Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Feed mixing evaluation program 1


Published on

Published in: Education
  • If you need your papers to be written and if you are not that kind of person who likes to do researches and analyze something - you should definitely contact these guys! They are awesome ⇒⇒⇒ ⇐⇐⇐
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I like this service ⇒ ⇐ from Academic Writers. I don't have enough time write it by myself.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hello! I can recommend a site that has helped me. It's called ⇒ ⇐ So make sure to check it out!
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

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