Making Sense of Modern Feed Tests

Transcription

1 Making Sense of Modern Feed Tests Randy Shaver & Luiz Ferraretto Dairy Science Department Mention of companies, labs, trade names, products or assays solely for the purpose of providing specific information or examples and does not imply recommendation, endorsement or exclusion. 1

2 Plant Cell Schematic Cell wall Cell contents Protein Fatty acids Starch Sugars } NDF Hemicellulose Cellulose Lignin NFC Starch Sugar Pectin Digestibility Moderate Low Indigestible Digestibility High but variable Very High Very High Pectin Adapted from D.K. Combs 2

3 Fiber Assay Results ADF NDF; andf; andf om Lignin undf = Lignin 2.4 indf? 3

4 Ash Content of Forage Samples Plant content of ash is 6% for grass and 8% for alfalfa rest of ash is dirt contamination Ash Content of Forage Samples UW Marshfield Lab Type Statistic % Ash Haylage Avg 12.3 Max 18.0 Min 5.7 Hay Average 10.3 Max 17.6 Min 8.8 Dan Undersander-Agronomy

5 5

6 Non-Fiber Carbohydrates NFC = CP - (NDF - NDFCP) - EE - Ash Organic Acids Sugars Starches Fructans Pectic Substances Adapted from M.B. Hall b-glucans 6

7 A look at NFC fractions CP % DM NFC % DM Starch % NFC Sugar % NFC Pectin %NFC VFA % NFC Corn Silage Alfalfa Silage Grass Hay Beet Pulp Citrus Pulp Soyhulls Molasses Corn Gluten Feed Barley Adapted from Tables in Dairy NRC

8 Summative Energy Equation TDN 1-x = DIG CP + DIG FA + DIG Starch + DIG NSTNFC + DIG NDF 7 OARDC from NRC-2001 modified for corn silage by Schwab et al., 2003, JAFST 8

9 In Vitro In Situ Gas Production In Vivo 9

10 10

11 WI AgSource DHIA Top 100 RHA (lb) Sept Stat Cow # Milk Fat Protein Cheese Average ,297 1, ,150 Std. Deviation 500 1, Min 20 30, ,733 Max ,364 1,677 1,288 4, Herds >30,000 lb RHA which represents 2.5% of herds on test there +30 WI Herds >30,000 lb RHA at NorthStar DHI 11

12 Associative effects of feeds, nutrients, diets and DMI influence the digestibility of nutrients in vivo Associative effects are largely ignored with in vitro or in situ digestibility measurements 12

13 13

14 Survey of websites and reports of 4 major US dairy feed labs for analyses related to NDF digestibility Traditional (Goering Van Soest) NDFD; Standardized (Combs Goeser) NDFD In vitro total tract NDFD (Combs-ivttNDFD) k d calculated from 24, 30, 48, 120-h NDFD (CG) NDF k d Mertens, MIR; NDF k d Van Amburgh 24-h NDFD; calculated B 2 /B 3 kd 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72, 120, 240-h NDFD lag, pools, rates 120-h undf, undf OM ; 240-h undf, undf OM 14

15 Survey of websites and reports of 4 major US dairy feed labs for analyses related to starch digestibility Starch; Prolamin; Ammonia; Particle Size; UW Feed Grain Evaluation; Corn Silage Processing Score 3-h, 7-h in vitro or in situ starch digestibility (ivrsd); k d Fecal Starch; Total Tract Starch Digestibility (TTSD) 15

16 Survey of websites and reports of 4 major US dairy feed labs for analyses related to starch and NDF digestibilities TMR-D Fermentrics (gas production system) Calibrate Jones Index; (NDFd30 + starch)/ndfu30 16

17 Partial list of inherent flaws of rumen in vitro & in situ digestibility measures relative to in vivo Donor/incubation cow diet ingredient/nutrient content & physical form versus client farm(s) e.g. Diet starch% & source affects amylase & cellulase activities; Rumen ph & fluctuation; RDP; etc. Ditto for DMI k d /(k d +k p ) k p assumed; disagreement over use of k p of DM or nutrient and determination methods for k p (markers or fill/flux) DMI & diet influence rumen ph and hence k d Fine grinding of incubation samples 1-2 mm screen for ivndfd Results in maximal rates and extents of NDF digestibility 4-6 mm for ivstarchd Masks particle size effects on starch digestibility Ignores post-ruminal NDF and starch digestion 17

18 A bit more on digestion kinetics Grant, Proc State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA Jim Coors, UW Madison, Ben Justen s Thesis 18

19 For the most part, ruminal in vitro and in situ NDF digestibility measurements, should be viewed as relative index values for comparison among feeds/diets or over time within feeds/diets, rather than as predictors of in vivo digestibility 19

20 20

21 The Dairy NRC version 8.0 Dr. Rich Erdman, Chair University of Maryland, College Park 21

22 In Vitro In Situ In Vivo 22

23 23

24 How is TTNDFD determined? Forage sample Rate of fiber digestion (kd) Potentially digestible NDF (pdndf) Rumen and hindgut digestion Standardized iv NDFD (24, 30, 48h) and undf Rate of fiber passage, (kp) PD NDF * kd/(kd +kp) TTNDFD (total tract NDF Digestibility) 24

25 TTNDFD combines in vitro rate of NDF digestion with undf to improve the prediction of in vivo fiber digestion Slide adapted from Dave Combs, UW Madison 25

26 Stand-alone in vitro NDFD30 or undf values are poor predictors of in vivo fiber digestion Slide adapted from Dave Combs, UW Madison 26

27 Typical NDF & TTNDFD values of forages NDF TTNDFD Average Good Alfalfa < 40% 42% > 48% Corn Silage < 40% 42% > 48% Temperate Grasses < 45% 44% > 50% Dairy quality alfalfa and corn silages will be < 40% NDF with a TTNDFD value of at least 42% Slide adapted from Dave Combs, UW Madison 27

28 Sample manure for fecal starch content to better manage starch digestibility on the farm Source Image: 28

29 29

30 UW Research Trial Results 31% of samples with > 3% fecal starch Fredin et al., 2014, JDS 30

31 P < R² = samples TTSD % = 100.0% - (1.25 X fecal starch %) Fredin et al., 2014, JDS 31

32 Field Trial Fecal Starch Results % of Samples % of farms with > 3% fecal starch Huibregtse et al., 2013 Starch in Fecal Samples, % 32

33 Utility of On-Farm Fecal Starch? Can be used to predict total tract starch digestibility from available equation or using undf Monitor specific group over time Reflects total diet, not specific feedstuffs! Gives no indication of site of digestion If <3% starch in feces no need to investigate feeds to improve starch digestion If >3% should evaluate specific starchy feedstuffs 33

34 Summary slide from DLL web site 34

35 StarchD & NDFD Field Study Powel-Smith et al., 2015, JAM abstr. 32 Upper Midwest dairy herds undf (240 h) used as internal marker to determine in vivo total-tract starch & NDF digestibility in high pens 7-h ivstarchd and 24-h ivndfd measured on corn silage, corn grain & TMR 7-h ivstarchd unrelated (R 2 =0) to in vivo total-tract starch digestibility 24-h ivndfd poorly related (R 2 =0.13) to and over-estimated in vivo total-tract NDF digestibility 35

36 ivndfd vs. DMI, FCM & FE High Low ivndfd Forage 4%-units 10%-units - - Response (lb/cow/day) - - Review Papers DMI FCM DMI FCM Oba & Allen, JDS, Jung et al., MN Nutr. Conf., Ferraretto & Shaver, JDS, Average Tabular data calculated from reported responses per %-unit difference in ivndfd Feed efficiency seldom improved statistically 36

37 Response to ivndfd vs. Level of Production Grant, Proc State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA 37

38 38

39 39

40 Energy content of bm 3 corn silage Tine et al., 2001, JDS Item Lactating 4x Maintenance Dry Maintenance Isogenic bm 3 Isogenic bm 3 TDN, % b 74.8 a DE, Mcal/kg b 3.32 a ME, Mcal/kg b 2.77 a NE L, Mcal/kg

41 NDFD topics Lignin Content; Composition? Stage of Maturity Hybrid/Variety Type vs. Individual Environment; G E Grass vs. Alfalfa Mixtures Maturity; Variation Crop Fungicides? Cutting height Chop length Crop Processing? Ensiling Time in storage Inoculants?; Enzymes? TMR pendf Starch 41

42 42

43 Meta-Analysis: Diet Starch% vs. NDFD Ferraretto et al., JDS,

44 Weiss, 2014 Starch Discover Conf. (unpublished) 44

45 Ruminant Starch Digestion Rumen Small Intestine Digestion (Enzymatic) Glucose Microbial Fermentation VFA Propionate Glucose via liver Microbial Protein Hind Gut Microbial Fermentation VFA 45

46 Meta-Analysis: Site of Starch Digestion Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS 46

47 Meta-Analysis: Site of Starch Digestion Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS 47

48 48

49 Whole -Plant Corn Silage Grain ~40-45% of WPDM Avg. 30% starch in WPDM Variable grain:stover Stover= ~55-60% of WPDM Avg. 42% NDF in WPDM Variable stover:grain 80 to 98% StarchD Kernel particle size Duration of silage fermentation Kernel maturity Endosperm properties Additives (exp.) Adapted from Joe Lauer, UW Madison Agronomy Dept. 40 to 70% IVNDFD Lignin/NDF Hybrid Type Environment; G Maturity Cutting height Additives (exp.) Variable pendf as per chop length E 49

50 Corn Silage Fermentation Increases Starch Digestibility! 50

51 In Press 51

52 Treatments and Objectives BMR, DP, and LFY-FL 2/3 milk line, 7 d later 0.65-cm, 1.95-cm Protease vs. control 0, 30, 60, 120 or 240 d of ensiling Objective was to evaluate the effects of ensiling time and protease in WPCS of varied hybrids, maturities and particle size 52

53 ivstarchd (% starch) 5/23/2016 Hybrid type ensiling time BMR DP LFY Ensiling time (d) Time effect (P < 0.001) Hybrid effect (P = 0.02) Hybrid Time (P > 0.10) 53

54 54

55 Ensiling time effect NH3-N (% N) Sol-CP (%CP) ivstarchd (% Starch) % (P = 0.001) Ensiling time (d) 55

56 ivstarchd (% starch) 5/23/2016 Hybrid type ensiling time Time effect (P < 0.001) Hybrid effect (NS) Hybrid Time (NS) Difference between LFY and BMR (%-units) Ensiling time (d) LFY BMR 56

57 ivndfd (% NDF) 5/23/2016 Hybrid type ensiling time Ensiling time (d) Time effect (NS) Hybrid effect (P < 0.001) Hybrid Time (NS) LFY BMR 57

58 Corn Silage Processing Score Mertens, USDFRC Ro-Tap Shaker 9 sieves (0.6 thru 19 mm) and pan Analyze for starch on 4.75 mm & > sieves % of starch passing 4.75 mm sieve >70% 70% to 50% < 50% KPS Excellent Adequate Poor 58

59 Corn Silage Processing Score Testing Lab MN Field Trial 1 MN Field Trial 2 Dairyland WI Field Trial 1 Lab Survey WI Field Trial 2 Year No. of samples Rock River Lab Survey Cumberland Valley ,131 CSPS % of Samples by Processing Score Excellent 10% 8% 10% 17% 17% 16% 7% Adequate 48% 76% 55% 68% 61% 62% 51% Poor 42% 16% 35% 15% 22% 22% 42% 59

60 Industry Makes Advances in Corn Silage Processing (CVAS Data, 2006 to 2014) Crop Year Number Average Percent Excellent Percent Poor Adapted from slide provided by Ralph Ward of CVAS 60

61 Corn Silage Processing Improves (RRL Data, 2013 to 2015) Crop Year Count (n) Average CSPS Normal Range Percent Excellent Percent Poor % 33% % 8% % 6% Summarized from data provided by Dr. John Goeser, RRL 61

62 Corn Silage Processing Improves (DLL Data, 2009 to 2014) Summary slide provided by Kyle & Dave Taysom, DLL 62

63 Corn Silage Processing Score n Unfermented n Fermented SE P < % % % Starch Passing 4.75 mm Sieve % ± % ± % ± % ± days in vacuum sealed experimental mini silos 2 90 to 210 days in farm level silo bags 3 30 to 120 days in farm level silo bags Ferraretto et al., 2015, JDS Abstr. 63

64 % starch passing through 4.75 mm screen 5/23/2016 Corn Silage Processing Score P = 0.08 SEM = 2.0 n = 3 a a 64 ab b Ensiling time, d vacuum sealed experimental mini silos Ferraretto et al., 2015, JDS Abstr. 64

65 Corn Silage Processing Score KPS% 85.0% CSPS vs. DM% y = x R² = % 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% 45.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% DM% Dias Jr. et al., 2015, JDS Abstr. 65

66 DM% & Starch% Influence CSPS (DLL Data, 2009 to 2014) Summary slides provided by Kyle & Dave Taysom, DLL 66

67 67

68 68

69 69

70 Starch fermentation rate (%/h) Total Tract Starch Digestibility (% of starch) Ruminal Starch Digestibility (% of starch) 5/23/ A B GMPS, µm GMPS, µm C GMPS, µm Dias Jr. et al., unpublished Estimates of the effect of kernel-fraction geometric mean particle size (µm) on starch fermentation rate (%/h; Panel A) and ruminal and total tract starch digestibilities (% of starch; Panel B and C, respectively). 70

71 DM, NDF, Starch on feed-out samples Mean Bag 1 Bag 2 Normal Range Mean Normal Range DM, % as fed NDF, % of DM Starch, % of DM Hybrid, 1 Field Harvested same day Arlington, WI 71

72 NDF Content of Corn Silages Example DM basis Average Normal Range Dairyland Labs 6 years n=13k/yr. 43% 37% - 49% 72

73 Starch Content of Corn Silages Example DM basis Average Normal Range Dairyland Labs 6 years n=13k/yr. 30% 23% - 37% 73

74 Example 74

75 How do we determine Dry Matter? Commercial Lab Analysis Koster Tester Food Dehydrator Microwave On-Farm NIRS 75

76 76

77 77

78 78

79 79

80 80

81 81

82 82

83 Recommended Moisture Contents High-Moisture Corn Grain Silo Kernel Moisture % Horizontal Tower a Concrete stave Oxygen Limiting a Earlage/Snaplage target at 35%-40% moisture in product 83

84 84

85 85

86 86

87 Example 87

88 Visit UW Extension Dairy Cattle Nutrition Website Mention of companies, labs, trade names, products or assays solely for the purpose of providing specific information or examples and does not imply recommendation, endorsement or exclusion. 88