matt akins, luiz ferraretto, shane fredin & randy shaver dairy science department, uw madison
TRANSCRIPT
Matt Akins, Luiz Ferraretto, Shane Fredin
& Randy Shaver
Dairy Science Department, UW Madison
24% forage-NDF
16% forage-NDF
• High Quality Forages• Large Forage Supply• Forages Favorably Priced
• Limited Forage Supply• Forages Expensive• Moderate/Low Quality Forages
Practical forage-NDF range in high-group TMR
i.e. 60% Forage @ 40% NDF
i.e. 35% Forage @ 46% NDF
24% forage-NDF
16% forage-NDF
• Fill Limitation of DMI• Reduced Milk Yield
• peNDF• Milk Fat Depression• Cow Health
Nutritional Constraints
24% forage-NDF
16% forage-NDF
Dairy NRC Min. forage NDF & Max. NFC Dietary Guidelines
44% NFC
38% NFC
High Fiber Byproducts
Starchy Grains
Varying proportions ofStarchSugarPectin/Soluble FiberOrganic AcidsAnalytical Errors
CP, NDF, Fat, Ash
Variable ruminal & total tract digestibility of starch
NDF Greater proportion of acetate
Starch Greater proportion of propionate
SugarGreater proportion of butyrate or valerate
Pectin/Soluble FiberGreater proportion of acetate
Impacts DMI, milk yield & composition, & feed conversions
Broderick & Radloff (2004)Dried or Liquid Molasses vs. HMSC
Broderick et al. (2008)Sucrose vs. Corn Starch
Quadratic DMI & milk production responses5% - 7% Total Sugar (DM basis) Optimum in
TMRWith 23% - 25% Starch (DM basis) in these
trials
Average #2 yellow corn cash price in Minneapolis, MN at 5 year intervals from Sept. 1975 - Aug. 1976 through Sept. 2010 - July. 2011 (USDA ERS, 2011)
25% - ≥ 30% Starch Diets Common
?
Dietary Starch Content
Ingredient Starch%
Shelled corn 70
Corn:SBM (65:35)
46
Corn Silage 30
Soy hulls 5
Corn gluten feed 23
Distillers grains 3
Whole cottonseed
1
DGSC partially replaced by High-Fiber Byproducts in UW I-III & Corn Silage in OARDC to formulate RS diets
DGSC partially replaced by High-Fiber Byproducts in UW I-III & Corn Silage in OARDC to formulate RS diets
DGSC partially replaced by High-Fiber Byproducts in UW I-III & Corn Silage in OARDC to formulate RS diets
Matt Akins & Randy Shaver
Dairy Science Department, UW Madison
Kelly Perfield & Howard Green
Elanco Animal Health
RumensinIncrease milk-production efficiency (Milk/DMI)Reduce DMI These responses greater on reduced-starch diets
UW-Madison Arlington free-stall barn16 pens of 8 cows (90 ± 33 DIM)Treatments
NSR = 27% starch with 18 g Rumensin/ton TMR DM
NSC = 27% starch without RumensinRSR = 20% starch with 18 g Rumensin/ton
TMR DMRSC = 20% starch without Rumensin
Completely randomized design with 4-wk covariate on NSR followed by 12-wk treatment periodPen served as experimental unit for stats analysis
Normal Starch Reduced Starch
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - % of DM - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Corn silage 25 25
Alfalfa silage 25 25
Dry ground corn 23.9 15.0
Soyhulls 5.5 15.5
SBM-48 11.3 10.2
DDGS 4.5 4.5
Mins-Vits-Adds 3.9 3.9
Control or Rumensin Premix
0.9 0.9
Rumensin concentration 0 or 18 g/ton within NS & RS TMR
Normal Starch Reduced Starch
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - % of DM - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CP 18.3 18.1
NDF 28.5 34.9
Forage NDF 19.5 19.5
Starch 26.9 20.4
Ether Extract 5.9 5.9
TDN1x 74.5 68.9
NS RS P-value
DMI, lb/d 59.8 59.3 0.53
Milk, lb/d 93.7 90.4 0.01
Milk/DMI 1.56 1.54 0.11
Starch × week (P < 0.01)
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Week
lb m
ilk/lb
DM
I
Reduced
Normal
* * * *
†
0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value
DMI, lb/d 59.9 59.1 0.33
Milk, lb/d 90.6 93.5 0.01
Milk/DMI 1.52 1.58 <0.01
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Week
DM
I, lb
/d
Control
Rumensin
***
Rumensin × week (P < 0.01)
NS RS P-value
Fat, %lb/d
3.813.55
3.883.52
0.360.85
Protein, %lb/d
3.223.00
3.172.87
0.01<0.01
MUN, mg/dL 12.1 12.7 <0.01
10.010.511.011.512.012.5
13.013.514.014.515.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Week
MU
N, m
g/d
L
Reduced
Normal
*
* *
*
Starch × week (P < 0.01)
0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value
Fat, %lb/d
3.873.51
3.823.55
0.520.56
Protein, %lb/d
3.222.91
3.172.95
0.020.37
MUN, mg/dL 12.2 12.6 0.06
NS RS P-value
SCM, lb/d 90.6 88.9 0.28
SCM/DMI 1.52 1.50 0.54
0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value
3.5% FCM, lb/d 96.1 97.9 0.30
ECM, lb/d 95.0 96.8 0.29
SCM, lb/d 88.9 90.6 0.31
0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value
FCM/DMI 1.61 1.66 0.04
ECM/DMI 1.59 1.64 0.03
SCM/DMI 1.49 1.53 0.05
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
1.6
1.65
RSC NSC RSR NSR
Treatment
lb m
ilk/lb
DM
I
Starch × Rumensin (P < 0.08)
0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value
Body Weight, lb 1527 1537 0.52
Condition Score 3.05 3.04 0.65
Body Weight Change, lb/d
1.03 1.14 0.53
NS RS P-value
Body Weight, lb 1545 1520 0.12
Condition Score 3.06 3.03 0.48
Body Weight Change, lb/d
1.15 1.02 0.45
NS RS P-value
TT StarchD, % 96.8 98.1 <0.01
NEL, Mcal/lb DM
0.74 0.74 0.69
0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value
TT StarchD, % 97.5 97.3 0.29
NEL, Mcal/lb DM
0.73 0.75 0.01
Reduced starch diet:Similar DMI and SCM yieldReduced milk and protein yields
18 g Rumensin/ton DM:Increased milk yieldReduced DMI as trial progressedIncreased milk-production efficiency by 4%Similar milk fat and protein yields
Few interactions between dietary starch content & Rumensin supplementation were detectedResults support use of Rumensin in normal
& reduced starch diets
The digestibility of starch from corn in dairy cows?
Pat Hoffman & Randy Shaver
Dairy Science DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison
Primary Factors: Influencing Starch Digestibility in Feed
Grains
Processingi.e. Particle size;
Steam Treatment
Harvest/Storagei.e. Dry vs. HMC DM of HM/Maturity;Fermentation Time
Endosperm Type
i.e. Prolamin; Prolamin-
starch matrix; Hardness
FeedGrainV2.0 IntegratesPrimary Factors:
Influencing Starch Digestibility in Feed Grains
ProcessingParticle size
Harvest/StorageDry vs. HMC
DM of HMC/MaturitySilo Fermentation
Time
Endosperm Type Starch-Protein
Matrix Hardness
Vitreousness
MPSAmmonia
Prolamin
Authors: Patrick C. Hoffman 1 , Dr. Randy Shaver 1 , and Dr. David Mertens 2 , 1Deptartment of Dairy Science,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2Mertens Innovation & Research, LLC.
1.00 For use w ith the feed grains listed below.
Ground Dry Corn x High Moisture Shelled CornHigh Moisture Ear Corn Snaplage
1.00
Item Abbreviation Method 1
InputDry Matter DM % as fed 85.0 WCMean Particle Size (*Examples below) MPS microns 850 ASAEStarch % of DM 70.5 NIRCrude Protein CP % of DM 9.1 NIRNH 3-N ( **Examples below) % of CP 0.0 NIRProlamin Protein ( ***Examples below) % of DM 4.0 WCNeutral Detergent Fiber aNDF % of DM 9.0 NIRFat % of DM 3.6 NIRAsh % of DM 2.3 NIR
OutputMoisture % as fed 15.0 C
Effective Mean Particle Size 2 eMPS microns 867 CStarch Fermentation Rate (As Fed) 3kd % /hour 19.4 CRuminal Starch Digestibility RSD % of starch 56.5 CStarch Digestibility (Total Tract) TTSD % of starch 93.2 CNon Fiber Carbohydrate NFC % of DM 76.7 CNonstarch NFC % of DM 6.2 CTotal Digestible Nutrients, 1X TDN % of DM 86.2 CNet Energy Lactation, 3X NE L Mcals/lb 0.88 CNet Energy Maintenance NE M Mcals/lb 0.94 CNet Energy Gain NE G Mcals/lb 0.64 CMetabolizable Energy, 3X ME Mcals/lb 1.37 CRelative Grain Quality RGQ 150 C
Whole Corn (Unprocessed)
Feed Grainv2.0 Evaluation System
Unit Result
Input categories are shown in red. Output values are shown blue
FeedGrainV2.0
Snaplage HMCAmmonia = 6.0% of CPKernel MPS = 1456 µ
Ammonia = 1.8% of CP
MPS = 1335 µ
Snaplage HMCkd = 26%/hrRSD = 69%
TTSD = 97%
kd = 19%/hrRSD = 62%TTSD = 95%
Kd, RSD & TTSD estimated from Ammonia & MPS with FeedGrainv2.0 - Hoffman et al. 2012
HMSC SnaplageSnaplage + Dry Corn
P <
Fat % 3.67%a 3.40%b 3.52%ab 0.05
Protein % 2.97% 2.93% 2.94% 0.89
MUN, mg/dL 11.4b 14.0a 10.3c <0.001
a
b
a a
ab
b
Week × Treatment interaction (P < 0.05)
Visit UW Extension Dairy Cattle Nutrition Website
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/dairynutrition/