10/1/2015
Things That Can Go Wrong…
Objective Measurements
• % Sow mortality and destroyed:
– Doubled from June 2010 through October
2010 compared to January 2009 through May
2010
• 11.1% vs. 5.4%, respectively.
• Ill-thrift pigs necropsy and pathology
results (9/27/10, 10/7/10, 11/22/10):
– Dyschondroplasia
– Rickets
– Hypovitaminosis D
From Consulting Vet
• Lack of abnormal mineralization in 3 wk old
suckling pigs and pigs weaned <1 wk
– Two sets of samples, one from 4 found dead
pigs in September
– Second set is of 6 pigs weaned 1 day,
sacrificed
• Secondary problem from history is indication of
sow unsoundness
• Tertiary concern is the mulberry heart observation
just so it is in the record
1
10/1/2015
From Consulting Vet
• History – there are 3 affected herds fed by XXX’s
– haven’t talked to VTM supplier about this and
want that to be a communication from nutritionist
with experience and data. Not a blame game or
damages issue. Right now I just want my patient’s
problems solved.
– XXX’s are feeding 3 major multiplication herds from more than
one mill
– Please let us know what sampling, field trips (and you may
need to visit mills at some point ‘cause my confidence in
performance reality is not very strong for some of them) we
need to do in support. Where and what sampling, etc – will get
it done.
Game Plan
• Contacted VTM supplier
– Owner
– Salesman
– Nutritionist
– Talked to mill
• Explained my mission and who had employed me
• Confirmed mill and pigs involved
• Visited with Tommy Crenshaw (bone man Univ of
Wisconsin)
• Visited with Dale Green and Darrell Elsberry (mill guys)
• Preliminary diet review
– Checked batch sheets against formulas
– Locked in ingredients and looked at expected versus
found values
Gestation
Component
9654176
Assay
9654178
Assay
Expected
Protein
18.9
14.7
13.084
Phosphorus
0.51
0.49
0.596
Calcium
0.46
0.81
0.658
Sodium
0.23
0.21
0.1814
Zinc
207
190
182
2
10/1/2015
Phase 3 Nursery
Component
9654173
Assay
9654175
Assay
9654177
Assay
Expected
Protein
8.01
26.7
29.5
22.57
Phosphorus
0.59
0.56
0.56
0.577
Calcium
0.93
0.28
0.38
0.671
Zinc
177
263
134
178
Lactation
Component
9654174
Assay
Expected
Protein
22.3
18.617
Phosphorus
0.65
0.672
Calcium
1.01
0.798
Sodium
0.2
0.1837
Zinc
336
194
Mill Before Visit
Reviewed mill lay out, equipment and bulk
ingredients in inventory
List of Things to Check
1. Batch 12/24 ton of feed and weigh a truck empty
and the load the 12/24 ton weigh truck full and see
if we are getting more than 12/24 ton made
2. Check venting on major scale to be sure a vacuum
issue is not creating false scale readings.
3. Visually observe SBM and corn augers while major
ingredients are being weighed to be sure augers
are operating correctly (example: that the corn
auger is not continuing to run after button is
released)
3
10/1/2015
Mill Before Visit Cont.
List of Things to Check
4. Visually check to make sure we do not have a
ingredient bin split leaking into the scale or an
ingredient continuing to flow after auger stops
5. Have major scale inspected with a full weight
range build up to be sure the major scale is
operating correctly with no load cell or
impingement issues.
6. Check inventory records to see if ingredient
usages/disappearances (especially corn and
SBM usage) correspond to expected usages
Visited Mill
• Checked the present batch sheets used to batch the feed to the
formulas for gestation and lactation they were close.
• We weighed up 1 ton, 2 ton and 3 ton of corn and at each
increment stopped the scale and it did not creep up. I hung on the
scale at each weight break to see if would return to the initial
weight each time which it did
• We weighed up a batch of feed and stopped at the end of the
addition of each ingredient to see if scale would continue to
build it did not.
• The scale had been inspected about a month ago, but they did not
do a complete weight build up to the capacity of the scale.
• I took half of a retained sample for a gestation made 10/1/10 and
10/21/10, a sample of lactation made 10/21/10. A nursery 3 made
9-30/10 and 10/5/10. These were sent into Midwest Labs. I also
took a sample of the Gest Pak K24 and sent it to Eurofins for a
phytase assay.
Visited Mill Cont.
• This is a manual mill which creates no electronic record of
batching, which is saying it is highly dependent on operator skill
and attention. You watch a dial scale while holding a button which
activates an auger which augers an ingredient unto a scale, you
anticipate the scale reading and remove your finger from the
button ,if short you bump it again, if long you mentally adjust your
target weights for the rest of the ingredients. The addition of
limestone and phosphate per batch are 15-30 lbs and the weight
breaks on the scale are 5 lbs so a person has to focus to do a
good job. Darin has batched feed here for the last 2 years.
4
10/1/2015
Visited Mill Cont.
• The mill has manual receiving turn heads to get ingredients into
the proper bins. It is dependent on operator skill. This creates no
electronic record of what has gone where. I have asked them to
check centering of the spout in the turn heads. The ground corn
could thru equipment or operator error go to all bins.
• The bins are rather small allowing them only to receive single
truckloads of SBM, expellor SBM, phosphate and limestone. If one
of these was put into the wrong bin it would be unlikely that it
would fit.
• There was no record that could be found for a mixer test.
Recommendations
• I suggested to the COOP to:
– A mixer test /which turned out ok
– Check the centering and movement on the
turn heads, which was ok
– Continue to do daily inventories of corn,
SBM, expeller SBM, limestone and
phosphate for at least a week.
What Did We Find?
• Did not find the first time, could not see it
when bins were full or when they were
empty but when bins were partially full
• Split in corner of bins where corn could
run into soy bin and soy could run into
corn bin
5
10/1/2015
16
Before a problem
• Know who is supplying nutrition advice and develop relationship
• Discuss whether nutritionist has any concerns with feed supply and their knowledge of mill
• Understand current quality control program
• Obtain diets and allocations (budgets)
• Check inventory control
17
Have a potential problem
• Contact nutritionist or whoever is providing nutrition advice
• Take feed sample (sampling procedure, number of samples)
– Divide sample and send to lab for analysis
– Depends on what you suspect in analysis (CP, Ca, P, Na, maybe fat) – lab variation – use same lab for all analysis
• Check batch sheets vs formula sent, check ingredients actually used vs batch sheet
• Check actual allocation vs expected by nutritionist (F/G and death loss impact)
Sampling
• Non representative sample
– Misleading results
• We usually send the lab 400 grams
– Only 1-5 grams actually analyzed
6
10/1/2015
Sampling
• Concern
– Carry over feed in bin
• Paylean
• Resolution
– Mill
– Load out
– Feed truck
Dividing the Sample
20
Barn Samples
• Take from each quartile of barn
• Sample bag over drop tube
21
7
10/1/2015
Finished Feeds
• Not composite sample
– Individual samples of target diet
• More samples of fewer diets rather than fewer
samples of every diet
–
–
–
–
–
Protein
Ca
P
Na
Fat
• Seek to understand with help from
– Batching data
– Inventory controls
22
Accounting
• Ending ingredient inventory should equal
– Beginning ingredient inventory plus the
ingredients received minus usages
• Has value in verifying
– Scale accuracy
– Absence of use
• Has value of interpreting complete feed
analysis
24
Things that can go wrong with feed
• Formulation error
– Wrong specs for an ingredient
– Wrong nutrient loadings for an ingredient
– Setting wrong nutrient specs for a diet
8
10/1/2015
Ingredients
• Not just corn/soy diets anymore
– Byproduct use
• DDGS
• More variable (200 plants)
Using Book Values or
ILLUMINATE® Services
Different Book Values, as is basis
Item
NRC
DM, %
Crude Protein,
%
Crude Fat, %
Illuminate
Avg
Illuminate
Low
Illuminate
High
U of M
KSU
93
89
Not Listed
89.2
86.7
93.2
27.7
23.1
27.2
26.8
24.9
32.1
8.4
8.7
10.7
9.4
5.5
11.9
Swine ME
Kcal/kg
2820
3500
3419
3233
2657
3601
Total Lys, %
0.62
0.85
0.78
0.87
0.62
1.02
Total Met, %
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.53
0.43
0.75
Total Phos, %
0.77
0.82
0.60
0.77
0.54
0.93
AvPhos, %
0.59
Not listed
0.46
0.58
0.41
0.70
Variation
• Bakery & mids also vary between plants
• More variable ingredients
– Formulate with half a standard deviation
below the mean
• Cromwell
– Use the same lab for the same nutrient on all
ingredients
9
10/1/2015
Limestone & Phosphate Challenge
• Today’s diets are different
– Lower inclusion
• Costly overages
29
Things that can go wrong with feed
• Mill
– Ingredient issue
•
•
•
•
Wrong ingredient in bin or added via bag
Ingredient not meeting specs
Contaminated ingredient
Out of date ingredient with reduced nutrient potency
– Holes in bins
– Scale, batching, or mixing issue
– Carryover in system Good Deed Done
• How it works
– Scale drops into surge
– Feed is held in surge till mixer empties
– Feed then drops from surge into mixer
• One fine day
– Drag carrying feed away from mixer threw breaker
– Mixer was about 1/4 empty
– After a bit the indicator on mixer signaled full
– Tim Deeds
– Curious enough and conscientious enough to figure out
the surge was leaking
– Would have a tough one to figure out otherwise
10
10/1/2015
31
Things that can go wrong with feed
• Trucking
– Feed delivered to wrong location
– Mixture between hoppers on truck (gate leaking)
32
Things that can go wrong with feed
• On Farm
– Tandem bins not used correctly
– Slow fill issues in nurseries
– Out of feed events • Flow, timers
• Proximity switch without heavy pigs
• Feeder storage capacity is too small
Take Home Points
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Communicate proactively
Representative Sampling
Grind
Proper mixing
Accurate batching
Accounting is your friend
Variable ingredients need the most
attention
• Finished feed is a reflector of all the above
11
10/1/2015
Nutrition x disease that we have seen
34
• No premix or old premix (Vit K ‐ bleeding)
• Ca/P/phytase (broken bones, no mineralization)
• Vitamin E/Se (mulberry heart can occur with gobs of vit E and hard to make mulberry heart with no vitamin E)
• Salt (lack of or excess) – pigs don’t want to eat feed • Toxicity (Se) – sloughing hooves
• Mycotoxins – low growth, estrogenic signs
• Slow growth, high F/G
• Rancid fat – low intake and growth
• Pathogens
– PEDv, orthoreovirus?
• Finishing pig diarrhea ‐ Mg Sulfate
• E coli ‐ Low Zn
• Poor reproductive performance – low choline
Swine Nutrition Audits
K-STATE
RESEARCH
and
EXTENSION
Swine Nutrition Audits
• Collect background data
–
–
–
–
–
–
Current performance levels
Diet formulation
Feed ingredient prices
Feed manufacturing costs
Delivery costs
Environmental impact of nutritional program
• Audit within production system
– Inside feed mill
– In production facilities
– Meeting with management
• After the visit ‐ Written report
12
10/1/2015
Swine Nutrition Audit Checklist
Current performance levels
• Performance monitor
– Number of pigs weaned, lactation length, litter weaning weights, and parity structure of herd
• Closeouts – Minimum of 10, prefer spreadsheet with 2 or more years of data
– ADG, ADFI, F/G, mortality rate, initial and final weights, feed cost per lb
– Adjust to common base
• In and out weight, energy level in diet, diet form
– Available space in system
• Packer marketing sheets
– Market weights and other (backfat, FFLI, sort) Diet formulation
• In addition to cost goals, we must review in context of production, environmental, and personal goals
– Examples where goal may not be lowest cost:
• Quality of facilities in nursery
• Margin over feed versus cost/lb of gain
• Altering late finisher diets for meat or fat quality
• Minimize environmental impact (N and P)
• Fiber to gestation diets for satiety or feed drop reasons 13
10/1/2015
Diet formulation
1) Nursery pigs
a. Get started on feed ‐ Ingredient sources and quality
b. Transition to simple, low cost diets as quickly as possible
c. Maximize growth at lowest cost
2) Grow‐finish pigs
a. Determine lean and fat deposition rates and feed intake
b. Meet nutrient needs at as low of cost as possible
c. Maximize return over feed cost
d. Make sure that meat quality is not reduced by diets
Diet formulation
3) Sows
a. Gestation
i. Meet daily needs at lowest cost
b. Lactation i. Maximize feed intake ‐ consistency of diet is important
ii. Match amino acid levels to level of milk production
4) No “magical” ingredients
Opportunity Margin (%)
Feed ingredient prices “Opportunities”
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Grain
Soybean Meal
00
100
Fat
P
Manufacture
ZnO
Pellets
Methionine
Limestone
Medication
Salt
Trace mineral
Whey, Fish, and Blood
Lysine
Vitamin
% of Feed Cost
14
10/1/2015
Feed manufacturing costs
• Grind
• Mix
• Other (if applicable)
– Pellet, etc
Cost per pig basis
Delivery costs
• Cost basis
– Per mile
– Per ton
– Per load
• Discounts
• Capabilities
– Load sizes, etc
Environmental impact of nutrition program
• How much reduction is needed?
• Which nutrients to target
– Major
• Nitrogen
• Phosphorus
– Minor
• Salt
• Zinc
• Copper
15
10/1/2015
Environmental impact of nutrition program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Are diets over formulated?
Split‐sex feeding
Phase feeding
Synthetic amino acid use
Phytase
Lean, efficient genetics
Proper feeder adjustment
Correct particle size
Audit within the production system
• Inside the feed mill
– We focus on delivery of high quality feed to the bin on the production sites in the most cost effective manner
– Others in industry are better trained in auditing feed mills for optimal feed production
Audit within the production system
• Inside the feed mill
– Grinding
• Particle size testing program
– Weighing
• Testing of scales
• Under‐weighing is rarely a problem
– Mixing
• Mixer efficiency testing
– Quality control program in mill
16
10/1/2015
Audit within the production system
• Inside the feed mill
– Questions concerning capabilities of the mill
•
•
•
•
Number of ingredients that can be handled?
Fat handling capability?
Ability to mix and deliver high quality nursery diets?
Potential problems with any ingredients or methods to improve efficiency
– Ex. Free flowing lactose product versus whey
– Ex. Altering diet specs to allow additions of full versus partial bags
Audit within the production system
• Inside the production facility
– Are gestating sows receiving the correct quantity of nutrients
• Common nutrition problems:
–
–
–
–
–
Variable condition scores (backfat)
Feed dropped in front of empty stalls
Feed not being dropped in front of all sows
Restriction of water intake
Not providing correct quantity at correct time
Audit within the production system
• Inside the production facility
– Are lactating sows being full‐fed?
• Questions:
– Are more than 20% of feeders empty?
– Are 21 d weaning weights greater than 130 lb?
– Calculation of feed intake?
» Feed intake/Crate days
» Feed intake/lactating days
17
10/1/2015
Audit within the production system
• Inside the production facility
– Nursery pigs
• Are pigs started on feed promptly after weaning and transition safely between diets?
• Are feeders adjusted correctly?
• Review ventilation and sanitation • Look for signs of digestive abnormalities
Audit within the production system
• Inside the production facility
– Finishing pigs
• Feeder adjustment
• General pig management
– Visual signs of normal growth and comfort (absence of vices)
• Bin management
– Consistent availability of feed
– Size of bins and number of pigs served by a feed line must be reviewed for budgeting
Audit within the production system
• Meeting with management
– Before tour of facilities
• Review goals for production system
• Allow them to relate any perceived problems with the nutrition program
– After tour of facilities
• Discuss main opportunities for improvement that were found in audit
18
10/1/2015
Steps after visit to production unit
• Written report
–
–
–
–
Always, Always, Always!!!
Prompt (within two weeks)
Economic justification
Priority or action list with “who is responsible”
• Follow‐up
– Conference call or meeting 4 to 6 weeks after the report
– Review points in the action list for progress
Swine Nutrition Audits
Keys:
• Clear understanding of goals of production system
• Review background information on performance levels, diets, feed ingredients, processing and delivery prices
• Review the feed mill capabilities
• Visual assessment of application of the nutritional program within the production system
• Complete written report summarizing findings of the audit
Thank You!
KSUswine.org
19