Feed Price Update and
Daily Feed Efficiency Drivers
Joel DeRouchey, Mike Tokach, Bob Goodband
and Steve Dritz
Kansas State University
www.KSUswine.org
Presentation Outline
•
•
•
•
Feed efficiency drivers to reduce feed cost
Feed processing advancements
Ingredient and diet pricing
Additional resources
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
FeedEfficiency
Efficiency
Feed
HighHigh
feed feed
disappearance
disappearance
Low
LowADG
ADG
Other
factors
Other
factors
Genetics
Disease
Particle size
Feed wastage
Genetics
Diet form
Temperature
Feed availability
Mortality
Water availability
Feed delivery
Diet deficiency
Amino acid
deficiency
Temperature
Low Energy diets
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
Meta-analysis results (15 experiments)
Items
Dry
Wet-dry
SEM
P - value
Initial wt, lb
Final wt, lb
74.3
228.6
74.3
235.9
5.9
13.8
0.27
<0.01
ADG, lb
ADFI, lb
F/G
1.92
5.09
2.59
2.01
5.36
2.59
0.046
0.223
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
0.93
Yield, %
HCW, lb
BF, mm
Loin, mm
Lean, %
75.8
201.7
16.7
62.2
51.4
75.6
208.1
18.1
61.6
50.8
0.26
2.1
0.23
0.68
0.85
0.57
<0.01
<0.01
0.14
<0.01
6.4
5.0
0.34
0.02
Water disappearance,
L/pig/d
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
Wet-dry feeder economic analysis
(IOFC, Income over feed cost)
Feed cost = 306 $/ton, Carcass price = 0.88 $/lb, 1.5$/ %lean reduction
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
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
Effective Temperature
Effective temperature, oF
–
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
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.
Upper Critical Limit
Lower Critical Limit
Heat Stress
Cold Stress
Body weight, lb
Effective Temperature
Effect of environmental temperature on the performance of growing
pigs (50 to 125 pounds)1
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
Item
1Summary
of 3 experiments; Stahly and Cromwell, 1979, 1981.
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
Update on Feed
Processing Research
to Reduce Costs
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig
performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
2.4
2.3
ADG, lb
2.2
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.15
Grind x form P < 0.001
Grind P = 0.89; Form P < 0.001
SEM = 0.018
Meal
Pellet
2.17
2.11
2.1
2.06
2.02
1.99
2.0
1.9
1.8
600 micron corn
300 micron corn
300 micron diet
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig
performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
3.0
2.9
2.82
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.001
Grind x form P = 0.37
Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001
SEM = 0.03
Meal
Pellet
F/G
2.8
2.74
2.71
2.7
2.60
2.6
2.60
2.5
600 micron corn
300 micron corn
300 micron diet
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig
performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
Income over feed cost, $/pig
$70
$65
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.01
Grind x form P = 0.15
Grind P = 0.03; Form P < 0.001
SEM = 1.143
$60
$55
Meal
$62.20
Pellet
$61.35
$57.94
$53.96
$53.27
$50
600 micron corn
300 micron corn
300 micron diet
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
Effects of particle size on feed efficiency
1.0% per 100 microns
3.0
3.4
2.9
3.3
2.8
3.2
2.7
Cabrera, 1994b
DeJong, 2012
2.6
Wondra, 1995
Particle size, microns
Particle size, microns
300
400
400
600
500
800
2.5
600
3.0
Paulk, 2011
700
3.1
Cabrera, 1994a
800
F/G
3.5
1.2% per 100 microns
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
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.
Pelleting on growth performance of grow-finish pigs 2005 to 2011
Meal
Reference
Groesbeck et al. (2005)
Groesbeck et al. (2005)
Groesbeck et al.(2006)
Potter et al. (2009)
Potter et al. (2009)
Myers et al. (2010)
Potter et al. (2010)
Frobose et al. (2011)
Frobose et al. (2011)
Myers et al. (2011)
Paulk et al. (2011)
Paulk et al. (2011)
Average
Pellet
ADG
0.83
0.62
0.80
1.95
1.92
1.81
1.92
1.46
1.29
1.96
2.50
2.31
F/G
1.25
1.43
1.25
2.12
2.83
2.76
2.86
1.72
1.51
2.73
2.75
2.50
ADG
0.90
0.65
0.78
2.05
2.04
1.94
2.03
1.43
1.38
1.97
2.63
2.44
F/G
1.22
1.37
1.17
2.07
2.68
2.82
2.70
1.63
1.40
2.67
2.55
2.40
1.61
2.14
1.69
2.06
Average response = 5.0% for ADG and 4.0% for F/G
18
Effects of pellet quality on F/G
in 30 to 70 lb pigs
F/G
1.70
1.60
P < 0.05
1.59
a
a
1.57
1.51
b
1.50
1.40
Meal
Pellets
Pellets with
30% fines
Nemecheck et al. 2012
Pellet quality
Pellets with fines
Good quality pellets
Nemecheck et al. 2012
20
Effect of medium-oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
2.1
Linear P > 0.01
SEM = 0.02
ADG, lb
2.0
7.4% fat,
28.1% CP,
10.8% ADF,
25.6% NDF
1.93
1.9
1.87
1.85
1.80
1.8
1.7
0%
15%
30%
Medium-oil DDGS
Graham et al., 2012
45%
Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
3.4
Linear P > 0.02
SEM = 0.04
3.3
F/G
3.2
3.26
3.19
3.20
15%
30%
3.13
3.1
3.0
2.9
0%
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012
45%
Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
75
74
Linear P > 0.02
SEM = 0.04
74.0
Yield, %
73.2
73
72.4
71.8
72
71
70
0%
15%
30%
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012
45%
Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
Jowl fat iodine value, mg/g
80
Linear P > 0.02
SEM = 0.04
77
73.7
74
71
76.3
70.2
71.1
68
65
0%
15%
30%
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012
45%
Corn DDGS quality control
• Variability in DDGS quality
– Main issue is fat level
• Low = < 5% fat
• Medium = 6 to 9% fat
• High = > 9% fat
Fat, %
4.0
7.5
11.0
NE, %
80.0%
87.5%
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%
Predicted Digestible and Net Energy of DDGS
4000
Energy, Kcal/kg
3500
y = 62.347x + 3058.1
R2 = .41
Net Energy
3000
Digestible Energy
2500
y = 115.01x + 1501
R2 = .86
2000
1500
5
6
7
8
9
Oil, %
10
11
12
13
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
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
Ingredient
Corn
SBM, 46.5%
Meat & bone meal
DDGS, 7.5% fat
Wheat middlings
Lysine HCl
DL-Methionine
L-Threonine
Monocal P, 21% P
Limestone
VTM & Salt
SID Lys:ME, g/Mcal
SID Lys
SID Met & cys:lys
SID Thr:lys
SID Trp:lys
ME, kcal/lb
CP, %
Available P, %
Higher
Corn/soy
AA
1537
1573
417
377
Meat &
bone
1569
314
100
DDGS
1121
235
Wheat DDGS &
midds
midds
1303
830
247
124
600
3
12
2
23.5
12
400
6.7
0.3
1.5
10
20
12
2.5
0.84
58
63
17.0
1,513
16.8
0.28
2.52
0.83
72
66
17.0
1,481
18.7
0.23
2.52
0.83
58
62
17.0
1,482
14.8
0.23
3.9
16
15
12
5.4
0.25
1.2
16
15.5
12
2.52
0.84
60
62
19.1
1,515
16.4
0.23
2.52
0.84
58
62
17.0
1,516
15.3
0.23
6.4
0.6
600
400
7.9
26
12
2.52
0.81
73
63
17.0
1,446
18.1
0.27
Ingredient
Corn
SBM, 46.5%
Meat & bone meal
DDGS, 7.5% fat
Wheat middlings
Lysine HCl
DL-Methionine
L-Threonine
Monocal P, 21% P
Limestone
VTM & Salt
Diet w/ processing
Higher
Corn/soy
AA
1537
1573
417
377
Meat &
bone
1569
314
100
DDGS
1121
235
Wheat DDGS &
midds
midds
1303
830
247
124
600
3
16
15
12
5.4
0.25
1.2
16
15.5
12
3.9
6.4
0.6
12
2
23.5
12
400
6.7
0.3
1.5
10
20
12
600
400
7.9
26
12
$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
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.73
2.73
2.80
F/G
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0,
9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb)
Carcass weight, lb
197
195.8
195
194.3
195.5
193.7
Duration P > 0.38
SEM 2.54
193.5
193
191.4
191
189
d 0 to 43:
d 43 to 67:
d 67 to 90:
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Med
Med
High
High
Low
High
High
Med
Asmus et al., 2011
High
High
High
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
33
www.KSUswine.org
34
www.swinefeedefficiency.com
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
www.swinefeedefficiency.com
35
Thank you!
WWW.KSUswine.org
36