, r.e. massey and m.c. shannon agricultural and applied...
TRANSCRIPT
J.A. Lory1, R.E. Massey2 and M.C. Shannon3
1Plant Sciences, 2Agricultural and Applied Economics, 3Animal ScienceUniversity of Missouri, Columbia MO 65211
Feeder Pig, $38.55
Feed, $107.18
Variable Costs, $22.19
Operating Interest, $3.32
Fixed Costs, $8.45
Costs: $184.04 /hog (58% feed)Loss: $ 12.47 /hogManure1: $ 8.41 /hog
1ISU analysis did not include manure value.
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Includes Full Manure Value
No Manure Value
Pro
fit/
Lo
ss (
$/p
ig)
Assess the impact of incorporating manure into feed management decisions.
How have changes in low-cost diets over the period from 2002 to 2011 affected estimated fertilizer value of manure?
Period covers the widespread adoption of incorporating corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DDG) into swine diets.
Determine how low-cost diets would have changed if fertilizer value of excreted was integrated as a co-product into linear programming feed optimization routines.
The goal is no longer least cost ration formulation but jointly considering ration cost and manure value.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Percen
t
50-70 lb No DDG 50-70 lb 40% DDG 210-250 lb No DDG 210-250 lb 30% DDG
Regulatory and voluntary strategy to minimize impact of manure management on water quality is to fully utilize manure nutrients as fertilizer for crop production(USEPA, 2008).
Fertilizer nutrients can be a significant component of net income on swine operations (e.g. Lory et al., 2004).
Fertilizer value of nutrients excreted by livestock can vary widely due to many factors including: diet, manure handling system, method of application and soil nutrient status.
Software is commonly used to optimize diets based on nutritional needs of the animal and costs of available ingredients.
Feed optimization programs primarily consider input costs for evaluating low-cost rations.
Some research suggests adding environmental costs for over feeding N and P.
Our research is asking if the market for feed and fertilizer nutrients can address N and P pollution.
National Swine Nutrition Guide (NSNG) Diet Formulation and Evaluation Software (NSNG, 2010) estimates manure fertilizer value of different diets
Does not include manure value as part of the optimization routine.
Nutritional constraint changes in recent years Available P was reduced in 2007 for 50-130 lb pigs;
constant, otherwise.
Ca was reduced in 2007 for all diets – affects Ca:P ratios that can affect P in the manure.
Amino Acids changed (some increased, some decreased) in 2007 – can affect N in manure by affecting crude protein in diet.
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
Do
lla
rs/b
ush
el
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Co
st
($
/to
n)
Corn Soybean Meal (47.5%) DDG
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Co
st
($
/to
n)
MonoCal (21%P) DiCal (18.5%P) Anhy Ammon DAP Potash
Evaluated seven diets: 50-70 lb pigs
70-90 lb pigs
90-130 lb pigs
130-170 lb pigs
170-210 lb pigs
210-250 lb pigs
Greater than 250 lb pigs
Evaluated with or without DDG as a feed component option. 50-130 lb pigs limited to 40% DDG in ration
130 to 250 lb pigs limited to 30% DDG in ration
Greater than 250 lb pigs were not fed DDG in ration.
Evaluated with an without manure value in the optimization function.
USDA Annual Prices for Corn Soybean Meal Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer Diammonium Phosphate Fertilizer Potassium Fertilizer
By-Product Feed Price Database –DDG Missouri Swine Feed Group (personal communication)
Dical Monocal L-Lysine L-Threonine Phytase - effectiveness based on Naturophos option in
NSNG (2010).
Phase Finisher 1 (50-70 lb.) Finisher 6 (210-250 lb.)Year of nutrient constraints 1997 2007 1997 2007ME (kcal/lb) 1,510 1,512 1,517 1,521Total Lys 1.21 1.10 0.54 0.66Iso 0.72 0.61 0.32 0.37Met 0.33 0.31 0.15 0.19Met&Cys 0.66 0.63 0.29 0.38Thr 0.78 0.67 0.35 0.41Try 0.22 0.18 0.10 0.11Val 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.43
Ca 0.76 0.56 0.50 0.49
Avail P 0.34 0.27 0.19 0.19Ca:TP ratio 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Ca:AP ratio 2.23 2.07 2.70 2.62DDGS limit 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
Diet nutrients constraints based on Kansas State University Swine Nutrition Guide (1998; 2007) and NRC (1998, 2012).
Feed component composition based on NSNG (2010).
Nutrient retention (N, P, K) of pigs based on equations in NSNG (2010).
Nutrient availability for crop production of excreted nutrients based on slurry tank manure injected into soil. Excreted N, P and K were assumed to be 70%, 100% and100% available, respectively.
Linear programming optimization routines executed in Microsoft Excel Solver.
Excreted nutrients are the difference between fed nutrient and retained nutrients.
Over feeding nutrients in swine diets does not further increase nutrient retention of pigs(e.g. Henley et al., 2012;McDonnell et al., 2011) .
Curvilinear relationship between phytase units (FTU kg-1) and P availability (%) linearized for optimization routine by transforming relationships into six linear segments with decreasing effectiveness.
Farmers received full fertilizer value for plant-available manure N, P and K.
Results
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Cost
diffe
rence b
etw
een w
ith a
nd w
ithout
DD
G in d
iet
50 70 90 130 170 210
Pounds o
f N
/ton o
f Feed
Beginning Weight: DDG in diet/DDG out of diet
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
50 70 90 130 170 210 250
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
DDG always increase diet CP and excreted N
Beginning Weight: DDG in diet/DDG out of diet
Pounds o
f P2O
5/t
on o
f Feed
0
5
10
15
20
25
In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
50 70 90 130 170 210 250
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Beginning Weight: DDG in diet/DDG out of diet
Pounds o
f P2O
5/t
on o
f Feed
Grower: DDG is always increase diet CP and excreted N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
50 70 90 130 170 210 250
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Positive value: DDG in diet increases P2O5 in manureNegative value: DDG in diet decreases P2O5 in manure
Beginning Weight: DDG in diet/DDG out of diet
Pounds o
f K2O
/ton o
f Feed
0
5
10
15
20
25
In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
50 70 90 130 170 210 250
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
lb.
P/t
on f
eed
No DDG in diet
Corn P SBM P DDG P Mineral P
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
40% DDG in diet
Corn P SBM P DDG P Mineral P
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Valu
e (
$/
ton
of
feed
)
50-70 lb No DDG 50-70 lb 40% DDG 210-250 lb No DDG 210-250 lb 30% DDG
DDG always the low-cost diet.
DDG always increased diet CP and excreted N.
DDG usually decreased excreted P prior to 2007. DDG usually increased excreted P after 2007.
On the whole, excretion of N, P and K have decreased over time. Due to increasing value of fertilizer nutrients, the value of manure has increased over time.
Results
Year: no = Diet optimization onlyYes = Diet and Manure optimization
Pounds o
f P/t
on o
f Feed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Sum of TP Mineral
Sum of TP DDG
Sum of TP SBM
Sum of TP Corn
Note: Phytase used in 2009, 2010 and 2011 when manure value not optimized
Limestone: AP = 0?
Change ($/ton)
Year Diet Cost Manure Value Net Value
2007 1.91 2.45 0.542008 0.00 0.00 0.002009 0.00 0.00 0.002010 0.35 0.38 0.042011 1.03 1.20 0.17Average .66 .81 .15
Year: no = Diet optimization onlyYes = Diet and Manure optimization
Pounds o
f P/t
on o
f Feed
2007 high P not seen when no DDG in diet
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Sum of TP Dical
Sum of TP MonoCal
Sum of TP SBM
Sum of TP Corn
Note: Phytase used in 2009, 2010 and 2011 when manure value not optimized
Change ($ ton feed)
Year Diet Cost Manure Value Net Value
2007 0.06 0.08 0.022008 0.11 0.26 0.152009 0.03 1.54 1.502010 0.57 1.43 0.862011 0.75 1.69 0.94Average .30 1.00 .70
$0.00 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 $0.90 $1.00
50-70
70-90
90-130
130-170
170-210
210-250
Difference in Net Feed Costs ($/ton)
Weig
ht
Range
Net Feed Cost Difference between Manure included
and Manure not included in optimizationNet Feed Cost = Feed Cost –Manure Value
DDG
No DDG
1. Had no effect on diet composition 2001-2006.
2. Small benefits but worth evaluating in 2007-2011.
3. Eliminated phytase from diets containing DDG.
4. Reduced or eliminated phytase in C-SBM diets. Controlled by energy in diet and P-density of P sources.
Manure is a significant source of value to livestock producers.
Opportunities exist to integrate the value of manure into the least cost diet decision so that net income is optimized. Impact is currently small.
Caveat: cost of diets are certain expense; value of manure is uncertain revenue.
Minimizing P Excretion in C-SBM diets still limited by P availability of corn.
J.A. Lory1, R.E. Massey2 and M.C. Shannon3
1Plant Sciences, 2Agricultural and Applied Economics, 3Animal ScienceUniversity of Missouri, Columbia MO 65211
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
Cost
($/t
on)
50-70 lb phase
No DDG 40% DDG
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
170-210 lb phase
No DDG 30% DDG
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
lb.
N/t
on feed
50-70 lb phase
No DDG 40% DDG
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
210-250 lb phase
No DDG 30% DDG
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
5
10
15
20
25
lb.
P2O
5/t
on feed
50-70 lb phase
No DDG 40% DDG
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
5
10
15
20
25
210-250 lb phase
No DDG 30% DDG
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
5
10
15
20
25
lb.
K2O
/ton feed
50-70 lb phase
No DDG 40% DDG
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
5
10
15
20
25
210-250 lb phase
No DDG 30% DDG
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
lb.
P/t
on feed
Manure value not in
optimizationCorn P SBM P DDG P MonoCal P DiCal P
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Manure value in
optimization
Corn P SBM P DDG P
MonoCal P Dical P
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lb.
P/t
on feed
Manure value not in
optimizationCorn P SBM P DDG P MonoCal P DiCal P
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Manure value in
optimizationCorn P SBM P DDG P
MonoCal P Dical P
1997 Constraints 2007 Constraints