RESEARCH UPDATE
1993
D AIR
Alabama Dairy Producers Surveyed About
Milk Handling Services
The dairy industry of Alabama
has experienced major changes during
the last decade. The number of farms
with milk cows has declined more than
60% since 1982. However, the number
of milk cows in the state has declined
only about 30%, suggesting that mostly
small farms have been exiting the dairy
business (see figure). Moreover, milk
production and cash receipts from
dairying have declined even less than
40
30
S20
10
- 0
-5 -20
cow numbers, indicating improved
production and economic efficiencies
among the remaining dairy operations.
This trend in efficiency is reflected in the
steady increase in average milk pro-
duction per cow over the decade.
Changes also have occurred in
marketing strategies for milk. Many
commercial dairies now have more
options in choosing who will handle
their milk. A survey of dairy farmers
in the Southeast was conducted by the
AAES in conjunction with the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture-Agricultural
Research Service. The survey was de-
signed to evaluate dairy farmers' satis-
faction with the services provided by
their milk handlers.
In Alabama, about half of the sur-
vey respondents were members of a
milk marketing cooperative, while the
other half were affiliated with indepen-
dent, proprietary milk handlers. More
than one-third of the respondents had
changed handlers in the last five years,
with "better prices" being the most
common reason cited for changing
handlers. Most of these had changed
from a cooperative to an independent
plant (59%) or from one independent
plant to another (23%). Only 5% had
changed from an independent plant to
a cooperative.
Those who had remained with a
cooperative for the previous five years
cited "assured market" and "stable and
secure operation" as the strongest influ-
ences for their allegiance. Only 10%
had to market their milk through a
cooperative because no other handlers
were available.
One way of estimating the value
of belonging to a cooperative is to
compare the price received from the
continued on page 2
I .I
,-,_,A"~mA AeiicuLURA~x MMEN ST~jowAu~RN-UIVESIT
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
Changes in the dairy sector since 1982.
Effect of Feather Meal on Growth 
in Young Dairy Calves
Feather meal (FM) contains 
70%
protein and is plentiful in Alabama 
and
much of the Southeast. It 
has been
widely used in pet and 
poultry feeds
and to a large extent in beef 
cattle diets.
Recent AAES studies indicate that FM
may have potential use in dairy cattle
rations, including rations for baby
dairy calves.
The protein requirement 
as a per-
centage of the diet 
is relatively high
(18%) for young calves. FM, because 
of
its limited amino acid composition, is
not as high in protein quality as other
protein sources, which may 
affect
growth for young calves. 
An AAES
study evaluated the effects of FM 
in
dairy calf starter grain mixes 
on calf
growth.
Seventy-five Holstein calves were
fed one of five treatments for 12 weeks.
All treatments contained ground 
corn,
rolled oats, cane molasses, 
minerals,
and aureomycin, but differed in protein
source. Grain mixes were formulated
with one of the following protein 
bases:
(A) 18.3% soybean meal 
(SBM); (B)
2.9% FM and 13.4% SBM; (C) 53% 
FM
and 9.4% SBM; (D) 8.0% FM and 
5.1%
SBM; (E) 6.0% FM, 3.0% blood meal
Dairy Producer Survey, continued
cooperative to the price offered by al-
ternative independent handlers. A
coop-erative's prices may be higher or
lower than those offered by inde-
pendent handlers in any particular
area, but across the Southeast coop-
eratives averaged $0.29 per hundred-
weight less than independents. This
figure was calculated by adjusting the
mailbox price for capital retains and
differences in hauling deductions and
marketing services. The net difference
is a rough estimate of the benefits of
having an assured market, a decided
asset to producers who have been in
the dairy business for many years.
R.G. Nelson
(BM), and 4.9%
SBM. Diets
were formu-
lated to contain
18% crude pro-
tein (CP) with
undegradable
protein values
of 34.4, 
39.5,
43.6, 48.5, and
51.2%, respec-
tively, for the
five treatments.
The amounts of
TAmE 1. Fowu.A oN or CAu STAnat RAToN
(A)SBM (B)2.9%FM (C)5.3%FM (D)8.0%FM (E)FM+BM
(% of dry matter)
Ingredients
Corn, ground ....... 54.32 56.19 57.81 59.47 58.90
Rolled oats .......... 20.31 20.30 20.27 20.28 
20.10
Molasses cane .... 4.30 4.30 4.29 4.29 
4.24
SBM, 48% ........... 18.26 13.39 9.40 5.06 4.85
Feather meal ....... - 2.92 5.33 8.01 
6.03
Blood meal .......... - - -
- 3.01
Aureomycin ......... 1.29 1.29 1.29 
1.29 1.27
AU calf mineral .... 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.26 
1.60
Nutrient analysis
DM, %................. 87.4 87.7 87.8 87.6 87.6
CP, % ............... 18.4 18.9 18.4 18.9 18.9
ADF, % ............. 3.3 2.5 2.9 2.7 3.0
NDF, % ................ 9.0 11.5 14.5 12.8 13.4
NEG, Mcal/kg ...... 1.34 1.34 1.41 1.34 1.34
UDP, % ............... 34.4 39.5 43.6 48.5 
51.2
1 1-
TALE 2. FED INTAKE AND GRown oF YOUNG CALVES
Treatments
(A)SBM (B)2.9%FM (C)5.3%FM (D)8.0%FM (E)FM+BM
Initial wt., lb. ................... 87.8 88.7 89.3 
89.3 89.3
Final wt., Ib ..................... 195.8 195.4 205.3 
189.2 206.6
Birth-12 wks.
DMI, IbJday ................. 2.46 2.38 2.62 
2.35 2.68
ADG, kg/day ................ 1.28 1.28 1.39 
1.19 1.39
Feed efficiency ............... 1.93 1.86 1.89 
1.98 1.94
Wither height, cmn .......... 91.1 91.1 
92.5 90.6 92.7
Hearth girth, cm.......... 104.6 105.1 106.4 
104.8 106.6
Plasma urea N, mg/dl..... 6.3 6.9 6.3 
6.2 6.8
Gain, 8-12 wks
4 wks .............................. 51.9 49.5 57.6 
47.1 57.4
SBM and corn were adjusted with
FM or BM to obtain desired protein
content (Table 1).
In this study, the addition of FM or
FM plus BM did not significantly in-
crease average daily gain (ADG) and
dry matter intake (DMI), as seen in
Table 2, even though there was a trend
toward higher values up to the 5.3%
FM diet. Final weights and ADG were
slightly greater for calves receiving
treatments C and E, in which 50% of
the SBM had been replaced by FM.
Most of this difference was due to
growth during the eight- to 12-week
period as there were no differences be-
tween treatments prior to eight weeks.
Between eight and 12 weeks, calves
receiving diets with the 50% FM re-
placement (treatments C and E) had
greater ADG than those with 25%
(Treatment B) or 75% (Treatment D)
FM replacement and a trend for higher
gains than the control. The amount of
undegradable protein alone would not
account for the differences observed.
Treatment E had more (51.2%) and
Treatment C had less (43.6%) unde-
gradable protein than Treatment D
(48.3%). Interestingly, in this study
ADG and DMI for Treatment D 
(8%
FM) were the lowest values among all
treatments. The reduction in ADG and
DMI may be due to decreased protein
quality, availability, or digestibility.
Cumulative skeletal measure-
ments did not differ for the 12-week
period. The plasma urea nitrogen con-
centration indicated that protein was
sufficient for all diets during the 12-
week testing period.
continued on page 
3
Effects of Different
Cooling and
Management
Regimes on Milk
Production
A major concern of dairy produc-
ers throughout the South is the 
effect
of prolonged heat stress on milk 
pro-
duction. Cows often eat less 
during hot
weather, which results in lower 
milk
production. Modifying diet and 
em-
ploying management practices, 
such
as providing shade or sprinkling 
ani-
mals with water, are generally 
recom-
mended to reduce the effects 
of heat
stress.
Many dairy operations through-
out the state utilize fans and 
a water
mist to assist in cooling both air 
and
cows. However, this constant 
mist of
water may effectively layer a "blanket
of humidity" on the cows, 
which
would reduce the cooling effect. 
How
such systems affect feed intake 
and
milk production is not apparent 
so an
AAES study was conducted 
at the E.V.
Smith Research Center Dairy 
Unit to
compare feed intake, milk 
production,
milk composition, and other 
factors of
cows maintained under different 
cool-
ing regimes during hot weather.
Thirty-nine lactating Holsteins av-
eraging 156 days in milk 
were assigned
to three different environments 
from
June 15 to September 
7, 1992. Treat-
ments were: (A) regular management
as a control; (B) housed indoor 
with
limited forced-air cooling 
from fans;
and (C) housed indoor with 
Turbo-
Aire fans and water sprinklers 
to re-
Effect of Feather Meal, continued
These results suggest feather meal
could be a valuable protein source, 
es-
pecially for the young dairy calves, 
if
not fed at more than 
6% (dry matter
basis) of FM in the diet. 
Additional
studies on FM diets for calves 14-24
weeks or older should be further evalu-
ated because of the potential 
economic
benefit for dairy and beef producers.
B.R. Moss, J.C. Lin, and R.C. Smith, 
III
duce heat. Cows 
in the control group
were outside five 
to six hours a day
and at night. Cows in all three treat-
ments were fed (see Table 1) and milked
at thesame time. Fans and water sprin-
klers operated when air temperature
was greater than 77
0
F. For Treatment
C, fans were on continuously when
temperatures exceeded 77
0
F and inter-
mittent water was sprinkled 
at 10 psi
for four three-minute cycles per hour.
The average maximum indoor
temperature for treatments A and B
were essentially the 
same (87.1
0
F), see
Table 2. However, Treatment C had a
significantly lower temperature
(77.2
0
F) and reduced temperature
over the use of fans alone. The mini-
mum indoor temperature of all treat-
ments did not differ. As expected, 
the
relative humidity was higher for
Treatment C than for the other two
treatments (90% versus 70%), due to
high moisture content in Treatment C
caused by water sprinkling 
in the sys-
tem.
The respiration rate of cows under
the two indoor treatments was lower
than for cows under the control treat-
ment; however, the indoor "cooled"
treatment resulted in 
the lowest respi-
ration rate of the three different treat-
ments.
Dry matter intake (DMI) 
was
slightly higher for cows under 
Treat-
ment B (37.8 pounds per day) and 
con-
siderably higher for cows under Treat-
ment C (40.9 pounds per day) than 
for
cows under the control (36.1 pounds
per day).
In this study, average milk 
pro-
duction (pounds 
per day)
were 54.3,49.3, and 45.3, 
for
treatments C, A, and B, re- 
TAI 2.
spectively. Treatment C
stimulated feed intake, 
re-
sulting in higher milk 
pro-
duction by five and 
nine
Maximum c
pounds per day over the 
temperatun
other systems (treatments 
MinimumOF
A and B, respectively) in 
temperatur
dairy cows during hot 
Humidity ...
weather. The milk 
fat con- rate per mir
tent for cows under Treat- 
Body score
ment B tended to be higher Initial.......
(3.60%) than those 
under Final .......
Treatment A (3.36%), but Body weigh
was not different 
from changes, 
lb
those under Treatment C (3.47%). Milk
protein content (3.23%) was 
not affected
by treatments.
In this study, 
DMI and milk 
pro-
duction 
increased 
with decreasing
maximum 
temperature. 
Reducing the
environmental temperature 
by use of
a proper cooling system 
during hot
weather may increase DMI and milk
production. Use of a combination of
fans and water sprinklers increases
DMI and milk production 
over the use
of fans alone. Additional information
on operation costs and comparison 
of
other systems is needed.
J.C. Lin, B.R. Moss, K.A. 
Cummins, D.A.
Coleman, and R.C. Smith, 
III
TALE 1. FORMWULTION OF DIET USED IN COOUNG
SDry matter (DM)
Dry matter (DM)
Ingredients
Corn silage, avg. ..................
Alfalfa haylage, 48% 
............
Corn ground, high moist ......
Cotton SD hulls .................
Protein-mineral pellets .........
Soybean hulls ...................
Selenium and vitamin E .......
Brewers yeast ....................
Niacin .................................
Dicalphos ...............................
Dynamite .............................
Megalac ..............................
Blood meal ..........................
Pet.
36.72
13.42
18.11
2.31
20.25
5.24
.19
.18
.04
.19
.08
1.53
1.76
Nutrient analyses, calculated
DM ,% ................................... 52.14
CP, % DM ......................... 16.88
ADF,% DM........................ 20.98
NDF,%DM ..................... 34.95
NEL, Mcal/kg ....................... 1.48
ENVIRONMENT AND RESPONSE OF DAJ Cows 
UNDER VAIOUS
Coouo REGIMES
Cooling treatments
A:Control B:lndoor/fan C:lndoor/cool
oF
e ............ 83.7 
83.7 77.2
e ............ 71.4 71.2 
71.1
.............. 70.2 
70.8 90.7
n. ......... 76.6 
66.9 36.2
.............. 2.62 2.62 
2.54
.............. 2.42 
2.30 2.29
it ..........
./day ..... .62 -. 51 .53
I
Nutritional Value of White 
Lupin Ensiled
Under Different Regimes
The grain of sweet white lupine, a
large tall-growing winter legume, has
been used successfully as a protein
supplement-for dairy cows afid calves.
The high protein (18%) and dry matter
yields of lupin plants indicate that
lupin may be a good forage source.
However, information on using the
whole lupin plant as a forage is limited.
COMPosmro OF TIrwHTE-78 AND LOUNo WHrrE LUPIN
Tifwhite-78 Lunoble
Quality variable April 29 May 14 May 19
Dry matter, %........... 25 28 30
Crude protein, %...... 18.4 14.7 14.7
ADF, % ................. 33.6 36.8 38.5
NDF, % ............... 38.7 46.5 45.1
ASH, % ................. - 4.7 4.7
NEL, Mcal/lb. ........ .6 .6 .5
RFV ..................... 153 120 122
An AAES study was conducted to
evaluate lupin's potential as a forage.
Due to large stems and the poten-
tial for loss of leaf, making silage with
the whole lupin plant appears to be the
most practical approach for forage use.
Lupin harvested for silage could fit
well into a double cropping system
with tropical corn or sorghum silage.
Lupin, as a legume, might not have
adequate energy for good fermenta-
tion, and the large diameter stalks and
time of ensiling of lupin could create
moisture problems for ensiling.
The study sought to determine
whether addition of ground corn or a
live microbial inoculant at ensiling
wodld improve ~fermentation charac-
teristics and digestibility of lupin si-
lage. Different cultivars of lupin also
were evaluated to see if these cultivars
would have similar responses to
ensiling treatments.
Fall-planted Tifwhite-78 and
Lunoble sweet white lupin were the
forage sources. Each cultivar was
ensiled as: (A) no treatment control;
(B) 90% silage-10% ground corn;(C)
80% silage-20% ground corn; or (D)
microbial inoculation added at 227
mg per pound of wet weight. Eight
five-pound samples of each treat-
ment were packed into small labo-
ratory silos made of PVC pipes. Si-
los were stored under controlled
conditions at 770F for 130 days.
The dry matter (DM) content was
28 and 30%, respectively, for Tifwhite-
78 and Lunoble at ensiling (see table).
Although DM remained essentially un-
changed due to moisture in the stalk,
the nutrient content of Tifwhite-78 de-
creased drastically from initial pod de-
velopment (April 29) to that at ensiling
time. The crude protein (CP), acid de-
tergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent
fiber (NDF), calculated values of net
energy for lactation (NEL), and rela-
tive feed value (RFV) were very simi-
Control 10% 20% Inoculated
In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of various treatments compared to whole-
corn plant silage IVDMD value (73.1). The corn silage value Is an average of three
varieties cut at about two-thirds milk time.
I
lar for both cultivars at ensiling and at
130 days. Energy content was similar
but protein content was higher than
that of sorghum silage. The calculated
RFVs are better than many grass for-
ages, but not greatly different from
mid-bloom alfalfa forage or sorghum
silage.
Although initial pH values were
similar for all treatments, the pH val-
ues of inoculated silage was lower than
any other treatment or the control.
However, the pH of all silages were
considered satisfactory (less than 4.5)
for good silage making.
In vitro dry matter digestibilites
(IVDMD) were the same for cultivars
and were similar for the innoculated
and control groups (see figure). The
control IVDMD values were less
(73.1%) than values for three varieties
of corn silage, but compare favorably
with nongrain forages. Addition of
ground corn increased 
the IVDMD,
but this was due primarily to the addi-
tion of corn rather than enhanced fer-
mentation of the ensiled product. A
second IVDMD was conducted in
which 10 or 20% corn was added to the
control silage just prior to analyses. Ad-
ditions at this time increased IVDMD
to values similar to those of the ensiled
com/lupin.
Tifwhite-78 silages had higher ace-
tic and lactic acid concentrations than
Lunoble silages during the first three
days. Treatments B and C did not
affect acetic acid content of Lunoble si-
lage, but acetic acid content was lower
for the inoculated treatment at 130 days.
Lactic acid concentration was greater in
the inoculated treatment than for other
treatments. The concentrations of ace-
tic and lactic acid were similar to re-
ported values for grass silage but less
than reported values for alfalfa. The
lactic:acetic acid ratio for Tifwhite-78
was less than that for Lunoble. A low
concentration of butyric acid is desir-
able for good silage, and butyric acid
concentrations of all silages in this
study were less than 0.1%.
Results indicate lupins could be
stored as silage, but more research is
needed on this promising feed alterna-
tive.
J.C. Lin, E. van Santen, and B.R. Moss
IVDMD
80
60
40
20
Corn silage
0 L__ 1 
1.
Feather Meal as a Protein Source for
Dairy Cows
Feeding feathers to dairy cows?
Not exactly, but a recent AAES study
that assessed the effect of feather meal
(FM) on nilk production, 
xilk compo-
sition, and feed intake of dairy cows
suggests that there is potential for feed-
ing this by-product of the poultry in-
dustry to dairy cows.
quire close attention to the amount of
by-pass protein and the amino acid
composition of protein supplements.
-- Feather meil is considered to have
high "by-pass," but the amino acid
composition may be limiting for milk
production. Several trials were con-
ducted at the E.V. Smith Research Cen-
MLK YIEo Ano CwposrmON, FEED INTAKE, AND BODY WEGHT CHANmEs OF LATATNG DARY Cows FED
VAMouS PROTEIrN SMDpAENTS
Diets
SBM 4%FM 8%FM FM+BM LP-4%FM
Yields, IbIday
Milk .................... 74.1 76.2 76.1 76.7 71.9
FCM
1 ... .. . . . . . .... ...  
73.7 77.8 77.7 78.1 72.7
Milk composition, %
Fat .................. 3.43 3.63 3.62 3.63 3.61
Protein .................. 3.28 3.20 3.10 3.12 3.04
Body weight changes,
lb./day .................... .95 1.45 1.21 .99 .79
Intake, IbJday dry
maer ............. 57.4 54.2 49.2 52.3 49.1
Feed efficiency
DMl/milk ............... 77 .77 .64 .68 .68
Plasma urea N
mg/dl .................... 17.8 17.8 17.9 18.4 11.2
Cost/cwt of feed
dry matter, $ ............ 6.83 6.68 6.58 7.04 6.29
'FCM = fat-corrected milk.
Alabama's poultry industry pro-
cesses tons of feathers annually, pro-
viding a meal that is high in protein
(70%). Dairy cows require large
amounts of protein and 
in Alabama,
due to the low protein content of most
forages, producers must purchase
large amounts of protein supplements.
Feather meal (FM) is usually priced
about the same as soybean meal
(SBM), even though FM is higher in
protein than SBM. Therefore, FM may
be an economical alternative to SBM
for Alabama producers.
Feeding FM to beef cattle has pro-
duced favorable results, especially
when fed in combination with other
products, such as blood meal (BM),
urea, or liquid supplements. How-
ever, very few FM studies have been
conducted with dairy cattle, which re-
ter Dairy Unit, Shorter, and the Black
Belt Substation, Marion Junction, to
evaluate FM for dairy cows.
On one trial, 20 lactating Holsteins
were fed one of five rations (treat-
ments) for 12 weeks. All rations had
similar amounts of corn silage, alfalfa
hay, ground corn, oats, dried fat, miner-
als, and buffers, but differed in protein
source. Treatments were total mixed
rations with one of the following pro-
tein bases: (1) 18.8% SBM; (2) 4% FM
and 12% SBM; (3) 8% FMand 5.9% SBM;
(4) 4% FM, 4% BM, and 5% SBM; (5)
and a low protein (14%) ration with 4%
FM and 4.8% SBM.
Average values of milk 
yields,
composition, and body weight changes
are shown in the table. Cows in early
lactation, with a negative energy bal-
ance, often respond to protein supple-
ments that have a high by-pass com-
ponent by increasing milk yield. In
this study, the addition of FM or FM
plus BM did not significantly increase
milk production in early lactation even
though there was a trend toward
higher production. The lower milk
yield for cows fed Treatment 5 com-
pared to those fed treatments 2-4 is due
to the reduced amount of protein (14%)
rather than the use of FM. Interestingly,
milk production for the control and low
protein rations was not different,
whereas the normal protein rations con-
taining FM resulted in greater milk pro-
duction than the low protein ration.
The milk fat content from cows
fed rations containing FM or BM also
tended to be greater (3.63%) than those
fed SBM alone (3.43%), but was not
enough to cause major differences in
the 3.5% fat-corrected milk.
Increasing amino acid supply to
the intestine normally increases milk
protein yield and content. Also, inclu-
sion of low degradable protein supple-
ments, such as fish meal or meat and
bone meal, has increased milk protein
yields in other studies. However, in this
study, FM depressed milk protein, with
more depression at the 8% concentra-
tion than the 4% concentration of FM.
Addition of BM did not improve milk
protein. Low protein in Treatment 5
depressed milk protein more than 4%
compared to FM alone in Treatment 2.
This reduced milk protein may be due
to decreased protein quality, availabil-
ity, or digestibility. Reduced milk pro-
tein from feeding FM was observed in
earlier AAES studies and in studies at
Florida.
Results of this study suggest that
FM could have a strong promise for the
future as an economical feedstuff for
lactating cows, if not fed at too great a
concentration. No more than 4% (dry
matter basis) of FM should be included
in the ration. Additional studies on FM
in combination with other feeds are
needed to further explore its potential.
B.R. Moss, J.C. Lin, and R.C. Smith, III
I
Comparison of Three Tall Fescue Cultivars and Corn Silage
for Dairy Cows
Tall fescue is one of the most
widely grown forage crops in the
United-States; however-an endqphytic
fungus, Acremonium coenophialum, has
been associated with tall fescue toxicity
that severely depresses milk produc-
tion. Recent AAES tests indicate that
fungus-free fescue can be used effec-
TABLE 1. HaHmT, DRY MATnm AvjLAm, JCcA. ANALY
ESIIM TED ENERGY VAIES OF THE TREa', nm PAsmuE
Johnstone Ky-31
Height, in ................... 5.7 7.9
Forage DMI, Ibiac.... 842 1,282 1,4
Nutrient content
DM, % .................... 26.2 28.2
CP, % of DM .......... 16 14.7
ADF
1
, % of DM ....... 32.1 35.6
NDF
1
, % of DM ....... 64 63
NELI, Mcal/lb ......... 66 .56
1 DM = dry matter; ADF and NDF = fiber; NEL =
lactating cows.
tively for grazing dairy cattle.
Plant breeders have developed
several new, fungus-free fescue variet-
ies that are commercially available,
however studies concerning the nutri-
tive value of these fescues for dairy
cows are limited. In tests at the Black
Belt Substation, Marion Junction, per-
formance of lactating cows was evalu-
ated when grazing AU Triumph
(AU-T) and Johnstone, two popular
fungus-free varieties, and Kentucky
31 (Ky-31) tall fescue pastures (non-
infected) or when fed corn silage.
--- Eor. each-oLthe cultivars- studied,
two pastures two acres each were es-
tablished in the fall of 1988. The study
was conducted for four weeks during
the fall and for six weeks during the
spring of 1989-90 and 1990-91. Avail-
able forages in the pastures
SIs, AND were 
measured and sampled
S weekly. Cows on 
the pasture
-
treatments 
were rotated 
from
AU-T
8.6 one pasture to its replicate
407 on a weekly 
basis and re-
ceived a 16% crude protein
28.5
14.3 
(CP) grain 
mix supple-
36.4 ment one pound per 2.75
66.7 pounds of 35% fat-corrected
milk) after milking. Cows
energy, on the corn silage treatment
received corn silage,
hay, and a 20% CP
grain mix based on
milk production.
Cows on silage were
kept in a dry lot, but
cows on other treat-
ments were kept on
pasture except dur-
ing milking and
grain-feeding times.
Results indi-
cated that AU-T
tended to be the tall-
est and have the larg-
est amount of avail-
able dry matter per
acre (Table 1). Chemical analyses indi-
cated that forage protein content was
less and fiber values (ADF and NDF)
were greater for AU-T than for
Johnstone. However, Johnstone could
not be grazed as long in the spring
because available forage was limited.
Cows on pasture consumed less of
the grain offered than those fed silage
(Table 2). Despite some seasonal dif-
ferences, actual milk yield was gener-
ally similar for all treatments. Cows
grazing Johnstone produced more milk
overall than those grazing AU-T, but
JAheir production was similar to those
grazing Ky-31 and those fed silage for
both years.
Cows grazing the AU-T pasture
produced less milk than others during
the spring of each year. However, this
decreased production was compen-
sated by an equal or greater yield dur-
ing the fall, making the yearly aver-
ages of AU-T similar to those of other
treatments. The greater milk produc-
tion on Johnstone as compared to other
pastures was probably due to greater
values for CP and energy. The fat and
protein in milk were not affected by
treatment.
More desirable body weight
change patterns were observed for
cows fed corn silage than for those
grazing on the various fescues. Data
also show that cows in early lactation
(fall) lose weight, whereas those in
mid-lactation (spring) gain or maintain
their weights. This indicates that cows
in early lactation on pasture may have
been using more body fat to produce
milk and, if kept on pasture longer,
would have lost more body weight or
possibly milk production than those
on silage.
The results of the study suggest
that cows grazing Johnstone did not
maintain body weight as well as those
grazing Ky-31 and AU-T tall fescue
when the three cultivars are estab-
lished under the same conditions. Dur-
ing spring, milk production per day
may be better on Johnstone than the
other fescues, but carrying capacity may
be more limited. Even though corn
silage may support more milk produc-
-tion during extended periods, similar
milk production can be obtained for
short periods of time when cows graze
high quality, endophyte free fescue
pasture.
J.F. Kabiligi, B.R. Moss, J.L. Holliman, and
D.I. Bransby
I
TABLE 2. MILK, MILK COMONENT, AND BOOY WEI-rr CUANES BY Cows
Aaorm To Tio ATm.NS
Johnstone Ky-31 AU-T Silage
Milk, lb./day
89-90 Fall ....................... 59.5 58.4 59.6 57.6
Spring ............................. 53.5 55 52 55.7
90-91 Fall ....................... 53.1 53.7 55.1 56.4
Spring ............................. 57.7 54.6 50.3 58.03
Body weight change, lb./day
Fall avg ........................... -2.38 -1.64 -1.78 -1.22
Spring avg ...................... 1.12 .82 1.06 1.42
Combined data
Grain intake, lb./day ....... 20.7 20.5 20.7 23.2
Milk, lb./day .................... 55.9 55.4 54.3 57
Milk fat, % ....................... 3.65 3.7 3.66 3.79
Milk protein, % ................ 3.14 3.15 3.14 3.22
BWT change, lb./day ...... -.62 -.40 -.35 -.09
AU Triumph Fescue Promising As Dairy
Cow Pasture
Winter perennial pastures that
support high milk production would
be welcomed by Alabama dairy farm-
ers. Such pasture has generally been
considered an impossibility, with only
cool season annuals providing forage
quality needed by high producing
cows. Now there is research evidence
that AU Triumph tall fescue can sup-
port milk production similar to winter
annuals if a higher level of concentrate
feed is provided.
An AAES study was p , ,
conducted to compare
milk production from a
mixture of wheat and an-
nual ryegrass 
with that 
Perform
from AU Triumph, a fun-
gus-free variety of tall
fescue released 
several Pasture 
desc
Av. height
years ago by the AAES. Av. height
For the study, 18 Moisture c
Holstein cows 
were as- 
Protein cor
Acid deterg
signed to one of three Total diges
treatment groups for a Daily consum
six-week study. The Pasture, w
treatments were (1) AU 
Pasture, dr
Grain milk,
Triumph 
stocked 
at one
cow per acre, 
(2) AU Tri- 
Daily product
Milk, lb ...
umph stocked at two Butterfat, 9
cows per acre, and (3) Protein,%
wheat and 
ryegrass pas- 
Fat-correct
ture stocked 
at two cows 
Average daily
per acre. The cows re- Feed and pa
mained on pasture day of milk
1 .
and night, except for 1 Estimat
milking and for about an winter annua
hour following 
milking, pastures, 
anc
during which time they
were fed a 20% protein/grain mix.
The grain mix was given to individual
cows at the rate of one pound for each
2.5 pounds of 4% fat-corrected milk
that they produced during the two
weeks before the study began.
Pastures were subdivided into
three equal sections, and each section
was grazed for one week at a time. The
amount of forages available was mea-
sured before ar, d after grazing to esti-
mate forage consumption and forages
were sampled for quality analysis.
Results in the table show that the
wheat/ryegrass pasture was a little
taller than AU Triumph, but all pas-
tures were grazed down to about the
same level by the time the cows were
rotated to another section.- Moisture,
protein, and total digestible nutrients
contents were higher and acid deter-
gent fiber was lower for winter annu-
als. Pasture consumption per cow on
AU Triumph was higher on the low
stocking rate compared to the high
stocking rate, presumably due to avail-
able forage per cow. Consumption of
wheat/ryegrass pasture was higher
than for AU Triumph at equivalent
stocking rates. Cows on AU Triumph
consumed all the grain mix offered to
them, but those on winter annuals re-
fused some. This may be related to the
higher moisture content and greater in-
take of wet pasture material on winter
annuals compared to the fescue.
Total milk production, butterfat,
protein content, and fat-corrected milk
differed among treatments. Butterfat
was lower on winter
annuals, but was par-
tially compensated for
by slightly higher milk
production as indi-
cated by the fat-cor-
rected milk level.
Results from this
study show that both
AU Triumph fescue
and wheat/ryegrass
pastures can support
high milk production
when stocked at two
cows per acre. Al-
though higher con-
sumption of grain mix
is required for AU Tri-
umph, some produc-
ers may prefer this
option in return for the
convenience of a pe-
rennial pasture.
B.R. Moss, J.L
Holliman, S.G. Solaiman, and
DI. Bransby
Whole Cottonseed Increases Milk
Production During Hot Weather
Heat stress is a major concern of
Alabama milk producers. When tem-
peratures exceed 86
0
F during the day
or do not fall below 66?F at night so
animals can dissipate heat, milk pro-
duction can drop 15 to 30%. Production
losses result because cattle consume
less feed during hot, humid weather.
Increasing nutrients, especially energy
sources, in the feed can help sustain
production levels. However, this must
be done carefully to avoid digestive
upsets and lower milk fat content.
Whole cottonseed (WCS) is a good
option because it is high in energy
continued on page 8
'faNs, F~D AND PAS1w CoNawmioN, AND MiL PmouxTKoN oN AU TuuwH Am~t
Wlra AkwAJM PAsn
Result, by pasture and stocking rate
ance measure Fescue Wleat/ryegrass,
1 cow/ 2 cows/ 2 cows/acre
acre acre
ription
before grazing, in. 11.0 10.4 13.3
after grazing, in ....... 4.3 3.8 4.1
ontent, % ................. 71.4 73.5 81.5
ntont, % ................... 19.0 17.8 223
gent ciber, % ............ 27.1 26.6 23.5
tible nutrients,% ...... 70.9 71.3 73.8
iption per cow
et weight, lb ............. 114 91 142
ry weight, lb ............. 32.5 24.1 26.2
lb ............................ 20.0 20.0 13.9
ion per cow
................................. 55.6 58.0 59.0
1o .............................. 3.47 3.47 3.15
................................. 3.18 3.25 3.18
ed milk, lb ............... 55.3 57.8 55.5
gain, lb ................. .10 .47 .03
sture cost/cwt.
........................................ $3.66 $3.11 $2.54
ed by assuming pasture production costs of $120 and $70 per acre for
Is and AU Triumph, respectively, a 150-day grazing period for both
d a price of $170 per ton of grain mix.
Whole Cottonseed, continued
(about 20% fat) and protein (23%), but
not as apt to cause digestive upsets be-
cause it is also high in digestible fiber
(34% ADF). Feeding WCS is one alter-
native, though it does not always in-
crease milk and fat production. The
recent development of commercial fats
that by-pass rumen digestion but are
digested and absorbed in the lowergas-
trointestinal tract provides another op-
tion.
An AAES study conducted at the
E.V. Smith Research Center, Shorter,
evaluated the effectiveness and eco-
nomics of WCS, a commercial fat
(Megalac?), and a combination of the
two. Megalac is a commercial inert fat
that has been reported to increase milk
and milk fat production.
During June through August of
1987, 32 Holstein cows averaging 72
days of lactation were assigned to one
of four treatment groups: (1) a control
treatment of corn silage, corn, and a
protein/mineral/vitamin supplement;
(2) the control treatment plus 103%
',CS; (3) the control treatment plus
2.6% Megalac; and (4) the control treat-
ment plus 5.2% WCS and 1.3%
Megalac. These products, which were
introduced gradually over a two-week
adjustment period, added about 3.4%
fat to treatments 2, 3, and 4. These
treatments had equal amounts of en-
ergy and protein, but all were higher
than the control treatment.
Results in the table show that cows
receiving WCS, Megalac, or a combina-
tion of the two consumed more dry
matter than cows on the control treat-
ment. This higher intake resulted in
increased milk production. Milk fat
percentage was slightly lower among
cows on the rations containing WCS.
EDITOR'S NOTE
The 1993 Dairy Update is a publication of the
Alabama Azricultural Experiment Station (AAES)
at Auburn Uniersity. It contains the latest results
of AAES studies relating to the dairy industry.
Mention of company or trade names does not indi-
cate endorsement by the AAES or Auburn Uni-
versity of one brand over another. Any mention of
nonlabel uses or applications in excess of labeled
rates of pesticides or other chemicals does not consti-
tute a recommendation. Such use in research is
simply part of the scientfic investigation necessary
tofull evaluate materials and treatments.
Information contained herein is available to all
persons without regard to race, color, sex,or national
origin.
December 1993 2 M
EmT OF WHOLE COTONSEE
Fat-corrected 
Item
milk(FCM)was Daily dry matter
lower on the consumption/cow, 
lb.
Total .......................
control treat- 
Per 100 lb. body 
wt.....
ment than 
on Daily 
production/cow
other rations, Milk, Ib. .....................
but cows on the Milk 
fat,% .................
control treat- 
Protein, % ...................
3.5% fat-corrected milk
ment were
Economic 
evaluationi
more efficient 
Feed cost/cow/day, 
dol
at converting Income over feed cost/
feed to milk, as 
I Based on 1987 feed
indicatedbythe and $13.75 per hundred
higher amount
of FCM per pound of feed consumed.
Cows receiving fat-containing treat-
ments produced milk with a lower
protein content. Overall, income was
higher for cows receiving the WCS or
control treatments.
Results from this study indicate
that milk production can be maintained
at a higher amount during periods of
heat stress using fat products, how-
ever, economics should be considered.
Feeding dietary fat products is a strat-
S(WCS) AND MECAUC IN DAvr RAnoNs ON FEED CONSUMnoN,
MLx PaooUcnoN, ANo ECONOMICS
Result, by treatment
Control WCS Megalac WSC + Megalac
............ 35.4 38.9 40.0 38.9
............ 2.86 3.13 3.19 3.16
............ 54.3 59.8 57.0 57.9
........... .3.37 3.12 3.31 3.18
3.09 2.99 3.01 2.84
........... 53.0 55.2 55.9 54.3
liars ..... 2.54 2.79 3.61 3.13
cow/day 4.75 4.80 4.07 4.34
prices of $130 per ton of WCS and $0.38 per lb. Megalac
Neight milk prices.
egy that producers may consider at
any time, but it seems especially ap-
propriate during periods of heat stress,
although results are usually more fa-
vorable in early rather than in mid
lactation. Feeding these products, es-
pecially WCS, is more easily accom-
plished by using a total mixed ration,
but feeding in grain mixes also has
been done successfully.
J.E. Umphrey, B.R Moss, K.A. Cummins, and
DA. Coleman
Editor's Note: Please use the form below to send the name and address of any neighbor
or friend who should receive the report. If you do not wish to 
receive future issues, please
indicate that fact on the form and we will remove your name 
from the mailing list.
D Add the following name to receive the AAES Dairy Update.
Q Remove the following name from the 
mailing list for the AAES Dairy
Update.
Name
Street, Box, or Route No.
City State Zip
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Auburn University
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-0520
NON-PROFIT ORG.
POSTAGE & FEES
PAID PERMIT NO.9
AUBURN, ALA.
Address Correction Requested