Introduction
India ranks as the world’s leading milk producer, with buffaloes contributing nearly half of the total output (BAHS, 2024). Among these, the Murrah buffalo is renowned for its high milk yield, adaptability to varying climatic conditions, and economic importance in the dairy sector (Marai and Haeeb,2009; Matera et al. 2022). Despite advances in nutrition, reproduction, and disease management, morphological traits of the udder remain one of the most decisive factors influencing the quantity, quality, and efficiency of milk production. Udder morphometry encompassing its shape, dimensions, and teat structure not only determines the storage capacity and ease of milk evacuation but also has a direct bearing on udder health and susceptibility to mastitis (Prasad et al. 2010; Danish et al. 2018). Shapes such as bowl and globular are generally considered ideal due to their symmetrical quarters, well-developed suspensory ligaments, and balanced teat placement, which collectively support high yields and reduce the risk of injury (Abdullah et al. 2013; Raju et al. 2022). Conversely, pendulous udders often predispose animals to mechanical injury and environmental contamination, while goaty udders, with reduced cisternal volume, tend to limit production potential (Ibrahim 2017). Teat morphology plays an equally critical role in milking efficiency and udder health. Traits such as teat length, diameter, placement, and shape influence the rate of milk flow, completeness of udder emptying, and milking comfort (Poudel et al. 2022; Kaur et al. 2017). Cylindrical teats are typically associated with optimal milking performance, whereas irregular shapes, such as pear or funnel, may impede milk let-down or predispose to teat-end hyperkeratosis. Previous studies have explored the relationship between udder conformation and milk production in various dairy breeds (Jaayid et al. 2011; Prasad et al. 2010; Poudel et al. 2022). However, comprehensive evaluations in Murrah buffaloes under organized Indian dairy farm conditions, particularly involving both udder and teat morphometry across lactation stages, remain limited. The present study was undertaken to classify Murrah buffaloes based on udder and teat shapes, record and compare detailed morphometric measurements across these categories and to evaluate their association with key milk production parameters from early to mid-lactation.
Results
Effect of udder shape on milk yield
Udder shape had numerical yet non-significant effect on all milk yield parameters. Globular udders recorded the highest total yield (1950.99 ± 127.95 kg) and peak yield (15.39 ± 0.57 kg), followed closely by bowl udders (TY 1890.91 ± 59.83 kg; PY 14.60 ± 0.27 kg). Pendulous udders showed intermediate values, whereas goaty udders produced the lowest yields (TY 1534.57 ± 112.68 kg; PY 12.40 ± 0.54 kg). The superior performance of globular and bowl udders may be attributed to symmetrical quarter development, well-supported suspensory ligaments, and balanced teat placement, allowing for greater cisternal capacity and efficient milk evacuation. The descriptive statistics of effect of udder shape on milk yield are presented in below given Table 1.
Table 1
Effect of udder shape on milk yield in Murrah buffaloes. (Mean ± SE)
Udder Shape | ELMY (Kg) | MIDLMY (Kg) | Total Yield (Kg) | Peak Yield (Kg) |
|---|
Bowl (N = 20) | 1014.29 ± 26.68 | 982.43 ± 38.37 | 1890.91 ± 59.83 | 14.60 ± 0.27 |
Pendulous (N = 11) | 947.60 ± 68.41 | 807.76 ± 63.09 | 1755.36 ± 122.57 | 13.71 ± 0.89 |
Goaty (N = 7) | 912.43 ± 77.21 | 789.50 ± 78.40 | 1701.93 ± 152.05 | 13.61 ± 0.94 |
Globular (N = 7) | 1016.13 ± 54.22 | 934.86 ± 79.10 | 1950.99 ± 127.95 | 15.39 ± 0.57 |
Overall (N = 45) | 982.43 ± 24.97 | 855.30 ± 28.66 | 1837.72 ± 50.36 | 14.35 ± 0.30 |
P- value | 0.452 | 0.413 | 0.392 | 0.256 |
ELMY- Early lactation milk yield; MIDLMY- Mid-lactation milk yield; TY- Total Yield; PY- Peak yield
Effect of teat shape on milk yield
Teat shape also significantly influenced production traits (p < 0.05), with cylindrical teats yielding the highest ELMY (1049.22 ± 26.87 kg) and TY (1975.05 ± 60.90 kg), followed by conical teats (TY 1836.24 ± 73.42 kg). Pear-shaped teats recorded the lowest yields (TY 1420.13 ± 81.54 kg). The superior performance of cylindrical teats may be linked to optimal teat canal dimensions and uniform milk flow during machine milking. The descriptive statistics of effect of teat shape on milk yield are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Effect of teat shape on milk yield in Murrah buffaloes. (Mean ± SE)
Teat Shape | ELMY (Kg) | MIDLMY (Kg) | Total Yield (Kg) | Peak Yield (Kg) |
|---|
Conical (N = 28) | 861.90 ± 90.80 | 786.37 ± 93.02 | 1648.27 ± 181.87 | 12.80 ± 1.33 |
Cylindrical (N = 52) | 1049.22 ± 26.87 | 925.82 ± 47.01 | 1975.05 ± 60.90 | 14.84 ± 0.32 |
Funnel (N = 52) | 1005.99 ± 32.19 | 814.01 ± 36.27 | 1820.00 ± 61.98 | 14.68 ± 0.26 |
Bottle (N = 24) | 992.35 ± 56.09 | 903.03 ± 69.96 | 1895.38 ± 121.18 | 14.65 ± 0.45 |
Pear (N = 24) | 917.35 ± 104.44 | 824.62 ± 119.35 | 1741.97 ± 218.96 | 14.10 ± 1.35 |
Overall (N = 10) | 982.43 ± 24.97 | 855.30 ± 28.66 | 1837.72 ± 50.36 | 14.35 ± 0.30 |
P- value | 0.138 | 0.452 | 0.289 | 0.259 |
ELMY- Early lactation milk yield; MIDLMY- Mid-lactation milk yield; TY- Total Yield; PY- Peak yield
Udder morphometry across udder shapes
Significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed among udder shapes for udder height (UH), udder depth fore (UDF), and udder depth rear (UDR) (Table 3). Globular and bowl udders exhibited the greatest dimensions, indicating higher storage capacity. Goaty udders had the smallest measurements across most parameters. Udder width (UW) was also significantly greater in globular udders, reflecting balanced lateral development.
Table 3
Udder morphometric traits across different udder shapes
UM (cm) | Bowl (N = 20) | Pendulous (N = 11) | Goaty (N = 7) | Globular (N = 7) | Overall (N = 45) | P-value |
|---|
UW | 24.43 ± 0.29a | 25.21 ± 0.42a | 23.92 ± 0.35a | 25.40 ± 0.46a | 24.69 ± 0.19 | 0.060 |
UH | 55.62 ± 0.86b | 54.79 ± 0.31b | 54.85 ± 0.39b | 50.74 ± 0.51a | 54.54 ± 0.41 | 0.001 |
UDF | 19.18 ± 0.20a | 19.53 ± 0.25a | 20.90 ± 0.32b | 21.96 ± 0.23c | 19.96 ± 0.14 | 0.000 |
UDR | 26.04 ± 0.35a | 27.18 ± 0.47a | 26.33 ± 0.36a | 26.84 ± 0.58a | 26.48 ± 0.22 | 0.203 |
Values have been presented as Mean ± Standard Error and values with different letter as superscript differs significantly (P < 0.05); UW- udder width; UH- udder height; UDF- udder depth fore; UDR- udder depth rear
Teat length, diameter, and inter-teat distances
Morphometric measurements for teat length, teat diameter, and inter-teat distances are presented in Table 4. Front and rear teat lengths (TLF, TLR) were significantly longer (p < 0.01) in globular udders, while goaty udders had the shortest teats. Teat diameters (TDF, TDR) followed a similar pattern. Distance between front teats (DFT) and rear teats (DRT) was greatest in bowl udders, which may facilitate easier access for machine milking and reduce cluster slippage.
Table 4
Teat length, teat diameter, and inter-teat distances in Murrah buffaloes
(cm) | Bowl (N = 20) | Pendulous (N = 11) | Goaty (N = 7) | Globular (N = 7) | Overall (N = 45) | P-value |
|---|
TLF | 8.02 ± 0.15b | 6.99 ± 0.17a | 7.71 ± 0.16b | 8.33 ± 0.30b | 7.77 ± 0.10 | 0.000 |
TLR | 10.06 ± 0.16b | 8.77 ± 0.24a | 10.90 ± 0.34c | 10.01 ± 0.31b | 9.87 ± 0.12 | 0.000 |
TDF | 3.34 ± 0.48b | 2.98 ± 0.41a | 3.44 ± 0.38bc | 3.57 ± 0.41c | 3.30 ± 0.48 | 0.000 |
TDR | 3.86 ± 0.59b | 3.58 ± 0.62a | 4.13 ± 0.54c | 4.06 ± 0.45bc | 3.86 ± 0.60 | 0.000 |
DFT | 14.94 ± 0.30ab | 16.14 ± 0.35b | 17.63 ± 0.37c | 14.53 ± 0.62a | 15.59 ± 0.20 | 0.000 |
DRT | 9.50 ± 0.22a | 9.84 ± 0.30a | 11.10 ± 0.36c | 10.20 ± 0.39ab | 9.94 ± 0.15 | 0.003 |
Values have been presented as Mean ± Standard Error and values with different letter as superscript differs significantly (P < 0.05); TLF- teat length fore teat; TLR- teat length rear; TDF- teat diameter fore teat; TDR- teat diameter rear teat; DFT- distance between fore teats; DRT- distance between rear teats
These results align with the observations of Danish et al. (2018), who noted that optimal teat spacing is important for efficient attachment of milking clusters and for minimizing milking time.
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield
Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the associations between milk yield (MY) and a series of udder morphometric parameters measured on 45 animals. The results are presented in Table 5. Milk yield demonstrated significant positive correlations with several udder morphometric traits. Udder width (UW) exhibited a moderate, positive association with milk yield (r = 0.237, p < 0.01), implying that animals with greater udder width tend to produce higher volumes of milk. Udder front depth (UDF) also correlated positively with milk yield (r = 0.156, p < 0.01), whereas udder height (UH) showed no substantial relationship (r = -0.061). Other key parameters such as teat lengths (TLF, TLR; r = 0.232–0.203, p < 0.01), and teat distances (TDF, TDR; r = 0.200–0.117, p < 0.01–0.05) were also positively associated with milk yield, suggesting that robust measures in these dimensions may support improved mammary capacity and milk flow.
Table 5
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield
Correlations (N = 45) |
|---|
| | MY | UW | UH | UDF | UDR | TLF | TLR | TDF | TDR | DFT | DRT |
MY | 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
UW | .237** | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
UH | -0.061 | 0.002 | 1 | | | | | | | | |
UDF | .156** | .410** | − .266** | 1 | | | | | | | |
UDR | 0.035 | .291** | .189** | .255** | 1 | | | | | | |
TLF | .232** | .225** | -0.057 | .229** | 0.046 | 1 | | | | | |
TLR | .203** | .188** | -0.062 | .314** | 0.058 | .739** | 1 | | | | |
TDF | .200** | .149** | − .125* | .417** | .179** | .712** | .698** | 1 | | | |
TDR | .117* | -0.042 | -0.108 | .310** | .171** | .565** | .685** | .779** | 1 | | |
DFT | − .125* | 0.029 | .136* | 0.066 | 0.036 | -349** | − .271** | − .218** | − .116* | 1 | |
DRT | − .173** | -0.058 | -0.032 | .173** | − .194** | − .504** | − .306** | − .232** | − .211** | .699** | 1 |
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
MY- milk yield(kg); UW- udder width(cm); UH- udder height(cm); UDF- udder depth fore(cm); UDR- udder depth rear(cm); TLF- teat length fore teat(cm); TLR- teat length rear teat(cm); TDF- teat diameter fore teat(cm); TDR- teat diameter rear teat(cm); DFT- distance between fore teats(cm); DRT- distance between rear teats(cm)
In contrast, some morphometric parameters, such as distance between front teats (DFT; r = -0.125, p < 0.05) and distance between rear teats (DRT; r = -0.173, p < 0.01), were negatively associated with milk yield, indicating that larger separation between teats may be disadvantageous for productive efficiency. Strong intercorrelations were noted among morphometric traits themselves, for example, a robust positive relationship between fore and rear teat length (TLF and TLR, r = 0.739, p < 0.01), and between front and rear teat distances (TDF and TDR, r = 0.779, p < 0.01), reflecting a coordinated pattern of udder and teat development.
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among bowl udders
The correlation analysis among 20 animals with bowl-shaped udders revealed notable relationships between milk yield and udder and teat morphometric parameters (Table 6). Milk yield (MY) was positively and significantly correlated with udder width (UW; r = 0.252, p < 0.01), udder rear depth (UDR; r = 0.227, p < 0.01), and udder front depth (UDF; r = 0.169, p < 0.05). This indicates that wider and deeper udders tend to produce more milk in this udder shape category. Udder height (UH) showed virtually no association with milk yield (r = 0.010, p > 0.05), suggesting that vertical udder dimensions may be less influential on productivity for bowl-shaped udders. Teat lengths, including fore teat length (TLF) and rear teat length (TLR), did not show significant correlations with milk yield (r = 0.125 and 0.094 respectively, p > 0.05), although they were highly correlated with one another (r = 0.804, p < 0.01), reflecting symmetrical teat development. Teat distance parameters, such as teat distance front (TDF) and teat distance rear (TDR), were positively correlated with udder depth traits but lacked significant direct association with milk yield. Conversely, distances between front teats (DFT) and rear teats (DRT) showed weak or negative correlations with milk yield and some udder traits, with DRT negatively correlated with udder rear depth (r = -0.260, p < 0.01) and teat traits, suggesting that larger spacing between teats may reduce milking efficiency or udder support in this group. These findings corroborate Prasad et al. (2010), who reported that greater udder dimensions are positively correlated with higher milk yield. Larger cisternal volume likely enables increased milk accumulation between milking sessions.
Table 6
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among bowl udders
Correlations (n = 20) |
|---|
| | MY | UW | UH | UDF | UDR | TLF | TLR | TDF | TDR | DFT | DRT |
MY | 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
UW | .252** | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
UH | 0.010 | 0.098 | 1 | | | | | | | | |
UDF | .169* | .536** | − .278** | 1 | | | | | | | |
UDR | .227** | .441** | .241** | .340** | 1 | | | | | | |
TLF | 0.125 | .270** | 0.072 | .225** | .436** | 1 | | | | | |
TLR | 0.094 | .270** | 0.090 | .346** | .392** | .804** | 1 | | | | |
TDF | 0.137 | 0.148 | -0.022 | .278** | .357** | .660** | .605** | 1 | | | |
TDR | 0.050 | 0.003 | -0.036 | .260** | .215* | .592** | .770** | .750** | 1 | | |
DFT | -0.067 | .217** | 0.153 | .298** | -0.055 | -0.125 | -0.040 | 0.109 | 0.020 | 1 | |
DRT | -0.126 | 0.092 | -0.083 | .184* | − .260** | − .450** | − .287** | -0.091 | − .181* | .695** | 1 |
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
MY- milk yield(kg); UW- udder width(cm); UH- udder height(cm); UDF- udder depth fore(cm); UDR- udder depth rear(cm); TLF- teat length fore teat(cm); TLR- teat length rear teat(cm); TDF- teat diameter fore teat(cm); TDR- teat diameter rear teat(cm); DFT- distance between fore teats(cm); DRT- distance between rear teats(cm)
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among pendulous udders
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine relationships between milk yield (MY) and udder morphometric parameters in pendulous-udder animals (N = 11) as presented in Table 7. Milk yield showed a significant positive correlation with udder width (UW; r = 0.328, p < 0.01), fore teat length (TLF; r = 0.356, p < 0.01), rear teat length (TLR; r = 0.241, p < 0.05), udder front depth (UDF; r = 0.241, p < 0.05), and teat distances, including teat distance front (TDF; r = 0.225, p < 0.05). This suggests that animals with wider udders, longer teats, and deeper front udders tend to produce more milk among pendulous-udder types. In contrast, udder height (UH) was significantly negatively correlated with milk yield (r = -0.439, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with multiple other udder and teat measurements, implying that increased vertical udder height is associated with lower milk yield in this group. Rear udder depth (UDR) showed a positive but nonsignificant association with milk yield (r = -0.181, p > 0.05).
Table 7
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among pendulous udders
Correlations (n = 11) |
|---|
| | MY | UW | UH | UDF | UDR | TLF | TLR | TDF | TDR | DFT | DRT |
MY | 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
UW | .328** | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
UH | − .439** | − .704** | 1 | | | | | | | | |
UDF | .241* | .386** | − .432** | 1 | | | | | | | |
UDR | -0.181 | 0.090 | .265* | 0.152 | 1 | | | | | | |
TLF | .356** | .355** | − .476** | .497** | − .272* | 1 | | | | | |
TLR | .241* | .351** | − .491** | .412** | -0.109 | .712** | 1 | | | | |
TDF | .225* | .318** | − .248* | .675** | 0.141 | .792** | .691** | 1 | | | |
TDR | 0.139 | 0.057 | -0.111 | .506** | .251* | .503** | .646** | .752** | 1 | | |
DFT | 0.095 | .252* | -0.162 | -0.188 | -0.181 | − .403** | − .425** | − .547** | − .407** | 1 | |
DRT | -0.043 | -0.061 | 0.010 | -0.089 | − .424** | − .548** | − .368** | − .563** | − .432** | .597** | 1 |
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
MY- milk yield(kg); UW- udder width(cm); UH- udder height(cm); UDF- udder depth fore(cm); UDR- udder depth rear(cm); TLF- teat length fore teat(cm); TLR- teat length rear teat(cm); TDF- teat diameter fore teat(cm); TDR- teat diameter rear teat(cm); DFT- distance between fore teats(cm); DRT- distance between rear teats(cm)
Strong interrelations were observed among the morphometric variables themselves. For example, udder height (UH) was strongly negatively correlated with udder width (r = -0.704, p < 0.01) and teat lengths (TLF, TLR; r = -0.476 to -0.491, p < 0.01), indicating inverse morphometric adaptations in pendulous udders. Teat lengths correlated positively with teat distances, especially fore teat length with teat distance front (r = 0.792, p < 0.01). Teat spacing measures such as distance between front teats (DFT) and rear teats (DRT) were negatively associated with teat lengths and udder widths and showed no significant correlation with milk yield.
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among goaty udders
The correlation analysis for animals with goaty-shaped udders (n = 7) is summarized in Table 8. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the relationships between milk yield (MY) and various udder morphometric parameters. Milk yield exhibited significant positive correlations with udder width (UW; r = 0.415, p < 0.01), fore teat length (TLF; r = 0.344, p < 0.05), rear teat length (TLR; r = 0.370, p < 0.01), and teat distance front (TDF; r = 0.377, p < 0.01). These findings indicate that wider udders, longer teats, and greater spacing between the front teats favor increased milk production in goaty udders. Udder height (UH) showed no significant direct correlation with milk yield (r = -0.041, p > 0.05), but was strongly positively correlated with udder width (r = 0.594, p < 0.01) and moderately with udder front depth (UDF; r = 0.299, p < 0.05). Conversely, teat distance rear (TDR) was not significantly correlated with milk yield (r = 0.197), but strongly negatively correlated with udder front depth (r = -0.411, p < 0.01) and udder height (r = -0.712, p < 0.01), suggesting an inverse relationship between specific udder dimensions and teat spacing posteriorly. Distances between front teats (DFT) and rear teats (DRT) demonstrated significant negative correlations with milk yield (DFT: r = -0.422, p < 0.01; DRT: r = -0.351, p < 0.05) and with several udder and teat traits, including udder width and teat lengths. This suggests that wider spacing between teats, particularly at front and rear, may negatively influence milk production in animals with goaty udders. Strong positive intercorrelations were observed among teat lengths and teat distances (e.g., TLF-TLR: r = 0.458, p < 0.01; TDF-TLR: r = 0.787, p < 0.01), reflecting well-coordinated teat development.
Table 8
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among goaty udders
Correlations(n = 7) |
|---|
| | MY | UW | UH | UDF | UDR | TLF | TLR | TDF | TDR | DFT | DRT |
MY | 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
UW | .415** | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
UH | -0.041 | .594** | 1 | | | | | | | | |
UDF | 0.190 | .492** | .299* | 1 | | | | | | | |
UDR | 0.085 | 0.157 | 0.076 | -0.163 | 1 | | | | | | |
TLF | .344* | .592** | 0.102 | -0.280 | 0.273 | 1 | | | | | |
TLR | .370** | .319* | − .370** | 0.109 | -0.070 | .458** | 1 | | | | |
TDF | .377** | .326* | − .480** | 0.151 | .332* | .459** | .787** | 1 | | | |
TDR | 0.197 | -0.112 | − .712** | − .411** | .419** | .406** | .469** | .739** | 1 | | |
DFT | − .422** | − .817** | − .350* | − .532** | 0.196 | − .465** | − .658** | − .389** | 0.161 | 1 | |
DRT | − .351* | − .598** | − .358* | .329* | -0.210 | − .886** | − .330* | -0.171 | -0.127 | .514** | 1 |
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
MY- milk yield(kg); UW- udder width(cm); UH- udder height(cm); UDF- udder depth fore(cm); UDR- udder depth rear(cm); TLF- teat length fore teat(cm); TLR- teat length rear teat(cm); TDF- teat diameter fore teat(cm); TDR- teat diameter rear teat(cm); DFT- distance between fore teats(cm); DRT- distance between rear teats(cm)
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among globular udders
The correlation coefficients presented in Table 9 illustrate associations between milk yield and multiple udder morphometric traits in animals with globular udder conformation. Milk yield showed a weak and nonsignificant correlation with udder width (UW; r = 0.078) and udder height (UH; r = -0.231), indicating that these linear dimensions of the udder are not predictive of milk yield in this category. A small positive correlation was observed between milk yield and udder front depth (UDF; r = 0.058), while udder rear depth (UDR) had a moderate, significant positive correlation with udder front depth (r = 0.590, p < 0.01) but was positively correlated with milk yield (r = 0.174), though not statistically significant. Milk yield exhibited significant positive correlations with teat morphometric traits, particularly rear teat length (TLR; r = 0.302, p < 0.05) and fore teat length (TLF; r = 0.248), the latter being positive but not reaching conventional significance. Teat distances such as teat distance front (TDF; r = 0.223) and teat distance rear (TDR; r = 0.261) also showed positive but nonsignificant correlations with milk yield. Notably, several udder and teat traits were significantly intercorrelated. For instance, udder front depth (UDF) and udder rear depth (UDR) were strongly correlated (r = 0.590, p < 0.01), reflecting structural integrity. Teat lengths (TLF and TLR) correlated highly with each other (r = 0.913, p < 0.01) and with teat distances (TDF, TDR), showing coordinated teat development. Traits such as udder height (UH) were negatively correlated with teat lengths (TLF: r = -0.530, TLR: r = -0.587, p < 0.01), suggesting an inverse morphological relationship between vertical udder dimension and teat length in globular udders.
Table 9
Correlation of udder morphometric parameters with milk yield among globular udders
Correlations(n = 7) |
|---|
| | MY | UW | UH | UDF | UDR | TLF | TLR | TDF | TDR | DFT | DRT |
MY | 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
UW | 0.078 | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
UH | -0.231 | 0.108 | 1 | | | | | | | | |
UDF | 0.058 | 0.116 | 0.162 | 1 | | | | | | | |
UDR | 0.174 | 0.185 | 0.226 | .590** | 1 | | | | | | |
TLF | 0.248 | -0.063 | − .530** | 0.210 | − .507** | 1 | | | | | |
TLR | .302* | -0.068 | − .587** | .343* | -0.251 | .913** | 1 | | | | |
TDF | 0.223 | 0.015 | − .424** | .553** | -0.140 | .844** | .840** | 1 | | | |
TDR | 0.261 | -0.226 | -0.196 | .646** | -0.111 | .673** | .624** | .873** | 1 | | |
DFT | -0.204 | -0.243 | .563** | 0.069 | .419** | − .626** | − .572** | − .676** | − .443** | 1 | |
DRT | -0.267 | -0.071 | .671** | 0.060 | 0.278 | − .560** | − .587** | − .650** | − .425** | .946** | 1 |
MY- milk yield(kg); UW- udder width(cm); UH- udder height(cm); UDF- udder depth fore(cm); UDR- udder depth rear(cm); TLF- teat length fore teat(cm); TLR- teat length rear teat(cm); TDF- teat diameter fore teat(cm); TDR- teat diameter rear teat(cm); DFT- distance between fore teats(cm); DRT- distance between rear teats(cm)
Distances between front teats (DFT) and rear teats (DRT) were negatively correlated with milk yield (r = -0.204 and − 0.267, respectively) though nonsignificant. They were positively correlated with udder height (r = 0.563 and 0.671, respectively, p < 0.01), demonstrating that wider teat spacing tends to occur with increased vertical udder dimension.
Discussion
The findings of this investigation provide valuable insights into how specific udder and teat morphometric characteristics shape the lactational performance of Murrah buffaloes managed under uniform farm systems. Analysis revealed that Udder shape had a clear numerical influence on milk yield, with globular and bowl-shaped udders producing higher total and peak yields compared to pendulous and goaty udders. Although differences were not statistically significant, the superiority of globular and bowl udders may be attributed to symmetrical quarter development, stronger suspensory ligaments, and better teat placement, all of which contribute to increased cisternal capacity and efficient evacuation of milk. Similar observations regarding the positive association of well-developed udders with productivity have been reported earlier in buffaloes (Abdullah et al. 2013; Bharadwaj et al. 2007). On the other hand, goaty udders, characterized by uneven quarters and poor development, were consistently associated with the lowest yields, supporting earlier findings that such udder types are less desirable for milk production (Bhuiyan, 2004). Conversely, Jaayid et al. (2011) associated pendulous udders with reduced milking efficiency and higher susceptibility to mastitis. This trend, though not always statistically significant, underscores the functional advantages conferred by balanced udder quarters, robust suspensory ligaments, and optimal teat arrangement, which collectively support efficient milk storage and evacuation. Teat morphology further emerged as a pivotal determinant of performance; teat shape had a significant (p < 0.05) effect on yield parameters. Cylindrical teats showed the highest early lactation yield and total yield, followed by conical teats, while pear-shaped teats recorded the lowest performance. The superior productivity of cylindrical teats may be related to optimal teat canal morphology and uniformity, which support efficient and consistent milk flow during machine milking. Similar results were found by Ranjintha et al. (2021); Bharadwaj (2007); Abdullah et al. (2013); Poudel et al. (2022), who found that cylindrical teats facilitate more efficient milk extraction. Similarly, Kaur et al. (2017) reported that non-uniform teat shapes, such as pear or funnel, may hinder milking and increase teat-end keratin deposition. The symmetrical and uniform architecture of cylindrical teats is likely beneficial for the consistent flow of milk and complete udder emptying during machine milking. By contrast, less regular shapes such as pear and conical were associated with reduced milk extraction, which could be due to anatomical constraints affecting milk ejection or residual retention within the mammary gland. Among morphometric traits, udder width and udder depths (both front and rear) were positively correlated with milk yield, while inter-teat distances (DFT and DRT) showed negative correlations. In the pooled data, udder width exhibited a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.237, p < 0.01), while rear teat distance showed a significant negative correlation (r = − 0.173, p < 0.01). This indicates that wider udders with greater depth are associated with higher cisternal capacity and more secretory tissue, whereas excessive teat separation may hinder efficient machine milking and lead to incomplete evacuation. These observations align with previous studies linking udder size and morphology with milk yield potential in buffaloes and cattle (Jaayid et al. 2011; Danish et al. 2018). Detailed morphometric correlations in this study reinforced the importance of dimensional attributes such as udder width, fore and rear depths, and teat lengths, all of which showed positive associations with milk production, and these findings are in agreement with the findings of Jayyid et al. (2011). Importantly, excessive separation between teats, evaluated both at the fore and rear, negatively correlated with yield, potentially reflecting suboptimal cluster attachment or increased risk of inefficient milking. The effect of these relationships varied according to udder shape subgroup, suggesting that effective selection must consider not just individual traits but their coordinated expression within the context of overall udder architecture. For bowl-shaped udders, strong positive intercorrelations among udder depths, teat lengths, and teat distances indicate coordinated udder and teat conformation in bowl-shaped udders, emphasizing the structural integrity of the mammary system. For bowl-shaped udders, udder width and depth are important positive predictors of milk yield (Table 3), whereas teat lengths (both fore and rear) show no direct significant influence (Table 4). The balance of teat spacing also appears important, with wider spacing potentially detrimental to production efficiency. For goaty udders, udder width and teat lengths positively influence milk yield, while increased spacing between teats, especially measured as distance between front and rear teats, is negatively correlated with milk production (Table 8). In conclusion, these findings emphasize the importance of balanced udder and teat morphology for optimized lactation performance in this udder shape category. From a breeding and management perspective, these findings advocate for the routine integration of udder and teat morphometry into genetic selection and animal evaluation protocols. Focusing on morphometric traits such as increased udder width, balanced depths, moderate teat dimensions, and maintaining optimal inter-teat spacing, particularly in selecting for globular or bowl conformation and cylindrical teats, emerges as a practical and cost-effective route to improving milk yield and mammary health. Particular attention should also be directed toward managing third-parity buffaloes, as this group demonstrated maximal yield, reflecting optimal mammary gland maturity.
A
In conclusion, the study emphasizes that prioritizing favorable udder and teat conformation in Murrah buffaloes is likely to yield substantial gains in productivity and operational efficiency on Indian dairy farms. Such an approach is well-positioned to enhance not only the economic returns for producers but also sustain long-term animal health by reducing the incidence of milking-related disorders and inefficiencies. This strategy thus presents a holistic pathway for progressive herd improvement rooted in evidence-based structural evaluation.