ÀiÜÊ7œœ`Ã] M.Sc.
Swine Nutritonist
Shur-Gain Central/Ontario
TECHNICAL ARTICLE
Strategic use
of synthetic amino acids:
Saving money without sacrificing performance!
®
With commodities, particularly soybean meal, still trading at very high costs, all substitution
and replacement options need to be explored to enable on-farm mixing producers to maximize
margin over feed cost. One idea was the critical evaluation of the cost advantages of synthetic
amino acids and their influence on growth and financial performance. Using some simple diet
formulations and the 7>ÌܘÊÓ°äÁ swine model, we got our answer.
In order to evaluate the impact of synthetic amino acids, particularly
lysine, some sample diets needed to be created as a financial and
performance baseline. This baseline was then used to evaluate
the impact of substituting soymeal with synthetic amino acids. Table 1
shows four diets: the baseline, which has standard levels of lysine,
and three subsequent diets that increase the lysine by 100% in each
ration, i.e., diet 3 has 300% more synthetic lysine than the baseline.
These diets were constructed to represent a typical grower ration
(55-85 kg BW) for comparison purposes. When modeling within
7>ÌܘÊÓ°äÁ, three phases on farm programs were formulated
and used. The four diets in table 1 were all formulated to have the same
digestible lysine content, while energy was allowed to move up as corn
was the only ingredient used to fill the space in the diet by removing
soymeal. The table illustrates the relative decrease in soy and increase
in corn to the baseline values.
Table 1: Changes in diet compositions relative
to baseline.
>Ãiˆ˜iÊ
ˆiÌ
ˆiÌÊ£
ˆiÌÊÓ
ˆiÌÊÎI
œÀ˜
-
3%
7%
11%
-œÞ
-
(-15%)
(-30%)
(-45%)
*Note: At higher inclusions of synthetic lysine, supplemental methionine and threonine
may be required, which could cause minor alterations to the final cost of the diet.
After the diets were formulated, they were placed in a calculation matrix
in which the price of soy was increased and decreased, while the price
of corn was held constant and the diet costs were generated as seen
in Table 2. It was very clear to see that, across the range of soy prices,
all levels of lysine addition proved to be economically advantageous,
with the higher soy prices creating the largest price differences. Once
the economics were proven on these simple comparisons, it was
time to evaluate the actual performance.
6
Table 2: Feed cost per MT using multiple soy prices.
ii`Ê
œÃÌÊ*iÀÊ/
-œÞÊ*ÀˆVi
>Ãiˆ˜iÊ
ˆiÌ
ˆiÌÊ£
ˆiÌÊÓ
ˆiÌÊÎ
$610.00
$351.52
$343.03
$334.54
$326.05
$600.00
$349.57
$341.38
$333.19
$325.00
$575.00
$344.70
$337.26
$329.82
$322.38
$550.00
$339.82
$333.13
$326.44
$319.75
$525.00
$334.95
$329.01
$323.07
$317.13
$500.00
$330.07
$324.88
$319.69
$314.50
$475.00
$325.20
$320.76
$316.32
$311.88
Two new grower-finisher premixes were designed to replicate the
findings from tables 1 and 2; we called them Excel HD (high density)
and Precision HD. These premixes incorporated additional lysine plus
the necessary methionine and threonine needed to have optimal amino
acid balance when making a finished feed. Three types of mixes were
created: standard diets using the regular Excel and Precision premixes,
HD diets that match the digestible lysine content of standard diets
but using the HD premixes in order to displace soymeal, and finally
HD enhanced diets that used the HD premixes but only replaced
part of the soy and were cost-neutral to the original standard diets
per MT of complete feed. These HD enhanced mixes had a higher
digestible lysine content than both standard and HD mixes and
an energy content that was intermediate to both. To add one extra
option, both the standard and HD mixes were formulated using DDGS
in order to fully explore the use of co-products with the premixes.
/ÊÊ ÊUÊWINTER 2014
®
Table 3: Results of Watson 2.0 ® simulations using multiple diet densities.
*,
-"
8
Ê­}É`®
Ê
­Ž}É`®
-Ì`Ê"
869
2.45
2.81
19.8
61.4
3.92
-Ì`Ê"ÊÜÊ-
863
2.44
2.82
19.4
61.8
891
2.48
2.78
20.9
ÊÜÊ-
854
2.36
2.76
Ê 857
2.34
-Ì`Ê"
903
2.55
-Ì`Ê"ÊÜÊ-
894
2.58
902
ÊÜÊÊ " - On Farm Mixed
- AA increase and full soy decrease
- AA increase and partial soy decrease
ʜÕÌ«ÕÌÊ *…œÃÊvwVÊ
Ê­““® " Ê­““® ­Ž}É«ˆ}®
­¯®
>ÞÃ
"
42.4
110
$0.00
5.22
35.4
111
($4.07)
60.4
3.4
43.8
107
$2.10
19
62.3
4.41
37.4
112
$0.71
2.73
19.4
61.9
3.62
43.8
111
$3.50
2.83
21.4
60
4.22
41.5
106
$0.00
2.89
20.9
60.3
5.46
35.2
107
($4.81)
2.51
2.78
21.3
60.1
3.35
45.2
106
$5.40
867
2.43
2.8
19.7
61.5
4.5
38.1
110
$2.26
863
2.35
2.73
19.6
61.7
3.62
44.7
111
$6.31
*Note: all values displayed are projections based on inputs and costs at the time of writing.
These values are not a guarantee of results on farm using the products mentioned in this article.
The results show that there is a strong linear relationship, with
production parameters increasing as you move from standard mixes
down to the HD enhanced mixes. An improvement of 0.08 and 0.10 in
feed conversion is achieved in Precision and Excel diets, respectively,
when taken from standard to HD enhanced. Marked improvements are
also seen in loin size and feed intake. One benefit that is not often
quantified when it comes to pig diets is the nitrogen and subsequent
ammonia output of the animal. When using higher levels of synthetics
in diets, the pig outputs much less nitrogen that can be turned into
ammonia. This makes for a much nicer environment in the barn for both
producer and pig, and less nutrient excretion from your swine
operation. The most important that carries over is the economic impact
when performance is evaluated. The margin-over-feed cost (MOFC:
profit remaining after feed costs have been removed from
hog price) of the standard diet was set at $0 and the others were
displayed relative to this. As you increase the use of synthetics,
you see a significant increase in profit due to the increases in feed
efficiency and carcass characteristics. One surprise is that the
impact of using DDGS turned out to be negative in this scenario due
to the poorer performance and carcass data relative to the standard
and HD mixes. It should be stated that, at the time of this work
being done, DDGS were priced considerably higher than corn and
only showed marginal savings per MT of mixed feed. This is likely
the cause of the poor MOFC numbers seen.
The main conclusion to be drawn from this exercise is that swine
rations are a constantly evolving item and that all options need
to be explored in order to not only maximize performance and reduce
costs, but also to increase profitability.
Speak to your local Shur-Gain representative so that we, with help from
7>ÌܘÊÓ°äÁ and our Premix product line, can help you save money
without sacrificing performance.
7