.

Pankaj Kumar Singh

Department of Animal Nutition

Bihar Veterinary College, Patna, Bihar, India-800014

E-mail: vepank@gmail.com

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

Traditional Vs Precision Feeding

Traditional 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.

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

• Also known as Information Intensive Nutrition

or Personalized Nutrition

• Right time• Right composition

• Right Proportion

• Right amount of feed

Precision

feeding

Precision Feeding

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)

History of Precision Feeding

Precision 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

Precise nutrition: Multi disciplinary approach

Traditional Nutrition + Other technological Sciences

Precision nutrition

to meet unique nutritional requirement

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

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

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

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

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)

Formulate ration on available nutrients basis

Crude protein

basisAmino acid basis

Lab analysis basisDigestible AA basis

Ideal protein/tissue

accretion basis

Exact

AA need

Traditional ration formulation Vs Precise ration formulation

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Soybean

meal

Sunflower

meal

Rapeseed

meal

Gai

n (re

lativ

e)

Total lysine Digestible lysine

Diets formulated on total or digestible amino acids

Effect of available nutrients

(Le Bellego & Noblet, 2002).

Use of synthetic amino acids

Simple 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)

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)

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).

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)

277

318

291

327

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

Maize particle size, µm

Pe

rfo

rman

ce, g

/day

1000 600

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 enzymes

Fiber-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)

Phytase

Phytate is an indigestible form of PPhytase - 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)

Use of other feed additives

a. Antibiotics

b. Growth hormones

c. Probiotics

d. Prebiotics

e. Synbiotic

f. Organic acids

g. Antioxidants

h. Phytobiotics

i. Eubiotic

Feed Formulation

Uses feeding standards tables to calculate nutritional

requirements

Uses laboratory feed analysis

o Feed nutrient content- Variable

Nutritionist add for “margin of safety”

o Account of variation

Matches dry feed amounts to nutrient requirements of animals

Because only dry matter contains nutrients

Water (DM) content of feed is variable

Water management overlooked

VII. Feed Formulation Vs Feeding

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

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).

Effect of phase feedingPhases(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 43.7ab 42.9b (4.5%)

Composition: Maize, Soya bean meal wheat bran, Tallow, DCP, Limestone, salt, mineral-vitamin premixME (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 separately

Boar

– 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

Effect of phase and split sex feeding

Gilts 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)

Precision feeding system: Feed-DetectInnovative feed sensor : Precisely measure & deliver feed to individual feeders

Prototype feed sensor

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

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

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

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

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)

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 errors

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)

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.

• 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

Effects of low-phytate maize and supplemental phytase on phosphorus excretion of pigs

(Cromwell, 2009)

Items

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%

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)

Advantages of Precision Nutrition

Effective utilization of Nutrients/Feeds

Optimise productivity

Reduced feed losses

Reduce environment al pollution

Improved profitability

Challenges of Precision Feeding

Estimation of nutrient requirements of an individual animal

Reliability (e.g., using electronic devices in farms)

Tedious management

Cost effectiveness.

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.

Thank You