Dairy Cattle Nutrition
Dairy Cattle Nutrition
Life cycle nutrition
Four basic groups
Calves
– birth to weaning
Heifers
– weaning to prepre-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
2008
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
Reasons for increase in production per cow
Improved genetics
Reasons for increase in production per cow
Reasons for increase in production per cow
Improved genetics
Improved genetics
Improved forage and feed quality
Improved forage and feed quality
Improved feeding & management practices
increased utilization of TMRs
enhanced transition cow management programs
more focused on cow comfort
Keys to success
Milk Production
Daily milk and DM Intake
1. Keep the cows healthy and on feed
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
We ek of Lactation
2
Keys to success
Milk Production
1. Keep the cows healthy and on feed
Daily milk and DM Intake
2. Maximize/optimize dry matter intake
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
Wee k of Lactation
Dry matter intake
Dry matter intake
Factors used to estimate DMI:
The 2001 NRC equation to predict dry matter intake (DMI) for
lactating cows is:
body weight
milk production
DMI = (((BW ^ 0.75) * 0.0968) + (0.372 * FCM) - 0.293) * Lag
fat test
days in milk
Low intake in early lactation is adjusted using the Lag variable for
lactating cows:
Lag = 1 – exp(-0.192 * (WOL + 3.67))
Keys to success
Dry matter intakes (lb)
Week
Lact. 1
Lact. 2 & over
1. Keep the cows healthy and on feed
1
31.0
36.5
2. Maximize/optimize dry matter intake
2
35.0
42.5
utilize high quality forages
3
38.0
46.5
maintain adequate level of effective fiber
4
40.0
49.0
5
41.5
52.5
minimize sorting of ration
3
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
1. Forage quality is key
Nutrient composition of alfalfa
Proximate analysis (wet chemistry) vs. NIR
Stage of
maturity
RFV vs RFQ
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
PEAQ
Effective fiber
CP
ADF
NDF
NE-l
------ % of dry matter -------- Mcal/lb
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
Milk production
Grain fed
% of DM
Early
Alfalfa Maturity
Mid
Pre
Early
Alfalfa Maturity
Mid
Pre
RFV
Full
78.8
Milk production
Pre
Early
Alfalfa Maturity
Mid
Full
Grain fed
% of DM
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
4
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
Proximate Analysis
Weende System of Proximate Analysis
1. Forage quality is key
Proximate analysis (wet chemistry) vs. NIR
1.
Water (DM)
RFV vs RFQ
2.
Crude protein (CP)
PEAQ
3.
Crude Fiber
Effective fiber
4.
Crude Fat
5.
Ash
6.
Nitrogen-free extract
Proximate Analysis
Proximate Analysis
Weende System
(Proximate analysis)
Detergent System
Ash (1)
Ether extract or Crude fat
1.
Water (DM)
Water
2.
Crude protein (CP)
CP
Crude protein
3.
Crude Fat
EE
Nitrogen-free extract
4.
Crude Fiber
NDF (and ADF)
5.
Ash
Ash
6.
- calculated by difference
Chemical
Component
Van Soest System
Soluble ash
Neutral
detergent
solubles
Lipids, pigments, etc
Protein, NPN, etc.
Sugars, starch, pectin
Hemicellulose
Alkali-soluble lignin
Nitrogen-free extract
Crude fiber
Neutral
detergent
fiber
Acid
detergent
fiber
Alkali insoluble lignin
Cellulose
Ash (2)
PEAQ
PEAQ
Predictive Equations for Alfalfa Quality
Maturity stages:
used to estimate RFV/RFQ of alfalfa standing in field
Insoluble ash (silica)
Ash
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
5
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
6
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)
7
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
8
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….
9
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
10
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%
Soy hulls vs corn & SBM
Start here 12/7/09
Soy
Shelled
44%
SBM
hulls
corn
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
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
1.
Forage quality if key
1.
Forage quality if key
2.
Energy – can we meet the cow’s needs?
2.
Energy – can we meet the cow’s needs?
Limit on feeding supplemental fats or oils
Avoiding acidosis (SARA)
1.0 - 1.25 lb of supplemental fat and oil (< 6% of DM)
(whole soybeans, whole cottonseed, fat, etc.)
any additional must be rumen protected
(Megalac, Energy Booster, Boster Fat, etc.)
11
SARA
RFV & RFQ
- inadequate effective fiber
Relative forage value
older system
- irregular feeding schedule
index of feeding value based on intake & digestibility
- change in forage moisture content
NDF to estimate intake
- ration formulation errors
ADF to estimate digestible dry matter
- high fat content of ration
RFV
RFV
NDF negatively correlated with intake
Primary use is quality tested hay auctions
DMI (as % of BW) = 120 / Forage NDF %
Used at ISU dairy for many years
ADF negatively correlated with digestibility
vendors bid price for RFV = 150
DDM % = 88.9 – (0.779 X ADF %)
bonus: $1.00/point above RFV=150
penalty: $2.00/point below RFV=150
RFV = (DDM X DMI) / 1.29
(1.29 selected so full bloom alfalfa RFV = 100)
RFQ
Includes digestibilities of NDF and dry matter
dig DMI = NDF + ((dNDF – avg. dNDF) X 0.374)
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
1.
Forage quality if key
2.
Energy
3.
Protein
Understanding RDP and RUP
dig DM = TDN = tdCP + (tdEE X 2.25) + tdNDF + tdNFC – 7
Want to maximize rumen microbial protein production
Consider the limiting amino acids for milk production
RFQ = (dig DMI X dig DM) / 1.23
1.23 chosen so mean and range of RFQ similar to RFV
12
Protein
Milk urea nitrogen
‘Good’ rumen degradable protein feeds
Protein (nitrogen) metabolism in the rumen
‘Good’ rumen undegradable protein feeds
Cause of high/low MUN levels
Optimum levels 12 mg/dl (10-14)
ISU Herd - MUN Levels
80
70
60
No. Cows
50
40
30
20
10
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MUN (mg/dl)
Formulating Rations for Lactating Cows
Water intake
1.
Forage quality if key
2.
Energy
Sources of water
free water
3.
Protein
ingestion of water in feeds
4.
Water
metabolic water (pretty insignificant compared to other two sources)
quantity (intake)
quality
13
Water intake
Water intake
Several equations developed to predict water requirement
Several equations developed to predict water requirement
DMI
Water intake (kg/d) = 15.99
Daily milk production
+ 1.58 X DMI (kg/d)
DM content of diet
+ 0.9 X milk (kg/d)
Ambient temperature or environmental factors
+ 0.05 X Na intake (g/d)
Sodium intake
+ 1.20 X min Temperature (C)
Water intake
Water intake
Several equations developed to predict water requirement
Stimulated by diets high in
kg
lb
salt
+ 1.58 X DMI (kg/d)
25
55
sodium bicarbonate
+ 0.9 X milk (kg/d)
40
90
protein
+ 0.05 X Na intake (g/d)
50
50 g
forage
+ 1.20 X min Temperature (oC)
20
68o F
118
260
Water intake (kg/d) = 15.99
Total free water consumption
Water intake
Water quality
Influenced by
Organoleptic properties (odor and taste)
eating pattern
Physiochemical properties (ph, total dissolved solids/oxygen, hardness)
water temperature
Presence of toxic compounds (heavy or toxic metals, organophosphates)
offered in trough or bowl
Presence of excess minerals (nitrates, sodium, sulfates, and iron)
delivery rates
Presence of bacteria
animal dominance if bowls shared
stray voltage
14
On-farm Evaluation Tools
1.
PSPSS
2.
Z-box
3.
BCS
4.
Locomotion scoring
5.
Manure scoring & screening
6.
Cud chewing
LOCOMOTION SCORING
•
Based on observation of cows standing and walking (gait)
with special emphasis on their back posture
•
Effective for early detection of claw disorders, monitoring
prevalence of lameness, comparing the incidence and
severity of lameness between herds and Identifying cows for
functional claw trimming
DAIRY CATTLE LOCOMOTION SCORING
CLINICAL DESCRIPTION:
NORMAL
• Scoring from 1 to 5 (none to severe)
• Evaluate the cow
– Levelness of the top line while standing
– Levelness of the top line while walking
– Evidence of favoring one or more feet
• Score 30 to 50 cows per group
• Calculate a score average
• Stands and walks normally, back flat walking and standing
• All feet placed with purpose
R DC - 319
DAIRY CATTLE LOCOMOTION SCORING
DAIRY CATTLE LOCOMOTION SCORING
CLINICAL DESCRIPTION:
CLINICAL DESCRIPTION:
MILDLY LAME
MODERATELY LAME
5% Milk Loss!
• Stands with flat back, but arches when walks
• Gait is slightly abnormal
R DC - 320
Adapted from Sprecher et al., 1997. Theriogenology 47:1179
Adapted from Sprecher et al., 1997. Theriogenology 47:1179
• Stands and walks with an arched back
P.H. strides
Robinson, Ph.D.,
Dept. of one
Animal Science,
UC Davis legs
• Short
with
or more
R DC - 321
Adapted from Sprecher et al., 1997. Theriogenology 47:1179
15
DAIRY CATTLE LOCOMOTION SCORING
DAIRY CATTLE LOCOMOTION SCORING
CLINICAL DESCRIPTION:
CLINICAL DESCRIPTION:
LAME
SEVERELY LAME
17% Milk Loss!
36% Milk Loss!
• Arched back standing and walking
• One or more limbs
favored
but
at least
weight bearing
P.H. Robinson,
Ph.D., Dept.
of Animal
Science, partially
UC Davis
R DC - 322
Adapted from Sprecher et al., 1997. Theriogenology 47:1179
• Arched back, refuses to bear weight on one limb
• May refuse orP.H.
have
great
difficulty
moving
Robinson,
Ph.D., Dept.
of Animal Science,
UC Davisfrom lying position
R DC - 323
Adapted from Sprecher et al., 1997. Theriogenology 47:1179
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
Lameness
Manure scoring
1
2
Score
3
Economic loss
($/cow annually)
Avg
Score
75
15
9
Goal
(1.4)
50
30
15
4
1
62
(1.8)
40
25
22
10
3
82
(2.1)
25
25
30
15
5
115
(2.5)
4
5
<0.5 <0.5
1 – Splash & Splatter
2 – Loose
3 – Average or Normal
4 – Firm
5 – Thud or Crash
16
Manure scoring
Manure scoring
1 - very liquid - diarrhea, consistency of pea soup
2 - runny, does not form distinct pile
associated with excess protein or starch, too much mineral,
or lack of fiber
associated with cows on lush pasture, or lack of fiber
Manure scoring
Manure scoring
3 - porridge-like appearance, will stack-up 1.5-2 in
4 - thicker, stacks up over 2 in
considered optimal
Manure scoring
5 - firm fecal balls
associated with dry cows and heifers
Manure screening
take ~ 1 cup of fresh manure
use #8 screen
associated with feeding straw-based diet, dehydration, or
intestinal blockage
wash with pressurized water
17
Manure screening
Look for undigested, whole corn kernels, whole soybeans, and
whole cottonseeds
If found, then inadequate processing or incomplete fermentation in
rumen
Cud chewing
Why is it important?
Cud chewing
Observe the herd 2 hours after the last feeding
- want 60% of the cows lying down & chewing their cud
Other Evaluation Tools
1.
Fat-protein ratios
2.
MUN levels
3.
150-day milk production
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
693
Protein %
3.29
3.51
3.44
3.15
3.67
3.31
3.18
CFP (lb)
1159
1428
1292
1536
1365
1463
1517
F:P ratio
1.23
1.32
1.37
1.11
1.30
1.25
1.20
18
Fat-Protein Ratio ISU Herd
25.0
Percent of Cows (%)
20.0
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
150-day milk production
Adjusts the production of all cows to
High producing cows
Biggest challenge...energy
150 days in milk
age (lactation number)
% fat and % protein
Allows comparison of management changes from one month to
the next
High producing cows
High producing cows
Biggest challenge...energy
Biggest challenge...energy
feed more concentrates
corn, barley, wheat, etc.
can you avoid acidosis (SARA) ?
feed more concentrates
feed supplemental fats & oils
oilseeds, choice white grease
watch level of saturated vs. unsaturated fats
can you avoid rumen digestive upsets?
19
Grouping 2-yr olds
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
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
DMI, lb/day
Together
Separate
39.2
44.5
Milk yield, lb/day
40.5
44.0
Milk fat, %
3.92
3.97
Thumb rules
# groups
balance for
1
avg. + 30%
2
avg. + 20%
3 or more
avg. + 10%
20
Nutrient guidelines – 1989 NRC
Fresh
120
90
70
Dry
CP - %
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
12.0
RDP - %
7.2
6.3
6.0
5.7
RUP - %
9.7
10.4
10.4
NEl - Mcal/lb
.76
.78
.78
Nutrient guidelines – Kilmer
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
CP - %
19
15-17
14-15
12
15
-
RDP - % of CP
65
65
65
65
65
9.7
-
RUP - % of CP
33
33
33
33
33
.73
.57
NEl - Mcal/lb
Nutrient guidelines – 2001 NRC
MP - %
NEl - Mcal/lb
Nutrient guidelines – 1989 NRC
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
Fresh
120
90
70
Dry
11.71
10.66
9.68
7.32
9.71
ADF - %
21.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
27.0
.78
.71
.64
.45
.56
NDF - %
28.0
25.0
25.0
28.0
35.0
EE - %
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Nutrient guidelines – Kilmer
Nutrient guidelines – 2001 NRC
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
ADF - %
1717-21
1919-22
2121-25
3030-35
2525-29
ADF - %
NDF - %
2828-31
2828-33
3434-40
4242-50
3737-43
NDF - %
NDFNDF-for - %
1818-23
1919-24
2121-25
3535-38
3131-34
EE - %
NFC - %
3535-42
3434-40
3232-40
3030-40
3434-40
5-7
5-6
3-5
3-4
3-5
EE - %
.76-.80 .74-.78 .70-.75 .59-.64 .66-.72
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
no specific recommendations given
see Table 44-3 (page 37)
21
Nutrient guidelines – 1989 NRC
Ca - %
P-%
Nutrient guidelines – Kilmer
Fresh
120
90
70
Dry
.77
.49
.66
.41
.65
.42
.60
.38
.39
.24
Ca - %
P-%
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
.80
.50
.75
.43
.70
.38
.60-.80
.30
.75
.38
Mg - %
.25
.25
.25
.20
.16
Mg - %
.28
.28
.28
.20
.25
K-%
Na- %
1.00
.18
1.00
.18
1.00
.18
1.00
.18
.65
.10
K-%
Na- %
1.2
.20
1.1
.18
1.0
.18
.75
.10
.75
.10
Cl - %
.25
.25
.25
.25
.20
Cl - %
.28
.25
.25
.20
.20
S-%
.25
.20
.20
.20
.16
S-%
.25
.20
.20
.16
.20
Nutrient guidelines – 2001 NRC
Ca – g/d
P - g/d
Mg - g/d
Nutrient guidelines – 1989 NRC
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
Fresh
120
90
70
Dry
68.0
55.0
85.9
69.2
61.7
50.9
15.1
23.4
20.7
25.6
Fe - ppm
Co - ppm
50
.10
50
.10
50
.10
50
.10
50
.10
10
7.8
10.0
7.0
2.3
2.3
Cu - ppm
10
10
10
10
K - g/d
198.9
221.0
191.3
75.5
75.9
Mn - ppm
40
40
40
40
40
Na- g/d
49.3
57.6
45.6
11.3
11.4
Zn- ppm
40
40
40
40
40
Cl - g/d
59.1
76.4
53.4
15.8
16.1
I - ppm
.60
.60
.60
.60
.25
S - g/d
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
Se - ppm
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
Nutrient guidelines – Kilmer
Early Mid
Fe - ppm
Co - ppm
100
.50
100
.40
Nutrient guidelines – 2001 NRC
Late
Dry
Prefresh
100
.30
100
.30
100
.40
Cu - ppm
20
15
12
12
20
Fe – mg/d
Co - mg/d
Cu - mg/d
Mn - ppm
Zn- ppm
70
80
60
70
50
60
60
70
70
80
Mn - mg/d
ZnZn- mg/d
I - mg/d
Se - mg/d
I - ppm
.80
.80
.80
.50
.50
Se - ppm
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
38.56
2.09
10.45
54.43
2.09
12.51
34.02
2.09
9.61
18.00
2.09
6.17
18.00
2.09
6.75
2.47
2.86
2.29
183.82 245.28 164.65
9.87
9.19
9.53
5.71
5.71
5.71
1.62
41.60
3.95
1.64
42.11
4.01
5.71
5.71
22
Nutrient guidelines – 1989 NRC
Nutrient guidelines – Kilmer
Fresh
120
90
70
Dry
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
A – IU/lb
1,800
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,800
A – 1,000 IU/d
200
150
100
100
150
D – IU/lb
450
450
450
450
540
D – 1,000 IU/d
50
40
30
30
35
E – IU/lb
7
7
7
7
7
E – IU/d
800
600
500
600
1,000
Nutrient guidelines – 2001 NRC
Early
Mid
Late
Dry
Prefresh
A – 1,000 IU/d
75
75
75
100
150
D – 1,000 IU/d
20.4
20.4
20.4
30
35
E – IU/d
550
550
550
1,000
1,000
Transition cows
Cows within a 6-week window centered at calving
3 weeks prepartum
3 weeks postpartum
Dry cows
Transition cows
Typical 60-day dry period
Why all the fuss?
1st 4-5 weeks far off dry cows
Last 3 weeks close-up, prefresh, or steam-up
minimize metabolic and digestive disorders
milk fever
ketosis
Shortened dry periods (30 to 45 days)
acidosis (SARA)
only need one dry cow diet
DAs
requires good reproductive management
udder edema
challenge is impact on stocking density & parlor thru-put
23
Transition cows
Force Feeding Cows via Rumen Fistula
30
One challenge – minimize adverse effects of reduction in feed
intake during last week of pregnancy
Control
Force Fed
25
DMI
kg/d
20
15
10
5
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Day Relative to Calving
Bertics et al., 1992
Dry Matter Intake for Normal Cows and Cows
with Milk Fever
Milk-fed calves
12
DMI (kg/d)
10
$2.78/hd/day
8
Fixed
7%
Normal
6
Milk Fever
4
2
0
-14
-7
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
7
Labor and
Mgt
40%
Day of Calving
Feed
38%
Variable
15%
Adapted from Marquardt et al., JDS,
1977
Heifers from weaning to pre-calving
Calves and heifers
Often most neglected animals on farm
$1.61/hd/day
Fixed
Labor
12%
and Mgt
13%
Variable
16%
Derive no income from these animals
Yet require feed, facilities, and labor
Some opportunities to reduce costs
Feed
59%
24
Baby calves
Baby calves
Definition of weaning
First 2 months of a 24-month rearing period (8% of rearing period):
Over 50% of vet and medicine costs
15% of feed costs to get 6% of weight gain
25% of labor costs
Over 90% of mortality losses
beef/sheep – removed from dam and stops nursing
dairy
- discontinued feeding milk or milk replacer
- removal from dam occurs within hours of birth
Baby calves
Heifers – weaning to just prior to calving
Milk (or milk replacer) feeding period
Goals – obtain adequate growth rates to calve ~ 24 mo of age
most expensive (feed and labor costs)
means must have heifer pregnant @ 15 mos.
weaning based on starter consumption – NOT age
- do so without expensive feeds and high feed costs
strive to encourage early consumption of starter
A note on least cost rations…
Opportunity costs
Shadow prices
25
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 – opportunity cost
A note on least cost rations…
Opportunity costs
Shadow prices
What does this mean?
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 – shadow price
26
27