west central research and outreach center, morris and ... s… · lee j. johnston, professor west...

Lee J. Johnston, Professor

West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris

and

Gerald C. Shurson, Professor

Department of Animal Science, St. Paul

University of Minnesota

Relative nutritional value

Feeding management

Logistical concerns

Cost

Moisture content

Availability of nutrients

Protein quality

Anti-nutritional factors

Feeding limits

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

DM CP Lys

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Vari

ati

on

, %

Corn

SBM

DDGS

Midds

Cromwell et al., 1999 & 2000; Spiehs et al., 2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Calcium Phosphorus

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Vari

ati

on

, %

Corn

SBM

DDGS

Midds

Cromwell et al., 1999 & 2000; Spiehs et al., 2002

Nutrients are expressed on “total” or

“digestible” or “available” basis

Digestible and available estimates require a

pig to determine

Total nutrient content will always be greater

than digestible or available nutrient content

NCR- 42:

* %Lys = 0.0172(%CP) + 0.1138; r = 0.73

Ward:

* %Lys = 0.026(%CP) + 0.049; r = 0.66

Kerr and Wilson:

* %Lys = 0.0205(%CP) + 0.1162; r = 0.64

r = 0.73

ME (kcal/kg DM) = 4167 – 9.1 x Ash + 1.1 x CP + 4.2 x

EE – 2.6 x Hemi – 4.0 x Cell – 6.8 x ADL; R2 = .93 (Noblet

and Perez, 1993)

ME (kcal/kg DM) = 872 + .782 x GE – 4.6 x Ash – 3.4 x

NDF – 5.7 x ADL; R2 = .92 (Noblet and Perez, 1993)

ME (kcal/kg DM) = 4369 – 10.9 x Ash + 4.01 x EE – 6.5 x

CF; R2 = .87 (Noblet and Perez, 1993)

DE (kcal/kg DM) = -9,929 – 180.38 x Ash – 106.82 x EE –

120.44 x ADF + 3.202 x GE; R2 = .96 (Pedersen et al., 2007)

ME (kcal/kg DM) = -10,267 – 175.78 x Ash + 23.09 x CP –

71.22 x EE – 137.93 x ADF + 3.036 x; R2 = .99 (Pedersen et al.,

2007)

ME (kcal/kg DM) = 2,815 + 94.5 x Cfat + 96.2 x CF – 33.2 x

NDF – 66.2 x Ash + 25.9 x Starch; R2 = .90 (Mendoza et al., 2010)

ME (kcal/kg DM) = .90 x GE – 29.95 x TDF; R2 = .72 (Anderson et al., 2011)

Analytical

Starch Neutral detergent fiber

Acid detergent fiber

Crude fiber

Non-starch polysaccharides

Soluble dietary fiber

Total dietary fiber

Non-structural carbohydrates

Water-soluble carbohydrates

Dashed lines indicate that recovery of included compounds may be incomplete

Plant Carbohydrates

Cell Contents Cell Wall

Starch Disaccharides

Oligosaccharides –

including

fructooligosaccharides

Fructan

polysaccharides Β-Glucans

Pectins

and

Gums

Hemicelluloses Cellulose Lignin/Phenolics Resistant

Starch

Sugars

Dlys = 0.01(L*) + 0.32

R2 = 0.03

Dlys = 0.02(L*) - 0.25

R2 = 0.48

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Color parameter L*

Dig

. ly

s co

nte

nt,

%

Urriola et al., 2007

SID Lys = 0.023 + 0.637 x reactive Lys (%)

* R2 = 0.66

* Reactive Lys = analyzed Lys % - furosine(%)/(0.32 x 0.40)

SID Lys = -0.636 + (0.858 x Lys) x (0.12 x

(100 x Lys/CP))

Stein, 2011

Method SID Crude Protein SID Lysine

R2

Minolta color .85 .53

Optical density

without Crude Protein .90 .97

with Crude Protein .99 .93

Front Face Fluorescence 1.00 .99

Urriola et al., 2007

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Pred

icte

d D

ig-L

ys,

%

Digestible Lys, %

Urriola et al., 2007

r2 = 0.99

Shurson et al., Unpublished

R2= 0.0168

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40

Furosine/Lysine, %

IDE

A V

alu

e

Zhang et al., 2010

Need lots of samples to develop equations

Need lots of samples to validate equations

Equations need to be re-calibrated

periodically

Equations may be specific to an individual

model of spectrometer

Equations have been developed for a variety

of nutrients and feed ingredients

EvaPig

* Ajinomoto/INRA (www.evapig.com)

* Customizable

AminoDAT

* Evonik

National Swine Nutrition Guide

NRC, 2012

Purdue Univ. – Substitution Value

Calculator * www.ansc.purdue.edu/compute/subvalue.htm

Michigan State – equations for specific

ingredients

Univ. of MO – byproduct price list * http://agebb.missouri.edu/dairy/byprod/bpmenu.asp

National Swine Nutrition Guide

DDGS replaces corn, SBM, and inorganic P in diets

Value of DDGS depends on relative costs of ingredients being replaced and pig performance

Calculator spreadsheets are available from: * Univ. of Illinois

* South Dakota State Univ.

* Kansas State Univ.

* Iowa State Univ.

* Spreadsheets (IL and SD) can be found at www.ddgs.umn.edu

Feed ingredients are variable in nutrient

content

Evaluation of nutrient content of ingredients

in pigs is still the “Gold Standard” for

nutritionists

New technologies are under development

that show promise as practical replacements

for the Gold Standard