Date post: | 07-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | pankaj-kumar-singh |
View: | 20 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Precision Feeding for Simple Stomached
Animals.
Seminar on
Dr. Pankaj Kumar SinghAssistant Professor (Animal Nutrition)
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna, India. PIN-800014E-mail: [email protected]
1/50
2
INTRODUCTION
Livestock sector contributes: Food Security
Employment generation
National economy
Socio-economic development
World av. increment rate of animal production 1.6%/year (FAO, 2010) <
Demand of feed >50% compared to 2006 (Szabo and Halas, 2012)
Major constraints of animal production: Scarcity of Quality Feed resources
High costs of production
Livestock marketing and pricing
Animal disease control and eradication
Increase in the environmental pollution
Livestock Sector will bring food security and sustainable development if it is:
Economically viable Environmentally sound People centred - James Gustave Speltz (UNDP, 1994)
Maximum Vs Optimum Production
Maximum production achieved through overfeeding of nutrients ,,
Effect of Over feeding :– Increases feed costs
– Reduces profit
– Metabolic disorder
– Reproductive problems
– Environmental pollution due to excess excretion of N,P, NH3
Overall goal should be: to optimize the livestock production process for maximal economic return with minimal excretion
3/50
Traditional Vs Precision FeedingTraditional feeding programs:
Least-cost formulated
To meet the nutritional requirements of either the average or best performing animal in a population
Result in over & under feeding within the same group
“Nutrient requirements are not a Parameter of Population, but an independent “Statistic of an individual animal”
governed by its own intrinsic (genetics, health, nutritional status, etc.) and extrinsic (environmental and social stressors, management, etc.) driving forces.
(Banhazi et. al., 2012).
Precision feeding is to feed as close to the exact requirement as possible.
4/504
Accuracy is how close a measured value to the actual (true) value~ Error prone and Doubtful
Precision is the how close the measured values are to teach other~Repeatable and Reproducible
Precision Vs Accuracy
5/50
• Also known as Information Intensive Nutrition
or Personalized Nutrition • Right amount of feed
• Right Proportion
• Right time• Right
composition
Precision feeding
Precision Feeding
6/50
Precision feeding involves the provision of:– Right amount of feed – Right composition– Right time to each animal in the herd
• Precision feeding is proposed as an essential approach to –– Improve nutrient utilization
– Reduce feeding cost
– Reduce nutrient excretion.
Precision Feeding……..
Precision nutrition is the practice of meeting the nutrient
requirements of animals as accurately as possible in the
interest of a safe, high-quality & efficient production,
while ensuring the lowest possible load on the environment
(Banhazi et al., 2012) 7/50
History of Precision FeedingPrecision farming is an agricultural concept.
~ This concept is about doing the right thing, in the right place,
in the right way, at the right time.
‘Precision feeding assay’ was developed by Sibald (1979) in poultry.
Adult cockerel were fasted for 24-48 hrs.
Forced-fed a definite amount of the feedstuffs under test by placing it directly into the crop.
• Amino acid digestibility was determined 8/50
Precise nutrition: Multi disciplinary approach
Traditional Nutrition + Other technological Sciences
Precision nutrition
to meet unique nutritional requirement9/50
Precise estimation of nutrient requirements
Precise Nutrients analysis
Precise ration formulation on available nutrient basis
Use of feed additives and supplements
Feed processing techniques
Proper weighing and mixing of ingredients
Minimize the margin of safety
Use of appropriate feeding management methods
- Phase feeding- Split-sex feeding (Pomar et al., 2009).
Tools of Precision Feeding
10/50
I. Precise estimation of nutrient requirements
Factor affecting nutrient requirements:A. Animal factor ~ Addressed by feeding Standards
Genotype Age Sex Body Weight Stage of production and reproduction
B. External Factors~ Not addressed Environmental temperature Health status Stress Husbandry Conditions Water intake Voluntary activity 11/50
Assessment of nutritional characteristics
Precise composition of feed ingredients
Presence of anti-nutritional factors
Availability of nutrients
Protein quality
Mineral contents
Vitamin contents
II. Precise Nutrients Analysis
12/50
Energy density of the diet Feed intake Environmental temperature
Protein and amino acid composition Calorie protein ratio Gilts > boar Young > adults
Vitamin and mineral content
Water Content
III. Precise Ration Formulation
13/50
Linear programme of feed formulations
Most common for feed formulation:Assumptions
• Additivity:– the nutritional contribution of a mixture of ingredients is the sum of
the nutrient contribution of each ingredient
• Proportionality :– the change in the contribution of an ingredient in a mixture changes
the nutritional value
• Divisibility:
- the incorporation of an ingredient in a mixture is divisible
Constraints:
Apparent digestibility of nutrients does not satisfy the additivity,
~ the animal response to increasing levels of a digestible nutrients
(like DCP) is not necessarily linear (Stein et al., 2007)
14/50
Formulate ration on available nutrients basis
Crude proteinbasis
Amino acid basis
Lab analysis basisDigestible AA basis
Ideal protein/tissueaccretion basis
ExactAA need
Traditional ration formulation Vs Precise ration formulation
15/50
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Soybeanmeal
Sunflowermeal
Rapeseedmeal
Gain
(re
lative)
Total lysine Digestible lysine
Diets formulated on total or digestible amino acids
Effect of available nutrients
(Le Bellego & Noblet, 2002). 16/50
Use of synthetic amino acidsSimple stomached animals require essential amino acids
Dietary protein levels (2-4%) can be replaced
Improvement in the absorption and protein synthesis
Reduction in N excretion by 20% (Han et al., 2001)
By decreasing dietary protein from 18.9% to 14%
p-cresol (main odour) reduced by 43% (Kempen and Eric, 2009)
17/50
Ideal Ratios of AA to LysineAmino Acid Maintenance Body
TissueMilk Synthesis
Protein Accretion
Lysine 100 100 100 100
Methionine 28 27 26 27
Threonine 151 60 58 58
Tryptophan 26 18 18 10
Histidine 32 32 40 45
Isoleucine 75 54 55 50
Leucine 70 102 115 109
Methionine + Cystine 123 55 45 45
Phenylalanine 50 60 55 60
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine 121 93 112 103
Arginine 200 48 66 105
Valine 67 68 85 69
(NRC, 1998) 18/50
Effect of purified amino acid in Pigs
Diet Particulars C-SBM-DW Amino Acid Daily Gain, g/d 505 511 Daily Feed Intake, g/d 791 824 Gain-Feed Ratio 623 620 Nitrogen
Intake, g/d Digestible, g/d Retained, g/d Digestible, % of intake Retained, % of intake
18.2 15.5 10.2 85.1 56.0
14.2 13.6 9.7
96.1 68.3
Adapted from Chung and Baker (1991)
C-SBM-DW= corn-soybean meal-dried whey diet
(Stein et al., 2007). 19/50
V. Proper feed processing techniques
Particle size reduction:Improvement in growth rate
Improved feed efficiency
Improved digestibility
Decrease in N excretion (Hancock and Behnke, 2001)
Feed Processing techniques improves nutrient utilization
Feed should be grinded to uniform particle size (600 µm)
250260270280290300310320330340
277
318
291
327
Maize particle size, µm
Perf
orm
ance
, g/d
ay1000 600
20/50
21/50
Diet Forms
Mash diets vs. Pelleted
Mash– Feed wastage upto 20%
– Decrease in feed efficiency
– Limited feed intake
Pellet DM excretion decreased by 23 % N excretion decreased by 22% Feed efficiency improved by 6.6%
Wondra et al. (1995)
VI. Use of feed enzymesFiber-degrading enzymes:• Non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs) can range from 10 to 37% • NSPs hamper utilization of carbohydrates
• Maize-soya diets: • alpha-galactosidase, proteases, etc.
• Wheat/barley/rye as major ingredients:
~ Xylanase/β-glucanase improve digestibility by 2-9% (Bedford, 2002)
PhytasePhytate is an indigestible form of P
Phytase - improves digestibility of phytate in pig and poultry
• Improve growth performances• Reduces phosphorus excretion by 6-15% • Improves nitrogen digestibility by 2-7% • Reduces environmental pollution
(Singh et al., 2003) 22/50
Use of other feed additives
a. Antibiotics
b. Growth hormonesc. Probiotics d. Prebioticse. Synbioticf. Organic acidsg. Antioxidantsh. Phytobiotics i. Eubiotic
23/50
Feed Formulation Uses feeding standards tables to calculate nutritional
requirements
Uses laboratory feed analysiso Feed nutrient content- Variable
Nutritionist add for “margin of safety” o Account of variation
Matches dry feed amounts to nutrient requirements of animalsBecause only dry matter contains nutrients Water (DM) content of feed is variable Water management overlooked
VII. Feed Formulation Vs Feeding
24/50
VIII. Precise Feeding Management
Feeding management (feed mixing)Performed by farmers ~ Mixing diet errors
Management considerations – variation in feed intake
Must convert dry matter (DM) amounts into amounts of as-fed or as- is feeds basis
- Difficult to convert precisely Use Appropriate feeding management methods
- Phase feeding
- Split-sex feeding
25/50
• Feeding accordance with age and physiological phases
• Use of multiple diets to better match the continuously changing nutrient needs.
• Usefulness– Improves performances
– Better economic return
– Less feed storage is required.
– Reduces N & P excretion
• Limitation:– Higher level of management – Additional equipments needed
(Paik et al., 1996)
Phase Feeding
26/50
Phase-feeding in Pig Production
1 Feed 2 Feeds
Phases Grow-Fin Grower Finisher Whole Period
Protein Content 16 16.5 14 Feed Conversion 3.0 2.5 3.3 Feed Intake/ Period (kg)
210 75 132 207
N-intake (kg) 5.38 1.98 2.95 4.93 N-excretion (kg) 3.48 1.16 1.86 3.02 N-excretion (% of intake)
65 58 63 61
N-retention (kg) 1.90 0.82 1.09 1.91
Adapted from Koch (1990)
- 13%
(Pomar et al., 2003). 27/50
Effect of phase feeding
Phases (weight in kg)
54-104 54-80, 80-104
54-70, 70-90 90-104
54-65, 65-80, 80-95, 95-104
CP in diet (%) 16 16/12 16/14/12 16/14.7/13.4/12
ADG (Kg) 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.78
FCR 3.28 3.28 3.26 3.22
Nutrient digestibility
DM % 85.3 85.8 86.7 85.9
CP % 83.1 82.7 83.1 83.0
P % 45.1 45.8 45.7 45.6
Faecal nutrient excretion
DM (g/day) 282.8a 270.3ab 248.4b 263.4ab
N (g/day) 8.9a 8.0b 7.8b 7.9b (- 12%)
P (g/day) 6.26 6.43 6.03 6.18
Carcass (%) 76.66 76.30 76.76 76.12
Feed cost/kg wt gain 44.9a 43.7ab 43.7ab42.9b
(4.5%) Composition: Maize, Soya bean meal wheat bran, Tallow, DCP, Limestone, salt, mineral-vitamin premix
ME (kcal/kg)= 3350, Ca= 0.7%, Total P= 0.6%, Lysine= 0.65%, Meth= 0.4% , ₨ 1 = 20.64 ₩ (Lee et al., 2009)
Split-sex feeding
Feeding Gilt and Boar separatelyBoar
– Usually gain weight faster than gilts– Over consume on energy– Higher feed intake capacity (4-16% more)
Gilts Lower feed intake Generally gain higher muscle (lean growth) Require higher levels of amino acids
10% higher lysine requirement than litter mate barrows
29/50
Effect of phase and split sex feedingGilts Boar
Phases I II I II
CP (%), 17.95 15.14 17.95 15.14
DE (kcal/kg) 3300 3100 3300 3100
Initial weight, kg 24.5 25.6 26.7 24.9
Final weight, kg 107.2 107.6 108.1 108.0
ADG , g/day 751 793 873 851
Feed intake, g/d 2110 2250 2577 2487
Gain: feed 0.356 0.353 0.335 0.342
Carcass weight, kg 87.7 86.8 88.1 87.1
Lean yield, % 50.8 50.6 48.2 48.9
Feed cost, $/pig 35.9 33.3 36.9 33.4
Composition: Barley, Wheat, Soya bean meal, DCP, Limestone, salt, mineral-vitamin mixture
(Lange et al., 2004) 30/50
31
Precision feeding system: Feed-DetectInnovative feed sensor : Precisely measure & deliver feed to individual feeders
Prototype feed sensor
32
Precision Feeder • InraPorc® : Automatic and Intelligent Precision Feeder (AIPF)
– Agri-Food, Canada and the University of Lleida, Spain – AIPF uses artificial intelligence technologies, modified feed formulation
programs, mathematical growth models, actual technical nutritional knowledge, and advanced database software and analysis techniques
• Based on precision feeding techniques.• Estimate nutrient requirements each day based on individual feed intake and body
weight measurements (Pomar et al., 2009)
Environmental pollution & Imprecise feeding
• Environmental pollution due to:– Surplus nutrient in excreta (N, P)
– Gaseous losses to the environment (ammonia and odour)
• Presuming 5% waste on average:
– Responsible for 7.5% of N in waste
– 35% of carbohydrates
33/50
Nitrogen flow in swine
N Intake, 100%
Digestible N, 85%
Available N, 80%
Retained N, 35%
Fecal N, 15%
Urinary N, 50%
Ammonia, 20%
Manure, 45%
Feeds are not digested completely: Indigestible fraction contributes to waste
35/50
Pig manure contains about 5% N and 3% P
Excess N leach into groundwater or surface waters.
Contribute to a deterioration in water quality
Increased acid rain
Increased production of greenhouse gases
Proteins yield phenolics such as para-cresol and skatole, and
amines such as putrescine and cadaverine.
Effect of Nitrogen Pollution
36/50
Precision Feeding to control pollution
Nutritional Interventions
• Matching Nutrient Requirements
– Precision feeding reduces N inputs to levels required to maintain optimum production
• Use of highly digestible ingredients
• Low-protein diets
• Use of synthetic AA
• Multi-phase feeding 37/50
Effect of low protein diets on N excretion
Grower and Finisher Protein Level, % Particular 17.8% and 15.4%. 16.2% and 13.5%
N Intake, lbs 2.43 2.17
N Retention, lbs 0.79 0.79
N excretion
Total excretion, lbs N in manure, lbs N in air, lbs
1.64 1.20 0.44
1.38 1.00 0.38
Adapted from Latimier, 1993 The grower and finisher periods covered the weight ranges of 68 to 139 lbs and 139 to 223 lbs, respectively. N Excretion was reduced by 9% for each 1% reduction in CP
N in the air was reduced by 8% for each 1% reduction in CP(Han et al., 2001) 38/50
Phosphorus
Causes of Phosphorus overfeeding?
• High Unavailable Phosphorus content of feed ingredients
Maize and soybean meal- major ingredients in the swine diet
– High in total phosphorus content
– 50- 70% of the P is in the form of phytic acid~ Mostly unavailable to pig and poultry
• Nutritionist add more P for margin of safety• More P supplemented,
– Excess P excretion in the manure
• Mixing diet errors39/50
Precision phosphorus nutrition
• P is typically overfed
Mineral Sow diets Finisher diets
Requirement Range Requirement Range
Ca, % 0.75 0.60-2.01 0.50 0.57-1.38
P, % 0.50 0.45-1.17 0.40 0.45-0.78
Cu, ppm 5 12-222 3 9-281
Zn, ppm 50 79-497 50 103-205(Spears, 1996)
40/50
Pollution due to excess P
• The excess phosphorus can run off into the ground water
• High levels of P in water: Algae blooms or Eutrophication.
• The algae cloud the water make it difficult for larger submerged aquatic vegetation to get enough light.
• When the large vegetation and algae die, they decompose.
• Dissolved oxygen is removed from the water.
• Lowered oxygen levels ~ other aquatic organisms donot survive.
41/50
• Feed to meet the P requirement precisely– Reduce excess levels in feed– Calculate P requirements, estimate feed intake & calculate P intake
– Compare P intake to P requirements
– Phase feeding
• Use available P levels rather than total P
• Phytase Supplementation– Phytase improves availability of phytate -P
– P excretion decreased by 30 to 40% in finishing pigs (Pierce et al. 1997)
– P excretion decreased by 15 % in broiler chicken ( Singh et al. 2003)
• Annual manure sampling
• Tax on over P excretion as in the Netherland
Controlling P excretion by Precision nutrition
42/50
Effects of low-phytate maize and supplemental phytase on phosphorus excretion of pigs
(Cromwell, 2009)
Items
43/50
Low Phytate maize and Phytase
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Normal Low Phytate
P Excretion, g/d
Control+ Phytase
Total P: 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.35
Reduction in P Excretion: -- 23% 35% 51%
44/50
Impact of nutritional strategies on nutrient excretion
Strategy Reduction
Precision formulation 10-15% N, P
Pelleting 5% N, P
Fine grinding 5% N, P
Reduce protein +AA 9% N per 1%CP
Phytase 20-30% P
Enzymes (xylanases.) 5% N, P
Phase feeding 5-10% N, P
Split sex feeding 5-8% N
(John Dhuyvetter, 2007) 45/50
Advantages of Precision Nutrition
Effective utilization of Nutrients/Feeds
Optimise productivity
Reduced feed losses
Reduce environment al pollution
Improved profitability 46/50
Challenges of Precision Feeding
Estimation of nutrient requirements of an individual animal
Reliability (e.g., using electronic devices in farms)
Tedious management
Cost effectiveness.
47/50
Conclusion
Precision feeding is the provision of right amount of feed with the right composition
at the right time to an animal.
Precision feeding is an essential approach to reduce feeding cost and nutrient excretion for economic and
eco-friendly livestock production.
48/50
Thank
You49