Upload
hoanghanh
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KSU Swine Day 2012Morning – Sows (Vitamin E, carnitine, chromium)
Vitamin DFeed additives
Afternoon – Nursery (soy hulls, wheat middlings)
Grow‐finish• Wheat• DDGS (low vs high oil)• Feed processing• Improvest• Marketing
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Productivity growth needed to double output
Current productivity growthTechnology
Gap
Agricultural Output 2010 = 100
Introduction• Vitamin E is a generic term for 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols
that serve as antioxidants in the lipid components of animal and plant tissues.
• The α‐tocopherol form is the most bioactive form for animals and has eight stereoisomers.
• The biological activities of these 8 stereoisomers range from 25 to 100% (Blatt et al., 2004), with the RRR‐ α‐tocopherol form being the most bioactive.
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/attp.html
Introduction• Common to utilize the esterified forms of a‐tocopherol to prolong
stability• Two common sources of vitamin E:
– Natural vitamin E (RRR‐ α‐tocopherol acetate or d‐α‐tocopherol acetate) is compromised only of the RRR stereoisomer.
– Synthetic vitamin E (all rac‐α‐tocopherol acetate or dl‐α‐tocopherol acetate ) is a combination of the 8 stereoisomers
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/attp.html
Objective
• The objectives of this study are to: 1) determine the level of α‐tocopherol in plasma, milk, and piglet body tissues when supplied from synthetic or natural vitamin E.
2) estimate the bioavailability of natural vitamin E relative to synthetic vitamin E when included in diets containing a large proportion of DDGS.
Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg
8.19
10.31
7.62
11.39
9.40
17.76
6
10
14
18
22
44 66 11 22 33 44
dl‐α‐tocopherol acetated‐α‐tocopherol acetate
Colostrum α‐tocop
herol,
µg/m
L
Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=2.165Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.45Natural Linear, P < 0.004Natural Quadratic, P > 0.26
Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on sow colostrum α‐tocopherol levels
Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg
8.19
10.31
6
10
14
18
22
44 66 11 22 33 44
dl‐α‐tocopherol acetated‐α‐tocopherol acetate
Colostrum α‐tocop
herol,
µg/m
L
Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=2.165Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.45Natural Linear, P < 0.004Natural Quadratic, P > 0.26
Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on sow colostrum α‐tocopherol levels
Calculated BA=2.9
Calculated BA=3.0
Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg
2.47 2.382.11
3.03
3.513.78
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
44 66 11 22 33 44
dl‐α‐tocopherol acetated‐α‐tocopherol acetate
Plasma α‐tocoph
erol, µ
g/mL
Trt effect, P < 0.03; SEM=0.376Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.68Natural Linear, P < 0.004Natural Quadratic, P > 0.40
Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet plasma α‐tocopherol levels at weaning
Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg
2.47 2.38
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
44 66 11 22 33 44
dl‐α‐tocopherol acetated‐α‐tocopherol acetate
Plasma α‐tocoph
erol, µ
g/mL
Trt effect, P < 0.03; SEM=0.376Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.68Natural Linear, P < 0.004Natural Quadratic, P > 0.40
Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet plasma α‐tocopherol levels at weaning
Calculated BA=3.0Calculated BA=5.1
Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg
4.84
3.933.60
4.75
5.93 6.00
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
44 66 11 22 33 44
dl‐α‐tocopherol acetated‐α‐tocopherol acetate
Heart α‐tocop
herol, µg
/mL
Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=0.619Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.22Natural Linear, P < 0.002Natural Quadratic, P > 0.31
Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet heart α‐tocopherol levels at weaning
Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg
4.84
3.93
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
44 66 11 22 33 44
dl‐α‐tocopherol acetated‐α‐tocopherol acetate
Heart α‐tocop
herol, µg
/mL
Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=0.619Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.22Natural Linear, P < 0.002Natural Quadratic, P > 0.31
Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet heart α‐tocopherol levels at weaning
Calculated BA=1.8Calculated BA=5.3
Conclusions• Treatment effects were not observed (P > 0.10) for lactation feed
intake, piglet BW or BW gain, or sow BW measures. • As Natural E increased in the diet, sow plasma, colostrum, milk,
piglet plasma, and piglet heart concentrations of α‐tocopherol increased (linear; P < 0.03).
• This study shows that the relative bioavailability for Natural E:Syn E varies depending on the response criteria but is greater than the potency of 1.36.
Introduction• Adding L‐carnitine to sow diets at 50 ppm been shown to:
– Increase birth weight (Musser et al., 1999)– Increase litter size (Ramanau et al., 2004)– Increase conception rates (Real et al., 2008) – Improve nutrient utilization (Musser et al., 1999; Ramanau et al., 2004)– Increase plasma leptin concentrations (Woodworth et al., 2004)– Increase maternal IGF‐I concentrations (Musser et al., 1999; Doberenz et
al., 2006) and decrease mRNA for IGF‐II in porcine embryonic muscle cells (Waylon et al., 2005)
• Adding chromium picolinate to sow diets has been shown to:– Increase litter size (Lindemann et al., 1995, 2004)– Improve efficiency of insulin (Lindemann et al., 1995)
Introduction
• The modes of actions for L‐carnitine and chromium appear to be different; therefore, combining both may result in additive responses.
• Objective‐To evaluate the effects of L‐carnitine and chromium on sow feed utilization, as well as litter size, birth weight, and variation in birth weight on a commercial sow farm.
Effect of dietary Carnichrome on individual birth weights
2.973.08
3.00 2.97
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.0
Pig weight, lb
SEM = 0.050Parity × Diet, P = 0.49Parity, P = 0.67Diet, P = 0.58
Carnichrome:Parity:
No NoYes Yes1 and 2 3 +
Conclusion
Feeding 25 ppm of carnitine and 200 ppb of chromium picolinate did not improve piglet birth
weight or litter size.
Effect of oral vitamin D3 dose on weaning weight
Dose effect, P = 0.17SEM = 0.15
11.4 11.6
02468101214
None 40,000 IU
BW, lb
Oral vitamin D3 dosage
Flohr et al., 2012
Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 by oral dose or in early nursery diets on nursery ADG
(d 21 to 45)
0.68 0.67 0.67 0.68
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1,378 13,780 1,378 13,780
ADG, lb
Oral Dosage:
Dietary D3, IU/kg:
None None 40,000 IU 40,000 IU
Dose × diet interaction, P = 0.59 Dose effect, P = 0.83SEM = 0.018 Diet effect, P = 0.92
Flohr et al., 2012
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
21 31 45
Serum 25(OH)D
3, ng
/mL
Day of blood collection
NoneNone40,000 IU40,000 IU
Oral D3 Dietary D3
Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 by oral dose or in early nursery diets on pig serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations
*d 21, Oral dose, P < 0.01**d 31, Oral dose, P = 0.08; Diet, P < 0.01
Dose × Diet interaction, P > 0.25
1,378 IU/kg13,780 IU/kg1,378 IU/kg
13,780 IU/kg
* **
Flohr et al., 2012
Analyzed dietary vitamin D3concentrations
Diet A Diet BVitamin Premix
Vitamin D3premix
Formulated level, IU/kg 1,378 13,780 550,000 12,375,000Analyzed level, IU/kg 1,267 10,346 597,886 8,948,486Analytical error** ± 25% ± 20% ± 10% ± 5%* Vitamin D3 feed assays were conducted by DSM Nutritional Products Inc. (Parsippany, NJ).** Laboratory assay variability associated with vitamin D3 content.
Flohr et al., 2012
73% of Expected
Effect of Oral Vitamin D Supplementationabove basal Dietary Supplementation
TrialWean Weight, lb
Wean 25(OH)D3, ng/ml
Nursery End Weight, lb
Nursery 25(OH)D3, ng/ml
Neonatal Oral Dosing
Flohr (SD 2011) 1 +.3 +20.1 +.5 +1.1
Rortvedt (MW 2012) 1,2 NS +20.3 ‐2.3 ‐‐
Flohr (SD 2012) 3 +0.2 +16.4 0.0 +2.4
Tousignant (UMN) +0.2 NS NS +17.0
Field Trial 2,4 0.0 ‐‐ ‐0.4 ‐‐
Nursery H20
Flohr (SD 2012) ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐0.9 +90 (d10) +18 (d31)
Field Trial (2 wk) ‐‐ ‐‐ +0.2 +6 (d 49)
1 NS Effect on bone ash, 2 NS effect on mortality 3 NS effect on PCV2 Antibody 4 SIV/PRRS positive NS Effect on WF ADG or Mortality NS=Not significant
Dietary Vitamin D Preference Trialsd 7 to 21 after weaning
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Trial 1 Trial 2
44,000 IU/kg
1,375 IU/kg1,375 IU/kg
13,750 IU/kg
Flohr et al., 2012
0
5
10
15
0 10 21Serum 25(OH)D
3, ng
/mL
Day of lactation
1,500 3,000 6,000
*
Sow Feed D3 IU/kg
Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 in sow diets on pig serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations
#Quadratic P < 0.01*Quadratic P = 0.03;
# #
Flohr et al., 2013
010203040506070
0 10 21 35
Serum 25(OH)D
3, ng
/mL
Day after weaning
1.5k/1.8k1.5/18k3.0/1.8k3.0/18k6.0/3.0k6.0/18.k
#
Sow/Nurs D3 Th IU
Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 in sow or nursery diets on pig serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations
Sow × Nurs interaction, P < 0.01#d 10,20 Sow Diet Linear P < 0.01*d 10, 21, Nur Diet P < 0.01**d 35 Nur Diet P = 0.04;
# ** ** *
Flohr et al., 2013
Field Case
• May 2011 – Rachitic Rosary noted as an incidental finding in a necropsy survey of PWM, Confirmed histologically
• August 2011 – Reports of broken legs when loading out pigs (20 to 30 per 1,200 head barn)
• September 2011 – Survey of multiple feed samples Ca/Phos meet targets
• October 2011 – Submit Premix for analysis
Premix Vitamin D3, IU/lb
Premix Result Expected % of Expected
GF VTM Lot 1 No measurable amount 250,000 NA
GF VTM Lot 2 No measurable amount 250,000 NA
Sow VTM Lot 1 169,875 500,000 34%
Sow VTM Lot 2 227,408 500,000 45%
Nur VTM Lot 1 373,688 400,000 93%
Nur VTM Lot 2 159,890 400,000 40%
Slaughter Plant Defect Data
Little evidence of effects could be found when evaluating sow or growing pig performance
Comparison of vitamin D recommendations
Source, IU/kg NRC, 1998 NRC, 2012 KSUGestation 200 800 1378Lactation 200 800 1378
Early nursery 220 220 1378Late nursery 200 200 1378Grower 150 150 827Finisher 150 150 551Paylean phase 150 150 413
Steps to ensure vitamin D is supplemented correctly (and other vitamins and trace minerals):
• Develop clear premix specifications• Use reputable premix suppliers• Verify premix production batch sheets• Ensure product rotation• Separate vitamin and trace mineral premix• Verify premix additions
– Inventory control– Eliminate hand adds
• Evaluate mixer efficiency• Consider premix testing
0.49
0.53 0.54
0.47
0.520.54
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
Low Medium High
ADG, lb
No Enzyme Added EnzymeComplexity linear, P < 0.01Enzyme, P = 0.44SEM = 0.023
Influence of enzyme blend and Diet Complexityon nursery ADG (d 0 – 18; initially 13 lb)
Diet Complexity
DeRouchey et al., 2012
1.441.36 1.37
1.461.39 1.37
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Low Medium High
F/G
No Enzyme Added EnzymeComplexity linear, P < 0.01Enzyme, P = 0.39SEM = 0.030
Influence of enzyme blend and diet complexityon nursery F/G (d 0 – 18; initially 13 lb)
Diet Complexity
DeRouchey et al., 2012
1.19
1.12
1.21
1.10
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
Corn-Soy 30% Wheat Midds
AD
G, l
b
No Enzyme
Easzyme
Influence of Easyzyme and Wheat Middlingson nursery ADG (Exp. 1; d 0 – 21; initially 22 lb)
Graham et al., 2012
Easyzyme x diet, P = 0.34Easyzyme, P = 1.00Diet, P = 0.0003SEM = 0.02
1.61
1.69
1.55
1.85
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
Corn-Soy 30% Wheat Midds
F/G
No Enzyme
Easzyme
Influence of Easyzyme and Wheat Middlingson nursery F/G (Exp. 1; d 0 – 21; initially 22 lb)
Graham et al., 2012
Easyzyme x diet, P = 0.01Easyzyme, P = 0.15Diet, P = 0.001SEM = 0.04
1.12 1.11 1.13
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
0 500 1,200
ADG, lb
Phytase, P > 0.61SEM = 0.02
Influence of Easyzyme and Phytase in high by‐product diets on nursery ADG (Exp. 2; d 0 – 21; initially 25 lb)
Easyzyme
Graham et al., 2012
1.131.11
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
No Yes
ADG, lb
Easyzyme, P = 0.37SEM = 0.02
Phyzyme Phytase, FTU/kg
1.67 1.68
1.65
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
0 500 1,200
F/G
Phytase, P > 0.41SEM = 0.03
Influence of Easyzyme and Phytase in high by‐product diets on nursery F/G (Exp. 2; d 0 – 21; initially 25 lb)
Easyzyme
Graham et al., 2012
1.63
1.70
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
No Yes
F/G
Easyzyme, P = 0.001SEM = 0.02
Phyzyme Phytase, FTU/kg
1.981.96 1.951.96
1.931.95
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
Control MicroSource 1.3x MicroSource
ADG, lb
CS
DDGS/Bakery
Microsource NSDiet Type NSSEM = 0.017
Effect of diet type and Microsurce S on finishing pig performance (ADG, d 0 to 90)
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
2.76 2.79 2.79
2.962.92 2.94
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
Control MicroSource 1.3x MicroSource
FG
CS
DDGS/Bakery
Microsource NSDiet Type P < 0.01 SEM = 0.032
Effect of diet type and Microsurce S on finishing pig performance (FG, d 0 to 90)
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
6.3 6.1 6.3
8.7 8.2
9.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Control MicroSource 1.3x MicroSource
Wash Time, m
in/pen
CS
DDGS/Bakery
Microsource NSDiet Type P < 0.01 SEM = 0.66
Effect of diet type and Microsurce S on Pen Wash Time (min/pen)
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
~2 hr more wash time for a 1,200 head barn when feeding DDGS/Bakery
KSU Swine Day 2012Morning – Sows (Vitamin E, carnitine, chromium)
Vitamin DFeed additives
Afternoon – Nursery (soy hulls, wheat middlings)
Grow‐finish• Wheat• DDGS (low vs high oil)• Feed processing• Improvest• Marketing
Wheat Middlings• During the wheat milling process, about 70 to 75% of the grain becomes flour, leaving 25 to 30% as wheat byproducts.
• Wheat middlings– 16% CP; 89% the ME value of corn.– Wheat midds contain between 7.0 and 9.5% fiber. – Low bulk density (anywhere from 18 to 24 lb/cubic ft.) increases the volume of the feed unless they are pelleted at the flour mill.
• Wheat midds are commonly added to pelleted feeds because of its beneficial effects on pellet quality.
0.95 0.960.95
0.93
0.90
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
ADG, lb
Linear P > 0.11SEM = 0.03
Effect of Wheat Middlings on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 35; 15 to 25 lb)
Wheat Middlings
De Jong et al., 2012
1.52
1.48
1.52 1.531.58
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
F/G
Linear P < 0.004SEM = 0.02
Effect of Wheat Middlings on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 35; 15 to 25 lb)
Wheat Middlings
De Jong et al., 2012
7.62
7.35 7.407.24
7.29
$6.50
$6.90
$7.30
$7.70
$8.10
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Feed
cost/pig, $
Linear P > 0.25SEM = 0.205
Economics of Increasing Wheat Middlings in nursery pig diets (d 0 to 35; 15 to 25 lb)
Wheat Middlings
De Jong et al., 2012
14.0914.47
14.2613.92
13.38
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
IOFC, $/pig
Linear P < 0.14SEM = 0.409
Economics of Increasing Wheat Middlings in nursery pig diets (d 0 to 35; 15 to 25 lb)
Wheat Middlings
De Jong et al., 2012
1.31
1.24 1.23
1.28 1.281.23
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Corn‐Soy 10% Midds 20% Midds
ADG, lb
No DDGS
20% DDGS
No Interactive or DDGS effectsMidds linear, P < 0.02SEM = 0.029
Effect of Wheat Middlings and DDGS in nursery pig diets (d 0 to 21; BW 27 to 54 lb)
De Jong et al., 2012
1.59
1.641.66
1.60
1.65
1.71
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
Corn‐Soy 10% Midds 20% Midds
F/G
No DDGS
20% DDGS
No Interactive or DDGS effectsMidds linear, P < 0.01SEM = 0.032
Effect of Wheat Middlings and DDGS in nursery pig diets (d 0 to 21; BW 27 to 54 lb)
De Jong et al., 2012
53.4
48.7
46.4
48.8
44.9
42.4
40
44
48
52
56
Corn‐Soy 10% Midds 20% Midds
Bulk den
sity, lb/bu
No DDGS
20% DDGS
Economics of Wheat Middlings and DDGS in nursery pig diets (d 0 to 21; BW 27 to 54 lb)
De Jong et al., 2012
0.97 0.970.94
1.00
0.97
0.85
0.95
1.05
1.15Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.95Midds, level, P = 0.12NE formulation, P = 0.13SEM = 0.021
ADG, lb
Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8%1.4%Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20%
De Jong et al., 2012
Effect of Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation on nursery pig performance ( d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)
1.56 1.55
1.64
1.55
1.60
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.34Midds linear, P < 0.06Midds, level, P < 0.01NE formulation, P = 0.35SEM = 0.025
F/G
Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8%1.4%Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20%
De Jong et al., 2012
Effect of Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)
9.18
8.949.03
9.57 9.60
$8.50
$9.00
$9.50
$10.00Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.88Midds, level, P > 0.79NE formulation, P = 0.01SEM = 0.200
Feed
cost/pig, $
Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8%1.4%Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20%
De Jong et al., 2012
Economics of increasing Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation in nursery pigs (d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)
9.19
9.35
8.62
9.30
8.70
8.40
8.80
9.20
9.60
10.00 Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.81Midds quadratic, P > 0.12Midds, level, P > 0.02NE formulation, P = 0.96SEM = 0.270
IOFC, $/pig
Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8%1.4%Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20%
De Jong et al., 2012
Economics of increasing Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation in nursery pigs (d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)
KSU Swine Day 2012Morning – Sows (Vitamin E, carnitine, chromium)
Vitamin DFeed additives
Afternoon – Nursery (soy hulls, wheat middlings)
Grow‐finish• Wheat• DDGS (low vs high oil)• Feed processing• Improvest• Marketing
Soybean Hulls• During the soybean crush process, the hulls is separated which represents ~8% of the seed.
• Soybean hulls– 10.3% CP; 1.3% fat; 50% the ME of corn (NRC, 2012).
• High fiber, bulky ingredient typically used in ruminant rations.
• Very little information is available on nursery and finishing diets. – Research supported by National Pork Board
1.251.20 1.21 1.22 1.24
1.19 1.20 1.221.18
1.09
0.90
1.10
1.30
1.50
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
ADG, lb
No DDGS
DDGS added
No Interactive effectSoybean hulls w/out DDGS, P > 0.28Soybean hulls with DDGS, quadratic P < 0.05SEM = 0.036
Effect of Soybean Hulls and DDGS in nursery pig diets (Exp. 1, d 0 to 42; BW 15 to 65 lb)
Goehring et al., 2012
Soybean Hulls
1.511.54 1.56
1.58
1.511.48 1.47
1.53 1.55 1.53
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
F/G
No DDGS
DDGS added
Hulls level x DDGS, quadratic P < 0.05Soybean hulls w/out DDGS, P < 0.03Soybean hulls with DDGS, quadratic P < 0.01SEM = 0.024
Effect of Soybean Hulls and DDGS in nursery pig diets (Exp. 1, d 0 to 42; BW 15 to 65 lb)
Goehring et al., 2012
Soybean Hulls
1.221.20 1.22 1.20
1.17
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
ADG, lb
No effects, P > 0.23SEM = 0.026
Main Effects of Soybean Hulls on nursery pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 42; BW 15 to 65 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
1.491.51
1.551.57
1.52
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
F/G
Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.03SEM = 0.018
Main Effects of Soybean Hulls on nursery pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 42; BW 15 to 65 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
0.97 0.970.95
0.91
0.84
0.70
0.85
1.00
1.15
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
ADG, lb
Soybean hulls, linear P < 0.01SEM = 0.024
Effects of Soybean Hulls on nursery pig performance (Exp. 3, d 0 to 34; BW 15 to 47 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
1.54 1.53
1.62
1.651.67
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
F/G
Soybean hulls, linear P < 0.0001SEM = 0.024
Effects of Soybean Hulls on nursery pig performance (Exp. 3, d 0 to 34; BW 15 to 47 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
1,658
1,592
1,633
1,600
1,561
1,500
1,550
1,600
1,650
1,700
1,750
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
NE, kcal/lbgain
Soybean hulls, linear P < 0.02SEM = 23.5
Effects of Soybean Hulls on nursery pig performance (Exp. 3, d 0 to 34; BW 15 to 47 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
1.84 1.851.81
1.851.86
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
0 7.5% 15%
Ground hulls (370 µ)Unground hulls (787 µ)
Soybean hull particle size, P > 0.34Soybean hulls level, P > 0.45SEM = 0.022
ADG, lb
Effects of soybean hulls level and particle size on finishing pigs (0 to 118; BW 68 to 280 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
2.56
2.63
2.67
2.582.60
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
0 7.5% 15%
Ground hulls (370 µ)Unground hulls (787 µ)
Soybean hull particle size, P < 0.04Soybean hulls level, P > 0.26Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.02SEM = 0.026
F/G
Effects of soybean hulls level and particle size on finishing pigs (0 to 118; BW 68 to 280 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
2,869
2,810
2,7002,752
2,632
2,500
2,700
2,900
3,100
0 7.5% 15%
Ground hulls (370 µ)Unground hulls (787 µ)
Soybean hull particle size, P < 0.03Soybean hulls level, P < 0.0002Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.0001SEM = 28.6
NE, kcal/lbgain
Effects of soybean hulls level and particle size on finishing pigs (0 to 118; BW 68 to 280 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
76.26
75.23 75.1675.42
74.96
74.0
75.0
76.0
77.0
0 7.5% 15%
Ground hulls (370 µ)Unground hulls (787 µ)
Soybean hull particle size, P > 0.55Soybean hulls level, P > 0.12Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.001SEM = 0.361
Carcass Y
ield, %
Effects of soybean hulls level and particle size on finishing pigs (0 to 118; BW 68 to 280 lb)
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012
Soybean Hulls Summary
• 5‐10% in nursery diets had minimal effects on growth performance.
• 7.5% in finishing did not affect ADG or F/G• Grinding soybean hulls did not improve performance in nursery and finishing pigs.
• Feeding soybean hulls through marketing reduces carcass yield, similar to other high fiber containing ingredients.
Bakery Meal• Things to recognize:• Bakery products can vary in fat content which directly affects the assigned energy value.– NRC, 2012
• Bakery = 8.1% fat, 1,749 kcal/lb ME (+13.6% ↑ME vs. corn)• Corn = 3.5% fat, 1,540 kcal/lb ME
• Many bakery products contain lower levels of fat then book values. Recent analysis from a Midwest commercial mill using bakery:
• Bakery = 6.4% Fat, Calculated ME value was 92% of corn
2.06
2.022.05
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
0.0% 7.5% 15.0%
ADG, lb
Bakery, quadratic P < 0.07SEM = 0.01
Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)
Bakery meal
Paulk et al., 2012
2.632.68 2.70
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
0.0% 7.5% 15.0%
F/G
Bakery, quadratic P > 0.50SEM = 0.02
Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)
Bakery meal
Paulk et al., 2012
4,052
4,1604,218
3,700
3,900
4,100
4,300
4,500
0.0% 7.5% 15.0%
ME, kcal/lbgain
Bakery, linear P > 0.0001SEM = 34
Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)
Bakery meal
Paulk et al., 2012
78.7 78.6
80.2
76.5
77.5
78.5
79.5
80.5
81.5
0.0% 7.5% 15.0%
Belly fat IV
Bakery, linear P < 0.09SEM = 0.6
Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)
Bakery meal
Paulk et al., 2012
Feeding Wheat to Swine
• Nutrient differences wheat vs. corn:– Lysine: 35% more SID lysine; (CP: 13.5. vs 8.5%) – ME: 6% less energy; (1,456 vs. 1,551 kcal/lb)– Available Phosphorus: ~4 x higher (0.19 vs. 0.04%)
• Ingredient changes:– Less soybean meal and supplemental phosphorus– Higher synthetic lysine use is possible– Can add fat to balance dietary energy
• Grinding:– Still target 600‐700 microns– More “flouring” occurs as wheat is more finely ground
1.21 1.22
1.15
1.19
1.05
1.15
1.25
1.35
Corn 50% Corn:Wheat Wheat Wheat
ADG, lb
Wheat, linear P < 0.080 vs 50% wheat, P > 0.75Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P > 0.23SEM = 0.021
Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 21; BW 27 to 52 lb)
Goehring et al., 2012
Maximum Synthetic AA
Moderate Synthetic AA
1.57 1.57
1.59
1.55
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
Corn 50% Corn:Wheat Wheat Wheat
F/G
Wheat, linear P > 0.440 vs 50% wheat, P > 0.99Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P < 0.07SEM = 0.018
Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 21; BW 27 to 52 lb)
Goehring et al., 2012
Maximum Synthetic AA
Moderate Synthetic AA
1.831.81
1.74 1.73
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Corn 50% Corn:Wheat Wheat Wheat
ADG, lb
Wheat, linear P < 0.040 vs 50% wheat, P > 0.64Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P > 0.80SEM = 0.028
Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 61; BW 160 to 270 lb)
Goehring et al., 2012
Maximum Synthetic AA
Moderate Synthetic AA
270.9270.1
265.8 266.1
260
265
270
275
Corn 50% Corn:Wheat Wheat Wheat
BW, lb
Wheat, P > 0.180 vs 50% wheat, P > 0.86Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P > 0.68SEM = 3.14
Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on finishing pig performance (d 0 61)
Goehring et al., 2012
Maximum Synthetic AA
Moderate Synthetic AA
3.263.30
3.39 3.37
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
Corn 50% Corn:Wheat Wheat Wheat
F/G
Wheat, linear P < 0.0030 vs 50% wheat, P > 0.32Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P > 0.73SEM = 0.029
Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 61; BW 160 to 270 lb)
Goehring et al., 2012
Maximum Synthetic AA
Moderate Synthetic AA
73.473.5
73.473.1
72.0
73.0
74.0
75.0
Corn 50% Corn:Wheat Wheat Wheat
Carcass Y
ield, %
Wheat, P > 0.370 vs 50% wheat, P > 0.51Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P > 0.21SEM = 0.19
Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on finishing pig performance (d 0 61)
Goehring et al., 2012
Maximum Synthetic AA
Moderate Synthetic AA
68.9
67.767.1
67.4
63
65
67
69
71
73
Corn 50% Corn:Wheat Wheat Wheat
Jowl fat iodine
value
Wheat, linear P < 0.0010 vs 50% wheat, P < 0.002Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P > 0.27SEM = 0.24
Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on finishing pig performance (d 0 61)
Goehring et al., 2012
Maximum Synthetic AA
Moderate Synthetic AA
Feeding Wheat to Swine
• Anticipated performance and breakeven changes:– No added fat to balance energy:
• Higher F/G (~+0.12 F/G from 50 ‐ 250 lb)• Slightly lower ADG• Current breakeven:
– 113% of corn price on bu:bu– 105% of corn price on wt:wt
Dried Distillers Grains with SolublesResearch
1. Tryptophan requirements with DDGS2. Fiber (from DDGS and wheat midds)
withdrawal × Paylean3. Medium‐oil DDGS study4. Evaluating energy in DDGS5. Preliminary data ‐ High‐ vs. low‐oil DDGS
1.982.02
2.09
2.002.04
2.13
2.04
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
16% 18% 20% 22%
ADG, lb
L‐TrpSBM
Trp x source P = 0.20Source P = 0.07Trp quad P < 0.01SEM = 0.026
SID Trp:Lys ratio and Trp source for finishing pigs(Exp. 6; d 0 to 56; BW 156 to 285 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
1.982.03
2.11
2.02
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
16% 18% 20% 22%
ADG, lb
Trp x source P = 0.20Trp quad P < 0.01SEM = 0.026
SID Trp:Lys ratio and Trp source for finishing pigs(Exp. 6; d 0 to 56; BW 156 to 285 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
2.042.07
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
L‐Trp SBMAD
G, lb
Trp x source P = 0.20Source P = 0.07SEM = 0.026
Trp source
3.16
3.02 3.02
3.09
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
16% 18% 20% 22%
Feed
/gain
Trp x source P = 0.03Trp quad P < 0.01SEM = 0.014
SID Trp:Lys ratio and Trp source for finishing pigs(Exp. 6; d 0 to 56; BW 156 to 285 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
3.05 3.04
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
L‐Trp SBMFeed
/gain
Trp x source P = 0.03Source P = 0.70SEM = 0.014
Trp source
74.3
75.4
74.7
75.875.8
74.6 74.6
73
74
75
76
77
16% 18% 20% 22%
Yield, %
L‐TrpSBM
Trp x source P > 0.01Source P = 0.23Trp quad P > 0.15SEM = 0.61
SID Trp:Lys ratio and Trp source for finishing pigs(Exp. 6; d 0 to 56; BW 156 to 285 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
205.2207.5
209.5
206.3
210.3211.8
206.3
200
205
210
215
220
16% 18% 20% 22%
Carcass w
eight, lb
L‐TrpSBM
Trp x source P > 0.31Source P = 0.30Trp quad P < 0.01SEM = 8.4
SID Trp:Lys ratio and Trp source for finishing pigs(Exp. 6; d 0 to 56; BW 156 to 285 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
Fiber withdrawal before marketing in combination with Paylean
• Day 0 to 49– Pigs fed either a corn‐soybean meal diet (1/3) or one with 30% DDGS and 19% midds (2/3).
– Pigs fed the corn‐soybean meal diets had 6% better ADG and 4% better F/G.
• Day 49 to 73– Pigs remained on the corn‐soybean meal diet.– Pigs switched from high fiber diet to corn‐soybean meal diet.– Pigs remained on high fiber.– All treatments with or without 9 g/ton Paylean.
Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberCorn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
2.00 2.03
1.89
2.402.46
2.19
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
ADG, lb
Control Paylean Paylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.002Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.02SEM = 0.20
Effect of fiber level and Paylean on finishing pig performance (d 49 to 73; BW 230 to 285 lb)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
3.56 3.613.72
2.802.93
3.17
2.502.702.903.103.303.503.703.904.10
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
F/G
Control PayleanPaylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.001SEM = 0.18
Effect of fiber level and Paylean on finishing pig performance (d 49 to 73; BW 230 to 285 lb)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
2.16
2.08
2.03
2.272.22
2.13
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
ADG, lb
Control
Paylean
Interaction P = .92Paylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.03SEM = 0.12
Effect of fiber level and Paylean on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 73; BW 123 to 285 lb)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
2.98
3.08 3.09
2.76
2.90 2.92
2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
3.30
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
F/G
Control PayleanPaylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.64Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.001SEM = 0.10
Effect of fiber level and Paylean on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 73; BW 123 to 285 lb)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
74.273.7
72.8
75.1
74.6
73.6
72
73
74
75
76
77
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Yield, %
Control
Paylean
Paylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P < 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.001SEM = 0.19
Effect of fiber level and Payleanon finishing pig performance (d 73)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
203.2201.3
195.0
215.3
210.5
201.4
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Carcass w
eight, lb
Control
Paylean
Paylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.001SEM = 2.76
Effect of fiber level and Payleanon finishing pig performance (d 73)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
9.649.33
11.92
9.48
10.22
11.82
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Full large intestine, lb
Control PayleanPaylean P < 0.70Withdrawal P = 0.003Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.001SEM = 0.65
Effect of fiber level and Payleanon full large intestine weight (d 73)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
65.1
69.3
72.4
64.3
70.0
73.2
60
63
66
69
72
75
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
IV, g/100
g
Control
Paylean
Paylean P = 0.74Withdrawal P < 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.01SEM = 0.86
Effect of fiber level and Payleanon finishing pig performance (d 73)
Graham et al., 2012
d 0 to 49: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 49 to 73: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
Summary – Fiber × Paylean• Feeding high fiber diets containing DDGS and middsdecreased growth performance and carcass yield and increased IV compared with those fed a corn‐soybean meal diet.
• Withdrawing the high fiber diet and switching to a corn‐soybean meal diet for the last 24 d before harvest partially mitigated these negative effects.
• Feeding RAC for the last 24 d before market, regardless of dietary regimen, improved growth performance and carcass yield.
1.93
1.871.85
1.80
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
0% 15% 30% 45%
ADG, lb
Linear P > 0.01SEM = 0.02
Effect of medium‐oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
Medium-oil DDGS
Graham et al., 2012
7.4% fat, 28.1% CP, 10.8% ADF, 25.6% NDF
3.133.19 3.20
3.26
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
0% 15% 30% 45%
F/G
Linear P > 0.02SEM = 0.04
Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012
74.0
73.2
72.471.8
70
71
72
73
74
75
0% 15% 30% 45%
Yield, %
Linear P > 0.02SEM = 0.04
Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012
70.271.1
73.7
76.3
65
68
71
74
77
80
0% 15% 30% 45%
Jowl fat iodine
value
, mg/g Linear P > 0.02SEM = 0.04
Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012
Gross Energy
Digestible Energy
MetabolizableEnergy
Net Energy
Feces
Urine & gas
Heat of digestion
Energy Systems for Swine
Evaluating Energy in Ingredients
Increasing amount of test ingredient
Caloric
Efficien
cy
Good
Poor
If caloric efficiency improves (F/G gets better)Then we underestimated the energy content of the ingredient – its energy is greater than what we initially thought
Evaluating Energy in Ingredients
Increasing amount of test ingredient
Caloric
Efficien
cy
Good
Poor
If caloric efficiency worsens (F/G gets poorer)Then we overestimated the energy content of the ingredient – its energy is less than what we initially thought
Evaluating Energy in Ingredients
Increasing amount of test ingredient
Caloric
Efficien
cy
Good
Poor If caloric efficiency doesn’t change at allThen we correctly estimated the energy content of the ingredient – we pegged it!
Effect of medium‐oil DDGS on pig performanceon caloric efficiency
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0% 15.0% 30% 45.0%
Medium-oil DDGS
ME, linear, P < 0.02
NE, no difference
Graham et al., 2012
Mcal/lb
2.182.15
2.092.14 2.15
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
ADG
Low High
Graham et al., 2013
Preliminary Data: Effect of high‐ vs low‐oil DDGS on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 60; BW 100 to 230 lb)
2.49
2.57
2.68
2.48 2.50
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
F:G
Low High
Graham et al., 2013
Preliminary Data: Effect of high‐ vs low‐oil DDGS on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 60; BW 100 to 230 lb)
Preliminary Estimates of Net Energy values for DDGS Sources with Different Oil Concentrations
y = 187.5x + 1945.7R² = 0.9895
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
<4% 6‐9% >10%DDGS oil content, %
Net Ene
rgy kcal
Corn DDGS quality control
• Variability in DDGS quality– Main issue is fat level Fat, % NE, %
• Low = < 5% fat 4.0 80.0%• Medium = 6 to 9% fat 7.5 87.5%• High = > 9% fat 11.0 95.0%
– Need to monitor DDGS quality or work with company that monitors DDGS quality
– Ethanol plants guarantee often underestimate the true oil content – guarantee 6% but really 9%
2.022.06
1.99
2.112.17
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet
ADG, lb
Meal Pellet300 vs 600 microns P < 0.15Grind x form P < 0.001Grind P = 0.89; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.018
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
2.82
2.712.74
2.60 2.60
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet
F/G
Meal Pellet300 vs 600 microns P < 0.001Grind x form P = 0.37Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.03
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
$53.27
$57.94
$53.96
$62.20$61.35
$50
$55
$60
$65
$70
600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet
Income over feed
cost, $/pig Meal Pellet
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.01Grind x form P = 0.15Grind P = 0.03; Form P < 0.001SEM = 1.143
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
800 600 400
Cabrera, 1994a
Cabrera, 1994b
Wondra, 1995
Effects of particle size on feed efficiencyF/G
Particle size, microns
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
300
400
500
600
700
800
Paulk, 2011
DeJong, 2012
1.2% per 100 microns 1.0% per 100 microns
Particle size, microns
Effects of pelleting on growth performance of grow‐finish pigs 2005 to 2011
ReferenceMeal Pellet
ADG F/G ADG F/GGroesbeck et al. (2005) 0.83 1.25 0.90 1.22Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.62 1.43 0.65 1.37Groesbeck et al.(2006) 0.80 1.25 0.78 1.17Potter et al. (2009) 1.95 2.12 2.05 2.07Potter et al. (2009) 1.92 2.83 2.04 2.68Myers et al. (2010) 1.81 2.76 1.94 2.82Potter et al. (2010) 1.92 2.86 2.03 2.70Frobose et al. (2011) 1.46 1.72 1.43 1.63Frobose et al. (2011) 1.29 1.51 1.38 1.40Myers et al. (2011) 1.96 2.73 1.97 2.67Paulk et al. (2011) 2.50 2.75 2.63 2.55Paulk et al. (2011) 2.31 2.50 2.44 2.40
Average 1.61 2.14 1.69 2.06
Average response = 5.0% for ADG and 4.0% for F/G
1.52
1.591.57
1.58
1.631.62
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
Meal Pellets Pellets with30% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on ADGAD
G, lb
Feeder opening and diet form P < 0.05
Feeder opening, in.
Nemecheck et al. 2012
1.59
1.51
1.561.59
1.51
1.57
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
Meal Pellets Pellets with30% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on F/GF/G
Diet form P < 0.05
Feeder opening, in.
Nemecheck et al. 2012
2.10
2.21 2.202.17
2.21 2.21
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
Meal Pellets Pellets with50% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on finisher ADG
ADG, lb
Diet form P = 0.08
Feeder opening, lb
Nemecheck et al. 2012
2.87
2.55
2.68
2.98
2.58
2.83
2.402.502.602.702.802.903.003.103.20
Meal Pellets Pellets with50% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on F/GF/G
Diet form P < 0.001; Feeder adjust. P < 0.03
Feeder opening, in.
Nemecheck et al. 2012
2.082.13
2.09
2.17 2.18 2.17
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
Low Low High
ADG, lb
Meal Pellet
Interaction P = .83Pellet P = 0.03Diet P = 0.35SEM = 0.038
Effect of fiber level and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 81; BW 109 to 287 lb)
Nemechek et al., 2012
d 0 to 64: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 64 to 81: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
2.71
2.862.94
2.61
2.71 2.70
2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
3.30
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
F/G
Meal PelletInteraction P = 0.19Pellet P = 0.001Diet P = 0.001SEM = 0.037
Effect of fiber level and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 81; BW 109 to 287 lb)
Nemechek et al., 2012
d 0 to 64: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 64 to 81: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
75.174.7
74.1
75.0 74.8
73.4
72
73
74
75
76
77
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Yield, %
Meal PelletInteraction P = 0.88Pellet P = 0.28Diet P = 0.001SEM = 0.24
Effect of fiber level and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 81; BW 287 lb)
Nemechek et al., 2012
d 0 to 64: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 64 to 81: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
65.7
71.7
74.7
67.0
75.5
78.4
65
68
71
74
77
80
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Iodine
value
, mg/g
Meal PelletInteraction P = 0.003Pellet P < 0.001Diet P < 0.001SEM = 0.38
Effect of fiber level and diet form on finishing pig belly fat iodine value (d 81; BW 287 lb)
Nemechek et al., 2012
d 0 to 64: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 64 to 81: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
Effect of DDGS withdrawal on IC pigs
• 2 x 3 factorial– Physical castrated barrows vs immunocastrates
• 2 ml primer dose on d 39 (110 d of age)• 2 ml second dose on d 74 (145 d of age)• Quality assurance check on d 88 (21 of 680 pigs)
– DDGS duration• 0% throughout• 30% throughout• 30% from d 0 to 74 (200 lb), then 0% from d 74 to 125
Day: 0 39 74 107 125
Wt, lb: 53 200 260 300
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs
Improvest
PC barrow IC barrow
Asmus et al., 2012
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs
Improvest
PC barrow IC barrow
Asmus et al., 2012
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs
Improvest
PC barrow IC barrow
Asmus et al., 2012
2.032.01 2.03
2.092.06 2.07
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
ADG, lb
Barrow ICInteraction P = .89Gender P < 0.003Diet P = 0.37SEM = 0.02
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs (d 0 to 125; BW 53 to 300 lb)
Asmus et al., 2012
d 0 to 74: Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGSd 74 to 125: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy 30% DDGS
2.542.62
2.59
2.382.45 2.48
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
F/G
Barrow ICInteraction P = 0.33Gender P < 0.001Diet P = 0.01SEM = 0.02
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs (d 0 to 125; BW 53 to 300 lb)
Asmus et al., 2012
d 0 to 74: Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGSd 74 to 125: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy 30% DDGS
294.7 294.1293.1
305.0
301.4 301.3
290
295
300
305
310
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Weight, lb
Barrow ICInteraction P = .89Gender P < 0.002Diet P = 0.70SEM = 3.21
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs (d 125; BW 300 lb)
Asmus et al., 2012
d 0 to 74: Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGSd 74 to 125: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy 30% DDGS
76.3 76.275.8
74.9 74.874.0
70
72
74
76
78
80
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Yield, %
Barrow ICInteraction P = 0.41Gender P < 0.001Diet P = 0.001SEM = 0.16
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs (d 125)
Asmus et al., 2012
d 0 to 74: Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGSd 74 to 125: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy 30% DDGS
213.5212.6
210.1
216.4
213.9
211.8
205
208
211
214
217
220
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
HCW, lb
Barrow ICInteraction P = 0.94Gender P < 0.30Diet P = 0.23SEM = 2.28
Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs (d 125)
Asmus et al., 2012
d 0 to 74: Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGSd 74 to 125: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy 30% DDGS
Effect of DDGS withdrawal on IC barrows
• Response to DDGS withdrawal was similar to our other research.
• Immunocastrates had reduced carcass yield, regardless of diet type; however, they also had lower ADFI and improved ADG, which resulted in improved F/G.
• Although Improvest barrows can increase IV of fat depots when pigs are harvested at 5 wk post 2nd injection, extending the length of feeding duration prior to harvest after the second injection returns IV to values similar to physically‐castrated barrows.
Asmus et al., 2012
Sureemas Nitikanchana, Kansas State University
Best Production Medicine Abstract2012 International Pig Veterinary Society
• Recent research at K‐State (2010 – 2011) in commercial facility Bergstorm (6 studies)
↑ ADG, ↑↓ADFI, G:F ??↑ BF, ↓ FFLI, ↓ Loin, ↑ % tough coverage
Myers (2 studies) ↑ ADG, ↑↓ADFI, G:F ??↑ BF, ↓ FFLI, ↓ YieldFeeder design x diet type
Nitikanchana (3 studies)↑ ADG, ↑ADFI, G:F ??
Introduction
Meta‐analysis results (15 experiments)Items Dry Wet‐dry SEM P ‐ valueInitial wt, lb 74.3 74.3 5.9 0.27Final wt, lb 228.6 235.9 13.8 <0.01
ADG, lb 1.92 2.01 0.046 <0.01ADFI, lb 5.09 5.36 0.223 <0.01F/G 2.59 2.59 0.10 0.93
Yield, % 75.8 75.6 0.26 0.57HCW, lb 201.7 208.1 2.1 <0.01BF, mm 16.7 18.1 0.23 <0.01Loin, mm 62.2 61.6 0.68 0.14Lean, % 51.4 50.8 0.85 <0.01
Water disappearance, L/pig/d 6.4 5.0 0.34 0.02
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
Same F/GSame F/G
Reduction in Lean Poor F/GPoor F/G
Reduction in lean
Dry 90.81 90.81 88.86 88.86
Wet‐Dry 92.42 91.55 88.77 87.81
$/pig + 1.61 +0.74 ‐ 0.09 ‐0.95
Feed cost = 306 $/ton, Carcass price = 0.88 $/lb, 1.5$/ %lean reduction
Wet‐dry feeder economic analysis (IOFC, Income over feed cost)
Nitikanchana et al., 2012
Carcass Feed cost Est. live basebase, $/cwt $/ton price, $/cwt$ 80.00 $ 300.00 $ 60.80
Excel optimal weight
www.KSUswine.org
Carcass Feed cost Est. live basebase, $/cwt $/ton price, $/cwt$ 80.00 $ 300.00 $ 60.80
Triumph non‐owner
www.KSUswine.org
Carcass Feed cost Est. live basebase, $/cwt $/ton price, $/cwt$ 80.00 $ 300.00 $ 60.80
Triumph owner
www.KSUswine.org
Carcass Feed cost Est. live basebase, $/cwt $/ton price, $/cwt$ 80.00 $ 300.00 $ 60.80
Triumph barn dump
www.KSUswine.org
Carcass Feed cost Est. live basebase, $/cwt $/ton price, $/cwt$ 100.00 $ 300.00 $ 76.00
Triumph barn dump
www.KSUswine.org
June/JulyFutures