feeders and feed costs - amazon web services swine... · “old” recommendation of ≈ 5 pigs per...
TRANSCRIPT
Feeders and Feed Costs
How expensive is a “cheap” feeder?
Jon Bergstrom, Ph.D.
Sr. Technical Support Manager, Animal Nutrition and Health
(Swine)
DSM Nutritional Products, North America
2011 Swine Education In-Service
September 29, 2011
Growing- Finishing feed cost represents the
majority of the cost in swine production (60 to 70%).
– Finishing (Example 1):
• 210 lb gain (55 to 265 lb BW) * 2.80 (F:G) = 588 lb feed/pig
• 52 pigs/feeder (2 pens of 26) * 2.8 turns/year = 146 pigs/feeder/year
• 588 lb feed/pig * 146 pigs/feeder/year = 85,848 lb or
42.9 tons of feed / feeder / year
• Feed @ $278/t = $11,926.20 / feeder / year
– Finishing (Example 2):
• 210 lb gain (55 to 265 lb BW) * 2.90 (F:G) = 609 lb feed/pig
• 52 pigs/feeder (2 pens of 26) * 2.8 turns/year = 146 pigs/feeder/year
• 609 lb feed/pig * 146 pigs/feeder/year = 88,914 lb or
44.5 tons of feed/feeder/year
• Feed @ $278/t = $12,371.00 / feeder / year
Introduction
Difference of $444.80 in feed cost / feeder / year!
Variables that influence F/G of growing-finishing pigs:
– Genetics
– Age/BW
K-State Adj. F/G = observed F/G + 0.005*(50 – entry wt.) + 0.005*(250 – market wt.)
– Gender
– Diets
• Ingredients
– Quality
– Grain particle size
– Paylean®
• Nutrient requirements
– Energy and energy density of diet
– Amino Acids & Ratios - under or over the requirement?
– Vitamins/Minerals - under or over the requirement?
• Feed budgets?
Introduction
Variables that influence F/G of growing-finishing pigs (cont.):
– Environment
• temperature/season
• humidity/air quality
• space
• resources
– Health
• disease/immune stimulation = slowed growth, poorer intake, poorer F/G
Klasing, 2011(JAM of ASAS-ADSA)
– ≤ 71% due to reduction in ADFI
– ≤ 11% due to fever and associated increase in energy expenditure
– ≤ 6% due to nutrient diversions/repartitioning
» reduction in muscle growth
» increased utilization in organs
– ≤ 5% due to metabolic inefficiencies
– ≤ 14% due to reduced absorption of lipids, retinol, lutein, minerals
FEEDERS – How much feed is actually CONSUMED and how
much is WASTED? – design? adjustment?
Not necessarily overlooked, but poorly understood.
Introduction
Feeders – What’s Important?
Feeders – What’s Important?
“Ideal” Nursery/Grow-Finish Feeder – Provides access to feed in a manner that
results in the optimal/desired growth of pigs with the
least amount of feed waste.
Why? - Feed intake/Growth
- Economics
- Sustainability – Waste and Environmental Management
- Associated with
Behavior
Stress
Health
Welfare
This presentation will focus on what is practiced in the U.S.
– ad libitum feeding - unrestricted provision of feed
Feeders – What’s Important?
Feeding Spaces
“Old” recommendation of ≈ 5 pigs per feeding space
- developed when feeders were designed to limit waste by increased
difficulty in accessing feed and slowed consumption (≥120 min/d).
- trough lids
- rooting bars/agitation rods, wheels, rotating hoppers, etc.
- adjustable feed flow gates to a “fixed” position – No “agitation” plate
“New” recommendations with “improved” feeder designs
(MacDonald & Gonyou, 2000)
Feeder Space Why the differences in stocking rates?
Eating Speed!
*Based on the amount of time for 90 kg pigs to consume 500 g feed (dry basis), with or without being made wet by the addition of an equal weight of water.
(Gonyou & Lou, 2000)* (MacDonald & Gonyou, 2000)
Feeder Space Why the differences in stocking rates?
Relationship of feeder space stocking rate and ADG
(from MacDonald; as shared previously by Gonyou, 2006)
Feeder stocking rate, %
Feeder Space
Walker, 1991 - Experiment using meal diets
and a single-space wet-dry feeder
Feeder Space
Walker, 1991 - Experiment using meal diets, pigs 37 to 90 kg BW
Single-space wet-dry feeder
Pigs per feeder 10 20 30 SE
ADG, kg 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.008
SD within pens 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.007
ADFI, kg 2.18 2.34 2.31 0.029
F:G 2.70 2.93 2.87 0.038
P2 backfat, mm 12.1 12.5 12.3 0.34
Gonyou, 1998
Smaller pigs (90 lb) wasted a greater relative
proportion of their feed (4.4% vs. 2.4% for 180 lb pigs).
Feeding habits of the growing pig change
• Gonyou and Lou, 2000; Hyun et al., 1997; Walker, 1991
– As pigs grow:
• Total duration of eating (min./d) decreases
• No. meals (frequency of feeder entrances)/d decreases
• Eating speed increases
Smaller pigs eat more slowly and spend more time eating
(accomplished by more meals/d) to consume a greater
quantity of feed relative to their BW.
This results in more opportunities for behaviors
associated with feed wastage.
The “ideal” dimensions of the feeding space change for the growing pig
Shoulder width + 10% to accommodate the largest/widest pig
(Baxter, 1991)
Recommended feeder space width = 6.7(cm)
BW0.333(kg)
BW Recommended Width
Kg (lb) cm inches
30 (66) 20.8 8.2
60 (132) 26.2 10.3
120 (265) 33.0 13.0
At 33 cm width, the maximum individual BW of 2 pigs
able to share this space is approximately 20 kg (44 lb).
The “ideal” dimensions of the feeding space change for the growing pig
Recommended Trough Depth and Lip Height
Stages/BW
Depth
(Gonyou, 2006)
“Lip” Height
(from floor)
Kg (lb) cm inches cm inches
Nursery pig @ 25 (55) 10 - 20 4 – 8 5 - 10 2 - 4
G/F @ 25 to 110 (55 to 240) 25 – 30 10 – 12 10 – 15 4 – 6
W-to-F @ 8 to 110 (18 to 240) 25 – 30 10 – 12 10 – 12 4 – 5
LESS than recommended depth results in difficult access (more waste).
MORE than recommended results in stepping into the trough (more waste).
Chin angle ≈40
? Depth
Floor
Degree of Protection as a “Quality” Characteristic of the Feeder Space
Baxter, 1991
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1.1x
Sh w
/Hd &
Sh
1.1x
Sh w
/Hea
d
1.1x
Sh w
/Nose
1.1x
Sh
2.2x
Sh
4.4x
Sh
Feeder space/pig with or without protection
Me
an
In
cid
en
ce
of
ag
gre
ss
ion
a
b
c
c
bc
bc
Means with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05
*Not ad libitum
Degree of Protection as a “Quality” Characteristic of the Feeder Space
Baxter, 1991
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
1.1x
Sh w
/Hd &
Sh
1.1x
Sh w
/Hea
d
1.1x
Sh w
/Nose
1.1x
Sh
2.2x
Sh
4.4x
Sh
Feeder space/pig with or without protection
Fe
ed
Wa
sta
ge
a a
ab
bc
c
c
Means with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05
*Not ad libitum
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry
A brief review of experiments
• Rantanen et al. - ↑ ADG (1995), ↑ G:F (1994) with Wet/Dry
• Amornthewaphat et al. (2000) - ↑ ADG, ↑ backfat, ↓ FFLI with Wet/Dry
• Brumm et al. (2000) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↓ G:F, ≈ carcass lean with Wet/Dry
• Gonyou & Lou (2000) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↓ carcass lean with Wet/Dry (6 dry feeder models and 6 wet-dry feeder models)
• Bergstrom et al. (2008) –
• Exp. 1 (70 to 220 lb BW) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI with Wet/Dry
• Exp. 2 (64 to 265 lb BW) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↓ G:F, ↑ backfat, ↓ FFLI
with Wet/Dry
• Myers et al. (2010) - ↑ ADG, ↑ ADFI, ↑ backfat with Wet/Dry
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry
Feeding behaviors (per pig, during 6 h per d – 3 h AM and 3 h PM)
Bergstrom et al. (2011)
Wet-dry feeder Dry feeder SEM P <
Overall (d 95, d 98, & d 110)
No. visits to feeder1 4.2a 9.0b 0.75 0.001
Avg. length of visit, min. 4.9 4.7 1.18 ---
Total time at feeder, min. 16.0a 33.9b 2.49 0.001 1 Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry
Bergstrom et al. & Myers et al.
Dry Feeder
Single-sided, 152.4-cm long, 5-hole
feeder (Staco, Inc., Schaefferstown, PA)
and a stainless steel cup waterer
Double-sided with 38.1-cm wide opening
on both sides of the trough and single
nipple waterer (Crystal Springs,
GroMaster, Inc., Omaha, NE)
Wet/Dry Feeder
956
926942
920
890875
861 854
800
840
880
920
960
1,000 SEM = 10.7
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry
Recent Commercial Experiments – Bergstrom et al. Exp. 3
Feeder, P < 0.001
Gender, P < 0.01
DDGS, P < 0.01
AD
G,
g
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry
Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 3
AD
FI,
kg
Feeder, P < 0.001
Gender, P < 0.001
Feeder, P < 0.001
Gender, P < 0.001
DDGS, P < 0.002
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry G
:F
Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 3
SEM = 0.004
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry H
CW
, kg
Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 3
Feeder, P < 0.001
Gender, P < 0.004
DDGS, P < 0.01
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry Backfa
t depth
, m
m
Feeder, P < 0.001
Gender, P < 0.001
DDGS, P < 0.01
Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 3
Feeder Type – Dry vs. Wet/Dry Jow
l fa
t IV
, g/1
00g
Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 3
Feeder, P < 0.001
Gender, P < 0.001
DDGS, P < 0.001
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 4
Wet-Dry Feeder Conventional Dry Feeder
Provides a relatively fixed opening. Provides range of opening to be manipulated
by the pigs.
(agitation, approx. 0.62 cm or 0.25 in.)
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 4 (19 to 38 kg BW)
Wet-Dry, quadratic P < 0.02
SEM = 0.012
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
SEM = 0.33
AD
G,
kg
BW
, kg
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 4 (19 to 38 kg BW)
Wet-Dry, quadratic P < 0.001
SEM = 0.016
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.02
Dry, linear P < 0.01
AD
FI, k
g
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 4 (19 to 38 kg BW)
G:F
SEM = 0.006
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01
Wet-Dry Feeder Conventional Dry Feeder
1.91 cm opening (setting 10) 2.0 to 2.7 cm opening (setting 8)
1.27 cm opening (setting 6)
2.54 cm opening (setting 14)
1.5 to 2.0 cm opening (setting 6)
2.7 to 3.4 cm opening (setting 10)
d 19
35% 9%
57% 21%
65% 79%
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 5 (33 to 120 kg BW)
Wet-Dry, linear P < 0.05
SEM = 0.017
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
SEM = 2.51
AD
G,
kg
BW
, kg
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 5 (33 to 120 kg BW)
Wet-Dry, linear P < 0.01
SEM = 0.067
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01
AD
FI, k
g
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 5 (33 to 120 kg BW)
G:F
SEM = 0.008
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 5 (33 to 120 kg BW)
Wet-Dry, linear P < 0.02
SEM = 0.38
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
SEM = 0.19
Backfa
t, m
m
FF
LI
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01
Feeder Type & Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 5 (33 to 120 kg BW)
Dry & Wet-Dry, linear P < 0.01 SEM = 5.85
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
SEM = 5.87
Tro
ug
h c
overa
ge, %
- d
41 T
rou
gh
co
vera
ge, %
- d 8
4
Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment
Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)
4 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments:
Feeder and average opening
Diet-type
Corn-SBM-15% DDGS
Corn-25%DDGS-20% Bakery by-product-SBM
No differences in performance between diet-types.
28 56
n=12
n=12
n=12
n=12
day
Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)
SEM = 10.1
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Tro
ug
h c
overa
ge, %
- d
83
Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)
SEM = 0.008
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
SEM = 1.25
AD
G,
kg
BW
, kg
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01 Means with different superscripts differ P < 0.05
Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)
SEM = 0.028
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01 Means with different superscripts differ P < 0.05
AD
FI, k
g
Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)
G:F
SEM = 0.003
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)
SEM = 0.30
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
SEM = 0.14
Backfa
t, m
m
FF
LI
Dry vs. Wet-Dry, P < 0.01 Means with different superscripts differ P < 0.05
70.07 69.88
68.07
71.34
65.0
67.0
69.0
71.0
73.0
75.0
≈2.4-cm 3.2-cm 3.2-, 2.5-cm 3.2-, 2.5-, 1.9-cm
Wet/Dry Feeder Adjustment
Bergstrom et al. – Exp. 6 (38 to 127 kg BW)
Dry Feeder Wet-Dry Feeder
Inc
om
e-o
ve
r-fe
ed
-co
st,
$
Carcass Base Price = $67.13 and Feed Cost = $0.13/lb
The greater total feed consumed and reduced lean
premium eliminated the advantage from increased HCW
at this particular packer.
Dry Feeder Adjustment Myers et al. (2010)
Feeder adjustment, min. gap opening
Item 0.50” 0.75” 1.00” SED
d 0 to 28 (90 to 150 lb) (avg. 1.6 cm) (avg. 2.2 cm) (avg. 2.8 cm)
ADG, lb 1.93a 2.15b 2.11b 0.08
ADFI, lb 4.89a 5.51b 5.59b 0.24
F/G 2.54 2.58 2.64 0.08
d 28 to 58 (150 to 220 lb)
ADG, lb 2.37 2.40 2.42 0.08
ADFI, lb 6.90a 7.44b 7.37b 0.24
F/G 2.92a 3.10b 3.05ab 0.08
d 58 to 89 (220 to 265 lb)
ADG, lb 1.51 1.46 1.50 0.08
ADFI, lb 5.22 5.33 5.45 0.24
F/G 3.47a 3.65b 3.64b 0.08
Pan Coverage score, % 28a 58b 75c 7.6 a,b Means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
No influence on carcass characteristics
Dry Feeder Adjustment Myers et al. (2010)
Feeder adjustment, min. gap opening
IOFC 0.50” 0.75” 1.00”
d 0 to 28 (90 to 150 lb) 14.70 16.21 15.45
d 28 to 58 (150 to 220 lb) 17.96 17.03 17.51
d 58 to 89 (220 to 265 lb) 10.46 9.41 9.73
d 0 to 89 43.11 42.65 42.69
IOFC Max $44.63
IOFC calculated as $0.50/lb of gain minus feed cost per pig. Diet cost
used were $.09/lb (d0 to 28), $.085 (d28 to 58), and $0.08 (d 58 to 89).
Feeder Recommendations • Pigs per feeder space - “New” feeder designs
– Dry feeders – 10 pigs
– Wet/Dry feeders – 10 to 15 pigs (depends on “quality” of space)
• Feeder space Quality
– Correct dimensions for intended BW range of growth
• Depth and Width are most important
– Some degree of protection – at least nose/snout divider bars
• Reduces wastage associated with pig-to-pig interactions
• Reduces aggression
• Limits ability of pigs to waste feed by rooting
• Feeder opening/adjustment
– Dry Feeder
• 50 to 60% trough coverage for pigs < 150 lb BW
• 30 to 50% trough coverage for pigs > 150 lb BW
– Wet/Dry Feeder
• 65 to 85% trough coverage for pigs < 200 lb BW
• 50 to 65% trough coverage for pigs > 200 lb BW
Feeder Recommendations (Continued) • Durable, yet easy to manage (standardized adjustment, etc.)
• At least 12 h (or 3 lb/pig) of feed storage capacity in the feeder hopper
or a mechanism (generator, etc.) to PREVENT out-of-feed events.
• Match the Feeder to the expectations of the Facility
– Adequate (or increased) feeder space will not compensate for
crowding! (sq. ft./pig)
– Optimal performance from feeders – DON’T under- or over-stock!
• If feeder does not satisfy the previously described requirements –
REPLACE IT! - It does not take long to recover the cost!
• DON’T forget WATER!
– Correct flow rates and source(s)
• Pig Environment – Manage for optimal health and maximum performance
– Temperature
– Humidity
– Ventilation
THANK YOU!