Dr. Joel DeRouchey - Feed Price Update and Daily Feed Efficiency Drivers
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like655 views
This document discusses feed price updates and feed efficiency drivers for reducing costs in pig farming. It highlights the effects of feed processing advancements, diet pricing, and various factors that influence feed efficiency and profitability, such as temperature and diet composition. Additionally, it presents meta-analysis results on feed efficiency metrics, emphasizing the importance of optimizing feed formulations and quality to improve overall return on investment.
Dr. Joel DeRouchey - Feed Price Update and Daily Feed Efficiency Drivers
- 1. Feed Price Update and Daily Feed Efficiency Drivers Joel DeRouchey, Mike Tokach, Bob Goodband and Steve Dritz Kansas State University www.KSUswine.org
- 2. Presentation Outline • Feed efficiency drivers to reduce feed cost • Feed processing advancements • Ingredient and diet pricing • Additional resources
- 3. Means to Reduce Feed Cost • Improved F/G = more profit? – Does the best achieving F/G producers mean they are the most profitable? – NO – Then is F/G tied to profitability? – YES, but is complicated based on individual situations. • Lowest cost diet = optimal return? – No, diet energy must be accounted for to assure growth rate is not jeopardized for optimal marketing – Another complicated decision making process
- 4. Feed Efficiency High feed disappearance Low ADG Other factors Genetics Feed wastage Temperature Mortality Feed delivery Amino acid deficiency Low Energy diets Disease Genetics Feed availability Water availability Diet deficiency Temperature Particle size Diet form Low ADG Other factors High feed disappearance Feed Efficiency
- 5. Feeder Adjustment – Poor adjustment with pans greater than 60% covered can increase feed wastage, especially in late finishing – Old feeders with poor feeder design or inability to adjust will increase wastage
- 6. Meta-analysis results (15 experiments) Items Dry Wet-dry SEM P - value Initial wt, lb 74.3 74.3 5.9 0.27 Final wt, lb 228.6 235.9 13.8 <0.01 ADG, lb 1.92 2.01 0.046 <0.01 ADFI, lb 5.09 5.36 0.223 <0.01 F/G 2.59 2.59 0.10 0.93 Yield, % 75.8 75.6 0.26 0.57 HCW, lb 201.7 208.1 2.1 <0.01 BF, mm 16.7 18.1 0.23 <0.01 Loin, mm 62.2 61.6 0.68 0.14 Lean, % 51.4 50.8 0.85 <0.01 Water disappearance, L/pig/d 6.4 5.0 0.34 0.02 Nitikanchana et al., 2012
- 7. Same F/G Same F/G Reduction in Lean Poor F/G Poor F/G Reduction in lean Dry 90.81 90.81 88.86 88.86 Wet-Dry 92.42 91.55 88.77 87.81 $/pig + 1.61 +0.74 - 0.09 -0.95 Feed cost = 306 $/ton, Carcass price = 0.88 $/lb, 1.5$/ %lean reduction Wet-dry feeder economic analysis (IOFC, Income over feed cost) Nitikanchana et al., 2012
- 8. Effective Temperature – If temperature is too low, pigs will increase their feed intake to maintain body temperature. Because the feed is going towards heat needs and not growth, feed efficiency will become poorer. 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Effectivetemperature,oF Body weight, lb Upper Critical Limit Lower Critical Limit Cold Stress Heat Stress
- 9. Effective Temperature Effect of environmental temperature on the performance of growing pigs (50 to 125 pounds)1 Item Temperature, oF 50 72.5 95 ADG, lb 1.70 1.76 1.41 ADFI, lb 4.86 4.21 3.52 Feed/gain 2.91 2.41 2.52 1Summary of 3 experiments; Stahly and Cromwell, 1979, 1981.
- 10. Disease or Other Stress – Disease problems that lower ADFI will greatly lower ADG. Mortality will increase F/G by about 0.015 for each 1% increase in mortality when spread across the finishing period. – Stressors are additive • Reducing stress will improve F/G
- 11. Update on Feed Processing Research to Reduce Costs
- 12. 2.02 2.06 1.99 2.11 2.17 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet ADG,lb Meal Pellet 300 vs 600 microns P < 0.15 Grind x form P < 0.001 Grind P = 0.89; Form P < 0.001 SEM = 0.018 Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb) Particle size and portion ground De Jong et al., 2012
- 13. 2.82 2.71 2.74 2.60 2.60 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet F/G Meal Pellet 300 vs 600 microns P < 0.001 Grind x form P = 0.37 Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001 SEM = 0.03 Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb) Particle size and portion ground De Jong et al., 2012
- 14. $53.27 $57.94 $53.96 $62.20 $61.35 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet Incomeoverfeedcost,$/pig Meal Pellet 300 vs 600 microns P < 0.01 Grind x form P = 0.15 Grind P = 0.03; Form P < 0.001 SEM = 1.143 Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb) Particle size and portion ground De Jong et al., 2012
- 15. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 800 600 400 Cabrera, 1994a Cabrera, 1994b Wondra, 1995 Effects of particle size on feed efficiency F/G Particle size, microns 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 300 400 500 600 700 800 Paulk, 2011 DeJong, 2012 1.2% per 100 microns 1.0% per 100 microns Particle size, microns
- 16. Every 100 microns = 1. F/G improves by ~1.2% 2. 7 lbs less feed/finishing pig 3. Current $0.98/pig savings in feed cost
- 17. Grain Particle Size • F/G directly impacted by particle size of cereal grains • Research in high co-product diets: – While corn in diet is decreased, finishing pigs still respond similarly to improved F/G with reduced corn particle size – Whole diet grinding – not a benefit in meal diets – High fiber, low digestibly ingredients may be negatively affected by particle size reduction. • Takes more time/energy to grind cereals finer, however, less total tonnage is manufactured by the mill. • Testing method impacts results: – Lab using a flow agent will report a value approximately 80 µ lower then actual.
- 18. Pelleting on growth performance of grow-finish pigs 2005 to 2011 Reference Meal Pellet ADG F/G ADG F/G Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.83 1.25 0.90 1.22 Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.62 1.43 0.65 1.37 Groesbeck et al.(2006) 0.80 1.25 0.78 1.17 Potter et al. (2009) 1.95 2.12 2.05 2.07 Potter et al. (2009) 1.92 2.83 2.04 2.68 Myers et al. (2010) 1.81 2.76 1.94 2.82 Potter et al. (2010) 1.92 2.86 2.03 2.70 Frobose et al. (2011) 1.46 1.72 1.43 1.63 Frobose et al. (2011) 1.29 1.51 1.38 1.40 Myers et al. (2011) 1.96 2.73 1.97 2.67 Paulk et al. (2011) 2.50 2.75 2.63 2.55 Paulk et al. (2011) 2.31 2.50 2.44 2.40 Average 1.61 2.14 1.69 2.06 Average response = 5.0% for ADG and 4.0% for F/G 18
- 19. 1.59 1.51 1.57 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 Meal Pellets Pellets with 30% fines a b P < 0.05 Effects of pellet quality on F/G in 30 to 70 lb pigs F/G a Nemecheck et al. 2012
- 20. Pellet quality Pellets with fines Good quality pellets Nemecheck et al. 2012 20
- 21. 1.93 1.87 1.85 1.80 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 0% 15% 30% 45% ADG,lb Linear P > 0.01 SEM = 0.02 Effect of medium-oil DDGS on pig performance (d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb) Medium-oil DDGS Graham et al., 2012 7.4% fat, 28.1% CP, 10.8% ADF, 25.6% NDF
- 22. 3.13 3.19 3.20 3.26 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 0% 15% 30% 45% F/G Linear P > 0.02 SEM = 0.04 Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance (d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb) Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil) Graham et al., 2012
- 23. 74.0 73.2 72.4 71.8 70 71 72 73 74 75 0% 15% 30% 45% Yield,% Linear P > 0.02 SEM = 0.04 Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance (d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb) Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil) Graham et al., 2012
- 24. 70.2 71.1 73.7 76.3 65 68 71 74 77 80 0% 15% 30% 45% Jowlfatiodinevalue,mg/g Linear P > 0.02 SEM = 0.04 Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance (d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb) Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil) Graham et al., 2012
- 25. Corn DDGS quality control • Variability in DDGS quality – Main issue is fat level Fat, % NE, % • Low = < 5% fat 4.0 80.0% • Medium = 6 to 9% fat 7.5 87.5% • High = > 9% fat 11.0 95.0% – Need to monitor DDGS quality or work with company that monitors DDGS quality – Ethanol plants guarantee often underestimate the true oil content – guarantee 6% but really 9%
- 26. Predicted Digestible and Net Energy of DDGS y = 115.01x + 1501 R2 = .86 y = 62.347x + 3058.1 R2 = .41 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Energy,Kcal/kg Oil, % Net Energy Digestible Energy
- 27. Historical Ingredient Prices June 2009 June 2010 June 2011 June 2012 June 2013 Corn, $/bu $4.00 $3.20 $7.25 $6.00 $7.30 SBM, $/ton $395 $285 $350 $400 $474 DDGS, $/ton $150 $120 $200 $240 $220 CWG, $/cwt $27 $33 $50 $46 $42 Dical, $/cwt $23 $26 $28 $33 $27 L-lysine, $/cwt $70 $110 $120 $113 $83 ~cost/finishing pig $64 $57 $90 $87 $97
- 28. Example Diets with Alternatives • Phase = 125 – 170 lb of body weight • Corn = $7.30/bu ($260/ton) • SBM, 46.5% = $474/ton • DDGS (7.5% Fat) = $220/ton • Wheat midds = $212/ton • Meat and Bone = $550/ton • Moncal P, 21% = $540/ton • L-Lysine = $0.83/lb
- 29. Higher Meat & Wheat DDGS & Ingredient Corn/soy AA bone DDGS midds midds Corn 1537 1573 1569 1121 1303 830 SBM, 46.5% 417 377 314 235 247 124 Meat & bone meal 100 DDGS, 7.5% fat 600 600 Wheat middlings 400 400 Lysine HCl 3 5.4 3.9 6.4 6.7 7.9 DL-Methionine 0.25 0.3 L-Threonine 1.2 0.6 1.5 Monocal P, 21% P 16 16 2 10 Limestone 15 15.5 23.5 20 26 VTM & Salt 12 12 12 12 12 12 SID Lys:ME, g/Mcal 2.52 2.52 2.5 2.52 2.52 2.52 SID Lys 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.81 SID Met & cys:lys 60 58 58 72 58 73 SID Thr:lys 62 62 63 66 62 63 SID Trp:lys 19.1 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 ME, kcal/lb 1,515 1,516 1,513 1,481 1,482 1,446 CP, % 16.4 15.3 16.8 18.7 14.8 18.1 Available P, % 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.23 0.23 0.27
- 30. Higher Meat & Wheat DDGS & Ingredient Corn/soy AA bone DDGS midds midds Corn 1537 1573 1569 1121 1303 830 SBM, 46.5% 417 377 314 235 247 124 Meat & bone meal 100 DDGS, 7.5% fat 600 600 Wheat middlings 400 400 Lysine HCl 3 5.4 3.9 6.4 6.7 7.9 DL-Methionine 0.25 0.3 L-Threonine 1.2 0.6 1.5 Monocal P, 21% P 16 16 2 10 Limestone 15 15.5 23.5 20 26 VTM & Salt 12 12 12 12 12 12 Diet w/ processing $322.00 $318.00 $326.28 $289.88 $297.52 $268.79 Budget, lb/pig 120.0 120.0 120.2 122.8 122.7 125.8 Feed cost, $/pig $19.32 $19.08 $19.61 $17.80 $18.25 $16.91 F/G 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.73 2.73 2.80
- 31. Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb) 194.3 195.8 193.7 195.5 193.5 191.4 189 191 193 195 197 Carcassweight,lb d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High Asmus et al., 2011 Duration P > 0.38 SEM 2.54
- 32. K-State Web Resources www.ksuswine.org • DDGS Calculator • Synthetic Amino Acid Calculator • Fat Analysis Calculator • Feed Budget Calculator • Feeder Adjustment Cards • Particle Size Information • Marketing Calculators • Gestation Feeding Tools 32
- 35. Newly Developed F/G Factsheets • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25a: Not Always Linked to Net Income • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25b: Genetic Impact • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25c: Particle Size Testing Methodology • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25d: Influence of Particle Size • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25e: Influence of Pelleting • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25f: Influence of Temperature • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25g: Decision Tree • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC25h: Influence of Market Weight • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25i: Effect of Dietary Energy • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25j: Influence of Ractopamine • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25k: Feeder Design and Management • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25l: Influence of Amino Acids • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25m: Sow Feed on Whole Farm Efficiency 35 www.swinefeedefficiency.com