Feed on Posts or Comments 20 November 2008

Uncategorized admin on 22 Sep 2008

Care needed when reducing phosphorus levels in broiler diets

A global shortage of feed phosphate has forced producers to review dietary levels. But care is needed when making changes, as Aviagen’s Anthony Waller explains.

Suppliers of feed phosphates announced around Christmas 2007 that supplies of phosphates would be insufficient to meet orders from the animal feed industry. In some cases only 30% of ordered tonnage was supplied.

This had a serious impact upon poultry feed manufacturers and producers, in terms of ability to supply stock with required levels of phosphorus and the cost of phosphorus in the diet. While the initial crisis has subsided, concern over phosphate supply and cost going forward remains.

The shortage is a result of exceptionally high demand for phosphorus-containing fertilisers. Feed phosphates and fertilisers are both produced from a common raw material - phosphoric acid - and extra fertiliser production has resulted in a shortage of it for feed phosphate production.

Higher fertiliser demand has resulted from increased global plantings of cereals and protein crops in response to tight global stocks and subsequent soaring feed prices.

So what are the implications for poultry production? There are two key effects: First, there is the difficulty in meeting the phosphorus requirements of birds and, second, it has increased the cost of feed.

This puts further pressure on feed formulation, as nutritionists look to maximise stocks of feed phosphates, while keeping formulation cost down. Nutritionists will attempt to conserve feed phosphate stocks by reducing levels in feeds and using alternative ingredients.

But these attempts could have implications on production and it is worth considering how best it should be managed.

Reducing levels in feed

Any reduction in phosphorus below recommended levels must be carefully managed. If reducing phosphorus, several factors should be considered.

Broiler starter formulations should be left unchanged. Phosphorus levels are crucial for skeletal development and growth, and any changes in specifications at this time can have serious implications for welfare and performance.

If reducing the phosphorus levels of broiler feeds, then first consider the final withdrawal of feed, and work backwards towards the grower diet. This approach involves least risk of negatively affecting bird welfare and performance. In terms of volume used, the increasing feed intake of broilers during the latter phase of the grow-out cycle will result in a significant reduction in added phosphate use.

When setting a minimum specification level, bear in mind that broilers show deficiency symptoms at levels of available P of 0.29% of total diet (as is). Also take into account other factors that may increase phosphorus requirements, such as disease exposure, toxin levels in feed and susceptibility to rickets.

Any reduction in phosphorus will alter the calcium-to-available-phosphorus ratio. Calcium levels should be adjusted to keep this at 2:1 to maintain good bone health.

It is worth checking the specification levels of other nutrients which affect bone mineralisation calcium, magnesium, manganese and vitamin D3.

Formulating to digestible phosphorus can potentially reduce the volume of mineral phosphate required in the feed while maintaining correct formulation. But if doing this, great care must be taken to ensure that raw material values are amended.

Lastly, breeder formulation specifications should only be considered if absolutely necessary. Low phosphorus levels will compromise eggshell quality, hatchability and progeny viability.

Alternative ingredient strategies

There may be a benefit in using phytase enzymes. But, again, a number of factors should be considered before embarking on their use.

If adding phytase to diets that have previously not included phytase, check with the supplier that the raw material and feed specification values used in ration calculations are correct. Also check correct values have been used for phosphorus, calcium, sodium and other minerals.

Feeds already containing phytase may benefit from an increased dosage of the enzyme, both in terms of phosphate sparing and cost saving. Consult the supplier as to the best way to achieve maximum benefit and ensure the mineral content of the feed is kept in balance.

When using phytase in breeder feeds, it is particularly important that the raw material and specification levels are managed to keep mineral content balanced, particularly the calcium-to-phosphorus ratio.

Alternative sources of mineral phosphates may be available, but the phosphorus and calcium contribution may not be the same as for the more traditional phosphates, both in terms of absolute level and availability. Quality should be consistent, to be certain that the correct level of minerals will be supplied to the birds.

And lastly, watch out for heavy metal contamination in mineral phosphates offered.

So to conclude whatever changes you make, we recommend a proactive approach by monitoring for any changes. Implement a monitoring scheme by health experts or production staff checking young broilers for bone formation and signs of mineral deficiency-related complications. Monitor eggshell quality and productivity and ensure feed intake is optimised so mineral intake is adequate.

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 01 Sep 2008

Exhibition

 VIDEOS / IMAGES

SPACE 2008

trasCopyright - Engormix.com

The world’s biggest livestock event, from 9 to 12 September in Rennes, France. The essential international Show for professionals in every sector:

  • Cattle (dairy and beef)
  • Pigs
  • Poultry
  • Rabbits
  • Sheep and goats




The industry’s latest technological innovations, selected by a panel of experts.

If you are looking for innovative products, equipment and services for your livestock enterprise, you will find what you need with the INNOV´SPACE award winners.

SPACE: a major international breed show

  • 800 rigorously selected animals are on permanent display throughout the Show.
  • Competitions, presentations and auction sales of high genetic value animals.

Tours of farms and agri-industrial units

To complement your visit to the Show, each day SPACE organises visits to farms and companies in the sector. The programme for these visits will be available in May.

As an international visitor, during your visit to SPACE you will be able to:

  • Find new equipment to import, distribute or equip your farm
  • Strengthen your relationships with your customers / suppliers
  • Find out about the latest innovations at INNOV´SPACE
  • Attend the conferences and the presentations of high genetic value animals
  • Tour farms and companies in the sector, organised as a complement to your visit to SPACE

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 25 Aug 2008

Studies on Use of Heat Treated Rock Phosphate Instead of Dicalcium Phosphate on Broiler Performance

An experiment was conducted using ninety-six, day old broiler chicks to study the effect of inclusion of heat-treated rock phosphate (HTRP) instead of dicalcium phosphate (DCP) on performance of broilers. Total four diets were tested. Control diet (T1) was prepared using maize 54.08 %, soybean meal 25.73 %, deoiled rice polish 9.19 %, fishmeal 8.00 %, mineral mixture (MM) 3.0 % and vitamin supplements. All the diets were isonitrogenous and isocaloric (22% CP and 2800 kcal ME/kg).In T1, DCP was exclusively used as phosphorus supplement. While, in other three diets, DCP was replaced using HTRP @ 60, 80 and 100% (T2, T3, and T4). Inclusion of HTRP significantly increased the weight gain of broilers. Maximum gain was observed in broilers assigned T3 diet. Conversely, significant (P<0.05) reduction in weight gain was noticed with T4 diet.

Increase in the level of HTRP also reduced the feed intake significantly. As a result of which there was significant improvement in FER as well as PI in broilers with HTRP diets. There was also reduction in the cost of feeding and increase in the net return over feed cost due to incorporation of HTRP. Maximum net return over feed cost was noted in broilers assigned T3 diet. Hence, it was concluded that 80% HTRP can be incorporated instead of DCP in broiler diets economically.

INTRODUCTION

In broiler farming, feed accounts to about 65-70 % of total cost of production.Beside cereals and protein supplements, next important input in broiler ration is mineral mixture. Phosphorus is a critical and expensive mineral used for preparing mineral mixture. Dicalcium phosphate (DCP) is used traditionally as phosphorus supplement in poultry diet.

However, due I to high demand and scarce availability, its cost is steeply increasing. Therefore, to reduce the cost of mineral mixture, it has become imperative to use alternate and economical phosphorus supplements.

One of the alternates is rock phosphate (RP), which is available in plenty at much lower cost. But on account of high level of fluorine in it10, its use is limited. To reduce the fluorine content of rock phosphate usually it is heat-treated. The heat-treated rock phosphate (HTRP) also contains fluorine but at much lower level than RP.

Therefore, present study was planned to see the utilization of heat-treated rock phosphate instead of DCP in broilers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted using ninety-six, day old broilers chicks randomly allotted to 12 replicates. Total four diets were used in the study. All the diets were iso-nitrogenous and iso-caloric containing 22% CP and 2800 kcal ME/kg as per BIS3.Feed ingredients used for diet formulation were maize, soybean meal, fish meal, deoiled rice polish, minerals and vitamins supplements. The ingredients were analysed for proximate constituents, energy, calcium and phosphorus content. Control diet was formulated using maize, 54.08 %, soybean meal, 25.73 %, DORP, 9.19 %, fish meal, 8.00 %, mineral mixture (MM), 3.0 % and vitamin supplements.

All the diets were same except the change in phosphorus supplement. Mineral mixture as reported in the Iiterature6 was used @ 3% in control diet. Diet I had only DCP as phosphorus supplement. Whereas, in other diets, DCP was replaced using HTRP @ 60, 80 and 100% (T2, T3, and T4). The fluorine content of HTRP was only 1.81 %. Each diet was randomly allotted to three replicates of 8 chicks each.

The experiment was conducted for a period of 6 weeks. During the experiment, weekly body weight, feed intake and left over feed was recorded and weight gain and feed efficiency ratio (FER) was calculated. Feed samples were analyzed for proximate constituents1. While calcium and phosphorus contents were estimated by titrimetric method9. The energy content of the samples was estimated using titrimetric method5.

The performance of birds was measured in terms of weight gain, feed intake, feed efficiency ratio, performance index and economics of feeding. The performance index (PI) was calculated as detailed by Bird2. The data obtained during the study were analysed7 and significance between the treatments were tested using Duncan’s multiple range test4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The performance of broilers in terms of body weight gain, feed intake, FER and PI for 0-4 and 4-6 weeks is presented in Table 1 and 2 while including cost of feeding as well as net return over feed cost for 0-6 weeks is presented in Table 3.Table 1. Performance of broilers on MM containing HTRP instead of DCP (0-4 week)

Increase in HTRP above 60% reduced the weight gain significantly. Among HTRP groups, minimum weight was attained by those receiving D4 diet.Feed intake also increased due to incorporation of HTRP. Maximum intake recorded in broilers assigned T3 diet was comparable to those allotted T2 diet. While, minimum feed intake was registered in broilers offered T4 diet. Conversely, FER was maximum and significantly higher in broilers assigned T4 diet. FER of broilers assigned T2 diet was although bit lower but statistically comparable to those assigned T4 diet. Minimum FER was registered in broilers assigned T1 diet.

The PI was maximum and significantly (P
During 4-6 weeks (Table 2), increase in the level of HTRP also increased the weight gain significantly. But complete replacement of DCP reduced it significantly (P<0.05). Feed intake was maximum and significantly higher in broilers assigned T1 diet. But inclusion of HTRP led to significant reduction in it.

Minimum feed intake was noted in broilers assigned T4 diet. FER improved significantly (P<0.05) with increase in the level of HTRP. Maximum and significantly higher FER was observed in broilers assigned T4 diet. While, it was minimum and significantly lower in those allotted T1 diet. The PI was maximum and significantly higher in groups assigned T3 diet and was significantly lower in those allotted control diet.
Table 2. Performance of broilers on MM containing HTRP instead of DCP (4-6 weeks)


The cumulative performance for 0-6 weeks (Table 3) also revealed that inclusion of HTRP instead of DCP up to 80% level, increased the weight gain significantly.However, complete replacement of DCP reduced it significantly.

Studies revealed that inclusion of HTRP instead of DCP increased the weight gains of broilers significantly, however, it was true only up to inclusion of 80% HTRP. Complete replacement of DCP led to significant (P<0.05)- reduction in it. Thus, minimum weight was gained by the broilers assigned T4 diet.

As it was heat treated rock phosphate, it has low levels of fluorine (1.81%) and probably phosphorus was more available hence it improved the weight gain of broilers. The amount of fluorine ranged from 79.5 ppm in D2, 106.0 ppm in D3 and 132.5 ppm in D4. While the maximum and safe dietary level of fluorine in broilers is 300 ppm8. Thus, in all the groups fluorine level was within the tolerable limit.

Feed intake reduced due to inclusion of HTRP. It was minimum and significantly lower in broilers assigned T4 diet. As a result of it, FER improved significantly in HTRP groups but among these groups, differences were not significant (P>0.05). As like FER, PI also improved significantly due to use of HTRP. On account of higher weight gain and lower feed intake besides lower cost of HTRP, replacement of DCP led to significant reduction in the feeding cost of broilers.

However, among HTRP groups (T2, T3 and T 4) differences were non significant. The net return over feed cost also increased due to use of HTRP. It was higher and statistically similar in groups assigned T2 and T3 diets containing 60% and 80% HTRP instead of DCP. Hence, it was concluded that up to 80%, HTRP can be used instead of DCP in the mineral mixture of broilers economically.
Table 3: Performance of broilers on MM containing HTRP instead of DCP (0- 6week).

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 19 Aug 2008

Feed Additive Industry to Grow Despite Biofuel Boom & Food Crisis - EuropaBio

28 July, 2008 - Feed additive producers will be cushioned from the current global food crisis as soaring costs for raw materials such as corn and soybean are likely to see greater amino acid substitution in animal feeds, said Willy De Greef of EuropaBio.  The biofuel boom and the growth in animal feed derived from its by-products should also hold no fears for producers of additives like methionine and lysine since demand for these products will remain unaffected, continued the 53-year-old recently appointed Secretary General of the European Association for Bioindustries. This expansion will be compensated both by a greater volume demand for meat –and therefore animal feed - as more affluent populations in India and China are able to afford high protein diets and because meat producers may  include a higher percentage of additives in feed.

“We are at the end of the era of unlimited cheap supplies of agricultural raw materials and much of future thinking on driving innovation is how we deal with that,” said Mr De Greef.

“One is increasing substitution. People outside the feed world probably have no idea about how good the feed industry is at accessing oils, energy or amino acids, and mixing and matching them to achieve the lowest price.”

Feed additive manufacturers also have no reason to fear the growing use of biofuels by-products in animal feed because most plants are deficient in the same substances and meat producers will still need to supplement their animals’ diets in the same way they do now. The two will co-exist, he said simply.

“I think there will be a renewed attention to substitution. There will certainly be new opportunities provided by fuel crops because there will be a protein fraction in those.  The ability of the feed industry and its labs to further increase substitution possibilities will be probably the most effective way to address that issue.

Even the further expansion of by-products from the next wave of biofuels is unlikely to pose a threat to the feed additive industry, said the EuropaBio Secretary General.

“There will be more substitution as by-products from second generation biofuels come on-line but there will also be an increasing place for specific additives. So even in a world where you have a broader range of protein sources available, my guess is that, by itself, this will not stop or reduce the use of lysine or methionine because virtually all crop sources are deficient in the same amino acids.”

Mr De Greef is also sceptical that the development of lysine or methionine-rich crops such as maize can pose any serious threat to those who produce these materials by fermentation.

“If there had been a crop with an economically attractive overproduction of lysine or methionine, we would have known by now. People have been trying to grow maize with a big over production of lysine for a long time. The  reason it hasn’t yet worked is this overproduction came at such a cost to the metabolism of the crop that its yield  potential went down drastically - and it  turned out to be cheaper to use lysine from  the fermentation industry.”

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 17 Aug 2008

China: Sichuan Phosphate Production could be Disrupted for 3 Years Following Earthquake

5 June, 2008 – The production of phosphates in the Sichuan region of China could be disrupted for up to three years, with the country’s largest producer Lomon Corporation facing an estimated repair bill approaching half a billion dollars, an industry insider has said.    The corporation’s subsidiary, Sichuan Lomon Phosphorous Co, has 22 mines in the province. Latest information suggests that most, if not all, of the sites have suffered extensive damage. Vital road networks linking the mines and Lomon’s processing plants have also been seriously damaged. The total cost of all repairs to the company’s entire Sichuan operation is thought to be RMB 3 billion (US$433 million).

Sichuan Lomon Phosphorous claims to have an annual capacity of 1.8 million tons of phosphorous products. Among other products, the firm manufactures 500,000 tons of feed-grade DCP and 50,000 tons of feed-grade MCP per year.

Other producers in the region are believed to have suffered much less damage but it is estimated that phosphate production will not return to normal levels until mid 2011 as much of the reconstruction capacity will be concentrated on rebuilding infrastructure, such as road and rail links.

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 13 Aug 2008

Phytase Helps Win the Fight for Dietary Phosphorus

20 February 2008 - Adding more phytase to feed presents pig and poultry producers with an opportunity to help offset some of the recent increase in feed phosphate prices, explains Danisco Animal Nutrition.

As the demand for phosphate fertilizers continues to rise to meet increases in global crop production to feed developing nations and produce ethanol, feed producers face the challenge of sourcing sufficient quantities of feed phosphates to meet animal requirements.

Feed phosphate prices have rocketed in recent months, reflecting the imbalance between global supply and demand. The UK’s Agricultural Industries Confederation has recently reported that over the coming months supplies of feed phosphate will continue to be limited, which means that the price of feed phosphate will continue to rise.

New generation bacterial phytases have been shown to be more effective at releasing plant-bound phytate phosphorus than traditional fungal phytases. At a standard inclusion rate of 500 FTUs/kg feed, Danisco’s bacterial phytase (Phyzyme XP) can replace an additional 1.3 kg dicalcium phosphate (DCP) in pig and broiler feed formulations, compared to traditional fungal phytases.

“With the current phenomenal rise in the price of feed phosphates, producers should consider increasing the inclusion of phytase in their feed”, explains Dr Peter Plumstead, Danisco’s Technical Services Manager. 

“We have a wealth of data to show that doubling the dose of phytase in pig and poultry feed allows at least an additional 1.9 kg dicalcium phosphate to be removed from the feed, without negatively affecting animal performance,” Peter continues.

500 FTUs /kg feed tends to be the standard phytase inclusion rate in broiler and pig feeds and 300 FTUs/kg feed for layer feeds. With current DCP prices at around €550/tonne, the economic optimum phytase inclusion rate is currently around 1000 FTUs/kg feed for broiler and young pig feeds and 600 FTUs/kg feed for layer diets.

“1000 FTUs/kg feed will currently reduce broiler feed costs by around €4.60/tonne. This allows a further 17% reduction in dicalcium phosphate, resulting in an additional feed cost saving of €0.60/tonne compared to the standard inclusion rate of 500 FTUs/kg feed. Increasing the phytase dose to 600 FTUs/kg feed will allow layer producers to further reduce their feed formulations costs by around €0.53/tonne, reducing dicalcium phosphate inclusion by around 30%” Peter concludes.

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 11 Aug 2008

Utilisation of feed phosphates: Fact or confusion?

Feedstuffs of plant origin do not contain enough digestible phosphorus (P) to meet the requirements for animal production. For this reason additional inorganic P is added to animal diets. Feedstuffs of plant and animal origin as well as inorganic phosphate sources contain various amounts of phosphate that is available for biochemical functions. Therefore most Nutritionists include a safety factor to ensure that production and production related characteristics are not impaired. These practices can easily lead to over formulation of phosphorus that is costly and lead to excessive phosphorus being excreted into the environment. In order to formulate optimal diets for monogastrics, adequate knowledge of the utilisation of P in all feedstuffs as well as the corresponding requirements at any production stage is needed. The dilemma for the Nutritionist is that the concepts of P-utilisation (bioavailability, digestibility and their derivatives) are used freely in the literature and often lead to confusion. Nutritionists, not familiar with the way in which these values were determined, can mistakenly formulate feeds on the wrong assumptions. The perceived discrepancies in the utilisation of inorganic feed phosphate sources must be emphasised in order to attempt to clarify the concepts involved.

Measure of P utilisation.

No element is ever completely absorbed and utilised. A fraction is inevitably lost in the normal digestive and metabolic processes. Different research techniques are used to determine as close as possible, the part that the animal will be able to utilise. From these methods an array of terminology is used to quantify the “utilisation” or “bioavailability” of phosphorus (includes “bio-availability; apparent digestibility; true digestibility; retention” and others). “Bioavailability” and “digestibility” are most often used. These terminologies are often used out of context as suggested by the researchers and should not be confused with one another.

Definitions

Bioavailability. That proportion of a nutrient that can be absorbed and/or utilised by the animal to meet its net requirements. Or that proportion of a mineral that is retained in the body

Apparent digestibility. The amount of Phosphorus ingested minus the amount voided in the faeces, including endogenous losses.

Earlier trials were mainly carried out on chicks using bone parameters (tibia ash percentage or toe ash percentage to reflect relative biological value (RBV). This seems to be the most appropriate technique to determine bioavalability because of the fact that more than 80% of the phosphorus is transferred to the skeleton (Zwart, 1999). The phosphorus level in the feed must however be below the phosphorus requirement of the animal (Potter et al., 1995).

Although this technique seems ideal, it is worth noting that these P bioavailability studies do not measure true bioavailability but generally compare P sources on a relative basis (as shown in Table 1). The performance of test phosphates is compared to that of a reference standard phosphate (Waldroup, 1999). The RBV can be 100% or greater, depending on the reference phosphorus source.

Often, in plant feed sources, available P is defined as “total P” minus “phytate P” because it is assumed that phytate P is not digestible and non-phytate P is fully digested. In most feed tables this concept is used to determine the value of P to the animal. It is however clearly demonstrated by Van der Klis and Versteegh (1996), that the absorbability of P from plant feedstuffs is higher than “total P” minus “phytate P” while the absorbability of non-phytate P varies from 55 to 92%. Many feed tables consider inorganic phosphates as a non-phytate source and thus completely available to the animal, however, that is not the case. This illustrates the necessity for the evaluation of the P absorbability from all feedstuffs (inorganic, plant and animal origin)

Apparent tract digestibility of P is also frequently determined (Tables 2 and 3). Dellaert et al. (1990) concluded that the apparent total tract digestibility of P is the most efficient criterion to evaluate the nutritional value of various feed phosphates in pigs, compensating for potential confounding factors. The main factors are the endogenous P portion present in the faeces and the P content of the urine fraction. Compensation for these fractions (true digestibility) is considered to be a very good reflection of P bioavailability. These effects can be minimised by keeping the P content of the experimental diets below the recommended P requirement of the animals (Jongbloed et al., 1999). This can be verified if the results from urine analysis showed values below or near to the detection limit (<25 mg/L). In balanced diets the concentration of P in the urine of piglets fed above the P requirement oscillates between 150 and 400 mg/L (Mulder and Jongbloed, 1985). In poultry an adequate ileal sampling method is available for chyme sampling (Van der Klis, 1993). This implicates that the urinary P excretion does not interfere with the analyses at ileal level.

Apparent digestibility is a valuable measurement of the potential of the P in feedstuffs, with the precondition that the P content of the experimental diets is below the recommended P requirement of the animals. This is most likely the most practical way to express the value of the P component in a feedstuff.

How do these techniques reflect on inorganic phosphorus sources?

Over the years, many studies on the utilisation of inorganic feed phosphate supplements by animals were done. These studies showed distinct differences in utilisation between different generic sources as well as within broadly defined sources of the same description. In spite of these results, related research where inorganic phosphates were used (phytase enzyme work, digestible requirement determinations, etc.), differences in the utilisation of different inorganic P sources are seldom accounted for. In many of these studies dicalcium phosphate (DCP) sources are used without a description of the source itself (i.e. hydrated or anhydrated or to the digestibility of it). It is postulated that much of the variation between studies of the same kind can be partly attributed to these factors. The dilemma, that the Nutritionist is confronted with, is to assign the correct available/digestible value of a P source in order to formulate on.

Results of a trial reported by Waibel et al. (1984) show the determination of bioavailability by tibia ash relative to a mono-dicalcium phosphate (MDCP) reference source (Table 1). Two noteworthy conclusions from the data are:

Relative available values is a handy way of ranking feed phosphates in order to determine nutritive value relative to a reference source (in this case, MDCP). As shown these values are dependent on the reference source used. It is therefore possible to obtain values greater than 100 % and difficult if not impossible to compare results of different studies with each other. Variation in bioavailability within sources with the same generic description can be enormous. This is emphasised by the 32; 31 and 18-percentage units difference respectively between the lowest and highest values for MDCP, DCP and defluorinate phosphoate (DFP) in Table 1. To use average bioavailability values for generic described products without knowledge about the specific product can lead to large errors. Although it shows on average that there is about a 5% difference in bioavailability between a MDCP and a DCP source, this could be misleading if accepted as a generic difference.

Results on trials where apparent digestibility (reflected as bioavailability) of feed phosphates were determined are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The work reported by Van der Klis & Versteeg (1996), shows the same ranking as with the relative bioavailable values shown in Table 1 for MDCP and DCP. However, these values are lower than the values in Table 1 due to the quantitative way it was measured. Digestibility values determined by this method could help the Nutritionist to give a practical value to the different sources. Part of the variation as shown in Table 1, where feed sources were described as MDCP, DCP or DFP, can be explained from the values in Table 2. The difference between an anhydrous DCP and hydrous DCP resulted in a 22-percentage unit difference in available P. It is also postulated that part of the variation in the MDCP figures can be because of the same phenomena.

To categorise inorganic feed phosphates within a generic group more accurately, a number of factors can be monitored within reason. These differences (type of product) are mainly dependent on the chemical reaction and the factors influencing this reaction. The dynamics of these reactions dictate that all end products are chemical mixtures of different phosphates. That means that any conventional inorganic feed phosphate is a mixture of different compounds (i.e. a commercial mono-calciumphosphate (MCP) source will always contain some DCP as well).

DCP

Control over the production process (temperature, control of the chemical reaction, etc.) determines the differences in DCP composition. Too high temperatures (uncontrolled reaction) can result in the evaporation of the water of crystallisation to form an anhydrate product. As shown in Table 2 this can have a detrimental effect on digestibility/bioavailability. Ways for the Nutritionist to determine if a product is an anhydrate product is first to look at the P value. The loss of water of crystallisation would “concentrate” the product to result in elevated P values. Typically, a dihydrate DCP would contain about 18% P, while an anhydrate DCP can contain up to 20% P. Another way is to do a moisture analysis. A dihydrate would loose more moisture when dried at temperatures exceeding 100oC than an anhydrate product. A third method would be to analyse the product by X-ray defraction (Kemme et al., 2001), which will distinguish between the different chemical properties of the source. The most accurate, however, would be if a manufacturer can provide digestibility (bioavailability) figures for their specific product tested in vivo at a reputable institution employing sound techniques.

MCP/MDCP

Mono-calcium phosphate and mono-dicalcium phosphate products are a chemical mixture of MCP and DCP. Products are classified as a MCP if the P derived from the MCP fraction constitutes more than 80% of the product with DCP making up the rest. In South Africa no purely classified MCP is currently available on the market. The data in Table 3 shows however, that certain locally produced phosphate products can compete favourably with the best in the world.

As for DCP, MDCP can differ substantially in composition and bioavailability as shown in Table 1. The MCP to DCP ratio can vary from lower than 50% P from MCP up to 80% P from MCP. The differences in bioavailability between MCP and DCP for pigs (Table 3) of about 12 percentage units shows that the characteristics of a MDCP is crucial to assign a realistic value to the product. The specific MDCP (local produced product) referred to in Table 3 has a known ratio of P from MCP of 75% and P from DCP of 25%. This is most probably the reason that bioavailable values do not differ significantly (P < 0.05) from the MCP described samples (80% P or higher from MCP). The lower bioavailability value obtained for the USA produced MDCP is most likely because of a different ratio of MCP to DCP in the product. As for DCP, a MDCP can be produced as an anhydrated product (di- and monohydrated product for the DCP and MCP fractions).

To be practical, two procedures could be followed to determine the MCP to DCP ratio in a MDCP source.

The P in a pure MCP is fully water soluble (100%) and the P in a pure DCP is insoluble (0%) in water (CEFIC 1999). By the determination of the water soluble P in a product (or as provided by a manufacturer), the ratio of MCP to DCP can be determined. I.e. water-soluble P content of 75% would indicate a product of which 75 % of the P content is derived from MCP and 25% derived from DCP.

As the DCP component in a MDCP raises, so would the total Ca content (DCP is higher in Ca than MCP - typical 24% versus 16%). A Ca to P ratio of about 0.8 could indicate a product of which 70% plus of the P is obtained from MCP, while a ratio of higher than 0.9 Ca to P could indicate a product of which about 50% of the P is obtained from MCP. These ratios can help the Nutritionist to characterise the type of product in question and adapt availability values accordingly.

As for DCP, the most accurate determinant would be when a manufacturer can provide bioavailability figures for their specific product tested in vivo at a reputable institution employing sound techniques.

General remarks

The Nutritionist must be fully aware of the pitfalls in the quest to determine and quantify the nutritional value of the phosphorus in feed sources. Several methods are used to test the digestibility of phosphorus sources. The test results are expressed either as digestibility or as relative bioavailability (expressed as relative biological value (RBV)). These should not be confused with one another. The digestibility is given as a digestibility coefficient < 100% that can be used when calculating dietary digestible P. Relative bioavailability obtained from performance parameters (toe ash and other response parameters) ranks feedstuffs relative to a reference source, which makes it difficult to use it in quantitative terms. The RBV can be 100% or greater, depending on the reference phosphorus source.

Available P in plant feed sources, defined as “total P” minus “phytate P” could lead to the under or over estimation of a feedstuffs potential since not all non-phytate P sources are equally available. It must also be remembered that P from animal origin and inorganic P sources are not part of such a system and need to be evaluated differently.

Apparent digestibility is a valuable measurement of the potential of the P in feedstuffs, but with the precondition that the P content of the experimental diets is below the recommended P requirement of the animals. This is most likely the most practical way to express the value of the P component in a feedstuff.

The value of an inorganic feed phosphate for animals can not only be certified by its generic name (MDCP or DCP). Within these descriptive classes, huge differences in composition and utilisation by animals exist. These include differences such as hydrated versus anhydrated products as well as the ratio of MCP to DCP in a product. For the Nutritionist to know what bioavailability value can be assigned to a product of a specific manufacturer, a number of chemical characteristics can aid in the decision. This will not only lead to more accurate feed formulation, but also helps to determine the value of a specific product.

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 10 Aug 2008

Converted Organics Amino Acid-Based Organic Liquid Fertilizer to Be Used as Primary Nitrogen Source in Professional Turfgrass Management

Boston, July 30, 2008 - Converted Organics Inc. announced today that the company has begun taking orders for its Turf Blend(TM) 6-0-4 organic liquid fertilizer, the first completely soluble, high-nitrogen, organic liquid fertilizer that can be used as the sole source of nitrogen in any turfgrass management plan. Converted Organics developed Turf Blend(TM) 6-0-4 by using the Company’s proprietary High Temperature Liquid Composting (HTLC) process to combine the nitrogen-rich amino acid lysine with the Company’s primary Liquid Concentrate(TM) (LC) 1-1-1 organic fertilizer product.  “Turf Blend™ 6-0-4 provides turfgrass professionals with a caliber of nitrogen-rich, liquid organic fertilizer that has been previously unavailable to the market, making professional turfgrass maintenance more effective, cost-efficient, and environmentallyfriendly,” said Ed Gildea, President of Converted Organics.

“The product also provides rapid nutrition response and a very high degree of disease and environmental stress resistance for golf, professional lawncare and turf maintenance programs.” Converted Organics uses a patent-pending lysine-based technology from Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) marketed under the brand name NaturStim™.

Converted Organics is also currently developing a soluble, high-nitrogen, slow-release organic granular fertilizer that incorporates ADM’s NaturStim™.

Converted Organics will submit Turf Blend 6-0-4, as well as the new granular product, to the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) for official organic certification.

 About Converted Organics Inc.

Converted Organics, based in Boston, MA, is dedicated to producing valuable all-natural, organic soil amendment or fertilizer products through food waste recycling. The company uses proven, state-of-the-art technologies to create a product that helps grow healthier food and improve environmental quality. Converted Organics plans to sell and distribute its environmentally-friendly fertilizer products in the retail, turf management, and agribusiness markets.

Converted Organics’ fertilizer products will be produced in both a dry pellet and liquid concentrate. Converted Organics’ products have been tested in numerous field trials for more than a dozen crops with the result that, on average, the net value of the farmer’s crop increased 11-16%, depending on the particular crop and product application. This is due, in part, to the disease suppression characteristics of the product, which reduce or eliminate the need for other costly, often toxic, crop protection applications. Increased use of nitrogen in commercial agriculture and turf grass applications, such as golf courses, has reduced the soil’s ability to absorb nitrogen and other nutrients. Using the products produced by Converted Organics helps restore the soil by replenishing these micronutrients. This reduces the amount of nitrogen required in a virtuous cycle that benefits from long-term use. As a result, use of the product will reduce chemical run-off to streams, ponds and rivers, an objective with significant long-term benefits to the environment.

The products have a long shelf life compared to many other organic fertilizers. In a number of lab and field trials, the liquid product has been shown to be effective in mitigating powdery mildew, a leaf fungus that effects most plants and grasses and restricts the flow of water and nutrients to the plant. The Company’s fertilizer products can be used on a stand-alone basis or in combination with more traditional fertilizers and crop protection products. Converted Organics expects to benefit from increased regulatory focus on organic waste processing and on environmentally-friendly growing practices.

Comments (1)

Uncategorized admin on 06 Aug 2008

Feed Phosphate Crisis Triggered by Raw Material Price Dispute

31 January, 2008 - The animal feed sector was plunged into crisis last December when the steady tightening of the global feed phosphate supply became critical almost overnight, triggering a price surge and extreme scarcity in parts of Europe that caught many unaware.

 Since then, the availability of feed grade phosphate has become a major talking point in the industry as some European countries continue to experience a serious supply problem.The shockwaves felt by the feed industry have reverberated into Q1 2008. Some premixers and feed mills have reported a physical shortage of product, leading to warnings in the UK that integrators would soon be forced to start culling herds amid animal welfare and health fears. Massive demand for fertilizer to satisfy rocketing grain production for both biofuel and to supply food for increasingly affluent populations in developing countries explains the global growth in demand for phosphates. But many have been mystified by the sudden feed phosphate shortage in some European countries and prices that have more than doubled in recent months. A number of factors, including sudden price hikes and a shortage of raw materials like phosphoric acid, combined with a lack of investment in the phosphate industry and  a willingness by the fertilizer industry to pay more for phosphates, have all combined to create a ‘perfect storm’ for the animal feed sector. Current Feed Phosphate Crisis

It is understood the sudden and extreme tightness of supply to regions within the European market since the end of 2007 was fundamentally caused by a price dispute over sulphur, which is used in the manufacture phosphoric acid.  Sources have revealed the manufacture of phosphoric acid was interrupted in North Africa for a period while the producer was embroiled in protracted price negotiations with Russian sulphur suppliers.After seeing sulphur prices rise by more than 300 pct during 2007, it is understood the delay in settling the North African contract was sparked by the Russians’ move to leverage a higher price for their now more valuable commodity. While negotiations dragged on, the North African company exhausted the last of its sulphur reserves and this resulted in them halting phosphoric acid production.

However, rumours of a sulphur shortage have been met with scepticism by some analysts who suspect a delay in settling contracts was used to keep phosacid prices moving upwards by implying a short-fall would develop.

Phosacid, as it is referred to by the industry, makes up 90 pct of feed phosphate and therefore the disruption has had a profound effect on short-term supplies to parts of Europe.

Companies, known as transformers, who convert phosacid into feed phosphate, have been affected to different degrees. Fully integrated feed phosphate producers, who make their own phosacid, have been largely insulated from the fallout of the crisis. However, non-integrated producers, who buy in phosacid from third parties, have struggled to meet demand and have seen the cost of their main raw material rise steeply. Transformers would argue they have largely been reacting to events beyond their control as they battle to adapt to market conditions that are changing swiftly and significantly.

Despite the resumption of phosacid production in North Africa, the consequences of this delay are expected to be felt on the market for some months. This current crisis is not expected to ease until Q2 2008 at the earliest, with feed phosphate prices remaining high and supply tight throughout the year, according to one well-placed industry source.

However, it is still unclear how much the situation will improve in Q2 as that period marks the beginning of extra seasonal demand for phosphates from the fertilizer industry.

The diagram below shows how phosphate ore is combined with various raw materials by different manufacturers to produce fertilizer and animal feedgrade phosphates.

MAJOR ISSUES IN 2008 AND BEYOND*

Demand for Phosphate Fertilizers

 A huge increase in demand for fertilizers is at the root of the phosphate shortage problem for the animal feed industry. Demand for phosphate fertilizers has soared to meet the worldwide rush to produce grain for the booming biofuel industry. The increased demand for meat - and therefore livestock feed - from more affluent populations in developing countries is also a contributory factor.  The pressure on grain supplies that has seen wheat and corn prices balloon has fuelled the demand for fertilizers as farmers seek maximum yields from their land.Figures from British Sulphur Consultants show the growth rate for phosphate fertilizers doubled in 2007 from its usual rate of an extra one million tonnes a year to two million tonnes.

British Sulphur phosphate Research Manager Andy Jung called the increase “huge”, explaining the demand surge above trend growth was equivalent to the annual capacity of three reasonably-sized phosphoric acid facilities.


 He added: “The phosphate market is currently undergoing significant changes, with prices continuing to head higher. This is being driven both on the supply side due to tight availability with limited new capacity built in 2007 and 2008, as well as from the demand side.”

Some analysts have suggested that those who provide the raw materials for fertilizers have seized on their new-found power in the market by hiking prices. The result has been a steep rise in the market price of phosacid and sulphur over the past several months.

* Phosphoric Acid Supply

As the main component of phosphate feed, the supply of phosacid during 2008 will be a key factor. An examination of phosacid shows current output is expanding in response to tight supply. An important factor in any analysis of this is the understanding that phosphoric acid is not stockpiled because it is difficult and expensive to store. For practical purposes, this means annual production equals consumption in any given year.The best way to gauge the tightness of the market is via the operating rate, industry expert Andy Jung explains. Therefore, high operating rates are the consequence of a very tight market. Because of the nature of the substance and the way it is processed, the industry has historically run at about 71% of name plate capacity. As the graph below shows, this has been increasing steadily, reaching 83% by the end of 2007.

As the graph also illustrates, the current market  is now so tight that some phosacid plants in major production zones such as the US and Morocco are said to be working at more than 90%, which is seen as maximum capacity, said Mr Jung.He said: “Going forward, we expect that operating rates could get some slight relief in 2008, falling as low as 81%, but from 2009 out for the medium term, we expect them to hold in the 81-83% range.”Phosacid is the feedstock for about 90% of feed phosphate production. Some 3.03 million tonnes of phosphoric acid was used in the feed business in 2007, to make 3.36 million tonnes of phosphate feed (or 8.2 million, product tonnes). In 2006, 2.85 million tonnes of phosphoric acid was used to produce 3.17 million tonnes of feed phosphate (or 7.7 million product tonnes).

Global phosacid consumption in 2007 was about 36 million tonnes, which means feed phosphates accounted for just 8 pct of the total. The fertilizer industry is by far the largest user, taking 66 pct of supply.

Given the current shortness of supply, rocketing prices and the possibility of EU legislation restricting their use in certain industrial applications, there is speculation that the detergent industry might decide to use readily available alternatives to phosphates going forward.

* Sulphur

The enormous leap in the price of sulphur over the past 12 months is also vital to understanding the present situation – both in the short and medium term. Sulphur prices surged in 2007 and this trend has continued into 2008, most likely due to strong demand and tight supply. However, even British Sulphur can find no concrete reason for the scale of the increase, with Mr Jung labelling it “something of a mystery”.Global demand for sulphur increased steadily between 1999 and 2006 by between 500,000 tonnes and 1.5 million tonnes, year on year, according to figures from the International Fertilizer Industry Association. However, preliminary estimates from British Sulphur indicate a strong growth in demand during 2007 of 2.6 million tonnes over 2006 to 51 million tonnes.

A recent price analysis by Canada’s Scotiabank said sulphur was the top performing commodity last year, with 2007 prices to November rising by 313 pct. In other regions,  price increases were equally dramatic.

The fob Arab Gulf benchmark price, which is one of a number for sulphur, rose from an average price of US$65/tonne in 1H 2007 to US$185/t in the 2H 2007, before leaping to a January 2008 high of US$450/tonne.

British Sulphur said it expects prices to remain high in 2008, with some softening by the end of the year. Prices should ease in 2009 as sizeable new sulphur supplies planned as a by-product of natural gas hit the market.

* Phosphate Rock

Phosphate rock is combined with sulphuric acid to make phosphoric acid. This commodity has been the subject of a bidding war between the fertilizer and animal feed industries. This battle has so far been won by the more lucrative fertilizer sector, hence the scarcity of phosphates for animal feed businesses. Prices of phosphate rock have risen dramatically in the past year. On the Moroccan market, the prices have soared. Between 2005 and 2007 the price rose from US$47 per tonne to US$80 but by Q1 2008 had leapt to US$190 per tonne.

One analyst said this price increase has occurred on the back of the strength of demand and tightness in the market. However, the small number of traders who dominate the phosphoric rock market quickly realised they could exploit the soaring price of downstream products such as fertilizer, he said.

The analyst added: “[The price rise] is due to both higher realized prices for downstream products prompting rock sellers to try to capture some of those margins, as well as higher energy and labour costs.

“In addition, a factor which has not been present in the past is that the main exporters of phosphate rock and phosphoric acid have pushed through substantial price increases as they leverage the market power they’ve acquired by holding such a large share of the export market.

“Higher rock costs have meant that non-integrated producers of phosphoric acid have had their costs pushed significantly higher, thus pushing up the price floor for the industry. We do not expect this situation to change, so even if there is a slow-down in demand in 2008, prices are expected to remain high.”

This analysis appears accurate in the light of recently announced price hikes by major rock players. Russian outfit Phosagro, an important supplier to the European animal feed industry, has doubled 2008 prices to US$200/t. Jordan’s JPMC, the world’s second largest exporter, recently quoted prices of US$155 fob Aqaba for prompt shipments - an increase of 138%.

Conclusion

The scarcity of feed phosphate seemed to appear from nowhere at the end of last year, leaving many  feed producers perplexed and concerned. A disruption in the supply of sulphur has been blamed for this extreme situation which analysts say should ease in Q2 2008. However, supply looks set to remain tight and prices high for at least the rest of the year. Other key raw materials such as ammonia have also contributed to the higher costs associated with phosphate production. The upward price trend in sulphur and phosphoric acid, prompted by the explosion in demand for fertilizer, looks set to continue for the foreseeable future. While some believe the price of sulphur is too high for the market to bear over the very long term, prices are not expected to ease until 2009 and 2010 when significant new supplies come on-stream.One industry insider has forecast feed phosphate prices  have little chance of ever returning to previous levels, given the current costs of key raw materials such as sulphur, phosphate rock and ammonia.

Given the dramatic rise in phosphate prices, feed producers are looking more closely at alternative options. A partial solution for pig and poultry producers to the current crisis can be found through the use of new generation bacterial phytases. Recent research has shown that these phytases are more effective at releasing plant-bound phytate phosphorus than traditional fungal phytases.

As the recent dramatic plunge in world markets has shown, predicting economic events and trends is becoming more and more difficult. But whatever happens in the next 18 months, those in the animal feed industry could be in for a bumpy ride as they find themselves at the mercy of economic forces, including commodity price fluctuations, beyond their control.

Comments (0)

Uncategorized admin on 05 Aug 2008

Salt and Minerals for Sheep

Minerals are feed ingredients essential for life. Sheep require minerals in order to grow and to produce lambs and wool. Minerals serve many functions within an animal. They are important for bone development, enzyme activation, muscle contractions, regulating acid-base balances and are a component of hormones critical for maintaining the well-being of your sheep. There are seven major or macro minerals, which are required in relatively large amounts sheep. Sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl) known as salt are two of the macro minerals. Others include calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K) and sulfur (S). Micro or trace minerals are required in very small or “trace” amounts and include manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), selenium (Se), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), iodine (I) and fluorine (Fl).

Mineral requirements

Your sheep require minerals, including salt, on a daily basis. Failure to supply adequate amounts of minerals in the diet results in poor fertility, weak lambs at birth, reduced milk production, depressed immunity and numerous metabolic disorders. The quantity of minerals required by your sheep will depend on their age, weight, parasite load and level of production. The more productive your sheep i.e. dairy sheep and prolific breeds, the higher their requirements will be.

The level of other minerals in the diet also affects mineral requirements as lack or excess of one mineral can render another deficient or toxic. For example, forages grown on soils containing excess molybdenum (Mo) may be high in Mo and can induce Cu deficiencies in sheep consuming adequate levels of Cu. The recommended intake of Cu for sheep fed diets containing more than 3.0 ppm of Mo is 19-23 and 14-17 ppm for for gestating and lactating ewes respectively and 17-21 ppm for growing animals. Adding minerals is a critical part of providing a nutritionally balanced diet for your flock. However, determining which mineral mix to use can be difficult.

Expressing mineral levels

Mineral requirements are generally expressed in grams or as a percentage of the diet.
A gram is a very small amount of feed and is equal to 1/1000 of a kilogram or 1/28 of an ounce (28 grams = 1 ounce). Mineral concentrations on your feed tags or mineral bags are usually expressed in parts per million (ppm).
One ppm is equal to1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) or .0001%. Vitamins included in mineral mixes are expressed in international units (IU).

Referring to a mineral mix

Mineral mixes are referred to by their concentrations of Ca and P. For example, an 18:18 mineral contains 18% Ca and 18% P while an 18:9 mineral contains 18% Ca and 9% P.

Choosing a mineral mix

There are a variety of salt and mineral mixes commercially available that are specifically formulated for sheep. These mixes range from trace mineralized salt to salt-free minerals to mineral mixes that contain vitamins. When you feed a complete trace mineral mix containing salt, no other source of salt should be available to your sheep. The sheep will eat the complete mineral mix to get the salt. Some commercial mineral mixes also contain vitamins A, D and E. If you buy a mineral mix with added vitamins, choose the one containing the highest level of vitamin A (up to 500,000 IU). In some vitamin-mineral mixes the level of vitamins may not be high enough to meet the requirements of your sheep. Talk to a nutritionist to ensure you are supplying your sheep with adequate levels.

Adding specific minerals like Ca is also a way of incorporating minerals into the diet in some circumstances. For example, adding limestone or calcium carbonate is an inexpensive way to supply the Ca required by lambs fed high grain diets or ewes fed green feed or grass hay as roughage.

Minerals can also be supplied in a custom mineral mix that is specifically designed to meet the mineral requirements of your sheep based on an analysis of your homegrown feeds. When the nutrient content of your homegrown feeds changes, so must the minerals supplied in your custom mineral mix. A custom mix for one region may not supply adequate amounts of minerals in another region. Soil type, plant species and growing conditions affect mineral levels in plants.

Determining the best buy

Phosphorus is an expensive mineral to buy so you should always compare different mineral mixes based on the cost of P. For example, if you have the choice between an 18:18 mineral that costs $20.00/25 kg bag or an 18:9 mineral that costs $16.00/25 kg bag you need to determine which mineral is the more economical choice. The calculations below will show you how to do this.

     1. Determine the amount of P in each bag of mineral by multiplying the percent P in the mineral by the
          number of kg in the bag. The 25 kg bag of 18:18 mineral has 4.5 kg P (18/100 x 25 = 4.5) and the
          25 kg bag of 18:9 mineral has 2.25 kg P (9/100 x 25 = 2.25).

     2. To calculate the cost of each kg of P you divide the cost of the bag of mineral by the number of kg
          of P in the bag. The cost of the 18:18 mineral is $20/ 25 kg bag. Therefore the cost per kg of P is
          $4.44 ($20.00 ÷ 4.5 kg = $4.44). The cost of the 18:9 Mineral is $16/25 kg bag. The cost per kg
          of P is $7.11 ($16.00 ÷ 2.25 = $7.11)

From the calculations, you can see that the more expensive bag of 18:18 mineral is a much cheaper source of P and would be the better buy.

Copper and sheep

Mineral mixes or trace mineral salt formulated for cattle or horses should not be fed to your sheep because they are too high in Cu. Sheep minerals contain 300 to 500 mg/kg of Cu. Sheep accumulate Cu in the liver more easily than other livestock species. The accumulation of Cu in the body can take several months and may be caused by feed mixing errors, or by feeding forages, processed feeds or trace mineralized salt high in Cu. If your sheep mineral contains Cu don´t feed a trace-mineralized salt containing Cu. Excessive intakes of Cu can also be caused by feeding by-product feeds consisting of wastes from other livestock species, such as poultry litter. Copper poisoning also may result from low intakes of Mo, S, Zn and Ca. Stressful situations such as handling, strenuous exercise, transporting, a declining nutritional state and weather can cause a sudden release of the stored Cu into the blood, and cause toxicity. Symptoms of Cu toxicity occur quickly and include poor appetite, excessive thirst, pale yellow membranes (jaundice), anemia and death. There appears to be some breed differences in susceptibility to Cu toxicity, with Texels being more susceptible than other breeds.

Feeding minerals

Once you have determined which minerals you are going to use you need to determine how you are going to feed them to your sheep. Although minerals can be fed free-choice it is recommended that they be mixed with the ration to ensure that all of your sheep consume an adequate intake of minerals. However, if you are feeding your minerals free-choice then mix the salt-free mineral with loose salt on a 3 parts salt-free mineral to 1 part loose salt. Most animals, including sheep, have a definite appetite for salt so that minerals that contain salt, particularly loose salt, are usually consumed to a greater extent than salt-free minerals.

Placing your mineral feeders in areas where they are easily accessible to your sheep and are protected from the weather, and winds can also encourage intake. Check your mineral feeders on a regular basis to ensure they are clean and not contaminated with manure. A mature ewe will eat 150 to 225 gm (1/3 to ½ lb.) of a salt-vitamin-mineral mix each week. Regardless of the mineral mix that you use, put out fresh mineral on a weekly basis and monitor your flock´s intake.

Key ideas

     * Feed only salt and mineral mixes specifically made for sheep. Sheep minerals contain between 300
        to 500 mg/kg of copper.
     * Feed a salt mineral mix that contains selenium on a year round basis.
     * Feed salt in the loose form to allow for better intake.
     * Place mineral feeders where they are easily cleaned and accessible to all of your sheep.
     * Protect salt and minerals from the elements.
     * Mix salt-free minerals with loose salt on a ratio of 1 part salt to 3 parts mineral to increase intake
        when feeding free choice.
     * Provide no other sources of salt to your sheep when you feed a complete trace mineral mix
        containing salt.

Comments (0)

Next Page »