FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK — FIDDLING WITH EFFICIENCY &am= p; EFFECTIVE FIBER

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK — FIDDLING WITH EFFICIENCY & EFFECTIVE FIBER

A common question= among dairy nutritionists is “What is the optimal dietary content of nutrie= nt x, y, or z?” Of course, optimal response may mean many things. For measures of dietary fiber such as NDF or physically effective NDF (peNDF), a good bottom-line response to track is effic= iency of fat-corrected milk production (fat-corrected milk yield/dry matter intak= e). Efficiency will reflect not only feed intake, but also output of milk fat w= hich is related to rumen health and adequacy of ration peND= F content. When cows become acidotic as a result of inadequate fiber or too much rapidly fermented carbohydrate (like starch) in the diet, reduced efficienc= y of fat-corrected milk production results. A loss in efficiency for a dairy herd will have profound negative consequences for herd profitability.

Over the past yea= r or so, there has been a series of research papers published in the Journal of D= airy Science by a German research group that evaluated the effect of dietary= peNDF content on many cow responses including milk fat output and dry matter intake. = These researchers summarized the results for numerous trials published over the p= ast 10 years or so.

However, one problem with their recommendations is that they combined data from stud= ies that used different methods for measuring peNDF= . As a result, they have overestimated the actual content of = peNDF that optimizes milk fat production. Their papers suggest that somewhere aro= und 30 to 35% peNDF (as a % of ration DM) is optima= l for lactating dairy cows to maximize the efficiency of milk fat production. Any= one who routinely formulates rations for lactating cows would realize that this amount of peNDF is too much and would likely li= mit feed intake due to excessive fiber consumption. The differences among the various methods for measuring peNDF that result= in this inflation of peNDF recommendations is prob= ably too tedious for most readers, but the basic problem is that some on-farm methods give peNDF values considerably greater = than the standard, dry-sieving laboratory method.

Even though I do = not agree with these recommendations, the papers did stimulate me to do a quick review of my own. I summarized the dry matter intake and 4% fat-corrected m= ilk yield data for 12 studies that I knew had measured peN= DF using the standard method of dry sieving with a 1.18-mm screen. The results= are shown in the accompanying figure (on page 1). Clearly, the greatest efficiencies occur between ~21 and 25% peNDF. T= hese dietary concentrations should make sense to nutritionists who routinely formulate diets for peNDF using programs such as CPM-Dairy or the Cornell model.

As dietary peNDF increases from ~15% up to 21%, efficiency of fat-corrected milk also increases which presumably reflects less rumen acidosis. On the other end, as dietary peNDF ri= ses above ~25%, efficiency is also diminished due to higher NDF diets limiting = feed intake.

The bottom line i= s that, for most management situations, the greatest efficiency of fat-corrected mi= lk production will be obtained with diets containing 21-25% peNDF. Well managed herds with consistent forage quality should be able to formula= te for lower peNDF within this range, but as manag= ement level worsens, then peNDF content needs to be i= ncreased to ensure healthy rumen conditions.

— Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA

As of this writing, it appears that Roundup Ready alfalfa may be available to farmers for spring 2010 seedings. (How's that f= or a nice definitive statement? But when the courts are involved, as they are in this case, it pays to be cautious.) When we last addressed this topic in Ap= ril 2006, a coalition of farmers, consumers, seed companies and environmental organizations had filed a lawsuit against the USDA that by May 2007 resulte= d in a permanent injunction prohibiting any new plantings of RR alfalfa. The res= ulting legal action has wound its way through the court system, though we may not = get a final decision for another month or two. However, farmers will be asking = if this genetic trait is suitable for their cropping programs, so here are a f= ew comments on where we think Roundup Ready alfalfa fits for farmers in the Northeastern U.S.

Roundup Ready alfalfa will almost certainly be a much bigger seller in = the Western U.S. and North Central States than it will in the Northeast, where most alfalfa is seeded with a grass companion crop. Surveys in N.Y. have shown that over three-quarters of alfa= lfa seeded here (and probably a similar percentage in New England) is seeded with a forage gr= ass. Since there are no glyphosate-resistant forage grasses, if we seed alfalfa-grass and then apply glyph= osate postemergence will we kill the grass? Surprisin= gly, perhaps not: A Penn State trial involving RR alfalfa seeded with orchardgrass found that the orch= ardgrass survived when glyphosate was applied about a mo= nth after seeding. This was almost certainly because the o= rchardgrass germinated and grew more slowly than did the alfalfa. We need more data including some involving other cool-season grasses such as tall fescue, but= the Penn State data suggests that the use of Roundup Ready alfalfa and a grass companion crop may not be mutually exclus= ive. However, if and when RR alfalfa is approved, a careful reading of the glyphosate label would be highly recommended.=

̵= 2; E.T.

FEEDING NEW CROP CORN SILAGE

You've heard this before: Don't be in a hurry to start feeding new crop corn silag= e. Of course, your alternatives are limited if your 2008 corn silage is about = to run out. Purchasing corn silage from a neighboring farm may be a possibility, b= ut with lousy milk prices you should be trying to avoid all unnecessary expens= es. Perhaps a barter deal, trading old crop for new? During tough times it's important to be flexible.

We've long known that corn silage that's been ensiled for several month= s is more digestible. More than a decade ago, Brian Perkins used to harangue his Vermont/Northeastern N.Y. clients about not feeding new crop corn silage un= til "the holidays.” (He meant Christmas, but some of the farmers cho= se to interpret this as Halloween.) Recent research has put some numbers to th= is recommendation: Protein and starch digestibility begin to increase several months after ensiling and continue to do so for many months thereafter. If = you must start feeding new crop corn silage soon, have a digestibility analysis done on what you're now feeding and then on the new crop corn silage= as soon as you start feeding it. That way you'll know how the new silage compa= res to what you have been feeding, and you and your dairy nutrition consultant = can make the necessary ration adjustments using actual data instead of by-guess-and-by-gosh.

In = vitro analyses vary considerably between forage testing labs, so it's important to compare digestibility analyses from the same testing lab. It's more important to no= te the differences in NDF-d and DM digestibility between old and new crop corn silage than it is the numbers themselves. In other words, an NDF-d of 55% f= rom testing lab "A" doesn't mean much unless it's compared to a second sample of corn silage analyzed by the same lab. Sending the second sample to testing lab "B", which reports that the NDF-d is 65%, doesn't necessarily mean that the second sample is more digestible.

—= ; E.T.

VET’S CORNER: CAUSES OF
EMBRYONIC MORTALITY

Numerous studies = have found that fertilization occurs over 80% in dairy cows every time that a co= w is correctly found to be in estrous and inseminated. Since the best Conception Rates (CR) are around 40%, this suggests that embryonic death is responsible for 75% of all pregnancy failure. Put another way, 30-35% of all AI services end in early embryonic death (EED).

As understanding = of two vs. three follicular waves has progressed, it became apparent that three-wa= ve cows have a fertility advantage over two-wave cows. Trials have been conducted to coordinate Timed Artificial Insemination (TAI) protocols with = the follicular waves. Maintenance of a dominant follicle by a CIDR or starting = TAI after day 9 in the estrous period reduces CR when compared to cows started between days 6 and 8, when smaller and quick growing pre-ovulatory follicles are recruited. Double Ovsynch= , Ovsynch G6G, and Presynch= 11 or 12 are new TAI strategies that coordinate follicular development to eliminate the difference between two and three wave cows and reduce EED. Ot= her work has shown that it is necessary to wait at least 5 days after estrus for new follicles to grow to be responsive to GnRH treatment which initiates LH surge and successful Ovsy= nch.

It has been long = known that progesterone regulates the reproductive system, but it is still very controversial when low progesterone has the most effect on CR. Progesterone treatments after fertilization by progesterone releas= ing devices or hCG or GnRH have not given consistent positive results; whereas using progesterone releas= ing devices before AI (as in heifer CIDR synch) has been showing improved ovulation rates. An area for further study will be genome testing of bul= ls for the interactions of their sperm cells with the egg activation process.<= o:p>

Poor transition cow management of high milk production cows has been described as a major factor in reduced fertility. The current evidence suggests that poorly transitioned cows are under negative energy f= or too long, which alters the immune cells of the uterus and lowers IGF and insulin which leads to lower fertility.

<= /p>

In a recent study by P. Humblot et al, the behavioral signs of estrus used by the farmer to call the AI technician were related to EED. When secondary signs other than standing hea= t or mounting activity were used, there was a higher incidence of EED. = In the same study, when cows were bred early (<6 hrs) or late (after 24 = hrs) after onset of estrous, EED increased. Also restraint quality<= /b> was associated with EED. Unfavorable restraint quality was defined as a cow being loose in a pen or inseminated in the milking parlor. Proper restraint= was defined as in a proper head lock or tie stall. EED dropped 25% for co= ws which were restrained properly while inseminated.

Two other obvious= causes of lowered fertility are heat stress and increased age, which are mentioned only to complete the list of causes.

   = ;

— Kent E He= nderson, DVM

            =             &nb= sp;            =            Northwe= st Veterinary Associates, Inc.

           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;         Hugamoo@comcas= t.net

MILK PRODUCTION VS. FERTILITY

Over the past 40 years, U.S milk production per cow has doubled, but there has b= een a big decrease in fertility. Is this due to changes in herd management (more grain, rBst, etc,) or is there a genetic relati= onship between milk production and fertility?

=

Since the 1960s, the University of Minnesota has maintained a herd of Holsteins that haven't been exposed to the selective mating practices used by modern dairy farmers. The result is a herd that has changed little genetically = 212; for 40 years.

Researchers have = been focusing on six regions of the Holstein = genome that are associated with milk production. They've found that as much as 30 percent of the dairy cow genome may have been influenced by normal selective breeding practices. They discovered that many of the genes associated with = milk production are also related to fertility rate: Increases in milk product= ion come at the expense of fertility rate.

Source: Agricultural Resear= ch, October 2009.

FOOD NEEDS: 2050

A recent United Nations/FAO report states that world food production will hav= e to increase by 70% in the next 40 years. This in the face of global warming/global cooling (take your pick; there's some evidence to support ei= ther one) and the fact that Will Rogers was right about land: "They ain't making any more of the stuff." An estimate= d 90% of the increase in food production will need to be from higher yield per ac= re and increased cropping intensity, i.e. double cropping. <= /p>

Increased food de= mand is expected to come not only because of a growing population, almost entirely = in "developing countries" (some of which aren't "developing&quo= t; very fast at all, at least not in any positive way), but also from rising personal incomes. As incomes rise, the first thing very poor people spend t= heir extra money on is food, particularly meat. The worldwide demand for = meat is expected to increase by 75% (Sorry, PETA.) It's been said that the affluent think they have many problems, most of them unimportant, while the very poor have one problem, but that one is very important.

Among the myriad = of challenges facing agriculture: The uncertain demand for biofuels (which depends on politics as well as technology); the conversion of good cropland into non-agricultural uses; the fact that much of the land that wi= ll come into production won't be nearly as productive as what's already farmed; and a growing scarcity of water available for agricultural uses. (Recent reference: California farmers vs. Delta smelt. Final score: smelt 1, farmers 0.)

Where do the foll= owing fit into the need for 70% more food by 2050? Organic farming and national/i= nternational prohibitions on genetically modified crops. Simple answer: They do not. (Do= n't confuse the terms "organic" and "sustainable"; U.S. fa= rmers have been practicing sustainable agriculture for generations.) For farmers = to produce 70% more food on not much more land than is currently in production= , all available technology will need to be implemented. "Family farms&qu= ot; will continue to be the backbone of agriculture, but the size and scale of these farms will cause the uninformed and misinformed to consider them "factory farms" and oppose their very existence. Therefore, polit= ics as well as technology will play a critical role in determining how successf= ul agriculture will be in meeting world food needs. That's why farmers need to= be politically involved, and support farm organizations that promote the appropriate use of current technologies.

           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;                  =             &nb= sp;            =      — E.T.

HORSE HAY FACTS & FANCIES

The very best and= very worst hay produced in the Northeastern U.S. is usually sold to horse owners. The best — premium alfalfa, full of high-protein leaves — is sold at very high prices to the owners of ra= ce horses. Some of the worst--July first cut consisting primarily of weeds and over-mature grasses — is sold to the unsuspecting owners of "back yard" horses, often at very high prices considering its worth. My rati= ng system for hay quality, from top to bottom: Horse hay, dairy hay, heifer ha= y, beef hay, horse hay, mulch hay. Sometimes the last two are switched...=

Here are a few ti= ps when buying hay for horses:

Unless the horse is working hard or is a lactating ma= re, 10-12% crude protein hay is plenty high enough. Therefore, most horses don't need alfalfa; good quality grass hay will do just fine. Moderately higher protein levels won't hurt but just aren't needed, and why pay for something your horse doesn't need?

Fiber level is of more practical consequence than is crude protein. The ideal range of NDF (neutral detergent fiber) varies greatly with forage species, so rely on ADF (acid detergent fiber). 30-35% ADF is ideal, but lo= ts of over-40% ADF hay is sold to unsuspecting horse owners. Horses will pick = over this stuff but they won't readily eat it and probably shouldn't since it's of little nutritive value.

=

Many horse owners refuse to buy rained-on hay. Green-colored hay is preferable, but some years it's hard to find this kind of hay at a reasonab= le price. Rained-on hay — especially grass hay--isn't much lower in nutritive value as long as it only got rained on once and then was allow= ed to dry completely before baling. Moldy, dusty hay is obviously a no-no. Rained-on hay baled in mid-June is often a lot better than "green" first cut hay made in mid-July.

  &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;

— E.T.

FEEDING BEHAVIOR & INTAKE BEFORE CALVING ID COWS AT RISK AFTER CALV= ING

Early detection o= f health problems in cows is important for animal welfare and farm profitability. However, early detection of health problems in cows is difficult and often relies on subjective assessments by farm staff. Therefore, most postpartum disorders are identified after a cow calves and she is showing clinical sig= ns.

Researchers from = the University of British Columbia have found that f= eeding behavior and intake before calving are risk factors for metritis and subclinical ketosis after calving. The cows with m= etritis spent less time feeding and engaging in aggressive behavior at the feed bunk and consumed less feed and water than the healthy cows during the dry period before any clinical signs were observed. The odds of m= etritis in a cow increased by 1.57 and 1.72 for every 10-minute decrease in feeding time during the two weeks before calving and the week before calving, respectively. Cows were almost three times more likely to be diagnosed with= metritis for every 2.2 pound decrease in dry matter i= ntake during the week before calving.

Compared with hea= lthy cows, cows that developed subclinical ketosis after calving spent less time feeding, ate less feed, and initiated fewer displacements at the feed bunk during the week before calving. For every
10-minute decrease in time spent feeding, the risk of
subclinical ketosis increased by 1.9 times. Also, a
2.2 pound decrease in dry matter intake increased the risk of subclinical ketosis by 2.2 times.

=

Researchers working together in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Greece = found that changes in feeding behavior based on a computerized feeding system wor= ked well to identify health problems such as ketosis and locomotion problems. O= ver 80% of the cows with a health problem were identified at least one day befo= re diagnosis by the farm staff. Cows with ketosis showed decreases in feeding time, feed intake, and feeding rate more than three days on average before diagnosis by the farm staff. Cows with locomotion problems showed decreases= in feeding time and feed intake and increases in feeding rate more than seven = days before diagnosis by the farm staff.

The research highlighted above shows the opportunity to use feeding behavior and technology to ident= ify cows at risk for health problems. Unfortunately, the computerized feeding systems used in the research are neither cost effective nor practical for a commercial dairy operation today. However, I am optimistic that a cost-effective automated monitoring system for feeding behavior can be developed. Technology is already allowing us to automate monitoring of catt= le, such as use of electronic identification for milk yield, pedometers for heat detection, and automatic milk feeders for calves.

— Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

CHANGING INSECT REFUGE REQUIREMENTS

Farmers will increasingly have available Bt corn hybrids= that allow a reduced insect refuge: 5% instead of 20%. This means that if you pl= ant Bt hybrids, at least 5% of your corn acreage has to be planted to a non-Bt hybrid. However, not all seed companies are selling hyb= rids with this reduced refuge feature, so be sure to check with your seed dealer before ordering seed corn. The refuge requirements are = much stricter in cotton-growing regions, but in spite of global warming cotton a= s a crop hasn't yet made its way up to the North Country.

<= /p>
In the past insect refuges haven't been a big issue for most farmer= s in the Northeast, since most of the seed they planted was non-Bt. However, as = Bob Dylan said, “the times they are a-changin= ',” and with the considerable increase in the use of insect-resistant hybrids, refuge requirements are becoming more of an issue. And not one you can affo= rd to ignore, because it's the law and also because it's just the right thing = to do to prevent the development of resistant insect pests.

<= /p>
Even with reduced refuge corn you would have to plant 5% of your corn acreage to non-Bt hybrids. This refuge could be in the same field or on an adjacent fi= eld. (Note: "Adjacent" doesn't mean your neighbor's field down the roa= d a mile or two.) Also worth noting: The new "refuge in the bag" eliminates the need for a separate corn rootworm refuge, but a 20% <= i>corn borer refuge would still be required.&= nbsp;

— E.T.

CPM FEED DICTIONARY UPDATE, UPDATE

Though long in co= ming, an update to the CPM 3.0 Feed Dictionary is imminent; I'm down to the last num= bers and entries One of the final edits involves blood meal, a critical feed ingredient providing RUP (rumen undegradable protein) and more specifically lysine for AA (amino acid) balancing of rations. I was hoping = that between Dr. Sniffen and our own Dr. Sarah Bouch= er we could settle on appropriate values for the small intestinal digestibility of RUP in blood meal, since that is the critical value affecting the amount of= metabolizable protein and amino acids supplied to the= cow. Unfortunately, all I heard was the standard research answer of “More research necessary.” Not what I needed to hear in order to finish this dictionary.

=

Sarah’s PhD= work using cecectomized roosters to predict RUP and = AA digestibility of various feedstuffs in the small intestine is enlightening.= She looked at comparing this method with a few others and concluded that there = is no absolute biologically correct method for determining RUP digestibility…yet. The point of this article is that we still struggle with providing the most biologically correct values and at times rely on “default” values for the feed dictionary. The small intestinal digestibility value of the protein B3 fraction (RUP) in CPM is 80%. That va= lue is based on the RUP fraction of forage and vegetable proteins high in prolamins, inappropriate for animal product proteins. However, we do not have any better, more repeatable or biologically correct, data to go on for the animal proteins; hence, the assumption. However, it appears that small intestinal digestibility of RUP in blood meal is highly variable and likely lower than 80%.

This is just one of the many issues that we are dealing with in not only “updating” the CPM feed dictionary, but “improving”= the Feed Dictionary. This all takes time and of course resources to investigate analytical methods in order to provide the best information and nutrient profiles of feeds and forages analyses. And this does not account for the needed resources for researching the biology of milk production and improvi= ng the predictive equations of the model; the ration balancing program itself.=

As we move forwar= d with improved models, I would like to state that CPM is not dead, but the biolog= y of that program is static: We cannot afford to pay a programmer to make all of= the changes necessary that are already being made in CNCPS6. Therefore, CNCPS will continue as = the most biologically relevant program between the two. There are a number of commercially available programs that can function with CPM rations in the updated CNCPS6 format. Again, a later article.

Lastly, we will do our best to notify all users of the updated dictionary when it is available, but based on our attempt this summer to contact all CPM users wi= th the trial dictionary update we had limited success. Please contact me, email preferred= , if you use CPM and did not receive our trial update back in July. Thanks to all for your patience.

— Kurt C= otanch, cotanch@whminer.com

WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Another year’s harvest completed…winter c= an come! Actually please no snow= yet; we still have plenty to do before winter settles into the North Country. Near th= e top of the list is to spread a couple million gallons of manure! The farm trucks have switched out = the dump bodies for liquid manure tanks and hauling is in full swing.

We have been busy taking care of= all the new heifer calves. We wer= e up to 41 calves on milk recently and after weaning a few, we are down to 36 ca= lves — a lot for our farm. A= t one point, all the available hutches were full, we h= ad to buy more milk pails and collars.
I guess this is a good problem to have! =

Dr. Andy Austin of Battenkill Vet Clinic led a milking class at the farm recently. He helped us to all= get on the “same page” in regard to our milking protocol. We discussed ways to decrease our somatic cell count and maintain a low count. We were reminded of the importance= of milk sampling to help in the treatment of mastitis and prevention of new cases, = and reviewed options for cows with chronic infections.

Although we are up to 614 dairy animals (milking and young stock) on the farm, lately another type of animal has the attention of half our employees — the 12-point buck that has = been caught on camera and all his fellow deer friends that are roaming Miner Institute woods at their own risk!

— Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com=

RESEARCH SUMMARIES

According to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vegetarians and vegans have 5% and 6% lower bone density, respectively, than people who include meat in their diets. Vegetar= ians eat no meat, while vegans don't consume any animal products. The study incl= uded the dietary habits and bone density of more than 2700
people.

A British study tracked more than 4000 people from childhood through middle age, a total of 65 years, and found that milk consumption (and the resulting intake of calcium) reduced the chance of dyi= ng from a stroke by a remarkable 60%, and also reduced the incidence of other fatal diseases. Getting at least 400 mg per day of dietary calcium is important, not only in children but in adults. Three servings of dairy prod= ucts per day does this quite nicely.

Australian researchers discovered that drinking a big glass of fat-free milk in the morning resulted in decreased food consumption at lunch time. T= wo groups of overweight men and women were divided evenly, the members of one consuming 20 ounces of fat-free milk and the other 20 ounces of fruit juice, both containing about 250 calories. The ones drinking milk reported feeling fuller, and as a result consumed 9% fewer calories at lunch.

Studies in Holland and in the U.S. co= nclude that optimists have fewer heart problems and other diseases, while pessimis= ts have higher blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Researchers aren't sure = why, but one possibility is that optimists are better at coping with adversity a= nd might take better care of themselves on the rare occasions they do get sick. This all sounds good so I'm going to start thinking positive, but I know it won't work.

Be good to your cows and they'll be good to you. That= was the conclusion of British researchers, who discovered that when they petted, groomed and gave one group of heifers names (Bossy, Elsie, Ada, etc.),= when the pampered heifers freshened they gave more milk than a similar group tow= ard which the researchers acted neutrally. Cows have long been called names when they stepped on a farmer's foot, but Bossy and Elsie were not among the nam= es.

SOUTHWARD BOUND

The geese are heading south and so have the Crop Dude and The Bride, to winter quarters in the suburbs of Ric= hmond, Virginia. You can contact E= v via email (thomas@whminer.com) or cell phone (518) 570-7408. Plans are to retur= n to the North Country in late March or early April, depending on his speaking schedule and the weather.

<= /p>
In keeping with the goose analogy, the C.D. headed south with a broken "wing" (wrist) suffered from a fall from a ladder while cutting l= imbs from a massive willow tree. The fall shattered his left radius, requiring t= hree hours of surgery to rebuild using a titanium plate and assorted screws and pins. (He asked that the surgeon install the plate in such a way as to straighten out his often wayward tee shots, but it's too early to tell if t= his request was honored.)

It's useful to learn from one's mistakes. The lessons learned this time:

<= /p>
Estima= tes of how much a tree limb will rise when all the terminal branches are removed a= re not always reliable.

A ladd= er that is suddenly leaning against air quickly becomes unstable.

Ten fe= et can be a long way to fall, especially with an all-points landing.

Words to live by: Just because you can do something (such as playing lumberjack at age 66) doesn't mean that you s= hould do it.

NOTABLE QUOTES

A few political quotes for November:

&n= bsp;

A memorandum is written not to inform the reader, but= to protect the writer.
—Dean Acheson

Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depressio= n is when you lose yours.
—Ronald Reagan

If you can't convince them, confuse them.
— Harry S. Truman

Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but mos= t of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
— Winston Churchill

PROTEIN & AMINO ACID NUTRITION — BACK TO BASICS

For several month= s now I have written articles about protein and amino acid nutrition of lactating d= airy cows. In areas of the country where producers are paid based on components, implementing nutritional strategies that increase milk protein and fat prod= uction can positively impact herd profitability. Balancing dairy rations for amino acids is an effective way to increase milk protein content, and often times milk fat content as well.

=

However, there are several factors that will determine whether balancing for amino acids will positively impact herd profitability including, but not limited to:

magnitude<= /span> of herd response=

milk component prices=

ration costs.

Some key response= s to look at when rations are balanced for amino acids are increased milk protein content, increased milk protein yield, and reduced ration crude protein content, which can result in lower or at least similar feed costs.

Per pound, protei= n is the most valuable component of milk, and efficiency of use of dietary protein f= or milk and milk protein production is improved when the amino acid profile of= metabolizable protein more closely matches the amino = acid requirements of the cow. However, balancing rations for amino acids often requires the addition of rumen protected amino acids and/or high bypass pro= tein sources, which generally don’t come cheap. But when these products are used appropriately, they can allow for improved herd profitability.

However, before we consider balancing dairy rations for amino acids, we need to get back to the basics. When dealing with live animals with complex biology, nothing is ever 100%, and therefore, balancing dairy rations for amino acids does not always result in increased milk protein production.

=

Your chances of o= bserving herd responses to balancing rations for amino acids are much improved when good, basic dairy herd management practices are already in place on the far= m. For example, if the cows don’t have adequate bunk space, the ration doesn’t contain adequate physically effective fiber, the cows donR= 17;t have adequate access to clean water, dry matter intake is not being tracked, etc., etc., etc., then you can balance the ration for amino acids until the cows come home, but your chances of observing a positive response to these dietary changes will likely be minimal.

Farmers and nutri= tionists should first evaluate any “weak links” in the management system before amino acid balancing is implemented. Remember also that the best ami= no acid source is microbial protein, so rumen function should be optimized fir= st before amino acid or bypass products are considered.

However, if good management practices are in place in your herd and your ration is not balan= ced for amino acids, you may be missing out on opportunities. One key component= to look at when implementing amino acid balancing strategies is income over fe= ed costs.

As I have mentioned in previous articles, the recommended concentration of lysin= e in metabolizable protein is 6.6-6.8%, but dependin= g on the cost of ingredients needed to achieve that level of lysine and the pric= e of milk protein, it may not be desirable to achieve such high concentrations of lysine in metabolizable protein. Lastly, each h= erd situation should be assessed on an individual basis because amino acid nutrition is not a cookie-cutter approach to improving the bottom line.

— Sarah Boucher, boucher@whminer.com