managing tmr variation

Improving Feeding Consistency and

Efficiency with TMR Audits

DAIReXNET WebinarDr. Tom Oelberg, [email protected]

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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

managing tmr variation

Education

tmr ingredient variation

loads of tmr

tmr consistency results

tmr consistency of over

tmr particle size variation

consistent tmr results

tmr audit factors

tmr audit tools