Feeding Management Practices on California Dairies

Feeding Management Practices
on California Dairies
N. Silva-del-Río, DVM, PhD –UC Cooperative Extension Tulare Co.
J. M. Heguy, MS – UC Cooperative Extension Stanislaus & San Joaquin Co.
Alfonso Lago, DVM, DAVP-Dairy, PhD – APC Inc.
Objectives
1. Describe current feeding management practices on California’s
Central Valley dairies.
2. Identify opportunities to optimize feeding management.
Methodology
In summer 2009, a feeding
management survey was
mailed to dairy producers in
Tulare, Stanislaus, and San
Joaquin; the first, third and
seventh largest dairy
counties in California.
Methodology
Producers received an envelope containing:
1) an invitation letter to participate in the study,
2) a double sided one-page survey, and
3) a pre-paid return envelope.
Participant Dairies
Response rate was 16.9% (120/710).
Herd size range: 160 to 6,600 lactating cows (median=950).
Results Outline
 Feeds used in Central Valley’s dairies
 TMR Preparation and Mixing Equipment
 Feed Bunk Management Practices in High Producing Pens
 Software and Monitoring Tools
Feeds
What forages
do
you
feed?
Forages
120
Dairies (n)
100
80
60
40
20
lla
ge
O
C
er at h
ea
ay
ls
W ilag
he
es
at
st
Al
r
fa
lfa aw
Su Sila
ge
da
n
gr
as
R
Al
ic
s
e
fa
St
l fa
fre raw
sh
C
or cho
n
Ea p
rla
ge
Si
C
or
n
Al
fa
l fa
ha
y
0
Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the two most common forages fed to dairy cows
in California dairies. Cereal hay and silage are also frequently fed.
Al
m
C ond
a
C n
H
C orn ola ull
ot
s
p
to gr
ns ain elle
ts
ee ,
d flak
So wh ed
C ybe ole
or
a lin
C n g n, m t
ot lu
t o t e ea
ns n
l
D eed m e
is
til , p al
le
r's im
g a
Fa
M rain
t(
ol s
in
as
er
se
W t, a
he nim W s
h
at
m al, ey
id liq
ds u
/m id)
illr
um
U
So rea
y
C hu
itr
us lls
C
ot
p
to Be ulp
ns et
ee pu
d
l
,m p
R
Ba ice eal
rle b
B
y ra
C rew Ro n
or
n er's lled
gr
a gr
Li in, ain
nd g s
se rou
ed nd
,m
So
yp H eal
lu om
s/
S iny
C oyb
or e
n, st
Li Ca ge
nd rr rm
se ot
B r ed, pul
an p p
dy elle
P o ts
m
ac
e
Dairies (n)
What byproducts and grains
Byproducts and Grains
do
doyou
youfeed?
fed?
100
80
60
40
20
0
Very diverse byproducts are incorporated into dairy rations. This is a result of a
vibrant local agriculture industry. Almond hulls and cottonseed (whole lint and
pima) are the two most common byproducts.
What
additives
Feed
Additives
do
you
feed?
Other Ingredients
Dairies (n)
60
40
20
n
M
et
hi
on
in
e
N
ia
ci
Ye
as
t
ar
bo
na
te
bi
c
Sa
l ts
So
di
um
An
io
ni
c
R
um
en
si
n
0
Rumensin, anionic salts, sodium bicarbonate and yeast supplements are
common additives used in dairy rations.
TMR Preparation and Mixing
Equipment
What type of mixer wagon do you
have? Primary Mixer Wagon
60
(n=112/120)
Dairies (n)
50
40
30
20
10
al
Ve
rti
c
on
ta
l
H
or
iz
St
at
io
na
ry
ou
nt
ed
Tr
ai
le
rM
Tr
uc
k
M
ou
nt
ed
0
Type of Mixer Wagon
Primary mixer wagons are either truck mounted or trailer mounted. Vertical
mixers are more popular than horizontal mixers.
What type of mixer wagon do you
TMR 2:Type
have? Secondary
Mixer Wagon
60
Dairies (n)
50
40
30
20
10
al
Ve
rti
c
on
ta
l
H
or
iz
St
at
io
na
ry
ou
nt
ed
Tr
ai
le
rM
Tr
uc
k
M
ou
nt
ed
0
Type of Mixer Wagon
No one type of mixer wagon is more popular than another.
In which order are feeds
added to the mixer?
Hay
Vertical Mixer Wagon
Horizontal Mixer Wagon
100
60
Dairies (n)
Dairies (n)
80
60
40
40
20
20
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
0
1
5
1
Order of Ingredients
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
In which order are feeds
added to the mixer?
Hay
Silage
Vertical Mixer Wagon
Horizontal Mixer Wagon
100
60
Dairies (n)
Dairies (n)
80
60
40
40
20
20
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
0
1
5
1
Order of Ingredients
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
In which order are feeds
added to the mixer?
Hay
Silage
Grains
Vertical Mixer Wagon
Horizontal Mixer Wagon
100
60
Dairies (n)
Dairies (n)
80
60
40
40
20
20
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
0
1
5
1
Order of Ingredients
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
In which order are feeds
added to the mixer?
Hay
Silage
Grains
Min Vit
Vertical Mixer Wagon
Horizontal Mixer Wagon
100
60
Dairies (n)
Dairies (n)
80
60
40
40
20
20
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
0
1
5
1
Order of Ingredients
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
In which order are feeds
added to the mixer?
Hay
Horizontal Mixer Wagon
Silage
Grains
Min Vit
Protein Mix
Vertical Mixer Wagon
100
60
Dairies (n)
Dairies (n)
80
60
40
40
20
20
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
0
1
5
1
Order of Ingredients
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
How long is the TMR mixing time (addition of
first ingredient to the end of mixing before feed delivery)?
(n=94/120)
Dairies (%)
30
20
10
>2
0
16
-2
0
11
-1
5
610
<=
5
0
TMR Mixing Time (min)
The distribution of the targeted TMR mixing time varies widely (range: 3-35 min).
How long is the TMR mixing time (addition of
first ingredient to the end of mixing before feed delivery)?
(n=94/120)
Dairies (%)
30
What explains this
distribution?
20
Should we be
concerned about it?
10
>2
0
16
-2
0
11
-1
5
610
<=
5
0
TMR Mixing Time (min)
The distribution of the targeted TMR mixing time varies widely (range: 3-35 min).
Do you evaluate particle length of
TMR using a Penn State Separator?
(n=112/120)
50
Dairies (%)
40
30
43%
20
10
N
ev
er
yr
12x
yr
4x
m
on
1x
m
on
2x
w
k
1x
1x
d
0
Frequency of particle size separator use
Only forty-three percent of producers evaluate TMR particle length at least
once a month.
Do you evaluate particle length of
TMR using a Penn State Separator?
(n=112/120)
50
Dairies (%)
40
How often is it
necessary to monitor
particle length?
30
43%
20
Is once a month
enough?
10
N
ev
er
yr
12x
yr
4x
m
on
1x
m
on
2x
w
k
1x
1x
d
0
Frequency of particle size separator use
Only forty-three percent of producers evaluate TMR particle length at least
once a month.
How often do you calibrate the
mixer wagon scale?
(n=101/120)
50
Dairies (%)
40
79%
30
20
10
yr
1x
yr
2x
yr
4x
N
ev
er
<1
x
m
on
0
Frequency of checking mixer scale
Seventy-nine percent of producers checked the mixer scale at least once a
year. But, only 19 % checked it at least monthly. The mixer wagon was
calibrated by an outside service (60%) or an in house employee (40%)
How often do you calibrate the
mixer wagon scale?
(n=101/120)
50
Dairies (%)
40
How important is the
mixer calibration?
79%
30
20
How often should we
do it?
10
yr
1x
yr
2x
yr
4x
N
ev
er
<1
x
m
on
0
Frequency of checking mixer scale
Seventy-nine percent of producers checked the mixer scale at least once a
year. But, only 19 % checked it at least monthly. The mixer wagon was
calibrated by an outside service (60%) or an in house employee (40%)
Feed Bunk Management Practices
in High Producing Pens
How many times a day
is the TMR fed?
(n=111/120)
64 %
70
Dairies (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
>3
Times a day TMR is fed
Most producers, 64%, fed TMR twice a day (range=1-6).
How many times a day
is the TMR fed?
(n=111/120)
64 %
70
Dairies (%)
60
Is 1x/d feeding enough,
especially in summer?
50
40
30
What are the advantages
of 6x/d feeding?
20
10
0
1
2
>3
Times a day TMR is fed
Most producers, 64%, fed TMR twice a day (range=1-6).
How many times a day
is the feed pushed-up?
60
(n=111/120)
47 %
Dairies (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1-4
5-8
9-12
>13
Times a day the feed is pushed-up
Half of the producers pushed-up the fed 1 to 4 times a day. Only 10% of the
dairies pushed the feed 9 or more times (range:1-20).
How many times a day
is the feed pushed-up?
60
(n=111/120)
47 %
Dairies (%)
50
Does pushing the feed 1-4
times guarantee that cows
always have feed available?
40
30
20
10
0
1-4
5-8
9-12
>13
Times a day the feed is pushed-up
Half of the producers pushed-up the fed 1 to 4 times a day. Only 10% of the
dairies pushed the feed 9 or more times (range:1-20).
Do you feed for refusals?
What percentage?
44.4% YES
(n=115)
Do you feed for refusals?
What percentage?
60
44.4% YES
(n=115)
54%
Dairies (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
<=3
> 3 to 5
>5
Refusals (%)
Fifty-four percent of producers feeding for refusals are targeting 3% or less
(range: 1- 10%)
Do you feed for refusals?
What percentage?
60
44.4% YES
(n=115)
54%
Dairies (%)
50
What are the
practical implications
of feeding for 1 vs
10% of refusals?
40
30
20
10
0
<=3
> 3 to 5
>5
Refusals (%)
Fifty-four percent of producers feeding for refusals are targeting 3% or less
(range: 1- 10%)
What do you do with the refusals?
60
Dairies (%)
50
40
30
20
10
bi
na
ti o
n
C
om
H
ei
fe
rs
co
w
s
D
ry
co
w
s
at
in
g
La
ct
D
is
ca
rd
ed
0
Destination of Refusals
Refusals are commonly feed to heifers.
How many times a week are feed
bunks cleaned?
(n=101/120)
50
43 %
Dairies (%)
40
30
20
10
0
1 x wk
1x wk
2 x wk
3-6 x wk
7 x wk
2x wk 3-6x wk 7x wk
Frequency of feed bunk cleaning
Forty percent of the dairies clean feed bunks daily. However, 23% of dairies
clean feed bunks only once a week.
How often was the ration for high
producing cows reformulated in 2008?
(n=105/120)
800
≤800
800
- 1600
>800
- <1600
>1600
≥1600
Dairies (%)
60
42 %
40
20
0
1
1
2
2-4
3
5-7
4
5
8-10 >10
Frequency of ration reformulation in 2008
Forty-two percent of small herds reported that rations were reformulated
between 2 to 4 times a year.
How often was the ration for high
producing cows reformulated in 2008?
(n=105/120)
800
≤800
800
- 1600
>800
- <1600
>1600
≥1600
Dairies (%)
60
41 %
40
20
0
1
1
2
2-4
3
5-7
4
5
8-10 >10
Frequency of ration reformulation in 2008
Forty-one percent of medium size herds reported that rations were
reformulated between 5 to 7 times a during 2008.
How often was the ration for high
producing cows reformulated in 2008?
(n=105/120)
≤800
800
>800
- <1600
800
- 1600
≥1600
>1600
Dairies (%)
60
37 %
40
20
0
1
1
2
2-4
3
5-7
4
5
8-10 >10
Frequency of ration reformulation in 2008
Thirty-seven percent of large dairies reported that rations were reformulated
more than 10 times during 2008 (range: 1-24).
How often do you evaluate corn silage
dry matter?
Dairies (%)
40
52 %
(n=101/120)
30
20
10
0
wk x wk mon mon x yr x yr x yr
1
1
2
6
1 2x
<
1x
Frequency of dry matter determination
Corn silage dry matter was evaluated at least once a month in 52.3% of dairies.
Only 8.3% of dairies determined DM weekly, or more often. Most dairies
delegated DM determination to an outside nutrition consultant (86.6%).
How often do you evaluate corn silage
dry matter?
Dairies (%)
40
30
52 %
(n=101/120)
How often should forage dry
matter be determined?
20
10
0
wk x wk mon mon x yr x yr x yr
1
1
2
6
1 2x
<
1x
Frequency of dry matter determination
Corn silage dry matter was evaluated at least once a month in 52.3% of dairies.
Only 8.3% of dairies determined DM weekly, or more often. Most dairies
delegated DM determination to an outside nutrition consultant (86.6%).
Software and
Monitoring Tools
Do you have herd
management software?
(n=112/120)
60
Dairies (%)
50
40
30
20
10
O
th
er
s
D
H
I-P
lu
s
30
5
p
Dairy Comp 305
DHIA-Plus
D
ai
ry
C
om
N
on
e
0
Herd Management Software
Dairy Comp 305 and DHI-Plus are the most commonly used herd management
software.
Do you have feed management
software?
(n=112/120)
60
Dairies (%)
50
40
30
20
10
O
th
er
s
EZ
-F
ee
d
h
at
c
W
Fe
ed
N
on
e
0
Feed management software
Forty four percent of dairies utilize feed management software. EZ-feed and
Feed Watch are the most popular software programs.
What do you monitor with your feed
management software program?
(n=46/46)
100
Dairies (%)
80
60
40
20
In
ve
nt
or
y
tim
e
Fe
ed
de
liv
er
y
or
de
r
ee
d
in
gr
ed
ie
nt
of
f
TM
R
C
os
t
Er
ro
rs
by
In
ta
ke
s
fe
ed
er
s
0
Feed software uses
Feed management software programs are commonly used to monitor intakes
(91%) and less used to check inventory (50%).
Do you monitor feed efficiency and
milk urea nitrogen?
70
Dairies (%)
60
YES
NO
(n=90/120)
(n=86/120)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
Feed
Feed Efficiency
Efficiency
2
MUN
MUN
Sixty-two percent of the dairies monitor feed efficiency. Thirty-four percent of
the dairies monitor milk urea nitrogen.
Results Interpretation
 Only 17% of the dairies returned the survey. It is
unknown if the results from this survey represent Central
Valley dairies (selection bias).
 Dairy owner and manager responses are subjective and
their responses may not represent actual feeding
management practices at the dairy (information bias).
 Results from this survey suggest that feeding
management practices vary greatly across dairies. And,
we still need to know ….
We Still Need to Know …
 If producers are doing what they are reporting.
 If feeding management practices vary across dairies in response to
individual needs.
 If current feeding management practices are leading to desirable
outcomes (particle length of the ration, feed availability in the feed
bunk, weight accuracy of ingredients, etc).
 If the ration fed differs from the ration formulated and how feeding
management practices impact that (calibration of the wagon scale,
forages dry matter, feeders errors, etc).
 If undesirable outcomes and errors impact health and production.
 What bottlenecks that prevent the implementation of “best” feeding
management practices can be overcome (managerial, resources,
educational, etc).
Acknowledgements
California Dairy Producers
Tulare DHIA
Dr Steve Stewart
Manuel Soares
http://cetulare.ucdavis.edu/Dairy/
http://cestanislaus.ucdavis.edu/
Agriculture/Dairy_Science.htm
THANKS