FEED FOR THOUGHT Where less can be more


The past 30 years have seen an explosion in the use of feed additives to improve feed efficiency and pig performance. Yet despite nearly all swine producers now using at least one such additive – and most probably two or more – questions about how to maximise returns from additives keep crop- ping up. First, let’s define what I mean by a feed additive, which is any low inclusion ingredient that brings additional value to the diet. So in its broadest sense this can include everything from mineral and vitamin supplementation above requirements to antibiotic and non-antibiotic growth promoters, plus enzymes, mycotoxin de-activators, yeasts, probiotics, prebiotics and many, many more. With each one offering the promise of improved production efficiency plus numerous brands competing for attention, it’s a potentially bewildering choice. Even this week, many of the conversations I’ve had with swine pro- ducers have included questions about the potential gains from adding another additive to those already in the diet. These are great questions, and the truth is that, as an industry, we don’t always have the answers, particularly when those answers differ depending on the additive and the herd. In recent decades, researchers and nutri- tionists have done a great job in refining and defining optimum amino acid levels, the ratios for correct nutrient balance and potential perfor- mance gains from added fat, for example. Even the interactions between key minerals in the diet are now becoming reasonably well understood (see my column in Pig Progress 32.02). Yet with feed additives, often adding multiple additives in the feed will produce an additional economic response, sometimes it’ll pro- duce no response, and occasionally it’ll even deliver a reduction in performance! The challenge for the swine producer is that although feed additive responses are rarely fully additive – one-plus-one doesn’t often equal two – that doesn’t mean the gain isn’t worth pursuing. After all, 1.6 is still better than one, as long as it didn’t cost you too much to achieve. What’s needed is more research to better understand the responses and interactions when two or more feed additives are combined. A good example is the work by AB Vista and Purdue University demon- strating a three-fold increase in return-on-investment when a xyla- nase fed from weaning to slaughter is supplemented with a live yeast for the first two weeks post-weaning. Understanding such interactions, and how they relate to specif- ic herd dynamics is critical to making good recommendations, particularly when considering the indirect effects of feed addi- tives on the microbiome. The role of the nutritionist, working alongside swine producers to fine tune feed additive use for each herd, is also critical. So it’s encouraging to see more compa- nies and research institutes forming partnerships to evaluate the effects of combining feed additives, as the potential gains are consid- erable. Yet much of the research needed will require even more exten- sive collaboration between the various sectors of the feed industry, and possibly even between suppliers. The question is, as an industry, do we have what it takes to make that happen?


For Dr Casey Bradley, growing up on a mixed swine and crop farm in Southwest Michigan eventually led to a suc- cessful career in swine nutrition. She currently spends her days as an AB Vista technical manager delivering nutrition innovations to swine producers across North America.


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