FEED FOR THOUGHT ▶▶▶
Sticker shock R
ecently my husband and I went truck shopping because we needed more ‘towing capacity’ for our future camper and pony for Arthur, which is still under consideration! But nonetheless I was tired of hearing about the lack of ‘towing capacity’ and
we went in to purchase a new truck. We test drove the least expensive option and then the highly upgraded option with the ideal motor. Of course, it was an easy choice to make, until I experienced ‘sticker shock’, when I saw the price. I considered it carefully, and looked at the purchase as an investment and the next step in our family plans. ‘Sticker shock’ is also a real challenge in swine nutrition. There are so many different feed additives, and at higher inclusion rates, being used in the EU for antibiotic free diets, whereas in the USA the initial cost is a barrier. It also does not help that when we discuss the results of a trial we so commonly talk about Average Daily Gain (ADG), Average Daily Feed In- take (ADFI), Feed Conversion Rates (FCR), and Margin over Feed (MOF). While mortality, antibiotic treatments in the water, or injectables are not always evaluated. This is due to the fact these parameters do not have a normal distribution and are hard to analyse with an ANOVA. Vitamin supplementation was prime example of ‘sticker shock’ in late 2017 and early 2018, the shortage of specific vitamins gave a lot of pro- ducers ‘sticker shock’ and safety margins and/or overages became a great debate between nutritionists and finance people. Will these short-term changes become permanent? I am unsure, but I do know why I formulated with set safety margins because everything is just fine until something goes wrong! When and if something does go wrong it’s always the feed that is the first to be blamed! With the changes in the US Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), Vet- erinary Feed Directives (VFDs), and pressure from our consumers, anti- biotic-free is not just a fad, but a new normal for animal production. Re- cently I was asked what type of blend of feed additives it would take to help nutritionally correct the sow mortality issue and/or improve life- time performance of her offspring. First, I clarified that the perceived barrier into the market will be $ 6-10 per sow per year. I went on to say, I would imagine the cost would likely be more around $ 20/sow/year mark. As a nutritionist, it’s tough to convince a producer that the additional cost is an investment. Producers often forget to calculate the significant loss if the pig dies after her first litter. We not only need a better understanding of feed additive ap- plications, but also better analytics and diagnostics to make more informative decisions from many perspectives: nutrition, health, and management. Some of these ideas may come with initial ‘sticker shock’, but could be the right investment for the future of the swine industry. Will you be one to invest in key strategies for your system’s long-term plans?
34 ▶ PIG PROGRESS | Volume 34, No. 6, 2018
Casey Bradley For Casey Bradley, growing up on a mixed swine and crop farm in Southwest Michigan eventually led to a successful career in swine nutrition. She currently spends her days as a senior tech- nical manager at DSM in 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 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
