Chad Hagen, PhD
Source: Agristats 2011
Aug/11
Jul/11
Jun/11
May/11
Apr/11
Mar/11
Feb/11
Jan/11
Dec/10
Nov/10
Oct/10
Sep/10
Aug/10
Jul/10
Jun/10
May/10
Apr/10
Mar/10
Feb/10
Jan/10
Dec/09
Nov/09
Oct/09
Sep/09
Aug/09
Jul/09
Jun/09
May/09
Apr/09
Mar/09
Feed as % of Total Cost
75
70
65
60
55
50










What is Best Cost Nutrition?
Importance of Feed Conversion
Importance of Throughput
Herd Health Effects
Genetic Effects
Feed Processing Effects
Feed Additives
Diet Design
Right Feed/Right Time
Risk Management

Best Cost ≠ Cheapest Diet

Best Cost ≠ Lowest Cost/kg Gain

Best Cost ≠ Highest Margin Over Feed Cost

Best Cost = Nutrition Solution that
Maximizes Profit





Feed Conversion Ratio = Feed/Gain
Measure of efficiency of feed utilization
It is common to improve F/G while making
feed cost worse
F/G improvements must be cost effective
Interpreting F/G results is not always clear cut
Group
1
2
Weight In, lbs
26
20
Weight Out, lbs
123
120
Mortality, %
4.9
3.7
ADG, lbs/day
0.85
0.85
F/G
2.84
2.86
Gaines, 2011
Group
1
2
Weight In, lbs
26
20
Weight Out, lbs
123
120
Mortality, %
4.9
3.7
ADG, lbs/day
0.85
0.85
F/G
2.66
2.80
Gaines, 2011

Best Cost nutrition in
the sow herd is
affected not only by
F/G and feed cost, but
also productivity

Sow herd productivity (Pigs/Sow/Year)

Pigs weaned/litter
 Born alive
 Pre-weaning mortality

Litters/sow/year
 Farrowing rate
 Non-productive days

Sow herd feed cost


Sow herd F/G
Sow diet costs

F/G is a measure of efficiency only

Cost/kg gain is a measure of efficiency only


Profitability is driven by efficiency AND
throughput
Key is to optimize throughput at the lowest
possible diet cost




When examining whole herd feed efficiency the
productivity of the sow herd directly determines the
number of pigs that sow feed use and costs can be
spread over
Whole herd feed efficiency for the sow can be
measured using sow feed per pig marketed
Common practice for sow farms to measure sow feed
per year or sow feed per weaned pig produced
Alternatively can measure sow feed per unit of market
weight produced



Mating too soon adversely affects gilt
performance
Waiting to mate is costly with high feed costs
Optimum timing of mating maximizes
throughput at the best cost

Best Cost nutrition is
affected not only by
F/G and feed cost, but
also by throughput
(ADG, livability)




Depends on availability of space in a system
Space short = pigs pushed out by the next group
resulting in market weight below optimum
Space long = adequate space to achieve optimum
market weight
Technologies that increase ADG have more value
in space short situations

Go to Excel

Direct Effect of Mortality


Dead pigs that eat feed but do not produce weight
gain
Growth and Performance Effects


Impact on affected survivors
Chronic vs. acute

Affects feed intake

Lowers lysine requirement

Affects efficiency of gain

Reduced ADG
Mediated through changing composition of gain –
reducing protein deposition in relation to lipid
 Lean about 75% water
 Lean more efficient to deposit than lipid

Maintenance requirement increased relative to
overall requirements
Dritz, 2011

Viral and Mycoplasma



PRRS
PCV-2
SIV
 H1N1
 H3N2


Mycoplasma Hyopneumonia
Environmental
Lawsonia Intracellularis
 Salmonella


Pathogens that have
placental transfer,
poorly protective
passive immunity, or
can live for extended
periods of time in the
environment.
Emerging/Reemerging
Swine Dysentary
 TGE

Dritz, 2011
Pass
Fail
P-Value
PRRS+, %
48
73
0.001
ADG,g
831
804
0.001
F/G
2.88
2.97
0.001
Mortality, %
4.8
5.5
0.11
Top Markets, %
91.6
91.3
0.59
O.C. Total, $/pig
$3.51
$7.41
0.02
Difference, $/pig
$3.90
Dritz, 2011

Productivity and feed
cost are significantly
affected by genetics,
both between genetic
lines and within
genetic lines

Feed processing
techniques have major
effects on F/G, feed
cost and animal
performance

Pelleted Feeds
Improve feed conversion
 Improve ADG
 Increase mortality
 Increase feed processing cost
 Improve profitability???


Mortality




Genotype
Feed interruptions
Health and bio-security
Bottom line

System-specific decision


Ingredient cost
Mortality risk
 Genotype
 Herd health status
 Location disease pressure

If you are going to pellet, make good ones
Market Price, $/ton
Value, $/ton
Corn
$121
$121
Soybean Meal
$297
$297
Wheat Midds
$80
$95
Pork Meat & Bone Meal
$410
$371
Dried Bakery Product
$126
$133
DDGS
$106
$140 - 220
Shadow Prices

Use will typically reduce diet cost

Variable nutrient content



Unpredictable animal performance
Limits use and savings
Knowledge of nutrient content is key


Consistent performance
Minimize feed costs
®

Top 50% vs Bottom 50%

$318 vs $268 / ton DDGS
 20% Inclusion = $ 2.97 / pig
 30% Inclusion = $ 4.46/ pig
 40% Inclusion = $ 5.94 / pig

Top 25% vs Bottom 25%

$334 vs $257 / ton DDGS
 20% Inclusion = $ 4.57 / pig
 30% Inclusion = $ 6.86 / pig
 40% Inclusion = $ 9.14 / pig
*Cost per pig is based on 100 kg gain and 2.7 Feed Conversion




DDGS are a very good high quality feed
ingredient for both pigs, poultry, and
ruminants.
Variation is wide between plants, but
understanding difference can be attained.
Changes in Ethanol plants will continue to
drive variation of nutrient values.
Proper information can allow for accurate use
and possible increased inclusion rates.

Feed additives can be
valuable tools in
increasing
productivity and
reducing feed cost




Widely used in U.S. swine diets
Releases phytate-bound phosphorus
Also releases energy and may improve amino
acid digestibility
Not as valuable in high DDGS diets


Phosphorus bio-availability in DDGS is good
Takes knowledge to use it properly

Seeing soft bones in many U.S. herds





Not widely used in U.S. diets
Ingredients used in U.S. not conducive NSP
enzyme effectiveness
Response has been variable
Still promoted by many feed companies
Mannanase used in some systems to improve
soybean meal digestibility


Heat stress
significantly reduced
ADG (P<.05)
Stafac improved ADG
in both, thermoneutral
and heat stress
environments (P<.10)
Controls
3.00
Stafac 10
2.67a
2.51a
2.50
2.00
1.76b
1.57b
1.50
1.00
Thermoneutral
Heat Stress
Within each period, treatment values with unlike superscripts differ at P<0.05


Heat stress
significantly increased
F/G (P<.05) in both
treatment groups
Stafac significantly
improved F/G (P<.05)
in both environments,
dramatically more in
the heat stress
environment
4.00
Controls
Stafac 10
3.66c
3.50
3.28d
3.03a
3.00
2.89b
2.50
2.00
Thermoneutral
Heat Stress
Within each period, treatment values with unlike superscripts differ at P<0.05

With recent volatility
in commodity
markets, risk
management has
become an important
task for profitable
swine producers



Feed cost is 70% of total cost of production
Successful producers will carefully manage all
aspects of feeding and nutrition to maximize
profitability
This is a complex task!