Asmeret E Gulbet, Kharon A Amerkhanov, Olga I Soloveva

Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2024. Vol. 107, no 2. Р. 116-127.

doi:10.33284/2658-3135-107-2-116

Original article

Quality of colostrum and milk from cows of different breeds when using Zoonorm probiotic

 

Asmeret E Gulbet1, Kharon A Amerkhanov2, Olga I Soloveva3

1,2,3Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Moscow, Russia

1asmgulbet@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4526-4500

2h.amerhanov@yandex.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3626-7316

3milk-center@yandex.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6706-7491

 

Abstract. The study was conducted to evaluate the effect of Zoonorm probiotic on the colostrum immunoglobulin (IgG) level and the productivity of dairy cows at the farm in the Kaluga region during the first 100 days of lactation. Three groups of first-calf cows of different dairy breeds were formed for the experiment: Red Gorbatov, Kholmogor and Holstein. Each group of cows was divided into two subgroups: control and experimental. The experimental group received 100 doses (850 mg) of the probiotic Zoonorm per animal per day, two weeks before calving and 5 days after calving. A positive effect of the probiotic on the immunoglobulin level in the colostrum of cows, milk yield and milk composition has been established regardless of breed. The average colostrum IgG level was significantly higher in the experimental groups compared to the control groups. At the first milking, the level of IgG in colostrum was higher by 29 g/l (30.1%, P≤0.001), 26 g/l (27.4%, P≤0.001) and 12 g/l (21.8%, P≤0.001) in cows of the Red Gorbatov, Kholmogor and Holstein breeds, respectively. There was a significant increase in milk yield during the first 100 days of lactation in the experimental groups, that in the group of Red Gorbatov cows it was 214 kg (11.3%, P≤0.001), Kholmogor 216 kg (10.1%, P≤0.001) and Holstein 212 kg (8.3%, P≤0.01). A significant difference in the milk yield of different breeds of cows was revealed: the gross milk yield of Holstein cows was greater than the Red Gorbatov and Kholmogor cows by 651 kg (30.9%, P≤0.001) and 393 kg (16.6%, P≤0.001), respectively in experimental groups. Moreover, the experimental groups were significantly superior in the percentage of milk fat, protein, solids-not-fat (SNF) and total solids (TS) contents compared to the control group.

Keywords: cows, Red Gorbatov breed, Kholmogor breed, Holstein breed, feeding, probiotics, colostrum, milk, immunoglobulin

For citation: Gulbet AE, Amerkhanov KhA, Soloveva OI. Quality of colostrum and milk from cows of different breeds when using Zoonorm probiotic. Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2024;107(2):116-127. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33284/2658-3135-107-2-116

 

References

 
  1. Bakayeva LN, Karamayev SV, Karamayeva AS. Content of immunoglobulins in colostrum of cows of different breeds depending on time after calving. Bulletin Samara State Agricultural Academy. 2019;4:34-39.
  2. Amerhanov HA, Solov'eva OI, Selickaja OV, Asmeret JeG, Aksenova ON. Effect of Zoonorm probiotic on the quality of cow colostrum (milk). Current state and prospects of livestock breeding development in Russia and CIS countries: a collective monograph. Moscow: RGAU-MSHA; 2022:37-41.
  3. Vafin IT, Shakirov ShK, Yusupova GR, Volkov ACh. The effect of experimental probiotic supplements on milk production and milk quality of cows. Scientific Notes Kazan Bauman State Academy of Veterinary Medicine. 2019;238(2):42-46). doi: 10.31588/2413-4201-1883-238-2-42-46
  4. Gumerov AB, Gorelik AS, Knysh IV. Influence of colostrum and milk quality on the preservation and growth of calves when applying enzyme preparations. Izvestiya Saint-Petersburg State Agrarian University. 2018;2(51):163-169.
  5. Solovyova OI, Amirkhanov HA,  Ruzanova NG, Selitskaya OV, Upelniek VP, Kolesnikov OV. Microbiota of gastrointestinal chyme and colostrum of zebu cows when using probiotic in the dry period (Conference proseedings) The legacy of academician N.V. Tsitsin: Botanical gardens. Plants and animals wide hybridization: proceedings of all-Russian scientific conference with international participation (Moscow, July 3-7, 2023). Moscow: «ZS-press»; 2023:165-166. doi: 10.35102/cbg.2023.91.49.002
  6. Smirnova YuM, Litonina AS, Platonov AV. The efficiency of probiotics use in feeding dairy cows. Bulletin of KSAU. 2020;9(162):145-151. doi: 10.36718/1819-4036-2020-9-145-151
  7. Elenschleger AA, Utz SA. The effect of Vetom 1.2 probiotic product on the level of colostral immunity in cow colostrum and in newborn calf blood. Bulletin of Altai State Agricultural University. 2020;5(187):129-138.
  8. Morozova LA, Mikolaychik IN, Abileva GW, Subbotina NA. The efficiency of microbiological additives in pregnant dry cows’ diets. Bulletin of KSAU. 2016;10(121):192-199.
  9. Bajagai YS, Klieve AV, Dart PJ, Bryden WL. Probiotics in animal nutrition - Production, impact and regulation. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 179. Rome. 2016.
  10. Britt JH, Cushman RA, Dechow CD, Dobson H, Humblot P, Hutjens MF, Jones GA, Ruegg PS, Sheldon IM, Stevenson JS. Invited review: Learning from the future - A vision for dairy farms and cows in 2067. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;101(5):3722-3741. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14025
  11. Fernández-Ciganda S, Fraga M, Zunino P. Probiotic lactobacilli administration induces changes in the fecal microbiota of Preweaned dairy calves. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2022;14(5):804-815. doi: 10.1007/s12602-021-09834-z
  12. Godden SM, Lombard JE, Woolums AR. Colostrum management for dairy calves. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2019;35(3):535-556. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2019.07.005
  13. Guo Y, Li Z, Deng M, Li Y, Liu G, Liu D, Liu Q, Liu Q, Sun B. Effects of a multi-strain probiotic on growth, health, and fecal bacterial flora of neonatal dairy calves. Animal Bioscience. 2022;35(2):204-216. doi: 10.5713/ab.21.0084
  14. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S, Calder PC, Sanders ME. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11(8):506-514. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66
  15. Karamayev SV, Bakayeva LN,   Balakirev NA,   Demin VA,  Karamayeva AS,  Soboleva NV, Sycheva LV, Yuldashbayev YuA, Baimukanov DA. Quality of colostrum in dairy breed cows with different dairy productivity. Bulletin the National academy of sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2019;3(379):72-84. doi: 10.32014/2019.2518-1467.71
  16. Lopez AJ, Heinrichs AJ. Invited review: The importance of colostrum in the newborn dairy calf. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;105(4):2733-2749. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-20114
  17. Nalla K, Manda NK, Dhillon HS, Kanade SR, Rokana N, Hess M, Puniya AK. Impact of probiotics on dairy production efficiency. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2022;13:805963. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.805963
  18. Nasiri AH, Towhidi A,  Shakeri M, Zhandi M, Dehghan-Banadaky M, Pooyan HR, Sehati F, Rostami F, Karamzadeh A, Khani M, Ahmadi F. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on milk production, insulin sensitivity and immune response in transition dairy cows during hot season. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2019;251:112-123. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.03.007
  19. Sharma C, Rokana N, Chandra M, Singh BP, Gulhane RD, Gill JP, Ray P, Puniya AK, Panwar H. Antimicrobial resistance: its surveillance, impact, and alternative management strategies in dairy animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2018;4:237. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00237
  20. Silva DR, Sardi JD, de Souza Pitangui N, Roque SM, da Silva AC, Rosalen PL. Probiotics as an alternative antimicrobial therapy: Current reality and future directions. Journal of Functional Foods. 2020;73:104080. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2020.104080
  21. Suntara C, Cherdthong A, Uriyapongson S, Wanapat M, Chanjula P. Novel Crabtree negative yeast from rumen fluids can improve rumen fermentation and milk quality. Scientific Reports. 2021;11:6236. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85643-2
  22. Trebukhov AV, Utts SA, Bassauer GM, Kolina YA, Momot NV. The effect of “Vetom 1.2” probiotic preparation on the cows’ immunological status. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022;1043:012032. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1043/1/012032
  23. Xu H, Huang W, Hou Q, Kwok LY, Sun Z, Ma H, Zhao F, Lee YK, Zhang H. The effects of probiotics administration on the milk production, milk components and fecal bacteria microbiota of dairy cows. Science Bulletin. 2017;62(11):767-774. doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2017.04.019
  24. Zhang N, Wang L, Wei Y. Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Bacillus pumilus on rumen and intestine morphology and microbiota in weanling Jintang black goat. Animals. 2020;10(9):1604. doi: 10.3390/ani10091604
 

Information about the authors:

Asmeret E Gulbet, postgraduate student of the Department of Dairy and Beef Cattle Breeding. Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Timiryazev street 54, Moscow, 127550, Phone: +79801446071.

Kharon A Amerkhanov, Dr. Sci. (Agriculture), Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Timiryazev street 54, Moscow, 127550, Phone: +79857688349.

Olga I Soloveva, Dr. Sci. (Agriculture), Professor, Head Department of Dairy and Beef Cattle Breeding, Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Timiryazev street 54, Moscow, 127550, Phone: +79151694168.

The article was submitted 25.04.2024; approved after reviewing 18.05.2024; accepted for publication 10.06.2024.

Download