This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
further detailed analysis. SugaRich has been able to make


A I C WE L COME S E A R LY R E - INT ROD U C T ION OF


AGRICULTURAL BILL “We welcome this early re-introduction of the Agriculture Bill to the House of Commons”, said AIC Chief Executive Robert Sheasby, “clarifying key issues for the sector ahead of any significant trade agreements is crucial for our members”. The Bill, first seen in November 2018,


has been revised, and now includes a number of important additions which provide both enforcement and support powers to government on Food Security, Fertilisers, Soils and the protection of plant and animal diversity. Many of the ambitions of the bill align


with the goals set out in the AIC manifesto ahead of the General Election and we welcome the firm recognition by government that food production and care for the environment must go hand-in-hand. The AIC supports the call for improved


productivity and is delighted that the network of 5000 advisers, provided through AIC members, who are on farm day in and day out are well positioned to facilitate this ambition. There are a number of areas on which


we will be seeking clarification from Ministers, particularly around fertilisers. However our overriding concern is that the Bill potentially exposes British producers to being undercut by imports of food produced to lower production standards. This requires urgent clarification to ensure the strategic investment in the whole supply chain is not undermined. “We are looking forward to working with


Defra Ministers to better understand how they plan to use the powers the bill will grant them”, concludes Mr Sheasby. “In particular how Defra wish to use the powers granted in relation to the ’closely connected’ agri-food supply chain. The supply chain in its widest sense will be a significant player in the success of any re-invigorated food system and I know our members are focussed on playing their part”.


STARTING AT ZERO – SUGARICH IN STRONG POSITION TO LEAD WITH LOW LCA IN UK ANIMAL


FEED SECTOR SugaRich anticipates having one of the lowest LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) profiles for its feed materials in the UK animal feed sector after GFLI opens its database of feed ingredients. In addition to creating high quality animal


feed, initial analysis indicates that SugaRich may also be a leader in producing feed with one of the lowest LCAs (life cycle analysis) in the UK – maybe even the lowest, pending


PAGE 58 MARCH/APRIL 2020 FEED COMPOUNDER


preliminary calculations on its animal feed LCA, after consulting the newly accessible GFLI (Global Feed LCA Institute) database of feed ingredients, never before available to feed operators. The GFLI now recognises that it has


to include animal feed as a vital part of measuring and assessing the environmental footprint of animal nutrient production. In September 2019, it gave key stakeholders in the feed industry access to scientific environmental data on feed ingredients as a part of establishing its new ‘global gold standard’. By doing so it will improve the quality of reporting and has the potential to improve the environmental impact of animal feed production. SugaRich Procurement Director, Paul


Featherstone, explains the company’s LCA status: ”Our raw materials - surplus food products - start their transformation journey into feed with a zero count for LCA calculations. This is based on the status afforded to food manufacturer’s ‘surplus product’ according to the United Nations’ baseline principles for LCA. This places the nutrient package of former foodstuff materials at a significant advantage to other co-product nutrient parcels which must take on part of the production LCA cost. We believe this fact will offer our customers a significant LCA advantage and will dramatically improve their overall feed LCA. ” The GFLI describes itself as a ‘cradle


to farm gate’ database. It incorporates all the relevant data on various categories of livestock products, taking into consideration climate change, eutrophication, acidification, water footprint, and more. In total there are 15 impact categories that are examined and measured to help suppliers comply with accurate specification of their Product Environmental Footprint guide. Paul concludes: “The SugaRich ethos is


typified by the GFLI stance and proposition being offered to the animal feed industry. It clearly sets out what we want to achieve, and how we can create a better environment and right sort of feed for our animals.”


FARMERS ENCOURAGED TO FOCUS ON FACTORS WITHIN


THEIR CONTROL Farmers are being encouraged to focus on controllable factors within the ring-fence of their farm to help the agricultural sector reach its carbon neutral goal by 2040. Speaking at Dairy-Tech 2020, Alltech


retail programmes lead, Ian Leach, said, “If, as an industry, we’re going to meet our net zero target we have to make a collective effort to start reducing our carbon footprint. And for that, we need to consider the practical means by which this can be achieved, while fundamentally remaining profitable.” Within the last five months, over 100 Navigate™ assessments have


Alltech®


been carried out looking specifically at how producers can reduce feed waste and optimise input utilisation to help improve the economic and environmental sustainability of farming systems. Mr Leach explained that common findings


across all these farms are being identified. “No two farms are exactly the same. However, there is no denying that feed remains the biggest single variable cost for any dairy producer, costing an average of £230,000 for a 1.5 million litre herd. “Despite this, we know from on-farm pilot


studies that feed is also one of the most under- utilised inputs, with as much as 45 percent of its potential being wasted between field and cow,” said Mr Leach. “Our assessments are highlighting


that losses during ensiling, at feed-out and inside the cow are some of the main areas where producers could be making small improvements to benefit margins, which don’t have to cost the earth, if anything at all, in some cases. As an example, over-rolling silage clamps at the end of filling and under- rolling while filling is something we are coming across regularly. Not only is this leading to poor compaction, which negatively impacts fermentation and leads to aerobic instability issues, but farmers are also burning diesel and wasting valuable time by doing this resulting in inefficiencies across the board.” Mr Leach highlights that they are also


seeing many systems where cubicle lunge space is limited against walls. “Ideally, cows should be lying for an average of 14 hours a day. For every hour below this optimal lying time you start to see a negative impact on milk yield of approximately one litre/hour. “As much as £112/cow/year can be lost


by cows only lying for 12 hours a day. Multiply this across a 200-cow herd, and this equates to £22,400 that could have been realised in milk cheques,” he adds.


IMPACT OF COPPER IN PIGLET


FEEDS PRESENTED AT JRP The 52nd Swine Research Days (JRP) were held in Paris on February 4-5. Two publications from Animine contributed to the debate about copper in piglets’ feeds. In Hungary, one study evaluated the


impact of the reduction of copper levels, from 140 ppm to 90 ppm, on 560 piglets during the starter phase. Performance wasn’t affected when copper sulfate was replaced by copper(I) oxide (CoRouge®


) effect of CoRouge®


Results may be explained by a stronger on E.coli population in the


piglet intestine compared to copper sulfate. The effect of CoRouge®


on oxidative stress


was also under investigation: results from a recent study carried out in Spain, on 384 piglets, showed a lower oxidative stress with copper(I) oxide compared to copper sulfate, with 100 and 150 ppm of copper added, through the measurement of malondialdehyde in the liver.


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