the nutritionist 2020 › cdn.agmodelsystems.com › assets › ...2020/05/14 · 14 may 2020 9:00...

The Nutritionist 2020

Live and Recorded Ruminant Nutrition WebinarsMore Information at https://agmodelsystems.com/webinar/

Email: [email protected]

Multi-language educational webinars

Welcome to the May 2020 The Nutritionist with Dr Bill Stone. The webinar will begin at the top of the hour. Presently, music is playing to enable you to check your sound. If you need any help, email [email protected]

Enjoy the “social distancing playlist”

https://agmodelsystems.com/webinar/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

14 May 20209:00 am EDT6:00 pm EDT

Dr Bill Stone, PhD, DVMDirector, Ruminant Technical Services

Diamond V

Minimizing Variation Between Formulated and Consumed Rations:

A Key to Enhanced Herd Performance

© Diamond V, Inc. All rights reserved. This presentation is the confidential and proprietary property of Diamond V. Diamond V does not give its consent for its distribution or license the use of its content.

Minimizing Variation Between Formulated and Consumed Rations: A Key to Enhanced Herd Performance

Bill Stone, DVM, PhD

© Diamond V, Inc. All rights reserved.

Major areas to evaluate:

◆ Forage and feed analyses

◆ Using accurate ingredient dry matters

◆ Prepping forages for feeding

◆ Accurately preparing the load of feed

◆ TMR Audits® - ensuring the mixer wagon is

being used and is working properly

◆ Techniques to minimize sorting

◆ Bunk management

4


Bunker Management Goals

5

• Remove spoiled silage• Vertical smooth, tight faces• Remove enough silage to avoid heating• Mix removed silage with loader bucket or mixer wagon • No loose silage at end of feeding• Leading edge of plastic is weighed down,

and removed at least twice weekly


Excellent bunker management


Bunker Management

◆ Be careful out there. The

collapse to the right of

the defacer occurred a

few minutes before the

defacer was at the

bunker


Fritsch defacer


Easy Rake Defacer

The effect of DM variation within the bunker silo

on Forage:Concentrate ratios

33

36

40

31

32.5

34

This is the average variation in DM in a sample of

bunker silos in NY. If the feeder obtained silage by

regions from this silo instead of from the entire vertical

face, then a diet formulated at 54.5% forage could

vary between 51 – 59% forage.

CS

10%

Hlge

20%


Excellent Face on Haylage Pile

◆ This dairy defaced, pushed the feed into a pile, and premixed it with the loader bucket. This reduces silage variation that occurs throughout the bunker, making for a much more consistent TMR.


Gold Standard – Plastic management


Let No Air Under The Plastic

No Loose Silage At the End of Feeding


Cover on CS


Top spoilage

..and no one in management knew this was occurring


Top spoilage

Bunker management - Haylage

Poor tire management

permits air flow beneath

the plastic

Bunker management – Corn Silage

65° under plastic 105° at edge of face

Surface mold was occurring in both

haylage and CS bunkers

Some of the moldy silage was getting into the TMR;

this picture was from the “forage feeding pile”


Removing Spoiled HaylageAlways Review Worker Safety

O2 limiting plastic (Silo-Stop) with a top cover of Black/white plastic

minimizes spoilage


A Safe Way To Remove Plastic From Piles


Load preparation

◆ Excellent loading

system

◆ Shrink could be an

issue in windy

conditions


Wind is the Enemy!


Load preparation - Reducing Shrink

Simple wind break adjacent to commodity barn


◆ Nice, simple discharge

chutes

◆ Inner tubes can work.

Two pieces of Pex tubing

are bolted across from

each other at the neck of

the discharge; a hose

clamp holds the tube to

the neck. The tubing

extends most of the way

down the inner tube and

helps to keep it open.


Reducing Shrink

All concentrates in bins. Extended spouts

with shade cloth on the walls.


Milking and Feeding Systems

◆ Milker training, routine

◆ Equipment evaluation

◆ Equipment maintenance

(liners, water heater,

regulator)

◆ Do the cows have feed?


TMR Evaluation


Penn State Particle Separator:

10 samples per pen


Poorly Processed Hay Causing TMR

Variation


Particle Size Distribution Along the Prefresh

Cows’ Bunk

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Top 21.9 38.8 23.1 41.0 25.3 34.0 52.3 32.6 32.9 39.4 34.1

Middle 38.3 26.5 36.9 26.5 34.9 29.4 19.5 27.9 30.2 26.7 29.7

Bottom 39.8 34.7 40.0 32.5 39.7 36.7 28.3 39.6 36.9 34.0 36.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nt

Prefresh Cows


Average, % CV,% Average, % CV,% Average, % CV,%

Top Middle Bottom

3 5.6 14.7 38.7 3.3 55.8 3.2

1 5.5 34.2 37.5 1.8 57.0 3.3

2 6.1 11.1 37.4 4.6 56.5 3.0

Prefresh 34.1 27.2 29.7 19.1 36.2 10.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

Coefficient of variation:

goal is less than 2.5%

CV Goal of ≤ 2.5% for middle sieve and pan


A very consistent TMR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Top 16.6 19.1 18.6 18.4 17.8 16.6 17.0 17.6 17.6 18.0 17.7

Middle 49.4 47.5 48.3 47.7 48.2 48.8 48.7 48.6 48.4 48.2 48.4

Bottom 34.0 33.4 33.2 34.0 33.9 34.6 34.3 33.8 33.9 33.8 33.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nt

Load 1 Pens 5,6 4 min mix



Top Middle Bottom

Pens 5,6, 4 min mix 17.7 4.6 48.4 1.1 33.9 1.2

Pen 1,2,3 5 min mix 16.6 5.9 49.0 1.7 34.4 1.6

Fresh 18.0 7.0 47.6 2.0 34.4 2.4

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

Penn Shaker Box: Overall Average and CV

Coefficient of variation (CV):Measure of the amount of variation around the mean

Goal of < 2.5% for middle screen and pan


Coefficient of Variation Levels for TMR

Consistency

◆ ≤ 2.5%

◆ Excellent - Top 20% of TMRs

◆ TMR mixing basics followed

◆ ≤ 4%

◆ Top 50% of TMRs

◆ Unclear if cow performance is different from CV of ≤ 2.5%

◆ > 4%

◆ Anecdotal evidence has shown a 2 to 5 Lb. increase in production, improved milk fat %, and fewer cases of indigestion after corrections are made


TMR Mixing Basics

◆ Feed particles mix when falling

together at the same time

◆ Any ingredient or process that interferes

with this will affect TMR consistency

39


Mixing TMR With A Payloader


Three Consistent TMRs

Load 5 North Barn SW Pen

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Bunk Samples 1-10 and Average (11)

Pe

rce

nt Top

Middle

Bottom

Twin-twin screw vertical wagon

TMR: Pen 15 Peak Lactation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Bunk Sample 1-10 and Average

Pe

rce

nt

Top 3.1 2.8 1.7 3.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.0 2.8 3.8 3.2

Middle 48.8 49.4 49.4 48.9 49.4 48.8 49.1 49.7 49.5 49.5 49.3

Bottom 48.2 47.8 48.9 47.6 46.9 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.8 46.7 47.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Mixed with payloader turning pile 5 times

TMR Load 1 North Barn

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Bunk Samples 1-10 and Average (11)

Pe

rce

nt Top

Middle

Bottom

Horizontal auger reel mixer


Top Ten Factors Causing TMR Variation

◆ Equipment wear

◆ Mix time after last ingredient

◆ Load size

◆ Levelness of mixer during loading

◆ Loading position in the mixer box

◆ Hay/straw quality and processing

◆ Loading sequence

◆ Liquid distribution

◆ Vertical mixer auger speed

◆ Hay restrictor plate settings in vertical mixers

42


Equipment wear

◆ Is the maintenance program on your mixer wagon

as rigorous as the program for your milking

equipment?

◆ Why not?

◆ Primary wear points on different mixers

◆ Vertical mixers – kicker plates, augers, mixer tub,

knives

◆ Horizontal auger mixers – augers and tub

◆ Horizontal auger – reels – augers, reel, and tub

43


Worn augers, missing kicker plate

Wagon not mixing properly

or cleaning out

Kicker plate and kicker

brace needed; goes on leading

edge of the flighting

Kicker plate should be placed so that it is within 3/8”of the wall at its closest point


Supreme Mixer – worn and replaced kicker

plates


Hardened steel was welded on the leading edge and

along the kicker plates to minimize wear, but too much

can impede mixing


Visual evaluation of the

mixer and its operation **Key Point**


Worn augers, missing kicker plate

Wagon not mixing properly

or cleaning out

Kicker plate and kicker

brace needed; goes on leading

edge of the flighting

Kicker plate should be placed so that it is within 3/8”of the wall at its closest point


Huge Variation in the TMR from this Mixer

49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Top 10.3 20.7 17.8 17.6 22.7 31.2 21.2 11.7 13.3 11.5 17.8

Middle 45.8 37.6 41.8 40.9 37.8 32.2 34.3 43.5 43.0 44.7 40.2

Bottom 44.0 41.7 40.4 41.6 39.5 36.6 44.5 44.7 43.7 43.8 42.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nt

High Cow Load


◆ A vertical mixer with

excellent mixing

activity

50


Extremely Consistent TMR; Vertical Mixer in

Excellent Condition

51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Top 16.6 19.1 18.6 18.4 17.8 16.6 17.0 17.6 17.6 18.0 17.7

Middle 49.4 47.5 48.3 47.7 48.2 48.8 48.7 48.6 48.4 48.2 48.4

Bottom 34.0 33.4 33.2 34.0 33.9 34.6 34.3 33.8 33.9 33.8 33.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nt

Load 1 Pens 5,6 4 min mix


Effect of Equipment Wear on TMR Consistency

Worn Vertical Mixer Excellent Vertical Mixer

Bunk

Sample # Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom

1 First 10.3 45.8 44.0 16.6 49.4 34.0

2 20.7 37.6 41.7 19.1 47.5 33.4

3 17.8 41.8 40.4 18.6 48.3 33.2

4 17.6 40.9 41.6 18.4 47.7 34.0

5 22.7 37.8 39.5 17.8 48.2 33.9

6 31.2 32.2 36.6 16.6 48.8 34.6

7 21.2 34.3 44.5 17.0 48.7 34.3

8 11.7 43.5 44.7 17.6 48.6 33.8

9 13.3 43.0 43.7 17.6 48.4 33.9

10 Last 11.5 44.7 43.8 18.0 48.2 33.8

Average,

% 17.8 40.2 42.0 17.7 48.4 33.9

CV, % 36.3 11.3 6.2 4.6 1.1 1.2



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








53


Timer on scale display

◆ The load of feed must mix for an adequate length of time after the last ingredient has been added, or it won’t be properly mixed

◆ Feed management programs have a timer option

◆ 3.5 – 5 minutes is usually adequate, depending on load size, equipment wear, etc.

© Diamond V, Inc. All rights reserved. 55

Effect of Mix Time on TMR Consistency

3.5 Minutes 5 Minutes

Bunk

Sample # Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom

1 First 10.9 38.2 50.8 14.9 38.8 46.3

2 8.6 38.8 52.6 12.6 41.5 45.9

3 11.6 38.4 50.0 12.5 40.0 47.5

4 15.6 37.8 46.7 14.3 39.3 46.5

5 13.9 39.1 47.0 13.1 39.8 47.1

6 10.8 38.2 51.0 11.7 39.5 48.8

7 9.2 39.1 51.7 12.6 38.8 48.6

8 12.2 41.7 46.0 12.4 38.7 48.9

9 14.1 38.1 47.7 13.0 40.2 46.9

10 Last 11.6 37.3 51.1 11.4 39.3 49.3

Average,

% 11.8 38.7 49.5 12.8 39.6 47.6

CV, % 18.5 3.1 4.8 8.2 2.1 2.6



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








56


Over-

Filling of

the TMR

Mixer?


TMR Mixing

Overfilled


Horizontal Reel Mixer Overfilled


Horizontal

Reel Properly

Mixing


Effect of Load Size on TMR Consistency

Over-filled Normal Filled

Sample

# Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom

1 First 4.9 45.9 49.2 5.6 44.8 49.6

2 2.9 46.3 50.7 6.0 46.0 48.0

3 2.3 44.2 53.5 4.7 46.2 49.1

4 3.8 44.0 52.2 7.4 45.9 46.7

5 4.8 43.8 51.4 5.5 44.5 50.0

6 3.4 47.7 48.9 8.8 42.8 48.5

7 4.3 44.6 51.1 7.0 46.5 46.5

8 3.8 44.2 51.9 8.1 44.1 47.8

9 7.0 37.3 55.7 7.2 43.9 48.9

10 Last 3.6 38.8 57.6 5.9 44.1 50.0

Average,

% 4.1 43.7 52.2 6.6 44.9 48.5

CV, % 31.6 7.4 5.2 19.4 2.7 2.662



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








63


Make Sure Wagon Is Level When Mixing


Load preparation – Full load, unlevel mixer


Haylage clumps


Group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Top 10.0 9.7 7.7 4.7 9.2 10.9 10.9 7.6 8.8 9.5 8.9

Middle 44.5 44.6 45.6 45.8 44.4 43.8 42.6 44.0 42.1 42.4 44.0

Bottom 45.5 45.7 46.7 49.5 46.4 45.3 46.5 48.4 49.1 48.0 47.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nt

Two Heifer Groups, 6 min mix 021518


Mixer totally full, unlevel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Top 11.5 13.9 15.8 12.9 5.7 4.1 5.5 4.8 7.3 7.1 8.8

Middle 48.9 44.5 43.3 44.5 43.6 44.5 45.0 45.8 42.7 43.1 44.6

Bottom 39.6 41.6 41.0 42.6 50.7 51.3 49.5 49.4 50.1 49.8 46.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nt

Two cow groups, Totally Full Mixer, 5-6 min mix 021518


Changes to improve TMR consistency

◆ Changed mix order to haylage, grain mix, CS. Turned

mixer is on throughout loading. (no defacer)

◆ Modified the hitch leveling adjustment so that the mixer

could be leveled


Decreased

haylage clumps


Leveled mixer with hitch modification

71


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave

Top 5.6 6.8 7.9 6.4 5.6 8.9 5.1 5.8 5.3 5.8 6.3

Middle 47.8 47.1 47.2 48.1 47.7 47.3 48.9 47.9 47.7 48.1 47.8

Bottom 46.6 46.1 44.9 45.6 46.7 43.8 46.0 46.4 47.0 46.1 45.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nt

Cows, Full Load Level mixer; Low speed Hlge, Grain premix; High Speed, CS, mix

Haylage clump in sample 6



Top Middle Bottom

12, 10 Heifer Groups 8.9 20.9 44.0 2.9 47.1 3.2

9,11 cows 8.8 48.0 44.6 4.0 46.6 10.1

Pen 11 031318 6.3 19.4 47.8 1.1 45.9 2.1

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

Penn Shaker Box: Overall Average and CV

Coefficient of variation (CV):Measure of the amount of variation around the mean

Goal of < 2-3% for middle screen and pan



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








74


TMR Loading

Not Loading On Center Loading On Center…Line Up on The Red Triangle



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








76


Sharp vs Dull Blade


Processing Straw or Hay

Video


Haybuster

79



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








80


Ingredient Mix Order

◆ Mixing order depends on

◆ Mixer wagon type

◆ Ingredient type (density, particle size, DM)

◆ Inclusion level

◆ Convenience

◆ Equipment maintenance

◆ Mixing time


Ingredient Mix Order

◆ Generally, lower density and large particle feeds

are loaded first

◆ Then dry, more dense feeds

◆ Wet feeds, and finally liquids

◆ For example◆ Hay and haylage (*grain first with a reel mixer)

◆ Dry grains

◆ Hand-ads

◆ Corn silage

◆ Wet feeds and liquids


When Should Low Inclusion Ingredients be

Added?

◆ Add low inclusion

ingredients early in

the loading sequence,

or include in a premix

◆ Add hand-ads early

so that they make up

>2% of the load size

when added



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








84


Effects of Improper Liquid Addition, Inadequate Mix Time, and

Unlevel Mixer

010

203040

506070

8090

Front Middle End Front Middle End Front Middle End Front Middle End

1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4

Top

Middle

Bottom

Whey was added on one end of the mixer wagon.

The mixer truck was not level as the front of the truck was sloped down hill.

TMR was mixed for only 1 minute or less after liquid was loaded.

The TMR was extremely wet at the front of the load when it was dropped and dry

at the end.

The effect was consistent across all 4 loads.


How We Add Liquids Affects TMR

Consistency

video


Water or whey addition

◆ Liquid added farther

back in mixer than

optimal; ideally liquid

addition would cover

central 2/3 of mixer


Great whey manifold

Excellent distribution across the TMR


Load Preparation – Water Addition

◆ Unique water application

system really distributed

the water uniformly over

the TMR.



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








90


Effects of Auger RPM on TMR

Uniformity in a Vertical Mixer

◆ Count the revolutions per minute (RPM) of the

vertical augers


Influence of Changing Mixer Wagon Gear Box on

Milk Production

70

75

80

85

90

95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

lbs

Days of Case Study

Milk ECM

Old Gear Box/

1st Gear

42 rpm

Top CV 3.1

Middle CV 1.8

New Gear Box/

1st Gear

28 rpm

Top CV 7.2 Bad Mix Quality

Middle CV 4.6

Bottom CV 5.4

New Gear Box/

2nd Gear

38 rpm

Top CV 2.8 Good Mix QualityMiddle CV 1.6

Bottom CV 1.8



Milk Fat and Protein

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

%

Days of Case Study

BF% P%

New Gear Box/

1st Gear

28 rpm


Middle CV 4.6

Bottom CV 5.4

Old Gear Box/

1st Gear

42 rpm

Top CV 3.1

Middle CV 1.8

Bottom CV 1.9

New Gear Box/2nd Gear

38 rpm

Top CV 2.8 Good Mix Quality

Middle CV 1.6

Bottom CV 1.8



Milk MUN

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A

x

i

s

T

i

t

l

e

MUN

Old Gear Box/1st

Gear

42 rpm

Top CV 3.1

Middle CV 1.8

Bottom CV 1.9

New Gear Box/1st Gear

28 rpm


Middle CV 4.6

Bottom CV 5.4

New Gear Box/2nd Gear

38 rpm

Top CV 2.8 Good Mix Quality

Middle CV 1.6

Bottom CV 1.8


Summary of Mixer Box Auger Speeds and TMR

Mix Quality

Average CV% Middle/Bottom Screens

Auger Speed: Slow Fast

◆ Peecon 5.00 1.78

◆ Supreme w Forage Auger 8.53 2.45

◆ Supreme w Feedlot Auger 2.11*

◆ Kuhn VTC 1100 3.50 2.00

◆ Penta 1420 HD 6.13 2.19

◆ Roto Mix 1355 Truck, hydraulic 5.00 3.24**

◆ Trioliet 4.83 2.81

*Mixer off until liquid added last with auger rpm at 35 for 6 min and then 40 rpm for 3 min

**Slow 32/24 rpm and fast was 40/30 rpm on lactation and dry cow mix, respectively



◆ Equipment wear


◆ Load size








96


Forage Restrictor Settings

Front-set out Back-set out


The Effect of Forage Restrictors

◆ TMR movement and

mixing is reduced with

the restrictors set in

98


Forage Restrictor Settings and TMR Mix

Quality

Penta 1120HD/restrictors set all the way in Penta 1120HD/Restrictors set half way in

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 3 5 7 9

Perc

en

t


TMR: Load 5

Top Middle Bottom

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 3 5 7 9

Perc

en

t


TMR: Load 6

Top

Middle

Oelberg, 2014


Effect of Restrictor Settings on TMR Consistency Penta 1120 HD Restrictors

Set All the Way In

Penta 1120 HD – Restrictors

Set Half Way In

Sample

# Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom

1 Front 4.6 45.4 50.0 6.2 41.6 52.2

2 3.9 45.2 51.0 5.3 41.3 53.4

3 6.0 43.5 50.5 5.4 40.3 54.3

4 4.2 44.2 51.6 6.2 40.5 53.3

5 3.5 46.1 50.3 4.8 41.8 53.4

6 4.8 42.0 53.2 5.1 39.8 55.2

7 2.9 40.0 57.1 5.4 40.1 54.5

8 3.8 41.7 54.5 5.2 41.6 53.2

9 3.8 38.3 57.9 5.1 40.2 54.8

10 Back 1.8 38.3 59.9 5.0 40.4 54.6

Ave, % 3.9 42.5 53.6 5.4 40.8 53.9

CV, % 28.1 6.8 6.7 8.9 1.8 1.7100


Mixer cleanout

◆ There can be a lot of feed left on the augers and in the bottom of the mixer after unloading a load

◆ Assuming the mixer is not too worn, most of the feed will discharge if the mixer is run at high speed at the end of the load

◆ This would be especially important to do before the prefresh cows are fed, or if the mixer was used to make an on-farm grain mix


Summary

◆ Review the feeding management areas

discussed today on your dairy or your clients’

dairies

◆ What can be done to improve TMR consistency

within and between loads?

◆ Reduced variation typically leads to improved

production and cow health

102


Questions or comments?

11 June 20209:00 am EDT6:00 pm EDT

Dr Jude CapperLivestock Sustainability Consultant

United Kingdom

Sustainability

Webinar Co-Hosts

Gold Sponsors

Silver Sponsors

Bronze Sponsors

the nutritionist 2020 › cdn.agmodelsystems.com › assets › ...2020/05/14 · 14 may 2020 9:00...

Documents