webinar o nutricionista - 3rlab | laboratório · webinar - o nutricionista ... gordura para vacas...

Webinar

O Nutricionista

Webinar - O Nutricionista

9 de setembro 19:00

(segunda quarta feira do mês)

Adam Lock – PhD – Universidade de Michigan

Gordura para vacas de leite: qual o nível de precisão em

fazendas comerciais. Foco na utilização de gordura e

manutenção de vacas saudáveis.

www.3rlab.com.br

Overview

• Lipid digestion & metabolism background

• Effect of FA chain length

• Effect of specific SFA

• Effect of degree of (un)saturation

• Interactions with other dietary components

• Effect of production level

• Meta-analysis

Adam L. Lock Associate Professor

Department of Animal Science

AMTS Webinar

September 9, 2015

FATTY ACIDS IN DAIRY COW DIETS: ARE ALL FATTY ACIDS CREATED EQUAL?

Overview • Lipid digestion & metabolism background

• Effect of FA chain length

• Effect of specific SFA

• Effect of degree of (un)saturation

• Interactions with other dietary components

• Effect of production level

• Meta-analysis

Studies with individual FA and also those using commercially available supplements

Fatty Acid Composition of Typical Feedstuffs

Feedstuff (% FAME) 16:0 Palmitic

18:0 Stearic

18:1 Oleic

18:2 Linoleic

18:3 Linolenic

Pasture (Grass) 16 2 3 13 61

Grass Silage 17 2 4 24 50

Alfalfa Hay 25 4 3 18 37

Corn Silage 18 2 19 48 8

Distiller’s Grain 18 2 25 56 2

Corn Oil 11 2 27 59 1

Soybean Oil 11 4 23 54 8

Calcium Salts PFAD 51 4 36 7 -

Beef Tallow 25 18 39 5 <1

Fats in plants are primarily unsaturated -

Ruminant fats are saturated

Unsaturated FA are Toxic to Rumen Bacteria

• Hydrolysis

• Biohydrogenation

Unsaturated FA

Saturated FA

Trans intermediates

Biohydrogenation

Bacterial isomerases

H+ + Bacterial hydrolyases

Unsaturated FA are Toxic to Rumen Bacteria

• Differential toxicity of PUFA to rumen bacteria, particularly those in the Butyrivibrio group

• Main species that comprise rumen cellulolytic flora vulnerable to inhibition by PUFA

Control (no added fatty acids)

Linoleic acid added to cultures

Loss of Cell Integrity (cell death)

Maia et al. 2007. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 91:303–314

Dietary Intake Range of 18:2 (g/d)

g/d

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

<199 200-399 >400

18:2 Intake 18:2 Duodenal Flow

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

<199 >400


g/d

<199 200-399 >400


Stearic acid (C18:0), under typical feeding situations, is the predominant FA available for absorption by the dairy cow

Ruminal Bacteria Change Dietary

Unsaturated FA Into Trans & Saturated FA

Lock et al. 2005. Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. pp. 83-94

Biohydrogenation Direction is key

• Normal (good) • Altered (bad)

Linoleic acid (cis-9, cis-12 18:2)

Rumenic acid (cis-9, trans-11 CLA)

Vaccenic acid (trans-11 18:1)

Stearic acid (18:0)

trans-10, cis-12 CLA

trans-10 18:1

Stearic acid (18:0)

Altered

Fermentation

Linoleic acid (cis-9, cis-12 18:2)

Rumenic acid (cis-9, trans-11 CLA)

Vaccenic acid (trans-11 18:1)

Stearic acid (18:0)

trans-10, cis-12 CLA

trans-10 18:1

Stearic acid (18:0)

Altered

Fermentation

Boerman et al. 2015. J. Dairy Sci. (in press)

Fatty Acid Flow

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Tri

al A

dju

sted

Tota

l F

A D

uod

enal

Flo

w (

g/d

)

Total FA Intake (g/d)


Fatty Acid Digestibility

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 200 400 600 800

Tri

al A

dju

sted

C1

8:0

Dig

esti

bil

ity,

%

Duodenal Flow of C18:0, g/d

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 400 800 1200 1600

Tri

al A

dju

sted

To

tal

FA

Dig

esti

bil

ity (

%)

Total FA Duodenal Flow (g/d)


Source of Milk Fatty Acids

• De novo synthesis C4 to C14

Part of C16

Acetate

B-hydroxybutyrate

• Uptake of preformed fatty acids Part of C16

All long chain

Absorbed from digestive tract

Mobilized from body fat

Fatty Acid % (weight basis) Common Name

4:0 4 Butyric

6:0 3 Caproic

8:0 2 Caprylic

10:0 3 Capric

12:0 4 Lauric

14:0 11 Myristic

16:0 29 Palmitic

16:1 2 Palmitoleic

18:0 12 Stearic

18:1 25 Oleic

18:2 2 Linoleic

18:3 1 Linolenic

Fatty Acid Composition of Typical Feedstuffs

Feedstuff (% FAME) 16:0 Palmitic

18:0 Stearic

18:1 Oleic

18:2 Linoleic

18:3 Linolenic

Pasture (Grass) 16 2 3 13 61

Grass Silage 17 2 4 24 50

Alfalfa Hay 25 4 3 18 37

Corn Silage 18 2 19 48 8

Distiller’s Grain 18 2 25 56 2

Corn Oil 11 2 27 59 1

Soybean Oil 11 4 23 54 8

Calcium Salts PFAD 51 4 36 7 -

Beef Tallow 25 18 39 5 <1

Total Fatty Acids in Production TMR*

(CVAS, 2013 - 2014)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Sa

mp

les

Total Fatty Acids, %

N=5090

AVE. = 3.94

ST. DEV. = 0.582

* NDF>=26% and NDF<=35%, CP>=14 and CP<=20

Unsaturated Fatty Acids, Production TMR*

(CVAS, 2013 - 2014)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Sa

mp

les

Unsaturated Fatty Acids, %

N=5090

AVE. = 2.66

ST. DEV. = 0.63

* NDF>=26% and NDF<=35%, CP>=14 and CP<=20

Predicted vs. Actual

Dietary Fat Contents

Farm Wet Chem

(% DM)

Model

(% DM)

Actual

Difference (%

DM)

%

Difference

1 6.7 5.5 1.2 17%

2 7.7 6.1 1.6 21%

3 6.9 5.3 1.6 23%

4 7.2 6.0 1.2 17%

5 6.0 5.0 1.0 17%

6 5.4 5.7 -0.3 -6%

7 5.3 5.3 - -

8 5.3 5.8 -0.5 -9%

FA Content of DDGS

• Factors affecting nutrient changes

- Crop year and crop conditions

- Processing changes and efficiency improvements

Slide courtesy of Mike Jerred ADSA Midwest Section Dairy Meeting, March 2013

7.0 ± 5.8

% DM

12.2 ±

1.9

% DM

19.6 ±

2.1

% DM

To

tal

FA

Co

nc

en

trati

on

(m

g/g

DM

) 200

150

100

50

Canola Cottonseed DG

Tota

l FA

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

(%

DM

) 20.0

10.0

15.0

5.0

Klein et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96 (Suppl. 1): 150.

Feed Ingredient Variation Byproducts

FA, % DM Grass

Silage

Corn

Silage

Mean 1.9 2.0

Minimum 0.8 1.2

Maximum 3.3 3.5

Khan et al.. 2012. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 174:36–45.

2 – 3 fold variation

Pasture Grazed Initial FA

% DM

Final FA

% DM

Rye Nov–

Mar 6.8 4.7

Annual

Ryegrass

Mar–

June 4.5 1.8

Freeman-Pounders et al. 2009. Forage and Grazinglands.

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/fg/brief/2009/fattyacid

Feed Ingredient Variation Forages

Mean 2.5 ± 0.3% DM

Total FA ranged

from 1.6 to 3.6% DM

Variation in FA

profile minimal

compared with

variation in total

FA conc.

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Tota

l FA

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

(%

DM

)

Klein et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96 (Suppl. 1): 150.

Feed Ingredient Variation Corn Silage

How/Why are People Feeding Fats?

• Commercially available fat supplements are included in dairy cow diets for a variety of reasons:

- Increase caloric intake/energy density of ration

- Maximize flexibility of ration formulation

- Increase yield of milk and milk components

- Combat heat stress

- Improve reproductive efficiency

- Improve BCS

- Potential for the role of specific FA supplements

How/Why are People Feeding Fats?

• Response may depend on:

- Form of fat/FA

- FA profile (extent of unsaturation and/or carbon chain length)

- Cow production level

- Other dietary components

• Understanding the effects of different types of fat supplements on production parameters has direct impact on dairy industry recommendations

• Higher milk yield

• Increased use of high grain (corn) rations, leading to milk fat depression

• Maximizing high forage diets

• Increased availability of dry supplemental fats

• Recognition that specific FA may have beneficial effects

Potential Factors Contributing to the Successful

Development of Fat Feeding for Dairy Cows

What Are the Negatives? • Some FA may alter rumen BH

• Some FA may depress DMI

• Fats may depress rumen function, alter microbial population, and alter metabolism

• Individual FA can have vastly different effects

• Some fat supplements may be poorly digested

• The basal ration can influence the response

• Cost? Or more important: marginal return?

Fat Supplement FA Profiles

Saturated free FA

Supplements

Fatty Acid,

g/100 g Tallow Ca-salt PFAD Mix

C16:0-

enriched

C14:0 3.0 2.0 2.7 1.6

C16:0 24.4 51.0 36.9 89.7

C18:0 17.9 4.0 45.8 1.0

C18:1 (n-9) 41.6 36.0 4.2 5.9

C18:2 (n-6) 1.1 7.0 0.4 1.3

Figure 1

• Supplementing fat in general conclusions:

- Reduced DMI

- Increased milk volume

- Reduced milk fat protein and fat percentages

- Increased milk fat yield and did not change milk protein yield

- Therefore increased efficiency

Rabiee et al. 2012. J Dairy Sci. 95:3225–3247

Effects on production responses vary

GREATLY even within fat supplement!!

One problem…

Figure 1

Rabiee et al. 2012. J Dairy Sci. 95:3225–3247

n

15/15

27/23

29/21

4/4

10/10

89/77

Types of Fat Supplements Included

• PFAD – calcium salts of palm fatty acid distillate - ~ 50% 16:0

- ~ 50% unsaturated 18-carbon FA

• PRILLS – saturated fat prills - > 80% saturated FA (16:0 and/or 18:0)

• Tallow – animal fat labeled as tallow - ~ 50% 16:0 and 18:0

- ~ 45% 18:1

Boerman et al. 2014. J. Dairy Sci. 97 (E-Suppl. 1): 319

Fat supplementation Fat supplementation

reduced increased

Estimate P-value

-0.52 < 0.0001

-0.03 0.83

-0.42 0.007

-0.29 < 0.0001

Study name Statistics for each study

Difference Standard Lower Upper in means error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value

Andrew et al. -1.100 0.622 0.387 -2.320 0.120 -1.768 0.077 1.000Andrew et al. -0.880 0.622 0.387 -2.100 0.340 -1.414 0.157 2.000Beaulieu et al. -0.300 1.442 2.081 -3.127 2.527 -0.208 0.835 1.000Beaulieu et al. -1.300 1.442 2.081 -4.127 1.527 -0.901 0.367 2.000Beaulieu et al. -0.200 0.919 0.845 -2.002 1.602 -0.218 0.828 3.000Beaulieu et al. -0.800 0.919 0.845 -2.602 1.002 -0.870 0.384 4.000Canale et al. 0.100 0.693 0.480 -1.258 1.458 0.144 0.885 1.000Canale et al. -1.100 0.693 0.480 -2.458 0.258 -1.587 0.112 2.000Cervantes et al. 0.210 0.693 0.480 -1.148 1.568 0.303 0.762 1.000Cervantes et al. -2.900 0.693 0.480 -4.258 -1.542 -4.185 0.000 2.000DeFrain et al. 0.400 2.206 4.867 -3.924 4.724 0.181 0.856 1.000DeFrain et al. 0.100 2.206 4.867 -4.224 4.424 0.045 0.964 2.000Erickson et al. -1.000 1.273 1.620 -3.495 1.495 -0.786 0.432 1.000Erickson et al. -0.300 1.273 1.620 -2.795 2.195 -0.236 0.814 2.000Garcia-Bojalil et al. -0.600 0.997 0.994 -2.554 1.354 -0.602 0.547 1.000Garcia-Bojalil et al. 0.400 0.992 0.985 -1.545 2.345 0.403 0.687 2.000Garnsworthy et al. 1.000 0.910 0.828 -0.784 2.784 1.099 0.272 1.000Garnsworthy et al. -0.100 0.910 0.828 -1.884 1.684 -0.110 0.912 2.000Garnsworthy et al. 0.700 0.910 0.828 -1.084 2.484 0.769 0.442 3.000Garnsworthy et al. 0.200 0.910 0.828 -1.584 1.984 0.220 0.826 4.000Harrison et al. -2.300 0.255 0.065 -2.799 -1.801 -9.035 0.000 1.000Harrison et al. 0.200 0.198 0.039 -0.188 0.588 1.010 0.312 2.000Harrison et al. -0.800 0.679 0.461 -2.130 0.530 -1.179 0.239 3.000Harrison et al. 1.800 0.693 0.480 0.442 3.158 2.598 0.009 4.000Harrison et al. 0.400 0.679 0.461 -0.930 1.730 0.589 0.556 5.000Harrison et al. 0.900 0.693 0.480 -0.458 2.258 1.299 0.194 6.000Harvatine et al. -1.300 1.372 1.882 -3.989 1.389 -0.948 0.343 1.000Harvatine et al. -3.200 1.414 2.000 -5.972 -0.428 -2.263 0.024 2.000Holter et al. 0.200 0.425 0.180 -0.632 1.032 0.471 0.638 1.000Kent et al. -0.300 0.990 0.980 -2.240 1.640 -0.303 0.762 1.000Moallem et al. 0.200 0.762 0.581 -1.294 1.694 0.262 0.793 1.000Moallem et al. -0.200 0.816 0.667 -1.800 1.400 -0.245 0.806 2.000Moallem et al. -0.700 0.674 0.454 -2.021 0.621 -1.038 0.299 3.000Moallem et al. 0.200 0.523 0.274 -0.826 1.226 0.382 0.702 5.000Moallem et al. -0.700 0.127 0.016 -0.949 -0.451 -5.500 0.000 6.000Rodriguez et al. -1.200 0.566 0.320 -2.309 -0.091 -2.121 0.034 1.000Rodriguez et al. -1.500 0.566 0.320 -2.609 -0.391 -2.652 0.008 2.000Rodriguez et al. -0.900 0.566 0.320 -2.009 0.209 -1.591 0.112 3.000Rodriguez et al. -1.300 0.566 0.320 -2.409 -0.191 -2.298 0.022 4.000Salfer et al. -0.800 0.849 0.720 -2.463 0.863 -0.943 0.346 1.000Salfer et al. -0.600 0.849 0.720 -2.263 1.063 -0.707 0.480 2.000Schauff and Clark -0.600 0.990 0.980 -2.540 1.340 -0.606 0.544 1.000Schauff and Clark -0.600 0.990 0.980 -2.540 1.340 -0.606 0.544 2.000Schauff and Clark 0.200 0.283 0.080 -0.354 0.754 0.707 0.480 3.000Schauff and Clark -0.200 0.849 0.720 -1.863 1.463 -0.236 0.814 4.000Schauff et al. -1.600 0.849 0.720 -3.263 0.063 -1.886 0.059 1.000Schauff et al. -1.900 0.566 0.320 -3.009 -0.791 -3.359 0.001 2.000Schneider et al. -0.300 0.651 0.423 -1.575 0.975 -0.461 0.645 1.000Simas et al. -3.800 1.584 2.509 -6.904 -0.696 -2.399 0.016 3.000Simas et al. -3.600 1.584 2.509 -6.704 -0.496 -2.273 0.023 4.000Sklan et al. -0.100 0.185 0.034 -0.462 0.262 -0.542 0.588 1.000Umphrey 0.400 1.556 2.420 -2.649 3.449 0.257 0.797 1.000Umphrey 0.700 1.556 2.420 -2.349 3.749 0.450 0.653 2.000van Knegsel et al. -0.100 0.707 0.500 -1.486 1.286 -0.141 0.888 1.000Weiss and Wyatt 0.100 0.990 0.980 -1.840 2.040 0.101 0.920 1.000Wu et al. -0.300 1.414 2.000 -3.072 2.472 -0.212 0.832 2.000

-0.515 0.140 0.020 -0.789 -0.241 -3.683 0.000-4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00

Favours A Favours B

Meta Analysis

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

OVERALLn=130

Tallown=44

PRILLSn=30

PFADn=56

DMI, kg/d

Milk Yield, kg/d


reduced increased

Estimate P-value

1.28 < 0.0001

1.17 < 0.0001

0.75 < 0.0001

0.96 < 0.0001


-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

OVERALLn=129

Tallown=44

PRILLSn=30

PFADn=55


reduced increased

Estimate P-value

0.05 < 0.01

0.06 < 0.0001

0.01 0.51

0.04 < 0.0001

-0.13 -0.06 0.00 0.06 0.13

OVERALLn=121

Tallown=37

PRILLSn=29

PFADn=55

Milk Fat Yield, kg/d


reduced increased

Estimate P-value

0.00 0.92

0.02 < 0.01

0.02 0.02

0.02 < 0.01

-0.13 -0.06 0.00 0.06 0.13

OVERALLn=118

Tallown=37

PRILLSn=29

PFADn=52

Milk Protein Yield, kg/d

• Overall fat supplementation increased yield of milk and milk components and reduced DMI

• However type of fat influenced response

- PRILLS – no reduction in DMI

- Tallow – no effect on milk fat yield

- PFAD – no effect on milk protein yield

• Study design only impacted milk fat yield when tallow was supplemented

• Level of fat inclusion and NDF of fat supplemented diets had little effect on production responses


Summary

Not All Fat Sources Are the Same!

• Carbon-chain length: - Short chain FA (≤ 6C), medium chain FA (8 to 14C), or long chain FA (≥

16C)

• Saturation: - Saturated (e.g. C16:0, C18:0) or unsaturated (e.g. C18:1, C18:2, C18:3)

• Esterification: - Triglycerides or free FA

• Form: - Prilled, encapsulated, calcium salts

Impact of Carbon Chain Length on Milk Fat • C14:0 decreased the yields of milk and SNF, but

increased the % of fat in the milk without altering fat yield.

• When C18:0 or C16:0 was included in the diet there was an increase in milk fat yield; C16:0 caused the greater increase.

• C12:0 did not appear to affect the yields of milk or SNF but it caused large reductions in % and yield of fat.

300

400

500

600

700

Control C14:0 C16:0 C18:0

Milk

Fa

t Y

ield

(g

/d

ay)

Treatment

2,5

2,7

2,9

3,1

3,3

3,5

3,7

3,9

4,1

4,3

4,5

Control C14:0 C16:0 C18:0

Milk

Fa

t C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(%

)

Steele & Moore. 1968. J Dairy Res. 35:361–370

18:0 14:0 12:0 P-value

DMI, kg/d 26.9 25.7 20.0 0.002

Milk yield, kg/d 44.6 44.2 35.8 0.017

Milk Fat % 3.42 3.12 2.59 0.021

Milk Fat Yield, kg/d 1.48 1.38 0.92 0.012

t10 18:1, g/100 g 0.74 1.20 5.29 0.001

• 6 cows in a 3x3 LS were infused once per d with 240 g per cow per d of respective FA treatment

Impact of Carbon Chain Length on Milk Fat

CNO 0 CNO 1.3 CNO 2.7 CNO 3.3

DMI, kg/d 22.9 21.4 17.9 16.2

Milk yield, kg/d 36.5 37.5 33.6 32.0

Milk Fat % 3.47 3.66 2.79 2.67

Milk Fat Yield, kg/d 1.27 1.37 0.94 0.86

trans 18:1, g/100 g 0.92 1.10 3.10 3.30

• 24 cows an incomplete (one half) 4 × 4 Latin square conducted in 2 periods.

• Diets differed in conc. of coconut oil (CNO; ~75% medium chain FA): 0.0 (control) or 1.3, 2.7, or 3.3% CNO,

DM basis.

• CNO: coconut oil contained ~ 41% 12:0, 20% 14:0, 10% 16:0, and 7% 18:1

Hollmann et al. 2012. J Dairy Sci. 95:2602–2615

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Control Palmitic Stearic Oleic

Milk

Pro

du

cti

on

, k

g/d

Treatment

Milk Production, kg/d

3,0

3,3

3,5

3,8

4,0

4,3

4,5

4,8

5,0


Tota

l FA

, %

Treatment

Total Milk Fatty Acids, %

Abomasal Infusion of 16:0, 18:0, and 18:1 (500 g/d)

• Mammary uptake and extraction efficiency higher for C16:0 compared with C18:0

Enjalbert et al. 1998. J Nutr. 128:1525–1532 Enjalbert et al. 2000. J Dairy Sci. 83:1428–1433

400

600

800

1.000

1.200


Cal

cula

ted

Milk

FA

Yie

ld (

g/d

)

Treatment

0100200 300 400 500

Fa yacidconcentra on(μM)

200%

150%

100%

50%

250%

Rela

vein

corpora

onofacetateintosecretedfa

yacids

=C16:0 =C18:0 =C18:1

100 200300 400500

30

20

10

Fa yacidconcentra on(μM)

nmolfa

yacidincorporated/2hx106cells

Incorporation of

exogenous fatty acids

into triacylglycerols

Effect of exogenous fatty acids

on secretion of fatty acids

synthesized de novo

Mechanistic Support

• C16:0 stimulated de novo synthesis and incorporation into TAG whereas other fatty acids were either neutral or inhibitory

• Only minor differences in the esterification efficiency into TAG of various fatty acids, except for C16:0, which was a clearly better substrate than the other fatty acids tested

Hansen & Knudsen. 1987. J Dairy Sci. 70:1344–1349

• C16:0 supplementation

(2% of diet DM):

- Increased milk yield (1.1 kg/d)

- Increased milk fat yield (80 g/d)

- Increased 3.5% FCM (1.7 kg/d)

- Increased feed efficiency (0.06 kg 3.5% FCM/kg DMI)

- No effect on protein and lactose yields

• Results were independent of level of milk production

Piantoni et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7143–7154

C16:0

Responses to Supplemental C16:0

• C18:0 supplementation

(2% of diet DM):

- Increased DMI

- Increased yields of milk and milk components

• Higher yielding cows responded more positively to C18:0 supplementation than lower yielding cows

Piantoni et al. 2015. J. Dairy Sci. 98:1938–1949.

C18:0


• C16:0 supplementation compared to C18:0 supplementation (2% of diet DM):

- Increased milk fat yield (90 g/d)

- Increased 3.5% FCM (1.90 kg/d)

- Increased feed efficiency (0.08 kg/kg)

• Responses were independent of level of milk production

2% C16:0 vs. 2% C18:0 (99% C16:0 & C18:0)

Rico 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 M

ilk

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

(%

)


• Increased milk fat yield

• Increased 3.5% FCM

• Improved ECM/DMI

Lock et al., 2013; Piantoni et al., 2013; Rico et al., 2014

Included at 2% of dietary DM (soyhulls or FA removed)

• Maximal yield of milk fat, FCM, and ECM when C16:0 was supplemented at 1.5% ration DM

3,75

3,80

3,85

3,90

3,95

4,00

4,05

0,00 0,75 1,50 2,25

Milk

Fat

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

C16:0 dose, % of ration DM

1,60

1,65

1,70

1,75

1,80

0,00 0,75 1,50 2,25

Milk

Fat

Yie

ld (

kg/d

)


Rico et al. 2013. J Dairy Sci. 96 (Suppl. 1): 659

1,50

1,55

1,60

1,65

1,70

1,75

1,80

1,85

1,90

0,00 0,75 1,50 2,25

Milk

fat

yie

ld, k

g/d


LOW FAT

HIGH FAT

C16:0 Dose x Basal Fat Interaction

on Milk Fat Yield

SEM = 0.09 LOW FAT; 0.09 HIGH FAT

P = 0.052 C

P < 0.01 Q

Rico et al. 2013. J Dairy Sci. 96 (Suppl. 1): 659

+170 g/d

+140 g/d

Total FA Digestibility

P value

Dose = 0.01, Basal = 0.09

Basal x Dose = 0.05

65

70

75

80

85

0 0,75 1,50 2,25

To

tal F

A D

igesti

bil

ity, %

PA Dose, % of dietary DM

Low Fat High Fat

Linear PA dose effect: P = 0.01

De Souza et al. 2015. J. Dairy Sci. 98 (Suppl. 2): 867.

16-Carbon FA Digestibility

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

0 0,75 1,50 2,25

16-C

arb

on

FA

Dig

esti

bil

ity,

%


Low Fat High Fat

P value

Dose < 0.01, Basal = 0.01

Basal x Dose = 0.038

Quadratic PA dose effect: P= 0.01


18-Carbon FA Digestibility

P value

Dose = 0.05, Basal = 0.07

Basal x Dose = 0.35

70

75

80

85

90

0 0,75 1,50 2,25

18-C

arb

on

FA

Dig

esti

bil

ity, %


Low Fat High Fat

Quadratic PA dose effect: P = 0.01



Supplemental Stearic Acid

Variable 0.0% 0.8% 1.6% 2.4% SEM P - Value

DMI, kg/d 28.5 29.1 29.6 30.0 0.61 L = 0.02

Milk, kg/d 38.3 38.6 38.2 37.8 1.65 NS

Fat, kg/d 1.43 1.40 1.40 1.42 0.04 NS

Protein, kg/d 1.33 1.33 1.32 1.30 0.05 NS

ECM, kg/d 40.6 40.4 40.1 40.0 1.4 NS


• C18:0 increased DMI, but had no effect on yields of milk or milk components

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800T

ota

l F

A D

iges

tib

ilit

y (

%)


FA Digestibility

y = 91.76 - 0.049x

R² = 0.79

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

0 200 400 600 800

C1

8:0

Dig

esti

bil

ity

, %

Duodenal Flow of C18:0, g/d

y = 90.32 - 0.026x

R² = 0.51

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

To

tal

FA

Dig

esti

bil

ity

(%

)


y = 88.35 - 0.01x

R² = 0.48

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

To

tal

FA

dig

esti

bil

ity

(%

)

Total FA intake (g/d)




Diet

Item Control SFA1 MUFA2 PUFA3 SEM

DMI, kg/d 23.8 23.1 22.1 22.0 1.1

Milk Yield, kg/d 36.9 37.3 35.8 34.8 1.4

Fat % 3.37 3.86 3.32 2.61 0.25

Fat Yield, g/d 1,249 1,436 1,184 911 0.1

1SFA = Saturated free fatty acid supplement 2MUFA = Ca-salts of palm fatty acid distillate 3PUFA = Ca-salts of soybean oil fatty acids

Effect of FA Unsaturation of

Supplemental Fats

Relling & Reynolds. 2007. J Dairy Sci. 90:1506–1515

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

2 3 4 5 6 7

Dietary FA %DM

Milk

fat yie

ld (

kg/d

)

C18:1

C18:2

LOLL

MOLL

LOML

HOLL

LOHL

MOML

NoFAT

P-values iso-fat C18:1 vs. C18:2 comparisons Oleic effect linear

NoFAT vs. LOLL LOML vs. MOLL HOLL vs. LOHL Linoleic effect linear and quadratic

0.21 <.05 <.05

MUFA & PUFA Impact on Milk Fat Yield

Slide courtesy of Lou Armentano He et al. 2012. J Dairy Sci. 95:1447–1461

Fat/Forage Interactions

• Diets supplemented with fat (mix of 16:0 + 18:0):

- High-forage diets: increased energy intake was directed mostly to body reserves

- Low-forage diets: increased energy intake was directed mostly to milk production

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

- FAT + FAT - FAT + FAT

60:40 ratio 40:60 ratio

kg/d

DMI Milk

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

Effect of Fat Source on Milk Fat

& Energy Partitioning

• 8 Holstein cows in early lactation (77 DIM)

• Control diet (CON; 5.5% FA)

• 2.5% supplemental FA: Sat: Mix of 16:0 + 18:0

Uns: Ca-salt soy FA

Harvatine & Allen. 2006. J Dairy Sci. 89:1081–1091

Con Sat Int Uns

DMI, lb/d 60.6 56.5 55.2 53.0

DE intake, Mcal/d 78.0 75.3 74.0 70.1

Milk Yield, lb/d 103.4 102.5 99.4 96.1

Milk Fat, lb/d 3.19 3.01 2.77 2.42

BW gain, lb/d 0.46 0.24 1.08 2.07

MAMMARY ADIPOSE

MFD = Repartitioning of Energy

Milk fat synthesis

Signals regulating

fat synthesis

Enzymes that

make fat

Increase in signals

that regulate fat

synthesis

Energy

MFD

Harvatine et al. 2009. J. Nutr. 139: 849

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Bo

dy

We

igh

t, k

g

Days in Milk

2,8

2,9

3,0

3,1

3,2

3,3

3,4

3,5

3,6

3,7

3,8

180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Bo

dy

Co

nd

itio

n S

co

re, p

t

Days in Milk

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Bod

y W

eig

ht,

kg

Days in Milk

0.2% difference 0.4% difference 0.6% difference

Potential Effect of MFD on Energy

Partitioning & Weight Gain

Boerman et al. 2015. J. Dairy Sci. 98 (Available on-line)

Production Results Treatments P-value

Variable HFF HS SEM TRT

DMI, kg/d 26.9 27.4 0.38 0.10a

Milk, kg/d 45.8 47.1 1.44 0.02

ECM, kg/d 48.0 47.6 1.53 0.47

3.5% FCM, kg/d 49.1 47.6 1.59 0.03

Fat, kg/d 1.81 1.68 0.06 0.0005

Fat, % 3.95 3.58 0.09 < 0.0001

Protein, kg/d 1.34 1.44 0.04 < 0.0001

Protein, % 2.93 3.07 0.03 < 0.0001

ECM/DMI 1.78 1.73 0.02 0.02a

a Significant pMilk × treatment interaction


Treatments

P-value

Variable HFF HS SEM TRT

BW 678 685 14.8 0.01

BCS 3.07 3.20 0.09 < 0.001

Change in BW, kg/d

0.33 0.78 0.10 0.003

Change in BCS, pt/28 d - 0.01 0.24 0.03 0.001

Calculated energy values

Apparent NEL intake, Mcal/d 44.1 44.5 1.18 0.60

Milk, Mcal/d 33.6 33.0 1.05 0.05

Body Tissue Gain, Mcal/d 1.95 4.90 0.58 0.001

72,8 67,9

4,03 10,1

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

% o

f E

ne

rgy

Inta

ke

Milk Energy BW Gain

High Fiber/Fat High Starch

Energy Partitioning & Weight Gain


Implications

• Diets resulted in similar NEL intake but the high starch diet partitioned more energy toward BW gain, the high fiber and fat diet partitioned more energy toward milk

• High fiber and fat diets may diminish the incidence of over conditioning in mid and late lactation cows


HSHF HSLF LSHF LSLF LSLF LSHF HSLF HSHF

P-Values

Starch = 0.53, Fat < 0.01

Starch x Fat = 0.52

P-Values

Starch = 0.85, Fat = 0.03

Starch x Fat = 0.51

• HF increased FCM

by 1.50 kg/d vs. LF

• HF increased ECM

by 1.15 kg/d vs. LF

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Kg/d

3.5% FCM

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

ECM

Garver et al. 2015. J. Dairy Sci. 98 (Suppl. 2): 552.

Body Weight Change kg/d

LSLF LSHF HSLF HSHF

P-Values

Starch = 0.03, Fat = 0.97

Starch x Fat = 0.40

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

Garver et al. 2015. J. Dairy Sci. 98 (Suppl. 2): 552.

Effect of fat supplements with different fatty acid

profiles on milk fat and protein yield, 3.5% fat-corrected milk

(FCM) yield, and body weight (BW) change

2,90

2,95

3,00

3,05

3,10

3,15

3,20

3,25

Control Bergafat Energy

Booster

Megalac

Fa

t +

Pro

tein

yie

ld, k

g/d

c

a

b

bc

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


Booster

Megalac

3.5

% F

CM

, k

g/d

c

a

b b

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

1,10

1,20


Booster

Megalac

BW

ch

an

ge

, k

g/d

b b

b

a

Control C16:0 C16:0 C16:0 + +

C18:0 C18:1

Control C16:0 C16:0 C16:0 + +

C18:0 C18:1

Control C16:0 C16:0 C16:0 + +

C18:0 C18:1

De Souza & Lock (Unpublished Results).

Forages Concentrates Fats

Energy supply is an important reason

why we feed FA (fats)

Cool season grass:

1.5 Mcal NEL/kg DM

Corn grain:

2.0 Mcal NEL/kg DM

Vegetable oil:

4.4 Mcal NEL/kg DM

Cows producing 60kg milk/d

1.8 Mcal NEL/kg of dry matter (DM)

Caloric vs. Non-Caloric Effects

of Fatty Acids ? • Effect of specific fatty acids:

- Yield of milk and milk components

- Maintenance of body condition

- Nutrient partitioning

- Reproduction

- Health

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

Small Intestine

Milk

Fat

Mammary

Gland

Rumen

BH of UFA Shifts in BH pathways Effects on microbial

populations Effects of NDF/Starch

Effects on DMI Digestibility

Balance of 18-C + de novo FA Direct effect of specific FA?

12:0; 14:0; 16:0; 18:0; 18:1; 18:2; 18:3; 20:5; 22:6

Use of FA for other purposes Glucose sparing?

Delivery of N-3 + N-6 FA

Adipose

Tissue

MFD Intermediates milk fat synthesis

BW/BCS

Concluding Remarks • Meta-analyses reveal overall benefits of fat supplementation on

yield of milk and milk fat with a reduction in DMI, but…

• Not all fat sources are the same! - Know what FA are in the supplement you are using: chain length and degree of

un(saturation) key

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

• More research is needed to clearly establish the effects of fat supplements at different stages of lactation and their interaction with different diets to make their use an informed decision

• Economics/marginal return should be continually evaluated/considered

www.facebook.com/MSUDairyNutritionProgram

[email protected]

http://dairynutrition.msu.edu https://www.facebook.com/MSUDairyNutritionProgram

14 de outubro 19:00

(segunda quarta feira do mês)

John Goeser – PhD – Rock River Laboratory

O que o laboratório pode medir para ajudar o nutricionista

a ter mais precisão na fazenda.

www.3rlab.com.br

Sua empresa pode ser parceira no próximo Webinar.

Ajude-nos a trazer aos nutricionistas Brasileiros o que

existe de mais novo em nutrição de vacas leiteiras no

mundo.

[email protected]

11 - 999756429

mailto:[email protected]

Cadastre-se nos nossos meios de comunicação para

receber os slides em português e o Webinar

gravado:

http://3rlab.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/3rlab

Excelente material para treinamento de equipes/grupos de estudos

http://3rlab.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/3rlab

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Terá 5% de

gordura na

dieta

Irá variar

de 4% a 6%

Irá variar

de acordo

com

forragem

Depende

do manejo

da fazenda

Eu não sei

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Dieta formulada para 5% de gordura

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Para

aumentar

leite

Para

aumentar

sólidos

Para

melhorar

eficiência

Para

melhorar

ECC

Eu não

recomendo

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Eu recomendo adição de gordura na dieta

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mais barata Mais

saturada

Mais

insaturada

Depende da

dieta

Depende da

marca, não

sei o tipo

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Que tipo de gordura eu recomendo

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

É caro Não vejo

resposta

Diminui CMS Diminui

gordura no

leite

Eu recomendo

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Eu não recomendo gordura para vacas leiteiras

webinar o nutricionista - 3rlab | laboratório · webinar - o nutricionista ... gordura para vacas...

Documents