Decisions on optimising broiler nutrient density - performance vs economic metrics
Published:November 21, 2025
Summary
Growth of the modern broiler is very adaptable to a vast range of diet nutrient densities, and so formulation matrices are greatly impacted by prevailing economic situations. The broiler still eats quite precisely to its energy needs and alters its feed intake in response to variable diet energy level. For example, 25-35d broilers can be fed diets a low as 2850 kcal/kg or as high as 3500 kcal/kg ...
Excellent summary, Dr. Leeson, particularly for all of the industry to include independent poultry Growers and integrated broiler operations. The numerical values that you give are very valuable for our operations.
My experience is with integrated operations and another factor arises where the profit is calculated when the meat is sold to the grocery store. This factor is plant/packing costs that until the recent declines in ingredient prices were equivalent or higher than live production costs. With these Plant/packing costs, pounds through the plant are critical and an operation may elect higher feed/live costs to produce more pounds to sell. The market, in the US, is currently asking for more broiler meat production via higher prices. However, production is limited by the number of chicks produced and to some degree by the amount of live production broiler houses.
There are modeling programs that include these live and plant costs [Some are working on the price that various upscale finished products command]. When the modeling programs are adjusted to the production location's costs, the modelling programs are quite accurate in their predictions of performance, costs and returns.
@David Wicker David Agree with your comments. There are obvious limits to bird size as a means of increasing plant throughput. Often comes down to our current issue with limited supply of quality chicks from our current breeders. The US has never embraced “thining” as an option to maximise farm throughput. Personally I see it as a “messy” option and one really tests farm biosecurity re our current climate of disease challenge.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Prof.Leeson for the concise and highly valuable information. My question is this: Under conditions where the quality of feed ingredients is low(for example, very poor-quality soybean meal and similar issues), what is your recommendation regarding nutrient density? Should we decrease nutrient density in such situations, or increase it? Thanks
@Asadollah ghasemi Nutrient density decisions should be independent of ingredient quality, since this issue should be resolved by adjustments to your formulation matrix values for any ingredient. If the question relates to “variable/unknown” issues with SBM etc, then perhaps move to higher ND, although this can become expensive “insurance”
There is another feed adjusment on daily feed consumption that the animal does each day. It is independent on feed formulation and embironmental conditions.. How do you feel and how much do you eat.
Dear Dr. Leeson, you have masterfully summarized what many of us have experienced in the industry regarding nutrient density. Thank you. Your figures regarding pellet size are very valuable, as are the estimates of net energy saved by going from 50% pellets in front of the birds to 90% pellets. Thank you very much, Dr. Leeson
Greetings and respect to the great Professor Steve Leeson To balance the nutritional value matrix of feedstuffs in ration writing or the nutritional matrix. Due to the variability of the nutritional value of feedstuffs according to climatic conditions and soil composition or planting method. It is necessary to use feed for the bird according to the capacity of the digestive system and the time required for digestibility and absorption of nutrients in the feed based on dynamic growth. According to the genetic progress of the commercial strain. In addition to observing the principles of breeding in terms of complete temperature control inside the hall. It requires the knowledge and art of a poultry nutritionist. In the absence of these cases, digestive stress and changes in the bird's requirements and lack of proper performance for the appropriate weight in the consumer market. On the other hand, economic income, etc. should be considered.
Great discussion, Gentlemen, from many years (decades) following the field evolution, feed intake management was never assumed by the hunsbadry field team, and many aspects were sometimes delegated to the nutrition team. Besides that, investment in all aspects has made evolution possible. Recently, considering the numbers from Prof. Leeson´s paper, people are feeding the birds, projecting a 1,35 F/C and ended with a 1,65 projections. Ok, birds are capable of adjusting even in their short lives. Personally, I do not fully agree with the affirmation that ingredient quality is not related to nutritional density, considering the precision feeding and the great amount of antinutritional and allergenics in the feedstuffs, the pre-starter and starter that are always pushing the first step for great performance, deserve having better quality of feedstuffs and also great attention to the nutritional density, allowing to be a tool of growth curve management towards uniformity and lower costs.
@Luis Fernando Vergamini Luna If you truly know the nutrient matrix values of your ingredients, then “quality” is automatically factored into formulation and does not affect decisions on nutrient density. Economic decision to use lower nutrient dense ingredients sometimes places a limit on ever-lower F:G and we have to accept a higher numeric value. All about economics rather than chasing the Guinness Book of records. It’s when you are unsure of nutrient profile of ingredients then this becomes a factor in decision making re F:G goals and invariably we add insurance factors to account for our poorer QC knowledge and either accept higher numerical F:G or we pay more for feed.
@Luis Fernando Vergamini Luna ; following up on Prof Leesons' comments. Detailed - ie accurate and precise - understanding of raw material nutrient quality is essential. Matrix values need to incorporate some measure of a specific materials' inherent variability ( I use standard deviation) - effectively building in "safety margin". Standard analysis should include amino acids and energy-supplying nutrients; but equally important are the available indicators of those factors affecting nutrient availability, such as processing (both over and under). Only when we have such an accurate and precise nutritional valuation of raw materials can we feel sure we have this variable under control.
Recommend
Reply
1
Would you like to discuss another topic? Create a new post to engage with experts in the community.