Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KSU Swine Day 2017
Overview of feed science research
• 3-Sieve particle size analysis• Hammermill tip speed• Feed sampling
3‐Sieve Particle Size Analysis
3‐Sieve Particle Size Analysis
1. 50 ± 5 g samples2. No dispersing agent
recommended3. Hand shaken side‐to‐side
for 90 seconds4. Updated spread sheet
soon on www.ksuswine.org
220
320
420
520
620
720
10,000 15,000 20,000
6/64"10/64"16/64"
Screen hole diameter
linear interaction, P = 0.077
Tip Speed, ft/minGeo
metric
mean diam
eter
(dgw),
µmTip speed and screen hole diameter
Saensukjaroenphon et al. 2017
Main effects of tip speed and screen size on flowability
38.0
41.444.3
30.0
36.0
42.0
48.0
10,250 15,375 20,500Angle of re
pose, °
Tip speed, ft/min
SEM 0.80Linear, P < 0.001
38.641.3
43.9
30.0
36.0
42.0
48.0
16/64 10/64 6/64Angle of re
pose, °
Screen hole diamete
SEM 0.80Linear, P < 0.001
Saensukjaroenphon et al. 2017
Jones et al., 2017
Jones et al., 2017
Jones et al., 2017
Jones et al., 2017
Sample Size Calculations for Cu
Individual Feeder Sampling Composite Samples
Hand Probe Hand Probe
Margin of Error C. I. Feeders Feeders Samples Samples± 10 ppm 95% 39 15 9 6± 15 ppm 95% 17 7 4 2± 20 ppm 95% 10 4 2 1± 25 ppm 95% 6 2 1 1± 30 ppm 95% 4 2 1 1
Jones et al., 2017
Individual Feeder Sampling Composite Samples
Hand Probe Hand Probe
Margin of Error C. I. Feeders Feeders Samples Samples± 10 ppm 95% 12 11 6 5± 15 ppm 95% 5 5 2 2± 20 ppm 95% 3 3 1 1± 25 ppm 95% 2 2 1 1± 30 ppm 95% 1 1 1 1
Sample Size Calculations for Zn
Jones et al., 2017
Summary
• 3‐Sieve particle size analysis spread sheet is updated on www.ksuswine.org
• Variable frequency drives can be used to achieve particle size range for a specified hammermill screen size– Increasing tip speed from 10,250 to 20,500 ft/min reduced dgw by 231, 258, and 350 µm when using a #6, #10, and #16.
• To minimize variation and reduce analytical cost, collect samples with a probe from 6 feeders and composite before analysis
Feed Safety
Cassie JonesKansas State University
November 16th, 2017K-State Swine Day
• Dust control• Receiving procedures• Personnel zoning• Flushing and sequencing
• Point‐in‐time• Thermal processing• Radiation
• Chemical additive application
• Facility decontamination
Feed Safety
Sources of Feed Imports16
IngredientTons
imported
Soybeans 98,623
Lys HCl 23,666
Soybean meal 7,311
Tetracycline 1,556
DL-Met 372
USDA, 2017US Harmonized Tariff Schedule/Dee et al., 2016
17
Disease Distribution
World Animal Health Information Database, 2017
Foot and Mouth Disease
Classical Swine Fever Virus
18
Ingredient PEDVSenecavirus
(FMDV)
African Swine
Fever Virus
PorcineSapelovirus
(SwineVesicular
Disease Virus) PCV2Pseudorabies
Virus PRRSVSoybean meal-ConventionalSoybean meal-OrganicSoy oil cakeDDGSLysineCholineVitamin DMoist cat food
Moist dog food
Dry dog foodPork sausagecasingsComplete feed(+ control)Complete feed(- control)Stock virus(+ control)
Disease Survival During Transboundary TravelDee et al., 2017
Current Projects• Viruses
– Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus mitigation in swine feed
– African Swine Fever Virus detection and mitigation in swine feed
– Senecavirus A detection and mitigation with FMD modeling in swine feed
– Detection and mitigation of transboundary foreign animal diseases
• Bacteria– Salmonella prevalence in U.S. swine feed mills
– Factors influencing Salmonella growth in poultry fat intended for pet food
• Mycotoxins– Corn cleaning to reduce contamination with aflatoxin and fumonisin
– Swine feeding experiments to evaluate additive impacts
• Antimicrobial replacement strategies
• Feed safety regulatory training
K-State Feed Safety Team• Animal Scientists
– Dr. Cassie Jones, feed safety
– Dr. Jason Woodworth, swine nutrition
• Feed Scientists– Dr. Charles Stark, feed mill operations
– Dr. Chad Paulk, feed quality
• Food Scientists– Dr. Valentina Trinetta, microbiology
• Microbiologists– Dr. Valentina Trinetta, food science
– Dr. Raghu Amachawadi, microbiology
– Dr. T.G. Nagaraja, microbiology
• Diagnostic/Veterinary Medicine– Dr. Jianfa Bai, molecular diagnostics
– Dr. Natalia Cernicchiaro, epidemiology
– Dr. Steve Dritz, swine health
– Dr. Megan Niederwerder, virology
– Dr. Bob Rowland, virology
• Outside Collaborators– Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory
– Murdoch University
– Pipestone Applied Research
• Sponsors– National Pork Board/USDA
– Swine Health Information Center
– State of Kansas National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility Fund
22
Salmonella in swine feed mills
Boccatto et al., 2017
Salmonella in swine feed mills23
59% 56%
82%
31%25%
82% 80%
64% 68%54%
70%
91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P < 0.05
Boccatto et al., 2017
Environmental contamination after PEDV-inoculated feed
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
Po
siti
ve C
t fo
r PED
V, %
Adjacentsurfaces
Structuralsurfaces
Direct feedcontact surfaces
Schumacher et al., 2017
Gebhardt et al. (2016):Dust infectious
Schumacher et al. (2016):First 2 flushes infectious
P < 0.05
Feed Mill Biosecurity
• Control traffic• Do NOT add dust back to feed to save on shrink
25
Management of High Mycotoxin Corn
Maximum levels of mycotoxins in swine feed and ingredients established or recommended in FDA guidance
Aflatoxin
Finishing swine > 100 pounds
200 ppb
Breeding swine 100 ppbImmature animals 20 ppb
Deoxynivalenol/vomitoxin
5 ppm (< 20% of the diet)
Fumonisins20 ppm (< 50% of
the diet)
Yoder et al., 2017
27
“Overs”
“Unders”
Screenings (6% weight)
1/2”
3/16”
Cleaned Corn(94% weight)
• > 3 tons single load corn • 20 lots, 3 cleaning runs per lot• Composite samples analyzed
for mycotoxins
Management of High Mycotoxin Corn
Yoder et al., 2017
Management of High Mycotoxin Corn
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Aflatoxin, ppbUncleaned Cleaned Screenings
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Fumonisin, ppmUncleaned Cleaned Screenings
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Ochratoxin AUncleaned Cleaned Screenings
↓26%
↓45%
No Change
↑393% ↑731% ↑273%
P < 0.05
Yoder et al., 2017
Feed mills frequently return screenings to the ground corn bin to minimize shrink.
Take Home Messages• Extend farm-based biosecurity practices to the feed mill
– Restrict traffic– Strategic flushing/sequencing– Proactive interventions
• Control dust, control dust, control dust• Cleaning can reduce mycotoxin risk• Shrink is expensive, but consider risk of:
– Disease transmission via dust– Pulses of high mycotoxin levels
Congratulations!• Graduate Student Achievements
– Hilda Calderón Cartagena ‐ K‐State Presidential Doctoral Scholarship
– Roger Cochrane – K‐State Presidential Doctoral Scholarship, Endeavour Research Fellow in Australia
– Jordan Gebhardt ‐Midwest ASAS 1st place PhD oral presentation; AASV 1st place poster presentation
– Kiah Gourley – Midwest ASAS 2nd place oral presentation, K‐State Donoghue Graduate Scholarship, Feed Energy Excellence in Ag Scholarship, International Ingredients Pinnacle Award, College of Ag Nunemacher Scholarship
– Jose Soto –Evonik Future Leaders Scholar
Congratulations!• Graduate Student Achievements
– Lori Thomas – K‐State Donoghue Graduate Scholarship, Australasian Pig Science Travel Award
– Carine Vier ‐Midwest ASAS 1st place PhD poster presentation, Australasian Pig Science Travel Award, Bob and Karen ThalerGraduate Student Swine Nutrition Scholarship
– Arkin Wu– Australasian Pig Science Travel Award
• Undergraduate Student Achievements– Gage Nichols, Midwest ASAS oral undergraduate competition and NPB Scholarship recipient
Medium Chain Fatty Acids• Fatty acids with 6‐12 carbons• Not common in most feed ingredients• Potential modes of action
– Bind with cell membrane proteins– Incorporation into the cell membrane– Causes destabilization of the cell membrane bi‐layer
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
0 10 20 30 40
Quantita
tive CT
Value
Day
Untreated control Medium chain fatty acid Commercial formaldehyde
All effects and interactions, P < 0.0001
Cochrane et al., 2015
Treating Complete Diet with MCFA reduces PEDV
0.56
0.610.65 0.67
0.710.65
0.69
0.59
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
ADG, lb
Medium chain fatty acid inclusion on nursery pig growth performance (15 to 25 lb)
MCFA blend 1:1:1 (C6, C8, C10), % C6 C8 C10
Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P = 0.376SEM = 0.028
Gebhardt et al., 2017
aa
avs control P< 0.02
1.30
1.211.17 1.20 1.17 1.19 1.19
1.22
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
0.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
F/G
Medium chain fatty acid inclusion on nursery pig growth performance (15 to 25 lb)
MCFA blend 1:1:1 (C6, C8, C10), % C6 C8 C10
Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P = 0.012SEM = 0.020
Gebhardt et al., 2017
a
avs control P= 0.005
aa
Formaldehyde treatment of feed
• Treating diets with formaldehyde is a beneficial practice recognized by the poultry industry.
• Formaldehyde is effective at reducing PEDV infectivity in contaminated feed and ingredients (Cochrane et al., 2015).
• Formaldehyde is known to produce reactions with numerous groups of AA residues of proteins (Metz et al., 2004).
• Little data on formaldehyde impacts on swine performance
Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on ADG
‐ Sal CURB + Sal CURB
1.32
1.20 1.20
1.13 1.14
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Control Low Syn High Syn Low Syn High Syn
ADG, lb
SEM = 0.02Sal CURB, P < 0.001Control vs. Others, P < 0.001
Williams et al., 2017
Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on F/G
‐ Sal CURB + Sal CURB
1.57
1.711.77
1.811.77
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Control Low Syn High Syn Low Syn High Syn
SEM = 0.01Sal CURB, P < 0.001Sal CURB x AA, P < 0.001Control vs. Others, P < 0.001
Williams et al., 2017
a
dc
b
c
Lysine Content, %
‐Sal Curb + Sal Curb
Item Control Low Syn High Syn Low Syn High Syn
Calculated
Total Lys 1.64 1.36 1.33 1.36 1.33
Free Lys 0.41 0.05 0.34 0.05 0.34
Analyzed
Total Lys 1.59 1.32 1.28 1.21 1.24
Available Lys 1.56 1.32 1.29 1.19 1.25
Free Lys 0.30 0.06 0.25 0.06 0.26
Williams et al., 2017
Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on abundance of Lactobacillaceae
‐ Sal CURB + Sal CURB
17.3
11.99.9
0.60 1.040.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Control Low Syn High Syn Low Syn High Syn
%
Williams et al., 2017
SEM = 1.88Sal CURB, P < 0.001Low vs High, P < 0.001
Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on abundance Streptococcaceae
‐ Sal CURB + Sal CURB
4.52
6.19
3.3
0.02 0.310
2
4
6
8
Control Low AA High AA Low AA High AA
%
Williams et al., 2017
SEM = 1.88Sal CURB, P < 0.001Low vs High, P < 0.011
Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on abundance Clostridiaceae
‐ Sal CURB + Sal CURB
19.0 19.2
25.928.0
35.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Control Low Syn High Syn Low Syn High Syn
%
Williams et al., 2017
SEM = 2.65Sal CURB, P < 0.001Low vs High, P < 0.007
Effects of replacing fish meal with ESBM on ADG
0.55
0.610.59
0.560.54
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70P =0.081SEM = 023
yz
x
yzxy
z
Negcontrol
FMcontrol
Lb for lb SID Lys 15%ESBM
ESBM replacingfish meal
Jones et al., 2017
Effects of replacing fish meal with ESBM on F/G
1.55
1.46
1.41 1.41
1.45
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60P < 0.001SEM = 025
a
Negcontrol
FMcontrol
Lb for lb SID Lys 15%ESBM
ESBM replacingfish meal
Jones et al., 2017
b
b b
b
Increasing fish solubles in fish meal on ADG
0.65
0.71
0.68
0.71 0.71
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
Control 0.87 8.70 16.52 24.35
lb
Linear, P = 0.704Quadratic, P = 0.395Control vs. Fish meal, P = 0.001SEM = 0.033
Fish Solubles, %
Jones et al., 2017
Increasing fish solubles in fish meal on F/G
1.41
1.381.40 1.39 1.40
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
Control 0.87 8.70 16.52 24.35
Linear, P = 0.359Quadratic, P = 0.630Control vs. Fish meal, P = 0.277SEM = 0.033
Fish Solubles, %
Jones et al., 2017
Recent Graduates with Statistics Emphasis:
MarcioGoncalvesDVM PhD
SureemasNitikanchanaDVM PhD
Chad PaulkPhD
Josh FlohrPhD
• Hilda Calderón Cartagena, MS• Kessinee Chitakasempornkul, MS• Carine Vier DVM
• Dr. Nora Bello DVM PhD• Dr. Trevor Hefley PhD• Dr. Chris Vahl PhD
• Dr. Ernie Minton – Ag Experiment Station Support
:Special Recognition to our current Statistical Team:
0.62
0.55
0.63
0.60
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
Whey Lactose Lactose Lactose
ADG, lb
7 lbsalt
Added Na and Cl for 15–24 lb nursery pigs
ab Means differ P < 0.05SEM = 0.021
Shawk et al., 2016
Diet Na, % 0.37 0.18 0.35 0.35Diet Cl, % 0.75 0.47 0.72 0.45
12 lbsalt
15.5 lbsalt
23 lbNaHCO3+ 8 lb KCl
a
b
a
ab
0.430.48
0.52 0.56 0.56
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0 4 8 12 16
ADG, lb
Added salt for 15–22 lb nursery pigs on ADG
Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.13 0.21 0.29 0.37 0.45
Linear, P < 0.001SEM = 0.023
Shawk et al., 2016
NRC, 20120.35% Na
1.161.31 1.34 1.40 1.39
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
4 7 10 13 16
ADG, lb
Added salt for 25–45 lb nursery pigs on ADG
Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.28 0.30
Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P < 0.001SEM = 0.027
Shawk et al., 2017
NRC, 20120.28% Na
1.611.48 1.46 1.45 1.44
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
4 7 10 13 16
F/G
Added salt for 25–45 lb nursery pigs on F/G
Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.28 0.30
Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P < 0.012SEM = 0.025
Shawk et al., 2017
NRC, 20120.28% Na
1.78 1.771.84
1.80 1.82
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
4 7 10 13 16
ADG, lb
Added salt for 45‐67 lb nursery pigs on ADG
Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.28 0.30
Linear, P < 0.213Quadratic, P < 0.672SEM = 0.033
Shawk et al., 2017NRC, 2012
0.28 to 0.10% Na
1.64 1.64 1.631.70
1.67
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
4 7 10 13 16
F/G
Added salt for 45‐67 lb nursery pigs on F/G
Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.28 0.30
Linear, P < 0.095Quadratic, P < 0.843SEM = 0.019
Shawk et al., 2017NRC, 2012
0.28 to 0.10% Na
1.88 1.87 1.88 1.87
1.25
1.75
2.25
2.75
2.0 6.5 11.0 15.0
ADG, lb
Added salt for 60–140 lb pigs on ADG
Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.22 0.25 0.34
Linear, P < 0.690Quadratic, P < 0.919SEM = 0.018
NRC, 20120.10% Na Shawk et al., 2017
1.96 2.00 2.01 1.98
1.25
1.75
2.25
2.75
2.0 6.5 11.0 15.0
Added salt for 60–140 lb pigs on F/G
Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.22 0.25 0.34
Linear, P < 0.589Quadratic, P < 0.392SEM = 0.035
NRC, 20120.10% Na Shawk et al., 2017
Determining the standardized total tract digestible phosphorus requirement of
nursery pigs
Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus ADG, 25 to 50 lb pigs
STTD P, %
1.13 1.121.17 1.17
1.25 1.24 1.26
1.00
1.07
1.14
1.21
1.28
1.35
0.26 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53
ADG, lb
SEM = 0.026Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P < 0.718
% of NRC 80 90 100 115 130 145 160
Vier et al., 2017
Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus F/G, 25 to 50 lb pigs
STTD P, %
1.521.50
1.46 1.471.45 1.46 1.45
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
0.26 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53
F/G
SEM = 0.015Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P < 0.067
% of NRC 80 90 100 115 130 145 160
Vier et al. 2017
Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus Income over feed cost, 25 to 50 lb pigs
STTD P, %
7.26 7.26
7.69 7.62
8.14 8.038.19
6.80
7.40
8.00
8.60
0.26 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53
$/pig
SEM = 0.168Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P < 0.408
% of NRC 80 90 100 115 130 145 160
Vier et al., 2017
Effects of dietary Ca:P ratio on growth performance of nursery pigs
• Objective:To determine the growth performance of nursery pigs fed 2 levels of Ca in combination with 3 standardized total tract digestible (STTD) P treatments.
Wu et al., 2017
Effects of dietary Ca:STTD P ratio on ADG (d 0 to 28)
0.81 c0.84 bc
0.81 c
0.69 d
0.91 a0.88 ab
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
Analyzed Ca 0.58 1.03 0.58 1.03 0.46 0.91Ca with phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.58 1.03STTD P no phytase 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33STTD P w/phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.45 0.45Total Ca:STTD P 1.29 2.29 1.76 3.12 1.29 2.29
ADG, lb
Ca × P: P < 0.01 Ca: P < 0.01P: P < 0.01SEM = 0.015
NRC, 2012:STTD P = 0.40%Total Ca = 0.80%
Wu et al., 2017
F/G
1.37 b 1.39 b1.35 b
1.56 a
1.35 b1.40 b
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80NRC, 2012:STTD P = 0.40%Total Ca = 0.80%
Ca × P: P < 0.01Ca: P < 0.01P: P < 0.01SEM = 0.013
Analyzed Ca 0.58 1.03 0.58 1.03 0.46 0.91Ca with phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.58 1.03STTD P no phytase 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33STTD P w/phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.45 0.45Total Ca:STTD P 1.29 2.29 1.76 3.12 1.29 2.29
Effects of dietary Ca:STTD P ratio on F/G (d 0 to 28)
Wu et al., 2017
%
45.62 ab
47.95 a
44.11 bc
42.63 c
45.75 ab 45.50 ab
41.00
43.00
45.00
47.00
49.00Ca × P: P < 0.007Ca: P < 0.69P: P < 0.001SEM = 0.611
Analyzed Ca 0.58 1.03 0.58 1.03 0.46 0.91Ca with phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.58 1.03STTD P no phytase 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33STTD P w/phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.45 0.45Total Ca:STTD P 1.29 2.29 1.76 3.12 1.29 2.29
Effects of dietary Ca:STTD P ratio on bone ash (d 0 to 28)
Wu et al., 2017
Phosphorus and phytase on nursery pig ADG
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170%
ADG, lb
P, % of NRC requirement
No phytase Phytase
Wu et al., 2018
Phytase, P < 0.001P no phytase, Quad. P < 0.005P with phytase, Quad. P < 0.031 Phytase = 2,000 FYT HiPhos
Phosphorus and phytase on nursery pig ADFI
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170%
ADFI, lb
P, % of NRC requirement
No phytase Phytase
Wu et al., 2018
Phytase, P < 0.001P no phytase, Quad. P < 0.043P with phytase, Quad. P < 0.262 Phytase = 2,000 FYT HiPhos
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170%
F/G
P, % of NRC requirement
No phytase Phytase
Phosphorus and phytase on nursery pig F/G
Wu et al., 2018
Phytase = 2,000 FYT HiPhos
Phytase, P < 0.001P no phytase, Quad. P < 0.063P with phytase, Quad. P < 0.065
Effects of standardized total tract digestible phosphorus on
growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing‐finishing pigs
Modeled ADG
QP model estimated the maximum mean ADG at 122% (95% CI: [104, 143%]) of the NRC (2012)
140
140
Modeled G:F
QP model estimated the maximum mean G:F at 116% (95% CI: [90, >150%]) of the NRC (2012)
140
Modeled bone ash%
The BLL model estimated the maximum mean ash % at 131% (95% CI: [113, 148%]) of the NRC (2012)
Change in average U.S. nursery and finishing performance over the last 25 years
Nursery Finishing1990 2005 2015 % 1990 2005 2015 %
Start wt, lb 13.0 12.2 14.1 14% 50.0 50.0 53.6 7%End wt, lb 50.0 50.0 53.6 7% 250.0 259.5 277.3 7%ADG, lb 0.71 0.81 0.82 1% 1.47 1.61 1.85 15%ADFI, lb 1.42 1.27 1.26 0% 5.10 4.54 4.98 10%F/G 2.00 1.57 1.54 ‐2% 3.47 2.82 2.69 ‐5%
1990 PigChamp Summary; U.S. Pork Industry Productivity Summary
The theory behind the economic model for optimum energy level for growing‐finishing pigs
J. A. Soto1*, M. D. Tokach1, S. S. Dritz1, M. A. D. Gonçalves2, J. C. Woodworth1, J. M. DeRouchey1,
R. D. Goodband1, and U. Orlando2
1Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS2PIC‐USA Hendersonville, TN
Setting dietary energy level
• Must know how in incremental change in dietary energy influences:– Diet cost– Pig performance (ADG, F/G)– Carcass criteria (dressing %, lean %)
• Market price to determine value of changes in pig performance
Influence of energy intake on feed efficiency
70%75%80%85%90%95%100%105%
2700 2900 3100 3300 3500
% of M
ax G/F
ME, kcal/kg
Stein et al., 1996
Beaulieu et al., 2015
Predicted ADG of pigs fed varying Dietary NE
NE, kcal/kg
2,800
2,4002,000
ADG, g = 0.1135×NE (kcal/kg) + 8.8142×Average BW (kg)
– 0.05068×[Average BW (kg)]2+ 275.99
Nitikanchana et al. (2015). J. Anim. Sci. 93:2826‐2839
Impact of increasing NDF on Carcass Yield
Coble et al. (2015).
Carcass yield prediction equation Summary of papers used in regression analysis
Soto et al. (2017)
First author, year Source1 NDF12, % NDF23, % WP4, d Initial BW, kg Final BW, kg Yield, %
Asmus, 2014 J 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐47 41.0 122.8 71.6 ‐ 73.2Coble, 2015 (exp. 1) T 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐20 38.4 126.0 71.2 ‐ 72.7Coble, 2015 (exp. 2) T 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.3 0‐24 44.5 132.5 74.3 ‐ 75.4Gaines, 2007 J 8.7 ‐ 15.3 8.8 ‐ 15.3 0‐42 66.1 128.5 75.9 ‐ 77.1Graham, 2014 J 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐24 55.8 126.8 72.8 ‐ 74.2Jacela, 2009 M 8.5 ‐ 15.0 8.4 ‐ 14.9 0‐41 39.0 121.5 75.1 ‐ 75.9Nemecheck, 2013 J 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐17 49.6 129.0 74.7 ‐ 75.1Xu, 2010 J 8.8 ‐ 15.3 8.8 ‐ 15.3 0‐63 30.0 125.0 75.8 ‐ 77.0
1 Source type: J=Journal, T=Thesis, M=Technical memo.2 Range of NDF concentration in dietary phase before the final phase.3 Range of NDF concentration in final dietary phase before marketing.4 Range of withdrawal period.
Carcass yield prediction equation
Resulting equation:
Database building Each dietary treatment was reformulated NRC ingredient library (Chapter 17, 2012).
Soto et al. (2017)
= 0.03492 × WP (d) – 0.05092 × NDF1 (%) – 0.06897 × NDF2 (%) – 0.00289 × (NDF2 (%) × WP (d)) + 76.0769
NDF1 (%) = NDF concentration in dietary phase before final dietary phase.
NDF2 (%) = NDF concentration in final dietary phase before marketing.
WP (d) = Withdrawal period.
Yield, %
Predicted carcass yield
73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pred
icted carcass y
ield, %
Withdrawal period, d
9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF
Soto et al. (2017)
Predicted carcass yield
73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pred
icted carcass y
ield, %
Withdrawal period, d
9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF 16 to 9% NDF
Soto et al. (2017)
Predicted carcass yield
73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pred
icted carcass y
ield, %
Withdrawal period, d
9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF 16 to 9% NDF 21 to 9% NDF
Soto et al. (2017)
Predicted carcass yield
73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pred
icted carcass y
ield, %
Withdrawal period, d
9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF16 to 9% NDF 16 to 13% NDF 21 to 9% NDF
Soto et al. (2017)
Predicted carcass yield
73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pred
icted carcass y
ield, %
Withdrawal period, d
9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF 16 to 9% NDF16 to 13% NDF 21 to 9% NDF 21 to 13% NDF
Soto et al. (2017)
Economics & System Performance
Model settings Nutritional program
Economic model for optimum dietary energy for growing‐finishing pigs
www.KSUswine.org
Phase feeding strategies and lysine specifications for grow‐finish pigs
Phase 1 2 3 4Weight, lb 60‐110 110‐160 160‐220 220‐280Treatment SID Lys, %MAX 1.13 0.96 0.82 0.77STD 1.02 0.87 0.76 0.67STD/MAX 1.02 0.87 0.82 0.772‐PHASE (MAX) 0.96 0.77
Treatment SID Lys:ME, g/McalMAX 3.42 2.89 2.46 2.29STD 3.08 2.62 2.28 1.99STD/MAX 3.08 2.62 2.46 2.292‐PHASE (MAX) 2.89 2.29
Menegat et al., 2017
1.93ab
1.88b1.92ab
1.94a
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
2.05
MAX STD STD/MAX 2‐PHASE
ADG, lb
ADG, d 0 to 117
Phase feeding strategies and lysine specifications for grow‐finish pigs
SEM = 0.014ab P = 0.048
Menegat et al., 2017
2.62 2.64 2.63 2.60
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
MAX STD STD/MAX 2‐PHASE
F/G
F/G, d 0 to 117
Phase feeding strategies and lysine specifications for grow‐finish pigs
SEM = 0.019P = 0.193
Menegat et al., 2017
207.7204.4
207.3 208.5
180
190
200
210
220
MAX STD STD/MAX 2‐PHASE
HCW
, lb
Hot Carcass Weight
Phase feeding strategies and lysine specifications for grow‐finish pigs
SEM = 1.79P = 0.218
Menegat et al., 2017
0.212a
0.206b0.210a
0.213a
$0.19
$0.20
$0.21
$0.22
MAX STD STD/MAX 2‐PHASE
Feed
cost, $/lbgain
Feed cost per lb of gain
Phase feeding strategies and lysine specifications for grow‐finish pigs
SEM = 0.001ab P < 0.001
Menegat et al., 2017
Corn $3.30/bu; soybean meal $290/ton; DDGS $94/ton; L‐lys $0.75/lb
65.08 65.42 65.72 65.43
$60
$62
$64
$66
$68
$70
MAX STD STD/MAX 2‐PHASE
IOFC, $/pig
Income Over Feed Cost
Phase feeding strategies and lysine specifications for grow‐finish pigs
SEM = 0.83P = 0.957
Menegat et al., 2017
Corn $3.30/bu; soybean meal $290/ton; DDGS $94/ton; L‐lys $0.75/lbRevenue = $70/cwt of carcass gain
Late Finishing Dietary Crude Protein
• Use of synthetic amino acids allow for diets that “on paper” are balanced for essential amino acids.
• However clear evidence exists that late finishing pigs will not perform as expected if crude protein is allowed to decrease.– Specific reason has yet to be identified
1.791.88
1.97 2.01 2.05
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
9 10 11 12 13
ADG, lb
Crude protein, %
Soto et al., 2017
Linear, P = 0.508Quadratic, P < 0.001SEM = 0.050
Determination of optimum levels of crude protein in finishing pigs from 245 to 300 lb
Determination of optimum levels of crude protein in finishing pigs from 245 to 300 lb
3.71 3.71
3.513.42
3.34
3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.8
9 10 11 12 13
F/G
Crude protein, %
Linear, P = 0.336Quadratic, P < 0.001SEM = 0.057
Soto et al., 2017
Percent of maximum response at different CP levels for finishing pigs from 240 to 300 lb
Crude protein, %9 10 11 12 13
ADG, %PIC1 ‐‐‐ 84.1 94.0 100.0 99.0DNA2 87.3 91.7 96.1 98.0 100.0ADFI, %PIC ‐‐‐ 90.9 95.7 100.0 97.3DNA 95.2 100.0 99.9 99.1 98.8G:F, %PIC ‐‐‐ 91.3 96.2 98.4 100.0DNA 90.3 90.6 95.3 98.0 100.0
1A total of 224 pigs (PIC 1050 × 327; initially 241.1 lb) were used in a 20‐d experiment. Diets contained 0.66 SID Lys and 1,194 Kcal NE/lb.2A total of 238 pigs (DNA 600 × 241; initially 246.4 lb) were used in a 26‐d experiment. Diets contained 0.55 SID Lys and 1,198 Kcal NE/lb. Soto et al., 2017
Effects of soybean meal level in 12% CP diets on performance of finishing pigs from 250 to 300 lb
280 finishing pigs (DNA 600 × 241, BW 251.9 lb) 26‐d trial 6 pens per treatment with 7 or 8 pigs/pen Pen allotted by BW and assigned to 1 of 6 dietary treatments
Treatments Soybean Meal, % Crude Protein, %1 (Neg. Control) 4.0 10.02 (Pos. Control) 10.6 12.0
3 7.7 12.04 4.9 12.05 2.7 12.06 0.0 12.0
Soto et al. 2017
2.12 2.102.06 2.06
1.99 1.98
1.85
1.95
2.05
2.15
4.0 10.6 7.7 4.9 2.7 0.0
10.0 12.0
ADG, lb
Effect of soybean meal level on ADG of finishingpigs from 250 to 300 lb (d 0 to 26)
SBM, %:
CP, %:
NC vs. PC P= 0.774Linear, P = 0.061Quadratic, P = 0.952SEM = 0.049
Soto et al. 2017
3.76
3.543.61
3.67
3.96 3.91
3.30
3.50
3.70
3.90
4.10
4.0 10.6 7.7 4.9 2.7 0.0
10.0 12.0
F/G
SBM, %:
CP, %:
NC vs. PC P= 0.087Linear, P = 0.007Quadratic, P = 0.950SEM = 0.100
Effect of soybean meal level on F/G of finishingpigs from 250 to 300 lb (d 0 to 26)
Soto et al. 2017
Failed attempts to restore performance in low crude protein diets
• Added choline chloride• Added potassium chloride• Dietary electrolyte balance• Soy protein concentrate
Effect of number of cup waterers per pen on growing and finishing pig performance
(27 pigs/pen; 36 to 250 lb)
Conducted May to
September 2017
Vier et al., 2018
Vier et al., 2018
Effect of number of cup waterers per pen on growing and finishing pig performance
(27 pigs/pen; 36 to 250 lb)
Linear, P = 0.038Quadratic = 0.646SEM = 0.013
1.841.87 1.88
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
1 2 3
ADG
Cup drinkers per 27 pigs
Vier et al., 2018
Effect of number of cup waterers per pen on growing and finishing pig performance
(27 pigs/pen; 36 to 250 lb)
Linear, P = 0.198Quadratic = 0.571SEM = 0.033
4.44 4.454.51
4.104.204.304.404.504.604.704.80
1 2 3
ADFI
Cup drinkers per 27 pigs
Vier et al., 2018
Effect of number of cup waterers per pen on growing and finishing pig performance
(27 pigs/pen; 36 to 250 lb)
Linear, P = 0.527Quadratic = 0.259SEM = 0.016
2.41 2.39 2.40
2.002.102.202.302.402.502.602.702.80
1 2 3
F/G
Cup drinkers per 27 pigs
Average number of pigs included in papers published in Swine Day
1,044 1,619 2,909 3,0944,763
9,044
14,52815,160
25,432 27,007
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,00019
68‐1972
1973
‐1977
1978
‐1982
1983
‐1987
1988
‐1992
1993
‐1997
1998
‐2002
2003
‐2007
2008
‐2012
2013
‐2017
Pigs, n
2017 Swine Day Reportavailable at:
www.KSUswine.org
• 54 papers• 56 experiments• > 39,000 pigs
2017
Swine Network Analysis• Objective: Characterize causal biological
relationships between reproductive traits in high-performing gilts and sows.
• Data: Goncalves et al., 2016 JAS • Structural equation models combined with structure‐
learning algorithms adapted to a hierarchical Bayesian framework.
Chitakasempornkul et al., 2018
Electronic Sow Feeding
To determine the effects of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on sow performance and
piglet birth weight
Graduate student: Lori ThomasUndergraduate student: Lauren Herd
Objective
Procedures• A total of 971 females (498 gilts and 473 parity 2+ sows)
• Pens equipped with 6 ESFs with approximately 275 females per pen
• Females had to walk over a scale after leaving the feeding stations for calculating daily weight changes
Electronic Sow Feeders
Scale System
514 515
522
527
500
510
520
530
540
11 13.5 16 18.5
lb
SEM = 1.7Linear P < 0.001
Thomas et al., 2018
SID Lysine % .54 .66 .78 .91SID Lysine g/d
Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on final BW
Initial BW = 412 lb
17.3 17.5 17.5 17.5
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
11 13.5 16 18.5
mm
SEM = 0.25No differences P > 0.10
Thomas et al., 2018
SID Lysine % .54 .66 .78 .91SID Lysine g/d
Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on final backfat
Initial backfat = 14.7 mm
15.5 15.7 15.5 15.6
13
14
15
16
17
11 13.5 16 18.5
Total born, n
SEM = 0.209No differences P > 0.10
Thomas et al., 2018
SID Lysine % .54 .66 .78 .91SID Lysine g/d
Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on total born
2.82 2.802.84 2.82
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
11 13.5 16 18.5
lb
SID Lysine % .54 .66 .78 .91
SEM = 0.031No differences P > 0.10
SID Lysine g/d
Thomas et al., 2018
Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on piglet BW
Initial Analysis• No treatment by parity interactions
• No effects on total born piglet birth weight
Future Analysis• Effects on number of pigs born alive and weaned?
• Effects on subsequent reproductive performance?
• What effect does increased lean gain have on sow
performance?
Stay Tuned!!!!
To determine the effects of increasing dietary lysine during lactation on sow and litter
performance
Graduate Student: Kiah Gourley
Objective
Materials and Methods
• 710 mixed parity sows (DNA Line 241)• Pillen Family Farms (Columbus, NE)• On d 112 of gestation, sows were allotted by BW to treatment diets:–0.75, 0.90, 1.05, 1.20% SID Lys
• Fed diets from d 114 of gestation to weaning
SID Lysine Intake, g/d
48.4
57.2
70.2 70.6
35
45
55
65
75
85
0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20
g/d
SID Lysine, %
Gourley et al., 2017
‐78.7‐70.3
‐62.8‐69.7
‐80
‐60
‐40
‐200.75 0.90 1.05 1.20
BW Change, lb
SEM = 1.50linear, P = 0.003
quadratic, P = 0.004Trt within Parity, P = 0.02
SID Lysine, %
Sow BW Change, d 112 to Wean
Gourley et al., 2017
SEM = 3.1linear, P = 0.361quadratic, P = 0.107
Sow BW Change, d 112 to Wean
‐82 ‐84
‐68
‐82
‐66‐62
‐66
‐75
‐49
‐84
‐64 ‐62
‐100
‐80
‐60
‐40
‐20P1 P2 P3 plus
lb
Series1 Series2 Series3 Series40.75 0.90SIDLys
SEM = 2.8linear, P = 0.035quadratic, P = 0.321
SEM = 1.7linear, P = 0.011quadratic, P = 0.003
1.05 1.20
Gourley et al., 2017
Loin Eye Depth Change, d 112 to Wean
‐1.9
‐1.0
‐0.1
0.5
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20
mm
SID Lysine, %
SEM = 0.64linear, P = 0.002quadratic, P = 0.784
Gourley et al., 2017
Females Bred by d 7 after Weaning
77
8995
84
95 9692
96 9693 91 94
70
80
90
100
110
P1 P2 P3 plus
%
SID Lys 0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20
SEM = 7.55linear, P = 0.047quadratic, P = 0.831
SEM = 5.27linear, P = 0.799quadratic, P = 0.183
SEM = 2.85linear, P = 0.743quadratic, P = 0.559
Gourley et al., 2017
134.9 135.3
141.0
132.4
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20
lb
SID Lysine, %
SEM = 1.4Linear, P = 0.807Quadratic = 0.001
Litter Weaning Weight
Gourley et al., 2017
Thank You to Our Research Partners
available at:www.KSUswine.org
• 1,222 experiments• 472,053 pigs