raw material use during the period, with increases in the use of cereal grains, cereal co-products and soyabean co-products. There were substantial decreases in the use of co-products from animals (meat meal and fishmeal) due to regulatory changes, and in the use of “other” co-products - possibly reflecting changes in recording procedures. The use of pulses also decreased markedly in the period. There was a 9% increase overall in the use of “human-edible”


feeds, mainly cereal grains and soyabeans and a 6% increase in the proportion of “human-edible” raw material and co-product feeds used to produce animal feeds. Of particular concern was the increase in the use of soyabeans, some of which originated from land recently converted from rainforest, with substantial loss of soil carbon. It is likely in future that “sustainable” soyabeans and soyabean co-products will comprise an increasing proportion of the total quantity of soyabean co-products imported into the UK via the Netherlands (Task Force on Sustainable Soy, 2011).


Compounds and blends UK production of compounds and blends in 1992 and 2010 are shown in Table 3. There were increases in the production of compounds and blends for ruminants, poultry and horses in the period but a decrease in the production of compounds for pigs.


Table 3: Production of compounds and blends in Great Britain: 1992 and 2010


1992


Ruminant compounds and blends Pig feeds


Poultry feeds Horse feeds


2010


Million tonnes fresh weight 4.8 2.2 5.2 0.1


5.2 1.5 5.9 0.2


Number of animal feed mills There was a substantial decrease in the total number of animal feed mills in the UK between 1990 and 2010. Since total output increased during the period (Table 3), the reduction implies improved efficiency of resource use by the feed industry and a reduction in GHGE from the production of compounds and blends.


Conclusions The use of cereal grains, cereal co-products and soyabean meal increased in the period, whilst the use of pulses, sugar beet co-products, oils and fats and animal co-products decreased. Conserved forage and compound feed production increased in the UK between 1990/92 and 2010, despite reductions in the populations of dairy cows, sheep and pigs. Fewer feed mills produced more total animal feed in 2010 than in 1992. A challenge for the future is to reduce reliance on “human-edible” raw materials in animal feed production.


Acknowledgment The assistance of staff of the DEFRA statistics team in the preparation of this paper is gratefully acknowledged.


References


Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., and Williams, A. (2009). How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for to reduction by 2050. How low can we go? WWF- UK. Barber, W.P and Lonsdale, C.R. 1980. By-products from cereal, sugar beet and potato processing. In E.R. Ørskov (Ed) By-Products and Wastes in Animal Feeding, Occasional Publication No. 3, British Society of Animal Production, Edinburgh, pp 61-69. DEFRA 2011a December Survey of Land Use and Livestock. http://www.defra. gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/landuselivestock/decembersurvey/ DEFRA 2011b. Agricultural Statistics and Climate Change. Available online at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/climate/ DEFRA 2012 GB Retail production of animal feedingstuffs. Available online at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/food/animalfeed/index. htm


Livestock populations During the period the UK population of dairy cows and sheep decreased by 36% and 29%, respectively (DEFRA, 2011b). Consequently ruminant conserved forage per ruminant livestock unit increased by 39% and ruminant compound feed DM per ruminant livestock unit increased by 68% in the same period (Wilkinson and Wray, 2012). There were also increases in average annual milk yield per cow, average carcase weight of beef cattle and average carcase weight of lambs, of 42%, 21% and 7%, respectively (DEFRA, 2011b), which reflected the increased use of conserved forage and concentrate feed per livestock unit over the period.


Between 1992 and 2010, the total number of pigs decreased by


41% and the total number of poultry increased by 28%. Pigs marketed per sow increased from 0.35 per week in 1990 to 0.40 per week in 2010 whilst there was apparently little change in the feed conversion ratio of poultry meat production (DEFRA, 2011b).


This article is based on the text of a paper presented by Mike Wilkinson at the recent Society of Feed Technologists Animal Co-Product Feeds meeting


Lonsdale, C.R. 1989. Straights. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow, UK. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) 1992. Feed Composition, Second Edition, Chalcombe Publications, Canterbury, UK, p 80. Round Table on Responsible Soy 2012 http://www.responsiblesoy.org/index.php?lang=en Task Force on Sustainable Soy 2011 http://www.taskforcesustainablesoy.org/ index.php Tamminga, S., Bannink, A., Dijkstra, J and Zom, R. 2007. Feeding Strategies to Reduce Methane Loss from Cattle. Report 34, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Leystad, The Netherlands. 44 p. Wilkinson, J.M. 2011 Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5: 1014-1022. Wilkinson, J.M. and Wray, A.E. 2012. Changes in the production of silage and ruminant concentrate feeds in the United Kingdom between 1990 and 2010. Proceedings, XVI International Silage Conference, Finland (in press). Yates C.M., Cammell S.B., France J. and Beever D.E. 2000. Predictions of methane emissions from dairy cows using multiple regression analysis. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Scarborough, UK, March 2000, p. 94.


FEED COMPOUNDER MARCH 2012 PAGE 31


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