Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:30:20.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of dam weight and pregnancy nutrition on average lactation performance of ewe offspring over 5 years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2016

A. M. Paten ,
S. J. Pain ,
S. W. Peterson ,
N. Lopez-Villalobos ,
P. R. Kenyon  and
H. T. Blair
A. M. Paten
Affiliation:
International Sheep Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
S. J. Pain
Affiliation:
International Sheep Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
S. W. Peterson
Affiliation:
International Sheep Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
N. Lopez-Villalobos
Affiliation:
International Sheep Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
P. R. Kenyon*
Affiliation:
International Sheep Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
H. T. Blair
Affiliation:
International Sheep Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The foetal mammary gland is sensitive to maternal weight and nutrition during gestation, which could affect offspring milk production. It has previously been shown that ewes born to dams offered maintenance nutrition during pregnancy (day 21 to 140 of gestation) produced greater milk, lactose and CP yields in their first lactation when compared with ewes born to dams offered ad libitum nutrition. In addition, ewes born to heavier dams produced greater milk and lactose yields when compared with ewes born to lighter dams. The objective of this study was to analyse and compare the 5-year lactation performance of the previously mentioned ewes, born to heavy or light dams that were offered maintenance or ad libitum pregnancy nutrition. Ewes were milked once per week, for the first 6 weeks of their lactation, for 5 years. Using milk yield and composition data, accumulated yields were calculated over a 42-day period for each year for milk, milk fat, CP, true protein, casein and lactose using a Legendre orthogonal polynomial model. Over the 5-year period, ewes born to heavy dams produced greater average milk (P=0.04), lactose (P=0.01) and CP (P=0.04) yields than offspring born to light dams. In contrast, over the 5-year period dam nutrition during pregnancy did not affect average (P>0.05) offspring milk yields or composition, but did increase milk and lactose accumulated yield (P=0.03 and 0.01, respectively) in the first lactation. These results indicate that maternal gestational nutrition appears to only affect the first lactational performance of ewe offspring. Neither dam nutrition nor size affected grand-offspring live weight gain to, or live weight at weaning (P>0.05). Combined these data indicate that under the conditions of the present study, manipulating dam weight or nutrition in pregnancy can have some effects of offspring lactational performance, however, these effects are not large enough to alter grand-offspring growth to weaning. Therefore, such manipulations are not a viable management tool for farmers to influence lamb growth to weaning.

Keywords

mammary glandfoetal programmingmilk productionewelamb
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 1027 - 1035
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Land and Water Flagship, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), GPO Box 1700, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

References

Akers, RM and Capuco, AV 1999. Mammary involution in dairy animals. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 4, 137–144.Google Scholar
Ashworth, CJ, Dwyer, CM, Mcevoy, TG, Rooke, JA and Robinson, JJ 2009. The impact of in utero nutritional programming on small ruminant performances. Nutritional and foraging ecology of sheep and goats 12th seminar of the FAO- CIHEAM sub-network on sheep and goat nutrition (ed. Papachristou TG, Parissi ZM, Salem HB and Morand-Fehr P), pp. 337–349. Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
Asmad, K, Kenyon, PR, Pain, SJ, Parkinson, TJ, Peterson, SW, Lopez-Villalobos, N and Blair, HT 2014. Effects of dam size and nutrition during pregnancy on lifetime performance of female offspring. Small Ruminant Research 121, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, DJP 1997. Maternal nutrition, fetal nutrition, and disease in later life. Nutrition 13, 807–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, AW 2006. Prenatal programming of postnatal productivity and health of livestock: a brief review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 725–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, HT, Jenkinson, CM, Peterson, SW, Kenyon, PR, van der Linden, DS, Davenport, LC, Mackenzie, DD, Morris, ST and Firth, EC 2010. Dam and granddam feeding during pregnancy in sheep affects milk supply in offspring and reproductive performance in grand-offspring. Journal of Animal Science 88, 40–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capuco, AV and Ellis, SE 2013. Comparative aspects of mammary gland development and homeostasis. Annual Reviews in Animal Bioscience 1, 179–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degen, AA and Benjamin, RW 2005. Milk and herbage intakes and growth rate of lambs from 32 to 130 days of age raised on natural pasture in the semi-arid Negev. Small Ruminant Research 58, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluckman, PD and Hanson, MA 2004. The developmental origins of the metabolic syndrome. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 15, 183–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hales, CN and Barker, DJ 1992. Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes mellitus: the thrifty phenotype hypothesis. Diabetologia 35, 595–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hales, CN and Barker, DJ 2001. The thrifty phenotype hypothesis. British Medical Bulletin 60, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, CW, Brookes, IM, Garrick, DJ, MacKenzie, DDS, Parkinson, TJ and Wilson, GF 2002. Milk production from pasture: principles and practices. Massey University, pp. 239. Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Kenyon, PR 2008. Landcorp farming limited lecture: a review of in-utero environmental effects on sheep production. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 68, 142–155.Google Scholar
Kenyon, PR and Blair, HT 2014. Foetal programming in sheep – effects on production. Small Ruminant Research 118, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenyon, PR, Blair, HT, Jenkinson, CMC, Morris, ST, Mackenzie, DDS, Peterson, SW, Firth, EC and Johnston, PL 2009. The effect of ewe size and nutritional regimen beginning in early pregnancy on ewe and lamb performance to weaning. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, I 1959. The determination of milk yield in the Merino ewe. Crop and Pasture Science 10, 839–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ 1983. Nutritional and placental determinants of foetal growth-rate in sheep and consequences for the newborn lamb. British Veterinary Journal 139, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morel, PCH and Kenyon, PR 2006. Sensitivity analysis of weaner lamb production. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Animal Production 66, 377–381.Google Scholar
van der Linden, DS, Kenyon, PR, Blair, HT, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Jenkinson, CMC, Peterson, SW and Mackenzie, DDS 2009. Effects of ewe size and nutrition on foetal mammary gland development and lactational performance of offspring at their first lactation. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3944–3954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Linden, DS, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Kenyon, PR, Thorstensen, E, Jenkinson, CMC, Peterson, SW and Blair, HT 2010. Comparison of four techniques to estimate milk production in singleton-rearing non-dairy ewes. Small Ruminant Research 90, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, G, Bazer, FW, Wallace, JM and Spencer, TE 2006. Board-invited review: intrauterine growth retardation: implications for the animal sciences. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2316–2337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed