CARGILL TRIALS HIGHLIGHT FEED EFFICIENCY GAINS IN FINISHING


PIG DIETS Trials on more than 4,000 pigs on units in Spain and the UK showed that cost-effective improvements in feed efficiency can be achieved where a natural botanic-based feed product is added to diets. Finisher pigs reared on diets that


included the feed product ConverMax® demonstrated improved growth rates despite lower feed intake. This led to improved feed conversion rates, lower overall rearing costs, and higher margins per finished pig compared with the control groups. Trials carried out in both countries,


between September and November 2022, compared the performance of pigs in the second part of the grower-finisher period. In the UK trial, nearly 2,000 pigs were


split into pens of 33 pigs, with 31 pens for each treatment. Pigs received the same acclimatisation diet for the first 25 days, then either a standard finisher control diet or the finisher diet with ConverMax at a rate of 2kg per tonne of feed from approximately 65kg liveweight. Feed use, liveweight gain, mortality and


slaughter data were recorded for each group. The data revealed a significant reduction in feed conversion rate (FCR) in these grower finisher pigs by 0.09, from 2.77 to 2.68, when ConverMax was fed. The data also highlighted that average


daily feed intake was lower in the pigs fed the additive, and mortality was reduced, with the control group recording 4.7% mortality compared with 2.2% in the treatment group. “We wanted to demonstrate that this


feed product could reduce feed conversion rates in finisher pigs by 0.1 points in UK on-farm conditions,” says Cargill’s UK pig nutritionist Maisie Lord. “We achieved this and, using feed costs


from September 2022 and including the cost of the feed product, an improvement in margin per finished pig of £3.54 was achieved where the feed product was included.” Results from the UK trial were similar


to those seen in Spain where 2,026 pigs were compared during a trial of two finishing diets, fed from approximately 45kg liveweight onwards. Taking account of mortality in the two


treatments, the Spanish results showed an improvement in feed conversion rate of 0.1 where ConverMax was included in the diet. Based on feed costs at the time of the trial, this equated to a saving in feed costs of £2.03 per pig where this feed product was included. “These recent trials support earlier trials


with ConverMax,” adds Ms Lord. “We are consistently seeing an average 0.1 reduction


in FCR. But where FCR is higher to begin with, this reduction in FCR can be as much as 0.3. This represents a significant saving in feed costs per pig, and cost saving is even more significant with higher feed prices.” “Also, where the feed product is included


in diets, pigs appear to have less erratic feed intake patterns. We find that when feed intakes are variable animals will consume more overall, and this has a negative impact on feed efficiency,” says Ms Lord. ConverMax has been designed to


improve FCR in grower and finisher pigs by supporting more efficient energy utilisation and ensuring more nutrients from the feed are used for growth. “As well as improving overall herd


efficiency, improvements in feed utilisation are an obvious driver for reductions in rearing costs, and in supporting improved sustainability.” ConverMax is already used extensively


in Europe and across the UK’s finisher herd. It is fed at a rate of 2kg/tonne in grower and finisher diets through to slaughter.


IMPROVING EFFICIENCIES AND COMBATING MISINFORMATION THE KEY FOCUSES AT SHEEP AND


BEEF EVENT Over 700 people flocked to Wynnstay’s Sheep and Beef event, where the conversation focused on promoting sustainable meat production to combat misinformation and improve margins. Gareth Davies, Wynnstay chief


executive said that while there is a large amount of uncertainty within the sector, there are a wealth of opportunities for farmers to produce high quality food, in a sustainable, efficient and profitable manner. “The complex sustainability subject


was mentioned by every speaker at the event, but the overriding advice was to make small changes to improve efficiency,” said Mr Davies. Linked to sustainability, the challenge


of industry perceptions was also a key topic. “While as an industry we know that we’re not the biggest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions – one of our biggest challenges is promoting this wider and challenging misinformation,” Mr Davies added. Speaking at the event, James Ruggeri


from Hybu Cig Cymru – Meat Promotion Wales (HCC) highlighted that margins are tight and while there are opportunities in both sectors, much of these are reliant on improved efficiency. “By making small changes, such


as improving feed conversion or fertility, enhanced financial and environmental sustainability improvements can be achieved,” said Mr Ruggeri. Beef farmer Paul Williams added that


as an industry we cannot go green if we are in the red.


PAGE 54 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2023 FEED COMPOUNDER


“In the beef sector, there are things


all farmers can do to improve efficiency to achieve better return on investment, as well as reducing emissions. For example, reducing the age of first calving and calving intervals, and increasing calf survival can all make significant improvements across all areas of the business,” said Mr Williams. He adds that agriculture, and in


particular the beef sector, seem to always be the first industry to receive criticism when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, and so he investigated his own farm’s emissions to gain a greater understanding of farm level impact. “We took part in a Farming Connect


project which looked at the carbon footprints across a variety of beef farms in Wales. The results from this highlighted that the average carbon footprint on Welsh beef farms was 11-16kg CO2e, whereas the global average was 37kg CO2e, which reinforces why we need to promote what we’re doing in the UK, as many of the figures making the headlines are global,” he explained. Matthew Smith, vice president of Alltech


and head of Alltech E-CO2 reinforced this message by saying that measurement and data is key to improve efficiency and this will not only enhance margins but reduce environmental impact. Author Jayne Rees Buxton provided a


similar opinion on emissions from agriculture. She started researching about the topic of food, health and the environment when she noticed that plant-based messaging was dominating the debate and that much of the data being used to promote the plant-based narrative was incorrect. “The daily ‘stop eating meat’ headline


sparked me to do more research and it became clear how much misinformation was out there,” she said. “The claim that livestock globally is


responsible for 50% of emissions was being regularly made, for example. Though it couldn’t be further from the truth, that number seems to have stuck in peoples’ minds. The accepted global number is 14.5%, but even that is an overstatement because of several factors. For example, the calculations for livestock calculations are based on lifecycle accounting, but this is not the case with other sectors like transport. Therefore, we’re not comparing apples with apples. When FAO representatives did the calculations on a like for like basis, they concluded that livestock would account for 5% of global emissions versus 14% for transport,” explained Rees Buxton. She concluded by saying that focusing


so heavily on livestock makes little sense in the context of UK emissions (which are dominated by transport and energy use) and that the agricultural sector needs to push back while acknowledging that there is work to be done to ensure that livestock farming lives up to its potential to deliver environmental benefits such as soil health, carbon sequestration and improved biodiversity.


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  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68