Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

An Approach to AA Balancing Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and Meet AA Needs of Lactating Dairy Cattle Copyright 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "An Approach to AA Balancing Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and Meet AA Needs of Lactating Dairy Cattle Copyright 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 An Approach to AA Balancing Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and Meet AA Needs of Lactating Dairy Cattle Copyright All Rights Reserved Central Valley Nutritional Associates, LLC Post-Conference Seminar Penn State Dairy Nutrition Workshop Grantville, PA November 12, 2009

2 NRC 2001 – Building Blocks Dynamic Coefficients for digestibilities, energy, CP fractions and duodenal AA flow based on level of intake and diet composition Rumen microbial protein yield modeled via dynamic prediction of digestible organic matter automatically accounting for changing microbial yields at varying DOM supply levels RDP supply and requirement prediction is dynamic with RDP supply acting as a bounding constraint for MCP prediction from DOM CP fractions A, B and C are modeled as (A) wholly rumen degraded, (B) partially rumen degraded determined by Kd and Kp and (C) wholly rumen un-degradable Each feedstuff has an individual RUP digestibility value Prediction of Duodenal AA flow is made via equations that best predicted actual measured AA flows to the duodenum from the model experimental data set based on model predicted rumen microbial MP yield and MP-AA from modeled digestible RUP (MP) * *(57 experiments with 199 diverse diets, Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg 74-81)

3 NRC Predictive Reliability Accounting for AA Profile Changes in RUP The NRC model was specifically designed to account for changes in the AA profile of RUP relative to intake CP in order to provide accurate prediction of flows of individual EAA to the duodenum. This was accomplished by comparing NRC model predicted supplies of AA in RUP with actual measured EAA in duodenal protein in 57 published studies with 199 diverse diets and developing prediction equations for each EAA based on those model predicted factors that best predicted the measured EAA flows. (Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg. 75)

4 The optimum amount of Methionine in MP according to NRC (2001) is 2.4%

5 The optimum amount of lysine in MP according to NRC (2001) is 7.2%

6 Significance of the NRC 2001 MP-Lys and MP-Met Plots Plots were generated to, “…determine the requirements for Lys and Met in MP…when the NRC model is used.” Optimal concentrations imply gram requirements for both MP-Lys and MP- Met Considering MP-Lys and MP-Met supplies as “first limiting” has important ramifications for the concepts of CP, RUP and MP –Production of milk and milk components is limited first by the supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met –The efficacy of dietary CP, RUP and MP as requirements and formulation targets is dependent upon the their content of MP-Lys and MP-Met –Until the concentrations of Lys and Met in MP reach the optimal levels illustrated in the plots concentrations of other EAA are not limiting production of milk and milk components –If supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met can be directly and accurately constrained, then CP, RUP and MP become background values rather than formulation targets –Because of its role in supplying AA, Peptides and Nitrogen for rumen microbial propagation, RDP remains an essential formulation target (Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg 81-85)

7 Extending the NRC Model In 2003 and 2004 Schwab et al. performed work to “…extend the NRC model to predict changes in lactation from changes in supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met.” Over 300 diets from experiments published in the Journal of Dairy Science were entered into the NRC (2001) Model Relevant data from the Summary and Duodenal Amino Acid Supply Reports were recorded, evaluated and analyzed –“…in all cases (for MP, MP-Met, and MP-Lys), it appears that protein yields can be predicted more accurately than milk yields.” –“…predicting yields of milk and milk protein from intestinal supplies of the most limiting AA is more precise than predicting yields from MP supply.” –“…while the current data is too limited and not adequate for this exercise, it appears that a very strong relationship exists between milk and milk protein yield and predicted MP-Lys supplies.” Amino Acid Balancing in the Context of MP and RUP Requirements Schwab, Ordway and Whitehouse UNH – 2004 Florida Nutrition Conference

8 Plots of measured milk and protein yields vs. NRC (2001) predicted flows of MP–Met Chuck Schwab University of New Hampshire, USA Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV April 15, 2009 Lys:Met >3.0:1, MP more limiting than energy, and MP balance between –250 g and +100 g (n = 98) NRC Predictive Reliability The yield equations for milk and milk protein for MP- Met developed from these plots of measured data are implemented in the Calculator.

9 Plots of measured milk and protein yields vs. NRC (2001) predicted flows of MP–Lys Lys:Met <3.2:1, MP more limiting than energy, and MP balance between –250 g and +100 g (n = 28) Chuck Schwab University of New Hampshire, USA Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV April 15, 2009 NRC Predictive Reliability The yield equations for milk and milk protein for MP- Lys developed from these plots of measured data are implemented in the Calculator.

10 Implementing the Schwab et al. MP-Lys & MP-Met Plots

11 Applying AA Concepts in Commercial Production Settings AA balancing is not just for “exceptional” herds However, a reasonably good management foundation is required We’ll review a herd initially found with significant nutritional and management issues This herd is two years into “recovery” with one year on AA balancing

12 Herd #1 Historical Summary Herd Overview Herd Size Milking2X Avg. DIM200 Herd avg. Actual Milk57.8 Milk flow – same per. 2yr avg.-14.0% Herd avg. FCM Milk57.9 Herd avg. Fat%3.52 Herd avg. Fat lbs 2.03 Milk fat production – same per. 2yr avg % Herd avg. Protein%3.19 Herd avg. Protein lbs1.83 Herd avg. SNF%8.52 Herd avg. SNF lbs4.92 SNF productionN/A Calving Interval14.5 Months Avg. Days Open SCC306,000 – 472,000 Services/Conception3.18 – 3.61 BCS – Fresh/Early Lactation1.5 – 2.5 Grouping/Feeding Scheme Fresh diet Milk Cow diet Heifer diet

13 Herd #1 Historical Summary Feedstuffs Used in Original Diets Alfalfa Hay (High CP/Low NDF) Dry Cow Hay Wheat Straw Almond Hulls Citrus Pulp Rolled Barley Rolled Corn Wheat Millrun Whole Cottonseed (Ammoniated) Liquid Mineral/Vitamin (NPN) Protected Fat Sodium Bicarb Yeast

14 Herd #1 Historical Summary Milk Cow Diet Composition

15 Herd #1 Historical Summary Milk Cow Diet – RDP,RUP and MP

16 Herd #1 Historical Summary Milk Cow Diet – NE(L) and MP Allowable Milk Primary imbalance 28.5 lb gap between NE(l) and MP allowable milk

17 Herd #1 Historical Summary NRC Diet Evaluations – Milk Cow Diet –Milk target lbs90.00 –Butterfat %DM3.50 –True protein %DM3.20 –Lactose %DM4.85 –Formulated DMI lbs54.23 –Concentrates %DM61.10 –Energy density Mcals/DMI.69 –CP %DM16.16 –NE(l) allowable milk lbs84.16 –MP allowable milk lbs55.62 –fNDF15.64 –NFC39.29 –RDP %DM12.54 –RDP %CP78.00 –RUP %CP22.00 –RDP balance g +717 –MP balance g-745

18 Dietary RDP Supplies What Are the Implications? Diet RDP balance %NRC Req. Lbs MP Milk Fresh diet+850 g141.0%48.21 Milk Cow diet+717 g130.0%55.62 Milking Heifer diet+648 g131.0%47.26 Do these excesses in RDP supply have any impact on the these diets in terms of predicted MP allowable milk?

19 Dietary RDP Supplies What Are the Implications? MUN Scale 4-20 MUN Scale 4-29

20 RDP Balance of Consumed Diets as Predicted by NRC (2001) (UNH Boucher et al.) NRC Predictive Reliability This work was done at UNH by Boucher et al. and serves to illustrate the reliability of the NRC predictive mechanism for RDP requirements and microbial yield. Dietary RDP was manipulated with the addition of Urea at four different levels of from 0.0%DM to 0.9% DM. RDP levels in the graph to the right are expressed as a percentage of the NRC predicted RDP requirement ranging from 92% of the NRC requirement to 117% of requirement. Chuck Schwab University of New Hampshire, USA Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV April 15, 2009

21 Average Rumen Ammonia N Concentrations (UNH Boucher et al.) quadratic, P < 0.05 NRC Predictive Reliability This graph illustrates the measured Rumen Ammonia N concentrations at the different percentages of NRC predicted RDP requirement. Note that when RDP balance exceeded 109% of the NRC requirement, Ammonia N concentrations spiked significantly indicating that RDP much above the NRC requirement did not produce increased microbial yield. Chuck Schwab University of New Hampshire, USA Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV April 15, 2009

22 Flow of Microbial N to the Duodenum (UNH Boucher et al.) NRC Predictive Reliability Measured flows of Microbial N to the duodenum confirm the efficacy of the NRC predictive mechanism for both RDP requirements and microbial yield. Measured MCP yield was greatest when RDP was closest to 100% of the NRC predicted RDP requirement. quadratic, P < 0.05 Chuck Schwab University of New Hampshire, USA Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV April 15, 2009

23 Dietary RDP Supplies What Are the MP Implications? Diet RDP balance %NRC Req. Lbs MP Milk Fresh diet+850 g141.0%48.21 Milk Cow diet+717 g130.0%55.62 Milking Heifer diet+648 g131.0%47.26 This excessive over-supply of RDP in all diets will negatively impact the predicted supplies of MP further reducing MP allowable milk in all diets. Additionally, a substantial energy cost is incurred by the animals.

24 Expected Lactation Curve with Significantly Deficient MP Supply “With regard to cell turnover, our results…at 8 wk postpartum indicate that epithelial cell proliferation was considerably lower in cows fed the low energy diet compared with cows fed the high energy diet whereas epithelial cell apoptosis did not differ. Thus our data indicate that the cell number of the mammary glad accommodates to nutrient availability, i.e., a decrease in nutrient availability will lead to a decrease in the number of cells.” * * “Mammary Cell Turnover and Enzyme Activity in Dairy Cows: Effects of Milking Frequency and Diet Energy Density” Norgaard, Sorensen, Sorensen, Andersen and Sejrsen 2005 – J. Dairy Sci “It is believed that the number or secretory cells in the mammary gland, as determined by the balance between cell proliferation and apoptosis, and the secretory activity of these cells determine milk yield and lactation persistency (Knight 2000).” * “(at 8 wk postpartum)…only 8.6% of the cell proliferation…compared to cows on the high energy diet.” *

25 The Impact of Good Persistency After Peak Milk lbs of milk at the same DIM

26 Herd #1 First Year Approach Primary Initial Objectives Immediately address MP shortages Immediately reduce RDP to levels appropriate for NRC RDP requirements Move toward more acceptable dietary fNDF content Review existing feed inventory and contracts Implement feeds capable of supplying greater levels of dietary MP Make a complete review of management protocols and practices Prepare monthly published herd assessments and meet regularly with the producer, veterinarian, herdsman and breeder to facilitate identifying and addressing issues Resolve significant issues in preparation for more precise diet formulation

27 Herd #1 Significant Management Issues Herd avg. SCC in March ,000 Fresh Pen A.I. Pens

28 Herd #1 Significant Management Issues October 2009 County avg. SCC 228,000 October 2009 Herd #1 SCC 139,000 Point at which action was taken Departure of “Non-Compliant” milkers

29 Herd #1 Significant Management Issues An Except from a Nutrient Dollar Allocation Study performed in 2008 An Alternative Approach to Feeding The purpose of working with the production information we copied form Dairy Comp last month was to illustrate with actual numbers and diets the difference between how the current feeding program is being managed on the farm and an alternative approach that would better match nutrient dollars with nutrient needs. Let’s start with the bottom line - $16, per month or approximately $200, per year. The alternative approach that will be outlined below can reduce feed costs by $16, per month by focusing on appropriately matching nutrient dollars with nutrient needs as the highest priority. As on farm feeding program management is currently being approached, appropriately matching nutrient dollars with nutrient needs is at the bottom of the priority list. Consider the following points: 1.Corn silage was included in the feeding program last October. The diet that was formulated for use with Corn silage was intended only for high producing animals after leaving the fresh diet. As discussed above, the diet was formulated to address the nutrient needs of animals producing beyond the capacity to meet nutrient needs from DMI. 2.Currently, the only mature animals NOT receiving the High TMR are the animals in pen 1. Approximately 270 of the animals receiving the High TMR do NOT need it. 3.The production sort of the alternative feeding approach placed animals in feeding groups with the following production limits. 2+ Animals Milking Heifers FCM equal to or greater than 95.0 FCM Equal to or greater than 70.0 FCM from 75.0 to 94.0FCM Below 70.0 FCM from 60.0 to 74.0 FCM below 60.0 The addition of the new diets along with the re-assignment of animals to diets based on nutrient needs produces a monthly feed cost savings of $16, This brief written description along with the accompanying recap sheets serve as an introduction to this approach and will hopefully provide a basis for further discussion. Determining How Well Nutrient Dollars are Matched with Nutrient Needs

30 Herd #1 Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance Stage One Milk Cow Diet

31 Herd #1 Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance Stage One Milk Cow Diet

32 Herd #1 Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance No significant disparity Stage One Milk Cow Diet

33 Herd #1 Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance Stage One Milk Cow Diet DEAA SuppliesOriginal Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies AA Supply Changes Lys/Met Ratio 3.52 to 3.33 MP-Lys Original Diet 142 g Stage One Diet 171 g + 28 g MP-Met Original Diet 40 g Stage One Diet 51 g + 11 g

34 Herd #1 Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance NRC Diet Evaluations – Milk Cow Diet –Milk target lbs90.00 –Butterfat %DM3.50 –True protein %DM3.20 –Lactose %DM4.85 –Formulated DMI lbs54.29 –Concentrates %DM57.00 –Energy density Mcals/DMI.725 –CP %DM17.98 –NE(l) allowable milk lbs90.60 –MP allowable milk lbs90.00 –fNDF19.00 –NFC38.58 –RDP %DM11.17 –RDP %CP62.00 –RUP %CP38.00 –RDP balance g +317 –MP balance g0.00

35 Herd #1 Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance Using the MP-AA Calculator Acquire/Enter Milk and Protein formulation targets Solve for MP-Lys & MP-Met target values Recalculate MP req. by entering MP% of base MP-AA Adjust model prediction of MCP yield

36 Herd #1 Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance Stage Two Milk Cow Diet

37 Herd #1 Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance Stage Two Milk Cow Diet

38 Herd #1 Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance Stage Two Milk Cow Diet

39 Herd #1 Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance Stage Two Milk Cow Diet DEAA SuppliesStage One Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies AA Supply Changes Lys/Met Ratio 3.33 to 3.00 MP-Lys Stage One Diet 171 g Stage Two Diet 180 g + 9 g MP-Met Stage One Diet 51 g Stage Two Diet 60 g + 9 g +37 g more than original diet +20 g more than original diet

40 Herd #1 Yearly Comparison Milk Protein Percentages

41 Herd #1 Yearly Comparison Milk Protein Yields as lbs

42 Herd #1 Yearly Comparison Solids Non-Fat Percentages

43 Herd #1 Yearly Comparison Solids Non-Fat Yield as lbs

44 Herd #1 Yearly Comparison Milk Fat Percentages

45 Herd #1 Yearly Comparison Milk Fat Yield as lbs

46 Herd Overview Herd Size Milking2X 2X Avg. DIM Herd avg. Actual Milk Herd avg. FCM Milk Herd avg. Fat% Herd avg. Fat lbs Herd avg. Protein% Herd avg. Protein lbs Herd avg. SNF% Herd avg. SNF lbs Calving Interval14.5 Months13.4 Months Avg. Days Open144 – – 131 SCC (thousands)306 – – 173 Services/Conception3.18 – – 2.61 BCS – Fresh/Early Lactation1.5 – – 3.0 Grouping/Feeding SchemeFresh diet Milk Cow dietHigh diet Heifer dietMid diet Low diet High heifer diet Low heifer diet Herd #1 Summary of Changes

47 Was It Worth It? You be the judge These values represent income changes over initial milk and milk component production. Values were calculated with CA November 2009 Class 1 prices shown at the left for Fat, SNF and Fluid milk. (The stage one values shown at the post-conference workshop were inadvertently calculated from monthly averages from to rather than the stage one period from Oct1st through Dec 31 st The corrected stage one values are used here.)

48 Greatest ROFC Added value of components + $.74 CWT Evaluating ROFC & The Value of Milk Components (Calculated using CA November Class 1 Milk Price $15.31 Cwt Fat=$1.33 SNF=$.9033 Fluid=$.0291) Highest feed Cost hd/day 2+ Animal pens Heifer pens

49 Comparison of Income Changes Between Stages 1 & 2 Using Northeast FMMO Pricing and Corrected Stage 1 Values

50 Take Home Messages Predictive Reliability is essential to realizing positive results from balancing for AA The NRC 2001 model provides a high degree of predictive reliability Use the NRC model to evaluate not only diets but also diet implementation and resolve any management issues that can hinder realizing predicted response Educate producers to understand the financial impact of poor management practices and the potential rewards available with changes

51 Take Home Messages Formulate2 Dairy Ration Optimizer NRC 2001 Compliant NRC Predictive Reliability with Full Optimization Capability Information and 60 day evaluation downloads available at


Download ppt "An Approach to AA Balancing Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and Meet AA Needs of Lactating Dairy Cattle Copyright 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google