U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service United States Department of Agriculture Four-State Dairy Nutrition and Management Conference June 15-16, 2016 Wayne Coblentz, USDA-ARS US Dairy Forage Research Center Marshfield, WI Matt S. Akins and Nancy M. Esser University of Wisconsin-Madison Heifer Stocking Density and Performance
29
Embed
United States Department of Agriculture Heifer Stocking ......Assuming this is a 1200- lb (pregnant, nonlactating) beef cow wandering aimlessly in the Ozarks, the required energy density
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service
United States Department of Agriculture
Four-State Dairy Nutrition and Management Conference
June 15-16, 2016
Wayne Coblentz, USDA-ARSUS Dairy Forage Research Center
Marshfield, WI
Matt S. Akins and Nancy M. EsserUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
Assuming this is a 1200-lb (pregnant, nonlactating) beef cow wandering aimlessly in
the Ozarks, the required energy density of her diet should be about 47% TDN.
well-managed cool-season pasture corn silage
alfalfa haylage
Key Points● Management programs for replacement heifers prioritize rearing animals at low economic and environmental cost, without compromising their performance as lactating cows (Hoffman et al., 2007).
● Generally, diets for replacement dairy heifers are forage-based but may be too energy dense, especially if significant proportions of corn silage are included.
● Dairy heifers will consume approximately 1% of their bodyweight daily in NDF (Hoffman et al., 2008).
● Heifers consuming diets containing inadequate NDF are susceptible to excessive DM intake, further compounding the risk of over-conditioning.
● Generally, there are two approaches to combating these problems:a) precision or limit-feedingb) dietary dilution with low-energy forages
4
A Non-Straw Option: Eastern Gamagrass (EGG)
● perennial warm-season bunchgrass
● adapted to moist sites, swales, stream banks
● distant relative of corn
● responsive to N fertilization
● suitable for ensiling
● very palatable (ice cream cone grass)
● high yield potential
● maintains typical nutritional characteristics of a warm-season grass
Yield and quality responses for eastern gamagrass at Marshfield, WI (2010-2013)
Harvest Date Yield NDF TDN
lbs/acre ------- % of DM -------1 Aug 5079 75.8 53.215 Aug 6201 75.8 52.21 Sep 5509 76.5 49.215 Sep 6642 76.3 50.51 Oct 6614 77.8 48.815 Oct 6122 80.6 44.41 Nov 5966 82.0 43.9SEM 226.0 0.41 0.79
Contrast ----------------- P > F ---------------Linear < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
Composition of Diets (Experiment 1)-------------------- Diet ---------------------
Item EGG0 EGG10 EGG20 EGG30 LIMIT*
Ingredient, % DM
Corn Silage 53.2 44.7 36.7 28.7 53.2
Alfalfa Haylage 46.8 46.1 44.9 43.7 46.8
EGG Haylage 0 9.2 18.4 27.6 0
Nutrients, % DM
NDF 39.6 43.0 45.6 48.7 39.6
CP 12.9 13.0 13.1 12.9 12.9
TDN 68.2 65.3 63.2 61.3 68.2
* Offered at 85% of EGG0.
Coblentz et al. (2012)
Nutrient Intakes and Performance (Experiment 1)
-------------------- Diet ---------------------
Item EGG0 EGG10 EGG20 EGG30 LIMIT*
Intake, lbs/d
DM 20.7 19.8 19.7 19.7 17.8
NDF 8.2 8.5 9.0 9.6 7.0
NDF, % BW 0.88 0.92 0.97 1.04 0.77
TDN 14.1 12.9 12.4 12.1 12.1
Performance
Gain, lbs 251 236 221 196 203
ADG, lbs/d 2.40 2.27 2.09 1.87 1.94
Feed:Gain, lbs/lbs 8.6 8.8 9.4 10.5 9.2
* Offered at 85% of EGG0. Coblentz et al. (2012)
Key points:
1) Caloric intake was limited by reducing the energy density of the diet, and by reducing voluntary intake.
2) Unique observation: eastern gamagrassdiets were non-sortable.
Assessment of Dilutants(Experiment 2)
• 118-day feeding trial• 128 Holstein heifers• 4 diets, 16 pens• heifers blocked by weight• heifers housed in freestalls
with mattresses with a light layer of organic solids
• over-stocking at the feedbunk (133%), but not in the freestalls
• automatic alley scrappers
Coblentz et al. (2015) 11
Composition of Diets (Experiment 2)------------------------------ Diet ---------------------------------
Item Control EGG Wheat Straw Corn Fodder
Ingredient, % DM
Corn Silage 55.8 26.7 25.2 32.6
Alfalfa Haylage 44.2 47.2 53.5 52.5
EGG 0 26.2 0 0
Wheat Straw 0 0 21.3 0
Corn Fodder 0 0 0 14.9
Nutrients, % DM
NDF 43.3 50.9 53.3 50.4
CP 13.9 13.7 13.6 13.8
TDN 66.8 58.9 59.7 59.1
Coblentz et al. (2015)
13
Assessment of Sorting Behaviors (Experiment 2)
• heifers fed once daily at 10:00 am• feedbunks were scored daily, and
daily diet distributions were adjusted to limit orts (2.1%)
• feedbunks sampled in three week-long periods during the trial
• feedbunks sampled at 1:00 pm, 5:00 pm, 9:00 pm, 1:00 am, 6:00 am, 8:30 am (orts)
• particle size determined at each sampling time with a Penn State Particle Separator
• bunks also assessed for NDF, CP and TDN concentrations at all sampling times
Coblentz et al. (2015)
14
Diets (Experiment 2)
15
Assessment of Sorting Behaviors (Experiment 2)
• because of limited orts (2.1%), diets were essentially fully consumed
• sorting factor = [time x]/[initial] x 100%
• >100% indicates discrimination
• <100% indicates preference
Coblentz et al. (2015)
16
Assessment of Sorting Behaviors (Experiment 2)
• because of limited orts (2.1%), diets were essentially fully consumed
• sorting factor = [time x]/[initial] x 100%
• >100% indicates discrimination
• <100% indicates preference
Coblentz et al. (2015)
17
Simple Counts of Other Behaviors (Experiment 2)
Coblentz et al. (2015)
Intake and Performance (Experiment 2)------------------------------ Diet ---------------------------------
Item Control EGG Wheat Straw Corn Fodder
Intake, lbs/d
DM 24.4 23.3 20.9 22.1
NDF 10.6 11.8 11.1 11.2
NDF, % BW 0.89 1.02 0.97 0.96
TDN 16.3 13.7 12.5 13.2
Performance
Gain, lbs 309 258 209 256
ADG, lbs/d 2.56 2.16 1.74 2.14
CV, % 10.4 11.5 14.4 15.5
Feed:Gain, lbs/lbs 9.6 10.8 12.1 10.5
Coblentz et al. (2015)
Key points:
1) Again, caloric intake was limited by reducing the energy density of the diet, and by restricting voluntary intake via NDF (gut fill).
2) The EGG diet was sorted minimally compared to the (alfalfa/corn silage) control, but straw (intermediate) and corn fodder (worst) were sorted more aggressively.
3) Feeding management resulted in nearly 100% consumption of all dietary components within 24 hours, which is consistent with current recommendations for management of straw in TMR diets (Shaver and Hoffman, 2010).
4) Sorting behaviors could not be linked directly to heifer growth performance.
Dilution with Straw and Over-Stocking(Experiment 3)
• 90-day feeding trial• 240 Holstein heifers• 2 diets, 3 stocking densities, 24 pens• over-stocking at the feedbunk and in
freestalls at 100 (8 heifers/pen), 125 (10 heifers/pen), and 150% (12 heifers/pen) of capacity
• diets were formulated identically, except that one contained well-processed straw, and the other poorly processed straw
• heifers blocked by weight• heifers housed in freestalls with
*Lying and standing behaviors determined by data logger (Hobo Pendant® G Acceleration Data Logger, Onset Computer Corp., Bourne MA) as calculated based on Ledgerwood et al. (2010).
*Hygiene scores based on a scale of 1 (cleanest) to 5 (soiled) as described by Cook (2007).
28
Summary
● Dilution of heifer diets with low-energy forages will control weight gains by reducing the energy density of the diet, and by limiting voluntary intake.
● Heifers are generally limited to about 1% of their bodyweight daily in NDF intake.
● Although heifers will exhibit different sorting behaviors with various diluting agents, these behaviors have not (yet) been linked directly to growth performance in our trials.
● Variability in daily weight gains within each pen have trended greater with more sortable diets, but (to date) this has not been statistically significant.
● Feeding management in these trials was consistent with current University of Wisconsin recommendations for including straw in TMR diets (minimal orts).
● Over-stocking resulted in poorer hygiene scores, and a greater percentage of heifers lying in alleys or inactively standing during night hours. Within-pen variability of hygiene scores also increased sharply with over-stocking.
Q U E S T I O N S ?
Leading the world in integrated dairy forage systems research