Raw Material Grass silage Maize silage Wheat straw Molasses


Sugar beet pulp Wheat


Soya/rape 50:50 Calcium soap


Mineral bolus x 2 DIET TOTAL


Kg DM/head/day 6.25 5.4


0.22 0.15 1.11 0.87 2.51 0.29


0.00143 16.80 These practical recommendations provide nutritionists,


consultants and feed sales representatives with a template to follow with farmers and veterinary surgeons for the better control of copper inputs. However, the guidance causes two additional concerns: the


proposed maximum copper supplementation level and the implications this could have for feeds produced by the compound feed industry. The guidance suggests that copper from all sources in the


total ration should not exceed 20mg/kg DM. It would be interesting to understand how this figure was derived. It is only 50% of the legislated maximum of 40mg/kg DM which can be fed under normal circumstances and, it must be assumed, was set as a ‘safe’ level that, if adhered to, should prevent over feeding. This new level is lower than that achieved by many rations currently used in the UK and would generally be considered as problematic under conditions of moderate to severe levels of copper antagonists (Molybdenum, Sulphur and Iron) found in the grass based systems in the UK and Ireland. Given the uncertainty surrounding the extent of copper over supplementation mentioned above, perhaps the biggest problem is again the uncontrolled use of numerous copper sources and not a level within the regulated limits? The proposal is also very specific about the maximum of 20mg/kg DM, but the advice for how much should be fed above this is very much less specific and would be of little help to nutritionists trying to reach sensible levels of copper supplementation under varying degrees of antagonism. Furthermore, when the total ration copper supply from all sources


is calculated and a target of less than 20mg/kg DM is considered, this becomes even more worrying to the feed industry, especially with regard to the types of feed they are offering for sale to UK dairy customers. Consider the example outlined below of a ration for a modern, high yielding black & white dairy cow in early lactation (25 days in milk) producing 36 litres of milk, being offered a typical UK ration of partial TMR and compound feed and given a mineral bolus during the dry period: It is apparent from the ration shown in the table above that the inclusion of all sources of copper in the calculation of total supply


Copper content mg/kg DM 8.4 4.0 3.5


38.9 11.2 4.6


14.05 0


134000 19.04


Ration supply 52.5 21.6 0.77 5.84


12.43 4


30.74 0


192 320.02


provides a more accurate indication of the true position and the use of modern dairy rationing software allows this to be easily achieved. However, under such circumstances the copper supply to the ration is apparently already at 19.0mg/kg DM, or close to the maximum outlined in the new proposals. What are the implications of this on the type of compound feed


that can be offered to this freshly calved cow on this farm? Is she to be offered a feed containing only background levels of copper to avoid breaking the 20mg/kg ceiling while her herd mates are offered compound feeds with more normal copper levels? Therefore, would farmers be expected to provide storage for two or more feeds for use during milking? It is vital that the compound feed industry recognises the potential practical implications of these proposals for the operation of dairy businesses and the industry as a whole. In my opinion, it is critical that nutritionists and other members of


the feed compounding industry become involved in this crucial debate of how to better control the use of not only copper, but all micro- nutrients at farm level. If we are allowed to take an active involvement now then we can drive changes to feed practices within the current regulations that will be to the benefit of all – livestock, farmers, feed producers and the environment. If we don’t, then changes rather than being proposals, however well-meaning and positive, will be forced on the industry which certainly may not be to its ultimate benefit.


FEED COMPOUNDER MARCH 2012 PAGE 21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52