Diet composition and milk characteristics of Mediterranean water buffaloes reared in Southeastern Italy during spring season

V Tufarelli, M Dario and V Laudadio

University of Bari, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy
tufarelliv@libero.it

Abstract

The present study was conducted to acquire information about foodstuffs quality and milk yield and composition of buffalo dairy farms, located in Southeastern Italy during spring season. Feed samples of forages and concentrates were collected to establish floristic and nutritional characteristics. Foodstuffs quantity and method of diet distribution were evaluated. The farms were divided in three categories: low milk yield (≤ 4.9 kg/day), medium yield (5-6.9 kg/day) and high yield (≥ 7 kg/day). Forages recorded an average crude protein and fiber contents of 101.5 and 345.7 g/kg DM, respectively.

Concentrates showed average crude protein, crude fiber and lipid value of 194, 108 and 31.5 g/kg DM, respectively. The average net energy levels of diets were 0.76, 0.77 and 0.78 Milk FU/kg DM. The average daily feed intake of DM resulted 12.3, 14.2, 17.5 kg/head/day (P<0.05) and the forage/concentrate ratio was on the overall average 55.4/44.6. Diets of lactating buffaloes were administered using mixer wagon feeders for total mixed ration (TMR) or supplying separately forages by concentrates. A high variability has been noted in the chemical composition and nutritive value of ingredients in diet among farms. The average milk yield for each farm category was 4.54, 5.98 and 8.33 kg/head/day (P<0.01) while the energy corrected milk (ECM) production was  7.24, 9.65, 14.38 kg/head/day for the three category of farms (low,medium and high) (P<0.01)  Milk protein recorded was 45.5, 47.1 and 46.9 g/Kg (P<0.01), fat 78.6, 77.2 and 86.4 g/kg (P<0.01) and lactose contents were on average 4.6, 8.1(this seems to be an error. Please correct suitably) and 4.8%, respectively. Milk beta-casein results were 3.54, 3.79, 3.82 % (P<0.05) and urea 0.32, 0.36, 0.35 mg/ml (P<0.01). The medium yield farms showed the highest somatic cell value as compared to other farm categories (Linear score of 4.36 vs 4.29, 3.73; P<0.05).

In conclusion, the present research underlines that the productivity could be increased through an improvement of feedstuffs quality and an application of adequate rationing principles in relation to the level of buffaloes production. What about the results of feeding method, TMR vs separate? If this has not been attempted the earlier reference to this may be deleted.

Keywords: buffalo, diet, Italy, milk characteristics

Introduction

Mediterranean water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis, subsp. River) are bred in all continents of the world including, Australia and Oceania, and they reach a considerable number of 172 million (FAOSTAT 2004). The buffalo population in the Mediterranean area, which includes Europe, Northern Africa and the countries of the Near East, is about 5.5 million head, 3.4% of the world buffalo population (Usmani 2000). A consistent number of buffaloes are at present registered in only two European countries, Romania and Italy (Bartocci et al 2002).

In Italy buffalo numbers have increased due to the demand for particular products obtained only from buffalo milk and because the buffalo has changed from a rustic animal to become a dairy animal (Borghese 2004). The increasing economic relevance of buffalo lies in the absence of production quotas in the European Union, above all, in the high market demand of mozzarella cheese, which results in a price of buffalo milk that is more than double the price of cow milk (Catillo et al 2002). In addition the Mediterranean water buffalo is the first in the world with regard to genetics, applied technologies, the monitoring of pathologies and hygiene and quality of products. Buffalo dairy farms in Italy are traditionally concentrated in Campania region, about 80% of the national patrimony of buffaloes (ISTAT 2000), whereas in Lazio and Apulia regions this is increasing, which are in the Denomination of Origin Protected (DOP) area.

The average milk yield of Mediterranean water buffalo is the highest in the world, due to their high productive capacity and great adaptability to varying environmental condition, the Italian buffalo has attracted attention worldwide (Bartocci et al 2002). Italian buffalo management is exclusively intensive and milk production is sustained by diets with a high energy and protein level (Borghese 2004). Italian researchers have studied buffaloes to determine the choice of feedstuffs and the milk yield and composition (Bertoni et al 1994; Zicarelli 1999). Therefore, the present work was carried out to evaluate the diets quality, feeding management and the quanti-qualitative milk production of Mediterranean water buffaloes bred in Southeastern Italy during spring season.

Materials and methods 

Description of the study area

The present study was conducted on ten buffalo farms situated in the province, Foggia, of the Apulia region in Southeastern Italy (41°N and 15°E). The Apulia region, situated in the extreme southeast of  Italy, covers a surface area of approximately 19,500 km². Most of the region is flat to slightly sloping lowland except the Gargano massif situated in the Northeast. The region borders on the Adriatic Sea on the East and the Ionian Sea on the South, while the Western and Northern part partially border with the uplands and hills of the Apennine massif.

The climate is predominantly of the semi-arid Mediterranean type with hot and dry summer and mild and rainy winter season. The annual precipitation ranges from 400 to 600 mm on most of the region, and it reaches up to 1,000 mm only in the central part of Gargano. In the greater part of the region, hydrological regimes are irregular, of torrential type with high flow rates during the rainy season and practically no water flow during summer (Todorovic and Steduto 2003).

Feedstuffs characteristics and milk analysis

All farms were monitored between March and May 2006, and the average number of heads in lactation were between 20 and 140, bred in free stall and with average 190 days in milk. In each farm the animals were divided in two groups, the first was composed by lactating buffaloes, whereas the second by dry and heifer buffaloes. The farms adopted the double daily mechanical milking. During the period samples of all forages, concentrates and total mixed ration (TMR), used by the farms, were collected. Feed intake was measured.daily.  All feed samples were analyzed according to Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC 1990) for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), ether extract (EE) and ash; and for neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) according to Van Soest et al (1991). Using the chemical composition and OM digestibility (how was the OMD determined?) the net energy for lactation (NEl) was calculated, as Milk FU (INRA 1988). The CP, NDF, NSC and the NEl of the mixed rations used in the farms were calculated proportionally from the amount of constituents and composition of  each feedstuff  in the diets.

Individual milk samples, consisting of proportional volumes of morning and evening milk, were collected in order to evaluate milk composition, protein (N × 6.38) and fat, using the Foss Electric Milko-Scan 139 (calibrated with appropriate buffalo standard). Milk lactose, beta-casein and somatic cells content (SCC) were determined using a Foss Electric Fossomatic 90 cell counter and urea was measured by the urease method-kits (Boheringer). The SCC was expressed as somatic cell linear score (LS) defined by a logarithmic transformation (LS = log₂ (SCC/100000) + 3) of individual SCC test day values (Ali and Shook 1980) every week.

The mozzarella cheese production was estimated by using the equation proposed by Altiero et al (1989). The farms were divided in three categories: low milk yield (≤ 4.9 kg/day), medium yield (5-6.9 kg/day) and high yield (≥ 7 kg/day) and the number of farms belonging to each of these were, three in the first category (142 buffaloes), three in the second (177 buffaloes) and four in the third (378 buffaloes).

The adequacy of feeding management adopted, for every farm, was calculated based on DM, Milk FU, CP, CF and EE supplied to every animal. Data were compared with relative requirements according to INRA (1988) for the dairy cows, attributing an average body weight of 550 kg to primiparae and 600 kg to pluriparae. Milk yield was converted in standard milk (ECM) applying the equation proposed by Di Palo (1992) for dairy buffaloes. With the purpose of testing the differences between the farm categories, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated by general linear model (GLM) procedure (monofactorial model) of SAS (1999).

Results 

Feedstuffs quality and diet characteristics

The chemical composition of feedstuffs and their net energy content are reported in Table 1.

The lactating buffalo diets in the ten farms showed heterogenity for feeds used, quality and method of distribution of feed. All farms utilized wheat straw, with an overall mean content of 900 g/kg DM, while grass hay or grass-legume hay and oat (Avena sativa L.) or faba bean (Vicia faba L.) silage were also used in the other farms.

The total mixed ration (TMR) technique was adopted in the 70% of the farms, whereas in the remaining the feedstuffs were given separately. Commercial feeds were used in pellet form or meal on 30% of farms while 70% farms used cereals, legumes and by-products, separately or in mixture. The cereals and byproducts most utilized were corn, barley and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), Durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) middling and wheat bran.. The mineral-vitamin premix was provided for lactating buffaloes in the 80% of farms, because of commercial feed use or supplemented by farmer in form of mineral feed. The overall forage/concentrate ratio was 55.4/44.6 on DM.

Table 2 reports the energetic characteristics and CP contents in addition to NDF and NSC of the diets, used by lactating buffaloes, the daily feed intake of dry matter and other above mentioned parameters.

The average energy concentration of the diet was 0.77 Milk FU/kg, while the net energy intake per head/day showed significant differences (P<0.05) between the three farm categories (9.61, 10.9 and 13.6 Milk FU/head/d). The CP content demonstrated a significant difference between farm categories (110, 119, 130; g/kg DM; P<0.05), whereas corresponding daily CP intake per head were 1354, 1707 and 2245 g (P<0.05). Significant differences were observed for NDF (450, 444 and 407 g/kg DM; P<0.05) content, but not for NDF intake per head/d (overall mean: 6919 g). For NSC content no significant differences were observed (overall mean 369 g/kg ), while significant differences were found in NSC intake per head/day (5614, 5977 and 6265 g; P<0.05). The daily feed intake of DM (overall mean: 14.7 kg/head/day) was significantly (P<0.05) greater on the high yield farms (17.5 kg/head/d), and the lowest value (12.3 kg/head/d) was obtained from the low yield farms and the farms with a medium milk yield had an intermediate value (14.2 kg/head/d).

Milk yield and composition

On all the ten farms undergoing research not one case of mastitis was detected with  all the reported data being within a normally observed range (Data on milk yield and composition parameters are reported in Table 2.) Statistically significant differences on milk yield were found between the farm categories (4.54, 5.98 and 8.33 kg/head/d; P<0.01). Energy corrected milk (ECM) showed differences (P<0.01) with value of 7.24, 9.65 and 14.38 kg/d, respectively. The estimated production of mozzarella cheese was 1.18, 1.61 and 2.21 kg/head/d (P<0.01). No statistical difference was recorded between the three farm categories as far as milk pH was concerned (overall mean: 6.71). The average value of milk protein was of 46.54 g/kg; with the medium and high producing farms showing significantly higher protein content as compared to the low producing farms. (47.1, 46.9 vs 45.5 g/kg; P<0.01). The highest fat values were found on the high yield farms, statistically different to low and medium yield (86.4 vs 78.6, 77.2 g/kg; P<0.01), whereas the later two showed no statistical differences in milk fat content. The fat/protein ratio was significantly lower in the intermediate yield group (1.64 vs 1.73, 1.84; P<0.01). The lowest milk lactose values were found on the high yield farms, statistically different to low and medium yield (4.91 vs 4.80, 4.83%; P<0.05).(The table 2 indicates significantly higher lactose content in the high producing farms as compared to the other two which is contradictory to the above statement) The average value of milk beta-casein was of 3.72%, with statistically significant differences  between the medium and high yield farms compared to low milk yield (3.79, 3.82 vs 3.54%; P<0.05) and it represented about 81% of total milk proteins. The high yield farms showed the lowest somatic cell value compared to the low and medium milk yield farms (LS 3.37 vs 4.29, 4.36; P<0.05). Milk urea showed statistical differences on all three milk yield farm categories, particularly the lowest milk urea values were found on the low yield farms (0.32 vs 0.36, 0.35 mg/ml; P<0.01), moreover between the medium and high milk yield farms were found statistical differences (P<0.05). (The table 2 indicates no statistically significant difference between the medium and high producing farms for milk urea content)

Discussion 

Data related to daily DM intake showed an average value of 14.7 kg, varying between 12.3 and 17.445 kg for low and high milk yield farms. The values are lower compared to those observed in precedent surveys conducted in Italy by Terramoccia et al (2001) in Lazio region and in Caserta province by Maresca et al (2001). Contrarily, our data on high yield farms are comparable to data recorded by Bartocci et al (2002). Diets provided a mean energetic concentration of 0.77 Milk FU/kg of DM, which is consistent with the findings of  Terramoccia et al (2001) for farms in low milk production and Bartocci et al (2002) for medium milk yield farms and contrary to observations of Maresca et al (2001). The overall mean daily intake of CP was 1768g/head, lower than data observed by Bartocci et al (2002). Energy intake observed in the present study was slightly in excess (+12.2%) of the requirements suggested by INRA (1988) but is similar to suggested by other authors (Di Lella 1998; Bertoni et al 1994), because buffaloes present a high variability of attitude to milk production (Romano and Infascelli 2001).

In diets supplied to dairy buffaloes, an average excess of protein intake (+24%) was observed compared to INRA (1988) recommendations. The overall mean daily ECM production corresponded to 10.4 Kg/head, varying between 7.24 Kg/head in low milk yield farms and 14.4kg/head in the high milk yield farms. The low recorded values reflect the high heterogeneity of groups of lactating buffaloes, because buffaloes were not equally divided for number and phase of lactation. (It might be better if the average lactation length of each group is mentioned)  The estimated production of mozzarella increased significantly in the three milk yield farm categories (P<0.01), this parameter was influenced by the quantity of milk produced.

Average values of milk protein, fat, beta-casein and lactose contents were similar to observed by Trombetta et al (1999) in the same our period (from March to May). Urea in milk resulted on average 0.34 mg/ml, as found by Bovera et al (2001). Our data showed that dietary protein content influenced milk urea content, in fact in buffaloes with low intake of CP, milk presented low value of urea. This aspect confirms the result obtained by Campanile et al (1998), demonstrating the influence of dietary protein levels on milk urea.

The average value of milk protein in the three farm categories established the positive relation between the energy content of diet and milk protein content.

Our data showed also a direct relation among milk yield, milk fat content and feeding. In fact, high level of fat were recorded in the farms with high milk yield, which have also recorded an high DMI and energy level. The fat/protein ratio was significantly lower in the intermediate yield group, mainly due to the lower fat content in the milk of these animals. According to Ranucci et al (1988), it would seem, the LS value of 5.1 could be considered the threshold value below which mastitis in dairy water buffaloes can be excluded. Our data shows an overall mean LS value of 4.13, which is much lower than the threshold and generally no relation was recorded between SCC and milk yield.

Data showed that the average milk yield results are low, but this parameter could depend on intrinsic (average lactation length, order of birth, attitude to milk production) and/or extrinsic factors (management and feeding), that limit or prevent the expression of maximum genetic potential of the Mediterranean water buffalo. Even if the average rations for lactating buffaloes satisfied sufficiently the energy and protein requirements, the present research underlines that the productivity could be increased through an improvement of feedstuffs quality and an application of adequate rationing principles in relation to the phase and level of buffaloes production.

References 

Ali A K A and Shook G E 1980 An optimum transformation for somatic cell concentration in milk Journal of Dairy Science 63: 487-490  http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/63/3/487.pdf

Altiero V, Moio L and Addeo F 1989 Previsione della resa in mozzarella sulla base del contenuto in grasso e proteine del latte di bufala. Scienza e Tecnica Lattiero-Casearia 40:425-433

AOAC 1990 Official Methods of Analysis 15th edn Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia

Bartocci S, Tripaldi C and Terramoccia S 2002 Characteristics of foodstuffs and diets, and the quanti-qualitative milk parameters of Mediterranean buffaloes bred in Italy using the intensive system An estimate of the nutritional requirements of buffalo herds lactating or dry. Livestestock Production Science 77:45-58

Bertoni G, Di Lella T and Bartocci S 1994 Nuove acquisizioni nel campo dell’alimentazione dei bufali. Agricoltura Ricerca 153:159-172

Borghese A 2004 Recent developments of buffaloes in Europe and Near East. Proceedings of the VII World Buffalo Congress pp 10-16

Bovera F, Cutrignelli M I, Calabro S, Sarchiello M and Piccolo V 2001 Influence of diet characteristics and production levels on blood and milk urea concentrations in buffalo. Proc of VI World Buffalo Congress pp 506-511

Campanile G, De Filippo C, Di Palo R, Taccone W and Zicarelli L 1998 Influence of dietary protein on urea levels in blood and milk of buffalo cows. Livestock Production Science 55:135-143

Catillo G, Macciotta N P P, Carretta A and Cappio-Borlino A 2002 Effects of age and calving season on lactation curves of milk production traits in Italian water buffaloes. Journal of Dairy Science 85:1298-1306 http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/85/5/1298

Di Lella T 1998 Buffalo nutrition. Proceedings of the III course on biotechnology of reproduction in buffaloes pp 207-216

Di Palo R 1992 Produzione Lattea nella Bufala con Diete Tradizionali e con Impiego di Acidi Grassi. PhD Thesis, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

FAOSTAT 2004 FAOSTAT-Agriculture. http://www.fao.org

INRA 1988 Alimentation des Bovins, Ovins et Caprins INRA Publications, Paris

ISTAT 2000 Censimento nazionale dell’agricoltura. http://www.censusistat.it

Maresca A, Calabro S and Sarchiello M 2001 Indagine in allevamenti bufalini della provincia di Caserta sulla produzione e sulla qualità del latte. Proceedings of Giornate Scientifiche del polo delle scienze e delle tecnologie per la vita p 273

Ranucci S, Fruganti G, Valente C, Tesei B and Tullio S 1988 About some tests in diagnosis subclinical mastitis in water buffalo. Selezione Veterinaria 29:495-506

Romano S and Infascelli F 2001 Efficienza di conversione dell’energia e delle proteine alimentari nella bufala mediterranea italiana in lattazione. Proc of 1st Congresso Nazionale sull’Allevamento del Bufalo pp 381-385

SAS Institute Inc 1999 SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 6, 4th edition SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina

Terramoccia S, Bartocci S, Tribaldi C and Danese V 2001 Indagine sulle diete somministrate alle bufale in lattazione nelle aziende della regione Lazio: effetto sulla produzione e qualità del latte. Proceedings of 1st Congresso Nazionale sull’Allevamento del Bufalo pp 395-398

Todorovic M and Steduto P 2003 A GIS for irrigation management Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28:163-174

Trombetta M F, Mattii S, Pasquini M and Falaschini A 1999 La bufala nelle Marche come allevamento alternativo: aspetti riproduttivi e quanti-qualitativi della produzione. Bubalus bubalis 3:73-82

Usmani R H 2000 Reproductive ability of the female water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis): a review. Bubalus bubalis 2:67-76

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A 1991 Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74:3583-3597 http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/74/10/3583.pdf

Zicarelli L 1999 Nutrition in dairy buffaloes. In: Perspectives of Buffalo Husbandry in Brazil and Latin America (Editors: H Tionhati, V H Barnabe and P S Baruselli) pp 157-178

Received 17 June 2008; Accepted 8 July 2008; Published 3 October 2008

Go to top