Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus Univ. of Minnesota.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus Univ. of Minnesota."— Presentation transcript:

1 Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus Univ. of Minnesota

2 LACTATION RATION INGREDIENTS FORAGES FORAGE, GRAIN OR BYPRODUCTS CONCENTRATES CORN PROTEIN MINERALS/ADDITIVES % OF DM 20 FIBER Physical & Chemical Protein, Energy, Carbohydrates, Minerals, Non-Fiber CHO Starch Protein RDP & RUP Minerals Nutrient needs and $ Flexible Ration Feeds

3 Feed Additives 2 – 5% Fat 4-7% Min-Vit 4 – 8% Byproducts 10% Grain – Starch 15 – 20% Feed Cost (% of total) for 85 lb milk_ RD-Protein 5 – 8% Feed Cost/Cow/Day $ $10.00 Forages 45 – 50% RU-Protein 20 – 25%

4 SHOULD YOU MAXIMIZE FORAGE FEEDING? Alfalfa/Grass Forage $250 to $300/ton hay basis Corn Silage – 35% DM $ /ton – 40% starch $50 – 70/ton – 30% starch

5 FORAGE QUALITY FACTORS IN LACTATION RATIONS

6 Chemical Dry matter (DM) Ash Crude Protein –True, Non Amm N, Sol NDF Lignin NFC (NSC) –Starch –Sugar –Pectin Physical peNDF PN State Particle Separator (PSPS) FORAGE QUALITY MEASUREMENTS Digestibility NDFD Starch

7 Practical Application of Forage Quality Variation On Farms Cows require Nutrients

8 Forage DM Consistency McBeth et al. Ohio State U Con = 55%F:45%C UNB = same diet with 10% water added to forage BAL = diet adjusted for decrease in forage DM

9 21 day treatment means ItemConUNBBAL DMI, kg/d Milk, kg/d Fat, % McBeth et al., 2012 Ohio State University

10 Monitoring Forage DM on Farms Determine Forage DM - 2X/week Adjust ration 3 unit change in DM Establish protocol

11 Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy Cows Good, Bad and Unknown Chemical Physical

12

13 Adapted from Varga

14 Alfalfa Alfalfa NDF – 36% CP – 22% Fat – 3% Ash – 11% NFC = 28% Corn Silage Corn Silage NDF – 42% CP – 8% Fat – 3% Ash – 6 % NFC = 41% ISSUE - MIXED COMPOSITION OF NFC

15 Fiber (chemical) guidelines for lactating cows 1. Lactating Cows Total NDF Forage NDFADF % of diet DM <100 days in milk>28>19> to 200 days in milk >19 >200 days in milk> >19 1 Assumes forage particle size is adequate and ground dry corn is starch source.

16 Effect of Forage Fiber on Milk Production Eastridge, OSU

17 DAIRY COW PERFORMANCE AND NDF DIGESTIBILITY As NDFD increases 1% unit: –.4 lb DMI –.55 lb FCM –MSU, Oba and Allen

18 U of MN Study Alfalfa Hay Dig NDF Importance of forage quality NDF concentration NDF concentration NDF digestibility (NDFD) NDF digestibility (NDFD) Previous studies Confounding NDF digestibility and NDF concentration Confounding NDF digestibility and NDF concentration Interest surrounding NDFD TDN equation TDN equation (NRC, 2001) (NRC, 2001) RFQ RFQ

19 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Treatment NDF In vitro 48-h Designations concentration NDF digestibility LH Low High LL Low Low HH High High HL High Low Alfalfa Hay Treatments Determine the effect of alfalfa hay fiber digestibility, compared within relatively high and low NDF concentration hays

20 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. HAY LOT CORE SAMPLES 2 CORES PER BALE Treatment LH LL HH HL DM, % NDF, % IVNDFD 1, % NDF CP, % NFC, % RFV RFQ hour in vitro NDF digestibility

21 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Treatment LH LL HH HL % of diet (DM basis) Hay Corn silage Corn Grain Mix Roasted Soybeans Molasses % of LL hay fed as long-stem 2 Grain mix composition (air dry basis) = 34.3 % soybean meal, 22.9% DDGS, 3.8% blood meal, 26.7% soybean hulls, 12.3% vitamins/minerals Diet Ingredient Composition MN - 15% of diet DM

22 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Treatment LH LL HH HL % of DM DM CP NDF Forage NDF EE NFC NEL 3X (Mcal/kg) Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients Nutrient Composition of Diet 1 MN - 15% of diet DM

23 23 Hays – Ground using AgriMetal tub grinder – LL treatment received 25% of hay as long stem Diets – Fed as TMR (Data Ranger) Materials and Methods

24 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Hay Characterization-MN LH LL HH HL

25 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Treatment LH LL HH HL Trt N = p-value--- DMI, kg/d Milk, kg/d % FCM, kg/d FE, kg 3.5% FCM/kg DMI BW change 1, kg Production Performance and Body Weight (BW) Change MN - 15% of diet DM 1 BW change = initial - final body weight

26 Part II. US Dairy Forage Research Center Alfalfa Hay = 30% of Diet DM

27 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Treatment LH LL HH HL % of DM DM CP NDF Starch Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients Nutrient Composition of Diet 1 WI - 30% of diet DM

28 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Treatment LH LL HH HL Trt --- p-value--- Milk yield, kg <.18 Fat, % <.75 Milk Yield and Fat % WI - 30% of diet DM

29 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Potential Reasons for Lack of Response to Treatment Small difference in NDF and in-vitro 48-h NDFD NDF (4.5 % units) NDF (4.5 % units) NDFD (3.5 % units) NDFD (3.5 % units) Physical Characteristics of hay Particle size post grinding Particle size post grinding

30 CORN SILAGE – NDFD 80 to 98% starch digestibility Kernel maturity Kernel particle size Endosperm properties 40 to 70% NDFD Grain ~ 40-45% of WPDM Avg. 28% starch in WPDM Variable grain: stover Stover= ~55-60% of WPDM Leaves = 15% of DM Stem = 20-25% of DM Cob + Shank + Husk = 20% of DM Laurer, UWEX

31 EFFECTS OF INCREASING CORN SILAGE NDFD ON 3.5% FCM CORN SILAGE – 45% OF RATION DM P=0.70 P=0.70 Silage 0% BMR 100% BMR 24 hr IVNDF, % hr IVNDF,% 5462 NDF, % 4544 U of MN

32 Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy Cows Physical Particle size

33 FIBER – PHYSICAL OR EFFECTIVE Function –Stimulates rumination –Builds fiber mat in rumen –Helps prevent acidosis and low milk fat tests

34 Effective Fiber (Penn State Separator Box)

35 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Hay Characterization-MN LH LL HH HL

36 Particle Size of Ground Hays Monthly Analysis Using Penn State Forage Particle Separator LH Upper, % = 26.9 a Middle, % = 16.6 a Lower, % = 33.3 Bottom, % = 23.2 a LL Upper, % = 9.7 b Middle, % = 22.8 b Lower, % = 34.0 Bottom, % = 33.4 b HH Upper, % = 14.6 b Middle, % = 23.1 b Lower, % = 32.8 Bottom, % = 29.5 bc HL Upper, % = 23.5 a Middle, % = 21.5 b Lower, % = 30.2 Bottom, % = 24.8 ac Hay Characterization- MN

37 Top Box Middle Box Bottom Box Feed % of total Haylage < 40 Corn silage (3/4 inch TLC & processed) <30 Corn silage (1/4 inch TLC & unprocessed) <5>50<50 TMR <50 Recommended Percent of Feed Particles Penn State Particle Size Box

38 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

39 Particle Size Feed and Feed Refusals 50 free stall herds – MN Fed 3 hr 6hr 9hr 24hr 2 nd screen >8 mm Top screen >19 mm Pan <1.18 mm 3 rd screen >1.18 mm Endres et al JDS

40 Shredlage KP Photos provided by Kevin Shinners, UW Madison, BSE Shredlage Study – Univ of Wisconsin –Shaver et al. –Shaver et al.

41 Screen, mmShredlageKP %5.6% 841.5%75.6% %18.4% Pan0.8%0.4% PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS) Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags

42 Screen, mmShredlageKP %3.5% 838.2%52.9% %35.8% Pan7.3%7.8% PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS) TMR Samples

43 Screen, mm ShredlageKPP < Pan FEED SORTING – PSU SEPARATOR BOX % of Predicted Intake

44 3.5% FCM YIELD BY WEEK * * ** * P < 0.10 ** P < 0.01 Week × Treatment Interaction (P < 0.03) U. of WI – Shaver et al

45 Alfalfa vs. Grass Hay in Lactation Rations

46 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. HAY NUTRIENT COMPOSITION 1 Alfalfa Orchardgrass % DM NDF ADF CP NDICP Lignin Ca K Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays. 1 Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays.

47 Digestion Kinetics of Hays 1 1 Incubation time points = 6, 12, 18, 24, 32, 48, 72 and 96 hr. 1 Incubation time points = 6, 12, 18, 24, 32, 48, 72 and 96 hr. 70.8% 52.0% IVNDFDAlfalfa Rate = 5.20% per hr Rate = 5.20% per hr Potential = 55.5% Potential = 55.5%Orchardgrass Rate = 4.60% per hr Rate = 4.60% per hr Potential = 78.7% Potential = 78.7%

48 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM Corn silage Alfalfa hay Corn, ground Soybean meal, 44% Protein/mineral mix Molasses mix Calcium carbonate Monocalcium phosphate Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding. 2 Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives. Ingredient Composition of Alfalfa Diets

49 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM Corn silage Orchardgrass hay Corn, ground Soybean meal, 44% Protein/mineral mix Molasses mix Calcium carbonate Ingredient Composition of Orchardgrass Diets 1 Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding. 2 Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives.

50 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HAYS 1 Alfalfa Orchardgrass % Particle Retained (as-is) Top16.7 a 28.5 x Second27.8 b 30.0 x Third28.6 b 28.6 x Bottom 26.9 b 13.1 y 1 Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted within forage species. 1 Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted within forage species.

51 Physical Characteristics of Alfalfa Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS 1 1 PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator. 1 PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator.. Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM Particles retained (%, as- is) % Refusal - % Diet Alfalfa Hay: Alfalfa Hay: 15: + 2.2% units 15: + 2.2% units 20: + 3.8% units 20: + 3.8% units 25: + 5.8% units 25: + 5.8% units 30: + 9.8% units 30: + 9.8% units 35: + 5.3% units 35: + 5.3% units

52 Physical Characteristics of Orch. Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS 1 1 PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted across diets for diet and refusal. 1 PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted across diets for diet and refusal.. Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM Particles retained (%, as- is) % Refusal - % Diet Orchardgrass Hay: Orchardgrass Hay: 10: + 2.7% units 10: + 2.7% units 15: + 0.4% units 15: + 0.4% units 20: + 2.5% units 20: + 2.5% units 25: + 5.5% units 25: + 5.5% units 30: + 6.6% units 30: + 6.6% units

53 Dry Matter Intake (DMI) Slope ALF = Slope ORCH For regressors: Hay, % Hay, % Dietary NDF, % Dietary NDF, % Forage NDF, % Forage NDF, % Hay NDF, % Hay NDF, % Common Linear Fit: slope = -0.81, r 2 = 0.47, P = 0.02

54 3.5% Fat Corrected Milk (FCM) Yield Individual Linear Fits: ALF: slope = -2.68, r 2 = 0.71, P = 0.05 ORCH: slope = -1.02, r 2 = 0.34, P = 0.18

55 TAKE HOME POINTS 1. 1.Important applied on farm forage quality measures NDF, NDFD and forage DM 2. 2.Chemical fiber measures NDF NDF - Forage related to milk production NDFD – ranking within forage species NFC – know composition

56 TAKE HOME POINTS 3. 3.Physical fiber Important for rumen function and rumination Particle size forages and TMR TMR – rumen health Refusal – sorting Current guidelines good, but evaluate with changing forage types (legume vs. grasses) and corn silage processing.

57 FEEDBACK IS THE BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS ONE MINUTE MANAGER BY KEN BLANCHARD More frequent feedback (forage analysis): provides more accurate analysis and promotes higher quality performance National Champions 41-0

58 QUESTIONS? Thank you


Download ppt "Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus Univ. of Minnesota."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google