proceedings - miner institute day 2012 proceedings.pdfproceedings tuesday, december 11, 2012 10:00...
TRANSCRIPT
Proceedings
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM Chazy, New York
Dairy Day at Miner Institute
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Speakers and topics for Dairy Day at Miner Institute include:
Kurt Cotanch from Miner Institute, “Extreme Feeding-High Forage-
Low Forage…how to feed the extremes”.
Dr. Roger Cady from Elanco Animal Health, speaking about his
current focus, “The U.S. Dairy Industry’s Role in Food Security &
Sustainability”
Dr. Heather Dann from Miner Institute will present, “What’s new in
transition cow management.”
Dr. Rick Grant from Miner Institute will present, “Low Starch Limbo-
How low can you go.”
12/10/2012
1
Extreme Feeding
High Forage – Low Forage
Miner Institute experiences with feeding the extremes
Kurt Cotanch
Outline
High forage
Low forage
Snaplage
Discussion
High Forage Rationale
High Forage >50% >60%
Deciding Factors
Economic: IOFC
Management Decision
Cows: Health, rumen health
Crops: Land-base
Environment
Nutrient management: dec nutrient import
Crop Year (?)
Good year: choose to feed more
Poor year: have to feed more
What Are The Potential Benefits?
Better rumen health (less acidosis)
Decreased cull rates
Improved milk components
Less purchased feed cost
Improved opportunity for profit
Lower vet bills
Improved whole farm nutrient balance
High Forage Chase ADN 2012: 2004-2005 16 Farm Survey
A B C D E F I N Pasture
Milk lbs Formulated 80 90 75 90 85 90 100 85 49
% Forage 58 58 59 59 67 58 82 57 100
F-NDF % BW 0.93 1.06 1.04 0.96 1.16 0.88 1.00 1.02 1.80
CP 17.8 18.0 16.2 18.3 17.0 18.0 18.2 16.8
Sol P 39 39 40 37 38 35 37 44
NDF 31.2 32.0 31.4 35.0 34.5 32.0 32.0 30.4
F-NDF 24.8 24.4 27.0 26.4 26.0 25.0 25.8 24
NFC 41 37 39 35 38 41 40 43
Starch 26 25 30.7
Fat 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.5 3.8 4.8 5.2
High Forage: Benefits Chase ADN 2012: 2004-2005 16 Farm Survey
Improved milk components
Improved $IOFC
Less metabolic disorders, less acidosis
Less foot problems
Longer cow longevity
Less purchased grain
Lower Vet costs: preg and routine health checks
12/10/2012
2
NDF Intake Guidelines Mertens
Total NDF intake % of BW: 1.1-1.2% 1600 lb cow: 19.2 lb NDF or 64 lb DM (30%NDF)
64 lb DM = 4.0% of BW
Forage NDF (F-NDF) intake: min 75% of total NDF 19.2 lb x 0.75 = 14.4 lb
TMR NDF of 30%: F-NDF = 22.5%
F-NDF intake % of BW: min 0.90% 1600 x 0.90 = 14.4 lb
Appropriate for highly digestible NDF?
How Much Forage Can Cows Actually Consume?
Cows on pasture - - Well managed, rotationally grazed pasture Literature reports = 1.3 – 1.5% of BW as F-NDF
This equates to 200-250 lbs. of wet pasture intake per day for a 1400 lb. cow
Similar intakes for green chop forages
Larry Chase, Cornell
High Forage High forage
Fast Pools
Slow Pools
High forage
Fast Pools
Slow Pools
uNDF240
520
iNDF
//
High forage
Role of Forage Quality in maximizing forage intake
High NDFD required
NDFD24: >50% (55-60%)
High kd (>5%/hr) Low kd (2-3%/hr)
Dec Rumen retention time: inc clearance
Make space for inc DMI
Dec eating and rumination time per unit DM/NDF consumed. Critical mass required for peNDF & rumen health.
12/10/2012
3
High forage
TIJ Project: “The Italian Job”
Objective: to determine how NDFD and level of forage in ration affect DMI, production, chewing time, rumen retention time of various sized forage particles.
High forage: TIJ Project
Experimental Design • 4 x 4 Latin square (21-d periods) • 8 ruminally cannulated, multiparous lactating Holstein cows (88
DIM, 685 kg BW) Diets • 2 levels of forage – High (H) and Low (L) • 2 sources of CS - Conventional (CCS) and BMR (BMR) • Within forage level, diets were balanced on NDF basis with
similar %NDF from CS • LCCS – Low forage conventional corn silage • HCCS – High forage conventional corn silage • LBMR – Low forage BMR corn silage • HBMR – High forage BMR corn silage
Treatment diet analysis
Diet LCCS HCCS LBMR HBMR
%Forage 52.7 68.4 49.4 63.5
CCS 39.3 55.0 -- --
BMR -- -- 36.1 50.2
HCS 13.4 13.4 13.3 13.3
CM 17.3 1.6 20.4 6.3
Grain Mix 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1
Analyzed Nutrient Composition
DM 52.2 45.8 52.8 47.0
CP 17.0 17.0 16.7 16.7
NDF 32.1 35.6 31.5 35.1
Starch 28.0 21.2 27.8 23.8
Fat 4.0 3.9 4.4 4.5
NDFD24 56.3 54.0 62.0 60.3
peNDF 17.3 23.1 18.5 21.5
High forage TIJ project
Treatment P-value
Item Low CCS
High CCS
Low BMR
High BMR SE Treatment
DMI, kg/d 29.0a 26.5b 29.3a 29.2a 0.7 <0.01
DMI, % of BW/d 4.31a 3.96b 4.37a 4.36a 0.12 <0.01
NDF intake , kg/d 9.36b 9.47b 9.32b 10.25a 0.22 <0.01
NDF intake, % of BW/d
1.39b 1.41b 1.39b 1.53a 0.04 <0.01
ab Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05).
High forage TIJ project
Treatment P-value
Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR SE Treatment
DMI, kg/d 29.0a 26.5b 29.3a 29.2a 0.7 <0.01
DMI, % of BW/d 4.31a 3.96b 4.37a 4.36a 0.12 <0.01
NDF intake , kg/d 9.36b 9.47b 9.32b 10.25a 0.22 <0.01
NDF intake, % of BW/d 1.39b 1.41b 1.39b 1.53a 0.04 <0.01
Milk Yield, Milk Composition, & Efficiency
Treatment P-value
Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR SE Treatment
Milk, kg/d 47.0a 43.1b 48.6a 47.2a 1.6 <0.01
3.5% Fat-corrected milk
(FCM), kg/d 49.3xy 46.5y 50.3x 50.2x 1.2 0.06
Solids-corrected milk
(SCM), kg/d 45.2ab 41.8b 46.4a 45.7a 1.2 0.02
Milk composition
Fat, % 3.82ab 4.02a 3.76b 3.94ab 0.14 0.04
Fat, kg/d 1.83 1.71 1.87 1.85 0.05 0.12
True protein, % 3.06ab 2.92c 3.10a 3.02b 0.05 <0.01
True protein, kg/d 1.48ab 1.25c 1.55a 1.43b 0.04 <0.01
Efficiency, kg/kg Milk/DMI 1.62 1.62 1.66 1.61 0.04 0.46 3.5% FCM/DMI 1.70 1.76 1.72 1.72 0.03 0.28 ab Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05). xy Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.10).
12/10/2012
4
Chewing behavior
Treatment P-value
Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR SE Treatment
Eating Behavior Eating, min/d 273ab 301a 250b 273ab 14 <0.01 Eating, min/kg NDF 29.3ab 31.7a 27.3b 27.1b 1.6 <0.01 Ruminating Behavior Ruminating, min/d 514ab 543a 463b 536a 17 <0.01 Ruminating, min/NDF 55.3xy 57.0x 50.6y 53.4xy 2.4 0.09 Total Chewing2 Total chewing, min/d 786a 844a 713b 809a 24 <0.01 Total chewing, min/kg
NDF 84.6ab 88.7a 77.9b 80.5b 3.6 <0.01
abc Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05). xy Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.10).
Ruminal pH
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Ru
min
al p
H
LowCCSHighCCSLowBMRHighBMR
Hour after feeding
Ruminal Digesta Characteristics and pool size
Item LCCS HCCS LBMR HBMR SE P-value
Digesta volume, L 123ab 128a 113b 119ab 3 0.01 Digesta mass, kg 106ab 112a 98b 105ab 3 0.02 Ruminal pool, kg NDF 8.32ab 8.45a 7.64b 8.36ab 0.41 0.02 OM 13.0 12.5 12.1 12.6 0.6 0.40 Ruminal turnover rate, %/h NDF 4.84b 4.76b 5.12ab 5.52a 0.30 <0.01
OM 8.95ab 8.31b 9.44a 9.57a 0.51 <0.01 Ruminal turnover time, h NDF 21.1a 21.4a 20.3ab 19.0b 1.1 0.01 OM 11.4ab 12.2a 11.0b 10.9b 0.5 <0.01 abLeast squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05)
High forage TIJ project
Treatment P-value
Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR SE Treatment
DMI, kg/d 29.0a 26.5b 29.3a 29.2a 0.7 <0.01
DMI, % of BW/d 4.31a 3.96b 4.37a 4.36a 0.12 <0.01
NDF intake , kg/d 9.36b 9.47b 9.32b 10.25a 0.22 <0.01
NDF intake, % of BW/d 1.39b 1.41b 1.39b 1.53a 0.04 <0.01
F-NDF intake, kg/d 5.68 6.68 5.83 7.48
F-NDF intake, % of BW 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.12
iNDF, kg/d1 2.17 2.30 1.92 2.03
iNDF, % of BW 0.32 0.34 0.29 0.30
ab Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05). 1 iNDF calculated as (lignin x 2.4)/NDF x NDF intake
High Forage: summary
Forage % of DM: >60%
NDF intake as % of BW: 1.5%
Forage-NDF intake as % of BW: >1.1%
Forage Quality NDFD24
HCS & CS: > 50%
Particle size: fine chop(?)
IOFC: >$6.00
Cow Management:
May need more time to eat
May need more bunk space
High Forage: summary
Mindset: Producer and nutritionist
Consistent Quality Forages: Consistent and Quality
Variation in FQ carries more weight
Forage Inventory: 15-30% more
Forage Allocation and Storage
segragation by quality and storage space
Forage analyses: more frequent, NDFD
Feeding Management
# feedings/d, TMR stability
TMR Mixer Management
Inc volume
Time and acres: build up inventory, changes to cropping, harvest and storage systems
12/10/2012
5
Low Forage
Photo
Low Forage Rationale
Low Forage <50% <40% of Ration DM
Choice/Philosophy
Economic: IOFC
Farm Management Decision
Cows
Crops
Environment
Nutrient management (high P rations)
Crop Year (?) Limited inventory
Low forage minimum forage levels
Lbs of forage DM min: 1.5% of BW
1600 lb cow = 24 lbs forage
Forage NDF (F-NDF): 15% of total ration DM
F-NDF as % of BW: 0.70%
Low forage: minimum total ration F-NDF, NDF and maximum NFC NRC 2001
F-NDF, % minimum
Total ration NDF % Min
Total ration NFC, % Max
Total ration ADF, % Min
19 25 44 17
18 27 42 18
17 29 40 19
16 31 38 20
15 33 36 21
Low forage: % forage in ration to meet minimum F-NDF NRC 2001
Min F-NDF, % 40% NDF Forage
50% NDF Forage
60% forage NDF
19 47 38 32
18 45 36 30
17 43 34 28
16 40 32 26
Feeding Low-Forage and
Low-Starch Diets to
Lactating Dairy Cows
E. R. Myers1, H. M. Dann1, K. W. Cotanch1, C. S. Mooney1, J. W. Darrah,
C. S. Ballard1, R. J. Grant1, and K. Yagi2
1William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY, USA
2Zen-Noh National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative
Associations, Tokyo, Japan
ZEN - NOH
12/10/2012
6
Introduction
Grain and forage Can be expensive
Limited availability
Corn grain can be replaced with byproducts (beet pulp, wheat middlings, and distiller’s grains) without adverse effects on lactational performance and ruminal fermentation (Dann et al., 2008)
18, 21, and 25% starch diets
High-producing cows (43 kg/d)
How low can forage be reduced with this type of diet?
Objective
To feed lactating Holstein cows diets containing low-starch (19%) and different amounts of forage (52, 47, 43, and 39%) and determine… Lactational performance
Chewing activity
Ruminal fermentation, digesta characteristics, and digestion kinetics
Microbial nitrogen yield
Total tract nutrient digestibility
Experimental Design
Replicated 4 4 Latin square design
21-d periods
8 primiparous and 8 multiparous
lactating Holstein dairy cows
8 ruminally fistulated
4 low-starch (19%) diets
52, 47, 43, 39% forage
Ingredient Composition of Diets (% of Dry Matter)
Item 52% 47% 43% 39%
Corn silage 37.3 34.0 31.0 27.9
Alfalfa-grass silage 14.5 11.1 5.9 0.6
Wheat Straw - 2.1 6.2 10.3
Distillers grain 11.1 10.3 9.5 8.8
Soybean meal 11.0 11.0 11.4 12.2
Wheat middlings 7.4 12.5 16.1 19.3
Corn meal 5.6 5.4 6.4 7.3
Beet Pulp 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Other 6.9 7.4 7.3 7.4
Analyzed Chemical Composition of Diets (% of Dry Matter)
Item 52% 47% 43% 39%
CP, % 17.3 17.7 17.3 18.1
ADF, % 20.5 20.6 19.9 19.1
NDF, % 37.4 37.5 37.0 36.0
peNDF, % 21.5 20.2 19.2 18.9
Starch, % 20.2 20.8 21.2 21.6
Sugar, % 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.2
Diets
52% forage
43% forage
39% forage
47% forage
12/10/2012
7
Intake, Body Weight, & Body Condition
Item 52% 47% 43% 39% SEM P
DMI, kg 22.8 23.4 23.4 24.1 0.5 0.07
DMI, % of BW 3.47b 3.55ab 3.54ab 3.67a 0.1 0.03
BW, kg 663 665 666 662 14 0.74
BW change, kg/19 d
0 4 6 -5 4 0.22
BCS 2.97 2.94 2.98 3.01 0.10 0.49
BCS change, unit/19 d
-0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.07 0.04 0.99
ab P ≤ 0.05
Milk Yield, Milk Composition, & Efficiency
Item 52% 47% 43% 39% SEM P
Milk, kg 42.5 42.6 42.8 42.6 1.3 0.99
3.5% FCM, kg 43.1 42.7 43.9 43.1 1.2 0.59
SCM, kg 39.9 39.7 40.7 40.0 1.1 0.53
Fat, % 3.62 3.52 3.68 3.59 0.09 0.24
True Protein, % 2.99 3.01 3.04 3.02 0.04 0.32
MUN, mg/dL 15.5b 15.3b 17.3a 18.4a 0.8 <0.01
Milk/DMI 1.87a 1.82ab 1.84ab 1.77b 0.04 0.02
ab P ≤ 0.05
Chewing Activity (min/d)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Eating Ruminating Total Chewing
52%
47%
43%
39%
P = 0.12 P = 0.23 P = 0.85
Chewing Activity (min/kg NDF intake)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Eating Ruminating Total Chewing
52%
47%
43%
39%
P = 0.13 P = 0.19 P = 0.56
Ruminal pH
Diet P = 0.15
Time P < 0.001
Diet x Time P = 0.75
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
9:4
0
10
:50
12
:00
13
:10
14
:20
15
:30
16
:40
17
:50
19
:00
20
:10
21
:20
22
:30
23
:40
0:5
0
2:0
0
3:1
0
4:2
0
5:3
0
6:4
0
7:5
0
9:0
0
Time
pH
52%
47%
43%
39%
Summary
As the forage content of the diets decreased
from 52 to 39%...
DMI, milk urea nitrogen, chewing/kg peNDF, and ruminal turnover of OM, NDF, and starch increased
Feed efficiency and total tract OM and NDF digestibility decreased
BW and BCS change, milk yield, milk fat and true protein content, chewing/d, chewing/kg NDF, ruminal pH, ruminal digesta characteristics, and microbial nitrogen yield were not affected
12/10/2012
8
Conclusion
Diet containing the highest level of straw and lowest amount of forage compromised lactation performance and reduced efficiency of milk production
Implications
Lower forage diets with low starch content…
Good strategy for feeding high-producing dairy cows under conditions of expensive or limited supplies of grains and forages
Limit appears to be between 39 and 43% forage with these types of diets when high productivity is expected
Low forage Nutritional considerations
Maintain DMI: animal health Starch: moderate level NFFS: non-forage fiber sources
Soy hulls, citrus & beet pulp, WCS, gluten feed, wheat midds, DDG.
Availability & cost IOFC depends on costs: can be improved (less than High
forage) Milk volume can be maintained, may lose components
Straw or Low quality hay Multiple rations: precision feed Buffers Limit feed: heifers
Questions
The U.S. Dairy Industry’s Role in Food Security &
Sustainability
Dr. Roger Cady Sr. Technical Adviser, Elanco
Prepared for
Miner Dairy Conference
Chazy, NY December 11, 2012
FICA0031
Global Population Growth
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1950
19
60
1970
19
80
1990
20
00
2010
20
20
2030
20
40
2050
Billi
on P
eopl
e
213,000 Daily Another Philadelphia
Every Week!
Source: US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/population/international/, Last accessed 15NOV12
Exports Responsible for Market Clearance of Increased Production
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000
200,000
Domestic Disappearence & Inventory Change Export
National Milk Producer’s Federation – 2010 Dairy Producer Highlights, Table 50 FICA0031
So what’s changing?
Overheard at a dairy farm show: “It’s not the getting better that
bother’s me; I just hate change!”
FICA0031
Five Major Forces Shaping U.S. Agriculture
• Economy – Drive to efficiency fueled by food environmental policies
– Increasing input costs
– Competition of land use for energy vs. food
– Price volatility in both milk & feed prices
• Globalization – Food production and input production are driven increasingly by
international trade
– Increasing discretionary income (eg. China)
• Food safety concerns and issues – BSE, E. coli 0157, organic markets, fear-based food marketing, melamine,
antibiotic resistance
• Consumerism / Advocacy market pressures – Specialty Marketing
– Low fat, low carbohydrate, variety, choices
• Environmental stewardship and resource conservation – Global Warming & Carbon Footprint
– Water availability
– Land use
– Ecological diversification & habitat
FICA0031
Some Things Will Not Change • Milk is a commodity
– Price subject to supply vs. demand
– Price volatility will remain at the farm gate
• Consolidation is a fact of life throughout the food supply chain – Dairy producers
– Coops
– Retailers
• Producers have 3 mechanisms to affect profit – Contract sales & purchases (not available to everyone)
– Change their business model to be closer to the retail buyer
– Cost control (must know their true costs, too many do not)
FICA0031
26-year History of U.S. Dairy Herd Demographics (1985 – 2011)
10,9
82
9,150 9,010
9,315 9,33
8
269
50
41
186
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
8,500
9,000
9,500
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500 19
85
1986
19
87
1988
19
89
1990
19
91
1992
19
93
1994
19
95
1996
19
97
1998
19
99
2000
20
01
2002
20
03
2004
20
05
2006
20
07
2008
20
09
2010
20
11
2012
(pro
j)
No.
Far
ms
(1,0
00s)
& A
vg. H
erd
Size
No.
Dai
ry C
ows
(1,0
00s)
No. Cows (1,000s) No. Dairy Herds (1,000s) Average Herd Size
Source: USDA-NASS, Quick Stats, last accessed 11JUN12, http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/, 2012 proj by Elanco based on 1st 5 months of 2012 Note: Break between 1991 and 1992 due to change in how number of herds estimated (1992 forward based on shipping permits issued)
Percent of Dairy Farms Lost by Decade
22%
51%
64%
48%
42% 44%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
40's 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's 2000's
Source: USDA-NASS, Milk Production Reports FICA0031
U.S. Milk Production (1924 to 2010)
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
19
24
19
27
19
30
19
33
19
36
19
39
19
42
19
45
19
48
19
51
19
54
19
57
19
60
19
63
19
66
19
69
19
72
19
75
19
78
19
81
19
84
19
87
19
90
19
93
19
96
19
99
20
02
20
05
20
08
Ann
ual M
ilk p
er C
ow (l
bs)
Mill
ion
Poun
ds
Year
Total US Milk Milk/Cow
Source: USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp, Last accessed 25OCT10 FICA0031
26-year History of U.S. Milk Production (1985 - 2011)
143.
0
202.
3
13,0
22
21,6
63
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
1985
19
86
1987
19
88
1989
19
90
1991
19
92
1993
19
94
1995
19
96
1997
19
98
1999
20
00
2001
20
02
2003
20
04
2005
20
06
2007
20
08
2009
20
10
2011
20
12 (p
roj)
Ave
rage
Ann
ual
Milk
/Cow
(lb)
U.S
. Milk
(bill
lb)
U.S. Milk Production (bill lb) Average Annual Milk/Cow (lb)
Source: USDA-NASS, Quick Stats, last accessed 11JUN12, http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/, 2012 proj by Elanco based on 1st 5 months of 2012
Note: August 2010 evaluation, genetic baseline converted to 1957 = 0
Productivity Trend Partitioned into Genetics and Technology & Management
(1985 to 2009)
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
Genetic trend: +198 lbs/yr
Management & Technology Trend: +119 lbs/yr
Source: USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp, Last accessed 25OCT10
USDA-ARS-AIPL, http://aipl.arsusda.gov/eval/summary/trend.cfm, Last accessed 26,OCT10 FICA0031
Technology Almost Always Meets Opposition
• “This will only increase the price of the food.”
• “We must not meddle with nature.”
• “This process changes the properties of the food. Possibly
dangerous substances could be formed.”
• “This process may be done carelessly. Accidents could happen.”
• “This will diminish the nutritive value of the food.”
Source: Steele, J.H., 2000, JAVMA, 215:2 pp 175-178 FICA0031
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
Ann
ual M
ilk P
rodu
ctio
n pe
r Cow
(lbs
)
Technology Has Been Vital for Dairy Productivity Improvement
Source: USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp, Last accessed 25OCT10
1994, Weimar & Blayney, Landmarks in the U.S. Dairy Industry.
1935 – Rural Electrification Act brings electricity to the farm
1938 – Artificial insemination introduced
1946 – Manufactured inorganic fertilizer
1952 – Frozen semen used in AI
1955 – Penicillin approved for use in lactating dairy cows
1963 – Freestall Housing
1965 – National genetic evaluations
1973 – Total mixed rations and 3x milking
1976 – Ionophores approved for growing heifers
1978 – Reproductive hormones introduced
1981 – On-farm computerized records
1983 – Methane digesters
1994 - rbST 1995 – Repro synch programs
1999- Heat abatement
2007- Sexed semen
2005 - Monensin for lactating dairy cattle
FICA0031
Since WWII U.S. Agriculture has been Consolidating!
• What does that mean?
– Fewer herds
– Fewer cows – maybe! – Larger herds
– More milk per cow
– Integration of production & processing
• Why would this change now?
FICA0031
Averages Do Not Tell The Whole Story Need Market Share Information
• 10,000 cows on 100 herds
– Each herd has 100 cows
• If 1 operation buys 10 cows from every other herd
– 99 herds with 90 cows
– 1 herd with 1,090 cows
• Average herd size in each scenario is 100
1st Situation – Each herd has 1% of market
2nd situation – 99 herds have .9% of market but
1 herd has 10.9% of market
FICA0031
Productivity & Milk Quality by Herd Size (12,127 Holstein Herds; 1.89 mil cow, October 2010)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
<100 100 to 199 200 to 599 600 to 999 1,000+
Som
atic
Cel
l Cou
nt (S
CC
– 1
,000
s)
Rol
ling
Her
d Av
erag
e (lb
s)
Herd Size
RHA SCC
No. Herds No. Cows
7,480 2,725 1,441 273 208
443,564 373,598 466,740 209,009 395,762
Source: DRMS Dairy Metrics, http://www.drms.org/DairyMetricsRun.aspx?node_id=Cons3, Last Accessed 19OCT10 FICA0031
It’s Economics Driving Expansion & Efficiency
Disconnects between input costs, living expenses & income
0
50
100
150
200
250
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Pric
e In
dex
(198
2 - 1
984)
CPI All Items
Food
Retail Dairy
Farm Gate Dairy
Supplies
Wages
Feed
National Milk Producer’s Federation – 2010 Dairy Producer Highlights, Table 56 FICA0031
It’s Economics Driving Expansion & Efficiency
Disconnects between input costs, living expenses & income
0
50
100
150
200
250
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008
Pric
e In
dex
(198
2 - 1
984)
CPI All Items
Food
Retail Dairy
Farm Gate Dairy
Supplies
Wages
Feed
National Milk Producer’s Federation – 2010 Dairy Producer Highlights, Table 56 FICA0031
Defining “Dilution of Maintenance” for a Lactating Dairy Cow
40 lbs milk/d 65 lbs milk/d
Ener
gy o
r Fe
ed R
equi
rem
ent
Energy (Feed) Requirment
FICA0045
Defining “Dilution of Maintenance” for a Lactating Dairy Cow
40 lbs milk/d 65 lbs milk/d
Ener
gy o
r Fe
ed R
equi
rem
ent
Maintenance Lactation
54%
46% 58%
42% The difference is
“dilution of maintenance” This reduction is
“dilution of maintenance”
Net result is 22% less energy (feed) per unit of milk produced
FICA0045
Effect of Productivity on Feed Cost - Example
45 lbs Daily Milk Daily Feed Req. Milk: 18 lb DM
Daily Milk Feed Cost: $1.80
Daily Feed Cost/Cow: $4.00
Cows to Make CWT: 2.22
Feed Cost/CWT: $8.89
65 lbs Daily Milk Daily Feed Req. Milk: 26 lb DM
Daily Milk Feed Cost: $2.60
Daily Feed Cost/Cow: $4.80
Cows to Make CWT: 1.54
Feed Cost/CWT: $7.38
Average Feed Cost: 10¢ / lb DM
Typical Daily Maintenance Feed Requirement: 22 lb DM
Daily Maintenance Feed Cost: $2.20
Savings: $1.51/CWT (17%)
FICA0031
Herds With Higher Feed Costs per CWT Tend to Have Lower Productivity
2,745 Holstein Herds; 334,233 Cows; October 2010
50
55
60
65
70
75
$3.00 to $4.00
$4.01 to $4.50
$4.51 to $5.00
$5.01 to $5.50
$5.51 to $6.00
$6.01 to $6.50
$6.51 to $7.00
$7.01 to $7.50
$7.51 to $8.00
$8.01 to $8.50
$8.51 to $9.00
$9.01 to $11.00
Aver
age
Dai
ly M
ilk (l
b)
Feed Cost per CWT
No. Herds No. Cows
248 258 249 285 275 269 262 229 175 138 76 181
41,656 32,302 30,626 35,198 32,725, 35,858 32,933 26,770 20,563 16,091 8,352 21,159
Source: DRMS Dairy Metrics, http://www.drms.org/DairyMetricsRun.aspx?node_id=Cons3, Last Accessed 21OCT10 FICA0031
Supply, Demand & Milk Price (1970 – 2010)
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000
200,000 19
70
1971
19
72
1973
19
74
1975
19
76
1977
19
78
1979
19
80
1981
19
82
1983
19
84
1985
19
86
1987
19
88
1989
19
90
1991
19
92
1993
19
94
1995
19
96
1997
19
98
1999
20
00
2001
20
02
2003
20
04
2005
20
06
2007
20
08
2009
20
10
Ave
rage
Far
m G
ate
Pric
e
Mill
ion
Poun
ds M
ilk
Milk Produced Milk Disappearence Average Farm Gate Milk Price
Source: USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp, Last accessed 25OCT10
USDA-NASS, http://future.aae.wisc.edu/data/monthly_values/by_area/2057?area=Federal+Average&tab=prices&grid=true, Last accessed 25OCT10
FICA0031
Dairy Producers React to Milk Prices by Varying How Many Cows They Keep in Production
8,900
8,950
9,000
9,050
9,100
9,150
9,200
9,250
9,300
9,350
9,400
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
$22
$24
Jul_
97
Oct_
97
Jan_98
Apr_
98
Jul_
98
Oct_
98
Jan_99
Apr_
99
Jul_
99
Oct_
99
Jan_00
Apr_
00
Jul_
00
Oct_
00
Jan_01
Apr_
01
Jul_
01
Oct_
01
Jan_02
Apr_
02
Jul_
02
Oct_
02
Jan_03
Apr_
03
Jul_
03
Oct_
03
Jan_04
Apr_
04
Jul_
04
Oct_
04
Jan_05
Apr_
05
Jul_
05
Oct_
05
Jan_06
Apr_
06
Jul_
06
Oct_
06
Jan_07
Apr_
07
Jul_
07
Oct_
07
Jan_08
Apr_
08
Jul_
08
Oct_
08
Jan_09
Apr_
09
Jul_
09
Oct_
09
Jan_10
Apr_
10
Jul_
10
Num
ber
of
Dairy C
ow
s (
1,0
00's
)
Avera
ge U
.S.
Mailb
ox P
rice (
$/c
wt)
Mailbox Milk Price Cows
Source: USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp, Last accessed 25OCT10
USDA-NASS, http://future.aae.wisc.edu/data/monthly_values/by_area/2057?area=Federal+Average&tab=prices&grid=true, Last accessed 25OCT10
FICA0031
Trend in Productivity (Milk/Cow) Has Not Been Affected by Price Volatility
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
$22
$24
Jul_
97
Nov_97
Mar_
98
Jul_
98
Nov_98
Mar_
99
Jul_
99
Nov_99
Mar_
00
Jul_
00
Nov_00
Mar_
01
Jul_
01
Nov_01
Mar_
02
Jul_
02
Nov_02
Mar_
03
Jul_
03
Nov_03
Mar_
04
Jul_
04
Nov_04
Mar_
05
Jul_
05
Nov_05
Mar_
06
Jul_
06
Nov_06
Mar_
07
Jul_
07
Nov_07
Mar_
08
Jul_
08
Nov_08
Mar_
09
Jul_
09
Nov_09
Mar_
10
Jul_
10
Aver
age
Dai
ly M
ilk/C
ow (l
bs)
Aver
age
U.S
. Mai
lbox
Milk
Pric
e ($
/cw
t)
Mailbox Milk Price Milk/Cow
Source: USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp, Last accessed 25OCT10
USDA-NASS, http://future.aae.wisc.edu/data/monthly_values/by_area/2057?area=Federal+Average&tab=prices&grid=true, Last accessed 25OCT10
FICA0031
Productivity & Efficiency Are Important to Mitigate Effects of Price Volatility on Profitability
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
$22
$24
Jul_
97
Oct_
97
Jan_98
Apr_
98
Jul_
98
Oct_
98
Jan_99
Apr_
99
Jul_
99
Oct_
99
Jan_00
Apr_
00
Jul_
00
Oct_
00
Jan_01
Apr_
01
Jul_
01
Oct_
01
Jan_02
Apr_
02
Jul_
02
Oct_
02
Jan_03
Apr_
03
Jul_
03
Oct_
03
Jan_04
Apr_
04
Jul_
04
Oct_
04
Jan_05
Apr_
05
Jul_
05
Oct_
05
Jan_06
Apr_
06
Jul_
06
Oct_
06
Jan_07
Apr_
07
Jul_
07
Oct_
07
Jan_08
Apr_
08
Jul_
08
Oct_
08
Jan_09
Apr_
09
Jul_
09
Oct_
09
Jan_10
Apr_
10
Jul_
10
Avera
ge U
.S.
Mailb
ox P
rice (
$/c
wt)
Recovered Profit
Source: USDA-NASS, http://future.aae.wisc.edu/data/monthly_values/by_area/2057?area=Federal+Average&tab=prices&grid=true, Last accessed 25OCT10
FICA0031
USFCANON00325
Northeast Milk Supply Case Study
May 17, 2012
USFCANON00325
Northeast Produces 13% of U.S. Milk Supply
USFCANON00325
Case Study Goals
• Over-Arching Goal: Secure a regional milk supply to meet growing regional demand
• Examine options for meeting projected milk demand growth in the NY-PA-VT milk shed
USFCANON00325
Annual Regional Milk Production
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Milk
Pro
duce
d (b
ill lb
s)
VT
PA
NY
Source: USDA-NASS, QuikStats, Accessed: 11MAY12
USFCANON00325
Annual Regional Dairy Cows
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
No.
Cow
s (m
illio
n)
VT
PA
NY
Source: USDA-NASS, QuikStats, Accessed: 11MAY12
USFCANON00325
Annual Regional Dairy Cows Projected to continue declining
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
No.
Cow
s (m
illio
n)
VT
PA
NY
Source: USDA-NASS, QuikStats, Accessed: 11MAY12
USFCANON00325
Annual Regional Milk/Cow Milk per cow is projected to continue increasing
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000 19
91
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Ann
ual M
ilk/C
ow (l
bs)
NY PA VT Region
Source: USDA-NASS, QuikStats, Accessed: 11MAY12
USFCANON00325
Annual Regional Milk Production Total milk production expected to increase only slightly
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Milk
Pro
duce
d (b
ill lb
s)
VT
PA
NY
Source: USDA-NASS, QuikStats, Accessed: 11MAY12
USFCANON00325
Projected Regional Demand
2.3 4.7 7.5
2.3 3.0 3.2 1.9
4.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2012 2014 ^ 2009 2012 2014
Milk
Sup
ply
(Bill
lbs)
Other Supply Chains Scoped Plants Market Share Required Growth
No Change in Supply Trends Additional Growth Requirement
25.4 26.1 26.3 25.4 27.9
30.7
Source: Dairylea, DMS & USDA-NASS
Only 26.3 Billion lbs are expected to be produced in 2014. New demand will require an increasing share of existing milk supply.
Projected annual demand is expected to increase to 30.7 Billion lbs by 2014, 4.4 Billion lbs
more than expected production.
USFCANON00325
Given longstanding Northeast Mega-Trends*, Northeast will need 210,000 more cows by 2014
*Increasing milk per cow and declining cow numbers.
19,587
20,449
20,929
18,500
19,000
19,500
20,000
20,500
21,000
21,500
2009 2012 2014
Ann
ual M
ilk/C
ow (l
bs)
Projected Annual Milk/Cow
1.30 1.28
1.26
0.09
0.21
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
2009 2012 2014
No.
Cow
s (M
ill)
Projected Cow Numbers
Projected if no intervention Shortfall
1.30
1.37
1.47
USFCANON00325
Productivity What-if Scenarios
1. Region’s Current Milk/Cow Increase: +244 lbs/cow/yr 2. Rest of U.S. Increase: +322 lbs/cow/yr 3. Upper End U.S. Increase: +600 lbs/cow/yr 4. Stretch Increase: +950 lbs/cow/yr Other Points: • Glide rate:
– 20% gain in 2012 – 60% gain in 2013 (+40%) – 100% gain in 2014 (+40%)
• External milk supply sources not considered in this analysis, but will likely be an important part of the near-term solutions.
USFCANON00325
What-if Scenarios: Varying Milk/Cow Projected average milk per cow in 2014, given the four
different rates of increase per year.
20,209
20,959
21,081
21,581
22,211
18,000
18,500
19,000
19,500
20,000
20,500
21,000
21,500
22,000
22,500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Ann
ual M
ilk/C
ow (l
bs)
Current Rest of U.S. (+325 lb/yr)
Upper End of U.S. (+600 lb/yr) Stretch Increase (+950 lb/yr)
USFCANON00325
What-if Scenario: Projected Regional Milk Supply
Projected total milk production given the four different rates of increase per year.
26.0
26.3
26.5
27.1
27.9
24.0
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Ann
ual M
ilk P
rodu
ctio
n (B
ill lb
s)
Current Rest of U.S. (+325 lb/yr)
Upper End of U.S. (+600 lb/yr) Stretch Increase (+950 lb/yr)
Note: projected demand by 2014 is 30.7 Billion pounds of milk
USFCANON00325
What-if Scenario: Meeting the Shortfall – Cows vs. Milk/Cow
4.40 4.25
3.62
2.83
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
No Change (+244)
Rest of U.S.
(+322)
High End U.S.
(+600)
Stretch (+950)
Milk
(Bill
lb)
Projected MILK Shortfall
2014
210.0 201.5
167.7
127.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
No Change (+244)
Rest of U.S.
(+322)
High End U.S.
(+600)
Stretch (+950)
Cow
s (1
,000
s)
Additional COWS Required
2014
With “No Change” NE is expected to be short 4.4 Billion lbs of milk and would need 210,000 more cows in 2014. Achieving the “Stretch” goal is expected to leave the NE 2.8 Billion lbs of milk short and would need 127,000 more cows.
USFCANON00325
Impact on Annual Feed Requirements Improving milk per cow reduces the amount of feed required to
produce the same amount of milk.
345 343 329 311
371 371 371 371
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
No Change (+244)
Rest of U.S. (+322)
High End U.S. (+600)
Stretch (+950)
1,00
0 To
ns
2012
Cow Maintenance Milk
805 772
643
488
888 888 888
888
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
No Change (+244)
Rest of U.S. (+322)
High End U.S. (+600)
Stretch (+950)
1,00
0 To
ns
2014
Cow Maintenance Milk
USFCANON00325
Projected Resource Savings Through improving milk per cow, compared to “No Change” Scenario
2.5 17
34 33
162
317
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Rest of U.S. (+322)
High End U.S. (+600)
Stretch (+950)
1,00
0 To
ns
Feed
2012 2014
0.8 5.4
11.2 10.6
52.9
103.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rest of U.S. (+322)
High End U.S. (+600)
Stretch (+950)
1,00
0 A
cres
Land (Minimum Savings)
2012 2014
Note: Based on 1.25 acres/cow
USFCANON00325
Cost to Add 1 Million Pounds Milk Improving milk per cow is significantly more efficient and less costly
than adding additional cows to supply additional milk to meet demand.
$181,000
$99,940
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
Cows Milk/Cow
Source: some data from 2011 Northeast Dairy Farm Summary, Farm Credit East
USFCANON00325
Annual Production Sector Savings Through improving milk per cow, compared to “No Change” Scenario
$1.0 $6.7
$14.0 $12.5
$63.4
$127.5
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Rest of U.S. (+322) High End U.S. (+600) Stretch (+950)
Mill
ion
2012 2014
USFCANON00325
• Challenge is the equivalent of adding Iowa’s dairy industry (ranks 12th) to the region in 2 years
• Neither productivity nor adding cows will singularly accomplish the goal – must be a combination of both
• Meeting the projected demand will require some imported milk (at least near term) from other regions.
• Improving production efficiency (milk per cow) strengthens the financial health of the industry and makes it more resilient to market incursions.
SUMMARY - Securing a regional milk supply to meet growing regional demand
“It’s not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.”
Charles Darwin
USDBUPOS00003
Thank you!
FICA0031
What’s New in Transition Cow Management?
Heather Dann, Ph.D.2012 Miner Institute Dairy Day
High-Producing, Healthy Fresh Cow with Good
Legs and Ability to Reproduce
Components of Successful Transition Cow Programs
Implementation of management practices that focus on… Prevention of transition disorders Optimization of nutrient intake Removal of stressors
Real-time monitoring and use of the information
Lactation Cycle:The most rapid decrease in energy balance and negative energy balance nadir occur during early lactation
Goal: manage intake to optimize milk yield, efficiency of nutrient utilization, and animal health
Circulating NEFA and BHBA are a Normal Part of Transition if Lipid Mobilization is “Normal” and Non-Compromised
How Common is Elevated NEFA and BHBA in Herds in the Northeast?
% of herds with >15% of
samples
% of herds with >35% of
samplesPrepartum NEFA >
0.3 mEq/L74 37
Postpartum NEFA > 0.7 mEq/L
65 35
Postpartum BHBA > 10 mg/dL (heifers)
38 12
Postpartum BHBA > 10 mg/dL (cows)
70 25
Overton and Nydam, 2009
Ketosis
“It’s the #1 metabolic disease going on in cattle” Gary Oetzel, February 13, 2012
30% incidence…may be higher 43% (26-56%) SCK incidence on 4 large
commercial dairies (McArt et al., 2011)
$67 ($33-109) per case of SCK (Oetzel, 2012)
Incidence of Subclinical Ketosis (BHBA = 1.2 to 2.9 mmol/L)
McArt et al., 2012; J. Dairy Sci. 95:5056
• Peak incidence occurs early (5 DIM) in herds that group cows and feed a TMR
• Resolution of SCK is ~5 d
Impact of Negative Energy Balance and Subclinical Ketosis
Increased risk (3x) for early removal from herd in 1st 30 DIM (McArt et al., 2012)
Increased risk (3-7x) for DA (Duffield et al., 2009; Ospina et al., 2010)
Impaired immunity (Sordillo, 2012)
Increased risk (2-3x) for metritis(Duffield et al., 2009; Ospina et al., 2010)
Impaired fertility (Walsh et al., 2007; Ospina et al., 2010; McArt et al., 2012)
Impact of Negative Energy Balance and Subclinical Ketosis
Reduced milk yield: 4 – 7% (Dohoo and Martin, 1984; Duffield et al., 2009; Ospina et al., 2010; Chapinal et al., 2012)
Severity of loss is associated with magnitude of elevation in BHBA at 1st
diagnosis and DIM at 1st diagnosis (McArtet al., 2012)
Each additional 0.1 mmol/L increase in BHBA above 1.2 mmol/L was associated with 1.1 lbsmore lost milk in 1st 30 DIM
Great loss at 3 to 7 DIM vs. 8 to 16 DIM
Cow-Level Testing for Ketosis(Nydam, 2012; Oetzel, 2012)
Blanket testing M-W-F or T-Th protocol Use in high prevalence (snapshot) herds
Incidence is 2.2-2.4 X the prevalence
Selective testing Based on attitude, appetite, and milk
Low milk alone will delay diagnosis
Use selective testing in lower prevalence herds
Early Detection and Propylene Glycol Treatment (300 mL/10 oz.)(Oetzel, 2012; McArt et al., 2012)
1.5X more likely to resolve ketosis by 16 DIM 0.54X less likely to develop BHBA ≥ 3.0
mmol/L 0.63X less likely to develop a DA ≤ 30 DIM 0.48X less likely to be removed by ≤ 30 DIM 3.2 lb more milk 1.3X more likely to conceive at 1st service
Rather Prevent than Treat!
Prevention of Ketosis – Dry Period (Oetzel, 2012)
Prevent negative energy balance and/or stress before calving Adequate bunk space (30” per cow) Adequate energy intake during dry period
Not too much…not too little
Control body condition Fat cows have higher risk Fat cows eat less and mobilize more fat
Avoid pen moves 3-9 days before calving
Prevention of Ketosis – Fresh Period No pen move soon after calving
No separate pen for non-saleable milk (1-2 days) Go directly to fresh pen
Adequate bunk space in fresh pen Avoid high fat or high protein diets (ketogenic) Use appropriate feed additives Optimize rumen function to drive intake and
energy balance Avoid SARA
Risk of Ruminal Acidosis (SARA) is Increased in Fresh Cows SARA increased dramatically after calving (Fairfield et al.,
2007; Penner et al., 2007)
Why? Abrupt change in fermentable carbohydrate intake
after calving Feeding behavior changes associated with grouping
and pen movement strategies Heifers may be more susceptible
Item -5 to -1 d 1 to 5 d 17-19 d
Minimum pH 5.74 5.38 5.37
Mean pH 6.32 5.96 5.95
SARA, h/d 1.1 7.3 9.0
Minimize the Risk of SARA Prevent depression in intake before calving
Negatively affects ruminal epithelial function
Proper formulation of diets to optimize intake of fermentable carbohydrates, peNDF, and endogenous buffering capacity
Consistent delivery of diets with minimal variation in composition
Continuous access to feed so meals are small and regular…avoiding slug feeding
Inclusion of appropriate feed additives that mitigate low ruminal pH
The Power of Rumination –Early Disease Prevention
Facilitate digestion, particle size reduction, and subsequent passage from the reticulo-rumen…allowing high levels of feed intake
Increase saliva secretion…improving rumen function by buffering
Rumination Should Rapidly Increase After Calving (Soriani et al., 2012)
Primiparous
Multiparous
57% NDF 32% NDF
Prepartum Rumination is Related to Postpartum Health(Soriani et al., 2012)
Short
Middle
Long Short
Long Middle
Daily Rumination Time of Health and (later diagnosed) Diseased Cows in the 1st Week
T. Breunig, 9/14/12 www.progressivedairy.com
Fresh Heifer with Low Rumination Time
Fresh Ketosis Metritis DA surgery
Subclinical Milk Fever: A Bigger Threat Than You May Think Clinical milk fever: 4-7%
Subclinical milk fever (<8 mg/dL): 47% 1462 cows in 480 herds in 21 states Increases with age…normal homeostatic response to
hypocalcemia may have limits with age Hard to detect visually…no overt clinical signs
Low calcium jeopardizes transition success… Reduces ability of immune cells to response to stimuli and
contributes to infections (mastitis, metritis) Reduces smooth muscle contractions and GIT motility
(leading to lower DMI and DA) Increases lipid mobilization (NEFA, BHBA)
Martinez et al., 2012; Oetzel and Miller, 2012; Reinhardt et al., 2011
Cows with Subclinical Hypocalcemina(<8.6 mg/dL) within 3 Days of Calving Had Elevated Serum NEFA and BHBA(Martinez et al., 2012 in press)
Mineral and energetic statuses are interrelated
Influence the risk of periparturient diseases, compromised immune function, and delayed pregnancy
Serum Calcium in Fresh Cows at Miner Institute2012 Data
Supplementation with Oral Ca (Bovikalc) After Calving (0-2 h, 8-35 h) in Herds with Low (<1%) Clinical Milk Fever
2 WI herds, n = 927 ≥2nd lactation cow supplemental anions during pre-fresh
Overall…neither harmed nor benefited early lactation health or milk yield
But a subpopulation (~48% of cows) benefited from supplementation with Ca Lame cows supplemented with Ca have 0.34 fewer
health events in the 1st 30 DIM Cows with higher previous lactation ME milk
production (>105% of herd rank) supplemented with Ca produced 6 lb more milk at 1st test
Oetzel and Miller, 2012
Management – Focus on Minimizing Stress
Transition Period Stocking Density
Overstocking during the far-off dry period affects energy metabolism(Huzzey et al., 2012)
Competition at feed bunk (Insentec) changes behavior (Proudfoot et al., 2009; Krawczel et al., 2009)
More feed bunk displacements Faster eating rate before and after calving Less intake before calving
The Social “Support” Group
Close-up Heifers on Moving Day
Moving Cows Between Pens and Social Turmoil: Transition Cow
M W F S T T S M W F S T T S
Day
Ago
nist
ic I
nter
acti
ons
Nordlund et al., 2006
M W F S T T S M W F S T T S
Day
Ago
nist
ic I
nter
acti
ons
Weekly Entry into PenDaily Entry into Pen
Weekly Entrance Close-Up Pen Vs. All-In-All-Out (AIAO)(Lobeck et al., 2012 JAM; Silva et al., 2012 JAM)
Weekly pen: ~10 cows entered weekly @ 254 ± 7 d gestation (n = 308) Stocking density: 100% stall & 92% headlocks (averaged
87% stalls)
AIAO: groups of 44 cows for 5 wk max. (n = 259) Stocking density: 100% to 7% (averaged 73%)
Weekly entrance pen had 2X more displacements at feed bunk (agonistic interactions)
No effect on BCS, lameness, NEFA, glucose, innate immune function, or milk yield
The Calving Pen is an Important Facility Since it Affects the Well-being of the Cow and Newborn Calf
Individual maternity pen, bedded pack, or enhanced calving pen
Goals: 1) low stress environment, 2) opportunity for seclusion, 3) low health risk for cow and calf, & 4) convenience for people
The Grass is Always Greener…Even in the Calving Blind
Use of High-Risk and Low-Risk Fresh Cow Pens
Opportunity for large dairies Target specialized management time to
cows that need it Decrease lock-up time for exam and
treatment Decrease time away from stalls
Rest for lame and sick cows Milking frequency adjustment (2x vs. 3x)
http://thedairylandinitiative.vetmed.wisc.edu/tdi/ac_group_size.htm
Conclusions
What is old is new again…but with a focus on subclincal problems
Ketosis
Subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA)
Hypocalcemia
Conclusions
Implementation of management practices that focus on… Prevention of transition disorders Optimization of nutrient intake Removal of stressors
Real-time monitoring and use of the information
MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT
WHAT IS SUBCLINICAL KETOSIS COSTING YOU?
Subclinical ketosis (SCK) is having a tremendous negative impact on our dairy cows according to a recent presentation at the Cornell Nutrition Conference by Dr. Oetzel from the University of Wisconsin’s School of Veterinary Medicine. By defi nition, SCK is an excess of circulating ketone bodies in the blood without clinical signs of ketosis (i.e. decreased appetite, weight loss, and decreased milk production). The lack of clinical signs makes it diffi cult to detect SCK. However, using blood beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA: a ketone body) testing to measure the incidence or prevalence of SCK in a herd is a powerful and useful clinical tool. The blood measurement can be made on-farm with a handheld Precision Xtra meter or blood can be sent to a lab for analysis.
The lower threshold concentration of BHBA for SCK is 1.2 mmol/L or 12.4 mg/dL. Note that multiplying the BHBA concentration expressed as mmol/L by 10.3 converts it to mg/dL. The upper threshold of SCK is 3.0 mmol/L or 30.9 mg/dL. However, the upper threshold is somewhat arbitrary or subjective and is really when clinical signs become evident. Based on Dr. Oetzel’s clinical experience, he fi nds that producers with larger herds tend to underestimate the incidence of ketosis. In contrast, producers with smaller herds (i.e. tiestalls) over estimate the incidence of ketosis because they can observe individual intakes. The incidence of SCK in a herd is the number of new cases of SCK (defi ned as blood BHBA between 1.2 and 2.9 mmol/L) during a
risk period divided by the number of cows who completed the risk period. The risk period can be defi ned as a week, a month, or a year. Most new cases of SCK occur within the fi rst 2 or 3 weeks after calving in herds that manage cows in groups and feed a TMR. Determining the incidence of SCK requires repeated testing (i.e. 2 or 3 times per week) of cows during the risk period since the median time for the resolution of SCK is about 5 days. In a large fi eld study with 4 well-managed herds, the SCK incidence ranged from 26 to 56% with peak incidence occurring at 5 DIM!
Another way to evaluate the occurrence of SCK on herds is to look at prevalence. This is a “snapshot” measure of the current SCK status of a group of cows. It is defi ned as the proportion of cows with blood BHBA between 1.2 and 2.9 mmol/L at a given time point. Cows are not repeatedly tested. The incidence of SCK is reported to be 2.2 to 2.4 X the prevalence. In the large fi eld study mentioned previously, the peak prevalence of SCK occurred at 5 DIM underscoring the observation that SCK occurs very soon after calving.
There are several negative impacts of SCK that result in an estimated economic loss of $46 to $92 per case.Reduced milk yield (3-7%): the severity of milk loss to SCK was associated with BHBA concentration and DIM at the fi rst SCK diagnosis.• Each 0.1 mmol/L increase in BHBA
above 1.2 mmol/L was associated with
1.1 lb more lost milk for the 1st 30 DIM.
• Cows diagnosed between 3 and 7 DIM produced less daily milk (6%) than cows diagnosed between 8 to 16 DIM in the 1st 30 DIM.
Increased risk for herd removal (sold or died)• Cows with SCK were 3 X more likely
to be removed.• Each 0.1 mmol/L increase in BHBA
above 1.2 mmol/L increased the risk for herd removal by 1.4 X.
Increased risk for displaced abomasum (DA)• Each 0.1 mmol/L increase in BHBA
above 1.2 mmol/L increased the risk by 1.1 X.
• Cows diagnosed between 3 and 5 DIM were 6.1 X more likely to develop a DA than cows diagnosed between 6 to 16 DIM.
Impaired fertility in some situations• Cows diagnosed between 3 and 7 DIM
were 0.7 X as likely to conceive at 1st service as cows diagnosed between 8 to 16 DIM.
• Ovulation synchronization programs may mask the effects of SCK on fertility since it overcomes failure to cycle and poor estrus detection.
* References:McArt et al., 2011. J. Dairy Sci. 94:6011-6020.McArt et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2505-2512.McArt et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95:5056-5066.
This article appeared in the November 2012 issue of the Farm Report. To subscribe to the Farm Report, contact Rachel Dutil at [email protected] or 518-846-7121, ext. 115.
MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT
WHY DO SOME FRESH COWS EXPERIENCE SARA WHILE OTHERS DO NOT?
Fresh cows are susceptible to metabolic disorders and compromised rumen function during the transition period. A common strategy to reduce metabolic disorders associated with the negative energy balance after calving, such as ketosis and fatty liver, is to provide more fermentable carbohydrates in the fresh diet relative to the dry diet. However, large changes in dietary composition and dry matter intake during the transition period increase the susceptibility of cows to subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA). SARA is characterized by repeated bouts of low ruminal pH (< 5.8). Bouts can last for several minutes or several hours. The bouts that last >3 hours can negatively affect the ability of rumen epithelium to absorb volatile fatty acids (VFA) and decrease fi ber digestion through changes in the microbial population. Signs of SARA are often varied and ambiguous, but can include decreased or fl uctuating intake, decreased cud chewing, inconsistent manure ranging from stiff to loose, high cull rates due to vague health problems, milk fat depression, poor milk production, and lameness.
The risk for SARA is not the same for all cows. Interestingly, cows show tremendous variation in the degree of SARA they experience under the same management and feeding program.
The variation in severity of SARA can be caused by many factors described as physiological, behavioral, and microbial differences among cows. Specifi cally, those factors include: 1. The rate of VFA absorption from the rumen2. Osmotic pressure of ruminal fl uid3. Integrity and health of the ruminal epithelium4. Genes regulating VFA absorption and metabolism5. VFA metabolism by epithelium6. Eating behavior7. Salivation rate and ruminal fl uid outfl ow8. Ruminal microbial community composition
Surprisingly, very little research has been done to characterize shifts in the ruminal microbial community composition during the transition period. Recent work from Canada demonstrated that heifers fed either a low- or high-concentrate diet before calving and the same fresh diet after calving had differences in their severity of ruminal acidosis. However, the variation in the severity of ruminal acidosis was independent of dietary treatment, intake, and total VFA concentration. Also, the ruminal bacterial community composition was not infl uenced by dietary treatment or period (before and after
calving). However, some animals had greater shifts in the bacterial community composition than other animals before and after calving. The animals with greater shifts did not relate to either a greater or lesser risk of ruminal acidosis after calving.
Until we understand more about the ruminal microbial population and its interactions with the cow, proper dietary formulation and good feed bunk management will continue to be critical for the prevention of ruminal acidosis in our fresh cows. The risk of SARA can be minimized by 1. proper formulation of diets to optimize intake of fermentable carbohydrate, intake of physically effective fi ber, and endogenous buffering capacity, 2. consistent delivery of diets with minimal variation in composition, 3. continuous access to feed so meals are small and regular and thus avoiding slug feeding, and 4. inclusion of appropriate feed additives, such as buffers, that prevent low ruminal pH.
— Heather [email protected]
* References:Mohammed et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95:in press.Penner et al., 2009. J. Dairy Sci. 90:365-375.
This article appeared in the October 2012 issue of the Farm Report. To subscribe to the Farm Report, contact Rachel Dutil at [email protected] or 518-846-7121, ext. 115.
MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT
FRESH COWS EXPERIENCE LOW BLOOD CALCIUM MORE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHTClinical hypocalcemia, also known as milk fever, in fresh cows is an economically important metabolic disorder that increases the risk of mastitis, retained placenta, displaced abomasum, and ketosis, which affects lactational performance. The incidence of clinical hypocalcemia in the U.S. ranges between 4-7% and can be reduced with proper nutritional management. Until recently the prevalence of subclinical hypocalcemia in fresh cows was unknown. Blood was collected from 1462 cows (480 herds in 21 states) within 48 hours of calving and analyzed for calcium. Surprisingly, 47% of cows had subclinical hypocalcemia, which was defi ned as serum calcium < 2.0 mM or < 8 mg/dL. Cows did not have clinical signs of milk fever. Subclinical hypocalcemia increased with age and was present in 25%, 41%, 49%, 51%, 54% and 42% of 1st through 6th lactation cows, respectively. The normal homeostatic response to hypocalcemia may have limits with a cow’s age and may contribute to greater or prolonged hypocalcemia in older cows.
Subclinical hypocalcemia should be viewed as a threat to transition cow health! Blood calcium is important for several physiological and immune functions. Hypocalcemia reduces the ability of immune cells to respond to stimuli and contributes to infections, like mastitis and metritis. Also, hypocalcemia reduces smooth muscle contraction
which reduces rumen, abomasal, and intestine motility leading to displaced abomasum and lower feed intake. In a recent study in Florida, researchers found that cows with subclinical hypocalcemia, as defi ned by a serum calcium ≤ 8.59 mg/dL between 0 and 3 days in milk, had reduced concentrations of neutrophils in blood, impaired neutrophil function, and increased incidence of metritis (78 vs. 20%) compared to cows with normal calcium concentrations. Subclinical hypocalcemia also increased lipid mobilization and therefore concentrations of NEFA (705 vs. 427 uM) and BHBA (9.9 vs. 7.7 mg/dL) in blood during the fi rst 12 days in milk.
Identifi cation of cows with subclinical hypocalcemia is impractical because the cows do not display obvious clinical signs. At Miner Institute we have been measuring blood calcium of fresh cows within 12 hours of calving for several years now, and treat cows with subclinical
hypocalcemia. However, most herds do not have equipment for real-time calcium analysis, so prevention is the only option for managing subclinical hypocalcemia. In a recent Wisconsin study using two commercial herds with effective programs of feeding anionic salts, supplementing 2nd or greater lactation cows with two oral calcium boluses (1st bolus at 0 to 2 h and a 2nd bolus at 8 to 35 h after calving) neither harmed nor benefi ted early-lactation health or milk yield. However, lame cows supplemented with oral calcium boluses averaged 0.34 fewer health events in the 1st 30 days in milk compared with lame cows that were not supplemented with oral calcium boluses. Also, cows with a higher previous lactation mature-equivalent milk production (> 105% of herd rank) and supplemented with oral calcium boluses produced six pounds more milk at the fi rst test than similar high-producing cows that were not supplemented. It appears that supplementing targeted subpopulations with oral calcium may be benefi cial for herds with a low incidence of milk fever.
— Heather [email protected]
* References:Martinez et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95:7158Oetzel and Miller, 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95:7051Reinhardt et al., 2011. Vet. J. 188:122
This article appeared in the December 2012 issue of the Farm Report. To subscribe to the Farm Report, contact Rachel Dutil at [email protected] or 518-846-7121, ext. 115.
MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT
WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE CALVING PEN?The calving pen is one of the most important facilities on a dairy farm since it affects the well-being of the cow and newborn calf. Properly designed and managed calving pens should: 1) Promote cow comfort and a low stress environment for the cow, 2) provide an opportunity for seclusion by the cow, 3) minimize the health risk for the cow and calf and 4) offer convenience for people working with the cow and calf (Durst, 2012).
Most herds (70%) in the U.S. use multiple-cow calving pens while other herds (26%) use individual calving pens, according to the latest USDA NAHMS Dairy Survey. The use of individual calving pens decreases as herd size increases, presumably due to space and labor requirements. Although most herds use some form of a calving pen, the management related to that pen varies greatly. It’s become common to move cows to calving pens within a day before calving or when the feet or head of the calf is showing (i.e. cows moved “just in time”), with 40% of herds using this management practice. In contrast, other herds keep cows in calving pens for longer durations with 19% of herds keeping cows in calving pens for greater than 14 days.
Unfortunately, group calving pens can cause cows to experience stress associated with social turmoil since cows enter and leave on a daily basis and create a social structure with agonistic interactions. Individual calving pens can cause cows to exhibit distress behaviors, such as increased locomotion, vocalization, and defecation/urination, due to social isolation. This social isolation may be particularly stressful for heifers that experience a
move to an individual calving pen for the fi rst time. Some herds practice “just in time” moves when calving is imminent to either group or individual calving pens. If this move is done at the incorrect stage of labor (stage 1 vs. 2) then labor is interrupted, increasing the risk of dystocia and a stillbirth and negatively affecting the well-being of the cow and calf. Thus, training on calving management for dairy personnel is a top priority.
Calving can be divided into 3 stages. Stage 1 is the dilation phase characterized by cervical dilation and uterine contractions, olfactory ground checks, nest-building-like behavior, licking their own bodies (e.g. hind back and limbs), vocalization, defecation, restlessness (e.g. walking, standing up, and lying down repeatedly), and tail raising. Stage 2 is the expulsion phase characterized by the appearance of the amniotic sac outside the vulva, visible abdominal contractions, the cow lying down and the calf (i.e. feet, nose, and head) progressing through the birth canal. Stage 3 is the expulsion of the placenta within the fi rst 24 hours after birth.
Ohio State researchers recently assessed the calving progress of Holstein heifers
and cows and generated reference times for calving assistance during dystocia. In normal births, the amniotic sac appeared about 10 minutes after the fi rst set of abdominal contractions. About every 15 minutes, calving progress was characterized by the appearance of the calf feet, showing feet and head, showing shoulder outside the vulva, and birth. It took about three intense abdominal contractions to complete the birth once the head and shoulder of the calf were out of the vulva. The average time from amniotic sac to birth was 45 minutes and from feet to birth was 40 minutes. Dystocic births were characterized by abdominal contractions for about 95 minutes until assistance and appearance of the amniotic sac for about 80 minutes until assistance. The time from amniotic sac appearance to birth and from feet appearance to birth were 40 minutes and 20 minutes longer, respectively for dystocic births compared with normal births.
Recognizing the signs of imminent birth and the timing for normal calving progress are important to determine whether a heifer or cow needs assistance at calving. Regardless of parity, results from the study suggest that farm personnel should start assisting heifers and cows 70 minutes after the amniotic sac appearance or 65 minutes after feet appearance. These values are based on the mean ± 2 standard deviations time (e.g. 45 ± 25 minutes for amniotic sac to birth) for normal calving. However, earlier assistance should be provided if a malposition (e.g. one leg outside the vulva) is evident.
— Heather [email protected]
Farm personnel should start assisting heifers and cows 70 minutes after the amniotic sac appearance or 65 minutes after feet appearance to minimize the negative effects of dystocia and occurrence of stillbirths.
This article appeared in the May 2012 issue of the Farm Report. To subscribe to the Farm Report, contact Rachel Dutil at [email protected] or 518-846-7121, ext. 115.
1
Low-Starch Limbo: How Low Can You Go (and Still Have
Decent Performance)?
Rick Grant W. H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute
Chazy, NY
We can feed less starch…
Starch is NOT a required nutrient
Rumen microbes require supply of fermentable carbohydrate Starch, sugars, soluble fiber,
digestible NDF
When do we lose performance?
Microbial protein yield for fermentable carbohydrates
47
86 88
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% o
f sta
rch
NDF Sucrose Pectin Starch
(Hall and Herejk, 2001)
Soluble fiber and sucrose close to starch, but not equivalent.
MCP yield for dNDF related to forage quality.
Dairy production response to nonfiber carbohydrates (Hindrichsen et al., 2005)
Evaluated 6 concentrates; 50:50 F:C Used soyhulls, apple pomace, jerusalem
artichokes, molasses, wheat Total diet DM contained:
Starch: 5.4 – 20.4% Sugars: 3.8 – 11.4% Fructans: 1.4 – 12.0% Pectin: 2.4 – 5.3%
DMI, ECM, BW were all similar Cows averaged ~46 lb/d
Starch content, microbial efficiency, and feed intake … (Oba and Allen, 2003)
43% versus 66% forage (~1:1 CS:AS)
32 versus 21% starch
With the lower starch diet:
Similar microbial protein efficiency
Amount of MCP produced per day was less
Cows consumed less digestible dry matter
Feed formulation and feeding environment must promote high DMI
Feeding strategies to reduce dietary starch
Non-forage fiber sources (NFFS)
replace corn grain (starch)
Higher forage diets
Sugars replace starch
Shift diet emphasis from starch to other fermentable carbohydrates
NFFS are not all “the same”
Optimal grain processing
High digestibility forage
2
Comparative carbohydrate composition of NFFS
NFFS NDF (%DM)
NDFd (%/h)
NFC (%DM)
Sugar (%DM)
Starch (%DM)
Sol. Fib. (%DM)
SH 66.3 7.0 17.4 0.7 1.0 15.7
BP 41.6 8.0 36.9 10.0 3.3 23.6
DG 38.9 7.0 25.9 3.4 12.2 10.4
WM 38.0 6.0 32.8 4.0 19.0 9.8
CGF 36.7 6.0 34.0 16.3 4.7 4.4
CP 23.9 9.0 62.5 26.7 1.3 34.4
(modified from CPM-Dairy v 3.0 feed library, 2006)
Important factors determining
starch availability (Hoffman, 2008)
Factor Correlation with starch availability
Particle size -0.70
Moisture -0.53
Endosperm type -0.46
Particle size > Grain/silage moisture > Endosperm type
Optimizing corn silage starch digestion
3/4-in TLC, 2-3 mm roller clearance
All kernels crushed, especially silage >33% DM
Penn State Particle Separator 10-15% top screen
50+% second screen
<35% pan
Corn silage processing score % starch passing through
4.75-mm screen
~70%
≤5% starch
Higher forage diets: how high can you go? (Mertens and Huhtanen, 2007)
Target milk (lb/d) 77 88 99
NDF intake, % of BWa 1.20 1.20 1.20
Forage, % of dieta 61 54 48
DMI, lb/da 47.6 51.8 55.8
NDF intake, % of BWb 1.28 1.28 1.28
Forage, % of dietb 71 63 55
DMI, lb/db 45.8 50.2 54.5
1450-lb Holstein cow Forage mix of 25% alfalfa (40% NDF):75% grass (55% NDF) a48-h NDFD=60% b48-h NDFD=76%
How high can NFD intake go? 1.5% of BW
How high can NDF digestibility go? 66-80% for grass 50-62% for legume
Effect of maturity and species on digestibility (Mertens, 2007)
Forage Maturity Rate
(%/h)
dNDF
(% NDF)
Lignin
(% DM)
Legume Average 11.6 51.2 9.6
Grass Average 9.6 68.7 6.2
L + G Immature 15.2 72.4 4.6
L + G Mature 6.0 47.4 11.2
Maturity effects on NDF digestion are more important than effects of plant species.
Forage quality can change rapidly in the field!
Alfalfa, Wisconsin data (2009)
Crude protein, -0.25 units/day
NDF, +0.43
NDF digestibility, -0.43
Cornell Data (2010):
NDFD decreases by 0.5 to 1.0 unit/d for alfalfa
Grass decline is even faster!
3
High forage NDF digestibility increases maximum forage (Mertens, 2009)
High NDFD forages allow us to feed more NDF
Maximum forage diet
How Do Higher Forage Diets Compare with NFFS Feeding Strategies?
Low-Starch Diets: Ingredient Composition of Diets (Dann et al., 2012)
Item (% of DM) Typical Hi-Forage NFFS
Corn silage 20.0 --- 20.0
BMR corn silage 20.0 53.3 20.0
Haycrop silage 10.0 10.0 10.0
Corn meal 15.0 --- 3.8
Soybean meal 8.3 6.7 3.8
Beet pulp 5.0 5.0 10.8
Wheat midds 5.0 5.0 10.8
DDGS - 3.3 4.2
Other ingredients 16.7 16.7 16.6
Chemical composition of diets
Item (% of DM) Typical Hi-Forage NFFS
CP 16.6 16.8 16.3
Starch 26.0 21.4 21.3
NDF 34.7 38.3 38.0
peNDF 18.5 25.9 22.2
Sugar 7.0 6.6 6.9
Dry matter intake (Dann et al., 2012)
Item Typical Hi-
Forage NFFS SEM P
DMI, lb/d 62.1x 59.9y 61.0xy 1.7 0.08
NDFI, lb/d 20.0b 22.0a 21.8a 0.6 <0.001
NDFI, % of BW 1.23b 1.35a 1.34a 0.03 <0.001
Milk yield, composition, and efficiency (Dann et al., 2012)
Item Typical Hi-
Forage NFFS SEM P
Milk, lb/d 113.8a 106.7b 111.4ab 4.1 0.008
SCM, lb/d 108.0 104.3 106.9 4.0 0.40
Fat, % 3.66y 3.98x 3.76xy 0.17 0.07
True Protein, % 3.10 3.07 3.08 0.06 0.47
SCM/DMI 1.73 1.74 1.75 0.04 0.88
4
Dietary Starch: How Low Can You Go?
Meta-analysis: ADSA 2012 (Ferraretto and Shaver, 2012)
414 trt means from 100 papers from 2000-2011
Starch categories: Very low starch (<18% of DM)
Low starch (>18 to 24%)
Medium starch (>24 to 27%)
Medium high starch (>27 to 30%)
High starch (>30 to 33%)
Very high starch (>33%)
Meta-analysis (cont.)
Results: DMI showed quadratic effect; lowest for VLS (<18%)
and VHS (>33%) Milk and protein % unaffected by starch FCM and fat % lower for VHS 18-30% starch: no effect on DMI, milk, components
Miner Institute: 18 to 26% starch DMI >60 lb/d SCM >88 lb/d
Avoid the extremes in ration starch content
Consider forage and non-forage sources of fiber
Positive responses observed with soyhulls, beet pulp, wheat midds, DDGS (Akins et al., 2012; Gencoglu et al., 2010; Dann et al., 2008;2009; 2010; 2012)
negative responses with whole cottonseed (Ferraretto et al., 2011)
Replacement of starch with forage NDF does not maintain milk yield if overall energy intake decreases (Weiss et al., 2011)
Diet CHO fermentability may limit production response
What about low protein diets?
Trend toward feeding lower CP diets to enhance N efficiency for milk production and reduce N excretion.
Cornell University (Chase et al., 2011) monitored 14 high-producing herds from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York feeding low CP diets (14.3 to 16.5 %).
Starch averaged 28.2% with a range of 24 to 31.6%.
Feed more starch in an effort to avoid reductions in rumen microbial protein production?
Whether or not low-starch, low-CP diets can be fed successfully to high-producing cows remains an unanswered question.
Replacing starch with sugars (Firkins, 2010; Oba, 2011)
2.5 to 5% added sugar (sucrose most studied)
Starch should be <24-25%
Sucrose tends to increase pH Greater butyrate stimulates rumen
epithelium and VFA uptake
Stimulates lactate utilizers
May lead to pH being >critical threshold for more hours per day better fiber colonization and NDF digestion
5
Rumensin and dietary starch: ADSA 2012 (Akins et al., 2012)
No starch level by Rumensin interaction in all studies
20.4 versus 26.9% starch Soyhulls replacing corn grain
0 or 18 g/ton Rumensin in TMR DM Rumensin increased SCM/DMI by 3.1% DMI, SCM, SCM/DMI unaffected by starch Predicted energy content was the same for
high and lower starch diets
How Low Can You Go?
18%
21%
24% Trained monkey
High forage
NFFS
<18% Target milk?
THANK YOU
MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT
This article appeared in the May 2012 issue of the Farm Report. To subscribe to the Farm Report, contact Rachel Dutil at [email protected] or 518-846-7121, ext. 115.
We all know that dairy cows and the rumen microbes do not have an actual starch requirement. Rather, the rumen microbes require adequate fermentable carbohydrates (starch, sugars, soluble fi ber, and digestible NDF) to provide energy for microbial protein synthesis. Until recently, corn grain was fairly cheap and so there was little incentive in the US to formulate diets lower in starch and higher in alternative fermentable carbohydrates. However, research conducted during the past fi ve years at Miner Institute and elsewhere has shown that lactational performance is similar for high-producing, mid-lactation cows fed TMR with starch contents ranging from 18 to 25% of dietary DM. A d d i t i o n a l research has documented that low starch diets can be successfully fed to dry cows, fresh cows, and early lactation cows without compromising any aspect of performance compared with a more conventional higher starch diet. In fact, fresh cows fed a diet with 18 or 21% starch had better dry matter intake and milk yield than cows fed a 25% starch diet according to work done here at the Institute.
Since 2007, the price of corn grain in the US has been higher than at any time during the previous 30 years (with the exception of 1996). Most forecasts are for the corn price to remain between $4.00 and $7.00 per bushel in the future. Although corn and other feed prices will continue to fl uctuate, dairy rations are now being formulated in a new era of substantially higher prices for feed ingredients. And, higher corn prices
appear to be driving a trend toward lower starch content of dairy rations.
There has been no nation-wide survey of the US dairy industry to assess changes in dietary starch content, but in the past few weeks I informally polled university and industry nutritionists across the country as to what they were observing for trends in dietary starch content. Across the upper Midwest, it appears that over the past fi ve years TMR starch concentrations have decreased from 25 to 30% down to only 23 to 25%.
In the western Corn Belt region where ethanol plants produce large amounts of distillers grains the dietary starch content has trended from 26 to 28% to less than 25% and as low as 20% over the past several years. About fi ve years ago, Larry Chase from Cornell University published results of a fi eld survey showing that high-producing dairy herds in the northeastern US and upper Midwest fed from 21 to 30% starch content. Clearly, high milk production can be obtained with low as
well as high dietary starch.
Another trend in the US is feeding lower CP diets in an effort to enhance nitrogen effi ciency for milk production and reduce excretion of nitrogen into the environment. Cornell University researchers have monitored 14 high-producing herds from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York that fed low protein diets (14.3 to 16.5 % CP). The starch content averaged 28.2% with a range of 24 to 31.6%.
So, we see that with low-CP diets the trend has been to feed more starch presumably in an effort to avoid any reduction in rumen microbial protein production. Whether or not low-starch, low-CP diets can be fed successfully to high-producing cows remains an unanswered question.
Randy Shaver from the University of Wisconsin kindly let me use the accompanying fi gure that illustrates the general trend in the US for lower starch diets as corn prices have increased. I have modifi ed it slightly based on the feedback I received from the fi eld, but I think it provides a relatively accurate picture of the US situation. Whether starch content is reduced by using fi brous byproducts (such as soybean hulls, beet pulp, or corn gluten feed) in place of grain, or by feeding a higher forage to concentrate ratio depends on the relative price of feed ingredients. The bottom line is that less starch is being fed today.
— Rick Grant
From the President’s Desk - Low Starch Diets: Th e US Situation
Modifi ed from R. Shaver, University of Wisconsin (2012).