dr. erin harris - feeding strategies for dried distillers grain with solubles with immunologically...
DESCRIPTION
Feeding Strategies for Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles with Immunologically Castrated Pigs-Considerations for Producers and Packers - Dr. Erin Harris, University of Minnesota, from the 2014 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 15-16, 2014, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2014-leman-swine-conference-materialTRANSCRIPT
Feeding Strategies Using Dried Distillers
Grain with Solubles and Immunologically
Castrated Pigs – Considerations for
Producers and Packers
1University of Minnesota, Department of Animal
Science, St. Paul2Zoetis, Inc. Florham Park, NJ
3University of Minnesota, West Central ROC, Morris
E.K. Harris1, A. M. Hilbrands3, C. Calhoun2, M. A. Mellencamp2,
R. Cox1, L.J. Johnston3, and G.C. Shurson1
Future challenges of pork production
Growth of the global population & incomes
Increased consumption & demand for lean meat
Using fewer, non-traditional resources
More high fiber co-products will be used to supply
dietary calories and amino acids
New technologies are needed to enhance global
competiveness of U.S. pork production
Use of boars in pork production Advantages
Disadvantages Unpalatable off-odors = boar taint
Aggressive behavior
3
Squires 2011 and Suster et al., 2006
Boar vs. Barrow
Feed intake
Growth rate
Carcass fat
Lean gain efficiency
Improvest® (gonadotropin releasing factor analog –
diphtheria toxoid conjugate, Zoetis Inc, Florham Park, NJ)
Vaccine-like – pig produces antibodies
Subcutaneous injection (2 doses) by a trained technician
Immunological castration
1st dose
~ 11-15
2nd dose
15+
Quality
assuranceHarvest
≥ 4 weeks 3-10 weeks
Week of age
Feeding DDGS to
gilts and barrows
Superior growth
performance (Dunshea et al.,
2001)
Leaner carcasses(Dunshea et al., 2001)
Reduced dressing
percentage (Boler et al.,
2014)
Adequate growth
performance (Stein and Shurson
2009)
Soft pork fat (Xu et al., 2010)
Reduced dressing
percentage (Stein and Shurson
2009)
Immunological
castration(relative to traditional barrows)
Feeding Strategies??
Objectives
Evaluate effects of marketing time of
immunologically castrated pigs using different
DDGS feeding strategies:
1) Growth performance
2) Backfat deposition
3) Feed cost of lean gain
4) Pork quality
Experimental design
Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg)
Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial
arrangement
Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10%
Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0%
Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40%
15 19 2411
Phase 1
(3 wks)Phase 2
(4 wks)
Phase 3
(4 wks)
Phase 4
(5 wks)
8Age (weeks)
% DDGS in diets
Experimental design
Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg)
Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial
arrangement
Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10%
Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0%
Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40%
15 19 2411
1st dose Improvest
Age (weeks)
Phase 1
(3 wks)Phase 2
(4 wks)
Phase 3
(4 wks)
Phase 4
(5 wks)
8
% DDGS in diets
Experimental design
Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg)
Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial
arrangement
Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10%
Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0%
Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40%
2nd dose Improvest
15
9 (TD9)
17
7 (TD7)
19
5 (TD5)
24
Harvest11
1st dose Improvest
Age (weeks)Time to harvest after 2nd dose (weeks)
Phase 1
(3 wks)Phase 2
(4 wks)
Phase 3
(4 wks)
Phase 4
(5 wks)
8
% DDGS in diets
Diet composition
DDGS source contained 10.4% crude fat
Corn-soybean meal-DDGS diets were formulated to
meet NRC (2012) nutrient requirements for boars
Phase 1 Phase 2
0%
DDGS
40%
DDGS
0%
DDGS
30%
DDGS
40%
DDGS
SID Lys:ME (g/Mcal ME) 3.31 3.32 2.88 2.89 2.88
Phase 3 Phase 4
0%
DDGS
30%
DDGS
40%
DDGS
0%
DDGS
30%
DDGS
40%
DDGS
SID Lys:ME (g/Mcal ME) 2.55 2.56 2.55 2.39 2.39 2.41
Materials & methods – live animal
Growth performance Pig body weight and feed disappearance
determined to calculate ADG, ADFI, G:F
Body composition B-mode ultrasound for 10th rib backfat depth
Single trained technician
Beginning at 2nd Improvest dose
Materials & methods – live animal
Statistical analysis
Experimental unit = Pen
Growth performance - Proc MIXED
Repeated Measure = Week
Backfat – Proc GLIMMIX
Pork quality – Proc MIXED
Significance P ≤ 0.05
Live Animal Results -
Improvest
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Ga
in e
ffic
ien
cy
Week of Age
TD9
TD7
TD5
G:F from 8-24 weeks of ageTD × Week; P < 0.01
a
a, b TD5 differs from TD7 and TD9 within week P ≤ 0.05
b
Overall G:F
0.413 0.417 0.428
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
TD9 TD7 TD5
Ga
in e
ffic
ien
cy
Diet (P < 0.01)
TD (P < 0.05)
Diet ×TD (P > 0.10)
a b
a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
Overall ADG
0.930 0.936 0.941
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
TD9 TD7 TD5
AD
G, k
g/d
Diet (P > 0.05)
TD (P > 0.05)
Diet ×TD (P > 0.05)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
AD
FI, k
g/d
Week of Age
TD9
TD7
TD5
ADFI from 8-24 weeks of ageTD × Week (P < 0.001)
a
a, b TD9 differs from TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05
b
a
b
Live Animal Results - Diet
Overall G:F
0.427 0.424 0.414 0.413
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
PCon SD WD NCon
Ga
in e
ffic
ien
cy
Dietary Treatment
Diet (P < 0.01)
TD (P < 0.05)
Diet ×TD (P > 0.10)
a ba b
a, b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
Overall ADG
0.959 0.940 0.929 0.913
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
PCon SD WD NCon
AD
G, k
g/d
Dietary Treatment
Diet (P < 0.01)
TD (P > 0.05)
Diet ×TD (P > 0.05)
a b
a, b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
AD
FI, k
g/d
Week of Age
PCon
SD
WD
NCon
b
ADFI from 8-24 weeks of ageDiet × Week (P < 0.01)
B,aA
a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ by dietary treatment (P ≤ 0.05)A,B Means with unlike superscripts differ by week (P ≤ 0.05)
Backfat deposition - marketing 9
weeks after 2nd dose
a,b PCon-TD9 and SD-TD9 differs from WD-TD9 and NCon-TD9 within week (P ≤ 0.05)c,d NCon-TD9 differs from all other dietary treatments within week (P ≤ 0.05)
Diet × TD × Time2 (P < 0.01)
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
10
th r
ib b
ac
kfa
t, c
m
Week of Age
PCon TD9
SD TD9
WD TD9
NCon TD9
c
d
d
c
a
b
Response did not occur in TD5 or TD7
Backfat deposition – negative
control feeding strategyDiet × TD × Time2 (P < 0.01)
a,b TD9 and TD7 differs from TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05c,d TD7 differs from TD9 and TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
10
th r
ib b
ac
kfa
t, c
m
Week of Age
NCon TD9
NCon TD7
NCon TD5
a
b
c
d
0
15
30
45
60
75
Dre
ss
ing
, %
TD9 TD7 TD5
Dressing percentage
0
15
30
45
60
75
Dre
ss
ing
, %
PCon SD WD NCon
a a b
Diet (P < 0.05)
TD (P < 0.05)
Diet × TD (P > 0.05)
a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
a ab ab b
Diet cost of lean gain
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
SD WD NConDie
t co
st
of
lean
gain
re
lati
ve
to
PC
on
, $
/kg
HIGH MED LOW
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
TD7 TD5
Die
t c
os
t o
f le
an
ga
in
rela
tive
to
TD
9, $
/kg
HIGH MED LOW
Price Scenario (USD)
Feed Ingredient LOW MED HIGH
Corn ($/bushel) 4.00 6.00 8.00
Soybean Meal ($/ton) 450.00 500.00 550.00
DDGS ($/ton) 200.00 250.00 300.00
Feeding DDGS to
gilts and barrows
Superior growth
performance (Dunshea et al.,
2001)
Leaner carcasses (Dunshea
et al., 2001)
Adequate growth
performance (Stein and Shurson
2009)
Soft pork fat (Xu et al., 2010)
Immunological
castration(relative to traditional barrows)
↓Backfat in TD5 and TD9 pigs
Especially fed NCon
Lean and pork fat quality
Materials & methods - harvest
Harvested subsample at 24 weeks of age
Pigs selected at 13 weeks of age (n = 2 per pen)
Transported to U of M Meat Science Lab
Determined longissimus muscle pH at 45 min and 48 h
Fabricated to NAMP #414 – Canadian Back loin
Subjective firmness and marbling
Drip loss and purge loss
Collected subcutaneous belly fat
Anterior dorsal corner for fatty acid analysis
Loin pH
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
45 min 48 h
pH
TD9 TD7 TD5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
45 min 48 h
pH
PCon SD WD NCon
x y
Diet (P > 0.05)
TD (P > 0.05)
Diet × TD (P > 0.05)
x,y Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.10)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Chop driploss
Roast purgeloss
LM
lo
ss, %
TD9 TD7 TD5
Loin drip & purge loss
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Chop drip loss Roast purgeloss
LM
lo
ss
, %
PCon SD WD NCon
Diet (P > 0.05)
TD (P > 0.05)
Diet × TD (P > 0.05)
Loin firmness score
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Marbling Firmness
Su
bje
cti
ve
Sc
ore
TD9 TD7 TD5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Marbling Firmness
Su
bje
cti
ve S
co
re
PCon SD WD NCon
ab ab b
bbby
ax
Diet (P < 0.05)
TD (P > 0.05)
Diet × TD (P > 0.05)
a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)x,y Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.10)
Belly fat IV
59.4 65.6 66.7 74.90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
PCon SD WD NCon
Iod
ine
Va
lue
ab b
c
66.3 66.0 67.70
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
TD9 TD7 TD5Io
din
e V
alu
e
a a b
a-c Least squares means with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
Iodine Value = ([C16:1] x 0.95) + ([C18:1] x 0.86) + ([C18:2] x 1.732) + ([C18:3] x 2.616)
+ ([C20:1] x 0.785) + [C22:1] x 0.723) (AOCS, 1998)
Diet (P < 0.05)
TD (P < 0.05)
Diet × TD (P > 0.05)
Summary1) Growth performance - gain efficiency improvements when:
Fed DDGS SD strategy
Marketed 5 weeks after the second Improvest dose
2) Body composition – changes in backfat deposition greatest effect when
fed NCon:
Especially when harvested at 9 and 5 weeks after 2nd dose
Removing DDGS in WD fed pigs, backfat deposition rapidly accelerated
3) Diet cost of lean gain – reduced when pigs fed SD
Greatest savings relative to PCon
4) Carcass composition – influenced by time of second Improvest dose
5) Lean and fat quality – influenced by dietary treatment
Take home messagesGrowth performance
• Selection of DDGS feeding strategy and Improvest timing are independent
• Optimized when feeding step down strategy and marketed 5 weeks post second dose
Diet cost of lean gain
• Greatest reduction using the SD strategy due to changes in body composition & dressing percentage
Lean & fat quality
• Feeding 40% DDGS = Softer loins with less marbling and higher belly fat IV
• Interval between 2nd Improvest dose and harvest = minimal changes in lean and fat quality
Implications
Goal: producing lean pork for consumption
Implications
Goal: producing lean pork for consumption
Improving nutritional efficiency to promote
competiveness of pork
AcknowledgementsZoetis Inc.
Natural Food Holdings
Dr. Jon Anderson
West Central Research and Outreach Center
Adrienne Hilbrands
Farm Animal Attendants
U of MN Animal Science Graduate Students