2/24/2015

1

SHREDLAGE – WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

Dr. L. E. Chase

Dept. of Animal Science

Cornell University

My Initial Reaction - 2011

• If the only thing shredlage does is let us decrease the amount of dry hay or chopped straw in dairy rations in New York that alone would be worth significant dollars to a dairy producer.

• If we can also improve fiber and starch digestibility in the cow that would add to the value of shredlage.

2/24/2015

2

Cornell Shredlage Trial

• Used conventional corn silage hybrids in a number of fields.

• Used 2 Claas harvesters running side by side in the field at the same time.

• One had the shredlage head while to other had the KP head.

• Filled 2 (50 by 12 by 150 foot) bunker silos at the same time.

• Used the Penn State box and the Pioneer cup to make harvester adjustments.

• Silage was stored for about 8 months before feeding.

2/24/2015

3

Packing Density

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Shredlage KP

Lb

s./c

ub

ic f

oo

t

Wet

DM

Silage Composition

Item Shredlage KP

DM, % 32.1 30.7

CP, % 7.34 7.9

NDF, % 41.7 44.1

NDFD – 30 hours, %

57.1 56.6

Starch, % 33.5 30.7

7-hour starch digestibility, %

81.7 76.8

CSPS 59.5 50.7

Samples taken during feed out

2/24/2015

4

Silage Particle Size, % on Screen

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Top Screen 2 Screen 3 Pan

Shredlage

KP

2/24/2015

5

KP Shredlage HCS

Animal Trial

• Pen study using 4 pens, 32 cows/pen.

• Mid-lactation cows.

• All cows fed a common KP corn silage as a baseline period for covariate analysis.

• Each treatment period was 4 weeks in length.

• Each pen went through 3 treatment periods.

• All pens were fed either shredlage or KP based TMR’s during the trial.

• Data collected during the last week of the 4 week period.

2/24/2015

6

Ration Composition, % of DM

Feed Shredlage TMR

KP TMR

Shredlage corn silage

50

KP corn silage 50

Alfalfa silage 14 14

Corn grain 9 9

Protein mix 27 27

Results

• There were no significant differences in dry matter intake, milk production, milk composition or feed efficiency.

• Average milk was 90 lbs./cow per.

• Milk fat = 3.7%, milk true protein = 3%.

• Fecal starch was not different between treatments (1-2%).

• Total tract starch digestibility was similar between treatments (96 – 98%).

• Total tract NDFD still being analyzed.

2/24/2015

7

What Do We Hear?

• 1. Corn silage processing score –- How much variability due to sampling?- One consultant took 10 samples from the

same pile and the range in CSPS was 4-6 units.- Corn silage is a difficult crop to sample.- CSPS is an “after the fact” measure.- Need to do a better job during harvest to

influence CSPS.

What Do We Hear?

• Corn silage processing score -- Variation between fields, etc. on the same farm and

using the same harvester ranged between 38.6 and 59.3 in 10 samples.

- This farm attempted to monitor and change settings based on the Penn State box and the Pioneer cup.

- A consultant indicated that CSPS was 60-70% on 1 farm (A) and 40-50% on another farm (B) using the same custom harvester.

- Farm A had people that spent time evaluating the corn silage being harvested and adjusting the settings.

- Farm B didn’t spend much time doing this.

2/24/2015

8

Industry Makes Advances in Corn Silage Processing (CVAS Data, 2006 to 2013)

Crop Year Number AveragePercent

OptimumPercent

Poor

2006 97 52.8 8.2 43.3

2007 272 52.3 9.2 37.9

2008 250 54.6 5.2 34.8

2009 244 51.1 6.1 48.0

2010 373 51.4 5.9 43.4

2011 726 55.5 12.3 33.1

2012 871 60.8 14.8 19.9

2013 2658 64.6 36.0 12.9

Question

• During harvest, who should be doing the monitoring for particle size and kernel damage and indicating what adjustments need to be made?

• What is the best way to do this?

• If we don’t get it right during harvest, then we will have to live with the results for the next year!

2/24/2015

9

Particle Size

• What is the “best” corn silage particle size to shoot for?

• The trend seems to be going a little shorter than the original guidelines.

• May depend on how much corn silage is in the ration and what other forages are used.

Particle Size Example:

• 2 herds owned by the same family.

• 1 herd feeds a high CS ration and used a chop length of 26-28 mm.

• The other herd feeds a high haylage ration and used a chop length of 22 mm.

• Source: Corwin Holtz – Holtz-Nelson Consulting -2014

2/24/2015

10

SHREDLAGE ® Harvesting Recommendations (fermented)

Forage Moisture in %

TLC (mm)Shredlage® Brand Processor 

Settings (mm)

70 26‐302.75

69 26‐302.75

68 26‐302.50

67 26‐302.50

66 26‐302.50

65 26‐302.25

64 262.25

63 262.00

62 232.00

61 231.75 

60 231.75

*Caution: the Shredlage® brand processor will be set at 4 mm from the factory. *BMR needs to be set about 1/2 mm closer than the chart.

Harvest Conditions Will Require a Variation in Settings.

Shaker Box Results

• 30 MM TLC 35-45-19-1

• 22 MM TLC 18-58-22-2

• 17 MM TLC 9-71-18-2

• Conventional KP 8-60-30-2

Source: Michelle Woodman – Landmark Services Cooperative – 2014

2/24/2015

11

30 Millimeter SHREDLAGE ®

60% moistureShaker Box= 35-45-19-1

Source: Michelle Woodman – Landmark Services Cooperative - 2014

Along comes shredlage!

• What does shredlage mean to me as a nutritionist?• Greater amount of rumen available/fermentable starch from

corn silage• Allow me to run total starch level in diets at a lower level• Allow me to get more of my desired ruminal starch from home

grown corn silage• Allow me to decrease need for “non-nutritional” effective fiber

sources (straw, mature grass hay, etc.) – they take up DM space and don’t give me any nutrition• Can replace it with either more nutritive value corn silage (again,

decrease starch from grain) and/or more nutritive value haylage

• What does it mean to my clients• All of the above (more starch & peNDF Fiber from Corn silage,

less purchased starch)• More LBS/cu FT of bunk density (seeing 1-2 more lbs/cu ft of

DM density, 16-18 lbs/cu ft 17-19 lbs/cu ft)

2/24/2015

12

What Do We Hear?

• Can often decrease the quantity of corn grain fed by 1 – 2 lbs. since more digestible starch is from the corn silage.

• Provides an option to lower the amount of dry hay or straw used in rations.

• Can feed more corn silage in rations if NDFD is higher.

• There are still some questions on bunk density and NDFD.

• Is the extra cost of the shredlage unit worth it?

• If the corn silage gets drier, will the cows sort against the longer shredlage particles?

• How much more will custom harvesters charge?

Comment from a Nutrition Consultant

• To date, it has been very difficult to show animal performance responses in commercial herds.

• This is holding some people back from adopting or using shredlage.

• “Best estimate” of results in 3 herds using he same consultant:

- About 2 lbs. more milk.- 1 lb. less corn meal, lower ration starch.

• Corwin Holtz – Holtz-Nelson Consultants - 2015

2/24/2015

13

Take Home Points

• Shredlage appears to offer the potential to improve the fiber and starch digestibility in corn silage.

• A key concern is how (and who) to monitor the harvester settings during harvest so that changes can be made.

• Even though milk production responses are mixed, it does seem to offer opportunities to lower ration cost.

• Additional information is needed on the particle size guidelines.

• As with many new technologies, it will find it’s place in the next few years.

2/24/2015

14

Thanks!