Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Feed Management on
PA Dairy Farms
Kelly O’Neill
Cost-Effective Strategies Needed
Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay: 6 Smart Investments for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction, Chesapeake Bay Commission, December 2004.
Chesapeake Bay Commission highlighted most likely sources of nutrient reductions at the lowest cost:
1. Wastewater treatment plant upgrades
2.Diet and feed adjustments
3. Traditional nutrient management
4. Enhanced nutrient management (“yield reserve”)
5. Conservation Tillage
6. Cover crops
Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay: 6 Smart Investments for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction, Chesapeake Bay Commission, December 2004.
Cost-effective reduction of manure
impacts
“By far, the most cost-effective way to minimize
the environmental impact of the large volumes
of manure generated within the watershed is
through adjusting feed formulation for poultry
and livestock… Nitrogen reductions of 30–50
percent and phosphorus reductions of 40–60
percent are achievable using a variety of diet
modification techniques for poultry, dairy, cattle
and swine.”Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay: 6 Smart Investments for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction,
Chesapeake Bay Commission, December 2004.
Improved Feed Management: Better
Profitability, Better Water Quality• Improve feed efficiency by eliminating excess nutrients while maintaining or improving milk production.
• Farm reduced feed costs by 68 cents/cow/day, and increased milk fat and protein.
Matching nutrients in feed to cows’
production requirements helps to:
• Manage feed more efficiently, so that
more nutrients are used for milk
production and fewer are wasted.
• Decrease excreted nutrients.
• Reduce nitrogen and phosphorus
entering streams and rivers.
Huge opportunity for water
quality improvement• 25-35% of the nitrogen contained in feed is
goes into milk, and the remaining 65-75% is
excreted in feces and urine.
• Diets often have 120-160% of the phosphorus
needed. Excess is excreted in manure.
PA Precision Dairy Feeding Project
• Direct technical assistance to 66 farms in collaboration with nutritionists
• Assistance to nutritionists and vets to assist 33 additional farms– Across Chesapeake Watershed in PA
– Diverse management – large, small, grazing, confined, certified organic
• Feed and manure analysis, tracked production and reproductive health
• Maintained/improved production and reproduction
PA Trainings on Feed Management
• Technical details for 40 nutritionists and veterinarians on ration formulation
• “Dairy Tool” to assess bottlenecks to profitability, with feed component for 248 dairy industry professionals
• Certification for nutritionists to become USDA Technical Service providers
– 65 now certified across Chesapeake Bay watershed
• Workshops for over 1,500 dairy producers
Some recommendations to dairies
• Maximize
quality of
forages
– Reduce
feed costs
– Improve
on-farm
nutrient
balance
Some recommendations to dairies
• Use routine forage and grain testing to determine nutrient content
• Reduce or remove inorganic phosphorus supplements from rations
• Group animals based on age and production to maintain efficiency of nutrient utilization through the production cycle
• Mix and deliver rations with minimal wastage
• Monitor performance and nutrient efficiency– Milk production and milk urea
– Dry matter intakes/nutrient intakes
– Manure (undigested grains, P)
Some recommendations to dairies
• Use more highly digestible feeds, such as
higher quality forages, more finely processed
corn, or correctly roasted soybeans so that
nutrients are used more efficiently
Improved corn silage
processing increased
machinery and labor
costs, but increased
profitability $9,000/
month on one farm
Some recommendations to dairies
•Use byproduct feeds
with caution, due to
variability and
possibly high
phosphorus levels
•Increase
metabolizable
protein, decrease
crude protein
Herds with phosphorus levels below 0.40%
had higher pregnancy rates than those fed
more phosphorus
Ration's P content
(dry matter basis)
Pregnancy rate
< 0.40% 21.5%
> 0.40% 19.3%
Removing excess dietary phosphorus did not cause problems with reproduction and production. Other management factors, not the reduced phosphorus, probably caused the improvements in the low P group’s reproduction.
Dietary phosphorus plotted against fecal
phosphorus (both % Dry Matter), with a
mean dietary phosphorus of 0.39%.
y = 1.4788x + 0.0865
R2 = 0.3038
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.3000 0.3500 0.4000 0.4500 0.5000 0.5500
TMR P, (% DM)
Fecal
P,
(% D
M)
Milk Production
8.0
18.0
28.0
38.0
48.0
58.0
68.0
78.0
88.0
98.0
17 74 134
194
255
314
375
433
490
Test Days Postcalving
Mil
k,
lb/d
ay <16
16 - 16.9
17 - 17.9
>18
Ration crude
protein
Milk Urea Nitrogen - Key Monitoring Tool
Urinary N and MUN
y = 14.185x
R2 = 0.4443
0
100
200
300
400
5 10 15 20
MUN, mg/dl
Uri
nar
y N
, g
Broderick, Haig, Kebreab, Wattiaux, Sannes, Brito, Olmos Colmenero, ReynalSt. Pierre 17.68*MUN prediction; Jonker 15*MUN
Monitor Milk Urea Nitrogen as a indicator of Urinary N
Simple change, significant
production increase
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
2/2/09
2/3/09
2/4/09
2/5/09
2/6/09
2/7/09
2/8/09
2/9/09
2/10/09
2/11/09
2/12/09
2/13/09
2/14/09
2/15/09
2/16/09
2/17/09
2/18/09
2/19/09
2/20/09
2/21/09
2/22/09
2/23/09
2/24/09
2/25/09
2/26/09
2/27/09
2/28/09
Date
Bu
lk T
an
k M
UN
, m
g/d
l
MUNCorn Grain
Ground more finely
Improved feed efficiency,
lower protein
• Herds feeding diets with less than
16% crude protein produce the same
amount of milk as herds with higher
protein
• Lower crude protein results in less
urinary nitrogen and lower ammonia
emissions
Potential impacts
* Comparing herds with >18% and <16%
crude protein, and those with >0.4%
and <4% phosphorus
58.4 lb. nitrogen and 19.7 lb. phosphorus annual reductions in excretions for each cow
“We at Hoober Feeds have enrolled a number of our customers on a precision feeding program to improve farm profitability while benefiting the environment. They've reduced feed costs by anywhere from 5 to 15 cents per cow per day with no negative effects on milk or milk component production. We’ve also seen no negative effects on reproduction and, in fact, reproduction has actually improved in a number of these herds.”
Tom Nauman, Nutritionist
Challenges to Improved Feed
Management
• Farm Profitability – reluctance to change
• Farms with greatest challenges not seeking help
– More successful farms already managing feeds well
• Inconsistent or poor quality forages
• Inexpensive feeds have higher P (distillers
grains
• Limited farms signing up for EQIP feed
management
2025?
• Better management of dairies – milk house waste, barnyards, improved feed efficiency
• Better forage management and nutrient cycling on farm, less imported feed
• Fewer cows producing more milk, smaller impact on water and air quality
• New ways to promote environmental stewardship – milk inspectors, lenders, local governments, insurance agents
Healthy Farms, Healthy
Communities, Healthy Watersheds
Kelly O’Neill
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Old Waterworks Bldg
614 N. Front St.
Harrisburg, PA 17102
717.234.5550
http://www.cbf.org
