Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to 6. Friday - Ruminant Sessions mr damien nankervis feedworks - faecal starch testing & forage labs services
Similar to 6. Friday - Ruminant Sessions mr damien nankervis feedworks - faecal starch testing & forage labs services (20)
More from 2damcreative
More from 2damcreative (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
6. Friday - Ruminant Sessions mr damien nankervis feedworks - faecal starch testing & forage labs services
- 1. Forage Lab Services CVAS in Australia
- 2. Outline • Forage Lab in Australia • Faecal Starch • Kernel processing score • Muti-step protein Evaluation • Fatty Acid profiling
- 3. Forage Lab • Part of the CVAS group (Cumberland Valley Analytical Services) • Largest chem based dairy forage lab in USA • Located within ACE Laboratory Services, Bendigo • Local NIR • Extensive wet-chem services via CVAS, USA
- 4. CVAS relationship has value 1. Strong NIR calibration • Constant development 2. Wet chem with CVAS = huge quantity of samples processed • Admin is already done • Customs, quarantine, licences • Regular freight – predictable turn-around • Confidence with accuracy
- 5. Forage Lab Services USA wet chem via Bendigo • DCAD via wet chemistry with a 10 day turnaround • Water analysis • Mould & yeast culturing and ID • Mycotoxin evaluation • Silage fermentation acids • Fibre digestibility analysis • Fatty Acid profiling • Amino Acids • Manure analysis • CPM/ CNCPS model ready analysis • …..plus much more!
- 7. Why Measure Faecal Starch? Strong correlation with total tract starch digestibility (TTSD) A downward shift in F.S. can be achieved by attending to: • Grain processing • Ration formulation • Silage quality • Silage moisture Firkins et al (2001) J. Anim. Sci. 79(E. Suppl.):E218–E238
- 8. Useful? - Good diagnostic • excellent predictor of grain utilisation • Feedlot –predictor of LWG and FCE • Prediction better with faecal N BUT……. • 4 day wet-chem process • Expensive Solution – NIR analysis Zinn et al 2007, Jancewicz et al 2016, Stanford & Swift 2015
- 9. Faecal Starch Tolerances Look at economics 1% unit of FS = • 326 g of milk (Firkins et al 2001) • 0.677 MJ of NEm (Zinn 2007) Example – Drop FS from 18% to 10% equivalent of saving 64% barley in feedlot diet.
- 10. Value to Dairy Grain starch 65 % DM 8 % Grain intake 8 kg/d 3 % Grain cost 425 $ /Tonne 5.5 $/kg MS Grain Saving ($) 0.21 Extra Milk (kg/cow) 1.63 Benefit 0.88 $/cow/d Current Faecal Starch Future Faecal Starch Milk Value
- 11. Faecal Starch Tolerances 1% – 3% acceptable, 4% – 5% take a look, >5% make a change
- 13. Maize silage and starch utilisation Important factors are: • Silage moisture • Time ensiled • Kernel processing
- 14. Increasing dry-matter decreases starch digestibility in high moisture corn Ferraretto et. Al. (2014) JDS 97:3221-3227
- 15. Ensiling time effects starch digestibility 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 0 100 200 300 400 Invitrostarchdigestibility,% Days of silage fermentation
- 16. Corn Silage Kernel Processing Smaller particles increase surface area & digestibility potential HMC DGC Mean Particle Size (MPS), mm < 2 >2 1 7 Total Tract Starch Digestibility, % 95.2 89.5 93.3 77.7
- 18. Corn Silage Processing Score (CSPS) • Wet vs dry sieve – wet is superior (basis for research methods) • Undried sample through a 4.75 mm sieve (underwater) Corn Silage Processing Score (CSPS) Mertens, D.R. Determination of Starch in Large Particles, Ro-tap Shaker Method. U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center. 2002. Processing Score Ideal range Greater than 70 % Optimally Processed Between 50 % and 70 % Adequate Processing Less than 50 % Inadequately Processed
- 19. Forage Labs Australia other wet chem services • Multi-Step Protein Evaluation (MSPE) • Amino Acid • Fatty Acid Profile
- 21. Why use MSPE? Book values not adequate • Co-products • Grape Marc • Any heat treated protein meal
- 25. Forage Labs Australia - CVAS • In-house NIR • Efficient service for wet chem • Extensive and growing range of analysis
Editor's Notes
- The lower the density (bushel wt) of flaked corn, the greater the digestibility of starch, particularly in the small intestine. For max ruminal starch digestion, a thinner flake is needed for lactating cows than for feedlot cattle because grain particles spend less time for digestion in the rumen of lactating cows than of feedlot cattle. (Owens and Sonderlund) A.F. Channon, W. Brown and J.B. Rowe (2001) Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia, Volume 13 (2001)
- Better processing can increase both rumen fermentation and intestinal digestion, resulting in lower faecal starch.
- 7% point increase in ivSD at 30 – 45 days. SD gradually increased with extended storage. Proteolytic activity (microbial or plant sources) occurs more extensively in anaerobic fermentation. Low pH favours plant protease activity specific to endosperm of cereal grains Bacterial protease responsible for 60% of increase in soluble CP concentration, followed by kernel enzymes (30%) and fungi (5%) and fermentation end-products (5%).
- Diets containing HMC with mean particle size (MPS) below 2 mm had greater total tract starch digestibility (TTSD) compared with HMC with MPS greater than 2 mm (95.2% to 89.5%; Ferraretto et al., 2013). Likewise, increased MPS reduced TTSD in DGC-based diets (77.7% to 93.3% for 4 mm and 1 mm respectively; Ferraretto et al., 2013). This is related to increased surface area for bacterial and enzymatic digestion of finer particles (Huntington, 1997). Greater starch digestibility and corresponding milk production by dairy cows is achieved when corn silage is harvested using a kernel processor with roll gap settings between 1 to 3 mm (Ferraretto and Shaver, 2012). However, other harvesting practices may impair the efficacy of kernel processors.