Table 2: Variance in analysis of common raw materials Barley CP, % Lysine %
Methionine % M + C %
Threonine % Tryptophan % DE MJ NE MJ
/kg /kg
ME-P MJ /kg
Low 8.4
0.302 0.143 0.328 0.286 0.101 12.78 9.30
12.01
Average 9.9
0.356 0.168 0.386 0.337 0.119 12.85 9.29
12.01
High 11.5
0.414 0.196 0.449 0.391 0.138 12.94 9.30
12.01
Low 9.4
0.263 0.15
0.357 0.273 0.113 13.77 10.03 12.95
average. The economic consequences of raw material variance on feed formulation would be considerable. Considering a pig finisher diet with a target of 8.34MJ
/kg NE (Net
Energy) and 143 g/kg crude protein (CP), if the ingredients were at the low end of the variance in table 2 the outcome would be a diet at 8.34MJ
/kg NE but only 135g/kg CP and it would cost an additional
£4/t to reformulate. Conversely if the ingredients were at the high end of the variance, the resultant feed would be 8.35MJ
/kg NE and 152g/
kg CP, presenting an opportunity to reduce feed ingredient costs by £2/t by reformulating. “In addition to raw material costs, there is the impact on customer
performance. If we consider a 500-sow farrow to finish unit producing 30 pigs/sow/year utilising 3500 tonnes of growing pig feed a year. “If 21% of that feed is supplied based on the high variance, then
this means 735 tonnes could have been reformulated, saving £2/t or a total of £1470. “On the same basis, 38% of the feed would be supplied below
specification. Modelling the impact of this on growing pigs from 40- 105kg, the consequence will be 45g/day reduced weight gain resulting in 3.7kg lower average final weight (2.8kg less deadweight). At £1.60/ kgDW, this is a reduced income of £4.48 per pig. “Assuming 38% of pigs are affected, the loss to the unit would
be £25,500. One wonders how many producers would tolerate a reduction in performance of this magnitude?” Mr Taylor says there would be similar consequences as all
other species. He accepts that dealing with increased feed analysis to cope
with variabilities in raw materials can be a challenge, which is why Trouw Nutrition has developed MyNutriOpt, an online management tool to improve quality control, feed management and operational efficiency.
Don’t Forget Forages Dr Liz Homer, Trouw Nutrition Ruminant Technical Development Manager emphasises that conserved forages on UK ruminant farms also deserve more frequent analysis. “Silages make up over half the dry matter intake of most
Wheat
Average 10.8
0.302 0.173 0.411 0.313 0.13
13.89 10.06 12.93
High 12.1
0.339 0.194 0.460 0.351 0.145 14.00 10.08 12.92
Low 45.1
2.796 0.631 1.307 1.759 0.586 14.96 7.95 8.91
Soya
Average 46.3
2.871 0.648 1.342 1.806 0.602 15.13 8.01 9.00
High 47.4
2.939 0.664 1.375 1.849 0.616 15.28 8.06 9.08
ruminants, yet grass silage in particular has the potential to be a very variable feed both in terms of dry matter content and nutrient value.”
She comments it is inevitable grass silage will vary throughout
the clamp due to the considerable number of variables that interact during its production. Figure 1 shows the huge range in dry matter and protein across a clamp. The results are for the same clamp with analysis taken regularly through the season.
Figure 1: Range in dry matter and protein content in grass silage in a single clamp. Mix of 2nd, 3rd and 4th cuts.
FEED COMPOUNDER JULY/AUGUST 2021 PAGE 25
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
