas, M. Losses in milk yield, fat and protein contents according to different levels of somatic cell count in dairy goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2013, 113, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sandrucci, A.; Bava, L.; Tamburini, A.; Gislon, G.; Zucali, M. Management practices and milk quality in dairy goat farms in Northern Italy. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Palhiere, I.; Larroque, H.; Clément, V.; Tosser-Klopp, G.; Rupp, R. Genetic parameters and QTL detection for milking speed in dairy Alpine and Saanen goats. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 17–22 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chen, S.X.; Wang, J.Z.; Van Kessel, J.S.; Ren, F.Z.; Zeng, S.S. Effect of somatic cell count in goat milk on yield, sensory quality, and fatty acid profile of semisoft cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 1345–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Giaccone, P.; Scatassa, M.L.; Todaro, M. The influence of somatic cell count on sheep milk composition and cheese-making properties. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 4, 345–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kaskous, S.; Farschtschi, S.; Pfaffl, M.W. Physiological aspects of milk somatic cell count in small ruminants—A review. Dairy 2022, 4, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Olechnowicz, J.; Jaśkowski, J.M. Somatic cell counts and total bacterial count in bulk tank milk of small ruminants. Slov. Vet. Res. 2012, 49, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rupp, R.; Huau, C.; Caillat, H.; Fassier, T.; Bouvier, F.; Pampouille, E.; Clément, V.; Palhière, I.; Larroque, H.; Tosser-Klopp, G.; et al. Divergent selection on milk somatic cell count in goats improves udder health and milk quality with no effect on nematode resistance. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 5242–5253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kuchtík, J.; Šustová, K.; Sýkora, V.; Kalhotka, L.; Pavlata, L.; Konečna, L. Changes in the somatic cells counts and total bacterial counts in raw goat milk during lactation and their relationships to selected milk traits. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 20, 911–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Effect of parity on udder morphological measurements, milk flow parameters, and milk quality.
Table 1. Effect of parity on udder morphological measurements, milk flow parameters, and milk quality.
Parityp Value
123
Udder morphological measurements
UL, cm25.36 ± 3.65 a31.08 ± 2.62 b29.21 ± 4.39 b0.001
UC, cm60.82 ± 5.64 a67.08 ± 5.99 b67.86 ± 6.53 b0.007
TL, cm3.84 ± 0.66 a4.84 ± 0.78 b4.28 ± 0.87 ab0.008
CF, cm19.92 ± 2.56 b17.66 ± 4.70 ab15.54 ± 4.26 a0.020
TF, cm26.69 ± 2.95 b22.32 ± 5.04 a21.52 ± 4.14 a0.004
Milk flow parameters
MGG, kg2.47 ± 0.513.00 ± 0.652.75 ± 0.740.104
tMGG, min3.02 ± 1.003.49 ± 0.973.69 ± 1.470.306
AvMF, kg/min0.87 ± 0.240.91 ± 0.270.79 ± 0.170.376
HMG kg/min1.11 ± 0.251.17 ± 0.351.06 ± 0.220.584
1 MG, kg0.91 ± 0.220.98 ± 0.310.87 ± 0.230.541
tS500, min0.12 ± 0.490.11 ± 0.490.12 ± 0.300.770
Milk quality
Fat, %4.67 ± 0.474.60 ± 0.485.12 ± 0.780.059
Protein, %4.32 ± 0.324.20 ± 0.324.30 ± 0.250.534
Lactose, %4.53 ± 0.19 b4.30 ± 0.18 a4.34 ± 0.22 a0.009
TS, %14.16 ± 0.5913.76 ± 0.5614.37 ± 0.790.065
SCC, log10 cells/mL5.96 ± 0.28 a6.15 ± 0.42 ab6.30 ± 0.34 b0.045
TBC, log10 CFU/mL4.32 ± 0.30 a4.67 ± 0.45 ab4.79 ± 0.51 b0.019
UL, udder length; UC, udder circumference; TL, teat length; CF, cistern-floor distance; TF, teat-floor distance; MGG, milk yield; tMGG, duration of total milking; AvMF, average milk flow; HMG, maximal milk flow rate; 1 MG, amount of milk within the first minute; tS500, time to reach 500 g; TS, total solids; SCC, somatic cell count; TBC, total bacterial count. a,b Means with different superscripts within the same row are significantly different (p ˂ 0.05).
Table 2. Effect of SCC threshold on udder morphological measurements, milk flow parameters, and milk quality.
Table 2. Effect of SCC threshold on udder morphological measurements, milk flow parameters, and milk quality.
SCC Thresholdp Value
≤2000 × 103 Cells/mL>2000 × 103 Cells/mL
Udder morphological measurements
UL, cm28.14 ± 4.1628.89 ± 4.530.580
UC, cm65.34 ± 7.1565.05 ± 6.410.893
TL, cm3.97 ± 0.684.70 ± 0.900.005 **
CF, cm19.04 ± 3.9816.17 ± 4.110.029 **
TF, cm24.62 ± 5.4822.28 ± 3.080.108
Milk flow parameters
MGG, kg2.64 ± 0.702.85 ± 0.600.312
tMGG, min3.11 ± 0.703.73 ± 1.520.092
AvMF, kg/min0.87 ± 0.200.85 ± 0.260.777
HMG kg/min1.11 ± 0.211.11 ± 0.340.996
1 MG, kg0.91 ± 0.200.93 ± 0.300.784
tS500, min0.12 ± 0.420.12 ± 0.430.880
Milk quality
Fat, %4.88 ± 0.604.71 ± 0.660.393
Protein, %4.27 ± 0.284.28 ± 0.330.954
Lactose, %4.45 ± 0.174.33 ± 0.260.085
TS, %14.23 ± 0.7013.95 ± 0.660.190
SCC, log10 cells/mL5.91 ± 0.296.40 ± 0.260.001 ***
TBC, log10 CFU/mL4.33 ± 0.214.89 ± 0.500.001 ***
UL, udder length; UC, udder circumference; TL, teat length; CF, cistern-floor distance; TF, teat-floor distance; MGG, milk yield; tMGG, duration of total milking; AvMF, average milk flow; HMG, maximal milk flow rate; 1 MG, amount of milk within the first minute; tS500, time to reach 500 g; TS, total solids; SCC, somatic cell count; TBC, total bacterial count. ** p ˂ 0.01 and *** p ˂ 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salomone-Caballero, M.; Fresno, M.; Álvarez, S.; Torres, A. Effects of Parity and Somatic Cell Count Threshold on Udder Morphology, Milkability Traits, and Milk Quality in Canarian Goats. Animals 2024, 14, 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14091262

AMA Style

Salomone-Caballero M, Fresno M, Álvarez S, Torres A. Effects of Parity and Somatic Cell Count Threshold on Udder Morphology, Milkability Traits, and Milk Quality in Canarian Goats. Animals. 2024; 14(9):1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14091262

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salomone-Caballero, Mario, María Fresno, Sergio Álvarez, and Alexandr Torres. 2024. "Effects of Parity and Somatic Cell Count Threshold on Udder Morphology, Milkability Traits, and Milk Quality in Canarian Goats" Animals 14, no. 9: 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14091262

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop