TMR Audit TM improves milk production consistency

Transcription

1 As published in TMR Audit TM improves milk production consistency By Tom Oelberg, Ph.D. Dairy Field Technical Specialist Diamond V A key nutritionist in my area asked if we could conduct a TMR Audit TM on one of his dairies to determine the limiting factors in the lactation herd feeding system and to see if we could improve the feeding management. The herd was a Holstein herd milking over 350 cows with a rolling herd average of 23,550 lbs. The owner did all or most of the feeding. The mixer wagon was a pull-type vertical, twin-auger wagon with relatively sharp blades and the kicker plates were in good condition. The feed mixing area was done in four areas where he had to move the wagon: 1. feed center with storage for large alfalfa squares and commodities 2. area with plastic bags containing alfalfa haylage 3. area where he added water 4. area with plastic bags containing corn silage. The loading sequence was as follows: 1. large alfalfa squares 2. No pause for processing the hay 3. Commodities 4. A move to the haylage bags 5. Haylage 6. A move to the water 7. Water Diamond V 1

2 8. A final move to the corn silage bags 9. Several buckets of corn silage 10. Very little mix time after the last bucket of silage was added Ingredients were loaded with a skid-steer loader. There was a driver for the tractor and wagon, and the owner operated the skid-steer loader. We tested three loads of TMR by taking 10 quart-sized samples per load along the bunk for Penn State Shaker box analyses. The shaker box analysis showed that the wagon did a very nice job of mixing. However, during the TMR Audit TM we observed that the cows were sorting against the long-stem hay and that there were clumps of hay in the freshly delivered TMR indicating that the hay was not well processed and blended into the TMR (Figures 1 and 2, respectively). Note the Penn State Shaker box does not always show problems with the TMR, where as visual observation can show potential problems. This is because our sampling technique cannot catch all the variation we sometimes see with our eyes. Figure 1. Weigh backs containing mostly alfalfa hay that cows sorted against Figure 2. Clumps of alfalfa hay in freshly delivered TMR. Figure 3. Processing alfalfa squares in twin-auger mixer Diamond V 2

3 We tested and sampled three different loads of TMR that were the same formula in which we tested different combinations of mixing time and forage restrictor settings to help process the hay. Figure 4 shows a forage restrictor set out (not processing) and figure 5 shows the visual results of the Penn State Shaker box test on the three loads of TMR. Figure 4. Forage restrictor set out so that forage processing is reduced. Figure 5. Visual results of Penn State Shaker box We were able to show the dairyman that he could set the forage restrictors in and mix for an additional three minutes after the last bucket of corn silage was added without reducing the top screen in the Penn State Shaker box. In other words, the additional mix time along with the forage restrictor set in would not affect the rumen health of his cows. This small change in the mixing routine during the audit gave the producer confidence in our recommendations. So, the final recommendation was to load the entire daily requirement for alfalfa squares into the wagon and process the hay until the average particle length was around 6 inches. The processed hay was unloaded onto the feeding pad before the loading of TMRs started. This was a significant change in the owner/feeder s routine, but proved to be very beneficial as the results below will show. It made Diamond V 3

4 mixing and loading of each load of TMR more consistent in timing and provided more accurate weights in loading the processed hay. Reducing variation in TMR loading and mixing times allows for more consistent delivery times to the pens of cattle. The dairyman followed our recommendation and the milk production and component changes were almost immediate. See figures 6, 7 and 8 and table 1 below. Figure 6. Milk fat test 28 days before and 28 days after the TMR Audit TM Pre- and Post-TMR Audit Fat % Audit 6/30/ /7/ /14/ /21/ /28/ /4/ /11/ /18/ /25/20 11 Figure 7. Milk protein test 28 days before and 28 days after the TMR Audit TM Pre- and Post-TMR Audit Protein % Audit 6/30/ /7/ /14/ /21/ /28/ /4/ /11/ /18/ /25/20 11 Diamond V 4

5 Figure 8. Bulk tank weights 28 days before and 28 days after the TMR Audit TM Pre- and Post-TMR Milk Audit 6/30/2011 7/7/2011 7/14/2011 7/21/2011 7/28/2011 8/4/2011 8/11/2011 8/18/2011 8/25/2011 Table 1. Summary of milk production before and after the TMR Audit TM Milk production started going up immediately and there was less variation in the bulk tank weights as shown by the decrease in coefficient of variation (CV%) (standard deviation divided by the average times 100) for milk from 7.8% to 3.4% (Table 1). Milk production in the bulk tank changed 1,158 lbs over the next 28 days after the audit and was continuing up (Figure 8). Milk fat test increased 0.07 units and milk protein test increased 0.08 units over the next 28 days after the audit and the consistency in these two components improved as shown by the decreases in the CV% (table 1) and shown by the smoother line graphs after the audit in figures 6 and 7. We have conducted several hundred TMR Audits TM across the U.S. since January 2008 and we have seen many similar outcomes as reported in this article. Often, we don t see changes in milk production, but often times we are able to improve the efficiency of feeding operation resulting in reduced feed shrink, fuel and labor costs. Bottom line: Diamond V s TMR Audit TM has produced many happy nutritionists, feeders and dairy owners. Diamond V 5

6 Copyright 2012 Diamond V All rights reserved Diamond V 6