Bacteriological quality of udder surface samples
The result revealed that the mean value of TPC was 2.5±1.0, 3.2±1.1 and 2.5±0.8 lg cfu/cm2 in US samples of Merino, Tsigai and Dorper breed from F1, respectively (Table 2). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) between Merino and Tsigai, Tsigai and Dorper breeds for TPC. The mean of TPC of US samples from Tsigai breed was significantly (p<0.05) higher than TPC of US samples from Merino and Dorper breeds. In the case of F2 and F3, the mean value of Lacaune breed was 2.7±0.8 and 2.2±0.5 lg cfu/cm2, respectively. The mean of TPC of US samples from F2 was significantly (p<0.05) higher than F3. In the case of F4, the mean of TPC of US samples of British milk sheep was 2.4±0.4 lg cfu/cm2.
The mean value EBC of US samples was 0.9±0.3, 2.4±0.7 and 1.7±0.2 lg cfu/cm2 in Merino, Tsigai and Dorper breeds from F1, respectively (Table 2). There was significant difference (p<0.05) between US samples taken from Merino and Tsigai breeds for EBC. The mean of EBC of US samples originated from Tsigai breed was significantly (p<0.05) higher than EBC of US samples from Merino breeds. In the case of F2 and F3, the mean EBC of US samples of Lacaune ewe was 1.0±0.6 and 1.0±0.1 lg cfu/cm2, respectively (Table 2). There was no significant difference between mean value of EBC of US sample from F2 and F3. SAC and ECC were <1 lg cfu/cm2 in US of F1, not examined in US samples from F2 and not detected from F3 and F4 (Table 2).
Bacteriological quality of ewe milk
The mean values of TPC were 2.8±1.2, 3.5±1.2 and 3.3±0.7 lg cfu/ml in IERM samples of Merino, Tsigai and Dorper breeds from F1, respectively (Table 3). There was significant difference (p<0.05) between Merino and Tsigai breeds for TPC. The mean of TPC of IERM samples from Tsigai breed was significantly (p<0.05) higher than TPC of IERM samples from Merino breeds. In the case of F2 and F3, the mean TPC of Lacaune breed was 3.3±1.0 and 3.5±0.9 lg cfu/ml, respectively (Table 3). Even though, there was no significant (p>0.05) difference between two farms, the mean of TPC of IERM samples from F3 was higher than F2. The mean of TPC of IERM samples from British milk sheep breed in F4 was 1.8±0.4 lg cfu/ml.
The mean values EBC of IERM samples were 1.0±0.3, 0.0±0.0 and1.4±0.0 lg cfu/ml from Merino, Tsigai and Dorper breeds in F1, respectively (Table 3). There was no significant difference (p<0.05) between breeds for EBC. However, the mean of EBC of IERM samples from Dorper breed was highest. In the case of F2 and F3, the mean EBC from Lacaune breed was 2.2±1.1 and 2.2±0.0 lg cfu/ml, respectively (Table 3). The mean of EBC of IERM samples of British milk sheep breed in F4 was 1.4±0.0 lg cfu/ml. SAC was 2.6±0.7 and 2.8±0.3 lg cfu/ml in in IERM F3 and F4, respectively (Table 3). ECC was not detected in IERM from F1 and F4 (Table 3). Regardless of the breed, LAB was the same in IERM of F3 and F4 (Table 3).
The mean of TPC and EBC was 7.4±0.6 and 5.1±0.9 lg cfu/ml in BTM in F2, respectively (Table 4). TPC, EBC, SAC, ECC, LAB and PBC was 6.3±0.4, 5.6±0.9, 3.4±0.6, 2.9±0.5, 6.7±0.4 and 3.9±1.1 lg cfu/ml in BTM in F3, respectively (Table 4). There was no significant difference between F2 and F3 of TPC and EBC of BTM. The mean of TPC, EBC, ECC, LAB and PBC was 5.2±0.1, 3.9±0.0, 3.8±0.9, 4.2±0.2 and 3.6±0.2 in BTM of F4, respectively (Table 4).
The bacteriological count results by years of sample collection are shown in table 5. The mean of TPC of US samples examined in all breeds has got significant (p<0.05) difference between years (Table 5). A significantly higher value was recorded in 2018 than 2019 for TPC of US samples. Also, there was significant (p<0.05) difference between years for EBC of US samples taken from Tsigai and Dorper breeds. In the case of IERM, TPC was significantly (p<0.05) different between years in Merino and Tsigai (Table 5). A significantly higher value was recorded in 2018 than in 2019.
Correlation between microbiological parameters
Linear correlation coefficient of Pearson was calculated to evaluate the correlation between US and IERM for TBC and EBC (Table 6). Moderate and positive correlations were observed between EBCIERM and EBCUS (r = 0.56). Weak and positive correlations were observed between TPCIERM and EBCIERM (r = 0.29), TPCUS and EBCIERM (r = 0.27), TPCUS and EBCUS (r = 0.32). Very weak and positive correlations were observed between TPCIERM and TPCUS (r= 0.18), TPCIERM and EBCUS (r = 0.02) (Table 6).