Performance strategies affect mammary gland development in prepubertal heifers

• Published in: Journal of dairy science 2017-10, Vol.100 (10), p.8033-8042
• Main Authors: Albino, R.L., Sguizzato, A.L., Daniels, K.M., Duarte, M.S., Lopes, M.M., Guimarães, S.E.F., Weller, M.M.D.C.A., Marcondes, M.I.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Body Weight; Brazil; Cattle; diet; Diet - veterinary; Energy Intake - physiology; Female; heifer; mammary gland; Mammary Glands, Animal - growth & development; Random Allocation; Weight Gain
• ISSN: 0022-0302; 1525-3198
• DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12489

In Brazil, the majority of dairy cattle are Holstein × Gyr (H×G). It is unknown whether excessive energy intake negatively affects their mammary development to the same extent as in purebred Holsteins. We hypothesized that mammary development of H×G heifers can be affected by dietary energy supply. We evaluated the effect of different average daily gains (ADG) achieved by feeding different amounts of a standard diet during the growing period on biometric measurements, development of mammary parenchyma (PAR) and mammary fat pad (MFP), and blood hormones. At the outset of this 84-d experiment, H×G heifers (n = 18) weighed 102.2 ± 3.4 kg and were 3 to 4 mo of age. Heifers were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 ADG programs using a completely randomized design. Treatments were high gain (HG; n = 6), where heifers were fed to gain 1 kg/d; low gain (LG; n = 6), where heifers were fed to gain 0.5 kg/d; and maintenance (MA; n = 6), where heifers were fed to gain a minimal amount of weight per day. Heifers were fed varying amounts of a single TMR to support desired BW gains. Over the 84 d, periodic biometric and blood hormone measurements were obtained. On d 84, all heifers were slaughtered and carcass and mammary samples were collected. At the end, HG heifers weighed the most (181 ± 7.5 kg), followed by LG (146 ± 7.5 kg) and MA (107 ± 7.5 kg) heifers. The ADG were near expected values and averaged 0.907, 0.500, and 0.105 ± 0.03 kg/d for HG, LG, and MA, respectively. In addition, body lengths, heart girths, and withers heights were affected by dietary treatment, with MA heifers generally being the smallest and HG heifers generally being the largest. Body condition scores differed by treatment and were highest in HG and lowest in MA heifers; in vivo subcutaneous fat thickness measurement and direct analysis of carcass composition supported this. The HG heifers had the heaviest MFP, followed by LG and then MA heifers. Amount of PAR was highest in LG heifers and was the same for HG and MA heifers. The percentage of udder mass occupied by PAR was lowest in HG heifers, differing from LG and MA heifers. Composition of MFP was not evaluated. Regarding PAR composition, no differences in ash or DM were found. On the other hand, CP concentration of PAR for HG heifers was lower than that for LG heifers, which was lower than that for MA heifers. Regarding the fat content, HG treatment was higher than LG and MA treatment, which did not differ from each other. In PAR, differences in r