Primary Factors Contributing to Corn Silage Digestibility

Similar documents
Methods to evaluate the nutritive value of whole-plant corn silage

Practical forage-ndf range in high-group TMR. Nutritional Constraints. Variable ruminal & total tract digestibility of starch

What s the Latest on Carbohydrates, Starch Digestibility, Shredlage and Snaplage for Dairy Cows?

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

Starch, from corn grain & silage, utilization by cattle

Optimizing Forage Quality in Corn Silage

Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage Feeding Trial

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

Corn Biochemistry: Factors Related to Starch Digestibility in Ruminants

Impact of Processing and Genetics on Starch Digestibility

CORN SILAGE: WHAT S NEW? M. S. Akins, L.F. Ferraretto and R. D. Shaver Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin Madison INTRODUCTION

Opportunities to Improve Starch Digestibility on Dairy Farms ivstarchd TTSD

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

Corn silage quality and dairy cattle feeding

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

How Fiber Digestibility Affects Forage Quality and Milk Production

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

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

Brown Midrib Corn Silage for Lactating Dairy Cows: A Contemporary Review

Maximizing Forage Quality

Why is forage digestibility important?

Making Sense of Modern Feed Tests

Silage Management 101: The Basics

Corn Silage Evaluation: MILK2000 Challenges & Opportunities With MILK2006

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

Impact of Vitreousness, Processing, and Chop Length on the Utilization of Corn Silage by Dairy Cows

WELCOME MYCOGEN SEEDS UPDATE

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

Key words: corn silage, ensiling, protease, ruminal in vitro starch digestibility

Making sense of starch by NDF interactions. Luiz Ferraretto and Randy Shaver Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison

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

Harvesting and Preserving More Nutrients from Your Forages

Feeding High Corn Silage Diets. Ration Considerations and Economics. Darin Bremmer, Ph.D. What is a High Corn Silage Diet? 50% of Forage Dry Matter

Practical Application of New Forage Quality Tests

Navigating the dairy feed situation

Optimizing silage conservation and fermented ingredients

ADJUSTING NET ENERGY VALUES OF FEEDS FED TO DAIRY COWS

Update on Corn Shredlage for Dairy Cows

Using Feed Analysis to Troubleshoot Nutritional Problems in Dairy Herds 1

nutrient loss in high moisture forage Department of Animal Sciences IFAS

Understanding Dairy Nutrition Terminology

Better Understanding Forage Fiber and Digestibility

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

FACTORS AFFECTING MANURE EXCRETION BY DAIRY COWS 1

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

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

Practically improving the feeding value of your maize silage for livestock and AD

11/17/2017. Application of undf in Ration Formulation. Ian Shivas, Renaissance Nutrition UNDF WHAT IS IT?

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

The Effects of Feeding Brown Midrib Corn Silage Compared to Conventional Corn. Silage in High Producing Dairy Cows. A Senior Project.

In Vitro Digestibility of Forages

Overview of Today s Discussion

SILAGES AS STARCH SOURCES FOR COWS

Nutrition 4 - Fiber 3/3/16

Pounds of Protein and Fat (2015-DHIR)

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

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

Silage Hybrid testing at Penn State. Penn State testing program. Overall goals of our program

Bacteria associated with ensiling fermentation and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage

MICROBIAL INOCULANT EFFECTS ON IN SITU RUMINAL DRY MATTER AND NEUTRAL DETERGENT FIBER DISAPPEARANCE OF CORN SILAGE

Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hydroxide Treatment of Corn Silage

Effects of the use of EM-silage in corn silage

Getting the Most Out of Your Dry and High-Moisture Corn

CORN HYBRID BY PROCESSING METHOD CONSIDERATIONS

THE EFFECTS OF CELLULASE ON CELL WALL STRUCTURE AND THE RUMEN DIGESTION OF ALFALFA SILAGE

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

Dr. Dan Undersander Professor of Agronomy University of Wisconsin

Effective Practices In Sheep Production Series

Fiber for Dairy Cows

2009 Forage Production and Quality Report for Pennsylvania

Formulating Lactating Cow Diets for Carbohydrates

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

Liquid Hot Water Pretreatment of Corn Stover: Impact of BMR. Nathan S. Mosier and Wilfred Vermerris

Evaluating Corn Silage Management. Dr. Jessica Williamson, Penn State Joe Lawrence, Cornell CALS PRO-DAIRY

HarvestLab John Deere Constituent Sensing

Nitrogen, Ammonia Emissions and the Dairy Cow

INTERPRETING FORAGE QUALITY TEST REPORTS

RenTip # 105 4/22/2016 Silage Assessments

Forage crops legumes, grasses, whole-plant

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

Efficient Use of Forages and Impact on Cost of Production

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

COPING WITH HIGH CORN PRICES: LOW STARCH DIETS AND LACTATION PERFORMANCE BY DAIRY COWS

Introduction. Use of undf240 as a benchmarking tool. Relationships between undigested and physically effective fiber in lactating dairy cows

Disclaimer This fact sheet reflects the best available information on the topic as of the publication date. Date

Forage Quality and Utilization: Total Tract NDF Digestibility

White paper. Amylase A radical innovation in dairy cow nutrition. Dr. Irmgard Immig Global Category Manager Ruminants at DSM

PROCEEDINGS: February 4, 2016

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

KATHY GISELA ARRIOLA UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

EFFECT OF RYEGRASS SILAGE DRY MATTER CONTENT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF LACTATING HOLSTEIN COWS

Measuring DM and NDF Digestibility and Defining Their Importance

PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY CATTLE FED SPECIALTY CORN HYBRIDS Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue University

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

WHAT DO THE COWS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT NDF AND STARCH DIGESTION?

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

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

EFFECT OF LEVEL OF SURFACE SPOILAGE ON THE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF MAIZE SILAGE DIETS. K. K. Bolsen, L. A. Whitlock, G. L. Huck, M. K.

EFFECTS OF FEEDING WHOLE COTTONSEED COATED WITH STARCH, UREA, OR YEAST ON PERFORMANCE OF LACTATING DAIRY COWS

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

Transcription:

Corn Silage Digestibility: Can we make a difference? P. Hoffman, L. Kung, and R. Shaver Primary Factors Contributing to Corn Silage Digestibility High starch with high starch digestion High fiber digestion (NDF-D) Every increase 1 unit increase in NDF D has the potential to increase ~ 0.4 lb DM intake and about 0.5 lb milk Oba and Allen, 1997 1

Brown Midrib Corn Mutants Have Low Lignin => High NDF D Four natural mutations identified in the 1930 40 s in dent corn bm1, bm2, bm3, bm4 Low in lignin therefore higher fiber digestion Brown to red pigment in the leaf midrib, rind and pith Conventional n = 18,270 Ave. = 59.4% ± 4.01 25% BMR n = 1,585 Ave. = 68.4% ± 4.23 Percent of samples 20% 15% 10% 5% Conventional BMR 0% <50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 >76 Nestor, 2013 In vitro NDF digestibility, % 2

How Does BMR Compare to Normal Hybrids? Gencoglu, Shaver and Lauer, UW Madison Effect of BMR on Production UW Meta Analysis Item Normal BMR DMI, kg/d 24.2 25.4 Milk, kg/d 37.7 (83 lb) 39.4 (87 lb) Fat, % 3.67 3.59 Results are least-square means from meta-analysis (St. Pierre, 2001) performed on data from 11 trials with 17 treatment comparisons published in the Journal of Dairy Science since 1999;Gencoglu, Shaver and Lauer, UW Madison 3

Normal Corn Hybrids and NDFD Company selections Leafy High sugar Soft pith Research data is inconclusive True selections/evaluations vs random screenings Multi year evaluations vs 1 2 yr evaluations Is unbiased information available? 110-DAY HYBRID TRIAL AVERAGE## 65.6 NK Brand N70J-3011A CB,LL,RR,RW-wo 11.1 3170 35200 65.6 52 61 29 11.4 * 10.7 Legacy Seeds L7253 CB,LL,RR,RW 10.4 * 3220 33500 65.8 51 62 30 10.9 9.9 12.1 * 3350 * 40600 * 13.2 * 11.0 DuPont Pioneer P1498AM 1 CB,LL,RR,RW-wo 11.0 * 3230 35600 65.8 53 65 28 11.0 * 11.1 Masters Choice MCT6153 CB,LL,RR,RW 9.4 * 3240 30400 65.9 51 63 31 9.4 9.4 12.2 * 3330 * 40600 12.3 * 12.0 InVision FS 61JX1RIB CB,LL,RR,RW 10.6 3170 33500 66.0 52 62 28 10.7 * 10.4 Golden Harvest G12J11-3011A CB,LL,RR,RW-wo * 11.4 3130 35800 66.0 53 61 29 * 11.8 * 11.1 11.5 3190 36700 11.7 * 11.3 Dairyland DS9311RA CB,LL,RR,RW 10.5 3170 33300 66.2 52 61 30 10.5 * 10.4 NuTech/G2 Genetics 5F-811 CB,LL,RR 10.4 * 3220 33400 66.6 51 63 29 10.8 9.9 * 13.3 * 3300 * 44000 * 14.8 * 11.8 Dairyland DS9713RA CB,LL,RR,RW 10.9 * 3200 34900 67.2 51 61 31 11.6 10.2 AgriGold A6538STX CB,LL,RR,RW 10.7 3110 33400 67.3 54 61 28 10.6 * 10.8 115-DAY HYBRID TRIAL AVERAGE## 67.4 DuPont Pioneer P1339AM 1 CB,LL,RR,RW 11.2 3130 35000 67.4 53 62 27 11.1 * 11.2 11.7 * 3310 38800 11.8 * 11.7 M asters Choice M C6470 None 9.8 * 3210 31400 67.6 52 63 30 10.6 9.1 Renk RK930VT3P CB,RR,RW 11.1 3140 34900 67.7 54 62 27 11.1 * 11.1 M asters Choice M CT6583 CB,LL,RR,RW 10.4 3160 32900 67.7 52 61 29 11.4 9.4 11.4 3240 37100 12.8 10.0 NuTech/G2 Genetics 5F-612 CB,LL,RR 11.1 3120 34600 67.9 54 62 26 11.1 * 11.0 M ycogen TM F2R737 CB,LL,RR,RW * 11.7 3130 * 36600 68.1 53 62 27 * 12.4 * 11.0 * 12.6 3180 * 40300 * 13.6 * 11.7 AgriGold A6559STXRIB CB,LL,RR,RW 10.9 3080 33600 68.5 55 61 26 10.9 * 11.0 4

Accessibility of Starch in Corn Silage Starch must be accessible by bacteria in the rumen Factors that limit the access to starch Pericarp Surface area Protein/starch matrix Fecal Starch and Digestibility 4.5% fecal starch ~ 90% starch digestibility 1%-unit decrease in fecal starch ~ 1 pound more milk Range in starch: 2.3 22.4% (Ferguson, 2006) 5

Starch Digestibility is Positively Correlated with Milk Yield Firkins et al., 2001 Mechanical Processing Effects on Corn Silage (34% DM BMR) Item Unprocessed Processed DM intake, lb/d 52.7 56.8* Milk, lb/d 93.4 98.0* Ebling and Kung, 2004 6

Shredlage Potential for High Level of Kernel Processing With Long Effective Fiber (potentially even in relatively high DM samples) Shredlage Photos provided by Kevin Shinners, UW Madison, BSE Conventional Kernel Processed Kernel Processing Score Samples obtained during feed out from the silo bags % Starch Passing 4.75 mm Sieve Shredlage KP 75.0% ± 3.3 60.3% ±3.9 Shaver, 2013 7

Shredlage KP P < Rumen StarchD, % of Starch 88.3% 76.0% 0.05 Industry Makes Advances in Corn Silage Processing (CVAS Data, 2006 to 2014) Crop Year Number Average Percent Optimum 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 8

Assuming Access to Corn Starch is Not Limiting, What Options are There to Improve Ruminal Starch D? Allow natural proteolytic mechanisms during ensiling to occur which increase starch D Use enzymes to accelerate this process Amylases Proteases Reports of Increase in Ruminal Starch D in Corn Silages and HMC with Ensiling HMC Philippeau and Michalet Doreau, 1998 (short period of ensiling) Allen et al., 2003 (moderate) Benton et al., 2005 (long) Corn silage Jurjanz and Monteils, 2005 (short) Newbold et al., 2006 (long) Hallada et al., 2008 (long) Snyder, 2011 (long) Der Bedrosian et al., 2012 (long) 9

In Situ Ruminal DM Disappearance for HMC is Influenced by Length of Ensiling (long term) and Moisture IVDMD, % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 56 112 168 224 280 336 Days of ensiling 35% Moisture 24% Moisture Benton et al., 2004 Degradation of Endosperm Proteins (Same Hybrid) Snaplage HMC Ammonia = 6.0% of CP Kernel MPS = 1456 µ Ammonia = 1.8% of CP MPS = 1335 µ 0 % translucent 80 % translucent 10

Proteolysis of the Protein/Starch Matrix During Storage Results in Increases in Starch D Prior to ensiling After 240 d of ensiling Hoffman et al., 2011 IVStarchD Increased by Length of Ensiling in HMC (summary of commercial lab data) 79 77 P = 0.001 a bc bc a ab IVStarchD (%) 75 73 71 e f de de de cd cd 69 67 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Ferraretto and Shaver, 2013 Month 11

90.00 85.00 Prolonged Ensiling Improves In Vitro Starch Digestion of Corn Silage ~22% starch Norm 32% DM 80.00 75.00 Norm 42% DM BMR 32% DM BMR 42% DM 70.00 65.00 ~32% starch 60.00 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 Days of Storage 2012 Der Bedrosian et al. Soluble Protein and Ammonia N Continue to Increase with Prolonged Ensiling Soluble protein, % CP Ammonia N (% DM) 65 55 45 35 25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 2012 Der Bedrosian et al. 0 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 Days of Ensiling 12

Correlations Between Markers of Proteolysis and Starch D Soluble Protein, % of CP (Krishnamoorthy, et al., 1983) NH3 N, % of total N, (NH3 N probe, Kjedahl, NIRS, etc) 7 h Ruminal In Vitro Starch Digestibility, % of starch 7 h Ruminal In Vitro Starch Digestibility, % of starch 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 R² = 0.61 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Ammonia N, %CP P = 0.001 R² = 0.55 20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Soluble Protein, %CP P = 0.001 A B 13

Correlation Between Protein Degradation and Starch D in Corn Silages 100 90 P < 0.0001 R 2 = 0.33 100 90 P < 0.0001 R 2 = 0.19 80 80 Starch D 70 60 Starch D 70 60 50 50 40 40 30 20 40 60 80 Soluble protein, % CP 30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 Ammonia N Effect of Days of Ensiling on Starch Digestion in Corn Silage 90 85 Starch D 80 75 70 September November January March May July September November January March May July September 14

Issues With Storing Silages for Prolonged Times In Order Achieve High Potential Ruminal Starch D Resources (land, storage capacity? Cost of prolonged storage? Challenges keeping silage from spoilage during storage plastic integrity Assuming Access to Corn Starch is Not Limiting, What Options are There to Improve Ruminal Starch D? Allow natural proteolytic mechanisms during ensiling to occur which increase starch D Use enzymes to accelerate this process Amylases Proteases 15

Adding Amylases at Ensiling Spoelstra et al., 1992 Item Control Amylase DM, % 38 35 Starch, % 31 24 Sugars, % 2 18 Lactic acid, % 6.2 7.3 Acetic acid, % 1.9 1.5 Ethanol, % 0.7 5.0 Yeasts, log cfu/g <2 5 Aerobic stability, h 148 76 Proteases Biofuels industry to yield higher growth of yeasts and more ethanol (usually acid proteases) Feed additive (usually neutral or alkaline proteases) some research showing improved in vitro starch D Lichtenwalner et al., 1978 McAlister et al., 1993 DePeters et al., 2007 Historically not used as a silage additive because proteolysis is already excessive 16

Description of Protease Experiments at UD Supplied by AB Vista, UK Novozymes, Denmark Acid proteases Low ph optimum of ~3.5 No carbohydrase activities Silages stored at ~22C unless otherwise stated Activity for AB Vista Protease 100 a abcd P < 0.05 % Activity 80 60 40 b c 20 d 0 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 ph Windle and Kung, University of Delaware % activity relative to 100% at ph 3.6 17

Effect of Protease Dose on 7 h in vitro Digestibility of Starch of Corn Silage 85 80 ab a a Starch D 75 70 65 60 e de de d de c bc Protease Dose, ppm C 20 200 1000 2000 55 0 45 Days of ensiling Windle and Kung, University of Delaware Effect of a Protease on Indicators of Proteolysis in HMC Kung, et al., 2014 JDS Soluble Protein, % CP 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Soluble Protein a b c d c c 0 35 70 105 140 Days of ensiling Ammonia N, % DM 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Ammonia N a a b c d d 0 35 70 105 140 Days of ensiling 18

Starch D Effect of a Protease on In Vitro Ruminal Starch D of HMC 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 Kung, et al., 2014 JDS a b Protease treated Untreated c d d e 0 35 70 105 140 Days of ensiling 3.5 Effect of a Protease on Prolamin Protein Analysis Kung, et al., 2014 JDS Prolamin Proteins, % DM 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 ab bc a c ab d Untreated Treated 0 0 50 100 150 Days of Ensiling 19

Other Options to Improve Ruminal Starch D? Proteases + amylases? CS hybrid selection? (Floury, opaque) Designer inoculants What Can We Do Today to Maximize Starch D From CS and HMC? Avoid harvesting dry (mature) CS Process adequately Feed less mature (wetter) CS first, store dry (mature) CS longer Can t win the battle..post ensiling processing? 20

Summary BMR is the primary technology to increase corn silage NDFD Selection or inoculant technologies to alter NDFD in normal corn silage hybrids are less defined Intensity and duration of fermentation is the primary mechanism that increases corn silage starch digestibility LEARN TO FOLLOW CP FRACTIONS! Corn silage processing increases starch digestibility and milk yield. Factors that influence starch digestibility in cows are now well defined and technologies such as enzymes, custom designed inoculants and or designer hybrids are all possible. 21