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