Acceptability of Fat Supplements in Four Dairy Herds

OUR INDUSTRY TODAY

Acceptability of Fat Supplements in Four Dairy Herds RIC R. GRUMMER,1 M. L. HATFIELD. and M. R. DENTINE Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin 1675 Observatory Drive Madison 53706 ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Intake of three granular fat supplements, sodium-alginate encapsulated dry tallow, calcium salt of palm oil fatty acids, prilled long-chain fatty acids, and tallow were compared using 209 dairy cattle from four dairy herds. Cows were presented with 454 g of fat for 15 min either alone, top-dressed, mixed with grain, or alone following a l-wk adaptation to the fat. Intake was qualitatively scored at the end of the IS-min period as o =no, I =partial, or 2 = total consumption of the 454 g of fat, and when possible, intake was determined quantitatively. When feeding fat alone without prior adaptation, tallow had a greater qualitative intake score than other fats, but the difference between tallow and prilled long chain fatty acids was not significant. Following adaptation, intake of calcium salt of palm oil fatty acids was lower than for other fats, which reflected an inability of cows to adapt to this fat relative to the others. Qualitative intake scores of the three granular fats were similar when they were top-dressed, and intake of encapsulated dry tallow was significantly greater than for tallow. No significant differences in intake among fats were observed when they were presented as part of a grain mix. Relative acceptability of fats varied among herds. To minimize the likelihood of reductions in feed intake when fat is introduced into dairy rations, cows should be adapted to the fat, and if possible, the fat should be diluted with other feed ingredients. (Key words: fat supplement, fat acceptability, cattle)

Fat supplementation to diets fed to dairy cattle has increased recently, and this supplementation is a means by which energy density of the diet can be increased without reducing forage to concentrate ratio. Increasing energy intake while maintaining adequate dietary structural carbohydrate may reduce the incidence of animals going off feed, excessive weight loss, reproductive failure, metabolic disorders, and poor lactation performance (1). Major factors that influence the choice of supplemental fat include cost, inertness within the rumen, handling characteristics, and animal acceptance. Recent research has indicated that granular, free-flowing fat supplements that are easy to handle and commercially available are relatively inert within the rumen (3). Use of tallow, ordered in bulk, is becoming increasingly popular in Wisconsin. Although tallow is more difficult to handle than granular fats, it is relatively inexpensive and is not detrimental to ruminal fermentation and nutrient digestibility when fed in moderate amouI~ts (6). Data are not available to indicate relative acceptability of various fat supplements, but field observations have indicated that there may be differences. Poor acceptability may in part explain why some research results show reduced DM intake and consequently no improvement in lactation perfonnance when supplementing fat (2, 4). The objective of this study was to determine, within different feeding methods, intake of commercially available fat supplements by cows from four different dairy operations.

Received June 12, 1989. Accepted September 11. 1989. 1Reprint requests.

1990 J Dairy Sci 73:852-857

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Protocol

Intake of four fat supplements commercially available in Wisconsin was compared using 209 lactating dairy cattle from two university farms and two commercial dairy farms. Fats 852

OUR INDUSTRY TODAY

853

were sodium-alginate-encapsulated dry tallow the Dairy Cattle Research Center at Madison [Booster Fat (BF), Balanced Energy Co., Clin- (UW-l). Grain was fed four times per day and ton, IA], calcium salt of palm oil fatty acids consisted mainly of ground com, wheat mid[Megalac (M), Church and Dwight Co., Prince- dlings, and com gluten feed. Alfalfa hay or ton, NJ], prilled long-chain fatty acids [Energy silage was fed four times per day and com Booster (EB), Milk Specialties Co., Dundee, silage once a day. Whole cottonseed was topIL], and tallow [Max-Fat (MF), Max-Fat Corp., dressed on silage to all cows, and soybean meal Green Bay, WI]. During periods 1 through 3. was toJKlressed according to production. Sixtyfats were presented to cows for 15 min as either five cows (60 Holstein and 5 Brown Swiss) 454 g fat alone. top-dressed on 4.1 kg grain. or were on experiment at the University of Wismixed (10%) with grain. During period 4. fol- consin herd at Arlington, WI (UW-2). The lowing a l-wk adaptation to the fats, 454 g of same grain mix as at UW-1 was fed four times fat alone were offered to cows for 15 min. per day. Alfalfa hay or silage was fed three Forty-eight hours separated periods 1. 2, and 3; times per day with whole cottonseed and soy7 d separated period 3 from period 4. Period 4 bean meal fed as described for UW-1. Fifty was only conducted at the two university farms. Holstein cows were used at the first commerAdaptation consisted of top-dressing fats on cial herd (COM-I) and they were fed high forage once per day: 114 g on d 1 to 2. 227 g moisture ear com four times per day. Silage made from sweet com was fed twice daily and on d 3 to 4, and 454 g on d 5 to 7. After 15 min for consumption, intake of fat alfalfa silage three times per day. Brewers when fed alone or top-dressed was qualitatively grains were fed twice daily, and roasted soyscored as 0, none; 1, partial; or 2, total. Quanti- beans were fed according to production. Fiftysix Holstein cows were used at the second tative intakes were obtained by measuring recommercial herd (COM-2). High moisture fusals when fats, except tallow, were fed alone shelled com was fed three times per day, com and when fed as part of a grain mix and were silage once per day, and baled hay once per expressed as percentage of fat (or grain mix) day. A commercial protein supplement containoffered that was consumed. Refusals of tallow ing mostly soybean meal and roasted soybeans were not measurable because of its physical was fed according to production. Rolling herd properties. and weighbacks were not taken averages for milk and fat production (kg) at the when top-dressing fats because of the inability two university herds were 8771 and 340 for to differentiate between grain and fat refusal Holsteins, 7027 and 278 for Ayshires, and 7154 without doing a chemical analysis. For some and 305 for Brown Swiss. Rolling herd avercomparisons. quantitative data obtained from ages for milk and fat production at COM-l and feeding fat mixed with grain was transformed COM-2 farms were 8834 and 337 kg and 9160 to qualitative data by assigning a score of 0 if and 316 kg, respectively. less than 5% of the mix was consumed, 1 if 5 The experiments were conducted at a time of to 90% of the mix was consumed, and 2 if day when grain would normally have been fed. greater than 90% of the mix was consumed. Residual feed from the previous feeding was Although qualitative data obtained from this removed from the feed bunks prior to offering transformation were less precise than the quan- the fat supplements alone, top-dressed, or as titative data, the procedure allowed a direct part of a grain mix. Normal grain allotment was comparison of these data to those obtained withheld until after conducting each trial. when only qualitative measurements were possible. In order to differentiate fat or feeding StaUstical Analysis method effects from period effects during The statistical model used for analysis by periods I through 3, cows were assigned to receive three combinations of fat treatments the General Linear Model of SAS (7) was: and feeding methods with either one of the fats Y = J.l. + Lj + Sk + (LS)jk + F) or one of the feeding methods offered during two consecutive periods. During adaptation and + Cro(jkl) + Po + Wp + T(W)qp + LT(W)jqp + ST(W)kqp period 4, cows were offered a fat they did not receive during periods 1 through 3. + LST(W)jkqp + (LW)jp Thirty-eight cows, including 29 Holstein. 7 + (SW)kp + (LSW)jkp + (FW)lp Ayrshire. and 2 Brown Swiss were on trial at + Ff(W)lqp + eijklmnqp Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73, No.3. 1990

854

GRUMMER ET AL.

where: y ~

Lj Sk

= the dependant variable (qualitative or quantitative intake); = the overall mean of the population;

= the average effect of the parity j (lor >1); = the average effect of the stage

of lactation k (~100 d or >100 d); F, = the average effect of farm 1; = the average effect of cow m within farm, parity, and stage of lactation; Pn = the average effect of period n of sampling; Wp = the average effect of feeding method p (fat alone, top-dressed, mixed with grain, or alone afler 1 wk adaptation); T q = the average effect of fat supplement q (BF, M, EB, or MF); and eijklmnpq = the unexplained residual element assumed to be independent and identically distributed -N(O, ~ ).

em

The mean square for cows was used as the error lerm for farm, parity, stage of lactation, and their interaction. All other terms were tested using the residual mean square. Interactions not significant with P>.1 0 (parity x method, stage of lactation x method, parity x stage of lactation, parity x stage of lactation x method, stage of lactation x fat(method), and parity x stage of lactation x fat(method» were dropped from the model and pooled with the residual term. Because farm by fat and farm by method interactions were significantly different from zero, no within-farm contrasts were made. Preplanned comparisons of fat supplement intakes with feeding methods using data across all herds were made using linear contrasts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Multiparous cows were more likely to consume fat supplements than primiparous cows (P<.OI). Average quantitative intake across all farms and feeding methods was 25.7 and 16.9% Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73,

No.3, 1990

of fat offered for multiparous and primiparous cows, respectively. Cows beyond 100 d in milk consumed a greater percentage of fat offered than those less than 100 d in milk (P<.05; 25.0 vs. 18.8%). Unfonunately, the reluctance to consume fat during the fIrst 100 d in milk corresponds to the period of lactation when energy intake often is not sufficient to meet energy demands and when supplemental fat could be of most benefit. These data may help explain why feeding fat has not reduced BW loss in early lactation or reduced the time required postpanum for cows to return to positive energy balance (5, 8). Average consumption of fat supplements when offered alone is in Table 1. Fat is not typically fed alone, but the purpose of this feeding strategy was to obtain an assessment of acceptability in the absence of other feedstuffs that could exen a variable influence on acceptability of fat. Qualitative intake score was greater for MF than BF or M (P<.OI) but not significantly greater than EB (P>.OS). Qualitative intake score for MF was greater than for other fats in three of the four herds; UW-1, where EB intake was greatest, was the exception. Results from quantitative measurements (BF, M, and EB only) were similar to those from qualitative results and indicated no significant differences among the dry granular fat supplements. Considerable differences among farms were observed (P<.OS) in the ranking of fat intake. For example, quantitative intake of M was comparable or slightly greater than other granular fats at UW-2 and COM-l but was low relative to BF and EB at UW-l and COM-2. Differences in the amount of fat consumed among herds was significant (P<.OOl) and appeared to be related to the amount of activity normally present in the barns. The UW1 employs 40 pan-time students, has numerous class activities held there, and is constantly visited by the public. UW-2 has fewer disruptions but has more bam activity than most commercial herds. The intrusion brought about by conducting the experiment may have been tolerated more easily by cows normally exposed to abundant human activity. Intakes of fat supplements alone following 1 wk of adaptation at UW-l and UW-2 are in Table 2. The reasons for feeding fat alone rather than top-dressing or mixing with grain to assess adaptation were twofold. We anticipated

855

OUR INDUSTR Y TODAY TABLE I. Average consumption of fat supplements whcn 454 g of fat were offered alone. Fat supplement I

Qual

M Quant

Qual

Quam

MF --Qual

.10 .25 .29

10.9 12.2 9.2 0 8.2 3.6

.90 .29 .08 .20 .33'b .08

47.4 10.0 2.6 2.8 13.4 3.6

.50 .44 .73 .67 .59b .08

BF Farm 2

Qual 3

Quant 3

UW-I UW-2 COM-I COM-2 X All farms SEM

.60 .06 .20 .33 .27' .08

30.6

1.2 3.1 6.4 8.7 3.6

0

.17' .08

EB

"bQualitative means within this row with different superscripts differ (P<.OI). Quantitative means were not different (P>.05). Contrasts among fats within mdividual herds were not made. IBF = Booster Fat, M = Megalac, EB = Energy Booster, and MF = Max-Fat. 2UW-I = Dairy Cattle Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison; UW-2 Arlington; COM-I = first commercial herd; and COM-2 = second commercial herd.

= University

of Wisconsin,

3Qual = Qualitative intake recorded as 0 = no, I = partial, or 2 = total consumption of the 454 g offered for 15 min. Quant = Quantitative intake expressed as a percentage of the 454 g offered for 15 min. Quantitative measurements were not made for MF.

that prior to adaptation. feeding fat alone would yield the lowest intakes relative to other feeding strategies, Therefore, the greatest response or improvement in intake due to adaptation would most likely be realized and be detectable within this feeding strategy. Second, any associative effects between fat supplements and grain mix ingredients on fat intake would be eliminated. Intake was markedly improved for all fats except M following adaptation. Both qualitative and quantitative data indicate that intake of BF, EB, and MF was greater than for

M following adaptation (P<.002). Apparently cows did not adapt to the characteristic of M that limits intake, whereas they were partially able to do so for the other fat supplements. Similar results and conclusions occurred whether quantitative or qualitative intake data were analyzed for this and other feeding methods. which indicates that categorizing consumption as none, partial, or total was adequate for assessing intake differences in this study. The qualitative intake score for BF when it was top-dressed was greater (P<.05) than for

TABLE 2. Average consumption of fal supplements when 454 g of fat were offered alone following 1 wk of adaptation. Fat supplement I M

BF

EB

Farm 2

Qual 2

Quanl 2

Qual

Quant

Qual

Quant

UW-l UW-2 X UW farms SEM

1.40 .80 1.04' .11

64.3 35.9 46.6 x 5.4

.10 .31 .24 b .11

4.1 131 1O.0Y 4.9

1.67 .57 1.00' .12

85.6 26.6 49.7 x 5.5

MF --Qual 1.56 1.06

l.23' .11

"bQualitative means within this row with different superscripts differ (P<.OO2). x'YQuantitative means within this row with different superscripts differ (P<.OOI). Contrasts among fats within individual herds were not made. IBF = Booster Fat, M '" Megalac, EB = Energy Booster, and MF = Max-Fat. 2UW-1 = Dairy Callie Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison; UW-2 = University of Wisconsin, Arlington. 3Qual = Qualitative intake; recorded as 0 = no, I = partial. or 2 = IotaI consumption of the 454 g offered for 15 min. Quant = Quantitative intake expressed as a percentage of the 454 g offered for 15 min. Quantitative measurements were not made for MF. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73,

No.3, 1990

856

GRUMMER ET AL.

TABLE 3. Average consumption of fat supplements when 454 g of fat were offered top-dressed on grain. I Fat supplements 2

UW-I UW-2 COM-I COM-2 X All farms SEM

BF

M

EB

MF

1.36 .81 .27 .29 .67 a .08

.78 .50 .23 .14 .38 ab .08

.78 .53 .27 .36 .47 00 .08

1.00

.06 .57

.07

.36b .08

a.bMeans within this row with different superscripts differ (P<.05). Contrasts among fats within individual herds were not made. IYalues represent average qualitative intake; recorded as 0 = no. I = partial. or 2 =total cortsumption of the 454 g of fat placed on top of the grain. Quantitative assessment of fat intake was not made. 2BF = Booster Fat. M = Megalac. EB = Energy Booster. and MF = Max-Fat. 3UW-I = Dairy Cattle Research Center. University of Wisconsin-Madison; UW-2 = University of Wisconsin. Arlington; COM-I = first commercial herd; and COM-2 = second commercial herd.

MF, and scores for M and EB were not different (P>.05) from each other or from BF and MF (fable 3). The low score for MF resulted because it cooled and hardened shortly after placing it on the grain. Cows in the UW-2 and COM-2 herds tended to push the solid mass of fat off the grain and consumed grain only during the IS-min observation period. We think this was unique to UW-2 and COM·2 herds

because of the colder bam temperatures and more rapid solidification of MF that occurred on these farms. Given additional time, MF may have been consumed. Intake of fat supplements did not differ (P>.05) when they were presented to the cows as part of a grain mix (Table 4). Differences in acceptability of fat supplements were apparently masked by diluting fat with other feed ingredients. CONCLUSIONS

When considering the use of supplemental fats in dairy rations, efforts should be made to avoid the problems of cows going off feed and depres:>ed DM intake. Across all farms and feeding strategies, qualitative intake scores for BF (.61), EB (.54), and MF (.63) were similar but greater than for M (.32; P<.OOI). However, realizing the variance of results across herds and feeding strategies, it is difficult to make a universal recommendation for fat supplementation. Data indicate that adaptation to supplements (except M) improved acceptability and that differences in acceptability among fats can be minimized by mixing fats with other diet ingredients. The specific characteristics of these fats that influence intake are not known. It would be of interest to determine if it is the chemical nature of the fat supplements (Le., triglyceride vs. long-chain fatty acid vs. calcium salt vs. alginate encapsulation) or other

TABLE 4. Average consumption of fat supplemented grain mixtures. Fat supplements l M

BF

EB

MF

Farm 2

Qual 3

Quant 3

Qual

Quant

Qual

Quant

Qual

Quant

UW-I UW-2 COM-1 COM-2 X All farms SEM

1.40 .60 .33 .67 .71 .08

84.4 29.6 15.0 24.9 35.4 3.7

1.00 .61 .23 .23 .48 .08

52.6 26.9 13.0 7.4 22.6 3.7

1.10 .94 .25

66.9 40.0 10.6 3.6 29.3 3.8

1.50

77.2 29.6 7.9 20.4 29.3 3.8

lBF

= Booster

Fat, M

= Megalac.

EB

= Energy

Booster, MF

.17 .62 .08

.69 .31 .50 .67 .08

= Max-Fat.

2UW-I = Dairy Cattle Research Center. University of Wisconsin-Madison; UW-2 = University of Wisconsin, Arlington; COM-I = first commercial herd; and COM-2 = second commercial herd. 3Qual = Qualitative intake; because a visual qualitative assessment of intake was not made. quantitative data was convened to qualitative data by assigning 0 = <5% consumption of fat plus grain mixture. I =5 to 90% consumption. 2 = >90% cortsumption. Quant =Quantitative intake expressed as percentage of the 454 g fat supplemented 00%) in the grain mixture offered. Journal of Dairy Science Yol. 73.

No.3. 1990

OUR INDUSTRY TODAY

factors, such as odor, physical form, and appearance, that have the greatest influence on fat acceptability. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Jerry Guenther for his excellent assistance in collecting data. Special thanks to Stan and Ivan Hellenbrand and Ron and Steve Schultz for allowing us to interrupt their lives so that the experiment could be run on their farms. REFERENCES I Chalupa, W., and J. D. Ferguson. 1988. Role of dietary fat in productivily and health of dairy cows. Page 36 in Pree. Symp. Application Nutr. Dairy Practice. American Cyanamid, CO.. Wayne, NJ. 2 Eastridge, M. L., and D. L. Palmquist. 1988. Supplemen-

857

tal energy as calcium soaps beginning at two or six weeks of lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):254. (Abstr.) 3 Gll1.lnmer, R. R, 1988. Influence of prilled fat and calcium salt of palm oil fany acids on ruminal fermentation and nutrient digestibilily. J. Dairy Sci. 71:117. 4 Mohamed. O. E., L. D. Saner, R. R. Grummer, and F. R. Ehle. 1988. Influence of dietary cottonseed and soybean on milk production and composition. J. Dairy Sci. 71: 2677. 5 0stergaard, V., A. Danfer, J. Daugaard. J. Hindede, and 1. Thysen. 1981. The effect of dietary lipids on milk production in dairy cows. Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbugs Forslilg, Copenhagen, No. 508. 6 Palmquist, D. L.. and H. R. Conrad. 1980. High fat rations for dairy cows. Tallow and hydrolyzed blended fat at two intakes. J. Dairy Sci. 63:391. 7 SAS Institute, Inc. 1986. SAS User's guide: statistics. SAS Inst., Inc.• Cary, NC. g Skaar. T. C, R. R. Grummer, M. R. Dentine, and R. H. Stauffacher. 1989. Seasonal effects of pre- and postpartum fat and niacin feeding on lactation performance and lipid metabolism. J. Dairy Sci. 72:2028.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 73,

No.3, 1990