Milk fat secretion in lactating dairy
cattle is influenced by soybean fatty
acid profile and particle size
Kristina weld
November 3, 2015
Dairy showcase
Milk Fat Depression
 Biohydrogenation Theory
 Rumen microbes form bioactive FA from unsaturated
feed FA
 Absorption of bioactive FA in the small intestine
 Bioactive FA act on genes in the mammary gland to
downregulate milk fat synthesis and uptake of FA from
the blood
Biohydrogenation Pathways
Linoleic Acid Pathway
Oleic Acid Pathway
Oleic vs. Linoleic
• Oils high in linoleic acid have been shown to be more fat
depressing than oils high in oleic acid (He et al., 2012)
 Produce more bioactive FA (trans-10, cis-12 CLA)
Linoleic vs. Oleic
No FAT
Milk fat yield (kg/d)
1.2
C18:1
LOLL
C18:2
1.1
MOLL
1
0.9
HOLL
0.8
MOML
LOML
0.7
LOHL
0.6
2
3
4
5
6
7
Dietary FA %DM
He et al., 2012
Particle Size
• Oil availability also influences biohydrogenation
(Chilliard et al., 2009)
 Free oil is more fat depressing than whole oilseeds
 Too much at once for microbes to biohydrogenate
successfully?
Particle Size
Summary
• Much of the vegetable fat in dairy diets is linoleic acid.
• If that linoleic acid is replaced with oleic acid, then milk fat
will increase.
Soybean Fatty Acid Profiles
Fatty Acid
16:0
18:0
18:1
18:2
18:3
Plenish Conventional
6.0
10.2
3.3
3.6
80.0
27.1
4.2
50.3
1.0
5.2
Trial 1 Design
• 63 cows (28 primiparous, 35 multiparous) 111 ± 20 DIM
• Housed in one pen containing 32 Insentec RIC gates
• Covariate period followed by 3 a week treatment period
• Treatment diets containing whole raw Plenish beans
(WP) or whole raw conventional beans (WC)
Diets
Diets
Diet Component
WC WP
Alfalfa Haylage
12.4 12.5
Corn Silage
41.8 41.5
Concentrate
16.8 16.8
High Moisture Corn
10.0 10.1
Soybean Meal
3.2
Whole Conventional Beans 15.9 Whole Plenish Beans
- 19.1
Diet Analysis
aNDF
CP
Ether Extract
Ash
NFC
Diets
WC WP
25.5 25.9
17.6 17.4
5.0 5.1
5.8 5.7
46.1 45.9
Production
Treatments
Multiparous Primiparous
(MP)
(PP)
P-Value
Parity MP
*diet diet
PP
diet
WC
WP
WC
WP
SE
diet parity
DMI (kg/d)
Milk (kg/d)
26.5
45.1
26.8
45.0
22.7
40.5
23.5
38.4
0.9
1.2
0.30
0.32
0.99
0.44
0.61
0.33
0.70
0.95
0.31
0.19
Fat %
3.84
4.07
4.13
4.08 0.10
0.45
0.44
0.08
0.12
0.72
Protein %
Lactose %
3.05
4.97
3.06
5.01
2.97
5.10
3.03
5.17
0.05
0.06
0.41
0.32
0.75
0.19
0.53
0.84
0.87
0.55
0.33
0.43
Fat (kg/d)
1.70
1.84
1.63
1.58 0.06
0.56
0.13
0.05
0.05
0.35
Protein (kg/d)
Lactose (kg/d)
1.36
2.25
1.40
2.26
1.19
2.08
1.18
1.99
0.06
0.07
0.79
0.48
0.91
0.27
0.6
0.4
0.55
0.94
0.86
0.3
Milk (Mcal/d) 32.3
33.9
30.4
29.0
1.2
0.91
0.77
0.12
0.20
0.34
Variable
Conclusions Trial 1
• There were no production effects in primiparous cows
• Plenish beans increased milk fat relative to conventional
beans in multiparous cows
Trial 2 Design
• 20 cows (10 primiparous, 10 multiparous), 88 ± 10 DIM
• 5 diets fed in Latin squares
• 2x2 factorial of bean type (Plenish or conventional)
and particle size (ground or whole, all raw) plus a low
fat control
Diets
Diet Component
Alfalfa Haylage
Corn Silage
Concentrate A
Concentrate B
Concentrate C
Ground Conventional beans
Ground Plenish beans
Whole Conventional beans
Whole Plenish beans
LF
10.4
44.7
44.9
-
GC
10.4
44.6
29.0
16.0
-
Diets
GP
10.4
44.7
26.3
18.6
-
WC
10.4
44.5
29.0
16.1
-
WP
10.4
44.7
26.3
18.6
Diets
Diet Analysis
aNDF
CP
Ether Extract
Ash
NFC
Starch
LF
25.9
17.0
3.2
6.3
49.3
30.4
GC
25.0
16.3
6.4
6.1
47.9
30.0
Diets
GP
25.6
16.8
7.1
6.1
46.1
28.8
WC
24.8
16.8
6.7
6.2
47.1
30.0
WP
25.4
17.0
6.9
6.1
46.2
28.9
Production
Diet Least Squares Means
P-Values
LF
GC
GP
WC
WP
SE
Plenish WP vs. GP vs. Grou PlenFat *size WC
GC
nd
ish
DMI (kg/d)
26.5
26.3
26.3
26.7
26.6
0.6
0.98
Milk (kg/d)
Fat %
48.0 48.8 47.2 48.5 46.8 1.0 0.80 0.87
3.25 3.09 3.50 3.40 3.53 0.16 0.17 0.10
Protein %
3.18
3.09
3.18
3.08
3.13
0.04 0.06
0.35
0.24
0.01
Lactose %
4.96
5.00
5.07
5.00
5.01
0.04 0.08
0.27
0.34
0.19
Variable
1.00
Fat (kg/d)
1.54 1.49 1.64 1.64 1.63 0.08 0.18 0.06
Protein (kg/d) 1.51 1.50 1.49 1.49 1.40 0.03 0.11 0.55
Lactose (kg/d)
2.37
2.43
2.37
2.42
2.34
0.05 0.61
0.63
Milk (Mcal/d)
32.2 31.9 33.0 33.0 32.6 0.87 0.48 0.40
0.45
0.83
0.58 0.01
0.28 0.01
0.96 0.01
0.23 0.19
0.41
0.01
0.19 0.70
Production
Diet Least Squares Means
P-Values
LF
GC
GP
WC
WP
SE
Intera WP vs. GP vs. Grou PlenFat ction WC
GC
nd
ish
DMI (kg/d)
26.5
26.3
26.3
26.7
26.6
0.6
0.98 1.00
Milk (kg/d)
Fat %
48.0 48.8 47.2 48.5 46.8 1.0 0.80 0.87
0.58 0.01
3.25 3.09 3.50 3.40 3.53 0.16 0.17 0.10 0.28 0.01
Protein %
3.18
Variable
3.09
0.01
Lactose %
Conventional
4.96 5.00 5.07 Plenish
5.00 5.01
0.04 0.08 0.27
Fat (kg/d) Average:
1.54 48.7
1.49 1.64 Average:
1.64 1.6347.0
0.08 0.18 0.06 0.96 0.01
0.34
0.19
Protein (kg/d) 1.51 1.50 1.49 1.49 1.40 0.03 0.11 0.55
0.23 0.19
Lactose (kg/d)
2.37
0.41
Milk (Mcal/d)
32.2 31.9 33.0 33.0 32.6 0.87 0.48 0.40
2.37
3.08
2.42
3.13
2.34
0.04
0.05
0.06 0.35
0.83
0.24
2.43
3.18
0.45
0.61 0.63
0.01
0.19 0.70
Trial 2 Conclusion
• There is a significant interaction between the particle size
of soybeans and their fatty acid profile on milk fat
concentration and yield.
 Multiparous and primiparous
Overall
• Plenish studies confirm that substituting oleic for linoleic
acid in typical dairy feeds can have a positive effect on milk
fat.
• FA profile of soybeans may be more important when
soybeans are ground rather than whole.
Implications
• If one is feeding/growing soybeans for dairy cattle then it
would make sense to feed/grow Plenish rather than
conventional beans
• As long as…
• yield/acre (cost) is similar between Plenish and conventional
• The decrease in milk production was not due to the difference in
soybean FA profile.
• High oleic corn?
Acknowledgements
•
Thank you to DuPont Pioneer for the donation of the
soybeans!
•
Thank you to all the barn staff – especially Sandy Trower
and David Rieman – for making these trials run smoothly!
Questions?
Production
Treatments
MP
Variable
DMI (kg/d)
Milk (kg/d)
Fat %
Protein %
Lactose %
Fat (kg/d)
Protein (kg/d)
Lactose (kg/d)
Milk (Mcal/d)
PP
WC
WP
WC
WP
SE
diet
parity
26.5
45.1
3.84
3.05
4.97
1.70
1.36
2.25
32.3
26.8
45.0
4.07
3.06
5.01
1.84
1.40
2.26
33.9
22.7
40.5
4.13
2.97
5.10
1.63
1.19
2.08
30.4
23.5
38.4
4.08
3.03
5.17
1.58
1.18
1.99
29.0
0.9
1.2
0.10
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
1.2
0.30
0.32
0.45
0.41
0.32
0.56
0.79
0.48
0.91
0.99
0.44
0.44
0.75
0.19
0.13
0.91
0.27
0.77
P-Value
Interac
tion
0.61
0.33
0.08
0.53
0.84
0.05
0.6
0.4
0.12
MP
PP diet
diet
0.70 0.31
0.95 0.19
0.12 0.72
0.87 0.33
0.55 0.43
0.05 0.35
0.55 0.86
0.94
0.3
0.20 0.34
Production
Diet Least Squares Means
Variable
DMI (kg/d)
Milk (kg/d)
Fat %
Protein %
Lactose %
Fat (kg/d)
Protein (kg/d)
Lactose (kg/d)
Milk (Mcal/d)
LF
26.5
48.0
3.25
3.18
4.96
1.54
1.51
2.37
32.2
GC
26.3
48.8
3.09
3.09
5.00
1.49
1.50
2.43
31.9
GP
26.3
47.2
3.50
3.18
5.07
1.64
1.49
2.37
33.0
WC
26.7
48.5
3.40
3.08
5.00
1.64
1.49
2.42
33.0
WP
26.6
46.8
3.53
3.13
5.01
1.63
1.40
2.34
32.6
P-Values
SE
0.6
1.0
0.16
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.87
Fat
0.98
0.80
0.17
0.06
0.08
0.18
0.11
0.61
0.48
Intera WP vs. GP vs.
ction WC
GC
1.00
0.87
0.10 0.28 0.01
0.35
0.27
0.06 0.96 0.01
0.55
0.63
0.40
Grou Plenis
nd
h
0.45 0.83
0.58 0.01
0.24 0.01
0.34 0.19
0.23 0.19
0.41 0.01
0.19 0.70