A major concern for feed formulators is the reduction of the use of antibiotics and its impact on formulation and production of animal diets. There is also a clear trend towards non-GMO feeds as well as more of a focus on retail concepts with regard to animal welfare, carbon footprint, organic or regionally-produced raw materials, sustainability factors, quality and the perception of quality of animal products. In tandem with all these issues, there are of course substantial differences between regions.
The challenges and solutions in feed formulation will be a common theme of Feed Additives Europe 2019 on Day 2 (26 September 2019). The day will kick off with a special industry panel, involving Dutch feed manufacturers De Heus and ForFarmers, as well as Ovostar Union from Ukraine.
“There is more pressure coming from customer demands as our markets are very competitive,” explains Julius Kuipers, Manager Formulations at De Heus, and panelist, ahead of Feedinfo’s Feed Additives Europe 2019. “As a consequence we do not want to take any risks with regard to animal health and feed safety. The focus on stabilising our final product quality has grown in recent years.
“Figuring out a correct evaluation of feed additives is important as proposed matrix values by suppliers vary and do not always fit our practical circumstances. Moreover, it is a challenge to find the right model to cope with effects of raw materials that are dose-dependent or depend on the set of raw materials that you use in the feed,” he adds. “To formulate feeds correctly, we need to know animal requirements and raw material values in detail. To ensure stable results at animal level, controlling our production processes is perhaps even more critical than feed formulation. Finally, the possibilities to apply precision feeding on farm are often determined by the design and management on the individual farm.”
De Heus’ manager of formulations provides the following advice for feed additive suppliers when it comes to testing and selecting products.
In his view, suppliers often present the mode of action of their product and show numerous studies that clearly state that their product is significantly improving the performance. But as a compound feed company, De Heus has to judge the material, see how it relates to its feed assortment and strategy, and finally think how it could have an effect on farm level.
“Setting up trials with challenge models that mimic our practical conditions on farm level is very difficult, given the higher risks of false outcomes and wrong conclusions,” he says. “It is hard to make a distinction between products in trials because of the small effects (difficulty to get significant differences) and environmental circumstances. It is of mutual interest for both supplier and compound feed producer to find a solution for this, by putting more emphasis on the application and evaluation of additives which will lead to more discussion about value of the product.”
According to Kuipers, performing field trials is difficult in terms of correct data collection. Setting up partnerships with suppliers to co-develop feed additives is something that ought to be considered when assessing environmental conditions.
“However, as this approach is more time-consuming it leads to a selection of suppliers with a chance of missing other developments,” Kuipers warns.
Kuipers goes on to say: “Selecting the right additives and raw materials is a part of this approach, but advising our customers on all kinds of items concerning farm management is important. The right application can really make the difference. That is why we need to translate global knowledge into a pragmatic local solution keeping farm circumstances in mind.”
5 September 2019 – A major concern for feed formulators is the reduction of the use of antibiotics and its impact on formulation and production of animal diets. There is also a clear trend towards non-GMO feeds as well as more of a focus on retail concepts with regard to animal welfare, carbon footprint, organic or regionally-produced raw materials, sustainability factors, quality and the perception of quality of animal products. In tandem with all these issues, there are of course substantial differences between regions.
The challenges and solutions in feed formulation will be a common theme of Feed Additives Europe 2019 on Day 2 (26 September 2019). The day will kick off with a special industry panel, involving Dutch feed manufacturers De Heus and ForFarmers, as well as Ovostar Union from Ukraine.
“There is more pressure coming from customer demands as our markets are very competitive,” explains Julius Kuipers, Manager Formulations at De Heus, and panelist, ahead of Feedinfo’s Feed Additives Europe 2019. “As a consequence we do not want to take any risks with regard to animal health and feed safety. The focus on stabilising our final product quality has grown in recent years.
“Figuring out a correct evaluation of feed additives is important as proposed matrix values by suppliers vary and do not always fit our practical circumstances. Moreover, it is a challenge to find the right model to cope with effects of raw materials that are dose-dependent or depend on the set of raw materials that you use in the feed,” he adds. “To formulate feeds correctly, we need to know animal requirements and raw material values in detail. To ensure stable results at animal level, controlling our production processes is perhaps even more critical than feed formulation. Finally, the possibilities to apply precision feeding on farm are often determined by the design and management on the individual farm.”
De Heus’ manager of formulations provides the following advice for feed additive suppliers when it comes to testing and selecting products.
In his view, suppliers often present the mode of action of their product and show numerous studies that clearly state that their product is significantly improving the performance. But as a compound feed company, De Heus has to judge the material, see how it relates to its feed assortment and strategy, and finally think how it could have an effect on farm level.
“Setting up trials with challenge models that mimic our practical conditions on farm level is very difficult, given the higher risks of false outcomes and wrong conclusions,” he says. “It is hard to make a distinction between products in trials because of the small effects (difficulty to get significant differences) and environmental circumstances. It is of mutual interest for both supplier and compound feed producer to find a solution for this, by putting more emphasis on the application and evaluation of additives which will lead to more discussion about value of the product.”
According to Kuipers, performing field trials is difficult in terms of correct data collection. Setting up partnerships with suppliers to co-develop feed additives is something that ought to be considered when assessing environmental conditions.
“However, as this approach is more time-consuming it leads to a selection of suppliers with a chance of missing other developments,” Kuipers warns.
Kuipers goes on to say: “Selecting the right additives and raw materials is a part of this approach, but advising our customers on all kinds of items concerning farm management is important. The right application can really make the difference. That is why we need to translate global knowledge into a pragmatic local solution keeping farm circumstances in mind.”
