swine day slides 2013 - k-state asi day slides 2013.pdf · special events during ksu swine day •...

KSU Swine Day 2013

Special Events During KSU Swine Day• 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. ‐ Trade Show Open

• 11:00 a.m. ‐ Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Presentation by Dr. Henry and Dr. Hesse

• 11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. ‐ CHEW ON THIS presentation in the west parking lot

• 12:00 noon ‐ Pork Lunch in Main Ballroom

• 1:15 p.m. – Recent Developments in Feed Mill Technology – Dr. Charles Stark

• 3:30 – 5:00 p.m. – Tour of the Feed Mill and K‐State Ice Cream Reception

Simulation of Estrus and Ovulation in Lactating Sows

Background• Continued pressure to transition away from gestation stalls necessitates investigation of alternative breeding management strategies.

• Breeding sows in lactation could reduce sow non‐productive days while increasing lactation length to the benefit of the litter.

• Previous research indicates that reducing suckling pressure and boar exposure are critical stimuli.

Treatments1) Traditional Lactation2) Altered Suckling Treatment

Altered Suckling Treatment

Heaviest pigs weaned on d 18

Lightweight pigs combined

AA B

B

Piglets alternated between sows

Boar Exposure

Sow PerformanceItem Control ALT SEM

Sows, n 25 28 ‐‐‐‐

Days in estrus post‐farrowing 24.6a 23.0b 0.54

Inseminated in lactation, % ‐‐‐ 89.3% ‐‐‐

Inseminated after weaning, % 96.0% 10.7% ‐‐‐

Pregnancy rate, % 92.0% 89.0%

Subsequent reproductive performance

Number born alive 13.1 13.0 1.5

Litter weight, lb 39.0 39.7 4.1a, b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Sows in Estrus, n

Day in Estrus Post‐Farrowing

ALT

Control

Piglet PerformanceItem Control ALT SEM

Pigs, n 289 322 ‐‐‐

Weaning age, d 21 18 / 25

Gain d 18 to 32, lb 7.21 7.27 0.727

Litter standard deviation

d 18 2.19 2.12 0.178

d 32 3.11 2.55 0.290

SD change, d 18 to 32 0.92b 0.43a 0.133a, b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05.

5.72a

6.91

7.63

8.16b

6.71b6.97

7.407.57a

5

6

7

8

9

10

<10 lb 10‐12 lb 12‐14 lb >14 lb

Weight g

ain from

d 18 to 32, lb

Pig Weight Category

ControlALT

SEM: 0.30<10 lb: P < 0.001 >14 lb: P < 0.01

a, b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05.

Conclusions• Lactational estrus can be stimulated at rates similar to conventional weaning.

• No detrimental effects were seen for farrowing rate or subsequent litter size.

• Litter growth was similar between treatments, but litter weight variation was reduced by over 50%. Future research should track weights to market.

• Additional research is needed to develop the most practical protocols and confirm results in a commercial setting.

OvuGel™(triptorelin acetate)

100 mcg triptorelin per mL (as triptorelin acetate)Gel for intravaginal use

INDICATIONS FOR USE:For the synchronization of time of insemination in weaned sows to facilitate a single fixed-time artificial insemination.Not approved for use in gilts. Safety and effectiveness have not been evaluated in these animals.DESCRIPTION:OvuGel™ is a thin, clear to slightly hazy gel. Each mL of OvuGel™ contains 100 mcg of triptorelin (as triptorelin acetate) for intravaginal administration.

OvuGel® is a GnRH agonist given to sows intravaginally, four days post‐weaning. OvuGel® stimulates the release of LH, inducing ovulation 40‐48 hours post‐treatment. It facilitates single dose fixed‐time insemination without estrus detection in weaned sows, resulting in normal fertility.• OvuGel® is administered on the morning of day 4, approximately 96 hours post‐

weaning.• A single insemination is performed early on day 5 post‐weaning, approximately 24

hours post‐treatment.• No estrus detection is required to determine insemination time.• The OvuGel® program potentially allows producers to utilize labor more efficiently.• Pigs per semen dose are increased, leveraging high value genetics.

Effectiveness Trials Comparing Untreated Control Sows with OvuGel™‐Treated Sows

Control OvuGel™Service Eligible Sows 1092 490

No. Inseminated by 7 d post‐weaning 947 490

Doses of Semen per Sow Inseminated 2.1 1.0

No. Sows Farrowed 838 396

Farrow Rate for Service Eligible Sows 76.7 80.8

Born Alive per Litter 11.2 11.2

Total Born per Semen Dose 5.3 9.9

Piglet Index (Pigs born live/100 eligible sows) 861 9081Numbers in table are unadjusted means and raw numbers of studies performed at 5 US Locations. PTK 9‐06 (Trials D‐H).

Effect of Timed Insemination Following OvuGel™ Treatment on Fertility1

Control OvuGel™Service Eligible Sows 105 100% Detected in Estrus 94.3 92.0No. Inseminated by 7 d post‐weaning 99 100Doses of Semen per Sow Inseminated 2.2 1.0No. Sows Farrowed 94 92Farrow Rate for Service Eligible Sows 89.5 92.0Born Alive per Litter 12.2 12.3Total Born per Semen Dose 5.9 12.4

Piglet Index (Pigs born live/100 eligible sows) 1094 11301 2,500 sow farm (Trial C). Numbers in the table are unadjusted means and raw numbers. PTK 1‐10‐02.

Effect of Timed Insemination Following OvuGel™ Treatment on Fertility1

Control OvuGel™Service Eligible Sows 148 149

% Detected in Estrus 82 84

No. Inseminated by 7 d post‐weaning 121 149

Doses of Semen per Sow Inseminated 2.2 1.0

No. Sows Farrowed 109 115

Farrow Rate for Service Eligible Sows 73.6 77.2

Born Alive per Litter 10.9 11.3

Total Born per Semen Dose 4.9 9.7

Piglet Index (Pigs born live/100 eligible sows) 805 8721 14,000 sow farm (Trial B). Numbers in the table are unadjusted means and raw numbers. PTK 4‐07

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

DDGS Update

1) Economics of medium‐ and low‐oil DDGS2) DDGS/fiber withdrawal in late finishing

2.27 2.292.25

2.27 2.27

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Control 20% 40% 20% 40%

ADG, lb

5.4% 9.6%Graham et al., 2013

Effects of DDGS Source and Level on Average Daily Gain (d 0 to 82)

2.51

2.59

2.70

2.512.56

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

Control 20% 40% 20% 40%

F/G

Graham et al., 2013

Effects of DDGS Source and Level on Feed Efficiency (d 0 to 82)

5.4% 9.6%

NE values, kcal/kg (as‐fed)

2672

21332320

2732

2497

2887

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700

2900

Corn 5.4 7.6 9.4 9.6 12.1

DDGS oil, %

DE and NE prediction equations

• Stepwise regression was then used to establish DE and NE prediction equations.

• Variables included in the regression analysis were the linear and quadratic terms of oil (ether extract), CP, CF, ADF, NDF, particle size, and bulk density.

• Only oil (ether extract) content was found to be significant in the model.

Predicted Digestible and Net Energy of DDGS

y = 115.01x + 1501R2 = .86

y = 62.347x + 3058.1R2 = .41

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Energy, Kcal/k

g

Oil, %

Net EnergyDigestible Energy

Available online at www.KSUswine.org

K-State DDGS Calculator (Variable DDGS Energy)

Corn, $/bu 4.25$ 151.79$ 132% =DDGS to Corn price ratio

SBM, $/ton 425.00$ Use fat to equalize energy NoMonocal, $/ton 600.00$ Include L-Trp in diets? No DDGS NLimestone, $/ton 36.20$ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, %Lysine HCl, $/lb 0.80$ DDGS oil content, % 8.0%DL-Met, $/lb 1.90$ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70$ L-Threonine, $/lb 1.25$ Fat, $/lb 0.40$ DDGS, $/ton 200.00$ L-Trp, $/lb 9.00$

Start weight, lb 50 75 125 170 210 246End weight, lb 75 125 170 210 246 280

DDGS maximum value F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 TotalDDGS % at max savings 25 15 15 5 5 10Max savings, $/pig $0.08 $0.10 $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 $0.04 $0.29

DDGS levels chosen 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% - Savings, $/pig $0.06 $0.09 $0.00 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.17

Calculator attempts to consider economic return per pig from change in diet cost, feed efficiency, and growth rate. It does not account for any economic impact on yield or iodine value.



Corn, $/bu 4.25$ 151.79$ 145% =DDGS to Corn price ratioSBM, $/ton 425.00$ Use fat to equalize energy NoMonocal, $/ton 600.00$ Include L-Trp in diets? No DDGS Limestone, $/ton 36.20$ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, %Lysine HCl, $/lb 0.80$ DDGS oil content, % 8.0%DL-Met, $/lb 1.90$ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70$ L-Threonine, $/lb 1.25$ Fat, $/lb 0.40$ DDGS, $/ton 220.00$ L-Trp, $/lb 9.00$



DDGS levels chosen 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% - Savings, $/pig -$0.04 -$0.14 -$0.25 -$0.28 -$0.11 -$0.08 -$0.90




Corn, $/bu 4.25$ 151.79$ 132% =DDGS to Corn price ratioSBM, $/ton 425.00$ Use fat to equalize energy NoMonocal, $/ton 600.00$ Include L-Trp in diets? Yes DDGS Limestone, $/ton 36.20$ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, %Lysine HCl, $/lb 0.80$ DDGS oil content, % 8.0%DL-Met, $/lb 1.90$ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70$ L-Threonine, $/lb 1.25$ Fat, $/lb 0.33$ DDGS, $/ton 200.00$ L-Trp, $/lb 9.00$



DDGS levels chosen 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% - Savings, $/pig $0.22 $0.45 $0.49 $0.45 $0.24 $0.22 $2.05


Feeding of high fiber diets before market

• Feeding diets containing DDGS reduce feed cost in many situations, but also reduce carcass yield

73.473.0

71.5 71.7

71

72

73

74

75

0% 10% 20% 30%

Yield, %

DDGS, %

SEM = 0.50Quad P < 0.01Linear, P < 0.003

Whitney et al., 2006

Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb)

73.272.9

71.6

73.072.4

71.7

70

71

72

73

74

75

Yield, %

d 0 to 43: Low High High High High Highd 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High Highd 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High

Asmus et al., 2011

Duration P=.002Level P= 0.001SEM 0.26

Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb)

6.67.1

8.2

6.7

7.5

8.7

5

6

7

8

9

10

Full large intestine, lb

d 0 to 43: Low High High High High Highd 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High Highd 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High

Asmus et al., 2011

Duration P<0.01Level P< 0.05SEM 0.46

Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter

Exp. 1

72.7 72.5 72.572.2

72.0

71.2

69.0

70.0

71.0

72.0

73.0

74.0

Carcass Y

ield, %

Corn‐Soy 20 d 15 d 10 d 5 d High fiber

Coble et al., 2013

Corn‐soy vs high fiber, P = 0.01 Withdraw effects, quadratic P < 0.03SEM 0.20

Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing


Exp. 2

74.85

74.1074.62 74.54 74.43

73.93

72

73

74

75

76

77

Farm

yield, %


Coble et al., 2013

Corn‐soy vs high fiber, P = 0.19 No withdraw effects, P > 0.27SEM 0.50



Exp. 2 (at time of study)

$26.01$26.63

$28.86

$28.04$27.75

$26.61

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Income over fe

ed, $/pig


Coble et al., 2013


Value, $ 111.53 105.91 107.22 106.68 105.45 104.22Feed, $ 85.52 79.28 78.36 78.65 77.70 77.61


Exp. 2 (June 20, 2013 prices)

$59.33

$58.27

$60.89

$59.90$59.25

$57.74

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Income over fe

ed, $/pig


Coble et al., 2013


Value, $ 144.85 137.55 139.25 138.55 139.95 135.35Feed, $ 85.52 79.28 78.36 78.65 77.70 77.61


Exp. 2 (September, 2013 prices)

$63.78

$59.53

$61.64

$60.53$59.61

$57.67575859606162636465

Income over fe

ed, $/pig


Coble et al., 2013


Value, $ 134.71 127.92 129.50 128.85 127.36 125.88Feed, $ 74.02 73.25 72.84 73.49 73.01 73.85

Removing pigs from high fiber diets

• Reduction in yield– Short term = < 5 days

• Ex. high oil DDGS

• Reduction in carcass weight due to lower ADG?– Carcass weight appears to increase linearly to 15 to 20 d of withdrawal.

• Ex. Low oil DDGS or wheat midds

Removing pigs from high fiber diets Not the same as removal from diets with high levels of unsaturated fat!

Shorter withdrawal

Yield Fat quality

Longer withdrawal

• Phytase is routinely added to swine diets to improve utilization of phytate‐bound phosphorus within cereal grains which is typically unavailable to the animal.

• Additions of phytase at amounts greater than that needed to meet the P requirement, “superdosing”, could potentially increase digestibility of nutrients other than P and result in improved gain and feed efficiency.

Phytase Introduction

• Studies were conducted in commercial research facilities as well as the KSU STRC.

• Three sources of phytase were used: – Ronozyme HiPhos, Optiphos, and Quantum.

• Exp. 1 and 2 evaluated the effects of phytase in low‐lysine diets compared with a high lysine positive control.

• Exp. 3 and 4 used existing diets with phytase added on top of a nutritionally adequate diet.

Phytase Introduction

1.25

1.19

1.22

1.25 1.25

1.22

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

250 250 500 1,000 2,000 3,000

ADG, lb

Effects of increasing Ronozyme HiPhos in low lysine diets on nursery pig growth performance (d 0 to 36)

Phytase, FYT/kg

SID lysine, % High Low

Phytase, quadratic P < 0.02High vs. Low Lys P < 0.02

Langbein et al., 2013

1.56

1.62

1.58 1.57

1.60 1.59

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

250 250 500 1,000 2,000 3,000

F/G

Phytase, quadratic P < 0.21High vs. Low Lys P < 0.01

Phytase, FYT/kg

SID lysine, % High Low


Effects of increasing Ronozyme HiPhos in low lysine diets on nursery pig growth performance (d 0 to 36)

1.28 1.251.20

1.18

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

500 3,000 500 3,000

ADG, lb

Influence of added Ronozyme HiPhos in low or high lysine diets on growth performance of nursery pigs (d 0 to 18)

Phytase, FYT/kgSID lysine, % 1.20 1.05

Phytase, P < 0.33High vs. Low Lys P < 0.01


1.62 1.62

1.711.74

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

1.80

500 3,000 500 3,000

F/G

Influence of added Ronozyme HiPhos in low or high lysine diets on growth performance of nursery pigs (d 0 to 18)

Phytase, FYT/kgSID lysine, % 1.20 1.05

Phytase, P < 0.39High vs. Low Lys P < 0.01


2.28 2.282.30

2.26

2.15

2.20

2.25

2.30

2.35

0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00

ADG, lb

No differences, P > 0.10

Effects of increasing Optiphos 2000 in growth performance of finishing pigs (d 0 to 92)

Goodband et al., 2013

Phytase, FTU/kg 250 500 1000 2000 Phytase, lb/ton

2.54

2.45

2.50 2.51

2.40

2.45

2.50

2.55

2.60

0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00

F/G

ab ab

Effects of increasing Optiphos 2000 in growth performance of finishing pigs (d 0 to 92)

b

a

Cubic effect of phytase, P < 0.01

Goodband et al., 2013

Phytase, FTU/kg 250 500 1000 2000 Phytase, lb/ton

1.22

1.20

1.15

1.17

1.19

1.21

1.23

1.25

NoPhytase

2,500FTU/kg

P = 0.01SEM = 0.007

0.55

0.62

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

NoPhytase

2,500FTU/kg

P < 0.01SEM = 0.01

Effects of superdosing Quantum phytase on growth performance of weanling pigs; Commercial facilities (d 0 to 21)

ADG, lb

Feed

/gain

3.36

3.87

3.00

3.40

3.80

4.20

NoPhytase

2,500FTU/kg

P < 0.01SEM = 0.077

0.76

0.93

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

NoPhytase

2,500FTU/kg

P = 0.04SEM = 0.054

Effects of superdosing Quantum phytase on IOFC for weanling pigs

IOFC, $/hd

IOFC, $/hd

D 0 ‐ 11 D 0 ‐ 21

• Similar to previous studies, these experiments emphasize the importance of adequate lysine to promote growth performance.

• These studies also illustrate the differences between experiments conducted in university vs. commercial setting because a phytase response was detected only in the commercial studies.

• Although very cautious to lower lysine with increasing phytase, there could be benefits to increasing phytaseabove that needed for the P requirement.

Summary of superdose phytase trials

1.44

1.40

1.47

1.42

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

None RoxazymeG2G

RonozymeVP

RoxazymeG2G + VP

F/G

Trt, P = 0.09SEM 0.019

Drought‐affected corn and/or carbohydraseenzyme inclusion on F/G (d 10‐35 post‐weaning)

Enzyme Inclusion

1.44

1.42

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

Normal Drought

F/G

Source, P = 0.32SEM 0.013

Jones et al., 2013

• Recently, data has suggested that pigs feed additional zinc above that provided in the trace mineral premix can improve growth.

• More research was needed to evaluate zinc source and added levels for optimum growth and economic return.

• Additionally, more data was needed to understand “why” this response was occurring when pigs are being fed Paylean.

Additional Zinc in Paylean Diets

218.1

223.9225.7

224.1

226.4

224.5 223.9

222.4

214

220

226

232

Control Paylean 75 150 225

HCW, lb

ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.04Zinc source, P = 0.28No Zinc level effect, P > 0.81SEM 3.1

Zinc level and source with Paylean on Hot Carcass Weight ‐ Exp. 1 (d 0 to 35)

Paulk et al., 2013

Paylean + Added Zn, ppm

21.16

22.74

24.00 23.83 23.5623.65

22.0921.78

18.00

23.00

28.00


IOFC, $/pig

ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.33Zinc source, P = 0.17No Zinc level effect, P > 0.44SEM 2.04

Zinc level and source with Paylean on Income Over Feed Cost ‐ Exp. 1 (d 0 to 35)

Paulk et al., 2013


306293

314

345329

290

326

395

260

300

340

380

420


Liver,

µg/g

ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.55Level x source, linear P = 0.01SEM 17.44

Zinc level and source with Paylean on Liver Concentrations (DM basis) ‐ Exp. 1

Paulk et al., 2013


1.08

1.011.07 1.07

1.131.07 1.09

1.13

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4


Plasma, µ

g/m

L

ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.19Zinc source, P = 0.77Zinc, linear P = 0.01SEM 0.04

Zinc level and source with Paylean on Plasma Zinc, Exp. 1 (d 32)

Paulk et al., 2013


207.9

215.6

218.3216.1

200

206

212

218

224

230

Control Paylean Zinc oxide Availa‐Zn

HCW, lb

Control vs Paylean, P = 0.001Paylean vs added zinc, P = 0.32Zinc oxide vs Availa‐Zn, P = 0.22SEM = 2.53

Added zinc source and Paylean on Hot Carcass WeightExp. 2 (d 28)

Paulk et al., 2013Paylean + 50 ppm added Zn

16.52

19.77

21.22

20.04

$15

$17

$19

$21

$23

$25

Control Paylean Zinc oxide Availa‐Zn

IOFC, $/pig

Control vs Paylean, P = 0.001Paylean vs added zinc, P = 0.21Zinc oxide vs Availa‐Zn, P = 0.14SEM = 0.57

Added zinc source and Paylean on IOFCExp. 2 (d 28)

Paulk et al., 2013Paylean + 50 ppm added Zn

• Small, but consistent improvements in growth rate have been found with added zinc in the Paylean diet.

• An additional 50 to 75 ppm added zinc has been the most economical on an IOFC basis.

• Avoid excess Zn to minimize excretion in manure.

Added Zinc to the Paylean Diet Summary

• Historically added Cu above that in the trace mineral premix has been shown to improve feed intake and daily gain in the nursery, grower and early finishing.

• Industry added levels can range from 75 to 250 ppm.• Data on tribasic copper chloride (TBCC) was limited and thus evaluated in a series of experiments.

Added Cu in Growing and Finishing Pigs

1.99 2.00

2.07 2.052.08 2.09

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

Corn‐Soy By‐product 75 150

ADG, lb

CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.76CuSO4 linear, P = 0.08TBCC linear, P = 0.01SEM = 0.025

Copper source and level on ADG(d 0 to 111)

Coble et al., 2013

Added Cu to By‐product, ppm

2.52

2.582.60

2.622.612.58

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80


F/G

CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.01CuSO4 linear, P = 0.10TBCC no effect, P > 0.11SEM = 0.024

Copper source and level on F/G(d 0 to 111)

Coble et al., 2013


48.39 48.50

49.32

48.12

49.4050.01

$45

$47

$49

$51

$53


IOFC, $/pig

CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.91CuSO4 no effect, P > 0.26TBCC no effect, P > 0.15SEM = 0.749

Copper source and level on Income Over Feed Cost(Constant Days)

Coble et al., 2013


268

417 413383373

389

200

300

400

500

600


Wash tim

e, se

c

CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.01CuSO4 no effect, P > 0.27TBCC no effect, P > 0.26SEM = 21.5

Copper source and level on Pen Cleanup

Coble et al., 2013


Feed preference between copper sources

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Control vs TBCC Control vs CuSO4 TBCC vs CuSO4

TBCC

TBCC

CuSO4 CuSO4

ControlControl

Coble et al., 2013

P = 0.02 P < 0.01 P < 0.01

• Adding supplemental copper as either CuSO4or TBCC improved growth.

• Pigs fed TBCC continued to have increased growth rate in late finishing, especially those fed 150 ppm added copper.

• When given a choice of feed, pigs eat a greater quantity of a diet without Cu. When comparing TBCC and CuSO4, pigs consume a greater quantity of the diet with TBCC.

Added Cu Summary

Tryptophan

Tryptophan (Trp) is the 3rd limiting AA in swine diets based on corn and soybean meal

Extensive use of crystalline AA in the diet to optimize feed cost has stressed the importance of accurately defining the Trprequirement

The increasing usage of DDGS in swine diet cause Trpbecome more limiting due to the low‐Trp in this product

Requirement estimates for SID Trp:Lys vary from 14.5 to 23.1% across various BW ranges (Quant, 2008)

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

% of M

axim

um ADG

SID Trp:Lys ratio, %

Eder, 2003 Guzik, 2005

Kendall, 2007 exp1 Kendall, 2007 exp2

Kendall, 2007 exp3 Barnes, 2011 exp1

Barnes, 2011 exp2 Nitikanchana, 2012 L‐Trp

Nitikanchana, 2012 SBM

Influence of SID Trp:Lys ratio on ADG

Effect of Lysine and Trp on Performance21 d trial – 48 to 81 lb BW

1.57 1.60

1.08

1.44

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

ADG, lb

abcP<0.05

1.621.71

2.061.93

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

F/G

abcP<0.05a

Goncalves et al, 2014

a

b

c

ADG F/G

aa

bcc

CP, % 23.2 20.2 17.6 17.6SID Lys 1.09 1.09 0.92 0.92Trp:lys 20 20 14.5 20

CP, % 23.2 20.2 17.6 17.6SID Lys 1.09 1.09 0.92 0.92Trp:lys 20 20 14.5 20

KSU Swine Day 2013

Processing and complete diet grinding for high

byproduct diets

Kansas State Universitywww.KSUswine.org

Background

• Series of experiments partially supported by the National Pork Board and USDA‐AFRI–Particle size and pelleting of high byproduct diets• Grow‐finish pigs• Nursery pigs

2.022.06

1.99

2.112.17

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

650 micron corn 320 micron corn 360 micron diet

ADG, lb

Meal Pellet320 vs 650 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


F/G

Meal Pellet320 vs 650 microns P < 0.001Grind x form P = 0.37Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.03




Project 2: Effect of particle size and diet form for nursery pigs

• Two diet types (meal vs pellet)• Three processing treatments

– Corn ground to 747 microns (650 micron diet)– Corn ground to 324 microns (425 micron diet)– Complete diet ground to 541 microns

• 996 pigs• 6 pens per treatment

0.95

0.89

0.93

0.96

1.00 1.00

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1


ADG, lb

Meal Pellet

Effect of particle size and diet form on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 21; BW 24.5 to 45 lb)



Diet form × corn µ P < 0.07Diet form P < 0.002SEM = 0.02

1.51

1.57

1.52

1.45 1.451.42

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8


F/G

Meal PelletDiet form × corn µ P < 0.38Diet form P < 0.01SEM = 0.01

Effect of particle size and diet form on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 21; BW 24.5 to 45 lb)



Corn particle size affects feed intake preference of nursery pigs fed meal diets

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Light Pigs Heavy Pigs

ADFI, lb

600 micron300 micron


72.5%82.8%

Corn particle size

Project 3: Effect of pellet quality and feeder adjustment on performance of nursery pigs

• Two experiments (210 and 1,005 pigs)• Three diet types

– Meal– Pellets (screened with < 5% fines)– Poor quality pellets (30% fines

• Two feeder adjustments– 0.5 inch (approximately 40 to 60% pan coverage)– 1 inch (92 to 99% pan coverage)

• 5 or 7 pens per treatment• Diets with 20% DDGS

Field Trial Pan CoverageNarrow adjustment

with meal diet

Wide adjustment with meal diet

52%

Narrow adjustment with poor pellets

Narrow adjustment with good pellets

98%

61% 57%

99% 97%

Wide adjustment with poor pellets

Wide adjustment with good pellets

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 nursery ADG

ADG, lb

Feeder opening and diet form P < 0.05

Feeder opening, in.

Nemechek et al. 2012

Meal vs poor quality or screened, P < 0.03Narrow vs wide, P = 0.02SEM = 0.02

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 nursery F/G

F/G

Diet form P < 0.05

Feeder opening, in.


Meal or poor quality vs screened, P < 0.01Narrow vs wide, P = 0.70SEM = 0.01

Project 4: Effect of pellet quality and feeder adjustment on performance of finisher pigs

• Three diet types – Meal– Pellets (screened with < 10% fines)– Poor quality pellets (50% fines

• Two feeder adjustments– 0.5 inch (Pan coverage was 30 to 50% in P 1; 90% in P 3)– 1 inch (Pan coverage was 83 to 96% in P 1; 95% in P 3)

• 6 pens per treatment• Diets with 20% DDGS until 200 lb, then 10% DDGS

Pan Coverage – Meal DietsNarrow adjustment with meal diet

Phase 1, averaged 31% coverage Phase 3, averaged 89% coverage

Wide adjustment with meal dietPhase 1, averaged 83% coverage Phase 3, averaged 95% coverage

Pan Coverage – Screened PelletsNarrow adjustment with screened pellets

Phase 1, averaged 44% coverage Phase 3, averaged 92% coverage

Wide adjustment with screened pelletsPhase 1, averaged 86% coverage Phase 3, averaged 96% coverage

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 = 0.08Feeder 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.


Project 5: Effect of high byproducts and diet form on growth performance of finishing pigs.

• Two diet types – Meal– Pellets (screened with < 10% fines)

• Three diet regimens– Corn‐soybean meal diets– High fiber diets (30% DDGS and 19% wheat midds)– High fiber diets to 245 lb, then corn‐soy for 17 days

• 6 pens per treatment• University research facility

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

Project 6: Effect of particle size and diet form for finishing pigs

• Two diet types (meal vs pellet)• Three corn particle sizes

– Roller mill at 650 microns– Hammer mill at 350 microns– Blend of roller and hammer mill (500 microns)

• 960 pigs• 8 pens per treatment

1.97 1.96

1.91

2.07 2.05 2.03

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

650 microns 50:50 blend 350 microns

ADG, lb

Meal PelletGrind x form P > 0.58Particle size P < 0.01 linearDiet form P < 0.001SEM = 0.021


Corn particle size


2.692.67

2.62

2.512.55 2.56

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

650 microns 50:50 blend 350 microns

F/G

Meal PelletGrind x form P < 0.005 linearParticle size P > 0.34Diet form P < 0.001SEM = 0.02


Corn particle size


2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.5

800 600 400

Cabrera, 1994aCabrera, 1994bWondra, 1995

Effects of particle size in meal diets on feed efficiency of finishing pigs

F/G

Particle size, microns

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.5

300

400

500

600

700

800

Paulk, 2011DeJong, 2012Nemechek, 2013

1.2% per 100 microns 1.0% per 100 microns

Particle size, microns

Conclusions – Particle size

• Reducing particle size of grain improves F/G– For grow‐finish pigs

• Benefit is linear to at least 300 microns in meal diets• Does not appear to be as beneficial to grind below 600 microns in high quality pellets (more research may be needed to validate)

– For nursery pigs:• No benefit in F/G to grind corn below 600 microns

• Feed intake and gain are reduced when corn is ground to 300 microns in meal diets for nursery or finisher pigs

Pelleting on growth performance of grow‐finish pigs 2005 to 2013

Reference

Meal PelletADG F/G ADG F/G

Groesbeck 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 2.40Nemecheck et al. (2012) 2.10 2.83 2.17 2.67Nemecheck et al. (2012) 2.14 2.93 2.21 2.57De Jong et al. (2012) 2.03 2.73 2.14 2.6Nemechek et al. (2013) 1.95 2.66 2.05 2.54

Average 1.72 2.30 1.80 2.19

Average response = 4.4% for ADG and 5.1% for F/G 187

Conclusions ‐ Pelleting• Pelleting

– Improves ADG and F/G– Response depends on particle size

• Greater F/G response at higher particle sizes

– Response depends on diet formulation• Greater response in higher byproduct diets

– Response depends on pellet quality• Linear response to improving pellet quality

– Negatively impacts fat firmness (increased iodine value)– Economic analysis must include the potential increase in mortality with pellets

Conclusions – Complete diet grinding

• Complete diet grinding– Does not appear to improve performance in high fiber diets that we have tested (DDGS, wheat middlings)

– No performance benefit found to grinding other ingredients• DDGS (may depend on initial particle size)• Wheat middlings• Soybean hulls• Soybean meal

– Reduces intake in meal diets– Must gain enough benefit in pellet quality to justify cost

Feed efficiency Factsheets• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25a: Not Always Linked to Net Income• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25b: Genetic Impact• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25c: Particle Size Testing Methodology• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25d: Influence of Particle Size• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25e: Influence of Pelleting• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25f: Influence of Temperature• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25g: Decision Tree• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC25h: Influence of Market Weight• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25i: Effect of Dietary Energy • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25j: Influence of Ractopamine• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25k: Feeder Design and Management• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25l: Influence of Amino Acids• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25m: Sow Feed on Whole Farm Efficiency

www.swinefeedefficiency.com

Net Energy

Regression Analysis to Predict Growth Performance from Dietary Net Energy in Growing‐Finishing Pigs

Low energy diets typically reduce feed cost but also lower growth performance

Prediction of growth and feed efficiency is essential to quantify the feeding value dietary energy

NE is the most accurate system to evaluate effect of energy on growth

Gross Energy (GE)

Digestible Energy(DE)

Metabolizable Energy (ME)

Net Energy (NE)

Fecal energy

Urine energyGas energy

Heat increment

Can NE predict growth responses? A literature search using CABI search engine including

thesis, technical memos, and university publications from 1991 to 2012

Selection for inclusion and exclusion criteria Treatment diets vary in DE, ME, or NE ≥ 4 replications/treatment 41 trials from 17 journal articles, 10 technical memos, and a

thesis resulting in 285 observations Diet composition calculation Reformulated diets using a spreadsheet‐based software

program (Kansas State University Diet Formulation Program)

The NRC (2012) ingredient library was used as a reference for nutrient ingredients in diet reformulation

Nitikanchana et al., 2013

Net energy meta‐analysis Statistical analysis Diet Characteristics:

NE, 1,980 to 2,815 kcal/kg Fat, 1.8 to 10% Ash, 3.1 to 6.7%CF, 1.9 to 12.5% NDF, 6.7 to 29.5% ADF, 2.5 to 14.9% CP, 8.9 to 22.9 SID Lys, 0.51 to 1.15%

Average BW, 73 to 280 lb The PROC MIXED procedure of SAS with Linear and quadratic terms of NE, average BW, CP, SID

Lys, CF, NDF, ADF, fat, and ash, including their interaction terms evaluated as predictors of ADG and G:F

Experiment within trial was random effect


Predicted ADG of 167‐lb pig fed increasing dietary NEat varying levels of SID Lys

SID Lys,%

1.0

0.8

0.6

ADG, g = – 0.1004×NE(kcal/kg) + 1.6744×Average BW(kg) – 289.56×SID Lys(%) + 0.1918×NE(kcal/kg)×SID Lys(%) + 836.56


Predicted G:F of 167 lb pig fed increasing dietary NEat varying levels of SID Lys

SID Lys,%

1.0

0.8

0.6

GF= 0.000004365×NE(kcal/kg) – 0.00162×Average BW(kg) –0.08023×SID Lys(%) +0.000094×NE(kcal/kg)×SID Lys(%) + 0.3496


Predicted ADG of pigs fed varying Dietary NE

NE, kcal/kg

2,800

2,4002,000

ADG, g = 0.1135×NE (kcal/kg) + 8.8142×Average BW (kg)

– 0.05068×[Average BW (kg)]2+ 275.99


Predicted G:F of 167 lb pigs fed increasing dietary NEat varying dietary fat levels

Dietary fat8%5%3%

GF = 0.000096×NE (kcal/kg) – 0.0025×Average BW (kg)

+ 0.003071×Fat (%) + 0.3257


Dietary NE is an important predictor of the growth performance of growing‐finishing pigs.

Improvements in growth rate and feed efficiency could be obtained by increasing dietary NE across a wide variety of trials with different dietary ingredients and under different environmental conditions.

The magnitude of improvement in growth performances by dietary NE will be minimized if the amino acids are limiting.

The improvement of G:F with fat in the model indicating that NE may underestimate the influence of fat on feed efficiency.

Conclusion


The Effect of Feeding Different Dietary Net Energy Levels to Growing‐Finishing Pigs when Dietary Lysine

is Above Requirements

2 experiments using 543 pigs (PIC 1050 x 327) The SID Lys was formulated at 105% requirement of the

lightest BW pig fed high energy level in each feeding phase

Dietary treatments included 3 dietary NE levels1) 30% DDGS + 20% midds + 4% Soybean hulls2) 20% midds + 5% Soybean hulls3) 20% midds + 5% Soybean hulls + 3.7% CWG4) Corn‐SBM5) Corn‐SBM+ 3.7% CWG

Low NE

Medium NE

High NE

166 kcal/kg

166 kcal/kg


Results : Predicted vs. Actual ADG

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

ADG, lb

Exp.1 Exp.2

MiddsHullsDDGS

MiddsHulls

MiddsHullsCWG

CSB CSB+

CWG


MiddsHullsDDGS

MiddsHulls

MiddsHullsCWG

CSB CSB+

CWG

Results : Predicted vs. Actual G:FExp.1 Exp.2

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

0.38

0.40

0.42

0.44

G:F


MiddsHullsDDGS

MiddsHulls

MiddsHullsCWG

CSB CSB+

CWG

MiddsHullsDDGS

MiddsHulls

MiddsHullsCWG

CSB CSB+

CWG

Results : NE caloric efficiency (NEE)

3.22 3.13 3.15 3.20 3.22

4.674.37 4.44 4.45 4.45

1

2

3

4

5

Midds/Hulls/ Midds/Hulls Midds/Hulls/ Corn‐soy Corn‐soy/

NEE, M

cal/lb

Live wt NEE, SEM = 0.09Carcass wt NEE, SEM = 0.15

b

DDGS CWG CWG

ab b b


KSU Swine Day 2013

Summary

Exciting times in pork production!

Cooney, Pork Network, 11/18/2013

SEW pig price, $/pig Weekly changeAverage price $73.69 5.97Low price $65 7.00High price $82 7.00

Contract Lean hogs, $/cwtDec, 2013 85.40Feb, 2014 89.975Apr, 2014 92.50May, 2014 97.225June, 2014 98.45July, 2014 96.80Aug, 2014 94.75Oct, 2014 81.925

Exciting times in pork production!For the Week Ended 11/15/2013 Weekly Change

Weaner pig breakeven $84.29 ($1.36)Margin over variable costs $106.12 ($1.36)

Pig purchase month Dec, 2013 Nov, 2013

Live hog sale month May, 2014 May, 2014

Lean hog futures $98.65 ($0.98)

Weighted average sbm futures $403.08 ($8.59)

Weighted average corn futures $4.35 ($0.08)

Nursery cost/space/yr $35.00 $0.00Finisher cost/space/yr $40.00 $0.00Other feed cost $21.50 $0.00Assumed carcass weight 205 0.00

Cooney, Pork Network, 11/18/2013

Average corn price received by U.S. Farmers

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.0019

08

1918

1928

1938

1948

1958

1968

1978

1988

1998

2008

$/Bu 1890‐1940

50 yearsAvg $0.60

1941‐197130 yearsAvg $1.24

1972‐200533 yearsAvg $2.34 ?

3.71

6.12

Historical Hog Prices

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8019

09

1917

1925

1933

1941

1949

1957

1965

1973

1981

1989

1997

2005

2013

Live

pric

e, $

/cw

t

1909-1942 34 years Avg 8.41

1943-1972 30 years

Avg $18.07

1973-2006 34 years

Avg $44.92

?

KSU Swine Day Research Summary• Breeding sows in lactation is possible

– More work is needed to determine protocol and whether it is feasible in commercial production

• DDGS energy levels are highly variable – oil doesn’t tell everything, but important for NE– Withdraw for at least 20 d before market

• DDGS has priced itself out of many diets– Use of L‐Trp drives economics currently

• Can you add it at appropriate levels in your mill– New economic model at www.KSUswine.org

KSU Swine Day Research Summary• Superdosing of phytase appears to provide value in the nursery and early grower

• Paylean appears to increase the Zinc requirement • TBCC provides value in finishing pig diets• Low Trp:Lys levels increase risk• Particle size

– Less than 500 for F/G, but lowers ADG– Recommend 500 to 600 microns until further notice

• Each 100 kcal/kg of NE increases ADG by 11 g/d– 100 kcal/lb = 0.056 lb/d

www.KSUswine.org

Directions to OH Kruse Feed Mill

North on Denison Ave. about 1.25 miles

West (Left) on Kimball Ave. about .25 miles

Right into the Grain Science Complex

Thank You!KSUswine.org

Pellet quality

Pellets with fines

Good quality pellets

Nemecheck et al. 2012 217

K‐State Web Resourceswww.ksuswine.org

• DDGS Calculator

• Synthetic Amino Acid Calculator

• Fat Analysis Calculator

• Feed Budget Calculator

• Feeder Adjustment Cards

• Particle Size Information

• Marketing Calculators

• Gestation Feeding Tools

Every 100 microns = 1. F/G improves by ~1.2%2. 7 lbs less feed/finishing pig 3. Current $0.98/pig savings in feed cost

Grain Particle Size • F/G directly impacted by particle size of cereal grains• Research in high co‐product diets:

– While corn in diet is decreased, finishing pigs still respond similarly to improved F/G with reduced corn particle size

– Whole diet grinding – not a benefit in meal diets– High fiber, low digestibly ingredients may be negatively affected by particle size reduction.

• Takes more time/energy to grind cereals finer, however, less total tonnage is manufactured by the mill.

• Testing method impacts results: – Lab using a flow agent will report a value approximately 80 µ lower then actual.

swine day slides 2013 - k-state asi day slides 2013.pdf · special events during ksu swine day •...

Documents