UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO - SICILY (Italy) Department S.En.Fi.Mi.Zo - Animal production Sector - AnSc 640 TIES Seminar, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, 10/26/2005 “The

UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO - SICILY (Italy)

Department S.En.Fi.Mi.Zo - Animal production Sector -

AnSc 640 TIES Seminar, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, 10/26/2005

“The donkey in livestock system in Italy: current use and future prospects”

Dr. Cristina GiosuèDr. Cristina Giosuè

PhD student in “PRODUZIONI FORAGGERE MEDITERRANEE” XVIII cycle

SicilySicily• Land: Land: 25,710 km2

• Population: Population: 5,003,262 (ISTAT 2004)

• Climatic conditionClimatic condition::Average annual temperature : Average annual temperature : 18-22°CWinter average temperature : Winter average temperature : 10°CSummer average temperature : Summer average temperature : 26°CAverage annual Rain : Average annual Rain : 500-600 mm

ItalyItaly• LandLand: 301,336 km2

• PopulationPopulation: 57,888,245 people (ISTAT 2004)

• Climatic conditionClimatic condition:

Winter average temperatureWinter average temperature: 8°C Spring average temperature: average temperature: 14°C Summer average temperature: Summer average temperature: 24°C Fall average temperature: Fall average temperature: 17°C Average annual RainAverage annual Rain: 1000 mm

Distribution of the land

0

20

40

60

80

Hill Mountain Plain

(%

)

Italy

Sicily

Gross Farm Income:Italy (%) Sicily (%)

1) Agriculture: 100 100

Crop 60 85

Livestock 40 15

2)Commodities:

100 100

Milk 29

Egg 6

Honey 0.2

Meat 64.8

3)Animal species

100 100

Cow 38 48

Pig 26 7

Poultry 23 27

Rabbit 10

Sheep and goat 2.5 16.4

Equine 0.5 1.6

Systematic classification• Class: mammalian Order: perissodattili Family: equine

Genus: Equs Species: asinus

A – Si - Nus A – Si - Nus

ANIMALANIMAL(Animal)(Animal)

SINESINE (without)(without)

SENSUSENSU(feeling)(feeling)

From LatinFrom Latin

From GreekFrom Greek

““ONOS”ONOS”

Onager (Latin)Onager (Latin) Onagro (italian)Onagro (italian)

Wild donkeyWild donkey

Word origin

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

Horses Donkey Crosses

Species

Val

ue

(nu

mb

er)

Situation of the donkey sector in Italy

o Since 1950 donkey numbers have decreased

- Mechanization in the agriculture- Increase of intensive system

184,731 184,731

Equine number Equine number

7867 donkey are in the 7867 donkey are in the South of Italy and in the South of Italy and in the

islandsislands

Donkey breeds in Italy

6 main donkey breeds

Martina Franca Sardo



Amiata Asinara Romagnolo



Ragusano

Pantesco

Sicilian

o 952 Ragusana breed subjects registered in the R.A. (register of births) (IIP 2004)

oThe Pantesco donkey is a dying breed and the Direzione Regionale dell’Azienda Foreste Demaniali has carried out a conservation project since 1990.

Donkey sector in Sicily

o About 60 donkey farms and 2000 animals in Sicily

o few animals/farm

Summary of the possible uses of the donkey:

- Recovery of marginal land

- Farm holidays (trekking)

- Pet therapy and brain gym

- Livestock production

MILKMILK MEATMEAT- brasato- brasato- StracottoStracotto

- Smoked meat - Smoked meat

- Cold meat and salami- Cold meat and salami

- sausages - sausages

Good rustic and frugal characteristics

Reg. CE 1257/99PSR 2000 – 2006Reg. CE 1804/99

Medicine:

- PEDIATRICS- PEDIATRICS

- GERIATRICS- GERIATRICS

- CARDIOLOGICS- CARDIOLOGICS

- FOR SOME TUMORS- FOR SOME TUMORS

Cosmetic industry Cosmetic industry

Livestock production: Livestock production: MILKIn the last 20 years the population sufferng food allergies became the double (from 5 to 10%) in the developed countries, the children and the babies are the most affected (the interest about food allergy have started in the 1970) (www.italiasalute.it)

The main foods, that frequently cause allergy, are: egg (albumin), peanut, walnut,hazelnut, fish,shellfish, cow milk,

chocolate, fruit (strawberry, pineapple, orange, tropical fruit ecc), cheese and vegetable (tomate ecc).

There are two different kinds of allergies:1) Food allergy-hypersensibility: immediate reaction of the immune

system, that produces specific immunoglobulines E (IgE) to antigens (usually protein)

2) Food anaphylaxis: histamin production, that stimulates immune system to produce IgE (Pizzin et al., 2003)

The allergy is different from the “food intolerance” (for example lactose intolerance), that is an enzymatic deficit (Pizzin at al, 2003)

Livestock production: Livestock production: MILK

The reactions can be very different and contemporaneous, like:

- gastrointestinal trouble

- cutaneous reaction

- respiratory problem

Livestock production: Livestock production: MILKCow milk protein allergy is presented in about 2-5% of the children and babies in the developed countries (Pizzin et al., 2003)The protein, that caused allergy, are: α, β, k caseins, β lactoglobuline, α lactoalbumine and lactoferine (Teschemacher et al., 1997)

Some patients with cow milk protein allergy can be also react to other foods, that are used, like substitutes of cow milk (food polyallergies) (Goel K. et al. 1978, Hill D. J. et al. 1995)

Start point: There were observations about the similarity of donkey milk with respect to human milk. In some regions of Italy the use of donkey milk to feed the babies is not new (in Sicily until the end of the Second War), like in Germany too

(Wagner, 1908, da Oftedal e Jenness, 1988). The economical, social changes and the industrial progress have caused an

increase in the use of milk substitutes

Since 1990 in Italy some doctors have started research using donkey milk on children with strong food allergies. In the

1992 Iacono et al. showed good results with the use of the donkey milk in multiple food allergies. These results were

confirmed by other studies, Carroccio et al. (2000)

Livestock production: Livestock production: MILK

SpeciesWate

r%

Total solids

%

Fat%

Protein%

Casein%

Lactose%

Ash%

EnergyKJ/kg

Cow87.6

212.38 3.46 3.43 2.50 4.71 0.78 2983

Sheep80.4

819.52 7.50 6.17 4.50 4.89 0.92 5289

Goat86.7

713.23 4.62 3.41 3.10 4.47 0.73 3399

Cow buffalo

82.2 17.8 7.50 4.80 3.84 4.70 0.80 4846

Donkey*

91.16

8.84 0.38 1.72 0.38** 6.88 0.39 1939***

Woman87.5

712.43 3.38 1.64 0.40 6.69 0.22 2855

Milk composition (%) of different species and Energy (KJ/kg)

(Polidori 1994)

*Salimei et al., 1999; **Salimei et al, 2001; ***Polidori 1994*Salimei et al., 1999; **Salimei et al, 2001; ***Polidori 1994

Sheep Goat CowWoma

n

donke

yHorse

Protein (%) 95.3 91.3 95.0 88.6 86.0 90

Casein (%) 78.5 75.6 78.0 30.4 38.0 45

Whey protein

(%)16.8 15.7 17.0 58.2 48.0 45

(Lisozime, ppm) - trace trace 500 4000 700

Non proteic

nitrogen4.66 8.7 – 7.13

5 –

7.4311.4 14.0 10

Average nitrogen composition of the milk in some species

Cow+ Goat+ Horse*Donkey*

*Woman***

β lactoglobuline

(% of total

wheyprotein)

64 56 60 30 No

α lactoalbumine

(% of total

wheyprotein)

28 47 2-15 22 High

αs casein (% of casein) 450 – 5(as1)

12,6(as2)Yes Yes no

K casein (% of casein) 12 8.1 ? ?

γ casein (% of casein) 2.5 3.9 Yes Yes

β casein (% of casein) 30-35 75 Yes Yes

Some Milk Proteic Fractions

+ Jenness, 1980; *Doreau et Boulot, 1989; **Buscemi, 2000;***Ambruzzi, 2003

Chemical quality:milk acidic composition (Chiofalo,2001)

Sheep Goat Cow Woman Donkey

Short chain FA

C 4:0 butirrico 3,63 3,00 3,32 - 0,02C 6:0 capronico 2,26 2,00 2,34 - 0,07C 8:0 caprilico 2,95 3,00 1,19 - 2,23C 10:0 caprinico 6,66 9,00 2,81 1,82 6,20

Medium chain FA

C 12:0 laurico 3,74 5,00 3,39 6,82 6,47C 14:0 miristico 9,78 11,00 11,41 8,37 6,29C 16:0 palmitico 22,49 26,00 29,53 24,80 22,75C 16:1 palmitoleico 2,61 - 3,38 3,4 5,19

Long chain FA

C 18:0 stearico 10,83 6,00 9,84 5,62 3,51C 18:1 oleico 25,19 20,00 27,39 32,84 20,17C 18:2 linoleico 4,17 3,10 2,00 13,92 11,98C 18:3 linolenico 2,62 1,00 1,10 0,95 10,06Rapporto Ins/Sat 0,47 0,45 0,55 1,10 1,02

Average value

Total saturated % 67.58

volatile, soluble saturated %

0.91

Total Monoinsatured % 15.82

Total Polinsatured % 16.60

Polynsatured ω3 % 7.45

Polynsatured ω 6 % 8.65

Polynsatured ω 3/ ω 6 0.86

Acidic composition of the donkey milk fat(Chiofalo 2001)

Ash(%)

Camg/Kg

Pmg/kg

Ca/PK

mg/kgCl

mg/kgNa

mg/kgMg

mg/kg

Donkey 0.39 676.7 487 1.48 497 336.7 298.3 37.3

Woman 0.30 340.0 140 2.40 530 379.0 133.8 38.3

milk formula:

early

0.33 561.0 330 1.70 626 450.0 205.0 52.6

Milk formula:

continuing

0.50 900.0 650 1.38 995 648.0 315.0 75.0

Horse 0.35 900.0 700 1.29 550 450.0 135.0 75.0

Cow 0.71 1170.0 900 1.30 1448 999.5 491.0 121.0

Goat 0.80 1260.0 970 1.30 1844 1600.0 380.0 130.0

Mineral composition of donkey milk compared to the milk of other species and substitute milk (Salimei et al., 2000).

PROBLEM IN ITALY: SALES LIMITATION

The donkey milk is not present in the DPR 54/97

The sale can be only direct (from the farmer to the consumer) through autorization from the ASL (local sanitary agency)

Regio Regio Decreto Decreto

99thth May 1929 May 1929

n° 994n° 994

Moreover the increase of the interest about donkey milk from Sicilian farmer

VETERINARY INSPECTORATEVETERINARY INSPECTORATE

TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEETECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE


to study every to study every physiological aspects of donkey aspects of donkey and to establish the roles and the strategies and to establish the roles and the strategies

for the milk production and marketingfor the milk production and marketing


• Assessorato Agricoltura e Foreste Servizio Zootecnica

• SOAT n. 37 di Ragusa

• Associazione Regionale Allevatori di Palermo

• Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia

• Istituto Sperimentale Zootecnico per la Sicilia

• Dipartimento SENFIMIZO dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo

• Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria Sezione di Ispezione

degli alimenti di origine animale e Dipartimento MO.BI.FI.PA.

Sezione Zootecnia dell’Università di Messina

Objectives of TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEETECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE to establish:

1. the nutritional (chemical, physical) and hygienic parameters of donkey milk (Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia, Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria Sezione di Ispezione degli alimenti di origine animale, dipartimento SENFIMIZO dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo Istituto Sperimentale Zootecnico per la Sicilia, Dipartimento MO.BI.FI.PA. Sezione Zootecnia dell’Università di Messina)

2. Marketing policies (Assessorato Agricoltura e Foreste Servizio Zootecnica, SOAT n. 37 di Ragusa, Associazione Regionale Allevatori di Palermo)

3. Animal health controls and sanitary policy (Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia, Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria Sezione di Ispezione degli alimenti di origine animale)

4. Economical management systems (dipartimento SENFIMIZO dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo Istituto Sperimentale Zootecnico per la Sicilia, Dipartimento MO.BI.FI.PA. Sezione Zootecnia dell’Università di Messina)

Can the donkey milk need to be considerated a Can the donkey milk need to be considerated a healthy food and used for particular medical healthy food and used for particular medical

problems?problems?

Research project between the University of Palermo (Sen. Fi. Mi. Zo department) and the Istituto Sperimentale Zootecnico per la Sicilia

o to evaluate the value of the local donkey population

o to study and to optimize management systems for these alternative livestock productions, which can be economically viable

To improve the sector of donkey milk

First study

A study of theA study of the quantitative and quantitative and

qualitative characteristics of milk yield qualitative characteristics of milk yield

for an entire lactation period in for an entire lactation period in regard regard

to someto some factors, that influence the factors, that influence the

productionproduction

Materials and methods

550 m a.s.l.

ASILAT - ASILAT - Milo (Catania-Sicily)Farm:

Situated at:

Materiali e Metodi

Animals

24 crossbred donkeys

(from Ragusana breed)


Materiali e MetodiM

an

ag

em

en

t syste

m

Raising in a spacious paddock, bordering with

milking area


o From the 28th day after From the 28th day after foaling, the donkeys are foaling, the donkeys are machine-milked twice a daymachine-milked twice a day (at 12 and 5 p.m.), and the foals 12 and 5 p.m.), and the foals are moved from the donkey at 7 are moved from the donkey at 7 a.m. After the 2a.m. After the 2ndnd milking the milking the foals stay with the donkey for foals stay with the donkey for about 13 hours (from 6pm to 7 about 13 hours (from 6pm to 7 a.m.)a.m.)

Materiali e Metodi

Milking o adapted machine-milked for sheep

Materials and methods M

an

ag

em

en

t syste

m

Materiali e Metodi

Milking Donkey feeding

Concentrate: 50% fine bran +50% mixture of corn, barley, broad bean and carob crushed (SS 89,0%, FG 6,5%, PG 15,2%) 5 kg/donkey/day

Hay : vetch and oats (SS 91,3%,FW 35,4%, PG 8,6%) 5 kg/donkey/day

Materials and methods M

an

ag

em

en

t syste

m

For 18 months milk amount of each donkey was recorded every 3 weeks, twice a day, and individual and mass samples were collected and analyzed

Individual samples were analyzed for:

pH, SH, fat, protein, casein, non protein nitrogen, whey protein, lactose and the somatic cell count

Mass samples were analyzed for:

total bacterial charge and specific bacterial examination

Qu

anti

tati

vep

aram

eter

sQ

ual

itat

ive

par

amet

ers

Materiali e MetodiMaterials and methods

the donkey, in our latitudes, is not seasonal polyestrous

< latitudes in the South of the Italy

< photoperiod gap

Results

Phase of lactation (day

from foaling) 1= 30-60;

2= 61-90;

3=91-120;

4=121-150;

5=151-180;

6=181-240;

7=241-300;

8= >300


Statistical analysis: ANOVAStatistical analysis: ANOVAYijk= + Si + Aj + ijk; Where:Yijk = dependent variable; = mean; Si = phases of lactation (con i: 1..8);Aj = production season (con j: 1..4); ijk = residual error.Student “t” test.

Season of production

fall

winter

spring

summer

P = significant; SP = season of foaling; SL = phase of lactation; (1) log10 n*1000/ml)

*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05

Milk productive parameters in respect to the season of foaling (average±ES)Milk productive parameters in respect to the season of foaling (average±ES)

Season of foaling P

Parameter

Fall Winter Spring Summer Total SP SL

Subject n 9 4 6 5 24

Milk kg 447±58 600±89 392±69 517±69 489±36 -

Length of lactation d

301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 295±12 -

Milk kg/d 1,4±0,1Aa 2,0±0,2Bb 1,5±0,1ABa 1,7±0,1ABba 1,7±0,1 ** **

Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 489±36 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 295±12 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 489±36 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 295±12 -

Milk kg/d 1,4±0,1Aa 2,0±0,2B

b 1,5±0,1ABa 1,7±0,1ABb

a 1,7±0,1 ** **

Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b 1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06

0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4A 15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1

**

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02

* ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b 1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02

* ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03 0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4A 15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter

Fall Winter Spring Summer Total SP

SL


Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8

** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12


*=P≤0,05;**= P≤0,01; ***= P≤0,001; A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05


Season of foaling P

Parameter



Milk kg 447±58 392±69 -


301±18 296±32 277±22 290±25 -


Fat % 0,52±0,1 0,38±0,2 0,28±0,2 0,58±0,2 0,44±0,1 **

Protein % 1,8±0,03a 2,0±0,05b

1,8±0,04a 1,9±0,04b 1,9±0,02 * ***

Casein % 0,85±0,06 0,93±0,03

0,91±0,02 0,87±0,02 0,88±0,12

***

NPN/NT % 14,7±0,9A

B 13,2±0,4

A

15,1±0,4B 14,9±0,2B 14,6±1,8 ** ***

Lactose % 6,3±0,1a 6,6±0,2b 6,2±0,2a 6,6±0,2b 6,4±0,1 * **

SCS (1) 3,9±0,1 3,7±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,1 3,9±0,4 Alabiso et al., 2005

Results

600±89 517±69 489±36295±12

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

30

-60

61-

90

91-

120

121-

151

151-

180

181-

24

0

24

1-3

00

>30

0

Phase (day from foaling)

Prot

ein

(%

)

Total 1st 2nd

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

30-6

0

61-

90

91-

120

121-

151

151-

180

181-

240

241-

300

>300


fat

(%)

Total 1st 2nd

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

30-6

0

61-

90

91-

120

121-

150

151-

180

181-

240

241-

300

>300


Milk

(Kg/

d)

Total 1st 2nd

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

30

-60

61

-90

91

-12

0

12

1-1

51

15

1-1

80

18

1-2

40

24

1-3

00

>3

00


Lact

ose (

%)

Total 1st 2nd

Milk

Alabiso et al., 2005

Fat

1,00 %

0,17 %

Protein

2,15 %

1,78 %

Lactose

6,66 %

Results:Mean variations of milk yield, fat, protein and lactose , comparing 1st and 2nd milking production

Alabiso et al., 2005

0

5

10

15

20

30

-60

61-

90

91-

120

121-

151

151-

180

181-

24

0

24

1-3

00

>30

0

Phases (Day from foaling)

NPN

/NT

(%

)

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

Cas

ein

(%

)

NPN/NT Casein

Results

32.2834.65

12.60

22.83

28.35

8.667.09

24.41 25.20

10.24

6.30

1.57 1.570.79

17.32

7.09

25.98

14.96

7.8710.24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.25 - 0.50 0.51 - 0.75 0.76 - 1.00 1.01 - 1.25 1.26 - 1.50 1.51 - 2.00 2.01 - 2.40 2.41 - 3.40

Class (kg)

Freq

uen

cy (

%) 1st 2nd Total

29.92

14.96

8.666.30 6.30

1.57

11.81 11.81

33.86

7.8710.24

3.15

37.01

19.69

7.8712.60

38.58

18.11

11.02

7.09

1.57

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.01 - 0.09 0.10 -0.20 0.21 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.90 0.91 - 1.5 1.51 - 2.00 2.01 - 2.73

Class (%)

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

1st 2nd TotalAverage ds

1st 0.26 0.30

2d 0.45 0.55

Total 0.36 0.39

Average ds

1st 0.72 0.36

2nd 0.79 0.37

Total 1.51 0.58

Fat

Milk

4.726.30

34.65

18.11

7.875.51

16.54

19.69

3.943.945.51

28.3521.26

33.07

10.24

29.13

33.86

17.32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4.7 - 5.5 5.6 - 6.0 6.01 - 6.5 6.6 - 6.8 6.81 - 7.0 7.01 - 7.2

Class (%)

Fre

qu

en

cy

(%

)

1st 2nd Total

6.30

13.39

23.62

17.32

20.47

3.15

5.51

19.69

10.24

3.94

3.15

6.30

11.02

22.0522.83

11.02

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1.20 - 1.50 1.51 - 1.60 1.61 - 1.70 1.71 - 1.80 1.81 - 1.90 1.91 - 2.00 2.01 - 2.20 2.21 - 2.62

Class (%)

Freq

uen

cy (

%)

1st 2nd Total

Average ds

1st 1.85 0.25

2nd 1.81 0.25

Total 1.83 0.24

Average ds

1st 6.44 0.71

2nd 6.38 0.73

Total 6.41 0.70

Protein

Lactose

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

50 - 70 71 - 90 91 - 110 111 - 130 131 - 150 151 - 170

Class (1000 UFC/ml)

Fre

qu

en

cy

(%

)

CMT

75.58

16.28

5.43 5.23

80.23

1.55 2.91 2.33

17.44

2.338.14

16.28

72.09

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 - 9 10 - 20 21 - 50 51 - 115 144; 203

Fre

qu

en

cy

(%

)

1st 2nd Total

Averagelog10

n*1000/ml)

ds

1st 13.22 19.79

2nd 13.77 27.28

Total 12.93 19.56

Average Ds

90.81 31.07

Somatic cell

Total bacterical charge

DPR 54/97

< 100,000 n/ml for cow milk

DPR 54/97

< 400,000 n/ml for cow milk

Class (Log10 n*1000 ml)

Phase of lactation (day from foaling)

1= 30-90 2= 91-150; 3=151-240; 4=> 240


Statistical analysis: ANOVAStatistical analysis: ANOVAYijk= + Si + Aj + ijk; Where:Yijk = dependent variable; = mean; Si = phases of lactation (con i: 1..4);Aj = production season (con j: 1..4); ijk = residual error.Student “t” test.

Season of production

fall

winter

spring

summer

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

30

- 9

0

91

- 1

50

15

1 -

24

0

> 2

40

Phase (day from calving)

(%)

Fall Winter Spring Summer

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

30

- 9

0

91

- 1

50

15

1 -

24

0

> 2

40


(%)


Giosuè et al., 2005

Fat

Lactose

Results: Mean variations of milk yield and chemical composition considering the season of foaling

Milk yield

Protein

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

30

- 9

0

91

- 1

50

15

1 -

24

0

> 2

40


(%)


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

30

- 9

0

91

- 1

50

15

1 -

24

0

> 2

40


(Kg

/d)


Milk yield(kg/day)

Fat

(%)

Protein

(%)

Lactose

(%)

Somatic cell

(n*1000/ml)

Season of

production

Fall 1.41A 0.38ab 1.78Ab 6.34BCb 9.21A

Winter 1.47A 0.50a 1.92Ba 6.50ABab 24.60B

Spring 1.85B 0.39ab 1.93Ba 6.65Aa 5.35A

Summer 1.44A 0.23b 1.81ABb 6.05Cc 24.05B

Results: mean values of milk yield and

chemical composition considering the season

of production

A, B:P≤0,01; a,b, P≤0,05

Giosuè et al., 2005

Results

Problem: donkey milk preservation

RAW MILKRAW MILKRefrigerated, T = 4 °CRefrigerated, T = 4 °C Frozen, T = -18 °CFrozen, T = -18 °C

During thawing out the temperature must be < 70°C,avoiding whey protein alteration (precipitation)

Pasteurization problem

Freeze-dry?Filtration?

Donkey milk keeps good quality for 2

weeks

Donkey milk keeps good quality for

longer time (study in progress)

o There is variability on the quantitative and qualitative milk parameters

o Over a period of 295±12 d, total milk production was 490± 36 kg

Conclusion 1

o Over the lactation milk yield decreased constantly, and the percentage of fat and protein decreased too

o The lactose percentage increased until 180 day from foaling, similar to the horse

o The 2nd milking showed higher production between 30 and 120-150 days from foaling

Trials in progress:Trials in progress:

The length and the characteristics of lactation (describe the lactation curve?)

The daily milk production measurament:

a. The economical daily milking number and milking intervals, considering the udder physiology, that needs other study

(the tank is small)

b. The appropiate feeding system, considering milk donkey requirements

Conclusion 2

In the donkey: In the donkey: papillar duct= papillar duct= Ø Ø 4-5mm4-5mm

milk tankmilk tank capacity=15 ml15 ml

to define a correct stud plan, to produce milk during all the year

To Standardize the method for donkey milking control, continuing the “Milkoscan” calibration with donkey milk parameters and their range

How to use economically the donkey meat

Conclusion 3

To find profitable management pratices to increase the donkey milk impact on the livestock production systems in Italy, The use

of donkey for milk production could become an important alternative economic resource

Trials in progress:Trials in progress:

ASILAT To compare different diets

with different energy content (oil)

AZIENDA LEGGIO

ISTITUTO ZOOTECNICO DELLA SICILIA

To estimate the daily milk production

Trials in progress: MILKTrials in progress: MILK

To compare different diets with different protein

content

Production of donkey “salami”, adding a percentage of fat from “Suino Nero dei Nebrodi” pig e

“Nero d’Avola” wine

Trials in progress: MEATTrials in progress: MEAT

Thank you!

Documents

UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO - SICILY (Italy) Department S.En.Fi.Mi.Zo - Animal production Sector - AnSc 640 TIES Seminar, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, 10/26/2005 “The