“NOT SO OBVIOUS” OBVIOUSCHALLENGES OF USINGALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS INPRACTICAL PIG DIETS                             John ...
THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEMIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEMIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
WHAT ARE THE “NSO” CHALLENGES?    1. Cost of energy and concentration of energy    2. Impact of ingredients on carcass and...
THE ISSUE             The cost differential as of January 23, 2012                between a traditional corn-soy diet     ...
HOW IMPORTANT IS FEED CONVERSION?                                                   Feed Conversion = 2.63         Feed Co...
GETTING DOWN TO BRASS TACKS    • Pigs do not have requirements for      ingredients, but rather energy and nutrients      ...
EXAMPLE WEST. CANADIAN PIG DIETS                          25 to 50 lb   75 to 150 lb   Lactation    Wheat                 ...
EXAMPLE EUROPEAN PIG DIETS                      35 to 55 lb      75 to 155 lb                      LactationWheat         ...
FEEDING PROGRAM: PHILOSOPHY  Nutrient                 NutrientRequirements                Supply               Feeding    ...
GETTING DOWN TO BRASS TACKS    • Pigs do not have requirements for ingredients,      but rather energy and nutrients    • ...
“NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #1    • Energy is the most costly component of the      diet, and the cost of energy is rising.    ...
Ingredient, %                         Prices        Energy       Add protein/       Add minerals/                         ...
THE RISING COST OF DIETARY ENERGY   Ingredient                 Cost,       ME,           NE,          Cost,        Cost,  ...
HOW DAILY ENERGY INTAKE IS DIVIDED    BETWEEN MAINTENANCE AND GAIN         Functions                     Gain             ...
EFFECT OF CORN BRAN WITH DECLINING OR   CONSTANT NE ON F:G IN FINISHING PIGS                              Declining NE   C...
Body weight of weaned pigs was similar across wheat classes, including CPS and durum                                      ...
IMPACT OF DIET ENERGY CONCENTRATIONON AVERAGE DAILY GAIN, LB/D Diet ME, Mcal/lb             1.43   1.47   1.51   1.55 Diet...
IMPACT OF DIET ENERGY CONCENTRATIONON FEED EFFICIENCY Diet ME, Mcal/lb             1.43   1.47   1.51   1.55 Diet NE, Mcal...
IMPACT OF DIET ENERGY CONCENTRATIONON FEED COST/PIG, $ Diet ME, Mcal/lb              1.43     1.47     1.51     1.55 Diet ...
Typically, we feed   pigs to achieve atarget growth rate, tomove pigs out of the barn according to a     fill schedule
At what point do we  Typically, we feed     accept that mainting   pigs to achieve a     growth rate is tootarget growth r...
“NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #2    • Energy is the most costly component of the      diet    • The impact of ingredients on carc...
EFFECT OF FAT SOURCE AND LEVEL ON CARCASS(JOWL) IV WHEN FED FROM 165 TO 290 LB               85                           ...
“NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #3    • Energy is the most costly component of the      diet    • The impact of ingredients on carc...
QUALITY CONTROLIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
NUTRIENT CONTENT OF 32 U.S. DDGS SOURCES(100% DRY MATTER BASIS)        Nutrient            Average      Range        Dry m...
DE CONTENT OF 11 FIELD PEA SAMPLES                       1800DE (kcal/lb; 90% DM)                                         ...
FEED EFFICIENCY OF PIGS                             FED DE-CORRECTED DIETS                             0.6Feed efficiency ...
INTEGRATED QUALITY CONTROL                                     Ensure pig performance is                                  ...
“NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #4    • Energy is the most costly component of the diet    • The impact of ingredients on carcass c...
Ingredients            Density (lb/ft3)*   Lb/4000 lb mixer (114 ft3)    IndexBarley, ground                25            ...
SUMMARY: HIDDEN CHALLENGES    • Many alternative ingredients are lower in      energy. Most effective use occurs if diet  ...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: ASN TEAM                          Applied Swine Nutrition Team                           Outside Iowa Ma...
IOWA SWINE DAY 2012    WHAT         Day devoted to sharing practical information on topics of interest to pork            ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Dr. John Patience - Less Obvious Implications of Using Alternative Ingredients

607

Published on

Part I Less Obvious Implications of Using Alternative Ingredients in Practical Diets, Diet Decisions for the $ and the Hog - Dr. John Patience, Iowa State University, Department of Animal Science, from the 2012 Iowa Pork Congress, January 24 - 26, Des Moines, IA, USA.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
607
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • For most of you, this will be the first time you have heard me speak. So, I’ll take a minute to explain my approach, which is to begin my talk with a discussion on background information and basic principles. This is because we know that there are tremendous differences among farmsThe same pig will perform differently in different barns, in different seasons, under different health conditionsWe are also dealing with different pigs as well, among genotypes and within genotypesTherefore, and I can be accused of being too cautious, I am reluctant to make recommendations on nutrition that will apply under all conditions, because I know they will not.However, as I progress, I will move from principles to applications, hoping that you can then interpret my suggestions in the context of your own operationIn the interest of time, I am going to skip over some slides; you have them in your binder and therefore can get more details if you want themI would like to preserve my available time to focusing on the most important points
  • When you get as many grey hairs as I have, you know that what you see is not always what you get. Often our knowledge is like an iceberg. We know what we see above the surface, because we can see it. But what about things that are not so obvious, much like that part of the iceberg that is below the surface.Let’s take a look at this picture; what you see here is only part of the story. Let’s see what the whole picture looks like…
  • Not even sure F:G is even the right way to express feed efficiencyThe problem arises when we use feed efficiency to compare fill to fill and farm to farm – which is exactly how feed efficiency is used on the farm!
  • Not even sure F:G is even the right way to express feed efficiencyThe problem arises when we use feed efficiency to compare fill to fill and farm to farm – which is exactly how feed efficiency is used on the farm!
  • Not even sure F:G is even the right way to express feed efficiencyThe problem arises when we use feed efficiency to compare fill to fill and farm to farm – which is exactly how feed efficiency is used on the farm!
  • Not even sure F:G is even the right way to express feed efficiencyThe problem arises when we use feed efficiency to compare fill to fill and farm to farm – which is exactly how feed efficiency is used on the farm!
  • When corn was $2.50/bu, ME cost only 2.9 c/Mcal!
  • MEm was estimated as 106 BW0.75. Protein gain is estimated based on our own data collected on various genotypes. Lipid gain is estimated from calculating total ME intake and subtracting that which is used for maintenance and for protein gain (Pd X 10.6). The residual is divided by 12.5 to estimate Ld.
  • Not even sure F:G is even the right way to express feed efficiencyThe problem arises when we use feed efficiency to compare fill to fill and farm to farm – which is exactly how feed efficiency is used on the farm!
  • Not even sure F:G is even the right way to express feed efficiencyThe problem arises when we use feed efficiency to compare fill to fill and farm to farm – which is exactly how feed efficiency is used on the farm!
  • Not even sure F:G is even the right way to express feed efficiencyThe problem arises when we use feed efficiency to compare fill to fill and farm to farm – which is exactly how feed efficiency is used on the farm!
  • Dr. John Patience - Less Obvious Implications of Using Alternative Ingredients

    1. 1. “NOT SO OBVIOUS” OBVIOUSCHALLENGES OF USINGALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS INPRACTICAL PIG DIETS John F. Patience Applied Swine Nutrition Dept. of Animal Science Iowa State UniversityIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    2. 2. THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEMIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    3. 3. THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEMIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    4. 4. WHAT ARE THE “NSO” CHALLENGES? 1. Cost of energy and concentration of energy 2. Impact of ingredients on carcass and pork quality 3. Variability of nutrient composition 4. Differences in physical characteristics 5. OtherIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    5. 5. THE ISSUE The cost differential as of January 23, 2012 between a traditional corn-soy diet and a multi-ingredient diet is at least $15.00/ton and could be as high as $25.00/ton or about $5/pig to $8/pig sold!!IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    6. 6. HOW IMPORTANT IS FEED CONVERSION? Feed Conversion = 2.63 Feed Conversion = 2.93 0.49 Each feed conversion point is worth 0.47Value per pig of 0.01 improvement 30 to 32 cents per pig at today’s feed costs 0.45 0.43 in feed conversion 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 Average wean-to-finish feed cost, $/ton IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    7. 7. GETTING DOWN TO BRASS TACKS • Pigs do not have requirements for ingredients, but rather energy and nutrients Pigs around the world are successfully raised to market With little or no corn or soybean meal in their dietIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    8. 8. EXAMPLE WEST. CANADIAN PIG DIETS 25 to 50 lb 75 to 150 lb Lactation Wheat 16.77 36.63 30.28 Barley 12.92 15.00 10.00 Corn DDGS 20.00 15.00 20.00 Field peas 25.00 25.00 25.00 Soybean meal 18.09 - 5.75 Canola meal 3.50 5.00 5.00 Canola oil 0.50 0.50 0.32 Enzyme 0.04 0.04 0.04 Premix 0.40 0.40 0.40IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    9. 9. EXAMPLE EUROPEAN PIG DIETS 35 to 55 lb 75 to 155 lb LactationWheat 7.50 7.50 17.40Barley 29.99 28.94 15.00Corn 10.00 21.00 14.30Triticale 5.60 - -Bakery by-product 5.00Wheat middlings 7.50 7.50 14.10Wheat feed 15.00 17.50Soybean meal 12.60 7.50 10.80Canola meal 5.00 3.20 2.80Soybeans - - 5.00Sunflower meal - 4.00 -Sugar beet pulp 2.00 - 3.00Cane molasses - - 3.50Soybean hulls - - 2.00Linseed meal - - 2.00Oil: Fish/soya/palm 1.84 0.23 0.55 Diets kindly provided by Mr. Mr. Hubert van Hees, Nutreco
    10. 10. FEEDING PROGRAM: PHILOSOPHY Nutrient NutrientRequirements Supply Feeding Program Pork Net Societal Quality Income Sustainability
    11. 11. GETTING DOWN TO BRASS TACKS • Pigs do not have requirements for ingredients, but rather energy and nutrients • The objective of pork production is financial returns, not performance. – Improved performance does not necessarily lead to improved financial returnsIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    12. 12. “NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #1 • Energy is the most costly component of the diet, and the cost of energy is rising. – We used to take the cost of energy for granted. Not anymore! – Are we using diet energy most effectively and efficiently? – By-products tend to have lower energy content than corn and soybean meal.IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    13. 13. Ingredient, % Prices Energy Add protein/ Add minerals/ $/t only amino acids vitaminsCorn 220 54.93 47.65 47.01Corn DDGS 190 30.00 25.58 27.68Wheat midds 200 7.60 5.50 -Soybean meal 300 - 13.50 14.19Bakery product 230 7.50 7.50 7.50l-Lysine HCl 2500 - 0.30 0.30Limestone 50 - - 1.10Salt 90 - - 0.45Vitamin premix 1750 - - 0.15Trace mineral premix 1000 - - 0.12Phytase 5000 - - 0.08AV-blend 900 - - 1.16Cost, $ $210.24 $229.58 $244.00 86.2% 94.1% 100.0%Diets formulated to meet 1) energy spec only, 2) energy & amino acid specs only, & 3) all nutrients
    14. 14. THE RISING COST OF DIETARY ENERGY Ingredient Cost, ME, NE, Cost, Cost, $/ton Mcal/lb Mcal/lb ¢/Mcal ME ¢/Mcal NE Corn 220 1.55 1.20 7.1 9.2 Corn DDGS 190 1.52 1.08 6.3 8.8 Wheat middlings 200 1.38 0.99 7.2 10.1 Bakery by-product 230 1.68 1.35 6.8 8.5 Soybean meal 300 1.52 0.89 9.9 16.9 AV blend 900 3.72 3.35 12.1 13.4 When corn cost $2.50/bu, 1 Mcal ME cost 2.9¢. It now costs 7.1¢.IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    15. 15. HOW DAILY ENERGY INTAKE IS DIVIDED BETWEEN MAINTENANCE AND GAIN Functions Gain ME intake, Kcal/d Maintenance - 2,516 (34%) Protein (lean) gain 138 g/d (16%) 1,460 (20%) Fat gain 267 g/d (31%) 3,358 (46%) Total 1.90 lb/d (862 g/d) 7,300 (100%) Assume the diet contains 1,500 kcal ME/lb and 0.85% SID lysine. The pig weighs between 100 to 200 lb, is gaining about 1.9 lb/d (total growout ADG = 1.85 lb) and is eating 4.9 lb of feed/day, giving a feed conversion of 2.58 (total feeder to finish growout FC is 2.85:1).IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    16. 16. EFFECT OF CORN BRAN WITH DECLINING OR CONSTANT NE ON F:G IN FINISHING PIGS Declining NE Constant NE P < 0.001 P = 0.67 4.0 3.5 a 3.0 bc b c c c c 2.5 F:G 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 8 16 24 Corn bran level, %IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Gutierrez et al., 2011
    17. 17. Body weight of weaned pigs was similar across wheat classes, including CPS and durum d7 d 14 d 21 28 24 Weight, lb 20 a ab ab ab b ab 16 12 Durum CPS-W CPS-R HRS HRW HWIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    18. 18. IMPACT OF DIET ENERGY CONCENTRATIONON AVERAGE DAILY GAIN, LB/D Diet ME, Mcal/lb 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.55 Diet NE, Mcal/lb 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.12 Constant FI and wt 1.74 1.80 1.85 1.91 Constant FI and days 1.75 1.80 1.86 1.91 Constant wt, increasing FI 1.93 1.93 1.92 1.91IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    19. 19. IMPACT OF DIET ENERGY CONCENTRATIONON FEED EFFICIENCY Diet ME, Mcal/lb 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.55 Diet NE, Mcal/lb 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.12 Constant FI and wt 3.03 2.91 2.82 2.73 Constant FI and days 2.94 2.87 2.79 2.73 Constant wt, increasing FI 2.98 2.89 2.81 2.73IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    20. 20. IMPACT OF DIET ENERGY CONCENTRATIONON FEED COST/PIG, $ Diet ME, Mcal/lb 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.55 Diet NE, Mcal/lb 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.12 Constant FI and wt $83.01 $82.57 $84.02 $85.45 Constant FI and days $73.58 $77.38 $80.90 $85.45 Constant wt, increasing FI $81.79 $81.74 $83.89 $85.45IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    21. 21. Typically, we feed pigs to achieve atarget growth rate, tomove pigs out of the barn according to a fill schedule
    22. 22. At what point do we Typically, we feed accept that mainting pigs to achieve a growth rate is tootarget growth rate, to costly and lessmove pigs out of the expensive diets barn according to a supporting slower fill schedule growth are more profitable overall?
    23. 23. “NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #2 • Energy is the most costly component of the diet • The impact of ingredients on carcass compositionIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    24. 24. EFFECT OF FAT SOURCE AND LEVEL ON CARCASS(JOWL) IV WHEN FED FROM 165 TO 290 LB 85 80.0a 80 75 IV = 74 72.6b 70.2c 70.3c 70Iodine Value 66.3d 67.2d 65.4d 65 60 55 50 45 40 0 3 6 3 6 3 6 Tallow (IV = 41.9) CWG (IV = 66.5) Corn Oil (IV = 123.1) Sex Pooled SEM P-Value B G Trt Sex Trt Sex Source Level SXL 69.1 71.5 0.73 0.4 <.0001 0.0002 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Kellner et al., 2011
    25. 25. “NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #3 • Energy is the most costly component of the diet • The impact of ingredients on carcass composition • Many alternative ingredients vary widely in composition. Therefore, adoption of alternative ingredients requires investment in lab assays.IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    26. 26. QUALITY CONTROLIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    27. 27. NUTRIENT CONTENT OF 32 U.S. DDGS SOURCES(100% DRY MATTER BASIS) Nutrient Average Range Dry matter, % 89.3 87.3-92.4 Crude protein, % 30.9 28.7-32.9 Crude fat, % 10.7 8.8-12.4 Crude fiber, % 7.2 5.4-10.4 Ash, % 6.0 3.0-9.8 Swine ME, kcal/lb 1,728 1,590-1,837 Lysine, % 0.90 0.61-1.06 Phosphorus, % 0.75 0.42-0.99IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: Shurson
    28. 28. DE CONTENT OF 11 FIELD PEA SAMPLES 1800DE (kcal/lb; 90% DM) d c,d c,d b,c,d 1600 b,c b,c b,c b,c b a a 1400 1200 Em Hi Ma Sp Ca Bo Da Or Vo Vi Mu IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Variety
    29. 29. FEED EFFICIENCY OF PIGS FED DE-CORRECTED DIETS 0.6Feed efficiency (ADG/ADFI) 0.5 a a a a a a a,b a,b a,b a,b a,b b 0.4 0.3 0.2 Em Hi Ma Sp Ca Bo Da Or Vo Vi Mu Con IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Variety APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    30. 30. INTEGRATED QUALITY CONTROL Ensure pig performance is within the tolerance of your targets: growth, carcass, etc PIGS MIXED Feed INCOMING FEED Manufacturing INGREDIENTS Ensure feed Ensure feed delivered to the mixing is Confirm composition pigs meets their achieving in terms of both requirements for uniform mixture desirable & daily nutrient according to the undesirable intake formulation constituentsIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    31. 31. “NOT SO OBVIOUS” ISSUE #4 • Energy is the most costly component of the diet • The impact of ingredients on carcass composition • Variation in nutrient composition of alternative ingredients • The physical characteristics of different ingredients may be different from those of corn and soybean meal. Can you feed mixing and delivery system handle this change?IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    32. 32. Ingredients Density (lb/ft3)* Lb/4000 lb mixer (114 ft3) IndexBarley, ground 25 2,850 68Canola meal 38 4,332 103Corn DDGS 31 - 39 3,534 to 4,446 84 to 105Corn, ground 37 4,218 100Corn, bran 22 2,508 59Corn gluten meal 42 4,788 114Fish meal, Menhaden 40 4,560 108Meat and bone meal 37 4,218 100Oats 20 2,280 54Peas 50 5,700 135Soybean meal, ground 41 4,674 111Soybean hulls 23 2,622 62Meat and bone meal 45 5,130 122Wheat, ground 38 4,332 103Wheat middlings 20 2,280 54Dicalcium phosphate 58 6,612 157Limestone 85 9,690 230 *Source: Kammel, 1991
    33. 33. SUMMARY: HIDDEN CHALLENGES • Many alternative ingredients are lower in energy. Most effective use occurs if diet energy can be lowered – but performance may suffer • Changes in carcass composition and quality • Increased need for quality control • Changes in diet bulk density affect feed mixing, delivery and storage capacityIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    34. 34. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: ASN TEAM Applied Swine Nutrition Team Outside Iowa Machine Shed Des Moines, IA August, 2011IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    35. 35. IOWA SWINE DAY 2012 WHAT Day devoted to sharing practical information on topics of interest to pork producers WHEN June 28, 2012 WHERE Scheman Hall, Iowa State University WHO Pork producers (owner/operators, barn employees, contract growers, field staff), affiliated industry personnel TOPICS “nominated” by pork producers 1. PRRS 2. Biosecurity 3. Feed costs 4. Foaming pits 5. Pork exports 6. Ventilation 7. Risk management 8. Animal welfare 9. Human resourcesIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×