Free Choice Feeding Of Phosphorus Containing Minerals

Environmental concerns with phosphorus (P) have forced the animal industry to re-evaluate the levels formulated in diets. It has been demonstrated in numerous research trials that excess P intake equates to excess P out in the manure. The ideal way of controlling P intake is developing diets that closely match the animal’s requirement and implementing feeding management practices to ensure those levels are being consumed. In today’s industry since most dairy cattle are fed balanced amounts of forages, concentrates, and mineral-vitamin mixtures, free choice mineral feeding is unwarranted.

The purpose of this fact sheet is to illustrate the problems producers can face with feeding minerals free choice. Conclusions from research and field trial results will be presented to demonstrate the limitations associated with this management practice.

The misconception that animals have an innate sense for a particular mineral began with reports published by South African researchers. In the early 1920s researchers described P-deficient cattle with depraved appetites chewing on bones. Bones contain significant levels of P, and the association was made that animals were able to select feeds to compensate for mineral deficiencies in the diet.

This was followed by additional research in the 1930s that indicated cows and lambs fed P-deficient diets may consume sufficient free choice P to meet their requirements. It was further demonstrated that when intake of P from feed sources increased, less free choice P-sources were consumed.

In the early 1950s, a paper appearing in the British Journal of Animal Behavior measured the preference of P-deficient cattle and sheep for supple mental calcium carbonate alone or combined with an equal part of dicalcium phosphate. Animals did not consume adequate levels of mineral to prevent P deficiency.

The 2001 NRC presents 2 studies conducted in the 1970s that demonstrate no benefit of feeding P free choice. The first study was with dairy heifers fed low or marginally deficient calcium or P. There was little relationship between the animals’ requirement for the mineral elements and free choice consumption of dicalcium phosphate or defluorinated phosphate. In the second study lactating cows were fed calcium and phosphorus below requirements for 9 and 12 weeks. There was no evidence that animals consumed free choice minerals to correct the deficiency. Researchers concluded there was no association between appetite for P or calcium supplements and the animals’ nutrient requirement.

The studies from the early 1900s dealt with extreme deficiencies, and it is likely that P was not the only nutrient lacking in the diet. In contrast, the ingredients and diets fed to the modern dairy cow provide little chance of a P deficiency. In addition, it has been theorized that domestication has produced an animal that is more responsive to sensory qualities of feed than to its nutritive value.

Offering minerals free choice is appropriate when grazing livestock are not receiving any concentrates or supplemental feeds. However, this is not a typical scenario for the modern dairy operation.

The greatest limitation of feeding minerals free choice is the variation in consumption. The individual consumption of dicalcium phosphate by lactating dairy cattle was measured in a 1972 study. The variation was huge and mineral consumption ranged from zero to two pounds per day.

This same trend was demonstrated with beef cattle in Alberta, Canada. Not only was there a substantial range of intake (minimal to 1.7 pounds per day), but also the number of visits to the mineral feeders varied greatly. The days between visits to the mineral feeder ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 days. The researchers concluded that free choice feeding via a mineral feeder is not an acceptable method of providing minerals on a daily basis.

The approach of a cafeteria-style mineral feeder has been used for dairy cattle, especially animals being intensively grazed. These systems offer a range of 2 to 10 mineral choices. The primary disadvantage of this system is high feeding loss and increased expense. Cows typically do not consume sufficient amounts of minerals to meet their requirements. Animals are more likely to be influenced by taste or acceptability versus a craving for a particular element.

Controlling the level of P consumed is very important in light of the nutrient regulations being executed. A field trial conducted in Okeechobee, Florida during 1986-87 examined the effect of feeding free choice minerals on P excretion. Rations were formulated so cows would receive 0.52% P. In addition to dietary P, a free choice mineral mix with a minimum of 8.0% P was offered. Cows allowed access to the free choice mineral had a greater concentration of P in the feces. This field trial agrees with the numerous research studies cited in the 2001 NRC, which state that once the cow’s requirement for P is met, the excess will be excreted in the feces.

There have not been an overwhelming number of studies addressing free choice feeding of minerals. However, there is enough evidence with various ruminant trials (sheep, beef and dairy) to conclude that free choice feeding has many limitations and in today’s environment, there is little to no benefit to this practice for dairy producers.

Source: Virginia Ishler, Penn State Ag Extension

Think $5 Corn Is Expensive? Some Are Betting On $10 Next Year

The corn market’s rally above $5 a bushel this fall has stirred growing consternation among livestock producers and others dependent on the largest U.S. crop. As the global grain supply outlook tightens, some traders in Chicago are placing bets that prices may double next year
For the whole article click Here

Grain storage options for dry grain

Initial assessments of standing corn and soybeans in the county suggest that the crops are drying down very fast, especially since the frost.

Based on some initial samples we are concerned that corn destined for "snaplage" could get too dry before it gets harvested. Also, some fields that got flooded still have significant silt on the corn husks, and may be best harvested as dry shell corn.

Recommended kernel moisture for HMC, HMEC,and snaplage is the same, 26-32%. The cob in HMEC and snaplage will increase the moisture content of the total feed another 4-6%. The literature suggests that moisture content as high as 40% is OK for snaplage.

If farms would be best served by letting the grain go for dry shell corn, the questions become what we can do with the grain once harvested. Some grain, if it is not contaminated with silt, could be purchased by the local feed mills, or stored and mixed into a farmer's feed.

With the advent of custom on farm grain processing in Delaware County (Dennis Deysenroth's grinder-mixer available for rent as well as the Albano's roller and grinder mills), another option would be on farm storage and grinding.

As most farms do not have on farm grain storage, one option that might be attractive is storing grain in an ag bag. This has been done successfully in the midwest for the last 10 years. Moisture content plays a big role in how the crop keeps. As you might suspect, corn that is too dry for HMEC (or snaplage) but too wet for dry shell is the hardest to manage.

There is little information suggesting that aeration is necessary for proper storage in bags, but in principle, getting the grain cool and keeping it cool is still a good idea. Rodent and bird damage is also a consideration.

Below are links to some good articles on the subject.

Please note that some industry literature indicates that silage bag and grain bags are manufactured with different properties due to differences in stress that the grain places on the bag verses silage and to accommodate automatic grain bag unloading equipment.


Iowa Farmer Today article

University of Minnesota Engineering Notes

AT films article

Treatment of Flooded High Moisture Corn and Corn Silage

For producers who have decided to harvest flooded corn crops for silage, high moisture ear corn or snaplage, treatment with either bacterial inoculants or proprionic acid is highly recommended. This is even more important with corn that has been flooded close to harvest because flooded corn will likely have contamination with undesirable bacteria such as clostridium.

Some research had shown that inoculation of high moisture ear corn with a high moisture corn specific inoculant will result in a faster pH drop than treatment with proprionic acid. Treatment with proprionic acid can result on better aerobic stability at feedout than inoculation with a Lactic acid bacterial inoculant, with the exception of Lactobacillus buchneri, which results in excellent aerobic stability.

Given that high moisture grains ferment slower to begin with, and that flooded corn fermentation could be compromised by competition with undesirable bacteria, it makes sense to choose to use a bacterial inoculant to improve the population of good bacteria and speed fermentation. Use of L. buchneri inoculant may be a good option to speed fermentation and get good aerobic stability.

When applying inoculant on compromised crops, a higher application rate than typically recommended might be advisable. Experience indicates that at least doubling the regular rate is appropriate.

Below are links to two good University of Wisconsin Extension articles by Mike Rankin on harvest and treatment of high moisture corn.

Wisconsin Crop Manager
High Moisture Corn Harvest Considerations

Flooded Crops in Delaware County 10.1.2010

As you have seen or probably surmised, we are getting flooded corn, soybeans and haycrop in Delaware County as I write. I have heard reports that flooding in Bloomville area is over the ears, but I have not seen it yet myself. The Charlotte near me appears not yet over the ears on some corn on one river flat, but is still rising. We are presently working on 5+ inches of rain.

Outlook for Corn for silage (including snaplage) and beans is not good, especially if flooding was over the ears.

Individual Field assessments will be a must. Chopping above the waterline on corn is a good strategy to limit contamination. Quickly receding waters will help reduce silt deposits.

Farmers should report flooding of crops to USDA FSA in Walton 607-865-4005

Here are links to two very good articles on management of flooded crops.

Penn State Flooded Crops Article
University of Kentucky Flooded Crops Article

DEC Open Burning Regulations

Under the new regulations, you are allowed to burn the following items on your property;

• On-site burning of agricultural wastes as part of a valid agricultural operation on contiguous agricultural lands larger than five acres actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use, provided such waste is actually grown or generated on those lands and such waste is capable of being fully burned within a 24-hour period. This includes the use of liquid petroleum fueled smudge pots to prevent frost damage to crops.

• DEC defines "Agricultural Land" as the land and on-farm buildings, equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices that contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise, including a 'commercial horse boarding operation' and 'timber processing'. Such farm operation may consist of one or more parcels of owned or rented land, which parcels may be contiguous or noncontiguous to each other.

• DEC defines “Agricultural Waste” as any waste from naturally grown products such as vines, trees and branches from orchards, leaves and stubble. In addition, any fully organic waste either grown or generated on the premises, including but not limited to paper feed bags, wood shavings used for livestock bedding, bailing twine, and other non-plastic materials. Agricultural waste does not include pesticide containers, fertilizer bags, large plastic storage bags (including bags commonly known as "Ag bags"), offal, tires, plastic feed bags, and other plastic or synthetic materials.

• Individual open fires as approved by the Director of the Division of Air Resources as may be required in response to an outbreak of a plant or animal disease upon request by the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets, or for the destruction of invasive plant and insect species.

• Downed limbs and branches (including branches with attached leaves or needles) less than six inches in diameter and eight feet in length between May 15th and the following March 15th (Meaning no burning of these items between March 15 and May 15).

• Barbecue grills, maple sugar arches and similar outdoor cooking devices can be used only for cooking or processing food.

• Small fires used for cooking and camp fires provided that only charcoal or untreated wood is used as fuel and the fire is not left unattended until extinguished.

• Ceremonial or celebratory bonfires provided that only untreated wood or other agricultural products are used as fuel and the fire is not left unattended until extinguished.

• Small fires that are used to dispose of a flag or religious item, and small fires or other smoke producing process where not otherwise prohibited by law that are used in connection with a religious ceremony.

• Fire training, including firefighting, fire rescue, and fire/arson investigation training, performed under applicable rules and guidelines of the New York State Department of State's Office of Fire Prevention and Control. For fire training performed on acquired structures, the structures must be emptied and stripped of any material that is toxic, hazardous or likely to emit toxic smoke (such as asbestos, asphalt shingles and vinyl siding or other vinyl products) prior to burning and must be at least 300 feet from other occupied structures. No more than one structure per lot or within a 300 foot radius (whichever is bigger) may be burned in a training exercises.

If you have questions follow this link.

www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/RAPPPSummary-CornellGuidelines2008Oct27.pdf.

Ensiling Wet Corn Silage

The discussions on corn silage maturity have centered on monitoring dry matter content to time harvest thus far. The golden rule is to assess whole plant moisture content and harvest at the 65-70% range.

However, what should be done if corn silage is harvested too wet? ( some farmers are worried about a wet fall and will harvest silage wetter than they would like).

Wet corn silage is more likely to undergo extensive fermentation and have high levels of acetic acid (which can reduce intake).

Two recommendations stand out:

• Increasing length of cut for wet silage to maintain effective fiber (especially important in higher corn silage diets)
• Inoculate with homolactic lactic acid bacteria (LAB)

In general immature corn does not need inoculation to ferment, but the idea is to populate the silage with lactic acid producing bacteria to encourage more lactic (vs acetic) acid production. Also, should corn get frosted hard, natural populations of lactic acid bacteria will be reduced, and need to be supplemented.

A couple articles on this:

Michigan state
Kansas State (Bolson)