Precision Feeding in Livestock for sustainable production

1. .
Pankaj Kumar Singh
Department of Animal Nutition
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna, Bihar, India-800014
E-mail: vepank@gmail.com

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. • Also known as Information Intensive Nutrition
or Personalized Nutrition
• Right time• Right
composition
• Right
Proportion
• Right
amount of
feed
Precision
feeding
Precision Feeding

7. 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)

8. 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

9. Precise nutrition: Multi disciplinary approach
Traditional Nutrition + Other technological Sciences
Precision nutrition
to meet unique nutritional requirement

10.  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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. Formulate ration on available nutrients basis
Crude protein
basis
Amino acid basis
Lab analysis basis
Digestible AA basis
Ideal protein/tissue
accretion basis
Exact
AA need
Traditional ration formulation Vs Precise ration formulation

16. 50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Soybean
meal
Sunflower
meal
Rapeseed
meal
Gain(relative)
Total lysine Digestible lysine
Diets formulated on total or digestible amino acids
Effect of available nutrients
(Le Bellego & Noblet, 2002).

17. 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)

18. Ideal Ratios of AA to Lysine
Amino Acid Maintenance Body
Tissue
Milk
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)

19. 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).

20. 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
Performance,g/day
1000 600

21. 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)

22. 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 P
Phytase - 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)

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. • 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

27. 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).

28. Effect of phase feeding
Phases
(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 premix
ME (kcal/kg)= 3350, Ca= 0.7%, Total P= 0.6%, Lysine= 0.65%, Meth= 0.4% ,
₨ 1 = 20.64 ₩ (Lee et al., 2009)

29. 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

30. 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)

31. Precision feeding system: Feed-Detect
Innovative feed sensor : Precisely measure & deliver feed to individual feeders
Prototype feed sensor

32. 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)

33. 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

34. 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

35.  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

36. 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

37. 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)

38. 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

39. 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)

40. 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.

41. • 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

42. Effects of low-phytate maize and supplemental
phytase on phosphorus excretion of pigs
(Cromwell, 2009)
Items

43. 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%

44. 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)

45. Advantages of Precision Nutrition
Effective utilization of Nutrients/Feeds
Optimise productivity
Reduced feed losses
Reduce environment al pollution
Improved profitability

46. Challenges of Precision Feeding
Estimation of nutrient requirements of an
individual animal
Reliability (e.g., using electronic devices in farms)
Tedious management
Cost effectiveness.

47. 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.

48. Thank
You