Kimberly A Vonnahme, PhDReproductive PhysiologistFebruary 11, 2010

Fetal Programming: Effects of Gestational Nutrition on Cowherd Fertility and Longevity

North Dakota State UniversityCollege of Agriculture, Food Systems,

and Natural ResourcesFargo, ND 58105-5727

“Healthy Offspring through Optimal Nutrition”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Collaborators at NDSU Joel Caton Larry Reynolds Dale Redmer Anna Grazul-Bilska Justin Luther Carrie Hammer Greg Lardy Kasey Carlin Eric Berg

Other collaborators Rick Funston—UNL Bret Taylor—USDA-ARS SES

NDSU Animal Nutrition and Physiology Center

OUTLINE

What is Developmental Programming?

Can maternal intake really influence the reproductive success of her offspring?

PHENOTYPE

Classic Animal Breeding Example

Phenotype = Genotype + Environment

Eg. Milk production = Holstein genetics + Mastitis

PHENOTYPE

Future Animal Breeding Example

Phenotype = Genotype + Environment

Eg. Yield grade= Angus genetics + Protein supplementation in utero

THE MATERNAL ENVIRONMENT

PROGRAMMING

The process through which a stimulus or insult establishes a permanent response

Developmental programming hypothesis

Exposure during a critical period in development may influence later metabolic or physiological functions in adult life

PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION DURING LATE PREGNANCY

Impacts on female progeny reproductive success

3 yrs: Gudmundsen Sandhills (n=170 heifer calves)

Cows bred

No supplement(NoProt)

Protein (Prot)0.45 kg/d 42% CP

12/1 – 2/28 LG

3 yrs: Gudmundsen Sandhills (n=170 heifer calves)

Cows bred

No supplement(NoProt)

Protein (Prot)0.45 kg/d 42% CP

12/1 – 2/28 LGAve calving date =March 27

3 yrs: Gudmundsen Sandhills (n=170 heifer calves)

Cows bred

No supplement(NoProt)

Protein (Prot)0.45 kg/d 42% CP

Cool season grass hay(HAY)

Sub-irrigated meadow(MDW)

12/1 – 2/28 LG

EL5/1 – 5/30

Ave calving date =March 27

GROWTH PERFORMANCE

Treatmentb P-value

Item Prot NoProt Mdw Hay SEM LG EL

Birth date, Julian d 86 84 85 86 1 0.29 0.67

Birth wt, kg 36 35 35 36 1 0.25 0.15

Act. Wn. wt, kg 212 207 212 206 7 0.14 0.09

Adj. 205 d wt, kg 226 218 225 219 7 0.02 0.07

Pre-breeding wt, kg 276 266 272 270 9 0.04 0.70

Weight at pregnancy diagnosis, kg

400 386 391 395 31 0.03 0.56

GROWTH PERFORMANCE

Treatmentb P-value

Item Prot NoProt Mdw Hay SEM LG EL

Birth date, Julian d 86 84 85 86 1 0.29 0.67

Birth wt, kg 36 35 35 36 1 0.25 0.15

Act. Wn. wt, kg 212 207 212 206 7 0.14 0.09

Adj. 205 d wt, kg 226 218 225 219 7 0.02 0.07

Pre-breeding wt, kg 276 266 272 270 9 0.04 0.70

Weight at pregnancy diagnosis, kg

400 386 391 395 31 0.03 0.56

GROWTH PERFORMANCE

Treatmentb P-value

Item Prot NoProt Mdw Hay SEM LG EL

Birth date, Julian d 86 84 85 86 1 0.29 0.67

Birth wt, kg 36 35 35 36 1 0.25 0.15

Act. Wn. wt, kg 212 207 212 206 7 0.14 0.09

Adj. 205 d wt, kg 226 218 225 219 7 0.02 0.07

Pre-breeding wt, kg 276 266 272 270 9 0.04 0.70

Weight at pregnancy diagnosis, kg

400 386 391 395 31 0.03 0.56

REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE

Treatment P-values

Item Prot NoProt Mdw Hay SEM LG EL

Age at Puberty, d 339 334 341 332 10 0.70 0.48

Cycling at beginning of breeding season, %

61 67 56 73 - 0.45 0.15

Calved in first 21 d, % 77 49 63 63 - 0.005 0.89

Overall pregnancy rate, % 93 80 83 91 - 0.05 0.18

Calving date, Julian d 71 75 73 73 3 0.15 0.94

Calf birth wt, kg 33 33 32 33 1 0.94 0.25

Unassisted births, % 78 64 76 66 - 0.24 0.21

REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE

Treatment P-values

Item Prot NoProt Mdw Hay SEM LG EL

Age at Puberty, d 339 334 341 332 10 0.70 0.48

Cycling at beginning of breeding season, %

61 67 56 73 - 0.45 0.15

Calved in first 21 d, % 77 49 63 63 - 0.005 0.89

Overall pregnancy rate, % 93 80 83 91 - 0.05 0.18

Calving date, Julian d 71 75 73 73 3 0.15 0.94

Calf birth wt, kg 33 33 32 33 1 0.94 0.25

Unassisted births, % 78 64 76 66 - 0.24 0.21

REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE

Treatment P-values

Item Prot NoProt Mdw Hay SEM LG EL

Age at Puberty, d 339 334 341 332 10 0.70 0.48

Cycling at beginning of breeding season, %

61 67 56 73 - 0.45 0.15

Calved in first 21 d, % 77 49 63 63 - 0.005 0.89

Overall pregnancy rate, % 93 80 83 91 - 0.05 0.18

Calving date, Julian d 71 75 73 73 3 0.15 0.94

Calf birth wt, kg 33 33 32 33 1 0.94 0.25

Unassisted births, % 78 64 76 66 - 0.24 0.21

WHAT’S HAPPENING??

Ovaries??Uterus??Brain??

FETAL OVARIES

Maternal intake

CON RES

Fet

al o

varia

n w

eigh

t, m

g

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

a

b

P = 0.03

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Time period of supplementation

Specific nutrients that are important

Maternal efficiencies

Factors that impact uterine and placental blood flow

Developmental Programming

IMPORTANT TO ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY: Growth and

nutrient transfer

Reproductive capacity

Aging and lifetime productivity

GOAL: HEALTHY OFFSPRING!!!

VONNAHME, MARCH 2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NDSU Animal Nutrition and Physiology Center

LARSON ET AL., JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

Objective: Impacts of male progeny from cows

grazing winter range vs. corn crop residue

with or without protein supplementation

Pregnant 3 year olds

2005 (109 cows)

2006 (114 cows)

2007 (116 cows)

Steer Data

WR CR P Values

PS NS PS NS SEM SYS Suppl SxS

HCW, kg 376a 357b 368ab 371a 8 0.52 0.10 0.02

12th rib fat, cm 1.26 1.16 1.21 1.19 0.08 0.84 0.31 0.58

Marbling score 503 457 482 430 20 0.12 <0.01 0.86

Yield grade 2.94 2.69 2.74 2.77 0.18 0.55 0.26 0.16

Quality grade, % Sm or greater

84.5 76.5 88.2 64.6 9.0 0.57 0.04 0.28

Quality grade, % Md or greater

43.2 26.6 35.4 15.0 1.0 0.34 0.03 0.81

VONNAHME, FEBRUARY 2009

Nutrition during pregnancy impacts on milk yield

Day postpartum

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Milk

yie

ld,

g

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

60% NRC100% NRC140% NRC

P < 0.001

Selenium during pregnancy effects on milk yield

P < 0.001

Days postpartum

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Milk

yie

ld,

g

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

ASeHSe