Brief Introduction to the NASEM (formerly known as NRC) 8th Revised Edition of the

Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle

W. P. Weiss
Department of Animal Sciences
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
The Ohio State University, Wooster

Introduction

After 20 years, a new “Dairy NRC” was released in 2021 albeit with new name. The 8th
revised edition of the Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle will now be designated as a product
of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). The Academies
have always been the governing unit of the NRC. Although the name has changed, the
procedures related to development of the revised edition remained the same. A committee of
experts are chosen by the Academy that represents a broad range of expertise and geography, and
the committee is vetted for potential conflicts of interest. The final committee was comprised of
Rich Erdman (co-chair), Bill Weiss (co-chair), Mike Allen, Lou Armentano, Jim Drackley, Jeff
Firkins, Mary Beth Hall, Ermias Kebreab, Paul Kononoff, Helene Lapierre, and Mike
Vandehaar.
The main charge of the committee was “to (conduct) a comprehensive analysis of recent
research on the feeding and nutrition of dairy cattle, including research on the amounts of amino
acids (AA), lipids, fiber, carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, and water needed by preweaned
calves and growing, reproducing, and lactating dairy cattle. . . and to … evaluate new
information to improve the accuracy of predicting animal performance from nutrient input and of
predicting nutrient input when animal performance is known.” The committee was also charged
with developing a computer model that reflected the discussion and equations in the text. To
meet the last objective, large databases need to be constructed, mostly from published data.
Those databases are then used to derive equations to estimate both nutrient supply and
requirements. For most vitamins and minerals, inadequate data to generate statistically based
equations. In these situations, equations generated from single studies, means from a few studies,
and expert interpretation of committee members were used.
It is far beyond the scope of this paper to discuss everything that has been revised (the
final book exceeds 500 pages). Rather this brief review will discuss some major revisions from
NASEM (2001) and their implications and will be limited to lactating cows even though the
chapters on transition cows, calves and heifers have been modified extensively. Some of this will
be discussed by other speakers at this conference. Minerals and vitamins were discussed
separately at this conference. In addition, areas that need more research to improve equations
and incorporate more effects of various nutrients on animal productivity and well-being will be
discussed. The amount of text dedicated to different sections does not reflect the importance or
magnitude of the changes made, but rather reflects this author’s areas of expertise.
 Estimating Dry matter Intake

The dry matter intake (DMI) equation in NRC (2001) used only animal factors (milk
production, body weight, and days in milk). Because milk yield is strongly related to DMI, the
equation was fairly accurate when production measures were known. The equation did not work
as well when a diet was formulated without knowing actual production. NASEM (2021) includes
an improved animal factor only equation (based on more data and data from higher producing
cows) and an animal and diet factor equation. Primary dietary factors that influence DMI are
forage NDF (negatively related to DMI), in vitro NDF digestibility (positively related to DMI)
and the primary source of fiber in the diet estimated using the ADF/NDF ratio (high ratio
indicates a legume-based diet and a lower ratio indicates a grass-based diet). The new equations
will be more accurate with today’s higher producing cows and reflect the impact of diet on DMI.
Users are cautioned that when using the diet factor equation, entered milk yields must be
reasonable because milk yield is still the major driver of DMI. Equations to estimate DMI for dry
and prefresh cows, calves and heifers were also updated and include dietary NDF (except for the
calf equations).
Future improvements. The current feed-animal factor equation is too dependent on milk yield.
An accurate equation based mostly or solely on diet factors would allow nutritionists to better
determine the production potential of various diets before actually feeding them. The equation
estimating DMI during the dry period is much better than the equation in NRC(2001) but it only
accounts for one source of dietary variation (NDF concentration). Digestibility of NDF, starch,
and source of NDF likely affect DMI prepartum but more data are needed to generate equations
to account for that variation. Data with Jersey cows are needed.

Energy

The NRC (2001) was the first revision of the Dairy Requirements series that calculated
energy values (i.e., net energy for lactation, NEL) from the nutrient composition of the feeds.
Prior to that revision, NEL values of feeds were fixed. In the 2001 system, digestible energy
(DE) was calculated for feeds by estimating the energy provided by digestible portions of NDF,
CP, fatty acids (FA), and nonfiber carbohydrate (100 – NDF – CP – FA – ash). The DE of the
diet was calculated as a weighted mean from feed values, and the diet DE was then discounted
based on DM intake (DMI) and TDN concentration of the diet. TDN concentration was
essentially a proxy for diet starch concentration. One issue that was identified regarding NRC
(2001) was that energy balance (NEL supply minus NEL requirements for maintenance, milk,
growth, and reproduction) was underestimated for high producing cows. Because it was a
problem with high producing, high DMI cows, the source of the error was assumed to be an
overestimation of lactation NEL requirements and/or an underestimation of NEL concentration
of the diet likely caused by the discount factor.
Research published after NRC (2001) indicated that the greatest source of error was
indeed the discount factor. Dry matter digestibility did not decrease as much with increasing
DMI and diet TDN as the NRC 2001 equation calculated. In NASEM (2021), the digestibility of
NDF and starch are reduced as DMI increases but much less than the discount in NRC (2001)
(Figure 1). One reason for the error is that NRC (2001) used a cow fed at maintenance
(approximately 7 kg of DM) as the base and discounted from there. This resulted in substantial
extrapolation and assumed linearity starting at a very low and restricted DMI. The data used by
NASEM (2021) was with mostly lactating cows (DMI ranging from about 1.7 to 4.6% of BW
with a mean of 3.5% of BW). Because increased dietary starch can depress NDF digestibility, its
effect was also included (the base was set at 26% starch which was mean concentration in the
dataset used). This approach is much more theoretically accurate than using TDN as done
previously. The improved discount equation should correct most of the underestimation of NEL
balance in high intake cows by NRC (2001).
Other changes made to the energy prediction equation would be considered fine-tuning.
The NFC fraction was replaced with starch and residual organic matter (ROM; i.e., NFC –
starch) as outlined by Weiss and Tebbe (2018) and Tebbe et al. (2017). This allows better
estimation of the energy provided by a variety of starch sources (e.g., different grind sizes of
corn grain, high moisture vs dry corn, different maturities of corn silage). The true digestibility
of ROM was set at 96% (Tebbe et al., 2018) and starch digestibility values are constants based
on the feed (Table 1). Users can choose to use a lignin-based equation as in NRC (2001) or 48 h
in vitro NDF digestibility. An equation is used to convert in vitro digestibility into estimated in
vivo digestibility.
Another change was to the true digestibility coefficient used for FA. In NRC (2001) the
true digestibility of FA was assumed to be 100% at maintenance DMI (92% for a typical
lactating cow). This was based on very limited data because at that time, FA was not commonly
measured. Over the past 2 decades a substantial database of FA digestibility was developed and
allowed better estimation of the true digestibility of FA. Two meta-analyses have been conducted
(Weiss and Tebbe, 2018, Daley et al., 2020) and both derived essentially the same true
digestibility value (73%) with no metabolic fecal FA (i.e., intercept was not different from 0). In
the NASEM (2021), digestible FA are calculated as 0.73* FA (% of DM). This is substantially
lower than the 0.92*FA (% of DM) used in NRC (2001) but the difference is not as great as it
appears because in NRC (2001), FA contributed to metabolic fecal energy but not in NASEM
(2021). However, the DE concentration of feeds with appreciable concentrations of FA will be
lower in NASEM (2021) than in NRC (2001).
In NRC (2001), metabolizable energy (ME) was calculated directly from DE using an
equation that was developed several decades ago. That equation did not correctly account for the
effect of protein or fat on ME. NASEM (2021) estimates methane using a published equation
based on DMI and dietary concentrations of FA (negative effect on methane) and digestible NDF
(positive effect on methane). Urinary energy is estimated by estimating urinary N excretion (g/d)
and multiplying that value by 0.0143 Mcal/g (Morris et al., 2021). Both methane and urinary
energy are calculated for a diet, not a feed. Therefore, feeds will not have ME or NEL values.
The change in the method to calculate ME will result in higher ME values for diets with high FA
concentrations and lower ME values for higher fiber diets and diets with excess CP. In the
previous NRC, NEL was approximately .64*ME. Based on a re-analysis of Beltsville
calorimetry data, Moraes et al. (2018) determined that 0.66 was more accurate and that value is
used to convert diet ME into NEL concentrations of diets.

75

70
DMD, %

NASEM (2021)
65

60 NRC (2001)

55
1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2
DMI, % of BW

Figure 1. The effect of increasing dry matter intake (DMI) expressed as % of body weight (BW)
on dry matter digestibility (DMD) using the NRC (2001) discount equation and the discount
equation in NASEM (2021) model. For NRC (2001) diet TDN was set at 72% and for the
NASEM line, dietary starch was set at 26%. Overall, the effect of DMI on digestibility (i.e.,
digestible energy) is about 3 times greater using NRC (2001) than in the updated NASEM.

Energy requirements were also evaluated and modified as necessary. The greatest change
was in the maintenance requirement. Several papers published over the past 15 years determined
that the standard equation for maintenance (which has been used for more than 30 years)
underestimated the maintenance requirement of modern dairy cows. Using an average from
several newer studies, the maintenance requirement was increased from 0.08*MBW to
0.10*MBW (where MBW is metabolic body weight in kilograms). This change is a 25%
increase in maintenance or about 2.5 Mcal of NEL/day for a 650 kg cow). The equation to
calculate gestation energy requirements changed to better model fetal growth but the change did
not appreciably alter gestation NEL requirements. Lactation energy requirements changed
slightly because the efficiency coefficient (0.66) changed from 0.64. Equations to estimate NEL
requirements for grazing cows were updated based on newer data and generally activity
requirements will be less when calculated using NASEM (2021) than when using NRC (2001).
Table 1. Starch digestibility coefficients used in NASEM (2021) for selected feeds (not all feeds
are shown).
Feed Starch digestibility

Default 0.91

Corn grain, dry, fine grind ( <1250 μm)2 0.92

Corn grain, dry, medium grind (1500 um to 3250 μm) 0.89

Corn grain, dry, coarse grind ( >3500 μm) 0.77

Corn grain, high-moisture, fine grind (<2000 μm) 0.96

Corn grain, high-moisture, coarse grind (>2500 μm) 0.90

Corn grain, steam flaked 0.94

Sorghum grain, dry, ground 0.83

Sorghum grain, steam flaked 0.94

Corn silage <30% DM 0.91

Corn silage 32 – 37% DM 0.89

Corn silage >40% DM 0.85

Barley, ground 0.91

Wheat 0.93

Future improvements. If laboratory measures can be developed to estimate total tract starch
digestibility, they should be incorporated into the energy supply equation. The energy coefficient
for NDF is too high based on very recent data from Nebraska. Perhaps incorporating fatty acid
composition data will increase the accuracy of estimating fatty acid digestibility resulting in
more accurate estimates of DE. On the requirement side, going back to an ME system will be
simpler and probably just as accurate as the NEL system unless we can develop specific
NEL/ME efficiencies for nutrients. Including body condition in the maintenance equation should
improve accuracy (a fat cow will have a lower maintenance requirement than a thin cow at the
same BW). More data with Jersey cows are needed.
 Carbohydrates

NASEM (2021) has a chapter on Carbohydrates but did not establish requirements or
‘adequate intakes’ for the different carbohydrate fractions. The major fractions discussed are
total NDF, forage NDF, starch, and various measures of ‘effective’ NDF. A major change from
NRC (2001) was the replacement of nonfiber carbohydrate (NFC) with starch.
Recommendations provided by NASEM (2021) follow the same basic relationships as did NRC
(2001) but now as concentrations of forage NDF decrease, recommended concentrations of
starch decrease (previously concentrations of NFC decreased). The text includes increased
discussion of both dietary and management factors that can affect the optimal concentrations of
forage NDF, total NDF, and starch in diets. In addition, recommendations for effective NDF as
measured by the method of Zebeli (2012) are provided. Zebeli et al. (2012) defines effective
NDF as the NDF in the top 2 screens of the Penn State Particle Size box (PSPS) expressed as a
percent of diet DM. NASEM (2021) discusses a new concept called physically adjusted NDF.
This approach uses several nutrient fractions along with particle size and some cow factors to
estimate the optimal amount of diet DM that should be on the 8 mm screen of the PSPS.
Because of the uncertainty around the values, this was not included in the software but is
discussed in detail in the text.
Future improvements. This is an area that needs substantial research if we are going to change
from ‘recommendations’ to more quantitative optimal concentrations or intakes. Appropriate
analytical measurements and identification of meaningful response measures are major limitation
to progress. The committee identified several issues including the need to measure both DM and
NDF concentrations in various particle size fractions. Usually, particle size fractions are assumed
to have the same concentrations as the total diet which is clearly wrong. Rumen pH is often used
as the response measure but that has questionable value. Do we use mean pH, hours below a
certain pH, lowest pH, etc? The fermentability of starch should affect the optimal concentration
of effective NDF needed but data do not exist to quantify that relationship.

Protein and Amino Acids

This section underwent the greatest change as compared to NRC (2001) and the
complexity of the model precludes a detailed discussion in this paper. Microbial protein is
estimated based on estimated rumen digested starch and fiber (these are estimated based on diet
composition, not digestion rates). Rumen undegradable protein is based on the A, B, C fraction
scheme described in NRC (2001); however rather than estimating rate of passage based mostly
on intake as done in NRC (2001), constant rates of passage are used (one for concentrates and
one for forages). Significant improvements were made in the estimates for the digestibility of the
rumen undegraded protein because the data base was much larger allowing greater screening for
spurious values. Supplies of metabolizable protein (MP) and metabolizable AA are the sum of
digestible microbial AA or true protein and digestible rumen undegraded AA or true protein. In
NRC (2001) endogenous protein was included in MP supply; however, this was an error because
endogenous protein does not cause a net increase in MP supply. Therefore, endogenous protein is
considered a requirement rather than a supply function in NASEM (2021).
For lactating cows, maintenance requirements are based on both net protein (NP) and
amino acids. The requirement for metabolic fecal protein was changed markedly and is now a
function of dietary fiber. The calculation for endogenous urinary CP was also changed. In
addition, rather than using a classic requirement model for milk protein (e.g., to produce 1200 g
of milk protein you need X grams of MP or specific AA) a response model is used (based on AA
and energy supplies, the cow should be able to produce X grams of milk protein). The response
function for milk protein yield is based on DE supply (the DE is from components other than
CP) and supply of lysine, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, histidine, and total essential AA. The
equation to estimate milk protein yield illustrates that an almost infinite array of AA profiles can
result in similar milk protein yields. The efficiency of converting MP to NP for maintenance
function is 0.68. Efficiency of converting metabolizable AA to milk protein is not fixed as it was
for MP in NRC (2001). The function includes a quadratic term for total essential AA which
means efficiency decreases as supply of essential AA increases. The software calculates ‘target
efficiencies’ which help users determine which AA are mostly likely limiting and it also
calculates expected response in milk protein yield if supply of certain AA change.
Future improvements. The equation used to calculate microbial protein does not include
important sources of variation (e.g., high moisture corn will produce the same microbial protein
as dry corn) and needs to be expanded. The AA composition of digestible RUP is assumed to be
the same as the feed which may or may not be true. More data on AA requirements for
maintenance functions are needed. The equation used to estimate milk protein yield is empirical
and based on data generated several years ago. More data are needed to validate its accuracy
with high producing cows.

Minerals and Vitamins

These nutrients are discussed in another paper in these proceedings; therefore, this
section will concentrate on future improvements.
Future improvements. Much less research is published on minerals and vitamins than for
macronutrients such as AA, protein, and energy and therefore we have more uncertainty
associated with mineral and vitamin requirements or adequate intakes. A major limitation to the
current system is the lack of absorption data for most minerals. For most minerals we have
almost no data on their true absorption by cows, and the data we do have is often more than 60
years old. Measuring true absorption is very difficult and expensive (it usually requires the use of
stable isotopes) which is why data is so limited. In addition, we know antagonistic relationships
exist among many minerals but in general we do not have adequate data to quantify the effects.
For example, increased dietary sulfur reduces copper absorption but we do not know exactly how
much. We have virtually no information on absorption of vitamins or factors that affect
absorption. For many minerals and vitamins, we do not have sensitive status indicators so we
cannot develop recommendations based on optimal status. Currently we often rely on clinical
health data (e.g., reduction in incidence of mastitis) but these studies are expensive and require
lots of cows. This limits most experiments to just 2 treatments which is inadequate to fine tune
recommendations. Lastly the factorial method used to establish requirements for minerals does
not include everything minerals do. For example, several trace nutrients are needed to elicit
strong immune responses, but the factorial method does not include a requirement for health.

Conclusions

The 8th revised edition of the NASEM (formerly NRC) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy
Cattle reflects the current state of knowledge for applied dairy nutrition. All facets of nutrition
for calves, heifers, dry cows, and lactating cows were reviewed and changes in requirements
were made when appropriate. The book also contains up to dates reviews on numerous topics
relevant to feeding dairy cattle. The new revision is an improvement over NRC (2001), but the
new revision also identified areas where improvements are still needed, and the book should be
used to focus research on those areas.

References

Daley, V. L., L. E. Armentano, P. J. Kononoff, and M. D. Hanigan. 2020. Modeling fatty acids
for dairy cattle: Models to predict total fatty acid concentration and fatty acid digestion of
feedstuffs. Journal of Dairy Science 103(8):6982-6999.

Morris, D. L., J. L. Firkins, C. Lee, W. P. Weiss, and P. J. Kononoff. 2021. Relationship between
urinary energy and urinary nitrogen or carbon excretion in lactating Jersey cows. Journal of
Dairy Science 104(6):6727-6738.

National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. 2021. Nutrient Requirements of

Dairy Cattle. 8th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press. Washingon DC.

National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. ed. Natl.
Acad. Press, Washington DC.

Tebbe, A. W., M. J. Faulkner, and W. P. Weiss. 2017. Effect of partitioning the nonfiber
carbohydrate fraction and neutral detergent fiber method on digestibility of carbohydrates by
dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100(8):6218-6228.

Weiss, W. P. and A. W. Tebbe. 2018. Estimating digestible energy values of feeds and diets and
integrating those values into net energy systems. Translational Animal Science 3(3):953-961.

Zebeli, Q., J. R. Aschenbach, M. Tafaj, J. Boguhn, B. N. Ametaj, and W. Drochner. 2012.

Invited review: Role of physically effective fiber and estimation of dietary fiber adequacy in
high-producing dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 95:1041-1056.
Fat in dairy diets and relationship to NRC 8 energy system

Lou Armentano

Dairy Science Emeritus Professor

University of Wisconsin

I have previously compared how the NRC 8 derivation of fat contribution to energy differs from
the previous NRC 7. One of the major advantages (my opinion) of NRC 8 handling of fatty acids
is it is much simpler without “exceptions” for fat as a diet component and integrates more
seamlessly with the energy system as a whole. Given that, explaining the complexities of the
previous model that are not carried over into NRC 8 is probably not the best use of time or effort.

The new NRC deals with fatty acids per se and not gravimetrically determined ether extract or crude fat
measurements. Fatty acids are measured individually, but in NRC 8 they are really handled as a sum of
FA in most cases. Remember, that even when total FA is reported and FA shown as a proportion of total
FA, the ‘wet chemistry’ analysis is done by measuring individual FA and then summing them. The 5
major individual fatty acids found in feeds (palmitic, C16:0; stearic, C18:0; oleic, C18:1; linoleic, C18:2
and linolenic, C18:3 are reported) and should be useful in evaluating and formulating diets even though
they are not used in any of the model equations. When dealing with FA in diets, it is important to
remember that when feeding a triglyceride, the mass of FA and glycerol released is greater than the
original mass of triglyceride. FA content of feeds should be reported as the free fatty acid (protonated)
weight regardless of its form in the feed, so the reported FA and glycerol released from a pure
triglyceride is more than 100% of the original triglyceride weight. Also when adding or removing fat to a
diet, other components (usually mostly starch) are altered reciprocally, and their effect in both the
model equations and the cow must be recognized.

In the updated NRC, FA contribution to DE is slightly less than in NRC 7. Decreasing FA digestibility at
higher levels of FA in the diet is ignored by the NRC 8 model even though evidence exists to show that it
clearly exists for some FA sources. As increased diet FA usually relies on added fat supplements (both in
research data and field use) some of this digestibility decline is captured implicitly in the (generally
lower) digestion of FA supplements based on empirical measurement, but the model may
underestimate FA digestion in lower level of a given FA supplement compared to higher levels of the
same FA supplement. Nevertheless, a linear, 0 intercept model of FA digestion (including the ten classes
of FA supplements formed according to their reported FA profile) fit the data well without bias for FA
concentration or DM intake. This straight line (class adjusted) model also is consistent with a 0 intercept
signifying no endogenous fecal FA secretion and subsequently true digestion equal to apparent
digestion. FA effect on ME obtained from DE is through the combined diet methane production
equation, and diet FA has a large negative effect in this equation which greatly enhances the DE to ME
conversion efficiency when adding FA to a diet. While there are data to support a higher conversion of
ME to NE for FA compared to other energy sources, however the effect is very small over the range of
FA actually fed and the model converts diet ME to NE with the same efficiency (0.66) for all dietary
energy source, including FA. Therefore some of the simplifications of the model may be slightly
disconcerting in theory, but provide a simple model that fits the data as well as more complex

©2022 Armentano
constructions and with deviations in calculated energy supply that are not likely to be of a magnitude
that is impactful, or even measurable, in practice.

I believe it is useful to pay attention to the 5 main individual fatty acids in the diet, and also to use milk
infrared analysis that separates the shorter de novo milk fatty acids from exogenous dietary FA (sum of
C4 to C14 milk fatty acids, C16 total milk, and C18 total milk fatty acids). Future nutrient models may
better predict total FA digestion by directly measuring dietary fatty acids. In the current model FA
composition is only incorporated by the classification of fat supplements. This probably helps account
for possible detrimental effects of high levels of stearic and low levels of oleic acid to some extent, but
not directly. The profile of diet FA is important also in differing effects on milk fat yield. In general
adding any of these fatty acids to the diet results in partial transfer to the absorbed C16 or C18 to those
FA secreted in milk (mostly as C16:0, C18:0 and C18:1) . But, adding linoleic acid to diets reduces de
novo milk FA synthesis. Adding oleic or linolenic also reduces de novo milk fatty acid secretion. It is not
really clear what stearic acid does, but adding palmitic acid does not reduce the combined mass of C4 to
C14 secreted (although profile within that group changes, and more milk C16 is now derived from the
exogenous C16:0 fed and less from synthesis of C16:0 by the mammary gland). At least part of the effect
of linoleic is clearly due to production of bioactive FA with trans bonds in the rumen which are absorbed
and inhibit milk fat synthesis. Some knowledgeable investigators believe that the effect of exogenous
dietary FA to reduce shorter chain fatty acids in milk solely a substitution effect where the mammary
gland is regulating total milk fat secretion so that longer chain exogenous FA displace de novo fatty
acids. While this possible substitution effect cannot be totally discounted, in my opinion it does not fully
explain the effect of oleic and linolenic acids, but I could be wrong. In any event, the effect of
depressing mammary de novo FA is stronger for dietary linoleic than oleic and linolenic, not clear for
stearic, and not existent for palmitic. To the extent that stearic acid would show the same effect as oleic
and linolenic, the substitution model would make most sense, if dietary oleic and linolenic have stronger
depressing effect than stearic, some sort of bioactive FA effect may explain that as it does the greater
effect of linoleic over oleic and linolenic. While it is important to avoid extreme high levels of linoleic
acid, both linoleic and linolenic are essential as absorbed nutrients and less that 10% of these dietary FA
actually make it to the cow’s tissues. I would be cautious of intentionally reducing linoleic acid much
below 1% of diet dry matter.

Because adding dietary fat generally increases milk fat and milk lactose yield, not all of the increased
energy density from adding fat contributes to improving energy balance in the cow. Also, any
reduction in intake cause by fat addition (but not incorporated into model estimates of intake) will
impact the benefit of FA to improved energy balance.

©2022 Armentano
Fat in dairy diets
Lou Armentano, UW Madison Emeritus

©2022 Armentano 1
 Major changes in NRC 8 vs. 7 (for your records)
NRC 7 NRC 8
Fat amount Ether Extract (crude fat) Fatty Acid – as COOH In 8
FA content calculation EEx-1 FA by measurement or FA content a user variable
regression from EEx in “new” feeds
FA Digestibility in basal True dig. Set to 100% at Estimated by regression FA digestibility also a user
maintenance DMI to be 73% true digest. variable for any new feed
FA Class (supplements) TDN class – FAT or FAT Can call FA nonesterified
with Glycerol to calculate rOM
correctly
True vs Apparent TDN and DE are apparent True=Apparent
Digestibility Endogenous fecal energy (no endogenous FA)
Digestibility of FA 5 supplements Included 10 FA rich feeds included
supplements (digestibility <100%)
Fat on DE to ME DE to ME increased for ME of diet increased with All FA same from 0% up
efficiency EEx over 3% FA due to less Methane

Fat on ME to NE 80% for EEx > 3%, vs 70% Same as all other ME NE=.66*ME
©2022 Armentano 2
efficiency
 FA as energy source greatly simplified in NRC 8
• FA not Ether extract or crude fat
• No endogenous FA used so apparent and true digestibility are same
• ‘native’ FA digestion variable set at 73% in library to get DE (digestible energy)
• Supplements classified by FA content and grouped into classes
• DE to ME uses diet methane production
• Fat reduces diet methane
• Therefore higher FA diets have increased DE to ME by that diet methane prediction
• ME to NE efficiency same for FA as all other energy sources (.66)
• Dry matter intake
• Diet adjusted DM Intake equation does not reduce intake with FA in diet
• Increased DM Intake does not reduce FA digestibility
• Increased FA in diet does not reduce FA digestibility
• adding FA no direct effect on NDF digestion (but removing starch increases NDF digestion)

©2022 Armentano 3
 Model with no DMI or FA concentration induced
depression of FA digestibility fits data well

Slide
courtesy of
V. L Daley;
used by
permission

• In 7 DMI affected all DE, in 8 no effect of DMI on FA digestion

• Amount of FA (or EEX) does not© 2021
alter FA digestion in either model
Lou Armentano 4
 Basal
Mcal/kg DM % of GE % of DE % of ME
Feed Ingredient % of DM
Corn Grain, fine grind 37.4% NRC 8
Corn Silage 24.2% DE 3.01 72.0
Corn Oil, 70% dig FA 0% ME 2.61 62.5 86.7
Grass-Legume 24.2%
NE 1.72 41.2 57.2 66.0
Soy Bean Meal 10.0%
NRC 7
Salt 4%
TDNd? 61.1
[FA] (2.6%)
DE(?) 2.46
[EEX-1] (1.8%)
ME 2.37 96.5
24.75 kg DM/day
NE 1.57 61.1 63.3
©2022 Armentano 5
 Corn Oil replaces Salt
Mcal/kg DM % of % of % of ME
Feed Ingredient % of DM
GE DE
Corn Grain, fine grind 37.4%
NRC 8
Corn Silage 24.2%
DE 3.28 72.2
Corn Oil, 70% dig FA 4.0%
ME 2.94 64.7 89.5
Grass-Legume 24.2%
NE 1.94 42.7 59.1 66.0
Soy Bean Meal 10.0%
NRC 7
Salt 0%
TDNd? 69.0
[FA] (6.1%)
DE? 2.87
[EEX-1] (6.2%) ME 2.66 92.6
NE 1.71 59.6 64.3
©2022 Armentano 6
 Oil for salt substitution (∆ = delta = effect of added FA)
∆ ∆ DE ∆ ME ∆ NE ∆ ME/∆ DE) ∆ NE/∆ ME
FA%
---------Mcal/kg DMI--------
Corn Oil – NRC 8 3.5 0.27 0.33 0.22 1.22 0.67

Corn Oil – NRC 7 4.4 0.42 0.29 0.21 .70 0.72

Methane (Mcal/d) = + .294 * Dry Matter Intake kg Methane loss is ~7 Mcal/d, so -.347
- .347 * %Fatty acid in DM is a big coefficient
+ .0409* %digest NDF in DM
This is the only non-additive effect
of FA addition on any Energy intake
fraction
Note: NRC 7 feed library data changed feed Fat to
equal Crude Fat reported in NRC 8 ©2022 Armentano 7
Why did I replace salt?
• Not what you would do in practice
• To show model results without associative effects of OTHER
components that are reduced when replaced by FA
• Energy system in NRC 8 and associative digestion effects:
• Dry matter intake and Starch cause loss of disgestion
• It is only NDF digestion that is reduced

©2022 Armentano 8
 Oil or starch substitution for salt in NRC 8
∆ ∆ DE ∆ ME ∆ NE ∆ ME/∆ DE) ∆ NE/∆ ME
FA%
---------Mcal/kg DMI--------
Corn Oil for salt 3.5 0.27 0.33 0.22 1.22 ~0.66

Starch for salt 0 0.13 0.13 0.09 1.00 ~0.66

Diet NDF digestion Gas energy (Mcal/d)

Salt 45.67% 6.86

Oil 45.67% 5.62

Starch 43.29% 6.83

©2022 Armentano 9
Regression Model ttNDFd
∆ttNDFd (%)
Fat Supplement Type ∆ ∆3 SE P-value
C12/C14 -2.7 -8.0 0.4 <0.001
Oil -0.6 -1.9 0.2 0.01
C16 -0.3 -0.9 0.4 0.47
Animal – Vegetable -0.1 -0.2 0.3 0.87
Tallow -0.1 -0.3 0.3 0.66
Calcium Salts Palm 0.5 1.6 0.3 0.12
Calcium salts LCFA 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.32
Saturated 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.09
10
 ME to NE conversion: should it be higher for FA?
And would it matter?
• By my calculation using NE = .8 x ME for pure FA:
• at 1% FA NE/ME= .658
• at 7% FA NE/ME= .666
• NRC 8 uses .66 constant
• Difference negligible over practical range

©2022 Armentano 11
 Intake?
• No direct FA effect on dry matter intake in NRC diet adjusted DMI
• Given a 2 “random” diets, FA content does not help you predict DMI
• Best general intake equation mostly driven by fiber and forage but includes Milk Yield
• Restricting analysis to only studies where FA was added, FA decreased DMI
• Given two related diets, adding (some kind) of FA can reduce intake
• Measure herd intake when changing FA in diet
• Remember intake affects associative effects on fiber and starch digestion and
also methane production

©2022 Armentano 12
Effect of 1% or 3% added FA on DM Intake
∆DMI in kg/d
Fat Supplement Type ∆1 ∆3 SE P-value
C12/C14 -1.1c -3.2 0.2 <0.001
Oil -0.3abc -0.9 0.1 0.01
C16 -0.1ab -0.4 0.2 0.45
Animal – Vegetable -0.2ab -0.6 0.2 0.31
Tallow -0.3abc -1.0 0.1 0.01
Calcium Salts Palm -0.4abc -1.2 0.2 0.02
Calcium salts LCFA -0.6bc -1.8 0.1 <0.001
Saturated Fat 0.2a 0.7 0.1 0.09

Weld and Armentano 2017

©2022 Armentano 13
Looking forward
• Cows are fed (mostly) 5 fatty acids:
• C16:0 Palmitic
• C18:0 Stearic
• C18:1 Oleic
• C18:2 Linoleic
• C18:3 Linolenic
• These are included in feed library
• You can count them on one hand !
• Pay attention to them individually

©2022 Armentano 14
Effect of different diet FA on total Milk FAT yield

Diet C16:0 Diet C18:0 Diet C18:1 & Diet C18:2

C18:3
Milk FA class
<C16 No effect No effect? Decreases Decreases

C16 Increases No effect? Decreases Decreases

C18 No effect Increase? Increase Increase?

Total Increase Increase? Decrease Decrease

15
 Intercept
Milk (±SE) P-value FA as % of Diet Slope (±SE) P-value AIC
<C16, g/d 340.8 (±19.1) <.001 ∑C18:1,2,3 -30.1 (±2.18) <.001 970

<C16, g/d 346.7 (±19.5) <.001 C18:1 -27.1 (±4.6) <.001 968
Best fitting model, C18:2 gets C18:2 -36.7 (±3.9) <.001
bigger negative effect
C18:3 -26.0 (±3.9) <.001

<C16, g/d 346.5 (±20) <.001 C16:0 0.39 (±7.60) 0.95 973
C18:0 0.39 (±25.2) 0.98
C18:1 -27.2 (±4.8) <.001
C18:2 -36.7 (±4.0) <.001
C18:3 -26.0 (±4.0) <.001
16
2019 data set
 Intercept
Milk (±SE) P-value FA as % of Diet Slope (±SE) P-value AIC
C16, g/d 453.0 (±25.4) <.001 ∑C18:1,2,3 -35.8 (±3.4) <.001 1040

C16, g/d 461.7 (±26.1) <.001 C18:1 -31.2 (±7.3) <.001 1037
C18:2 -45.8 (±6.2) <.001
C18:3 -29.6 (±6.3) <.001

C16, g/d 414.0 (±21.3) <.001 C16:0 79.0 (±7.1) <.001 969
C18:0 -15.2 (±23.6) 0.52
C18:1 -41.6 (±4.4) <.001
C18:2 -51.8 (±3.7) <.001
C18:3 -26.5 (±3.8) <.001
17
 Diet %
Milk FA yield Intercept (±SE) P-value Variable Slope (±SE) P-value AIC3

C18 total, g/d 307.9 (±25.3) <.001 C18:1,2,3 26.0 (±3.39) <.001 1037

C18 total, g/d 320.6 (±25.4) <.001 C18:1 31.9 (±7.0) <.001 1033
C18:2 11.8 (±5.9) 0.05
C18:3 35.4 (±6.0) <.001

C18 total, g/d 309.6 (±25.8) <.001 C16:0 6.8 (±10.9) 0.53 1030
C18:0 82.4 (±36.2) 0.02
C18:1 27.5 (±6.95) <.001
C18:2 8.2 (±5.8) 0.16
C18:3 32.6 (±5.8) <.001
18
2019 data set
 Intercept (±SE) Diet Variable Slope (±SE) P-value AIC3

Milk FA1, g/d 1099.3 (±59.1) ∑C18:1,2,3 -38.5 (±6.4) <.001 1165

Milk FA1, g/d 1127.6 (±60.1) C18:1 -24.7 (±12.7) 0.05 1157
C18:2 -70.2 (±10.8) <.001
C18:3 -18.0 (±10.9) 0.10

Milk FA1, g/d 1070.1 (±57.2) C16:0 83.7 (±17.8) <.001 1137

C18:0 68.9 (±59.2) 0.25

C18:1 -39.8 (±11.2) <.001

C18:2 -79.5 (±9.4) <.001

C18:3 -19.0 (±9.5) 0.05

2019 data set 19
Effect of different diet FA on total Milk FAT yield

Diet C16:0 Diet C18:0 Diet C18:1 & Diet C18:2

??? C18:3
Milk FA class
<C16 No effect No effect? Decreases Decreases

C16 Increases No effect? Decreases Decreases

C18 No effect Increase Increase Increase?

Total Increase Increase? Decrease Decrease

20
 De novo inhibition vs. substitution
• Substitution theory (wrong one?)
• adding dietary FA into milk fat displaces shorter chain FA
• Implies that milk fat secretion is regulated not FA synthesis and transport
• Why doesn’t palmitic do this? Only C18 FA do this? Stearic too?
• De novo inhibition (what I think)
• Unsaturated FA form bioactive FA in rumen to reduce de novo FA synthesis in Mammary
• Also provide exogenous C18 FA for milk fat
• Later compensates for former
• Definitely true for linoleic; Linoleic even inhibits its own transfer into milk fat
• Lessor effect for oleic and linolenic (for sure) / no effect for stearic(?)
• Could be all of oleic and linoleic effect and part of linoleic effect is substitution
• But then stearic should do same as oleic and linoleic
• Remember biological mechanisms should work on a molar basis
©2022 Armentano 21
 Intercept (±SE) Diet Variable Slope (±SE) P-value AIC3

Milk FA1, mol/d 4.80 (±0.25) ∑C18:1,2,3 -0.21 (±0.03) <.001 197

Milk FA1, mol/d 4.91 (±0.25) C18:1 -0.15 (±0.05) 0.008 190
C18:2 -0.35 (±0.04) <.001
C18:3 -0.13 (±0.04) <.001

Milk FA1, mol/d 4.70 (±0.25) C16:0 0.32 (±0.08) <.001 175

C18:0 0.27 (±0.27) 0.31

C18:1 -0.21 (±0.05) <.001

C18:2 -0.40 (±0.04) <.001

C18:3 -0.14 (±0.04) 0.001

2019 data set 22
Current and future FA digestion
• Current model uses classes of FA for digestibility of “FA” in that feed
• These are user adjustable variables with library defaults
• These are then summed linearly by feed for diet
• Cannot measure digestion of the 4 individual C18:? FA
• eg: C18:2 consumed – C18:2 in feces could be absorption or luminal biohydrogenation
• Can measure digestion of combined C18 FA (ΣC18 eaten−ΣC18 in feces)
• And also C16 (separately from C18)
• Future models may predict effect of 5 individual diet FA on digestion of C18 and C16
• Something like this:
• C16 dig = B0 + B1*C16 + B2*C18:0 + B3*C18:1 + B4*C18:2 + B5*Diet C18:3
• C18 dig = B6 + B7*C16 + B8*C18:0 + B9*C18:1 + B10*C18:2 + B11*Diet C18:3
• Quadratic and interaction terms might be needed

©2022 Armentano 23
 Measuring DE is doable
• DE is a large and variable loss
• Diet DE can be measured DIRECTLY by most research laboratories
• Need a shovel, scale, and a bomb calorimeter (students useful too!, plus some cows)
• Actual is always better than predicted
• Then use NRC model predictions to get at predicted ME and NE
• better (I think) than going from diet chemistry to predicted DE then predicting ME then
predicting NE
• NRC 8 much more transparent about this process
• So measure digestible Organic Matter fractions PLUS direct DE
• Combustible energy (bomb calorimeter)
• Starch, N, NDF, OM
• C16 and C18 FA digestibility

©2022 Armentano 24
FA effect on methane?
• Do all FA affect methane equally?
• Especially FA we feed, and not C12 or C14

©2022 Armentano 25
 NASEM 2021: What’s New for Minerals and Vitamins for Dairy Cows
W. P. Weiss
Department of Animal Sciences
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
The Ohio State University, Wooster

Summary

The NASEM (2021) dairy committee conducted a thorough review of mineral and vitamin
nutrition of dairy cattle. Requirements and recommendations for most minerals and vitamins
were changed although for several the changes were quite modest when applied to average cows
fed typical diets. However, many of the equations are more biologically correct which means that
they should be more accurate over a wider range of cows and when fed in a wider diversity of
diets. For most minerals requirements for absorbed mineral are estimated and then divided by an
absorption coefficient to obtain dietary requirements. Magnesium and manganese dietary
requirements changed the most and on average they are about twice as high as those estimated by
NRC (2001). Copper requirements were substantially increased for dry cows but decreased
substantially for high producing cows. Vitamin A recommendations increased for high
producing cows and vitamin D recommendations increased for lactating cows. Although no
recommendations were established for water-soluble vitamins, the vitamin chapter contains a
thorough review of expected responses when they are supplemented. The mineral chapter
contains up to date information on factors that can affect absorbed requirements and absorption
of minerals. Many of these factors are not included in equations; therefore, the book will be
helpful to nutritionists to finetune diets.

Introduction

The NASEM (2021) committee evaluated the previous (NRC, 2001) requirements for all
essential minerals and vitamins and reviewed scientific papers published since about 2000 to
determine whether updates were needed. Based on that review, requirements were revised for
almost every essential mineral and vitamin. Although for many minerals and vitamins, previous
recommendations were accurate for average lactating cows fed typical midwestern diets, they
were less accurate for higher producing cows and dry cows and when cows were fed less typical
diets. For several minerals, dietary requirements changed only slightly compared with NRC
(2001) even though many of the equations changed markedly. A major aim of the committee was
to make equations more biologically correct so that they would work better for cows that were
not average and not fed typical diets. No changes were made to iron and selenium
recommendations, and phosphorus and iodine recommendations changed very little from NRC
(2001) and these will not be discussed. Mineral and vitamin recommendations for pre-weaned
calves underwent substantial updates but those also will not be discussed. Lastly, very little
research is conducted on the vitamin and mineral needs of growing heifers and either
recommendations from beef (2016) or extrapolation from dairy cow experiments are used.
Growing heifers will only be discussed briefly.
 Requirement vs. Adequate Intake vs. Response

The NASEM (2021) uses two terms to describe the quantitative needs for minerals and vitamins:
requirements and adequate intake (AI). Requirements are established when the committee had
enough data to be highly confident in the equations. A requirement will meet the needs of the
average cow in a defined population (e.g., 1500 lbs. Holstein cow producing 80 lbs./day of milk).
Requirements were established for calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), sodium
(Na), chloride (Cl), sulfur (S), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn).

The term AI means that in the committee’s expert opinion, cows fed this much mineral or
vitamin will not be deficient and that the AI elicited a positive response above that when a lesser
amount was fed. Adequate intake is similar to a requirement except that it means the committee
did not have the same degree of confidence because of limited data. To establish an AI (or
requirement), the first criteria was a clinical deficiency must have been shown in cattle. For
examples a vitamin D deficiency can cause rickets in cattle, but no clinical deficiency signs have
been shown for biotin, so an AI was established for vitamin D but not for biotin. An AI was used
when titration data were lacking (i.e., most studies only used two treatments, a control with no
supplemental mineral or vitamin and one treatment with some level of the nutrient of interest),
when data on basal intakes were limited or lacking, or when very few experiments were
conducted on the mineral or vitamin.

Vitamin E will be used to show how an AI could be set. Several studies with dry cows have
been conducted using 2 treatments (an unsupplemented control and a treatment diet providing
about 1000 IU of supplemental vitamin E/d). Most of those studies found that 1000 IU/d of
supplemental vitamin E reduced mastitis, metritis, and/or retained placenta. Using that data, the
committee set the AI at 1000 IU/d for dry cows. However, 500 IU/d might have been adequate,
or 2000 IU/d might have been better, but the available data would only support setting an AI at
1000 IU/d for dry cows.

For diet formulation a requirement and an AI can usually be considered the same thing. An AI
was established for cobalt (Co), iodine (I), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) selenium (Se) and
vitamins A, D, and E.

Some minerals and vitamins can increase milk production when supplemented; however, this
does not necessarily mean that the supplementation rate is the requirement or AI. Primary
examples are chromium (Cr), biotin, rumen-protected choline and dietary cation anion difference
(DCAD). Cows require Cr and milk production often increases when diets are supplemented
with about 0.5 mg/kg of Cr (Lashkari et al., 2018). However, a clinical deficiency of Cr has not
been described, perhaps because basal concentrations of Cr are usually adequate to prevent them,
Although supplemental Cr often increases milk production it is not a requisite to high
production. Diets contain biotin and rumen bacteria can synthesize it so clinical deficiencies do
not occur. However, supplementing biotin at rates between 10 and 20 mg/day can increase
production and improve hoof health (Lean and Rabiee, 2011). Supplemental protected choline at
rates of 10 to 15 g of actual choline can increase milk production and reduce fatty liver (Sales et
al., 2010). There is a minimum requirement for DCAD based on requirements for K, Na, Cl, and
S but exceeding that requirement (approximately 175 mEq/kg) often increases milk, milk fat, and
DMI (Iwaniuk and Erdman, 2015). Conversely feeding reduced DCAD to dry cows reduces
hypocalcemia. The responses to these nutrients are discussed in the text but AI or requirements
were not derived by the committee. Feeding K or Na above requirements increase urine output
which will increase water intake and this may be beneficial during heat stress. Production
responses to increased intake of various minerals and vitamins are discussed in the text
(NASEM, 2021) but they are not included in the software.

Calculation of Requirements or AI

Requirements or AI for most minerals were calculated using the factorial approach. The
exceptions are Co, Se, and S. Cobalt and S are bacterial requirements, not cow requirements and
are therefore expressed as a dietary concentration (0.2 mg/kg and 0.2%, respectively). The
concentration of supplemental Se in diets is regulated by FDA; therefore, its AI is expressed on
dietary concentration basis (0.3 mg/kg diet). The factorial approach estimates the amount of
absorbed (not dietary) mineral needed for maintenance plus the amount of mineral secreted in
milk (lactation requirement) and accreted in tissue (growth requirement) or conceptus (gestation
requirement). Maintenance requirement is estimated as the sum of endogenous fecal and urinary
losses; however, except for electrolytes, endogenous urinary losses are either set to 0 or are very
small. The total absorbed requirement is divided by an absorption coefficient (AC) to obtain the
dietary requirement. For most minerals (Ca and P are exceptions), the same AC is used for all
basal ingredients but the AC for the mineral supplements can vary. All mineral requirements or
AI are for total, not supplemental minerals. Users should include the minerals provided by basal
ingredients in all supply calculations. Lastly requirements or AI are for the average cow in a
defined population which means that the requirement may underfeed about 50% of the cows.
Appropriate safety factors should be applied when formulating diets. In my opinion (this is not
NASEM, 2021) increasing supply of minerals by 1.2 times NASEM average requirement or AI
is a reasonable safety factor. However, a safety factor is not needed for P, S, and Se. Because
moderately excess sulfur can cause several problems (discussed below), it should be fed at about
the NASEM requirement (i.e., 0.2% of diet DM). The requirements for P are very well defined
and because of recycling within the cow, P deficiencies are extremely unlikely when the average
cow in the pen is fed to meet NASEM (2021) average requirements. A safety factor is not
needed. A safety factor often cannot be applied to Se because supplementation may be limited by
regulation. In most areas of the world, nutritionists should formulate dairy diets to the maximum
legally allowable Se concentration.

Requirements or AI for most minerals and vitamins are on a milligram, gram, or IU/day basis,
not on a dietary concentration basis. However, expressing requirements on a concentration basis
can be useful when evaluating diets if estimated dry matter intake is reasonable. Table 1 contains
dietary concentrations of minerals that will meet the requirement or AI for an average Holstein
cow producing about 80 lbs. of milk per day assuming the cow is eating about 54 lbs. of dry
matter.

All vitamins and minerals that have a requirement or AI will be discussed briefly; however the
most substantial changes in dietary requirements (or AI) were made for Mg, Co, Co, and Mn.
Calcium

Two major changes were made to Ca and they are related. In NRC (2001) endogenous fecal Ca
(i.e., maintenance requirement) was a function of body weight; however, it should be a function
of dry matter intake (DMI). The more a cow eats that greater the loss of endogenous fecal Ca
should be, and the new maintenance requirement is estimated based on DMI. This will result in
an increased maintenance requirement for high producing, high DMI cows. The second change
was to the AC. The AC for Ca from all Ca supplements were reduced from a range of about 70
to 95% to 45 to 60%. The AC for Ca from basal feeds either were not changed or increased
slightly. The net result is the dietary Ca concentrations to meet the requirements will need to be
slightly higher than previously and the less basal Ca in the diet the greater the increase.

Electrolytes (Na, K, Cl)

A large database was assembled to estimate AC and endogenous fecal excretion for K, Na, and
Cl. The AC for K and Na was set at 100% and 92% for Cl compared with 90% used for all three
in NRC (2001). The maintenance requirements for electrolytes can include endogenous fecal and
urinary excretion. Total maintenance requirements did not change greatly for K and are slightly
greater for Na and Cl compared with NRC (2001). The greatest change was in the route of
excretion (urinary or fecal), and the new equations better reflect measured excretion data. For
example, very little Na is excreted in urine when cows are fed at requirements whereas urinary K
is quite high and the 2021 equations reflect those differences. Conversely using NRC (2001)
equations, urinary Na was high, but K was low. Lactation requirements for Na and Cl were
reduced substantially reflecting the lower concentrations of those two minerals in milk produced
today compared with milk produced 50 years ago (the source of data used in NRC, 2001). This is
likely because mastitis is much less today than 50 years ago and cows with mastitis secrete milk
with elevated Na and Cl concentrations. The change in maintenance and lactation requirements
mostly cancel out and total requirements for Na, Cl, and K are about the same as in NRC (2001).

Sulfur

The S requirement did not change (0.2% of diet DM) but the discussion regarding S was
substantially updated and expanded. Most of the discussion regards all the potential negative
effects that are associated with feeding excess S. These include reduced absorption of Cu, Se,
Mn and maybe Zn. High S usually is associated with lower DCAD which can reduce DMI, milk
and milk fat. High S can reduce fiber digestibility and although unlikely with dairy cows, high S
increases the risk for polioencephalomalacia. If the S concentration in water is high (generally
greater than about 300 mg sulfate-S/L), that should be included when determining whether S
intake is great enough to cause problems.

Magnesium

The requirement for Mg changed the most of any micromineral. The amount of data available to
estimate AC and requirements increased markedly after the NRC (2001) was published which
allow the committee to make several changes. First, maintenance (endogenous fecal Mg) is
estimated from DMI, not bodyweight. This resulted in about a doubling of absorbed maintenance
requirement. The other big change was to the AC. In NRC (2001), the calculated AC for basal
ingredients was about 30% but because of the high variability of that estimate, the committee
reduced the AC by 1 standard deviation to 16%. Presumably the AC for Mg supplements were
calculated using a basal AC of 16% rather than 30% and this resulted in overestimating the AC
for the supplements. Using a larger database, the same AC was obtained for basal ingredients
(30%) but rather than reducing that by 1 standard deviation, the committee incorporated an
equation that reduced AC as dietary K increases. Dietary K is a major antagonist to Mg
absorption and a major source of variation in the AC of Mg. Using 30% AC for basal ingredients
(standardized to 1.2% K), magnesium oxide and magnesium sulfate have AC of 23 and 27%
compared with 70 and 90% used by NRC (2001). The change in maintenance along with change
in AC means that the dietary requirement for Mg is about 1.5 to 2 times greater than NRC
(2001). The potential benefit of excess Mg during the prefresh period is not included in the
requirement calculations (it is considered a response).

Cobalt

Different biomarkers can be used to assess adequacy of Co including liver vitamin B-12
concentrations and serum concentrations of homocysteine. Experiments published since 2000
indicated that the NRC (2001) requirement of about 0.11 mg/kg of diet was not optimal for beef
cattle based on common biomarkers. Based on that experiment the AI for Co was about doubled
to 0.2 mg/kg of diet DM. Measuring Co in feeds is difficult, but it is likely that many diets
contain enough Co in basal ingredients to meet the AI.

Copper

Because of increasing concerns about Cu toxicity, Cu requirements underwent an especially

rigorous review. Two major changes were made to requirement calculations. Inadequate data
were available to calculate endogenous fecal excretion of Cu as a function of DMI and it
remained a function of body weight. A study using isotopic Cu was used to develop a new
equation to estimate absorbed maintenance requirement and it about doubled from NRC (2001).
However, the value used to estimate endogenous fecal Cu affects calculation of the AC and the
AC for Cu increased by 25%. The net effect was about a 60% increase in dietary maintenance
requirement. This means that for growing heifers and dry cows, total dietary Cu requirement has
increased about 50% compared with NRC (2001). The other substantial change was in lactation
requirement. The Cu concentration of milk used in NRC (2001) was 0.15 mg/kg, but a review of
data published during the last 20 years found that milk averages only about 0.04 mg Cu/kg. The
lactation requirement decreased by about 70%. For a Holstein cow producing about 80 lbs. of
milk, the total requirement for dietary Cu is about the same as NRC (2001) but as production
increases the total requirement for dietary Cu calculated using NASEM (2021) will become less
than that calculated by NRC (2001).

Manganese

A study with pregnant beef heifers (Hansen et al., 2006) demonstrated that the NRC (2001) Mn
requirement was too low. Very little research is conducted on Mn with dairy cattle, so the
committee set an AI rather than a requirement. Based on a single study published after NRC
(2001), the NASEM (2021) increased the absorbed maintenance requirement by about 30%.
A study was also found that measured absorption of Mn by dairy cattle resulting in a substantial
lowering of its AC. The net result of these two changes was that dietary requirements for Mn are
slightly more than twice as great as they were in NRC (2001).

Zinc

An equation was developed to estimate the maintenance requirement for absorbed Zn from DMI
and the resulting values are greater than those calculated by NRC (2001). Other requirements
(growth, lactation, gestation) did not change. The AC for Zn were also modified using the new
estimate for endogenous fecal losses. Overall, total dietary requirements for Zn will be 10 to
15% greater for heifers, dry cows, and lactating cows than NRC (2001) estimates.

Vitamin A

Inadequate data were available to estimate requirements; therefore, the committee established an
AI for supplemental vitamin A. No new data was available to bring into question the
requirement (i.e., 50 IU/lbs. of bodyweight) set in NRC (2001). However, the experiments used
to generate that requirement were conducted long ago and maximum milk production was only
about 75 lbs./day. Milk contains about 450 IU of vitamin A (as retinol)/lb. The AI for vitamin A
of 50 IU/lb. of body weight was used for dry cows and cows producing less than 75 lbs. of
milk/day and to cover the loss of vitamin A in milk, the AI is increased by 450 IU/day for every
pound of milk produced that is greater than 75 lbs. For example, a 1500 lbs. cow producing 70
lbs. of milk would have an AI of 1500 x 50 = 75,000 IU/day but the same cow that produced 85
lbs. of milk would have an AI of 75,000 + ((85-75) x 450) = 79,500 IU/day.

Vitamin D

Because of limited data, supplemental vitamin D has an AI. Previously the requirement for
vitamin D was based almost exclusively on Ca metabolism; however, we now know that vitamin
D is involved in a multitude of function well beyond Ca metabolism. The AI for vitamin D for
dry cows and heifers was not changed from NRC (2001) and remains at about 14 IU/lbs. of body
weight (approximately 23,000 IU/d for a dry Holstein cow). For lactating cows, the AI was
based on how much vitamin D is needed to maintain the concentration of 25-OH vitamin D in
the blood at 30 ng/ml or greater (Nelson et al., 2016). Based on that criteria, the AI for lactating
cows was set at 18 IU/lbs. of bodyweight or about 28,000 IU/d for a typical Holstein cow.

Vitamin E

The AI for supplemental vitamin E did not change for dry (0.7 IU/lbs. body weight) or lactating
cows (0.36 IU/lbs. body weight). Based on experiments showing less mastitis and metritis when
prefresh cows (approximatley the last 3 weeks of gestation) when additional vitamin E is fed, the
AI for prefresh cows was set at 1.4 IU/lbs. body weight (about 2000 IU/day). Because pasture is
usually an excellent source of tocopherol, the AI for vitamin E is reduced when cows are grazing
based on how much pasture is being consumed. If more than about 50% of the diet dry matter is
from fresh green pasture, the AI for supplemental vitamin becomes essentially zero.

Conclusions

• Almost all calculations used to estimate dietary mineral and vitamin requirements and AI
have been revised; however total requirements for many of those nutrients did not change
greatly
• Requirements or AI for Mg, Mn, Cu, Co changed the most from NRC (2001)
• The requirements (or AI) calculated by NASEM are for the average cow in a defined
population. Safety factors are not included but often will need to be incorporated into diet
formulation
• Several factors affect requirements and absorption of minerals. Many of these are not
included in the equations. Users are encouraged to read the text to determine how specific
situations affect diet formulation for minerals

References

Hansen, S. L., J. W. Spears, K. E. Lloyd, and C. S. Whisnant. 2006. Feeding a low manganese
diet to heifers during gestation impairs fetal growth and development. J. Dairy Sci. 89:4305-
4311.

Iwaniuk, M. E. and R. A. Erdman. 2015. Intake, milk production, ruminal, and feed efficiency
responses to dietary cation-anion difference by lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:8973-8985.

Lashkari, S., M. Habibian, and S. K. Jensen. 2018. A Review on the role of chromium
supplementation in ruminant nutrition—Effects on productive performance, blood metabolites,
antioxidant status, and immunocompetence. Biol. Trace Element Res. 186:305-321.

Lean, I. J. and A. R. Rabiee. 2011. Effect of feeding biotin on milk production and hoof health in
lactating dairy cows: A quantitative assessment. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1465-1476.

National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Nutrient Requirements of

Dairy Cattle, 8th rev. ed. National Acad Press, Washington DC.

NASEM. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. ed. Natl.
Acad. Press, Washington DC.

Nelson, C. D., J. D. Lippolis, T. A. Reinhardt, R. E. Sacco, J. L. Powell, M. E. Drewnoski, M.

O’Neil, D. C. Beitz, and W. P. Weiss. 2016. Vitamin D status of dairy cattle: Outcomes of
current practices in the dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci. 99:10150-10160.
Sales, J., P. Homolka, and V. Koukolova. 2010. Effect of dietary rumen-protected choline on
milk production of dairy cows: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 93:3746-3754.

Table 1. Dietary concentrations (dry matter basis) of minerals and vitamin that should meet
average requirements (or AI) of a Holstein cow producing 80 lbs. of milk per day. Assumed dry
matter intake is 54 lbs./day.

Mineral Concentrations to
meet NASEM (2021)
Ca, % 0.57
P, % 0.32
Mg (1.2% K), % 0.16
Mg (2% K), % 0.201
K, % 1.00
Na, % 0.20
Cl, % 0.28
S, % 0.20
Co, mg/kg 0.20
Cu (2 g/kg S and 1 mg/kg Mo), mg/kg 10
Cu (4 g/kg S and 5 mg/kg Mo), mg/kg 103
Fe, mg/kg 16
I, mg/kg 0.4
Mn, mg/kg 27
Se, mg/kg 0.3
Zn, mg/kg 55
Vitamin A, IU/lb. 1430
Vitamin D, IU/lb. 500
Vitamin E, IU/lb. 10
1
The NASEM model reduces the absorption coefficient of Mg as dietary K increases.
2
Although increased dietary (including water) S and Mo significantly reduces Cu absorption
inadequate data was available to include this effect in the NASEM equations. Users should read
the text and make appropriate dietary adjustments for antagonism.
 Current Concepts in Transition Cow Feeding and the NASEM Requirements
James K. Drackley, Ph.D., Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
drackley@[Link]

The transition period surrounding calving remains a critical time for welfare of cows and
dairy farm profitability. Many farms still struggle with a high incidence of metabolic and
infectious disorders, and suboptimal milk production and fertility as a result of improper
transition programs. Publication of the 8th revised edition of Nutrient Requirements of Dairy
Cattle by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM, 2021)
provides updated guidelines for nutritional management of cows during the dry period and
transition period. New equations for predicting dry matter intake (DMI) were developed, which
predict that cows fed lower NDF diets will have higher DMI. Conversely, high NDF diets can be
used to control total DMI and limit energy intake to near requirements, which is particularly
important during the far-off dry period. The equations predict that DMI starts to decrease about
2.5 wk before calving, and reach a nadir before calving at about 1.65% of DMI. Requirements
for pregnancy now begin in early pregnancy and are less in the far-off period but greater in the
transition cow than predicted by the last edition of NRC (2001).

Increasing prefresh energy (more starch, less NDF) increases prepartum DMI but has
little impact on postpartum DMI. Most studies show no effect on milk yield. Single group dry
period management can work as demonstrated by our recent research. Milk fat concentrations are
lower with a single diet approach, which we have shown is related to increased trans-10 fatty
acid intermediates. Therefore, a close-up group may have advantages in that regard. Diets should
be low enough in energy density during the far-off period and make uniform steps up in energy
density to the high lactation group. The requirements for energy have been revised, with the
maintenance requirement being increased for all classes of cattle except newborn calves.
Consequently, total requirements for net energy for lactation (NEL) are about 17-18 Mcal/kg
DM for dry cows and 19-20 Mcal/kg DM for close-up cows. However, the equations that predict
dietary energy supply also result in greater NEL density of diets; as a result, the balance of
supply and requirement for NEL is slightly lower for the new system and more in line with
observations in the field. Dry cows can easily consume more energy than they require. There is
little evidence to suggest that high DMI per se prevents transition problems; rather, we should
strive to meet the cows’ requirements for energy and nutrients while avoiding excesses. Thus the
problem is more often limiting energy supply rather than struggling to meet it.

Requirements for metabolizable protein (MP) are not changed much from the previous
edition and are about 1000 g/d for typical Holstein cows. This does not include possible uses for
the immune system or mammary development, and may not be optimal for first-calving heifers.
The NASEM model provides estimates of amino acid supply. Typical diets based on corn silage
and wheat straw likely will benefit from supplementation of rumen-protected methionine. Our
research has demonstrated increases in postpartum DMI and milk yield with supplemental
methionine, as well as favorable metabolic responses during the transition period.

Requirements for minerals and vitamins also have been adjusted as newer evidence has
become available. A fully acidified, negative DCAD ration results in greater milk production
than a partial DCAD approach. Requirements for potassium and sodium have been increased.
For the trace minerals, cobalt, copper, iodine, manganese and zinc have been increased. While
the NASEM committee recognized the responses to chromium and choline supplementation, no
requirement or adequate intake was established. The requirement for vitamin E has been
increased to about 2000 IU per day.

Publication of the new NASEM volume on nutrient requirements provides a tremendous

resource for practicing nutritionists to fine-tune their approach to dairy cattle nutrition.
Current concepts in transition cow feeding and
the NASEM requirements

James K. Drackley, Ph.D.

Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle (8th rev. ed.)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and
Medicine (NASEM), 2021

• Replaces “NRC”, 2001

• 21 chapters, over 500 pages
• $149.95 ([Link])
• New computer model (similar interface),
expanded outputs (free download)
• New material as well as extensively
revised material from NRC 2001
 Chapter 12
Dry and Transition Cows
 Changes from NRC 2001

• Updated literature review

• New DMI equations
• Gestation requirement model structure
• Energy requirements and dietary energy
concentrations
• Mineral requirements
• Vitamin E requirements
 Estimated DMI by NASEM 2021
• Equations include parity, diet NDF, and week prepartum
– Week used because of uncertainty of calving date
• Insufficient data for true meta-analysis
• Insufficient data to evaluate interactions among parity,
diet, and time prepartum
• Data from 2001 and all newer data available were used
• Almost all experiments used high forage diets; diets with
byproduct NDF sources not represented
 Estimating DMI using NASEM 2021

• Cows (% of BW):
= 1.47 – [(0.365 – 0.0028 × NDF) week] – 0.035 × week2
where week = week from calving (i.e., it is negative)
If cow > 3 wk from parturition, week = -3

• Heifers: Cow equation × 0.88

Insufficient new data, therefore average parity effect from 2001 was
retained
Estimated DMI by cows using NASEM 2021
 New DMI equations
For far-off dry cows (>3 wk prepartum)
• DMI will be between 1.8 and 2% of BW
• Negatively correlated with dietary NDF

For close-up dry cows (<3 wk prepartum)

• DMI starts decreasing ~2.5 wk prepartum
• Rate of decline negatively correlated with dietary NDF
• At about wk 1 prepartum DMI about the same for all NDF
(1.65% of BW)
 Calculation of gestation requirements

• Mass model for conceptus 90.0

starts at d 12 of gestation 80.0

(compared with d 190 in

70.0
Calf birth weight = 43 kg

Gravid uterus weight, kg

60.0

NRC 2001) 50.0

40.0

• Function of maternal BW 30.0

(heifer has smaller calf) 20.0

10.0

• Energy = 0.88 Mcal/kg 0.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Day of gestation

• CP = 125 g/kg
 Gestation energy and protein requirements

Gestation NEL, Mcal/d Gestation MP, g/d

Day of
NRC 2001 NASEM 2021 NRC 2001 NASEM 2021
gestation
50 0 0.04 0 3
100 0 0.1 0 13
150 0 0.5 0 43
200 2.7 1.4 199 125
220 3.0 2.0 245 185
250 3.4 3.5 306 320
275 3.8 5.4 357 489
 Close-up starch, fiber, and energy

• Almost impossible to separate these effects (e.g., as NDF

goes up starch and NEL usually go down)
• Increasing prefresh energy (more starch, less NDF):
Increases prepartum DMI
Generally little effect on postpartum DMI
Most studies show no effect on milk yield
 Use of pre-fresh diet to adapt rumen

• To “help rumen deal with higher starch postpartum diet”

“Based on available data, benefits of feeding a diet of

moderate starch and fiber to transition ruminal cells and
rumen tissue morphology from a high-forage diet to a
higher-starch lactation diet are not evident.”
One-diet dry cow
management:
use of controlled
energy diets
 Diet composition (% of DM) – dry period

Ingredient HE LE
Wheat straw 0.0 40.5
Alfalfa hay, mid-maturity 6.0 3.2
Alfalfa silage, mid-maturity 17.9 9.7
Corn silage 49.9 28.3
Concentrate 26.2 18.3

Richards et al., 2020

 Dietary treatments
1.65

Mcal NEL/kg DM
1.55
Overfed
CEHF
1.45
2-stage

1.35

1.25
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Day relative to calving
Richards et al., 2020
 Dry matter intake for dry cows fed
single-group or two-group diets

4 Overfed
CEHF
DMI, % of BW

3 2-stage

Trt , P = 0.47;
2 Wk* Trt, P = 0.34

1 Trt , P < 0.0001;

Wk* Trt, P < 0.0001
0
-9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9
Weeks relative to calving
Richards et al., 2020
Controlled energy dry cow diets
decreased serum BHBA

Trt , P = 0.01;
Wk* Trt, P = 0.0004

Trt , P = 0.41;
Wk* Trt, P = 0.47

Richards et al., 2020

 Controlled energy dry cow diets
decreased liver total lipid
14.0

Liver total lipid, % wet wt. 12.0

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0 Overfed CEHF 2-stage

0.0
-15 -5 5 15 25 35
Days relative to calving
Trt , P = 0.004;
Wk* Trt, P = 0.02 Richards et al., 2020
Dry period treatment did not affect milk yield but
decreased milk fat percentage and yield

Dry period treatment

Variable LE HE LE+HE SE

Milk, kg/d 32.2 33.6 33.1 1.4

Milk fat, % 3.20c 3.87a 3.43b 0.11

Milk fat, kg/d 1.12c 1.41a 1.21b 0.06

Weeks 1 – 9 of lactation, first lactation cows included
a,b,c P < 0.05

Richards et al., 2020

Milk yield was not different between strategies
55

50

45
Milk, kg/d
40

35
Cows CEHF
30 Heifers CEHF
Cows CU
25 SEM = 1.5 kg/d for cows, Heifers CU
2.0 kg/d for heifers

20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Week of lactation
Vasquez et al., 2021
 Dry period treatment did not affect milk yield but
decreased milk fat percentage

Dry period treatment

Variable CEHF CU SE
Milk, kg/d 43.1 41.5 1.0
Milk fat, % 3.54b 3.76a 0.07
Milk fat, kg/d 1.48 1.52 0.03
C18:1 trans-10, % 1.14a 0.66b 0.16
Weeks 1-12 of lactation, first lactation cows included
a,b P < 0.05

May indicate lack of rumen adaptation at

calving for one-diet strategy Vasquez et al., 2021
 “Nutrient intensity” changes during the transition

Calving
Dry-off
Nutrient intensity

Late lactation Far-off dry Close-up dry Fresh High group

 “Nutrient intensity” changes during the transition
But don’t want this…steps too small and far-off not low enough

Calving
Dry-off
Nutrient intensity

Late lactation Far-off dry Close-up dry Fresh High group

 NEL concentration of diets: dry cows
Ingredient % of DM • NEL NRC 2001:
Corn silage 40.0
0.63 Mcal/lb
Wheat straw 40.8
Corn gluten feed 8.05 (19.5 Mcal/d)
Soybean meal 5.9 • NEL NASEM 2021:
Canola meal 3.0 0.71 Mcal/lb
Urea 0.30
Minerals and vitamins 1.95
(21.8 Mcal/d)
1790 lb, 240 DCC, 30.8 lb/d DMI
Requirements also increase!
Comparison of energy requirements – dry cows

Ingredient NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021

NEL maintenance, Mcal/d 11.4 15.2

NEL pregnancy, Mcal/d 3.6 3.1

Total NEL required, Mcal/d 15.0 18.3

1790 lb, 240 DCC, 30.8 lb/d DMI

 Comparison of nutrient balances – dry cows

Ingredient NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021

ME balance, Mcal/d 6.3 5.4
NEL balance, Mcal/d 4.5 3.6
MP balance, g/d 219 373
1790 lb, 240 DCC, 30.8 lb/d DMI

Both dietary energy prediction and energy requirements are

higher with NASEM 2021.

Must use dietary NEL calculated by NASEM to be accurate!

 NEL concentration of diets: close-up cows
Ingredient % of DM
• NEL NRC 2001:
Corn silage 32.1
Wheat straw 36.3 0.65 Mcal/lb
Corn gluten feed 8.2 (18.6 Mcal/d)
Soy hulls 6.6
Wheat midds 6.2 • NEL NASEM 2021:
Soybean meal 5.8 0.73 Mcal/lb
Canola meal 2.6
Urea 0.25 (20.9 Mcal/d)
Minerals and vitamins 1.95

1790 lb, 270 DCC, 28.6 lb/d DMI Requirements also increase!
 Comparison of energy requirements – close-up cows

Ingredient NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021

NEL maintenance, Mcal/d 11.4 15.2

NEL pregnancy, Mcal/d 3.6 5.2

Total NEL required, Mcal/d 15.0 20.4

1790 lb, 270 DCC, 28.6 lb/d DMI

Comparison of nutrient balances – close-up cows

Ingredient NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021

ME balance, Mcal/d 5.0 0.5
NEL balance, Mcal/d 3.6 0.3
MP balance, g/d 240 -113
1790 lb, 270 DCC, 28.6 lb/d DMI

Both dietary energy prediction and energy requirements are

higher with NASEM 2021.

Must use dietary NEL calculated by NASEM to be accurate!

 NEL concentration of diets: fresh cows
Ingredient % of DM
Corn silage 30.0
• NEL NRC 2001:
Wheat straw 1.0 0.76 Mcal/lb
Alfalfa silage 15.0
Corn gluten feed 17.0
(35.1 Mcal/d)
Corn grain 25.05 • NEL NASEM 2021:
Soybean meal 3.0
Soybean meal, expellers 2.0
0.84 Mcal/lb
Blood meal 2.5 (38.8 Mcal/d)
Tallow 2.0
Rumen protected Lys Met 0.2
Minerals and vitamins 2.25
Requirements also increase!
1375 lb, 15 DIM, 46.2 lb/d DMI, 88 lb/d milk
 Comparison of energy requirements – fresh cows

Ingredient NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021

NEL maintenance, Mcal/d 10.0 12.5

NEL milk, Mcal/d 29.0 29.0

Total NEL required, Mcal/d 39.0 41.5

NEL balance, Mcal/d -3.9 -3.4

1375 lb, 15 DIM, 46.2 lb/d DMI, 88 lb/d milk

Both dietary energy prediction and energy requirements are higher with NASEM 2021.

Must use dietary NEL calculated by NASEM to be accurate!

Summary – diet energy concentrations (Mcal/lb DM)

Cow class NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021

Far-off dry cows 0.63 0.71

Close-up dry cows 0.65 0.73

Fresh cows 0.76 0.84

Don’t mix systems!

Overall changes in energy balance are small.
 Cows can consume enough energy to meet
requirements during transition period from a
variety of diets

Dietary NEL DMI (lb) for

(Mcal/lb) 19 Mcal
0.70 (high straw) 27.1
0.75 25.3
0.80 23.8
0.85 (high energy) 22.3

Dry cows will not stop eating once they have eaten
enough energy – depends on rumen NDF fill!
Close-up cows will easily consume more energy than
they require

NEL, Mcal/ lb Forage NDF, % NEL intake,

DM of DM Predicted DMI, lb/d Mcal/d

0.70 55 25.5 18.5

0.75 50 26.4 19.8
0.80 45 27.3 21.8
0.85 40 28.2 24.0
Estimated for 1540 lb Holstein cow at 265 days carried calf using NASEM (2021)
 Mean DMI vs sub-groups

Mean DMI = 13.5 kg/d

(29.7 lb/d)

Day relative to calving

Adapted from Huzzey et al., 2007

Pre-calving DMI, visits
to feed bunk, and time
spent at feed bunk
were lower for cows
that developed
subclinical ketosis
postpartum

Goldhawk et al., 2009

 Restricting feed intake precalving in otherwise-
healthy cows does not cause ketosis or metritis
15
Overfed
Serum BHBA, mg/dL 13 High straw, low energy
Restricted intake
11
9 Subclinical ketosis threshhold

7
5
3
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Days relative to calving
Janovick et al., 2011
 Does high DMI in pre-fresh cows
prevent health problems?
• No.
• Indicates there are fewer cows destined
for problems as a result of management
barriers for cows to adapt to lactation.
• High DMI is an indicator of a successful
program, it is not the reason for it.
 Summary - Energy
• Energy requirements for NASEM 2021 are about 17-18
Mcal/d NEL for dry cows and about 19-20 Mcal/d NEL for
transition cows (mature Holstein).
• Diets will be higher in calculated energy with NASEM
2021 than with NRC 2001.
• Balances will be lower with NASEM 2021 than with NRC
2001 – closer to what is observed in field.
 Dry cow dietary protein and milk production
• For NRC (2001) most studies fed treatments during entire
dry period, not just pre-fresh
• Milk and milk composition during first 3 wk to 17 wk were
the primary outcome variables
• In a few studies, diets were as low as 10% CP without
effect on milk production (cows)
 Diet with 10% CP prepartum remained in protein
balance at d -10 (Putnam and Varga, 1998)
 Dry cow dietary CP and milk production

Meta-analysis (Lean et al., 2013)

12 studies, 26 treatment comparisons
Control diets: 9.7 to 14.1% CP (avg. = 12.3)
Treatment diets: 11.7 to 23.4% CP (avg. = 15.9%)
Milk yield first 28 d to 120 d (avg = 65 DIM)

Average increase in milk for increased CP

= 0.1 kg/d (-0.6 to +1.2 kg/d)
 Dry cow dietary MP and milk production

Meta-analysis (Husnain and Santos, 2019)

27 comparisons for heifers
97 comparisons for cows
Mostly prefresh treatment comparisons
Diets: 9 to 21% CP (avg. = 14.0%)
6 to 10% MP (avg. 9.3% for cows; 6 to 13%)
MP calculated according to NRC 2001
 Dry cow dietary CP and milk production

• No difference in milk yield for cows

Milk protein increased 60 g/1000 g MP intake in cows
producing >36 kg/d milk
• Increased milk and milk protein in first lactation cows

(Husnain and Santos, 2019)

 Protein - NASEM 2001 model
Far-off dry cow and heifer
• ~11% CP (6.5% MP) will ~meet requirement
• 12% CP (7.2% MP) recommended because of limited
data and potentially inadequate RDP
• Translates to 864 g/d (DMI 12 kg/d) to 1008 g/d (DMI 14
kg/d)
 Protein - NASEM 2001 model
Close-up cow and heifer
• ~13% CP (7.8% MP) will meet requirement
• Translates to 936 g/d (DMI 12 kg/d) to 1014 g/d (DMI 13
kg/d)
• Might not be optimum for heifers
• Model ignores MP for colostrum, mammary development,
and immune function (no data to model)
 Higher quality MP may improve health outcomes?

Prepartum diet

Disorder Low CP High CP - SBM Hi CP - Prolak

Retained placenta 4 6 1

n = 20

Underwood et al., 2022

 Amino acid supply – close-up cows
Predicted
Supply Mcal
Item or g/d
DE Non-Protein 28 Lys:Met = 3.44
Arg 57
His 27 Targets (P. French):
Ile 66 Lys = 90 g/d
Leu 96 Met = 31 g/d
Lys 86 Lys:Met = 2.9:1
Met 25
Phe 62 Would likely benefit
Thr 60 from rumen-protected
Trp 14 Met supplementation
Val 70
 Experimental design comparing the efficacy
of rumen-protected methyl donors

-21 d calving 30 d

Far-off Close Up Lactation

-50 -24 0 30
Treatments

CON: Control Methionine

2×2 Factorial
MET: Smartamine (Met; 0.08% of DM) arrangement no yes
CHO: ReaShure (Choline; 60 g/cow/d) no CON MET
Choline
MIX: Smartamine + ReaShure yes CHO MIX

(Zhou et al., 2015 JAM Orlando, FL, USA)

 Main effects on DMI prepartum

DMI CU DMI CU
Cho P=0.20
Met P=0.03
17 16 Day P<0.01
Day P<0.01
Cho*Day P=0.73
Met*Day P=0.98
16
15

15
14

14
kg/d

kg/d
13
13

12
12

Without MET 11
11 With MET Without CHO
With CHO

10 10
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

Day relative to calving Day relative to calving

Zhou et al., 2015

 Main effects on DMI postpartum

DMI LACT DMI LACT

Met P=0.02 Cho P=0.90

24 Day P<0.01 24 Day P<0.01
Met*Day P=0.60 Cho*Day P=0.53
22 22

20 20

18 18
kg/d

kg/d
16 16

14 14

Without MET
12 With MET Without CHO
12
With CHO

10 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Day relative to calving Day relative to calving

Zhou et al., 2015

 Met but not choline increased milk yield and
components
Met Choline P P
Variable
+ − + − Met Cho

Milk, kg 44.3 40.3 41.6 43.1 0.03 0.41

Fat, % 3.72 3.74 3.78 3.68 0.92 0.46

Protein, % 3.32 3.14 3.27 3.19 0.001 0.23

Fat, kg 1.67 1.53 1.59 1.61 0.04 0.79

Protein, kg 1.51 1.33 1.41 1.42 0.001 0.67

FCM, kg 44.8 40.7 42.3 43.2 0.001 0.54

Main effects shown; interactions of Met and Cho were not significant.
Zhou et al., 2016
 Specific minerals/vitamins for transition cows

• Negative DCAD, Ca, P, Mg for hypocalcemia

• Higher vitamin E based on preventing mastitis, RP, and
metritis
 1000 IU/d for dry cows and 2000 IU/d for prefresh cows (Holsteins)
• No other specific requirements
 Metabolic acidosis caused by negative
DCAD increases Ca excretion in urine
Dietary DCAD = 18.3 5.9 -7.4

Leno et al., 2017

 Effects of partial or full DCAD
Diet (DCAD)

Variable CON MED LOW SEM P

DCAD, mEq/100 g DM 18.3 5.9 -7.4

DMI, kg/d
wk -3 to -1 13.6 14.0 13.2 0.2 Q, 0.01

wk 1 to 3 20.2 20.9 21.3 0.5 L, 0.09

% of BW 2.88 2.98 3.07 0.06 L, 0.04

Milk, kg/d 40.8 42.4 43.9 1.0 L, 0.03

Q = quadratic effect, L = linear effect

Leno et al., 2017

Dietary concentrations (% of DM) required to meet the
known requirements for macrominerals
Mineral NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021 Recommended1
Ca 0.45 0.37 1.5 – 2.0
P 0.23 0.21 0.25
Mg 0.12 0.13 0.40
K 0.52 0.65 low as possible
Na 0.10 0.16 0.16
Cl 0.15 0.13 0.7 – 0.9
S 0.20 0.20 0.20 – 0.35

1 J. K. Drackley recommendation for full anionic program

Dietary concentrations (mg/kg of DM) required to meet
the known requirements for trace minerals
Mineral NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021 Recommended1
Co 0.11 0.20 0.24
Cu 13 19 22
I 0.4 0.54 0.65
Fe 13 14 17
Mn 18 41 50
Se 0.3 0.3 0.3
Zn 22 30 36

1 J. K. Drackley recommendation, includes 1.2X safety factor

 Dietary supply (IU/d) required to meet the known
requirements for vitamins
Vitamin NRC, 2001 NASEM, 2021 Recommended1

A 82,610 81,500 100,000

D 22,530 22,000 26,000

E 1202 2000 2000

1 J. K. Drackley recommendation
 No requirement established
• Cr
– Essentiality recognized but insufficient data to establish an
adequate intake
– Analytical challenges
• Choline
– Committee acknowledges response to supplementation during
transition but declined to establish a requirement
• Endogenous synthesis
• Variable results during lactation
drackley@[Link]
CALCIUM AND ENERGY BALANCE OF EARLY JERSEY COWS AND
THE EFFECT OF AN ORAL CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTATION IN
LACTATION PERFORMANCE

Paulo Menta
DVM, [Link], PhD student
 Agenda

• Serum Ca dynamics in postpartum cows

• Key differences between breeds

• Association of blood calcium concentration in the first 3

days after parturition and energy balance metabolites at
day 3 in milk with disease and production outcomes in
multiparous Jersey cows

• A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effect of an Oral

Calcium Bolus Supplementation Strategy in Postpartum
Jersey Cows on Mastitis, Culling, Milk Production, and
Reproductive Performance
 Background

3 weeks prepartum 21 days in milk

Challenges:
• Change of physiological state
• Abrupt nutritional change
• Social stressors
• Inflammatory-infectious process in the reproductive tract
• 70% of the disease
• Energy demands increase by about 300%
• Calcium requirements are increased around 65%
Bell, 1995; Darckely 1999
 Background

60 Calcium Requirement (g/d)

• 2-4 g of Ca in the plasma
50 pool
Average milk yield, kg

40

30 • Plasma pool must

turnover 10+ times for
20 colostrum production
10

0 • Adaptation requires
Fetal Development Colostrum Production coordination of several
(10kg) hormones and tissues
Background

Goff et al., 2002

Study #1
 Why is it important?

• Ca was associated with the risk of

metritis at 2, 3, and 4 DIM • ↓ milk production when assessed at
• Ca concentration was associated 4 DIM in multiparous cows
with the risk of metritis or • Assessments of SCH at the
displaced abomasum diagnosis individual cow level must take into
(or both) for 2nd parity animals at account the DIM of Ca concentration
2 DIM), and at 4 DIM for 3rd and measurement and parity of the cow,
greater lactations as the epidemiology of the disorder
• ↓ Ca concentration was was demonstrated to be highly
associated with ↑ milk production dependent on these variables
at 1 DIM in primiparous and
multiparous cows
 Why is it important?

• Jersey vs. Holstein

• Calcium demands (Cerbulis and Farrell, 1976)
• greater milk total ash content
• Calcium absorption
• Vitamin D receptors (Goff et al., 1995)
• Negative energy balance (Friggens et al., 2007; Olson et al., 2010)
• ↑ energy demands
• ↓ Glucose
• ↑ Lipolysis
• Energetic metabolism
• FFA
• BHB
 Why is it important?

• Differences between breeds can

influence the ability of
extrapolating results and disorder
classification performed in one
breed to the other

• West TX is the 2nd largest region

in concentration of Jersey cattle
in the U.S
• 64,251 cows (American Jersey Cattle
Association, 2017)
 Study #1

• Objetive
• Evaluate the associations of plasma total Ca measured at 1
through 3 DIM and FFA, BHB, and glucose measured at 3 DIM
with:

• the risk of multiparous Jersey cows being diagnosed with

early-lactation diseases and culling

• milk production in the first 9 wk of lactation

• the risk of pregnancy in the first 150 DIM

Cut points for SCH and appropriate DIM for SCH testing to
better assess this metabolic disorder in Jerseys would benefit
technicians in the field
 Material and Methods

• Prospective Cohort Study

• July – April/2018

• West Texas

• 380 purebred Jersey cows

• Data was extracted from the farm’s

DC305
 Material and Methods

Data collection regarding monthly milk yield, fertility and culling

Days pospartum

0 1 2 3 4 7 10 180

tCa tCa tCa

FFA
Metritis diagnosis
BHB
• Calving season (warm: cows
Glu
calving from July 19 to
September 22, 2018; cool:
calving from September 23 to
December 9, 2018)
Purebred
No oral Ca • Calving problem: Cows that
No twin suffered from dystocia,
DCC < 260 stillbirth or both
2 Lact
≥ Lact
 Material and Methods: Statistics

• Data modeling were developed in SAS (version 9.4)

• Multivariable Poisson regression models were built to evaluate the

association of the analytes with the risks of early lactation disease and
culling
• Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the association of the analytes
with milk production
• Cox Proportional hazards modeling were built to assess the risk of
pregnancy
• ROC curves were performed using MedCalc (version [Link])
• Metabolites were dichotomized if the AUC was significantly different than 0.5
• Dichotomizations were based on thresholds that maximized the Sn and Sp for
classification purposes
 Descriptive Statistics

Disorder n (%)

Stillbirth 14 (3.7)

Dystocia 11 (2.9)

Retained placenta 3 (0.8)

Left displaced abomasum 1 (0.3)

Metritis 100 (26.3)

Mastitis 46 (12.1)

Culling (sold/died) 36 (9.5)

 Descriptive Statistics

DIM

Plasma total Ca concentration 1 2 3

1 DIM in 2nd parity cows (n = 147)

r 1.00 0.65 0.08
P-value - <0.01 0.32

1 DIM in ≥3 parity cows (n = 233)

r 1.00 0.52 0.06
P-value - <0.01 0.39
Descriptive Statistics
 Risk of metritis

Variable Relative risk 95% CI P-value

Parity
2 ̶ ̶ ̶
≥3 ̶ ̶ 0.26

Calving season
Cool ̶ ̶ ̶
Warm 0.58 0.39 - 0.86 <0.01

Calving-related problem(s) 2.32 1.26 - 4.25 <0.01

Retained placenta 7.29 2.39 - 22.24 <0.01

FFA ≥0.43 mmol/L at 3 DIM 1.78 1.20 - 2.66 <0.01

 Risk of metritis

Variable Relative 95% CI P-value

risk
Intercept ̶ ̶ <0.01
• ↓ blood Ca concentrations impair innate immunity (Kimura et al., 2006; Martinez et al.,
Parity
2014)
2 ̶ ̶ ̶
• Parity dependency and temporality of Ca association (Neves et al., 2017)
≥3 ̶ ̶ 0.26
Calving season
• No correlation of Ca at 1 and 3 DIM was evidenced for our dataset
Cool ̶ ̶ ̶
• Holstein vs. Jersey
Warm 0.58 0.39 - 0.86 <0.01
Calving-related problem(s) 2.32 1.26 - 4.25 <0.01
• Consequence other than a risk factor for the disease

• ↑ FFA
Retained can adversely affect oxidative burst
placenta and the
7.29 2.39phagocytic
- 22.24 capacity
<0.01 of
PMNL (Scalia et al., 2006)
FFA ≥0.43 mmol/L at 3 DIM 1.78 1.20 - 2.66 <0.01
 Risk of culling

Variable Relative risk 95% CI P-value

Parity
2 ̶ ̶ ̶
3 4.36 2.02 - 9.43 <0.01

Body condition score

1 ̶ ̶ ̶
2 0.41 0.23 - 0.74 <0.01

3 0.30 0.12 - 0.72 <0.01

Glucose at 3 DIM 1.75 1.16 - 2.64 <0.01

BHB at 3 DIM 1.63 1.0 - 2.64 0.08

FFA at 3 DIM 2.18 1.03 - 4.60 0.05

Total Ca at 3 DIM ≤1.99 mmol/L 2.93 1.74 - 4.94 <0.01

 Risk of culling

Variable Relative risk 95% CI P-value

Literature is inconsistent
• Parity
2 • ↓ [Ca] associated with culling in the first 2 weeks
̶ postpartum
̶ (Seifi et
̶ al.,
3 2011; Roberts et al., 2012). 4.36 2.02 - 9.43 <0.01
• [Ca] concentration <2.00 mmol/L had increased risk of being culled in
Body condition score
the first 60 DIM (Venjakob et al. 2018)
1
• ↓ [Ca] within 12 h after parturition tendendof ̶ increased tCa ̶ ̶
concentration
2
and the risk of culling within 60 DIM (Neves0.41 0.23 - 0.74
et al., 2018) <0.01

3 0.30 0.12 - 0.72 <0.01

Glucose at 3 DIM
• Lipolysis before parturition is a known risk1.75
factor for1.16 - 2.64 (Chapinal
metritis <0.01

BHB atet3 al.,

DIM 2011; Giuliodori et al., 2013) 1.63 1.0 - 2.64 0.08
• ↑ metritic cows are more likely to be culled (Wittrock et al., 2011)
FFA at 3 •DIM↑ FFA associated with metritis and culling
2.18 1.03 - 4.60 0.05

Total Ca at 3 DIM ≤1.99 mmol/L 2.93 1.74 - 4.94 <0.01

 Milk Yield
1 DIM 2 DIM
Variable Estimate SE P-value Estimate SE P-value
Parity
2 Ref - - Ref - -
3 -0.10 0.64 0.88 0.19 0.64 0.76
BCS Score
1 Ref - - Ref - -
2 2.79 0.89 <0.01 2.81 0.91 <0.01
3 4.49 1.15 <0.01 4.32 1.17 <0.01

Calving season
Cool Ref - - Ref - -
Warm 1.22 0.63 0.05 1.23 0.66 0.06
Gestation length (d) 0.19 0.06 <0.01 0.20 0.06 <0.01

Metritis -0.45 0.69 0.51 -0.52 0.70 0.46

Mastitis -3.24 0.92 <0.01 -3.18 0.93 <0.01
Dichotomized total Ca variable - - <0.01 1.48 0.66 0.02
Weekly test*Dichotomized total - - 0.02 - - 0.35
Ca variable
 Milk Yield

tCa ≤1.84 mmol/L tCa >1.84 mmol/L

40
* * * *
*

35
Milk, kg

30
*
25

20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wk relative to calving
 Milk Yield

35 P = 0.02

Average milk yield, kg + 1.48 kg/d

32.5

30

27.5

25
≤2.04 mmol/L >2.04 mmol/L
Calcium at 2 DIM
 Milk Yield

Variable Estimate SE P-value

Parity
2 Ref
≥3 -0.24 0.63 0.70
BCS Score
1 Ref
2 2.38 0.90 <0.01
3 3.44 1.17 <0.01
Season
Cool Ref
Warm 1.30 0.62 0.04
Gestation length (d) 0.19 0.06 <0.01
Metritis -0.41 0.69 0.55
Mastitis -3.12 0.92 <0.01
FFA ≥0.37 mmol/L <0.01
Weekly milk test*FFA ≥0.37 mmol/L 0.01
Glucose ≤2.96 mmol/L 1.96 0.61 <0.01
 Milk Yield

FFA >0.54 mmol/L FFA ≤0.54 mmol/L

40
*
* * *

35
Milk, kg

30
*
25

20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wk relative to calving
 Milk Yield

35 P < 0.01
+ 1.96 kg/d

32.5
Average milk yield, kg

30

27.5

25
≤2.96 mmol/L >2.96 mmol/L
Glucose
Milk Yield
Discussion

McArt and Neves., 2020

 Conclusions

• Multiparous Jersey cows with lower [Ca] in the first 2 DIM and reduced glucose at
3 DIM were more likely to have increased milk production across the first 9 wk of
lactation

• Cows with increased concentration of FFA at 3 DIM had an overall higher milk
production; however, they were also more likely to develop metritis within 10 DIM

• Reproduction was not affected by time to cure in this dataset

• More studies evaluating the association of Ca and energy balance markers

during the transition period with lactation performance while including a greater
number of herds are needed to best characterize subclinical hypocalcemia and
hyperketonemia in Jersey cows
Study #2
 Introduction

• Cows develop clinical • Older cows are more susceptible

and subclinical • Greater colostrum production
hypocalcemia • Smaller number of vitamin D3 binding
• Sequestration of Ca into sites in the intestine
mammary gland

• Jersey cows are more

susceptible
• Greater [Ca] in
colostrum
• Fewer vitamin D3
receptor expression in
the intestine

Reinhardt et al. (2011).

 Introduction

• Acidogenic diets have not been

demonstrated to be as effective for
SCH prevention as for CH (Reinhardt et al.,
2011)

• Strategies to mitigate the potential

effects of SCH via postpartum oral Ca
supplementation are still widely
adopted

• In the U.S. for instance, 80% of the

large farms used some combination of
injectable, drench, or oral Ca as a
preventative strategy to postpartum
diseases (USDA, 2014)
 Introduction

• Benefits are incosistent • Parity

• High milk producers • Data limited for Jersey cows
• Lame cows

Oetzel and Miller, (2012); Valldecabres et al., (2018); Valldecabres and Silva-del-Rio, (2020)
Introduction

VS
 Objective

• Objetive
• Determine the effect of an oral Ca supplementation strategy applied to
multiparous Jersey cows on:
• health outcomes
• reproductive performance
• milk production

• Hypothesis
• Postpartum oral Ca supplementation would:
• decrease the odds of clinical diseases
• improve milk production
• reproductive performance
 Material and Methods

• Randomized clinical trial – CTRL and TRT

• July/2018 – April/2019
• West Texas
• 852 purebred Jersey cows
• Data was extracted from the farm’s
DC305
• Milk yield
• DIM at pregnancy
• Culling
• Mastitis incidence
• TRT: two doses of a commercial oral Ca
bolus (Bovikalc®, Boehringer Ingelheim
Vetmedica, Inc., St. Joseph, MO, USA)
• calcium chloride and calcium
sulfate (43 g of Ca per bolus);
• CTRL: No oral Ca supplementation
 Material and Methods

Data collection regarding health events monthly milk yield, fertility and culling

Days pospartum

0 1 2 3 4 7 10 180

TRT

Metritis diagnosis

1st bolus:
within 1h after
calving
Purebred
No oral Ca 2nd boluses:
No twin occurred
DCC < 260 around 21 h
2 Lact after calving
≥ Lact
 Mastitis within 60 DIM

Variable Estimate SE P-value

Postpartum Ca supplementation
Control Ref ̶ ̶
Treatment -0.72 0.39 0.06
Parity
2 Ref ̶ ̶
≥3 -0.15 0.30 0.62
Calving problem
No Ref ̶ ̶
Yes -1.36 0.73 0.06
Parity × Treatment 1.08 0.47 0.02
 Mastitis within 60 DIM

Parity ≥ 3 OR = 1.45; P = 0.49

Parity 2 OR = 0.49; P = 0.07

0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8

Odds Ratio
 Culling within 60 DIM

15

12
Culling rate (%)

9
P = 0.72
6

0
Oral Ca CTRL
 Reproductive Performance

Variable Estimate SE P-value HR

Postpartum Ca supplementation

Control Ref ̶ ̶
Treatment 0.04 0.10 0.67 1.04
Parity
2 Ref ̶ ̶
≥3 -0.01 0.10 0.91 0.99
Calving problem
No Ref ̶ ̶
Yes -0.37 0.26 0.16 0.69
 Milk yield

Variable Estimate SE P-value

Postpartum Ca supplementation
Control Ref ̶ ̶
Treatment 0.24 0.69 0.73
Parity
2 Ref ̶ ̶
≥3 0.50 0.41 0.22
Test number ̶ ̶ <0.01
Calving season
Warm Ref ̶ ̶
Cool -0.97 0.40 0.02
Gestation length (d) 0.15 0.04 <0.01
Body condition score
Thin Ref ̶ ̶
Normal 0.76 0.72 0.29
Over-conditioned 1.64 0.99 0.10
 Conclusions

• Prophylactic postpartum Ca supplementation to multiparous Jersey cows had

no effects on:
• culling
• milk yield
• Reproduction

• Second parity cows that were supplemented with oral Ca boluses tended to
have reduced odds of mastitis compared to non-supplemented cows

• Our data do not support blanket oral Ca supplementation in Jersey cows as

the effects were minimal to none; however, targeted oral Ca supplementation
for subpopulations of cows and at different times relative to parturition remain
to be investigated
 Acknowledgment

This work was funded by the Texas Animal Nutrition

Council via the 2018 competitive grant funding
[Link]@[Link]
CALCIUM AND ENERGY BALANCE OF EARLY JERSEY COWS AND
THE EFFECT OF AN ORAL CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTATION IN
LACTATION PERFORMANCE

Paulo Menta
DVM, [Link], PhD student
 Agenda

• Serum Ca dynamics in postpartum cows

• Key differences between breeds

• Association of blood calcium concentration in the first 3

days after parturition and energy balance metabolites at
day 3 in milk with disease and production outcomes in
multiparous Jersey cows

• A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effect of an Oral

Calcium Bolus Supplementation Strategy in Postpartum
Jersey Cows on Mastitis, Culling, Milk Production, and
Reproductive Performance
 Background

3 weeks prepartum 21 days in milk

Challenges:
• Change of physiological state
• Abrupt nutritional change
• Social stressors
• Inflammatory-infectious process in the reproductive tract
• 70% of the disease
• Energy demands increase by about 300%
• Calcium requirements are increased around 65%
Bell, 1995; Darckely 1999
 Background

60 Calcium Requirement (g/d)

• 2-4 g of Ca in the plasma
50 pool
Average milk yield, kg

40

30 • Plasma pool must

turnover 10+ times for
20 colostrum production
10

0 • Adaptation requires
Fetal Development Colostrum Production coordination of several
(10kg) hormones and tissues
Background

Goff et al., 2002

Study #1
 Why is it important?

• Ca was associated with the risk of

metritis at 2, 3, and 4 DIM • ↓ milk production when assessed at
• Ca concentration was associated 4 DIM in multiparous cows
with the risk of metritis or • Assessments of SCH at the
displaced abomasum diagnosis individual cow level must take into
(or both) for 2nd parity animals at account the DIM of Ca concentration
2 DIM), and at 4 DIM for 3rd and measurement and parity of the cow,
greater lactations as the epidemiology of the disorder
• ↓ Ca concentration was was demonstrated to be highly
associated with ↑ milk production dependent on these variables
at 1 DIM in primiparous and
multiparous cows
 Why is it important?

• Jersey vs. Holstein

• Calcium demands (Cerbulis and Farrell, 1976)
• greater milk total ash content
• Calcium absorption
• Vitamin D receptors (Goff et al., 1995)
• Negative energy balance (Friggens et al., 2007; Olson et al., 2010)
• ↑ energy demands
• ↓ Glucose
• ↑ Lipolysis
• Energetic metabolism
• FFA
• BHB
 Why is it important?

• Differences between breeds can

influence the ability of
extrapolating results and disorder
classification performed in one
breed to the other

• West TX is the 2nd largest region

in concentration of Jersey cattle
in the U.S
• 64,251 cows (American Jersey Cattle
Association, 2017)
 Study #1

• Objetive
• Evaluate the associations of plasma total Ca measured at 1
through 3 DIM and FFA, BHB, and glucose measured at 3 DIM
with:

• the risk of multiparous Jersey cows being diagnosed with

early-lactation diseases and culling

• milk production in the first 9 wk of lactation

• the risk of pregnancy in the first 150 DIM

Cut points for SCH and appropriate DIM for SCH testing to
better assess this metabolic disorder in Jerseys would benefit
technicians in the field
 Material and Methods

• Prospective Cohort Study

• July – April/2018

• West Texas

• 380 purebred Jersey cows

• Data was extracted from the farm’s

DC305
 Material and Methods

Data collection regarding monthly milk yield, fertility and culling

Days pospartum

0 1 2 3 4 7 10 180

tCa tCa tCa

FFA
Metritis diagnosis
BHB
• Calving season (warm: cows
Glu
calving from July 19 to
September 22, 2018; cool:
calving from September 23 to
December 9, 2018)
Purebred
No oral Ca • Calving problem: Cows that
No twin suffered from dystocia,
DCC < 260 stillbirth or both
2 Lact
≥ Lact
 Material and Methods: Statistics

• Data modeling were developed in SAS (version 9.4)

• Multivariable Poisson regression models were built to evaluate the

association of the analytes with the risks of early lactation disease and
culling
• Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the association of the analytes
with milk production
• Cox Proportional hazards modeling were built to assess the risk of
pregnancy
• ROC curves were performed using MedCalc (version [Link])
• Metabolites were dichotomized if the AUC was significantly different than 0.5
• Dichotomizations were based on thresholds that maximized the Sn and Sp for
classification purposes
 Descriptive Statistics

Disorder n (%)

Stillbirth 14 (3.7)

Dystocia 11 (2.9)

Retained placenta 3 (0.8)

Left displaced abomasum 1 (0.3)

Metritis 100 (26.3)

Mastitis 46 (12.1)

Culling (sold/died) 36 (9.5)

 Descriptive Statistics

DIM

Plasma total Ca concentration 1 2 3

1 DIM in 2nd parity cows (n = 147)

r 1.00 0.65 0.08
P-value - <0.01 0.32

1 DIM in ≥3 parity cows (n = 233)

r 1.00 0.52 0.06
P-value - <0.01 0.39
Descriptive Statistics
 Risk of metritis

Variable Relative risk 95% CI P-value

Parity
2 ̶ ̶ ̶
≥3 ̶ ̶ 0.26

Calving season
Cool ̶ ̶ ̶
Warm 0.58 0.39 - 0.86 <0.01

Calving-related problem(s) 2.32 1.26 - 4.25 <0.01

Retained placenta 7.29 2.39 - 22.24 <0.01

FFA ≥0.43 mmol/L at 3 DIM 1.78 1.20 - 2.66 <0.01

 Risk of metritis

Variable Relative 95% CI P-value

risk
Intercept ̶ ̶ <0.01
• ↓ blood Ca concentrations impair innate immunity (Kimura et al., 2006; Martinez et al.,
Parity
2014)
2 ̶ ̶ ̶
• Parity dependency and temporality of Ca association (Neves et al., 2017)
≥3 ̶ ̶ 0.26
Calving season
• No correlation of Ca at 1 and 3 DIM was evidenced for our dataset
Cool ̶ ̶ ̶
• Holstein vs. Jersey
Warm 0.58 0.39 - 0.86 <0.01
Calving-related problem(s) 2.32 1.26 - 4.25 <0.01
• Consequence other than a risk factor for the disease

• ↑ FFA
Retained can adversely affect oxidative burst
placenta and the
7.29 2.39phagocytic
- 22.24 capacity
<0.01 of
PMNL (Scalia et al., 2006)
FFA ≥0.43 mmol/L at 3 DIM 1.78 1.20 - 2.66 <0.01
 Risk of culling

Variable Relative risk 95% CI P-value

Parity
2 ̶ ̶ ̶
3 4.36 2.02 - 9.43 <0.01

Body condition score

1 ̶ ̶ ̶
2 0.41 0.23 - 0.74 <0.01

3 0.30 0.12 - 0.72 <0.01

Glucose at 3 DIM 1.75 1.16 - 2.64 <0.01

BHB at 3 DIM 1.63 1.0 - 2.64 0.08

FFA at 3 DIM 2.18 1.03 - 4.60 0.05

Total Ca at 3 DIM ≤1.99 mmol/L 2.93 1.74 - 4.94 <0.01

 Risk of culling

Variable Relative risk 95% CI P-value

Literature is inconsistent
• Parity
2 • ↓ [Ca] associated with culling in the first 2 weeks
̶ postpartum
̶ (Seifi et
̶ al.,
3 2011; Roberts et al., 2012). 4.36 2.02 - 9.43 <0.01
• [Ca] concentration <2.00 mmol/L had increased risk of being culled in
Body condition score
the first 60 DIM (Venjakob et al. 2018)
1
• ↓ [Ca] within 12 h after parturition tendendof ̶ increased tCa ̶ ̶
concentration
2
and the risk of culling within 60 DIM (Neves0.41 0.23 - 0.74
et al., 2018) <0.01

3 0.30 0.12 - 0.72 <0.01

Glucose at 3 DIM
• Lipolysis before parturition is a known risk1.75
factor for1.16 - 2.64 (Chapinal
metritis <0.01

BHB atet3 al.,

DIM 2011; Giuliodori et al., 2013) 1.63 1.0 - 2.64 0.08
• ↑ metritic cows are more likely to be culled (Wittrock et al., 2011)
FFA at 3 •DIM↑ FFA associated with metritis and culling
2.18 1.03 - 4.60 0.05

Total Ca at 3 DIM ≤1.99 mmol/L 2.93 1.74 - 4.94 <0.01

 Milk Yield
1 DIM 2 DIM
Variable Estimate SE P-value Estimate SE P-value
Parity
2 Ref - - Ref - -
3 -0.10 0.64 0.88 0.19 0.64 0.76
BCS Score
1 Ref - - Ref - -
2 2.79 0.89 <0.01 2.81 0.91 <0.01
3 4.49 1.15 <0.01 4.32 1.17 <0.01

Calving season
Cool Ref - - Ref - -
Warm 1.22 0.63 0.05 1.23 0.66 0.06
Gestation length (d) 0.19 0.06 <0.01 0.20 0.06 <0.01

Metritis -0.45 0.69 0.51 -0.52 0.70 0.46

Mastitis -3.24 0.92 <0.01 -3.18 0.93 <0.01
Dichotomized total Ca variable - - <0.01 1.48 0.66 0.02
Weekly test*Dichotomized total - - 0.02 - - 0.35
Ca variable
 Milk Yield

tCa ≤1.84 mmol/L tCa >1.84 mmol/L

40
* * * *
*

35
Milk, kg

30
*
25

20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wk relative to calving
 Milk Yield

35 P = 0.02

Average milk yield, kg + 1.48 kg/d

32.5

30

27.5

25
≤2.04 mmol/L >2.04 mmol/L
Calcium at 2 DIM
 Milk Yield

Variable Estimate SE P-value

Parity
2 Ref
≥3 -0.24 0.63 0.70
BCS Score
1 Ref
2 2.38 0.90 <0.01
3 3.44 1.17 <0.01
Season
Cool Ref
Warm 1.30 0.62 0.04
Gestation length (d) 0.19 0.06 <0.01
Metritis -0.41 0.69 0.55
Mastitis -3.12 0.92 <0.01
FFA ≥0.37 mmol/L <0.01
Weekly milk test*FFA ≥0.37 mmol/L 0.01
Glucose ≤2.96 mmol/L 1.96 0.61 <0.01
 Milk Yield

FFA >0.54 mmol/L FFA ≤0.54 mmol/L

40
*
* * *

35
Milk, kg

30
*
25

20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wk relative to calving
 Milk Yield

35 P < 0.01
+ 1.96 kg/d

32.5
Average milk yield, kg

30

27.5

25
≤2.96 mmol/L >2.96 mmol/L
Glucose
Milk Yield
Discussion

McArt and Neves., 2020

 Conclusions

• Multiparous Jersey cows with lower [Ca] in the first 2 DIM and reduced glucose at
3 DIM were more likely to have increased milk production across the first 9 wk of
lactation

• Cows with increased concentration of FFA at 3 DIM had an overall higher milk
production; however, they were also more likely to develop metritis within 10 DIM

• Reproduction was not affected by time to cure in this dataset

• More studies evaluating the association of Ca and energy balance markers

during the transition period with lactation performance while including a greater
number of herds are needed to best characterize subclinical hypocalcemia and
hyperketonemia in Jersey cows
Study #2
 Introduction

• Cows develop clinical • Older cows are more susceptible

and subclinical • Greater colostrum production
hypocalcemia • Smaller number of vitamin D3 binding
• Sequestration of Ca into sites in the intestine
mammary gland

• Jersey cows are more

susceptible
• Greater [Ca] in
colostrum
• Fewer vitamin D3
receptor expression in
the intestine

Reinhardt et al. (2011).

 Introduction

• Acidogenic diets have not been

demonstrated to be as effective for
SCH prevention as for CH (Reinhardt et al.,
2011)

• Strategies to mitigate the potential

effects of SCH via postpartum oral Ca
supplementation are still widely
adopted

• In the U.S. for instance, 80% of the

large farms used some combination of
injectable, drench, or oral Ca as a
preventative strategy to postpartum
diseases (USDA, 2014)
 Introduction

• Benefits are incosistent • Parity

• High milk producers • Data limited for Jersey cows
• Lame cows

Oetzel and Miller, (2012); Valldecabres et al., (2018); Valldecabres and Silva-del-Rio, (2020)
Introduction

VS
 Objective

• Objetive
• Determine the effect of an oral Ca supplementation strategy applied to
multiparous Jersey cows on:
• health outcomes
• reproductive performance
• milk production

• Hypothesis
• Postpartum oral Ca supplementation would:
• decrease the odds of clinical diseases
• improve milk production
• reproductive performance
 Material and Methods

• Randomized clinical trial – CTRL and TRT

• July/2018 – April/2019
• West Texas
• 852 purebred Jersey cows
• Data was extracted from the farm’s
DC305
• Milk yield
• DIM at pregnancy
• Culling
• Mastitis incidence
• TRT: two doses of a commercial oral Ca
bolus (Bovikalc®, Boehringer Ingelheim
Vetmedica, Inc., St. Joseph, MO, USA)
• calcium chloride and calcium
sulfate (43 g of Ca per bolus);
• CTRL: No oral Ca supplementation
 Material and Methods

Data collection regarding health events monthly milk yield, fertility and culling

Days pospartum

0 1 2 3 4 7 10 180

TRT

Metritis diagnosis

1st bolus:
within 1h after
calving
Purebred
No oral Ca 2nd boluses:
No twin occurred
DCC < 260 around 21 h
2 Lact after calving
≥ Lact
 Mastitis within 60 DIM

Variable Estimate SE P-value

Postpartum Ca supplementation
Control Ref ̶ ̶
Treatment -0.72 0.39 0.06
Parity
2 Ref ̶ ̶
≥3 -0.15 0.30 0.62
Calving problem
No Ref ̶ ̶
Yes -1.36 0.73 0.06
Parity × Treatment 1.08 0.47 0.02
 Mastitis within 60 DIM

Parity ≥ 3 OR = 1.45; P = 0.49

Parity 2 OR = 0.49; P = 0.07

0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8

Odds Ratio
 Culling within 60 DIM

15

12
Culling rate (%)

9
P = 0.72
6

0
Oral Ca CTRL
 Reproductive Performance

Variable Estimate SE P-value HR

Postpartum Ca supplementation

Control Ref ̶ ̶
Treatment 0.04 0.10 0.67 1.04
Parity
2 Ref ̶ ̶
≥3 -0.01 0.10 0.91 0.99
Calving problem
No Ref ̶ ̶
Yes -0.37 0.26 0.16 0.69
 Milk yield

Variable Estimate SE P-value

Postpartum Ca supplementation
Control Ref ̶ ̶
Treatment 0.24 0.69 0.73
Parity
2 Ref ̶ ̶
≥3 0.50 0.41 0.22
Test number ̶ ̶ <0.01
Calving season
Warm Ref ̶ ̶
Cool -0.97 0.40 0.02
Gestation length (d) 0.15 0.04 <0.01
Body condition score
Thin Ref ̶ ̶
Normal 0.76 0.72 0.29
Over-conditioned 1.64 0.99 0.10
 Conclusions

• Prophylactic postpartum Ca supplementation to multiparous Jersey cows had

no effects on:
• culling
• milk yield
• Reproduction

• Second parity cows that were supplemented with oral Ca boluses tended to
have reduced odds of mastitis compared to non-supplemented cows

• Our data do not support blanket oral Ca supplementation in Jersey cows as

the effects were minimal to none; however, targeted oral Ca supplementation
for subpopulations of cows and at different times relative to parturition remain
to be investigated
 Acknowledgment

This work was funded by the Texas Animal Nutrition

Council via the 2018 competitive grant funding
[Link]@[Link]
 Feeding and Management of Beef on Dairy Calves for Optimal Performance
Current concepts in calf and heifer feeding and the NASEM requirements
James K. Drackley
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
drackley@[Link]

While data are beginning to accumulate about the growth and nutritional needs of beef-
on-dairy calves, at present we know very little specific information about their nutritional
requirements. We can use the NASEM 2021 calf chapter to provide background on which to
assess predicted performance and factors affecting growth.
Beef feeders report differences of growth between beef-on-dairy calves and either
straight-bred beef calves or Holstein calves, and a greater occurrence of liver abscesses. We do
not know whether these are effects of genetics or the generally different management between
beef calves and dairy calves. Male dairy calves are often colostrum deprived and are often
transported in the first few days of life, in contrast to beef calves. Dairy calves are fed limited
amounts of milk or milk replacer, whereas beef calves feed to appetite. Dairy calves are weaned
at 4 to 8 wk, whereas even “early weaned” beef calves receive milk for at least 80 days. Dairy
calves are weaned on to a high-energy starter feed, while beef calves generally consume grass
and have a longer time for rumen development before weaning.
The NASEM 2021 calf chapter is an extensive revision over the NRC 2001.
Requirements are based on empty body weight calculations, which removes the influence of
varying amounts of gut fill. New equations were developed to predict starter intake, both in
temperate conditions and in hot climates. The energy requirements have been extensively
revised, using data from Holstein and Jersey calves that were slaughtered to determine body
composition and the composition of empty body gain. Feed energy values are calculated
differently. A new metabolizable protein system was adopted. Mineral requirements (or adequate
intakes) are calculated using a factorial approach where possible. Requirements for vitamins D
and E have been increased. The text discussion of various nutritional and management topics is
vastly expanded.
Although data from beef-on-dairy calves are not available currently, there is every reason
to expect that the new NASEM 2021 model will do a reasonable job of predicting growth and
body composition of such calves up to 220 – 250 lb body weight. As published data accumulate,
there will be an opportunity to more rigorously evaluate the NASEM model for beef-on-dairy
calves.
 Calf Nutrition Program for Long-
Term Health

Michael A. Ballou, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair
Department of Veterinary Sciences
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
[Link]@[Link]
(806) 543-5653
Topics to be covered

 Why do pre-weaned calves get sick?

 Development of gastrointestinal immunity

 Why do post-weaned calves get sick?

 Development of active immunity

 Nutrition and immunity of calves

 Reduce interaction of potential pathogens with calf
 Stimulate gastrointestinal immunity
 Stimulate adaptive immune development
Why do so many calves get sick?

• Risk of mortality greatly decreases after the

first few weeks of life
• What changed in the calf during this period?
Gastrointestinal Maturation

• Some components of the GI immune system

develop after birth
• Catch-22 Situation
• Passive absorption of macromolecules but increases risk for
translocation of microorganisms
• Ideal situation
• Absorb adequate antibodies
• No absorption of microorganisms
• Rapid maturation of the GI tract
Gastrointestinal Maturation

• Many components to the GI immune system

• Physical barrier
• Chemical barrier
• Immunological barrier
• Microbial barrier
Strategies to improve immunity

• What role can nutrition play in reducing enteric

disease?
Strategies to improve immunity
 Putative nutrition supplements added to milk
replacer and/or calf starter
 Post-day 1 colostrum
 Bovine serum/plasma proteins
 Yeast cell walls
• Whole cell wall extract
• MOS and β-glucan fractions
 Live yeast
 Yeast cultures
 Direct fed microbials
 Butyric acid
 Hyper immunized egg proteins
 Adsorbents
Strategies to improve immunity

General Mechanisms of Action

• Competitive inhibition
• Binding/Adsorption
• Antimicrobial factors
• Low pH, Bacteriocins, Organic Acids
• Stimulate other mucosal immune defenses
• Epithelial growth, mucin production, host defense
peptides, secretory IgA, T regs
• Alter systemic immune defenses
Colostrum

 Colostrum – Non-Immunoglobulin
Post-Day 1 Colostrum

Post Day 1
Colostrum

• 64 g of IgG per day

• Low Mortality - 2/202 calves died
• $0.20 - $0.30 / g IgG
Chamorro et al., 2017
Post-Day 1 Colostrum

Post Day 1
Colostrum

Chamorro et al., 2017

Post-Day 1 Colostrum

Post Day 1
Colostrum

• 10 g of IgG per day

• $0.20 - $0.30 / g IgG Berge et al., 2009
Post-Day 1 Colostrum
Post Day 1
• Mortality and Diarrhea
Colostrum

Berge et al., 2009

Post-Day 1 Colostrum

Post Day 1
Colostrum
Post-Day 1 Colostrum

Post Day 1
Colostrum
Post-Day 1 Colostrum

Post Day 1
Colostrum

~20g/L IgG
Plasma

• Spray Dried Plasma

• Fed a plasma-based colostrum supplement
• 454 in total volume of 2L first feeding in calf ranch

P=0.939

Langenkamp & Ballou (ongoing)

Plasma

• Spray Dried Plasma

• Approximately 22.2% IgG

Nollet et al. (1999)

Yeast cell wall fractions

 Yeast cell wall (MOS)

 Whole yeast cell wall – insoluble cell wall is extracted
from a culture of yeast.
• Polysaccharides (30 -60%) – β-Glucan and Mannan Polymers. Yeast cell
wall contains typically between 5 to 30% of each.
• Proteins (30%) – Most of the protein is linked to the Mannan Polymers
Yeast cell wall fractions
Yeast cell wall fractions
Direct fed microbials

 Direct fed microbials

 Probiotics – are live microorganisms that are thought to be
beneficial to the host organism
• Include lactobacillus sp, bifidobacterium sp, saccharomyces sp,
enterococcus, bacillus sp
Direct fed microbials
Direct fed microbials
Materials and Methods
 Challenged with log-growth Salmonella enterica in morning
milk replacer
 BW collected on d 0, 7, 14, and 21
 Blood collected on d 0, 7, 10, 14, and 21
 Histology d 21
• Duodenum and Ileum
Direct fed microbials
Results
 Probiotic supplemented calves had reduced systemic
inflammation throughout the entire study period
Serum Haptoglobin
400

350 b b

300
Serum haptoglobin, mg/L

250
a

200

150

100

50

0
Pro + Salm Control Control + Salm
Direct fed microbials

Villus height : Crypt depth

2.75
A

2.25

B
1.75 a
a B
Ratio

1.25

b
0.75

0.25
Pro + Salmonella Control Control + Salmonella
Duodenum Ileum
Adsorbents
Adsorbents

Davis et al. (ongoing)

Take Home Messages / Discussion
Points
• Many holes in G.I. immune system and
undergoing rapid maturation
• Many interactions among host, pathogens, and
environment
• Nutrition attractive approach
• Primary strategies to improve enteric
immunity
• Reduce interaction of potential pathogen with calf
• Improve G.I. immune system maturation
Combination Treatment
• Control calves fed 22-20 Component, Non-Med
• Skim, 7-60 (or Liquid Fat), 99% Lactose
• IG supplemented with 45 g/calf/day
• 21 days then 6 g/calf/day PROVIDA VTM
• IG = Plasma, PowerGuard, EXCELL-M, Whey, DFM, VTM, Lys/Met
• n=60/treatment; ~75% FPT
PROVIDA
Total Calf IG P=0.001

Langenkamp and Ballou, ongoing

Respiratory Disease
Quantity of milk solids

 30 Holstein bull calves fed either LOW or

HIGH and weaned at 54 d of age
 Challenged with 108 PFU/nostril with bovine
herpesvirus-1 at 81 d of age
 Challenged with 106,107, or 108 CFU
Mannheimia haemolytica at 84 d
 Observation period through 94 d
 4/15 Low calves died consistent with respiratory disease
• 1, 2, and 1 challenged with 106, 107 & 108, respectively
 0/15 High calves died
Quantity of milk solids
800
Serum haptoglobin, mg/L

700
P=0.032
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
HIGH LOW
Quantity of milk solids

 BHV-1 Titers: Prior to Challenge

Quantity of milk solids

 BHV-1 Titers: 13 days Post-Challenge

Plane of Nutrition: P=0.011

Quantity of milk solids

 TAKE HOME
 Data indicate that post-weaned health was
improved among calves that were previously fed
a higher plane of milk replacer
 Was it due to an improved vaccination response
during the pre-weaned period?
 Data indicate that early life performance can
influence response to respiratory challenge.