Monthly ArchiveAugust 2008
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
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
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).
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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)
Converted Organics is also currently developing a soluble, high-nitrogen, slow-release organic granular fertilizer that incorporates ADM’s NaturStim™.
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.
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
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
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
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.
*
A recent price analysis by
The fob
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.
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.
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/
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
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/
$4.44 ($20.00 ÷
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
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.
Uncategorized admin on 03 Aug 2008
Economic implications of phytase use in layer nutrition
The effectiveness of phytase in increasing the availability of phosphorus from plant-derived feedstuffs has been observed for several years. In most instances the exogenous phytase used to supplement poultry diets is obtained from an Aspergillus species which usually produces 3-phytase, a rather non-specific phosphomonoesterase that catalyses the dephosphorylation of myoinositol hexakisphosphate (phytate) and produces orthophosphate, which can be absorbed by monogastric animal species. Phytate may constitute 1- 2 % by weight of many cereals and oilseeds. Typically about 60-90% of the phosphorus in plant seeds is present in a phytate-bound form (Cheryan, 1980).
Supplementation of poultry diets with phytase the world over has resulted in the enhancement of phosphorus availability from plant-derived feedstuffs. Commonly used phytase additions to layer diets, i.e. 136 FTU/lb. (or equivalent) generally increases the availability of the phytate phosphorus content of layer diets by the equivalent of approximately 0.1%, which effectively reduces the amount of phosphorus that must be added to the diet as an inorganic phosphate source. In terms of dicalcium phosphate (18.5% P), the amount added to typical layer diets would be decreased by approximately
The effect of phytase in increasing the availability of phosphorus and calcium in plant-derived feedstuffs does not appear to be confined to these two nutrients. It is well established that phytate in its native state is also complexed with various cations i.e. protein, lipids, and starch (Cosgrove, 1966). It thus becomes easy to speculate that supplemental microbial phytase may release phytate-bound protein and thus improve the bioavailability of protein and associated nitrogenous compounds such as amino acids.
Understanding the chemistry of the phytic acid molecule assists in understanding its observed negative impact on dietary nutrient availability. Phytic acid is strongly negatively charged (6 reactive phosphate groups) over a wide pH range, thus exhibiting tremendous potential for complexing positively charged molecules such as cations or proteins. Typically phytate-bound nutrients are poorly available in the digestive tract of the monogastric animal due principally to the lack of adequate quantities of phytase enzymes to cleave the phytate molecule (Cosgrove, 1980; Reddy et al., 1982; Jongbloed et al., 1993). It has also been observed that phytate inhibits a number of digestive enzymes such as pepsin, “-amylase and trypsin (Ravindran et al., 1995). Thus it comes as no surprise that numerous studies have documented the nutritional implications of phytate in binding macro and microelements in plant-derived feedstuffs used in monogastric rations.
Among the earliest reports of the positive effects of supplemental phytase on protein and amino acid availability was a publication by van der Klis and Versteegh in 1991. Subsequent studies have confirmed these initial reports. Apparently such effects on protein and amino acids are a consequence of dietary phytase preventing the negative effects of phytate on protein and starch digestibility by hydrolyzing the phytate-protein-starch complexes and returning dietary protein, amino acids and starch to soluble and absorbable forms in the gastrointestinal tract. This apparent effect on starch-phytate complexes is assumed to account, at least in part, for the observed effect of phytase in increasing the energy content of feed.
Calculating the economic impact of phytase supplementation
The preponderance of published literature attests to the positive effects of phytase addition to diets of monogastric animals. However, the economic consequence of such positive results are often difficult to measure in meaningful terms. The question thus becomes hat in monetary terms is the addition of appropriate quantities of phytase to the diet worth??The economic worth of phytase addition to monogastric diets may be evaluated using quantitative data on the increases in nutrient availability mediated by phytase. For example, published literature generally supports an increase in available phosphorus of about 0.1% in typical layer diets when the equivalent of 136 FTU of phytase are added per lb of diet. Based on an inclusion rate of 136 FTU (or equivalent) per lb of feed, the nutrient values ascribed to phytase for phosphorus would be 200% for available and 200% for total phosphorus to achieve 0.1% phosphorus (available and total). The economic value of 0.1% available/total phosphorus above the cost of the added phytase is illustrated in Table 1 and is about $0.30/ton of feed (high energy). A cost of $12.00 per
