Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Productive Performance and Milk Composition of Intensively Managed Dairy Goats Supplemented with a Commercial Glucogenic-precursor Mixture in Northern Mexico

M
Mariana Barragán-Arrañaga1
C
Cayetano Navarrete-Molina2
F
Francisco Gerardo Véliz-Deras2
O
Oscar Ángel-García2
G
Guadalupe Calderón-Leyva2
S
Silvestre Moreno-Avalos2
R
Rafael Rodríguez-Martínez2
M
Martín Alfredo Legarreta-González3
V
Viridiana Contreras-Villarreal2,*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9198-5372
F
Fernando Arellano-Rodriguez2,*
https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-6110-5338
1Graduate Program-Agricultural and Livestock Sciences, Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University, Laguna Unit, Torreon Coahuila 27054, Mexico.
2Regional Division of Animal Science, Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University, Laguna Unit, Torreon, Coahuila 27054, Mexico.
3Technological Institute of Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, 64700, Mexico.

ABSTRACT

Background: During early lactation, goats may experience a negative energy balance because the energy expenditure required for milk synthesis exceeds dietary energy intake, resulting in the mobilization of body reserves to compensate for this deficit. To mitigate this imbalance, the use of glucogenic precursors (GP) has emerged as a potential nutritional strategy. These compounds act as gluconeogenic substrates, helping to alleviate the energy deficiency. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of short-term supplementation with a commercial GP on productive performance and milk composition (MC) of dairy goats in an intensive production system.

Methods: Sixty clinically healthy, multiparous crossbred lactating goats (Alpine-Saanen-Nubian), in their third lactation at the beginning of the experiment, were used. Goats were randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 20 per group) based on the daily supplementation dose, administered for 42 days. Treat 5 received 5 g animal-1 day-1 of a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture (CG-PM). Treat 2.5 received 2.5 g animal-1 day-1 of the same product, whereas Cont received no supplementation of CG-PM. Productive variables and MC were determined weekly. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc test (P ≤ 0.05). In addition, correlation analysis was performed among the response variables.

Result: At the end of the experimental period (day 42), statistically significant differences among treatments were detected (P ≤ 0.05). Final live weight and body condition score were higher in Treat 5 than in the other treatments. At the end of the study, milk production was higher in the supplemented groups than in the control group. Regarding MC, the fat percentage was higher in Treat 5 at the end of the study. Likewise, positive and statistically significant Pearson correlations were observed among several response variables, mainly those related to MC.

INTRODUCTION

Multiple factors affect goat milk production (MP), including intrinsic factors such as genetics, breed, production level, days in milk, and physiological status (Salvador and Martínez, 2007). It has been reported that during early lactation, goats may lose energy through MP at a rate that exceeds the amount supplied by feed (Oliveira et al., 2021). This forces them to mobilize body fat, resulting in increased concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids and ketone bodies in the blood and triggering metabolic diseases that can affect health and productivity (López-Vargas et al., 2022).
       
Among glucogenic precursors (GP), 1,2-propanediol is a glucogenic compound that may be included in commercial supplements together with sodium or calcium propionate (Hamzaoui et al., 2020). Supplementation with 1,2-propanediol in goats has been reported to improve the nutritional and metabolic status of animals when administered during the 10 days preceding parturition, with effects on concentrations of creatine, creatine kinase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase over the following 40 days (Chiofalo et al., 2009). Additionally, it has been shown to decrease ketone body concentrations and improve carcass characteristics without increasing the cost of meat production (López-Vargas et al., 2022) and to increase MP and milk fat (MF%), protein (MP%), lactose (ML%), pH, and total solids percentage (MTS%) (Trujillo-García et al., 2024).
       
Therefore, the initial hypothesis was that supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture (CG-PM), containing 1,2-propanediol would improve productive performance (PP) and milk composition (MC) in lactating goats (LG) under an intensive production system (IPS). This could contribute to improved PP and MC of goat herds. And potentially improve income for families dependent on this activity and a holistic approach aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda (Autukait et al., 2021; Navarrete-Molina et al., 2024; Pampori et al., 2025; Armijo-Nájera et al., 2026).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

General description of the study
 
The experimental procedures and animal management used in this study were conducted in accordance with international and national standards for research ethics, animal care, and welfare (NAM, 2002; FASS, 2010). The study was conducted from November 15, 2025, to December 27, 2025. Additionally, this research received institutional approval under reference number UAAAN-UL-18-3060. The study was conducted in an intensive goat production unit focused on MP, located in the Comarca Lagunera region in north-central Mexico.
 
Animal management
 
The intensive goat production unit included in this study was located in the community of Alvaro Obregón, Lerdo, Durango, Mexico (25.5° N, 103.5° W). In this type of IPS, animals remained confined. Feeding consisted of a total mixed ration offered twice daily (1000 and 1800 h). Each goat was offered 4.8 kg of feed on an as-fed basis per day (2.4 kg per feeding), formulated to meet the nutrient requirements recommended by the National Research Council for goats (Table 1) (NRC, 2007). Animals also had ad libitum access to drinking water and mineral salts.

Table 1: Chemical composition of the diet offered to lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


 
Experimental design
 
Out of a total of 124 milking goats available in the production unit, 60 goats were used, which were previously diagnosed as clinically healthy by a veterinary zootechnician. Another additional condition was that they were in their third lactation. All were crosses of Alpine-Saanen-Nubian breeds. At the beginning of the study, the experimental units had a live weight (LW) of 49.08 ± 6.69 kg, a body condition of 2.22 ± 0.28 units, an average daily milk production of 1.98 ± 0.39 kg and 38 ± 12 days in milk. All values are expressed as the mean ± one standard deviation. With the help of an urn, the animals were randomly assigned to three experimental groups based on supplementation level. The first group (Treat 5; n = 20) received 5 g animal-1 day-1 of a CG-PM (Lipofeed; Juanacatlán, Jalisco, Mexico), which, according to the manufacturer’s guaranteed analysis, contained 3.3% 1,2-propanediol and 6.9% sodium or calcium propionates. The second group (Treat 2.5; n = 20) received 2.5 g animal-1 day-1 of the same precursor, whereas the third group (Cont; n = 20) received no supplementation. Supplementation was administered individually orally in the morning at milking. Supplementation was offered in 5-liter metal trays, which contained 195.0, 197.5 and 200 g of wheat bran, plus 5.0, 2.5 and 0.0 g of GC-PM, for Treat 5, Treat 2.5 and Cont, respectively. No rejections, regurgitations, or adverse events were observed. The experimental period lasted 42 days, during which response variables were determined on seven sampling occasions (i.e., days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42). All determinations were made prior to the application of the treatments and were performed by three previously trained technicians. The doses per treatment were defined as approximately twice the manufacturer’s recommended dose for Treat 5 and approximately the recommended dose for Treat 2.5. Considering that the manufacturer’s recommendation is 1 g per 20 kg of LW. To ensure feed availability for the goats under study, the 60 goats were housed in a pen with a capacity for 80 animals. This study did not determine daily feed rejection. To ensure the uniformity of the procedure, all evaluations were performed by the same technician blindly.
 
Response variable measurements
 
Productive variables
 
LW (kg), body condition score (BCS; units), and MP (kg) of LG were recorded weekly. LW and BCS were determined between 0600 and 0700 h while the animals were still fasting and before milking. LW was recorded using a Torrey® industrial digital platform scale, model EQM 400-800 (Guadalupe, Nuevo Leon, Mexico), with a capacity of 400 kg and an accuracy of 0.1 kg. BCS was always evaluated by the same technician through visual and tactile assessment of muscle and adipose tissue in the interspinous and intertransverse spaces of the lumbar vertebrae, using a scale from 1 to 4 (1 = emaciated, 4 = obese) (Ponce-Covarrubias et al., 2023). After LW and BCS were determined, goats were taken to the milking parlor, where milking was performed manually. At the end of milking, milk yield was measured using a Trupper portable scale, model 15161 (Jilotepec, State of Mexico, Mexico). It is important to clarify that, for the study area, as in the production unit under study, the goats are milked only once a day, usually in the mornings, and the offspring are weaned at 30 days of age.
 
Milk composition determination
 
To determine MC response variables, a 45 mL milk sample was collected at the end of milking, which was obtained after the homogenization of all the milk production obtained per animal on the sampling day, for which sterilized vials were used that were identified at the time of collection. Samples were transported as quickly as possible in a cooler with refrigerant gel packs to maintain temperature until analysis at the Animal Production Research Center of the Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University, Laguna Unit, located in Torreón, Coahuila, Mexico. All samples were analyzed within two hours of collection. The variables evaluated were fat (%), protein (%), lactose (%), total solids (%), non-fat solids (%), and degrees Brix (°Bx). Except for °Bx, all variables were determined using a MilkoScan™ Mars Foss® milk analyzer (Hillerød, Denmark). °Bx was determined using a HANNA® HI96801 digital Brix refractometer (Woonsocket, Rhode Island, USA). The refractometer was calibrated with distilled water before and after use. All evaluations were conducted by the same technician blindly.
 
Statistical analysis
 
One-way and two-way analyses of variance were performed. When a significant effect was detected, pairwise comparisons among means were performed using Tukey’s honestly significant difference post hoc test. To ensure the reliability of the analysis, the normal distribution of each variable was first assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Levene’s test was also used to verify homogeneity of variances. Differences were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05. In addition, correlation analysis among the variables studied was conducted using Pearson’s correlation coefficient at the 95 % confidence level. Means and standard errors were calculated for the response variables. All statistical analyses were performed using Minitab® version 20.44 (MINITAB, 2021).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig 1 shows the results obtained for the productive response variables. LW had an overall mean of 49.08 ± 6.69 kg at the beginning of the study. In this sense, the initial mean LW per treatment were 49.02 ± 8.40, 49.11 ± 4.62 and 49.10 ± 7.23 kg, for Treat 5, Treat 2.5 and Cont, respectively. With no differences among treatments (P > 0.05) (Fig 1a). BCS showed a similar pattern to LW, with no differences among treatments (P > 0.05) at the beginning of the study, with an overall mean of 2.22 ± 0.28 units. At the treatment level, the initial BCS were 2.20 ± 0.35 (Treat 5), 2.15 ± 0.24 (Treat 2.5) and 2.30 ± 0.26 units (Cont) (Fig 1b). The last productive variable analyzed was MP, which showed no initial differences (P > 0.05), with an initial mean of 1.98 ± 0.39 kg milk goat-1 day-1, where Treat 2.5 presented the highest initial mean with 2.01 ± 0.40 kg, followed by Treat 5 with 1.99 ± 0.40 kg and finally the Cont group with 1.95 ± 0.41 kg milk goat-1 day-1 (Fig 1c). All values are expressed as the mean ± one standard deviation. The P-values calculated from the one-way and two-way analysis of variance are also included (Fig 1d).

Fig 1: Dynamics of productive response variables determined over time for lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


       
Regarding LW (Fig 1a), differences among treatments were observed, in contrast to the findings reported by Trujillo-García et al. (2024), who used this supplement in a commercial goat herd and found no differences (P > 0.05) in LW or BCS. However, the results obtained were consistent with those reported by Hamzaoui et al., (2020), who found differences in LW between supplemented and non-supplemented DG receiving glucogenic supplementation (GS). Likewise, other research groups have reported positive effects of GS on LW in ruminants (Bodarski et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2009). Conversely, several studies have reported no differences in LW or BCS following GS in ruminants (Chanjula et al., 2016; Ladeira et al., 2016).
       
Supplementation with 5 or 2.5 g animal-1 day-1 of the CG-PM (Treat 5 and Treat 2.5) showed variable results throughout the period analyzed; however, at the end of the study (i.e. 42 d) an increase was calculated for the treated groups compared to the control group (Fig 1c). This is consistent with the findings of Trujillo-García et al. (2024), who reported a 640 mL daily increase in favor of goats supplemented with 20 g of the same supplement, as well as with the findings reported by Chiofalo et al., (2009) in DG. However, these results disagree with those observed by Hamzaoui et al., (2020) and Salama et al., (2014) in DG, who found no differences in milk volume. The absence of differences (P > 0.05) in MP among treatments has also been reported in dairy cows, in which GS did not affect MP (Lomander et al., 2012). These differences in responses among studies may be associated with the dose and method of supplement administration, considering that propanediol acts as a GP and is transported to the liver for conversion into glucose (Trujillo-García et al., 2024).
       
The results obtained for the response variables related to goat MC are shown in Fig 2. The mean ± one standard deviation for MF% at the beginning of the experiment was 2.32 ± 0.77% with no significant differences among treatments (P > 0.05). However, Treat 5 showed the highest mean throughout the study. Differences (P ≤ 0.05) were evident between the mean of Treat 5 and the means of Treat 2.5 and Cont for sampling days 7 to 42 (Fig 2a). MP% showed no significant variation among the supplemented groups. However, differences (P ≤ 0.05) were calculated for some days of sampling between the treated groups and the control group. The overall mean ± one standard deviation for MP% was 2.89 ± 0.29 % (Fig 2b). ML% showed no differences (P > 0.05) during the first five sampling periods, either among treatments or sampling days. The initial mean ± one standard deviation (i.e., day 0) for all experimental units was 4.10 ± 0.24%, which increased to a final mean (i.e., day 42) of 4.34 ± 0.31% (Fig 2c).

Fig 2: Dynamics of milk composition response variables determined over time for lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


       
MTS% did not differ among treatments or sampling days during the first six weeks of the study, with an overall mean of 9.69 ± 0.87% during this period. However, at the end of the study (i.e., day 42), MTS% increased to 11.53 ± 2.11 % for all experimental units, which differed (P ≤ 0.05) from the other periods analyzed (Fig 2d). Milk non-fat solids percentage (MNFS%) showed a pattern similar to that of ML%. The overall mean MNFS% values were 7.62 ± 0.48, 7.66 ± 0.53, and 7.55 ± 0.50% for Treat 5, Treat 2.5, and Cont, respectively (Fig 2e). Regarding the final MC response variable, °Bx showed an initial mean of 8.12 ± 0.72 °Bx for all experimental units to 9.43 ± 0.58 °Bx at the end of the study, with differences (P ≤ 0.05) among treatments and sampling days (Fig 2f). The P-values calculated from the one-way and two-way analysis of variance are also presented in Fig 2g.
       
In this sense, the use of GS generally does not affect milk components in ruminants (Kupczyñski et al., 2020). A study conducted by Hamzaoui et al., (2020) on the effect of GS on goat MC reported a decrease in MF% and no effect of supplementation on MP% or ML%. Studies in cattle have reported higher MF% with GS (Correa and Moreno, 2019; Shin et al., 2012). However, other studies reported reduced MF% in cattle following inclusion of a GS (Lounglawan et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2020). A similar pattern has been reported for MP% in cattle, with increases (Bodarski et al., 2005) and decreases (Wang et al., 2009) following the inclusion of GS in the diet. These contrasting effects highlight the need for studies involving longer supplementation periods and different supplementation levels.
       
Additionally, associations (P ≤ 0.001) were calculated between BCS and MF%; and MP% and ML%, MTS%, and °Bx. The association was observed between ML% and °Bx and MTS%; between MTS% and MNFS% and °Bx; and between MNFS% and °Bx (Fig 3). In the same context, associations (P ≤ 0.001) were calculated between MF% and MTS%; between MP% and MNFS%; and between ML% and MNFS%. Additional positive and negative associations were observed between response variables, with varying degrees of statistical significance (Fig 3).

Fig 3: Pearson correlation coefficients (r) for the response variables for lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


       
The correlation between BCS and MF% is consistent with the dynamics of adipose reserve mobilization to sustain milk lipid synthesis during lactation (Fig 3) (Hippen et al., 2008; Santos et al., 2018). Regarding milk components, the associations detected among MP%, ML%, MTS%, and °Bx may be related to the contribution of these solutes to the nutritional density and osmotic pressure of mammary secretion, supporting the use of refractometry as an indicator of solids content (Santos et al., 2018).

CONCLUSION

Administration of a CG-PM, containing 1,2-propanediol modifies PP and MC of DG in an IPS in northern Mexico. However, the modifications calculated, for the different response variables, were not linear or longitudinal between treatments. The results showed that oral supplementation at a dose of 5 g animal-1 day-1 for 42 days with a CG-PM, increased LW, BCS, daily MP, and MF%. Further studies should evaluate longer supplementation periods, different supplementation levels, and implementation in other production systems (i.e., semi-intensive and extensive systems). Such studies would help establish appropriate management strategies adapted to the different goat production systems present in the study area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors acknowledge the owner and workers of the dairy goat production unit for the facilities and support received during the development of this study.
 
Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
 
Informed consent
 
Informed consent was obtained from the owner of the animals involved in this study. All experimental procedures and animal management in this study followed international and national standards for research ethics, care, and animal welfare. Institutional approval was obtained under reference number UAAAN-UL-18-3060. The specific committee name is Cuerpo Colegiado de Investigación de la Dirección de Investigación de la Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. The approval date was March 27, 2025. Valid for one calendar year.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The research team supplied the products and reagents used in this study; there was no commercial relationship with the manufacturers.

REFERENCES


  1. Armijo-Nájera, J., Alvarado-Espino, A.V., Véliz-Deras, F.G., Chavarría- Neri, I.C., Arellano-Rodriguez, G., Flores-Salas, J.M., Ángel-García, O. et al. (2026). Effect of treatment with equine or human chorionic gonadotropin on blood count values in early gestation in nulliparous sheep in northern Mexico. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 60(10): 1742-1751. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.BF-2128.

  2. Autukait J., Poškienë I., Juozaitienë V., Antanaitis R., Baumgartner W. and Žilinskas H. (2021). The influence of thermal stress on serum biochemical profile in sheep. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 55(6): 647-651. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-1349.

  3. Bodarski, R., Wertelecki, T., Bommer, F. and Gosiewski, S. (2005). The changes of metabolic status and lactation performance in dairy cows under feeding TMR with glycerin (glycerol) supplement at periparturient period. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities. 8(4): 22. http://www. ejpau.media.pl/volume8/issue4/art-22.html.

  4. Chanjula, P., Pongprayoon, S., Kongpan, S. and Cherdthong, A. (2016). Effects of crude glycerin from waste vegetable oil supplementation on feed intake, ruminal fermentation characteristics, and nitrogen utilization of goats. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 48(5): 995-1004. doi: 10. 1007/s11250-016-1047-0.

  5. Chiofalo, V., D’Aquino, S., Scinardo Tenghi, E., Sanzarello, L., Chiofalo, B., Piccitto, F., Cavallaro, M. and Liotta, L. (2009). Effect of peripartal propylene glycol supplementation on some biochemical parameters in dairy goats. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems. 11(1): 215-217. Available online: https:// www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93913000044.pdf. (accessed on  August 10, 2026).

  6. Correa, C. and Moreno, L. (2019). Evaluation of milk production, blood urea nitrogen and some components of milk in Holstein cows supplemented with glycerol and palm kernel in the diet. Revista Colombiana de Zootecnia. 5(10): 38-47. (in Spanish). https://anzoo.org/publicaciones/ index.php/anzoo/article/view/95/91.

  7. FASS-Federation Animal Science Society. (2010). Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching, 3rd ed.; Federation Animal Science Society: Champaign, IL, USA. p. 177.

  8. Hamzaoui, S., Caja, G., Such, X., Albanell, E. and Salama, A.A. (2020). Milk production and energetic metabolism of heat- stressed dairy goats supplemented with propylene glycol. Animals. 10(12): 2449. doi: 10.3390/ani10122449.

  9. Hippen, A.R., DeFrain, J.M. and Linke, P.L. (2008). Glycerol and other energy sources for metabolism and production of transition dairy cows. In Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium (Vol. 605, No. 1).

  10. Kupczyñski, R., Szumny, A., Wujcikowska, K. and Pachura, N. (2020). Metabolism, ketosis treatment and milk production after using glycerol in dairy cows: A review. Animals. 10(8): 1379. doi: 10.3390/ani10081379.

  11. Ladeira, M.M., Carvalho, J.R.R., Chizzotti, M.L., Teixeira, P.D., Dias, J.C.O., Gionbelli, T.R.S., Rodrigues, A.C. and Oliveira, D.M. (2016). Effect of increasing levels of glycerin on growth rate, carcass traits and liver gluconeogenesis in young bulls. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 219: 241-248. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.06.010.

  12. Lomander, H., Frössling, J., Ingvartsen, K.L., Gustafsson, H. and Svensson, C. (2012). Supplemental feeding with glycerol or propylene glycol of dairy cows in early lactation-effects on metabolic status, body condition and milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science. 95(5): 2397-2408. doi: 10.3168/jds. 2011-4535.

  13. López-Vargas, A., Quezada-Tristán, T., Häubi-Segura, C.U., Macedo- Barragán, R., Valdivia-Flores, A.G., Ortiz-Martínez, R. and Hernández-Millán, C.L. (2022). Effect of propylene glycol on blood metabolites, ruminal and productive parameters of growing-finishing lambs. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems. 25(2): doi: 10.56369/ tsaes.4137.

  14. Lounglawan, P., Lounglawan, W. and Wisitiporm, S. (2011). Effects of feeding glycerol to lactating dairy cows on milk production and composition. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 5(8): 451-453. doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 1055000.

  15. MINITAB (2021). Minitab, LLC. Available online: https://www.minitab. com. (accessed on August 14, 2026).

  16. NAM-National Academy of Medicine. (2002). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 1st ed.; Co-Produced by the National Academy of Medicine-Mexico and the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International: Harlan, KY, USA; Mexico City, Mexico.


  17. NRC-National Research Council. (2007). Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 384 p. doi: 10.17226/11654.

  18. Oliveira, T.S., Rodrigues, M.T. and Fernandes, A.M. (2021). Energy requirements and efficiency of Alpine goats in early lactation. Animal. 15(3): 100140. doi: 10.1016/j.animal. 2020.100140.

  19. Pampori, Z.A., Aarif, O., Aasif, S., Hasin, D. and Shah, F. (2025). Housing effect on growth, physiological and blood indices in crossbred sheep during winter. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 59(7): 1224-1229. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-4827.

  20. Ponce-Covarrubias, J.L., García y González, E.C., Pineda-Burgos, B.C., Guevara-Arroyo, A.M., Hernández-Ruiz, P.E., Torres- Agatón, F., Ruiz-Ortega, M. et al. (2023). Annual sexual behavior in Boer bucks located in the Guerrero tropics in Mexico. Ruminants. 3: 149-157. doi: 10.3390/ruminants 3020014.

  21. Salama, A.A.K., Caja, G., Hamzaoui, S., Badaoui, B., Castro-Costa, A., Façanha, D.A.E., Guilhermino, M.M. and Bozzi, R. (2014). Different levels of response to heat stress in dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research. 121(1): 73-79. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2013.11.021.

  22. Salvador, A. and Martínez, G. (2007). Factors that affect yield and composition of goat milk: A bibliographic review. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. 48(2): 61-76. (in Spanish). Available online: https://ve.scielo.org/pdf/ rfcv/v48n2/art01.pdf. (accessed on August 10, 2026).

  23. Santos, C.B., Araújo, M.J., Bezerra, L.R., Marques, C.A.T., Torreão, J.N.C., Freitas, N.E., Oliveira Neto, C.B. and Morais, J.S. (2018). Hematological and biochemical parameters of lactating goats fed diets containing crude glycerin from biodiesel production from waste frying oil. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 70(06): 1867-1876. (in Portuguese). doi: 10.1590/1678-4162- 10022.

  24. Shin, J.H., Wang, D., Kim, S.C., Adesogan, A.T. and Staples, C. (2012). Effects of feeding crude glycerin on performance and ruminal kinetics of lactating Holstein cows fed corn silage-or cottonseed hull-based, low-fiber diets. Journal of Dairy Science. 95(7): 4006-4016. doi: 10.3168/jds. 2011-5121.

  25. Trujillo-García, A.M., Hernández Castañeda, M., Ducoing Watty, A.E., Alarcón Aburto, A. and Ceballos Escalante, B.J.C. (2024). Use of propanediol to increase the production of dairy goats. Spei Domus. 20(2): 1-8. doi: 10.16925/ 2382-4247.2024.02.07.

  26. Wang, C., Liu, Q., Yang, W.Z., Huo, W.J., Dong, K.H., Huang, Y.X., Yang, X.M. and He, D.C. (2009). Effects of glycerol on lactation performance, energy balance and metabolites in early lactation Holstein dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 151(1-2): 12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci. 2008.10.009.

  27. Zhang, F., Nan, X., Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Guo, Y. and Xiong, B. (2020). Effects of propylene glycol on negative energy balance of postpartum dairy cows. Animals. 10(9): 1526. doi: 10. 3390/ani10091526.
Published In
Indian Journal of Animal Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
26
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Productive Performance and Milk Composition of Intensively Managed Dairy Goats Supplemented with a Commercial Glucogenic-precursor Mixture in Northern Mexico

    M
    Mariana Barragán-Arrañaga1
    C
    Cayetano Navarrete-Molina2
    F
    Francisco Gerardo Véliz-Deras2
    O
    Oscar Ángel-García2
    G
    Guadalupe Calderón-Leyva2
    S
    Silvestre Moreno-Avalos2
    R
    Rafael Rodríguez-Martínez2
    M
    Martín Alfredo Legarreta-González3
    V
    Viridiana Contreras-Villarreal2,*
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9198-5372
    F
    Fernando Arellano-Rodriguez2,*
    https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-6110-5338
    1Graduate Program-Agricultural and Livestock Sciences, Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University, Laguna Unit, Torreon Coahuila 27054, Mexico.
    2Regional Division of Animal Science, Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University, Laguna Unit, Torreon, Coahuila 27054, Mexico.
    3Technological Institute of Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, 64700, Mexico.

    ABSTRACT

    Background: During early lactation, goats may experience a negative energy balance because the energy expenditure required for milk synthesis exceeds dietary energy intake, resulting in the mobilization of body reserves to compensate for this deficit. To mitigate this imbalance, the use of glucogenic precursors (GP) has emerged as a potential nutritional strategy. These compounds act as gluconeogenic substrates, helping to alleviate the energy deficiency. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of short-term supplementation with a commercial GP on productive performance and milk composition (MC) of dairy goats in an intensive production system.

    Methods: Sixty clinically healthy, multiparous crossbred lactating goats (Alpine-Saanen-Nubian), in their third lactation at the beginning of the experiment, were used. Goats were randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 20 per group) based on the daily supplementation dose, administered for 42 days. Treat 5 received 5 g animal-1 day-1 of a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture (CG-PM). Treat 2.5 received 2.5 g animal-1 day-1 of the same product, whereas Cont received no supplementation of CG-PM. Productive variables and MC were determined weekly. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc test (P ≤ 0.05). In addition, correlation analysis was performed among the response variables.

    Result: At the end of the experimental period (day 42), statistically significant differences among treatments were detected (P ≤ 0.05). Final live weight and body condition score were higher in Treat 5 than in the other treatments. At the end of the study, milk production was higher in the supplemented groups than in the control group. Regarding MC, the fat percentage was higher in Treat 5 at the end of the study. Likewise, positive and statistically significant Pearson correlations were observed among several response variables, mainly those related to MC.

    INTRODUCTION

    Multiple factors affect goat milk production (MP), including intrinsic factors such as genetics, breed, production level, days in milk, and physiological status (Salvador and Martínez, 2007). It has been reported that during early lactation, goats may lose energy through MP at a rate that exceeds the amount supplied by feed (Oliveira et al., 2021). This forces them to mobilize body fat, resulting in increased concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids and ketone bodies in the blood and triggering metabolic diseases that can affect health and productivity (López-Vargas et al., 2022).
           
    Among glucogenic precursors (GP), 1,2-propanediol is a glucogenic compound that may be included in commercial supplements together with sodium or calcium propionate (Hamzaoui et al., 2020). Supplementation with 1,2-propanediol in goats has been reported to improve the nutritional and metabolic status of animals when administered during the 10 days preceding parturition, with effects on concentrations of creatine, creatine kinase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase over the following 40 days (Chiofalo et al., 2009). Additionally, it has been shown to decrease ketone body concentrations and improve carcass characteristics without increasing the cost of meat production (López-Vargas et al., 2022) and to increase MP and milk fat (MF%), protein (MP%), lactose (ML%), pH, and total solids percentage (MTS%) (Trujillo-García et al., 2024).
           
    Therefore, the initial hypothesis was that supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture (CG-PM), containing 1,2-propanediol would improve productive performance (PP) and milk composition (MC) in lactating goats (LG) under an intensive production system (IPS). This could contribute to improved PP and MC of goat herds. And potentially improve income for families dependent on this activity and a holistic approach aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda (Autukait et al., 2021; Navarrete-Molina et al., 2024; Pampori et al., 2025; Armijo-Nájera et al., 2026).

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    General description of the study
     
    The experimental procedures and animal management used in this study were conducted in accordance with international and national standards for research ethics, animal care, and welfare (NAM, 2002; FASS, 2010). The study was conducted from November 15, 2025, to December 27, 2025. Additionally, this research received institutional approval under reference number UAAAN-UL-18-3060. The study was conducted in an intensive goat production unit focused on MP, located in the Comarca Lagunera region in north-central Mexico.
     
    Animal management
     
    The intensive goat production unit included in this study was located in the community of Alvaro Obregón, Lerdo, Durango, Mexico (25.5° N, 103.5° W). In this type of IPS, animals remained confined. Feeding consisted of a total mixed ration offered twice daily (1000 and 1800 h). Each goat was offered 4.8 kg of feed on an as-fed basis per day (2.4 kg per feeding), formulated to meet the nutrient requirements recommended by the National Research Council for goats (Table 1) (NRC, 2007). Animals also had ad libitum access to drinking water and mineral salts.

    Table 1: Chemical composition of the diet offered to lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


     
    Experimental design
     
    Out of a total of 124 milking goats available in the production unit, 60 goats were used, which were previously diagnosed as clinically healthy by a veterinary zootechnician. Another additional condition was that they were in their third lactation. All were crosses of Alpine-Saanen-Nubian breeds. At the beginning of the study, the experimental units had a live weight (LW) of 49.08 ± 6.69 kg, a body condition of 2.22 ± 0.28 units, an average daily milk production of 1.98 ± 0.39 kg and 38 ± 12 days in milk. All values are expressed as the mean ± one standard deviation. With the help of an urn, the animals were randomly assigned to three experimental groups based on supplementation level. The first group (Treat 5; n = 20) received 5 g animal-1 day-1 of a CG-PM (Lipofeed; Juanacatlán, Jalisco, Mexico), which, according to the manufacturer’s guaranteed analysis, contained 3.3% 1,2-propanediol and 6.9% sodium or calcium propionates. The second group (Treat 2.5; n = 20) received 2.5 g animal-1 day-1 of the same precursor, whereas the third group (Cont; n = 20) received no supplementation. Supplementation was administered individually orally in the morning at milking. Supplementation was offered in 5-liter metal trays, which contained 195.0, 197.5 and 200 g of wheat bran, plus 5.0, 2.5 and 0.0 g of GC-PM, for Treat 5, Treat 2.5 and Cont, respectively. No rejections, regurgitations, or adverse events were observed. The experimental period lasted 42 days, during which response variables were determined on seven sampling occasions (i.e., days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42). All determinations were made prior to the application of the treatments and were performed by three previously trained technicians. The doses per treatment were defined as approximately twice the manufacturer’s recommended dose for Treat 5 and approximately the recommended dose for Treat 2.5. Considering that the manufacturer’s recommendation is 1 g per 20 kg of LW. To ensure feed availability for the goats under study, the 60 goats were housed in a pen with a capacity for 80 animals. This study did not determine daily feed rejection. To ensure the uniformity of the procedure, all evaluations were performed by the same technician blindly.
     
    Response variable measurements
     
    Productive variables
     
    LW (kg), body condition score (BCS; units), and MP (kg) of LG were recorded weekly. LW and BCS were determined between 0600 and 0700 h while the animals were still fasting and before milking. LW was recorded using a Torrey® industrial digital platform scale, model EQM 400-800 (Guadalupe, Nuevo Leon, Mexico), with a capacity of 400 kg and an accuracy of 0.1 kg. BCS was always evaluated by the same technician through visual and tactile assessment of muscle and adipose tissue in the interspinous and intertransverse spaces of the lumbar vertebrae, using a scale from 1 to 4 (1 = emaciated, 4 = obese) (Ponce-Covarrubias et al., 2023). After LW and BCS were determined, goats were taken to the milking parlor, where milking was performed manually. At the end of milking, milk yield was measured using a Trupper portable scale, model 15161 (Jilotepec, State of Mexico, Mexico). It is important to clarify that, for the study area, as in the production unit under study, the goats are milked only once a day, usually in the mornings, and the offspring are weaned at 30 days of age.
     
    Milk composition determination
     
    To determine MC response variables, a 45 mL milk sample was collected at the end of milking, which was obtained after the homogenization of all the milk production obtained per animal on the sampling day, for which sterilized vials were used that were identified at the time of collection. Samples were transported as quickly as possible in a cooler with refrigerant gel packs to maintain temperature until analysis at the Animal Production Research Center of the Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University, Laguna Unit, located in Torreón, Coahuila, Mexico. All samples were analyzed within two hours of collection. The variables evaluated were fat (%), protein (%), lactose (%), total solids (%), non-fat solids (%), and degrees Brix (°Bx). Except for °Bx, all variables were determined using a MilkoScan™ Mars Foss® milk analyzer (Hillerød, Denmark). °Bx was determined using a HANNA® HI96801 digital Brix refractometer (Woonsocket, Rhode Island, USA). The refractometer was calibrated with distilled water before and after use. All evaluations were conducted by the same technician blindly.
     
    Statistical analysis
     
    One-way and two-way analyses of variance were performed. When a significant effect was detected, pairwise comparisons among means were performed using Tukey’s honestly significant difference post hoc test. To ensure the reliability of the analysis, the normal distribution of each variable was first assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Levene’s test was also used to verify homogeneity of variances. Differences were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05. In addition, correlation analysis among the variables studied was conducted using Pearson’s correlation coefficient at the 95 % confidence level. Means and standard errors were calculated for the response variables. All statistical analyses were performed using Minitab® version 20.44 (MINITAB, 2021).

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Fig 1 shows the results obtained for the productive response variables. LW had an overall mean of 49.08 ± 6.69 kg at the beginning of the study. In this sense, the initial mean LW per treatment were 49.02 ± 8.40, 49.11 ± 4.62 and 49.10 ± 7.23 kg, for Treat 5, Treat 2.5 and Cont, respectively. With no differences among treatments (P > 0.05) (Fig 1a). BCS showed a similar pattern to LW, with no differences among treatments (P > 0.05) at the beginning of the study, with an overall mean of 2.22 ± 0.28 units. At the treatment level, the initial BCS were 2.20 ± 0.35 (Treat 5), 2.15 ± 0.24 (Treat 2.5) and 2.30 ± 0.26 units (Cont) (Fig 1b). The last productive variable analyzed was MP, which showed no initial differences (P > 0.05), with an initial mean of 1.98 ± 0.39 kg milk goat-1 day-1, where Treat 2.5 presented the highest initial mean with 2.01 ± 0.40 kg, followed by Treat 5 with 1.99 ± 0.40 kg and finally the Cont group with 1.95 ± 0.41 kg milk goat-1 day-1 (Fig 1c). All values are expressed as the mean ± one standard deviation. The P-values calculated from the one-way and two-way analysis of variance are also included (Fig 1d).

    Fig 1: Dynamics of productive response variables determined over time for lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


           
    Regarding LW (Fig 1a), differences among treatments were observed, in contrast to the findings reported by Trujillo-García et al. (2024), who used this supplement in a commercial goat herd and found no differences (P > 0.05) in LW or BCS. However, the results obtained were consistent with those reported by Hamzaoui et al., (2020), who found differences in LW between supplemented and non-supplemented DG receiving glucogenic supplementation (GS). Likewise, other research groups have reported positive effects of GS on LW in ruminants (Bodarski et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2009). Conversely, several studies have reported no differences in LW or BCS following GS in ruminants (Chanjula et al., 2016; Ladeira et al., 2016).
           
    Supplementation with 5 or 2.5 g animal-1 day-1 of the CG-PM (Treat 5 and Treat 2.5) showed variable results throughout the period analyzed; however, at the end of the study (i.e. 42 d) an increase was calculated for the treated groups compared to the control group (Fig 1c). This is consistent with the findings of Trujillo-García et al. (2024), who reported a 640 mL daily increase in favor of goats supplemented with 20 g of the same supplement, as well as with the findings reported by Chiofalo et al., (2009) in DG. However, these results disagree with those observed by Hamzaoui et al., (2020) and Salama et al., (2014) in DG, who found no differences in milk volume. The absence of differences (P > 0.05) in MP among treatments has also been reported in dairy cows, in which GS did not affect MP (Lomander et al., 2012). These differences in responses among studies may be associated with the dose and method of supplement administration, considering that propanediol acts as a GP and is transported to the liver for conversion into glucose (Trujillo-García et al., 2024).
           
    The results obtained for the response variables related to goat MC are shown in Fig 2. The mean ± one standard deviation for MF% at the beginning of the experiment was 2.32 ± 0.77% with no significant differences among treatments (P > 0.05). However, Treat 5 showed the highest mean throughout the study. Differences (P ≤ 0.05) were evident between the mean of Treat 5 and the means of Treat 2.5 and Cont for sampling days 7 to 42 (Fig 2a). MP% showed no significant variation among the supplemented groups. However, differences (P ≤ 0.05) were calculated for some days of sampling between the treated groups and the control group. The overall mean ± one standard deviation for MP% was 2.89 ± 0.29 % (Fig 2b). ML% showed no differences (P > 0.05) during the first five sampling periods, either among treatments or sampling days. The initial mean ± one standard deviation (i.e., day 0) for all experimental units was 4.10 ± 0.24%, which increased to a final mean (i.e., day 42) of 4.34 ± 0.31% (Fig 2c).

    Fig 2: Dynamics of milk composition response variables determined over time for lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


           
    MTS% did not differ among treatments or sampling days during the first six weeks of the study, with an overall mean of 9.69 ± 0.87% during this period. However, at the end of the study (i.e., day 42), MTS% increased to 11.53 ± 2.11 % for all experimental units, which differed (P ≤ 0.05) from the other periods analyzed (Fig 2d). Milk non-fat solids percentage (MNFS%) showed a pattern similar to that of ML%. The overall mean MNFS% values were 7.62 ± 0.48, 7.66 ± 0.53, and 7.55 ± 0.50% for Treat 5, Treat 2.5, and Cont, respectively (Fig 2e). Regarding the final MC response variable, °Bx showed an initial mean of 8.12 ± 0.72 °Bx for all experimental units to 9.43 ± 0.58 °Bx at the end of the study, with differences (P ≤ 0.05) among treatments and sampling days (Fig 2f). The P-values calculated from the one-way and two-way analysis of variance are also presented in Fig 2g.
           
    In this sense, the use of GS generally does not affect milk components in ruminants (Kupczyñski et al., 2020). A study conducted by Hamzaoui et al., (2020) on the effect of GS on goat MC reported a decrease in MF% and no effect of supplementation on MP% or ML%. Studies in cattle have reported higher MF% with GS (Correa and Moreno, 2019; Shin et al., 2012). However, other studies reported reduced MF% in cattle following inclusion of a GS (Lounglawan et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2020). A similar pattern has been reported for MP% in cattle, with increases (Bodarski et al., 2005) and decreases (Wang et al., 2009) following the inclusion of GS in the diet. These contrasting effects highlight the need for studies involving longer supplementation periods and different supplementation levels.
           
    Additionally, associations (P ≤ 0.001) were calculated between BCS and MF%; and MP% and ML%, MTS%, and °Bx. The association was observed between ML% and °Bx and MTS%; between MTS% and MNFS% and °Bx; and between MNFS% and °Bx (Fig 3). In the same context, associations (P ≤ 0.001) were calculated between MF% and MTS%; between MP% and MNFS%; and between ML% and MNFS%. Additional positive and negative associations were observed between response variables, with varying degrees of statistical significance (Fig 3).

    Fig 3: Pearson correlation coefficients (r) for the response variables for lactating goats in an intensive production system according to short-term supplementation with a commercial glucogenic-precursor mixture.


           
    The correlation between BCS and MF% is consistent with the dynamics of adipose reserve mobilization to sustain milk lipid synthesis during lactation (Fig 3) (Hippen et al., 2008; Santos et al., 2018). Regarding milk components, the associations detected among MP%, ML%, MTS%, and °Bx may be related to the contribution of these solutes to the nutritional density and osmotic pressure of mammary secretion, supporting the use of refractometry as an indicator of solids content (Santos et al., 2018).

    CONCLUSION

    Administration of a CG-PM, containing 1,2-propanediol modifies PP and MC of DG in an IPS in northern Mexico. However, the modifications calculated, for the different response variables, were not linear or longitudinal between treatments. The results showed that oral supplementation at a dose of 5 g animal-1 day-1 for 42 days with a CG-PM, increased LW, BCS, daily MP, and MF%. Further studies should evaluate longer supplementation periods, different supplementation levels, and implementation in other production systems (i.e., semi-intensive and extensive systems). Such studies would help establish appropriate management strategies adapted to the different goat production systems present in the study area.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The authors acknowledge the owner and workers of the dairy goat production unit for the facilities and support received during the development of this study.
     
    Disclaimers
     
    The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
     
    Informed consent
     
    Informed consent was obtained from the owner of the animals involved in this study. All experimental procedures and animal management in this study followed international and national standards for research ethics, care, and animal welfare. Institutional approval was obtained under reference number UAAAN-UL-18-3060. The specific committee name is Cuerpo Colegiado de Investigación de la Dirección de Investigación de la Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. The approval date was March 27, 2025. Valid for one calendar year.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The research team supplied the products and reagents used in this study; there was no commercial relationship with the manufacturers.

    REFERENCES


    1. Armijo-Nájera, J., Alvarado-Espino, A.V., Véliz-Deras, F.G., Chavarría- Neri, I.C., Arellano-Rodriguez, G., Flores-Salas, J.M., Ángel-García, O. et al. (2026). Effect of treatment with equine or human chorionic gonadotropin on blood count values in early gestation in nulliparous sheep in northern Mexico. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 60(10): 1742-1751. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.BF-2128.

    2. Autukait J., Poškienë I., Juozaitienë V., Antanaitis R., Baumgartner W. and Žilinskas H. (2021). The influence of thermal stress on serum biochemical profile in sheep. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 55(6): 647-651. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-1349.

    3. Bodarski, R., Wertelecki, T., Bommer, F. and Gosiewski, S. (2005). The changes of metabolic status and lactation performance in dairy cows under feeding TMR with glycerin (glycerol) supplement at periparturient period. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities. 8(4): 22. http://www. ejpau.media.pl/volume8/issue4/art-22.html.

    4. Chanjula, P., Pongprayoon, S., Kongpan, S. and Cherdthong, A. (2016). Effects of crude glycerin from waste vegetable oil supplementation on feed intake, ruminal fermentation characteristics, and nitrogen utilization of goats. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 48(5): 995-1004. doi: 10. 1007/s11250-016-1047-0.

    5. Chiofalo, V., D’Aquino, S., Scinardo Tenghi, E., Sanzarello, L., Chiofalo, B., Piccitto, F., Cavallaro, M. and Liotta, L. (2009). Effect of peripartal propylene glycol supplementation on some biochemical parameters in dairy goats. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems. 11(1): 215-217. Available online: https:// www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93913000044.pdf. (accessed on  August 10, 2026).

    6. Correa, C. and Moreno, L. (2019). Evaluation of milk production, blood urea nitrogen and some components of milk in Holstein cows supplemented with glycerol and palm kernel in the diet. Revista Colombiana de Zootecnia. 5(10): 38-47. (in Spanish). https://anzoo.org/publicaciones/ index.php/anzoo/article/view/95/91.

    7. FASS-Federation Animal Science Society. (2010). Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching, 3rd ed.; Federation Animal Science Society: Champaign, IL, USA. p. 177.

    8. Hamzaoui, S., Caja, G., Such, X., Albanell, E. and Salama, A.A. (2020). Milk production and energetic metabolism of heat- stressed dairy goats supplemented with propylene glycol. Animals. 10(12): 2449. doi: 10.3390/ani10122449.

    9. Hippen, A.R., DeFrain, J.M. and Linke, P.L. (2008). Glycerol and other energy sources for metabolism and production of transition dairy cows. In Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium (Vol. 605, No. 1).

    10. Kupczyñski, R., Szumny, A., Wujcikowska, K. and Pachura, N. (2020). Metabolism, ketosis treatment and milk production after using glycerol in dairy cows: A review. Animals. 10(8): 1379. doi: 10.3390/ani10081379.

    11. Ladeira, M.M., Carvalho, J.R.R., Chizzotti, M.L., Teixeira, P.D., Dias, J.C.O., Gionbelli, T.R.S., Rodrigues, A.C. and Oliveira, D.M. (2016). Effect of increasing levels of glycerin on growth rate, carcass traits and liver gluconeogenesis in young bulls. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 219: 241-248. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.06.010.

    12. Lomander, H., Frössling, J., Ingvartsen, K.L., Gustafsson, H. and Svensson, C. (2012). Supplemental feeding with glycerol or propylene glycol of dairy cows in early lactation-effects on metabolic status, body condition and milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science. 95(5): 2397-2408. doi: 10.3168/jds. 2011-4535.

    13. López-Vargas, A., Quezada-Tristán, T., Häubi-Segura, C.U., Macedo- Barragán, R., Valdivia-Flores, A.G., Ortiz-Martínez, R. and Hernández-Millán, C.L. (2022). Effect of propylene glycol on blood metabolites, ruminal and productive parameters of growing-finishing lambs. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems. 25(2): doi: 10.56369/ tsaes.4137.

    14. Lounglawan, P., Lounglawan, W. and Wisitiporm, S. (2011). Effects of feeding glycerol to lactating dairy cows on milk production and composition. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 5(8): 451-453. doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 1055000.

    15. MINITAB (2021). Minitab, LLC. Available online: https://www.minitab. com. (accessed on August 14, 2026).

    16. NAM-National Academy of Medicine. (2002). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 1st ed.; Co-Produced by the National Academy of Medicine-Mexico and the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International: Harlan, KY, USA; Mexico City, Mexico.


    17. NRC-National Research Council. (2007). Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 384 p. doi: 10.17226/11654.

    18. Oliveira, T.S., Rodrigues, M.T. and Fernandes, A.M. (2021). Energy requirements and efficiency of Alpine goats in early lactation. Animal. 15(3): 100140. doi: 10.1016/j.animal. 2020.100140.

    19. Pampori, Z.A., Aarif, O., Aasif, S., Hasin, D. and Shah, F. (2025). Housing effect on growth, physiological and blood indices in crossbred sheep during winter. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 59(7): 1224-1229. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-4827.

    20. Ponce-Covarrubias, J.L., García y González, E.C., Pineda-Burgos, B.C., Guevara-Arroyo, A.M., Hernández-Ruiz, P.E., Torres- Agatón, F., Ruiz-Ortega, M. et al. (2023). Annual sexual behavior in Boer bucks located in the Guerrero tropics in Mexico. Ruminants. 3: 149-157. doi: 10.3390/ruminants 3020014.

    21. Salama, A.A.K., Caja, G., Hamzaoui, S., Badaoui, B., Castro-Costa, A., Façanha, D.A.E., Guilhermino, M.M. and Bozzi, R. (2014). Different levels of response to heat stress in dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research. 121(1): 73-79. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2013.11.021.

    22. Salvador, A. and Martínez, G. (2007). Factors that affect yield and composition of goat milk: A bibliographic review. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. 48(2): 61-76. (in Spanish). Available online: https://ve.scielo.org/pdf/ rfcv/v48n2/art01.pdf. (accessed on August 10, 2026).

    23. Santos, C.B., Araújo, M.J., Bezerra, L.R., Marques, C.A.T., Torreão, J.N.C., Freitas, N.E., Oliveira Neto, C.B. and Morais, J.S. (2018). Hematological and biochemical parameters of lactating goats fed diets containing crude glycerin from biodiesel production from waste frying oil. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 70(06): 1867-1876. (in Portuguese). doi: 10.1590/1678-4162- 10022.

    24. Shin, J.H., Wang, D., Kim, S.C., Adesogan, A.T. and Staples, C. (2012). Effects of feeding crude glycerin on performance and ruminal kinetics of lactating Holstein cows fed corn silage-or cottonseed hull-based, low-fiber diets. Journal of Dairy Science. 95(7): 4006-4016. doi: 10.3168/jds. 2011-5121.

    25. Trujillo-García, A.M., Hernández Castañeda, M., Ducoing Watty, A.E., Alarcón Aburto, A. and Ceballos Escalante, B.J.C. (2024). Use of propanediol to increase the production of dairy goats. Spei Domus. 20(2): 1-8. doi: 10.16925/ 2382-4247.2024.02.07.

    26. Wang, C., Liu, Q., Yang, W.Z., Huo, W.J., Dong, K.H., Huang, Y.X., Yang, X.M. and He, D.C. (2009). Effects of glycerol on lactation performance, energy balance and metabolites in early lactation Holstein dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 151(1-2): 12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci. 2008.10.009.

    27. Zhang, F., Nan, X., Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Guo, Y. and Xiong, B. (2020). Effects of propylene glycol on negative energy balance of postpartum dairy cows. Animals. 10(9): 1526. doi: 10. 3390/ani10091526.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Indian Journal of Animal Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)