HHNC2013.Shaver
advertisement
Excellent Adequate Poor >70% 70% to 50% < 50% 9 sieves (0.6 thru 19 mm) and pan Analyze for starch on 4.75 mm & > sieves KPS Ro-Tap Shaker % of starch passing 4.75 mm sieve Mertens, USDFRC Kernel Processing Score Dairy Science Department, UW Madison Randy Shaver & Luiz Ferraretto Advances in Corn Silage for Dairy Cows? WI Field Trial 1 Variable peNDF as per chop length 29 258 2011 Lab Survey 311 1,131 2010 2011 2011 - 2010 2012 2012 64 Cumberland Valley Lab Survey Rock River WI Field Trial 2 48% 42% Poor 10% 16% 76% 8% 35% 55% 10% 15% 68% 17% 22% 61% 17% 22% 62% 16% 42% 51% 7% - - - - - - - - - - - -% of Samples by Processing Score- - - - - - - Adequate Excellent KPS 55 No. of samples Dairyland MN Field Trial 2 2005 - 2007 252 MN Field Trial 1 Year Testing Lab . •Maturity •Lignin/NDF •Hybrid 40 to 70% IVNDFD • Avg. 42% NDF • Variable stover:grain Stover= ~55-60% of WPDM Kernel Processing Score Adapted from Joe Lauer, UW Madison Agronomy Dept •Kernel particle size •Duration of silage fermentation •Kernel maturity •Endosperm properties 80 to 98% starch digestibility •Avg. 30% starch in WPDM •Variable grain:stover Grain ~40-45% of WPDM Whole-Plant Corn Silage 1 75b 87a ECM, lb/d Diet aTT StarchD, % 75b 48 84a 25 mm TLOC 8 mm on KP 48 25 mm TLOC 2 mm on KP DMI, lb/d Cooke & Bernard, JDS, 2005 Processor roll gap ĄWorth 2 lb. Milk or 2 lb. Corn KPS TLOC: 13-19 mm Roll Gap: 1-3 mm DM%: <40% Roll Maintenance Corn Shredlage™ Kernel Processing Score Corn Shredlage™ 2 http://www.shredlage.com/ 33.9% ± 2.1 7.3% ± 0.4 35.1% ± 2.2 36.4% ± 2.4 DM, % as fed CP, % DM Starch, % DM NDF, % DM Shredlage 36.3% ± 1.4 35.6% ± 2.2 7.7% ± 0.3 33.7% ± 3.2 KP Nutrient composition of feed-out samples 26-30 mm TLOC; 2-3 mm roll gap Corn Shredlage™ 3 (as-fed basis) 31.5% 41.5% 26.2% 0.8% 19 8 1.18 Pan 0.4% 18.4% 75.6% 5.6% KP y 2-week adjustment period with all pens fed 50:50 mix of Shredlage & KP in TMR y 8-week treatment period with all cows fed their assigned treatment TMR Shredlage™ KP y 10/20/11 – 12/28/11; UW – Arlington Dairy y 14, 8 cow pens; 112 mid lactation cows y Cows stratified by breed, parity & DIM, assigned to pens, and pens randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments Feeding Trial Shredlage Screen, mm Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags Penn State Shaker Box % Starch Passing 4.75 mm Sieve 75.0% ± 3.3 Shredlage 60.3% ± 3.9 KP Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags Kernel Processing Score 4 50% --10% 10.3% 7.4% 6.9% 9.3% 1.9% 4.2% Screen, mm 19 8 1.18 Pan Shredlage 15.6% 38.2% 38.9% 7.3% TMR Samples KP 3.5% 52.9% 35.8% 7.8% (as-fed basis) --50% 10% 10.3% 7.4% 6.9% 9.3% 1.9% 4.2% KP (DM basis) Penn State Shaker Box Shredlage KP Silage Alfalfa Silage Ground Dry Shelled Corn Corn Gluten Feed SBM 48%, solvent SBM, expeller Rumen-Inert Fat Min/Vits Shredlage Experimental Diets 28.1% 22.3% 25.4% 4.8% Total NDF NDF from Forage Starch Crude Fat 4.5% 25.5% 22.5% 28.3% 17.3% KP (DM basis) Shredlage 55.8 96.0 1.72 DMI, lb/d Milk, lb/d Milk/DMI 1.73 KP 54.4 94.2 0.74 0.08 0.14 P < Dry matter intake & milk yield 17.2% CP Shredlage TMR Nutrient Composition 5 3.18% 13.9 Protein % MUN, mg/dL 13.6 3.21% 3.70% KP 0.48 0.29 0.66 P < P < 0.03 Week P < 0.001 Treatment Total Tract Starch Digestibility 3.74% Fat % Shredlage Milk composition * ** * P < 0.10 ** P < 0.01 P < 0.04 Treatment Total Tract NDF Digestibility Week × Treatment Interaction (P < 0.03) * 3.5% FCM Yield by Week 6 Low NDFD corn silages? Digestible NDF Low forage rations High corn silage rations Chopped hay or straw replacement? BMR corn silage? Physically effective NDF • Greatest response potential? Some Follow-Up Questions • Kernel processing score and ruminal & total tract starch digestibility were greater for Shredlage treatment • Total-tract NDF digestibility was greater for Shredlage treatment, while ruminal NDF digestibility response varied by in situ methods – Response increased as study progressed • DMI tended to be greater for Shredlage • FCM & ECM tended to be greater Shredlage – This was also the case for the Shredlage TMR • There was no sorting of either TMR • The proportion of material on the top (coarsest) screen of the PSU shaker box was greater for Shredlage Conclusions --50.0 10.0 --10.3 9.0 6.9 7.4 1.85 25.0 25.0 10.0 --10.3 9.0 6.9 7.4 1.85 45 17.5 5.0 28 24 25 DM, % of as fed CP EE NDF Forage NDF Starch 45 17.5 5.0 28 24 25 BMSH COV Item Ingredient, % of DM Corn Silage Corn Shredlage Alfalfa Silage Chopped Dry Hay Dry Ground Shelled Corn Soybean Meal, expeller Soybean Meal, solvent Corn Gluten Feed, dried Energy Booster 100®3 Corn Silage Fermentation Increases Starch Digestibility! 45 17.5 5.0 28 24 25 50.0 --10.0 --10.3 9.0 6.9 7.4 1.85 BMKP > DM content > TLOC < time in silo before feed-out Starch digestibility • Greatest response potential? 45 17.5 5.0 28 24 25 40.0 --10.0 10.0 12.9 9.0 4.3 7.4 1.85 BMKPH Some Follow-Up Questions 7 How does it pack & ferment? Harvest DM content Processing score Roll gap spacing Shaker box proportions TLOC • Process control? Some Follow-Up Questions 21 74% Average 69% Min Do cows sort the TMR more? Data source: Roger Olsen % Starch Passing 4.75 mm Sieve n Field shredlage samples obtained during 2012 harvest Kernel Processing Score 8 http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_INT/our_company/news_and_media/pr ess_releases/2012/kernelstar_processor.page http://www.shredlage.com/ Processor & SPFH? Corn Silage Fermentation Increases Starch Digestibility Are other novel processing options being tried? 9 Ruminal in situ starch & CP degradabilities for WPCS with longer ensiling (Newbold et al., 2006) Percent of Samples, % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 7-hr Ruminal Starch Digestibility, Percent Starch, % 55Ͳ 60 60Ͳ 65 65Ͳ 70 70Ͳ 75 75Ͳ 80 80Ͳ 85 85Ͳ 90 90Ͳ 95 95Ͳ 100 Corn Silage 7-hr Starch Digestibility, Fall vs. Spring Spring Fall WPCS ammonia-N & ruminal in vitro starch digestibility with protease addition & longer ensiling (Young et al., 2011) Ruminal in vitro starch digestibility for WPCS with longer ensiling (Hallada et al., 2008 & Der Bedrosian et al., 2010) Corn Silage Fermentation & Starch Digestibility 83.7 30 7-hour Starch Digestibility % Standard Deviation 7.5 5.4 11.1 4.5 Range 58.1- 93.9 16.0- 44.1 34.9- 74.4 28.8- 49.5 Average 34.1 90.3 35 35 35 Starch % 7-hour Starch Digestibility % 61.1 36.2 Range 82.5- 96.2 23.9- 41.9 38.6- 88.7 28.1- 50.5 Ruminal in situ starch degradability for HMC with > moisture content & longer ensiling (Benton et al., 2005) 3.7 4.8 12.4 Standard Deviation 5.1 • Ammonia-N in HMC used to model effects of moisture content and duration of ensiling on total tract & ruminal starch digestibilities (Hoffman et al., 2012) • Suggests starch protein-matrix degraded by proteolytic activity Ensiling HMC for 8 mos. zein protein subunits that crosslink starch granules (Hoffman et al., 2011) n 35 Corn Silage Processing Score % Dry Matter % Spring 2012 Silo Fermentation & Corn Starch Digestibility 34.7 30 Starch % 57.0 30 Corn Silage Processing Score % Average 35.0 30 n Dry Matter % Fall 2011 Corn Silage ResultsFall & Spring 10 P = 0.001 2000-2011 2008 - 2011 2007-2012 Dairy One Dairyland* CVAS* 44,000 1,900 12,000 n Average Normal Range 9.6 5.7 7.1 7.8 – 11.4 2.7 – 10.7 3.0 – 11.1 - - - - - % of N - - - - - *Almost none of variation in ammonia content explained by DM content in either corn silage dataset Years Lab Corn Silage Ammonia-N Ferraretto et al., 2013 JDS abstract e HMC Ammonia-N Results of Corn Silage Hybrid-Type Meta Analysis Ferraretto et al., 2013 JDS abstract P = 0.001 HMC Ammonia-N vs. IVSD7 11 n Protein, lb/d Protein, % Fat, % FCM, lb/d Milk, lb/d 48 9 11 53c 54ab 51bc 82c 84ab 83bc 83b 84ab 83b 3.62 3.61 3.64 3.07 3.09 3.07 2.49 2.55ab 2.49b LFY 23 55a 85a 85a 3.55 3.07 2.60a HFD CONS BMR 139 treatment means from 45 papers 1990 to 2013 Lactating dairy cows fed TMR Hybrid comparisons Proc Mixed (SAS, 2004) Fixed effects – Treatment; Random effect – Study; Weighted by n DMI, lb/d 0.001 0.45 0.25 0.01 0.001 0.001 --- Pvalue Ferraretto & Shaver, ADSA abstract 2013 Meta Analysis Corn Silage Hybrid Type 30.1a 28.7ab Starch, % of DM ttStarchD, % ttNDFD, % n 2.8a 2.0b Lignin, % of DM HFD 26.7b 2.9a 20 35 8 a b 44.2 41.1 46.0a 91.5b 92.6a 90.3b CONS 42.6 45.0 42.3 NDF, % of DM BMR 7.8 8.0 CP, % of DM 8.1 34.5 35.1 33.7 DM, % of as fed 7 HFD 23 41 CONS n BMR 6 39.5b 94.0a LFY 30.0ab 2.6a 42.3 8.0 33.2 9 LFY 0.01 0.001 --- Pvalue 0.02 0.001 0.09 0.20 0.45 Pvalue --- 12 GM 12 53 76 78 3.64 3.20 ISO 18 54 77 79 3.64 3.21 n DMI, lb/d Milk, lb/d FCM, lb/d Milk fat, % Milk protein, % 0.55 0.86 0.22 0.22 0.34 Pvalue Corn silage hybrid comparisons for conventional (n=10), nutridense (n=4), high oil (n=5), & waxy (n=2) CP & EE contents greater for high oil corn silage Reduced milk fat and protein contents for high oil corn silage No other significant differences reported Varied Kernel Characteristics 12 37.8 8.1 40.5 2.6 32.8 18 37.0 8.1 39.4 2.5 34.1 http://www.uwex.edu/ces/dairynutrition/ Visit UW Extension Dairy Cattle Nutrition Website Starch, % of DM Lignin, % of DM NDF, % of DM CP, % of DM DM, % of as fed n GM ISO 0.04 0.62 0.17 0.95 0.26 Pvalue 13
