ECONOMICS ▶▶▶
Calculating the performance payoff of dietary blends
BY GISELI HEIM, SELKO C
onsidering whether to introduce a feed additive blend into the broiler diet raises many questions for poultry producers. How will the blend benefit the flocks’ performance? How effective will a feed addi-
tive blend be in terms of delivering the desired health and performance benefits? What makes this blend different from all the other options on the market? But, above and beyond all of these considerations, there is usually one question that remains uppermost in poultry producers’ minds: Is it worth it? In other words, do the benefits outweigh the financial cost of including a feed additive blend in the diet?
Evaluating the ROI of blended feed additives In a study involving more than 7,000 broiler chickens chal- lenged with Eimeria, scientists evaluated seven different feed additive blends at Scandinavian Poultry Research in Våler, Hedmark, Norway. The performance of bird groups receiving each blend was compared with each other and to a control group receiving no blend. Beyond zootechnical performance, researchers analyzed the results from a financial point of view. What did they find when considering the nutritional ROI? Only two of the seven feed additive solutions tested showed a positive added value per broiler. Five of the feed additives did not deliver a value that compensated for the cost of including the feed additive solution. The highest add- ed value per broiler compared to the negative control group was for Selko Presan-FY, which delivered an added value of € 0.055 per bird compared to the control group (Figure 1). The zootechnical performance aspects considered in the eco- nomic analysis included body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR).
Unlocking ingredients for performance Different ingredients, of course, target different performance benefits and the study findings raise an important question – what is the right combination of ingredients to unlock performance? Traditionally, research has focused on the effi- cacy of individual ingredients. As scientists learn more about the strong association between production performance, intestinal microbiota and its integrity, so there has been more focus on how different ingredients support contributors to
Research at the University of Norway is helping to address the return on investment (ROI) question of feed additive blends. The commercial marketplace has seen several different classes of additive blends formulated to help broilers manage a broad spectrum of challenges without antibiotics. As ingredients in these blends are often costly, producers question whether an improvement in performance delivers value that exceeds the cost of the additive.
gut health. For example, scientists are considering the effects of dietary blends on morphological changes of the intestines, immunomodulatory effects and gut barrier function. Given the complex challenges birds face, a broad-spectrum, syn- ergistic blend of feed additives included in the diet aims to deliver multiple modes of action. With the goal of understanding how feed additive blends in- fluence the growth performance of challenged broilers raised without antibiotics and coccidiostats, the trial in Norway evaluated seven different feed additive blends. • Blend 1 was a blend of short and medium-chain fatty acids (SCMFA) developed by Selko, including slow release C12 target release butyrates and a phenolic compound (capsicum extract). This combination relies on the antibacterial and gut supporting effects of organic acids, plus the antioxidative and immunomodulatory effects of plant feed additives.
Figure 1 – Return on investment (ROI) of feeding broilers with different blends of feed additives relative to the control group, from 0-28 days. Two blends showed a positive ROI, highlighting the importance of carefully considering ingredients.
€ 0.060 € 0.050 € 0.040 € 0.030 € 0.020 € 0.010 € 0.000
-€ 0.010 -€ 0.020 -€ 0.030 -€ 0.040
€ 0.055 1
€ 0.036 3
2 -€ 0.006
4 -€ 0.008
5
6 -€ 0.011 -€ 0.017 -€ 0.039 ▶ POULTRY WORLD | No. 7, 2022 35
7
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
