Economics of Precision Nutrition: Investment, Profitability, and ROI

Abstract Precision nutrition of pigs is a concept that has been dreamed about, discussed, designed, and researched for many years. Precision nutrition (PN) can be defined simply as providing the right feed to the right pig at the right time. Precision nutrition can be relatively simple or incredibly complex. Early attempts at PN included formulating different diets for pregnant and lactating sows or providing multiple diets for growing-finishing pigs from weaning to market weight. Advances in our understanding of the pig’s nutrient requirements and development of computerized equipment to dispense feed allow further refinement of PN to the group and (or) individual animal levels. Presently, computerized feed dispensers that allow blending of two diets or topdressing of specific supplements are more readily available and widely implemented in commercial settings for breeding sows than for growing-finishing pigs. Hence, this abstract focuses on economics of PN for sows. Some researchers have reported improved litter performance, reduced feed costs, and reduced nutrient excretion in manure when PN was implemented during gestation or lactation. However, other researchers reported increased feed costs, no change in litter performance, and increased or no change in nutrient excretion with PN of sows. The inconsistent biological response of sows to PN likely reflects our rudimentary understanding of how to properly implement PN given present knowledge of sows’ nutrient needs and capabilities of new feeding equipment. From an economic perspective, positive biological outcomes are needed to generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of PN equipment. To determine profitability of PN, one must know the revenue generated by PN practices and costs incurred to achieve the desired biological performance. In some, but not many, cases, PN researchers reported revenues generated by improved performance or reduced variable costs; but never reported the fixed costs incurred for PN equipment required to achieve improved performance. Using equipment costs from one commercial manufacturer installed in a theoretical 6, 000-sow, farrow-to-wean farm, a feed dispenser that blends two diets in gestation could be implemented for less than a 5 USD premium per sow pregnancy over an existing one-diet, group-pen gestation system. A simpler feed dispenser that provides a topdress to the sow’s ration can be implemented for less than 1 USD premium per sow pregnancy. Similarly, a computerized feed dispenser with two diet blending capabilities could be implemented in lactation for less than 10 USD per sow lactation over a simple tube feeder. Depending on the level of complexity in the PN feeding system and the magnitude of biological responses, PN can be profitable on some farms. Improvements in diet design and implementation of PN will likely enhance the consistency of profitability in the future. Consistency of profitability will be advanced if technology costs for PN equipment decline.