Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:41:00.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Carbohydrate source offered in the prepartum diet did not affect postpartum metabolic status or milk yield in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2019

A. Mendoza*
Affiliation:
Programa de Producción de Leche, Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Ruta 50, Km 12, CP 70002, Colonia, Uruguay Departamento de Bovinos, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Ruta 1, Km 42, CP 80100, San José, Uruguay
R. Wijma
Affiliation:
Programa de Producción de Leche, Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Ruta 50, Km 12, CP 70002, Colonia, Uruguay
J. T. Morales Piñeyrúa
Affiliation:
Programa de Producción de Leche, Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Ruta 50, Km 12, CP 70002, Colonia, Uruguay
D. Cavestany
Affiliation:
Departamento de Reproducción, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Lasplaces 1620, CP 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay
*
Get access

Abstract

Increasing the provision of non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFC) during the prepartum period is a feeding strategy that has been recommended to facilitate the transition to the onset of lactation and improve dairy cow performance, but results are contradictory, probably because most studies have confounded the effects of level and source of energy. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of the source of carbohydrate offered in the prepartum diet on postpartum cow performance. Holstein dairy cows (n=24) were assigned to receive diets with either low (LNFC), or high (HNFC) levels of NFC during the last 3 weeks before expected calving date according to a randomized complete block design. Soybean hulls and corn grain were the main energy ingredients in the LNFC and HNFC total mixed rations (TMR), respectively, and diets were designed to be isocaloric and isoproteic. After calving, all cows were managed as a single group until day 56 postpartum and grazed on improved pastures and were supplemented with a TMR. Body condition score evaluation and blood sampling were performed weekly throughout the experimental period to monitor the metabolic status of the animals. Prepartum glucose concentrations tended to be greater in HNFC than LNFC, but there was no effect on prepartum or postpartum insulin concentrations. Although nutrient intake was greater in the immediate week after calving in HNFC than LNFC, treatment did not affect milk yield and composition. In conclusion, increasing the NFC intake during the prepartum period, at a similar level of energy and protein intake, had a marginal residual effect on postpartum intake, and did not affect metabolic status or milk production.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Servicios técnicos vacuno de leche, COVAP, Ctra. Canaleja, CP 14400, Pozoblanco, Spain.

b

Present address: Unidad de Posgrados, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Lasplaces 1620, CP 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay.

References

Amanlou, H, Zahmatkesh, D and Nikkhah, A 2008. Wheat grain as a prepartal cereal choice to ease metabolic transition from gestation into lactation in Holstein cows. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 92, 605613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bell, AW 1995. Regulation of organic nutrient metabolism during transition from late pregnancy to early lactation. Journal of Animal Science 73, 28042819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergman, EN 1990. Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species. Physiological Reviews 70, 567590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buttchereit, N, Stamer, E, Junge, W and Thaller, G 2011. Short communication: Genetic relationships among daily energy balance, feed intake, body condition score, and fat to protein ratio of milk in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 15861591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavestany, D, Blanc, JE, Kulcsar, M, Uriarte, G, Chilibroste, P, Meikle, A, Febel, H, Ferraris, A and Krall, E 2005. Studies of the transition cow under a pasture-based milk production system: metabolic profiles. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 52, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drackley, JK and Cardoso, FC 2014. Prepartum and postpartum nutritional management to optimize fertility in high-yielding dairy cows in confined TMR systems. Animal 8, 514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmonson, AJ, Lean, IJ, Weaver, LD, Farver, T and Webster, G 1989. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 6878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firkins, JL and Reynolds, C 2005. Whole-animal nitrogen balance in cattle. In Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrition of cattle (ed. E Pfeffer and A Hristov), pp. 167186. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, NC, Andersen, JB, Larsen, T, Aaes, O and Dewhurst, R 2004. Priming the dairy cow for lactation: a review of dry cow feeding strategies. Animal Research 53, 453473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonda, HL and Lindberg, J 1994. Evaluation of dietary nitrogen utilization in dairy cows based on urea concentrations in blood, urine and milk, and on urinary concentration of purine derivatives. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 41, 236–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grummer, RR 1995. Impact of changes in organic nutrient metabolism on feeding the transition dairy cow. Journal of Animal Science 73, 28202833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harmon, DL 1992. Impact of nutrition on pancreatic exocrine and endocrine secretion in ruminants: a review. Journal of Animal Science 70, 12901301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolver, ES 2003. Nutritional limitations to increased production on pasture-based systems. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62, 291300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozloski, GV, Rocha, JBT, Ribeiro Filho, HMN and Perottoni, J 1999. Comparison of acid and amyloglucosidase hydrolysis for estimation of non-structural polysaccharides in feed samples. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79, 11121116.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM and Van Soest, PJ 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, RC, Henry, PR and Ammerman, CB 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76, 12161231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macoon, B, Sollenberger, LE, Moore, JE, Staples, CR, Fike, JH and Portier, KM 2003. Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Animal Science 81, 23572366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meikle, A, Kulcsar, M, Chilliard, Y, Febel, H, Delavaud, C, Cavestany, D and Chilibroste, P 2004. Effects of parity and body condition at parturition on endocrine and reproductive parameters of the cow. Reproduction 127, 727737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (NRC) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Overton, TR and Waldron, MR 2004. Nutritional management of transition dairy cows: strategies to optimize metabolic health. Journal of Dairy Science 87 (Electronic suppl.), E105E119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, JR, Bell, AW, Overton, TR and Loor, JJ 2013. Nutritional management of the transition cow in the 21st century – a paradigm shift in thinking. Animal Production Science 53, 10001023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, JR, Kay, JK, Phyn, CVC, Meier, S, Lee, JM and Burke, CR 2010. Dietary structural to nonfiber carbohydrate concentration during the transition period in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 36713683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakata, T and Tamate, H 1979. Rumen epithelial cell proliferation accelerated by propionate and acetate. Journal of Dairy Science 62, 4952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, KL, Waldron, MR, Drackley, JK, Socha, MT and Overton, TR 2005. Performance of dairy cows as affected by prepartum dietary carbohydrate source and supplementation with chromium throughout the transition period. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 255263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, JD, Dhanoa, MS, Morant, SV, France, J, Napper, DJ and Schuller, E 2003. Rates of production of acetate, propionate, and butyrate in the rumen of lactating dairy cows given normal and low-roughage diets. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 36203633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrrell, HF and Reid, JT 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cow’s milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 12151223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 35833597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed