P. C. Hoffman P. C. Hoffman Department of Dairy ScienceDepartment of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Strategies to Improve Feed Efficiency in Dairy Replacement Heifers

An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, the University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming including, Title IX and ADA requirements.©2007 by Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension

Changes in Cost of Rearing Changes in Cost of Rearing Replacement HeifersReplacement Heifers

1999 vs. 20071999 vs. 2007

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Calves Heifer Total wo calf Total + calf value

1999 2007

An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, the University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming including, Title IX and ADA requirements.©2007 by Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension

Meeting Goals via Nutritional ManipulationMeeting Goals via Nutritional Manipulation

Nutritional Concept Goal

Increase Neonatal Energy\Protein Future Lactation

Increase Energy-Accelerate PP Growth Economic

Altered Protein Supply Future Lactation

Limit-Feeding Environmental

Reduce Dietary P Environmental

DMI Management Economic

The Potential to Limit Feed Dairy Replacement HeifersThe Potential to Limit Feed Dairy Replacement Heifers

P.C. HoffmanDepartment of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison

Pseudo Limit Feeding Research - Pseudo Limit Feeding Research - Dairy HeifersDairy Heifers

Study Objective Results

Lammers et al., 1999 Pre-puberty growth + Milk Production

Ford and Park, 2001 Restriction- realignment + Milk Production

Park et al., 1998 Restriction-realignment + Milk Production

Carson et al., 2000 Plane of nutrition + Milk Production

Hof and Lenaers Forage:grain + ?

Sejrsen and Foldager, 1992 Pre-puberty growth + ?

Caution – Limit feeding was an experimental technique only !

Limit Feed Research – Central HypothesisLimit Feed Research – Central Hypothesis

Hoffman et al., 2007Hoffman et al., 2007Department of Dairy ScienceDepartment of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Limit Feeding Research – Selected Highlights

Limit Feeding Research – Selected Highlights

The Pennsylvania State University

Selected – Penn State Limit Fed Diets

Moody and Heinrichs, 2006

Limit Feeding – Rumen EnvironmentLimit Feeding – Rumen Environment

Zanton and Heinrichs, 2006

Rumen pH of Heifers Limit Fed Low, Medium and High Levels of Concentrate

*

*5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Hour relative to feeding

pH

LCLC+Y

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Hour relative to feeding

pHMC

MC+Y

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Hour relative to feeding

pH

HC

HC+Y

Lascano and Heinrichs, 2007

20 % Concentrate 40 % Concentrate 60 % Concentrate

Kruse et al., 2009 (JDS abstract)

Limit Feeding of Gravid Holstein Heifers: Effect on Growth, Manure Nutrient Excretion, and Subsequent Early Lactation Performance

JDS 90 P.C. Hoffman, C.R. Simson, M. Wattiaux

University of Wisconsin – Selected Diets (Current Experiment)University of Wisconsin – Selected Diets (Current Experiment)

C-100

L-85 C-80

Hoffman et al. 2005

Nutrient and energy intake of heifers fed treatment diets. Nutrient and energy intake of heifers fed treatment diets.

Item C-100 L-90 L-80

Nutrient intake, lbs/d

DM 21.3 19.9 18.3

CP 2.42 2.54 2.57

NDF 10.06 8.29 6.50

Non-fiber carbohydrate 7.26 7.60 7.85

P 0.057 0.058 0.058

Ca 0.086 0.090 0.089

Energy intake3

TDN, lbs/heifer/d 14.4 13.9 13.5NEg, Mcals/d 9.4 9.4 9.5NEm, Mcals/d 13.7 13.3 13.0

Treatment1

Fecal Excretion

Hoffman et al. 2005

Effect of limit feeding on body size and growth of replacement heifers.Effect of limit feeding on body size and growth of replacement heifers.

Item C-100 L-90 L-80

Intial

Weight, lbs 1036 1021 1011

Hip height, in 54.2 54.6 54.9

Body condition score 3.1 3.0 2.9

Final

Weight, lbs 1220 1234 1217

Hip height, in 56.0 56.3 56.4

Body condition score 3.2 3.2 3.2

Growth

Average daily gain, lbs/d 1.66 1.92 1.84

Feed efficiency, lbs DM/lb gain 13.2 10.7 11.1

Excretion

DM, lbs/d 7.7 6.9 5.8

Treatment1

Fecal Excretion – 1100 lb Limit fed Holstein heifer

0

10

20

30

40

50

Lbs/d

C-100 L-90 L-80

Manure DMManure Wet

P < 0.01

Nitrogen Excretion – 1100 lb Limit fed Holstein heifer

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

g/d

C-100 L-90 L-80

Manure N

NS

Penn State - Fecal and Urine Output of Heifers Limit Fed Concentrate (C) or Forage (F) Based Diets

Heifers aged 12 mo

Heifers aged 6 mo

SE Age DietAge x Diet

C F C F

WetFecesLbs/d

17.2 27.3 12.1 17.6 0.63 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05

Dry FecesLbs/d

3.3 4.3 2.4 2.9 0.11 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05

UrineLbs/d

27.4 22.7 11.1 10.6 4.3 <0.1 NS NS

Moody and Heinrichs, 2006

Milk Production: 150 DIM (3.5 % FCM):

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

C100 L90 L80

Mil

k P

rod

uct

ion

, lb

s/15

0 d

NS (P > 0.10)

Penn State – Lactation Trial

  HFHC-Limit

FedSE P <

Milk, lbs 20761 23041 1045 0.081

Fat, % 3.74 3.98 0.13 0.138

Protein, % 3.05 2.95 0.05 0.118

Behavior Ad lib

Limit Fed

Time x Trt P < 0.001

The effect of limit feeding on vocalization of replacement heifersThe effect of limit feeding on vocalization of replacement heifers

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

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

Week

Vo

cali

zati

on

, %

of

hei

fers

L-80 L-90 C-100

Effects of limit feeding and ionophore supplementation on replacement heifer growth, rumen function and manure excretion

K. A. Kruse, N. M. Esser, P. C. Hoffman, and D. K. Combs*Dairy Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Ingredient and nutrient composition of treatment diets of limit fed growing Holstein heifers

TreatmentItem C100 L85 L80 + I

--------------21.0

% of DM14.8

---------------14.8Corn silage

Oatlage 25.9 14.7 14.7Haylage 44.4 35.8 35.8Shelled corn 1.6 18.5 18.5SBOM 2.2 10.5 10.5Base mix 5.0 5.8 5.8Lasalocid, mg/d … … 325

Nutrient composition 1

DM, % as fed 40.3 47.4 47.8CP, % 13.1 15.5 15.4NDF 49.1 36.5 36.0IV NDFD, % NDF 2 51.4 53.1 53.9NFC 29.3 39.7 40.3

Energy Calculations3

TDN, % 56.5 65.0 65.6

NEg, Mcal/kg 0.70 1.0 1.0

  NEm, Mcal/kg 1.2 1.6 1.6

Growth trial Post-trial Lactation

Effect (P<)-Treatment P < 0.33- Stage P < 0.58- Treatment x Stage P < 0.15

Bone development in dairy heifers fed diets with and without supplemental phosphorus.

N.M. Esser*1, P.C. Hoffman*, W.K. Coblentz†, M. W. Orth†† and K.A. Weigel*.

•Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison,WI. •† USDS-ARS Dairy Forage Research Center Marshfield and Madison, WI.

•†† Michigan State University , East Lansing, MI.

Effect (P<Item Holstein Crossbred Holstein Crossbred Diet

Body weight, lbs 1370.0 1263.1 1406.3 1293.1 nsHip height, in 57.4 54.5 57.3 54.8 nsHip width,in 22.0 20.8 22.0 21.3 nsBody length, in 65.1 64.9 65.1 64.8 nsHeart girth,in 81.1 78.9 81.0 79.8 nsCannon bone,in 11.1 10.6 11.4 10.6 nsPelvic height,cm 16.9 16.5 16.6 16.8 nsPelvic width,cm 15.8 15.8 16.4 15.9 nsPelvic area,cm2 210.8 205.4 214.3 210.4 nsPelvic length,in 22.1 21.4 22.3 21.5 ns

0.28 % P 0.38 % P

Holstein and Crossbred Heifers 3-22 months of age.Experimental Diets

- Unsupplemented = 0.28 % P- Supplemented = 0.38 % P

Effect (P<Item Holstein Crossbred Holstein Crossbred Diet

Bone densityTrabecular bone density,mg/cm3 466.5 439.3 407.9 456.5 nsCortical bone density, mg/cm3 573.2 588.6 628.1 562.5 nsTotal bone density, mg/cm3 525.4 521.6 529.2 514.7 ns

Chemical compositionP, % 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.4 0.08Ca, % 20.2 20.5 21.0 20.4 nsAsh, % 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.0 ns

0.28 % P 0.38 % P

Holstein and Crossbred Heifers 3-22 months of age.Experimental Diets

- Unsupplemented = 0.28 % P- Supplemented = 0.38 % P

The Stalklage- Distillers - Urea Diet – For Heifers

•Long term data needed in regard to feedinghigh levels (> 25.0 %) of DDG or WDG to dairy heifers.

•Amount of supplemental fat may be of concern?

•Offers the opportunity to significantly reducefeed cost when DDG or WDG is economical.

•Conservative action is to limit DDG or WDGto 10-20 % in the diet (= 3-4 % Supplemental Fat).

•Best opportunity for cost control lies with older (bred) heifers.

DMI Management – 4 Trials and Theory

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Perc

en

tag

e C

on

su

med

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

DM

I, K

g/d

Control 10 % Straw 20 % Straw

DMI

Hoffman et al, 2008 (in press)Hoffman et al., 2006

Greter et al., 2008Davis–Rincker et al. 2008

Each 1.0 percentage unit changein dietary NDF = ± 0.1 kg DMI

Conclusions

• Increasing energy|protein to neonatal calves increases growth and may improve future milk production.

• Increasing energy, accelerating growth, decreasing puberty|calving age remains paradoxical.

• Increasing dietary protein above requirements does not appear prudent due to a lack of tangible evidence supporting benefit and environmental concerns.

• Limit feeding heifers improves feed efficiency, milk yield? and decreases manure excretion but animal facilities limit application.

• Feeding excessive P has not been demonstrated to improve heifer frame development, growth or reproduction.

• New understandings of heifer DMI may yield more creative nutritional regimens for dairy heifers.

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