fatty acid nutrition in ruminants a… · guidelines for fat requirements •basal diets typically...

Fatty Acid Nutrition in Ruminants

Allan MacGillivray MSc MAARN PrSciNat

AFMA Forum 2020 – Sun City, RSA

Ruminant Formulation Workshop

Monday 2 March 2020

Acknowledgements

➢I would like to thank the Organising Committee of AFMA 2020 and the Ruminant

Formulation Workshop for the invitation to deliver this address today.

➢I would further like to acknowledge the work of Prof. Adam Lock and his colleagues at

Michigan State University, who have contributed greatly to the advances in our

knowledge of the role of individual fatty acids in ruminant nutrition and, in particular,

the importance of feeding these fatty acids in the right ratios to achieve optimum

responses in lactating dairy cows.

➢I would lastly like to thank Prof. John Newbold (previously at Volac, now at SRUC) and

Dr Richard Kirkland (Global Technical Manager – VWFI) for their guidance and support

in translating our new insights into fat feeding into great products and practical

guidelines for use by the global dairy industry.

Introduction

This talk will focus on the recent research advances that have been made in the understanding of Fatty

Acid nutrition in Ruminant diets, as studied in high producing dairy cows, the implications these findings

have for practical application in the field across a variety of different feeding systems and, time permitting,

the positive effects that the right fatty acid nutrition can have on cow fertility.

Fat - an essential nutrient in the dietBalance the macronutrients

Why are we interested in fat ?Fat is a unique nutrient

• Highest energy ingredient available

• Energy without acid

• Reduce heat stress

• Reduce methane

• Increased productivity

• Increased feed efficiency

• Influence milk quality

• Fat is not just a simple source of energy

When to feed fat – what fat to feed ?

• Our challenge is to minimize the extent and duration of the Energy Gap through better nutrition

• Glucogenic energy sources provide a portion of energy – but there is a limit

• Fat supplies more energy per bite, at 2.5 to 3 times the energy density of starch based sources

• The choice of fat supplement type to feed is influenced by what we are trying to achieve and

the stage of lactation of the cows being supplemented.

Guidelines for fat requirements

• Basal diets typically 3.0 to 3.5% fat in DM

• 15 to 20% of energy supply should come from fat (Kronfield, 1976)

• Fat in = fat out in milk (Palmquist and Eastridge, 1991)

➢ 40 kg milk @ 4% fat = 1.6 kg/d

• High yielding cows need 6-8% of fat in the DM to meet requirements

➢ typically 600-800 g fat supplement per day (Jenkins, 2008)

Remember we feed fatty acids !

FA Composition of Typical Feedstuffs & Milk

Feedstuff % Lipid C8:0 C10:0 C12:0 C14:0 C16:0 C18:0 C18:1 C18:2 C18:3 C20:0

Caprylic Capric Lauric Myristic Palmitic Stearic Oleic Linoleic Linolenic Arachidic

Perennial Ryegrass 2.4->6% 18.3 2.0 13.3 60.9

Grass Silage 2-4% 17.0 2.0 4.0 24.0 50.0

Lucerne/Alfalfa Hay <2% 25.0 4.0 3.0 18.0 37.0

Maize/Corn Silage 1.2-3% 18.0 2.0 19.0 48.0 8.0

Wheat 2.1-3.8% 0.1 24.5 1.0 11.5 56.2 3.7 0.8

Barley 2.5-4.7% 2.6 7.4 26.5 43.7 0.4

Sorghum 3.7-6% 14.0 1.0 24.0 59.0 3.0

Maize/Corn 5.2-6% 0.2 12.0 2.2 27.0 57.0 1.0 0.3

Cottonseed 25-40% 0.9 23.5 2.5 18.0 54.0 0.3 0.3

Soyabean 19-20% 11.0 4.0 25.0 50.0 8.0 0.4

Canola 28-30% 3.0 1.5 61.0 21.0 11.0

Palm FA Distillate PFAD 100% 1.0 46.0 4.0 37.0 10.0 0.3 0.4

Palm Kernel PKO 33-35% 4.0 4.0 50.0 16.0 8.0 2.5 12.0 3.0 0.1 0.1

Sunflower 45-47% 8.0 3.0 20.0 57.8 0.5 0.5

Lard 100% 1.0 23.0 9.0 46.0 14.0 1.0 0.2

Tallow 100% 2.0 35.0 16.0 44.0 2.0 0.4

CSPFA 84% 0.4 1.5 48.0 4.3 36.3 9.0 0.5MILK (+400 FAs) 3-5% ~27 33 8 22.5 2.5 0.5

Effects of rumen-active (unprotected) fat

• Physically coats fibre• Kills rumen bacteria• Reduces fibre digestion• Binds minerals• Trans fatty acids

Fat digestion

Dietary triglycerides(C18:2 and C18:3)

FFALipolysis

Saturated FABiohydrogenation

SMALL INTESTINE (JEJUNUM)

1/3 palmitic2/3 stearic

Bile saltsPancreatic juice

Lipids through gut wall

TriglyceridesChylomicronsTransport in lymphatic system

Other amphiphilesOleic acid (C18:1)

Lysolecithin(amphiphile)

Rate-limiting step – fat supplements based on saturated triglycerides should be avoided

Micelle

RUMEN

Transport in blood

Delivery to Blood supply

Bacterial lipase (lipolysis)

Bacterial bio-hydrogenation

Triglycerides and fatty acids

Fat leaving the rumen is primarily saturated free fatty acids of 1/3 palmitic acid and 2/3 stearic acid

C16:0C18:0C18:1C18:2C18:3

Biohydrogenation to C18:0

Dietary fat and milk fat depression (MFD) : Biohydrogenation theory

Rumenic acidcis-9, trans-11 CLA

Vaccenic acidtrans-11 C18:1

Linoleic acidcis-9, cis-12 C18:2

Stearic acidC18:0

Griinari and Bauman, 1999

Inhibits mammary lipogenic enzymes

Dietary PUFA

trans-10, cis-12 CLA

trans-10 C18:1

Stearic acidC18:0

Altered rumen fermentation leads to different biohydrogenation pathways

Low peNDF, Low pH, High Free FA, Feed Systems

Group A

Group A

Group B

Source of fatty acids in milk

Dietary fatty acids

Circulation

C16:0 (50%)C18:0C18:1C18:2C18:3

De novo synthesis

C4:0 to C14:050% of C16:0

4:0 to 14:0

C16:0 C18:0 C18:1 C18:2 C18:3

27 33 8 22 2.5 0.5

45% of milk fat from diet

Body reserves

5 main dietary fatty acids – 400 milk fatty acids

% of Total Fatty Acids

Fatty acid Milk CSPFA*Hydrogenated

palm oilsHigh Palmitic Acid Prilled or Flaked fats

Product Examples Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Product F

Lauric acid C12:0 C4 to C14

27

<1 - -- -

Myristic acid C14:0 1.5 - -

Palmitic acid C16:0 33 48 45 85 >80-90 97 88

Stearic acid C18:0 8 5 40 8-10 5-10 2 8

Oleic acid C18:1 22 36 5-6 5-8 5-10 - -

Linoleic acid C18:2 2.5 9

Linolenic acid C18:3 0.5

Other - 1 4

Melting Point oC >128 ~50-52 ~54-60 ~54-60 61-62 57-61

Typical fatty acid profile of common fat supplements

The C18:1 here is not rumen protected

*Calcium Salts of Palm Fatty Acids

Major fatty acids in ruminant dietsWe feed ‘fatty acids’ NOT ‘fat’

Fatty acid Name Melting point Category

C16:0 Palmitic acid 63 Saturated

C18:0 Stearic acid 70 Saturated

C18:1 Oleic acid 13 Unsaturated

C18:2 Linoleic acid -5 Unsaturated (omega-6)

C18:3 Linolenic acid -11 Unsaturated (omega-3)

Nutrient partitioning : milk or body tissue ?

Partitioning of ME between milk and body tissue is influenced by :

• Diet type / source of ME

➢ Glucogenic nutrients favour body tissue

• Cow genotype, parity, stage of lactation

Partitioning primarily influenced by insulin

Insulin exerts its partitioning effects by stimulating the incorporation of

glucose, amino acids and fatty acids into body tissues as well as reducing

lipolysis, thereby reducing availability of nutrients to the udder

How do fatty acids affect partitioning ?

Insulin resistance and nutrient partitioning

Chavez and Summers (2012) Cell Metabolism 15: 585-594

Ceramides formed in liver from C16:0

• Reduce insulin sensitivity in adipose tissue

• Promote/maintain partitioning of nutrients to milk

What does this tell us about the role of FA through lactation ?

C18:1 promotes insulin and partitioning to body fat

C16:0 Supplementation: Milk Yield – meta-analysis data

40,0

42,0

44,0

Control PA

Milk

yie

ld, k

g

P = 0.47

42.642.9

More-recent meta-analysis of 30 studies = +1.5 kg milk(dos Santos Neto et al., 2019)

Slide courtesy of Adam L. Lock, Michigan State University

de Souza & Lock (ADSA Abstract, 2016)

C16:0 Supplementation: Milk Fat % - meta-analysis data

P < 0.01

3,20

3,40

3,60

3,80

4,00

Control PA

Milk

fat

co

nte

nt,

%

3.56

3.79



C16:0 Supplementation: Total Tract NDF Digestibility Meta-Analysis

36,0

38,0

40,0

42,0

44,0

46,0

Control PA

ND

F d

ige

stib

ility

, %

P < 0.01


40.5

44.6


Fat digestibility decreases with fat intake

Boerman et al. (2015) J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8889-8903

Tota

l fat

ty a

cid

dig

esti

bili

ty (%

)To

tal f

atty

aci

d d

iges

tib

ility

(%)

Total fatty acid intake (g/d)

C1

8:0

dig

esti

bili

ty (%

)

Duodenal flow of C18:0 (g/d)

C1

6:0

dig

esti

bili

ty (%

)

Duodenal flow of C16:0 (g/d)

C18:0 is poorly digested - maintain high C16:0 : C18:0 ratio in fat supplements

Effect of Altering the FA Profile of Supplemental Fats on Apparent Total Tract NDF and FA Digestibility (Post peak cows)

41

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

, %

de Souza, J., C.L. Preseault and A.L. Lock. 2018. J. Dairy Sci. 101: 172-185

60

65

70

75

80

85

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

45%C16:0+35%C18:1

Tota

lFA

dig

est

ibilit

y,

%

ab

b

c

2.0%

-10%


Abomasal Infusion of C18:1 (Oleic Acid) Increases FA Digestibility in Post Peak Cows

Prom et al. (Abstract ADSA 2018)

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 20 40 60

Tota

l FA

dig

est

ibili

ty, %

Oleic Acid Infusion, g/d

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

C18:1 delivered post-rumen (rumen-protected) improves total fat digestibility

Dietary C18:1 (Oleic Acid) boosts FA Digestibility (Abstract ADSA 2018)

Increasing Oleic acid in FA treatments increased total FA digestibility…16-C…and 18-Carbon FA digestibility.Increasing Oleic acid up to 30% in a FA supplement increased FA digestibility and did not affect nutrient intake.

FA Treatment Effects on Milk Yield and Milk Fat (Post peak cows)

3,45

3,50

3,55

3,60

3,65

3,70

3,75

Control 80%C16:0

40%C16:0 +

40%C18:0

45%C16:0 +

35%C18:1

Fat

con

ten

t, %

P valueFA treatment = 0.01

b

b b

a

414243444546474849

Control 80%C16:0

40%C16:0 +

40%C18:0

45%C16:0 +

35%C18:1

Milk

yie

ld, k

g/d


a a a

b



Effect of Altering the FA Profile of Supplemental Fats on BW

and plasma insulin (Post peak cows)

0,50

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


a a

a

b



Post-ruminal C18:1 (Oleic Acid) boosts FA Digestibility (Abstract ADSA 2018)

Oleic acid infusion increased FA digestibility, preformed milk FA yield, and circulating insulin without negatively affecting dry matter intake.

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. (Abstract ADSA 2018)

C18:1 directly stimulates lipogenesis in adipose tissue (Abstract ADSA 2019)

Oleic acid supplementation immediately postpartum reduces lipolytic responses and improves insulin sensitivity of Adipose Tissue in early lactation cows.

y = 0.03x + 8.3R² = 0.55P=0.01

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

80 120 160 200 240 280 320Ener

gy p

arti

tio

nin

g to

BW

, %

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

62

64

66

68

0 500 1000

Ener

gy p

arti

tio

nin

g to

m

ilk, %

C16:0 intake, g/d

What do these data tell us about the use of C16:0 and C18:1 through lactation ?


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 previously only been evaluated in post peak cows

• Early lactation concerns 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


de Souza & Lock. 2019. JDS 102:260-273de Souza & Lock. 2019. JDS 102:274-287

P valuesFR = 0.75, Peak = 0.01

FR x Peak = 0.93

Effect of C16:0 Intake on DMI and Milk Yield

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ND

FD

ige

stib

ilit

y,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PA

15

20

25

30

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 =

0.68FR x PK= 0.75

35384144475053565962

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

ND

FD

ige

stib

ilit

y,%

WeekPostpartum

Control

PA

CON-CON

CON-PA

PA-CON

PA-PAP value

FR = 0.39

3.5 kg



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

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ND

FD

ige

stib

ilit

y,%

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

ND

FD

ige

stib

ilit

y,%

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

P valuesFR = 0.92, Peak <0.01

FR x Peak = 0.95 P valueFR = 0.02

4.7 kg 4.8 kg0.28 kg 0.21 kg



Effect of C16:0 Intake on Body Weight

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ND

FD

ige

stib

ilit

y,%

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

P valuesFR = 0.01, Peak = 0.06

FR x Peak = 0.25

P valueFR = 0.05

-26 kg-10 kg



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 et al. 2019. J. Dairy Sci. 102:9842–9856

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




Treatment X Production Level Interactions



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

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

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

2.7 kg

6.7 kg

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

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

2.7 kg

6.7 kg

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

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

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

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

• 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 et al. 2019. J. Dairy Sci. 102:9842–9856


Treatment X Production Level Interactions

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

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium HighEC

M, k

gProduction Level

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

2.7 kg

6.7 kg

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

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

2.7 kg

6.7 kg

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

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

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low Medium High

ECM

, kg

Production Level

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

Anecdotally, under Pasture grazing systems, the benefits of altering the ratio of C16:0

to C18:1 in favour of slightly higher C16:0 content (>60% to +70%), particularly in

lower producing cows, has been shown to be beneficial in the production of higher

milk fat % and in better control of excess BCS in post-peak lactation, than with higher

C18:1 content.

Effect of Altering the Palmitic to Oleic Ratio of Supplemental Fats to Fresh Cows

• CON: Control diet (no supplemental fat)

• 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

P valuesCON vs. FAT = 0.01

Linear = 0.41Quadratic= 0.71

P valuesCON vs. FAT =

0.71Linear = 0.10

Quadratic= 0.69

45

47

49

51

53

55

57

1 2 3EC

M, k

gWeek Postpartum

CON 80:10

650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

1 2 3

BW

, kg

Week Postpartum

CON 80:10

714

695700

663


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

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 2 3

DM

I, kg

Week Postpartum



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

• CON: Control diet (no supplemental fat)

• FA supplement blends fed at 1.5% DM

• Supplemental fat blends fed from calving for first 3 wk of lactationde Souza, Prom, & Lock (ADSA 2019)

68,0

68,5

69,0

69,5

70,0

70,5

71,0

71,5

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30

Dry

Mat

ter

Dig

esti

bili

ty, %

Treatment

80,0

81,0

82,0

83,0

84,0

85,0

86,0

CON 80:10 70:20 60:30Fatt

y A

cid

Dig

esti

bili

ty, %

Treatment

P valuesCON vs. FAT = <0.01

Linear = <0.01

P valuesCON vs. FAT = <0.01

Linear = <0.01



Effect of a Palmitic (60%) and Oleic Acid (30%) Supplement in Fresh and High Cows

Time, wk

1 2 3

EC

M,

kg/d

30

35

40

45

50

55

60CON

FAS

Trt: P = 0.05

Time: P < 0.01

Trt × time: P = 0.67

Pineda et al. (2020), unpublished

Time, wk

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EC

M,

kg

/d

40

45

50

55

60

65CON-FAS FAS-FAS

FR × PK × time: P = 0.85


CON = Control diet with no Fat SupplementFAS = CON + Fat Supplement fed at 1.5% of DMI

The main three fatty acids available to the cow from the rumen

Already known New insights Meaning…

C16:0

Palmitic acid

Boosts milk fat % ➢ Favours partitioning of nutrients towards milk & milk fat production and away from body reserves.

➢ Increases ttNDFd in the diet

Useful, but do not use as the sole FA supplement in early lactation – NEB

C18:0

Stearic acid

Quantitatively, the most important fatty acid reaching the small intestine 1

Relatively low digestibility

➢ Digestibility falls rapidly as supply of C18:0 to the small intestine increases

Little value in supplementing diets with more C18:0

C18:1

Oleic acid

Highly digestible ➢ Balanced partitioningbetween milk production and body reserves

➢ Bonus: Enhances the digestibility of total diet fatty acids

C18:1 helps the cow makeefficient use of C16:0 in early lactation & can boost fatty acid digestibility, especially C18:0, from total diet

1. Due to extensive ruminal biohydrogenation – conversion of C18:1, C18:2 and C18:3 from the basal diet into C18:0

Summary of effects (as presented by Prof. Adam Lock)


Concept: managing the C16:0 / C18:1 ratio through lactation

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Mill

k yi

eld

DayEarly: Low C16:0 – high C18:1Low ratio to balance partition of nutrients between milk and body reserves

Mid:High C16:0 – low C18:1 ratio to partition nutrients towards production of milk and milk fat

Late:High C16:0 – low C18:1Consider continued fat supplementation (high ratio) to prevent cows becoming too fat

Thank you for your attention. Questions?

The Effect on Fertility of Fatty Acid feeding in Transition & Early Lactation

The following slides are included for information of the audience since there is unlikely to be time in this

presentation to cover this extensive topic.

However, the importance of good fertility in herds, regardless of the milk production level of those herds,

is recognised as being vital for long term productivity and, more importantly, profitability.

The role of the right balance of FA in transition and early lactation diets must not be underestimated or,

even worse, ignored since the research indicates that there are improvements to be gained by getting the

FA balance in these diets right.

NEB = Body Condition drops

Blood insulin and tissue sensitivity to insulin is low at calving. This stimulates the cow to mobilise body reserves, producing NEFAs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

>0.5 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 >-1.0

Body Condition Score change in early lactation

Co

nce

pti

on

ra

te (

%)

From Garnsworthy (2007)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<0.5 0.5-1.0 >1.0

Da

ys t

o 1

sto

vu

lati

on

Butler (2004)

Body Condition in Early Lactation – Effect on fertility

28

38

44

The reproductive cycle as occurs in the ovary

Follicle size (mm) Control CSPFA

Lucy et al. (1991) 12.4 18.2

Lucy et al. (1993) 16.0 18.6

The larger the follicles are at ovulation, the greater the size/volume of the Corpus luteum produced.

Higher fat diets produced more viable

oocytes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4.1% fat 5.9% fat

Fouladi-Nashta et al. (2007)

144 OPU, 1051 oocytes

**

29.1

% b

lasto

cysts

fro

m c

lea

ve

d

oo

cyte

s

Effects of CSPFA on egg quality

Control diet = 200g/day CSPFA

Treatment diet = 800g/day CSPFA for 10 days

38.0

Effect of NEFA on oocyte qualityEggs cultured in C16:0, C18:0 or C18:1

Leroy et al, 2005 Reproduction 130 reported:

•Oleic acid (C18:1) had no effect on Oocyte quality

•Stearic acid (C18:0) and Palmitic acid (C16:0) DID have an effect:

•Fertilization rate was reduced from 72% to 55%

•Cleavage rate was reduced from 77% to 57%

•Blastocyst % was reduced from 34% to 22%

Therefore, overall effect of C18:0 and C16:0 was negative

Aardema et al. (2011) Biol. Reprod. 85: 62–69

NEFA and oocyte development

Oleic acid Palmitic acid Stearic acid

The reproductive cycle – Hormonal balances

The size/volume of the Corpus luteum determines the level of progesterone delivered to the blood post-fertilization.

High DM intake

Inhibition of steroid metabolism could block this step

Acute effect(Meal pattern)

High blood flow to the liver

High blood flow to the digestive tract Long-term effect(Gut and liver hypertrophy)

High oestrogen and progesterone metabolism

Low circulating concentrations of oestrogen and progesterone

Changes in reproduction

Properly-timed supplementation of oestrogen or progesterone could improve some

reproductive problems- decreased conception rate- increased pregnancy loss- increased multiple ovulation rate - decreased behavioural oestrous

Wiltbank et al. (2006)

Increasing the concentration of fat in the diet can help overcome low progesterone concentrations by supplying the precursors necessary for progesterone production

Progesterone metabolism versus High production

Cows need fat for progesterone production

• Approximately 25% of cows on grazing were at risk from insufficient progesterone in this Irish study(Morris and Diskin, 2007)

Garnsworthy et al. (2008)

0.8%

0%

1.5%

2.3% 3%

CSPFA inclusion is shown as a % of DMI in the graph.

Progesterone (Δ days 4-7) and embryo survival

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

<0 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 >8

Milk progesterone (ng/ml)

Pro

bab

ility of em

bryo

survival

% E

mb

ryo

su

rviv

al

Stronge et al. (2005)

Higher maternal progesterone is positively correlated with interferon-tauproduction by the conceptus (Kerbler et al., 1997)

fatty acid nutrition in ruminants a… · guidelines for fat requirements •basal diets typically...

Documents