examining the role of canola meal in the diets of early ... · a webinar with dr. kenneth...

Examining the role of canola

meal in the diets of early

lactation cows

A webinar with Dr. Kenneth Kalscheur,

USDA Dairy Forage Research Center

Welcome to the Webinar waiting room. We will begin promptly at the top of the hour. There is music playing—please use it to confirm your audio connection.If you have difficulties, please email [email protected]

Welcome

Canola Meal Soybean Meal Corn DDGS

Crude Protein 41.5 51.5 30.3

RUP, % of CP 53 40 57

RUP, % of DM 22.0 20.6 17.3

RUP Digestibility2 71.3 75.6 68.8

Digestible RUP, % of DM

15.6 15.6 11.9

1AMTS2Ross, D.A., Gutierrez-Botero, M. and Van Amburgh, M.E., Proc. CNC 2013.

Comparing Proteins Using CNCPS Technology 1

Amino Acid Microbial Protein2

Canola Meal Soybean Meal Corn DDGS

Met 1.9 2.1 1.3 2.0

Lys 6.7 5.5 6.1 2.8

Arg 3.9 6.5 7.3 4.3

Thr 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.7

Leu 6.5 6.0 7.6 11.7

Ileu 4.7 3.5 4.5 3.7

Val 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9

His 1.5 3.7 2.6 2.7

Phe 4.5 4.0 5.1 4.9

Try 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.8

Lys/Met 3.5 2.6 4.7 1.41AMTS2 Sok et al., J.D.S. 100:5241-5249, 2017.

Amino Acid Profiles 1

Item, g Digested/kg of meal

Canola Meal Soybean Meal Corn DDGS Corn DDGS Prorated to 156 g of digested RUP

Protein 156 156 119 156

Met 3.29 2.03 2.38 3.12

Lys 8.53 9.52 3.33 4.37

Arg 10.09 11.39 5.12 6.71

Thr 6.55 6.08 4.40 5.77

Leu 9.42 11.86 13.92 18.25

Ileu 5.52 7.02 4.40 5.77

Val 7.55 7.33 5.83 7.64

His 5.71 4.06 3.21 4.21

Phe 6.21 7.96 5.83 7.64

Try 2.01 2.03 0.95 1.25

Amino Acid Profiles 1

Amino Acid Considerations

Canola meal provides approximately as much digestible RUP/kg of meal as soybean meal

The amino acid profile of canola meal is close to microbial protein, providing slightly more methionine and histidine, but less lysine

The amino acid profile of the digestible RUP from canola meal may have advantages over soybean meal, corn-DDGS and other many other vegetable proteins

Amino Acid ModelsModels consider the amino acid needs for maintenance, growth and lactation

Models are never a complete representation of biology

Current models are unable to account for some aspects of metabolism that we know influence amino acid utilization:

Ancillary reactions not particularly related to protein synthesisInteractions with glucose requirements and the need for TCA intermediatesUse of EAA to synthesize NEAA for high demand labile proteinsPriorities of use

Canola meal seems to have an amino acid profile that is particularly suited to dairy cows

Examining the role of canola meal in the diets of early lactation cows

Kenneth F. Kalscheur

United States Department of Agriculture

U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center USDA Agricultural Research Service

Outline

1. Nutrient composition comparison

2. Effect of canola meal on dairy cow performance

3. Use of canola meal in early lactation

1. Nutrient composition comparison

7/29/2020 U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center 10

Nutrient composition comparison

51.1

13.5

4.4

7.3

41.7

29.4

3.5

7.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CP NDF EE Ash

% o

f D

M

Soybean meal

Canola meal


Source: Canola meal data - Adewole et al. 2016; Soybean meal data - Dairy One, 2016

Essential amino acid profile

34

12

23

37

30

6

24

18

7

24

84

4.7

22

10

16

27

20

7

16 16

4

20

64

2.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

g/kg

Dry

mat

ter

Soybean meal

Canola meal


Source: Moore and Kalscheur, unpublished

Amino acid composition

• Amino acid ratio of first limiting amino acids Lys : Met (NRC, 2001)• Canola meal 3.01:1• Soybean meal 4.37:1

• Formulating diets for amino acids pre-calving to post-partum (Garthwaiteet al., 1998; Liu et al., 2013)• +2.27 kg/d MY; +112 g/d MPY; +115 g/d MFY

• Increased Met in early lactation has ↑ glutathione and carnitine concentration in liver therefore ↑ beta-oxidation capacity and antioxidant prevalence (Osorio et al., 2014; Schwab, 2017)


Amino acid composition• ↑ Met supplementation affects methyl donor S-

adenosylmethionine and the antioxidant glutathione availability (Osorio et al., 2014)

• Knowing there is increased liver inflammation in the transition dairy cow…• Can we meet the demand of these amino acids in an appropriate

ratio more effectively with canola meal?

• Can this be leveraged when DMI is low and cows are more responsive to EAA supplies (i.e. early lactation)?


Supplementation of Met in early lactation

• Osario et al. (2013): fed -21 d to 30 d• +2.1 kg/d DMI, +3.3 kg/d milk, milk protein % and yield

• Zhou et al. (2015): fed -21 d to 30 d• +2.0 kg/d DMI, +3.8 kg/d milk, ↑ component yield

• Batistel et al. (2017): fed -28 d to 60 d• +1.65 kg/d DMI, + 4.1 kg/d milk, ↑ component yield

• Cetin et al. (2018): fed -21 d to 21 d• +0.7 kg/d DMI, +2.0 kg/d milk, milk fat and protein %


2. Effect of canola meal on dairy cow performance


Meta-analysis #1

• Huhtanen et al. 2011. Can J. Anim. Sci. 91:529-543

• Evaluation of canola meal as a protein supplement for dairy cows: A review and a meta-analysis

• Dataset included 292 treatment means from 122 studies


Meta-analysis – Huhtenen et al. (2011)


Item CM SBM SE P-value

DMI, kg/d 19.4 16.8 0.03 <0.01

Milk, kg/d 27.2 23.6 0.25 <0.01

ECM, kg/d 28.6 23.6 0.29 <0.01

Fat, g/kg 32.6 32.5 0.43 0.33

Protein, g/kg 45.1 41.8 0.24 0.60

Meta-analysis #2

• Martineau et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96:1701-1714

• Feeding canola meal to dairy cows: A meta-analysis on lactational responses

• Dataset included 88 treatment means from 27 studies

• Compared CM to substitution by any other protein source• Evaluation of individual comparisons when appropriate


Martineau et al., 2013

• DMI +0.24 ± 0.054 kg/d (not compared to SBM)

• MY +0.62 ± 0.084 kg/d (not compared to SBM)

• 4% FCM +0.50 ± 0.089 kg/d • NS different from SBM

• MPY +26.2 ± 3.13 g/d • +16.8 ± 3.40 g/d compared to SBM• +32.2 ± 3.33 g/d compared to all other sources

• MFY +16.4 ± 4.95 g/d• NS different from SBM• +24.2 ± 6.53 g/d compared to all other sources

• ECM/DMI +0.020 ± 0.0048• NS different from SBM• +0.026 ± 0.0071 compared to all other sources


3. Use of canola meal in early lactation


Objective

• Determine the effect of protein source in early lactation on production and utilization of body reserves using canola and soybean meals as the primary sources.


Materials & Methods

▪ Multiparous Holstein cows (n = 79)▪ Average parity 2.76 ± 0.87

▪ Randomized complete block design ▪ 22 factorial arrangement of treatments▪ Blocked by calving date

▪ Received same diet for first 16 weeks of lactation

▪ Cows milked 3 per day and individually fed in a tie-stall barn


LO HI

Item SBM CM SBM CM

Ingredient, % of DM

Corn silage 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6

Alfalfa silage 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4

Hi-moisture corn 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Canola meal 0.0 11.9 0.0 19.4

Soybean meal 8.9 0.0 14.5 0.0

Soybean hulls 10.5 7.5 4.9 0.0

Corn gluten meal 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

Rumen inert fat1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Vitamin and mineral mix 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.51Energy Booster 100 (Milk Specialties, Dundee, IL)

Treatments


Analysis of canola and soybean meals


Item (% of DM) CM SBM

CP 40.5 49.3

NDICP 6.48 7.88

ADF 20.7 5.7

aNDF 26.1 8.6

aNDFom 24.2 7.6

Starch 1.27 1.92

Fat 4.31 1.05

Ash 7.89 6.84

NFC 29.6 43.1

LO HI

Item (% of DM, unless noted) SBM CM SBM CM

DM (% as fed) 48.9 48.8 48.8 48.8

CP 16.3 16.1 17.8 18.4

NDF 30.8 31.9 27.5 27.3

ADF 22.4 23.1 20.3 20.4

Ether Extract 4.50 4.71 4.59 5.28

Starch 27.8 27.6 26.9 28.1

Ash 6.64 7.05 6.90 6.86

Nutrient composition


DMI tended to be greater for cows on CM diets


CM > SBM : 0.80 ± 0.34 kg/d

LO HI P<

Item SBM CM SBM CM SEM CP S CP X S

DMI, kg/d 24.6 26.1 25.4 25.6 0.49 0.87 0.09 0.17

Milk yield, kg/d 50.1 54.8 52.3 56.5 1.41 0.16 <0.01 0.83

FCM, kg/d 50.7 54.8 51.3 55.1 1.36 0.73 <0.01 0.90

ECM, kg/d 53.1 57.4 54.1 57.8 1.38 0.61 <0.01 0.87

Feed Efficiency 2.16 2.22 2.17 2.31 0.06 0.34 0.06 0.52

DMI tended to be greater for cows on CM diets


Legend

- LO SBM - LO CM - HI SBM - HI CM

LO HI P<


DMI, kg/d 24.6 26.1 25.4 25.6 0.49 0.87 0.09 0.17

Milk yield, kg/d 50.1 54.8 52.3 56.5 1.41 0.16 <0.01 0.83

FCM, kg/d 50.7 54.8 51.3 55.1 1.36 0.73 <0.01 0.90

ECM, kg/d 53.1 57.4 54.1 57.8 1.38 0.61 <0.01 0.87

Feed Efficiency 2.16 2.22 2.17 2.31 0.06 0.34 0.06 0.52

Cows fed CM diets had greater milk yield


CM > SBM : 4.45 ± 0.97 kg/d


Legend


Cows fed CM diets had greater milk yield

LO HI P<


DMI, kg/d 24.6 26.1 25.4 25.6 0.49 0.87 0.09 0.17

Milk yield, kg/d 50.1 54.8 52.3 56.5 1.41 0.16 <0.01 0.83

FCM, kg/d 50.7 54.8 51.3 55.1 1.36 0.73 <0.01 0.90

ECM, kg/d 53.1 57.4 54.1 57.8 1.38 0.61 <0.01 0.87

Feed Efficiency 2.16 2.22 2.17 2.31 0.06 0.34 0.06 0.52


CM > SBM : 3.92 ± 0.94 kg/d

Cows fed CM diets had greater FCM yield

LO HI P<


DMI, kg/d 24.6 26.1 25.4 25.6 0.49 0.87 0.09 0.17

Milk yield, kg/d 50.1 54.8 52.3 56.5 1.41 0.16 <0.01 0.83

FCM, kg/d 50.7 54.8 51.3 55.1 1.36 0.73 <0.01 0.90

ECM, kg/d 53.1 57.4 54.1 57.8 1.38 0.61 <0.01 0.87

Feed Efficiency 2.16 2.22 2.17 2.31 0.06 0.34 0.06 0.52


CM > SBM : 4.02 ± 0.95 kg/d

Cows fed CM diets had greater ECM yield

LO HI P<


DMI, kg/d 24.6 26.1 25.4 25.6 0.49 0.87 0.09 0.17

Milk yield, kg/d 50.1 54.8 52.3 56.5 1.41 0.16 <0.01 0.83

FCM, kg/d 50.7 54.8 51.3 55.1 1.36 0.73 <0.01 0.90

ECM, kg/d 53.1 57.4 54.1 57.8 1.38 0.61 <0.01 0.87

Feed Efficiency 2.16 2.22 2.17 2.31 0.06 0.34 0.06 0.52

Tendency for CM fed cows to be more efficient


CM > SBM : 0.10 ± 0.04 kg/d

Cows on CM diets tended to have greater feed efficiency


Legend


LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

Cows on LO-CP diets had higher milk fat percent


LO > HI : 0.19 ± 0.07 %

LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

No effect of treatments on percent protein or lactose


LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

Percent total solids was greater for LO-CP fed cows


LO > HI : 0.25 ± 0.10 %

LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

CM fed cows produced more milk fat


CM > SBM : 0.15 ± 0.04 kg/d

LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

CM fed cows produced more milk protein


CM > SBM : 0.08 ± 0.02 kg/d

LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

CM fed cows produced more milk lactose


CM > SBM : 0.19 ± 0.05 kg/d

LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

CM fed cows produced more milk total solids


CM > SBM : 0.48 ± 0.11 kg/d

LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

Cows fed HI-CP cows had higher MUN


HI > LO : 2.73 ± 0.22 mg/dL

LO HI P<


Milk components

Fat, % 4.12 4.05 3.89 3.91 0.09 <0.05 0.78 0.66

Protein, % 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.77 0.05 0.58 0.12 0.29

Lactose, % 4.94 4.87 4.89 4.86 0.03 0.53 0.19 0.36

Total solids, % 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.83

Fat, kg/d 2.04 2.19 2.03 2.16 0.06 0.73 0.02 0.89

Protein, kg/d 1.43 1.55 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.29

Lactose, kg/d 2.48 2.66 2.56 2.76 0.07 0.19 <0.01 0.91

Total solids, kg/d 6.42 6.93 6.56 7.01 0.16 0.48 <0.01 0.85

MUN, mg/dL 10.0 9.62 12.9 12.2 0.32 <0.01 0.10 0.75

CM fed cows tended to have lower MUN


SBM > CM: 0.52 ± 0.23 mg/dL

LO-CP diets had lower MUN and CM diets tended to be lower

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

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

MU

N (

mg

/dL)

Week of Lactation


Legend


Body weight change

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bo

dy

we

igh

t (k

g)

Week of Lactation

LO-SBM

LO-CM

HI-SBM

HI-CM


Body condition score

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

0 4 8 12 16

Bo

dy

con

dit

ion

sco

re

Week of Lactation

LO-SBM

LO-CM

HI-SBM

HI-CM


Summary

• Canola meal significantly increased milk yield in early lactation dairy cows

• No milk response was observed in response to increased CP from 16% → 18%

• CM fed cows tended to be more feed efficient and lower in MUN production


Substitution of canola meal with soybean meal in early lactation

Swanepoel et al. (2020) Anim. Feed Sci Technol. 264:114494.

▪ Cows were fed one of 3 diets:1) 14.5% CM2) 6.5% CM + 6.5% SBM3) 6.5% CM + 6.5% SBM + supplemental Met (7.9 g/d)

▪ Cows were assigned a treatment at 13.2 ± 0.11 DIM and fed treatments for 150 days.

▪ Diets were 17.0 to 17.5% CP, ~30% NDF, 19 to 18% starch, and ~5% fat.




▪ CM-fed cows vs. SBM-fed cows (403 cows)▪ DMI: Averaged 28.3 kg/d (NS)▪ Milk: 51.3 vs 49.7 kg/d → +1.57 kg/d (P<0.01)▪ Milk fat %: 3.48 vs 3.49 % (NS)▪ Milk fat: 1.78 vs 1.73 kg/d → +0.04 kg/d (P<0.01)▪ Milk TP %: 2.84 vs 2.85 % → -0.01 % units (P=0.09)▪ Milk TP: 1.45 vs 1.41 kg/d → +0.04 kg/d (P<0.01)▪ BCS (342 cows): 2.98 vs 2.98 (NS)

Substituting SBM for CM reduced performance, possibly because of lower ruminal microbial CP flow to the small intestine.


Conclusions

• Need to determine why CM-fed cows produced more than SBM cows in early lactation:• Possibly an amino acid/essential amino acid supply difference.


Conclusions


• Possibly because of increased ruminal microbial protein flow to the small intestine.


Conclusions


• Possibly because of increased ruminal microbial protein flow to the small intestine.

• Further research is underway to investigate the impact of feeding canola meal during the transition period on production during lactation.


Thank you!

Lab members

• Diane Amundson

• Spencer Moore

• Jordan Kuehnl

Funding Support


QUESTIONS?Leading the world in integrated dairy forage systems research.

U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center

www.ars.usda.gov/mwa/madison/dfrc


United States Department of Agriculture

For more canola meal dairy feeding info, access canolamazing.com/feed-guide and download a free copy of our updated Dairy Feed Guide.

Make sure to follow AMTS’ “The Nutritionist” series.

Live and Recorded Ruminant Nutrition WebinarsMore Information at https://agmodelsystems.com/webinar/View past canola meal webinars at https://agmodelsystems.com/webinar/amts-and-canola-council-of-canada-webinars/

Email: [email protected]

Thank you for joining us!

https://agmodelsystems.com/webinar/

https://agmodelsystems.com/webinar/amts-and-canola-council-of-canada-webinars/

11 June 20209:00 am EDT6:00 pm EDT

Dr Jude CapperLivestock Sustainability Consultant

United Kingdom

Back to the Future—What has the U.S. dairy industry achieved since

2007 and what will we have to focus on going forward

examining the role of canola meal in the diets of early ... · a webinar with dr. kenneth...

Documents