There is no doubt that corn silage, barley silage and alfalfa haylage are the major fermented forages supporting the dairy industry in Canada and the US. Any variation in the nutrient composition and digestibility of these forages will therefore directly affect a producer’s ability to meet their dairy cows' nutrient requirements throughout the year.

In other words, a good understanding of the nutritive value of your fermented forages will allow you to develop a nutrition program that helps your cows reach their true genetic potential for milk production and health.

More nutrients for the cow, more dollars in your pocket

Over the last few years, nutritionists and dairy producers have been paying special attention to the nutritive value of fermented forages. It is now widely acknowledged that this nutritional concept can positively impact animal productivity and producer profitability. The performance of the modern dairy cow is highly dependent upon the adequate levels and favorable balances of nutrients in the fermented forages they consume.

It is an oversimplification to define the nutritive value of fermented forages purely as the ability to supply the nutrients present in the dry matter to the cow. Before nutrients can reach their target tissue in the cow, the feed must be consumed (feed intake) and the nutrients in the forage must be released and absorbed by the cow (digestion).

When it comes to digestion, fermentable forages are a step ahead

Many factors influence the nutritive value of fermentable forages, including forage cultivar, stage of maturity at harvest and storage methods. In contrast to non-fermentable forages, the digestion of fermentable forage begins long before it is added to the feed bunk.

During normal ensiling processes, some nutrients ferment, releasing molecules that make the crop more palatable and easier to digest. Under these conditions, the nutrients have a better chance of being ingested and absorbed.

Practically speaking, this fermentable forage has an optimum nutritive value. In commercial dairy herds, this forage will result in high milk yield and milk components, leading to excellent reproductive performance and good health.

Test your forage to see how it measures up

Usually, producers and nutritionists send forage samples to a lab in order to obtain information on the nutritional composition of the fermented forages. However, this information can come up short in terms of allowing producers to understand how available these nutrients are to the cow.

Fortunately, methods such as Alltech’s In vitro Fermentation Model have been developed to efficiently and quickly determine the nutrient availability in these forages, including the neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), or the organic matter digestibility. Results from these tests are positively correlated with potential intake. When this information is analyzed as a whole, producers can get a good idea of the nutritive value of their fermented forage.

In Ontario and Quebec, a recent survey carried out on 47 fermented forages indicated that over 84 percent of the forage samples collected showed NDFD (at 30 hours in vitro) values below 52 percent, suggesting poor nutritive value. Therefore, it is important not to assume that your forages have a good nutritive value. To assure herd performance, testing is a must.

Reviewing the nutritive value of the fermented forages used in any feeding program is essential to help your dairy herd reach its maximum genetic potential and is an integral part of dairy farming profitability.

Mineral needs in modern dairy diets

Most dairy research tends to focus on protein and energy needs, and minerals are often overlooked. Yet, when we fail to consider the role of minerals, problems can arise, including interferences or interactions with minerals in feed and water.

Mineral types

• Zinc:
  • Essential to more than 200 enzyme systems at work in the animal, such as carbohydrate and energy metabolism, protein synthesis, nucleic acid metabolism, epithelial integrity, cell repair and division and utilization of vitamins A and E
  • Needed for development/function of the immune system and critical to the cellular function of cells, including heterophils, basophils, macrophages and T-lymphocytes
  • Essential in wound healing
  • Critical to reproduction because of its involvement in sexual maturity, reproductive capacity and semen quality
• Copper
  • Component of immune system enzymes
  • Necessary to increase structural health and elasticity of connective tissue and blood vessels as well as increase strength of bone
  • Needed for metabolism of iron and maturation of red blood cells
• Manganese
  • Cofactor for enzymes in the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and nucleic acids
  • Essential for normal brain function
  • Involved in the formation of collagen, bone growth, urea formation, fatty acid synthesis, cholesterol synthesis and protein digestion
  • Important for proper immune function and wound healing
• Selenium
  • Critical to proper enzyme function and cellular antioxidant systems
  • Involved in muscle contraction and immune functions
  • Important for reproduction

Form defines function

Understanding the difference between organic and inorganic minerals is important. When we look closely at organic minerals, or minerals with a carbon structure such as Bioplex®, they are in the same form that we would find in corn, grain or forages. In other words, they are similar to the minerals stored in plants.

Bioplex minerals are produced by replicating plant material in a patented manufacturing process, which chelates the minerals onto amino acids and peptides. Bioplex and Sel-Plex® trace minerals provide mineral nutrition in the forms most similar to those present naturally in food and feed ingredients.

Why not just supplement with more inorganics?

There are various issues that can arise when using inorganic minerals due to their lower biological activity, including associated environmental concerns. Various research studies have demonstrated that over-fortification of trace minerals can elevate antibiotic resistance in swine operations as bacteria like Salmonella develop tolerance to high levels of copper and zinc.

Inorganic minerals can have various mineral interactions, and they can serve as antagonists that can interfere with normal biological processes. Examples include:

• High levels of calcium and phosphorus can reduce manganese utilization by up to 65 percent (Wedekind and Baker, 1990; Baker and Oduho, 1994).
• Excess manganese itself impairs utilization of iron (Baker and Halpin, 1991).
• Excess zinc has an antagonistic effect on copper and manganese (Vohra and Heil, 1969).

Total replacement in dairy heifers: The research support behind Bioplex

When comparing supplementing Bioplex minerals to sulfate forms of minerals in a study done by Pino and Heinrichs, published in the 2016 Journal of Dairy Science, Bioplex diets included fewer trace minerals yet showed an increase in total volatile fatty acid and butyrate concentrations, due to an acceleration of rumen organism replication. The dairy heifers also spent less time eating, indicating that Bioplex minerals had improved palatability.

There are other examples of Bioplex’s effect:

• In 1993, a study done in Missouri determined that Bioplex Zn® supplemented at 800 milligrams per day led to a reduction in the number of new mastitis infections.

• In 2007, a study done by Kinal showed that Bioplex trace minerals reduced somatic cell counts, and the same study showed that there was more milk produced in the first 60 days of lactation when using Bioplex.
• A study done by Scaletti and Harmon in 2012 showed a reduction in E. coli levels in milk as well as an increase in milk production.

The research support behind Sel-Plex

In a study done by Silvestre and Thatcher in 2006, cows supplemented with Sel-Plex showed improvements in immune function, adaptive immunity, cervical discharge scores and pregnancy rates.

The adage that “form defines function,” especially when it comes to minerals, is both important and true. Alltech continues to carry out research across the world to prove the impact of organic minerals on herd health and performance.

For more information on Bioplex and Sel-Plex, click here.

To listen to the full webinar with Roger Scaletti, Ph.D. click on the button below.

Click here to watch the webinar

Documenting trends is the closest thing in business to peering into a crystal ball. When it comes to consumer food trends, a dizzying variety of surveys from around the world readily fill pages upon pages of a Google search.

But which trends are long-term and which are just passing fads? What are shoppers really thinking? What’s influencing or impacting their behaviors? And what’s driving their purchases?

A particular pair of studies stands out for depth of insight for those along the food chain whose job it is to tweak strategic consumer marketing plans.

PERIscope 2017 is a biennial, large-scale quantitative study launched in 2001 by Bord Bia, the Irish Food Board. Based on interviews with 1,000 consumers in each of eight countries, the study identifies major shifts in consumer attitudes over time. The eight markets include Ireland and Great Britain, four continental European Union markets, as well as the U.S. and China. The study explores consumer attitudes about eating at home, cooking, local food, the environment, and health and well-being.

A second survey taps into the consumer food trend perceptions of more than 1,700 registered dietitians (RDs). What’s Trending in Nutrition, an annual survey produced in partnership between Pollock Communications and Today’s Dietitian magazine, covers bases ranging from shifting attitudes to favored resources and much in between.

Here are some of the highlights featured in each.

A source of tension

Among the standout trends of 2017 illuminated in the eight-nation PERIscope survey is a tension between the desire for “new” versus the comfort of tradition.

“We know that across all markets, consumers are placing more importance on spending time as a family over meals, enjoying cooking more and increasingly hosting dinner parties, all indicating people’s desire to balance modern life with tradition,” said David Deeley, a member of Bord Bia’s consumer and market insight team.

Among the countries surveyed for PERIscope, China, followed by Spain, leads in striving to balance modernization and tradition. The U.K. is ranked 7th and the Netherlands dead last in this category.

This finding is supported by the Today’s Dietitian survey, which attributes the latest shift in consumer food perceptions to a slower and more thoughtful approach to eating.

Keep it real

When it comes to authenticity, noted PERIscope’s Deeley, “consumers are tired of uniform, impersonal, throw-away products and the invisible nature of global supply chains. They crave stronger connections with the brands they buy, increasingly seeking out authentic and storied products that tell their brand story in an interesting and resonating way.”

What’s the story behind the story?

The demand for transparency is as strong as ever. The PERIscope survey finds consumers continuing to challenge producers to provide the full details about their food products. Labeling and quality symbols are a major point of interest for many countries, especially in China, where many people have lost faith in the safety of produce.

Provenance and quality matter. In Ireland, 78 percent of food shoppers check for country of origin, while checking for quality symbols stands at 75 percent, up by 20 percent since 2001. In the U.S., almost 7 in 10 people claim to check for country of origin, while 67 percent of consumers check for a symbol or certificate that guarantees the quality of the produce, according to the survey.

Registered dietitians responding to the Today’s Dietitian poll indicate that GMO-free and sustainable foods have experienced on average a 20 percent decrease in terms of what concerns consumers.

“Dietitians attribute this decline to food label transparency and more food companies changing their ingredient deck,” the report said.

And 59 percent of dietitians said consumers are choosing to "eat clean,” selecting foods that are less processed as well as more whole foods, such as veggies, fruits, ancient grains and green tea. Plant-based proteins like nuts and seeds also figure more prominently in diets.

Make it lasting and environmentally friendly

Smart devices deliver a mind-boggling amount of information about brand practices, processes and procedures. The result?

“Consumers are calling out inappropriate, bland or opaque brand behavior and are sharing it with their peers,” observed Deeley.

The PERIscope study finds that consumers prefer to buy from companies that are aware of environmental issues and the value of sustainability.

“We also know that they’re increasingly more aware of terms like ‘food waste’ and ‘sustainably produced' in countries like Spain, Germany and the Netherlands, where awareness of both tops 90 percent,” he said.

Across all eight markets, the survey shows that consumers are adopting a greener mindset and are increasingly drawn to eco-friendly businesses and practices.

Deeley’s suggestion to food producers and processors: “Recycling, upcycling, downcycling, zero waste — it doesn’t matter what you call it. Just be sure that you adopt a green mindset and eliminate any negative environmental impact your products and services may directly or indirectly cause before, during and after production — this includes the entire consumption cycle, too.”

Localism lives on

With a growing number of adults turning toward the local and the familiar, the emergence of the “locavore” is becoming ever more pervasive, according to the PERIscope 2017 survey.

“Local food for consumers means food that is better quality and is transparent in its production processes,” said Deeley. “A growing number are looking closer to home for groceries, and more and more are seeing the importance of purchasing from their local communities. This trend holds true across most countries, with the French placing the most importance on buying local foods (79 percent).”

China (76 percent) and Spain (75 percent), Ireland (67 percent), Germany (64 percent) and the U.S. (60 percent) are warming to the concept. Consumers in Great Britain (55 percent) and the Netherlands (35 percent) are the least interested in seeking out specifically local food sources.

Make it quick — but good

Demand for foods that are quick to prepare has been on the rise. Pre-portioned meal delivery services such as Blue Apron, HelloFresh and FreshDirect have skyrocketed, with 45 percent of consumers now turning to these and similar healthy meal or weight loss menu delivery programs in order to eat healthier, according to the Today’s Dietitian survey.

“In Ireland, this figure rose from 56 percent in 2001 to almost 7 in 10 (69 percent) in 2017,” according to PERIscope’s Deeley. “The majority of Americans have a tendency to pick foods that are easy to prepare (91 percent) and quick to cook (85 percent). More than 7 in 10 people claim to eat convenience or ready-prepared meals regularly.”

In an observation worthy of the attention of food labelers, Deeley noted some uncertainty about which foods are healthy, “with close to half of those polled claiming to be confused about the health benefits of particular foods and 60 percent saying nutritional claims and food labels are hard to understand.”

Keep it interesting

More than 7 in 10 consumers in all eight countries of the PERIscope survey claim they like to try new foods. An increasingly wider variety of foods is available in today’s markets, making it is easier for consumers to explore foods from around the world.

And there’s China again, leading this time in adventurous eating, with 96 percent saying they like to try new foods. And once again, the Chinese are trailed closely by Spanish consumers in an open-mindedness about new foods (94 percent), while the French (81 percent) and Irish (74 percent) are more likely to stick with what they know.

There are apps for that

When it comes to technology, Chinese consumers are far ahead of their counterparts in the seven other countries surveyed by PERIscope in 2017.

Asked if they have ever downloaded a food app, 76 percent of Chinese consumers responded that they have. The next closest are Americans at 34 percent, with only 19 percent of Irish and 18 percent of consumers in the U.K. poking at food icons on their smart devices.

What is influencing consumer perception?

The survey of dietitians looked at the sources of consumer nutrition information. Most (73 percent) said consumers rely on blogs and websites, followed by social media (70 percent). Fifty-eight percent turn to television and radio for most of their information.

The survey also reveals a paradox by asking where consumers get the most nutrition misinformation. Seventy-seven percent cited social media, 67 percent pointed to blogs and websites, and 63 percent said celebrities often get it wrong (a change from 2016, when celebrities were believed to be more misleading than social media).

Consumers gauge their health and weight, according to the dietitians, by comparing themselves to people in magazines or on television (72 percent), friends/family members (64 percent) or people on social media (57 percent).

Food consumers in China are far more likely than those in the other seven countries of the PERIscope survey to share recipes via social media — 77 percent of Chinese respondents versus the next highest social media users, Americans at 41 percent.

Where are registered dietitians sourcing their own information? According to the Today’s Dietitian survey, most (80 percent) of RDs have bookmarked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s MyPlate website for nutrition education. Sixty-five percent include the published resources of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics among their tools.

What leaps off the page

“For me, the most interesting story is revealed when we look back at the 2001 report and track the changes over time,” said Deeley. “The world was certainly a very different place, and that is reflected in those reports. Today, we know that health and well-being have changed dramatically over time, with people now making more conscious decisions to enjoy a holistic approach to physical health and emotional well-being.”

Although dietitians say consumer awareness of healthy food has increased and mindful eating is on the rise in 2017, they note that issues of access and cost continue to prevent certain populations from being able to eat and purchase healthy food.

“For low-income consumers, RDs say that cost, above all other factors including physical health, is the largest barrier when making food purchasing decisions,” suggests the Today’s Dietitian study. “This often makes healthy eating options out of reach for low-income families. RDs recommend increasing affordability and availability of nutritious food in low-income areas to help reduce barriers to healthy eating.”

The polling for what’s hot and what’s not in 2018 is underway. It will be interesting to see how these trends persist, shift or change altogether in the coming year.

What does the future hold for farming and the entire food supply chain?

Everything from automated farm implements and nonstop reams of data to consumers’ ability to trace their food to its source and create supply chain reversal, according to a panel of agribusiness experts.

Looking ahead into that near (and already here) future was the basis of a live video panel discussion entitled “Farming the Future.”

What’s changed about what it means to be a food consumer?

“I think we’re in the middle of a food movement,” said Mary Shelman, former director of Harvard Business School’s Agribusiness Program.

She cited the rise of “engaged eating” — taking the consumption of food beyond simply eating to making food choices that are considered nutritious, safe, culturally appropriate and produced in environmentally sustainable ways.

“A big piece of that is the millennial consumer,” she explained. “Technology is all around them. They get information in different ways. They have different values. They’re the biggest demographic group in the U.S., and they’re just at the stage of having families and moving up in their income potential, so they’re very attractive to the food industry.”

Shelman noted that the millennial generation, born between the early 1980s and 1990s, has a much greater understanding of the relationship between health and food.

“What they eat is part of their identity,” she said. “Food actually reflects who they are as a person, as well as their values.”

This presents what, in her view, may be the food industry’s biggest challenge.

“Not only do they want products that meet certain price and safety points, but they also want products that have a purpose,” she said.

Shelman noted that these “prosumers” have a strong belief in their purchasing power’s ability to affect the change they wish to see in the world. They “vote” with their dollars.

What’s changed about what it means to be a farmer?

Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer at Alltech, recognized that the rate of change occurring in agriculture is outpacing comprehension of its scope and scale.

“I think that if anybody thinks that agriculture is going to be the same in 20 or 30 years, they’ve got their head in the sand,” he said.

Connolly, who has written about digital disruptions that are currently transforming agriculture, cited those technologies: “…robots and drones, blockchain, nutrigenomics, the internet of things, virtual reality and enhanced reality — these are technologies that can fundamentally change the ways in which we understand what happens when we grow plants or animals.”

Perhaps the most widely felt game-changer in agriculture has been the arrival of “big data.”

“You have a tool here that looks at millions and billions of observations, whether it’s productivity, food intake, the way we grow our crops, how much rain you get — all of this can be integrated into very precise models, and that’s going to be the big change in agriculture,” said Dr. Karl Dawson, chief scientific officer at Alltech. “We’re talking about moving to ‘armchair farming.’ We’re going to be making our decisions from a site, sitting in front of a computer, looking to see what we can predict in the future. That’s a tremendous tool that we’ve never had.”

What does this imply about the knowledge and skills required of the 21st-century farmer?

“I think we’re looking at a fundamental change in what that person is going to look like,” said Connolly. “They won’t necessarily grow up on a farm. They might grow up in a city. They won’t necessarily have the skills of understanding animals or plants. They will understand data, analytics, equipment and decision-making about all the various technologies and which investments should and should not be made. So, dramatically different skills from those used for the last thousands of years will determine who is and who is not a farmer.”

Key among those talents are analytical skills that are tied to data and information, according to Michael Boehlje, distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.

“We are going to have to increasingly develop that skill and feel comfortable with looking at numbers, looking at information,” he said.

Boehlje emphasized that this doesn’t mean a farmer has to transform into a number cruncher but will need to understand the stories that the numbers tell.

“It’s not just the story they (data) tell in terms of average yields,” he explained. “It’s the distributions that count. It’s what happens when you are in parts of your field where you have low yields and where you’re getting high yields as well.

“The same is true with animals,” continued Boehlje. “We’re starting to see different animal performance even in the same pen. That’s a function of their genetics and a number of factors. We’re going to get more granular in the data. So, data assessment, data summarization, data visualization, strategic thinking, risk assessment — those increasingly are going to be the skills that we need to have.”

Attracting a new generation of talent to farming

Shelman agreed that new and emerging farm technologies will enable agriculture to be successful in meeting increasing demand, but attracting and retaining that new generation of farmers requires something more.

“Supply and demand economics don’t tend to move in lockstep,” she said. “For instance, in crop farming in the U.S. today, prices are relatively low compared to other times in the last five years. So, there’s a need to maintain an economic viability for farmers to survive — and, in particular, to attract new, younger farmers.”

Shelman pointed out that the average age of the American farmer today is reaching 60 years.

“We need new talent, and they will only come in if there are attractive returns in the sector,” she said.

This new generation is being attracted to farming for very different reasons than their predecessors.

“It’s about being able to understand the market,” said Shelman. “It’s, ‘How do I deliver this differentiated product that has extra value?’ So, it’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what different segments of the market want and being able to sell into those channels.”

The result: supply chain reversal

The industry is seeing the rise of “demand-driven chains with consumers increasingly telling the entire chain ‘what we want, how we want it and how it ought to be done,’” according to Boehlje.

“So, a really important skill that is going to be much, much more important for farmers is going to be understanding and working in an interdependent system, rather than as an independent farmer, that is very focused on relationships, collaboration and interpersonal skills — things that many farmers have historically not liked to do,” he said. “But those are going to be skills that will be essential to being a successful farmer.”

So, how can farmers change the way they sell foods?

Consumers are moving beyond the traditional demand for cheap, accessible, safe food to shopping decisions that align with their values, according to Shelman.

“I think that provides some opportunities at the farm level,” she said. “First, to become much more market-oriented and know what the market is interested in buying rather than what you want to sell.”

Added Boehlje, “We’re increasingly seeing this entire food production and distribution industry move very dramatically from a commodity orientation and a supply chain mentality to a differentiated product orientation and a demand-driven system. And the technology to get that done is increasingly available.”

Shelman cited as examples the rise of brands such as Laura’s Lean Beef or Pete and Gerry’s eggs, items that come with specialty propositions.

“If you look at the Amazon Fresh website, you can buy hamburgers from a single cow,” she said.

She acknowledged that dealing with the market at such a level is not for everyone in farming, but it’s increasingly popular among consumers.

“There’s tremendous resistance in the system to making those kinds of changes because our system has been set up to move big quantities of relatively undifferentiated products,” said Shelman.

Dawson cautioned, however, that there remains a messaging gap in the commercialization chain that has failed to win the buy-in of the middleman.

“Alltech Angus was an example of a succulent meat product that received very good reviews, but, quite frankly, we never could make it go because there was a barrier between us and the consumer,” he explained.

Still, noted Connolly, technologies enabling transparency and traceability are ushering in a new era for the farm-consumer relationship.

“We are seeing very large changes in consumer behavior,” he said. “Apps on phones, websites, the ability to see through cameras what’s actually happening on the farm, to see through blockchain what has occurred in the way your food is processed — these are all tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with consumers of their food, and I think, eventually, that makes for a more profitable farming system.”

Success in farming, said Boehlje, will depend on an ability to move away from the mentality “If I produce it, they will come.” That, increasingly, is not the industry of tomorrow.

Fall is here, and that means calving season is starting up again for some producers. Dr. Shelby Roberts, postdoctoral research fellow in Alltech’s beef nutrition research department, shares her tips on scours prevention in your calves this season.

1. Stop calf scours early

Early detection of scours is essential so that fluids and electrolytes can be restored in order to correct dehydration as soon as possible. Some common symptoms associated with scours include depression, weak suckling reflex, dehydration (sunken eyes) and abnormal breathing.

2. Manage your herd to minimize risk

Manage your cow herd to minimize calf exposure to pathogens and stress. For example, try to keep calving areas as clean as possible to reduce the calves’ pathogen exposure. If possible, isolate sick calves and their dams from the cow herd to prevent the spread of the pathogen. 

3. Manage nutrient requirements for mother cows

Make sure the dams’ nutritional requirements are being met. Colostrum quality and quantity can be negatively affected by inadequate dam nutrition. Remember, when managing your fall calving herd: Fall calving cows will be lactating throughout the winter, so they will have higher nutritional requirements compared to spring calvers.

4. Use the fecal scoring guide

Check your fecal score using the guide below. If you have a fecal score of less than 2.5 for more than five days, your calves have a problem.

% diarrhea = Total number of calves with a fecal score of “4” x 100 / Number of calves in pen

Duration of diarrhea = Total days from weaning in which calves exhibit a fecal score of “4”

Have a question or comment?

Tom:                            Steve Elliott is the global director of the mineral management team at Alltech. He has 25 years of experience in the feed industry, 20 of them with Alltech. He joins us to talk about advances in the nutrition of farm animals that figure into our food chain. Thank you for being with us.

Steve:                          Absolutely.

Tom:                            Your present focus is on how organic trace minerals can improve the health and performance of livestock. What have you found?

Steve:                          Trace minerals are essential nutrients. In other words, animals must receive them every day in their diet. We found that by providing them in an organic form, we can meet the requirements and do so with much lower fortification levels in the diet. We can have a lower mineral concentration, less mineral excretion into the environment and less interaction with other components in the diet. There are a lot of advantages to looking at the natural way of providing trace elements.

Tom:                            Which trace minerals are key to improve livestock performance?

Steve:                          Most people will be familiar with zinc, copper and manganese, but there has been a lot of work on selenium over the last 15 years. Many parts of the United States are selenium deficient. By utilizing an organic form of selenium, we can raise the selenium status in the animals, thus improving their immunity, reproductive efficiency, etc.

                                    We can also fortify consumer diets with selenium by fortifying meat, milk and eggs, transferring selenium from the animal’s diet into the protein.

Tom:                            And just out of curiosity, where do you find selenium?

Steve:                          Selenium is one of those essential trace elements. It’s mined out of the earth. But at Alltech, we found a natural way of producing selenium: We take yeast and add selenium to the fermentation, and we can get the yeast to take it up and store it in an organic form. It’s much safer for the animal, safer for the people mixing the feeds and safer for the environment.

Tom:                            And which, in your opinion, is best: inorganic or organic minerals? Does it matter?

Steve:                          Yes, I believe it does matter. In nature, animals get all their minerals organically. We’ve supplemented with inorganic trace minerals for 50 or 60 years because they were an inexpensive alternative. Obviously, organic is a safer way of improving trace mineral status in the animals. We can do it in a form with fewer contaminants such as heavy metals, dioxins and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) — things we’re concerned about passing into the food chain. We can avoid that by using organic trace minerals.

Tom:                            You’ve noted that research from around the world is influencing regional regulatory decision-making with the goal of improving the agrifood sector. Can you elaborate on that, and is this goal being achieved?

Steve:                          Yes, particularly on the mineral side. For example, the European Union reduced the acceptable amount of minerals fed to animals because of water pollution concerns. Japan has recently moved legislation on lowered levels of zinc and copper to address pollution concerns as well. Korea has done the same. One of the main initiatives in China is lowering levels of trace minerals in the feed. There is almost no potable water left in China due to pollution, particularly from pig farms.

                                    I think there are a lot of initiatives driving producers to look at alternatives to trace mineral fortification. That’s where Alltech is ahead of the game. We’ve been looking at organic alternatives for over 20 years. I think we have a very good understanding of the mineral requirements of animals and the optimum levels at which we can meet them. 

Tom:                            Let’s talk about the Brazilian Food Guide, which appears to be quite disruptive. What is it, and why is it noteworthy?

Steve:                         Brazil reestablished levels in what they call their Table 4. Table 4 was a system set up by the government to ensure that farmers put adequate fortification in their livestock’s diets. The government does not want feed companies to cheat producers by not providing enough nutrition in the diet. The initial acceptable mineral levels put into that guideline were exceedingly high. We can achieve lower levels by feeding organic trace minerals.

                                    So Alltech, in coordination with major universities in Brazil and professors on the regulatory board, conducted research over the last several years showing that, when you feed the organic form of trace minerals, you can feed or fortify the diets at a much lower mineral level.

                                    The Brazilian government has incorporated these levels in the new guidelines, which now say that if you’re going to use organic forms, you can go well below the old Table 4 levels, thus allowing producers to improve the performance of their animals while lessening environmental contamination.

Tom:                            The guide blatantly warns people about food advertisements, noting that the purpose of these ads is to increase sales, not to improve public health. How is that advice being received in the industry?

Steve:                          There’s a lot of misinformation that goes out in some of these ads. From a food quality standpoint or fortification standpoint, we’ve done a lot of work with the Brazilian government on fortification or enrichment of milk, for example, particularly with selenium. You feed selenium to the animal, it passes into the milk, and you then raise the selenium status of the people consuming that milk. We’ve done that with Brazilian school children, and we found that as we improve their selenium status, their cognitive ability, or their ability to pay attention in school, was improved as well as their immune status.

                                    There are a lot of good things we can do with fortifying foods, but there’s a lot of misinformation out there as well. I think the public should be careful and really look at the science behind some of these claims.

Tom:                            And how can the Brazilian guide serve as a model in the agrifood industry?

Steve:                          I think in the United States and globally, many people rely on the NRC, which is the National Research Council. The NRC reviews research every five or six years and then establishes guidelines on nutrient fortification levels for production species. Most guidelines were established using old ingredients. For example, inorganic trace minerals.

                                    Brazil and other countries are starting to accept that there is a better way of doing things by using organic minerals. By doing so, it’s going to help the environment and we can fortify diets at a significantly lower mineral level. I think because of the revised Brazilian tables that were recently published, Canada is now talking about revising their tables as well.  

                                    We’re hopeful that the next time the NRC reviews production species in the United States, they will take a closer look at organic forms of nutrients, particularly those that Alltech makes.

Tom:                            So, to bring this all the way down to the food chain, how does the adoption of the Brazilian guide affect the average consumer’s dinner table?

Steve:                          I don’t know that there is much effect on a consumer’s dinner table. Consumers should rest assured that the Brazilian government is taking a step forward by looking at natural alternatives — not just using the old standards that were used for many years — and not be concerned because the mineral levels have decreased. There’s good science for decreasing those levels: We can clean up the environment, and animals perform better at lower mineral levels in the right form. The consumer can rest assured that Brazil is taking a leading-edge approach by looking at natural feed additives.

Tom:                            Steve, what do you enjoy most about your work?

Steve:                          I’ve had the opportunity to travel the world; I’ve been to over 100 countries. I get to deal with the best food producers, the best producers of animal protein in the world. And I get to learn something new every day.

Tom:                            Steve Elliott, the global director of the mineral management team at Alltech. We thank you for your time.

Steve:                          Thank you.

I would like more information on organic trace minerals. 

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) helps ensure food safety by focusing on preventing contamination rather than simply responding to it. All feed manufacturers who manufacture, process, pack or hold animal food for consumption in the United States must comply with the FSMA.

In general, this includes those who register under Section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (also known as the Bioterrorism Act). It’s important to note that not complying is considered a prohibited act.

Recently, Hubbard Feeds hosted a series of meetings for its customers to help them prepare for the FSMA. Keith Epperson of Epperson Consulting & Associates, LLC, led the discussion by giving attendees an overview of the FSMA and how it affects their businesses. Below are the key takeaways from Keith’s presentation.

Deadlines for larger businesses to comply with the FSMA went into effect in 2016. The current compliance date for many feed dealers is September 2017 for Current Good Manufacturing Practices. A more detailed outline of compliance dates is shown in the chart below, provided by the American Feed Industry Association.

Compliance dates for FSMA

Business Size

Subpart B

Current Good Manufacturing Practice

Subpart C

Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls

All Others

Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 18, 2017

Small Businesses

(< 500 FTE) *

*full time employees

Sept. 18, 2017

Sept. 17, 2018

Very Small Businesses

(< $2.5 million/year)

Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2019

Critical prevention efforts

The first of several topics discussed at the meetings was the importance of training employees on their job responsibilities. Having qualified individuals who understand what they do and the consequences of not performing those tasks correctly is a key aspect of food safety. Documenting when training sessions occur is an important part of FSMA compliance, because if it’s not written down, it’s assumed it didn’t happen.

Housekeeping and maintenance of equipment and facilities was also discussed frequently. When inspectors walk through a facility, it’s easy to see what type of housekeeping is being done. A regular maintenance schedule can prevent breakdowns or improper manufacturing and processing of feeds.

Biosecurity was another topic heavily emphasized throughout the meetings. Examples of this include documenting and visually inspecting incoming ingredient trailers to record what was on a previous load, trucking of finished feed, and even keeping brooms and equipment separate depending on where they are used.

Planning ahead

Another aspect of the FSMA that feed manufacturers will be required to complete is a food safety plan. Every feed manufacturer must conduct a hazard analysis to identify and evaluate — based on experience, illness data, scientific reports and other information — known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for each type of animal food manufactured, processed, packed or held at their facility to determine whether there are any hazards requiring a preventive control. The hazard analysis must be written regardless of its outcome.

Some examples of hazards in animal food are:

• Biological hazards:

  • Salmonella spp.
  • Listeria monocytogenes

• Chemical hazards:

  • Mycotoxins
  • Pesticides and process-related or industrial chemicals
  • Drug carryover
  • Nutrient deficiencies or toxicities

• Physical hazards:

  • Stones
  • Glass
  • Metal

Moving forward

The compliance date for small businesses with less than 500 full-time employees is September 17, 2018, which gives feed manufacturers time to do their hazard analysis. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced they will delay inspections for the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls portion of the FSMA until Sept. 2018. However, while the inspections may have been delayed, feed manufacturers will still be required to meet compliance deadlines.

The FDA has launched a food safety plan builder to help owners create a food safety plan for their businesses. You can find more information on the FDA website.

How do you gauge the success of your mineral formulation?

How much do you know about the mineral program on your dairy? What level are minerals used in your rations, and what type are they? The mineral program on your dairy has a big impact on the health and productivity of your herd. Dairy producers are generally aware that part of their feed cost includes the minerals they supplement but have no real way to measure the success of their program.

Forages and concentrates meet some of the mineral needs of dairy cattle. They do not, however, meet the total mineral requirements of healthy productive cattle. Therefore, supplemental trace minerals are required to maintain cow health, production, reproduction and adequate mineral stores in the animal.

The minerals supplemented to dairy cows are classified in two ways: macro and trace minerals. Macro minerals are minerals that are fed in quantities of grams, including calcium, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, sodium, chlorine and sulfur. Trace minerals are those fed at milligram quantities, including zinc, copper, iodine, selenium, cobalt and molybdenum. Alltech is an industry leader in organic trace mineral programs, with extensive research and industry-leading technologies such as Bioplex® and Sel-Plex®.

Achieving optimal mineral formulation can be a challenge

Designing an effective mineral program is difficult, especially considering the small inclusion in the diet and variation in mineral content. The National Research Council is generally referenced as a guideline to formulate diets; however, the guidelines are not always up to date and are often ignored. As a result, arbitrary levels are chosen to supplement.

Mineral interactions can cause antagonistic effects. For instance, molybdenum, iron and sulfur are some of the minerals that reduce the absorption of other minerals supplemented. Mineral source also has an impact. Organic minerals have been shown to have greater bioavailability than inorganic minerals. Bioavailability of Bioplex® Zinc, for example, is greater than zinc sulfate (J.L. Pierce, et. al. 2006). Considering all the factors at play, correct levels of supplementation are difficult to accomplish.

A firsthand look at mineral supplementation in Midwest dairy cattle

A survey by the University of Wisconsin-Madison on liver samples from dairy cattle in Wisconsin confirmed the challenges of supplementing trace minerals. Analysis of liver samples indicated that copper was elevated and potentially detrimental (Lyman, 2013). It is important to note, however, that differences in geography and feeding practices within the dairy industry mean that knowing the challenges that are unique to your area are critical when formulating your mineral programs.

This past summer, through the help of a local veterinary clinic and an Alltech summer intern, we set out to measure the success of mineral programs along the Interstate 29 corridor. Ben Sieve, Alltech intern, and Dr. Corale Dorn of Dells Veterinary Clinic collected liver samples from dairies along Interstate 29. Liver biopsies on seven cows from five dairies were collected for a total of 35 cows. Samples were analyzed at Michigan State University. Water and TMR were also collected and analyzed by Dairyland Laboratories. Sampled cows averaged 100 days in milk. Average herd size was around 2,000 cows milking.

What we learned from the dairy cows along Interstate 29

Elevated copper levels in liver samples were not as common along Interstate 29 compared to the data collected in Wisconsin. Using Michigan State University’s laboratory for analysis, six of the 35 cows measured showed elevated copper levels. Average copper concentration in South Dakota was a 132 parts per million (ppm) wet weight, which compared to an average ppm wet weight of 163 in the Wisconsin survey.

Interestingly, we found that zinc deficiency may be more prevalent than we realize. Fifty percent of the sample results were deficient in zinc, according to Michigan State University standards.

Selenium levels in South Dakota are often a concern due to elevated selenium in the soil. Elevated selenium levels were observed with some of the dairies surveyed.

On-farm responses

It is well-documented that organic minerals have higher bioavailability than inorganic ingredients, such as zinc and copper sulfate. Research conducted on Bioplex minerals has identified programs in which 100 percent of the minerals supplemented from organic sources delivered positive performance response. In that trial, cows on 100 percent Bioplex minerals produced 442 kilograms (972 pounds) more milk in a 305-day lactation and had 34 percent lower somatic cell count (SCC) (Kinal, 2007). These programs decrease the excretion of unused minerals, decrease the risk of antagonists and have demonstrated strong production responses in research trials.

One of the dairies involved in the Interstate 29 mineral study implemented these practices into their mineral program. Hilltop Dairy started feeding Bioplex minerals in fall 2016. By using Bioplex, they required lower levels of minerals. The results from the liver survey showed Hilltop Dairy more appropriately in the ranges suggested by Michigan State University.

“After nearly a year, our dairy’s SCC is down 43 percent, and we are up in milk production compared to last year,” said Hilltop Dairy owner, Wilfried Reuvekamp. “Normally in the summer, SCC goes up and production goes down. We have never had a summer like this!”

Learn more information on Bioplex® and Sel-Plex®.

I want to learn more about nutrition for my dairy.

Working in Wisconsin, the dairy capital of the world, I see many dairies and parlors on a daily basis. I know the milking routine is very important in all dairy operations, because a lot of milk can either be gained or lost in the parlor. When I go into a parlor, I look for what I call “cowsistency.” I like to see the milking technicians following the same milking routine between milkings, between sessions and between months. We want all the technicians doing the same routine calmly and consistently, because the milking routine is so important to the quality of the milk produced and the safety of the dairy herd.

Brushing

One of the first things that we talk about when assessing a milking routine — and a lot of people miss this — is brushing. When the cows come in and we get ready to prep them, brushing should be one of the first things done, to get sand or soil off the teats.

I am often called to a dairy because the cows are “dancing” while they are being milked. This is partially because the technicians have left the sand on and covered it in pre-dip solution, and then they are unable to wipe the sand off completely when it is wet.

One of the most important things you can do in your routine is get a dry towel and brush gently, to remove sand and soil from the cow’s teats, prior to doing anything else.

Forestripping

The next step we like to do is called forestripping. The goal should be to get two to three squirts out of each teat. This is important to the milking routine because it releases a powerful let-down hormone and makes the cow think that her calf is there.

Forestripping also gives us the opportunity to check the milk to see if there are any abnormalities about it. Additionally, those first few squirts of milk will give a good indication of whether a cow has mastitis.

Another important part of forestripping is from a milk quality standpoint, because those first few squirts of milk are high in somatic cells, so we can lower the somatic cell count of the milk just by forestripping prior to milking.

Pre-dip

Another vital aspect to the milking routine is the pre-dip. In this step, we want to completely cover the teats with a pre-dip solution to adequately kill bacteria on the outside of the teats.

When the milking technicians come back through the second time, make sure that dry, clean towels are used with a downward circular motion technique. Also, as a follow-up to this step in the milking process, be sure to flip the towel over and use it to clean the teat ends. Getting the teat ends clean is very important to decreasing the environmental challenges that can lead to mastitis, and to keeping the cows and the milk safe from harmful bacteria.

Attachment and post-dip

Once we get the cows cleaned and prepped, we come back and attach the unit squarely at the base of the udder so that we milk all quarters out correctly. At the conclusion of milking, once the units are detached, we come back with a high quality post-dip, making sure to gently but completely dip the teats, submerging them over the point where the film of milk ends. If we don’t do an adequate job and only get part of the teats in a post-dip, all the milk remaining is an organic load, making food for bacteria.

Milking claw

The milking claw is vital in our milking routine, because it gets the milk from the teat to the tank. One of the things I look at on the milking unit is whether the liner in the shell is lined up straight in relation to the outer shell. If the liner is twisted, we cannot adequately milk out that quarter.

Another very important portion of the claw to look at is the hose support. How well are we supporting the claw in relation to the square base of the udder?

Have a question? Fill out the form below to learn more.

In “The corn conundrum,” we looked at some of the causes of the dreaded “fall slump.” Now we will look at some of the ways to prevent the slump as well as tools to help diagnose it.

Dry matter at harvest

We all know the importance of proper dry matter at harvest. Checking whole plant dry matter for each field is a good first step to having the correct dry matter at harvest.

Chopping too early can lower the starch content of the corn silage and impede fermentation, which can also contribute to the environmental issue of leachate. On the other hand, chopping too late (>40 percent dry matter) can lead to a separate set of problems, such as mycotoxins, poor fermentation, yeast production, decreased starch digestibility and a longer window for total starch digestion.

If we monitor the seven-hour starch digestibility and ammonia levels of fresh corn silage, it can tell us a lot about how the corn is fermenting. Typically, fall corn silage will be low in both the seven-hour starch and ammonia. As the silage ferments over 240 days, the ammonia levels rise and the starch digestibility increases.

Silage inoculants and crop quality

We know that inoculants can speed up fermentation and lower pH, thus saving energy for the cow. Inoculants enable us to get into the piles, bags, bunkers and silos even faster than before.

Future outlook is strong is this area. Work is being done on combinations of inoculants and enzymes to assist in both starch digestion and fiber digestion, which will serve to further our efficiencies.

Inoculants can cater to front end fermentation or feed out protection. Cater your inoculant to your individual situation.

Inoculants coupled with a quality mold inhibitor can be the ultimate line of defense against molds, top spoilage and stability issues. Mold-Zap®, a buffered propionic acid, has been the gold standard in alleviating seasonal total mixed ration heating, but very keen dairymen also use it for preventing top spoilage in bunkers, drive over piles and on silage faces.

Corn Silage Processing Score

Shredlage, a new corn harvesting method for silage, is gaining acceptance. Most importantly, shredlage processing has led to a renewed interest in proper corn silage kernel processing with the choppers many producers already have. With proper corn silage processing, the kernels can be processed down to the new standard of ¼” kernels.

The Corn Silage Processing Score (CSPS) is a great testing tool that is run at virtually all the forage labs in the U.S. because it will assess how well the corn silage has been processed. A Corn Silage Processing Score in the 40–60 percent range is common in unprocessed corn silage and can equate to lost milk. Setting a goal of achieving a processing score above 70 percent will help you reduce the corn silage slump and the impacts it has on your herd.

Before we get CSPS numbers back, is there another way to know if we are correctly processing the corn silage? A new technique involving “floating” fresh corn silage is getting some attention, and it’s easy to find articles and images of the procedure online. The process is very simple and can be accomplished in the field, right at the chopper, but you will need a sample of fresh corn silage, a 5-gallon bucket and some water.

1. Fill the 5-gallon bucket three-quarters full with water.
2. Take a 32-ounce cup of fresh corn silage and pour it into the bucket of water.
3. Stir it around for a few minutes.
4. Sift out the fiber particles that float to the top.
5. Dump the water and be sure to save the kernels.
6. Inspect the kernels to ensure that most of the kernels are quartered. The old concept of “nicked” kernels being sufficient is now antiquated advice.

Monitor the back end

It is a dirty job, but someone really does have to do it. Manure can tell you a lot about how things are working inside the cow.

It’s worthwhile to consider a couple of tools that have been around for a few years.

The Penn State Particle Separator has been used for years to monitor fiber levels in the diet. The particle separator’s “messy” cousin, the manure screen, can tell you just as much, if not more. The true value of manure screening is monitoring over time and with ration changes. With the transition to new crop corn silage, you can see the impact of the new feed. Many times with new crop corn silage, you will see the kernel remnants in the middle screen and fiber changes in the various screens. Benchmarking your manure screens is a great approach because it will enable you to see what the rumen is doing and you can make ration adjustments quicker than if you use a paper-only approach.

While we are messing around with the manure, there is yet another tool that is underutilized, and that tool is fecal starch. Fecal starch testing is done at most commercial feed labs and can tell you a lot about kernel processing and starch digestion, so it can help you to confirm your CSPS scores and the level of starch digestion. Your goal should be to keep the fecal starch under 3 percent, even though you can commonly see the levels initially rise with new crop corn silage samples.

Aiding in the new crop silage transition

Some of the undigested corn can bypass the rumen and cause hindgut fermentation, which can lead to indigestion and rumen upset. The starch-digesting enzyme Amaize® and certain strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae can assist in breaking down starch and maintaining a proper rumen environment.

Additionally, we know that soluble protein and ammonia levels are at lower levels in fresh corn silage. Products that assist in adjusting the rumen degradable protein levels can help jumpstart the rumen microbial production and assist in starch and fiber digestion. Optigen® can help fuel the rumen in the absence of good new crop soluble protein and ammonia levels.

Don’t feed it, but if you must…

Ultimately, the best way to reduce the fall corn silage slump is not to feed it. It may be frustrating to receive that advice, but it remains true. Starch digestion is often slow, and new crop corn silage should be given three months to properly ferment. Obviously, the longer the fermentation, the better, but there should be a plan in place to have a few months’ carryover of your corn silage crop.

When we must feed fresh corn silages, the tools discussed above can help to reduce the corn silage slump. Ask your local Alltech representative for more information on how we can help you to reduce the new crop corn silage blues.

Not sure who your local Alltech representative is? Fill out the form below to learn more.