4/7/2014 SCOTT RADCLIFFE IMPACT OF DIET COMPOSITION ON MANURE CHARACTERISTICS DISCLAIMER

Transcription

1 IMPACT F DIET CMPSITIN N MANURE CHARACTERISTICS SCTT RADCLIFFE DISCLAIMER 1

2 INTRDUCTIN # of farms # of animals per farm With more animals being reared in a small area the volume of manure produced has also dramatically increased Increases in manure volume have caused concerns about the possible environmental impact of these farms HISTRICALLY Large emphasis on regulating manure application primarily through regulating nitrogen application When regulating N only, other nutrients may build up in the soil 2

3 BUILD-UP F P 2 5 WHEN SWINE MANURE IS APPLIED T THE LAND T MEET THE N NEEDS Phosphate (lb/acre) Depth (inches) Adapted from Mueller et al., 1994 NUTRIENT CNTENT F MANURE (LB/1000 GAL) Total N P 2 5 K 2 Lagoon Effluent Nutrient requirements of corn (lb/acre) N P 2 5 K

4 4

5 (Render, ctober 1999) Perspective 5

6 6

7 pgenomic hgenomic 7

8 Environmental Nutrition I used to say:.to minimize nutrient excretion I now say: to better optimize the nutrient profile of manure 8

9 9

10 Feeding Management Phase feeding Split sex feeding Synthetic amino acids Dietary enzymes Balancing for digestible nutrients Pellets vs. mash Particle size Feeder design Waterer type Precision nutrition Feed additives Dietary Nutrient Sources Nitrogen dietary amino acids Phosphorus plant ingredients (phosphate and phytate) and inorganic P (MCP, DCP or DFP) 15 P

11 Feeding Management Challenges Facing Animal Agriculture Increasing competition for feed ingredients and/or land (ethanol) Accuracy of nutrient requirement estimates Variability in nutrient composition of ingredients Variability in ingredient costs 11

12 12

13 15 P Nutritional Importance of P 15 P

14 Phosphorus element P 4 phosphate P 2 5 diphosphorus pentaoxide HP 4 ionic salt of phosphate H 2 P 4 ionic salt of phosphate 14

15 15 P Plants Require P for Maintenance and Growth Removal of P by Corn ~0.34 lb P 2 5 /bu of corn = lbs of P/bu of corn U.S. corn production ~12.5 billion bushels (2010) 888,000 tons of P were removed by corn 15

16 So Why the Concern? Ratio of nutrients relative to crop needs Land availability near animal production systems Nutrient content of the soil Application method Nutrient retention in the soil H H - P - Ca ++ P Starch Protein H H H CH 2 H NH + P - 3 Zn ++ H - P - H - P H - Ca ++ P - H - C CH2 Protein CH 2 H - starch - 16

17 P Requirements Body Weight (kg) Total P Available P Phytases Phytases are phosphatases that catalyze the hydrolysis of phosphate from phytate H P - H H H P - - P - H H - P H H - P H - P - H Phytase H P - H H H P - - P - H H - P H H - P H H 17

18 Kornegay et al., 1998 Dungelhoef and Rodehutschord, 1995 Jongbloed, 1996 Increase in P digested, g/kg Phytase, U/kg The Amount of P Released vs. P Equivalency Values Equivalency values account for the biological availability of P from inorganic P sources 18

19 P Release Values Swine (500 U/kg): = 0.85 g P (Jongbloed et al., 1996) = 0.75 g P (Kornegay et al., 1998) = 0.71 g P (Dungelhoef and Rodehutschord, 1995) Equivalency Values Swine (500 U/kg): = 1.11 g P from inorganic P (Jongbloed et al., 1996) = 0.98 g P from inorganic P (Kornegay et al., 1998) = 0.93 g P from inorganic P (Dungelhoef and Rodehutschord, 1995) 19

20 What does all of this mean? Market Hog assumptions Consume 707 lb feed (2.65 F:G from 50 to 250 lb).5% total P in diet Excretes 1.94 lb of P If Phytase is Added to the Diet and P is reduced.1% decrease P excretion 30%.58 lb less P excreted per hog D YU ALWAYS WANT LESS P IN MANURE? 20

21 lb/1000 gal Value, $/lb Value/1000 gal N 50 $0.30 $15.00 P25 35 $0.40 $14.00 K2 25 $0.25 $6.25 Total $35.25 Value, $/lb Value/1000 gal N 50 $0.30 $15.00 P $0.40 $9.80 K2 25 $0.25 $6.25 Total $31.05 With Phytase, assuming a 30% reduction in P excretion Cost of P? $/ton P, % $/lb P Monocalcium Phosphate $ $1.75 Triple SuperPhosphate $ $1.75 Phytase* $ $

22 Summary P is an essential nutrient in swine diets P requirements need to be continually revisited High levels of P in swine manure have the potential to cause environmental pollution if mismanaged P levels in the manure can be reduced by alterations in feeding management and nutrition 22

23 1% unit in dietary CP reduces total N excretion by 8% (Kerr and Easter, 1995) Contributions of amino acids from corn and SBM, relative to the requirement of a 85 lb pig Corn (74.1% of diet) + Soybean meal (24.3% of diet) 23

24 Contributions of amino acids from corn and SBM, relative to the requirement of a 85 lb pig Corn (84.1% of diet) + Soybean meal (12.9% of diet) + Synthetic Lys, Met, Thr, Trp. Grower 1 CTL 1X 2X 3X Ingredient, % CP, % Corn SBM, 48% DDGS CWG Limestone Monocal. Phos Salt Vit. TM premixes Cr premix Natuphos CTC 50, 110 g/kg L Lysine HCl L threonine DL methionine L tryptophan L valine 0.08 L isoleucine 0.10 Jones et al.,

25 NITRGEN EXCRETIN - VERALL SEM = % c c Jones et al., 2014 S, IT S EASY Control P with phytase Reduce N excretion with synthetic amino acids BUT.. 25

26 26

27 8.3% CP 0.26% Lys 0.28% P 3428 Kcal ME/kg 27.4% CP 0.78% Lys 0.69% P 3422 Kcal ME/kg (Requirement) (Corn:SBM) Corn is low in Lys and Trp, and moderately high in TSAA relative to the nutrient requirements SBM is high in Lys and Trp, and moderately low in SAA relative to the nutrient requirements 27

28 DDGS As DDGS inclusion is increased in the diet, the proportion of dietary protein (amino acids) originating from corn increases, potentially creating an imbalance in the amino acid profile of the diet relative to the amino acid needs of the animal ultimately resulting in excess dietary protein and increased N excretion. 45 lb Pig CP, % of the Diet % unit in dietary CP reduces total N excretion by 8% (Kerr and Easter, 1995) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% DDGS Inclusion 28

29 45 lb Pig % of the Diet % 10% 20% 30% 40% DDGS Inclusion tp, % ap, % 175 lb Pig CP, % of the Diet % 10% 20% 30% 40% DDGS Inclusion 29

30 175 lb Pig % of the Diet % 10% 20% 30% 40% DDGS Inclusion tp, % ap, % % Increase Increased DM and N Excretion When Pigs were fed 20% DDGS (relative to Corn SBM control) TM Source #1 DM N 30

31 % Increase Increased DM and N Excretion When Pigs were fed 20% DDGS (relative to Corn SBM control) TM Source #1 TM Source #2 DM N Variability in Nutrient Profile Nutrient Concentration and Nutrient Availability 31

32 Variations in Distillers Dried Grains w/solubles from 4 New Generation Plants Swine Digestibility Protein % Lysine % Threonine % Tryptophan % Methionine % Phosphorus.77.90% Tot.P vs Corn at.28% Tot.P (15% Dig.) 35 85% Digestible Stein et al., 2004 and 2006 Why so much variability? Variability in the nutrient content of corn Drying process Recycling rate Syrup inclusion Lysine analysis 32

33 ther Challenges DM excretion Sulfur? il extraction Fractionation Handling characteristics Fat quality 33

34 TAKE HME MESSAGES Manipulating Manure Composition DDGS will increase DM and N excretion Phytase will reduce dietary P excretion if diet contains Phytate P and if ip supplementation is reduced N excretion can be reduced with synthetic amino acid inclusion (~8% reduction in N excretion per 1 %-unit reduction in CP) Challenges Ingredient composition- what will change next? Ingredient costs (variability) Gas emissions? Health Status Perspective Questions? 34