There are multiple approaches a swine nutritionist can take in diet formulation: maximize performance, minimize cost, or maximize profit. Within each of these approaches, there are suboptions to decide from: Growth performance basis Maximize average daily gain (ADG) Minimize feed efficiency (F/G) Cost reduction basis Minimize cost per kg of diet Minimize feed cost per kg of ...
This is a great example that sacrificing diet cost, and most likely quality of ingredient in the diet, does not bring as big of returns when that animal goes to market. It begs the question on whether we should formulate with cost of ingredient versus other considerations as mentioned above. I would argue that feeding quality ingredients that result in a more efficient animal and demand a better market price overall is the appropriate solution. One solution is to feed high quality protein meal with residual fat versus solvent meal where additional fat must be added. This strategy can be both cost savings and result in better performance from the animal.
In addition, there are raw materials that cannot be substituted at all when we formulate rations for monogastric animals. In contrast, when we formulate rations for ruminants we can include more by-products due to the nature of the digestive tract of these animals.
Ingredients that supply energy and protein to the feed are the most expensive ingredients, therefore, vegetable meals with high content of protein and energy are more desirable in order to produce an economically feasible formula that satisfies all animal growing requirements, this is equivalent to a better feed conversion and better daily weight gain.
Table 1 seems to me to have some incorrect assumptions. It's documented that additional oil (total kcal's being equal) predictably reduces feed intake, while daily gain remains stable, across a certain range. Therefore, efficiency must increase. So, even though diet costs may increase in this situation (going from 0 oil to > 0 oil), the total amount of feed consumed through the growth period will decline.
I agree Dave;
At the same time, seems like soybean meal used to make the above assumptions was processed via solvent extraction using hexane which leaves the meal with 1% residual oil or less, this is why the formulators have to offer an additional source of energy to compensate the lack of energy on the meal in order to cover the animal requirements.
This is why the soybean meal obtained via mechanical extraction with 5-6% residual oil is the best available ingredient that provide both energy and protein at the same time.
Myself I use formulation program OptiFeed that I am the co-author. It is very intuitive and very user-friendly. We have the built-in database and different nutritionist requirements.
Feel free to contact me in case of any questions or remarks.
Recommend
Reply
1
Would you like to discuss another topic? Create a new post to engage with experts in the community.
