Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:17:12.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of North American and New Zealand strains of Holstein–Friesian dairy cattle to homeostatic challenges during early and mid-lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2008

J. Patton ,
J. J. Murphy ,
F. P. O’Mara  and
S. T. Butler
J. Patton
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, College of Life Sciences, University College Dublin, Ireland
J. J. Murphy
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
F. P. O’Mara
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, College of Life Sciences, University College Dublin, Ireland
S. T. Butler*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
E-mail: stephen.butler@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

This study investigated the physiological basis of differences in nutrient partitioning between the North American (NA) and New Zealand (NZ) strains of Holstein–Friesian cattle by determining the responses to homeostatic challenges at two stages of lactation. Glucose tolerance tests, epinephrine challenges and insulin challenges were carried out on consecutive days commencing on day 32 ± 0.48 (mean ± s.e.) of lactation (T1) and again commencing on day 137 ± 2.44 of lactation (T2). The insulin and non-esterified fatty acid (NEFA) responses to glucose infusion did not differ between the strains. The NZ strain had a greater clearance rate (CR) of glucose (2.04% v. 1.66%/min) and tended to have a shorter (34.4 v. 41.1 min) glucose half-life (t½) at T2 when infused with glucose. The NA cows had a greater glucose response to epinephrine infusion across T1 and T2, and tended to have a greater insulin response to epinephrine infusion. Plasma NEFA concentration declined to similar nadir concentrations for both strains at T1 in response to insulin, though from a higher basal concentration in NA cows, resulting in a greater (−2.29 v. −1.38) NEFA area under the response curve for NA cows. Glucose response to insulin varied with time, tending to be greater for NA at T1, but tending to be lower for NA at T2. The results indicated that NA cows had a greater glycogenolytic response to epinephrine, but both strains had similar lipolytic responses. The results also imply that higher basal circulating NEFA concentrations in the NA strain in early lactation were not due to diminished adipose tissue responsiveness to insulin. There were indications that glucose CR was greater in NZ cows in mid-lactation, and may form the basis of increased body tissue accretion during mid- to late-lactation in this strain.

Keywords

dairy cowsnutrient partitioninggenetic selectionhomeostasis
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , February 2009 , pp. 251 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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.)

References

Bauman, DE 2000. Regulation of nutrient partitioning during lactation: homeostasis and homeorhesis revisited. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. PB Cronjé), pp. 311–328. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Bauman, DE, Elliot, JM 1983. Control of nutrient partitioning in lactating ruminants. In Biochemistry of lactation (ed. TB Mepham), pp. 437–468. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bell, AW, Bauman, DE 1997. Adaptations of glucose metabolism during pregnancy and lactation. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 2, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonczek, RR, Young, CW, Wheaton, JE, and Miller, KP 1988. Responses of somatotropin, insulin, prolactin, and thyroxine to selection for milk yield in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2470–2479.Google Scholar
Brockman, RP, Laarveld, B 1986. Hormonal regulation of metabolism in ruminants: a review. Livestock Production Science 14, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chagas, LM, Clark, BA, Rhodes, FM, Blache, D, Kolver, ES, Verkerk, GA 2003. Metabolic responses to glucose challenge in New Zealand and overseas Holstein–Friesian dairy cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 63, 31–34.Google Scholar
Etherton, TD, Bauman, DE 1998. Biology of somatotropin in growth and lactation of domestic animals. Physiological Reviews 78, 745–761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, BL, Kolver, ES 2001. Review of Holsteinization on intensive pastoral dairy farming in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science 84 (suppl. E), E56–E61.Google Scholar
Hart, IC 1983. Endocrine control of nutrient partition in lactating ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 42, 181–194.Google Scholar
Himms-Hagen, J 1972. Effects of catecholamines on metabolism. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology 33, 361–462.Google Scholar
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F, Rath, M 2005. The interaction of strain of Holstein–Friesian cows and pasture-based feed systems on milk yield, body weight, and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarrige, J 1989. INRAtion 1989. V2.7. Microsoft computer program of ration formulation for ruminant livestock. CNERTA, 26 Boulevard du Docteur Petit Jean, 21000 Dijon, France.Google Scholar
Kahn, CR 1978. Insulin resistance, insulin sensitivity, and insulin unresponsiveness: a necessary distinction. Metabolism 27 (suppl. 2), 1893–1902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolver, ES, Roche, JR, DeVeth, MJ, Thorne, PL, Napper, AR 2001. Lipolytic response of New Zealand and overseas Holstein–Friesian dairy cows challenged with epinephrine. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 61, 48–51.Google Scholar
Kolver, ES, Roche, JR, DeVeth, MJ, Thorne, PL, Napper, AR 2002. Total mixed rations versus pasture diets: evidence for a genotype × diet interaction in dairy cow performance. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 62, 246–251.Google Scholar
Lomax, MA, Baird, GD, Mallinson, B, Symonds, HW 1979. Difference between lactating and non-lactating cows in concentration and secretion rate of insulin. Biochemical Journal 180, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowman, BG, Scott, N, Somerville, S 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Bulletin no. 6. East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, DDS, Wilson, GF, McCutcheon, SN, Peterson, SW 1988. Plasma metabolites and hormone concentrations as predictors of dairy merit in young Friesian bulls: effect of metabolic challenges and fasting. Animal Production 47, 1–10.Google Scholar
McCarthy, S, Berry, DP, Dillon, P, Rath, M, Horan, B 2007. Influence of Holstein–Friesian strain and feed system on body weight and body condition score lactation profiles. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1859–1869.Google Scholar
McNamara, S, O’Mara, FP, Rath, M, Murphy, JJ 2003. Effects of different transition diets on dry matter intake, milk production, and milk composition in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2397–2408.Google Scholar
Mertz, W 1993. Chromium in human nutrition: a review. Journal of Nutrition 123, 626–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, DJ, Stakelum, G, Dwyer, J 1989. Modified neutral detergent cellulase digestibility procedure for use with the “fibertec” system. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 28, 91–92.Google Scholar
O’Mara, FP, Caffrey, PJ, Drennan, MJ 1997. The net energy value of grass silage determined from comparative feeding trials. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 36, 110.Google Scholar
Patton, J, Murphy, JJ, O’Mara, FP, Butler, ST 2008. A comparison of energy balance and metabolic profiles of the New Zealand and North American strains of Holstein Friesian dairy cow. Animal 2, 969–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sano, H, Narahara, S, Kondo, T, Takahashi, A, Terashima, Y 1993. Insulin responsiveness to glucose and tissue responsiveness to insulin during lactation in dairy cows. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 10, 191–197.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1991. User’s guide: statistics, version 8.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sechen, SJ, McCutcheon, SN, Bauman, DE 1989. Response to metabolic challenges in early lactation dairy cows during treatment with bovine somatotropin. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 6, 141–154.Google Scholar
Sechen, SJ, Dunshea, FR, Bauman, DE 1990. Somatotropin in lactating cows: effect on response to epinephrine and insulin. American Journal of Physiology – Endocrinology and Metabolism 258, E582–E588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staufenbiel, R, Rischk, U, Schumacher, B, Becker, W 1992. Estimation of insulin and glucose regulation in the dairy cow using daily profiles, simple and modified glucose tolerance test. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 99, 69–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Tyrell, HF, Reid, JT 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cows’ milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 1215–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermorel, M 1989. Energy: the feed unit system. In Ruminant nutrition – recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. R Jarrige), pp. 23–32. John Libbey Eurotext, Paris, London, Rome.Google Scholar