Webinar

O Nutricionista

Webinar - O Nutricionista

12 de agosto 19:00

(segunda quarta feira do mês)

Rick Grant – PhD – Instituto Miner

O que aprendemos das pesquisas realizadas no Instituto

Miner . Foco em nutrição aplicada na fazenda.

Creating the Perfect Dining Experience:

Focus on Applied Nutrition and Feeding Management

Rick Grant

William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute

Chazy, NY

Topics for Today …

Focus on feeding

environment.

Mix recent Miner

Institute research with

published data.

Goal: meet cow

behavioral needs with

feeding management.

Where is/what is Miner Institute?

“Agriculture is the fundamental occupation.

No other occupation is so vitally important to the human race, nor

requires such a wide range of practical and technical

knowledge…”

Chazy

William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute

Charles J. Sniffen

Dairy Research & Education Complex 350 Holstein cows 14,058 kg RHA 4.0% fat, 3.2% protein

Creating the perfect dining experience …

Well-formulated, palatable ration

Forage quality

Feed available when cow wants to eat

Competition doesn’t limit feed access

No restrictions on resting, ruminating

Importance of management

environment (Bach et al., 2008)

47 herds with similar genetics were fed same TMR

Mean milk yield=29.5 kg/d

Range: 20.4 to 33.6 kg/d

Non-dietary factors accounted for 56% of variation in milk yield

Feeding for refusals (29.0 vs 27.5 kg/d)

Feed push-ups (28.9 vs 24.9 kg/d)

Stalls per cow

Stalls per cow and milk production (Bach et al., 2008)

R2=0.32

Milk yield = 20.4 + 7.5 x stall/cow

Stalls per cow and milk production (Bach et al., 2008)

R2=0.32

Milk yield = 20.4 + 7.5 x stall/cow

Overcrowding is an Industry Challenge in US …

United States 57% of producers consistently overcrowd their facilities

Northeast Average feed-bunk stocking density = 142% Free-stall stocking density ranges from 71-197 % 60% of high-producing groups overstocked

Stocking Density and Feeding Management

No fun being the cow in the middle …

As stocking density increases: Greater aggression and

displacements Time of eating shifted Fewer meals Eating rate increased Greater potential for sorting Largest effect on subordinate

cows Within limits, cows can adjust

feeding behavior in response to variable SR

Stocking density and DMI (Grant and Tylutki, 2010)

y = 5.5x + 18.0

R2 = 0.05

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Manger space (m/cow)

DM

I (

kg

/d

)

Weak short-term relationship between stocking

density or manger space and DMI

Stocking density and eating rate (Grant and Tylutki, 2010)

y = -80.9x + 134.5

R2 = 0.43

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Manger space (m/cow)

Eati

ng

rate

(g

DM

/m

in)

Eating rate increases with increased stocking

density, reduced feeding space

Stocking density and

DMI by parity in mixed groups

Interaction between parity and stocking density

y = -90.9x2 + 109.0x - 8.6

R2 = 0.85

y = -64.2x2 + 68.8x + 6.7

R2 = 0.82

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Manger space (m/cow)

Dry

matt

er

inta

ke (

kg

/d

)

MP

PP

(Grant, 2010)

Primi- versus multiparous cows and stocking density (Hill et al., 2008)

100% 113% 131% 142%

Multi - primi

Milk, lb/d +5.9 +13.8 +21.1 +14.9

Milk losses reflect reductions in resting and rumination activity

To

tal U

se b

y p

ari

ty/t

ota

l o

ccu

pati

on

Preferred stalls tended to

be in the middle of the pen;

closest to feed bunk

Heifers avoid preferred stalls (Miner Institute, 2014)

69%

31%

Rumination by primiparous cows

in preferred/less preferred stalls (Krawczel, 2007)

Preferred

Less

preferred

P-value

Rumination time,

min/d

81.4 147.8 0.09

% resting time

spent ruminating

35.2 58.4 0.05

Long-term implications?

Stocking density experienced by heifer?

Management Environment x Diet Interactions

Management x diet interaction: Focus on rumen

Management explains majority of variation among farms in

milk yield (Bach et al., 2008)

Feed availability

Stocking density

Does stocking density interact with diet?

peNDF, uNDF, CHO fermentability

Does stocking density interact with feed availability?

Does overstocking accentuate the effect of limited feed?

Effects of stocking density and physically effective fiber on short-term responses in ruminal fermentation and behavior of Holstein dairy cows

M. A. Campbell, K. W. Cotanch, C. S. Ballard,

H. M. Dann, and R. J. Grant

William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY

University of Vermont, Department of Animal Science, Burlington, VT

Abstract 165

ADSA/ASAS Orlando, FL

Ingredient composition (% of ration DM)

Table 1. Ingredients, chemical composition, and digestibility

of treatment diets

Item No Straw Straw SEM

Ingredients, % of ration DM

Corn silage 39.7 39.7 ––

Haycrop silage 6.9 2.3 ––

Wheat straw, chopped –– 3.5 ––

Citrus pulp, dry 4.8 4.8 ––

Whole cottonseed, fuzzy 3.5 3.5 ––

Soybean meal, 47.5%

solvent –– 1.1 ––

Molasses 3.2 3.2 ––

Concentrate mix 41.9 41.9 ––

Analyses

Crude protein, % of DM 15.0 15.1 0.3

NDF, % of DM 30.8 30.1 0.4

ADL, % of DM 3.8 3.8 0.1

Starch, % of DM 25.0 25.5 0.5

Sugar, % of DM 7.4 8.1 0.4

Fat, % of DM 5.9 5.7 0.1

7-h starch digestibility, %

of starch 73.3 74.3 0.9

Physically effective

NDF1.18 mm, % of DM 23.9 25.9 0.7

30-h uNDFom, % of DM 13.1 14.9 0.3

120-h uNDFom, % of DM 9.0 10.2 0.2

240-h uNDFom, % of DM 8.5 9.7 0.2

Item

No Straw

(NS)

Straw

(S)

Corn silage 39.7 39.7

Hay crop silage 6.9 2.3

Wheat straw, chopped … 3.5

Citrus pulp, dry 4.8 4.8

Whole cottonseed, fuzzy 3.5 3.5

Soybean meal, 47.5% solvent … 1.1

Molasses 3.2 3.2

Concentrate mix 41.9 41.9

Chemical composition (% of ration DM)

Item NS S

CP 15.0 15.1

NDF 30.8 30.1

Starch 25.0 25.5

Sugar 7.4 8.1

Ether Extract 5.9 5.7

7-h starch digestibility, % of starch 73.3 74.3

peNDF1.18 mm 18.0 22.5

30-h uNDFom 13.1 14.9

240-h uNDFom 8.5 9.7

Stocking density and rumen pH (Campbell et al., 2015)

100% 142% SD Diet

S NS S NS

Mean pH 6.13 6.17 6.10 6.09 0.07 0.62

Min pH 5.67 5.70 5.59 5.62 0.11 0.53

Max pH 6.58 6.63 6.53 6.56 0.07 0.22

pH<5.8, h/d* 1.90 2.29 2.77 4.12 <0.01 0.01

AUC<5.8, pH units x h/d*

0.38 0.19 0.58 0.34 0.06 0.03

*Interaction (P < 0.09).

Associated with reduced lying time, recumbent rumination, and lower milk and milk fat output.

DMI, milk production and composition – short term

100% 142% P-value

NS S NS S SEM STKD DIET

DMI, kg/d 25.4 25.3 25.3 25.2 0.4 0.78 0.69

Milk, kg/d 41.2 40.4 40.7 40.0 0.7 0.10 0.06

Fat, kg/d 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.69 0.03 0.10 0.20

True protein, kg/d 1.38 1.36 1.37 1.34 0.02 0.23 0.06

DMI, milk production and composition – short term

100% 142% P-value

NS S NS S SEM STKD DIET

DMI, kg/d 25.4 25.3 25.3 25.2 0.4 0.78 0.69

Milk, kg/d 41.2 40.4 40.7 40.0 0.7 0.10 0.06

Fat, kg/d 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.69 0.03 0.10 0.20

True protein, kg/d 1.38 1.36 1.37 1.34 0.02 0.23 0.06

Higher stocking density and marginal peNDF negatively affect

rumen pH and performance.

Higher peNDF counteracts the negative pH effect especially at

high stocking density.

Stocking density and milk fat depression (Hill et al., 2006)

Milk fat % reduced with overcrowding

Overstocked cows ate faster (+25%), ruminated

less (1 h/d less).

Perspectives…

Management environment

has large impact on rumen

and cow response to diet.

First study to investigate

this interaction.

Need to account for role of

management in nutrition

models.

Effect of nutrition and management practices on de novo fatty acid synthesis

in Northeastern US dairy herds

M. E. Woolpert*1,2, C. Melilli3, K. W. Cotanch1, H. M. Dann1, R. J. Grant1, L. E. Chase3, and D. M. Barbano3

1William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY 2 University of Vermont, Burlington, VT

3 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Abstract 81

ADSA/ASAS Orlando, FL

Management environment: impact on de novo fatty acid synthesis (Woolpert et al., 2015)

Investigated effects of management practices on de

novo fatty acid concentrations in bulk-tank milk

from commercial dairy herds.

44 (Year 1) and 30 (Year 2) in VT and NY

Grouped as high or low de novo FA herds

De novo FA synthesized primarily from rumen

fermentation products acetate and butyrate.

Hypothesis: farms with higher de novo milk FA

concentrations prioritize management and nutrition

that promote rumen health.

De novo fatty acids and milk fat and protein are positively

correlated (Barbano et al., 2015)

y = 0.1678x + 0.1222 R2 = 0.4547

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Fat,

%

De novo FA, % of total FA

y = 0.123x + 0.2771 R2 = 0.6842

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Tru

e p

rote

in, %

De novo FA, % of total FA

Feeding environment

HDN LDN SEM P - value

Herd days in milk 175 165 7 0.35

Bunk space, cm/cow1 44.6 37.4 3.1 0.13

Cows per stall1 1.05 1.20 0.06 0.07

Feeding frequency

Tie stall2 4.8 2.8 0.7 0.03

Free stall3 1.7 1.2 0.4 0.32 1 Freestall facilities only (n = 10 HDN; n = 13 LDN) 2 n = 5 HDN, n = 9 LDN component fed; n = 3 HDN, n = 4 LDN TMR fed 3 Freestall farms all TMR fed

Feeding environment

HDN LDN SEM P - value

Herd days in milk 175 165 7 0.35

Bunk space, cm/cow1 44.6 37.4 3.1 0.13

Cows per stall1 1.05 1.20 0.06 0.07

Feeding frequency

Tie stall2 4.8 2.8 0.7 0.03

Free stall3 1.7 1.2 0.4 0.32 1 Freestall facilities only (n = 10 HDN; n = 13 LDN) 2 n = 5 HDN, n = 9 LDN component fed; n = 3 HDN, n = 4 LDN TMR fed 3 Freestall farms all TMR fed

Feeding environment

HDN LDN SEM P - value

Herd days in milk 175 165 7 0.35

Bunk space, cm/cow1 44.6 37.4 3.1 0.13

Cows per stall1 1.05 1.20 0.06 0.07

Feeding frequency

Tie stall2 4.8 2.8 0.7 0.03

Free stall3 1.7 1.2 0.4 0.32 1 Freestall facilities only (n = 10 HDN; n = 13 LDN) 2 n = 5 HDN, n = 9 LDN component fed; n = 3 HDN, n = 4 LDN TMR fed 3 Freestall farms all TMR fed

Feeding environment and milk composition (Woolpert et al., 2015, unpublished)

Greater peNDF 23.4 vs 20.0% of DM

65.2 vs 59.1% >4.0-mm screen with PSPS

Higher de novo milk fatty acid synthesis

65% of variation explained by bunk space (De novo, relative % = 20.12 + 0.09 x bunk space, cm; P < 0.002)

Interaction of Management Environment and Forage Quality

Forage NDF and time spent eating…

Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR

53% forage 40%CS:13% HCS

67% forage 54%CS:13% HCS

49% forage 36%BMR:13%HCS

64% forage 51%BMR:13%HCS

TMR NDF, % of DM 32.1 35.6 31.5 35.1 TMR 24-h NDFD, % 56.3 54.0 62.0 60.3 Eating Behavior

Eating, h/d 4.6ab 5.1a 4.1b 4.6b % of TCT 34.7 35.7 35.1 33.8 abc Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05).

Forage NDF and time spent eating…

Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR

53% forage 40%CS:13% HCS

67% forage 54%CS:13% HCS

49% forage 36%BMR:13%HCS

64% forage 51%BMR:13%HCS

TMR NDF, % of DM 32.1 35.6 31.5 35.1 TMR 24-h NDFD, % 56.3 54.0 62.0 60.3 Eating Behavior

Eating, h/d 4.6ab 5.1a 4.1b 4.6b % of TCT 34.7 35.7 35.1 33.8 abc Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05).

Higher forage diets with slower fermenting forage-NDF

take longer to process.

Forage NDF and time spent eating…

Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR

53% forage 40%CS:13% HCS

67% forage 54%CS:13% HCS

49% forage 36%BMR:13%HCS

64% forage 51%BMR:13%HCS

TMR NDF, % of DM 32.1 35.6 31.5 35.1 TMR 24-h NDFD, % 56.3 54.0 62.0 60.3 Eating Behavior

Eating, h/d 4.6ab 5.1a 4.1b 4.6b % of TCT 34.7 35.7 35.1 33.8 abc Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05).

Higher forage diets with slower fermenting forage-NDF take longer to

process. Time budget challenge especially when overstocked at feed bunk or mixed

parity pens.

Food for thought …

Feeding frequency

Feed push-up

Bunk space

Feed refusals

Do we need to re-

assess industry

norms?

Cows naturally have aggressive feeding drive …

Cows willingly exert >227-kg pressure against feed barrier while eating 102 kg causes tissue damage

Defines “aggressive feeding drive”

We can train cows to become less aggressive eaters!

(Hansen and Pallesen, 1999)

Feed push-up (Armstrong et al., 2008)

1 to 2 hours post-feeding is most competitive; most displacements

Push-up each ½ hour for first 2 hours versus once per hour Fed 3x/day

Item 1x/h 2x/h

DMI, kg/d 18.8 18.2

Milk, kg/d 27.9b 29.7a

Milk/DMI, kg/lkg 1.48b 1.63a

Lying in stall, % of cows 45.3 43.8

1x versus 2x TMR feeding (Sova et al., 2013)

Twice versus once daily feeding:

More feed availability throughout day

Less sorting against long particles

Increased DMI by 1.4 kg/d, milk by 2.0 kg/d

Overall improvement in efficiency

Greater feeding frequency:

Improved rumen fermentation

Greater rumination

Greater eating time

Feeding frequency greater than 2x/day? (Grant, 2012)

Reference FF

/d

Eating time %

DMI

%

Milk

%

Rest

%

DeVries et al. (2005) 1 vs 2x

2 vs 4x

+3.5

+4.6

-2.0

-3.0

NR

NR

-0.8*

0*

Mantysaari et al. (2006) 1 vs 5x + 7.0 -4.8 -1.0 -12.1

Phillips and Rind (2001) 1 vs 4x +11.0 -6.3 -4.7 -8.6

Nikkhah et al. (2011) 1 vs 4x NS -5.2 -2.5 NS

*Cows laid down more quickly with increased FF.

Feeding frequency greater than 2x/day? (Grant, 2012)

Reference FF

/d

Eating time %

DMI

%

Milk

%

Rest

%

DeVries et al. (2005) 1 vs 2x

2 vs 4x

+3.5

+4.6

-2.0

-3.0

NR

NR

-0.8*

0*

Mantysaari et al. (2006) 1 vs 5x + 7.0 -4.8 -1.0 -12.1

Phillips and Rind (2001) 1 vs 4x +11.0 -6.3 -4.7 -8.6

Nikkhah et al. (2011) 1 vs 4x NS -5.2 -2.5 NS

Increased TMR feeding frequency improves efficiency: Is it desirable long-term if it reduces resting time?

*Cows laid down more quickly with increased FF.

Circadian rhythms in feeding behavior (Harvatine, 2012)

With >4x/d feeding:

Decreased ruminating

Disruption of normal circadian lying pattern

In particular, appears to be antagonism between resting and feeding at night.

Table for one? (Rioja-Lang et al., 2012)

Compared 76, 60, 46, and 30 cm of bunk space and preference for:

low-palatability feed alone

high-palatability feed next to a dominant cow

Y-maze testing to offer choices

Space

(cm)

HPF

Dominant

Equal choice

LPF

Alone

P

30 0 1 11 <0.001

46 1 3 8 <0.05

60 3 4 5 >0.05

76 5 2 5 >0.05

Are 60 cm/cow enough?

Cows cannot access feed all together.

Distribution of DMI changed – pushed to later hours of day.

3- versus 2-row pens

Is TMR the same quality?

60 vs 76.2 vs 91 cm/cow

10, 6, 3 displacements per cow/d

Greater feeding time…

Refusal amount and sorting …

Individually fed cows:

Sorting occurs over day, but by 24 h cows consume ration similar to that offered (Maulfair and Heinrichs, 2013).

Competitive feeding situation:

• Each 2%-unit increase in refusals associated with 1.3% increase in sorting (Sova et al., 2013).

• Milk/DMI decreases 3% for each 1% increase in sorting.

Feed refusal amount: intake, milk, efficiency

2.5 vs 5.0 (French et al., 2005)

• DMI = 25.9 kg/d, FCM = 42.1 kg/d, FE = 1.63

11.6 vs 16.1 (Greter and DeVries, 2011)

• DMI = 21.6 kg/d, MY = 41.6 kg/d, FE = 1.93

11.5 vs 18.0 (Miller-Cushon and DeVries, 2010)

• DMI = 26.6 vs 29.7, MY = 39.8, FE = 1.50 vs 1.34

2.9, 6.3, 9.4, 12.7 (Miner Institute, 2013)

• DMI = 27.3 kg/d, FCM = 43.8 kg/d, FE = 1.60

Two percent feed refusals: What it looks like…

How long can the feed bunk be empty?

Cow’s motivation to eat increases markedly after

3 hours (Schutz et al., 2006)

0, 3, 6, 9 h/d feed restriction

Linear increase in motivation to eat

Restricted feed access time by 10 h/d (8:00 pm to

6:00 am) reduced DMI by 1.6 kg/d (Collings et al.,

2011)

2x displacements at feeding

Effect of empty-bunk time (Matzke and Grant, 2003)

Compared 0 vs 6 h/d functionally empty bunk (midnight to 6:00 am)

• +3.6 kg/d milk yield

• 1.8x greater lying in stalls

• 2x greater feeding at bunk

• Cows less restless

Restricted feed access and overcrowding (Collings et al., 2011)

Restricted feed (10 h/d) and

overcrowding (1:1 or 2:1 cows:bin)

~3x displacements when restricted

cows were overstocked

during 2 h after morning

feeding and after afternoon

milking

25% increase in feeding rate in first

2 h after feed delivery

The Perfect Dining Experience? Recommended Feeding Management

Management that enhances rest and rumination

Feed available on demand

Consistent feed quality/quantity along the bunk

Bunk stocking density ≤100% (≥60 cm/cow)

TMR fed 2x/day

Push-ups focused on 2 hours post-feeding

~3% refusal target

Bunk empty no more than 3 h/d (ideally never)

Future feeding management research at Miner?

Diet x stocking density

Mixed parity pens

Feed availability

Heat stress

Forage quality

uNDF, fermentable CHO

Feeding environment

Thank you! www.whminer.org

9 de setembro 19:00

(segunda quarta feira do mês)

Adam Lock – PhD – Universidade de Michigan

Gordura para vacas de leite: qual o nível de precisão em

fazendas comerciais. Foco na utilização de gordura e

manutenção de vacas saudáveis.

Sua empresa pode ser parceira no próximo Webinar.

Ajude-nos a trazer aos nutricionistas Brasileiros o que

existe de mais novo em nutrição de vacas leiteiras no

mundo.

Marianna.correa@terra.com.br

11 - 999756429

Cadastre-se nos nossos meios de comunicação para

receber os slides em português e o Webinar

gravado:

http://3rlab.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/3rlab

Excelente material para treinamento de equipes/grupos de estudos

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

40 50 60 70 > 70

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Espaço de cocho (cm/vaca)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Espaço decocho não é

fator deajuste da

dieta

Se não tiverespaço decocho eu

aumento asobra

Se não tiverespaço decocho euaumentoforragem

Espaço decocho

interfere nadieta

somente natransição

Se não tiverespaço decocho euaumento

frequênciade tratos

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Espaço de cocho vs. Ajuste da dieta

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Qualidade daforragem

Espaço decocho

Frequência dealimentação

Recursoshumanos

Instalação

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

10 fazendas com genética similar e produção diferente

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2x/diaempurrando 4

vezes

1x/diaempurrando 8

vezes

3x/diaempurrando 4

vezes

3x/diaempurrando 8

vezes

Mais que3x/dia

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Frequência vs. empurrar dieta