Precision Feeding. Mike Hutjens Professor Emeritus Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois

Transcription

1 Factors Impacting Corn Prices Mike Hutjens Professor Emeritus Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois Anticipate 36.5% of the U.S. corn crop will be used in bio-fuel production; 14,5% for export, and 38.7 for feed, and 10.3% other Legislation for 15% ethanol blend and more E-85 vehicles Ethanol production is profitable up to $7.30 a bu. Livestock prices for beef and swine may be more profitable than milk prices A Look at Corn Prices in the U.S (Cost per bushel, Dec 27, 2010) Central IL $5.60 Zumbrota, MN $5.65 Madison, WI $5.80 North Java, NY $6.20 Sulphur Springs, TX $7.02 Turlock, CA $7.14 Okeechobee, FL $7.17 A Look at Corn Futures (Cost per bushel, Dec 27, 2010) 2011 March $6.09 July $6.21 September $5.73 December $ March $5.58 May $5.63 July $5.68 September $5.40 At Look at the Milk Futures in $/cwt Class III MILC Jan, March, May, July, Dec, Modifying Starch Levels Recommended levels: 19 to 26% Rumen fermentable carbohydrates Forage quality Starch availability in the rumen Role of corn processing Addition of Rumensin Fecal starch losses

2 Range in Ration Starch Levels Source of starch (corn, barley, or sorghum) Processing of the grain (steam flaking, grinding, or high moisture) Role of forage source (corn silage vs. legume-grass) Other sources of rumen fermentable carbs (sugar, soluble fiber, bakery by-product) Shelled Corn Energy Values (Dairy NRC 1989) Mcal/lb DM Cracked (2200 micron) 0.84 Ground (1500 micron) 0.89 High moisture (>26%) 0.93 Steam flaked (24/25 lb bu) 0.93 High lysine (floury) 0.94 Finely ground (1100 micron) 0.96 Corn Source Cracked 50/50 Ground Milk (lb/d) Fat (%) Protein (%) DMI (lb/d) Measuring Corn Particle Size Send a sample to a commercial lab to be measured Using a flour sifter, measure the percent not passing through (add 100 microns for each 10% to the base value of 800 microns) Use grain screens Wt ( lb/d) Grain Particle Screens Number 4 > 4500 Whole/coarse Number 8 > 2200 Cracked corn Number 16 > 1100 Ground corn Number 30 > 500 Pig feed Pan < 500 Powder Particle Size Guidelines Screen Size #4 #8 #16 #30 Pan H.M. Corn (>30%) H.M. Corn (25-30) H.M. Corn (<25%) 0 < <20 Dry corn 0 < <20 Sample Shakeout

3 Where to Order NASCO, Fort Atkinson Seedburo Equipment Co, Chicago, IL Sieve Sizing US Sieve English Metric Fraction Series (inch) (mm) (inch) ~3/ ~1/ ~3/ ~5/ ~3/ ~3/ Corn Silage - Viable Alternative Level of starch in corn silage (18-42%) Processing of corn silage No visible kernels Adequate particle size Purchasing your corn silage seed for 2011 Level of NDFD (>55%) Starch levels (>30%) 2006 Milk per acre Agronomic needs (stacking of genes) Penn State Separator % (as fed) Top 2 nd 3 rd Bottom TMR > 40 < 30 < 20 Haylage > 40 > 40 < 20 < 5 Corn silage 5-15 > 50 < 30 < 5 (3/4 TLC-Process) Levels of Rumensin TMR allows 5.5 to 11 mg / lb of DM Component fed herds allowed to add 115 to 660 mg Monitor milk fat test to minimize milk fat drops of < 0.1 point 300 mg of Rumensin replaces 1.2 to 1.5 lb of shelled corn Evaluating Manure Fecal starch analysis Measuring total tract starch utilization Economic loss in milk yield Manure washing Physical presence of feed particles Forage quality evaluation Manure scoring Cow responses - sorting, days in milk, pen evaluation

4 Feed Starch and Apparent Digestibility of Feed Starch Apparent digestibility Typical range of feed starch in dairy rations for high producing groups Feed Starch, % DM Apparent digestibility of feed starch and fecal starch (%DM) Apparent digestibility of Feed Starch, % DM Fecal Starch, % DM Illinois Field Study 19 high producing SW IL herds 4 to 5 pies were mixed and sampled Rock River Lab analyzed for fecal starch, lignin, NDF, and DM Rations were evaluated by consultant Developed an IL equation based on University of Pennsylvania equation Illinois Herd Results Variable Mean SD Range Starch dig (%) Fecal starch (%) Fecal lignin (%) Fecal NDF(%) Feed starch (%) Feed NDF (%) Feed lignin (%) Fecal Starch Results Number % Fecal Starch Source Samples Average Range Dairyland Lab Rock River Lab na Cumberland Lab PA Vet College 515* IL field herds *Based 66 herds Analysis Costs Fecal starch = $10 to $20 per sample Fecal lignin = $16 per sample Dr. Jim Ferguson recommended running only fecal starch to estimate apparent starch digestibility (cost and analytical challenges)

5 University of PA Sampling Sample 10 cows in a group that have been consuming the same ration for a period of two weeks. Cows should be 90 to 150 days in milk. Samples should be taken from the rectum and mixed in a bucket from the 10 cows (handful per cow) About 250 ml (2 cups) for analysis Milk response Fecal starch should be less than 4.5% represents total tract apparent digestibility of 90+ percent. If fecal starch can be reduced 1 unit (absolute decrease from 10% to 9%), milk production could increase 0.67 pound (dry matter intake remains constant). Providing a consistent ration (physically and chemically) Consistent flow of nutrients through the rumen and digestive tract Remove variation from the field to the bulk tank Phase 1: Field Variation Variation in harvesting Wide harvest window with corn silage 3 to 6 cuttings with legume/grass forage NIR mounted on the chopper Variation in the chopping Impact of changing dry matter Impact of yield on chopper Chopper self adjustment Dry Matter Per Acre Alfalfa 3.35 tons of dry matter per acre (USDA 2009 Crop Production Report in Aug 10, 2010 Hoard s Dairyman Corn Silage: 8 tons per acre (U of WI summary, 1995 to 2008, 2665 observations) Milk 2006 Calculations Alfalfa (5 tons per acre, 20% CP, 40% NDF, 45% NDFD 2863 pounds of milk per ton pounds of milk per acre Corn silage (1995 to 2008 U of WI) 3220 pounds of milk per ton 26,000 pounds of milk per acre

6 Phase 2: Nutrient Variation Feed ingredient selection Soybean meal consistency Distillers grain has wide variation Limit variable feeds to 2 to 5 lb DM Variation in forages Recognize standard deviation in forage nutrients (NRC 2001) Target the nutrient values to protect milk production (protein low value, oil high value) Forage testing labs provide averages Nutrient variation in forage (NRC 2010) Corn Silage(1033) CP NDF ADF Lignin Content Standard deviation Alfalfa Silage (8567) Content Standard deviation Phase 3: Mixing Variation Over filling TMR mixer capacity Feed addition sequence is not clear Mixing time (not measured and monitored) Uniformity of feed along the feed bunk Keenen Pace System Penn State box applications Pre-processing of baleage and straw Diamond V Mills TMR evaluation Phase 4: Feed Bunk Variation Cow sorting is a critical focus point Ration delivered vs. consumed Strategies to reduce this risk Penn State Box applications Feed bunk space 24 to 30 inches per cow Close up and 1 st lactation cows at 30 inches Avoid overstocking and bunk capacity Minimizing Feed Sorting Reduce forage particle size < 2 inches Increase forage quality Reduce the amount of hay Add 5 to 10 pounds of water Considering adding liquid molasses, corn distillers solubles, or other wet ingredient Feed more frequently each day Phae 5: Rumen Variation Shifts in rumen ph Monitor signs of acidosis Rate of passage impact Factors that shift from 4 to 8% / hour Feed particle size (forages and corn) Particle size monitoring using grain screens Role of PUFA Free oils calculations Use of rumen stabilization additives

7 Yield (Grams of cells/gram of substrate) Fiber Digester Starch Digester ph Phase 6: Blood Nutrient Variation Amino acid profile using models Impact of NEFA leading to ketones Blood urea nitrogen impact Recyling of urea MUN diagnostic levels Nitrogen efficiency (28% vs. 35% vs. 42%) VFA levels and ratios Asking Field Specialists Survey nutritionists (34), educators (11), and veterinarians (10) Rank the top three good decisions made by their managers Rank the top three bad decisions made by their managers Thanks to those who responded Top Three Good Decisions 65 points: Forage management 64 points: Stay the course 51 points: Ration balancing/nutrients/aa 32 points: Strategic culling 23 points: Milk components and quality 17 points: Financial management; working with banker Other Good Decisions Grouping strategies Milk contracting Use of by-product feeds Labor management Use of rbst Getting cows pregnant Top Three Bad Decisions 74 points: Pulling feed/reducing DMI 45 points: Pulling feed additives 23 points: Not staying the course 23 points: Avoiding financial support 19 points: Using poor quality forage 15 points: Reducing hoof care 13 points: Poor cow comfort

8 Other Bad Decisions Overfeeding of distillers grain Reduced use of rbst Reduction in herd health Incorrect culling decision Heifer programs neglected Long Term Bad Economic Decisions (Hutjens) Delayed calving at 24 months of age $2 per day per heifer (feed costs only) Stop accelerated calf feeding program 1100 lb more milk in first lactation Not getting cows pregnant $2 /day > 120 days open, $8 / 200 days Higher somatic cell count 2 lb more milk per drop in linear score More lame cows 6 lb less milk and 5 X increase culling risk Cow Responses / Monitoring Change in MUN by 3 units (8 to 12) Change in manure score by one unit (3.0) Change in body condition score by 0.5 (3.0) Change > 3 lb of management level milk Change > 0.2 % milk fat unit Change > 0.1% milk protein unit Change 2 lb of dry matter intake Take Home Messages 2011 will be another challenging year Make good decisions which are the same with $14 or $18 /cwt milk Economic-based decisions Focus on forages, by-products, feed additive selection, and starch use as economical and healthy strategies