Next Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Resistance in Physiological and Potentially Pathogenic Bacteria Isolated in Southern Italian Bats
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Arabinoxylan and Xylo-Oligosaccharide on Growth Performance and Intestinal Barrier Function in Weaned Piglets
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/ani13060965
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

Associations between Somatic Cell Count and Milk Fatty Acid and Amino Acid Profile in Alpine and Saanen Goat Breeds

by
Evaldas Šlyžius
1,
Lina Anskienė
1,
Giedrius Palubinskas
1,
Vida Juozaitienė
2,
Birutė Šlyžienė
1,*,
Renalda Juodžentytė
3 and
Lina Laučienė
4
1
Department of Animal Breeding, Faculty of Animal Science, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Tilžes 18, LT-47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaicio 58, LT-44248 Kaunas, Lithuania
3
Consulting and Study Centre for Postgraduate Studies in Veterinary Sciences, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Tilžes 18, LT-47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
4
Department of Food Safety and Quality, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Tilžes 18, LT-47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(6), 965; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13060965
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 2 March 2023 / Accepted: 3 March 2023 / Published: 7 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Small Ruminants)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Although somatic cell count is not a sensitive biomarker to identify mastitis in goats, the current study revealed a relationship between this indicator and goat milk composition. While data on goat milk fatty acids and especially on amino acid variations according to somatic cell count influence are very minimal, the main goal of this study was to evaluate the relation of different somatic cell count levels in goat milk with goat milk yield, milk composition, fatty acid, and amino acid profiles of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds. The research revealed some statistically significant relationships between somatic cell count and amino acids and fatty acids, suggesting that improving milk quality by reducing somatic cell count may benefit farmers by improving goat milk’s fatty acid and amino acid composition and may serve as a biomarker for dairy goats. However, future studies with more goats are needed to confirm these results.

Abstract

The main goal of this study was to evaluate the relation of different SCC levels in goat milk with goat milk yield, milk composition, FA, and AA profiles. Whereas the investigated herd was composed of Alpine and Saanen goats, the influence of breed on milk parameters and milk yield was also assessed. The research was carried out in 2022 at a Lithuanian dairy goat farm with 135 goats (Saanen = 66 and Alpine = 69) without evidence of clinical mastitis. The current research revealed a relationship between SCC with goat milk yield and composition. Goats with a high SCC had significantly lower milk yield (p < 0.001), lower content of lactose (p < 0.01), fat (p < 0.001) and higher protein content (p < 0.05) in their milk. The increase in most AA was significantly associated with increased SCC. The higher quantity of Asp, Glu, Ala, Met, His, Lys, Arg, EAA, NEAA, and TAA (compared with the low SCC group) (p < 0.05–0.01), Leu, Tyr, and BCAA (compared with the low and medium SCC group) were found in the milk of the high SCC group (p < 0.05–0.01). The distribution of the main FA groups was also related to SCC and showed a significant decrease in SCFA (p < 0.01–0.001) and an increase in LCFA, PUFA, and BCFA in the high SCC group (p < 0.05). All individual AA and their groups (EAA, NEAA, TAA, BCAA) were significantly lower in the milk of the Saanen goat breed (p < 0.001). The most individual FA ranged between goat breeds, while the total amount of SFA, UFA, and MUFA wasn’t affected by breed (p > 0.05). The research revealed a statistically significant relationship between SCC, AA, and FA, suggesting that these traits may be used as a biomarker in the goat selection process.

1. Introduction

Milk is one of the most valuable and widely used animal-origin products. Although 80% of dairy products are made from cow’s milk [1], goat’s milk production is highly valued due to its nutritive values and positive health benefits attached to these products [2].
Goat milk differs in some physicochemical properties from cow’s milk. The β-casein/αs1-casein ratio (70/30%) of goat milk proteins is similar to human milk, while αs1-casein is the primary casein in cow milk. Goat milk has significant effects on hypo allergenicity and higher digestibility than cow milk because β-casein is more sensitive to the action of pepsin than αs1-casein [2]. Although the amino acid (AA) profile of cow and goat milk proteins coincides by around 90% [3], the protein fraction of goat milk has a higher concentration of six (threonine, isoleucine, lysine, cystine, tyrosine, and valine) out of the ten essential amino acids present compared with bovine milk [4]. Goat milk usually contains 18 of the 20 amino acids, except for two—Asparagine (Asn) and Glutamine [5]. However, the reason for this may be related to the possibility of the differentiating of two closely related amino acids; therefore, some authors calculate Asparagine with Aspartic acid and Glutamine with Glutamic acid and label them as Asx and Glx, respectively [6].
Lipids of goat milk provide better digestibility with small fat globule sizes (3.19 to 3.50 µm) and are characterized by a high concentration of short and medium-chain fatty acids (SCFA and MCFA) synthesized de novo in the mammary gland. SCFA and MCFA contribute to goat milk flavor and, together with unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), have beneficial effects such as antimicrobial or antithrombotic on human health [2,7,8,9].
Production and quality of dairy goat milk can be affected by various factors such as nutrition, breed, lactation stage, parity, environment, season, and certainly udder health status [10]. An increase in somatic cell counts (SCC) may be associated with a mammary gland health condition and relate to milk yields and composition [11]. In addition to protective functions in milk, SCC also provides numerous enzymes and may affect dairy processes and the quality of products [12]. Although high SCC is strongly associated with mastitis in cows, that is not always the case with goats. Generally, it is agreed that goat milk has a higher SCC than cow milk, and the interpretation of SCC in goats is more complicated than in cows [13].
Despite the absence of legal SCC regulation for goat milk in the EU, research on this subject is performed. But most of the studies on goat milk focus on essential milk components such as fats, proteins, lactose, and milk yield [12,13,14], while data on goat milk FA and especially on AA variation according to SCC influence is very minimal. Sramek et al. reported that udder health significantly affected the concentration of SCFA and MCFA (from C4 to C14) in goat milk. These FA decreased with an increase in SCC in goat milk. In contrast, the long-chain fatty acids (LCFA), which originate from blood throughout triglyceride mobilization from the small intestine (90%) or the adipose tissue (10%), increased with the increase in SCC in goat milk [15]. Meanwhile, data on goat milk AA composition under SCC impact is extremely limited.
Therefore, the main goal of this study was to evaluate the relation of different SCC levels in goat milk and goat milk yield, milk composition, FA, and AA profiles of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Animals, Sampling and Feeding

This study was performed in 2022 at a Lithuanian dairy goat farm, from June to August. 135 goats (Saanen, N = 66, and Alpine, N = 69) without evidence of clinical mastitis were assigned to 3 groups according to SCC level of <750 × 103 cell/mL (low level group, N = 60), 750–1000 × 103 cell/mL (medium group, N = 30), and >1000 × 103 cell/mL (high level group, N = 45) [16].
All investigated goats, weighing from 40 to 47 kg, were on average 3.00 ± 0.13 parity (2.97 ± 0.12 Saanen, 3.02 ± 0.13 Alpine), on a middle stage of lactation (90 ± 7.08 days—Saanen, 92 ± 7.15—Alpine) at the start of the experiment, and were raised in the same feeding and housing conditions. The animals received a total mixed ration from pasture grass and hay (ad libitum) and concentrates (600 g) (Table 1). Goats had access to water ad libitum.
Goats were milked twice a day, at 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The milking parlour had a low-line design with self-locking gates and two platforms consisting of eight milking units and milking posts per platform. Individual milk samples were collected three times during the experiment, from June to August (on the 20th day of each month).

2.2. Analysis of Milk Composition and SCC

Analysis of goat milk fat, protein, lactose, and urea was made using spectrophotometers LactoScope 550 and LactoScope FTIR (Delta Instruments, Drachten, The Netherlands) by the JSC “Pieno Tyrimai” laboratory, which is accredited by the National Accreditation Bureau to perform physical-chemical and microbiological tests of raw milk.
The somatic cell count in milk was determined using the measuring device Somascope CA-3A4 (Delta Instruments, Drachten, The Netherlands), which operates on the principle of the flow cytometry method. Goat milk yield was analyzed during control milking and evaluated according to the data from the Agricultural Information and Rural Business Centre.

2.3. Analysis of the Composition of Fatty Acids and Amino Acids

The composition of fatty acids (FA) and amino acids (AA) was determined at the Chemical Laboratory of the Livestock Farming Institute of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences.
4000 rpm centrifugation separated the cream from the goat milk. Fats were collected using a 3:1 blend of chloroform and methanol and methylated with a 2% sodium methylate [17]. FA methyl esters were injected into the CG-2010 SHIMADZU gas chromatographer integrated with a hydrogen flame detector. The FA were recognized based on the output times of a known standard (Supelco 37 FAME mix, Linoleic acid methyl ester isomer mix, Supelco Trans FAME mix K110) and measured by the CG Solution data processing program. Single FA were expressed as a percentage of the total FA and were categorized into short-chain fatty acids (SCFA, C4–C8), medium-chain fatty acids (MCFA, C10–C15), and long-chain fatty acids (LCFA, C16, and more) by the number of carbon atoms [18]. Furthermore, FA were defined into saturated fatty acids (SFA), unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), and branched-chain fatty acids (BCFA) based on the number of single and double bonds or methyl branches on the FA chain.
Before the AA evaluation, milk samples were degreased by centrifugation at 4000 rpm. The degreased samples were hydrolyzed in compliance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 [19], while derivatization and quantification were completed following the Waters AccQ Tag Chemistry Package Instruction Manual. AA were expressed as g/kg of degreased milk. Histidine (His), isoleucine (Ile), leucine (Leu), lysine (Lys), methionine (Met), phenylalanine (Phe), threonine (Thr), and valine (Val) were grouped into essential amino acids (EAA); alanine (Ala), arginine (Arg), aspartic acid (Asp), glutamic acid (Glu), glycine (Gly), proline (Pro), serine (Ser), and tyrosine (Tyr) were grouped into nonessential amino acids (NEAA). Additionally, the total content of AA (TAA), branched-chain amino acids (Leu + Ile + Val, BCAA), and the ratio of EAA/TAA were counted.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical data analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 analytical software. The data were presented using descriptive statistics. Normal distributions of variables were assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine statistically significant differences between the means. Multiple comparisons of groups means were calculated using the Post—Hoc Tukey test. The differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Milk Yield and Composition in Alpine and Saanen Goats Depending on the Level of SCC in Milk

The goat milk yield and composition according to goat breed and SCC group are presented in Table 2. The present study showed that Saanen goats yielded (p < 0.001) more milk (2.45 ± 0.04 vs. 1.71 ± 0.02 kg/day), but their milk was significantly lower in fat (3.13 ± 0.10 vs. 4.39 ± 0.13%) and protein (3.02 ± 0.04 vs. 3.53 ± 0.05%) content than that of Alpine goats [20]. Lower fat and protein content with higher milk yield in Saanen goats may be attributed to goat genetics and milk dilution effects [20]. A few previous studies revealed similar milking results: Saanen goats had significantly higher daily milk yields (2.15–2.63 kg/day) compared with Alpine goats (1.76–2.08 kg/day) [21,22], while milk composition varied differently between investigated breeds. Mioč et al. [21] found that Alpine milk was richer in fat content than Saanen milk (3.47 vs. 3.25 %) but the protein and lactose content did not differ significantly between breeds. Meanwhile, Shuvarikov et al. [22] found significantly higher protein content in the milk of Alpine goats than in Saanen goats (3.72 vs. 3.55%), while fat and lactose content remained similar in both breeds. Costa et al. [4] estimated that protein and lactose were higher 12.50 and 3.40%, respectively, in the milk of Alpine goats, but fat content did not differ significantly between breeds.
The current study showed that the amount of urea was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in Alpine milk than in Saanen milk, while lactose did not differ significantly under the breed influence. Milk urea shows whether the diet of ruminants is well balanced by energy and protein; however, in goat’s milk, unlike cow’s, it is not controlled Bendelja-Ljoljić [23], Brun-Bellut et al. [24] reported an optimum milk urea range of 28–32 mg/dL for dairy goats. SCC was higher in the milk of Alpine goats compared with Saanen breed goats.
In the current study, the average SCC in the milk of the high SCC group was 9.1 times higher (2201 ± 183 × 103 cell/mL) than in low SCC (242.5 ± 14.8 × 103 cell/mL) group milk (p < 0.001), (Table 2). Although in the present study, none of the investigated goats had visual symptoms of mastitis, some of those assigned to a high SCC group could suffer from subclinical mastitis. Previous studies, where the milk of uninfected and infected goat glands/halves was analyzed, estimated similar results for the SCC: 350 vs. 1600 × 103 cell/mL [25] or 417 vs. 1750 × 103 cell/mL) [12]. On the other hand, SCC in goat milk can range from 270 × 103 to 2000 × 103 cells/mL without mastitis, according to Paape et al. [26]. Previous studies have shown that goat milk has an average of 150 × 103/mL of cytoplasmic particles, which could be mistakenly counted as somatic cells. Therefore, only cell counting procedures specific to DNA should be used to obtain accurate SCC for goats [26,27]. Milk yield, fat, and lactose content decreased (9.68%, p < 0.001; 21.68%, p < 0.001; 6.18%, p < 0.01), while protein content increased (12.34%, p < 0.05) significantly when SCC exceed 1000 × 103 cell/mL in goat milk compared with the milk of low SCC group. Javier [28] estimated that the percentage losses of goat milk yield for SCC levels of 1000 ×103 cells/mL, 2000 × 103 cells/mL, 3000 × 103 cells/mL and >7000 × 103 cells/mL were 11.4, 19.5, 24.2, and 35.7%, respectively. Cedden et al. [29]. also found a negative relationship between milk yield and higher SCC in goats without clinical mastitis signs. Akers and Nickerson [30] state that a decrease in milk yield can be related to damage to the udder parenchyma and blockage of milk ducts with bacteria, neutrophils, and fibrin. Besides, Koop et al. [31] found that the decrease in milk yield during subclinical mastitis was different for various pathogen groups. Barrón Bravo et al. [5] found that goats with high SCC had the lowest milk yield and fat content and the highest protein content in their milk, which coincided with the present study’s data. Other studies showed that fat content did not differ, protein content increased significantly or tended to increase, and lactose decreased when SCC exceeded 1000 × 103 cell/mL in the milk of healthy goats [11] or 1750 × 103 cell/mL in the milk of infected goats [12]. Meanwhile, Sramek et al. [15] found a non-significant increase in proteins, a significant increase in milk fat, and a significant decrease in lactose content in the high SCC group (>1000 × 103 cell/mL) milk of Alpine goats. The reduction in lactose concentration can be a result of increased plasmin activity; the higher content of total protein can be related to the increase in albumin and whey protein concentrations in milk during subclinical or clinical mastitis [32].

3.2. Amino Acids Composition

The quantity of all individual AA and their groups (EAA, NEAA, TAA, and BCAA) was significantly lower in Saanen compared with Alpine goat milk, p < 0.001 (Figure 1). Only the ratio of EAA/TAA was higher (0.45 ± 0.01 vs. 0.46 ± 0.01) of Saanen goat milk (p < 0.001).
Despite the mentioned inter-breed differences, Glu, following Pro, Leu, Lys, and Asp, had the highest concentration (~ 20, ~10, ~9, ~8, and ~7%), in both breed’s milk (Figure 2), and these AA values were in agreement with Landi et al. [6]. Meanwhile, the contents of Gly, Arg, Ala, His, and Tyr were found in the lowest range, which was 1.90–4.20% for Alpine milk and 1.78–3.79% for Saanen milk.
Other studies showed that high levels of Pro, Leu, and Glu + Gln were determined in goat milk from Saanen and Alpine goat breeds, while His and Tyr were found to be at a lower level than the other amino acids determined in goat milk samples. It was found that the contents of Pro, Leu, and Glu + Gln were in the range of 25.49–50.14, 24.53–35.79, and 21.34–35.28 µmol/mL, respectively, while the contents of His and Tyr were found to be in the range of 3.70–5.36 and 3.31–5.67 µmol/mL, respectively [32].
Most of the AA were significantly increased (Table 3) when SCC reached over 1000 × 103 cells/mL in goat’s milk. The higher quantity of Asp, Glu, Ala, Met, His, Lys, Arg, EAA, NEAA, TAA (compared with the low the SCC group) Leu, Tyr, and BCAA (compared with the low and medium SCC group) were found in the milk of the high SCC group (p < 0.05–0.01), while the milk of the medium SCC group had a higher content of Thr, Ile, and Phe (compared with the low SCC group), (p < 0.05–0.01) and the ratio of EAA/TAA (compared with the low and high SCC group), (p < 0.05). The higher content of individual and TAA can be related to the increased albumin and whey protein concentrations in milk during subclinical or clinical mastitis [12]. Although albumin and whey proteins have not been analyzed in the present study, the increase in total protein content in milk with high SCC can be associated with the rise in those milk components.
Data on the SCC impact on the AA composition of goat milk are lacking, but a study with cows revealed similar results. Andrei et al. showed that total AA content increased significantly in cow mastitis milk compared with normal (12,073.06 ± 5564.14 µg/mL vs. 619.82 ± 76.02 µg/mL). Also, an increase in Lys, Tyr, Leu, Ile, Val, Gly, and Ala, while a decrease in Glu, Asp, Met, Pro, Ser, and Thr was observed in the milk of cows with mastitis symptoms [33].

3.3. Fatty Acids Composition

The FA composition of goat milk of the different breeds is presented in Table 4. The highest concentrations of FA found in milk were C10:0, C14:0, C16:0, C18:0, and C18:1n9c. These FA accounted for ~78% of the total for both goat breeds, which is consistent with findings reported by Kuchtik et al. [10] and Mohsin et al. [34]. Nevertheless, most individual FA varied between goat breeds.
Significantly less of C8:0, C10:0, C11:0, C12:0, C14:0, C16:1n7, C17:1n9, C18:2n6t, C18:2n6c,t, C18:2n6t,c, C18:3n3, C20:5n3, C22:4n6, and C22:5n3 whereas more of C4:0, iC14:0, aC15:0, iC17:0, C18:0, C20:0, and C20:1n9 were found in the Saanen compared with the Alpine milk. Vulić et al. [8] also revealed variation of FA in the milk of Alpine and Saanen breeds, however, goats were on different breeding regimes. Earlier studies confirmed FA variation between different goat breeds such as Bulgarian White Dairy Goat and Toggenburg (Pamukova et al. [35]) or Nguni and Boer (Idamokoro et al. [36]) when goats were kept in similar conditions.
Although a significant variation in single FA was found, the total amount of SFA, UFA, and MUFA did not differ between breeds (Figure 3), and their estimated percentages were in line with the literature (Mollica et al. [37]). This study showed that the amounts of LCFA (3.21%) and BCFA (26.14%) was higher in the milk of Saanen goats and lower in MCFA (10.27%) and PUFA (7.52%) compared with Alpine goat milk. Vulić et al. [8] did not reveal variation in SFA and PUFA, although goats being kept under different breeding models, but found a significant difference in the MUFA content between Alpine (22.80 g/100 g) and Saanen (24.00 g/100 g) goats kept in Bosnia and Herzegovina [31]. According to most studies, the proportion of MUFA in the total FA goat’s milk content can vary from 15 to 30%, and the intrinsic content of oleic acid (C18:1n9c) is the main determining factor (Kuchtik et al. [10]), which coincides with the data of the current study.
The content of BCFA estimated in the milk of both goat breeds was from 2.16 to 2.70 times lower than that estimated by Lopez et al. [38]. Although BCFA is a lesser constituent of milk, it revealed a positive effect on gastrointestinal microbiota and can act as a potential anti-cancer agent [38]. Our analysis revealed that in the milk of the Alpine goat there was significantly more omega-3 FA than in the milk of Saanen (1.01 ± 0.18 g/100 g vs. 0.72 ± 0.13 g/100 g) in the present study; consequently, the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 was also more favorable (2.89 vs. 4.05) in Alpine milk. Due to a higher dietary intake of omega-6 in recent years, the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 FA increased to 15–20:1 in the human diet, while the ideal balance must be around 2:1 [39]. Values of omega-6 and omega-3 FA and their proportion in our study are similar to those recorded by Ceballos et al. [40] in goat milk, while milk from cows’ had a markedly higher ratio of omega-6/omega-3, precisely 10.49.
The distribution of the main FA groups according to SCC groups is presented in Figure 4. A significant decrease in SCFA and an increase in LCFA, PUFA, and BCFA were found when SCC exceeded 1000 × 103 cells/mL in goat milk, but our data analysis revealed a weak positive (r = 0.251, p < 0.01) correlation only between SCC and PUFA. The data obtained in this study is similar to Sramek et al. [15]. This author estimated that SCFA and MCFA (from C4 to C14) were lower, and in contrast, the LCFA concentrations were higher in goat milk with a high SCC (<750 × 103 cell/mL vs. >1000 × 103 cell/mL).
SCFA, MCFA, and partially C16:0 are de novo synthesized in epithelial cells of the mammary gland from rumen acetate and butyrate, while diet lipids are the precursors for LCFA and they are passed over from the blood to the goat mammary gland [41]. FA’s de novo synthesis pathway mainly depends on Acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACACA) and fatty acid synthase (FASN) expression. Pro-inflammatory cytokines released in infected mammary glands reduce the expression of FASN and ACACA [42]. Yakan et al. [43] estimated a significant negative (r = − 0.407, p  <  0.001) correlation between SCC and FASN as well. In the current study, some goats in a high SCC group with an average of 2201 ± 183×103 cells/mL could suffer from subclinical mastitis; thus, SCFA synthesis may have been disturbed in their udder parenchyma.
Corresponding changes under the SCC group were also seen in the content of individual FAs (Table 5). C4:0, C6:0, C8:0, iC15:0, C16:1n7, iC17:0, C20:0, and C20:1n9 decreased, whereas C13:0, iC14:0, aC15:0, C16:1n9t, C17:1n9, C18:1n7, C18:2n6tc, and C20:4n6 increased when SCC reached over 1000 × 103 cells/mL, compared with the low-SCC or medium-SCC groups.
However, the individual FA, such as C10:0, C14:0, C16:0, C18:0, and C18:1n9, which comprise around 78% of total FA, were not affected by SCC in goat milk. In contrast, Sramek et al. [15] found that C16:0 concentration was lower, while C18:1n9 and simultaneously MUFA concentrations were higher in the milk of the high SCC group. The author assumes that the increased concentration of all 18-carbon and longer chain fatty acids in milk with high SCC may be related to the decreased substrate competition with SCFA and MCFA during milk fat synthesis.
Although SCC is not a sensitive biomarker to identify mastitis in goats, the current study revealed a relationship between this indicator and goat milk yield and composition. Goats with a high SCC had significantly lower milk yield, lactose, and fat content in their milk. In contrast, protein content, including most of AA, increased with increased SCC in goat milk. The higher quantity of Asp, Glu, Ala, Met, His, Lys, Arg, EAA, NEAA, TAA (compared with the low SCC group), Leu, Tyr, and BCAA (compared with the low and medium SCC groups) were found in the milk of the high SCC group. Analysis of FA composition showed a decrease in SCFA and an increase in BCFA, LCFA, and PUFA in milk with a high SCC group.
All individual AA and their groups (EAA, NEAA, TAA, BCAA) were significantly lower in the milk of the Saanen goat breed. Most individual FA ranged between goat breeds, while the total amount of SFA, UFA, and MUFA wasn’t significantly affected by goat breed.

4. Conclusions

The research revealed a statistically significant association of SCC with AA and FA, suggesting that improving milk quality by SCC may be beneficial to farmers in improving the fatty acid and amino acid composition of goat milk and may possibly serve as a biomarker in the selection of dairy goats; however, future studies with a larger number of goats are needed to confirm these results.

Author Contributions

E.Š. and L.L.: supervision of the whole study and manuscript writing, L.A.: software and algorithm development; G.P., B.Š. and R.J.: design and setup of field experiments, data collection. E.Š., B.Š. and L.L.: data analysis; G.P.: intensive support in processing of data in the manuscript. V.J.: Writing – review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All the research was conducted in compliance with the Law of Veterinary Medicine of the Republic of Lithuania (New wording from 1 July 2011: No. XI-1189, 30 No-member 2010 No. 148-7563 (20 October 2012) and the Law on Animal Welfare and Protection of the Republic of Lithuania (No. XI-2271, 3 October 2012, Official Gazette 2012). The care and usage requirements of animals used for scientific and educational purposes were approved by the State Food and Veterinary Service by official letter (No. B1-866, 31 October 2012).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021–2030; OECD/FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; pp. 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kanca, N. The Nutritional Value and Health Benefits of Goat Milk Components. In Nutrients in Dairy and Their Implications for Health and Disease; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Prosser, C.G. Compositional and functional characteristics of goat milk and relevance as a base for infant formula. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Da Costa, W.K.A.; De Souza, E.L.; Beltrão-Filho, E.M.; Vasconcelos, G.K.V.; Santi-Gadelha, T.; de Almeida Gadelha, C.A.; Franco, O.L.; do Egypto Queiroga, R.d.C.R.; Magnani, M. Comparative Protein Composition Analysis of Goat Milk Produced by the Alpine and Saanen Breeds in Northeastern Brazil and Related Antibacterial Activities. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Haenlein, G. Goat milk in human nutrition. Small Rumin. Res. 2004, 51, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Landi, N.; Ragucci, S.; Di Maro, A. Amino Acid Composition of Milk from Cow, Sheep and Goat Raised in Ailano and Valle Agricola, Two Localities of ‘Alto Casertano’ (Campania Region). Foods 2021, 10, 2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Desbois, A.P.; Smith, V.J. Antibacterial free fatty acids: Activities, mechanisms of action and biotechnological potential. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 1629–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Vulić, A.; Kudumija, N.; Lešić, T.; Tanković, S.; Jelušić, V.; Frizbegović, J.; Bilandžić, N.; Pleadin, J. Chemical composition and fatty acid profile of Alpine and Saanen goat milk from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Vet. Stanica 2021, 52, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lordan, R.; Tsoupras, A.; Mitra, B.; Zabetakis, I. Dairy Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: Do We Really Need to Be Concerned? Foods 2018, 7, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kuchtík, J.; Králíčková, Š.; Zapletal, D.; Węglarzy, K.; Šustová, K.; Skrzyżala, I. Changes in physico-chemical characteristics, somatic cell count and fatty acid profile of Brown Short-haired goat milk during lactation. Inst. Genet. Anim. Breed. Jastrzębiec Pol. 2015, 33, 71–83. [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Leitner, G.; Merin, U.; Silanikove, N. Changes in Milk Composition as Affected by Subclinical Mastitis in Goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 1719–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Chen, S.; Wang, J.; Van Kessel, J.; Ren, F.; Zeng, 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Barrón-Bravo, O.; Gutiérrez-Chávez, A.; Ángel-Sahagún, C.; Montaldo, 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]
  15. Sramek, Á.; Bodnár, Á.; Póti, P.; Pajor, F. The effect of udder health on mineral concentrations and fatty acid composition of alpine goat milk. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2018, 36, 383–392. [Google Scholar]
  16. Guilherme, N.S.; Brito, J.R.F.; Briot, V.P.; Aparecida, M.; Faria, C.G.; Moraes, L.C.D.; Foncesa, C.G.; Silva, Y.A. Composition and bulk tank somatic cell counts of milk from dairy goat herds in Southeastern Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. São Paulo 2009, 46, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  17. Christopherson, S.W.; Glass, R.L. Preparation of Milk Fat Methyl Esters by Alcoholysis in an Essentially Nonalcoholic Solution. J. Dairy Sci. 1969, 52, 1289–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Djordjevic, J.; Ledina, T.; Baltic, M.Z.; Trbovic, D.; Babic, M.; Bulajic, S. Fatty acid profile of milk. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 333, 012057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 54, 2–54. [Google Scholar]
  20. Craig, A.-L.; Gordon, A.W.; Hamill, G.; Ferris, C.P. Milk Composition and Production Efficiency within Feed-To-Yield Systems on Commercial Dairy Farms in Northern Ireland. Animals 2022, 12, 1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Mioč, B.; Zvonimir, P.; Vnucec, I.; Barać, Z.; Sušić, V.; Samarzija, D.; Vesna, P. Factors affecting goat milk yield and composition. Mljekarstvo/Dairy 2008, 58, 305–313. [Google Scholar]
  22. Shuvarikov, A.S.; Pastukh, O.N.; Zhukova, E.V.; A Zheltova, O. The quality of milk of goats of Saanen, Alpine and Nubian breeds. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 640, 032031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ljoljić, D.B.; Špehar, I.D.; Prpić, Z.; Vnučec, I.; Samaržija, D. Urea concentration in goat milk: Importance of determination and factors of variability. J. Central Eur. Agric. 2020, 21, 707–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brun-Bellut, J.; Lindberg, J.E.; Hadjipanayiotou, M. Protein nutrition and requirements of adult dairy goats. Pudoc Wagening. P. Morand-Fehr. 1991, 46, 82–93. [Google Scholar]
  25. Silanikove, N.; Merin, U.; Shapiro, F.; Leitner, G. Subclinical mastitis in goats is associated with upregulation of nitric oxide-derived oxidative stress that causes reduction of milk antioxidative properties and impairment of its quality. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3449–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Paape, M.; Poutrel, B.; Contreras, A.; Marco, J.C.; Capuco, A. Milk Somatic Cells and Lactation in Small Ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, E237–E244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Clark, S.; García, M.B.M. A 100-Year Review: Advances in goat milk research. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10026–10044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Javier, F.; Pleguezuelos, F.J.; Fern, L.; De La Fuente, O.; Gonzalo, C. Variation in Milk Yield, Contents and Incomes According to Somatic Cell Count in a Large Dairy Goat Population. Adv. Dairy Res. 2015, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Cedden, F.; Kaya, S.O.; Daskiran, I. Somatic cell, udder and milk yield in goat. Rev. De Med. Vet. 2008, 159, 237–242. [Google Scholar]
  30. Akers, R.M.; Nickerson, S.C. Mastitis and its Impact on Structure and Function in the Ruminant Mammary Gland. J. Mammary Gland. Biol. Neoplasia 2011, 16, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Koop, G.; van Werven, T.; Schuiling, H.; Nielen, M. The effect of subclinical mastitis on milk yield in dairy goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 5809–5817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Günay, E.; Güneşer, O.; Yüceer, Y.K. A comparative study of amino acid, mineral and vitamin profiles of milk from Turkish Saanen, Hair and Maltese goat breeds throughout lactation. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2021, 74, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Andrei, S.; Culea, M.; Matei, S.; Pintea, A.; Groza, I.S. Amino Acid Concentration in Normal and Subclinical Mastitis Milk. Bull. UASVM Vet. Med. 2001, 68, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mohsin, A.Z.; Sukor, R.; Selamat, J.; Hussin, A.S.M.; Ismail, I.H. Chemical and mineral composition of raw goat milk as affected by breed varieties available in Malaysia. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019, 22, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Pamukova, D.; Naydenova, N.; Mihaylova, G. Fatty acid profile and healthy lipid indices of bulgarian goat milk from breeds, pasture-raised in a mountain region. Trakia J. Sci. 2018, 16, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Idamokoro, M.E.; Muchenje, V.; Afolayan, A.J.; Hugo, A. Comparative fatty-acid profile and atherogenicity index of milk from free grazing Nguni, Boer and non-descript goats in South Africa. Pastoralism 2019, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Mollica, M.; Trinchese, G.; Cimmino, F.; Penna, E.; Cavaliere, G.; Tudisco, R.; Musco, N.; Manca, C.; Catapano, A.; Monda, M.; et al. Milk Fatty Acid Profiles in Different Animal Species: Focus on the Potential Effect of Selected PUFAs on Metabolism and Brain Functions. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lopez, A.; Vasconi, M.; Moretti, V.M.; Bellagamba, F. Fatty Acid Profile in Goat Milk from High- and Low-Input Conventional and Organic Systems. Animals 2019, 9, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Husted, K.S.; Bouzinova, E.V. The importance of n-6/n-3 fatty acids ratio in the major depressive disorder. Medicina 2016, 52, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ceballos, L.S.; Morales, E.R.; de la Torre Adarve, G.; Castro, J.D.; Martínez, L.P.; Sampelayo, M.R.S. Composition of goat and cow milk produced under similar conditions and analyzed by identical methodology. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2009, 22, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chilliard, Y.; Toral, P.; Shingfield, K.; Rouel, J.; Leroux, C.; Bernard, L. Effects of diet and physiological factors on milk fat synthesis, milk fat composition and lipolysis in the goat: A short review. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 122, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mu, T.; Hu, H.; Ma, Y.; Feng, X.; Zhang, J.; Gu, Y. Regulation of Key Genes for Milk Fat Synthesis in Ruminants. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yakan, A.; Özkan, H.; Çamdeviren, B.; Kaya, U.; Karaaslan, İ.; Dalkiran, S. Expression patterns of major genes in fatty acid synthesis, inflammation, oxidative stress pathways from colostrum to milk in Damascus goats. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 9448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 13 00965 g001 550
Figure 1. The average of amino acids (g/kg of degreased milk) groups in milk of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds. Essential amino acids—EAA; nonessential amino acids—NEAA; total amino acids—TAA; branched-chain amino acids (Leu + Ile + Val, BCAA); ratio of EAA/TAA—EAA/TAA.
Figure 1. The average of amino acids (g/kg of degreased milk) groups in milk of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds. Essential amino acids—EAA; nonessential amino acids—NEAA; total amino acids—TAA; branched-chain amino acids (Leu + Ile + Val, BCAA); ratio of EAA/TAA—EAA/TAA.
Animals 13 00965 g001
Animals 13 00965 g002 550
Figure 2. The average of amino acids (g/kg of degreased milk).
Figure 2. The average of amino acids (g/kg of degreased milk).
Animals 13 00965 g002
Animals 13 00965 g003 550
Figure 3. The distribution of the main fatty acid groups of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds. Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level. Short-chain fatty acids—SCFA; medium-chain fatty acids—MCFA; long-chain fatty acids—LCFA; saturated fatty acids—SFA); unsaturated fatty acids—UFA; monounsaturated fatty acids—MUFA; polyunsaturated fatty acids—PUFA; branched-chain fatty acids—BCFA.
Figure 3. The distribution of the main fatty acid groups of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds. Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level. Short-chain fatty acids—SCFA; medium-chain fatty acids—MCFA; long-chain fatty acids—LCFA; saturated fatty acids—SFA); unsaturated fatty acids—UFA; monounsaturated fatty acids—MUFA; polyunsaturated fatty acids—PUFA; branched-chain fatty acids—BCFA.
Animals 13 00965 g003
Animals 13 00965 g004 550
Figure 4. The distribution of the main fatty acid groups according to SCC groups. Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level. Short-chain fatty acids—SCFA; medium-chain fatty acids—MCFA; long-chain fatty acids—LCFA; saturated fatty acids—SFA); unsaturated fatty acids—UFA; monounsaturated fatty acids—MUFA; polyunsaturated fatty acids—PUFA; branched-chain fatty acids—BCFA.
Figure 4. The distribution of the main fatty acid groups according to SCC groups. Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level. Short-chain fatty acids—SCFA; medium-chain fatty acids—MCFA; long-chain fatty acids—LCFA; saturated fatty acids—SFA); unsaturated fatty acids—UFA; monounsaturated fatty acids—MUFA; polyunsaturated fatty acids—PUFA; branched-chain fatty acids—BCFA.
Animals 13 00965 g004
Table
Table 1. The components of the total mix ration (TMR). Daily feeding for each animal.
Table 1. The components of the total mix ration (TMR). Daily feeding for each animal.
IndicatorsPasture GrassHayConcentrate
Dry matter, g/kg247830855
Ash, g/kg836120
Crude protein, g/kg123111103
Crude fibre, g/kg 23124251
Crude fat, g/kg332221
Total sugar, g/kg11713052
Acid detergent fibre (ADF), g/kg293350-
Acid detergent lignin, g/kg45415-
Neutral detergent fibre (NDF), g/kg447486182
Net energy for lactation (NEL), MJ 6.28.68.3
Digestibility of organic matter (%, OM)716085.7
Table
Table 2. Milk yield, composition and SCC of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds.
Table 2. Milk yield, composition and SCC of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds.
IndicatorsBreedSCC Group (10 × 1000 cell/mL)
LowMediumHigh
SaanenAlpine<750750–1000>1000
N = 66N = 69N = 60N = 30N = 45
Milk yield, kg/per day 2.45 ± 0.04 A1.71 ± 0.02 B2.17 ± 0.06 A2.16 ± 0.12 AB1.96 ± 0.04 B
Fat, %3.13 ± 0.10 A4.39 ± 0.13 B4.29 ± 0.17 A3.91 ± 0.37 AB3.36 ± 0.10 B
Protein, %3.02 ± 0.04 a3.53 ± 0.05 b3.08 ± 0.04 a3.45 ± 0.09 b3.46 ± 0.07 b
Lactose, %4.14 ± 0.034.09 ± 0.034.21 ± 0.02 A4.05 ± 0.04 B3.95 ± 0.03 B
Urea, mg/dL26.67 ± 1.03 a29.53 ± 1.41 b26.82 ± 1.0929.72 ± 3.3127.26 ± 1.47
SCC, ×103 cells/mL718.7 ± 64.8 a1085 ± 162 b242.5 ± 14.8 A845.6 ± 23.7 B2201 ± 183 C
Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B, C) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level.
Table
Table 3. The average of amino acids and their groups according to SCC groups.
Table 3. The average of amino acids and their groups according to SCC groups.
AA, g/kg of Degreased MilkSCC Group (10 × 1000 cell/mL)
LowMediumHigh
<750750–1000>1000
N = 60N = 30N = 45
Aspartic acid (Asp)2.01 ± 0.43 A2.29 ± 0.56 AB2.35 ± 0.64 B
Threonine (Thr)1.37 ± 0.26 a1.62 ± 0.34 b1.51 ± 0.43 ab
Serine (Ser)1.48 ± 0.331.64 ± 0.391.66 ± 0.55
Glutamic acid (Glu)5.80 ± 1.31 A6.59 ± 1.56 AB6.80 ± 1.83 B
Proline (Pro) 2.91 ± 0.533.14 ± 0.633.32 ± 0.87
Glycine (Gly)0.54 ± 0.130.65 ± 0.210.60 ± 0.26
Alanine (Ala)1.03 ± 0.15 a1.04 ± 0.14 ab1.14 ± 0.27 b
Valine (Val)1.89 ± 0.342.09 ± 0.462.08 ± 0.56
Methionine (Met)1.41 ± 0.33 A1.60 ± 0.41 AB1.69 ± 0.58 B
Isoleucine (Ile)1.35 ± 0.27 A1.61 ± 0.35 B1.49 ± 0.43 AB
Leucine (Leu) 2.54 ± 0.56 a2.95 ± 0.68 b2.98 ± 0.81 b
Tyrosine (Tyr)1.11 ± 0.25 a1.31 ± 0.38 b1.28 ± 0.37 b
Phenylalanine (Phe)1.31 ± 0.26 a1.52 ± 0.37 b1.44 ± 0.41 ab
Histidine (His)1.01 ± 0.20 a1.05 ± 0.20 ab1.14 ± 0.29 b
Lysine (Lys)2.22 ± 0.51 A2.48 ± 0.55 AB2.61 ± 0.76 B
Arginine (Arg)0.95 ± 0.20 A0.98 ± 0.19 AB1.09 ± 0.24 B
EAA13.10 ± 2.69 a14.91 ± 3.23 ab14.95 ± 4.13 b
NEAA15.82 ± 3.30 a17.63 ± 3.86 ab18.15 ± 4.89 b
TAA28.92 ± 5.98 a32.54 ± 7.07 ab33.10 ± 9.01 b
BCAA5.78 ± 1.16 a6.65 ± 1.46 b6.56 ± 1.76 b
EAA/TAA0.45 ± 0.01 a0.46 ± 0.01 b0.45 ± 0.01 a
Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level. AA—amino acids; essential AA (EAA), nonessential AA (NEAA), total AA (TAA), branched-chaiAA (Leu + Ile + Val, BCAA) AA; EAA/TAA—the ratio of EAA and TAA.
Table
Table 4. The average of fatty acids and their groups in milk of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds.
Table 4. The average of fatty acids and their groups in milk of Alpine and Saanen goat breeds.
FA, g/100 g of Total FABreed
AlpineSannen
N = 69N = 66
Butyric acid (C4:0)0.94 ± 0.78 A1.47 ± 0.78 B
Caproic acid (C6:0)1.02 ± 0.201.03 ± 0.19
Caprylic acid (C8:0)2.02 ± 0.43 A1.81 ± 0.40 B
Capric acid (C10:0)8.46 ± 1.77 A7.28 ± 1.75 B
Undecanoic acid (C11:0)0.23 ± 0.10 A0.19 ± 0.04 B
Lauric acid (C12:0)4.20 ± 0.97 A3.38 ± 1.04 B
Tridecanoic acid (C13:0)0.15 ± 0.120.16 ± 0.10
Myristic acid (C14:0)9.86 ± 1.47 A9.12 ± 1.42 B
iso C14:00.45 ± 0.21 A0.57 ± 0.15 B
Myristoleic acid (C14:1n7)0.20 ± 0.110.17 ± 0.20
Pentadecylic acid (C15:0)0.86 ± 0.160.93 ± 0.34
iso C15:00.09 ± 0.080.06 ± 0.10
anteiso C15:00.22 ± 0.08 A0.32 ± 0.15 B
Palmitic acid (C16:0)26.75 ± 2.8026.81 ± 3.67
Trans-palmitoleic acid (C16:1n9 t)0.58 ± 0.180.55 ± 0.14
Palmitoleic cis 9 acid (C16:1n9)0.90 ± 0.150.87 ± 0.16
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1n7)0.68 ± 0.21 A0.57 ± 0.11 B
Margaric acid (C17:0)0.93 ± 0.290.85 ± 0.32
iso C17:00.11 ± 0.12 a0.15 ± 0.09 b
Margarineoleic acid (C17:1n9)0.44 ± 0.21 A0.34 ± 0.11 B
Stearic acid (C18:0)9.76 ± 2.73 A11.40 ± 1.72 B
Elaidic acid (C18:1n9t)1.70 ± 0.721.72 ± 0.69
Oleic acid (C18:1n9)23.04 ± 4.2524.33 ± 4.59
Vaccenic acid (C18:1n7)0.98 ± 0.270.94 ± 0.23
Linolelaidic acid (C18:2n6t)0.38 ± 0.17 a0.33 ± 0.13 b
C18:2n6c,t0.24 ± 0.10 a0.21 ± 0.08 b
C18:2n6t,c0.26 ± 0.17 a0.21 ± 0.07 b
Linoleic acid (C18:2n6c)2.04 ± 0.552.17 ± 0.50
Alpha linolenic acid (C18:3n3)0.76 ± 0.30 A0.55 ± 0.18 B
Eisocanoic acid (C20:0)0.22 ± 0.08 A0.30 ± 0.13 B
Gondoic acid (C20:1n9)0.06 ± 0.07 A0.11 ± 0.04 B
Arachidonic acid (C20:4n6)0.16 ± 0.060.17 ± 0.06
Eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5n3)0.06 ± 0.06 A0.02 ± 0.04 B
Heneicosylic acid (C21:0)0.73 ± 0.720.65 ± 0.31
Behenic acid (C22:0)0.09 ± 0.110.09 ± 0.06
Dosocatetraenoic acid (C22:4n6)0.03 ± 0.08 a0.00 ± 0.00 b
Docosapentaenoic acid (C22:5n3)0.19 ± 0.08 A0.15 ± 0.05 B
Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level.
Table
Table 5. The average of fatty acids and their groups according to SCC groups.
Table 5. The average of fatty acids and their groups according to SCC groups.
FA, g/100 g of Total FASCC Group (10 × 1000 cell/mL)
LowMediumHigh
<750750–1000>1000
N = 60N = 30N = 45
C4:01.17 ± 0.84 A1.72 ± 0.96 B0.88 ± 0.45 A
C6:01.03 ± 0.18 a1.12 ± 0.17 a0.95 ± 0.19 b
C8:01.96 ± 0.34 ab2.04 ± 0.52 a1.79 ± 0.45 b
C10:07.93 ± 1.498.35 ± 2.197.52 ± 2.01
C11:00.22 ± 0.100.22 ± 0.070.20 ± 0.05
C12:03.90 ± 1.064.00 ± 0.973.53 ± 1.16
C13:00.15 ± 0.13 ab0.12 ± 0.10 a0.18 ± 0.09 b
C14:09.51 ± 1.439.93 ± 1.609.18 ± 1.44
iC14:00.47 ± 0.22 A0.50 ± 0.19 AB0.58 ± 0.14 B
C14:1n70.18 ± 0.120.20 ± 0.110.16 ± 0.22
C15:00.87 ± 0.160.86 ± 0.130.95 ± 0.40
iC15:00.08 ± 0.10 AB0.11 ± 0.07 A0.05 ± 0.08 B
aC15:00.24 ± 0.13 A0.24 ± 0.02 A0.32 ± 0.15 B
C16:026.26 ± 2.6326.56 ± 3.1127.62 ± 3.90
C16:1n9 t0.59 ± 0.19 a0.49 ± 0.06 b0.59 ± 0.16 a
C16:1n90.91 ± 0.13 A0.78 ± 0.13 B0.92 ± 0.18 A
C16:1n70.67 ± 0.22 a0.60 ± 0.15 ab0.58 ± 0.10 b
C17:00.90 ± 0.28 A0.67 ± 0.17 B1.02 ± 0.32 A
iC17:00.11 ± 0.11 A0.20 ± 0.14 B0.12 ± 0.07 A
C17:1n90.44 ± 0.22 a0.30 ± 0.07 b0.40 ± 0.13 a
C18:010.60 ± 2.9810.18 ± 1.5110.76 ± 2.10
C18:1n9t1.62 ± 0.761.74 ± 0.601.81 ± 0.69
C18:1n924.01 ± 4.1423.22 ± 5.3223.52 ± 4.29
C18:1n70.98 ± 0.26 a0.83 ± 0.27 b1.03 ± 0.19 a
C18:2n6t0.34 ± 0.160.40 ± 0.170.35 ± 0.14
C18:2n6c,t0.22 ± 0.100.25 ± 0.100.21 ± 0.06
C18:2n6t,c0.23 ± 0.13 AB0.19 ± 0.13 A0.28 ± 0.12 B
C18:2n62.08 ± 0.571.95 ± 0.292.23 ± 0.58
C18:3n30.65 ± 0.300.64 ± 0.240.68 ± 0.23
C20:00.23 ± 0.09 A0.34 ± 0.17 B0.25 ± 0.05 A
C20:1n90.08 ± 0.07 ab0.11 ± 0.06 a0.07 ± 0.04 b
C20:4n60.16 ± 0.07 a0.14 ± 0.04 a0.19 ± 0.06 b
C20:5n30.05 ± 0.060.02 ± 0.050.04 ± 0.05
C21:00.71 ± 0.780.67 ± 0.240.69 ± 0.31
C22:00.09 ± 0.120.10 ± 0.070.09 ± 0.05
C22:4n60.01 ± 0.060.00 ± 0.000.03 ± 0.08
C22:5n30.17 ± 0.080.16 ± 0.040.18 ± 0.08
C22:6n30.01 ± 0.020.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.00
Means with different superscripts within the same line represented differ significantly at p < 0.01 (A, B) or p < 0.05 (a, b) level.
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

Šlyžius, E.; Anskienė, L.; Palubinskas, G.; Juozaitienė, V.; Šlyžienė, B.; Juodžentytė, R.; Laučienė, L. Associations between Somatic Cell Count and Milk Fatty Acid and Amino Acid Profile in Alpine and Saanen Goat Breeds. Animals 2023, 13, 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13060965

AMA Style

Šlyžius E, Anskienė L, Palubinskas G, Juozaitienė V, Šlyžienė B, Juodžentytė R, Laučienė L. Associations between Somatic Cell Count and Milk Fatty Acid and Amino Acid Profile in Alpine and Saanen Goat Breeds. Animals. 2023; 13(6):965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13060965

Chicago/Turabian Style

Šlyžius, Evaldas, Lina Anskienė, Giedrius Palubinskas, Vida Juozaitienė, Birutė Šlyžienė, Renalda Juodžentytė, and Lina Laučienė. 2023. "Associations between Somatic Cell Count and Milk Fatty Acid and Amino Acid Profile in Alpine and Saanen Goat Breeds" Animals 13, no. 6: 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13060965

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