DAIRY FOCUS AT ILLINOIS NEWSLETTER. Focus on Forages Volume 2, Number 1

Similar documents
Understanding Dairy Nutrition Terminology

Making Forage Analysis Work for You in Balancing Livestock Rations and Marketing Hay

INTERPRETING FORAGE QUALITY TEST REPORTS

Effective Practices In Sheep Production Series

2009 Forage Production and Quality Report for Pennsylvania

RFV VS. RFQ WHICH IS BETTER

ABSTRACT FORAGE SAMPLING AND TESTING ACCURACY CHOOSING A FORAGE TESTING LAB

How Fiber Digestibility Affects Forage Quality and Milk Production

ESTIMATING THE ENERGY VALUE OF CORN SILAGE AND OTHER FORAGES. P.H. Robinson 1 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

Dr. Dan Undersander Professor of Agronomy University of Wisconsin

COMPARATIVE FEED VALUE OF WHOLE PLANT CORN PRE AND POST GRAZING. October 17, 2012

Navigating the dairy feed situation

ALMLM HAY QUALITY: TERMS AND DEFIN"IONS

BENCHMARKING FORAGE NUTRIENT COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY. R. D. Shaver, Ph.D., PAS

Fiber Digestibility & Corn Silage Evaluation. Joe Lawrence Cornell University PRO-DAIRY

Feeding Animals for Profit - Will my 2017 hay cut it?

HarvestLab John Deere Constituent Sensing

Nutritive Value of Feeds

(Equation 1) (Equation 2) (Equation 3)

Fibre is complicated! NDFD, undfom in forage analysis reports NDF. Review. NDF is meant to measure Hemicellulose Celluose Lignin

Protein and Carbohydrate Utilization by Lactating Dairy Cows 1

NEW/EMERGING MEASUREMENTS FOR FORAGE QUALITY. Dan Putnam 1 ABSTRACT

Using Feed Analysis to Troubleshoot Nutritional Problems in Dairy Herds 1

TRANSITION COW NUTRITION AND MANAGEMENT. J.E. Shirley

Heidi Rossow, PhD UC Davis School Of Veterinary Medicine, VMTRC Tulare, CA. Interpreting Forage Quality from the Cows Perspective

As Sampled Basis nutrient results for the sample in its natural state including the water. Also known as as fed or as received.

Normand St-Pierre The Ohio State University. Copyright 2011 Normand St-Pierre, The Ohio State University

TDN. in vitro NDFD 48h, % of NDF WEX

Research Report Forage Sorghum Hybrid Yield and Quality at Maricopa, AZ, 2015

Fundamentals of Ration Balancing for Beef Cattle Part II: Nutrient Terminology

2017 WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA CORN SILAGE VARIETY TEST REPORT

Efficient Use of Forages and Impact on Cost of Production

SHREDLAGE IN DAIRY CATTLE RATIONS. L. E. Chase Cornell University

Supplementation of High Corn Silage Diets for Dairy Cows. R. D. Shaver Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist

Practical Application of New Forage Quality Tests

G Testing Livestock Feeds For Beef Cattle, Dairy Cattle, Sheep and Horses

Fiber for Dairy Cows

Matching Hay to the Cow s Requirement Based on Forage Test

Sheep Feeding Programs: Forage and Feed Analysis

WELCOME MYCOGEN SEEDS UPDATE

Maximizing Forage Quality

Forage Testing and Supplementation

FORAGE NEWS FROM SGS AGRIFOOD LABORATORIES

2011 VERMONT ORGANIC CORN SILAGE VARIETY TRIAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

Implementing the Corn Silage Trial Results on Your Farm. Dr. Jessica Williamson, Penn State Joe Lawrence, Cornell CALS PRO-DAIRY

Defining Forage Quality 1

EVOL VING FORAGE QUALITY CONCEPTS

Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hydroxide Treatment of Corn Silage

Update on Corn Shredlage for Dairy Cows

What did we learn about shredlage? Sally Flis, Ph.D. Feed and Crop Support Specialist, Dairy One. Project Summary

Reproductive efficiency Environment 120 Low P ( ) High P ( ) ays

Feeding Strategies When Alfalfa Supplies are Short

Know Your Feed Terms. When you are talking nutrition and feeds with your

Maintaining proper nutrition is one of the best preventative measures a producer can take to maintain a healthy, efficient herd. Extensive research

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

Choosing the Right Corn Hybrid for Silage 1. William P. Weiss

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS. Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) and its Role in Alfalfa Analysis

Current strategies to increase nutritive value of corn silage. Luiz Ferraretto 1 and Randy Shaver 2

SHREDLAGE/CLAAS Launch Exciting New Alliance. Roger Olson Technical Director

SHREDLAGE/CLAAS Launch Exciting New Alliance. Roger Olson Technical Director

MANAGING THE DAIRY COW DURING THE DRY PERIOD

FEEDING VALUE OF WET DISTILLERS GRAINS FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS WHEN CO-ENSILED WITH CORN SILAGE OR HAYCROP SILAGE

Nonstructural and Structural Carbohydrates in Dairy Cattle Rations 1

CHANGING FORAGE QUALITY TESTING FOR ALFALFA HAY MARKETS: Dan Putnam 1 ABSTRACT

Relative Forage Quality

Miguel S. Castillo Juan J. Romero Yuchen Zhao Youngho Joo Jinwoo Park

Dairy Update. Issue 110 July 1992 ALTERNATIVE FEEDSTUFFS FOR DAIRY. Vern Oraskovich Agriculture Extension Agent Carver County

FACTORS AFFECTING MANURE EXCRETION BY DAIRY COWS 1

Why is forage digestibility important?

Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage Feeding Trial

Stretching Limited Hay Supplies: Wet Cows Fed Low Quality Hay Jason Banta, Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

DIET DIGESTIBILITY AND RUMEN TRAITS IN RESPONSE TO FEEDING WET CORN GLUTEN FEED AND A PELLET CONSISTING OF RAW SOYBEAN HULLS AND CORN STEEP LIQUOR

HAY QUALITY EVALUATION

THE FUTURE OF ALFALFA FORAGE QUALITY TESTING IN HAY MARKETS. Dan Putnam & Dan Undersander 1 ABSTRACT

Applied Beef Nutrition Ration Formulation Short Course. Beef Ration and Nutrition Decision Software

SMALL GRAIN CEREAL FORAGES: TIPS FOR EVALUATING VARIETIES AND TEST RESULTS. George Fohner 1 ABSTRACT

Texas Panhandle Sorghum Hay Trial 2008

BUILDING ON MILK PROTEIN

Beef Cattle Nutrient Requirements

Corn Silage Evaluation: MILK2000 Challenges & Opportunities With MILK2006

Corn Silage Hybrids for Best Performance. Joe Lauer University of Wisconsin. Lauer, University of Wisconsin Agronomy

Silage for beef cattle 2018 CONFERENCE. sponsored by: LALLEMAND ANIMAL NUTRITION

The four stomachs of a dairy cow

Established Facts. Impact of Post Harvest Forage on the Rumen Function. Known Facts. Known Facts

LIVESTOCK NUTRITION HAY QUALITY AND TESTING PATRICK DAVIS, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI REGIONAL LIVESTOCK SPECIALIST

COMPLETE LACTATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF COWS FED WET CORN GLUTEN FEED AND PELLET CONSISTING OF RAW SOYBEAN HULLS AND CORN STEEP LIQUOR

Beef Cattle Nutrient Requirements

THIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED BY THE MINNESOTA DAIRY HEALTH CONFERENCE.

Example. Biomentor Foundation. Advice Example

Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle 1

Composition and Nutritive Value of Corn Fractions and Ethanol Co-products Resulting from a New Dry-milling Process 1

Dietary Protein. Dr. Mark McGuire Dr. Jullie Wittman AVS Department University of Idaho

Forage Quality and Utilization: Total Tract NDF Digestibility

Corn silage quality and dairy cattle feeding

Beef Cattle Handbook

Starch, from corn grain & silage, utilization by cattle

Fact Sheet. Feed Testing & Analysis for Beef Cattle

Silage to Beef Application Updates and Equations Explained

Feeding Practices in Top U.S. Jersey Herds

Trends in Feed and Manure Phosphorus. John Peters Soil Science Department UW-Madison

Transcription:

Volume 2, Number 1 Focus on Forages 2015 Forages have always been an important source of nutrients for the dairy cow. Feeding high quality forages can increase dairy efficiency and help reduce the feed costs associated with purchasing added supplements and concentrates. In addition, with the constant influx of new crop technology and innovations, forage management has become more sophisticated and is of greater economic significance to the dairy herd profitability. DAIRY FOCUS AT ILLINOIS NEWSLETTER As we approach the spring of 2015, harvesting high quality forages is on the minds of many dairy producers throughout the state. Last year (2014) was a difficult year for some dairymen trying to harvest quality forages due to weather conditions. The result was over mature forages containing lower neutral detergent fiber digestibility. Low quality forage not only lowers the dietary energy needed for high milk production, it also limits dry matter feed intake, thus reducing milk production even more. The conditions in 2014 brought on a shortage of high quality alfalfa and grass forages throughout Illinois and beyond. This shortage created a greater demand for quality hay, which increased feed costs for dairy producers. In addition, the lack of quality forages had producers looking to other by-product feed sources to provide the needed nutrients for a balanced ration. The bottom line: Producers were made more aware of the need to understand how to evaluate and effectively use their forages based on quality. Forage testing at a certified forage lab is essential to know how to position your forages, and then testing throughout the year will help monitor any feed changes. Factors Influencing Alfalfa Forage Quality Forage quality begins in the field. Producing high quality alfalfa is largely dependent on harvesting at the optimum maturity and moisture. Alfalfa producers face several challenges in deciding when is the optimum time to begin harvesting the first cutting. It is well documented that alfalfa nutrient quality decreases as the plant matures from the bud stage to full flower. At the same time, the amount of plant material harvested per acre increases as the plant matures. Thus, the optimum harvest date is the compromise between the feed quality and the feed quantity produced. The Predictive Equation for Alfalfa Quality (PEAQ) program is still an excellent tool to help determine the first harvest date in the spring. PEAQ allows farmers to make an in-field prediction of forage quality by monitoring plant height and plant maturity. The plant height and maturity provide a close estimate of the Relative Feed Value (RFV) in the field. By determining the RFV of standing alfalfa, producers can more accurately gauge when to begin the first crop harvest schedule.

First cutting alfalfa needs to be harvested as soon as the RFV in the field reaches 170 in order to achieve a harvested value of 150 RFV (Table 1). Furthermore, the timely harvesting of the first cutting will set up the cutting schedule for the rest of the growing season. Subsequent cuttings should be taken every 26 to 30 days. While the RFV index is recommended to determine the PEAQ stage in the field, the Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) is the preferred index for balancing the dairy cow ration. Relative forage quality is based on in-vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD) testing and summative equations. RFQ provides a better linkage between forage quality and the actual cow response because it is a direct measure of the forage fiber digestibility and it can more accurately predict what goes on in the cow s digestive system. RFQ will have a similar mean range as RFV. However, when evaluating, purchasing or feeding forages, always use the RFQ index. The RFQ equation is not used in evaluating corn silage due to the starch fraction. Table 1. Estimating Alfalfa RFV In Field Plant height Relative feed value (inches) Late vegetative Bud stage Flower stage 20 211 201 188 24 190 181 170 26 180 172 162 28 171 164 154 30 163 156 147 Factors Influencing Corn Silage Forage Quality Producing high quality corn silage is dependent on a number of factors, with the most influential being hybrid selection, harvest maturity, and harvest and storage management. Corn silage hybrid selection should be made based on hybrid comparisons of nutrient characteristics and yield per acre. An excellent tool to compare corn hybrid silage performance is called Milk 2006. The Milk 2006 software program, developed by Dr. Randy Shaver, Dr. Joe Lauer, Dr. Jim Coors, and Pat Hoffman of the University of Wisconsin, is the latest version of the MILK series of spreadsheets for corn silage. It more accurately estimates the feeding value of corn silage than the past version, Milk 2000. In addition, it provides a guide for evaluating corn silages based on milk producing potential per ton and per acre. This program can provide valuable information in selecting specific hybrids to be designated as corn silage fields. Milk 2006 estimates silage performance based on nutrient content, fiber digestibility, starch digestibility, and estimated dry matter intake. Milk 2006 also accounts for the effects of whole plant dry matter content and kernel processing on starch digestibility. The Milk 2006 program is found on Dr. Shaver s website at http://www.uwex.edu/ces/dairynutrition. Since feeding high quality forages can improve your profits by reducing your purchased feed cost and/or improving herd performance, it is absolutely necessary to have your stored forages tested for nutrient content. This will provide more accuracy when balancing the diet for your dairy herd. 2

Understanding Laboratory Forage Test Results Laboratory forage analysis can be done by the near infra-red spectrometer (NIRS) or wet chemistry. Over the past few years there have been some changes in how forages are analyzed in the lab. The basic tests such as moisture, protein, ph, fiber, energy, and minerals are still the main tests to determine the comparative quality of feeds. However, many labs are now testing for neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), total tract neutral detergent fiber digestibility (TTNDFD), starch and starch digestibility, lignin, etc. The NDFD test is conducted via the in-vitro method which allows the feed to be digested in the cow s rumen fluids under laboratory conditions to determine the percent digestibility over a certain number of hours (48h, 30h, 24h). The starch digestibility factor is a calculated value based on ruminal and total tract digestibility. A forage test report can be a bit perplexing when you are looking at 20 to 30 lines of information; the common question is what do these numbers mean and how does my forage compare? Following is a list of some of the nutrient analyses and the suggested goals for forage tests. Interpreting Forage Test Results All forage testing results are based on 100% dry matter to standardize the laboratory values. Following is a description of the major tests conducted at the lab. The suggested goals are for high quality forages fed to lactating dairy cows. Moisture amount of water in the feed. Hay goal <18%; Haylage goal 60%; Corn silage goal 65% to 70% (68-70% in bags or bunker and 65-67% in stave upright silo). Crude measures all forms of protein, including true protein and non-protein nitrogen. Hay goal >20%; Corn silage goal 8% to 10%. The higher the better. Soluble the percent of crude protein that will degrade rapidly in the rumen. Legume silages can range from 20% to 70%; Corn silage 20% to 45%. Mid range preferred. Rumen Undegradable proteins that break down slowly and escape the rumen for degradation in the lower gut. Goal of 15% to 40% with the mid range preferred. Acid Insoluble Nitrogen (ADIN) measures heat damaged or bound protein causing the crude protein to be tied up and not available to the cow. Should be less than 15% of total crude protein. The lower the number the better. If value is greater than 15% of total crude protein, use the adjusted crude protein number to balance the ration. Acid (ADF) measures the cellulose and lignin portion of the plant. These percentages will vary depending on plant maturity, variety, etc. Legumes goal 30%; Corn silage goal 25% to 30%. In all forages, as fiber levels go up, energy value goes down. ADF is correlated to digestibility. The higher the ADF the less digestible the feedstuff. (NDF) measures total cell wall. Influenced by maturity, variety 3

differences, etc. Legumes goal 40%; Corn silage from 30% to 60%. As NDF percentage increases, the feed intake of the forage will decrease. Lower NDF is preferred. Digestibility-30 hr. (NDFD-30) or Cell Wall Digestibility (CWD) is an excellent in-vitro test to determine NDF digestibility (NDFD) as a percent of total NDF. In-vitro measures the feed digested in rumen fluids (simulating a rumen) in the laboratory. This is a good indicator as to what the animal will actually digest in the real world. The NDFD-30 will range from 30% to 50%. The higher the better. NDFD-48 which is used by some labs, is the same procedure as NDFD-30 with the exception that the feed is in the simulated rumen for a 48-hour duration. The range for NDFD-48 can be 40 to 70%. The higher the better. Be careful not to compare the 30hr with the 48hr because we will see higher NDFD percentage values in the 48-hour test. Total Tract Digestibility (TTNDFD) range from 40 to 50% with a goal of greater than 48%. Lignin a very important number. Lignin is the non-digestible portion of the fiber. Legume/grasses range 3% to 10%; Corn silage ranges from 1.5% to 6.0%. The lower the lignin the better forage quality. BMR corn varieties will have significantly lower lignin. Starch indicator of grain content in corn silage and kernel starch. Will range from 25% to 35%. The greater the amount of starch the better, with a goal of more than 30%. Fat or Ether Extract this is the vegetable fat (oil) content, which is a source of energy to the cow. This will range from 1% to 4% with a goal of less than 3.0%. Using database information from the Marshfield Soil and Forage Testing Laboratory, Pat Hoffman of the Department of Dairy Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison developed a reference chart of possible ranges for nutrient parameters available on forage test reports, with the desired value for lactating dairy cows and dry cows (Table 2). Take Home Message Laboratory testing of forages for nutritional content and digestibility is essential to balancing dairy rations. Harvesting forages based on correct plant maturity and moisture plus proper storage management will have a significant effect on forage quality. Understanding the forage nutrient analysis is important to correctly allocate other feedstuffs needed in the cow s daily diet. Dave Fischer University of Illinois Extension Dairy Educator, retired 4

Table 2. Numeric ranges of common forage tests and qualitative desired levels Test Common Abbreviations Common Unit Expression Legume- Grass Silages Range Legume- Grass Hay Corn Silage Desired Level Within Range - Lactating Cows Desired Level Within Range - Dry Cows Crude CP % of DM 9.2-24.7 12.8-25.21 5.0-10.2 Mid-Upper Mid Soluble Sol-CP % of CP 20.5-76.5 na 20.5-45.0 Mid Mid Acid Crude Crude Rumen Undegradable Acid Digestibility ADF-CP, ADIN % of DM.14-2.3.20-1.25.22-.70 Lower Lower NDF-CP % of DM 1.0-8.8 2.27-5.08.5-2.3 Lower Lower RUP % of CP 16.2-39.4 13.0-45.2 na Mid Mid ADF % of DM obsolete obsolete obsolete NDF % of DM 32.3-70.8 29.6-70.6 30.1-61.9 Lower Mid NDFD % of NDF 32.5-79.4 35.8-74.5 44.0-72.0 Upper Mid Lignin Lignin % of DM 2.45-9.78 4.7-9.9 1.6-6.0 Lower Lower Lignin Lignin % of NDF 5.39-23.1 10.9-23.3 3.82-16.1 Lower Lower Fat EE, Fat % of DM 1.0-3.8.9-3.8 1.1-4.2 Mid Mid Starch Starch % of DM na na 7.2-38.1 Mid-Upper Mid Ash Ash % of DM 6.4-16.4 7.4-15.8 3.3-14.4 Lower Lower Calcium Ca % of DM.31-1.61.53-1.66.13-.37 Upper Mid Phosphorus P % of DM.16-.53.08-.40.15-.23 Mid Mid Potassium K % of DM 1.1-3.83.67-3.74.74-1.66 Mid-Lower Lower Magnesium Mg % of DM.19-.40.18-.41.12-.26 Upper Upper Sodium Na % of DM.01-.14.01 -.12.05-.09 Mid Mid Chlorine Cl % of DM.26-1.25.08-.83.10-.40 Mid Upper Sulfur S % of DM.13-.38.10-.39.05-.20 Upper Upper Total Digestible Nutrients Net Energy Lactation 3x Relative Feed Value Relative Forage Quality TDN % of DM 47-72 49.0-69.6 42-76.4 Upper Mid NEL Mcals/lb.47-.75.49-.72.72-.78 Upper Mid RFV na obsolete obsolete obsolete RFQ na 63-230 69.4-237.0 na Mid-Upper Mid Milk/Ton na lbs/ton 1650-3801 1790-3437 1582-3901 Upper Mid 5