Webinar O Nutricionista

Webinar

Webinar - O Nutricionista

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.

Creating the Perfect

Dining Experience:

Focus on Applied Nutrition and

Feeding Management

Rick Grant

William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute

Chazy, NY

Topics for Today …



Focus on feeding

environment.



Mix recent Miner

Institute research with

published data.



Goal: meet cow

behavioral needs with

feeding management.

Where is/what is Miner

Institute?

“

Agriculture is the fundamental

occupation.

No other occupation is so vitally

important to the human race, nor

requires such a wide range of

practical and technical

Charles J. Sniffen

Dairy Research & Education Complex

350 Holstein cows 14,058 kg RHA

Creating the perfect dining

experience …

 Well-formulated,

palatable ration

 Forage quality

 Feed available when

cow wants to eat

 Competition doesn’t

limit feed access

 No restrictions on

Importance of management

environment

(Bach et al., 2008)

 47 herds with similar genetics were fed same TMR  Mean milk yield=29.5 kg/d

 Range: 20.4 to 33.6 kg/d

 Non-dietary factors accounted for 56% of variation in

milk yield

 Feeding for refusals (29.0 vs 27.5 kg/d)  Feed push-ups (28.9 vs 24.9 kg/d)

Stalls per cow and milk

production

R2_=0.32

Milk yield = 20.4 + 7.5 x stall/cow

Stalls per cow and milk

production

R2_=0.32

Milk yield = 20.4 + 7.5 x stall/cow

Overcrowding is an Industry

Challenge in US …



United States



57% of producers consistently overcrowd their facilities



Northeast



Average feed-bunk stocking density = 142%

Free-stall stocking density

ranges from 71-197 %



60% of high-producing

groups overstocked

Stocking Density and

Feeding Management

No fun being the cow in

the middle …

 As stocking density increases:

 Greater aggression and

displacements

 Time of eating shifted  Fewer meals

 Eating rate increased

 Greater potential for sorting  Largest effect on subordinate

cows

 Within limits, cows can adjust feeding behavior in response to variable SR

Stocking density and DMI

(Grant and Tylutki, 2010)

y = 5.5x + 18.0 R2 = 0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Manger space (m/cow)

D M I (k g /d )



Weak short-term relationship between stocking

density or manger space and DMI

Stocking density and

eating rate

y = -80.9x + 134.5 R2 = 0.43 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Manger space (m/cow)

E ati n g r ate (g D M /m in )



Eating rate increases with increased stocking

density, reduced feeding space

Stocking density and

DMI by parity in mixed groups

Interaction between parity and stocking density

y = -90.9x2 + 109.0x - 8.6 R2 = 0.85 y = -64.2x2 + 68.8x + 6.7 R2 = 0.82 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Manger space (m/cow)

D ry ma tte r i n ta ke (k g /d ) MP PP (Grant, 2010)

Primi- versus multiparous cows

and stocking density

(Hill et al., 2008)

100% 113% 131% 142%

Multi - primi

Milk, lb/d

+5.9 +13.8 +21.1 +14.9



Milk losses reflect reductions in resting and

Total U se by p ari ty/ total occu p at

ion Preferred stalls tended to _{be in the middle of the pen;}

closest to feed bunk

Heifers avoid preferred stalls

(Miner Institute, 2014)

69%

Rumination by primiparous cows

in preferred/less preferred stalls

(Krawczel, 2007)

Preferred

Less

preferred

P-value

Rumination time,

min/d

81.4

147.8

0.09

% resting time

spent ruminating

35.2

58.4

0.05



Long-term implications?

Management Environment x Diet

Interactions

Management x diet

interaction: Focus on rumen

 Management explains majority of variation among farms in

milk yield (Bach et al., 2008)

 Feed availability  Stocking density

 Does stocking density interact with diet?

 peNDF, uNDF, CHO fermentability

 Does stocking density interact with feed availability?

Effects of stocking density and

physically effective fiber on

short-term responses in ruminal

fermentation and behavior of

Holstein dairy cows

M. A. Campbell, K. W. Cotanch, C. S. Ballard, H. M. Dann, and R. J. Grant

William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY

University of Vermont, Department of Animal Science, Burlington, VT Abstract 165

Ingredient composition

(% of ration DM)

Table 1. Ingredients, chemical composition, and digestibility

of treatment diets

Item

No Straw

Straw

SEM

Ingredients, % of ration DM

Corn silage

39.7

39.7

––

Haycrop silage

6.9

2.3

––

Wheat straw, chopped

––

3.5

––

Citrus pulp, dry

4.8

4.8

––

Whole cottonseed, fuzzy

3.5

3.5

––

Soybean meal, 47.5%

solvent

––

1.1

––

Molasses

3.2

3.2

––

Concentrate mix

41.9

41.9

––

Analyses

Crude protein, % of DM

15.0

15.1

0.3

NDF, % of DM

30.8

30.1

0.4

ADL, % of DM

3.8

3.8

0.1

Starch, % of DM

25.0

25.5

0.5

Sugar, % of DM

7.4

8.1

0.4

Fat, % of DM

5.9

5.7

0.1

7-h starch digestibility, %

of starch

73.3

74.3

0.9

Physically effective

NDF

23.9

25.9

0.7

30-h uNDFom, % of DM

13.1

14.9

0.3

120-h uNDFom, % of DM

9.0

10.2

0.2

240-h uNDFom, % of DM

8.5

9.7

0.2

Hay crop silage 6.9 2.3

Wheat straw, chopped … 3.5

Citrus pulp, dry 4.8 4.8

Whole cottonseed, fuzzy 3.5 3.5

Soybean meal, 47.5% solvent … 1.1

Molasses 3.2 3.2

Chemical composition

(% of ration DM)

7-h starch digestibility, % of starch 73.3 74.3

peNDF_{1.18 mm} 18.0 22.5

30-h uNDFom 13.1 14.9

Stocking density and

rumen pH

100% 142% SD Diet S NS S NS Mean pH 6.13 6.17 6.10 6.09 0.07 0.62 Min pH 5.67 5.70 5.59 5.62 0.11 0.53 Max pH 6.58 6.63 6.53 6.56 0.07 0.22 pH<5.8, h/d* 1.90 2.29 2.77 4.12 <0.01 0.01 AUC<5.8, pH units x h/d* 0.38 0.19 0.58 0.34 0.06 0.03 *Interaction (P < 0.09).

 Associated with reduced lying time, recumbent rumination, and lower milk and milk fat output.

DMI, milk production and

composition – short term

100% 142% P-value NS S NS S SEM STKD DIET DMI, kg/d 25.4 25.3 25.3 25.2 0.4 0.78 0.69 Milk, kg/d 41.2 40.4 40.7 40.0 0.7 0.10 0.06 Fat, kg/d 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.69 0.03 0.10 0.20 True protein, kg/d 1.38 1.36 1.37 1.34 0.02 0.23 0.06

DMI, milk production and

composition – short term

100% 142% P-value NS S NS S SEM STKD DIET DMI, kg/d 25.4 25.3 25.3 25.2 0.4 0.78 0.69 Milk, kg/d 41.2 40.4 40.7 40.0 0.7 0.10 0.06 Fat, kg/d 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.69 0.03 0.10 0.20 True protein, kg/d 1.38 1.36 1.37 1.34 0.02 0.23 0.06

 Higher stocking density and marginal peNDF negatively affect rumen pH and performance.

 Higher peNDF counteracts the negative pH effect especially at high stocking density.

Stocking density and milk fat

depression



Milk fat % reduced with overcrowding

 Overstocked cows ate faster (+25%), ruminated less (1 h/d less).

Perspectives…

 Management environment

has large impact on rumen and cow response to diet.

 First study to investigate

this interaction.

 Need to account for role of

management in nutrition models.

Effect of nutrition and management

practices on

de novo

fatty acid synthesis

in Northeastern US dairy herds

M. E. Woolpert

_{, C. Melilli}

_{, K. W. Cotanch}

_{, H. M. Dann}

_{, R. J. Grant}

_,

L. E. Chase

_{, and D. M. Barbano}

1_{William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY} 2 _{University of Vermont, Burlington, VT}

3 _{Cornell University, Ithaca, NY}

Abstract 81

Management environment: impact

on

de novo

fatty acid synthesis

(Woolpert et al., 2015)



Investigated effects of management practices on de

novo fatty acid concentrations in bulk-tank milk

from commercial dairy herds.

 44 (Year 1) and 30 (Year 2) in VT and NY  Grouped as high or low de novo FA herds



De novo FA synthesized primarily from rumen

fermentation products acetate and butyrate.



Hypothesis: farms with higher de novo milk FA

concentrations prioritize management and nutrition

that promote rumen health.

De novo

fatty acids and milk fat

and protein are positively

correlated

(Barbano et al., 2015)

y = 0.1678x + 0.1222 R2 _{= 0.4547} 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Fa t, %

De novo FA, % of total FA

y = 0.123x + 0.2771 R2 _{= 0.6842} 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 True p rot e in , %

Feeding environment

HDN LDN SEM P - value Herd days in milk 175 165 7 0.35 Bunk space, cm/cow1 _{44.6 37.4 3.1 0.13}

Cows per stall1 _{1.05 1.20 0.06 0.07}

Feeding frequency

Tie stall2 _{4.8 2.8 0.7 0.03}

Free stall3 _{1.7 1.2 0.4 0.32}

1 _{Freestall facilities only (n = 10 HDN; n = 13 LDN)}

2 _{n = 5 HDN, n = 9 LDN component fed; n = 3 HDN, n = 4 LDN TMR fed} 3 _{Freestall farms all TMR fed}

Feeding environment

HDN LDN SEM P - value Herd days in milk 175 165 7 0.35 Bunk space, cm/cow1 _{44.6 37.4 3.1 0.13}

Cows per stall1 _{1.05 1.20 0.06 0.07}

Feeding frequency

Tie stall2 _{4.8 2.8 0.7 0.03}

Free stall3 _{1.7 1.2 0.4 0.32}

1 _{Freestall facilities only (n = 10 HDN; n = 13 LDN)}

2 _{n = 5 HDN, n = 9 LDN component fed; n = 3 HDN, n = 4 LDN TMR fed} 3 _{Freestall farms all TMR fed}

Feeding environment

HDN LDN SEM P - value Herd days in milk 175 165 7 0.35 Bunk space, cm/cow1 _{44.6 37.4 3.1 0.13}

Cows per stall1 _{1.05 1.20 0.06 0.07}

Feeding frequency

Tie stall2 _{4.8 2.8 0.7 0.03}

Free stall3 _{1.7 1.2 0.4 0.32}

1 _{Freestall facilities only (n = 10 HDN; n = 13 LDN)}

2 _{n = 5 HDN, n = 9 LDN component fed; n = 3 HDN, n = 4 LDN TMR fed} 3 _{Freestall farms all TMR fed}

Feeding environment and

milk composition

(Woolpert et al., 2015, unpublished)



Greater peNDF



23.4 vs 20.0% of DM



65.2 vs 59.1% >4.0-mm screen with PSPS



Higher

de novo

milk fatty acid synthesis



65% of variation explained by bunk space

Interaction of

Management

Environment and

Forage Quality

Forage NDF and time

spent eating…

Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR

53% forage 40%CS:13% HCS 67% forage 54%CS:13% HCS 49% forage 36%BMR:13%HCS 64% forage 51%BMR:13%HCS TMR NDF, % of DM 32.1 35.6 31.5 35.1 TMR 24-h NDFD, % 56.3 54.0 62.0 60.3 Eating Behavior Eating, h/d 4.6ab _5.1a _4.1b _4.6b % of TCT 34.7 35.7 35.1 33.8

Forage NDF and time

spent eating…

Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR

53% forage 40%CS:13% HCS 67% forage 54%CS:13% HCS 49% forage 36%BMR:13%HCS 64% forage 51%BMR:13%HCS TMR NDF, % of DM 32.1 35.6 31.5 35.1 TMR 24-h NDFD, % 56.3 54.0 62.0 60.3 Eating Behavior Eating, h/d 4.6ab _5.1a _4.1b _4.6b % of TCT 34.7 35.7 35.1 33.8

abc _{Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05).}



Higher forage diets with slower fermenting forage-NDF

take longer to process.

Forage NDF and time

spent eating…

Item Low CCS High CCS Low BMR High BMR

53% forage 40%CS:13% HCS 67% forage 54%CS:13% HCS 49% forage 36%BMR:13%HCS 64% forage 51%BMR:13%HCS TMR NDF, % of DM 32.1 35.6 31.5 35.1 TMR 24-h NDFD, % 56.3 54.0 62.0 60.3 Eating Behavior Eating, h/d 4.6ab _5.1a _4.1b _4.6b % of TCT 34.7 35.7 35.1 33.8

abc _{Least squares means within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05).}

 Higher forage diets with slower fermenting forage-NDF take longer to process.

 Time budget challenge especially when overstocked at feed bunk or mixed parity pens.

Food for thought …



Feeding frequency



Feed push-up



Bunk space



Feed refusals



Do we need to

re-assess industry

norms?

Cows naturally have

aggressive feeding drive …



Cows willingly exert

>227-kg

pressure against feed barrier

while eating



102 kg

causes tissue damage



Defines “aggressive feeding

drive”



We can train cows to become

less aggressive eaters!

Feed push-up



1 to 2 hours post-feeding is most competitive; most

displacements



Push-up each ½ hour for first 2 hours versus once per hour

 Fed 3x/day

Item 1x/h 2x/h

DMI, kg/d 18.8 18.2

Milk, kg/d 27.9b _29.7a

Milk/DMI, kg/lkg 1.48b _1.63a

1x versus 2x TMR feeding

(Sova et al., 2013)

 Twice versus once daily feeding:

 More feed availability throughout day  Less sorting against long particles

 Increased DMI by 1.4 kg/d, milk by 2.0 kg/d

 Overall improvement in efficiency  Greater feeding frequency:

 Improved rumen fermentation  Greater rumination

Feeding frequency greater

than 2x/day?

(Grant, 2012)

Reference FF

/d

Eating

time % DMI _% Milk _% Rest _%

DeVries et al. (2005) 1 vs 2x 2 vs 4x +3.5 +4.6 -2.0 -3.0 NR NR -0.8* 0* Mantysaari et al. (2006) 1 vs 5x + 7.0 -4.8 -1.0 -12.1

Phillips and Rind (2001) 1 vs 4x +11.0 -6.3 -4.7 -8.6

Nikkhah et al. (2011) 1 vs 4x NS -5.2 -2.5 NS

Feeding frequency greater

than 2x/day?

(Grant, 2012)

Reference FF

/d

Eating

time % DMI _% Milk _% Rest _%

DeVries et al. (2005) 1 vs 2x 2 vs 4x +3.5 +4.6 -2.0 -3.0 NR NR -0.8* 0* Mantysaari et al. (2006) 1 vs 5x + 7.0 -4.8 -1.0 -12.1

Phillips and Rind (2001) 1 vs 4x +11.0 -6.3 -4.7 -8.6

Nikkhah et al. (2011) 1 vs 4x NS -5.2 -2.5 NS

Increased TMR feeding frequency improves efficiency: Is it desirable long-term if it reduces resting time?

Circadian rhythms in feeding

behavior

(Harvatine, 2012)



With >4x/d feeding:



Decreased ruminating

Disruption of normal

circadian lying pattern



In particular, appears to

be antagonism between

resting and feeding at

night.

Table for one?

(Rioja-Lang et al., 2012)

 Compared 76, 60, 46, and 30 cm of bunk space and preference for:

 low-palatability feed alone

 high-palatability feed next to a dominant cow

 Y-maze testing to offer choices

Space (cm) HPF Dominant Equal choice _Alone LPF P 30 0 1 11 <0.001 46 1 3 8 <0.05 60 3 4 5 >0.05 76 5 2 5 >0.05

Are 60 cm/cow enough?



Cows cannot access feed all together.



Distribution of DMI changed – pushed to later hours of

day.



3- versus 2-row pens



Is TMR the same quality?



60 vs 76.2 vs 91 cm/cow



10, 6, 3 displacements per cow/d

Greater feeding time…

Refusal amount and

sorting …

Individually fed cows:

Sorting occurs over day, but by 24 h

cows consume ration similar to that

offered

Competitive feeding situation:

associated with 1.3% increase in sorting (Sova et al., 2013).

• Milk/DMI decreases 3% for each 1% increase in sorting.

Feed refusal amount:

intake, milk, efficiency

2.5 vs 5.0

• DMI = 25.9 kg/d, FCM = 42.1 kg/d, FE = 1.63

11.6 vs 16.1

• DMI = 21.6 kg/d, MY = 41.6 kg/d, FE = 1.93

11.5 vs 18.0

• DMI = 26.6 vs 29.7, MY = 39.8, FE = 1.50 vs 1.34

2.9, 6.3, 9.4, 12.7

Two percent feed refusals:

What it looks like…

How long can the feed

bunk be empty?



Cow’s motivation to eat increases markedly after

3 hours (Schutz et al., 2006)



0, 3, 6, 9 h/d feed restriction



Linear increase in motivation to eat



Restricted feed access time by 10 h/d (8:00 pm to

6:00 am) reduced DMI by 1.6 kg/d (Collings et al.,

2011)

Effect of empty-bunk time

(Matzke and Grant, 2003)

Compared 0 vs 6 h/d

functionally empty bunk

(midnight to 6:00 am)

•

+3.6 kg/d milk yield

•

1.8x greater lying in stalls

•

2x greater feeding at bunk

Restricted feed access and

overcrowding

 Restricted feed (10 h/d) and

overcrowding (1:1 or 2:1 cows:bin)

 ~3x displacements when restricted

cows were overstocked

 during 2 h after morning

feeding and after afternoon milking

 25% increase in feeding rate in first

The Perfect Dining Experience?

Recommended Feeding Management



Management that enhances rest and rumination

Feed available on demand



Consistent feed quality/quantity along the bunk

Bunk stocking density ≤100% (≥60 cm/cow)



TMR fed 2x/day



Push-ups focused on 2 hours post-feeding

~3% refusal target

Future feeding management

research at Miner?



Diet x stocking density



Mixed parity pens



Feed availability



Heat stress



Forage quality



uNDF, fermentable CHO

9 de setembro 19:00

(segunda quarta feira do mês)

Adam Lock – PhD – Universidade de Michigan

Gordura para vacas de leite: qual o nível de precisão em

fazendas comerciais. Foco na utilização de gordura e

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]

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

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 40 50 60 70 > 70 Brasil EUA Argentina

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Espaço de cocho não é fator de ajuste da dieta Se não tiver espaço de cocho eu aumento a sobra Se não tiver espaço de cocho eu aumento forragem Espaço de cocho interfere na dieta somente na transição Se não tiver espaço de cocho eu aumento frequência de tratos Brasil EUA Argentina

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Qualidade da forragem Espaço de cocho Frequência de alimentação Recursos humanos Instalação Brasil EUA Argentina

10 fazendas com genética similar e

produção diferente

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2x/dia empurrando 4 vezes 1x/dia empurrando 8 vezes 3x/dia empurrando 4 vezes 3x/dia empurrando 8 vezes Mais que 3x/dia Brasil EUA Argentina