Before making any substantial changes, be particularly aware of the natural laws of general feed consumption

For years, getting lactating dairy cows to eat as much dry matter intake (DMI) as possible has been a common goal among dairy specialists aimed at getting cows to produce more milk.

Some of these specialists took note of the more extensive university and extension dairy trials, which report that maximum feed intake is still very important, but it means a lot more than just dumping a total mixed ration (TMR) containing essential nutrients in front of milk cows.

Many dairy producers are striving to feed nutritious diets that high-producing cows like to eat, optimize consistent everyday feed intake, produce exceptional rumen health and also require a shovel-full of common sense right at the cows’ feed bunk.

Know the basics

One of the first things that producer might do before making any substantial changes to existing lactation diets to optimize DMI/increase milk production, is to be particularly aware of the natural laws of general feed consumption by dairy cows.

This means that early high-milk-producing cows should be on target to consume 3.5 to 4.0 per cent of their bodyweight in dry matter feed by nine to 10 weeks after calving. This target sets the tone for the rest of the lactation cycle — for every extra kilo of DMI that a cow eats at peak milk production (i.e. accounting for the natural lag between maximum milk yield and maximum dry matter intake) yields an extra 2.0 to 2.5 kilos of milk per day until she is dried-off at 10 months post-partum. And most large (600 to 700 kg) mature cows will consume about 22 to 27 kg of dry matter feed at peak feed intake. Smaller and growing first-calf heifers should eat about 20 to 25 kilos (DMI, basis).

Regardless of these prime DMI targets, dairy cows will only eat so much “as fed” feed, because moisture content adds simple bulk to the dairy diet. Large and early lactation mature cows consume about 43 to 47 kilos of the feed that is put in front them, while younger and smaller cows often eat no more than 40 to 44 kilos of the same diet.

By keeping DMI and “as fed” values in perspective, farmers should be able to estimate how much total ration to feed to the herd daily. They should also be monitoring how many old and young early-lactating cows are entering the herd as well as counting the remainder of the herd milking in mid- and late lactation.

Similarly, consistent everyday DMI/as fed feed intake should be viewed as another important signal to the dairy producer that the rumen of each high-producing cow is working efficiently. Rumen microbes digest forage fibre and grain starch, turning them into available energy for body maintenance functions, reproduction and high milk performance. They also break down dietary protein into simple compounds, incorporate them into their own bodies, and inadvertently supply the cow with most of the cows’ protein needs. Unbalanced dairy diets, poor feed quality and rapid feed changes upset such sensitive feed fermenters and can quickly derail optimum feed intake.

Maintaining proper rumen function

Dairy producers can manage good rumen function in their cows and therefore achieve optimum and consistent feed intake among their cows by applying the following dairy barn suggestions:

• Feed high-quality feed. Forage quality is the foundation of all good feeding programs. High-quality forage supports higher and more consistent DMI due to their lower unusable fibre content and greater in-depth digestion by the microbes that provides essential nutrients for milk production. Avoid feeding mouldy or spoiled forage and grains.
• Provide adequate “effective forage fibre.” The dairy diet should contain 28 to 32 per cent NDF with 75 per cent of this NDF coming from the forages. Effective forage fibre promotes natural “cud chewing” in the herd to buffer the pH of the rumen and helps prevent detrimental acidosis. If you have difficulty finding cud chewing cows; not enough effective fibre is being fed.
• Formulate a palatable and “rumen-friendly diet.” This point goes beyond merely feeding enough “effective forage fibre.” For example: feed a portion of the grain that has slower rates of starch digestion (re: corn versus barley) as well as avoid feeding excessive amounts of unsaturated fats and/or bypass fats. Make sure to limit feed unpalatable feed ingredients such as blood meal (bypass protein source).
• Know DMI and “as-fed” intake. A spot check or even weekly schedule of DMI and as-fed intake of the lactation herd, the moisture content of the diet, and milk fat bulk tests should be recorded. These are indicators of healthy rumens and underlie optimum dry matter intake/milk production. Actual emerging patterns from this data should be periodically reviewed.
• Impose “common sense” bunk management. TMR should be delivered at the same time of the day and should be pushed up at least three to four times during the day. Dairy producers should never allow bunks to go empty or force cows to wait to be fed, or until all feed (including feed refusal) to be eaten before more fresh feed is provided.
• Check your mixer wagon. Make sure your feed mixer is working properly to deliver a consistent TMR mix at every feeding. Although mixing times can vary for a number of reason, most producers target three to five minutes to make a homogenous feed mix.
• Do a daily barn walk. It is important that average body condition of most lactation cows ranges from 3.0 to 3.5 out of five. Beware of possible acidotic cows in your herd (watch out for gaunt cows, cows not chewing their cud, cows not going to the feed bunk, nutritional lameness). Check out the manure. It should be generally of porridge-like “consistency” (indicator of consistent feed intake and digestibility).

These recommendations are practical points in an all-inclusive action plan for optimal DMI and ‘as fed’ intake of a well-balanced and mixed dairy diet consumed by good milk cows. Ideally, if they eat dairy diets with vigour every day, they should consume essential nutrients, remain healthy and fill the bulk tank.

Peter Vitti is an independent livestock nutritionist and consultant based in Winnipeg. To reach him call 204-254-7497 or by email at vitti@mts.net.

Source: Grainnews

Traditionally the growth of calves and heifers has been tracked using tables and/or graphs where the goal for weight was based on the age of the heifer.   This system of benchmarking growth is based on the assumption that the mature bodyweight of all cows is equal.   In reality the variation in body weight of full grown cows is significant.  For example, mature Holstein cows can range in body weight from 1,300 to 2,000 lbs!  So to assume that at 6, 9, 12, or 18 months of age that a heifer that will grow to be 1,300 lbs. should have the same body weight as one of her pen mates that will weigh 2,000 lbs. when she is full grown is illogical.

A better system of evaluating a heifer’s weight relative to her age is to benchmark her current weight against her estimated mature body weight.   A reasonable goal is to reach 85% of her mature weight at first calving.  To reach this goal a heifer needs to be 55% of mature weight at conception. This system of evaluating heifer body weight is referred to as the Targeted Growth System (TGS).  The table below shows benchmark weights based on the TGS.

Note:  The target weight at 22 months is the weight of a fresh heifer and not the weight of a pregnant heifer.

The range of mature body weights in the table may seem extreme but the TGS logic can be applied to any dairy breed large or small as well as to heifers with significant variation in genetic potential for mature body size.  One of the advantages of using the targeted growth system is that the principal can be applied to any dairy cow regardless of her breed.  If a heifer’s mature body weight can be estimated, then accurate predictions of her target body weight at breeding and calving are easy to obtain.

Farms that adopt the TGS can then determine the appropriate age for weight at first calving. Researchers at Penn State evaluated records from over 100,000 Holstein heifers to determine how age at first impacted first lactation milk production.  The graph below shows the results.

Data from DHI processing centers show the average age of first calving is 26 months of age with a range of 17 to 45 months!  Targets for age at first calving of 17 or 45 months are extreme and probably not realistic goals. The graph shows that Holstein heifers calving between 21 and 23 months of age have the highest level of milk production during their first lactation; providing evidence that a target age of 22 months of age is optimum.  To achieve this goal, a heifer needs to conceive on average at 13 months of age.  For these reasons, heifers need to reach 55% of mature body weight by 13 months of age.

The TGS is a valuable tool to help dairymen manage the growth of their heifers so that they enter the milking herd at 22 months of age.  This system allows each dairy to customize the target weights they want to hit by 13 months of age based on the genetics potential for mature body weight of the cattle in their herd.

The ideal method of determining the weight of heifers is to use a livestock scale to precisely measure body weight.  However, in many situations using a scale may not be practical.  Heart girth can also be used to estimate body weight.  Weight tapes can be purchased for this purpose, or heart girth can be measured with a flexible, non-elastic tape. Weight estimates can then be made using a table that converts heart circumference to an estimate of body weight.   Frequent measurement of heifer weights provides information that can be used to alter the nutrition and/or management of heifers.   One of the more practical systems of weighing heifers is to weigh and record individual heifer weights when they are restrained for vaccination, breeding, and pregnancy examination.

Are you currently monitoring growth in your heifers? What methods do you find works best for estimating weights?

If you’re not yet monitoring heifer growth then you may be missing an opportunity to maximize the profit potential of your heifers by using the Targeted Growth System. Take time to review the target weights your heifers should be reaching at 13 months of age.   Then contact your ANC Consultant to discuss how you can fine tune your heifer program to reach these goals!

Source: Agri-Nutrition Consulting

This is a picture of forage sorghum regrowth after the first cutting. Image credit: John Bernard/UGA

University of Georgia researchers are researching drought-tolerant, alternative forages for the state’s dairy producers to help safeguard their feed supply and save money.

John Bernard, an animal and dairy scientist on the UGA Tifton Campus, is studying the benefits of forage sorghum as a supplemental feed for dairy cattle. Sorghum is a drought-tolerant alternative to the irrigated corn that many farmers rely on for dairy feed.

“Corn silage is typically the forage of choice for feeding dairy cattle because it is a higher energy type of forage compared to most other forages,” Bernard said. “The catch with corn is, if you don’t have irrigation, you’ve got a greater likelihood of crop failure or not getting the quality … you were expecting.

“Forage sorghum, on the other hand, is much more drought tolerant; it doesn’t take as much water to grow a crop. With the improvements in forage varieties, the feeding value looks very good. It’s still not corn silage, but it’s a much better option today than what it was several years ago.”

Sorghum is not only more resilient, but is also less expensive to plant and grow. The cost to plant corn is approximately $200 to $300 per bag of seed, which covers just over 2 acres. A bag of forage sorghum seed, which can cost less than $100, can be distributed over 8 to 10 acres. The cheaper planting costs are buoyed by forage sorghum’s high nutritional value.

“In no way do I want to advocate forage sorghum to replace corn silage completely. I want to evaluate how we can use the two to get the best response back in terms of our feeding program,” Bernard said.

The two-year research trial just concluded its second year. Due to Georgia’s long growing season, forages can be harvested twice from the same cutting. In the first year, Bernard reported that results from the seven-week trial indicate diets based on forage sorghum “harvested from regrowth can support similar milk yield and composition as diets based on corn silage or first harvest of forage sorghum.”

“Forage sorghum by design will tolerate periods of drought or lower water availability better than corn and still produce good forage in terms of yield and quality,” Bernard said.

Bernard plans to analyze the data generated from this past harvest over the next couple of months.

Source: UGC

Once you send in a hay sample for analysis, you have to know what the numbers mean to make winter supplement decisions.

Just as soil testing can provide vital information on how to fertilize crops, forage testing can provide vital information on how to supplement hay fed to livestock.  Feed and fertilizer are simply too valuable these days to simply guess, or just use the same amount use last year.  Weather, fertility, growing and harvest conditions, forage variety, and age at harvest, create considerable variation in the quality of hay produced each year.  Not to mention the variation from farm to farm, if you are buying the hay you feed.  The only way to truly know how to meet the nutritional needs of your herd is to test the quality of the hay that serves as the base of your winter ration.

After you have sent your hay or baleage samples to a lab for analysis, it is important to understand the information provided by lab in their summary report.  Just like all of the EPD’s and performance information provided on a bull sold from a bull test, you have to know what all of the numbers mean in a forage test report to know how to use them.  The following is a sample report from some typical, mature Coastal Bermudagrass hay cut only twice per year.  Some basic definitions make this report much more user friendly.

RFQ

Relative Forage Quality or RFQ is an index, much like EPD’s for cattle, that combines a number of important quality characteristics of forages to provide a single number to use for comparisons.  RFQ takes the digestible energy an estimate of animal intake to provide a single number to use for comparisons. Higher is better, so a hay with an RFQ score of 120 would be much better quality than hay that had a . RFQ is most useful for marketing or purchasing hay.  While it does serve as a simple guide of quality, it would not be most useful to guide supplement purchasing decisions.

Intake

Dry Matter Intake or DMI is an estimate of how much an animal will consume, based on the digestibility of the fiber in the hay.  This is a calculated value that provides an estimate of the amount of hay each animal will consume each day.  For the sample above a 1,000 pound cow would be expected to eat 22 pounds each day.

As-Sampled vs Dry-Matter

The moisture content of forages is never constant.  In the sample above the hay contained 18.6% water.  Since the water provides no nutrients, to compare quality you always want to use the dry matter column.  If you were actually mixing a feed, you have to use the as-fed information.  Since hay is normally fed free-choice, it is most useful to work with the dry-matter information to select the correct supplement, and be able to compare forage samples with varying moisture content.

Crude Protein

For years livestock producers have use the protein level of hay to try an estimate value.  With the creation of RFQ, we now have a better single number to use for comparisons.  Crude Protein (CP) is based on the nitrogen content of the feed.  This is why fertilization with nitrogen fertilizer does greatly enhance the protein levels of hay.  Legumes produce their own nitrogen fertilizer through bactreria on their roots, and generally have even higher protein levels than grasses.  Protein is one of the nutrients for livestock growth and performance, but it is simply a matter of providing what the animal needs.  Proteins levels in hay below 7% can drastically reduce intake.

Fiber

Fiber is a key measurement of digestibility.  The more mature, or older the forage, the higher the fiber content.  Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) is the total fiber component of a forage used to estimate intake, or daily consumption.  As the NDF percentage increases, intake declines.  Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) is the level of indigestible fiber, that can’t be used by the animal.  ADF is used to develop an estimate of nutrient availability.

Energy

Energy is the nutrient that keeps an animals systems working, and is vital for all of the body functions.  All too often the hay we produce in the South comes up well short of the energy demands of the livestock we feed it to.  Animals become thin, weak, and sickly when inadequate energy is provided.  Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) is the value most often used to evaluate the energy available for ruminant animals for seleting supplements.  The greater the value the more energy-dense the feed.  TDN levels below 50% can reduce animal intake.  The other energy measures are more commonly used for more precise feedlot and dairy ration formulations.

A Real World Example

Once you understand the forage test report, you can then start piecing together how to supplement your herd.  You do have to know the nutrient requirements of the animals you are feeding.  There are publications that provide this information.  For instance, a 1200 pound cow that routinely weans calves that average 550 pounds would have nutrient requirements of 10% CP and 58% TDN during peak lactation.  To meet the needs of this highly productive cow a rancher decides to compare three sources of hay for sale at neighboring farms.    Nearby three farms are offering premium quality Tifton 85 Bermudagrass hay for $45/bale, good quality fertilized bahia for $40/bale, or $35/bale of unknown management.  It is very difficult to know which of these would be the best hay for the money.  Once you get a forage test report, however it does become more clear.  To meet the requirements mentioned earlier very few single feed supplements can meet the protein and energy shortfalls of the discount priced hay.  Dried distillers grain (DDG) are available as by-product feeds from ethanol plants that are high in both protein and energy.  In this scenario it would take 2 pounds of DDG/day to supplement the Tifton 85 hay, 3 lbs/day for the bahia, and 6 lbs/day for the poor quality hay.  One other thing to consider is that even with double or triple the supplement, the cows might still lose weight when fed such poor quality hay, due to reduced hay intake.  Depending on the price of the DDG and the type hay available in your area, the average quality hay may be the best for the money.  At least with the information provided from a forage test, you can make a well informed decision.

Forage testing is not complex, but you don’t want to just send in a grab sample from the outside layer of a single bale of hay.  To do the job right, you need a forage probe that can be drilled through to the core of the bale to collect a ground-up, cross-section of at least 5-10 bales.  Forage tests cost as little as $12 per sample, yet provide valuable nutritional information to use to balance rations for the various classes of livestock on your farm.  Work with your local County Agriculture Extension Agent to have your hay or baleage tested, so that you can make informed decisions about feeding your livestock this winter.

More resources that provide additional information on this topic:

Understanding and Improving Forage Quality

Interpreting Forage and Feed Analysis Reports

Source: IFAS Extension

Forage producers have a variety of expectations for alfalfa stand life, and most say a stand should produce for four to six years or more. However, growers also recognize that some fields become less productive after just a few years.

Whether you are growing alfalfa as a high-protein forage source for dairy animals or harvesting alfalfa for commercial hay sales, profitability depends on keeping your alfalfa yields high. Rotation choices may differ on every operation, but similar questions must be answered to make an intelligent rotation decision.

Common factors to consider when deciding whether to rotate alfalfa include:

• Alfalfa plant and stem count/yield potential
• Plant health and vigor
• On-farm inventory
• Forage-quality needs
• Harvest-schedule intensity
• Weed-pressure severity
• Chronic wheel traffic damage
• Degree of soil compaction
• Field fertility status
• Irrigation or salinity concerns

Rotation of alfalfa into another crop has a number of advantages, no matter when it is done. These benefits include the following:

• Availability of nitrogen (N) for subsequent grain crops increases from the N-producing nodules found on alfalfa roots.
• Total farm forage production is increased when rotating from alfalfa to corn for silage or high-moisture grain on a more frequent basis.
• Rotation helps disrupt the life cycles of pests, such as corn rootworm and weeds, protecting against crop-yield losses while reducing crop-protection-input expenses.
• Corn yields are typically 10 to 15 percent higher following alfalfa than corn following corn.
• Alfalfa rotation can be used as a tool to help minimize the effects of excess N use on water quality.

Learn more at the Silage Zone®.

When I hear ‘programming’, I think of people sitting behind a computer and doing software programming for many hours a day. But in this editors view, I actually want to briefly discuss the concept of ‘nutritional programming’, which is slightly different, and probably more interesting.

Nutritional programming refers to finding that nutrition and management during pregnancy of an animal (or human) and in the neonatal stages, can affect a range of different bodily functions. In human nutrition, this concept is widely studied with regards to programmed changes in the child’s body and the likelihood of becoming overweight and the occurrence of associated diseases in later life.

But the concept of nutritional programming is gaining more interest with feed companies, animal nutritionists and farmers also. It is about getting the right amount of feed and nutrients to the young animals (before and after birth) to make sure they perform better later on in life. It is not only about having the right genes (as cows do not profit 30-40% of their genetic potential for milk yield). Proper nutrition can have a significant impact and can trigger that animals do use their genetic potential better. Neonate animals should therefore not be neglected and times have passed that calves only get the left over milk or ‘bad milk’ after milking.

At the recently held LifeStart dairy calf symposium, this topic was extensively addressed by the speakers. Swiss veterinarian Martin Kaske for example said: “We should invest more in feeding the young calf, as this has a huge impact on subsequent performance in later life. At the moment, this is not the focus of the farmer (yet).” He also explained that higher feeding intensity in the first weeks of life has both short time as long term effects. The short term effect include better growing and healthier calves. On the longer term, effects are seen in better milk production, better mammary development and younger breeding age. For example: feeding a calf four litres of colostrum in the first six hours leads to a cows that can be inseminated half a month earlier. It also leads to 5% more cows reaching the third lactation.

Indeed, when seeking to maximise animal performance, it’s critical to optimise the neonate phase so as to deliver greater returns. It’s all about increased incomes from such things as reaching slaughter sooner, heavier animals or more milk production. In other words, the neonate phase in an animal’s life can have a significant effect on growth rate, feed conversion and milk production all of which have financial implication. In this case, I talk about calves, but obviously this also applies to other ruminants and pigs and poultry.

Nutreco (developer of the LifeStart programme), and organizer of the symposium, has recently started a long term study to investigate the effects of dairy calf nutrition on their research farm in the Netherlands. The key scientific principle behind LifeStart is nutritional (metabolic) programming. Researchers want to determine the long-term metabolic changes that are programmed by higher nutrient supply during the calf pre-weaning period and to define the impact on milk production through successive lactations. It is clear that neonate nutrition is in the picture again (and not only with Nutreco) and on top of feed companies’ agendas. And it was about time.

Source: All About Feed

In prior articles we have discussed TMR sorting and how it can lead to sub-acute rumen acidosis (SARA).  This condition has a huge impact on bottom line profits. However, the impact of TMR sorting goes far beyond SARA. When cows sort their TMR they change the nutrient profile of the feed that is left in the bunk.

The behavior of individual cows in the herd has a huge impact on how this sorted feed will affect them.   According to Dr. Trevor DeVries of the University of Guelph, cows are social animals that,  “… tend to synchronize their behavior, including a strong desire to access the feed bunk as a group.  When space is reduced, this behavior increases competition for access [to feed]…”   The most aggressive cows in the herd are more likely to access fresh feed soon after delivery and pick out the grain putting them at a greater risk of SARA.   On the other hand the more submissive cows can be left with feed that is much higher in fiber and lower in carbohydrate.  These cows are more likely to consume a ‘ration’ that has a lower energy density and they may fail to reach their potential peak milk yield and/or lose body condition.   If feed bunk space is limited then the problem is exacerbated.

So the cost associated with TMR sorting goes far beyond the costs associated with SARA.   There are several strategies that can be employed to reduce the sorting of a TMR including:

• increasing feed bunk space
• providing headlocks or barriers
• increasing the frequency of TMR delivery

Providing adequate feed bunk space decreases competition for feed and reduces the incidence of sorting.  When feed bunk space is limited, the competition between cows for feed increases resulting in decreased access to feed for submissive cows, an increased risk of SARA, and an increase in variation of the nutrient profile consumed by individual cows.   In this scenario the aggressive cows discourage subordinate cows from approaching the feed bunk, these more timid cows end up consuming feed that has been picked over by more aggressive cows. The solutions to this issue includes providing more than 24 inches of feed bunk space per cow,  using headlocks, or other barriers that protect submissive cows.  Canadian researchers have even evaluated putting partitions along the feed bunk that resemble a “mini-free stall divider”  to protect cows from competition for feed.

How does your herd measure up?  

Have you stopped to think how TMR sorting could be impacting your bottom line?   Here are steps you can take to evaluate your situation.

• Compare the fat and protein tests of individual cows in your herd.
  • Do you have cows that have both a very high and very low test? This indicates that sorting could be an issue not only due to SARA (low fat tests) but also submissive cows consuming a low energy density diet.
• How much bunk space do you have per cow?   If you are under 24 inches then the risk of sorting is significant.
• Do you have headlocks and/or partitions?  Headlocks make it more difficult for aggressive cows to push submissive cows away from feed.
• How many times a day do you deliver TMR?   Delivering feed 2 or 3 times a day reduces sorting of feed.

Perhaps the best way to determine how cow behavior is impacting sorting is to watch your cows eat.   Have you taken time to watch and see the patterns of behavior in your herd when fresh feed is delivered?   Do the most aggressive cows come to the bunk to eat and prevent the timid cows from eating or does everyone come up and find a place to eat?  Are only the younger and smaller cows eating while everyone else is resting?    Have you taken time to make these cow behavior observations in the last week? If not then take time today to watch your cows eat and see what patterns of behavior you can detect.

Source: Agri-Nutrition Consulting  – Scott Bascom

To answer the question, “is my hay feeding program meeting the cowherd’s nutritional requirements?”, two key pieces of information are needed. The first piece of information to obtain is the animal nutritional needs. Nutrient requirements are not consistent for all classes of livestock, so some knowledge of their body weight and stage of production is also required. Your Extension Educator can provide information on determining beef nutrient requirements. The next piece of information is the results from a forage analysis. At a minimum, it is important to know the crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrient (TDN) values for hay supplies. Most forage quality analyses cost $10 to $20 per sample.

During the winter hay feeding period, it will take about 1000 pounds (DM basis) of grass hay to feed an 1100-pound mature cow for 30 days. This is equivalent to 28 pounds (DM basis) of hay per day. The following example can be used to help explain the relationship between forage quality and stage of production. In a 1000-pound bale of medium-quality grass hay with 7.0% CP (DM basis) and 58% TDN (DM basis), there are 70 pounds of CP and 580 pounds of TDN. The nutritional requirements for a mature cow during the middle 1/3 of gestation is 1.4 pounds of CP (DM basis) and 9.7 pounds of TDN (DM basis) each day. From a couple of simple calculations (Table 1, http://go.unl.edu/ndc7), the 30-day CP requirement for this animal is 42 pounds and the TDN requirement is 291 pounds. This hay should be adequate to maintain the 1100-pound mature cow during the middle 1/3 of gestation if her daily DM hay consumption is at least 28 pounds.

The nutrient requirements for the same 1100-pound cow the first 90 days after calving increase to 2.9 pounds of CP (DM basis) and 16.8 pounds of TDN (DM basis) each day. Assuming she consumes 28 pounds (DM basis) of hay per day, both her protein and energy requirements will be deficient. In this instance, both additional protein and energy should be provided to meet the increased nutritional requirements.

It would require about 4 pounds per day (DM basis) of distiller’s grains to meet the 17-pound CP deficiency of an animal during the first 90 days after calving if she were consuming medium-quality grass hay containing 7.0% CP (DM basis) and 58% TDN (DM basis). At a cost of $125 per ton for the supplement, the cost of supplementation would be $0.25 per day. However, this supplementation is not needed during the middle 1/3 of gestation. In this example, over-supplementing a 100-cow herd for 90 days during the middle 1/3 of gestation would result in unnecessary feed costs of $2,250. Greater profit potential is the primary reason livestock producers need to know the quality of the forages they are feeding. The cost to determine if additional protein or energy feeding is needed can be quickly recovered in either feed cost savings or improved animal performance.

Source: UNL

Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products introduces protein blend calf milk replacers.

Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products introduces a new approach to calf milk replacer formulation with protein blend calf milk replacers.

Growing demand for whey protein drives both milk prices and the input costs of calf milk replacer protein – an opportunity for dairy producers and a challenge for the dairy industry.

“Not long ago, whey protein was a waste product of cheese manufacturing,” says Dr. Tom Earleywine, director of nutritional services, Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products. “Today, whey is one of the dairy industry’s most valuable products being used in sports drinks, energy bars, shakes and supplements. Consumer demand for these products continues to grow.”

Seeing this challenge, as a leader in the market, Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products made it a research priority to develop calf milk replacer formulations featuring a blend of proteins that can save on dairy producers’ and calf and heifer raisers’ investment cost without sacrificing calf performance. The new protein blend formulation utilizes a similar approach as is used in baby formulas and is based on a blend of highly digestible proteins that complement each other.

Research conducted by Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Productsshowed equal performance with their full potential protein blend calf milk replacers compared to the original formulation.

In addition to providing the same performance, this new protein blend formulation approach decreased the cost of feeding Cow’s Match® ColdFront® and WarmFront® milk replacer’s original formulations substantially.

“These protein blends offer a more economical opportunity to feed calves to their full potential,” says Dr. Earleywine. “A growing body of research shows that calves provided more nutrients from milk or milk replacer early in life, are more likely to be productive as adult cows.”

For more information on the new protein blend calf milk replacers or how to feed your calves a full potential diet, visit www.lolmilkreplacer.com or call 800-618-6455.

Since 1951, when Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products Company developed the first calf milk replacer, the company has been committed to creating the best milk replacers from the best technologies and quality ingredients. Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products Company is a division of Land O’Lakes, Inc. a national farmer-owned food and agricultural organization.

Abruptly switching from old corn silage to fresh can cause a production slump

Dairy cows commonly fail to reach their full production potential during the fall. This is often caused by an abrupt change from old corn silage to freshly cut forage or recently fermented corn silage.

“A slump in production can be costly for a farm and frustrating for producers,” says Renato Schmidt, Ph.D., Technical Services – Forage, Lallemand Animal Nutrition. “We often see otherwise unexplained decreases in milk production or an inability to reach production targets in the fall as producers switch from old silage to new material. This slump can also affect herd health with signs such as a decreased feed intake or loose manure.”

Contributing factors to a fall slump may include:

• Lower starch digestibility in fresh silage or forage. When harvested above 35% dry matter (DM), the starch in corn starts to become less digestible. Flint varieties also have lower starch digestibility than floury ones.
• High levels of fermentable sugars. Fresh forages can contain high levels of fermentable sugars, which can contribute to Sub-Acute Rumen Acidosis (SARA) in a herd.
• Differences in DM and nutrient content. Silages normally present a different composition from one silo to the next, and from one year to the next.

To avoid a fall slump, Dr. Schmidt recommends four strategies:

1. Ideally allow silage to ensile for at least four months before feeding. As silage spends additional weeks in storage, the starch becomes more digestible.
2. Change silos gradually over a two-week period.
3. Test new forages for DM and nutrient content. If necessary, the ration should be adjusted to reflect the changing composition.
4. Use a proven silage inoculant containing enzymes to help break down plant fiber and thus aid in fiber digestibility. Biotal Plus II, Biotal Buchneri 40788, and Biotal Buchneri 500 inoculants contain a high activity enzyme formulation to increase fiber digestibility.

Thinking ahead to next year, Dr. Schmidt recommends considering an inoculant that will help maintain feed quality. The strain Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 is the only active bacteria reviewed by the FDA in preventing heating and spoilage – two factors that can greatly affect silage quality. Biotal Buchneri 500 combines the fermentation benefits of Biotal Plus II with L. buchneri 40788 to provide optimum forage preservation.

“Planning ahead and making gradual changes in feeding can help keep milk production steady and maintain cattle health,” Dr. Schmidt says. “Ultimately, it helps keep profits steady for the farm.”

Lallemand Animal Nutrition is dedicated to the development, production, and marketing of profitable, natural and differentiated solutions for animal nutrition and health. Our core products are live bacteria for direct fed microbials and silage inoculants, specific yeast for probiotics, and high value yeast derivatives. More news from Lallemand Animal Nutrition can be seen on www.lallemandanimalnutrition.com.

Providing the correct amounts of bioavailable trace minerals in diets is necessary for healthy, productive dairy cows. Negative impacts relative to the cow, environment, and profitability can occur when inadequate or excessive amounts of bioavailable trace minerals are fed. The 2001 Dairy NRC established requirements for cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), iodine (I), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), selenium (Se), and zinc (Zn), and since 2001, substantial research has been conducted regarding chromium (Cr) supplementation of dairy cow diets. The mineral requirement in most, if not all, U.S.-based nutrition models come directly from the NRC.

Estimating Requirements

The requirement for a trace mineral can be defined as the amount that must be absorbed daily that will keep the cow healthy, maintain and optimize milk production, allow for efficient reproductive performance, and at the same time, maintain proper body stores of the mineral. Although this definition is widely accepted, quantifying actual requirements is extremely difficult and substantial errors (both over and under estimating requirements) can exist. Milk yield is often not useful in determining trace mineral requirements because it is often insensitive, at least in the short term, to extreme changes in dietary trace mineral supply. Measuring changes in body stores of trace minerals can be difficult (e.g., changes in liver copper concentrations). Quantifying dietary effects on cow health and reproduction is imprecise and usually requires a very large number of animals.

Another major area of uncertainty regarding trace mineral requirements is the bioavailability coefficients used to calculate absorbed trace minerals. Measuring the bioavailability of trace minerals is extremely difficult. Many of the values that are used were determined a long time ago using isotopes under very limited conditions. Because some of the absorption coefficients are extremely small (e.g., ~5% for several sources of Cu and 0.75% for many Mn sources), small differences in absorption coefficients can have substantial effects on the calculated dietary requirements. For example, if the actual absorption coefficient for Cu under a specific situation was 2.5 percentage units lower than the assumed 5%, the diet would need to contain twice as much Cu to provide adequate absorbed Cu. The difference between an absorption coefficient of 5 and 7.5% may not even be detectable using our current ability to measure absorption. Lastly, several common dietary conditions can greatly influence absorption of trace minerals. For example, high dietary or water sulfur can reduce Cu and Se absorption markedly. Using the standard absorption coefficients in that situation may lead to Cu and Se deficiencies.

Trace Mineral Supplementation

Because of the substantial uncertainties associated with trace mineral requirements and supply, nutritionists need to consider the costs of underfeeding versus overfeeding trace minerals when formulating diets. Underfeeding trace minerals can result in increased health problems, such as retained placenta and mastitis, poorer reproduction, and reduced milk yields. Overfeeding trace minerals can increase feed costs, increase the amount of trace minerals in manure (an environmental issue), cause excessive concentrations of minerals in animal products consumed by humans, interfere with absorption of other minerals, and result in mild to severe toxicity. Because of the potential problems associated with both under and over supplementation of trace minerals, most diets should not deviate greatly from NRC requirements.

1. NRC requirements are for total absorbed minerals. Both basal ingredients and mineral supplements contribute to total absorbed mineral supply, and the minerals provided by the basal ingredients should not be ignored. The NRC includes estimated absorption coefficients for trace minerals for basal ingredients and supplements. The absorption coefficients for trace minerals provided by basal ingredients are usually less than those for mineral supplements. Therefore concentrations of trace minerals in forages and concentrates usually do not have to be discounted further. Trace minerals from forages that are contaminated with excess amounts of soil may need additional discounting. Soil contamination can increase concentrations of many trace minerals (especially Fe) but the trace minerals from soil are generally poorly absorbed. Haycrop feeds with more than about 9% ash and corn silage with more than about 5% ash are likely contaminated with soil and trace mineral concentrations should be discounted.
2. Many specialty trace minerals (e.g., organic minerals) have been shown to have greater bioavailability than standard feed grade minerals. Take advantage of the higher availability (assuming the company has data on the specific product) by reducing supplementation rates to maintain adequate intakes of bioavailable mineral.
3. Because of regulations, diets cannot legally contain more than 0.3 ppm of supplemental Se. The NRC Se requirement basically follows the regulation; therefore, you cannot legally add a safety factor for supplemental Se.
4. Modest overfeeding of trace minerals is less costly than modest underfeeding, but it can still increase feed costs and mineral concentrations in manure. Formulating diets to provide about 1.2 times NRC requirements for most trace minerals (Se is an exception) is justified to reduce the risk of deficiencies and should have no negative effects on animals.
5. New data since 2001 brings the NRC requirement for Mn into question. Feeding at the 2001 NRC requirement can result in clinical Mn deficiency. Based on mineral balance studies, the actual requirement is 2.5 to 3.5 times the current NRC requirement. Negative effects on the animal are not an issue at these higher concentrations.
6. High concentration of Cu in the liver (greater than150 ppm on a wet basis compared to an adequate concentration of about 35-50 ppm) is a risk factor for acute Cu toxicity. Excessive accumulation of Cu in liver can occur over months or years by feeding what many may consider a safe concentration of dietary Cu. Feed proper amounts of trace minerals to the entire herd (replacements and mature cows) and consider the potential effects of overfeeding for a long period of time.
7. The 2001 NRC requirement for Cu (approximately 10 to 12 ppm) is likely adequate in many situations (12 to 15 ppm with modest safety factor). The NRC requirement is not adequate when high dietary or water sulfur with or without molybdenum is fed. See the article “Excess Sulfur and Potassium can Cause Mineral Nutrition Problems with Dairy Cows” for additional information.
8. The 2001 NRC requirement (0.11 ppm) for Co may be too low. Some data showed improved vitamin B-12 status when diets contained > 0.25 ppm.
9. The NRC did not establish a requirement for Cr in 2001. Since that time, several studies have been conducted and many show increased milk yield in early lactation cows when supplemented with approximately 0.5 ppm Cr (currently the only FDA-approved source of Cr in the U.S. is Cr-propionate).

Table 1. Approximate 2001 NRC requirements for lactating cows and suggested safety factors for trace minerals.

Source: The Ohio State University 

Hay should be analyzed for nutrient content. Photo courtesy of Troy Walz.

The reason we put up hay is to feed livestock. When we feed animals we are not just feeding “feed.” We are supplying nutrients needed for the animal to grow, renew body components, form products such as milk and wool, and furnish energy for all of the processes involved. The major nutrients involved are energy, primarily in the form of carbohydrates, and protein. The animal also needs various vitamins and minerals, as well as water. Necessary vitamins and minerals are easily provided should the main feedstuffs be lacking.

Hay, and grain for that matter, is fed as a primary source of energy and protein. Therefore it makes sense that the value of the hay is relative to the amount of these nutrients that it contains. The more protein and energy that is in the hay, the more valuable the hay is to the feeder. The converse is also true, the lower the nutrient content, the less valuable.

This is true within certain limits, the value differences may be different for different classes of livestock. Under certain circumstances the nutrient content of the hay may be low enough that certain classes of livestock cannot eat enough to get the nutrients required, therefore that feed is actually worthless to that feeder. It may also be possible that under some circumstances a certain level of nutrients is “high enough” and any additional the hay supplies may be of no additional value. But under most circumstances where there is a wide variety of feed uses and feeds available, the statement holds true:

The higher the nutrient content the higher the value and the lower the nutrient content the lower the value.

As you can see it is essential than a nutrient analysis be done. It is impossible to determine relative values between hay without knowing its nutrient content. Nutrient analysis is relatively cheap and easy to obtain. When given a choice of hays, the smart hay buyer always demands an analysis be done. This helps ensure he/she is getting what he/she is paying for. The nutrients we will concern ourselves with for the purpose of this discussion are protein and energy. It is also important to remember that hays differ in their moisture content, this is usually reported as percent Dry Matter (DM). It is important to account for this difference as well. Protein is designated on most analysis as Crude Protein (CP), and the easiest measure of energy to use is Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN), these are both reported as a percent of dry matter.

One concept that helps determine value differences between various lots of hay is to determine the cost per pound of the major nutrients. For example let’s consider two lots of hay.

Lot 1: 89.3% DM, 16% CP, 51.6% TDN, $100/Ton, $.35/lb CP, and $.109/lb TDN
Lot 2: 90.5% DM, 22.8% CP, 71.5% TDN, $145/Ton, $.351/lb CP, and $.112/lb TDN

Comparing hay by the cost per pound of nutrient only tells part of the story. Although the two hays above are priced similarly, which one would be the better choice depends on the circumstances. For a beef producer feeding dry pregnant cows, Lot 1 may be preferred. The cows could get full and not be overfed. But for a dairy producer, Lot 2 would be the logical choice, because it would allow higher levels of milk production than Lot 1.

Cost per pound of nutrient works not only for comparing the value of hay, but it also works when pricing different grains or supplements. Protein supplement is often fed to cows on winter range, and crop aftermath. This concept works great for comparing the value of those as well. For example:

22% Cake: 22% CP, $208/Ton, $.437/1b CP
28% Cake: 28% CP, $233/Ton, $.416/1b CP
Alfalfa Hay: 18% CP, $180/Ton, $.556/1b CP

One underlying premise that we haven’t talked about yet is that feed should not only be bought according to nutrient content, but that it should also be fed according to nutrient content. This requires knowing not only the nutrient content of the feed, but also the requirements of the animal. There are published values that will give you a good idea of what your animals need. It is often necessary to mix feeds to most economically match nutrients fed to nutrients required.

The Feed Cost Cow-Q-Lator (http://westcentral.unl.edu/agecon3) makes comparing feed costs easy.

Hay should be analyzed for nutrient content. This allows it to be bought, sold, and fed according to its nutrient content. The more facts you know about the hay the better job you can do comparing prices and determining rations.

Source: UNL Extension

Studies show feeding calves to a higher plane of nutrition may result in increased growth rates as well as decreased treatment costs and increased overall health. But what happens after the calf is weaned, do the benefits carry through post-weaning? Is it possible for calves raised on a conventional program to catch-up? “It’s a common misnomer for people to believe calves will “catch-up” growth during the weaning period,” says Dr. Bruno do Amaral, dairy nutrition consultant with Purina Animal Nutrition. A recent field trial that do Amaral conducted showcases the continued growth benefits of feeding to a higher plane of nutrition.

The original trial compared two feeding programs through weaning. The conventional feeding program consisted of pasteurized waste milk and an 18 percent calf starter. The higher plane of nutrition program included pasteurized waste milk with a Pasteurized Milk Balancer® supplement along with a 20 percent seasonal calf starter. (A Pasteurized Milk Balancer® is a supplement product developed to be added to pasteurized milk to increase the total solids fed and also to balance fat and protein in the final solution.)

Through-out the trial, calves fed to a higher plane of nutrition, outperformed calves on the conventional program, with an average daily gain of 1.77 pounds per day compared to 1.29 pounds per day.

Ten and half months later, do Amaral went back and taped and weighed each animal. Of the 20 heifers that started the trial for the higher plane of nutrition group, the average bodyweight was 675 pounds. Of the 20 heifers fed the conventional program, 2 died and the remaining 18 heifers had an average bodyweight of 651 pounds. Note during this time period, both groups of heifers were managed and fed exactly the same.

“The advantage continues to go to the higher plane of nutrition fed calves, weighing an average 24 pounds more,” says do Amaral. “A greater percentage of the calves in the higher plane of nutrition group weighed more than 700 pounds.

“When these heifers reach 850 pounds they will be ready for breeding. If a higher percentage of them are close to breeding size at 10.5 months, this translates to overall earlier age at first breeding, earlier age at first calving, less cost in feeding those animals and more opportunity to have animals coming into the milking parlor,” says do Amaral. “This is significant versus the expense of feeding those heifers an extra month or longer to reach breeding weight and size. In addition, calves fed a higher plan of nutrition early in life may produce on average 1,500 more pounds in the first lactation.

“It all goes back to getting calves the best start possible. You never have a second chance to a good start,” says do Amaral.

Source: Purina Animal Nutrition LLC

The typical process of formulating a diet for dairy cows goes as follows: (1) sample the forages on the farm, (2) send the samples to a good lab, (3) when the lab results are available then enter the data into a computer, and (4) formulate the diet using a good dairy cow nutrition model.  Because forages usually make up more than half the diet dry matter (DM), using incorrect nutrient composition data for the forages could result in an unbalanced diet, which could reduce yields of milk or components, or increase health problems.

We have been conducting a large project evaluating variation in nutrient composition of feeds. Commonly, silages on a farm are sampled about once monthly and the data from that single sample are used to formulate or re-formulate diets.  One objective we had was to determine if that approach is in fact adequate. We sampled corn and haycrop (mostly alfalfa but some farms fed mixed grass and alfalfa) silages on several Ohio dairy farms and on a few farms in Vermont each day for 14 consecutive days.  Each day, we took 2 independent samples from each silage. Independent means that we took several handfuls of silage, put them in a bucket, mixed that and then took a few handfuls, and put them in a bag to be sent to the lab.  We then repeated that process to get the 2 independent samples.  All samples were sent to the OARDC dairy nutrition lab and each sample was assayed in duplicate for DM and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Haycrop silage was also assayed for crude protein (CP), and corn silage was assayed for starch. By taking duplicate samples from multiple farms, over multiple days and then analyzing everything in duplicate, we could partition the variation into that caused by farm, sampling, analytical, and day.

Sources of Variation

The nutrient composition of feeds can vary for a number of reasons.  It is important to know what caused the variation when formulating diets.

• Farm variation in nutrient composition of silages reflects different growing conditions on different farms, different hybrids, different harvest times, etc. Because of the numerous factors that differ among farms, this variation is usually very large.

• Analytical variation is usually caused by human error (for example very small differences in weighing), instrument calibrations, reaction conditions, etc. It could also be caused by different labs. In this study, all samples were analyzed in a single lab.  So the analytical variation that we observed is less than what would be experienced if samples were sent to different labs.

• Sampling variation can be a difficult concept to understand. If you have a pile of corn silage that will be fed today and you grab 5 handfuls of silage and put each into a separate bag and send each bag to a lab, you will likely get 5 different values for CP, NDF, starch, and DM concentrations.  These differences represent sampling variation (sometimes referred to as sampling error). For corn silage, two samples could have different NDF concentrations because one sample had a little more corn cob in it than the other sample.  Although one should always try to take representative samples, multiple samples of different feeds will never be identical.

• Day variation can also be called true day-to-day variation.  This means that the composition of the feed really did change over time. This change could be caused by differences in harvest time (for example, the sample of alfalfa silage taken on Monday may have been harvested late in the afternoon, but the sample taken on Wednesday was harvested in the morning), field location (e.g., a weedy or dry spot in the field was sampled on a specific day).

Since forages are almost always sampled for each specific farm, farm-to-farm variation is not that important. In this study, farm variation was very large, meaning that silages should be sampled for each farm. However, separating true day-to-day variation from sampling and analytical variation within each farm is important. If a sample of silage is taken this week and it has 40% NDF and another sample is taken next week and it is 45% NDF, if that difference was caused by sampling error (in other words, the silage really did not change) and you reformulate the diet to match the new NDF concentration, the new diet is not going to be properly balanced. On the other hand, if the silage really did change (a true day-to-day change) and the diet is not reformulated, the diet being fed also is not properly balanced.

What We Found

1. Analytical variation for all nutrients and both types of silages was low, meaning you do not have to pay labs to analyze a given silage sample in
   duplicate.
2. For corn silage NDF and starch and for haycrop NDF and CP, sampling errors were much greater than true day-to-day variation. This means that over a short period (a few weeks), differences between samples in nutrient composition are likely not a real change. The data for the samples should be averaged and the average values should be used in ration formulation.
3. True day-to-day variation was the major source of variation for DM concentrations of haycrop silage. This means that when DM concentrations change among samples, the change is likely real and diets should be modified.  For corn silage DM, true day-to-day variation was about equal to sampling plus analytical variations. This means you should probably measure DM on duplicate samples and if the averages between 2 sets of samples are different, the silage DM really changed and the diet should be modified.

Bottom Line

The nutrient composition of silages is variable.  However many times when we think that the silage has changed, it really is simply sampling error. Good sampling techniques should reduce sampling variation, but taking duplicate samples and averaging the results will greatly reduce sampling variation. Be careful when making diet changes based on lab results; make sure the feeds have actually changed.

Source: Drs. Bill Weiss and Normand St-Pierre, Professors and Extension Dairy Specialists, The Ohio State University

Finding the right balance between Sorghum silage and corn silage may provide economic advantages.

Numerous factors, including water shortages, high feed prices and starch availability/requirements, are luring some dairy producers into planting alternative crops. “Sorghum silage, for example, is gaining attention as an appealing substitute for corn silage as people search for drought-friendly crop solutions,” says Dr. Margaret Winsryg, technical support specialist with Calibrate® Technologies, based in Idaho.

Sorghum requires considerably less water than corn. This hardy, drought-tolerant plant can thrive even when rainfall and/or irrigation is limited, making it a logical choice for areas facing water supply issues. Sorghum seeds are much less expensive than corn seeds, therefore, the input costs for growing sorghum are lower than corn. Sorghum may also yield nearly the same tonnage per acre as corn.

When it comes to overall forage quality however, there are differences and anyone planting sorghum silage needs to be aware, so the differences can be managed accordingly. Similar in protein but lower in energy, sorghum silage offers significantly less starch. This means it cannot serve as a full replacement to corn silage without additional ingredients or forages being added to the diet. The starch content of sorghum silage runs between 11 and 16 percent, whereas corn silage, known for its high energy and digestibility, provides starch levels between 25 and 35 percent.

“Starch availability is an important factor to consider when deciding between these two plants as it can directly impact feed intake, milk production and component levels,” notes Winsryg. “When substituting with a low-starch option like sorghum, one must calculate the amount of rumen-degradable starch (RDS) that needs to be compensated for in the diet. In some situations, a producer may have to feed more grain to maintain the same amounts of RDS and rumen fill found in corn silage.”

Feeding too much starch can also be problematic. This is a concern when feeding high levels of corn silage, particularly if it’s a hybrid that produces a very high starch yield. An overabundance of starch can cause problems similar to a lack of starch – lowered intakes, milk fat depression and production losses.

Starch digestibility can increase the longer a crop is ensiled. When a silage pile is first opened, the amount of starch digested in the rumen typically aligns with a cow’s dietary needs. But as time passes, starch digestibility can increase. If the silage was first opened in November, feeding the same amount of corn silage in February may provide more starch because the feed’s degradability has increased during storage. As a result, some of the corn silage may need to be exchanged for alternative forages that contain less starch or lower ruminal starch digestion in order for cows to maintain milk components.

Find the right balance – starch testing assists with feeding decisions
Monitoring RDS levels year-round on an every-other-week basis can help dairy producers and nutritionists determine how much starch is available in the ration, allowing ingredients and milk production to be optimized while also potentially reducing ration cost.

“When making any decisions on what crops to feed, make sure you carefully consider starch requirements first so as to not compromise dietary success,” warns Winsryg. “Hybrid selection plays an important role with crops to ensure adequate starch and ruminal digestibility.”

Source: Calibrate

Dry matter intake is very important for high producing dairy cows. Quality of the feed is important but also the uniformity of the feed consumed by the animals.

Before we discuss how we can improve dry matter intake (DMI) in dairy cattle we might ask, “Why is it important?”  Milk production and milk components pay the bills on a dairy so improving DMI, especially in early and high-producing cows is required to get that done. Excessive body weight loss, especially in fresh cows, can lead to health and reproductive problems that can adversely affect the profitability of a dairy. Total Mixed Ration (TMR) ingredient costs have trended much higher over the last several years, therefore, the need to manage refusal in order to not “waste” feed has also become important.

Negative energy balance

Cows reach peak dry matter intake between 10 to 13 weeks after calving.  At this time she should be consuming approximately 4% of her body weight.  For much, if not all, of this time she will be in negative energy balance.  Maximising intake during this time can mitigate the extent of negative energy balance of the cow allowing for increased production, improved reproduction and better animal health. High producing dairy cows are often the most susceptible to metabolic and physiological diseases during this time.  Wallace et al. (1998) monitored 48 cows (46 completed the study) for the first 20 days after calving. In Figure 1, we see that cows designated as “Healthy” (no event) ate significantly more (P<.05) than those that were “sick” with an event such as a retained placenta (rp), metritis (met), ketosis, (ket) or a displaced abomasum (da). at certain times during the first 20 days, the healthy cows ate nearly 6.8 kg more.>

Not surprisingly the milk production for the Healthy cows, shown in Figure 2, was significantly greater (P<.05) that of the sick cows, approximately 9 kg more. cows don’t particularly like change especially as it relates to their daily ration. decreasing the amount of variation in a diet provides a more consistent ration to the cows and a ration that is not changing in nutrient content. one way to insure better dmi is with a more consistent tmr. a tmr audit™ is an on-farm evaluation of the feed storage and preparation, the mixing and delivery of the tmr, the measurement of the ingredient variation and shrink, and utilisation of the labour and resources required to mix and deliver the feed.>

Tool for uniformity

Use of the Penn State Particle Separator (PSPS) is a good tool to monitor both within-batch and between-batch variation of particle size in TMRs and allows for the more immediate on-farm assessment of uniformity. The procedure for using the PSPS includes the following steps: 1) Sample TMR/PMR immediately after it is delivered to the feed bunk and before cows start consuming the ration. 2) Scoop up approximately 500 grams of TMR and place it in a litre Ziploc bag. 3) Obtain samples along the feed bunk representing the beginning, middle, and end of the TMR/PMR load.  4) Shake the sample through the PSPS and make certain smaller particles that are clumped together with any added liquids are filtered through the top screen and 5) Calculate the percentage weight (as-is basis) on each screen and determine the co-efficient of variation (CV) for the batch.

Collection of TMR analyses

The goal is to have < 3% CV on each screen. Variation should be assessed on those screens where most of the ration is collected. In the US the middle and bottom screens of the PSPS can be used to make on-farm assessments of within-batch variation, while in Europe all three screens can be used. Over 1000 of these TMR analyses have been conducted and compiled throughout the United States by trained representatives of Diamond V over the past 6 years, over 370 of these analyses included data as to the specific items in the mixing process that were identified as causes of variation. Figure 3 shows that less than 30% of these TMR audits had no issues while over 20% of the variation that occurred in TMRs was due to worn parts in the mixer.

Effect of auger speed

Most often worn knives and worn kicker plates were identified as the cause of variation in the TMR. Regular inspection of these parts, ideally monthly, but at least quarterly is recommended. Be sure to remove foreign materials from these augers at the same time. Proper mixing time and hay processing can both significantly affect proper mixing of the ration as well.  More recently proper auger speed, measured as revolutions per minute (RPM), was identified as a cause of feed variation. Auger speed had a dramatic effect on dry matter intake (Figure 4) and milk production. The cause of the drop in DMI and milk production was a change in the gearbox on the mixer wagon. An old one-speed gearbox was replaced with a new two-speed gearbox, but the new gearbox was first set in first gear. This decreased the RPM from 42 RPM with the old gearbox to 28 RPM with the new one. This coincided with the drop in DMI. After a TMR Audit™ was conducted and this discrepancy was noted the new gearbox was changed to 2nd gear. This change resulted in the RPM increasing to 38 RPM with a corresponding increase in both DMI and milk production.

Conclusion

Monitoring and correcting for proper mixing of a TMR is a good practice to provide a consistent ration to your dairy cows. Along with regular maintenance of the mixing equipment.

Source: AllAboutFeed magazine Vol 22 nr 4, 2014

After one of the coldest winters in recent history, calf raisers may have learned a thing or two about how a calf’s environment affects energy demands. As the temperatures rise and we head into the summer months, it is important to remember that calves can face nutritional challenges in the summer months as well, says Dr. Christie Underwood, a calf and heifer specialist with Purina Animal Nutrition, located in Texas.

When temperatures rise, calves’ energy needs escalate as respiration rates increase as they attempt to drive heat from their bodies. Coupled with this increase in energy is a reduction in feed intake and as a result, growth is reduced.

Underwood notes that at 78 degrees F and above, calves are susceptible to heat stress and can experience:

• Decreased feed intake
• Reduced growth and increased respiration
• Less nutritional efficiency

“To meet these additional energy demands and to keep calves growing all summer long, calves need a diet that more efficiently provides the optimal nutritional balance of energy and protein to help maintain growth, despite the temperature,” says Underwood.

Since calves utilize energy from their feed differently in warmer months, Underwood recommends that calf starter feeds formulated for warmer weather should include:

Appetite-stimulating technology
Keeping feed fresh, so that intake is consistent is important for ensuring that calves are consuming enough energy and protein, as these nutrients help support maintenance, immune function, and growth. Technologies such as AppetiteMAKER™ help support increased feed intake of young dairy calves with less feed refusal and waste. With an increase in appetite, it is important to remember to keep clean, fresh water available to calves at all times.

Effective larvicide
Larvicides are designed to help control emerging fly populations and therefore help reduce disease transmission and irritation by flies in calf housing areas. Underwood recommends ClariFly® Larvicide as an effective technology for inhibiting the development of mature flies.

Highly digestible organic trace minerals
Incorporating highly digestible organic trace minerals, specifically organic chromium, are proven in providing nutrients at the cellular level, allowing calves to utilize energy more efficiently.

There are many excellent calf starter options to choose from. However, Underwood challenges calf raisers to look beyond the nutrition label and educate themselves on the actual feed technologies and the supporting research that allow a superior product to deliver greater performance. Taking just a few minutes to become more aware of what technologies are in calf feed products will help develop healthier calves that then go on to become productive cows with more lifetime profit potential.

For more information, contact Dr. Christie Underwood at 806-640-8045, email CMUnderwood@landolakes.com or visit www.amplicalf.com.

Purina Animal Nutrition LLC (www.purinamills.com) is a national organization serving producers, animal owners and their families through more than 4,700 local cooperatives, independent dealers and other large retailers across the United States. Driven by an uncompromising commitment to animal excellence, Purina Animal Nutrition is an industry innovator, offering America’s leading brands of complete feeds, supplements, premixes, ingredients and specialty technologies for the livestock and lifestyle animal markets. Headquartered in Shoreview, Minn., Purina Animal Nutrition LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Land O’Lakes, Inc.

When it comes to managing rations for dairy cows, it is always better to be proactively making decisions versus reactively. That’s according to Dr. Dwight Roseler, a dairy nutritionist with Purina Animal Nutrition in Ohio.

Roseler notes that evaluating feedstuffs with proper methods and having a ration model that predicts performance accurately are critical when looking into the crystal ball for future herd performance. “You want to be prepared and know what to expect from the forages and total ration that is going to be fed,” says Roseler. “Being proactive and looking ahead allows the opportunity to make better decisions about ration costs and income over feed cost.”

For example, if a herd is targeting a certain level of milk production and it knows through proper testing that those forages on hand are not adequate to maintain or achieve that production level, then a decision is needed to determine the best cost ration to achieve the most profit for the operation. In some cases, forages or byproducts can be purchased that complement the existing inventory to achieve best profit. Depending upon market conditions, the best profit scenario might be to feed the current inventory of forages and feeds.

Outside of just overall animal health and milk production potential, evaluating feeds ahead of time, can also help with budgeting and inventories. “Running the correct feed analysis at harvest can help decide how current inventories will be best used. Then running “best profit” rations into future months will determine strategies for optimal cash flow and profit,” he says.

· Rumen degradable starch
Rumen degradable starch measures how much starch is actually available to the rumen microbes when the feed is fed. Rumen degradable starch tests give producers an idea of how their animals are digesting starch and what impact that might have on performance. The labs using the Calibrate® Technologies methods are accurate for predicting performance over time.

· Neutral detergent fiber digestibility
Neutral detergent fiber digestibility determines how digestible the fiber in an ingredient will be and as a result how much rumen fill there will be. Rumen fill has a direct impact on dry matter intake (DMI), diet digestibility and feed efficiency. In fact, research shows that a one unit increase in in-vitro digestibility of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was associated with a 0.37 pound per day increase in DMI and a 0.55 pound per day increase in 4 percent fat corrected milk yield per cow.[1] The Calibrate® Technologies method provides good measurements of fiber indigestibility for accurate performance prediction over time.

· VFA analysis & ammonia
Volatile fatty acids analysis gives producers an idea of what the fermentation has done in the silo, in terms of proper fermentation levels, and is useful in predicting the performance in terms of rumen microbial performance and milk protein production. Excess ammonia from forages can be wasted if not properly balanced across all the diets in a herd.

· Amino acids
Balancing diets for amino acids takes precedence over balancing metabolizable protein or crude protein. Accurate amino acid profiles of proteins and byproducts provides knowledge to properly balance low protein (14 to 15 percent) diets with milk urea nitrogen (MUN) tank levels below 10. This improves protein purchases and reduces nitrogen losses.

· Fatty acids
Fatty acids provide a more accurate measure of true digestible energy coming from the fat of forages and ingredients. Fatty acid profile improves the ability to balance poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) load which has a bearing on reproductive performance and milk fat yield.

“Evaluating feedstuffs prior to feeding will help to optimize your rations for optimal health, milk components, income over feed cost and overall profit potential,” says Roseler.

For more information, contact Dr. Dwight Roseler at (330) 466-2776 or email: DKRoseler@landolakes.com.

For additional information on dairy nutrition and management, sign-up to receive the monthly HERDSMART® E-Newsletter; a free online tool to improve operational efficiency by visiting: www.bit.ly/ManagementTips.

Purina Animal Nutrition LLC (www.purinamills.com) is a national organization serving producers, animal owners and their families through more than 4,700 local cooperatives, independent dealers and other large retailers across the United States. Driven by an uncompromising commitment to animal excellence, Purina Animal Nutrition is an industry innovator, offering America’s leading brands of complete feeds, supplements, premixes, ingredients and specialty technologies for the livestock and lifestyle animal markets. Headquartered in Shoreview, Minn., Purina Animal Nutrition LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Land O’Lakes, Inc.

About this time of year, many dairy and beef producers take a look at their feed stockpiles and wonder how long they will last.

Dairy and livestock specialists from DuPont Pioneer recommend that producers determine the volume of feed currently on hand. First, producers need to measure their storage structures and the remaining height of the feed column. The next step is to measure the actual density of the feed with a silage density probe, or to use a commonly accepted estimated value.

By multiplying the volume in cubic feet by the density, producers can calculate the approximate pounds dry matter (DM) of feed on hand. Dividing that result by 2,000 pounds will calculate the DM tons of feed. Producers can convert to as-fed tons by dividing DM tons by the feedstuffs’ dry matter percentage. They should also include an estimate of the percentage of dry matter lost during storage (shrink) as part of the calculation. The result is the amount of feed in storage. Armed with this information, producers can answer the following key questions:

• Are any ration adjustments are required?
• Is there a need for an emergency forage source to help cover gaps between old-crop corn silage and new-crop corn silage that is fully fermented and ready to be fed?
• What are the options for forage products?
• What feedstuffs need to be produced — and at what quality?
• What inventory levels are needed this year?

Cropping plans can be adjusted, for example, to take one cutting of alfalfa and then plant shorter-season corn for silage.

Producers should remember to follow all safety protocols when working in front of silage faces, as shifts in the feed can happen.

For more information on estimating and managing feed levels, please contact your local Pioneer sales professional.

Victor Cabrera isn’t an expert in cattle genomics or reproduction. He hasn’t spent a day in a lab running tests on the nutritional content of feed. In fact, Cabrera, associate professor in the University of Wisconsin-Madison dairy science department, spends most of his time in front of a screen building economic modeling programs.

If you didn’t know better, you might think he was in the wrong department. But Cabrera is right where he belongs. He shares one crucial thing in common with the rest of the department’s faculty: He’s working to help farmers get more from their dairies.

“I do a lot of my research on a computer, making simulations where I try to put a dollar value on reproductive programs, or nutrition protocols, or the adoption of new advancements and see if it makes [financial] sense or not,” Cabrera explains.

The result is a suite of online programs that Cabrera offers for free on his Extension website (dairymgt.uwex.edu). These “decision support tools” evaluate the costs and potential benefits of just about any change a farmer might be considering. The site offers more than 50 such tools, with titles like “Grouping Strategies for Feeding Lactating Dairy Cattle,” or “Exploring Timing of Pregnancy Impact on Income Over Feed Cost.”

Those titles might bewilder those outside of dairy circles, but for farmers, the decision tools are roadmaps to best dairy practices.

“When we recruited Victor, we really wanted someone who could work with virtually everyone in the department to bring a science-based economic structure into the dairy farm decision process,” says Pamela Ruegg, dairy science professor and Extension milk quality specialist. And, she says, that’s exactly what he’s done, putting UW-Madison research into the day-to-day operations of a dairy.

That’s not to say it’s been easy. Changing the way things get done on a farm is a major undertaking, Cabrera says. Farmers are loath to tweak something they’ve been doing for decades if they’re not confident that it will improve profits and efficiency.

“Situations on the farm change constantly, and that means the ‘right’ decisions aren’t always the same,” Cabrera says. “My programs allow farmers to define their own conditions with their own data, making sure the resulting decision will fit their specific system.”

The idea of dairy farmers as computer modelers may seem like a stretch to some. But, in fact, it’s like all the other new technologies—like GPS-guided precision nutrient application or robotic milkers—that they’re adopting to cope with economic uncertainty and thin profit margins. And even if a farmer isn’t interested in Cabrera’s online tools, it’s likely that someone else—an extension agent, consultant, nutritionist or veterinarian—will use them to plan for that farm’s future.

In 2013, Cabrera’s simulations and models helped 1,300 different users each month, and that number is growing. That’s great for the dairy science department as well as the farmer, says department chair Kent Weigel, because it helps funnel new knowledge directly from the lab to the farm.

“If my research leads to a discovery in the area of dairy cattle genomics, I can publish the results in journal or show them at a scientific meeting and hope that someone takes the next steps,” Weigel says. “But if I collaborate with Victor, there is a pretty good chance my work will get used effectively and help improve the profitability of dairy farms.”

Since arriving in Madison six years ago as an assistant professor, Cabrera’s efforts to connect research with extension outreach have exceeded the goals that had been set for his position. Now, newly promoted to tenure status, he wants to help usher in the next big phase of online tools.

“Whether they completely embrace computers or not, farmers are using more data analysis and software on their farms,” Cabrera says. Most farm equipment comes with software installed these days, but none of the information that software generates is “centralized” to provide the big picture of the farm as a whole. “That should be something that changes,” he says. “It will all have to somehow be connected and, hopefully, my lab will help with that connection.”

Alltech is launching a new support tool for nutritionists to evaluate and troubleshoot dairy rations to maximize feed efficiency and combat ever-rising feed costs, and estimate the amount of energy lost as methane and methane emissions per animal. The In Vitro Fermentation Model (IFM) is a diagnostic tool that simulates rumen fermentation and evaluates the nutritive value of total mixed rations (TMR) in terms of digestibility and end-products formation.

“Available nutrition services traditionally provide measurements of chemical composition and digestibility, however this information is static and does not provide complete evaluation of nutrient availability,” said Dr. Kamal Mjoun, research scientist at the Alltech IFM Lab in Brookings, SD. “IFM is a more dynamic diagnostic tool that describes the chemical process of feed digestion rather than final measurement of digestibility.”

Using IFM technology, feed samples are incubated within a standardized rumen fluid and a buffer system to mimic natural rumen fermentation in an oxygen-free environment. IFM then measures gas production, identifies TMR inefficiencies and provides additional information on the nutritive value of the feed.

“This single test provides more accurate, informed recommendations to optimize feed in a relatively short period of time and at a lower cost compared with in vivo evaluations,” said Dr. Amanda Gehman, dairy research scientist at Alltech.

As digestion progresses, volumes of fermentation gases such as methane and carbon dioxide are also continuously monitored using an automated system.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the rumen, primarily methane and carbon dioxide, contribute up to 45% of the total carbon footprint associated with the production of a pound of milk or beef, according to a recent article published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  Moreover Alltech’s researchers are now finding that ration composition and forage quality can significantly impact the volume of methane emitted as well as production efficiency.

The Carbon Trust, an organization that measures and certifies the environmental footprint of organizations, supply chains and products, recently verified that IFM is an effective tool for estimating farm-specific enteric methane emission from specific feeds.

“With IFM we can troubleshoot potential problems and develop supplementation strategies, which are tailored to the customer’s feeding programs, ultimately to optimize dairy efficiency and profitability while minimizing the effects on the environment,” said Dr. Karl Dawson, chief scientific officer at Alltech.

For more information on how to submit a TMR sample to the IFM Lab, please contact BrookingsIFM@alltech.com.

Calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) are two of the most abundant minerals in the body, which is why they are vital to the discussion of feed testing and ration balancing for cattle. The importance of these minerals and the role they play in the body can help ranchers understand why a balanced mineral program is a notch in the key to success.

Due to the abundance of these minerals in the body, it is important to understand the function and how to meet requirements to insure that deficiencies and toxicities are not a concern. The main function of both calcium and phosphorus is skeletal. Nearly 99% of the calcium in the body if found in the skeleton, while 80% of the phosphorus is in bones and teeth. The remaining Ca is extracellular and plays a role in nerve conduction, muscle contraction, blood clotting and immune system activation. The remaining P is involved in energy utilization and transfer, acid-base and osmotic balance, and for cattle is required by ruminal microbes for growth and cellular metabolism.

Rarely is there a need to be concerned with toxicity of Ca or P in the diet; however deficiencies can occur at different times throughout the production cycle of cows, depending on the feed source. In general, forages provide adequate amounts of Ca in the diet, especially if there are legumes in the mix. Times when we are most likely to see a Ca deficiency is shortly after calving when the cow’s Ca loss due to lactation exceeds Ca entry. Depending on time of year, this can be exacerbated due to low Ca levels in forage. Low diet Ca will lead to Ca being taken from the bone reserve. This is commonly referred to as milk fever or tetany. If suspected, consult a veterinarian.

In growing cattle diets it becomes even more critical to test feeds and balance minerals accordingly, as they have a higher requirement for Ca and concentrate feeds typically used in backgrounding or finishing are lower in Ca than forages.

On the other hand, phosphorus deficiency is the most prevalent deficiency throughout the world, as forages, which are the primary feed for ruminants, are a poor source of P. A P deficiency can lead to many problems including reduced growth and feed efficiency, decreased appetite, reduced reproduction efficiency, decreased milk production, and weak or fragile bones (rickets).

When balancing rations, it is often stated that the Ca:P ratio needs to be 2:1, but this is overstated and anything from a 1.1:1 to a 7:1 ratio is acceptable, with optimal being 1.75:1. Due to the abundance of these minerals in the body, it is important to understand their function and know what the implications are for not meeting an animal’s nutrient requirements. Requirements vary based on animal class, size, and stage of production. Below is a snapshot of Ca and P requirements of cows, replacement heifers and calves taken from the Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle.

Source: South Dakota State University Extension