Edited by T.P. Lyons and K.A. Jacques

Nutritional Biotechnology in the Feed and Food Industries

Re-imagining the Feed IndustryNatural Technologies for Food Production

Can we re-invent feeding animals? Feed companies? Ingredients and nutrient supplies? Canwe change how food animal products and crops are perceived by, and marketed to,consumers?The theme of the 20th Annual Alltech Symposium focuses on doing exactly that: re-defininghow we feed animals and re-imagining our agribusinesses to create the compelling forcebehind an exciting future.

The basic and applied research is done. Natural feeding strategies can reduce environmentalimpact, replace antibiotics, make producers more competitive and change how consumersview and value food animal products. There is a shift in the dynamic of the industry as well.Change is no longer something happening to the feed industry. Change is something theindustry makes happen.

Lyons &Jacques

2004

Nutritio

nal B

iote

chn

olo

gy in

the F

eed a

nd F

ood In

dustrie

sPro

ceedin

gs o

f Allte

chs 2

0th

An

nual S

ym

posiu

m

Contents i

Nutritional Biotechnology in the Feed and Food Industries

Contents iii

Nutritional Biotechnology in the Feedand Food Industries

Proceedings ofAlltech’s Twentieth Annual Symposium

Edited by TP Lyons and KA Jacques

iv Contents

Nottingham University PressManor Farm, Church Lane, ThrumptonNottingham, NG11 0AX, United Kingdom

NOTTINGHAM

First published 2004© Copyright Alltech Inc 2004

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced in any material form(including photocopying or storing in anymedium by electronic means and whether or nottransiently or incidentally to some other use ofthis publication) without the written permissionof the copyright holder except in accordance withthe provisions of the Copyright, Designs andPatents Act 1988. Applications for the copyrightholder’s written permission to reproduce any partof this publication should be addressed to the publishers.

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed herein are those of the authorsand do not imply endorsement of any product by the author or anypolicy or claim on the part of the Symposium sponsor.

ISBN 1-904761-27-5

Typeset by Nottingham University Press, NottinghamPrinted and bound by Bath Press, Bath, England

Contents v

Table of contents

Re-imagining the feed industry: focus on price, perception and policy 1

T. Pearse LyonsAlltech Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA

Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed 11

Charles V. MaxwellAnimal Science Department, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

Glycomics: putting carbohydrates to work for animal and human health 27

Kyle E. NewmanVenture Laboratories, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky, USA

Focus on Poultry

Selenium sources and selenoproteins in practical poultry production 35

Frank W. Edens and Kymberly M. GowdyDepartment of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Alternatives to antibiotics in poultry production: responses, practical experience and 57recommendations

Peter R. FerketDepartment of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Facing the realities of poultry health and performance without antibiotics in Europe 69

G.G. Mateos1, J.M. Gonzalez-Alvarado2 and R. Lázaro11Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain2Departamento de Agrobiología. Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala, México

Reproductive responses to Sel-Plex® organic selenium in male and female broiler breeders: 81impact on production traits and hatchability

Robert A. RenemaDepartment of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton,Alberta, Canada

Optimizing the replacement of pronutrient antibiotics in poultry nutrition 93

Gordon D. RosenPronutrient Services Ltd., Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom

Comparative aspects of Fusarium mycotoxicoses in broiler chickens, laying hens and turkeys 103and the efficacy of a polymeric glucomannan mycotoxin adsorbent: Mycosorb®

Trevor K. Smith, Shankar R. Chowdhury and H.V.L.N. SwamyDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

vi Contents

Pig Science

Creating technical and educational forums that help pig producers meet performance and 113economic goals: the Premier Pig Program™

William H. Close1 and Kim Turnley21Close Consultancy, Wokingham, Berkshire, UK2Alltech Inc., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Successful feed companies in the future 121

Jim HedgesHubbard Feeds Inc., Mankato, Minnesota, USA

The role of selenium and Sel-Plex® in sow reproduction 131

Don MahanDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio USA

Adding value to pork for producers and consumers: enhancing omega-3 DHA and selenium 141content of meat

Paul PennyJSR Genetics Ltd, Southburn, Driffield, United Kingdom

Reducing the environmental impact of swine production through nutritional means 149

K.J. Stalder1, W.J. Powers1, J.L. Burkett1, and J.L. Pierce21Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA2North American Biosciences Center, Alltech, Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA

Nucleotides and young animal health: can we enhance intestinal tract development and 159immune function?

C.D. Mateo and H.H. SteinDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings,South Dakota, USA

Dairy and Beef Cattle

Evaluating inoculants for forage crops in Argentine beef and milk grazing systems: 171effects on silage quality and system profitability

Leandro O. AbdelhadiEl Encuentro Livestock farm, Research & Extension in Ruminant Nutrition, Alltech Argentina, Cnel.Brandsen, Argentina

Optigen®®®®® 1200: controlled release of non-protein nitrogen in the rumen 179

Veysel Akay1, Jeff Tikofsky1, Corwin Holtz2 and Karl A. Dawson11North American Biosciences Center, Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA2Comsen Dairy Consultation, LLC, Dryden, New York, USA

Contents vii

Dairy nutrition models: their forms and applications 187

William Chalupa, Ray Boston and Robert MunsonSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, USA

Gastrointestinal development in dairy calves 195

S. I. Kehoe and A. J. HeinrichsDairy and Animal Science Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,Pennsylvania, USA

Meeting the educational needs of dairy clientele in 2020 205

Michael F. HutjensDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA

Redefining selenium nutrition using organic selenium (Sel-Plex®): defining maximal 211acceptable tissue residues in beef

C.J. Richards and H.D. LovedayAnimal Science Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

Rumen acidosis: modeling ruminant response to yeast culture 221

D. Sauvant, S. Giger-Reverdin and P. SchmidelyINAPG Département des Sciences Animales – UMR INRA–INAPG Physiologie de la Nutrition etAlimentation, Paris, France

The top ten most frequently-asked questions about mycotoxins, cattle and dairy food products 231

L.W. Whitlow1 and W.M. Hagler, Jr.21Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA2Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Food, Nutrition and Health

All in good taste: creating natural savory flavorings from yeast 257

John DiehlJohn Diehl Consulting Services, Darien, Illinois, USA

One university’s search for intelligence in a universe of foods for wellness 265

Suanne J. KlahorstCalifornia Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, University of California, Davis, USA

How does diet influence health – could the food chain benefit from a more proactive approach 275to clinical nutrition issues?

John C. MacRaeRowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Functional components of the cell wall of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: applications for yeast 283glucan and mannan

Colm A. MoranNorth American Biosciences Center, Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA

viii Contents

Food animal agriculture: a few issues that will impact our future food supply 297

Joe M. RegensteinCornell Kosher Food Initiative, Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

Mycotoxins in the food chain: a look at their impact on immunological responses 305

Raghubir P. SharmaDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

Antioxidant activity of hydrolyzed whey, soy, and yeast proteins 315

Youling L. Xiong,1 Lin Wang,1 E. Aida Peña-Ramos,2 and Changtzheng Wang31Department of Animal Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA2Animal Derived Food Department, CIAD, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico3Human Nutrition Program, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, Kentucky, USA

Equine Topics

A novel, knowledge-based concept for performance diagnosis and training adjustment in horses 325

Matthias BojerInstitut für Natursport und Ökologie, Abteilung Reitsport, Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln, Germany

Physiology and feed formulation: the proper role of carbohydrates in the equine diet 331

Stephen Duren1 and Kathryn Watts21Performance Horse Nutrition, LLC, Weiser, Idaho, USA2Rocky Mountain Research and Consulting, Center, Colorado, USA

Relevance of the NRC to today’s horse industry 337

Kevin H. KlineDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, USA

Bone biomechanics: a review of the influences of exercise and nutritional management on bone 345modeling in the growing and exercising horse

John R. KohnkeJohn Kohnke Consultancy Pty Ltd, Rouse Hill, New South Wales, Australia

Of caterpillars and horses: recent scientific progress on the cause of Mare Reproductive 355Loss Syndrome

Karen J. McDowellDepartment of Veterinary Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

Modern Agronomics

The pre-and postharvest application potential for Crop-SetTM and ISR 2000TM on citrus 361

John P. BowerHorticultural Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Contents ix

Citrus fruit size and quality: response to Crop-Set™ in North America 369

Lawrence J. Marais and John G. FrankImprocrop Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA

Integrated efficacy of several Improcrop compounds on bacterial wilt of tomato plants 375under greenhouse conditions

Pingsheng Ji1, Tim Momol1 and Necip Tosun21North Florida Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA2Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

Alternatives against Alternaria: controlling brown spot on Murcott tangors 379

Tim Johnston1, Lawrence J. Marais2 and L.W. Timmer11University of Florida, IFAS, Citrus Research and Education Center, Lake Alfred, Florida, USA2Improcrop Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA

Seed and soil treatments with a natural fungicide product against some fungal and bacterial 383diseases of vegetables

Necip Tosun and Huseyin TurkusayDepartment of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, Bornova–Izmir, Turkey

Abiotic stresses and plant activators 387

Ismail Türkan1, Tijen Demiral1, A. Hediye Sekmen1 and Necip Tosun21Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey2Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

Advances in Aquaculture

Opportunities and dilemmas in molecular aquaculture genetics 393

Roger W. DoyleGenetic Computation Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Feeds for the future: the importance of better broodstock and larval nutrition in successful 407aquaculture

D.F. FeganAlltech Inc., Bangkok, Thailand

European finfish culture: current status, recent advances and future perspectives 421

John W. SweetmanEcomarine Ltd, Cephalonia, Greece

Fish meal and fish oil use in aquaculture: global overview and prospects for substitution 433

Albert G.J. TaconSEALAB Aquaculture Laboratory, Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaiiat Manoa, USA

x Contents

Creating alternative protein sources for aquafeeds using applied enzyme technologies 449

S. L. WoodgatePDM Group Ltd, Greenleigh, Kelmarsh Rd, Clipston, United Kingdom

From farm to fork: the challenges that fish farming faces as a responsible supplier of global food 457

Rohana P. SubasingheFisheries Department, FAO, Rome

Companion Animals

USA poultry meal: quality issues and concerns in pet foods 467

Greg AldrichPet Food & Ingredient Technology, Inc., Topeka Kansas, USA

The role of yeasts in companion animal nutrition 475

Kelly S. Swanson and George C. Fahey, JrDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA

The expanding pet food industry: where are the opportunities? 485

Tim PhillipsPETFOOD INDUSTRY Magazine, Watt Publishing Co., Mt. Morris, Illinois, USA

Using nutritional genomics to study canine obesity and diabetes 495

Kelly S. SwansonDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA

A peek into the new NRC for dogs and cats 503

Angele ThompsonThompson PetTech, New Providence, New Jersey, USA

The importance of antioxidant protection: demonstrating and branding benefits in pet food 509

Lucy TuckerAlltech Inc., Stamford, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom

A changing landscape: the pet food market in Europe 517

Jürgen ZentekInstitute of Nutrition, Department of Veterinary Public Health and Food Science, VeterinaryUniversity of Vienna, Austria

Index of topics 523

T.P. Lyons 1

Re-imagining the feed industry: focus on price, perception and policy

T. PEARSE LYONS

Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA

Global agricultural is in turmoil. World trade barriersare coming down. The EU Common AgriculturalPolicy and the US supports may become a thing ofthe past, opening up markets and leveling the playingfield. BSE cases in Canada and the US have thrownthese industries into a quandary, while southeast Asiais reeling from the impact of avian flu.

Natural feed technologies such as those offered byAlltech have never been more in favor. Increasingacceptance of natural feeding strategies reflects therealization that there is no going back to previousmethods in today’s consumer-oriented markets. At arecent roundtable discussion sponsored by Alltech inthe aquaculture sector, one attendee described theevent as “the most exciting discussion in which I haveparticipated in the past 10 years”. Such is theenthusiasm in these markets. We believe that everycloud has a silver lining, but for agriculture thedifficult times of these past years can only be turnedaround if we embrace change and recognize the threekey determinants of success: Price competitiveness,Perception of the consumer, and Policies we candepend on to guide us now and in the future.

Success Factor No. 1:Price competitiveness

How can other markets compete given the size ofUS and Brazilian farms? How can a small countrymaintain its position? To be successful we must adoptnew technologies, which is how Brazil made suchremarkable strides forward in a comparatively shortperiod of time.

What are some of the new technologies that canmake food animal production more price-competitive? The two most important aretechnologies that improve the efficiency with which

we use feed ingredient raw materials, and the otheris through improved animal health.

Raw materials Utilize wider availability of cereals, protein sources New generation SSF enzymes to improve efficiency Improved Herd longevity: cows, sows animal health More piglets weaned More high quality chicks per breeder Reduce heath costs

Success Factor 1Lowering production costs

THE KOJI PROCESS OF SOLID STATEFERMENTATION: LOWERING THE COST OFCONVERTING FEED TO MEAT AND EGGS

Nature ensures utilization of its abundant feedstuffsby placing microbes and animals in symbiosis. Inboth ruminants and monogastrics, rumen or hindgutmicrobes digest the structural carbohydrates in fiberto release energy and ultimately to provide proteinfrom microbial cells for animal use. Without themicrobe’s ability to produce enzyme arrays, the hostanimal could not make much use of a vegetable-based diet.

Alltech harnessed this symbiosis with a uniquefermented koji, which is sold under the name ofVegproTM SSF. In the koji fermentation the enzyme-producing microbes are grown on substrates similarto those that food animals consume, which inducesthe microbe to produce the spectrum of enzymes mostappropriate for the job. When added to poultry andpig diets containing oilseed meals such as soya and

2 Re-imagining the feed industry

Table 2. More than 50 experiments and 120 companies confirm that the koji enzyme response has a major impact on production economics.

Results

Weight (kg) Feed conversion

Country No. of birds Age (days) Control Vegpro Control Vegpro

Argentina 4000 4 9 2.56 2.57 2.14 2.154000 5 1 2.75 2.87 2.08 2.02

3200000 53 2.64 2.64 2.23 2.245000 4 9 3.43 3.45 1.79 1.79

Brazil 3292 4 2 2.07 2.05 1.95 1.94Ecuador 1200 4 2 2.50 2.63 1.58 1.51Peru 65600 4 9 2.70 2.79 2.03 1.92

95000 4 7 2.67 2.72 2.08 2.02

canola, seven enzyme activities in VegproTM SSFinteract to boost release of energy and protein.Brazilian experience in formulating poultry and pigdiets with VegproTM SSF has shown that savings ofas much as $10-15 per tonne are possible. As globalreliance on shorter supplies of vegetable proteinsincreases, this technology could be crucial (Table 1).Why? Because the enzymes release the energy in soyaand improve protein digestibility. A summary ofexperience with VegproTM SSF in South America isfound in Table 2.

Table 1. The soybean challenge: usage and production growing atdifferent rates.

2001/2002 2001/2002 2003(Million bushels) (Million tonnes) Change (%)

ProductionUnited States 2,890 78.6 -11Brazil 1,598 43.5 +10Argentina 1,084 29.5 +12China 556 15.1 +9Total 6,751 183.7 +6

Use projection for 2004-2005China +15%Russia +25%

LOWER PRODUCTION COSTS BY IMPROVINGANIMAL HEALTH

At a recent presentation on the future of Americandairy farming, Dr. Steve Koenig pointed out thatanimal health is the key to success in the future. Whilehe used the dairy farm to illustrate his points, theycould be applied to any animal production system.An example illustrating the impact improved animalhealth has on productivity is cow longevity. Dairycows average only two lactations in several regionsof the US, while 60% of all sows are culled afteronly three parities. Given that peak milk productionin the dairy cow and peak sow productivity are wellafter these ages, the amount of lost production isastounding. At an average of 10,000 kg of milk per

lactation and 20,000 per lifetime, this means areplacement cost of $0.06/kg of milk - nearly 24%of the total selling price of milk! Imagine anycompany devoting 20-25% of the sales to replacingthe equipment! They could not survive, and nor canwe. If an extra lactation can be achieved, replacementcost drops to $0.04/kg or 17% of the total cost(Table 3).

Table 3. Calculated cost of replacing a cow based on two or threelactations.

Replacement heifer cost, USD 1400Culled cow price, USD 200Milk per lactation, kg 10,000Milk price, USD/kg 0.20Replacement cost of the cow, USD/kg milk Longevity: 2 lactations 0.06 Longevity: 3 lactations 0.04

Sel-Plex® impact on health

Cows and sows are culled for reasons of health andreproduction, both of which are at risk when seleniumstatus is marginal; and it is this specific area whereSel-Plex®, organic selenium produced by yeast, canhelp. Selenium in Sel-Plex® is present in the idealratio of selenoamino acids. When mastitis/MMAimpact is reduced, and selenium needs forreproduction are met, commercial experience withSel-Plex is that herd longevity can be increased,however an extra lactation is just one of the benefitsnoted. Sel-Plex® has implications for health andreproductive efficiency in all food animal species(Table 4). For sows, commercial and universityreports have indicated more pigs born alive and morepigs weaned; and a review of poultry data in refereedpublications alone demonstrates increased number ofchicks hatched (2-4) per broiler breeder hen.Furthermore, improvements in health make the switchto Sel-Plex® easy. Is this new? No. Dr. Don Mahan

T.P. Lyons 3

at Ohio State predicted this in 1995! The issue is asever – not whether the new technology will lowercosts – it can – but whether the will to make thechange in order to reap the benefits exists. Organicselenium – Sel-Plex® – has truly redefined seleniumnutrition and indeed vitamin E and ‘antioxidant’supplementation in general. However, there can beno half measures. Full replacement of sodiumselenite at all stages of life is required. Health is alifelong requirement.

Table 4. Sel-Plex® impact on herd health and productivity.

Dairy cattle Cow longevity in the herd: lifetime yieldFewer days openFewer services/conceptionNo Se injections neededReduced retained placenta incidenceReduced mastitis incidence/impactLower SCCCalf livabilitySupranutritional vitamin E levels unneeded

Beef cattle Meat qualityCalf livabilityFeed efficiency

Pigs Sow longevity in the herd: lifetime productivityAn extra 0.5-1 pigs weaned/litterReduced MMAPiglet health at birth and weaning

Chickens Breeders More settable eggs produced Fertility (male and female) Hatchability More chicks per hen

Broilers Reduced mortality/culls Improved uniformity Feed efficiency Meat quality

Layers Egg production Egg quality Shell quality

Knowledge about organic selenium is accumulatingat an incredible rate in all disciplines, but agricultureis the sector able to take greatest advantage of it.Still, it is always best to remember how much westill do not know! Not long ago science only knewof the role of selenium in glutathione peroxidase(GSH-Px). Now we know there are six forms ofGSH-Px, and 30-50 selenoproteins. Likewise, wenow know that there are a wide range ofselenocompounds in plants and yeast, and failure todiscount the importance of any of them because wedo not today know their function would be absurd.Nature rarely makes things for no reason. Modernanalytical techniques have revealed one reason

response differs between selenium yeast sources.French researchers noted that the profile of seleniumcompounds differs among commercial seleniumsources (Figure 1). Reasons might include differinggrowth media, pH and temperature conditions and(or)yeast strain. As such, data generated from a productmanufactured by one process cannot be extrapolatedto another. This why in clearing ‘selenium yeast’ foruse in the US following review of Sel-Plex®, FDAdefined an allowable product as one made preciselyby this process. In effect, the regulators are holdingall new products to the standard set by Sel-Plex®.

Key Success Factor No. 2:Perceptions of the consumer

Overcoming the negative perception of the consumeris more difficult to achieve than a reduction in costs.Due to a litany of scares – BSE, Foot and MouthDisease and dioxin contaminations – the public isoften suspicious of modern agriculture.

Success Factor 2Changing consumer perceptions

Animal feed contains antibiotics used in human medicine

Animal feeds contain recycled 'dangerous' animal proteins

Agriculture pollutes soil and water

Meat, milk and eggs are not 'healthy' foods

The recent mad cow scare in the US illustrates howreluctant as an industry we are to change, and perhapsvalidates consumer skepticism and the demand forgreater scrutiny. Carol Tucker Forman, director ofthe Food Policy Institute of the Consumer Federationof America, was quoted as saying “the damage to theAmerican meat industry, and therefore the feedindustry, costs infinitely more than anything UScattlemen would have to pay to do things right”. Butdoing things ‘right’ is not something we are alwaysperceived to excel at. Least cost formulationsoccasionally overrule common sense, and it seemsincredible that in a time when markets are asking fortotal transparency and traceability that one wouldleave anything to chance, much less take unnecessaryrisks. As we marvel at the apparent “repeating of theEuropean BSE mistakes” in the US, we remindourselves that the perception is that many of ourproblems originate from what and how we feed

4 Re-imagining the feed industry

livestock. This should not be the case; there are anumber of alternatives in use in all sectors of theindustry. Let’s briefly evaluate ways in which naturalfeeding programs combat perceptions of food animalagriculture.

PERCEPTION 1: ALL ANIMAL FEED CONTAINSGROWTH-PROMOTING ANTIBIOTICS

Less true each year. While there were never antibioticsin ‘all’ feeds, even those sectors where inclusion wasroutine such as grow-finish pigs and broiler diets aresteadily eliminating AGPs and have replaced them withnatural products and programs that promote healthand growth.

Bio-Mos® was introduced to the marketplace atAlltech’s 1992 international feed industry symposium.The past 14 years have seen numerous successful trialsand in the past 12 months meta-analysis summariesof the data in studies with weanling pigs, broilers andturkeys have been published (Pettigrew 2003; Hooge,2003a; Hooge, 2003b). One researcher working onmodeling approaches to use in evaluating Bio-Mos®

confirmed that he has found nearly 300 publicationsin this area (G. Rosen, personal communication). Theresounding conclusion: the product is stable in feed,acceptable to the consumer, and works as well if notbetter than AGPs in comparison studies and oncommercial farms. Analysis of the broiler data showa 2% improvement in FCR, a 2% improvement inweight gain, and a 20% decrease in mortality. It clearlyhas lived up to its motto: Bio-Mos®: Performs.Promise. Its mode of action targets intestinal healthand immune modulation. The mannan fraction of Bio-Mos® carbohydrates provides a ‘decoy’ to whichpathogens adhere, thereby avoiding intestinalepithelial colonization, which in turn leads to healthiervilli and more absorption of nutrients. Immune

responses are modulated (as opposed to stimulateddirectly), leaving the animal more prepared whenexposed to pathogens.

The message with Bio-Mos® is that animal health,beginning with gut health, is the key to success.

PERCEPTION: AGRICULTURE POLLUTES

The latest restriction to be placed on animalproduction in an increasing number of markets isthe mandated reduction in dietary copper and zincin order to prevent accumulation in soil profiles(Figure 2). Supranutritional levels have traditionallybeen included in monogastric diets, especially thosefed pigs, to reduce enteric disorders. Mandatedreductions, however, allow only nutritionalminimums at a time when many are questioningwhether such levels are adequate to meet demandsof modern genetic lines.

Old New

CuPigs: 35 - 175 ppm

All speciesFe: 1250Mn: 250

25 ppm

250 - 750 ppm100 - 150 ppm

Co: 10 2 ppmZn: 250 150-250 ppm (species-dependent)

Figure 2. Changes in trace mineral allowances for foodanimal diets in Europe.

Can animal health and productivity survive withreductions of critical trace minerals to 20-30% of

Figure 1. Differing proportions of selenium in various fractions of three commercial selenium yeast sources (adapted fromEncinar et al., 2003).

Water soluble

Polysaccharidebound

Protein bound

Residual proteinbound

Residualhydrolyzable

Fraction Yeast A Yeast B Yeast C

% of total Se

Water Soluble 12 28 22

Polysaccharide-bound 15 26 72

Protein-bound 18 40 4

Residual protein-bound 39 4 0

Residual hydrolysable 16 2 2

Not all selenium yeasts are alike

AABC

T.P. Lyons 5

Enterocytes

lining the villi

Villus height 600 µm

Gut lumen

Mucus layer (50-100 µm)Negative charge protects enterocytes against highly charged

or toxic ions such as Al+3. This is why Fe+2 is better absorbed

than Fe+3, and why Bioplexes are more easily absorbed

than inorganic ions!

Blood

Unstirred water layer (600 µm)Increasing pH causes inorganic ions to 'hydroxy-polymerize',

forming non-absorbable complexes that are excreted.

Mucus

Unstirred

water layer

their current levels? The answer is yes, providingthat dietary trace minerals are supplied in forms bestsuited to the intestinal environment and absorptivemechanisms. Before reaching the site of absorption(the enterocyte membrane) ingested minerals firstencounter an unstirred water layer and then a mucuslayer with an intense negative charge (Figure 3). Thismeans that though the enterocyte membrane is verythin, the mineral must first traverse two layers, whichare orders of magnitude thicker than the absorptivesurface itself. For inorganic metal ions such as Cu,Zn, Mn and Fe, an immediate danger is so-called‘hydroxy-polymerization’ whereby the increasing pHin the small intestine, and particularly in the unstirredwater layer, causes them to form large insoluble metalhydroxides that cannot be absorbed.

The negatively charged mucus layer presentsanother barrier against the passage of inorganic metalions and evolved as a protective mechanism againsttoxic elements such as aluminum (Al3+). Because ofthe intense negatively charged nature of this layer,the strength of metal cation binding can be describedas follows; M3+ > M2+ > M+ (where M represents ametal ion). Essentially, toxic elements such as Al3+

are bound so tightly that they rarely manage totraverse this layer and are sloughed off as the layer isreplaced. As the charge on the metal ion decreases,inorganic metal ions (which have avoided hydroxypolymerization) may traverse the layer, but atrelatively slow rates. This is basically why ferric iron(Fe 3+) must first be reduced to ferrous iron (Fe2+)before it can be absorbed.

Feeding essential trace metals in the form ofBioplexes circumvents these problems by a)completely avoiding the risk of hydroxy poly-merization reactions, and b) speeding the rate ofpassage of the metal ion across the negatively chargedmucus layer by presenting it in a reduced charge orelectrically neutral form (Figure 4).

When dietary trace minerals are in this form, thenutritional minimums mandated by environmentallaws are able to meet the needs of modern, highlyprolific genetic lines. In studies comparing Bioplex™and inorganic zinc for grow-finish pigs Fremaut(2003) demonstrated that Bioplex™ Zn supplied at30% of the inorganic Zn level resulted in improveddaily gain while the environmental goal of reducedexcretion was accomplished.

Bioplexes:Peptide protection from:

Forming insoluble complexesThe negatively charged mucus layer

Figure 4. General structure of a Bioplex trace mineral.

Figure 3. Barriers to absorption of highly charged inorganic cations: formation of unabsorbable hydroxy polymers in the unstirredwater layer and adherence to the negatively-charged mucus layer.

6 Re-imagining the feed industry

PERCEPTION: RENDERED ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS IN FEED – DO WE HAVE ANALTERNATIVE?

While the antibiotic issue can be put aside safely witha tried and proven replacement, and bioplexing allowslower trace mineral levels, this cannot be said ofanimal by-products. In the US alone, 35 million cattleare processed every year. What could we possibly dowith the waste protein and fat? Europe has grappledwith this problem, but if the US reduces its use ofanimal by-products, the impact on protein prices willbe enormous.

New plant and yeast protein sources: The‘Biorefinery’

The nutritional, cost and environmental problems ofnot recycling animal by-products has no simplesolution, but perhaps the ‘biorefinery concept’, atwork in the rapidly expanding fuel ethanol industry,can provide a useful alternative protein source. Fuelethanol is produced in either the grain dry milling orwet-milling process, using a variety of starch andsugar substrates across the globe. Grain dry millscurrently produce ethanol, distiller’s dried grains withsolubles (DDGS) and CO2. Removal of the starchfor fermentation to ethanol leaves the protein,minerals and fat concentrated in co-products currentlyused in animal feeding, primarily ruminants butincreasingly in monogastrics. With ~30% CP, energyequal to the original grain owing to concentration offat and ~0.7% phosphorus (90% of which isavailable), these co-products have much to offer thefood animal industry in terms of addressing a proteinshortage, but can we improve them further? The‘biorefinery’ approach to processing starch/sugarsources says yes!

Dry mill ethanol plants using corn produce about30 kgs of DDGS for each 100 kgs of corn ground. A‘biorefinery’, in contrast to an ‘ethanol plant’integrates process streams such that a number ofproducts are produced, with ethanol being only oneof potentially many. Options for further processingof spent grains and solubles include secondaryfermentations to increase protein content, boost lysinecontent as much as 3-fold and decrease the indigestiblefiber. Enzymatic hydrolysis of DDG and/or solublesis another approach to add flexibility. Ethanolproducers seeking to expand the market for distilleryco-products have begun integrating processes that ‘re-ferment’ a portion of the solubles and spent grains toprovide specialty ruminant products such as VA101Figure 5). Such directions go well beyond simplyupgrading a ‘by-product’.

Alltech is essentially a yeast biorefinery (Figure 6),constantly examining ways of utilizing yeast or theircomponents. In applying the biorefinery concept toour use of yeast; so another high quality protein foranimal feeds arises. In addition to a wide range ofspecialty yeast applications from animal feeds toethanol, processes that utilize cell wall fractions inproduction of Bio-Mos® and Mycosorb® yield a formof yeast extract, which includes the highly nutritiouscell contents. It is this extract that is processed intoNuProTM, a yeast protein high in nucleotides withapplication in a broad spectrum of specialty diets,particularly those for neonates of all species.

The lesson of NuPro™, however, is not just thatpossible new proteins are available in increasingquantities; the message is that innovative researchand process results in innovative products if we thinkoutside the box and develop new technologies.

PERCEPTION: ‘MYCOTOXINS ARE NOT INANIMAL FEEDS SO WE ARE DOING NOTHINGABOUT THEM’

Like other food safety issues, mycotoxins are asubject that consumers can be expected to beincreasingly familiar with in upcoming years.Regulators are extending guidelines to includemycotoxins other than aflatoxin as science providesmore and more information about these toxins.

The increasing scientific information about toxinchemistry and function provides us an advantage,however, since it gives us an ability to solve theproblem. Knowledge about mycotoxin structuralchemistry provides clues useful in building adsorbents.The 3-dimensional structure of yeast cell wall glucan,the starting material for Mycosorb®, can bemanipulated to optimize toxin-cell wall interactionmaking a ‘glucan web’ to prevent toxins fromaffecting the animal or its products (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Three dimensional structure of yeast cell glucan.

T.P. Lyons 7

Figure 6. A yeast biorefinery.

Evaporator

Dryer

Separation,Refining

Distillation

Solids

Feedstock

CO2

Milling,processing,

cooking

Whole stillage

Solids

CO2

Inositol

Plant oils

Solubles

Organic acids

Proteins

Fatty acids

Pharmaceuticals

Heterologous proteins

Glycerol

ETHANOL

Centrifuge

Extraction,Enzymaticprocessing

Fermentor

Specialty feed

ingredients

Distillerswet

grains

DDGS Condenseddistillerssolubles

SecondaryFermentation

Figure 5. From distillery to biorefinery.

FERMENTATION Sel-Plex®

BioChromeTM

Yea-Sacc1026® Fuel ethanolyeasts

Viable yeast products

NuProTM

Yeast component products

Cell solubles stream

Separation

Mycosorb®Bio-Mos®

Mannan stream Glucan stream

Yeast-biosynthesized products

Cell solubles stream

8 Re-imagining the feed industry

Comparing commercially available adsorbents hasbecome a necessity for feed manufacturers. Table 5contains a 7-point guideline for evaluating suchproducts.

Table 5. 7-point comparison for mycotoxin adsorbents.

1. Can the product adsorb a wide range of toxins?2. Is inclusion rate sufficiently low (ie. 0.5-2.0 kg/t)?3. Is the adsorbent stable in the pH range of the GIT?4. Is adsorption capacity high (will it not be overwhelmed at

high toxin concentrations)?5. Is adsorption affinity high (is it effective at low toxin

concentrations since mycotoxins are often toxic at lowconcentrations)?

6. Is adsorption sufficiently rapid?7. Are there in vivo data that show protection of production

animals against toxins?

Mycosorb®, with its low inclusion rate and structureadapted to adsorb a range of mycotoxins includingaflatoxin, zearalenone, T-2 and DON, is rapidlybecoming the adsorbent of choice global. Protectedby three patents, Mycosorb® has unlimited potentialas we learn more about its structure and howmodifications can increase adsorption of both knownand newly-identified mycotoxins. Again, theappliance of science to solve a practical problem.The fact is that the technology is available to preventmycotoxins from having an impact at even the animallevel, which means that toxins from this source neednot threaten food safety in either perception or reality.

Key Success Factor No. 3:Designing policies for the future:transparency and innovation

Even if we adequately address price competitivenessand consumer perception, in order to be sustainablewe need policies that maintain transparency and spurinnovation in both products and business strategies.

Meet change Listen and act head-on Take on new technologies before competitors do Make transparency standard Differentiation Avoid the 'sameness' trap Choose exceptional, passionate people Innovation Creative products Creative R&D strategies

Success Factor 3Designing a sustainable policy for the future

A key step in defining those policies is deciding wherewe stand with regard to change: are we going to beproactive or reactive? Is it something that is going tohappen to us or will it be something we make happen?

CHANGE IS CONSTANT

Change is inevitable in the dynamic animal feedmarket, and failure to change has been the death knellof many enterprises. Once we accept that change is aconstant, our main decisions revolve around how todeal with change. We can either embrace change andmove forward, or we can ignore it until change isforced upon us.

Two large companies whose strategies for changeare apparent to us all are McDonald’s® andStarbucks®. The fast-food industry ‘re-invented’eating out; and for years seemed immune to recession.Recently they have begun to feel the pinch as theyhave watched consumers ‘re-invent’ what is ‘good’about food. As a result McDonald’s® stopped buyingbeef produced using antibiotic growth promoters, theyrefuse genetically modified potatoes, and in GreatBritain have begun to provide organic milk. USMcDonald’s® franchises offer ‘Atkins-friendly’ mealsfor the growing number of carbohydrate-countingcustomers. Is this a case of McDonald’s® beingproactive about changing menus, or are they beingreactive when forced to change?

Starbucks® ‘re-invented’ stopping for a cup of coffeewith huge success, but now they have begun to add‘Fair Trade’ and environmentally friendly products.With Conservation International they havecollaborated on a project to encourage sustainableagricultural practices and biodiversity through theproduction of shade-grown coffee, which follows theInstitution of Coffee Purchasing’s guidelines. IsStarbucks listening to the consumer or is Starbucks®

being proactive?The changes in McDonald’s® and Starbucks® are

examples of transparency and proactive efforts to offerproducts modern customers are interested in buying.They want customers to know of their commitmentsto food quality, safety and sustainable agriculturalpractices. Is our industry just as proactive? Have welost sight of what Dan Glickman (former USSecretary of Agriculture) advised at the AlltechInternational Feed Industry Symposium in 2000 –“Tell us what you want and we will grow it”?

T.P. Lyons 9

AVOIDING THE SAMENESS TRAP:DIFFERENTIATE WITH PEOPLE AND PRODUCTS

In order to be sustainable, companies must avoid the‘sameness trap’ described in Funky Business byNordström and Ridderstråle (2000). They describean oversupplied world of similar companies,employing similar people, with similar educationalbackgrounds, coming up with similar ideas,producing similar things, with similar prices andsimilar quality. Does this sound like our industry? Itdoes, and it underscores our need to differentiate.We need to create new solutions to problems and indoing so create profit and success for ourselves andour partners. We can make our companies, and henceour industry, different and make them stand out inthe industry.

The people factor: exceptional people helpcompanies differentiate

‘Our people make the difference’ must be more thana well-meaning cliché. Many business commentatorsbelieve that we are entering an era where the ‘warfor talent’ is the most important battle that will befought. When land was the important asset, countriesbattled for it, now that talent is the important assetfor business success, companies will battle for talent.Paul Allaire, former CEO at Xerox®, calls it “thebrawl with no rules”.

What kinds of talents are we looking for? It is oneof the fundamental roles of the leader that he/shedevelop the talent around him/her. Inside rapidly-growing Alltech the need to ensure that the nextgeneration of leaders is in place has been acute. Wehave key questions to ask potential employees – themost important of which is: What are you passionateabout? There is no right or wrong answer, it is simplyimportant to find people with the energy and drivefor accomplishment. We have successfully made thetransition from a small local player into a medium-sized global enterprise. The next challenge for ourpeople and for our industry involves becoming theindustry standard bearer. Part of our future successwill be due to recruiting talented and diverseindividuals from across the world, including a greaterproportion of women, a group whose skills andmanagement styles have been underutilized inagribusiness.

FOSTER INNOVATION

In the ‘over-supplied world’ described by Nordströmand Ridderstråle, ideas are what separate successful

companies (and individuals) from failures. Anotherimportant element of the future viability of ourindustry will be our ability to give consumers notonly what they want, but more importantly what theydid not realize they wanted. The new competitionwill take place not only in terms of market share, butmore importantly in newly created markets.Innovation, while a term vastly overused, is acompetency that Alltech and all companies need toexcel at in order to prosper.

I was once asked how it could be possible to take acommodity item like milk and make it unique – avalue-added product. Is it simple? No. Is it possible?Absolutely. We created a slogan: ‘A milk for all ages’.For the young, a lactoferrin-rich milk for the lactose-intolerant. For teenagers, perhaps higher calciumlevels for growing bones; while low fat, high omega-3 and high cholesterol-blocking statin might formpart of ‘milk for middle ages’. For all ages,enrichment with selenium through Sel-Plex® in thecow’s diet to fight against cancer. A Korean companywent further and changed the name from milk toSELK to emphasize selenium enrichment.

The size of a company is irrelevant when it comes toinnovation. The tiny New Zealand dairy co-operative,

10 Re-imagining the feed industry

Tatua, with only 30,000 cows is still the world’s mostprofitable, largely due to the value-added dairyproducts it offers such as lactoferrin for infantformulas and lactoperoxidase as a natural sterilant.

Alltech’s Bioscience Centers, where scientistscomplete research toward MSc and PhD degrees whileworking with Alltech’s research group, are at the hubof our innovation. We support these scientists’ effortsand encourage creative thinking. Over time, 9 PhDand 42 MSc students contributed to the research onYea-Sacc1026®, now the world’s No. 1 natural rumenmodifier, which is the reason we understand its modeof action so well. A good example of the impact ofthis work is the recently obtained EU approval forYea-Sacc1026® in horses. In the US alone we supportwork being conducted by 36 doctoral candidates andhave 135 ongoing projects in Europe.

Summary

Re-imagining the feed industry means re-imaginingour companies: our goals and what we stand for, ourpeople and the corporate environment we create. Wemust ask and answer carefully the questions ‘Are wefostering the creativity we need to carry the companyinto the future? Do our products and researchdirections address industry needs for pricecompetitiveness and consumer perception? Are thepolicies sustainable?

At Alltech, we recognize the importance of ongoingdiscussion of these questions in building a dynamiccorporate culture. It has allowed us to focus on corecompetencies to develop a ‘Big 6’ list of productdirections while giving us the freedom to find waysto expand to a ‘Big 8’ or ‘Big 10’.

Another result of this corporate dynamic is thegrowing role of the Bioscience Centers as hubs ofinnovation, both in scientific exploration and in thestructure of modern corporate agricultural research-our relationships with other research groups atuniversities and institutes.

The process is exciting; and it is providing productsthat have increasing importance across the world inthe areas of animal health, performance andreproductive efficiency, and consumer perception offood animal products. Clearly decisions we makesurrounding Price, Perception and Policy defineultimately where each of our companies will be in10, 20 or 30 years’ time.

References

Encinar, J.R., M. ?liwka-Kaszyñska, A. Polatajko,V. Vacchina and J. Szpunar. 2003. Methodologicaladvances for selenium speciation analysis in yeast.Analyt. Chim. Acta 500:171-183.

Fremaut, D. 2003. Trace mineral proteinates inmodern pig production: reducing mineral excretionwithout sacrificing performance. In: NutritionalBiotechnology in the Feed and Food Industries,Proceedings of Alltech’s 19th Annual Symposium(K.A. Jacques and T.P. Lyons, eds). NottinghamUniversity Press, UK, pp. 171.

Hooge, D.M. 2004a. Meta-analysis of broiler chickenpen trials evaluating dietary mannanoligosaccharide, 1993-2003. Intl J. Poult. Sci.3(3):163-174.

Hooge, D.M. 2004b. Turkey pen trials with dietarymannan oligosaccharide: meta-analysis, 1993-2003.Intl J. Poult. Sci. 3(3):179-188.

Nordström, K.A. and J. Ridderstråle. 2000. FunkyBusiness - Talent makes capital dance. FinancialTimes Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Pettigrew, J.E. 2000. Mannan oligosaccharides’effects on performance reviewed. Feedstuffs 52(December 25).

BioplexesTM Trace mineral proteinates for all species

The Alltech 'Big 6'

Mycosorb® Reduce mycotoxin

impact

VegproTM SSF enzyme for vegetable proteins

Yea-Sacc1026® Viable yeast culture for cattle & horses

Bio-Mos® Mannan oligosaccharide,

non-AGP growth promoter

Sel-Plex® Selenium

in the 'food' form

C.V. Maxwell 11

Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

CHARLES V. MAXWELL

Animal Science Department, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

Challenges and opportunities facing the internationalfeed/food industry have never been greater than thosefaced by these industries today. It has become apparentthat anything less than a very proactive approach toaddressing current challenges may not be sufficient.Current international events are leading feedcompanies to attempt to move from a traditional roleas a ‘feed company’ to becoming an integral part ofthe ‘Food Supply Chain’. This is driven essentiallyby the fact that although one cannot ensure that foodcompany products eaten by consumers are safe, as aprominent player in the early part of the food chain,it is essential that the feed industry ensure that thefeedstuff supply chain is not the problem.

This new reality has led feed companies to initiationof the concepts of oversight, control, and overallsecurity of their component of the food chain. Feedcompanies are, out of necessity, now becoming ‘FoodSafety Guardians’. The commitment by the feedcompany to provide customers with products of thehighest quality has been deemed vital to the successof the business. Therefore, feed companies mustbecome early leaders in assuring that all products areHazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)certified. In addition, it is essential that feed companiesbecome registered in the ISO 9001 quality standardor adopt a similar standard. HACCP is a systematicapproach to identifying and preventing contaminationof food and food products during the manufacturingprocess. ISO certification is an internationallyrecognized quality management system thatemphasizes integrity throughout the manufacturingprocess, using standardized and verifiable proceduresin all aspects of operations from product designthrough manufacturing and distribution. The samelevel of concern has progressed through the livestockand poultry production chain to include producers,integrators, processors, and retailers.

Three key issues asked of the industry today are 1)what are animals consuming, 2) how are animalsbeing cared for, and 3) has the animal been sick?The traditional protein business chain from vegetableto animal protein has changed dramatically.Traditionally, this has been a production-based modelfrom the farmer to the consumer with little oversight.The reality today is that the consumer is providingoversight to the retailer who then places constraintson the production chain to conform to specificstandards of production. Overall confidence in foodsafety was down in the early 1990s, tended to riseand peaked in the mid 1990s and has declined since(Figure 1).

Another issue being addressed by the multinationalfeed companies is globalization. Given all the issuesbeing addressed internationally, specific feeds needto be modified to fit specific country labeling. Thispresents tremendous difficulties in developingbranded products with international acceptance.Solutions to these issues are exacerbated by themultitude of regulatory hurdles that must beovercome. These include differences in the use ofantibiotics, animal proteins, genetically modifiedmaterials, and feed additives. Companies that supplyinputs are required to think as globally as processorsand retailers.

These issues were in the implementation stage priorto the discovery of BSE in North America. Allcomponents of the feed/food industries are beingaffected by this discovery. This is leading to the rapiddevelopment and implementation of a nationalidentification program in the US. The ID programwill likely bring rapid adoption of Radio FrequencyIdentification Devices (RFID) in production andprocessing sectors of the food supply chain and willmatch the drive of Wal-Mart’s RFID technology in

12 Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

the retail sector. There will be public pressure forthe US government to fund the development andimplementation of the national animal ID program,perceived as essential for traceability in acomprehensive food safety program. The need fortraceability has been the greatest cost impediment tothe adoption and implementation of country-of-originlabeling (COOL). The Manitoba Pork Council hasinitiated a pilot swine traceability study as part of anational effort to identify the most cost efficientmethod of tracing swine movement in Canada.

The lack of qualified workers has been and continuesto be a major constraint for those associated with theintegrated livestock and poultry industries. A surveyof students enrolled in swine production in the topswine-producing US states was conducted by DuaneReese (Table 1). This study indicates that interestamong students had declined in 9 out of the top 10swine-producing states over the last five years, withan average decline of 28% in the number of studentsenrolled. Many other states reported that a lack ofinterest among students is resulting in swineproduction not being offered or offered on alternateyears. Similarly, poultry production is only offeredby a limited number of universities and interest in apoultry production major is low. It is worth notingthat this lack of interest comes at a time when worldmeat demands are expected to increase as developingcountries have more disposable income, with aprojected increase of 50% by the year 2025 (Elam,2004). At the same time, the acreage of row crops is

projected to decrease over that same time period.Thus, it is imperative to improve productionefficiency in both the livestock and crop sectors tobe able to meet the rising demands. The other hugearea is the need to revamp production agriculture sothat all components can be brought back to consistentprofitability.

Table 1. Students enrolled in swine production in top 10 swineproducing statesa.

State Fall 1998/ Fall 2002/ ChangeSpring 1999 Spring 2003 (%)

Iowa 97 75 ↓ 22North Carolina 64 30 ↓ 53Minnesota 12 0 ↓100Illinois 15 14 ↓ 6Indiana 30 18 ↓ 40Nebraska 11 6 ↓ 45Missouri 25 22 ↓ 12Oklahoma 37 30 ↓ 15Kansas 47 48 ↑ 2Ohio 14 10 ↓ 28Total 352 253 ↓ 28

aReese, University of Nebraska, personal communication

Evaluation for technology developmentby the livestock industry

The swine and poultry industries have madetremendous progress through the years in terms ofgenetics, nutrition, husbandry and health. Advancesin production and management have provided the

65

70

75

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

80

85

Perc

enta

ge

Figure 1. Overall confidence in food safety: percentage of consumers completely or mostly confident(Food Marketing Institute, 1991-2000).

C.V. Maxwell 13

marketplace with a high volume, low cost animalprotein. Historically the livestock industries have beenmostly concerned about commodity production thatworks best in a least cost, most efficient productionmodel. There are two schools of thought regardingtechnology evaluation for large systems. The typicalapproach that has served the integrated livestockindustry well in the past is the cost analysis systemthat is used by Agrimetrics and Agristats. Thetechnique used is a comparison-based cost analysisthat compares the cost-of-gain of one company withthe cost-of-gain of other comparable enterprises in amanner that keeps the actual companies involved inthe analysis confidential. These tools have been largelyused to drive systems to ‘least cost’ production withlittle regard to optimal cost and maximal profit. Somehave argued that this system may be overly simplisticand does not effectively address the concept of valuereturned/cost of input. For example, the most valueout of a feeding program may result in a higher costof gain if the increased cost results in improvedperformance. The other system is to look at returnsover feed costs or a return over input cost. Dataanalysis services are available that may moreeffectively address where improvements may be madeusing a more broad-based cost/benefit analysis. Theapproach taken by MetaFarms Inc. is to conduct ananalysis of ‘Process Enablers’, which affect a numberof specific parameters monitored in an enterprise.This leads to a continuing evaluation of the impactthat specific processes have on parameters beingmeasured rather than a single focus on cost of gain.One example of this type of analysis is the effect ofractopamine use in a swine production enterprise onperformance. Ractopamine added 10 lbs of weightper pig sold, which improved the bottom line by $1.50to $2.00/pig. Although cost of gain is improved inpigs fed ractopamine, the improvement is minimalcompared to the value of improved gain and leanyield; but ractopamine may not be considered unlessone analyzes technologies outside a simple cost ofgain model. That leaves us questioning how we shouldevaluate technology. Perhaps the effect a technologyhas on both the cost side of the equation as well asthe revenue side should be evaluated. It is essentialthat models are developed that evaluate profitability,not just cost of production.

It is also interesting to note that once all the factorswith huge effects on performance and efficiency havebeen implemented, this leaves the livestock industrieswith the unenviable task of attempting to determineimpacts of products and(or) systems that have a much

smaller effect on profitability. A 3-4% gain in feedefficiency is almost too small to measure, but theeconomic impact on profitability in the integratedindustry is huge.

Although the challenges are great, much progressis being made in providing alternatives that couldbenefit the feed/food industries tremendously. Thefact that growth-promoting levels of antibiotics areno longer permitted in Europe and the possibility ofrestrictions being imposed elsewhere has led to aplethora of studies investigating replacements. Thesestudies offer the potential of a better understandingof the relationship between the microbiota in theenvironment and improved livestock performance aswell as alternative strategies to control the threat ofspecific microorganisms. This may result in improvedperformance over that observed with growth-promoting levels of antibiotics. Similarly, studies toreplace specific animal proteins may lead to a betterunderstanding of factors associated with reducedperformance with plant proteins in neonatal animals.

Relationship between the gut microbiotaand performance in swine

The gastrointestinal tract of the pig harbors ametabolically active microbiota that stimulates thenormal maturation of host tissues and provides keydefense functions (Gaskins, 2001). Several recentexamples of improved post-weaning performance inthe young pig suggest that much of the improvementobserved in nutritional studies may be through animpact on the intestinal microbiota. A good argumentcan be made that the improved performance observedin the young pig as a result of feeding plasma protein,complex diets, antibiotics or acidifiers might be anindirect effect of altering the gut microbiota.Similarly, the positive effects of popular managementstrategies such as segregated early weaning (SEW)may be mediated through reductions in exposure topathogens.

Segregated early weaning reduces the incidence ofa number of pathogens, thus reducing immunologicalstress, which results in improved growth and higherefficiency of feed utilization (reviewed by Maxwell,1999). This strategy has been successful in reducingthe number of pathogens, but has not been successfulin eliminating all pathogens. The premise is that pigsare removed from the sow while their immunity, asa consequence of maternal antibodies, is still high.This maternally derived passive immunity will

14 Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

prevent vertical transfer of indigenous pathogens. Pigsreared in isolation have been shown to have reducedimmunological stress (Johnson, 1997) resulting inimproved growth and efficiency of feed utilization.This is consistent with observations in our researchat the University of Arkansas to determine ifdifferences in immune stimulation can explainperformance differences in conventional vs off-sitereared pigs. A total 432 weanling barrows (19 ± 2day of age) were obtained from a local commercialcompany from a single source. One-half the barrowsfrom litters were selected for the off-site nurserystudy (6 pigs/pen) with the remaining pigs staying inthe conventional nursery facilities (approximately 18pigs/pen). Pigs were weighed and serum samplesobtained via venipuncture on days 0, 14, and 34 post-weaning from a total of 72 pre-selected pigs. Thepigs were placed in the conventional facilities (aminimum of 1 pig/litter was sampled) and an off-site nursery (a minimum of two pigs in each of 36pens was sampled). Serum α1-acid glycoproteinconcentrations were determined by a single radialimmunodiffusion method using a commercial kit(porcine α1-acid glycoprotein plate, DevelopmentTechnologies International, Inc., Frederick, MD).Pigs reared in the off-site nursery were 0.89 kgheavier (P

C.V. Maxwell 15

Table 2. Pre- and post-weaning mean E. coli populations in thejejunum and ileum of pigs (CFU/g log10).

Pre-wean Post-wean

Control 1E-1 Control 1E-1

Experiment 1Mean E. coli, CFU/g (log10)

Jejunum 5.53a 3.42b 7.10a 4.80b

Ileum 5.91 4.71 6.63a 4.96b

a,bPre- and post-wean means within a row with different letters differ significantly (P

16 Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

Table 4. Effect of Lactobacillus brevis (1E-1) during lactation onsubsequent nursery pig performance (Experiment 2).

Trait Milk Milk + P-valueL. brevis (1E-1)

ADG, kgPhase 1 0.092 0.100 0.51Phase 2 0.286 0.332 0.014Phase 3 0.507 0.535 0.26Phase 1-3 0.307 0.336 0.05

ADFI, kgPhase 1 0.125 0.128 0.13Phase 2 0.304 0.347 0.17Phase 3 0.563 0.622 0.03Phase 1-3 0.343 0.380 0.04

Feed:gainPhase 1 1.632 1.482 0.57Phase 2 1.123 1.079 0.64Phase 3 1.109 1.180 0.14Phase 1-3 1.141 1.145 0.93

Weight, kgInitial 7.86 7.88 0.09Phase 1 8.73 8.88 0.24Phase 2 12.72 13.55 0.013Phase 3 19.87 21.45

C.V. Maxwell 17

livestock industry to decrease or discontinue theseadditions because of the potential development ofantibiotic resistance. The need for alternative methodsto improve growth and efficiency of livestockproduction and to modulate the animal’s naturalability to fight disease has prompted the scientificinvestigation of several feed additives and their ability

to positively alter immune function (Berg, 1998;Turner et al., 2001).

Supplementation of swine diets with mannanoligosaccharides derived from the yeast cell wall ofSaccharomyces cerevisiae has the potential to providean alternative to growth-promoting antibiotics.Mannan-based supplements have the ability to alter

14

16

18

20

22

Control L. brevis

BW (k

g)

P

18 Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

the microbial population in the intestinal tract. Thismodification seems to be accomplished by the abilityof mannans to attach to mannose-binding proteinson the cell surface of some strains of bacteria, therebypreventing these bacteria from colonizing theintestinal tract by interfering with the binding ofcarbohydrate residues on epithelial cell surfaces(Spring et al., 2000). Mannans have also beenreported to alter immune function in swine (Kim etal., 2000), and this may be an additional mechanismby which mannans improve growth performance.

The effects of Bio-Mos® on pig performance andimmunocompetence was evaluated in five nurserypig trials conducted at the University of Arkansas. Atotal of 412 pigs were included in the evaluation with82 total observations (38 pens fed the basal diet, 15pens fed 0.2% Bio-Mos®, and 29 pens fed 0.3% Bio-Mos®). In four of the five trials, Phase 1, Phase 2,and Phase 3 were defined as day 0 to 10 after weaning,day 10 to 24 after weaning, and day 24 to 38 afterweaning, respectively. The fifth trial consisted of a14-day Phase 1, and a 7-day Phase 2. During Phase1, Bio-Mos® supplementation improved (P

C.V. Maxwell 19

throughout the epithelial layer of the Peyer’s patchare specialized epithelial cells, termed M(membranous) cells, which function to pinocytoseand transport macromolecules from the intestinallumen into the subepithelial tissue, deliveringantigenic molecules to leukocytes within the Peyer’spatch. The extraction of Bio-Mos® from the lumenof the small intestine by the M cells of the Peyer’spatch and its exposure to the immune cells locatedthere, may be the impetus for a cascade ofimmunomodulatory events that develop and enhanceimmune function, both locally in the gastrointestinaltract as well as systemically, as cells migrate out ofthe gastrointestinal tissue into the periphery.

Because mannan oligosaccharides have beendocumented to alter bacterial populations within theintestinal tract (Spring et al., 2000), anotherexplanation for the alterations in immune functionobserved in these studies may be from changeselicited in the enteric microbial population by thepresence of mannans in the luminal environment ofthe intestinal tract. The microflora present in thegastrointestinal tract are known to be a factor in thedevelopment of the young pig’s immune system, bothenterically and systemically (Gaskins, 1997), and thealteration of these microbial populations by Bio-Mos®

could have an impact on the progression of immunesystem development.

NuProTM 2000

Pigs produced in conventional intensively managedswine production systems are routinely weaned at 19to 21 days of age and as early as 10 to 14 days of agein off-site SEW systems. At this age, pigs are verysensitive to the source of dietary protein. Many dietaryproteins produce allergic reactions in which diarrhea,reduced growth and increased mortality can occur(Bimbo and Crowther, 1992). Various protein sourceshave been tested in early-weaned pig diets in anattempt to overcome these problems and to decreasediet cost. Spray-dried plasma protein is a proteinsource that has consistently been shown to improveperformance of early-weaned pigs when included inPhase 1 (day 0 to 14 post-weaning) diets at theexpense of dried skim milk (Hansen et al., 1993;Kats et al., 1994; de Rodas et al., 1995), soybeanmeal (Fakler et al., 1993; Coffey and Cromwell,1995; de Rodas et al., 1995), and whey (Hansen etal., 1993). Select grade menhaden fish meal has alsobeen a widely utilized protein source due to a

combination of consistent quality and competitiveprice. Demand for plasma protein is high and supplyis limited, therefore plasma is an expensive proteinsource for nursery diets. Also, regulatory constraintsthat prohibit the use of plasma protein in manycountries may affect the use of bovine plasma in theUS. Similarly, increased demand and decreasedsupply of fish meal has resulted in increased pricevolatility and relatively high current prices.

Preventing intestinal damage or atrophyimmediately post-weaning caused by reduced feedintake and lack of stimulation of the intestinalepithelium by ingested particles has been suggestedas important in maintaining growth performance innursery pigs (Cera et al., 1988; Dunsford et al.,1989). However, there are many other factors,including removal of beneficial factors from sow’smilk, diet form, stress, invasion by microorganisms,or introduction of allergenic compounds in thenursery diet, that may also contribute to intestinalatrophy. Glutamic acid and nucleotides may beimportant nutrient sources for maintaining gutintegrity during the early nursery period.

NuProTM 2000 is a protein source high in crudeprotein (51 to 55%) and digestible amino acids thathas potential as a possible alternative protein sourcein nursery diets. NuProTM is also high in glutamicacid and is an excellent source of nucleotides. Severalanimal-based specialty feed ingredients have beendeveloped to compete against the animal plasma andfish meal market share. However, NuProTM is avegetable-based peptide product which may havegreater international market appeal compared toproducts originating from animal by-products andthe high level of nucleotides may be uniquelybeneficial to the early-weaned pig

A study has been completed at the University ofArkansas involving a total of 216 pigs to evaluatethe efficacy of feeding NuPro™ as an alternative toplasma protein in nursery pig diets (9 pens/treatment).Three dietary treatments were fed from day 0 to 7after weaning (Phase 1) and day 7 to 21 after weaning(Phase 2) and were comprised of 1) a basal dietconsisting of a complex nursery diet containing spray-dried plasma protein devoid of NuProTM, 2) the basaldiet with 50% of the plasma protein replaced byNuProTM, and 3) the basal diet with 100% of theplasma protein replaced by NuProTM. During Phase3 (day 21 to 42 after weaning) a common diet wasfed to groups previously receiving Treatments 1 and2. Half of the pigs previously fed Treatment 3 werefed the common diet received by the Treatment

20 Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

groups 1 and 2; while the other half were fed a dietcontaining 1.3% NuProTM during the first week ofPhase 3 (day 21 to 28) followed by the common dietfor the remainder of the phase (day 28 to 42). DuringPhases 1 and 2, no significant differences wereobserved among the four dietary treatments withregard to ADG, ADFI, or G:F (Table 7). During thefirst week of Phase 3, pigs previously fed the basaldiet containing plasma protein and fed NuProTM atthe 50% replacement level had lower (P=0.07) ADFIthan pigs previously fed NuProTM at the 100%replacement level and pigs fed NuProTM at 1.3% ofthe diet during the first week of Phase 3. This studyindicates that NuProTM maybe used as an alternativeto spray-dried plasma protein in nursery pig diets,and the removal of NuProTM from the diet does notresult in decreased feed intake as is often the casewith the removal of plasma protein. This studyindicates that NuPro™ may be an effectivereplacement for plasma protein.

Organic selenium from yeast

Organic selenium offers several major opportunities

to the feed/food industries. Although inorganicselenium (sodium selenite) has routinely been addedto most animal diets, research has shown that about60% of it is excreted in the urine. Organic selenium(selenium enriched yeast) is an effective source ofselenium as it is more effectively retained in muscle,milk, and fetal tissues than inorganic selenium andless is excreted. Accumulation in tissues provides aselenium reserve that can be used under conditionsof stress for additional synthesis of selenoproteinsessential for counteracting adverse effects of freeradicals. Organic selenium is also transferred intothe egg more efficiently and into embryonic tissuesin mammals via improved placental transfer whencompared to sodium selenite. This provides the younganimal with higher selenium stores, which canpromote improved disease resistance. In addition tothe benefits to livestock species, higher tissue levelsof organic selenium may offer health benefits toconsumers who choose Se-enriched animal products.Although somewhat controversial, increasedselenium intake has been associated with reductionsin cancer risks in epidemiological studies (Vogt etal., 2003), animal models (Popova, 2002) andchemopreventive studies (Combs et al., 2001; Clark

Table 7. Efficacy of NuProTM in early-weaned pig diets.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4Trait Control 50% 100% 100% SE P>F

NuProTM NuProTM NuProTM

ADG, g Phase 1 47 45 31 35 10 0.60 Phase 2 399 402 429 404 11 0.19 Phase 1-2 282 283 296 281 9 0.58 Phase 3 623 590 626 621 12 0.17 Phase 1-3 451 437 461 450 8 0.20

ADFI, g Phase 1 118 113 99 116 7 0.25 Phase 2 473 475 497 465 15 0.47 Phase 1-2 355 354 365 349 11 0.78 Phase 3 1009 962 1037 1002 19 0.08 Phase 1-3 680 658 701 675 13 0.18

Gain:feed Phase 1 0.393 0.376 0.266 0.272 0.077 0.53 Phase 2 0.845 0.850 0.868 0.874 0.012 0.25 Phase 1-2 0.795 0.799 0.816 0.810 0.011 0.54 Phase 3 0.615 0.615 0.603 0.613 0.008 0.71 Phase 1-3 0.662 0.665 0.658 0.663 0.006 0.87

Weight, kg Initial 6.45 6.45 6.45 6.45 0.005 0.86 Phase 1 6.78 6.77 6.67 6.69 0.07 0.62 Phase 2 12.37 12.39 12.67 12.35 0.18 0.57 Phase 3 25.44 24.79 25.81 25.51 0.34 0.22

Group 1: days 1-21, basal diet; days 21-42 common diet.Group 2: days 1-21, basal with 50% NuProTM replacement; days 21-42 common.Group 3: days 1-21, basal with 10% NuProTM replacement; days 21-42 common.Group 4: days 1-21, basal with 100% NuProTM replacement; days 21-28 1.3% NuProTM; days 28-42 common.

C.V. Maxwell 21

and Marshall, 2001). Should additional studiesunderway prove conclusive, this presents the livestockand poultry industries with an opportunity to provideadditional health benefits to the public consuminganimal products.

Environmental impact of concentratedanimal feeding units

Another major problem facing the feed/food industryis the concentration of nutrients in modern livestockand poultry production systems. Northwest Arkansascontains the headwaters for two scenic rivers and isalso the location of a major concentration of animalproduction, primarily poultry. Disposal of theconcentrated animal waste, which accumulates inefficient production systems, in a manner thatminimizes odor and optimizes nutrient utilization isan increasing problem facing the livestock and poultryindustries in our state. Animal waste can be a valuableresource as an alternative source of fertilizer nitrogen(N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) inmaintaining and restoring soil productivity. In fact,by improving ground cover, runoff volume anderosion may also be reduced. Conversely, applicationof animal manure at rates greater than a crop canutilize has been shown to result in nitrate (NO3)movement through the soil into ground water andcan result in an excessive rise in soil P levels, leadingto increased phosphorus runoff. This can be a problemsince phosphorus is normally the limiting nutrientfor eutrophication in freshwater systems. Odor andnutrient problems can both be exacerbated byexcessive nutrient buildup in lagoons/holding pondsthat have not been dewatered in a timely manner.

With the initial population of the new Universityof Arkansas 2000 head/year finishing facility, adecision was made to demonstrate the use of dietaryphytase addition to substantially reduce phosphorusproduction in swine manure without affecting swineperformance or profitability. Facilities wereconstructed to permit production of two types ofmanure that was stored in holding ponds. Pigs placedin half of the pens received normal phosphorus dietsdevoid of phytase and pigs placed in the other halfof the facility received diets with reduced phosphorussupplemented with phytase. The holding ponds weremanaged by emptying the shallow pit under the pigson each diet on a weekly basis and recharging the pitwith effluent from the top of the holding pond. Thissimulated the management of a pull-plug waste

disposal system and allowed the accumulation of thetwo types of manures for application on watersheds.

Table 8 provides the average total and solublephosphorus analysed in the holding ponds. The 24.8%reduction in total phosphorus is consistent with themagnitude of reduction observed in phosphorusbalance studies with pigs to determine the magnitudeof reduction of phosphorus expected by feedingreduced phosphorus diets with added phytase. Themagnitude of reduction in soluble phosphorus wasonly 8.95%, suggesting that a higher percentage ofthe phosphorus from pigs fed phytase was in the solubleform. This is consistent with other observations thatphytase increases soluble phosphorus in manure.

Table 8. Phosphorus concentration in holding ponds (mg/L).

Item Normal P Phytase P Reduction (%)

Total P 289.7 217.9 24.8Soluble P 138.4 126.0 8.95

N = 6 samples per manure source

The reduced risk of phosphorus runoff fromwatersheds receiving manure from phytase-treatedpig diets in relation to manure from pigs fed normalphosphorus, non-phytase diets was also demonstrated.Concern over water quality near animal productionfacilities is primarily with regard to transport ofexcessive amounts of N and(or) P from the animalwaste.

A third watershed evaluated the efficacy ofaluminum chloride (AlCl3) addition to swine manureon runoff. Shreve et al. (1995), Moore et al. (1995)and Smith et al. (2001) recommended treatment ofmanure with aluminum chloride as a means ofreducing both P and NH3 losses. Runoff of nutrientswas compared to a watershed that received no manureor fertilizer. The watershed sites were designated:

1. No manure or fertilizer application

2. Phytase manure: Low P diet, high N, but low Ploading, lower risk of P runoff.

3. Normal manure: Normal P diet , high N and Ploading on pasture, high risk of P runoff.

4. Phytase manure: Low P diet, high N, but low Ploading, aluminum chloride added to reducesoluble phosphorus and lower risk of P runoff.

Manure was transported from the respective holdingbasins and applied to two separate pastures in multiple

22 Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

applications at rates equivalent to a target of 150 lbN/acre/year. Manure from pigs fed the reducedphosphorus diet with added phytase was also treatedwith aluminum chloride by adding 0.75% aluminumchloride to the manure prior to application. This wasadded to a third watershed at the same applicationrate used in the other watersheds. A fourth watershedhad no manure or fertilizer added. A total of threeapplications were made during the project. A ‘SmallIn-field Runoff Collector’ system was used to collectrunoff water. Samples from each watershed and stormevent were composited and analyzed for total KjeldahlN, total P, soluble P, NH3-N, NO3-N, copper and zinc.

Total runoff data are presented in Table 9. Thewatershed that received no manure or fertilizerproduced the greatest total runoff with 191,344 liters.This might be expected since reduced forage covermay increase runoff. The watershed receiving thenormal phosphorus manure was next with 179,028liters followed by the watershed receiving AlCl3treated manure from pigs fed phytase (162,418 liters).The watershed receiving untreated manure from pigsfed phytase had the lowest total runoff of 112,826liters.

Table 9. Total runoff.

Treatment (Liters)

Watershed 1 No manure 191,344Watershed 2 Phytase 112,826Watershed 3 Normal P 179,028Watershed 4 Phytase+AlCl3 162,418

The total nutrients applied to the watersheds in thethree applications are presented in Table 10. Theapplication of total N was approximately 150 lbs oftotal N/acre/year. The addition of aluminum chlorideto the swine manure also substantially reduced thesoluble phosphorus at the time of manure application,as expected.

Table 10. Nutrients applied to soil from manure by treatment(lb/ac).a

Treatment Soluble P Total P Total N

Unfertilized n/a n/a n/aPhytase diet 12.7 31.5 230Normal diet 10.2 30.4 205Phytase + AlCl3 1.6 26.6 240

aRepresents three applications over 1.5 years.

The mass of soluble and total P lost from the watershedfertilized with normal manure was greater whencompared to the runoff in the unfertilized watershed

or watersheds fertilized with phytase manure orphytase manure with AlCl3 (Table 11). This total massof P loss in the watershed fertilized with normalmanure also represented the greatest percentage ofapplied total P lost among the watersheds (5.4 vs 3.6and 4.9% for the watersheds treated with phytasemanure and phytase with AlCl3, respectively).Application of manure from pigs fed phytase, withor without treatment with AlCl3, reduced the mass ofsoluble and total P runoff. In fact, the watershedtreated with phytase manure produced the lowest totalP and percentage of soluble and total P runoff amongthe watersheds, even lower than that observed in theunfertilized watershed. It should be noted, however,that runoff volumes were variable betweenwatersheds, which had an impact on the total massof nutrients lost from the runoff events. Whencomparing the mass of nutrients applied to that whichwas lost through runoff, it is important to note thatthe vast majority of nutrients remained within thewatershed. In general, more than 90% of the nutrientsapplied remained in the watershed. The exceptionsto this are the percentage of soluble P lost from thewatershed receiving the normal P manure (12.7%)and the percentage of soluble P lost from thewatershed receiving the phytase manure with AlCl3(60.6%). A higher percentage of soluble nutrientswere lost through runoff, because the soluble fractionis fairly dynamic, and is also more susceptible torunoff losses than the total fraction. There was moresoluble P removed from the phytase manure withAlCl3 watershed than was applied from the manure,most likely due to the natural loss of soil P as seen inthe unfertilized watershed. The N lost from thesewatersheds was a very small fraction of what wasapplied, ranging from 0.6% to 1.2%.

Table 11. Mass of nutrients lost from watersheds and percentageof applied nutrients lost.

Treatment Soluble P Total P Total N

(lb/acre) (%) (lb/acre) (%) (lb/acre) (%)

Unfertilized 0.89 1.26 1.84Phytase diet 0.92 7.2 1.12 3.6 1.39 0.6Normal diet 1.30 12.7 1.65 5.4 2.38 1.2Phytase + A1C13 0.97 60.6 1.31 4.9 2.28 1.0

Zinc concentrations from runoff were very low(Figure 6). Manure had no apparent impact on metalrunoff when applied as a fertilizer resource to thewatersheds. Copper concentrations in runoff were alsovery low, in the ppb range, and were not affected bythe addition of manure to the watersheds (Table 12).

C.V. Maxwell 23

Table 12. Concentration of copper lost in runoff by treatment.

Treatment Cu (µg/L)

1. Unfertilized 2.52. Phytase Diet 2.33. Normal Diet 3.64. Phytase + A1C13 3.5

One of the objectives of this project was to conduct aphosphorus and nitrogen budget for the farm. A totalof 8,222 lb of phosphorus was delivered to the farmand an estimated 2,507 lbs (30.5%) was removed inpigs marketed or retained in pigs kept as replacementbreeding stock (Table 13). A total of 1,616 lbs(19.6%) was spread on 88 acres for an averageapplication rate of over 12 lbs of total P/acre/yr,which exceeds the P needed for forage productionfor grazing or hay. The amount of total N deliveredto the farm was 40,839 lb (Table 14). An estimated11,608 lbs (28.60%) was removed in pigs marketedor retained in pigs kept as replacement breeding stock.A total of 3,655 lb. (8.94%) was spread on 88 acresfor an average maximum application of 41.50 lbs ofN/acre. If one obtained the expected ammonia lossfrom volatilization of 25%, then the actual appliedN would be about 31 lb/acre, which is probably belowthe crop needs for either the bermuda or fescuepastures where manure was applied. The residual Nis most likely much less than the calculated residualsince ammonia volatilization from the productionfacility and holding ponds is likely to be substantial.

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

Unfertilized Phytase Normal Phytase withAlCl3

Zinc

(mg/

L)

Figure 6. Effect of manure fertilization on zinc concentration in runoff.

Table 13. Farm phosphorus balance.

lbs %

Total P delivered in feed 8,222P removed in pigs marketed 2,507 30.5P in manure spread 1,616 19.6Residual 4,099 49.8

Table 14. Farm nitrogen balance.

lbs %

Total N delivered in feed 40,839N removed in pigs marketed 11,680 28.60N in manure spread 3,655 8.94Residual 25,504 62.45

This study demonstrates that even with judiciousmanagement, phosphorus in the soil accumulates withapplication of swine manure based on plantrequirements for N in forage-based systems.Construction of new production facilities should onlybe considered after development of nutrientmanagement plans ensuring application of nutrientsthat do not exceed crop needs. Technologies to furtherreduce phosphorus in manure would reduce the landbase needed for concentrated animal productionfacilities.

In areas where nutrient excesses exist, progress isbeing made in developing technologies to addressthe problem and some are even receiving praise fordelivering both environmental and economic benefits.Singled out in the popular press recently is the manuremanagement system in the Chino Basin in Southern

24 Future of the feed/food industry: re-inventing animal feed

California, which utilizes a digester to convert dairymanure into fertilizer and methane used for powergeneration. Smithfield Foods is constructing a $20million system to convert swine manure into liquidmethanol to be used in the production of biodiesel.Success of these systems is critical for maintaininggood relationships in communities with large livestockproduction facilities. Why would every state not wantto have a $7 billion poultry industry like Arkansas?

Conclusions

In summary, it appears there will be increasedemphasis on food safety that will require dramaticchanges in the way national and international feed/food companies operate. This has benefits not onlyfrom a food safety standpoint, but as we develop abetter understanding of controlling microorganismsin the environment, we may also tremendouslyimprove animal health and performance and shouldhave a number of alternatives to antibiotics. Theimpact of an animal’s interaction with microorganismsin the environment on gain and efficiency is evengreater than once thought. Finally, it is evident thatenvironmental and animal welfare issues will haveincreasing influence on decision making.

References

Bimbo, A.P. and J.B. Crowther. 1992. Fish meal andoil: Current uses. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 69:221.

Bolduan, G. 1999. Feeding weaner pigs without in-feed antibiotics. In: Biotechnology in the FeedIndustry. Proceedings of Alltech’s 15th AnnualSymposium. (T.P. Lyons and K.A. Jacques (eds). P223-230

Cera, K. R., D. C. Mahan, R. F. Cross, G. A. Reinhart,and R. E. Whitmoyer. 1988. Effect of age, weaningand post-weaning diet on small intestinal growthand jejunal morphology in young swine. J. Anim.Sci. 66:574-584.

Clark, L. C. and J. R. Marshall. 2001. Randomized,controlled chemoprevention trials in populationswith very high risk for prostate cancer. Elevatedprostate-specific antigen and high-grade prostaticintraepithelial neoplasia. Urology 57:185-7

Coffey, R. D. and G. L. Cromwell. 1995. The impactof environment and antimicrobial agents on growthresponse of early-weaned pigs to spray-driedporcine plasma. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2532.

Combs, Jr., G. F., C. L. Clark and B. W. Turnbull.2001. An analysis of cancer prevention by selenium.Biofactors 14: 153-9.

de Rodas, B. Z., K. S. Sohn, C. V. Maxwell, and L.J. Spicer. 1995. Plasma protein for pigs weaned at19 to 24 days of age: effect on performance andplasma insulin-like growth factor I, growthhormone, insulin, and glucose concentrations.