Webinar O Nutricionista - Laboratório · Scanning electron microscopy of starch granules in corn: A) starch granules heavily imbedded in prolamin-protein matrix, B) starch granules

Webinar

O Nutricionista

8 de julho 19:00

(toda segunda quarta feira do mês)

Randy Shaver – PhD – Universidade de Wisconsin –

Madison. O que podemos fazer na fazenda para aumentar

a digestibilidade do amido.

Webinar - O Nutricionista

Ruminant Starch Digestion

Rumen

Small Intestine

Hind Gut

Microbial Fermentation • VFA

• Propionate • Glucose via liver

• Microbial Protein

Digestion (Enzymatic) • Glucose

Microbial Fermentation • VFA

Ferraretto et al., 2013 JDS 96:533

80 to 98% StarchD•Kernel particle size•Duration of silage fermentation•Kernel maturity •Endosperm properties•Additives

40 to 70% IVNDFD•Lignin/NDF•Hybrid Type•Maturity •Additives

Grain ~40-45% of WPDMStover= ~55-60% of WPDM

•Avg. 42% NDF•Variable stover:grain

Whole-Plant Corn Silage

•Avg. 30% starch in WPDM•Variable grain:stover

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

Department of Dairy Science UW-Madison

Maximum yield of DM

Vegetative

growth

Optimal

stage

Flower or

Head or

Black Layer

Stage of maturity

Forage yield - quality vs. quantity

indigestible

digestible

Maximum yield of digestible DM

Dry matter yield (tons/acre)

Corn Silage Harvest Practices Influence Starch Digestibility!

Kernel Processing*Maturity

Ferraretto & Shaver, PAS 2012

Kernel Processing*TLOC

Ferraretto & Shaver, PAS 2012

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

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

>70% 70% to 50%

< 50%

KPS

Excellent Adequate

Poor

Kernel Processing Score

∆Worth 1 kg Milk or 1 kg Corn

MN Field

Trial 1

MN Field

Trial 2

WI Field

Trial 1

Lab Survey

WI Field

Trial 2 Lab Survey

Testing Lab

Dairyland Rock River Cumberland

Valley

Year 2005 - 2007 2011 2011 -2012

2010 -2012

2010 - 2011

No. of samples 252 55 29 258 64 311 1,131

KPS - - - - - - - - - - - -% of Samples by Processing Score- - - - - - -

Excellent

10%

8%

10%

17%

17%

16%

7%

Adequate

48%

76%

55%

68%

61%

62%

51%

Poor

42%

16%

35%

15%

22%

22%

42%


Industry Makes Advances in Corn Silage Processing

(CVAS Data, 2006 to 2014) Crop Year

Number

Average

Percent Optimum

Percent Poor

2006 97 52.8 8.2 43.3

2007 272 52.3 9.2 37.9

2008 250 54.6 5.2 34.8

2009 244 51.1 6.1 48.0

2010 373 51.4 5.9 43.4

2011 726 55.5 12.3 33.1

2012 871 60.8 14.8 19.9

2013 2658 64.6 36.0 12.9

2014 322 61.8 24.2 9.0

Adapted from slide provided by Ralph Ward of CVAS

Shre

dlage

®

Shre

dlage

®

http://www.shredlage.com/

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 Before Feeding

1 4


Trial 1 Trial 2

Control SHRD Control SHRD

TLOC, mm 19 30 19 26

WI-OS MPL, mm

10.4 11.2 10.0 11.4

% PSU Top 6% 32% 7% 18%

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


Trial 1 Trial 2

Control SHRD Control SHRD

Roll gap, mm 2 - 3 2.5 2 2

Roll Speed Differential

≈20% ≈30% ≈40% 30%-40%

Processing Score

60% ± 4

75% ± 3

68% ± 7

72% ± 4

Kernel Processing Score Samples obtained weekly during feed-out from the silo bags

UW Madison Trial 2


Trial 1 Trial 2

DIM at trial start 116 d ± 36 81 d ± 8

Trial Duration, weeks 10 16

Trial Average Control Milk, kg/cow/day

43 50


Shredlage Response

Trial 1 Trial 2

DMI no no

Daily Milk Yield avg. +1 kg avg. +1.2 kg

Feed Efficiency no no

Milk Composition no no

Milk Component Yields yes yes


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

Corn Silage Fermentation Increases Starch Digestibility!

Results from Mini-Silo Trial

Month effect (P < 0.0001) Hybrid effect (NS) Hybrid×Month (NS)

Ferraretto et al., 2014, ADSA abstracts

Ferraretto et al., 2014, ADSA abstr.


vacuum sealed experimental mini silos

b

ab

a

a

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

0 30 120 240

% s

tarc

h p

assi

ng

thro

ugh

4.7

5 m

m

scre

en

Ensiling time, d

P = 0.08 SEM = 2.0 n = 3

Ferraretto et al., 2013 JDS Grain Meta-Analysis

A dataset comprised of 414 treatment means from 101 trials reported in 100 papers published 2000 - 2011

The reports included in this dataset were with lactating dairy cows fed TMR, and contained data for ruminal and (or) total tract starch digestibility

Cereal Grain Type Ferraretto et al., JDS, 2013

Ruminal Digestibility (% of intake)

Total Tract Digestibility (% of intake)

n Starch n Starch

Barley 30 70.6a 62 92.8

Corn 82 54.1b 335 92.6

Wheat 6 78.9a 11 93.9

P-value 0.001 0.80

All Grains Have Prolamins

Prolamin for each cereal grain have specific and historical names:

Grain Prolamin Name Prolamin Level

Wheat (gliadin) Med-Low

Barley (hordein) Low

Rye (secalin) Med-Low

Oats (avenin) Low

Corn (zein) High

Sorghum (kafirin) Very High

Copyright Patrick C. Hoffman, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Prolamins: Corn Endosperm Protein of Interest

• Prolamin Zein ( 4 Types) – άβγδ

• Form on the Starch Granule Surface

• Prolamin Proteins Can Cross-link

• Encapsulate Starch into a Matrix

• Advances with maturity – (like NDF in forages)

• Genetic differences in corn

– Floury/Opaque Corns are Missing the Y-zein Gene

– Floury/Opaque Corns are Low in Prolamins

– Flint Corns are Very High in Prolamins

– Common Corn Hybrids are Moderately-High in

Prolamins

Copyright: Patrick C. Hoffman, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Primary Factors Influencing Starch Digestibility in Corn Grain

Processing

i.e. Particle size; Steam Treatment

Harvest/Storage i.e. Dry vs. HMC DM of HM/Maturity; Fermentation Time

Endosperm Type

i.e. Prolamin; Prolamin-starch matrix; Hardness

Adapted from Pat Hoffman, UW Madison Dairy Sci. Dept.

Corn grain harvest/processing effects

Item

Ruminal Digestibility (%) Total Tract Digestibility (%)

n Starch n Starch

HMC 6 64.5 25 94.2a

SFC 10 58.5 36 93.9a

DRY 65 53.5 274 92.0b

SEM 7.4 0.8

P-value 0.12 0.001

Source: Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS

Scanning electron microscopy of starch granules in corn: A) starch granules heavily imbedded in prolamin-protein matrix, B) starch granules in opaque corn endosperm with less extensive encapsulation by prolamin-proteins (Gibbon et. al., 2003). Published with permission: Copyright (2003) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.

Vitreous Endosperm Floury Endosperm

The Starch-Protein Matrix Copyright: Patrick C. Hoffman, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Impact of Flake Density on Total Tract Starch Digestibility Owens & Zinn, SWNC, 2005

Corn Grain MPS - DRY

Geometric Mean Particle Size (µm)

a a

Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS



Sample manure for fecal starch

content to better manage starch

digestibility on the farm

Source Image: http://dairyinnovation.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/dsc_0083.jpg

Field Trial Fecal Starch Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Starch in Fecal Samples, %

%

of

Samples 39% of farms with > 3% fecal starch

Huibregtse et al., 2013

UW Research Trial Results

31% of samples with > 3% fecal starch

Fredin et al., 2014, JDS

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

564 samples

P < 0.001

R² = 0.94

Fredin et al., 2014, JDS

Utility of On-Farm Fecal Starch?

Can be used to predict total tract starch digestibility from available equation Monitor specific group over time

Reflects total diet, not specific feedstuffs!

If <3% starch in feces no need to investigate feeds

If >3% should evaluate specific starchy feedstuffs

Sample collection and submittal 8 – 10 animals per sample submitted

◦ Preferably fresh sample

If a dietary or management change occurs, re-evaluate minimum of 2-3 weeks later

Keep samples cool

◦ Fecal starch decreased by 24% in non-cooled samples (Haerr et al., 2014)

◦ 5.4% for cold sample vs. 4.1% for ambient temp sample

◦ Ideally, submit samples that are kept cold!

Slide provided by Shane Fredin of Miner Inst.

Ruminal In-Vitro StarchD

Ruminal ivStarchD Issues Sample incubation length

• 3 & 7 h common

• Ignores Kp and Kd differences

Incubation sample particle size • 2-6 mm grind common

• Masks effects of client’s feed particle size

Diet of Rumen Fluid Donor vs. Client Herd • Starch content and source affects amylase

activity and starch digestibility

Diet of Rumen Fluid Donor vs. Client Herd

NIRS calibrations ?

Ruminal ivStarchD Utility Indexing feedstuffs

• i.e. High, Mid, Low Determine population of lab samples

Interventions – i.e. finer corn processing

Ration adjustments - i.e. feeding more or less corn

Adjusting calculated feedstuff energy values for ration formulation • How to predict TT StarchD from Ruminal ivStarchD?

• NRC-2001 PAF?

Basing ration adjustments on intake of rumen digestible starch? • e.g. 15 DM lb. Corn-A x 70% starch x 60% ivStarchD = 6.3 lb.

• If Corn-B 70% starch & 75% ivStarchD, then 6.3/(0.70×0.75) =

12 DM lb. Corn-B

Questions?

12 de agosto 19:00

(segunda quarta feira do mês)

Rick Grant – PhD – Instituto Miner

O que aprendemos das pesquisas realizadas no Instituto

Miner . Foco em nutrição aplicada na fazenda.

Sua empresa pode ser parceira no próximo Webinar.

Ajude-nos a trazer aos nutricionistas Brasileiros o que

existe de mais novo em nutrição de vacas leiteiras no

mundo.

[email protected]

11 - 999756429

mailto:[email protected]

Cadastre-se nos nossos meios de comunicação para

receber os slides em português e o Webinar

gravado:

http://3rlab.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/3rlab

Excelente material para treinamento de equipes/grupos de estudos

http://3rlab.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/3rlab

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pego amostrae posso dizer

Uso técnicado "baldecom água"

Faço KPS Se não tivergrãos nasfezes esta

bom

Utilizo auto-motriz, elasprocessam

bem

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Processamento do “grão” da SM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Não tenhorecomendação

(> 19 mm) (> 12 mm e <= 19mm)

(< = 12 mm) Se processado 19mm senão 9 mm

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Comprimento de corte (TLOC)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Quebro omilho empedaços,

muito fino éproblema

Menor que omoinho pode

moer

Amido fecal éo meu guia

Menor que2000 µm

Menor que1000 µm

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Tamanho de partícula para milho moido

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nunca Quando oleite cai

Uma vez aomês

Quandoabrimos silo

Quandomudo

ingredientesna dieta

Brasil

EUA

Argentina

Frequência de análise de amido fecal

Webinar O Nutricionista - Laboratório · Scanning electron microscopy of starch granules in corn: A) starch granules heavily imbedded in prolamin-protein matrix, B) starch granules

Documents