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)


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)


(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


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,


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%


/ 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


% 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


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


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


+ 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


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


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


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


/ 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 =>


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


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


[email protected]

Documents

High Feed Material Strategies for Feeding