All About Feed

IN

TE

RN

AT

IO

NA

L M

AG

AZ

IN

E O

N A

NI

MA

L N

UT

RI

TI

ON

, P

RO

CE

SS

IN

G A

ND

F

EE

D M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Movement in GRAS for feed ingredients

Creating a vegetarian salmon

A closer look at feed structure

www.AllAboutFeed.net

Vol 2 - No 4 - 2011

Global feed cost and efficiency of dairy farms

11AAF004_Cover 111AAF004_Cover 1 4/28/2011 1:24:26 PM4/28/2011 1:24:26 PM

At Kemin AgriFoods, we are truly close to you, in every sense of the word. Our R&D and manufacturing centers are all over the world, giving our scientists, nutritionists and salespeople first-hand experience with the specific circumstances you encounter every day. The scientific insights we have gathered over the last 50 years are individually adapted to meet your specific needs.

It is through working closely with you that we’re able to create the right tools and

nutritional solutions to contribute to the safe, efficient and healthy production of animal protein.

Our customer tailored services, proven scientific knowledge, and reliable technology confirms our reputation as a total solution provider and your trusted advisor: helpful, honest and proven.

Kemin AgriFoods - the advisor you can always count on.www.kemin.com

ButiPEARL™ I CholiPEARL™ I CLOSTAT™ I KEMTRACE® I KEMZYME® I LYSOFORTE® I LysiPEARL™ I MetiPEARL™ I TOXFIN®

The advisor you can count on

© 2011 Kemin Industries, Inc., 2011 All rights reserved ™Trademark ®Registered by Kemin Industries, Inc. USA

AllAboutFeed - Vol 2 - Nr 4 - 2011 3

http://www.

These articles can also be downloaded in pdf format at www.AllAboutFeed.net/articles

08Research Keeping the omega-3 effect in vegetable fed salmonLess than 10 years ago, the carnivorous salmon could not tolerate the slightest amount of vegetable matter in their diet. Today, the fi sh thrive on balanced feeds comprising of up to 70-80% plant ingredients. How was this made possible, and are salmon still as healthy?

12Research Global view on feed cost and feed effi ciency on dairy farmsThe recent leap in grain prices has become higher than the 2008 level, which has a major effect on the whole dairy chain due to the competitiveness on feed resources and feed costs. However, to understand the drivers for feed cost, it is essential to benchmark the existing feeding systems.

15Nutrition Improving beef production effi ciency and meat qualityUS consumers love beef. Average American consumption is around 28.5 kg per person each year. Producing enough cattle to meet that demand requires effi ciency and innovation. ARS scientists at the Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory (LARRL) in Miles City, Montana, are conducting studies designed to make cattle production more effi cient.

18Processing A closer look at feed structureIn pig farming, animal health and particularly the health of the gastrointestinal tract (GI-tract) is a major subject for research. “Preventing dysbioses through the best possible support to the GI-tract eubiosis” is the challenge that we must face in all feeding measures.

20Research Infl uence of feed fl avour on pre-weaning pig performanceA fl avour is the sensory impression of a food or other substance, and is determined mainly by the senses of taste and smell. Feed fl avours are commonly used in swine nursery diets to improve diet palatability and stimulate intake. However, evidence of the potential effects of adding fl avours to creep feed on pre-weaning feed intake and performance is quite limited.

22Nutrition Lactose in piglet formulas, a necessityLactose is a staple component even in the least expensive piglet formulas worldwide. The reason is simple. Piglets thrive on lactose. Yet, the exact role and mode of action of this important ingredient is not widely understood, limiting the benefi ts that could be reaped from proper utilising it as a feed intake enhancer.

5Comment

6All about the industry

25Marketing

29Review

CONTENTS

32Market

11AAF004_Contents 311AAF004_Contents 3 4/28/2011 1:25:20 PM4/28/2011 1:25:20 PM


http://www.

More opinions and discussions can be viewed at www.AllAboutFeed.net/weblog/

I = P × A × T

Slowly, but gradually the word ‘sustainability’

is gaining ground in livestock production.

Sustainability all has to do with the

environmental impact of our being. Already

in 1974 American scientists Paul Ehrlich

and John Holdren defined the formula

stated above. They described environmental

impact (I) as a result of population growth

(P), consumption or affluence (A) and

technology (T). Population growth has the

largest impact on the environment and it is

unlikely that this will stop. Next to that,

increase of income will also lead to increase

of consumption. It

is quite difficult to

manage these fac-

tors. So, technology

is crucial in this

equation. An

underdeveloped

technology leads to

a high impact on

the environment.

History has shown

that improvements

in livestock

production through

breeding and nutrition and crop production

through better water and fertiliser

management has led to a multiplied

production but not to an equal increase in

environmental pressure. Poultry is the

perfect example of advances in technology:

FAO data shows that in 1961 per unit of

livestock 1.95 kg of chicken per year and

142 eggs were produced. In 2008 these

figures were 4.31 kg and 183 eggs

respectively. It is unlikely that at the output

side on a global scale these advances will

continue, so improvements have to be made

at the input side of production. Thus

technology should be embraced again in

animal nutrition and especially focus on

conversion rates: producing more meat, milk

and eggs with less feed. With current

computerised techniques it should be

possible to feed animals the correct amount

of amino acids and proteins ensuring

optimum growth with minimal waste. Of

course this comes at a cost, but in the long

term it will keep our planet livable.

Dick Ziggers, Editor

COMMENT

THE MIXIn a world where the pressure is on meat production, activists are telling us that we should have a ‘meatless Monday’, or even go vegetarian. We have a choice and as an omnivore can digest several sources of food. But with carnivorous species this is a problem, especially fish. Take for example the Atlantic salmon, which did not tolerate the slightest amount of vegetable matter in its diet a decade ago. Today, it thrives well on diets that consist of ingredients of vegetable origin, sometimes for more than 50%. Scientists managed not to alter the salmon’s dietary tract, but changed the vegetable source to match the salmon’s digestion system, as can be read in the article on feeding fish veggies and still keep their omega-3 traits in the flesh.

Colophon

AllAboutFeed is published by Reed Business bv,

International Agri Media, the Netherlands

Copyrights © 2011 All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928 124X Circulation 17,000

Publisher: Eddy Reuling

Editorial staff

Editor: Dick Ziggers, [email protected]

Tel: +31 (314) 34 9574

Co-editor: Emmy Koeleman

Sub-editor: Zanap van Zyl, Rosie Burgin

Advertising

Antoinette Kwakman, Dhierinder Ramcharan, Geke Koudenburg,

Lucas van ‘t Hof, Carlos Fernandez

Tel: +31 (314) 349 968

Media file available on request ([email protected])

Production manager

Emile Hezemans, Tel: +31 (314) 34 8132

Traffic manager

Marc Gerlich, Tel: +31 (314) 34 9962

Marketing director

Casper Niesink, Tel: +31 (314) 35 9621

Subscriptions

Subscriptions can start at any chosen time. Subscribe via web-

site or directly at our Customer Service. Subscriptions will auto-

matically continue unless Customer Service receives a cancella-

tion notification at least 30 days prior to subscription end date.

Notification of subscription termination can be done either in

writing or per e-mail: [email protected]

For information regarding running subscriptions, your can also

contact Customer Service. Tel: +31 (314) 358 359

Banker

Citibank Philadelphia, Lock Box 7107

P.O. Box 7247-7101, Philadelphia,

PA 19170-7107, USA

Account no. 4067-7681

Cheques payable to: Reed Business bv.

Address

Reed Business bv,

PO Box 4, 7000 BA Doetinchem, the Netherlands

Tel: +31 (314) 34 9968, Fax: +31 (314) 34 9392

www.AllAboutFeed.net

Published and printed in Singapore in co-operation with

Magnum International Printing Co. Ltd.

Level 4, 16 Tuas Avenue 5, Singapore 639340, Singapore

The publisher and authors declare that they have compiled this

document carefully and to the best of their knowledge. However,

no warranty or representation is made to the accuracy or com-

pleteness of the information contained in this document. The

publisher and authors assume no liability whatsoever for any

damage resulting from the use of this document or its contents.

Reed Business bv, the publisher of AllAboutFeed, collects data

on subscribers to this magazine and when you contact our

organisation. This data may be used for direct marketing pur-

poses for Reed Business bv, its ventures and carefully screened

companies. You can block your data for use in direct marketing

by writing to Reed Business bv, attn Addres processing, P.O. Box

8080, 7000 AV Doetinchem, the Netherlands.

11AAF004_Comment 511AAF004_Comment 5 4/28/2011 1:24:52 PM4/28/2011 1:24:52 PM

6 AllAboutFeed.net - Vol 2 - Nr 4 - 2011

ALL ABOUT THE INDUSTRY

Stricter requirements for producers of feed fatsGerman feed mills have to meet more stringent requirements after the dioxin scandal, Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner (CSU) said when she presented new draft regulations. The German feed sector accuses her of political activism. The regulation “Security and transparency” foresees a licensing obligation for companies and more stringent requirements

regarding self-control. Feed fats and oils and the industrial or technical fats industry are no longer allowed to be processed in the same facility. This is to deter that both types of fat are inadvertently mixed. Such mixing occurred at Harles & Jentzsch in Uetersen and which is considered to be the cause of the dioxin scandal that hit Germany in January. Next step from Aigner in getting a better grip on cases such as the one mentioned are a dioxin early-warning system and better consumer information.The German feed manufacturers, united in DVT, accuse the agriculture ministry of ‘political activism’. Most measures were “disproportionate and hardly feasible,” DVT President Helmut Wulf complained. “When processing the historical facts in future plans all links in the feed chain need to focus on control and risk assessment within the manufacturing process. Here is no room for political activism, but the real improvement of feed safety should be key,” Wulf said.

Big pharma abort engagement periodUS-based Merck and France based sanofi -aventis have terminated their agreement to form a new animal health joint venture by combining sanofi -aventis’ animal health business Merial with Intervet/Schering-Plough, Merck’s animal health unit. As a result, each party will keep its current, separate animal health assets and businesses. The merger was aborted because antitrust authorities insisted that both parties should divest some divisions. Due to the animal health merger the companies were obliged to divest activities with a value of $500 million. Particularly in the fi eld of poultry health the new entity would become too dominant. As a result of termination, both Merial and Intervet/Schering-Plough will continue to operate independently. The termination of the agree-ment is without penalty to either party and each party is responsible for its own expenses.

Patent for anti bacterial date pit conceptResearchers at the Al Ain University in the United Arabic Emirates (UAE) are testing the use of date pits to replace antibiotics administered to chickens. The idea is so promising that the university is patenting the concept. Ahmed Soliman Hussein, professor of poultry nutrition at UAE University, said that date pits have signifi cant ability to protect poultry against common bacterial diseases. As a raw material pits are

cheap, since the UAE’s date industry generates 50,000 tonnes of pits annually as by-products of processing. He said early results from the date pit feed tests had been very promising. “The UAE is one of the top fi ve date-producing countries in the world, and pits that are not discarded are often sold by processing factories to farmers at “almost no cost,” said Hussein. The UAE University researchers calculate that pits could be used to replace up to 20% of the corn in chicken feed. That would cut both costs and the use of growth-enhancing drugs. The university is in the process of patenting its fi ndings in the Emirates and in the US.

Yeast extracts as antibiotic alternativeA dietary yeast extract could be an effective alterna-tive to antibiotics for poultry producers, according to a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) study. Microbiologist Gerry Huff with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and her colleagues have been studying the effects of yeast extract as an immune stimulant and alternative to antibiotics in conven-tional turkeys. Initial studies suggest that dietary yeast extract has good potential as a non-antibiotic alternative for decreasing pathogens in organic turkey production. A larger study was needed to confi rm its effi cacy. As it is expensive to work with turkeys because they eat more than other birds, the researchers are testing yeast extract in Japanese quail to test the extract’s effi cacy against Salmonella and Campylo-bacter. Yeast extracts help boost the immune system’s ability to kill bacteria, but there is also a downside. According to Huff, yeast ramps up certain aspects of the immune response, but body weight may be decreased in some birds because the energy normally used for growth is redirected toward the immune sys-tem. The researchers are looking for a balance between enhancing immune response and maintaining growth.

The Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, makes up an estimated biomass of over

500,000,000 tonnes, roughly twice that of humans.

PEOPLE

DaniscoVeterinarian, Dr Guillermo

Gaona-Ramírez, has

recently joined the

Danisco Animal Nutrition team as a

technical sales manager. He will

cover the South American countries

of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and

Peru. Previously he worked as a

veterinarian in the broiler division of

Mac Pollo in Colombia and most

recently as poultry technical manager

in Latin America for Ralco Nutrition.

NorelFeed additive manufacturer Norel in

Spain has announced that Marta

Gutierrez has been appointed as

product manager specialities and

regulatory affairs officer. She will

take care of the development of the

specialties products (toxin binders,

pellet binders, special premixes, etc.)

including preparation of the registra-

tion dossiers, literature reviews and

the development of field trials.

Reed BusinessAs from January 1, Carlos

Fernández-Cordeiro has

been appointed as area

manager for International Agri Media,

publisher of AllAboutFeed. He is

responsible for the USA, UK, Ireland

and southern Europe.

IFIFThe International Feed Industry

Federation (IFIF) has appointed

Alexandra de Athayde as executive

director. Based in Brussels, Belgium,

she will lead IFIF as the representative

body of the global feed industry and

an essential participant in the food

chain that provides sustainable, safe

and nutritious food.

Diamond VLionel le Ven joins Diamond

V Europe as technical

sales support manager,

France. Recently, he worked for Altilis

as a sales engineer where he was

responsible for feed additive sales in

a parts of France and Morocco.

11AAF004_AllAboutTheInd 611AAF004_AllAboutTheInd 6 4/29/2011 11:38:29 AM4/29/2011 11:38:29 AM


http://www.

For up-to-date news on the feed industry visit www.AllAboutFeed.net/news

Safe feed

New amino acid requirements for gestation sowsResearchers at the University of Alberta’s Swine Research and Technol-ogy Centre have been examining the amino acid requirements of gestation sows. Their research has provided evidence that while great strides have been made in swine genetics over the last few years, the recommendations for daily amino acid intake during gestation needs revision. Currently the NRC (1998) recommendations for nutrient and energy intake during gestation are constant. However, ignoring the physiological changes in a sow and feeding a single gestation ration leads to over feeding in early gestation and underfeeding in late gestation. Based on their fi ndings, the researchers have proposed changes to the amino acids requirements during gestation (see Table).

Amino acid Stage of Parity

gestation 1 2 3

Lysine (g/day) Early 15.0 13.1 8.1

Late 18.0 18.4 13.0

Threonine Early N/A 7.0 5.0

(g/day) Late N/A 13.6 12.3

Thr:Lys ratio Early N/A 53 62

Late N/A 74 95

It will be diffi cult to satisfy the sows’ nutrient requirements during gestation without phase feeding or using a top-dress. The ratio of amino acids, especially threonine to lysine, changes not only through gestation but as the sow ages. This will mean that a different diet may be required for older parity sows. Not lysine but threonine may be the fi rst limiting amino acid for older sows, followed by tryptophan and lysine and branched chain amino acids. This would dramatically alter the diet formulation for older sows. This research, while promising to dramatically alter the way we feed gestation sows, has yet to be used on a commercial scale in a long term controlled feeding trial. These trials are expected to start soon.

BUSINESS BITES

European ProbioticsThe European Probiotic Association

has created a new Scientific

Committee and is celebrating its

resurrection with a seminar in

May at Victam International in

Cologne, Germany.

BakkafrostOn the Faroe Islands, salmon

grower Bakkafrost has signed a

letter of intent to acquire all out-

standing shares in fish processor

Havsbrún for €147.5m, enabling

the company to control the whole

value chain from salmon feed

production to the production of

value added salmon products.

Novus InternationalThe American Feed Industry

Association has handed out its

first AFIA Information Technology

(IT) Innovation Award to feed

ingredients supplier Novus

International.

Auburn UniversityAuburn University in Alabama has

broken ground for an $6.3 million

facility which was announced in

2009. The facility is designed to

help animal industries ensure

production of high-quality feed.

ProcaviSpanish feed miller Procavi,

specialised in turkey feeds, has

launched a new 40 tph feed

processing plant in the Carmona

municipality in Seville.

Cargill Animal NutritionCargill Animal Nutrition will in May

start producing at their new

facility, known as the Feed Depot

at Letterkenny in Pennsylvania, US.

It replaces the feed mill that was

destroyed in a fire in early 2010.

EVENTS

22 May, Alltech 27th International

Animal Health and Nutrition

Symposium,

Lexington, Kentucky, USA

www.alltech.com

31 May, Europe IFF Practical course

‘Pelleting of compound feed’,

Braunschweig, Germany

www.iff-braunschweig.de

06 June, Schothorst Feed Research

Feeds & Nutrition course,

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

www.schothorst.nl

09 June, VIV Turkey 2011,

Istanbul, Turkey

www.vivturkey.com/indexen.html

13 June, Advanced Feed

Manufacturing Short Course,

Kansas, USA

www.afi a.org

20 June, IFF course ‘Fundamentals

and new developments in feed

coompounding technology’,

Braunschweig, Germany

www.iff-braunschweig.de

20 June, International Workshop

‘Carbon Footprint Animal Nutrition’,

Wageningen, the Netherlands

www.www.pdv.nl/english/CSR/

carbon_footprint/

21 June, Agri Vision 2011,

Noordwijk aan Zee, the Netherlands

www.agrivision.com

13 July, Recent Advances in Animal

Nutrition,

Armidale, Australia

www.une.edu.au/ers/animalnutrition/

13 Sept, SPACE,

Rennes, France

www.space.fr

28 Sept, Animal Farming Ukraine,

Kiev, Ukraine

www.animalfarming.com.au

31 Oct, 18th European Symposium

on Poultry Nutrition,

Çesme, Izmir, Turkey

www.espn2011.org

11AAF004_AllAboutTheInd 711AAF004_AllAboutTheInd 7 4/29/2011 11:38:31 AM4/29/2011 11:38:31 AM


RESEARCH

Keeping the omega-3 effect

By Dick Ziggers The Aquaculture Protein Centre (APC), a research centre based at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB), has played a central role in the rapid advances made in fi sh feed tech-nology in recent years. Now researchers at APC are looking to feed salmon with lupin seeds, logging residue and North Sea natural gas. The growth of the aquaculture industry – in addition to requirements designed to make aquaculture more sustainable – have fuelled demand for APC’s research. From 2009 to 2010 alone, the centre’s budget has expanded by over NOK 10 million (€1.28m), to close to NOK 44 million (€5.65m).“There are many factors that go into the making of good fi sh feed,” says Professor Margareth Øverland, director of APC. “We have to focus on fi sh health, particularly in terms of the digestive system. We must also make sure that the fi sh can utilise the feed’s proteins well. Just as important, the feed has to taste good so the fi sh actually want to eat it.”

Heat treatmentEight years ago, when researchers at APC began trials feeding small propor-tions of soybeans to salmon (carnivores

by nature), the fi sh developed serious intestinal damage. Today, production salmon can consume feed with 50% vegetable protein without their growth being inhibited. This proportion can likely be increased once the researchers are confi dent that the long-term effects and interactions between various vegetable sources are safe.“Our fi eld has been developing very rapidly,” explains Øverland. “We now know that the key to getting salmon to eat these vegetable proteins is to create a mixture of different plants. In addition, new treatment methods using heat and additives have been developed that allow salmon to utilise the protein in peas and soybeans just as effi ciently as the protein in fi shmeal. At APC we have worked extensively on determining the exact temperature for the heat treatment. This optimises the balance between deactivating various anti-nutrients and utilising the nutrients of the feed.”She adds that one of the centre’s research fellows is working on raising that temperature (currently 120°C) for the purpose of deactivating even more of the anti-nutrients without reduc-ing the feeds’ nutritional content. It can also go the wrong. As an example

Øverland states that much of the dog food and cat food sold in shops is processed at such high temperatures that pets can utilise less than half of the protein in it.

New treatments for soySoybeans, being the least costly protein product on the world market, are a de-sirable alternative for animal feed. APC has discovered new methods of treating soybeans to allow salmon to utilise a higher proportion of a feed’s soy pro-tein. Salmon, however, digest peas better than soybeans, since peas contain only half as many anti-nutrients – a fact that has made peas an essential ingredient in today’s salmon feeds. “Salmon feeds now often contain three to six different vegetable additives,” says Øverland.APC has focused much of its attention on anti-nutrients, which are part of the plant world’s defence strategy to ward off insects and other pests and to avoid being eaten by the larger animals. Lupin seeds, for example, contain large amounts of anti-nutrient alkaloids as a defence against grazing animals. Alkaloids can make lupin seeds taste bitter, as well as reduce feed uptake in animals such as salmon. Researchers at APC have carried out numerous trials

Salmon is a carnivorous fi sh, but does remarkably well on partly vegetable diets.

Less than 10 years ago, the carnivorous salmon could not tolerate the

slightest amount of vegetable matter in their diet. Today, they thrive

on balanced feeds comprising of up to 70-80% plant ingredients.

How was this made possible, and are salmon still as healthy?

11AAF004_Aquafeed 811AAF004_Aquafeed 8 4/28/2011 1:17:28 PM4/28/2011 1:17:28 PM


in vegetable fed salmon

to determine just how much of these alkaloids salmon can tolerate. This knowledge will help plant researchers to produce lupin seeds with an alkaloid content that is palatable to salmon yet still allows the plants to retain their de-fences against insects and other pests.APC is working diligently to identify which anti-nutrients in soybeans lead to health problems in salmon. During their search, researchers have discovered two special anti-nutrients that may explain the infl ammatory response of the salm-on intestine when digesting soybeans. This infl ammation is problematic both ethically and economically.“Rapeseed is a low-cost plant that is produced large-scale in Norway,” continues Øverland. “But rapeseed, too, is high in anti-nutrients. We have man-aged to reduce them through fermenta-tion, with very encouraging results. Thus, Norwegian-produced rapeseed has potential as a salmon feed alterna-tive to US soybeans or Canadian peas. Potatoes are another crop we can pro-duce at low cost here in Norway that may someday be used in salmon feed.”

Gas and pulpAnother important research fi eld at APC involves microbial ingredients for

use in fi sh feed. Liv Torunn Mydland of APC’s Feed Ingredients and Processing Section elaborates: “Bacteria, yeast and microalgae are all promising organisms as feed ingredients. Our research on them so far has been fruitful. We have successfully developed new products that promote good growth in salmon without negatively affecting their health. Bacteria can live on natural gas, and yeast thrives on biodegrading wood pulp. In the future they could provide protein for animal feed, saving arable land for crops. We could also use low-value by-products such as straw.”APC’s researchers work with an eye to raising the sustainability of aquacul-ture, envisaging a high-value yield of healthy food for humans in the form of salmon meat from the input of natural gas or pulp. “We can also produce edible microalgae on a diet consisting primarily of CO2, sunlight, and a few minerals and vitamins. Imagine what that could mean for the future,” Torunn Mydland adds.Yet another promising new fi eld of research at APC is using krill in fi sh feed. Krill is the most abundant animal species in the world’s oceans. Far down in the food chain, it eats mainly phyto-plankton. The volume of just one spe-

cies of Antarctic krill alone is estimated at 500 million tonnes; it is considered sustainable to harvest at least fi ve mil-lion tonnes of krill annually from the Southern Ocean, according to CCAMLR, the international commission to man-age Antarctic marine living resources. At present, the annual harvest is just 100,000 tonnes. “Krill is a terrifi c raw material, rich in protein and fat,” confi rms Øverland, adding that APC researchers have carried out experiments processing a total of 25 tonnes of krill for fi sh feed. “We’ve learned a great deal about how to do this.”

Pea and soybean do not mix wellMarie Hillestad, senior scientist at BioMar in Trondheim, has headed a project that mapped various protein-rich plants as potential feed ingredients for salmon and rainbow trout. “In our project we studied saponins in particu-lar, which are well-known anti-nutri-ents in soybeans,” explains Hillestad. “Fish feed with relatively moderate proportions of soybeans with saponins intact can trigger serious intestinal reactions in salmon. Saponins cause irritation of the mucosa and leakage in the intestinal membranes.”

Atlantic salmon is increasingly grown on large sea farms. Because of cost and scarcity of fi sh products to make salmon feeds, trials with vegetable ingredients are showing promising results.

Lupin seeds contain large amounts of anti-nutrient alkaloids. Researchers at APC carry out trials to determine just how much of these alkaloids salmon can tolerate.



RESEARCH

Dr Hillestad is excited about their fi nd-ings: “We observed marked impacts on the fi sh in our trials, depending on the type of protein source the saponins were combined with. Saponins and pea protein, for example, are a very bad combination for both salmon and rainbow trout. But if we feed the fi sh pea protein without combining it with saponins, the peas are an excellent protein substitute for fi shmeal.”“It’s no problem for the fi sh to eat feed in which pea protein comprises a large proportion of the protein content. But feed with pea protein must not contain soybeans or other vegetable ingredients that are high in saponins,” she cautions. “Alternatively, the saponins can be removed from the soybeans.”The researchers do not yet know why this pea protein/saponin combination spells trouble for the fi sh. There are a number of reasons why peas are an ingredient that feed producers seek to use in greater quantity. One is that pea plants are capable of nitrogen fi xation, which reduces the need for artifi cial fertiliser, making peas a particularly sustainable crop for agriculture.“We need different, better methods to understand why this combination of soybean saponins and peas has such ill effects. We must be able to quantify the saponins in the vegetable ingredients, which we have not yet succeeded in doing,” confi des Hillestad, adding that more than once the team thought it was on the verge of a breakthrough, only to be disappointed.The researchers did discover that sa-ponins in themselves do not necessar-

ily cause appreciable problems in the fi sh. It is the combination of saponins with certain other potential vegetable feed ingredients that create the major diffi culties.

AquaMax projectA large international research project, AquaMax, has studied the effects on the nutritional benefi ts of fi sh raised on a diet that substitutes vegetable feed ingredients for some of the marine in-gredients. The project, a collaboration between 33 partners from 14 countries, was headed by the National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES) in Norway. The objective was to develop fi sh feeds using maximum pro-portions of vegetable-based ingredients – while still safeguarding fi sh welfare and ensuring that the fi sh products re-main safe and healthful for consumers.The AquaMax researchers conclude that fully 70% of the fi sh oil and 80% of the marine proteins in conventional feed can be replaced with vegetable ingredi-ents without any adverse effect on fi sh health. Even with such a radically al-tered diet, salmon appear to retain their value as a good source of fatty acids that are healthy for humans.“Exchanging vegetable ingredients for fi shmeal and fi sh oil involves taking a great many feed components into ac-count,” explains project coordinator Øyvind Lie, Director of NIFES.Eating seafood can be seen as something of a trade-off. “We know we risk losing some of the benefi cial marine omega-3 fatty acids in fi sh fat by altering the feed composition. Compared to vegetable

sources, however, those same marine ingredients may contain more pollutants such as dioxins, PCBs and brominated fl ame retardants. We have observed sub-stantially lowered amounts of dioxins in fi sh that are fed vegetable ingredients.”The AquaMax project examined whether production salmon can still be considered healthful food when raised on roughly 50% vegetable feed. “The risk of ingesting contaminants must be weighed against the health benefi ts of eating seafood rich in the marine omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA,” Lie points out. “This is a dilemma for pregnant women in particular.”

Pregnant womenThe AquaMax researchers chose to focus on precisely that group: expect-ant mothers. “Pregnant women and the children they are carrying are most vulnerable to pollutants such as diox-ins – yet they also have the greatest requirement for the nutrients in fi sh,” explains Lie. “Marine omega-3 fatty acids are especially important for both mother and baby.”In designing a diet for pregnant subjects, the researchers raised salmon on a cus-tomised feed in which large proportions of marine ingredients were replaced with vegetable meal. The salmon feed still contained some marine ingredients. “The results were very encouraging. In the group that ate the test salmon fi llets, omega-3 levels were elevated in both the mothers and their babies. Even though these test salmon had received less omega-3 through a feed based mainly on vegetable ingredients, the salmon meat still provided an excellent source of the healthful fatty acids.”Vegetable ingredients used in fi sh feed do contain pollutants, but the AquaMax project’s preliminary results indicate that not much of these are carried over into the actual fi sh fi llets. Comparative-ly more pollutants are transmitted from fi sh ingredients. AAF

Basic information written by Bård Amundsen/Anne Ditlefsen, Research Council of Norway. Translation: Darren McKellep/Carol B. Eckmann. Editing and summarising: Dick Ziggers

Krill is the most abundant animal species in the world’s oceans. It is considered sustainable to harvest at least fi ve million tonnes of krill annually.


Process technology, machinery, and complete plants for the animal feed industry

ANDRITZ FEED & BIOFUELEurope, Asia, and South America: [email protected] and Canada: [email protected] www.andritz.com

Lifland, Iceland. A complete pro cess ing line for animal feed

plant (capacity 50,000 t/a),

total animal feed production in Iceland. The turnkey feed plant started producing in Octo ber 2010.

Together, we make it work!

Process equipment upgrades and replacements Optimization and support

Leading technologies Global presence


RESEARCH

Global view on feed cost and feed effi ciency on dairy farms

The recent leap in grain prices has become higher than the 2008 level, which has a major effect on the

whole dairy chain due to the competitiveness on feed resources and feed costs. However, to understand

the drivers for feed cost, it is essential to benchmark the existing feeding systems. In a study by IFCN,

feed effi ciency and feed costs were used to analyse the cost of milk production and to show the role of

feed costs and feed effi ciency in milk production costs.

By Othman Alqaisi, Asaah Ndambi and Torsten Hemme, IFCN Dairy Research Center, CAU University Kiel, Germany

Feed prices have become extremely volatile in recent years. Soybeans and corn were used to describe trends in global feed prices. The calculated IFCN feed price indicator is based on 70% corn (energy feed) and 30% soybean meal (protein feed). This price indicator shows that from 2002 to 2006 average feed price was around US$15/100 kg feed while increasing

strongly with large fl uctuations ranging from $20 - $32/100 kg feed during the period from 2006 -2011 with average feed price of $21/100 kg feed in the same period. At the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011 the price increased up to $31/100 kg feed (Figure 1). The question is now, up to which level feed costs will increase under the huge increase in feed prices?

Comparative calculation methodThe methodology applied for data collection, economic analysis and results validation was developed by the International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN) and uses TIPI-CAL (Technology Impact Policy Impact CALculation model). Complete typical dairy farms data were collected via re-search partners from different countries worldwide. In this study, a typical farm represents the most common farm type within a production system which produces the largest proportion of milk in a country or a region. Typical farms were built and validated by a panel of dairy experts. Farm data were inserted to the model which has a sub module (feed module). This feed

Dairy farm in South Africa

11AAF004_Dairy Feed 1211AAF004_Dairy Feed 12 4/28/2011 1:25:43 PM4/28/2011 1:25:43 PM


module is combining both physical and economic aspects of feeding systems globally. The model analyses FE, intake data, feed economics, feed prices, nutri-ents use effi ciency and land productiv-ity on dairy farms. The results of this study represent average typical dairy farms in different countries in 2009.

Cost of milk productionIn economic terms, cost of milk produc-tion is the most important indicator that determines profi tability on dairy farms. Cost of milk production calcu-lated as the total cost from the profi t and loss analysis related to the total returns of the dairy enterprise including milk and non-milk returns (cost of milk production = the total cost from profi t and loss account – non milk returns + opportunity cost + quota cost). The results (Figure 2) show that two groups of regions can be identifi ed: low cost regions (Africa, CEEC, South America, Asia and Oceania) and high cost regions (Western Europe, North America and the Middle East). Low cost regions have a cost level of about $30/100 kg, except Africa which has a much lower cost ($11/100 kg). For the high cost regions, Western Europe has the highest costs ($56/100 kg), while North America and the Middle East both have a cost level of $44/100 kg ECM (Energy Corrected Milk). It is interesting to note that there were

farms in the high cost regions which were able to produce milk with costs of about $30-34/100 kg milk.

Share of feed cost on total costsFeed costs usually have the biggest share in the cost of milk production; therefore digging deeper in feed cost analysis can improve on farm profi t-ability. Feed costs ($/100 kg ECM milk) were calculated using the Activity Based Costing method where variable costs for feed production and the pur-chased feed, labour, land used for feed production and other on-farm inputs related to feed, were allocated to feed costs with grades from zero (i.e. no machinery used in feeding process) to 100% (i.e. purchased concentrate). These costs were then divided by the total cost of milk production to get the share of feed costs in percentage. Based on the results from the average farms analysed, we cluster feed costs to three categories, high, average and low share of feed costs on total costs. The high share of feed costs is dominant in farms located in East Asia, parts of Latin America and in the Middle East where the share is usually higher than 70% of total milk production cost. This could be attributed to the high amounts of roughage and concentrates purchased, while other costs like labour and machinery are very small and don’t play a major role.

Moderate share of feed cost, where at least 50-70% of total costs is going to feed, is found in the majority of farms in Central and South America, Africa, Oceania and southern parts of Europe. The moderate share of feed cost could be related to lower purchased feeds share and higher proportion of feed produced on-farm with lower production cost. Where other inputs such as labour and machinery represent a higher portion of the cost of milk production feed costs are less dominant in total milk produc-tion costs. With 40-50% of total milk production costs, this is dominant in farms located in north Asia, Europe and North America. The share feed costs in this system is the lowest as it could be related to higher input prices such as labour, large capital investments and quota costs, while higher costs are dedi-cated for feeding and manure handling.

Cost of milk production

US$ / 100 kg milk (FCM)

>60<=120

>50<=60>40<=50

>30<=40

>20<=30

no data

<=20

Figure 2 - Cost of milk production on average typical dairy farms per country (2009).

US$ per 100 kg feed35

30

20

25

10

15

0

5

Jan

02

Jan

03

Jan

04

Jan

05

Jan

06

Jan

07

Jan

08

Jan

09

Jan

10

Jan

11

in US$Average 2006-2010

Figure 1 - IFCN feed price indicator.

IFCNThe IFCN - International Farm Comparison Network - is a global

network of dairy researchers from over 80 countries cooperating with

over 70 companies representing the dairy chain. The IFCN has a Dairy

Research Center (DRC) with 15 dairy experts coordinating the network

process and dairy research activities. The results of the IFCN work are

annually published in the IFCN Dairy Report. IFCN’s mission is to

“create a better understanding of milk production worldwide”.

More details can be found at www.ifcndairy.org.



RESEARCH

The result of this study shows that higher feed costs do not mean higher animal performance and consequently feed effi ciency; but feed cost is linked strongly to feed prices and the feeding system on farm.

Feed effi ciency and milk yieldFeed effi ciency (FE) recently has been integrated and used on dairy farms as an economic and performance indica-tor. With higher feed prices and costs it would be very important to have a short overview on FE as this indicator on dairy farms represents the ability of the cow to convert feed resources to milk. This indicator is used as a per-formance and an economic indicator to benchmark dairy farms. Feed effi ciency is calculated as the ECM output per kg dry matter intake. The dry matter intake represents the average typical daily cow intake of the ration from lactating cows. To understand the relationship between feed effi ciency and milk yield a regression analysis between these two

variables was carried out (Figure 4). The wide variation in feed effi ciency shown in the regression line is attributed to the differences in the quality of the feed-stuff fed to the animals and the dairy breeds used in addition to other factors such as lactation period and parity. One major driver of milk yield is the feed effi ciency. The regression line shows the relation between Feed Effi ciency and milk yield which elucidates a strong positive relation between both variables (R2 = 0.65). The slope shows that an increase of FE of one unit (0.1) will lead to an increase in annual milk yield of 750 kg ECM milk on global level. However, with higher feed effi ciency animals are producing more milk, but under which cost? To answer this ques-tion, two average farms were compared in terms of feed effi ciency, feed cost, share of feed cost and cost of milk pro-duction (Table 1). We note that in high yielding farms, animals characterised with higher feed effi ciency and higher feed cost have a higher total cost of milk production as well. This shows that feed effi ciency is a major driver for increas-ing milk yield but it is also a driver for cost of milk production. However, small scale dairy farms in Asian countries are characterised by lower feed cost due to the lower feed quality offered to cows from pasture or agricultural by-products. They produce less milk compared to the European farms which are characterised

by higher feed quality and consequently higher feed effi ciency and milk yield.

ConclusionMilk and feed prices are presently the most volatile agricultural commodities in the world. Therefore any use of grains in animal feeding should be used effi cient-ly, not only because it affects on farm profi tability; but also because ineffi cient use of feed resources is environmentally pollutant. Via great variation in feed cost and feed effi ciency between dairy farms, we understand that there are countries in which milk yield is very low but they produce milk at a lower cost. This draws a question on the future competitive advantage of such systems compared to high input-output systems. Absolute feed costs are highest in the European countries where feed effi ciency is also high, while the feed cost share in total costs is highest in developing countries, which refl ect the production systems dominant in different countries. There is strong relationship between milk yield and feed effi ciency worldwide. The African and south east Asian dairy farms can produce a low quantity of milk with low feed effi ciency and low feed cost compared to the European farms. This implies that improving feed effi -ciency under the current feed price sce-narios would remain a substantial way to reduce feed cost in countries where cost of milk production is high. AAF

Share of feed cost on total costs

- 2010/2011 feed price =31 US$/100 kg feed, average share of feed cost on total costs may increases up to 65%

- average share of feed cost = 50%, feed price 21 US$/100 kg feed

no data%

>70%>50%<=70%

<=50%

Figure 3 - Share of feed cost in total costs on average dairy farm per country (2009).

1.8

1.6

1.2

1.4

0.8

1.0

0.4

0.6

0.0

0.2

Feed

effi

cien

cy

Milk yield kg ECM

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1000

0

1100

0

1200

0

y = 0,0001x + 0,3432R2 = 0,65

Figure 4 - Trend line of feed effi ciency and milk yield combined

(102 farms in 44 countries).

Unit European Asian

Feed efficiency Kg ECM/kg DM intake 1.22 0.38

Milk yield ECM milk/day 22.5 2.4

Feed cost US$/100 kg ECM 26 19

Feed cost share % <50 >70

Cost of milk production US$/ 100 kg ECM >50 25

Table 1 - Comparison of effi ciencies between European and Asian farms.



NUTRITION

A cow and calf in an ARS feed-restriction study on the Upper Lignite pasture at Miles City, Montana. Feed restriction may lower the costs of developing replacement heifers and extend their lifespan.

Improving beef production effi ciency and meat quality

By Sharon Durham, Agriculture Research Service, USA

Attaining those goals has led to strate-gies and technologies for reducing the cost of beef production, including more effi cient nutrient use and improved reproductive performance. Reducing production costs hinges on maintain-ing high rates of reproductive success while reducing use of harvested feeds. A common problem that US cow-calf producers face is low rebreeding per-formance among 2 and 3-year-old cows. This occurs when the cows’ needs for additional nutrients during preg-nancy and lactation have not been met. Rather than just feed young cows more, the LARRL scientists are attempting to make them more effi cient so they will need less feed.Animal feed is a large part of beef producers’ costs. Cereal grains—often used as a major part of heifer (young female cattle) diets—are becoming less abundant and more expensive because

they are in higher demand for human food and ethanol production. Feed represents about 50-55% of total costs of developing replacement heifers. According to animal scientist Andrew Roberts and colleagues, heifers they studied developed to target weights lower than those traditionally recom-mended, consumed 27% less feed over the winter months, and gained weight more effi ciently throughout the post weaning period and subsequent grazing season. “The strategy of providing less feed may reduce costs of developing each replacement heifer by more than $31 and extend their life span, with important ramifi cations for lifetime ef-fi ciency and profi tability,” says Roberts.

Feed them to breed them“For the last 3 to 4 decades, the mantra has been ‘feed them to breed them,’ which means providing enough feed

during the fi rst year to ensure that young heifers reach puberty to start reproducing,” he says. “But our studies indicate this doesn’t seem to be optimal in the long run. Our research shows that by feeding to get all the animals bred, you are also propping up the ineffi cient animals—those that won’t consistently produce calves when put in nutrient-limited environments later in life.” In their study, heifers (50% Red Angus, 25% Charolais, and 25% Tarentaise) were divided into two lifetime treat-ment groups: The control group was fed according to industry guidelines, and the restricted group was fed (on a body-weight basis) 80% of feed con-sumed by their control counterparts for 140 days, ending when they were one year old. The restricted heifers grew slower and weighed less at any point in time as a consequence of less feed. The actual amount of feed provided

US consumers love beef. Average

American consumption is around

28.5 kg per person each year. Producing

enough cattle to meet that demand

requires effi ciency and innovation.

Agricultural Research Service scientists

at the Fort Keogh Livestock and Range

Research Laboratory (LARRL) in Miles

City, Montana, are conducting studies

designed to make cattle production

more effi cient and to provide better

beef products for consumers.

11AAF004_Beef 1511AAF004_Beef 15 4/28/2011 1:39:33 PM4/28/2011 1:39:33 PM


NUTRITION

Geneticist Lee Alexander (left) and technician Stacie Kageyama genotype calves and their parents with a DNA analyser. Genotypes are used for research tasks such as confi rming parentage, identifying locations of interest in the genome, and fi nding important mutations.

Farm supervisor Benny Bryan (left) and geneticist Michael MacNeil load feed bins used to measure feed consumption for studies evaluating effi ciency of weight gain in steers.

At Miles City, Montana, animal scientist Andrew Roberts identifi es a calf in a study to reduce beef production cost prior to weaning.

to restricted heifers over the entire feeding period was about 73% of that provided to the controls. Final pregnancy rates were 87% for restricted heifers and 91% for the controls. “Our results indicate that restricting feed is a matter of econom-ics for farmers,” says LARRL geneticist Michael MacNeil. “We have also found that other strategies, such as cross-breeding and providing early calving assistance, can increase the rebreeding performance of young cows.”

Feed restriction improves effi ciencyFrom breeding through late autumn, the heifers were managed as one group. Each winter, the pregnant animals were again separated into two groups—restricted feed and control. The restricted cows were fed 20% less supplemental feed during the winter months than the controls. The scientists predicted that these treatments would allow nature to decide which heifers were reproductively effi cient: Less effi cient heifers would eventually fail to reproduce and be culled if restricted, whereas feeding more would keep them in production but result in more ex-pense for the producer. “Early elimina-tion of ineffi cient breeders allows them to be harvested for the high-quality meat market,” says Roberts. Roberts and colleagues also found that restricting the cows at a young age might improve their effi ciency throughout the rest of their life. The restricted-feed study has been ongoing since the winter of 2001, and the researchers are now looking at the second generation—those that were born from cows on restricted diets. “An interesting thing occurred: The feed restriction seems to have made the second generation able to withstand restriction with greater effi ciency,” says Roberts. In cattle, maximum produc-tion (measured by weight of calf at weaning) doesn’t peak until fi ve years of age. In the study, the proportion of cows that became pregnant each year and stayed in the herd until age fi ve was the greatest for restricted cows out of restricted dams. Restricted cows from control-fed dams had the lowest rate of survival to age fi ve.

The researchers found that the third-generation feed-restricted calves are lighter at birth and at weaning than those calves from cows fed at the indus-try standard, but the feed-restricted cows themselves are slightly fatter and heavier at the calves’ weaning. “Physiologically, the second-generation restricted cow is conserving some of the nutrients taken in for body reserves, which may result in more effi cient reproduction and better survivability in the herd,” says Roberts.

Getting high-quality, great-tasting beefImproving beef quality is another prior-ity for LARRL scientists. Marbling—the streaks of fat in lean meat—has long been an indicator of palatability, and it serves as one basis for determining the price of beef. Marbling is an inherited trait and thus amenable to genetic im-provement. Marbling is measured either at slaughter or by ultrasound of the live animal. “Cattle breeders would benefi t greatly from having genetic indicators of superb marbling and other sought-after traits,” says MacNeil. This is where geneticist Lee Alexander steps in. Alexander and his colleagues used a panel of molecular genetic markers to locate specifi c places in the genome that contain genes that infl uence traits such as marbling and fatty acid composition. They looked at the genome of a Wagyu-Limousin cross population. These breeds were chosen because Wagyu is a heavily marbled beef, and Limousin is leaner. “Genetic markers successfully identifi ed a region of the genome associated with the amount of marbling and relative quan-tities of saturated and mono-unsatu-rated fats,” says Alexander. Beef with the best fl avour has a higher percentage of mono-unsaturated fatty acids. These results may lead to a better tasting and healthier product for consumers through breeding systems that lead to an improved fat profi le in beef. AAF

This research is part of Food Animal Production, an ARS national program (#101) described at www.nps.ars.usda.gov. This article was previously published in the January 2011 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

11AAF004_Beef 1611AAF004_Beef 16 4/28/2011 1:39:34 PM4/28/2011 1:39:34 PM

CH2

OHOH OH

O O

CH2OH

OHOH OH

O O

CH2

OHOH

OO CH2OH

OHOH

OCH2OH

OHOH

OO O

EXCELLENT:

BIOLEX® MB40 (MOS)

LEIBER® BETA-S (>70 % (1,3)-(1,6)-β-D-Glucan)

as prebiotics against mycotoxins for immunity & resistance

EXCELLENT!

WWW.LEIBERGMBH.DE


PROCESSING

A closer look at feed

structureIn pig farming animal health and particularly the health of

the gastrointestinal tract (GI-tract) is a major subject for

research. “Preventing dysbioses through the best possible

support to the GI-tract eubiosis” is the challenge that we must

face in all feeding measures. Feed additives are often used in

this challenge. But having a better grip on the structure of the

feed is an underestimated and cheap tool to aid gut health.

By Dr Heinrich Kleine

Klausing, Deutsche

Tiernahrung Cremer,

Dusseldorf, Germany

The infl uence of different additives on the intestinal health has been extensive-ly studied in recent years in practical feed research. The issue of diet formula-tion in different studies was also taken into account. However, also the techni-cal behaviour of the feed in the GI-tract plays a central role in promoting gut health. This is where feed structure is of special importance. The raw materials for a compound feed can be individu-ally milled before mixing or together after mixing. This gives the mash feed mixture a characteristic structure depending on the grinding techniques

(e.g. hammer mill vs. roller mill), the sieve used in the hammermill, the dis-tance between the screen and hammers and of course the raw materials used. As such, wheat is ground fi ner than barley

when using identical technical equip-ment. In addition, other raw materials in the mix such as corn, soybean meal, rapeseed meal, wheat bran, beet pulp, etc. have specifi c milling properties. It raises the question of how the struc-ture of a feed mixture with objectively measurable criteria can be assessed. The easiest way is to determine the particle size distribution with a fraction sieve. In Figure 1, the sieve analysis of a commercial mash feed (13.0 MJ ME per kg, 17% crude protein, 0.9% lysine) is shown, with grain, grain by-products, soybean meal and rapeseed meal as basic compounds. This structure from a practical point of view can be classifi ed as “well structured” and “perfect”.The answer to the frequently asked question about the right choice of screen perforations in the classic hammer mills depends on the used mill

Without notice the die during pelleting is an extra ‘grinder’ for the press meal, further crushing the ingredients.

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0<0,25

mm

0,25-0,5

mm

0,5-0,7

mm

0,7-1,0

mm

1,0-1,4

mm

1,4-2,0

mm

2,0-2,5

mm

2,5-3,15

mm

>3,15

mm

7,18

11,813,6

14,516,2

20,4

14,2

2,1

0

%

Figure 1 – Sieving curve of pig fi nishing feed (475 <1 mm and 53% >1 mm).

11AAF004_Feed Structure 1811AAF004_Feed Structure 18 4/28/2011 1:40:31 PM4/28/2011 1:40:31 PM


technology (type of screen, hammer speed) in the feed plant or on the farm. In both situations, the technical qual-ity of screen and hammers should be checked regularly. According to studies by Lindenmaer (2008) screen perfora-tion size plays a minor role compared to the quality of the hammers in achieving a good grind. Worn hammers produce more fi ne meal with a high proportion of dust - even on coarse sieve sizes.

Particle size in pelletsFeed for sows, piglets and fattening pigs in many cases is not fed as mash but is technically agglomerated into pellets or granules (pellets coarsely ground on a roller mill). The reasons for this are many: improved fl ow characteristics in feed silos and feeders, less segregation during transport in the feeding systems, minimised feed losses in feeders, reduction of dust in the barn and a positive infl uence on feed intake and feed conversion. Particle size of ingredients in granuled or pelleted feed is smaller in mash feed with the same components. Due to the pelleting process itself, in which the feed is pressed through die holes of 3 to 5 mm diameter, another technical una-voidable crush is taking place. These from the viewpoint of animal nutrition distinguishing features of pelleted (or granulated) and well-structured mash feeds are summarised in Figure 2.Determination of particle size distribu-tion in a mash feed is quite easy us-ing a dry sieve method. Much more complex, however, is the determination of particle distribution in a pelleted or granulated feed. Visscher (2006), Offenberg (2007) and Great Liesner (2008) have described the so-called “wet sieve analysis for pelleted com-pound feed”, which has been modifi ed for our company’s own tests to obtain the fractions >1 mm and <2 mm, and identify >2 mm and the resulting sum for >1mm. First, it should be noted that dissolving the feeds in water already leads to a change in particle size distri-bution due to swelling and dissociation processes. In our own test a direct decrease in the particle size fraction of >1 mm by 5-7% could be determined.

For further research therefore we omit-ted wet sieving of mash feed before pelleting. The values of the dry sieved mash were used in the test series. In Figure 3 and 4 results are presented of different particle size fractions be-fore and after pelleting of grower feed (3.3 mm die) and sow feed (4.7 mm die and granule on roller mill). Feed structure was changed by the pelleting process. The share of particles >1 mm was almost reduced by 50%, compared to the pre-press mash. Exten-sive further in-house research - includ-ing also broiler feed – showed that par-ticle size distribution of the press meal has a decisive infl uence on the particle size distribution in the pellet or granule. It also became clear that using a press meal with an even coarser structure - in the test, a broiler feed with 62% of particles >1 mm in the press meal – does not result in a higher proportion of par-ticles >1 mm in the pellet with the cur-rently used techniques. Rather, in poor technical settings (e.g. larger distance between roller and die in the press) loss of structure tend to be maximised (only about 10% of particles >1 mm in the pellet compared with about 25% for op-timised procedure). Based on these data in ongoing projects further technical possibilities will be studied to minimise the loss of structure in pelleting of feeds.

Recommendationsa) The feed structure of mash feed or pelleted or granulated feed for pigs can be produced according to current scien-tifi c and practical knowledge using the following parameters and assessments:Mash feed: at least 40 to 45% of parti-cles >1 mm (dry sieve method for meal);b) Press meal for the production of pel-lets or granules for sows, piglets and fattener feed: at least 50% of particles >1 mm (dry sieve method for meal). It should be noted that with the wet sieve analysis (due to the dissolving process) already at least 5 percentage points are lost for particles >1 mm compared to the dry sieve analysis.c) During pelleting a technical una-voidable crushing is taking place. The level of this unavoidable crush can be optimised by technical and physical

Figure 2 – Feed structure – Differences/advantages.

0,0

% >

1m

m10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

54,3

47,3

25,4

50,0

60,0

3,3mm Pellets, wetPress meal, wetPress meal, dry

Figure 3 – Feed structure change through pelleting (I).

5449,1

23,5

4,7mm Pell. + gran.,wet

Press meal, wetPress meal, dry0,0

% >

1m

m

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

Figure 4 – Feed structure change through pelleting (II).

means. Based on this it is required for pelleted or granulated pig feed to have a “feed structure in the agglomerated product” of at least 20% particles >1 mm (determined by wet sieving of the pellets or granules).It is expected that future technical developments in feed compounding will further solve the problem of tech-nically unavoidable crushing during pelleting. AAF

11AAF004_Feed Structure 1911AAF004_Feed Structure 19 4/28/2011 1:40:32 PM4/28/2011 1:40:32 PM


Infl uence of feed fl avour on pre-weaning pig performanceA fl avour is the sensory impression of a food or other

substance, and is determined mainly by the senses of taste

and smell. Feed fl avours are commonly used in swine nursery

diets to improve diet palatability and stimulate intake.

However, evidence of the potential effects of adding fl avours

to creep feed on pre-weaning feed intake and performance

is quite limited.

By Greg Simpson, swine nutritionist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Canada

RESEARCH

Historically, early research examining creep feeding used feed disappearance for the entire litter to determine if the creep feed was being consumed. This could be misleading as it assumes that all piglets in a litter consumed the creep feed. Recent creep feed studies, using colour markers in the feed, have shown that only a certain proportion of piglets actually consume creep feed. These “eaters” as a result have better initial post weaning feed intake and growth performance than those in the litter that do not consume creep feed.Subsequently, researchers have tried to identify factors that increase the proportion of eaters within a litter to improve overall nursery performance. One key dietary factor may be how the creep feed smells. It is also thought that exposure to the fl avour in the pre-weaning period may also improve post-weaning performance when the same fl avour is added to the nursery diets.

Adding fl avourIn a recent study, researchers at Kansas State University examined the role of using a feed fl avour to increase pre-weaning and post-weaning performance. In the fi rst part of the experiment the researchers used two experimental diets; a creep diet with no fl avour added and

a creep diet with a fl avour added. Both diets were offered free choice from day 18 of lactation to weaning at day 21. In addition, both creep diets contained a colour marker which was used to evaluate whether piglets were eaters or non-eaters. All sows were fed the same lactation diet, and water was offered free choice to both sows and piglets.The results of this study found that overall litter weaning weight, total body weight gain and average daily gain (ADG) between litters fed creep with or without fl avour were not different. On an individual basis, piglet wean-ing weight, total body weight gain and ADG between the two diet treatments also was not different. The addition of a feed fl avour to the creep feed did not infl uence total or daily creep feed intake (ADFI) or the proportion of creep feed eaters in whole litters (Figures 1 and 2).

Poor response to fl avourThe lack of response to the feed fl avour may be due to the limited time of creep

feeding. In this study the researchers chose a period of three days to refl ect the current practise of US pig producers to provide creep feed for two to seven days before weaning. They felt that for the addition of fl avour to be warranted that any effect must be visible in a short duration. In their previous studies, researchers at Kansas State University found that 75% of the total litter creep feed intake was consumed in the last seven days before weaning. They also found that piglets given access to creep feed for two days before weaning consumed the same or greater amounts of creep feed compared with litters that were creep fed for seven to eleven days. These observations seem to indicate that creep feed intake is related to maturity of piglets rather than the duration of creep feeding. However, before producers start reducing the length of creep feeding, previous research at Kansas State University found that creep feeding duration does

Flavouring creep feed has little effect on feed intake of piglets.

11AAF004_feed flavour 2011AAF004_feed flavour 20 4/28/2011 1:17:51 PM4/28/2011 1:17:51 PM


e

infl uence the proportion of eaters in whole litters. In their study, litters provided with creep feed for 13 days produced approxi-mately 14% more eaters than litters fed creep for six days or two days (80%, 70% and 71% respectively). However, for a litter of 10 pigs a 14% increase in eaters translates to only one additional eater per litter.

Importance of creep feedIn summary, based on this study, providing a feed fl avour in creep feed does little to increase pre-weaning performance or the number of eaters within a litter. This research highlights that creep feed is an important tool in transitioning piglets to solid feed. Piglets that are eaters of creep have improved feed intake and growth performance in the post weaning period and the longer the duration of creep feeding the higher number of eaters within a litter. However, the economic cost/benefi t of the ad-ditional feed and labour required should be balanced against the potential increase in nursery performance. AAF

Total Intake ADFI

Feed

Inta

ke (g

)

With flavourNo flavour

0.6

0.7

0.4

0.5

0.2

0.3

0

0.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Eaters Non-eaters

Perc

enta

ge o

f Litt

er

With flavourNo flavour

Figure 1 – Effect of feed fl avour on total and daily intake.

Figure 2 – Effect of feed fl avour on eaters and non-eaters.

Pigs mean work. But with SANGROVIT®, you can switch to autopilot. Because with SANGROVIT®, your yield moves

into the fast lane. With IQ INSIDE for better feed intake, higher meat quality and faster growth. All confi rmed

by independent studies. SANGROVIT® comes from Phytobiotics. Not in tins, but in practical portions instead.

From the people who studied how to increase yields.

MAKES THE SWINE FINE TO DINE.

11AAF004_feed flavour 2111AAF004_feed flavour 21 4/28/2011 1:17:54 PM4/28/2011 1:17:54 PM


NUTRITION

Lactose in piglet formulas, a necessityLactose is a staple component even in the least expensive

piglet formulas worldwide. The reason is simple. Piglets thrive

on lactose. Yet, the exact role and mode of action of this

important ingredient is not widely understood, limiting thus

the benefi ts that could be reaped from proper utilising this

nutrient as a feed intake enhancer in post-weaning diets.

This article explains why lactose is important and how best to

include it in piglet diets.

By Ioannis Mavromichalis, Ariston Nutrition SL, Spain

The benefi cial effects of lactose on growth performance during the post-weaning period are well documented. The most common sources of lactose used in these early studies were skim milk (50% lactose) and dried whey (70% lactose). Of course, today, other dairy products that may be less expensive yet equally effective in supplying lactose include crystalline lactose, deprotein-ised whey, whey permeate, milk chocolate product, cheese powder, and whey protein concentrate.It has long been known that pigs younger than 8-10 weeks of age cannot utilise starch very effectively, although starch digestive enzymes can be rapidly induced by dietary substrate. Neverthe-less, weaning stress accompanied by low feed intake prolong physiological maturation of the digestive system, and for this reason, simple sugars (such as lactose) and cooked cereals are gener-ally more digestible than raw starch. It is, thus, widely accepted that piglets benefi t from readily digestible carbo-hydrates until their digestive system is

fully capable of utilising raw starch.Diets based on cereals and vegetable protein sources can support greater growth performance when supplement-ed with milk products such as dried whey and skim milk. Inclusion of 10-20% dried whey in simple diets (maize, soybean meal, and oat groats) has con-sistently improved growth performance by at least 15% in pigs weaned at three weeks of age. Other dairy products are equally effective in enhancing post weaning growth performance, although they are usually more expensive.Initially, the effectiveness of dairy products was attributed to increased palatability and protein digestibility. However, it has been demonstrated since then that lactose and not the protein fraction of whey is responsible for improved feed intake and weight gain during the fi rst weeks post-weaning. In these trials, lactose supplementation restored growth performance in diets devoid of dried whey, whereas lactalbu-min supplementation failed to improve performance (Table 1).

It should be remarked that supplemen-tation with a highly digestible source of protein or crystalline amino acids was essential for lactose to elicit its benefi cial effects in whey-free diets. In the same studies (Mahan, 1992), it was demonstrated that after the fi rst two weeks post-weaning, piglets responded more to protein supplementation, an in-dication of a rapidly maturing digestive system and increased need for highly digestible protein.

Lactose specifi cationsSeveral studies have investigated the level of dietary lactose concentration that supports maximal growth performance in weaned pigs. These data suggest the following:1. high concentrations of lactose

are needed immediately post-weaning,

2. lactose concentrations can be reduced rapidly afterwards, and

3. piglets heavier than 10-12 kg in body weight do not benefi t greatly from supplemental lactose.

Weaning stress accompanied by low feed intake prolong physiological maturation of the digestive system, and for this reason, simple sugars (such as lactose) and cooked cereals are generally more digestible than raw starch.

11AAF004_Lactose 2211AAF004_Lactose 22 4/28/2011 1:16:57 PM4/28/2011 1:16:57 PM


Although responses to lactose have been variable, due to basal diet com-position, genetics, environment, and health conditions, most experiments report similar lactose requirements for nursery pigs. Therefore, practical recommendations for dietary lactose specifi cations are presented in Table 2.

ImmunoglobulinsAddition of in-feed immunoglobulins (from egg antibodies or animal plasma) may lower lactose requirements because it promotes feed intake post-weaning. For example, pigs fed diets with 6.75% plasma protein required about 15% add-ed lactose for maximal growth perform-ance during the fi rst week post weaning. In contrast, when plasma protein was replaced with extruded soy protein con-centrate, performance peaked between 30 and 45% dietary lactose. It appears that when feed intake is high, lower levels of dietary lactose are needed, perhaps because feed intake is closely related to digestive system maturation.

Lactose equivalentsEarlier studies indicated that although weaned pigs prefer lactose over starch, they can also use other forms of simple sugars. Monosaccharides (for example, glucose, fructose, and maltose) and oligosaccharides (for example, sucrose and maltodextrins) can be as effective as lactose in supporting growth per-formance. The term “lactose equivalent” has been proposed as more appropriate to express dietary specifi cations for simple sugars, as piglets do not have a requirement for lactose per se. Lactose equivalent values for several sources of simple sugars that can replace lactose are in Table 3.Several concerns arise, however, with the replacement of lactose by other simple sugars in pelleted diets. For example, sucrose may increase pellet hardness as it “burns” easily in the Maillard reaction during pellet-ing. Also, dextrose and other reducing sugars may readily destroy amino acids during pelleting. For these reasons, lower pelleting temperatures or even cold pelleting are recommended for diets rich in reducing sugars.

Simple sugars also differ considerably in sweetness, and, therefore, changes in diet palatability should be taken into consideration when using lactose alternatives. Pigs prefer simple sugars in the following order: sucrose>fructose>maltose=lactose>glucose>galactose.Excessive concentrations of simple sugars are also known to predispose pigs to secretory diarrhoea. For instance, by changing the amount of sugars (sucrose and corn syrup solids),

Table 1 - Effects of whey components (lactose and lactalbumin) on performance in young pigs.

Item Maize + + 20% whey + lactalbumin +lactose and + lactalbumin

soybean meal and starch amino acids and lactose

Weight gain (g/day) 210a 233b 208a 251b 243b

Feed intake (g/day) 341a 395b 371a 398b 388b

Gain:feed 0.616a 0.590b 0.561b 0.631a 0.626a

1 A total of 420 pigs (6.8 kg) in 14 replicates per treatment were used in a 21-day growth assay.

a,b Values within a row with different superscripts are different (P < 0.05).

Adapted from Mahan (1992).

Table 2 - Recommended dietary specifi cations for lactose equivalents (%) in piglet diets1.

Body weight (kg) Minimum2 Optimum3 Maximum4

Sow’s milk 255

4 – 6 20 30 40

6 – 8 10 20 30

8 – 12 5 10 15

12 – 20 0 0 5

20 – 30 0 0 5

1 Lactose equivalents include lactose and other simple sugars such as dextrose and sucrose.

2 Minimum concentrations for acceptable growth performance in low-cost production systems.

3 Optimum concentrations for balanced diet cost and growth performance.

4 Maximum concentrations for accelerated growth performance.

5 On a 90% DM equivalent basis.

Adapted from ‘Applied Nutrition for Young Pigs’, Mavromichalis (2006) CABI.

dietary osmolality was manipulated be-tween 250 and 700 mOsm/kg. Absorp-tion of water and carbohydrates from the small intestine in piglets increased, and thus chances for diarrhoea were minimised, as osmolality increased, at similar dietary electrolyte balance. Mal-todextrin was shown to increase water absorption, whereas glucose increased water secretion in the gastrointestinal tract, indicating that sugar oligomers are more effective than monomers in preventing secretory diarrhoea. AAF

Table 3 - Sources of lactose equivalents for piglet diets.

Ingredient Dry matter Main simple Lactose

(%) sugar(s) equivalents (%)

Lactose 95 Lactose 90

Dextrose, anhydrous 98 Glucose 95

Dextrose, monohydrate 90 Glucose 85

High-fructose corn syrup 75 Fructose 50

Regular corn syrup 85 Glucose and fructose 45

Molasses 75 Sucrose, glucose, fructose 45

Table sugar 98 Sucrose 95

Adapted from Mavromichalis (2000).

11AAF004_Lactose 2311AAF004_Lactose 23 4/28/2011 1:16:58 PM4/28/2011 1:16:58 PM

Get the latest global feed news into your e-mailbox each week!

Sign up now at www.AllAboutFeed.net


MARKETING

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) already in 1997 proposed rules for including feed ingredients in the Generally

Recognized As Safe (GRAS) system. Only at the end of last year it asked for comments from the industry. GRAS would make

the introduction of new feed ingredients to the American animal feed market much easier.

The ingredients used in animal feed in the US are regulated by the Center of Veterinary Medicine within the FDA as well as the State Feed Controllers. The State Feed Controllers follow the guide-lines laid out in the offi cial publication of the American Association of Feed Control Offi cials (AAFCO). In general, if the addition of an ingredient to animal feed cannot be justifi ed by its role as a nutrient, it will be scrutinised to the level of a drug feed additive and will require the extensive testing associated with the approval of a drug feed additive. Under those procedures, persons – called “notifi ers” – may submit to the agency notices of claims

that a particular use of a food sub-stance is Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and thereby is exempt from other legal premarket-approval requirements as authorised under the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). And if an ingredient is not listed as GRAS for animal feed in the Federal Registry, or listed by AAFCO, it cannot be used in feed formulations. The continued approval of new, inno-vative feed ingredients is critical for the feed and pet food industries to main-tain providing safe, healthy feed for livestock, poultry, aquaculture and pets. Therefore, the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) recently submitted

comments to the FDA regarding FDA’s fi nal rule amending the procedures for substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). FDA reopened the comment period in late 2010 to fi nalise the rule amend-ing the procedures for GRAS. After 14 years of inaction on the proposed rule, this comment period was necessary to update feedback to the FDA regarding the proposed GRAS notifi cation process. FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has only recently started to review GRAS submissions for new animal feed ingredients while the human food industry has had hundreds reviewed and allowed on the market.

By Dick Ziggers

Modern ‘GRAS’ feed Modern ‘GRAS’ feed ingredients fail ingredients fail administrative recognitionadministrative recognition

11AAF004_GRAS 2511AAF004_GRAS 25 4/28/2011 3:20:31 PM4/28/2011 3:20:31 PM


MARKETING

GRAS submissions typically should exclude trade secrets.

GRAS processThe process of getting a product recognised GRAS is quite extensive, but can be summarised

into eight steps:

1. A company has to conduct a literature search and assess availability of studies to

document utility and to determine safety. This means one has to assess quality of

studies–animal species used, number of animals, duration, dose level, feeding method,

safety parameters evaluated, guidelines used, Good Laboratory Practise, OECD, etc.

Furthermore data gaps need to be identifi ed as well as studies suggested addressing these

gaps. Are pivotal studies published in peer-reviewed journals?

2. Prepare and distribute dossier of chemistry information and scientifi c evidence supporting

safety to expert panel.

3. Experts review dossier and conduct independent research as needed.

4. Expert panel convenes (usually in a face-to-face meeting) to discuss scientifi c evidence.

The material is considered GRAS if all agree that “there is a consensus among the

qualifi ed experts that there is reasonable certainty that the substance is not harmful

under the intended conditions of use”.

5. If panel reaches a consensus prepare draft GRAS opinion a draft GRAS opinion is prepared.

6. Experts review, revise and sign GRAS opinion consensus. The material may then be legally

marketed immediately.

7. Manufacturer considers submission of GRAS Notice to FDA and/or publication of GRAS

opinion.

8. FDA reviews notifi cation and published response on web.

“While the industry is still able to self-determine the GRAS status of a substance, it is in the best interest for all entities to work together. Finding a workable solution will ensure that the US feed industry continues to be the world leader in bringing novel ingredients to market to help the animal agriculture industries safely feed the growing population,” stated Leah Wilkinson, AFIA’s director of ingredi-ents and state legislative affairs.

Stifl ing innovationThe US feed industry has a long history of providing safe ingredients in animal feed, but recognises the role that federal offi cials in the FDA-CVM and state feed control offi cials as part of AAFCO can play in reviewing these ingredients. CVM has stated during several public forums that proof of utility (i.e., functionality) of an ingredient must

be published. AFIA believes that an absolute requirement for proof and publication of utility is inappropriate and unnecessary. Although the associa-tion understands that an intended use must be described and supported in the notice, the pivotal issue is whether the ingredient is safe to feed to animals at the intended level. “Both industry and CVM resources could be better used demonstrating the safety of the intend-ed use of the substance with a focus on establishing the worst-case exposure and relating it to available safety infor-mation in order to establish a margin of safety. As it stands, the requirement for and public documentation of the utility of an ingredient will predictably stifl e innovation in the feed ingredient indus-try,” AFIA said in a statement. AFIA also believes that CVM should accept safety data extrapolated from other species, instead of requiring separate tests for each species. “The ad-ditional cost and time alone will deter companies from pursuing new feed in-gredients or more effi cient ways to pro-duce existing feed ingredients regard-less of the well-established safety of these ingredients. CVM should recog-

nise that good scientifi c procedures can prevail to allow the use of other data or information in the available literature to extrapolate the safety data from one species to another,” said Wilkinson.

AAFCO publication requiredIn the third main issue commented upon, AFIA believes that GRAS-notifi ed substances reviewed by FDA without objection need to be listed in the AAFCO Offi cial Publication. Without a listing in the Offi cial Publication, most states will not allow these ingredients to be used. Therefore the association strongly en-courages CVM to work with AAFCO and industry to create a new section in the AAFCO Offi cial Publication for GRAS-notifi ed substances that were reviewed by CVM and found to present a suffi cient basis for a GRAS conclusion. Not only the American feed millers urge FDA to hurry up and listen to practice, also the National Grain and Feed As-sociation (NGFA) has urged (FDA) to fi -nalise its proposed GRAS regulations. In response to FDA’s request for comments, the NGFA said it “strongly supports” the agency’s efforts to fi nalise its proposed voluntary GRAS-notifi cation procedure.

NGFA recommendationsIn response to FDA’s demand for comments on the proposed GRAS regulations NGFA said the FDA needs to incorporate the concept of studies being “generally available and ac-cepted” within the description of the common-knowledge element. In doing so, the NGFA noted that such a concept is appropriate and consistent with the FFDCA. It also emphasised that studies should not necessarily need to be published in a peer-reviewed journal to be relevant and acceptable for the GRAS-notifi cation process.The government should include a provision in the fi nal rule that makes notifi ers clearly aware that they may at any time withdraw a notice during its evaluation by FDA. The NGFA stated that such a provision potentially would provide the affected notifi er with an opportunity at a later date to appropriately resubmit a notice for which FDA initially has questions.



The continued approval of new,

innovative feed ingredients is

critical for the feed and pet

food industries.

GRAS submissions typically should exclude trade secrets, yet provide enough detail to FDA concerning the manufacturing process so the agency may complete appropriately its safety assessment. However, the NGFA ac-knowledged that there may be limited situations in which submission of trade secret information is necessary to al-low FDA to make an adequate safety assessment; if so, the NGFA said, such information should be subject to exist-ing confi dentiality protections. The parameters required by FDA to estab-lish the proof of utility of a substance within the GRAS-notifi cation process be limited to information necessary to conduct an appropriate safety assess-ment. However, the NGFA noted that it should not be necessary for the notifi er to submit additional information to demonstrate the technical effect of the substance within animal food in cases where such an effect has no impact on food safety. According to NGFA the proposed 90-day timeframe to respond to a GRAS notice should be retained. Such a timeframe would provide an incen-tive to manufacturers to submit GRAS notices and use the notifi cation proc-ess, thereby increasing the agency’s awareness of the composition of the ingredients used in animal food and providing an opportunity for FDA to review the safety parameters of such ingredients.

What is GRAS?GRAS is an acronym for the phrase Generally Recognized As Safe. Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, “any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognised, among qualifi ed experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the defi nition of a food additive”.The opportunity for substances to gain GRAS recognition for use in animal food is based upon the 1958 food

additives amendment to the FFDCA. To qualify for GRAS status, the specifi ed use of the food substance is required to meet two necessary elements – a “technical” and a “common-knowledge” element. The technical element requires that available information about the food substance establish that it is safe for its intended use. The common-knowledge element includes two facets: 1) the data and information relied upon to establish the technical element must be generally available; and 2) there must be a basis to conclude that there is consensus among qualifi ed experts about the safe-ty of the substance for its intended use. There are three types of GRAS:1. GRAS affi rmation by FDA

meaning the substance is reviewed and approved by FDA, codifi ed in the Federal Regulations. This is no longer applicable.

2. GRAS self-affi rmation. Here is no review by FDA, but qualifi ed experts agree after review of the data. These can be challenged by FDA and may not be accepted by customers and state offi cials.

3. GRAS notifi cation (voluntary). This does not indicate “approval”, but indicates whether FDA CVM has any objection to the GRAS self-affi rmation.

All three GRAS methods lead to a legal product on the US market, but there are exemptions. Substances are not GRAS, it is a particular use of the substance that is GRAS. For animal feeds, use of substances varies with the animal

species, thus feed GRAS determinations must address intended use in the intended animal species as well as safety for each target species.

Eligibility for GRASSubstances of natural biological origin that has been consumed for its nutri-tive properties before 1958 without detrimental effect for which no health hazard is known and has been modifi ed by processes used after 1958 are eligible for GRAS. Also if the substance has been signifi cantly changed in composi-tion by breeding or selection after 1958.

Also qualifi ed are distillates, isolates, extracts and concentration of extracts of GRAS substances.The food additive defi nition is very broad, but it does not, include pesti-cides and colour additives (these are approved under another FDA premarket process), drugs and new animal drugs. It must be clear that intended use does not fall into drug category.Intended use of a substance can be as a nutrient, such as essential nutrients (amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins,

Laboratory safety results are required to add to the GRAS application report.



MARKETING

minerals, water, and in some cases, fi bre). Also regulations for dietary sup-plements (DSHEA) do not apply to ani-mal feed. Many of these substances fall in a grey area. According to the CVM Program Policy & Procedures Manual (Guide 1240.3605) when there is improved productivity or the substance prevents disease, is a treatment or miti-

gates a disease it is considered a drug.In contrast to human food GRAS the utility of the ingredient is necessary for animal feed GRAS. It must demonstrate the utility or effi cacy of intended use e.g. it can have a technical effect on the feed as a preservative, emulsifi er or pelleting aid, or it improves food desirability and preference through a fl avour or aroma.

Food versus drugAccording to FDA’s Center for Veteri-nary Medicine (CVM) a food is some-thing that provides nutrition, taste, or aroma. If food affects the structure or function of the body, it does so by these properties (i.e. provide nutrients such as calcium for proper bone structure or taurine for healthy heart function in cats). A drug is an article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or an article intended to affect the struc-ture or function of the body other than food. If a substance affects the structure

or function of the body apart from its nutritive value, (i.e. improvement in joint function) it may be deemed a drug. Structure/function effects extending beyond the food umbrella also include claims for improved or in-creased production and performance, or alteration or improvement in function.

ConclusionsThere are specifi c requirements to determine whether an ingredient is or can be considered GRAS for a specifi c use in animal feed. Data requirements are extensive since they must have both safety and effi cacy data. A general rec-ognition of safety data is also required. The process may represent faster route to market. A product can legally be put on the market once self-affi rmed, but in reality it may need notifi cation for acceptance. The process is still in early stages for the feed industry, with no notifi cations yet. AAF

Source: Cantox, AFIA, NGFA, FDA

The food additive defi nition is very broad, but it does not include pesticides and

colour additives (these are approved under another FDA premarket process), drugs

and new animal drugs.



Tecaliman celebrates

and looks aheadTecaliman received the French

feed sector and some friends

from abroad for its 2011

symposium in mid-march. Since

it was its 30th anniversary the

theme of the symposium was

to try to look 30 years into the

future of technology for feed

manufacturing.

By Yanne Boloh*

REVIEW

“Tecaliman is a key industry and intermediate player between scientists, industrial manufacturers and the admin-istration that supports the syndicate,” explained general manager Fabrice Putier. He expressed this position last March with a symposium to celebrate Tecaliman’s 30th anniversary. “We are much more than just a research centre, we are a genuine technological interface,” he added. The new experimental installation to research cross contamination in feed handling is one of the more visible activities of the research centre, which is based in Nantes (western France), and which has also started to become well known abroad. Already at the IFE show (in Atlanta, last January) and at Victam (3-5 May, Cologne), Putier presented the method developed by the French centre to measure cross contamination and deal with variation coeffi cient of the mixer (a method which is now recognised by the European authorities).

Also the partnership between Tecaliman and the three French feed syndicates regarding sustainable feed production is very important as well as the “energy club”, which combines energy data of feed plants and publishes anonymous comparisons between plants over the last 20 years. The aim is to help feed millers to manage their energy costs, which is extremely relevant in this current period of heavy increases of energy prices. Compressed air is the next subject on the agenda. All those subjects will still be a focus for Tecaliman over the next 30 years, that’s for sure but it wants even more. “The literature shows a lot of examples of the impact of feed processing on feed characteristics and animal performance. However, those studies are not so easy to manage as it is diffi cult to obtain exper-imental feeds,” said Alain Guyonvarc’h, research manager of InVivo Nsa. “Also the interferences between processing and raw materials are strong. But through the years, the studies helped to design

the process and the main parameters of the operations, even the kind of machinery needed for specifi c species such as heat treatment or extrusion.”

Processing as ingredientHe explained that one of the charac-teristics of process parameters is that they can infl uence the quality of the fi nal feed positively and negatively. The best example is heat treatment, which increases bacteriological security but might degrade vitamins and proteins. Thus, feed operators must arbitrate between technological costs (invest-ment, operation cost) and the produc-tion improvement that those costs can generate. They might formulate the ‘usual’ way for extrusion production for aquatic species and also go for a high durability of the pellet. However, the last point of durability index is also the most costly one. “I think that cur-rent formulation systems do not take enough into account the infl uence of technological parameters in the fi nal

The annual Tecaliman seminar was well visited, also because the program was extended to celebrate the organisation’s 30th anniversary.

11AAF004_Tecaliman 2911AAF004_Tecaliman 29 4/28/2011 1:40:02 PM4/28/2011 1:40:02 PM


result in comparison with performance of the animal,” Guyonvarc’h said. For the nutritionists, technology is still more a means than a research subject. At the French national research insti-tute INRA, research will for example focus on the valorisation of new raw materials such as DDGS. But technol-ogy is only looked upon when it might improve digestibility (through pelleting, grinding). The reduction of particle size through grinding has shown to be one of the best ways to improve digestibil-ity in pigs. This was confi rmed in the Rennes laboratory and for poultry feed in the Tours lab, for lipids as well as for proteins. On the other hand, rabbits do not appreciate small particles.

Impact of grindingThe same occurs with pelleting which is known to improve lipid digestibility of raw material in pig feed. “We’ve been part of the Euretec program, developed in Nantes, and we’ve been able to show that the reduction of the particle size of rapeseed and soybean through grinding or pelleting improves lipid digestibility for poultry. Grinding also improves starch digestibility of peas,” indicated Michel Lessire, researcher of INRA at the Tours lab. “We’ve shown that a heat and mechanical treatment decreased part of the anti-nutritional factors. All those improvements have been included in our INRA nutritional tables.” He explained that in aquafeed, the strategy of diminishing fi sh oil and fi sh meal must include the technological improvements. But he also pointed out some disadvantages such as the de-

crease of lysine availability in wheat or rapeseed meal when further processed. “For tomorrow, there are still many challenges. Feed millers must decrease their costs and minimise the environ-mental impact of their plant. They have to fi nd new ways to optimise the function of the animal’s digestive tract through the size and shape of the feed itself. Improvement can be achieved by increasing the sanitary conditions of the animals and farms, preventing digestive disorders and optimising the use of additives like enzymes,” Lessire concluded.

Uniform mixingAs an additive specialist, Jerome Lamoine of Adisseo elaborated on the impact of particle size on the even distribution of additives in each pellet of a batch. Developing a new additive goes far beyond than just composing a new active molecule. “Developing an additive can take between three and six years with investments of one to four million euros. We have to go through the administrative authorisation process and build a case with all in-formation regarding safety, effi ciency, physiochemical properties and the means to analyse it. But we also are concerned by the way feed manufac-turers will use our additive: mixability and homogeneity of mixing, cross contamination risks, stability, heat resistance or the way to insure the homogeneity by post pelleting incorpo-ration, sampling, traceability, etc. We must take care of many parameters that sometimes are contradictive, for

example, a well protected additive must still be bioavailable.”For Louis Rave, former president of Tecaliman and technologist (Techna), the main challenge of feed production will be to produce a lot more feed all over the world in the next 30 years, maybe 70% more in 2050 than today. “Research in technology will have to deal with sev-eral subjects to achieve this goal. Exist-ing techniques need improvement since they’ve been developed in the middle of last century and must now be adapted to new raw materials, new economy and in a new regulatory context,” Rave explained. “Improving the ratio produc-tion/energy consumption as the rarefac-tion of energy is still badly perceived.” Rave also spoke about improving the accuracy of a sample and knowing more about samples, meaning more analysis for less cost and monitoring the process in real time. Rave believes a more hygienic concept of produc-tion lines will give feed millers the opportunity to avoid cross contamina-tion and to use some new ingredients. “Why not use nano materials and some eco-conception of new technologies, such as for example producing wet feeds (soup, in the plant) for pigs or crumbs without pelleting.”To be able to produce more effi ciently and stay in mass production at low cost, these are the sustainable objectives given by French feed manufacturers to its technological research centre. The next 30 years will be well spent. AAF

*Yanne Boloh is a freelance journalist from France.

Main subjects for future

Tecaliman research• Water activity in the feed plant

• Interactions between powders and liquids in feed (already started)

• Process re-engineering and eco-concepts

• Contamination, decontamination and recontamination in a dry matrix

• Dust, workers’ security and nanotechnology

• Measurement of additives when they are at the limit of detection

• Feed shape and pelleting infl uence on gastro intestinal absorption

of microbiotics.A panel of industry experts elaborated on new developments to come. From left to right: Louis Ravé, Alain

Guyonvarc’h, Michel Lessire and Jerome Lamoine.

REVIEW

11AAF004_Tecaliman 3011AAF004_Tecaliman 30 4/28/2011 1:40:03 PM4/28/2011 1:40:03 PM

AllAboutFeed - Vol 1 - Nr 4 - 201015

Vitamins and trace minerals: Back to basicsWhen hog prices are low and feed costs are high, a strict re-evaluation of the essentiality and effectiveness of dietary additives and nutrient concen-trations is warranted. Vitamins and trace minerals are a constant addition to any fi nishing pig diet and as such they deserve the widest examination.

By Ioannis Mavromichalis, Ariston Nutrition SL, Madrid, Spain

Ingredients and diets

Table 1

Table 2

Natural ingredients can provide a substantial amount of vitamins and trace minerals to partially cover the

daily requirements of fi nishing pigs. (Photo: CSIRO Entomology)

NUTRITION

10AAF004_Vitamins 15

6/9/2010 1:20:28 PM

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L M

AG

AZ

INE

ON

AN

IMA

L N

UT

RIT

ION

, P

RO

CE

SS

ING

AN

D F

EE

D M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Feed quality with technology

Organic trace minerals

Plant cell walls in ruminant nutrition

www.AllAboutFeed

.net

Vol 1 - No 4 - 2010

10AAF004_Cover 1

6/9/2010 11:33:38 AM

@


India’s edible oil industry India’s edible oil industry in a global perspectivein a global perspective

India has gained importance in the world over the last few years by virtue of becoming the world’s

number one importer of edible oils and an exporter of protein meals. The relatively cheaper logistics

cost of supplying vegetable protein to the importing countries in the Asian area has given India an edge

over other exporting countries like from South America. Also its non-GMO protein has been able to

attract a premium.

By Dr Davish Jain, managing director Prestige Group of Industries, Indore, India

MARKET

Today, China and India are the two countries that the world is scrutinising with very keen interest. This is particularly so on the agricultural front as both countries are big importers of edible oils. China is also the biggest importer of seeds and grains. India, however, still exports protein despite a huge protein defi ciency in the diets of the 40% of the population that live below the poverty line.India is one of the top three producers in most of the world’s major agricul-tural commodities. It is number one in milk with 15% of the market share,

third in the production of pulses with 24% share, and fi fth in the production of oilseeds with 7% share (Table 1). India consumes about US$ 200 billion worth of food per year. The country is self suffi cient in food grain needs and is able to feed its over one billion inhabitants. India is currently produc-ing about 240 million tonnes of food grains, and this shall grow by at least 25% by 2020.India has the highest percentage of arable land – 57% versus 16% average in the rest of the world. Unfortunately, however, the productivity is very low.

Indian farmers and the administra-tion are both seriously perturbed by this matter and are taking measures to amend the situation. Agriculture administrators toured Argentina to study soybean cultivation and farm practices, so that the productivity of the Indian soya crop could be increased from its present dismal state.

Too small infrastructureThe issues facing Indian agriculture are very small and marginal land holdings, low penetration of technology, depend-ence on monsoon rains for almost 58% of the arable land, and non-availability of hybrid/certifi ed seed.The supply chain is also very frag-mented in so far as not facilitating farm produce to reach the market. As a result, a farmer is able to realise only 30-35% of the fi nal price paid by the consumer, whereas elsewhere in the world the farmer realises 60-65%. This

India has the highest percentage of arable

land – 57% versus 16% world average. But,

unfortunately the productivity is very low.

Dr Davish Jain

11AAF004_India Oilseeds 3211AAF004_India Oilseeds 32 4/28/2011 1:40:57 PM4/28/2011 1:40:57 PM


acts as a substantial deterrent for farm-ers to invest in farm inputs. The credit infrastructure of the rural farm sector is still inadequate thereby forcing the farmers to decrease sale prices and borrow cash at prohibitive interest rates to meet their basic needs. Cumulatively, all these factors have a negative impact on agricultural production.

There is changeThanks to favourable monsoon rains, the growth in agricultural GDP has been positive for the last consecutive fi ve years. In 2003 it was at its highest at 10%. The average growth has been between 4 to 6% in all subsequent years. The government has been very liberal in increasing the Minimum Support Prices (MSP) of agricultural commodities as an incentive to boost farm incomes. The continuous in-crease in prices of agricultural com-modities the world over has enabled Indian farmers to realise better prices for their produce. Also, India is now very closely connected to the world of commodity prices. Institutional credit to agriculture has also increased con-sistently and seen a sharp jump over the past few years. Thus, additional income in the hands of farmers has given them the much-needed incen-tive to invest in better seeds, fertiliser inputs and technology. Between 2003-2007, fertiliser consumption grew by 20%, and tractor sales went up by 19%.

Feed industry data incompleteDue to incomplete data on feed produc-tion in India, this aspect cannot be re-alistically analysed. During the previous decade, production of total compound feed by members of Compound Live-stock Feed Manufacturer’s Association (CLFMA) increased from 2.79 million tonnes (2001-02) to 3.77 million tonnes (2008-09). The production of compound poultry feed has shown an increase over the years, but a slight decline is observed in cattle feed production since 2005-2006.Total feed consumption in India is estimated at 21.4 mt in the organised sector, comprising 7 mt broiler feed,

8.5 mt layer feed, 5.5 mt dairy feed, 0.25 mt shrimp feed, 0.1 mt fi sh feed, and 0.05 mt for other species.There is a clear trend of downward integration in the poultry industry by creating captive solvent extraction and feed production facilities to reduce dependence on others and therefore economising costs.

Processing industryIndian consumers have traditionally used plenty of oil and fat (of both butter and vegetable origin) in their differing varieties of food and des-serts. The consumption level increases during the festival and marriage sea-sons. The per capita consumption has increased from 7.4 kg around 10 years ago to the current fi gure of 12.2 kg (2009-2010). This may look much lower when compared to the world average of 20 kg, but a large segment of the Indian population cannot afford costly edible oils.New capacities of solvent extraction plants and refi ning created since the 1990s were in the range of 500 tonnes per day for crush and 250 tonnes per day for refi ning. At the close of 20th century, two new developments took place – entry of low cost palm oil in the world’s oil basket, and Wilmar joining with Indian company Adani to build a state of the art refi nery of 1,000 tonnes per day capacity with a fractionation unit for palm oil. This immediately caught the eyes of others and a series of new refi neries of this size were developed. These refi ner-ies produced quality products which brought a sea of change in their mar-ket perception, resulting in production at a relatively much lower processing cost. This expansion is ongoing as the import of oil continues to increase to meet the ever-increasing demand of Indian consumers.As of now, the capacity of both solvent extraction and refi ning is hardly utilised in full, and is currently up to 33% of installed capacity.

Edible oil sceneThe Indian edible oil sector has many

Segment Rank Share

(by production) (of world

production)

Cereals 3 10%

Sugar Crops 2 15%

Fruits and Vegetables 2 9%

Roots & Tubers 4 5%

Milk 1 15%

Meat 6 2%

Oilseeds 5 7%

Pulses 3 24%

Table 1 - Production ranking and global market share of Indian Agriculture.

World USA Brazil Argentina India

Area 27.75 5.65 43.73 57.89 61.13

Production 35.34 14.5 49.43 66.67 80.09

Yield 5.94 8.38 3.96 5.56 11.77

Yield 2009-2010 (kg/ha) 2,531 2,958 2,918 2,872 1,006

Table 2 - Percentage rise by 2010-11 in soybean (base year 2001-02).

typical characteristics distinctly differ-ent from other countries – especially those in the western hemisphere. The oil basket available to the consumers has many varieties – major domestic oils are: groundnut, mustard/rapeseed, cottonseed, soybean and sunfl ower. Minor domestic oils are: ricebran, mahua (Madhuca longifolia), sesame, saffl ower and coconut. Imported oils are mainly palm, soybean and sun-fl ower. About 60-70% of groundnut and mustard oil, and almost 100% of coconut oil is consumed in crude form without refi ning because of their distinct fl avours and aroma. All other oils are marketed only after refi ning. Market shares of raw oil, refi ned oil and Vanaspati (partially hydrogenated vegetable oil) are respectively 42%, 43% and 13%.The government has frozen the tariff value on import of oils and the present rate of duty is nil on crude oils and 7.5% on refi ned oils. This policy has remained unchanged since 2008. Thus, the Indian market is being fl ooded by imported oil – mainly palm, soybean and sunfl ower. The South American industries for soybean oil and Malaysia/Indonesia for palm oil have discovered India as a dumping ground for their produce. India still has an insatiable


AllAboutFeed.net - Vol 2 - Nr 4 - 201134

appetite for edible oil as the income levels rise.Over the past decade, world class edible oil refi neries have been set up in India where superior quality refi ned oil is produced at a low processing cost. The days of small sized batch refi neries of 50 t per day capacities are over. How-ever, the capacity utilisation of Indian refi neries is still at a meagre 35% of installed capacity. Refi ned soybean oil is actively traded on futures exchanges and accounts for their biggest turnovers. Thus, the Indian edible oil situation is going to persistently infl uence the world demand and supply to a large extent.

World’s versus Indian oilseedsThe conventional basket of major oilseeds comprises of soybean (57%), cottonseed (12%), rapeseed (12%), groundnut (8%), palm kernel (3%), sunfl ower seed (7%) and copra (1%). These fi gures are for 2007-08. The share of soybean production in the world’s total oilseed production has varied between 55 and 60% – the highest being 59.4% in 2002-03, and the lowest being 55.6% in 2003-04.The growth of soybean in terms of area, yield and production for major produc-ers of the world and that for India is shown in Table 2. It is interesting to note the spectacular percentage growth

in soya area as well as production in Argentina/Brazil, and even in India. The percentage yield increases have been the highest in USA and India, but in absolute terms, India has a very poor yield per hectare. India’s share in world soybean production has been 3.8% in 2009-10 (Table 3).All major producers of soybean have surplus soybean, oil and meal for ex-port. However, India exports soybean meal and imports soybean oil. India’s share in the world’s soybean meal ex-port was 8% in 2008-09, which declined to 3.8% in 2009-10, due to its uncom-petitive pricing in relation to suppliers, and also the aggressive marketing by the USA in the backdrop of bumper crop harvested by them (Table 4).China has been the world’s biggest importer of soybean with 55.3% share in 2009-10. China, it can be stated, has become the country which dictates and decides the pace and fate of world trade in soybean and its products, because of its insatiable appetite for soybean seed, oils and other agro-commodities. Europe imported 41.7% (2009-10) of world’s soybean meal export. Other major soya meal importing countries are Vietnam (4.9%), Indonesia (4.7%) and Thailand (4.1%).Annual SBM export ranged from a low 2.11 mt (2009-10) to a high of 4.18 mt (2008-09). Annual total meal export ranged from a low of 3.22 mt (2009-10) to a high of 5.44 mt (2007-08). The domestic consumption of SBM in India has also risen with the following features:• Average consumption has doubled

in the last 5 years, together with an increase in the soya crop size, thus leaving the surplus disposable meal available for export.

• The year 2009-10 has been a typical one in terms of substantial decrease in meal export numbers because of lower crush as a result of continuous disparities in the crush right from the start of the season. USA’s bumper crop has taken away this traditional share of Indian soya meal.

• The poultry industry has been seeing an annual growth rate of 15% for broilers and 10% for layers due

to changing eating habits of younger people and also general growth in the disposable income of families.

Current Indian soybean crop The harvest of the Indian soya crop was completed by mid-October 2010. The area sown in 2010 was less than that of 2009 but the tremendous and timely rains helped in satisfactory growth of the crop. SOPA (Soybean Processors of India) have estimated the 2010 crop at 10.1 mt versus 9.7 mt in 2009. The carry in from 2009 is estimated at 1 mt. Thus, ample soy-bean was likely to remain available to the industry for crush in 2010. The exportable surplus of soya meal even after meeting the rising domestic demand for food and feed grade meal, estimated at 3.5 mt for 2010-11, will be not less than 4.5 mt.Indian processors learnt a bitter lesson in 2009 by losing their export market share of soya meal by offering uncom-petitive prices in relation to the world’s soya meal exporters. 2010 is likely to be different as they are keen to offer quality meal at competitive prices to the world. The present export order book of more than 1 mt for the new crop soya meal is a clear indicator of this direction. AAF

This article was subtracted from a presentation by Dr Davish Jain at the 2010 Soya & Oilseed Summit/Global Soybean & Grain Transport held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA on 4-5 October, 2010.

MARKET


2008-09 211.96 80.749 57.80 32.00 9.308

as % of world - 38.1 27.3 15.1 4.4

2009-10 258.00 91.417 68.00 54.00 9.725

as % of world - 35.4 26.4 20.9 3.8

2010-11 250.13 90.083 65.00 50.00 10.1

as % of world - 36.0 26.0 20.0 4.1

Table 3 - Share of major countries in soya production in million tonnes.


2008-09 52.15 7.718 12.15 21.80 4.177

as % of world - 14.8 23.3 41.8 8.0

2009-10 54.97 10.16 12.04 29.00 2.114

as % of world - 18.5 21.9 52.8 3.8

2010-11 56.62 7.983 11.86 29.30 4.5

as % of world - 14.1 20.9 51.7 7.9

Table 4 - Share of major countries in soya meal export, in million tonnes.

Wilmar joined hands with Indian company Adani to build a state of the art refi nery which initiated a wave of oil crushing developments. Most plants now operate under capacity.


Innovations for a better world.

A hammer blow to your operating costs. The hammer mill Granulex™ is the new dynamic

grinding machine from Buhler. Designed for ultimate power, Granulex™ delivers high

capacity grinding up to 75 t/h. Swiss-made reliability and supreme ease of maintenance

minimize downtime, so you can make maximum use of this productivity. It’s an investment

in quality that is sure to show a rapid return – and deliver a hammer blow to your operating

costs. For more information, visit www.buhlergroup.com.

GranulexTM

High capacity hammer mill.

Powerful 400 kW motor for high

capacity grinding.

Largest screen area of any 400 kW

hammer mill reduces wear of screens

and hammers.

Screens and hammers designed for

replacement by a single person in less

than 30 minutes.

Smooth running sliding doors on

both sides for fast and easy

maintenance.

Closed machine housing preventing

dust settlements and easy to clean,

plain surfaces.

Bühler AG, Feed & Biomass, CH-9240 Uzwil, Switzerland, T +41 71 955 11 11, F +41 71 955 28 96

[email protected], www.buhlergroup.com

Subscribe now to All About Feed!Click here and see our special offer

All About Feed is an independent, truly international publication reaching a varied readership within the animal feed manufacturing industry. The magazine not only focuses on the latest worldwide developments in feed milling technology, feed additives, ingredients and feed manage-ment, but also discusses topical issues within the animal feed industry. It has a strong focus on animal nutrition with new research and practical applications presented from leading scientists from around the world.

AllAboutFeed magazine is published ten times per year.

www.allaboutfeed.net/magazine

Date post:	28-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	all-about-feed
View:	226 times
Download:	7 times

All About Feed

Documents