![Page 1: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production
Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus
Univ. of Minnesota
![Page 2: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
LACTATION RATION INGREDIENTS
FORAGES
FORAGE, GRAIN OR BYPRODUCTS
CONCENTRATES•CORN•PROTEIN•MINERALS/
ADDITIVES
50
30
% OF DM
20
FIBER Physical & Chemical
Protein, Energy, Carbohydrates, Minerals,
Non-Fiber CHO StarchProtein RDP & RUPMinerals
Nutrient needs and $Flexible Ration Feeds
![Page 3: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Feed Additives
2 – 5%
Fat4-7%
Min-Vit4 – 8%
Byproducts10%
Grain – Starch
15 – 20%
Feed Cost (% of total) for 85 lb milk_
RD-Protein5 – 8%
Feed Cost/Cow/Day
$8.00 - $10.00
Forages45 – 50%
RU-Protein20 – 25%
![Page 4: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
SHOULD YOU MAXIMIZE FORAGE FEEDING?
Alfalfa/Grass Forage$250 to $300/ton hay basis
Corn Silage – 35% DM$55 - 85/ton – 40%
starch$50 – 70/ton – 30%
starch
![Page 5: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
FORAGE QUALITY FACTORS IN LACTATION RATIONS
![Page 6: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Chemical Dry matter (DM) Ash Crude Protein
– True, Non Amm N, Sol NDF Lignin NFC (NSC)
– Starch– Sugar– Pectin
Physical peNDF PN State Particle
Separator (PSPS)
FORAGE QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Digestibility NDFD Starch
![Page 7: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Practical Application of Forage Quality Variation
On Farms
Cows require Nutrients
![Page 8: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Forage DM ConsistencyMcBeth et al. Ohio State U
Con = 55%F:45%CUNB = same diet with 10% water added to forage BAL = diet adjusted for decrease in forage DM
![Page 9: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
21 day treatment meansItem Con UNB BALDMI, kg/d 24.0 24.1 23.9Milk, kg/d 39.3 39.8 39.7Fat, % 3.42 3.37 3.30
McBeth et al., 2012Ohio State University
![Page 10: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Monitoring Forage DM on Farms
• Determine Forage DM - 2X/week
• Adjust ration3 unit change in DM
• Establish protocol
![Page 11: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy CowsGood, Bad and Unknown
Chemical
Physical
![Page 12: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Adapted from Varga - 2010
![Page 14: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
AlfalfaNDF – 36%CP – 22%Fat – 3%Ash – 11%NFC = 28%
Corn Silage NDF – 42%CP – 8%Fat – 3%Ash – 6 %NFC = 41%
ISSUE - MIXED COMPOSITION OF NFC
![Page 15: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Fiber (chemical) guidelines for lactating cows1.
Lactating Cows
Total NDF
Forage NDF ADF
---------- % of diet DM ----------
<100 days in milk >28 >19 >18
100 to 200 days in milk 29-32 20-22 >19
>200 days in milk >32 21-24 >19
1Assumes forage particle size is adequate and ground dry corn is starch source.
![Page 16: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Effect of Forage Fiber on Milk Production
Eastridge, OSU
![Page 17: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
DAIRY COW PERFORMANCE AND NDF DIGESTIBILITY
As NDFD increases 1% unit:– .4 lb DMI– .55 lb FCM– MSU, Oba and Allen
![Page 18: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
U of MN Study Alfalfa Hay Dig NDF
Importance of forage quality NDF concentration NDF digestibility (NDFD)
Previous studies Confounding NDF digestibility
and NDF concentrationInterest surrounding NDFD
TDN equation (NRC, 2001)
RFQ
![Page 19: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment NDF In vitro 48-h Designations concentration NDF digestibility LH Low High LL Low Low
HH High High HL High Low
Alfalfa Hay Treatments
Determine the effect of alfalfa hay fiber digestibility, compared within
relatively high and low NDF concentration hays
![Page 20: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
HAY LOT CORE SAMPLES 2 CORES PER BALE
Treatment
LH LL HH HL
DM, % 93.8 93.0 87.4 91.5
NDF, % 37.2 36.4 41.7 40.8IVNDFD1, % NDF 41.3 37.9 44.6 41.1CP, % 21.4 22.5 20.1 20.8NFC, % 28.8 24.0 24.0 25.9RFV 163.1 168.7 138.2 143.4RFQ 156.0 144.9 143.0 138.1148-hour in vitro NDF digestibility
![Page 21: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
--------- % of diet (DM basis) ---------
Hay1 16.0 16.0 13.7 13.7
Corn silage 36.3 36.3 33.7 33.7
Corn 13.1 13.1 17.8 17.8
Grain Mix2 26.4 26.4 26.5 26.5
Roasted Soybeans 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3
Molasses 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1
125% of LL hay fed as long-stem2Grain mix composition (air dry basis) = 34.3 % soybean meal, 22.9% DDGS, 3.8% blood meal, 26.7% soybean hulls, 12.3% vitamins/minerals
Diet Ingredient Composition MN - 15% of diet DM
![Page 22: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
---------------------------- % of DM -------------------------
DM 59.8 60.1 61.3 60.5CP 17.5 17.9 18.0 17.6
NDF 31.4 30.9 30.0 29.9Forage NDF 21.6 21.0 19.7 19.6EE 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.4NFC 41.4 41.2 42.9 43.0NEL3X(Mcal/kg) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
1Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients
Nutrient Composition of Diet1
MN - 15% of diet DM
![Page 23: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Hays – Ground using AgriMetal
tub grinder
– LL treatment received 25% of hay as long stem
Diets – Fed as TMR (Data Ranger)
Materials and Methods
![Page 24: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Hay Characterization-MN
LH
LL
HH
HL
![Page 25: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
Trt
N = 15 16 12 12 --- p-value---
DMI, kg/d 22.8 21.7 22.1 22.8 .77
Milk, kg/d 38.8 38.8 39.3 39.3 .99
3.5% FCM, kg/d 38.3 40.0 40.5 40.4 .59
FE, kg 3.5% FCM/kg DMI 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 .53
BW change1, kg -20.8 -49.1 -37.8 -24.5 .29
Production Performance and Body Weight (BW) Change
MN - 15% of diet DM
1BW change = initial - final body weight
![Page 26: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Part II.US Dairy Forage Research Center
Alfalfa Hay = 30% of Diet DM
![Page 27: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
---------------------------- % of DM -------------------------
DM 59.8 59.8 59.3 59.6CP 17.4 17.4 18.7 18.1
NDF 28.6 28.0 28.7 28.6Starch 24.6 24.5 24.4 24.5
1Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients
Nutrient Composition of Diet1
WI - 30% of diet DM
![Page 28: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Treatment LH LL HH HL
Trt
--- p-value---
Milk yield, kg 43.9 45.2 46.5 45.3 <.18
Fat, % 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4
<.75
Milk Yield and Fat %
WI - 30% of diet DM
![Page 29: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Potential Reasons for Lack of Response to Treatment
Small difference in NDF and in-vitro 48-h NDFD NDF (4.5 % units) NDFD (3.5 % units)
Physical Characteristics of hay Particle size post grinding
![Page 30: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
CORN SILAGE – NDFD
80 to 98% starch digestibility• Kernel maturity• Kernel particle size• Endosperm properties 40 to 70% NDFD
Grain ~ 40-45% of WPDM• Avg. 28% starch in WPDM• Variable grain: stover
Stover= ~55-60% of WPDMLeaves = 15% of DMStem = 20-25% of DMCob + Shank + Husk = 20% of DM
Laurer, UWEX
![Page 31: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
EFFECTS OF INCREASING CORN SILAGE NDFD ON 3.5% FCMCORN SILAGE – 45% OF RATION DM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 82527293133353739414345
0%BMR25%BMR50%BMR75%BMR100%BMR
Week
3.5%
FCM
, Kg/
d
P=0.70
Silage 0% BMR 100% BMR24 hr IVNDF, % 36 4148 hr IVNDF,% 54 62NDF, % 45 44
U of MN
![Page 32: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy Cows
Physical Particle size
![Page 33: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
FIBER – PHYSICAL OR EFFECTIVE
Function– Stimulates rumination– Builds fiber mat in rumen– Helps prevent acidosis and low milk fat
tests
![Page 34: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Effective Fiber(Penn State Separator Box)
![Page 35: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Hay Characterization-MN
LH
LL
HH
HL
![Page 36: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Particle Size of Ground Hays Monthly Analysis Using Penn State Forage Particle Separator
LHUpper, % = 26.9a
Middle, % = 16.6a
Lower, % = 33.3Bottom, % = 23.2aLLUpper, % = 9.7b
Middle, % = 22.8b
Lower, % = 34.0Bottom, % = 33.4b
HHUpper, % = 14.6b
Middle, % = 23.1b
Lower, % = 32.8Bottom, % = 29.5bc
HLUpper, % = 23.5a
Middle, % = 21.5b
Lower, % = 30.2Bottom, % = 24.8ac
Hay Characterization- MN
![Page 37: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Top Box
Middle Box
Bottom Box
Feed ----------------% of total----------------
Haylage 10-20 40- 60 < 40Corn silage (3/4 inch TLC & processed) 10-20 50-60 <30
Corn silage (1/4 inch TLC & unprocessed) <5 >50 <50
TMR 5-15 40-50 <50
Recommended Percent of Feed Particles Penn State Particle Size Box
![Page 38: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
![Page 39: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Particle Size Feed and Feed Refusals50 free stall herds – MN
Fed 3 hr 6hr 9hr 24hr
2nd screen >8 mm
Top screen >19 mm Pan <1.18 mm
3rd screen >1.18 mm
Endres et al. 2010 JDS
![Page 40: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
ShredlageKP
Photos provided by Kevin Shinners, UW Madison, BSE
Shredlage Study – Univ of Wisconsin –Shaver et al.
![Page 41: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Screen, mm Shredlage KP19 31.5% 5.6%8 41.5% 75.6%
1.18 26.2% 18.4%Pan 0.8% 0.4%
PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS)
Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags
![Page 42: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Screen, mm Shredlage KP
19 15.6% 3.5%8 38.2% 52.9%
1.18 38.9% 35.8%Pan 7.3% 7.8%
PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS)
TMR Samples
![Page 43: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Screen, mm Shredlage KP P <
19 99.3 99.5 0.728 99.7 99.8 0.66
1.18 100.1 99.7 0.09Pan 102.1 101.7 0.54
FEED SORTING – PSU SEPARATOR BOX % of Predicted
Intake
![Page 44: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
2 4 6 8Shredlage 100.1 101 99.4 99.8KP 100.9 98.1 96.9 95.4
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Lb/c
ow/d
ay
Week on Treatment
Shredlage
KP
3.5% FCM YIELD BY WEEK
*
* *** P < 0.10
** P < 0.01
Week × Treatment Interaction (P < 0.03)U. of WI – Shaver et al
![Page 45: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Alfalfa vs. Grass Hay in Lactation Rations
![Page 46: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
HAY NUTRIENT COMPOSITION1
Alfalfa Orchardgrass
--------------- % DM--------------
NDF 40.8 59.7 ADF 31.3 32.7 CP 21.7 16.4 NDICP 3.49 7.04 Lignin 4.66 2.36 Ca 1.86 0.43 K 2.42 3.19
1Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays.
![Page 47: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Digestion Kinetics of Hays1
1Incubation time points = 6, 12, 18, 24, 32, 48, 72 and 96 hr.
70.8%
52.0%
IVNDFD
Alfalfa Rate = 5.20% per hr Potential = 55.5%
Orchardgrass Rate = 4.60% per hr Potential = 78.7%
![Page 48: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM 15 20 25 30
35 Corn silage 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
35.0 Alfalfa hay1 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
35.0 Corn, ground 20.6 17.7 15.0 11.8
7.60 Soybean meal, 44% 6.68 4.74 2.78
0.88 0.00 Protein/mineral mix2 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
18.0 Molasses mix 4.00 4.00 4.00
4.00 4.00 Calcium carbonate 0.56 0.34 0.00
0.00 0.00 Monocalcium phosphate 0.16 0.20 0.24
0.30 0.40
1Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding.
2Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives.
Ingredient Composition of Alfalfa Diets
![Page 49: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM
10 15 20 25 30
Corn silage 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Orchardgrass hay1 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Corn, ground 21.5 17.7 13.8 10.1 6.06
Soybean meal, 44% 10.3 9.24 8.18 7.06 6.00
Protein/mineral mix2 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Molasses mix 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Calcium carbonate 1.14 1.10 1.06 0.84 0.94
Ingredient Composition of Orchardgrass Diets
1Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding.
2Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives.
![Page 50: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HAYS1
Alfalfa Orchardgrass
-----% Particle Retained (as-is) -----
Top 16.7a 28.5x
Second 27.8b 30.0x
Third 28.6b 28.6x
Bottom 26.9b 13.1y
1Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted within forage species.
![Page 51: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Physical Characteristics of Alfalfa Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS1
1PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator.
.
Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM
Part
icle
s re
tain
ed (%
, as-
is)
% Refusal - % Diet
Alfalfa Hay:
15: + 2.2% units
20: + 3.8% units
25: + 5.8% units
30: + 9.8% units
35: + 5.3% units
![Page 52: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Physical Characteristics of Orch. Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS1
1PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted across diets for diet and refusal.
.
Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM
Part
icle
s re
tain
ed (%
, as
-is)
% Refusal - % Diet
Orchardgrass Hay:
10: + 2.7% units
15: + 0.4% units
20: + 2.5% units
25: + 5.5% units
30: + 6.6% units
![Page 53: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Dry Matter Intake (DMI)
Slope ALF = Slope ORCH
For regressors:
Hay, %
Dietary NDF, %
Forage NDF, %
Hay NDF, %
Common Linear Fit:slope = -0.81, r2 = 0.47, P = 0.02
![Page 54: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
3.5% Fat Corrected Milk (FCM) Yield
Individual Linear Fits:ALF: slope = -2.68, r2 = 0.71, P = 0.05ORCH: slope = -1.02, r2 = 0.34, P = 0.18
![Page 55: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
TAKE HOME POINTS
1. Important applied on farm forage quality measures
NDF, NDFD and forage DM
2. Chemical fiber measuresNDF NDF - Forage related to milk productionNDFD – ranking within forage speciesNFC – know composition
![Page 56: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
TAKE HOME POINTS
3. Physical fiber • Important for rumen function and
rumination• Particle size forages and TMR
TMR – rumen health Refusal – sorting
• Current guidelines good, but evaluate with changing forage types (legume vs. grasses) and corn silage processing.
![Page 57: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
“FEEDBACK IS THE BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS” ONE MINUTE MANAGER BY KEN BLANCHARD
More frequent feedback (forage analysis):
provides more accurate analysis andpromotes higher quality performance
National Champions 41-0
![Page 58: Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/568168db550346895ddfd229/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
QUESTIONS?
Thank you