Dairy Cattle Nutrition
Dairy Cattle Nutrition
Life cycle nutrition
Four basic groups
Calves
– birth to weaning
Heifers
– weaning to pre-calving
Dry cows
Lactating cows
Average Milk Production per Cow
US average milk/cow/year
US
1965
8,305 lb
20000
IA
1975
10,360 lb
1985
12,994 lb
1995
16,433 lb
2005
19,576 lb
2007
20,267 lb
M i l k p e r C o w (l b s )
25000
15000
10000
5000
95
19
19
19
65
80
0
Year
Top 10 Iowa Herds in 2008
Rolling herd average milk production
Top 10 Iowa Herds in 2008
Herd sizes for top 10 herds (RHA milk production)
1.
32,193 lb/cow/yr
1.
2.
31,399
2.
1,142 cows
638
3.
30,809
3.
625
4.
30,577
4.
436
5.
30,506
5.
287
6.
30,340
6.
241
7.
30,027
7.
121
8.
29,679
8.
113
9.
29,646
9.
48
10.
29,614
10.
34
1
Reasons for increase in production per cow
Keys to success
Improved genetics
1. Keep the cows healthy and on feed
Improved forage and feed quality
Improved feeding & management practices
increased utilization of TMRs
enhanced transition cow management programs
more focused on cow comfort
Milk Production
Daily milk and DM Intake
Daily milk and DM Intake
Milk Production
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
We ek of Lactation
21
23
Keys to success
Dry matter intake
1. Keep the cows healthy and on feed
Factors used to estimate DMI:
2. Maximize/optimize dry matter intake
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
Wee k of Lactation
body weight
milk production
fat test
days in milk
2
Dry matter intake
Dry matter intakes (lb)
The 2001 NRC equation to predict dry matter intake (DMI) for
lactating cows is:
DMI = (((BW ^ 0.75) * 0.0968) + (0.372 * FCM) - 0.293) * Lag
Low intake in early lactation is adjusted using the Lag variable for
lactating cows:
Week
Lact. 1
Lact. 2 & over
1
31.0
36.5
2
35.0
42.5
3
38.0
46.5
4
40.0
49.0
5
41.5
52.5
Lag = 1 – exp(-0.192 * (WOL + 3.67))
Keys to success
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
1. Keep the cows healthy and on feed
2. Maximize/optimize dry matter intake
1. Forage quality is key
Proximate analysis (wet chemistry) vs. NIR
utilize high quality forages
RFV vs RFQ
maintain adequate level of effective fiber
PEAQ
minimize sorting of ration
Effective fiber
Alfalfa maturity / milk yield
Milk production
Alfalfa
Maturity
Grain fed
% of DM
Grain fed
% of DM
Prebloom
20
20
Early bloom
37
37
Mid-bloom
54
54
Full bloom
71
71
Pre
Early
Alfalfa Maturity
Mid
Full
78.8
3
Milk production
Grain fed
% of DM
Milk production
Pre
Early
Alfalfa Maturity
Mid
Grain fed
% of DM
Full
Pre
Early
Alfalfa Maturity
Mid
Full
20
78.8
20
78.8
68.0
57.2
52.1
37
83.2
37
83.2
69.1
62.5
55.4
54
87.1
54
87.1
77.2
66.2
64.7
71
88.0
71
88.0
77.2
64.7
69.1
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
Nutrient composition of alfalfa
Stage of
maturity
CP
ADF
NDF
NE-l
------ % of dry matter -------- Mcal/lb
RFV
1. Forage quality is key
Proximate analysis (wet chemistry) vs. NIR
Prebloom
21.1
30.2
40.5
.67
150
Early bloom
18.9
33.0
42.0
.64
140
Mid-bloom
16.3
38.0
52.5
.58
105
Full bloom
14.7
45.9
59.5
.48
83
RFV vs RFQ
PEAQ
Effective fiber
PEAQ
PEAQ
Predictive Equations for Alfalfa Quality
Maturity stages:
used to estimate RFV/RFQ of alfalfa standing in field
Late vegetative – no buds visible
Bud stage – 1 or more nodes with visible buds – no flowers
1. Choose representative 2-square-foot area in field
Flower stage – 1 or more nodes with open flowers
2. Determine most mature stem in sampling area
3. Measure height of most mature stem in sampling area
Height measured from ground to tip of the stem (not leaf blade)
4. Repeat above steps for at least 5 locations
4
PEAQ
PEAQ
Height
Bud
Vegetative
Flower
inches
RFV
RFV
RFV
16
237
225
210
18
224
212
198
20
211
201
188
22
200
190
178
24
190
181
170
26
180
172
162
28
171
164
154
30
163
156
147
Loose 10-20 RFV points during harvest, so…..
if want 180 RFV hay – cut when RFV = 200 for standing crop
Effective fiber
Differs from chemical fiber (e.g. ADF and NDF)
Indication of cud chewing & rumen function
Penn State Particle Separator
wet
Miner Institute ‘Z’ box
wet
ASAE Separator (5 sieves)
wet
Ro-Tap (9 sieves)
dry
NDF digestibility
Chemical composition (%)
Immature grass hay (G)
Intl. feed no. 1-02-212
Mid-maturity grass-legume mixture (GL)
Intl. feed no. 1-02-277
G
GL
L
NDF
49.6
50.8
50.9
ADF
31.4
35.8
39.5
Lignin
3.9
5.7
7.3
Mature legume hay (L)
Intl. feed no. 1-07-789
5
NDF composition (%)
NDF digestibility
G
GL
L
G
GL
L
Hemicellulose
18.2
15.0
11.4
TDN % (1X)
63.1
58.8
54.7
Cellulose
27.5
30.1
32.2
NE-L mcal/kg (3X)
1.37
1.25
1.13
Lignin
3.9
5.7
7.3
NE-L mcal/kg (4X)
1.29
1.17
1.06
Concept of effective fiber
Physical fiber important for
Formulate diets for NDF
Cud chewing
Stimulate adequate cud chewing
Saliva production
Evaluated by measuring milk fat %
Ruminal buffering
Rumen motility
Insufficient effective fiber
Making Money in Tough Times
“Extra” nutrients wasted due to not being digested
Erratic dry matter intake
Lower milk fat %
Ruminal starch degradability increases as particle size decreases
Decreased milk yields
Mean
Particle
Size
Health problems (DAs, ketosis, laminitis)
Effective
Rumen
Degradability
(microns)
(%)
Cracked corn
“Chick” cracked
Fine ground
4309
2577
686
44.6
53.3
64.5
Steam-flaked
2896
75.4
Lykos and Varga (1995)
6
Making Money in Tough Times
Making Money in Tough Times
“Extra” nutrients wasted due to not being digested
Processing so cows get more out of their feed
Ruminal starch degradability increases as particle size decreases
Mean
Particle
Size
Dry ground
Dry rolled
High moisture ground
High moisture rolled
Effective
Rumen
Digestibility
Total
Tract
Digestibility
(microns)
(%)
(%)
618
1725
489
1789
60.9a
69.2a
86.8b
81.2b
88.9
76.4
98.2
95.7
Knowlton, et al (1998)
Starch digestibility of corn silage
TLC (inch)
¾
¾
1
1
TLC (inch)
2
8
2
8
Roller clearance (mm)
Starch digestibility (%) 79.4
83.1
75.8
87.7
75.3
NDF digestibility (%)
20.1
29.7
30.6
35.4
Milk (lb/d)
78.0
79.6
79.4
83.6
ECM (lb/d)
81.0
81.0
82.9
83.8
Roller clearance (mm)
¾
Starch digestibility of corn silage
--
¾
¾
¾
1
--
2
8
2
8
Starch digestibility (%)
79.4
83.1
75.8
87.7
75.3
23.2
NDF digestibility (%)
20.1
29.7
30.6
35.4
23.2
75.2
Milk (lb/d)
78.0
79.6
79.4
83.6
75.2
75.7
ECM (lb/d)
81.0
81.0
82.9
83.8
75.7
Cooke and Bernard (2005)
1
Cooke and Bernard (2005)
Making Money in Tough Times
Handling and storage considerations to reduce losses
7
Density of haylage stored in various structures
Storage
Units
Samples
Average
Range
Bunker
31
91
15.9
9.9-27.2
SD
3.5
Pile
14
39
13.7
8.2-22.9
3.4
Bunker/pile
3
9
22.2
14.7-36.3
7.7
12’ bag
1
2
10.7
9.5-11.8
1.6
10’ bag
14
34
13.0
3.4-24.8
5.2
9’ bag
15
30
12.0
4.3-27.2
5.3
8’ bag
1
2
12.1
8.3-15.9
5.4
Visser (2005)
Density of corn silage stored in various structures
Strategies to reduce shrink…..
Storage
Units
Samples
Average
Range
SD
Bunker
37
120
12.1
6.4-23.6
3.0
Pile
21
62
11.0
4.9-18.7
2.6
Bunker/pile
11
35
12.2
4.9-18.6
2.8
12’ bag
3
8
7.0
3.2-12.5
3.2
10’ bag
10
20
9.8
5.7-13.5
2.6
9’ bag
15
31
8.6
2.4-13.9
2.7
8’ bag
1
2
8.1
5.7-10.5
3.4
Silage bags
Visser (2005)
Strategies to reduce shrink…..
It could be worse….
8
Sources of shrink…..
Bunker silos – side spoilage
need to make a bag out of your bunker
4”-6” drain pipe along bottom edge of sidewall
plastic along inside wall, drape over top when filling
fold over top of silage after filling & before covering
rainwater will run off top, down sidewall between wall & plastic,
then exit via drain pipe
Using Infrared Thermography to
Demonstrate Product Performance
Treated
Sources of shrink…..
Control
Bunker silos – spoilage at feedout
Lactobacillus buchneri
- bacterial inoculant that reduces growth of yeasts
- produces acetic (and some lactic) acid during fermentation
- acetic acid inhibits growth of yeast that cause heating upon
exposure to oxygen
This picture was taken of bunker face at the beginning of August, 2006
Using Infrared Thermography to
Demonstrate Product Performance
Treated
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
Control
1.
Forage quality is key
2.
Energy – can we meet the cow’s needs?
Excessive loss of body condition
Minimizing ketosis
Avoiding acidosis
This IR picture was taken of bunker face at the beginning of August, 2006
9
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
Starch content of common feeds (% of DM)
1.
Forage quality is key
2.
Energy – can we meet the cow’s needs?
Feeds which provide more energy
corn
oil seeds (soybeans, cottonseeds, canola, sunflowers)
fats, oils, and grease
Corn grain
70-75%
Wheat bran
22-26%
Wheat grain
62-65%
Wheat midds
18-26%
Ear corn
55-62%
Corn gluten meal 15-18%
Barley grain
50-56%
Corn germ meal
15-18%
Hominy
50-55%
Corn gluten feed
14-18%
Oat grain
40-44%
Corn silage
20-45%
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
Soy hulls vs corn & SBM
Soy
Shelled
44%
hulls
corn
SBM
CP
13.9
9.4
49.9
RUP
45.0
47.0
35.0
ADF
44.6
3.4
10.0
NDF
60.3
9.5
14.9
Fat
2.7
4.2
1.6
TDN
67.3
88.7
80.0
1.
Forage quality is key
2.
Energy – can we meet the cow’s needs?
Limit on feeding supplemental fats or oils
1.0 - 1.25 lb of supplemental fat and oil (< 6% of DM)
any additional must be rumen protected
(Megalac, Energy Booster, Boster Fat, etc.)
RFV & RFQ
RFV
Relative forage value
NDF negatively correlated with intake
older system
DMI (as % of BW) = 120 / Forage NDF %
index of feeding value based on intake & digestibility
NDF to estimate intake
ADF to estimate digestibile dry matter
ADF negatively correlated with digestibility
DDM % = 88.9 – (0.779 X ADF %)
RFV = (DDM X DMI) / 1.29
(1.29 selected so full bloom alfalfa RFV = 100)
10
RFV
RFQ
Primary use is quality tested hay auctions
Includes digestibilities of NDF and dry matter
Used at ISU dairy for many years
dig DMI = NDF + ((dNDF – avg. dNDF) X 0.374)
vendors bid price for RFV = 150
bonus: $1.00/point above RFV=150
dig DM = TDN = tdCP + (tdEE X 2.25) + tdNDF + tdNFC – 7
penalty: $2.00/point below RFV=150
RFQ = (dig DMI X dig DM) / 1.23
1.23 chosen so mean and range of RFQ similar to RFV
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
1.
Forage quality if key
2.
Energy
3.
Protein
Protein
‘Good’ rumen degradable protein feeds
‘Good’ rumen undegradable protein feeds
Understanding RDP and RUP
Maximize rumen microbial protein production
Limiting amino acids for milk production
ISU Herd - MUN Levels
Milk urea nitrogen
80
70
Protein (nitrogen) metabolism in the rumen
60
Optimum levels 12 mg/dl (10-14)
No. Cows
50
Cause of high/low MUN levels
40
30
20
10
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MUN (mg/dl)
11
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
1.
Forage quality if key
2.
Energy
3.
Protein
4.
Water
quantity (intake)
quality
Water intake
Water intake
Sources of water
Influenced by
free water
eating pattern
ingestion of water in feeds
water temperature
metabolic water (pretty insignificant compared to other two sources)
offered in trough or bowl
delivery rates
animal dominance if bowls shared
stray voltage
Water quality
On-farm Evaluation Tools
Organoleptic properties (odor and taste)
1.
PSPSS
Physiochemical properties (ph, total dissolved solids/oxygen, hardness)
2.
Z-box
Presence of toxic compounds (heavy or toxic metals, organophosphates)
3.
BCS
Presence of excess minerals (ntrates, sodium, sulfates, and iron)
4.
Locomotion scoring
Presence of bacteria
5.
Manure scoring & screening
6.
Cud chewing
12
Lameness
Lameness
Score
Goal
Milk Drop
DMI drop
1
2
3
4
5
75 %
15 %
9%
< 0.5 %
< 0.5 %
none
none
5%
17 %
36 %
none
1%
3%
7%
16 %
Goal is for herd average < 1.4
Other Evaluation Tools
Fat-protein ratios
2.
MUN levels
3.
150-day milk production
2
Score
3
75
15
9
50
30
15
4
1
40
25
22
10
25
25
30
15
4
Economic loss
($/cow annually)
Avg
Score
Goal
(1.4)
62
(1.8)
3
82
(2.1)
5
115
(2.5)
5
<0.5 <0.5
Iowa DHI averages by breed - 2008
Ayr
BS
Gue
Hol
Jer
12
27
10
743
38
111
843
Milk (lb)
16,396
19,299
16,289
22,817
16,604
20,614
22,300
E C M (lb)
Fat (lb)
17,160
632
20,799
770
18,690
740
23,062
832
19,498
773
21,682
806
21,714
824
4.06
4.25
4.72
3.50
4.76
4.13
3.82
No. herds
Fat %
Other All herds
Protein (lb)
527
658
552
704
592
657
Protein %
3.29
3.51
3.44
3.15
3.67
3.31
3.18
CFP (lb)
1159
1428
1292
1536
1365
1463
1517
693
F:P ratio
1.23
1.32
1.37
1.11
1.30
1.25
1.20
Fat-Protein Ratio ISU Herd
25.0
20.0
Percent of Cows (%)
1.
1
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
Fat - Protein Ratio
13
High producing cows
High producing cows
Biggest challenge...energy
Biggest challenge...energy
feed more concentrates
corn, barley, wheat, etc.
can you avoid acidosis (SARA) ?
High producing cows
Biggest challenge...energy
feed more concentrates
feed supplemental fats & oils
oilseeds, choice white grease
watch level of saturated vs. unsaturated fats
can you avoid rumen digestive upsets?
Grouping strategies
14
Minimum number of groups?
Cannot meet needs of all cows in group
Trade-off between:
Minimum number of groups?
With traditional 60-day dry period
1. Milking cows (single group TMR)
Extra feed cost - overfeeding lower producers
2. Far-off dry cows
Lost production - underfeeding high producers
3. Close-up dry cows
Which has greatest impact on profit?
Minimum number of groups?
With shortened (42-45 day) dry period
Grouping strategies – lactating cows
What criteria should be used to group cows?
1. Milking cows (single group TMR)
2. Dry cows fed close-up ration
Grouping strategies – lactating cows
Every (larger) herd should have at least 3 groups of
lactating cows
Grouping strategies – lactating cows
Every (larger) herd should have at least 3 groups:
Fresh cows
Treated cows
Lactating cows
15
Thumb rules
Thumb rules
Formulating rations for 2-yr olds
- add 15-20# to their average
- formulate like an older cow
e.g. –
2-yr old @ 80# & older cow @ 100#
would be fed the same diet
Grouping 2-yr olds
# groups
balance for
1
avg. + 30%
2
avg. + 20%
3 or more
avg. + 10%
Grouping 2-yr olds
Together
Separate
Eating time, min/d
184
205
Meals per day
5.9
6.4
Resting time, min/day
424
461
Resting periods/day
5.3
6.3
Thumb rules
DMI, lb/day
Together
Separate
39.2
44.5
Milk yield, lb/day
40.5
44.0
Milk fat, %
3.92
3.97
A note on least cost rations…
Opportunity costs
Formulating rations for 2-yr olds
- add 15-20# to their average
- formulate like an older cow
Shadow prices
e.g. –
2-yr old @ 80# & older cow @ 100#
would be fed the same diet
16
What does this mean?
If all other prices stay the same, the ration will not contain cottonseed
unless the price drops below $146.18/ton
A note on least cost rations…
Opportunity costs
Shadow prices
What does this mean?
17
As long as all other prices remain the same, the ration will
contain the given amount (16.50 lb DM) of Alf hay early bloom
unless it’s price drops below $59.67/ton or rises above
$71.03/ton
Transition cows
Dry cows
Cows within a 6-week window centered at calving
Typical 60-day dry period
3 weeks prepartum
1st 4-5 weeks far off dry cows
3 weeks postpartum
Last 3 weeks close-up, prefresh, or steam-up
Shortened dry periods (30 to 45 days)
only need one dry cow diet
requires good reproductive management
challenge is impact on stocking density & parlor thru-put
Transition cows
Transition cows
Why all the fuss?
One challenge – minimize adverse effects of reduction in feed
intake during last week of pregnancy
minimize metabolic and digestive disorders
milk fever
ketosis
acidosis (SARA)
DAs
udder edema
18
Dry Matter Intake for Normal Cows and Cows
with Milk Fever
Force Feeding Cows via Rumen Fistula
12
30
Control
DMI (kg/d)
DMI
kg/d
10
Force Fed
25
20
15
8
Normal
6
Milk Fever
4
2
10
0
5
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-14
-7
-3
-2
1
2
3
7
Heifers from weaning to pre-calving
$1.61/hd/day
$2.78/hd/day
Fixed
7%
Labor and
Mgt
40%
0
Adapted from Marquardt et al., JDS,
1977
Bertics et al., 1992
Milk-fed calves
-1
Day of Calving
Day Relative to Calving
Feed
38%
Variable
15%
Fixed
Labor
12%
and Mgt
13%
Variable
16%
Feed
59%
19