encyclopedia of dairy sciences || dairy farm management systems | goats

GoatsR Rubino, M Pizzillo, and S Claps, Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Muro Lucano, Italy

J Boyazoglu, Aristotele University, Thessaloniki, Greece

ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Goat Husbandry Systems in the Europe

In the Greek and Roman civilizations, sheep and goatswere the animals par excellence for income. Polyphemusmilked sheep and made cheese, which is considered theancestor of pecorino cheese; Columella exalts cheeses ofboth the species; and Virgil writes that goatskin was usedfor ‘sailors’ sails and tents’. In the Middle Ages, witheconomic recovery and demographic development, thedemand for fibers and above all wool increased rapidly.The greatest part of lands was used to farm sheep in orderto produce wool. Goats, which did not produce wool butcontinued to produce good milk and meat, were relegatedto the margins of the main production system and endedup playing a role that was paradoxical in many aspects.For some people, in certain or most part of the world, thegoat was the subject of strict laws – since it took wood andpastures away from sheep and the man himself – and thislimited its farming. For others, on the contrary, it wascharged with various symbolic values. Thus, on the onehand, it was ill treated and persecuted, and, on the otherhand, it was invoked to cure diseases and human weak-nesses. The situation started to change, and to worsen,in the ‘century of lights (1700)’. When pestilences ended,economic recovery and demographic developmentincreased pressure on farmers’ land and, in the sameperiod, physiocrats were theorizing for the privatizationof public lands. Within a few decades, sheep farming hadto come to terms with a society that did everything tohinder its development. In Great Britain enclosuresunderwent acceleration, and in Spain and Italy the ‘Mesta’and the ‘Dogana della Mena’, the great organizations oftranshumance, were terminated and public lands mostlyfenced and privatized. Sheep still developed in Europe forcenturies, until the forthcoming of fast-sailing ships madeAustralian wool cheaper. Since then, in Europe, sheepstarted their slow decline, while for goats the situation hasnot changed or better it has mainly improved after themovement of ‘1968, when this animal was taken as a symbolof the rebirth of a new way of living. On the contrary, thehostility against pastoral systems and pastoralism, whichassumed a negative connotation with time, remains. Overand above this, the nonpastoral systems end up assuming apositive connotation, until reaching models that theorize analmost void relationship toward the land (zero grazing).Thus, pastoral systems have been considered from time to

time as being responsible for desertification, fires, and landdegradation and the concerned stakeholders and shepherdsare relegated to the lowest level of society, whereas inten-sive and sedentary systems have benefited from incentivesand laws supporting their development.

Why do motivations coming from afar continue toaffect the two systems? Motivations must be essentiallyfound in the unit of measurement that was adopted toassess farming efficiency and productivity. This is at leasttrue as far as meat and milk are concerned, while woolfollowed an opposite course.

The Unit of Measurement

In the world, the quasitotality of goat farming is based onpastoral models that assume different connotations fromarea to area with relation to the orography and traditionsof a territory. In many countries, the evolution has beenslow and the changes almost nonexistent. The pastoralmodel, in its several forms (nomadic, transhumant, seden-tary), is based on natural pastures, autochthonous breeds,and sufficiently balanced land–animal relations. In indus-trialized countries, where the pressure on land has beenhuge, they have settled on a type of intensive model thatis similar to the one used for dairy cows: a few cosmopo-litan breeds – Saanen, Alpine, Nubian – and a scarcerelation with soil – zero grazing or high stocking rate, afeeding system based on corn silage and concentrates.Such a culture has also contaminated the majority ofsystems of many different countries originally based onpastoralism, where the attempts to introduce extremelyproductive breeds, above all Saanen, and intensive feed-ing systems have been frequent and often unsuccessful.The development of intensive models took place not asmuch because pastoral farming was inheriting a negativeimage but because in the accelerated economic develop-ment after World War II, the unit of measurement thatwas adopted to assess the efficiency of several systems wasone that exalted quantity: kilogram or liter. On the basis ofthis trend, the development of intensive systems, favoredby the availability of technology that industry andresearch put at their disposal, was overwhelming: aboveall in the cattle sector, and also, though to a lesser degree,in the goat sector. In France, Holland, Spain, and theUnited States and marginally in Italy, industrial models

59

60 Dairy Farm Management Systems | Goats

of goat milk and cheese production have been developed.Paradoxically, all this occurred and still occurs, while inthe same countries we are rediscovering gastronomy, andthe culture of quality is increasingly establishing itself. Infact, since about 10 years ago, dairy and meat sectors haveperceived that quality was going to become somethingessential, and because of this we have identified new unitsof measurement able to describe and quantify milk andmeat quality: fat, proteins, and meat–fat ratio. But theseunits of measurement, which represent the viewpoint ofthe intermediate ring of the chain (butcher, dairy), are stillexpressions of quantity: more fat, more protein, and moremeat. On the contrary, when consumers think of and askfor milk, meat, or cheese quality, they refer to flavor, taste,and, more and more, nutritional value. Today we knowthat between fat, protein, and meat, and the flavor andnutritional value of milk, meat, and cheeses, the ratio ismodest as other factors and parameters need to be takeninto consideration. We will talk about this in the followingsection. Here we just want to highlight how the approachwas addressed toward quality, not only in the overallagricultural and food sectors but also in the goat sectoritself as far as fiber is concerned. In the case of wine, it isnow accepted that to make a very good wine a reductionin grapes’ production per hectare and per plant is needed.To the contrary, for animal productions we thought toimprove upon quality by increasing productions per headand per hectare. In the world of fiber, the Loro Pianaindustry, one of the most renowned in the sector, boasts ofthe fact that it succeeds in winning the best batches ofcashmere fiber in the world – of course the thinnest andnot the most voluminous or the heaviest. Unfortunately,the selection of the unit of measurement still affectsproduction systems and their development and potential.

The Parameters

Consumers choose cheese or meat because they likethem, as they have that particular taste, a special flavorthat brings familiar tastes to mind (‘‘les madeleines’’),which give the product an added value so that pricebecomes less of a determining factor in the choice. Thatis why, in the Mediterranean area, kid meat is one of themost expensive, while in Northern Europe this producthas only room in foreign markets, because it does notbelong to the gastronomic tradition of those countries. Itis the same for cheeses, with hundreds of types, all withdifferent organoleptic characteristics and prices. The aro-matic notes of meat and milk are the expression ofterpenic compounds, polyphenols, fatty acids, and aminoacids, which in their turn mainly depend on the produc-tion system and feeding, and in some cases on breeds.Curiously, dietologists consider meat and cheese – whichare food – as substances to be consumed carefully owingto their high content of cholesterol. Yet it is now known

and accepted that the problem is not just cholesterol itselfbut cholesterol oxides. In fact there exists an extremelydiversified nutritional quality: fatty acids, antioxidants,vitamins, and conjugated linoleic acids (CLAs) thatare extremely variable and change with relation to thefarming system. Finally, there is a quality that is not atall considered but has an important tools and healtheffect and concerns the environment and the parameterscorrelated to it: heavy metals, dioxins, benzenes, lead, andso on.

Production Systems and Management

What has been shown so far clarifies that the manage-ment and organization of production systems depend onthe type of product and market sector we want tooccupy. Until some years ago, when the objective wasquantity and the units of measurement were fat andproteins, all the systems, even the pastoral ones, tendedto intensify the production to select animals more, andincrease intake rhythms. Nowadays the situation is chan-ging: excess in milk and meat production, decrease inanimal well-being, accumulation of nitrates in soil, andlast but not least consumers who search more and morefor products having a unique taste personality and nutri-tional value. It is no coincidence that the first productionregulations on a goat cheese, the Banon, which is madein Provence (France), set a limit to milk production(850 l in 210 days).

The Feeding System

Now, let us talk about the two main types of productionsystems followed in the world: intensive – sedentary andconfined – and extensive in their many different forms –nomadic, transhumant, roaming, on confined and notconfined pastures. The former systems are much used inFrance, Spain, and above all Holland. They are usuallyzero-grazing and indoor, use extremely selected breeds,and have high milk production and feeding systems hav-ing a concentrate–fodder ratio that highly favorsconcentrates and, above all, using only one type of grass.The ration is made up so that the animal cannot selectwhat to eat but is forced to eat everything, and all animalseat alike. In this way, not only the animal cannot expressits own potential but the type of ration also causes adecrease in milk quality. Some years ago we tried toexperiment a free-choice system, where each animal hadthe possibility to have ad libitum access to many andvarious foods different from each other as far as theircontent in energy, fiber, and proteins was concerned.Being able to manage their diet, goats increased theirintake levels in an extremely balanced way by raisingtheir milk production without unbalancing fat and

Dairy Farm Management Systems | Goats 61

proteins. If intensive systems can benefit from free choice,as they allow bearing high production levels while main-taining the animal’s well-being, it is clear that these highproduction levels and rich contribution in concentratesmust affect milk quality. We carried out a test by compar-ing three groups of Maltese breed goats: one alwaysgrazing without any concentrate supplements, anotherone always grazing but with concentrate supplements,and a third one, indoor, with both hay and concentrates.Table 1 shows that terpenes, which significantly contri-bute to flavor formation, undergo a decrease due to theeffect of concentrates – a decrease extremely significant, inmolecules such as �- and �-pinene, limonene, p-cymene,all molecules that impart flavor to cheese. In this test, thehay administered to indoor goats was produced with thesame pasture grass that was used by the other two groups’pasture, which was in average made up of more than 40different species of plants. We know that each plant has a

Table 1 Terpene composition of goat

Feeding syste

G

Total terpenes 246.8�173.2

�-Pinene 65.3�102.2�-Pinene 3.3�3.5

Sabinene 1.8�3.1

Limonene 90.4�85.8A + �-terpineol 24.4�21.3

Tricyclene 7.0�10.8

p-Cymene 15.2�25.7

Camphene 7.4�6.6�-3-Carene 0�0

Thujene 6.5�11.2

Unidentified terpene 25.5�44.2

Data are means� s.d. expressed in ng l�1.G, grazing 8 h day�1; GS, grazing supplemecommercial concentrate); ZG, zero grazing.Data provided by Salvatore Claps.

Table 2 Volatile organic compound composition of goat che

Dietary treatment

Avena sativa Lolium perenne Me

Aldehydes 9.06b 8.62b 24

Ketones 9.70bc 14.97b 39

Esters 3.97 3.32 9

Hydrocarbons 60.42 47.66 78Alcohols 132.52a 16.89b 1

Terpenes 10.88a 8.19b 9

Total 226.55a 99.65b 162

a,b,cMeans with different superscripts differ for each item in a row (p <Data are mean values in arbitrary units. NS, not significant; �p < 0.05Avena sativa, oats; Lolium perenne, perennial ryegrass; Medicago saData supplied by Salvatore Claps.

different composition of secondary metabolites, which dif-ferently affects milk and cheese flavor.

Table 2 shows how volatile organic compound (VOC)composition changes in cheese with relation to the typesof plant ingested by animals. The integration with con-centrates, apart from reducing the quota of grass intake,also affects animals’ grazing behavior and, thus, negativelyaffects the aromatic fractions of milk.

In groups of goats kept on pasture but with threedifferent levels of supplementation (Table 3), the levelsof mono- and sesquiterpenes, which, as it is known, aremuch influenced by grass ingestion, decreased with rela-tion to the season and the different type of concentrate.

The major reduction was observed in the groups thatwere supplied a slowly degradable concentrate and theleast in those receiving a rapidly degradable concentrate.This phenomenon could not be ascribed to the effect ofherbage intake but probably to the plants selected by the

milk

m

GS ZG

132.1�107.8 55.4�36.7

12.0�9.8 6.6�6.82.1�2.8 2.7�3.3

1.2�1.1 0.2�0.4

54.7�53.9 32.4�23.217.7�6.6 6.6�7.0

2.3�2.3 0�0

5.3�5.9 4.3�4.9

3.3�2.8 2.1�2.65.0�8.9 0�0

1.6�2.7 0�0

26.9�44.6 0.5�0.8

nted (hay plus 500 g day�1 of

eses from each diet treatment

dicago sativa Trifolium incarnatum Significance

.07a 8.87b ��

.62a 3.69c ��

.68 5.55 NS

.1 46.78 NS

.60b 4.03b ��

.15b 11.05a ��

.23a,b 79.96b �

0.05).; ��p < 0.01; ��p < 0.001.tiva, alfalfa; Trifolium incarnatum, crimson clover.

Table 3 Mono- and sesquiterpene composition of goat milk

Season

Group Winter Spring Summer

Monoterpenes (ng l�1)

G 1899�190 243�173 1730�1771

GRD 1192�175 201�216 2077�1645

GNRD 785�138 130�103 1429�1512Sesquiterpenes (ng l�1)

G 2397�2961 1609� 645 14 041�3455

GRD 1124�534 1130� 800 24 586�23 000GNRD 724�80 1252� 158 20 698�16 717

Data are means of three determinations. Data provided by Vincenzo De Feo.G, grazing for 8 h day�1; GRD, grazing plus 600 g day�1 of rapidly degradableconcentrate, barley (Hordeum vulgare) and chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) – ratio 60:40;GNRD, grazing plus 600 g�1 day of slowly degradable concentrate, maize (Zea mays)and broad beans (Vicia faba) – ratio 80:20 (data provided by Salvatore Claps).


animal. The system affects not only aromatic complex-

ity but also, and above all, the nutritional value of milk

and cheese. In a test where two groups of goats were

compared, one only grazing and the other kept in stable

and fed with hay produced with the grass from the

same pasture (thus with many herb species), the acidic

composition of milk showed a lot of difference depend-

ing on the kind of feeding. Grazing goats produced

milk with a higher content of omega-3, CLAs, docosa-

pentaenoic acid (DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid

Table 4 Fatty acid composition of goat milk

Season

Winter Spring

Feeding system G ZG G ZG

C18:1trans 2.271A 0.711B 1.988A 0.910B

C18:2!6 1.961B 2.729A 2.078 2.06

C18:3!6 0.104 0.1 0.105 0.102

C18:3!3 0.737 0.386 0.786 0.359C18:2c9t

11 – CLA

1.130A 0.462B 0.738A 0.503B

C20:2!6 0.075 0.06 0.071 0.065C20:3!6 0.021 0.018 0.016B 0.022A

C20:3!3 0.172 0.203 0.147 0.179

C20:4!6 0.075a 0.022B 0.057A 0.040B

C20:5!3 – EPA 0.037 0.029 0.043 0.029C22:4!6 0.019 0.023 0.017 0.016

C22:5!3 – DPA 0.028a 0.012B 0.016 0.017

C22:6! – DHA 0.144 0.061 0.115 0.096

SFA 69.063 73.301 70.51 73.031MUFA 25.389 22.056 24.138 22.897

PUFA 5.547 4.643 5.352 4.072

!3 1.118 0.691 1.108 0.68!6 2.399b 3.014a 2.459 2.403

Uppercase and lowercase superscripts indicate significant differences, p��p < 0.01; ��p < 0.001; MSE, mean square error; Se, season; FS, feedinacids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; G, grazing; ZG, zero grazing;Data provided by Adriana Di Trana.

(DHA), that is, milk rich in unsaturated acids; on the

contrary, the content of omega-6 and saturated acids

was lower (Table 4).The effect of feeding involves not only fats but also

vitamins, especially those that play an important role in

blocking cholesterol oxidation. Pasture grazing causes an

increase in �-tocopherol and a contemporaneous

decrease in the content of cholesterol in milk (Table 5).

This phenomenon permitted setting an index that kept in

consideration the content of both cholesterol and

Summer Effect

G ZG MSE Se Fs Se�Fs

1.141 0.872 0.129 ��

1.735b 1.910a 0.094 ��

0.119 0.114 0.006 � NS NS

0.588 0.335 0.037 �� NS0.703a 0.510b 0.033 ��

0.079 0.063 0.005 NS �� NS0.018B 0.024A 0.001 NS ��

0.158 0.195 0.006 �� NS

0.055A 0.036B 0.003 NS ��

0.048 0.03 0.006 NS � NS0.012 0.022 0.003 NS NS NS

0.029 0.022 0.002 ��

0.114A 0.085 0.007 NS ��

69.44 73.286 0.709 NS �� NS26.1 22.893 0.601 NS �� NS

4.455 3.82 0.161 �� NS

0.931 0.668 0.042 � �� NS2.134 2.255 0.097 ��

< 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively; NS, not significant; �p < 0.05;g system; SFA, saturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fattyEPA, eicosapentaenoic acid.

Table 5 Effect of two different pastures on �-tocopherol and cholesterol

content and DAP values of cheese

Feeding treatment�-Tocopherol(mg per 100 g)

Cholesterol(mg per 100 g)

DAP(�10�3)

GVC 778.3� 57.6a 84.5�4.9a 8.3� 0.7a

GMC 842.0� 36.5a 87.2�0.7a 8.7� 0.3a

ZGC 646.9� 72.7b 96.7�6.1b 6.0� 1.0b

a,bMeans with different superscripts differ for each item in a column (p < 0.05).Values are mean data from three samples collected during lactation and analyzedin triplicate �s.d.GVC, grazing on valley pasture; GMC, grazing on mountain pasture; ZGC, zerograzing.Data supplied by Laura Pizzoferrato.

Figure 1 Goat milk: correlation DPA vs. weight of the pasture in the feeding system. DPA, degree of antioxidant protection; GBC,grazing + mixed barly (Hordeum vulgare) and chickpeas (Cicer arietinum); GMB, grazing + corn and board beans (Vicia faba). Data

supplied by Laura Pizzzoferrato.


antioxidants, as the degree of antioxidant protection

(DAP) is more important than cholesterol itself.This index is not only higher in grazing animals but, as

we can see in Figure 1, it also increases with the increase

in herbage intake.We should stress that all this research on indoor goats

has been carried out basing the ration on permanent

meadows’ hay, rich in many herbage species. In general,

instead, in intensive systems they use hay or silage based

on only one type of grass, with clear major negative effects

on secondary metabolites and nutritional value molecules.

But overall, the majority of farming systems is based on

free grazing where flora is represented by a huge variety of

plants, each with its own characteristics, which animals are

free to eat to their liking. We know that lots of these plants

have molecules that are also exploited by indigenous

populations for curative purposes and by pharmaceutical

industry as the basic ingredient for many drugs. We

wondered if the milk coming from goats that had eaten

these herbs also contained such characteristic molecules.

Thus we administered both borage (Borago officinalis) and

hawthorn (Crataegus oxyacantha) to a group of goats.As we can see in Table 6, flavonoids and quercitin

contained in these herbs were found in milk. In conclu-

sion, we can say that, if we want to produce in high

quantities, we should use exceedingly high concentrates

and supply animals with only one kind of herbage. On the

contrary, if we want to have higher aromatic complexity

and nutritional content in milk and cheeses, we need to act

on the number of plant species and their ingested quantity.More and more often, however, consumers are frigh-

tened by alarming news concerning food, above all milk

and meat. Besides ‘mad cow disease’, we have often heard

about meat and milk containing dioxin, a constituent

coming from the environment and not from the breeding

system. Therefore, it is clear that the environment can

Table 6 Plant metabolites found in plants and milk

Plants Milk

Extract Borage Hawthorn Control Borage fed Hawthorn fed

Chloroform Quercetin Quercetin None 5,7,49-trihydroxyflavonol Quercetin

8.1�0.3�10�5 8.4� 0.6� 10�5 9.2�0.3�10�6 3.9� 0.1� 10�6

5,7-dihydroxyflavone Vitexin-7-glucoside 5,7-dihydroxyflavone 5,7-dihydroxyflavonol

2.7�0.3�10�5 0.8� 0.1� 10�5 5.4�0.3�10�6 8.3� 0.3� 10�6

Flavone Flavone

Methanol Rutin Rutin None Rutin None

1.5�0.3�10�5 2.9� 0.2� 10�5 2.7�0.1�10�6

Kaempferol Apigenin

2.0�0.2�10�5 1.7� 0.2� 10�5

Kaempferol-3-O-�-D-

glucopyranoside

0.9�0.2�10�5

Data are expressed as mol per 1000 g of dry plant or milk. Data are means of three determinations.Data provided by Vincenzo De Feo.


pollute farms and products insofar as the system canpollute the environment, as it is in the case of nitratesand methane. A test carried out in two different areas, onein mountains and another near a motorway, highlightedthat the content of C2 and C3 benzenes in the milk fromgoats grazing in the area near the motorway is muchhigher than that from goats grazing among the mountains(Table 7).

The Breed

One of the important components of the production sys-tem is breed, which is selected in order to make thesystem more efficient. It is clear that until the main

Table 7 Contents and percent compositions o

grazing in a polluted and an unpolluted pasture

Naturalpasture

Compound ppbw %

Ethylbenzene 0.04 16.0

(m + p)-Xylene 0.17 63.9o-Xylene 0.05 20.1

Total C2-benzene 0.27

Benzene, isopropyl <0.01 0.2Benzene, n-propyl-

Benzene, 1-ethyl-3-methyl- 0.02 3.4

Benzene, 1-ethyl-4-methyl- 0.01 2.2

Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl- 0.52 80.8Benzene, 1-ethyl-2-methyl- 0.02 2.4

Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl- 0.06 9.2

Benzene, 1,2,3-trimethyl- 0.01 1.8

Total C3-benzene 0.65

For the sake of comparison, the percent compositionuncertainty in these determinations was �0.01 ppbwData supplied by Paolo Ciccioli.

objectives of farming were production level maximizationand cost reduction, the main trend of all producers wasthat of introducing into their farms extremely productiveanimals, purebred or as reproducers to be used for cross-breeding. Intensive systems have used breeds that havesoon become cosmopolitan, such as Saanen, Alpine,Nubian, and Granadina, while extensive ones have triedin every way to introduce these more productive breeds,sometimes successfully but often with many problemsmainly due to the diffusion of diseases such as that causedby caprine arthritis–encephalitis virus (CAEV) and para-tuberculosis. For quite a while, as we realized thatendogenous resources have high potential if more perti-nent units of measurement are used, and as consumers

f selected arenes detected in milk of goats

Pollutedpasture Vehicular emission

ppbw % %

0.4 10.4 17.1

2.2 60.7 59.51.1 29.0 23.4

3.7

0.3 1.0 80.7 2.9 1.2

2.7 11.0 21.2

1.1 4.3 9.7

5.0 20.3 11.31.5 5.9 7.4

8.9 35.8 33.9

4.6 18.8 7.4

24.8

of vehicular emission is reported. The average.


started to demand local products, not only this mode ofcross-breeding stopped but genetic improvement alsounderwent a pause, allowing for reflection; in fact, inEurope, many production regulations with respect toProtected Designation of Origin (PDO) impose a produc-tive limit to cows or goats. There are even regulations thatbind the breed. For cheeses made from cows’ milk such asBeaufort, Abondance, Salers, and Fontina, the regulationsprovide for the breeds Tarantaise, Abondance–Tarine,Salers, and Valdostana Pezzata Rossa only, respectively.For cheeses made from sheep milk such as Roquefort,Ossau-Iraty, and Idiazabal, the sheep breeds must beLacaune, Basco-bearnaise, and Lacha–Carranzana, respec-tively. In the goat sector also, they are starting to define ina specific way the breed to use. For the Banon theyprovide for the Alpine and Rove, and for Robiola diRoccaverano the eponymous goat. But can the breed bea diversity factor? Namely, can we find different cheesesonly because they are made from different breeds withinthe same food system? Comparing ricotta cheese, a typeof cheese made from whey, produced from milk of dif-ferent breeds (Table 8), the sensory analysis highlighted

Table 8 Effect of goat breeds on sensory propert

Girgentana Siriana

No. of samples 9 9

Softness 7.5a�0.25 6.5b� 0.25Greasiness 5.5a,b�0.54 4.5b� 0.54

Granulosity 3.0b�0.54 7.0a�0.54

Sweet 5.75�0.88 5.75� 0.88Bitter 3.25�0.28 3.00� 0.28

Goat 2.0c� 0.20 5.0a�0.20

Cooked 3.25�0.28 3.0�0.28

Milk 5.50�0.67 5.75� 0.67

a,b,cMeans with different superscripts differ for each itemData are means� s.d.NS, not significant; ��p < 0.01; ��p < 0.001.Each attribute was evaluated on a 0–9 point graduate scData provided by Michele Pizzillo.

Table 9 Volatile organic compounds in milk and cheese of goat bre

Milk

Parameters M RS I G

Alcohols 2195.2a 191.1b 58.9c 37.5d

Aldehydes 373.3a 272.1b 188.5c 72.6d

Ketones 3.28d 34.9b 37.8a 13.7c

Terpenes 2243.0a 285.1b 953.6c 72.7d

Acids 14.9a 11.6b 11.7b 8.7c

Aromatic

hydrocarbons

505.9b 584.1a 385.2c 54.7d

a,b,c,dMeans with different superscripts differ for each item in a row (p < 0.05Data are means� s.d. in arbitrary units.M, Maltese; RS, Red Syrian; I, Ionica; G, Girgentana breed.Data provided by Salvatore Claps.

that there were differences not only for softness, greasi-ness, and granulometry but also for its goat flavor, anaromatic note that characterizes cheese and which is adistinction marker for consumers.

Why do breeds that eat in the same way give differentproducts? It is true that each breed is the result of anadaptation to a special environment and, for this reason,has developed extremely specific characteristics that aredifferent from those of animals living in other environ-ments. But maybe this is not enough to explain thesedifferences. Table 9 shows that, in the same environmentand breeds, VOCs are different from breed to breed.

Such diversity can be explained by the breeds’ grazingbehavior. In fact the breeds Maltese and Derivata di Siriaare apparently very similar from a genetic point of view asthey are for productive levels and area of origin; however,these two breeds used to choose their diet in a differentway while grazing: the Maltese showed a greaterselectivity and had a preference for grasses and, amongthem, for a small number of species, while the Derivata diSiria selected less and used a broader range of theavailable herbage.

ies of ricotta cheese

Maltese Local Significance

9 9

7.5a� 0.25 7.5a� 0.25 ��

4.0b�0.54 7.0a� 0.54 ��

2.0b�0.54 2.0b�0.54 ��

7.00�0.88 7.00�0.88 NS2.00�0.28 2.00�0.28 NS

4.0b�0.20 2.0c�0.20 ��

3.5� 0.28 4.0�0.28 NS

6.00�0.67 6.00�0.67 NS

in a row (p < 0.05).

ale.

eds

Caciotta cheese

SE M RS I G SE

0.61 335.3a 36.0d 291.3b 143.3c 0.62

16.1 171.1c 178b 201.1a 129.1d 0.59

0.58 31.1b 21.1d 56.2a 23.1c 0.60

0.51 551.0a 160.2d 455b 319.3c 0.600.58 1731.0a 320.1b 203.2c 22.2d 0.56

0.55 165.2c 81.1d 440.1a 214.0b 0.59

).


Conclusion

A world crisis of milk, not only goat’s but also sheep’s,cow’s, and buffalo’s, will oblige producers to eitherdecrease production levels, a desirable but not crediblepoint, or differentiate their production to enter new mar-ket niches. So far, the dairy sector has kept the problem atbay by relying on dairy techniques – many differentcheeses from the same milk – but today we need toidentify the difference of factors in the raw matter – thesame cheese made from milks having different quality.Thus, we need to abandon quantity as the unit of mea-surement and start talking of quality classes with relationto farming system, food system, and breed and its produc-tive levels. The goat system still has at its disposal a greatpart of its biodiversity; this is an important tool that can bevalorized if we change the units of measurement used toassess efficiency.

See also: Animals that Produce Dairy Foods: Goat

Breeds. Husbandry of Dairy Animals: Goat: Feeding

Management; Goat: Health Management; Goat: Milking

Management; Goat: Multipurpose Management; Goat:

Replacement Management; Goat: Reproductive

Management; Predator Control in Goats and Sheep.

Further Reading

Ciccioli P, Brancaleoni E, Frattoni M, Fedele V, Claps S, and Signorelli F(2004) Quantitative determination of volatile organic compounds(VOC) in milk by multiple dynamic headspace extraction andGC–MS. Annali di Chimica 94: 669–678.

Claps S (2005) Qualita aromatica dei formaggi di montagna. Caseus5: 27–30.

Claps S, Pizzillo M, Di Trana A, Rubino R, Cifuni GF, and Agoglia A(2007) Proceedings International Symposium: The Quality of GoatsProducts. In: Rubino R and Sepe L (eds.) Effect of goat breed on milkand cheese characteristics, pp. 150–154. Bella, Italy: OrganisingCommittee of International Symposium.

Claps S, Rubino R, Fedele V, and Morone G (1997) Proceedings ofNational Congress. In: Universita di Pisa (ed.) Sistemaalimentare a ‘libera scelta’: II. Produzione e qualita del latte dicapre maltesi, pp. 281–282. Pisa, Italy: Italian Society of AnimalProduction.

Claps S, Rubino R, Fedele V, Morone G, and Di Trana A (2006) Effect ofconcentrate supplementation on milk production, chemical featuresand milk volatile compounds in grazing goats. OptionsMediterraneennes, Serie A 67: 201–204.

Claps S, Sepe L, Caputo AR, et al. (2009) Influence of our single freshforage on volatile compounds (VOC) content and profile and sensoryproperties of goat caciotta cheese. Italian Journal of Animal Science8(2): 390–392.

De Feo V, Quaranta E, Fedele V, Claps S, Rubino R, and Pizza C (2006)Flavonoids and terpenoids in goat milk in relation to forage intake.Italian Journal of Food Science 1(18): 85–92.

Di Trana A, Cifuni GF, Fedele V, Braghieri A, Claps S, and Rubino R(2004) The grazing system and season affect CLA, !-3 and transfatty acid contents in goat milk. Progress in Nutrition6(2): 109–115.

Fedele V, Claps S, Rubino R, Calandrelli M, and Pilla AM (2002)Effect of free-choice and traditional feeding systems on goatfeeding behaviour and intake. Livestock Production Science74: 19–31.

Fedele V, Claps S, Rubino R, and Pilla AM (1997) Proceedings ofNational Congress, pp. 279–280. In: Universita di Pisa (ed.) Sistemaalimentare a ‘ libera scelta’. I. Comportamento alimentare di capreMaltesi Pisa, Italy: Italian Society of Animal Production.

Fedele V, Pizzillo M, Claps S, Morand-Fehr P, and Rubino R (1993)Grazing behaviour and diet selection of goats on native pasture insouthern Italy. Small Ruminant Research 11: 305–322.

Pizzillo M, Claps S, Cifuni GF, Fedele V, and Rubino R (2005) Effect ofgoat breed on the sensory, chemical and nutritionalcharacteristics of ricotta cheese. Livestock Production Science94: 33–40.

Pizzoferrato L, Manzi P, Marconi S, Fedele V, Claps S, and Rubino R(2007) Degree of antioxidant protection: A parameter to trace theorigin and quality of goat’s milk and cheese. Journal of Dairy Science90: 4569–4574.

encyclopedia of dairy sciences || dairy farm management systems | goats

Documents