An Approach to AA
Balancing
Using Formulate2 and NRC 2001 Predictive Reliability to Determine
and Meet AA Needs of Lactating Dairy Cattle
Post-Conference Seminar
Penn State Dairy Nutrition Workshop
Grantville, PA
November 12, 2009
Copyright 2009 - All Rights Reserved
Central Valley Nutritional Associates, LLC
NRC 2001 – Building Blocks
• Dynamic Coefficients for digestibilities, energy, CP fractions and
duodenal AA flow based on level of intake and diet composition
• Rumen microbial protein yield modeled via dynamic prediction of
digestible organic matter automatically accounting for changing
microbial yields at varying DOM supply levels
• RDP supply and requirement prediction is dynamic with RDP supply
acting as a bounding constraint for MCP prediction from DOM
• CP fractions A, B and C are modeled as (A) wholly rumen degraded,
(B) partially rumen degraded determined by Kd and Kp and (C)
wholly rumen un-degradable
• Each feedstuff has an individual RUP digestibility value
• Prediction of Duodenal AA flow is made via equations that best
predicted actual measured AA flows to the duodenum from the
model experimental data set based on model predicted rumen
microbial MP yield and MP-AA from modeled digestible RUP (MP) *
*(57 experiments with 199 diverse diets, Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg 74-81)
NRC Predictive Reliability
Accounting for AA Profile Changes in RUP
The NRC model was specifically designed to account for changes in the AA profile of RUP relative to intake CP in
order to provide accurate prediction of flows of individual EAA to the duodenum. This was accomplished by comparing
NRC model predicted supplies of AA in RUP with actual measured EAA in duodenal protein in 57 published studies
with 199 diverse diets and developing prediction equations for each EAA based on those model predicted factors that
best predicted the measured EAA flows. (Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg. 75)
The optimum amount of Methionine in MP
according to NRC (2001) is 2.4%
0.20
Milk protein content responses, (g/100 g)
2.4
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
Percent Met in MP (Lys > 6.50 of MP)
3.00
3.20
3.40
The optimum amount of lysine in MP
according to NRC (2001) is 7.2%
0.15
7.2
Milk protein content responses, g/100 g
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.6
6.0
6.4
6.8
7.2
7.6
8.0
Percent Lys in MP (Met > 1.95 of MP)
8.4
8.8
9.2
9.6
10.0
Significance of the NRC 2001
MP-Lys and MP-Met Plots
•
•
•
Plots were generated to, “…determine the requirements for Lys and Met in
MP…when the NRC model is used.”
Optimal concentrations imply gram requirements for both MP-Lys and MPMet
Considering MP-Lys and MP-Met supplies as “first limiting” has important
ramifications for the concepts of CP, RUP and MP
–
–
–
–
–
Production of milk and milk components is limited first by the supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met
The efficacy of dietary CP, RUP and MP as requirements and formulation targets is
dependent upon the their content of MP-Lys and MP-Met
Until the concentrations of Lys and Met in MP reach the optimal levels illustrated in the plots
concentrations of other EAA are not limiting production of milk and milk components
If supplies of MP-Lys and MP-Met can be directly and accurately constrained, then CP, RUP
and MP become background values rather than formulation targets
Because of its role in supplying AA, Peptides and Nitrogen for rumen microbial propagation,
RDP remains an essential formulation target
(Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh Revised Edition 2001 pg 81-85)
Extending the NRC Model
•
•
•
In 2003 and 2004 Schwab et al. performed work to “…extend the NRC
model to predict changes in lactation from changes in supplies of MP-Lys
and MP-Met.”
Over 300 diets from experiments published in the Journal of Dairy Science
were entered into the NRC (2001) Model
Relevant data from the Summary and Duodenal Amino Acid Supply Reports
were recorded, evaluated and analyzed
– “…in all cases (for MP, MP-Met, and MP-Lys), it appears that protein yields can
be predicted more accurately than milk yields.”
– “…predicting yields of milk and milk protein from intestinal supplies of the most
limiting AA is more precise than predicting yields from MP supply.”
– “…while the current data is too limited and not adequate for this exercise, it
appears that a very strong relationship exists between milk and milk protein yield
and predicted MP-Lys supplies.”
Amino Acid Balancing in the Context of MP and RUP Requirements
Schwab, Ordway and Whitehouse UNH – 2004 Florida Nutrition Conference
Plots of measured milk and protein yields vs.
NRC (2001) predicted flows of MP–Met
Lys:Met >3.0:1, MP more limiting than energy, and MP
balance between –250 g and +100 g (n = 98)
50
1600
2
y = -0.0226x + 2.7383x - 40.796
R2 = 0.76
y = -0.3497x 2 + 55.631x - 732.68
2
R = 0.81
1400
40
1200
1000
30
800
600
20
400
10
200
20
30
40
MP - Met, g/d
NRC Predictive Reliability
The yield equations for milk and milk protein for MPMet developed from these plots of measured data
are implemented in the Calculator.
50
60
20
Chuck Schwab
University of New Hampshire, USA
Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting
Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV
April 15, 2009
30
40
MP - Met, g/d
50
60
Plots of measured milk and protein yields vs.
NRC (2001) predicted flows of MP–Lys
Lys:Met <3.2:1, MP more limiting than energy, and MP
balance between –250 g and +100 g (n = 28)
1600
50
2
y = -0.0013x + 0.6174x - 26.37
R2 = 0.90
y = -0.0195x 2 + 13.098x - 457.31
R2 = 0.92
1400
40
1200
1000
30
800
600
20
400
10
200
60
80
100
120
140
MP - Lys, g/d
160
NRC Predictive Reliability
The yield equations for milk and milk protein for MPLys developed from these plots of measured data
are implemented in the Calculator.
180
200
60
Chuck Schwab
University of New Hampshire, USA
Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting
Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV
April 15, 2009
80
100
120
140
MP - Lys, g/d
160
180
200
Implementing the Schwab et al.
MP-Lys & MP-Met Plots
Applying AA Concepts in
Commercial Production Settings
• AA balancing is not just for “exceptional” herds
• However, a reasonably good management foundation is required
• We’ll review a herd initially found with significant nutritional and
management issues
• This herd is two years into “recovery” with one year on AA balancing
Herd #1 Historical Summary
Herd Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Herd Size
Milking
Avg. DIM
Herd avg. Actual Milk
Milk flow – same per. 2yr avg.
Herd avg. FCM Milk
Herd avg. Fat%
Herd avg. Fat lbs
Milk fat production – same per. 2yr avg.
Herd avg. Protein%
Herd avg. Protein lbs
Herd avg. SNF%
Herd avg. SNF lbs
SNF production
Calving Interval
Avg. Days Open
SCC
Services/Conception
BCS – Fresh/Early Lactation
Grouping/Feeding Scheme
1500 +
2X
200
57.8
-14.0%
57.9
3.52
2.03
-12.0%
3.19
1.83
8.52
4.92
N/A
14.5 Months
144 - 165
306,000 – 472,000
3.18 – 3.61
1.5 – 2.5
Fresh diet
Milk Cow diet
Heifer diet
Herd #1 Historical Summary
Feedstuffs Used in Original Diets
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alfalfa Hay (High CP/Low NDF)
Dry Cow Hay
Wheat Straw
Almond Hulls
Citrus Pulp
Rolled Barley
Rolled Corn
Wheat Millrun
Whole Cottonseed (Ammoniated)
Liquid Mineral/Vitamin (NPN)
Protected Fat
Sodium Bicarb
Yeast
Herd #1 Historical Summary
Milk Cow Diet Composition
Herd #1 Historical Summary
Milk Cow Diet – RDP,RUP and MP
Herd #1 Historical Summary
Milk Cow Diet – NE(L) and MP Allowable Milk
Primary imbalance
28.5 lb gap between NE(l)
and MP allowable milk
Herd #1 Historical Summary
NRC Diet Evaluations – Milk Cow Diet
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Milk target lbs
Butterfat %DM
True protein %DM
Lactose %DM
Formulated DMI lbs
Concentrates %DM
Energy density Mcals/DMI
CP %DM
NE(l) allowable milk lbs
MP allowable milk lbs
fNDF
NFC
RDP %DM
RDP %CP
RUP %CP
RDP balance g
MP balance g
90.00
3.50
3.20
4.85
54.23
61.10
.69
16.16
84.16
55.62
15.64
39.29
12.54
78.00
22.00
+717
-745
Dietary RDP Supplies
What Are the Implications?
Diet
•
•
•
Fresh diet
Milk Cow diet
Milking Heifer diet
RDP balance
%NRC Req.
Lbs MP Milk
+850 g
+717 g
+648 g
141.0%
130.0%
131.0%
48.21
55.62
47.26
Do these excesses in RDP supply have any impact on the these diets in terms of
predicted MP allowable milk?
Dietary RDP Supplies
What Are the Implications?
MUN Scale 4-20
MUN Scale 4-29
RDP Balance of Consumed Diets as
Predicted by NRC (2001)
(UNH Boucher et al.)
120
NRC Predictive Reliability
Dietary RDP was manipulated with the
addition of Urea at four different levels
of from 0.0%DM to 0.9% DM.
RDP levels in the graph to the right are
expressed as a percentage of the
NRC predicted RDP requirement
ranging from 92% of the NRC
requirement to 117% of requirement.
100
RDP balance, %
This work was done at UNH by
Boucher et al. and serves to illustrate
the reliability of the NRC predictive
mechanism for RDP requirements and
microbial yield.
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
0.3
0.6
urea, % of diet DM
Chuck Schwab
University of New Hampshire, USA
Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting
Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV
April 15, 2009
0.9
Average Rumen Ammonia N Concentrations
(UNH Boucher et al.)
NRC Predictive Reliability
This graph illustrates the measured
Rumen Ammonia N concentrations at
the different percentages of NRC
predicted RDP requirement.
Note that when RDP balance exceeded
109% of the NRC requirement,
Ammonia N concentrations spiked
significantly indicating that RDP much
above the NRC requirement did not
produce increased microbial yield.
Ammonia N, mg/dl
20
18
quadratic, P < 0.05
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.3
0.6
urea, % of diet DM
Chuck Schwab
University of New Hampshire, USA
Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting
Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV
April 15, 2009
0.9
Flow of Microbial N to the Duodenum
(UNH Boucher et al.)
300
quadratic, P < 0.05
250
Measured flows of Microbial N to the
duodenum confirm the efficacy of the
NRC predictive mechanism for both
RDP requirements and microbial yield.
Measured MCP yield was greatest
when RDP was closest to 100% of the
NRC predicted RDP requirement.
Microbial N, g/d
NRC Predictive Reliability
200
150
100
50
0
0.0
0.3
0.6
urea, % of diet DM
Chuck Schwab
University of New Hampshire, USA
Foster Farms Dairy Nutrition Meeting
Rio Casino & Hotel, Las Vegas, NV
April 15, 2009
0.9
Dietary RDP Supplies
What Are the MP Implications?
Diet
•
•
•
Fresh diet
Milk Cow diet
Milking Heifer diet
RDP balance
%NRC Req.
Lbs MP Milk
+850 g
+717 g
+648 g
141.0%
130.0%
131.0%
48.21
55.62
47.26
This excessive over-supply of RDP in all diets will negatively impact the predicted
supplies of MP further reducing MP allowable milk in all diets. Additionally, a
substantial energy cost is incurred by the animals.
Expected Lactation Curve with
Significantly Deficient MP Supply
Lactation Curve Worksheet
100
“It is believed that the number or secretory cells in the
mammary gland, as determined by the balance between
cell proliferation and apoptosis, and the secretory activity of
these cells determine milk yield and lactation persistency
(Knight 2000).” *
90
80
Lbs of FCM
70
60
“(at 8 wk postpartum)…only 8.6% of the
cell proliferation…compared to cows on
the high energy diet.” *
50
40
Avg DIM/ Avg FCM
200
57.9
“With regard to cell turnover, our results…at 8 wk postpartum indicate that epithelial cell
proliferation was considerably lower in cows fed the low energy diet compared with
cows fed the high energy diet whereas epithelial cell apoptosis did not differ. Thus our
data indicate that the cell number of the mammary glad accommodates to nutrient
availability, i.e., a decrease in nutrient availability will lead to a decrease in the number
of cells.” *
30
20
10
* “Mammary Cell Turnover and Enzyme Activity in Dairy Cows: Effects of Milking Frequency and Diet Energy
Density” Norgaard, Sorensen, Sorensen, Andersen and Sejrsen 2005 – J. Dairy Sci. 88 975-982
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Days In Milk
240
270
300
330
360
The Impact of Good Persistency
After Peak Milk
Lactation Curve Worksheet
100
90
80
Avg DIM/ Avg FCM
200
73.9
Lbs of FCM
70
60
+ 16.0 lbs of milk at the same DIM
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Days In Milk
240
270
300
330
360
Herd #1 First Year Approach
Primary Initial Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Immediately address MP shortages
Immediately reduce RDP to levels appropriate for NRC RDP requirements
Move toward more acceptable dietary fNDF content
Review existing feed inventory and contracts
Implement feeds capable of supplying greater levels of dietary MP
Make a complete review of management protocols and practices
Prepare monthly published herd assessments and meet regularly with the
producer, veterinarian, herdsman and breeder to facilitate identifying and
addressing issues
Resolve significant issues in preparation for more precise diet formulation
Herd #1 Significant Management Issues
Herd avg. SCC in March 2008 469,000
A.I. Pens
Fresh Pen
Herd #1 Significant Management Issues
Whole Herd SCC Changes Mar 2008-Oct 2009
500
Point at which action was taken
450
Departure of “Non-Compliant” milkers
400
(Thousands)
350
300
October 2009 County avg. SCC 228,000
October 2009 Herd #1
SCC 139,000
250
200
150
100
50
0
SCC
Mar
2008
Apr
2008
May
2008
469
361
301
Jun
Jul
2008 2008
351
423
Aug
2008
Sep
2008
Oct
2008
Nov
2008
Dec
2008
233
269
241
210
275
Jan
Feb
2009 2009
246
267
Mar
2009
Apr
2009
May
2009
Jun
2009
213
203
182
156
Jul
Aug
2009 2009
109
152
Sep
2009
Oct
2009
173
139
Herd #1 Significant Management Issues
Determining How Well Nutrient Dollars are Matched with Nutrient Needs
An Except from a Nutrient Dollar Allocation Study performed in 2008
An Alternative Approach to Feeding
The purpose of working with the production information we copied form Dairy Comp last month was to illustrate with actual numbers and diets the
difference between how the current feeding program is being managed on the farm and an alternative approach that would better match nutrient
dollars with nutrient needs.
Let’s start with the bottom line - $16,000.00 per month or approximately $200,000.00 per year. The alternative approach that will be outlined
below can reduce feed costs by $16,000.00 per month by focusing on appropriately matching nutrient dollars with nutrient needs as the highest
priority. As on farm feeding program management is currently being approached, appropriately matching nutrient dollars with nutrient needs is at
the bottom of the priority list.
Consider the following points:
1.
2.
3.
Corn silage was included in the feeding program last October. The diet that was formulated for use with Corn silage was intended
only for high producing animals after leaving the fresh diet. As discussed above, the diet was formulated to address the nutrient
needs of animals producing beyond the capacity to meet nutrient needs from DMI.
Currently, the only mature animals NOT receiving the High TMR are the animals in pen 1. Approximately 270 of the animals
receiving the High TMR do NOT need it.
The production sort of the alternative feeding approach placed animals in feeding groups with the following production limits.
2+ Animals
FCM equal to or greater than 95.0
FCM from 75.0 to 94.0
FCM from 60.0 to 74.0
FCM below 60.0
Milking Heifers
FCM Equal to or greater than 70.0
FCM Below 70.0
The addition of the new diets along with the re-assignment of animals to diets based on nutrient needs produces a monthly feed cost savings of
$16,000.00.This brief written description along with the accompanying recap sheets serve as an introduction to this approach and will hopefully
provide a basis for further discussion.
Herd #1
Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance
Stage One Milk Cow Diet
Herd #1
Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance
Stage One Milk Cow Diet
Herd #1
Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance
Stage One Milk Cow Diet
No significant disparity
Herd #1
Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance
AA Supply Changes
Original Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies
Stage One Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies
MP-Lys
Original Diet 142 g
Stage One Diet 171 g
+ 28 g
MP-Met
Original Diet 40 g
Stage One Diet 51 g
+ 11 g
Lys/Met Ratio
3.52 to 3.33
Herd #1
Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance
NRC Diet Evaluations – Milk Cow Diet
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Milk target lbs
Butterfat %DM
True protein %DM
Lactose %DM
Formulated DMI lbs
Concentrates %DM
Energy density Mcals/DMI
CP %DM
NE(l) allowable milk lbs
MP allowable milk lbs
fNDF
NFC
RDP %DM
RDP %CP
RUP %CP
RDP balance g
MP balance g
90.00
3.50
3.20
4.85
54.29
57.00
.725
17.98
90.60
90.00
19.00
38.58
11.17
62.00
38.00
+317
0.00
Herd #1
Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance
Using the MP-AA Calculator
Acquire/Enter Milk and Protein
formulation targets
Solve for MP-Lys & MP-Met
target values
Recalculate MP req. by entering
MP% of base MP-AA
Adjust model prediction of MCP yield
Herd #1
Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance
Stage Two Milk Cow Diet
Herd #1
Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance
Stage Two Milk Cow Diet
Herd #1
Year 2 – Addressing AA Balance
Stage Two Milk Cow Diet
Herd #1
Year 1 – Addressing MP Balance
AA Supply Changes
Stage One Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies
Stage Two Milk Cow Diet DEAA Supplies
MP-Lys
Stage One Diet 171 g
Stage Two Diet 180 g
+9g
MP-Met
Stage One Diet 51 g
Stage Two Diet 60 g
+9g
Lys/Met Ratio
3.33 to 3.00
+37 g more than original diet
+20 g more than original diet
Herd #1 Yearly Comparison
Milk Protein Percentages
3.45
3.4
3.35
Milk Proein%
3.3
3.25
3.2
3.15
3.1
3.05
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Prot% Oct-Dec 2007
3.25
3.27
3.29
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.2
3.23
3.26
3.28
3.25
3.21
Prot% Oct-Dec 2008
3.18
3.28
3.3
3.31
3.31
3.35
3.35
3.34
3.33
3.34
3.37
3.4
Weeks of period Oct 1st through December 31st
Herd #1 Yearly Comparison
Milk Protein Yields as lbs
2.50
Milk Prot Yield as lbs
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
1.90
1.80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Milk Prot Yield Oct-Dec 2007 2.02 2.01 2.05 1.92 2.00 2.01 1.93 2.04 2.06 2.14 2.18 2.22
Milk Prot Yield Oct-Dec 2008 2.16 2.30 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.38 2.33 2.34 2.25 2.29 2.36 2.41
Weeks of period Oct 1st through December 31st
Herd #1 Yearly Comparison
Solids Non-Fat Percentages
9
8.9
SNF%
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.3
1
2
3
Total SNF% Oct-Dec 2007 8.57 8.61 8.63
Total SNF% Oct-Dec 2008 8.53 8.66
8.7
4
8.5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
8.56 8.53 8.51 8.55 8.59 8.61 8.61 8.58
8.71 8.73 8.77 8.78 8.78 8.72 8.73 8.83 8.85
Weeks of period Oct 1st through December 31st
Herd #1 Yearly Comparison
Solids Non-Fat Yield as lbs
6.50
6.30
6.10
SNF Yield as lbs
5.90
5.70
5.50
5.30
5.10
4.90
4.70
4.50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SNF Yield Oct-Dec 2007 5.31
5.30 5.39
5.04
5.31 5.31
5.13
5.40 5.43
5.61
5.79 5.94
SNF Yield Oct-Dec 2008 5.78
6.07 6.22
6.20
6.22 6.23
6.12
6.16 5.89
6.00
6.19 6.27
Weeks of period Oct 1st through December 31st
Herd #1 Yearly Comparison
Milk Fat Percentages
4
3.9
3.8
Milk Fat%
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Milk Fat% Oct- Dec 2007 3.56 3.66
3.72 3.71
3.71 3.73
3.78 3.75 3.79
3.76 3.74
3.73
3.36 3.37
3.43 3.49
3.48 3.52
3.57 3.61 3.63
3.63 3.68
3.77
Milk Fat% Oct-Dec 2008
Weeks of period Oct 1st through December 31st
Herd #1 Yearly Comparison
Milk Fat Yield as lbs
2.80
2.70
Milk Fat Yield as lbs
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Milk Fat Yield Oct-Dec 2007 2.21 2.25 2.32 2.20 2.30 2.32 2.28 2.37 2.40 2.45 2.51 2.58
Milk Fat Yield Oct-Dec 2008 2.28 2.36 2.45 2.48 2.48 2.50 2.49 2.53 2.45 2.49 2.58 2.67
Weeks of period Oct 1st through December 31st
Herd #1 Summary of Changes
Herd Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Herd Size
Milking
Avg. DIM
Herd avg. Actual Milk
Herd avg. FCM Milk
Herd avg. Fat%
Herd avg. Fat lbs
Herd avg. Protein%
Herd avg. Protein lbs
Herd avg. SNF%
Herd avg. SNF lbs
Calving Interval
Avg. Days Open
SCC (thousands)
Services/Conception
BCS – Fresh/Early Lactation
Grouping/Feeding Scheme
1500 +
2X
200
57.8
57.9
3.52
2.03
3.19
1.83
8.52
4.92
14.5 Months
144 – 165
306 – 472
3.18 – 3.61
1.5 – 2.5
1500 +
2X
180
70.0
70.5
3.55
2.48
3.31
2.33
8.73
6.11
13.4 Months
128 – 131
139 – 173
2.42 – 2.61
2.75 – 3.0
Fresh diet
Milk Cow diet
Heifer diet
Fresh diet
High diet
Mid diet
Low diet
High heifer diet
Low heifer diet
Herd #1 Summary of Changes
Was It Worth It?
These values represent income changes over initial milk and milk
component production. Values were calculated with CA November
2009 Class 1 prices shown at the left for Fat, SNF and Fluid milk.
(The stage one values shown at the post-conference workshop were inadvertently
calculated from monthly averages from 09-2007 to 09-2008 rather than the stage
one period from Oct1st through Dec 31st 2007. The corrected stage one values are
used here.)
You be
the judge
Evaluating ROFC & The Value of Milk Components
(Calculated using CA November Class 1 Milk Price $15.31 Cwt Fat=$1.33 SNF=$.9033 Fluid=$.0291)
Greatest ROFC
2+ Animal
pens
Highest feed
Cost hd/day
Greatest ROFC
Heifer
pens
Added value of components + $.74 CWT
Comparison of Income Changes Between Stages 1 & 2 Using
Northeast FMMO Pricing and Corrected Stage 1 Values
Take Home Messages
Predictive Reliability is essential to realizing positive results from balancing
for AA
The NRC 2001 model provides a high degree of predictive reliability
Use the NRC model to evaluate not only diets but also diet implementation
and resolve any management issues that can hinder realizing predicted
response
Educate producers to understand the financial impact of poor management
practices and the potential rewards available with changes
Take Home Messages
Formulate2 Dairy Ration Optimizer
NRC 2001 Compliant
NRC Predictive Reliability with Full Optimization Capability
Information and 60 day evaluation downloads available at
http://www.formulate2.com