Managing High Feed Costs

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

• Alternative ingredients

• Current diet cost examples

• Additional resources

Historical Ingredient PricesJune

2009

June

2010

June

2011

June

2012

January

2013

Corn, $/bu $4.00 $3.20 $7.25 $6.00 $7.05

SBM, $/ton $395 $285 $350 $400 $420

DDGS, $/ton $150 $120 $200 $240 $250

CWG, $/cwt $27 $33 $50 $46 $40

Dical, $/cwt $23 $26 $28 $33 $33

L-lysine, $/cwt $70 $110 $120 $113 $117

~cost/finishing pig $64 $57 $90 $87 $96

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

Feed Efficiency

High feed

disappearanceLow ADG Other factors

Genetics

Feed wastage

Temperature

Mortality

Feed delivery

Amino acid

deficiency

Low Energy diets

Disease

Genetics

Feed availability

Water availability

Diet deficiency

Temperature

Particle size

Diet form

Low ADG Other factorsHigh feed disappearance

Feed Efficiency

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 74.3 74.3 5.9 0.27Final wt, lb 228.6 235.9 13.8 <0.01

ADG, lb 1.92 2.01 0.046 <0.01ADFI, lb 5.09 5.36 0.223 <0.01F/G 2.59 2.59 0.10 0.93

Yield, % 75.8 75.6 0.26 0.57HCW, lb 201.7 208.1 2.1 <0.01BF, mm 16.7 18.1 0.23 <0.01Loin, mm 62.2 61.6 0.68 0.14Lean, % 51.4 50.8 0.85 <0.01

Water disappearance, L/pig/d 6.4 5.0 0.34 0.02

Nitikanchana et al., 2012

Same F/GSame F/G

Reduction in Lean Poor F/GPoor 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

Feed cost = 306 $/ton, Carcass price = 0.88 $/lb, 1.5$/ %lean reduction

Wet-dry feeder economic analysis (IOFC, Income over feed cost)

Nitikanchana et al., 2012

Effective Temperature – 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.

3035404550556065707580859095

100

Effe

ctiv

e t

emp

erat

ure

, oF

Body weight, lb

Upper Critical Limit

Lower Critical Limit

Cold Stress

Heat Stress

Effective Temperature

Effect of environmental temperature on the performance of growing

pigs (50 to 125 pounds)1

Item

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

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

Effect of PCV2 Vaccination on Feed EfficiencyFe

ed

/gai

n

2.57

2.52

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

Control Vaccine

P < 0.01

Jacela et al., 2011 JSHAP

Update on Feed Processing Research

to Reduce Costs

Steps to ensure vitamins and trace minerals are supplemented correctly

• Develop clear premix specifications• Use reputable premix suppliers• Verify premix production batch sheets• Ensure product rotation• Separate vitamin and trace mineral premix• Verify premix additions

– Inventory control– Eliminate hand adds

• Evaluate mixer efficiency• Consider premix testing

2.022.06

1.99

2.11

2.17

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet

AD

G, l

b

Meal Pellet300 vs 600 microns P < 0.15Grind x form P < 0.001Grind P = 0.89; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.018

Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)

Particle size and portion ground

De Jong et al., 2012

2.82

2.712.74

2.60 2.60

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet

F/G

Meal Pellet300 vs 600 microns P < 0.001Grind x form P = 0.37Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.03

Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)

Particle size and portion ground

De Jong et al., 2012

$53.27

$57.94

$53.96

$62.20$61.35

$50

$55

$60

$65

$70

600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet

Inco

me

ove

r fe

ed c

ost

, $/p

ig

Meal Pellet300 vs 600 microns P < 0.01Grind x form P = 0.15Grind P = 0.03; Form P < 0.001SEM = 1.143

Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)

Particle size and portion ground

De Jong et al., 2012

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

800 600 400

Cabrera, 1994a

Cabrera, 1994b

Wondra, 1995

Effects of particle size on feed efficiencyF/

G

Particle size, microns

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

30

0

40

0

50

0

60

0

70

0

80

0

Paulk, 2011

DeJong, 2012

1.2% per 100 microns 1.0% per 100 microns

Particle size, 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

2.56

2.63

2.67

2.582.60

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

0 7.5% 15%

Ground hulls (370 µ)

Unground hulls (787 µ)

Soybean hull particle size, P < 0.04Soybean hulls level, P > 0.26Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.02SEM = 0.026

F/G

Effects of soybean hulls level and particle size on finishing pigs (0 to 118; BW 68 to 280 lb)

Soybean Hulls

Goehring et al., 2012

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

ReferenceMeal Pellet

ADG F/G ADG F/GGroesbeck et al. (2005) 0.83 1.25 0.90 1.22Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.62 1.43 0.65 1.37Groesbeck et al.(2006) 0.80 1.25 0.78 1.17Potter et al. (2009) 1.95 2.12 2.05 2.07Potter et al. (2009) 1.92 2.83 2.04 2.68Myers et al. (2010) 1.81 2.76 1.94 2.82Potter et al. (2010) 1.92 2.86 2.03 2.70Frobose et al. (2011) 1.46 1.72 1.43 1.63Frobose et al. (2011) 1.29 1.51 1.38 1.40Myers et al. (2011) 1.96 2.73 1.97 2.67Paulk et al. (2011) 2.50 2.75 2.63 2.55Paulk et al. (2011) 2.31 2.50 2.44 2.40

Average 1.61 2.14 1.69 2.06

Average response = 5.0% for ADG and 4.0% for F/G22

1.59

1.51

1.57

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

Meal Pellets Pellets with 30% fines

a

b

P < 0.05

Effects of pellet quality on F/Gin 30 to 70 lb pigs

F/G

a

Nemecheck et al. 2012

Pellet quality

Pellets with fines

Good quality pellets

Nemecheck et al. 2012 24

Alternative Feed Ingredients

Animal Performance

CostProcessingStorageQuality ControlAgronomics

1.93

1.871.85

1.80

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

0% 15% 30% 45%

AD

G, l

b

Linear P > 0.01SEM = 0.02

Effect of medium-oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)

Medium-oil DDGS

Graham et al., 2012

7.4% fat, 28.1% CP, 10.8% ADF, 25.6% NDF

3.13

3.19 3.20

3.26

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

0% 15% 30% 45%

F/G

Linear P > 0.02SEM = 0.04

Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)

Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)

Graham et al., 2012

74.0

73.2

72.471.8

70

71

72

73

74

75

0% 15% 30% 45%

Yiel

d, %

Linear P > 0.02SEM = 0.04

Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)

Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)

Graham et al., 2012

70.271.1

73.7

76.3

65

68

71

74

77

80

0% 15% 30% 45%

Jow

l fat

iod

ine

valu

e, m

g/g

Linear P > 0.02SEM = 0.04

Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)

Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)

Graham et al., 2012

Corn DDGS quality control

• Variability in DDGS quality

– Main issue is fat level Fat, % NE, %

• Low = < 5% fat 4.0 80.0%

• Medium = 6 to 9% fat 7.5 87.5%

• High = > 9% fat 11.0 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%

Bakery Meal

• Things to recognize:

• Bakery products can vary in fat content which directly affects the assigned energy value.– NRC, 2012

• Bakery = 8.1% fat, 1,749 kcal/lb ME (+13.6% ↑ME vs. corn)

• Corn = 3.5% fat, 1,540 kcal/lb ME

• Many bakery products contain lower levels of fat then book values. Recent analysis from a Midwest commercial mill using bakery:

• Bakery = 6.4% Fat, Calculated ME value was 92% of corn

2.06

2.022.05

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

0.0% 7.5% 15.0%

AD

G, l

b

Bakery, quadratic P < 0.07SEM = 0.01

Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)

Bakery meal

Paulk et al., 2012

2.63

2.682.70

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

0.0% 7.5% 15.0%

F/G

Bakery, linear P < 0.02SEM = 0.02

Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)

Bakery meal

Paulk et al., 2012

Corn, $/bu $7.05 Carcass price $ 95.00

SBM, $/ton $ 420 Est. live price 72.64

Fat, $/cwt $ 40

Grind/mix/delivery, $/ton $ 15

Added Fat Calculator available at www.KSUswine.org

$0.21 $0.32

$0.07

$(0.10)

$(0.30)

$(0.00)

$0.34 $0.46

$(0.06)

$(0.45)

$(0.83)

$(0.17)

$(1.00)

$(0.60)

$(0.20)

$0.20

$0.60

$1.00

Net re

turn

, $/p

ig

2.5% fat

5% fat

Added Fat Recommendations• Should I have fat in my diets currently?

– Long on space = No• Gain improvements not required while increasing feed cost

– Short on space = Yes/No/Maybe• Evaluate net return and determine optimum level by dietary phase.

• Strategy should be different as economics change

• Which season are pigs to be marketed?

– Pigs placed in late summer/fall/early winter months can/should forgo added fat due to growth rate improvements to come with cooler weather.

– Late Spring/Summer marketed pigs should begin to receive added fat in February/March to capture growth rate.

Example Diets with Alternatives

• Phase = 125 – 170 lb of body weight

• Corn = $7.05/bu

• SBM, 46.5% = $420/ton

• DDGS (>10% Fat) = $250/ton

• Wheat midds = $245/ton

• Meat and Bone = $405/ton

• Moncal P, 21% = $660/ton

• L-Lysine = $1.17/lb

Higher Meat & Wheat DDGS &

Ingredient Corn/soy AA bone DDGS midds midds

Corn 1529 1607 1576 1120 1318 828

SBM, 46.5% 425 342 307 236 231 126

Meat & bone meal 100

DDGS 600 600

Wheat middlings 400 400

Lysine HCl 3 5.7 4.4 7 7.2 8.5

DL-Methionine 0.3 0.3

L-Threonine 1.2 0.6 1.7

Monocal P, 21% P 16 16 2 10

Limestone 15 16 23.5 20 26

VTM & Salt 12 12 12 12 12 12

SID Lys:ME, g/Mcal 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55

SID Lys 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.83 0.84

SID Met & cys:lys 60 56 57 70 57 71

SID Thr:lys 62 62 62 64 62 62

SID Trp:lys 19.1 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5

ME, kcal/lb 1,515 1,515 1,513 1,522 1,483 1,487

CP, % 16.5 15.1 16.6 18.7 14.6 18.2

Available P, % 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.23 0.23 0.27

Higher Meat & Wheat DDGS &

Ingredient Corn/soy AA bone DDGS midds midds

Corn 1529 1607 1576 1120 1318 828

SBM, 46.5% 425 342 307 236 231 126

Meat & bone meal 100

DDGS 600 600

Wheat middlings 400 400

Lysine HCl 3 5.7 4.4 7 7.2 8.5

DL-Methionine 0.3 0.3

L-Threonine 1.2 0.6 1.7

Monocal P, 21% P 16 16 2 10

Limestone 15 16 23.5 20 26

VTM & Salt 12 12 12 12 12 12

Diet w/ processing $306.54 $304.04 $304.93 $290.55 $293.65 $280.62

Budget, lb/pig 120.0 120.0 120.2 119.5 122.7 122.3

Feed cost, $/pig $18.39 $18.24 $18.32 $17.36 $18.01 $17.16

F/G 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.66 2.73 2.72

Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0,

9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb)

73.272.9

71.6

73.0

72.4

71.7

70

71

72

73

74

75

Yie

ld, %

d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High

d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High

d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High

Asmus et al., 2011

Duration P=.002Level P= 0.001SEM 0.26

Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds(0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270

lb)

194.3

195.8

193.7

195.5

193.5

191.4

189

191

193

195

197

Car

cass

we

igh

t, lb

d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High

d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High

d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High

Asmus et al., 2011

Duration P > 0.38SEM 2.54

Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds(0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270

lb)

6.67.1

8.2

6.7

7.5

8.7

5

6

7

8

9

10

Full

larg

e in

test

ine

, lb

d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High

d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High

d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High

Asmus et al., 2011

Duration P < 0.01Level P< 0.05SEM 0.46

K-State Web Resourceswww.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

43

www.KSUswine.org

44

www.swinefeedefficiency.com

45

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 Effciency, 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

46

www.swinefeedefficiency.com

Thank you!

WWW.KSUswine.org

47