Dairy Sense: More Sugar, Please

November 2018

Production perspective

Diversifying the dairy enterprise is gaining a lot of attention due to extremely low milk prices and the resulting unsustainable margins. This approach may also be warranted when feeding dairy cattle. The wet weather plaguing the northeast consistently throughout the spring, summer, and fall has resulted in a lot of moldy and sprouted grains. Hay-crop quality has suffered as well due to very narrow harvest windows. With starch and energy levels compromised, now may be the time to consider diversifying the carbohydrate profile. Adding sugar to the ration can complement many diets and takes the pressure off starch as the only energy source used to maintain production and components.

The approach many nutritionists have embraced over the years is formulating for a relatively high starch diet. In the total ration dry matter, the normal seems to be starch levels ranging between 28 to 32 percent. Since much of the starch comes from corn silage and corn grain, either high moisture or dry, it may be difficult to balance for higher starch levels with this year's feeds. Incorporating sugar can be a viable alternative to providing energy. Formulating levels from 6 to 9 percent sugar in the total ration dry matter is doable and the commodities are readily available. These ingredients can include liquid sugar to various candies and candy byproducts. The byproduct industries have evolved to provide the improved nutrient consistency that the dairy industry demands.

There are several strategies worth considering depending on the forage types, the protein dynamics, and the moisture content of the ration. In situations where corn silage was harvested drier than recommended and the hay-crop consists mainly of a legume (or mixture), liquid sugar can provide not only added energy but minimize sorting by the cows. In rations consisting of grass and small grain silages, which tend to have higher sugar levels and higher moisture contents, candy byproducts would work better. These ingredients typically have a diverse profile of energy consisting of sugar, some starch, and fat. These ingredients are reasonably priced and typically follow the corn market.

Feeding additional sugar in the ration has met with some skepticism because research has not illustrated a clear-cut mechanism of response. Increased milk production is not the only metric to evaluate. In some herds the response has been improved components on already good milk production (greater than 80 pounds/cow). In today's market, higher fat and protein can garner a substantially higher milk price/cwt. In other situations, milk production has increased by several pounds without negatively impacting components. With feed testing labs offering sugar analyses, it is much easier to determine an ingredient's sugar content and to examine the total sugar level in the diet.

Monitoring income over feed cost per cow is the best approach to evaluate if a ration change is working. Too many times the unit cost for an ingredient is the deciding factor on whether to utilize it or not. This does not consider how using an ingredient may adjust the use of other ingredients, which may lower the ration cost. It also does not account for any improvement in milk income. It is unrealistic to assume an immediate response, especially if components are going to be impacted. Make note when the ration change occurred and follow bulk tank pick-ups, components, and milk urea nitrogen from the milk cooperative if available. So, move over starch, adding sugar may be a viable strategy to combat weather problems affecting corn silage and corn grain.

Action plan for utilizing sugar.

Goal – Examine new feeding strategies if starch quality was compromised due to wet weather.  

• Step 1: Check on sugar sources available in the area to examine price and quality parameters.    
• Step 2: Working with a nutritionist, evaluate milk cow rations utilizing the appropriate source and levels of sugar.
• Step 3: Using the start date of the ration change, evaluate herd performance for thirty days using data from the milk cooperative to assess milk production, milk fat, milk protein, and milk urea nitrogen.
• Step 4: Compare income over feed cost prior to the start of the ration change with the new ration implemented.
• Step 5: Make decisions on continuing with sugar based on income over feed costs per cow.  

Economic perspective

Monitoring must include an economic component to determine if a management strategy is working or not. For the lactating cows income over feed costs is a good way to check that feed costs are in line for the level of milk production. Starting with July 2014's milk price, income over feed costs was calculated using average intake and production for the last six years from the Penn State dairy herd. The ration contained 63% forage consisting of corn silage, haylage and hay. The concentrate portion included corn grain, candy meal, sugar, canola meal, roasted soybeans, Optigen® and a mineral vitamin mix. All market prices were used.

Also included are the feed costs for dry cows, springing heifers, pregnant heifers and growing heifers. The rations reflect what has been fed to these animal groups at the Penn State dairy herd. All market prices were used.

Income over feed cost using standardized rations and production data from the Penn State dairy herd.

Note: Penn State's October milk price: $18.10/cwt; feed cost/cow: $5.64; average milk production: 81 lbs.

Feed cost/non-lactating animal/day.