Feeding Strategies To Achieve High Money Corrected Milk

Kevin Harvatine, Ph.D.Associate Professor of Nutritional Physiology

Penn State Universitykjh182@psu.edu

GPSConsultingNovember15th,2017

Milk fat is a big contributor to cash flow ($/hd/d @80 lb of 3.7 fat & 3.05 protein)

02468

101214

Milk

Val

ue, $

/hd/

d

Date

FatProteinOther solids

Milk fat is valuable $$

Value of 0.1 units of milk fat at $2.42/lb$/yr

Cows 65lb/d 80lb/d 95lb/d1 $57 $71 $84100 $5,741 $7,065 $8,3901000 $57,406 $70,653 $83,9009million $517million $636million $755million

Dr.NormandSt.Pierrewouldargueisalsothemostprofitablecomponentbecauseofcheaper

nutrientsrequiredtomakeit!

• ”Good”trans-11fattyacidsandconjugatedlinoleicacid

• OddandbranchchainFAofmicrobialorigin

• “Milkfatglobularmembraneproteins”

Milk fat has value to consumers!

Over400differentfattyacids

• Taste!

• Nolonger“bad”fat

• “Natural”for“clean”labels

• Stableandgoodmanufacturingcharacteristics

Many potential bioactive nutrients

What is milk fat?• - Lipid droplet coated with phospholipids

and “Milk fat globular membrane proteins”

-Two sources: De novo and Preformed

4:0 6:0 10:0 12:0 14:0 16:0 16:1 18:0 18:1 18:2

De novo synthesis Preformed

1. Setyourgoal• Seasonalpattern• Genetics

2. Balancethediet• Unsaturatedfat

• Fermentability• Acetatesupply

• Palmiticacid• Additives

3. Managethefeedingsystem• Reduceslugfeeding

What should you be thinking about

What should milk fat concentration be?

Based on 222,468 DHIA test days from PA, MN, TX, and FL from 2010 to 2016

1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.8Milk Fat Percent

Average 3.7531% < 3.6%11.6 < 3.4%

Inhibitedbymilkfatdepression- Unsaturatedfat- Fermentability- Acidosis- Feedingstrategies- Ionophores

Increasebyadditionalsubstrate- Acetate- Palmiticacid

NutritionalFactors Non-nutritionalFactors

Milkfat

Milkfatisaffectedbymanyfactors

Diet-InducedMilkFatDepression

(MFD)

=Specificinhibitionofmilkfatbybioactive

fattyacids

Genetics

Season

Stageoflactation

Parity

MilkfatisthemostheritableproductiontraitandDGAT1SNPexplainsalargepartofthegenetic

variation

Bovenhuis et al. 2015. JDS 98:6572-6582

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 98 N

o. 9, 2015

DGAT1 PO

LYMO

RPH

ISM EFFEC

TS ON

MILK PR

OD

UC

TION

6577

Figure 1. Estimates for DGAT1 (AA, AK, and KK genotypes) by lactation stage interaction for parity 1 cows for milk, fat, and protein yields (in kilograms), fat, protein, and lactose percentages, SCS, and total energy output in milk (TEM, in MJ) and the significance of the effect of DGAT1 and DGAT1 by stage of lactation interaction (DGAT1 × Lact). Color version available online.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 98 N

o. 9, 2015

DGAT1 PO

LYMO

RPH

ISM EFFEC

TS ON

MILK PR

OD

UC

TION

6577

Figure 1. Estimates for DGAT1 (AA, AK, and KK genotypes) by lactation stage interaction for parity 1 cows for milk, fat, and protein yields (in kilograms), fat, protein, and lactose percentages, SCS, and total energy output in milk (TEM, in MJ) and the significance of the effect of DGAT1 and DGAT1 by stage of lactation interaction (DGAT1 × Lact). Color version available online.

Journal of Dairy S

cience Vol. 98 No. 9, 2015

DGAT1 P

OLY

MO

RP

HIS

M E

FFEC

TS O

N M

ILK P

RO

DU

CTIO

N6577

Figure 1. Estimates for DGAT1 (AA, AK, and KK genotypes) by lactation stage interaction for parity 1 cows for milk, fat, and protein yields (in kilograms), fat, protein, and lactose percentages, SCS, and total energy output in milk (TEM, in MJ) and the significance of the effect of DGAT1 and DGAT1 by stage of lactation interaction (DGAT1 × Lact). Color version available online.

PTAFatgivesanindicationofgeneticpotential

Bicalho et al. 2014. Theriogenology. 81:257-265

Milk

Fat

Per

cent

There is a seasonal pattern of milk fat & protein: Mid East US Milk Market

Fat

Protein

~0.25Units

~0.20Units

Occursinallmilkmarkets

State Mean Amplitude Peak Rhythm Fit*MN 2.19 0.116a Feb 21a < 0.0001PA 2.18 0.138b Feb 24b < 0.0001

There is also a seasonal rhythm in milk fat YIELD

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fat,

lbs

Month

FL Fit MN Fit PA Fit TX Fit

Salfer et al. ADSA 2017

Lets talk about nutrition: Milk fat can be decreased by

Diet-Induced Milk Fat Depression (MFD)• Bioactive fatty acids are made in the rumen that decrease milk fat were

identified 20 years ago

• Diet and management risk factors result in a change in the rumen microbes that produces these bioactive “trans-10” FA intermediates

• Up to a 50% reduction in milk fat

• Specific decrease in lipid synthesis in the mammary gland

• Greater decrease in fatty acids made by the mammary gland (de novo)

This is a very common cause of reduced milk fat yield, but is not meant to explain every change in milk fat!!!

linoleic acid( cis -9, cis - 12C 18:2 )

rumenic( cis -9, trans - 11CLA)

linoleic acid( cis -9, cis - 12C 18:2 )

acid( cis -9, trans - 11CLA)

(trans- 11C 18:1

stearic acid(C 18:0 )

Unsaturatedfattyacidsare“biohydrogenated”intherumen,butthepathwaydependsonthe

microbespresent

GriinariandBauman,1999

vaccenicacid)

stearic acid(C )

AlternateCLAisomers

trans - C isomers

stearic acid(C 18:0)

Alteredpathways

18:1

trans-10,cis-12CLA

trans-10C18:1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Control

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Day

MilkFat(%

)

Infusion

cis-9,trans-11CLA

trans-10,cis-12CLA

Baumgard etal.,2000

ThemammaryglandisacutelyresponsivetobioactiveCLAisomers

WeknowthisbioactiveFAdecreasesspecifictranscriptionfactorsinthemammaryglandthatregulatemilkfatsynthesis

RiskfactorscauseBH-inducedmilkfatdepression

- Rarelyislowmilkfatcausedbyasinglefactoronafarm

- Wecan’teliminatealltheriskfactors

- Wedon’twanttoeliminatealltheriskfactors!!!

RiskFactorsfor“Diet-InducedMFD”• Dietaryfattyacidlevelandprofile• Availabilityoffattyacids• Rumenmodifiers- ionophore• Ruminalacidosis• Dietarycarbohydrateprofile• Rateandextentoffermentation• Effectivefiber• Ruminal Nbalance• Feedingstrategies/management• Silagefermentation/quality• Foragetypes• Individualcoweffect(levelofintakeetc)

RUFAL: Rumen Unsaturated Fatty Acid Load (but C18:2 most important)

High producing cows normally most susceptible

ThereisaContinuumFrom“High”to“Low”MilkFat

MaximalMilkFat

VeryLowMilkFat

trans-10,cis-12CLAcis-9,trans-11CLA

Eachherdandeachcowissomewhereonthiscontinuum!!

Can fatty acids be used to troubleshoot milk fat problems?

Milk trans-10 18:1 & MILK FAT %

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

Milk

Fat

, %

Trans-10 C18:1

Literature Equation

Harvatine, unpublishedN = 497

trans-10C18:10.3to0.5%=normalfat0.6to1.0%=3.2to3.5%fat>1%=<3.2%fat

AlsoexpectdecreaseindenovosynthesizedFA

§ WhenMFDoccurs………whendidtheproblemoriginate?

§ Whencorrectingthediet……whendoweexpecttoseeimprovements???

Whatisthetime-courseofinductionofandrecoveryfromdiet-inducedmilkfatdepression?

Diet-inducedMFDoccursin7to10d

RicoandHarvatine,2013

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

cis-9,tran

s-11CLA

,%ofFA

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21tran

s-10,cis-12CLA

,%ofFA

Time,d

*

*

NormalPathwaycis-9,trans-11CLA

Alternative Pathwaytrans-10, cis-12 CLA

Recovery from diet-induced MFD takes 14 to 18 d, but moving up in 7 to 10 d

RicoandHarvatine,2013 Time,d

Alternative Pathwaytrans-10, cis-12 CLA

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35

0 4 8 12 20

Fung

i,%oftotal

bacteria

Control Induction Recovery

RI

PvalueTrt <0.001Trtxtime <0.001SEM 1.18

Total Fungi

Time,dI, R = P < 0.05

Rapid changes in rumen microbes during diet-induced MFD

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2

0 4 8 12 20

F.su

ccinog

enes,%

of

bacteria

Control Induction Recovery

RI

Fibrobactersuccinogenes

(Fibrolytic)Pvalue

Trt <0.001Trtxtime <0.001SEM 0.13

Rico et al. Bri. J. Nutr. 2015

Milkfatdepressionincreasesasmilkyieldincreases:900cowherdwithMFD

1234567

Fat%

Frequency Milk Yield, lb

1234567

40 60 80 120 160Milk

Fat%

OverallMean=3.24%<75lbs =3.8%75to95lbs =3.2%>95=2.9%

PvalueTrt <0.01Level <0.01Trtxlevel <0.05SE 0.232.5

2.72.93.13.33.53.73.9

High Low

Milkfa

t,%

Control PA Ca-salts

2

Convs.PA,1=P<0.05;1†=P<0.1PAvs Cal-salts,2=P<0.05;2†=P<0.1

Milkfatconcentration

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

High Low

tran

s-10

C18

:1,%

ofFA

Control PA Ca-salts2

AlternativePathwaytrans-10C18:1

PvalueTrt <0.001Level <0.001Trtxlevel <0.001SE 0.18

92lbs 64lbs

1. Amount of unsaturated fatty acids- Fatty acid concentration and profile- 18:2 more important than 18:1 and 18:3- Grain and oilseeds generally high in 18:2 and forages high in 18:3

2. Rate of availability of the fatty acids- Cottonseed vs distillers grains with solubles

Unsaturated fatty acids are a big risk factor

Why are high corn silage diets higher risk for diet-induced milk fat depression??- More rapidly fermented starch?- Lower effective fiber?- Difference in fiber digestibility/rates?

- Level and rate of C18:2 availability??- Low in fat, but cows eat a large amount

- Corn genetics is more important than environment

67 Corn Silages from Two Test Plots (2013)

~60 to 90 g/d difference in C18:2 intake just in the corn silage

0.60.81

1.21.41.61.8

100.0% maximum 1.84229Quantiles

C18:2

90.0%75.0%50.0%25.0%10.0%2.5%

quartilemedianquartile

1.603841.40941.21671.09540.935760.73546

(% DM) FA (% DM) (% FA)

OilseedsFAprofilehasbeenmodifiedbyselection

Feedstuff (% FA)

16:0 18:0 18:1 18:2 18:3 20:1 22:1

Rapeseed 3 1 17 13 6 10 42Canola 5 2 60 20 9 1.2 0.1Low Poly Canola 4 3 76 10 4 1.5 0.1

Soybean 11 4 23 54 8 - -High Oleic Soy 6.5 4 75 7 2.5 - -

- High oleic soybeans should be lower risk for milk fat depression!

EFFECT OF OILSEED ON MILK PROTEIN 2685

because the portal supply of these amino acids is metabo l ized to a lesser ex t en t by the liver (16). This suggests a reduc t ion in microbia l p ro te in synthesis wi th the oil conta ining diets. The concen t ra t ions of plasma b ranched chain amino acids are inversely related to the con- cen t ra t ion of Cls:l in rurnen fluid, suggesting tha t Cls:l or its precursors are inhibi t ing microbial g rowth . The effect of oil may have been min imized by feeding the whole oilseed, par t icular ly when it was roasted, t he r eby achieving a slow release o f oil f rom the seed in to the microbial env i ronment . Feeding roas ted soybeans should also have resul ted in more die tary amino acids reaching the duo- d e n u m (34). Block et al. (5) observed higher

concen t ra t ions of to ta l essential amino acids in plasma of cows fed ex t ruded soybeans than cows fed unhea ted beans.

Milk yield was no t af fec ted (P> .05) by the inclusion of free oil and whole oilseeds (Table 8). In bo th trials, milk fat percentage was decreased (P<.05) w h e n oil was included in the diet in free fo rm bu t no t as part o f a whole seed. Consequen t ly 4% FCM yield was reduced (P<.05) by feeding the free oil. The manner in which oil is suppl ied in dairy rat ions appears to de t e rmine the ef fec ts it has on milk fat test. Add i t i on of po lyunsa tu ra ted or partially hydrogena ted oil in free fo rm t ends to depress milk fat percentage (29), whereas supple- men ta t i on of whole oilseeds maintains or

TABLE 8. Milk yield and composition.

Treatment Free Whole Roasted

Item Control oil seed seed SEM

Soybean trial Milk yield, kg/d 26.2 26.8 25.7 26.9 .56 FCM yield, kg/d 24.4 c 21.9 d 24.1 c 25.2 c .60 Fat, % 3.53 a 2.75 b 3.59 a 3.59 a .09 Protein, % 3.45 a 3.27 b 3.28 b 3.21 b .05 Casein, % 2.76 a 2.57 b 2.62 b 2.57 b .04

Fatty acid, g/100 g: C14: ° 20.0 c 11.35 d 14.0 d 14.6 d 1.51 C~6: ° 39.2 c 26.9 d 29.7 d 32.1 d 1.31 C16:1 2.3 2.2 1.5 1.5 .38 C18:0 13.7 b 16.3 a 19.1 a 18.2 a 1.08 Cls: I 23.1 d 40.4 c 31.0 c 29.8 c 1.04 Cx8:2 1.53 2.48 4.27 3.78 .82 Cls: 3 1.72 a .34 b .46 b .34 b .05

Cottonseed trial Milk yield, kg/d 27.0 25.5 25.8 26.3 .63 FCM yield, kg/d 25.2 c 21.5 d 24.6 c 24.8 c .27 Fat, % 3.54 c 2.99 d 3.7 c 3.56 c .11 Protein, % 3.03 3.15 3.11 3.07 .05 Casein, % 2.48 2.43 2.53 2.47 .05

Fatty acid, g/100 g C~4:o 18.9 a 13.0 b 13.3 b 13.5 b 1.48 C~6:o 41.8 c 35.4 d 37.3 d 35.0 d 1.22 C16: ~ .7 1.1 .5 1.1 .20 Cls: 0 13.4 b 16.7 a 17.8 a 19.4 a 1.21 ClS: 1 23.0 d 31.1 c 29.2 c 28.8 c 1.44 C~s:2 2.1 2.5 1.6 2.1 .23 C1~: 3 .1 a .1 a <.1 b .1 ab .03

a'bvalues in the same row with different superscripts differ (P<.05). c'dvalues in the same row with different superscripts differ (P<.O1).

1 Grams per 100 g of C t4:0 plus C 16:0 plus C a6 :~ plus C 18:0 plus C ls:l plus C1~= plus C18:3.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 71, No. 10, 1988

Processing is important as increases rate of availability in the rumen

Mohamed et al. 1998. JDS 71:2677-2688

- Grinding oilseeds make them more like free oils.

What is effect of feeding management?1x vs 4x per day feeding

Effect PTrt <0.001Time <0.001Trt*Time <0.05

TrtDaily AVGFat%

1xFed 3.094xFed 3.35SEM 0.15

** P< 0.01; *** P< 0.001

Rottman et al. 2014

cows were fed equal amounts at 0600, 1200, 1800, and2400 h at approximately 105% of the previous days totalintake (Fig. 1A). All TMR was mixed at 0800 h, manuallycompacted into plastic barrels, and stored at ambienttemperature. Refused feed was removed before delivery ofnew feed at each feeding. All cows were milked at 0500and 1700 h from day 1 to 14 of each period (29/day)and at 0500, 1100, 1700, and 2300 h from day 15 to 21(49/day) of each period (Fig. 1A). Data from 49/daymilking are plotted at the median of the milking interval(MI) as each milking represents milk synthesis as the pre-vious milking (e.g., milk collected at 0500 h was synthe-

sized from 2300 to 0500 h and is plotted at 0200 h;Fig. 1).

Milk and feed sampling

On day 10–14 and day 18–21 of each period, milk sam-ples were collected at each milking and stored at 4°C withpreservative (Bronolab-WII; D&F Control Systems, Inc.,Dublin, CA) until analyzed for fat (Filter B) and true pro-tein using infrared spectrophotometry [Dairy One DHIA,State College, PA; Fossomatic 400; Foss Electric, Hillerød,Denmark; (AOAC 2000)]. An additional milk sample was

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400 Time of day

Daily schedule A B

C D

E F

4x Fed

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400

1x Fed

Fed

Fed

Fed

Fed

Fed

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400

Milking

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400

Mil

k y

ield

, kg

Time of day

Milk yield

1x Fed 4x Fed

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400

Mil

k f

at p

erce

nt,

%

Time of day

Fat percentage

1x Fed 4x Fed 250

300

350

400

450

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400

Mil

k f

at y

ield

, g

Time of day

Fat yield

1x Fed 4x Fed

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400

Mil

k p

rote

in, %

Time of day

Protein percentage

1x Fed 4x Fed

250

300

350

400

0000 0600 1200 1800 2400

Mil

k p

rote

in y

ield

, g

Time of day

Protein yield

1x Fed 4x Fed

**

***

**

** ** *

*** *** *** ***

Figure 1. Temporal pattern of milk yield and milk fat and protein yield and percent in cows fed once per day (19 Fed) or in four equal meals

every 6 h (49 Fed). Cows were milked every 6 h and data are plotted at the median of the milking interval (MI). (A) Illustration of the timing

of milking and feeding, (B) Milk yield (Treatment 9 Time P = 0.05; SEM = 0.42), (C) Milk fat percent (Treatment 9 Time P < 0.05;

SEM = 0.15), (D) Milk fat yield (Treatment 9 Time P = 0.06; SEM = 23), (E) Milk protein percent (Treatment 9 Time P < 0.001; SEM = 0.03),

(F) Milk protein yield (Treatment 9 Time P < 0.05; SEM = 12). Preplanned contrasts tested the effect of treatment at each milking (*P < 0.05,

**P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001). n = 17 per treatment. The black bar indicates the dark phase of the day.

ª 2014 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf ofthe American Physiological Society and The Physiological Society.

2014 | Vol. 2 | Iss. 6 | e12049Page 3

L. W. Rottman et al. Daily Rhythm of Milk Synthesis

1x4x 4x 4x 4x

Rate of feed intake is variable over the day

Yingetal.JDS2015

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030

DM

I, kg

/h

l

TimeofDay

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030

Star

ch In

take

, kg/

h

Time of Day

- Very hard to change this. - Fresh feed delivery is strong stimulus to feeding

The daily pattern of intake creates huge changes in the rumen over the day

Yingetal.JDS2015

10111213141516

0000 0600 1200 1800

Rum

en D

M P

ool,

kg

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0000 0600 1200 1800Rum

en S

tsrc

h Po

ol, k

g

Time of Day

5.65.75.85.96.06.16.26.36.4

0030 0430 0830 1230 1630 2030R

umen

pH

Time of Day

Interesting Call From the Field• One pen of cows on a large farm consistently

0.3 to 0.5 units lower in milk fat• Moved fifteen cows from the pen to another

pen and they increased milk fat• Normal MFD troubleshooting did not help• Cows being fed later in the day (11:30 AM)• Switched milking and feeding order so feed

delivered earlier and before milking.• Milk fat increased equal to peer pen

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

MilkFat(%

)

Time,d

Low Medium High

Risk of MFD

* **

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

MilkFat(%

)

Time,d

Low Medium High

Risk of MFD

ExampleoffeedadditivethatreducesriskofMFD:HMTBa (Alimet)

Baldin et al., JDS In Press

LowCows HighCows

HMTBa =+0.73

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

Tran

s-10

18:1(%

FA)

Time,d

Low Medium HighRisk of MFD

***

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

Tran

s-10

18:1(%

FA)

Time,d

Low Medium HighRisk of MFD

Baldin et al., JDS In Press

LowCows HighCows

HMTBa preventedincreaseoftrans-10C18:1inmilk

• Absorbed fat• Palmitic acid

• Acetate supply• Forage digestibility and rumen function

• Excess propionate stimulating insulin- High grain and rapid fermentation- Preformed fatty acids go to fat stores- Not milk fat depression, but can be a 0.1

to 0.2 unit decrease in milk fat

Other dietary effects with smaller impacts

Palmitic AcidandMilkFatResponse- Generally an increase in milk fat, but is variable

- No change to 0.6 unit (300 g) increase (Mosley et al. 2007)

- May depend on concentration of FA in the basal diet, diet type, etc.

- Apparent palmitic acid transfer ~15-20% - Average ~90 g/d increase in milk fat with 1 lb/d

Needtoconsider:- Priceoffatvs.returninmilkfat- WouldexpectlessBCSgainbecauseincreasedenergygoingtowardsmilkfat

Acetate(g/d) P-value

0 300 600 900 SE Linear Quad.

DMI,lbs 59.9 62.2 60.0 59.5 2.2 - -

Milk, lbs 84.9 86.3 88.9 85.6 6.2 - -MilkFat

g 1382 1468 1582 1577 59 <0.001 -% 3.64 3.87 4.03 4.10 0.20 <0.001 -

Urrutia etal.J.Nutr.2017

- 600 g/d of acetate increased milk fat by 200 g/d

- Mostly increase in de novo synthesized FA

Increasingacetateincreasesmilkfatundernormalconditions

Howdowegetmoreacetate?Foragequalityandgoodrumenfermentation!

Nutrition is best practiced as an “Experiment in Progress”!!

- When milk fat is Acceptable• Inclusion of risk factors is probably

advantageous to feed cost, production, and efficiency

- When milk fat is Low: Look For a Reason• When did it start and what happened ~7-10 d

prior?• Is it a certain string or group of cows?

–High producing cows are normally more susceptible

• What season is it?• Is the sample a daily average?

The experiment in progress1. Diet Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids

– Concentration of C18:2

– Source of C18:2• Very different rates of rumen release• Ca Salts are more slowly released, but are

not inert

– Fish oil is very potent (EPA and DHA)

– Lowest risk to losing milk yield!

2. Diet Fermentability– Analyze carbohydrate profiles and effective

fiber– Experience with similar diets in the region is

important– Sugars may be beneficial

– Start to titrate down starch and increase fiber– Switch rapidly fermentable sources for less

rapidly fermentable sources– Increase forage NDF and effective fiber

**Careful….. May Lose Milk!!

3. Rumen Modifiers– Rumensin

• Risk factor, but does not cause MFD by itself• Can be synergistic with other risk factors for induction

– DCAD• Increasing DCAD decreases MFD (both Na and K)

– HMTBa• Reduces the risk of MFD

– Yeast & Direct Fed Microbials• May reduce incidence of MFD in some cases• Have not tested their effect on recovery

**Remember we are dealing with many interactions!

4. Feeding Strategies– Number of feeding times per day– Slick bunks before feeding?– Feeding times* You can slug feed TMR!

5. Saturated Fat Supplements- No risk for induction of milk fat depression- High palmitic acid (C16:0) supplements may increase milk fat in some cases- Milk fat depression will reduce the effectiveness of high palm supplements

Monitor milk yield and milk fat over time!!!**Set Expectations for the Time Required

Key Opportunities• Manage feeding times and coordinate with

milking times to manage feeding behavior and reduce slug feeding

• Could we (should we) group cows based on milk fat concentration or potential?

• In the future we will probably monitor de novo fatty acid concentration and trans-10 C18:1

• Is milk fat value a long-term trend?– Select cows for higher milk fat

He didn’t talk about milk protein!

• Milk protein is much less responsive to nutrition and management

• Most of the things we just talked about will improve microbial protein yield and energy intake, which will also benefit milk protein

Also- did I mention that these things also make a healthy rumen and a healthier

cow!

Lets reviewRumen environment is critical to milk fat yield and involves interactions of numerous dietary, cow, and environmental factors

1. Set your goal2. Balance your diet3. Manage feeding

Constant “Experiment in Progress” to maximize energy intake, milk yield, and milk fat

yield

Thank You

Lab Members:Isaac Salfer, Richie Shepardson, Cesar Matamoros, Elle Andreen, Elaine Brown, Beckie BombergerPrevious Lab Members:Dr. Daniel Rico, Dr. Michel Baldin, L. Whitney Rottman, Mutian Niu, Dr. Natalie Urrutia, Andrew Clark, Dr. Liying Ma, and Jackie Ying

DisclosuresK.J. Harvatine’s research in the past 8 years were partially supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2010-65206-20723 and 2015-67015-23358 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [PI Harvatine], USDA Special Grant 2009-34281-20116 [PI Harvatine], Berg-Schmidt, ELANCO Animal Health, BASF, Novus International, PA Soybean Board, Phode Laboratories, Kemin International, Milk Specialties Global, Adisseo, Micronutrients Inc., and Penn State University. Harvatine has consulted for Milk Specialties Global, a manufacturer of prilled saturated fat supplements, as a member of their science advisory board (~3 days per year) and Micronutrients Inc.. Harvatine has also received speaking honorariums from ELANCO Animal Health, Novus International, Cargill, Virtus Nutrition, Chr Hansen, NDS, Nutreco, and Milk Specialties Global in the past three years.