Feed mixing evaluation program 1


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Feed mixing evaluation program 1

  1. 1. Al Ulmer, LaMoure County Agent Karl Hoppe, CREC Livestock Specialist
  2. 2.  LaMoure County has 12 feedlots Approximately 40,000 head capacity Approximately 15,800 cow/calf pairs Two dealers in county selling mix wagons Approximately 105 producers with mix wagons
  3. 3.  Use a lot of low quality feeds • Corn stover • Prairie hays • StrawA lot of co-products available in the area (within 100 miles) • Spuds • Corn syrup • DDGs and WDGs
  4. 4.  Contacted by producers about feed wagons wondering if they were getting good mixes • Concerns were mixing antibiotics, minerals and vitamins and other feed additives Al and Karl do a lot of on farm beef trouble shooting
  5. 5.  Feed costs have dramatically increased Obtaining maximum feed conversion in to cattle weight is a necessity Improving feed efficiency involves using feeds in right combinations Totally mixed rations improve fermentation efficiencies
  6. 6.  Education was needed to guide feed lot operators and provide the tools needed to make improvements in their operations Producers need to reduce the cost of inputs in their operations and become more efficient particularly in the trends and marketing of calves
  7. 7.  Making a Total Mixed Ration (TMR) requires adequate mixing Program was designed to evaluate on farm mixing performance Program benchmarks mixing performance and then developing solutions to improve mixing Consequently animal performance should improve
  8. 8. A “hands on” on-farm mixing evaluation Follow up farm visits with a written evaluation to include: • feed sample nutritional reports • coefficients of variation (CV) report • letter with suggestions on how to fine tune their feed mixing operation
  9. 9.  One on one feedlot visits with “hands on” mixing evaluation Used edible markers • Candy corn • Good and Plenty
  10. 10.  Not all candies work well • Looked at M&M couldn’t afford them Used Candy Corn and Good & Plenty (G&P) Goal was to have 1 piece of candy for every 1 pound of dry feed or 2000 pieces of candy (5 pounds) into two tons of 50% moisture feed Add at 2.5 to 5 pounds per ton of mix • Candy corn = 220 pieces/pound • Good and Plenty = 390 pieces/pound
  11. 11.  Wet feeds coated the candy making it harder to find (G&P) candy corn was much easier to find
  12. 12.  With dry feeds candy was much easier to find
  13. 13.  Had producer loaded feed wagon in their normal fashion Added candy into feed wagon with feed mix Mixed feed for their normal mixing time
  14. 14.  Set 3 dish pans in bunk line • One at the beginning • One in the middle • One at the end Collected the pans (before the calves got to them) Sorted and counted markers Evaluated mix wagon effectiveness of uniform mixing of feed ration Then suggest changes to make mix wagon to get a better uniform feed mix
  15. 15.  Measured and calculated co-efficient of variation • Candy • Dry Matter • Crude Protein • ADF (Acid Detergent Fiber) • Calcium • Phosphorous • Sample Weights
  16. 16. Candy Dry matter Crude Protein Coefficient of variation Coefficient of variation Coefficient of variation observations observations observationsFirst 1/3 of bunk 4 57.77 11.19Second 1/3 of bunk 1 57.38 11.91Last 1/3 of bunk 4 56.62 13.89 Standard Deviation 1.732 dev 0.585 dev 1.398 mean (Average) 3.00 mean 57.26 mean 12.33Coefficient of Variation 57.74 CV 1.02 CV 11.34 CV=DEV/Mean*100 CV=DEV/Mean*100 CV=DEV/Mean*100 Goal 10% Goal 10% Goal 10% Best 5% Best 5% Best 5% very accurate 1% very accurate 1% very accurate 1%
  17. 17.  The wide range of candies counted at the beginning, middle and end of the feed bunk indicate improvements can be made in mixing There is always a need to be vigilant in doing a good job of feed mixing Upon review of the nutritional components of the ration, mixing appears to be adequate (or not for those not meeting the mixing goal) for • Crude protein ADF, Calcium and Phosphorous
  18. 18.  Mixing Suggestions: • increase mixing time • blend ingredients of smaller quantities (like minerals) with other dry feeds and mix thoroughly before adding hays and/or silages
  19. 19.  Mixing Suggestions: • repair damaged or worn parts in the mixer • don’t over fill the feed mixer, it does the best job when filled no fuller than 85% of capacity
  20. 20.  Candy was a great way to get the producers interest in the project Candies are a great method to visually see that mixing can always be improved Reviewing the chemical analysis of the ration, is a good way to determine if they were doing a good job of mixing both the forage based and grain based rations
  21. 21.  We got operators to: • look at their feeding operations • find ways to reduce costs • better utilize their resources
  22. 22.  Created awareness of how a total mix ration of conventional & alternative feed sources and management changes can improve feedlot animal performance Operators learned how better feed mixing can positively affect their operation
  23. 23.  Relationshipbuilding, trouble shooting, opportunity to discuss other production issues, and having producers see the value of NDSU extension