An Approach to AA Balancing Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and...

An Approach to AA Balancing

Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and Meet AA Needs of Lactating Dairy Cattle

Copyright 2009 - All Rights ReservedCentral Valley Nutritional Associates, LLC

Post-Conference Seminar

Penn State Dairy Nutrition Workshop

Grantville, PA

November 12, 2009

NRC 2001 – Building Blocks• Dynamic Coefficients for digestibilities, energy, CP fractions and

duodenal AA flow based on level of intake and diet composition• Rumen microbial protein yield modeled via dynamic prediction of

digestible organic matter automatically accounting for changing microbial yields at varying DOM supply levels

• RDP supply and requirement prediction is dynamic with RDP supply acting as a bounding constraint for MCP prediction from DOM

• CP fractions A, B and C are modeled as (A) wholly rumen degraded, (B) partially rumen degraded determined by Kd and Kp and (C) wholly rumen un-degradable

• Each feedstuff has an individual RUP digestibility value• Prediction of Duodenal AA flow is made via equations that best

predicted actual measured AA flows to the duodenum from the model experimental data set based on model predicted rumen microbial MP yield and MP-AA from modeled digestible RUP (MP) *

*(57 experiments with 199 diverse diets, Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg 74-81)

NRC Predictive ReliabilityAccounting for AA Profile Changes in RUP

The NRC model was specifically designed to account for changes in the AA profile of RUP relative to intake CP in order to provide accurate prediction of flows of individual EAA to the duodenum. This was accomplished by comparing NRC model predicted supplies of AA in RUP with actual measured EAA in duodenal protein in 57 published studies with 199 diverse diets and developing prediction equations for each EAA based on those model predicted factors that best predicted the measured EAA flows. (Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg. 75)

The optimum amount of Methionine in MP according to NRC (2001) is 2.4%

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40

Percent Met in MP (Lys > 6.50 of MP)

Milk

pro

tein

co

nte

nt

res

po

ns

es

, (g

/10

0 g

) 2.4

The optimum amount of lysine in MP according to NRC (2001) is 7.2%

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

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

Percent Lys in MP (Met > 1.95 of MP)

Milk

pro

tein

co

nte

nt

resp

on

ses,

g/1

00 g

7.2

Significance of the NRC 2001 MP-Lys and MP-Met Plots

• Plots were generated to, “…determine the requirements for Lys and Met in MP…when the NRC model is used.”

• Optimal concentrations imply gram requirements for both MP-Lys and MP-Met

• Considering MP-Lys and MP-Met supplies as “first limiting” has important ramifications for the concepts of CP, RUP and MP

– Production of milk and milk components is limited first by the supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met

– The efficacy of dietary CP, RUP and MP as requirements and formulation targets is dependent upon the their content of MP-Lys and MP-Met

– Until the concentrations of Lys and Met in MP reach the optimal levels illustrated in the plots concentrations of other EAA are not limiting production of milk and milk components

– If supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met can be directly and accurately constrained, then CP, RUP and MP become background values rather than formulation targets

– Because of its role in supplying AA, Peptides and Nitrogen for rumen microbial propagation, RDP remains an essential formulation target

(Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg 81-85)

Extending the NRC Model

• In 2003 and 2004 Schwab et al. performed work to “…extend the NRC model to predict changes in lactation from changes in supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met.”

• Over 300 diets from experiments published in the Journal of Dairy Science were entered into the NRC (2001) Model

• Relevant data from the Summary and Duodenal Amino Acid Supply Reports were recorded, evaluated and analyzed

– “…in all cases (for MP, MP-Met, and MP-Lys), it appears that protein yields can be predicted more accurately than milk yields.”

– “…predicting yields of milk and milk protein from intestinal supplies of the most limiting AA is more precise than predicting yields from MP supply.”

– “…while the current data is too limited and not adequate for this exercise, it appears that a very strong relationship exists between milk and milk protein yield and predicted MP-Lys supplies.”

Amino Acid Balancing in the Context of MP and RUP RequirementsSchwab, Ordway and Whitehouse UNH – 2004 Florida Nutrition Conference

Plots of measured milk and protein yields vs. NRC (2001) predicted flows of MP–Met

y = -0.0226x2 + 2.7383x - 40.796

R2 = 0.76

10

20

30

40

50

20 30 40 50 60

MP - Met, g/d

y = -0.0226x2 + 2.7383x - 40.796

R2 = 0.76

10

20

30

40

50

20 30 40 50 60

MP - Met, g/d

y = -0.3497x2 + 55.631x - 732.68

R2 = 0.81

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

20 30 40 50 60

MP - Met, g/d

y = -0.3497x2 + 55.631x - 732.68

R2 = 0.81

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

20 30 40 50 60

MP - Met, g/d

Chuck Schwab University of New Hampshire, USA

Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition MeetingRio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV

April 15, 2009

Lys:Met >3.0:1, MP more limiting than energy, and MP balance between –250 g and +100 g (n = 98)

NRC Predictive Reliability

The yield equations for milk and milk protein for MP-Met developed from these plots of measured data are implemented in the Calculator.

Plots of measured milk and protein yields vs. NRC (2001) predicted flows of MP–Lys

y = -0.0013x2 + 0.6174x - 26.37

R2 = 0.90

10

20

30

40

50

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

MP - Lys, g/d

y = -0.0013x2 + 0.6174x - 26.37

R2 = 0.90

10

20

30

40

50

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

MP - Lys, g/d

Lys:Met <3.2:1, MP more limiting than energy, and MP balance between –250 g and +100 g (n = 28)

y = -0.0195x2 + 13.098x - 457.31

R2 = 0.92

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

MP - Lys, g/d

y = -0.0195x2 + 13.098x - 457.31

R2 = 0.92

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

MP - Lys, g/d



April 15, 2009


The yield equations for milk and milk protein for MP-Lys developed from these plots of measured data are implemented in the Calculator.

Implementing the Schwab et al. MP-Lys & MP-Met Plots

Applying AA Concepts in Commercial Production Settings

• AA balancing is not just for “exceptional” herds• However, a reasonably good management foundation is required• We’ll review a herd initially found with significant nutritional and

management issues• This herd is two years into “recovery” with one year on AA balancing

Herd #1 Historical SummaryHerd Overview

• Herd Size 1500 +• Milking 2X• Avg. DIM 200• Herd avg. Actual Milk 57.8• Milk flow – same per. 2yr avg. -14.0%• Herd avg. FCM Milk 57.9• Herd avg. Fat% 3.52• Herd avg. Fat lbs 2.03• Milk fat production – same per. 2yr avg. -12.0%• Herd avg. Protein% 3.19• Herd avg. Protein lbs 1.83• Herd avg. SNF% 8.52• Herd avg. SNF lbs 4.92• SNF production N/A• Calving Interval 14.5 Months• Avg. Days Open 144 - 165• SCC 306,000 – 472,000• Services/Conception 3.18 – 3.61• BCS – Fresh/Early Lactation 1.5 – 2.5• Grouping/Feeding Scheme

Fresh diet

Milk Cow diet

Heifer diet

Herd #1 Historical Summary

Feedstuffs Used in Original Diets

• Alfalfa Hay (High CP/Low NDF)• Dry Cow Hay• Wheat Straw• Almond Hulls• Citrus Pulp• Rolled Barley• Rolled Corn• Wheat Millrun• Whole Cottonseed (Ammoniated)• Liquid Mineral/Vitamin (NPN)• Protected Fat• Sodium Bicarb• Yeast


Milk Cow Diet Composition


Milk Cow Diet – RDP,RUP and MP


Milk Cow Diet – NE(L) and MP Allowable Milk

Primary imbalance28.5 lb gap between NE(l) and MP allowable milk

Herd #1 Historical SummaryNRC Diet Evaluations – Milk Cow Diet

– Milk target lbs 90.00– Butterfat %DM 3.50– True protein %DM 3.20– Lactose %DM 4.85– Formulated DMI lbs 54.23– Concentrates %DM 61.10– Energy density Mcals/DMI .69– CP %DM 16.16 – NE(l) allowable milk lbs 84.16– MP allowable milk lbs 55.62– fNDF 15.64– NFC 39.29– RDP %DM 12.54– RDP %CP 78.00– RUP %CP 22.00– RDP balance g +717– MP balance g -745

Dietary RDP SuppliesWhat Are the Implications?

Diet RDP balance %NRC Req. Lbs MP Milk

• Fresh diet +850 g 141.0% 48.21

• Milk Cow diet +717 g 130.0% 55.62

• Milking Heifer diet+648 g 131.0% 47.26

Do these excesses in RDP supply have any impact on the these diets in terms of

predicted MP allowable milk?

Dietary RDP SuppliesWhat Are the Implications?

MUN Scale 4-20

MUN Scale 4-29

RDP Balance of Consumed Diets as Predicted by NRC (2001)

(UNH Boucher et al.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

RD

P b

ala

nc

e, %

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9

urea, % of diet DM


This work was done at UNH by Boucher et al. and serves to illustrate the reliability of the NRC predictive mechanism for RDP requirements and microbial yield.

Dietary RDP was manipulated with the addition of Urea at four different levels of from 0.0%DM to 0.9% DM.

RDP levels in the graph to the right are expressed as a percentage of the NRC predicted RDP requirement ranging from 92% of the NRC requirement to 117% of requirement.



April 15, 2009

Average Rumen Ammonia N Concentrations(UNH Boucher et al.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9

urea, % of diet DM

Am

mo

nia

N, m

g/d

l

quadratic, P < 0.05


This graph illustrates the measured Rumen Ammonia N concentrations at the different percentages of NRC predicted RDP requirement.

Note that when RDP balance exceeded 109% of the NRC requirement, Ammonia N concentrations spiked significantly indicating that RDP much above the NRC requirement did not produce increased microbial yield.



April 15, 2009

Flow of Microbial N to the Duodenum(UNH Boucher et al.)


Measured flows of Microbial N to the duodenum confirm the efficacy of the NRC predictive mechanism for both RDP requirements and microbial yield.

Measured MCP yield was greatest when RDP was closest to 100% of the NRC predicted RDP requirement.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9

urea, % of diet DM

Mic

rob

ial N

, g/d

quadratic, P < 0.05



April 15, 2009

Dietary RDP SuppliesWhat Are the MP Implications?

Diet RDP balance %NRC Req. Lbs MP Milk

• Fresh diet +850 g 141.0% 48.21• Milk Cow diet +717 g 130.0% 55.62• Milking Heifer diet+648 g 131.0% 47.26

This excessive over-supply of RDP in all diets will negatively impact the predicted supplies of MP further reducing MP allowable milk in all diets. Additionally, a substantial energy cost is incurred by the animals.

Expected Lactation Curve withSignificantly Deficient MP Supply

Lactation Curve Worksheet

Avg DIM/ Avg FCM20057.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days In Milk

Lb

s o

f F

CM

“With regard to cell turnover, our results…at 8 wk postpartum indicate that epithelial cell proliferation was considerably lower in cows fed the low energy diet compared with cows fed the high energy diet whereas epithelial cell apoptosis did not differ. Thus our data indicate that the cell number of the mammary glad accommodates to nutrient availability, i.e., a decrease in nutrient availability will lead to a decrease in the number of cells.” *

* “Mammary Cell Turnover and Enzyme Activity in Dairy Cows: Effects of Milking Frequency and Diet Energy Density” Norgaard, Sorensen, Sorensen, Andersen and Sejrsen 2005 – J. Dairy Sci. 88 975-982

“It is believed that the number or secretory cells in the mammary gland, as determined by the balance between cell proliferation and apoptosis, and the secretory activity of these cells determine milk yield and lactation persistency (Knight 2000).” *

“(at 8 wk postpartum)…only 8.6% of the cell proliferation…compared to cows on the high energy diet.” *

The Impact of Good Persistency After Peak Milk

Lactation Curve Worksheet

Avg DIM/ Avg FCM20073.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days In Milk

Lb

s o

f F

CM

+ 16.0 lbs of milk at the same DIM

Herd #1 First Year Approach

Primary Initial Objectives

• Immediately address MP shortages• Immediately reduce RDP to levels appropriate for NRC RDP requirements• Move toward more acceptable dietary fNDF content• Review existing feed inventory and contracts• Implement feeds capable of supplying greater levels of dietary MP• Make a complete review of management protocols and practices• Prepare monthly published herd assessments and meet regularly with the

producer, veterinarian, herdsman and breeder to facilitate identifying and addressing issues

• Resolve significant issues in preparation for more precise diet formulation

Herd #1 Significant Management Issues

Herd avg. SCC in March 2008 469,000

Fresh Pen

A.I. Pens


Whole Herd SCC Changes Mar 2008-Oct 2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

(Th

ou

san

ds)

SCC 469 361 301 351 423 233 269 241 210 275 246 267 213 203 182 156 109 152 173 139

Mar 2008

Apr 2008

May 2008

Jun 2008

Jul 2008

Aug 2008

Sep 2008

Oct 2008

Nov 2008

Dec 2008

Jan 2009

Feb 2009

Mar 2009

Apr 2009

May 2009

Jun 2009

Jul 2009

Aug 2009

Sep 2009

Oct 2009

October 2009 County avg. SCC 228,000October 2009 Herd #1 SCC 139,000

Point at which action was taken

Departure of “Non-Compliant” milkers


An Except from a Nutrient Dollar Allocation Study performed in 2008

An Alternative Approach to FeedingThe purpose of working with the production information we copied form Dairy Comp last month was to illustrate with actual numbers and diets the difference between how the current feeding program is being managed on the farm and an alternative approach that would better match nutrient dollars with nutrient needs.

Let’s start with the bottom line - $16,000.00 per month or approximately $200,000.00 per year. The alternative approach that will be outlined below can reduce feed costs by $16,000.00 per month by focusing on appropriately matching nutrient dollars with nutrient needs as the highestpriority. As on farm feeding program management is currently being approached, appropriately matching nutrient dollars with nutrient needs is at the bottom of the priority list.

Consider the following points:

1. Corn silage was included in the feeding program last October. The diet that was formulated for use with Corn silage was intended only for high producing animals after leaving the fresh diet. As discussed above, the diet was formulated to address the nutrient needs of animals producing beyond the capacity to meet nutrient needs from DMI.

2. Currently, the only mature animals NOT receiving the High TMR are the animals in pen 1. Approximately 270 of the animals receiving the High TMR do NOT need it.

3. The production sort of the alternative feeding approach placed animals in feeding groups with the following production limits.

2+ Animals Milking HeifersFCM equal to or greater than 95.0 FCM Equal to or greater than 70.0FCM from 75.0 to 94.0 FCM Below 70.0FCM from 60.0 to 74.0FCM below 60.0

The addition of the new diets along with the re-assignment of animals to diets based on nutrient needs produces a monthly feed cost savings of $16,000.00.This brief written description along with the accompanying recap sheets serve as an introduction to this approach and will hopefully provide a basis for further discussion.

Determining How Well Nutrient Dollars are Matched with Nutrient Needs

Herd #1 Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance

Stage One Milk Cow Diet


No significant disparity

Stage One Milk Cow Diet


Stage One Milk Cow Diet DEAA SuppliesOriginal Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies

AA Supply Changes

Lys/Met Ratio3.52 to 3.33

MP-Lys Original Diet 142 g

Stage One Diet 171 g+ 28 g

MP-Met Original Diet 40 g

Stage One Diet 51 g+ 11 g


NRC Diet Evaluations – Milk Cow Diet

– Milk target lbs 90.00– Butterfat %DM 3.50– True protein %DM 3.20– Lactose %DM 4.85– Formulated DMI lbs 54.29– Concentrates %DM 57.00– Energy density Mcals/DMI .725– CP %DM 17.98– NE(l) allowable milk lbs 90.60– MP allowable milk lbs 90.00– fNDF 19.00– NFC 38.58– RDP %DM 11.17– RDP %CP 62.00– RUP %CP 38.00– RDP balance g +317– MP balance g 0.00

Herd #1 Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance

Using the MP-AA Calculator

Acquire/Enter Milk and Protein formulation targets

Solve for MP-Lys & MP-Mettarget values

Recalculate MP req. by enteringMP% of base MP-AA

Adjust model prediction of MCP yield

Herd #1 Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance

Stage Two Milk Cow Diet


Stage Two Milk Cow Diet DEAA SuppliesStage One Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies

AA Supply Changes

Lys/Met Ratio3.33 to 3.00

MP-Lys Stage One Diet 171 gStage Two Diet 180 g

+ 9 g

MP-Met Stage One Diet 51 gStage Two Diet 60 g

+ 9 g

+37 g more than original diet

+20 g more than original diet

Herd #1 Yearly ComparisonMilk Protein Percentages

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

Weeks of period Oct 1st through December 31st

Milk

Pro

ein

%

Prot% Oct-Dec 2007 3.25 3.27 3.29 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.2 3.23 3.26 3.28 3.25 3.21

Prot% Oct-Dec 2008 3.18 3.28 3.3 3.31 3.31 3.35 3.35 3.34 3.33 3.34 3.37 3.4

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

Herd #1 Yearly ComparisonMilk Protein Yields as lbs

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50


Milk

Pro

t Y

ield

as

lbs

Milk Prot Yield Oct-Dec 2007 2.02 2.01 2.05 1.92 2.00 2.01 1.93 2.04 2.06 2.14 2.18 2.22

Milk Prot Yield Oct-Dec 2008 2.16 2.30 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.38 2.33 2.34 2.25 2.29 2.36 2.41

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

Herd #1 Yearly ComparisonSolids Non-Fat Percentages

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.9

9


SN

F%

Total SNF% Oct-Dec 2007 8.57 8.61 8.63 8.5 8.56 8.53 8.51 8.55 8.59 8.61 8.61 8.58

Total SNF% Oct-Dec 2008 8.53 8.66 8.7 8.71 8.73 8.77 8.78 8.78 8.72 8.73 8.83 8.85

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

Herd #1 Yearly ComparisonSolids Non-Fat Yield as lbs

4.50

4.70

4.90

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50


SN

F Y

ield

as

lbs

SNF Yield Oct-Dec 2007 5.31 5.30 5.39 5.04 5.31 5.31 5.13 5.40 5.43 5.61 5.79 5.94

SNF Yield Oct-Dec 2008 5.78 6.07 6.22 6.20 6.22 6.23 6.12 6.16 5.89 6.00 6.19 6.27

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

Herd #1 Yearly ComparisonMilk Fat Percentages

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4


Milk

Fa

t%

Milk Fat% Oct- Dec 2007 3.56 3.66 3.72 3.71 3.71 3.73 3.78 3.75 3.79 3.76 3.74 3.73

Milk Fat% Oct-Dec 2008 3.36 3.37 3.43 3.49 3.48 3.52 3.57 3.61 3.63 3.63 3.68 3.77

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

Herd #1 Yearly ComparisonMilk Fat Yield as lbs

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80


Milk

Fa

t Y

ield

as

lbs

Milk Fat Yield Oct-Dec 2007 2.21 2.25 2.32 2.20 2.30 2.32 2.28 2.37 2.40 2.45 2.51 2.58

Milk Fat Yield Oct-Dec 2008 2.28 2.36 2.45 2.48 2.48 2.50 2.49 2.53 2.45 2.49 2.58 2.67

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

Herd Overview

• Herd Size 1500 + 1500 +• Milking 2X 2X• Avg. DIM 200 180• Herd avg. Actual Milk 57.8 70.0• Herd avg. FCM Milk 57.9 70.5• Herd avg. Fat% 3.52 3.55• Herd avg. Fat lbs 2.03 2.48• Herd avg. Protein% 3.19 3.31• Herd avg. Protein lbs 1.83 2.33• Herd avg. SNF% 8.52 8.73• Herd avg. SNF lbs 4.92 6.11• Calving Interval 14.5 Months 13.4 Months• Avg. Days Open 144 – 165 128 – 131• SCC (thousands) 306 – 472 139 – 173• Services/Conception 3.18 – 3.61 2.42 – 2.61• BCS – Fresh/Early Lactation 1.5 – 2.5 2.75 – 3.0 • Grouping/Feeding Scheme

Fresh diet Fresh dietMilk Cow diet High

dietHeifer diet Mid diet

Low dietHigh heifer dietLow heifer diet

Herd #1 Summary of Changes

Herd #1 Summary of ChangesWas It Worth It?

You be the judge

These values represent income changes over initial milk and milk component production. Values were calculated with CA November 2009 Class 1 prices shown at the left for Fat, SNF and Fluid milk.

(The stage one values shown at the post-conference workshop were inadvertently calculated from monthly averages from 09-2007 to 09-2008 rather than the stage one period from Oct1st through Dec 31st 2007. The corrected stage one values are used here.)

Greatest ROFC

Greatest ROFC

Added value of components + $.74 CWT

Evaluating ROFC & The Value of Milk Components(Calculated using CA November Class 1 Milk Price $15.31 Cwt Fat=$1.33 SNF=$.9033 Fluid=$.0291)

Highest feedCost hd/day

2+ Animal pens

Heifer pens

Comparison of Income Changes Between Stages 1 & 2 Using Northeast FMMO Pricing and Corrected Stage 1 Values

Take Home Messages

Predictive Reliability is essential to realizing positive results from balancing for AA

The NRC 2001 model provides a high degree of predictive reliability

Use the NRC model to evaluate not only diets but also diet implementation and resolve any management issues that can hinder realizing predicted response

Educate producers to understand the financial impact of poor management practices and the potential rewards available with changes

Take Home Messages

Formulate2 Dairy Ration OptimizerFormulate2 Dairy Ration OptimizerNRC 2001 CompliantNRC 2001 Compliant

NRC Predictive Reliability with Full Optimization CapabilityNRC Predictive Reliability with Full Optimization Capability

Information and 60 day evaluation downloads available at Information and 60 day evaluation downloads available at

http://www.formulate2.comhttp://www.formulate2.com

An Approach to AA Balancing Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and...

Documents

Transcript of An Approach to AA Balancing Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine and...