Brian Sloan Ph.D.
March 15th 2002

Index:
Introduction
Income over feed cost (IOFC) will be improved by 20 to 70 cents per cow per day…
Benefits…
Ration Costs…
Income over feed cost will be improved by 20 to 70 cents per cow per day…
Improving the efficiency of use of dietary protein is the key to minimizing ration costs…
Formulation Constraints to Balance for LYS and MET and use MP more efficiently…
Formulation constraints to take advantage of balancing for LYS and MET and including HMB…
“Conventional Ration” – 80lb ration using CPM Dairy
“Reformulated Ration” balanced for LYS and MET – 80lb ration using CPM Dairy
“Reformulated Ration ” balanced for LYS and MET plus HMB (Rhodimet AT 88) – 80lb ration
Real life examples of the economic benefits of formulating on a LYS and MET basis…
1. Noftsger et al…Ingredient composition of diets fed
1. Noftsger et al - Chemical Composition and NRC (2001) Evaluation of Diets
1. Noftsger et al – RESULTS
1. Noftsger et al – Income over feed costs
2. Schwab et al – Ingredient composition of “Conventional” and “New” UNH diets (% of DM)
2. Schwab et al - Chemical composition and 2001 NRC evaluation of “Conventional” and “New” UNH diets
2. Schwab et al – RESULTS
2. Schwab et al - Milk income, feed costs, and income-over-feed costs (IOFC)
Goodbye Protein – Hello Amino Acids :Are you prepared to go the next step ?

Introduction

A new technology or a new approach to formulating dairy rations is of particular value if it results in consistent perceptible on-farm improvements in milk performance, and an increase in milk returns without significantly increasing ration costs.

Does the approach of formulating dairy rations to meet optimum metabolizable lysine (LYS) and (MET) specifications fulfill these criteria?

Income over feed cost (IOFC) will be improved by 20 to 70 cents per cow per day…

Application of the ration amino acid (AA) balancing approach need not necessitate a significant change in ration costs.

For a marginal increase in ration costs of 0 to 10 cents/cow/day, milk performance, particularly milk composition, can be improved, increasing milk returns by 30 to 80 cents/cow/day

• an increase in income over feed cost (IOFC)
  of 20 to 70 cents/cow/day.

Benefits…

In order to improve milk composition there are two main formulation approaches being practiced :

1. Balance rations to meet metabolizable lysine(LYS) and methionine(MET) requirements…
   
   Rations are formulated to meet minimum metabolizable LYS and MET specifications. This will increase milk protein content and to some extent milk fat %.
   
   
2. Balance rations to meet metabolizable LYS and MET requirements and supplement with HMB (Rhodimet AT 88) to maximize the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis…
   
   In addition to applying the principles in (1), HMB (methionine hydroxy analogue) is also included to stimulate rumen microbial protein synthesis and rumen fermentation, and increase milk fat percentage.

* Although fat and protein payments vary between federal orders and are subject to market forces, in general milk protein is paid at $2/lb and fat at $1.50/lb.

Typical improvements in milk protein and milk fat % are at least +0.15 and +0.10% respectively:
a 36 cents/cow/day increase in milk revenue.

When HMB (methionine hydroxy analogue) is also included, improvements in fat % are more perceptible (+0.20%) and it also helps to bolster the response in milk protein %.

These improvements are such that milk revenue is increased by over 50 cents per cow per day.

Please refer to this page for further justification on the technical benefits of AA formulation and the use of HMB.

Ration Costs…

Whether one chooses to use HMB or not, the costs of reformulating a ration on a metabolizable LYS and MET basis will be somewhere between 0 and 10 cents/cow/day.

Actual cost of reformulation will depend on the composition of the current ration, forage quality and inventory and the flexibility to eventually introduce new ingredients into the ration.

Under most circumstances there will be no appreciable difference in ration costs irrespective of whether HMB (Rhodimet AT 88) is included or not.

Income over feed cost will be improved by 20 to 70 cents per cow per day…

Depending on the improvements in metabolizable LYS and MET that can be practically achieved, IOFC can be increased by 20 to 70 cents/cow/day.

Improving the efficiency of use of dietary protein is the key to minimizing ration costs…

1. Balancing for LYS and MET improves the efficiency of use of all absorbed amino acids (MP). MP requirements can be effectively reduced by 4% points (from 100 to 96). This effectively reduces the inclusion level of RUP sources - the most expensive protein sources in the ration.
   
   

2. Adding HMB (Rhodimet AT 88) potentially increases the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis by at least 10% and thus MP supply by at least 4%. Thus balancing rations for LYS and MET and including HMB will permit the formulation of rations to 92 % of MP requirements.

Formulation Constraints to Balance for LYS and MET and use MP more efficiently…

This is an example of balancing a ration for metabolizable LYS and MET using the formulation constraints in the current beta version of CPM (2.0.23).

Please note to always turn off the ILE constraint. It is not a potentially limiting amino acid.

Enter 96% instead of 100% for the MP minimum. This indirectly takes into account the increased efficiency of utilization of MP.

Enter 87.5 and 93.5 for MET and LYS respectively. Use the Percentage and Rulquin options. Entering these values corresponds to formulating a ration to contain 2.19 MET and 6.83 LYS as a % of MP.

Formulation constraints to take advantage of balancing for LYS and MET and including HMB…

When putting together the benefits of balancing for both metabolizable LYS and MET and the inclusion of HMB, MP requirements can be reduced to 92 % of the conventional MP requirements in CNCPS/CPM or NRC.

The objective is to be able to use dietary crude protein more effectively and still keep the advantages in terms of improved milk components.

“Conventional Ration” – 80lb ration using CPM Dairy

Here is a ‘typical’ ration that aims to satisfy the nutrient requirements for a lactating cow giving 80lbs of milk.

Here is a ‘typical’ ration that aims to satisfy the nutrient requirements for a lactating cow giving 80lbs of milk.

Ration crude proteins are around 18%. MP supplies correspond to ‘conventional’ MP requirements ie MP balance is close to zero. ‘Quality’ protein sources (fishmeal, blood-meal and expeller soybean meal) are being used to supply RUP with a ‘reasonable’ amino acid profile.

“Reformulated Ration” balanced for LYS and MET – 80lb ration using CPM Dairy

In this case the reformulation of the previous ration gives a solution which lowers crude protein in the ration by a full % point and MP balance to -90 g.

The cost of the ration is only increased by 5 cents/cow/day and we have optimized the ration in terms of metabolizable LYS and MET.

Fishmeal was eliminated, brewers grains was reduced considerably, blood meal was increased and Smartamine M was sucked in to help attain the MET recommendation.

“Reformulated Ration ” balanced for LYS and MET plus HMB (Rhodimet AT 88) – 80lb ration

The introduction of HMB at a rate of 0.11% of dry matter intake allows ration CP inputs to be economized further without a further increase in ration costs.

Real life examples of the economic benefits of formulating on a LYS and MET basis…

1. Noftsger, S. and N.R. St-Pierre. Supplementation of Met and selection of highly digestible rumen undegradable protein to improve nitrogen efficiency for milk production. J. Dairy Sci. (accepted).
   
   
2. Schwab, C.G., N.L. Whitehouse, B.K. Sloan and D. Stucker. Influence of reducing dietary CP content, respecting the new NRC norms for LYS and MET (as a % of MP) and inclusion of rumen available HMB on milk performance – A Case Study.
   

1. Noftsger et al…Ingredient composition of diets fed

A recently competed trial at OSU indicates that this is indeed possible.

The objectives were first to compare the incorporation of a selected animal protein blend (ProvAAl) high in intestinal digestibility (Trt 2) in place of an unselected meat meal (Trt 1) at a conventional dietary crude protein level (18.3%). Secondly the objective was to lower also the CP in the ration while incorporating this selected blend (Trt 3). Lastly, was to observe the effects of balancing rations for metabolizable LYS and MET at a lower dietary crude protein level while also incorporating Rhodimet™ AT 88 as a ruminal source of HMB (Trt 4).

1. Noftsger et al - Chemical Composition and NRC (2001) Evaluation of Diets

Noftsger and St-Pierre (2001)

There were 15 cows per treatment (approximately 50% in first lactation). Treatments were started in the 4th week of lactation and continued for 15 weeks.

The retrospective measurements and estimates showed that TRTs 2, 3 and 4 had improved metabolizable LYS contributions compared to the Control (1). Only treatment 4 had an enriched level of metabolizable MET and a LYS to MET ratio close to recommendations.

1. Noftsger et al – RESULTS

Noftsger and St-Pierre (2001)

The Control had a lower intake than the other 3 treatments and this probably partly contributed to the lower observed milk yields.

Regardless, the substitution of the more highly digestible animal protein blend increased milk yield by nearly 6kgs per day. However reducing dietary CP at the same time lost part of this response (TRT 3). But balancing for LYS and MET at the lower Dietary CP level while including HMB ensured optimum production with the best milk components – both fat and protein.

The retrospective calculation of MP allowable milk for each treatment again shows clearly the superior efficiency of dietary protein utilization on Trt 4. NRC would only predict that there was sufficient MP in the diet to support a daily yield of 39.5 kg (87lbs) whereas the cows on this treatment achieved 46.6 kg (102.5 lbs)

1. Noftsger et al – Income over feed costs

One of the most pertinent economic comparison to make in this trial is Trt 2 vs Trt 4. There was only a marginal increase in feed costs of 6 cents per cow per day. In return due to the improved milk components milk income was increased by 42 cents a net benefit of 36 cents per cow per day.

Trts 1 and 3 show what can happen if you do not respect some of the basic principles of amino acid formulation – milk performance is compromised and profitability hurt.

2. Schwab et al – Ingredient composition of “Conventional” and “New” UNH diets (% of DM)

A field trial was conducted at the University of New Hampshire. After the publication of the New NRC, the rations at UNH were reformulated to be balanced for metabolizable LYS and MET.

The changes in formulation constraints resulted in a selected blood meal based animal protein blend (ProvAAl Elite) being incorporated at the expense of the protected soybean meal.

Smartamine M inclusion ensured a LYS:MET ratio of 3.0 : 1. Rhodimet AT88 was also included to maximize rumen digestive processes.

2. Schwab et al - Chemical composition and 2001 NRC evaluation of “Conventional” and “New” UNH diets

Rations -The conventional ration had been fed from May 2000 to the University of New Hampshire Experimental herd. The ration was reformulated in February 2001 according to the new NRC recommendations.

In the new NRC, MP requirements have been estimated from datasets where the ‘quality of MP was considered moderate. It is recognized within NRC 2001 that improving LYS and MET as a % of MP improves the efficiency of utilization of MP for milk production.

To take advantage of this increased efficiency MP balance was formulated to be 5% below requirements, largely by decreasing RUP concentration.

2. Schwab et al – RESULTS

Estimated Nutrient Composition - CP,RDP and RUP (% of DM) , LYS and MET (% of MP)
OLD - 18.1 CP, 10.8 RDP, 7.3 RUP, 6.37 LYS, 1.73 MET
NEW - 17.2 CP, 10.6 RDP, 6.6 RUP, 6.55 LYS, 2.20 MET

Schwab et al (Adisseo in house publication)

During the eight week observational period following the ration formulation changes the above evolutions in milk performance were observed.

2. Schwab et al - Milk income, feed costs, and income-over-feed costs (IOFC)

At the time of this observation, milk protein was being paid at $2.00/lb and milk protein at $1.00/lb.

The observed increases in milk fat and milk protein output after the ration change were thus worth 73 cents per cow per day – an increase in IOFC of 70 cents per cow per day after discounting the 3 cents/cow/day increase in feed costs.

Both the experimental observations of Noftsger and St-Pierre and the field observation of Schwab, Whitehouse, Sloan and Stucker validate the positive impact of amino acid balancing on IOFC through increasing milk returns with minimal effects on ration costs.

Goodbye Protein – Hello Amino Acids :Are you prepared to go the next step ?

1. The only way to optimize milk protein %
   
   
2. Maximize the efficiency of utilization of dietary protein.
   
   
3. Reduce the variability in milk performance related to conventional protein feeding.
   
   
4. Minimal or no additional cost – large potential benefit.

The way forward in protein nutrition of dairy cows is through proper balancing of rations on an individual amino acid basis.

This is one of the principle nutritional steps needed to help dairy cows express their genetic potential for milk protein production.

Not only will milk components be enhanced but dietary protein inputs can be reduced, as providing the correct balance of amino acids in MP will optimize the efficiency of utilization of all amino acids.

The potential increase in ration costs due to the incorporation of Smartamine M and Rhodimet AT 88 will be largely offset by the reduction in the amount of RUP in the ration.

Milk gross income can be enhanced (30 to 80 cents per cow per day) with minimal or no increase in ration cost.