Why “balance” dairy cow rations
Obtain genetic potential for milk yield and component concentrations
Feeding low protein amino acid balanced diets for optimum production and health.
Achieve good herd health Minimize nutrient wastage Maximize income-over-feed-costs Maximize dairy herd profitability
05-05-2010
Ideal protein theory is the basis for amino acid formulation…
Limiting Amino Acid Theory…
Ideally the amino acid profile of absorbed protein should match animal requirements Identify the first limiting amino acid – establish the requirement quantitatively (g/day). Establish the correct ratio of the other essential amino acids to the first limiting amino acid Feed the smallest “package of protein” to meet the requirements for the 1st limiting AA
Comparison of lysine in milk, rumen bacterial protein and feedstuffs
Comparison of methionine in milk, rumen bacterial protein and feedstuffs
9
3 2.5
7
Met % of Protein
Lys % of Protein
8 6 5 4 3 2
2 1.5 1 0.5
1 0
0 er ath Fe s S as Gr d oo Bl M SB t a Me lfa S a Alf S rn Co at e Wh M CS y rl e B a e rs ew Br G DD ola n Ca rn e r Co fl ow n Su M CG h . Fis . B.. m Ru lk Mi
M CG G DD S rn Co ther a Fe at e Wh n r Co s S as Gr y rl e e r Ba fl ow n Su M C S e rs ew Br lfa a Alf t a Me ola n Ca M SB h Fis d o . Blo . B.. m Ru lk Mi
1
Methionine virtually always first limiting : - mixed cereal rations, major protein sources soybean meal and animal proteins Lysine closely co-limiting with methionine : - corn based ratons, corn byproducts, brewers grains Next limiting amino acids are of limited practical significance : - in practical formulation can only meet 90% of LYS/MET requirements
Comparison of levels of LYS & MET in balanced and non-balanced rations 100
Milk - +1kg Prot % - +0.1% Fat % - +0.1%
% of Requirement
Lys and Met are the two first limiting amino acids in North American rations
75
50
Incorporating MetaSmart as a key ingredient to balance rations for LYS and MET improved milk yield
T ME
S LY
T ME
S LY
NonNon-Balanced
Balanced
Incorporating MetaSmart as a key ingredient to balance rations for LYS and MET improved milk protein Improvement in Milk Protein Content vs. Control
Improvement in Milk Yield vs. Control 0.25 7
Milk Components (%)
7.5
Milk (lbs/cow/day)
6 5 4
4.4
3 2
0.20
0.16
0.15
0.10
0.14 0.11
0.05
1 0
0.2 Min
0.00 Average
Min
Max
Summary of 6 trials (early lactation), conducted at INRA Rennes, INRA Nancy, University of New Hampshire and The Ohio State University. Average production 86 lbs milk, 3.75% fat, 3.10% protein
Incorporating MetaSmart as a key ingredient to balance rations for LYS and MET improved milk fat
0.25
Milk Components (%)
0.20
0.18
Max
Benefits to formulating on an amino acid basis…
Improvement in Milk Fat Content vs. Control
0.25
Average
Summary of 6 trials (early lactation), conducted at INRA Rennes, INRA Nancy, University of New Hampshire and The Ohio State University. Average production 86 lbs milk, 3.75% fat, 3.10% protein
Milk kg/day
Only postpost-calving Including PrePre-fresh + 2.3 + 0.7
Milk protein %
+ 0.16
+ 0.09
Milk protein g/day
+ 79
+ 112
Milk fat %
+ 0.02
+ 0.10
0.15 0.10
0.08
0.05 0.00 Min
Average
Max
Summary of 6 trials (early lactation), conducted at INRA Rennes, INRA Nancy, University of New Hampshire and The Ohio State University. Average production 86 lbs milk, 3.75% fat, 3.10% protein
Milk fat g/day
+ 116
+ 48 Seven trials
Six trials
Garthwaite et al. (1998)
2
Defining requirements – Lysine plot (NRC, 2001)
Defining requirements - Methionine plot (NRC, 2001) 0.20
0.15
6.80
2.29 0.15 Milk protein responses, (g/100 g)
Milk protein responses, (g/100 g)
0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15
0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10
-0.20
-0.15 -0.25 4.4
4.8
5.2
5.6
6.0
6.4
6.8
7.2
7.6
8.0
8.4
8.8
9.2
9.6
10.0
Lys, %MP (Met > 1.95 % MP)
-0.20 1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
M et, % M P (Lys > 6.50 % M P)
Practical Formulation Levels of LYS and MET as a % of MP – NRC 2001
How should we approach practical ration formulation for amino acids?
Met (% of MP)
“Optimum” vs. “practical” levels of Lys and Met in MP 2.5 2.25 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 2.25
1. Formulate for a minimum MP requirement
NRC recommendations 6.80 Lys, 2.29 Met
2. Optimize LYS as a % of MP. 2.97 : 1
3. Optimize the ratio of LYS : MET
Practical recommendations 6.60 Lys, 2.22 Met
3
3.75
4.5
5.25
6
6.75
7.5
Lys (% of MP)
Selection of ration ingredients to meet the constraints of amino acid formulation
Milk performance to balancing MET and LYS (% of MP)
maximize microbial protein yield - close to ideal protein profile (LYS rich…) LYS rich raw materials - blood meal, soybean, fishmeal
+ 1.7 kg/d milk -
NH 3+ CH 3
+ 0.10% units milk protein
S
CH 2
CH 2
Met
C
COO -
H
+ 90 g/d milk protein NH 3+
“Rumen Protected” methionine sources - least cost source of the marginal contribution in MET needed to balance rations for MET and LYS
+ 0.10% units in milk fat
NH 3+
CH 2
CH 2
CH 2
CH 2
Lys
C
COO -
H
+ 96 g/d milk fat
Summary of Seven Trials - Garthwaite et al. (1998)
3
Features and benefits to formulating on an individual amino acid basis… basis…
Five good reasons
Rules of thumb for short term responses to improvements in MET and LYS supply
MET limiting – each additional g of MET
7g of milk protein
1. Increase milk protein percent 2. Maximize milk production
LYS limiting –
3. Improve N efficiency, reduce N excretion
each additional g of LYS
5g of milk protein
4. Reduce metabolic problems 5. Improve energy utilization - favors reproduction
How much protein can really be economized when balancing for Lys and Met? 40 Kg milk obtained with 2800 g of MP (containing 5.7% or more Lys and 1.9% Met), 159 g MP-Lys and 53 g MP-Met How much MP is needed to produce 40 Kg of milk if MP contains 6.6% Lys and 2.2% Met? 159 g MP-Lys / 6.6% Lys (.066) = 2409 g MP 53 g MP-Met / 2.2% Met (.022) = 2409 g MP How much MP is saved? 2800 g – 2409 g = 391 g How much RUP is saved? 391 g / 0.80 = 489 g
Effects of Improved Lys and Met Nutrition on Reducing “MP” Requirements
How much protein can really be economized when balancing for Lys and Met? Saving 489 g of RUP means how much less RUP in diet DM? Assumption: A well-balanced diet containing 10.5% RDP and 7.5% RUP (i.e., 18% CP), at an intake of 25 Kg/d, with 5.7% Lys and 1.9% Met in MP will support 40 kg of milk Original RUP intake: 25 kg DMI x 0.075 = 1.875 kg New RUP intake = 1.875 kg – 0.489 kg = 1.386 kg New RUP in diet DM = 1.386 kg RUP / 25 kg DMI = 5.5% A: 2.0 percentage units less (7.5% - 5.5%)
Diet Composition (Chen et al., 2009)
Chen et al. (2009) fed 5 diets: 1) Traditional protein (16.9% CP)
Ingredient
Traditional protein (TP)
Low protein (LP)
LP + MetaSmart
LP + Smartamine
LP + Smartamine + AT88
2) Low protein (15.7% CP) Alfalfa silage
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
4) Low protein (15.7% CP) + 15 g Smartamine
Corn silage
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.7
5) Low protein (15.7% CP) + 15 g Smartamine + 27 g AT88
High moisture corn
3) Low protein (15.7% CP) + 40 g dry MetaSmart
Randomized complete block design 70 Holstein cows (20 primiparous, 50 multiparous) 14 blocks of 5 cows by parity and DIM 2 wk for covariate period Diets fed concurrently for 12 wk Cows averaged 147 DIM
14.9
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
Solvent soybean meal
3.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
Distillers dried grains
7.6
0
0
0
0
Expeller soybean meal Premix
4.0
0
0
0
0
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
4
Effect of Met supplementation on DMI and milk and milk components (Chen et al., 2009)
Nutrient Content of Diet (Chen et al., 2009)
Traditional protein (TP)
Low protein (LP)
LP + MetaSmart
LP + Smartamine
LP + Smartamine + AT88
DM, %
45.0
44.8
45.3
45.1
45.2
CP, % DM
16.9
15.7
15.7
15.7
15.7
Ingredient
29
27
27
27
27
MP-Lys, g/d
160
161
161
161
161
48
45
54
54
54
Lys:Met ratio
3.3
3.6
3.0
3.0
3.0
TP
LP
LP + MetaSmart
LP + Smartamine
LP + Smartamine + AT88
Contrast
DMI, kg/d
24.7
24.9
25.7
24.6
25.1
0.44
Milk, kg/d
41.2
41.8
42.1
41.7
41.7
0.98
3.05b,c
3.03c
3.19a
3.15a,b
3.17a
Protein, %
NDF, % DM
MP-Met, g/d
Item
Fat, %
3.85
3.52
3.93
3.77
3.66
0.08
Protein, kg/d
1.25
1.24
1.30
1.33
1.33
0.09
ECM, kg/d
LP
LP + MetaSmart
LP + Smartamine
LP + Smartamine + AT88
Contrast
Milk/DMI
1.67
1.69
1.68
1.69
1.67
0.97
ECM/DMI
1.61a,b
1.54b
1.59a,b
1.63a
1.57a,b
0.04
MUN, mg/dL
13.2a
10.0c
10.2c
11.2b
10.8b,c
Milk N/ Feed N, %
30.9
32.7
34.1
1.42
1.60
1.62
1.54
TP vs. LP LP vs. Met
37.9b
41.0a
40.2a,b
39.0a.b
0.02
P>F
1. There is a negative association between plasma, serum, and milk urea N and conception rates.
