The prominent professor of Animal Science at the University of Illinois since 2011, Dr. Hans H. Stein, visited Chile in the context of the Pig and Poultry Nutrition Seminar organized by ChileCarne and sponsored by DSM-Firmenich (a global giant in animal nutrition and health).
The meeting was held at the end of June in the auditorium of the Faculty of Veterinary and Livestock Sciences of the University of Chile. and focused on the The meeting focused on updating knowledge and innovative strategies related to nutrition and formulation of diets for monogastric productive species, such as pigs and poultry, improving intestinal health, animal welfare and productive performance.
Dr. Hans Stein is a world reference in monogastric animal nutrition. His work and research focuses on intestinal physiology and the evaluation of new ingredients and nutrients, and he is recognized for establishing specific nutritional requirements for calcium and digestible phosphorus for pigs.
In an exclusive interview with ChileCarne, he gave his views on how these issues are evolving in the region and gave recommendations to local companies in the production and export sector in terms of obtaining the best feed and management of pigs. Among other things, he said: "We talked about the issue of phytase, we talked about the advantages of using it 6 weeks after weaning piglets and I think this is new here, there are not many companies that use this technology and it is an advantage to use them, they are available technologies".
Do you think that in South America and particularly in Chile it is possible to make progress on these issues?
Pig and chicken production will continue to grow throughout South America because the population is progressively gaining purchasing power and consuming more of these products. On the other hand, Denmark produces more pigs than nine Spanish-speaking countries combined; all this added to the local technological level are indicators that there are many opportunities to increase production. On the other hand, the Chinese and Asian countries are demanding more pigs.
How has nutrition advanced in South America compared to Europe and the United States?
Genetics has the same data in South America as in Europe, the United States and Asia, but my perception is that South American nutritionists are a little slower in implementing new technology and knowledge that we are acquiring in the United States. For example, I presented at the seminar in Chile on calcium and phosphorus digestibility and I believe that there are very few countries in this region that currently use that information, although it is available worldwide. The technology and documentation is there with the background on why it is necessary to change. In the United States, companies are quicker to change, as there is a lot of focus on lowering costs and if it is possible to do it 50 cents per ton, they drive the necessary changes to make it happen.
In Chile it is different than in other South American countries because the companies in this country have production and process mostly their own pigs, so they should make decisions more quickly to see the opportunities. If you ask me which country is more advanced in South America, I would answer Chile; the companies we visited have a very good level of technology and knowledge. However, it seems to me that in South America there is a tendency that if an American team arrives, for example, or from another country to offer a product to nutritionists with good arguments, they may decide to buy without asking if it will really help them or without seeing studies on the subject that support those arguments. Then they use many additives and do not investigate in depth if it is really necessary.
I did not see this in Chile; it must be because it is a production with integration, so the same company can measure if there will really be an advantage in using a certain additive. As in the United States and Spain, in Chile there are companies with integration and with the same production level, being a great advantage of Chile in South America. That is one of the reasons why the industry in Chile is more advanced. However, in nutrition there are always opportunities to improve, to implement new available technologies.
In your presentation during the Seminar held in Chile, you stated that Calcium and Phosphorus are related to production yields; for example, that particle size reduction improves energy digestibility or that extrusion can increase energy digestibility. How do you recommend that companies make concrete progress on these issues?
I don't know what particle size they use here. 400 and 500 microns will be better. I think most of the companies here still use pelletizing and that is why they have that technology and they work well. Another technology has to do with enzymes. Many companies use enzymes and this is an advantage as well. We talked about the subject of Phytase, we talked about the advantages of using it 6 weeks after weaning piglets and I think this is new here, there are not many companies that use this technology and it is an advantage to use them, they are available technologies.
On calcium, the most important thing is to measure the level in the diets and understand that too much is bad and understand that if companies use phytase, they need to lower the level of calcium in the complete diets further. This is something that all companies can do very quickly; it doesn't require that much complexity. The latter is not very common, but they can do it quickly: if there is too much calcium they need to lower, and understand the benefits that less calcium is better anyway. By lowering calcium, pigs' intake increases and they have more weight gain, so companies could decrease spending on this nutrient.
In the United States, where there are also companies with integration, these issues are implemented. Also in Spain and some in France; in the rest of Europe producers are smaller and there is no integration as here.
What are the next steps or advances related to pig nutrition? What should we pay attention to?
It is possible to buy ingredients that companies do not use widely now and are competitive such as rye and wheat. Yes, it is possible in countries like Chile to buy or cultivate. There are also comments about canola and if it is less expensive than soy flour, it is advisable to use it as well. I think it is important as companies to be looking for ingredients that allow lowering the price of food, because it is a major cost in production.
Secondly, to have systems to evaluate the ingredients that are already known, such as corn and soybean, so that they can be sure that they have the quality and the nutrient contribution that they are thought to have. For example, in Europe there are many imports of soybean meal from Brazil. But it happens that many times they do not have the capacity to make a good drying, or to dry everything, that is why sometimes the quality that arrives to Europe is bad because there is fermentation. There are different qualities of soybeans and also many times there are good qualities from Brazil, that is why it is important to measure at every opportunity. And as for the formulation, to do it in amino acids, phosphorus, calcium, all digestible stabilized...
I think these are the most important options, to have enough of all the nutrients and to be critical about additives. I don't mean don't use them because there are many that are good and additive, but there are also some that are not going to help much. If an additive does not have scientific data, most likely it is not worth using. In many countries in the Americas this way of operating does not exist; there are suppliers that convince companies with good arguments and presentations, but they do not have scientific data.
Companies should tell the marketer to come back when they have such data; through a university, rely on research on diets and ingredients. It is also positive when companies have their own data in this regard, but it is even better if this data comes from an independent institution, proving. As with Fitasa, which we know works well, at least for the big companies. The work of nutritionists is also related to demanding this scientific data.
What joint work between universities and the private sector is being promoted now?
We are currently working with several universities: two in Europe, one in Denmark, and one in each of these countries: Spain, Canada, Colombia, Philippines and New Zealand. The universities have different focuses and different expertise and that is why it is very positive to move forward with them. We have realized that universities do not need large investments or very expensive equipment to make progress on these issues. It is more along the lines of if there is interest and if they have small spaces to advance in research and a small laboratory. In reality, that is all that is needed. I was for example in Bogota recently and they work with exactly the same equipment as we do in the United States.
In Latin American countries, many times the limitation is that researchers do not think that they can do it; we have seen that they think it is not possible. In the United States the opposite happens: we see if it is possible and then we decide to do it. It is a matter of tradition, of the way of doing things. They have to say: We are going to try because we are not afraid. In South America they may think it is possible but perhaps it is very difficult for us to carry out this type of research.
When I started many years ago I called many companies and told them: I have this idea, I think it is very good, I need money. Many times they said no, but most of them said yes. These are the ways of seeking funding from universities. I think that professors in South America do not have the strategies to contact companies and seek funding for this research. The knowledge and talents are there.
There are local companies that purchase many ingredients and additives and products such as enzymes also from China, produced in that country. Do you recommend taking any additional precautions with the products that are produced in that market, thinking about the nutritional quality and the performance quality of the enzymes?
It is the same as I was saying before: many times the Chinese do not have scientific data or documentation and for example if they have a phytase and it is cheaper, it may be good or it may not be good, so it is important to ask them where they have their scientific data. Sometimes in China they don't want to use phytase from China because it doesn't work for them. Well known companies that are around the world and have a presence in China, they keep the same quality as in other countries, they are careful about that.
What do you take away from your visit to Chile and would you like to deliver any particular message to Chilean companies?
I think Chile is the most advanced country in South America in pig production but also the producers, the companies, have important challenges because they need to import most of the grains and there are not many countries in the world that are competitive in terms of supplying all the grains. This is a challenge for the industry here. But on the other hand I could see that Chile found a way to get products of a higher quality and that is why it is a country that exports successfully and so they compensate for the grains that are more expensive here in this country.
That is the secret here, because they have higher costs than in Brazil or Canada where there are many grains. And another secret is that the companies adhered to ChileCarne work together and export all together with this sectorial brand ChilePork, not as each company in particular, and that gives them great power. I also believe that Chile is much more influenced by European countries in the way it exports than by the United States.
Check the original article on Chile Carne's official website.
Other related news
