Yet, the writing was on the wall with increased world demand for milk-based food and ingredients. Like most dairy producers, some people acknowledge its skyrocketing cost but have become advocates to remain feeding high levels or accelerated levels of milk replacer.

Their endgame is that better-quality calves make better (high-milk producing) dairy cows.

Consequently, Iowa State University proved more 20 years ago that standard calf milk replacer programs (still practiced today) yield only modest calf growth rates. The researchers at that time fed milk powder at the rate of 1.25 to 1.5 per cent of bodyweight to groups of pre-weaned calves, which supplied only enough dietary energy and protein to support maintenance requirements with a little left over for nominal growth. They found that feeding milk replacer at an accelerated rate of two to 2.5 per cent of bodyweight allowed a matching group of calves to achieve phenomenal double neonate birthweight growth.

For example, a 150-dairy cow operator that I visited a few years ago switched up his automatic calf feeding system to feed a reconstituted 1,200 grams of 26-26-18 milk replacer (from a standard 20-20-20 milk replacer of 800 g) to each of his pre-weaned calves.

At 56 days or eight weeks of age, he weaned them off the milk replacer and was able to achieve an average weaning weight of 102 kg (1.05 kg per head per day). He then put them on a modest-energy heifer grower diet until they were bred at 14 to 15 months of age. He then reduced their dietary energy slightly until they were finally brought onto the milk-line at about two years of age. His first group of accelerated heifers yielded about 15 per cent more milk during their first 305d-year of lactation as compared to past milk-reared animals.

It should be mentioned that this producer also introduced a 21 per cent protein texturized oat- and corn-based calf starter to all his pre-weaned calves at seven days of age. At first, they nibble at it, but by three to four weeks of age, they were eating about 700 g, which by nature stimulates good rumen development. By the time, these calves reached 56 days of age, most of them were eating about 1.2 kg, which is proven to facilitate weaning/transference onto post-weaning replacement heifer diets.

My case-study dairy producer was always aware of the cost of his accelerated calf milk replacer program in order to achieve its superior benefits. See the included simple 2025 balance-sheet of his accelerated milk replacer program as compared to a current conventional feeding option.

1. Investment of each program — It costs about $156 or 60 per cent more to feed Holstein dairy calves on an accelerated dairy program. At first glance it seems excessive to spend over $400 per calf weaned at eight weeks of age. However, weaned heifer calves are no longer worth $400 as they once were, but $1,000 to $1,500, depending on health and genetic statute of each weaned calf.

2. Investment in a consistent milk-based program — Investing in an accelerated milk replacer feeding program just lends itself to feeding a well-formulated 26-26-18 milk replacer that now costs about $110 per 20 kg bag. The advocates say that it cannot be substituted by feeding less-expensive milk replacer or pasteurized whole milk that often cause digestive upsets when fed at higher than conventional milk-feeding levels.

3. Importance of good quality and clean water — All conventional and accelerated milk replacer feeding programs requires high-quality water free of high total dissolved solids and other contaminants. I recently witnessed a 100-cow dairy that fed milk replacer to their calves. They put in a water-treatment system in their calf barn in 2024 and within a few months, significantly improved calf health and performance.

All three points are valid. It is a matter of “accelerating” young pre-weaned dairy calves on a better plain of nutrition to meet their full growth potential. A full transference of such superiority means more milk produced and thousands of dollars earned in the not-so-far future.

The post Accelerate milk replacer programs for higher heifer gains appeared first on Grainews.

First, I walk along the bunk and look at the cows that are eating — and look over to the cows lying in their stalls. I’ll also pick up a handful of lactation diet and pick through it.

In these short five minutes, these observations give me a ballpark idea as to how much lactating diet is being eaten on an as-fed and dry-matter intake basis.

When the dairy producer walks with me, I often fine-tune these observations by asking specific questions about the cows or something about the diet. By getting a handle on the dry matter intake of the lactation barn, I am really getting an idea of the amount of dietary energy intake that drives milk production — which in most cases is almost a perfect correlation.

With the advent of more robot milking systems, the dry matter intakes of lactating dairy cows have dramatically increased, and milk production follows along. For example, I can design a PMR (partial mixed ration) to be fed in the bunk at 50 kg on an as-fed basis (25 kg, dmi) and another five kg of robot pellets fed at the milking stations.

As a result, the dairy cows are cleaning up about 30 kg of actual feed on a dry matter basis to produce 40-45 kg of milk per day. Such intake and performance were really unheard of 10 years ago in the traditional parlour milking systems.

Whether lactating cows are milked in a parlour or robot barn, high-quality forages have always promoted high dry matter intakes. The science is simple: more kilos of a well-balanced lactation diet tend to pass through the cows’ rumen, because its fibre portion tends to be more efficiently digested by the resident rumen microbes, which also speeds up its rate of passage throughout the whole digestive tract. Naturally, there are many chemical restraints in the rumen that kick in along the way, which also help maintain such good rumen function.

Based on these broad-based nutritional principles, here is a set of dairy barn suggestions that in my experience help achieves optimum feed intake among lactating dairy cows.

Set up a close-up dry cow feeding program

Close-up dry cows (three weeks before calving), which consume about 12 kg of dry feed daily, have been shown to have greater DMI as early lactating cows and fewer post-partum metabolic problems.

Promote good rumen fermentation

Typical rations for lactating dairy cows should be formulated to contain 19-21 per cent acid detergent fibre (ADF), 28-32 per cent neutral detergent fibre (NDF) (with 75 per cent coming from effective forage fibre) and limitations of 35-42 per cent placed on non-structural carbohydrates.

Know DMI and as-fed intake

A weekly schedule of DMI and as-fed intake of the lactation herd, as well as the moisture content of the diet, should be recorded. A friend of mine, who milks 350 dairy cows, measures their DMI and as-fed intake every few weeks and their dietary moisture levels about once per week. In doing so, he has significantly decreased the incidence of ketosis in his fresh cow group.

Formulate healthy rumen diets

Feed a portion of the grain that has slower rates of starch digestion, such as grain corn, to prevent acidosis. Avoid feeding too much bypass palm fat. Make sure to limit feed unpalatable feed ingredients. Lastly, check forages and grains for visible mould and other contaminants.

Use a direct-fed microbial (DFM)

I often formulate a DFM into lactation diets. It contains bacteria, grain and forage enzymes and yeasts, which have been shown to improve feed digestibility and prevent sub-acidosis rumen acidosis. Fed at 10 g per head per day, it costs about 25 cents per head per day.

Most of these suggestions take time to implement, but sometimes it only takes five minutes of common sense to promote dry matter intake in lactating dairy cows.

At one farm I visited recently, the bunk ration seemed to be very dry. All it took was adding 100 litres of water to the PMR that helps increase its consumption and subsequent milk production — just a little bite.

The post The five-minute tricks to identify good dry matter intake in dairy cows appeared first on Grainews.

I then look back to see if its forage starch level has changed substantially from previous years’ silages fed to lactating dairy cows. I also look at its fibre values (ADF, NDF, NDF30) to see what kind of effective-fibre foundation we may be dealing with in any new lactation diets.

That’s because forage starch levels and effective-fibre content will significantly contribute to the overall energy density of the lactation dairy diet. Balanced together, they should maintain both good health and excellent milk production in lactating dairy cows.

Last October, a 350-dairy cow operation started feeding its last bag of 2023 corn silage to lactating dairy cows.

Part of the issue in feeding it was that its forage analysis (see accompanying chart) revealed a relatively low neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and high digestibility as well as a grain-enriched starch level of 31 per cent and non-fibre carbohydrates (NFC) of 40.6 per cent. Subsequently, the pending TMR (total mixed ration) diet was in danger of having inadequate effective fibre (eNDF) to maintain good rumen health in the cow herd.

Six months ago, I made the best changes to the above lactation TMR diet:

• Corn silage was limited to about 10 kg dry matter (DM), to limit its starch and NFC intake — offset by alfalfa silage;
• Grain corn was severely cut back, to 3.6 kg, to do the same;
• Alfalfa haylage was used to help raise effective-forage fibre levels, but its fair levels of eNDF and high soluble protein reduced its use and effectiveness;
• Canola meal was limited to curb its vegetable oil intake; and
• Beet pulp was added at 1.5 kg.

In summary, on a dry matter basis: the forage/concentrate ratio was 63.5 per cent; eNDF, 22.5 per cent; starch, 23.2 per cent; and NFC, 39.4 per cent.

Now the first bag of 2024 corn silage has been opened up and its analysis is shockingly different (see accompanying chart) from 2023. It is much wetter. It has higher ADF and NDF values with a precipitous drop in starch of 21.1 per cent and an NFC of 34.4 per cent.

For the time being, I have yet to change the integrity of the forage base of the lactation TMR, but have increased grain corn levels to 4.5 kg to achieve a dietary starch level of about 21 per cent.

Plus, I still adhere to the maintenance of an overall 28 per cent NDF in the entire TMR with 21 per cent forage-NDF level to prevent digestive upsets or the onset of SARA (sub-clinical acidosis). As a result, current milk production hovers around 38 kg per head with 4.5 per cent milk fat.

Although the producer and I are satisfied with the current body condition score of the lactation cows — average of 3 to 3.5 — we feel that above milk performance flatlined at 135 DIMs (days in milk). We believe the starch and NFC level of the TMR is adequate, but the rate of starch digestion is lower than it should be. Since no barley is fed on this dairy farm, I suggested a load of barley be brought in to replace up to 2.5 kg of the grain corn fed.

The reason: barley grain may contain a lower amount of starch compared to corn (58 per cent to 72 per cent), but its starch is more rapidly digested in the gut and therefore its energy release is quicker.

In contrast, the endosperm of corn starch is embedded in a highly-resistant protein matrix that repels microbial invasion. Also, a significant portion of corn starch is forced into the small intestine to complete its digestion, which in some cases may limit the rumen microbes’ activities for efficient digestion of forages, grains and protein concentrates to release their essential nutrients for lactation purposes.

Dairy producers who feed barley silage to their lactation dairy herd might think that this is an only-corn-silage problem. I’ve reviewed many barley silage samples and their starch levels have also fallen (from 17 per cent down to 10-11 per cent) with higher-than-expected ADF and NDF levels. As a dairy nutritionist, I can advocate that simply feeding more barley grain to lactating dairy cows isn’t necessarily the answer in these cases — but maybe feeding some barley in combination with corn.

The post Well-balanced starch and forage levels make milk appeared first on Grainews.

It’s a pretty easy exercise once I put it down on a PDF spreadsheet and email it to the dairy producer. I am confident all heifer nutrient requirements are met, given how heifers consume it.

Plus, I want to make these diets as practical as possible, so the producer can make nutritious total mixed rations (TMRs) with ease. A little forethought, even before I press the first keystroke, will go a long way, so well-balanced palatable heifer diets can be achieved to help the animals grow into profitable milk cows.

As a dairy nutritionist, I advocate three objectives that are the foundation of most well-balanced replacement heifer diets fed through the next 20-23 months:

• Estimate young and bred heifer nutrient requirements to achieve desired heifer growth.
• Promote, and then maintain, good dry matter intake of feed.
• Optimize health and body condition.

When mixing up a load of heifer TMR, I believe we can meet most of their nutrient requirements for good growth, if we meet but don’t exceed dietary targets of 66 to 69 per cent TDN (total digestible nutrients), 14 to 16 per cent protein and a compliment of essential minerals and vitamins. These post-wean diets should support desired growth rates of 1.8-2.2 lbs. per day until young (age four to 12 months) heifers are bred. Then, these dietary specifications might be relaxed by 10 to 15 per cent in order to achieve consistent growth and maintain desired body condition score (BCS) until they are just about to calve and enter the milk-line at 22 to 24 months. Estimated dry matter intake of feed should be around 2.5 to three per cent across all age groups.

No one wants replacement heifers to get fat — so it’s a good idea to keep walking the dairy heifer pens and assessing their body conditions at all stages of development. This means all potential candidates for the future milk-line should not deviate too much from an optimum BCS of three to 3.5 (1 = emaciated, 5 = obese). This is because BCS mirrors how well we match dietary energy to their post-weaning calf growth. This is particularly important when replacement heifers are ready for breeding (that is, showing strong estrus cycles) with target bodyweight of 775-800 lbs. and shoulder height of at least 48-49 inches.

Consequently, I put these few objectives into the real-life TMR diets of two particular dairies: a 300-cow dairy (No. 1 in the table shown here) and a 100-cow dairy (No. 2). Their illustrated heifer replacement diets are split into two: 1A and 2A for unbred heifers of four to 12 months, and 1B and 2B for bred heifers of 12 to 23 months. At 23 months of age, both groups are put on a specific close-up feeding program for one month before calving and being put on the milk line.

A comparison between these bred heifer diets shows barley silage is the foundation of each, with alfalfa and/or grass hay fed as their complements. The larger dairy feeds more basic energy and protein-enriched feed ingredients such as barley and distillers’ grains and a heifer premix in both heifer diets — whereas a heifer premix is also fed in the bred heifer diet of the smaller dairy, but no added grain.

The biggest difference among the diets is that the unbred diet of the smaller dairy uses the TMR of its bred counter-mate and supplements it with an 18 per cent heifer grain pellet.

It is a good way of saving time on the smaller dairy. The producer of the larger dairy told me that because of the capacity of his TMR-mixer (7,000 kg) it just makes sense to make up two separate TMRs, because he has to feed nearly 200 heifers every day. Regardless of these producers making up these TMRs in their own way, all the nutrient requirements are met, and the animals are ready to be put on the milk line at two years of age.

Providing such good nutrition and practical ways of making up these well-balanced TMRs should be transferable to almost any dairy farm. It’s a matter of choosing the best forages and feedstuffs available, formulating them into well-balanced diets and putting them in front of the replacement dairy heifers to eat — then watching the heifers grow!

The post Watch dairy heifers grow on well-balanced diets appeared first on Grainews.

There was more than just talk about growing more peas in Western Canada in which an offshoot would be feeding more field peas and pea byproducts to livestock. Now it seems nearly everything in that market segment is at a standstill, with a few bankruptcies along the way. Yet as a dairy nutritionist, I want to revisit the feeding of peas to lactating dairy cows, which means determining the crop’s local availability as well as nutrition and economic viability.

Geographic variability

Field peas are not grown as much in the eastern Prairies compared to the more western provinces. Although there was a bit of an uptick in its acres a few years ago, Manitoba grew only about 160,000 acres of field peas in 2023, compared to about 1.5 million acres of soybeans. Saskatchewan and Alberta sowed in the opposite way: 1.6 million and 1.3 million acres of peas, compared to only 68,000 and 6,500 soy acres, respectively.

Such geographic disparity does not dissuade me from investigating the nutritional value of field peas for dairy cows. Like corn or barley, peas can be fed to high-milk producing dairy cattle as a good dietary energy source. It derives its megacalories (Mcal) from highly available and readily digestible starch, which drives consistent milk production. For example, a routine laboratory analysis reveals peas contain 52 per cent starch compared to 72 per cent starch found in corn, and 60 per cent starch cited in barley grain. Non-fibre carbohydrate (NFC) levels are about 64 per cent versus 65 per cent in barley and 75 per cent in grain corn. As a result of these starch and NFC values, the NEL (net energy of lactation) of peas yields a good 2.02 Mcal/kg.

Peas are also a good source of dietary protein for dairy cows. Unlike the above-mentioned grains, field peas have a higher content of about 22-24 per cent crude protein. This is about half the value of soybean meal (47 per cent) and canola meal (36 per cent) and slightly lower than corn distillers’ grains (28 per cent). Pea protein is highly degraded in the rumen like soybean meal and often has to be balanced with highly bypass (that is, undegradable) protein ingredients, such as DDGS, if it is formulated in dairy lactation diets.

Substitution

In the table shown here, I formulated a typical corn silage-based diet for lactating dairy cows milking about 40 kg milk, 4.3 per cent milkfat at 150 days-in-milk. Barley was used as the primary energy concentrate source, while a combination of soybean meal, canola meal and DDGS achieved total/bypass protein requirements of these lactating dairy cows.

One kilo of peas easily replaced a half kilo of barley and half kilo of soybean meal, with no significant adjustment made to the other feed ingredients such as DDGS (bypass protein).

As a result, I would expect the same milk or milkfat yields, similar to animal science research testing peas as a replacement for corn/soybean meal in dairy diets.

Similarly, I found out by adding one kg of peas for 0.5 kg of barley and 0.5 kg of soybean meal didn’t significantly change the average cost of feeding a typical lactating dairy cow. My control diet cost $9.80 per cow compared to $9.84 per cow fed peas. Note: I priced in barley at about $5.50 per bushel, soybean meal at $590 per tonne and peas at $10.50 per bushel. I encourage any dairy producer to use their own on-farm prices to determine such diets possibly used at their dairy farm.

A friend milks 165 dairy lactating cows and harvests about 1,500 acres of field peas each year. A few years ago, he followed an exercise similar to mine, adding about two kg of ground peas, and substituted out soybean meal and hammered corn and barley.

As a result, he found it took these milking cows a few days to get used to the peas in their TMR, as well as one or two of them bloated on it. Like university trials, he didn’t see any milk or milkfat response. Nor did he save any money on feed costs, despite peas worth about $6 per bushel at the time.

Nothing was gained or lost — nutritionally or economically — but my friend demonstrated field peas are a good substitution for other common feedstuffs for lactating dairy cows. We can only hope one day the pea industry returns, which would likely earn his further support and the attention of more dairy producers across the entire Canadian Prairies.

The post How field peas fit in dairy lactation diets appeared first on Grainews.

When I ask dairy producers why they feed them over conventional ones, they often say they don’t know or their nutritionist thinks it’s a good idea.

There is nothing technically wrong with feeding chelated trace minerals to lactating dairy cows, but I also believe feeding them in such a broad way is costly and is likely not necessary. That’s why I take a practical approach and recommend feeding chelated trace minerals to lactating dairy cows in specific situations.

Chelation is a type of biological bonding of specific molecules to metal ions. The former is usually an organic molecule such as an amino acid bound to the latter, but not necessarily. This results in a chelation effect, which yields greater bioavailability, superior absorption, retention and general metabolizable properties to the resident metal in dairy nutrition, as compared to inorganic “rock” trace minerals.

Chelated examples include positive-charged trace mineral bound to an amino acid: zinc methionine, copper lysine and manganese methionine. It should be noted, a negative-charged trace mineral such as selenium cannot be truly chelated. Rather, organic selenium is produced by feeding inorganic selenium to yeast, which incorporates it into their body proteins.

Before I decide to formulate chelated trace minerals into a lactation dairy diet, I often take a step back and ask: what trace minerals are going to be required in the first place, and at what dietary levels?

For example, the National Research Council (NRC) recommends the copper requirement to support these functions in dairy cattle is 10 mg/kg of diet (on a dry matter basis) which, given a dry matter intake of 25 kg (dry matter basis), means we need to supply about 250 mg per head per day.

Research also dictates feeding higher amounts of copper (as well as essential zinc, manganese and selenium) does not produce a beneficial response, as widely believed. In fact, the opposite may be true: isolated dairy cases of copper toxicity have been reported at dietary levels as little as 400 mg per head per day.

Consequently, I implement inorganic “rock” trace minerals in my own lactation feeding programs for dairy producers, largely based on NRC recommendations. That’s because inorganic copper sulphate, zinc oxide, manganese sulphate and sodium selenite have a suitably high degree of digestive, absorption and retention rates.

Where these trace mineral rock sources tend to fail is when certain environmental situations arise, which significantly reduce their dairy bioavailability properties, to the point where animals cannot meet respective nutrient requirements. In situations such as these, I then switch to comparable chelated trace minerals:

Antagonistic minerals in forages

It’s well documented that high molybdenum in forages binds inorganic copper sources when both are ingested by the average dairy cow. Molybdenum is classic when it combines with this copper sulphate in the rumen and the rest of the digestive tract to form insoluble complexes, which are easily excreted. Since chelated copper lysine cannot be bound by molybdenum, its natural metabolism to meet the lactating cows’ copper requirement remains uninterrupted.

Build trace mineral status

Trace mineral status is very important in the workings of immune function and reproduction, especially ovulation.

Deficient levels of copper, manganese, zinc and selenium are known to cause anestrus in fertile cattle. Ohio State University animal scientists reported that cystic ovaries were diagnosed in 19 per cent of a split group of dairy cows injected with organic selenium compared to a 47 per cent incidence of cystic ovaries in untreated cows.

Strengthening hooves

Zinc methionine strengthens cattle hooves. About 10 years ago, I balanced the dry cow and lactation diets for a 100-cow dairy herd. The dairy herd had a high incidence of foot rot, and white-line sole separation. I suggested we feed zinc-methionine (a specific chelated zinc) at four grams per head, daily. After six months, most of these hoof issues were almost non-existent. The hoof-trimmer even commented that the cowherd’s hoof-horn became much harder during trimmings. No other significant changes were implemented in their diet during this time.

These are three personal testimonials that demonstrate the strategic use of chelated trace minerals in lactation dairy diets. Whether dairy producers do use them in such defined ways or in mainstream dairy nutrition is really a matter of choice. In both ways, they should satisfy respective lactating dairy cow trace mineral requirements.

The post Strategic use of chelated minerals makes financial sense appeared first on Grainews.

This practice maintains a 13-month calving interval. Unfortunately, the onslaught of cystic ovaries in 30 per cent of all breeding cows makes it a challenge. Yet, there is hope that good nutrition, prior to and right-after they calve, can eliminate a significant number of cystic ovaries from occurring in the first place.

Energy status in lactating dairy cows is the first limiting nutrient that most affects the incidence of cystic ovaries.

The actual energy requirement for successful follicular ovulation is very low, at three megajoules (MJ); it also takes on an extremely low priority, compared to 60 MJ for vital body needs and up to 250 MJ for milk production during early lactation days.

Early-lactation dairy cows do not consume enough dietary energy to meet such high levels of milk production and thus are in a “negative energy balance” (NEB) for about six weeks after calving, which adds to the energy challenge.

As a result, one can speculate that being in a NEB makes cows even more susceptible to higher incidence of ovarian cysts.

Reproductive research dictates NEB in dairy cows can adversely affect normal development of follicles by disrupting the production of essential tissue-specific and systematic hormones.

For example, it has been proven that when a cow has poor energy intake there is a significant decrease in the levels of follicular and corpus luteum hormones that complete her normal estrus cycles after calving. Other similar studies demonstrate that the release of large amounts of fatty acids from the breakdown of body fat during NEB is also poisonous to fertile egg cells, even if they are released during the ovulation process.

What to do?

Over the years, there have been several hormone protocols using GnRH, progesterone and prostaglandins to treat cystic ovaries in chronic cows. Subsequent research suggests they are highly effective to induce ovulation, but often retain lower conception rates.

Although I know of several dairy producers who have complete reliance upon periodic hormone treatments, I suggest they shouldn’t give up on a good nutrition program that could help reduce ovarian cysts in their early-lactation cows. My dietary suggestions:

Pre- and post-partum feed

Implement proper transition/early lactation diets (three weeks before and three weeks post-partum). This should be done to promote good dry matter intake, optimum body condition (see below) and reduce NEB during early lactation. Close-up dry cow diets should dovetail into early 60- to 90-day lactation rations.

Both diets should provide adequate dietary energy, as well as provide enough forage fibre to maintain excellent rumen health. Another of the goals is to build up feed intake to about 3.5 to four per cent of cows’ body weight by nine to 10 weeks post-partum.

BCS at its best

Maintain a body condition score (BCS) of 3 to 3.5. Existing research demonstrates that over-conditioned cows (on a BCS scale where 1 = emaciated and 5 = obese) are 2.5 times more likely to develop ovarian cysts during the first 60 days, post-partum, compared to lactating cows with an optimum BCS of 3 to 3.5.

A direct link to cystic ovaries has yet to be proven, but thin lactating dairy cows of less than 2.5 BCS have been shown to have a high incidence of silent heats and lower conception rates.

Serve up supplements

Feed adequate levels of trace minerals and vitamins. Deficient levels of copper, manganese, zinc and selenium and inadequate vitamins A, D and E are known to cause anestrus in female cattle.

For example, Ohio State University animal scientists reported cystic ovaries were diagnosed in 19 per cent of a split-group of dairy cows injected with selenium, compared to a 47 per cent incidence of cystic ovaries in an untreated control group.

Avoid mouldy feeds

Zearalenone, a mycotoxin produced in mouldy corn, has estrogen-like properties and has caused many reproductive problems including a higher incidence of ovarian cysts in dairy cattle. The poisonous threshold of zearalenone is 200 p.p.b. in lactation dairy diets.

These are only a few good suggestions I believe can reduce the incidence of cystic ovaries in many dairy herds. Regimens such as good early-lactation nutrition — which can affect the matrix of 30 to 40 reproductive hormones for successful release of an ovum — should be seriously examined and implemented.

The post Good early-lactation nutrition cuts risk of cystic ovaries appeared first on Grainews.

Some people have taken advantage that three-month-old replacement dairy heifers have a fully developed rumen and can truly digest lower quality/cost forages.

There is nothing wrong in feeding this way, but these forages must be well balanced with other more nutritious feedstuffs that together meet animals’ essential nutrient requirements. Plus, we need to avoid the common pitfalls, such as digestive upsets, which are associated with some diets — again, by providing the right overall nutrition.

Regardless, I always keep in mind that good dry matter intake (DMI) comes first in setting up any well-balanced heifer replacement feeding program. It’s synonymous with essential energy/protein/mineral/vitamin intake that drives growth, optimum body condition and good health by the time they are ready to be put on the milk-line.

It has been my experience that many promising replacements don’t make their full-performance potentials and are culled, because their dry matter intakes were ignored or challenged.

Such good DMI is controlled by the natural forces of heifers consuming these forage-based diets and its ensuing fermentation in the rumen. At the same time, the rate of feed passage through a heifer’s digestive systems comes into play in a big way, which not only controls good dry matter intake, but almost every digestive process afterward, including cud-chewing.

That’s especially so when we feed them high-fibre, lower-quality diets, such as proposed by South Dakota State University a few years ago.

The SDSU researchers fed high-fibre shredded corn stalks supplemented with wet distillers grains to help meet the energy and protein requirements of a group of growing dairy heifers. The SDSU results showed heifer gains — although lower than conventional diets formulated with corn silage, haylage and alfalfa — were quite acceptable. A significant cost saving of 40 per cent was recorded because corn stalks and wet corn distillers grains were purchased at much lower cost than other routine feedstuffs.

Along the same dietary lines to save on feed costs I routinely balance a bred-heifer replacement diet (15–22 months) for a 150-lactating dairy. This diet is limited by the quantity of good-quality forages such as alfalfa hay and drought-stricken barley silage. Yet this farmer has a decent supply of low-quality barley straw and slough hay. So his current diet is what you see in the table here:

In review of this diet, I believe we are barely meeting these bred heifers’ dietary energy (64 per cent total digestible nutrients and protein (14 per cent) needs for 1.8 pounds gain per day. Plus, this total mixed ration is simply too dry and a couple of kilos of added water would improve its density. The funny thing is that DMI by these replacement heifers during the last few months has been acceptable (2.8 to three per cent of body weight).

Nevertheless, during our last cold spell of –30 C in January, a few heifers showed signs of anorexia, inadequate manure output and abdominal distention — all encompassing signs of impaction.

Any threat of dietary impaction is serious and that is why I am vigilant of it when feeding low-quality forages to replacement dairy heifers. It can be fatal, and stems from:

• High forage-fibre content: the rate of digestion is slow since it takes a long time to ferment and break down lots of cellulose/hemicellulose fibre.
• Inadequate protein: heifer diets often do not supply enough dietary protein-metabolites to the forage-digesting rumen bacteria. It leads to decreases in the overall rate of forage-fibre digestion and feed passage, including DMI.
• Inadequate water: in feed digestion, water is a primary lubricant. For example, a particular dry heifer diet during an impaction incident is possibly more viscous, which impedes its movement throughout the rumen-gastrointestinal tract.

It is my understanding that this producer drenched each impacted dairy heifer with a gallon of mineral oil. Within a couple of days, animals were up to the water trough and feed-bunk. It was a lesson for me, namely that it is important to meet all essential nutrient requirements for growing and healthy dairy heifers. It can be done utilizing a cost-effective lower-quality forage as part of their whole diet, yet there should be a wide margin of adequate nutrition built into each diet.

The post Balancing low cost with enough nutrition appeared first on Grainews.

In turn, it ultimately meets the essential requirements of energy, protein, effective forage fibre, minerals and vitamins in order to support good milk and milk fat production.

Quite the opposite situation is also true: an empty feed-bunk often underlies poor health and performance issues in the lactating barn. Fortunately, its means of correction is straightforward.

So, dairy producers should not ignore an empty feed bunk when cows are out of feed for several hours. That’s because dairy research demonstrates many metabolic changes occur within a cow’s body, when left hungry.

First, there is an interruption of feed fermentation that decreases the production/absorption of volatile fatty acids by 50 per cent. This lack of an important metabolite creates energy deficits at the cellular level, contributing to fresh-cow ketosis and a higher incidence of fatty liver and simply taking away from milk production.

On another dark path, it also interrupts the rumen’s ability to buffer lactic acids, which makes lactating cows more susceptible to digestive upsets.

Many of these problems are relatively invisible to most people, yet happen for some of the most unwarranted reasons:

• The producer wants the lactating cows to eat every last morsel.
• Not enough feed is provided on a dry matter basis.
• Feed is not pushed up enough times and remains out of reach for cows.
• Cows are heavily sorting the feed, which is pushed out of reach.
• The cows are not on a strict feeding timetable.

I have talked to several dairy producers about how they manage their lactating cows against running out of feed at any time of the day or night. Whether they milk their cows in a parlour-system or by robots is of little consequence.

Most of them recognize dairy cows are creatures of habit, who tend to go up to the feed bunk and/or waterers after they are milked, then lie down to ruminate what feed they just ate for several hours. Plus, the big question remains: if cows consume all their daily feed allotment, would they eat more, if more feed was provided, or would that contribute to leftovers usually given to the replacement heifers?

One of these producers (140 dairy cows) replied that he provides his cows feed three times per day. TMR is set down just before 4 a.m. and 3 p.m., when he milks them in his double-eight parlour. At 9 p.m., a nighttime feeding of chopped alfalfa-grass hay is unloaded in the bunk. Its purpose is just to fill up the cows during the night and assist with rumination. The feed is pushed up six times per day by skid-steer. This producer also takes a weekly moisture test of his daily TMR and calculates both ‘as fed’ and dry matter intake (DMI). Adjustments are made to the diet to maintain consistent DMI.

Another farmer milks 110 dairy cows, 100 km away, and has three robot milkers. He feeds 6,000 kilograms to those 110 cows in one 3 p.m. feeding.

A couple of months ago about 5,300 to 5,500 kg of TMR were fed per day, but that had to be adjusted upward due to a new bag of wetter corn silage. This producer wants no more than one to 1.5 per cent feed refusal, which still maintains some feed in the feed bunk, just before the next day’s afternoon feeding.

Plus, all feed is pushed up by a robot pusher every two hours during daylight hours and once or twice during the night.

I have been in both barns on several occasions and many cows are up at the feed bunk eating their fill. Plus, I look at the cows that are laying their stalls and they are ruminating without a care in the world. Others are loafing around in both free-stall lactation barns, with one or two under the rotary back-scratchers. Milk production in both barns is in the upper 30 litres with over four per cent milk fat.

Neither scene is replayed at one dairy producer I know, located several hundred kilometres away. His cows are fed twice a day but are frequently out of feed several hours after morning milking and not refurbished until about 2 p.m. (an hour before afternoon milking).

The funny thing is that his milk and milk fat production are similar to those of the two dairy producers examined above, but he has a higher proportion of skinny cows (body condition score less than 2.5), which I believe is related to a number of things as well as failure to keep a full feed bunk at all times.

The post Keep a full feed-bunk for optimum milk production appeared first on Grainews.

My takeaway thought was that not enough effective forage fibre was being fed in all three. However, that was quickly contradicted by a few weeks of high milkfat records in good milk volume shipments in each case. Despite my initial bewilderment, in hindsight I still maintain there was a lack of effective forage fibre in these lactation diets. That type of feed will not sustain good long-term performance on these or any other dairy farm.

One of the pillars of dairy lactation science is that effective forage fibre is not a true nutrient like energy and protein, but there is a strict requirement for it in the lactating dairy cow’s diet. It stimulates nerves in their inner rumen wall into regurgitating the dairy diet back into the cow’s mouth.

In turn, she chews large forage particles into smaller pieces and swallows them again. Cud chewing not only aids the dietary fermentation process by the ruminal microbes, but repeats itself until large forage particles are either digested in the rumen or become small enough (10-11 mm) to leave the rumen and enter the omasum and later the abomasum.

For example, about 50 to 60 per cent of milkfat structure is built from such ruminal volatile fatty acids and other metabolites. They are generated by rumen-microbial fermentation of effective forage fibre. The other 50 per cent milkfat portion is drawn off from fatty acids absorbed directly from the bloodstream. It is here where added palm fat bypasses the rumen and become a direct support of milkfat levels.

Three rules for fibre

I use three mainstream “effective fibre” rules to assure cows remain healthy by properly chewing their cud:

1. The diet contains 28 per cent NDF.
2. 75 per cent of this NDF comes from forage or equivalent sources (21-22 per cent eNDF)
3. Forages are chopped to provide 15-20 per cent of the dietary particles being more than 1.5 inches long, creating a good floating mat in the rumen.

As I ponder the significance of these three effective fibre rules in all lactating dairy diets, I cannot help wonder how the above dairies seemingly circumvent them. Another group of three producers that feed similar lactation diets may offer plausible explanations:

• Producer No. 1 keeps non-fibre-carbohydrate levels well below 38 per cent of the total lactation diet (dm basis). A couple of years ago, he fed highly digestible corn silage with 33 per cent starch levels. At least 1.5 kg of grain corn per cow was removed in the associated grain mix.
• Producer No. 2 feeds highly digestible corn silage and about eight pounds of alfalfa hay per head, decreased from 12 pounds in a previous diet. He also quit adding three to four pounds of brome grass hay because extra hay led to uncontrollable sorting, which was followed by sub-clinical acidosis (SARA) in the lactating herd.
• Producer No. 3 told me that he watches the daily manure from all his milk cows. If it’s getting a little loose (a sign of SARA), he increases the alfalfa-grass portions by about one kilogram and removes about three kilograms of high-quality corn silage.

As a footnote, all these producers, and the former dairies, feed palm fat at 500 grams per head per day. It seems on each farm that adding this amount of palm fat leads to a 0.2-0.4 per cent increase response in milkfat, regardless of in-diet effective forage fibre levels.

Not to diminish the value of palm fat in lactating dairy diets, but whenever I visit these latter three producers, most of their resting lactating cows are rhythmically belching and chewing without a care in the world. Therefore, I’m confident that dietary fibre levels in each of these dairy diets are adequate for good long-term milk/milkfat production. It also makes me think a more concrete investigation is needed into the lack of cud-chewing cows in the first group of dairies.

The post There’s a reason if cows aren’t chewing their cud appeared first on Grainews.