Webinar O Nutricionista

Webinar
O Nutricionista
Webinar - O Nutricionista
8 de julho 19:00
(toda segunda quarta feira do mês)
Randy Shaver – PhD – Universidade de Wisconsin –
Madison. O que podemos fazer na fazenda para aumentar
a digestibilidade do amido.
Ruminant Starch Digestion
Rumen
Small
Intestine
Hind Gut
Microbial Fermentation
• VFA
• Propionate
• Glucose via liver
• Microbial Protein
Digestion (Enzymatic)
• Glucose
Microbial Fermentation
• VFA
Ferraretto et al., 2013 JDS 96:533
Whole-Plant Corn Silage
Grain ~40-45% of WPDM
•Avg. 30% starch in WPDM
•Variable grain:stover
80 to 98% StarchD
•Kernel particle size
•Duration of silage fermentation
•Kernel maturity
•Endosperm properties
•Additives
Adapted from Joe Lauer, UW Madison Agronomy Dept
.
Stover= ~55-60% of WPDM
•Avg. 42% NDF
•Variable stover:grain
40 to 70% IVNDFD
•Lignin/NDF
•Hybrid Type
•Maturity
•Additives
Variable peNDF as per chop length
Forage yield - quality vs. quantity
Dry matter yield
(tons/acre)
Maximum yield of DM
indigestible
Maximum yield of
digestible DM
digestible
UW-Madison
Vegetative Optimal
growth
stage
Stage of maturity
Flower or
Head or
Black Layer
Department of Dairy Scienc
Corn Silage Harvest Practices
Influence Starch Digestibility!
Kernel Processing*Maturity
Ferraretto & Shaver, PAS 2012
Kernel Processing*TLOC
Ferraretto & Shaver, PAS 2012
www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/KernelProcessing-FOF.pdf
Kernel Processing Score
Mertens, USDFRC

Ro-Tap Shaker


9 sieves (0.6 thru 19
mm) and pan
Analyze for starch on
4.75 mm & > sieves
% of starch passing
4.75 mm sieve
>70%
70% to 50%
< 50%
KPS
Excellent
Adequate
Poor
Kernel Processing Score
∆Worth 1 kg Milk
or 1 kg Corn
Kernel Processing Score
MN
Field
Trial 1
Testing
Lab
KPS
WI
Field
Trial 1
Lab
Survey
Dairyland
2005 - 2007
Year
No. of
samples
MN
Field
Trial 2
252
55
2011
29
258
WI
Field
Trial 2
Lab Survey
Rock River
Cumberland
Valley
2011 - 2010 2012
2012
2010 2011
64
311
1,131
- - - - - - - - - - - -% of Samples by Processing Score- - - - - - -
Excellent
10%
8%
10%
17%
17%
16%
7%
Adequate
48%
76%
55%
68%
61%
62%
51%
Poor
42%
16%
35%
15%
22%
22%
42%
Industry Makes Advances in
Corn Silage Processing
(CVAS Data, 2006 to 2014)
Number
Average
Percent
Optimum
2006
97
52.8
8.2
43.3
2007
272
52.3
9.2
37.9
2008
250
54.6
5.2
34.8
2009
244
51.1
6.1
48.0
2010
373
51.4
5.9
43.4
2011
726
55.5
12.3
33.1
2012
871
60.8
14.8
19.9
2013
2658
64.6
36.0
12.9
2014
322
61.8
24.2
9.0
Crop Year
Adapted from slide provided by Ralph Ward of CVAS
Percent
Poor
Shredlage®
Shredlage®
http://www.shredlage.com/
UW Madison Shredlage® Trials
Trial 1
Hybrid
Trial 2
Dual Purpose Brown Midrib
Crop Year
2011
2013
Harvest DM
34% ± 2
38% ± 4
Ensiling
Silo Bags
Silo Bags
Months in Storage
Before Feeding
1
4
UW Madison Shredlage® Trials
Trial 1
Trial 2
Control
SHRD
Control
SHRD
TLOC, mm
19
30
19
26
WI-OS
MPL, mm
10.4
11.2
10.0
11.4
% PSU Top
6%
32%
7%
18%
% PSU Top 2
82%
73%
75%
73%
UW Madison Shredlage® Trials
Trial 1
Control
Trial 2
SHRD Control
SHRD
Roll gap, mm
2 - 3
2.5
2
2
Roll Speed
Differential
≈20%
≈30%
≈40%
30%-40%
Processing
Score
60%
± 4
75%
± 3
68%
± 7
72%
± 4
Kernel Processing Score
Samples obtained weekly during feed-out from the silo bags
UW Madison Trial 2
UW Madison Shredlage® Trials
Trial 1
Trial 2
DIM at trial start
116 d ± 36
81 d ± 8
Trial Duration, weeks
10
16
Trial Average Control
Milk, kg/cow/day
43
50
UW Madison Shredlage® Trials
Shredlage Response
Trial 1
DMI
Daily Milk Yield
Feed Efficiency
Trial 2
no
no
avg. +1 kg avg. +1.2 kg
no
no
Milk Composition
no
no
Milk Component Yields
yes
yes
UW Madison Shredlage® Trials
Shredlage Response
Trial 1
Trial 2
Total Tract Diet StarchD
Ruminal Silage StarchD
yes
yes
yes
yes
Total Tract Diet NDFD
yes
no
Ruminal Silage NDFD
no?
no
Corn Silage Fermentation
Increases Starch Digestibility!
Results from Mini-Silo Trial
Month effect (P < 0.0001)
Hybrid effect (NS)
Hybrid×Month (NS)
Ferraretto et al., 2014, ADSA abstracts
Ferraretto et al., 2014, ADSA abstr.
Kernel Processing Score
vacuum sealed experimental mini silos
% starch passing through 4.75 mm
screen
70
68
66
a
P = 0.08
SEM = 2.0
n=3
a
ab
64
62
b
60
58
56
0
30
120
Ensiling time, d
240
Ferraretto et al., 2013 JDS
Grain Meta-Analysis
A dataset comprised of 414 treatment
means from 101 trials reported in 100
papers published 2000 - 2011
The reports included in this dataset
were with lactating dairy cows fed TMR,
and contained data for ruminal and (or)
total tract starch digestibility
Cereal Grain Type
Ferraretto et al., JDS, 2013
Ruminal Digestibility
(% of intake)
Total Tract Digestibility
(% of intake)
n
Starch
n
Starch
Barley
30
70.6a
62
92.8
Corn
82
54.1b
335
92.6
Wheat
6
78.9a
11
93.9
P-value
0.001
0.80
All Grains Have Prolamins
Prolamin for each cereal grain have specific and historical names:
Grain
Prolamin Name
Prolamin Level
Wheat
(gliadin)
Med-Low
Barley
(hordein)
Low
Rye
(secalin)
Med-Low
Oats
(avenin)
Low
Corn
(zein)
High
Sorghum
(kafirin)
Very High
Copyright Patrick C. Hoffman, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Prolamins: Corn Endosperm Protein of Interest
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prolamin Zein ( 4 Types) – άβγδ
Form on the Starch Granule Surface
Prolamin Proteins Can Cross-link
Encapsulate Starch into a Matrix
Advances with maturity – (like NDF in forages)
Genetic differences in corn
–
–
–
–
Floury/Opaque Corns are Missing the Y-zein Gene
Floury/Opaque Corns are Low in Prolamins
Flint Corns are Very High in Prolamins
Common Corn Hybrids are Moderately-High in
Prolamins
Copyright: Patrick C. Hoffman, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Primary Factors Influencing
Starch Digestibility in Corn Grain
Processing
i.e. Particle size;
Steam Treatment
Harvest/Storage
i.e. Dry vs. HMC
DM of HM/Maturity;
Fermentation Time
Adapted from Pat Hoffman, UW Madison Dairy Sci. Dept.
Endosperm Type
i.e. Prolamin;
Prolamin-starch
matrix; Hardness
Source: Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS
Corn grain harvest/processing effects
Ruminal Digestibility (%)
Total Tract Digestibility (%)
Item
n
Starch
n
Starch
HMC
6
64.5
25
94.2a
SFC
10
58.5
36
93.9a
DRY
65
53.5
274
92.0b
SEM
7.4
0.8
P-value
0.12
0.001
Copyright: Patrick C. Hoffman, University of Wisconsin-Madison
The Starch-Protein Matrix
Vitreous Endosperm
Floury Endosperm
Scanning electron microscopy of starch granules in corn: A) starch granules heavily
imbedded in prolamin-protein matrix, B) starch granules in opaque corn endosperm with
less extensive encapsulation by prolamin-proteins (Gibbon et. al., 2003).
Published with permission: Copyright (2003) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
Impact of Flake Density on Total Tract
Starch Digestibility Owens & Zinn, SWNC, 2005
Ferraretto et al., 2013, JDS
Corn Grain MPS - DRY
a
a
Geometric Mean Particle Size (µm)
Ferraretto et al., 2014, JDS
Ferraretto et al., 2014, JDS
Sample manure for fecal starch
content to better manage starch
digestibility on the farm
Source Image: http://dairyinnovation.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/dsc_0083.jpg
Field Trial Fecal Starch Results
30
25
%
of
Samples
20
15
39% of farms with > 3% fecal starch
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Huibregtse et al., 2013
Starch in Fecal Samples, %
UW Research Trial Results
31% of samples with > 3% fecal starch
Fredin et al., 2014, JDS
P < 0.001
R² = 0.94
564 samples
Fredin et al., 2014, JDS
TTSD % = 100.0% - (1.25 X fecal starch %)
Utility of On-Farm Fecal Starch?
 Can be used to predict total tract starch
digestibility from available equation




Monitor specific group over time
Reflects total diet, not specific feedstuffs!
If <3% starch in feces no need to investigate feeds
If >3% should evaluate specific starchy feedstuffs
Slide provided by Shane Fredin of Miner Inst.
Sample collection and submittal
8 – 10 animals per sample submitted
◦ Preferably fresh sample
If a dietary or management change occurs, re-evaluate minimum of 2-3 weeks later
Keep samples cool
◦ Fecal starch decreased by 24% in non-cooled samples (Haerr et al., 2014)
◦ 5.4% for cold sample vs. 4.1% for ambient temp sample
◦ Ideally, submit samples that are kept cold!
Ruminal In-Vitro StarchD
Ruminal ivStarchD Issues
Sample incubation length
• 3 & 7 h common
• Ignores Kp and Kd differences
Incubation sample particle size
• 2-6 mm grind common
• Masks effects of client’s feed particle size
Diet of Rumen Fluid Donor vs. Client Herd
• Starch content and source affects amylase
activity and starch digestibility
Diet of Rumen Fluid Donor vs. Client Herd
NIRS calibrations ?
Ruminal ivStarchD Utility
 Indexing feedstuffs
• i.e. High, Mid, Low
 Determine population of lab samples
 Interventions – i.e. finer corn processing
 Ration adjustments - i.e. feeding more or less corn
 Adjusting calculated feedstuff energy values for
ration formulation
• How to predict TT StarchD from Ruminal ivStarchD?
• NRC-2001 PAF?
 Basing ration adjustments on intake of rumen
digestible starch?
• e.g. 15 DM lb. Corn-A x 70% starch x 60% ivStarchD = 6.3 lb.
• If Corn-B 70% starch & 75% ivStarchD, then 6.3/(0.70×0.75) =
12 DM lb. Corn-B
Questions?
12 de agosto 19:00
(segunda quarta feira do mês)
Rick Grant – PhD – Instituto Miner
O que aprendemos das pesquisas realizadas no Instituto
Miner . Foco em nutrição aplicada na fazenda.
Sua empresa pode ser parceira no próximo Webinar.
Ajude-nos a trazer aos nutricionistas Brasileiros o que
existe de mais novo em nutrição de vacas leiteiras no
mundo.
[email protected]
11 - 999756429
Cadastre-se nos nossos meios de comunicação para
receber os slides em português e o Webinar
gravado:
http://3rlab.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/3rlab
Excelente material para treinamento de equipes/grupos de estudos
Processamento do “grão” da SM
100
90
80
70
60
50
Brasil
40
EUA
30
Argentina
20
10
0
Pego amostra Uso técnica
e posso dizer do "balde
com água"
Faço KPS
Se não tiver Utilizo autogrãos nas motriz, elas
fezes esta processam
bom
bem
Comprimento de corte (TLOC)
100
90
80
70
60
Brasil
50
EUA
40
Argentina
30
20
10
0
Não tenho
recomendação
(> 19 mm)
(> 12 mm e <= 19
mm)
(< = 12 mm)
Se processado 19
mm senão 9 mm
100
90
Tamanho de partícula para milho
moido
80
70
60
50
40
Brasil
30
EUA
20
Argentina
10
0
Quebro o Menor que o Amido fecal é Menor que
milho em moinho pode o meu guia
2000 µm
pedaços,
moer
muito fino é
problema
Menor que
1000 µm
Frequência de análise de amido
100
fecal
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Brasil
EUA
Argentina
Nunca
Quando o
leite cai
Uma vez ao
Quando
mês
abrimos silo
Quando
mudo
ingredientes
na dieta