managing tmr variation
Post on 20-May-2015
3.556 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Improving Feeding Consistency and
Efficiency with TMR Audits
DAIReXNET WebinarDr. Tom Oelberg, Ph.D.toelberg@diamondv.com
Outline
What Is A TMR Audit
Factors that Contribute to TMR Variation
Managing Ingredient variation and shrink
Labor Efficiencies
Summary of Diamond V TMR Audit Data
4 Rations Ration formulated Ration that is mixed Ration the cow consumes Ration that is pushed out
What Is A TMR Audit?
Value-added service provided by Diamond V
An on-farm evaluation of theFeed Storage and Preparation,
Mixing and Delivery of the TMR
Ingredient Variation and Shrink
Utilization of Labor and Resources
Reduce Variation and Improve Efficiency
TMR Audit Tools
Feeding Software TMR Batch Summaries
“Help Us Focus on Issues”
•Feed Supervisor•TMR Tracker
•EZ-Feed•Feed Watch
•Others
1. Digital camera with video capabilities2. Penn State Shaker box3. Stop watch4. Quart-sized Zip-loc bags5. One-cup sized scoop6. Grain sieves7. Thermometer8. Infrared camera9. Data collection sheets
10 samples per load Penn State Shaker Box Used
on each Sample Samples of Weighbacks to
compare to TMR Calculate average and
coefficient of variation (CV) for each load
The CV is a measure of consistency…lower the better
Top 25% loads of TMR have 3% CV or less
Penn State Shaker Box To Measure TMR Particle Size Variation
Well Mixed TMRs Obtained By Different Methods
Load 5 North Barn SW Pen
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Bunk Samples 1-10 and Average (11)
Pe
rce
nt Top
Middle
Bottom
Twin-twin screw vertical wagon
TMR: Pen 15 Peak Lactation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Bunk Sample 1-10 and Average
Pe
rce
nt
Top 3.1 2.8 1.7 3.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.0 2.8 3.8 3.2
Middle 48.8 49.4 49.4 48.9 49.4 48.8 49.1 49.7 49.5 49.5 49.3
Bottom 48.2 47.8 48.9 47.6 46.9 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.8 46.7 47.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave
Mixed with payloader turning pile 5 times
TMR Load 1 North Barn
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Bunk Samples 1-10 and Average (11)
Pe
rce
nt Top
Middle
Bottom
Horizontal auger reel mixer
“Feed Particles Mix When FallingTogether At the Same Time”
“Any ingredient or process thatinterferes with this will
affect TMR consistency”
TMR Consistency Results viaPenn State Shaker Box Test
Goal: < 5% CV for Middle and Bottom Screens
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.0
Penn State Shaker Box
Per
cen
t Load 1
Load 2
Load 5
Load 1 3.6 21.47 42.7 2.33 53.7 2.27
Load 2 2.8 16.06 43.6 1.85 53.5 1.16
Load 5 5.1 27.20 42.2 3.24 52.6 1.47
Avg., % CV,% Avg., % CV,% Avg., % CV,%
Top Middle Bottom
An Inconsistent Lactation Ration
Load 1 TMR South Barn West Pens
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Bunk Samples 1-10 and Average (11)
Pe
rce
nt Top
Middle
Bottom
Contributing Factors to TMR Variation Dirty Dozen
1. Capacity
2. Mixing Times
3. Equipment Wear
4. Hay Quality & Processing
5. Unlevel TMR Loading
6. Pre Batch Variation
7. Grain Particle Size Variation
8. Ingredient Inclusion Amt
9. Ingredient Mix Order
10. Loading Liquids
11. Deliver Times
12. Silage Face Management
Horizontal Reel Mixer Overfilled?
Video One
Horizontal Reel Properly Mixing
Video Two
Proper Mixing Action For A Vertical Wagon
Courtesy: Supreme International website
Supreme International’s Feedlot Auger
Supreme International’s Forage Processing Auger
Over-Filling Causes TMR Variation
Case 1. Over-Filled
Kuhn-Knight Reel-Auger Model 3700
Penn State Shaker Box ResultsLactation Rations
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Top
Middle
Bottom
Load 1 Over-filled Load –Lactation Ration
TMR felt drier
Penn State Shaker Box ResultsLactation Rations
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Top
Middle
Bottom
Load 4 Normal Filled Load – Lactation Ration
TMR Consistency Results viaPenn State Shaker Box Test
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
Penn State Shaker Box
Perc
ent Load 1 Full
Load 2 Full
Load 4 Not Full
Load 1 Full 5.8 22.95 39.6 12.99 54.7 7.80
Load 2 Full 4.6 21.18 41.4 6.98 54.1 5.31
Load 4 Not Full 4.4 25.76 39.0 6.56 56.5 4.15
Avg., % CV,% Avg., % CV,% Avg., % CV,%
Top Middle Bottom
Oelberg. 2009.
Reducing load size on Kuhn-Knight Reel-Auger Model 3700 reduced variation (CV %)
Case 1. TMR Consistency of Over-filled vs. Normal-filled Reel-Auger Mixer
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00
DM CP ADF NDF Starch Fat Ash
Items
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Var
iatio
n, %
Over-filled
Normal Filled
Oelberg. 2009. Courtesy to Hubbard Feeds, Mankato, MN for providing lab analysis
Kuhn-Knight Reel-Auger Model 3700
Close-up Mixing…Mineral Mix Hanging Up on Screws
Load Size Too SmallMineral Not Completely Delivered To the Close-up Dry Cows
Proper Mixing Time Reduces Variation
Harner et.al. 1995 K-State MF-2503
5% CV after5 to 6 minutes
Count Down To Mix Last Added Ingredient
Sharp vs Dull Blade
Effect of Dull Knives on Large Round Bale Processing
Oelberg. 2008.
Dry Cow Ration
Effect of New Knives on Large Round Bale ProcessingDry Cow Ration Replacement Heifer Ration
Wear and Stress Fractures on Edge Deflectors (Kicker Plates)
Video Three
Worn Augers
Video Four
Mixing Large Rounds of Alfalfa…Tough Middle Core
Haylage Clumps
Inconsistent Nutrient Consumption of a Poorly Mixed Fresh Cow TMR
Video Five
Improper TMR Loading Causes Under-Processed Hay
Not Loading On CenterLoading On Center…
Line Up on The Red Triangle
Hay Not Loaded Between Augers Causing It To Not Get Completely Processed
Hay Not Getting Completely Processed
Under-Processing Hay “Big Factor”
Clumps of Under-Processed Hay In TMRs
Penn State Shaker Box Results
Load 1, Mix 1 min Restrictors Out
Load 3, Mix 3 min Restrictors Out
Load 4, Mix 3 min Restrictors In
Influence of Adjusting Hay Restrictor Settings and Load Mixing Time On TMR Particle Size
Consistency
Goal: 5% CV or less for Middle/Bottom Screens
Penn Shaker Box: Overall Average and CV
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
1 5.7 29.7 51.2 1.8 43.1 3.8
3 5.7 21.9 54.4 2.9 40.0 4.8
4 5.5 28.6 53.9 3.3 40.6 4.4
Average, % CV,% Average, % CV,% Average, % CV,%
Top Middle Bottom
Results of Processing Hay Ahead of Time
Previous slides showed dairymen that extra mixing time did not reduce forage particle size
Convinced him to process all hay needed for the day ahead of time and dump in a pile
Loaded processed hay from pile faster and more accurately resulting in a more consistent TMR
Results:– Milk fat test increased from 3.6% to 3.9% within a week– Milk protein test increased from 3.00% to 3.15% within a
couple of weeks
Make Sure Wagon Is Level: Triolet 3-Screw Parked InLoading Ramp
Triolet Triple-screw WagonOver-loaded At Back of Wagon
Loading un-level wagon with back of wagon lower than the front causes feed buildup in back of wagon
Influence of Loading An Un-level Triple-Screw Wagon On TMR Particle Size Distribution Along The Bunk
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Bunk Sample NumberPe
rcen
t
Top
Middle
Bottom
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Bunk Sample Number
Perc
ent
Top
Middle
Bottom
Load 1 Load 2
Front Back BackFront
Bottom and top screens of shaker box go up and middle screen goes down as TMR moves from front to back of the wagon
Influence of Loading An Un-level Triple-Screw Wagon On TMR Particle Size Distribution Along The Bunk
Load 7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Bunk Sample Number
Perc
ent
Top
Middle
Bottom
Load 6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Bunk Sample Number
Perc
ent
Top
Middle
Bottom
Load 4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Bunk Sample
Perc
ent
Top
Middle
Bottom
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
A B C D E F G H I J
Bunk Sample Number
Perc
ent
Top
Middle
Bottom
Load 3
Un-level Triple-Screw Wagon During Loading Causes Variation In TMR
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Penn State Shaker Box
Pe
rce
nt
Load 1
Load 2
Load 3
Load 4
Load 6
Load 7
Load 1 12.0 27.52 37.1 14.98 50.9 7.34
Load 2 9.1 12.58 39.1 6.39 51.7 4.90
Load 3 11.6 36.18 37.0 8.83 51.4 4.20
Load 4 10.3 24.66 38.6 8.53 51.0 2.58
Load 6 12.4 32.53 37.2 17.09 50.4 9.60
Load 7 10.7 29.12 38.2 10.40 51.0 3.60
Avg., % CV,% Avg., % CV,% Avg., % CV,%
Top Middle Bottom
Goal: < 5% CV for Middle and Bottom Screens
Proper Ingredient Mix Order
Improper Loading and Under Mixing of Liquid Supplements In TMRs
Case 1 – Wagon not level and under mixing liquid supplement
Case 2 – Loading at improper position on wagon
Case 3 – Loading at improper position on wagon and influence on nutrient distribution in the TMR
Case 1. Mixer Not Level, Liquid Added Without Spray Bar and Mixed For Only 1 minute
Case 1.Influence of Not Properly Mixing Liquid Supplement On TMR Particle Size Along The Bunk
0102030405060708090
Front Middle End Front Middle End Front Middle End Front Middle End
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
Top
Middle
Bottom
Mixer truck was not level as the front of the truck was sloped down hill.TMR was mixed for only 1 minute or less after liquid was loaded.The TMR was extremely wet at the front of the load when it was dropped and dry at the end.Small feed particles on bottom pan stuck to larger particles in top and middle screensat the front of the load. The effect was consistent across all 4 loads.
Case 1. Influence of Not Properly Mixing Liquid Supplement On TMR Particle Size Variation
Penn State Shaker Box Screens
TMR Loads Top Middle Bottom
Load Pens SituationAvg.,
% CV,%Avg.,
% CV,%Avg.,
% CV,%
1 Lactation Front of Load Wet 8.0 28.6 66.1 10.96 25.8 35.45
2 Lactation Front of Load Wet 6.7 27.3 65.9 13.59 27.4 37.95
3 Lactation Front of Load Wet 5.3 38.9 64.9 9.45 29.8 21.01
4 Lactation Front of Load Wet 7.6 25.9 62.5 14.34 29.8 23.46
Mixer truck was not level as the front of the truck was sloped down hill.TMR was mixed for only 1 minute or less after liquid was loaded.The TMR was extremely wet at the front of the load when it was dropped and dry at the end.Small feed particles on bottom pan stuck to larger particles in top and middle screensat the front of the load. The effect was consistent across all 4 loads.
Case 2. Liquid Supplement Loaded Improperly In a Twin-Screw Vertical Mixer Wagon and TMR Particle Size
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bunk Sample Location
Per
cent
on
Pen
n S
tate
Scr
eens
Middle
Bottom
Middle
Bottom
Oelberg. 2009.
Solid Lines = Improperly loadedDashed Lines = Properly loaded
Beginning Ending
Case 3. Adding Liquid At End and At Center of the Wagon
Case 3. Improper Loading of Liquid Caused Variation In Moisture and
Particle Size of TMR Along the Bunk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1AFront
1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1G 1H 1I 1JBack
Sample Number Along Bunk
Mo
istu
re a
nd
Pe
nn
Sta
te
Sc
ree
ns
, %
Moisture,%
Top
Middle
Bottom
Note: As moisture level increases from front to back of wagon, amount of TMR on top screen increases while amount on bottom decreases
Case 3. Improper Loading of Liquid Caused Variation In Moisture, Crude Protein and Ash (Mineral) Levels In The TMR Along the Bunk
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1AFront
1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1G 1H 1I 1JBack
Sample Number Along Bunk
Mo
istu
re, %
15
15.5
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
1A Front 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1G 1H 1I 1J Back
Sample Number Along Bunk
Cru
de
Pro
tein
, % o
f D
M
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
1A Front 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1G 1H 1I 1J Back
Sample Number Along Bunk
As
h, %
of
DM
Liquid Spray Bar
3” dia pvc, 4 to 6 feet long1/2 “ dia holes 6 inches apart
Cap ends and place holes in capsTwo rows of holes positioned at 5 and 7
o’clock
Recommendations for liquid supplements in TMRs:1. Highly recommend to suspend small particles and to reduce sorting2. Make sure wagon is level during mixing3. Use spray and load liquid over the center of mixer between screws or augers4. Add liquid to commodity pre-blend 5. Make pre-blend and TMRs on the same day reduce heating and spoilage
Adding Liquid With A SprayBar
Outline
What Is A TMR Audit
Factors that Contribute to TMR Variation
Managing Ingredient variation and shrink
Labor Efficiencies
Summary of Diamond V TMR Audit Data
Key Focus Areas for Managing Shrink and Nutrient Variation In Home Grown Ingredients
Silage Face Heating
Source: Venne. 2007
Silage Temperature 6 hours after Facing4:00 PM
Source: Venne and Martel. 2008
No Facer Faced 12-18” Faced 24-36”
43.344.445.7
40.741.041.8
36.036.337.8
43.343.643.7
41.642.943.0
36.437.737.9
Haylage NDF – Sampling and Laboratory
Consistency Evaluation
Stone. 2008
Avoid Digging Into The Face
Excellent Face on Haylage Pile
Facing Haylage Pile
Pushing and Lifting Alfalfa Haylage Into A Pile
Crude Protein Levels In Haylage Sampled From the Face
•Width of pile at base = 135’•10 Samples taken from face•Values, % of Dry Matter
23.8 24.5
20.023.0
20.1
19.4
19.4
23.7
24.117.4
Crude Protein Levels In Windrow After Haylage was Faced
23.0 22.4 21.4 18.9 19.318.3 18.4 20.1 23.1 21.1
•10 equally spaced samples taken from windrow starting •10 feet from the edges of the pile•Windrow was 135’ long•Fresh haylage was avoided in sampling•Values, % of Dry Matter
Crude Protein Levels In Haylage Pile
21.9
19.4 22.021.6
21.919.8
20.1 19.4
21.4
20.3
• Samples 4, 5 and 6 taken 3’ under surface• All other samples taken at surface• Values, % of dry matter
Variability by location
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Face Windrow Pile Face Windrow Pile Face Windrow Pile Face Windrow Pile Face Windrow Pile Face Windrow Pile Face Windrow Pile
Nutrient/ location
Avg
CV,%
Silage Face Management Summary
Cut back plastic and place extra tires on leading edge
Remove spoiled silage as needed Make silage face smooth and
vertical Blend faced silage into a pile to
minimize variation in the silage and in the TMRs
No loose silage at end of feeding
Outline
Factors that Contribute to TMR Variation
Silage Facing Trial
Labor Efficiencies
Summary of Diamond V TMR Audits
Opportunity for Improved Efficiencies?
Reduced Mixing Time in Half
Super Mix
Labor Efficiencies
Are the feeding facilities laid out to maximize quality & efficiency?
Have we observed our feeders mix?
Do We Communicate with our Feeders?
Outline
Factors that Contribute to TMR Variation
Silage Facing Trial
Reading Bunks
Labor Efficiencies
Summary of Diamond V TMR Audits
States Where TMR Audits On Lactation Rations Have Been Done
Milking
1% 7% 2%
2%
11%
6%
3%
2%
5%
0%
0%17%1%
1%
0%
5%
2%
8%0%
0%
3%
4%
1%
3%
1%
0%
2%12%
AZ
CO
FL
GA
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
MD
ME
MN
MO
NC
NE
NM
NV
NY
OK
OL
PA
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
WA
TMR audits from CA and MI have not been included
Types of TMR Mixer WagonsTested During TMR Audits
HA = horizontal 4-augerHP = horizontal paddleHR = horizontal auger-reelV1 = single auger verticalV2 = twin auger verticalV3 = triple auger vertical
Number of TMR loads tested: 514
Top 10 Brands of TMR Mixers Indentified in TMR Audit Summary
Number of TMR loads tested: 514
Types of TMR Rations Tested In514 Loads
Repeated TMR Audits Show Improved Consistency Over Time
0.002.004.006.008.00
10.0012.0014.0016.00
% CV Middle
% CV Bottom
Linear (% CV Bottom)
Linear (% CV Middle)
Data represents 75 out of 514 loads
Histogram
0102030405060708090
100
0.83
2.53
4.22
5.91
7.60
9.30
10.9
912
.68
14.3
716
.07
17.7
6M
ore
Middle Screen CV Categories, % (All Rations)
Fre
qu
en
cy
Histogram
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1.16
2.99
4.83
6.66
8.50
10.3
312
.17
14.0
015
.84
17.6
719
.51
Mor
e
Bottom Screen CV Categories, % (All rations)
Fre
qu
en
cy
Top 25% of TMRs have coefficients of variation of 3% or lessGoal: 3% CV or less in middle and bottom screens of Penn State Shaker box
Coefficient of Variation Levels for TMR Consistency
</= 3% – Top 25% of TMRs– TMR mixing basics followed– excellent - mostly corn silage, haylage and/or chopped hay: easy to mix,
new and well-maintained mixers </= 4%
– Top 50% of TMRs– Not sure cow performance is different from 3% CV
>4% – Antidotal evidence has show 1 to 3 lbs inc. in milk and improved milk fat%
after corrections are made– Poor TMR Mixing Basics
• Not mixing long enough after last ingredient• Overfilling• Worn augers and kicker plates• Hay not processed• Ingredient mix order not optimized• Liquid not loaded in proper position
Summary of What We Covered What Is A TMR Audit
Factors that Contribute to TMR Variation
Silage Facing Trial
Labor Efficiencies
Summary of Diamond V TMR Data– Best mixer is one that is well maintained and
managed by following TMR mixing basics
top related