Making Sense of Modern Feed Tests

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

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

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

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 2007 4

Non-Fiber Carbohydrates NFC = 100 - CP - (NDF - NDFCP) - EE - Ash Organic Acids Sugars Starches Fructans Pectic Substances Adapted from M.B. Hall b-glucans 6

A look at NFC fractions CP % DM NFC % DM Starch % NFC Sugar % NFC Pectin %NFC VFA % NFC Corn Silage 8 41 71 0 0 29 Alfalfa Silage 21 18 25 0 33 43 Grass Hay 14 17 15 35 50 0 Beet Pulp 10 36 2 34 64 0 Citrus Pulp 7 57 2 48 50 0 Soyhulls 14 18 19 19 62 0 Molasses 6 81 0 100 0 0 Corn Gluten Feed 24 34 74 26 0 0 Barley 12 61 82 9 9 0 Adapted from Tables 4.1-4.2 in Dairy NRC 2001 7

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

In Vitro In Situ Gas Production In Vivo 9

WI AgSource DHIA Top 100 RHA (lb) Sept. 2015 Stat Cow # Milk Fat Protein Cheese Average 486 31,297 1,154 961 3,150 Std. Deviation 500 1,622 90 57 203 Min 20 30,141 981 857 2,733 Max 3490 41,364 1,677 1,288 4,395 111 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

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

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

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

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

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

A bit more on digestion kinetics Grant, Proc. 2015 4-State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA Jim Coors, UW Madison, Ben Justen s Thesis 18

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

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

In Vitro In Situ In Vivo 22

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

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

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

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

Sample manure for fecal starch content to better manage starch digestibility on the farm Source Image: http://dairyinnovation.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/dsc_0083.jpg 28

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

P < 0.001 R² = 0.94 564 samples TTSD % = 100.0% - (1.25 X fecal starch %) Fredin et al., 2014, JDS 31

Field Trial Fecal Starch Results % of Samples 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 39% of farms with > 3% fecal starch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Huibregtse et al., 2013 Starch in Fecal Samples, % 32

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

Summary slide from DLL web site 34

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

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, 1999 1.6 2.2 4.0 5.5 Jung et al., MN Nutr. Conf., 2004 1.1 1.2 2.6 3.1 Ferraretto & Shaver, JDS, 2013 0.7 1.2 1.8 3.1 Average 1.1 1.5 2.8 3.9 Tabular data calculated from reported responses per %-unit difference in ivndfd Feed efficiency seldom improved statistically 36

Response to ivndfd vs. Level of Production Grant, Proc. 2015 4-State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA 37

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, % --- --- 72.1 b 74.8 a DE, Mcal/kg 3.10 3.12 3.20 b 3.32 a ME, Mcal/kg 2.58 2.68 2.62 b 2.77 a NE L, Mcal/kg 1.43 1.49 1.42 1.54 40

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

Meta-Analysis: Diet Starch% vs. NDFD Ferraretto et al., JDS, 2013 43

Weiss, 2014 Starch Discover Conf. (unpublished) 44

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

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

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

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

Corn Silage Fermentation Increases Starch Digestibility! 50

In Press 51

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

ivstarchd (% starch) 5/23/2016 Hybrid type ensiling time BMR DP LFY 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 30 60 120 240 Ensiling time (d) Time effect (P < 0.001) Hybrid effect (P = 0.02) Hybrid Time (P > 0.10) 53

Ensiling time effect NH3-N (% N) Sol-CP (%CP) ivstarchd (% Starch) % 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 (P = 0.001) 0 30 120 240 Ensiling time (d) 55

ivstarchd (% starch) 5/23/2016 Hybrid type ensiling time 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 Time effect (P < 0.001) Hybrid effect (NS) Hybrid Time (NS) 2.0 3.0 4.1 4.3 Difference between LFY and BMR (%-units) 0 30 120 240 Ensiling time (d) LFY BMR 56

ivndfd (% NDF) 5/23/2016 Hybrid type ensiling time 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 0 30 120 240 Ensiling time (d) Time effect (NS) Hybrid effect (P < 0.001) Hybrid Time (NS) LFY BMR 57

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

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 2005-2007 2011 2011-2012 No. of samples Rock River 2010-2012 Lab Survey Cumberland Valley 2010-2011 252 55 29 258 64 311 1,131 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

Industry Makes Advances in Corn Silage Processing (CVAS Data, 2006 to 2014) Crop Year Number Average Percent Excellent Percent Poor 2006 97 52.8 8.2 43.3 2007 272 52.3 9.2 37.9 2008 250 54.6 5.2 34.8 2009 244 51.1 6.1 48.0 2010 373 51.4 5.9 43.4 2011 726 55.5 12.3 33.1 2012 871 60.8 14.8 19.9 2013 2658 64.6 36.0 12.9 2014 322 61.8 24.2 9.0 Adapted from slide provided by Ralph Ward of CVAS 60

Corn Silage Processing Improves (RRL Data, 2013 to 2015) Crop Year Count (n) Average CSPS Normal Range Percent Excellent Percent Poor 2013 725 56 44-68 12% 33% 2014 2155 65 54-76 33% 8% 2015 847 68 57-79 48% 6% Summarized from data provided by Dr. John Goeser, RRL 61

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

Corn Silage Processing Score n Unfermented n Fermented SE P < 12 50.2% 12 1 60.1% 3.1 0.01 % Starch Passing 4.75 mm Sieve 14 49.4% ± 11.4 28 2 70.0% ± 5.0 --- --- 10 49.3% ± 15.5 20 3 67.8% ± 3.3 --- --- 1 30 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

% starch passing through 4.75 mm screen 5/23/2016 Corn Silage Processing Score 70 68 66 P = 0.08 SEM = 2.0 n = 3 a a 64 ab 62 60 b 58 56 0 30 120 240 Ensiling time, d vacuum sealed experimental mini silos Ferraretto et al., 2015, JDS Abstr. 64

Corn Silage Processing Score KPS% 85.0% CSPS vs. DM% y = 0.8575x + 0.37 R² = 0.2737 80.0% 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

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

www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/kernelprocessing-fof.pdf 67

Starch fermentation rate (%/h) Total Tract Starch Digestibility (% of starch) Ruminal Starch Digestibility (% of starch) 5/23/2016 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 A 14.0 1500 2000 2500 3000 64.0 63.0 62.0 B 61.0 60.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 1500 2000 2500 3000 GMPS, µm GMPS, µm 96.0 95.0 C 94.0 93.0 92.0 1500 2000 2500 3000 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

DM, NDF, Starch on feed-out samples Mean Bag 1 Bag 2 Normal Range Mean Normal Range DM, % as fed 39 34-43 38 34-42 NDF, % of DM 44 41-47 43 40-46 Starch, % of DM 31 27-35 32 29-35 1 Hybrid, 1 Field Harvested same day Arlington, WI 71

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

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

Example 74

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

Recommended Moisture Contents High-Moisture Corn Grain Silo Kernel Moisture % Horizontal Tower 27 32 a Concrete stave 27-32 Oxygen Limiting 25-27 a Earlage/Snaplage target at 35%-40% moisture in product 83

Example 87

Visit UW Extension Dairy Cattle Nutrition Website http://www.shaverlab.dysci.wisc.edu/ 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