forage quality for profitable milk production jim linn, professor emeritus univ. of minnesota
Post on 30-Mar-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production
Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus
Univ. of Minnesota
LACTATION RATION INGREDIENTS
FORAGES
FORAGE, GRAIN OR BYPRODUCTS
CONCENTRATES•CORN•PROTEIN•MINERALS/
ADDITIVES
50
30
% OF DM
20
FIBER Physical & Chemical
Protein, Energy, Carbohydrates, Minerals,
Non-Fiber CHO Starch
Protein RDP & RUP
Minerals
Nutrient needs and $Flexible Ration Feeds
Feed Additives
2 – 5%
Fat
4-7%
Min-Vit4 – 8%
Byproducts10%
Grain – Starch
15 – 20%
Feed Cost (% of total) for 85 lb milk_
RD-Protein5 – 8%
Feed Cost/Cow/Day
$8.00 - $10.00
Forages45 – 50%
RU-Protein20 – 25%
SHOULD YOU MAXIMIZE FORAGE FEEDING?
Alfalfa/Grass Forage$250 to $300/ton hay basis
Corn Silage – 35% DM$55 - 85/ton – 40%
starch$50 – 70/ton – 30%
starch
FORAGE QUALITY FACTORS IN LACTATION RATIONS
Chemical
Dry matter (DM) Ash Crude Protein
– True, Non Amm N, Sol
NDF Lignin NFC (NSC)
– Starch– Sugar– Pectin
Physical
peNDF PN State Particle
Separator (PSPS)
FORAGE QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Digestibility
NDFD Starch
Practical Application of Forage Quality Variation
On Farms
Cows require Nutrients
Forage DM ConsistencyMcBeth et al. Ohio State U
Con = 55%F:45%CUNB = same diet with 10% water added to forage BAL = diet adjusted for decrease in forage DM
21 day treatment means
Item Con UNB BAL
DMI, kg/d 24.0 24.1 23.9
Milk, kg/d 39.3 39.8 39.7
Fat, % 3.42 3.37 3.30
McBeth et al., 2012Ohio State University
Monitoring Forage DM on Farms
• Determine Forage DM - 2X/week
• Adjust ration3 unit change in DM
• Establish protocol
Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy Cows
Good, Bad and Unknown
Chemical
Physical
Adapted from Varga - 2010
AlfalfaNDF – 36%CP – 22%Fat – 3%Ash – 11%NFC = 28%
Corn Silage NDF – 42%CP – 8%Fat – 3%Ash – 6 %NFC = 41%
ISSUE - MIXED COMPOSITION OF NFC
Fiber (chemical) guidelines for lactating cows1.
Lactating Cows
Total NDF
Forage NDF ADF
---------- % of diet DM ----------
<100 days in milk >28 >19 >18
100 to 200 days in milk 29-32 20-22 >19
>200 days in milk >32 21-24 >19
1Assumes forage particle size is adequate and ground dry corn is starch source.
Effect of Forage Fiber on Milk Production
Eastridge, OSU
DAIRY COW PERFORMANCE AND NDF DIGESTIBILITY
As NDFD increases 1% unit:– .4 lb DMI– .55 lb FCM– MSU, Oba and Allen
U of MN Study Alfalfa Hay Dig NDF
Importance of forage quality NDF concentration NDF digestibility (NDFD)
Previous studies Confounding NDF digestibility
and NDF concentration
Interest surrounding NDFD TDN equation
(NRC, 2001) RFQ
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment NDF In vitro 48-h Designations concentration NDF digestibility
LH Low High LL Low Low
HH High High HL High Low
Alfalfa Hay Treatments
Determine the effect of alfalfa hay fiber digestibility, compared within
relatively high and low NDF concentration hays
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
HAY LOT CORE SAMPLES 2 CORES PER BALE
Treatment
LH LL HH HL
DM, % 93.8 93.0 87.4 91.5
NDF, % 37.2 36.4 41.7 40.8
IVNDFD1, % NDF 41.3 37.9 44.6 41.1
CP, % 21.4 22.5 20.1 20.8
NFC, % 28.8 24.0 24.0 25.9
RFV 163.1 168.7 138.2 143.4
RFQ 156.0 144.9 143.0 138.1
148-hour in vitro NDF digestibility
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
--------- % of diet (DM basis) ---------
Hay1 16.0 16.0 13.7 13.7
Corn silage 36.3 36.3 33.7 33.7
Corn 13.1 13.1 17.8 17.8
Grain Mix2 26.4 26.4 26.5 26.5
Roasted Soybeans 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3
Molasses 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1
125% of LL hay fed as long-stem2Grain mix composition (air dry basis) = 34.3 % soybean meal, 22.9% DDGS, 3.8% blood meal, 26.7% soybean hulls, 12.3% vitamins/minerals
Diet Ingredient Composition
MN - 15% of diet DM
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
---------------------------- % of DM -------------------------
DM 59.8 60.1 61.3 60.5
CP 17.5 17.9 18.0 17.6
NDF 31.4 30.9 30.0
29.9
Forage NDF 21.6 21.0 19.7 19.6
EE 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.4
NFC 41.4 41.2 42.9 43.0
NEL3X(Mcal/kg) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.61Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients
Nutrient Composition of Diet1
MN - 15% of diet DM
23
Hays – Ground using AgriMetal
tub grinder
– LL treatment received 25% of hay as long stem
Diets – Fed as TMR (Data Ranger)
Materials and Methods
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Hay Characterization-MN
LH
LL
HH
HL
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment
LH LL HH HL Trt
N = 15 16 12 12 --- p-
value---
DMI, kg/d 22.8 21.7 22.1 22.8 .77
Milk, kg/d 38.8 38.8 39.3 39.3 .99
3.5% FCM, kg/d 38.3 40.0 40.5 40.4 .59
FE, kg 3.5% FCM/kg DMI 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9
.53
BW change1, kg -20.8 -49.1 -37.8 -24.5
.29
Production Performance and Body Weight (BW) Change
MN - 15% of diet DM
1BW change = initial - final body weight
Part II.US Dairy Forage Research Center
Alfalfa Hay = 30% of Diet DM
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
---------------------------- % of DM -------------------------
DM 59.8 59.8 59.3 59.6
CP 17.4 17.4 18.7 18.1
NDF 28.6 28.0 28.7
28.6
Starch 24.6 24.5 24.4 24.5
1Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients
Nutrient Composition of Diet1
WI - 30% of diet DM
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment
LH LL HH HL Trt
--- p-value---
Milk yield, kg 43.9 45.2 46.5 45.3 <.18
Fat, % 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4
<.75
Milk Yield and Fat %
WI - 30% of diet DM
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Potential Reasons for Lack of Response to Treatment
Small difference in NDF and in-vitro 48-h NDFD NDF (4.5 % units) NDFD (3.5 % units)
Physical Characteristics of hay Particle size post grinding
CORN SILAGE – NDFD
80 to 98% starch digestibility• Kernel maturity• Kernel particle size• Endosperm properties
40 to 70% NDFD
Grain ~ 40-45% of WPDM• Avg. 28% starch in WPDM• Variable grain: stover
Stover= ~55-60% of WPDM
Leaves = 15% of DM
Stem = 20-25% of DM
Cob + Shank + Husk = 20% of DM
Laurer, UWEX
EFFECTS OF INCREASING CORN SILAGE NDFD ON 3.5% FCMCORN SILAGE – 45% OF RATION DM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 825
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
0%BMR25%BMR50%BMR75%BMR100%BMR
Week
3.5%
FCM
, Kg/
d
P=0.70
Silage 0% BMR 100% BMR24 hr IVNDF, % 36 4148 hr IVNDF,% 54 62NDF, % 45 44
U of MN
Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy Cows
Physical
Particle size
FIBER – PHYSICAL OR EFFECTIVE
Function– Stimulates rumination– Builds fiber mat in rumen– Helps prevent acidosis and low milk fat
tests
Effective Fiber(Penn State Separator Box)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Hay Characterization-MN
LH
LL
HH
HL
Particle Size of Ground Hays Monthly Analysis Using Penn State Forage Particle Separator
LHUpper, % = 26.9a
Middle, % = 16.6a
Lower, % = 33.3
Bottom, % = 23.2aLLUpper, % = 9.7b
Middle, % = 22.8b
Lower, % = 34.0
Bottom, % = 33.4b
HHUpper, % = 14.6b
Middle, % = 23.1b
Lower, % = 32.8
Bottom, % = 29.5bc
HLUpper, % = 23.5a
Middle, % = 21.5b
Lower, % = 30.2
Bottom, % = 24.8ac
Hay Characterization- MN
Top Box
Middle Box
Bottom Box
Feed ----------------% of total----------------
Haylage 10-20 40- 60 < 40
Corn silage (3/4 inch TLC & processed) 10-20 50-60 <30
Corn silage (1/4 inch TLC & unprocessed) <5 >50 <50
TMR 5-15 40-50 <50
Recommended Percent of Feed Particles Penn State Particle Size Box
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Particle Size Feed and Feed Refusals50 free stall herds – MN
Fed 3 hr 6hr 9hr 24hr
2nd screen >8 mm
Top screen >19 mm Pan <1.18 mm
3rd screen >1.18 mm
Endres et al. 2010 JDS
ShredlageKP
Photos provided by Kevin Shinners, UW Madison, BSE
Shredlage Study – Univ of Wisconsin –Shaver et al.
Screen, mm Shredlage KP
19 31.5% 5.6%
8 41.5% 75.6%
1.18 26.2% 18.4%
Pan 0.8% 0.4%
PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS)
Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags
Screen, mm Shredlage KP
19 15.6% 3.5%
8 38.2% 52.9%
1.18 38.9% 35.8%
Pan 7.3% 7.8%
PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS)
TMR Samples
Screen, mm Shredlage KP P <
19 99.3 99.5 0.72
8 99.7 99.8 0.66
1.18 100.1 99.7 0.09
Pan 102.1 101.7 0.54
FEED SORTING – PSU SEPARATOR BOX
% of Predicted Intake
2 4 6 8Shredlage 100.1 101 99.4 99.8KP 100.9 98.1 96.9 95.4
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Lb/c
ow/d
ay
Week on Treatment
Shredlage
KP
3.5% FCM YIELD BY WEEK
*
***
* P < 0.10
** P < 0.01
Week × Treatment Interaction (P < 0.03)U. of WI – Shaver et al
Alfalfa vs. Grass Hay in Lactation Rations
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
HAY NUTRIENT COMPOSITION1
Alfalfa Orchardgrass
--------------- % DM--------------
NDF 40.8 59.7 ADF 31.3 32.7 CP 21.7 16.4 NDICP 3.49 7.04 Lignin 4.66 2.36 Ca 1.86 0.43 K 2.42 3.19
1Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays.
Digestion Kinetics of Hays1
1Incubation time points = 6, 12, 18, 24, 32, 48, 72 and 96 hr.
70.8%
52.0%
IVNDFD
Alfalfa Rate = 5.20% per hr
Potential = 55.5%
Orchardgrass Rate = 4.60% per hr
Potential = 78.7%
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM 15 20 25 30
35
Corn silage 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Alfalfa hay1 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Corn, ground 20.6 17.7 15.0 11.8 7.60
Soybean meal, 44% 6.68 4.74 2.78 0.88 0.00
Protein/mineral mix2 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Molasses mix 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Calcium carbonate 0.56 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00
Monocalcium phosphate 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.40
1Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding.
2Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives.
Ingredient Composition of Alfalfa Diets
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM
10 15 20 25 30
Corn silage 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Orchardgrass hay1 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Corn, ground 21.5 17.7 13.8 10.1 6.06
Soybean meal, 44% 10.3 9.24 8.18 7.06 6.00
Protein/mineral mix2 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Molasses mix 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Calcium carbonate 1.14 1.10 1.06 0.84 0.94
Ingredient Composition of Orchardgrass Diets
1Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding.
2Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives.
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HAYS1
Alfalfa Orchardgrass
-----% Particle Retained (as-is) -----
Top 16.7a 28.5x
Second 27.8b 30.0x
Third 28.6b 28.6x
Bottom 26.9b 13.1y
1Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted within forage species.
Physical Characteristics of Alfalfa Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS1
1PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator.
.
Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM
Pa
rtic
les
reta
ine
d (
%, a
s-
is)
% Refusal - % Diet
Alfalfa Hay:
15: + 2.2% units
20: + 3.8% units
25: + 5.8% units
30: + 9.8% units
35: + 5.3% units
Physical Characteristics of Orch. Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS1
1PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted across diets for diet and refusal.
.
Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM
Pa
rtic
les
reta
ine
d (
%,
as-
is)
% Refusal - % Diet
Orchardgrass Hay:
10: + 2.7% units
15: + 0.4% units
20: + 2.5% units
25: + 5.5% units
30: + 6.6% units
Dry Matter Intake (DMI)
Slope ALF = Slope
ORCH
For regressors:
Hay, %
Dietary NDF, %
Forage NDF, %
Hay NDF, %
Common Linear Fit:
slope = -0.81, r2 = 0.47, P = 0.02
3.5% Fat Corrected Milk (FCM) Yield
Individual Linear Fits:
ALF: slope = -2.68, r2 = 0.71, P = 0.05
ORCH: slope = -1.02, r2 = 0.34, P = 0.18
TAKE HOME POINTS
1. Important applied on farm forage quality measures
NDF, NDFD and forage DM
2. Chemical fiber measuresNDF NDF - Forage related to milk productionNDFD – ranking within forage speciesNFC – know composition
TAKE HOME POINTS
3. Physical fiber • Important for rumen function and
rumination• Particle size forages and TMR
TMR – rumen health Refusal – sorting
• Current guidelines good, but evaluate with changing forage types (legume vs. grasses) and corn silage processing.
“FEEDBACK IS THE BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS” ONE MINUTE MANAGER BY KEN BLANCHARD
More frequent feedback (forage analysis):
provides more accurate analysis andpromotes higher quality performance
National Champions 41-0
QUESTIONS?
Thank you
top related