A different choice of feed ingredients could lead to extra dollars in the pocket.
performance and reduces mortality in the system. Recent re- search reported by Dr Lee Schulz, an agriculture economist at Iowa State University, suggested that depending on which opportunity producers are willing to consider, they may pay as little as $ 0.36/pig or up to $ 2.62/pig for enhanced market access, as one example (National ASAS Meetings 2020). But Dr Caleb Shull (Maschhoffs System, National ASAS Meet- ing 2020) estimated that overall mortality, from sow to finish- ing, costs the USA swine producers approximately $ 2.88 bil- lion, suggesting a re-evaluation by most producers to consider other key drivers to lower mortality. Other drivers that are not often considered in the value equa- tion for nutritional changes within a system could include ease of implementation, inventory management, water in- take, manure characteristics, etc. Producers and nutritionists often focus only on stool consistency for the first two weeks post-weaning. But little thought goes into understanding the value of the manure we create and the impacts we have on the environment. The evolution of LCA models is helping us better understand the environmental impacts of waste but these models are still limited for many feed additives. As one can see, key economic drivers can be complex for nu- tritionists to navigate within their formulations. Here are two examples to understand the opportunities: least cost formula- tion and performance-driven in regard to mortality reduction.
Least cost formulation example Nursery diets are the easiest diets to pull costs out in formulation, ultimately by using cheaper ingredients versus highly digestible proteins. In nursery diets, lactose or milk
28 ▶ ALL ABOUT FEED | Volume 29, No. 3, 2021
products, fish meal, spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP), zinc oxide and other costly feed ingredients can be quite variable in costs. A recent trial at the University of Arkansas focused on a feed additive to replace either fish meal or SDPP. The re- sults suggest at least equal to better performance. • Positive control (PC, with extra ingredient) vs negative control (NC): 3% SDPP/6% fish meal – additive 0%/3% – reduction in 0.13% SID lysine;
• PH1: $ 450.87 vs $ 438.53; PH2: $ 354.04 vs. $ 341.70; • ADFI: Commercial system, first three weeks = 1.40 FCR/4.25kg gain. Phase 1: 2.3kg; Phase 2: 3.65;
• Feed cost: $ 0.073/pig savings; $ 9,800/5,000 sows. As one can see in the current market conditions, even in tra- ditionally expensive diets, altering feed formulation by re- moving the more expensive diets results in little savings over- all. But when evaluating the grower-finisher period, if SID lysine is lowered by just 0.1%, the estimated diet feed costs would be lowered by 1.5%. If an overall FCR of 2.85 is used, that would result in a saving of approximately $ 1.00/pig, a value proposition most producers would consider imple- menting. Thus, targeting feed cost savings or even FCR, the finisher period and especially the last 40kg of gain is the most advantageous opportunity in today’s market, in the USA at least.
Optimal performance example Time to focus on the least cost formulation example and add a 10% improvement in BW/gain and a 10% improvement in FCR during the first 21 days post-weaning. • Phase 1: $ 450.87 vs $ 438.53; Phase 2: $ 354.04 vs. $ 341.70;
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
