| Literature DB >> 33921380 |
Ferenc Pajor1, István Egerszegi1, Ágnes Szűcs1, Péter Póti1, Ákos Bodnár1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Schizochytrium limacinum marine algae on the milk composition and fatty acid profile, somatic cell count, and prevalence of pathogen bacteria in the raw milk of multiparous Alpine goats. Twenty-eight dairy goats were randomly allocated to two groups: control group (C)-fed with 1500 g alfalfa hay and 600 g concentrate; experimental group (MA)-received the same forages and concentrate supplemented with 10 g/head/day marine algae. The goats were housed indoors, while the experiment lasted five weeks, and the milk samples were taken every week. Marine algae feeding had no negative effect on milk composition. The marine algae inclusion significantly decreased the milk somatic cell count and the presence of udder pathogens in the MA group. Mean somatic cell count and presence of udder pathogens were 5.73 log cells/mL and 31%, respectively, in the C group, while these values were 5.34 log cells/mL and 10%, respectively, in the MA group. The marine algae supplementation significantly increased DHA and rumenic acid concentration in the milk of the MA group (0.32 and 0.99 g/100 g of fatty acids, respectively) compared to the C group (0.04 and 0.65 g/100 g of fatty acids, respectively). It can be concluded that a diet supplemented with marine algae significantly improves the udder health of goats and the concentrations of health-promoting fatty acids in milk.Entities:
Keywords: DHA; Schizochytrium limacinum; fatty acids; mastitis; udder health
Year: 2021 PMID: 33921380 PMCID: PMC8070433 DOI: 10.3390/ani11041097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Chemical composition and fatty acid (FA) profile of fed forage.
| Items | Diet | |
|---|---|---|
| Control 1 | Marine Algae 2 | |
| Daily intake, g | ||
| alfalfa hay | 1500 | 1500 |
| concentrate | 600 | 600 |
| marine algae 3 | − 4 | 10 |
| Ingredients, DM% 5 | ||
| alfalfa hay | 71.88 | 71.53 |
| concentrate | 28.12 | 27.98 |
| marine algae 3 | − | 0.49 |
| DM intake, kg/day | 1.88 | 1.89 |
| Chemical composition | ||
| dry matter, g/kg forage | 894.29 | 894.45 |
| crude protein, g/kg DM | 198.57 | 198.32 |
| crude fat, g/kg DM | 22.82 | 25.08 |
| crude fiber, g/kg DM | 217.25 | 216.29 |
| crude ash, g/kg DM | 77.77 | 77.57 |
| NEl 6, MJ/kg DM | 6.17 | 6.18 |
| Main FA, g/100g of fatty acids | ||
| C12:0 | 0.21 | 0.24 |
| C14:0 | 0.58 | 1.21 |
| C16:0 | 13.17 | 17.52 |
| C18:0 | 2.73 | 2.67 |
| C18:1n-9 | 30.33 | 27.53 |
| C18:2n-6 | 32.04 | 29.02 |
| C18:3n-3 | 15.62 | 14.15 |
| C22:6n-3 (DHA) 7 | − | 2.85 |
1 Control—control diet (hay and concentrate); 2 Marine algae—control diet supplemented with 10 g/head/day microalgae; 3 Marine algae contained g/100 g of fatty acids: C12:0 0.5, C14:0 7.28, C16:0 59.10, C18:0 2.04, C18:1n-9 0.71, C18:2n-6 0.13, C18:3n-3 0.10, C22:6n-3 30.10; 4 −: not contained; 5 DM—dry matter; 6 NEl—net energy for lactation; DHA: docosahexaenoic acid; 7 DHA daily intake: 1352.29 mg.
Milk yield and chemical composition and somatic cell counts of goat milk from different feeding treatments all through the experimental period
| Traits | Pretreatment | Diet | Sampling | SEM | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | MA | C | MA | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28 | 35 | D | S | D × S | ||
| Milk yield, kg | 1.26 | 1.27 | 1.25 | 1.30 | 1.28 | 1.25 | 1.26 | 1.30 | 1.28 | 0.017 | 0.171 | 0.897 | 0.948 |
| Fat, % | 3.92 | 3.83 | 3.71 | 3.74 | 3.75 | 3.63 | 3.62 | 3.87 | 3.74 | 0.035 | 0.675 | 0.159 | 0.991 |
| Protein, % | 3.41 | 3.49 | 3.40 | 3.44 | 3.44 | 3.34 | 3.50 | 3.51 | 3.32 | 0.031 | 0.493 | 0.191 | 0.889 |
| Lactose, % | 4.41 | 4.45 | 4.45 | 4.44 | 4.41 | 4.45 | 4.44 | 4.45 | 4.46 | 0.011 | 0.753 | 0.732 | 0.527 |
| Total solids, % | 12.43 | 12.49 | 12.32 | 12.44 | 12.35 | 12.34 | 12.34 | 12.50 | 12.38 | 0.052 | 0.245 | 0.834 | 0.879 |
| SCC, log cell/mL | 5.63 | 5.58 | 5.73 | 5.34 | 5.69 a | 5.54 b | 5.61 b | 5.47 b | 5.52 b | 0.035 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.608 |
C—control diet (hay and concentrate), MA—control diet supplemented with 10 g/head/day marine algae, SCC—log somatic cell counts, a, b—means with different letters differ significantly at p < 0.05.
Figure 1Somatic cell counts of goat milk from different feeding treatments (each group and sampling day n = 14). N.S.—not significant; ***— p < 0.001.
Prevalence of udder pathogens in milk samples from different feeding treatments (%).
| Mastitis Pathogens | Pretreatment | Treatment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Negative | 64 ( | 71 ( | 0.365 | 69 ( | 90 ( | <0.001 |
| Infected samples * | 36 ( | 29 ( | 0.365 | 31 ( | 10 ( | <0.001 |
C—control group; MA—marine algae group; * Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS) pathogens were identified from all infected samples.
Figure 2Prevalence of udder pathogens from different feeding treatments (each group and sampling day n = 14). N.S.—not significant; ***— p < 0.001.
Fatty acid profile of goat milk from different feeding treatments (g/100 g of fatty acids).
| Fatty Acids | Diet | Sampling Days | SEM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | MA | 21 | 35 | D | S | D × S | ||
| C4:0 | 1.46 | 1.44 | 1.45 | 1.45 | 0.009 | 0.176 | 0.984 | 0.320 |
| C6:0 | 1.19 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 1.19 | 0.019 | 0.624 | 0.637 | 0.777 |
| C8:0 | 1.83 | 1.84 | 1.82 | 1.86 | 0.034 | 0.971 | 0.590 | 0.320 |
| C10:0 | 7.20 | 8.29 | 7.77 | 8.23 | 0.076 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| C12:0 | 4.82 | 4.70 | 4.52 | 5.00 | 0.116 | 0.617 | 0.043 | 0.179 |
| C14:0 | 10.87 | 11.88 | 11.36 | 11.40 | 0.124 | 0.000 | 0.880 | 0.004 |
| C14:1 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.284 | 0.001 |
| C16:0 | 29.44 | 34.66 | 32.29 | 31.82 | 0.385 | 0.000 | 0.546 | 0.011 |
| C16:1 | 0.56 | 0.68 | 0.59 | 0.65 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| C18:0 | 9.54 | 6.59 | 7.34 | 8.79 | 0.193 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.075 |
| c11 C18:1n-9 | 23.63 | 18.64 | 20.13 | 22.13 | 0.217 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.653 |
| t11 C18:1n-7 | 1.39 | 1.68 | 1.49 | 1.58 | 0.021 | 0.000 | 0.054 | 0.298 |
| rumenic acid | 0.65 | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.014 | 0.000 | 0.454 | 0.002 |
| C18:2n-6 | 3.33 | 3.06 | 3.21 | 3.18 | 0.054 | 0.016 | 0.731 | 0.697 |
| C18:3n-3 | 1.18 | 0.95 | 1.11 | 1.02 | 0.014 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| C20:3n-6 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.328 | 0.001 | 0.328 |
| C20:4n-6 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.517 | 0.009 |
| C20:5n-3 (EPA) | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| C22:5n-3 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.707 | 0.065 |
| C22:6n-3 (DHA) | 0.04 | 0.32 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| palmitic/oleic ratio | 0.82 | 0.54 | 0.64 | 0.72 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.044 |
| odd FA | 2.28 | 2.26 | 2.26 | 2.27 | 0.020 | 0.782 | 0.950 | 0.224 |
| SFA | 67.46 | 71.08 | 68.25 | 70.28 | 0.438 | 0.000 | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| MUFA | 25.81 | 21.29 | 22.47 | 24.63 | 0.220 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.482 |
| PUFA | 5.77 | 5.82 | 5.84 | 5.76 | 0.061 | 0.658 | 0.533 | 0.233 |
| n-6 | 3.56 | 3.30 | 3.45 | 3.41 | 0.055 | 0.021 | 0.730 | 0.582 |
| n-3 | 1.56 | 1.54 | 1.58 | 1.52 | 0.018 | 0.632 | 0.107 | 0.837 |
| n-6/n-3 ratio | 2.32 | 2.14 | 2.20 | 2.26 | 0.039 | 0.028 | 0.440 | 0.413 |
| AI | 2.95 | 2.48 | 2.63 | 2.79 | 0.041 | 0.000 | 0.057 | 0.000 |
C—control group; MA—marine algae group; AI: atherogenic index calculated by Ulbricht and Southgate [25].
Calculated docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) conversion efficiency from diet to milk.
| Days 1 | Daily Intake of DHA, mg/Day | Average Milk DHA Content, mg/100 g Milk | Milk Production, kg | DHA in Milk Yield, mg/Day | DHA Efficiency Ratio 2, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 1352.29 | 9.06 | 1.19 | 107.80 | 7.97 |
| 35 | 1352.29 | 13.32 | 1.19 | 158.62 | 11.73 |
1 control diet supplemented with 10 g/head/day marine algae; 2 calculated according to Moate et al. [1].