Swine Grist
VOL 3 ISSUE 1 | SPRING 2016
A P E R I O D I C N E W S L E T T E R P R O D U C E D B Y G R A N D V A L L E Y F O R T I F I E R S LT D .
Jim Ross, Chairman Dear Friends, This spring of 2016 is upon us and so far the weather is co-operating with the seeding making good progress. As Farmers we are always looking ahead with the great hope of a bountiful harvest, sufficient not only to feed our own families but to provide the needed food for a hungry world. This is our calling and this is our purpose. May God help us to be faithful. Wishing you good farming this spring. Sincerely on behalf of all our Fortified Nutrition staff, Jim Ross Founder & Chairman
BALANCING FEEDING COST AND PERFORMANCE IN THE NURSERY
by: DR. MARTIN CLUNIES, PhD. Senior Swine Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers
L
arge nursery pig operations are a challenge to manage in modern commercial hog production systems. Nursery operators/ managers are continually asked to manage more pigs with less labour, operate within the limits of a fixed feed budget, all with the expectation of continual, annual improvements in operational performance. Excluding the cost of the weaned pig, feed represents 60 – 75% of the cost of producing a nursery/feeder pig ready for transfer to the finishing barn, and so has a huge impact on the economics of nursery pig production. For this reason, it is the primary tool used to address the economics of raising a nursery pig. In designing and formulating feeds for nursery pigs, the goals of individual farms must be carefully assessed. From a farm perspective the objectives of a nursery feed program may include the following: 1. Hit target exit weights within the feed budget per pig. 2. Get all pigs to start eating feed as soon as possible after weaning. 3. Ensure that the target measurements (e.g. end weight) are attained. 4. Deal with the variation in weight and age that is evident at weaning. 5. Have a smooth transition between feeds. 6. Minimize nursery mortality & cull rate. 7. Be easy to manage, requiring the least amount of labour intervention, reducing the need to medicate and sort pigs by size and thriftiness. 8. Ensure all pigs become full value pigs.
Alberta 1-866-610-5770 Saskatchewan 1-877-242-8882 Manitoba 1-866-626-3933
All this has to be balanced with the many challenges that a nursery faces. For the purpose of this article we will deal with the objectives of containing nursery feed costs and getting pigs off to a good start. We will deal only with the direct economics of the nursery and early finishing; discussing only those metrics which science has shown to have a direct impact on. The term “feed cost per pig” has become a popular measure of efficiency in producing a nursery pig, (replacing feed cost per kg gain) because at many modern day nurseries, operational bonuses are paid to operators for attaining weight gain, feed efficiency and mortality and cull rates. Feed cost per pig has evolved as a mechanism of controlling cost, and is usually controlled by the owner. The use of this metric has also evolved based on the belief that the most expensive gain occurs in the nursery period of the pig’s life. While this may be the case where performance is the desired goal at any cost, this may not be in all situations, especially where feed cost containment is the mantra. As piglets transition between the nursery and finishing barns, they are faced with multiple stressors, including 1) a change in nutrient density of the diet and 2) the adaptation to the finishing barn where they have been re-mixed/sized. As a result, the feed conversion in the first stage grower typically is much higher than the last stage nursery. Based on feed measures in numerous feed trials, feed conversion typically increases from 1.75 in the late stage nursery to 2.2 in the first stage grower. Therefore, unless the cost/tonne of the first grower feed is less than 80% of the last phase nursery feed, you would expect the first kg gain in the finishing barn to be more costly than the last kg gain in the nursery. From a strict efficiency point of view, feed cost per kg of gain is the most accurate measure for assessing nursery pig performance. Nonetheless, feed cost per pig is an excellent tool to control nursery
Ian Ross, President & CEO | Jim Ross, Chairman Clarke Walker, VP & COO Dr. Martin Clunies, Monogastric Nutritionist David Ross/Patti Bobier, Publishers
feed costs. Inherent in the feed cost per pig principle is the acceptance of a fixed standard of performance. This then provides a quick means to comparing different nursery strategies where the end weights are comparative, with any additional weight gain then perceived as a bonus. In attempting to contain feed costs per pig and meet the pig’s requirements, the use of feed budgets with assigned amounts of each feed offered per pig is a must. The amounts of each feed ordered and fed should be based on the number of pigs weaned and the amount of each feed budgeted per pig and not based on the number of days feeding, as this may vary from batch to batch. Having a selection of feeds with different formulation strategies allows nursery operators working with the Nutritionist and Swine Specialists to choose a budget which meets the cost objectives of the farm while meeting the needs of the pigs. To ensure that target weights and feed conversion metrics are attained, the Nutritionist or Swine Specialist should have a sound knowledge of repeatable results for a given combination of feeds used for nursery pigs. Feeds formulated for higher digestibility address the age effect and enzyme deficiency of very young weaned pigs while feeds formulated for nutrient content meet the higher requirements of the smaller weaned pigs, without exceeding the cost objectives of the operation. In the next article we will discuss how to ensure that target measures are attained, how to deal with pig variation at weaning and ensuring a smooth transition between feeds. BioSure™ Nursery Feeds and BioForce® Nursery Premixes provide a wide selection of feeds with many design purposes, from providing the lowest feed cost per pig, lowest cost per kg gain, to optimizing piglet performance and health. Contact a member of our Monogastric Nutrition Team or FNL Sales Representative to discuss your nutritional needs. Call 1-877-625-4400 or e-mail us at swinenutrition@grandvalley.com. n
THE 4TH ANNIVERSARY OF PRIMARY DIETS & GVF
by: IAN ROSS President & CEO, Grand Valley Fortifiers
M
arch 1st, 2016 marks the fourth anniversary of the nutrition consulting relationship of Primary Diets with Grand Valley Fortifiers and Fortified Nutrition (Western Canada). Initially this relationship was formed with the exclusive focus on the formulation and production of pelleted nursery feeds for weaned piglets to approximately 14 kg body weight. However, after GVF and Primary Diets’ Nutritionists worked shoulder to shoulder to formulate, produce and market some of the best nursery feeds in North America, we decided to extend the consulting relationship for the entire nursery feeding program including basemixes and nursery premixes. Since that time it has been impressive to witness the extremely smooth transition of pigs from diet to diet through the pigs’ nursery life. No matter whether the producer’s nursery feeding regime includes three diets or six diets (including creep feed), trials and experience show that feeding nursery feeds “enhanced with Primary Diets” result in more uniform pig groups, robust growth rates and feed efficient pigs that don’t experience post weaning lag, or phase transition plateau. With the expanding demand for “raised without antibiotic”, “no animal
by-product”, “vegetable grain fed” pork, and recognizing that many of Grand Valley Fortifiers’ customers are already growing hogs for these value added markets, it is very beneficial to be working with a company from Europe that holds market share in numerous countries around the world. Marketing nursery feeds for many years in the UK (where porcine plasma was rejected twenty years ago), Germany (where the use of fish meal in nursery diets is curtailed), and the EU (where antibiotic use has been much more restrictive than North America), has provided Primary Diets’ Nutritionists with a breadth of experience feeding pigs with a varied, allowable portfolio of ingredients. In fact, Primary Diets is now feeding pigs in the UK to fill demand in North American “raised without” pork markets for famous brands such as Applegate™ and Chipotle™. Utilizing their experience, nutrition technology and feeding programs, Grand Valley Fortifiers customers’ are doing the same in Canada and United States. Whether producers’ wish to address a “raised without” value added market, or seek high growth rates and strong feed efficiency, or achieve a low cost, dollar budget per pig, the people at Primary Diets provide them all. It has been a true pleasure to partner with Primary Diets over the last four years in Canada and parts of the United States. By continuing to partner with Primary Diets, we look forward to many more years of innovative thinking, on-going R&D, leading edge ingredient incorporation and a portfolio of nursery feeds, basemixes and premixes that achieve the varied goals of North American nursery operators. n
EVALUATING THE ECONOMICS OF ROASTING SOYBEANS FOR SWINE FEEDS
by: BRUCE SCHUMANN B.Sc. (Agric.), M.Sc., Monogastric Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers
S
oybeans provide the greatest source of high quality protein for commercial swine and poultry production in North America. Soybean protein may be fed as 1) soybean meal following the extraction of the oil, 2) roasted or express or extruded soybeans and 3) uncooked soybeans in ruminant rations. The uniqueness of soybeans is that they provide an excellent source of oil for use in both commercial food and feed production and a high quality protein meal for use as a feed ingredient. As a cultivation crop, soybeans are relatively easy to grow and provide good yields and income for farmers. Typically, soy oil for the food industry is extracted from soybeans. Following this, the resulting meal is flaked and cooked to inactivate the anti-nutritional factors such as the trypsin inhibitors. These anti-nutritional factors interfere with the digestion of proteins and fats in the diet. Not only do the antinutritional factors prevent the digestion of the soy protein, but they also interfere with the digestion of all the other protein in the ration. Whole soybeans provide a rich source of energy and high quality protein for use in nutrient dense diets. With continual improvements in genetics, commercial swine and poultry respond well to high energy, protein rich diets with improved growth rates, carcass quality and feed conversion efficiencies. However, prior to feeding whole soybeans to monogastric animals, soybeans should be heated to inactivate the anti-nutritional factors present. There are many methods of heat processing soybeans, these include: extrusion, micronization and roasting. Of these, roasting appears to be the most economical for on-farm scale operations.
When trying to determine the economic value of roasted soybeans you first have to establish a value for the nutrient components. The value of the protein portion can be established from the current price of soybean meal, while the value of the oil is determined by the price of the extracted oil or other fat sources – corrected for differences in digestibility or energy value. Below are two formulae for calculating the value of whole roasted soybeans based on the price of soybean meal and soya oil or animal fat (tallow). Roasted Soybean Value Calculation: Soybean meal Price $/T x 36.7% CP 48.5% CP 1
+
Oil or Fat Price $/T x 18% Fat 99.8% Fat 1
Roasted Soybeans example calculations: Soybean meal @ $438/T and Soy oil @ $1415.00/T: $438.00/T 48.5 % CP
x
36.7% CP 1
+
$1415.00/T 99.8% Fat
x 18% Fat 1
= $331.44 + $255.21 = $586.65 Soybean meal @ $438/T and Animal Tallow @ $900.00/T corrected for differences in digestibility: $438.00/T 48.5 % CP
x
36.7% CP 1
+
$900.00/T x 18% Tallow 99.8% Fat 0.85 digestibility
= $331.44 + $162.32 = $493.76 Heating soybeans to a temperature of 240oF – 295oF for 2–4 minutes destroys the most potent anti-nutritional factor, known as Kuntz trypsin inhibitor. Since many of the other anti-nutritional factors are also proteins (like the trypsin inhibitor) they too are destroyed during the heating process. Evaluating the efficacy of the cooking process is an important step in controlling the quality of the resulting product. This evaluation can be done by determining the activity of the Urease enzyme, which is also inactivated in the cooking process. This Urease enzyme activity can be measured by the change in pH of a media over a set period of time. The optimal urease index range is between 0.20 – 0.05 pH units for roasted soybeans that are most suitable for feeding pigs and poultry. A urease index of > 0.20 pH units would indicate that the beans have not been cooked enough, with the result that pigs and poultry would be unable to digest the meal very well. Urease index of < 0.05 pH units does not necessarily indicate that the beans are over-cooked, as the urease index is a better predictor for beans that are undercooked. Measuring protein solubility through a potassium hydroxide (KOH) method is a much better predictor for over processing but not under processing. The optimal range for protein solubility is between 70% – 85%. Protein solubility less than 70% indicates over-processing. Protein solubility that falls between 50% – 70% will lower protein digestibility where growth (both through average daily gain and feed conversion) can be significantly compromised. It is therefore important to do both a urease and protein solubility test when evaluating and monitoring the quality of roasted, express or expeller soybean meal. The challenge in roasting soybeans is producing a consistent product with minimum cooking time at a minimum cost. Variables include the cost of the raw beans, cost of the fuel or electricity to roast the beans, cost of the roasting machine and the number of tonnes of soybeans processed annually. There are other factors to consider such as the quality of the beans prior to processing and % shrink. Usually there is an
Swine Grist
8 % shrink associated with roasting beans. Typically raw beans are 15% moisture and the roasting process reduces the moisture down to 8% with another 2% loss associated with cleaning losses. Cost of machines is also an important factor in determining the economics of roasting soybeans. One such roaster, the Gingrich Ketron Micro-Flow 200, shows that the cost of roasting a tonne of soybeans can be reduced to $59.00/ tonne on farm. This price includes costs allocated for power, shrink, interest & depreciation, repair & maintenance (@5% of capital costs) and an ongoing quality control program to ensure proper roasting of the beans. The Gingrich Ketron Micro-Flow 200 has a processing capacity of 200 lbs/h and uses electricity for roasting the beans. This Ketron Micro-Flow 200 uses ten 1000 watt compact unit cleans and infrared heating elements to process up to steeps the beans for 15 – 200 lbs. of whole soybeans per hour. Farm 20 minutes before roasting. Show Magazine 2001 Vol. 25 Iss. 5 The Ketron Micro-Flow 800 has an 800 lbs processing/h capacity and costs can be reduced to $42.00/tonne of beans. In all cases the processing time has been estimated as 10 hours per day. For more information on roasted beans, expeller soybean meal and express soybean meal, contact your GVF Swine Specialist or Nutritionist today. n
AMR, RWA, 2 MILLION HOGS – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
by: IAN ROSS, President & CEO, Grand Valley Fortifiers
O
ver the last decade there has been growing global concern about the possible negative impact on human populations as the WHO, the Centre for Disease Control, various governments and even local hospitals have monitored and responded to new viruses, new virus strains and a growing number of antibiotic resistant pathogenic bacteria that have surfaced either in the lab or been identified as the causative agent for the loss of human life. The livestock industry initially responded defensively, arguing that meat produced in advanced agricultural countries did not contain “drug residues” since withdrawal times are judicially followed and therefore human populations are not exposed to antibiotics through the meat, milk and eggs they consume. The industry also argued that antimicrobial resistance in human populations was more likely to be caused by the over use and over dosing of antibiotics by doctors and use by humans as opposed to livestock. Although both of these arguments are relatively valid, the livestock industry must recognize that since 80% of the total use of antibiotics in weight is used in food production animals, the livestock industry is rightly being asked to contribute in the global reduction of their use. In response to this reality the North American industry and both the US and Canadian governments have been working diligently to pursue changes in the type, manner and reasons that antibiotics are used in livestock production on this continent. Specifically, the Public
w w w.grandvalley.com
Health Agency in Canada released its own document in October 2014 “Antimicrobial Resistance and Use in Canada: A Federal Framework for Action” which outlined the following actions: 1) Establish and strengthen surveillance systems to identify new threats or changing patterns in antimicrobial resistance and use, in human and animal settings. 2) Strengthen the promotion of the appropriate use of antimicrobials in human and veterinary medicine. 3) Work with the animal agriculture sector partners to strengthen the regulatory framework on veterinary medicines and medicated feeds, including facilitating access to alternatives and encourage the adoption of practices in order to reduce the use of antimicrobials. 4) Promote innovation through funding collaborative research and development efforts on antimicrobial resistance both domestically and internationally. Due to the seriousness of the AMR challenge, both Canada and the US are swiftly enacting regulatory changes with the goal of reducing the overall use of antibiotics in livestock while eliminating the use of certain categories of antibiotics.
Graphical representation of the routes of transmission of AMR between farm animals, the wider environment and humans. (Credit: P. Huey/Science)
By the end of 2016, all use of antibiotics at the inclusion rate of and for the purpose of growth promotion will be eliminated. By January 2017 in the US and January 2018 in Canada, all in-feed and in-water antibiotics will require a veterinarian prescription regardless of feeding phase. This will result in more documentation (“paper work”) and record keeping by feed companies, veterinarians and producers alike. Since these groups generally dislike regulatory paperwork, we believe that there will be a pragmatic shift toward the reduced or eliminated use of antibiotics on a greater number of hog farms in Ontario. I believe the timing is right for all these regulatory changes to occur as a growing segment of North American consumers are demanding proteins that are raised without antibiotics. Already a decade has passed since the launch of the President’s Choice® Free From™ pork program which holds the RWA & VGF claims. Over the last ten years Grand Valley Fortifiers has worked with approximately fifty farms of various sizes, genetic bases, barn layouts and management styles to feed and raise over 2 million hogs for this strongly governed, value added market. Working with Rowe Farms for approximately seven years across the major proteins and now recruiting producers to raise animals for Applegate (organic and RWA), as well as our experience with Loblaws, we have learned a great deal about successfully raising animals without the use of antibiotics from birth to market.
On February 18th, the Food Institute hosted Gut Health Day at the University of Guelph with the focus of the day being, “Does the gut microbiome hold the key to improving our health and productivity?” Dr. Andrew Van Kessel Ph.D., Animal & Poultry Science from University of Saskatchewan, College of Agriculture & Bioresources addressed the issues and opportunities surrounding RWA meat production. Dr. Van Kessel stated that in RWA production systems producers should target 70% of their hogs getting to market as RWA animals. In other words, 30% of the animals are targeted to fall to mortality or culling or be treated with antibiotics and not meet the RWA specifications. We at Grand Valley Fortifiers were surprised by this statement since the 70% target has neither been the target nor the experience of our RWA hog producers. Instead our RWA producers have targeted and experienced numbers much closer to conventinal production (shipping 90% of what is weaned). Dr. Van Kessel also listed the “alternative” feed ingredients (to antibiotics) that should be strongly considered by feed companies and producers growing for an RWA market. These included: probiotics, prebiotics, medium chain fatty acids, organic acids, plant extracts, bacteriophages and a strong vaccination protocols. Reviewing this list, it is gratifying to recognize that when GVF launched Natures Blend®, our RWA feeding program, we did not simply pull all the medications and hope for the best. Our Nutritionists incorporated many of these alternative nutritional technologies into the feeding & management protocols, recognizing that to date no one has found the singular, “magic bullet” replacement for antibiotics in livestock production. We believe that the pragmatic outcomes of the regulatory changes that are quickly coming coupled with demands by food service companies such as Chipotle®, Subway®, A&W®, McDonalds®, Tim Hortons® and grocery companies such as Loblaws®, and Whole Foods® will drive the pork industry toward more and more RWA production while actually creating more opportunities for value added production for both domestic and international consumption. We know that many farmers dislike the way some of these companies communicate and market their decisions to purchase “antibiotic free” meat and the misconceptions that these statements can instill in consumers’ minds. However, many of these food companies are realizing that in order to source the volume of meat they require for their stores & restaurants they need to offer longer term, premium formula or cost of production contracts to farmers that are willing and able to raise their animals in accordance with the food companies’ label claims. We believe that this creates opportunities for producers to stabilize and enhance their income, which encourages the next generation to carry on in pork production. n
Thought for the Day “To me it seems that when God Conceived the world, that was poetry; He formed it, and that was sculpture; He varied and colored it, and that was painting; and then, crowning all, He peopled it with living beings, and that was grand, divine, eternal drama.” - Charolette Cushman