Imagine a dairyman who is grappling with a high somatic cell count (scc) in his herd and is in dire need for a comprehensive review of his feeding routine. Here’s an intriguing case where the nutritionist found something unexpected upon reviewing his feed components, labs fed, forages, premixes, and the tower of ingredient costs. The revelation? There were manifold redundancies and replications in the protein, mineral, and vitamin additive premix. Let’s just say, it’s not uncommon for nutritionists to encounter this scenario. A medley of additives can convolute accurate understanding and have potential negative implications on the overall feeding program.
Keep in mind, my dear reader, it is vitally important to occasionally analyze all premixes involved in the feeding program. Not all the time is more necessarily better. Every ingredient that is used should positively contribute to the feeding program. Moreover, one should also reliably understand all the ingredients being suggested, embracing their function, cost, and potential benefits. Products like dfms, yeasts, bacteria, and enzymes might seem expensive, yet the truth is, all costs accumulate into a significant sum.
The additives, while being fed at low levels, should not escape your scrutiny. These costs need evaluation for alternatives that are as efficient but sweet on the wallet. As an illustration, consider the nutritionist with information on four distinct Bacillus subtilis products. Each product can have different positive effects on the animal. Nonetheless, consider whether they will add value beyond what is already being formulated and whether they’d have an additive or antagonistic effect with something else in the current mix.
‘Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,’ so said Leonardo da Vinci. And this rings true even in the case of nutrition programs. Every now and then, it’s essential to take a step back and simplify premixes while simultaneously ensuring the best cost is achieved.
From the basic minerals and vitamins right up to the complex compounds requiring a careful balance, some things are inherently intricate. Desirable nutrients with the best absorption rates and those that are cost-effective need preferential consideration. For instance, trace mineral sources like organics or hydroxychlorides are often examined during supplementation.
Time and again, nutritionists include additives based on the company’s recommended feeding rate. But here’s a note of caution – these suggestions may not always be rooted in rigorous studies, but on eager market conditions trying to push maximum product usage. To create the most economical ration delivering the necessary nutrients, the overall rations necessitate periodic evaluation and simplification.
Modern formulation models may help us set up rations with razor-sharp precision. We may, however, need to go beyond and add another ingredient to the ration to cut costs.
The story doesn’t end here. Farms use a vast array of forage sources, grains, proteins, and premixes. Each ingredient loads onto the mixer, and moving between the silage piles to the commodity shed and ingredient storage locations can cause wear and tear on equipment. As the ingredients multiply, the operational cost of mixing rations rises. This increase in procedures raises potential variability in the mixes—a classic case of more not always being merrier.
In conclusion, the task of simplifying feeding program may be easier stated than done. But isn’t it in pursuit of more significant production efficiency and lower costs that every farm labors? So, it’s only logical to periodically review what is being fed. Ask these pertinent questions: Is this the best ration possible? Can we simplify this? Could we find cheaper alternatives? Is this the most efficient ration to mix and deliver? How would it impact our bottom line?
The dairy industry may not be destined to get any easier, but it is plausible that with mindful examination and simplification, feeding could become more manageable and cost-effective.
