Figure 2: Comparison of nutrient content between suckler cow milk and conventional milk replacers


problems many farmers will be familiar with. While energy is the driver, it is important to feed sufficient protein


and to ensure protein quality is high. In the same way that energy digestibility is crucial, so protein must be highly digestible. Vegetable proteins are poorly digested by calves (Table 1) and in addition can be difficult to mix, making skimmed milk a better source for calves. In addition it is important to ensure sufficient essential amino


acids and the LifeStart project highlights the importance of formulating to lysine:methionine and lysine:threonine.


ENERGY IS KEY The LifeStart research shows that it is actually energy, and importantly quality of energy sources that become limiting first rather than protein and for this reason we have focussed on both the energy content and the specific energy sources to ensure requirements are met. Fat contains twice the energy of carbohydrates, such as lactose,


so it is essential that milk replacers have a high fat content, but not all fat is as well used as others. It is important that the fat is digestible and the fatty acid profile will have a significant effect on overall digestibility. The fatty acid profile in milk replacers has a significant impact on


energy digestibility and utilisation. Cow’s milk typically has fewer long chain fatty acids than milk replacers due to the sources of fat included. Trouw Nutrition have concentrated on achieving the exceptional levels of digestibility seen in milk fat which is 95-97% by using combination of vegetable oils which mimic the fatty acid profile of cows’ milk. Digestibility can also be improved by reducing the fat globule size.


In our new manufacturing processes we have developed a process including homogenisation and spray drying when vegetable fats and dairy products are precisely combined with fat encapsulated in a lactose and protein case. The result is a fat globule one thousandth the original size and the same as the globule size in cow’s milk. By improving globule size we can improve digestibility, making


energy use more efficient. You also avoid the problems seen when fat particles are too large, which include poor mixing, coating of buckets and feeding equipment and blocked pipes on automatic feeders,


Table 1: Relative digestibility of different protein sources fed to calves


OSMOLALITY One of the other ways in which milk replacers have moved away from cow’s milk, helping to explain the increased risk of nutritional scours, is osmolality which measures the concentration of soluble particles in a solution. It adds the concentrations of sugars like lactose which, being a large molecule, is a major contributor to high osmolality, with the concentration of major minerals like sodium and chlorine. In simple terms, when osmolality is high there is an increased


risk of digestive upsets and reduced performance. The osmolality of cow’s milk is 300-330 while typical calf milk replacers are 400-600. By comparison sea water is 1000. Osmolality is important as it influences water exchange in the


gut. A feed with high osmolality will draw more fluid through the gut wall from the blood. This reduces the gut integrity and increases the risk of scours and other gastrointestinal conditions. In addition the immune system can be compromised.


NEW RANGE The outcome of the Lifestart research has been the specification of high quality milk replacers which represent a paradigm shift in milk replacer formulation. Energized Calf Milk has been developed using whole milk as a biological reference and is specially formulated to ensure optimal nutrient supply on high feed rate systems. Combining good energy levels with a balanced fatty acid profile


and optimal physical presentation gives a product with 10% more metabolisable energy than a typical milk replacer to ensure energy is not limiting, even as the calf’s requirements grow. The new range of Energised Milk Replacers is based on the


results of extensive research, moving the nutritional profile of milk replacer back closer to cow’s milk. The outcome is an evidence based product differentiated for farmers looking for optimal performance from their calves. People may be surprised to see a milk replacer with higher fat


and less protein but the evidence from our trials and farm studies is that the results, in terms of growth rate and performance, deliver an exceptional return on the extra investment. As one of our customers puts it, if we mix a conventional milk


replacer it will be around 2.5% fat while an Energised Calf Milk is 3.75% fat. For 20 years we have basically feeding calves on low fat milk which makes no sense. Now we can feed them on full fat which has to be better for the calf. Our market research shows that farmers are moving to more


frequent feeding and increasing the daily quantity fed to boost total intakes. With energizer milk powders they will be able to ensure they are feeding the appropriate quality too.


FEED COMPOUNDER SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 PAGE 49


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  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76