COMPONENT FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS Mat Haan Dairy Educator Penn State Extension Gabriella Varga Distinguished Professor Penn State University Department of Animal Science Dairy Nutrition Conference Grantville, PA vember 2013 Overview Defining component feeding systems Component vs. TMR feeding Real farm scenarios to demonstrate successful and profitable strategies for delivery of feedstuffs What Is Component Feeding? Component Feeding Individual feed ingredients are fed separately, as apposed to a TMR Systems Tie-Stall Barn Grazing Systems Automatic Milking Component vs. TMR Feeding Component Potentially lower capital costs for systems used for handling, mixing and delivering feed to the cow Potentially more precise delivery of protein, energy, and mineral supplements to meet individual cows nutrient requirements TMR Reduced selectivity or sorting of individual feeds More accurate determination of total DMI Greater control of feed usage by cows A larger selection of feedstuffs including less palatable byproducts and commodity feeds Potentially lower labor. Component vs. TMR Feeding TMR Herds Component Herds Number of cows 54 46 Days in Milk 178 184 Cull Rate, % 35 34 Rolling Herd Ave Milk, lbs. 23,798 22,998 Fat, lbs. 867 826 Protein, lbs. 721 684 150-Day Milk, lbs. 79.7 78.6 Fat,% 3.8 3.8 Protein, % 3.2 3.1 SCC Actual, 1000 s 299 206 Component vs. TMR Feeding Component TMR P-value 4% FCM, lb/d 56.3 56.3 NS DMI, lb/d 40.5 39.6 NS Eating, min/d 198 243 0.01 Rumination, min/d 584 498 NS Length of Rumination Periods, min 40.4 32.7 0.04 Total Chewing, min/d 736 741 NS Both component and TMR fed animals consumed approximately a 40:60 forage to concentrate ratio ration. Similar production levels can be achieved with either feeding system. Griswold et al., 2005 Maekawa et al., JDS 2002 1
Component vs. TMR Feeding Tie-Stall Barns Component TMR P-value Total Saliva Production, L/d 249 230 NS Time < ph 5.8, h/d 13.3 11.2 NS Min ph 5.14 5.26 NS Max ph 6.52 6.53 NS Mean ph 5.77 5.84 NS Both component and TMR fed animals consumed approximately a 40:60 forage to concentrate ratio ration. Maekawa et al., JDS 2002 Strategies: Feeding Procedures Order of Feed Delivery A.M. Hay/Baleage Corn silage Grains Concentrates What would you change & why? P.M. Hay/Baleage Corn silage Grains Concentrates Hay last How much impact will those changes have? General Thumb Rules Forage before grain Ideally, feed hay first If hay not available, silage Energy feeds before protein Energy feeds typically take longer to be broken down in the rumen Feed protein and mineral containing items reasonably close to a feeding of items low in these nutrients, i.e. corn silage 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 Order in Which Feeds are Fed Forage+HMEC, Forage, HMEC+ ph = 5.87 ph = 5.77 Ruminal ph BUILDING THE TOPDRESS?: Ration strategies Important to find out what the dairyman believes the cows are capable of producing. Set realistic goals for what can be accomplished on the dairy. Discuss costs and profit potential. hour cek, 1995 2
Will a Topdress System be Done Correctly? Will the correct amount of supplement be weighed? Will the same person be topdressing each day? Are accurate DHIA records available? Does the farm understand the importance of adjusting the topdress to production? BUILDING THE TOPDRESS?: Ration strategies What production level should we begin to topdress at? 75 pounds? 85 pounds? Depends on what the herd is used to making. BUILDING THE TOPDRESS?: Ration strategies Assuming a normal, conservative baseline ration has the following nutrient specs: 30 to 32% NDF (WHAT IS IT?) 25% starch 16 to 17.5% CP NEED TO KNOW DMI!!! BUILDING THE TOPDRESS?: Ration strategies At maximum topdress, where should the nutrient specs of the total ration be? Minimum 30% NDF Crude protein at maximum 18.5% Starch maximum of 27% Is the corn stable high moisture or dry corn? Are the cows heat stressed? What is grain grind size? What does the manure look like? FORAGE Quality 52 to 53% forage % of ration DM at maximum topdress. More is better! Must not trade health for production. Forage diagnostics: NDF and ADF Provide adequate pounds of fiber in the ration for the fresh cow: Total NDF intake Forage NDF intake Total ADF intake 13-16 lbs/d 11-13 lbs/d min 8/lbs/d 75% of fiber (NDF) should come from forage 3
TOPDRESS POUNDS PER MIX % OF MIX CANOLA 3.59 900 45 GROUND CORN 3.59 900 45 BLOOD 0.45 80 4 FAT 0.5 120 6 2000 MILK STEP POUNDS TOPDRESS ME MILK MP MILK CP % STARCH % NDF % BASE TMR 0 72.7 75.3 17.2 23.4 34.1 70 2 77.6 80.1 17.5 23.9 33.5 75 3 80.1 82.5 17.7 24.2 33.2 80 4 82.4 84.9 17.8 24.4 33 85 5 84.7 87.4 18 24.7 32.7 90 6 86.9 89.8 18.1 24.9 32.5 95 7 89.2 92.3 18.2 25.1 32.2 100 8 91.5 94.7 18.4 25.3 32 The bottom line: $$$ One pound of topdress = $0.198 per pound. Average response = 2.5 lb milk/lb topdress. 2.5 pounds milk (@ $16) = $0.40 2.5 pounds milk (@ $18) = $0.45 2.5 pounds milk (@ $20) = $0.50 2.5 pounds milk (@ $22) = $0.55 Grazing Systems Pasture Sampling on Grazing Dairy Farms Soder and Muller, 2007 Grazing Dairy Farms Among grazing dairy farms in Michigan. 15% provided little or no supplemental feeds during the grazing season 38% used a ptmr or concentrate to supplement pasture 47% provided the majority of feed as a TMR while still allowing cows access to pasture Challenges in a Grazing System Less control of feeding program than with confinement Change in quantity and quality Pasture is alive and changes daily Less consistency of nutrient intake per day Consistent nutrient intake/day and within a day is the key to increase or maintaining milk production Haan etal., 2011 4
Why interest in supplementing cows on pasture? Balance nutrition for changes in pasture quality and quantity TMR feeding systems are more profitable except in cases of low milk prices and high feed prices, pasture supplemented with ptmr or concentrate more profitable under these conditions (Tozer etal. 2003) Optimize profit per cow and per acre Extend the grazing season Increase stocking rate on fixed pasture area Dry Matter Intake Factors limiting DMI Physiological Environmental Management DMI = (0.372 x FCM + 0.0968 x BW 0.75 ) x (1 e (-0.192 x WOL + 3.67)) ) (NRC, 2001) Pasture DMI = grazing time x bite rate x bite mass Total DMI = Pasture DMI + DMI Substitution Rate When grazing cows are fed supplement, pasture DMI usually decreases. Substitution Rate = (Pasture DMI of unsupplemented cows Pasture DMI of supplemented cows) DMI If SR < 1 then total DMI of supplemented animal is higher than the total DMI of the unsupplemented animal. Milk Response Pounds of milk per pounds of supplement. Determines whether supplementation is profitable based on milk and supplement prices. Grazing Behavior of ed and Unsupplemented Dairy Cows Concentrate ation Low PA - Low PA High PA High PA - SEM P < P < P < Concentrate Concentrate Supp PA Supp x PA Grazing Time, min/d 609 534 626 522 37 0.02 0.94 0.70 Biting rate, bites/min 56 54 56 55 2 0.55 0.74 0.72 Bite mass, g DM/bite 0.55 0.55 0.60 0.59 0.05 0.97 0.34 0.96 PA = Pasture Area Bargo etal., 2002 5
Intake and Substitution Rate Effect of ation on Performance Low PA - Low PA High PA High PA - SEM P < P < P < Concentrate Concentrate Supp PA Supp x PA DMI, kg/d 0.8 8.6 0.7 8.7 0.1 <0.01 0.56 0.36 Low PA - Low PA Concentrate High PA High PA - Concentrate SEM P < Supp P < PA P < Supp x PA Pasture DMI, kg/d 17.5 15.5 20.5 16.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Total DMI, kg/d 18.3 24.1 21.2 24.8 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Total DMI, % BW 2.91 3.85 3.37 3.97 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Substitution Rate, kg - 0.26-0.55 - - - - pasture/kg concentrate Milk, kg/d 19.1 29.7 22.2 29.9 0.8 <0.01 0.04 0.03 3.5% FCM, kg/d 20.3 28.4 23.3 28.9 0.9 <0.01 0.05 0.05 Milk Fat, % 3.82 3.29 3.79 3.32 0.07 <0.01 0.96 0.53 Milk Fat, kg/d 0.74 0.96 0.84 0.98 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.01 Protein, % 2.98 3.08 2.93 3.11 0.04 <0.01 0.71 0.27 Milk Protein, kg/d 0.55 0.89 0.64 0.90 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.05 MUN, mg/dl 13.9 11.6 14.2 11.1 0.4 <0.01 0.74 0.49 PA = Pasture Area Bargo etal., 2002 Bargo etal., 2002 Economics Low PA - Low PA Concentrate High PA High PA - Concentrate Feed Cost, $/cow/day 3.26 4.69 3.59 4.80 Milk Income, $/cow/day 8.65 13.45 10.05 13.54 IOFC 2.66 2.87 2.80 2.82 Forage ation Milk production and feed intake based on Bargo etal. (2002). Prices for feeds on an as fed bases per ton of feed were: Pasture = $28, Grain = $239, Mineral mix = $810. Pasture and concentrate supplement costs calculated using PA feed costs for October 2013, mineral supplement best guess. Milk price set at $20.58 / cwt. Source: September 2013 Federal Milk Order for rtheast Marketing Area Intake and Substitution Rate Effect of ation on Performance Grass Corn Wheat Pasture DMI, kg/day 12.9 c 11.2 bc 8.9 a 11.0 b <0.001 DMI, kg/day 0.0 a 3.0 b 6.3 c 3.6 b <0.001 Total DMI, kg/day 12.9 a 14.2 b 15.3 c 14.7 bc <0.001 Substitution Rate, kg pasture / kg supplement - 0.56 0.63 0.53 - P < Grass Corn Wheat Milk, kg/d 17.1 a 18.4 ab 19.8 b 18.0 a <0.001 Energy Corrected Milk, kg/d 16.6 a 17.9 a 20.0 b 17.6 a <0.001 Milk Fat, % 3.98 3.99 4.15 4.02 NS Milk Fat, kg/d 0.67 a 0.73 a 0.82 b 0.71 a <0.001 Milk Protein, % 3.21 abc 3.14 a 3.28 c 3.17 ab <0.01 Milk Protein, kg/d 0.54 a 0.57 a 0.64 b 0.56 a <0.001 MUN, mmol/kg 3.73 c 3.27 b 2.52 a 3.43 bc <0.001 P < Morrison and Patterson, 2007 Morrison and Patterson, 2007 6
Economics Automatic Milking Grass Corn Wheat Feed Cost, $/cow/day 2.34 3.32 2.64 2.75 Milk Income, $/cow/day 7.74 8.33 8.96 8.15 IOFC 3.31 2.51 3.39 2.96 Milk production and feed intake based on Morrison and Patterson (2007). Prices for feeds on an as fed bases per ton of feed were: Pasture = $28, Grass = $67.60, Corn = $42.90, Wheat = $57.78. Feed cost calculated using PA feed costs for October 2013. Milk price set at $20.58 / cwt. Source: September 2013 Federal Milk Order for rtheast Marketing Area Component Feeding in an Automatic Milking System The cow sets her own milking schedule Feed is the motivation for being milked Component Feeding in an Automatic Milking System Feeding A Partial Mixed Ration (ptmr) fed at the bunk Energy limiting Pellet or meal fed at robot Amount based on expected milk yield, stage of lactation, etc. Multiple feeds can be fed at robot Palatability Consistent quality Feeding Challenges in AMS Variation in milking interval and the resulting variation in feeding schedule. How much can cows eat at robot? How much can energy at bunk be restricted without impacting performance? Palatability and consistency of feed. Cost of pelleted feeds. Barn layout Free Flow Guided Flow (Milk First) DeLaval VMS Facility Layout Guide for rth America, 2012 7
1PM Change Paddock Feed Tables AMS Freestall Example 110 cows 2 robots, free flow cow movement in barn Cows fitted with activity monitors and rumination sensors Feeding Corn silage based TMR fed at bunk 2X per day Automatic feed pusher runs every 2 hours All cows receive a pelleted feed at robot High producers receive roasted soybeans AMS Freestall Example Milk production 85 lbs/cow/day 4400 lbs/robot/day Milkings 2.9 per cow per day Refusals 0.9 per cow per day AMS - Pasture Example 70 cows 1 robot in free-stall barn at center of pasture Pasture 85 acres New paddock twice per day Feeding All forage from pasture during grazing season 2 lbs. of pellet per 13 lbs. of milk At robot 2 lbs. grounded corn At feeding station AMS - Pasture Example 10AM 3 PM 5 PM Cows must pass through barn (automatic milker) to get to afternoon paddock. AMS - Pasture Example Milk production 46 lbs/cow/day 36.8 lbs/acre/day 3220 lbs/robot/day Milkings 2.3 per cow per day Refusals 1.2 per cow per day 8
Summary THANK YOU! The feeding system does not dictate potential herd production, but the management does! Forage quality is the most important factor for optimizing FORAGE intake in component-fed and top-dressed herds. Ration formulation should focus on meeting minimum total and forage NDF intakes Quality and quantity of pasture changes throughout the grazing season. al feeding can stabilize DMI on pasture can provide a more stable.. Automatic milking systems offer.. 9