Managing metabolism and immune function

of transition cows

Thomas R. Overton, Ph.D.

Professor of Dairy Management
Director, PRO-DAIRY program
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY

Transition period goals

• High milk production
• Maintain/minimize loss of BCS
• Low incidence of metabolic disorders
• Minimize loss of immunocompetence
• Control/decrease days to first ovulation and
maintain/enhance fertility
• Low stillborn rate and healthy calves

• Our high performing dairies achieve ALL of these

1
 We’ve learned and implemented a lot in the
last 10 to 15 years
• Nutritional strategies
– DCAD diets
– Controlled energy diets
– Increasing MP supply prepartum and balancing AA
– Fresh cow diets?

• Importance of nonnutritional factors

– Stocking density
– Grouping strategies/moves
– Segregating cows and heifers during transition period
– Heat abatement

• Enhanced on-farm monitoring (hyperketonemia)

• Yet still much opportunity out there!!

Shift in mindset from the transition cow as a

disease opportunity to the transition cow as a
production and reproduction opportunity!!!

2
 Physiological changes during the transition
period and early lactation in dairy cows
• Tremendously increased nutrient and energy demands to
support milk production regulated by homeorhetic
adaptations (Bauman and Currie, 1980; Bell, 1995)

• Period of reduced immunological capacity during the

periparturient period (Goff and Horst, 1997)

• Increased production of reactive oxygen species during the

periparturient period (Sordillo and Aiken, 2009)

These systems are not independent of

one another

Immune
system

Hammon et al., 2006; Ranjan et al., 2005;

Galvão et al., 2010 Sordillo et al., 2007

Metabolism Oxidative
Status

Castillo et al., 2005;

Bernabucci et al., 2005

3
 ** “Delicate balance” ** important within and
among these systems
• Homeorhetic adaptations in energy metabolism that are important for the
onset of copious milk production result in negative EB; however,
excessive NEB is problematic
– Bell, 1995; Ospina et al., 2010a,b,c

• Immune system must maintain balance between sufficient activity

needed to eliminate the insult yet control the response to avoid
bystander damage to host tissues
– Sordillo et al., 2009

• Production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) critical for

immunocompetence yet production of ROS in excess of antioxidant
defense mechanisms results in oxidative stress
– Spears and Weiss, 2008

** Sordillo et al., 2009

Periparturient immunosuppression
• Decreased sensitivity and responsiveness of immune
system that makes the cow more susceptible to infection
– ~3 weeks either side of calving
• Mallard et al., 1998

• Leukocytes functionally compromised and

hyporesponsive to pathogens; however, cytokine
secretion hyperresponds when activated
– Sordillo et al. 1995

4
 Effect of stage of lactation on bovine
neutrophil total ROS production

Revelo and Waldron, 2010

Interactions of nutrition and

metabolism with immune function
• Energy metabolism
• Specific metabolites
– NEFA
– Ketone bodies
• Protein/AA
• Calcium
• Vitamin E and Se
• Other trace elements

5
 Plasma NEFA and PMN Function

(Hammon et al., 2006)

Cows that go on to develop cytological endometritis (CE) are in more

negative energy balance during the first three weeks postcalving. From
Yasui et al., 2014.

6
 Dry matter intake for cows that developed metritis in early
lactation. From Huzzey et al., 2007.

Mean (±SE) haptoglobin concentration of healthy (n = 23), mildly

metritic (n = 32), and severely metritic (n = 12) cows during
the period around calving (From Huzzey et al., 2009)

7
Haptoglobin & Subsequent Milk Yield (~60 DIM)

- 2500 lbs

Cutpoint: >1.1 g/L

% Cows Above
Cutpoint wk -3 wk -2 wk -1 wk +1

Primiparous 4.9 7.7 6.0 39.0

Multiparous 3.0 4.8 3.0 27.4
Huzzey et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95(E. Suppl. 1):705.

Haptoglobin and Reproduction

Heifers sampled
1 wk after calving
% Not Pregnant

Hp > 1.3 g/L

42% lower rate of
conception (P = 0.02)
Hp ≤ 1.3 g/L

Days to Pregnancy
• Heifers > 0.4 g/L Pre-partum - 41% lower rate of conception (P = 0.05)
• Among Cows Hp not associated with reproductive performance
Huzzey et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95(E. Suppl. 1):705.

8
 Key components of transition cow
management
• Nutritional management
– Tight control of macrominerals in diet fed to cows as they
approach calving
– Controlling energy intakes both in far-off and close-up
groups
– Ensure cows consume diet as formulated for maximum
intake
• Feeding management is critical
• Minimize sorting
– Focus on ration fermentability during the fresh period

• Nonnutritional management
– Minimize stressors and potential impact on physiology and
variation in DMI

• Put cow- and herd-level monitoring systems in place

to help identify need for management changes

Major strategies for application of DCAD for close-up dry cows

• Focus on feeding low K (and Na) forages and feeds to close-up
dry cows
• Calculated DCAD ~ +10 mEq/100 g of DM
• Urine pH ~ 8.3 to 8.5

• Feeding low K forages along with partial use of anionic

supplement in close-up ration or one-group dry cow ration
• Calculated DCAD ~ 0 mEq/100 g of DM
• Urine pH ~ 7.5

• Feeding low K forages along with full use of anionic supplement

in close-up ration or one-group dry cow ration
• Calculated DCAD ~ -10 to -15 mEq/100 g of DM
• Urine pH ~ 5.5 to 6.0 – need to monitor weekly and adjust DCAD supplementation if
out of range
• Need to also supplement Mg (dietary target ~ 0.45%) during
close-up
• Recommend supplementing Ca (0.9 to 1.0% if low K only; 1.4 to
1.5% if full anionic diet)

9
 U.S. trends in last 6 to 8 years
• Largely abandoned “steam up” concept advocated by 2001
Dairy NRC
• Controlled energy strategies for dry cows during both far-
off and close-up periods (Drackley, 2007)
– 0.59 to 0.62 Mcal/lb (1.30 to 1.36 Mcal/kg of NEL)
– 12 to 16% starch
– 40 to 50% forage NDF
• Appropriate for multiparous cows
• Too low energy/too bulky for primiparous cows?
• MP supply?? (RUP supplementation even more important)
• Diets need to deliver 15 to 18 Mcal/d of NEL (110 to 120%
of ME requirements) during both far-off and close-up dry
periods

Key components of transition cow

management
• Nutritional management
– Tight control of macrominerals in diet fed to cows as they
approach calving
– Controlling energy intakes both in far-off and close-up
groups
– Ensure cows consume diet as formulated for maximum
intake
• Feeding management is critical
• Minimize sorting
– Focus on ration fermentability during the fresh period

• Nonnutritional management
– Minimize stressors and potential impact on physiology and
variation in DMI

• Put cow- and herd-level monitoring systems in place

to help identify need for management changes

10
 Potential management/facility related
stressors for transition cows
• Overcrowding (increased stocking density)

• Commingling of cows and heifers

• Excessive number of pen moves (group

changes)

• Heat stress

• Overall cow comfort/hygiene

Stressors for transition cows

• Decrease dry matter intake and milk
• Increase body fat mobilization and wasting of
muscle tissue
• Divert nutrients from milk to stress
response/immune system

• Potential mechanism
– Release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF, IL-
1, IL-6) and stress hormones (glucocorticoids,
epinephrine, cortisol)

Drackley et al., 2005

11
 Stocking density
• Most attention by far

• Current recommendations (e.g., 0.75 m of

feedbunk space per cow; 80% of headlocks)
based upon observational work rather than
randomized trials

• Observational studies have limited ability to

determine optimal stocking density and
relationships with other factors

Crowding in Close-up Pen

Decreases Milk Production
• For each 10% increase in
close-up stocking density
• Primiparous and above 80%, there was a
multiparous cows 0.73 kg/d decrease in
grouped together milk!
– 1600 cow facility, 2-row
pens
• Primiparous cows
Milk, kg/d

– 2.95 kg/d increase in

milk (1st 83 DIM) when
stocked at 80 vs. 120%
of stalls
80 90 100 110 120
Stocking Density in Close-up Pen, %
Cook et al., 2004

12
 Commingling primiparous and
multiparous cows
• Even fewer data than for stocking density

• Ospina et al. (2009) results suggest major opportunity in

NE herds
– Elevated NEFA in 45% of heifers sampled prepartum

• Higher responses of cortisol to ACTH challenge in

primiparous compared to multiparous cows following
introduction to a commingled environment
– Gonzalez et al., 2003

Feeding Behavior of Heifers vs. Cows

Activity Heifers Cows

Prepartum total daily
213 187
feeding time, min/d
Prepartum meal duration,
27.2 24.2
min/d
Prepartum feeding rate, g
66.6 95.1
DM/min
Postpartum feeding rate,
78.8 106.7
g DM/min

Heifers need more time for access to feed; eat more slowly than cows

DeGroot and French, 2004

13
 Crowding in Close-up Pen Decreases
Milk Production (in some cows)
• For each 10% increase in
• Primiparous and close-up stocking density
multiparous cows above 80%, there was a
grouped together 0.73 kg/d decrease in
milk!
– 1600 cow facility, 2-row
pens
• Primiparous cows

Milk, kg/d
– 2.95 kg/d increase in
milk (1st 83 DIM) when
stocked at 80 vs. 120%
of stalls
80 90 100 110 120
Stocking Density in Close-up Pen, %

Cook et al., 2004

Streamline
approaches to
grouping
management of
transition cows
(Cook and
Nordlund, 2004)

14
 Time Spent in Maternity Pen
<3 d ≥3d ∆
Herd 1 (4.5 d in pen)
Calvings 112 182
Culled by 60 d, % 3.6 9.3 2.6x
Herd 2 (5.9 d in pen)
Calvings 34 129
Culled by 85 d, % 2.9 9.3 3.1x
Subclinical ketosis, % 6.9 16.0 2.3x
Displaced abomasum, % 2.9 5.4 1.9x

Oetzel, 2003

Heat stress abatement during dry period

• Israeli study on evaporative cooling during entire dry period
(Wolfenstein et al., 1988)
– 24 C at 0700 h and 31 C at 1400 h
– Cooled cows
• Rectal temperatures 0.5 C lower than controls
• Milk yield increased 3.6 kg/d during first 150 d

• Avendano-Reyes et al. (2006)

– Study 1 – soaking cows without fans not effective in cooling
– Study 2 – evaporative cooling for entire dry period increased milk
yield (+ 2.5 kg/d) and milk fat (2.97 vs. 3.27%)

15
 Cooling during the entire dry period increases subsequent
milk production (differences in kg/d above bars)

+ 3.6 + 1.9
+ 5.2

+ 7.5 + 2.3 + 5.0 + 6.3

+ 1.2 + 2.6

Tao and Dahl. 2013. J. Dairy Sci 96 :4079–4093

Heat stress during the prepartum period

decreases calf birth weight
Heat-stressed Control % reduction Reference
36.6* 39.7 8 Collier et al. (1982b)

40.6* 43.2 8 Wolfsen et al. (1988)

33.7† 37.9 11 Avendano-Reyes et al. (2006)

40.8* 43.6 6 Adim et al. (2009)

31.0* 44.0 30 Do Amara et al. (2009)

39.5* 44.5 11 Do Amara et al. (2011)

41.6* 46.5 11 Tao et al. (2011)

36.5* 42.5 14 Tao et al. (2012b)

Tao and Dahl. 2013. J. Dairy Sci 96 :4079–4093

16
 Key components of transition cow
management
• Nutritional management
– Tight control of macrominerals in diet fed to cows as they
approach calving
– Controlling energy intakes both in far-off and close-up
groups
– Ensure cows consume diet as formulated for maximum
intake
• Feeding management is critical
• Minimize sorting
– Focus on ration fermentability during the fresh period

• Nonnutritional management
– Minimize stressors and potential impact on physiology and
variation in DMI

• Put cow- and herd-level monitoring systems in place

to help identify need for management changes

Types of monitoring
• Cow-level
– Seeking to make a diagnosis/treatment decision on
an individual animal

• Herd-level
– Periodic (e.g., weekly) evaluation of a representative
sample of cows in a sampling window of interest
– Using as a barometer of the herd
– Large epidemiological studies involving many herds
have given us the ability to make inferences relative
to associations of analytes with herd-level outcomes

17
 Challenges with assessing herd-level metabolism and
stress biology-related opportunities in transition cows
• Most of dairy industry works on averages

• Challenges related to energy/grouping mgt/nonnutritional factors cause

increases in variation in DMI/performance/metabolism
– Almost impossible to detect some of these on farms

• Potential tools for use in monitoring variation in transition cow management

– Calcium (getting renewed attention)
– NEFA (best marker for negative energy balance)
– BHBA (“gold standard” blood ketone)
– Haptoglobin (acute-phase response/systemic inflammation)
– Fecal cortisol metabolites? (likely research tool rather than herd use)
– Urine pH – (feeding management in herds feeding DCAD diets)
– Rumination monitors? – other electronic monitoring?
– Variation in early lactation milk yield / Transition Cow Index (TCI)

Herd-level impacts of elevated NEFA/BHB

Metabolite level Herd Associated with:
Alarm
PRE-Partum 15% +3.6% Disease incidence
NEFA > 0.3 mEq/L -1.2% Pregnancy rate
- 529 lbs ME305 milk (both heifers
and cows)
POST-Partum 15% +1.7% Disease incidenceb
NEFA > 0.6a - 0.7b mEq/L - 0.9% Pregnancy ratea
Heifers: -640 lbs, Cows: - 1,272 lbs

BHB > 10a-12b* mg/dL 15% +1.8% Disease incidenceb

-0.8% Pregnancy rateb
*20% Heifers: -1,179 lbs*, Cows: - 732 lbsa

*15% of 15 = 2-3 animals Ospina et al., 2010

18
 Histogram of incidence of subclinical ketosis (SCK) in 1,717 Holstein dairy
cows undergoing repeated testing for ketosis from 3 to 16 DIM. A positive test
was defined as a blood BHBA concentration of 1.2 to 2.9 mmol/L

McArt et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95 :5056–5066

Histogram of prevalence of subclinical ketosis (SCK) in 1,717 Holstein dairy cows

undergoing repeated testing for ketosis from 3 to 16 DIM. A positive test was defined as
a blood BHBA concentration of 1.2 to 2.9 mmol/L

McArt et al., 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95 :5056–5066

19
 Approach for monitoring energy-related
analytes in transition cows
• Sample size:
– 15 to 20 cows

• Cows to sample
– Pre-partum: 14 to 2 days before calving (NEFA only)
– Post-partum: 3 to 14 DIM (NEFA and/or BHBA)

• Sample to take
– Serum (red top tubes)
– Don’t shake, keep cool
– Milk (ketones only)

• What to do with sample?

– BHBA: Lab or Precision Xtra Meter (blood) or ketotest or infrared (milk)
– NEFA: Lab

• What to do with results

– Interpret % above cut-point
– More than 15% above cut-point indicates herd-level problem

Prevalence of hyperketonemia between 3 and 14

DIM on 71 commercial dairy farms
60%

50%

40%
% of herds

30%

20%

10%

0%
<15% ≥15% - <25% ≥25% - <35% ≥35%
Proportion of cows/herd with BHBA ≥1.2 mmol/L, 3-14 DIM

Lawton et al., 2015 JAM

20
 Top ten things to do for healthy and
productive transition cows
• Manage macromineral nutrition/DCAD of dry cows, especially in the
last 2 to 3 weeks before calving
• Control energy intake in both far-off and close-up cows – not too little,
not too much
• Make sure supplying enough metabolizable protein before calving
• Get the feeding management right, every day
• Clean and comfortable housing and fresh water
• Manage social interactions/hierarchy
• Manage cold stress and heat stress
• High quality forage and fermentable diets for fresh cows
• Strategically use feed additives/nutritional tools
• Implement cow- and herd-level monitoring programs

Thanks!!

[email protected]

21
 10/30/15

What is cow comfort?

COW COMFORT DURING

TRANSITION
TITLE SLIDE GOES HERE
Katy subhead
Optional Proudfoot,
wouldPhD
go here

Farm Examples FARM A

• Focus on housing and movement of animals
Specific problem: 12% sFllbirth rate
• Assume producers have taken steps to resolve
potenFal nutriFon/geneFc causes of problems

FARM A Far-off Close-up

Where to start?
• Challenges with ‘just-in-Fme’
• Poor training
Feed alley

• MulFple daily regrouping in calving pen

Calving
Pen
(Just in
Fme)
100% stocked 80% stocked

1
 10/30/15

Labor in dairy cows Stage I

üCalf moves into posiFon üCalf moves üPlacenta

üCervix begins to dilate through birth canal is released

Stage I Stage II Stage III

Labor in Dairy Cows Stage II

üCalf moves into posiFon

üCervix begins to dilate

Stage I Stage II Stage III

üRestless behavior
üOff feed
üEngorged, leaky udder
üRaised tail
üRelaxed pelvic ligaments

Labor in Dairy Cows When should cows be moved?

üCalf moves
through birth canal

Stage I Stage II Stage III

Stage I Stage II Stage III

üAbdominal contracFons
üMucous or amnioFc sac
üVisible calf legs
üLying down Before Early Late
Labor Stage I Stage I

Schuenemann et al., 2011

20-70 min

2
 10/30/15

Length of stage II labor Length of stage II labor

120 120
** **
Length of stage II

Length of stage II
100 100
labor (min)

labor (min)
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
**P < 0.01 **P < 0.01
0 0
Before Labor Early stage I Late stage I Before Labor Early stage I Late stage I
n = 16 n = 17 n=9 n = 16 n = 17 n=9

Proudfoot et al., 2013. J. Dairy Sci. Proudfoot et al., 2013. J. Dairy Sci.

Cows moved later had the longest Lying Fme before calving
stage II labor
60
120
50
Lying Fme (min/1h

**
Length of stage II

100
before calving)

**
40
labor (min)

80
60 30

40 20

20 10
**P < 0.01 **P < 0.01
0 0
Before Labor Early stage I Late stage I Before labor Early stage I Late stage I
n = 16 n = 17 n=9 n = 16 n = 17 n=9

Proudfoot et al., 2013. J. Dairy Sci. Proudfoot et al., 2013. J. Dairy Sci.

Where to start? Does training help?

• Challenges with ‘just-in-Fme’ Personnel (n = 47) from 12 Ohio dairies given 2 h of
training and 1 h of demonstraFon:
• Poor training
ü Behavioral signs of calving
• MulFple daily regrouping in calving pen ü Signs of dystocia
ü Good hygiene pracFces
ü Record-keeping
ü When to call for help
ü Newborn care

Schuenemann et al., 2011, 2013

3
 10/30/15

Training improves knowledge and

Does training help?
reduces sFllbirths

100 20

% Correct answers
80 16

SFllbirths (%)
60 12

40 8

20 4
(P < 0.05) (P < 0.05)
0 0
Pre Post Pre Post

Schuenemann et al., 2011, 2013 Schuenemann et al., 2011, 2013

Training improves knowledge and www.ecalving.com

reduces sFllbirths

100 20
% Correct answers

80 16
SFllbirths (%)

60 12

40 8

20 4
(P < 0.05) (P < 0.05)
0 0
Pre Post Pre Post

Schuenemann et al., 2011, 2013

Where to start? Effect of regrouping

• Challenges with ‘just-in-Fme’ 30
Reactor
• Poor training Actor
Displacements

20
• MulFple daily regrouping in calving pen Events
10

0
-1 0 1 2 3
9% feed intake Day
Day
3.7 kg milk
von Keyserlingk et al. 2008. J. Dairy Sci., Schirmann et al., 2012

4
 10/30/15

FARM A Far-off Close-up

FARM B
Specific problems:
1. Lameness ager calving
2. Dystocia and metriFs
Feed alley

Calving
Pen
(Just in
Fme)
100% stocked 80% stocked

FARM B
Heifers

Office

Parlor
Feed alley

Calving pens

Dry cows LactaFng pen

(cows and heifers)

Where to start? Is perching a problem?

1. Comfort of close-up pens

10 to 15 wk Highest risk of
claw horn lesions
2. Seclusion in calving pen

-3 wk 3 wk 6 wk 9 wk 12 wk 15 wk

Recorded standing/ Recorded claw horn lesions

perching behavior

5
 10/30/15

Standing Fme of healthy cows Standing Fme of cows with lesions

1000 **
15 15
Standing Fme (h/d)

Standing Fme (h/d)

800
12 12
600
9 9
400
6 6
(n = 13)
3
200 Healthy (n = 13) 3
**P<0.01 (n = 13)
00 0
wk -2 +24 h wk 1 wk 2

Period relaFve to calving Period relaFve to calving

Proudfoot et al., 2010. J. Dairy Sci. Proudfoot et al., 2010. J. Dairy Sci.

Where were they standing?

15
900!
800!
Standing Time (h/d)

12
700! How do you reduce perching?
600!
500!
9
400! 2 Feet in Stall!
6
300! 4 Feet in Stall!
200! Alley!
3 Feed Alley!
100!
Feeding!
00!
Healthy! Lesion!

Proudfoot et al., 2010. J. Dairy Sci.

Widen stalls Move the neck rail posiFon

1.8
100
Perching Fme (hour/day)

Time spent 1.690

standing
1.4
80
1/2 in 1/2 out
(min/24h) 1.2
70 No neckrail

1
60
Neckrail
50
44 48 52
Stall width (in)

Tucker et al., 2004, J. Dairy Sci. 87: 1208-1216

6
 10/30/15

Neckrail posiFon Removing the neck rail reduces

lameness
1.2
Standing Fme (hour/day)

Neck rail
No neck rail
New cases Neck rail No neck rail P
0.8
Lameness 11 2 0.01
MasFFs 0 0 N.S.
0.4
SCC>100,000 2 1 N.S.
cells/ml
0
Perch Four-foot

Bernardi et al., 2009. J. Dairy Sci. Bernardi et al., 2009

Overstocking lying stalls OR feedbunk

Brisket Board
(Fregonesi et al., 2007; Proudfoot et al., 2009)
(Tucker et al., 2006)

What else increases standing Fme?

Wet bedding (< 75% DM) Bedding below the curb

(Drissler et al., 2005; Tucker and Weary, 2004;
(Fregonesi et al., 2007; Reich et al., 2010)
Tucker et al., 2009)

What else reduces risk of lameness? Where to start?

1. Comfort of lying stalls in close-up pens
2. Seclusion in calving pen

Access to pasture someFme during the dry period

= 50% fewer lame cows

Chapinal et al. 2013, J. Dairy Sci. 96: 318-328

7
 10/30/15

What does the cow prefer?

‘Shelter’

‘Open’

Cows preferred to calve in the shelter... …but only if they calved during the day

25 25 Day
20 Night
20
No. of cows

No. of cows

15 15
10 10
5 5 χ² = 4.9
P = 0.03
0 0
Shelter
1 Open
2
Shelter Open
1 2
Calving locaFon Calving locaFon
Proudfoot et al., 2014. J. Anim. Sci. Proudfoot et al., 2014. J. Anim. Sci.

Can this be pracFcal? Where did she calve?

“Corner” “Corner”

Window Corner
“Window” “Window”

8
 10/30/15

Cows preferred the corner FARM B

Heifers
16
14 Office
12
No. of cows

10
Parlor

Feed alley
8
6
4
2

Calving pens
P = 0.01
0
Window
2 Corner
1
Calving locaFon Dry cows LactaFng pen
(cows and heifers)
Proudfoot et al., 2014, J. Dairy Sci.

Summary
• Training staff to recognize the signs of calving
and dystocia can reduce the risk of sFllbirths

• Cows prefer quiet, secluded areas to calve,

and disturbance can delay labor

• Improving cow comfort in the dry pens is

essenFal for prevenFng lameness ager calving

Photo courtesy of Dr. Ken Nordlund, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Thank You!

Projects conducted at OSU were supported by NCR-SARE Professional

Development Program (ENC10-120).

Funding for the UBC Animal Welfare Program provided by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Council, Dairy Farmers of Canada, BC Dairy FoundaFon, Pfizer,
Westgen, Beef Industry Development Council, BriFsh Columbia Milk Producers,
Alberta Milk and many others listed at www.landfood.ubc.ca/animalwelfare/

Projects conducted in Denmark were supported by the Danish Ministry of Food,

Agriculture and Fisheries for funding (2009-2012).

9
 11/20/2015

Breeding for Milk Protein

Chuck Sattler

Turning Data into Genetic Information

Performance Progeny

Animal’s
True
Pedigree Genetic
Merit

1
 11/20/2015

Popular Traits Used for

A.I. Sire Selection
• Milk
• Udders
• Calving Ease
• Semen fertility

2
 11/20/2015

US Per Capita Consumption of Cheese

Lbs./Year
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Lbs./Year

Source: USDA‐NASS

US Per Capita Consumption of Yogurt

Lbs./Year
16

14

12

10

0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Lbs./Year

Source: USDA‐NASS

3
 11/20/2015

Heritability Values for Dairy Traits

Trait Heritability
Milk 30%
Fat Percent 58%
Fat Yield 30%
Protein Percent 51%
Protein Yield 30%
Udders 25%
Somatic Cell Score 10%
Productive Life 8%
Calving Ease 8%
Daughter Pregnancy Rate 1.5%

Variance of Production Traits

Trait Mean Genetic SD Coefficient of
(lbs.) (lbs.) Variation
Milk Yield 26,995 672 2.5%
Fat Yield 1,006 25 2.5%
Protein Yield 822 18 2.2%

Source: CDCB, Dec. 2014

4
 11/20/2015

Genetic Correlation Between Traits

Trait P% Milk Fat F% Udders DPR SCS PL CA$
Protein Yield ‐0.12 0.83 0.59 ‐0.21 ‐0.14 ‐0.18 0.04 0.13 0.22
Protein % ‐0.47 ‐0.40 0.59 0.01
Milk Yield 0.43 ‐0.40 ‐0.10 ‐0.23 0.02 0.10 0.19
Fat Yield 0.35 ‐0.07 ‐0.15 ‐0.09 0.15 0.13
Fat % ‐0.06
Udders 0.09 ‐0.23 0.18 0.10
Dtr Preg Rate (DPR) ‐0.27 0.64 0.35
Som Cell Score (SCS) ‐0.45 ‐0.14
Productive Life (PL) 0.40

Source: CDCB, Dec. 2014

Welper and Freeman, JDS 75:1342-1348

Sire Selection Approaches

• Single‐trait selection
• Independent Culling Levels
• Selection Indexes

5
 11/20/2015

Comparing Different Selection Approaches

(Avg. of top‐50 AI Sires)
Selection Criteria Prot Milk Fat P% Udders DPR SCS PL CA$
Protein Yield +51 +1549 +49 +.01 +0.65 ‐0.5 3.00 +2.3 11.1
Protein % +20 ‐165 +28 +.09 +0.51 +0.8 2.93 +1.3 10.0
Milk Yield +47 +1720 +41 ‐.02 +0.64 ‐0.3 2.96 +3.1 10.2
≥+.5DPR, ≤2.9 SCS +37 +1023 +36 +.02 +0.66 +2.0 2.77 +4.3 22.2
TPI +39 +1112 +52 +.02 +1.23 +1.9 2.83 +5.0 26.0
NM$ +37 +1036 +55 +.02 +0.85 +2.0 2.82 +5.6 28.3
CM$ +37 +973 +55 +.03 +0.89 +2.0 2.81 +5.5 28.3

Comparison of Indexes
Trait NM$ CM$ TPI
Milk ‐ 1% ‐ 9% ‐ 0.5%
Fat 22% 43% 19% 52% 17% 45.5%
Protein 20% 24% 28%
Final Score 8%
Udd. Comp. 8% 11% 6% 8% 11% 25%
F&L Comp. 3% 2% 6%
Prod. Lf. 19% 16% 7%
Som. Cell Score ‐ 7% ‐ 7% ‐ 5%
Dtr. Fertility 10% 46% 8% 40% 13% 29.5%
Calving Ability ‐ 5% ‐ 5% ‐ 3%
Body Comp. ‐ 5% ‐ 4% ‐ 0.5%
Dairy Form ‐ 1%

6
 11/20/2015

U.S. Holstein Actual and Genetic Trend for Protein Yield

1,000
900
800
700
600
500 Cow Prot Lbs
400 Cow BV
300
200
100
0
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
USDA, CDCB Aug. 2015

U.S. Holstein Genetic and Phenotypic Trend for Protein %

3.70%
3.60%
3.50%
3.40%
3.30%
3.20% Prot%
Prot% BV
3.10%
3.00%
2.90%
2.80%

7
 11/20/2015

U.S. Holstein Actual and Genetic Trend for SCS

3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8 Cow SCS
2.6 Cow BV

2.4
2.2
2.0
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
USDA, CDCB Aug. 2015

U.S. Holstein Actual and Genetic Trend for DPR

45

40

35
Cow DPR
30 Cow BV

25

20
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011

USDA, CDCB Aug. 2015

8
 11/20/2015

Kappa Casein
• Important protein for cheese making.
• A and B variants have been identified.
• B variant is preferred:
– Milk with B variant forms firmer curd.
– Milk with B variant coagulates faster.

Beta Lactoglobulin
• Whey protein.
• A and B variants have been identified.
• B variant is preferred:
– Cows with the B variant produce similar total
levels of protein but a smaller percentage of whey
protein and a higher percentage of casein.

9
 11/20/2015

A2 Milk
• Beta casein makes up about 30% of the
protein in cow’s milk.
• A1 and A2 are the most common variants.
• When humans digest A1 milk we produce
metabolites that may cause “problems”.
• Fluid milk not containing A1 beta casein is
now being marketed in the west.
• Some people may have fewer digestive
problems when consuming A2 milk.

Take Home Points

• Protein is a valuable milk component.
• Selecting for increased protein yield should be
a part of all breeding programs.
• Replace selecting for PTA Milk with PTA
Protein or CFP in your selection program.
• Use a selection index – it’s the most effective
way to make simultaneous progress in several
traits.

10
 11/20/2015

Thank You!

Email: [email protected]
Website: www.selectsires.com

11
 Feeding Smarter Not Harder: Finding Lost Milk in the Feeding Program
Dr. Will Seymour, Ph.D., PAS, Dipl. ACAN

Ruminant Technical Manager

Novus International, St. Charles, MO

SMART GOALS FEEDING MANAGEMENT

The concept of S.M.A.R.T. goals (Specific, Measurable, Achieving a consistent, balanced flow of nutrients to
Attainable, Relevant, Timely) has application when the mammary gland is essential for cows to reach their
working with dairy clients. Time spent up front discuss- productive potential. Meeting this goal is a challenge,
ing and defining specific goals for the nutrition program especially in loose housing systems. Accurate feed
is time well spent. It can help set realistic expectations manufacturing and delivery is essential and has been
and focus efforts where there is the greatest likeli- thoroughly reviewed (Oelberg, 2015). Errors and incon-
hood of a successful outcome (more profitable dairy sistencies in feed composition or quality will certainly
business). Furthermore this process helps the dairy reduce milk yield and feed efficiency. Dr. Mike Brouk of
Kansas State University has estimated that deviations
nutritionist learn more about the inner workings of a
from the ration batch schedule can cost $0.12 to $0.20
given dairy and help correct management issues that
per cow per day due to reduced herd performance and
might otherwise undermine the success of the nutri-
increased feed waste.
tion program. Working together to set smart goals sets
a positive tone with a new customer/client, helping to
Feed intake can be a limiting factor to milk and milk
build a long term relationship. component yield in group housing. A total mixed ration
is formulated and fed to a pen of cattle based on the av-
LOST MILK erage cow, or the average cow plus a lead factor. Some
Lost milk is a reference to the concept of marginal milk: cows will be underfed and some overfed compared to
additional milk that could potentially be produced by a nutrient requirements. Feed intake of individual cows
dairy herd at the same fixed costs as current milk pro- may be limited by several factors, first of which is the
duction. Marginal milk may be “found” in many places. availability of feed and access to the feeding space.
Feeding management is often a good hunting ground Dairy farms striving to increase “feed efficiency” may
for lost milk. The individual dairy cow in group housing in fact be limiting herd productivity by underfeeding a
may or may not be getting adequate nutrients at the significant proportion of cows relative to their nutrient
right times of day to reach her lactation potential. Nutri- requirements or more importantly, their potential to re-
spond to a greater supply of nutrients with higher milk
ent intake of an individual cow will be affected by how
yields. The majority of free stall dairies should feed for
well the ration has been prepared, delivered, pushed
a 3 to 5 percent refusal to ensure that the herd reaches
back up and cleaned up. Water availability can be a
its potential. Empty feed bunks during daylight hours are
limiting factor, especially during hot weather. The magic a strong indication that feed intake is being limited for
wand does not exist to instantly correct all the potential a significant proportion of cows in the group. Timing of
bottlenecks in nutrient delivery to the herd, but setting feed push-ups is also crucial.
SMART goals and following up on these with key person-
nel can remove some of the barriers and realize greater A study of 22 commercial free stall dairies in Ontario,
herd productivity and profitability. Cow comfort and Canada (Sova et al., 2013) revealed some interesting
logistics are critically important co-factors with feeding relationships between feeding management and milk
management. The cow time budget can be distorted by production. Herds were closely monitored for seven
uncomfortable stalls, too much time away for milking, consecutive days during both the summer and winter
poor air quality and a number of other factors that can months and complete statistical analysis of the data
be assessed on commercial dairies. performed. Increased feeding frequency (1X vs. 2X per

2015 Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop 11

day) was associated with an increase of 3.1 lbs of dry supply a portion of supplemental trace minerals.
matter intake and 4.4 lbs more milk production, which Reasons for doing so include potential improvements
would produce a net economic return of 2:1. This was in reproduction, immune function, udder health, hoof
despite the fact that on average the dairies had 21 health, and a reduction in infectious disease (Overton
inches of bunk space per cow, a 100% stocking density and Yasui, 2014). The mechanism by which OTM can
and fed for 3.5% feed refusals. effect these improvements in ruminants is twofold: (1)
the trace elements in organic form are shielded from
Water supply and access is another opportunity area antagonists such as free iron, sulfate, molybdenum,
on many farms. In the Guelph study (Sova et al., 2013) clay compounds, and fiber that would otherwise bind
each additional 1 inch of linear water space was as- and reduce the bioavailability of the trace element and
sociated with 2.0 lbs more milk production. Herds in (2) the organically bound or complexed trace elements
this study had an average of 2.8 inches of water space are more effectively delivered to absorption sites in the
per cow. Typical recommendations are for 3.5 inches small intestine. This leads to greater net absorption of
of water space per cow. As an example, adding 1 inch trace minerals fed as OTM and greater bioavailability
of water space for a group of 120 cows would require (utilization) by the cow for essential biochemical pro-
the addition of a 10-foot water trough. If the trough cost cesses in the body (Richards, 2010).
$2500 (~ $21 per cow) and cows produced 2 lbs more
milk @ $0.17 per pound, it would take 2 months to pay RECENT STUDIES ON TRACE MINERAL STATUS,
off this investment. LAMENESS, AND HOOF HEALTH
(1) Zhao et al. (2015a) explored relationships between
NUTRITIONAL STRATEGIES: lameness, trace mineral and antioxidant status, and
OPTIMIZING TRACE MINERAL NUTRITION inflammation in forty Holstein cows over a 60-day period
in a commercial dairy herd. Cows were selected based
There is no shortage of nutritional strategies available
on gait score (1 to 5 scale; Sprecher et al., 1997) and
to help optimize herd health and performance. Trace
categorized as either healthy (score < 3) or lame (score
mineral nutrition is one area that we will examine in this
3 or greater) with 20 cows per group. Lame cows had
presentation. Zinc, copper, and manganese are required
significantly lower concentrations of trace minerals in
in the body for a large number of physiological functions.
serum, hair sample, and hoof horn compared to healthy
In its 2001 publication the National Research Council
cows. Serum superoxide dismutase (SOD), an antioxi-
(NRC) committee adopted a net absorption model for dant enzyme requiring zinc, copper, or manganese as
assessing and meeting trace mineral requirements of a co-factor was reduced in lame cows. Hoof hardness
dairy cattle. It was acknowledged data on trace min- and resilience were also lower in lame cows. Serum
eral absorption in dairy cattle is limited and difficult markers of joint inflammation (cartilage degradation)
to obtain but that it makes more biological sense to were significantly higher in lame cows.
express trace mineral requirements and allowances
as quantities of absorbed mineral rather than as gross (2) The same researchers then conducted a controlled
concentrations of minerals the diet. This approach has university study (Zhao et al., 2015b). Forty eight Holstein
led a greater emphasis on the absorption and bioavail- cows in early to mid-lactation were assigned to one of
ability of trace mineral sources, in particular in cases two diet treatments based on parity, milk production,
where trace elements are chemically bound or exist in and gait score such that each treatment group (n = 24)
a stable complex with organic molecules. These prod- consisted of 12 healthy (score < 3) and 12 lame (score
ucts are often referred to by the general term “organic 3 or greater) cows. Dietary treatments were the addition
trace minerals” (OTM). The American Association of of 50 ppm zinc, 12 ppm copper, and 20 ppm manga-
Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) in cooperation with the nese to the same basal diet, supplemented as either
FDA has established specific categories and definitions inorganic mineral salts or methionine-hydroxy chelates
for different organic trace mineral product forms. This and were fed for a total of 180 days. Samples of blood,
regulatory approach was taken in an effort to provide hair, and hoof horn were taken at day 0, 90, and 180
some standards for OTM products as well as to verify the of the study and hoof hardness of the solar horn tested
product’s safety, composition, manufacturing processes using a Shore Durometer. At day 90 cows received a
and nutritional availability. vaccination for three strains of foot and mouth disease
(FMD). Additional blood samples were taken to assess
Organic trace mineral sources are typically used to the response to vaccination. Cows were milked three

12 November 11-12  Grantville, PA

 times daily. Milk production and dry matter intake was REFERENCES
recorded every 10 days and milk sampled for analysis McDowell, L. R. 2003. Minerals in Animal and Human Nutrition, 2nd
of fat, protein, lactose and SNF. ed. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
Oelberg, T. J. 2015. Effective outcomes of TMR audits. Proc. Tri-State
Results: Supplementing zinc, copper, and manganese Dairy Nutrition Conf. Ft. Wayne, IN.
in methionine-hydroxy chelated form significantly in- Overton, T. R., and T. Yasui. 2014. Practical applications of trace
creased serum SOD and metallothionine in both healthy minerals for dairy cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 92:416-426.
and lame cows. In addition cows fed the chelated trace Richards, J. D. 2010. Measuring trace mineral bioavailability is the
minerals had increased response to FMD vaccination key. Feedstuffs, 82:3; January 18, 2010.
and a reduction in serum markers for inflammation. Sova, A. D., S. J. LeBlanc, B. W. McBride, and T. J. DeVries. 2013.
Hoof hardness was increased in cows fed chelated trace Associations between herd level feeding management practices,
feed sorting and milk production in freestall dairy farms. J. Dairy
minerals by day 180 with a trend for improvement by Sci. 96:4759-4770.
day 90. Results suggested that using a more bioavail-
Sprecher, D. J., D. E. Hostetler, and J. B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness
able source of trace minerals improved hoof quality and scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle
helped reverse the inflammatory effects of lameness reproductive performance. Theriogenology. 47:1179-1187.
observed in the previous study. Zhao, X. J., X. Y. Wang, J. H. Wang, Z. Y. Wang, L. Wang, and Z. H.
Wang. 2015a. Oxidative stress and imbalance of mineral me-
SUMMARY tabolism contribute to lameness in dairy cows. Biol. Trace Elem.
Res. 164:43-49.
Feeding smarter not harder starts with setting specific,
Zhao, X. J., Z. P. Li, J. H. Wang, X. M. Xing, Z. Y. Wang, L. Wang, and Z.
measurable, and attainable goals for the nutrition H. Wang. 2015b. Effects of chelated Zn/Cu/Mn on redox status,
program. Secondly feeding management needs to be immune responses and hoof health in lactating Holstein cows. J.
addressed in terms of manufacturing, delivery, and ac- Vet. Sci. June (Epub ahead of paper).
tual consumption of the diet (including water). Thirdly
novel product forms can be assessed as sources of
essential nutrients to support overall cow health and
performance. Using this three-phase approach can lead
to improvements in herd performance and profitability.

2015 Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop 13

 11/20/2015

Feed Smarter Not Harder

Finding Lost Milk in the Feeding Program

Dr. Will Seymour, PAS, Dipl. ACAN,

Ruminant Technical Manager, Novus International
1

S.M.A.R.T Goals

G. Doran, 1981 2

1
 11/20/2015

We Must Set Goals

• Feeding with a goal

– To maintain the business
– To show improvement in herd performance/health
– To improve IOFC

Set Smart Goals

• Feeding with a specific, measureable goal

– To increase milk component yield by 1/4 lb /cow/day
– To reduce fresh cow treatments by 10%
– To reduce involuntary culling by 5%

2
 11/20/2015

Goal: Take $10/ton Out of Feed Cost

• Feeding rate of mix (?): 10 lb/cow/day

Save: $10/ton x 10/2000 = $.05 per cow/day
• What if we lose 1 point in fat test?
– 70 lbs milk
– 3.7 vs. 3.6% fat test
Lose .07 lbs fat @ $2.75 per pound
Lose $.19/cow/day - $.05 saved = (-$.14/cow/d)

The High Cost of Cutting Feed Costs

Effects1 Time Frame Response Cost $/Cow/

Day
Short Term ~1 month Decreased $.15 - $.30
fat/protein
yields
Medium Term 2 to 4 months Sick cows, $.10 - $.35
higher SCC
Long Term 5 to 9 months Reproduction, $.10 - $.35
hoof health
1Loss of 1-2 points fat or protein; increase of 5-10 cows treated; 5-10 open cows;
5-10 lame cows/100 calvings (Hutjens, 2015) 6

3
 11/20/2015

What is Marginal (Lost) Milk?

Milk Yield 70 lbs/cow/day 75 lbs/cow/day

Milk Income, $11.90 $12.75
$/cow/day + $.85
Maintenance Feed $2.00 $2.00
Cost, $/cow/day
Marginal Feed Cost, $4.67 $5.00
$/cow/day
( $.33 )
Total Feed Cost, $6.67 $7.00
$/cow/day
IOFC, $/cow/day $5.23 $5.75 + $.52

$17/CWT milk; $.133/lb DM;

50 lb DMI; 15 lb DM = Maintenance 7

The Power of Marginal Milk

• 1 lb of marginal milk is worth $.10 per

cow/day in additional net income

4
 11/20/2015

The Search for Marginal (Lost) Milk

• Feeding management
• Cow Health, Reproduction

Feeding Management Goals

• Achieve a consistent, balanced flow of

nutrients to the mammary gland.
• Allow each cow to reach her production
potential.
• Manufacture and feed the TMR accurately
and consistently.

10

5
 11/20/2015

On-Farm Feed Manufacturing

Dr. Mike Brouk, Kansas State University

• $0.15 to $0.22 per cow

per day lost due to
deviations from batch
formula.
• TMR tracking devices
• Accuracy of feeding
equipment
• SOP for feeders

$26 vs $16 CWT? 11

Feeding Variations on CA Dairies

Trillo et al., 2015, ADSA/ASAS Ann. Mtg. M304 12

6
 11/20/2015

Feeding Variations on CA Dairies

2 hr, 40 min

Trillo et al., 2015, ADSA/ASAS Ann. Mtg. M304 13

95 lbs; 3.6% F; 3.0% TP

Ration Software is a Tool 80 DIM; Lact 2; 1500 lb

Solution A, lb DM Solution B, lb DM Cost, $/ton

Corn Silage, Pr. 25.6 25.6 50
Alfalfa Hay (25/35) 5.0 5.0 245
Alfalfa Hay (17/46) 5.0 5.0 200
WBG 4.0 4.0 35
Corn, fine 3.0 3.0 150
Corn, flaked 5.5 5.9 170
SBM 47.5 2.4 2.0 341
WCS, lint 3.0 3.0 305
DDG, ethanol 3.0 3.0 145
Canola, expeller 1.7 1.7 260
Total 58.2 ($5.59/d) 58.2 ($5.56/d)
14

7
 11/20/2015

Cow Eating or Lying Down Ruminating

15

Feeding Management
22 Commercial Free-Stall Herds
• Feeding Frequency: 2X vs 1X
+ 3.1 lbs dry matter intake Net $ Return: 2:1
+ 4.4 lbs test day milk

21 inches bunk space (14-39 inch range)

100% stocking density (71-117%)
3.5% refusals (0.9 – 9.3%)

Sova, 2013, Univ. Guelph

16

8
 11/20/2015

Feed Availability and Edibility

2-5% refusals depending on

management

How many cows are capable of making

more milk but they can’t get enough feed?

A 2% increase in sorting decreased milk

by 2.2 lbs per day (Sova et al. 2013).
17

Timing of Feed Push Ups

18

9
 11/20/2015

Push feed within 1 hour of feeding

19

Push-Outs per Week?

$26 vs. $16 CWT?

20

10
 11/20/2015

Clean Water

21

Water Access

1 inch additional linear water space =

+ 2.0 lbs of milk/cow/day

Sova, 2013; Univ. Guelph Study

Avg. water space: 2.8 inch/cow
(1.5-4.6 inch/cow)

22
Novus C.O.W.S. benchmark data

11
 11/20/2015

Water Access, Cross-Overs

23

Water Linear Space

1” per cow x 120 cows = 10 ft

24

12
 11/20/2015

Do Specific Nutrients Affect …….?

• Immune Function?
• Hoof Health?
• Reproduction?

25

Why Use Organic Trace Minerals?

(Dr. Tom Overton)

• Improved reproductive performance

• Decreased lameness/improved foot health
• Decreased disease incidence
• Reduced somatic cell count

26

13
 11/20/2015

How Would OTM Improve Performance?

• Greater rumen stability

– Shielded from antagonists (SO4, Mo, Fe, soil)
• Greater intestinal absorption
– Access to specific metal transport proteins

27

Improved Immune Function

28

14
 11/20/2015

Hoof Health

29

Hoof Health

• 60 day study
• Commercial dairy
• 20 healthy, 20 lame cows
30

15
 11/20/2015

Trace Mineral and Oxidative Status in

Lame vs. Healthy Cows
Healthy Cows Lame Cows P value
SOD (U/mL) 55.0 50.8 0.05
MDA (nmol/ml) 5.4 6.4 0.02
Hoof Zn,(mg/kg) 58.8 54.6 0.04
Hoof Cu,(mg/kg) 9.73 7.48 0.04
Hoof Hardness1 30.2 27.7 0.009
CTX II (ng/ml) 104.1 112.9 0.08
COMP (ng/ml) 60.0 68.2 0.04

1Shore Durometer, N/mm2 Zhao et al., 2015. 31

Effect of chelated Zn/Cu/Mn on redox

state, immune response and hoof health
• 180 day study, 48 multiparous Holstein cows
– 24 per treatment; 12 healthy and 12 lame cows
• Control: 50 ppm Zn, 12 ppm Cu, 20 ppm Mn
added as sulfate salts
• Treatment: 50 ppm Zn, 12 ppm Cu, 20 ppm Mn
added as metal HMTBa chelates (Mintrex).
• Serum, hair and hoof samples collected 0, 90 and
180 days
• Milk yield and composition

Zhao et al., 2015 32

16
 11/20/2015

Effect of TM Source on Antioxidant

Status of Dairy Cows

P = 0.008 P = 0.009 P = 0.007

12 a a 60 a 7
a ab
55 b 6
10
ab b
50
b 5 a
8 a
ab 45
4
6 40
3
35
4
2
30
2 1
25

0 20 0
GSH, mg/L SOD, U/mL MDA, nmol/mL

33
Zhao et al., 2015

Effect of TM Source on Hoof

Hardness (Shore Durometer)
Healthy ITM Healthy CTM Lame ITM Lame CTM
36
P = 0.001
P = 0.09 a
34 P = 0.21 a a
a a b
ab bc ab c
32 c c
Hardness, HD

30

28

26

24

22

20
0 90 180
Days on Treatment
Zhao et al., 201534

17
 11/20/2015

Effects of CTM on Gait Score1

Day 180 Lame Cows, Lame Cows,

Sulfates CTM
Gait Score <3 1 5

Gait Score 3 or 11 7
greater

1Initial
gait score was 3 or greater for all cows in these
groups at Day 0 of the study
35

Value of Feeding Organic Trace

Minerals

• Organic trace minerals are used to improve trace

mineral bioavailability to the cow.
• Higher bioavailability is reflected in improved
immune function, antioxidant status, hoof health.
• These improvements add value: healthier cows,
improved reproduction and reduced culling.

36

18
 11/20/2015

Feeding Smarter Not Harder

1. Set S.M.A.R.T. goals

2. Evaluate and address feeding
management issues (find lost milk)
3. Know what you are feeding and why

37

Don’t Give Up!

38

19
 11/20/2015

Thank You

39

20
Basic Concepts and Practical Application of Vitamin and Trace Mineral Nutrition in Dairy Cows

The Concept of an Essential Nutrient: An essential nutrient is one that (1) plays a unique role(s) in
metabolism and in maintaining normal physiological functions and (2) cannot be synthesized by the
body at all, or not in sufficient quantities to meet physiological requirements, and therefore must be
obtained either from the diet or from synthesis by gut microbes. The roles of essential nutrients are
often confused with those of drugs. For example, if a person has Type II diabetes their physician may
prescribe one of several medications to help lower blood glucose. The popular concept is that for
Problem A you select one of several remedies; “they all do the same thing.” This is NOT the concept of
an essential nutrient. Essential nutrients do in some cases have overlapping functions, in the same way
that engineers design airplanes to have overlapping systems, so that in the event of a failure of one
system, another system can partially compensate. That does not mean that the first system can be
replaced by the second. In some cases, and under less than ideal circumstances, one essential nutrient
may partially spare another, as in the case with vitamin E and selenium. However these two nutrients
play distinct roles in cellular metabolism and cannot completely replace each other. Biotin and zinc are
both essential for the production of healthy, functional keratinized tissues like skin, hoof horn, and the
rumen epithelium. The functions of zinc and biotin are completely distinct, they cannot spare each other
to any significant extent, and in fact the best results may be obtained when they are supplemented
together.

The Concept of Limiting Nutrients: The concept of a limiting nutrient is basic to the field of nutrition. For
any given dietary situation a single essential nutrient may be limiting, or multiple essential nutrients may
be co‐limiting. Limitation simply means that the supply of a given nutrient to a given tissue or organ is
limiting the function or output of that organ or body system. For example vitamin A is required to form
the visual pigment in the eyes that allow us to see. If the supply of vitamin A is limiting (deficient) the
production of visual pigment will be reduced to the point where vision is impaired. The first sign of this
deficiency is night blindness, due to the loss of visual pigment in the rod cells of the retina. A nutrient
may also be locally limiting, as in the case of certain nutrients required by the hoof tissue. In this case a
reduction of blood flow to the extremity can create a local deficiency of essential nutrients that can in
turn reduce the quality of hoof horn and increase the incidence of hoof lesions and lameness.

The Concept of Bioavailability: Nutrient bioavailability broadly refers to the proportion of a nutrient that
is absorbed from the diet and used for normal physiological functions.

Essential Trace Nutrients for Dairy Cattle:

Dairy cattle require the same vitamins and trace elements as humans and other mammals. However the
rumen microbial fermentation supplies a significant amount of water soluble vitamins to the host (cow).
In some cases additional supplementation is beneficial, although some water soluble vitamins are
degraded to a significant extent by rumen microbes. Fat soluble vitamins A, D, and E are derived
naturally from beta‐carotene (vitamin A), sunlight (vitamin D), and naturally occurring vitamin E. Fresh
forages are rich in beta carotene and vitamin E activity, however the levels decline with maturity of the
forage and during storage. Due to the small quantities required and potential losses in the rumen
vitamin A and D are typically supplied in the form of a stabilized, spray‐dried beadlet. Vitamin E is more
rumen stable than vitamin A and D and is often provided dispersed on fine silica. It is important that
vitamin and trace mineral product forms flow freely and disperse completely in feed mixes.

Trace elements required by dairy cattle are found in feeds, soil, and water, as are several potential
antagonists of trace element absorption (iron, sulfur, molybdenum, clays, and fiber). Antagonists may
reduce the net absorption of both endogenous and supplemental trace minerals in the diet. For this
reason a “safety factor” is often used when formulating dairy rations. Absorption of trace elements can
be understood based on their chemistry. Absorption of the positively charged trace elements: zinc,
copper, manganese, and iron are generally regulated at the gut level, while the negatively charged
elements iodine and selenium are regulated primarily through urinary excretion. Antagonisms can occur
among the positively charged trace elements at the site of absorption (small intestine). There can be
differences in gut absorption of iodine and selenium due to chemical forms (inorganic vs. organic).
Cobalt is a special case in that it is only required as component of vitamin B12, the largest and most
complex of the vitamins. In ruminants vitamin B12 is synthesized by rumen bacteria, so cobalt
bioavailability is related to how well rumen microbes are able to incorporate a given form of cobalt into
vitamin B12. High grain diets and subclinical acidosis may interfere with this synthesis.

Steps in Vitamin and Trace Mineral Formulation:

1. Assessment: Step one is to assess the animals, their requirements and their nutrient status and
determine the optimum level of supplementation. The animal type, age, stage, and level of
production will determine the NRC requirements. Visual assessment of the cattle and an oral
history of animal health and production from the herd manager can be used for a gross
assessment of trace nutrient status, i.e. are there ongoing health or reproductive problems? Is
production (growth or milk yield) up to expectations? Forage analysis and sometimes water
analysis is used to infer the presence of antagonists (high iron, sulfates, chlorides, molybdenum,
ash) that may make it wise to add an additional safety factor(s) to the diet formulation.
2. Formulation: In this the animal description (age, body weight, stage and level of production etc.)
is input into a ration formulation system. Dry matter intake will be estimated by the formulation
program. Dry matter intake is a crucial input value and the most difficult to assess for a specific
group of animals. Vitamin requirements are usually expressed in quantity per day (i.e.
International Units, grams or milligrams per cow per day). Trace mineral requirements however
have been expressed largely as diet concentration (percent or parts per million). Experts in the
field of trace mineral nutrition are strongly recommending that trace minerals be expressed as
quantity (milligrams) of absorbable trace mineral per cow per day in formulation. This reiterates
the importance of dry matter intake (for instance in close‐up dry cow and fresh cow diets) as
well as net absorption (bioavailability) of the trace minerals in the ration. Safety factors
(addition of trace nutrients above base requirements) are used in most dairy rations and are
based on the judgment of the nutritionist and responses of the animals.
3. Re‐Assessment: Vitamins and trace minerals are required by and affect multiple body systems
such as the immune system, reproductive system, circulatory system, liver, and tissue
metabolism. Many of the effects of dietary vitamins and trace minerals are long term and so an
 appropriate amount of time must be allowed to correctly assess the effects of a change in
vitamin or trace mineral supplementation on dairy cattle or any livestock. Effects on immunity
might be observable within 30 to 60 days, for example in terms of clinical mastitis or other
infectious disease, especially around the time of calving. Changes in reproduction or hoof health
will take considerably longer, 3 to 6 months. Beyond 6 months other seasonal and management
factors make it more difficult to assess responses to a change in micronutrient supplementation.

An Example of Micronutrient Formulation in a Dairy Ration

1. Assessment: We have been asked to formulate a ration for a mixed group of Holstein cows
containing both first‐calf heifers and older cows. Body weight is estimated at 1450 pounds on
average. Days in milk ranges from one week fresh to ~200 days in milk. Based on calving history
most cows are between 30 and 150 days milk (estimated average 90 days in milk). Milk yield
average is 85 lbs for this group and 70 lbs for the herd overall with a 3.6% fat test and 3.0%
protein. Somatic cell count averages 300,000 but has been up and down in recent months. Fresh
cows are generally getting off to a good start although clinical mastitis and metritis have been
higher than in previous years, including some heifers. Pregnancy rate has slipped during recent
months with lower first service conception rates.

Forages consist of corn silage (50#), 1st cutting alfalfa‐grass haylage (12.5#), and 2nd cutting grass
silage (10.5#). The remainder of the ration consists of wet distiller’s grains (20#) and a grain mix
(corn, soybean meal, canola meal, soy hulls, wheat midds, minerals, and vitamins). Current
ration formulation is based on 50 lbs dry matter intake. Forage analysis indicates that soil
contamination may be an issue in the hay crop silages (ash 10 to 12% DM, iron 400 ppm). Well
water supply is ample. Water has not been analyzed for quality.

2. Discussion with herd management: Although we have been asked to formulate the lactation
ration we need to ask some questions about the dry cow and heifer programs to assess that
trace mineral and vitamin supplementation and general nutritional needs are being met. Recent
data from diagnostic lab field investigations indicate first‐calf heifers may calve with marginal
trace mineral status due to low or marginal supplementation during the late rearing period. If
our discussion leads us to question the trace mineral or vitamin status of cows at calving we may
need to increase supplementation to dry cows/springing heifers or in the lactation ration. The
primary concern appears to be udder health/mastitis/SCC which could be due several non‐
nutritional factors that should be explored (cleanliness, milking procedure, dry cow treatment).
Reduced conception rates may well be secondary to mastitis, although it may also indicate
marginal trace nutrient status in early lactation.
3. Formulation:
a. A first step will be to obtain as sound an estimate of actual dry matter intake as possible
and an idea of how much this varies day to day, week to week. This will require learning
about feed mixing and ration delivery on the farm, how amounts fed are adjusted and
whether dry matters are being measured on wet feeds and adjusted for in the batch
 mix. We may need to ask that refusals be weighed back and that will require us learning
about the feeder daily schedules to determine if this is feasible. This sounds like a lot of
work but learning more about feeding practices gives us a much better chance of a
successful outcome. Trace minerals and vitamins are required in very small quantities so
it is important to ensure that these micronutrients are fed as accurately as possible over
time.
b. Next we should review the trace mineral content of forages and byproduct feeds. These
are the most variable sources of trace minerals. Ash content of forages should be
included to account for soil contamination. The presence of antagonists such as sulfur
(>0.4%), iron (>400 ppm), molybdenum (>2.0 ppm) should be assessed. Duplicate (and
independent) samples of forages and byproducts are recommended for trace mineral
analysis. It may be a good idea to take water samples for quality analysis.
c. Based on knowledge of the makeup of the group and estimated dry matter intake we
can next formulate a ration. Cow data (parity, body weight, milk yield) will be used by
most ration programs to predict dry matter intake and nutrient requirements. A lead
factor should be applied either to the level of milk production (upward) or predicted dry
matter intake (downward) to compensate for cows less than 50 days in milk in the pen.
One standard deviation has been determined to be a good guideline for milk yield, but
we rarely know the average and standard deviation for milk yield by pen. Therefore it
becomes a judgment call whether to set milk production at 10 to 15 pounds above the
pen average. This should be reviewed regularly as the average milk yield and days in
milk of the pen changes over time.
d. The last step would be to establish a safety factor for vitamin and trace mineral
requirements and to select sources of these micronutrients.
i. Forage trace mineral and ash content
ii. Presence of antagonists in water
iii. Other mitigating circumstances such as health challenges, mycotoxins in feed,
large variation of cow age, stage of lactation, production level within pen.
 11/20/2015

Practical Aspects of
Vitamin and Trace
Mineral Fortification

Vitamins and Trace Minerals

Burk and Solomons, 1985 2

1
 11/20/2015

Relative requirements of trace minerals in

cattle diets (D. Atherton; Thomson and Joseph, LTD)

Physiological Functions of
Trace Minerals

• Immune system
– Antioxidant enzymes SOD and GSH reductase are essential for
function of white blood cells (Zn, Cu, Mn, Se)
• Tissue integrity, epithelial barriers
– Zinc, copper, manganese
– Skin, hoof, teat canal, rumen epithelia, intestine
• Energy metabolism
– Pancreatic function, insulin stability and sensitivity
– Zinc, manganese, selenium

2
 11/20/2015

Functions of the Vitamins (Bill Weiss, Ohio State)

General function
Fat-soluble vitamins
Vitamin A Gene regulation, immunity, vision
Vitamin D Ca and P metabolism, gene regulation
Vitamin E Antioxidant
Vitamin K Blood clotting
Water-soluble vitamins
Biotin Carbohydrate, fat, and protein metabolism
Choline Fat metabolism and transport
Folacin (folic acid) Nucleic and amino acid metabolism
Niacin Energy metabolism
Pantothenic acid Carbohydrate and fat metabolism
Riboflavin Energy metabolism
Thiamin Carbohydrate and protein metabolism
Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) Amino acid metabolism
Vitamin B12 Nucleic and amino acid metabolism
Vitamin C Antioxidant, amino acid metabolism

Vitamins and Trace Minerals

• Vitamins are organic compounds

• Trace minerals are inorganic elements
• They often work together
– Zinc and Vitamin A
– Biotin, Manganese and Choline
– Selenium and Vitamin E

3
 11/20/2015

Vitamin Supplies

• Green pasture is a good source of vitamin A

(beta-carotene) and vitamin E.
• Vitamin levels in forage decline with maturity and
storage.
• Except for green pasture and prime hay the
vitamin content of base feeds/forages is not
considered.

Vitamin Supplies and Storage

• Fat soluble vitamins are unstable to oxidation

Vitamin A > Vitamin D > Vitamin E
• Commercial forms are stabilized
– Spray-dried, cross-linked beadlets with antioxidant
– Vitamin E oil adsorbed on fine silica
• Fat soluble vitamins are stored in the body
– Vitamin A > Vitamin D > Vitamin E

4
 11/20/2015

Vitamin Supplies and Storage

• Water soluble B-vitamins vary in stability

– Vitamin C is the least stable
• Water soluble vitamins are not stored in the body
– Exception is Vitamin B12
– Unlike fat soluble vitamins, B-vitamins are ~ non-toxic
• Rumen synthesis/degradation of B-vitamins is a
major factor and only partly understood.
– Biotin, thiamine escape rumen in significant amounts

Practical Levels of Vitamin Fortification1

Vitamin Supplemental, Rationale Toxic Threshold

per cow per day
Vitamin A, IU 125,000-150,000 Immunity 500,000 (?)
Vitamin D, IU 30,000-40,000 Ca metabolism, 50,000
immunity
Vitamin E, IU 500-3000 Udder health 50,000 (?)
Biotin, mg 20 Hoof health Not a concern
Niacin, grams 6-12 Fat metabolism Not a concern
Choline, grams 15 Liver function Not likely
Beta-carotene, mg 300-600 Reproduction Check status
1Various sources including the author, DSM Nutritional Products and Dr. Bill Weiss.

10

5
 11/20/2015

Practical Levels of Vitamin Fortification

Notes1

Vitamin Notes
Vitamin A 150,000 vs 75,000: better immune function (Yan et al., 2014)
Vitamin E Dry period 1,000 IU; Transition 2-3,000; Lactation 500-750 IU
Niacin Needs rumen protection due to variable stability
Choline Needs rumen protection
Beta carotene Cows with low plasma status are target; 600 mg/d transition

Other B-vitamins (folic acid, B12, B6 thiamine, pantothenic acid) may be beneficial
but more data is needed to make recommendations for routine supplementation.

1Various sources including the author, DSM Nutritional Products and Dr. Bill Weiss.

11

Fun With Trace Mineral Fortification

• Trace minerals are chemically stable inorganic

elements
• But they are subject to antagonisms
• Levels in feeds and forages vary
• Bioavailability varies among forms
• NRC 2001 requirements are based on absorbed
trace minerals, not total trace minerals in diet

12

6
 11/20/2015

Soils Affect Trace Minerals in Forages

• Acid soil (pH < 5.5-5.8) increases plant uptake of

copper, zinc, manganese, iron and cobalt.
• Alkaline soil (pH > 7.2-7.5) decreases copper,
zinc, manganese, iron and cobalt but increases
molybdenum uptake.
• Correct pH range for forage growth moderates
trace mineral levels.

13

Forage Sampling and Analysis1

• Sampling error is the greatest enemy

• The second sample does more to reduce
uncertainty than any of the subsequent samples
• “Sample twice, formulate once.”

1Weiss et al., Ohio State; Kohn, Univ. Maryland 14

7
 11/20/2015

Number of Silage Samples Analyzed

Dairy One Lab Data; 2014-15 Forage Year

Corn Silage MML Silage MMG Silage

October ’14 480 262 411
November ’14 620 238 405
December ’14 617 213 385
January ‘15 440 182 351
February ‘15 266 115 188
March ‘15 331 180 270
Total 2754 1190 2010

15

N.Y. Silage Samples Analyzed for Trace Minerals,

Dairy One Lab, 2014-15 Forage Year

Corn Silage MML Silage MMG Silage

October ’14 19 13 12
November ’14 25 12 34
December ’14 24 14 15
January ‘15 10 5 17
February ‘15 13 8 9
March ‘15 14 9 6
Total 105 61 93
Percentage of 3.8% 5.1% 4.6%
all samples

16

8
 11/20/2015

Ash: Soil Contamination Issues

• Wasted space in ration

50 lbs DMI x .01 = 0.5 lb dry matter
• Antagonists
– Iron, clay, molybdenum
• Skewing of trace mineral values
• Iron and titanium are markers
– Titanium not absorbed by plants

17

Ash contamination an issue in hay

crop and small grain silages

Based on 9,669 Small Grain Silage and

16,124 Legume Haylage samples

Undersander, Univ. Wisconsin 18

9
 11/20/2015

Ash Content of Corn Silages

~34% of samples

R. Ward, CVAS 19

Ash Values in NY Silages, 2014-2015

Ash (n=5,954) October November December January February March

Corn Silage, avg. 3.81 3.92 3.74 3.64 3.61 3.73

Corn Silage, SD 0.87 1.11 0.86 0.87 1.44 0.78
MML Silage, avg. 10.72 10.8 10.56 10.34 10.16 10.63
MML Silage, SD 1.44 1.78 1.64 1.53 1.36 1.47
MMG Silage, avg. 9.21 9.06 9.05 8.88 8.74 9.31
MMG Silage, SD 1.65 1.63 1.53 1.48 1.58 1.68

20

10
 11/20/2015

Iron Values in NY Silages, 2014-2015

Iron (n=259) October November December January February March

Corn Silage, avg. 125.4 89.9 105.8 97.6 112.7 102

Corn Silage, SD 62.3 36 55.8 51.5 51 98.5
MML Silage, avg. 316.4 565.5 408.9 517 445.3 277.8
MML Silage, SD 216.1 469 240.1 450 280.5 128.6
MMG Silage, avg. 464.3 268.3 400 353.7 281.4 272.7
MMG Silage, SD 695 144.7 446 299.9 267.2 92.3

Fe, ppm1 Low Medium High

Corn Silage 133 234 555
MML Silage 265 423 1,155
MMG Silage 219 355 850

1 Soil contamination; Knapp et al., 2015 21

Trace minerals, corn silage, by sample month

30
Zinc (ppm) in NY Corn Silage
25

20

15 6
Corn Silage, avg.
Copper (ppm) in NY Corn Silage
10 5
Corn Silage, SD

5 4

0 3
Corn Silage, avg.
2 Corn Silage, SD

30 0
Manganese (ppm) in NY Corn Silage
25

20

15
Corn Silage, avg.
10
Corn Silage, SD
5

Dairy One Lab, 2014-2015 22

11
 11/20/2015

Copper Values in NY Silages, 2014-2015

Copper (n=259) October November December January February March

Corn Silage, avg. 5.7 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.5 5.1

Corn Silage, SD 4.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.3
MML Silage, avg. 10.3 9.5 8.6 9.9 9.3 11.3
MML Silage, SD 1.6 2 1.4 1.4 2 6.9
MMG Silage, avg. 9.7 8.8 8.3 8.5 7.3 10.3
MMG Silage, SD 2.1 1.9 1.9 2 2.2 1.7

Corn silage 4.0 ppm

MML silage 9.0 ppm
MMG silage 8.0 ppm

23

Soil Copper Levels Vary

24

12
 11/20/2015

Zinc Values in NY Silages, 2014-2015

Zinc (n=259) October November December January February March

Corn Silage, avg. 26.9 20.7 21.1 21.9 21.3 24.2

Corn Silage, SD 20.9 4.7 3.4 3.6 5.5 6.5
MML Silage, avg. 27.4 24.4 27.2 26.5 26.1 47.3
MML Silage, SD 4.6 3.8 3.6 3.6 4.2 20
MMG Silage, avg. 31.4 30.6 27.3 30 33.3 27.2
MMG Silage, SD 9.6 5.4 5 5 11.8 4.3

Corn silage 18 ppm

MML silage 25 ppm
MMG silage 27 ppm

25

Manganese Values in NY Silages, 2014-2015

Manganese (n=259) October November December January February March

Corn Silage, avg. 26.5 22.2 20.7 22.1 23 19.9

Corn Silage, SD 13.8 12.3 6.6 8.7 12.3 8.6
MML Silage, avg. 48.8 43.1 52.5 42.2 57.1 64.5
MML Silage, SD 9.1 15.4 25.5 25.5 20.6 54.3
MMG Silage, avg. 73.5 96.4 77.3 86.8 92.1 80.1
MMG Silage, SD 36.5 37.5 30.8 74.4 66.8 40.9

Corn silage 18
MML silage 38
MMG silage 60?

26

13
 11/20/2015

Effect of Diet Sulfur and Molybdenum on Total Diet

Copper (ppm) Needed to Meet Requirement1

Dietary Sulfur (S) Concentration, Percent of DM

Diet Mo, ppm 0.25 0.35 0.45
1 12.6 ppm 15.5 ppm 18.9 ppm
2 13.6 ppm 17.1 ppm 22.0 ppm

1 Requirement of 12 mg/day absorbable copper for 1,500 lb cow; 77 lb/d milk;

pregnant, gaining 1.1 lb/day; 50 lb/d DMI; (NRC, 2001)

27

Notes on Molybdenum/Sulfur/Iron
Antagonism

• Both molybdenum (Mo) and sulfur can act

independently to reduce copper absorption
– Molybdates are absorbed and bind copper in tissues
– Sulfur can form sulfides of copper (low absorption)
• Excess iron promotes the sulfur/molybdenum
antagonism on copper
– Soy hulls, DDG, M&B meal, blood meal, some water
• High sulfur in DDG, CGF, some water sources

28

14
 11/20/2015

Antagonists

Antagonist/Excess Minerals Affected Possible symptoms

Iron (Fe) >400-500 ppm Cu, Zn, Mn, Se Silent heats, poor
conception, high SCC,
reduced intake
Molybdenum/Sulfur Cu, Se Irregular cycles, poor
>0.4% S, heats and conception,
>2-5 ppm Mo high SCC

Notes
1. Iron is a pro-oxidant, excess stresses antioxidant defenses of the body.
2. Sulfur and molybdenum levels vary over time as feeds and forages change.
3. Recent Iowa State study: high S (.68 vs .24%) reduced Cu, Mn and Zn
retention (Pogge et al., 2014, J. Anim. Sci. 92:2182-91).

29

Water

30

15
 11/20/2015

Water Quality1

Hardness >300?

1Dairy One Lab, Ithaca, NY; Beede, Michigan State31

Survey of water on Virginia Dairy Farms

32
Mann et al., 2012

16
 11/20/2015

Water Quality1

1Dairy One Lab, Ithaca, NY; Beede, Michigan State33

Water Quality1

• Sample water correctly

– http://www.msu.edu/~beede
– Take 2 independent samples
• Red Flags
Iron (Fe) greater than 0.3 ppm
(sulfate + chloride) > 250-500 ppm
Positive coliform/E.coli test, nitrates

1Dairy One Lab, Ithaca, NY; Beede, Michigan State34

17
 11/20/2015

Practical Fortification
Guidelines

• Be aware of multiple sources of variation

– Variation in forage and feed trace minerals
– Variation among cows in a pen
– Uncertainty of actual variation among cows in pen
– Variation (errors) in TMR preparation
– Uncertainty in model predictions of requirements and
absorption coefficients

35

Trace minerals in base feed

ingredients

• Should not ignore

• Source of both absorbable trace minerals and
antagonists
– Can be both an insurance policy and a liability
• Variation needs to be dealt with
– Could discount values by ½ standard deviation
– But to do that we need to have a realistic average and
standard deviation for the forages being fed

36

18
 11/20/2015

Other Issues

• Most nutritionists are working with a standard

vitamin-mineral pack
• A regional/seasonal profile of forage trace
minerals?
• Profile trace minerals in regional forage base and
compare to NRC requirement levels
• Formulate add-pack based on this profile

37

Considerations

• Cu, Zn, Mn levels in base feed ingredients

• Iron levels on hay crop silages
• Molybdenum and sulfur levels
• Copper accumulation in dairy cows
• Dry cows, heifers
• Water quality issues?
• Parasitism

38

19
 11/20/2015

Dairy-Vitamin/Mineral Status

• Copper Excess (63%) Deficient (7%)

• Selenium Excess (69%) Deficient (6%)
• Manganese Low (45%)
• Zinc Low-deficient (26%)
• Vitamin E Deficiency
• Vitamin A Deficiency

Jeffery O. Hall, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.A.B.V.T.

39

Keratinized Tissues

• Skin, hoof horn, rumen epithelium, teat

canal keratin
– First line of defense and protection
• Vitamins and trace minerals are essential
– Zinc, copper, manganese
– Biotin, Vitamin A

40

20
 11/20/2015

Response Times to Changes in Vitamin and

Trace Mineral Nutrition

• Infectious disease (mastitis,metritis): 30-90 days

– depends on numbers of cows calving, new cases
• Hoof health: 60-180 days
– turnover rates of skin < sole horn < hoof wall
• Reproduction: 60-180 days
– how many cows are cycling? Being bred?

41

Trace Mineral Formulation Problem1

Required, Base diet Absorbed Deficit of Added 1X

Absorbed TM levels from Base absorbed ppm from
Diet TM sulfates
Copper 12 mg/d 6 ppm 6 mg/d 6 mg/d 5 ppm

Zinc 250 mg/d 25 ppm 118 mg/d 132 mg/d 28 ppm

Manganese 10 mg/d 30 ppm 5 mg/d 5 mg/d 18 ppm

23.5 kg DMI; 77 milk/day; 680 kg BWT

AC in base diet: Cu .04, Zn .15, Mn .0075
AC in TM sulfates: Cu .05, Zn .20, Mn .012

Approach adapted from Bill Weiss,

Proc. Tri-State Nutrition Conf. 2015 42

21
 11/20/2015

Trace Mineral Formulation Problem1

Added 1X Base diet Total Diet Add 2X Total Diet

sulfates, TM levels Levels @ Safety with 2X
ppm 1X Factor Safety
Copper 5 ppm 6 ppm 11 ppm 10 ppm 16 ppm

Zinc 28 ppm 25 ppm 53 ppm 56 ppm 81 ppm

Manganese 18 ppm 30 ppm 48 ppm 36 ppm 66 ppm

23.5 kg DMI; 77 milk/day; 680 kg BWT

AC in base diet: Cu .04, Zn .15, Mn .0075
AC in TM sulfates: Cu .05, Zn .20, Mn .012

Approach adapted from Bill Weiss,

Proc. Tri-State Nutrition Conf. 2015 43

Other Trace Minerals

Mineral Level (Added) Comments

Cobalt 0.5 ppm Adequate B12
Iodine 1.0 ppm Thyroid
Selenium 0.3 ppm Legal limit
Chromium 0.5 ppm Legal limit

Notes:
1. Negatively charged elements (Se, Iodine) are primarily regulated via
urinary excretion rather than intestinal absorption.
2. Excess levels of selenium and iodine interfere with each other’s metabolism
3. Chromium is not officially required but data supports its importance

44

22
 11/20/2015

Organic Trace Minerals

• Combination of a trace element and an organic

compound forming a stable bond or complex
– In principle should have higher bioavailability
– Bioavailability is both absorption and utilization for
biochemical processes in the body
• In theory can feed less metal, get equal or
greater amount of absorbed trace mineral
More confidence = less overage

45

Final Thoughts

• We should be thinking in terms of absorbed, not

total trace minerals required (mg/cow/day)
– Metabolizable trace mineral requirements
• Most ration models/programs have the 2001 NRC
absorbed trace mineral requirements
• Need to consider animal requirements, status,
feed variations and antagonists

46

23
 11/20/2015

47

24
 11/20/2015

What’s new with corn silage?

Randy Shaver and Luiz Ferraretto

Dairy Science Department

Corn Silage Tons by State by Year

Source: USDA NASS

1
 11/20/2015

Milk Cow #’s by State by Year

2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000 WI
CA
1,200,000
NY
PA
1,000,000
MN
800,000 ID
MI
600,000
IA

400,000

200,000

0 71‐75 76‐80 81‐85 86‐90 91‐95 96‐00 01‐05 06‐10 11 12 13

Source: USDA NASS

Whole-Plant Corn Silage

Stover= ~55-60% of WPDM
Grain ~40-45% of WPDM
•Avg. 42% NDF in WPDM
•Avg. 30% starch in WPDM •Variable stover:grain
•Variable grain:stover

80 to 98% StarchD 40 to 70% IVNDFD

•Kernel particle size •Lignin/NDF
 Hybrid Type
•Duration of silage fermentation  Environment; G × E
•Kernel maturity  Maturity
•Endosperm properties •Cutting height
•Additives (exp.) •Additives (exp.)

Adapted from Joe Lauer, UW Madison Agronomy Dept . Variable peNDF as per chop length

2
 11/20/2015

• 162 treatments means (48 articles)

• 1995 and 2014

• Hybrids comparison

Categories

• Stalk characteristics

• Grain characteristics

• Genetically-modified hybrids

3
 11/20/2015

Hybrids differing in stalk characteristics

• Brown midrib (BMR) n = 30

• Conventional, dual-purpose, isogenic or

low to normal fiber digestibility
(CONS) n = 48

• High-fiber digestibility (HFD) n = 9

• Leafy (LFY) n = 11

Nutrient composition of stalk hybrids

Item BMR CONS HFD LFY SEM P-value
DM, % as fed 33.7 34.5 35.1 33.2 0.9 0.45
CP, %DM 8.0 7.8 8.1 8.0 0.2 0.20
NDF, %DM 42.3 42.6 45.0 42.3 0.8 0.09
Lignin, %DM 2.0b 2.8a 2.9a 2.6a 0.2 0.001
Starch, %DM 28.7ab 30.1a 26.7b 30.0ab 1.1 0.02

4
 11/20/2015

Lactation performance with stalk hybrids

Item CONS BMR HFD LFY SEM P-value

DMI, kg/d 24.0b 24.9a 24.6a 23.7b 0.4 0.001
Milk, kg/d 37.2c 38.7a 38.2ab 37.3bc 0.8 0.001
Fat, % 3.63a 3.52b 3.63ab 3.67a 0.06 0.01
MUN, mg/dL 15.0a 14.0b 15.1ab 15.2a 0.6 0.02
NDFD 42.3b 44.8a 47.1a 41.7b 1.8 0.001
TTSD 92.7b 91.3c 90.5c 94.9a 1.1 0.01

5
 11/20/2015

Feeding Trial Design

 10/18/12 – 2/6/13; UW – Arlington Dairy
 12 pens with 8 cows each; 96 cows (105 + 31 DIM,
717 + 19 kg BW at trial initiation)
 Cows stratified by milk yield & DIM, assigned to
pens, and pens randomly assigned to 1 of 2
treatments
 BMR
 FL-LFY
 2-week adjustment period with all pens fed UW
herd diet with a non-experimental hybrid silage
 14-week treatment period with all cows fed
their assigned treatment TMR
 At week 8 diets were reformulated to contain
similar lignin content

Nutrient composition at feedout

BMR FL-LFY
DM, % as fed 37.7% ± 2.5 36.0% ± 3.2
CP, % DM 8.7% ± 0.2 8.7% ± 0.3
Starch, % DM 30.6% ± 1.3 32.2% ± 1.2
ivStarchD, %starch 69.9% ± 3.2 75.6% ± 2.3
NDF, % DM 38.2% ± 0.9 36.0% ± 1.6
ivNDFD, %NDF 67.9% ± 0.8 57.2% ± 1.7
Lignin, %DM 2.3% ± 0.3 2.8% ± 0.2
uNDF, %DM 6.9% ± 0.7 9.4% ± 0.3

6
 11/20/2015

Lactation performance
BMR FL-LFY SE P <
DMI, kg/d 28.1 26.4 0.4 0.01
Milk, kg/d 49.0 46.8 0.8 0.05
Kg Milk/kg
1.75 1.76 0.04 0.82
DMI
Fat, % 3.83 4.05 0.07 0.01
Fat, kg/d 1.84 1.84 0.04 0.89
Protein, % 3.27 3.27 0.08 0.98
Protein, kg/d 1.57 1.48 0.03 0.03
Lactose, % 4.87 4.81 0.03 0.06
Lactose, kg/d 2.35 2.19 0.05 0.01
MUN, mg/dL 15.6 16.8 0.3 0.001

Total tract nutrient digestibility

% of Nutrient Intake

BMR FL-LFY SE P <

DM 60.7 62.8 0.8 0.03
OM 62.8 65.0 0.7 0.02
NDF 40.4 39.7 1.9 0.73
Starch 93.3 98.0 0.7 0.001

7
 11/20/2015

In Press

Treatments and Objectives

• BMR, DP, and LFY-FL

• 2/3 milk line, 7 d later
• 0.65-cm, 1.95-cm
• Protease vs. control
• 0, 30, 60, 120 or 240 d of ensiling

• Objective was to evaluate the effects of

ensiling time and protease in WPCS of
varied hybrids, maturities and particle size

8
 11/20/2015

Hybrid type × ensiling time

BMR DP LFY
75
ivStarchD (% starch)

70
65
60
55
50
45
30 60 120 240
Ensiling time (d)

Time effect (P < 0.001)

Hybrid effect (P = 0.02)
Hybrid×Time (P > 0.10)

9
 11/20/2015

Ensiling time effect

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

Hybrid type × ensiling time

80
Time effect (P < 0.001)
75
Hybrid effect (NS)
ivStarchD (% starch)

70 Hybrid×Time (NS)

65
60
LFY
55
BMR
50
3.0 4.1 4.3
2.0
45
Difference between LFY and BMR (%-units)
40
0 30 120 240
Ensiling time (d)

10
 11/20/2015

Hybrid type × ensiling time

80
Time effect (NS)
75 Hybrid effect (P < 0.001)
Hybrid×Time (NS)
70
ivNDFD (% NDF)

65
60
LFY
55
BMR
50
45
40
0 30 120 240
Ensiling time (d)
Shredlage

Shredlage

http://www.shredlage.com/

11
 11/20/2015

New Processing Alternatives

 Novel intermeshing disk processors

 Processors with greater roll speed differential

• Unsure of TLOC & MPL or comparability of

fiber shredding

12
 11/20/2015

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

Trial 1 Trial 2
Hybrid Dual Purpose Brown Midrib
Crop Year 2011 2013
Harvest DM 34% ± 2 38% ± 4
Ensiling Silo Bags Silo Bags
Months in Storage
1 4
Before Feeding

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

Trial 1 Trial 2

Control SHRD Control SHRD

TLOC, mm 19 30 19 26
WI-OS
10.4 11.2 10.0 11.4
MPL, mm
% PSU Top 6% 32% 7% 18%

% PSU Top 2 82% 73% 75% 73%

13
 11/20/2015

Kernel Processing Score

Mertens, USDFRC

 Ro-Tap Shaker
 9 sieves (0.6 thru 19
mm) and pan
 Analyze for starch on
4.75 mm & > sieves
% of starch passing
4.75 mm sieve KPS
>70% Excellent
70% to 50% Adequate
< 50% Poor

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

Trial 1 Trial 2

Control SHRD Control SHRD

Roll gap, mm 2 - 3 2.5 2 2

Roll Speed
≈20% ≈30% ≈40% 30%-40%
Differential
Processing 60% 75% 68% 72%
Score ± 4 ± 3 ± 7 ± 4

14
 11/20/2015

Kernel Processing Score

Samples obtained weekly during feed-out from the silo bags

UW Madison Trial 2

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

% of Diet DM Trial 1 Trial 2
Forage 60% 55%
Corn Silage 50% 45%
Forage NDF 23% 24%
Starch 25% 29%

CP 17% 16%

15
 11/20/2015

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

Trial 1 Trial 2
DIM at trial start 116 d ± 36 81 d ± 8
Trial Duration, weeks 10 16
Trial Average Control
94 110
Milk, lb/cow/day

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

Shredlage Response
Trial 1 Trial 2
DMI no no
Milk Yield avg. +2 lb avg. +2.5 lb
Feed Efficiency no no
Milk Composition no no
Milk Component Yields yes yes

16
 11/20/2015

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

Shredlage Response
Trial 1 Trial 2
Body Condition Score no no
Body Weight Change no no
Rumination Activity --- no

UW Madison Trial 2

Rumination Activity
KP KPH SHRD P <

Minutes/day 503 499 504 0.88

17
 11/20/2015

UW Madison Shredlage® Trials

Shredlage Response
Trial 1 Trial 2
Total Tract Diet StarchD yes yes
Ruminal Silage StarchD yes yes

Total Tract Diet NDFD yes no

Ruminal Silage NDFD no? no

New York Shredlage Trials

• Larry Chase – Cornell Univ. unpublished
 No response

• Sally Flis – Dairy One unpublished field trial

 Similar milk response as UW trials

18
 11/20/2015

2014 Farm Survey

Gustavo Salvati, Randy Shaver, Matt
Lippert, Eric Ronk, & Chris Wacek-Driver
 Farm Sampling April - June 2014
 76 Samples from 69 Farms (WI, MN, IL)
o 46/76 Claas SPFH with Shredlage® processor
o 5/76 Loren Cut® rolls
o 72/76 bunkers/piles; 4/76 silo bags
o Hybrids
 31/76 Dual-Purpose
 19/76 Silage-Specific
 11/76 BMR
 11/76 Combination
o Silage inoculant used 58/67 farms

2014 Farm Survey

Results
# of
All farms Milking Milk
Cows
MUN
lb/day Fat% Protein% mg%
Average 840 87 3.8 3.2 10.1
Std. Dev. 655 10 0.4 0.2 1.6
Max 3500 109 5.6 3.9 15.4
Min 66 52 3.3 2.9 6.0

19
 11/20/2015

2014
2014 Farm Survey
Farm Survey
Results
Results
Verbal TLOC Verbal Roll Gap
n n
>26 mm 10 >2.5 mm 2
26 mm 33 2.5 mm 10
22 mm 22 2.0 mm 30
19 mm 4 1.5 mm 11
<19 mm 1 1.0 mm 7
<1.0 mm 3

2014 Farm Survey

Results
% on Top Processing Score
Samples n Screen of % Starch thru
PSU Box 4.75 mm Sieve
All 76 17.9% 66.4%
Shredlage 46 19.6% 67.3%
Loren-Cut Rolls 5 14.7% 66.0%
Conv. Processor 6 16.1% 62.2%
JD Conv. 32% 5 12.3% 65.1%
Horning Rolls 32% 2 6.3% 69.8%
Kooima Disc 5 14.6% 65.8%
Uncertain 7 20.7% 64.7%

20
 11/20/2015

2014 Farm Survey

Results
Processing
WI OS
% on Top Score
Shredlage Particle
Screen of % Starch
(n=46) Separator
PSU Box thru 4.75
MPL (mm)
mm Sieve
Average 19.6% 11.9 67.3%
Std. Dev. 7.8% 1.4 5.9%
Max 39.9% 14.8 82.7%
Min 7.2% 9.0 49.5%

2014 Farm Survey

Results
12

10
No. of samples

0
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% More
Shredlage ‐ PSU Box Top Screen

21
 11/20/2015

2014 Farm Survey

Results
20
18
16
14
No. of samples

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% More
Shredlage – Processing Score

2014 Farm Survey

Results
% forage in diet DM % of 63 farms
Increased 22.2%
Same 68.3%
Reduced 9.5%

22
 11/20/2015

2014 Farm Survey

Results
% corn silage in diet DM % of 64 farms
Increased 46.9%
Same 50.0%
Reduced 3.1%

2014 Farm Survey

Results
Use Hay or Straw % of 65 farms
Yes 53.8%
No 46.2%

23
 11/20/2015

2014 Farm Survey

Results
Hay or straw reduced % of 35 farms
Yes 40.0%
No 60.0%

2014 Farm Survey

Results
Feed sorting % of 67 farms
Increased 14.9%
Reduced 14.9%
No Change 67.2%
Unsure 3.0%

24
 11/20/2015

Kernel Processing Score

Mertens, USDFRC

 Ro-Tap Shaker
 9 sieves (0.6 thru 19
mm) and pan
 Analyze for starch on
4.75 mm & > sieves
% of starch passing
4.75 mm sieve KPS
>70% Excellent
70% to 50% Adequate
< 50% Poor

Industry Makes Advances in

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

25
 11/20/2015

Kernel Processing Score

n Unfermented n Fermented SE P<

12 50.2% 121 60.1% 3.1 0.01

% Starch
Passing
14 49.4% ± 11.4 282 70.0% ± 5.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
4.75 mm
Sieve

10 49.3% ± 15.5 203 67.8% ± 3.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

130 days in vacuum sealed experimental mini silos

290 to 210 days in farm level silo bags
330 to 120 days in farm level silo bags

Kernel Processing Score

70
a
% starch passing through 4.75 mm

P = 0.08
68 SEM = 2.0 a
n=3
66

64 ab
screen

62
b
60

58

56
0 30 120 240
Ensiling time, d

vacuum sealed experimental mini silos

26
 11/20/2015

Kernel Processing Score

KPS% KPS vs. DM% y = 0.8575x + 0.37
R² = 0.2737
85.0%

80.0%

75.0%

70.0%

65.0%

60.0%

55.0%

50.0%

45.0%
25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
DM%

GRAIN/STOVER SEPARATION

 A sub-sample of 1 kg as fed of each sample was used to

separate grain and stover fractions through the
hydrodynamic separation procedure (Savoie et al., 2004)

 All samples were dried at 60°C for 48 h in a forced-air

oven prior to immersion in water

27
 11/20/2015

www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/KernelProcessing‐FOF.pdf

28
 11/20/2015

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

29
 Making Sense of Starch by NDF Interactions

Luiz Ferraretto and Randy Shaver

Department of Dairy Science

University of Wisconsin-Madison

INTRODUCTION corrected for by using rate of passage (kp) assump-

Associative effects of feeds, nutrients, diets, and dry tions. However, DMI may influence rumen pH (Shaver
matter intake (DMI) influence the digestibility of nutrients et al., 1986) and hence kd; this effect would not be
in vivo. However, associative effects are largely ignored accounted for with kp assumptions in the kd/(kd+kp)
with commercial-lab in vitro or in situ digestibility mea- calculations of digestibility.
surements. • Fine grinding of incubation samples, to pass through
a 1- to 2-mm screen, results in measurement of
Presented in Table 1 are the findings of a survey, maximal rates and extents of NDF digestibility, while
performed by the authors, of websites and sample grinding incubation samples to pass through a 4- to
reports from 4 major dairy feed testing labs in the USA 6-mm screen may mask the effects of test feed par-
for analyses related to starch and NDF digestibilities.
ticle size on starch digestibility.
Dairy nutritionists have a seemingly endless stream of
assays, and calculations from these assays, available for • Ruminal in vitro and in situ techniques ignore post-
characterizing feed ingredients and diets. The inclusion ruminal starch and NDF digestion. The proportion
of biological assays, e.g. digestibility in rumen fluid, to
Table 1. Survey of websites and sample reports from 4 ma-
go along with chemical assays, e.g. NDF, lignin, starch, jor dairy feed testing labs in the USA for analyses related to
etc., in the commercial feed analysis system has been a starch and NDF digestibilities.
major step forward for the industry to characterize feed
NDF; NDFOM; Lignin; uNDF (Lignin × 2.4)
ingredients and diets according to their nutritive value.
Starch; Prolamin; Ammonia; Particle Size;
UW Feed Grain Evaluation; Processing Score
However, when attempting to interpret and translate
to the farm from the myriad of assays and calculations TMR-D;
Rumen in vitro total tract NDFD (Combs-ivttNDFD)
listed in Table 1, the inherent flaws of rumen in vitro
and in situ measurements relative to in vivo digestibility Traditional (Goering – Van Soest) NDFD;
results should be kept in mind. A partial list is as follows: Standardized (Combs – Goeser) NDFD
NDF kd calculated from 24, 30, 48, 120-h NDFD
• Measurements relative to ingredient and nutrient (Combs – Goeser)
composition and physical form of diet fed to donor NDF kd Mertens; NDF kd Van Amburgh
or incubation cows (Cone et al., 1989; Mertens et
al., 1996) rather than client farms where results will 24-h NDFD; calculated B2/B3 kd
be used, e.g. effects of variable diet starch content 30, 120, 240-h NDFD – forages;
and source on ruminal amylase activity and in vivo 12, 72, 120-h NDFD – byproducts
starch digestibility; effects on in vivo fiber digestibility 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72, 120, 240-h NDFD lag, pools & rates
of fluctuations in ruminal pH via production, buffer-
120-h uNDF; 240-h uNDF
ing, absorption and passage of volatile fatty acids;
effects of variation in rumen degradable protein on 3-h, 7-h Rumen in vitro or in situ starch digestibility
(ivRSD); kd
in vivo fiber and starch digestibility; etc.
Fecal Starch;
• Measurements relative to DMI of donor or incubation Dietary Total Tract Starch Digestibility (TTSD)
cows rather than client farms with highly variable milk
Fermentrics™ (gas production system)
yield and hence DMI levels. Determination of diges-
tion rates (kd) allows this discrepancy to be partly Calibrate™

2015 Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop 45

 of starch digested post-ruminally can be significant CORN SILAGE
(Ferraretto et al., 2013). Substantially (10 to 15%-units) greater ivNDFD for brown
Therefore, for the most part, the assays or calculations midrib 3 mutation (bm3) whole-plant corn silage (WPCS)
from these assays listed in Table 1 should be viewed hybrids associated with reduced lignin content com-
as relative index values for comparison among feeds/ pared to conventional hybrids is well established (Jung
diets or over time within feeds/diets, rather than as and Lauer, 2011; Jung et al., 2011). However, greater
predictors of in vivo digestibility results. The obvious ivNDFD for bm3 hybrids has sometimes, but not always,
exceptions include: 1) determination of fecal starch translated into greater in vivo NDF digestibility (Oba and
concentrations to estimate in vivo total tract starch Allen, 1999; Tine et al., 2001; Jung et al., 2011; Fer-
digestibility (TTSD) for diets (Fredin et al., 2014; Owens raretto and Shaver, 2015). Variable TTNDFD response
et al., 2015), and 2) determination of concentrations to feeding bm3 WPCS is influenced by the DMI response
of fecal and diet undigested NDF (uNDF at 120 to 288 to the greater ivNDFD (Oba and Allen, 1999; Tine et al.,
h) along with the nutrients of interest, in both fecal and 2001), while WPCS type (bm3 versus near-isogenic or
diet samples, to determine in vivo total tract nutrient conventional WPCS hybrids) by dietary forage-NDF (Oba
digestibility for diets (Schalla et al., 2012; Krizsan and Allen, 2000; Qiu et al., 2003), starch (Oba and Allen,
and Huhtanen, 2013). It is noted, however, that these 2000) and CP (Weiss and Wyatt, 2006) concentration
results provide no information about site of digestion or supplemental corn grain endosperm type (Taylor and
and pertain only to the diet fed rather than specific feed Allen, 2005) interactions were undetected.
ingredients included within the diet.
With approximately 10%-units greater ivNDFD for bm3
In a field study of 32 high-producing commercial dairy compared to near-isogenic or conventional WPCS hy-
herds in the Upper Midwest, Powel-Smith et al. (2015) brids, DMI and TTNDFD responses were, respectively,
used lignin and uNDF (240 h) as indigestible markers to 2.1 kg/d per cow and 1.8%-units (Oba and Allen, 1999),
0.8 to 1.4 kg/d per cow and non-significant (Oba and
determine in vivo TTSD and total tract NDF digestibility
Allen, 2000), and 0.9 kg/d per cow and 2.5%-units
(TTNDFD) for diets. Measurements of ruminal in vitro
(meta-analysis by Ferraretto and Shaver, 2015). Fur-
starch digestibility (ivSD; 7 h) were unrelated (R2 = 0.00)
thermore, Oba and Allen (1999) observed a negative
to TTSD. For TTNDFD, measurements of ruminal in vitro
linear relationship between DMI and TTNDFD responses
NDF digestibility (ivNDFD; 24 h) and uNDF were poorly
for bm3 WPCS, which was likely related to a faster pas-
(R2 = 0.13 and 0.21, respectively) related.
sage rate through the rumen associated with greater
DMI (NRC, 2001), with the regression indicating a zero
Lopes et al. (2015), using in vivo TTNDF data from 21 TTNDFD response at a 3 kg/d per cow DMI response.
treatment diets in 7 lactating dairy cow feeding trials
conducted at the University of Wisconsin, evaluated
Tine et al. (2001) fed bm3 WPCS TMR ad libitum or re-
uNDF (240 h) and the Combs rumen in vitro estimate stricted to the DMI of the TMR containing near-isogenic
of total tract NDF digestibility (ivttNDFD). Diet uNDF WPCS to lactating dairy cows, while dry cows were fed
(240 h) was negatively related (R2 = 0.40) to TTNDFD; bm3 and near-isogenic WPCS TMR at maintenance intake
each 1%-unit increase in uNDF (240 h) was associated levels. For dry cows, TTNDFD was 10%-units greater for
with a 0.96%-unit decrease in TTNDFD. Mean values, the bm3 diet, while for the lactating cows TTNDFD was
however, were 15%-units greater for uNDF-predicted 9%-units or 7%-units greater, respectively, for restricted-
TTNDFD compared to the observed TTNDFD. The fed or ad libitum-fed cows compared to near-isogenic
ivttNDFD calculations included diet uNDF (240 h), WPCS control diets. Averaged across treatments, TTNDFD
potentially-digestible NDF and NDF kd determined us- was 67% in dry cows and 54% in lactating cows. Results
ing the in vitro procedure of Goeser and Combs (2009), from this study show a negative relationship between DMI
assumed kp, and assumed hindgut NDF digestion. The and TTNDFD and TTNDFD response to bm3 WPCS. While
R2 for the relationship between ivttNDFD and TTNDFD diet net energy for lactation (NEL) concentrations were
was 0.68 and mean values differed by only 1%-unit, unaffected by treatment (P > 0.10), numerically diet NEL
showing promise for this approach. content was 9% greater in dry cows, but only 2% greater in
lactating cows, for bm3 compared to near-isogenic WPCS
The remainder of this paper will focus primarily on review diets. In Tine et al. (2001), DMI and milk yield were 2.4
and discussion of the effects of starch by NDF interac- and 3.1 kg/d per cow, respectively, greater for cows fed
tions and DMI on in vivo starch and NDF digestibilities. bm3 WPCS compared to cows fed near-isogenic WPCS.

46 November 11-12  Grantville, PA

 It is evident that the milk yield response to greater diet TTSD when length of chop was set for 0.93 to 2.86
ivNDFD in bm3 WPCS derives primarily through in- cm. Ferraretto and Shaver (2012b) and Vanderwerff et
creases in DMI. Based on this research, the MILK2006 al. (2015) reported greater TTSD in lactating dairy cows
update of the MILK2000 WPCS hybrid evaluation model fed Shredlage™ compared to conventional-processed
included discounts for estimating the NEL content of WPCS. Clearly, physical form of WPCS affects starch
WPCS from predicted increases in DMI in response to digestibility. Grinding incubation samples for in vitro
greater ivNDFD, so that increases in estimated milk per or in situ analysis through a common screen (e.g. 4- or
ton in relationship to greater ivNDFD derive primarily 6-mm) may mask differences in particle size among
through increases in DMI (Shaver, 2006; Shaver and WPCS that impact starch digestibility. Furthermore, in-
Lauer, 2006). Prediction of DMI by NRC (2001), however, corporating measures of starch digestibility into WPCS
is not influenced by diet composition or forage ivNDFD. hybrid selection is difficult because starch digestibility
increases over time in storage (Ferraretto et al., 2015b).
From a meta-analysis, Ferraretto and Shaver (2015)
reported 7%-unit and 2%-unit reductions in vivo for
DIETARY STARCH AND FORAGE NDF
ruminal (RSD) and total tract (TTSD) starch digestibil-
ity, respectively, in bm3 compared to near-isogenic or Presented in Figure 1 (meta-analysis by Ferraretto et al.,
conventional WPCS hybrids. Compared to leafy hybrids, 2013) is the effect of dietary starch concentration on
TTSD was 5%-units lower for bm3 WPCS hybrids. Re- fiber digestibility. Increased dietary starch concentration
duced starch digestibility for bm3 WPCS hybrids could be reduced ruminal NDFD in vivo (P = 0.01) and TTNDFD
due to greater kernel vitreousness (Fish, 2010; Glenn, (P = 0.001). The digestibility of dietary NDF decreased
2013) and/or faster passage rate through the digestive
tract associated with increased DMI (NRC, 2001; Fer-
raretto et al., 2013). Ferraretto et al. (2015a) reported
5%-units greater TTSD for lactating dairy cows fed an
experimental floury-leafy WPCS hybrid compared to
cows fed a bm3 WPCS hybrid that appeared related to
reduced kernel vitreousness and greater WPCS ruminal
ivSD (7 h) and in situ (12 h) starch digestibility for the
floury-leafy hybrid. However, ivNDFD (30 h), DMI and
milk yield were 11%-units, 1.7 kg/d per cow and 2.2
kg/d per cow, respectively, greater for the bm3 WPCS
treatment. In agreement with previously discussed
trials, TTNDFD was similar for the 2 diets despite the
large ivNDFD difference between the WPCS treatments.
Greater ivNDFD, DMI and milk yield for a bm3 WPCS
hybrid compared to an experimental floury-leafy WPCS
hybrid has also been reported by Morrison et al. (2014).

These results underscore the importance of ivNDFD for

WPCS hybrid selection from the standpoint of DMI and
milk yield responses, and when attempting to incorpo-
rate parameters associated with greater starch digest-
ibility into new WPCS hybrids. For example, improving
starch digestibility of bm3 hybrids through genetics ap-
pears to be a logical WPCS hybrid development strategy.
Figure 1. Effect of starch concentration of the diet on
ruminal and total-tract digestibility of diet NDF adjusted for
Ferraretto and Shaver (2012a), from a meta-analysis of the random effect of trial. Ruminal digestibility data (Panel
WPCS trials with lactating dairy cows, reported the fol- a) predicted from equation: y = 54.9746 + (-0.605 × starch
lowing: processing (1- to 3-mm roll gap) increased diet concentration) + (0.063 ± 3.524); n = 70, RMSE = 3.55.
TTSD compared to 4- to 8-mm processed and unpro- Total-tract digestibility diet (Panel b) predicted from equation:
cessed WPCS; processing increased TTSD for diets con- y = 58.2843 + (-0.4817 × starch concentration) + (0.059 ±
taining WPCS with 32 to 40% DM; processing increased 3.191); n = 320, RMSE = 3.20. Ferraretto et al., 2013.

2015 Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop 47

0.61%-units ruminally and 0.48%-units total-tract per dietary FNDF was on DMI (P = 0.04) with a 0.17 kg/d
%-unit increase in dietary starch content. Decreased fiber per cow decrease in DMI per 1%-unit increase in dietary
digestibility may be partially explained by a decrease in FNDF (Ferraretto et al., 2013). For example, a 3%-unit
rumen pH as a consequence of greater amounts of starch increase in dietary FNDF (25% vs. 22%, DM basis) would
(kg/d) being digested in the rumen as starch intake result in a 0.51 kg/d per cow decrease in DMI.
increases. Low rumen pH is known to affect microbial
growth and bacterial adherence and thereby fiber diges- SITE OF STARCH DIGESTION
tion. Also, the inherently high fiber digestibility of non- Relationships between ruminal, post-ruminal and total-
forage fibrous by-products used to partially replace corn tract starch digestibilities from the meta-analysis by
grain in reduced-starch diets may be partly responsible. Ferraretto et al. (2013) are presented in Figures 2 and
3. The RSD and TTSD were related positively (P = 0.04;
Weiss (2014; unpublished from 28th ADSA Discover Figure 2), with an increase of 0.19%-units total-tract per
Conf. in Starch for Ruminants) used the slope of Fer- %-unit increase ruminally. Post-ruminal starch digest-
raretto et al. (2013) in Figure 1, or 0.5%-unit change ibility measured as percentage of flow to the duodenum
in TTNDF for each 1%-unit change in dietary starch was positively related to TTSD (P = 0.001; Figure 3). In
content, to calculate effects on dietary energy values. feedstuffs with a high proportion of rumen-digested
In the Weiss (2014) example, a 5%-unit increase in starch, e.g. corn silage or high-moisture corn, in vitro
dietary starch content (e.g. 30% vs. 25%) reduced or in situ measurement of starch digestibility may be
TTNDF 2.5%-units (46.5% to 44.0%), which resulted in a a useful predictor of TTSD if particle size differences
5.3% increase in diet NEL content compared to a 6.5% among test feeds were not masked by grinding of the
increase had TTNDFD not been adversely affected by incubation samples to a similar particle size.
increased dietary starch content. Greater TTSD (>90%)
than TTNDFD (<50%) tempers the negative impact
CONCLUSIONS
on diet NEL content of reduced TTNDFD with greater
dietary starch concentrations. Generally, lab analyses related to starch and NDF digest-
ibilities should be viewed as relative index values for com-
Effects of dietary forage NDF (FNDF) concentration parison among feeds/diets or over time within feeds/
on nutrient digestibilities were reported in the meta- diets, rather than as predictors of in vivo digestibility.
analysis of Ferraretto et al. (2013). Fiber digestibility
was unaffected by FNDF concentration in the diet either The milk yield response to greater ivNDFD in bm3 WPCS
ruminally or total-tract. Similar results were reported by derives primarily through greater DMI rather than diet
Zebeli et al. (2006). Furthermore, starch digestibility de- TTNDFD or NEL content. Reduced RSD and TTSD in
creased only 0.17%-units per %-unit increase in dietary bm3 compared to near-isogenic or conventional WPCS
FNDF total-tract (P = 0.05), but not ruminally (Ferraretto hybrids suggests potential for genetic improvement of
et al., 2013). Thus, if dietary starch and total NDF con- bm3 hybrids with a more floury-type endosperm.
centrations are held constant, the primary effect of

Figure 3. Relationship between postruminal starch digest-

Figure 2. Relationship between ruminal and total-tract ibility as a percentage of duodenal flow and total-tract
starch digestibility adjusted for the random effect of trial. starch digestibility adjusted for the random effect of trial.
Prediction equation: y = 82.224 + (0.185 × ruminal) + Prediction equation: y = 68.287 + (0.304 × postruminal %
(-0.002 ± 0.772); n = 72, RMSE = 0.78. Ferraretto et al., of flow) + (0.013 ± 0.574); n = 72, RMSE = 0.58. Ferraretto
2013. et al., 2013.

48 November 11-12  Grantville, PA

 Grinding incubation samples for in vitro or in situ analysis matrix in high-moisture corn. J. Dairy Sci. 94:2465-2474.
may mask differences in particle size among WPCS that Jung, H., and J. Lauer. 2011. Corn silage fiber digestibility: Key points,
impact starch digestibility, and incorporating measures historical trends, and future opportunities. Pages 30–44 in Proc.
of starch digestibility into WPCS hybrid selection is dif- 72nd MN Nutr. Conf., Owatonna, MN. Department of Animal Sci-
ence, University of Minnesota, St-Paul.
ficult because of ensiling effects on starch digestibility.
Jung, H. G., D. R. Mertens, and R. L. Phipps. 2011. Effect of reduced
ferulated-mediated lignin/arabinoxylan cross-linking in corn silage
Increased concentrations of dietary starch decrease on feed intake, digestibility, and milk production. J. Dairy Sci.
fiber digestibility. The negative effect, however, on 94:5124-5137.
calculated diet NEL content is not large, and thus still Krizsan, S. J., and P. Huhtanen, 2013. Effect of diet composition
favors higher starch diets. Comparisons among sites and incubation time on feed indigestible neutral detergent fiber
of starch digestion indicate that greater ruminal starch concentration in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:1715-1726.
digestibility increases starch digestibility in the total Lopes, F., K. Ruh, and D. K. Combs. 2015. Validation of an approach
tract. However, the proportion of starch digested post- to predict total-tract fiber digestibility using a standardized in vitro
technique for different diets fed to high-producing dairy cows. J.
ruminally can be high for some feedstuffs and diets,
Dairy Sci. 98:2596–2602.
which would go undetected by rumen in vitro or in situ
Mertens, D. R., P. J. Weimer, and G. M. Waghorn. 1996. Inocula dif-
starch digestibility measurements.
ferences affect in vitro fiber digestion kinetics. U.S. Dairy Forage
Ctr. Res. Summ. pg. 102-103. Accessed June 2, 2015. www.ars.
REFERENCES usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Place/36553000/research_summaries/
Cone, J. W., W. Cline-Theil, A. Malestein and A. Th van’t Klooster. 1989. RS96Index.html
Degradation of starch by incubation with rumen fluid: A comparison Morrison, S. Y., K. Cotanch, C. Ballard, H. Dann, E. Young, R. Grant
of different starch sources. J. Sci. Food Agric. 49:173-183. and C. Key. 2014. Lactational response of Holstein cows to brown
Ferraretto, L. F., P. M. Crump, and R. D. Shaver. 2013. Effect of cereal midrib or leafy-floury corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 97 (Suppl. 1): 533
grain type and corn grain harvesting and processing methods on (Abstr.).
intake, digestion and milk production by dairy cows through a National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy
meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 96:533–550. Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
Ferraretto, L. F., A. C. Fonseca, C. J. Sniffen, A. Formigoni, and R. D. Oba, M., and M. S. Allen. 2000. Effects of brown midrib 3 mutation
Shaver. 2015. Effect of corn silage hybrids differing in starch and in corn silage on productivity of dairy cows fed two concentrations
NDF digestibility on lactation performance and total tract nutrient of dietary neutral detergent fiber: 3. Digestibility and microbial
digestibility by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:395–405. efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 83:1350-1358.
Ferraretto, L. F., and R. D. Shaver. 2012a. Meta-analysis: Effect of corn Oba, M., and M. S. Allen. 1999. Effects of brown midrib 3 mutation
silage harvest practices on intake, digestion, and milk production in corn silage on dry matter intake and productivity of high yielding
by dairy cows. Prof. Anim. Sci. 28:141–149. dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82:135-142.
Ferraretto, L. F., and R. D. Shaver. 2012b. Effect of corn shredlage on Owens, C. E., R. A. Zinn, and F. N. Owens. 2015. Fecal starch and
lactation performance and total tract starch digestibility by dairy starch digestibility. An indirect relationship. J. Dairy Sci. 98 (Suppl.
cows. Prof. Anim. Sci. 28:639-647. 2): 466 (Abstr.).
Ferraretto, L. F., R. D. Shaver, S. Massie, R. Singo, D. M. Taysom, and Powel-Smith, B., L. J. Nuzzback, W. C. Mahanna and F. N. Owens.
J. P. Brouillette. 2015. Effect of ensiling time and hybrid type on 2015. Starch and NDF digestibility by high-producing lactating
fermentation profile, nitrogen fractions and ruminal in vitro starch cows: A field study. J. Dairy Sci. 98 (Suppl. 2): 467 (Abstr.).
and NDF digestibility in whole-plant corn silage. Prof. Anim. Sci.
Qiu, X., M. L. Eastridge and Z. Wang. 2003. Effects of corn silage
31:146-152.
hybrid and dietary concentration of forage NDF on digestibility and
Fish, C. M. 2010. The effect of fermentation on forage quality rank- performance by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 86:3667-3674.
ing of corn hybrids. MS Thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Schalla, A., L. Meyer, Z. Meyer, S. Onetti, A. Schultz, and J. Goeser.
Fredin, S. M., L. F. Ferraretto, M. S. Akins, P. C. Hoffman, and R. D. 2012. Hot topic: Apparent total-tract nutrient digestibilities mea-
Shaver. 2014. Fecal starch as an indicator of total-tract starch sured commercially using 120-hour in vitro indigestible neutral
digestibility by lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 97:1862–1871. detergent fiber as a marker are related to commercial dairy cattle
Glenn, F. B. 2013. Introducing leafy floury hybrids for improved silage performance. J. Dairy Sci. 95:5109–5114.
yield and quality. Pages 49–58 in Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf., East Shaver, R. D. 2006. Corn silage evaluation: MILK2000 challenges
Syracuse, NY. Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, and opportunities with MILK2006. Proc. Southwest Nutr. Conf.,
Ithaca, NY. Phoenix, AZ.
Goeser, J. P., and D. K. Combs. 2009. An alternative method to as- Shaver, R. D., and J. G. Lauer. 2006. Review of Wisconsin corn silage
sess 24-h ruminal in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility. J. milk per ton models. J. Dairy Sci. 89 (Suppl. 1): 282 (Abstr.).
Dairy Sci. 92:3833–3841.
Shaver, R. D., A. J. Nytes, L. D. Satter, and N. A. Jorgensen. 1986.
Hoffman, P. C., N. M. Esser, R. D. Shaver, W. K. Coblentz, M. P. Scott, Influence of amount of feed intake and forage physical form on
and A. L. Bodnar, R J. Schmidt and R. C. Charley. 2011. Influence digestion and passage of prebloom alfalfa hay in dairy cows. J.
of ensiling time and inoculation on alteration of the starch-protein Dairy Sci. 69:1545-1559.

2015 Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop 49

Taylor, C. C., and M. S. Allen. 2005. Corn grain endosperm type and
brown midrib 3 corn silage: Site of digestion and ruminal digestion
kinetics in lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88:1413–1424.
Tine, M. A., K. R. McLeod, R. A. Erdman, and R. L. Baldwin VI. 2001.
Effects of brown midrib corn silage on the energy balance of dairy
cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 84:885-895.
Vanderwerff, L. M., L. F. Ferraretto, and R. D. Shaver. 2015. Brown
midrib corn shredlage in diets for high-producing dairy cows. J.
Dairy Sci. 98:5642-5652.
Weiss, W. P., and D. J. Wyatt. 2006. Effect of corn silage hybrid and
metabolizable protein supply on nitrogen metabolism of lactating
dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1644-1653.
Zebeli, Q., M. Tafaj, H. Steingass, B. Metzler, and W. Drochner. 2006.
Effects of physically effective fiber on digestive processes and milk
fat content in early lactating dairy cows fed total mixed rations. J.
Dairy Sci. 89:651–668.

50 November 11-12  Grantville, PA

 10/22/2015

A Perspective on NDF &

Starch Digestibility Measures

Randy Shaver & Luiz Ferraretto

Dairy Science Department

In Vitro In Situ Gas Production

In Vivo

1
 10/22/2015

WI AgSource DHIA Top 100

RHA (lb)
Stat Cow # Milk Fat Protein Cheese

Average 486 31,297 1,154 961 3,150

Std. Deviation 500 1,622 90 57 203
Min 20 30,141 981 857 2,733
Max 3490 41,364 1,677 1,288 4,395
Sept. 2015

111 Herds >30,000 lb RHA which represents 2.5% of herds on test there

+30 WI Herds >30,000 lb RHA at NorthStar DHI

2
 10/22/2015

• Associative effects of feeds,

nutrients, diets and DMI influence
the digestibility of nutrients in vivo

• Associative effects are largely ignored

with in vitro or in situ digestibility
measurements

3
 10/22/2015

Survey of websites and reports of 4 major US dairy feed

labs for analyses related to starch and NDF digestibilities
NDF; NDFOM; Lignin; uNDF (Lignin × 2.4)
Starch; Prolamin; Ammonia; Particle Size; UW Feed Grain Evaluation;
Corn Silage Processing Score
TMR-D; Rumen in vitro total tract NDFD (Combs-ivttNDFD)
Traditional (Goering – Van Soest) NDFD;
Standardized (Combs – Goeser) NDFD
NDF kd calculated from 24, 30, 48, 120-h NDFD (Combs – Goeser)
NDF kd Mertens, MIR; NDF kd Van Amburgh
24-h NDFD; calculated B2/B3 kd
30, 120, 240-h NDFD – forages; 12, 72, 120-h NDFD – byproducts
4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72, 120, 240-h NDFD lag, pools & rates
120-h uNDF; 240-h uNDF
3-h, 7-h Rumen in vitro or in situ starch digestibility (ivRSD); kd
Fecal Starch; Dietary Total Tract Starch Digestibility (TTSD)
Fermentrics™ (gas production system)
Calibrate™
Jones Index; (NDFd30 + starch)/NDFu30

Partial list of inherent flaws of rumen in vitro &

in situ digestibility measures relative to in vivo
 Donor/incubation cow diet ingredient/nutrient content & physical
form versus client farm(s)
 e.g. Diet starch% & source affects amylase & cellulase activities;
Rumen pH & fluctuation; RDP; etc.

 Ditto for DMI

 kd/(kd+kp)
 kp assumed; disagreement over use of kp of DM or nutrient and
determination methods for kp (markers or fill/flux)
 DMI & diet influence rumen pH and hence kd

 Fine grinding of incubation samples

 1-2 mm screen for ivNDFD
 Results in maximal rates and extents of NDF digestibility
 4-6 mm for ivStarchD
 Masks particle size effects on starch digestibility

 Ignores post-ruminal NDF and starch digestion

4
 10/22/2015

A bit more on digestion kinetics

Grant, Proc. 2015 4-State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA Jim Coors, UW Madison, Ben Justen’s Thesis

For the most part, ruminal in vitro and in

situ NDF digestibility measurements,
should be viewed as relative index values
for comparison among feeds/diets or over
time within feeds/diets, rather than as
predictors of in vivo digestibility

5
 10/22/2015

In Vitro In Situ

In Vivo

6
 10/22/2015

How is TTNDFD determined?

Forage sample Standardized iv NDFD (24,

30, 48h)
and iNDF
Rate of fiber digestion (kd) Rumen and
Potentially digestible NDF (pdNDF) hindgut digestion

PD NDF *
kd/(kd +kp) TTNDFD
(total tract NDF
Digestibility)
Rate of fiber passage, (kp)

7
10/22/2015

8
10/22/2015

9
 10/22/2015

P < 0.001

R² = 0.94

564 samples

TTSD % = 100.0% - (1.25 X fecal starch %)

Fredin et al., 2014, JDS

Utility of On-Farm Fecal Starch?

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

10
 10/22/2015

StarchD & NDFD Field Study

Powel-Smith et al., 2015, JAM abstr.
• 32 Upper Midwest dairy herds
• uNDF (240 h) used as internal marker to
determine in vivo total-tract starch & NDF
digestibility in high pens
• 7-h ivStarchD and 24-h ivNDFD measured on
corn silage, corn grain & TMR
• 7-h ivStarchD unrelated (R2=0) to in vivo
total-tract starch digestibility
• 24-h ivNDFD poorly related (R2=0.13) to and
over-estimated in vivo total-tract NDF
digestibility

ivNDFD vs. DMI, FCM & FE

High – Low ivNDFD Forage

4%-units 10%-units
- - Response (lb/cow/day) - -
Review Papers DMI FCM DMI FCM

Oba & Allen, JDS, 1999 1.6 2.2 4.0 5.5

Jung et al., MN Nutr. Conf., 2004 1.1 1.2 2.6 3.1

Ferraretto & Shaver, JDS, 2013 0.7 1.2 1.8 3.1

Average 1.1 1.5 2.8 3.9

Tabular data calculated from reported responses per %-unit difference in ivNDFD

Feed efficiency seldom improved statistically

11
 10/22/2015

Response to ivNDFD vs. Level of Production

Grant, Proc. 2015 4-State Nutr. & Mgmt. Conf., Dubuque, IA

12
 10/22/2015

Energy content of bm3 corn silage

Tine et al., 2001, JDS

Lactating Dry
Item 4x Maintenance Maintenance
Isogenic bm3 Isogenic bm3

TDN, % --- --- 72.1b 74.8a

DE, Mcal/kg 3.10 3.12 3.20b 3.32a
ME, Mcal/kg 2.58 2.68 2.62b 2.77a
NEL, Mcal/kg 1.43 1.49 1.42 1.54

13
 10/22/2015

Meta-Analysis: Diet Starch% vs. NDFD

Ferraretto et al., JDS, 2013

14
 10/22/2015

Weiss, 2014 Starch Discover Conf. (unpublished)

Meta-Analysis: Site of Starch Digestion

Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS

15
 10/22/2015

Meta-Analysis: Site of Starch Digestion

Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS

Meta-Analysis: Supplemental Fats & NDFD

ΔttNDFd/1%FA Background
-Multiplereviews state that there are negative
effects of fat on fiber digestibility (Jenkins,
Type of Fat Supplement N Δ (%-unit) P-value
1992; Palmquist and Jenkins, 1980)
-Much of the original research was done in
C12/C14 6 -2.73b <0.0001
sheep (Devendra and Lewis, 1974)
Oil 11 -0.28a 0.42 -In vitro literature shows negative effects of
Animal – Vegetable Fat 7 -0.26a 0.62 unsaturated fatty acids on bacteria (Maia et
al, 2007)
Tallow 25 -0.24a 0.49
-Calcium salts seem to have lesser negative
Hydrogenated Fat 12 -0.19a 0.63 effects than other fat supplements (Palmquist
C16 8 0.17a 0.69 and Jenkins, 1980)
-Quantitation of this effect from summarized,
Calcium Salts Other 5 0.71a 0.10
published in vivo studies using lactating dairy
Calcium Salts Palm 10 0.99a 0.02 cattle is lacking.

ΔDMI/1%FA
Conclusions
Type of Fat Supplement N Δ (lb/d) P-value
-C12/C14 fatty acids or fat sources have
C12/C14 6 -2.18bc <0.0001 significant negative effects on ttNDFd and
DMI.
Oil 11 -0.51ab 0.11 -Long chain dietary fats do not have large
Animal – Vegetable Fat 7 -0.40abc 0.38 negative effects on ttNDFd when fed at levels
typically found in dairy cow diets (~3%).
Tallow 25 -0.59abc 0.07 -Calcium salts (palm oil and other oils)
Hydrogenated Fat 12 +0.59a 0.13 increase ttNDFd and decrease DMI relative to
lower fat diets.
C16 8 -0.44abc 0.24 -ΔDMI and ΔttNDFd are unrelated
Calcium Salts Other 5 -0.97bc 0.01 thus change in passage rate is an unlikely
mechanism for increased ttNDFd.
Calcium Salts Palm 10 -1.28bc 0.001

Weld & Armentano, JAM, 2015

16
 10/22/2015

Summary & Conclusions

• There are associative effects on in vivo
digestibility that go undetected with in
vitro/in situ measures

• There are inherent flaws with in vitro/in

situ measures relative to in vivo

• Nutrition models drive required analyses

Summary & Conclusions

• ivNDFD measures mostly unrelated to in
vivo NDFD
• Milk yield response to greater ivNDFD
derives mainly thru greater DMI
 Logically DMI response to NDF/ivNDFD or
uNDF should be included in intake prediction
equations
• For diagnostics, fecal starch, uNDF to
estimate in vivo digestibilities, & the
Combs in vitro-TTNDF model look promising

17
 10/22/2015

Summary & Conclusions

• Greater diet starch content reduces fiber
digestibility in vivo
 The negative effect on diet NEL is not large though
and still favors higher starch diets
• Greater ruminal starch digestion related to
greater total tract starch digestibility
 Post-ruminal starch digestion can be high for some
feeds & diet situations
 Undetected by current in vitro/in situ StarchD measures
 Sample grinding likely masks important particle size
effects on in vitro/in situ StarchD measures

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

18
 Pa Nutrition Conference

Alan Zepp
Center for Dairy Excellence
Risk Management Program Manager

Agenda

• Margin Review
• MPP & LGM-Dairy
• LGM-Dairy History and Performance
• Marketing Plan
• Discussion

1
 PA & US MPP Margins

Margin?????
Milk Price (All Milk Price) (Class III)
- Corn (NASS monthly report) (CME)
- Soy Bean Meal
(Central Illinois –Feed Outlook) (CME)

- Alfalfa Hay (NASS monthly report)

= Margin

2
 Margins

MPP & LGM-Dairy

 “Dairy operations enrolling in the new program
cannot participate in the Livestock Gross
Margin dairy insurance program.”
 Farms with policies providing coverage in any
2016 month are excluded from MPP
participation.

3
 LGM-Dairy Sales
Units
Policies Policies Earning Units % Policies % Units
Sold Indemnified Premium Indemnified Indemnified Indemnified
2009 45 34 68 53 75.6% 77.9%
2010 153 56 221 80 36.6% 36.2%
2011 1412 24 1738 31 1.7% 1.8%
2012 1769 124 943 125 7.0% 13.3%
2013 1697 221 1235 242 13.0% 19.6%
2014 1621 123 1309 214 7.6% 16.3%
2015 2105 307 1781 460 14.6% 25.8%
2016 1682 0 362 0 0.0%

LGM-Dairy Coverage

Quantity of Quantity/ Indemity /

Milk (Cwt) policy Liabilities ($) Total Prem ($) Subsidy ($) cwt Indemnity ($)
2009 401,680 8,760 $4,715,858 $287,201 $0 $1.79 $718,035
2010 1,872,499 20,901 $24,914,997 $781,589 $0 $0.15 $280,566
2011 46,172,815 51,052 $769,644,504 $25,012,757 $10,735,652 $0.00 $64,738
2012 40,474,408 41,584 $703,999,855 $19,143,689 $8,861,771 $0.03 $1,395,079
2013 34,178,852 56,796 $664,077,985 $16,873,156 $7,656,348 $0.08 $2,666,303
2014 27,740,876 55,234 $546,398,697 $11,592,590 $4,967,240 $0.13 $3,653,307
2015 48,737,639 51,840 $889,332,341 $22,337,591 $10,177,578 $0.23 $11,080,402
2016 9,185,274 25,043 $148,656,200 $3,156,307 $1,419,497 $0.00 $0

4
 State Breakdown
Policies Units
Policies Earning Policies Earning Units % policies Cwt / Total Prem Indemity Indemnity
Sold Prem Indemnified Premium Indemnified indemnified Quantity policy Liabilities ($) ($) / cwt ($)
2009 MN 3 3 3 6 5 100% 33960 11320 $376,262 $17,241 $0.81 $27,350
2009 NY 1 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2009 PA 5 4 3 5 3 60% 26250 5250 $349,018 $18,967 $2.44 $63,998
2009 WI 12 12 10 30 23 83% 104877 8740 $1,200,630 $97,254 $2.08 $218,579

2010 MN 8 7 5 20 9 63% 107157 13395 $1,408,451 $66,030 $0.47 $50,643

2010 NY 3 2 2 3 3 67% 1500 500 $20,196 $788 $0.25 $373
2010 PA 44 37 14 51 16 32% 163470 3715 $2,225,208 $74,726 $0.33 $54,440
2010 WI 53 52 25 103 40 47% 504328 9516 $6,691,603 $271,920 $0.25 $124,871

2011 CA 40 38 2 53 2 5% 4380941 109524 $73,627,704 $2,444,664 $0.00 $1,101

2011 ID 28 27 0 41 0 0% 1404675 50167 $22,132,484 $628,475 $0.00 $0
2011 MN 166 117 3 164 4 2% 2268438 13665 $38,150,455 $1,341,608 $0.01 $22,258
2011 NY 86 80 0 105 0 0% 3259367 37900 $55,354,776 $1,949,749 $0.00 $0
2011 PA 133 117 7 232 10 5% 2268013 17053 $37,529,545 $1,375,587 $0.01 $26,550
2011 TX 7 5 0 6 0 0% 176000 25143 $2,869,660 $99,002 $0.00 $0
2011 WI 421 355 7 499 10 2% 9238286 21944 $153,875,001 $5,010,527 $0.00 $4,420

2012 CA 54 48 12 48 12 22% 6413274 118764 $111,499,097 $2,961,235 $0.04 $227,296

2012 ID 11 11 5 11 5 45% 809195 73563 $14,047,625 $437,522 $0.26 $210,021
2012 MN 290 143 19 150 19 7% 4374776 15085 $76,071,849 $2,086,569 $0.02 $90,428
2012 NY 53 39 6 40 6 11% 2374993 44811 $41,285,721 $1,106,333 $0.03 $62,240
2012 PA 172 125 23 138 24 13% 2916868 16959 $50,743,028 $1,455,841 $0.08 $221,210
2012 TX 7 2 1 2 1 14% 220000 31429 $3,833,200 $88,526 $0.01 $1,291
2012 WI 668 233 27 242 27 4% 7943724 11892 $138,255,091 $3,745,966 $0.02 $139,515

State Breakdown
Policies Units
Policies Earning Policies Earning Units % policies Cwt / Total Prem Indemity Indemnity
Sold Prem Indemnified Premium Indemnified indemnified Quantity policy Liabilities ($) ($) / cwt ($)
2013 CA 39 32 14 60 18 36% 4,387,886 112,510 $86,047,453 $2,221,788 $0.13 $553,692
2013 ID 8 8 4 8 4 50% 978,200 122,275 $19,818,828 $506,367 $0.39 $385,087
2013 MN 323 138 41 264 47 13% 4,237,123 13,118 $83,080,746 $2,359,386 $0.05 $207,005
2013 NY 46 34 9 67 9 20% 2,180,891 47,411 $41,206,741 $1,017,148 $0.05 $99,238
2013 PA 92 27 12 56 16 13% 707,046 7,685 $13,702,431 $352,352 $0.10 $70,001
2013 TX 5 2 0 2 0 0% 290,000 58,000 $5,898,600 $134,578 $0.00 $0
2013 WI 742 267 84 486 85 11% 10,979,539 14,797 $213,098,474 $5,174,025 $0.04 $424,033

2014 CA 36 26 1 35 1 3% 3,011,671 83,658 $58,023,160 $1,238,675 $0.01 $29,262

2014 ID 3 3 0 5 0 0% 285,000 95,000 $5,213,776 $160,887 $0.00 $0
2014 MN 306 78 13 210 24 4% 2,238,045 7,314 $44,404,728 $1,064,034 $0.13 $292,276
2014 NY 49 40 14 103 26 29% 3,479,290 71,006 $69,580,419 $1,443,015 $0.21 $745,677
2014 PA 92 32 11 80 17 12% 894,174 9,719 $17,708,341 $418,099 $0.16 $143,624
2014 TX 2 1 0 1 0 0% 40,000 20,000 $863,200 $17,644 $0.00 $0
2014 WI 743 183 38 512 71 5% 7,299,171 9,824 $142,851,968 $2,809,078 $0.10 $739,905

2015 CA 42 33 12 37 13 29% 3,630,786 86,447 $65,505,408 $1,386,733 $0.35 $1,255,783

2015 ID 7 7 5 10 7 71% 475,600 67,943 $9,769,442 $268,306 $1.38 $656,408
2015 MN 377 87 45 182 60 12% 4,222,564 11,200 $83,116,257 $1,801,830 $0.45 $1,904,846
2015 NY 118 113 35 244 56 30% 11,191,535 94,844 $206,157,921 $5,819,340 $0.16 $1,845,125
2015 PA 126 81 27 148 42 21% 2,728,352 21,654 $49,712,517 $1,325,071 $0.20 $553,597
2015 TX 3 2 1 5 2 33% 145,500 48,500 $2,748,785 $66,034 $0.46 $66,277
2015 WI 860 189 80 483 116 9% 7,468,361 8,684 $127,916,984 $3,316,549 $0.14 $1,072,263

2016 CA 14 5 0 8 0 0% 634,270 45,305 $10,220,843 $155,881 $0.00 $0

2016 ID 1 1 0 1 0 0% 90,000 90,000 $1,485,900 $20,207 $0.00 $0
2016 MN 391 33 0 58 0 0% 1,663,850 4,255 $27,146,853 $412,190 $0.00 $0
2016 NY 24 20 0 35 0 0% 983,650 40,985 $16,039,155 $432,154 $0.00 $0
2016 PA 76 18 0 33 0 0% 609,995 8,026 $9,642,575 $203,084 $0.00 $0
2016 TX 1 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2016 WI 773 64 0 118 0 0% 2,042,115 2,642 $32,880,436 $761,856 $0.00 $0

5
 LGM-Dairy Scenarios
Results of example 10 month policies from January 2002 to October 2014
Maximum Feed Default Feed Minimum Feed
$0.00 deductible $1.50 deductible $0.00 deductible $1.50 deductible $0.00 deductible $1.50 Deductible
Premium Indemnity Premium Indemnity Premium Indemnity Premium Indemnity Premium Indemnity Premium Indemnity

Cost/
Benefit
Ratio 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.9 1.3 3.9
Per cwt $0.66 $0.71 $0.14 $0.17 $0.55 $0.69 $0.08 $0.23 $0.54 $0.72 $0.07 $0.28

Default Feed Scenarios

$1.50 deductible $1.50 deductible $1.50 deductible
Purchase months Purchase Months Purchase Months Purchase Months Purchase 10 Months Purchase 10 Months
4, 5, & 6 33% each 4, 5, & 6 33% each 7,8,9,&10 25% each 7,8,9,&10 25% each 10% each month 10% each month
$291,350 $254,144 $88,589 $89,930 $326,697 $280,550 $115,900 $109,057 $240,456 $211,200 $56,732 $57,241

Cost/
Benefit
Ratio 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.9 1.1 2.0
Per cwt $0.67 $0.71 $0.12 $0.25 $0.76 $0.80 $0.16 $0.31 $0.56 $0.60 $0.08 $0.16

LGM Feed Scenario Histories

6
 LGM Feed Scenarios

LGM-Dairy Indemnity History

$0.00 Deductible

$1.50 Deductible

7
MPP Feed $0.00 Deductible

Margins

8
October 2014 Margins

Marketing Plan

9
 Thank You !

717-346-0849
www. centerfordairyexcellence.org
717-420-7448

2010

10
2011

2012

11
2013

2015

12
 Why?

2015 MPP Enrollment

• 48% of US Dairy Farms
• 80 % of milk
• 30% of PA Dairy farms
• 50% of milk
• $4.00 Margin
• US- 44% enrolled farms - 58% enrolled milk
• PA-42% enrolled farms - 47% enrolled milk
• $6.50 Margin
• US- 26% enrolled farms - 13% enrolled milk
• PA- 26% enrolled farms - 24% enrolled milk

13
Milk Price &Margins
Month All Milk Price Margin
November‐07 $21.90 $14.23
August‐11 $22.10 $9.46
November‐12 $22.10 $8.21
December‐13 $22.00 $11.04

May‐01 $15.50 $10.84

March‐04 $15.50 $9.16
September‐04 $15.50 $10.52
March‐05 $15.50 $10.61
October‐05 $15.50 $10.90
December‐08 $15.50 $7.04
June‐10 $15.40 $7.85
May‐12 $16.20 $3.40

14