The Nutritionist 2018 - Amazon S3 · 2018-11-19 · Supplemental Fatty Acids in lactating cow...

The Nutritionist 2018

Live and Recorded Ruminant Nutrition WebinarsMore information athttps://agmodelsystems.com/webinars/

Multi-Language Advanced Nutrition Webinars

Email: [email protected]

https://agmodelsystems.com/webinars/

mailto:[email protected]

Supplemental Fatty Acids in lactating cow diets:

myth and reality

12 September 20189:00 am EDT6:00 pm EDTDr Adam Lock

Michigan State University

2018 © Board of Trustees of Michigan State University

Supplemental Fatty Acids in Lactating Cow Diets:

Myth and Reality

AMTS Webinar

September 12, 2015

Adam L. LockDepartment of Animal Science



Impact of Dietary Fatty Acids on Digestion,

Metabolism, and Nutrient Use in Lactating Dairy Cows

16:0; 18:0; 18:1; 18:2; 18:3

Rumen

MammaryGland

Small Intestine

Adipose

Liver

Effects on DMIFA Digestibility

Use of FA for other puposes

– Energy and/or glucose sparing

– Delivery of n-3 + n-6 FABH or UFA

Shifts in BH pathwaysEffects on microbial populations

Effects of NDF/StarchEffects on NDF/Starch Kd

MilkFat / Lactose

Balance of 18-C + de novo FADirect effect of specific FA

MFD intermediates[] milk fat synthesis

[] BW/BCSê

ê


Recent Focus on Palmitic, Stearic, and Oleic Acids

• C18:0, under typical feeding situations, is the predominant FA available for absorption by the dairy cow (due to BH)

• Represent the majority of FA in milk fat and adipose tissue

• Predominant FA in the 3 main categories of dietary FA supplements

Palmitic acid (C16:0) Stearic acid (C18:0) Oleic acid (C18:1)

ADIPOSEADIPOSE

MAMMARY

GLAND

60%90%


Recent Focus on Palmitic, Stearic, and Oleic Acids

• All three FA are important for dairy cow metabolism

• Is there an “ideal” ratio among C16:0, C18:0, and C18:1 to optimize their utilization

• Interactions with other dietary and animal factors

Palmitic acid (C16:0) Stearic acid (C18:0) Oleic acid (C18:1)

ADIPOSEADIPOSE

MAMMARY

GLAND

60%90%


Saturated free FA Supplements

Fatty Acid, g/100 g

Ca-saltPFAD

MixC16:0-

enriched

C14:0 2.0 2.7 1.6

C16:0 51.0 32.8 89.7

C18:0 4.0 51.4 1.0

C18:1 (n-9) 36.0 5.8 5.9

C18:2 (n-6) 7.0 0.8 1.3

3 Major Categories of FA Supplements Available

• None of these FA supplements were designed with the cow in mind!

• All simply took the ’best’ by-product for the respective manufacturing technology


Effects of Supplemental Fatty Acid on Lactating

Dairy Cows: Myth and Reality• Will discuss and answer (hopefully) questions related to:

- Do supplemental FA impact NFD digestibility?

- Do all dietary FA have the same digestibility?

- Does the effect of fat supplements on FA digestibility matter?

- Do all sources of supplemental FA have the same impact on yield of milk and milk components?

- Do cows at different levels of milk production respond differently to blends of supplemental FA?

- Can different FA impact energy partitioning?

- Should we feed supplemental FA to early lactation dairy cows?

➢ Are all fat supplements the same?


Effect of Dietary

FA on NDF and FA

Digestibility

16:0; 18:0; 18:1; 18:2; 18:3

Rumen

MammaryGland

Small Intestine

Adipose

Liver







MilkFat / Lactose



[] BW/BCSê

ê


Effect of Fat Supplementation on ttNDFd

Weld and Armentano. 2017 J. Dairy Sci. 100:1766–1779

Slide courtesy of Lou Armentano, University of Wisconsin

Regression model

Least squares means model


Effect of Altering the FA Profile of Supplemental Fats

on Apparent Total Tract NDF Digestibility

• Supplement blends fed at 1.5% DM

• Blends of 3 commercially available FA supplements:- C16:0-enriched free FA supplement

- C16:0 and C18:0 free FA supplement

- Ca-salt palm FA

• Blended in different ratios to alter content of C16:0, C18:0, and C18:1

• 24 cows in a 4 x 4 Latin square with 21 d periods

42

43

44

45

46

Control 80% C16:0 40% C16:0 +40% C18:0

45% C16:0 +35% C18:1

ND

F d

ige

stib

ility

, %

0.9%

-1.3%

0.8%

de Souza et al. 2018. J. Dairy Sci. 101:172–185


P valuesFR = 0.49, Peak < 0.01

FR x Peak = 0.37

y = 0.010x + 38.4R² = 0.54P < 0.01

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000

ND

F D

ige

stib

ility

, %

C16:0 intake, g/d

Effect of C16:0 Intake on ttNDFd

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ND

F D

ige

stib

ility

, %

Week Postpartum

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA

de Souza & Lock(ADSA Abstract, 2017)


P valueFR < 0.01


History of My Own Thinking

on FA Digestibility


50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Stu

dy

Ad

just

ed

To

tal F

A D

ige

stib

ility

(%

)

Total FA Duodenal Flow (g/d)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

0 200 400 600 800

Stu

dy

Ad

just

ed

C1

8:0

Dig

est

ibili

ty, %

Duodenal Flow of C18:0, g/d

Boerman et al. 2015. J. Dairy Sci. 98:8889–8903

Apparent Intestinal Digestibility of Fatty Acids


y = 90.32 - 0.036xR² = 0.52

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

Tota

l FA

Dig

esti

bili

ty (

%)

Total FA Intake (g/d)

y = 88.35 - 0.01xR² = 0.48

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

Tota

l FA

dig

esti

bili

ty (

%)

Total FA intake (g/d)

Boerman et al. 2017. J. Dairy Sci. 100:2729-2738

Boerman et al. 2015.J. Dairy Sci. 98:8889–8903

Dose Response C18:0 Supplementation Study

Dose Response C16:0 Supplementation Study

Intestinal DigestibilityMeta Analysis

Apparent Intestinal Digestibility of Fatty Acids

Rico et al. 2017.J. Animal Sci. 95:436-446

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

0 500 1000 1500

Stu

dy

Ad

just

ed T

ota

l FA

Dig

esti

bili

ty (

%)

Total FA Intake (g/d)


Effect of Altering the FA Profile of Supplemental Fats

on Apparent Total Tract FA Digestibility

PvalueFAtreatment=0.01

60

65

70

75

80

85

Control 80%C16:0 40%C16:0+40%C18:0

45%C16:0+35%C18:1

18-carbonFAdigestibility,%

b

a a a

-8%

60

65

70

75

80

85

Control 80%C16:0 40%C16:0+40%C18:0

45%C16:0+35%C18:1

16-carbonFAdigestibility,%

aa

b

c

-4%

-12%

60

65

70

75

80

85

Control 80%C16:0 40%C16:0+40%C18:0

45%C16:0+35%C18:1

TotalFAdigestibility,%

ab

b

c

2.0%

-10%

All P value for FA treatment = 0.01



Effect of Supplement Profile: FA Intake vs. FA Absorbed

Soyhulls Diet Cottonseed Diet

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

300 400 500 600 700

Sup

ple

me

nta

l FA

Ab

sorb

ed

, g/d

Supplemental FA intake, g/d

PA PA+SA PA+OA

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

200 300 400 500 600 700

Sup

ple

me

nta

l FA

Ab

sorb

ed

, g/d


PA PA+SA PA+OA


slope = 0.75

slope = 0.64

slope = 0.55

slope = 0.81

slope = 0.70

slope = 0.56


Effect of Supplement Profile: FA Intake vs. FA AbsorbedCa-Salt Palm Oil vs. Palmitic Acid-Enriched Triglyceride

• The slopes (i.e., true digestibility of supplemental fat) were 0.62, and 0.81 for PA-TG, and Ca-FA, respectively

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Sup

ple

me

nta

l FA

ab

sorb

ed

, g/d


PA-TG Ca-FA

de Souza & Lock (ADSA Abstract, 2016)


Linear effect: P-value = <0.01

Quadratic effect: P-value =

0.12

0 vs. 60 effect: P-value = <0.01

55

60

65

70

0 20 40 60

Tota

l tra

ct F

A d

ige

stib

ility

, %

Oleic Acid Infusion, g/d

8.0%

Abomasal Infusion of Oleic Acid Improves

Total Tract Fatty Acid Digestibility

Prom & Lock (ADSA Abstract, 2018)


Long Term Effects of Commercially-Available C16:0 and C16:0 + C18:0 Supplements on NDF and FA Digestibility

• 3X3 incomplete Latin Square study with two 5 wk periods

• CON: Control diet (no supplemental fat)

• PA+SA: Control supplemented with 1.5% DM C16:0 and C18:0 FA supplement (33% C16:0; 53% C18:0; 5% C18:1)

• PA: Control supplemented with 1.5% DM C16:0 FA supplement (84% C16:0; 4% C18:0; 9% C18:1)

35.0

37.0

39.0

41.0

43.0

45.0

CON PA+SA PA

ND

F D

ige

stib

ility

, %

Treatment

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

CON PA+SA PA

Tota

l FA

Dig

est

ibili

ty,

%

0

100

200

300

400

500

200 300 400 500 600 700

Sup

ple

me

nta

l FA

Ab

sorb

ed

, g/d


PA PA+SACON vs. FAT PA+SA vs. PA

0.12 <0.01

CON vs. FAT PA+SA vs. PA

<0.01 <0.01

Western, de Souza, & Lock (ADSA 2018)

slope = 0.73

slope = 0.62


Long Term Effects of Commercially-Available C16:0 and C16:0 + C18:0 Supplements on GE Digestibility and DE Intake


0.75 <0.01


0.19 <0.05


82

84

86

88

90

92

94

CON PA+SA PA

Dig

esti

ble

en

ergy

inta

ke, M

cal/

d

58

60

62

64

66

68

CON PA+SA PA

Gro

ss e

ner

gy d

iges

tib

ilty,

%






Effect of Dietary FA

on Milk Production

and Energy

Partitioning

16:0; 18:0; 18:1; 18:2; 18:3

Rumen

MammaryGland

Small Intestine

Adipose

Liver







MilkFat / Lactose



[] BW/BCSê

ê


Variable

Piantoni et al. (2013)1 Piantoni et al. (2015)

2 Rico et al. (2014)

3

Control C16:0 SEM Control C18:0 SEM C16:0 C18:0 SEM

DMI, kg/d 27.8 27.8 0.54 25.2n

26.1m

0.42 32.1 32.3 0.44

Milk yield, kg/d 44.9b

46.0a

1.7 38.5n

40.2m

0.71 46.6 45.8 2.02

Fat yield, kg/d 1.45b

1.53a

0.05 1.35 n

1.42m

0.03 1.68y

1.59z

0.05

Milk fat, % 3.29b

3.40a

0.11 3.60 3.59 0.12 3.66y

3.55z

0.09

Protein yield, kg/d 1.38 1.41 0.04 1.14 n

1.19m

0.02 1.50 1.49 0.05

Milk Protein % 3.11 3.09 0.05 3.00 2.99 0.05 3.24 3.29 0.05

3.5% FCM 42.9b

44.6a

1.35 38.6 n

40.5m

0.76 47.5y

45.6z

1.64

3.5% FCM/DMI 1.54b

1.60a

0.03 1.53 1.55 0.04 1.48y

1.40z

0.05

Body weight, kg 722 723 14.7 727 730 12.8 720 723 13.6

BCS 2.99 2.93 0.15 2.67 2.67 0.11 2.93z

2.99y

0.11

Responses to Supplemental C16:0 and C18:0

1Piantoni et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7143–71542Piantoni et al. 2015. J Dairy Sci. 98:1938–1949

3Rico et al. 2014. J. Dairy Sci. 97:1057–1066


1.68

1.59

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

PA SA

Milk

Fa

t Y

ield

(k

g/d

)

3.66 3.55

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

PA SA

Milk

Fa

t C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(%

)

C16:

0

• Results were independent of level of milk production

• Higher yielding cowsresponded more positivelyto C18:0

• Results were independent of level of milk production

Responses to Supplemental C16:0 and C18:0

Piantoni et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7143–7154Piantoni et al. 2015. J Dairy Sci. 98:1938–1949

Rico et al. 2014. J. Dairy Sci. 97:1057–1066

Supplemental C16:0 Supplemental C18:0 Supplemental C16:0 vs. C18:0


Effect of C16:0 Intake on Fat and Energy-Corrected Milk Yields


de Souza & Lock. 2018. J. Dairy Sci. 101: 3044-3056

y = 0.25x + 1429R² = 0.34P < 0.01

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Tota

l milk

FA

, g/d

C16:0 intake, g/d

35

40

45

50

55

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70

ECM

, kg

/d

Day

CON PAP values

Treatment <0.01, Time <0.01Treatment x Time= 0.18


Treatment by Parity Interactions

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Primiparous Multiparous

BW

ch

ange

, kg

/d

CON PAP values

Treatment = 0.01, Parity = 0.39Treatment x Parity = 0.09

• PA increased DMI ~ 1.5 kg/d• ECM increased to a greater extent in multiparous (2.1 vs. 5.7 kg)• BW increased in primiparous but not multiparous

30

33

36

39

42

45

48

51

54

Primiparous Multiparous

ECM

, kg

/d

CON PA

P valuesTreatment <0.01, Parity <0.01Treatment x Parity = 0.04

de Souza & Lock. 2018. J. Dairy Sci. 101: 3044-3056


Long Term Effects of Commercially-Available C16:0 and C16:0 + C18:0 Supplements on Production Responses and BW


43.0

44.0

45.0

46.0

47.0

CON PA+SA PA

ECM

, kg

/d


0.08 0.03

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

CON PA+SA PA

Fat

Yie

ld, k

g/d


0.19 <0.01

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

CON PA+SA PA

BW

Ch

ange

, kg


0.56 0.19






Effect of Altering the FA Profile of Supplemental Fats on ECM and BW

44

45

45

46

46

47

47

48

48

49

Control 80% C16:0 40% C16:0 +40% C18:0

45% C16:0 +35% C18:1

ECM

, kg

/d

P valueFA treatment = 0.01

c

a

b b

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

Control 80% C16:0 40% C16:0 +40% C18:0

45% C16:0 +35% C18:1

BW

Ch

ange

, kg

/d

P valueFA treatment = 0.01

aa

a

b



Effect of Altering the Palmitic to Oleic Ratio of

Supplemental Fats on DMI and BW

• 36 cows in an incomplete 4 x 4 Latin square with 35 d periods• Supplements fed at 1.5% DM• Blends made using combinations of commercially available C16:0-enriched and Ca-salts palm oil supplements

de Souza & Lock (ADSA Abstract 2017)

Ratio of C16:0 to cis-9 C18:1 in FA blend Ratio of C16:0 to cis-9 C18:1 in FA blend

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20

BW

ch

ange

, kg

/d

80:10 73:17 66:24 60:30

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

32.0

DM

I, k

g/d

80:10 73:17 66:24 60:30

P valuesTreatment =0.09, Production <0.01

Treatment x Production= 0.74




35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

80:10 73:17 66:24 60:30

Treatment X Production Level Interactions

2.7 kg

6.7 kg



de Souza & Lock (ADSA Abstract 2017)

Ratio of C16:0 to cis-9 C18:1 in FA blend

• 36 cows in an incomplete 4 x 4 Latin square with 35 d periods• Supplements fed at 1.5% DM• Blends made using combinations of commercially available C16:0-enriched and Ca-salts palm oil supplements


Effect of Palmitic to Oleic Ratio

and Production Level on ECM

• 32 cows in a cross over study with 21 d periods• Supplements fed at 1.5% DM; blends made using combinations of commercially available C16:0-enriched and Ca-salts palm oil supplements

Western, de Souza & Lock (ADSA Abstract 2018)

Ratio of C16:0 to cis-9 C18:1 in FA blend 80:10 60:30

48.0

49.0

50.0

51.0

52.0

53.0

80:10 60:30

ECM

, kg

/d

Treatment

52.0 kg/d

51.3 kg/d

28.0

38.0

48.0

58.0

68.0

78.0

28.0 38.0 48.0 58.0 68.0

ECM

, kg

/d

Preliminary milk yield, kg/d

P valuesTreatment = 0.35, PMY <0.01Treatment x PMY = 0.04


Fatty Acid

Supplementation to

Early Lactation

Cows?

16:0; 18:0; 18:1; 18:2; 18:3

Rumen

MammaryGland

Small Intestine

Adipose

Liver







MilkFat / Lactose



[] BW/BCSê

ê


Fatty Acid Supplementation to Early Lactation Cows?

• When Should Fat Feeding Begin?

- Ideally, fat probably should be left out of the diet immediately postpartum

- Numerous trials have indicated that there was little benefit from feeding fat during the first 5 to 7 wkpostpartum

- The lack of early lactation response seems to be related to depression in feed intake which offsets any advantage that may be gained by increasing energy density of the diet

Grummer. 1992. Large Dairy Herd Management, 2nd Edition

• Should not feed supplemental FA to cows in negative energy balance

• Already too much circulating FA


Effect of a C16:0 + C18:0 Supplement in Early Lactation

• Prilled C16:0 and C18:0 supplement fed during first 6 wkof lactation (2.3% DM)

• DMI lower in cows supplemented with fat during the first 4 wk of lactation

• Energy intake and predicted energy balance similar between diets

• Treatment X time interactions around ~ 4 wk

Beam & Butler 1998. J. Dairy Sci. 81:121–131

ControlFat

ControlFat


PfNDF x FAT x wk = 0.10PfNDF = 0.04PFAT < 0.01

PfNDF x FAT x wk = 0.03PfNDF < 0.01PFAT < 0.01

PFAT x wk = 0.15PfNDF x wk = 0.02

Piantoni et al. 2015. J Dairy Sci. 98:3309–3322; Piantoni et al. 2015. J Dairy Sci. 98:3323–3334

• 2% vs. 0% FA supplement during PP:- Increased DMI and tended to decrease milk yield, increasing BCS

• 2% vs. 0% FA supplement during carryover:- Decreased milk yield and cumulative milk yield, but did not affect

DMI, increasing BCS

Treatment Diets

Common Diet

20%fNDF0%FAT20%fNDF2%FAT26%fNDF0%FAT26%fNDF2%FAT



40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

Low Forage High Forage

Milk

yie

ld, k

g/d

CON FAT

Piantoni et al. 2015. J Dairy Sci. 98:3309–3322

Fed from 1 to 29 DIM

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

Low Forage High Forage

Milk

yie

ld, k

g/d

CON FAT

Weiss & Pinos-Rodríguez. 2009. J Dairy Sci. 92:6144–6155

Fed from 21 to 126 DIM

• Inconsistent response to fat supplementation in early lactation may be associated with the the time at which fat supplementation starts



CON (n = 26)

PA (n = 26)

CON (n = 13)

PA (n = 13)

PA (n = 13)

CON (n = 13)

Fresh period (1 to 24 DIM) Peak period (25 to 67 DIM)

C16:0 Supplementation to Early Lactation Cows?

• C16:0 responses have only been evaluated in post peak cows

• Concern regarding:

- Negative energy balance

- Reduced DMI of cows in early lactation

- Increased risk of metabolic disorders

• PA fed at 1.5% DM

• 52 multiparous Holstein cows

• Block design; assigned by parity, 305ME, and BCS


P valuesFR = 0.75, Peak = 0.01

FR x Peak = 0.93

Effect of Supplemental C16:0 on DMI and Milk Yield

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DM

I, k

g

Week Postpartum

P valueFR = 0.92

P valuesFR = 0.38, PK = 0.68

FR x PK= 0.75

35

38

41

44

47

50

53

56

59

62

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Milk

Yie

ld, k

g

Week Postpartum

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA


P valueFR = 0.39

3.5 kg


Effect of Supplemental C16:0 on Yield of Fat and ECM

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA


1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fat

Yiel

d, k

g

Week Postpartum

P valueFR < 0.01

P valuesFR = 0.66, Peak <0.01

FR x Peak = 0.07

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ECM

, kg

Week Postpartum


FR x Peak = 0.95 P valueFR = 0.02

4.7 kg 4.8 kg0.28 kg


Effect of Supplemental C16:0 on Yield of Fat and ECM

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA


1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fat

Yiel

d, k

g

Week Postpartum

P valueFR < 0.01


FR x Peak = 0.07

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ECM

, kg

Week Postpartum


FR x Peak = 0.95 P valueFR = 0.02

4.7 kg 4.8 kg0.28 kg 0.21 kg


Effect of Supplemental C16:0 on Body Weight and NEFA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA


600

630

660

690

720

750

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

BW

, kg

Week Postpartum


FR x Peak = 0.25

P valueFR = 0.05

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NEF

A, m

Eq/L

Week Postpartum

P valueFR = 0.03


FR x Peak = 0.13

-26 kg -10 kg 0.06 mEq/L


Effect of Supplemental C16:0 on Energy Intake and Balance

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NDFDigestibility,%

WeekPostpartum

Control PA

CON-CON CON-PA

PA-CON PA-PA



FR x Peak = 0.92

P valueFR = 0.05

P valueFR < 0.01


FR x Peak = 0.12

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DE

inta

ke, M

cal/

d

Week Postpartum

30

35

40

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Milk

en

ergy

ou

tpu

t, M

cal/

d

Week Postpartum

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ener

gy B

alan

ce, M

cal/

d

Week Postpartum

P valueFR = 0.03


FR x Peak = 0.81

Predicting NEL from dietary composition during the FR period using the NRC model would estimate that PA increased NEL intake by only 1 Mcal/d, whereas our actual

calculated increase in NEL intake was 2.5 Mcal/d.


y = 0.03x + 8.3R² = 0.55P=0.01

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

80 120 160 200 240 280 320

Ene

rgy

par

titi

on

ing

to B

W, %

C18:1 intake, g/d

Palmitic and Oleic Effects on Energy Partitioning(Post Peak Cows)

de Souza & Lock (Unpublished)

y = 0.004x + 62.3R² = 0.46P=0.01

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Ene

rgy

par

titi

on

ing

to m

ilk, %

C16:0 intake, g/d


Abomasal Infusion of Oleic Acid Increases

Plasma Insulin in Post Peak Cows

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

0 20 40 60

Pla

sma

Insu

lin, µ

g/d

L

Oleic Acid Infusion, g/d

Linear effect: P-value = <0.01Quadratic effect: P-value = 0.05

Prom et al. (ADSA 2018 )


650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

1 2 3

BW

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10

45

47

49

51

53

55

57

1 2 3

ECM

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 2 3

DM

I, k

g

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10

Effect of Altering the Palmitic to Oleic Acid Ratio

of Supplemental Fats to Fresh Cows


• FA supplement blends fed at 1.5% DM

• Supplemental fat blends fed from calving for first 3 wk of lactation

P valuesCON vs. FAT = 0.19

Linear = 0.14Quadratic= 0.94





de Souza, St-Pierre, & Lock (ADSA 2018)


650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

1 2 3

BW

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10

45

47

49

51

53

55

57

1 2 3

ECM

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 2 3

DM

I, k

g

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30














650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

1 2 3

BW

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10

45

47

49

51

53

55

57

1 2 3

ECM

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 2 3

DM

I, k

g

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30














650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

1 2 3

BW

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30

45

47

49

51

53

55

57

1 2 3

ECM

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 2 3

DM

I, k

g

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30













2018 © Board of Trustees of Michigan State University de Souza, St-Pierre, & Lock (ADSA 2018)




0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Insu

lin, u

g/L

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

BH

B, m

g/d

L

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

NEF

A, m

eq/L

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30










45

50

55

60

65

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ECM

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30

630

650

670

690

710

730

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

BW

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30



Carry Over Period Common Diet Carry Over Period Common Diet






4.3 kg





Caloric vs. Non-Caloric Effects of Fatty Acids?

• Effect of specific fatty acids:- Yield of milk and milk components

- Maintenance of body condition

- Nutrient digestion

- Nutrient partitioning

- Reproduction

- Health

FA profile of a fat supplement most likely thefirst factor in determining the response to it


How to Make an Informed Decision on Whether to

Feed FA Supplements to Dairy Cows?

• Identify what you are trying to achieve, then design your nutritional program (including FA supplementation) around those objectives

• Evaluate the effects of individual FA and commercial FA supplements:

- Production performance:

Cows at different stages of lactation/levels of milk production

Different diets

- Tangible factors not measured daily in the tank

BW/BCS/Energy Balance

Reproduction


16:0; 18:0; 18:1; 18:2; 18:3

MilkFat / Lactose

MAMMARY

GLAND

RUMEN

BH of UFAShifts in BH pathways

Effects on microbial populationsEffects of NDF/Starch

Effects on NDF/Starch Kd

LIVER

Use of FA forother purposes

- Energy &/or glucose sparing

- Delivery of n-3 + n-6 FA

SMALL INTESTINE


MFD Intermediates milk fat synthesis

BW/BCS


ADIPOSEADIPOSE

Use of supplemental FA in the fresh period should be considered; new research suggests that FA supplementation increases performance in fresh cows

Profile of supplemental FA key in determining production responses and energy partitioning1) C16:0 drives increases in milk fat yield and ECM partially due to a decrease in BW2) C16:0 and C18:1 drives increases in milk yield and ECM without changing BW loss compared to non-supplemental

diet3) Feeding FA supplements in the fresh period has carryover effects on early lactation

Recommendation: consider use of FA supplements containing C16:0 and C18:1

Important to consider possible effects of FA in the rumen (BH/MFD/NDFd), in the small intestine (DMI/digestibility), in the mammary gland (increased incorporation/substitution), and energy partitioning between tissues

Digestibility appears to be a good indicator of inclusion or not of a FA in a supplement, assuming that this source of FA does not markedly affect DMI

Presented research focusing on specific FA and how dairy cows respond differently to combinations of FA

Our understanding of FA digestion and metabolism in dairy cows has advanced significantly in the last few decades

Opportunity and challenge will be to continue to improve our understanding of how and which FA affect nutrient digestion, energy partitioning, and milk synthesis in lactating dairy cows, applying this knowledge in the feeding and management of todays high producing dairy cows


Further Thoughts• Studies in early lactation (negative energy balance) are limited, especially with single FA and

specific combinations of FA

• Determining when to introduce and how long to feed a supplemental FA deserves future research

• How long the fresh period should be and when to introduce a supplemental FA deserves future research

• Profile of FA for different purposes?

- What factors affect FA digestibility? Can we improve FA digestibility?

- Why C16:0 increase NDF digestibility?

- Different blends of FA for different purposes across lactation and/or for specific objectives?

- Role of different ‘omega FA’ for production, health, reproduction?

➢ More research needed to clearly establish the effects of individual FA and FA supplements at different stages of lactation/levels of milk production, and their interaction with different diets

➢ Economics of the marginal return (in milk, milk components, health and reproduction) should drive the decision and be continually evaluated/considered


Acknowledgements


[email protected]

http://dairynutrition.msu.eduhttps://www.facebook.com/MSUDairyNutritionProgram


2018 © Board of Trustees of Michigan State University.

All Rights Reserved. No part of this presentation may be

recorded, transmitted, or modified in any form or by

electronic, mechanical, or other means without the

written permission of Michigan State University.

Contact Details:

Dr Adam L. Lock

Department of Animal Science


[email protected]

517-802-8124

Using knowledge of cow eating behavior to

optimize nutritional management

10 October20189:00 am EDT6:00 pm EDT

Dr Trevor DeVriesUniversity of Guelph

The Beef Nutritionist 2018

September 13, and October 101:00 pm EDT

The Nutritionist 2018Gold Sponsors

Silver Sponsors

Bronze Sponsors

The Nutritionist 2018 - Amazon S3 · 2018-11-19 · Supplemental Fatty Acids in lactating cow...

Documents

Transcript of The Nutritionist 2018 - Amazon S3 · 2018-11-19 · Supplemental Fatty Acids in lactating cow...