Back to basics: Precision while mixing total mixed rations and its impact on milking performance

Alex Bach
{"title":"Back to basics: Precision while mixing total mixed rations and its impact on milking performance","authors":"Alex Bach","doi":"10.3168/jdsc.2023-0423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Details from every mixing load of total mixed ration (TMR) fed to ∼19,000 cows distributed in 92 pens from 21 farms, along with individual milk yield of each cow in every pen and farm, were collected from a feeding and management system (algoMilk; <span>www.algomilk.com</span><svg><path></path></svg>) between 2020 and 2022 on a daily basis to assess the impact of quality of mixing TMR on animal performance. Divergence between expected and actual amounts of ingredients mixed in every load was calculated and expressed as a percentage relative to expected amounts. Ingredients were classified as (1) energy grains (i.e., corn, wheat), (2) protein sources (i.e., soybean meal, canola meal), (3) hays (i.e., alfalfa hay), (4) grain silages (i.e., corn silage), (5) nongrain silages (i.e., alfalfa silage), (6) minerals (i.e., salt, sodium bicarbonate), and (7) straw (i.e., wheat straw). Milk yield was averaged within farm and pen on a weekly basis, and mixing divergences were also averaged by load or by ingredient type and week within pen and farm. The weekly standard deviation (SD) of mixing divergences was calculated for every pen and farm. The average divergence of the total amount of TMR prepared was 1.52 ± 0.017% (mean ± SD), which means that, in general, mixing errors were caused by adding an excess of one or more ingredients. Energy grains (1.20 ± 0.037%), grain silages (1.78 ± 0.023%), hays (2.29 ± 0.044%), and protein sources (1.82 ± 0.043%) were mixed in excessive amounts (mean ± SD), whereas nongrain silages (−1.5 ± 0.037%), molasses (−3.05 ± 0.067%), minerals (96.9 ± 0.084%), and straw (−0.6 ± 0.063%) were mixed (mean ± SD) in lower amounts than expected. Divergence in the total amount of TMR was weakly quadratically (concave) correlated (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.04) with milk yield. Similarly, divergence in the amounts of grains, protein sources, hay, silages, minerals, and molasses mixed in the TMR wagon in relation to the formulated ration was also weakly and quadratically (concave) with milk yield. Minimizing mixing errors may have positive effects on milking performance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94061,"journal":{"name":"JDS communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666910223001138/pdfft?md5=5dc68ca4a9a4f6b4dbebad543cf2d414&pid=1-s2.0-S2666910223001138-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JDS communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666910223001138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Details from every mixing load of total mixed ration (TMR) fed to ∼19,000 cows distributed in 92 pens from 21 farms, along with individual milk yield of each cow in every pen and farm, were collected from a feeding and management system (algoMilk; www.algomilk.com) between 2020 and 2022 on a daily basis to assess the impact of quality of mixing TMR on animal performance. Divergence between expected and actual amounts of ingredients mixed in every load was calculated and expressed as a percentage relative to expected amounts. Ingredients were classified as (1) energy grains (i.e., corn, wheat), (2) protein sources (i.e., soybean meal, canola meal), (3) hays (i.e., alfalfa hay), (4) grain silages (i.e., corn silage), (5) nongrain silages (i.e., alfalfa silage), (6) minerals (i.e., salt, sodium bicarbonate), and (7) straw (i.e., wheat straw). Milk yield was averaged within farm and pen on a weekly basis, and mixing divergences were also averaged by load or by ingredient type and week within pen and farm. The weekly standard deviation (SD) of mixing divergences was calculated for every pen and farm. The average divergence of the total amount of TMR prepared was 1.52 ± 0.017% (mean ± SD), which means that, in general, mixing errors were caused by adding an excess of one or more ingredients. Energy grains (1.20 ± 0.037%), grain silages (1.78 ± 0.023%), hays (2.29 ± 0.044%), and protein sources (1.82 ± 0.043%) were mixed in excessive amounts (mean ± SD), whereas nongrain silages (−1.5 ± 0.037%), molasses (−3.05 ± 0.067%), minerals (96.9 ± 0.084%), and straw (−0.6 ± 0.063%) were mixed (mean ± SD) in lower amounts than expected. Divergence in the total amount of TMR was weakly quadratically (concave) correlated (R2 = 0.04) with milk yield. Similarly, divergence in the amounts of grains, protein sources, hay, silages, minerals, and molasses mixed in the TMR wagon in relation to the formulated ration was also weakly and quadratically (concave) with milk yield. Minimizing mixing errors may have positive effects on milking performance.

返璞归真:混合全混日粮时的精确性及其对挤奶性能的影响
在 2020 年至 2022 年期间,从饲喂和管理系统(algoMilk; www.algomilk.com)中收集了分布在 21 个牧场 92 个牛栏中的∼19,000 头奶牛的总混合日粮(TMR)每次混合的详细情况,以及每个牛栏和牧场中每头奶牛的产奶量,以评估总混合日粮的混合质量对动物生产性能的影响。计算每次混合的原料预期量与实际量之间的差异,并以相对于预期量的百分比表示。配料分为:(1) 能量谷物(即玉米、小麦);(2) 蛋白质来源(即豆粕、菜籽粕);(3) 干草(即苜蓿干草);(4) 谷物青贮(即玉米青贮);(5) 干草(即苜蓿干草)、玉米青贮)、(5)非谷物青贮(如苜蓿青贮)、(6)矿物质(如食盐、碳酸氢钠)和(7)秸秆(如小麦秸秆)。牧场和圈舍内的产奶量按周计算平均值,混合差异也按负载或配料类型以及圈舍和牧场内的周计算平均值。计算每个牛栏和牧场每周混合差异的标准偏差(SD)。配制的 TMR 总量的平均偏差为 1.52 ± 0.017%(均值 ± 标差),这意味着一般来说,混合错误是由于添加了过量的一种或多种原料造成的。能量谷物(1.20 ± 0.037%)、谷物青贮(1.78 ± 0.023%)、干草(2.29 ± 0.044%)和蛋白质来源(1.82 ± 0.043%)的混合量过大(平均值 ± SD),而非谷物青贮(-1.5 ± 0.037%)、糖蜜(-3.05 ± 0.067%)、矿物质(96.9 ± 0.084%)和秸秆(-0.6 ± 0.063%)的混入量(平均值 ± SD)低于预期。TMR 总量的差异与产奶量呈弱二次方(凹)相关(R2 = 0.04)。同样,TMR 车中混合的谷物、蛋白源、干草、青贮饲料、矿物质和糖蜜的量与配制的日粮相比,也与产奶量呈弱二次方(凹)相关。尽量减少混合误差可能会对挤奶性能产生积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JDS communications
JDS communications Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信