search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
PARTNER ARTICLE ▶▶▶


The difference between guessing and knowing


The arrival of raw feed materials on a farm is usually little more than a transactional experience. Feed ingredients in, money out – and work continues. Yet, this moment could hold the key to ensuring the best possible outcomes in terms of animal performance and financial margins.


L


450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0


BY PETER RAMAEKERS, TROUW NUTRITION


et’s imagine a professional pig producer with 10,000 pig places. The farmer has ordered a quantity of soy- bean meal (SBM), with a 46% crude protein content level. He aims to use this ingredient for feed formula-


tion for his entire herd. Upon arrival, however, by scanning a sample using a near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) device, the producer quickly notices that the ingredient has a 42% crude protein content rather than the desired and ordered 46% crude protein content level. That means that every kg of SBM- 42 raw material contains 40g less crude protein than the SBM-46 equivalent (see Figure 1). Now, the producer faces a series of key questions. First, does he accept the feed ingredient or will he return it to the suppli- er? That will depend on how urgently the soybean meal is


500 Figure 1 - Nutritive value of SBM 46 vs SBM 42


ingredient. 460


25.3 420


needed and whether there is sufficient storage space availa- ble on the farm. The cost of returning the ingredient should also be considered. Alternatively, the producer could refor- mulate the diet to reach the required level of quality; more about that later.


Forecasting future performance Making that decision requires having clear insight into the impact of the feed quality on animal performance and thus financial returns. The digital platform NutriOpt allows produc- ers to run quick simulations, eliminating the need for guess- work. Using the platform’s swine model, the pig producer can calculate the impact of the feed on future performance and value when it is added to the starter diet fed to the pigs. One more example: in Figure 2, the diet composition of a starter diet including SBM-46 is compared to an equivalent starter diet made using SBM-42 without reformulation and with soybean meal comprising 20% of the diet composition. The simulation shows the extent to which this difference in quality impacts performance and financial returns. The swine model shows how, with the same volume of daily feed in- take, pigs consuming feed made with SBM-42 experience a significantly lower Feed Conversion Rate (0.09 per kg) than those receiving an SBM-46 diet (see Table 1). What’s more, pigs fed an SBM-42 based starter diet reach a lower body- weight (3kg lower), resulting in a reduced feed profit of € 5 per pig and a € 14 reduction in feed profit per pig place for each year of operation.


24.5 25 25.5


24 23.5


23.1 67 22 22 SBM 46


Crude protein (g/kg) SID lysine (g/kg)


26 SBM 42 Crude fibre (g/kg)


23 22.5


Calculating the results of reformulation Returning to the producer’s original set of options, with the above data now available, the producer can analyse the po- tential value of reformulating the SBM-42-based diet to achieve the desired nutrient values. In carrying out the refor- mulation, the farmer is able to improve the crude protein and SID lysine content of the feed, equalling or even exceeding the protein values of the SBM-46 ingredient (see Figure 3). More importantly, the decision to reformulate has a signifi- cant impact on herd performance. Pigs fed the reformulated product experience a roughly equivalent daily feed intake to those consuming the non-reformulated feed; however, the average daily weight gain achieved is about 4% higher. Extrapolated over the animal’s lifetime, that translates to an


▶PIG PROGRESS | Volume 35, No. 10, 2019


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