Nutritional Grouping Strategies to Optimize Feed Efficiency and Profitability

Transcription

1 Improving cost-efficiency and profitability Nutritional Grouping Strategies to Optimize Feed Efficiency and Profitability Victor E. Cabrera Italy, February 2017

2 Gruppi Nutrizionali utili per costi alimentari efficienza alimentare produttività salute mandria emissioni Cabrera and Kalantari, 2016 Una sola razione TMR per tutte le vacche vacche sovra alimentate (grasse) problemi di escrezione di nutrienti Allen, TMR 2 TMR 3 TMR 4 TMR Una sola razione TMR è lo standard es., 58% allevamenti in WI e MI Contreras-Govea et al., 2015

3 One TMR formulation high producing overfeed low producing Cabrera and Kalantari, 2016 Groups with more precise diets feed efficiency profitability VandeHaar, 2011 Nutritional grouping body condition health Allen, 2009 More precise diets productivity Nutritional groups group variation Bach, 2014 inter-group variation competition at the feed bunk Grant and Albright, 2001

4 Needed continued assessment of nutritional grouping s economic efficiency Cabrera and Kalantari, 2016 Available important previous studies Cabrera and Kalantari, 2016

5 IOFC difference from 1 TMR, $/cow.yr 38.7±5.7 RUP 43.6±6.6 RUP Milk Milk NE L RDP NE L RDP 2 TMR 3 TMR Kalantari et al., 2016

6 Resulting herd BW 3 TMR 1 TMR Kalantari et al., 2016

7 Resulting herd BCS 3 TMR 1 TMR Kalantari et al., 2016

8 Model daily stochastic Monte Carlo next event de Vries, 2001 Herd data lactation day postpartum reproductive status Initialization commercial dairy herds list of stochastic 2-step events process event occurs (y/n) day of occurrence Stochastic events pregnancy culling death abortion dry-off parturition

9

10

11 Cow-level requirements NE L MP Milk BCS Cow-level projections according to diet milk fat protein BW BCS DMI

12 Nutritional grouping post-fresh (>21 d) lactating cows monthly regrouping (clustering; McGilliard et al., 1983) Same size groups: Available cows number of groups Monthly regrouping NE and MP L requirements McGilliard et al., 1983 Group diet formulation Average NE and L Average MP+1SD Kalantari et al., 2016 Economic parameters Wisconsin prices $0.39/kg milk DairyMGT.info/FeedVa l $0.1/Mcal $0.18/kg RDP $1.04/kg RUP Kalantari et al., 2016

13 Herd Size (Lactating + Dry) Characteristics ,460 Average Herd ME305 (kg/cow per yr) 13, , , , ,188 1st Lactation (%) Average days in milk (d) Average days in Pregnancy (d) Average lactation number (#) d Pregnancy Rate (%) Conception Rate (%) Estrus Detection (%) Culling (%/yr) Abortion (%/gestation)

14 Normally overfed

15 NEL provided minus NEL required (Mcal/kg DM) 3 TMR 2 TMR 1 TMR (p-r) 2 1 TMR TMR TMR

16 IOFC difference from 1 TMR, $/cow.yr 43.6± ± RUP Milk NE L RDP TMR 3 TMR 4 TMR 5 herds 5 herds 1,460-cow herd

17 Production kg/305-d IOFC difference 3 TMR vs. 2 TMR $/cow per yr 8, , , Williams and Oltenacu (1992) 2 and 3 TMR Increased net return Østergaard et al. (1996) IOFC difference vs. 1 TMR $/cow per yr 2 TMR 44 3 TMR 77 St-Pierre and Thraen (1999)

18 Nutritional grouping Increases IOFC Would increase profitability Profitability and feasibility are highly related to Farm conditions Market situation Optimal number of nutritional groups 3 TMR, in general 4 or more in larger herds

19 Number of groups (TMR) TMR NE L (Mcal/kg DM) RDP (% DM) RUP (% DM) 1 TMR 1 1.5± ± ± TMR ± ± ± ± ± ± TMR ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± TMR (only 1,460-cow herd)

20 TMR NE L (Mcal/kg DM) McGilliard et al. (1983) Nutritional grouping Divides the cows into more homogeneous groups Nutrient concentrations are higher and lower than 1 TMR

21

22 Nutritional grouping Cows are fed closer to their requirements throughout lactation More in early and less in late lactation Excess NE late L lactation Over conditioned cows and complications next lactation Cameron et al., 1998 NE provided L More efficiently according to DIM and productivity

23 Resulting herd BW 3 TMR Change in BW Similar distributions Nutritional grouping did not change BW in the cows or herd 1 TMR Stable BW with groups Previously reported Smith et al., 1978; Clark et al., 1980; Kroll et al.,

24 Resulting herd BCS 1 TMR Thick tailed Mode = 2.75 over-conditioned under-conditioned 3 TMR Normal Mode = TMR

25 BCS distribution Similar for 2 TMR Nutritional grouping Appears to ensure that energy is better distributed and cows are healthier N use efficiency More N is captured in milk with groups 2.7% higher in 3 TMR than 1 TMR N emission Nutritional groups decrease the N excreted VandeHaar, 2014

26 Milk N produced Feed N consumed % Herds Number of TMR

27 Difference from 1 TMR ($/cow per yr) Scenario milk $/kg NE L $/Mcal RDP $/kg RUP $/kg 2 TMR 3 TMR 4 TMR Base Worst Best Milk loss 5 d, 1.8 kg milk loss group change st lactation 1st lactation are a separate group TMR - only for 1,460 cow herd

28 Scenarios Higher gains with best economic conditions Even at worst economic conditions, gains are substantial Even under assumed losses of regrouping, substantial gains Separating 1st lactation cows decreases the IOFC of the rest of groups Regrouping losses Inconclusive information if and how much 2 kg x 7 d Insignificant Clark et al. (1980) Smith et al. (1978) Zwalm and Shaver (2012) 9.1 kg loss used here could be under or over estimated

29 Conclusions Nutritional grouping has an economic value and should be promoted The difference of milk income minus costs of NE, RUP and RDP ($/cow per yr) from 1 TMR L were: $39 for 2 TMR $46 for 3 TMR $47 for 4 TMR Gains are explained by more milk production and less RUP costs Potential losses due to regrouping cows would have an deleterious economic impact, but not high enough to overcome the gains

30 Strategies of grouping tool Analyzes the value of GROUPING Milk price Nutrient costs Data from the farm ID, LACT, DIM, MILK, FAT, BW

31 Thanks DairyMGT.info This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.