Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:43:15.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Environmental and genetic factors influence the vitamin D content of cows’ milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

R. R. Weir
Affiliation:
Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
J. J. Strain
Affiliation:
Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
M. Johnston
Affiliation:
Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, Shaftesbury House, Edgewater Office Park, Belfast BT3 9JQ, UK
C. Lowis
Affiliation:
Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, Shaftesbury House, Edgewater Office Park, Belfast BT3 9JQ, UK
A. M. Fearon
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
S. Stewart
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
L. K. Pourshahidi*
Affiliation:
Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr K. Pourshahidi, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vitamin D is obtained by cattle from the diet and from skin production via UVB exposure from sunlight. The vitamin D status of the cow impacts the vitamin D content of the milk produced, much like human breast milk, with seasonal variation in the vitamin D content of milk well documented. Factors such as changes in husbandry practices therefore have the potential to impact the vitamin D content of milk. For example, a shift to year-round housing from traditional practices of cattle being out to graze during the summer months and housed during the winter only, minimises exposure to the sun and has been shown to negatively influence the vitamin D content of the milk produced. Other practices such as changing dietary sources of vitamin D may also influence the vitamin D content of milk, and evidence exists to suggest genetic factors such as breed can cause variation in the concentrations of vitamin D in the milk produced. The present review aims to provide an overview of the current understanding of how genetic and environmental factors influence the vitamin D content of the milk produced by dairy cattle. A number of environmental and genetic factors have previously been identified as having influence on the nutritional content of the milk produced. The present review highlights a need for further research to fully elucidate how farmers could manipulate the factors identified to their advantage with respect to increasing the vitamin D content of milk and standardising it across the year.

Type
Irish Section Postgraduate Meeting
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016 

Cattle require vitamin D to aid the excretion of calcium from the kidneys and in the reabsorption of calcium from the bones, maintaining calcium homeostasis( Reference Horst, Goff and Reinhardt 1 ). Vitamin D is also important in preventing the development of hypocalcaemia( Reference Hymøller, Jensen and Lindqvist 2 ) and milk fever which is a debilitating disorder typically seen close to calving, characterised by decreased blood calcium concentrations, and in severe cases can result in fatalities( Reference Goff, Liesegang and Horst 3 ).

In a similar manner to human subjects, cattle can obtain vitamin D through both endogenous, or dermal synthesis, as well as dietary sources. Only vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is produced through dermal synthesis following exposure to UVB emitted from the sun( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 4 ). Dietary sources, however, can provide both vitamins D3 and D2 (ergocalciferol). Vitamin D2 is typically obtained naturally through the ingestion of fungi growing among the vegetation cattle consume( Reference Richardson and Logendra 5 ), and dietary vitamin D3 is provided through synthetic additives in the feed concentrates( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 6 ), usually in regulated quantities (per kg/d). Therefore, differences in husbandry practices can cause an inherent variation in the vitamin D content of the milk produced between different farms and throughout the year (e.g. housed v. grazing on pasture and grass v. concentrate feed). The amount of vitamin D consumed or synthesised by cattle impacts the vitamin D status of the animal, and much like human breast milk, the vitamin D status of the cow subsequently impacts the vitamin D content of the milk produced( Reference Light, Wilson and Frey 7 Reference Jakobsen, Jensen and Hymøller 9 ).

Cows’ milk provides many nutrients in the human diet (e.g. protein, calcium, riboflavin, vitamin B12, potassium, iodine and phosphorus) and has been associated with a number of health benefits( 10 ). In the face of limited dietary sources of vitamin D, dairy products remain an important contribution to adults’ overall vitamin D intake( 11 ), with several countries across the globe implementing a mandatory or voluntary fortification policy for fluid milk to improve the vitamin D content of the milk on sale( Reference Laaksi, Ruohola and Ylikomi 12 Reference Lamberg-Allardt, Brustad and Meyer 15 ).

The aims of the present review were to provide an overview of: (1) the genetic and the environmental factors that influence the vitamin D status of dairy cattle; (2) how these factors influence the vitamin D content of the milk produced.

Environmental factors

Seasonal changes in vitamin D content

Seasonal variations in vitamin D content of milk are well documented, with concentrations found to be higher in the summer months than in the winter, most likely due to differences in both husbandry and feeding practices between the seasons. Reports dating back as far as the 1920s demonstrated that a single cow pasture-fed between May and July had a higher ‘anti-rachitic’ (vitamin D) content than the milk produced when the same cow was fed in-house and kept in the dark( Reference Luce 16 ). The same cow was then involved in another study, which collected milk samples for 18 months. In support of the initial findings, a 2–3-fold increase in the vitamin D content of the milk produced was observed when the cow was out to pasture, compared with the milk produced when the cow was housed in a dark stall( Reference Chick and Roscoe 17 ). Evidence suggests that this seasonal variation is the result of insufficient stores of vitamin D in the liver and fat tissues for mobilisation in times when dietary intake of the vitamin is low( Reference Thompson 18 ). Many subsequent studies have confirmed the seasonal variation of the vitamin D content of milk (approximate differences ranging between 0·004 and 0·0014 µg/g fat) across different countries and breeds of cattle (Table 1)( Reference Thompson, Henry and Kon 19 Reference Lindmark-Månsson, Fondén and Pettersson 22 ). Although seasonal variation in vitamin D content is widely reported in the literature, units of measurement are inconsistent, which makes it difficult to compare between studies. In the previous edition of the UK Food Composition Tables, no seasonal variation in the vitamin D content of milk was noted for whole, semi-skimmed and skimmed milk, but was observed in the whole milk samples from the Channel Islands, where mean concentrations for summer and winter were 0·04 µg/100 g and 0·03 µg/100 g, respectively( Reference McCance and Widdowson 23 ). In the most recent edition, a lack of seasonal variation is still apparent, with vitamin D only quantified for Channel Island whole milk, listed as 0·01 µg/100 g and trace for whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed and 1% milks( Reference McCance and Widdowson 24 ).

Table 1. Studies investigating the seasonal variation of vitamin D concentrations in cow's milk

* Seasonal means not reported.

While the seasonal variation in the vitamin D content of milk is established, not all studies or databases, such as the recent editions of the UK Food Composition Tables, report such variations, and a more comprehensive update of vitamin D in milk across the UK and Ireland is warranted.

UVB exposure

In a study by Hymøller et al., cows from two organic dairy farms in Denmark were selected to determine the effect of sunlight on the vitamin D status in March and April, and on each farm, cattle were allocated based on milk yield, parity and lactation stage to have daily outdoor access (from February to April) or to be confined indoors for the duration of the study (November–April)( Reference Hymøller, Mikkelsen and Jensen 25 ). Results from Farm 1 found no significant effect of treatment allocation on plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3) concentration in March (P = 0·350) or April (P = 0·060), with mean plasma 25(OH)D3 concentrations of 7·84 and 5·85 ng/ml for the outdoor and indoor groups, respectively( Reference Hymøller, Mikkelsen and Jensen 25 ). On Farm 2, the outdoor group had a significantly higher 25(OH)D3 concentration in March, compared with the indoor group (5·71 v. 3·36 ng/ml; P < 0·05), but the same difference was not reported in April (P = 0·100)( Reference Hymøller, Mikkelsen and Jensen 25 ). Hymøller et al.( Reference Hymøller, Mikkelsen and Jensen 25 ) concluded that the assumption was that supplemental vitamin D3 may still be required in the spring as a means to maintain a healthy vitamin D status.

In the field of bio-fortification/bio-addition, a recent Danish study( Reference Jakobsen, Jensen and Hymøller 9 ) investigated the potential impact of supplemental UVB light on vitamin D3 synthesis in sixteen housed Holstein cattle, a common dairy breed, which had been severely depleted of their vitamin D stores. The cows were randomised to receive artificial UVB light 30, 90 or 120 min daily for 24 d or 60 min for 73 d; the length of UVB exposure was designed to be equivalent to 1, 2, 3 and 4 h of sunlight at pasture at 56°N, respectively( Reference Jakobsen, Jensen and Hymøller 9 ). After 24 d, the exposure to supplemental UVB light significantly increased the vitamin D3 and 25(OH)D3 concentrations in the milk in a dose-dependent manner over 30, 90 and 120 min( Reference Jakobsen, Jensen and Hymøller 9 ). In the cattle allocated to receive 60 min daily, a significant increase (P = 0·029) in the vitamin D3 (but not the 25(OH)D3) concentration of the milk produced between days 0 and 24 was noted, but this did not increase further up to day 73 (P = 0·400)( Reference Jakobsen, Jensen and Hymøller 9 ).

This important preliminary evidence, albeit from a limited number of studies, suggests that vitamin D bio-fortification of cow's milk does, at least in theory seem probable. Future studies therefore should investigate this novel on-farm method as a means of minimising the seasonal variation in cow's vitamin D status and the milk produced.

Diet

The seasonal changes in the vitamin D content of milk, have long been associated with the change in UV intensity and a reduction in the time spent outdoors, rather than as a result of the change in feed( Reference Lindmark-Månsson, Fondén and Pettersson 22 , Reference Bartlett, Cotton and Henry 26 ). That being stated, in the UK cattle are solely reliant on dietary vitamin D during the winter, obtained through grass stores (hay, silage or haylage) or feed concentrates. Prior to 2010, both vitamins D2 and D3 were authorised by the European Commission as sources of vitamin D, which could be added to feeds intended for cattle; however, in November 2010 no submission was made for the re-authorisation of a vitamin D2 dossier, and as a result cattle can now only obtain vitamin D2 from the consumption of fungi growing among the vegetation (fresh grass, hay, silage or haylage) used as roughage in the diet( Reference Richardson and Logendra 5 ) and not from concentrates. Within the EU, vitamin D3 is now the only authorised source of supplemental vitamin D for cattle( 27 ), with the maximum permitted levels set at 4000 IU (100 µg)/kg of feed( 28 ).

Although cattle are reliant on dietary vitamin D during the winter months, it has been suggested that fat-soluble vitamins from such dietary sources are destroyed once they enter the rumen, owing to the fermentative environment( Reference Rode, McAllister and Cheng 29 , Reference Bourne, Wathes and McGowan 30 ). Research using a fistula model was designed to test this hypothesis in vitamin D( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 4 ). A maximum of 15 kg ruminal contents were removed and mixed with a vitamin D2 and D3 (both 250 mg) and vitamin E pre-mix( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 4 ). The contents were then returned to the rumen; ruminal and blood samples were then collected over the subsequent 30 h period( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 4 ). Once collected, ruminal samples were freeze-dried (in vivo samples), additional ruminal samples were collected at the 1 h time-point, and stored in plastic bottles, which were then placed in a water-bath (37 °C; in vitro samples). The concentrations of both vitamins D2 and D3 declined over the study period in the in vivo samples, with concentrations remaining stable in the in vitro samples, suggesting no degradation in the intact ruminal sample( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 4 ). Results showed that the plasma concentrations of both vitamins D2 and D3 increased over the first few hours, from levels below the limit of detection, and reached a maximum concentration after 24 h (99(15) and 163(16) ng/ml, respectively), with vitamin D3 concentrations significantly higher than those for vitamin D2 ( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 4 ). It has previously been hypothesised that vitamin D degradation in the rumen may be a natural protective detoxification process when large quantities of the vitamin are consumed( Reference Horst, Reinhardt and Reddy 31 ), and this may also be a possible reason for the rapid conversion to 25-hydroxyvitamin D observed by Hymøller and Jensen( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 4 ).

Previously the potential of intravenous supplements to improve the vitamin D status of the cow and the milk produced have also been considered. Thompson and Hidiroglou( Reference Thompson and Hidiroglou 32 ) orally administered 1 000 000 IU (25 000 µg) vitamin D2 and 1 000 000 IU (25 000 µg) vitamin D3 mixed in maize oil to two dairy cows, collecting milk and blood samples for 10 d after. The results showed that the maximum plasma vitamin D concentrations were observed after 2–3 d, with the maximum concentrations in the milk 1–3 d after( Reference Thompson and Hidiroglou 32 ). At the same time twelve additional cows were allocated to be orally or intravenously administered with vitamin D3 in doses of 5 000 000 IU (125 000 µg) or 10 000 000 IU (250 000 µg). Increases in the vitamin D content of the milk produced varied between animals, with the maximum levels reached between 3 and 7 d for the oral doses and up to 10 d for the intravenous doses, with the maximum observed ranges between 8 IU (0·2 µg) and 92 IU (2·3 µg)/100 ml( Reference Thompson and Hidiroglou 32 ). It is important to interpret these results with caution as the doses administered in this trial are extreme and would not be feasible to incorporate into the daily management of a dairy herd. Furthermore, little is also known on the safety, efficacy and longer-term effects of prolonged usage ‘mega-doses’, other than the data available for acute doses used in the treatment of milk fever( Reference Olsen, Jorgensen and Bringe 33 , Reference Weiss, Azem and Steinberg 34 ).

A research team led by Hollis collected milk samples from two groups of cows (4000 IU (100 µg) v. 40 000 IU (1000 µg) daily), and found concentrations of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in the milk to be greater in those cattle receiving a higher daily dose of vitamin( Reference Hollis, Roos and Draper 8 ). Similar results were noted for 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D and 25,26-dihydroxyvitamin D( Reference Hollis, Roos and Draper 8 ). This research indicates that the intake of sufficient quantities of dietary vitamin D is enough to increase the vitamin D content of the milk produced.

A cross-over study randomised fourteen Danish Holstein cows based on parity and milk yield to receive a one-off 250 mg dose of vitamin D2, followed by the same dose of vitamin D3 in capsule-form or vice versa( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 6 ). Plasma samples were obtained and area under the curve was used to determine the impact of the two different doses on the plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D status. Results found that the concentrations of plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 when D2 was administered first was less than half that of 25(OH)D3 when the vitamin D3 dose was given first (P ≤ 0·001)( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 6 ), suggesting that vitamin D2 may impair the utilisation of vitamin D3.

McDermott et al. assigned twenty Holstein cows to receive 0 IU, 10 000 IU (250 µg), 50 000 IU (1250 µg) or 250 000 IU (6250 µg) vitamin D3 daily, for 14 weeks starting at 2 weeks pre-partum( Reference McDermott, Beitz and Littledike 35 ). Vitamin D3 concentrations in the colostrum were significantly higher (P < 0·05) in cows receiving 250 000 IU/d compared with the other groups, although this dropped during the transition to normal milk from colostrum, about 1 week post-partum. At the end of the study the vitamin D3 content of the milk was approximately 0·075 ng/ml, 0·16 ng/ml, 20 ng/ml and 22 ng/ml for 0, 10 000, 50 000 and 250 000 IU, respectively( Reference McDermott, Beitz and Littledike 35 ). A mean concentration of 0·15 ng/ml for 25(OH)D3 was observed in normal milk( Reference McDermott, Beitz and Littledike 35 ).

The need to supplement cattle over the summer months with vitamin D3 was investigated in Swedish Holsteins, assigned to receive a mineral feed containing vitamin D3 concentrations in accordance with Swedish recommendations (control) or the same feed providing approximately 20 000 IU (500 µg) vitamin D3 daily( Reference Hymøller, Jensen and Lindqvist 2 ). Plasma samples collected over the 2-year period showed a significant effect of treatment on the cattle's circulating 25(OH)D3 concentrations compared with control (P ≤ 0·001) and moreover, the 25(OH)D3 concentrations in both the supplemented and unsupplemented cows increased when the cattle were out at pasture over the summer months( Reference Hymøller, Jensen and Lindqvist 2 ). The authors concluded that cattle obtain adequate vitamin D3 from dermal synthesis over the summer, but that stores were not adequate to maintain the status and they had to rely on supplemental vitamin D over the winter( Reference Hymøller, Jensen and Lindqvist 2 ).

Overall the results of the earlier studies provide evidence to suggest that dietary vitamin D3 is adequate to improve the vitamin D content of the milk produced and to help maintain the status in times where dermal synthesis is not feasible, despite the fermentative environment of the rumen. These findings are of particular importance in relation to recent changes in husbandry practices, which have seen a growing shift to the year-round housing of cattle.

Genetic factors

Breed

The variation in the vitamin D content of milk produced by different cattle breeds is supported by evidence conducted across the world (Table 2). The Holstein–Friesian cross has become the most common breed of dairy cow, used for milk production across the world, due to the high production rates( Reference Ramhola, Santos and Casal 36 ) and also remains a popular choice within the majority of British herds( 37 ).

Table 2. Studies investigating the impact of cattle breed on the vitamin D concentrations of milk

* Summer vitamin D concentration. Winter concentrations for all three breeds were 0·002 µg/g fat.

Provitamin D3 also measured – mean concentrations higher in the milk of Holstein–Friesian than Minhota cattle (0·77 and 0·45 µg/g fat).

The average vitamin D content of milk produced in the UK is currently documented as ‘trace’ for whole, semi-skimmed and skimmed milk, albeit breed is not specified, with the exception of whole milk from the Channels Islands where Jersey cows are the dominant breed (0·1 µg/100 g)( Reference McCance and Widdowson 24 ). The differences in vitamin D reported in the current Food Composition Tables support the results of Wallis( Reference Wallis 38 ) who compared the vitamin D content of the milk from Holsteins and Jerseys in the 1940s. Results from this early work showed that although Holsteins produced vastly greater quantities of milk, the vitamin D content of the Jersey cows was on average 3-fold higher owing to higher butterfat concentrations( Reference Wallis 38 ). Bechtel and Hoppert noted that not only was the vitamin D content of the milk higher in the summer months, but also that the milk fat produced from the Guernsey cattle was higher than the milk of the Holstein cattle( Reference Bechtel and Hoppert 39 ). A British study involving three cattle breeds (Friesian, Jersey and Ayrshire) commonly milked in the UK observed differences across the three breeds in summer milk, with little difference apparent in winter milk( Reference Thompson, Henry and Kon 19 ). In Portugal, two studies have noted a higher vitamin D content of milk from indigenous dairy breeds (Barrosã and Minhota) when compared that from with Friesians and Holstein–Friesians( Reference Ramhola, Santos and Casal 36 , Reference Pires, Fernandes and Vilarinho 40 ).

Hair coverage and dominant colour

To determine if cattle could synthesis vitamin D3 regardless of hair coverage, Hymøller and Jensen( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 41 ) designed a study involving sixteen Danish Holstein cattle, which had been depleted of their vitamin D stores, and randomised based on parity and milk yield to one of the four groups. The treatment groups consisted of different levels of body coverage with a fabric, which prevented vitamin D synthesis for 28 d: a horse blanket; an udder cover; a horse blanket and an udder cover; no coverage( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 41 ). The cattle were on pasture for 5 h each day and inside for the remainder of the day, and were fed a vitamin D3-free diet throughout the study( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 41 ). Mean plasma 25(OH)D3 concentrations increased from 2·8  (0·2) ng/ml at baseline in all treatment groups, in a dose-dependent manner with the increasing level of body coverage( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 41 ) (Table 3).

Table 3. Studies investigating the impact of hair coverage and dominant hair colour on the vitamin D synthesis

25(OH)D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

* While no figures were reported it was also determined that dominant hair colour (black or white) had no impact on plasma 25(H)D concentrations.

More recently, Hymøller and Jensen( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 42 ) randomised twenty Danish Holstein heifers based on milk yield and dominant hair colour (black or white) to five different groups, allocated to an increasing length of time on pasture per day (0, 15, 30, 75, 150 or 300 min)( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 42 ). At baseline, the mean plasma 25(OH)D3 concentration for all the heifers was 44·9 (2·4) nm/l. Over 28 d, the cattle on pasture for 15, 30 or 75 min were unable to maintain their 25(OH)D3 concentrations from that at baseline. A significant increase in mean 25(OH)D3 concentration was observed however in those outside on pasture for 150 or 300 min( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 42 ). In addition, they found that the dominant coat colour (black or white) had no significant effect on the plasma concentrations of 25(OH)D3, illustrating that prominent coat colour does not influence the dermal synthesis of vitamin D3 in such cattle( Reference Hymøller and Jensen 42 ) (Table 3).

The results of these two unique studies eloquently demonstrate that cattle can synthesis vitamin D3 through all areas of their skin and not just in the udders or muzzle, where hair coverage is scarce. The work by Hymøller et al. also illustrates that, unlike human subjects, pigmentation has no effect on the synthesis of vitamin D3 following UVB exposure( Reference Libon, Cavalier and Nikkels 43 ). Further work in other cattle breeds is required to further investigate the variance in vitamin D levels in the milk produced. In addition, it may be beneficial to further explore the research by Hymøller and Jensen in other breeds to determine other factors that may prevent the dermal synthesis of vitamin D, such as long haired cattle breeds.

Other factors

Age

A German two-series study investigated the impact age has on the metabolism of 25(OH)D3 ( Reference Wilkens, Cohrs and Lifschitz 44 ). In the first series, fourteen multiparous cows were supplemented orally with 3 mg 25(OH)D3 daily from day 270 of gestation until parturition, with blood samples collected every other day( Reference Wilkens, Cohrs and Lifschitz 44 ). Ninety cows were allocated in the second series to receive 0, 4, 6 mg 25(OH)D3 daily through mineral feed additives for the last 8–10 d of gestation, with blood samples also taken every other day until parturition, and at several intervals thereafter( Reference Wilkens, Cohrs and Lifschitz 44 ). Calculated slopes found the difference in 25(OH)D3 between cattle in their second and third lactation to be significantly higher in the second lactation (P < 0·001), suggesting that younger cattle are more efficient at absorbing 25(OH)D3 or that in older cattle the rate of 25(OH)D3 elimination is faster, with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 increased in cattle in the third lactation or higher( Reference Wilkens, Cohrs and Lifschitz 44 ).

Stage of lactation

A Japanese study collected milk samples from three Holstein cows at stage points post-partum: 1 d after, colostrum; 2–4 d after, early milk and 15 d after, later milk( Reference Okano, Yokoshima and Kobayashi 45 ). Similar concentrations of vitamin D were recorded across the three points for two of the cows (33·2 IU/l (0·83 µg/l), 30·9 IU/l (0·77 µg/l), 35·6 IU/l (0·89 µg/l); and 47·0 IU/l (1·18 µg/l), 47·0 IU/l (1·18 µg/l), 55·7 IU/l (1·39 µg/l), respectively), with no trend noted in the third (77·0 IU/l (1·93 µg/l), 88·9 IU/l (2·22 µg/l) and 47·4 IU/l (1·19 µg/l))( Reference Okano, Yokoshima and Kobayashi 45 ).

Further work required to fully elucidate the impact of age and lactation on the vitamin D content of milk, as this has previously been established for other nutrients such as fatty acids( Reference Kelsey, Corl and Collier 46 , Reference Bainbridge, Cersosimo and Wright 47 ), this is of importance as the cattle milked on a farm will be at various stages of lactation depending on calving dates and parity.

Conclusion

The present review has identified a number of environmental and genetic factors, which can influence both the vitamin D status of cattle and the vitamin D content of the milk produced. It is worthy to note however that most of the research investigating the factors influencing the composition of cows’ milk are, more often than not, concerned only with the macronutrient (namely protein and fat content). Much of the research available with regard to the vitamin D content of cow's milk is in relation to the prevention and treatment of hypocalcaemia and milk fever in dairy herds. Of particular importance to the dairy industry, the present review of the literature indicates that further research is needed to fully elucidate how farmers could manipulate the various factors identified to their advantage with respect to increasing the vitamin D content of milk, and standardising it across the year. Notwithstanding the clear and established health benefits for the animal associated with an improved vitamin D status, this approach potentially could also provide a premium product with an improved vitamin D content for the eventual benefit of the consumer.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding received as part of this PhD studentship.

Financial Support

This work was funded as part of a Department for Education and Learning Co-operative Award for Science and Technology. PhD studentship was funded by the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland to R. R. W.

Conflict of Interest

None.

Authorship

R. R. W. conducted the literature search and drafted the manuscript. J. J. S., M. J., C. L., A. M. F., S. S. and L. K. P. reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

References

1. Horst, RL, Goff, JP & Reinhardt, TA (1994) Symposium: calcium metabolism and utilization. Calcium and vitamin D metabolism in the dairy cow. J Dairy Sci 77, 19361951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Hymøller, L, Jensen, SK, Lindqvist, H et al. (2009) Supplementing dairy steers and organically managed dairy cows with synthetic vitamin D3 is unnecessary at pasture during exposure to summer sunlight. J Dairy Res 76, 372378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Goff, JP, Liesegang, A & Horst, RL (2014) Diet-induced pseudohypoparathyroidism: a hypocalcemia and milk fever risk factor. J Dairy Sci 97, 15201528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Hymøller, L & Jensen, SK (2010) Stability in the rumen and effect on plasma status of single oral doses of vitamin D and vitamin E in high-yielding dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 93, 57485757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Richardson, MD & Logendra, S (1997) Ergosterol as an indicator of endophyte biomass in grass seeds. J Agric Food Chem 45, 39033907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hymøller, L & Jensen, SK (2011) Vitamin D2 impairs utilization of vitamin D3 in high-yielding dairy cows in a cross-over supplementation regimen. J Dairy Sci 94, 34623466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Light, RF, Wilson, LT & Frey, CN (1934) Vitamin D in the blood and milk of cows fed irradiated yeast. J Nutr 8, 105111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hollis, BW, Roos, BA, Draper, HH et al. (1981) Vitamin D and its metabolites in human and bovine milk. J Nutr 111, 12401248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Jakobsen, J, Jensen, SK, Hymøller, L et al. (2015) Short communication: artificial ultraviolet B light exposure increases vitamin D levels in cow plasma and milk. J Dairy Sci 98, 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Food and Agriculture Organization (2013) Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
11. Nutritional Diet and Nutrition Survey (2014) Results from Years 1,2,3 and 4 (combined) of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2011/2012). London: Public Health England.Google Scholar
12. Laaksi, IT, Ruohola, JS, Ylikomi, TJ et al. (2006) Vitamin D fortification as public health policy: significant improvement in vitamin D status in young Finnish men. Eur J Clin Nutr 60, 10351038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium (2011) Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US).Google Scholar
14. Calvo, MS & Whiting, SJ (2013) Survey of current vitamin D food fortification practices in the United States and Canada. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 136, 211213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Lamberg-Allardt, C, Brustad, M, Meyer, HE et al. (2013) Vitamin D – a systematic literature review for the 5th edition of the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations. Food Nutr Res 57, 131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Luce, EM (1924) The influence of diet and sunlight upon the growth-promoting and anti-rachitic properties of the milk afforded by a cow. Biochem J 18, 716739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Chick, H & Roscoe, MH (1926) Influence of diet and sunlight upon the amount of vitamin A and vitamin D in the milk afforded by a cow. Biochem J 20, 632649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Thompson, SY (1968) Section D. nutritive value of milk and milk products. Fat soluble vitamins in milk and milk products. J Dairy Res 35, 149169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Thompson, SY, Henry, KM & Kon, SK (1964) Factors affecting the concentration of vitamins in milk. I. Effect of breed, season and geographical location on fat-soluble vitamins. J Dairy Res 31, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Scott, J, Bishop, DR, Zechalko, A et al. (1984) Nutrient content of liquid milk. 1. Vitamins A, D3, C and the B complex in pasteurised bulk liquid milk. J Dairy Res 51, 3750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Kurmann, KA & Indyk, H (1994) The endogenous vitamin D content of bovine milk: influence of season. Food Chem 50, 7581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Lindmark-Månsson, H, Fondén, R & Pettersson, HE (2003) Composition of Swedish dairy milk. Int Dairy J 13, 409425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. McCance, RA & Widdowson, E (2002) In McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 6th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
24. McCance, RA & Widdowson, E (2014) In McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 7th ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
25. Hymøller, L, Mikkelsen, LK, Jensen, SK et al. (2008) Access to outside areas during March and April in Denmark has negligible effect on the vitamin D3 status of organic dairy cows. Acta Agric Scand A 58, 5154.Google Scholar
26. Bartlett, S, Cotton, AG, Henry, KM et al. (1938) 196. The influence of various fodder supplements on the production and the nutritive value of winter milk. J Dairy Res 9, 273309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. European Commission (2016) European Union Register of Feed Additives Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. Appendix 4(II). Annex II: List of additives subject to the provisions of Art. 10 2 of Reg. (EC) No 1831/2003 for which no application for revaluation was submitted before the deadline of 8 November 2010. Released 18 April 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/animal-feed/feed-additives/eu-register_en Google Scholar
28. European Commission (2015) European Union Register of Feed Additivities pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. Released 14 December 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/animal-feed/feed-additives/eu-register_en Google Scholar
29. Rode, LM, McAllister, TA & Cheng, KJ (1990) Microbial degradation of vitamin A in rumen fluid from steers fed concentrate, hay or straw diets. Can J Anim Sci 70, 227233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Bourne, N, Wathes, DC, McGowan, M et al. (2007) A comparison of the effects of parenteral and oral administration of supplementary vitamin E on plasma vitamin E concentrations in dairy cows at different stages of lactation. Livest Sci 106, 5764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Horst, RL, Reinhardt, TA & Reddy, GS (2005) Vitamin D metabolism. Vitamin D 1, 1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Thompson, SY & Hidiroglou, M (1983) Effects of large oral and intravenous doses of vitamin D2 and D3 on the vitamin D in milk. J Dairy Sci 66, 16381643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Olsen, WG, Jorgensen, NA, Bringe, AN et al. (1974) 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol (25-OH-D3). III. Effect of dosage on soft tissue integrity and vitamin D activity of tissue and milk from dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 57, 677682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Weiss, WP, Azem, E, Steinberg, W et al. (2015) Effect of feeding 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 with a negative cation–anion difference diet on calcium and vitamin D status of periparturient cows and their calves. J Dairy Sci 98, 55885600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. McDermott, CM, Beitz, DC, Littledike, ET et al. (1985) Effects of dietary vitamin D3 on concentrations of vitamin D and its metabolites in blood plasma and milk of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 68, 19591967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Ramhola, HMM, Santos, J, Casal, S et al. (2012) Fat-soluble vitamin (A, D, E and β-carotene) contents from the Portuguese autochthonous cow breed – Minhota. J Dairy Sci 95, 54765484.Google Scholar
37. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2008) The Cattle Book 2008: Descriptive statistics of cattle numbers in Great Britain). Released 1 June 2008. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69220/pb13572-cattlebook-2008-090804.pdf Google Scholar
38. Wallis, GC (1944) A breed comparison in the vitamin D content of milk with notes on a modified technique for the vitamin D assay of low-potency fats and oils. J Dairy Sci 27, 733742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Bechtel, HE & Hoppert, CA (1936) A study of the seasonal variation of vitamin D in normal cow's milk. J Nutr 11, 537549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Pires, P, Fernandes, É, Vilarinho, M et al. (2003) Comparison of milk from two different cow breeds Barrosã and Frísia. Electron J Environ Agric Food Chem 2, 514518.Google Scholar
41. Hymøller, L & Jensen, SK (2010) Vitamin D3 synthesis in the entire skin surface of dairy cows despite hair coverage. J Dairy Sci 93, 20252029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Hymøller, L & Jensen, SK (2012) 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol status in plasma is linearly correlated to daily summer pasture time in cattle at 56°N. Br J Nutr 108, 666671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Libon, F, Cavalier, E & Nikkels, AF (2013) Skin color is relevant to vitamin D synthesis. Dermatology 227, 250254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Wilkens, MR, Cohrs, I, Lifschitz, AL et al. (2013) Is the metabolism of 25-hydrovitamin D3 age-dependent in dairy cows? J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 136, 4446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Okano, T, Yokoshima, K & Kobayashi, T (1984) High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of vitamin D3 in bovine colostrum, early and later milk. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol 30, 431439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Kelsey, JA, Corl, BA, Collier, RJ et al. (2003) The effect of breed, parity, and stage of lactation on conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in milk fat from dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 86, 2588–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Bainbridge, ML, Cersosimo, LM, Wright, ADG et al. (2016) Content and composition of branched-chain fatty acids in bovine milk are affected by lactation stage and breed of dairy cow. PLoS ONE 11, e0150386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Studies investigating the seasonal variation of vitamin D concentrations in cow's milk

Figure 1

Table 2. Studies investigating the impact of cattle breed on the vitamin D concentrations of milk

Figure 2

Table 3. Studies investigating the impact of hair coverage and dominant hair colour on the vitamin D synthesis