Real Science Exchange

This episode of the Real Science Exchange podcast was recorded during a webinar from Balchem’s Real Science Lecture Series. 

Choline was discovered in 1862 in pig and ox bile (“chole” in Greek). It is a simple nutrient containing five carbons and a nitrogen. Choline is considered a quasi-vitamin since its requirements and de novo synthesis are both higher than the B vitamins it’s similar to. Pigs can synthesize more choline than chickens. Choline is considered to be a conditionally essential nutrient depending on the physiological stage and choline production ability of the species being considered. (3:29)

Choline is involved in cellular maintenance and growth at all life stages. In particular, it’s involved in neurotransmission as a component of both sphingomyelin and acetylcholine. Phosphatidylcholine is a major component of cellular and organelle membranes and is involved in lipoprotein synthesis for the transport of lipids. Choline is converted to betaine upon oxidation, and betaine plays an important role in one-carbon metabolism as a methyl group donor. (8:43)

Dietary-free choline is preferentially used for acetylcholine and phosphatidylcholine synthesis. Phosphatidylcholine is the most abundant form of choline in the body. In general, water-soluble forms of choline are absorbed faster and have a higher tissue incorporation rate than lipid-soluble forms. (14:58)

 

Clinical signs of choline deficiency include reduced growth and reproductive performance. In pigs and chickens, choline-deficient diets lead to lipid accumulation in the liver. In broiler chickens, perosis is a classic choline deficiency sign and may progress to slipped tendons. From human studies, we know that insufficient methylation capacity during early development increases the risk of neural tube defects and impaired cognitive function. (16:44)

As animals age, their dietary source of choline transitions from water-soluble forms to lipid-soluble forms. Mammalian young receive water-soluble choline from milk, and avian species from the egg yolk. After weaning in pigs and at the hatch in chickens, the dietary choline source transitions to lipid-soluble forms found in oilseed meals. Dr. Dilger goes on to describe choline concentrations in common feedstuffs and supplements. Feedstuff type and processing methods have a profound influence on bioavailable choline content. (19:16)

Dr. Dilger details some of his work with choline and betaine in poultry diets. The requirement for preformed choline is relatively high for poultry because they lack capacity in a particular methyl transferase enzyme responsible for de novo synthesis. They also have relatively high choline oxidase activity which favors the formation of betaine from choline. Betaine is critical as a buffer to counteract the toxic effects of uric acid in the avian kidney. Dr. Dilger describes choline dietary requirements for avian species. (27:38)

Pigs have more efficient methyl transferase activity for de novo synthesis of choline. Sufficient choline is provided by milk and practical diets. For growing pigs consuming corn-soybean meal diets where methionine can completely spare choline, there is little benefit of choline supplementation for growth. Choline requirements increase for gestating and lactating sows. Swine requirements for choline were set in the 1940s and 1950s. Dr. Dilger believes these requirements need a second look given the great changes in pig and crop genetics since the requirements were originally established. To that end, work in his lab has shown that choline intake during gestation and lactation influences sow milk composition, body choline concentrations and forms, metabolomic profiles and brain development of pigs. (35:18)

In conclusion, Dr. Dilger considers choline a pervasive nutrient due to its crucial metabolic roles. Species-specific idiosyncrasies drive choline requirements, and analytical data for choline-related compounds is lacking. Different forms of choline have different metabolic kinetics and the potential for choline deficiency remains a practical issue. (46:15)

In closing, Dr. Dilger answers an extensive set of questions from the audience. Watch the full webinar at balchem.com/realscience. (48:32)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

Dr. Kononoff’s lab evaluated retrospective feed mixing records collected from eight commercial dairy farms. Data was divided into 28-day periods. Daily TMR nutrient deviation was automatically calculated from feed mixer data as the actual amount of a nutrient fed minus the target amount from the original diet formulation, divided by the target amount. (5:43)

Crude protein, NDF, fat, and starch were the nutrients evaluated in the study. (13:40)

Variation was positive for every nutrient on the vast majority of days. Dr. Kononoff attributes that to more feed being delivered than the diet formulation predicted animals would consume. Dry matter intake decreased with increasing positive deviation days in starch and increased with increasing positive deviation days in crude protein. NDF deviation did not impact dry matter intake. A narrow range of diets was used in the dataset and the main byproduct feed was high in NDF, so Dr. Kononoff speculates that there was not a wide enough range in NDF to have an impact on intakes. (17:04)

Milk yield increased with increased positive deviation days in starch and decreased with increased positive deviation days in NDF. The pregnancy rate increased with increasing positive deviation days in fat and decreased with increasing positive deviation days in crude protein. Unfortunately, milk urea nitrogen data was not available in the dataset to further investigate the crude protein/pregnancy rate relationship. (20:44)

There was little farm-to-farm variation in the data. (25:08)

As positive deviation days for starch increased, so did feed conversion. The opposite effect was noted for NDF. As positive deviation days for fat increased, feed conversion decreased. This result was a little surprising, as delivering more energy usually improves feed conversion. However, the dataset did not specify the source of fat or fatty acid profile, so there may have been some rumen fermentation interference from fat. (27:08)

Dr. Kononoff thinks it would be interesting to track individual cows through lactation and collect nutrient variation data. Dr. Weiss asks if the correlation between daily farm milk yield and nutrient variation was evaluated; it was not. Dr. Kononoff agrees that there may be some additional correlations that would be interesting to run. (33:22)

In closing, Dr. Zimmerman commends Dr. Kononoff’s work in tackling such a large dataset and looks forward to follow-up research. Dr. Weiss agrees and encourages more data extraction from the dataset. He was also very surprised at the low farm-to-farm variation observed and speculated if that would hold up if there were more variation in diets. Dr. Kononoff reminds the audience that taking a look at the TMR beyond the paper ration and digging into mixing techniques and TMR consistency is as important as evaluating bulk tank information or the amount of milk shipped. (37:20)

You can find this episode’s journal club paper from the Journal of Dairy Science Communications here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666910224000760

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

Balchem sponsored several abstracts presented at the 2024 ADSA Annual Meeting. This episode consists of five segments, each focused on an abstract.

Segment 1: Evaluating the total mixed ration stability of rumen-protected lysine products.

Guests: Kari Estes, Balchem; Dr. Mark Hanigan, Virginia Tech

This research compared the TMR stability of a Balchem prototype, several commercially available rumen-protected lysine products and a positive control of unprotected lysine. (3:39)

A sample of TMR and the equivalent of one gram of lysine from each product were mixed and placed in a  plastic zip bag for 0, 6, 12, or 24 hours. After each time point, the sample was placed in a strainer bag, dipped in distilled water, and drip-dried. The solution was collected and analyzed for free lysine content. (5:28)

About 85% of the unprotected lysine was recovered at 0 hours. After 24 hours, around 50% was recovered. The rumen-protected lysine products varied widely; one product released nearly 87% of its lysine in 24 hours, while another only released 9%. TMR stability should be taken into account when determining feeding rates and handling of rumen-protected lysine products. (7:19)

Segment 2: Evaluating the total mixed ration stability of rumen-protected choline products.

Guests: Kari Estes, Balchem; Dr. Mark Hanigan, Virginia Tech

In this experiment, Kari evaluated TMR stability of five commercially available rumen-protected choline products, along with a positive control treatment of unprotected choline chloride. (14:04)

At 0 hours, about 80% of the unprotected choline was recovered and 50% was recovered at 24 hours. Results for the rumen-protected choline products were highly variable, ranging from 5% release to 100% release at 24 hours. Rumen-protected choline products should be evaluated for TMR stability in addition to rumen stability and intestinal release. (17:25)

Segment 3: Effect of dry period heat stress and rumen-protected choline on productivity of Holstein cows. 

Guests: Maria Torres de Barri and Dr. Geoff Dahl, University of Florida

The experiment had four treatments: heat stress with and without rumen-protected choline, and cooling with and without rumen-protected choline. Cows in the cooling treatment were provided shade, soakers, and fans, while cows in the heat stress treatment were only provided shade. (24:45)

Heat-stress cows had higher rectal temperatures and respiration rates than cooled cows. Heat-stress cows also had lower dry matter intakes, shorter gestation length, lighter calves, and produced less milk. (29:36)

For cows in the cooling group, choline supplementation increased milk production. However, cows in the heat stress group supplemented with choline produced less milk than cows who did not receive choline. (31:04)

Dr. Dahl suggests that not cooling cows in heat-stress environments when they’re receiving choline will not result in optimal results. (33:49)

Segment 4: Effects of dietary rumen-protected, ruminal-infused, or abomasal-infused choline chloride on milk, urine, and fecal choline and choline metabolite yields in lactating cows. 

Guests: Mingyang (Charlie) You and Dr. Joe McFadden, Cornell University

This experiment evaluated early and late lactation cows supplemented with choline via three different methods. Each treatment had 12.5 grams of choline ion provided daily: fed in rumen-protected form, continuously infused into the rumen, or continuously infused into the abomasum. (36:29)

Choline bioavailability was influenced by the delivery method of choline. Fecal and milk choline concentration was only observed in early lactating cows with abomasal infusion. Abomasal infusion increases the choline metabolite betaine in feces and urine. These results suggest there is potential saturation of choline metabolism in the lactating cow. (40:53)

Segment 5: The metabolic fate of deuterium-labeled choline in gestating and lactating Holstein dairy cows. 

Guests: Dr. Tanya France, University of Wisconsin; Dr. Joe McFadden, Cornell University

Dr. France explains that choline can be metabolized via two different pathways. Using deuterium-labeled choline (D-9 choline) allows researchers to know which pathway is used. If D-3 or D-6 choline is measured, the methionine cycle is used, and if D-9 choline is measured, the CDP choline pathway is used. The hypothesis was that the physiological stage (late gestation vs early lactation) would influence choline metabolism. (51:06)

Dr. France found that both choline metabolism pathways were used in both physiological stages. This experiment also confirmed that choline is a methyl donor and that choline recycling can occur. The research also evaluated the relative amounts of choline and choline metabolites in each pool. (53:40)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt. 

This episode of the Real Science Exchange podcast was recorded during a webinar from Balchem’s Real Science Lecture Series.

Throughout the last 30 years, the dairy industry has moved to producing highly concentrated versions of milk proteins. In cows’ milk, about 80% of the protein is casein and 20% is in the serum or whey phase. These ratios vary by species. There are three major caseins in cows’ milk: alpha-S-casein, beta-casein, and kappa-casein. The first two are rich in phosphate for calcium binding. Kappa-casein is critical in a micellar structure that allows these structures to stay suspended in the milk. (1:21)

Whey proteins also differ by species. In cows’ milk, about 50% of the whey protein is beta-lactoglobulin. It’s rich in branched-chain amino acids, and it is not present in human milk so it is a focus of allergy research. Alpha-lactalbumin is found in all mammals and is a cofactor for lactose production. (10:34)

Caseins and whey proteins are different from one another and are in completely different classes of proteins. From structure, to size, to amino acid content, to solubility; these two types of proteins are yin and yang. (11:51)

When fluid milk or whey is concentrated by removing water, some sugars and other materials dissolve via evaporation or membrane filtration. It results in dried powders, milk protein concentrate, milk protein isolate, whey protein concentrate and whey protein isolates. Concentrates contain 80-85% protein and isolates contain more than 90% protein.  (17:14)

What's driving the current and probably future popularity of these dairy proteins? One, is their versatility in many food applications, and the other is the superior nutritional quality of the proteins. Nearly half of the milk protein concentrate use is for mainstream nutrition and sports beverages. Similar trends have been observed for whey protein isolates. (20:05)

Dairy proteins are very rich in branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) like leucine. BCAAs help initiate protein synthesis, are important for muscle recovery, help with weight loss by maintaining blood glucose levels, are synergistic with exercise, and can promote healthy aging. Dr. Lucey gives several different examples of products utilizing dairy proteins. He predicts that the increased focus on nutrition products, interest in isolating individual proteins and improving export opportunities will continue to drive demand for dairy proteins in the future.  (27:21)

All of the main milk proteins have genetic variants, which are minor amino acid differences in the same protein. Variants occur at different frequencies among breeds. Beta-casein has two variants, A1 and A2. There is one amino acid difference out of 209 total amino acids, located at position 67 where a histidine is found in variant A1 and a proline is found in variant A2. When histidine is present, the beta-casein is prone to cleavage at position 67, creating a fragment called beta-casomorphin-7 (BCM-7). When proline is present, it hinders the cleavage of casein at position 67. BCM-7 is an exogenous opioid peptide with the potential to elicit opioid activity on a range of tissues and organs. It’s known as a “bioactive peptide” and some others from milk and cheese have been implicated as anti-hypertensive. (35:26)

In the late 1990s, some researchers claimed that A1 milk was implicated in diabetes, coronary heart disease, autism, and schizophrenia. Subsequent reviews and investigations by significant international bodies found no evidence of these claims. (40:34)

In closing, Dr. Lucey answers questions from the webinar audience. He talks about the potential of breeding cows customized for the production of minor milk components, milk components as renewable bio-plastics, and the superiority of milk proteins compared to plant proteins. Watch the full webinar at balchem.com/realscience. (47:41)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

Dr. Overton presented on this topic in a Real Science Lecture series webinar on July 10, 2024. You can find it at www.balchem.com/realscience. This episode takes a deeper dive into the conversation.

Dr. Overton begins by reminding listeners of the vast number of changes occurring in the fresh cow during the first two to three weeks after calving. Body fat and protein mobilization, some systemic inflammation, the potential for elevated NEFAs and ketones, and calcium dynamics all play a role in how the fresh cow starts her lactation period. (7:31)

When consulting with clients, Dr. Faldet uses research to guide his decisions. He likes to implement a 14-day pen for fresh cows, ranging from 10-17 days. He evaluates things like stocking rates, lockup times, and cow comfort, along with fine-tuning a diet for each individual farm setting. (9:14)

The panel discusses the importance of increasing effective fiber along with starch in fresh cow diets. Without adequate effective fiber in the diet, the risk of acidosis increases, resulting in cows going off feed. There is no silver bullet; each farm’s fresh cow diet is going to be different due to different forage bases and timing in the fresh cow group. (13:02)

Both Dr. Faldet and Dr. Overton stressed the diet is only one component of a successful fresh cow program. Other critical pieces include stocking rate, availability of feed, water quantity and quality, and cow comfort. Dr. Faldet suggests that if you do all these non-diet factors right, you could probably maneuver closeup and fresh pens a little differently and make the diet work with the ingredients you have. Dr. Overton’s group is conducting survey work evaluating the variability in particle size in closeup diets. A pilot study showed that as particle size variability increased, so did fresh cow health issues and poor postpartum metabolic status. (19:10)

Protein requirements of the fresh cow were another topic of Dr. Overton’s webinar. He described a recent experiment evaluating standard and high metabolizable protein concentrations in the diet for closeup and fresh cows. The postpartum MP gave a big milk response, around 15-16 pounds per day for the first 21 days after calving, with a carryover effect of 11-12 pounds of milk for the next 20 days after all cows went back on the same diet. It’s important to note that lysine and methionine were fixed regardless of treatment, so it seems that other amino acids are probably involved in the mechanism of action. (23:06)

Dr. Overton described an experiment designed to evaluate starch and fiber in fresh cow diets where higher fiber digestibility and increased corn in silage resulted in less fiber and more starch than anticipated in the diet. Fresh cows were a bit of a trainwreck, but the problem was resolved once another couple of pounds of straw were added to the diet. On the other hand, you can go too far with increased fiber in fresh cow diets, which results in ketosis, lower intakes, and less milk production. (35:19)

The panel then discusses far-off programs, fat supplementation in fresh cow diets, and vitamin and mineral concentrations for fresh cows. (42:37)

In summary, each panelist shares their takeaways. Dr. Elliott reminds listeners that we should think about starch, fat, fiber, and protein together and how they influence each other rather than considering them individually. Dr. Faldet’s take-home message is to know what your targets and bookends are and really hone in and implement your fresh cow diets accordingly. Dr. Overton suggests that the industry will shift to evaluating fresh cow diets as their own thing rather than trying to tweak a few things from your high cow diet. Implementing fresh cow diets consistently and well is going to be important. (53:30)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

Dr. Callaway presented on this topic in a Real Science Lecture series webinar on June 4, 2024. You can find it at www.balchem.com/realscience. The following podcast takes a deeper dive into the conversation.

For years, probiotics were known as direct-fed microbials (DFMs) in livestock and probiotics in humans. Terminology has been updated to reflect different modes of action and composition. (9:07)

A probiotic is defined as a living microorganism that will be beneficial to the health and/or performance of the host. Prebiotics are fermentable substrates that the host can’t use, but the microbes can. Dr. Steele agrees that terminology and definitions keep evolving; he uses “microbial-based solutions” rather than DFM. He believes that the ever-evolving terminology and definitions have led to some of the skepticism about these products in the industry. He recommends to farmers and nutritionists that a product should have a bare minimum of three publications in high-quality peer-reviewed journals showing efficacy before using them on-farm. (10:13)

Every farm is going to have a different set of challenges and goals that will play a role in determining the right choice of microbial-based solution. Weather and climate, water quality, pathogen challenges, ration grind size, and ration ingredients will all factor into the decision. (17:39)

Both guests agree that we don't know enough about the microbiome in cattle to define what a good versus a bad microbiome looks like. Dr. Steele suggests the next steps in research should look more deeply at the host’s physiological mechanisms in how they’re responding to a probiotic to truly understand when it’s going to work and when it’s not. (21:19)

Dr. Ordway asks how much microbial products could improve the absorption of nutrients. Dr. Steele responds that much of the research so far has focused on digestion and absorption has not been studied much. Some studies in calves fed microbials have shown changes in gut structure and the development of villi, and even papillae in the rumen. That gives us some high-level information about absorption, but we are not close to understanding the nitty gritty of the microbial mechanisms at play in absorption. Dr. Callaway adds that hindgut absorption in ruminants is more important than we have previously thought. Dr. Steele suggests the small and large intestines are equally as important as the forestomach, but they are not as well understood as they’re harder to study in ruminants. The conversation goes on to discuss possible modes of action behind increased liver abscesses observed in beef on dairy operations. (30:12)

Both guests share their thoughts regarding working together across disciplines, especially agronomy researchers since the feed base has such an impact on-farm. They discuss soil microbes, forge inoculants, and silage microbes. (43:23)

Dr. Ordway’s take-home message for nutritionists is to not forget to have conversations with your partners - the producer, the end user, the veterinarian, the crop team and the management team on the farm. Coordinated biology is not just within the animal, it’s all the factors coming into play that have been discussed in this episode. (58:32)

Dr. Steele reiterates his earlier advice to only use microbial-based solutions that have a bare minimum of three publications showing efficacy in a high-ranking journal. He also recommends you choose your metric of measurement properly. Focusing on cattle that are experiencing some stress or metabolic or infectious issues may allow you to truly evaluate the return on investment. There are great microbial solutions out there but you need to use a proven solution from a company that’s research-based. (59:48)

Dr. Callaway echoes Dr. Steele’s recommendation to be slightly cynical about companies that come in to sell you things. Ask how their product works, and ask to see the research. A company that tells you when its product works and when it doesn’t might be more trustworthy than one that says their product always works. Lastly, what does success look like for you as a farmer? Have a measurable, bite-size metric for determining if these products impact your bottom line. (1:01:28)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

This episode of the Real Science Exchange podcast was recorded during a webinar from Balchem’s Real Science Lecture Series.

Dr. Goff sees three main challenges for transition cows: negative energy and protein balance, immune suppression, and hypocalcemia. About half of all older cows experience hypocalcemia, and around 3% will experience milk fever. Cows develop hypocalcemia if they are unable to replace the calcium lost in milk from either their bone or diet. Compared to the day before calving, a cow needs around 32 extra grams of protein the day of calving to meet her increased requirements. (2:00)

Dr. Goff reviews the pathways of calcium homeostasis and the actions of parathyroid hormone (PTH). Aged cows may have a harder time maintaining calcium homeostasis due to the loss of vitamin D receptors in the intestine with age and fewer sites of active bone resorption capable of responding quickly to PTH once they have finished growing. Blood pH plays a role in calcium homeostasis: when blood pH becomes alkaline, animals become less responsive to PTH. Dr. Goff reviews the impacts of high vs low DCAD diets and reviews the amount of time it takes for the kidney and bone to respond to PTH. (4:20)

There are several strategies to reduce the risk of hypocalcemia. One is to reduce dietary potassium so the cow is not as alkaline. Using forages from fields that have not had manure applied to them is one way to accomplish this. In addition, warm-season grasses (corn) accumulate less potassium than cool-season grasses, and all grasses contain less potassium as they mature (straw). A second strategy is to add anions such as chloride or sulfate to the diet to acidify the blood to improve bone and kidney response to  PTH. Research has shown that sulfate salts acidify about 60% as well as chloride salts. The palatability of anionic diets has led to commercial products such as Soychlor. (13:06)

Dr. Goff then discusses the over- and under-acidification of diets and gives his opinion on the appropriate range of urine pH for proper DCAD diet management, including a new proposed DCAD equation to account for alkalizing and acidifying components of the diet. He also gives some options for pH test strips to use for urine pH data collection. (18:30)

Dr. Goff’s lab has found that as prepartum urine pH increases, the calcium nadir decreases. The inflection point is right around pH 7.5, where above 7.5 indicates a higher risk of hypocalcemia. Data from other researchers suggests that urine pH lower than 6.0 may result in lower blood calcium, indicating an overall curvilinear response. Low urine pH (under 6.0) has also been associated with a higher incidence of left-displaced abomasum. (29:02)

Moving on to other minerals, Dr. Goff discusses phosphate homeostasis and how that interacts with calcium in the close-up cow. Feeding too much phosphorus can decrease calcium absorption and feeding low phosphorus diets before calving can improve blood levels of calcium. He recommends less than 0.35% phosphorus in close-up cow diets. For magnesium,he recommends 0.4% prepartum and immediately postpartum to take advantage of passive absorption across the rumen wall. (31:08)

Another strategy to reduce milk fever risk is to reduce dietary calcium prior to calving to stimulate parathyroid hormone release well before calving. A zeolite product that binds calcium is now available and may make this much easier to achieve. (42:59)

In closing, Dr. Goff reminds the audience that some level of hypocalcemia post-calving is normal and in fact, is associated with higher milk production. The key is making sure that the cow’s blood calcium levels can bounce back to normal by day two after calving. (51:23)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

Dr. DeVries presented a Real Science Lecture webinar on May 8, 2024, titled “Lessons Learned in Research on Nutritional Management of Robot Milked Cows.” You can find the webinar recording at balchem.com/realscience.  

Dr. DeVries begins with an overview of how his robotic milking research has evolved. In Canada, around 20%-plus of farms are using robotic milkers. He describes survey research in the US and Canada as to why producers choose to implement robotic milkers. (9:19)

In Trevor’s webinar, he discussed the large amount of variation in nutritional management of robot-milked cows across Canada. Some of his research with Dr. Penner has looked at the interaction between feed consumed at the feed bunk and feed consumed at the robot. Ideally, you wish to be able to accurately predict intake because that is a primary driver of milk production. Because cows can be supplemented individually at the robot, there is opportunity to better feed cows to match their individual needs. (13:50)

Trevor and Greg describe their respective university’s robot milking research facilities. The panel discusses additional technologies that would be useful for all robotic milkers, like load cells to measure feed delivery and disappearance. Cows typically consume around 250-300 grams of concentrate per minute, and that can vary by feed type (pellet vs mash, for example.) The panel also ponders whether the design of the feed bunk in the robots has an impact on intake rate. (17:35)

As a consulting nutritionist, Todd prefers to feed as little as possible in the robot and have a more consistent mix in the PMR. The level of milk production of the cows can have a large influence on how much pellet is fed at the robot versus the feed bunk. Todd goes on to describe his strategy for creating proportions of PMR and robot intakes for different scenarios. (26:06)

Clay asks the panel what the maximum amount of concentrate should be fed at the robot. They discuss factors that can influence concentration including individual cow variation, length of time in the robot per milking, and the number of visits to the robot per day. Clay goes on to ask how fast fresh cows can be stepped up in their robot feedings. The group has a lively discussion about all the different factors that play a role in that decision. Greg reminds the audience not to get so caught up with programming the robot that we lose sight of the fact we’re still feeding cows and good dairy management still applies. (31:29)

Todd describes some of the biggest challenges he observes as a consultant in robotic dairies, primarily centered around understanding cow behavior. Trevor underlines the importance of cow comfort and other non-nutritional factors in regard to their influence on the success of the nutrition program.(41:29)

Scott asks the panel what they think robotic milkers might look like in 2050 and what problems will have been solved by then. Greg’s wish list includes knowing PMR intake to better manage robot feedings and having cow body weights on every dairy. Trevor thinks we will have a much better understanding of how genetics influence cow performance in a robotic system and how we can raise cows to adapt to the technology to be better robot cows. Todd agrees that body weights are critical and also envisions more individualized milkings depending on each cow’s preferences. On his wish list is a drone that could be used to fetch cows to the robot who have not gone to be milked. (46:51)

​​Trevor and Greg discuss what’s next in their upcoming research projects, and Todd gives some wishlist ideas for future research. (54:18)

In summary, each guest gives their take home messages. Clay is intrigued by the precision feeding aspects of robotic milking systems. Todd encourages dairy producers not to be scared of robotic milking systems. Greg looks forward to research in the next 5-10 years to support or refute the preconceived notions we have about robotic systems. Trevor reminds listeners that cows must consume a certain amount of nutrients in order to produce milk. In the robotic system, those nutrients are delivered via two different components and research continues to understand the interplay between them. Lastly, animal behavior is a critical component of the success of robotic systems and our management approach should reflect that. (1:02:46)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

Dr. Cannas presented a Real Science Lecture webinar on October 17, 2023, titled “Diets of Productive Sheep & Goats: Performance & Health.” You can find the webinar recording at balchem.com/realscience.  

Dr. Cannas outlines the topics he covered in his webinar, including nutritional requirement differences between small and large ruminants, particularly in late gestation. Small ruminants have a shorter gestation and are more prolific than cattle, for example, and this means they have more nutritional challenges in late gestation. Dr. Cannas covered supplementation, basal diet quality, and sorting ewes or does by number of fetuses. He also discussed how high milk-producing sheep and goats partition nutrients. (10:36)

Many people treat sheep and goats like smaller, low-producing cattle. Dr. Cannas considers this approach a big mistake. During pregnancy and lactation, sheep and goats are highly-producing animals that garner the same attention given to high-producing dairy and beef cattle. Dr. Texeira agrees and reminds the audience that just because sheep and goats are very adaptable animals doesn’t mean you should feed them low-quality diets. Jessica mentions that providing poor-quality feed may not allow the ewe or doe to meet her genetic potential. (21:51)

The panel discusses the importance of record keeping and data to evaluate management changes. (27:31)

Jessica asks about how Antonello fed rumen-protected choline in his experiments. They fed individually to ensure each animal received the correct dose but recommended to mix it into a TMR or mineral supplement for on-farm feeding. (33:12)

Izabelle asks how many groups most farms sort ewes or does into before lambing or kidding in Sardinia. Antonello says it depends on the individual farm because they are so diverse, but at least two groups, singles and twins. They may also sort based on the number of days pregnant as well. He describes some experimental results from feeding rumen-protected choline to ewes carrying singles versus twins. (35:35)

Dr. Teixeira describes some of the challenges sheep and goat producers face in her native Brazil due to heat stress. Jessica gives examples of management strategies to help manage heat stress based on her work at Cornell. (41:14)

The panel discussed challenges with body condition scoring goats using a sheep scale since goats store more fat internally or in other locations like the tail. They also discuss recommendations for target body condition scores at different stages of the production cycle. (48:00)

In summary, Jessica recommends that sheep and goat producers focus on what they do well, make small changes to improve their operation, and collect data to see what is working and what is not working. Izabelle encourages producers to understand what is happening physiologically in each stage of production to best manage nutritional challenges. Antonello reiterates that sheep and goats should be given the same attention and care as high-producing dairy cows. It is a complex business and there is much room for improvement in the management of small ruminants. (57:27)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt. 

Dr. Zimmerman presented a Real Science Lecture webinar on December 12th, 2023, titled “Not All Rumen-Protected Products Are Created Equal.” You can find the webinar recording at balchem.com/realscience.  

Clay outlines four attributes of a good rumen-encapsulated product. They are feed and TMR stable, ruminal stable, nutrient bioavailability, and good efficacy biologically in the animal.  (6:21)

Kari describes a TMR stability test that Balchem has been perfecting based on a paper published in 2016. One to two grams of a rumen-protected product (based on the nutrient composition) is mixed with a half pound of TMR in a Ziploc bag, then the mixture incubates for 0, 6, 12 or 24 hours (based on feeding 1x, 2x, or 3x per day). Once a sample is finished incubating, it’s placed in a strainer bag in one liter of distilled water for one minute. Then, the amount of nutrient that was leached into the distilled water is measured. She describes some of the observations and trends they’ve seen from using this technique on different products. (8:24)

Mark asks about the impact of abrasion during the mixing process on encap stability. Kari describes a mineral mix technique using a small ribbon and paddle mixer. In this case, 5-10 pounds of encap product are mixed with 90-95 pounds of a mineral mix for three minutes. Then a sample is analyzed for damage to the encap. Clay does not recommend pelleting any encapsulated product because that will only reduce efficacy. It may not be 100% damage, but it will be significant. (12:41)

Scott asks about the freeze-thaw stability of encapsulates. Clay mentions that all of Balchem’s encapsulated products are freeze-thaw stable. If a product is not, there will be cracks in the coating and some ruminal stability will be lost. (19:34)

When it comes to ruminal stability, matrix encapsulates tend to have lower stability in the rumen, but it varies widely. Some have no ruminal stability; some lose less than 10% in the rumen. Encapsulation is a complex process and there are tradeoffs between some of the steps. For example, between TMR stability or rumen stability and bioavailability, the goal is to find the perfect mix of these to make a high-efficacy product on the farm. Kari describes a rumen stability test that can be conducted on-farm for protected choline and lysine products. Mark describes in situ experiments for rumen stability testing using small Dacron bags in rumen-cannulated animals. He mentions that creating an encap with high rumen stability and high intestinal digestibility is key.  (19:58)

Bioavailability is key, but methodologies for assessing bioavailability are a limitation. Kari and Mark discuss the pros and cons of various in situ/in vivo techniques, including mobile bag, abomasal pulse dose, and stable isotope. (29:25)

Clay mentions that in vitro techniques are a key piece to product development and testing, but may give erroneous results compared to in vivo testing. Kari describes an experiment she conducted with Mark comparing in vivo and in vitro techniques. She suggests that there may be an argument for creating specific in vitro tests built for different types of protected products.  For example, for a pH-sensitive product, a step mimicking abomasal enzymes would be important. For a fat-coated product, a step mimicking intestinal enzymes for fat breakdown would be important. Clay cautions that a product with only in vitro data should be regarded with skepticism. (44:25)

Biological response in the animal is the key final step. Ultimately, you want independent, peer-reviewed data to prove the efficacy of a product. Mark reminds the audience that even if animals don’t respond to a product, there are a host of different issues that could be causing that unrelated to the product being tested. Things like water quality, water quantity, stress, cow comfort - there’s a whole laundry list of things to consider. (50:39)

In closing, Kari recommends that when picking an encap product, ask for the research that hits the four pillars: TMR stability, rumen stability, bioavailability, and animal performance. Mark suggests that you can’t make a bad encap good, but you can make a good encap bad if you aren’t careful. Clay agrees that the more data, the better. Lastly, we need more work on the feed stability pillar which has been overlooked. It is a critical piece to encap products being effective in the field. (55:13)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.