During the suckling phase piglets have been used to approximately 24 evenly-spaced meals in the day. This activity of group feeding is imprinted on them and their social interaction is critical in developing correct feeding patterns post weaning. It is therefore vital that piglets have easy access to water and feed after weaning to re-establish an even feed intake pattern.

Providing turkey drinkers and shallow feed troughs where piglets can feed socially and interact as a group, is critical. Table 1 shows the effect of higher water intake (with turkey drinkers) on feed intake.

It has been demonstrated that piglets which have shown no progress in the first week post-weaning take 10 days longer to reach slaughter than pigs that grew at 230g a day post weaning. In order to optimize lifetime performance it is vital to break into the appetite barrier at weaning:

SCA has developed a new concept in starter feeding which is based on a new feed called Primistart, which is only fed for four days post-weaning (50 g/piglet/day). This product is based on digestible milk proteins and a unique gut conditioning package. We may be able to try this product locally.

Table 3: The results of Primistart four weeks post weaning.

The current climate of intense public concern about modern food manufacturing has focused the industry and consumers’ minds on the integrity of the human food chain of which animal feed forms a vital unit. The consumer, led by the supermarkets, demands that the diets that are fed to pigs are just as safe as the food they themselves eat.

They insist that the integrity of the food chain is maintained and are beginning to dictate which materials can or cannot be used in animal feeds. A new bill, the Food Safety Act requires that due diligence be exercised at all stages in the food chain. This has led to the adoption of quality assurance schemes and the development of high welfare pig meat. The changes in production method are oriented towards meeting consumer perceptions of the industry and its products, with concern about welfare, food safety and pollution.

Product quality control: Quality receives a very high priority in the manufacturing process and we were given insight into some of the quality standards at SCA and NuTec which include:

Animal Welfare and building design:

Nursery is the first area of concern.

Sow stalls: Sow stalls have been banned in the UK from this year while the EU will follow in the year 2000. The following alternatives are being investigated:

Efficiency of slaughter pigs:

The new measure of efficiency is to maximize the production lean meat sold from each square meter of growing/finishing space.

Lean meat production is important for the following reasons:

When two units are virtually identical in terms of genetics, herd structure and level of management one would assume that they should be fed similar diets at the growing finishing stage. This is false since the protein accretion rates may differ between units. Provimi showed us that the energy needed to deposit a unit of protein can vary by more than 30% between farms. The measurement of lean meat deposition and feed intake are required for the accurate application of lean-growth models in formulating farm-specific diets. It is proposed that a sample of grower/finisher pigs is ultrasonically scanned and weighed every 3 weeks.

In Holland a technical model for pig feeding was developed by 4 research stations. This model was then bought by industry role players, evaluated and updated through tests on their own development farms. The workings of the Provimi model was demonstrated to us. The model is used for the following:

           - changes in feeding schedules

           - changing feed composition

           - genetics

           - climate changes

           - changes in lean meat deposition

This model allows the simultaneous modeling of 2 variables for comparative purposes while its economic analysis is quite astonishing. I hope that we can have access to this model in the future.

Feed Intake in Broilers

Ensuring that animals achieve an adequate level of nutrient intake is a direct function of that animal’s ability to consume feed. Attaining an adequate feed intake is one of the cornerstones of nutrition. Laying hens have the ability to perform normally over a wide range of diet nutrient levels by adjusting their intake according to their nutrient requirements. Whilst broilers do have some ability too adapt their intake to satisfy their nutrient requirements, under most commercial conditions they are not able to do so. Consequently, they often perform at sub-optimal levels. Many people believe that feed intake in the modern broiler is influenced by its apparently voracious appetite and not by the nutrient content of the diet per se. The validity of this assumption is questionable as I hope to illustrate below.

Leeson, Summers and Caston (1996) conducted an interesting series of experiments in broilers from day old to 49 days of age using diets containing 13.8, 13.0, 12.1 and 11.3 MJ/kg. The way in which they achieved the lower energy levels was to dilute the feeds with a mixture of oat hulls and sand. The results that they obtained were as follows:

Table 1: Performance and carcass characteristics of male broilers fed diets varying in level of energy (1 to 49 days ).

Body weights were similar for birds fed the 4 diet energy levels, however, FCR ratios were significantly improved with the higher energy There was no significant difference in energy intake (per kg body weight). Whilst a marked difference was noted for protein intake, it is obvious that the overriding factor influencing feed intake in this study was the attempt by the bird to meet its energy requirement. Despite the fact that the birds fed the higher energy diets laid down more fat, all diets yielded a similar quantities of breast meat, suggesting that all birds had a similar lean body mass.

In a second experiment, the same diets as employed in the previous experiment were used, however, all treatment groups were restricted to similar amounts of feed per day. With the birds not having the opportunity to consume increased feed, with the low energy diets, a more precise measure of the nutritive value and the subsequent effect on bird performance would be anticipated. Comparing the response of the 13.8 versus the 11.3 MK/kg diets, energy intake was reduced by approximately 18%, which resulted in around a 10% decrease in body and carcass weight, with a 65% decrease in abdominal fat and only a 7% decrease in breast weight. Surprisingly, breast meat yield was little influenced. Protein intake would be similar for all treatments (972 g per bird), which could well account for the similarity in breast meat yield.

These experiments suggest that energy is the main factor influencing the feed intake of broilers. It is important to consider the carcass composition of the birds before eliminating diet protein level as a possible factor influencing feed intake. The results failed to show any difference in yield of breast meat regardless of the diet treatments. This could indicate that birds on all dietary treatments were meeting their protein requirements, even at the lowest level of protein intake. Any protein intake beyond meeting requirement needs would be eliminated and result in increased uric acid excretion, which is a costly procedure energetically and could account for the reduced abdominal fat seen in birds with higher protein intake.

Earlier work published by Summers and Parr (1991), reported that with diets similar in essential amino acid (EAA) balance, young broilers will eat to satisfy their protein, not their energy requirement. This is demonstrated in the Table.

Table 2: Performance of male broilers from 7 to 21 days fed diets formulated to three different energy levels, but with identical EAA balance.

Dietary protein and EAA level and balance were identical for the 3 test diets, which varied in level of energy. Glucose and cellulose were used to achieve variation in diet energy levels, thus the level of supplemental fat was similar for the 3 diets.

Weight gain was greater with the higher energy diet and a significant reduction in FCR ratio was noted.

However, feed intake was identical for the 3 diets. Carcass protein deposition, while lower for the middle level of diet energy, was almost identical for birds fed the low and high diet energy levels. Total carcass fat deposition was significantly increased as the energy level of the diet increased.

If the birds were eating to satisfy their requirement for energy, differences in feed intake should have been noted. Since the level of diet protein and/or EAA were similar, there obviously was a similar intake of these nutrients. If birds fed the high energy diet wanted to eat a similar quantity of protein they had to consume more calories. This they did with the result that they laid down more carcass fat, gained more weight and had a better FCR ratio. From these data one would have to conclude that the birds ate to try and meet their protein (EAA) requirements in order to maximise the production of lean body mass. This would appear more logical than to suggest that a young growing animal would eat to obtain an excess of calories which it would lay down in non-active body tissue, namely depot fat.

In summing up these findings, it would appear that since energy is the most critical "nutrient", it’s requirement must be met in order to maintain normal metabolic body functions and an animal will invariably eat in an attempt to obtain its requirement. However, the over-consumption of energy, with the young growing broiler, is obviously related to a deficiency of some other nutrient(s), which in most cases will be protein and/or essential amino acids.

There is obviously an optimum intake of EAA (protein) required to maximise lean body mass. If breast meat yield is accepted as a meaningful indicator of lean body mass, it is clear that the requirement for protein was met in the case of the first experiment discussed here. However, since the bird must preferentially meet its energy requirement, in many cases, it consumes excess protein with resultant leaner carcass. Conversely if a deficiency of protein exists, the bird will over-consume energy in an attempt to meet its protein requirement. With an over-consumption of calories a "fatter" bird will result.

The results presented above demonstrate very clearly how birds are able to overcome shortfalls in either protein or energy requirement in the perfect world (the test house). They also underpin our current understanding of broiler nutrition. From a practical perspective they show that they simplest way to put weight onto a broiler is to maximise energy consumption, even at the expense of poorer carcass quality. Lastly, broilers are very forgiving, and provided they can consume enough feed they will perform "normally".

These observations lead us to the second part of this discussion. Simply put, how do we maximise energy intake under commercial conditions. Most commercial diets range from 12.8 to 13.6 MJ/kg of energy, which represent about a 6.5% variation.

In Table 1, it can be seen that the variation in feed intake between the different diets exceeded 20%. This means that the onus of improving energy intake lies down on the farm and not necessarily in the feed mill. Here are a few of the ways in which feed intake can be improved on the farm.

Feeder Systems: The first, and perhaps most obvious step is to ensure that all birds have access to sufficient feeder space and that the feeders are spread evenly through the house so as to avoid some birds having to move long distances to food. It is essential that the feed be distributed evenly and without separation or grinding throughout the house. Pan feeders are increasingly the system of choice. Tubes and chain feeders are prone to feed wastage, while pans are much less so. They provide fresher and cleaner feed, leading to better feed conversion rates. Usually pan feeders are suspended on cables and are adjustable by a central winch whereas chain and tube feeders may have to be adjusted at multiple points. Pan feeders can easily be winched out of the way when catching broilers for delivery. Pan feeders and tube feeders (if auto fill) have the advantage that all feeders are filled simultaneously, whereas chain feeders take longer to distribute feed.

Water: Feed intake and water consumption are highly correlated. As a rule of thumb a bird will consume twice as much water as it does feed. The water should always reach the drinkers at a constant pressure and without obstruction. An even distribution of drinkers is essential and should be placed evenly throughout the house so that no broiler is more than 2 m from water. If the pressure is too high then nipple drinkers do not function properly. It is recommended that a water meter be fitted to the supply line of the drinkers. This allows calculation of water intake per day and water: feed ratio. The daily water consumption can be used to judge flock health, climate control, nutrition or husbandry practices.

Lighting: Most broilers are reared under 23 or 24h of light each day since it is believed that unlimited access to feed is required for maximum growth rate. By using intermittent lighting, for example 1 hour of light: 3 hours of darkness, the birds will actively seek out food during the light period and rest during the dark period. By reducing the number of hours of daylight to 8 or 10 hours per day, birds will show reduced feed intakes and energy intakes.

Feed Form: Feed may be fed either as a mash or in pellet form. When mash is being fed, the fineness of the grist has bearing. If the particle size is to small (below 800 microns) then intakes will diminish. On average a reduction of mean particle size of 100 microns will lead to a decrease in feed intake of 4%. Feed wastage tends to be high when mash feeds are fed.

Most broiler diets are fed in pelleted form. In recent Israeli work, the effect of pellet quality was examined. A number of pelleting degrees (PD) where quantified. A score of 0 was given to mash, 0.5 to a mixture of mash and soft pellets, 1 to soft pellets, 1.5 to a mixture of soft pellets and hard pellets and 2 to hard pellets (pelleted twice). It was found that food intake and body weight gain were related to pelleting quality in a curvilinear manner. PD had a positive effect up to a peak PD of 1 to 1.5, thereafter it declined. Feed conversion efficiency was unaffected by pellet quality. Much of the improvement in intakes when feeding pellets is brought about because the birds spend less time eating pellets than mash (Table 3). This data also indicates that if mash is being fed it is important to increase the trough space for the birds.

In essence all of the above points fall under the topic of "management" with attention to detail being the key ingredient to success.

Profitable Dairy Production

Dairy producers experienced one of the best years in a long time during 1997. Due to the shortage of milk, prices increased by 30-50 cents per litre. There was a good supply of home grown roughage’s after the good summer rains and the prices of concentrates also remained relatively favourable. A combination of the weak Rand and import tariffs also meant that imports did not have a significant effect on local milk producers; something we should probably not take for granted! For most dairy producers, 1997 offered an opportunity for catching up and consolidation. This is probably just as well because most would agree that 1998 is going to be a lot tougher! Milk prices already dropped by approximately 6% over November/ December. This drop is largely due to a seasonal surplus, but even if we move back into a situation of milk shortage producers should not expect prices to remain as strong as they were in 1997. Poor economic growth, unusual rainfall (El Nino?) and higher input costs will all have a negative effect. For dairy producers to hold on to the progress made in 1997, they will have to show as much business skill as stockmanship.

This article will discuss the best strategy for evaluating the financial success or failure of a farm and is based on an article written by Bruce Woodacre, BOCM Pauls’ in the UK.

Margin in any business is the difference between income and variable costs. Figure 1 shows the dynamics involved. There are three ways to increase margin. The simplest of these is to increase yields because increasing yield means that the production efficiency of individual cows is increased. A lactating cow has maintenance requirements for all nutrients. These maintenance requirements are a function of the cows’ liveweight and will remain the same regardless of how much milk she is producing. Increasing yield therefor means that a greater proportion of dry matter (DM) intake is going towards milk production and a smaller proportion towards maintenance. The milk:feed price ratio obviously also has an effect on the how much margin is increased by increased yields.

The second method is to increase the income per unit of production i.e. to increase price obtained per litre. It might seem strange to talk about this as milk prices are falling but, in a deregulated market, there are ways of looking to minimise that fall. Even if you can't, or don't wish to, change buyers, you should at least be looking at ways of ensuring that you are achieving the highest price possible within your buyer's contract.

The third method of increasing margins is the one most people think of first - cutting variable costs. And that generally means feed bills. Purchased feed and forage make up by far the largest part of the variable costs of a dairy unit. If one takes the view that production only occurs if variable costs are incurred, then it is possible to say that feed costs cause output or simply put, no feed, no milk. The danger then, in cutting variable costs, is reducing output. Small reductions in daily yield, milk quality or fertility can wipe out apparent savings in feed costs. Don't approach this area with a cost cutting mentality, think about increasing technical efficiency (litres of milk produced/kg of dry matter). It will have the same end result, but will ensure that you don't jeopardise your income.

As producers we are not interested in margin, but should rather focus on profit. Farms with lower margins may well be more profitable. How does that work? Figure 2 introduces fixed costs into the equation and looks at the dynamics of making a profit rather than a margin. Producers often talk about profit per litre or profit per cow but this can be misleading. The word "profit" implies that profit per litre represents the profitability of the farm, however, money generated from profit per litre still has to pay for fixed costs. For this reason margin per litre or per cow is probably a better term because it implies that there is still another step before we get to net profit.

Adding variable costs to fixed costs shows the break even income and the net profit of the farm. Figure 3 shows a farm with the same variable costs (same slope of the line) but higher fixed costs. This means that at the same level of production the second farm (Figure 3) could be making a loss even though it may be making a good margin. By definition, fixed costs should not increase with increased yield. The only exception to this is if farm infrastructure has to be upgraded (expansion) in order to achieve higher yields.

Even if this is the case, once the capital has been invested, fixed costs will remain constant (albeit at a higher level) as yield increases. This means that increases in yield will spread fixed costs over a greater number of litres and leave more net profit, even though margin per litre may go down.

What should a dairy producer’s approach be to making his business as profitable as possible? Maximum net farm profit is the objective, recognising that measures like margin over purchased feed and milk from roughage (grazed or otherwise) are merely tools and not the final destination. Figure 4 shows three basic routes to maximising net farm profit, the mix of which will need to be specifically tailored to each individual unit.

1. Maximise your income per litre. There are steps that the producer can take to ensure that he is getting the maximum income per litre. The first is to ensure that optimum milk butterfat and protein levels are achieved through genetic improvement and well balanced rations. This needs to be measured correctly, so make sure that the sample taken on milk collection is taken correctly. The production of clean milk is also important as most buyers offer bonuses for milk with low somatic cell counts (SCC) and low total bacteria counts. Producing clean milk (SCC less than 250 000) could mean as much as 5c/litre more! Producing clean milk will also result in better control of mastitis, better maintenance of milking machinery and an overall improvement in management all of which have big financial benefits.
2. Optimise feeding efficiency. Producing the maximum litres of milk from each kg of DM fed will bring about a reduction in variable costs without reducing income. Areas that should receive attention are

Reduction of wastage: Wastage levels of 10% or more are not uncommon. That means that R100.00 out of every R1000.00 spent on feed is lost. Measures that can be taken to minimise wastage include: well managed silage bunkers, collecting and using feed that is not eaten by lactating cows before it becomes mouldy, a well planned and managed feed delivery system, properly designed feed troughs, well maintained feed wagons and an accurate inventory of how much feed (roughage’s and concentrates) are available on the farm at all times.

Followers: The feed consumed by the followers in the herd needs to be considered when calculating feed efficiency. Feed costs for the non-producing animals make up 30-40% of total feed costs. Poor management of these animals has a negative impact on feed efficiency. Some guidelines include: rearing heifers so that the average age at which they calve for the first time is 24 months, sell inferior heifers as soon as possible, identify the most cost effective way of marketing bull calves (normally the earlier the better!) and dose young animals regularly.

Use good quality roughage: High quality roughage, with an NDF of less than 60%, is required for high yielding cows. As roughage quality increases concentrate usage will decrease. This means that the quality of roughage’s produced on the farm must be as good as possible. Good quality roughage also promotes higher DM intakes which in turn leads to higher yields and improved efficiency.

Feed well balanced diets: In order to achieve maximum efficiency DM intake has to be maximised. Roughage quality has a large effect on DM intake, but maintaining rumen health and meeting nutrient requirements also influences DM intake. Lactating cow diets must contain adequate levels of soluble protein (30% of crude protein), by-pass protein (30-40% of CP) and non-structural carbohydrates (35-40% of DM).

Ingredient quality: Cheap feed ingredients of poor quality will often lead to poor quality diets and a reduction in yield which negates the savings achieved.

Life time production: Another important point when evaluating feed costs versus the performance of lactating cows, is to not just focus on short term (one lactation) milk production. The cows have to be fed in order to meet their total nutrient requirements and not just requirements for milk production.

This means that performance parameters such as reproduction and overall health are as important as milk production. Reducing feed costs in one lactation may appear to increase profitability but if it is measured over 2 or 3 lactations the picture often looks different. There are significant carry-over effects from one lactation to the next and proper management of the cow condition is extremely important.

3. Keep fixed costs under control. Figure 3 shows the negative effect that rampant fixed costs have on net profit, making the effect of high variable costs less significant. There is little point in cutting variable costs and forfeiting yield if fixed costs remain high. The higher the fixed costs, the higher the yield needs to be in order to maintain net profit. Beware of over-capitalisation!

To summarise the thrust of the article in one sentence, the one used by Bruce Woodacre at the end of his article would probably be the best: "At all times maintain a single minded fixation on the idea of net farm profit and remember that a cost need not be a bad thing if it delivers value."

Top

We have become aware of a fair amount of runting and stunting syndrome in the field. Whilst it is not strictly a feed-related problem it does take on many of the typical signs of a nutritional deficiency. In their book "Nutrition and Feeding of Poultry", Larbier and Leclerq give an excellent description of this affliction, a summary of which I have included here Runting and stunting syndrome, (malabsorption syndrome), is responsible for slower and/or cessation of growth. Birds suffering from this malady have symptomatic diarrhoea with orange faeces and ruffled feathers giving rise to what are known as ‘helicopter chicks’. It is based upon problems within the gastro-intestinal tract linked to an infectious agent leading to poor utilisation of nutrients.

The disease may be seen in the second week of age, with severe diarrhoea and reduced growth. Mortality may exceed 5%. This period lasts a week and is followed by a series of well developed clinical and biochemical symptoms. An enteritis is be observed, which is characterised by liquid contents which vary in colour from brown to orange and yellow.

The mucosae become pale and the gall bladder may increase in size by five fold. The wall of the proventriculus thickens whilst the papillae adopt an eroded and swollen appearance. The gizzard atrophies accompanied by ulceration and hyperkeratosis. The pancreas becomes atrophied and fibrous. The feathers become limp, ruffled and are very brittle, while pigmentation is inadequate in yellow chicks. Growth rate slows by over 50% and infected chicks seem to become dwarfed. Biochemically the reduction in hepatic and plasma levels of the fat soluble vitamins (A, E and D) is particularly pronounced.

It is accepted that the condition is infectious since it is possible to reproduce it through inoculation with intestinal contents. The infectious agent seems to be a virus. Several types have been examined including reovirus, adenovirus, coronavirus and calcivirus, with each producing one or more symptoms. In fact the disease may be produced by several viruses acting in association and with one or more bacteria (E. coli, Campylobacter jejuni). Currently the precise role of these agents has yet to be determined. Control of the syndrome may be brought about as follows:

Treatment of the environment: Disinfection through power washing with formalin or through fumigation followed by an adequate rest period (15 to 20 days) appears to be a necessary means of protection against the disease.

Treatment of birds: Administration of the fat soluble vitamins A, D and E and additionally water soluble vitamins (B complex) is frequently recommended to reduce the effects of the disease and to prevent complications.

Vaccination: The use of an inactivated reovirus in day old broiler chicks seems to give satisfactory results. Vaccination of broiler breeders has also been employed successfully which demonstrates that infection is not just horizontal but also vertical.

Currently the Fish Meal price of around R 4100.00 per ton is the highest that it has ever been. This situation has arisen for two main reason. El Nino has resulted in a warming of the Southern Pacific ocean which directly effects the availability of plankton upon which the fish feed. This has resulted in low because fish stocks as a result of which has been banned in both Chile and Peru. This is a situation which is likely to change by June or July. The demand for quality fish meal by the Far East has continued to be strong. Soya Oilcake on the other hand is the lowest that it has been since April 1995 (in US$ terms). From my discussions with the trade it would appear that the impact of the economic crisis in the Far East has not yet been felt, particularly in the case of the fish market. The price which the Asians are able to pay for fish meal will depend on how well their currencies recover but we could see a drop of by as much as R 1000.00 ton by midyear. It is likely that the Soya price will soften as well, but the decreasing value of the Rand is likely to put pay to any decrease in the landed price.