2013 DAIRY SUMMIT

Dr. Phil Cardoso, DVM, PhD

Dairy Research and Extension

Managing the Transition Cow

January22-23-24

So, how do we help this cow?

How should we feed and manage dry and transition cows to:

1) minimize health disorders,2) maximize production and

reproduction

Usually identified as the 3 weeks prior to and the 3

weeks following parturition (Drackley, 1999; Grummer, 1995).

Transition Period

-60 -21 0 21

Dry Period

Transition period

LactationParturition

Gestating, non-lactating state non-pregnant, lactating

Periparturient Period

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month

DMI, Energy BalanceBody stores

used for milk production

Body storesregained for

next lactation

Dry periodMammary Involution/

Regeneration

Typical Gestation-Lactation Cycle for Dairy Cattle

Ketosis incidence observed and measured

Location # of cows Milk, lbs/d Ketosis observed, %

Ketosis measured*, %

NY 1890 92.0 13.2 41.3

NY 1827 92.0 14.9 27.3

WI 2794 86.7 4.2 40.7

WI 4106 77.0 35.2 57.2

Overall measured ketosis = 46%* Cows with BHBA > 1.2 mmol/L in at least one test (Precision –Xtra meter)Highest incidence at 5 DIM

Oetzel, 2012: Hoards Dairyman webinar series, Feb. 13 2012

Challenging period with most infectious diseases

and metabolic disorders occurring during this time

(Drackley, 1999; Grummer, 1995).

Transition Period

• Metabolic Disorders & Infectious Diseases– Fatty Liver

– Ketosis

– Milk fever – Hypocalcemia

– Retained Placenta

– Metritis

– Mastitis

– Displaced abomasum

– Can greatly affect lactation performance and profitability

Drackley, 1999

Fatty Liver

Healthy Liver

Transition Period

Adapted from Kelton et al., 1998

Metabolic Disorder Incidence U.S. (%)Cost

(US$)

Milk Fever 6.5 334

Retained Placenta 8.6 285

Metritis 10.1 280

Left DisplacedAbomasum

1.7 340

Ketosis 4.8 145

Friggens et al., 2004

Transition Period

Adapted from Chapinal et al., 2012

VariableProportion of animals in the high-risk group (%)

Estimate(kg of milk/d)

SEM P-value

NEFA ≥ 0.5 mEq/L 25 -1.6 0.5 0.001

BHBA ≥ 6.0 mmol/L 26 -1.7 0.4 <0.0001

Calcium ≤ 8.4 mg/dL 7 -3.2 0.8 <0.0001

Milk losses across the first 4 DHIA tests in lactation associated with serum metabolites sampled in wk -1 relative to calving for 1,919

Holstein cows

Transition Period

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Milk

Pro

du

ctio

n, l

bs

Co

nce

pti

on

Rat

e, %

Walsh,S.W. et al., 2011

Evolution of Milk Production and Reproduction in the Last 50 years

Butler and Smith, 1989

Goals for nutrition and management during the dry period

• Meet nutrient requirements for gestation and mammary development

• Minimize risk for peripartal metabolic disorders and infectious diseases

• Prepare cow for high milk production andhigh subsequent fertility

• Optimize costs and maximize profit

What are “Controlled Energy Diets”?

• Feed to meet cows’ requirements

• Not too much, not too little…But just right

• Goal is consistent intake throughout dry period

From J.K. Drackley

Cows fed even moderate-energy diets during the dry period easily over-consume energy

relative to requirements

156% of NEL reqt.

81% of NEL reqt.

Diets ~1.50 Mcal NEL per kg

Douglas et al., 2006

• Improved DMI postpartum (Douglas et al., 2006)

• Similar milk production when compared to high

energy diets (Douglas et al., 2006; Janovick and Drackley, 2010)

• Lower diseases and disorders incidence when

compared to high energy diets (Janovick et al., 2011)

• Less DMI decline prepartum (Drackley et al., 2005)

Controlled Energy diets (CE) prepartum:

Periparturient Period

-60 -21 0 21

Dry Period

Transition period

LactationParturition

Gestating, non-lactating state non-pregnant, lactating

Reproduction

Gestating, lactating state

“Transition Period”

• Our group and others have explored the effects of

prepartum feed regimen and health of dairy cows (Janovick et

al., 2011; Richards, 2011; Vickers et al., 2010).

• However studies constantly lack statistical power to

determine a strong association between treatments and

classificatory outcome variables such as disease and

non-diseased animals.

• Trying to explore a specific disease (e.g. DA, KET, RP)

becomes even harder due to the low occurrence of those

pathologies on trials.

Some questions about controlled-energy diets

• Animal numbers per study too small

• Milk yields sometimes numerically lower with controlled-energy diets

• What are effects on reproduction and disease incidence?

Some questions about controlled-energy diets

• 7 experiments from University of Illinois (6 published)

• 408 cows• 354 2nd lactation or greater

• 54 1st lactation

• Fed similar lactation diets according to NRC recommendations

• Lactating cows housed in tie stalls, milked 2x daily

• Individual cow information compiled into common database

Meta-analysis Database

F. Cardoso, S. Leblanc, J. Drackley et al., 2011, unpublished

High Energy (HE): cows fed ad libitum, target

NEL intake >100% of NRC requirement

Controlled Energy (CE): cows either limit fed

(NEL 80% of NRC) or fed high fiber diet for ad

libitum intake (NEL ~100% NRC)

• Compared effects in far-off and close-up periods

Prepartum plane of nutrition classification

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

PSPS (% and SD) CE HE

>19 mm 21.8 ± 2.6 6.44 ± 1.3

8-19 mm 35.2 ± 1.7 43.08 ± 1.3

< 8 mm 43 ± 1.4 50.48 ± 3.1

Physical characteristics of dietary prepartum treatments

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Milk NFar-off

P-valueClose-up

SEM P-valueHE CE HE CE

Sum 4 wk, kg 177 115.5 117.3 0.78 120.2 112.7 3.2 0.26

Slope wk 1-3, % 168 45.4 42.3 0.66 42.1 45.6 4.1 0.62

Milk production from Holstein cows fed different dietary treatments

prepartum

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Milk production from Holstein cows fed different dietary treatments

prepartum

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Milk fat percentage from Holstein cows fed different dietary treatments

prepartum

*

*

*

P < 0.05

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Milk protein percentage from Holstein cows fed different dietary

treatments prepartum

**

P ≤ 0.05

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Metabolite Week NFar-off

SEM P-valueHE CE

NEFA (μEq/L) 1 346 817 667 1.2 <0.01

2 309 618 508 1.2 0.01

3 331 346 272 1.2 <0.01

Plasma NEFA concentration from cows receiving different treatments

prepartum

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Metabolite Week NFar-off

SEM P-valueHE CE

NEFA (μEq/L) 1 346 817 667 1.2 <0.01

2 309 618 508 1.2 0.01

3 331 346 272 1.2 <0.01

Disease = yes (NEFA>700μEq/L)

OR = 1.2 (P <0.05)

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Plasma NEFA concentration from cows receiving different treatments

prepartum

P = 0.01

5.021

P = 0.04

2.097

HE

HE

CE

Association of cows receiving different treatments prepartum and

specific diseases

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

-0.35

-0.39

-0.30

-0.43*

P = 0.04

Body condition score (BCS) loss from wk6 to wk 1 from cows receiving different

treatments prepartum

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

24.1

21.1

22.822.4

* *

P = 0.001

Mean NELI of the first 4 wk after calving from cows receiving different

treatments prepartum

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Overfeeding in close-up increased days to conception (DTC)

P = 0.04

HR = .689

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association of high energy diet (HE) and control energy diet (CE, referent) with days to conception (DTC) (P = 0.04). PHREG procedure considering experiment as random effect and controlling for the effects of calving season, reproduction pathology, and parity (P < 0.06) . CU: Close-up. FO: Far-off.

Median DTC: HE = 167,CE = 157

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

CEHE

157 167

P = 0.04

Association of cows receiving different treatments prepartum and

days to conception (DTC)

Cardoso et al., 2011, unpublished

Common problems in management• Sorting (improper processing or mixing)

• Diet composition too different from pre- to postpartum (e.g., starch, silage vs. hay)

• Inadequate access to feed (overcrowding, no push-up, not enough fed)

• Limited water availability

• Failure to adjust for changing DM% of feeds

• Moldy or poor-quality ingredients

Why do controlled-energy

diets decrease NEFA, BHBA,

and liver fat?

Overfeeding and internal body fat stores in dry cows

• Research question:

Do cows overfed during the dry period accumulate internal fat during the dry period?

Adipose tissue depots in non-lactating non-pregnant cows after 57 d on diets

Variable LE HE SEM

Initial BCS 3.00 3.08 0.25

Final BCS 3.55 3.62 0.11

Post-blood BW, kg 710 722 33

Adipose tissue site

Omental, kg 17.5 28.1** 1.3

Mesenteric, kg 12.1 22.0** 2.4

Perirenal, kg 6.0 9.9* 1.2n = 9 per diet** P < 0.01* P < 0.05

Nikkhah et al., 2009

● Moderate Energy

○ Controlled Energy

Controlled energy prepartum improves neutrophil phagocytosis postpartum

Graugnard et al., 2009

Controlled energy or restricted intake lessens decrease in Ca at calving

Janovick et al., unpublished

What do we do with problems in the short term?

• A number of additives may provide benefits in helping at-risk cows through the transition:

– Protected choline

– Calcium propionate, propylene glycol

– Drench formulas at calving

– Others

What about the fresh-cow group? • Optimal dry period diets dilute lactation

diet ingredients with straw (provides rumen adaptation)

• Straw leaves rumen slowly; results in “auto-adaptation” when lactation ration is introduced after calving

• Include small amount (~0.5 to 1.5 kg) of chopped straw in fresh-cow / lactation groups, especially where effective fiber marginal

Summary and conclusions

• Controlling energy with high fiber rations seems to improve:

– Fertility in dairy cows.

– DMI after parturition, thereby avoiding excessive adipose tissue lipid mobilization.

– Health in dairy cows.

• Increased energy during the close-up period results in greater body reserve mobilization during early lactation.

Summary and conclusions

• Increased energy during the close-up period results in greater body reserve mobilization during early lactation.

• The effect of increased energy during the close-up period on milk yield is minimal.

• Controlled energy diets during the dry period decrease milk fat content in very early lactation, because of decreased body fat mobilization.

Summary and Conclusions

• Dietary recommendations:

– NEL: Control energy intake at 14 to 16 Mcaldaily (diet ~ 1.30 Mcal/kg DM) for mature cows

– Crude protein: 12 – 14% of DM

– Metabolizable protein (MP): > 1000 g/d

– NDF from forage: ~0.7 – 0.8% of BW or 4.5 to 5 kg per head daily

– Minerals and vitamins: follow guidelines

www.dairyfocus.illinois.edu

facebook:Dairy Focus at Illinois