High Feed Material Strategies for Feeding
Transcript of High Feed Material Strategies for Feeding
-
Dealing with high feedstuff prices:
what are viable options
IGFA Feed Forum 2012
J. Doppenberg, Ph.D.
Schothorst Feed Research
Lelystad, the Netherlands
-
Agenda
Prerequisites for feed formulations
Low versus high quality protein source
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 2
Low versus high quality protein source
Diet concentration in relation to feed costs
Reduction of SID/AID amino acid content
Use of liquid by-products
Conclusions
-
Prerequisites for feed formulations
Reliable, species specific, feedstuff table of all available feedstuffs. NE for pigs and AID/SID AA prefered =>predictable animal response independent of feed composition (and feed costs)
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 3
composition (and feed costs)
Calculate nutrient value of available, variable feedstuffsbased on chemical analyses and digestibility coefficients(available Energy, AID/SID AA and minerals)
Nutrient recommendations for optimal (economical) performance for each animal species, animal category and specific production goals that are validated under practical circumstances
-
DE, ME and Net Energy systems for pigs
starch protein fat
Energy value (MJ/kg)
DE 17.5
(100)
20.6
(118)
35.3
(202)
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 4
(100) (118) (202)
ME 17.5
(100)
18.0
(103)
35.3
(202)
NE 14.4
(100)
10.2
(71)
31.5
(219)
Heat production (MJ/kg) 3.1 7.8 3.8
Heat prod/NE 0.22 0.76 0.12
Noblet, 1994
-
Formulating with NE versus ME reduces feed costs
and increases usage of synthetic amino acids
G/F feed cost -/-
0.9%
ME (%) NE (%) ME (g/kg) NE (g/kg)
Wheat 40.00 40.00 Crude protein 155 148
Triticale 25.00 Crude fat 39 35
Barley 21.48 2.61 Starch 434 453
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 5
Barley 21.48 2.61 Starch 434 453
Maize 13.27 7.51 Crude fibre 37 34
Rapeseed meal 10.00 10.00
Soybean meal (47%) 7.58 4.18
Wheat middlings 3.10
Animal fat 1.90 1.67
L-lysine HCl 0.28 0.37 ME-INRA 12.92 12.83
L-Threonine 0.05 0.09 NE-INRA 9.75 9.75
L- Tryptophane 0.01
-
Low versus high quality protein sources,
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 6
whats cheap or expansive?
-
Synthetic lysine, methionine, threonine and
tryptophan reduce crude protein content
Nutrient synth lys =30%
synth thre
unrestricted
synth lys =30%
synth thre = 0%
synth lys = 0%
synth thre = 0%
/ 100 kg (relative) 100% 101.5% 104.1%
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 7
/ 100 kg (relative) 100% 101.5% 104.1%
C. Prot% 15.45 16.73 17.78
ID_st+su % 405.7 392.1 377.8
FCHO 131.1 135.5 140.0
iCPs 38.06 39.55 40.29
synth lys/AID lys % 30.0 16.5 0
synth meth/AID meth % 3.86 0.12 0
synth thre/AID thre % 0.13 0 0
-
Maize DDGS increases Crude Protein content and
decreases protein digestibility in G/F pig feeds
Maize DDGS % 0 5% 10%
Crude protein (g/kg) 155.00 161.02 165.72
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 8
% prot from maize DDGS 8.48 16.47
iCPs (g/kg) 38.13 40.46 41.23
%iCPs from maize DDGS 10.59 20.79
Feed costs /100 kg (rel) 100% -0.4% -0.6%
-
Price /usage rate flexibility Maize DDGS Sept. 2012
15
20
25
U
s
a
g
e
r
a
t
e
Dairy
Pigs
Gest. Sows
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 9
0
5
10
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Price /100 kg
U
s
a
g
e
r
a
t
e
Gest. Sows
Layer
Broiler finisher
-
CProt and Lysine content Hipro SBM by origin
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 10
G.G. Mateos, 2011
-
Value (/100 kg) of 4-5% nutrient variation of
Hipro SBM in feed formulations
Swine Layer Broiler
+ 100 Cal 1.03 1.59 2.26
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 11
+ 100 Cal 1.03 1.59 2.26
+ 4% dig AA 0.99 0.17 0.21
+ 100 Cal + 4% dig AA 2.03 1.77 2.47
+/- 0.1 g/kg dig P 0.02 0.03 0.04
Hipro SBM 54.20/100 kg, September 2012 NL
-
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 12
Diet concentration in relation to feed cost
-
Diet concentration and feed cost
1. If feed intake is solely based on caloric consumption => diet concentration can be altered, within a certain range, with a fixed nutrient/NE ratio
2. Diet concentration increases Crude Protein and Crude
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 13
2. Diet concentration increases Crude Protein and Crude Fat content and decreases Starch and Sugar content => pellet quality might decrease
3. At lower diet concentration Fermentable Carbohydrate(FCHO) concentration will increase => increased gut fill and hind gut fermentation
4. Maximum FCHO-concentration is dependant on GIT maturity, breed and environment
-
Diet concentration and feed cost
At lower diet (nutrient) concentration use of low energy,
high fiber by-products is increased => attractive if by-
products are cheap in relation to grains
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 14
At high (nutrient) concentration relative more energy is
derived from fat and less from starch (and FK) =>
attractive if fat &oil prices are low in relation to grains
At high (nutrient) concentration relative more high quality
protein sources and synthetic amino acids are used =>
unattractive if protein rich feedstuffs are relative expansive
-
Nutrient composition in relation to diet
concentration
Kcal NE 2100 2153 2205 2258 2310 2363 2415
/ 100kcal NE 12.34 12.33 12.37 12.42 12.50 12.61 12.72
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 15
/ 100kcal NE 12.34 12.33 12.37 12.42 12.50 12.61 12.72
CProt 15.48 15.43 15.5 15.65 15.84 16.02 16.21
CFat 2.02 1.86 2.03 2.44 3.32 4.33 5.34
Starch + Sugars 41.39 43.97 45.41 46.61 46.22 45.19 44.15
FCHO 14.39 13.28 12.58 11.3 10.78 10.82 10.86
-
Feed cost in relation to diet concentration
/ 100kcal NE
12.90
13.00
13.10
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 16
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
2050 2150 2250 2350 2450
Feedstuff prices of August 2012 for the Netherlands
NL G/F pig feeds
Low Energy
2200 kcal NE,
High Energy
2300-2350
-
Optimal AID/SID Amino Acid content of
Grower/Finisher Pig feeds in relation to
technical performance, carcass characteristics
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 17
technical performance, carcass characteristics
and profitability (SFR meta-analyses)
-
Reduction SID/AID amino acid content
SID/AID AA/NE-Swine -15% -10% -5% CTRL +5% +10% +15%
Crude protein (g/kg) -1.84 -1.23 -0.62 14.50 +0.50 +0.92 +1.34
Crude fat (g/kg) -0.65 -0.44 -0.23 2.89 +0.24 +0.34 +0.43
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 18
Crude fat (g/kg) -0.65 -0.44 -0.23 2.89 +0.24 +0.34 +0.43
Starch (g/kg) +2.8 +1.9
0
+0.97 46.04 -1.16 -1.82 -2.48
Crude fiber (g/kg) -0.18 -0.14 -0.07 3.75 +0.07 +0.04 +0.02
Feed cost1 (/100 kg) -1.07 -0.72 -0.36 27.57 +0.43 +0.87 +1.31
Feed cost (% of CTRL) -3.88 -2.61 -1.31 0 +1.56 +3.16 +4.75
1Based on feedstuff prices of July 2012. The costs of additives are excluded. Total synthetic lysine
content was limited to 35% of AID lys.
-
Pig performance (G/F 40-110 kg) and carcass
characteristics by reducing AID/SID AA
SID/AID AA/NE-Swine -15% -10% -5% CTRL +5% +10% +15%
Feed intake (kg/d) 0.01 0.01 0.01 2.52 -0.01 -0.02 -0.04
ADG, 40-110 kg (g/d) -26.00 -14.00 -5.00 911.00 +2.00 0 -5.00
FCR 0.09 0.05 0.02 2.78 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 19
FCR 0.09 0.05 0.02 2.78 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02
No days (40-110 kg) +2.26 +1.20 +0.42 76.84 -0.17 0 +0.42
Total feed consumption (kg/pig) +6.30 +3.50 +1.40 194.60 -0.70 -1.40 -1.40
Energy- conversion (E-Swine)2 0.10 0.06 0.02 2.98 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Meat (%) -0.67 -0.43 -0.21 54.90 0.19 0.37 0.54
Dressing (%) 0.17 0.12 0.06 77.20 -0.06 -0.12 -0.18
Cycles per year1 -0.058 -0.031 -0.011 3.08 +0.004 0 -0.011
1Cycles per year = 360/ (40 days starter and cleaning period + number of days growing-finishing period)
-
Economic effect reduction SID/AID AA
SID/AID AA/NE-Swine -15% -10% -5% CTRL +5% +10% +15%
Total feed cost1 (/pig) -0.41 -0.46 -0.32 53.65 +0.64 +1.30 +2.15
Total feed costs (% CTRL) -0.76 -0.86 -0.59 0 +1.19 +2.42 +4.01
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 20
Total feed costs (% CTRL) -0.76 -0.86 -0.59 0 +1.19 +2.42 +4.01
Meat price2 (/ pig) -0.55 -0.64 +0.11 138.42 -0.11 -0.22 -0.32
Meat price (% CTRL) -0.79 -0.46 +0.08 0 -0.08 -0.16 -0.23
Margin per pig3 (/pig) -0.14 -0.18 +0.43 +84.77 -0.75 -1.52 -2.47
Margin/loss per pig (% CTRL) -0.17 -0.21 +0.51 0 -0.88 -1.79 -2.91
Margin per pig place (/pig) -5.34 -3.18 +0.39 261.09 -1.97 -4.68 -8.51
Margin per pig place (% CTRL) -2.05 -1.22 +0.15 0 -0.75 -1.79 -3.26
1Feed costs 40-110 kg, 2Meat Price Carcass weight * 1.65, 3Margin = feed costs meat price
-
Multi phase feeding (3- phase compared to 2-
phase) saves about 1.00 per pig on feed costsd
v
l
y
s
i
n
e
,
g
/
E
W
behoefte 2-fasen 3-fasen
D
i
g
e
s
t
i
b
l
e
L
y
s
,
g
/
M
J
N
E
requirement 2-phase 3-phase
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 212121
20 40 60 80 100 120
gewicht, kg
d
v
l
y
s
i
n
e
,
g
/
E
W
Body weight, kg
D
i
g
e
s
t
i
b
l
e
L
y
s
,
g
/
M
J
N
E
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
-
Liquid by-products
Mainly Wheat starch (190K d.m.), Wheat Yeast Concentrate (180K*50% pigs), Potato peelings (85K) and Whey (50K)
On farm usage, require large investment in storage tanks and mixing equipment, transportation costs high =>
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 22
and mixing equipment, transportation costs high => Southern part of the Netherlands
Requires high turn over => large G/F pig and sow operations
Variability in chemical composition high and nutritional quality/digestibility not well researched => complement feed?!
Prices liquid by-products follow conventional feedstuff market => savings marginally
-
Conclusions
Use of a Net Energy together with a digestible amino acid system reduces feed costs and predicts technical performance better
The effect of a lower protein and energy digestibility of low quality protein sources on feed costs and gut health needs
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 23
quality protein sources on feed costs and gut health needs to be considered
At current feedstuff prices formulating less concentrated pig (Grower -Finisher) feeds with a lower (Net) energy content is a more viable option than reducing the digestible amino acid content (in relation to the energy content).
-
Thanks for your attention
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved 24