why amaferm in the ration?in the ration?static.backofficeapps.com/biozyme/.../amaferm_dairy... ·...

Why AMAFERM® in the ration?Why AMAFERM® in the ration?Why AMAFERM in the ration?Why AMAFERM in the ration?

BioZyme Incorporated

St. Joseph, MO., USA


St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERMAMAFERM®®AMAFERMAMAFERM

Application & Value Application & Value ppin Dairy Cattle

ppin Dairy Cattle




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Har estingHar estingHybrid SelectionHybrid Selection

HarvestingHarvesting

StorageStorage

Producer investments in forageProducer investments in forageProducer investments in forage Producer investments in forage digestibility!digestibility!

Processing / MixingProcessing / MixingBunk ManagementBunk Management




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

$=$= $$$$Har estingHar esting

$=$= $=$=$=$=Hybrid SelectionHybrid Selection

HarvestingHarvesting

StorageStorage

Why Stop Here?Why Stop Here?Why Stop Here?Why Stop Here?

$=$=$=$=Processing / MixingProcessing / MixingBunk ManagementBunk Management

$$$$




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

“The Fiber Digestion Additive”“The Fiber Digestion Additive”“The Fiber Digestion Additive”“The Fiber Digestion Additive”

What will your clients What will your clients choose?choose?

ThisThis ThisThis

OrOr




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® Description:• A natural feed additive obtained from the controlled fermentation

of Aspergillus oryzae utilizing a proprietary, multi-step process to achieve optimized product activity

• Produced in a dedicated fermentation facility. Compliant with ISO 9000, Safe Feed Safe Food certification, and HACCP certification

Involved in a process of continued improvement to further increase• Involved in a process of continued improvement to further increase product potency and efficacy

• Offers the ruminant industry one of the largest independent d t b f bli h d h ltdatabases of published research results

• One of the only feed additives produced specifically to maximize the digestion of ration fiber components

• Available in Granular, Liquid, and Organic Forms




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

TheThe AMAFERMAMAFERM® Advantage• In the rumen:

– Stimulates Rumen Fungi• Impacts rate and extent of fiber digestion• Impacts rate and extent of fiber digestion

– Stimulates fiber digesting bacteria• Impacts rate and extent of fiber digestion

I i bi l t i i ld• Increases microbial protein yield – Stimulates lactate utilizing bacteria

• Minimizes negative impact of rumen pH

• In the cow:– Increases milk per pound of feed consumed– Increases component yield and body condition– Resulting in increased return over feed costs




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERMAMAFERM®®

AdvantageAdvantageForagesForages NonNon--forage Fiberforage Fiber

NDF ComponentsNDF ComponentsAmaferm Amaferm I tI t

Fungal digestionFungal digestionRumenRumen

ImpactsImpacts

Bacterial digestionBacterial digestion

Resulting benefits: Resulting benefits: •• Increased EnergyIncreased Energy•• Higher Quality ProteinHigher Quality Protein




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

WithoutWithout AMAFERMAMAFERMAMAFERMAMAFERM®®

AdvantageAdvantageAdvantageAdvantageForagesForages NonNon--forage Fiberforage Fiber

NDF ComponentsNDF Components

Amaferm Amaferm ImpactsImpacts

With With AMAFERMAMAFERMFungal digestionFungal digestion

Bacterial digestionBacterial digestionRumenRumen

ImpactsImpacts

Resulting benefits:Resulting benefits:Resulting benefits: Resulting benefits: •• Increased EnergyIncreased Energy•• Higher Quality ProteinHigher Quality Protein




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® Delivers More Enzyme Delivers More Enzyme Production Where it is Needed Most!Production Where it is Needed Most!

AMAFERMAMAFERM Control

Production Where it is Needed Most!Production Where it is Needed Most!

12 2500 12 2500




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

12 µm x 2500

Source: Chang et al, 1999 J. of Applied Microbiology 86:389-398

12 µm x 2500

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® Delivers More Enzyme Delivers More Enzyme Production Where it is Needed Most!Production Where it is Needed Most!

AMAFERMAMAFERM Control

Production Where it is Needed Most!Production Where it is Needed Most!EnzymeEnzyme

EE

EnzymeEnzymeEnzymeEnzyme

EnzymeEnzyme

EnzymeEnzyme

EnzymeEnzyme

EnzymeEnzyme

12 2500

EnzymeEnzyme

12 2500




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

12 µm x 2500

Source: Chang et al, 1999 J. of Applied Microbiology 86:389-398

12 µm x 2500

Fungi Attached to Fungi Attached to FiberFiber




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Fungal Effect on Dry MatterFungal Effect on Dry MatterFungal Effect on Dry MatterFungal Effect on Dry Matter

WithW/oTime ofDry Matter Loss %

12 36 0

With Fungi

25 7

W/o Fungi

Time of Incubation, hr

24

12

46 4

36.0

38 7

25.7

36

24

48.6

46.4

42.4

38.7

48 53.844.6




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Elliot et al., 1987. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 109:13-17

AMAFERM® – Impact on Milk AMAFERM® – Impact on Milk Production Production




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Number Lacatation

Milk ProductionMilk ProductionMilk ProductionMilk Productionof Cows Stage Control Amaferm % Diff.

Harris 32 Mid 54.4 57.3 5.3Van Horn 32 Early-Mid 53.9 57.6 6.9Huber 12 Mid 40 7 44 4 9 1Huber 12 Mid 40.7 44.4 9.1

12 Mid 42.7 41.1 <3.7>Wallentine 50 Early 66.2 74.1 12.0

100 Overall 65.1 67.6 3.8Marcus 195 Early-Mid 63.8 67.5 5.9

University Published ResultsMarcus 195 Early Mid 63.8 67.5 5.9Kellems 32 Early 78.3 85.6 9.2

32 Early-Mid 79.4 84.0 5.832 Mid 73.3 76.3 4.2

Kellems 96 Early-Mid 60.6 63.4 4.6Si t 12 E l 77 2 78 1 0 1

4.73% average increase

11 00% increase in early lactationSievert 12 Early 77.2 78.1 0.112 Early 75.9 76.6 0.1

Gomez 24 Mid 49.1 51.0 4.046 Early 85.1 88.9 4.4

Dennigan 40 Early 67.9 67.8 <0.1>

11.00% increase in early lactation

6.40% increase during heat stressDennigan 40 Early 67.9 67.8 0.1

24 Mid 57.7 57.1 <0.1>Baumgard 22 Early 89.7 98.4 9.7

Ave. Average/trial 65.6 68.7




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Average percent increase Average percent increase 4.73%

AMAFERM® – Impact on FiberAMAFERM® – Impact on FiberAMAFERM – Impact on FiberAMAFERM – Impact on Fiber




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Factors Effecting Fiber DigestionFactors Effecting Fiber Digestion

• NDF level and digestibility* – Plant type and structure yp

• Feed processing • Microbial populations*p p

– Fungi and Bacteria• Rate of passage*p g• Rumen pH*

**




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Relationship between Relationship between NDFdNDFd & Performance& Performance

• Each 1% change in NDFd can change Dry Matter Intake .37 lbs1

Each 1% change in NDFd can change milk production• Each 1% change in NDFd can change milk production by .55 lbs of 4% FCM1

• Subsequent research has shown that in higherSubsequent research has shown that in higher lactating cows this difference could approach 2.0 lbs of milk per 1% unit of NDFd change2




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA1Source: Oba & Allan, 1999 JDS 82:589-5962Source Mike Allen Ph.D., “Time to Regroup”

Effect of Effect of AMAFERMAMAFERM®® on Rumen on Rumen Fungal Growth & Fungal Growth & CellulaseCellulase ActivityActivity

200

P< 0.05

Control

AMAFERM27% I

87% Increase

100

150

P< 0.05

AMAFERM27% Increase

50

0Fungal Cell Mass Cellulase

C %




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Welch, 1996, Appl. Microbiol Biotechnol 45:811-821

Control set at 100%

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® Effect on Rumen Bacteria

188% Increase

250

300P<0.001 Control

AMAFERM79% Increase

150

200AMAFERM

50

100

0

Total Bacteria Cellulolytic Bacteria

C %




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Frumholtz, 1989, J. Agric. Sci. 113:169-172

Control set at 100%

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® Impact on Impact on Bacterial Growth RateBacterial Growth RateBacterial Growth Rate Bacterial Growth Rate

Control AMAFERM Control AMAFERM

Growth Rate Doubling Time (min.)

Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 0.26b 0.35a 155 125Megasphaera elsdenii B159 0.32b 0.43a 130 99

M elsdenii T81 0 30b 0 40a 150 115M. elsdenii T81 0.30 0.40 150 115

M. elsdenii LC1 0.29d 0.32c 141 129Ruminococcus albus 7 0.58b 0.72a 72 60Selenomonas ruminantium D 0 59b 0 71a 70 61Selenomonas ruminantium D 0.59b 0.71a 70 61Sel. ruminantium HD1 0.65b 0.75a 66 53Sel. ruminantium HD4 0.62b 0.74a 69 54S l i ti GA31 0 50a 0 54a 85 80Sel. ruminantium GA31 0.50a 0.54a 85 80Sel. lactilytica PC18 0.57b 0.72a 73 60

a b ithi ith diff t i t diff (P < 0 01) c d ithi ith diff t i t diff (P < 0 05)




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

a,b means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.01) c,d means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)

Source: Beharka and Nagaraja, 1998. J. Dairy Sci. 81:1591-1598

DirectDirect--fed Microbial Productsfed Microbial ProductsProduct Tested Comments or Animal

TrialsTrials

AMAFERM®

(multi-stage ferment)Largest Research

Database, Multi-stage Fermentation Process

ATCC, 458Aspergillus oryzae

Single Stage Ferment

Commercial Aspergillus(Product A)

Inconsistent Quality/Supply

Difco Saccharomyces(B127)

Public Yeast Species

Commercial Saccharomyces(Product D)

Yeast Culture

Commercial Saccharomyces(Product P)

Live Yeast

Commercial Saccharomyces(Product S)

Live Yeast

Commercial Saccharomyces(Product MT)

Live Yeast

Commercial Lactobacillus(Product BM)

Limited Research




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Calza, Washington State Univ.

(Product BM)


TrialsStimulation of

BacterialTrials BacterialGrowth

AMAFERM®



3.2 timesIncrease



1.8 - 2.0 timesIncrease



2.0 times increase


Public Yeast Species Set at standard

1X


Yeast Culture 3.0 timesIncrease


Live Yeast Minimal


Live Yeast Variable


Live Yeast Variable, minimal


Limited Research Some, minimal




St. Joseph, MO. USA





(Product BM)



BacterialStimulation of Bacterial FiberTrials Bacterial

GrowthBacterial Fiber

Degrading Enzymes

AMAFERM®



3.2 timesIncrease

13 - 49% increase




Minimal



2.0 times increase

Minimal, none



1X

Set at standard1X



Minimal


Live Yeast Minimal No effect


Live Yeast Variable Not tested



Not tested


Limited Research Some, minimal Not tested




St. Joseph, MO. USA





(Product BM)



BacterialStimulation of Bacterial Fiber

Stimulation of Fungal Physiology and FiberTrials Bacterial

GrowthBacterial Fiber

Degrading EnzymesPhysiology and Fiber Degrading Enzymes

AMAFERM®



3.2 timesIncrease

13 - 49% increase 2.5 times increase




Minimal Minimal



2.0 times increase

Minimal, none No effect



1X

Set at standard1X

No effect



Minimal No effect, minimal


Live Yeast Minimal No effect Minimal


Live Yeast Variable Not tested Variable



Not tested No effect


Limited Research Some, minimal Not tested Not tested




St. Joseph, MO. USA





(Product BM)

Lactating Dairy Cows’ Lactating Dairy Cows’ Response to Yeast ProductsResponse to Yeast ProductsResponse to Yeast ProductsResponse to Yeast Products

• Sited results contained within a meta analysis summarizing six diff t t d t (YP) 22 i ddifferent yeasts products (YP) across 22 peer reviewed publications

• All studies were pooled and simple correlations showed that:p p

– Higher diet NDF or ADF levels reduced responses to YP

• Results suggest that % increase in NEL output increased gg L pmodestly in diets with higher starch levels:

– But decreased in diets with higher NDF levels




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Robinson and Erasmus, 2007 JDS Vol. 90 Suppl. 1 No. 362

Impact ofImpact of Ether / Ester Bonds?Item Coastal Tifton 85CP, % of DM 14.5 14.3,ADF, % of DM 40.3 42.3NDF, % of DM 70.9b 75.1a

ADL, % of DM (lignin) 4.3 4.0Ester-linked FA, g/kg CW 12.6b 13.9a

Ether-linked FA, g/kg CW 8.1b 6.9a

OMI, lb/d 9.7 9.9TT OMI digestion, % 54.2b 59.1a

TT ADF digestion, % 51.4b 56.3a




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Mandebvu et al., 1999. JAS 77 (6) 1572-1586

a,b Within a row within cultivar or age, means without a common superscript letter differ (P <0.05)

WithoutWithout AMAFERMAMAFERM With With AMAFERMAMAFERM




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Cell Wall Digestion Cell Wall Digestion Cell Wall Digestion Cell Wall Digestion

C l i tiGlycoclax

Colonization

C llCell

Wall EnzymeEnzyme

EnzymeEnzyme

Dots—represent cell wall degrading enzymes produced by the bacterium

Open blocks—represent structural polysaccharides not associated with lignin

Grey blocks—low Lignin-CHO complex




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source:Chesson (1993)

Black blocks—high Lignin-CHO complex

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® NDF Degradation NDF Degradation AMAFERMAMAFERM®® NDF Degradation NDF Degradation Forage % Improvement ResearcherForage % Improvement Researcher

Alfalfa 12 Berharka and Nagaraja

Alfalfa 18 NocekAlfalfa 18 Nocek

Bromegrass 28 Varel and Kreikemeier

Bromegrass 8 Berharka and Nagaraja

Bromegrass 12 Varel et al.

Corn silage 34 Nocek

F 8 B h k d N jFescue 8 Berharka and Nagaraja

Prairie Hay 30 Westvig et al.

Straw 66 Fondevilla et alStraw 66 Fondevilla et al.

Switchgrass 12 Varel and Kreikemeier

TMR 13 Gomez et al.




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® Impact on Impact on Rate of DigestionRate of Digestion

45

50

Rate of DigestionRate of Digestion

Amaferm*Amaferm* ControlControl

30

35

40 Amaferm*Amaferm* ControlControl

Rate of DigestionRate of Digestion

20

25

Extent of DigestionExtent of Digestion

ate o gest oate o gest o

5

10

15

00 24 48 72

P < 0 05 Substrate - Wheat Straw




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

P < 0.05

Source: Fondevila et al., 1990 Animal Prod. 422-425

Substrate - Wheat Straw

AMAFERM®AMAFERM® Impact on Impact on Extent of DigestionExtent of Digestion

20at

12h

Extent of DigestionExtent of Digestion

A fA f k i kl tk i kl t

15

rom

egra

ssa

b

bb

Control

AMAFERM

Amaferm Amaferm works quickly to works quickly to increase digestibilityincrease digestibility

10

adat

ion

of B

r b

aa

AMAFERM

5

In v

itro

Deg

ra a

0(%) I

NDF Hemicellulose Celluloseff f ff ( )




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Varel et al., 1993. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Pg 3171-3176

Means with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.01)

Relationship between Relationship between NDFdNDFd & Performance& Performance

• Each 1% change in NDFd can change Dry Matter Intake .37 lbs1

Each 1% change in NDFd can change milk production• Each 1% change in NDFd can change milk production by .55 lbs of 4% FCM1

• Subsequent research has shown that in higherSubsequent research has shown that in higher lactating cows this difference could approach 2.0 lbs of milk per 1% unit of NDFd change2




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA1Source: Oba & Allan, 1999 JDS 82:589-5962Source Mike Allen Ph.D., “Time to Regroup”

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® –– Early LactationEarly LactationIt C t l AMAFERMItem Control AMAFERM

DMI, % of BW 3.95 4.2** P < 0.05

**P < 0.10

Digestibility,%

DM 64.0 71.9*

OM 65.3 72.9*

CP 70.5 77.6*

NDF 50.7 57.1* 6.4%

ADF 40.3 48.6*

Milk (FCM) 75 02 78 98** 3 96 lbsBioZyme Incorporated



St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Milk (FCM) 75.02 78.98 3.96 lbs

Source: Gomez-Alarcon et al., J. of An. Sci. 69:1733-1740


DMI, % of BW 3.95 4.2** P < 0.05

**P < 0.10

Digestibility,%

DM 64.0 71.9*1% increase in NDFd is equal to .55 lbs of FCM

57 1% 50 7% = 6 4% X 55 = 3 52 lbs FCMOM 65.3 72.9*

57.1% – 50.7% = 6.4% X .55 = 3.52 lbs FCM

Trial Result 78.98 lbs - 75.02 lbs = 3.96 lbsCP 70.5 77.6*

NDF 50.7 57.1* 6.4%

Oba and Allen, 1999 J. Dairy Sci 82:589-596

ADF 40.3 48.6*

Milk (FCM) 75 02 78 98** 3 96 lbsBioZyme Incorporated



St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Milk (FCM) 75.02 78.98 3.96 lbs



DMI, % of BW 3.95 4.2** P < 0.05

**P < 0.10

Digestibility,%

DM 64.0 71.9*1% increase in NDFd is equal to .55 lbs of FCM

57 1% 50 7% = 6 4% X 55 = 3 52 lbs FCMOM 65.3 72.9*

57.1% – 50.7% = 6.4% X .55 = 3.52 lbs FCM

Trial Result 78.98 lbs - 75.02 lbs = 3.96 lbsCP 70.5 77.6*

NDF 50.7 57.1* 6.4%

Oba and Allen, 1999 J. Dairy Sci 82:589-596

3.96 lbs is 5.2% increase ADF 40.3 48.6*

Milk (FCM) 75 02 78 98** 3 96 lbs

University milk trial average is 4.73%




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Milk (FCM) 75.02 78.98 3.96 lbs


Spruce Haven FarmsSpruce Haven FarmsAuburn, NYAuburn, NY,,

• Trial Design– 4 alfalfa samples, 4 corn silage samples

Lo/Hi NDF Lo/Hi NDFd• Lo/Hi NDF, Lo/Hi NDFd– 21 days adaptation period prior to each treatment– Control versus 5 gm and 15 gm Amaferm treatment

Treatment design (Alfalfa hay)NDF Lignin NDFd ADFNDF Lignin NDFd ADF

Lo/Lo 34.4 5.9 44.5 27.0Lo/Hi 34.7 6 50.4 27.9Hi/Lo 43.7 7.6 37.1 35.2Hi/Hi 43.1 7.1 46.0 33.8




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Nocek, 2006. Unpublished

NDF Digestion (Rate)NDF Digestion (Rate)NDF Digestion (Rate)NDF Digestion (Rate)r h

our)

Kd

(% p

erN

DF

K

Lo/Lo Lo/Hi Hi/Lo Hi/Hi

Alfalfa 80 6% Kd Increase




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Nocek 2009, Unpublished

Alfalfa 80.6% Kd Increase

NDF Digestion (Extent)NDF Digestion (Extent)NDF Digestion (Extent)NDF Digestion (Extent)de

d%

Deg

rad

ND

F %

Lo/Lo Lo/Hi Hi/Lo Hi/Hi

Alfalfa 18.5% Increase 48 hrs




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Alfalfa 18.5% Increase 48 hrs

NocekNocek 2 2 NocekNocek 2 2

• Objective:– Build on the results from the previous in situ trialBuild on the results from the previous in situ trial– Build a large data base to increase confidence

• 75 samples each forage F th i ti t A f Sil d H l– Further investigate Amaferm on Silage and Haylage

• Across a wide range of qualities




St. Joseph, MO. USA





HaylageHaylage ResultsResultsHaylageHaylage ResultsResults

60 P <0 01

Haylage NDF degradation

40

50

60

P <0.01

P <0.01de

d)

Control

AMAFERM

20

30

40P <0.01

F (%

Deg

ra AMAFERM

0

10

20

0 12 24 36

ND

F

0

44.9% Improvement at 12 hours

Overall increased by 11%

0 12 24 36

Hours ControlAmaferm




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Overall increased by 11%

NDF SummaryNDF SummaryNDF SummaryNDF Summary

NDF Degradation NDF Kd

Corn Silage Haylage

Corn silage 15.2% increaseHaylage 16.7% increase

Corn silage 12.6% increaseHaylage 11.0% increase




St. Joseph, MO. USA





AmafermAmaferm Effect across Effect across HaylageHaylageQualitiesQualities -- LigninLignin

AmafermAmaferm Effect across Effect across HaylageHaylageQualitiesQualities -- LigninLigninQualities Qualities LigninLigninQualities Qualities LigninLignin

ControlControl

Amaferm




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Amaferm works equally well on grass and legume forages

Amaferm works equally well on grass and legume forages

Legumes

Grasses




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AmafermAmaferm Effects across Corn Effects across Corn Silage QualitiesSilage Qualities -- DMDM

AmafermAmaferm Effects across Corn Effects across Corn Silage QualitiesSilage Qualities -- DMDMSilage Qualities Silage Qualities DMDMSilage Qualities Silage Qualities DMDM

ControlAmafermAmaferm




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERM® Formulation and M d li St t i

AMAFERM® Formulation and M d li St t iModeling StrategiesModeling Strategies

•• CPM 3.0 and CNCPS 6.1 CPM 3.0 and CNCPS 6.1 –– Increase Increase KdKd for the CHOfor the CHO--BB33 fraction by 10% for Corn Silagesfraction by 10% for Corn Silages–– Increase Increase KdKd for the CHOfor the CHO--BB33 fraction by 20% for fraction by 20% for HaylagesHaylages33 yy y gy g

•• NRC 2001 NRC 2001 Increase NDF digestibility by 7% for corn silagesIncrease NDF digestibility by 7% for corn silages–– Increase NDF digestibility by 7% for corn silagesIncrease NDF digestibility by 7% for corn silages

–– Increase NDF digestibility by 14% for Increase NDF digestibility by 14% for HaylagesHaylages

D M tt I t kD M tt I t k•• Dry Matter IntakeDry Matter Intake–– Neither model accounts for expected improvement in DMINeither model accounts for expected improvement in DMI–– Predict DMI improvement as 1.0 Predict DMI improvement as 1.0 -- 2.3 lbs 2.3 lbs




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Biozyme 2009

AMAFERM® – Impact on AMAFERM® – Impact on Microbial ProteinMicrobial Protein




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Effect of Effect of AMAFERMAMAFERM®® on on Microbial Efficiency and Microbial Efficiency and

Metabolism in a ContinuousMetabolism in a ContinuousMetabolism in a Continuous Metabolism in a Continuous Culture of Rumen ContentsCulture of Rumen Contents

University of West VirginiaUniversity of West VirginiaBill H Ph DBill Hoover, Ph.D.

Tammy Miller-Webster, M.S.




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Experimental Design:Experimental Design:Th ti lt t i l l t d (• Three continuous culture trials completed (June 07, Sept. 07 & Aug. 08)

• Minimum of three reps / treatment

All di t f t d i t i li t f i d• All diets fermented in triplicate for nine days

• Effluent samples pulled for assay over the last three days

C ti F t ti lt diti• Continuous Fermentation culture conditions were:– Apparatus Scale: 60:1 rumen to fermentation vessel

– 13%/Hour liquid dilution rateq

– 22 hours Solids Retention Time

– 100 grams DM / day

– Feeding frequency 25 grams DM, 4 X daily at 6 hour intervals

– Fermentation temp 390 C




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Hoover and Miller, 2007-2008. University of West Virginia, Unpublished

Diet Analysis (% DM)Diet Analysis (% DM)June ’07 Sept. ’07 Aug. ’08

Forage / Concentrate Ratio 51.7 51.7 59.7Crude Protein 17 6 18 0 17 0Crude Protein 17.6 18.0 17.0Soluble Protein (% CP) 29.0 27.8 42.2NDF 32.3 30.2 32.23 3 30 3ADF 22.1 19.0 20.0NSC 28.5 32.0 29.5Starch 22.5 27.2 24.5Sugar 5.9 4.7 5.0Eth E t t 2 6 3 3 2 5Ether Extract 2.6 3.3 2.5Ash 7.2 6.9 6.5NFC 40 1 41 7 42 0




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

NFC 40.1 41.7 42.0

Hoover and Miller, 2007-2008. University of West Virginia, Unpublished

Experiential ResultsExperiential ResultsJ 07 S t b 07 A t 08June 07 September 07 August 08

(Main Effects) Cntl Trt P< %3 Cntl Trt P< %3 Cntl Trt P< %3

By-Pass N (g/day) 1.16 1.06 NS (8.6) 1.24 .91 NS (26.6) 1.31 1.03 .06 (21.3)

Microbial N (g/day) 1.82 1.96 NS 7.7 1.78 2.17 .07 21.9 1.56 1.81 .11 16.0

Total MP 2.98 3.02 NS 1.3 3.02 3.06 NS 2.3 2.87 2.84 NS (1.0)% Microbial Protein4 61 vs 65 59 vs 71 54 vs 64% Improvement5 6.6% 20% 18.5%

Microbial N/Kg DMD1 25.9 28.4 NS 9.7 24.9 30.3 NS 21.7 22.0 26.1 .027 18.6

Microbial N/Kg CHOD2 47.0 51.0 NS 8.5 45.5 53.1 NS 16.7 36.4 44.1 .07 21.0

1) Microbial N produced per Kg dry matter digested

2) Microbial N produced per Kg carbohydrate digested

3) % Improvement between treatments

4) Microbial protein as a percentage of total metabolizable protein

5) Improvement in the percentage of Microbial protein between treatments




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

5) Improvement in the percentage of Microbial protein between treatments

University of West Virginia, Unpublished

AMAFERM® – Impact on AMAFERM® – Impact on Rumen pHRumen pH




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Lactate UptakeLactate UptakeppLactate uptake by Megasphaera elsdenii

3.5

43.94*

) (97% Increase)

Control

Amaferm

2

2.5

3

2.01

ity (

nmol

/mg) (97% Increase) Amaferm

0

0.5

1

1.5

Spec

ific

act

iv

0

Control Amaferm

S

* P < 0.05




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Waldrip and Martin, 1993, J. Ani. Sci 71:2770-2776

Rumen pHRumen pHRumen pHRumen pH

5 856.02

6

6.5

Control

AMAFERM5.85

5.5

6 AMAFERM

5

Control AmafermControl Amaferm




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Higginbotham et al., 2004. Livestock Production Science 86:55-59

Rumenocentesis 2-3 h after the AM feeding

Impact on VFA ProductionImpact on VFA Production

Control AMAFERM

Increase in Total Volatile Fatty Acid production.

Total VFA (mM/l) 64.6 67.9A t t l l 2 35 2 49

Control AMAFERM

Acetate pool, moles 2.35 2.49Propionate pool, moles 0.47 0.47Butyrate pool, moles 0.41 0.48Branched chain VFA pool, moles 0.13 0.15Acetate/Propionate (ratio) 4.96 5.3pH 6.34 6.44




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source Wiedmeier. 1986, Doctorial Dissertation

AMAFERM® – Impact on Heat AMAFERM® – Impact on Heat StressStress




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Amaferm Heat Stress PapersAmaferm Heat Stress PapersAmaferm Heat Stress PapersAmaferm Heat Stress Papers1. “Influence of feeding an Aspergillus oryzae culture during Hot Weather on

Performance of Lactating Dairy Cow”, J.T. Huber, G.E. Higginbotham and R. Gomez, 1986 Journal of Dairy Science 69 (supplement 1):188 pg 290

2. “Influence of feeding vitaferm, containing an enzyme-producing culture from Aspergillus oryzae, on performance of lactating cows”, J.T. Huber, G.E. Higginbotham, J of Dairy Science 68 (Suppl 1):30

3. “Influence of feeding Vita Ferm during hot weather on performance of lactating i l d i h d” 1986 K M M J T H b S C J l fcows in a large dairy herd”, 1986, K.M. Marcus, J.T. Huber, S. Cramer, Journal of

Dairy Science 69 (Supplement 1):188 pg 2924. “The Effect of Feeding Aspergillus oryzae culture-vitamin mix on the

performance of lactating dairy cows during periods of heat stress”, M.V. Wallentine N P Johnston D Andrus R Jones J T Huber and G HigginbothamWallentine, N.P. Johnston, D. Andrus, R. Jones, J.T. Huber, and G. Higginbotham. 1986 Journal of Dairy Science 69 (supplement 1):188, pg 294

5. “Influence of Feeding Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on the Milk Yields, Eating Patterns, and Body Temperatures of Lactating Cows”, R. A. Gomez-Alarcon J T Huber G E Higginbotham F Wiersma D Ammon and BGomez Alarcon, J.T. Huber, G.E. Higginbotham, F. Wiersma, D. Ammon and B. Taylor, Journal of Animal Science Vol. 69:Number 4, April 1991, pg 1733-1740

6. “Effect of Feeding Amaferm (Aspergillus oryzae extract) to Cows in Early Lactation on Milk Yields and Related Parameters” R. Gomez-Alarcon, F. Wiersma, D. Ammon, G.E. Higginbotham and J.T Huber. J. of Dairy Science




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

, , gg y71(suppl 1) P302 1988

Number Lacatation






32 Early-Mid 79.4 84.0 5.832 Mid 73.3 76.3 4.2


4.73% average increase (3.13 lbs)

11.00% increase in early lactationSievert 12 Early 77.2 78.1 0.112 Early 75.9 76.6 0.1

Gomez 24 Mid 49.1 51.0 4.046 Early 85.1 88.9 4.4

Dennigan 40 Early 67.9 67.8 <0.1>








St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Average percent increase 4.73%Average percent increase 4.73%

AMAFERM® – Impact on AMAFERM® – Impact on EconomicsEconomics




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

The key to increase profits from your forage!

The key to increase profits from your forage!from your forage! from your forage!

Milk/Feed Wt Milk Fat Milk SCC Milk lbsMilk/Feed Wt Loss

Milk Fat Milk Protein

SCC Milk lbs

C t l 1 77 122 4 22 3 39 613 76 9Control 1.77 122 4.22 3.39 613 76.9

Amaferm 1.89 106 4.50 3.56 443 82.9

6.7% -16 lbs 6.6% 5.0% -170 +6 lbs

6 lbs additional milk @ $.15 = $.904.5 : 1 Return




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Source: Baumgard et al., 2003. JDS Vol 87 Suppl. 1 pg 609

Spruce HavenSpruce HavenField DemonstrationField Demonstration

Spruce HavenSpruce HavenField DemonstrationField DemonstrationField Demonstration Field Demonstration Field Demonstration Field Demonstration

• Trial setup– Two pens 68 cows/pen – 41 cows per treatment (balanced for milk)– 100 DIM– Two phases

• Phase 1 (7wks) Control and Amaferm• Phase 2 (5 wks) Control and AmafermPhase 2 (5 wks) Control and Amaferm

– 1 lb of liquid molasses (ration adjusted, iso energy and protein)




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Amaferm Field Demonstration Amaferm Field Demonstration Amaferm Field Demonstration Amaferm Field Demonstration Control/Amaferm Amaferm/Molasses

Dry Matter 47.9 48.2Crude Protein 17.5 17.3RDP 53.6 53.8Soluble 34.9 36.3RUP 46 4 46 2RUP 46.4 46.2NEL (Mcal/lb) 0.78 0.78Forage NDF % 78.3 78.3Sugar, % 5.9 7.1Starch, % 23.6 23.2Soluble fiber, % 7.08 7.1, %Total fat, % 5.7 5.6Yeast* + +




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

* Celmanax

Phase 1Phase 1Phase 1Phase 1

Control

AMAFERMAMAFERM




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Spruce Haven Dairy 2008

Amaferm Field DemonstrationAmaferm Field DemonstrationPhase 1Phase 1

Amaferm Field DemonstrationAmaferm Field DemonstrationPhase 1Phase 1Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1

Control Amaferm ChangegDMI (lbs) 57.3 55.4 -1.9Milk (lbs) 86.2 88.0* 1.8Milk (lbs) 86.2 88.0 1.8F:E 1.50 1.59 6.0%

* P = 0.04




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Economics Phase 1 Economics Phase 1 Economics Phase 1 Economics Phase 1

Control AmafermFeed/ton DM $192.88 $200.10Daily feed cost $ 5.53 $ 5.54yMilk/cwt $ 15.00 $ 15.00Daily milk value $ 12.93 $ 13.20y $ $IOFC $ 7.40 $ 7.66Advantage $ 26*Advantage $ .26




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

* Return over the cost of Amaferm

Phase 2Phase 2Phase 2Phase 2

Control

AMAFERMAMAFERM




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Amaferm Field DemonstrationAmaferm Field DemonstrationPhase 2Phase 2

Amaferm Field DemonstrationAmaferm Field DemonstrationPhase 2Phase 2Phase 2Phase 2Phase 2Phase 2

Control Amaferm ChangeDMI (lbs) 54.9 56.3 1.4Milk (lbs) 76.5 81.3* 4.8F:E 1.39 1.44 3.6%

* P = 0.001




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Economic Phase 2Economic Phase 2Economic Phase 2Economic Phase 2

Control AmafermFeed/ton DM $192.88 $203.17Daily feed cost $ 5.29 $ 5.69Milk/cwt $ 15.00 $ 15.00Daily milk $ 11 48 $ 12 20Daily milk $ 11.48 $ 12.20IOFC $ 6.18 $ 6.51Ad $ 33*Advantage $ .33*




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

* Return over the cost of Amaferm

Number Lacatation




100 Overall 65.1 67.6 3.8Marcus 195 Early-Mid 63.8 67.5 5.9Marcus 195 Early Mid 63.8 67.5 5.9Kellems 32 Early 78.3 85.6 9.2

32 Early-Mid 79.4 84.0 5.832 Mid 73.3 76.3 4.2

Kellems 96 Early-Mid 60.6 63.4 4.6Si t 12 E l 77 2 78 1 0 1Sievert 12 Early 77.2 78.1 0.1

12 Early 75.9 76.6 0.1Gomez 24 Mid 49.1 51.0 4.0

46 Early 85.1 88.9 4.4Dennigan 40 Early 67.9 67.8 <0.1>Dennigan 40 Early 67.9 67.8 0.1






St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA


Number Lacatation






32 Early-Mid 79.4 84.0 5.832 Mid 73.3 76.3 4.2


4.73% average increase (3.13 lbs)

11.00% increase in early lactationSievert 12 Early 77.2 78.1 0.112 Early 75.9 76.6 0.1

Gomez 24 Mid 49.1 51.0 4.046 Early 85.1 88.9 4.4

Dennigan 40 Early 67.9 67.8 <0.1>








St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA


AmafermAmaferm DoseDoseAmafermAmaferm DoseDose

• Feeding Recommendations– Transition 10-15 grams

– Cows (Lactating/Non-lactating) 5-10 grams– Replacement Heifers 2- 3 gramsReplacement Heifers 2 3 grams

– Calves (under 400 lbs) 1- 2 grams

* Recommended rates are based on producers ability to phase feed.




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

When When AmafermAmafermWhen When AmafermAmaferm• Transition• Early lactationy• Higher forage diets• Herds looking for increased component yield • During periods of Heat stress




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

“The Fiber Digestion Additive”“The Fiber Digestion Additive”“The Fiber Digestion Additive”“The Fiber Digestion Additive”

What will your clients choose?What will your clients choose?

ThisThis ThisThis

OrOr




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERMAMAFERM®® –– University University AMAFERMAMAFERM®® –– University University StudiesStudiesStudiesStudies




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

University of ArizonaUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of ArizonaResearcher: Lance Baumgard, Ph.D.

University of ArizonaResearcher: Lance Baumgard, Ph.D.

Effect of AMAFERM®Effect of AMAFERM®

on Production & Metabolic Parameters in Transition Cows

on Production & Metabolic Parameters in Transition Cows




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Experimental DesignExperimental Design• 33 cows (22 multiparous & 11 primiparous) were assigned to either

control diet, or control plus AMAFERM (Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract product)fermentation extract product)

• Study Term: 21 days prepartum through 60 days postpartum

• Cows were fed 2X daily via Calan® gate systemCows were fed 2X daily via Calan gate system

• Cows milked 2X, individual milk weights collected daily.

• Body weights collected weekly during the postpartum periodBody weights collected weekly during the postpartum period

• Statistics: SAS, PROC MIXED procedures




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Diet % DMDiet % DMPostpartum Prepartum

Alfalfa Hay 59.0% 62.1%Whole Cotton Seed 6.0% 3.5%Citrus Pulp 7.8% 11.8%Stem Flaked Corn 15.7% 19.0%Amino Plus 2.2%Energy ll 1.7%Molasses 4 2%Molasses 4.2%Mineral 3.4% 3.6%




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Study ResultsStudy ResultsC t lC t l A fA f P<P<ControlControl AmafermAmaferm P<P<

Max. body wt loss (all cows) 122 106 NSWeek of BW Nadir (all cows) 6.2 5.0 .06Week of BW Nadir (all cows) 6.2 5.0 .06NEFA (µeq/L) (all cows) 669 573 .09DMI (lbs) (prepartum) 31.3 33.0 NS

(postpartum) 43.4 43.9 NSMilk Production (lbs) (all cows) 76.9 82.9 .05

(Multiparous) 89 7 98 4 001(Multiparous) 89.7 98.4 .0013.5% FCM (all cows) 85.9 96.3Milk / Feed efficiency (all cows) 1.77 1.89Milk fat (%) 4.22 4.50 .14Milk protein (%) 3.39 3.56 NSSCC 613 443 NS




St. Joseph, MO. USA





SCC 613 443 NS

Milk Response of Dairy Cattle Milk Response of Dairy Cattle ithith AMAFERMAMAFERM®with with AMAFERMAMAFERM®

Alex Bach Ph DAlex Bach, Ph.D.IRTA-Dairy Systems




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Experimental DesignExperimental Design• 20 lactating cows (10 primiparous, 10 multiparous) were assigned

to one of 2 treatments (Control or AMAFERM®)

A ill f t ti t t d t– Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract product

• Fed once daily via a total mixed ration

• Cows were grouped and acclimated to the basal diet 30 day prior• Cows were grouped and acclimated to the basal diet 30 day prior to the start of AMAFERM supplementation.

• Cows were blocked by both DIM (post peak) and level of production.

• Cows received AMAFERM for a period of 90 days.

Milk production was recorded daily and milk composition monthly• Milk production was recorded daily and milk composition monthly.




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA Bach et. al. 2003 ITRA, Unpublished

Basal Diet Analysis Basal Diet Analysis Ingredients Composition

(% of DM)

Rye Grass Silage 17.7

Nutrient Composition(% of DM)

Crude Protein 17.3Wheat Silage 14.5Alfalfa Silage 10.6Citrus Pulp 7.7

Ether Extract 4.2NDF 33.3ADF 22.0

42.8%42.8%

Corn Gluten Feed 4.8Whole Cottonseed .2Corn Grain 24.4

NFC 37.7NEL .695

12.7%12.7%

Barley Grain 2.0Soybean Meal 11.1Lupine Meal 4.0Vit. / Min .9Salt .3




St. Joseph, MO. USA





Experimental Results Experimental Results (Study Average of 253 DIM)(Study Average of 253 DIM)(Study Average of 253 DIM)(Study Average of 253 DIM)

Performance of dairy cattle as influenced by AMAFERM

Treatment Milk Fat FCM (3.5%) Protein(lbs) (%) (lbs) (%)

Control 57.3a 3.46 56.9a 3.53AMAFERM 62.7b 3.70 64.7b 3.44Difference 5.4 .24 7.8 .09% I t 9 4% 6 9% 13 7% 2 5%

All means are the sum of the square means Different subscripts indicate significant differences (P<.05)

% Improvement 9.4% 6.9% 13.7% -2.5%

• No health problems documented within the studyNo health problems documented within the study

• Cows supplemented with AMAFERM demonstrated a lower milk drop as days in milk increased




St. Joseph, MO. USA





AMAFERM® – Field StudiesAMAFERM® – Field StudiesAMAFERM – Field StudiesAMAFERM – Field Studies




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERM® Dairy Tech Update

Measuring the ECM Effect of a 5 gram AMAFERMMeasuring the ECM Effect of a 5 gram AMAFERM Feeding Rate in a Large, Production Dairy:

• Facilities and Management:– A 900 cow 2X free stall dairy in ID feeding a one group TMR.

• Trial Design:– The 4 breeding pens were randomly assigned to one of two treatments (two pens per treatment);The 4 breeding pens were randomly assigned to one of two treatments (two pens per treatment);

Control & AMAFERM with approximately 100 cows per pen.

– All rations were identically formulated with the exception of the addition of AMAFERM to the treatment pens

– October, 2008 test day milk weights were used to establish initial base line production for all cows. No R mensin® Posilac® or DFMs ere sed ithin the e al ationRumensin® , Posilac®, or DFMs were used within the evaluation

– AMAFERM supplementation was initiated 12 days prior to November test date and continued through the December test date to determine relative changes in ECM (energy corrected milk) on the two test days.

– Pen inventories were completed bi-weekly and immediately prior to individual test days. p y y p y

– Cows were eliminated from the study if they moved from their original pen, exhibited estrus on day of test or had a significant increase in SCC status




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Table 1. Rations:

Ingredients Oct. Nov. Dec. Analysis Oct. Nov. Dec.Ingredients Oct. Nov. Dec. Analysis Oct. Nov. Dec.

Alfalfa Hay 10.42 16.42 12.77 DM (%) 55.29 63.4 59.6

Corn Silage 16.55 9.16 13.73 CP (%) 17.34 18.76 18.25

Wheat Straw .98 .92 .92 Sol. Protein (%) 36.25 36.08 35.76

Canola 2.24 4.12 3.7 RDP (%) 10.67 11.43 10.99

SBM 1 11 2 03 1 83 NDF (%) 31 34 31 76 33 19SBM 1.11 2.03 1.83 NDF (%) 31.34 31.76 33.19

Gluten Feed 5.73 5.4 5.4 NFC (%) 41.18 40.77 39.63

Wheat Midds 5.73 1.82 3.73 Starch (%) 25.72 24.0 24.0

Blood Meal .96 .7 1.0 Sugar (%) 5.11 6.11 5.75

Corn w/ 5% fat 8.33 11.71 9.8 EE (%) 4.39 4.41 4.28

Minerals 1.06 .99 .99

Total DM 53.10 53.27 53.87




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Table 2. Production results measured over three test periods:

Lactation 1 Lactation 2 Lactation 3+

Parameters Control Trt. Control Trt. Control Trt.

Cow #’s1 35 18 29 53 55 49

Oct DIM 159 89 136 152 220 199Oct. DIM 159 89 136 152 220 199

Oct. ECM 77.5 67.0 85.7 81.3 87.5 89.7

Nov. ECM 71.5 66.2 76.2 76.3 80.4 85.5

Dec. ECM 78.0 69.3 77.8 77.0 76.0 84.9

ECM Change2

Oct. - Nov-6.0 -.8 -9.5 -5.0 -7.1 -4.2

AMAFERM Advantage 5.20 4.50 2.90

ECM ChangeOct. – Dec.

.05 2.3 -7.9 -4.3 -11.5 -4.8

AMAFERM Advantage 1.80 3.60 6.70

Avg. AMAFERM Response

3.5 lbs 4.05 lbs 4.8 lbs

1.1. Cows that started and finished the study within their allocated penCows that started and finished the study within their allocated pen2.2. Nov. ECM milk represents cows that were on treatment for 12 days prior to test dayNov. ECM milk represents cows that were on treatment for 12 days prior to test day




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

AMAFERM® Dairy Tech Update

Measuring the ECM Effect of a 5 gram AMAFERMMeasuring the ECM Effect of a 5 gram AMAFERMFeeding Rate in a Dry Lot Dairy:

• Facilities and Management:– A 10,000 cow 2X free stall dairy in ID feeding a one group TMR.

• Trial Design:Th 4 d i d l i d f ( )– The 4 production pens were randomly assigned to one of two treatments (two pens per treatment); Control & AMAFERM with approximately 300 cows per pen.

– All rations were identically formulated with the exception of the addition of AMAFERM to the treatment pens. Rumensin® fed at 300 mg / day

– December 2008 test day milk weights were used to establish initial base line production for all cowsDecember 2008 test day milk weights were used to establish initial base line production for all cows

– AMAFERM supplementation was initiated 21 days prior to January test date and continued through the February test date to determine relative changes in ECM (energy corrected milk) on the two test days.

– Pen inventories were completed bi-weekly and immediately prior to individual test days.

– Cows were eliminated from the study if they moved from their original pen exhibited estrus on day ofCows were eliminated from the study if they moved from their original pen, exhibited estrus on day of test or had a significant increase in SCC status




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Table 1. Rations:

Ingredients DEC. JAN. FEB. Analysis DEC. JAN. FEB.Ingredients DEC. JAN. FEB. Analysis DEC. JAN. FEB.Alfalfa Hay 15.1 15.0 18.0 DM (%) 51.57 51.1 50.1

Corn Silage 9.9 10.4 10.4 CP (%) 16.8 17.4 17.5

Alfalfa Haylage 2.48 2.6 2.6 Sol. Protein (%) 39.9 44 44

i i 4 1 2 1 (%) 10 62 11 4 11 63Beet Tailings 4.7 1.5 2.1 RDP (%) 10.62 11.45 11.63

Flaked Corn 9.4 7.8 7.35 NDF (%) 31.38 30.9 30.6

Canola Meal 4.1 4.0 3.1 NFC (%) 41.23 41.65 41.0

DDG 1.8 1.72 1.76 Starch (%) 21.92 20.12 20.0

B P l 1 0 0 0 S (%) 6 73 7 86 7 96Beet Pulp 1.0 0 0 Sugar (%) 6.73 7.86 7.96

Cotton Hull Pellet 1.0 0 0 EE (%) 4.66 4.58 4.56

Mill Run 1 0 0

Corn Steep 1.3 1.35 1.35

Wh 0 1 35 1 35Whey 0 1.35 1.35

High Fat Pellets 2.5 1.88 1.87

Minerals .85 .88 .96

Total DM 55.3 52.3 52.2




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

Table 2. Production results measured over three test periods:

Lactation 1 Lactation >1

Parameters Control3 Trt. Control3 Trt.

Cow #’s1 142 200 30 17

Dec DIM 188 176 116 108Dec. DIM 188 176 116 108

Dec. ECM 77.5 79.3 98.4 97.9

Jan. ECM 81.8 89.5 89.1 95.9

Feb. ECM 74.4 80.2 80.5 83.7

ECM Change2

Dec. – Jan.+4.3a +10.2b -9.3 -2.0

AMAFERM Advantage +5.75 +7.24

ECM Ch 2 3 1a + 8b 17 9 14 2ECM Change2

Dec. – Feb.-3.1a +.8b -17.9 -14.2

AMAFERM Advantage +3.9 +3.7

Avg. AMAFERM Response 4.825 lbs 5.47 lbs

1.1. Cows that started and finished the study within their allocated penCows that started and finished the study within their allocated pen2.2. Means in the same row with different superscripts differ (p<.01)Means in the same row with different superscripts differ (p<.01)3.3. Control pens had a disproportion number of animals over 250 DIM (157 Control pens had a disproportion number of animals over 250 DIM (157 --14). All animals over 250 14). All animals over 250

DIM DIM were excluded from this analysis.were excluded from this analysis.




St. Joseph, MO. USA




St. Joseph, MO. USA

were excluded from this analysis. were excluded from this analysis.

why amaferm in the ration?in the ration?static.backofficeapps.com/biozyme/.../amaferm_dairy... ·...

Documents