making sense of modern feed tests › wp-content › uploads › ...powel-smith et al., 2015, jam...

5/23/2016

1

Making Sense of Modern Feed Tests

Randy Shaver & Luiz Ferraretto

Dairy Science Department

Mention of companies, labs, trade names, products or assays solely for the purpose of providing specific information or examples and does not imply recommendation, endorsement or exclusion.

5/23/2016

2

Plant Cell Schematic

Cell wall

Cell contents

NDF DigestibilityHemicellulose ModerateCellulose LowLignin Indigestible

ProteinFatty acidsStarchSugars

NFC DigestibilityStarch High but variableSugar Very HighPectin Very High

Pectin

}

Adapted from D.K. Combs

5/23/2016

3

Fiber Assay Results

• ADF

• NDF; aNDF; aNDFom

• Lignin

• uNDF = Lignin × 2.4 iNDF?

5/23/2016

4

Dan Undersander-Agronomy © 2007

Ash Content of Forage Samples

Plant content of ash

is 6% for grass and

8% for alfalfa

rest of ash is dirt

contamination

Ash Content of Forage

Samples UW Marshfield Lab

Type Statistic % Ash

Haylage Avg 12.3

Max 18.0

Min 5.7

Hay Average 10.3

Max 17.6

Min 8.8

5/23/2016

5

5/23/2016

6

NFC = 100 - CP - (NDF - NDFCP) - EE - Ash

Non-Fiber Carbohydrates

Adapted from M.B. Hall

Organic

Acids

Sugars

Starches

Fructans

Pectic

Substances

b-Glucans

5/23/2016

7

A look at NFC fractionsCP

% DMNFC% DM

Starch% NFC

Sugar% NFC

Pectin%NFC

VFA% NFC

Corn Silage 8 41 71 0 0 29

Alfalfa Silage 21 18 25 0 33 43

Grass Hay 14 17 15 35 50 0

Beet Pulp 10 36 2 34 64 0

Citrus Pulp 7 57 2 48 50 0

Soyhulls 14 18 19 19 62 0

Molasses 6 81 0 100 0 0

Corn Gluten Feed 24 34 74 26 0 0

Barley 12 61 82 9 9 0

Adapted from Tables 4.1-4.2 in Dairy NRC 2001

5/23/2016

8

Summative Energy Equation

TDN1-x =

DIGCP + DIGFA + DIGStarch + DIGNSTNFC + DIGNDF – 7

OARDC from NRC-2001 modified for corn silage by Schwab et al., 2003, JAFST

5/23/2016

9

In Vitro

In Vivo

In Situ Gas Production

5/23/2016

10

5/23/2016

11

RHA (lb)

Stat Cow # Milk Fat Protein Cheese

Average 486 31,297 1,154 961 3,150

Std. Deviation 500 1,622 90 57 203

Min 20 30,141 981 857 2,733

Max 3490 41,364 1,677 1,288 4,395

WI AgSource DHIA Top 100

Sept. 2015

111 Herds >30,000 lb RHA which represents 2.5% of herds on test there

+30 WI Herds >30,000 lb RHA at NorthStar DHI

5/23/2016

12

• Associative effects of feeds, nutrients, diets and DMI influence the digestibility of nutrients in vivo

• Associative effects are largely ignored with in vitro or in situ digestibility measurements

5/23/2016

13

5/23/2016

14

Traditional (Goering – Van Soest) NDFD;

Standardized (Combs – Goeser) NDFD

In vitro total tract NDFD (Combs-ivttNDFD)

kd calculated from 24, 30, 48, 120-h NDFD (CG)

NDF kd Mertens, MIR; NDF kd Van Amburgh

24-h NDFD; calculated B2/B3 kd

4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72, 120, 240-h NDFD lag, pools, rates

120-h uNDF, uNDFOM; 240-h uNDF, uNDFOM

Survey of websites and reports of 4 major US dairy feedlabs for analyses related to NDF digestibility

5/23/2016

15

Starch; Prolamin; Ammonia; Particle Size;

UW Feed Grain Evaluation; Corn Silage Processing Score

3-h, 7-h in vitro or in situ starch digestibility (ivRSD); kd

Fecal Starch; Total Tract Starch Digestibility (TTSD)

Survey of websites and reports of 4 major US dairy feedlabs for analyses related to starch digestibility

5/23/2016

16

TMR-D

Fermentrics™ (gas production system)

Calibrate™

Jones Index; (NDFd30 + starch)/NDFu30

Survey of websites and reports of 4 major US dairy feedlabs for analyses related to starch and NDF digestibilities

5/23/2016

17

Partial list of inherent flaws of rumen in vitro &in situ digestibility measures relative to in vivo

Donor/incubation cow diet ingredient/nutrient content & physical form versus client farm(s) e.g. Diet starch% & source affects amylase & cellulase activities;

Rumen pH & fluctuation; RDP; etc.

Ditto for DMI kd/(kd+kp) kp assumed; disagreement over use of kp of DM or nutrient and

determination methods for kp (markers or fill/flux)

DMI & diet influence rumen pH and hence kd

Fine grinding of incubation samples 1-2 mm screen for ivNDFD

Results in maximal rates and extents of NDF digestibility 4-6 mm for ivStarchD

Masks particle size effects on starch digestibility

Ignores post-ruminal NDF and starch digestion

5/23/2016

18

Grant, Proc. 2015 4-State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA Jim Coors, UW Madison, Ben Justen’s Thesis

A bit more on digestion kinetics

5/23/2016

19

For the most part, ruminal in vitro and in situ NDF digestibility measurements, should be viewed as relative index values for comparison among feeds/diets or over time within feeds/diets, rather than as predictors of in vivo digestibility

5/23/2016

20

5/23/2016

21

The Dairy NRC version 8.0

Dr. Rich Erdman, ChairUniversity of Maryland, College Park

5/23/2016

22

In Vitro

In Vivo

In Situ

5/23/2016

23

5/23/2016

24

How is TTNDFD determined?

Rate of fiber digestion (kd)

Potentially digestible NDF (pdNDF)

Rate of fiber passage, (kp)

TTNDFD (total tract NDF

Digestibility)

Standardized iv NDFD (24, 30, 48h)and uNDF

Forage sample

PD NDF * kd/(kd +kp)

Rumen and

hindgut digestion

5/23/2016

25

TTNDFD combines in vitro rate of NDF digestion with

uNDF to improve the prediction of in vivo fiber digestion

Slide adapted from Dave Combs, UW Madison

5/23/2016

26

Stand-alone in vitro NDFD30 or uNDF values

are poor predictors of in vivo fiber digestion

Slide adapted from Dave Combs, UW Madison

5/23/2016

27

Typical NDF & TTNDFD values of forages

NDF TTNDFDAverage Good

Alfalfa < 40% 42% > 48%Corn Silage < 40% 42% > 48%Temperate Grasses < 45% 44% > 50%

Dairy quality alfalfa and corn silages will be < 40% NDF with a TTNDFD value of at least 42%

Slide adapted from Dave Combs, UW Madison

5/23/2016

28

Sample manure for fecal starch

content to better manage starch

digestibility on the farm

Source Image: http://dairyinnovation.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/dsc_0083.jpg

5/23/2016

29

5/23/2016

30

Fredin et al., 2014, JDS

UW Research Trial Results

31% of samples with > 3% fecal starch

5/23/2016

31

TTSD % = 100.0% - (1.25 X fecal starch %)

564 samples

P < 0.001

R² = 0.94

Fredin et al., 2014, JDS

5/23/2016

32

Field Trial Fecal Starch Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Starch in Fecal Samples, %

%

of

Samples 39% of farms with > 3% fecal starch

Huibregtse et al., 2013

5/23/2016

33

Utility of On-Farm Fecal Starch?

Can be used to predict total tract starch digestibility from available equation or using uNDF Monitor specific group over time

Reflects total diet, not specific feedstuffs!

Gives no indication of site of digestion

If <3% starch in feces no need to investigate feeds to improve starch digestion

If >3% should evaluate specific starchy feedstuffs

5/23/2016

34

Summary slide from DLL web site

5/23/2016

35

StarchD & NDFD Field StudyPowel-Smith et al., 2015, JAM abstr.• 32 Upper Midwest dairy herds

• uNDF (240 h) used as internal marker to determine in vivo total-tract starch & NDF digestibility in high pens

• 7-h ivStarchD and 24-h ivNDFD measured on corn silage, corn grain & TMR

• 7-h ivStarchD unrelated (R2=0) to in vivo total-tract starch digestibility

• 24-h ivNDFD poorly related (R2=0.13) to and over-estimated in vivo total-tract NDF digestibility

5/23/2016

36

High – Low ivNDFD Forage

4%-units 10%-units

- - Response (lb/cow/day) - -

Review Papers DMI FCM DMI FCM

Oba & Allen, JDS, 1999 1.6 2.2 4.0 5.5

Jung et al., MN Nutr. Conf., 2004 1.1 1.2 2.6 3.1

Ferraretto & Shaver, JDS, 2013 0.7 1.2 1.8 3.1

Average 1.1 1.5 2.8 3.9

Tabular data calculated from reported responses per %-unit difference in ivNDFD

Feed efficiency seldom improved statistically

ivNDFD vs. DMI, FCM & FE

5/23/2016

37

Grant, Proc. 2015 4-State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA

Response to ivNDFD vs. Level of Production

5/23/2016

38

5/23/2016

39

5/23/2016

40

Energy content of bm3 corn silageTine et al., 2001, JDS

Item

Lactating

4x Maintenance

Dry

Maintenance

Isogenic bm3 Isogenic bm3

TDN, % --- --- 72.1b 74.8a

DE, Mcal/kg 3.10 3.12 3.20b 3.32a

ME, Mcal/kg 2.58 2.68 2.62b 2.77a

NEL, Mcal/kg 1.43 1.49 1.42 1.54

5/23/2016

41

• Lignin• Content; Composition?

• Stage of Maturity• Hybrid/Variety

• Type vs. Individual• Environment; G × E

• Grass vs. Alfalfa• Mixtures

• Maturity; Variation

• Crop Fungicides?• Cutting height• Chop length

• Crop Processing?

• Ensiling• Time in storage• Inoculants?; Enzymes?

• TMR• peNDF• Starch

NDFD topics

5/23/2016

42

5/23/2016

43

Ferraretto et al., JDS, 2013

Meta-Analysis: Diet Starch% vs. NDFD

5/23/2016

44

Weiss, 2014 Starch Discover Conf. (unpublished)

5/23/2016

45

Ruminant Starch Digestion

Rumen

Small Intestine

Hind Gut

Microbial Fermentation• VFA

• Propionate• Glucose via liver

• Microbial Protein

Digestion (Enzymatic)• Glucose

Microbial Fermentation• VFA

5/23/2016

46

Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS

Meta-Analysis: Site of Starch Digestion

5/23/2016

47

Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS

Meta-Analysis: Site of Starch Digestion

5/23/2016

48

5/23/2016

49

80 to 98% StarchD•Kernel particle size•Duration of silage fermentation•Kernel maturity •Endosperm properties•Additives (exp.)

40 to 70% IVNDFD•Lignin/NDF

Hybrid Type Environment; G × E Maturity

•Cutting height•Additives (exp.)

Grain ~40 -45% of WPDMStover= ~55 -60% of WPDM

•Avg. 42% NDF in WPDM•Variable stover:grain

Whole-Plant Corn Silage

•Avg. 30% starch in WPDM•Variable grain:stover

Variable peNDF as per chop lengthAdapted from Joe Lauer, UW Madison Agronomy Dept.

5/23/2016

50

Corn Silage Fermentation Increases Starch Digestibility!

5/23/2016

51

In Press

5/23/2016

52

• BMR, DP, and LFY-FL

• 2/3 milk line, 7 d later

• 0.65-cm, 1.95-cm

• Protease vs. control

• 0, 30, 60, 120 or 240 d of ensiling

• Objective was to evaluate the effects of ensiling time and protease in WPCS of varied hybrids, maturities and particle size

Treatments and Objectives

5/23/2016

53

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

30 60 120 240

ivSta

rchD (% s

tarc

h)

Ensiling time (d)

BMR DP LFY

Hybrid type × ensiling time

Time effect (P < 0.001)Hybrid effect (P = 0.02)Hybrid×Time (P > 0.10)

5/23/2016

54

5/23/2016

55

05

1015202530354045505560657075

0 30 120 240

%

Ensiling time (d)

NH3-N (% N) Sol-CP (%CP) ivStarchD (% Starch)

(P = 0.001)

Ensiling time effect

5/23/2016

56

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

0 30 120 240

ivSta

rchD (% s

tarc

h)

Ensiling time (d)

LFY

BMR

Time effect (P < 0.001)Hybrid effect (NS)Hybrid×Time (NS)

2.0 3.0 4.1 4.3

Difference between LFY and BMR (%-units)

Hybrid type × ensiling time

5/23/2016

57

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

0 30 120 240

ivNDFD

(% N

DF)

Ensiling time (d)

LFY

BMR

Time effect (NS)Hybrid effect (P < 0.001)Hybrid×Time (NS)

Hybrid type × ensiling time

5/23/2016

58

Corn Silage Processing ScoreMertens, USDFRC

Ro-Tap Shaker 9 sieves (0.6 thru 19

mm) and pan

Analyze for starch on 4.75 mm & > sieves

% of starch passing4.75 mm sieve

>70%70% to 50%

< 50%

KPS

ExcellentAdequate

Poor

5/23/2016

59

MN Field

Trial 1

MN Field

Trial 2

WI Field

Trial 1

Lab Survey

WI Field

Trial 2Lab Survey

Testing Lab

Dairyland Rock RiverCumberland

Valley

Year 2005 - 2007 20112011 -2012

2010 -2012

2010 -2011

No. of samples 252 55 29 258 64 311 1,131

CSPS - - - - - - - - - - - -% of Samples by Processing Score- - - - - - -

Excellent 10% 8% 10% 17% 17% 16% 7%

Adequate 48% 76% 55% 68% 61% 62% 51%

Poor 42% 16% 35% 15% 22% 22% 42%

Corn Silage Processing Score

5/23/2016

60

Industry Makes Advances in Corn Silage Processing

(CVAS Data, 2006 to 2014)

Crop Year Number AveragePercent

ExcellentPercent

Poor

2006 97 52.8 8.2 43.3

2007 272 52.3 9.2 37.9

2008 250 54.6 5.2 34.8

2009 244 51.1 6.1 48.0

2010 373 51.4 5.9 43.4

2011 726 55.5 12.3 33.1

2012 871 60.8 14.8 19.9

2013 2658 64.6 36.0 12.9

2014 322 61.8 24.2 9.0

Adapted from slide provided by Ralph Ward of CVAS

5/23/2016

61

Corn Silage Processing Improves (RRL Data, 2013 to 2015)

Crop Year Count (n)Average

CSPSNormalRange

Percent Excellent

PercentPoor

2013 725 56 44 - 68 12% 33%

2014 2155 65 54 - 76 33% 8%

2015 847 68 57 - 79 48% 6%

Summarized from data provided by Dr. John Goeser, RRL

5/23/2016

62

Corn Silage Processing Improves (DLL Data, 2009 to 2014)

Summary slide provided by Kyle & Dave Taysom, DLL

5/23/2016

63

Corn Silage Processing Score

n Unfermented n Fermented SE P <

% Starch Passing

4.75 mm Sieve

12 50.2% 121 60.1% 3.1 0.01

14 49.4% ± 11.4 282 70.0% ± 5.0 --- ---

10 49.3% ± 15.5 203 67.8% ± 3.3 --- ---

130 days in vacuum sealed experimental mini silos290 to 210 days in farm level silo bags330 to 120 days in farm level silo bags

Ferraretto et al., 2015, JDS Abstr.

5/23/2016

64

Corn Silage Processing Score

vacuum sealed experimental mini silos

b

ab

a

a

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

0 30 120 240

% s

tarc

h p

assi

ng

thro

ugh

4.7

5 m

m

scre

en

Ensiling time, d

P = 0.08SEM = 2.0n = 3

Ferraretto et al., 2015, JDS Abstr.

5/23/2016

65

Corn Silage Processing Score

y = 0.8575x + 0.37R² = 0.2737

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

KPS%

DM%

CSPS vs. DM%

Dias Jr. et al., 2015, JDS Abstr.

5/23/2016

66

DM% & Starch% Influence CSPS (DLL Data, 2009 to 2014)

Summary slides provided by Kyle & Dave Taysom, DLL

5/23/2016

67

www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/KernelProcessing-FOF.pdf

5/23/2016

68

5/23/2016

69

5/23/2016

70

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

1500 2000 2500 3000Sta

rch f

erm

ent

ation

rate

(%/h

)

A

54.0

55.0

56.0

57.0

58.0

59.0

60.0

61.0

62.0

63.0

64.0

1500 2000 2500 3000

Rum

inal Sta

rch D

igest

ibility

(% o

f st

arc

h)

B

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

1500 2000 2500 3000

Tot

al Tra

ct S

tarc

h D

igest

ibility

(% o

f st

arc

h)

GMPS, µm

C

GMPS, µm GMPS, µm

Estimates of the effect of kernel-fraction geometric mean particle size

(µm) on starch fermentation rate (%/h; Panel A) and ruminal and total

tract starch digestibilities (% of starch; Panel B and C, respectively).

Dias Jr. et al., unpublished

5/23/2016

71

DM, NDF, Starch on feed-out samples

Bag 1 Bag 2

MeanNormal Range

MeanNormal Range

DM, % as fed 39 34 - 43 38 34 - 42

NDF, % of DM 44 41 - 47 43 40 - 46

Starch, % of DM 31 27 - 35 32 29 - 35

• 1 Hybrid, 1 Field• Harvested same day • Arlington, WI

5/23/2016

72

NDF Content of Corn Silages

DM basis Average Normal Range

Dairyland Labs6 years

n=13k/yr.43% 37% - 49%

Example

5/23/2016

73

Starch Content of Corn Silages

DM basis Average Normal Range

Dairyland Labs6 years

n=13k/yr.30% 23% - 37%

Example

5/23/2016

74

Example

5/23/2016

75

How do we determineDry Matter?

Commercial Lab Analysis

Koster Tester

Food Dehydrator

Microwave

On-Farm NIRS

5/23/2016

76

5/23/2016

77

5/23/2016

78

5/23/2016

79

5/23/2016

80

5/23/2016

81

5/23/2016

82

5/23/2016

83

High-MoistureCorn Grain

Silo Kernel Moisture %Horizontal 27 – 32a

Tower

Concrete stave 27 - 32Oxygen Limiting 25 - 27

Recommended Moisture Contents

aEarlage/Snaplage target at 35%-40% moisture in product

5/23/2016

84

5/23/2016

85

5/23/2016

86

5/23/2016

87

Example

5/23/2016

88

Visit UW Extension Dairy Cattle Nutrition Website

http://www.shaverlab.dysci.wisc.edu/

Mention of companies, labs, trade names, products or assays solely for the purpose of providing specific information or examples and does not imply recommendation, endorsement or exclusion.