Swine Day Slides 2012 - asi.k-state.edu Day Slides 2012.pdfKSU Swine Day 2012 ... Productivity...

KSU Swine Day 2012

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


8.19

10.31

6

10

14

18

22

44 66 11 22 33 44


Colostrum α‐tocop

herol,

µg/m

L


Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on sow colostrum α‐tocopherol levels

Calculated BA=2.9

Calculated BA=3.0


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


Plasma α‐tocoph

erol, µ

g/mL


Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet plasma α‐tocopherol levels at weaning


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


Plasma α‐tocoph

erol, µ

g/mL


Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet plasma α‐tocopherol levels at weaning

Calculated BA=3.0Calculated BA=5.1


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


Heart α‐tocop

herol, µg

/mL


Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet heart α‐tocopherol levels at weaning


4.84

3.93

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

44 66 11 22 33 44


Heart α‐tocop

herol, µg

/mL


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.

2012 Vitamin D Update

• Oral dose in farrowing• Vitamin D3 in nursery diet• Vitamin D3 in sow diet

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

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


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)


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


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)


~2 hr more wash time for a 1,200 head barn when feeding DDGS/Bakery

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


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


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


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)


1.59

1.641.66

1.60

1.65

1.71

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80


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)


53.4

48.7

46.4

48.8

44.9

42.4

40

44

48

52

56


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)


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%


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



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, $



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



Economics of increasing Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation in nursery pigs (d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)

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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


2.56

2.63

2.67

2.582.60

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

0 7.5% 15%


Soybean hull particle size, P < 0.04Soybean hulls level, P > 0.26Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.02SEM = 0.026

F/G


Soybean Hulls


2,869

2,810

2,7002,752

2,632

2,500

2,700

2,900

3,100

0 7.5% 15%


Soybean hull particle size, P < 0.03Soybean hulls level, P < 0.0002Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.0001SEM = 28.6

NE, kcal/lbgain


Soybean Hulls


76.26

75.23 75.1675.42

74.96

74.0

75.0

76.0

77.0

0 7.5% 15%


Soybean hull particle size, P > 0.55Soybean hulls level, P > 0.12Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.001SEM = 0.361

Carcass Y

ield, %


Soybean Hulls


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


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


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


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)


Maximum Synthetic AA

Moderate Synthetic AA

1.57 1.57

1.59

1.55

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65


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)




1.831.81

1.74 1.73

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00


ADG, lb


Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 61; BW 160 to 270 lb)




270.9270.1

265.8 266.1

260

265

270

275


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)




3.263.30

3.39 3.37

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60


F/G


Effects of wheat and synthetic amino acid level on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 61; BW 160 to 270 lb)




73.473.5

73.473.1

72.0

73.0

74.0

75.0


Carcass Y

ield, %

Wheat, P > 0.370 vs 50% wheat, P > 0.51Synthetic AA level in wheat diets, P > 0.21SEM = 0.19





68.9

67.767.1

67.4

63

65

67

69

71

73


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





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


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


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


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


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


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


F/G

Control PayleanPaylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.001SEM = 0.18


Graham et al., 2012


2.16

2.08

2.03

2.272.22

2.13

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40


ADG, lb

Control

Paylean

Interaction P = .92Paylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.03SEM = 0.12


Graham et al., 2012


2.98

3.08 3.09

2.76

2.90 2.92

2.50

2.70

2.90

3.10

3.30


F/G



Graham et al., 2012


74.273.7

72.8

75.1

74.6

73.6

72

73

74

75

76

77


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


203.2201.3

195.0

215.3

210.5

201.4

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225


Carcass w

eight, lb

Control

Paylean

Paylean P < 0.001Withdrawal P = 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.001SEM = 2.76


Graham et al., 2012


9.649.33

11.92

9.48

10.22

11.82

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Full large intestine, lb


Effect of fiber level and Payleanon full large intestine weight (d 73)

Graham et al., 2012


65.1

69.3

72.4

64.3

70.0

73.2

60

63

66

69

72

75


IV, g/100

g

Control

Paylean

Paylean P = 0.74Withdrawal P < 0.01Corn‐soy vs fiber P < 0.01SEM = 0.86


Graham et al., 2012


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


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


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, %




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



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



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



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%

Update on Feed Processing Research

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


2.82

2.712.74

2.60 2.60

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0


F/G

Meal Pellet300 vs 600 microns P < 0.001Grind x form P = 0.37Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.03




$53.27

$57.94

$53.96

$62.20$61.35

$50

$55

$60

$65

$70


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




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


0.75 1.25

Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on F/GF/G

Diet form P < 0.05

Feeder opening, in.


2.10

2.21 2.202.17

2.21 2.21

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3


0.75 1.25

Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on finisher ADG

ADG, lb

Diet form P = 0.08

Feeder opening, lb


2.87

2.55

2.68

2.98

2.58

2.83

2.402.502.602.702.802.903.003.103.20


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.


• Wide feeder adjustment with 50% fines

• Wide feeder adjustment with 10% fines

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


2.71

2.862.94

2.61

2.71 2.70

2.50

2.70

2.90

3.10

3.30


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)



75.174.7

74.1

75.0 74.8

73.4

72

73

74

75

76

77


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)



65.7

71.7

74.7

67.0

75.5

78.4

65

68

71

74

77

80


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)



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

2.032.01 2.03

2.092.06 2.07

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30


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


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


294.7 294.1293.1

305.0

301.4 301.3

290

295

300

305

310


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


76.3 76.275.8

74.9 74.874.0

70

72

74

76

78

80


Yield, %


Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs (d 125)

Asmus et al., 2012


213.5212.6

210.1

216.4

213.9

211.8

205

208

211

214

217

220


HCW, lb


Effect of DDGS removal on performance of barrows and IC pigs (d 125)

Asmus et al., 2012


Asmus et al., 2012

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


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)


www.KSUswine.org

Swine Day 2012

www.KSUswine.org

Marketing tools

www.KSUswine.org

Carcass Feed cost Est. live basebase, $/cwt $/ton price, $/cwt$ 80.00 $ 300.00 $ 60.80

Excel optimal weight

www.KSUswine.org


Triumph non‐owner

www.KSUswine.org


Triumph owner

www.KSUswine.org


Triumph barn dump

www.KSUswine.org


Triumph barn dump

www.KSUswine.org

June/JulyFutures

www.KSUswine.org

Swine feed efficiency

www.swinefeedefficiency.com

Thank You!

Swine Day Slides 2012 - asi.k-state.edu Day Slides 2012.pdfKSU Swine Day 2012 ... Productivity...

Documents

Transcript of Swine Day Slides 2012 - asi.k-state.edu Day Slides 2012.pdfKSU Swine Day 2012 ... Productivity...