results of uw madison corn shredlage feeding trial n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage™ Feeding Trial PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage™ Feeding Trial

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage™ Feeding Trial - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 375 Views
  • Uploaded on

Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage™ Feeding Trial. Luiz Ferraretto & Randy Shaver Dairy Science Department, UW Madison. Corn Silage Harvest Practices Meta Analysis Ferraretto & Shaver, PAS 2012. 106 treatment means – 27 studies – 24 articles January 2000 to July 2011 (AFST, JDS)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage™ Feeding Trial


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Results of UW Madison Corn Shredlage™ Feeding Trial LuizFerraretto & Randy Shaver Dairy Science Department, UW Madison

    2. Corn Silage Harvest PracticesMeta AnalysisFerraretto& Shaver, PAS 2012 • 106 treatment means – 27 studies – 24 articles • January 2000 to July 2011 (AFST, JDS) • Lactating dairy cows fed TMR, starch digestibility (in vivo) • Proc Mixed (SAS, 2004) • Fixed effects: treatment and covariance factors • Random effect: study • Weighted by cow (St-Pierre, 2001)

    3. Kernel Processing*Maturity

    4. Kernel Processing*TLOC

    5. Corn Shredlage™ Corn Shredlage™

    6. KP Shredlage

    7. Corn production, harvest & storage

    8. Penn State Separator Box (as-fed basis) Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags

    9. Kernel Processing Score Samples obtained during feed-out from the silo bags

    10. Nutrient composition of feed-out samples

    11. Fermentation profile of feed-out samples

    12. Bag Packing Densities (lb DM/cu. Ft) Volume = 3.14 × Radius2 × Length

    13. Feeding Trial • 10/20/11 – 12/28/11; UW – Arlington Dairy • 14, 8 cow pens; 112 mid lactation cows • Cows stratified by breed, parity & DIM, assigned to pens, and pens randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments • Shredlage™ • KP • 2-week adjustment period with all pens fed 50:50 mix of Shredlage & KP in TMR • 8-week treatment period with all cows fed their assigned treatment TMR

    14. Days in Milk & Body Weight at trial initiation Pens were comprised of 46% 1st lactation cows all of which were Holsteins, and of the 2nd or > lactation cows 80% were Holsteins

    15. Experimental Diets (DM basis)

    16. TMR Nutrient Composition (DM basis)

    17. Penn State Separator Box (as-fed basis) TMR Samples

    18. Feed Sorting – PSU Separator Box % of Predicted Intake

    19. Dry matter intake & milk yield

    20. Milk composition

    21. Component-corrected milk yields

    22. 3.5% FCM Yield by Week * * P < 0.10 ** ** P < 0.01 * Week × Treatment Interaction (P < 0.03)

    23. BW, BCS, BWC & Diet NEL Results

    24. Total Tract Starch Digestibility Treatment P < 0.001 Week P < 0.03

    25. Ruminal In Situ Starch Digestibility *P < 0.06 Ruminal incubations on undried, unground samples

    26. Ruminal In Situ NDF Digestibility Treatment P = 0.83

    27. Summary & Conclusions • Under the conditions of this study • i.e. • TLOC & Roll Gap setting of the harvesters • Silage DM content, particle size and length of silo fermentation • Diet forage % and corn silage % • Level of production • Stage of lactation

    28. Conclusions • The proportion of material on the top (coarsest) screen of the PSU Separator was greater for Shredlage • This was also the case for the TMR which contained Shredlage • There was no sorting of the TMR for either treatment • DMI tended to be greater for cows fed Shredlage • FCM & ECM tended to be greater for cows fed Shredlage • The FCM response to Shredlage increased as the treatment period progressed • Kernel processing score and ruminal & total tract starch digestibilities were greater for Shredlage

    29. Acknowledgements • Kutz Farms, Jefferson, WI • Shredlage harvest • UW ARS Field Staff • Corn production, KP harvest, all bagging • UW Blaine Dairy Staff • Herd care, milking, feeding, management • Feed & milk sampling • Dairyland Labs, Arcadia, WI • Feed analysis • Roger Olson, rolson@shredlage.com • Scherer Design Engineering, South Dakota http://www.shredlage.com/

    30. Visit UW Extension Dairy Cattle Nutrition Website http://www.uwex.edu/ces/dairynutrition/