Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:58:27.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of the rearing system on financial returns from Murciano-Granadina breed goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2019

N. Fernández ,
J. L. Palomares ,
I. Pérez-Baena ,
M. Rodríguez  and
C. Peris Open the ORCID record for C. Peris [Opens in a new window]
N. Fernández*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022, Valencia, Spain
J. L. Palomares
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022, Valencia, Spain
I. Pérez-Baena
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022, Valencia, Spain
M. Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022, Valencia, Spain
C. Peris
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022, Valencia, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In dairy goats, the kid rearing system can have critical importance in financial returns. Commonly used criteria for the choice of rearing system are not always clear due to the high number of factors involved. The aim of this study was to quantify all those factors to facilitate decision making. So, the effect of two different kid rearing systems, mixed rearing system (MRS) and artificial rearing system (ARS), on milk yield, milk composition and somatic cell count (SCC), milk yield loss at weaning for MRS, kid growth and costs of the different traits on the financial returns in Murciano-Granadina breed goats was studied. Twenty-four goats per group were used. In the MRS, goats reared only one kid, which had free access to goat milk 24 h a day and were weaned at week 6 of lactation, whereas kids in the ARS were separated from their mothers at kidding, colostrum and artificially reared. In both systems, dams were machine-milked once a day throughout lactation and the records took place weekly. Potential milk yield was estimated according to the oxytocin method up to week 12 of lactation, and was similar for both rearing systems, although a 12.3% drop in potential milk yield at weaning was observed for MRS. During the first 6 weeks of lactation, marketable milk was lower for dams in MRS compared to those in ARS (72.1 v. 113.0 l), but similar for the rest of the experiment (101.5 v. 99.4 l, respectively). Marketable milk composition and SCC throughout the 12 weeks of lactation were unaffected by the rearing system. Artificial rearing system entailed an increment in production cost of 22.2€ per kid compared to the rearing by MRS. A similar economic return per goat and kid was obtained from ARS and MRS in this experiment, although, due to one herd’s prolificacy of 1.8, the actual results would be 16.2€ per goat in favour of MRS. The real interest of this experiment may be the possibility of extrapolation to different flocks with diverse levels of milk production, prolificacy and prices and costs for incomes and outputs, to estimate the production system that increases returns. In conclusion, the results showed an increase in the cost of €22.2 per kid bred in the ARS, compared to the MRS, and a final return of 16.2€ per goat in favour of the mixed system.

Keywords

mixedartificialinputsoutputseconomy
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 8 , August 2019 , pp. 1730 - 1735
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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, A and Shook, GE 1980. An optimum transformation for somatic cell concentration in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 487–490.Google Scholar
Baumrucker, CR and Blum, JR 1993. Secretion of insulin-like growth factors in milk and their effect on the neonate. Livestock Production Science 35, 49–72.Google Scholar
Delgado-Pertiñez, M, Guzmán-Guerrero, JL, Caravaca, FP, Castel, JM, Ruiz, FA, González-Redondo, P and Alcalde, MJ 2009b. Effect of artificial vs. natural rearing on milk yield, kid growth and cost in Payoya autochthonous dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research 84, 108–115.Google Scholar
Delgado-Pertiñez, M, Guzmán-Guerrero, JL, Mena, Y, Castel, JM, González-Redondo, P and Caravaca, FP 2009a. Influence of kid rearing system on milk yield, kid growth and cost of Florida goats. Small Ruminant Research 81, 105–111.Google Scholar
Doney, JM, Peart, JN, Smith, WF and Louda, F 1979. A consideration of the techniques for estimation of milk yield by suckled sheep and a comparison of estimates obtained by two methods in relation to the effect of breed, level of production and stage of lactation. Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 123–132.Google Scholar
Eik, LO, Eknœs, M, Havrevoll, Ø, Garmo, T, Raats, J and Ädnøy, T 1999. Partial suckling during the grazing period as a management tool for improving the annual production patterns of goat’s milk in Norway. In Proceedings of the VIth International Symposium on Milking of Small Ruminants, 26 September to 1 October 1999, Athens, Greece, pp. 263–266.Google Scholar
Fernández, N, Balasch, S, Pérez, I, Rodríguez, M and Peris, C 2013. Milk yield estimation during suckling using the double oxytocin injection and the double weighing-suckling methods in dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research 112, 181–185.Google Scholar
Gargouri, A, Caja, G, Such, X, Ferrett, A, Casals, R and Peris, S 1993. Evaluation of a mixed system of milking and suckling in Manchega dairy ewes. In Proceedings of the Vth International Symposium on the Milking of Small Ruminants, 14–20 May 1993, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 484–499.Google Scholar
Keskin, M 2002. Effect of rearing systems on kid performance, lactation traits and profitability of Shami (Damascus) goats. Journal of Applied Animal Research 22, 267–271.Google Scholar
Labussière, J 1988. Review of physiological and anatomical factors influencing the milking ability of ewes and the organization of milking. Livestock Production Science 18, 253–274.Google Scholar
Labussière, J, Combaud, JF and Petrequin, P 1974. Influence de la fréquence des traits et des tétées sur la production laitière des brebis Préalpes du Sud (Influence of trait and suckling frequency on milk production of Préalpes du Sud ewes). Annales Zootechnie 23, 445–457.Google Scholar
Louca, A 1972. The effect of suckling regime on growth rate and lactation performance of the Cyprus fat-tailed and Chios sheep. Animal Production 15, 53–59.Google Scholar
Marnet, PG and Negrão, JA 2000. The effect of a mixed-management system on the release of oxytocin, prolactin, and cortisol in ewes during suckling and machine milking. Reproduction Nutrition Development 40, 271–281.Google Scholar
McCance, J 1959. The determination of milk yield in the Merino ewe. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 839–853.Google Scholar
McKusick, BC, Thomas, DL and Berger, YM 2001. Effect of weaning system on commercial milk production and lamb growth of East Friesian dairy sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1660–1668.Google Scholar
McKusick, BC, Thomas, DL, Romero, JE and Marnet, PG 2002. Effect of weaning system on milk composition and distribution of milk fat within the udder of East Friesian dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2521–2528.Google Scholar
Peaker, M and Wilde, CJ 1996. Feed back control milk secretion from milk. Journal Mammary of Gland Biology and Neoplasia 1, 307–316.Google Scholar
Pérez-Baena, I, Dorantes, JA, Sánchez-Quinche, A, Gutiérrez, A, Fernández, N, Rodríguez, M, Gómez, EA and Peris, C 2013. Características de crecimiento de cabritos Murciano-Granadinos puros y procedentes del cruce con sementales especializados cárnicos de la raza Boer (Growth characteristics of purebred Murciano-Granadino kids and those from crossing with meat-specialised Boer breed studs). Tierras caprino 6, 64–68.Google Scholar
Peris, S, Caja, G, Such, X, Casals, R, Ferret, A and Torre, C 1997. Influence of kid rearing systems on milk composition and yield of Murciano-Granadina dairy goats. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 3249–3255.Google Scholar
Rennison, ME, Kerr, MA, Addey, CVP, Handel, SE, Turner, MD, Wilde, CJ and Burgoyne, RD 1993. Inhibition of consecutive protein secretion from lactating mammary epithelial cells by FIL (feedback inhibitor of lactation), a secreted milk protein. Journal of Cell Science 106, 641–648.Google Scholar
Requena, R, Balasch, S, Peris, C, Rodríguez, M and Fernández, N 2010. Dose response of lactating dairy ewes during suckling and milking to bovine somatotropin. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3136–3144.Google Scholar
Requena, R, Molina, P, Fernández, N, Rodríguez, M, Peris, C and Torres, A 1999. Changes in milk and cheese composition throughout lactation in Manchega sheep. In Proceedings of the VIth International Symposium on Milking of Small Ruminants, 26 September to 1 October 1999, Athens, Greece, pp. 501–506.Google Scholar
Sanz, B 2005. Tipo de alimentación, modo de encalostrar y estacionalidad de la paridera como factores condicionantes del crecimiento de los cabritos lechales de la raza Murciano-Granadina (Type of feeding, colostrum administration method and seasonality of births as conditioning factors of kid growth in Murciano-Granadina breed). In Proceedings of the XXXth Jornadas Científicas de la Sociedad Española de Ovinotecnia y Caprinotecnia, 28 September to 1 October, Granada, Spain, pp. 236–238.Google Scholar
Sanz, MR, Hernández-Clua, OD, Naranjo, JA, Gil, F and Boza, J 1990. Utilization of goat milk vs. milk replacer for Granadina goat kids. Small Ruminant Research 3, 37–46.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2011. SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 9.2 ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Silanikove, N, Leitner, G, Merin, CG and Prosser, CG 2010. Recent advances in exploiting goat’s milk: quality and production aspects. Small Ruminant Research 89, 110–124.Google Scholar
Silanikove, N, Merin, CG and Leitner, G 2006. Physiological role of indigenous milk enzymes: an overview of an evolving picture. International Dairy Journal 16, 533–545.Google Scholar
Stull, MA, Pai, VP, Vomachka, AJ, Marshall, AM, Jacob, GA and Horseman, ND 2007. Mammary gland homeostasis employs serotonergic regulation of epithelial tight junctions. Small Ruminant Research 104, 16708–16713.Google Scholar