P. C. Hoffman Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison Strategies to Improve Feed...
-
Upload
madeleine-wells -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of P. C. Hoffman Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison Strategies to Improve Feed...
P. C. Hoffman P. C. Hoffman Department of Dairy ScienceDepartment of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
Strategies to Improve Feed Efficiency in Dairy Replacement Heifers
An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, the University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming including, Title IX and ADA requirements.©2007 by Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension
Changes in Cost of Rearing Changes in Cost of Rearing Replacement HeifersReplacement Heifers
1999 vs. 20071999 vs. 2007
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Calves Heifer Total wo calf Total + calf value
1999 2007
An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, the University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming including, Title IX and ADA requirements.©2007 by Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension
Meeting Goals via Nutritional ManipulationMeeting Goals via Nutritional Manipulation
Nutritional Concept Goal
Increase Neonatal Energy\Protein Future Lactation
Increase Energy-Accelerate PP Growth Economic
Altered Protein Supply Future Lactation
Limit-Feeding Environmental
Reduce Dietary P Environmental
DMI Management Economic
The Potential to Limit Feed Dairy Replacement HeifersThe Potential to Limit Feed Dairy Replacement Heifers
P.C. HoffmanDepartment of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison
Pseudo Limit Feeding Research - Pseudo Limit Feeding Research - Dairy HeifersDairy Heifers
Study Objective Results
Lammers et al., 1999 Pre-puberty growth + Milk Production
Ford and Park, 2001 Restriction- realignment + Milk Production
Park et al., 1998 Restriction-realignment + Milk Production
Carson et al., 2000 Plane of nutrition + Milk Production
Hof and Lenaers Forage:grain + ?
Sejrsen and Foldager, 1992 Pre-puberty growth + ?
Caution – Limit feeding was an experimental technique only !
Limit Feed Research – Central HypothesisLimit Feed Research – Central Hypothesis
Hoffman et al., 2007Hoffman et al., 2007Department of Dairy ScienceDepartment of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
Limit Feeding Research – Selected Highlights
Limit Feeding Research – Selected Highlights
The Pennsylvania State University
Selected – Penn State Limit Fed Diets
Moody and Heinrichs, 2006
Limit Feeding – Rumen EnvironmentLimit Feeding – Rumen Environment
Zanton and Heinrichs, 2006
Rumen pH of Heifers Limit Fed Low, Medium and High Levels of Concentrate
*
*5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour relative to feeding
pH
LCLC+Y
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour relative to feeding
pHMC
MC+Y
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour relative to feeding
pH
HC
HC+Y
Lascano and Heinrichs, 2007
20 % Concentrate 40 % Concentrate 60 % Concentrate
Kruse et al., 2009 (JDS abstract)
Limit Feeding of Gravid Holstein Heifers: Effect on Growth, Manure Nutrient Excretion, and Subsequent Early Lactation Performance
JDS 90 P.C. Hoffman, C.R. Simson, M. Wattiaux
University of Wisconsin – Selected Diets (Current Experiment)University of Wisconsin – Selected Diets (Current Experiment)
C-100
L-85 C-80
Hoffman et al. 2005
Nutrient and energy intake of heifers fed treatment diets. Nutrient and energy intake of heifers fed treatment diets.
Item C-100 L-90 L-80
Nutrient intake, lbs/d
DM 21.3 19.9 18.3
CP 2.42 2.54 2.57
NDF 10.06 8.29 6.50
Non-fiber carbohydrate 7.26 7.60 7.85
P 0.057 0.058 0.058
Ca 0.086 0.090 0.089
Energy intake3
TDN, lbs/heifer/d 14.4 13.9 13.5NEg, Mcals/d 9.4 9.4 9.5NEm, Mcals/d 13.7 13.3 13.0
Treatment1
Fecal Excretion
Hoffman et al. 2005
Effect of limit feeding on body size and growth of replacement heifers.Effect of limit feeding on body size and growth of replacement heifers.
Item C-100 L-90 L-80
Intial
Weight, lbs 1036 1021 1011
Hip height, in 54.2 54.6 54.9
Body condition score 3.1 3.0 2.9
Final
Weight, lbs 1220 1234 1217
Hip height, in 56.0 56.3 56.4
Body condition score 3.2 3.2 3.2
Growth
Average daily gain, lbs/d 1.66 1.92 1.84
Feed efficiency, lbs DM/lb gain 13.2 10.7 11.1
Excretion
DM, lbs/d 7.7 6.9 5.8
Treatment1
Fecal Excretion – 1100 lb Limit fed Holstein heifer
0
10
20
30
40
50
Lbs/d
C-100 L-90 L-80
Manure DMManure Wet
P < 0.01
Nitrogen Excretion – 1100 lb Limit fed Holstein heifer
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
g/d
C-100 L-90 L-80
Manure N
NS
Penn State - Fecal and Urine Output of Heifers Limit Fed Concentrate (C) or Forage (F) Based Diets
Heifers aged 12 mo
Heifers aged 6 mo
SE Age DietAge x Diet
C F C F
WetFecesLbs/d
17.2 27.3 12.1 17.6 0.63 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05
Dry FecesLbs/d
3.3 4.3 2.4 2.9 0.11 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05
UrineLbs/d
27.4 22.7 11.1 10.6 4.3 <0.1 NS NS
Moody and Heinrichs, 2006
Milk Production: 150 DIM (3.5 % FCM):
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
C100 L90 L80
Mil
k P
rod
uct
ion
, lb
s/15
0 d
NS (P > 0.10)
Penn State – Lactation Trial
HFHC-Limit
FedSE P <
Milk, lbs 20761 23041 1045 0.081
Fat, % 3.74 3.98 0.13 0.138
Protein, % 3.05 2.95 0.05 0.118
Behavior Ad lib
Limit Fed
Time x Trt P < 0.001
The effect of limit feeding on vocalization of replacement heifersThe effect of limit feeding on vocalization of replacement heifers
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Week
Vo
cali
zati
on
, %
of
hei
fers
L-80 L-90 C-100
Effects of limit feeding and ionophore supplementation on replacement heifer growth, rumen function and manure excretion
K. A. Kruse, N. M. Esser, P. C. Hoffman, and D. K. Combs*Dairy Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Ingredient and nutrient composition of treatment diets of limit fed growing Holstein heifers
TreatmentItem C100 L85 L80 + I
--------------21.0
% of DM14.8
---------------14.8Corn silage
Oatlage 25.9 14.7 14.7Haylage 44.4 35.8 35.8Shelled corn 1.6 18.5 18.5SBOM 2.2 10.5 10.5Base mix 5.0 5.8 5.8Lasalocid, mg/d … … 325
Nutrient composition 1
DM, % as fed 40.3 47.4 47.8CP, % 13.1 15.5 15.4NDF 49.1 36.5 36.0IV NDFD, % NDF 2 51.4 53.1 53.9NFC 29.3 39.7 40.3
Energy Calculations3
TDN, % 56.5 65.0 65.6
NEg, Mcal/kg 0.70 1.0 1.0
NEm, Mcal/kg 1.2 1.6 1.6
Growth trial Post-trial Lactation
Effect (P<)-Treatment P < 0.33- Stage P < 0.58- Treatment x Stage P < 0.15
Bone development in dairy heifers fed diets with and without supplemental phosphorus.
N.M. Esser*1, P.C. Hoffman*, W.K. Coblentz†, M. W. Orth†† and K.A. Weigel*.
•Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison,WI. •† USDS-ARS Dairy Forage Research Center Marshfield and Madison, WI.
•†† Michigan State University , East Lansing, MI.
Effect (P<Item Holstein Crossbred Holstein Crossbred Diet
Body weight, lbs 1370.0 1263.1 1406.3 1293.1 nsHip height, in 57.4 54.5 57.3 54.8 nsHip width,in 22.0 20.8 22.0 21.3 nsBody length, in 65.1 64.9 65.1 64.8 nsHeart girth,in 81.1 78.9 81.0 79.8 nsCannon bone,in 11.1 10.6 11.4 10.6 nsPelvic height,cm 16.9 16.5 16.6 16.8 nsPelvic width,cm 15.8 15.8 16.4 15.9 nsPelvic area,cm2 210.8 205.4 214.3 210.4 nsPelvic length,in 22.1 21.4 22.3 21.5 ns
0.28 % P 0.38 % P
Holstein and Crossbred Heifers 3-22 months of age.Experimental Diets
- Unsupplemented = 0.28 % P- Supplemented = 0.38 % P
Effect (P<Item Holstein Crossbred Holstein Crossbred Diet
Bone densityTrabecular bone density,mg/cm3 466.5 439.3 407.9 456.5 nsCortical bone density, mg/cm3 573.2 588.6 628.1 562.5 nsTotal bone density, mg/cm3 525.4 521.6 529.2 514.7 ns
Chemical compositionP, % 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.4 0.08Ca, % 20.2 20.5 21.0 20.4 nsAsh, % 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.0 ns
0.28 % P 0.38 % P
Holstein and Crossbred Heifers 3-22 months of age.Experimental Diets
- Unsupplemented = 0.28 % P- Supplemented = 0.38 % P
The Stalklage- Distillers - Urea Diet – For Heifers
•Long term data needed in regard to feedinghigh levels (> 25.0 %) of DDG or WDG to dairy heifers.
•Amount of supplemental fat may be of concern?
•Offers the opportunity to significantly reducefeed cost when DDG or WDG is economical.
•Conservative action is to limit DDG or WDGto 10-20 % in the diet (= 3-4 % Supplemental Fat).
•Best opportunity for cost control lies with older (bred) heifers.
DMI Management – 4 Trials and Theory
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Perc
en
tag
e C
on
su
med
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DM
I, K
g/d
Control 10 % Straw 20 % Straw
DMI
Hoffman et al, 2008 (in press)Hoffman et al., 2006
Greter et al., 2008Davis–Rincker et al. 2008
Each 1.0 percentage unit changein dietary NDF = ± 0.1 kg DMI
Conclusions
• Increasing energy|protein to neonatal calves increases growth and may improve future milk production.
• Increasing energy, accelerating growth, decreasing puberty|calving age remains paradoxical.
• Increasing dietary protein above requirements does not appear prudent due to a lack of tangible evidence supporting benefit and environmental concerns.
• Limit feeding heifers improves feed efficiency, milk yield? and decreases manure excretion but animal facilities limit application.
• Feeding excessive P has not been demonstrated to improve heifer frame development, growth or reproduction.
• New understandings of heifer DMI may yield more creative nutritional regimens for dairy heifers.
http://www.wisc.edu/dysci/