RESEARCH
Press Release: Feed Stuffs Magazine
For Immediate Release
For More Information:
Feed Sources, LLC
909-944-8886
Lewiston, Utah, USA (November 2001)… Average milk production increased by 2.2 lbs/cow/day and average protein content increased by 0.036% for a nearly 2:1 return on investment when 22 commercial dairies in Utah and Idaho supplemented all lactating rations with the feed supplements CME and yeast culture.
An adaptation period allowed the rumen to adjust to the ration changes. Without the benefit of the adaptation period, supplementation with KCME and yeast culture resulted in an average milk production increase of 1.84 lbs./cow/day and average protein content increase of 0.03%.
Notable here is the feeding trial included all lactating cows, not a subset of the cows. Should the proportion of second-and-higher lactation cows to just-fresh cows increase, we might expect higher increases in milk production and protein content. Typically the total milk of lactation is pretty well set by peak lactation.
Independent experts contributed to the integrity of the field trial. Cash Consultants, Ins. Designed and oversaw the feeding trial with the working dairies. Utah State University analyzed the DHIA information using a linear regression model. Production increases were determined by comparing the four DHIA tests prior to product usage and the four immediately following product inclusion in the ration. Milk protein % was marginally related and further modeling will be done to determine whether there is significance or not. The components model should be used with caution because it was originally developed for milk, not components. Additional modeling will be done to determine if lactation number is influenced by ration. We feel confident that the differences in treatment, as defined, are significant and publishable. We also suggest that additional herds be added to database.
Table 1. Adjusted estimates of least square means milk production for cows prior to and after ration change.
| Trt1 (lbs) | Trt2 (lbs) | |
| No Treatment | 63.27 | 63.19 |
| Treatment | 65.69 | 66.13 |
| Difference | 2.42 | 2.94 |
Other Trials
Utah State University
In a research trial at Utah State University, the Microbial Blend Product A was introduced to the herd in addition to a DFM already being fed.
After 6 weeks, the dairy milk average increased from 70.3 pounds to 73.8 pounds (an increase of 3.8 pounds) and the components increased 1.53 points on a fat test and 1 point on a protein test. At the conclusion of the test the other DFM was removed and no decrease in test or consumption took place.
Field Trials
In field trials of 15 actual dairies in California, Utah and Texas, the component test showed from a 1.5 point to 3.2 point increase in the fat test and a 1 to 2.4 point increase in the protein test. All studies were done over a six-week period.
Rumen taps were done on three different dairies in Utah with all three running between 6.0ph to 6.5ph. In manure testing done on 2 herds, one using Product A and one without, using the same rations and hay, there was observed marked increased digestion.
CHINO, CALIFORNIA STUDY
THE ENCLOSED PHOTOS ARE OF A BASIC MANURE SCREEN TEST FROM TWO DIFFERENT DAIRIES IN THE CHINO, CALIFORNIA AREA.
| 8 LBS CORN PER HEAD PER DAY | 2ND CUTTING IMPERIAL VALLEY HAY | YC/CME | |
| SAMPLE #1 | X | X | |
| SAMPLE #2 | X | X | X |
SAMPLE #1 – The concentrate formula is similar to Sample #2 but the cows are not supplemented with yeast, yeast culture, or any microbial or enzymes.
SAMPLE #2 – The concentrate formula is similar to Sample #1 and the hay is 2nd cutting from the Imperial Valley as is sample #1.
Protocol
The same sample screen was used in both photos. Sample #1 size is 1 ¼ cups. Wash time for Sample #1 was 30 seconds long (longer due to fiber binding). Sample #2 wash time was 20 seconds.
Progress Report for Feed Sources LLC
By:
Allen Young and Howard Bingham
Utah State University
16 February 2001
Several months ago I was approached by Dr. Tod Shenton regarding whether I would be willing to analyze data for a feeding project that he and Feed Sources LLC, were conducting. Upon agreeing, Tod gave me a list of 22 dairies that were on the project and the date they began feeding the product. I downloaded the DHIA records for each of the herds and created a database that included: unique herd identification number (herdcode), breed of cow, date of DHIA test, Treatment (explained later), use of bovine somatotropin (Posilac™, rbST), season of year, times cows milked/day, milk per milking cow, energy-corrected milk, management level milk, milk fat %, milk protein %, days in milk, number of cows in herd, and peak milking beginning feeding test product; Trt1 = Average of 4 DHIA test period after beginning feeding product. The logic being that an adaptation period was needed for the rumen to begin functioning normally after a ration change.
Data was analyzed by Dr. Bigham and myself using a linear regression model (SAS – Proc Mixed). The regression model was developed using a manual forward selection strategy to assess the relationship between milk per milking cow (dependent variable) and treatment group. Other independent variables assessed for potential confounding are listed above and included in the model at a critical alpha of P < 0.05, or if it was a potential confounding variable. The final regression model for both Treatment effects (Trt1, Trt2) included: Herdcode, Days in milk, Season of Year, and Treatment effect (model inclusion P-value for all independent variables were P < 0.0001) in the Trt1 grouping and Trt2 groupings, respectively, after adjusting for the effects of all including independent variables in the regression model. The adjusted means are found in Table 1. Milk per milking cow, as the dependent variable, was substituted with energy-corrected milk and management level milk using the same final model as described above. Results were similar to using milk per milking cow for both substitution; however, absolute differences due to treatment were slightly different. Milk fat % and milk proteins were also substituted for milk per milking cow. It appears that milk fat % may not be influenced by the test ration. Milk protein % was marginally related and further modeling will be done to determine whether there is significance or not. The components model should be used with caution because it was originally developed for milk, not components. Additional modeling will be done to determine if lactation number is influenced by ration. We feel confident that the differences in treatment, as defined, are significant and publishable. We also suggest that additional herds be added to the database.
Table 1. Adjusted estimates of least square means milk production for cows prior to and after ration change.
| Trt1 (lbs) | Trt2 (lbs) | |
| No Treatment | 63.27 | 63.19 |
| Treatment | 65.69 | 66.13 |
| Difference | 2.42 | 2.94 |
Progress Report #2
We have now completed analysis of the date set. In terms of the model for milk production, we have now added a terms which takes into account differences due to demographics of the herd (i.e. % of cows in first lactation). This term is not statistically significant, but was identified as a confounder for treatment groups during the model building process. After consulting with a statistician, it was his opinion that if there is a biological reason for inclusion into the model, it should be kept there even if not statically significant. The rationale is that the herd is being compared to itself. Proportions of 1st lactation animals may change over time and account for increased or decreased average milk yield per cow (out outcome variable). The final models for milk were:
Summary:
Addition of product resulted in an increase of:
| Milk (lb) | Model R² | Milk protein % | Model R² | |
| Models 1 & 3 | 1.84 | 0.939 | 0.030 | 0.942 |
| Models 2 & 4 | 2.20 | 0.941 | 0.036 | 0.946 |
Combination of Models 1 & 3 equals 7.7 lb protein more per 100 cows per day due to product.
Combination of Models 2 & 4 equals 9.3lbs protein more per 100 cows per day due to product.
Model 1. Modeling means milk yield of 4 prior DHIA test dates compared with 4 DHIA tested dates after start of product. Trt 0 = 4 test dates prior to start of product, Trt 1 = 4 test dates after start of product.
| Variable | Beta (ß) | Standard Error (ß) |
Least- Square means | F | P-value |
| Treatment | -- | -- | -- | 8.61 | 0.0040 |
| Trt 0 | -- | ||||
| Trt 1 | |||||
| Herdcode | -- | -- | -- | 78.89 | <. 0001 |
| Days in Milk | -- | -- | -- | 23.97 | <.0001 |
| Season | -- | -- | -- | 7.21 | 0.0002 |
| Percent 1st lactation animals in herd | -- | -- | -- | 0.24 | 0.6218 |
The model was significant at P < .0001 with an R² of 0.939
In the final model the effect of treatment was 1.84 lb milk due to product
Model 2. Modeling means milk yield of 4 prior DHIA tests compared with 3 DHIA test (2nd, 3rd, 4th) after start of product. Trt 0 = 4 test prior to start of product, Trt 1 = 3 tests after start of product.
| Variable | Beta (ß) | Standard Error (ß) |
Least- Square means | F | P-value |
| Treatment | -- | -- | -- | 9.42 | 0.0027 |
| Trt 0 | |||||
| Trt 1 | |||||
| Herdcode | -- | -- | -- | 69.85 | <. 0001 |
| Days in Milk | -- | -- | -- | 6.38 | 0.0005 |
| Season | -- | -- | -- | 24.67 | <.0001 |
| Percent 1st lactation animals in herd | -- | -- | -- | 0.03 | 0.8729 |
The model was significant at P < .0001 with an r-squared of 0.941
In the final model the effect of treatment was 2.2 lb milk due to product
Model 3. Modeling means milk protein % of 4 prior DHIA test dates compared with 4 DHIA test dates after start of product. Trt 0 = 4 test dates prior to start of product, Trt 1 = 4 test dates after start of product.
| Variable | Beta (ß) | Standard Error (ß) |
Least- Square means | F | P-value |
| Treatment | -- | -- | -- | 18.14 | 0.0171 |
| Trt 0 | -- | ||||
| Trt 1 | |||||
| Herdcode | -- | -- | -- | 17.85 | <.0001 |
| Season | -- | -- | -- | 5.84 | <.0001 |
| Milk per cow | -- | -- | -- | 3.58 | 0.0607 |
| Milk Fat % | -- | -- | -- | 6.53 | 0.0118 |
| Percent 1st lactation animals in herd | -- | -- | -- | 6.32 | 0.0132 |
The model was significant at P < .0001 with an r-squared of 0.942
In the final model the effect of treatment was 0.03015 % more milk protein due to product.
Model 4. Modeling means milk protein percent of 4 prior DHIA tests compared with 3 DHIA tests (2nd, 3rd, 4th) after start of product. Trt 0 = 4 test prior to start of product, Trt 1 = 3 tests after start of product.
| Variable | Beta (ß) | Standard Error (ß) |
Least- Square means | F | P-value |
| Treatment | -- | -- | -- | 6.02 | 0.0158 |
| Trt 0 | -- | ||||
| Trt 1 | |||||
| Herdcode | -- | -- | -- | 15.54 | <.0001 |
| Season | -- | -- | -- | 15.28 | <.0001 |
| Milk per cow | -- | -- | -- | 4.19 | .0.432 |
| Milk Fat % | -- | -- | -- | 6.38 | 0.0131 |
| Percent 1st lactation animals in herd | -- | -- | -- | 7.37 | 0.0078 |
The model was significant at P < .0001 with an r-squared of 0.946
In the final model the effect of treatment was 0.03558 % more milk protein due to product.<
Milk Fat % was modeled as an outcome variable and does not seem to be associated with use of the product (i.e. no increase or decrease).
MZ(MOS-ZYME) Reseach/Scientific Commentary
A FEED SUPPLEMENT SOURCE OF LIVE VIABLE DIRECT-FED MICROORGANISMS AND ENZYMES
INGREDIENTS:
Yeast extract, dried Aspergillus niger fermentation extract, dried Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract, dried Lactobacillus acidophilus fermentation product, dried Enterococcus faecium fermentation product, dried Bacillus subtilis fermentation product.
Mos-Zyme is a unique blend of enzymes, polysaccharides, and encapsulated microbials that are formulated to improve bovine digestive health, immunity, and milk production. In multiple trials, Moz-Zyme and it’s components were demonstrated to improve average milk production, protein content, and fat content with a 2:1 return on investment. Mos-Zyme not only improves digestion and extraction of nutrients and energy within food, but also boosts the immune system and flushes pathogenic bacteria from the body while restoring normal intestinal bacteria. The unique blend of natural, human-grade components in Mos-Zyme are designed to improve digestive health, eliminate diarrhea, and restore normal digestive flow while extracting the maximum amount of nutrients and energy possible thereby, increasing milk production, protein and fat content.
Facts for Mos-Zyme:
After accumulation of multiple field trials and a controlled study conducted on 22 dairies using Mos-Zyme and/or components, the following results were discovered:
- Average milk production per cow increased 3.8 pounds per day.
- Milk fat content increased on average by 1.53 points.
- Milk protein content increased by 2.4 points.
- Rumen taps ranged consistently between 6.0 to 6.5 pH.
Long Word Summary for Mos-Zyme:
Mos-Zyme is a unique blend of enzymes, polysaccharides, and encapsulated microbials that are formulated to improve bovine digestive health, immunity, and milk production. Mos-Zyme is formulated to improve digestion and extraction of nutrients and energy within food, but also boost the immune system and flush pathogenic bacteria from the body while restoring normal intestinal bacteria. The unique blend of natural, human-grade components in Mos-Zyme are designed to improve digestive health, eliminate diarrhea, and restore normal digestive flow while extracting the maximum amount of nutrients and energy possible thereby, increasing milk production, protein and fat content. In multiple trials, Moz-Zyme and it’s components were demonstrated to improve average milk production, protein content, and fat content with a 2:1 return on investment. Improved overall nutrition, immunity, and health are primary components necessary to increase milk production, fat and protein content and are the principles on which Mos-Zyme was formulated.
The first category of Mos-Zyme components are targeted at improving digestive function specifically through digestive enzymes. Enzymes are specialized proteins that increase the rate of a specific reaction such as digestion of certain food components. The four enzymes contained in Mos-Zyme are cellulase, hemi-cellulase, phytase, and amylase. Cellulase, hemi-cellulase, and phytase are enzymes produced at varying amounts in the digestive tract of ruminant animals and are necessary to digest the primary food source of plant materials. Excessive amounts of cellulose and hemi-cellulose places a large burden on the animals digestive tract to produce sufficient enzymes to digest the food. Addition of cellulase and hemi-cellulase to the diet will increase the breakdown of these complex plant sugars into simple absorbable forms leading to improved nutrition and less energy expended on digestion. These enzymes also decrease the amount of complex sugars that are available for bacteria to breakdown, which ultimately decrease gas (methane) production. Next, phytate is an organic substance that contains phosphate that passes through the digestive tract undigested and stays for prolonged periods of time as a pollutant in the environment. Phytase is an enzyme that specifically breaks down phytate and releases phosphate and calcium into the small intestine to be either absorbed or excreted as a non-pollutant. Lastly, amylase is an enzyme produced by all animals that specifically breaks down complex carbohydrates into absorbable simple sugars. By addition of amylase to the diet, overall digestion and nutrition is improved and less energy is expended in the actual work of digestion.
Facilitating digestion, immunity, and elimination of pathogenic bacteria, the second category includes microbial probiotics or natural intestinal bacteria. Specifically, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, and Bacillus subtilis. These probiotics are native to the mammalian intestinal tract and are essential to normal intestinal and digestive function. In addition to improving digestion, these bacteria act to eliminate pathogenic bacteria in the intestinal tract that might potentially disturb intestinal function and cause health problems and decreased overall nutrition. Essentially, the more "good" bacteria colonizing the intestine, the fewer "bad" bacteria present in the intestine to cause problems. These probiotic bacteria naturally produce molecules such as hydrogen peroxide that are toxic to pathogenic bacteria. Elimination of pathogenic bacteria is only one of the functions of probiotics; they also stimulate the local intestinal immune system. This immune system stimulation increases pro-inflammatory cytokine production (immune system molecules) and T-cell production so that there is decreased immune system reaction time to pathogenic bacteria and viruses. The combination of Bacillus subtilis with Lactobacillus acidophilus within Mos-Zyme works synergistically by promoting each other’s growth in the intestinal tract. All the probiotic bacteria are microencapsulated which ensures delivery to the intestinal tract and keeps the bacteria hydrated during storage for the highest potency and efficacy.
The final component of Mos-Zyme includes oligosaccharides and polysaccharides which improved overall immunity and health. Both components mannan oligosaccharide and beta-glucan are found in natural extracts from yeast cell walls (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). The first component, mannan oligosaccharide, binds directly to pili on pathogenic bacteria such as virulent strains of Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholera, and Salmonella species. The binding of mannan oligosaccharide to pathogenic bacterial pili prevents the pili from binding to the intestinal wall and then colonizing the intestine and causing infection and illness. Subsequently, the pathogenic bacteria are eliminated in the feces. Beta-glucan is also a scientifically proven biological defense modifier that nutritionally potentiates and modulates the immune response and promotes wound healing. Beta-glucan is absorbed by dendritic immune system cells that line the intestinal tract and stimulates the immune system. Specifically, local intestinal lymph tissues and notes (Peyer’s patches) are stimulated which causes increased production of macrophages/phagocytes/natural killer cells/T-cells/B-cells (immune cells that ingest and kill pathogens) and other proinflammatory cytokines and complement factors (immune system molecules) that enhance immunity and increase the rate of response to infection. In trials done in humans undergoing operations, one study found that patients who were given beta-glucan prior to and after surgery had a 39% decrease in post-operative infection rate.
With the actual science of Mos-Zyme delineated, what are the end results? Accumulation of multiple field trials and a controlled study conducted on 22 dairies using Mos-Zyme and/or components, average milk production per cow increased 3.8 pounds per day. Additionally, milk fat content increased on average by 1.53 points and milk protein content increased by 2.4 points. Other findings demonstrated feed intake increased by 3% in lactating cows and 10% in non-lactating cows and rumen taps ranged consistently between 6.0 to 6.5 pH. In conclusion, Mos-Zyme is a unique formulation of natural, human-grade materials that have demonstrated scientific efficacy to increase digestion, immunity, and overall increased milk production, fat and protein content. Mos-Zyme is the only product that combines these various components that are typically sold as separate products. The unique blend of enzymes, polysaccharides, and microbials in Mos-Zyme are specifically formulated to improve your animal’s digestive health, immunity, and strength which in turn increases milk production, fat and protein content. Essentially, with Mos-Zyme nutrients are more easily absorbed, minerals are supplemented, pathogenic bacteria are eliminated, and immunity is enhanced resulting in improved nutrition and milk production.
CME(CUSTOM MICROBIAL ENZYMES) Reseach/Scientific Commentary
Long Word Summary for CME:
CME is a unique blend of enzymes and encapsulated microbials that are formulated to improve bovine digestive health, immune health, and milk production. CME is formulated to improve digestion and extraction of nutrients and energy within food while restoring normal intestinal bacteria. CME comprises a large portion of the product MOS-ZYME, with most of the research done in conjunction with CME and/or MOS-ZYME components. The unique blend of natural, human-grade components in CME are designed to improve digestive health, eliminate diarrhea, and restore normal digestive flow while extracting the maximum amount of nutrients and energy possible thereby, increasing milk production, protein and fat content. In multiple trials and field studies, CME and it’s components were demonstrated to improve average milk production, protein content, and fat content with a 2:1 return on investment. Improved overall nutrition and health are primary components necessary to increase milk production, fat and protein content and are the principles on which CME was formulated.
The first category of CME components are targeted at improving digestive function specifically through digestive enzymes. Enzymes are specialized proteins that increase the rate of a specific reaction such as digestion of certain food components. The four enzymes contained in CME are cellulase, hemi-cellulase, phytase, and amylase. Cellulase, hemi-cellulase, and phytase are enzymes produced at varying amounts in the digestive tract of ruminant animals and are necessary to digest the primary food source of plant materials. Excessive amounts of cellulose and hemi-cellulose places a large burden on the animals digestive tract to produce sufficient enzymes to digest the food. Addition of cellulase and hemi-cellulase to the diet will increase the breakdown of these complex plant sugars into simple absorbable forms leading to improved nutrition and less energy expended on digestion. These enzymes also decrease the amount of complex sugars that are available for bacteria to breakdown, which ultimately decrease gas (methane) production. Next, phytate is an organic substance that contains phosphate that passes through the digestive tract undigested and stays for prolonged periods of time as a pollutant in the environment. Phytase is an enzyme that specifically breaks down phytate and releases phosphate and calcium into the small intestine to be either absorbed or excreted as a non-pollutant. Lastly, amylase is an enzyme produced by all animals that specifically breaks down complex carbohydrates into absorbable simple sugars. By addition of amylase to the diet, overall digestion and nutrition is improved and less energy is expended in the actual work of digestion.
Facilitating digestion, immunity, and elimination of pathogenic bacteria, the second category of CME components includes microbial probiotics or natural intestinal bacteria. Specifically, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, and Bacillus subtilis. These probiotics are native to the mammalian intestinal tract and are essential to normal intestinal and digestive function. In addition to improving digestion, these bacteria act to eliminate pathogenic bacteria in the intestinal tract that might potentially disturb intestinal function and cause health problems and decreased overall nutrition. Essentially, the more "good" bacteria colonizing the intestine, the fewer "bad" bacteria present in the intestine to cause problems. These probiotic bacteria naturally produce molecules such as hydrogen peroxide that are toxic to pathogenic bacteria. Elimination of pathogenic bacteria is only one of the functions of probiotics; they also stimulate the local intestinal immune system. This immune system stimulation increases pro-inflammatory cytokine production (immune system molecules) and T-cell production so that there is decreased immune system reaction time to pathogenic bacteria and viruses. The combination of Bacillus subtilis with Lactobacillus acidophilus within CME works synergistically by promoting each other’s growth in the intestinal tract. All the probiotic bacteria are microencapsulated which ensures delivery to the intestinal tract and keeps the bacteria hydrated during storage for the highest potency and efficacy.
With the actual science of CME delineated, what are the end results? Accumulation of multiple field trials and a controlled study conducted on 22 dairies using CME and/or components, average milk production per cow increased 3.8 pounds per day. Additionally, milk fat content increased on average by 1.53 points and milk protein content increased by 2.4 points. Other findings demonstrated feed intake increased by 3% in lactating cows and 10% in non-lactating cows and rumen taps ranged consistently between 6.0 to 6.5 pH. In conclusion, CME is a unique formulation of natural, human-grade materials that have demonstrated scientific efficacy to increase digestion, immunity, and overall increased milk production, fat and protein content. CME is the only product that combines these various components that are typically sold as separate products. The unique blend of enzymes, polysaccharides, and microbials in CME are specifically formulated to improve your animal’s digestive health, immunity, and strength which in turn increases milk production, fat and protein content. Essentially, with CME nutrients are more easily absorbed, minerals are supplemented, pathogenic bacteria are eliminated, and immunity is enhanced resulting in improved nutrition and milk production.
Rumagentin™ RESEARCH/SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY
Long word Summary for Rumagentin™:
The enzymes naturally produced in the rumen can’t get to all the feed to break it down, so what do we do with the rest? Let it go to waste? That’s where Rumagentin™: excels. All that feed and valuable protein would otherwise go to waste and be expelled in the feces. The specific blends of protease enzymes in Rumagentin™ add the extra digestive power to breakdown and extract the otherwise unusable protein material from feed. Rather than paying to add additional protein material to the feed for rumen bypass, Rumagentin™ is designed to extract existing proteins and amino acids to make the most of the feed you have already purchased.
Dry matter intake (DMI) is fundamentally important in animal nutrition because it establishes the baseline amount of nutrients available to the animal. This does not follow that all the nutrients are extractable and will be utilized. Every biological system is, to some degree, inefficient. Meaning, that processes never work at 100% efficiency and therefore generates waste. In animals, the undigested DMI is simply expelled in the feces. In order to counteract this problem, many products have been designed to add additional nutrients, specifically rumen bypass proteins to the feed. Rumagentin™ takes a different, more efficient approach. Why not utilize the existing nutrients and proteins in the DMI already being fed? A specifically designed blend of proteases was developed for this purpose. Acting to target the specific protein material within DMI, Rumagentin™ acts to release more protein and amino acids from the feed so the body may more efficiently absorb the nutrients.
A field trial at Iowa State University, demonstrated the improved feed efficiency of Rumagentin™: On a trial of 96 cows matched by parity, days in milk and previous milk production, the control and experimental groups were formed. After feeding 4g/cow/day for a 21 day experimental period, there was a 7 day washout prior to switching control and treatment groups for another 21 day experimental period. The results of the experimental and control groups were then compared, statistically analyzed, and are listed in the following table.
| Iowa State Field Trial Results Summary | |
| Statistically Significant Results | Decreased overall dry matter intake (0.93 kg/d; P<0.05) |
| Near-Significant Trends | Improved feed efficiency (13%; P = 0.08) |
| Increased lactose (4.73 vs. 4.76%; P = 0.08) | |
| Decreased milk urea nitrogen (15.1 vs. 14.6 mg/dl; P = 0.10) | |
In a time where saving and efficiency is becoming increasingly important in a struggling economy, Rumagentin™ provides a novel, cost-efficient alternative to expensive rumen bypass proteins already on the market. Designed to extract more amino acids from the same amount of DMI, Rumagentin™ improves amino acid extraction and has been shown to significantly decrease overall DMI.
Rumagentin™, along with proper DMI or feed blend can help improve nutrition and give you more product for your dollar. Compared to other marketed rumen bypass proteins, Rumagentin™ is offered at approximately 30% less cost. The question then is not “Can I afford it?” but, rather “Can I afford to not use Rumagentin™?”
Iowa State Abstract
Determining the Effectiveness of Proteases on Production Variables in Lactating Holstein Cows
E. Sucu ¹ ,², A. Nayeri ¹, M.V. Sanz-Fernandez¹, N.C. Upah ¹, S.C. Pearce1 and L.H. Baumgard ¹
¹ Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames
² Uludag University, Turkey, Bursa
Ninety-six multiparous lactating Holstein dairy cows (2.7±1.6 parity, 153.8±103.7 DIM, 40.3±5.9 kg milk/d, 624±62 kg BW) housed in a free stall barn (ISU Dairy) were blocked by parity, days in milk and previous milk production and randomly assigned to a control TMR or a TMR containing a blend of supplemental protease enzymes (4 g/cow/d; Rumagentin™, Feed Sources LLC, Alta Loma CA). The TMR consisted primarily of corn silage, alfalfa hay, dried distiller grains, and concentrate and did not contain supplemental by-pass protein. Cows were housed 24 to a pen (4 pens total) and thus pen was the experimental unit in a crossover design with two 21-d experimental periods. Two pens received the supplement during period 1 and the other two pens received the control. Pens then switched treatments during period 2 and there was a 7 d washout between periods. The 7 d immediately prior to period 1 were used as a covariate in the statistical analysis (repeated measures in the Proc Mixed procedure of SAS). Daily pen milk yield and DMI were recorded and milk composition from all cows was determined on d 15, 17, 19 and 21 of each period. All data was condensed into weekly means. There was no treatment effect on milk yield (37.6 kg/d), but supplemental enzyme-fed cows had less DMI (0.93 kg/d; P < 0.05) compared to controls and therefore tended (P = 0.08) to have improved (13%) feed efficiency (solids corrected milk/DMI). Protease treatment had no effect on milk fat (3.53%) or milk protein (3.24%), but tended (P = 0.08) to increase milk lactose (4.73 vs. 4.76%). Feeding supplemental enzymes tended (P = 0.10) to decrease milk urea nitrogen levels (15.1 vs. 14.6 mg/dl) but had no effect on milk SCC. Under these circumstances it appears that supplementing a proprietary blend of protease enzymes improves feed efficiency and may enhance feed nitrogen utilization in lactating dairy cows.
Protease enzymes, Feed efficiency
Feed intake
Rumagentin Field Trial
Download Interactive Conversion Table