Are Feeds Analysed Frequently Enough?


With Anthony Taylor and Dr Liz Homer Trouw Nutrition GB


Under or over estimation of nutrients in finished feed and diet formulation can result in unnecessary cost levels and compromised performance for both the feed producer and their customers. Analyses of raw materials, finished feeds and forages provides invaluable information for greater accuracy and cost effectiveness, but are we carrying out enough analyses and making best use of the data generated? Trouw Nutrition GB operates the UK’s biggest feed and forage


analysis laboratory at their site at Ashbourne. Providing wet chemistry and Near Infra-Red Spectroscopy (NIRS) analyses, the laboratory processes samples from 75,000 forages and 10,000 raw materials and finished feeds annually in support of business across the industry. But Antony Taylor, Monogastric Business Director believes the


industry should consider whether there will be benefits from increasing the number of analyses carried out to improve precision when feeding farm animals. “With margins constantly being squeezed on ruminant and


monogastric units alike, and with feed the biggest single cost, it is inevitable that producers will be monitoring feed use and performance increasingly closely. At the same time, the environmental impacts of feed manufacture, including raw material sourcing, and feed use on farm is under the spotlight. “A better understanding of feed ingredient analysis will help


improve the precision of formulation which can bring big benefits, avoiding over-specification to save costs and reduce waste and also prevent poor performance on farm and so improve customer retention. “Analysis comes with a cost, but the benefits can be well


worthwhile. While wet chemistry has always been the gold standard for analysis, for feed businesses who operate their own NIRS analytical


laboratory the incremental cost of additional analysis can be marginal while newer low-cost methods are becoming available.” He says that precision comes with frequency, arguing that not only


are all deliveries of raw materials not quality checked on arrival, but those loads which are analysed will rely on a single sample. If a 200g sample is taken from a 20-tonne delivery, then only 1:100,000 of the load has been analysed. Mr Taylor says that changing sampling techniques can allow


samples to be taken with a degree of precision comparable with wet chemistry and allow more frequent analysis to be carried out. New trials compared the impact of frequency of testing and testing method on accuracy of analysis, comparing wet chemistry, traditional NIRS and new handheld NIR system, the NutriOpt Onsite Advisor (NOA) “In the trial, assessing protein content in maize, we compared the


three analysis methodologies and looked at analysing a single sample from a 20-tonne load, four separate samples analysed as a mixed batch and four separate samples analysed individually. “The results are shown in table 1 and there are two main


conclusions. The first is that on a single sample, the protein content recorded by all the systems was lower than when four samples were taken. The second is that while the standard error with wet chemistry is lower, the standard error on all methods reduces as more samples are analysed. “In practice, this means you get a better representation of the feed


in a load if you take more samples, even if you employ a quicker and cheaper methodology.” Table 2 shows the variance in raw material analysis based on


over 4000 barley samples, 3900 wheats and 2700 soya samples. Overall 21% of samples are higher than average while 38% were below


Table 1: Comparison of three analysis methodologies for determining maize protein content (%) in a 20-tonne delivery Single sample from the batch


Four samples from the batch analysed as a mixed sample


Standard wet chemistry SE=0.4%


Desktop NIR SE = 0.6%


Handheld NIR SE = 0.8


7.2 +/-0.8 7.2 +/-1.2 7.2 +/-1.6 7.45 +/- 0.8 7.45 +/-1.2 7.45 +/-1.6


Four samples from the batch analysed as individual samples


7.45 +/-0.4 7.45 +/-0.6 7.45 +/-0.8


PAGE 24 JULY/AUGUST 2021 FEED COMPOUNDER


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