Abstract #M155
Section: Forages and Pastures
Session: Forages and Pastures I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
Session: Forages and Pastures I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
# M155
Feed laboratory demographics and utilization in the United States.
J. Severe*1, A. J. Young1, 1Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Key Words: feed laboratories, NIR, survey
Feed laboratory demographics and utilization in the United States.
J. Severe*1, A. J. Young1, 1Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Feed analysis is the basis for buying and selling many feeds of interest. The point of contact between these 2 entities is the laboratory that analyzed the sample. Little research has been conducted specifically to describe feed laboratories in the United States; therefore, the objective of these surveys was to determine US feed laboratory demographics and utilization. In the first survey, laboratory demographic data were compiled from internet and laboratory sources. Based on this information, 114 feed laboratories were identified and selected. About 76% of the laboratories were commercial entities; the rest were state departments of agriculture (17%), universities (5%), and USDA (2%). Interestingly, universities in the Gulf and southeast US sponsored 63% of feed laboratories in that region. Approximately 80% of labs used wet chemistry and 52% used NIR analysis. Mean participation in NFTA certification from 2010 to 2014 was 67%. Commercial laboratories credited in refereed journals increased by 450% from 2004 to 2013; 3 laboratories accounted for 85% of credits. The second survey collected data from members of a trade organization with a response rate of 52% (161 out of 308); 72% indicated that they used a laboratory. Laboratory use by trade sector was beef (47%), equine (46%), retail feeds (60%), dairy (100%), and export (100%). Respondents reported using 45 different feed laboratories; one was used by 22% of respondents. Qualities that determined lab selection from most to least important were certification, reputation, sample turnaround time, and cost. Preference was for NIR (47%) compared with chemical analysis (21%), or no preference (32%). Preference for NIR was primarily due to turnaround time, while preference for wet chemistry was chiefly due to accuracy. Fifty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with feed laboratory performance, 49% reported financial lost due to feed analysis concerns, and 35% indicated harm to business relationships from feed analysis issues. These surveys show that out of 114 labs, 2 or 3 analyze most of the samples. All individuals associated with the dairy and export market use laboratories and NIR is evolving toward becoming the preferred method for analysis.
Key Words: feed laboratories, NIR, survey