Prepartum nutrient intake and colostrum yield and composition in ruminants

Abstract

Many cattle and sheep do not produce enough colostrum for their offspring. Prepartum nutrient intake is an accessible strategy for producers to influence colostrum production. Greater prepartum starch intake can influence colostrum composition and increase colostrum yield for beef cattle and ewes. Colostrogenesis is sensitive to fat intake, dependent on the dietary fatty acid composition: greater linoleic acid intake often increases colostrum antibody concentration. Colostral bioactive compounds are frequently altered by a prepartum diet without changes in overall colostrum composition. Prepartum nutrient intake could be strategically used to maximize beneficial compounds for the newborn. Adequate colostrum production is essential to ensure that neonates consume appropriate quantities of immunoglobulin G (IgG), macronutrients, and bioactive compounds that promote physiological maturation and support the immune system (Fischer-Tlustos et al., 2021a). Dairy cattle produce relatively large colostrum yields at calving (mean: 4.6–7.9 kg; Cabral et al., 2016) compared to beef cattle (mean: 2.64 kg; McGee and Earley, 2018; Hare et al., 2021) and ewes (range: approximately 150–650 g; Banchero et al., 2015). However, variation in colostrum yield for dairy cattle is substantially higher and demonstrates a left-skewed distribution (Cabral et al., 2016), meaning that inadequate colostrum production (<6 kg, based on the mass of colostrum needed to feed a calf two meals; Westhoff et al., 2023) is more common than excessive production. In Westhoff et al. (2022), 73.4% of primiparous and 61.5% of multiparous cattle produced inadequate colostrum volumes. Beef and sheep producers do not typically quantify colostrum yield due to differences in production systems and it is unlikely that mass output would be limiting for the transfer of passive immunity in these species based on their elevated colostrum IgG concentrations (Swanson et al., 2008; Hare et al., 2021). That said, inadequate colostrum production is a possibility for high-fecundity ewes (Banchero et al., 2015) and, furthermore, the metabolizable nutrient output becomes relatively more important for beef calves and lambs to support metabolism, especially in challenging climates. There has been substantial interest in uncovering which maternal, managerial, and environmental factors affect colostrum yield and IgG concentration in ruminants. Plenty of research has been conducted with dairy cattle and notable factors associated with colostrum yield and IgG concentration include parity (Soufleri et al., 2021), dry period length, maximum temperature humidity index and photoperiod, calf sex, previous 305-d milk yield (Westhoff et al., 2022), genetic heritability (Soufleri et al., 2021), blood analytes (Immler et al., 2021; Rossi et al., 2023), and prepartum nutrient intake (Mann et al., 2016). Many of these factors either cannot be adjusted for or are challenging to adjust through prepartum management (i.e., parity, environment, calf sex, or 305-d milk yield), or have an associated time-lag (genetic selection) that hinders their initial utility for producers. However, prepartum nutrient intake is an accessible target for dairy, beef, and sheep producers to affect and, potentially, increase colostrum production and IgG yield. Most research evaluating how prepartum nutrient intake affects colostrum production has mainly focused on global nutrient under- or over-provision prior to parturition. Imposing mid to late-gestation nutrient restriction reduced first-milking colostrum yield (within 1 h postcalving) in beef cattle (Logan, 1977; Petrie et al., 1984) without altering colostrum IgG concentration (Logan, 1977; Petrie et al., 1984) but compromised total IgG yield (Petrie et al., 1984). Similarly, severe gestational nutrient restriction (60% requirements) in ewes proportionally reduced first-milking colostrum yield (within 1 h postlambing) while increasing IgG concentration and suppressing IgG yield (Swanson et al., 2008). Interestingly, providing nutrients in excess of requirements by 40% also reduced colostrum yield by a comparable magnitude, without altering colostral IgG concentration, but consequently lessening IgG mass output (Swanson et al., 2008). It is clear that prepartum nutrient intake can impact the quantity of colostrum produced by ruminants, as well as the IgG concentration and total IgG yield. Yet, when total feed intake is manipulated, the causative effect cannot be discerned. That is, one cannot differentiate whether these responses are due to metabolizable energy (ME) or protein (MP) intake, or dietary components such as starch, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), or fat. McGee and Earley (2018) reviewed factors that influence colostrum yield and IgG concentration in beef cattle, including nutrient intake, without differentiating between dietary components. Similarly, Banchero et al. (2015) summarized compelling data underlining the importance of starch intake with late-gestation ewes, though relatively less consideration was given to alternate dietary components. To our knowledge, similar reviews have not been published for dairy cattle. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize how dairy and beef cattle and ewes respond to prepartum carbohydrate, protein, and fat intake. We discuss responses in terms of colostrum yield, composition (fat, protein, lactose, and IgG concentrations and bioactive components), and total component yields. Carbohydrates proportionally contribute the greatest amount of dietary energy in ruminant rations and, as such, relative starch and NDF substitutions have consequences for dietary energy intake that often confound colostrum production responses. Furthermore, studies that manipulate dietary starch and NDF content to achieve specific energy intakes differ in which energy partition they target (i.e., focusing on ME as compared to net energy [NE]). This is additionally complicated by using either empirical or mechanistic models to predict energy requirements and dietary sufficiency and which coefficients of energetic efficiency are used for the conversion of ME to NE for pregnancy or maintenance. Thus, utilization of either system can impose a bias on colostrum production responses between studies. Research evaluating carbohydrate consumption prior to parturition is shown in Table 1 and responses are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Summary of colostrum production responses to varying prepartum dietary carbohydrate strategies (starch source, supplementation and inclusion rate, starch–fibre substitutions, neutral detergent fibre [NDF], and forage source) across dairy, beef, and sheep modelsa Notes: Arrows indicate the response relative to the treatment (first listed compared to second), where nd corresponds to no significant differences (P ≥ 0.05), † denotes a tendency (0.05 < P <0.10), and a dashed line indicates not reported. aAbbreviations: immunoglobulin G (IgG), rumen-protected conjugated linoleic acid (RP-CLA), rapeseed meal (RSM), metabolizable energy (ME), net energy (NE), immunoglobulin A (IgA), 3′sialyllactose (3′SL), fatty acid (FA). bSources: 1. Fatahnia et al. (2012); 2. Dunn et al. (2017); 3. Eger et al. (2017) ; 4. Daneshvar et al. (2020); 5. Fischer-Tlustos et al. (2021b); 6. Fischer-Tlustos et al. (2022b); 7. Nowak et al. (2012); 8. Fischer-Tlustos et al. (2022a); 9. Duplessis et al. (2015); 10. Mann et al. (2016); 11. Richards et al. (2020); 12. Vasquez et al. (2021); et al. Hare et al. et al. Banchero et al. Banchero et al. Banchero et al. et al. (2012); et al. et al. (2020); et al. Banchero et al. et al. Summary of colostrum production responses to varying prepartum dietary carbohydrate strategies (starch source, supplementation and inclusion rate, starch–fibre substitutions, neutral detergent fibre [NDF], and forage source) across dairy, beef, and sheep modelsa Notes: Arrows indicate the response relative to the treatment (first listed compared to second), where nd corresponds to no significant differences (P ≥ 0.05), † denotes a tendency (0.05 < P <0.10), and a dashed line indicates not reported. aAbbreviations: immunoglobulin G (IgG), rumen-protected conjugated linoleic acid (RP-CLA), rapeseed meal (RSM), metabolizable energy (ME), net energy (NE), immunoglobulin A (IgA), 3′sialyllactose (3′SL), fatty acid (FA). bSources: 1. Fatahnia et al. (2012); 2. Dunn et al. (2017); 3. Eger et al. (2017) ; 4. Daneshvar et al. (2020); 5. Fischer-Tlustos et al. (2021b); 6. Fischer-Tlustos et al. (2022b); 7. Nowak et al. (2012); 8. Fischer-Tlustos et al. (2022a); 9. Duplessis et al. (2015); 10. Mann et al. (2016); 11. Richards et al. (2020); 12. Vasquez et al. (2021); et al. Hare et al. et al. Banchero et al. Banchero et al. Banchero et al. et al. (2012); et al. et al. (2020); et al. Banchero et al. et al. A of how dietary carbohydrate protein and fat intake affects colostrum yield and composition G and bioactive component produced by dairy and beef cattle. that the dietary component not affect that colostrum indicates that the colostrum is by that dietary was with A of how dietary carbohydrate protein and fat intake affects colostrum yield and composition G and bioactive components produced by ewes. that the dietary component not affect that colostrum indicates that the colostrum is by that dietary was with Research in dairy cattle demonstrates that increasing dietary energy by the not impact colostrum yield. Daneshvar et al. that altering diet starch inclusion to by with and not affect colostrum yield. in dietary starch content of approximately to similar colostrum production et al., Fischer-Tlustos et al., h of protein and intake not across et al., colostrum yield is by late-gestation dietary protein intake it is whether between dietary energy and protein intake. In to dairy cattle, increasing dietary starch inclusion to providing between and ME colostrum yield by in beef cattle et al., 2021). cattle with but colostrum was calving treatment with Hare et al., 2021). it is beef cattle colostrum production is more to starch intake than dairy cattle, are it be that the beef cattle are not dairy are physiological differences for milk compared to that affect between to the be in dairy cattle the of colostrum such that the system is prior to the of more as a the response with beef the differences between studies starch source, and of starch would have a substantial in In with beef cattle, increasing dietary starch and energy intake in sheep colostrum yield (Banchero et al., 2015). Banchero et al. strategically used as a starch source, first-milking colostrum yield relative to ewes. ewes and the was that it was not for by the ewes with or produced a similar mass of colostrum as the their energy intake that of the by to (Banchero et al., data indicate that starch intake has a more impact than ME consumption on colostrum production and, that the of starch is starch are shown to increase concentrations (Banchero et al., Hare et al., 2022), increasing for and of colostrum concentration has been with greater colostrum yield (Banchero et al., Hare et al., 2021), with in (Banchero et al., Hare et al., colostrum concentration is relatively less than milk which the that it is a for colostrum colostrum production is also less than milk production. That said, are in colostrum that contribute to such as or as In dairy cattle, prepartum starch has been shown to and total IgG concentrations in colostrum et al., this be when colostral IgG concentrations between studies using dietary starch IgG concentration in first-milking colostrum 1 to h calving has been reduced by greater dietary starch inclusion or ME intake (Mann et al., Fischer-Tlustos et al., Hare et al., 2021). However, these differences in IgG concentration are not across studies et al., This be to IgG as (Mann et al., Fischer-Tlustos et al., Hare et al., 2021), IgG using a et al., It be that responses to starch intake could starch et al., variation be to the (Mann et al., Richards et al., relative to 1 and 2. Interestingly, differences in prepartum IgG concentrations to prior to calving have been in response to supplementation et al., Yet, is a of effect on first-milking colostrum IgG concentration or yield et al., that IgG concentrations in to the for IgG In ewes, studies have that increasing starch and energy the concentration of colostrum (Banchero et al., 2015). However, it is unlikely that the differences in are due to changes in IgG concentration, given that the studies have no effect of starch supplementation on colostrum Hare et al. that increasing the of dietary starch to beef cattle colostrum fat concentration, protein concentration, and colostrum concentration. Yet, in dairy cattle, colostrum composition and is by starch inclusion et al., Daneshvar et al., Fischer-Tlustos et al., There is a of response on colostrum fat concentration and yield, Mann et al. that fat yield to increase with greater ME intake. Furthermore, differences have been in fatty acid concentrations In to dairy cattle, the inclusion of colostrum fat concentration in one (Banchero et al., and increasing starch and energy to and increase concentrations in colostrum (Banchero et al., 2015). in ewes concentrations but not yields. However, et al. that the of an in late-gestation ewes yields of and in first-milking colostrum at This that as concentrations yield, consequently components. colostrum concentration is also associated with greater colostrum yield and reduced protein and in dairy cattle (Soufleri et al., 2021), the that colostrum yield component studies in ewes and cattle aim to colostrum concentrations and yields to total impact of energy on colostrum bioactive components has been in dairy cattle. a ME requirements prior to calving the of fatty while suppressing the of relative to a that or ME requirements prior to calving (Mann et al., 2016). that energy prior to calving can the of for by the in a in source, while total fat concentration is the colostrum have for calf concentration has also been shown to increase by approximately to (Mann et al., Fischer-Tlustos et al., in response to starch and This is not given that energy intake affects and elevated at 1 to prior to calving is with colostrum (Mann et al., 2016). Furthermore, a to Mann et al. that at a target of ME colostrum concentrations by compared to a target of ME et al., which due to in in response to altered NDF and starch dietary starch inclusion has been shown to have no effect on colostrum total acid concentrations or yields (Fischer-Tlustos et al., when colostrum was h of increasing dietary energy content a in total concentrations (Fischer-Tlustos et al., This that increasing dietary starch not the production of acid for it the or of that the of in the that the sufficiency of prepartum intake relative to net protein have not impact on colostrum production. protein requirements for colostrum production on net are substantial but and, as such, relative to pregnancy and studies in Table have strategies for prepartum dietary protein intake relative to colostrum production for dairy and beef cattle and ewes relative to colostrum production 1 and We to these to the of ruminant and than Summary of colostrum production responses to varying prepartum dietary protein strategies protein protein and metabolizable protein protein source, and acid across dairy, beef, and sheep modelsa Notes: Arrows indicate the response relative to treatment (first listed compared to second), where nd corresponds to no significant differences (P ≥ † denotes a tendency (0.05 < P < and a dashed line indicates not reported. aAbbreviations: immunoglobulin G (IgG), rapeseed meal (RSM), rumen-protected dry intake and bSources: 1. et al. 2. et al. 3. et al. 4. et al. 5. and (2015) ; 6. et al. (2017); 7. and (2017); 8. et al. 9. et al. ; 10. et al. 11. et al. 12. et al. et al. ; et al. et al. et al. (2020); Hare et al. Hare et al. ; and ; et al. et al. et al. and et al. et al. ; et al. ; et al. et al. et al. et al. ; et al. (2016); et al. ; et al. (2021); et al. Summary of colostrum production responses to varying prepartum dietary protein strategies protein protein and metabolizable protein protein source, and acid across dairy, beef, and sheep modelsa Notes: Arrows indicate the response relative to treatment (first listed compared to second), where nd corresponds to no significant differences (P ≥ † denotes a tendency (0.05 < P < and a dashed line indicates not reported. aAbbreviations: immunoglobulin G (IgG), rapeseed meal (RSM), rumen-protected dry intake and bSources: 1. et al. 2. et al. 3. et al. 4. et al. 5. and (2015) ; 6. et al. (2017); 7. and (2017); 8. et al. 9. et al. ; 10. et al. 11. et al. 12. et al. et al. ; et al. et al. et al. (2020); Hare et al. Hare et al. ; and ; et al. et al. et al. and et al. et al. ; et al. ; et al. et al. et al. et al. ; et al. (2016); et al. ; et al. (2021); et al. meal for meal as a protein the that greater meal increases first-milking colostrum yield and et al., data indicate that colostrum yield h et al., and et al., not differ due to late-gestation dietary protein intake in dairy and beef cattle et al., et al., studies are for beef cattle and is This that in colostrum yield with global nutrient restriction (Logan, 1977; Petrie et al., 1984) are the of energy intake of protein intake. However, this is not restriction of energy intake either dietary starch or fat inclusion affects colostrum yield in cattle. to cattle, colostrum yield in sheep more sensitive to protein supplementation with studies that protein intake in with greater increases colostrum yield et al., et al., However, studies have also that protein intake not affect colostrum yield in ewes et al., 2016). models more with to genetic differences in colostrum and et al., which could the variation in response and to dietary protein content and However, colostrum also confound responses in these studies through using the than colostrum and variation and (within h postlambing) in to et al., et al., 2016). with colostrum yield, colostrum IgG concentration, as by et al., Hare et al., or using et al., 2022), is by protein intake in dairy and beef cattle et al., Hare et al., et al., Similarly, with ewes, studies have not a between protein intake and colostrum IgG concentration by and though be an with consumption of relative to intake where IgG was by the et al., 2008). and that IgG yield with supplementation colostrum yield was studies with beef or dairy cattle colostrum IgG yield with protein intake, as no data are it that IgG concentration in colostrum is not to late-gestation protein intake in ruminants. There are data how prepartum protein intake affects colostrum composition and yield in cattle. That said, is colostral protein, and concentrations are et al., 2022), are their yields et al., To Hare et al. rations that in content requirements) and that colostrum fat concentration an of calving prior to was reduced for beef relative to a at requirements It is this response and is by where and multiparous beef cattle rations that or relative to requirements or requirements) when ME intake was across To these cattle with greater variation in to colostrum and colostrum protein concentration has been to increase with protein supplementation in studies with ewes et al., but not et al., 2008; et al., 2016). are with to colostrum fat and concentrations et al., et al., 2016). colostrum yield is yield is by late-gestation protein intake et al., 2016). Hare et al. that colostrum concentration, similar to was when ME (Mann et al., Fischer-Tlustos et al., by et al. (2018) the colostrum relative to the of their calves was conducted in with Hare et al. 2022), in which colostrum an calving the calf was calves prior to and colostrum that been prior to calving in the colostrum to associated with and immune system and of associated with Furthermore, at common between the calf and the colostrum of colostrum that by prepartum intake. calves to was an in responses to to which their is and less associated with a in prepartum nutrient intake to have the to the colostral bioactive when changes in colostrum yield and composition are not prepartum protein intake not be as are on the typically have dietary fat and, dietary fat not to to on However, greater dietary fat can also and and due to to and prepartum dietary fat intake can increase energy intake without providing excessive dietary prepartum fat intake have utility for prepartum rations and studies in cattle and ewes have responses 1 and to prepartum dietary fat inclusion and Summary of colostrum production responses to varying dietary fat inclusion strategies fatty acid and inclusion across dairy, beef, and sheep modelsa Notes: Arrows indicate the response relative to treatment (first listed compared to second), where nd corresponds to no significant differences (P ≥ † denotes a tendency (0.05 < P < and a dashed line indicates not reported. aAbbreviations: immunoglobulin G (IgG), rumen-protected conjugated linoleic acid acid acid essential fatty acid fatty acid and acid bSources: 1. et al. 2. et al. 3. et al. 4. et al. (2016); 5. Eger et al. (2017); 6. and (2017); 7. et al. 8. Daneshvar et al. (2020); 9. et al. ; 10. et al. (2020); 11. et al. ; 12. et al. et al. ; et al. et al. (2020); et al. (2020); et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. (2017); et al. et al. (2021); et al. (2021); et al. et al. Summary of colostrum production responses to varying dietary fat inclusion strategies fatty acid and inclusion across dairy, beef, and sheep modelsa Notes: Arrows indicate the response relative to treatment (first listed compared to second), where nd corresponds to no significant differences (P ≥ † denotes a tendency (0.05 < P < and a dashed line indicates not reported. aAbbreviations: immunoglobulin G (IgG), rumen-protected conjugated linoleic acid acid acid essential fatty acid fatty acid and acid bSources: 1. et al. 2. et al. 3. et al. 4. et al. (2016); 5. Eger et al. (2017); 6. and (2017); 7. et al. 8. Daneshvar et al. (2020); 9. et al. ; 10. et al. (2020); 11. et al. ; 12. et al. et al. ; et al. et al. (2020); et al. (2020); et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. (2017); et al. et al. (2021); et al. (2021); et al. et al. fat inclusion and have not been shown to affect first-milking colostrum production in dairy cattle, either when NE concentration was et al., or when it was not et al., To the knowledge, colostrum yield in beef cattle fat inclusion or has not been reported. colostrum yield in ewes to be more to dietary fat content than cattle, but across studies have that specific fat relative to of can first-milking colostrum yield an et al., and between and h et al., have increases in inclusion et al. (2017) and relative to et al., 2021) first-milking colostrum yield to Thus, it that elevated or inclusion relatively higher concentrations of linoleic and in late-gestation rations could be beneficial for increasing colostrum yield. it is this response Interestingly, colostral IgG concentration, as by or using to be to dietary fat inclusion and in dairy et al., 2016) and beef cattle et al., et al., Most elevated et al., et al., et al., than colostrum IgG concentrations with an et al., colostrum IgG concentration prepartum fat intake is studies that feed with elevated quantities of linoleic acid and linoleic acid concentrations in cattle et al., et al., IgG yield is often not in dairy and beef cattle, one that was no in colostrum IgG output between colostrum IgG concentration et al., data are for ewes, their colostral IgG concentration not to respond to fat intake and as in cattle et al., 2008). as this be due to the inclusion of fat that have relatively fatty acid G yield has been to when colostrum yield was reduced by inclusion et al., 2008). Colostral concentrations are by dietary fat content and for cattle and Daneshvar et al., when the was colostrum fat concentration was reduced by dietary fat and et al., Daneshvar et al., fat intake and also colostrum protein concentration et al., 2016). et al. also that than to increase colostrum concentration. We are of studies in dairy or beef cattle that yields relative to prepartum fat and intake. colostrum composition to be by late-gestation dietary fat intake et al., et al., colostral is the bioactive component research evaluating prepartum dietary fat intake and cattle and colostrum composition across studies when the dietary fat inclusion or is altered in such a that with dietary intake and to bioactive components and et al. that colostrum concentration was by the of fat with such that ewes of acid with substantially concentrations to and to of in their by et al. (2022), dairy cattle and or in no effect on the concentrations of or in with prepartum protein intake, more research is to in the bioactive components to when colostrum composition is Prepartum nutrient intake has the to influence in and species and impact colostrum yield and composition. ewes are more sensitive to composition than cattle, is to that prepartum can be used strategically to promote colostrum production in starch and fat content and to influence on colostrum IgG concentration, with data that substitutions affects colostrum yield in beef but not dairy cattle. data that cattle are to dietary protein colostrum production to dietary protein and intake. to differentiate between carbohydrate, protein, and fat for total IgG and yield, to in to the and of supplementation relative to the of In is a to the colostral bioactive as this often to prepartum nutrient intake without changes in the composition of Colostral bioactive components are important for and, as such, prepartum nutrient intake be used strategically to the offspring. Hare a in where has a and (2015) and (2018) at the of and at the of in research how prepartum affects colostrum production in cattle and the influence of colostrum bioactive components on calf Fischer-Tlustos at the of in focusing on the of colostrum management on the of the dairy in including as a research and content in the of and research on factors the and concentrations of bioactive compounds in colostrum and milk and their in dairy calf immunity and a for in through on and through in the at the of an at the of this focused on and nutrient in and their with and production to the of in as an with research physiological that influence feed efficiency and production in cattle, as well as how can impact and production. in the on an at of the of and where a dietary milk protein and In a with at the of where a to predict of the dairy for was as a at of research has focused on the of milk and the of dietary nutrients is a at the of with research to ruminant through a systems the to research is by on a dairy in where by the of and production overall of research is to a of how and management factors that are common in production can impact and the and in

Topics & Concepts