Calus, M.P.L.

Hiemstra, S.J.

Maurice, H.

English

Name not available

Proportion Saturated And Unsaturated Fatty Acids In Milk Of Four Cattle Breeds In The Netherlands

NARCIS 

Wageningen Yield 

Proportion Saturated And Unsaturated Fatty Acids In 
Milk Of Four Cattle Breeds In The Netherlands 
M.H.T. Maurice – Van Eijndhoven*†, S.J. Hiemstra*‡ and M.P.L. Calus* 
 
 
Introduction 
A large shift in breed composition of the Dutch dairy cattle population has taken place over 
the last decades. This shift was mainly driven by a change in breeding goal towards high 
milk production and resulted in a population dominated by the Holstein Friesian (HF) breed. 
Recently, in dairy cattle breeding, more attention is paid to other traits like robustness and 
also milk quality related to human health. Selecting cows, which are able to produce a more 
desirable milk composition, would be an important instrument to change milk quality in 
favor of human health. From that perspective, differences in milk composition and 
heritabilities of milk quality traits are estimated within several studies.  
 
The fatty acid (FA) composition is one of the main elements in milk which has an effect on 
human health. For example, the intake of saturated FA (SFA) is found to be positive 
associated to the occurrence of heart diseases and obesity in several studies (e.g. Mensink et 
al. (2003)). Estimated heritabilities of the proportions SFA, unsaturated FA (UFA) and the 
ratio SFA/UFA in milk of Dutch Holstein Friesian (HF) cows, are reported in the range from 
0.20 to 0.30 (Schennink et al. (2009); Stoop et al. (2008)). Breed differences in FA 
composition are also reported in several other studies (Carroll et al. (2006); Lawless et al. 
(1999); Soyeurt et al. (2006)). The major breeds, mainly HF and Jersey (JER), are included 
in the majority of these studies, while only a few studies included local or regional breeds.  
 
To what extent the Dutch dairy breeds add to the total genetic variance in individual milk fat 
composition is an important question as the Dutch dairy industry is interested in possibilities 
to modify the milk composition. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to analyze the 
differences in SFA and UFA proportions among cattle breeds in the Netherlands. For the 
local Dutch breeds Dutch Friesian (DF), Meuse-Rhine-Yssel (MRY), and Groningen White 
Headed (GWH), and one international breed (JER), SFA and UFA proportions in the milk 
were determined.   
         
                                                 
*
 Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre (ABGC), Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB 
Lelystad, The Netherlands 
†
 Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre (ABGC), Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, 
The Netherlands 
‡ Centre for Genetic Resources The Netherlands (CGN), Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 65, 
8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands 
Material and methods 
Data collection, analysis of milk samples and traits. To study the proportion SFA and 
UFA in milk of different cattle breeds in the Netherlands, in total 192 milk samples were 
collected. The milk samples were single measurements taken during morning milking from 
December 2008 until March 2009 of the breeds DF (47 samples from 3 farms of which one 
organic), MRY (54 samples from 3 farms of which one organic), GWH (45 samples from 3 
farms of which one organic), and JER (46 samples from 3 farms of which two organic). The 
milk samples were treated directly after collection with 0.03% (w/w) sodium azide to avoid 
microbiological growth. On each farm the selected animals were of the same breed and 
varied as much as possible in age, stage of lactation and sire.  
 
The milk samples were analyzed using Gas Chromatography (GC) at the laboratory of Qlip 
N.V. (Leusden, The Netherlands) to obtain the detailed FA composition. The percentage of 
total fat was obtained from standard mid-infrared spectrometry using a Fourier-transformed 
interferogram (MilkoScan FT 6000, Foss Electric, Denmark).  
 
The groups of SFA and UFA were defined as follow SFA: C4:0, C5:0, C6:0, C7:0, C8:0, 
C9:0, C10:0, C11:0, C12:0, C14:0, C14:0 iso, C15:0, C15:0 iso, C15:0 ante iso, C16:0, 
C16:0 iso, C17:0, C17:0 iso, C17:0 ante iso, C18:0, C19:0, C20:0 and UFA: C10:1, C12:1, 
C14:1, C16:1, C17:1, C18:1 trans-6, C18:1 trans-9, C18:1 trans-10, C18:1 trans-12, C18:1 
cis-9, C18:1 cis-11, C18:1 cis-12, C18:2 cis-9-12, C18:3 cis-9-12-15, C18:2 cis-9-trans-11, 
C20:3 cis-8-11-14. 
 
Statistical analyses. To investigate breed differences in total fat percentage, proportions of 
SFA, and proportions of UFA Least Square Means (LSM) were calculated using the General 
Linear Model procedure with the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons in the 
Statistical Analysis System version 9.1 (SAS-Institute, 2003).  
 
The model included: 
yijklmno= µ + dimi + parityj + bj*agejk + breedl + systemm + farmn(breedl*systemm) + eijklmno 
 
where yijklmno was the dependent variable for cow o in the class i for stage of lactation, during 
parity j, with calving age k, from breed l, from farm n being an organic or conventional farm 
system m. The µ was the overall intercept of the model; dimi was the class variable stage of 
lactation containing 12 classes, were class 1 was days 1-30, class 2 days 31-60, etc, and class 
12 days > 330; parityj was a class variable containing 9 lactation numbers (were 9 was 
lactation 9 and higher); agek was calving age in days which interacted with parityj; breedl 
was a class variable; systemm was a class variable indicating a conventional or organic farm; 
farmn(breedl*systemm) was a nested class variable with farm nested within breed and system; 
and eijklmno is the residual.  
Results and discussion 
For the model factors calving age, parity, and stage of lactation, ordinary means and standard 
deviations were calculated for each breed (Table 1). The means and standard deviations of 
these factors show that for each breed cows were selected with different calving ages, 
parities, and lactation stages. On average the MRY cows were somewhat younger, while the 
JER cows were somewhat older and the FH cows were on average shortest in lactation, while 
the JER were on average longest in lactation. 
 
Table 1: The means and standard deviations of the factors in the model 
 
Breed DF MRY  GWH JER 
N 47 54 45 46 
 mean stddev mean stddev mean stddev mean stddev 
Calving Age (d) 1566 919 1497 731 1717 958 1805 927 
Parity 2.9 2.5 2.8 1.9 3.2 2.5 3.6 2.4 
Stage of Lactation (d) 143.51 112.26 174.35 130.46 159.67 93.21 211.13 131.68 
 
The LSM results showed the same trend as the ordinary means of all traits (results not 
shown). The JER milk contained on average the highest percentage of total fat, while the 
GWH milk contained on average the lowest percentage of total fat (Table 2). The differences 
between the breeds in milk production traits, like total fat percentage, within the dataset used 
are comparable to the national milk production statistics (CRV (2009)), which supports that 
the selected farms are representative for the different breeds (results not shown).  
 
The local Dutch breed GWH produced relatively less SFA and most UFA, while the 
mainstream JER produced relatively most SFA and, consequently, less UFA (Table 2). For 
the Dutch HF breed proportions of 70.76% SFA and 25.69% UFA were reported by 
Schennink et al. (2009). For the US HF breed SFA proportions in milk were reported ranging  
from 67.11 to 67.25 and SFA proportions ranging from 32.54 to 32.68 (Bobe et al. (2008); 
Bobe et al. (2007)). For a Belgian cattle population including several breeds an average SFA 
proportion of 66.26 was reported (Soyeurt et al. (2006)). Differences in trait definition of 
SFA and UFA between studies in the comparison above are very minor and therefore 
ignored. Differences in management factors between studies however are important. A major 
management factor is access to pasture. Grazing based feeding has an increasing effect on 
the proportion of UFA and a decreasing effect on the proportion of SFA (Heck et al. (2009)). 
The sampled cows in the current study were all kept indoors (no grazing). This indoor 
housing system was also the case in the study of Schennink et al. (2009). 
 
Breed effects were estimated to be significant (P < 0.05) in the model for all three traits. Per 
trait, at least two breeds were estimated to be significant different from each other (Table 2).  
 
Table 2: For each trait the LSM of all breeds, standard error and model R2. 
 
 LSM SE Model R2  
Breed DF MRY GWH JER   
Trait       
Total fat (%) 4.58b 4.54b 4.47b 5.93a 0.38-0.41 0.69 
       
SFA (g/100g fat) 73.62a,b 72.08b 68.60c 74.35a 1.71-1.85 0.60 
UFA (g/100g fat) 23.81b,c 24.70b 27.18a 22.80c 1.60-1.74 0.57 
a,b,c different superscripts within a row indicate significance differences at P<0.05. 
 The breed differences in current study were quantified using only phenotypic information. 
Differences among breeds can also be quantified with genotypic information. The 
unsaturated fractions of some short chain FA and most long chain FA, for example, are 
affected by the DGAT1 and SCD1 genes (Schennink et al. (2008); Schennink et al. (2009); 
Stoop et al. (2009)). Breed differences found in the current study can also possibly partly be 
explained by differences in frequencies of the allele variants of the DGAT1 and SCD1 genes. 
The effects of such genes in these breeds, however, have not been investigated so far.    
Conclusion 
These results clearly show breed differences in the proportions of SFA and UFA in milk. 
This indicates that Dutch cattle breeds add to the genetic variability in milk fat composition. 
Based on these results the GWH breed produces the most favorable milk composition. To be 
able to determine which breed produces the most favorable milk FA composition and to what 
extent the breeds add to the genetic variability, detailed information on individual FA 
composition and more records per breed are needed.  
Acknowledgements 
This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food 
(Programme “Kennisbasis Research”, code: KB-04-002-021 and KB-05-003-041). The 
authors thank Johan van Arendonk, Henk Bovenhuis, Mari Smits, and Roel Veerkamp for 
their comments. The 12 involved farmers are thanked for contributing milk samples to this 
study. 
References 
Bobe, G., Bormann, J.A.M., Lindberg, G.L. et al. (2008). J. Dairy Sci. 91(3):1209-1213. 
Bobe, G., Lindberg, G.L., Freeman, A.E. et al. (2007). J. Dairy Sci., 90(8):3955-3960. 
Carroll, S.M., DePeters, E.J., Taylor, S.J. et al. (2006). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 131(3- 
4):451-473. 
CRV. (2009). CRV, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 
Heck, J.M.L., van Valenberg, H.J.F., Dijkstra, J. et al. (2009). J. Dairy Sci., 92(10):4745- 
4755. 
Lawless, F., Stanton, C., L'Escop, P. et al. (1999). Livest. Prod. Sci., 62(1):43-49. 
Mensink, R.P., Zock, P.L., Kester, A.D.M. et al. (2003). Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 77(5):1146-1155. 
Schennink, A., Heck, J.M.L., Bovenhuis, H. et al. (2008). J. Dairy Sci., 91(5):2135-2143. 
Schennink, A., Stoop, W.M., Visker, M. et al. (2009). J. Dairy Sci., 92(9):4676-4682. 
Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gillon, A. et al. (2006). J. Dairy Sci., 89(12):4858-4865. 
Stoop, W.M., Schennink, A., Visker, M. et al. (2009). J. Dairy Sci., 92(9):4664-4675. 
Stoop, W.M., van Arendonk, J.A.M., Heck, J.M.L. et al. (2008). J. Dairy Sci., 91(1):385- 
394. 


Proportion Saturated And Unsaturated Fatty Acids In Milk Of Four Cattle Breeds In The Netherlands

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

NARCIS

Wageningen Yield