A Comparative Study on Physicochemical Characteristics of Raw Goat Milk Collected from Different Farms in Malaysia

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the physical and chemical composition of goat milk produced by eight local farms located in the central region of Malaysia. Farms 1 to 4 (F1-SC, F2-SP, F3-SP, F4-SBC) reared Saanen-type goats while farms 5 to 8 (F5-JK, F6-JPEC, F7-JTC, F8-JC), Jamnapari-type goats. The common feedstuffs used in all farms comprised of fresh or silage from Napier grass, feed pellets, and brans while two farms, F5-JK and F6-JPEC supplemented the feeds with soybean-based product. The total solid content, dry matter, and proximate composition of goat milk and feedstuffs from the different farms were determined and the results analysed using principal component analysis. Total solid content of goat milk from the Jamnapari crossbreed had the highest solid content ranging from 11.81% to 17.54% compared to milk from farms with Saanen and Saanen crossbreed (10.95% to 14.63%). Jamnapari-type goats from F5-JK, F6-JPEC, and F8-JC had significantly higher (p < 0.05) milk fat and protein contents (7.36%, 7.14%, and 6.59% fat; 5.08%, 6.19%, and 4.23% protein, respectively) than milk from other farms but, milk produced by Saanen-type goats from F4-SBC contained similar protein content (4.34%) to that from F8-JC. Total ash and carbohydrate contents in milk ranged between 0.67% to 0.86% and 3.26% to 4.71%, respectively, regardless of goat breed. Feeding soybean-based products appear to have a positive influence on milk fat and protein content in Jamnaparitype goats.

Non-parametric analysis of the effects of αS1-casein genotype and parturition non-genetic factors on milk yield and composition in Murciano-Granadina goats

“…In our sample, we registered average rates in milk of 3.584% protein, 5.279% fat and a dry extract of 14.454%. These are slightly higher percentages than those found for Saanen or Anglo-Nubian dairy goats (Dami an et al 2008), and similar to those for the Jamnapari Koplo breed (Jaafar et al 2018). Deroide et al (2016) found slightly lower average values for both milk yield and milk components and moderately lower variation coefficients for Murciano-Granadina goats.…”

“…In the case of the farm, some authors have ascribed this stronger effect to climate variations at a certain location, the nutritional quality of food provided to animals and herd composition (Jaafar et al 2018). Unlike in the study by Jaafar et al (2018), we assess a single breed, so that, the differences in the composition of goat milk samples between farms could be rather determined by factors such as the diet given to goats at first instance ( Supplementary Table S5). Simultaneously, our CATREG standardised coefficients (b) for the effect of farms and age were positive, moderate to high and statistically significant for milk yield and all components.…”

Anti-diabetic Potency and Characteristics of Probiotic Goat-Milk Yogurt Supplemented with Roselle Extract during Cold Storage

“…Fat content is influenced by the quality and quantity of feeds, genetics, and the stage of lactation (Getaneh et al, 2016). Digestible fibre contained in the feeds increases the acetic acid availability for milk fat synthesis and stimulates energy partitioning towards milk synthesis instead of body fat reserve deposition (Jaafar et al, 2018). Protein content was classified into a good grade according to Thai Agricultural Standard.…”

“…Protein content in goat milk is affected by protein content in the feeds. Feed with high protein content contributes to the increasing of milk protein content (Jaafar et al, 2018). Usually, concentrate becomes the source of protein for goat.…”

Non-parametric analysis of the effects of nongenetic factors on milk yield, fat, protein, lactose, dry matter content and somatic cell count in Murciano-Granadina goats

“…Such variable patterns could be attributed to the conglomerate of factors that the farm involves as a factor itself. In these regards, some authors have suggested climatic variations at a given place, farm management policies (traditional, intermediate or modern), altitude (plains, hills, mountains), farm size (small, medium, large), the nutritional quality of the feed provided to the animals or the composition of the herd (Jaafar et al 2018;Vacca et al 2018) may presumably be some of the factors on which the differences reported for our results may base. For instance, in the case of somatic cells, the size of the farm and the composition of the herd may have been decisive as, under confined animal conditions, typical of intensive systems, animals are both more exposed to intramammary infections and to a greater likelihood of large scale transmission by direct contact between animals (Lôbo et al 2017).…”