proceedings · 2015-12-04 · • preg rates means you keep cows • dry cow program stops early...

Proceedings

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM Chazy, New York

Dairy Day at Miner Institute

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

10:00AM -3:00 PM

10:00-10:40 Dr. Rick Grant, “Creating the Perfect Dining Experience for Your Cows"

10:40-11:35 Dr. Gordie Jones, DVM, Central Sands Dairy, "Achieving

Excellence and Dairy Stockmanship"

11:35-12:15 Dr. Shane Fredin, Miner Institute, “How to utilize fecal

starch on the farm: Monitoring and management.”

12:15-1:00 Hot Lunch available for $5.00 and Door Prizes

1:00-1:45 Dr. Gordie Jones, DVM, Central Sands Dairy, "Achieving

Excellence and Dairy Stockmanship, (continued from this

morning.)"

1:45-2:15 Dr. Heather Dann, “Maximizing opportunities with fresh

cows thru feeding and management.”

2:15-2:45 Kurt Cotanch from Miner Institute will present, “Understanding uNDF240 intake and rumen fill”.

11/24/2014

1

Creating the Perfect Dining Experience:

Integrating Cow Behavior, Housing, and Feeding Management

Rick GrantW. H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute

Chazy, NY

Creating the perfect dining experience …

Well‐formulated, palatable ration

Feed available when cow wants to eat

Adequate bunk space

Feed barrier design

Competition doesn’t limit feed access

Water availability

No restrictions on resting activity

Flooring

Air quality . . .

Importance of management environment (Bach et al., 2008)

47 herds with similar genetics were fed same TMR

Mean milk yield=65 lb/d Range: 45 to 74 lb/d

Non-dietary factors accounted for 56%of variation in milk yield Feeding for refusals (64.1 vs 60.6 lb/d) Feed push-ups (63.7 vs 55.0 lb/d) Stalls per cow

Importance of management environment (Bach et al., 2008)

47 herds with similar genetics were fed same TMR

Mean milk yield=65 lb/d Range: 45 to 74 lb/d

Non-dietary factors accounted for 56%of variation in milk yield Feeding for refusals (64.1 vs 60.6 lb/d) Feed push-ups (63.7 vs 55.0 lb/d) Stalls per cow

FEED AVAILABILITY

Will this “dining experience” affect diet accessibility?

Not even close to perfect: Non-uniformity of feed delivery

Cows have preferred portions of the pen & bunk

“Grazing” behavior increases competitive interactions

51% more switches in feeding location

3.5x more competitive interactions(Huzzey et al., 2013)

11/24/2014

2

Cows naturally have aggressive feeding drive …

Cows willingly exert >500‐lb pressure against feed barrier while eating 225 lb causes tissue damage

Defines “aggressive feeding drive”

We can train cows to become less aggressive eaters!(Hansen and Pallesen, 1999)

A well rested cow will eat more …

Lying time has priority over eating

Cows will sacrifice eating time to compensate for lost resting time

With chronic rest deprivation For every 3.5 min of lost

rest, cows sacrifice 1 min of eating

(Metz, 1985; Hopster et al., 2002;Munsgaard et al., 2005;

Cooper et al., 2007)

Stocking Density and Feeding Behavior

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

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

Compared 30, 24, 18, and 12 in 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(in)

HPFDominant

Equal choice

LPFAlone

P

12 0 1 11 <0.00118 1 3 8 <0.0524 3 4 5 >0.0530 5 2 5 >0.05

Are 24 in/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?

24 vs 30 vs 36 in/cow

10, 6, 3 displacements per cow/d

Greater feeding time…

11/24/2014

3

What is optimal stocking density?

• ≤80% of bunk space (30 in/cow)• Also a function of stall availability

Close-up and fresh cows:

• 4-row barn: don’t exceed 115-120% of stalls• mixed heifer & older cows: 100%

• 6-row barn: 100% of stalls?

Lactating cows

Ensure access to feed, water, stalls

What Naturally Stimulates Feeding Behavior?

Delivery of fresh feed Feed push-up

More important during the day rather than at night (DeVries et al., 2005)

Milking

Biggest driver of feeding is delivery of fresh feed

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 3.1 lb/d, milk by 4.4 lb/d

Overall improvement in efficiency Greater feeding frequency:

Improved rumen fermentation Greater rumination Greater eating time

Feeding frequency greater than 2x/day?

Reference FF/d

Eating time %

DMI%

Milk%

Rest%

DeVries et al. (2005) 1 vs 2x2 vs 4x

+3.5+4.6

-2.0-3.0

NRNR

-0.80

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?

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, lb/d 41.4 40.1

Milk, lb/d 61.3b 65.3a

Milk/DMI, lb/lb 1.48b 1.63a

Lying in stall, % of cows 45.3 43.8

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

11/24/2014

4

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 3.5 lb/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)

• +7.9 lb/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

Natural head movement while eating (Reyes and Aguilar, 2012)

Feed manger design and feed push‐up should accommodate natural cow head movement while feeding.

Cows prefer the same entrée?

Cows perform better when fed consistent ration in consistent environment – cows don’t particularly like change!

Consistent feed, feeding environment, and feeding behavior ought to promote more efficient rumen fermentation throughout the day and more uniform delivery of nutrients to the cow.

Dietary variability actually stimulates feed intake in sheep. Variability in ingredients with controlled TMR nutrient specs?

(ADSA Conference, 2014)

11/24/2014

5

The Perfect Dining Experience?Recommended Feeding Management

Adequate access to stalls

Feed available on demand

Consistent feed quality/quantity along the bunk

Bunk stocking density ≤100% (24 in/cow)

TMR fed 2x/day

½‐hr push‐ups for 2 hours post‐feeding?

3% refusal target

Bunk empty <3 h/d

Thank you …

11/24/2014

1

Achieving Excellence in Dairying

Dr. Gordie JonesPartner

Central Sands Dairy, LLC.

Moving beyond 90#

Central Sands Dairy



Dr. Gordie Jones• 15 years Dairy Practice• 10 years Dairy Nutrition / Facility /Cow

Comfort consulting • 3 years Monsanto (BST) consulting• 6 years designed & managed Fair Oaks Dairy

Farms (65,000 cows)• 5 years building and managing my dairy farm!• Consulting again

Location: Wisconsin Golden Sands Area

Sign seen in Nekoosa, WI Last Sept• Ice Fishing Practice• Wed Evening 7 PM• Nekoosa, High School

11/24/2014

2

PM Fricke, Ph.D.

Trends in the Dairy Industry over the last 25 years can be best described by the term:

CHANGEMember

Red Barn Clubsince 1977

Remember we are here because we love cows!

11/24/2014

3

“Pleistocene Mega fauna”

–Born during the last Ice Age

The First Farmers• Were in Mesopotamia• Modern day Iraq • Large headed grains• Wheat, Barley, Triticale• A stick in the sand• A little water and we were farmers!

The First Farmers• Our First fences• Were to keep the wild cows out!!• She opened the gate• And we now had a cow!

Only 11 species were able to be domesticated.

• Our Cow is the star!• She Provided POWER, Protein, & Fertilizer• She truly is the foundation of civilization.• The foster mother of the human race• All of the domesticated animals are “herd”

species - looking for a leader• Except the Cat!!

Covenant;

To care for, and keep

The Star of the show!

11/24/2014

4

Guns, Germs & Steel

Jarred Diamond

Vaccine• First vaccine….• Small Pox• Cow Pox• Latin Vacca = Cow• Vaccinate

Cow-inate!!!! Dairy Products!

Milk- Dairy Products

• Weight Loss • Muscle recovery & Muscle building• Potent cancer preventer - CLA’s

Weight Loss

• Reported this year on Yahoo!• 2-3 servings low fat dairy products• Yogurt & cottage cheese• Lose weight faster / longer• Lose more from abdomen

11/24/2014

5

Exercise Recovery & Muscle Building

• Casein and whey proteins• Taken within 30 minutes of exercise rebuilds X% of

muscle• Now used on the Olympic Training tables

Provides a +20% increase in muscle recovery ½ hour after exercise

Efficiency of Production

• Since WWII• Ave milk/cow is up 400% (7L-28L)• A car would have to have gone from 18mpg to 72mpg

to have that success• Carbon footprint of dairy production is + 40% smaller

since WWII• JDS June 2009

Youngstock

Milk Quality

Sick Cows

Reproduction

Your Interest

Dry Cows Nutrition Cow Comfort Youngstock

Milk Quality

Sick Cows

Reproduction

Your Interest

Dry Cows Nutrition Cow Comfort Youngstock

Milk Quality

Sick Cows

Reproduction

Your Interest

11/24/2014

6

Central Sands Dairy• 3,500 milk cows, 600 dry cows • 4 row freestall barns • 64 - 74 # (29-34L) /cow/day• 72 Cow Rotary• Calve 300+ cows per month • 6 row dry cow barn• Methane digester• Sand bedding & 125-150,000 SCC

Rules that still apply• Cow Comfort is first • Forage is king • And Better Forage is better• Preg rates means you keep cows• Dry Cow program stops early fresh cow losses• Milk Quality is EVERYTHING !!!

Rules that still apply• Nutrition • Dry Cow program • Cow Comfort• Reproduction• People get everything done above!

11/24/2014

7

BOTTLECKS

BOTTLENECK

A rate limiting problem

WATER IN A PIPE: Problems

IN OUT

Bottlenecks• Rate limiting problem

• Interferes with achieving Dairyman’s goal

• Any improvement pays off in better output

• Before it is completely “fixed”, something else will become the bottleneck

Improving the Dairy • Survey the status and performance trends of the

dairy farm’s performance

• Compare to benchmarks of industry performance and personal goals

• Identify bottlenecks!!

• Open them up

• Repeat the process

11/24/2014

8

Books on “Dairy Management”

• “The Goal” by Goldratt

• “The E myth” Revisited by “Gerber”

Cow Comfort

Ration

Feed Bunk ManagementReproduction

Milk Quality

Youngstock

Fresh Cow / Dry Cow

Milk Production

3 things a Cows Should Do!

• Stand to MILK

• Stand to EAT & DRINK

• LAY DOWN

“Cows Don’t Normally Just Stand Around”

Drinking

EatingLaying

11/24/2014

9

Central Sands Dairy

“Concentric Consistency”

24 Hours

What does a day look like?

• Times milked

• Time in parlor

• When is she fed

• How long is she locked up

• Etc.

11/24/2014

10

11/24/2014

11

Maternity

Pen1 Year

What does a year look like?

• Group changes• Rations • When bred• Pen moves• How long is she dry• Etc.

11/24/2014

12

Maternity Pen

2 Years2 Years2 Years

What does two years look like?• Maternity pen• Hutches• Weaning group• Rations• Group changes• When bred• Etc.

11/24/2014

13

24 Hours24 Hours 1 Year1 Year

2 Years2 Years

Value of SOP’s

• Dairy personal are certified in their position!

• Every person knows and understands their job!

• Every person that is certified, has passed an exam (oral or written) about their job.

11/24/2014

14

of Cow Comfort

A B C’sAir quality & ventilationBunk management

* Ration formulated, mixed & consumed* Bunk design & space* Feed quality

Cow comfort

Management, Environment & Herd Performance

(20-34L)

(1.7L)

Relationship Between Resting and Milk YieldMiner Institute database

4 reasons freestalls fail• Lack Of Cushion

• Neck Rail Placement

• Lunge Space Limitations

• Lack of Fresh Air / Vision

Freestalls

11/24/2014

15

Freestall PenHead to Tail

Freestallsmy current recommendations

• 46-48” (120cm) wide• Neck rail 48” (122cm) above back curb• 66-68” (172cm) from back curb to contact of neck rail• 15’-16’ (4.6m)from curb to curb “nose to nose”• 66-68” (172cm) to Brisket Board• 2”(5cm) above back curb for brisket board

11/24/2014

16

Wide stalls

• Why are we making them wider?• Cows lay diagonally in the stalls• If a 28” loop is used with forward lunge, width is not

so important.• Next slide is a small Jersey springer in a 46” wide stall

that is too wide for her, but because of the loop she is lying parallel to the dividers

Brisket locatorproperly bedded

Rear curb

8-10”(25cm)

2 “ max (58 mm)66” (168cm)

45-60 degrees

Bedding must be maintained level with the curb for the curb width to be “useable”

Rear curb

8-10”

58” (148cm)

45-60 degrees

Once bedding drops below the curb, effective bed length becomes 8-10 inches shorter which is unacceptable to the cow.

Brisket locatorpoorly bedded

3 things a Cows Should Do!

• Stand to MILK

• Stand to EAT & DRINK

• LAY DOWN

11/24/2014

17

“ Milk is the Absence of stress!!!”

Get it correct!!And it looks like this!

Get it

wrong!!And it looks

like this!

Dairy StockmanshipPaul Rapnicki, DVM MBAMargaret Perala, DVM

Jim Lewis, Emerald Dairy IIGail Peterson, PhD BCBA

Gordie Jones, DVM

Unlocking dairy performance - thinking like a cow

Components of aCattle Handling System

• The design and maintenance of the facilities

• The cattle handling skills of the people

11/24/2014

18

Low Stress Handling Systems• Informally, this is how to work cattle with low-stress

methods

• Formally, this is the study of cow behavior and her stress response– Apply the sciences of behavior analysis and stress biology

Stockmanship Principles

• Pressure area surrounds the flight zone

• Apply pressure to animals properly

Bud Box Stockmanship

• Cattle want to follow other cattle

• Cows want to return to where they came from

• Always put them in where you want them to come out

• These are the concepts behind the Bud Box

11/24/2014

19

The Bud Box

X

The Bud Box

X

The Bud Box

X

The Bud Box

X

The Bud Box

X

The Bud Box

X

11/24/2014

20

Bud Box Cattle Flow

Bud Box Cattle Flow

Bud Box Cattle Flow

Bud Box Cattle Flow

Bud Box Cattle Flow

Bud Box Cattle Flow

11/24/2014

21

Bud Box Cattle Flow

Bud Box Design• 14 x 20 to load a chute• 14 x 30 to load a truck

• Same size– Regardless of the animal size– Regardless of the number of animals

• Exit opening wide enough for 1 animal

• Person working properly is more important than the size details

11/24/2014

22

Show movie

11/24/2014

23

Questions? Thoughts?Feeding the Dry CowThe “goldilocks” diet!


Central Sands Dairy LLC

11/24/2014

24

Dry Cow Programs, A new look at the old way! In North America there has been a failure

of the transition period

Rules that still apply

• Nutrition • Dry Cow program • Cow Comfort• Reproduction• People get everything done above!

It’s a Matter of Too Little or Too Much!

Or how do we get it just right?

Too Much………..Too Little • Body Condition• Weight Loss in Dry Pen• Time in the Dry Pen• Energy• Too Many Lactations• Twins / Triplets• Grain • Overcrowding• Excess Soluble Protein

11/24/2014

25

Too Much………..Too Little • Body Condition• Weight Loss in Dry Pen• Time in the Dry Pen• Energy• Too Many Lactations• Twins / Triplets• Grain • Overcrowding• Excess Soluble Protein

• Body Condition• Weight Gain in Dry Pen• Time in the Dry Pen• Selenium• Energy• DMI • Fiber• Protein• Magnesium

Too Little• Body Condition• Weight Loss in Dry Pen• Time in the Dry Pen• Selenium• Cow Comfort• DMI • Fiber• Protein• Magnesium

Nutrition - RationRation

Cow Comfort

Consistency &Routine

Cows

People &Job Performance

Feedstuffs &Quality

Rations that work best @Central Sands

• > 50% forage • No More than 6-8# total drymatter from feeds

with 40% NDF that are not forage (by-product feeds)

• Butterfat’s > 3.75 Holstein• Butterfat’s > 4.65 Jersey• Rumensin @ 420mg/cow/day

Why we do Not feed to an empty Bunk

Or why “just in time” feeding fails to get optimal production

11/24/2014

26

Feed In Manger by Hour

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

12:00AM

1:00AM

2:00AM

3:00AM

4:00AM

5:00AM

6:00AM

7:00AM

8:00AM

9:00AM

10:00AM

11:00AM

12:00PM

1:00PM

2:00PM

3:00PM

4:00PM

5:00PM

6:00PM

7:00PM

8:00PM

9:00PM

10:00PM

11:00PM

12:00AM

Time of Day

Perc

ent of D

aily

DM

Empty Bunk Feeding Feed In Manger by Hour

Fair Oaks Dairy Proposed

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

12:00AM

1:00AM

2:00AM

3:00AM

4:00AM

5:00AM

6:00AM

7:00AM

8:00AM

9:00AM

10:00AM

11:00AM

12:00PM

1:00PM

2:00PM

3:00PM

4:00PM

5:00PM

6:00PM

7:00PM

8:00PM

9:00PM

10:00PM

11:00PM

12:00AM

Time of Day

Perc

ent of D

aily

DM

80% AM 20% PM feeding

night night

day

Feed In Manger by HourNewberry Dairy

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

12:00AM

1:00AM

2:00AM

3:00AM

4:00AM

5:00AM

6:00AM

7:00AM

8:00AM

9:00AM

10:00AM

11:00AM

12:00PM

1:00PM

2:00PM

3:00PM

4:00PM

5:00PM

6:00PM

7:00PM

8:00PM

9:00PM

10:00PM

11:00PM

12:00AM

Time of Day

Once a day feeding

night nightday Across the US there has been a failure of

the transition period

Dry - Fresh Cow Programs• Close-up programs• Steam-up programs• “10-day” programs• Drenching programs• Short Dry Cow Period• No Dry Cow Period• Multiple Milkings• Once a day Milkings

11/24/2014

27

Dry Cow Program

• Comfort• Low Energy - High Fiber• Refer to Jim Drackley’s work

Displaced Abomasums

• US Dairy Industry• Most Dairies have a goal of 4-6%• Less than 1% is very achievable!

- Dairy Comp 305 ------------- Fair Oaks Dairy #3 ------------ Page {$PAGE} - Command : EVENTS -- Expanded : -- -- OAK30102 --------------------- Dr. Gordie Jones ---------------- 1/ 8/10 -

# Event Total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec======= ===== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====

1 FRESH 3059 218 220 168 166 244 274 273 357 257 320 272 2902 OK 836 20 2 4 6 7 18 22 89 188 224 114 1423 RECK 79 3 2 12 13 7 13 8 1 0 10 5 54 HEAT 5787 256 363 351 384 369 526 623 736 724 420 623 4125 BRED 8545 439 568 671 751 779 602 536 827 982 1020 687 6836 PREG 1284 49 12 67 129 149 112 97 48 81 110 253 1777 OPEN 3714 185 213 251 90 243 221 331 405 109 514 676 4768 PREV 831 29 18 48 8 67 88 80 59 7 70 194 1639 MOVE 4713 535 252 278 258 272 386 447 419 588 410 511 357

10 BULLPEN 2875 175 105 86 136 234 308 358 366 366 196 364 18111 DRY 860 36 2 7 5 7 9 27 23 169 233 170 17212 ABORT 215 1 8 13 27 16 21 32 26 18 18 13 2214 SOLD 351 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 82 126 10115 DIED 21 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 6 4 232 DA 11 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 136 LAME 33 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 1737 MAST 771 101 70 68 75 94 43 69 33 22 79 91 2638 METR 18 1 4 2 0 3 5 0 0 0 3 0 040 OFFEED 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 141 PNEU 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 USER 3849 357 156 120 104 151 221 357 427 327 451 518 660Total cows listed : 4259

11/24/2014

28

Dry Period Guidelines• At least 6 weeks

– shorter periods will decrease profits!

• TWO or ONE group – Far off– Close Up

• Separate pen for • 3 wks before calving

INTAKE, INTAKE, INTAKE!

First projection by days dry First projection by days dry for ddry=70-180

Too Much

• Body Condition• Weight Gain in Dry Pen• Time in the Dry Pen • Energy & Grain• One Lactation to many• Twins / Triplets• Overcrowding• Excess Soluble Protein• Potassium• Molds & Mycotoxins

General Dry Cow Ration Guidelines• No more then 8# DM (3.6Kg) of Corn Silage • 4-6# (2Kg -3.5) dry straw (high quality, low energy)

MUST be CHOPPED short• 2-3# total grain (all will come from C/S) • No more than 1# added to ration.• No sorting!!• When it fails…..LOWER the energy!!

11/24/2014

29

Displaced Abomasums

• US Dairy Industry• Most Dairies have a goal of 4-6%• Less than 1% is very achievable!

Body Condition

• Fat • Thin• Weight Gain • Weight Loss• Avoid Weight gain in last 4-6 wks

#NAME? mp 305 ---- ----- ---- Cow a nd He ifer File ----- ----- #NAME? ge {$ PAGE}#NAME? : EVE NTS -#NAME? : -

- -

#NAME? ----- ----- ----- ----- #NAME? Gordi e Jon es -- ----- ----- ---- 1-Oct /02 -

# EventTotal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec====== ===== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====1 FRESH 3228 223 145 172 270 269 312 455 347 368 227 241 1992 OK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 03 RECK 54 4 9 7 8 1 2 7 3 2 2 4 54 HEAT 3059 201 175 142 136 235 200 317 432 380 399 244 1985 BRED 9085 658 599 628 585 571 552 601 1048 1311 1045 779 7086 PREG 3478 209 206 320 474 345 396 436 266 334 101 184 2077 OPEN 2892 245 82 204 252 265 260 288 229 144 247 388 2888 PREV 1069 174 7 123 82 97 90 45 66 23 13 191 1589 MOVE 5813 336 304 246 338 714 784 980 388 678 498 241 30610 BULL 3442 221 171 261 378 318 338 467 287 367 267 199 16811 DRY 1597 7 57 58 196 351 239 243 262 180 0 1 312 ABO 221 28 26 12 29 26 43 7 11 6 3 12 1814 SOL 336 0 0 0 0 0 69 82 76 108 1 0 015 DIED 79 5 4 6 4 6 8 18 12 9 1 2 432 DA 15 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 2 1 0 4 0

15 DA’s

# Event Total======= =====1 FRESH 32282 OK 13 RECK 544 HEAT 30595 BRED 90856 PREG 34787 OPEN 28928 PREV 10699 MOVE 581310 BULLPEN 344211 DRY 159712 ABORT 22114 SOLD 33615 DIED 7932 DA 1536 LAME 1937 MAST 192238 METR 30

======= =====1 FRESH 32282 OK 13 RECK 544 HEAT 30595 BRED 90856 PREG 34787 OPEN 28928 PREV 10699 MOVE 581310 BULLPEN 344211 DRY 159712 ABORT 22114 SOLD 33615 DIED 7932 DA 1536 LAME 1937 MAST 192238 METR 3040 OFFEED 9

# Event Total======= =====1 FRESH 32282 OK 13 RECK 544 HEAT 30595 BRED 90856 PREG 34787 OPEN 28928 PREV 10699 MOVE 581310 BULLPEN 344211 DRY 159712 ABORT 22114 SOLD 33615 DIED 7932 DA 1536 LAME 1937 MAST 192238 METR 30

15 /3228 =.004600.4% DA’s per

Year

11/24/2014

30

DMI On Ration Changesfrom Dry to Milk Cow Ration

• Dry Cow 50%NDF ~100% Forage• Dry Cow 26# DMI = 13# NDF • Dry Cow .60 NeL *24# = 14.4 Mcals (NRC) • Milk Cow 50# DMI * 26% NDF-F = 13# NDF

DMI with Low Energy, High Fiber, Dry Cow Diets

• Far Off Cows 28-32# DMI • Close-Up Cows 25-29# DMI • Dry Cows .60mcal x 28 # = 16.8 Mega Cal• Well above NRC of 14.5 Mega Cal

DMI On Ration Changesfrom Milk to Dry Cow Ration

• Far Off 50%NDF ~100% Forage• Far Off 26# DMI @ 50% NDF = 13#NDF• Far Off .60 NeL *26# = 15.6 Mcals• Milk Cow 50#DMI 26% NDF-f = 13#NDF• Milk Cow 50#DMI .80 NeL = 40 Mcals

DMI with Low Energy, High Fiber, Dry Cow Diets

• Far Off Cows 13Kg DMI • Close-Up Cows 12-13 Kg DMI • Far Off cows 1.32Mcal x 13Kg = 17.2 Mcal• Close-ups 1.32 Mcal x 12Kg = 15.8 Mcal

• DMI 26-32 lb/day • CP 13.5-14.5% • UIP .35-38%

1000 g of MP • Ne L .58-.62 Mcal/lb• Ne L 1.32 Mcal/Kg• NDF 40-50%• NDF forage, min. 40-44%• NFC >26-28%NDF Forage (same as milk cow!) 12-13#

Dry Cow - SPECIFICATIONSDMI 26-32 lb/day DMI 11-13 Kg/dayPhos 40g Ca 125-150gMg >.36%

NDF Forage (same as milk cow!) 13#1000 g of MP

Dry Cow - SPECIFICATIONS

11/24/2014

31

GoalsFeed Bulky Forages, Adequate pe-NDFExercise the CowsCow Comfort - Well Bedded Pack or StallsAdequate Quality WaterBunk Space ~ 2 Feet Per Head

Close-Up Feeding Troubleshooting

Acidosis Prone RationLow Protein & Protein QualityExcess Soluble ProteinLow High Quality ProteinLow Magnesium Levels – High KExcess Fat

Close-up Management Troubleshooting

Common PitfallsSorting !!!! # 1 problem !!!Poor Quality Forages are FedMold & Mycotoxins A ProblemExcess Potassium, Low Blood CalciumNo Forage Wet Chem Mineral AnalysisLack of Forage Analysis AltogetherSlug Feeding/No TMR Delivery SystemOver Crowding

Close-Up Management Troubleshooting

Rumensin all rations at 320mg to the lowest intake cow

11/24/2014

32

Dry Cow Management is the single most important phase of production

3 thinks a Cows Should Do!

• Stand to EAT & DRINK• Stand to MILK• LAY DOWN

Questions? Thoughts?

[email protected]


[email protected]

Dr. Gordie JonesPartner Central Sands Dairy, LLC.

12/1/2014

1

How to Utilize Fecal Starch on the Farm: Monitoring and Management

SHANE FREDIN

DECEMBER 2ND, 2014

OutlineIntroduction

Fecal starch on the farm

Management strategies to improve starch digestion

Introduction – corn prices

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$/bushel

Year

Chicago, IL Minneapolis, MN

USDA ERS, 2014

Starch intake

Starch Digestion in Ruminants

Increased starch digestionPotential advantages◦ Increased ruminal starch digestion

◦ VFA production

◦ Increased propionate

◦Microbial protein synthesis

◦ Greater total energy

Potential disadvantages◦ Acidosis

◦ DMI

◦ Fiber digestion

◦Milk fat content

◦ Laminitis

Nocek and Tamminga, 1991Firkins et al., 2001Krause and Oetzel, 2006

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

68 78 88 98

Adjusted M

ilk Yield (kg/d)

Total Tract Starch Digestibility (% intake)

P = 0.04

80

85

90

95

100

0 20 40 60 80

Adjusted Total Tract Starch

Digestibility (% intake)

Ruminal Starch Digestibility (% intake)

P = 0.04

Ferraretto et al., 2013

12/1/2014

2

OutlineIntroduction



Total tract starch digestibility is positively associated with ruminal starch digestibility and milk yield

1% unit decrease in fecal starch results in 0.72 lb of milk per day (Firkenset al., 2001)

Total tract starch digestibility >96% are attainable (Fredin et al., 2014)

Common on‐farm tool to measure starch in feces◦ Wet sieving

◦ Highly subjective

Courtesy: Dr. Jim Ferguson

Citation n1 DietsDIM at trial initiation

Study duration (days)2

Dietary forage (% of

DM)

Corn silage (% of dietary

forage)

Dietary starch

range (% of DM)

Digestibility marker3

Bal et al., 1997 20 4 75 112 50 67 29 – 35 Yb

Bal et al., 2000a; T1 24 4 75 112 50 67 28 – 29 Yb

Bal et al., 2000a; T3 24 4 75 112 53 – 61 44 – 36 23 – 28 La

Bal et al., 2000b; 24 4 71 112 50 67 31 – 32 La

Schwab et al., 2002 24 4 102 112 60 66 24 – 26 La

Lopes et al., 2009 6 3 67 42 55 0 19 – 21 iNDF

Gencoglu et al., 2010 36 3 51 105 50 66 21 – 27 iNDF


32 4 114 98 50 75 21 – 31 Lignin

1Number of experimental units.2Experiments included continuous lactation or Latin square trials.3Yb = Ytterbium; La = Lanthanum; iNDF = Indigestible NDF.

Table 1. Summary of trials used for the development of an equation to estimate apparent total tract starch digestibility in lactating dairy cows from fecal starch concentration.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Freq

uenc

y, n

Fecal starch, % DM

Figure 2. Histogram of fecal starch as a % of DM, collected from fifteen trials conducted at the University of Wisconsin‐Madison; mean = 3.1; min. = 0.1; max. = 16.1; n = 1036.

75

80

85

90

95

100

0 5 10 15 20

Total tract starch digestibility,

% of starch intake

Fecal starch, % of DM

R2 = 0.94P < 0.001

Total tract starch dig., % = 100 – (1.25 × fecal starch)

Fredin et al., 2014

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

Total tract NDF digestibility, % of NDF intake

Fecal NDF, % of DM

Total tract NDF digestibility = 86.0 – 0.98 × fecal NDF %

R2 = 0.20

Courtesy: Dr. Randy Shaver

12/1/2014

3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 h 12 h

Fecal starch, %

of DM

B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Week 6,Day 1

Week 6,Day 2

Week 12,Day 1

Week 12,Day 2

Fecal starch, %

of DM

A

Effect of fecal sampling day, week, and time on fecal starch concentration (% of DM). A) fecal sampling by week and day: SEM = 0.15; P = 0.14. B) fecal sampling by time of day post feeding: SEM = 0.11; P < 0.01.

Fredin et al., 2014

Sample collection and submittal10 – 20 animals per sample submitted◦ Preferably fresh sample

Only one sample per evaluation group is needed

If a dietary or management change occurs, re‐evaluate minimum of 3 weeks later

Fecal starch decreased by 1.3% when fecal samples were not kept cool (5.4 vs 4.1% fecal starch; Haerr et al., 2014)◦ Due to microbial enzymatic degradation

◦ Ideally, freeze samples before mailing!

Fredin et al., 2014

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15 20

NIRS predicted fecal starch, %

of DM

Fecal starch, % of DM

R2 = 0.88P < 0.001

NIRS predicted FS = 0.4 + (0.83 × fecal starch)

OutlineIntroduction



Several strategies exist to improve total‐tract starch digestibility◦ Cereal grain type

◦ Wheat > Barley > Corn > Sorghum

◦ Grain particle size

◦ Moisture content

◦ Length of fermentation

◦ Silage processing

◦ Exogenous enzymes (i.e. proteases)

◦ Hybrid genetics (i.e. floury endosperm)

Materials and MethodsEight ruminally cannulated multiparous Holstein cows (96 ± 8 DIM; 584 ± 29 kg of BW at trial initiation)

Replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design

2 × 2 factorial treatment arrangement◦ Normal vs reduced starch (27 vs 18% DM basis)

◦ Finely vs coarsely dry ground corn (552 vs 1270 μM)

Fredin et al., In press

12/1/2014

4

Ingredient composition of diets

1Quality Roasting Inc., Valders, WI.2Milk Specialties Global Animal Nutrition, Carpentersville, IL.335% calcium carbonate; 27% sodium bicarbonate; 22% mono-calcium phosphate; 16% magnesium oxide.488% NaCl; 0.002% Co; 0.2% Cu; 0.012% I; 0.18 Fe; 0.8% Mn; 0.006% Se; 1.4% Zn.5Vitamin A 3,300 IU/kg; Vitamin D 1,100,000 IU/kg; Vitamin E 11,000 IU/kg.

Ingredient (% DM) Normal-starch Reduced-starch

Alfalfa silage 29.5 29.9

Corn silage 22.6 22.9

Ground corn 25.2 13.2

Soyhulls 2.6 14.9

SBM 5.3 4.1

Exceller Meal1 6.3 6.4

DDGS 5.6 5.7

Energy Booster2 0.80 0.80

Mineral mix3 1.47 1.47

Trace mineral salt4 0.43 0.43

Vitamin premix5 0.24 0.24

Fredin et al., In press

Dietary nutrient compositionItem Normal-starch Reduced-starch

DM, % as fed 54.8 54.4

% of DM

CP 17.1 17.3

NDF 26.5 33.8

Forage NDF 19.9 19.9

NFC 45.7 37.9

Starch 26.5 18.2

Starch: Forage NDF 1.33 0.91

Ether Extract 3.7 3.3

Ash 7.4 8.0

In vitro digestibility of selected feeds

ItemFine‐groundcorn grain

Coarse‐ground corn grain

Corn silage Alfalfa silage Soyhulls

7‐h starch dig., % 52.3 32.1 69.9 ‐ ‐

30‐h NDF dig., % ‐ ‐ 49.8 55.4 75.3

Total tract starch digestibility, %

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

NS‐Fine NS‐Coarse RS‐Fine RS‐Coarse

Total tract starch digestibility, %

P ‐ value

Starch level

Particle size

Starch ×particlesize

0.02 < 0.001 0.01

DMI and lactation performanceNormal‐starch Reduced‐starch P ‐ value

Item Fine Coarse Fine Coarse SEMStarch level

Particle size

Starch ×particlesize

DMI, lb/d 52.5 50.7 50.0 50.9 3.5 0.45 0.73 0.43

Milk yield, lb/d 92.2 88.4 85.5 86.9 3.7 0.03 0.50 0.14

Fat % 3.71 3.65 3.73 3.97 0.18 0.10 0.39 0.14

Fat yield, lb/d 3.46 3.22 3.20 3.46 0.26 0.87 0.94 0.06

Protein % 2.90 2.91 2.87 2.85 0.04 0.28 0.90 0.67

Protein yield, lb/d 2.65 2.56 2.45 2.47 0.09 < 0.01 0.40 0.27

MUN, mg/dL 12.5 12.3 13.7 13.3 0.5 < 0.01 0.41 0.64

Ruminal parametersNormal starch Reduced starch P – value1

Fine Coarse Fine Coarse SEMStarch level

Particle size

Starch ×Particle

size

pH 6.31 6.33 6.23 6.33 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.16

Ammonia, mg/dL

5.9 6.6 7.0 6.8 1.2 0.12 0.49 0.28

1Diet × hour interaction (P > 0.25).

12/1/2014

5

5.85

5.95

6.05

6.15

6.25

6.35

6.45

6.55

6.65

6.75

6 AM 8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM 6 PM 8 PM 10 PM 12 AM 2 AM 4 AM

Rumen

pH

Time of day

NS‐Fine NS‐Coarse RS‐Fine RS‐Coarse

***

Milking MilkingFeeding Feeding

***P < 0.01

Item Dry Ensiled Steam‐flaked SEM P‐value

TTSD, % 92.0b 94.2a 93.9a 0.8 0.001


Table 3. Effect of corn grain processing and harvesting on total tract starch digestibility (% of intake)

Dry corn

Item500 –

1,000 µ m1,000 –

1,500 µ m1,500 –

2,000 µ m3,000 –

3,500 µ m3,500 –

4,000 µ m SEM P‐value

TTSD, % 93.3a 93.2a 89.8b 89.6b 77.7c 1.4 0.001

High‐moisture corn

Item < 2,000 µ m > 2,000 µ m SEM P‐value

TTSD, % 95.2 89.5 1.3 0.001

Table 1. Effect of dry corn grain particle size on total tract starch digestibility (% of intake)

Table 2. Effect of HMC grain particle size on total tract starch digestibility (% of intake)

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

7‐h in

vitro starch digestiblity, % of

starch

Month of sample submittalFerraretto et al., 2014

P 0.05

Effect of ensiling time on starch digestibility


Effect of ensiling time and dry matter on starch digestibility

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0 5 10 15 20

Cha

nge

in t

otal

-tra

ct s

tarc

h

dig

esti

bili

ty, %

of

inta

ke

Decrease in dietary starch, % of DM

Effect of reduced‐starch diets on total‐tract starch digestibility

Fredin, unpublished

Summary and conclusionsTotal‐tract starch digestibility can be routinely measured

Total‐tract starch digestibility > 97% can be attained

Methods to improve total tract starch digestibility◦ Reducing grain particle size

◦ Feeding high‐moisture grains

12/1/2014

6

Questions?

11/24/2014

1

RationsFiber First



PM Fricke, Ph.D.

Trends in the North American Dairy Industry over the last 25 years can be

best described by the term:CHANGE

Location: Wisconsin Golden Sands Area

Central Sands Dairy



Balancing for production

11/24/2014

2

Hypothetical question• Your nutritionist comes to the dairy,

surveys production, and balances a “least cost” ration for the cows’ current and projected performance.

• You feed those rations and the cows eat them.

• One month later, the nutritionist returns and finds the cows are performing as projected and fed.

• Has the nutritionist done a good job?

Hypothetical question

• If your cows are producing well: YES

• If your cows are producing poorly: NO!!

Balancing for production• Fundamentally, balancing for a particular

dairy’s production is a myth.• Everyone balances for the “requirements”

of a hypothetical cow.– That cow is not on the dairy

• We balance rations to feed to groups, hoping to meet their “needs”.

• Which cow in the group?– average cow, best cow, a bit better than the

best cow? desired cow?

Balancing for production• Very few farms’ cows produce to

their genetic ability• We restrict production by

– wrecking cows (particularly during transition)

– feeding cows poorly or inadequately– making cows uncomfortable– restricting access to feed or water

• Feed fed, bunk space, competition, time at bunk, etc.

Balancing for production• What would be the effect of simply

feeding cows for all of the production they have the potential to achieve?

• What if we got as many nutrients in a proper balance into the cows as possible, in keeping with making the ration safe for the rumen?– Then we’d be balancing for mouthfuls, not for

cows.• With that kind of ration, we’d just do

everything we could to let the cows eat as much of the ration as they wanted / could.

Balancing for high production

• Although the computer program may say that you are balancing for 85 pounds(38L), in reality the ration you feed will need to support production well in excess of 100 pounds (45L) or cows cannot peak in early lactation– the cow will eat more dry matter than

predicted• Some nutrients will have to be “over fed”

to meet these high production demands– protein, particularly rumen undegradable

protein

11/24/2014

3

Is there a solution to high corn prices? “For a dairy cow, 24-26%

starch is the typical level”

Dr. Mike Hujens U of Ill

“You can’t cheat the Bacteria! They don’t know

that corn is 7.60$ a bushel”

Dr. Mike Hujens U of Ill

Alternatives to Corn, Corn Silage and High Moisture Corn

• Hominy• Sugar• Distillers Grain (not much starch)• Corn Gluten• BETTER FORAGE!!!

Danger of too much DDG• No Starch• High fat = fiber digestion problems• High Fiber replaces Effective Fiber• Rate of passage increases and so• Does feed cost with increased rate

of passge.

Here is the best solution to high corn prices

• BETTER FORAGES!!!!

11/24/2014

4

Great Hay-Haylage

• Cut early• Or Bought for higher $• NDF =40%• Protein = 23%

Not So - Great Hay-Haylage

• Cut later• Or Bought for less $• NDF =46%• Protein = 20%

Ration balanced for safe fiber

• NDF from forage 18-26 %• Depends on Length of fiber, (short or Long)• Depends on moisture (wet or dry fiber)• For our example NDF-F = 22%• 50# DMI (22.7kg)• 22% * 50# DMI = 11# (5kg)NDF in rumen

Energy

Fiber

Energy

Fiber

x

Energy

Fiber

x

x

11/24/2014

5

Energy

Fiber

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Energy

Fiber

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Energy

Fiber

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Great Hay-Haylage has 40%ndf.

Ration has22% NDF – Forage = 11#(5kg) NDF

Great Hay-Haylage Ration22% NDF – Forage = 11# NDF

50# DMI(22,7kg)

Rest of ration22.5 #(10.2kg)

40% NDF *27.5# =11# NDF

This is how we got the 27.5#11# NDF = 40% * ??= 11#/.40?= 27.5#

27.5 # Haylage(12.5kg)

22.5# (10.kg)the Rest of Ration

• Vitamins & Minerals• By Pass proteins• Fat• Proteins• Starch (corn the star of the show!)

11/24/2014

6

Great Hay-Haylage Ration22% NDF – Forage = 11# NDF

50# DMI Rest of ration22.5 #

40% NDF *27.5# =11# NDF

27.5 # Haylage

Not so Great Hay-Haylage Ration22% NDF – Forage = 11# NDF


46% NDF *23.9# = 11# NDF

Here is how we get 23.9#11# = .46 * ???? = 11#/.46?? = 23.9#

23.9 # Haylage

Not so Great Hay-Haylage Ration22% NDF – Forage = 11# NDF


46% NDF *23.9# = 11# NDF

27.5 # Haylage

In the red area!So what do we add to the ration?

What do we add to the Red spot in the ration?

• More Vitamins & Minerals?• NO• More By Pass proteins?• No• More fat?• No• Just more Proteins (Soybean meal) and

Starch (corn the star of the show!)

The red spot is 3.6# DMIand we add.

• Soybean meal 2.4# @ 340Ton is $.45• Corn 1.2 # @ 262 T (7.34bu) is $.18• For a total of 3.6# of feed @ $.63• Now the lower quality hay/haylage has less

energy • So the energy from the not so good hay/haylage• And the energy extra corn and soybean meal

makes -• 2.8 # less milk!

The red spot is 3.6# DMI.

• For a total of 3.6# of feed @ $0.63• 2.8 # less milk! @ $.165 is $0.46• So the total costs in milk and feed is• Is $1.09/cow /day• 100 cows $109/day• 100 cows $39,7857/yr.• 1000 cows $ 1,090/day • 1000 cows $ 397,857/yr.!!

11/24/2014

7

% Dry 90% DM DM DM DM DMMatter Cost/Tn NDF% ADF% AMT FED PROT% RFV |TPI COST / DAY RFV TPI

FORAGE 1 Alfalfa #1 90 $160 40 30 27.50 23 152 | 187 $2.44 152 187FORAGE 2 Alfalfa #2 90 $160 46 36 23.91 21 123 | 154 $2.13 123 154

Difference $0 -6 3.59 2 29 | 32 $0.32 29 32

Concentrate costs to compensate for Forage 2 to equal DMI and protein of Forage 1:

COST/# LBS DM LBS FED COST COST/# Cost ofShelled Corn 90%DM/10%CP $0.131 1.23 1.36 $0.18 FORAGE 2 6.325Soybean Meal 90%DM/50%CP $0.170 2.36 2.62 $0.45 plus concentrate 5.02173913

TOTAL 3.59 3.99 $0.62 $0.157 $2.75 1.30326087

Savings in feed cost of Forage #1 versus Forage #2 per cow per day: $0.306Savings in feed cost of Forage #1 versus Forage #2 per herd per day: $305.59

Savings in feed cost of Forage #1 versus Forage #2 per year: $111,540

Difference in milk production and income from Forage 1 versus Forage 2

DMNE-L / lb LBS FED MCAL MILK/# MILK $

Alfalfa #1 0.69 27.5 18.9 55.6 $9.17Alfalfa #2 0.62 23.9 14.7 43.3 $7.14Shelled Corn 0.92 1.2 1.1 3.3 $0.55Soybean Meal 0.88 2.4 2.1 6.1 $1.01

Total/day 27.5 17.9 52.7 $8.70Difference/day 0.0 1.0 2.8 $0.47

Income from milk from Forage #1 versus Forage #2 per cow per day: $0.469Income from milk from Forage #1 versus Forage #2 per herd per day: $468.84Income from milk from Forage #1 versus Forage #2 per year: $171,125

Total financial difference between Forage #1 versus Forage #2: feed cost + extra milk/year: $397,857

Great Hay-Haylage22% NDF – Forage = 11# NDF

50# DMI

50# DMI

Rest of ration

Rest of ration

40% NDF *27.5# =11# NDF

27.5 # Haylage

23.9 # Haylage

46% NDF *23.9# =11# NDF

Energy

Fiber

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Energy

Fiber

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

2st ration

Energy

Fiber

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

1st ration

Making a profit on a dairy

• Profit = revenue – expenses– Rule #1: increase milk production

– Rule #2: decrease expenses•Unless it breaks Rule #1!!

11/24/2014

8

Feeding cows in groups

If you have a high group and a low group

1. Do you want a cow’s production to decrease when she is moved to from the high group to the low group?

2. Do you expect a cow’s production to decrease when she is moved to from the high group to the low group?

– By how much?

Group feeding

• Intended to save money on feed and improve the dairy’s profit

• Assumes that lower producing cows can be fed a less expensive diet to support their production.

• Common logic says– High group ration cost $3.50 per day– Low group ration costs $2.50 per day– Moving a cow will save $1.00 per day on feed

Move.xls Move.xls

Group feeding• Feeding a low group is a risky proposition

– One more change for the cow– Small changes in production wipe out potential

savings in feed costs– More rations mean more chances to mess up

mixing• In large herds there may be opportunities

for savings in some nutrients: protein, special additives, etc.

• Almost never useful to reduce energy density– Exception?: very late bred cows


11/24/2014

9

[email protected]

Relationship of Rumensin Dose with herd Milk Fat %

Milk Fat %

Rumensin dose mg/hd/day

R2 = 0.00P = 0.98

Nydam et al., 2009

11/26/2014

1

Maximizing Opportunities with Fresh Cows Through Feeding and Management

Heather Dann, Ph.D.

Miner Institute Dairy Day – December 2014

Components of Successful Fresh Cow Programs

• Implementation of management practices during the transition period that focus on…

– Prevention of transition disorders

• Clinical vs. subclinical

– Optimization of nutrient intake

– Removal of stressors

• Real‐time monitoring and use of the information

What are our fresh cow challenges?

Energy Balance and Subclinical Ketosis

• “It’s the #1 metabolic disease going on in cattle”

– Gary Oetzel, February 13, 2012

• 30% incidence…may be higher

• 43% (26‐56%) SCK incidence on 4 large commercial dairies that grouped cows and feed a TMR (McArt et al., 2011)

– Peak incidence occurred early (5 DIM

– Resolution of SCK was ~5 d

• $33‐320 per case of SCK (Oetzel, 2012; Gohary, 2013)

Impact of Negative Energy Balance and Subclinical Ketosis

• Reduced milk yield: 4 – 7% (Dohoo and Martin, 1984; Duffield et al., 2009; Ospina et al., 2010; Chapinal et al., 2012)

• Increased risk (5x) of clinical ketosis (Raboisson et al., 2014)

• Increased risk (3‐7x) for DA (Duffield et al., 2009; Ospina et al., 2010; Raboissonet al., 2014)

• Impaired immunity (Sordillo, 2012)

• Increased risk for early removal from herd– 3x in 1st 30 DIM (McArt et al., 2012)

– 2x in 1st 60 DIM (Raboisson et al., 2014)

Impact of Negative Energy Balance and Subclinical Ketosis

• Increased risk (2‐3x) for metritis (Duffield et al., 2009;

Ospina et al., 2010)

• Impaired fertility (Walsh et al., 2007; Ospina et al., 2010; McArt et al., 2012;

Raboisson et al., 2014)

– Lower first service rate (0.67 odds ratio)

– Longer calving to first service interval (+8 d)

– Longer calving to conception interval (+16‐22 d)

11/26/2014

2

Subclinical Milk Fever: A Bigger Threat Than You May Think

• Clinical milk fever: 4‐7%

• Subclinical milk fever (<8 mg/dL): 47%– 1462 cows in 480 herds in 21 states– Increases with age…normal homeostatic response to

hypocalcemia may have limits with age– Hard to detect visually…no overt clinical signs

• Low calcium jeopardizes transition success…– Reduces ability of immune cells to response to stimuli and

contributes to infections (mastitis, metritis)– Reduces smooth muscle contractions and GIT motility (leading

to lower DMI and DA)– Increases lipid mobilization (NEFA, BHBA)

Martinez et al., 2012; Oetzel and Miller, 2012; Reinhardt et al., 2011

Cows with Subclinical Hypocalcemia (<8.6 mg/dL) within 3 Days of Calving Had Elevated Serum NEFA and BHBA

(Martinez et al., 2012)

• Mineral and energetic statuses are interrelated

• Influence the risk of periparturient diseases, compromised immune function, and delayed pregnancy

Cows with Subclinical Hypocalcemia (<8.6 mg/dL) within 3 Days of Calving Had Greater Days Open and Lower

Pregnancy Rate(Martinez et al., 2012)

Increased Risk of Ruminal Acidosis (SARA) in Fresh Cow

• Large changes in dietary composition and intake during the transition period – Fermentable carbohydrate

• Feeding behavior changes associated with calving, stocking density, grouping, and pen movement strategies– Heifers may be more susceptible

• SARA– Negatively affects ability of rumen epithelium to absorb

volatile fatty acids (VFA)– Decreases fiber digestion through changes in the microbial

population– Causes inflammation

Fairfield et al., 2007; Penner et al., 2007; Aschenbach et al., 2011

Optimization of Nutrient IntakeAre There Nutritional Stressors?

A Smooth Nutrient Change Leads to a Successful Transition

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Far‐off Close‐up Fresh High

%

lb/d

DMI, lb

NDF, lb

Starch,lb

NDF, %

Starch, %

11/26/2014

3

No “One Size Fits All” Approach To Transition Nutrition But There are Some

Common Themes

• Dry period

– Maintain dry matter intake

– Optimize nutrient intake

• Energy intake (do not overfeed)

• Metabolizable protein (amino acid) supply

• Minerals

– Support immune function

– Minimize environmental and social stressors

No “One Size Fits All” Approach To Transition Nutrition But There are Some

Common Themes

• Lactation period– Promote a rapid increase in dry matter intake

• Source of fermentable carbohydrates

– Minimize duration of negative nutrient balance• Energy

• Metabolizable protein

– Promote rumen function• Fermentable carbohydrates and physically effective fiber

– Support immune function

– Minimize environmental and social stressors

Recommendations for Fresh Cows(Low insulin, insulin resistant, high NEFA)

• Avoid feeding highly fermentable diets (~7 to 21 d…but not too long)– Rapid production and absorption of propionate will suppress intake (Allen and Bradford, 2011)

• But depends on NEFA status

– Ground corn is good choice…moderate ruminalfermentability, high small intestinal digestibility

– Use of nonforage fiber sources– Provide physically effective fiber

• Maintain rumen fill and promote rumination with forages with long ruminal retention time (grass, straw)

Recommendations for Early to Mid Lactation Cows

(High glucose demand, low NEFA, low satiety signals, gut fill)

• Feed less filling, more fermentable diet as gut fill limits intake (Allen and Bradford, 2011)

– May be as soon as 7 to 10 DIM

– Indicated by lower blood NEFA and BHBA, visual of gut fill (distension), increasing intake

– Forages with short retention time (alfalfa, corn silage)

– Moderate to highly fermentable grains

Starting Points for Starch (Corn Silage Based Diets)

• Think about total fermentable CHO, measure digestibility of starch, NDF

Group

Starch in

Ration,

%DM

Fermentable

Starch,

%Starch 7h

Fermentable

Starch, %DM

Fermentable

Starch, %

Total

Fermentable

CHO

Close‐up 16 to 18 80 12.8 to 14.4 34

Fresh cows,

0 to 21 DIM 21 to 25 74 16.3 to 18.5 44

Early/mid‐cows,

21 to 150 DIM 25 to 30 83 20.7 to 24.9 57

Late cows,

> 150 DIM 18 to 22 74 13.3 to 16.3 37

Modified from Sniffen, 2013

1‐28 d postpartum27% forage NDF(31% NDF, 26% starch)

29‐84 d postpartum20% forage NDF(32% NDF, 28% starch)

Forage NDFlikely limiting DMI

Courtesy of M. Allen

Transition Tales

Don’t Leave Cows on the Fresh Diet for Too Long

11/26/2014

4

Fresh Cows Experience Negative Protein Balance

Bell et al., 2000; Proc. Nutr. Soc. 59:119

Mobilization of labile protein reserves (i.e. skeletal muscle & visceral tissue) in 1st 3‐6 wk of lactation• Up to 50 lb total• Max 2.2 lb/d

Prevent Protein Mobilization Before Calving By Supplying Sufficient MP

• Protein mobilization may occur before calving in advance of lipid mobilization

• Mobilization of labile protein reserves before calving reduces the amount available after calving

• Timing of protein mobilization is related to hyperketonemia

van der Drift et al., 2012

Maximize Metabolizable Protein Balance and Quality in Fresh Diets

• Optimize ruminal fermentation and microbial protein synthesis– Sufficient RDP and fermentable carbohydrates

• Use high quality RUP to provide digestible amino acids

• Use ruminally protected amino acids– Especially for lower CP diets

Transition TalesFresh Period Health Problems Related to Dry

Period Intake on 2 Dairies

Too little intake…

• ~26 to 28 lb/d for ~1500 to 1600 lb Holsteins

• Test feed quality/digestibility

• Evaluate bunk management, feed availability

• Assess non‐nutritional stressors

Too much intake…

• >33 lb/d for ~1500 to 1600 lb Holsteins

• Limit grain‐type forages, other palatable feeds to control intake

• Complement with a consistent, low K, bulky forage source

BCS doesn’t tell the whole storyExcessive dietary energy leads to greater visceralfat deposition in thin cows than in fat cows…

Nikkhah et al., 2008

0

20

40

60

80

< 3 3 ‐ 3.75 ≥ 4

OmentalFat M

ass, lb

BCS

ME

LE

a

b

b

a

Common Observations with Dry Period Overfeeding/Excessive Insulin Resistance

• Large decreases in DMI as cows approach calving

• Low/sluggish increases in DMI in fresh cows

• Excessive BW gain in dry period

• Rapid BW/BCS loss during early lactation

• Higher incidence of subclinical and clinical ketosis and DA

11/26/2014

5

Transition Tales

Is the Formulated Diet Being Delivered?

• Many transition problems…blamed on diets and nutritionist

– “90% of transition problems is not the formulated diet”

• Close‐up diet and fresh diet…small load size in mixer wagon (4 auger system)

– Is it mixing properly?

Courtesy of R. Saville

Proper Mixing Equipment and Maintenance are Keys!

• Fixed flighting on mixer wagon after firing the nutritionist and new nutritionist had same result

• Committed to better maintenance

• Solved problems

Courtesy of R. Saville

Transition Tales“It’s the Diet”

• 1300 cow freestall dairy

• High rates of metabolic disorders– 47% subclinical ketosis rate and 17% clinical ketosis rate

– 12% retained placenta rate

– 5% displaced abomasum rate

• Low milk yield in older cows compared to heifers

• No obvious problem with formulated diets

Courtesy of T. R. Overton,

Hay/Straw Not Well Incorporated Into Dry Diets

Courtesy of T. R. Overton

Actions – Worked in Conjunction with Herd Manager, Feed Manager, Nutritionist, and

Veterinarian

• Conducted maintenance and replaced knives in mixer wagon

• Feed manager committed to chopping the hay and straw– Must be processed to prevent sorting!!!– ≤ 2 in or ~1/3, 1/3, 1/3 on Penn State Particle Separator

• Continued monitoring ketones in fresh cows on a weekly basis using the Precision Xtra meter

Courtesy of T. R. Overton Courtesy of T. R. Overton

Several Weeks Later…

• Managers, veterinarian, and nutritionist indicated things were much better

• Supported by continued low levels of fresh cow subclinical ketosis along with lower disorder rates and better milk starts

11/26/2014

6

Removal of StressorsAre There Environmental or Social Stressors?

Cooling Cows During the Dry Period Improves Milk Production

Heat Abatement in Dry Cows – Positive Effect on Immunity

Item Heat Stress Coolingdo Amaral et al., 2009

Lymphocyte proliferation, % 45 169

Neutrophil phagocytosis, % (2/20 DIM) 42/49 61/62

Oxidative burst, % (2/20 DIM) 33/36 47/52

Adin et al., 2009

Colostrum, L 6.1 8.6

Colostrum IgG, g/L 56.8 77.5

P 0.05

Heat Abatement in Dry Cows –Positive Effect on Calves

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Birth weight, lb Weaning weight, lb

Heat Stress

Cooling

ab P 0.05 Tao et al., 2012

ab

a

b

Figure 2

Journal of Dairy Science 2012 95, 7128-7136DOI: (10.3168/jds.2012-5697) Tao et al., 2012

Heat stress during the dry period decreased total serum IgG and AEA of calves compared

with those cooled in utero

Transition Tales

Watch Out for Too Many Building Blocks

• VT dairy successfully used an overcrowded close‐up pen– 40 to 60 cows in 44 sand bedded freestalls with 8 headlocks and 15’ open bunk

– Reduced space by 50% for milking – walkway to parlor

– Often put fresh cows back in close‐up pen

• No management or feeding changes but many DA in a very short time frame– Several days of very cold weather (< 10F)

11/26/2014

7

Grouping Fresh Cows – Are There Benefits of Separate Housing and Feeding?

• Allows dairies to facilitate monitoring of health problems, minimize social stress, and provide a diet specifically formulated for fresh cows

• 1 mo separate housing vs. comingling with herd (Østergaard et al., 2010)

– Primiparous cows, but not multiparous cows, produced ~506 lb more of energy‐corrected milk from 0 to 305 DIM and had less ketosis treatments when housed separately

– Did not use a “fresh cow diet”…probably see more benefits of separate groups

Transition Tales

Time Budget Evaluation in the Fresh Pen

34 stalls per pen

Feed Bunk

To Parlor

Fresh Pen

Low Pen

Primi‐ versus Multiparous Cows in Fresh Pen

Multi Primi P

Time outside pen, h/d 1.7 1.9 0.09

Headlock time, min/d 48 44 0.93

“In alley” time, h/d 2.9 5.2 0.01

Lying time, h/d 12.5 9.3 0.01

Rumination-lying, h/d 6.5 3.9 0.04

Meals per day 9.2 8.2 0.07

Real Time MonitoringAre Data Being Used?

Rumination Data Are Changing Management Practices

• Monitoring nutrition programs…cows, pens, and people– Identifying problems earlier

• Eliminating or modifying traditional fresh checks– Less time disturbing cows (headlocks)

– Less labor

– More focused time on high risk cows

Rumination Should Rapidly Increase After Calving

(Soriani et al., 2012)

Primiparous

Multiparous

57% NDF 32% NDF

11/26/2014

8

Daily Rumination Time of Health and (later diagnosed) Diseased Cows in the 1st Week

T. Breunig, 9/14/12 www.progressivedairy.com

Monitoring Group Rumination

• Don’t chase rumination…chase consistency– Look for pattern in variation

• Group swing of 30‐50 minutes– Check dry matter of ingredients, quality change in feedstuffs, mixing SOP, bunk management

• Assess ration changes– Immediate response versus waiting a few days or weeks to see performance response

Transition TalesRumination in Fresh Cows Often Follows

Rumination in Dry Cows Hospital Branch

Rumination, m

in/d

Miner Institute, 2014

Take Home Message

[email protected]

11/25/2014

1

uNDF, Rumen Fill, and Forage Intake

Dairy Day2014

Outline for Presentation uNDF vs iNDF

Biological importance of uNDF

Forage uNDF, uNDF intake, and fill

Miner Institute

Perspectives: where are we going?

Indigestible vs Undigested NDF (Mertens, 2013)

iNDF: theoretical and defined by model; indigestibility measured at infinite time.

uNDF: Undigested NDF is what we measure at a defined time point uNDF240 analytical estimate of iNDF

uNDF 30, 120 and 240 for pools

Biological importance of uNDF

Fast PoolsSlow Pools

uNDF240

Estimate pdNDF (NDF ‐ uNDF)Estimate fast & slow pools and rates of NDF digestion

Estimating iNDF … Measuring uNDF

ADL x 2.4/NDF (Chandler et al., 1980)

ADL/NDF0.67 (Weiss et al., 1992)

288‐h in situ (Huhtanen et al., 2007)

240‐h in vitro fermentation (Raffrenato and Van Amburgh, 2010)

Corn silage residue after 47h in situ, laundered and NDF assay

11/25/2014

2

Hay crop grass silage residue after 47h in situ, laundered and NDF assay

Straw (HB) residue after 47h in situ, laundered and NDF assay

How Do We Use uNDF?

NDFD: FQ, inverse of digestibility

Index for Intake uNDF at 30 hours if in vitro fermentation

(Jones, 2014; “NDFu30”)

To estimate true iNDF in order to calculate NDF digestion kinetics Fast, slow, indigestible pools

Fast, slow rates of digestion

Hot Topic: uNDF uNDF: uNDF240om

Undigested NDF at 240 h rumen fluid incubation, ash-corrected

Replaces (Lignin x 2.4)

End point for calculation of NDF pools Fast, slow, and “indigestible”

Use uNDF or NDFD to improve precision of estimating DMI/rumen fill How much low NDFD forage can she eat before filling

rumen?

How much high NDFD forage must be fed to maintain gut fill and efficiency?

Biological Importance of uNDF

Related to OMD and forage quality

Chewing response to peNDF influenced by forage uNDF/NDFD

uNDF related to fill, passage, and DMI

Future: consider slow and fast NDF pools

Miner InstituteCurrent Research on uNDF:

Corn Silage and Haycrop Silage

11/25/2014

3

Miner Institute: Summarized 3 recent studies…

Corn silage, haycrop silage, +wheat straw, nonforage sources of fiber

NDF intake

uNDF intake

Rumen NDF mass

Rumen uNDF mass

Ratio of Rumen uNDF: Intake uNDF

Seems to be constant…

NDF intake, rumen NDF,and uNDFom240 balanceMiner Institute Project (2011)

Project Diets

Forage description

53%40%CS:13% HCS

32% NDF

67%54%CS:13% HCS

36% NDF

49%36%BMR:13%HCS

32% NDF

64%51%BMR:13%HCS

35% NDF

NDFomintake, kg/d

% of BW8.87b

1.32b8.95b

1.33b8.48c

1.27c9.88a

1.47a

NDF intake, rumen NDF, and uNDFom240 balanceMiner Institute Project (2011)

Project Diets

Forage description

53%40%CS:13% HCS

32% NDF

67%54%CS:13% HCS

36% NDF

49%36%BMR:13%HCS

32% NDF

64%51%BMR:13%HCS

35% NDF

NDFomintake, kg/d

% of BW8.87b

1.32b8.95b

1.33b8.48c

1.27c9.88a

1.47a

Rumen NDFom, kg% of BW

8.50a

1.27a8.58a

1.28a7.82b

1.17b8.48a

1.27a

Diet content and intake of uNDFom240(% of diet DM or BW)

Project % of BW% of Diet

Diet comparisons

53%40%CS:13%

HCS

67%54%CS:13%

HCS

49%36%BMR:13%

HCS

64%51%BMR:13%

HCS

2011 Intake 0.36ab 0.39a 0.30c 0.33bc

uNDF240 8.2 9.6 6.9 7.6


Project % of BW% of Diet

Diet comparisons

53%40%CS:13%

HCS

67%54%CS:13%

HCS

49%36%BMR:13%

HCS

64%51%BMR:13%

HCS

2011 Intake 0.36ab 0.39a 0.30c 0.33bc

uNDF240 8.2 9.6 6.9 7.6

52% 0% Straw25% NFFS



39%10% Straw34% NFFS

2008 Intake 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.36

uNDF240 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.3


Project % of BW% of diet

Diet comparisons

53%40%CS:13%

HCS

67%54%CS:13%

HCS

49%36%BMR:13%

HCS

64%51%BMR:13%

HCS

2011 Intake 0.36ab 0.39a 0.30c 0.33bc

uNDF240 8.2 9.6 6.9 7.6




39%10% Straw34% NFFS

2008 Intake 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.36

uNDF240 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.3

50% (CS, BMR, HCS, CM)

60% (BMR, HCS)

50%(CS,BMR, HCS,

BP/WM)

2012 Intake 0.36b 0.33c 0.38a

uNDF240 9.3b 9.2b 10.0a

11/25/2014

4

uNDFom240 intake and rumen uNDFMiner Institute Projects (2008, 2011)

Project % of BW Diets

% Forage 53%40%CS:13%

HCS

67%54%CS:13%

HCS

49%36%BMR:13%

HCS

64%51%BMR:13%

HCS

2011 Intake 0.36ab 0.39a 0.30c 0.33bc

Rumen 0.57a 0.62a 0.48b 0.52ab

Rumen:Intake

1.60 1.58 1.58 1.57

uNDFom240 intake and rumen uNDFMiner Institute Projects (2008, 2011)

Project % of BW Diets

% Forage 53%40%CS:13%

HCS

67%54%CS:13%

HCS

49%36%BMR:13%

HCS

64%51%BMR:13%

HCS

2011 Intake 0.36ab 0.39a 0.30c 0.33bc

Rumen 0.57a 0.62a 0.48b 0.52ab

Rumen:Intake

1.60 1.58 1.58 1.57

52% 0% Straw37% NDF

47% 2% Straw37% NDF

43% 6% Straw37% NDF

39%10% Straw36% NDF

2008 Intake 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.36

Rumen 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.56

Rumen:Intake

1.61 1.59 1.49 1.58

uNDF Residue Remaining

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250

% Rem

aining

Time, h

BMR CS

CS

HCS

Daily Rumen Pool – Single Evac Days

Treatment

Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMRNDFom, kg

High 8.78 8.67 8.06 8.41Low 8.22 8.49 7.57 8.55

uNDFom, kg High 3.83 4.24 3.21 3.38Low 3.79 4.08 3.17 3.55

NDFom/uNDFom ratioHigh 1.52 1.52 1.51 1.41Low 1.50 1.55 1.63 1.50

aNDFom CVAS

Rumen Fill and Flux Rumen Fill and Flux

11/25/2014

5

Rumen Fill and Flux

8kg NDF

uNDF Pool3kg

NDFD2450%

NDFD2438%

4kg

1kg

2kg

3kg

Fast Pool

Slow Pool

Follow-Up Studies

Refine and test rumen fill and DMI predictions using uNDF, fast and slow NDF pools

Slow NDF + uNDF = rumen ballast Stages of lactation and dry period Grass versus legume Isolate effect of particle size and

fragility

Perspectives from Miner Studies…

Substantial range in CS:HCS

36‐55% corn silage

Conventional vs BMR (±10%‐units NDFD)

Added straw (up to 10%)

High forage vs NFFS diets

39 to 68% total forage

Cows responded predictably to NDF, NDFD

High‐performance cows

28 kg/d DMI

45 kg/d SCM

Overall Conclusions

Current data were focused on impacts and roles for uNDF in DMI, rumen fill and chemistry

Can enhance the description of data and research by applying the fast and slow pools of NDF degradation to the current and future studies

Need to conduct prospective studies around the three pool NDF system

proceedings · 2015-12-04 · • preg rates means you keep cows • dry cow program stops early...

Documents