Published by: SPESFEED (Pty) Ltd, PO Box 48, Rivonia, 2128. Tel: (011) 803-2050, Fax: (011) 803-8201

General News

As many of you will know by now we have moved our offices back to Johannesburg (Rivonia). We found that living in one city and trying to run a company in another to be counterproductive. Fortunately we have managed to keep the phone and fax numbers that we have always had. We have not severed our relationship with the University of Pretoria though, and have retained an office on their research farm.

By the time that you receive this newsletter I will most probably be in Canada at the World Poultry Science Association conference. I have been invited to deliver a paper entitled "International Trade in Poultry Products – Europe and Africa". As you can imagine finding meaningful data for Africa was difficult, but the worst part – writing the paper has already been done. I will also be attending the 89^th Annual Meeting of the Poultry Science Association and visiting the Poultry Science Departments of the Universities of Georgia and Guelph. A full report back on my trip will appear in the next newsletter.

In addition to the normal technical information contained in this newsletter I have also included Part 1 of an article entitled "Creating a Demanding Customer". Feed industry guru Dr Mike Stachiw who now works for Format International wrote it. Part 2 will appear in the next newsletter. More of Mike’s work can be seen on the Format web site at www.formatinternational.com

South Africa now has it’s own feed commodity Web site at www.feedcom.co.za. This Web Site will enable the user to source the Following information:

Top

As this years maize harvest comes in it is apparent that much of the crop is sub-standard. This has resulted in two things happening. Firstly, it is proving to be difficult to buy first grade material in some area’s and secondly, second and third grade material is available at considerable discount (R60.00 to R 80.00 /ton).

It must be borne in mind that the reason why most of this maize has been downgraded is because it contains unacceptably high levels of "black" kernels. These indicate the maize has a high fungal load and although it does not necessarily mean that it contains a mycotoxin load, it should serve as a red flag to anyone intending to use it.

Having said this, how then are we to utilise this material with safety? In short, young animals and reproducing animals (broiler breeders, the sow herd and lactating dairy cows) are the most sensitive to mycotoxins. If at all possible avoid feeding it to those animals. In addition it would be advisable to be able to control the percentage of low-grade material used in your diets. This would mean that you could use 20 to 30% in pig grower, broiler grower and layer diets, and say 30 to 40% in pig and broiler finisher diets.

If you have no choice but to use low grade maize it may well be worth considering using a toxin binder, either in the form of a colloidal clay or a yeast based material.

The next course that we present will be a pig nutrition course from 12 to 14 September. It will be held on the University of Pretoria’s research farm. Should you be interested in attending please contact Christél.

Top    

Creating a demanding customer

Wow,

Mike's finally lost his head! Who in his (or her) right mind would create a demanding customer??? I can't seem to think of a worse thing to do! Wrong! That is exactly what you want!

Hopefully I've got your attention. This is an interesting concept, one which is very important in keeping current customers. Creating a demanding customer sets the stage for several things. If either the competition contacts your customer, or your customer seeks out the competition, they would find that your customer would not just expect, but demand the same level of service that they receive from you. In effect you have raised the height of the bar (if you are into high jumping, pole vaulting, or just running hurdles) that your competition must jump over just to meet, not to even exceed the service, products, and programs you have to offer. Anything less offered by your competition just reinforces that your customer made the correct choice in doing business with you! Yes you have spoiled your customer, but then that's why they are your customer and not the competitors!

You must deliver service, and yes the products/programs to back it up, on a basis that is standard for you, but that is better than the competition. In doing this, the competition will see your customers as demanding, and in most cases even unreasonable!

Well, hopefully I've made my case, now the next logical question is how can we provide service that is above and beyond what's offered by the competition, without breaking the bank?? Here is a partial list of things that raise the customers’ expectations:

1. After every visit with a customer, e-mail or mail to them a note recapping the purpose of the visit and an estimated date of return.
2. If you see an article in a magazine, newspaper, web site or even on TV regarding your customer, drop them an e-mail or mail indicating that you saw the customers company.  I had a sales representatvie drop me a note and a copy of the birthing announcement of my son (several years) ago.... A little effort, big impact.
3. If you see an article about the customer’s line of business, send them a copy. For example I often see articles on upcoming legislation on wastewater from farms.... I clip and send to my customers and a short note indicating how I think this might impact them.
4. Remember birthdays!!!! (Even if your countries culture doesn't)
5. After every "problem call" (when the customer is stuck with a problem), remember to call them back in the next several days to make sure the suggested solution is still working....

6. Be sure to keep you customers informed on your services, products, and vision for the future.

Anyway, hopefully this list gives your some ideas on how to keep a customer a customer, and not them becoming a prospect. As always, I look forward to any questions or comments you might have.

Top   

Nutrition and Gut Health

This article is a précis of a paper by P Ferket and T Veldkamp presented at the Carolina Poultry Nutrition Conference and Soybean Meal Symposium in November 1999.

Gut health has a great influence on growth performance of poultry as it affects feed digestion, nutrient absorption and protein and energy utilisation. Gut health and nutrition are intricately dependent upon one another. Some dietary factors can predispose birds to poor gut health or exacerbate a gut health problem, while some health factors directly impact on nutrient uptake. Factors that affect gut health include enteric diseases, environmental stress, appetite, feed form, feed toxins and excessive levels of nutrients or anti-nutritional factors. Three concepts are discussed.

The flushing Syndrome: Flushing is a term used to describe excessively wet secretions and it can manifest as either diuresis (excessive urination) or diarrhoea (fluid loss from the gastrointestinal tract). Diuresis is characterised by excessive clear fluid or excessive white uric acid in the droppings and is the bird’s normal mechanism for eliminating excess electrolytes, nitrogen and toxins.

In contrast diarrhoea is characterised by thin dark faecal excretion. It is a more complex condition and is caused by infectious, osmotic and other agents. Micro-organisms either irritate or damage the gut membranes, or excrete toxins that interfere with the normal electrolyte exchange and water absorption from the lumen of the gut.

Physical and Physiological Stress: These can cause symptoms of diarrhoea. Stress increases gut motility or alters intracellular messengers that reduce the uptake of nutrients from the gut. It also increases the bird’s susceptibility to enteric pathogens by causing immunosuppression.

Feed Consumption Behaviour: Maintaining feed intake is important when birds are afflicted with an enteric disorder. One of the first symptoms to be seen, some 24 hours before diarrhoea starts is a distressful vocalisation and an impatient pacing behaviour along the feeder lines. They will often refuse to eat and one must be careful not to associate this behaviour with poor feed quality. A spike in mortality occurs 3 days later after which time the birds begin eating again.

Fasting, either caused by disease or management, followed by realimentation may bring about problems of it’s own. Birds may suffer from hyposphosphatemia and the gut microflora may be adversely affected.

Food textural properties of feed are important when birds are dehydrated. Excessive dusty fines make feed difficult to consume. The addition of fat reduces dustiness and also decreases the rate of passage through the gut which improves digestion and absorption.

Dietary Crude Protein and Amino Acids Balance: An excessive level of protein or a poor amino acid balance is know to induce metabolic stress in turkeys. In addition excess protein needs to be eliminated via the kidneys, which elicits a diuretic response.

Digestibility of Feed Ingredients: In general, poorly digested feed nutrients are less available to the bird and more available to incompatible gut microflora and pathogens. Poor digestibility can be caused by: 1)-enzyme inhibitors (e.g. trypsin inhibitor); 2) non-starch polysaccharides in grain; 3) overcooked protein; 4) poor protein sources (e.g. feathers).

Feed Toxins: All feed should be free of toxins such as mycotoxins, phytotoxins, biogenic amines, pharmaceuticals and any other toxic compounds. Oxidised fat has deleterious effects on the gut health of birds. The biogenic amines, histamine and tyramine accumulate in spoiling meat and fish products. They can cause or aggravate an enteritis problem if they exceed 100 ppm in the diet. These amines are difficult to test for, so avoid dark off smelling fish or animal by-products.

Dietary modifiers of gut motility: Fibre, fat and feed texture all modify gut motility. Feed passage rate generally increases with increased fibre level and decreases as fat level increases. However, both of these components are required for normal gut motility which is necessary for proper food digestion, nutrient absorption and maintaining a healthy gut environment.

The gizzard is the "pace-maker" of normal gut motility. Gut refluxes (reverse peristalsis) are normal in birds as an adaptation to compensate for a short intestine. These serve to re-expose intestinal digesta to gastric secretions. Dietary fat stimulates the reflux of digesta thus slowing food passage rate. Reverse peristalsis in poultry occur in three distinct regions of the gut: 1) the gastric reflux – from the gizzard to the proventriculus; 2) the small intestine reflux – from the duodenum back into the gastric area; 3) the cloaca-caeca reflux – from the cloaca to caecal tonsils.

Enteric disorders may be partially a consequence of dysfunctional gut motility associated with processed feed characteristics (m conditioning, extrusion etc.). The objective of feed processing is to reduce the birds "work" of feed prehension and enhance digestion for the sake of maximising feed conversion efficiency. Processed feed leads to atrophy and malfunction of the gizzard. Normal gastric reflux does not occur; thus proventricular hypertrophy occurs in an attempt to deliver sufficient peptic secretions within a single pass. Poor peptic digestion by pepsin in the gizzard will result in less efficient peptic digestion by trypsin and chymotrypsin in the duodenum.

Antibiotic Supplementation: Some antibiotic growth promoters (AGP’s) elicit their effects by altering gut microflora. The AGP’s control enteropathogens such as Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium. Under severe stress situations these populations increase while the Lactobacillus decrease. These bacteria may then become enteropathogenic resulting in some type of diarrhoea.

Direct Fed Microbial Supplementation: These are commonly known a pro-biotics and facilitate a stable gut ecosystem. They stabilise the enteric ecosystem by imparting three characteristics: 1) microbial species diversity; 2) nutrient or substrate diversity; 3) colonisation diversity and resistance. Some of the Lactobacilli spp. secrete bacteriocins which inhibit competing organisms.

Symbiotic Supplementation: These can be described as a dietary component that promotes a symbiotic relationship between host and micorflora. Examples of these feed additives include cell wall material from protozoa, yeast or bacteria (fructooligosaccharide and mananoligisaccharide).

Symbiotic feed additives may exert their influence by one or more of the following measures: 1) modification of the substrate profile; 2) inhibition of bacterial adhesion to gut lining; 3) enhancement of competitive exclusion by probiotics; 4) stimulation of mucosal development; 5) stimulation of gut associated immunity; 6) counteracts the adverse effects of microbial toxins.

Top

Effect of Group Size on Pig Grower-Finisher Productivity

Research on management and productivity of grower-finisher pigs has generally been conducted on small group sizes, while the swine industry has shifted towards larger group sizes. Groups of 10, 20, 40 and 80 pigs per pen were studied to quantify the effects of group size on productivity. Four 12-week studies were conducted. In each study two pens of 10 pigs, and one pen each of 20, 40 and 80 pigs were evaluated. An equal number of males and females were used in each pen, with pigs born within a 2-week period.

Initial bodyweight of pigs was 23.2 ± .2 kg. One wet/dry ad-libitum feeder was provided for every 10 pigs. Space per pig was constant among group sizes. Weight gain (ADG), feed intake (ADFI), and feed efficiency were determined along with 48 hr post-regrouping injury scores.

ADG throughout each of the trials was greater for males than for females (890 vs. 830 g/d). The overall ADG was not affected by group size (862, 873, 853, and 846 g/d, for pens of 10, 20, 40 and 80, respectively).

During the initial two weeks post-regrouping, ADG was depressed for groups of 40 (554 g/d) compared to groups of 10 (631 g/d) and 80 (605 g/d) pigs per pen. During wk 4 to 6, the groups of 40 (903 g/d) and 80 (891 g/d) had a reduction in ADG compared to the groups of 10 (975 g/d). No difference in ADFI was detected among the group sizes (2.34, 2.42, 2.23 and 2.27 kg/d, pens of 10, 20, 40 and 80 respectively).

The overall feed efficiency was similar among the group sizes of 10, 20, 40 and 80 pigs per pen (.364, .357, .377, .368). In general, the injury scores were not different between group sizes, but the severity of flank injuries was greater for females than for males. The morbidity of pigs was not found to differ among group sizes (7.5, 6.2, 5.0and 5.6% for pens of 10, 20, 40 and 80 respectively).

Implications: The shift in the swine industry towards larger group sizes does not appear detrimental or beneficial to the productivity of grower-finisher pigs.

Top    

Large differences in breeding herd productivity still continue. According to Frank Aherne feeding and management are probably more responsible for such large differences than genetics or disease. First litter females are especially vulnerable to nutrition deficit. The following points cover the recent mainstream thoughts considered to be important in feeding the breeding herd.

	Gilt size: The nutritional strategy during first pregnancy appears to achieve a minimum body size. Williams and Mullan (1989) suggested that a weaning weight of 150 kg or more minimizes the wean to mating interval. The impact of large body protein and/or fat losses to support lactation is greatest for young sows because their absolute body mass is low.
	Weight loss: Recommendations are that the weight loss during lactation should be less than 10kg. This weight loss will comprise out of both fat and protein loss. Higher weight loss is detrimental to the wean to oestrus period and to embryo survival.
	Protein loss: Increases in body protein loss during lactation have long been associated with extended wean to oestrus interval in young sows. The conservation of body protein mass during lactation in first litter gilts also appears to be important to second litter size. Research at the University of Alberta suggests that if a sow looses 15% of her protein level she had at farrowing, her subsequent reproductive efficiency will be reduced.
	Fat reserves: Gilts should be served with a P2 of not less than 16 mm and should farrow with a P2 of at least 20mm. Aherne et al. (1998) have suggested that a backfat depth of greater than 25 mm at parturtion is required before lactation feed intake is affected.
	Feed intake during lactation: Both energy and amino acid intake are important to lactation and subsequent reproduction. Glucose is the most important nutrient for milk production and determines milk synthesis directly. Feeding strategy during lactation should be to supply the maximum amount of glucose by maximising high levels of starch (feed) consumption. Numerous reports have shown a positive correlation between feed intake and reproductive efficiency. The following data shows the feed consumption between two breeding herds. Although the daily feed intake between these two herds was only 0.5kg per sow per day the herd in figure 3 was achieving 19.4 pigs weaned/mater sow per year compared to 24.8 pigs in the herd in Figure 4.

.

 

 

Two Diets during Lactation: Nutrition constrains litter size in the first litter female. It appears that the first 10d of lactation is very demanding and that the dietary amino acid requirement may decline as lactation progresses. In a study by Boyd et al. (2000) it was found that the predicted dietary lysine need was relatively low late in lactation because milk output was maximised before 12d and feed intake continued to increase throughout lactation. It is recommended that a separate diet be used for first litter females. Early feeding practice is especially important. In practice implementation might involve either a second diet or the hand addition of fish or soya meal during the first 14 days for first litter sows.

 

Predicted Energy and Lysine Needs for Prolific First Litter Sows (Boyd et. al. 2000)

	Lactation interval (days)
	1 - 6	7 - 11		12 - 16		17 -21		Mean
Milk output (kg/d)	7.8	10.2		10.8		10.5		9.8
Feed intake (kg/d)	3.2	5.7		6.8		7.6		5.83
Fat mobilized (kg/d)	1.2	0.7		0.42		0		0.58
Dietary lysine %	1.57	1.12		1.01		0.88

 

	Feeding levels prior to farrowing: Goransson (1989) showed that a reduction in feed intake during late gestation reduced the percentage of agalactic sows and decreased the rectal temperature significantly after farrowing. In this trial the feed was restricted to 1kg per sow per day during late gestation.
	Feeding levels after weaning: It is generally recommended that sows are fed ad lib after weaning. This will maximise the LH surge and thereby the ovulation rate in 1st litter sows that are to be remated.
	Feeding levels after mating: For gilts and first litter sows it is recommended that feeding levels after mating are reduced to less than 1.5 times maintenance. Higher feeding levels are detrimental to embryo survival.

Feed dry sows according to parity. The maintenance requirements of dry sows is directly related to their body weight, while body weight is largely related to the age of the sow. The following table shows the relationship between parity, body mass and maintenance requirement. The table shows that breeding females should be fed in 2 to 3 distinctive groupings according to parity.

 

Parity	Body weight (kg)		Feed for Maintenance per
	Start	End	Sow per day @13 MJ DE
Gilt	120	165	1.46
1	145	190	1.65
2	170	215	1.83
3	195	240	2.01
4	220	265	2.18
5	245	290	2.34
6+up	270	290	2.42

 

Some of these recommendations where recently challenged by Dalland. The following are the main changes recommended:

	Fat reserves in gilts: The recommendation is that Gilts are served a lot leaner (P2 of 9 to 10 at service increasing to around 16 at farrowing).
	Feeding levels before farrowing: The recommendation is that gilts are only fed around 1kg per day during the last 3 days before farrowing. Older sows should be fed 0.5 kg more. The low feed intake decreases the incidence of MMA, still births and the incidence of spayed legs. These are all problems associated with insulin resistance that is caused by too high insulin levels around the time of farrowing. The feed should also contain high levels of fat and fibre.
	Feeding during lactation: The recommendation is never to ad lib feed the sow but feed her for maintenance (+-2kg) plus 0.4kg per piglet. In the case of a sow suckling 10 piglets the maximum intake would be 6kg of feed per day.  The idea behind this is to keep the sow anabolic and thereby prevent her from coming on heat before weaning.
	Mature mass in sows: It is recommended that sows should be fed to achieve a mature mass of only around 250kg with gilts farrowing at around 75 to 80% of this weight.

Conclusion:

Our understanding of the way in which nutrition affects reproduction is far from complete. The above discussion points towards vast potential differences between different strains of pigs.

 

Walter Scharlach

 

Top 

 

The Phosphorus Availability of Biofos 21

 

Feed phosphates are added to all monogastric diets to meet the animal's requirement for phosphorus. We know that not all phosphorus sources are the same and that the phosphorus availability varies from source to source. We were asked to test a phosphorus source formulated by BIOMINERALE Pty (Ltd), called Biofos 21. This product was compared to a commercially available phosphorus source and laboratory grade phosphate, (Ca(H₂PO₄)₂.H₂O).

The commercial phosphorus source used was extracted from several batches at a milling company to achieve a representative sample.

The three phosphorus sources, were included at 5 different levels (53 (control), 66, 83, 100 and 116% of NRC recommendations) in the feed. These diets were then fed to 450 day-old chicks. These chicks were divided into 15 treatments (3 phosphorus sources, 5 phosphorus levels), and three replicates per treatment. Each treatment consisted of 10 birds. The birds were kept in metabolic crates for the duration of the experiment (24 days).

The 5 levels of phosphate administered, accounted for the following phosphate levels in the feed:

Table 1. Available phosphate levels in the feed

NRC %	Total Phosphorus (g/kg)	Available Phosphorus (g/kg)
Control	4.74	2.420
66	5.29	2.970
83	6.06	3.735
100	6.82	4.500
116	7.54	5.220

The three phosphate sources contained the following levels of phosphates and calcium.

Table 2. The composition of the three phosphate sources used.

 

P - source	P (g/kg)	Ca (g/kg)
Commercial	217.3	169.7
Biofos 21	210.0	210.0
Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O	246.0	158.7

 

Feed intake and body weights were measured every third day. On weighing days, one chick per repetition (n = 45) was sacrificed and the leg removed at the knee. The ash contents of crus and pes (leg below the knee) samples were then determined.

No significant differences occurred between treatments when feed intakes (P = 0.9881), body weights (P = 0.9909) and ash content of the crus and pes samples (P = 0.5797) were analysed.

No significant differences occurred between feed intake and body weight over the five different phosphorus levels fed in the diet. The ash contents of the toe samples, differed significantly (P = 0.0029). These results are in correspondence to the phosphorus levels administered.

 

Table 3. Toe ash content of chickens fed the 5 levels of phosphate as a percentage of NRC recommendation.

 

Phosphorus level	% Ash	± SD
0 % of NRC	14.92	3.0
66 % of NRC	14.98	2.9
83 % of NRC	15.91	3.2
100 % of NRC	16.10	2.8
116 % of NRC	16.42	3.3

 

The figures below show the average ash content (%), weight gains (g) and FCR of chickens given different levels of phosphorus and different phosphorus sources.

u = Analytical P
ª = Commercial
∆ = Biofos 21

 

 

 

 

 

The decrease in weight gain observed in the 100 and 116 % levels of the analytical phosphate, are probably due to a palatability effect.

 

Table 4. Phosphorus availability calculated by using the body weight gain, ash contents of the toes and feed conversion ratios.

 

P level and source	Ash	Gain	FCR	Combined
66% Commercial	0.94	0.92	0.99
83% Commercial	0.97	0.86	0.90	0.93
66% Biofos 21	0.93	0.91	0.96
83% Biofos 21	0.99	0.90	0.93	0.94

 

The phosphorus availability (PA) of the phosphate sources was determined by using the analytical phosphate as reference source and then determining the availability by means of a slope ratio assay. The PA of the Commercial source was 93% and that of Biofos 21 was 94%. Biofos 21 can therefore be considered as good a phosphate source for poultry as any other available on the market.

 

Christél Coetzee

 

Top 

 

G8 Can't Agree on GM Foods

 

The Group of Eight (G8) summit found no middle ground on the issue of genetically modified (GM) foods. The three-day summit held in Okinawa brought together the G8 - the US, Japan, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Russia - and their differing views on GM foods. While the US and Canada maintain strong confidence in the safety of GM foods, Europe and Japan remain cautious. Both sides have been calling on science to back their claims. Global trade makes agreeing to disagree nearly impossible; G8 disputes rose over the "precautionary principle," which lets countries block GM imports if they are concerned with their safety.

The G8 did, however, commit to further discussion of the matter, saying they will strive for "...global consensus on how precaution should be applied to food safety in circumstances where available scientific information is incomplete or contradictory.

 

Source: Internet

Top   

 

Effects of Group Size and Feeder Space Allowance on Welfare In Finishing Pigs

 

Previous studies have shown that provided the space per animal is constant group size does not influence production efficiency. Compared with small groups, housing in large groups offers the pig more total available space, resulting potentially in an increased degree of control over its (micro) environment. For the producer, large groups require fewer pen divisions and offer more possibilities for the sharing of resources such as feeders and drinkers.

Spoolder HAM, Edwards SA, Corning S, Animal Science 69: 481-489, 1999 studied the interactive effects on welfare of food availability (one single space hopper per 20 or per 10 pigs) and group size (20, 40 or 80 pigs per pen), at constant stocking density (0.55m(2) per pig) in part-slatted pens. The results are as follows:

	Activity: Groups provided with two feeding spaces per 20 pigs were less active than groups with one feeding space per 20 pigs.
	Aggressive interactions: The number of aggressive interactions per pig at the food trough was not affected by group size but decreased with number of feeder spaces per 20 pigs.
	Variation: Within-group variation in growth was not affected by group size or number of feeder spaces.
	Removal of sick pigs: No differences between treatments were found in the number of pigs removed for health reasons.
	Performance: Interactive effects of the two treatments were not found on any of the performance variables measured.

 

Conclusion: It is concluded that, from a welfare point of view, the number of pigs per feeder spare should be lower than 20, although performance levels appear acceptable at 20 pigs per feeder.

Walter Scharlach

Top

Plea from Trish - Spesfeed Accounts

 

Please will clients use their Account Number as reference, when making a direct deposit into Spesfeed's account at the bank or electronically.  I would hate not to be able to credit clients accounts when a payment has been made.

More and more of our clients are using direct deposits either through the bank or on the Internet.  For those of you who wish to change to one of these methods of payment, our bank details are:

Standard Bank Rivonia

Bank Code : 00 12 55

Account number : 02 304 6171

Should there be any query with your accounts, please do not hesitate to contact me between 9:00 and 13:00 at Spesfeed.

Trish Adams

 

SPESFEED cc

Animal Nutrition Consultants SPESFEED NEWS is published by the consultants at SPESFEED cc. The purpose of the newsletter is twofold. It serves both as a source of information for those involved in animal agriculture as well as a means for us to maintain contact with out clients. Spesfeed provides a professional technical service to the livestock and animal feed industries. Our aim is to ensure that our clients use optimal production and feeding systems in order to maximise the return on investment. The company has no affiliation to any particular product or supplier.