Matt Akins, Luiz Ferraretto, Shane Fredin

& Randy Shaver

Dairy Science Department, UW Madison

24% forage-NDF

16% forage-NDF

• High Quality Forages• Large Forage Supply• Forages Favorably Priced

• Limited Forage Supply• Forages Expensive• Moderate/Low Quality Forages

Practical forage-NDF range in high-group TMR

i.e. 60% Forage @ 40% NDF

i.e. 35% Forage @ 46% NDF

24% forage-NDF

16% forage-NDF

• Fill Limitation of DMI• Reduced Milk Yield

• peNDF• Milk Fat Depression• Cow Health

Nutritional Constraints

24% forage-NDF

16% forage-NDF

Dairy NRC Min. forage NDF & Max. NFC Dietary Guidelines

44% NFC

38% NFC

High Fiber Byproducts

Starchy Grains

Varying proportions ofStarchSugarPectin/Soluble FiberOrganic AcidsAnalytical Errors

CP, NDF, Fat, Ash

Variable ruminal & total tract digestibility of starch

NDF Greater proportion of acetate

Starch Greater proportion of propionate

SugarGreater proportion of butyrate or valerate

Pectin/Soluble FiberGreater proportion of acetate

Impacts DMI, milk yield & composition, & feed conversions

Broderick & Radloff (2004)Dried or Liquid Molasses vs. HMSC

Broderick et al. (2008)Sucrose vs. Corn Starch

Quadratic DMI & milk production responses5% - 7% Total Sugar (DM basis) Optimum in

TMRWith 23% - 25% Starch (DM basis) in these

trials

Average #2 yellow corn cash price in Minneapolis, MN at 5 year intervals from Sept. 1975 - Aug. 1976 through Sept. 2010 - July. 2011 (USDA ERS, 2011)

25% - ≥ 30% Starch Diets Common

?

Dietary Starch Content

Ingredient Starch%

Shelled corn 70

Corn:SBM (65:35)

46

Corn Silage 30

Soy hulls 5

Corn gluten feed 23

Distillers grains 3

Whole cottonseed

1

DGSC partially replaced by High-Fiber Byproducts in UW I-III & Corn Silage in OARDC to formulate RS diets

DGSC partially replaced by High-Fiber Byproducts in UW I-III & Corn Silage in OARDC to formulate RS diets

DGSC partially replaced by High-Fiber Byproducts in UW I-III & Corn Silage in OARDC to formulate RS diets

Matt Akins & Randy Shaver

Dairy Science Department, UW Madison

Kelly Perfield & Howard Green

Elanco Animal Health

RumensinIncrease milk-production efficiency (Milk/DMI)Reduce DMI These responses greater on reduced-starch diets

UW-Madison Arlington free-stall barn16 pens of 8 cows (90 ± 33 DIM)Treatments

NSR = 27% starch with 18 g Rumensin/ton TMR DM

NSC = 27% starch without RumensinRSR = 20% starch with 18 g Rumensin/ton

TMR DMRSC = 20% starch without Rumensin

Completely randomized design with 4-wk covariate on NSR followed by 12-wk treatment periodPen served as experimental unit for stats analysis

Normal Starch Reduced Starch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - % of DM - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Corn silage 25 25

Alfalfa silage 25 25

Dry ground corn 23.9 15.0

Soyhulls 5.5 15.5

SBM-48 11.3 10.2

DDGS 4.5 4.5

Mins-Vits-Adds 3.9 3.9

Control or Rumensin Premix

0.9 0.9

Rumensin concentration 0 or 18 g/ton within NS & RS TMR

Normal Starch Reduced Starch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - % of DM - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CP 18.3 18.1

NDF 28.5 34.9

Forage NDF 19.5 19.5

Starch 26.9 20.4

Ether Extract 5.9 5.9

TDN1x 74.5 68.9

NS RS P-value

DMI, lb/d 59.8 59.3 0.53

Milk, lb/d 93.7 90.4 0.01

Milk/DMI 1.56 1.54 0.11

Starch × week (P < 0.01)

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Week

lb m

ilk/lb

DM

I

Reduced

Normal

* * * *

†

0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value

DMI, lb/d 59.9 59.1 0.33

Milk, lb/d 90.6 93.5 0.01

Milk/DMI 1.52 1.58 <0.01

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Week

DM

I, lb

/d

Control

Rumensin

***

Rumensin × week (P < 0.01)

NS RS P-value

Fat, %lb/d

3.813.55

3.883.52

0.360.85

Protein, %lb/d

3.223.00

3.172.87

0.01<0.01

MUN, mg/dL 12.1 12.7 <0.01

10.010.511.011.512.012.5

13.013.514.014.515.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Week

MU

N, m

g/d

L

Reduced

Normal

*

* *

*

Starch × week (P < 0.01)

0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value

Fat, %lb/d

3.873.51

3.823.55

0.520.56

Protein, %lb/d

3.222.91

3.172.95

0.020.37

MUN, mg/dL 12.2 12.6 0.06

NS RS P-value

SCM, lb/d 90.6 88.9 0.28

SCM/DMI 1.52 1.50 0.54

0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value

3.5% FCM, lb/d 96.1 97.9 0.30

ECM, lb/d 95.0 96.8 0.29

SCM, lb/d 88.9 90.6 0.31

0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value

FCM/DMI 1.61 1.66 0.04

ECM/DMI 1.59 1.64 0.03

SCM/DMI 1.49 1.53 0.05

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

1.6

1.65

RSC NSC RSR NSR

Treatment

lb m

ilk/lb

DM

I

Starch × Rumensin (P < 0.08)

0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value

Body Weight, lb 1527 1537 0.52

Condition Score 3.05 3.04 0.65

Body Weight Change, lb/d

1.03 1.14 0.53

NS RS P-value

Body Weight, lb 1545 1520 0.12

Condition Score 3.06 3.03 0.48

Body Weight Change, lb/d

1.15 1.02 0.45

NS RS P-value

TT StarchD, % 96.8 98.1 <0.01

NEL, Mcal/lb DM

0.74 0.74 0.69

0 g/ton 18 g/ton P-value

TT StarchD, % 97.5 97.3 0.29

NEL, Mcal/lb DM

0.73 0.75 0.01

Reduced starch diet:Similar DMI and SCM yieldReduced milk and protein yields

18 g Rumensin/ton DM:Increased milk yieldReduced DMI as trial progressedIncreased milk-production efficiency by 4%Similar milk fat and protein yields

Few interactions between dietary starch content & Rumensin supplementation were detectedResults support use of Rumensin in normal

& reduced starch diets

The digestibility of starch from corn in dairy cows?

Pat Hoffman & Randy Shaver

Dairy Science DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison

Primary Factors: Influencing Starch Digestibility in Feed

Grains

Processingi.e. Particle size;

Steam Treatment

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

Endosperm Type

i.e. Prolamin; Prolamin-

starch matrix; Hardness

FeedGrainV2.0 IntegratesPrimary Factors:

Influencing Starch Digestibility in Feed Grains

ProcessingParticle size

Harvest/StorageDry vs. HMC

DM of HMC/MaturitySilo Fermentation

Time

Endosperm Type Starch-Protein

Matrix Hardness

Vitreousness

MPSAmmonia

Prolamin

Authors: Patrick C. Hoffman 1 , Dr. Randy Shaver 1 , and Dr. David Mertens 2 , 1Deptartment of Dairy Science,

University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2Mertens Innovation & Research, LLC.

1.00 For use w ith the feed grains listed below.

Ground Dry Corn x High Moisture Shelled CornHigh Moisture Ear Corn Snaplage

1.00

Item Abbreviation Method 1

InputDry Matter DM % as fed 85.0 WCMean Particle Size (*Examples below) MPS microns 850 ASAEStarch % of DM 70.5 NIRCrude Protein CP % of DM 9.1 NIRNH 3-N ( **Examples below) % of CP 0.0 NIRProlamin Protein ( ***Examples below) % of DM 4.0 WCNeutral Detergent Fiber aNDF % of DM 9.0 NIRFat % of DM 3.6 NIRAsh % of DM 2.3 NIR

OutputMoisture % as fed 15.0 C

Effective Mean Particle Size 2 eMPS microns 867 CStarch Fermentation Rate (As Fed) 3kd % /hour 19.4 CRuminal Starch Digestibility RSD % of starch 56.5 CStarch Digestibility (Total Tract) TTSD % of starch 93.2 CNon Fiber Carbohydrate NFC % of DM 76.7 CNonstarch NFC % of DM 6.2 CTotal Digestible Nutrients, 1X TDN % of DM 86.2 CNet Energy Lactation, 3X NE L Mcals/lb 0.88 CNet Energy Maintenance NE M Mcals/lb 0.94 CNet Energy Gain NE G Mcals/lb 0.64 CMetabolizable Energy, 3X ME Mcals/lb 1.37 CRelative Grain Quality RGQ 150 C

Whole Corn (Unprocessed)

Feed Grainv2.0 Evaluation System

Unit Result

Input categories are shown in red. Output values are shown blue

FeedGrainV2.0

Snaplage HMCAmmonia = 6.0% of CPKernel MPS = 1456 µ

Ammonia = 1.8% of CP

MPS = 1335 µ

Snaplage HMCkd = 26%/hrRSD = 69%

TTSD = 97%

kd = 19%/hrRSD = 62%TTSD = 95%

Kd, RSD & TTSD estimated from Ammonia & MPS with FeedGrainv2.0 - Hoffman et al. 2012

HMSC SnaplageSnaplage + Dry Corn

P <

Fat % 3.67%a 3.40%b 3.52%ab 0.05

Protein % 2.97% 2.93% 2.94% 0.89

MUN, mg/dL 11.4b 14.0a 10.3c <0.001

a

b

a a

ab

b

Week × Treatment interaction (P < 0.05)

Visit UW Extension Dairy Cattle Nutrition Website

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/dairynutrition/