Dealing with high feedstuff prices: what are viable options

IGFA Feed Forum 2012 J. Doppenberg, Ph.D. Schothorst Feed Research Lelystad, the Netherlands

Agenda
Prerequisites for feed formulations Low versus high quality protein source Diet concentration in relation to feed costs Reduction of SID/AID amino acid content Use of liquid by-products Conclusions

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

Prerequisites for feed formulations

Reliable, species specific, feedstuff table of all available feedstuffs. NE for pigs and AID/SID AA prefered =>predictable animal response independent of feed composition (and feed costs) Calculate nutrient value of available, variable feedstuffs based on chemical analyses and digestibility coefficients (available Energy, AID/SID AA and minerals) Nutrient recommendations for optimal (economical) performance for each animal species, animal category and specific production goals that are validated under practical circumstances
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
3

DE, ME and Net Energy systems for pigs

starch Energy value (MJ/kg) DE ME NE Heat production (MJ/kg) Heat prod/NE
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

protein 20.6 (118) 18.0 (103) 10.2 (71) 7.8 0.76

fat 35.3 (202) 35.3 (202) 31.5 (219) 3.8 0.12

4

17.5 (100) 17.5 (100) 14.4 (100) 3.1 0.22

Noblet, 1994

Formulating with NE versus ME reduces feed costs and increases usage of synthetic amino acids
G/F feed cost -/0.9%
Wheat Triticale Barley Maize Rapeseed meal Soybean meal (47%) Wheat middlings Animal fat L-lysine HCl L-Threonine L- Tryptophane
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

ME (%)

NE (%)

ME (g/kg)

NE (g/kg)

40.00

40.00 25.00

Crude protein Crude fat Starch Crude fibre

155 39 434 37

148 35 453 34

21.48 13.27 10.00 7.58

2.61 7.51 10.00 4.18 3.10

1.90 0.28 0.05

1.67 0.37 0.09 0.01

5

ME-INRA NE-INRA

12.92 9.75

12.83 9.75

Low versus high quality protein sources, whats cheap or expansive?

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

Synthetic lysine, methionine, threonine and tryptophan reduce crude protein content
Nutrient synth lys =30% synth thre unrestricted 100% 15.45 405.7 131.1 38.06 30.0 3.86 0.13 synth lys =30% synth thre = 0% 101.5% 16.73 392.1 135.5 39.55 16.5 0.12 0 synth lys = 0% synth thre = 0% 104.1% 17.78 377.8 140.0 40.29 0 0 0
7

/ 100 kg (relative) C. Prot% ID_st+su % FCHO iCPs synth lys/AID lys % synth meth/AID meth % synth thre/AID thre %

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

Maize DDGS increases Crude Protein content and decreases protein digestibility in G/F pig feeds
Maize DDGS % Crude protein (g/kg) % prot from maize DDGS iCPs (g/kg) %iCPs from maize DDGS Feed costs /100 kg (rel)
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

0 155.00

5% 161.02 8.48

10% 165.72 16.47 41.23 20.79 -0.6%

8

38.13

40.46 10.59

100%

-0.4%

Price /usage rate fle xibility Maize DDGS Sept. 2012

25 20 U s a ge ra te 15 10 5 0 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
9

Dairy Pigs Gest. Sows Layer Broiler finis her

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

Price /100 kg

CProt and Lysine content Hipro SBM by origin

G.G. Mateos, 2011

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
10

Value (/100 kg) of 4-5% nutrient variation of Hipro SBM in feed formulations
Swine + 100 Cal + 4% dig AA + 100 Cal + 4% dig AA +/- 0.1 g/kg dig P 1.03 0.99 2.03 0.02 Layer 1.59 0.17 1.77 0.03 Broiler 2.26 0.21 2.47 0.04

Hipro SBM 54.20/100 kg, September 2012 NL

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
11

Diet concentration in relation to feed cost

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

12

Diet concentration and feed cost

1. If feed intake is solely based on caloric consumption => diet concentration can be altered, within a certain range, with a fixed nutrient/NE ratio 2. Diet concentration increases Crude Protein and Crude Fat content and decreases Starch and Sugar content => pellet quality might decrease 3. At lower diet concentration Fermentable Carbohydrate (FCHO) concentration will increase => increased gut fill and hind gut fermentation 4. Maximum FCHO-concentration is dependant on GIT maturity, breed and environment
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
13

Diet concentration and feed cost

At lower diet (nutrient) concentration use of low energy, high fiber by-products is increased => attractive if byproducts are cheap in relation to grains At high (nutrient) concentration relative more energy is derived from fat and less from starch (and FK) => attractive if fat &oil prices are low in relation to grains At high (nutrient) concentration relative more high quality protein sources and synthetic amino acids are used => unattractive if protein rich feedstuffs are relative expansive
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
14

Nutrient composition in relation to diet concentration

Kcal NE / 100kcal NE CProt CFat Starch + Sugars FCHO 2100 12.34 15.48 2.02 41.39 14.39 2153 12.33 15.43 1.86 43.97 13.28 2205 12.37 15.5 2.03 45.41 12.58 2258 12.42 15.65 2.44 46.61 11.3 2310 12.50 15.84 3.32 46.22 10.78 2363 12.61 16.02 4.33 45.19 10.82 2415 12.72 16.21 5.34 44.15 10.86
15

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

Feed cost in relation to diet concentration

/ 100k cal NE 13.10 13.00 12.90 12.80 12.70 12.60 12.50 12.40 12.30 12.20 2050

NL G/F pig feeds Low Energy 2200 kcal NE, High Energy 2300-2350
2150 2250 2350 2450

Feedstuff prices of August 2012 for the Netherlands

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
16

Optimal AID/SID Amino Acid content of Grower/Finisher Pig feeds in relation to technical performance, carcass characteristics and profitability (SFR meta-analyses)

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

17

Reduction SID/AID amino acid content

SID/AID AA/NE-Swine Crude protein (g/kg) Crude fat (g/kg) Starch (g/kg) Crude fiber (g/kg) Feed cost1 (/100 kg) -15% -10% -1.84 -0.65 +2.8 -0.18 -1.07 -1.23 -0.44 +1.9 0 -0.14 -0.72 -2.61 -5% -0.62 -0.23 +0.97 -0.07 -0.36 -1.31 CTRL +5% +10% +15%

14.50 +0.50 +0.92 +1.34 2.89 46.04 3.75 +0.24 +0.34 +0.43 -1.16 -1.82 -2.48

+0.07 +0.04 +0.02

27.57 +0.43 +0.87 +1.31 0 +1.56 +3.16 +4.75

Feed cost (% of CTRL) -3.88

1Based

on feedstuff prices of July 2012. The costs of additives are excluded. Total synthetic lysine content was limited to 35% of AID lys.
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
18

Pig performance (G/F 40-110 kg) and carcass characteristics by reducing AID/SID AA
SID/AID AA/NE-Swine Feed intake (kg/d) ADG, 40-110 kg (g/d) FCR No days (40-110 kg) Total feed consumption (kg/pig) Energy- conversion (E-Swine)2 Meat (%) Dressing (%) Cycles per year1
1Cycles

-15% 0.01

-10% 0.01

-5% 0.01 -5.00 0.02 +0.42 +1.40 0.02 -0.21 0.06 -0.011

CTRL 2.52 911.00 2.78 76.84 194.60 2.98 54.90 77.20 3.08

+5% -0.01 +2.00 -0.01 -0.17 -0.70 -0.02 0.19 -0.06 +0.004

+10% -0.02 0 -0.02 0 -1.40 -0.02 0.37 -0.12 0

+15% -0.04 -5.00 -0.02 +0.42 -1.40 -0.02 0.54 -0.18 -0.011

-26.00 -14.00 0.09 +2.26 +6.30 0.10 -0.67 0.17 0.05 +1.20 +3.50 0.06 -0.43 0.12

-0.058 -0.031

per year = 360/ (40 days starter and cleaning period + number of days growing-finishing period)
19

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

Economic effect reduction SID/AID AA

SID/AID AA/NE-Swine Total feed cost1 (/pig) Total feed costs (% CTRL) Meat price2 (/ pig) Meat price (% CTRL) Margin per pig3 (/pig) Margin/loss per pig (% CTRL) Margin per pig place (/pig) Margin per pig place (% CTRL)
1Feed

-15% -0.41 -0.76 -0.55 -0.79 -0.14 -0.17 -5.34 -2.05

-10% -0.46 -0.86 -0.64 -0.46 -0.18 -0.21 -3.18 -1.22

-5% -0.32 -0.59 +0.11 +0.08 +0.43 +0.51 +0.39 +0.15

CTRL 53.65 0 138.42 0 +84.77 0 261.09 0

+5% +0.64 +1.19 -0.11 -0.08 -0.75 -0.88 -1.97 -0.75

+10% +1.30 +2.42 -0.22 -0.16 -1.52 -1.79 -4.68 -1.79

+15% +2.15 +4.01 -0.32 -0.23 -2.47 -2.91 -8.51 -3.26

costs 40-110 kg, 2Meat Price Carcass weight * 1.65, 3Margin = feed costs meat price
20

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

Multi phase feeding (3- phase compared to 2phase) saves about 1.00 per pig on feed costs
Digestible Lys,g/EW g/MJ NE dv lysine,
requirement behoefte 2-phase 2-fasen 3-phase 3-fasen

20

40

60

80

100

120

gewicht, Body weight, kg kg

2004-2012 Feed Research. rights reserved 2004-2012 Schothorst Schothorst Feed Research. All All rights reserved
21

Liquid by-products
Mainly Wheat starch (190K d.m.), Wheat Yeast Concentrate (180K*50% pigs), Potato peelings (85K) and Whey (50K) On farm usage, require large investment in storage tanks and mixing equipment, transportation costs high => Southern part of the Netherlands Requires high turn over => large G/F pig and sow operations Variability in chemical composition high and nutritional quality/digestibility not well researched => complement feed?! Prices liquid by-products follow conventional feedstuff market => savings marginally
2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved
22

Conclusions
Use of a Net Energy together with a digestible amino acid system reduces feed costs and predicts technical performance better The effect of a lower protein and energy digestibility of low quality protein sources on feed costs and gut health needs to be considered At current feedstuff prices formulating less concentrated pig (Grower -Finisher) feeds with a lower (Net) energy content is a more viable option than reducing the digestible amino acid content (in relation to the energy content).

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

23

Thanks for your attention jdoppenberg@schothorst.nl

2004-2012 Schothorst Feed Research. All rights reserved

24