Published by: SPESFEED cc, P O Box 48, Rivonia, 2128. Tel: (011) 803-2050, Fax: (011) 803-8201
| Inside This Issue |
The most difficult part about editing a newsletter like SPESFEED NEWS is keeping it up-to-date and original. This edition includes a lot of new ideas on each aspect covered. In addition, we have included some American Broiler Performance data for your information.
The Internet
The University of Georgia has just published information on the diagnosis of leg problems in broilers. What I found of interest is that it is possible to distinguish between Phosphorus and Calcium induced rickets by means of bone sectioning. (http://www.uga.edu/~poultry/courses/legs/langenglish/contents.htm)
In addition, two interesting poultry newsletters are currently published on the net. These are the Cornell Poultry Pointers, published by the Cornell Cooperative Extension service (www.ansci.cornell.edu/) and the monthly Poultry Newsletter published by the University of Florida (http://dps.ufl.edu). Both are regularly updated and contain some very useful information.
Agriculture in the year 2020
Bertus van Heerden of Standard Bank has published an excellent article on the future of agriculture and agribusiness. He discusses the fact that we have entered the information era and that as such information has become the primary source of power and control. He also discusses megatrends such as the transition from a national to a global economy and the change from a hierarchical (pyramid) structure to a more horizontal structure. The emphasis here is on networking, cooperation agreements and strategic alliances. If you would like to read the full text at this "snap shot" of the future it has been published at: (http://www.standardbank.co.za/business/bsagri/jan99/agrfeat1.htm)
Courses
We still plan to hold the Dairy Nutrition Course as planned from 14 to 16 September. Shaun has spent a lot of time generating new material for the course. If you are interested in attending please contact us.
When I was in the USA in May I met Dr Michael Stachiw, who formerly worked for Purina Mills, one of the largest feed companies in that country. Michael is an Animal Scientist and was involved in many aspects of Purina's business including the implementation of feed formulation systems, the use of biological models and perhaps most interestingly the computerisation, control and analysis of Purina's sales data. Through this function he became directly involved in the training of Purina's sales force which is some 400 people strong. This sales force comprises both employees and agents.
Michael has expressed an interest in doing some sales training work in South Africa, and I have agreed to facilitate this initiative. I would envisage that we would be able to run 3 or 4-day courses similar to the nutrition courses that we run. Larger firms would probably want to hold courses in house. The areas that would be covered are as follows:
In reality the interpersonal skills course, which covers the art of selling, is a two to three day course on it's own. Some of the material, such as the value added selling component is appropriate for all personnel within a company that has any dealing with clients. We can obviously tailor make the course for each situation or we could consider splitting it into two shorter courses. If you have any ideas as to how we can utilise Michael’s skills in your organisation please let me know.
12th International Farm Management Congress
During July I attended part of this major international congress in Durban. The overriding theme of the event was "Think Globally, Farm Locally". Much of the congress was focused on how to succeed in agriculture in future. The people who presented papers during the session that I attended, came from diverse backgrounds but the message that they delivered was similar. I have tried to summarise the gist of this session in point form below:
 | Survival, which implies making it through a catastrophe, is an inadequate goal. Our aim should be to succeed which implies that we should prosper or thrive in future. |
| We need to know and understand the dynamics of the changing world before it hits us. These dynamics would include factors such as moving into the global market and the concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer large organisations. In future agriculture will be market (consumer) driven and not supply driven. |
| It is essential that we "farm locally" and get it right, before we worry about "global" markets. |
| Producers should move downstream and capture the "full value chain" in future. Whilst, seeking out niche markets is an excellent way of doing this, a niche market will only be successful in the long term if we remain globally competitive. |
| If you don’t make it onto the supermarket shelves you are in the wholesale war zone. |
| When you operate in an environment with a weak currency you need to get into exports. |
| Think big but act small. Do not over capitalise when the cost of capital is prohibitive. |
The full proceedings are available from the organisers.
Rick Kleyn
Walter Scharlach’s trip to the USA
At the beginning of May I had the opportunity to attend a 2-day Pig Nutrition Conference in Wisconsin which was followed by the Alltech international symposium in Kentucky. The discussions where held against the background of big changes in the world which can be listed as follows:
| Increase in information: This is transforming economies from manufacturing into information economies. Analysts estimate that more than 90% of next year’s American GDP will come from the information and service sectors and only 10% from the manufacturing sector. |
| The markets have changed from national to global. Due to trade agreements (WTO) the South African producers are exposed to worldwide competition. |
| The food chain is changing from production driven to market driven. Supermarkets enforce more and more production rules and quality systems unto their suppliers. The whole food chain is adapting to satisfy consumer needs. |
World wide the feed and animal industries are under severe scrutiny for animal and drug abuse, BSE and the more recent dioxin contamination. At the forefront of the debate is the following:
| The use of antibiotics and anti-microbial animal drugs. |
| Full traceability through the food chain. |
| Environmental awareness |
| Animal welfare |
To survive we must think differently, and let go of old habits, mindset and paradigms. In the past decades (1970s and 1980s) the response time to change was slower. Not so in the future, for there will be less time for recovery and fewer opportunities to catch our breath on the roller coaster ride. Future changes will destroy companies and people who cannot, or will not, adapt.
Approximately 60 nutritionists, from all over the world, attended the pig conference. The following topics were discussed:
| Sow nutrition: Dr D. Cole (Nottingham Nutrition) dealt with the difference between the actual and potential performance of pigs. During the past 20 years, significant improvements in piglets reared, per sow per year have been made. The reduction of weaning age has been an important factor in increasing the annual sow productivity. |
| Dr J Pettigrew (Pettigrew consulting) recommended that, due to differences in intake, young sows should be fed a higher protein diet than older sows. It was also suggested that the starch level in the lactating sow diet acts (via glucose and insulin) as a signal of nutritional status to the reproductive system. |
| Nutrition of the growing pig: Dr T van Lunen (Canada Prince Edward Island) showed the impact of age, sex, health and genotype on nutrient requirements. Pigs with high lean growth potentials require higher lysine to energy ratios and have higher calcium requirements as compared with slower growing pigs. |
| Liquid feeding of pigs: A paper by Dr P. Brooks (University of Plymouth) showed that liquid feeding has the following potential: |
| Reducing costs by buying cheap alternative ingredients. |
| Solving an environmental problem by using waste materials. |
| Increasing the health of pigs by reducing dust in the environment. |
| Improving intake and performance. |
| New feeding equipment increases the phase feeding opportunities. |
| Dr B. Hardy (Omega Nutrition USA) addressed the current moves to ban antibiotic growth promoters. Feed and management strategies that offer possibilities to farm without anti-microbial feed additives where discussed. Dr K. Newman showed that complex carbohydrates give promising results when compared to traditional growth promoters. Dr W. Stockland (Consolidated Nutrition USA) discussed trial results where the growth promoting effect of different oligosaccharides where compared. |
| Dr R. Power (Alltech Ireland) showed that certain peptides have anti-microbial and other biological activity. |
| Three papers dealt with mineral nutrition: Organic Mineral for pigs (Dr. W. Close), selenium (Dr D. Mahan) and chromium (Dr M. Lindemann). |
About 700 people, from 65 countries, attended the Alltech conference in Kentucky. It dealt with very interesting topics such as meat quality, managing mycotoxins, using mannan oligosaccharides and others. A copy of the full proceedings either in a book or on CD is available from Alltech.
Walter Scharlach
Last year I mentioned the fact that the use of phytase enzyme was becoming a distinct possibility in layer diets. Two recent publications have convinced me that the time has arrived to consider their use seriously.
Intensive animal production results in considerable quantities of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) being excreted into the environment. In addition, P and protein (N containing compounds) are two of the more costly components of the diet. Consequently any approach that could potentially reduce the levels of these nutrients in the diet and in the manure should have both a cost benefit and would diminish the levels of environmental pollution. Kershavarz (1999) has shown that 70 to 80% of the P from a typical corn Soya diet is excreted. He points out that this is not unexpected as two-thirds of the P in feed ingredients of plant origin is in "phytate" form, that can not be utilised by monogastric animals.
What is phytate P? When a molecule of inositol reacts with six molecules of phosphoric acid the product molecule is a molecule of phytic acid. The negative charges of the phytic acid molecules react with the positive charged of divalent cations (including Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Mn etc.) resulting in a complex broadly known as phytate. Some of the negative charges of phytic acid molecules react at low and neutral pH with the positive charges of amino acids (such as Lysine and arginine) of protein molecules including protease’s and trypsin (the enzymes involved in protein digestion). The structure of the phytate molecule can be seen in the figure.
Figure: Structure of a phytate molecule (Leeson and Summers, 1998)
In order to break down the phytate molecule the animal requires the enzyme phytase, of which only negligible amounts are produced by the animal itself. Hence the presence of phytate molecules not only reduce the availability of P, but also reduce the digestibility and availability of amino acids, Ca and a number of trace minerals. The obvious solution would be to add phytase of bacterial origin to the diet.
Although recent reports clearly show that in the presence of phytase dietary P can be reduced considerably (to as low a .1% Available P), it is recommended that the industry should follow the recommendation of the manufacturer, BASF (Keshavarz, 1999). That is to say by reducing the Available P in the diet by 0.1% and adding 300 units/kg of phytase enzyme. In practical terms this means that around 5 kg’s of Monocalcium Phosphorus (cost R 8.50) can be replaced by the enzyme (R 8.00). There is an additional saving as a result of the additional "space" created in the diet by the removal of MCP in the order of R 1.50/ton. As can be seen the cost benefits of using Phytase when calculated on this basis are relatively low.
A recent publication by Ravindran et al (1999), reports on work that was conducted to determine the influence of microbial phytase on the apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in a number of feed ingredients. Broiler chickens aged from 35 to 42 days of age were fed the test ingredients both with and without the enzyme at 1200 FTU units of Phytase enzyme per kg. At the end of the trial the contents of the lower half of the ileum were collected and the amino acid concentrations were determined. Apparent ileal protein and amino acid digestibilities were calculated using acid insoluble ash as the indigestible marker. A summary of the findings for lysine are shown in the table below.
However, the effect of phytase addition was statistically significant (P< 0.05) for every amino acid in every experiment with the exception of wheat bran where the effect was only significant at the 10% level.
Apparent ileal digestibility of lysine (%)
|
Ingredient |
Minus phytase |
With phytase |
Change |
|
Maize |
72.9 |
75.4 |
2.5 |
|
Sorghum |
72.6 |
75.3 |
2.7 |
|
Wheat |
71.7 |
79.5 |
7.8 |
|
Soybean meal |
84.4 |
87.8 |
3.4 |
|
Cottonseed meal |
57.6 |
60.3 |
2.7 |
|
Sunflower meal |
77.5 |
81.8 |
4.4 |
|
Wheat Bran |
74.0 |
75.8 |
1.8 |
From this data it can be seen that amino acid availability increases through the use of phytase. As an exercise I reduced the available amino acid specifications of a typical layer diet by 2%. This reduced the cost of the diet by a further R 7.00 per ton. I would like to test this in practice though before making a general recommendation.
In conclusion, I believe that the use of phytase enzyme is already cost effective in terms of its role as a P replacer. If we are indeed able to reduce the available amino acid specifications of our layer diets further saving could be realised. I will keep you abreast of progress on this issue. If as an egg producer you are disposing of your litter on your own farm, the reduction of the P level in the manure will be of advantage to you in the long run.
Rick Kleyn
The use of Broiler Pre-Starter Diets
The physiology and anatomy of broilers during the first week after hatching are different from older broilers, and their ability to absorb certain nutrients is reduced. Therefore, it has been recommended that a differential diet be used for broilers during the first week of age. This is commonly known as a pre-starter diet.
Changes of the Digestive Tract
Remarkable anatomic and physiologic changes of the digestive tract occur in the first week after hatching, which allow an increase in feed intake and modify nutrient digestibility. As the chick depends on the yolk sac for it’s nutrient both before hatching and for a limited period after hatching. The stimulus of solid feed promotes the main changes in the physical structure of the digestive system and its secretions, essential for the digestion of nutrients. It is therefore important that the birds have access to feed as soon as possible. Leaving birds without feed in early life prevents the stimulus of the nutrients on the digestive system and reduces the use of available nutrients in the yolk sac, which are essential for the early development of chicks.
The digestion and absorption of the most important nutrients are as follows:
| Carbohydrates: Different enzymes, capable of digesting complex sugars, are synthesised. Alpha-amylase secretion is substrate-dependant, being influenced by the amount of starch in the diet. |
| Lipids: The digestion and absorption of lipids is dependent of the presence of bile salts, pancreatic lipase, colipase and fatty acids binding protein. However, the secretion of bile salts is the first limitation in the processes of lipid digestion and absorption. Newly hatched chicks are not able to increase the secretion of bile salts. |
| Proteins: The newly hatched chick has no problem to absorb amino acids. Chicks hatch with some enzymatic reserve in the pancreas, but enzyme synthesis is slower than the bird’s need of enzymes. The presence of active enzyme is dependent not only of the chick’s age, but also of the start of process of feeding solid diets. |
Nutritional Criteria
| Feed intake: Chicks usually arrive at the farm after 24 to 36 hours after hatching, during which period they loose weight. Weight increases only 36 to 48 hours after the chicks have access to feed. Therefore they ideally should be placed in contact with feed as soon as possible. As most enzymes regulating digestion are dependent on substrate, the faster and the higher the feed intake, the faster the chicks will be ready to digest and to absorb nutrients. |
| Use of nutritive solution after hatching: The use of a nutritive solution enhanced performance of broilers whether they did or not receive feed and water immediately after hatching. It stimulates the digestive system, making the chicks more dependent of external sources of nutrients. |
| Use of lipids: The main source of energy in chick diets is carbohydrates, which are easily digested and absorbed after hatching. The use of lipids to increase the energy level of the diet is not to be recommended as they are poorly utilised. If they are not fully absorbed, or oxidised in the feed, they can cause serious damage to first week chicks. Undigested fat will remain in the intestinal tract and may be oxidised. It may also serve as an energy source to micro-organisms. The triglycerides: free fatty acids ratio also influences lipid digestibility in young broilers. The higher the levels of free fatty acids in feed, the worse the lipid digestibility. |
| Use of sodium: Research showed that the sodium requirement for broilers during the first week of age is at least 0.24%. With even higher levels it was found that the increase in feed intake was correlated to water consumption and that feed intake was correlated to weight gain and feed conversion. They found that the sodium level did not interfere with water excretion. |
| Use of protein: In addition broilers need high levels of protein during the first days of their life. The sustained hypothesis is that, during the first stage of life, broilers need a high temperature environment, which is usually not available. They try to compensate for low environmental temperature by consuming more protein than they need. The catabolism of excess amino acids generates metabolic heat, which is beneficial during the broiler’s early life. If this hypothesis is correct, broilers raised in thermoneutral environments need less protein than those raised in cold environments. |
| Use of lactose: In recently published data, researchers from the Netherlands have shown that the supplementation of Pre-Starter diets with 2 to 2.5% lactose provides beneficial effects. Lactose is converted to lactic acid in the gizzard which has the effect of acidifying the gut which stimulates digestion and acts against pathogens. |
In a recent practical experiment Noy and Sklan (1999) showed that birds with access to feed or feed and water maintained a body weight advantage through 21 days, compared to those held without feed and water for 35 hours (Figure 1). The same advantage was found for birds up to the age of 40 days.
Figure 1: The effect of Water, Feed, or feed and water (F+W) on the growth of chicks to 21 days as a percentage of held controls (Held).
Practical application
There are a few practical problems in implementing a pre-starter diet:
If we can overcome the above difficulties, the introduction of the pre-initial diet is essential.
Practical advantages:
Period and amount of pre-initial diet to be used.
This diet should be consumed during the first 7 days of the bird’s life. The amount of this diet consumed should be around 120 to 150 g for the first 7-day period.
Helena van Rensburg
Is Bran Effective in Porzyme supplemented Pig Grower Diets
Due to its very low net energy, bran is seldom used in grower and finishing diets. With the price of maize at R800/t alternative ingredients may however become cost effective. A cheap alternative is wheaten bran with a typical cost of R450/t. The reason for the low net energy of wheaten bran is its high content of non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), which form the structural carbohydrate in cell walls. The NSP encapsulates nutrients such as starch and proteins and can only be utilized after the cell walls have been broken down. Monogastric animals do not produce the enzymes to hydrolyze NSP's, and therefore cannot utilize those nutrients.
The structure of the endosperm cell walls provides potential for using exogenous enzyme sources to increase the nutrient availability of wheaten bran. Arabinoxylans constitute about two thirds of the total NSP of 38% found in wheat bran. Since these cell wall structures comprise mainly arabinoxylans, xylan-degrading enzymes (such as in Porzyme) should be successful in increasing the nutrient value.
To determine the acceptable level of bran usage in Porzyme supplemented pig diets, Porzyme tests were done on 3 farms. A total of 1368 pigs were used in these trials. Pigs were grown from about 35kg to 90kg live weight. The following treatments were used:
| Control Treatment: Grower and finisher without bran |
| Porzyme Treatment 1: Grower and finisher with 12.5% bran |
| Porzyme Treatment 2: Grower and finisher with 22% bran |
The combined results were as follows:
|
Treatment |
Growth rate (g/d) |
FCR (g/g) |
||||
|
Boars/ Barrow |
Gilts |
Avg |
Change |
Avg. |
Change |
|
|
Cont. |
926 |
909 |
920 |
2.60 |
||
|
Porz.1 |
904 |
890 |
900 |
-2% |
2.70 |
+4% |
|
Porz.2 |
861 |
843 |
852 |
-7% |
2.84 |
+9% |
With 12.5% bran in the diet (Porzyme1) there was a 2% reduction in growth and a 4% increase in feed conversion. With 22% bran in the diet the growth was reduced by 7% while the feed conversion increased by 9%. The trends are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Fig. 1: Relationship between bran level in the diet and relative growth performance of Porzyme supplemented diets.
Fig. 2: Effect of Porzyme supplemented bran diets on feed conversion.
Conclusions
| Previous trials have shown a far bigger drop in growth and FCR with the inclusion of wheaten bran. This trial indicates that the Porzyme reduced the detrimental effects of bran on production by about 40%. |
| The feed conversion differences between the farms can possibly be explained by differences in bran quality (pollard vs. bran) originating from different mills. |
| If total meat sales are to be maintained the slaughter age must be increased in bran supplemented diets (by 1.5 and 5 days for the two treatments respectively). |
| In order to cover the loss in feed efficiency the bran diets need to be 4 and 9 percent cheaper than the control diet (after the Porzyme is added). This means cost differences of 40 and 90 Rand per ton of feed respectively. |
| Bran diets can be used if the feed cost saving is more than the loss in performance. In order to achieve the necessary feed savings at the current soya prices, bran needs to cost R400 to R500 per ton less than maize. |
Walter Scharlach
Reproductive efficiency of dairy cows
Introduction
Controlling costs and increasing efficiency of production, without making large capital investments, are important factors for dairy producers to consider as they seek to maximize herd profitability. Reproductive efficiency is a measure of the ability of a dairy farmer to get cows bred soon after calving, with a minimum number of breedings per cow. Improving reproductive efficiency is one way to cut costs and increase profit.
Poor reproductive performance reduces profitability through its effects on several areas of herd performance:
| Long calving intervals result in more milk per lactation, but less milk per day of life because cows spend more days in late lactation when daily milk yield is low and (or) more days dry. |
| When calving intervals are long, fewer calves are born each year. The result is fewer heifers for sale or for use as replacements. Culling for production is limited and more cows are culled for reproductive failure. The rate of genetic progress is slowed and the cost of replacements can be increased due to a higher number having to be reared. |
| Higher semen costs. |
| Bulls instead of AI are often used when conception rates are low. This will normally result in slower (if any) genetic progress. |
| Low reproductive efficiency is normally associated with higher veterinary bills, as examinations and treatments increase in an attempt to get cows to conceive. |
| Extended periods of low production and long dry periods result in more over- or under-conditioned cows. They have more health and reproductive problems during the subsequent lactation. |
Definition of indexes and benchmarks
In order to evaluate herd reproductive performance various measures of reproductive performance must be calculated for the herd and compared to realistic benchmark goals. Some of the more important measures and their benchmarks indexes are discussed below. No one index will give a complete picture of the herds’ reproductive performance. Most of these indexes are interrelated and all should be considered when assessing herd reproductive management. Reproductive problems are rarely sudden in appearance and they are rarely due to a single cause. Often trends in indexes provide clues to a problem, and these trends can be more valuable than looking at an index during a specific time period. In just about every case the value that is given below for each benchmark represents an average for the herd over a 12-month period. It is also important to be practical and reasonable in applying the benchmarks especially in cases where vast improvement in present performance is recommended.
Days open
Average days open should be the starting point when evaluating the reproductive performance of a dairy herd. Days open is defined as the number of days between the most recent calving and conception averaged over all the cows. It is therefor the number of days that a cow is not pregnant. To measure days open with absolute accuracy one would have to record date of conception for every cow. This is not always possible in practice. For cows that have been confirmed pregnant the number of open days would be the days between calving and the most recent breeding. Cows that have been bred but have not yet been confirmed in calf may or may not have conceived. For these cows the most practical and accurate measure of days open would also be the days between calving and most recent breeding. Days open for cows that have not been bred at all would be from calving to the current date.
Caution should be used when interpreting the days open value. There are a number of factors that can distort this value.
An inaccurately low value could be arrived at if a large number of cows are only bred 2 or 3 times using AI and then put with a cleanup bull. In many instances it is assumed for record purposes, that the cow is pregnant from her last reported breeding. These cows, which are then naturally bred, remain open one, two, or more heat periods longer than actually reported. The only way to avoid this inaccuracy is to report all AI breedings and if a bull is used, report all natural breedings or verified conception dates.
On the other hand days open can be unnecessarily high if the herd contains cows which will not be bred and are being milked to a break-even production level before culling. Cull cows should not be included when calculating days open.
Benchmark: The average days open for a 12 month period over the whole herd is 90-110 days. Not more than 10% of the cows should be open over 150 days.
Days to first service
Days to first service are defined as the average number of days from calving until the cow is bred for the first time. The average days to first service for a herd is influenced by the onset of estrus, the effectiveness of heat spotting, and a management decision of when first breeding will occur. Dairy producers often take a decision as to when they will start breeding cows after they have calved. Research has shown that the number of successful inseminations is greatly reduced when cows are bred before 50 days after calving. Highest fertility levels are usually reached after 60 days from calving. Poor heat detection is by far the most important reason for days to first service being too high.
Benchmark: The goal for days to first service is 70-75 days. Not more than 20% of the herd should be bred for the first time later than 90 days and not more than 10% later than 100 days.
Calving interval
Calving interval is defined as the number of months between two successive calvings. The actual calving interval is an overall indication of reproductive performance from 9 months to 2 years prior to the current date and does not indicate current status. This measure only accounts for reproductive successes (pregnancies), and does not account for reproductive failures. Cull cows should not be included in the calculation.
Benchmarks: The goal for calving interval is 12.0-12.5 months. Herds with a calving interval of less than 11.9 months produce significantly less milk than a herd with an interval of 12.0-12.5 months. A calving interval of 13.0-13.5 months indicates moderate reproductive problems and greater than 14.0 months indicates serious problems.
Services per conception or conception rate.
The terms "Services per conception" and "Conception rate" are often used by dairy farmers, vets and consultants, but both are in fact a measure of the same thing expressed either as a ratio (services per conception) or a percentage (conception rate).
The rest of this section will only refer to services per conception (S/C). S/C is a broad category when evaluating reproductive records. It is a measure that combines the effects of semen quality, fertility of the cow, timing of insemination, semen handling and insemination techniques, as well as factors such as high environmental temperature and stress. It is important to define just how S/C is determined. The calculation can be done in two ways and they are separate and different measures of S/C:
| S/C for pregnant cows is calculated as follows: |
Total number of services for pregnant cows
| Number of pregnant cows |
| S/C for all cows serviced is calculated as follows: |
Total number of services for all cows
| Number of pregnant cows |
Expect a higher average number of services per conception for all the cows serviced than for pregnant cows, because the services for all cows includes cows that are not yet pregnant and problem cows. The two values should begin to approximate each other as more of the problem cows become pregnant or are culled. Cull cows should not be included in any of the calculations. The S/C for all cows serviced should give you advanced notice of the number of S/C for pregnant cows in the future. If S/C for all cows begins to increase, don’t wait for S/C for pregnant cows to follow. Start immediately to identify and correct the problem. Remember that S/C does not consider the number of days between services or the days between calvings and first service, nor does it consider cows not bred at all. It must be used in conjunction with other measures.
Benchmarks: The goal for S/C for pregnant cows is 1.5. S/C for all cows is more commonly quoted and values of less than 1.8 are excellent, 1.8 to 2.0 are good, 2.0 to 2.3 indicate a moderate problem and over 2.3 indicate a severe problem.
|
Number of cows in herd |
200 |
|
Average number of Days Open (days/cow/year) |
115 |
|
Milk price (R/litre) |
R 1.25 |
|
Average feed cost (R/kg DM) |
R 0.75 |
|
Average milk production (liters/cow/day) |
30 |
|
S/C for all cows |
2.2 |
|
Ave. service cost (R/service) |
R 80.00 |
|
Number of reproductive culls (cows/year) |
12 |
|
Ave. cull slaughter value (R/cow) |
R 2,500.00 |
|
Vet and medicine per year (R/year) |
R 7,500.00 |
|
Ave. value of newly born calf (R/calf) |
R 350.00 |
|
Ave. cost of replacement heifer (R/heifer) |
R 5,000.00 |
|
Total cost per day open over 90 days |
|
|
Value of lost production per cow per day |
R 2.72 |
|
AI cost per cow per day |
R 2.24 |
|
Vet and medicine cost per cow per day |
R 1.50 |
|
Calf loss per cow per day |
R 0.92 |
|
Replacement cost per cow per day |
R 1.00 |
|
Total added cost per cow per day |
R 8.38 |
|
Total added cost per cow per year |
R 209.44 |
|
Total annual herd cost |
R 41,887.18 |
Shaun Storer
We have translated some broiler performance data published in the Cornell Poultry newsletter for your information. We assumed a R/$ exchange rate of 6.00. These figures were for the week ending 17 April 1999.
|
Average |
Top 25 % |
Top 5 % |
|
|
Feed cost/ton (R) |
836.62 |
789.80 |
743.84 |
|
Feed cost (cents/kg meat) |
162.8 |
150.7 |
145.3 |
|
Days to 2.1 kg |
46 |
46 |
46 |
|
Chick cost (cent/kg meat) |
50.9 |
46.0 |
39.5 |
|
Vac. Med. cost (cent/kg meat) |
9.4 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
|
% Mortality |
5.37 |
4.08 |
4.31 |
|
Chicks/m2 @ placement |
14.6 |
14.8 |
15.7 |
|
Kg/ m2 |
33.62 |
34.13 |
37.20 |
|
Downtime (days) |
13 |
13 |
11 |
|
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. |
