Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:56:13.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milk protein composition in purebred Holsteins and in first/second-generation crossbred cows from Swedish Red, Montbeliarde and Brown Swiss bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2018

A. Maurmayr ,
S. Pegolo ,
F. Malchiodi ,
G. Bittante  and
A. Cecchinato
A. Maurmayr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
S. Pegolo*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
F. Malchiodi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1
G. Bittante
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
A. Cecchinato
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze milk protein composition in purebred and crossbred dairy cattle and estimate the effects of individual sources of variation on the investigated traits. Milk samples were collected from 505 cows from three commercial farms located in Northern Italy, some of which had originated from crossbreeding programs, although most were purebred Holsteins (HO). The basic crossbreeding scheme was a three-breed rotational system using Swedish Red (SR) semen on HO cows (SR×HO), Montbeliarde (MO) semen on SR×HO cows (MO×(SR×HO)) and HO semen again on MO×(SR×HO) cows. A smaller number of purebred HO from each of the herds were mated inverting the breed order (MO×HO and SR×(MO×HO)) or using Brown Swiss (BS) bulls (BS×HO) then MO bulls (MO×(BS×HO)). Milk samples were analyzed by reverse-phase HPLC to obtain protein fraction amounts (g/l) and proportions (% of total true protein). Traits were analyzed using a linear model, which included the fixed effects of herd-test-day (HTD), parity, days in milk and breed combination. Results showed that milk protein fractions were influenced by HTD, stage of lactation, parity and breed combination. The increase in protein concentration during lactation was due in particular to β-casein (β-CN), αS1-CN and β-lactoglobulin (β-LG). The higher protein content of primiparous milk was mainly due to higher concentrations of all casein fractions. The milk from crossbred cows had higher contents and proportions of κ-CN and α-lactalbumin (α-LA), lower proportions of β-LG and greater proportion of caseins/smaller in whey proteins on milk true protein than purebred HO. The three-way crossbreds differed from two-way crossbreds only in having greater proportions of α-LA in their milk. Of the three-way crossbreds, the SR sired cows yielded milk with a smaller content and proportion of β-LG than the MO sired cows, and, consequently, a higher proportion of caseins than whey proteins. Results from this study support the feasibility of using crossbreeding programs to alter milk protein profiles with the aim of improving milk quality and cheese-making properties.

Keywords

crossbreedingmilk protein fractionsSwedish RedBrown SwissMontbeliarde
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 10 , October 2018 , pp. 2214 - 2220
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ali, AKA, Shook, GE, Gabler, FR and Peters, J 1980. An optimum transformation for somatic cell concentration in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 487–490.Google Scholar
Akers, RM 2016. Lactation and the mammary gland. Blackwell Publishing Professional, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Barber, DG, Houlihan, AV, Lynch, FC and Poppi, DP 2005. The influence of nutrition, genotype and stage of lactation on milk casein composition. In Indicators of milk and beef quality ((ed. JF Hocquette and S Gigli), pp. 203–216. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bionaz, M and Loor, JJ 2011. Gene networks driving bovine mammary protein synthesis during the lactation cycle. Bioinformatics and Biology Insights 5, 83–98.Google Scholar
Bittante, G, Penasa, M and Cecchinato, A 2012. Invited review: genetics and modeling of milk coagulation properties. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 6843–6870.Google Scholar
Bonfatti, V, Di Martino, G, Cecchinato, A, Degano, L and Carnier, P 2010. Effects of β-κ-casein (CSN2-CSN3) haplotypes, β-lactoglobulin (BLG) genotypes, and detailed protein composition on coagulation properties of individual milk of Simmental cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3809–3817.Google Scholar
Coulon, JB, Verdier, I, Pradel, P and Almena, M 1998. Effect of lactation stage on the cheesemaking properties of milk and the quality of Saint-Nectaire-type cheese. Journal of Dairy Research 65, 295–305.Google Scholar
Creamer, LK, Plowman, JE, Liddell, MJ, Smith, MH and Hill, JP 1998. Micelle stability: k-casein structure and function. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 3004–3012.Google Scholar
Crudden, A, Fox, PF and Kelly, AL 2005. Factors affecting the hydrolytic action of plasmin in milk. International Dairy Journal 15, 305–313.Google Scholar
Dechow, CD, Rogers, GW, Cooper, JB, Phelps, MI and Mosholder, AL 2007. Milk, fat, protein, somatic cell score, and days open among Holstein, Brown Swiss, and their crosses. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3542–3549.Google Scholar
Demeter, RM, Markiewicz, K, van Arendonk, JAM, Bovenhuis, H, Andren, A, Bovenhuis, H, van Valenberg, HJF, van Arendonk, JAM, Wauthy, JM and Winter, KA 2010. Relationships between milk protein composition, milk protein variants, and cow fertility traits in Dutch Holstein-Friesian cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5495–5502.Google Scholar
Dezetter, C, Leclerc, H, Mattalia, S, Barbat, A, Boichard, D and Ducrocq, V 2015. Inbreeding and crossbreeding parameters for production and fertility traits in Holstein, Montbéliarde, and Normande cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4904–4913.Google Scholar
de Haas, Y, Smolders, EAA, Hoorneman, JN, Nauta, WJ and Veerkamp, RF 2013. Suitability of cross-bred cows for organic farms based on cross-breeding effects on production and functional traits. Animal 7, 655–665.Google Scholar
Ekstrand, B and Larsson-Raźnikiewicz, M 1978. The monomeric casein composition of different size bovine casein micelles. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 536, 1–9.Google Scholar
Hansen, JV, Friggens, NC, Højsgaard, S, Kolver, E, Pleasants, A, Rook, A and Beever, D 2006. The influence of breed and parity on milk yield, and milk yield acceleration curves. Livestock Science 104, 53–62.Google Scholar
Hazel, AR, Heins, BJ and Hansen, LB 2017. Production and calving traits of Montbéliarde×Holstein and Viking Red×Holstein cows compared with pure Holstein cows during first lactation in 8 commercial dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 4139–4149.Google Scholar
Heck, JML, Schennink, A, van Valenberg, HJF, Bovenhuis, H, Visker, MHPW, van Arendonk, JAM and van Hooijdonk, ACM 2009. Effects of milk protein variants on the protein composition of bovine milk. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1192–1202.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ and Hansen, LB 2012. Short communication: fertility, somatic cell score, and production of Normande×Holstein, Montbéliarde×Holstein, and Scandinavian Red×Holstein crossbreds versus pure Holsteins during their first 5 lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 918–924.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and Seykora, AJ 2006. Production of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2799–2804.Google Scholar
Holland, B, Rahimi Yadzi, S, Ion Titapiccolo, G and Corredig, M 2010. Short communication: separation and quantification of caseins and casein macropeptides using ion-exchange chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 893–900.Google Scholar
Holt, C and Baird, L 1978. Natural variations in the average size of bovine casein micelles: I. Milks from individual Ayrshire cows. Journal of Dairy Research 45, 339–345.Google Scholar
Ikonen, T, Morri, S, Tyrisevä, AM, Ruottinen, O and Ojala, M 2004. Genetic and phenotypic correlations between milk coagulation properties, milk production traits, somatic cell count, casein content, and pH of milk. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 458–467.Google Scholar
Jensen, HB, Holland, JW, Poulsen, NA and Larsen, LB 2012. Milk protein genetic variants and isoforms identified in bovine milk representing extremes in coagulation properties. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2891–2903.Google Scholar
Jõudu, I, Henno, M, Kaart, T, Püssa, T and Kärt, O 2008. The effect of milk protein contents on the rennet coagulation properties of milk from individual dairy cows. International Dairy Journal 18, 964–967.Google Scholar
Lopez-Villalobos, N, Garrick, DJ, Holmes, CW, Blair, HT and Spelman, RJ 2000. Profitabilities of some mating systems for dairy herds in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 144–153.Google Scholar
Malchiodi, F, Cecchinato, A and Bittante, G 2014a. Fertility traits of purebred Holsteins and 2- and 3-breed crossbred heifers and cows obtained from Swedish Red, Montbeliarde, and Brown Swiss sires. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 7916–7926.Google Scholar
Malchiodi, F, Cecchinato, A, Penasa, M, Cipolat-Gotet, C and Bittante, G 2014b. Milk quality, coagulation properties, and curd firmness modeling of purebred Holsteins and first- and second-generation crossbred cows from Swedish Red, Montbéliarde, and Brown Swiss bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 4530–4541.Google Scholar
Malchiodi, F, Penasa, M, Tiezzi, F and Bittante, G 2011. Milk yield traits, somatic cell score, milking time and age at calving of pure Holstein versus crossbred cow. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus 76, 259–261.Google Scholar
Maurmayr, A, Cecchinato, A, Grigoletto, L and Bittante, G 2013. Detection and Quantification of αS1-, αS2-, β-, κ-casein, α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin and lactoferrin in bovine milk by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus 78, 201–205.Google Scholar
McSweeney, PLH and Fox, PF 2013. Advanced dairy chemistry. Volume 1A, Proteins: basic aspects, 524pp. Springer. New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Menzies, KK, Lefevre, C, Macmillan, KL and Nicholas, KR 2009. Insulin regulates milk protein synthesis at multiple levels in the bovine mammary gland. Functional & Integrative Genomics 9, 197–217.Google Scholar
Ostersen, S, Foldager, J and Hermansen, JE 1997. Effects of stage of lactation, milk protein genotype and body condition at calving on protein composition and renneting properties of bovine milk. Journal of Dairy Research 64, 207–219.Google Scholar
Politis, I, Ng Kwai Hang, KF and Giroux, RN 1989. Environmental factors affecting plasmin activity in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 1713–1718.Google Scholar
Schopen, GCB, Heck, JML, Bovenhuis, H, Visker, MHPW, van Valenberg, HJF and van Arendonk, JAM 2009. Genetic parameters for major milk proteins in Dutch Holstein-Friesians. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1182–1191.Google Scholar
Sørensen, MK, Norberg, E, Pedersen, J and Christensen, LG 2008. Invited review: crossbreeding in dairy cattle: a Danish perspective. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4116–4128.Google Scholar
Wedholm, A, Larsen, LB, Lindmark-Månsson, H, Karlsson, AH and Andrén, A 2006. Effect of protein composition on the cheese-making properties of milk from individual dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3296–3305.Google Scholar
Wedholm, A, Møller, HS, Stensballe, A, Lindmark-Månsson, H, Karlsson, AH, Andersson, R, Andrén, A and Larsen, LB 2008. Effect of minor milk proteins in Chymosin separated whey and casein fractions on cheese yield as determined by proteomics and multivariate data analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3787–3797.Google Scholar
William, RL and Pollak, E 1985. Theory of heterosis. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 2411–2417.Google Scholar