Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus Univ. of Minnesota.

Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production

Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus

Univ. of Minnesota

LACTATION RATION INGREDIENTS

FORAGES

FORAGE, GRAIN OR BYPRODUCTS

CONCENTRATES•CORN•PROTEIN•MINERALS/

ADDITIVES

50

30

% OF DM

20

FIBER Physical & Chemical

Protein, Energy, Carbohydrates, Minerals,

Non-Fiber CHO Starch

Protein RDP & RUP

Minerals

Nutrient needs and $Flexible Ration Feeds

Feed Additives

2 – 5%

Fat

4-7%

Min-Vit4 – 8%

Byproducts10%

Grain – Starch

15 – 20%

Feed Cost (% of total) for 85 lb milk_

RD-Protein5 – 8%

Feed Cost/Cow/Day

$8.00 - $10.00

Forages45 – 50%

RU-Protein20 – 25%

SHOULD YOU MAXIMIZE FORAGE FEEDING?

Alfalfa/Grass Forage$250 to $300/ton hay basis

Corn Silage – 35% DM$55 - 85/ton – 40%

starch$50 – 70/ton – 30%

starch

FORAGE QUALITY FACTORS IN LACTATION RATIONS

Chemical

Dry matter (DM) Ash Crude Protein

– True, Non Amm N, Sol

NDF Lignin NFC (NSC)

– Starch– Sugar– Pectin

Physical

peNDF PN State Particle

Separator (PSPS)

FORAGE QUALITY MEASUREMENTS

Digestibility

NDFD Starch

Practical Application of Forage Quality Variation

On Farms

Cows require Nutrients

Forage DM ConsistencyMcBeth et al. Ohio State U

Con = 55%F:45%CUNB = same diet with 10% water added to forage BAL = diet adjusted for decrease in forage DM

21 day treatment means

Item Con UNB BAL

DMI, kg/d 24.0 24.1 23.9

Milk, kg/d 39.3 39.8 39.7

Fat, % 3.42 3.37 3.30

McBeth et al., 2012Ohio State University

Monitoring Forage DM on Farms

• Determine Forage DM - 2X/week

• Adjust ration3 unit change in DM

• Establish protocol

Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy Cows

Good, Bad and Unknown

Chemical

Physical

Adapted from Varga - 2010

AlfalfaNDF – 36%CP – 22%Fat – 3%Ash – 11%NFC = 28%

Corn Silage NDF – 42%CP – 8%Fat – 3%Ash – 6 %NFC = 41%

ISSUE - MIXED COMPOSITION OF NFC

Fiber (chemical) guidelines for lactating cows1.

Lactating Cows

Total NDF

Forage NDF ADF

---------- % of diet DM ----------

<100 days in milk >28 >19 >18

100 to 200 days in milk 29-32 20-22 >19

>200 days in milk >32 21-24 >19

1Assumes forage particle size is adequate and ground dry corn is starch source.

Effect of Forage Fiber on Milk Production

Eastridge, OSU

DAIRY COW PERFORMANCE AND NDF DIGESTIBILITY

As NDFD increases 1% unit:– .4 lb DMI– .55 lb FCM– MSU, Oba and Allen

U of MN Study Alfalfa Hay Dig NDF

Importance of forage quality NDF concentration NDF digestibility (NDFD)

Previous studies Confounding NDF digestibility

and NDF concentration

Interest surrounding NDFD TDN equation

(NRC, 2001) RFQ

© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

Treatment NDF In vitro 48-h Designations concentration NDF digestibility

LH Low High LL Low Low

HH High High HL High Low

Alfalfa Hay Treatments

Determine the effect of alfalfa hay fiber digestibility, compared within

relatively high and low NDF concentration hays


HAY LOT CORE SAMPLES 2 CORES PER BALE

Treatment

LH LL HH HL

DM, % 93.8 93.0 87.4 91.5

NDF, % 37.2 36.4 41.7 40.8

IVNDFD1, % NDF 41.3 37.9 44.6 41.1

CP, % 21.4 22.5 20.1 20.8

NFC, % 28.8 24.0 24.0 25.9

RFV 163.1 168.7 138.2 143.4

RFQ 156.0 144.9 143.0 138.1

148-hour in vitro NDF digestibility


Treatment LH LL HH HL

--------- % of diet (DM basis) ---------

Hay1 16.0 16.0 13.7 13.7

Corn silage 36.3 36.3 33.7 33.7

Corn 13.1 13.1 17.8 17.8

Grain Mix2 26.4 26.4 26.5 26.5

Roasted Soybeans 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3

Molasses 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1

125% of LL hay fed as long-stem2Grain mix composition (air dry basis) = 34.3 % soybean meal, 22.9% DDGS, 3.8% blood meal, 26.7% soybean hulls, 12.3% vitamins/minerals

Diet Ingredient Composition

MN - 15% of diet DM



---------------------------- % of DM -------------------------

DM 59.8 60.1 61.3 60.5

CP 17.5 17.9 18.0 17.6

NDF 31.4 30.9 30.0

29.9

Forage NDF 21.6 21.0 19.7 19.6

EE 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.4

NFC 41.4 41.2 42.9 43.0

NEL3X(Mcal/kg) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.61Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients

Nutrient Composition of Diet1

MN - 15% of diet DM

23

Hays – Ground using AgriMetal

tub grinder

– LL treatment received 25% of hay as long stem

Diets – Fed as TMR (Data Ranger)

Materials and Methods


Hay Characterization-MN

LH

LL

HH

HL


Treatment

LH LL HH HL Trt

N = 15 16 12 12 --- p-

value---

DMI, kg/d 22.8 21.7 22.1 22.8 .77

Milk, kg/d 38.8 38.8 39.3 39.3 .99

3.5% FCM, kg/d 38.3 40.0 40.5 40.4 .59

FE, kg 3.5% FCM/kg DMI 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9

.53

BW change1, kg -20.8 -49.1 -37.8 -24.5

.29

Production Performance and Body Weight (BW) Change

MN - 15% of diet DM

1BW change = initial - final body weight

Part II.US Dairy Forage Research Center

Alfalfa Hay = 30% of Diet DM



---------------------------- % of DM -------------------------

DM 59.8 59.8 59.3 59.6

CP 17.4 17.4 18.7 18.1

NDF 28.6 28.0 28.7

28.6

Starch 24.6 24.5 24.4 24.5

1Analysis conducted on individual diet ingredients

Nutrient Composition of Diet1

WI - 30% of diet DM


Treatment

LH LL HH HL Trt

--- p-value---

Milk yield, kg 43.9 45.2 46.5 45.3 <.18

Fat, % 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4

<.75

Milk Yield and Fat %

WI - 30% of diet DM


Potential Reasons for Lack of Response to Treatment

Small difference in NDF and in-vitro 48-h NDFD NDF (4.5 % units) NDFD (3.5 % units)

Physical Characteristics of hay Particle size post grinding

CORN SILAGE – NDFD

80 to 98% starch digestibility• Kernel maturity• Kernel particle size• Endosperm properties

40 to 70% NDFD

Grain ~ 40-45% of WPDM• Avg. 28% starch in WPDM• Variable grain: stover

Stover= ~55-60% of WPDM

Leaves = 15% of DM

Stem = 20-25% of DM

Cob + Shank + Husk = 20% of DM

Laurer, UWEX

EFFECTS OF INCREASING CORN SILAGE NDFD ON 3.5% FCMCORN SILAGE – 45% OF RATION DM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 825

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

41

43

45

0%BMR25%BMR50%BMR75%BMR100%BMR

Week

3.5%

FCM

, Kg/

d

P=0.70

Silage 0% BMR 100% BMR24 hr IVNDF, % 36 4148 hr IVNDF,% 54 62NDF, % 45 44

U of MN

Fiber Requirements for Lactating Dairy Cows

Physical

Particle size

FIBER – PHYSICAL OR EFFECTIVE

Function– Stimulates rumination– Builds fiber mat in rumen– Helps prevent acidosis and low milk fat

tests

Effective Fiber(Penn State Separator Box)


Hay Characterization-MN

LH

LL

HH

HL

Particle Size of Ground Hays Monthly Analysis Using Penn State Forage Particle Separator

LHUpper, % = 26.9a

Middle, % = 16.6a

Lower, % = 33.3

Bottom, % = 23.2aLLUpper, % = 9.7b

Middle, % = 22.8b

Lower, % = 34.0

Bottom, % = 33.4b

HHUpper, % = 14.6b

Middle, % = 23.1b

Lower, % = 32.8

Bottom, % = 29.5bc

HLUpper, % = 23.5a

Middle, % = 21.5b

Lower, % = 30.2

Bottom, % = 24.8ac

Hay Characterization- MN

Top Box

Middle Box

Bottom Box

Feed ----------------% of total----------------

Haylage 10-20 40- 60 < 40

Corn silage (3/4 inch TLC & processed) 10-20 50-60 <30

Corn silage (1/4 inch TLC & unprocessed) <5 >50 <50

TMR 5-15 40-50 <50

Recommended Percent of Feed Particles Penn State Particle Size Box

Particle Size Feed and Feed Refusals50 free stall herds – MN

Fed 3 hr 6hr 9hr 24hr

2nd screen >8 mm

Top screen >19 mm Pan <1.18 mm

3rd screen >1.18 mm

Endres et al. 2010 JDS

ShredlageKP

Photos provided by Kevin Shinners, UW Madison, BSE

Shredlage Study – Univ of Wisconsin –Shaver et al.

Screen, mm Shredlage KP

19 31.5% 5.6%

8 41.5% 75.6%

1.18 26.2% 18.4%

Pan 0.8% 0.4%

PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS)

Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags

Screen, mm Shredlage KP

19 15.6% 3.5%

8 38.2% 52.9%

1.18 38.9% 35.8%

Pan 7.3% 7.8%

PENN STATE SEPARATOR BOX (AS-FED BASIS)

TMR Samples

Screen, mm Shredlage KP P <

19 99.3 99.5 0.72

8 99.7 99.8 0.66

1.18 100.1 99.7 0.09

Pan 102.1 101.7 0.54

FEED SORTING – PSU SEPARATOR BOX

% of Predicted Intake

2 4 6 8Shredlage 100.1 101 99.4 99.8KP 100.9 98.1 96.9 95.4

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

Lb/c

ow/d

ay

Week on Treatment

Shredlage

KP

3.5% FCM YIELD BY WEEK

*

***

* P < 0.10

** P < 0.01

Week × Treatment Interaction (P < 0.03)U. of WI – Shaver et al

Alfalfa vs. Grass Hay in Lactation Rations


HAY NUTRIENT COMPOSITION1

Alfalfa Orchardgrass

--------------- % DM--------------

NDF 40.8 59.7 ADF 31.3 32.7 CP 21.7 16.4 NDICP 3.49 7.04 Lignin 4.66 2.36 Ca 1.86 0.43 K 2.42 3.19

1Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays.

Digestion Kinetics of Hays1

1Incubation time points = 6, 12, 18, 24, 32, 48, 72 and 96 hr.

70.8%

52.0%

IVNDFD

Alfalfa Rate = 5.20% per hr

Potential = 55.5%

Orchardgrass Rate = 4.60% per hr

Potential = 78.7%


Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM 15 20 25 30

35

Corn silage 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

Alfalfa hay1 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Corn, ground 20.6 17.7 15.0 11.8 7.60

Soybean meal, 44% 6.68 4.74 2.78 0.88 0.00

Protein/mineral mix2 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Molasses mix 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Calcium carbonate 0.56 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00

Monocalcium phosphate 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.40

1Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding.

2Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives.

Ingredient Composition of Alfalfa Diets


Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM

10 15 20 25 30

Corn silage 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

Orchardgrass hay1 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Corn, ground 21.5 17.7 13.8 10.1 6.06

Soybean meal, 44% 10.3 9.24 8.18 7.06 6.00

Protein/mineral mix2 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Molasses mix 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Calcium carbonate 1.14 1.10 1.06 0.84 0.94

Ingredient Composition of Orchardgrass Diets

1Alfalfa hay ground using a vertical mixer prior to feeding.

2Protein/mineral mix composition (air dry basis) = 30.0% soybean hulls, 30% soypass, 18.4% corn distillers grains, 5.0% bloodmeal, 7.5% energy booster, and 8.9% minerals/additives.


PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HAYS1

Alfalfa Orchardgrass

-----% Particle Retained (as-is) -----

Top 16.7a 28.5x

Second 27.8b 30.0x

Third 28.6b 28.6x

Bottom 26.9b 13.1y

1Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples of chopped hays using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted within forage species.

Physical Characteristics of Alfalfa Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS1

1PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator.

.

Alfalfa Hay, % of Diet DM

Pa

rtic

les

reta

ine

d (

%, a

s-

is)

% Refusal - % Diet

Alfalfa Hay:

15: + 2.2% units

20: + 3.8% units

25: + 5.8% units

30: + 9.8% units

35: + 5.3% units

Physical Characteristics of Orch. Diets and Refusals Particles Retained on Top Screen of PSPS1

1PSPS = Penn State Particle Separator. Analysis conducted on weekly grab samples using the Penn State Particle Separator. Statistical analysis conducted across diets for diet and refusal.

.

Orchardgrass Hay, % of Diet DM

Pa

rtic

les

reta

ine

d (

%,

as-

is)

% Refusal - % Diet

Orchardgrass Hay:

10: + 2.7% units

15: + 0.4% units

20: + 2.5% units

25: + 5.5% units

30: + 6.6% units

Dry Matter Intake (DMI)

Slope ALF = Slope

ORCH

For regressors:

Hay, %

Dietary NDF, %

Forage NDF, %

Hay NDF, %

Common Linear Fit:

slope = -0.81, r2 = 0.47, P = 0.02

3.5% Fat Corrected Milk (FCM) Yield

Individual Linear Fits:

ALF: slope = -2.68, r2 = 0.71, P = 0.05

ORCH: slope = -1.02, r2 = 0.34, P = 0.18

TAKE HOME POINTS

1. Important applied on farm forage quality measures

NDF, NDFD and forage DM

2. Chemical fiber measuresNDF NDF - Forage related to milk productionNDFD – ranking within forage speciesNFC – know composition

TAKE HOME POINTS

3. Physical fiber • Important for rumen function and

rumination• Particle size forages and TMR

TMR – rumen health Refusal – sorting

• Current guidelines good, but evaluate with changing forage types (legume vs. grasses) and corn silage processing.

“FEEDBACK IS THE BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS” ONE MINUTE MANAGER BY KEN BLANCHARD

More frequent feedback (forage analysis):

provides more accurate analysis andpromotes higher quality performance

National Champions 41-0

QUESTIONS?

Thank you

Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus Univ. of Minnesota.

Documents

Transcript of Forage Quality for Profitable Milk Production Jim Linn, Professor Emeritus Univ. of Minnesota.