The influence of prolonged subclinical mastitis on bovine milk lipoprotein lipase activity was investigated. Nine cows with at least one quarter with prolonged subclinical mastitis and at least one nonmastitic quarter were selected in various stages of lactation. Milk from subclinical quarters had a mean somatic cell count of 5.7 X 10(6) cells/ml while milk from nonmastitic quarters had an average somatic cell count of 9.4 X 10(4) cells/ml. Quarters with a subclinical infection contained the same pathogenic organisms for a minimum of 6 wk. The average milk lipoprotein lipase activity of 108.7 units/ml milk from subclinical quarters was 27.1% higher than the average enzyme activity of 79.2 units/ml milk from nonmastitic quarters. Conditions present in the mammary gland during prolonged subclinical mastitis could lead to increased milk lipoprotein lipase activity in raw milk.
The ability of lipoprotein lipase to move across the mammary epithelium by a paracellular route was investigated. Five goats were milked hourly to activate the paracellular pathway. Three goats responded to hourly milking with a fivefold increase in milk lipoprotein lipase activity as compared with nonresponding goats. Massage of the mammary gland was necessary in the two nonresponding goats too cause increased lipoprotein lipase activity in milk. Oxytocin treatment during hourly milking also increased enzyme activity in milk from a nonresponding goat. Activation of the paracellular pathway by hourly milking increased milk sodium and protein and decreased potassium and lactose concentrations. After a 12-h milking interval, lipoprotein lipase activity was distributed primarily in the serum (48%) and cream (40%) fractions and, to a lesser extent, in the casein (12%) fraction. Hourly milking increased enzyme activity distributed in the serum fraction (62%), whereas enzyme activity associated with the cream (32%) and casein (6%) fractions decreased. Possible mechanisms for the origin of lipoprotein lipase in milk are discussed.
The complexities of the global agri-food system and the singular importance of food as a primary good elevate the need to explore what corporate social responsibility (CSR) might mean for agri-food firms. Although CSR refers to voluntary actions on the part of capitalist firms to exceed legal and regulatory requirements, those requirements are important because they set the institutional foundation for what a firm must do to earn the CSR label. In the case of CSR for agri-food firms, the institutional context includes the regulatory state as well as the publicly supported agricultural and food research and development that tends to be done at universities. The purpose of this paper is to provide greater conceptual clarity to the blur between the state, agri-food firms, and universities and their respective responsibilities to the public. Since the globalization of the agri-food system and the emergence of private forms of governance signal the decline of the state's legal and regulatory influence on corporate firms, we pay particularly close attention to the ethical challenges that have surrounded university–agribusiness collaborations—initiatives, which conjoin the moral concerns associated with each respective institution while also raising new questions in their own right. Although the university would ideally play a critical participatory role in this process by virtue of its public commitments, as we explain, the historical relationship between the university and agri-food firms has complicated the university's potential standing as an independent arbiter. Upon examining each of these issues in greater detail, we conclude the paper with a blueprint for how universities can enhance their ethical leadership when engaging with agri-food firms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.