Early research conducted by FutureDairy suggests it may be possible to adjust cows’ diet in automatic milking systems (AMS) to encourage more cows to be milked between midnight and 6am.

FutureDairy project leader Associate Professor Kendra Kerrisk said this could appeal to dairyfarmers with AMS using voluntary cow movement with robots operating at close to capacity.

“Voluntary cow movement involves cows walking on their own accord to and from the dairy,” she said. “In grazing-based AMS, there is usually a lull in milkings between midnight and 6am, a time when cows are naturally less active.

“This doesn’t tend to be an issue unless the herd size is close to the capacity of the robots. In that situation, each robot will be able to milk more cows in a given 24-hour period if more cows can be encouraged to visit the dairy during the overnight lull period. Robot utilisation is greatest when there is an even distribution of milkings throughout the day and night.”

In grazing-based AMS, the trigger for cows to move around the farm tends to be seeking a fresh or new feed source.

AMS farmers can encourage cow movement by adjusting the timing and proportion of each allocation.

“The cows are always fully fed, but the daily allocation is split into three ù or sometimes more ù meals,” she said.

FutureDairy researcher, Alex John, investigated the impact of two possible ways to adjust the feeding routine to encourage overnight milking:

Offering a ‘preferred’ feed between midnight and 6am.

Varying the amount of feed offered in the early evening.

His first trials compared cow preference for either high-protein or high-carbohydrate feed. “Cows showed a very strong preference for the high-carbohydrate feed,” Mr John said. “We found that by offering a high-carbohydrate feed between midnight and 6am, we were able to increase the proportion of total daily feed intake during that six-hour period by an additional 50 per cent.”

He also looked at the effect of offering more feed at night. “In dairy cattle, grazing tends to peak at dawn and dusk so we wanted to see what would happen if we offered feed timed at the opposite of their normal feeding behaviour,” Mr John said.

“Offering more feed between midnight and 6am resulted in nearly two-and-a-half times the feed intake during this time. There was a small decrease in daily dry matter intake, however, this would likely be offset by an increase in overall farm efficiency,” he said.

While both approaches worked, there was no additional benefit by combining the two (such as offering a larger allocation of high-carb diet from midnight).

Mr John concluded that varying the amount of feed offered at night offered the most potential to increase robot utilisation. “This is a relatively simple practice that can easily be adapted into current pasture-based AMS practices,” he said. “It is an approach that is already used on several Australian AMS farms.”

Currently, the timing and size of portions varies across farms but Mr John’s results showed the greatest increase in feeding activity between midnight and 6am was achieved by reducing the amount of feed offered in the evening (between dusk and midnight) and increasing the amount of feed offered between midnight and 6am.

“However, we need to recognise there is a limit to the amount of activity that can be encouraged in the natural rest period between midnight and 6am,” Mr John said.

“Based on results to date we’d suggest no more than 35 per cent of the total daily ration be allocated between midnight and 6am.”

Mr John is conducting further trials at the research AMS farm at the University of Melbourne’s Dookie campus to validate his findings in a working automatic milking system.

Source: The Australian Dairy Farmer

A Canadian analysis of 49 such studies indicated canola meal in feed, at up to 20 percent of dietary dry matter, can increase milk production.

“Cows fed CM (canola meal) as a protein source produce, on average, 1.4 kilograms per day more milk compared with cows fed other protein sources, and .7 kg per day more milk compared with cows fed soybean meal,” he said in his analysis.

The Canola Council of Canada set up a research cluster to examine the feed value of canola meal relative to other vegetable proteins, said Mutsvangwa.

Independent scientists conducted six studies over four or five years, and all showed higher milk yield in cows given canola meal in their diets compared to corn dried distillers grain, wheat DDGs and soybean meal.

Mutsvangwa said cows have greater feed intake when canola meal is included and eat an average one to 1.2 kilograms more per day compared to feeds with soymeal or wheat DDGs.

Canola meal is a good source of essential amino acids, he added, and has a higher energy value than previously thought.

About 90 percent of the canola meal produced in Canada is ex-ported to the United States.

The meal is the second most widely used protein feed ingredient, behind soybean meal.

The canola council funded some of Mutsvangwa’s research, but he told seminar participants that his findings are not a sales pitch for canola meal.

Source: Western Producer

A full potential diet and good calf management help calves fight off disease.

If you raise dairy calves, it’s almost a sure bet that you have Cryptosporidium present in your operation. This pathogen creeps into your farm causing significant losses ranging from delayed growth to high levels of mortality.

Indeed, Cryptosporidium is the pathogen most commonly diagnosed in association with clinical calf scours in North America.^[1] But like a superhero fights crime, a full potential diet can help prepare your calves to battle against Crypto.

“Crypto can be devastating to a calf’s long-term growth and overall health,” says Tom Earleywine, Ph.D., director of nutritional services with Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products. “Feeding a full potential diet of at least 2.5 pounds of milk solids in 8-10 quarts of liquid per calf daily in conjunction with good calf management can help calves be better equipped to fight off disease challenges.”

In a study^[2] conducted by Daryl Nydam, DVM, Ph.D., veterinary epidemiologist with Cornell University, calves fed a full potential diet were shown to gain weight, stay hydrated and resolve scours quicker than calves fed a low plane of nutrition. In fact, calves fed a lower amount of nutrition ended the study weighing less than their birth weight.

Nydam was impressed by the performance of the calves fed a full potential diet. “Despite experiencing scours for several days due to the challenge dose given, the more generously fed calves gained weight and eventually thrived,” he observed. “Providing more nutrients before and during periods of scours is the best thing you can do to help them recover.”

Source: Land O’Lakes Animal Milk Products Company

Planting oats in early to mid-August and either allowing cattle to graze them through late November or harvesting the crop in early November for later use, makes economic and environmental sense, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS).

The strategy allows production of an additional forage crop before winter. The oats also “scavenge” excess nitrogen from the soil, and the plant residues enrich the soil.

Dairy producers, however, need guidance on when to allow their cattle to start grazing the fall oats and which oat cultivars to use. If they allow cattle to graze forage too early, the heifers quickly eat up whatever is available and get less forage than if the oats were given more time to grow. Putting the heifers out to graze later in the fall means running the risk of inclement weather and losing oats under snow cover.

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) dairy scientist Wayne Coblentz and his colleagues at the US Dairy Forage Research Center planted two types of oat cultivars (an early- and a late-maturing variety) in August and put dairy heifers out to graze for six hours a day at two different starting dates: in late September and mid-October.

They weighed the cattle at the beginning and end of the grazing periods and evaluated the oats for their nutritional value and the amount of forage mass produced. All of the animal care and handling procedures were approved by a University of Wisconsin oversight committee.

After two years of grazing, the results showed that it’s better to put the cattle out early in the fall rather than later, and it often is better to use late-maturing cultivars. The heifers put out to graze early gained twice as much weight per day as the heifers put out later.

The late-maturing oat variety also produced higher quality forage, with greater energy density in the plant stems and leaves, and greater concentrations of water-soluble carbohydrates that support cattle growth. The results should prove useful to Wisconsin’s $43.4-billion dairy industry.

Source: The Cattle Site

Inoculants are a tool to improve silage quality, but they are not a replacement for good management practices.

Now that the silage is in the bunk, silo or bag, the process of fermentation is under way.

Many have begun using inoculants during harvest to improve their silage quality. So now that you added an inoculant, what could go wrong?

Last year, treating some alfalfa and corn silages with an inoculant did not appear to benefit the producer with improved silage fermentation. But was it the inoculant? The forage? The applicator?

The answer is, “It depends.”

So, while you are too late to make changes for this year’s forage, you never are too late to document your silage success for future harvests. Let’s start with a review.

What is an Inoculant?

Silage inoculants contain anaerobic (that means they survive without oxygen) bacteria that produce lactic acid. Bacteria in commercial products usually contain one or more of these species: Lactobacillus plantarum or other Lactobacillus species, various Pediococcus species and Enterococcus faecium. These bacteria have been selected to grow rapidly and efficiently, resulting in an increased fermentation rate. In addition, the products of fermentation include higher levels of lactic acid and lower levels of acetic acid.

The primary economic benefits of using an inoculant include improved dry-matter recovery and animal performance. Applying inoculants can reduce dry-matter losses 2 to 3 percent in a well-managed bunk. The shift in fermentation products (higher lactic acid and lower acetic acid) should increase animal feed efficiency because animals can utilize lactic acid more efficiently than acetic acid.

Do Inoculants Always Work?

Well, you know the answer to that: It depends. Not all conditions are conducive for inoculation. According to research conducted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Forage Research Center in Wisconsin, the success of an inoculant is most impacted by the size of the natural population of lactic acid bacteria on the crop. The greater the natural population, the less the bacteria (non-native lactic bacteria) added by inoculation will be able to dominate the crop and provide a benefit during fermentation.

The populations of natural lactic acid bacteria increase with long wilting times (greater than two or three days), rainfall during wilting and higher wilting temperatures. Inoculants will work best when applied to forage harvested at the recommended moisture contents for the various storage structures (45 to 70 percent moisture). Natural populations of lactic acid bacteria do not grow well under dry conditions, suggesting that inoculants may be more successful when used with drier crops.

Which Inoculants Should You Use?

Many inoculants are on the market, and comparing them is difficult. However, you have some key factors to consider when purchasing an inoculant that may help improve success.

First, look for a product that guarantees to supply at least 90 billion live lactic acid bacteria per ton of crop. Certain strains of lactic acid bacteria are selected for particular crops (corn or grass, for example); therefore, make sure you purchase an inoculant labeled for the crop that you are going to ensile.

Liquid and dry inoculants are commercially available. Either type can do the job; however, liquid formulations have some advantages vs. dry. Liquid applications generally are more uniform, begin to work faster and are easier to store (they come in smaller packets that can go in the refrigerator) than dry products.

However, if using a liquid inoculant, avoid chlorinated water (less than 1 part per million) because it can kill the bacteria. If you have chlorinated water, purchase inoculants that contain compounds that will neutralize the chlorine.

Not all inoculants are created equally, so don’t be afraid to ask the dealer for product research, preferably done by an independent researcher.

Once you purchase an inoculant, proper storage (cool and dry conditions) will help maintain bacterial viability. Improper storage of your inoculant can result in the death of the bacteria, and dead bacteria are useless. For these reasons, some producers experience poor or no benefit from applying an inoculant.

Tips for Applying Inoculants

Bacteria added to silage will not move; they grow where they are placed; therefore, uniform coverage is essential for maximum effectiveness. A liquid sprayed on the crop at the chopper provides the best opportunity for the product to distribute and mix uniformly in the harvested crop. You have many other ways to apply inoculant, but this does not include throwing dry inoculant onto a wagonload of forage and hoping for even distribution.

Using the recommended rate is important. Application of less, or more, of the inoculant will not be helpful and is a waste of money. If unused liquid remains 24 hours after it was mixed, it should be discarded because the bacterial population will have begun to decline.

Do not apply inoculants to silage that already has completed fermentation. Inoculants, when used properly, can improve silage quality and animal performance.

Remember, inoculants are one tool that will improve silage quality; however, they are not a replacement for good management practices. Proper chop size and adequate packing are still important to assure an oxygen-free environment. Wilting the forage before storage also is extremely important to not only reduce seepage, but increase forage sugar content (an important food source for the bacterial inoculant).

A quick review of your ensiling management practices and documenting them now before you forget may help explain why you did not see the results you were expecting when using an inoculant.

For more information, several good references are available. They include “The Silage Zone” by DuPont Pioneer, “Silage Management Handbook” from Lallemand Animal Nutrition and “Silage Inoculants” by Charles Hansen.

Source: NDSU Extension

What is the management and nutrition necessary to average 100 lbs of milk per cow per day?

In 1989, a dairy producer asked where his herd production should be in 2010 in order to have a sustainable dairy operation that could be passed on to his children. I told him that his goal should be a RHA of 25,000 pounds with a 3.6% fat test and a 3.1 protein test. I truly under estimated how our dairy industry would change. Consider this recent challenge from a dairy producer to me “I want 100 pounds of milk per cow/day with a 3.6% fat test and a 3.2% protein test.” He wants a herd average of 36,500 pounds per cow and cows that produce 3.6 and 3.2 pounds of fat and protein each day. You can’t reach those production goals by feeding your daddy’s cow. To obtain a herd average of 100 pounds per cow/day, peak milk for mature cows needs to be 130 pounds or greater. Peak milk for 1st lactation cows needs to be 104 pounds. Cows don’t violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you want them to produce 130 pounds of milk, then they must consume enough energy and protein for 130 pounds of milk. This will require a dry matter intake of 65 to 68 pounds per day. For the entire herd to average 100 pounds of milk per day, the dry matter intake must be 55 – 58 pounds. These dry matter intakes don’t happen unless you have good cow comfort, plenty of feed bunk space, put up highly digestible forages and have plenty of access to good water.

Two nutrients can limit dry matter intake. They are undigested fiber and too much starch. Undigested fiber contributes to rumen fill. Too much rumen fill will limit intake. We now have a way to estimate the undigested fiber content of forages. It is called uNDF as a percent of diet DM. You can request this test on a forage analysis. The higher the uNDF value, the greater the rumen fill of a forage. If you want cows to consume 65 pounds of dry matter you are going to have to allocate forages based on their uNDF content. Highly digestible forages will have a low uNDF content. The goal is to have cows consume 5 to 5.5 pounds of uNDF daily. Consuming higher amounts of uNDF may limit feed intake. High starch diets will limit dry matter intake by depressing fiber digestion and producing too much propionic acid. There is a negative relationship between fiber digestion and starch content of the diet. Dry matter intake is maximized, when feeding moderate starch levels (22 – 26%) with high sugar levels (6 – 8%).  Feeding trials at the USDA dairy forage research station in Madison, WI, reported optimal fiber digestion when the diet contained 7.2% total sugar. Starch plus sugar content should be 29 – 33% to optimize feed intake.

Feeding molasses based liquid supplements, customized to your operation, that can include vitamins, minerals, protein, etc.has been shown to stimulate dry matter intake in diets containing 50% or more forage. In an 11 trail summary the average increase in dry matter intake was 2.42 pounds compared to diets without liquid supplements. Molasses improves the palatability of the diet but it also helps to reduce sorting. The reduction in sorting of the diet will lead to a healthier rumen environment for digestion. The increase in dry matter intake will lead to higher peak milk production and greater persistency in the first 160 DIM. You need high dry matter intakes to get high milk production. Combining the concept of uNDF and moderate starch diets with the feeding of molasses-based liquid supplements, will make higher DM intake possible.

Source: QLF

Adding fats to forage-based diets can be effective. But excessive amounts of unsaturated fats and oils can interfere with rumen fermentation.

In the last year, there has been a few supply-management incentives for dairy producers to increase milk and milk fat yield in their milk cows. Because nutrients such as energy largely drive dairy performance, many people are increasing dietary energy density by adding different types of edible fats to early lactation diets. Despite being a successful way to meet incentive days/cover-offs; dairy producers should be aware of the dire consequences of feeding too much fat to dairy cows, while insuring that maximum feeding limits are always followed.

Adding safe amounts of edible fat to total mixed rations (TMRs) of early-lactation cows has been common advice given by dairy nutritionists and veterinarians for years. It is effective in eliciting positive milk and milk fat persistency and often slows down rapid weight loss in dairy cattle during the first 100 days of milk production.

That’s because dietary fats contain more than 2-1/4 times the calories of those found in carbohydrates (barley or corn starch). Common fat sources include oilseeds such as full fat soybeans and whole sunflower seeds (20 to 40 per cent fat) and 100 per cent fat sources, namely pork tallow and canola oil. A third group of dietary fats are commercial manufactured “bypass” fats.

The overall rule for adding these fat supplements to an early-lactation dairy ration is take in account all the natural sources of fat already present and add in these latter fats; making sure not to exceed five to six per cent total fat of the entire dairy diet. One can follow this rule by breaking the dairy diet down into three sections:

• 50 lbs. of forages mixed with defatted proteins (soybean or canola meal) and grains contains three per cent natural fat — 1.5 lb.
• Supplement vegetable oil or tallow (100 per cent) — 0.75 lb.
• Supplement inert rumen-protected fat (99 per cent) — 0.75 lb.

Total = 3.0 lb. or 6.0 per cent total fat

The chemical structures of unadulterated fats found in forages, grains, and pork tallow and canola oil are very similar. Long chains of fatty acids are linked to a triglyceride molecule or exist as free fatty acid chains. The fatty acid chains are of two types, either saturated or unsaturated.

Saturated fatty acids are “saturated” with hydrogen atoms, while unsaturated chains have one or two hydrogen atom pairs missing. Saturated fatty acid chains pass through the cow’s rumen largely untouched, and are digested in the lower gut. Pork tallow contains about 50 per cent saturated and 50 per cent unsaturated fatty acids while canola oil is almost completely made up of unsaturated fatty acids.

There is a limit

Generally unsaturated fatty acids such as found in canola oil are relatively toxic to rumen microbes, particularly forage-fibre digesting species, but that doesn’t mean that canola oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils should not be fed to dairy cows. Fortunately, most rumen microbes have the ability to detoxify and reduce the toxic effects of unsaturated fats through a process known as “bio-hydrogenation” (re: hydrogen is added to the unsaturated fats and turns them into rumen-protected saturated fats). However, excessive amounts of unsaturated fats and oil added to a dairy diet (re: over one pound or 450 g/head/d) often overwhelm this process and as a result interfere with rumen fermentation.

To compliment added saturated and unsaturated from natural feedstuffs in early lactation diets, commercial “rumen bypass” fats are designed to be chemically inert in the rumen, to be digested and absorbed as energy source in the cow’s lower gut. One group of bypass fats achieves protection by locking the fatty acids chains to a calcium molecule to form a ruminal insoluble calcium salt. This bond is broken during digestion in the small intestine. Another group of bypass fats hydrolyzes normally unsaturated fatty acids (such as palm oils) into rumen inert saturated fatty acids.

Regardless, the kind of fat supplement finally chosen and added to the dairy diet, it is important to avoid overfeeding fat in one capacity or another to lactation dairy cows. It is also important that these dairy diets still be balanced with available carbohydrates such as sugar, starch and effective forage fibre (20 to 22 per cent eNDF) in the diet as well as protein, minerals and vitamins in order to support health and normal activities of the resident microbes in the rumen.

Problems to avoid

Here are problems that might be experienced when feeding excessive fat to lactating cows:

• Inconsistent and/or low dry matter intake — Some research indicates overfeeding fat to dairy cows may quickly satisfy their natural appetite for feed (much like us eating a greasy hamburger and fries). Some speculation may also involve reduction in the rate of feed digestion and passage (bypass fats) in the lower gut. Other explanations might involve digestive upsets in the rumen (unsaturated fat toxicity).
• Milk fat depression (MFD) — As mentioned, unsaturated fats are toxic to many fibre-digesting rumen bacteria; cause reduction in acetate/butyrate production that contributes to milk fat production. It is also believed too much tallow or vegetable oil can coat forage fibre particles in the rumen and allow incomplete fermentation. On a different note: University of Illinois demonstrated that two to four per cent tallow caused acidotic conditions in the rumen of dairy cows fed corn silage and MFD, but both conditions were alleviated when corn silage was replaced with an alfalfa-based diet.
• vHigh milk urea nitrogen (MUN) — It is conceivable that supplying too much bypass fat to the lower gut, while literarily starving the rumen microbes of available starch energy could cause incomplete protein digestion and large amounts of urea to be released in the rumen. High MUN levels are linked to lower conception rates in dairy cattle.

Such quantifiable adversity might not occur if dairy diets are well balanced with just the right amount of fats coming from different edible sources. Adding any fats should also complement the rest of the dairy diet, particularly for early lactation cows, which helps them get a good start with milk and milk fat production. Such success should contribute to the profitability of the dairy barn.

Source: Grain News

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

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

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

Know the basics

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

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

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

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

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

Maintaining proper rumen function

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

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

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

Source: Grain News

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

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

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

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

Know the basics

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

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

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

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

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

Maintaining proper rumen function

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

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

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

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

Source: Grainnews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Agri-Nutrition Consulting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: UGC

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

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

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

RFQ

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

Intake

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

As-Sampled vs Dry-Matter

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

Crude Protein

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

Fiber

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

Energy

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

A Real World Example

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

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

More resources that provide additional information on this topic:

Understanding and Improving Forage Quality

Interpreting Forage and Feed Analysis Reports

Source: IFAS Extension

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more at the Silage Zone®.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: All About Feed

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

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

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

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

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

How does your herd measure up?  

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

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

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

Source: Agri-Nutrition Consulting  – Scott Bascom

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

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

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

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

Source: UNL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributing factors to a fall slump may include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimating Requirements

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

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

Trace Mineral Supplementation

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

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

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

Source: The Ohio State University 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: UNL Extension

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Purina Animal Nutrition LLC

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

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

Sources of Variation

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

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

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

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

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

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

What We Found

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

Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Calibrate