2. P. C. Hoffman Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison Strategies to Improve Feed Efficiency in Dairy Replacement Heifers

3. An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, the University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming including, Title IX and ADA requirements. ©2007 by Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension Changes in Cost of Rearing Replacement Heifers 1999 vs. 2007

4. An EEO/Affirmative Action employer, the University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming including, Title IX and ADA requirements. ©2007 by Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension Meeting Goals via Nutritional Manipulation Nutritional Concept Goal Increase Neonatal Energy\ProteinFuture Lactation Increase Energy-Accelerate PP Growth Economic Altered Protein SupplyFuture Lactation Limit-Feeding Environmental Reduce Dietary PEnvironmental DMI ManagementEconomic

5. The Potential to Limit Feed Dairy Replacement Heifers P.C. Hoffman Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin - Madison

6. Pseudo Limit Feeding Research - Dairy Heifers StudyObjectiveResults Lammers et al., 1999Pre-puberty growth+ Milk Production Ford and Park, 2001Restriction- realignment + Milk Production Park et al., 1998Restriction-realignment + Milk Production Carson et al., 2000Plane of nutrition+ Milk Production Hof and LenaersForage:grain+ ? Sejrsen and Foldager, 1992Pre-puberty growth+ ? Caution – Limit feeding was an experimental technique only !

7. Limit Feed Research – Central Hypothesis Hoffman et al., 2007 Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison

8. Limit Feeding Research – Selected Highlights The Pennsylvania State University

9. Selected – Penn State Limit Fed Diets Moody and Heinrichs, 2006

10. Limit Feeding – Rumen Environment Zanton and Heinrichs, 2006

11. Rumen pH of Heifers Limit Fed Low, Medium and High Levels of Concentrate * * Lascano and Heinrichs, 2007 20 % Concentrate 40 % Concentrate 60 % Concentrate

12. Kruse et al., 2009 (JDS abstract)

13. Limit Feeding of Gravid Holstein Heifers: Effect on Growth, Manure Nutrient Excretion, and Subsequent Early Lactation Performance JDS 90 P.C. Hoffman, C.R. Simson, M. Wattiaux

14. University of Wisconsin – Selected Diets (Current Experiment) C-100 L-85C-80

15. Hoffman et al. 2005 Nutrient and energy intake of heifers fed treatment diets. ItemC-100L-90L-80 Nutrient intake, lbs/d DM21.319.918.3 CP2.422.542.57 NDF10.068.296.50 Non-fiber carbohydrate7.267.607.85 P0.0570.058 Ca0.0860.0900.089 Energy intake 3 TDN, lbs/heifer/d 14.413.913.5 NE g, Mcals/d 9.4 9.5 NE m, Mcals/d 13.713.313.0 Treatment 1

16. Fecal Excretion

17. Hoffman et al. 2005 Effect of limit feeding on body size and growth of replacement heifers. ItemC-100L-90L-80 Intial Weight, lbs103610211011 Hip height, in54.254.654.9 Body condition score3.13.02.9 Final Weight, lbs122012341217 Hip height, in56.056.356.4 Body condition score3.2 Growth Average daily gain, lbs/d 1.661.921.84 Feed efficiency, lbs DM/lb gain13.210.711.1 Excretion DM, lbs/d 7.76.95.8 Treatment 1

18. Fecal Excretion – 1100 lb Limit fed Holstein heifer P < 0.01

19. Nitrogen Excretion – 1100 lb Limit fed Holstein heifer NS

20. Penn State - Fecal and Urine Output of Heifers Limit Fed Concentrate (C) or Forage (F) Based Diets Heifers aged 12 mo Heifers aged 6 mo SEAgeDiet Age x Diet CFCF Wet Feces Lbs/d 17.227.312.117.60.63<0.01 <0.05 Dry Feces Lbs/d 3.34.32.42.90.11<0.01 <0.05 Urine Lbs/d 27.422.711.110.64.3<0.1NS Moody and Heinrichs, 2006

21. Milk Production: 150 DIM (3.5 % FCM): NS (P > 0.10)

22. Penn State – Lactation Trial HF HC-Limit Fed SEP < Milk, lbs207612304110450.081 Fat, %3.743.980.130.138 Protein, %3.052.950.050.118

23. Behavior Ad lib Limit Fed

24. Time x Trt P < 0.001

28. Effects of limit feeding and ionophore supplementation on replacement heifer growth, rumen function and manure excretion K. A. Kruse, N. M. Esser, P. C. Hoffman, and D. K. Combs * Dairy Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

29. Ingredient and nutrient composition of treatment diets of limit fed growing Holstein heifers Treatment ItemC100L85L80 + I -------------- 21.0 % of DM 14.8 --------------- 14.8 Corn silage Oatlage25.914.7 Haylage44.435.8 Shelled corn 1.618.5 SBOM 2.210.5 Base mix 5.0 5.8 Lasalocid, mg/d……325 Nutrient composition 1 DM, % as fed40.347.447.8 CP, %13.115.515.4 NDF49.136.536.0 IV NDFD, % NDF 2 51.453.153.9 NFC29.339.740.3 Energy Calculations 3 TDN, % 56.565.065.6 NE g, Mcal/kg 0.701.0 NE m, Mcal/kg1.21.6

30. Growth trialPost-trial Lactation Effect (P<) -Treatment P < 0.33 - Stage P < 0.58 - Treatment x Stage P < 0.15

33. Bone development in dairy heifers fed diets with and without supplemental phosphorus. N.M. Esser*1, P.C. Hoffman*, W.K. Coblentz†, M. W. Orth†† and K.A. Weigel*. Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison,WI. † USDS-ARS Dairy Forage Research Center Marshfield and Madison, WI. †† Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

34. Holstein and Crossbred Heifers 3-22 months of age. Experimental Diets - Unsupplemented = 0.28 % P - Supplemented = 0.38 % P

36. Holstein and Crossbred Heifers 3-22 months of age. Experimental Diets - Unsupplemented = 0.28 % P - Supplemented = 0.38 % P

38. The Stalklage- Distillers - Urea Diet – For Heifers Long term data needed in regard to feeding high levels (> 25.0 %) of DDG or WDG to dairy heifers. Amount of supplemental fat may be of concern? Offers the opportunity to significantly reduce feed cost when DDG or WDG is economical. Conservative action is to limit DDG or WDG to 10-20 % in the diet (= 3-4 % Supplemental Fat). Best opportunity for cost control lies with older (bred) heifers.

39. DMI Management – 4 Trials and Theory Hoffman et al, 2008 ( in press ) Hoffman et al., 2006 Greter et al., 2008 Davis–Rincker et al. 2008 Each 1.0 percentage unit change in dietary NDF = ± 0.1 kg DMI

40. Conclusions Increasing energy|protein to neonatal calves increases growth and may improve future milk production. Increasing energy, accelerating growth, decreasing puberty|calving age remains paradoxical. Increasing dietary protein above requirements does not appear prudent due to a lack of tangible evidence supporting benefit and environmental concerns. Limit feeding heifers improves feed efficiency, milk yield? and decreases manure excretion but animal facilities limit application. Feeding excessive P has not been demonstrated to improve heifer frame development, growth or reproduction. New understandings of heifer DMI may yield more creative nutritional regimens for dairy heifers.

41. http://www.wisc.edu/dysci/