National Swine Improvement Federation, 2009

Manipulating Input Cost through the Improvement of Feed Efficiency

A Nutrition Perspective on Improvement

R. Dean Boyd1 and Roger G. Campbell2

Technical Director - The Hanor Company, Franklin KY1

CEO Australian CRC, Adelaide AU2

Improving Feed Conversion Efficiency

AimEstablish value of Feed Conversion Efficiency (FCE) and the

Nutritional means to improve FCE.

Includes aspects of Metabolic Regulation of Nutrient Use

IntroductionFCE has always been an important Criterion, but Feed Input cost

has evolved substantially upward. The volatile nature of Food Ingredients require that FCE be of highest priority.

In Practice, FCE must also be expressed more precisely than Gross Input over Product Output

Feed Conversion Efficiency

DefinitionClassical definition is Feed Intake : Gain ratio in North America. In

Europe and some Journals, FCE is inversely expressed.

Measure is related to Whole-body or Carcass gain in Pigs. In Poultry, some relate Feed Input to Breast Meat Output instead. It is not meaningful unless Diet Energy is constant and other Nutrients are adequate.

Precise Nutritional Terminology for FCE

Most useful FCE expression in Nutrition Practice is Mcal Energy : Gain because the Caloric value of the Diet that delivers best Financial response will vary. This is especially true now, since Feed Fats compete with Bio-Diesel manufacture.

Common to express FCE on Whole-body basis for Production Staff but Nutritionist needs more pertinent expression based on method of Payment:

Ex. Mcal ME : Kg Carcass GainMJoule DE : Kg Carcass

Energy Format is immaterial (e.g. Mcal, MJoule, DE, ME, NE).

Feed Cost has Evolved to a New Level for the Foresee-able Future (FCOG = (Cost/Lb Diet x FCE) )

ACTUAL & PREDICTED HOG PRODUCTION COSTS*

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

$/cwt carcass

Actual Costs per ISU

Predicted/Forecast Costs - Carcass

*Based on relationsip between ISU Estimated Costs & Returns data and historic Omaha corn and Decatur soybean meal prices

9/28/09

Average Cost, 1999-2006: $52.76/cwt

Average Cost, 9/09 - 12/10:$64.44/cwt

Courtesy - R. Plain, Ph D. U. Mo.

Financial Sensitivity Analysis - FCE

USD $ / Live CWTBase,

1999-2006 2007 2008 2009Feed Cost $ 17.77 $ 26.85 $ 35.92 $ 35.92

All Other Cost $ 20.33 $ 22.25 $ 22.48 $ 22.48

Total Cost $ 38.10 $ 49.10 $ 58.40 $ 58.40

Feed Cost, % 47.0 55.0 62.0 62.0

Total Feed Cost, $/p $ 40.87 $ 61.75 $ 82.61 $ 82.61

FCE Value, $/0.01 Δ $ 0.151 $ 0.229 $ 0.306 $ 0.306

Q How much is a 0.01 FCE change worth on a per Pig basis ?

Hanor Feed Records per M. McCulley 11.2009

Nutritional Manipulation of Input Cost FCE Calibration within Genetic Limits

Concept: FCE is primarily determined by Composition of Gain; the limit being set by Genetics. Nutritionists can modify FCE by 3 methods . . . however this calibration aims to capture only that portion of Genetic Potential that is needed to deliver a Financial Optimum.

Nutrition Calibration:

FAT displacement of CHO Energy (Energetically more efficient)

Lysine level and Ideal balance of other amino acids to Lysine

Facilitated Digestion (Grain particle size reduction)

Other Nutrients are important (e.g. VTM, Phos.) but insufficiency can harm the animal if too extreme.

Added Fat to C-S Diet, %

1.0 2.5 4.0 5.5

Mcal ME/lb diet 1.468 1.500 1.531 1.561

ADG, lb/d 2.110 2.119 2.145 2.165

ADFI, lb/d 5.482 5.402 5.343 5.241

FCE, F:G 2.604 2.558 2.494 2.427

Carcass, lbs 215.4 217.9 217.4 219.0

FOM Lean % 53.1 53.1 53.3 53.3

Illustration 1: Nutritional Manipulation of FCE – ClassicFat Energy Displacement of CHO Energy

Boyd et al., 2007 (N = 5000 Pigs, 34-95 kg)

2.52.83.03.33.53.84.04.34.5

0.35 0.48 0.61 0.85 1.05 1.25

Total Dietary Lysine in C-S Diet, %

FCE

as F

eed

: Gai

n ra

tio

00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.4

Who

le-b

ody

Prot

ein

: Lip

id

Dep

ositi

on

Illustration 2: Nutritional Manipulation of FCE. A Classic –Amino Constrained Protein Deposition

Krick et al., 1992, 55-100 kg

Protein:Lipid

FCE

Criterion Meal Pellet SEM Contrast, P<

No. Pens 89 89 - - - -Total No. Pigs 1065 1086 - - - -InitiaWeight, lbs 61.4 62.6 1.21 0.996ADG, lbs/d 2.04 2.10 0.01 0.001ADFI, lbs/d 4.75 4.45 0.03 0.001FCR 2.72 2.50 0.01 0.001Mortality + Removal, % 2.70 3.20 1.05 0.161End Weight, lbs 270 278 0.78 0.001

Illustration 3: Nutritional Manipulation of FCE – CornParticle Size Reduction

PIC Tech. Memo. 000, 2006

Meal, 720 u vs Pellet, 450 u

FCE Targets must be Dynamic to Optimize Profit

Normal: The Norm has been to use FAT in Diets because FCE is improved enough to reduce Feed Cost of Gain. FAT tended to provide Energy at a Cost that was less than or equal to Corn.

4.5004.7004.9005.1005.3005.5005.7005.9006.1006.3006.500

38 65 105 155 205 240 265

Body Weight, Lbs

Cen

ts /

Mca

l ME

HI FAT C-SBM

Fat:Corn Price, 2.65 : 1

Continued – and the Outcome tended to be . . . That theBest Nutritional FCE Delivered Lowest Input Cost

$45.00

$46.00

$47.00

$48.00

$49.00

$50.00

$51.00

$52.00

$53.00

$54.00

$55.00

Feed Energy Level

Feed

Co

st,

$/P

ig (

38-2

80 l

bs)

HI-FAT C-SBM

2.000

2.150

2.300

2.450

2.600

2.750

2.900

3.050

3.200

3.350

3.500

Feed Energy Level

Feed

: G

ain

rati

o

Hi-FAT C-SBM

New Normal: After 2006, the Price relationship between Corn (CHOenergy) and Fat energy has become Turbulent. This New norm requires FCE Targets on Mcal basis for Nutritional reasons.

4.5004.7004.9005.1005.3005.5005.7005.9006.1006.3006.500

38 65 105 155 205 240 265

Body Weight, Lbs

Die

t Cos

t in

Cen

ts/ M

cal M

E

HI FAT C-SBM

FCE Targets must be Dynamic to Optimize Profit(Things are getting Confusing for Non-Nutritionists)

Fat:Corn Price, 4.65 : 1

Continued – In this Relationship Best Nutrition FCE Delivered Highest Feed Input Cost

$48.00

$49.00

$50.00

$51.00

$52.00

$53.00$54.00

$55.00

$56.00

$57.00

$58.00

Feed Energy Level

Feed

Co

st,

$ /

Pig

(38-2

80 L

bs)

HI-FAT C-SBM

2.000

2.150

2.300

2.450

2.600

2.750

2.900

3.050

3.200

3.350

3.500

Feed Energy Level

Fee

d :

Gai

n r

atio

Hi-FAT C-SBM

FCE Targets must be Dynamic to Optimize Profit

Amino Acid. Input Cost of SBM is sometimes too high to justify capture of Genetic Potential. Expressible FCE may be adjusted backwards by Amino Acid input to Optimize Financial Outcome.

FCE Response to Lysine: 60 to 270 Lbs

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

2.5

2.55

2.6

82 88 94 100 106 112

% Lysine Input to Standard Lysine Curve

Feed

: Ga

in R

atio

Practical REQ Norm

Hanor Tech. Memo. 0700

Criterion TID 88 TID 100Start Wt 69.9 68.9Slaughter Wt 275.0 275.0Market Price $/CCWT 0.56 0.56Days On Feed 96.3 95.0ADG, lbs/d 2.13 2.17FCE, F:G ratio 2.40 2.36Ave Feed Cost $ / Ton $ 225.00 $ 230.40 Feed Cost Gain, $/lb $ 0.2700 $ 0.2719 Carcass Yield, % 76.5 75.8Carcass Weight, lb 210.4 208.5Carcass Lean % 52.8 53.1Lean Premium / CCWT $ 1.80 $ 2.00 Carcass lbs/Sq. Ft. 27.86 27.60Difference per Pig Placed $ (0.99)

Hanor Tech. Memo 0401, N=2400 pigs

Illustration. Optimum Profit Lysine InputFinancial Evaluation under 2008 Conditions

FCE Manipulation thru Extraordinary Means

Metabolic Regulation of Nutrient Use.

3 Technologies have been Commercialized in Australia to permit Nutritionists to Regulate for increased rates of Protein deposition. They move us closer to FCE Biological Potential with differences between Genetic Lines maintained (Krick et al. 1992).

Ractopamine (PAYLEAN)

Somatotropin

Immunocastration (Intact Male-ness is extended) (Welfare method)

Their value is greatest when Feed Cost is High. Illustrate how far away we are from the Expressed Genetic Ceiling.

Manipulating FCE thru Extraordinary Means and Probing the Biological Maximum (N=2400 Pigs, 28 d)

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

Hi-Spec Hi-S + RAC Hi-S RAC Daily pST Hi-S RAC Twice/WkpST

Treatment

Feed

Con

vers

ion

Effic

ienc

y

0.500

0.550

0.600

0.650

0.700

0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

0.950

1.000

Ave

rage

dai

ly g

ain

(kg/

d)

F:G Ratio ADG (kg/d)

Pork CRC Project Report – Program 2A, 2008 (website)

Advancing Genetic FCE: Easy Work may be about Complete – Where Now ?

Advancing Genetic FCE in the Near Future –Possible Biological Strategies

Q How Exploit mechanisms behind Low RFI Phenotype (3, 4, 5) ?

List Probable Strategies:

Growth Dilution of Maintenance

Regulate Nutrient Use by existing methods (APSA 2009)

Mitochondrial Operation Efficiency improvement

Fractional Protein Degradation reduce (150 g/d Pd = 600 Ps – 450 Pd)

Facilitate Digestion improvement thru Intestinal Length ?

Disease Resistance (Population FCE Modifiers: DL, Inflammation)

Immune Stress Robs Genetic Capacity for FCESBM attenuates Intermittent FCE Disruption

Item High SBM Low SBM SEM Contrast, P=

No. Pens 24 24

Initial Wt, lbs 216.9 216.5 1.58 0.873

End Wt, lbs 262.4 258.4 1.32 0.037

Carcass Wt, lbs 196.2 192.4 1.37 0.051

Carcass Yield, % 74.70 74.64 0.47 0.918

ADG, lbs/d 2.18 1.99 0.06 0.037

Feed Intake, lbs/d 5.88 5.78 0.09 0.432

FCR, F/G 2.74 2.97 0.08 0.048

Boyd et al., 2010 (JAS abstract accepted)

Impaired FCE – Poultry Mitochondrial Function Research

Concept: Bottje and Carstons, 2009

Association between FCE and Mitochondrial function was firstillustrated by Bottje, 2002. Less FCE broilers exhibited apparent abnormalities in Mitochondrial function:

Poorer Coupling of Electron Transport System (ATP Generation)

Defects in Electron Transport

Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Increase

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Composition Cost $

Basis for Component Analysis

Per

cent

age

Non-Organic Protein CHO

Finale. FCE is based on CHO and Amino Acids.Method Focus on CHO to this Point – Correct ?

EFF = 0.800

EFF = 0.556