Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:03:13.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pathogens in milk of goats and their relationship with somatic cell count

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

Kristína Tvarožková
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovak Republic
Vladimír Tančin*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovak Republic National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Lužianky, Slovak Republic
Michal Uhrinčať
Affiliation:
National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Lužianky, Slovak Republic
Marta Oravcová
Affiliation:
National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Lužianky, Slovak Republic
Lukáš Hleba
Affiliation:
Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovak Republic
Barbora Gancárová
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovak Republic
Lucia Mačuhová
Affiliation:
National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Lužianky, Slovak Republic
Martin Ptáček
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agrobiology, Food & Natural Resources Czech University Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
Pierre-Guy Marnet
Affiliation:
Institut Agro Rennes-Angers, Animal and food Sciences department, 35000 Rennes, France
*
Corresponding author: Vladimír Tančin; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We evaluated the presence of bacterial pathogens in the milk of goats and their relationship with somatic cell count (SCC) and milk composition. The study was performed on a dairy farm in northern Slovakia. Half udder milk samples were collected from goats in June and July. The samples were divided on the basis of SCC into 4 bands (SCC1 lowest to SCC4 highest). Bacterial pathogens were only detected in 13% of samples. SCC3 and SCC4 had 15 and 25% positive samples respectively compared with SCC1 (2%) and SCC2 (14%). Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) were the most common isolates (73%), of which Staphylococcus caprae was the most frequently isolated (65%). In samples with ≥ 1000 × 103 cells ml− 1 (SCC3, SCC4) there was higher somatic cell score (SCS) in the presence of a pathogen (7.48 ± 0.11) than without a pathogen (7.16 ± 0.05, P < 0.01). Statistically significant but weak negative correlations were observed between SCS and lactose, dry matter and non-fat dry matter. In conclusion, a higher percentage of bacteriologically positive milk samples was observed in both SCC3 and SCC4 groups but this does not explain the aetiology of high SCC in the milk of goats that are apparently free of bacteria. As a diagnostic tool, SCC is probably less useful in goats than in cows.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

The breeding of goats has a rich tradition and history in Slovakia. The majority are dairy goats, predominantly the White Shorthaired, then the Brown Shorthaired breeds and finally the dual-purpose Anglo-Nubian breed (Oravcová, Reference Oravcová2013). Recently, the demand for goat milk and its products has increased, so attention is paid to the best nutritional, techno-functional and sanitary qualities of dairy goat products, all of them depending on the udder health (Kováčová et al., Reference Kováčová, Výrostková, Dudriková, Zigo, Semjon and Regecová2021). Mastitis, an intramammary inflammation mostly resulting of bacterial infection, is the most important disease of the udder in dairy animals. The health of the udder is critical for dairy farms and is correlated with milk yield, quality of milk and food safety (Spuria et al., Reference Spuria, Biasibetti, Bisanzio, Biasato, De Meneghi, Nebbia, Robino, Bianco, Lamberti, Caruso, Di Blasi, Peletto, Masoero, Dondo and Capucchio2017; Zigo et al., Reference Zigo, Farkašová, Výrostková, Regecová, Ondrašovičová, Vargová, Sasáková, Pecka-Kielb, Bursová and Kiss2022). Mastitis in goats is responsible for a drop in milk production and protein, lactose and fat contents (Novac and Andrei, Reference Novac and Andrei2020) as also observed in dairy ewes (Tvarožková et al., Reference Tvarožková, Tančin, Holko, Uhrinčať and Mačuhová2019). Intramammary infection is also the main cause of somatic cell count (SCC) increase in milk (Raynal-Ljutovac et al., Reference Raynal-Ljutovac, Pirisi, De Crémoux and Gonzalo2007) which is used for mastitis detection in goats as in other ruminants. However, other factors that also affect SCC in goat milk include parity, stage of lactation, oestrus cycle and breed (Paape et al., Reference Paape, Wiggans, Bannerman, Thomas, Sanders, Contreras, Moroni and Miller2007; Persson et al., Reference Persson, Larsen and Nyman2014). Udder and teat morphologies, milking frequency, grazing management, milking machine equipment and settings (Marnet et al., Reference Marnet, Dzidic, Le Caro and Hubert2018) and viral co-infection with CAEV (Sanchez et al., Reference Sánchez, Contreras, Corrales and Marco2001) can all influence SCC, making high SCC difficult to interpret in goats, compared with cows and ewes (Persson and Olofsson, Reference Persson and Olofsson2011). Further, subclinical mastitis is a problem in goats where prevalence rates are important (reported as 35% to 70%: Leitner et al. Reference Leitner, Merin, Glickman, Weisblit, Krifucks, Shwimmer and Saran2004a; Hall and Rycroft, Reference Hall and Rycroft2007). The major types of pathogens causing subclinical mastitis in dairy goats are coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) (Bergonier et al., Reference Bergonier, De Crémoux, Rupp, Lagriffoul and Berthelot2003; Dore et al., Reference Dore, Liciardi, Amatiste, Bergagna, Bolzoni, Caligiuri, Cerrone, Farina, Montagna, Saletti, Scatassa, Sotgiu and Cannas2016), in particular Staphylococcus caprae and Staphylococcus epidermidis (Leitner et al., Reference Leitner, Merin and Silanikove2004b). However, the main pathogens affecting goats in Slovakia and their effects on udder inflammation are still unknown.

The hypothesis of this work was that the high level of somatic cells in the milk of goats is caused by mastitis pathogens and that the increased SCC changes milk composition. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe the frequency of distribution of SCC from half udder milk samples, identify causative bacteria of mastitis and evaluate effects on milk composition in dairy goats.

Material and methods

Sampling

The study was carried out on a goat dairy farm in northern Slovakia on dairy goats of the White Shorthaired breed. A total of 458 half udder milk samples from 129 goats (44 goats in their first lactation, 61 in second and 24 in third and higher lactations) were collected during evening milking in June (222) and July (236 samples). The goats had kidded from mid-February to mid-March, so the samples were from mid- to late lactation. Only 22 animals were not sampled in both months. Only clinically healthy goats without any visual abnormalities in udder or milk were included. The first squirts of milk from teats were discarded and subsequently the teat end was cleaned with 70% alcohol. Then the milk samples were collected for bacteriological cultivation using sterile tubes (5 ml) and followed by sampling for determination of SCC and milk composition (50 ml). Samples were frozen at −20°C until thawing and cultivation (Sánchez et al., Reference Sánchez, Contreras, Jiménez, Luengo, Corrales and Fernández2003).

Microbiological analysis

Milk samples (10 μl) were incubated aerobically on blood agar plates (MkB Test a.s., Rosina, SR) for 24 h at 37°C. Bacterial colonies were identified by haemolysis, a catalase test, aesculin hydrolysis, Gram staining and cell morphology. Presumptive Staphylococcus aureus were identified with the clumping factor test (DiaMondiaL Staph Plus Kit, Germany). Aesculin-positive streptococci were subcultured to identify Streptococcus uberis or Enterococcus sp. on modified Rambach agar (Watts et al., Reference Watts, Salmon and Yancey1993). Aesculin negative streptococci were characterised by Lancefield serotyping (DiaMondiaL Strept Kit, Germany). Gram and catalase positive small colonies were identified as coryneform bacteria. Large colonies, Gram and catalase positive, capable of forming endospores were identified as Bacillus sp. All Gram positive and Gram negative colonies were classified using MALDI-TOF MS (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) (Tvarožková et al., Reference Tvarožková, Vašíček, Uhrinčať, Mačuhová, Hleba and Tančin2021). Presence of contagious pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae) was reported as positive if one or more colonies were found. Presence of other pathogens was reported as positive if at least five colonies were found. Samples were considered contaminated and removed from data analysis if more than two different colony types were isolated on blood agar.

Somatic cell analysis

SCC were determined using a Somacount 150 (Bentley Czech, USA). Milk composition was determined using MilkoScan FT 120 (Foss Electric, Hillerød, Denmark).

Statistical analysis

Milk samples were divided into four SCC groups on the basis of half udder SCC. Group SCC1 comprised samples of less than 500 × 103 cells ml−1. SCC2 ranged from 500 to 1000, SCC3 from 1000 to 2000 and SCC4 comprised samples above 2000, all × 103 cells ml−1. For statistical evaluation SCC were recalculated to SCS: LOG2 (SCC/100 000) + 3.

Relationships among traits were analysed using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Statistical analysis was performed using the GLM procedure in SAS9.2 (2009). The resulting models, based on preliminary analysis of possible sources of variability of investigated traits, are specified in the online Supplementary File. Results are presented as LSmeans ± standard error. The effects in the models were tested using the F-test. Differences between LSmeans were tested using multiple ranging Sheffes tests. The differences were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Results

The overall mean SCC was 1250 ± 1265 × 103 cells mL−1 (SCS 6.10 ± 1.30). Classification by SCC groups is shown in Figure 1. More than 50% of individual samples were below 106 cells mL−1 and 32.43 and 20.34% of samples were classified in SCC1 group (< 500 × 103 cells ml−1) in the months June and July, respectively (Fig. 1). Bacteria presence was detected from 12.88% of milk samples, none of which were contaminated. The most common bacteria found were CNS (72.88%). The most common CNS was Staphylococcus caprae (65.12%) (Table 1). Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from 6.90% and 6.66% of samples taken in June and July, respectively (Table 1). Seven goats had the same pathogen in both halves of udder and four goats had different species of pathogens in the two udder halves. Bacterial positive samples were found only in 1.67%, 13.95%, 14.93% and 25.33% in SCC1, SCC2, SCC3 and SCC4, respectively.

Figure 1. Frequency of distribution of half udder milk samples for four SCC groups ( × 103 cells ml−1) in June and July.

Table 1. The incidence of pathogens in goat milk samples taken in June and July

We compared bacteria positive and negative milk samples within the SCC3 and SCC4 groups. In total we observed significantly higher SCS in milk samples with a pathogen (7.48 ± 0.11) compared with no pathogen (7.16 ± 0.05, P < 0.001: model 2). We found no effect of the month of sampling on SCC (online Supplementary Table S1), with more milk samples in SCC2 and SCC3 and fewer in SCC1 in July compared to June (Fig. 1). However, the mean SCS when only SCC3 and SCC4 were analysed (model 2) dropped significantly (P < 0.05) from June (7.49 ± 0.09) to July (7.15 ± 0.08). Parity significantly influenced SCS, where SCS significantly increased from first (5.82 ± 0.10) to second (6.17 ± 0.08) and third and higher lactation (6.54 ± 0.16: P < 0.05, online Supplementary Table S2).

Significantly less protein, NFDM and lactose were found in July than in June, whereas fat content was the reverse (online Supplementary Table S1). Milk composition was not influenced by parity but SCS significantly increased with parity (5.82 ± 0.10, 6.17 ± 0.08 and 6.54 ± 0.16 for first, second and greater parities, online Supplementary Table S2). Milk composition in the four SCC groups is presented in Table 2. Statistically significant negative correlations were found between SCS and lactose content (−0.37), dry matter (−0.19) and non-fat dry matter (−0.30) (P < 0.001). The correlations between SCS and fat or protein were not significant.

Table 2. Milk composition in the four SCC groups

Note: a,b,c,d LS Means and standard error within row with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05, DM, dry matter; NFDM, non-fat dry matter.

Discussion

Our data confirm the presence of high SCC in goat milk samples, comparable to those of Moroni et al. (Reference Moroni, Pisoni, Antonini, Ruffo, Carli, Varisco and Boettcher2005), Gosselin et al. (Reference Gosselin, Dufour and Middleton2020) and Podhorecká et al. (Reference Podhorecká, Borková, Šulc, Seydlová, Dragounová, Švejcarová, Peroutková and Elich2021) but almost twice that reported by Persson and Olofsson, (Reference Persson and Olofsson2011). We observed more than 50% samples with SCC less than 106 cells ml−1 which we interpret as probably without infection. Albenzio et al. (Reference Albenzio, Santillo, Kelly, Caroprese, Marino and Sevi2015) reported SCC of 700 × 103 cells mL−1 as a threshold which represents changes in leucocyte distribution as a reflection of the immune status of the udder.

Persson and Olofsson (Reference Persson and Olofsson2011) and Bagnicka et al. (Reference Bagnicka, Winnicka, Jozwik, Rzewuska, Strzalkowska, Kościuczuk, Prusak, Kaba, Horbańczuk and Krzyzewski2011) reported the presence of pathogens in 18% and 35% of milk samples respectively, compared to our overall value of 15% and 25% in the highest SCC groups (SCC3 and SCC4, respectively). In our study CNS were the most common bacteria isolated. Our results also confirm the results of Leitner et al. (Reference Leitner, Merin and Silanikove2004b) and Persson and Olofsson (Reference Persson and Olofsson2011) who reported that CNS were the most frequent pathogens in milk of goats. Among these pathogens Koop et al. (Reference Koop, De Vliegher, De Visscher, Supré, Haesebrouck, Nielen and van Werven2012) and Gosselin et al. (Reference Gosselin, Dufour and Middleton2020) found Staphylococcus caprae as the second more frequent pathogen when we detected S. caprae as the most common pathogen. Staphylococcus aureus is considered the most important contagious pathogen in dairy goats, ranging from 4% to 40% of bacteriologically positive samples (Min et al., Reference Min, Tomita and Hart2007; Marogna et al., Reference Marogna, Rolesu, Lollai, Tola and Leori2010; Persson and Olofsson, Reference Persson and Olofsson2011; Dore et al., Reference Dore, Liciardi, Amatiste, Bergagna, Bolzoni, Caligiuri, Cerrone, Farina, Montagna, Saletti, Scatassa, Sotgiu and Cannas2016). Our data were at the bottom end of this range (7%). The number of same infection (7/129 goats) or dual pathogen infections (4/129 goats) in both half udder in our study is low, in agreement with Persson and Olofsson (Reference Persson and Olofsson2011) (9 and 3/111).

One of the main reasons for a high SCC in milk is the presence of mastitis pathogens, whether it be cows (Holko et al., Reference Holko, Tančin, Vršková and Tvarožková2019) or goats. Our findings confirm this result and seem to be different from a previous study done in dairy ewes in which we did not find effect of different pathogens on SCS over the range 6.68 ± 0.41 to 8.11 ± 0.63 (Tvarožková et al., Reference Tvarožková, Tančin, Uhrinčať, Hleba and Mačuhová2020). Various observations have reported the effect of different pathogens on SCC in milk of goats (Moroni et al., Reference Moroni, Pisoni, Antonini, Ruffo, Carli, Varisco and Boettcher2005; Koop et al., Reference Koop, De Vliegher, De Visscher, Supré, Haesebrouck, Nielen and van Werven2012; Gosselin et al., Reference Gosselin, Dufour and Middleton2020). Staphylococcus caprae was associated with higher SCC compared to other CNS (Moroni et al., Reference Moroni, Pisoni, Antonini, Ruffo, Carli, Varisco and Boettcher2005). Koop et al. (Reference Koop, De Vliegher, De Visscher, Supré, Haesebrouck, Nielen and van Werven2012) recorded a higher SCC in milk samples with S. aureus compared to milk samples infected by CNS. The low number of S. aureus infections meant that we could neither confirm nor refute this observation. In another study S. caprae, S. epidermidis, S. simulans and S. xylosus were associated with higher SCC than other CNS species (Gosselin et al., Reference Gosselin, Dufour and Middleton2020). We have considered the possibility that our high SCC values might indicate infection by microorganisms other than those we could detect using the methods employed (Mycoplasma, for example). Given the high number of such samples (high SCC in the absence of an identified pathogen) we consider this unlikely. Accordingly, it may be that the diagnostic value of SCC is lower in goats than in cows. Our data could also be interpreted as indicating that animals with a SCC ≥ 106 cells ml−1 have subclinical mastitis and those with a SCC < 500 × 103 cells ml−1 indicate absence of infection, as suggested by Persson and Olofsson (Reference Persson and Olofsson2011) who reported that the SCC of uninfected udder halves had a mean SCC of 478 × 103 cells ml−1. So far, the SCC threshold indicating mastitis in the udder of goats has not been agreed.

We did not observe an effect of month/stage of lactation on SCS contrary to other studies (Paape et al., Reference Paape, Wiggans, Bannerman, Thomas, Sanders, Contreras, Moroni and Miller2007; Persson et al., Reference Persson, Nyman, Söderquist, Tomic and Persson Waller2017; Smistad et al., Reference Smistad, Sølverød, Inglingstad and Østerås2021) but the relative proximity of our two samples, both in mid lactation when milk production was stabilized, could explain this observation. On the other hand, we detected a significant influence of parity on SCS, as did Smistad et al. (Reference Smistad, Sølverød, Inglingstad and Østerås2021).

The milk composition of uninfected udder halves is similar to those described by Currò et al. (Reference Currò, Manuelian, De Marchi, Claps, Rufrano and Neglia2019). Yakan et al. (Reference Yakan, Ozkan, Sakar, Ates, Kocak, Dogruer and Ozbeyaz2019) reported an increase in protein content in late lactation, which we did not observe at the earlier lactation stage we used. A statistically significant but weak negative correlation was observed between the content of lactose and SCS (−0.37, P < 0.001). Similar relationship between SCC and milk lactose content was reported by Ying et al. (Reference Ying, Yang and Hsu2004) in goats and by Oravcová et al. (Reference Oravcová, Mačuhová and Tančin2018) in dairy ewes. Such a relationship is to be expected on the basis of tight junction integrity, ‘leaky’ tight junctions (as a consequence of infection and inflammation) allowing partial equilibration between plasma and milk such that somatic cells enter milk and lactose exits (Ben-Chedly et al., Reference Ben-Chedly, Lacasse, Marnet, Wiart-Letort, Finot and Boutinaud2009).

In conclusion, as in other goat studies, a high occurrence of milk samples with high somatic cell count at the half udder level was observed. Nevertheless, we also confirmed that only low percentage of samples with high somatic cell count were bacteriologically positive. Even if the bacteriologically positive samples had higher SCC in groups with high SCC (SCC3 and SCC4) we assume that SCC should not be regarded as a gold standard of infection in goats. More intensive study of the relationship between somatic cell count and caprine udder health status is needed.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029923000237

Acknowledgement

The research was supported by the APVV-21-0134 ‘Subclinical mastitis in ewes and goats farms: pathogens, somatic cells and udder morphology’ and by the VEGA 1/0597/22 ‘Aetiology of somatic cell counts changes in the mammary gland of goats: physiological and pathological aspects’.

References

Albenzio, M, Santillo, A, Kelly, AL, Caroprese, M, Marino, R and Sevi, A (2015) Activities of indigenous proteolytic enzymes in caprine milk of different somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 75877594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagnicka, E, Winnicka, A, Jozwik, A, Rzewuska, M, Strzalkowska, N, Kościuczuk, E, Prusak, B, Kaba, B, Horbańczuk, J and Krzyzewski, J (2011) Relationship between somatic cell count and bacterial pathogens in goat milk. Small Ruminant Research 100, 7277.Google Scholar
Ben-Chedly, H, Lacasse, P, Marnet, PG, Wiart-Letort, S, Finot, L and Boutinaud, M (2009) Cell junction disruption after 36 h milk accumulation was associated with changes in mammary secretory tissue activity and dynamics in lactating dairy goats. Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 60(suppl. S3), 105111.Google ScholarPubMed
Bergonier, D, De Crémoux, R, Rupp, R, Lagriffoul, G and Berthelot, X (2003) Mastitis of dairy small ruminants. Veterinary Research 34, 689716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currò, S, Manuelian, CL, De Marchi, M, Claps, S, Rufrano, D and Neglia, G (2019) Effects of breed and stage of lactation on milk fatty acid composition of Italian goat breeds. Animals 9, 764.Google Scholar
Dore, S, Liciardi, M, Amatiste, S, Bergagna, S, Bolzoni, G, Caligiuri, V, Cerrone, A, Farina, G, Montagna, CO, Saletti, MA, Scatassa, ML, Sotgiu, G and Cannas, EA (2016) Survey on small ruminant bacterial mastitis in Italy, 2013–2014. Small Ruminant Research 141, 9193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosselin, BV, Dufour, S and Middleton, JR (2020) Association between species-specific staphylococcal intramammary infections and milk somatic cell score over time in dairy goats. Preventive Veteterinary Medicine 174, 104815.Google Scholar
Hall, SM and Rycroft, AN (2007) Causative organisms and somatic cell counts in subclinical intramammary infections in milking goats in the UK. Veterinary Record 160, 1922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holko, I, Tančin, V, Vršková, M and Tvarožková, K (2019) Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of udder pathogens isolated from dairy cows in Slovakia. Journal of Dairy Research 86, 436439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koop, G, De Vliegher, S, De Visscher, A, Supré, K, Haesebrouck, F, Nielen, M and van Werven, T (2012) Differences between coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species in persistence and in effect on somatic cell count and milk yield in dairy goats. Journal.of Dairy Science 95, 50755084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kováčová, M, Výrostková, J, Dudriková, E, Zigo, F, Semjon, B and Regecová, I (2021) Assessment of quality and safety of farm level produced cheeses from sheep and goat milk. Applied Sciences 11, 3196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitner, G, Merin, U, Glickman, A, Weisblit, L, Krifucks, O, Shwimmer, A and Saran, A (2004a) Factors influencing milk quantity and quality in Assaf sheep and goat crossbreds. South African Journal of Animal Science 34, 162164.Google Scholar
Leitner, G, Merin, U and Silanikove, N (2004b) Changes in milk composition as affected by subclinical mastitis in goats. Journal of Dairy Science 87(1), 7191726.Google Scholar
Marnet, PG, Dzidic, A, Le Caro, L and Hubert, A (2018) Review of old and new approaches to evaluate milking impact and milking ability in goats. ADSA, 24–27 June 2018, Knoxville USA, Abstract 123.Google Scholar
Marogna, G, Rolesu, S, Lollai, S, Tola, S and Leori, G (2010) Clinical findings in sheep farms affected by recurrent bacterial mastitis. Small Ruminant Research 88, 119125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, BR, Tomita, G and Hart, SP (2007) Effect of subclinical intramammary infection on somatic cell counts and chemical composition of goats’ milk. Journal of Dairy Research 74, 204210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moroni, P, Pisoni, G, Antonini, M, Ruffo, G, Carli, S, Varisco, G and Boettcher, P (2005) Subclinical mastitis and antimicrobial sus-ceptibility of Staphylococcus caprae and Staphylococcus epidermidis isolated from two Italian goat herds. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 16941704.Google Scholar
Novac, C and Andrei, S (2020) The impact of mastitis on the biochemical parameters, oxidative and nitrosative stress markers in goat's milk: a review. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) 9, 882.Google ScholarPubMed
Oravcová, M (2013) Pedigree analysis in white shorthaired goat: first results. Archives Animal Breeding 56, 547554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oravcová, M, Mačuhová, L and Tančin, V (2018) The relationship between somatic cells and milk traits, and their variation in dairy sheep breeds in Slovakia. Journal Animal Feed Science 27, 97104.Google Scholar
Paape, MJ, Wiggans, GR, Bannerman, DD, Thomas, DL, Sanders, AH, Contreras, A, Moroni, P and Miller, RH (2007) Monitoring goat and sheep milk somatic cell counts. Small Ruminant Research 68, 114125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Y and Olofsson, I (2011) Direct and indirect measurement of somatic cell count as indicator of intramammary infection in dairy goats. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 53, 15.Google Scholar
Persson, Y, Larsen, T and Nyman, AK (2014) Variation in udder health indicators at different stages oflactation in goats with no udder infection. Small Ruminant Research 116, 5156.Google Scholar
Persson, Y, Nyman, AK, Söderquist, L, Tomic, N and Persson Waller, K (2017) Intramammary infections and somatic cell count in meat and pelt producing ewes with clinically healthy udders. Small Ruminant Research 156, 6672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podhorecká, K, Borková, M, Šulc, M, Seydlová, R, Dragounová, H, Švejcarová, M, Peroutková, J and Elich, O (2021) Somatic cell count in goat milk: an indirect quality indicator. Foods (basel, Switzerland) 10, 1046.Google Scholar
Raynal-Ljutovac, K, Pirisi, A, De Crémoux, R and Gonzalo, C (2007) Somatic cells of goat and sheep milk: analytical sanitary, productive and technological aspects. Small Ruminant Research 68, 126144.Google Scholar
Sánchez, A, Contreras, A, Corrales, JC and Marco, JC (2001) Relationships between infection with caprine arthritis encephalitis virus, intramammary bacterial infection and somatic cell counts in dairy goats. The Veterinary Record 23, 711714.Google Scholar
Sánchez, A, Contreras, A, Jiménez, J, Luengo, C, Corrales, JC and Fernández, C (2003) Effect of freezing goat milk samples on recovery of intra-mammary bacterial pathogens. Veterinary Microbiology 94, 7177.Google Scholar
Smistad, M, Sølverød, L, Inglingstad, RA and Østerås, O (2021) Distribution of somatic cell count and udder pathogens in Norwegian dairy goats. Journal Dairy Science 104. 1187811888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spuria, L, Biasibetti, E, Bisanzio, D, Biasato, I, De Meneghi, D, Nebbia, P, Robino, P, Bianco, P, Lamberti, M, Caruso, C, Di Blasi, A, Peletto, S, Masoero, L, Dondo, A and Capucchio, MT (2017) Microbial agents in macroscopically healthy mammary gland tissues of small ruminants. PeerJ 5, 3994.Google Scholar
Tvarožková, K, Tančin, V, Holko, I, Uhrinčať, M and Mačuhová, L (2019) Mastitis in ewes: somatic cell counts, pathogens and antibiotic resistance. Journal Microbiology and Biotechnology Food Science 9, 661670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tvarožková, K, Tančin, V, Uhrinčať, M, Hleba, L and Mačuhová, L (2020) Mastitis pathogens and somatic cell count in ewes milk. Potravinarstvo, Slovak Journal of Food Science 14, 164169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tvarožková, K, Vašíček, J, Uhrinčať, M, Mačuhová, L, Hleba, L and Tančin, V (2021) The presence of pathogens in milk of ewes in relation to the somatic cell counts and subpopulations of leukocytes. Czech Journal of Animal Science 66, 315322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, JL, Salmon, SA and Yancey, RJ Jr (1993) Use of modified Rambach agar to differentiate Streptococcus uberis from other mastitis streptococci. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 17401743.Google Scholar
Yakan, A, Ozkan, H, Sakar, AE, Ates, CT, Kocak, O, Dogruer, G and Ozbeyaz, C (2019) Milk yield and quality traits in different lactation stages of Damascus goats: concentrate and pasture based feeding systems. Veterinary Journal of Ankara University 66, 117129.Google Scholar
Ying, C, Yang, CB and Hsu, JT (2004) Relationship of somatic cell count, physical, chemical and enzymatic properties to the bacterial standard plate count in different breeds of dairy goats. Asian-Austral Journal of Animal Science 17, 554559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zigo, F, Farkašová, Z, Výrostková, J, Regecová, I, Ondrašovičová, S, Vargová, M, Sasáková, N, Pecka-Kielb, E, Bursová, Š and Kiss, DS (2022) Dairy cows’ udder pathogens and occurrence of virulence factors in Staphylococci. Animals 12, 470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Frequency of distribution of half udder milk samples for four SCC groups ( × 103 cells ml−1) in June and July.

Figure 1

Table 1. The incidence of pathogens in goat milk samples taken in June and July

Figure 2

Table 2. Milk composition in the four SCC groups

Supplementary material: File

Tvarožková et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 108.3 KB