PHENOMENA: NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE

Holstein cows, by Scott Bauer.

MENU

Study Of 1.5 Million Cows Shows Daughters Get More Milk Than Sonsby Ed Yong

For decades, the dairy industry has used data to supercharge the humble black-and-white Holstein cow into a milk-producing machine. Across the US, thousands of dairy farmers keep assiduous records about how much milk their cows produce, and the volume and composition of that milk. All of this information feeds into mathematical models that predict the total amount of milk a cow makes over its lifetime. Farmers use this information every day to decide how to care for and breed their animals. As a result, cows today make four times more milk than they did in the 1940s.

To Katie Hinde, the dairy records were a goldmine. Hinde studies the biology of milk; her Twitter handle, delightfully, is @mammals_suck. By analysing around 2,390,000 lactation records covering 1,490,000 cows, she found a clear pattern: Cows produce more milk for their daughters than their sons. The sex of the first calf is particularly important, and can influence how much milk their later siblings get.

These results suggest an easy way in which dairy farmers could squeeze more milk out of their herds. But they also contradict a longstanding hypothesis about how animals invest in their young, one which predicts that creatures like cows ought to favour sons over daughters.

NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE: 22 hours ago

Since the 1970s, biologists have shown that animal mothers don’t treat all of their offspring equally. Often, they invest more in one sex than the other. The most famous explanation for this pattern was proposed by Robert Trivers and Dan Willard. They argued that females in rude health should devote more resources to the sex that would benefit most from them.

That would usually be males, especially in species where males compete for females. A really strong fit son could potentially impregnate dozens of females in a short space of time, while a weak one will impregnate none. A bit of extra parental effort could make a huge difference. By contrast, daughters spend a lot of time being pregnant and raising their existing young. This sets a ceiling on how many offspring they can raise, regardless of their physical condition.

So if you’re a baboon, a red deer or an elephant seal, and you want more grandkids, you should spend more effort on making your sons as competitive as possible. There are many ways of doing that. You could have more sons, or give birth to bigger sons.

Or, you could use milk. Milk is the main source of nutrients for mammal babies, but comes at great cost to mothers. As Hinde puts it, “Females dissolve parts of themselves to nourish their babies”. They could offer more milk, or more nutritious milk, to one sex over the other, and a few studies have looked for such biases in deer, seals, monkeys and even humans.

Hinde summarised this work in 2012, in a lucid and witty blog post that you should read. She concluded that “mothers make milk differently for males and females”, but noted that this was a niche field of research with many unanswered questions. For example, can male and female foetuses program their mother’s mammary glands in different ways, while they are still in the womb?

When dairy scientist Barry Bradford read Hinde’s post, he realised that cows could help to address her question. The industry’s careful record-keeping would easily reveal how much milk cows offer to calves of either sex. And since calves are separated from their mothers shortly after birth, you could cleanly measure the influence of the foetus, without having to worry about whether the calves had an influence after birth.

Bradford contacted Hinde through Twitter and asked if she wanted to collaborate. She leapt at the chance. “He said, ‘I can get the records but I can’t interpret the data from a theoretical perspective’. I said, ‘Well, that’s great because that’s where my skillset is!’”

The team retrieved every lactation record from 1995 to 1999, and cleaned them up to get rid of incomplete or duplicated entries. They ended up with 2.39 million records, covering 1.49 million cows—a welcome change from the small samples that animal behaviour scientists normally settle for.

The results were very clear: Cows make more milk when they give birth to daughters than sons. The milk doesn’t contain any more fat or protein so its quality is the same—there’s just more of it. “Things turned out so elegantly,” says Hinde.

The first pregnancy is crucial. It kicks off the development of the cow’s mammary glands, and creates a baseline that affects all later pregnancies. And by focusing on records for 113,750 cows, Hinde’s team showed that the sex of the first calf has long-lasting effects.

After giving birth, a female cow makes milk for 305 days and during that time, farmers often impregnate her again. This means that she’s pregnant with Calf 2 while she’s still breast-feeding Calf 1. If Calf 1 is a son, mothers are permanently handicapped in how much milk they can make, especially if they have another son the second-time round. If they have a daughter next, that partly reverses the deficit, but not completely.

By contrast, having a daughter the first time round ‘protects’ a cow from the negative effects of a second-round son. All in all, a cow that has a daughter first time round makes around 445 kilograms more milk across her first two lactations than a cow with back-to-back sons. That’s a sizeable amount, equivalent to a production boost of 2.7 percent.

These results are a blow for the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, which cows really ought to uphold. Dairy cows are

Image credit: Scott Bauer, USDA Creative Commons license

The effect of sons and daughters on mum’s milk production, across two lactations. S = son, D = daughter, numbers along x-axis indicate order of pregnancy. Credit: Hinde et al, 2014, PLOS ONE.

219 2 More »

domesticated versions of now-extinct cattle called aurochs. Bull aurochs were much bigger than females, and must have competed intensely for mates. They’re a classic example of the animal societies that Trivers and Willard were talking about. And yet, their modern descendants invest more in daughters than sons.

This doesn’t mean the hypothesis is “wrong”, just that it isn’t as universal as it’s sometimes made out to be. “The Trivers-Willard hypothesis has been such a dominating force in the literature, and the data for it is quite equivocal,” says Hinde. “Lots of people don’t want to believe that there could be a bias in favour of daughters, but this study was so clean.

So, why do cows invest more in daughters? It’s possible that the extra milk could speed up a daughter’s development, allowing her to reproduce at a younger age and amass more babies over her lifetime. Bulls aren’t in such a rush. They start reproducing later than females anyway, so they’ve got more time to make up for any shortfall in milk. This, says Hinde, means that “mothers may be able “under-invest” in a son with relatively less consequence for the number of offspring he will go on to sire.”

But Hinde cautions that people usually assume that these sorts of sex biases are adaptive for the mothers. But maybe it’s not about the mothers at all. Maybe the right question is: Why are foetal daughters better at manipulating their mothers into making more milk?

It could be that they make the right hormones. Female foetuses produce more oestrogens that could cross the placenta into the mother’s bloodstream, and influence the development of her breast glands. Sons can produce oestrogens too, but it might muck with their own genital development. Perhaps daughters can send more hormones into their mothers without any risk to themselves.

Either way, Hinde’s results have implications for the dairy industry. If they wanted to, dairy managers could ensure that most of the calves they breed are females, but they’d need to separate semen by sex to do so. In the past, some people have argued that this isn’t cost-effective, but it might be worth it if it leads to a 2.7 percent bump in milk production.

What about humans? A couple of small studies have found that women produce more nutritious milk for sons than daughters, but neither one measured milk volume. Indeed, it’s very hard to do that. One option would be to weight babies before and after feeding, but it would be hard to do that on a large enough scale to get reliable data.

Still, it’s a question that Hinde wants to address eventually. “Right now, formulas are the same for sons and daughters, and recommendations for neonatal intensive care units are the same,” she says. “We make different deodorants for men and women but we’re not thinking about whether the developmental needs of daughters and sons are identical.”

Reference: Hinde, Carpenter, Clay & Bradford. 2014. Holsteins Favor Heifers, Not Bulls: Biased Milk Production Programmed during Pregnancy as a Function of Fetal Sex. PLOS ONE. Citation tbc.

There are 10 Comments. Add Yours.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Here the female cows spend all this time gestating and lactating, year after year, and you think males need the extra?????

CurlingRiverJanuary 23, 2014

Wouldn’t it be related to selection? I’m guessing more cows reproduce in the milk industry than bulls since the cows have to be pregnant it produce milk. A healthier cow would most likely reproduce more while a healthier bull might still not make the cut. What happens to the bulls? How many of them end up donating sperm to the cause?

SuzanneJanuary 23, 2014

Got milk?

johnJanuary 23, 2014

vince

408Like

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

would be nice to do the same study in wild animals since cows are domesticated and the domestication could have affected the genes that make milk

January 24, 2014

I bet that 3% more milk comes from the size of calf at 1st parturition. Bulls tend to be born larger which is more difficult for 2 yr old heifers to push out compared to the female counterparts. I would be curious to know what the difference in milk production was at 3 weeks after calving and also 75 days after calving. This would give some insight weather heifers are just transitioning into milk poorly/good due to dystocia

richJanuary 24, 2014

Bull calves are larger. Difficult calvings are known to cause less milk production as the mother recovers. Was this taken into consideration?

AlbertJanuary 24, 2014

A most interesting piece of research, but as I see it there are several pitfalls in the hypothesis. The financial benefits are dubious unless you take into consideration calving index and not just 305 day lactation. The flaw that puts into the data used, straight away, is days open. This could have a definite reflection on the conclusions from the data, if all those producing heifer calves stayed open for more than twenty one days longer than the bull calves.The general hypothesis is however, not that surprising, or contrary to evolutionary theory. To maintain a species you need considerably more females to survive than males. As you quite rightly suggest every female is valuable, every male is not, how would we produce beef, lamb or pork without unwanted males? In a lifetime of observing cattle and their breeding nearly every female will reproduce females of a similar quality to themselves, but not every female will reproduce a male of breeding quality, in fact many outstanding females never produce a male of breeding quality, while other continually produce males of high quality even though they would not be considered as the best of the female population.Perhaps the data should have been assessed also for those females that not only produced above average yields from producing female progeny, but also produced as much or more from producing males; then it may be identifying those females that are the exception rather than the rule, and possibly those that are genuine bull mothers, rather than the also rans.

Peter AW TalbotJanuary 24, 2014

From an earlier comment:“As you quite rightly suggest every female is valuable, every male is not, how wouldwe produce beef, lamb or pork without unwanted males? ”

Dairy cattle are not our main source of beef. Cattle raised for the beef industry are of different breeds and not expected to produce milk for consumers. I don’t know what happens to unwanted bulls in the dairy industry.

Suzanne LanderJanuary 24, 2014

The evolutionary pressures on a modern dairy cow are different from the evolutionary pressures on the aurochs. I’m not sure exactly how that would explain this, though. The daughters definitely will get bred, but the males (I assume) will only be bred if their mothers produce a lot of milk. So if anything you would expect opposite. It is sort of like the wild situation, but a little different. The amount of milk doesn’t directly help the calf, because calves are mostly fed formula. For dairy cows, it can only indirectly help the calves later on.

DavidJanuary 24, 2014

Oh Ed you fell for it once again. It sounds great that the cow “invests” in the future of her offspring, but only because it is so anthropomorphized. Like others have pointed out and you wrote yourself “Bulls are bigger than females.” If “Females dissolve parts of themselves to nourish their babies.” then the cows already did so during bull gestation and further pay the price when they have to give birth to the larger fetus.

STJanuary 24, 2014

Add Your CommentsAll fields required.

1. YOUR NAME

2. YOUR EMAIL

3. YOUR COMMENTS

RELATED POSTS

2

The Mantis Shrimp Sees Like A Satellite The most extraordinary eyes in the animal kingdom belong to the mantis shrimps, or stomatopods—pugilistic ...

NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE: 1 day ago

4.

NOTIFY ME OF FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS BY EMAIL.

NOTIFY ME OF NEW POSTS BY EMAIL.

Submit

2

Read more

On Dolphins, Big Brains, Shared Genes and Logical Leaps In 2012, a team of Chinese scientists showed that a gene called ASPM has gone ...

NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE: 2 days ago

Read more

5

Can Moths Explain Why Sloths Poo On the Ground? Here’s a memorable encounter between David Attenborough and a three-toed sloth, as shown in Life ...

NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE: 3 days ago

Read more

7

4

Coloured Cells Chase Each Other To Make A Fish’s Stripes This astonishing GIF shows a microscopic chase scene: A black cell flees from the touch ...

NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE: 4 days ago

Read more

I’ve Got Your Missing Links Right Here (18 January 2014) Top picks This 4000-wd piece by John Gravois starts off about toast, and ends as ...

NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE: 6 days ago

Read more

1

ABOUT

2 Nearby Towns. 25-Fold Different Stomach Cancer Rates. Why? One of our oldest companions is a microbe called Helicobacter pylori. It has been colonising ...

NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE: 1 week ago

Read more

MORE RELATED POSTS »

Ed Yong is an award-winning British science writer. His work has appeared in Nature, the BBC, New Scientist, Wired, the Guardian, the Times, and more. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his hub for talking about the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science to as many people as possible, regardless of their background.

Twitter: @edyong209Email: edyong209[at]gmail[dot]comBio and other info at my personal site

Sign up for my weekly newsletter - The Ed's Up - to find out about my writing and other activities.

A complete list of posts from this blogWho reads this blog? 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009So you want to be a science writer?

WHAT OTHERS SAY

"One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

"Engaging and jargon-free multimedia storytelling about science and the digital age" - National Academy of Sciences

"Increasingly disturbing." - Carl Zimmer

RECENT ACTIVITY

Recent PostsStudy Of 1.5 Million Cows Shows Daughters Get More Milk Than SonsThe Mantis Shrimp Sees Like A SatelliteOn Dolphins, Big Brains, Shared Genes and Logical LeapsCan Moths Explain Why Sloths Poo On the Ground?Coloured Cells Chase Each Other To Make A Fish’s Stripes

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

MY WIFE, WHO MAKES IT ALL POSSIBLE

POSTING RULES

Opinions expressed in blogs are those of the blogger and/or the blogger's organization, and not necessarily those of the National Geographic Society. Bloggers and commenters are required to observe National Geographic's community rules. Contact Info

12 Amazing Photoreceptors That The Mantis Shrimp Has! phenomena.nationalgeographic.co

…m/2014/01/23/thebuzzfeedheadlines#

Ed Yong edyong209@

Show Photo

This 16th century book can be read in 6 different ways

1-thisiscolossal.com/2014/01/this…

Ed Yong edyong209@

Expand

Gmail is back up! <puts down

Ed Yong edyong209@

50m

50m

1h

Tweets Follow

Tweet to @edyong209