lms©

Efficient Energy Use in Pig Feed

Production Jamie Robertson

Funded by Scottish Government as part of the QMS Strengthening Labels (Pig Resource Use Efficiency Programme)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• Scottish Government • QMS • Farm Energy Consulting • Rod McGovern • Amanda Jones • Participating Producers • Questionnaire

Respondents

CONTENT 1. Questionnaire 2. Farm visits – energy monitoring 3. Power efficiency @ Milling 4. Feed quality @ milling

QUESTIONNAIRE

Type of feed: pellets/meal/wet feed/other Normal feed mixes on farm: farrowing/weaner/grower/finisher Purchased feeds: types/source/tonnage Machinery: mills and mixers: manufacturer/power rating/hours Electricity supply: source/cost/contract

QUSTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

• 20/45 complete responses excluding 1 out of pigs & 2 unwilling • 36 further units contacted by phone & questionnaire resent

• A wide variety of feeds produced • Significant use of mobile feedmix units • Most purchased feeds are for weaners

FEEDS MIXED

INGREDIENTS •Home grown barley •Wheat incl home grown •Soya •Full fat soya •Whey powder •Fish replacer •Fishmeal •Soya oil •Mineral & Vitamins

FEED PRODUCED

• 74% of sow feed on QMS assured units is home mill and mixed • 69.5% of weaner to finisher diets on QMS assured units is home mill and mixed • An estimated 104,200 tonnes/annum of pig feed is home mill and mixed •17,000 tonnes/annum is produced by mobile mill and mix units • Less than 3% of feed is sourced from local food by-products

MACHINERY USED: Variety of types, ages, incl. Second-hand Some evidence of routine maintenance Most mills working 5-8 hours per day OPPORTUNITY: Placing manufacturers maintenance schedules on QMS website

Power supply -day Power supply - night

Annual consumption

Price per unit Annual consumption

Price per unit

max 423,000 14.28 141,936 8.31

min 19,186 10.31 19,608 6.58

mean 160,079 11.99 83,874 7.07

median 108,831 11.75 87,622 6.94

POWER SUPPLY

Only 7 units aware of end of supply contract dates (revert to standard tariff of between 10.9p/unit and 12.5p/unit) 3.2p/unit difference in rates for 100,000 units used (worth> £3,000 per 100,00 units)

Few units using night time production. Automation to night-time milling could reduce related energy costs by up to 39%

MONITORING ON-FARM

Five units monitored for minimum one week cycle (8-12 days) Monitored current, power, power factor and voltage; individual mills and total within the mill

Recorded power use for the farm feed mills studied

Site Power per tonne

feed milled

Proportion of average

Power per tonne feed produced

Proportion of average

Screen size (mm)

Farm 1 11.7 106% 12.9 84% 3.5 Farm 2 9.1* 83% 13.1 85% 6 Farm 3 12.3 112% 18.6 121% 5 Farm 4 14.9 135% 16.8 110% 3.5 Farm 5 7.1 64% NR NR 5

Average 11.0 kWh/t 15.3 kWh/t

POWER USAGE

Does screen size affect power usage?

VOLTAGE OPTIMISATION Reduction in voltage when higher than necessary. Considerable saving quoted Possible savings with 10% reduction of voltage, but only viable where total power usage on farm is high for equipment that is unaffected, eg. lighting

OPPORTUNITIES FOR EFFICIENCY GAINS

POWER FACTORS Power = voltage x current x power factor Lower power factor = more power/kW Lower power factor can lead to penalties Cost of correction equipment not justified

Power costs and carbon equivalents

Day rate

(p/kWh)

Night rate

(p/kWh)

Carbon tonnes/annum

Tonnes milled/ annum

Tonnes feed/

annum

Energy Cost1

Farm 1 11.26 6.87 28 4056 4836 £ 7,273.06

Farm 2 12.63 11.27 11 2522 2748 £ 3,201.16

Farm 3 11.535 7.204 24 2524 3317 £ 4,491.96

Farm 4 13.5 - 22 2326 2964 £ 6,716.17

Farm 5 Mill only 11.7 6.7 6 2008 3146 £ 1,679.14

ENERGY & CARBON FOOTPRINTING

1 Assuming milling & mixing done at daytime rates

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Energy monitoring before and after hammer /screen replacement in a feed mill

Quantity milled (kg)

Average power during milling (kW)

Power used

(kWh/kg)

Time to mill (min)

Milling rate

(kg/min) Before hammer

replacement 803 10.9 91.0 52 15.4

After hammer replacement 873 11.7 88.1 54 16.2

% change +9% +7% -3% +4% +5%

MAINTENANCE

Seive size % feed by weight Coefficient of

Variation µm Worn New P value Worn New

<500 15.1 19.6 0.248 31.8 16.4 500 23.7 28.2 0.066 11.6 4.9

1000 17.9 20.6 0.084 8.6 6.3 1400 27.7 20.0 0.059 18.0 5.5 2000 10.3 7.2* 0.036 14.7 12.5 2800 2.7 2.0 0.238 31.4 2.4 3350 2.9 2.5 0.630 47.6 24.8

FEED GRIST SIZE

Particle size distribution of feed influences efficiency of digestion. •There was a small significant (P<0.05) decrease in larger particles from new vs worn hammers and screens •The consistency of feed particle sizes was superior for new vs worn hammers and screens

•For 2013, UK pigmeat self-sufficiency was 60%, sheepmeat was 100% and beef was at 82.5%*.

•In 2014, up to the third quarter, pigmeat and sheepmeat self-sufficiency were 1 percentage point ahead of the first three quarters of 2013, but beef was 1.5 percentage points lower*.

• Scottish pig products have excellent potential but operate in a global market; gains of 3-5% in any aspect of production are valuable

•The farm to fork aspect of QMS quality assured Scottish pig production is to be highly valued

*Iain Macdonald, Economics Analyst, Quality Meat Scotland

lms©

Efficient Energy Use in Pig Feed Production- 1

Funded by Scottish Government as part of the QMS Strengthening Labels (Pig Resource Use Efficiency Programme)

1. An estimated 85.6% of QMS assured Scottish sow herd and 83,6% of all the finished pigs are fed from feed prepared on the home farm and from feed mostly sourced from the home farm or locally

2. More than 17,000 tonnes is produced by mobile mill and mix units

3. There is a 3.2p/unit price difference in daytime tariff rates on units with > 100,000 units/annum consumption

lms©

Efficient Energy Use in Pig Feed Production - 2

Funded by Scottish Government as part of the QMS Strengthening Labels (Pig Resource Use Efficiency Programme)

1. Automation of milling to facilitate night-time operation could save energy costs of up to 38%

2. Farm mill and mix is consuming between 10% and 38% of whole farm annual electricity consumption

3. Renewing hammers and screens reduced energy use/kg feed produced by 3% and increased throughput by 5%

4. Feed grist size was improved by renewing hammers and screens

THANK YOU

13.45 Farming the Potential Inside the Farm gate

Justin McCarthy, Editor and CEO, Irish Farmers Journal

14.20 Me and My Cattle Business Danny Miller, Farmer, Caithness

14.45 Coffee Break

15.00 Resource Use Efficiency of Energy

Jamie Robertson, Livestock Management Systems

15.25 Making the Most of PR Opportunities

Carol McLaren, Head of Communications, QMS and Hamish Dykes, Farmer, West Linton

15.50 Take Home Messages

Jim McLaren, Chairman, QMS

16.00 End of Event