Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle Seventh Revised Edition, 2001 Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutrition Committee on Animal Nutrition Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS ~ 2101 Constitution Avenue, NVV ~ Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 59-32U4-5-6, the Center for Veterinary Medicine of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Agreement No. R-13-FD01495, and the American Feed Industry Association. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle / Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutrition, Committee on Animal Nutrition, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council. 7th rev. ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ISBN 0-309-06997-1 1. Dairy cattle Nutrition Requirements. 2. Dairy cattle Feeding and feeds. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutrition. SF203.N883 2001 636.2'13 dc21 00-012828 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. iii
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DAIRY CATTLE NUTRITION JIMMY H. CLARK, Chair, University of Illinois DAVID K. BEEDE, Michigan State University RICHARD A. ERDMAN, University of Maryland JESSE P. GOFF, USDA/ARS/NSDC, Ames, Iowa RIC R. GRUMMER, University of Wisconsin [AMES G. LINN, University of Minnesota ALICE N. PELL, Cornell University CHARLES G. SCHWAB, University of New Hampshire TREVOR TOMKINS, Milk Specialties Company GABRIELLA A. VARGA, Pennsylvania State University WILLIAM P. WEISS, The Ohio State University COMMITTEE ON ANIMAL NUTRITION GARY L. CROMWELL, Chair, University of Kentucky MARY E. ALLEN, National Zoological Park MICHAEL L. GALYEAN, Texas Tech University RONALD W. HARDY, University of Idaho BRIAN W. McBRIDE, University of Guelph KEITH E. RINEHART, Perdue Farms Inc. L. LEE SOUTHERN, Louisiana State University JERRY W. SPEARS, North Carolina State University DONALD R. TOPLIFF, West Texas A&M University WILLIAM P. WEISS, The Ohio State University Stay CHARLOTTE KIRK BAER, Program Director NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Editor STEPHANIE PADGHAM, Project Assistant MELINDA SIMONS, Project Assistants * through January 1999 v
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES HARLEY W. MOON, Chair, Iowa State University DAVID H. BAKER, University of Illinois MAY R. BERENBAUM, University of Illinois CORNELIA B. FLORA, Iowa State University ROBERT T. FRALEY, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri ROBERT B. FRIDLEY, University of California, Davis W.R. (REG) COMES, University of California PERRY R. HAGENSTEIN, Institute for Forest Analysis, Planning, and Policy, Wayland, Massachusetts GEORGE R. HALLBERG, The Cadmus Group, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts CALESTOUS PUMA, Harvard University GILBERT A. LEVEILLE, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Denville, New Jersey WHITNEY MACMILLAN, Cargill, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota (retired) WILLIAM L. OGREN, U.S. Department of Agriculture (retired) NANCY I. RACHMAN, Novigen Sciences, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia G. EDWARD SCHUH, University of Minnesota JOHN W. SUTTIE, University of Wisconsin THOMAS N. URBAN, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Des Moines, Iowa (retired) ROBERT P. WILSON, Mississippi State University JAMES J. ZUICHES, Washington State University Stay WARREN MUIR, Executive Director DAVID L. MEEKER, Director CHARLOTTE KIRK BAER, Associate Director SHIRLEY B. THATCHER, Administrative Assistant vi
Preface Dairy cattle production is an important component of the food industry. Nutrition is a key factor in the perfor- mance, health, and welfare of dairy cattle. Given the large variation in dairy cattle types and the various environments in which they are maintained, producers must increasingly concern themselves with optimizing feeding programs. To that end, the Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutri- tion, which was appointed in 1997 under the guidance of the Committee on Animal Nutrition in the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, embarked on a monumental task in the devel- opment of a new edition of Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. As we conducted our work, it was our desire to provide users of this volume an accurate, comprehensive, and useful review of the scientific literature and practical experiences that have shaped our knowledge of dairy cattle nutrition over the past decade. We chose to provide both a written description of the biologic basis for predicting nutrient requirements and a computer model on a compact disk to use for estimating requirements of lactating, nonlactating, growing, and young dairy animals. The subcommittee recognizes that some users of this revision will prefer to apply tables of requirements for an average situation, and we have attempted to provide those tables. Although there is often uncertainty using a modeling approach to estimate nutrient requirements, we believed that we had a responsibility to move the science forward, so we included a model that was constructed on a substantial amount of data. We believe that the model builds on the work of previous Research Council committees and moves the science for- ward without reaching so far that estimates cannot be vali- dated. We found that an abundance of new science-based knowledge had surfaced since the last edition, but we also found that our knowledge of many aspects of dairy cattle nutrition is incomplete; we chose not to venture too far from what our knowledge base would allow. In developing this report, the subcommittee considered current issues in dairy cattle production inasmuch as they affect nutrient requirements and animal feeding manage- ment, including new emphasis on environmental consider- ations in the feeding of dairy cattle. We have attempted in this new edition to focus more than in the past on considerations and criteria for establishing nutrient requirements. This study was conducted through the concerted efforts of the members of the Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutrition. We began our 3-year task in 1997 and completed this volume in 2000. We hope that it will be used with the same passion and enthusiasm with which it was developed. JIMMY H. CLARK, Chair Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutrition vii
Acknowledgments A volume of this magnitude represents the combined efforts of many individuals. The subcommittee thanks all those who shared their insights and knowledge to bring this document to fruition. We would first like to thank everyone who participated in our public sessions and the special sessions that were organized for our benefit during the American Dairy Science Association meetings over the past several years. During the course of its deliberations, the subcommittee sought advice and special assistance from several people who gave generously of their time to help us complete our task. Very special thanks are due to Carl Davis, University of Illinois; Jim Drackley, University of Illinois; Gale Bate- man, University of Illinois; Danny Fox, Cornell University; Brian Garthwaite, Food and Drug Administration; and Normand St. Pierre, Ohio State University. We are extremely indebted to them. In addition, we sought and received guidance early on from R. Lee Baldwin, Univer- sity of California, Davis; Mark Hanigan, Purina Mills, Inc.; Rick Kohn, University of Maryland; and Dale Waldo, U. S. Department of Agriculture (retired). The expertise of Vajesh Durbal, Cornell University, is gratefully acknowledged. He was instrumental in program- ming the computer model, and we could not have accom- plished what we did without his skill and patience. The subcommittee is grateful to members of the National Research Council staff who worked diligently to maintain progress and quality in our work. Through her dedication, guidance, and skill, Charlotte Kirk Baer trans- formed our spirited verbal pondering and imperfect writ- ten drafts into a comprehensive report. Stephanie Padgham provided able assistance and much-needed momentum during the final stages of our study. Melinda Simons sup- ported all of us cheerfully and effectively during the early phases of the study and Laura Boschini shared her skills in preparing the report for publication. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individu- als chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical com- ments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: R. Lee Baldwin, University of California, Davis; Paul Chandler, Chandler Associates; Larry Chase, Cornell University; bud Heinrichs, Pennsylvania State University; Roger HemLen, University of Kentucky; Alois Kertz, Agri Brands Interna- tional; David Mertens, U.S. Department of Agriculture Dairy Forage Research Center; Jerry Olson, University of Minnesota; Leo Timms, Iowa State University; Michael Van Amburgh, Cornell University; Harold Van Horn, Uni- versity of Florida; and Michael VandeHaar, Michigan State University. Although the reviewers listed above have pro- vided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommenda- tions nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Michael Galye an, Texas Tech University, appointed by the Commit- tee on Animal Nutrition, and Robert Wilson, Mississippi State University, appointed by the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources. These individuals were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring subcommittee and the institution. ix
University of Kentucky; Alois Kertz, Agri Brands international; David Mertens, USDA Dairy Forage Research Center; Jerry Olson, University of Minnesota; Leo Timms, Iowa State University; Michael Van Amburgh, Cornell University; Harold Van Horn, University of Florida; Michael VandeHaar, Michigan State University; Michael Galyean, Texas Tech University; and Robert Wilson, Mississippi State University. Although the persons listed have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring subcommittee and the National Research Council. x
Contents OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 DRY MATTER INTAKE Equations for Predicting DMI, 3 Lactating Cows, 3 Growing Heifers, 6 .1 Nutrients and Feeding Management Related to DMI of Lactating Dairy Cows, 6 Moisture, 6 Neutral Detergent Fiber, 7 Forage to Concentration Ratio, 7 Fat, 7 Cow Behavior, Management, and Environmental Factors Affecting Feed Intake, 8 Eating Habits and Cow Behavior, 8 Weather, 9 Feeding Method Total Mixed Ration vs. Individual Ingredient, 9 Feeding Frequency, 9 Sequence of Feeding, 10 Access to Feed, 10 References, 10 2 ENERGY..................................... Energy Requirements of Lactating and Pregnant Cows, 13 Energy Units, 13 Energy Values of Feeds, 13 Estimating TDN of Feeds at Maintenance, 14 Estimating DE of Feeds, 15 Estimating DE at Actual Intake, 16 Estimating ME at Actual Intake, 17 Estimating NET at Actual Intake, 17 Estimating Net Energy of Feeds for Maintenance and Gain, 17 Comparison of New NET Values with Values from 1989 Edition, 18 Precautions, 18 Energy Requirements, 18 Maintenance Requirements, 18 Lactation Requirements, 19 Activity Requirements, 20 xi .13
xi Contents Environmental Effects, 21 Pregnancy Requirements, 21 Tissue Mobilization and Repletion During Lactation and the Dry Period, 22 Body Condition Scoring, 25 References, 25 3 FAT........................................................ Digestion and Absorption, 28 Digestibility and Energy Value of Fats, 29 Effects of Fat on Ruminal Fermentation, 30 Utilization of Fat in Calf Diets, 30 Fat in Lactation Diets, 30 References, 32 4 CARBOHYDRATES........... Nonstructural Carbohydrates, 34 Structural Carbohydrates, 36 NDF Recommendations, 37 ADF Requirement, 40 References, 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROTEIN AND AMINO ACIDS ..................... Importance and Goals of Protein and Amino Acid Nutrition, 43 Major Differences from Previous Edition, 43 Protein, 44 Chemistry of Feed Crude Protein, 44 Mechanism of Ruminal Protein Degradation, 45 Kinetics of Ruminal Protein Degradation, 46 Nitrogen Solubility vs. Protein Degradation, 48 Microbial Requirements for N Substrates, 48 Animal Responses to CP, RDP, and RUP, 49 Synchronizing Ruminal Protein and Carbohydrate Digestion: Effects on Microbial Protein Synthesis, 52 Ruminally Protected Proteins, 54 Predicting Passage of Microbial Protein, 55 Predicting Passage of Rumen Undegradable Feed Protein, 58 Digestibility of Rumen Undegradable Feed Protein, 61 Predicting Passage of Endogenous Protein, 63 Evaluation of Model for Predicting Flows of N Fractions, 65 Predicting Passage of Metabolizable Protein, 65 Metabolizable Protein Requirements, 67 MP Requirements for Maintenance, 67 Protein Requirements for Pregnancy, 68 Protein Requirements for Lactation, 68 Protein Requirements for Growth, 68 Amino Acids, 69 Essential vs. Nonessential Amino Acids, 69 Limiting Essential Amino Acids, 71 Predicting Passage to the Small Intestine, 74 Requirements for Lysine and Methionine in Metabolizable Protein for Lactating Cows, 81 Ruminally Protected Amino Acids, 85 References, 85 .28 .34 .43
Contents xiii 6 MINERALS...... Macrominerals, 106 Calcium, 106 Phosphorus, 109 Sodium, 118 Chlorine, 121 Potassium, 124 Magnesium, 128 Sulfur, 131 Trace Minerals, 132 Cobalt, 132 Copper, 133 Iodine, 136 Iron, 138 Manganese, 139 Molybdenum, 140 Selenium, 141 Zinc, 143 Chromium, 146 Aluminum, Arsenic, Nickel, Silica, Tin, and Vanadium, 147 Toxic Minerals, 148 Cadmium, 148 Fluorine, 148 Lead, 149 Mercury, 149 References, 150 7 VITAMINS ........... Fat-Soluble Vitamins, 162 Vitamin A, 162 Vitamin D, 164 Vitamin E, 166 Vitamin K, 168 Water-Soluble Vitamins, 169 B-Vitamins, 169 Biotin, 169 Folic acid, 169 Inositol, 169 Niacin, 170 Pantothenic Acid, 171 Riboflavin (B2), 171 Thiamin (B1), 171 Vitamin B12, 172 B -Vitamins- General, 1 72 Vitamin C, 172 Choline, 173 References, 174 8 WATER REQUIREMENTS. Water Intake, 178 Dry Cows, 179 Calves and Heifers, 180 Drinking Behavior, 180 .105 .162 .178
x~v Contents Water Quality, 180 Summary, 182 References, 182 9 UNIQUE ASPECTS OF DAIRY CATTLE NUTRITION . . Transition Cows and Nonlactating Cows, 184 Nutritional and Physiologic Status of the Transition Cow, 184 Nutrient Requirements for Pregnancy, 185 Nutrient Intake, 185 Energy and Protein Density for Dry Cow Diets, 186 Etiology and Nutritional Prevention of Metabolic Disorders, 188 Fatty Liver and Ketosis, 188 Udder Edema, 189 Milk Fever, 191 Grass Tetany, 194 Retained Placenta and Metritis, 194 Displacement of the Abomasum, 196 Rumen Acidosis and Laminitis, 197 Milk Fat Depression, 199 Performance Modifiers, 201 Mineral Salts and Their Role as Buffers, 201 Ionophores, 201 Direct Fed Microbials, 203 Fungal Cultures, 203 Bovine Somatotropin, 204 References, 205 10 NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE YOUNG CALF Energy Requirements of Calves, 214 Young Replacement Calves Fed Milk or Milk Replacer Only, 215 Young Replacement Calves Fed Milk and Starter Feed or Milk Replacer and Starter Feed, 219 Veal Calves, 220 Ruminant Calves (Large-Breed and Small-Breed Females) from Weaning to Body Weight of 100 kilograms, 220 Effects of Environmental Temperature on Energy Requirements of Young Calves, 220 Protein Requirements of Calves, 221 Mineral and Vitamin Requirements of Calves, 222 Minerals, 222 Vitamins, 224 Feed Composition Data with Application to Diet Formulations for Calves, 225 Other Aspects of Calf Nutrition, 226 Fetal Nutrition, 226 Colostrum, 227 Water and Electrolytes, 227 Milk Replacers, 228 Feed Additives, 228 Practical Feeding Considerations, 229 References, 230 .184 .214
Contents xv 11 GROWTH Energy and Protein Requirements for Growing Dairy Heifers, 234 Terminology, 234 Growth Requirements and Composition of Gain, 234 Evaluation of Model Predictions of Energy and Protein Requirements for Growth of Dairy Heifers, 236 Setting Target Growth Rates, 238 Evaluation of Target Weight Equations, 239 Maintenance Requirement Effects on Growth, 239 Basal Maintenance Requirement, 240 Adjustment for Previous Temperature, 240 Adjustment for Previous Plane of Nutrition, 240 Adjustment for the Direct Effects of Cold Stress, 241 Adjustment for the Direct Effects of Heat Stress, 241 Model Evaluation, 241 References, 242 .234 12 DAIRY CATTLE NUTRITION AND THE ENVIRONMENT 244 Nitrogen, 245 Phosphorus, 246 Summary, 247 References, 247 13 CARBOHYDRATE CHEMISTRY AND FEED PROCESSING 249 Nonstructural Carbohydrates, 249 Analytic Procedures, 249 Neutral Detergent Fiber, 249 Neutral Detergent Insoluble Nitrogen, 250 Acid Detergent Fiber, 250 Acid Detergent Insoluble Nitrogen 250 Lignin, 250 Total Nonstructural Carbohydrates, 251 Effects of Processing on Energy in Feed, 251 Sources of Starch, 251 Oilseeds, 254 References, 255 _ c~ _ __ 7 14 NUTRIENT REQUIREMENT TABLES .258 15 NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF FEEDS 281 16 MODEL EVALUATION AND PREDICTION EQUATIONS 315 GLOSSARY 334 USER'S GUIDE 341 ABOUT THE AUTHORS INDEX .361
Tables and Figures TABLES 1-1 Validation statistics for prediction of dry matter intake by heifers, 6 1-2 Effect of bunk space per cow on feeding behavior and intake of early lactation cows, 9 2-1 Processing adjustment factors (PAF) for NFC, 14 2-2 True digestibility coefficients of CP used to estimate TONS values of animal-based feedstuffs, 15 2-3 True digestibilities at maintenance (assumed 8 percent increase in digestibility com- pared with 3X maintenance) of fatty acids from various fat sources, 15 Empty body (EB) chemical composition at different body condition scores (BCS), relative Eb weight (EBW), and NED provided by live weight (LOO) loss and NED needed for LW gain, 24 2-5 Energy provided by or needed to change body condition score (BCS) of cows of different live weights and BCS, 25 Fatty acid composition and iodine values of fats and oils, 29 4-1 4-2 5-1 Nonstructural (NSC) and nonf~ber (NFC) analyses of selected feedstuffs, 34 Composition of the NFC fraction of selected feedstuffs, 35 Recommended minimum concentrations (% of DM) of total and forage NDF and recommended maximum concentrations (% of DM) of NFC for diets of lactating cows when the diet is fed as a total mixed ration, the forage has adequate particle size, and ground corn is the predominant starch source, 37 Studies used to evaluate milk and milk protein yield responses to changes in the concentration of dietary crude protein, 50 5-2 Descriptive statistics for data set used to evaluate animal responses to CP and RDP, 50 5-3 Studies used to evaluate milk yield responses to changes in the concentration of dietary ruminally degraded protein, 51 5-4 Studies used to determine the relationship between NED intake and passage of microbial protein to the small intestine of lactating dairy cows, 57 5-5 Studies reporting in situ determined estimates of N fractions and rates of protein degradations that were used in preparing this edition, 60 xvi
Tables and Figures xvii 5-7 5-6 Recommended procedures and reporting details for a standardized in situ procedure for measuring ruminal degradability of protein in dairy cattle, 62 Published studies that were summarized for the purpose of arriving at estimates of intestinal digestibility of the RUP fraction of feedstuffs, 64 5-8 Studies used to validate the model equations for predicting flows of MCP, RUP plus ECP, and NAN flows to the small intestine, 66 5-9 Mean percentage contributions of cysteine (and its oxidation product cystine) to total sulfur amino acids (methionine + cysteine + cystine) and of tyrosine to tyrosine + phenylalanine in ruminal microbes and feedstuff, 70 5-10 A comparison of the EAA profiles of body tissue and milk with that of ruminal bacteria and protozoa and common feeds, 72 Experiments used to develop equations for predicting amino acid passage to the small intestine, 76 5-12 Feedstuffs and the extent of their use in the 199 diets in the data set used to develop equations to predict the content of individual EAA in total EAA of duodenal protein, 76 5-13 Descriptive statistics of the data used for developing equations for predicting content of individual EAA in total EAA of duodenal protein and for predicting flows of total EAA to the small intestine, 77 5-14 Comparison of the root mean square prediction errors (RMSPE) obtained from plots of residuals (predicted-measured vs. measured) for equations that predicted directly the flow of each EAA with those accepted for use in the model that predicts directly the percentage of each EAA in total EAA of duodenal protein, 80 5-15 Studies used to determine the dose-response relationships for lysine and methionine in metabolizable protein, 82 6-1 Comparison of estimated dietary copper requirements (mg/d) and dietary copper concentrations (mg/kg of DM) for cattle in various physiologic states, 134 6-2 Calculated copper absorption coefficients across various dietary sulfur and molyEde- num concentrations, 134 Comparison of estimated dietary manganese requirements (mg/d) and dietary manga- nese concentrations (mg/kg of DM) for cattle in various physiologic states, 141 6-4 7-1 Comparison of estimated dietary zinc requirements (mg/d) and dietary zinc concen- trations (mg/kg of DM) for cattle in various physiologic states, 145 Estimated absorption of selected B-vitamins from the small intestine compared with estimated requirements for tissue and milk synthesis of a 650-kg cow producing 35 kg of 4 percent fat-corrected milk/day, 173 Guidelines for total soluble salts (TSS) in water for cattle, 180 8-2 Water hardness guidelines, 181 8 - 3 N itrate in wate r, 181 8-4 Generally considered safe concentrations of some potentially toxic nutrients and contaminants in water for cattle, 182 10-1 Daily energy and protein requirements of young replacement calves fed only milk or milk replacer, 215
xviii Tables and Figures 10-2 Daily energy and protein requirements of calves fed milk and starter or milk replacer and starter, 216 10-3 Daily energy and protein requirements of veal calves fed only milk or milk replacer, 217 10-4 Daily energy and protein requirements of weaned (ruminant) calves, 218 10-5 Effect of environment on energy requirement of young calves, 221 10-6 Mineral and vitamin concentrations recommended in diets of young calves, compared with average for fresh whole milk (DM basis), 223 10-7 Energy, protein, calcium, and phosphorus concentrations in foodstuffs commonly used in the formulation of milk replacers for young calves, 226 10-8 Energy, protein, fiber, and mineral composition of three milk replacers (MR), a starter feed, and a grower feed for young calves, 227 11-1 Relationships between mature size and growth requirements, 237 11-2 Calculation of target weights and daily gain using the data set of Van Amburgh et al. (1998a), 239 11-3 Application of equations to predict energy and protein requirements, using target weights and daily gains from table 11-2, 240 11-4 Multipliers used to adjust the maintenance energy requirement to reflect various environmental conditions, 241 11-5 Predicted effects of four environments on heifer performance, 242 14-1 Daily nutrient requirements of small breed cows (live weight - lactation, 260 14-2 Daily nutrient requirements of small breed cows (live weight = 454 kg) in midlactation, 261 14-3 Daily nutrient requirements of small breed cows (live weight = 454 kg) in midlactation, 262 14-4 Daily nutrient requirements of large breed cows (live weight = 680 kg) in early lactation, 263 14-5 Daily nutrient requirements of large breed cows (live weight = 680 kg) in midlactation, 264 14-6 Daily nutrient requirements of large breed cows (live weight = 680 kg) in midlactation, 265 14-7 Nutrient requirements of lactating dairy cows as determined using sample diets, 266 14-8 Nutrient requirements and required diet nutrient concentrations for fresh cows fed an example fresh-cow ration, 268 14-9 Nutrient requirements and diet concentrations needed to meet requirements for dry cows as determined using example diets, 270 14-10 Example diet incorporating dietary guidelines suggested in chapter 9 for transitioning a heifer during the later dry period to acclimate her to the lactating ration and to reduce metabolic disease, 272 14-11 Example diet incorporating dietary guidelines suggested in chapter 9 for transitioning a cow during the last weeks of gestation to acclimate her to a lactating ration and to reduce metabolic disease, 274 = 454 kg) in early
Tables and Figures xix 14-12 Daily nutrient requirements (DM basis) of small breed (mature weight = 450 kg) non-bred heifers, 276 14-13 Daily nutrient requirements (DM basis) of large breed (mature weight = 650 kg) non-bred heifers, 277 14-14 Daily nutrient requirements (DM basis) of small breed (mature weight = 450 kg) bred heifers, 278 14-15 Daily nutrient requirements (DM basis) of large breed (mature weight = 650 kg) bred heifers, 279 14-16 Nutrient requirements of growing Holstein heifers using model to predict target average daily gain needed to attain a mature body weight of 680 kg, 280 Nutrient composition and variability of some foodstuffs commonly fed to dairy cattle, 283 15-2a Nitrogen fractions, RUP digestibility, and amino acids of feedstuffs, 290 15-2b Nitrogen fractions and amino acid composition of less commonly used feedstuffs, which are cited in the literature but were not included as commonly used foodstuffs in Table 15-2a, 300 15-3 Mineral composition of some foodstuffs commonly fed to dairy cattle, 304 L Compositions of inorganic mineral sources and element absorption coefficients for dairy cattle on a 100% dry matter basis, 311 Sources of data used in the model evaluation, 316 Ration densities of required minerals for three categories of feeds for calves, 331 Summary report for diet A, 355 Net energy and protein requirements of heifers with mature weights of BOO, 65O, and 800 kg, 357 UG-3 Effect of body weight and rate of gain on daily gain, 357 UG-4 Target weights for dairy heifers, 358 UG-5 Target daily gains post transition to pre-conception for three mature sizes of dairy heifers, 358 UG-6 Inputs for heifer growth exercises, 359 UG-7 Maintenance energy requirement multipliers for various environmental conditions, 359 FIGURES 1-1 Dry matter intake prediction of early lactation cows using equation 1-2 and Kertz et al. (1991) equations, 4 1-2 Dry matter intake, four percent fat corrected milk production, and body weight change of primiparous and multiparous cows during 48 weeks of lactation, 5 Observed versus predicted dry matter intake of growing dairy heifers using beef calf equation from Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle (National Research Council, 1996), 7 The relationship between feeding level expressed as multiples of maintenance and the unit decline in diet TDN per multiple of maintenance where TDN percentage unit decline = 0.18 x -10.3, r2 = 0.85, 16
xx Tables and Figures 2-2 Body condition scoring chart adapted from Edmonson et al. (1989), 23 5-1 Analyses of crude protein fractions using borate-phosphate buffer and acid detergent and neutral detergent solutions, 47 5-2 Response surface for data set described in "Animal Responses to CP, RDP, and RUP" section, 51 Plot of observed (open circles) and residuals (squares) for measured microbial N flow (g/day) versus estimated NET intake in lactating and dry dairy cows, 56 5-4 Relationship between measured efficiency of microbial protein synthesis (g microbial N/kg rumen fermented OM) and apparent ruminal N balance, 57 Plot of adjusted (open circles) and residuals (squares) for measured microbial N (g/ day) versus measured total tract digestible OM (kg/d), 58 5-6 Plot of predicted vs. measured (filled circles) and residuals (predicted measured; open circles) vs. measured flows of microbial N to the small intestine of dairy cows, 66 5-7 Plot of predicted vs. measured (filled circles) and residuals (predictedmeasured; open circles) vs. measured flows of NANMN (rumen undegradable N plus endoge- nous N) to the small intestine of dairy cows, 66 5-8 Plot of predicted vs. measured (filled circle) and residuals (predictedmeasured; open circles) vs. measured flows of NAN (microbial N + rumen undegradable N + endogenous N) to the small intestine of dairy cows, 67 5-9 Plot of predicted vs. measured (filled circles) and residuals (predicted-measured; open circles) vs. measured (Lys, g/d) (from predicted Lys, percent of EAA and predicted EAA, g/d), 79 5-10 Plot of predicted vs. measured (filled circles) and residual (predicted-measured; open circles) vs. measured Met, g/d (from predicted Met, percent of EAA and predicted EAA, g/d), 79 5-11 Plot of predicted vs. measured (filled circles) and residuals (predicted-measured; open circles) vs. measured flow of total EAA, 79 5-12 Milk protein content responses as a function of digestible Lys and Met concentrations in MP, 84 5-13 Milk protein yield responses as a function of digestible Lys and Met concentrations in MP, 84 9-1 Dietary concentrations of crude protein needed in diets fed to transition cows to meet requirements, 187 9-2 Dietary concentrations of NET needed in diets fed to transition cows to meet require- ments, 188 10-1 Example of growth rate predicted by the model in this edition for a 40-kg calf fed whole milk (open bars) or a milk replacer (dark bars) at TO, 14, or 18 percent of body weight, 229 16-1 Model predicted vs. actual dry matter intake, 316 16-2 NET intake (estimated from observed dry matter intake and model estimated NET ~ , ~ concentration) versus NET use (estimated from model predicted maintenance and lactation requirement plus NET needed to meet observed body weight change), 317 16-3 Actual milk production versus model predicted MP allowable milk production, 317
Tables and Figures xxi 16-4 Difference between MP allowable milk and actual milk versus model predicted lysine concentration of MP, 317 Difference between MP allowable milk and actual milk versus model predicted methionine concentration of MP, 317 UG-1 Settings for number properties, 344 UG-2 Settings for currency, 345 UG-3 Program menu bar, 346 Help box, 348 Program settings screen, 348 UG-6 Animal description screen, 349 UG-7 Production screen, 349 UG-8 Management/Environment screen, 350 UG-9 Feed screen, 350 UG-lORation screen, 352 UG-ll Reports screen, 352
Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle Seventh Revised Edition, 2001