Quantitative and qualitative detailed milk protein profiles of 6 cattle breeds: Sources of variation and contribution of protein genetic variants

Different fractions of milk nitrogenous compounds (not only caseins) have different effects on the nutritional value of milk, its coagulation and curd firming properties, and its cheese-making efficiency. To assess different sources of variation, especially the cows' breed and genetic variants of the main protein fractions, milk samples were collected from 1,504 cows belonging to 3 dairy breeds (Holstein-Friesian, Brown Swiss, and Jersey) and 3 dual-purpose breeds (Simmental, Rendena, and Alpine Grey) reared in 41 multibreed herds. Beyond crude protein, casein (CN), and urea, 7 protein fractions were analyzed using HPLC, and 5 other N fraction traits were calculated. All 15 traits were measured qualitatively (% of milk N) and quantitatively (g/L of milk). The HPLC technique allowed us to discriminate between the main genetic variants of β-CN, κ-CN, and β-lactoglobulin and thus to genotype the cows for the CSN2, CSN3, and BLG genes, respectively. Data were analyzed using 2 mixed models, both including the effects of herd-date, breed, parity, and lactation stage, and only one also including the effects of the genotypes of the milk proteins. Breed of cow explained 2 to 36% of phenotypic variability for all the N fractions, with the exception of the urea and total casein contents of milk and the urea and β-CN proportions of total milk N. Lactation stage had a considerable influence on the amount (g/L) of almost all the protein fractions in milk, but neither the nonprotein N fractions nor the percentage of milk N protein profile were affected. The inclusion of the CSN2, CSN3, and BLG genotypes in the model explained a large part of the total variability in all the milk protein and nonprotein fractions except urea. It also reduced the variance explained by breed and residual factors. An exception was shown by the proportion of αS1-CN variance explained by breed that moved from 13 to 28%. Similarly, for amount (g/L) of β-CN, the effect of breed became significant (12%), whereas it was almost null before inclusion of genotypes. In terms of percentage of milk N, the genotypes of CSN3 notably affected all the casein fractions, whereas the BLG genotypes had a much greater influence on most noncasein traits. The genotypes of the CSN2 gene exerted an appreciable effect on αS2-CN and not β-CN, as expected. Comparing the 2 models, we were also able to discriminate the effect of the breed on a milk N fraction, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in 2 quotas: the first due to the milk protein polymorphisms (major genes) and the second due to other genetic factors (polygene), after correcting for the effect of herd-date of sampling, parity, and lactation stage. The knowledge about the detailed milk protein profile of different cattle breeds provided by this study could be of great benefit for the dairy industry, providing new tools for the enhancement of milk payment systems and breeding program designs