Variable Prospects for Maize this Winter While initial results for maize silage are encouraging, dairy farmers are being warned that later harvested crops will need careful monitoring. Reporting the results from over 870 samples received so far at their laboratory in Ashbourne, Dr Liz Homer, Ruminant Technical Development Manager with Trouw Nutrition GB says that for early harvested crops, feed value is comparable with the 2018 season. “On average, crops are well-fermented but over 10% of samples received had to be discarded due to incomplete fermentation, probably reflecting a need to get maize into diets quickly,” she explains.“At 32.6% dry matter, 11.6MJME/kgDM and 31.2% starch early crops have analysed close to last year. Starch degradability is also similar to 2018 and bypass starch levels are good. On average early maize silage appears to be very fermentable with high levels of total and rapidly fermentable carbohydrate. However, this results in an increased acid load which coupled with a low fibre index, a result of lower NDF, may affect rumen health unless diets are carefully balanced.” Overall, Dr Homer believes early maize should complement this year’s grass silages


well. The high level of fermentable carbohydrates and glucogenic energy will balance the high NDF and lignin values in grass silage, but she warns that the total diet will need careful balancing. “It will be about feeding the right supplements rather than what is cheap. Cereals, for example, may need to be trimmed back despite being good value as there will already be a good supply of fermentable carbohydrates from the maize. Many diets will also require a supply of bypass protein.” While the news is encouraging for farmers who were able to get maize harvested before


the weather broke, Dr Homer says the protracted harvest could have implications for feed quality in later harvested crops. She says late harvested crops should have higher starch content but will also have higher levels of both NDF and lignin which will affect how the crops will feed, so regular analysis throughout the winter will be essential. “It is possible that later crops will be less fermentable due to the higher fibre content, and


so diets based on later maize may require more fermentable carbohydrates in the concentrate portion. It is worth mentioning that starch will however be higher so will contribute to fermentable energy. If late maize has a high NDF and lignin content and is fed with grass silage with a similar profile we could see issues with rumen throughput as cow’s struggle to digest the forages, so maintaining rumen balance and effective digestion will be essential. “The key message is to know what you have got in your clamp and balance the diet


accordingly. As maize starch fermentability increases with time in the clamp, it will be important to get clamps analysed regularly and to fine tune the diet to maintain optimum rumen health,” Dr Homer concludes.


Table 1: Average Early maize analysis 2019 Analysis


Dry matter (%)


Crude protein (%DM) D Value (%DM) ME (MJ/kgDM) Starch (%DM)


Starch degradability (%) Bypass starch (g/kgDM) NDF (%DM) ADF (%DM)


Lignin (g/kgDM) Source: TNGB


2019 average 32.6 6.8


73.6 11.6 31.2 80.3 60.4 36.6 22.0 21.5


Table 2. NutriOpt Dairy analysis of early maize silage Analysis


Average 2019 RFC (g/kgDM) TFC (g/kgDM) Acid Load Fibre Index


DyNE (MJ/kgDM) Source: TNGB


226 520 54


133 6.90


2018 average 32.8 7.0


74.4 11.7 31.0 80.3 60.2 37.5 22.2 21.9


Workshop on the Trade Impact of Pesticide Residues results in


constructive dialogue A workshop on the Trade Impact of Pesticide Residues brought together interested stakeholders across grain commodity supply chains and governmental bodies from the EU and worldwide. COCERAL, FEDIOL and FEFAC invited various experts to analyse the problem and discuss solutions to prevent major supply disruptions. COCERAL, FEDIOL and FEFAC


reiterated their commitment to food and feed safety through lower pesticide use and EU authorities are implementing this desire by making the use of plant protection products (PPPs) subject to stricter authorization rules.


However, the right of third countries


to use a different, risk-based approach for their pesticides’ legislation has been fully recognized. Business operators and authorities have to accommodate the fact that there is no immediate prospect of alignment between the EU and the rest of the world with regard to the assessment of active substances used in plant protection products, even if this remains highly desirable. In the absence of such alignment, there


is a need for sufficient predictability and lead-in time for businesses, allowing the supply chain to continue operating. Workable solutions have to be found in the case where the systematic and near-immediate lowering of existing maximum levels would leave business operators exposed to non- compliance and without any possibility for finding operational solutions for the supply chain. It also needs to be recognized that


efficient farming and integrated food systems need tools for securing quality, safety and volumes of agricultural products, as well as reducing food losses. To date, this seems impossible to achieve without developing alternative practices and less problematic plant protection products. With the implementation of the new


Maize Silage


EU policy approach for plant protection products, ways need to be found to enhance understanding and convergence on how MRLs should be managed for products that are derived from commodities to which MRLs apply, such as feed materials. The workshop gave about 130 players in the value chain the opportunity to engage openly and share views on the options that would help manage or mitigate the impact on their activities.


FEED COMPOUNDER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2019 PAGE 61


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68