Feeders and Feed Costs - Amazon Web Services Swine... · “Old” recommendation of ≈ 5 pigs per feeding space - developed when feeders were designed to limit waste by increased

Feeders and Feed Costs

How expensive is a “cheap” feeder?

Jon Bergstrom, Ph.D.

Sr. Technical Support Manager, Animal Nutrition and Health

(Swine)

DSM Nutritional Products, North America

2011 Swine Education In-Service

September 29, 2011

Growing- Finishing feed cost represents the

majority of the cost in swine production (60 to 70%).

– Finishing (Example 1):

• 210 lb gain (55 to 265 lb BW) * 2.80 (F:G) = 588 lb feed/pig

• 52 pigs/feeder (2 pens of 26) * 2.8 turns/year = 146 pigs/feeder/year

• 588 lb feed/pig * 146 pigs/feeder/year = 85,848 lb or

42.9 tons of feed / feeder / year

• Feed @ $278/t = $11,926.20 / feeder / year

– Finishing (Example 2):

• 210 lb gain (55 to 265 lb BW) * 2.90 (F:G) = 609 lb feed/pig

• 52 pigs/feeder (2 pens of 26) * 2.8 turns/year = 146 pigs/feeder/year

• 609 lb feed/pig * 146 pigs/feeder/year = 88,914 lb or

44.5 tons of feed/feeder/year

• Feed @ $278/t = $12,371.00 / feeder / year

Introduction

Difference of $444.80 in feed cost / feeder / year!

Variables that influence F/G of growing-finishing pigs:

– Genetics

– Age/BW

K-State Adj. F/G = observed F/G + 0.005*(50 – entry wt.) + 0.005*(250 – market wt.)

– Gender

– Diets

• Ingredients

– Quality

– Grain particle size

– Paylean®

• Nutrient requirements

– Energy and energy density of diet

– Amino Acids & Ratios - under or over the requirement?

– Vitamins/Minerals - under or over the requirement?

• Feed budgets?

Introduction

Variables that influence F/G of growing-finishing pigs (cont.):

– Environment

• temperature/season

• humidity/air quality

• space

• resources

– Health

• disease/immune stimulation = slowed growth, poorer intake, poorer F/G

Klasing, 2011(JAM of ASAS-ADSA)

– ≤ 71% due to reduction in ADFI

– ≤ 11% due to fever and associated increase in energy expenditure

– ≤ 6% due to nutrient diversions/repartitioning

» reduction in muscle growth

» increased utilization in organs

– ≤ 5% due to metabolic inefficiencies

– ≤ 14% due to reduced absorption of lipids, retinol, lutein, minerals

FEEDERS – How much feed is actually CONSUMED and how

much is WASTED? – design? adjustment?

Not necessarily overlooked, but poorly understood.

Introduction

Feeders – What’s Important?


“Ideal” Nursery/Grow-Finish Feeder – Provides access to feed in a manner that

results in the optimal/desired growth of pigs with the

least amount of feed waste.

Why? - Feed intake/Growth

- Economics

- Sustainability – Waste and Environmental Management

- Associated with

Behavior

Stress

Health

Welfare

This presentation will focus on what is practiced in the U.S.

– ad libitum feeding - unrestricted provision of feed


Feeding Spaces

“Old” recommendation of ≈ 5 pigs per feeding space

- developed when feeders were designed to limit waste by increased

difficulty in accessing feed and slowed consumption (≥120 min/d).

- trough lids

- rooting bars/agitation rods, wheels, rotating hoppers, etc.

- adjustable feed flow gates to a “fixed” position – No “agitation” plate

“New” recommendations with “improved” feeder designs

(MacDonald & Gonyou, 2000)

Feeder Space Why the differences in stocking rates?

Eating Speed!

*Based on the amount of time for 90 kg pigs to consume 500 g feed (dry basis), with or without being made wet by the addition of an equal weight of water.

(Gonyou & Lou, 2000)* (MacDonald & Gonyou, 2000)

Feeder Space Why the differences in stocking rates?

Relationship of feeder space stocking rate and ADG

(from MacDonald; as shared previously by Gonyou, 2006)

Feeder stocking rate, %

Feeder Space

Walker, 1991 - Experiment using meal diets

and a single-space wet-dry feeder

Feeder Space

Walker, 1991 - Experiment using meal diets, pigs 37 to 90 kg BW

Single-space wet-dry feeder

Pigs per feeder 10 20 30 SE

ADG, kg 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.008

SD within pens 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.007

ADFI, kg 2.18 2.34 2.31 0.029

F:G 2.70 2.93 2.87 0.038

P2 backfat, mm 12.1 12.5 12.3 0.34

Gonyou, 1998

Smaller pigs (90 lb) wasted a greater relative

proportion of their feed (4.4% vs. 2.4% for 180 lb pigs).

Feeding habits of the growing pig change

• Gonyou and Lou, 2000; Hyun et al., 1997; Walker, 1991

– As pigs grow:

• Total duration of eating (min./d) decreases

• No. meals (frequency of feeder entrances)/d decreases

• Eating speed increases

Smaller pigs eat more slowly and spend more time eating

(accomplished by more meals/d) to consume a greater

quantity of feed relative to their BW.

This results in more opportunities for behaviors

associated with feed wastage.

The “ideal” dimensions of the feeding space change for the growing pig

Shoulder width + 10% to accommodate the largest/widest pig

(Baxter, 1991)

Recommended feeder space width = 6.7(cm)

BW0.333(kg)

BW Recommended Width

Kg (lb) cm inches

30 (66) 20.8 8.2

60 (132) 26.2 10.3

120 (265) 33.0 13.0

At 33 cm width, the maximum individual BW of 2 pigs

able to share this space is approximately 20 kg (44 lb).

The “ideal” dimensions of the feeding space change for the growing pig

Recommended Trough Depth and Lip Height

Stages/BW

Depth

(Gonyou, 2006)

“Lip” Height

(from floor)

Kg (lb) cm inches cm inches

Nursery pig @ 25 (55) 10 - 20 4 – 8 5 - 10 2 - 4

G/F @ 25 to 110 (55 to 240) 25 – 30 10 – 12 10 – 15 4 – 6

W-to-F @ 8 to 110 (18 to 240) 25 – 30 10 – 12 10 – 12 4 – 5

LESS than recommended depth results in difficult access (more waste).

MORE than recommended results in stepping into the trough (more waste).

Chin angle ≈40

? Depth

Floor

Degree of Protection as a “Quality” Characteristic of the Feeder Space

Baxter, 1991

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1.1x

Sh w

/Hd &

Sh

1.1x

Sh w

/Hea

d

1.1x

Sh w

/Nose

1.1x

Sh

2.2x

Sh

4.4x

Sh

Feeder space/pig with or without protection

Me

an

In

cid

en

ce

of

ag

gre

ss

ion

a

b

c

c

bc

bc

Means with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05

*Not ad libitum

Degree of Protection as a “Quality” Characteristic of the Feeder Space

Baxter, 1991

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

1.1x

Sh w

/Hd &

Sh

1.1x

Sh w

/Hea

d

1.1x

Sh w

/Nose

1.1x

Sh

2.2x

Sh

4.4x

Sh

Feeder space/pig with or without protection

Fe

ed

Wa

sta

ge

a a

ab

bc

c

c

Means with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05

*Not ad libitum

Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry

A brief review of experiments

• Rantanen et al. - ↑ ADG (1995), ↑ G:F (1994) with Wet/Dry

• Amornthewaphat et al. (2000) - ↑ ADG, ↑ backfat, ↓ FFLI with Wet/Dry

• Brumm et al. (2000) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↓ G:F, ≈ carcass lean with Wet/Dry

• Gonyou & Lou (2000) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↓ carcass lean with Wet/Dry (6 dry feeder models and 6 wet-dry feeder models)

• Bergstrom et al. (2008) –

• Exp. 1 (70 to 220 lb BW) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI with Wet/Dry

• Exp. 2 (64 to 265 lb BW) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↓ G:F, ↑ backfat, ↓ FFLI

with Wet/Dry

• Myers et al. (2010) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↑ backfat with Wet/Dry


Feeding behaviors (per pig, during 6 h per d – 3 h AM and 3 h PM)

Bergstrom et al. (2011)

Wet-dry feeder Dry feeder SEM P <

Overall (d 95, d 98, & d 110)

No. visits to feeder1 4.2a 9.0b 0.75 0.001

Avg. length of visit, min. 4.9 4.7 1.18 ---

Total time at feeder, min. 16.0a 33.9b 2.49 0.001 1 Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).


Bergstrom et al. & Myers et al.

Dry Feeder

Single-sided, 152.4-cm long, 5-hole

feeder (Staco, Inc., Schaefferstown, PA)

and a stainless steel cup waterer

Double-sided with 38.1-cm wide opening

on both sides of the trough and single

nipple waterer (Crystal Springs,

GroMaster, Inc., Omaha, NE)

Wet/Dry Feeder

956

926942

920

890875

861 854

800

840

880

920

960

1,000 SEM = 10.7


Recent Commercial Experiments – Bergstrom et al. Exp. 3

Feeder, P < 0.001

Gender, P < 0.01

DDGS, P < 0.01

AD

G,

g


Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 3

AD

FI,

kg

Feeder, P < 0.001

Gender, P < 0.001

Feeder, P < 0.001

Gender, P < 0.001

DDGS, P < 0.002

Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry G

:F


SEM = 0.004

Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry H

CW

, kg


Feeder, P < 0.001

Gender, P < 0.004

DDGS, P < 0.01

Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry Backfa

t depth

, m

m

Feeder, P < 0.001

Gender, P < 0.001

DDGS, P < 0.01


Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry Jow

l fa

t IV

, g/1

00g


Feeder, P < 0.001

Gender, P < 0.001

DDGS, P < 0.001

Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 4

Wet-Dry Feeder Conventional Dry Feeder

Provides a relatively fixed opening. Provides range of opening to be manipulated

by the pigs.

(agitation, approx. 0.62 cm or 0.25 in.)

Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 4 (19 to 38 kg BW)

Wet-Dry, quadratic P < 0.02

SEM = 0.012

Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder

SEM = 0.33

AD

G,

kg

BW

, kg


Wet-Dry, quadratic P < 0.001

SEM = 0.016


Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.02

Dry, linear P < 0.01

AD

FI, k

g


G:F

SEM = 0.006



Wet-Dry Feeder Conventional Dry Feeder

1.91 cm opening (setting 10) 2.0 to 2.7 cm opening (setting 8)

1.27 cm opening (setting 6)

2.54 cm opening (setting 14)

1.5 to 2.0 cm opening (setting 6)

2.7 to 3.4 cm opening (setting 10)

d 19

35% 9%

57% 21%

65% 79%


Wet-Dry, linear P < 0.05

SEM = 0.017


SEM = 2.51

AD

G,

kg

BW

, kg




SEM = 0.067



AD

FI, k

g


G:F

SEM = 0.008




SEM = 0.38


SEM = 0.19

Backfa

t, m

m

FF

LI



Dry & Wet-Dry, linear P < 0.01 SEM = 5.85


SEM = 5.87

Tro

ug

h c

overa

ge, %

- d

41 T

rou

gh

co

vera

ge, %

- d 8

4

Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment

Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)

4 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments:

Feeder and average opening

Diet-type

Corn-SBM-15% DDGS

Corn-25%DDGS-20% Bakery by-product-SBM

No differences in performance between diet-types.

28 56

n=12

n=12

n=12

n=12

day

Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)

SEM = 10.1


Tro

ug

h c

overa

ge, %

- d

83


SEM = 0.008


SEM = 1.25

AD

G,

kg

BW

, kg

Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01 Means with different superscripts differ P < 0.05


SEM = 0.028



AD

FI, k

g


G:F

SEM = 0.003



SEM = 0.30


SEM = 0.14

Backfa

t, m

m

FF

LI


70.07 69.88

68.07

71.34

65.0

67.0

69.0

71.0

73.0

75.0

≈2.4-cm 3.2-cm 3.2-, 2.5-cm 3.2-, 2.5-, 1.9-cm

Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment

Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)


Inc

om

e-o

ve

r-fe

ed

-co

st,

$

Carcass Base Price = $67.13 and Feed Cost = $0.13/lb

The greater total feed consumed and reduced lean

premium eliminated the advantage from increased HCW

at this particular packer.

Dry Feeder Adjustment Myers et al. (2010)

Feeder adjustment, min. gap opening

Item 0.50” 0.75” 1.00” SED

d 0 to 28 (90 to 150 lb) (avg. 1.6 cm) (avg. 2.2 cm) (avg. 2.8 cm)

ADG, lb 1.93a 2.15b 2.11b 0.08

ADFI, lb 4.89a 5.51b 5.59b 0.24

F/G 2.54 2.58 2.64 0.08

d 28 to 58 (150 to 220 lb)

ADG, lb 2.37 2.40 2.42 0.08

ADFI, lb 6.90a 7.44b 7.37b 0.24

F/G 2.92a 3.10b 3.05ab 0.08

d 58 to 89 (220 to 265 lb)

ADG, lb 1.51 1.46 1.50 0.08

ADFI, lb 5.22 5.33 5.45 0.24

F/G 3.47a 3.65b 3.64b 0.08

Pan Coverage score, % 28a 58b 75c 7.6 a,b Means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).

No influence on carcass characteristics

Dry Feeder Adjustment Myers et al. (2010)

Feeder adjustment, min. gap opening

IOFC 0.50” 0.75” 1.00”

d 0 to 28 (90 to 150 lb) 14.70 16.21 15.45

d 28 to 58 (150 to 220 lb) 17.96 17.03 17.51

d 58 to 89 (220 to 265 lb) 10.46 9.41 9.73

d 0 to 89 43.11 42.65 42.69

IOFC Max $44.63

IOFC calculated as $0.50/lb of gain minus feed cost per pig. Diet cost

used were $.09/lb (d0 to 28), $.085 (d28 to 58), and $0.08 (d 58 to 89).

Feeder Recommendations • Pigs per feeder space - “New” feeder designs

– Dry feeders – 10 pigs

– Wet/Dry feeders – 10 to 15 pigs (depends on “quality” of space)

• Feeder space Quality

– Correct dimensions for intended BW range of growth

• Depth and Width are most important

– Some degree of protection – at least nose/snout divider bars

• Reduces wastage associated with pig-to-pig interactions

• Reduces aggression

• Limits ability of pigs to waste feed by rooting

• Feeder opening/adjustment

– Dry Feeder

• 50 to 60% trough coverage for pigs < 150 lb BW

• 30 to 50% trough coverage for pigs > 150 lb BW

– Wet/Dry Feeder

• 65 to 85% trough coverage for pigs < 200 lb BW

• 50 to 65% trough coverage for pigs > 200 lb BW

Feeder Recommendations (Continued) • Durable, yet easy to manage (standardized adjustment, etc.)

• At least 12 h (or 3 lb/pig) of feed storage capacity in the feeder hopper

or a mechanism (generator, etc.) to PREVENT out-of-feed events.

• Match the Feeder to the expectations of the Facility

– Adequate (or increased) feeder space will not compensate for

crowding! (sq. ft./pig)

– Optimal performance from feeders – DON’T under- or over-stock!

• If feeder does not satisfy the previously described requirements –

REPLACE IT! - It does not take long to recover the cost!

• DON’T forget WATER!

– Correct flow rates and source(s)

• Pig Environment – Manage for optimal health and maximum performance

– Temperature

– Humidity

– Ventilation

THANK YOU!

Documents

Feeders and Feed Costs - Amazon Web Services Swine... · “Old” recommendation of ≈ 5 pigs per feeding space - developed when feeders were designed to limit waste by increased