SWINEDAY

2009

Report of Progress 1020

Kansas State UniversityAgricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative

Extension Service

2009

New finishing barn at the Kansas State University Swine Teaching and Research Center.

I

ContentsVI Foreword

VI StandardAbbreviations

VII K-StateVitaminandTraceMineralPremixes

VIII BiologicalVariabilityandChancesofError

1 HerdHealthManagement1 EffectsofPigletBirthWeightandLitterSizeonthePreweaning

GrowthPerformanceofPigsonaCommercialFarm

8 EffectsofPorcineCircovirusType2andMycoplasma hyopneu-moniae VaccinationStrategy,BirthWeight,andGenderonPost-weaningPerformanceofGrowing-FinishingPigsRearedinaCommercialEnvironment

21 EffectsofPorcineCircovirusType2andMycoplasma hyopneu-moniaeVaccinesonNurseryPigPerformance

28 EffectsofPorcineCircovirusType2VaccinationonNurseryandFinishingPigPerformanceunderaPRRSChallenge

33 EffectsofSirrah-BiosPRRSV-RSVaccineonMortalityRateandFinisherPigPerformance

38 SowHerdNutritionandManagement38 EffectsofIncreasingFeedingLevelDuringLateGestationonSow

andLitterPerformance

SWINEDAY

2009

II

51 NurseryPigNutritionandManagement51 EffectsofCreepDietComplexityonIndividualConsumption

CharacteristicsandGrowthPerformanceofNeonatalandWeanlingPigs

65 EffectsofCopperSulfateandZincOxideonWeanlingPigGrowthandPlasmaMineralLevels

73 EffectsofCopperSulfate,ZincOxide,andNeoTerramycinonWeanlingPigGrowthandAntibioticResistanceRateforFecalEscherichia coli

80 AnEvaluationofPeptoneasaSpecialtyProteinSourceinDietsforNurseryPigs

90 EvaluationofPEP2inNurseryPigDiets

96 EffectsofExperimentalDesignandItsRoleinInterpretationofResults

106 EfficacyofDifferentCommercialPhytaseSourcesandDevelopmentofaPhosphorusReleaseCurve

122 ComparisonofDifferentAntimicrobialSequencesonNurseryPigPerformanceandEconomicReturn

132 FinishingPigNutritionandManagement132 EffectsofFeedingVariedLevelsofBalancedProteinon

GrowthPerformanceandCarcassCompositionofGrowingandFinishingPigs,

141 EffectsofIncreasingStandardizedIlealDigestibleLysine:CalorieRatioontheGrowthPerformanceofGrowing-FinishingPigs

152 EffectsofPorcineCircovirusType2VaccineandIncreasingStandardizedIlealDigestibleLysine:CalorieRatioonGrowthPerformanceandCarcassCompositionofGrowingandFinishingPigs,

168 EffectsofIncreasingHominyFeedinDietsonFinishingPigPerformance

174 DeterminationofAminoAcidDigestibilityandCalculatedEnergyValuesinHigh-ProteinSorghumDriedDistillersGrainswithSolublesinGrowingPigs

III

181 EffectofDriedDistillersGrainswithSolublesWithdrawalRegi-mensonFinishingPigPerformanceandCarcassCharacteristics

192 EffectsofAddingEnzymestoDietsContainingHighLevelsofDriedDistillersGrainswithSolublesonGrowthPerformanceofFinishingPigs

202 EffectsofMycotoxinBindersandaLiquidImmunityEnhancerontheGrowthPerformanceofWean-to-FinishPigs

207 EffectofaCommercialEnzyme(Nutrase)onGrowthPerfor-manceofGrowingPigsFedDietsContainingDriedDistillersGrainswithSolubles

213 EffectsofanEnzymeBlend(LivestockAnswer)inDietsContain-ingDriedDistillersGrainswithSolublesonGrowthPerformanceofNurseryandFinishingPigs

220 AMeta-AnalysisofSupplementalEnzymeStudiesinGrowing-FinishingPigsFedDietsContainingDriedDistillersGrainswithSolubles:EffectsonGrowthPerformance

225 EffectsofFeedingRactopamineHCl(Paylean)forVariousDurationsonLate-FinishingPigPerformanceandCarcassCharacteristics

232 EffectofConstantorStep-UpRactopamineHCl(Paylean)FeedingProgramsonGrowthPerformanceandCarcassCharacteristicsofLate-FinishingPigs

239 EffectsofDietaryAstaxanthinontheGrowthPerformanceandCarcassCharacteristicsofFinishingPigs

245 EffectsofMealorPelletDietFormonFinishingPigPerformanceandCarcassCharacteristics

252 EffectsofFeederDesign,Gender,andDietaryConcentrationofDriedDistillersGrainswithSolublesontheGrowthPerformanceandCarcassCharacteristicsofGrowing-FinishingPigs

262 EconomicImpactofRemovingPigsBeforeMarketingontheRemainingPigs’GrowthPerformance

IV

270 MeatQualityResearch270 IncidenceandSeverityofArcanobacterium pyogenesInjectionSite

AbscesseswithNeedleorNeedle-FreeInjectionMethods

274 SensoryCharacteristicsofLoinsfromPigsFedGlycerolandRactopamineHClDuringtheLast28DaysofFinishing,

280 IndexofKeyWords

281 Acknowledgments

282 TheLivestockandMeatIndustryCouncil,Inc.

V

ForewordItiswithgreatpleasurethatwepresentthe2009SwineIndustryDayReportofProgress.ThisreportcontainsupdatesandsummariesofappliedandbasicresearchconductedatKansasStateUniversityduringthepastyear.WehopethattheinformationwillbeofbenefitasweattempttomeettheneedsoftheKansasswineindustry.2009SwineDayReportofProgressEditorsBobGoodband MikeTokach SteveDritz JoelDeRouchey

Standard Abbreviations

SWINEDAY

2009

ADG = averagedailygainADF = aciddetergentfiberADFI = averagedailyfeedintakeAI = artificialinseminationavg. = averagebu = bushelBW = bodyweightcm = centimeter(s)CP = crudeproteinCV = coefficientofvariationcwt = 100lbd = day(s)DE = digestibleenergyDM = drymatterDMI = drymatterintakeF/G = feedefficiencyft = foot(feet)ft2 = squarefoot(feet)g = gram(s)µg = microgram(s),.001mggal = gallon(s)GE = grossenergyh = hour(s)HCW = hotcarcassweightin. = inch(es)IU = internationalunit(s)kg = kilogram(s)kcal = kilocalorie(s)

kWh = kilowatthour(s)lb = pound(s)Mcal = megacalorie(s)ME = metabolizableenergymEq = milliequivalent(s)min = minute(s)mg = milligram(s)mL = cc(cubiccentimeters)mm = millimeter(s)mo = month(s)N = nitrogenNE = netenergyNDF = neutraldetergentfiberng = nanogram(s),.001Fgno. = numberNRC = NationalResearchCouncilppb = partsperbillionppm = partspermillionpsi = poundspersq.in.sec = second(s)SE = standarderrorSEM = standarderrorofthemeanSEW = segregatedearlyweaningwk = week(s)wt = weight(s)yr = year(s)

VI

K-State Vitamin and Trace Mineral PremixesDietslistedinthisreportcontainthefollowingvitaminandtracemineralpremixesunlessotherwisespecified.

• Tracemineralpremix:Eachpoundofpremixcontains12gMn,50gFe,50gZn,5gCu,90mgI,and90mgSe.

• Vitaminpremix:Eachpoundofpremixcontains2,000,000IUvitaminA,300,000IUvitaminD3,8,000IUvitaminE,800mgmenadione,1,500mgribo-flavin,5,000mgpantothenicacid,9,000mgniacin,and7mgvitaminB12.

• Sowaddpack:Eachpoundofpremixcontains100,000mgcholine,40mgbiotin,300mgfolicacid,and900mgpyridoxine.

NoteSomeoftheresearchreportedherewascarriedoutunderspecialFDAclearancesthatapplyonlytoinvestigationalusesatapprovedresearchinstitutions.MaterialsthatrequireFDAclear-ancesmaybeusedinthefieldonlyatthelevelsandfortheusespecifiedinthatclearance.

VII

Biological Variability and Chances of ErrorVariabilityamongindividualanimalsinanexperimentleadstoproblemsininterpret-ingtheresults.AnimalsontreatmentXmayhavehigheraveragedailygainsthanthoseontreatmentY,butvariabilitywithintreatmentsmayindicatethatthedifferencesinproductionbetweenXandYwerenottheresultofthetreatmentalone.Statisticalanalysisallowsustocalculatetheprobabilitythatsuchdifferencesarefromtreatmentratherthanfromchance.

Insomeofthearticlesherein,youwillseethenotation“P<0.05.”Thatmeanstheprobabilityofthedifferencesresultingfromchanceislessthan5%.Iftwoaveragesaresaidtobe“significantlydifferent,”theprobabilityislessthan5%thatthedifferenceisfromchanceortheprobabilityexceeds95%thatthedifferenceresultedfromthetreat-mentsapplied.

Somepapersreportcorrelationsormeasuresoftherelationshipbetweentraits.Therela-tionshipmaybepositive(bothtraitstendtogetlargerorsmallertogether)ornegative(asonetraitgetslarger,theothergetssmaller).Aperfectcorrelationisone(+1or-1).Ifthereisnorelationship,thecorrelationiszero.

Inotherpapers,youmayseeanaveragegivenas2.5±0.1.The2.5istheaverage;0.1isthe“standarderror.”Thestandarderroriscalculatedtobe68%certainthattherealaverage(withunlimitednumberofanimals)wouldfallwithinonestandarderrorfromtheaverage,inthiscasebetween2.4and2.6.

Manyanimalspertreatment,replicatingtreatmentsseveraltimes,andusinguniformanimalsincreasetheprobabilityoffindingrealdifferenceswhentheyexist.Statisti-calanalysisallowsmorevalidinterpretationoftheresults,regardlessofthenumberofanimals.Inalltheresearchreportedherein,statisticalanalysesareincludedtoincreasetheconfidenceyoucanplaceintheresults.

1

Herd Health Management

Effects of Piglet Birth Weight and Litter Size on the Preweaning Growth Performance of Pigs on a Commercial Farm1

J.R.Bergstrom,M.L.Potter2,M.D.Tokach,S.C.Henry3,S.S.Dritz2,J.L.Nelssen,R.D.Goodband,andJ.M.DeRouchey

SummaryAtotalof2,204pigs(PIC327sired)wereusedtoevaluatetheeffectsofpigletbirthweightandlittersizeonpreweaningpigletperformance.Atacommercialsowfarm,allpigsbornalivefor22consecutivedayswereidentifiedindividuallyatbirthwithanumberedeartag.Eachsowwasassignedabodyconditionscore(BCS;1=verythinto5=veryfat),andthenumberoftotalborn,liveborn,andborndeadaswellastheindividualgender,birthweight,andidentificationofpigletswererecordedwithin18hofparturitionandbeforethemovementofpigstoequalizelittersize.Duringlactation,allpigsfostered,removed,orfounddeadwereweighed,andtheeventwasrecorded.Nolitterswereprovidedcreepfeedorsupplementsduringlactation.PigswereindividuallyweighedandassignedaBCS(1=emaciated,2=thin,or3=full-bodied)atweaningover6weaningdaysduringa19-dperiod,whichresultedinameanweaningageof25d.Fordataanalysis,individualbirthweightwasusedtoassignpigsto4birthweightcategories(≤2.3lb,2.4to3.3lb,3.4to4.3lb,and≥4.4lb),andthenumberoftotalbornineachpig’slitteroforiginwasusedtoassignpigsto3totalborncategories(≤11,12to14,and≥15).Asexpected,birthweightwasgreater(P<0.0001)forpigsofheavierbirthweightcategories.Pigsofheavierbirthweightcategorieswereassoci-ated(P<0.02)withadecreasednumberoftotalandliveborn.Also,preweaningADG,weaningweight,weaningBCS,andpreweaningmortalitywereimproved(P<0.0001)forpigsofheavierbirthweightcategories.Birthweightdecreased(P<0.04)forpigsofgreatertotalborncategories,andanincreasedsowBCSwasassociated(P<0.0001)withtotalborncategory≥15.Asexpected,thelittertotalborn,aswellaslivebornandnumberborndead,increased(P<0.0001)withgreatertotalborncategories.Prewean-ingADG(0.51,0.50,and0.50lb/d,respectively)andweaningweight(16.3,15.9,and15.8lb,respectively)weremodestlyimproved(P <0.04)forpigsfromthesmallesttotalborncategorycomparedwiththe2largercategories.Thesedataindicatethatlow-birth-weightpigshadpoorerpreweaninggrowthperformanceandsurvivability.Althoughlargerlittersresultedinagreaternumberoflow-birth-weightpigs,thenumberofheavierpigsalsoincreased.Inadditiontoincreasinglittersize,maximizingreproductiveandeconomicefficiencyofswinerequiresidentifyingmethodstoimprovebirthweightandperformanceofthelightestpigsborn.

Keywords:birthweight,littersize

1AppreciationisexpressedtoKeeseckerAgri-business,Washington,KS,forprovidingpigsandfacilitiesinvolvedwiththisstudy.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.3AbileneAnimalHospital,PA,Abilene,KS.

2

Herd Health Management

IntroductionResearchbyMainetal.(20024)demonstratedthatweaningweightandpostweaningperformanceimprovedlinearlywithincreasedweaningage.Whenthesedataweremodeledtoquantifythechangesinperformanceassociatedwithincreasingweaningage,Mainetal.(2002)founditusefultoexpressthesebenefitsonachangeperpoundofweaningweightbasis.Asaresult,theimportanceofweaningageandweaningweightforsubsequentperformanceiswellunderstood.Sincethattime,manyswineproduc-tionsystemshaveincreasedtheirweaningagetoimproveweaningweight,postweaninggrowth,efficiencyofgrowth,welfare,andeconomicreturn.However,littersizehasalsoincreasedduringthistimebecauseofimprovementsingenetics,sownutritionandfeedingpractices,andhealthmanagement.Theincreasedlactationperiodmayalsobecontributingtotheimprovedreproductiveperformance.

Unfortunately,improvedovulationratesandembryonicsurvivalhaveoccurredwith-outanymeasurablechangeintheuterinecapacityofsows(Foxcroft,20075).Thishasresultedinconcernthatbirthweightswillbereduced.Althoughtherelationshipofbirthweightandsubsequentgrowthisfairlywellunderstood,theexistingstudieshaveusedarelativelysmallnumberofpigs.Thesestudieshavecharacterizedtheeffectsofbirthweightongrowthusingonly2or3birthweightcategories.Also,othereconomi-callyimportanttraits(suchasmortality)thatmaybeinfluencedbybirthweighthavenotbeenadequatelydescribed.Fewstudieshaveevaluatedtheeffectsofbothlittersizeandbirthweightonthesubsequentperformanceofpigs.

Therefore,ourobjectivewastoevaluatetherelationshipofpigletbirthweightandthesizeofthepiglet’slitteroforiginwithsubsequentpreweaningperformanceusingalargepopulationofpigsonacommercialfarm.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.TheexperimentwasconductedatacommercialfarminKansasandused1,181pigs(PIC327sired)bornoffirst,second,andafewthirdparityfemales(TriumphTR24)and1,023pigs(PIC327sired)bornofthirdparityandoldersows(PIC1050).Throughouttheexperiment,alllitterswerepennedinindividualfarrowingcrateslocatedovertotallyslattedfloorsinenvironmen-tallycontrolledbuildings.

Allpigsbornalivefor22consecutivedayswereidentifiedindividuallyatbirthwithanumberedeartag.Eachsowwasassignedabodyconditionscore(BCS;1=verythinto5=veryfat),andthenumberoftotalborn,liveborn,andborndeadwasrecorded.Also,theindividualgender,birthweight,andidentificationofpigletswererecordedwithin18hofparturitionandbeforethemovementofpigstoequalizelitters.After-ward,littersbornwithinthesamedaywereequalizedandprocessedfollowingthefarm’snormalprocedurestooptimizesowandpiglethealthandwelfare.Duringlactation,allpigsfostered,removed,orfounddeadwereweighed,andtheeventwasrecorded.Nolitterswereprovidedcreepfeedorsupplementsduringlactation.The

4Mainetal.,SwineDay2002,ReportofProgress897,pp.1-19.5Foxcroft,G.R.2007.Pre-natalprogrammingofvariationinpostnatalperformance–Howandwhen?Adv.PorkProd.18:167-189.

3

Herd Health Management

pigswereindividuallyweighedandassignedaBCS(1=emaciated,2=thin,or3=full-bodied)atweaningover6occasionsduringa19-dperiod,whichresultedinameanweaningageof25d.

Fordataanalysis,individualbirthweightwasusedtoassignpigsto4birthweightcategories(≤2.3lb,2.4to3.3lb,3.4to4.3lb,and≥4.4lb),andthenumberoftotalbornineachpig’slitteroforiginwasusedtoassignpigsto3totalborncategories(≤11,12to14,and≥15).Becauseofachangeinmaternalgeneticsdeliveredtothefarm,theparityandgeneticbackground(PIC1050andTriumphTR24)ofsowswereconfounded.Therefore,theeffectsofsowparityandgeneticbackgroundonpigletperformancewerenotevaluated.Paritywasusedasarandomeffectinthedataanalysis.Datawereanalyzedasa4×3factorialdesignusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).Weaningagewasusedasacovariatefortheanaly-sisofpreweaninggrowth.Individualpigwastheexperimentalunitfortheanalysisofresponsecriteria.

ResultsMeaningfulinteractionswerenotobservedduringthestudy.Asexpected,birthweightwasgreater(P<0.001)forpigsofheavierbirthweightcategories(Table1).Asbirthweightcategoryincreased,thenumberoftotalbornandliveborndecreased(P<0.02).PreweaningADG(0.38lb/dfor≤2.3lbbirthweightto0.59lb/dfor≥4.4lbbirthweight),weaningweight(11.6lbto19.5lb),weaningBCS(2.69to2.93),andprewean-ingmortality(24.2%to4.6%)wereimproved(P<0.0001)forpigsofheavierbirthweightcategories.

Thebirthweightofpigsfromthesmallesttotalborncategory(≤11)wasgreater(P<0.04)thanthatofpigsfromthelargesttotalborncategory(≥15;Table2).Sowsofthelargesttotalborncategoryhadanincreased(P<0.0001)BCSafterparturitioncomparedwiththeothertwocategories.Asexpected,thelittertotalborn,aswellaslivebornandnumberborndead,increased(P<0.0001)withgreatertotalborncategories.Also,preweaningADGandweaningweightweregreatest(P <0.04)forpigsfromthesmallesttotalborncategory(≤11)comparedwiththe2largercategories.Preweaningmortalitytended(P <0.07)tobegreatestforpigsfromthe12to14totalborncate-gory.

DiscussionSeveralstudieshavereportedanimprovedgrowthrateofheavierbirthweightpigs(PowellandAberle,19806;Wolteretal.,20027;Bee,20048;Bérardetal.,20089).However,thesestudieshavegenerallycompared2or3birthweightcategoriesusingarelativelysmallpopulation,andnonehaveadequatelydescribedtheeffectofbirth

6Powell,S.E.,andE.D.Aberle.1980.Effectsofbirthweightongrowthandcarcasscompositionofswine.J.Anim.Sci.50:860-868.7Wolter,B.F.,M.Ellis,B.P.Corrigan,andJ.M.DeDecker.2002.Theeffectofbirthweightandfeedingsupplementalmilkreplacertopigletsduringlactationonpreweaningandpostweaninggrowthperfor-manceandcarcasscharacteristics.J.Anim.Sci.80:301-308.8Bee,G.2004.Effectofearlygestationfeeding,birthweight,andgenderofprogenyonmusclefibercharacteristicsofpigsatslaughter.J.Anim.Sci.82:826-836.9Bérard,J.,M.Kreuzer,andG.Bee.2008.Effectoflittersizeandbirthweightongrowth,carcassandporkquality,andtheirrelationshiptopostmortemproteolysis.J.Anim.Sci.86:2357-2368.

4

Herd Health Management

weightonpreweaningperformance.Bérardetal.(2008)didnotobserveanydifferencesinthepreweaninggrowthoflow-birth-weight,average-birth-weight,andheavy-birth-weightpigs.However,therewereonly20pigsineachoftheirbirthweightcategories.Wolteretal.(2002)didnotobserveanydifferencesinpreweaninggrowthoflight-andheavy-birth-weightpigs,butpreweaningmortalitytended(P=0.10)tobelowerforheavy-birth-weightpigs.Theystartedwith192pigletsineachof2weightcategories,butcategorizingpigsintoaheavyhalfandlighthalfisnotadequateforunderstand-ingtherelativedifferencesinperformancebetweentheextremes.Bee(2004)observeddifferencesinthepreweaninggrowthperformanceoflight-andheavy-birth-weightpigsbutreportedtheperformanceofthelightestbarrowandgilt(notlessthan2.2lb)andtheheaviestbarrowandgiltfrom16litters.Thisexcludedanybiasfromcategorizingpigswithbirthweightssimilartothemean.However,Bee(2004)didnothaveenoughpigstoevaluatemortalitydifferences.

Recentincreasesinlittersizehaveraisedconcernovertheimpactthattheincreasemayhaveonpigletbirthweightandperformance.However,thereislittledataavailablethatadequatelydescribestheserelationshipsandtheireffectsonsubsequentperformance.OnlyBérardetal.(2008)hasreportedontheeffectofbothbirthweightandlittersizeonpigletgrowthperformance.Similartothepresentexperiment,theyreportedthatthebirthweightofpigsfromlargelitters(≥14)waslessthanthatofpigsfromsmalllitters(≤10).AlthoughBérardetal.(2008)didnotobservesignificantdifferencesinpreweaningADGamongthelow-,average-,andheavy-birth-weightpigs,thelow-birth-weightpigshadnumericallylowerADGandmaintainedasignificantlylighterBWthanheavy-birth-weightpigsatweaning(35dofage).Average-birth-weightpigshadanintermediateBWatweaning.Unlikethecurrentexperiment,Bérardetal.(2008)didnotobserveanydifferencesinpreweaningADGandweaningweightforpigsoriginat-ingfromsmallandlargelitters.Theirestimateswerebasedonthemeansof3pigsfromeachof20litters:thelightestpig,asingleaverage-weightpig,andtheheaviestpig.Therefore,theirestimatesforthe2littersizecategoriesdidnotincludeallpigsinthelitter.Inthepresentstudy,thegreaternumberoflow-birth-weightpigsfromlargerlitterswasresponsibleforthereducedperformance,buttheselittersalsoproducedmorepigsthatwereheavierthan2.3lband3.3lb(Figures1and2).Therefore,growthdiffer-encesamongthelittersizecategorieswererelativelysmall.

Inconclusion,thesedataindicatethatlow-birth-weightpigs,especiallythoseweighing2.3lborlessatbirth,hadpoorergrowthperformanceandhighermortalitypreweaning.Althoughlargerlittershadagreaternumberoflow-birth-weightpigs,theselittersalsoproducedagreaternumberoflivepigswithabirthweightgreaterthan2.3lb.Litterswith15ormoretotalbornproducedthegreatestnumberoflivepigsthatwereheavierthan3.3lbatbirth.Inadditiontoincreasinglittersize,maximizingthereproductiveandeconomicefficiencyofswinerequiresidentifyingmethodstoimprovebirthweightandperformanceofthelightestpigsborn.

5

Herd Health Management

Tab

le 1

. Effe

ct o

f pig

let b

irth

wei

ght o

n pr

ewea

ning

gro

wth

per

form

ance

1

Birt

hw

eigh

tcat

egor

y,lb

2

Item

≤2.

32.

4to

3.3

3.4

to4

.3≥

4.4

SEM

Prob

abili

ty,P

<Pi

gs,n

o.24

379

685

730

8Li

veb

orn,

%11

.036

.138

.914

.0Bi

rth

wei

ght,

lb1.

92a

2.92

b3.

78c

4.72

d0.

020.

0001

Sow

BC

Spo

st-fa

rrow

ing3

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.1

0.1

---4

Litt

erto

talb

orn

13.3

a13

.1ab

13.0

b12

.6c

0.1

0.00

01Li

tter

live

bor

n12

.1a

11.9

a11

.9a

11.6

b0.

10.

02Li

tter

bor

nde

ad1.

11.

21.

11.

00.

1---

Prew

eani

ngA

DG

,lb

0.38

a0.

49b

0.55

c0.

59d

0.01

0.00

01W

eani

ngw

t,lb

11.6

a15

.3b

17.5

c19

.5d

0.2

0.00

01Pi

gBC

Sat

wea

ning

52.

69a

2.87

b2.

89bc

2.93

c0.

020.

0001

Prew

eani

ngm

orta

lity,

%24

.2a

9.7b

5.0c

4.6c

1.6

0.00

011 A

tota

lof2

,204

pig

swer

euse

dto

eval

uate

thee

ffect

ofp

igle

tbirt

hw

eigh

ton

prew

eani

ngp

erfo

rman

ce.P

igsw

erew

eane

dat

appr

oxim

atel

y25

dof

age,

and

wea

ning

agew

asu

sed

asa

cova

riate

ind

ata

anal

ysis.

2 Res

ults

arer

epor

ted

asle

asts

quar

esm

eans

.3 S

owb

odyc

ondi

tion

scor

e(1

=ve

ryth

into

5=

very

fat,

with

3b

eing

idea

l).4 P

roba

bilit

y,P

>0.

10.

5 Pig

bod

ycon

ditio

nsc

ore(

1=

emac

iate

d,2

=th

in,a

nd3

=fu

ll-bo

died

).ab

cdW

ithin

aro

w,m

eans

with

outa

com

mon

supe

rscr

iptd

iffer

(P<

0.0

5).

6

Herd Health Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

ct o

f litt

er si

ze o

n pi

glet

gro

wth

per

form

ance

pre

wea

ning

1 Tot

alb

orn

cate

gory

2

Item

≤11

12to

14

≥15

SEM

Prob

abili

ty,P

<Li

tter

s,no

.73

7745

Pigs

,no.

644

903

657

Birt

hw

eigh

t,lb

3.36

a3.

34ab

3.31

b0.

020.

04So

wB

CS

post

-farr

owin

g32.

96a

3.01

a3.

10b

0.05

0.00

01Li

tter

tota

lbor

n9.

4a13

.0b

16.6

c0.

10.

0001

Litt

erli

veb

orn

8.8a

12.0

b14

.8c

0.1

0.00

01

Byb

irth

wei

ghtc

ateg

ory

%o

flitt

erno

./litt

er%

ofl

itter

no./l

itter

%o

flitt

erno

./litt

er

≤2

.3lb

80.

711

1.3

131.

9

2.4

to3

.3lb

262.

341

4.9

406.

0

3.4

to4

.3lb

393.

437

4.4

416.

1

≥4

.4lb

272.

411

1.3

60.

9Li

tter

bor

nde

ad0.

6a1.

0b1.

8c0.

10.

0001

Prew

eani

ngA

DG

,lb

0.51

a0.

50b

0.50

b0.

010.

04W

eani

ngw

t,lb

16.3

a15

.9b

15.8

b0.

20.

03Pi

gBC

Sat

wea

ning

42.

862.

842.

850.

02---

5

Prew

eani

ngm

orta

lity,

%8.

6a12

.6b

11.5

ab1.

60.

071 A

tota

lof2

,204

pig

swer

euse

dto

eval

uate

thee

ffect

oft

hesi

zeo

fthe

litt

ero

forig

ino

npr

ewea

ning

per

form

ance

ofp

igs.

Pigs

wer

ewea

ned

atap

prox

imat

ely2

5d

ofag

e,an

dw

eani

ngag

ewas

use

das

aco

varia

tein

dat

aana

lysis

.2 R

esul

tsar

erep

orte

das

leas

tsqu

ares

mea

ns.

3 Sow

bod

ycon

ditio

nsc

ore(

1=

very

thin

to5

=ve

ryfa

t,w

ith3

bei

ngid

eal).

4 Pig

bod

ycon

ditio

nsc

ore(

1=

emac

iate

d,2

=th

in,a

nd3

=fu

ll-bo

died

).5 P

roba

bilit

y,P

>0.

10.

abc W

ithin

aro

w,m

eans

with

outa

com

mon

supe

rscr

iptd

iffer

(P<

0.0

5).

7

Herd Health Management

Avg

. no

. bo

rn li

ve p

er li

tter

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

≥ 4.4 lb

3.4 to 4.3 lb

2.4 to 3.3 lb

≤ 2.3 lb

Total born category

≥ 15≤ 11 12 to 14

0.7

2.4

2.3

3.4

1.3

1.3

4.9

4.4

1.9

0.9

6.0

6.1

Figure 1. Relationship between total born and number of live pigs born within each birth weight category.

Avg

. no

. wea

ned

per

litt

er

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

≥ 4.4 lb

3.4 to 4.3 lb

2.4 to 3.3 lb

≤ 2.3 lb

Total born category

≥ 15≤ 11 12 to 14

0.6

2.2

2.1

3.2

1.0

1.2

4.3

4.1

1.4

0.9

5.2

5.8

Figure 2. Relationship between total born and number of pigs weaned from each birth weight category.

8

Herd Health Management

Effects of Porcine Circovirus Type 2 and Mycoplasmahyopneumoniae Vaccination Strategy, Birth Weight, and Gender on Postweaning Performance of Growing-Finishing Pigs Reared in a Commercial Environment

J.R.Bergstrom,M.L.Potter1,M.D.Tokach,S.C.Henry2,S.S.Dritz1,J.L.Nelssen,R.D.Goodband,andJ.M.DeRouchey

SummaryAtotalof1,995pigswereusedtoevaluatetheeffectsoftwoporcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)andMycoplasma hyopneumoniae(Mhyo)vaccinationstrategiesandbirthweightonpigperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics.Thefirstvaccinationstrategy(BI)wasasinglefulldoseofCircoFLEX-MycoFLEX(BoehringerIngelheim,St.Joseph,MO)atweaning.Thesecondstrategy(Intervet)wasafulldoseofCircumventandMYCOSILENCER(Intervet/Schering-PloughAnimalHealth,Millsboro,DE)atweaningandagain22dlater.Atacommercialsowfarm,allpigsbornalivefor22consecutivedayswereidentifiedindividuallyatbirthwithanumberedeartag.Thedam,gender,andbirthweightwererecordedandusedtorandomlyallotpigsatweaning(d0)tothePCV2/Mhyovaccinationtreatments.Thepigswereweanedinto4consecu-tivenurseryroomsofapproximately500pigseachon6occasionsduringa19-dperiod.Pigsfromeachvaccinationtreatmentwerecomingledinpenswithinroomsthroughoutthestudy.Pigsweremovedtoafinishingbarnond74.Pigswereindividuallyweighedond0,22,44,74,and156tomeasuregrowthrate.Carcassdatawereobtainedfromasubsampleof420pigsharvestedonasingleday(d167).Fordataanalysis,individualbirthweightwasusedtoassignpigsto7birthweightcategories,eachcontainingasimilarnumberofobservations.Therefore,datawereanalyzedasa2×2×7factorialarrangementinacompletelyrandomizeddesignwithmaineffectsofvaccinestrategy,gender,andweightcategory.Asbirthweightcategoryincreased,ADGincreased(P<0.01)duringeachweightperiodandoverall.Percentageofcullsandlightweightpigsatmarketalsowerereduced(P<0.01)asweightcategoryincreased.Overall,ADG,finalBW,HCW,andbackfatdepthofbarrowswereincreased(P<0.0001)comparedwithgilts,whereasthepercentageofcullsandpigs<215lbandfat-freeleanwerereduced(P<0.0001)comparedwithgilts.

Fromd0to22andd44to74,vaccinestrategydidnotinfluenceADG.However,ADGandBWweregreater(P<0.05)fromd22to44forpigsvaccinatedoncewithBIratherthantwicewithIntervet.Fromd74to156,pigsvaccinatedtwicewithIntervethadgreater(P<0.05)ADGthanthosevaccinatedoncewithBI.Thus,therewerenodifferencesbetweenthe2vaccinationstrategiesforoverallgrowthperformance,carcassmeasurements,ormortality.TheseresultsaresimilartothoseofpreviousexperimentsthatdemonstratedthatvaccinationwithIntervetreducedperformanceinthenurserystagebutimprovedperformanceinthefinisherstage.Insummary,vaccinationstrategy,1FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.2AbileneAnimalHospital,PA,Abilene,KS.

9

Herd Health Management

pigletbirthweight,andgenderallinfluencethegrowthofpigsduringthenurserystage,finishingstage,andoverallandshouldbeconsideredtoenhanceoverallperformance.

Keywords:birthweight,gender,growth,PCV2,vaccination

IntroductionPorcinecircoviraldisease(PCVD)clinicalsignsincludeoneormoreofthefollowingingrowingpigs:wasting,laboredbreathing,diarrhea,porcinedermatitisandnephropathysyndrome,secondarybacterialinfections,andhighmortality.Porcinecircoviraldiseaseiscausedbyinfectionwithporcinecircovirustype2(PCV2).Recentstudies(Jacelaetal.,20073;Horlenetal.,20084)havedemonstratedthatthesubclinicalmanifesta-tionofthisorganisminunvaccinatedpigsisalsoassociatedwithsignificantreductionsinperformanceofgrowing-finishingpigs.Forthisreason,manyswineproducersarecurrentlyvaccinatinggrowingpigsforPCV2withoneofthecommerciallyavailablevaccines.

Althoughimprovementsinthehealthandperformanceofgrowing-finishingpigshavebeenobservedwiththeimplementationofPCV2vaccinationinthefield,someproduc-ershaveexperiencedincreaseddifficultyingettingpigsstartedonfeedafterweaning.Inmostofthesecases,pigshavebeenvaccinatedforPCV2andMycoplasma hyopneu-moniae(Mhyo)atweaning.RecentworkatKansasStateUniversity(K-State;Kaneetal.,20085)suggeststhatvaccinationofpigsforPCV2andMhyoattherecommendedagesmaybefollowedbyatransientreductioninnurseryperformance.

Littleworkhasbeendonetodeterminewhetherthistransientreductionischaracter-isticofallcommerciallyavailablePCV2andMhyovaccinesorvaccinationstrategies.Jacelaetal.(2007)reportedthatpigsvaccinatedwith2doses(d0and21)ofonePCV2vaccinewereheavierthanunvaccinatedpigsatd113,withpigsvaccinatedwith1dose(d7)ofasecondPCV2vaccinebeingintermediate.TheyreportedthatthebenefitstogrowthfromPCV2vaccinationoccurredprimarilyduringthefirst113danddidnotobserveanytransientreductionsinperformanceaftervaccination.However,thepost-vaccinationweighingeventsoccurredatlengthyintervals.

Otherfactorsareknowntoinfluencethegrowthperformanceofpigsimmediatelypostweaning,includingmanagement,genetics,health,nutrition,environment,gender,weaningage,andweaningweight.ManyfarmshavedemonstratedacceptablelevelsofnurseryperformancepriortotheimplementationofPCV2vaccination.However,sincetheimplementationofPCV2vaccinations,someofthesefarmshavereportedanunacceptablenumberofpigsthatappearednormalatweaningbutbeganaprogressivedeclineinbodyconditionwithinthefirst5dpostweaning.These“failure-to-thrive”pigsappearedtoremainhydratedandalertwithnormalvitalsignsbutdidnotrespondtoindividualizedenvironmental,nutritional,andantimicrobialinterventions.Theycontinuedtoprogressivelycatabolizefatandmuscletissuetothepointthateutha-nasiawastheonlyremaininghumaneresolution.Inthesepopulationsofpigs,ithas3Jacelaetal.,SwineDay2007,ReportofProgress985,pp.5-16.4Horlen,K.P.,S.S.Dritz,J.C.Nietfeld,S.C.Henry,R.A.Hesse,R.Oberst,M.Hays,J.Anderson,andR.R.R.Rowland.2008.Afieldevaluationofpigmortality,performanceandinfectionfollowingcommercialvaccinationagainstporcinecircovirustype2.J.Am.Vet.Med.Assoc.232:906-912.5Kaneetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.14-20.

10

Herd Health Management

beendifficulttoidentifytheindividualcharacteristicsthatmaybeassociatedwithanincreasedriskforbecominga“failure-to-thrive”pig.

Therefore,ourobjectivewastocomparetheeffectsof2vaccinationstrategiesformiti-gatingtheeffectsofPCV2andMhyoonpostweaningperformance.AsecondobjectivewastoevaluatethecombinedeffectsofPCV2vaccinationstrategy,birthweight,andgenderonindividualpigperformancepostweaning.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheK-StateInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.TheexperimentwasconductedatacommercialfarminKansaswithasegregated,3-siteproductionsystem(breeding/gestation/farrowing,nursery,andfinisher).Thisexperimentused908pigs(PIC327sired)bornoffirst,second,andafewthirdparityfemales(TriumphTR24)and1,047pigs(PIC327sired)bornofthirdparityandoldersows(PIC1050).Allpigswerehousedinenvironmen-tallycontrolledbuildingswithpensovertotallyslattedfloorsthroughouttheexperi-ment.

Duringlactation,sowsandtheirlitterswerehousedinfarrowingcratesandgivenadlibitumaccesstofoodandwater.For22consecutivedays,allpigsbornalivewereiden-tifiedwithasmallnumberedbuttoneartag,andtheirweightandgenderwererecordedwithin18hafterparturition.Afterward,litterswereequalizedandprocessedfollowingnormalfarmprocedurestooptimizesowandpiglethealthandwelfare.Everyattemptwasmadetokeepsubsequentpigmovementataminimum;however,allnecessarypigmovement,fostering,removals,andmortalitieswererecorded.Noneofthepigsweregivenaccesstocreepfeedoradditionalsupplementsduringlactation.

Atotalof1,995pigswereweaned(16.4lband25dofage)in6groupsofapproxi-mately330to340pigstofillfour500-headroomsovera19-dperiod.Priortoeachweaningevent,pigsscheduledtobeweanedwereallottedtooneof2vaccinationstrate-giesstratifiedbydam,gender,andbirthweight.OnevaccinationstrategyconsistedofasinglefulldoseofCircoFLEX-MycoFLEX(BI;BoehringerIngelheim,St.Joseph,MO)administeredintramuscularlyatweaning.Theothervaccinationstrategyconsistedof2fulldosesofCircumventandMYCOSILENCER(Intervet;Intervet/Schering-PloughAnimalHealth,Millsboro,DE)administeredintramuscularlyatweaningandagain22dlater.Bothvaccinationstrategieswereadministeredaccordingtotheirproductlabel.TheBIvaccinationconsistedofacombinationvaccinethatprovidedanimmunizationforPCV2andMhyowithasingle2-mLinjection.TheIntervetvaccinationrequired2separateinjectionseachtimeof2mLofCircumventand1mLofMYCOSILENCER

toprovideimmunizationforPCV2andMhyo,respectively.PriortoimplementationofPCV2vaccinationforallgrowingpigsatweaning,pigsinthisproductionsystemhadexhibitedsevereclinicalsignsindicativeofPCVDthathadbeenconfirmedbythehisto-pathologicevaluationoftissues,andthepresenceofPCV2wasconfirmedbyimmuno-histochemistry.Subsequenttoimplementation,theseclinicalsignshadabatedandwerenotapparentinthegrowingpigpopulationatthetimethistrialwasperformed.

Atweaning(d0),allpigswererandomlyplacedinnurserypensingroupsof25pigs.Immediatelyafterward,thepigswereindividuallyweighed,assignedabodycondition

11

Herd Health Management

score(BCS;1=emaciated,2=thin,or3=full-bodied),andvaccinatedwiththeirdesignatedvaccine.Thisresultedinthecominglingofpigsfromeachvaccinationtreat-mentinallpensandinallroomsthroughoutthestudy.Ond22,allpigswereweighedandagainassignedaBCS.Also,pigsassignedtotheIntervetvaccinationstrategywereadministeredtheirseconddoseofPCV2andMhyovaccines.Duringvaccination,pigsthatexhibiteda“fainting”reactionimmediatelyafteradministrationweremonitoredandrecorded.A“fainting”reactionwasdefinedasanypigthatwasbrieflyunabletostand,wasimmobile,orexhibitedinvoluntarymusclecontractionsaccompaniedbyinterruptedorirregularrespiration.PigswereweighedandassignedaBCSagainond44andweremovedtoafinishingbarnatapproximately74dpostweaning,wheretheywereweighedagain.Afterward,allremainingpigswereweighedoncemoreond156.Throughoutthestudy,eachpenwasequippedwithadryself-feederandcupwaterer,providingadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Pigremovalsanddeaths,aswellasthesuspectedreasons,wererecordedthroughoutthestudy.Carcassdatawereobtainedfromasubsampleof420pigsfromonefinisherroomthatwereharvestedonasingleday(d167).

Fordataanalysis,individualbirthweightwasusedtoassignpigsto7birthweightcate-gories,suchthateachcategorycontainedaroughlysimilarnumberofobservations.Thegeneticbackgroundandparityofsowswereconfounded,sotheeffectsofthesevariablesontheperformanceoftheiroffspringwerenotevaluatedinthisexperiment.Thedam(litteroforigin),nurseryroom,andfinisherroomwereusedasrandomeffectsintheanalysis.Therefore,vaccinationstrategy,gender,andbirthweightcategorywereusedtoanalyzethedataasa2×2×7factorialarrangementinacompletelyrandomizeddesignusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).Weaningagewasusedasacovariatefordataanalysis.Individualpigwastheexperimentalunitfortheanalysisofresponsecriteria.

ResultsTherewerenovaccinationstrategy×gender×birthweightcategoryinteractionsobservedduringthestudy.Therefore,theeffectsofvaccinationstrategy,gender×weightcategoryinteractions,gender,andweightcategoryarereported.

EffectsofVaccinationStrategyonSubsequentGrowthFromd0to22,therewerenodifferencesingrowthperformancebetweenthe2vacci-nationstrategies(Table1).However,pigsvaccinatedwithIntervethadagreater(P<0.0001)riskofdemonstratinga“fainting”reactiontovaccinationimmediatelyfollowinginjection.The“fainting”reactionsobservedwerenotassociatedwithanymortality.

FollowingtheseconddoseofIntervetond22,ADGofpigsvaccinatedwithBIwasgreater(P<0.0001)fromd22to44thanthatofpigsvaccinatedwithIntervet.Thisresultedinimproved(P<0.0001)ADGfromd0to44andd44BWforpigsvacci-natedwithBI.Therewerenodifferencesinperformancefromd44to74,butpigsvaccinatedwithBIhadgreater(P<0.001)ADGfromd0to74andd74BW.

Duringthefinishingperiod(d74to156),pigsvaccinatedwithIntervethadgreater(P<0.05)ADGthanthosevaccinatedwithBI.Thischangeinthegrowthresponse

12

Herd Health Management

betweenthe2vaccinationstrategiesresultedinsimilaroverall(d0to156)growthperformance.Therewerenodifferencesincarcasscharacteristics,percentageofpigslessthan215lb,ormortalitybetweenthe2vaccinationstrategies.

BirthWeightCategoryandGenderInteractionsDuringtheexperiment,gender×weightcategoryinteractionswereobserved(P<0.03)forADGfromd44to74,percentageofculls,andpercentageofpigsweighinglessthan215lbond156.TheADGofbarrowsfromd44to74was1.43,1.53,1.60,1.69,1.72,1.76,and1.68forweightcategories≤2.5lb,2.6to3.0lb,3.1to3.3lb,3.4to3.6lb,3.7to3.9lb,4.0to4.4lb,and≥4.5lb,respectively.TheADGofgiltsfromd44to74was1.33,1.47,1.51,1.51,1.53,1.54,and1.60,respectively.TheinteractionoccurredbecausetherateofincreaseinADGasweightcategoryincreasedwasnotconsistentforbothgenders.Despitetheinteraction,ADGwasgreater(P<0.01)forbarrowsthangiltsandforheavierweightcategoriescomparedwithlightercategories.

Thepercentageofcullsandpigsweighinglessthan215lbforbarrowswas7.62%,7.97%,4.70%,3.61%,4.40%,1.65%,and3.25%forweightcategories≤2.5lb,2.6to3.0lb,3.1to3.3lb,3.4to3.6lb,3.7to3.9lb,4.0to4.4lb,and≥4.5lb,respectively.Percentageofcullsandpigsweighinglessthan215lbforgiltswas27.50%,13.62%,4.52%,10.97%,2.05%,3.21%,and0.96%,respectively.Theinteractionoccurredbecausethepercentageofcullsandpigslessthan215lbwassignificantlygreaterinlighterweightcategoriesforgilts,butthepercentageofcullsandpigslessthan215lbwassimilarforbarrowsandgiltsinheavierweightcategories.Inspiteoftheinterac-tion,thepercentageofcullsandpigsweighinglessthan215lbwasless(P<0.001)forbarrowsandpigsofheavierweightcategories.

TheEffectsofBirthWeightCategoryonSubsequentGrowthAsexpected,birthweightincreased(P<0.0001)asweightcategoryincreased.Also,preweaningADG,weaningweight,andBCSatweaningwereimproved(P<0.0001)forpigsasweightcategoryincreased(Table2).

Afterweaning,pigsinincreasingweightcategorieshadimproved(P<0.0001)ADGandfinalBWforallperiods(d0to22,d22to44,d0to44,d44to74,d0to74,d74to156,andd0to156).Postweaningmortalitywasnotaffectedbyweightcategory.Pigsofheavierweightcategoriesalsohadgreater(P<0.0001)HCWcomparedwithlighterweightcategorypigs.However,therewerenodifferencesinthebackfatdepth,loindepth,andfat-freeleanofpigssubsampledfromthedifferentweightcategoriesinthisexperiment.

TheEffectsofGenderonSubsequentGrowthFromd0to22,ADG,d22BW,andd22BCSweregreater(P<0.01)forgiltsthanforbarrows(Table3).AlthoughtherewerenodifferencesinADGfromd22to44ord44BW,therewasatendencyfor(P<0.06)giltstohavegreaterADGfromd0to44.

However,ford44to74andtheentirenurseryperiod(d0to74),ADGandd74BWwereimproved(P<0.001)forbarrows.TheADGofbarrowswasalsogreater(P<0.0001)duringthefinishingperiod(d74to156)thanthatofgilts.

13

Herd Health Management

Overall(d0to156),ADG,finalBW,HCW,andbackfatdepthofbarrowswereincreased(P<0.0001),whereasthepercentagefat-freeleanwasreduced(P<0.0001)comparedwithgilts.Postweaningmortalityofbarrowsandgiltswasnotsignificantlydifferent.

DiscussionAlthoughtherewasnotanunvaccinatedcontrolgroupinthecurrentexperiment,thedifferencesobservedbetweenthe2vaccinationstrategiesaresimilartopreviousnurseryexperiments(Kaneetal.,2008;Potteretal.,20096;Sheltonetal.,20097).PigsvaccinatedinthecurrentexperimentwithIntervetond0and22experiencedatran-sientreductioningrowthafteradministrationoftheseconddose.Kaneetal.(2008)reportedatransientreductioningrowthafterasingledoseofCircumvent,butthepigsintheirexperimentwereprimarilymaternal-line(PIC1050)barrows,considerablylighteratweaning,andvaccinatedwithRespisure1(PfizerAnimalHealth,NewYork,NY)atthesametime.Potteretal.(2009)observedsimilardifferencesinthegrowthofpigsvaccinatedwith2dosesofCircumventand1doseofCircoFLEXasinthecurrentexperiment.ItisunclearwhetherthegrowthofpigsvaccinatedwithBIinthecurrentexperimentwasaffectedbyvaccination,butPotteretal.(2009)didnotobserveanydifferencesinnurserygrowthbetweenpigsvaccinatedwithCircoFLEXandthecontrols.

InspiteofthenegativeeffectoftheIntervetvaccinationstrategyonnurseryperfor-mance,thegrowthofthesepigsinthefinisherwasbetterthanthatofpigsvaccinatedusingtheBIstrategy.Asaresult,overallperformancewasnotdifferentbetweenthe2vaccinationstrategies.AlthoughclinicalPCVDwasnotnotedinanyofthegrowingpiggroups,thissuggeststhattheIntervetstrategymayhaveprovidedmoreeffectiveimmunityduringthefinisherphase,whichledtobettergrowthperformance.Theendresultwasthesame,butthesimilarefficacyofthetwovaccinationstrategiesisworthyoffurtherinvestigation.

Thesedatademonstratetheimportanceofincreasingbirthweightforimprovingthelifetimegrowthperformanceofpigs(Figures1and2).Althoughidentifyingdiffer-encesinpreweaningmortalitybetweenbirthweightcategorieswasnotundertakenforthisreport,itisapparentthatmanagementstrategiestoincreasethebirthweightandgrowthperformanceofthelightest30%ofpigsbornmaybebeneficial.

Theoveralldifferencesingrowthandcarcasscharacteristicsbetweenbarrowsandgiltsweretypicalandnotunexpected.Thesedatareinforcethepotentialneedfordifferingmanagementstrategiestooptimizetheperformanceofbarrowsandgiltswithinapopu-lation(e.g.,split-sexfeeding,differentpigflows,differentfeeders,etc.).Althoughtherewerenodifferencesinpostweaningmortality,thesloweroverallgrowthrateofgiltsresultedintwiceasmanygiltsbeingculledforweightthanbarrows.Thiswasparticu-larlyproblematicforthegiltsinthisstudythathadabirthweight≤2.5lb.Thesegiltswerenearly4timesmorelikelytobeculledbecauseofpoorgrowthratethanbarrowsofsimilarbirthweight.

6Potteretal.,SwineDay2009,ReportofProgress1020,pp.21-27.7Sheltonetal.,SwineDay2009,ReportofProgress1020,pp.28-XX.

14

Herd Health Management

Inconclusion,vaccinatingpigsforPCV2andMhyowithdifferentvaccinationstrate-giesresultedindifferencesingrowthrateinthenurseryandfinishingphasesbutequalperformanceoverall.Thesedataalsoillustratethebiologicaldifferencesingrowthamongpigsofdifferingbirthweightsandbetweenbarrowsandgilts.Agreaterunder-standingofthesedifferences,andtheimplementationofmanagementstrategiestomiti-gatetheireffects,mayresultinsignificantimprovementsinoverallperformance.

15

Herd Health Management

Table 1. Effect of PCV2 and Mhyo vaccine strategy on growth and carcass characteristics of pigs1

GrowthperformancePCV2andMhyovaccinationstrategy2

SEM Probability,P<BI IntervetPigs,no. 1,006 989PreweaningADG,lb3 0.52 0.52 0.01 ---4

Initialbirthwt,lb 3.51 3.50 0.01 ---Weaningage,d 25.10 25.05 0.44 ---ADG,lbd0tod22 0.74 0.74 0.03 ---d22to44 1.43 1.36 0.07 0.0001d0tod44 1.09 1.05 0.02 0.0001d44to74 1.58 1.56 0.04 ---d0tod74 1.28 1.25 0.02 0.001d74to156 1.89 1.92 0.03 0.05d0to156 1.61 1.61 0.02 ---Pigweight,lbWeaning(d0) 16.54 16.49 0.15 ---d22 32.69 32.54 2.68 ---d44 63.71 61.97 3.55 0.0001d74 111.06 108.73 3.33 0.001d156 268.21 267.88 5.79 ---Bodyconditionscore5

d0 2.86 2.86 0.02 ---d22 2.98 2.99 0.01 ---d44 3.00 3.00 0.01 ---“Fainting”reaction,% 0.00 1.58 0.29 0.0001Culland<215lbBW,% 6.80 6.80 1.50 ---Postweaningmortality,% 1.67 1.46 0.41 ---

Carcasscharacteristics6

Pigs,no. 213 205FinalBW(181dofage),lb 267.7 270.3 2.88 ---HCW(192dofage),lb 206.8 208.9 1.97 ---Backfatdepth,mm 17.46 18.13 0.38 ---Loindepth,mm 56.78 57.66 0.53 ---Fat-freelean,% 52.22 51.91 0.24 ---1Atotalof1,995pigswereusedtoevaluatetheeffectsofPCV2andMhyovaccinestrategyonpigperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics.2PCV2andMhyovaccinestrategiestestedwere:BI,asinglefulldoseofCircoFLEX-MycoFLEXatd0,andIntervet,afulldoseofCircumventandMYCOSILENCERatd0and22.3Resultsarereportedasleastsquaresmeans.4Probability,P>0.10.51=emaciated,2=thin,or3=full-bodied.6Carcassdatawereobtainedfromasubsampleof420pigsharvestedinasingleday(d167postweaning).

16

Herd Health Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

ct o

f pig

bir

th w

eigh

t on

subs

eque

nt g

row

th an

d ca

rcas

s cha

ract

eris

tics1

Gro

wth

per

form

ance

Birt

hw

eigh

tcat

egor

y,lb

SEM

≤2.

52.

6-3

.03.

1-3

.33.

4-3

.63.

7-3

.94.

0-4

.4≥

4.5

Pigs

,no.

283

325

287

314

270

275

239

Prew

eani

ngA

DG

,lb2

0.40

a0.

49b

0.50

b0.

52c

0.54

c0.

58d

0.60

d0.

01In

itial

birt

hw

t,lb

2.18

a2.

82b

3.21

c3.

50d

3.80

e4.

18f

4.83

g0.

01A

DG

,lb

d

0to

d2

20.

59a

0.67

b0.

73bc

0.75

cd0.

78d

0.82

e0.

86f

0.03

d

22

to4

41.

17a

1.30

b1.

37c

1.41

d1.

47e

1.48

e1.

56f

0.07

d

0to

d4

40.

88a

0.98

b1.

05c

1.08

d1.

12e

1.15

e1.

21f

0.02

d

44

to7

41.

39a

1.51

b1.

56bc

1.60

cd1.

62d

1.65

d1.

64d

0.04

d

0to

d7

41.

09a

1.19

b1.

25c

1.29

d1.

32e

1.35

ef1.

38f

0.02

d

74

to1

561.

76a

1.87

b1.

91bc

1.90

bc1.

95cd

1.98

d1.

98d

0.03

d

0to

156

1.45

a1.

55b

1.60

c1.

61c

1.66

d1.

69de

1.71

e0.

02Pi

gwei

ght,

lb

Wea

ning

(d0

)12

.26a

15.0

5b15

.78c

16.7

0d17

.33e

18.6

8f19

.81g

0.23

d

22

24.9

3a29

.51b

31.5

6c33

.00d

34.2

5e36

.56f

38.5

1g2.

70

d4

450

.39a

57.7

5b61

.18c

63.5

1d66

.14e

68.7

2f72

.20g

3.60

d

74

92.2

3a10

3.10

b10

7.94

c11

1.61

d11

4.95

e11

8.10

f12

1.33

g3.

45

d1

5623

9.22

a25

8.09

b26

4.99

c26

8.80

c27

6.35

d28

2.77

e28

6.09

e6.

08Bo

dyco

nditi

onsc

ore3

d

02.

73a

2.85

b2.

88bc

2.88

bc2.

85b

2.93

d2.

92cd

0.03

d

22

2.98

2.97

2.99

2.98

2.99

2.98

2.99

0.01

d

44

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

0.01

Cul

land

<2

15lb

BW

,%17

.38a

10.4

8b4.

95c

7.35

bc3.

09cd

2.35

cd1.

77d

2.15

Post

wea

ning

mor

talit

y,%

1.15

1.21

1.02

2.71

1.16

1.96

1.73

0.84

cont

inue

d

17

Herd Health Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

ct o

f pig

bir

th w

eigh

t on

subs

eque

nt g

row

th an

d ca

rcas

s cha

ract

eris

tics1

Gro

wth

per

form

ance

Birt

hw

eigh

tcat

egor

y,lb

SEM

≤2.

52.

6-3

.03.

1-3

.33.

4-3

.63.

7-3

.94.

0-4

.4≥

4.5

Car

cass

char

acte

ristic

s4

P

igs,

no.

5869

6260

5659

56

Fin

alB

W(1

81d

ofa

ge),

lb25

8.73

a26

4.37

b26

9.74

b26

9.33

bc27

0.15

bc27

4.96

cd27

7.70

d3.

60

HC

W(1

92d

ofa

ge),

lb19

5.75

a20

4.43

b20

9.66

bc20

9.47

bc21

0.98

bc21

0.81

bc21

4.96

c2.

93

Bac

kfat

dep

th,m

m17

.83

18.1

718

.55

17.9

817

.66

17.4

517

.09

0.62

L

oin

dept

h,m

m55

.11

56.6

257

.29

57.6

658

.51

57.1

258

.27

0.97

F

at-fr

eele

an,%

51.9

951

.89

51.5

551

.99

52.2

352

.20

52.5

13.

941 A

tota

lof1

,995

pig

swer

euse

dto

eval

uate

thee

ffect

sofb

irth

wei

ght(

7ca

tego

ries)

on

pigp

erfo

rman

cean

dca

rcas

scha

ract

erist

ics.

2 Res

ults

arer

epor

ted

asle

asts

quar

esm

eans

.3 1

=em

acia

ted,

2=

thin

,or3

=fu

ll-bo

died

.4 C

arca

ssd

ataw

ereo

btai

ned

from

asu

bsam

pleo

f420

pig

shar

vest

edin

asin

gled

ay(d

167

pos

twea

ning

).ab

cdef

g With

ina

row

,mea

nsw

ithou

taco

mm

onsu

pers

crip

tdiff

er(P

<0

.05)

.

18

Herd Health Management

Table 3. Effect of gender on growth and carcass characteristics of pigs1

GrowthperformanceGender

SEM Probability,P<Barrows GiltsPigs,no. 980 1,015PreweaningADG,lb2 0.52 0.52 0.01 ---3

Initialbirthwt,lb 3.51 3.50 0.01 ---Weaningage,d 25.09 25.06 0.44 ---ADG,lbd0tod22 0.73 0.76 0.03 0.0001d22to44 1.40 1.39 0.07 ---d0tod44 1.06 1.08 0.02 0.06d44to74 1.63 1.50 0.04 0.0001d0tod74 1.29 1.25 0.02 0.0001d74to156 2.02 1.80 0.03 0.0001d0to156 1.68 1.54 0.02 0.0001Pigweight,lbWeaning(d0) 16.49 16.54 0.15 ---d22 32.24 32.99 2.68 0.01d44 62.49 63.19 3.55 ---d74 111.44 108.35 3.33 0.0001d156 278.87 257.22 5.79 0.0001Bodyconditionscore4

d0 2.87 2.86 0.02 ---d22 2.98 2.99 0.01 0.01d44 3.00 3.00 0.01 ---Culland<215lbBW,% 4.60 8.90 1.50 0.001Postweaningmortality,% 1.73 1.40 0.41 ---

Carcasscharacteristics5

Pigs,no. 203 217FinalBW(181dofage),lb 279.33 258.65 2.87 0.0001HCW(192dofage),lb 215.04 200.65 1.95 0.0001Backfatdepth,mm 19.66 15.93 0.38 0.0001Loindepth,mm 57.04 57.41 0.53 ---Fat-freelean,% 50.90 53.23 0.24 0.00011Atotalof1,995pigswereusedtoevaluatetheeffectsofgenderonpigperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics.2Resultsarereportedasleastsquaresmeans.3Probability,P>0.10.41=emaciated,2=thin,or3=full-bodied.5Carcassdatawereobtainedfromasubsampleof420pigsharvestedinasingleday(d167postweaning).

19

Herd Health Management

Life

time

AD

G t

o 1

81 d

of

age,

lb

2.60

2.40

2.20

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

Birth weight, lb

65.554.543.532.521.51

y = -0.0205x2 + 0.2481x + 0.8465R2 = 0.1915

Figure 1. Relationship of birth weight and lifetime ADG.

20

Herd Health Management

BW

at

181

d o

f ag

e, lb

400

375

350

325

300

275

250

225

200

175

150

125

Birth weight, lb

65.554.543.532.521.51

y = -3.668x2 + 45.558x + 152.79R2 = 0.2031

Figure 2. Relationship of birth weight and BW at 181 d of age.

21

Herd Health Management

Effects of Porcine Circovirus Type 2 and Mycoplasmahyopneumoniae Vaccines on Nursery Pig Performance

M.L.Potter1,A.W.Duttlinger,J.R.Bergstrom,S.S.Dritz1,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof360weanlingbarrows(PIC1050,21dofageand13.0lb)wereusedina35-dstudytoevaluatetheeffectsofporcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)andMycoplasma hyopneumoniae(M. hyo) vaccinesonnurserypiggrowthperformance.TwocommercialPCV2vaccineswereevaluatedinthisstudy:(1)a2-doseproduct,CircumventPCV(Circumvent;Intervet/Schering-PloughAnimalHealth,Millsboro,DE)and(2)a1-doseproduct,Ingelvac CircoFLEX (CircoFLEX;BoehringerIngelheimVetmedica,Inc,St.Joseph,MO).FortheM. hyovaccine,RespiSure(PfizerAnimalHealth,NewYork,NY),asingle2-doseproduct,wasused.Atweaning(d0),pensofpigswereblockedbyaveragepigweightandrandomlyallottedto1of6treatmentsina3×2factorialarrangementcomposedofacombinationofPCV2vaccine(Circumvent,CircoFLEX,ornon-PCV2-vaccinatedcontrol)andM. hyovaccine(RespiSureornon-M. hyo-vaccinatedcontrol).Therewere5pigsperpenand12pensperPCV2×M. hyovaccinetreatment.Allvaccineswereadministeredaccordingtolabeldirec-tions—CircoFLEXatweaningandCircumventandRespiSureatweaningand21dlater.Commondietswerefedbyphasetoallpigs.

TherewerenoPCV2×M. hyovaccineinteractionsforanyresponsecriteria.Overall,pigsvaccinatedwithCircumventhaddecreasedADG(P <0.02)andADFI(P ≤0.01)comparedwithCircoFLEX-vaccinatedandcontrolpigs,respectively.Ond35,Circum-vent-vaccinatedpigsweighedless(42.9lb,P <0.01)thanpigsvaccinatedwithCirco-FLEX(44.4lb)orcontrolpigs(44.4lb).PigsvaccinatedwithRespiSurehaddecreasedADGcomparedwithcontrolpigs(P ≤0.05)fromd14to21andd21to25.Ond35,RespiSure-vaccinatedpigstendedtoweighless(43.5lb,P =0.06)andhavelowerADFI(P =0.06)thancontrols(wt=44.3lb).ThesedataindicatethatPCV2andM. hyo vaccinationcanindependentlyreducefeedintakeandperformanceofnurserypigsandthatthePCV2vaccineeffectisproductdependent.AlthoughPCV2andM. hyovaccinesareknowntoimprovefinishingperformance,theirnegativeimpactonnurseryperformancemustbeconsideredwhenimplementingvaccinestrategies.

Keywords:growth,Mycoplasma,PCV2,vaccination

IntroductionPorcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)andMycoplasma hyopneumoniae(M. hyo) vaccinesareroutinelyadministeredtopigsduringthenurseryphasetolessentheseverityofdiseaseduringthefinishingperiod.Althoughvaccinesforbothofthesepathogenshavebeenshowntoreduceseverityofdiseaseinthefinishingphase,theimpactonthe

1DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity.

22

Herd Health Management

nurserypighasnotbeenwellcharacterized.Inaddition,asuseofPCV2vaccineshasincreased,fieldreportshaveemergedindicatingthatproducersarehavingincreaseddifficultystartingormaintainingweanedpigsonfeed.SpeculationthatnurserypigvaccinesmaycontributetothisproblempromptedaninitialstudyatKansasStateUniversity(K-State)toinvestigatetheroleofPCV2andM. hyovaccinesincombina-tionongrowthperformance(Kaneetal.,20082).Resultsfromthatstudydemonstratedthatfeedintakeandsubsequentgainwasdecreasedafterinitialvaccinationwitha2-dosePCV2vaccineproductadministeredconcurrentlywitha1-doseM. hyovaccineproduct.However,thereislimitedresearchontheeffectsofdifferentvaccineprod-uctsonfeedintake.Therefore,theobjectiveofthisstudywastodetermineeffectsof2commercialPCV2vaccinesandaM. hyo vaccineonnurserypiggrowthperformance.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthisstudywereapprovedbytheK-StateInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Atotalof360weanlingbarrows(PIC1050,21dofageand13.0lb)wereusedina35-dgrowthtrialattheK-StateSegregatedEarlyWeanFacility.Penswereequippedwithasinglecupwatereranda4-holeself-feederthatprovidedpigswithadlibitumaccesstowaterandfeed.Atweaning(d0),pensofpigswereblockedbyaveragepigweightandrandomlyallottedto1of6treatmentsina3×2factorialarrangementofPCV2vaccineandM. hyovaccine.ThePCV2vaccinetreatmentswere:a2-doseproduct,CircumventPCV(Circumvent;Intervet/Schering-PloughAnimalHealth,Millsboro,DE);a1-doseproduct,Ingelvac CircoFLEX (CircoFLEX;BoehringerIngelheimVetmedica,Inc.,St.Joseph,MO);andanon-PCV2-vaccinatedcontrol.TheM. hyovaccinetreatmentswere:a2-doseproduct,RespiSure(PfizerAnimalHealth,NewYork,NY)andanon-M. hyo-vaccinatedcontrol.Therewereinitially5pigsperpenand12pensperPCV2vaccine×M. hyovaccinetreatment.All3commerciallyavailablevaccineswereadministeredaccordingtolabeldirections.PigsintheCircoFLEXgroupwereadministered1mLasanintramuscularinjectionond0.PigsintheCircumventtreatmentgroupreceivedintramuscularinjectionsof2mLond0and21.AsingleM. hyovaccineproductwastested;therefore,pigsintheRespi-Suretreatmentgroupreceivedintramuscularinjectionsof2mLond0and21.Allpigswerefedcommondietsthroughoutthetrial.Initially,1lb/pigSEWdietwasbudgeted,followedbyadlibitumaccesstoatransitiondietuntild8.Phase2dietswerefedfromd8tod21,andPhase3dietswerefedfromd21totheendofthetrial.Feederswereemptiedond8and21priortofeedingthePhase2and3diets,respectively.Pigswereweighedandfeeddisappearancewasdeterminedond0,4,8,14,21,25,29,and35tocalculateADG,ADFI,andF/G.

DatawereanalyzedasarandomizedcompleteblockdesignusingtheGLIMMIXproce-dureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).FixedeffectsincludedPCV2vaccine,M. hyovaccine,andtheirinteraction.Weaningweight,theblockingfactor,wasarandomeffect.Penwasconsideredtheexperimentalunitforthisanalysis.Differencesbetweentreatmentsweredeterminedbyusingleastsquaresmeans(P <0.05).

Results and DiscussionTherewerenoPCV2×M. hyovaccineinteractionsfortheresponsecriteriaevalu-atedinthisstudy.EvaluationofthemaineffectsofPCV2vaccine(Table1)revealed2Kaneetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.14-20.

23

Herd Health Management

thatgrowthratewasunaffected(P ≥0.01)byPCV2treatmentduringthefirst21dofthetrial.Followingtheinitialvaccination(d0to8),Circumvent-vaccinatedpigshaddecreased(P =0.01)ADFIcomparedwithCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigs,andADFIforcontrolpigswasintermediate.Duringthed8to14period,ADFIwasdecreased(P <0.03)forCircumvent-vaccinatedpigscomparedwithcontrolandCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigs.Gainwassimilar(P =0.81)amongPCV2vaccinetreatmentgroupsforthed14to21period.However,F/Gwasimproved(P =0.02)forCircumvent-vacci-natedpigsfromd14to21comparedwithCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigs,andthecontrolgrouphadintermediateF/G.

Fromd21to29,pigsvaccinatedwithCircumventhaddecreased(P <0.01)ADGandADFIcomparedwithboththecontrolandCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigs.Therewasnodifference(P ≥0.34)inADGorADFIbetweenthecontrolpigsandpigsvaccinatedwithCircoFLEX.Fromd29to35,PCV2treatmentdidnotaffect(P ≥0.17)ADGorF/G,althoughCircumvent-vaccinatedpigshadnumericallylowerADFIrelativetocontrolorCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigs.

Overall(d0to35),growthwasdecreased(P =0.02)inpigsvaccinatedwithCircum-ventcomparedwithnon-PCV2-vaccinatedcontrolpigs,withthemajorityoftheeffectoccurringfollowingthesecondvaccination.PigsvaccinatedwithCircoFLEXhadasimilar(P =0.85)overallrateofgaincomparedwiththecontrolgroupandgrewfaster(P <0.01)thanpigsvaccinatedwithCircumvent.ThedecreasedgrowthrateforCircumvent-vaccinatedpigsisattributabletotheirreduced(P≤0.01)feedconsump-tioncomparedwiththecontrolandCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigs.Therewasnodiffer-ence(P =0.34)inADFIobservedamongtheCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigscomparedwithcontrolpigs.ThisperformancedisparityresultedinCircumvent-vaccinatedpigsweighingless(42.9lb,P <0.01)ond35thanCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigs(44.4lb)orcontrolpigs(44.4lb).

Inthe21dfollowingthefirstvaccination,performanceofpigsvaccinatedwithRespi-Suredidnotdifferfromthatofcontrolpigs(Table2).AfterthesecondRespiSurevaccination,ADGandADFIwerelower(P ≤0.02)forvaccinatedpigscomparedwithcontrols,andF/Gwasunaffected(P =0.80)byM. hyotreatment.ThenegativeeffectsofRespiSurevaccinationonintakeandADGfollowingthesecondadministrationresultedinRespiSure-vaccinatedpigshavingatendency(P =0.10)togainlessandhavedecreased(P =0.06)ADFIfromd0to35comparedwithcontrolpigs.ThepoorergrowthperformanceoftheRespiSure-vaccinatedpigsresultedinatrend(P =0.06)forthesepigstohavelighterd-35weightsthancontrolpigs.

Comparedwithperformanceofcontrolpigsintherespectivetreatmentgroups,thepatternofnegativeeffectswassimilarforbothCircumventandRespiSurevaccines,whereasCircoFLEX-vaccinatedpigsdidnotappeartoexperiencenegativeimpactsfromvaccination.FortheCircumvent-vaccinatedandRespiSure-vaccinatedpigs,thebiggestreductioninperformancewasobservedafterthesecondvaccination.

AlthoughtherewasnoPCV2×M. hyovaccineinteraction,d-35weightsforthe6differentPCV2×M. hyotreatmentsmeasuredagainstnon-vaccinatedcontrolpigsshowedthatapproximatelya1.5-lbreductioninweightmaybeduetoCircumvent

24

Herd Health Management

vaccineandanadditional0.8lbreductioninweightmaybeduetoRespiSurevaccina-tion.Therefore,whenCircumventandRespiSureproductswereusedinconjunction,thesenegativeeffectswereadditiveandresultedina2.5lblighterd-35weight(Figure1).

ThesefindingssupportpreviousresearchconductedatK-State(Kaneetal.,2008)inwhichfollowinganinitialvaccinationwithbothCircumventPCVandRespiSure-One(PfizerAnimalHealth,NewYork,NY),vaccinatedpigshadlower(P <0.01)ADGandADFI(d4to8andd0to8)andweighedless(P <0.01)ond8thanpigsnotvaccinateduntild8.Inthecurrentstudy,thisdifferenceinfeedintakeforCircumvent-vaccinatedpigswasnotedwithinthefirst21dafterinitialvaccination,andthelowerfeedconsumptioncontinuedandnegativelyaffectedgrowthratefollowingthesecondvaccination.ThesecondCircumventvaccinationappearstobeanadditionalstressorandhassubstantialnegativeeffectsonnurseryperformancethatarenotrecoveredfromwithin14dafterthesecondvaccination.Itislikelythatvaccinesfactorintohowpigsstartoraremaintainedonfeed,althoughtheseverityoftheresponseaswellasitstimingmaybevaccinedependent.Webelievetheeffectsonfeedintakenotedinthisstudymaybeafactorinfieldreportsthathaveindicatedthatproducersarehavingincreaseddifficultystartingormaintainingpigsonfeedpostweaning.

ThesedatademonstratethatnurserypigperformancediffersbecauseofthePCV2vaccineproductselectedandM. hyovaccination.However,thisstudywasnotdesignedtoevaluateefficacyoftheseproducts.Therefore,noconclusionsastovaccineselectionforbestcontrolofclinicaldiseasefromtheseinfectionsshouldbedrawn.However,thesedataindicatethatPCV2andM. hyo vaccinationcanindependentlyreducefeedintakeandperformanceofnurserypigsandthatthePCV2vaccineeffectisproductdependent.AlthoughPCV2andM. hyovaccinesareknowntoimprovefinishingperformance,theirnegativeeffectonnurseryperformancemustbeconsideredwhenimplementingvaccinestrategies.

25

Herd Health Management

Table 1. Effect of PCV2 vaccines on nursery pig growth performance, feed intake, and feed efficiency1

PCV2treatment2

Item Control Circumvent CircoFLEX SEMd0to8ADG,lb 0.28 0.26 0.29 0.02ADFI,lb 0.28ab 0.26a 0.29b 0.01F/G 1.02 1.03 1.04 0.03d8to14ADG,lb 0.73 0.68 0.70 0.03ADFI,lb 0.96a 0.87b 0.95a 0.04F/G 1.31 1.29 1.37 0.03d14to21ADG,lb 1.04 1.03 1.02 0.03ADFI,lb 1.55 1.48 1.54 0.04F/G 1.50ab 1.45a 1.52b 0.03d21to29ADG,lb 1.07a 0.96b 1.10a 0.03ADFI,lb 1.70a 1.57b 1.72a 0.04F/G 1.60 1.65 1.58 0.03d29to35ADG,lb 1.50 1.48 1.50 0.04ADFI,lb 2.20 2.16 2.25 0.06F/G 1.47 1.46 1.51 0.02d0to35ADG,lb 0.89a 0.85b 0.90a 0.02ADFI,lb 1.29a 1.23b 1.32a 0.03F/G 1.45 1.45 1.47 0.01Weight,lbd0 12.9 13.0 13.0 0.6d21 26.9 26.3 26.6 0.9d35 44.4a 42.9b 44.4a 1.21Resultsarereportedasleastsquaresmeans.Atotalof360barrows(PIC1050)wereusedina35-dstudy.Therewere5pigsperpenand24pensperPCV2treatment.2PCV2vaccinetreatmentswere:2groupsofvaccinatesreceivingeither2mLCircumventPCVadministeredintramuscularlyond0and21or1mLIngelvacCircoFLEXadministeredintramuscularlyond0andanon-PCV2-vaccinatedcontrolgroup.abWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P <0.05).

26

Herd Health Management

Table 2. Effect of M.hyo vaccines on nursery pig growth performance, feed intake, and feed efficiency1

M. hyotreatment2

Item Control RespiSure SEM Probability,P <d0to8ADG,lb 0.28 0.27 0.01 0.44ADFI,lb 0.28 0.27 0.01 0.40F/G 1.03 1.03 0.03 0.88d8to14ADG,lb 0.69 0.72 0.03 0.10ADFI,lb 0.93 0.93 0.04 0.82F/G 1.35 1.29 0.02 0.06d14to21ADG,lb 1.05 1.01 0.03 0.05ADFI,lb 1.54 1.51 0.04 0.25F/G 1.47 1.50 0.02 0.23d21to29ADG,lb 1.07 1.01 0.03 0.02ADFI,lb 1.71 1.62 0.04 <0.01F/G 1.61 1.60 0.02 0.80d29to35ADG,lb 1.51 1.48 0.04 0.31ADFI,lb 2.24 2.16 0.06 0.03F/G 1.49 1.47 0.02 0.26d0to35ADG,lb 0.89 0.87 0.02 0.10ADFI,lb 1.30 1.26 0.03 0.06F/G 1.46 1.45 0.01 0.57Weight,lbd0 12.9 13.0 0.6 0.22d21 26.7 26.5 0.9 0.50d35 44.3 43.5 1.2 0.061Resultsarereportedasleastsquaresmeans.Atotalof360barrows(PIC1050)wereusedina35-dstudy.Therewere5pigsperpenand36pensperM. hyotreatment.2M. hyovaccinetreatmentswere:Vaccinatesreceiving2mLRespiSureadministeredintramuscularlyond0and21andanon-M. hyo-vaccinatedcontrolgroup.

27

Herd Health Management

Wei

ght

, lb

50.0

45.0

40.0

PCV2 control Circumvent CircoFLEX

PCV2 Treatment

44.744.1

43.6

42.2

44.644.1

M. hyo control

RespiSurePCV2 × M. hyo: P = 0.68

SEM = 1.3

Figure 1. Effect of PCV2 and M.hyo vaccination on d-35 pig weight.PCV2vaccinetreatmentswere:PCV2controls(NoPCV2vaccine),Circumvent(pigsvacci-natedwith2mLCircumventPCVadministeredintramuscularlyond0and21),andCirco-FLEX(pigsvaccinatedwith1mLIngelvacCircoFLEXadministeredintramuscularlyond0).M. hyovaccinetreatmentswere:M. hyocontrols(NoM. hyovaccine)andRespiSure(pigsvaccinatedwith2mLRespiSureadministeredintramuscularlyond0and21.)

28

Herd Health Management

Effects of Porcine Circovirus Type 2 Vaccination on Nursery and Finishing Pig Performance under a PRRS Challenge1,2

N.W.Shelton,M.D.Tokach,S.S.Dritz3,R.D.Goodband,J.L.Nelssen,J.M.DeRouchey,andJ.L.Usry4

SummaryAtotalof2,571barrowsandgilts(PIC337×1050)wereusedtodeterminetheeffectsofporcinecircovirustype2vaccine(PCV2)onnurseryandfinishingpigsthatwerechallengedwithporcinerespiratoryandreproductivesyndrome(PRRS).Treatmentswerearrangedina2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsofgender(barroworgilt)andvaccine(PCV2vaccinatesornon-vaccinates).Vaccinatedpensreceived2dosesofcommercialPCV2vaccine(CircumventPCV,IntervetInc.,Millsboro,DE)accordingtolabeldirectionsond1and22inthenursery.Allpigswerealsoinoculatedond30withserumcontainingPRRSvirusaspartofthisproductionsystem’sprotocol.Barnsweredoublestockedfromd0to51.Ond51,giltsweremovedtoanadjacentfacilityandbarrowsweresplitinto2pens.

IntheperiodaftertheinitialPCV2vaccination(d0to15),nodifferenceinADG,ADFI,orF/Gwasobserved(P >0.13)betweengendersorbetweenvaccinatesandnon-vaccinates.However,intheperiodafterthesecondPCV2vaccination(d15to29),vaccinatedpigshaddecreased(P <0.02)ADGcomparedwithnon-vaccinatesasaresultofdecreased(P <0.04)ADFI.Giltsalsohadincreased(P <0.04)ADGandADFIcomparedwithbarrows.IntheperiodafterallpigswereinoculatedwithPRRSvirus(d29to50),PCV2vaccinateshadimproved(P <0.001)F/Governon-vaccinatesandatrend(P <0.08)forimprovedADG.Giltshadpoorer(P <0.01)F/Gcomparedwithbarrowsfromd29to50.Overtheentire50-dnurseryportionofthestudy,nodifferenceswereobserved(P >0.61)forADG,ADFI,orfinalweightamonggenderorPCV2vaccinatesandnon-vaccinates.However,F/Gwasimproved(P <0.001)withPCV2vaccination.

Pigweightsond71and99wereincreased(P<0.001)invaccinatescomparedwithnon-vaccinates,andbarrowshadincreased(P<0.001)BWcomparedwithgiltsond99.Attheconclusionofthestudy(d132forbarrowsandd142forgilts),thepercentageofpigsremainingontestwasdecreased(P<0.001)innon-vaccinatedpenscomparedwithvaccinatedpens(70.2%vs.94.7%,respectively).ThisstudysuggeststhatdespitethedecreaseinperformancerelatedtothesecondvaccinationofPCV2,thesecondvaccinationimprovedfinalperformanceanddecreasedthenumberofremovalsduetothePRRShealthchallenge.

Keywords:diseasechallenge,porcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)vaccine

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsfortheuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrob-jorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2TheauthorsthankAjinimotoHeartlandInc.forpartialfundingofthisproject.3FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.4AjinimotoHeartlandInc.,Chicago,IL.

29

Herd Health Management

IntroductionPorcinecircovirusdisease(PCVD)causedbyporcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)hasrecentlybecomeamajordiseaseaffectinggrowingpigsworldwide.Severalcommer-cialPCV2vaccinesareavailabletodecreasetheimpactofPCVD.RecentresearchhasshownincreasesingrowthratesandfinalsweightsoffinishingpigsvaccinatedwithPCV2vaccine(Jacelaetal.,20075,20086;Potteretal.,20087).However,Kaneetal.(20088)reportedadecreaseinnurserypigADGduetodecreasesinfeedintakeaftervaccinationforPCV2andMycoplasma hyopneumoniae.ThisindicatesthatalthoughtheremaybeimprovementsinfinishingpigperformancewithPCV2vaccination,theremaybesomeexpenseduetolostnurseryperformance.AdditionalhealthchallengescouldalsoaffecttheresponsetoPCV2vaccination.TheobjectiveofthisstudywastodeterminetheeffectsofPCV2vaccinationingiltsandbarrowschallengedwithporcinerespiratoryandreproductivesyndrome(PRRS).

ProceduresProceduresinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitu-tionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theexperimentwasconductedatacommer-cialresearchfinishingfacilityinsouthwesternMinnesota.Thefacilitywasdoublecurtainsidedwithcompletelyslattedflooring.Penswere10×18ftandwereequippedwitha5-holeconventionaldryfeederandacupwaterer.

Atotalof2,571barrowsandgilts(PIC337×1050,initially12.6lb)wereweanedintoawean-to-finishfacility.Pensweredoublestockedwith56pigsperpen,andgiltsandbarrowswerepennedseparately.Atotalof46penswereused;24penscontainedbarrows,and22penscontainedgilts.AllpigswerevaccinatedforM. hyopneumoniaewhileinthefarrowingfacility.ThePCV2vaccinationtreatmentswerethenallottedbypenatplacementtobothbarrowandgiltpensinacompletelyrandomizeddesign.VaccinetreatmentsincludedeithernoPCV2vaccineorvaccinationwith2dosesofcommercialPCV2vaccine(CircumventPCV,IntervetInc.,Millsboro,DE)givenaccordingtolabeldirectionsond1andd22.AllpigsweretheninoculatedwithserumcontainingPRRSvirusond30aspartofthisproductionsystem’sprotocol.Ond51,giltspensweremovedtoanadjacentbarnofsimilardesign.Penintegritywasmain-tainedforgiltpens,andtheoriginalpenwassplitinto2.Onceallgiltpensweremoved,agatecutofhalfofeachbarrowpenwasmovedtoanemptypeninthewean-to-finishbarn.Thus,similartogilts,thepenintegritywasmaintainedacrossthe2pens.

Pigweights(bypen),feeddisappearance,andpenheadcountsweremeasuredthrough-outthenurseryportionoftheexperimenttodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/Gforeachpen.Aftertheconclusionofthenurseryportionandpigsweresplitbetweenbarns,pencountsweredeterminedond71,99,andattheconclusionofthestudy(d132and142forthebarrowandgiltbarns,respectively).Penheadcountsfromboththenurseryandfinishingphaseswerecomparedwiththestartingoriginalpencounttodeterminethepercentageofpigsremaining.Pigweights(bypen)werealsodeterminedond71and99;however,weightswerenotobtainedond132and142forthebarrowandgiltbarns,

5Jacelaetal.,SwineDay2007,ReportofProgress985,pp.5-9.6Jacelaetal.,SwineDay2007,ReportofProgress985,pp.10-16.7Potteretal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.5-13.8Kaneetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.14-20.

30

Herd Health Management

respectively.Thesesamepigswereusedin2lysinetrialsduringthefinishingphasefromd71to99withdietarytreatmentsequallyallottedacrossvaccinetreatmentsinabalanceddesign.Tolimittheeffectofpigspaceforthelysinetrials,aportionofthePCV2-vaccinatedpigswereremovedfrompensond132and142forthebarrowandgiltbarns,respectively,whichisthereasonthistrialendedonthoseparticulardays.Therefore,duringthetrial,pigswereremovedonlyforpoorhealth.Datawerethenanalyzedforeachexperimentasa2×2factorialdesign(withorwith-outPCV2vaccineandgender).ThenurseryandfinishinggrowthandweightresponseswereanalyzedusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureinSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).ThepercentageofremainingpigswasanalyzedusingthePROCGENMODprocedureinSAS.Theoriginalpenwasusedastheexperimentalunitinallanalyses.

Results and DiscussionFromd0to15,nodifferenceinADG,ADFI,orF/Gwasobserved(P >0.13)betweengendersorbetweenvaccinatesandnon-vaccinates,indicatingthatthefirstinjectionofPCV2vaccinedidnotaffectperformance(Table1).However,intheperiodafterthesecondinjection(d15to29),PCV2-vaccinatedpigshaddecreased(P <0.02)ADGcomparedwithnon-vaccinates.Thisappearstobearesultofdecreased(P <0.04)ADFI.Giltshadincreased(P <0.04)ADGandADFIcomparedwithbarrows.Atrendwasalsodetected(P <0.07)foragender×vaccineinteractionforF/Gfromd15to29.ThisinteractionwasduetoaslightlypoorerF/Gamongvaccinatedbarrowsandaslightimprovementamongvaccinatedgilts.However,intheperiodafterinoculationwithPRRSvirus(d29to50),PCV2vaccinateshadimproved(P <0.001)F/Gandatrendforincreased(P <0.08)ADGcomparedwithnon-vaccinates.Giltshadpoorer(P <0.01)F/Gcomparedwithbarrowsfromd29to50.Overtheentire50-dnurseryportionofthestudy,nodifferencewasdetected(P >0.61)forADG,ADFI,orfinalweightbetweengendersorbetweenPCV2vaccinatesandnon-vaccinates.However,F/Gwasimproved(P <0.001)withPCV2vaccinationandimproved(P <0.001)forbarrowscomparedwithgilts.

Althoughtherewasnodifferenceinfinalweightafterthenurseryportionond50,pigweightsond71and99weregreater(P <0.001)inPCV2vaccinatesthaninnon-vacci-nates.Barrowshadincreased(P <0.001)BWcomparisonwithgiltsond99.

Nodifferenceswereobserved(P >0.37)inthepercentageofpigsremaininginpensthroughoutthenurseryportionofthestudy(d15,29,or50;Table2).However,thepercentageofpigsremainingontestwasreduced(P <0.001)innon-vaccinatedpenscomparedwithvaccinatedpensond71,99,andd132and142forthebarrowandgiltbarns,respectively.Themajorityoftheseremovalswereunthriftyappearingpigs.Only5ofthenon-vaccinatedpigsshowedclinicalsignsofPCVD.Also,gender×vaccineinteractionsweredetected(P <0.07)forpigsremainingond99andond132and142forthebarrowandgiltbarns,respectively.Thisinteractionisaresultofmoreunvac-cinatedgiltspigsremainingontestcomparedwithbarrows,whichhadagreaterdiffer-enceinremovalrateofnon-vaccinatescomparedwithvaccinates.Despitetheinterac-tion,inbarrowsandgilts,pigsremainingdecreasedinnon-vaccinatescomparedwithvaccinates.

31

Herd Health Management

ThedatafromthisstudysuggestthatwhenhealthchallengessuchasinoculationwithPRRSvirusarepresent,PCV2vaccinationcanimprovefinalperformanceanddecreasethenumberofremovalsrelatedtotheparticularhealthchallenge.However,vaccinationforPCV2,especiallythesecondinjection,decreasedfeedintakeandaffectedperfor-manceinthenurserystage.AdditionalresearchisneededtounderstandtheoptimalvaccinetimingforPCV2vaccinationinordertolimitanynegativeeffectsvaccinationmayhaveonnurserypigperformance.

Table 1. Effects of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccination and gender on growth performance1

Barrow Gilt Probability,P <

PCV2vaccination: No Yes No Yes SEMGender×Vaccine Vaccine Gender

Initialwt,lb 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 0.37 0.99 0.99 0.99d0to152

ADG,lb 0.59 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.03 0.95 0.93 0.75ADFI,lb 0.87 0.82 0.87 0.86 0.04 0.62 0.46 0.55F/G 1.50 1.41 1.49 1.47 0.04 0.33 0.14 0.57d15to293

ADG,lb 0.93 0.89 0.98 0.92 0.02 0.56 0.02 0.04ADFI,lb 1.43 1.36 1.50 1.44 0.04 0.88 0.04 0.04F/G 1.55 1.53 1.53 1.56 0.01 0.07 0.82 0.48d29to504

ADG,lb 0.90 0.96 0.84 0.92 0.04 0.85 0.08 0.22ADFI,lb 1.61 1.60 1.56 1.60 0.07 0.66 0.81 0.69F/G 1.80 1.66 1.85 1.74 0.02 0.54 0.001 0.01d0to50ADG,lb 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.82 0.03 0.99 0.62 0.86ADFI,lb 1.34 1.30 1.34 1.33 0.05 0.69 0.63 0.71F/G 1.65 1.57 1.66 1.62 0.02 0.10 0.001 0.05d50wt,lb 53.9 54.1 53.4 54.0 1.76 0.94 0.82 0.88Finisherweights5

d71wt,lb 82.6 90.0 82.1 87.5 1.38 0.47 0.001 0.26d99wt,lb 139.3 147.9 130.6 137.1 1.75 0.51 0.001 0.0011Atotalof2,571barrowsandgilts(PIC337×1050)weredoublestockedintoawean-to-finishbarnandobservedfor50dtodeterminetheeffectsofPCV2vaccineongrowthperformance.2ThefirstPCV2vaccinewasgivenond1ofthisstudytotheselectedpensofpigs.3ThesecondPCV2vaccinewasgivenond22ofthestudytotheselectedpensofpigs.4AllpigswereinjectedwithlivePRRSvirusond30.5Pensweresplitandgiltsweremovedtoanotherbarnond51,andfinisherweightsweredeterminedbyusingbothsplitpens.

32

Herd Health Management

Table 2. Effects of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccination and gender on pig counts1

Barrow Gilt Probability,P <

PCV2vaccination: No Yes   No Yes SEMGender×Vaccine Vaccine Gender

d0pencount,no. 55.8 55.8 56.0 56.0Pigsremaining,%d152 99.7 99.5 99.3 99.6 0.31 0.39 0.41 0.76d293 98.8 99.3 99.3 99.1 0.39 0.38 0.74 0.66d504 95.1 98.7 96.2 97.5 1.01 0.25 0.38 0.39d715 79.3 97.3 81.0 96.2 1.82 0.44 0.001 0.68d995 69.9 96.5 76.2 96.0 1.68 0.05 0.001 0.83Trialconclusion5,6 65.6 95.3 74.8 94.0 1.91 0.07 0.001 0.621Atotalof2,571barrowsandgiltsweredoublestockedintoawean-to-finishbarnandobservedfor50dtodeterminetheeffectsofPCV2vaccineonnurserygrowthperformance.2TimeperiodafterthefirstPCV2vaccine(d1).3TimeperiodafterthesecondPCV2vaccine(d22).4TimeperiodafterallpigswereinjectedwithlivePRRSvirus(d30).5Pensweresplitandgiltsweremovedtoanotherbarnond51.6Barrowbarnond132andgiltbarnond142.

33

Herd Health Management

Effects of Sirrah-Bios PRRSV-RS Vaccine on Mortality Rate and Finisher Pig Performance1

M.L.Potter2,S.S.Dritz2,S.C.Henry3,L.M.Tokach3,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof1,561pigs(initially4dofage)wereusedtodeterminetheeffectsofaporcinereproductiveandrespiratorysyndromevirus(PRRSv)subunitvaccine,PRRSV-RS(Sirrah-Bios,Ames,IA),onmortalityrateandfinisherpiggrowthperformanceinaPRRSv-positivecommercialherd.PigswererandomlyassignedbylittertoeitherthesubunitPRRSvvaccineornon-vaccinatedcontrolgroup.Pigsinthevaccinatedgroupreceivedanintramuscularinjectionof1mLPRRSV-RSvaccineatprocessing(approxi-mately4dafterbirth)andagainatweaning(approximately24dofage).Vaccinatedandcontrolpigswerecomingledinasinglenurseryduringthenurseryphase.Inthefinishingphase,pigswerehousedinastandardcommercialcurtain-sidedfinisherbarnbytreatmentandgenderbypen,withtreatmentsrandomlydistributedacrosspens.Mortalitywastrackedfromprocessing(4dofage)tomarket(d187to193).Therewasnodifferencebetweenthecontrolandvaccinatedpigsforcumulativemortality(21.5%vs.20.6%,P =0.67)orformortalityduringeachproductionphase(processingtowean-ing:9.5%vs.7.1%,P=0.08;nursery:9.3%vs.9.2%,P=0.95;finishing:4.4%vs.5.9%,P=0.20).Pigswereinitiallyweighedbysingle-sexpens(controlorvaccinated)2wkafterplacementintothefinisher(d0),andatthattime,controlandvaccinatedmeanpigweightswerenotdifferent(58.4vs.58.7lb,P =0.90).Pensofpigsweresubse-quentlyweighedevery2wk,andfeedconsumptionwasrecordedtocalculateADG,ADFI,andF/G.Overall(d0to112),controlandvaccinatedpigperformancewassimilar(ADG:1.96vs.1.93lb,P =0.45;ADFI:5.35vs.5.36lb,P =0.94;F/G:2.74vs.2.78,P =0.15)throughoutthefinishingperiod.Thisresultedinnodifference(P =0.79)inoff-test(d112)weightsbetweencontrol(271.9lb)andvaccinated(270.4lb)pigs.ThesedataindicatethatthissubunitPRRSvvaccinedidnotaffectfinisherpigperformanceormortalityinthiscommercialherd.

Keywords:growth,mortality,PRRSv,vaccine

IntroductionPorcinereproductiveandrespiratorysyndromeiscausedbyavirusinthefamilyArteri-viridae.Thisvirushasbecomeendemicinmanyherds.Continualevolutionofporcinereproductiveandrespiratorysyndromevirus(PRRSv)strainshasmadedevelopmentofaneffectiveandreliablevaccinedifficult.Modified-liveandwholevirusinactivatedPRRSvvaccineproductsareavailablecommercially.Inactivatedproductshavenotbeendemonstratedtobeefficaciousunderfieldconditions.Useofthemodified-livevaccinesisconsideredtoprovidemoreeffectiveimmunitythaninactivatedproducts.However,themodified-livePRRSvvaccineisshedandwilltransmittounvaccinated1AppreciationisexpressedtoJ-SixEnterprises,Seneca,KS,fortheirassistanceandforprovidingthepigsandfacilitiesusedinthisexperiment.2DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity.3AbileneAnimalHospital,PA,Abilene,KS.

34

Herd Health Management

pigs.Also,thereisconcernthatfurthertransmissionofthePRRSvvaccinestrainviruswillincreasethepotentialforreversiontovirulence.

AnotherclassofPRRSvvaccinesconsistsofsubunitvaccines.Subunitvaccinesareformedbyusingspecificproteinsofavirustowhichanantibodyresponseisstimulated.Thus,likeawholevirusinactivatedvaccineproduct,asubunitvaccinecannotpropagateorreverttovirulence.Commerciallyavailablesubunitvaccineshavebeenproventoprovideeffectiveimmunizationagainstotherviruses,suchasporcinecircovirustype2.Recently,anewsubunitPRRSvvaccine,PRRSV-RS(Sirrah-Bios,Ames,IA),hasbeenmadeavailableforuseonsowsorgrowingpigs.ThisvaccinecontainsanadjuvantandaheterodimerofthePRRSvglycoprotein5andmatrixproteinexpressedwithanAlphaVaxrepliconvector.Ithasbeendocumentedinamousemodelthataheterodimerofspecificproteinsisnecessarytopromoteneutralizingantibodiesagainstequinearteritisvirus,alsoamemberofthefamilyArteriviridae.Forthatreason,ithasbeensuggestedthattheGP5-Mheterodimermayinducecross-protectiveneutralizingantibodiesagainstPRRSvinfectioninthepigandpotentiallyallowfordifferentiat-ingcapabilitiesbetweenvaccinatedandinfectedpigs.However,thereislimiteddatademonstratingsubunitPRRSvvaccineefficacyunderfieldconditions.Thus,theobjec-tiveofthistrialwastoevaluatetheeffectsofasubunitPRRSvvaccine(PRRSV-RS)vaccineoncumulativemortalityrate,growthperformance,andfeedefficiencyofcommercialfinisherpigs.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthistrialwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.

Atotalof1,561pigsfrom140litterswithinasingleweekoffarrowingsacross5sowfarmswereassignedtoeitheranon-vaccinatedcontrolorsubunitPRRSvvaccinetreatmentgroup.Treatmentgroupswereformedbyrandomlyassigningthefirstlitterprocessedateachsowfarmtooneofthetreatmentsandthenalternatingvaccinetreat-mentassignmentsonsubsequentlyprocessedlitters.Thisresultedin70littersrepre-sentedwithinthe781controlpigsand70littersrepresentedwithinthe780vaccinatedpigs.Pigsinthevaccinatedgroupreceived1mLofPRRSV-RSvaccineintramuscularlyatprocessing(4dofage)andagainatweaning(approximately24dofage).Allpigswereweanedasagroupintoasinglenursery.

Pigswereidentifiedbyeartags,andmortalitywastrackedbycollectingeartagsofpigsthatdiedorwerehumanelyeuthanized.Mortalitywastrackedfromprocessingtoweaning,weaningtotheendofthenurseryperiod,andthroughoutthefinishingperioduntilthemajorityofthepigsweremarketed.Cumulativemortalitywasdeterminedbyidentifyingthenumberofpigsineachtreatmentgroupthatdiedorwereeuthanizedfromprocessingtomarketingdaydividedbytheinitialnumberofpigsineachtreat-ment.

Throughoutthenurseryperiod,controlandvaccinatedpigswerecomingledwithinsingle-sexpens,andalltestpigswerecontainedwithinacommonroom.Allpigswerevaccinatedwitha2-doseporcinecircovirustype2vaccineandaMycoplasma hyopneu-moniaevaccineduringthenurseryperiodaccordingtoroutinenurseryprocedures.Similardietswerefedtoallpigsthroughoutthenurseryperiod.

35

Herd Health Management

Pigsweremovedtoasinglefinisherbarnandseparatedbyvaccinetreatment(vacci-natedorcontrol)andgender(barroworgilt).Therewere12pensofeachtreatment×gendercombination,withtheexceptionofvaccinatedbarrows,forwhichtherewere13pens.Pens(10×18ft)foreachtreatmentwererandomlydistributedthroughoutthebarn.Eachpenwasequippedwithadoubleswingingwatereranda3-holedryself-feeder,allowingforadlibitumaccesstowaterandfeed.Anautomatedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)wasusedinthebarntodeliverandmeasurefeedaddedtoindividualpenfeeders.Pigswereweighedandfeedintakewasrecordedbeginning2wkafterarrivalinthefinisher(d0)andagainond14,28,41,56,70,90,and112.Fromthesedata,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gwerecalculated.Ond90,therewere0,2,or4heavypigsremovedperpeninabalancedmanneracrosstreatmentandgender,resultingin84“top”pigsmarketedpervaccinetreatment.Attheendofthetrial,pigsweremarketedover2consecutivedaysinabalancedfashion,withthelastpigsbeingweighedofftestond112.

FinishergrowthandfeedperformancedatawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignusingtheGLIMMIXprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)andpenastheexperimentalunit.Vaccinetreatmentwasmanagedasthemainfixedeffectofinterest;however,genderwasaddedinthemodeltocontrolforexpecteddifferencesingrowthratebetweenbarrowsandgilts.Differencesbetweentreatmentsweredeter-minedbyusingleastsquaresmeans(P < 0.05).

MortalitydatawereanalyzedusingtheFREQprocedureinSAS.Mortalitydifferencesbetweentreatmentsweredeterminedusingthechi-squaretest(P <0.05).Analysiswasperformedonmortalitydatabothwithinproductionphase(processingtoweaning,nursery,andentrytofinishertoofftest)andcumulatively.

Results and DiscussionTherewerenogender×vaccinetreatmentinteractionsfortheresponsecriteriainthefinishingtrial.Althoughbarrowswere1lblighter(58.0vs.59.0lb,P =0.90)thangiltsinitially,growthperformanceacrossgenderswasasexpected.Barrowshadgreaterover-allADG(2.01vs.1.87lb, P <0.001)andADFI(5.65vs.5.07lb,P <0.001)andpoorerF/G(2.81vs.2.70,P <0.001)thangilts.

Non-vaccinatedcontrolpigsperformedsimilarlytovaccinatedpigsduringthefinishingperiod(Table1).Whenpigswerefirstweighed,2wkafterentrytothefinisher,therewasnodifference(P =0.90)inweightbetweencontrols(58.4lb)andvaccinates(58.7lb).Fromthispointforward,therewasnodifference(P >0.06)inADG,ADFI,orF/Gbetweenthe2treatmentgroups.Thislackofdifferenceinperformanceduringthefinishingperiodresultedinsimilar(P =0.79)off-test(d112)weightsbetweencontrols(271.9lb)andvaccinates(270.4lb).

Mortality,eithercumulativeorwithinproductionphase,wasnotdifferent(P >0.08)betweentreatmentgroups(Table2).Historically,duringthenurseryperiod,pigsinthisproductionsystemundergonaturalexposuretoPRRSvandinfluenza.Duringthenurseryperiod,pigsusedinthistrialexhibitedclinicalsignsindicatingsimilarexposuretoPRRSvandinfluenzavirus.Thelackofdifferenceingrowthperformancedetectedinthistrialbetweencontrolsandvaccinatesindicatesthatthevaccinedidnothavea

36

Herd Health Management

negativeorpositiveimpactongrowthormortality.Thisisimportantbecauseitappearsthatthemajorityofthecostassociatedwiththevaccinewouldbeduetoadministrationmaterials,labor,andthevaccineproductitself.

AlthoughthissubunitPRRSvvaccineismadefromviralstrainssimilartohistoricalstrains,whichareconsideredtoprovidesomecross-protectiveimmunity,itisunknownwhetherthevaccine-inducedlevelofprotectionvarieswithviralstrainchallenge.Inthisherd,whichhashistoricalPRRSv-associatedchallenge,thissubunitPRRSvvaccinefailedtoinfluenceoverallmortalityorgrowthperformanceduringthefinishingphase.

Table 1. Effect of PRRSV-RS vaccine on growth performance of finisher pigs1

Treatment2

Item Control Vaccinated Probability, P <Initialwt,lb 58.4±1.7 58.7±1.7 0.90d0to112ADG,lb 1.96±0.03 1.93±0.03 0.45ADFI,lb 5.35±0.08 5.36±0.08 0.94F/G 2.74±0.02 2.78±0.02 0.15Finalwt,lb 271.9±3.9 270.4±3.8 0.791Atotalof1,561pigs(barrowsorgilts)from140littersacross5sowfarmswereassignedto1of2treatmentsatprocessing(4dofage)byrandomlyassigningentirelitterstoeitherthevaccinatedornon-vaccinatedcontrolgroups.Controlandvaccinatedpigswerecomingledinthenurseryandthenseparatedbyvaccinetreatmentandgenderinthefinisherbarn.Treatmentpenswererandomlydistributedthroughoutthebarn.Therewere24pensofcontrolpigsand25pensofvaccinatedpigs.Allpensofpigs(1,292pigstotal)wereinitiallyweighed2wkafterplacementinthefinisher(d0)andthenond14,28,41,56,70,90,and112.2Treatmentswere:Control=novaccineadministeredandVaccinated=1mLPRRSV-RSadministeredintra-muscularlyatprocessingandweaning(approximately24dofage).Resultsarereportedasleastsquaresmean±standarderrorofthemean.

37

Herd Health Management

Table 2. Effect of PRRSV-RS vaccine on within-period and cumulative mortality1

Treatment2

Probability,P <Item Control VaccinateInventoryProcessing3 781 780 ---Weaning4 707 725 ---Entrytofinisher5 641 658 ---Offtest6,7 529 535 ---Within-periodmortalityProcessingtoweaning,% 9.5 7.1 0.08Nursery,% 9.3 9.2 0.95Finisher,% 4.4 5.9 0.20CumulativemortalityProcessingtoweaning,% 9.5 7.1 0.08Processingtoendofnursery,% 17.9 15.6 0.23Processingtoofftest,%6 21.5 20.6 0.671Atotalof1,561pigs(barrowsorgilts)from140littersacross5sowfarmswereassignedto1of2treatmentsatprocessing(4dofage)byrandomlyassigningentirelitterstoeitherthevaccinatedornon-vaccinatedcontrolgroups.Controlandvaccinatedpigswerecomingledinthenurseryandthenseparatedbyvaccinetreatmentandgenderinthefinisherbarn.Mortalitywastrackedforcontrolsandvaccinatesfromprocessingtotheendofthefinishingportionofthetrial.2Treatmentswere:Control=novaccineadministeredandVaccinated=1mLPRRSV-RSadministeredintra-muscularlyatprocessingandweaning.34dofage.4Weaningagerangewas20to26dofage.5Entry-to-finisheragerangewas60to66dofage.6Off-testagerangewas187to193dofage.7Inventoryatofftest(d112)excludespigsmarketed(84controlsand84vaccinates)ond90ofthetrial.

38

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Effects of Increasing Feeding Level During Late Gestation on Sow and Litter Performance1

N.W.Shelton,J.M.DeRouchey,C.R.Neill2,M.D.Tokach,S.S.Dritz3,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof108giltsandsows(PIC1050)andtheirlitterswereusedover2gestationandlactationperiodstodeterminetheeffectofincreasinglategestationfeedinglevelonsowandlitterperformance.Treatmentswerestructuredasa2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsoffeedinglevel(0or2lbofextrafeedfromd90tofarrowing)andparitygroup(giltsorsows).Thetrialwasconductedfor2successiveparities,withgiltsandsowsremainingonthesametreatmentforbothparities.

Forthefirstgestationandlactationperiod,giltshadincreased(P <0.001)backfatthicknessond35,90,and112ofgestationandatfarrowingcomparedwithsowsbuthadincreased(P <0.001)lactationbackfatloss.Increasinglategestationfeedincreased(P <0.001)weightgainfromd90to112inbothgiltsandsows.

Therewerelategestationfeedinglevel×parityinteractionsobserved(P <0.04)forADFIandtotalfeedintakefortheoveralllactationperiod.ThiswasduetogiltshavingdecreasedlactationADFIwhenfedextrafeedinlategestation,butwhensowswerefedextrafeed,lactationADFIincreased.Increasingfeedinglevelinlategestationalsoincreased(P <0.04)totalfeedcost.

Afeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasobserved(P <0.04)foraverageweightoftotalbornandlivebornpigs.Increasingfeedinglevelinlategestationincreasedpigletbirthweightingiltsbutdecreasedpigletweightinsows.Giltshadincreased(P <0.02)numberandtotalweightofthetotalborn,liveborn,andnumberafterfosteringcomparedwitholderparitysows.Giltsweanedlarger(P <0.002)littersandhadincreased(P <0.03)totallitterweaningweightcomparedwitholderparitysows.Atweaning,sowshadadecreased(P <0.002)weaningtobreedingintervalcomparedwithgilts,andalategestationfeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasobserved(P<0.03)forconceptionrate.Giltsthatreceivedincreasedlategestationfeedhadagreaterconcep-tionratethanthosemaintainedonthesamelevel,whereasadecreaseinconceptionratewasobservedwhensowsreceivedincreasedlategestationfeed.

Duringthesubsequentlactationperiod,afeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasdetected(P <0.005)forlactationbackfatloss.Thisinteractionwasreflectiveofanincreaseinbackfatlossinparity2sowsasthelategestationfeedinglevelwasincreasedandadecreaseinbackfatlossinparity3andoldersowswithincreasinglategestationfeedinglevel.Afeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasdetected(P <0.02)forlactationweightloss;parity2sowslostagreateramountofweightwhenlategestationfeedinglevelwasincreased,whereassimilarweightlosseswereobservedbetweentreatments

1TheauthorsthankPIC,Hendersonville,TN,forpartialfundingofthisproject.2PigImprovementCompany(PIC),Hendersonville,TN.3FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

39

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

inparity3andoldersows.Totalbornandlivebornnumbersandtotallitterweightweregreater(P <0.006)inparity2sowsthaninparity3andoldersows.Alategesta-tionfeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasobserved(P <0.01)foraverageweightofbothtotalbornandlivebornpigsbecauseofanincreaseinpigletbirthweightasparity2sowsweresupplementedwith2lbofadditionalfeedinlategestationwithaslightnumericdecreaseinparity3andoldersows.Additionalfeedinlategestationincreased(P <0.02)averagepigletweaningweight,withalargeimprovementobservedinparity2sows.Totalnumberweanedandtotalweightatweaningwereincreased(P <0.004)inparity2sowscomparedwithparity3andoldersows.Thistrialindicatesthataddingextrafeedtolategestationdietsincreasedfeedcostwithnobenefitinsowperformance.Ingilts,conceptionrateandlitterweaningweightwereincreasedduringthesecondparity,butnootherbenefitswerefound.

Keywords:gestationfeeding,lactation,sow

IntroductionImplementingefficientfeedingstrategiesforgestatingsowsisanimportantmanage-mentpracticeneededforproductionofoffspringaswellasmaintenanceofsowhealthandlongevity.Asfeedpricesincrease,itisimportanttomangesowfeedinglevelstomeettheneedsofanimalswithoutincurringunnecessarycost.ResearchersfromKansasStateUniversity(K-State)havedevelopedstrategiesformanagingsowfeedinglevelsbasedonindividualsowweightandbackfatthickness(Youngetal.,20034).Althoughnutrientrequirementsforfetaldevelopmentarelowduringthefirsttwo-thirdsofgestation,requirementsincreaseexponentiallyinlategestationasfetalgrowthincreases.Researchhasshownthatincreasingnutrientsduringlategestationcanincreasepigletbirthweightandtherebyincreaseweaningweight.However,otherresearchtrialshaveindicatedlittlebenefittoincreasingfeedintakeinlategestation.Therefore,theobjec-tiveofthistrialwastoobservetheeffectsofincreasinglategestatingfeedinglevelsonsowandlitterperformanceover2lactationperiods.

ProceduresTheprotocolusedinthisexperimentwasapprovedbytheK-StateInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.ThestudywasconductedattheK-StateSwineTeachingandResearchCenterinManhattan,KS.

Atotalof108giltsandsows(PIC1050)andtheirlitterswereusedinthisstudyover2lactationperiods.Treatmentswerestructuredasa2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsoffeedinglevel(0or2lbofadditionalfeedfromd90tofarrowing)andparitygroup(giltsandsows).Thetrialwasconductedfor2successiveparities.Thus,dataarepresentedcomparinggiltstosowsforthefirstfarrowingandthencomparingparity2vs.parity3andgreaterforthesecondfarrowing.Treatmentswereallottedtogiltsandsowsinageneralizedblockdesignwithfarrowinggroupastheblockingfactor.Fourfarrowinggroupsofapproximately27giltsandsowswereusedtoobtainthe108giltsandsowsusedforthetrial.

Ond35ofgestation,giltsandsowswereconfirmedpregnantusingreal-timeultra-soundanddesignatedascandidatesforinclusioninthestudy.Sowswereprimarily4Youngetal.,SwineDay2003,ReportofProgress920,pp.19-32.

40

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

secondandthirdparitywithafewfourthparitysows.Atthetimeofassignment,giltsandsowswereweighedandbackfatthicknesswasmeasured.Backfatthicknesswasmeasuredatthelastribapproximately4in.offthemidline.Fromthesemeasurements,sowfeedinglevelswereassignedonthebasisofpreviousresearchtomeetthenutri-tionalneedsofthegestatingfemaleasoutlinedbytheNRC(19985)andtoachieveanoptimalbodyconditionandbackfatthickness.Feedboxaccuracywasdeterminedtoensureappropriategestationfeedinglevels.

Ond90,giltsandsowswereweighedandlategestationfeedingleveltreatmentswereassignedtoanimalsandbalancedforsowweightandbackfatthickness.Ond112ofgestation,giltsandsowswereweighed,backfatthicknesswasmeasured,andanimalsweremovedtothefarrowingfacility.Fromd112untilfarrowing,giltsandsowsremainedonthesamefeedinglevelasofferedfromd90to112.Uponfarrowing,pigletswereweighedandprocessedandmummifiedpigsandstillbirthswererecorded.Fromtheserecords,thenumberofpigs,totalweight,andaverageweightwerecalculatedfortotalbornandlivebornpiglets.Sowswereweighedandbackfatthicknesswasdeter-minedatfarrowing.Cross-fosteringwasperformedwithin24hafterfarrowingtostandardizelittersizewithinlategestationfeedingleveltreatments.Totalpigs,averagebirthweight,andtotalbirthweightwerealsocalculatedforthepigletsremainingonthesowatcross-fostering.Pigletswereindividuallyweighedatweaningtodeterminenumberweaned,averageweaningweight,totallitterweight,pigletweightgain,pigletdailyweightgain,litterweightgain,andpreweaningmortality.Giltsandsowswereweighedandbackfatthicknesswasmeasuredatweaning.Uponweaningandre-breed-ingofthesows,weightandbackfatthicknesswereusedtosetgestationfeedinglevelsforsubsequentperformance.Daystoreturntoestruswasdeterminedonthebasisofthefirstmating.Conceptionratewascalculatedasnumberofsowsconfirmedpregnantond28dividedbynumberofsowsbred.Giltswerethenconsideredparity2(P2)sowsandanalyzedseparatelyfromparity3andgreater(P3+)sows.Similartothefirstgestationandlactationperiod,sowweight,backfatthicknessmeasurements,andlitterperfor-mancecriteriaweredeterminedatsimilardaysofpregnancyandlactation.

ThecompositionoftheboththegestationandlactationdietsisshowninTable1.Thegestationandlactationdietswereformulatedtocontain0.66%and1.10%totallysine,or0.57%and0.97%standardizedilealdigestiblelysine,respectively.Forthefirst3dafterfarrowing,sowsweregraduallysteppeduponfeed,andafterd3,allsowswereallowedadlibitumaccesstothelactationdiet.LactationsowfeeddisappearancewasdeterminedweeklytocalculateADFIandtotalfeedintakeforlactatingsows.Tempera-tureinthefarrowingfacilitywasmaintainedataminimumof68°F,andsupplementalheatwasprovidedtothepigletswithheatlamps.Onthebasisofsowweightandback-fatthicknessmeasurements,changesinweightandbackfatlevelweredeterminedforeachofthefarrowingperiods.Sowandlitterweightgaininlactationweredeterminedandusedwithtotallactationfeedintaketodeterminearatiooffeedintaketosowandlitterweightgain.Finally,feedcostsweredeterminedforeachsowgestationandlacta-tionperiod.

Datawereanalyzedasageneralizedblockdesignwithparitydesignationandlategestationfeedinglevelasfixedeffectsandfarrowinggroupasarandomeffectusingthe

5NRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine.10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

41

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

MIXEDprocedureinSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC).Interactionsbetweenthefixedtreatmenteffectsandfarrowinggroupswerepooledtogetherwiththeerrortermbecausenosignificantinteractioneffectswithfarrowinggroupweredetected.Forallresponses,soworlitterwasusedastheexperimentalunit.

Results Fortheinitialgestationandlactationperiod,nofeedinglevel×parityinteractionsorfeedingleveldifferenceswereobserved(P >0.29)forbackfatthicknessorsowweightmeasurementsonanyparticulardayofgestationorlactation(Table2).Giltshadincreased(P <0.001)backfatdepthond35,90,and112ofgestationandatfarrow-ingcomparedwithsows.Giltsalsohadincreased(P <0.001)lactationbackfatlosscomparedwithsows.Sowswereheavier(P <0.02)ond35ofgestation,afterfarrowing,andatweaningcomparedwithgilts.Giltsandsowsthatwerefed2lbofextrafeedinlategestationhadincreased(P <0.001)weightgainfromd90to112comparedwiththosethatdidnothavetheirfeedinglevelincreased.Giltshadincreased(P <0.001)lactationweightloss(farrowingweight-weaningweight)anddecreased(P <0.001)weightchangefromd90toeitherfarrowingorweaningcomparisonwithsows.

Fortheinitiallactation,feedinglevel×parityinteractionswereobserved(P <0.04)forADFIandtotalfeedintakeforeachweekinlactationaswellasfortheoveralllactationperiod(Table3).Thisinteractionwasduetoanincreaseinlactationfeedintakewhensowintakewasincreasedinlategestationandadecreaseinlactationfeedintakewhengiltintakewasincreasedinlategestation.Theinteractionwasofgreatermagnitudeinwk1thaninotherweeks.Sowshadgreater(P <0.001)ADFIeachweekandgreaterlactationfeedintakeduringwk2and3andoverallthangilts.Totalgestationfeedintake,gestationfeedcost,andoverallfeedcostincreased(P<0.04)withincreasingthelategestationfeedinglevel.However,afeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasobserved(P<0.001)forlactationfeedcost.Increasinglategestationfeedingleveldecreasedlactationfeedcostingiltsbecauseofthedecreaseinlactationfeedintake,whereasanumericincreaseinlactationfeedcostwasfoundinsowsasfeedinglevelincreasedinlategestation.Sowsalsohadincreased(P <0.001)feedcostsduringgestation,lactation,andoverallthangilts

Forlitterperformanceduringthefirstlactationperiod,afeedinglevel×parityinter-actionwasobserved(P <0.04)foraverageweightoftotalbornandlivebornpiglets(Table4).Increasedlategestationfeedinglevelledtoincreasedpigletbirthweightingiltlittersanddecreasedpigletweightinsowlitters.Giltsalsohadincreased(P <0.02)numberandtotalweightofthetotalborn,liveborn,andnumberafterfosteringandhadanincreased(P <0.05)percentageofmummifiedpigscomparedwithsows.Nodifferencewasobserved(P >0.39)inthepercentageofstillbirths.Giltsweanedlarger(P <0.002)littersandhadincreased(P <0.03)totallitterweaningweightandlitterweightgaincomparisonwithsows.However,providinggiltsandsowswithincreasedlevelsoflategestationfeedofferednobenefit(P >0.69)innumberweaned,wean-ingweight,pigletweightgain,orlitterweightgaincomparedwithmaintainingaconstantgestationfeedinglevel.Sowandlittergainalsoincreased(P <0.03)insowsascomparedtogilts.Uponweaning,sowshaddecreased(P <0.002)daystoestruscomparedwithgilts,andalategestationfeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasdetectedforconceptionrate.Giltsthatreceivedincreasedlevelsoflategestationfeedhada

42

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

greaterconceptionratethanthosemaintainedonthesamelevel,whereasadecreaseinconceptionratewasobservedwhensowsreceivedincreasedlategestationfeed.

Allfemalesremainedontheoriginallategestationfeedingleveltreatmentforthesubsequentgestationandlactationperiod.Thesharpdifferenceinconceptionrateofgiltsbetweendifferentlategestationfeedinglevelsgeneratedasubstantialdifferenceinnumberofgiltsthatcouldbeusedforsubsequentperformance(Table5).

Forthesubsequentgestationandlactationperiod,nodifferencesinsowweightandbackfatthicknessweredetected(P >0.11)betweenlategestationfeedinglevelsorparity.However,alevel×parityinteractionwasdetected(P <0.005)forlactationbackfatloss.ThisinteractionwasreflectiveofanincreaseinbackfatlossinP2sowsasthelategestationfeedinglevelwasincreasedandadecreaseinbackfatlossinP3+sowswithincreasinglategestationfeedinglevel.Inaddition,P3+sowswereheavier(P <0.02)atfarrowingandatweaningthatP2sows.Afeedinglevel×parityinterac-tionwasdetected(P <0.02)forlactationweightloss;P2sowslostagreateramountofweightwhenlategestationfeedinglevelwasincreased,andsimilarweightlosseswereobservedinP3+sowsatbothlategestationfeedinglevels.However,increasinglategestationfeedinglevelsincreased(P <0.01)weightgainfromd90ofgestationtoeitherd112orfarrowinginbothP2andP3+sows.

Forsubsequentlactationfeedintake,nointeractionsorfeedingleveldifferenceswereobserved(P >0.09)fortotalordailysowfeedintake(Table6).Inaddition,P2sowshaddecreased(P <0.05)totalanddailyfeedintakeforwk1comparedwithP3+sowsandtendedtohavedecreased(P <0.09)overalltotalanddailylactationfeedintake.Theadditionofincreasedlevelsoflategestationfeedalsoincreased(P <0.004)gesta-tionfeedintake,gestationfeedcost,andtotalfeedcost.

Totalborn,liveborn,averagepigweight,andtotallitterweightwereincreased(P <0.006)inP2sowscomparedwithP3+sows(Table7).Alategestationfeedinglevel×parityinteractionwasobserved(P <0.01)foraverageweightofbothtotalbornandlivebornpigs,andasimilartrendwasobserved(P <0.07)atcross-fostering.TheseinteractionswerereflectiveofincreasedpigletbirthweightasP2sowswerefedtheadditional2lboffeedinlategestation,andaslightnumericdecreaseinP3+sows.Thecauseofthisincreaseinaverageweightcouldberelatedtothesupplementationofextrafeedinlategestationoritmaybereflectiveofthenumericdecreaseinthenumberofpigsborn.Despitetheinteraction,providingadditionalfeedinlategestationtendedtoincrease(P <0.07)averagepigweightfortotalborn,liveborn,andthoseremainingatcross-fostering.Averagepigweightatweaningalsoincreased(P <0.02)withsupple-mentationofadditionalfeedingestation,withalargeimprovementobservedinP2sows.Totalnumberweanedandtotalweightatweaningwereincreased(P <0.004)inP2sowscomparedwithP3+sows.Dailyandoverallpigletweightgainwasincreased(P <0.04)withtheadditionofsupplementalfeedinlategestation,anddailyandover-alllitterweightgainwasincreased(P <0.02)inP2sowscomparedwithP3+sows.

DiscussionThisstudyhasshownseveralimportanttraitsthatshouldbeevaluatedwhenconsider-ingincreasinglategestationfeedinglevels.Theinitialfarrowingshowedthatincreasing

43

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

thegestationfeedinglevelforthelast3wkofgestationresultedinanincreaseinweightgainofsowsandgiltsduringthisperiodbutdidnottranslateintoanincreaseinlitterweightandresultedinnodifferenceinpigweaningweight.However,increasingthefeedinglevelforgiltsthatwereadequateormarginallyexcessiveintheirlevelofbackfatatd90ofgestationresultedindecreasedlactationfeedintake.Regardlessofthelategestationfeedinglevel,giltslostanexcessiveamountofbackfatthickness(approxi-mately5mm)duringthefirstlactationperiod.However,giltsthatreceivedincreasedfeedinlategestationhadbetterconceptionratesthanthoseremainingontheoriginallevel.Subsequently,theP2sows(previouslygilts)thatreceivedadditionalfeedinlategestationhadincreasedaveragepigletbirthandweaningweightduringthesubsequentlactationperiod.Forthemostpart,therewasnoperformancebenefittoincreasinglategestationfeedinglevelineitherlactationperiodforoldersows.Increasinglategesta-tionfeedinglevelincreasedsowfeedcostsby$3.50to$5.00persowpergestationandlactationcombinedperiods.Thistrialindicatesthataddingextrafeedtolategestationdietsincreasedfeedcostwithnobenefitinsowperformance.Ingilts,conceptionrateandlitterweaningweightwereincreasedduringthesecondparity,butnootherbenefitswerefound.

44

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of diets (as-fed basis)1 Ingredient,% Gestation LactationCorn 80.75 65.28Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 14.95 30.80MonocalciumP(21%P) 1.70 1.45Limestone 1.35 1.20Salt 0.50 0.50Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15Sowvitaminaddpack 0.25 0.25Phytase2 0.10 0.10Total 100 100

CalculatedanalysisME,kcal/lb 1,482 1,485CP,% 13.8 19.9Totallysine,% 0.66 1.10SID3aminoacids,%Lysine 0.57 0.97Threonine 0.43 0.65Methionine 0.21 0.29Tryptophan 0.13 0.21Isoleucine 0.48 0.75Leucine 1.22 1.60Ca,% 0.90 0.85P,% 0.69 0.70AvailableP,%4 0.52 0.48Dietcost,$/ton5 194.61 228.241Atotalof108giltsandsows(PIC1050)wereusedover2gestationandfarrowingperiodstodeterminetheeffectofprovidinganextra2lbofgestationdietinlategestation.2Provided272phytaseunitsperpoundofdiet.3Standardizedilealdigestible.4Phytaseprovided0.11%and0.10%availablePtothegestationandlactationdiets,respectively.5Dietcostswerebasedoncornat$3.50/buandsoybeanmealat$350/tonwitha$12/tonprocessinganddeliveryfee.

45

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Effects of late gestation feeding level and parity designation on sow weight and backfat1

Gilt Sow Probability,P <

Lategestationfeedinglevel2: Normal +2lb   Normal +2lb SEMLevel×Parity Parity Level

no. 22 21 33 32 --- --- --- ---Gestationlength,d 114.9 115.4 115.5 116.0 --- --- --- ---Lactationlength,d 20.8 20.6 19.9 19.4 --- --- --- ---Backfatmeasurements,mm3

Gestationd35 20.0 20.1 13.5 13.7 0.78 0.94 0.001 0.83Gestationd90 20.3 20.4 14.9 14.9 0.91 0.96 0.001 0.93Gestationd112 19.0 19.9 14.9 15.3 0.77 0.70 0.001 0.39Farrowing 18.4 18.7 14.8 15.4 0.69 0.77 0.001 0.51Weaning 15.1 14.5 13.4 13.9 0.75 0.38 0.09 0.94Lactationbackfatloss,mm4 3.4 4.3 1.3 1.4 0.57 0.30 0.001 0.22Weights,lbGestationd35 415.8 412.8 432.9 434.7 11.42 0.76 0.02 0.94Gestationd90 497.0 498.2 506.1 504.7 13.36 0.89 0.40 0.99Gestationd112 528.9 542.0 541.8 551.5 13.25 0.87 0.27 0.25Farrowing 485.4 491.3 520.0 527.8 12.57 0.92 0.001 0.44Weaning 455.4 450.0 503.1 512.3 14.51 0.40 0.001 0.83Weightchanges,lbFarrowingtoweaning -30.1 -41.2 -16.7 -15.3 4.79 0.12 0.001 0.23d90to112 32.2 43.9 35.5 46.6 4.60 0.92 0.36 0.001d90tofarrowing -10.9 -6.3 13.3 22.5 4.52 0.57 0.001 0.09d90toweaning -41.1 -47.3 -3.4 7.2 5.91 0.12 0.001 0.691Atotalof108giltsandsows(PIC1050)wereusedover2farrowingstodeterminetheeffectofincreasingfeedinglevelinlategestation.2Lategestationfeedinglevelsweresetatd90ofgestation.Normal=thesamelevelasdesignatedatd35byBWandlastribbackfat;+2lb=2lbmorethanthed35level.3Backfatmeasurementsweredeterminedbyaveragingbothsidesatthelastribapproximately4in.offthemidline.4Lactationbackfatloss=Farrowingbackfat-Weaningbackfat.

46

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Effects of late gestation feeding level and parity designation on lactation feed intake1

Gilt   Sow Probability,P <

Lategestationfeedinglevel2: Normal +2lb   Normal +2lb SEMLevel×Parity Parity Level

no. 22 21 33 32 --- --- --- ---Gestationd35feedamount,lb/d 4.6 4.5 5.7 5.7 --- --- --- ---Gestationd90feedamount,lb/d 4.6 6.5 5.7 7.7 --- --- --- ---Totalgestationfeedintake,lb3 522.6 573.7 657.8 708.2 16.41 0.99 0.001 0.001LactationADFI,lbwk1 9.9 6.8 10.6 11.6 0.89 0.001 0.001 0.03wk2 12.1 10.5 13.7 14.1 0.46 0.007 0.001 0.09wk3 13.2 12.1 14.0 14.5 0.81 0.04 0.001 0.43Overall 11.7 10.0 12.9 13.5 0.49 0.001 0.001 0.10Lactationtotalintake,lbwk1 65.8 47.9 61.6 62.8 4.87 0.02 0.17 0.03wk2 84.9 73.7 96.1 98.7 3.25 0.007 0.001 0.09wk3 92.7 85.0 97.9 101.3 5.66 0.04 0.001 0.43Overall 243.9 207.3 255.1 262.4 9.37 0.004 0.001 0.06Feedcost,$/female4

Gestation 50.85 55.82 64.01 68.91 1.597 0.99 0.001 0.001Lactation 27.83 23.66 29.12 29.95 1.070 0.004 0.001 0.06Totalfeed5 78.74 79.52 93.08 98.83 1.959 0.11 0.001 0.041Atotalof108giltsandsows(PIC1050)wereusedover2farrowingstodeterminetheeffectofincreasingfeedinglevelinlategestation.2Lategestationfeedinglevelsweresetatd90ofgestation.Normal=thesamelevelasdesignatedatd35byBWandlastribbackfat;+2lb=2lbmorethanthed35level.3Totalgestationfeedintakeassumesthatthesamelevelassetond35wasusedfromd0to35.4Feedcostsarebasedoncornat$3.50/buandsoybeanmealat$350/ton.5Totalfeedcostcombinesbothgestationandlactationfeedintake.

47

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effects of late gestation feeding level and parity designation on piglet performance1

Gilt   Sow Probability,P <

Lategestationfeedinglevel2: Normal +2lb   Normal +2lb SEMLevel×Parity Parity Level

no. 22 21 33 32 --- --- --- ---Totalbornno. 14.6 14.0 11.9 12.9 0.82 0.20 0.004 0.70avg.wt,lb3 3.10 3.29 3.38 3.14 0.130 0.04 0.55 0.80Totalwt,lb3 44.3 43.7 38.3 39.0 2.02 0.74 0.004 0.99Mummies,% 1.86 3.95 1.25 0.84 1.075 0.18 0.05 0.36Stillbirths,% 3.40 3.35 4.53 4.25 1.538 0.93 0.40 0.89Livebornno. 13.8 12.9 11.2 12.3 0.73 0.13 0.02 0.82avg.wt,lb 3.13 3.32 3.39 3.15 0.127 0.04 0.67 0.78Totalwt,lb 43.0 42.2 36.8 37.4 1.93 0.67 0.002 0.96Cross-fosteringno. 12.5 12.4 11.2 11.5 0.34 0.58 0.001 0.63avg.wt,lb4 3.22 3.25 3.28 3.18 0.072 0.18 0.93 0.53Totalwt,lb4 40.0 40.4 36.6 36.5 0.98 0.79 0.001 0.89Weaningno. 11.5 11.5 10.6 10.5 0.32 0.91 0.002 0.98avg.wt,lb 13.40 13.35 13.45 13.28 0.315 0.82 0.98 0.70Totalwt,lb 152.6 153.7 141.6 139.4 4.60 0.69 0.003 0.89Pigletwtgain,lbDaily 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.018 0.99 0.10 0.97Overall 10.16 10.08 10.19 10.11 0.305 0.99 0.92 0.77Litterwtgain,lbDaily 5.43 5.47 5.27 5.31 0.215 0.99 0.36 0.83Overall 112.6 113.2 105.0 103.0 4.40 0.72 0.03 0.86Preweaningmortality 7.35 7.05 5.65 8.28 2.117 0.40 0.90 0.50Sowandlitterwtgain,lb5 82.5 71.9 88.2 87.6 6.66 0.28 0.03 0.23Feedintake/sowandlitterwtgain6 3.3 1.9 3.0 3.5 0.57 0.07 0.21 0.34SubsequentperformanceWeantobreed,d 5.15 4.71 4.47 4.40 0.171 0.24 0.002 0.10Conceptionrate,% 77.27 95.24 96.97 87.50 6.521 0.03 0.32 0.481Atotalof108giltsandsows(PIC1050)wereusedover2farrowingstodeterminetheeffectofincreasingfeedinglevelinlategestation.2Lategestationfeedinglevelsweresetatd90ofgestation.Normal=thesamelevelasdesignatedatd35byBWandlastribbackfat;+2lb=2lbmorethanthed35level.3Weightsoftotalbornreflectonlypigsbornaliveorstillbirthsandnotmummifiedpigs.4Cross-fosteringweightsreflectthetotalandmeanbirthweightsofpigletsthatsurviveduntilfostering,whichoccurredatapproximately24h.5Sowandlitterwtgain=(Sowweaningwt-Sowfarrowingwt)+(litterwtgain).6Feedintake/sowandlitterwtgain=(Totallactationsowfeedintake)/(Sowandlitterwtgainduringlactation).

48

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Table 5. Effects of late gestation feeding level and parity designation on sow weight and backfat of subse-quent performance1

Parity2 Parity3+ Probability,P<

Lategestationfeedinglevel2: Normal +2lb   Normal +2lb SEMLevel×Parity Parity Level

no. 14 19 26 25 --- --- --- ---Gestationlength,d 115.9 115.9 115.8 116.3 --- --- --- ---Lactationlength,d 19.2 19.5 19.8 19.4 --- --- --- ---Backfatmeasurements,mm3

Gestationd90 15.4 16.5 14.7 15.5 1.32 0.88 0.32 0.25Gestationd112 15.2 16.8 15.0 16.1 1.34 0.77 0.63 0.12Farrowing 14.8 16.2 14.9 15.8 1.35 0.79 0.87 0.20Weaning 14.5 14.4 13.7 15.5 1.25 0.22 0.90 0.27Lactationbackfatloss,mm4 0.45 1.94 1.15 0.14 0.67 0.005 0.21 0.58Weights,lbGestationd90 492.8 510.2 520.1 528.5 19.2 0.72 0.08 0.30Gestationd112 547.0 565.9 560.9 577.8 21.0 0.95 0.35 0.19Farrowing 516.8 533.3 551.2 561.8 19.6 0.82 0.02 0.29Weaning 504.5 501.6 531.5 549.4 18.8 0.40 0.003 0.54Weightchanges,lbFarrowingtoweaning -11.6 -31.5 -16.2 -12.6 7.03 0.02 0.12 0.08d90to112 40.1 55.3 40.4 49.8 3.56 0.20 0.27 0.001d90tofarrowing 8.8 23.0 25.7 33.9 6.56 0.48 0.002 0.01d90toweaning -1.3 -8.2 10.5 20.9 9.59 0.17 0.002 0.781Atotalof88oftheoriginal108giltsandsows(PIC1050)wereusedtodeterminetheeffectsoflategestationsowfeedinglevelonasubsequentlactationperiod.2Lategestationfeedingtreatmentsweresetatd90ofgestation.Normal=thesamelevelasdesignatedatbreeding;+2lb=2lbhigherthanthatparticularlevel.3Backfatmeasurementsweredeterminedbyaveragingbothsidesatthelastribapproximately4in.offthemidline.4Lactationbackfatloss=Farrowingbackfat-Weaningbackfat.

49

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Table 6. Effects of late gestation feeding level and parity designation on lactation feed intake of subsequent farrowing1

Parity2 Parity3+ Probability,P <

Lategestationfeedinglevel2: Normal +2lb   Normal +2lb SEMLevel×Parity Parity Level

no. 14 19 26 25 --- --- --- ---Gestationd0feedamount,lb/d 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.8 --- --- --- ---Gestationd90feedamount,lb/d 5.7 7.6 5.7 7.8 --- --- --- ---Totalgestationfeedintake,lb 663.5 701.0 659.8 723.8 16.95 0.34 0.50 0.001LactationADFI,lbwk1 11.2 11.4 11.8 13.1 0.86 0.30 0.05 0.18wk2 14.1 13.4 13.8 14.5 0.72 0.13 0.46 0.96wk3 15.9 15.0 16.0 16.6 0.91 0.21 0.14 0.78Overall 14.0 13.4 14.0 14.9 0.66 0.10 0.09 0.73Lactationtotalintake,lbwk1 57.8 61.9 69.9 71.7 7.55 0.81 0.03 0.54wk2 98.9 94.1 96.4 101.5 5.04 0.13 0.46 0.96wk3 111.3 104.9 112.3 116.4 6.37 0.21 0.14 0.78Overall 267.6 261.3 278.3 289.3 15.52 0.39 0.06 0.82Feedcost,$/female3

Gestation 64.56 68.21 64.20 70.43 1.649 0.34 0.50 0.001Lactation 30.54 29.82 31.76 33.01 1.344 0.39 0.06 0.82Totalfeed4 95.14 98.03 95.98 103.43 2.195 0.20 0.08 0.0041Atotalof88oftheoriginal108giltsandsows(PIC1050)wereusedtodeterminetheeffectsoflategestationsowfeedinglevelonasubsequentlacta-tionperiod.2Lategestationfeedingtreatmentsweresetatd90ofgestation.Normal=thesamelevelasdesignatedatbreeding;+2lb=2lbhigherthanthatparticu-larlevel.3Feedcostsarebasedoncornat$3.50/buandsoybeanmealat$350/ton.4Totalfeedcostcombinesbothgestationandlactationfeedintake.

50

Sow Herd Nutrition and Management

Table 7. Effects of late gestation feeding level and parity designation on piglet performance in a subsequent litter1

Parity2 Parity3+ Probability,P <

Lategestationfeedinglevel2: Normal +2lb   Normal +2lb SEMLevel×Parity Parity Level

no. 14 19 26 25 --- --- --- ---Totalbornno. 15.1 13.5 12.3 12.2 0.89 0.29 0.006 0.28avg.wt,lb3 3.17 3.69 3.18 3.10 0.180 0.01 0.02 0.07Totalwt,lb3 47.1 48.4 36.6 37.2 3.05 0.87 0.001 0.65Mummies,% 0.94 1.26 1.71 0.77 0.796 0.35 0.84 0.65Stillbirths,% 6.60 4.26 6.07 6.18 1.960 0.46 0.68 0.50Livebornno. 14.0 12.7 11.2 11.4 1.07 0.27 0.004 0.42avg.wt,lb 3.17 3.71 3.21 3.13 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.05Totalwt,lb 44.6 46.5 34.6 35.2 3.17 0.75 0.001 0.53Cross-fosteringno. 12.0 11.8 11.1 11.4 0.55 0.57 0.08 0.87avg.wt,lb4 3.28 3.65 3.21 3.21 0.15 0.07 0.009 0.06Totalwt,lb4 39.2 43.0 35.3 36.6 2.17 0.39 0.001 0.07Weaningno. 11.2 11.2 10.2 10.1 0.56 0.81 0.004 0.82avg.wt,lb 13.05 14.52 13.46 13.80 0.58 0.14 0.67 0.02Totalwt,lb 146.8 163.0 136.3 138.4 8.86 0.22 0.004 0.11Pigletwtgain,lbDaily 0.51 0.56 0.52 0.55 0.02 0.46 0.89 0.02Overall 9.77 10.87 10.25 10.59 0.51 0.24 0.77 0.04Litterwtgain,lbDaily 5.58 6.13 5.09 5.25 0.35 0.38 0.004 0.12Overall 107.57 120.15 101.07 101.68 7.81 0.24 0.02 0.19Preweaningmortality,% 6.09 5.16 7.26 11.02 3.50 0.30 0.13 0.53Sowandlitterwtgain,lb5 95.0 87.8 85.1 89.7 8.74 0.31 0.48 0.82Feedintake/sowandlitterwtgain6 2.95 3.04 3.65 3.63 0.48 0.85 0.04 0.911Atotalof88oftheoriginal108giltsandsows(PIC1050)wereusedtodeterminetheeffectsoflategestationsowfeedinglevelonasubsequentlactationperiod.2Lategestationfeedingtreatmentsweresetatd90ofgestation.Normal=thesamelevelasdesignatedatbreeding;+2lb=2lbhigherthanthatparticularlevel.3Weightsoftotalbornreflectonlypigsbornaliveorstillbirthsandnotmummifiedpigs.4Cross-fosteringweightsreflectthetotalandmeanbirthweightsofpigletsthatsurviveduntilfostering,whichoccurredatapproximately24h.5Sowandlitterwtgainduringlactation=(Sowweaningwt-Sowfarrowingwt)+litterwtgain.6Feedintake/sowandlitterwtgain=(Totallactationsowfeedintake)/(Sowandlitterwtgainduringlactation).

51

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Creep Diet Complexity on Individual Consumption Characteristics and Growth Performance of Neonatal and Weanling Pigs1

R.C.Sulabo,M.D.Tokach,J.R.Bergstrom,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,S.S.Dritz2,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryInExp.1,96sows(PICC29)andtheirlitterswereusedtodeterminetheeffectsofcreepdietcomplexityonpreweaningperformanceandtheproportionofpigletsconsumingcreepfeed.Theexperimentaltreatmentswere:(1)nocreepfeed(n=26),(2)simplecreepdiet(n=26),and(3)complexcreepdiet(n=44).Pigsfedthecomplexcreepdiethadgreater(P <0.03)ADGandtendedtohavegreater(P <0.06)totalgainthanpigsfedthesimplecreepdiet,withnocreeppigsintermediate.Littersfedthecomplexcreepdietconsumedtwicethetotal(2.73vs.1.37lb;P <0.0006)anddaily(0.91vs.0.45lb;P <0.0006)creepfeedintakeoflittersfedthesimplecreepdiet.Thehigh-complexitycreepdietimproved(P <0.0001)theproportionofeatersfrom28%to68%.Agreater(P <0.10)proportionofeaterswerenursinginthemiddleandposteriorteats(57%and52%,respectively)thanintheanteriorteats(38%).InExp.2,675pigsfromExp.1(initialBW14.1lband21.2±0.2d)wereusedtodeterminewhethersocialfacilitationoccursbetweeneatersandnon-eatersincommercialnurserygroups.Thetreatmentswere:non-eatergroup(pigsthatwerenotprovidedanycreepfeedornon-eatersofcreepfeed),eatergroup(pigsthatpositivelyconsumedcreepfeed),andmixgroup(pigsthatwere51%non-eatersand49%eaters).Eachtreatmenthad25pigsperpenand9replications(pens).Intheinitial3dpostweaning,eatershadgreater(P <0.01)ADGand(P <0.002)ADFIthannon-eaters,withthemixgroupbeingintermediate.OverallADGoftheeatergroupwas6.2%higher(P <0.05)thanthatofthenon-eatergroup.Forsocialfacilitationtooccur,weightgainsofnon-eatersinthemixpensshouldbeeither(1)closertotheweightgainsofeatersinthemixpenor(2)greaterthantheweightgainsofthenon-eatergroup.Resultsshowedthatnon-eaterswithinthemixpensfailedbothcriteria.Inconclusion,thehigh-complexitycreepdietimprovedpreweaningADG,littercreepfeedintake,andtheproportionofeaters.Eatershadimprovedpostweaningfeedintake,dailygains,andweightuniformityandreducedpostweaninglag.Mixingeaterswithnon-eaterswithinpensinlargecommer-cialgroupsdidnotstimulatefeedintakeanddailygainsofnon-eaters,whichindicatesthatsocialfacilitationdidnotoccur.

Keywords:behavior,creepfeeding,dietcomplexity

IntroductionMaximizingpostweaningpigperformanceisessentialinimprovinglifetimegrowthefficiencyandproductivity.However,weaningisoftencharacterizedbyaperiodoflowfeedintakecausedbyphysical,physiological,andbehavioralchallengesthatmayresultinagrowthcheckandaffectpostweaninggrowthrates.Thus,improvingfeedintake1AppreciationisexpressedtoKeeseckerAgri-Business,Inc.fortheuseofpigsandfacilities.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

52

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

ofweanedpigsduringthistransitionperiodmaybecriticalinimprovingpostweaninggrowth.Creepfeedingstudiesthatevaluatedindividualpigsratherthanwholelittershaveconsistentlydemonstratedthebenefitofcreating“eaters,”whicharepigsthatposi-tivelyconsumedcreepfeed,onpostweaningfeedintakeandgrowth.Identifyingfactorsthatcanincreasecreepfeedconsumptionandtheproportionofpigsconsumingcreepfeedmaybeimportantinimprovingthesuccessofthispractice.

Itishypothesizedthatcreepdietcomplexitymaybeanimportantfactorinstimulat-ingfeedintake.Inpreviousstudies,significantimprovementswereobservedinbothpreweaningandpostweaningfeedintakewhenlitterswerefedacreepdietwithgreatercomplexity.However,noresearchhasbeenconductedtoevaluatetheeffectsofcreepdietcomplexityonindividualconsumptioncharacteristics.Itisalsocommonlyspecu-latedthatweanedpigsthathavepreweaningexperiencetosolidfoodmayfacilitatenon-experiencedpigstodiscoverfoodsourcesandinitiatefeedingwhenthesepigsarehousedtogetherinlargenurserygroups.Thatis,pigsthathavenotconsumeddryfeedmay“learn”fromthosethatareeating.However,evidenceofthissociallearningbehaviorislimited.Therefore,theobjectivesofthisstudyweretodetermine(1)theeffectsofcreepdietcomplexityonpreweaningperformanceandtheproportionofpigletsconsumingcreepfeed(Exp.1)and(2)whethersocialfacilitationoccursbetweeneatersofcreepfeedandpigsthatdidnotconsumeorhadnotbeenofferedcreepfeedinacommercialnursery(Exp.2).

ProceduresTheexperimentalprotocolsusedinthisstudywerereviewedandapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.

Experiment1Atotalof96sows(PICC29)andtheirlitterswereusedinthisstudyconductedatacommercialsowfacilityinnortheasternKansas.Sowsusedinthisexperimentwerefrom3batchesofsowsfarrowedinFebruary2009.Cross-fosteringwasperformedwithin24hafterfarrowing.Atthestartofthecreepfeedingexperiment(d18),sowswereblockedaccordingtodateoffarrowingandlittersizeandallottedto3experimen-taltreatmentsinarandomizedcompleteblockdesign.InTreatment1,litterswerenotprovidedanycreepfeed(nocreep).InTreatments2and3,litterswereprovidedeitherasimpleorcomplexcreepdiet,respectively(Table1).Therewere26replicatesforTreatments1and2and44replicatesforTreatment3.ThehighernumberofreplicatesforTreatment3wasintendedtoincreasethenumberofeatersthatwereusedforExp.2.

Thesimplecreepdietcontained60%milo,32%soybeanmeal,and3%choicewhitegrease,whichwasidenticaltothelactationdietofferedtothesows.Itwasformulatedtocontain1,589kcalME/lband0.97%standardizedilealdigestible(SID)lysine.Thecomplexcreepdietwascomposedof30%pulverizedoatgroatsand25%spray-driedwheywithspecialtyproteinsourcessuchas10%extrudedsoyproteinconcentrate,6%spray-driedporcineplasma,and6%selectmenhadenfishmeal.Italsocontained5%lactoseand5%choicewhitegrease.Thedietincludedverylowlevelsofsoybeanmeal(2.3%)andcorn(6.15%).Thedietwasformulatedtocontain1,585kcalME/lb,1.56%SIDlysine,and23%lactose.Chromicoxidewasaddedtobothdietsat1.0%toserve

53

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

asafecalmarker.Thesimplecreepdietwasinmealform,andthecomplexcreepdietwasinpelletform(2-mmpellets).Bothcreepdietswereofferedadlibitumfromd18untilweaningond21inarotarycreepfeederwithhopper(RotecnaMiniHopperPan,RotecnaSA,Spain).Asinglelactationdiet(1,589kcalME/lb,0.97%SIDlysine)wasusedintheexperiment.Sowshadfreeaccesstofeedthroughoutlactation.Waterwasavailableatalltimesforsowsandtheirlittersthroughnippleandbowldrinkers,respec-tively.

Pigletswereweighedindividuallyatd0(birth),18(startofcreepfeeding),and21(weaning).Asufficientamountofcreepfeedwasplacedinthehopperofthecreepfeederatthestartofthestudy(d18),andtheinitialweightofthecreepfeederwasweighedandrecorded.Feederswereweigheddailytocalculatedailyandtotalcreepfeedintakeforeachlitter.Allcreep-fedpigswereevaluatedforconsumptioncategoryatd20(48haftercreepfeedwasprovided)byevaluatingfecalmaterialforthepres-enceofgreencolorprovidedbythechromicoxidemarkerinthecreepdiet.Onthemorningoftheevaluationday,afecalswabwasobtainedfromeachpiglet.Thepigwascategorizedasaneaterifagreencolorwasvisibleinthefecalsample.Pigletsthattestednegativeonthefirstfecalsamplingweresampledagain3to12hbeforeweaning(d21).Pigletswerecategorizedasnon-eaterswhennogreencolorwasdetectedinanyofthecollectedsamples.Generalhealthofthesowsandpigletswascheckeddaily,anduseofmedicationwasmonitored.Temperatureinthefarrowingfacilitywasmaintainedataminimumof20°C,andsupplementaryheatwasprovidedtothepigletswithheatlampswhenneeded.

Therelationshipbetweencreepconsumptioncategoryandteatorderwasalsodeter-mined.Teatorderwasdefinedasthespecificteat(pair)nursedbyeachpigletwithrespecttotheanatomicallocationofthenursedmammarygland.Inthisstudy,indi-vidualpigscategorizedaseatersweremarkedontheirback,andnon-eaterswereunmarked.Atd20(within24hbeforeweaning),sucklingboutsfrom20litterswerephotographedwithadigitalstillcamera.Litterswithlessthan50%eaterswerechosentoobtainagooddistributionofeatersandnon-eaters.Thephotographofeachsucklingboutwasthenusedtodetermineteatlocationandrankofeachindividualpigletinthelitter.Adistributionofteatorderinthreeclasseswasalsomadeonthebasisofthepreferredteatpairsuckledbythepiglets:anterior(teatpairs1and2),middle(teatpairs3,4,and5),andposterior(teatpairs6and7).

Experiment2Fromatotalof1,024pigsweanedinExp.1,675pigs(PICC29×327,initialBW14.1lband21.2±0.2d)wereallottedto3treatmentsinacompletelyrandomizeddesign.Thetreatmentsforthisstudywere:Treatment1-pigsthatwerenotprovidedanycreepfeedorpigsthatdidnotconsumecreepfeedevenwhenoffered(non-eater),Treatment2-pigsthatpositivelyconsumedcreepfeed(eater),andTreatment3-pigsthatwere52%non-eatersand48%eaters(mix).Eaterswereusedregardlessofthecomplexityofthecreepdiettheyconsumed.Eachtreatmenthad25pigsperpenand9replications(pens).Eachpenwasequippedwithone10-holeself-feeder(Farmweld,Inc.,Teutopo-lis,IL)andacupdrinkertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.TheexperimentwasconductedatacommercialnurseryfacilityinnortheasternKansas.

54

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Allpigswerefedabudgetof1and2lb/pigofcommercialSEWandtransitiondiet,respectively.PigswerefedastandardPhase2dietuntiltheendofthestudy(d28post-weaning).Thetotalamountoffeedofferedinthefirst3dpostweaningwasrecorded.Todeterminetotalanddailyfeedintakeintheinitial3d,feedwasvacuumedoutofthefeedersandweighed.Pigswereweighedatd0(weaning),3,7,and28postweaningtocalculateforperiodicandcumulativeADG.

DataAnalysisInExp.1,datawereanalyzedasarandomizedblockdesignusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)withlitterastheexperimentalunit.Themodelincludedcreepdietcomplexityandblockasthefixedandrandomeffect,respectively.Exceptforfarrowinggroup1,eachblockincluded1littereachofthenocreepandsimplecreeptreatmentand2littersofthecomplexcreeptreatment.TheextralittersfedcomplexdietwereintendedtoprovideanincreasednumberofeatersforExp.2.Theeffectsofcreepdietcomplexity,weightcategory,andteatlocationontheproportionofeaterswereanalyzedusingtheChi-squaretestinSAS.Whentreat-menteffectwasasignificantsourceofvariation,differencesweredeterminedusingthePDIFFoptionofSAS.InExp.2,datawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSASwithpenastheexperimentalunit.Themodelincludedconsumptioncategoryandblockasthefixedandrandomeffects,respectively.Whentreatmenteffectwasasignificantsourceofvariation,differencesweredeterminedusingthePDIFFoptionofSAS.Totestforevidenceofsocialfacili-tation,theeffectofconsumptioncategorywascomparedwithinthemixpensusingPROCMIXEDofSAS.StatisticalsignificanceandtendenciesweresetatP <0.05andP <0.10forallstatisticaltests.

Results and DiscussionExperiment1Sowshadanaverageparityof4.3±0.4andlactationlengthof21.2±0.2d(Table2).Theaveragelittersizeatd18and21(weaning)was10.7±0.3and10.5±0.3piglets,respectively.Mortalityrateduringthecreepfeedingperiod(d18to21)was1.9%forallthreetreatments.Resultsindicatednodifferences(P <0.74)inpigweaningweights;however,pigsfedthecomplexcreepdiethadgreater(12.9%;P <0.03)preweaningdailygainsandtendedtohavehigher(11.1%;P <0.06)totalgainthanpigsfedthesimplecreepdiet,withnocreeppigsbeingintermediate.Totalanddailygainsoflittersfedthecomplexcreepdietwere4.1%and5.0%higherthanlittersfedthesimplecreepdiet,respectively;however,differenceswerenotsignificant(P >0.58).Likewise,therewerenodifferences(P <0.70)inlitterweaningweights.Thispositiveeffectofincreaseddietcomplexityonpreweaningweightgainsmayberelatedtothequalityofthetwocreepdietsused.Thecomplexcreepdietwasformulatedtomatchthedigestivecapacityofyoungpigs,sofeeddigestibility,palatability,andantigenicpropertiesofthefeedwereconsidered.Thesesamerequirementsweredisregardedinthedesignofthesimplecreepdiet.However,thelackofdifferencesinpigandlitterpreweaninggainsbetweenthecreep-fedandnocreeppigssuggeststhatanybenefitofincreasingcreepdietcomplexitywasinsufficienttoseeappreciableeffects,especiallywhenthedurationoffeedingandtheamountconsumedisconsidered.

55

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Littersfedthecomplexcreepdietconsumedtwicethetotal(2.73vs.1.37lb;P <0.0006)anddaily(0.91vs.0.45lb;P <0.0006)creepfeedintakeoflittersfedthesimplecreepdiet(Figure1).Creepdietcomplexityalsoinfluencedtheproportionofpigsconsumingcreepfeedinwholelitters(Figure2).Increasingthecomplexityofthecreepdietimproved(P <0.0001)theproportionofeatersfrom28%to68%.Thissuggeststhatthehighercreepfeedintakeobservedinlittersfedthecomplexcreepdietwasduetoagreaternumberofpigspositivelyconsumingcreepfeed.Theproportionofeatersachievedinthisstudyforthecomplexcreepdietwasconsistentwithourpreviousstudies,inwhichthesamecreepdiet,feederdesign,andcreepfeedingdurationwereused.Relativetoallthenon-dietaryanddietaryfactorspreviouslyinvestigated,dietcomplexityhadthegreatestinfluenceincreatingeaters.Thisindicatesthatthecomplex-ityofthecreepdietmaybeoneofthemostimportantfactorsinstimulatingindividualpigsinthelittertoconsumecreepfeed.

Withinthelittersprovidedcreepfeed,therewasnosignificantinteractionbetweencreepdietcomplexityandconsumptioncategoryonindividualpigperformancepriortoweaning(Table3).Pigsthatbecameeatersincreep-fedlitterswerelighter(P <.0001)atd18andatweaningregardlessofthecomplexityofthecreepdiet.Eatersalsotendedtohavelower(P <0.08)preweaningtotalgainsthannon-eaters.Dailygainsofeaterswere7.2%and5.6%lowerthanthoseofnon-eaters,butdifferenceswerenotsignificant(P >0.12).Thedistributionandperformanceofeatersandnon-eatersaccordingtoweightcategorywerealsocompared(Table4).Thereweresignificantdifferences(P <0.0002)inpigweightsatd18andweaning,totalgain,anddailygainsbetweenthebottom,middle,andtopweightcategoryforpigsfedeitherthesimpleorcomplexcreepdiet.Agreater(P <0.0001)percentageofeaterswasobservedamongpigsinthebottomweightcategoryforbothcreep-fedtreatments;47%inthesimplecreepdietand83%inthecomplexcreepdiet.Therewasnointeraction(P >0.50;datanotshown)betweencreepconsumptioncategoryandweightclassonanygrowthparametersineitherthesimpleorcomplexcreeptreatments.Inthecurrentstudy,pigsidentifiedaseaterswere7%to8%smallerinbodyweightandweregaining5%to6%lessthannon-eaterspriortoweaningregardlessofthecomplexityofthecreepdiet.Thehigherproportionofeatersonthebottomweightcategorysuggeststhatcreepfeedingisbeneficialtosmallerpigletswithinlittersasanalternativesourceofnutrientsduringlactation.

Ithasbeensuggestedthatteatordermayberelatedtocreepfeedconsumption,inthatpigsnursingintheposterior(lessproductive)teatsmayconsumecreepfeedmoreread-ilythantheircounterpartsnursinginanterior(moreproductive)teats.Therelation-shipbetweenteatorderandcreepconsumptioncategoryisshowninTable5.Overall,37%,45%,and17%ofthepigswerefoundnursingintheanterior(teatpairs1and2),middle(teatpairs3,4,and5),andposterior(teatpairs6and7)teats.Therewere49%eatersand51%non-eatersinthelittersevaluated.Resultsshowedatendency(P <0.10)fordifferencesintheproportionofeatersaccordingtoteatlocation.Agreaterpropor-tionofeaterswerefoundnursinginthemiddleandrearteats(57%and52%,respec-tively)thaninthefrontteats(38%).Typically,pigletsthatnursefromtherearteatsaresmallerandlesscompetitivethanthosethatnursefromfrontteats.Thelowerabilityofsmallerpigstocompeteattheudderandextractmilkmaypredisposethesepigstoconsumemorecreepfeedwhenitisoffered.Thehigherrateofeatersinthemiddleandrearteatsinthecurrentstudymaysupportthisassumption.

56

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Experiment2Theeffectofcreepconsumptioncategoryonnurserypigperformanceandweightvaria-tionwithinpensisshowninTable6.Theinitialweightoftheeatergroup(atd21)wasnumericallylowerthanthatofthenon-eatergroupandtended(P <0.08)tobelowerthanthatofthemixgroup.ThelowerinitialweightoftheeatergroupwasexpectedbecauseitwasacharacteristicofthepopulationofeatersweanedfromExp.1.Intheinitial3dpostweaning(d21to24ofage),eatershad43%greater(0.31vs.0.21lb;P <0.01)dailygainsthannon-eaters,withthemixgroupbeingintermediate.Themixgrouptendedtohavehigher(P <0.08)dailygainsthanthenon-eatergroup.Thiswasmainlyduetodifferencesininitialfeedintake(first3dpostweaning)betweenthegroups.Theeatergrouphadhigher(P <0.002)ADFIthanthenon-eaterandmixgroups.Themixgroupalsohadhigher(P <0.02)ADFIthanthenon-eatergroup.Therewereno(P >0.23)differencesinF/Gbetweentheeater,non-eater,andmixgroupsduringtheinitial3-dperiod.

Fromd3to7postweaning(d25to28ofage),therewereno(P >0.66)differencesindailygainsbetweenthethreegroups.Inthefirst7dpostweaning(d21to28),theeaterandmixgroupshad12%to10%higheroveralldailygains,butdifferenceswerenotsignificant(P >0.15).Pigweightsweresimilar(P >0.13)betweenthethreegroupsatd24and28.Fromd29to49,theeatergrouptended(P <0.07)tohavehigherdailygainsthanthenon-eatergroup,withthemixgroupbeingintermediate.Overall,dailygainoftheeatergroupwas6.2%higher(P <0.05)thanthatofthenon-eatergroup,withthemixgroupbeingintermediate.Therewerenodifferences(P >0.14)inpigweightsatd49betweenthethreegroups.Thoughweightdifferenceswerenumerical,itisworthytonotethatdespitestartingatalighterweight,eatersweretheheaviestgroupandwere3%heavier(34.1vs.33.1lb)thanthenon-eatergroupatd49.

Thedifferenceinpostweaningfeedintakebetweeneatersandnon-eatershasbeenfairlyconsistent.Interestingly,mostpreviousstudiesprovidedcreepfeedfor14to21dandpigswereweanedatanolderage(rangingfrom24to31d),whereasthecurrentstudyhadashortercreepfeedingduration(3dpriortoweaning)andpigswereweanedatayoungerage(21d).Theseresultssuggestthatindividualpigsthatdoconsumecreepfeedpriortoweaningconsumemorefeedandachievegreaterdailygainspostweaningevenwhenfedcreepforashortdurationandweanedat3wkofage.Itisnotknownifthesameresponsescanbeexpectedinyounger(<3wk)weaningages.

Atd21(weaning),therewerenodifferences(P >0.16)ininitialpenCVbetweenthethreegroups.However,theweightvariationintheeatergroupwas1.3to1.6percent-ageunitshigherthaninthenon-eaterandmixgroups.TherewerenodifferencesinpenCVatd24,28,and49;however,thereductioninpenCVintheeatergrouptendedtobegreater(-3.2%vs.-0.9%;P <0.06)atd28thaninthenon-eatergroup,withthemixgroupbeingintermediate.Overall(d21to49),thechangeinpenCVfortheeatergroupwasgreater(-5.6%;P <0.03)thanforboththenon-eaterandmixgroups.Theseresultssuggestthatindividualconsumptioncharacteristicsofpigspriortoweaningmaybeanimportantfactorinimprovingpigweightuniformityinthenursery.Thegreaterreductioninweightvariationineatergroupsmaypossiblybedrivenbyfastergrowthofsmallerpigs,especiallyduringthefirstweekpostweaning.

57

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Creepconsumptioncategoryinfluenced(P <0.0001)thepercentageoffallbackpigsduringtheinitial3dpostweaning(Figure3).Fallbackpigswerethosethatdidnotgainweightorlostweightinthefirst3dpostweaning.Overall,25%ofthetotalpopulationofweanedpigsinthestudydidnotgainorlostweightduringtheinitial3dpostwean-ing.However,eatersofcreepfeedrespondedbettertoweaning,withonly17%consid-eredfallbackpigs.Fornocreeppigsandnon-eaters,28%and29%,respectively,ofpigslostweight.Thisindicatesthatpositiveconsumptionofcreepfeedpreweaningcanreducepostweaninglag,despitealargeproportionofeatersbeingsmallerthannon-eatersandnocreeppigs.

Socialfacilitationisarudimentaryformofsociallearninginwhichindividualsdiscoverresourcesbyfollowinggroupmembersthathavealreadylearnedtoexploittheseresources.Ifsocialfacilitationreallyoccurs,transmissionofinformationinlocatingandconsuminganewfoodsourcebetweenexperienced(eaters)andinexperienced(non-eaters)penmatesmaybeimportantinreducingproblemswithlowfeedintakeinnewlyweanedpigsandimprovingweaningtransition.Inthecurrentstudy,themixgrouphadhigher(P <0.02)ADFIandtendedtohavehigher(P <0.08)dailygainsthanthenon-eatergroupduringtheinitial3dpostweaning.Overall,theperformanceofthemixgroupwasmostlyintermediatetothatoftheeaterandthenon-eatergroups.

Themixpenshad49%eatersand51%non-eaters(Table7).Atd21(weaning),eaterswere1lblighter(P <0.02)thannon-eaters.Fromd21to24,eatershadgreater(0.36vs.0.15lb;P <0.0001)dailygainsthannon-eaters.Thisresultedina62%reduction(1to0.37lb)intheweightdifferencesbetweeneatersandnon-eatersafter3dpost-weaning.Fromd25to28,therewereno(P >0.48)differencesindailygainsbetweeneatersandnon-eaters.However,eaterscontinuedtohavegreater(P <0.04)dailygainsthannon-eatersduringd21to28andd29to49andoveralldailygains(d21to49).Forsocialfacilitationtooccur,weightgainsofnon-eatersinthemixpensshouldbeeither(1)closertotheweightgainsofeatersinthemixpenor(2)greaterthantheweightgainsofthenon-eatergroup.Resultsshowedthatnon-eatersinthemixpensfailedbothcriteria.Infact,theperformanceofeatersandnon-eaterswithinthemixpensweresimilartotheperformanceofseparatepensofeatersandnon-eaters.Thissuggeststhatsocialfacilitationdidnotoccurbetweeneatersandnon-eaters.

Inconclusion,increasingthecomplexityofthecreepdietimprovedpreweaninggainswhencreepfeedwasoffered3dpreweaning.Thehigh-complexitydietimprovedlittercreepfeedconsumptionandtheproportionofeatersinwholelitters.Eatershadlowerpreweaninggains,lighterweaningweights,andtendedtonursemoreinthemiddleandposteriorteatscomparedwithnon-eaters.Individualcreepfeedconsumptioncharac-teristicsinfluencedpostweaningfeedintake,dailygains,weightuniformity,andreduc-tionofpostweaninglag.Socialfacilitationdidnotoccurinweanedpigshousedinlargecommercialgroups.

58

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition (as-fed basis) of the simple and complex creep diets used in Exp. 1Ingredient,% Simple1 Complex2

Corn --- 6.25Milo 60.40 ---Soybeanmeal,46.5%CP 31.65 2.32Spray-driedwhey --- 25.00Finegroundoatgroats --- 30.00Extrudedsoyproteinconcentrate --- 10.00Spray-driedanimalplasma --- 6.00Selectmenhadenfishmeal --- 6.00Lactose --- 5.00Choicewhitegrease 3.00 5.00MonocalciumP,21%P 1.35 0.35Chromicoxide 1.00 1.00Antibiotic --- 1.00Limestone 1.35 0.40Zincoxide --- 0.38Salt 0.50 0.30L-LysineHCl --- 0.15DL-methionine --- 0.15Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25Sowaddpack 0.25 ---Acidifier --- 0.20Phytase 0.10 ---VitaminE,20,000IU --- 0.05Total 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisCP,% 19.6 23.9SID3lysine,% 0.97 1.56ME,kcal/lb 1,589 1,585SIDlysine:MEratio,g/Mcal 2.77 4.47Ca,% 0.87 0.79AvailableP,% 0.38 0.561Dietfedinpelletform(2-mmpellets).2Dietfedinmealform.3Standardizedilealdigestible.

59

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Effects of creep diet complexity on pig and litter performance1,2

CreepdietcomplexityItem Nocreep Simple Complex SE P-valueno.oflitters 26 26 44 --- ---no.ofpigs/litterd18(startcreep) 10.8 11.0 10.3 0.3 0.30d21(weaning) 10.5 10.8 10.2 0.3 0.38Weaningage,d 21.3 21.2 21.2 0.2 0.86Pigweights,lbd0(post-fostering) 3.44 3.37 3.48 0.13 0.70d18(startcreep) 12.52 12.43 12.46 0.44 0.95d21(weaning) 14.20 14.04 14.22 0.46 0.74Totalgain(d18to21),lb 1.67ab 1.59a 1.76b 0.07 0.06Dailygain(d18to21),lb 0.64ab 0.61a 0.69b 0.03 0.03Litterweights,lbd0(post-fostering) 36.44 37.04 36.05 1.92 0.90d18(startcreep) 131.90 134.00 127.58 6.66 0.60d21(weaning) 149.16 151.04 145.22 7.21 0.70Totalgain(d18to21),lb 17.24 17.02 17.72 0.73 0.72Dailygain(d18to21),lb 6.66 6.57 6.90 0.31 0.581Threegroupsofsows(PIC,total=96,avg.parity=4.3±0.4)wereblockedaccordingtodayoffarrowingandallottedto3treatments:nocreep=litterwasnotprovidedanycreepfeed,simple=litterwasprovidedasimplecreepdiet,andcomplex=litterwasprovidedacomplexcreepdiet.Datawereanalyzedwithlitterastheexperi-mentalunit.2Creepfeedwith1.0%chromicoxidewasofferedadlibitumfromd18toweaning(21d)inarotaryfeederwithhopper.abWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

60

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Int

erac

tive e

ffect

s of c

reep

die

t com

plex

ity an

d co

nsum

ptio

n ca

tego

ry o

n pr

ewea

ning

per

form

ance

of c

reep

-fed

pig

s1,2

Sim

ple

Com

plex

P-va

lue

Item

Non

-eat

erEa

ter

Non

-eat

erEa

ter

SEC

ompl

exity

Cat

egor

yC

ompl

exity

×

Cat

egor

yno

.20

379

145

304

------

------

Pigw

eigh

t,lb

d

0(p

ost-f

oste

ring)

3.37

3.35

3.46

3.44

0.13

0.62

0.63

0.87

d

18

(sta

rtcr

eep)

12.6

511

.62

13.0

712

.17

0.44

0.40

<.00

010.

78

d2

1(w

eani

ng)

14.2

613

.14

14.8

813

.84

0.46

0.29

<.00

010.

82T

otal

gain

,lb

1.62

1.51

1.79

1.71

0.01

0.02

0.08

0.84

Dai

lyga

in,l

b0.

630.

580.

710.

670.

030.

020.

120.

931 Th

reeg

roup

sofs

ows(

PIC

C29

,tot

al=

96,

avg.

parit

y=4

.3±

0.4

)wer

eblo

cked

acco

rdin

gto

dayo

ffar

row

inga

ndal

lott

edto

3tr

eatm

ents

:no

cree

p=

litte

rwas

not

pro

vide

dan

ycre

epfe

ed,

simpl

e=li

tter

was

pro

vide

das

impl

ecre

epd

iet,

and

com

plex

=li

tter

was

pro

vide

dac

ompl

excr

eep

diet

.In

thes

impl

eand

com

plex

trea

tmen

ts,i

ndiv

idua

lpig

swer

esam

pled

atd

19

and

20w

ithfe

cal

swab

sto

dete

rmin

econ

sum

ptio

nca

tego

ry.P

igsw

erec

ateg

oriz

edas

anea

teri

fthe

ysho

wed

gree

n-co

lore

dfe

cesi

nat

leas

t1o

fthe

2sa

mpl

ings

;pig

swer

ecat

egor

ized

asn

on-e

ater

swhe

nth

esam

ples

wer

ene

gativ

efor

gree

n-co

lore

dfe

ces.

Dat

awer

eana

lyze

dw

ithp

igas

thee

xper

imen

talu

nit.

2 Cre

epfe

edw

ith1

.0%

chro

mic

oxi

dew

aso

ffere

dad

libi

tum

from

d1

8to

wea

ning

(21

d)in

aro

tary

feed

erw

ithh

oppe

r.

Tab

le 4

. Effe

cts o

f cre

ep d

iet c

ompl

exity

on

suck

ling

pig

perf

orm

ance

acco

rdin

g to

wei

ght c

ateg

ory1,

2,3

Sim

ple

Com

plex

Item

Bott

omM

iddl

eT

opSE

Bott

omM

iddl

eT

opSE

P-va

lue

no.

4519

839

---81

301

67---

---%

oft

otal

1670

14---

1867

15---

---%

eate

rs47

2523

---83

6562

------

Pigw

eigh

t,lb

d

18

(sta

rtcr

eep)

9.04

12.4

315

.83

0.22

8.09

12.9

417

.44

0.20

<.00

01

d2

1(w

eani

ng)

10.1

914

.04

17.7

70.

269.

5214

.73

19.4

00.

20<.

0001

Tot

alga

in,l

b1.

141.

611.

950.

081.

431.

791.

970.

07<.

0001

Dai

lyga

in,l

b0.

430.

630.

720.

040.

570.

710.

770.

030.

0002

1 Thre

egro

upso

fsow

s(PI

CC

29,t

otal

=9

6,av

g.pa

rity=

4.3

±0

.4)w

ereb

lock

edac

cord

ingt

oda

yoff

arro

win

gand

allo

tted

to3

trea

tmen

ts:n

ocr

eep

=lit

terw

asn

otp

rovi

ded

anyc

reep

feed

,sim

ple=

litt

erw

asp

rovi

ded

asim

plec

reep

die

t,an

dco

mpl

ex=

litt

erw

asp

rovi

ded

acom

plex

cree

pdi

et.D

ataw

erea

naly

zed

with

pig

asth

eexp

erim

enta

luni

t.2 C

reep

feed

with

1.0

%ch

rom

ico

xide

was

offe

red

adli

bitu

mfr

omd

18

tow

eani

ng(2

1d)

ina

rota

ryfe

eder

with

hop

per.

3 Wei

ghtc

ateg

orie

sfor

each

pop

ulat

ion:

Top

≥L

east

squa

resm

ean

+1

SD,M

iddl

e=L

east

squa

resm

ean

±1

SD,B

otto

m≤

Lea

stsq

uare

smea

n-1

SD

.

61

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 5. Proportion of eaters and non-eaters of creep feed according to teat location1

TeatlocationConsumptioncategory

Non-eater Eaterno.ofpigsFront 35 21Middle 30 39Rear 13 14PercentageofpigsFront 62 38a

Middle 43 57b

Rear 48 52b

1Eatersofcreepfeedinalitterweremarked;non-eaterswereunmarked.Sucklingbouts(n=20litters)werephotographedwithin24hbeforeweaningwithadigitalstillcameratodetermineeachindividualpig’spreferredteat(orpair)atd21oflactation.Front=teatpairs1and2;middle=teatpairs3,4,and5;rear=teatpairs6and7.abChi-squaretest:P<0.10.

62

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 6. Effects of creep consumption category on nursery pig performance and weight variation within pens1,2

Consumptioncategory P-value

ItemNon-eater

(N)Eater(E)

Mix(M) SE Nvs.E Nvs.M Evs.M

no.ofpens 9 9 9 --- --- --- ---Pigweight,lbd21(weaning) 14.11 13.96 14.20 0.29 0.41 0.97 0.42d24 14.77 14.88 15.04 0.26 0.52 0.13 0.34d28 16.38 16.69 16.47 0.40 0.72 0.24 0.39d49 33.11 34.08 33.93 0.93 0.14 0.21 0.80Dailygains,lbd21to24 0.21 0.31 0.28 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.35d25to28 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.45 0.97 0.69 0.66d21to28 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.15 0.22 0.82d29to49 0.80 0.84 0.82 0.04 0.07 0.29 0.40d21to49 0.68 0.72 0.70 0.03 0.05 0.19 0.46ADFI(d21to24),lb 0.23 0.29 0.26 0.04 <.0001 0.02 0.002F/G(d21to24) 1.06 0.96 0.93 0.09 0.38 0.23 0.75PenCV3,%d21(weaning) 23.8 25.1 23.5 0.8 0.26 0.78 0.16d24 22.3 22.5 21.3 0.9 0.83 0.42 0.29d28 22.9 21.8 21.2 0.9 0.40 0.19 0.63d49 20.7 19.5 19.6 1.0 0.40 0.43 0.96CV4change,%d21to24 -1.6 -2.5 -2.3 0.8 0.39 0.52 0.82d21to28 -0.9 -3.2 -2.3 0.8 0.06 0.26 0.43d21to49 -3.0 -5.6 -3.1 0.8 0.03 0.96 0.021Atotalof675pigs(PICC29×327,initialBW14.2lband21.2±0.2dofage)wereusedwith25pigsperpenand9replicationspertreatment.Groupcomposition:non-eater=non-creepfedpigsandnon-eatersofcreepfeed,creep=eatersofcreepfeed,andmix=51%non-eatersand49%eaters.Datawereanalyzedwithpenastheexperimentalunit.2Alltreatmentswerefedabudgetof1and2lb/pigofacommercialSEWandtransitiondiet,respectively.3Coefficientofvariationwithinpen.4DifferenceinpenCVbetweentwotimepoints:final%CV-initial%CV.

63

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 7. Postweaning growth performance of non-eater and eater pigs within mix pens (50% non-eaters:50% eaters)1,2

ConsumptioncategoryItem Non-eater Eater SE P-valueno. 113 108 --- ---%oftotal 51 49 --- ---Pigweights,lb d21 14.81 13.82 0.31 0.02d24 15.26 14.88 0.31 0.38d28 17.04 16.58 0.33 0.35d49 33.42 34.02 0.82 0.54Dailygains,lb d21to24 0.15 0.36 0.04 <.0001d25to28 0.45 0.42 0.03 0.48d21to28 0.32 0.39 0.02 0.002d29to49 0.78 0.83 0.03 0.04d21to49 0.67 0.72 0.03 0.0071Atotalof675pigs(PICC29×327,initialBW14.2lband21.2±0.2dofage)wereusedwith25pigsperpenand9replicationspertreatment.Groupcomposition:non-eater=non-creepfedpigsandnon-eatersofcreepfeed,creep=eatersofcreepfeed,andmix=51%non-eatersand49%eaters.Inthemixtreatment,differencesbetweennon-eaterandeaterpigswereanalyzedwithpenastheblockandpigastheexperimentalunit.2Pigswerefedabudgetof1and2lb/pigofacommercialSEWandtransitiondiet,respectively.

1.37a

Litt

er c

reep

fee

d in

take

, lb

4

3

2

1

0

Simple Complex

Creep diet complexity

0.45y

0.91z

2.73b

Total

ADFI

Figure 1. Total and daily creep feed intake of litters (mean ± SE) fed either simple or complex creep diets.abP <.0006;yzP <.0006.

64

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

28a

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Simple Complex

Creep diet complexity

68b

Figure 2. Effect of creep diet complexity on the proportion (mean percent ± SE) of eaters in whole litters.abP <.0001.

Per

cent

age

of

po

pul

atio

n

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Creep consumption category

No creep

28a

Eater

17b

29a

Non-eater

Figure 3. Percentage of fall back pigs during the initial 3 d postweaning within each creep consumption category.Fallbackpigswerethosethatdidnotgainweightorlostweightinthefirst3dpostweaning.Nocreep=pigsthatwerenotprovidedcreepfeedpreweaning,non-eater=pigsthatwerenegativeforcreepfeedconsumption,andeater=pigsthatpositivelyconsumedcreepfeed.χ2=18.0;Categoryeffect,abP <.0001.

65

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Copper Sulfate and Zinc Oxide on Weanling Pig Growth and Plasma Mineral Levels

N.W.Shelton,M.D.Tokach,J.L.Nelssen,R.D.Goodband,S.S.Dritz1,J.M.DeRouchey,G.M.Hill2,R.G.Amachawadi3,andT.G.Nagaraja3

SummaryAtotalof216weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.6lband21dofage)wereusedina42-dgrowthtrialtocomparetheeffectsofsupplementalzincandcopperandchangingmineralregimensongrowthperformanceandplasmaminerallevels.The6dietarytreatmentsincludeda2×2factorialarrangementwithmaineffectsofaddedcopperfromcoppersulfate(0or125ppm)andaddedzincfromzincoxide(0or3,000ppmfromd0to14and0or2,000ppmfromd14to42).Forthefinal2treat-ments,eitherzincoxidealoneorthecombinationsofzincandcopperwerefedfromd0to14,withcoppersulfatefedfromd14to42.Therewere6penspertreatmentwith6pigsperpen.Alldietsweresupplementedwithanadditional165ppmzincand16.5ppmcopperfromthetracemineralpremix.Plasmawascollectedfrom2pigsperpenond14and42.Fromd0to14,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gwereimproved(P < 0.04)withtheadditionofdietaryzinc.Coppersupplementationalsotendedtoincrease(P <0.07)ADFIfromd0to14.Fromd14to42,addedcopperincreased(P <0.003)ADGandADFI.Overtheentiretrial,continuoussupplementalzincincreased(P <0.03)ADGandtendedtoincrease(P <0.09)ADFI.Dietarycopperalsoincreased(P <0.004)ADGandADFIwhenfedfromd0to42.ThemostadvantageousvaluesforADGandADFIwereseeninthetreatmentcontaininghighlevelsofzincfromd0to14andhighcopperlevelsfromd14to42.Theadditionofeitherzincorcopperincreased(P <0.02)feedcostperpoundofgain.However,incomeoverfeedcostwasimproved(P <0.006)withtheadditionofcopper,withthegreatestvalueobtainedwhenhighzincwasfedfromd0to14andhighcopperwasfedfromd14to42.Plasmazinclevelswereincreased(P <0.001)withzincsupplementationond14.Theseresultsindicatetheoptimalmineralregimenwassupplementingzincoxidefromd0to14andcoppersulfatefromd14to42.

Keywords:copper,growthpromotion,zinc

IntroductionZincandcopperaretwomineralscommonlyaddedatpharmacologicallevelsinwean-lingpigdietstoserveasgrowthpromoters.Researchhasshownthatincreaseddietaryzinccanincreasegrowthratesanddecreasetheincidenceofdiarrheaforthefirst2to4wkafterweaning.Zincoxide(ZnO)isthemostcommonlyusedformofzinc.Dietarycopperhasalsobeenshowntoenhancegrowthratesinweanlingpigsandgrowingpigs.Coppersulfate(CuSO4)isthemostcommonform.Historically,researchoncombin-ingZnOandCuSO4atpharmacologicallevelshasshowngrowthratessimilartothose

1FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.2DepartmentofAnimalSciences,MichiganStateUniversity,EastLansing,MI.3DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity

66

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

whenZnOisusedalone.However,Sheltonetal.(20084)reportedadditiveeffectstousingpharmacologicallevelsofbothzincfromZnOandcopperfromeitherCuSO4ortri-basiccopperchloride.Therefore,theobjectiveofthistrialwastoevaluatetheeffectsoftheadditionofdietarycopperorzincforalongerdurationthaninpasttrialsandtodeterminetheimpactofchangingmineralregimensbyusingpharmacologicallevelsofzincearlyafterweaningandhighlevelsofdietarycopperlaterinthenurseryperiod.

ProceduresTheprotocolusedinthisexperimentwasapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.ThestudywasconductedattheKansasStateUniversitySwineTeachingandResearchCenterinManhattan.

Atotalof216weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.6lband21-dofage)wereusedina42-dgrowthtrialtocomparetheeffectsofsupplementalzincandcopperandtoobservetheeffectsofchangingmineralregimensforpigsfromweaningto50lb.PigswereallottedtopensbyinitialBW,andpenswereassignedtotreatmentsinarandom-izedcompleteblockdesign,withbothweightandlocationinthenurseryservingasblockingfactors.Therewere6penspertreatmentwith6pigsperpen.Treatmentswerearrangedina2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsofaddedcopperfromCuSO4(0or125ppm)andaddedzincfromZnO(0or3,000ppmfromd0to14and0or2,000ppmfromd14to42).TwoadditionaltreatmentswereincludedinwhichtheaddedZnOorZnOandCuSO4dietwasfedfromd0to14withaddedCuSO4fedfromd14to42.Thedietswerefedin2phases:Phase1fromd0to14andPhase2fromd14to42(Table1).Phase1and2dietswerefedinmealformandformulatedtocontain1.41%and1.31%standardizedilealdigestiblelysine,respectively.Phase1dietscontained15%spray-driedwheyand3.75%fishmeal,andPhase2dietswerecorn-soybeanmealbased.Thetracemineralpremixsupplied165ppmzincand16.5ppmcoppertoeachofthediets.AddedcopperandzinclevelswereachievedbyreplacingcornstarchwithZnOorCuSO4.

Eachpencontaineda4-hole,dryself-feederandanipplewaterertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Penshadwire-meshfloorandallowedforapproximately3ft2/pig.Weightsandfeeddisappearanceweremeasuredevery14dtodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.

Bloodsampleswerecollectedbyjugularvenipuncturefrom2randomlyselectedpigsperpenond14and42.Bloodsampleswerechilledforapproximately1huntiltheywerecentrifugedat1,600×gfor20min.Plasmawasthencollectedfromeachsample,frozen,andsenttoMichiganStateUniversityformineralanalysis.Copperandzinclevelsweredeterminedbyatomicabsorptionspectrophotometry.Phosphoruswasmeasuredbycolorspectrophotometry.

Feedcostperpoundofgain,feedcostperpig,andincomeoverfeedcostwerealsocalculated.Incomeoverfeedcostwascalculatedbyassessingavalueof$0.50perpoundofgainandsubtractingthefeedcost.

4Sheltonetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.62-73.

67

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Penwasusedastheexperimentalunitforallanalysis,anddatawereanalyzedusingtheMIXEDprocedureinSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).Maineffectsandpotentialinteractionsforaddedcopperandzincweretestedusingcontraststatements.ForPhase1,bothdietarytreatmentsthatwerefedeitherthehighzincorhighcopperandzincdietwerepooledtogethertodeterminethemaineffectsofcopperandzinc.InPhase2aswellasfortheoveralltrial,onlytreatmentsthatremainedonthesamemineralregimenfortheentiretrialwereusedtodeterminethemaineffectsofcopperandzinc.

Results and DiscussionLaboratoryanalysisofthedietsindicatedthatdietcopperandzinclevelsweresimilartothoseexpectedfromdietformulation(Table2).

Overthefirstphase(d0to14),zincsupplementationimproved(P < 0.04)ADG,ADFI,andF/G(Table3).TheadditionofcopperdidnotaffectADGorF/Gbuttendedtoincrease(P <0.07)ADFIfromd0to14.ThegreatestADGandADFIresponseswereseenwhencombiningbothaddedzincandcopper;however,theywereonlynumericallygreater(3%)thanresponsestozincusedalone.

Fromd14to28,dietaryzincincreased(P <0.04)ADFIbutnotADG.Thus,F/Gbecameworse(P < 0.02)whenzincwasincludedinthediet.Dietarycopperalsoincreased(P <0.003)ADGandADFIandtendedtoimprove(P <0.06)F/G.Addingcopperandzinctogetherdidnotprovideanybenefitoverfeedingcopperalone.Aspigswereswitchedfromsupplementalzinctoaddedcopper,animprovement(P <0.05)inADGwasobservedcomparedwithmaintainingahighlevelofzinc.Conversely,whenswitchingfromhighlevelsofaddedcopperandzinctoaddedcopper,performancewasnotimprovedcomparedwiththetreatmentcontainingbothminerals.

Atrendforacopper×zincinteractionwasobserved(P <0.06)forADGfromd28to42.ThisinteractionisreflectiveofthenumericdecreaseinADGwhencopperandzincwereusedincombinationcomparedwitheachusedsingularly.Theadditionofcopperalsoresultedinanincrease(P <0.04)inADFIandworsenedF/G.

Fromd14to42,addedCuSO4increased(P <0.003)ADGandADFI.Addedzincworsened(P <0.05)F/Gandhadnoeffect(P >0.10)onADGorADFI.AveragedailygainandADFIwereincreased(P <0.05)forpigsthatwerefedhighlevelsofzincfromd0to14andthenswitchedtohighcopperford14to42comparedwithpigsfedhighzincinbothphases.

Feedingpharmacologicalzinccontinuouslyovertheentire42-dtrialincreased(P <0.03)ADGandtendedtoincrease(P <0.09)ADFI.Coppersupplementationalsoincreased(P <0.004)ADGandADFIfromd0to42.Theseresultsagreewithearlierresearchthatindicatedthatimprovementsingrowthperformancefromhighlevelsofdietarycopperorzincweremostlyduetoimprovementsinfeedintake.ThemostadvantageousvaluesforADGandADFIwereobservedinthetreatmentcontain-inghighlevelsofzincinPhase1andhighlevelsofcopperinPhase2.Pigsfedthistreat-mentwere2.1lbheavierthanpigsfedonlyZnOinbothphasesand5.7lbheavierthanpigsfedthecontroldiet.

68

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Fortheentiretrial,feedcostperpoundofgainwasincreased(Table4;P <0.02)withtheadditionofcopperorzincasaresultoftheincreaseindietcostwithnoimprove-mentsinF/G.Incomeoverfeedcostwasimproved(P <0.006)withtheadditionofcopper,withthegreatestreturnobtainedwhenhighzincwasfedinPhase1andhighcopperinPhase2.Addingzincfromd0to14andcopperfromd14to28resultedin$0.56to$1.77higherincomeoverfeedcostperpigthantheothertreatments.

Nodietaryeffectswereobserved(Table4;P >0.41)forplasmacopperlevelatd14.However,plasmazinclevelswereincreased(P <0.001)withaddeddietaryzinc.Evenmoreinterestingwasthattreatmentsthatwereswitchedfromeitherhighzincorhighcopperandzinctohighlevelsofcopperhaddecreasedplasmazinclevelsthanthetreat-mentsthatremainedonthesamemineralregimentinbothphases.Ond14,pigswereweighedanddietswereswitchedatapproximately8:00am,andthenplasmawasnotcollecteduntil1:00p.m.The5-hperiodinwhichpigswereallowedtoeatthePhase2dietmayhavegeneratedthedecreaseinplasmazinc.Nodietarymaineffectswereobserved(P >0.16)forplasmaphosphorusateitherd14or42.Ond42,trendsforacopper×zincinteractionweredetected(P <0.08)forbothplasmacopperandzinc.Theplasmacopperinteractionwasduetoanumericincreaseinplasmacopperwhencopperwasaddedtothedietalone,andcomparedwiththecontroldiet,nodifferencewasobservedwhencopperandzincwerebothadded.Theplasmazincinteractionwasduetotheincreaseinplasmazincwhenzincwasaddedaloneinthediet,andtherewasnochangewhenbothcopperandzincwereadded.

Theresultsfromthefirst28dofthistrialmatchresultsfromourearlierstudy(Shel-tonetal.,2008),inwhichincreasesinADGandADFIwereobservedtoaddingbothcopperandzinccomparedwithaddingeachalone.However,thecopper×zincinterac-tionforADGobservedfromd28to42matcheshistoricalresearchshowingreducedperformancewhencombiningzincandcoppercomparedwithusingeitheralone.Eventhoughanadditiveresponsetocopperandzincwasobservedduringtheearlyportionofthistrial,theregimenthatachievedthegreatestgrowthperformanceandeconomicreturnwasthetreatmentinwhichzincwasfedinPhase1andcopperwasfedinPhase2.Thistreatmentregimenresultedina0.50lbheavierpigandareturnvalueofapproxi-mately$0.56moreperpigcomparedwithaddingbothzincandcoppertothediets.

69

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of diets1 Ingredient,% Phase12 Phase23

Corn 48.72 60.74Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 29.01 35.00Spray-driedwhey 15.00 ---Selectmenhadenfishmeal 3.75 ---MonocalciumP(21%P) 1.05 1.60Limestone 0.70 1.10Salt 0.33 0.33Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15LysineHCl 0.30 0.30DL-methionine 0.175 0.125L-threonine 0.125 0.110Cornstarch4 0.435 0.307Total 100 100

CalculatedanalysisSID5aminoacids,%Lysine 1.41 1.31Isoleucine:lysine 60 63Leucine:lysine 120 129Methionine:lysine 36 33Met&Cys:lysine 58 58Threonine:lysine 62 62Tryptophan:lysine 17 18Valine:lysine 65 69Totallysine,% 1.55 1.45ME,kcal/lb 1,495 1,495SIDlysine:MEratio,g/Mcal 4.28 3.97CP,% 22.3 21.9Ca,% 0.88 0.85P,% 0.78 0.75AvailableP,% 0.50 0.42AvailableP:calorie,g/Mcal 1.51 1.261Atotalof216weanlingpigs(PIC,initially13.6lband21dofage)wereusedina42-dexperimentwith6penspertreatment.2PigswerefedPhase1fromd0to14.3PigswerefedPhase2fromd14to42.4CornstarchwasreplacedwithZnOat7.7lb/toninPhase1and5.1lb/toninPhase2and/orCuSO4at1lb/tontocreatetreatmentdiets.5Standardizedilealdigestible.

70

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Analyzed chemical composition of diets1

Addedcopper2: No Yes No YesAddedzinc3: No No Yes Yes

Phase14

Zinc,ppm 69(196) 286(196) 3,031(3,196) 3,099(3,196)Copper,ppm 73.7(26.2) 161.4(151.2) 10.5(26.2) 182.8(151.2)Phase25

Zinc,ppm 204(194) 256(194) 1,823(2,194) 1,819(2,194)Copper,ppm 19.1(25.4) 162.3(150.4) 26.1(25.4) 180.0(150.4)Valuesinparenthesesindicatethecalculatedexpectedvalue.1Atotalof216weanlingpigs(PIC,initially13.6lband21dofage)wereusedina42-dexperimentwith6penspertreatment.2AddedcopperfromCuSO4wassuppliedatno(0ppm)oryes(125ppm)levelstothatprovidedbythetracemineralpremixsupplementationofthebasaldiet(16.5ppmCu).3AddedzincfromZnOwassuppliedatno(0ppm)oryes(3,000ppminPhase1and2,000inPhase2)levelstothatprovidedbythetracemineralpremixsupplementationofthebasaldiet(165ppmZnfromZnO).4PigswerefedPhase1fromd0to14.5PigswerefedPhase2fromd14to42.

71

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Effe

cts o

f zin

c oxi

de an

d co

pper

sulfa

te o

n w

eanl

ing

pig

grow

th p

erfo

rman

ce1

Prob

abili

ty,P

<Ph

ase1

die

t2 :C

ontr

olC

uZn

Cu

and

ZnZn

Cu

and

ZnZi

nc×

C

oppe

rPh

ase2

die

t3 :C

ontr

olC

uZn

Cu

and

ZnC

uC

uSE

MZi

ncC

oppe

rIn

itial

wt,

lb13

.613

.613

.613

.613

.613

.60.

740.

120.

490.

59d

0to

14

A

DG

,lb

0.32

a0.

40b

0.47

bc0.

49c

0.48

bc0.

49c

0.02

90.

230.

001

0.14

A

DFI

,lb

0.49

a0.

58b

0.57

ab0.

60b

0.59

b0.

60b

0.32

00.

250.

040.

07

F/G

1.52

a1.

45a

1.22

b1.

23b

1.24

b1.

24b

0.04

30.

350.

001

0.59

wto

nd

14,l

b18

.1a

19.3

ab20

.2bc

20.5

c20

.3bc

20.5

c0.

960.

220.

001

0.14

d14

to2

8

AD

G,l

b1.

03a

1.17

c1.

06ab

1.21

c1.

20c

1.13

bc0.

047

0.80

0.29

0.00

1

AD

FI,l

b1.

45a

1.61

bc1.

55ab

1.72

c1.

65bc

1.58

abc

0.06

90.

990.

040.

003

F

/G1.

40a

1.37

a1.

47b

1.42

ab1.

38a

1.40

a0.

021

0.62

0.02

0.06

d28

to4

2

AD

G,l

b1.

55a

1.62

ab1.

62ab

1.57

ab1.

64b

1.60

ab0.

041

0.06

0.77

0.69

A

DFI

,lb

2.56

a2.

74b

2.68

ab2.

71b

2.75

b2.

72b

0.09

00.

170.

400.

04

F/G

1.65

a1.

69ab

c1.

66ab

1.73

c1.

68ab

c1.

70bc

0.02

60.

580.

240.

003

d14

to4

2

AD

G,l

b1.

29a

1.40

c1.

33ab

1.39

bc1.

42bc

1.36

bc0.

039

0.32

0.39

0.00

1

AD

FI,l

b2.

01a

2.17

b2.

11ab

2.22

b2.

20b

2.15

b0.

076

0.47

0.10

0.00

3

F/G

1.55

1.56

1.58

1.59

1.55

1.57

0.01

90.

980.

050.

56d

0to

42

A

DG

,lb

0.97

a1.

07bc

1.04

b1.

09bc

1.11

c1.

07bc

0.03

30.

300.

030.

003

A

DFI

,lb

1.50

a1.

64b

1.59

ab1.

68b

1.66

b1.

63b

0.05

90.

470.

090.

004

F

/G1.

541.

541.

521.

541.

501.

520.

018

0.65

0.39

0.69

Fina

lwt,

lb54

.3a

58.4

b57

.9b

59.5

b60

.0b

59.2

b1.

890.

190.

020.

004

1 Ato

talo

f216

wea

nlin

gpig

s(PI

C,i

nitia

lly1

3.6

lban

d21

do

fage

)wer

euse

din

a42

-dex

perim

entw

ith6

pen

sper

trea

tmen

t.2 P

hase

1d

iets

wer

efed

from

d0

to1

4aft

erw

eani

ng:c

ontr

ol(b

asal

die

twith

no

adde

dC

uor

Zn)

,Cu

(125

ppm

ofa

dded

Cu

from

CuS

O4),

Zn

(3,0

00p

pmo

fadd

ed

Znfr

omZ

nO),

and

Cu

and

Zn(1

25p

pmo

fadd

edC

ufr

omC

uSO

4an

d 3,00

0pp

mo

fadd

edZ

nfr

omZ

nO).

3 Pha

se2

die

tsw

eref

edfr

omd

14

to4

2aft

erw

eani

ng:c

ontr

ol(b

asal

die

twith

no

adde

dC

uor

Zn)

,Cu

(125

ppm

ofa

dded

Cu

from

CuS

O4),

Zn

(2,0

00p

pmo

fadd

ed

Znfr

omZ

nO),

and

Cu

and

Zn(1

25p

pmo

fadd

edC

ufr

omC

uSO

4an

d 2,00

0pp

mo

fadd

edZ

nfr

omZ

nO).

abc W

ithin

aro

w,m

eans

with

outa

com

mon

supe

rscr

iptd

iffer

(P <

0.0

5).

72

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 4

. Effe

cts o

f zin

c oxi

de an

d co

pper

sulfa

te o

n th

e eco

nom

ics a

nd p

lasm

a min

eral

conc

entr

atio

ns o

f wea

nlin

g pi

gs1

Prob

abili

ty,P

<Ph

ase1

die

t2 :C

ontr

olC

uZn

Cu

and

ZnZn

Cu

and

ZnZi

nc×

C

oppe

rPh

ase2

die

t3 :C

ontr

olC

uZn

Cu

and

ZnC

uC

uSE

MZi

ncC

oppe

rEc

onom

ics,

d0

to4

2

Fee

dco

st/l

bga

in,$

40.

212ab

0.21

4ab0.

216b

0.21

8b0.

210a

0.21

3ab0.

003

0.44

0.02

0.00

4

Fee

dco

st/p

ig,$

48.

65a

9.57

b9.

46b

10.0

2b9.

74b

9.61

b0.

354

0.97

0.07

0.37

IO

FC,$

/pig

4,5

11.7

0a12

.79bc

12.4

3b12

.91bc

13.4

7c12

.90bc

0.36

50.

270.

120.

006

Plas

mam

iner

alco

ncen

trat

ions

d14

C

oppe

r,µg

/mL

1.87

1.89

1.86

1.88

1.75

1.86

0.08

0.68

0.51

0.42

Z

inc,

µg/m

L0.

53a

0.55

a0.

95c

0.93

c0.

74b

0.73

b0.

066

0.81

0.00

10.

92

Pho

spho

rus,

mg/

mL

0.08

4ab0.

083a

0.08

6ab0.

086ab

0.09

4b0.

086ab

0.00

40.

710.

170.

28d

42

Cop

per,

µg/m

L1.

942.

132.

061.

971.

972.

100.

077

0.08

0.78

0.54

Z

inc,

µg/m

L1.

04a

1.08

a1.

24b

1.12

ab1.

13ab

1.06

a0.

043

0.07

0.01

0.42

P

hosp

horu

s,m

g/m

L0.

092a

0.08

9a0.

092a

0.09

2a0.

098b

0.08

8a0.

002

0.42

0.38

0.38

1 Ato

talo

f216

wea

nlin

gpig

s(PI

C,i

nitia

lly1

3.6

lban

d21

do

fage

)wer

euse

din

a42

-dex

perim

entw

ith6

pen

sper

trea

tmen

t.2 P

hase

1d

iets

wer

efed

from

d0

to1

4aft

erw

eani

ng:c

ontr

ol(b

asal

die

twith

no

adde

dC

uor

Zn)

,Cu

(125

ppm

ofa

dded

Cu

from

CuS

O4),

Zn

(3,0

00p

pmo

fadd

ed

Znfr

omZ

nO),

and

Cu

and

Zn(1

25p

pmo

fadd

edC

ufr

omC

uSO

4an

d 3,00

0pp

mo

fadd

edZ

nfr

omZ

nO).

3 Pha

se2

die

tsw

eref

edfr

omd

14

to4

2aft

erw

eani

ng:c

ontr

ol(b

asal

die

twith

no

adde

dC

uor

Zn)

,Cu

(125

ppm

ofa

dded

Cu

from

CuS

O4),

Zn

(2,0

00p

pmo

fadd

ed

Znfr

omZ

nO),

and

Cu

and

Zn(1

25p

pmo

fadd

edC

ufr

omC

uSO

4an

d 2,00

0pp

mo

fadd

edZ

nfr

omZ

nO).

4 Fee

dco

stsw

ereb

ased

on

corn

at$

5.00

/bu,

soyb

ean

mea

lat$

350/

ton,

zinc

oxi

deat

$12

1.87

/cw

t,an

dco

pper

sulfa

teat

$11

8.75

/cw

t. 5 In

com

eove

rfee

dco

st=

(Wei

ghtg

ain

perp

ig×

$0.

50/l

b)-

feed

cost

per

pig

.ab

c With

ina

row

,mea

nsw

ithou

taco

mm

onsu

pers

crip

tdiff

er(P

<0

.05)

.

73

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Copper Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, and NeoTerramycin on Weanling Pig Growth and Antibiotic Resistance Rate for Fecal Escherichiacoli

N.W.Shelton,M.E.Jacob1,M.D.Tokach,J.L.Nelssen,R.D.Goodband,S.S.Dritz2,J.M.DeRouchey,R.G.Amachawadi1,X.Shi1,andT.G.Nagaraja1

SummaryAtotalof180weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially11.1lband21dofage)wereusedina42-dgrowthtrialtocomparetheeffectsofsupplementalzinc,copper,andin-feedantimicrobialonweanlingpiggrowthandantibioticresistanceoffecalEsch-erichia coli.Therewere5dietarytreatmentswith6penspertreatmentand5pigsperpen.Penswereassignedtodietarytreatmentsinarandomizedcompleteblockdesign.Treatmentswerearrangedina2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsofcoppersulfate(0or125ppm)andzincoxide(0or3,000ppmfor14dand0or2,000for28d).Thefifthtreatmentwasin-feedantimicrobial(50g/tonneomycinsulfateand50g/tonoxytetracyclineHCl).Alldietsweresupplementedwith165ppmzincand16.5ppmcopperfromthetracemineralpremix.Fecalsampleswerecollectedfrom3pigsperpenond14and42todeterminetotalcoliformandE. colicountsaswellasE. coliantibioticresistancerates.

Pigsfedaddedzincoxidehadincreased(P < 0.04)ADGandtendedtohaveimproved(P < 0.09)ADFIandF/Gfromd0to14.Fromd14to42,pigsfedaddedzincoxidehadpoorer(P < 0.007)F/Gthanthosewithnoaddedzincoxide,andpigsfedaddedcoppersulfatehadimproved(P < 0.07)F/Gcomparedwiththosefednoaddedcoppersulfate.Overtheentire42-dtrial,atrendforacopper×zincinteractionwasdetected(P < 0.09)forADGaspigsfedtheadditionofcoppersulfateorzincoxidehadincreasedADGoverthecontrol;however,whenzincandcopperwerecombined,growthratewassimilartothatwheneachwasaddedsingularly.Therefore,noadditiveeffectswereobservedinthisexperimentfromfeedingacombinationofhighlevelsofdietarycopperandzinc.

Dietaryadditionofcoppersulfate,zincoxide,orin-feedantibiotichadnoeffect(P > 0.22)ontotalcoliformorE. coliconcentrationsond14or42.Ford-14isolates,zincsupplementationhadnoeffect(P > 0.43)onE. coliresistanceratetochlortetracy-cline,neomycin,oxytetracycline,ortiamulin;however,coppersupplementationtendedtoincrease(P < 0.10)resistancetochlortetracyclineandoxytetracycline.Acopper×zincinteractionwasdetected(P < 0.02)forE. coliresistancetochlortetracyclineandneomycinfromisolatesond42.Theseinteractionswererelatedtoasignificantdecreaseinresistancewhencoppersulfatewasfedalone.

1DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

74

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Highlevelsofzincoxideimprovedperformanceintheearlypostweaningperiod,whereashighlevelsofcoppersulfateofferednumericadvantagesinthelaterphase.Althoughtheresistanceratevariedwithdietarytreatment,noclearpatternwasdetected.

Keywords:bacterialsensitivity,copper,zinc

IntroductionPharmacologicallevelsofdietaryzincandcopperhaveoftenbeenusedtoincreasegrowthinweanlingpigs.Nurserystudieshavedemonstratedthatincreaseddietaryzinccanpromotegrowthratesanddecreasediarrheainweanlingpigs.Zincoxide(ZnO)isthemostcommonlyusedformofzincindietsfornurserypigs.Dietarycopperalsohasbeenshowntoenhancegrowthratesinweanlingpigs,andcoppersulfate(CuSO4)isthemostcommonlyusedform.PreviousresearchindicatesthatusingbothZnOandCuSO4inthedietresultsingrowthratessimilartothosewhenZnOisusedalone.However,Sheltonetal.(2008)3observedadditivegrowthresponsestofeedingbothZnOandCuSO4.Anotherunresolvedquestionrelatedtotheadditionofpharmacolog-icallevelsofcopperandzincisthepotentialeffectsonantibioticsensitivity.ResearchhasshownlinksbetweenfeedingincreasedlevelsofcopperandresistanceofEnterococcitocopperaswellastovancomycinanderythromycin. Therefore,theobjectiveofthistrialwastodeterminetheeffectsofpharmacologicallevelsofcopperandzincoranin-feedantibioticcombinationonweanlingpigperformanceandantibioticresistanceoffecalEscherichia coli.

ProceduresTheprotocolusedinthisexperimentwasapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.ThestudywasconductedattheKansasStateUniversitySwineTeachingandResearchCenterinManhattan,KS.

Atotalof180weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially11.1lband21dofage)wereusedina42-dgrowthtrialtocomparetheeffectsofsupplementalzinc,copper,andanin-feedantibioticonweanlingpiggrowthandantibioticresistanceoffecalE. coli.PigswereallottedtopensbyinitialBW,andpenswereassignedtotreatmentsinarandom-izedcompleteblockdesignwithbothweightandlocationinthenurseryservingasblockingfactors.Therewere6penspertreatmentwith5pigsperpen.Treatmentswerearrangedasa2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsofaddedcopperfromCuSO4(0or125ppm)andaddedzincfromZnO(0or3,000ppmfromd0to14and0or2,000ppmfromd14to42)alongwithanadditionaltreatmentwithanin-feedantibioticthatprovidingneomycin(50g/ton)andoxytetracycline(50g/ton).Thetracemineralpremixsuppliedabaselevelof165ppmzincand16.5ppmcopperinalldiets.Thedietswerefedin2phases:Phase1fromd0to14andPhase2fromd14to42(Table1).Phase1and2dietswerefedinmealformandformulatedtocontain1.41%and1.31%standardilealdigestiblelysine,respectively.Phase1dietscontained15%spray-driedwheyand3.75%fishmeal,andPhase2dietswerecorn-soybeanmealbased.TreatmentdietswerepreparedbyreplacingcornstarchwithZnO,CuSO4,orin-feedantibiotic.

3Sheltonetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.62-73.

75

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Eachpencontaineda4-holedryself-feederandanipplewaterertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Penshadwire-meshfloorandallowedforapproximately3ft2/pig.Weightsandfeeddisappearanceweremeasuredevery14dtodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.

Ond14and42,fecalsampleswerecollectedfrom3randomlyselectedpigsperpen.Fecalsampleswerediluted,plated,andsubsequentlycountedtodeterminethenumberofcolonyformingunitspergramofsampleforbothE. coliandtotalcoliforms.Onecolonypersamplewasthenisolatedandretainedforfurtheranalysis.Minimuminhibi-toryconcentrations(MIC)ofantibioticswerethendeterminedoneachisolatebythemicro-brothdilutionmethod(CLSI,20024).Theantibioticsevaluatedincludedchlor-tetracycline,neomycin,oxytetracycline,andtiamulin.TheMICforeachisolatewascomparedwithpublishedMICvaluestodeterminewhethereachisolatewasresistantorsusceptible.IsolateswereclassifiedasresistantiftheMICwas16µg/mLorhigherforoxytetracycline,chlortetracycline,andneomycinand32µg/mLorhigherfortiamulin.Finally,apenresistantratewascalculatedonthebasisoftheresistanceforeachpen’s3isolates.

Penwasusedastheexperimentalunitforallanalyses,anddatawereanalyzedusingtheMIXEDprocedureinSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).Maineffectsandpotentialinteractionsforaddeddietarycopperandzincweretestedusingcontraststatements.Bacterialcountswerelogtransformedtoachievenormality.Pair-wisecomparisonwasalsousedtotestthedifferencebetweenthecontrolandantibiotictreatment.

Results Overthefirstphase(d0to14),pigsfedaddeddietaryZnOhadimproved(P < 0.02)ADG(Table2).Dietaryzincadditionsalsotendedtoincrease(P < 0.09)ADFIandimprove(P < 0.06)F/G.TheadditionofCuSO4didnotaffect(P > 0.19)ADGorADFI,butatrendwasdetectedforpoorer(P < 0.06)F/Gfromd0to14comparedwithpigsfednoaddedcopper.Also,noimprovements(P > 0.59)inADG,ADFI,orF/Gwereobservedforpigssupplementedwithin-feedantibioticscomparedwithpigsfednoaddedzincorcopper.

Fromd14to28,noimprovementsinADGorF/Gwereobserved(P > 0.14)fromsupplementingdietarycopperorzinc.However,atrendforacopper×zincinteractionwasdetected(P < 0.07).ThisinteractionwasduetoincreasesinADFIoverthecontrolwheneithercopperorzincwereusedindependently;however,whencopperandzincwereusedincombination,ADFIwasintermediateofthatwheneitherwassingularly.In-feedantibioticsupplementationalsoincreased(P < 0.01)ADFIandtendedtoincrease(P < 0.10)ADGoverthatofpigsfednoaddedzincorcopper.

Fromd28to42,ZnOandCuSO4supplementationdidnotincrease(P > 0.18)ADGorADFI.However,atrendforimprovedF/Gwasobserved(P < 0.06)withCuSO4

addition,andatrendforworsenedF/Gwasobserved(P < 0.09)withzincaddition.Addingthein-feedantibioticalsohadnoeffect(P > 0.71)onpigADG,ADFI,orF/Gcomparedwithpigsfedthecontroldiet.

4ClinicalandLaboratoryStandardInstitute(CLSI).2002.PerformanceStandardsforAntimicrobialDiskandDilutionSusceptibilityTestsforBacteriaIsolatedfromAnimals.ApprovedGuideline-2nded.CLSIDocumentM31-A2.CLSI,Wayne,PA.

76

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

OvertheentirePhase2(d14to42),pigsfedtheadditionalZnOhadpoorer(P < 0.007)F/Gandtendedtohaveincreased(P < 0.07)ADFIcomparedwiththosenotreceivingadditionalZnO.PigsfedsupplementalCuSO4hadimproved(P < 0.04)F/Gwithoutincreased(P > 0.13)ADGorADFIfromd14to42.Antibioticadditiondidnotimprove(P > 0.28)inADG,ADFI,orF/Gcomparedwithcontrolpigs.

Atrendforacopper×zincinteractionwasdetected(P < 0.09)forADGovertheentire42-dtrial.TheadditionofcopperorzincincreasedADGoverthecontrol;however,whencopperandzincwerecombined,pigshadreducedgrowthcomparedwiththatachievedwhenfeedingeachindependently.Pharmacologicallevelsofzincalsoincreased(P < 0.04)ADFI.Overtheentiretrial,thein-feedantimicrobialdidnotimprove(P > 0.28)ADG,ADFI,orF/G.ColiformandE. colicountswerenotaffected(P > 0.22)bydietaryadditionofCuSO4,ZnO,orin-feedantimicrobials(Table3).Ford-14isolates,dietaryZnOsupplementa-tionhadnoeffect(P > 0.43)onthepercentageofE. coliisolatesclassifiedasresistantforchlortetracycline,neomycin,oxytetracycline,ortiamulin.However,fromd-14isolates,CuSO4tendedtoincrease(P < 0.10)thepercentageofisolatesresistanttochlortetracyclineandoxytetracycline.Also,thein-feedantimicrobialtendedtoincrease(P < 0.10)thepercentageofisolatesresistanttochlortetracyclineandoxytetracyclinecomparedwiththecontrols.Acopper×zincinteractionwasdetected(P < 0.02)forE. coliresistancetochlortetracyclineandneomycinfromisolatesond42.Theseinter-actionswererelatedtoasignificantdecreaseinthepercentageofisolatesclassifiedasresistantwhencopperwasfedalone.In-feedantibioticandCuSO4dietaryadditionsalsotendedtoincrease(P < 0.10)thepercentageofE. coliisolatesresistanttotiamulinond42.

DiscussionResultsfromthistrialagreewithpreviousresearchthatshowedthatbenefitsfromadditionaldietaryzincandcopperwerenotadditiveinnature.TheimprovementinADGandADFIwithZnOsupplementationfromd0to14agreeswithotherresearchthatshowsthatzincimprovesgrowthearlypostweaning.Onlymarginalimprovementswereobservedfromaddingcoopertothediet.Manyotherstudieshaveshownagreaterresponsetocopper,whichisusuallyapparentlaterinthenurserystage(d14to42),thanthisstudydid.TheseresultsareincontrastwiththoseofSheltonetal.(2008).

Thecopper×zincinteractionforE. coliresistancetochlortetracyclineandneomycinfromisolatesond42isaninterestingobservationfromthisstudy.Wecannotexplainabiologicalreasonwhyresistancewoulddropdramaticallywhenadditionaldietarycopperwasfedalone.Itmayhavebeenaneffectofsampling,asonly3isolatesperpenwereused.Althoughtheresistanceratevariedwithdietarytreatment,noclearpatternwasdetected.Additionalresearchiswarrantedtoevaluatetheeffectsofhighlevelsofdietarycopperandzincadditionsonantibioticresistance.Inaddition,moreresearchisneededtounderstandthefactorsthatmaybeaffectingtheeffectivenessofhighdietarylevelsofcopperandzincsupplementationfedtoincreasegrowthratesofweanlingpigs.

77

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of diets1 Ingredient,% Phase12 Phase23

Corn 48.72 60.74Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 29.01 35.00Spray-driedwhey 15.00 ---Selectmenhadenfishmeal 3.75 ---MonocalciumP(21%P) 1.05 1.60Limestone 0.70 1.10Salt 0.33 0.33Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15LysineHCl 0.30 0.30DL-methionine 0.175 0.125L-threonine 0.125 0.110Cornstarch4 0.435 0.307Total 100 100     Calculatedanalysis    SID5aminoacids,%    Lysine 1.41 1.31Isoleucine:lysine 60 63Leucine:lysine 120 129Methionine:lysine 36 33Met&Cys:lysine 58 58Threonine:lysine 62 62Tryptophan:lysine 17 18Valine:lysine 65 69Totallysine,% 1.55 1.45ME,kcal/lb 1,495 1,495SIDlysine:ME,g/Mcal 4.28 3.97CP,% 22.3 21.9Ca,% 0.88 0.85P,% 0.78 0.75AvailableP,% 0.50 0.42AvailableP:calorie,g/Mcal 1.51 1.261Atotalof180weanlingpigs(PIC,initially11.1lband21dofage)wereusedina42-dexperimentwith6penspertreatmentand5pigsperpen.2PigswerefedPhase1fromd0to14.3PigswerefedPhase2fromd14to42.4CornstarchwasreplacedwithZnOat7.7lb/toninPhase1and5.1lb/toninPhase2,CuSO4at1lb/ton,or5lb/tonofNeo/Oxy10/10(PenfieldAnimalHealth,Omaha,NE)tocreatetreatmentdiets.5Standardizedilealdigestible.

78

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

cts o

f zin

c oxi

de, c

oppe

r sul

fate

, and

antib

iotic

com

bina

tion

on w

eanl

ing

pig

grow

th p

erfo

rman

ce1

Tre

atm

ent2

Prob

abili

ty,P

<

Zinc

×

Cop

per

Ant

ibio

tic

vs.C

ontr

olC

ontr

olC

uZn

Cu

and

ZnA

ntib

iotic

SEM

Zinc

Cop

per

Initi

alw

t,lb

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

0.04

90.

820.

860.

910.

89d

0to

14

A

DG

,lb

0.37

a0.

41ab

0.48

b0.

46b

0.40

ab0.

041

0.45

0.02

0.84

0.60

A

DFI

,lb

0.42

a0.

49ab

0.50

ab0.

52b

0.44

ab0.

039

0.46

0.09

0.20

0.71

F

/G1.

12ab

1.18

b1.

03a

1.12

ab1.

09ab

0.03

70.

840.

060.

060.

66w

ton

d14

,lb

16.1

a16

.6ab

17.7

b17

.4ab

16.5

ab0.

630.

450.

030.

860.

60d

14to

28

A

DG

,lb

0.92

1.01

1.00

0.99

1.00

0.03

90.

130.

380.

240.

10

AD

FI,l

b1.

26a

1.36

ab1.

42b

1.37

b1.

40b

0.04

80.

070.

030.

520.

01

F/G

1.41

1.38

1.45

1.42

1.44

0.03

20.

990.

150.

330.

46d

28to

42

A

DG

,lb

1.51

1.60

1.55

1.57

1.49

0.05

50.

400.

890.

190.

72

AD

FI,l

b2.

242.

302.

372.

332.

220.

087

0.45

0.23

0.93

0.83

F

/G1.

51ab

1.46

a1.

55b

1.50

ab1.

51ab

0.02

80.

890.

090.

060.

90d

14to

42

A

DG

,lb

1.21

a1.

30b

1.27

ab1.

27ab

1.24

ab0.

039

0.10

0.63

0.14

0.45

A

DFI

,lb

1.74

a1.

82ab

1.89

b1.

84ab

1.81

ab0.

059

0.15

0.07

0.69

0.29

F

/G1.

46ab

1.41

a1.

50b

1.47

b1.

47b

0.02

10.

660.

007

0.04

0.56

d0

to4

2

AD

G,l

b0.

92a

1.00

b1.

01b

0.99

ab0.

95ab

0.03

40.

090.

150.

210.

39

AD

FI,l

b1.

29a

1.37

ab1.

42b

1.40

b1.

34ab

0.04

70.

140.

040.

410.

29

F/G

1.42

1.39

1.43

1.42

1.42

0.01

90.

470.

140.

300.

78Fi

nalw

t,lb

50.1

53.0

53.2

52.7

51.8

1.58

0.15

0.24

0.32

0.30

1 Ato

talo

f180

wea

nlin

gpig

s(PI

C,i

nitia

lly1

1.1

lban

d21

do

fage

)wer

euse

din

a42

-dex

perim

entw

ith6

pen

sper

trea

tmen

tand

5p

igsp

erp

en.

2 Tre

atm

ents

wer

e:co

ntro

l(ba

sald

ietw

ithn

oad

ded

Cu

orZ

n),C

u(1

25p

pmo

fadd

edC

ufr

omC

uSO

4),Z

n(3

,000

ppm

from

d0

to1

4an

d2,

000

ppm

from

d1

4to

28

ofad

ded

Znfr

omZ

nO),

Cu

and

Zn(1

25p

pmo

fadd

edC

ufr

omC

uSO

4an

d 3,00

0pp

mfr

omd

0to

14

and

2,00

0pp

mfr

omd

14

to2

8of

adde

dZn

from

ZnO

),an

dan

tibio

tic(5

5pp

mo

r50

g/to

nof

neo

myc

inan

dox

ytet

racy

clin

efro

m

Neo

/Oxy

10/

10).

abW

ithin

aro

w,m

eans

with

outa

com

mon

supe

rscr

iptd

iffer

(P <

0.0

5).

79

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Effe

cts o

f zin

c oxi

de, c

oppe

r sul

fate

, and

antib

iotic

com

bina

tion

on fe

cal b

acte

ria c

ount

s and

E.c

oli a

nd an

tibio

tic re

sist

ance

1

Tre

atm

ent2

Prob

abili

ty,P

<

Zinc

×

Cop

per

Ant

ibio

tic

vs.C

ontr

olC

ontr

olC

uZn

Cu

and

ZnA

ntib

iotic

SEM

Zinc

Cop

per

Col

iform

coun

ts,L

og10

CFU

/g

d1

46.

25.

86.

25.

66.

00.

500.

820.

810.

250.

68

d4

25.

54.

95.

15.

04.

90.

490.

520.

720.

300.

23E.

coli

coun

t,Lo

g 10C

FU/g

d

14

5.9

5.3

5.9

5.4

5.6

0.53

0.91

0.95

0.25

0.62

d

42

4.7

4.2

4.8

4.6

4.3

0.52

0.78

0.59

0.38

0.49

Ant

ibio

tic-r

esist

antE

. col

iiso

late

s,%

d-14

isol

ates

C

hlor

tetr

acyc

line3

5689

6178

9214

.10.

570.

850.

100.

09

Neo

myc

in3

3333

2828

4415

.01.

000.

681.

000.

56

Oxy

tetr

acyc

line3

72ab

94ab

67a

89ab

100b

11.2

1.00

0.63

0.07

0.10

T

iam

ulin

410

094

100

100

943.

50.

440.

440.

440.

28d-

42is

olat

es

Chl

orte

trac

yclin

e383

b47

a81

b89

b81

b9.

60.

020.

030.

100.

81

Neo

myc

in3

78b

25a

67b

83b

81b

11.2

0.01

0.05

0.13

0.87

O

xyte

trac

yclin

e394

7286

8994

8.4

0.16

0.63

0.27

1.00

T

iam

ulin

490

100

9410

010

03.

70.

590.

590.

060.

091 A

tota

lof1

80w

eanl

ingp

igs(

PIC

,ini

tially

11.

1lb

and

21d

ofa

ge)w

ereu

sed

ina

42-d

expe

rimen

twith

6p

ensp

ertr

eatm

enta

nd5

pig

sper

pen

.2 T

reat

men

tsw

ere:

cont

rol(

basa

ldie

twith

no

adde

dC

uor

Zn)

,Cu

(125

ppm

ofa

dded

Cu

from

CuS

O4),

Zn

(3,0

00p

pmfr

omd

0to

14

and

2,00

0pp

mfr

omd

14

to2

8of

adde

dZn

from

ZnO

),C

uan

dZn

(125

ppm

ofa

dded

Cu

from

CuS

O4

and 3,

000

ppm

from

d0

to1

4an

d2,

000

ppm

from

d1

4to

28

ofad

ded

Znfr

omZ

nO),

and

antib

iotic

(55

ppm

or5

0g/

ton

ofn

eom

ycin

and

oxyt

etra

cycl

inef

rom

N

eo/O

xy1

0/10

).3 Is

olat

esw

itha

min

imum

inhi

bito

ryco

ncen

trat

ion

of1

6µg

/mL

orh

ighe

rfor

this

antib

iotic

wer

econ

sider

edre

sista

nt.

4 Isol

ates

with

am

inim

umin

hibi

tory

conc

entr

atio

nof

32

µg/m

Lor

hig

herf

orth

isan

tibio

ticw

erec

onsid

ered

resis

tant

.ab

With

ina

row

,mea

nsw

ithou

taco

mm

onsu

pers

crip

tdiff

er(P

< 0

.05)

.

80

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

81

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

An Evaluation of Peptone as a Specialty Protein Source in Diets for Nursery Pigs1

C.K.Jones,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,J.L.Nelssen,S.S.Dritz2,J.M.DeRouchey,andD.McKilligan3

Summary Twoexperimentswereconductedtoevaluatetheeffectsofselectmenhadenfishmeal(SMFM),spray-driedanimalplasma(SDAP),andtwoformsofaspray-driedultra-filtratedporcineintestinalmucosa(Peptone1and2;ProteinResources,WestBend,IA)onnurserypigperformance.InExp.1,216weanlingpigs(initialBW11.9lb)werefedeither(1)acontroldietcontainingnospecialtyproteinsourcesorthecontroldietwith(2)4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2,(3)4%SDAPduringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,(4)4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2,(5)4%Peptone1duringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,or(6)4%Peptone1duringPhase1and2%Peptone1duringPhase2.PigswerefedPhase1dietsfromd0to10postweaningfollowedbyPhase2dietsfromd10tod20andacommonPhase3dietthatcontainednospecialtyproteinsfor7d.Fromd0to10ord0to27,therewerenodifferences(P >0.05)inADGorF/G.

InExp.2,180weanlingpigs(initialBW13.0lb)werefedeither(1)acontroldietcontainingnospecialtyproteinsourcesorthecontroldietwith(2)4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2,(3)4%SDAPduringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,(3)4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2,(5)4%Peptone2duringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,or(6)4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%PeptoneduringPhase2.PigswerefedPhase1dietsfromd0to10postweaningfollowedbyaPhase2dietfromd10tod25.PigswerethenfedacommonPhase3dietthatcontainednospecialtyproteinsfor7d.Fromd0to10,pigsfeddietscontainingPeptone2hadimproved(P <0.10)F/Gcomparedwithpigsfedthecontroldiet.Overall(d0to32),pigsfed4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%Peptone2duringPhase2hadimproved(P <0.05)ADGcomparedwithpigsfed4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2.Pigsfed4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%Peptone2duringPhase2hadimproved(P <0.05)F/Gcomparedwithpigsfedallotherdiets.Inconclusion,thePeptoneproductsevaluatedinthesestudiescanbeusedinnurserypigdietswithoutnegativelyaffectingpiggrowthperformance.However,thelackofresponsetoanimalplasmaintheseexperimentsindicatesthatfurtherresearchiswarranted.

Keywords:growth,proteinsource,spray-driedintestinalmucosa

IntroductionWeanlingpigdietsoftencontainanimalproteinsources,suchasselectmenhadenfishmeal(SMFM)andspray-driedanimalplasma(SDAP),thatarehighlydigestible,palat-

1TheauthorswishtothankProteinResources,WestBend,IA,forprovidingthePeptone1and2.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.3ProteinResources,WestBend,IA.

80

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

81

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

abletoyoungpigs,andhavedesirableaminoacidprofiles.Spray-driedanimalplasmaiswidelyusedindietsimmediatelypostweaningbecauseithasconsistentlybeenshowntoimproveweanlingpigperformanceduringthefirstweekafterweaningbyimprov-ingfeedintake.Fishmealisoftenaneconomicalwaytoincreaseessentialaminoacidcontentofdietswhenanupperlimitisplacedontheamountofsoybeanmealthatcanbeusedinthediet.

AnotherpossibleproteinsourcefornurserydietsisPeptone(ProteinResources,WestBend,IA),whichisaproductmadebyultra-filtratingporcineintestinalmucosa.Thisfiltrationprocessremovessomeoftheimpuritiesfromtheamino-acid-richpeptides,whicharethenspraydried.Theresultingmaterialcontainsahighlevelofdigestiblepeptidesandaminoacids.Thisnewlydevelopedproteinsourcemayprovideanalterna-tivetoothertraditionalanimalproteinsourcesinnurserydiets.Therefore,theobjec-tiveoftheseexperimentswastoevaluatetheeffectsofSMFM,SDAP,andPeptoneongrowthperformanceofweanlingpigs.

ProceduresTheprotocolusedinthisexperimentwasapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversity(K-State)InstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.ThestudywasconductedattheK-StateSegregatedEarlyWeaningFacilityinManhattan,KS.

AsampleofPeptone1wascollectedandanalyzedfornutrientcomposition(Table1),andthesevalueswereusedindietformulation.AnalyzedvaluesweresimilartothoseofSDAP,andbecausestandardizedilealdigestible(SID)valueswerenotavailableforPeptone1,dietswereformulatedwithSIDpercentagesforSDAP.ForPeptone2,analyzedaminoacidvalueswereunavailableatdietformulation.However,theanalyzedCPlevelwassimilartothatofPeptone1.Thus,dietswereformulatedwiththesamevaluesasPeptone1.

InExp.1,atotalof216weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially11.9lb)wereusedina27-dgrowthtrial.Pigswereblockedbyweightandallottedto1of6diets.Therewere6pigsperpenand6penspertreatment.Eachpen(5×5ft)contained1self-feederand1nipplewaterertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.PigswerehousedintheK-StateSwineTeachingandResearchCenter.

The6experimentaldietswere:(1)controldietcontainingnospecialtyproteinsourcesandthecontroldietwith(2)4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2,(3)4%SDAPduringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,(4)4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2,(5)4%Peptone1duringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,and(6)4%Peptone1duringPhase1and2%Peptone1duringPhase2(Table2).Phase1dietswerefedfromd0to10,Phase2dietswerefedfrom10to20d,andthenallpigswerefedacommondietwith-outanyspecialtyproteinsourcesfor7d.Alldietswerefedinmealform.Averagedailygain,ADFI,andF/Gweredeterminedbyweighingpigsandmeasuringfeeddisappear-anceond5,10,17,20,and27ofthetrial.

InExp.2,atotalof180weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.0lb)wereusedina32-dgrowthtrial.Pigswereblockedbyweightandallottedto1of6diets.Therewere

82

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

5pigsperpenand6penspertreatment.Eachpen(5×5ft)contained1self-feederand1nipplewaterertoprovideadlibitum accesstofeedandwater.PigswerehousedintheK-StateSegregatedEarlyWeaningFacility.

The6experimentaldietswere:(1)controldietcontainingnospecialtyproteinsourcesandthecontroldietwith(2)4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2,(3)4%SDAPduringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,(3)4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2,(5)4%Peptone2duringPhase1andnospecialtyproteinsourcesduringPhase2,and(6)4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%PeptoneduringPhase2(Table2).Phase1dietswerefedfromd0to10,Phase2dietswerefedfrom10to25d,andthenallpigswerefedacommondietwithoutspecialtyproteinsourcesfor7d.Phase1and2dietswerepelleted,whereasthecommonPhase3dietwasinmealform.Averagedailygain,ADFI,andF/Gweredeterminedbyweighingpigsandmeasuringfeeddisappearanceond5,10,18,25,and32ofthetrial.Datawereanalyzedasarandomizedcompleteblockdesignwithpenastheexperimen-talunit.AnalysisofvarianceusedtheMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC)withtreatmentasafixedeffect.Pointestimationswereusedtodeterminetheeffectsoftheadditionofspecialtyproteins.MeanswereconsideredsignificantatP<0.05andtrendsatP<0.10.

Results and DiscussionCrudeproteinlevelsweresimilarbetweenthetwoPeptones,butPeptone2hadmorethan3.5percentageunitsmorelysinethanPeptone1(Table1).Peptone2alsohadgreaterThr,Met,andTrplevelsthanPeptone1.SomedifferencesinPeptonechemi-calanalysiswereexpectedbecausethetwodifferentformsofspecialtyproteinwereultra-filtratedwithdifferentfilters.However,theamplitudeofchangeinsomeaminoacidvalues,suchasLys,wassurprisinggiventhatthePeptoneshadsimilarCPlevels.Peptone2contained5percentageunitsmoremoistureandhadhighercrudefat,Na,andClconcentrationsthanPeptone1.Peptone1and2hadsimilarSlevels(4.7%).InExp.1,fromd0to10,pigsfeddifferentdietshadsimilar(P >0.10)ADG.Inaddition,pigsfedthecontroldiettendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)F/GcomparedwithpigsfeddietsincludingPeptone1(Table3).DuringPhase2(d10to20),pigspreviouslyfed4%Peptone1duringPhase1andthecontroldietduringPhase2hadimproved(P <0.05)ADGandADFIcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2(Table3).Pigspreviouslyfed4%Peptone1duringPhase1and2%Peptone1inPhase2andpigsfedthecontroldiettendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)ADGcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2.Pigspreviouslyfed4%Peptone1duringPhase1and2%Peptone2duringPhase2tendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)F/Gcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%SDAPduringPhase1andthecontroldietduringPhase2.

Duringthecommonperiod(d20to27),ADGwassimilar(P >0.54)amongpigspreviouslyfeddifferentdiets.PigspreviouslyfedthecontroldietinPhase1hadgreater(P <0.05)ADFIthanpigspreviouslyfed4%Peptone1duringPhase1andtendedtohavegreater(P <0.10)ADFIthanpigspreviouslyfedSMFM.Also,pigspreviouslyfed

83

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

4%SDAPduringPhase1andthecontroldietduringPhase2tendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)ADFIcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%Peptone1duringPhase1.Pigspreviouslyfeddietscontaining4%Peptone1duringPhase1tendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)F/Gcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%SDAPorthecontroldietduringPhase1.Overall(d0to27),pigsfedalldietshadsimilar(P >0.10)ADGandADFI.Pigspreviouslyfed4%Peptone1orSMFMduringPhase1and2%Peptone2orSMFMduringPhase2tendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)F/Gcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%SDAPduringPhase1andthecontroldietduringPhase2.

InExp.2,fromd0to10,pigsfeddietscontainingPeptone2hadimproved(P <0.10)F/Gcomparedwithpigsfedthecontroldiet(Table4).DuringPhase2(d11to25),pigsfeddifferentdietshadsimilar(P >0.14)ADGandADFI(Table4).Pigsprevi-ouslyfeddietscontaining4%SMFMorPeptone2duringPhase1and2%SMFMorPeptone2duringPhase2hadimproved(P <0.05)F/Gcomparedwithpigsfedthecontroldietandtendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)F/Gcomparedwithpigsprevi-ouslyfed4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2or4%Peptone2duringPhase1andthecontroldietduringPhase2.Duringthecommonperiod(d25to32),pigspreviouslyfed4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%Peptone2duringPhase2tendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)ADGcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2.Pigspreviouslyfeddifferentdietshadsimilar(P >0.21)ADFI.Pigspreviouslyfedthecontroldietordietscontaining4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%Peptone2duringPhase2hadimproved(P <0.05)F/G,whereaspigspreviouslyfed4%SDAPduringPhase1and2%SDAPduringPhase2tendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)F/Gcomparedwithpigspreviouslyfed4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2.Overall(d0to32),pigsfed4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%Peptone2duringPhase2hadimproved(P <0.05)ADGcomparedwithpigsfed4%SMFMduringPhase1and2%SMFMduringPhase2andtendedtohaveimproved(P <0.10)ADGcomparedwithpigsfedthecontroldiet.Pigsfedalldietshadsimilar(P >0.19)ADFI.Finally,pigsfed4%Peptone2duringPhase1and2%Peptone2duringPhase2hadimproved(P <0.05)F/Gcomparedwithpigsfedallotherdiets.

AddingSMFMresultedinnoaddedbenefittoweanlingpigdietsinthisstudy;however,supplementingdietswithSDAPyieldedmixedeffects.LittlebenefitwasseenfromaddingSDAPinExp.1.However,improvementswereseeninpigperformancewithSDAPsupplementationinExp.2.ResultsofExp.2areinagreementwithpreviousresearchthathasshownconsistentgrowthperformanceimprovementsfromsupple-mentingweanlingpigdietswithSDAP.Generally,theimprovementsinpiggrowthperformancearemoreprominentduringthefirstweekpostweaning,andthereisnoaddedbenefitinfeedingSDAPafter1wkpostweaning.Wesawasimilareffect,astherewasasignificantimprovementfromaddingSDAPfromd0to5comparedwiththecontrol,buttherewasnooverallbenefitattheendoftheexperiment.

Itisunknownwhydietswiththesameformulationyielded2differentresponsestospecialtyproteinsourcesfrom2differentgroupsofpigshousedinsimilarenviron-ments.TheonlydifferencebetweenthedietswasthatdietsinExp.1wereinmealform,

84

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

whereasthoseinExp.2werepelleted.Moreresearchisneeded,butitappearstheremaybeapotentialrelationshipbetweenpelletingandlevelofresponsetoSDAPsupplemen-tation.

AlthoughthereisnodatashowingtheeffectsofPeptoneonnurserypiggrowthperfor-mance,asimilarproteinproduct,driedporcinesolubles,hasshownconsistentimprove-mentinpigletgrowthperformance.ThePeptoneproductsevaluatedinthesestudiescanbeusedinnurserypigdietswithoutnegativelyaffectingpiggrowthperformance.Thelackofastrongpositiveresponsetoplasmaandfishmealintheseexperimentsindi-catesthatfurtherresearchiswarrantedtounderstandtheresponsetoPeptoneinmorechallengingenvironments.

85

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Analyzed composition of Peptone (as-fed basis)1

Item Peptone12 Peptone23

DM,% 96.60 91.23CP,% 74.59 74.21Crudefat,% 0.23 1.48Ash,% 16.88 17.68Ca,% 0.07 0.11P,% 0.98 1.01Na,% 5.33 6.57Cl,% 0.42 2.88S,% 4.67 4.69

Aminoacids,%Arg 3.30 4.59His 0.97 1.82Ile 2.12 3.03Leu 3.28 5.44Lys 2.70 6.35Met 0.62 1.02Phe 1.35 2.46Thr 1.99 3.01Trp 0.33 0.44Val 2.61 3.81Ala 2.63 3.49Cys 1.29 1.07Gly 6.36 5.04Orn 1.01 0.52Pro 4.25 3.63Ser 1.25 2.73Tau 0.09 0.24Tyr 1.07 2.541OnesampleofeachwasanalyzedbytheUniversityofMissouriAgriculturalExperimentStationChemicalLaboratories.2Analyzednutrientvalueswereusedindietformulation.Analyzedvaluesweresimilartothoseofspray-driedanimalplasma,andbecausestandardizedilealdigestible(SID)valueswerenotavailableforPeptone1,dietswereformulatedwithSIDpercentagesforspray-driedanimalplasma.3Analyzedaminoacidvalueswereunavailableatdietformulation.However,analyzedCPlevelsweresimilartothoseofPeptone1.Thus,dietswereformulatedwiththesamevaluesasPeptone1

.

86

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Die

t com

posi

tion

(Exp

. 1 an

d 2;

as-f

ed b

asis

)1 Phas

e12

Phas

e23

Phas

e34

Ingr

edie

nt,%

Con

trol

4%F

ishm

eal

4%S

DA

P54%

Pep

tone

1

or2

6C

ontr

ol2%

Fish

mea

l2%

SD

AP5

2%P

epto

ne

1or

26

Com

mon

Cor

n40

.08

46.5

846

.10

45.6

757

.23

60.4

560

.25

60.0

561

.18

Soyb

ean

mea

l(46

.5%

CP)

40.2

830

.35

30.3

730

.34

37.8

232

.86

32.8

732

.85

33.8

5SD

AP

------

4.00

------

---2.

00---

---Pe

pton

e---

------

4.00

------

---2.

00---

Sele

ctm

enha

den

fish

mea

l---

4.00

------

---2.

00---

------

Spra

y-dr

ied

whe

y15

.00

15.0

015

.00

15.0

0---

------

------

Soyb

ean

oil

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.00

Mon

ocal

cium

P(

21%

P)

0.93

0.45

0.70

0.83

1.15

0.90

1.00

1.08

1.65

Lim

esto

ne0.

980.

731.

151.

101.

030.

931.

131.

100.

95Sa

lt0.

300.

300.

300.

300.

300.

300.

300.

300.

35V

itam

inp

rem

ix0.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

25T

race

min

eral

pre

mix

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

L-Ly

s·HC

l0.

200.

290.

200.

400.

250.

300.

250.

350.

30D

L-M

et0.

160.

170.

140.

190.

130.

140.

120.

140.

12L-

Thr

0.08

0.14

0.05

0.16

0.10

0.13

0.09

0.14

0.11

L-V

al---

------

0.02

------

------

---Ph

ytas

e70.

090.

090.

090.

090.

090.

090.

090.

090.

09T

otal

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

00co

ntin

ued

87

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Die

t com

posi

tion

(Exp

. 1 an

d 2;

as-f

ed b

asis

)1 Phas

e12

Phas

e23

Phas

e34

Ingr

edie

nt,%

Con

trol

4%F

ishm

eal

4%S

DA

P54%

Pep

tone

1

or2

6C

ontr

ol2%

Fish

mea

l2%

SD

AP5

2%P

epto

ne

1or

26

Com

mon

Cal

cula

ted

anal

ysis8

Tot

alL

ys,%

1.61

1.60

1.60

1.59

1.49

1.48

1.48

1.48

1.42

SID

9 amin

oac

ids,

%

Lys

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.34

1.34

1.34

1.34

1.25

M

et:L

ys33

3531

3433

3531

3331

M

et&

Cys

:Lys

5858

5858

5859

5858

57

Thr:L

ys63

6363

6363

6363

6364

T

rp:L

ys19

1719

1619

1819

1718

CP,

%24

.322

.923

.323

.022

.822

.122

.322

.221

.4M

E,k

cal/

lb1,

517

1,53

01,

528

1,51

51,

530

1,53

61,

536

1,53

01,

518

SID

Lys

:ME,

g/M

cal

4.34

4.30

4.30

4.34

3.97

3.96

3.96

3.97

4.23

Ca,

%0.

800.

800.

800.

800.

750.

750.

750.

750.

80P,

%0.

690.

660.

660.

660.

660.

650.

640.

640.

75A

vaila

bleP

,%0.

480.

480.

480.

480.

420.

420.

420.

420.

421 A

tota

lof3

96n

urse

ryp

igs(

initi

alB

W1

1.9

or1

3.0

lb)w

ereu

sed

ina

25-o

r32-

dgr

owth

assa

yto

dete

rmin

ethe

effec

tofp

rote

inso

urce

on

nurs

eryp

iggr

owth

per

form

ance

.2 P

hase

1d

iets

wer

efed

from

d0

to1

0.3 P

hase

2d

iets

wer

efed

from

d1

0to

20

(Exp

.1)o

rfro

md

10

to2

5(E

xp.2

).4 P

hase

3d

iets

wer

efed

from

d2

0to

27

(Exp

.1)o

rfro

md

25

to3

2(E

xp.2

).5 S

pray

-drie

dan

imal

pla

sma

6 Pep

tone

1an

d2

wer

euse

din

Exp

.1an

d2,

resp

ectiv

ely.

7 Nat

uPho

s600

(BA

SFA

nim

alN

utrit

ion,

Mou

ntO

live,

NJ)

pro

vide

d23

1FT

U/l

b,w

itha

rele

aseo

f0.1

0%av

aila

bleP

.8 N

utrie

ntva

lues

forfi

shm

eala

ndS

DA

Pw

eref

rom

NR

C.1

998.

Nut

rient

Req

uire

men

tso

fSw

ine.

10th

ed.N

atl.

Aca

d.P

ress

,Was

hing

ton,

DC

.9 S

tand

ardi

zed

ileal

dig

estib

le.

88

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Effe

cts o

f pro

tein

sour

ce o

n nu

rser

y pig

per

form

ance

(Exp

. 1)1

Phas

e12 :

Con

trol

4%S

DA

P44%

SD

AP

4%P

epto

ne1

4%P

epto

ne1

4%F

ishm

eal

Phas

e23 :

Con

trol

Con

trol

2%S

DA

PC

ontr

ol2%

Pep

tone

12%

Fish

mea

lSE

Md

0to

10

A

DG

,lb

0.41

0.46

0.47

0.46

0.43

0.45

0.03

5

AD

FI,l

b0.

41b

0.50

ab0.

48ab

0.51

a0.

49ab

0.47

ab0.

034

F

/G1.

01a

1.09

ab1.

01a

1.12

ab1.

15b

1.03

ab0.

051

d10

to2

0

AD

G,l

b0.

72ab

0.65

ab0.

62a

0.73

b0.

73ab

0.67

ab0.

048

A

DFI

,lb

0.95

ab0.

90ab

0.84

a0.

99b

0.95

ab0.

90ab

0.05

6

F/G

1.33

1.38

1.37

1.35

1.31

1.50

0.04

0d

20to

27

A

DG

,lb

0.99

0.97

0.97

0.98

0.99

0.99

0.03

2

AD

FI,l

b2.

08a

2.02

ab2.

00ab

1.83

b1.

82b

1.87

ab0.

080

F

/G2.

102.

092.

071.

881.

851.

910.

094

d0

to2

7

AD

G,l

b0.

660.

660.

650.

690.

690.

670.

031

A

DFI

,lb

1.01

1.03

1.00

1.02

1.01

0.98

0.02

2

F/G

1.54

1.57

1.54

1.48

1.48

1.48

0.05

21 A

tota

lof2

16p

igs(

6pi

gsp

erp

enan

d6

pens

per

trea

tmen

t)w

ithan

initi

alB

Wo

f11.

9lb

wer

euse

din

a27

-dex

perim

ent.

2 Pha

se1

die

tsw

eref

edfr

omd

0to

10.

3 Pha

se2

die

tsw

eref

edfr

omd

10

to2

0.4 S

pray

-drie

dan

imal

pla

sma.

abW

ithin

aro

w,m

eans

with

outa

com

mon

supe

rscr

iptd

iffer

(P<

0.0

5).

89

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 4

. Effe

cts o

f pro

tein

sour

ce o

n nu

rser

y pig

per

form

ance

(Exp

. 2)1

Phas

e12 :

Con

trol

4%S

DA

P44%

SD

AP

4%P

epto

ne2

4%P

epto

ne2

4%F

ishm

eal

Phas

e23 :

Con

trol

Con

trol

2%S

DA

PC

ontr

ol2%

Pep

tone

22%

Fish

mea

lSE

Md

0to

10

A

DG

,lb

0.39

b0.

48a

0.41

ab0.

41ab

0.46

ab0.

40b

0.02

8

AD

FI,l

b0.

43b

0.50

a0.

45ab

0.41

b0.

43b

0.42

b0.

023

F

/G1.

12b

1.04

ab1.

11b

1.01

ab0.

95a

1.05

ab0.

044

d10

to2

5

AD

G,l

b0.

970.

960.

991.

001.

020.

990.

041

A

DFI

,lb

1.38

1.33

1.40

1.41

1.36

1.33

0.05

3

F/G

1.43

b1.

39ab

1.41

ab1.

42ab

1.33

a1.

34a

0.04

3d

25to

32

A

DG

,lb

1.32

1.33

1.31

1.35

1.39

1.23

0.08

2

AD

FI,l

b2.

002.

072.

002.

122.

072.

000.

095

F

/G1.

52a

1.56

ab1.

54ab

1.58

ab1.

50a

1.64

b0.

053

d0

to3

2

AD

G,l

b0.

87ab

0.89

ab0.

88ab

0.89

ab0.

93a

0.86

b0.

029

A

DFI

,lb

1.22

1.22

1.23

1.25

1.22

1.19

0.03

7

F/G

1.41

b1.

38b

1.40

b1.

41b

1.32

a1.

39b

0.02

01 A

tota

lof1

80p

igs(

6pi

gsp

erp

enan

d6

pens

per

trea

tmen

t)w

ithan

initi

alB

Wo

f13.

0lb

wer

euse

din

a28

-dex

perim

ent.

2 Pha

se1

die

tsw

eref

edfr

omd

0to

10.

3 Pha

se2

die

tsw

eref

edfr

omd

10

to2

5.4 S

pray

-drie

dan

imal

pla

sma.

abW

ithin

aro

w,m

eans

with

outa

com

mon

supe

rscr

iptd

iffer

(P<

0.0

5).

90

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Evaluation of PEP2 in Nursery Pig Diets1

A.J.Myers,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,S.S.Dritz2,N.W.Shelton,G.Papadopoulos,J.M.DeRouchey,J.L.Nelssen,andD.McKilligan3

SummaryAtotalof300nurserypigs(PIC327×1050,initially12.0lband21dofage)wereusedina25-dstudytodeterminetheeffectsofPEP2(proteinsenzymaticallyprocessed)ongrowthperformanceofweanedpigs.PEP2isacombinationofrefinedporcineintes-tinalmucosaco-driedwithenzymaticallyprocessedvegetableprotein.Therewere5dietarytreatments:(1)negativecontrolcontainingnospecialtyproteinsources,(2)positivecontrolcontaining4%spray-driedanimalplasma(SDAP)inPhase1and4%selectmenhadenfishmealinPhase2,(3)4%PEP2,(4)8%PEP2,and(5)12%PEP2.Alldietswerefedin2phases,andtreatmentscontainingPEP2hadthesameinclusionrateinbothphases.Phase1dietswerefedinpelletformfromd0to11afterweaning.Phase2dietswerefedinmealformfromd11to25.InPhase1,increasingPEP2improved(linear;P<0.01)F/G.However,pigsfedSDAPhadgreater(P<0.01)ADGandimprovedF/GcomparedwithpigsfedthePEP2diets.InPhase2,increas-ingPEP2increased(quadratic;P<0.01)ADG,andF/G.PigsfedPEP2hadgreater(P<0.01)ADGandADFIthanpigsfedthepositivecontroldietcontainingfishmeal.Overall(d0to25),pigsfedthepositivecontroldiethadimproved(P<0.01)ADGandF/Gcomparedwiththosefedthenegativecontrol.PigsfedthedietcontainingPEP2hadsimilarperformancetopigsfedthepositivecontroldiets.Inconclusion,althoughpigsfedSDAPinPhase1hadbetterADGandF/Gthanpigsfedtheincreas-inglevelsofPEP2,inPhase2,pigsfedPEP2hadgreaterADGandimprovedF/Gcomparedwithpigsfed4%selectmenhadenfishmeal.

Keywords:fishmeal,PEP2,spray-driedanimalplasma

IntroductionThereisacontinualsearchforqualityproteinsourcesthatcanbeusedinnurserypigdiets.Producerswantalow-costalternativetospray-driedanimalplasma(SDAP)tolowerfeedcosts,increasefeedintakeimmediatelyafterweaning,andimproveoverallnurserygrowthperformance.

PreviousresearchconductedatKansasStateUniversity(Jonesetal.,20084)foundthatnurserypigsfedacoproductofheparinproduction,whichisderivedfromporcineintestinalmucosa(DPS50;Nutra-FloCompany,SiouxCity,IA),showedimprovedgrowthperformancecomparedwithpigsfedselectmenhadenfishmeal.Recently,anew,similarproducthasbecomeavailable:PEP2(proteinsenzymaticallyprocessed;ProteinResources,WestBend,IA).Thisproteinsourceisalsoderivedfromheparin

1TheauthorswishtothankProteinResources,WestBend,IA,forprovidingthePEP2andpartialfinan-cialsupport.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.3ProteinResources,WestBend,IA.4Jonesetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.52-61.

91

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

manufacturing.Itiscomposedofablendofporcineintestinalmucosaandvegetableproteinthathasbeenenzymaticallyprocessedandthenco-dried.Becauseofimprove-mentsinthecollectionproceduresintheplant,PEP2haslowersulfurandashlevelsthanmanyofthepreviousmucosalproductsthathavebeentested.

EventhoughresearchhasindicatedimprovedgrowthperformanceinnurserypigsfedproductssimilartoPEP2,wecanonlyhypothesizethatsimilarimprovementsingrowthperformancewillbeseenwithPEP2.Thus,theobjectiveofthestudywastoevaluatetheeffectsofPEP2onweanlingpigperformance.

ProceduresTheprotocolusedinthisexperimentwasapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.ThestudywasconductedattheKansasStateUniversitySegregatedEarlyWeaningFacilityinManhattan,KS.

AsampleofPEP2 wascollectedandanalyzedforCP,crudefat,mineral,andaminoacidcontent(Table1).Thevaluesobtainedfromtheanalysiswereusedinthedietformula-tion.ThestandardizeddigestibilitiesforindividualaminoacidsinanimalplasmawereusedtoestimatethedigestibleaminoacidlevelsinPEP2.ThephosphorusinPEP2wasassumedtobe61%availablefordietformulation.

Threehundrednurserypigs(PIC337×1050,initially12.0lband21dofage)wereusedina25-dtrialtoevaluatetheeffectofPEP2ongrowthperformanceofweanedpigs.Pigswereallottedto1of5dietarytreatments.Therewere5pigsperpenand12penspertreatment.Pigswereprovidedunlimitedaccesstofeedandwaterviaa4-holedryself-feederandacupwatererineachpen(5×5ft).

The5dietarytreatmentswere:(1)negativecontrolcontainingnospecialtyproteinsources,(2)positivecontrolcontaining4%SDAPinPhase1and4%selectmenhadenfishmealinPhase2,(3)4%PEP2,(4)8%PEP2,and(5)12%PEP2.Alldietswerefedin2phases,andtreatmentscontainingPEP2hadthesameinclusionrateinbothphases.Phase1dietswerefedinpelletformfromd0to11afterweaning(Table2).Phase2dietswerefedinmealformfromd11to25(Table3).Averagedailygain,ADFI,andF/Gweredeterminedbyweighingpigsandmeasuringfeeddisappearanceond0,5,11,18,and25.

Datawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignwithpenastheexperimentalunit.AnalysisofvariancewasperformedusingtheMIXEDprocedureinSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC).Contraststatementsusedwere:(1)linearandquadraticeffectsofincreasingPEP2,(2)meanofPEP2-fedpigsvs.thatofpigsfedthepositivecontrol,and(3)positivecontrolvs.negativecontrol.

Results and DiscussionInPhase1(d0to11),pigsfedthepositivecontroldiethadimproved(P <0.04)ADGandF/Gcomparedwithpigsfedthenegativecontroldiet(Table4).Addition-ally,increasingPEP2inclusionimproved(linear;P<0.01)F/G.However,pigsfedSDAPhadgreater(P<0.05)ADGandADFIaswellasanimproved(P<0.04)F/GcomparedwithpigsfedPEP2.

92

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

DuringPhase2(d11to25),pigsfedthepositivecontroldiethadimproved(P<0.01)ADGandF/Gcomparedwithpigsfedthenegativecontroldiet.Furthermore,ADGandADFIofpigsfedPEP2weregreater(P<0.01)thanthoseforpigsfedthepositivecontroldiet(SDAPandthenswitchedtofishmealond11).IncreasingPEP2improved(quadratic;P<0.01)ADGandF/G.

Overall(d0to25),pigsfedthepositivecontroldiethadimproved(P <0.01)ADGandF/Gcomparedwithpigsfedthenegativecontroldiet.TherewerenodifferencesinADGorADFI,butF/Gimproved(P<0.02)forpigsfedSDAPfollowedbyfishmealcomparedwithpigsfedthePEP2diets.IncreasingPEP2inthedietimprovedADGandF/G(quadratic;P<0.02)comparedwiththenegativecontroldiet,withthegreat-estimprovementobservedasPEP2increasedfrom0to4%.Inconclusion,inPhase1,pigsfedSDAPhadbetterADGandF/GthanpigsfedthetreatmentscontainingPEP2.However,inPhase2,whenpigswereswitchedfromthepositivecontrol(SDAPtofishmeal),ADGandF/GimprovedforpigsfedPEP2,withthegreatestimprovementobservedinpigsfed4%PEP2.Theseresultssuggestthat4%orhigherlevelsofPEP2canreplacefishmealinPhase2dietsandthatPEP2maybeasuitablereplacementforaplasma-fishmealregimeninPhase1and2dietsforweanedpigs.

Table 1. Analyzed composition of protein enzymatically processed (PEP2)1

Nutrient % Aminoacids %DM 92.0 Arginine 3.46CP 55.2 Histidine 1.28Crudefat 11.6 Isoleucine 2.43Crudefiber 1.2 Leucine 4.22Ash 9.0 Lysine 3.70Ca 0.27 Methionine 0.88P 0.82 Phenylalnine 2.47S 1.2 Theronine 2.18

Tryptophan 0.65Valine 2.76

1AminoacidswereanalyzedbytheUniversityofMissouriAgriculturalExperimentStationChemicalLaborato-ries,andtheanalyzedvalueswereusedindietformulation.OtheranalyticalvalueswerefromMidwestLaborato-ries,Inc.

93

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Composition of diets, Phase 1 (as-fed basis)1,2

Proteinsenzymaticallyprocessed(PEP2)3

Ingredient,%Negativecontrol

Positivecontrol 4% 8% 12%

Corn 37.80 43.80 43.30 44.55 45.75Soybeanmeal,(46.5%CP) 40.40 30.50 30.50 25.30 20.10Spray-driedanimalplasma --- 4.00 --- --- ---PEP2 --- --- 4.00 8.00 12.00Spray-driedwhey 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00Soybeanoil 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00MonocalciumP(21%P) 1.40 1.18 1.40 1.30 1.25Limestone 0.88 1.05 0.93 1.00 1.03Salt 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30Zincoxide 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15LysineHCl 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.35DL-Methionine 0.16 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.21L-Threonine 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.13 0.14L-Valine --- --- 0.08 0.08 0.08Total 100 100 100 100 100

CalculatedanalysisSIDaminoacids,%4

Lysine 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45Isoleucine:lysine 65 60 59 58 57Methionine:lysine 33 30 36 36 36Met&Cys:lysine 58 58 58 58 58Threonine:lysine 62 62 62 62 62Tryptophan:lysine 19.1 18.8 17.0 17.0 16.9Valine:lysine 69 69 69 69 69Totallysine,% 1.61 1.60 1.59 1.59 1.58CP,% 24.2 23.2 22.5 22.3 22.2MEkcal/lb 1,546 1,557 1,542 1,538 1,535Ca,% 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85P,% 0.79 0.76 0.77 0.75 0.74AvailableP,% 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.481Atotalof300nurserypigs(initialBW12.0lb)wereusedina25-dtrialtodeterminetheeffectsofPEP2onnurserypiggrowthperformance.2Phase1dietswerefedfromd0to11.3ProteinResources,WestBend,IA.4AminoaciddigestibilityvaluesforplasmawereusedastheestimateofstandardizedaminoaciddigestibilityofaminoacidsinPEP2.

94

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Composition of diets, Phase 2 (as-fed basis)1,2

Proteinsenzymaticallyprocessed(PEP2)3

Ingredient,%Negativecontrol

Positivecontrol 4% 8% 12%

Corn 55.10 62.90 62.05 63.25 64.50Soybeanmeal,(46.5%CP) 40.10 28.75 28.75 23.50 18.30Spray-driedanimalplasma --- 4.00 --- --- ---PEP2 --- --- 4.00 8.00 12.00Spray-driedwhey --- --- --- --- ---Soybeanoil 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MonocalciumP(21%P) 1.60 1.10 1.55 1.53 1.45Limestone 0.92 0.72 1.02 1.05 1.10Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Zincoxide 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15LysineHCl 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35DL-Methionine 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15L-Threonine 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13L-Valine --- --- --- 0.01 0.01Total 100 100 100 100 100

CalculatedanalysisSIDaminoacids,%4

Lysine 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32Isoleucine:lysine 69 61 60 59 58Methionine:lysine 32 35 34 35 35Met&Cys:lysine 58 58 58 58 58Threonine:lysine 62 62 62 62 62Tryptophan:lysine 19.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9Valine:lysine 75 68 68 68 68Totallysine,% 1.47 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.44CP,% 23.6 21.7 21.4 21.3 21.1MEkcal/lb 1,513 1,526 1,511 1,507 1,503Ca,% 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80P,% 0.77 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.71AvailableP,% 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.421Atotalof300nurserypigs(initialBW12.0lb)wereusedina25-dtrialtodeterminetheeffectsofPEP2onnurserypiggrowthperformance.2Phase2dietswerefedfromd11to25.3ProteinResources,WestBend,IA4AminoaciddigestibilityvaluesforplasmawereusedastheestimateofstandardizedaminoaciddigestibilityofaminoacidsinPEP2.

95

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effects of proteins enzymatically processed (PEP2) on nursery pig performance1

ItemNegativecontrol2

Positivecontrol3

PEP24

SEMNegative

vs.PositivePositivevs.

PEP2P-value

4% 8% 12% Linear Quadraticd0to11

ADG,lb 0.43 0.49 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.02 0.04 <0.01 0.85 0.55ADFI,lb 0.43 0.46 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.32 0.05 0.89 0.50F/G 1.04 0.94 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.05 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.64d11to18

ADG,lb 0.82 0.88 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.03 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01ADFI,lb 1.23 1.20 1.28 1.30 1.25 0.03 0.35 <0.01 0.50 0.07F/G 1.50 1.36 1.34 1.38 1.36 0.03 <0.01 0.78 <0.01 <0.01d0to25

ADG,lb 0.65 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.02 <0.01 0.93 0.02 0.02ADFI,lb 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.02 0.74 0.27 0.64 0.35F/G 1.37 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.27 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.011Atotalof300nurserypigs(initialBW12.0lb)wereusedina25-dtrialtodeterminetheeffectsofPEP2onnurserypiggrowthperformance.2Containednospecialtyproteinproducts3Contained4%spray-driedanimalplasmainPhase1(d0to11)and4%selectmenhadenfishmealinPhase2(d11to25).4ProteinResources,WestBend,IA.

96

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Experimental Design and Its Role in Interpretation of Results

N.W.Shelton,S.S.Dritz1,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,J.L.Nelssen,J.M.DeRouchey,andL.W.Murray2

SummaryAtotalof256weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.8lband21dofage)wereusedina28-dgrowthtrialtocompareallotmentmethodsofacompletelyrandomizeddesign(CRD)andarandomizedcompleteblockdesign(RCBD).Twotreatmentswereusedtocomparethesedesigns:anegativecontrolwithnoantibioticorgrowthpromoterandapositivecontrolwith35g/tonofDenagard(NovartisAnimalHealth),400g/tonofchlortetracycline,andzincfromzincoxideat3,000and2,000ppminPhases1and2,respectively.Experimentaldietswerefedin2phases:Phase1fromd0to14andPhase2fromd14to28.Eightreplicationsofeachdietarytreatmentwereusedforeachexperimentaldesign.Thefirststatisticalmodelexamineddietarytreat-ment,experimentaldesign,andthedesign×dietarytreatmentasfixedfactors.WiththeexceptionofpensintheCRDhavingatrendforimproved(P < 0.07)F/Gfromd0to14comparedwithpensintheRCBD,nootherdesignordesign×dietarytreatmentdifferencesweredetected(P >0.11)foranyresponsesvariables,indicatingthattreat-mentmeansreactedsimilarlyineachoftheexperimentaldesigns.

InboththeCRDandtheRCBD,pigweightswereincreased(P <0.003)withsupple-mentationofgrowthpromotersond14and28.VariationofweightwithinpenremainedthesameintheCRDfromd0to28atapproximately20%butincreasedfrom3%ond0to10%ond28fortheRCBD.Dietaryadditionofgrowthpromotersincreased(P <0.003)ADGandADFIandimprovedF/G(P <0.04)inboththeCRDandRCBDfromd0to14,withlowerP-valuesfortheCRDthantheRCBD.Fromd14to28,theCRDdetectedanincrease(P <0.001)inADGandADFIwithdietaryadditionofgrowthpromoters,andtheRCBDdetectedanincrease(P <0.001)onlyinADFI.Overtheentire28-dtrial,growthpromotersincreased(P <0.001)ADGandADFIandimproved(P <0.03)F/GintheCRDandincreased(P <0.02)ADGandADFIintheRCBD.LowerstandarderrorsforthedifferencewerealsoestimatedforADGandF/GintheCRDthanintheRCBDfromd0to28.

Theaveragecorrectedrelativeefficiencyforeachofthethreeperiodswas2.08forADG,5.05forADFI,and0.80forF/G.ThegainandintakevaluessuggestthattheaddedvariationexplainedbyblocksintheRCBDwasbeneficialforachievingamorereducedestimateofσ2

errorcomparedwithanalyzingthatparticulardatasetasaCRD.Thevari-anceratiosoftheCRDtoRCBDfromd0to28depictthedifferentresponseswellwithADGat0.67,ADFIat1.70,andF/Gat0.22.WhentheseratioswerecomparedwithanF-test,theywerewellbelowtheuppercriticallimitof4.60,suggestingthattheCRDofferedestimatesforσ2

errorsimilartothoseoftheRCBD.Withthesameestimateforσ2

error,thenon-centralityparameterforeachdesignwouldbesimilar,andtherefore,theincreaseindegreesoffreedom(DF)fortheerrortermwouldleadtogreaterpower1FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.2DepartmentofStatistics,KansasStateUniversity.

97

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

todetectdifferencesintheCRD.AdditionalstudiesareneededtoverifytheseresultsanddeterminewhetherblockingisanefficientuseoferrorDF.

Keywords:allotment,experimentaldesign,datainterpretation

IntroductionExperimentaldesignisamajorfactorthatmustbeconsideredwhenplanningresearchtrials.Theprimarydesignsusedinswineproductionandnutritionresearchincludethecompletelyrandomizeddesign(CRD)andtherandomizedcompleteblockdesign(RCBD).Modificationsoradditionstothesedesignscanbeperformedtogeneratemorecomplexdesigns,suchasaLatinsquare,thattypicallyareusedinspecificinstanceswhenexperimentalunitsarelimited.Oneofthemainfunctionsoftheexperimentaldesignistodictatetheprocessofallottingtreatmentstoexperimentalunits(EU).Butnomatterwhatdesignisused,itisimportanttobalancestudiesbyhavingequalrepli-cationofeachtreatmentfactortomaximizethepoweravailabletodetecttreatmentdifferences.

TheCRDisthesimplestofalldesigns;treatmentsareallottedtoEUindependentlyofanyfactors.Thisdesignallowsforthemostdegreesoffreedom(DF)fortheerrorterminthemodeltotestfortreatmentdifferences.However,theCRDcanbeunreli-ableiftheEUarenothomogenous.Non-homogeneityofEUcancauseinflatederrorvariancecomponentsandcanincreasethechanceofatype2error.IntheRCBD,treatmentsareallottedtoEUonthebasisofsomefactor,commonlyreferredtoastheblockingfactor,whichshouldreducetheerrorvarianceiftheblockingfactorisimpor-tant.TheblockingfactorgroupsEUbasedonthatparticularfactorintoablock,witheachtreatmenthavingaminimumofoneEUineachblock.TheprimaryfunctionofblockingistoobtaingroupsofhomogenousEU.Blockingfactorsvaryaccordingtothetypeoftrialandmaybedifferentdependingonthedesiredtreatmentstructures.Oneoftheassumptionsinthisdesignisthattreatmentswouldrespondsimilarlyineachblockorthattherewerenotrueblock×treatmentinteractionsbecausethemeansquarecalculatedastheblock×treatmentsourceestimatestheerrorvariancestructureforthemodel.Onewaytoexaminetheblockingfactor’seffectivenessistodetermineitsrelativeefficiency(RE).RelativeefficiencyisacalculationperformedafterthetrialiscompletedtoshowtheratiobetweenanestimatederrortermifthestudywereconductedasaCRDandtheerrortermfortheRCBD.ItalsodescribestheincreasednumberofexperimentalunitsthatareneededinaCRDtoachievethesameerrorvari-ancecomponenttermasinaRCBD.Forexample,iftheREforaparticularresponsevariablewascalculatedtobe2.00,onecouldassumethattheestimatefortheerrorvari-ancecomponentwas2.00timesgreaterintheCRDthantheRCBD,andtheoretically,theCRDwouldneedtwiceasmanyexperimentalunitstoachievethesameestimateerrorvariancecomponentasaRCBD.

Ithasbeenacommonpracticetoblocknurserystudiestoachieveareducedestimatefortheerrorcomponentofanexperiment.Oftenthesestudiesareblockedsimulta-neouslybylocationinthebarnandinitialweight.Bothofthesefactorscouldaffectperformanceandaffecttheinterpretationofresultsifnotequalizedacrosstreatments.ThemaingoalofthistrialwastodeterminetheimpactofblockingbyinitialBWandlocationontrialinterpretation.

98

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

ProceduresTheproceduresusedinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.ThestudywasconductedattheKansasStateUniversitySwineTeachingandResearchCenterinManhattan,KS.

Atotalof256weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.8lband21dofage)wereusedina28-dgrowthtrialtocompareallotmentmethodsofaCRDandaRCBD.Twotreatmentswereusedtocomparethesedesigns:anegativecontrolwithnoantibioticorgrowthpromoterandapositivecontrolwithgrowthpromotinglevelsofantibioticsandpharmacologicallevelsofzinc.Thepositivecontrolcontained35g/tonofDenagard(NovartisAnimalHealth),400g/tonofchlortetracycline,andzincfromzincoxideat3,000and2,000ppminPhases1and2,respectively.Experimentaldietswerefedin2phases:Phase1fromd0to14andPhase2fromd14to28(Table1).Phase1and2dietswerefedinmealformandformulatedtocontain1.41%and1.31%standardizedilealdigestiblelysine,respectively.Phase1dietscontained15%spray-driedwheyand3.75%fishmeal,andPhase2dietswerebasedoncornandsoybeanmeal.Eightreplica-tionsofeachdietarytreatmentwereusedforeachexperimentaldesign.

Fortheallottingofpens,agroupof4penslocatedinthesamelocationwererandom-izedsuchthat2penswouldbeusedintheCRD,2penswouldbeusedintheRCBD,andtheRCBDpenswouldcontaineachofthe2dietarytreatments.Thiswasperformedthroughoutbarn,andattheconclusionofallottingpenstodesigns,allpensontheCRDwererandomizedtotreatmentswithequalreplication.Fortheallottingofpigstopens,initiallyweanedpigsweresplittoeachofthe2designssuchthateachdesignwouldhaveequalweightsandvariationsofweightsforallpigs.Inaddition,toreduceanybias,bothgenderandlitterwerebalancedbetweenexperimentaldesigns.PigsassignedtotheCRDwereallottedtopenssothattheaverageweightandwithin-penvariationofweightweresimilarbetweenallpens.PigsintheRCBDwereblockedbyweightandputintothelocationblocks.

Eachpencontaineda4-holedryselffeederandanipplewaterertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Penshadwire-meshfloorandallowedforapproximately3ft2/pig.Weightsandfeeddisappearanceweremeasuredevery14dtodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.Inaddition,variationofpigweightwithinpenwasexaminedbycomparingtheCV.Afterstatisticswereanalyzedforeachdesign,uncorrectedandcorrectedREwerecalculatedfromtheRCBDforthegrowthperformanceresponses.TheuncorrectedREwasdeterminedbydividinganestimatedCRDerrorvarianceterm(σ2

error)bytheσ2errorfortheRCBD.ThecorrectedREwasderivedbymultiplyingthe

uncorrectedREandacorrectionforDFvalue.AmoredetaileddescriptionofthesecalculationsandtermsisavailablebyKuehl(20003).InadditiontotheRE,anF-testwasconductedfortheratiooftheCRDerrorvariancecomponenttotheRCBDerrorvariancecomponent.ThisF-testwasa2-tailedtestandusedtheCRDerrorDFforthenumeratorandtheRCBDerrorDFforthedenominator.Thelowercriticallimitwassetat0.30,andtheuppercriticallimitwasat4.60.

3Kuehl,R.O.2000.DesignofExperiments:StatisticalPrinciplesofResearchDesignandAnalysis.DuxburyPress,PacificGrove,CA.pp.272-275.

99

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

ThreedifferentSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)modelswereusedtodescribetheeffectsofexperimentaldesignontrialinterpretation.ThefirstmodeluseddatacombinedfromtheCRDandRCBDandwasanalyzedasa2×2factorialdesignwiththe2experimentaldesigns(CRDorRCBD)andthe2dietarytreatmentstreatedasfixedfactorswithnorandomeffects.Theremainingmodelswereusedtoanalyzeeachofthe2designsindependently.ThemodelfortheCRDusedthedietarytreatmentasafixedeffectwitharandomeffectofpenwithindietarytreatment.FortheRCBD,dietarytreatmentwasagainusedasafixedeffect,blockwasusedasarandomeffect,andtheblock×dietarytreatmentwasusedasarandomeffecttoestimatetheerrorvariancecomponent.Foreachmodel,penwasusedastheexperimentalunitandanalysisofvari-ance(ANOVA)wasconductedusingtheMIXEDprocedureinSAS.

Results and DiscussionTheresultsfromthefirstmodel(Table2)useddatasetsfrombothdesigns.Thismodelexamineddietarytreatment,experimentaldesign,andthedesign×dietarytreatmentasfixedfactorswithnoblockingfactors.Equalvariancewasassumedforbothexperimen-taldesigns;however,itcouldbethatthese2designshaveunequalvariances.Themainfocusofthismodelwastodetermineifthetreatmentsmeansbehavedsimilarlyineachdesignandifoverallperformancedifferedineachexperimentaldesign.Withtheexcep-tionofpensintheCRDhavingatrendforimproved(P < 0.07)F/Gfromd0to14comparedwithpensintheRCBD,nootherdesignordesign×dietarytreatmentdiffer-encesweredetected(P >0.11)foranyresponsesvariables.Onthebasisoftheseresults,itappearsthattreatmentmeansweresimilarineachoftheexperimentaldesigns.

Afterdeterminingthatperformancewassimilarbetweentreatmentsineachoftheexperimentaldesigns,modelsweregeneratedtoevaluatetheeffectsofeachdesignsepa-rately.ExamplesoftheANOVAtablesforboththeCRDandRCBDareshownforoverallADG(d0to28)inTables3and4,respectively.ThevariancetermusedtotestfortreatmenteffectsislabeledasPen(Treatment)intheCRDandTreatment×BlockintheRCBD.ItisalsoimportanttodeterminethedifferenceinDFfortheerrortermofeachdesign.TheerrortermfortheCRDhas14DF,andthatfortheRCBDdesignhas7DF.ThisdifferencewillaffectthepoweroftheF-testintheANOVAmodelforeachdesign.TheerrorDFareusedasthedenominatorDFintheANOVAF-test,anddecreasingtheDFwilldecreasethepowertodetectdifferences,allthingsbeingequal.However,ifblockingdecreasestheestimateofσ2

error,powerwillincreasebyincreasingthenon-centralityparameter.Typically,thelossofDFismorethancompensatedbytheincreaseinthenon-centralityparameter,therebymakingtheblockdesignanadvan-tageoususeofthoseDF.

InboththeCRDandtheRCBD,pigweightswereincreased(P <0.003)withsupple-mentationofgrowthpromotersond14and28(Table5).Variationofpigweightwithinpendidnotdiffer(P >0.52)ond0,14,or28withtheadditionofgrowthpromotersineitherexperimentaldesign.However,intheCRD,variationofweightwithinpenremainedthesamefromd0to28atapproximately20%butincreasedfrom3%ond0to10%ond28fortheRCBD.Thedifferenceinwithin-penvaria-tionbetweenthe2designsisreflectiveoftheallotmentofpigstoEU.Theincreaseinwithin-penvariationwhenpigsbeginwithmoreuniformweightvariation(RCBD)isinagreementwithotherstudies.

100

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Dietaryadditionofgrowthpromotersincreased(P <0.003)ADGandADFIandimprovedF/G(P <0.04)inboththeCRDandRCBDfromd0to14(Table6).TheP-valueswerelowerintheCRDthantheRCBDbecauseoftheincreaseindenomina-torDFusedintheANOVAmodelandsimilarstandarderrorfordifferenceinmeans(SED).Fromd14to28,theCRDdetectedanincrease(P <0.001)inADGandADFIwithdietaryadditionofgrowthpromoters,andtheRCBDdetectedanincrease(P <0.001)onlyinADFI.ThereasonwhytheRCBDdidnotdetect(P >0.10)animprovementinADGwithpromoterswasanincreaseintheSEDcomparedwiththatfortheCRD.Overtheentire28-dtrial,growthpromotersincreased(P <0.001)ADGandADFIandimproved(P <0.03)F/GintheCRD.However,fortheRCBD,onlyADGandADFIwereincreased(P <0.02).Fortheentiretrial,reducedSEDwerealsoestimatedforADGandADFIintheCRDcomparedwiththeRCBD.

TheeffectsofexperimentaldesignonthevariancecomponentsandREforeachoftheperformanceresponsesareshowninTable7.Itshouldbenotedthattheσ2

errorand

σ2blockareestimatesofthetruevariationcomponentsfortheentirepopulationofEU.

OnthebasisoftheseestimatesintheRCBD,theREaswellasaratioofthevariancecomponentsbetweenthe2experimentaldesignswerecalculated.TheuncorrectedRErangedfrom0.65to10.63,andthecorrectedRErangedfrom0.59to9.64foreachofthegrowthresponses.EachofthethreeresponsecriteriaseemedtofollowapatternforREregardlessofthetimeperiod.TheaveragecorrectedREforeachofthe3periodswas2.08forADG,5.05forADFI,and0.80forF/G.ThegainandintakevaluessuggestthattheaddedvariationexplainedbyblocksintheRCBDwasbeneficialforachievingamorereducedestimateofσ2

errorcomparedtoanalyzingthatparticulardatasetasaCRD.However,whenadifferentallotmentschemewasperformedintheCRD,thevarianceratiooftheCRDtotheRCBDrangedfrom0.22to3.50.Theratiosfromd0to28depictthedifferentresponseswell,withADGat0.67,ADFIat1.70,andF/Gat0.22.ThesesuggestthatunderaCRDallotmentperformedinthismanner,anestimateforσ2

errorwasobtainedthatwassimilartothatfortheRCBD.

Thevarianceratiobetweenthe2designsindicatedthattheCRDestimatedσ2errorvalues

foreachresponsevariablesimilartothosefortheRCBD.Comparedwiththecriticallimitsof0.30and4.60foranF-testbetweenthe2variancecomponents,thelackofdifferencebecomesevenclearer.ObservedvaluesgreaterthantheupperlimitwouldsuggestthattheRCBDhadareducedestimateforσ2

error.Novalueswerenearinprox-imitytotheupperlimit.However,ratiosforF/Gfromd14to28andd0to28werebelowthelowerlimit,suggestingtheCRDhadreducedestimatesforσ2

errorcomparedwiththeRCBD.Ifblockinghadbeeneffective,itshouldbeexpectedtoobservethevarianceratiosabovetheuppercriticallimit.

Thisexperimentalsosuggeststhatusingageneralizedblockdesign,whichhasmorethan1replicationperblock,maybeastrategytoincreasehomogeneityofEUbutreducethenumberofDFassignedtoblocks.Thisgeneralizedblockdesignwouldalsoallowfortestingofinteractionsbetweentreatmentsandblockingfactors.Researchhasshownthatvariousproductsmaybehavedifferentlyamongdifferentweightgroupsofpigs.Toestimatethisresponse,aweight×treatmentinteractiontermisneededinthestatisticalmodel,andthegeneralizedblockdesignwouldaccommodatethatparticularterm.

101

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Inconclusion,researcherswhotypicallyblockpigsbyweightorsomeotherfactorcanuseREtodeterminewhetherblockingoffersbetterestimatesforσ2

errorthanaCRD.Relativeefficiencyisaquickmethodofquantifyingthebenefitreceivedfromablock-ingfactor.Thissinglestudysuggeststhatforthisnurseryfacilityinwhichresearcherscancontrolthehomogeneityoftheaveragepenpigweight,theCRDestimatesforσ2

erroraresimilartothoseinaRCBD.Withthesameestimateforσ2

error,thenon-centralityparameterforeachdesignwouldbesimilar,andtherefore,theincreaseinDFfortheerrortermwouldleadtoagreaterpowertodetectdifferencesamongtreatments.Addi-tionalstudiesareneededtoverifytheseresultsaswellastocomparedesignsindifferentfacilitiesandstagesofproductiontodeterminewhetherblockingisanefficientuseoferrorDF.

102

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of diets1

Phase12 Phase23

Growthpromoters4 No Yes   No YesIngredient,%      Corn 49.19 48.15   61.07 60.17Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 28.98 29.06   34.97 35.03Spray-driedwhey 15.00 15.00   --- ---Selectmenhadenfishmeal 3.75 3.75   --- ---MonocalciumP(21%P) 1.05 1.05   1.60 1.60Limestone 0.70 0.70   1.10 1.10Salt 0.33 0.33   0.33 0.33Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25   0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15   0.15 0.15LysineHCl 0.30 0.30   0.30 0.30DL-methionine 0.175 0.175   0.125 0.125L-threonine 0.125 0.125   0.110 0.110Zincoxide --- 0.384   --- 0.256Denagard --- 0.175   --- 0.175Chlortetracycline --- 0.400   --- 0.400Total 100.00 100.00   100.00 100.00

Calculatedanalysis          SID5aminoacids,%          Lysine 1.41 1.41   1.31 1.31Isoleucine:lysine 60 60   63 63Leucine:lysine 120 120   129 129Methionine:lysine 36 36   33 33Met&Cys:lysine 58 58   58 58Threonine:lysine 62 62   62 62Tryptophan:lysine 17 17   18 18Valine:lysine 65 65   69 69Totallysine,% 1.55 1.55   1.45 1.45ME,kcal/lb 1,495 1,495   1,495 1,495SIDlysine:ME,g/Mcal 4.28 4.28   3.97 3.97CP,% 22.3 22.3   21.9 21.9Ca,% 0.88 0.88   0.85 0.85P,% 0.78 0.78   0.75 0.75AvailableP,% 0.50 0.50   0.42 0.42AvailableP:calorie,g/Mcal 1.51 1.51   1.26 1.261Atotalof256weanlingpigs(PIC,initially13.3lband21dofage)wereusedina28-dtrialtocomparetheeffectsofexperimentaldesignondatainterpretation.2PigswerefedPhase1fromd0to14.3PigswerefedPhase2fromd14to28.4Growthpromotersincludedzincfromzincoxideat3,000ppminPhase1and2,000ppminPhase2,Denagardat35g/ton,andchlortetracyclineat400g/ton.5Standardizedilealdigestible.

103

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Effects of experimental design on nursery performance1

Design Probability,P<

Item CRD2 RCBD3 SEDDesign×

Treatment Design Treatmentd0to14ADG,lb 0.49 0.47 0.027 0.45 0.44 0.001ADFI,lb 0.58 0.58 0.030 0.65 1.00 0.001F/G 1.20 1.24 0.023 0.70 0.07 0.001d14to28ADG,lb 1.07 1.07 0.045 0.44 0.99 0.006ADFI,lb 1.56 1.55 0.058 0.85 0.81 0.001F/G 1.46 1.45 0.021 0.16 0.68 0.14d0to28ADG,lb 0.78 0.77 0.033 0.39 0.73 0.001ADFI,lb 1.07 1.06 0.042 0.72 0.83 0.001F/G 1.38 1.38 0.016 0.12 0.67 0.38Weights,lbd0 13.8 13.8 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99d14 20.7 20.4 1.26 0.80 0.79 0.04d28 35.6 35.5 1.89 0.70 0.92 0.021Atotalof256weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.8lb)wereusedina28-dstudywith8pigsperpentodeterminetheeffectofexperimentaldesignontrialinterpretation.2Completelyrandomizeddesign.3Randomizedcompleteblockdesign.

Table 3. Analysis of variance table for the completely randomized design for ADG from d 0 to 28

Source DFSumofsquares

Meansquare Fvalue Pr>F

Treatment 1 0.090671 0.090671 31.1 <0.0001Pen(treatment) 14 0.040849 0.002918Correctedtotal 15 0.131520

Table 4. Analysis of variance table for the randomized complete block design for ADG from d 0 to 28

Source DFSumofsquares

Meansquare FValue Pr>F

Treatment 1 0.042007 0.042007 9.7 0.0171Block 7 0.096222 0.013746Treatment×Block 7 0.030423 0.004346Correctedtotal 15 0.168151

104

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 5

. Effe

cts o

f exp

erim

enta

l des

ign

and

the a

dditi

on o

f gro

wth

pro

mot

ers o

n pi

g w

eigh

ts an

d va

riat

ion

in p

ig w

eigh

t with

in p

ens1

Com

plet

elyr

ando

miz

edd

esig

nR

ando

miz

edco

mpl

eteb

lock

des

ign

Gro

wth

pro

mot

er2 :

No

Yes

SED

Prob

abili

ty,P

< 

No

Yes

SED

Prob

abili

ty,P

<d

0

Avg

.wt,

lb13

.813

.80.

030.

8713

.813

.80.

010.

64

Avg

.pen

CV

forp

igw

t,%

320

.320

.80.

720.

523.

13.

10.

120.

99d

14

Avg

.wt,

lb19

.521

.80.

390.

001

19.5

21.3

0.27

0.00

1

Avg

.pen

CV

forp

igw

t,%

320

.420

.70.

800.

679.

510

.41.

670.

64d

28

Avg

.wt,

lb33

.537

.70.

750.

001

33.9

37.1

1.87

0.00

3

Avg

.pen

CV

forp

igw

t,%

318

.618

.41.

210.

89 

10.2

9.6

1.20

0.63

1 Ato

talo

f256

wea

nlin

gpig

s(PI

CT

R4

×10

50,i

nitia

lly1

3.8

lb2

1d

ofag

e)w

ereu

sed

ina

28-d

stud

ywith

8p

igsp

erp

ento

det

erm

inet

heeff

ecto

fexp

erim

enta

ldes

ign

ontr

iali

nter

pret

atio

n.2 G

row

thp

rom

oter

sinc

lude

dzi

ncfr

omzi

nco

xide

at3

,000

ppm

inP

hase

1an

d2,

000

ppm

inP

hase

2,D

enag

ard

at3

5g/

ton,

and

chlo

rtet

racy

clin

eat4

00g/

ton.

3 D

epic

tsth

ein-

pen

varia

tion

inp

igw

eigh

tfor

each

des

ign

and

trea

tmen

tcom

bina

tion.

105

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 6. Effects of experimental design on interpretation of the growth effects of addition of growth promters1

Completelyrandomizeddesign   RandomizedcompleteblockdesignGrowthpromoter2: No Yes SED Probability,P<   No Yes SED Probability,P<

d0to14                  

ADG,lb 0.41 0.57 0.029 0.001   0.41 0.54 0.019 0.003

ADFI,lb 0.51 0.65 0.034 0.001   0.52 0.64 0.028 0.003F/G 1.24 1.15 0.029 0.007   1.28 1.20 0.029 0.04

d14to28                  

ADG,lb 1.00 1.14 0.030 0.001   1.03 1.11 0.044 0.11

ADFI,lb 1.46 1.67 0.044 0.001   1.46 1.65 0.024 0.001F/G 1.46 1.46 0.018 0.91   1.42 1.48 0.037 0.14

d0to28                  

ADG,lb 0.70 0.85 0.027 0.001   0.72 0.82 0.033 0.02

ADFI,lb 0.98 1.16 0.037 0.001   0.99 1.14 0.029 0.002F/G 1.40 1.36 0.016 0.03   1.38 1.39 0.026 0.681Atotalof256weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.8lb21dofage)wereusedina28-dstudywith8pigsperpentodeterminetheeffectofexperimentaldesignontrialinterpretation.2Growthpromotersincludedzincfromzincoxideat3,000ppminPhase1and2,000ppminPhase2,Denagardat35g/ton,andchlortetracy-clineat400g/ton.

Table 7. Effects of experimental design on the variance components and estimation of the error terms1

Design: CRD2   RCBD3 UncorrectedRE4

CorrectedRE5

VarianceratioCRD:RCBD6Variancecomponents: σ2

error   σ2block σ2

error

d0to14              

ADG,lb 0.0033   0.0027 0.0015 2.67 2.42 2.20

ADFI,lb 0.0047   0.0036 0.0031 2.07 1.87 1.51F/G 0.0033   0.0008 0.0033 1.23 1.11 1.00d14to28              

ADG,lb 0.0036   0.0099 0.0076 2.21 2.01 0.47

ADFI,lb 0.0079   0.0233 0.0023 10.63 9.64 3.50F/G 0.0013   -0.0019 0.0075 0.76 0.69 0.17d0to28              

ADG,lb 0.0029   0.0047 0.0043 2.01 1.82 0.67ADFI,lb 0.0055   0.0105 0.0033 4.01 3.64 1.70F/G 0.0010   -0.0016 0.0044 0.65 0.59 0.221Atotalof256weanlingpigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.8lb21dofage)wereusedina28-dstudywith8pigsperpentodeterminetheeffectofexperimentaldesignontrialinterpretation.2Completelyrandomizeddesign.3Randomizedcompleteblockdesign.4Uncorrectedrelativeefficiency=estimatedσ2

errorforCRD/σ2errorforRCBDandestimatedσ2

errorforCRD=(SSblock+r(t-1)MSE)/(rt-1)wherer=thenumberofblocksandt=thenumberoftreatments.5Correctedrelativeefficiency=uncorrectedrelativeefficiency×degreesoffreedomcorrection,andthedegreesoffreedomcorrec-tion=(dfforRCBD+1)(dfforCRD+3)/(dfforRCBD+3)(dfforCRD+1).6VarianceratioCRD:RCBD=σ2

errorforCRD/σ2errorforRCBD.

106

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Efficacy of Different Commercial Phytase Sources and Development of a Phosphorus Release Curve1

C.K.Jones,M.D.Tokach,B.W.Ratliff2,N.L.Horn3,S.S.Dritz4,R.D.Goodband,J.M.DeRouchey,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryTwoexperimentsused184pigs(PIC,22.7and21.3lbBW,respectively)todevelopanavailableP (aP)releasecurveforcommercialphytaseproducts.InExp.1and2,pigswerefedabasaldiet(0.06%aP)and2levelsofaddedaPfrominorganicP (monocal-ciumP)todevelopastandardcurve.InExp.1,100,175,250,or500phytaseunits(FTU)/kgOptiPhos(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN)or200,350,500or1,000FTU/kgPhyzymeXP (DaniscoAnimalNutrition,Marlborough,UK)wasaddedtothebasaldiet.InExp.2,250,500,750,or1,000FTU/kgOptiPhos;500,1,000,or1,500FTU/kgPhyzymeXP;or1,850or3,700phytaseunits(FYT)/kgRonozymeP (DSMNutritionalProducts,Basel,Switzerland),wasaddedtothebasaldiet.Manufacturer-guaranteedphytaselevelswereusedindietformulation.DietswereanalyzedforphytaseusingboththePhytexandAOACmethods.Pigswereblockedbysexandweightandallottedtoindividualpenswith8penspertreatment.Pigswereeuthanizedond21,andfibulaswereanalyzedforboneash.InExp.1,pigsfedincreasingmonocalciumP hadimproved(linear;P =0.01)ADG,G/F,andpercentageboneash.Similarly,pigsfedincreasingmonocalciumP inExp.2tendedtohaveimproved(quadratic;P =0.09)ADGinadditiontosignificantlyimproved(linear;P ≤0.001)G/Fandpercentageboneash.InExp.1,pigsfedincreasingOptiPhoshadincreased(linear;P ≤0.02)ADG,G/F,andpercentageboneash.Likewise,pigsfedincreasingOptiPhosinExp.2hadimproved(linear;P ≤0.001)ADGandG/F,aswellasincreased(quadratic;P ≤0.001)percentageboneash.InExp.1,pigsfedincreasingPhyzymeXP hadincreased(linear;P ≤0.04)ADGandG/Fandtendedtohaveimproved(linear;P =0.06)percentageboneash.PigsfedincreasingPhyzymeXP inExp.2hadincreased(quadratic;P ≤0.001)G/Fandpercentageboneash.InExp.2,pigsfedincreasingRonozymeP hadimproved(linear;P ≤0.001)ADGinadditiontoincreased(quadratic;P ≤0.03)G/Fandpercentageboneash.WhenAOACanalyzedvaluesandboneashareusedastheresponsevariable,aP releaseforupto1,000FTU/kgofEscherichia coli-derivedphytases(OptiPhosandPhyzymeXP)canbepredictedbytheequation(y=-0.000000125x2+0.000236245x+0.015482000),wherexisthephytaselevelinthediet.

Key words: bone strength, phytase, phytase source

1AppreciationisexpressedtoJBSUnitedforprovidingthepigsandfacilitiesandforpartialfundingofthistrial.2EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN.3JBSUnited,Sheridan,IN.4FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

107

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

IntroductionPhosphorusisoneofthemostsignificantmineralsinswinenutrition.Itisessentialforbonedevelopment,playsakeyroleinmetabolicprocessessuchastheformationofcellularmembranes,andisvitalforenzymaticsystemsinvolvedinfatandcarbohydratemetabolism.

Incerealgrainsandoilseedmeals,alargeamountofPisintheformofphyticacid(myo-inositolhexaphosphate).ThePinphyticacidislargelyunavailabletothepig.Thus,aphytaseenzymeisaddedtodietstoenhancethepig’sabilitytouseP fromphyticacid.Manytrialshavebeenconductedtoevaluatedifferentsourcesofthephytaseenzyme,includingsomeprominentversionsoftheenzymeobtainedfromEsch-erichia coliorAspergillus oryzae.

Becausemanufacturershavetheirownindividualanalyticaltechniques,itisoftenconfusingtocomparephytasesourcesbyasingleanalyticalmethod.Toavoidthisconfusion,thecurrentstudyusedinclusionratesasdirectedbytheproductlabels,whichgivesfield-applicableavailableP (aP)releasevalues.Tofurtherclarifycompari-sons,thecurrentindustrystandardanalysis(AOAC)wasalsoconductedonallphytasesamples.

CurrentdatafromJBSUniteddemonstratesthat0.12%aP canbereplacedinacorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwith250phytaseunits(FTU)/kgOptiPhos(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN).RecommendationsforPhyzymeXP (DaniscoAnimalNutrition,Marlborough,UK)andRonozymeP (DSMNutritionalProducts,Basel,Switzerland)arethat500FTU/kgor1,850phytaseunits(FYT)/kg,respectively,shouldbeusedtoreplace0.10%aP.Phytasemaybeaddedatlevelslessthanthatneededtoreplacethe0.12%or0.10%P.However,moredataisneededtodeterminearesponsecurveforOptiPhos,PhyzymeXP,andRonozymeP.ThedevelopmentofdoseresponsecurvesforP releasecouldallowtheoptimumuseofthedifferentsourcesoftheenzymeatalllevels.

OurobjectivesforthesetrialsweretoevaluatetheeffectsofthreedifferentsourcesofcommerciallyavailablephytaseonlatenurserypigperformanceandtodevelopaP releasecurve.

ProceduresInExp.1,atotalof88barrows(initially22.7lb)wereusedina21-dgrowthtrial.Pigswereblockedbyweightandallottedto1of11dietarytreatments.InExp.2,atotalof104pigs(initially21.3lb)wereusedina21-dgrowthtrial.Pigswereblockedbysexandweightandallottedto1of13dietarytreatments.Inbothexperiments,therewas1pigperpenand8penspertreatment.Eachpen(31.6×39in.)containeda2-hole,dryself-feederandanipplewatertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Thestudywasconductedin4adjacentroomsintheDiscoveryNurseryatJBSUnited’sBurtonRussellResearchFarminFrankfurt,IN.Samplesofphytaseandinorganicphosphoruspremixesandcompletefeedweretakenatthetimeofdietpreparationandanalyzedforphytase.

108

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Acommonstarterdiet(mealform)containing0.06%aP wasfedtopigsfor6dpriortotheexperimentwhilepigswerebeingacclimatedtothebarn.InExp.1and2,pigswerefedabasaldiet(0.06%aP)and2levelsofaddedaP monocalciumP (0.075and0.15forExp.1and0.07and0.14forExp.2)todevelopastandardcurve.InExp.1,100,175,250,or500FTU/kgOptiPhosor200,350,500,or1,000FTU/kgPhyzymeXP wasaddedtothebasaldiet.InExp.2,250,500,750,or1,000FTU/kgOptiPhos;500,1,000,or1,500FTU/kgPhyzymeXP;or1,850or3,700FYT/kgRonozymeP wasaddedtothebasaldiet.

InExp.1,alltreatmentdietswereconstructedfromasinglebasaldiet(Table1)madeintwobatchesattheKansasStateUniversity(K-State)AnimalScienceFeedMill.Eachbagwasmarkedwithbatchandbaggingorder.Thefirst3andlast2bagsofeachbatchwerenotusedindietpreparation.IndividualtreatmentsweremixedfromthebasaldietattheK-StatePoultryFeedMill.Atotalof197.5lbofeachbatchofthebasaldietwereusedtocreate395lbofeachtreatmentdiet.Eachofthe2batchescontributed98.75lb(atotalof197.5lb)andwasmixedfor2min.Fivepounds(2lbphytasepremixand3lbP premix)ofpremixwasaddedtothemixerwhilethemixerhandswereontheupside,andthedietwasmixedforanadditional2min.Theadditional98.75lbofeachbatchofthebasaldietwasadded,andthedietwasmixedforanadditional2min.Approxi-mately30lboffeedwasremovedfromthemixerdischargeanddepositedbackintothetopofthemixer.Thetreatmentwasmixedforanadditional6min,foratotaltreatmentadditionmixingtimeof12min.Treatmentswerebaggedinto30-lbbagsandtaggedwithlabelsincludingtheK-StateandJBSUnitedprotocolnumberandcorrelatingtreatmentletter.

InExp.2,premixesweremanufacturedatK-StateandshippedtoSheridan,IN,wheretheywereaddedtoasinglebasaldiet(Table1),whichwasmadein3batchesattheBurtonRussellResearchFarmFeedMillinFrankfort,IN.Eachbagwasmarkedwithbatchandbaggingorder.Thefirstandlast2bagsofeachbatchwerenotusedindietpreparationtrial.Atotalof92,152,and150lbofbatches1,2,and3ofthebasaldiet,respectively,wereusedtocreate394lbofeachtreatmentdiet.Halfofeachbatch(atotalof197lb)wasaddedtothemixerandmixedfor2min.Sixpounds(2lbphytasepremixand4lbinorganicP premix)ofpremixwasaddedtothemixerwhilethemixerhandswereontheupside,andthedietwasmixedforanadditional2min.Theremain-dereachbatchofthebasaldietwasadded,andthedietwasmixedforanadditional2min.Approximately30lboffeedwasremovedfromthemixerdischargeanddepositedbackintothetopofthemixer.Thetreatmentwasmixedforanadditional2minforatotaltreatmentadditionmixingtimeof8min.Treatmentswerebaggedinto30-lbbagsandtaggedwithlabelsincludingtheK-StateandJBSUnitedprotocolnumberandcorrelatingtreatmentletter.

Inbothexperiments,treatmentpremixesweremadeattheK-StateSwineResearchLaboratory.Thephytasepremixesconsistedofaphytasesource(OptiPhos,PhyzymeXP,orRonozymeP)and/orcornstarch.ThesamelotofeachOptiPhosandPhyzymeXP wereusedtomakebothExp.1and2premixes.Phytasewasstoredinafreezerforapproximately3mobetweenexperiments.Thenegativecontrolanddietswithmono-calciumP weremadewithnophytaseand2lbofcornstarch.InExp.1,asinglebatchofthe500FTU/kgOptiPhospremixandthe1,000FTU/kgPhyzymeXP premixwasmanufacturedandanalyzedforlysine,Ca,P,andphytasecontent(Table2).Micro-

109

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

ingredientswerealsoanalyzedforCa(Table3).InExp.2,asinglebatchofthe1,000OptiPhospremix,1,500FTU/kgPhyzymeXP premix,and3,700FYT/kgRonozymeP premixwasmadeandanalyzedforCa,P,andphytasecontent.Cornstarchwasaddedinincreasinglevelstothebasemixestodilutethemtothevariousphytaselevelsusedinthetrials.Inbothexperiments,theP premixesconsistedofmonocalciumphosphate(21%P)and/orsandofsimilarparticlesize.Thenegativecontrolanddietscontain-ingphytaseweremadewithnomonocalciumP and3(Exp.1)or4(Exp.2)lbofsand.PremixeswereanalyzedforCaandP,andphytaseanalysiswasconductedaccordingtotheAOACandPhytexmethods(Table4).

Treatmentdietswerefedinmealformfor21d.Averagedailygain,ADFI,andG/Fweredeterminedbyweighingpigsandmeasuringfeeddisappearanceond0and21ofthetrial.AnimalswereeuthanizedvialethalinjectionwithEuthanasia-IIISolution(Exp.1;Med-Pharmex)orBeuthanasia-DSpecial(Exp.2;Schering-Plough)accord-ingtotheK-StateInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommitteestandards.Therightfibulawasremovedwithoutcartilagecapsfromeachanimal,autoclaved,andboiledfor45to60min.Fibulaswerecleanedofadheringtissue,driedat105°Cfor24h,andashedinamufflefurnaceat600°Cfor24h.Totalashweightandpercentageashweremeasured.

DataAnalysisAllvaluesthatwereatleastthreeSDawayfromthemeanofeachresponsecriteriawereconsideredoutliers.InExp.1,4pigswithoutliersforgrowthdata(ADG,ADFI,orG/F)wereremovedfromboththegrowthandbone(ashweightandpercentageash)results.Twopigswithoutliersforpercentageashwereremovedfromtheashweightandpercentageashresultsbutwereusedforthecalculationofgrowthdata.Onepigwithanoutlierforashweightwasremovedfromtheashweightresultsbutwasusedinthecalculationofpercentageashandgrowthdata.Threefibulaswerebrokenduringanalysis,preventingashweightandpercentageashforthesefibulasfrombeingcalcu-lated.Growthdatafromthesepigswereused.InExp.2,1pigwasdeemedanoutlierforG/Fandwasremovedfromalldata.Onepigwasconsideredanoutlierforpercentageashandwasremovedfromtheashweightandpercentageashresultsbutwasusedforthecalculationofgrowthdata.

Datawereanalyzedasarandomizedcompleteblockdesignwithpigastheexperimentalunit.Treatmentwasfixed,whereaspigsandroomwererandomlyassigned.AnalysisofvariancewasperformedusingtheMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).ResultswereconsideredtobesignificantiftheirP-valueswere≤0.05andwereconsideredtobeatrendiftheirP-valueswere≤0.10.MaineffectsfromExp.1showedthatalltreatmentsthatincludedinorganicP remainedinthelinearportionofthequadraticcurveofphytaserelease,andsoalltreatmentswereusedforanalysis.Conversely,maineffectsfromExp.2showedthatthetreatmentsupplementedwithanadditional0.21%aPfrominorganicP (0.27%totalaP)wasinthequadraticportionofthephytasecurve.BecauseaP releasecurvesmustbegeneratedfromdatathatareonlyinthelinearportionofthiscurve,thetreatmentwasremovedfromalldataanalysis.Forreference,adding0.21%aPfrommonocalciumP(0.27%totalaP)resultedinpigswithanADGof1.10lb/d,anADFIof1.57lb/d,aG/Fof0.70,aboneashweightvalueof775mg,andaboneashpercentageof41.9.

110

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

AregressionequationwascalculatedforADG,G/F,ashweight,andpercentageashtopredictthepercentageaPreleasedfromtheE. coli-derivedphytases,giveneachresponsecriteria.First,thetotalintakeofaP fromthedietwascalculatedandtermedtobethedosageofaP administeredtoeachpigthroughitsdiet.Dosageforpigsfedthenegativecontrol,OptiPhos,PhyzymeXP,andRonozymeP dietswastheproductof0.06andindividualgramsoffeedintake.InExp.1,dosageforpigsfedthenegativecontroldietplus0.075%aPfromthemonocalciumPdietwastheproductof0.135andindividualgramsoffeedintake.Dosageforpigsfedthenegativecontrolplus0.15%aP fromthemonocalciumP dietwastheproductof0.21andindividualgramsoffeedintake.InExp.2,dosageforpigsfedthenegativecontroldietplus0.07%aP fromthemonocal-ciumP dietwastheproductof0.13andindividualgramsoffeedintake.Dosageforpigsfedthenegativecontrolplus0.14aP fromthemonocalciumP dietwastheproductof0.20andindividualgramsoffeedintake.

UsingtheseaPdosages,regressionwasusedtodeterminetheaPreleasefromeachphytasesourceforagivenaPdosage(intercept)andtheaPreleasefromeachresponsevariableforagivenaPdosage(slope).ThepercentageaPreleasedfromeachphytasesource(Y)wasthencalculatedbyaddingthevalueofaPreleasefromeachphytasesourceforagivenaPdosagetotheproductofthevalueofaPreleasefromeachresponsevariableforagivenaPdosageandthevalueoftheresponsevariable(X).

ResultsInExp.1,lysineandP analysisofthedietsresultedinconcentrationssimilartothoseusedindietformulation(Table2).However,CalevelswerehigherthanexpectedbecauseofhigherthananticipatedCalevelsinthemicroingredients.ThehighCalevelsresultedinhighCatototalP ratios(2.04to2.20)forthenegativecontrolandallphytasediets.Aspreviousresearchsuggests,theseratioslikelydecreasedADGandG/F.However,theseratiosdidnotappeartoaffectpercentageboneashortheaP releaselevelscalculatedfrompercentageboneash.LowerCa:P ratioswereusedinExp.2,inwhichanalysisofthedietsresultedinconcentrationssimilartothoseusedindietformulation.

AccordingtotheAOACanalysis,thephytaseconcentrationinOptiPhoswasnearly3.1and2.5timestheconcentrationlistedonthelabelbythemanufacturerforExp.1and2,respectively(Tables5and6).ThephytaselevelinPhyzymeXP wasattheconcentrationlistedonthelabelbythemanufacturerinExp.1and0.7timesthelistedconcentrationinExp.2.RonozymeP wasusedandanalyzedonlyinExp.2,inwhichtheanalyzedvaluesweresimilartolevelsreportedonthelabelbythemanufacturer.

ResultsoftheAOACanalysisinbothexperimentsindicatedthat,asexpected,phytaselevelsincreasedlinearlyasmorephytasepremixwasaddedtothediet.Phytaseanaly-siswiththePhytexassayfoundmuchlowerphytaselevelsforallpremixesanddiets.ResultsfromthePhytexanalysisassaywerenotasconsistentwithaddeddietarylevelsastheAOACassays;however,thePhytexassaywasconductedonlybyonelaboratory,whereastheAOACassaywasanaverageofresultsfromthree(Exp.1)ortwo(Exp.2)laboratories.Withinlaboratory,thePhytexassaywaslessconsistentwithourcalculatedvaluesthananysingleAOACassay.

111

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Experiment1PigsfedincreasingmonocalciumP hadimproved(linear;P =0.01)ADG,ADFI,G/F,boneashweight,andpercentageash(Tables7and8).PigsfedincreasingOptiPhoshadimproved(linear;P ≤0.02)ADG,G/F,andbonepercentageash,aswellasincreased(quadratic;P =0.05)boneashweight.PigsfedincreasingPhyzymeXP hadimproved(linear;P ≤0.04)ADGandG/F,aswellasatendencyforincreased(linear;P =0.06)percentageboneash.

PercentageaP releasedfromeachphytasesourcevarieddependingontheresponsecriteriausedtocalculatethevalue(Table9).ThelowestaP releasevalueforbothphytasesourceswascalculatedwithADGastheresponsecriteria.TheaP releasevaluescalculatedwithG/FastheresponsecriteriawerenearlyidenticalforalllevelsofOpti-Phos,whereaslevelsgenerallyincreasedwithincreasingPhyzymeXP toanoverallreleasevaluethatwassimilarforbothphytasesources.TheaP releasevaluescalculatedfromboneashweightweresimilarforalllevelsofPhyzymeXP,withtheexceptionof500FTU/kg.However,thecalculatedaP releasevalueswerenotasconsistentforOptiPhos,asevidencedbythesecondlowestphytasedosereleasingthehighestpercent-ageaP.TheclearestresponsetopercentageaP releasewascalculatedwithpercentageboneashastheresponsecriteria.AsbothOptiPhosandPhyzymeXP levelsincreased,calculatedaP increasedinaquadraticfashiontothehighestphytasedose.

Experiment2PigsfedincreasingmonocalciumP hadimproved(linear;P <0.001)G/Fandpercent-ageboneash,improved(quadratic;P =0.01)ADFI,andatendencyforimproved(linear;P =0.07,quadratic;P =0.09)ADG(Tables10and11).PigsfedincreasingOptiPhoshadimproved(linear;P ≤0.01)ADG,G/F,andboneashweight,increased(quadratic;P <0.001)percentageboneash,andtendedtohaveincreased(linear;P =0.07)ADFI.PigsfedincreasingPhyzymeXP hadimproved(linear;P <0.001)percentageboneash,improved(quadratic;P =0.05)G/F,andtendedtohaveincreased(linear;P =0.09)boneashweight.PigsfedincreasingRonozymeP hadimproved(linear;P ≤0.004)ADG,ADFI,andboneashweight,aswellasimproved(quadratic;P ≤0.03)G/Fandpercentageboneash.

PercentageaP releasedfromeachphytasesourceandlevelagainvarieddependingontheresponsecriteriausedtocalculatethevalue(Table12).ThelowestaP releasevaluefor250FTU/kgofOptiPhoswascalculatedfromADG.ThelowestaP releasevaluesfor500,750,and1,000FTU/kgofOptiPhoswascalculatedfromboneashweight.Incontrast,thehighestaP releaselevelforallOptiPhoslevelswascalculatedfromboneashpercentage.ThelowestaP releaselevelfor500FTU/kgofPhyzymeXP wascalcu-latedfromboneashpercentage,whereasthelowestlevelsfor1,000and1,500FTU/kgofPhyzymeXP werecalculatedfromADG.ThehighestaP releaselevelfor500FTU/kgofPhyzymeXP wascalculatedfromG/F,whereasthehighestlevelsfor1,000and1,500FTU/kgofPhyzymeXP werecalculatedfromboneashpercentage.Finally,thelowestaP releaselevelfor1,850and3,700FTU/kgofRonozymeP wascalculatedfromboneashweightandG/F,respectively.ThehighestaP releaselevelforbothRonozymeP levelswascalculatedfromboneashpercentage.

112

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Experiments1and2ByusingtheaveragevaluesoftheAOACphytaseassaysfrombothE. coliphytasesources,theresponsetovariouscriteriawereplottedagainsttheanalyzedphytaselevel.Approximately77%ofthevariationinresponseinpercentageboneashwasexplainedbytheanalyzedphytaselevelinthediet(Figure1).Similarly,byplottingtheaP releasedforeachphytaselevelagainsttheanalyzedAOACphytaselevel,aP releasecurvewascalculated.Withpercentageboneashastheresponsecriteria,approximately73%ofthevariationinaP releasewasexplainedbytheanalyzedphytaselevelinthediet(Figure2).WhenAOACanalyzedvaluesandboneashareusedastheresponsevariable,aP releaseforupto1,000FTU/kgofE. coli-derivedphytases(OptiPhosandPhyzymeXP)canbepredictedbytheequation(y=-0.000000125x2+0.000236245x+0.015482000),wherexisthephytaselevelinthediet.

PreviousK-Staterecommendations,basedonKornegay(1996)P releasecurves5,agreewellwiththephytasereleasesuggestedbytheaP curvedevelopedfrompercentageboneash(Figure3).ThecurvepreviouslyusedbyK-Statewasvalidonlyto700FTU/kg,whereasthenewcurvesuggestedbythisresearchisvalidto1,000FTU/kg.

Discussion HigherphytaseconcentrationsintheAOACanalysiscomparedwiththePhytexanaly-siswereexpectedbecauseofthekeydifferencesbetweenthePhytexassayusedbythemanufacturerofOptiPhosandtheAOACmethod.ThePhytexassayextractsP witha0.2Msodiumcitratebuffer,whereastheAOACassayusesa0.2Msodiumacetatebuffer,Tween20,andbovineserumalbumin.ThePhytexassayincubationtimeis15min;theAOACassayincubationtimeis60min.Additionally,thecolorreagentusedtomeasuretheP releasedfromphyticacidhasawavelengthof820nminthePhytexassayand415nmintheAOACassay.Finally,thePhytexassaydiafiltratesfeedsamplestoremovehighbackgroundPlevelsfrommonocalciumordicalciumPbeforetheyareassayed;theAOACassaydoesnot.

TheinfluenceofE. coli-derivedphytasesourceonlevelofpercentageboneashfollowsthetypicalquadraticresponseforaP releasethathasbeenshowninpreviousresearch.The77%ofvariationinpercentageboneashthatwasexplainedbyanalyzedphytasevaluewasthehighestofanyofthemeasuredvariables(63,36,and39forADG,GF,andboneashweight,respectively).ThisreinforcesthatpercentageboneashwasthebestvariabletousetopredictaP release.ThepredictedaP releasevaluesfromtrialsinwhichanalyzedAOACvalueswereusedagreelargelywithKornegay’ssummaryforE. coli-derivedphytaselevels,suggestingthatwecanpredictaP releaselevelsfromE. coli-derivedphytaseswhentheirAOACassayedvalueislessthan1,000FTU/kg.Moreresearchneedstobeconductedtofurtherevaluatereleasevaluesforhigherphytaselevels.

Insummary,whenpercentageboneashwasusedastheresponsecriteria,theaP releaseforthesephytasesourceswassimilartothemanufacturers’recommendationswhentheproductswereusedaccordingtolabelphytaselevels(0.12%for250FTU/kgof

5Kornegay,E.T.,1996.Nutritional,environmentalandeconomicalconsiderationforusingphytaseinpigandpoultrydiets.Pages277-302inNutrientManagementofFoodAnimalstoEnhanceandProtecttheEnvironment.E.T.Kornegay,ed.CRCPress,BocaRaton,FL.

113

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

OptiPhos,0.10%for500FTU/kgofPhyzymeXP,and0.10%for1,850FTU/kgofRonozymeP).WhenanalyzedonanAOACbasis,theaP releasecurvesfortheE. coli phytaseshadsimilarreleasecurves,atleastupto1,000FTU/kg.

Table 1. Composition of experimental control diets (as-fed basis)1

Ingredient,% Exp.1 Exp.2Corn 57.98 58.11Soybeanmeal,46.5%CP 34.98 35.01Additivepremixes2 0.50 0.60Soybeanoil 3.00 3.00Limestone 1.50 0.25Salt 0.35 0.35Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15Lysine-HCl 0.17 0.17DL-methionine 0.07 0.07L-threonine 0.05 0.05Mecadox 1.00 1.00Total 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSID3lysine,% 1.20 1.20Totallysine,% 1.34 1.34SIDaminoacidratiosIsoleucine:lysineratio 68 68Leucine:lysineratio 138 139Methionine:lysineratio 39 30Met&Cys:lysineratio 58 57Threonine:lysineratio 64 62Tryptophan:lysineratio 20 19Valine:lysineratio 76 74Crudeprotein,% 21.4 21.5ME,kcal/lb 1,565 1,569SIDlysine:MEratio,g/Mcal 3.51 3.48Ca,% 0.71 0.49P,% 0.40 0.39AvailableP,% 0.06 0.061Pigswerefedexperimentaldietsfromd0to21ofthetrial.2Premixeswereaddedbyhandforeachtreatmentandconsistedof3or4lbPpremix.3Standardizedilealdigestible.

114

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Ana

lyze

d nu

trie

nt co

mpo

sitio

n of

ingr

edie

nts (

Exp.

1)

Lysin

e,%

Cal

cium

,%Ph

osph

orus

,%C

a:P

Item

Foru

mla

ted1

Ana

lyze

d2

Foru

mla

ted1

Ana

lyze

d3

Foru

mla

ted1

Ana

lyze

d3A

naly

zed3

Opt

iPho

s200

040.

1116

.35

0.07

233.

57Ph

yzym

eXP

1200

50.

140.

050.

260.

19O

ptiP

hosb

asep

rem

ix6

0.03

2.82

0.04

70.5

0Ph

yzym

eXP

base

pre

mix

60.

02N

egat

ivec

ontr

ol1.

341.

270.

710.

920.

400.

412.

240.

075%

aP7 fr

omm

onoc

alci

umP

1.34

1.30

0.77

1.00

0.48

0.49

2.04

0.15

%aP

from

mon

ocal

cium

P1.

341.

250.

840.

900.

550.

581.

5510

0FT

UO

ptiP

hos

1.34

1.32

0.71

0.90

0.40

0.41

2.20

175

FTU

Opt

iPho

s1.

341.

340.

710.

980.

400.

412.

3925

0FT

UO

ptiP

hos

1.34

1.30

0.71

0.90

0.40

0.43

2.09

500

FTU

Opt

iPho

s1.

341.

370.

710.

950.

400.

432.

2120

0FT

UP

hyzy

meX

P1.

341.

320.

710.

930.

400.

432.

1635

0FT

UP

hyzy

meX

P1.

341.

360.

711.

000.

400.

422.

3850

0FT

UP

hyzy

meX

P1.

341.

310.

710.

920.

400.

432.

141,

000

FTU

Phy

zym

eXP

1.34

1.30

0.71

0.97

0.40

0.43

2.26

1 Nut

rient

valu

esp

rovi

ded

byth

eman

ufac

ture

r.2 M

ean

valu

eof2

sam

ples

anal

yzed

ind

uplic

ate.

3 Mea

nva

lueo

f4sa

mpl

esan

alyz

edin

dup

licat

e.4 E

nzyv

iaL

LC,S

herid

an,I

N.

5 Dan

isco

A/S

Cor

pora

tion,

Mar

lbor

ough

,UK

.6 C

reat

edfr

omth

epur

epro

duct

and

corn

star

ch.

7 Ava

ilabl

eP.

115

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Calcium concentration of microingredients (Exp. 1)Ingredient Analyzed1

Antibiotic 18.18Tracemineralpremix 10.44Vitaminpremix 16.931Meanvalueof2samplesanalyzedinduplicate.

Table 4. Analyzed nutrient composition of ingredients (Exp. 2)Calcium,% Phosphorus,% Ca:P

Item Forumlated1 Analyzed Forumlated1 Analyzed AnalyzedNegativecontrol 0.49 0.48 0.39 0.36 1.330.07%aP2frommonocalciumP 0.55 0.53 0.46 0.43 1.230.14%aPfrommonocalciumP 0.61 0.58 0.53 0.48 1.21250FTUOptiPhos3 0.49 0.53 0.39 0.36 1.47500FTUOptiPhos3 0.49 0.47 0.39 0.36 1.31750FTUOptiPhos3 0.49 0.48 0.39 0.36 1.331,000FTUOptiPhos3 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.36 1.36500FTUPhyzymeXP4 0.49 0.53 0.39 0.37 1.431,000FTUPhyzymeXP4 0.49 0.50 0.39 0.37 1.351,500FTUPhyzymeXP4 0.49 0.47 0.39 0.37 1.271,850FYTRonozymeP5 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.36 1.363,700FYTRonozymeP5 0.49 0.47 0.39 0.36 1.311Nutrientvaluesprovidedbythemanufacturer.2AvailableP.3EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN.4DaniscoA/SCorporation,Marlborough,UK.5DSMNutritionalProducts,Basel,Switzerland.

116

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 5

. Ana

lyze

d ph

ytas

e con

tent

of d

iets

(Exp

. 1)

Add

ition

alaP

1 from

mon

ocal

cium

PO

ptiP

hos2 ,F

TU

/kg

Phyz

ymeX

P3 ,FT

U/k

gA

naly

zed4

Non

e50.

075%

0.15

%

100

175

250

500

20

035

050

01,

000

AO

AC

assa

y,FT

U/k

g

Lab

orat

oryA

5070

5533

563

574

01,

635

180

465

450

1,22

5

Lab

orat

oryB

3387

5734

453

071

91,

528

241

385

415

1,10

0

Lab

orat

oryC

8820

211

935

451

672

91,

363

219

370

423

789

A

vera

geA

OA

Cas

say

5711

977

344

560

729

1,50

921

340

742

91,

038

Phyt

exas

say,

FTU

/kg

5286

7127

527

030

060

522

528

528

038

5A

vera

geA

OA

Cra

tio6

3.5

2.9

2.9

2.7

1.1

1.1

0.8

0.8

Phyt

exra

tio7

2.8

1.5

1.2

1.2

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.4

1 Ava

ilabl

eP.

2 Enz

yvia

LLC

,She

ridan

,IN

.3 D

anisc

oA

/SC

orpo

ratio

n,M

arlb

orou

gh,U

K4 A

vera

geo

fsam

ples

take

nat

theb

egin

ning

and

end

ofth

eexp

erim

ent.

5 Con

tain

ed0

.06%

aP.

6 Rat

ioo

fAO

AC

anal

ysis

tofo

rmul

ated

valu

es.

7 Rat

ioo

fPhy

texa

naly

sisto

form

ulat

edva

lues

.

Tab

le 6

. Ana

lyze

d ph

ytas

e con

tent

of d

iets

(Exp

. 2)

Add

edaP

1 from

mon

ocal

cium

PO

ptiP

hos2 ,F

TU

/kg

Phyz

ymeX

P3 ,FT

U/k

gR

onoz

ymeP

4 ,FYT

/kg

Ana

lyze

dN

one5

0.07

%0.

14%

25

050

075

01,

000

50

01,

000

1,50

0

1,85

03,

700

AO

AC

assa

y,FT

U/k

g

Lab

orat

oryA

5050

4071

01,

330

2,00

02,

600

290

760

1,14

01,

790

3,92

0

Lab

orat

oryB

6510

563

637

1,12

31,

697

2,35

744

765

61,

042

1,59

73,

635

A

vg.A

OA

Cas

say

5878

5267

41,

227

1,84

92,

479

369

708

1,09

11,

694

3,77

8Ph

ytex

assa

y,FT

U/k

g70

8416

036

067

080

090

018

024

055

093

01,

900

Avg

.AO

AC

ratio

62.

692.

452.

462.

480.

740.

710.

730.

921.

02Ph

ytex

ratio

71.

441.

341.

070.

900.

360.

240.

370.

500.

511 A

vaila

bleP

.2 E

nzyv

iaL

LC,S

herid

an,I

N.

3 Dan

isco

A/S

Cor

pora

tion,

Mar

lbor

ough

,UK

.4 D

SMN

utrit

iona

lPro

duct

s,Ba

sel,

Switz

erla

nd.

5 Con

tain

ed0

.06%

aP.

6 Rat

ioo

fave

rage

AO

AC

anal

yses

tofo

rmul

ated

valu

es.

7 Rat

ioo

fPhy

texa

naly

sest

ofo

rmul

ated

valu

es.

117

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 7

. Effe

cts o

f diff

eren

t sou

rces

of E

.col

i-der

ived

phy

tase

on

nurs

ery p

ig p

erfo

rman

ce (E

xp. 1

)1

Add

ition

alaP

2 from

mon

ocal

cium

PO

ptiP

hos3 ,F

TU

/kg

Phyz

ymeX

P4 ,FT

U/k

gIt

emN

one5

0.07

5%0.

15%

10

017

525

050

0

200

350

500

1,00

0d

0to

21

A

DG

,lb

0.81

1.12

1.32

0.86

0.86

0.92

1.01

0.81

0.87

0.92

0.92

A

DFI

,lb

1.64

1.96

1.95

1.53

1.58

1.62

1.74

1.56

1.68

1.62

1.61

G

/F0.

510.

570.

670.

560.

560.

570.

580.

520.

520.

570.

58

Bon

eash

wei

ght,

mg

473

579

777

504

650

616

594

586

610

546

593

B

onea

sh,%

35.6

39.4

41.8

36.2

38.2

39.6

41.1

37.0

39.0

37.9

40.0

1 Ato

talo

f88

pigs

(1p

igp

erp

enan

d8

pens

per

trea

tmen

t)w

ithan

initi

alB

Wo

f22.

7lb

.Pig

swer

efed

thec

ontr

old

iet(

0.06

%aP

)dur

inga

6-d

pre

test

per

iod

and

then

fed

expe

rimen

tald

iets

for2

1d.

2 Ava

ilabl

eP.

3 Enz

yvia

LLC

,She

ridan

,IN

.4 D

anisc

oA

/SC

orpo

ratio

n,M

arlb

orou

gh,U

K.

5 Con

tain

ed0

.06%

aP.

Tab

le 8

. Pro

babi

lity t

able

of d

iffer

ent s

ourc

es o

f E.c

oli-d

eriv

ed p

hyta

se o

n nu

rser

y pig

per

form

ance

(Exp

. 1)1

Mon

ocal

cium

PO

ptiP

hos²

Phyz

ymeX

P³It

emLi

near

Qua

drat

ic

Line

arQ

uadr

atic

Li

near

Qua

drat

ic

SEd

0to

21

A

DG

,lb

0.01

0.26

0.01

0.88

0.04

0.50

0.04

6

AD

FI,l

b0.

010.

070.

110.

220.

920.

880.

075

G

/F0.

010.

540.

020.

140.

010.

640.

023

B

onea

shw

eigh

t,m

g0.

010.

470.

070.

050.

270.

3055

.0

Bon

eash

,%0.

010.

690.

010.

560.

060.

591.

651 A

tota

lof8

8pi

gs(1

pig

per

pen

and

8pe

nsp

ertr

eatm

ent)

with

anin

itial

BW

of2

2.7

lb.P

igsw

eref

edth

econ

trol

die

t(0.

06%

avai

labl

eP)d

urin

ga6

-dp

rete

stp

erio

dan

dth

enfe

dex

perim

enta

ldie

ts

for2

1d.

2 E

nzyv

iaL

LC,S

herid

an,I

N.

3 Dan

isco

A/S

Cor

pora

tion,

Mar

lbor

ough

,UK

.

118

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 9

. Cal

cula

ted

avai

labl

e P re

leas

e val

ues b

ased

on

diffe

rent

resp

onse

crite

ria (

Exp.

1)

Opt

iPho

s1 ,FT

U/k

gPh

yzym

eXP2 ,F

TU

/kg

Item

100

175

250

500

20

035

050

01,

000

SE

Res

pons

ecrit

eria

A

DG

,lb

0.02

90.

029

0.04

60.

063

0.01

30.

022

0.04

20.

044

0.01

2

G/F

0.09

90.

096

0.09

70.

089

0.06

80.

056

0.09

30.

102

0.01

8

Bon

eash

wei

ght,

mg

0.05

50.

127

0.10

50.

084

0.09

20.

094

0.07

00.

094

0.02

8

Bon

eash

,%0.

059

0.08

60.

117

0.12

10.

069

0.09

40.

082

0.12

00.

028

1 Enz

yvia

LLC

,She

ridan

,IN

.2 D

anisc

oA

/SC

orpo

ratio

n,M

arlb

orou

gh,U

K.

Tab

le 1

0. E

ffect

s of d

iffer

ent s

ourc

es o

f E.c

oli-d

eriv

ed p

hyta

se o

n nu

rser

y pig

per

form

ance

(Exp

. 2)1

Add

ition

alaP

2 from

mon

ocal

cium

PO

ptiP

hos3 ,F

TU

/kg

Phyz

ymeX

P4 ,FT

U/k

gR

onoz

ymeP

5 ,FT

U/k

gIt

emN

one6

0.07

%0.

14%

25

050

075

01,

000

50

01,

000

1,50

0

1,85

03,

700

d0

to2

1

AD

G,l

b0.

891.

071.

031.

051.

111.

151.

151.

021.

000.

981.

061.

27

AD

FI,l

b1.

431.

691.

491.

581.

621.

651.

621.

491.

481.

431.

531.

83

G/F

0.63

0.64

0.69

0.66

0.68

0.69

0.71

0.69

0.67

0.68

0.70

0.70

B

onea

shw

eigh

t,m

g62

660

169

673

173

474

479

962

577

368

169

179

9

Bon

eash

,%34

.239

.641

.241

.641

.942

.743

.637

.141

.942

.041

.142

.31 A

tota

lof1

28p

igs(

1pi

gper

pen

and

8pe

nsp

ertr

eatm

ent)

with

anin

itial

BW

of2

1.3

lb.P

igsw

eref

edth

econ

trol

die

t(0.

06%

aP)d

urin

ga6

-dp

rete

stp

erio

dan

dth

enfe

dex

perim

enta

ldie

tsfo

r21

d.2 A

vaila

bleP

.3 E

nzyv

iaL

LC,S

herid

an,I

N.

4 Dan

isco

A/S

Cor

pora

tion.

5 DSM

Nut

ritio

nalP

rodu

cts,

Base

l,Sw

itzer

land

.6 C

onta

ined

0.0

6%aP

.

119

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 1

1. M

ain

effec

ts o

f diff

eren

t sou

rces

of E

.col

i-der

ived

phy

tase

on

nurs

ery p

ig p

erfo

rman

ce (E

xp. 2

)1

Prob

abili

ties,

P<

Mon

ocal

cium

PO

ptiP

hos2

Phyz

ymeX

P3R

onoz

ymeP

4

Item

Line

arQ

uadr

atic

Li

near

Qua

drat

ic

Line

arQ

uadr

atic

Li

near

Qua

drat

ic

SEd

0to

21

A

DG

,lb

0.07

0.09

0.00

10.

110.

330.

180.

001

0.76

0.07

9

AD

FI,l

b0.

540.

010.

070.

210.

960.

430.

001

0.28

0.11

2

G/F

0.00

10.

190.

001

0.24

0.01

0.05

0.00

10.

030.

019

B

onea

shw

eigh

t,m

g0.

230.

260.

010.

560.

090.

280.

004

0.67

60.2

B

onea

sh,%

0.00

10.

070.

001

0.00

10.

001

0.10

0.00

10.

011.

211 A

tota

lof1

28p

igs(

1pi

gper

pen

and

8pe

nsp

ertr

eatm

ent)

with

anin

itial

BW

of2

1.3

lb.P

igsw

eref

edth

econ

trol

die

t(0.

06%

avai

labl

eP)d

urin

ga6

-dp

rete

stp

erio

dan

dth

enfe

dex

perim

enta

ldie

ts

for2

1d.

2 E

nzyv

iaL

LC,S

herid

an,I

N.

3 Dan

isco

A/S

Cor

pora

tion.

4 DSM

Nut

ritio

nalP

rodu

cts,

Base

l,Sw

itzer

land

.

Tab

le 1

2. E

ffect

s of d

iffer

ent s

ourc

es o

f E.c

oli-d

eriv

ed p

hyta

se o

n nu

rser

y pig

avai

labl

e P (a

P) re

leas

e (Ex

p. 2

)1

Opt

iPho

s2 ,FT

U/k

gPh

yzym

eXP3 ,F

TU

/kg

Ron

ozym

eP4 ,F

TU

/kg

Item

250

500

750

1,00

0

500

1,00

01,

500

1,

850

3,70

0

SEPr

edic

ted

aP,%

A

DG

0.07

50.

084

0.09

00.

093

0.07

90.

072

0.07

30.

084

0.09

80.

008

G

/F0.

079

0.08

20.

082

0.09

20.

098

0.09

50.

099

0.09

70.

070

0.01

5

Bon

eash

wei

ght

0.08

80.

079

0.07

90.

091

0.07

20.

104

0.09

00.

081

0.07

40.

012

B

onea

sh,%

0.

127

0.11

50.

125

0.14

20.

056

0.13

70.

146

0.11

70.

103

0.02

11 A

tota

lof1

28p

igs(

1pi

gper

pen

and

8pe

nsp

ertr

eatm

ent)

with

anin

itial

BW

of2

1.3

lb.P

igsw

eref

edth

econ

trol

die

t(0.

06%

aP)d

urin

ga6

-dp

rete

stp

erio

dan

dth

enfe

dex

perim

enta

ldie

tsfo

r21

d.2 E

nzyv

iaL

LC,S

herid

an,I

N.

3 Dan

isco

A/S

Cor

pora

tion.

4 DSM

Nut

ritio

nalP

rodu

cts,

Base

l,Sw

itzer

land

.

120

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Ash

45%

43%

41%

39%

37%

35%

0

Optiphos

Phyzyme

1,500 2,5002,0001,000500 3,000

Analyzed phytase, FTU/kg

y = -2E-06x2 + 0.07x + 35.862R2 = 0.768

Figure 1. Influence of E.coli-derived phytase source and level on percentage bone ash.

aP c

alcu

late

d f

rom

per

cent

age

ash

0.16%

0.14%

0.12%

0.10%

0.08%

0.06%

0.04%

0.02%

0.00%

0

Optiphos

Phyzyme

600 1,000800400200 1,200

Analyzed phytase, FTU/kg

y = -0.000000125x2 + 0.000236245x + 00015482000R2 = 0.726

Figure 2. Influence of E.coli-derived phytase source and level on predicted available P (aP) release calculated from percentage bone ash.

121

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

aP r

elea

se

0.140%

0.120%

0.100%

0.080%

0.060%

0.040%

0.020%

0.000%

0 600 1,000800400200 1,200

AOAC phytase analysis, FTU/kg

Previous recommendations

Trial recommendations

Figure 3. Differences between available P (aP) release values from this trial and previous Kansas State University recommendations.

122

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Comparison of Different Antimicrobial Sequences on Nursery Pig Performance and Economic Return

M.U.Steidinger1,M.D.Tokach,D.Dau2,S.S.Dritz3,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof1,008weanlingpigs(12.0lband19dofage)wereusedina42-dexperimenttocomparedifferentantibioticregimensongrowthperformanceandeconomicreturn.Fromd0to11andd11to21,pigswerefeddietscontainingnoantibiotic,acombina-tionofDenagard(NovartisAnimalHealth,Greensboro,NC)at35g/tonandchlortet-racyclineat400g/ton(Denagard/CTC),orPulmotil(Elanco,Greenfield,IN;363g/tonfromd0to11and181g/tonfromd11to21).Fromd21to42,pigspreviouslyfedDenagard/CTCorPulmotilwerefeddietscontainingnomedication,Denagard/CTC,oracombinationofMecadox(PhilbroAnimalHealthCorp.,RidgefieldPark,NJ)at25g/tonandoxytetracyclineat400gperton(Mecadox/OTC).AddingDenagard/CTCorPulmotiltothedietfromd0to11andd11to21improved(P <0.01)ADG,ADFI,F/G,andincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC).Therewerenodifferences(P >0.21)inADGorADFIbetweenpigsfedDenagard/CTCandpigsfedPulmotil;however,pigsfedDenagard/CTCtendedtohavebetter(P<0.09)F/Gfromd0to21.Feedcostwasalsolower(P <0.01)andIOFCwasgreater(P <0.03)fromd0to21forpigsfedDenagard/CTCthanforpigsfedPulmotil.AddingDenagard/CTCorMeca-dox/OTCtothedietfromd21to42increased(P <0.05)ADG,ADFI,andIOFCcomparedwithfeedingnoantibiotic,buttherewerenodifferences(P >0.17)inpigperformanceorIOFCbetweenpigsfedDenagard/CTCandMecadox/OTC.Fortheoveralltrial,addingantibioticstothedietduringanyphaseimproved(P <0.05)ADG,ADFI,F/G,andIOFC.Theseresultsdemonstratethataddingantibioticstothenurs-erydietimprovedpigperformanceandeconomicalreturnonthiscommercialfarm.

Keywords:antimicrobial

IntroductionPastresearchhascontinuallydemonstratedthatincludingantibioticsinnurserypigdietsimprovespiggrowthperformance(Hays,19784;Zimmerman,19865;Cromwell,

1SwineNutritionServices,Inc.,Anchor,Il.2NovartisAnimalHealth,Greensboro,NC.3DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity.4Hays,V.W.1978.Effectivenessoffeedadditiveusageofantibacterialagentsinswineandpoultryproduction.ReporttotheOfficeofTechnologyAssessment.U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,Wash-ington,DC.5Zimmerman,D.R.1986.Roleofsubtherapeuticlevelsofantimicrobialsinpigproduction.J.Anim.Sci. 62(Suppl.3):6-17.

123

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

20016;Dritzetal.,20027;Steidingeretal.,20088).Thegreatestresponseisnormallythroughanincreaseinfeedintake,whichincreasesdailygain.Althoughthebenefitofincludingfeed-gradeantibioticsinthenurserystageiswelldocumented,limiteddataareavailablecomparingvariousantibioticregimensfornurserypigs.Inthe2008SwineDayReportofProgress(Steidingeretal.,2008),wereportedbeneficialresponsestoantibioticsfedinnurserypigdiets.Inthatstudy,wecomparedpigsfeddifferentregi-mensandcombinationsincludingDenagard(NovartisAnimalHealth,Greensboro,NC)andchlortetracycline(Denagard/CTC)withpigsfedMecadox(PhilbroAnimalHealthCorp.,RidgefieldPark,NJ)andoxytetracycline(Mecadox/OTC).Anyoftheantibioticregimenstestedimprovedgrowthperformanceandincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC)comparedwithpigsfednoantibiotic.Infact,removingantibioticsfromthedietduringanyphaseresultedinlowerIOFC.Therefore,thepurposeofthistrialwastovalidatetheresponsetoantibioticsobservedinourearlierstudy(Steidingeretal.,2008)andtocomparethegrowthandeconomicresponseofsomedifferentantibioticregi-mensthatarecommonlyusedinthecommercialswineindustry.

ProceduresAtotalof1,008pigs(12.0lband19dofage)wereusedina42-dexperiment.PigswerefromaPRRSvpositive,butstable,pigflow.ThepigflowhadahistoryofbothentericandrespiratorychallengewithavarietyoforganismsinvolvedincludingPasteurella multocida.Denagard/CTCwasselectedasoneoftheinterventionsbasedonthediag-nostichistory.Pigswereweanedintoa4-roomnurseryfacility.Eachroomcontained12pens(6×10ft)withwireflooringandasinglebowlwatererand4-holedryfeeder.Allpigsreceivedthesame3-stagediets(d1to10,10to21,and21to42;Phases1,2,and3,respectively);feedmedicationwastheonlydifferencebetweentreatmentgroups(Table1).

Theresearchsitehadafinishingbarnwithin75ftofthenurserybuilding.Historicalmortalitywas2%to10%,withpigsseroconvertingtoPRRSvbywk3inthenursery.PigswerevaccinatedforMycoplasma hyopneumoniaeandreceived½dosecircovirusvaccineat2and4wkpostplacement.

Allpigswereweanedonthesamedayandblockedbyweightintoeachofthetreatmentgroups.Therewere7treatmentgroups(144pigspertreatment;1,008pigstotal);eachtreatmentgroupconsistedof6or7penswith21pigsperpen.Allpigsweremonitoreddaily,andanimalsexhibitingsevereclinicalsignswerehumanelyeuthanizedaccordingtoNovartisAnimalHealthanimalwelfarepolicy.

Dietarytreatmentswerearrangedasa2×3factorialdesignplusanegativecontrol(Table2).Thenegativecontroldidnotcontainantibioticsduringanyperiod.Forthefactorial,pigsreceivedeitherDenagard/CTCorPulmotil(Elanco,Greenfield,IN)fromd0to10andd10to21andthen1of3dietsfromd21to42(negativecontrol,Denagard/CTC,orMecadox/OTC.WhenDenagard/CTCwasfed,Denagardwas

6Cromwell,G.L.2001.Antimicrobialandpromicrobialagents.Pages401-426inSwineNutrition.A.J.LewisandL.L.Southern,eds.CRCPress,NewYork.7Dritz,S.S.,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen.2002.Effectsofadministrationofanti-microbialsinfeedongrowthrateandfeedefficiencyofpigsinmultisiteproductionsystems.J.Amer.Vet. Med.Assoc.220:1690-1695.8Steidingeretal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.74-81.

124

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

addedat35g/tonandCTCat400g/ton.ForMecadox/OTC,Mecadoxwasincludedat25g/tonandOTCat400g/ton.WhenPulmotilwasfedduringthefirst2phases,itwasincludedinthedietat363g/tonduringPhase1and181g/tonduringPhase2.

Waterandfeedwereavailabletoallpigsadlibitumforthedurationofthestudy.Feedsampleswerecollectedfromthefeedmilltoconfirmmedicationlevelforalldietphasesandtreatmentgroups.Feedsamplesalsowerecollectedfrom1feederofeachtreatmentgroupforalldietphases.Allfeedsampleswereanalyzedfortheappropriatemedicationanditsconcentration(Table3).

Allpigswereweighedond0,11,21,and42tocalculateADG,ADFI,andF/G.Anypigstreatedforhealth-relatedproblemswererecordedtocalculatethenumberoftreat-mentsperpen.Actualfeedcostatthetimeoftheexperimentwasusedtocalculatefeedcostperpigandfeedcostperpoundofgain.Incomeoverfeedcostwascalculatedaspoundofgain×thevalueofthegain-feedcostperpig.Twodifferentvaluesofgain($0.50/lbor$1.00/lb)wereusedtoaccountfortheimpactofweightgainedinthenurseryonpigweightatmarket.The$0.50/lbassumesthatweightgainedinthenurs-eryremainsatmarketwithoutbecominggreaterorsmaller.The$1.00/lbassumesthateach1lbgainedinthenurserybecomes2lbatmarket.Previousresearchhasdemon-stratedthateach1lbgainedinthenurseryisworth1to4lbatmarketdependingontheresearchtrial(Tokachetal.,19959;Steidingeretal.,2008).

DatawereanalyzedusingtheMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)withpenastheexperimentalunitforallresponsecriteria.Thestatisticalmodelincludedthefixedeffectoftreatmentandrandomeffectofnurseryroom.Thedatawasderivedfrom6or7replicatepensacross4nurseryroomsinabalancedincompleteblockdesign.SingledegreeoffreedomcontrastswereusedtodeterminetheresponsetoantibioticinclusioninthedietduringeachphaseandanydifferencesbetweenDena-gard/CTCandPulmotilduringPhases1and2andbetweenDenagard/CTCandMecadox/OTCduringPhase3.

Results and DiscussionNoadverseeffectstoinclusionoftheantibioticsinthefeedwerenotedduringanyphaseofthestudy.Overallpigmortalityduringthestudywassimilartohistoricalexpectedmortality.Laboratoryanalysisconfirmedantibioticinclusioninthetestdiets(Table3).AnalyzedlevelsinthefeedwerelowerthantargetedlevelsforCTCandDenagardbuthigherthantargetforOTC.ThelowlevelsofOTCinthecontroldietswereunexpected.Thereasonmayhavebeencontaminationduringsampling.Wedon’tbelievethecontaminationoccurredhroughfeedmixingbecausefeedbatcheswithoutantibioticweremanufacturedbeforebatcheswithantibiotictominimizeanypotentialforcarryover.ThereasonforthediscrepancyinOTCandCTClevelsinthePhase3dietsisalsounknown.Thetargetlevelwas400g/ton,buttestingresultsrevealed803g/tonforOTCand279g/tonforCTC.

9Tokach,M.D.,J.E.Pettigrew,L.J.Johnston,M.Overland,J.W.Rust,andS.G.Cornelius.1995.Effectofaddingfatand(or)milkproductstotheweanlingpigdietonperformanceinthenurseryandsubsequentgrow-finishstages.J.Anim.Sci.73:3358.

125

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

AddingDenagard/CTCorPulmotiltothedietfromd0to11andd11to21improved(P <0.01)ADG,ADFI,F/G,andIOFC(Tables4,5,and6).AddingDena-gard/CTCtothedietalsolowered(P <0.03)feedcostperpoundofgainduringbothphases,whereasfeedingPulmotilresultedinasimilar(P >0.22)feedcostperpoundofgaincomparedwiththecontrol.PigsfedDenagard/CTChadlower(P <0.01)feedcostperpigandfeedcostperpoundofgainandhigher(P <0.03)IOFCthanpigsfedPulmotilfromd0to21(Phases1and2).IncludingDenagard/CTCinthedietfromd0to21afterweaningresultedin4.1lbmoreweightgainperpigandanetincreaseinIOFCof$1.35/pigwhengainwasvaluedat$0.50/lband$3.46/pigwhenthevalueofgainwasincreasedto$1.00/lb.IncludingPulmotilinthedietfromd0to21resultedin3.5lbmoreweightgainperpigthanthecontrolandanetincreaseinIOFCof$0.71/pigor$2.47/pigwhenvaluedat$0.50and$1.00/lb,respectively.Thus,Dena-gard/CTCresultedinweightgainsimilartothatofPulmotil,butwithagreaterIOFC($0.64/pigto0.99/pigdependingonthevalueofgain).

Addingantibioticstothedietfromd21to42improvedADG(P <0.01)andADFI(P =0.02)andtendedtoimproveF/G(P =0.08).Therewerenodifferencesinperfor-mance(P >0.46)betweenpigsfedDenagard/CTCandpigsfedMecadox/OTC.Althoughaddingantibioticstothedietincreased(P <0.01)feedcostperpigandfeedcostperpoundofgain,theweightgainbenefitresultedinincreased(P <0.01)IOFCwhenantibioticswereaddedtothediet.PigsfedMecadox/OTChadlower(P =0.03)feedcostperpoundofgainthanpigsfedDenagard/CTC;however,therewerenodifferences(P >0.17)betweenthetwoantibioticsforIOFC.ItisunknownwhethertheresponseinthisphasemayhavebeeninfluencedbythehighertestedOTClevelintheMecadox/OTCtreatmentrelativetotheCTClevelintheDenagard/CTCtreatment.ThereasonthatwebelievethattheantibioticlevelmayhaveinfluencedtheresponseisthatpigsfedDenagard/CTCtendedtogrowfasterthanpigsfedMecadox/OTCwhencomparedwiththesameantibioticcombinationsusedduringthePhase2periodinourpreviousstudy(Steidingeretal.,2008).

Fortheoveralltrial,addingantibioticstothedietfromd0to11,11to21,and21to42improved(P <0.05)ADG,ADFI,andF/G.Overallfeedcostperpigwasincreased(P <0.01)bytheadditionofantibioticstothedietduringanyphase.Addingantibiot-icstothedietalsoincreased(P <0.04)overallfeedcostperpoundofgain;however,overallIOFCwasincreased(P <0.04)whenantibioticswereaddedtothedietfromd0to21andd21to42.Theseresultsconfirmtheresultsofourfirstexperiment(Steidingeretal.,2008)thataddingantibioticstothenurserydietimprovedpigperfor-manceandeconomicreturnsonthiscommercialfarm.

126

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of control dietsItem Phase1 Phase2 Phase3Ingredient,%Corn1 42.62 41.21 40.37Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 23.52 30.79 25.47Wheypermeate 20 7.5 ---Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles 2.5 15 30Spray-driedanimalplasma 3.65 --- ---Menhadenfishmeal 3.35 --- ---Fat,AVblend 1.501 2.077 1.425Limestone 0.673 1.076 1.275MonocalciumP,21%P 0.424 0.702 0.052Salt 0.25 0.25 0.4L-lysineHCl 0.371 0.450 0.458DL-methionine 0.205 0.154 0.072L-threonine 0.127 0.114 0.089Zincoxide 0.375 0.25 ---Vitaminpremix2 0.15 0.15 0.125Tracemineralpremix3 0.125 0.125 0.125Coppersulfate 0.075 0.075 0.075Sweetener 0.025 0.025 ---Phytase1200 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSIDlysine4,% 1.45 1.36 1.25Totallysine,% 1.58 1.52 1.41SIDaminoacidratiosMet&Cys:lysine,% 59 60 57Threonine:lysine,% 61 61 60Tryptophan:lysine,% 17 17 17Valine:lysine,% 63 67 66ME,Kcal/lb 1,544 1,546 1,488Lactose,% 16.0 6.0 ---Phytase,units/kg 680 680 680CP,% 21.8 22.9 21.8Fat,% 4.1 5.8 5.3Ca,% 0.71 0.70 0.7P,% 0.68 0.63 0.64AvailableP,% 0.55 0.45 0.351Antibioticsreplacedcorninthecontroldietstoformtheexperimentaltreatments.2Providedfollowingvitaminsperpoundofcompletediet:vitaminA,4,995IU;vitaminD750IU;vitaminE,24IU;vitaminK,2.0mg;vitaminB12,17.6ug;niacin,22.5mg;pantothenicacid,12.5mg;andriboflavin,3.8mg.3Containedthefollowingminerals:copper,1.32%;iodine,240ppm;iron,10%;manganese,2.8%;selenium,240ppm;andzinc,12%.4Standardizedilealdigestible.

127

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Dietary antibiotics in each phaseTreatment d0to11 d11to21 d21to42

1 Nomedication Nomedication Nomedication2 Denagard/CTC1 Denagard/CTC Denagard/CTC3 Pulmotil,363g Pulmotil,181g Denagard/CTC4 Denagard/CTC Denagard/CTC Nomedication5 Pulmotil,363g Pulmotil,181g Nomedication6 Denagard/CTC Denagard/CTC Mecadox/OTC2

7 Pulmotil,363g Pulmotil,181g Mecadox/OTC1Chlortetracycline,400g/ton.2Oxytetracycline,400g/ton.

Table 3. Analyzed antibiotic levels in each phase, g/tonCarbadox Oxytetracycline Chlortetracycline Tiamulin Pulmotil

Phase1Control 1.53 8.49 <0.91 0 <45.4Denagard/CTC1 --- --- 298 10.1 ---Pulmotil --- --- --- --- 295Phase2Control 2.25 5.28 <0.91 0 <45.4Denagard/CTC --- --- 379 20.3 ---Pulmotil --- --- --- --- 181Phase3Control <1.14 36.1 2.76 0 <45.4Mecadox25g/OTC2 13.4 803 --- --- ---Denagard/CTC --- --- 279 17.5 ---1Chlortetracycline,400g/ton.2Oxytetracycline,400g/ton.

128

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Influence of antimicrobial additions to the diet on pig performance1

Treatment1 2 3 4 5 6 7

d0to10: Nomed Den/CTC2 Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotild10to21: Nomed Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotild21to42: Nomed Den/CTC Den/CTC Nomed Nomed Mec/OTC3 Mec/OTC SEM

d0to11ADG,lb 0.19 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.024ADFI,lb 0.30 0.39 0.38 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.023F/G 1.59 1.26 1.26 1.33 1.33 1.28 1.35 0.085d11to21ADG,lb 0.50 0.76 0.74 0.80 0.73 0.79 0.74 0.50ADFI,lb 0.77 0.99 1.01 1.01 0.97 1.01 0.98 0.77F/G 1.63 1.31 1.38 1.26 1.33 1.29 1.33 1.63d21to42ADG,lb 0.93 1.03 1.06 0.92 0.93 1.05 1.11 0.06ADFI,lb 1.43 1.62 1.59 1.46 1.49 1.59 1.64 0.106F/G 1.56 1.57 1.49 1.58 1.59 1.52 1.48 0.048d0to21ADG,lb 0.34 0.53 0.51 0.54 0.51 0.55 0.51 0.035ADFI,lb 0.52 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.66 0.70 0.67 0.037F/G 1.60 1.29 1.35 1.28 1.33 1.28 1.34 0.044d0to42ADG,lb 0.63 0.78 0.78 0.73 0.72 0.80 0.81 0.043ADFI,lb 0.98 1.14 1.12 1.07 1.07 1.14 1.14 0.065F/G 1.57 1.47 1.44 1.47 1.50 1.44 1.43 0.037Weight,lbd0 12.4 11.9 11.8 12.1 12.2 11.8 11.7 1.02d11 14.5 15.4 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.1 1.17d21 19.6 23.1 22.6 23.5 22.8 23.3 22.6 1.61d42 39.4 44.9 44.8 42.7 42.4 45.4 45.8 2.60Survival,% 95.8% 96.3% 99.3% 100.0% 99.3% 99.3% 98.0% 1.3%1Eachmeanrepresents6(treatment1)or7penswith21pigsperpenforatotalof1,008pigs.2Denagard,chlortetracycline.3Mecadox,oxytetracycline.

129

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 5. Influence of antimicrobial additions to the diet on feed economics1

Treatment1 2 3 4 5 6 7

d0to10: Nomed Den/CTC2 Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotild10to21: Nomed Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotild21to42: Nomed Den/CTC Den/CTC Nomed Nomed Mec/OTC3 Mec/OTC SEM

Feedcost,$/pigd0to11 0.73 1.02 1.19 1.06 1.22 1.06 1.26 0.068d11to21 0.98 1.39 1.58 1.41 1.52 1.42 1.53 0.086d21to42 2.95 3.81 3.74 3.01 3.07 3.60 3.70 0.234d0to21 1.70 2.41 2.76 2.47 2.73 2.48 2.78 0.141d0to42 4.68 6.21 6.42 5.47 5.78 6.07 6.46 0.329Feedcost,$/lbgaind0to11 0.351 0.296 0.358 0.313 0.377 0.302 0.38 0.021d11to21 0.205 0.183 0.216 0.177 0.209 0.181 0.209 0.007d21to42 0.153 0.176 0.167 0.155 0.156 0.163 0.159 0.005d0to21 0.250 0.219 0.261 0.217 0.259 0.218 0.265 0.009d0to42 0.179 0.191 0.198 0.179 0.192 0.182 0.192 0.004Incomeoverfeedcost1,$/pig4

d0to11 0.33 0.73 0.48 0.66 0.46 0.75 0.41 0.099d11to21 1.53 2.42 2.10 2.58 2.13 2.51 2.15 0.179d21to42 6.78 7.00 7.40 6.61 6.74 7.42 7.91 0.43d0to21 1.84 3.13 2.55 3.25 2.59 3.26 2.51 0.251d0to42 8.57 10.07 9.84 9.85 9.30 10.65 10.35 0.604Incomeoverfeedcost2,$/pig4

d0to11 1.39 2.48 2.14 2.38 2.12 2.57 2.07 0.226d11to21 4.04 6.22 5.77 6.58 5.77 6.44 5.84 0.435d21to42 16.51 17.80 18.55 16.24 16.55 18.44 19.52 1.054d0to21 5.38 8.69 7.83 8.96 7.88 8.99 7.77 0.612d0to42 21.83 26.35 26.10 25.16 24.38 27.38 27.16 1.4941Basedietcostswere$442.60/tonfromd0to11;$252.31/tonfromd11to21;and$196.63/tonfromd21to42.Medicationcostspertonwere$27.85forDenagard/CTC(Den/CTC),$18.65forMecadox/OTC(Mec/OTC),and$122.54for363gofPulmotil($61.77for181gofPulmotil).2Denagard,chlortetracycline.3Mecadox,oxytetracycline.4Incomeoverfeedcost1assumedavalueofgainat$0.50/lb.Incomeoverfeedcost2assumedavalueofgainof$1.00/lb.

130

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 6. Statistical differences for performance and economic data, (P<)Contrasts1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8d0to11ADG,lb <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.32 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.90ADFI,lb <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.55 0.07 0.29 0.04 0.36F/G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.67 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.45d11to21  ADG,lb <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.21 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.77ADFI,lb <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.66 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.96F/G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.16 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.57d21to42  ADG,lb 0.09 0.19 0.05 0.32 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.46ADFI,lb 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.80 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.86F/G 0.66 0.94 0.45 0.30 0.08 0.27 0.07 0.48d0to21  ADG,lb <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.21 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.82ADFI,lb <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.48 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.82F/G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.89d0to42  ADG,lb <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.92 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.55ADFI,lb 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.86 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.81F/G 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.55Weight,lb  d0 0.54 0.57 0.55 0.96 0.43 0.53 0.49 0.95d11 0.40 0.37 0.49 0.74 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.99d21 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.52 0.34 0.46 0.38 0.91d42 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.99 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.73Survival,% 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.74 0.89 0.61 0.79 0.48

continued

131

Nursery Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 6. Statistical differences for performance and economic data, (P<)Contrasts1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Feedcost,$/pigd0to11 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.37d11to21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.93d21to42 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.80 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.47d0to21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.72d0to42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.22 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.87Feedcost,$/lbgaind0to11 0.50 0.03 0.33 <0.01 0.32 0.21 0.70 0.42d11to21 0.24 <0.01 0.47 <0.01 0.99 0.74 0.72 0.53d21to42 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.28 <0.01 <0.01 0.14 0.03d0to21 0.27 <0.01 0.22 <0.01 0.85 0.80 0.94 0.88d0to42 0.04 0.34 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.34 0.08Incomeoverfeedcost1,$/pig2

d0to11 0.01 <0.01 0.24 <0.01 0.10 0.13 0.20 0.82d11to21 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.65d21to42 0.31 0.59 0.17 0.21 0.01 0.12 <0.01 0.17d0to21 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.09 0.18 0.12 0.86d0to42 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.41 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.31Incomeoverfeedcost2,$/pig2

d0to11 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.96d11to21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.07 0.72d21to42 0.15 0.32 0.09 0.27 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.31d0to21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.83d0to42 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.70 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.441Contrast1=ResponsetoantibioticinPhases1and2(Treatment1vs.allothers).Contrast2=Denagard/CTCvs.nomedicationinPhases1and2(Treatments1vs.2,4,and6).Contrast3=Pulmotilvs.nomedicationinPhases1and2(Treatments1vs.3,5,and7).Contrast4=Denagard/CTCvs.Pulmotil(Treatments2,4,and6vs.3,5,and7).Contrast5=ResponsetoantibioticinPhase3(Treatments1,4,and5vs.2,3,6and7).Contrast6=Denagard/CTCvs.nomedicationinPhase3(Treatments1,4,and5vs.2and3).Contrast7=Mecadox/OTCvs.nomedicationinPhase3(Treatments1,4,and5vs.6and7).Contrast8=Denagard/CTCvs.Mecadox/OTCinPhase3(Treatments2and3vs.6and7).2Incomeoverfeedcost1assumedavalueofgainat$0.50/lb.Incomeoverfeedcost2assumedavalueofgainof$1.00/lb.

132

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Feeding Varied Levels of Balanced Protein on Growth Performance and Carcass Composition of Growing and Finishing Pigs1,2

N.W.Shelton,J.K.Htoo3,M.Redshaw3,R.D.Goodband,M.D.Tokach,S.S.Dritz4,J.L.Nelssen,andJ.M.DeRouchey

SummaryAtotalof1,003barrowsandgilts(PIC337×1050,initially113.5lb)wereusedinan88-dstudytodetermineeffectsofvariouslevelsofbalancedaminoaciddensityongrowthperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics.Balancedaminoacidreferstobalanc-ingthedietaryaminoacidsaccordingtotheidealproteinratio,atleastforthefirst4limitingaminoacids;theotheraminoacidsmaybeatorhigherthanrequiredlevels.Inthisstudy,thisbalancewasaccomplishedbyusingsupplementalaminoacidsandformulatingtomeetthefirst4limitingaminoacids:lysine,threonine,methionine,andtryptophan.Threeexperimentaldietsweretestedusing6replicategiltand7replicatebarrowpenspertreatment.Thesedietsweretestedover2differentphases,agrowerphase(d0to28)andafinishingphase(d28to88).DietarytreatmentsincludedadietthatmettheNRC(1998)5requirements,adietthatmetEvonikDegussa(Hanau,Germany)requirements,andadietthatwasformulatedtobe10%greaterthanEvonikDegussarecommendations.Nogender×dietarytreatmentinteractionswereobserved(P >0.30)foranyofthegrowthorcarcasscharacteristics.Duringthegrowingphase,ADGandF/Gimproved(linear;P <0.03)asaminoaciddensityincreasedinthediet.Also,giltshaddecreased(P <0.001)ADFIandimproved(P <0.001)F/Gfromd0to28comparedwithbarrows.Duringthefinishingphase,nodifferenceswereobserved(P >0.62)inADG,ADFI,orF/Gfromincreasingdietarylysineorbalancedproteinlevels.Giltshaddecreased(P <0.001)ADGandADFIcomparedwithbarrows.Overtheentire88-dtrial,F/Gimproved(linear;P <0.04)andatrendwasdetectedforimproved(linear;P <0.06)ADGasdietaryaminoaciddensityincreased.Nodietarytreatmentdifferenceswereobserved(P >0.28)forcarcassyield,backfatdepth,loindepth,percentagelean,livevalue,orcalculatedincomeoverfeedcost.Inthisexperi-ment,increasingtheaminoaciddensity(dietarylysinelevel)overtheNRC(1998)requirementofferedimprovementsinthegrowerphasebutnotthefinishingphase.

Keywords:aminoacid,lysine

IntroductionAcurrentemphasisintheporkindustryistomaximizeleangrowthinpigsthroughgeneticselectionandpropernutrition.Maximumleangrowthcanbeachievedonlywhennutrients,specificallyaminoacidsandenergy,aresuppliedinthedietatthe

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsfortheuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrob-jorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2TheauthorsthankEvonikDegussaforpartialfundingofthisproject.3EvonikDegussaGmbH,RodenbacherChaussee4,63457Hanau,Germany.4FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.5NRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine.10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

133

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

appropriateamount.Aminoacidrequirementscanbeinfluencedbymanyfactors,includingdietaryproteinlevel,dietaryenergydensity,environmentaltemperature,sex,andleangrowthpotentialofthepig.Lysineisthefirstlimitingaminoacidinmostprac-ticalswinediets.Itisacommonpracticetofirstdefinetheadequatelysinelevelinthedietandthenderivetherequiredlevelofotheressentialaminoacidsfromlysineonthebasisofanidealproteinratio,thusgivingabalancedproteindiet.Abalancedproteindietcontainssufficientlevelsofeachessentialaminoacidtomeetthebiologicalneedsoftheanimalwhileminimizingtheamountsofexcessaminoacids.

SomerecentstudieshavesuggestedthatthedietarylysinerequirementsforpigswithhighgeneticpotentialforleangainarehigherthantheNRC(1998)estimatedrequire-mentvalues.Forexample,Mainetal.(20026)reportedthattheoptimaltotallysine:MEratioformaximizinggrowthparametersin130-to190-lbgiltswas2.80g/Mcal.Inaddition,Sheltonetal.(20087)observedimprovementsinADGandF/Gupthrough2.55gSIDlysine/McalMEin185-to245-lbgilts.Therefore,itisimportanttoevaluatetheoptimallevelofbalancedaminoacidsinthediettomaximizetherateandefficiencyofpigleantissuegrowthandcarcassqualityofmodernhighleangrowthpigs.

ProceduresProceduresinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitu-tionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theexperimentwasconductedatacommer-cialresearchfinishingfacilityinsouthwesternMinnesota.Thefacilitywasdoublecurtainsidedwithcompletelyslattedflooring.Penswere10×18ftandwereequippedwitha5-holeconventionaldryfeederandacupwaterer.

Pigs(PIC337×1050)weremovedtothefinisheratapproximately60lbandplacedintosingle-sexpenswith27pigsperpen.Penswererandomlyallottedtoagendertreatmentpriortothearrivalofthepigs.Pigswerefedstandardgrowerdietsthatwereadequateinallnutrients(NRC,1998)forapproximately5wkuntilthebeginningofthetrial.

Atotalof1,003barrowsandgilts(initially113.5lb)werethenselectedandusedinan88-dstudytodetermineeffectsofvariouslevelsofbalancedaminoaciddensityongrowthperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics.Threeexperimentaldietsweretestedusing6replicates(pens)ofgiltsand7pensofbarrowspertreatment.Experimentaldietswereallottedtogender-specificpensinacompletelyrandomizeddesign,andinitialweightwasequalizedacrossdietarytreatmentswithingender.

Threeexperimentaldietswithdifferentaminoaciddensitiesweretestedforthegrowingphase(d0to28;approximately120to170lbBW)andthefinishingphase(d28to88;approximately170to280lbBW;Table1).ThelowdietwasformulatedtocontainthedietaryaminoacidcontentaccordingtotheNRC(1998)requirements.Themoder-atedietwasformulatedtothecurrentrecommendationsofEvonikDegussa(Hanau,Germany).Thehighdietwasformulatedtobe10%greaterthanthemoderatediet.AlldietswithineachphasecontainedsimilarNEconcentrations.Thetotalandstandardized

6Mainetal.,SwineDay2002,ReportofProgress897,pp.135-150.7Sheltonetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.82-92.

134

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

ilealdigestible(SID)aminoacidvaluesofingredientswerebasedontheAminoDat3.0databaseindietformulation.

Pigweights(bypen)andfeeddisappearanceweremeasuredthroughoutthetrials.Onthebasisofthesemeasurements,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gwerecalculatedforeachpen.Attheconclusionofthegrowthportionofthetrial,themajorityofthepigsweremarketedtoaUSDA-inspectedpackingplant,andcarcassdatawerecollected.Anypigsweighinglessthan200lb(n=15head)wereremovedandnotincludedinthemarketdata.Pendataforyield,backfatdepth,loindepth,andpercentageleanweredeterminedbythepackingplant.YieldreflectsthepercentageofHCWintheliveweight(obtainedatthepackingplant).Livevalue,feedcostperpoundofgain,andincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC)werealsocalculated.Livevaluewasdeterminedbytakingabasecarcassprice$61.45,addingleanpremiums,subtractingdiscounts,andconvertingtoaliveweightbasis.Incomeoverfeedcostwasdeterminedonaperheadbasisbytakingthefullvalueforeachpigandsubtractingthefeedcostsincurredduringthetrial.

Datawerethenanalyzedasa2×3factorialdesign(2gendersand3dietarytreatments)usingthePROCMIXEDprocedureinSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).Dietarylysinevalueswereusedasdoselevelstotestforlinearandquadraticresponsestodietarytreatments.Penwasusedastheexperimentalunitinallanalyses.

Results and DiscussionAnalyzedaminoacidlevelsforthemajoringredientsanddietsareshowninTable2.Ingredientsamplesreflectthemeanof4subsamplesthatwereanalyzedusingnear-infraredspectroscopy.Dietsamplesreflectmeansof2subsamplesthatwereanalyzedutilizingwetchemistryaminoacidanalysis.Formulateddietvaluesareincludedinparenthesis.Theanalyzeddietlevelscoincidedwithformulatedvalues.

Nogender×dietarytreatmentinteractionswereobserved(P >0.30,Table3)foranyofthegrowthorcarcasscharacteristics.Duringthegrowingphase(d0to28),ADGandF/Gimproved(linear;P <0.03)asaminoaciddensityincreasedinthediet.Themostadvantageousvalueswereseeninthehightreatment,indicatingthatthelysinerequirementisgreaterthancurrentNRC(1998)requirementestimates.GiltshadlowerADFIandbetterF/G(P <0.001)thanbarrows.

Duringthefinishingphase(d28to88),nodietarytreatmentdifferenceswereobserved(P >0.62)forADG,ADFI,orF/G,indicatingthatthelowaminoaciddensitydietwasadequatetomeettherequirementofthefinishingpigsinthisstudy.However,theanalyzedtotallysinecontent(0.65%)inthefinisherdietswasabout8%higherthantheNRC(1998)recommendationof0.60%.Giltshaddecreased(P <0.001)ADGandADFIcomparedwithbarrows.Despitethelackofresponseinthefinishingphase,F/Gimproved(linear;P <0.04)andADGtendedtoincrease(linear;P <0.06)overtheentire88-dtrialasaminoaciddensityincreasedinthediets.Inbothbarrowandgilttreatments,themostbeneficialvalueswereseeninthehightreatment.Overall,giltsalsohaddecreased(P <0.001)ADGandADFIandimproved(P <0.01)F/Gincomparedwithbarrows.

135

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Similartothefinishingphasegrowthdata,nodietarytreatmentdifferenceswereobserved(P >0.28)forcarcassyield,backfatdepth,loindepth,percentagelean,livevalue,orIOFC.Feedcostperpoundofgainincreased(linear;P <0.004)asdietaryaminoaciddensityincreased,whichwasnotsurprisingbecausetheimprovementsinfeedefficiencywerenotsubstantialenoughtooffsettheaddeddietcost.Inaddition,giltshadimproved(P <0.02)backfatdepth,loindepth,andpercentageleanfigurescomparedwithbarrows.Theseimprovementsincarcasscompositionresultedinincreases(P <0.001)inthelivevalueandIOFCofthegilts.Also,theimprovementinF/Gforgiltsresultedinimproved(P <0.01)feedcostperpoundofgain.

Lysinerequirementstudieshavebeenconductedwiththisgeneticline(PIC337×1050)inthesefacilitiesbyMainetal.(2002)andSheltonetal.(2008).TheADGandF/GresponsestotheSIDlysine:MEratioforthegrowerportionofthecurrentstudyarecomparedwithresponsesintheearlierstudiesinFigures1and2,respectively.BoththeMainetal.(2002)andSheltonetal.(2008)studiesshowedtheimpactofincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratioforgilts.Thepresentstudyshowslowerpiggrowthperformancethantheearlierstudies;however,therequirementof2.58gSIDlysine/McalMEseenbySheltonetal.(2008)matchestheimprovementsfoundthroughthehighlevel(2.62gSIDlysine/McalME)inthisstudy.

TheADGandF/GresponsesforthefinishingportionofthisstudyarecomparedwithresultsofseveralearliertrialsinFigures3and4,respectively.Allweightcategorieswerenotsimilarforallstudies.Therefore,avarietyofweightsgroupsweregraphedineachfigure.Figure3showsthatADGforpigsfedthelowestlysinelevelinthistrial(NRCrequirement)wassimilartotheADGinSheltonetal.(2008).However,improvementsingainduetoincreasingdietarylysinewereseenintheearlierstudy,butnobenefitswereobservedinthepresentstudy.AsseenfromFigure4,F/Gshowedasimilarpattern;Sheltonetal.(2008)showedbenefitstofeedinglysinelevelshigherthantheNRC(1998)requirement,butthepresentstudyshowednobenefit.Thisraisesques-tionsastothedifferenceinresponsebetweentrials.Thepresentstudyuseddifferentformulationtechniquesthantheearliertrials.Also,dietsinthistrialhadmuchlowerenergylevelsthandietsusedbySheltonetal.(2008)andMainetal.(2002),with3%and6%addedfat,respectively.ThedifferenceinfatlevelshelpsexplaintheoverallincreaseinF/Ginthepresenttrial.FeedefficiencyresultsfromthisportionofthetrialaresimilartoresponsesseenbyMainetal.(2002),inthatfor170-to225-lband220-to265-lbgilts,onlyaslightlyhigherresponsewasdeterminedabovetheNRC(1998)requirement.

Thisstudyindicatesthatinthegrowerstage,feedingdietswithhigherlysinelevelsthanpreviouslyrecommendedcanimprovegainsandefficiency.Inthefinishingstage,however,theNRC(1998)recommendationswereadequatetomeetthebiologicalneedsoftheanimalforgrowthandconversionoffeedtoleantissue.

136

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Diet composition and calculated analysis (as-fed basis)Growingphase(d0to28) Finishingphase(d28to88)

Ingredient,% Low1 Moderate2 High3 Low1 Moderate2 High3

Corn 80.04 78.25 72.65 82.23 78.74 73.90Soybeanmeal 17.40 18.65 23.30 15.60 18.75 22.76Biolys4 0.12 0.36 0.31 --- 0.16 0.11DL-Methionine --- 0.08 0.09 --- 0.03 0.05L-Threonine --- 0.06 0.05 --- 0.03 0.02L-Tryptophan --- 0.01 0.01 --- --- ---Choicewhitegrease 0.09 0.25 1.31 --- 0.15 1.06MonocalciumP 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.85 0.83Limestone 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.86 0.84Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Vitaminandtracemineralpremix 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisStandardizedilealdigestible(SID)aminoacids,%Lysine 0.66 0.81 0.89 0.55 0.71 0.78Isoleucine:lysine 76 64 66 85 74 74Leucine:lysine 183 152 149 213 175 169Methionine:lysine 32 36 37 38 35 35Met&Cys:lysine 64 63 63 74 65 65Threonine:lysine 70 65 65 78 70 70Tryptophan:lysine 20 19 19 22 19 20Valine:lysine 88 75 75 100 85 86CP,% 14.54 15.23 16.93 13.78 15.13 16.6TotalLys,% 0.76 0.92 1.00 0.66 0.82 0.90ME,kcal/lb 1,512 1,518 1,539 1,513 1,518 1,532NE,kcal/lb 1,084 1,084 1,084 1,084 1,084 1,084SIDlysine:ME,g/Mcal 1.98 2.42 2.62 1.65 2.12 2.31SIDlysine:NE,g/Mcal 2.76 3.39 3.72 2.30 2.97 3.26TotalCa,% 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.55AvailableP,% 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.23Dietcost,$/ton5 269.02 284.25 294.49 264.85 273.96 284.031Low=NRC(1998)requirementestimates.2Moderate=EvonikDegussarecommendations.3High=10%greaterthanDiet2.4Biolyscontains50.7%L-Lys(EvonikDegussaGmbH,Hanau,Germany).5PricesbasedonJune2008(Informaeconomics).

137

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Che

mic

al co

mpo

sitio

n of

ingr

edie

nts a

nd d

iets

In

gred

ient

sG

row

erd

iets

Fini

sher

die

tsIt

em,%

1C

orn

Soyb

ean

mea

l

Low

2M

oder

ate3

Hig

h4

Low

2M

oder

ate3

Hig

h4

CP

7.0

46.4

13.8

(14.

5)13

.9(1

5.3)

16.6

(17.

0)12

.8(1

3.8)

14.1

(15.

1)15

.8(1

6.6)

Arg

inin

e0.

343.

360.

850.

871.

000.

790.

861.

00H

istid

ine

0.20

1.26

0.37

0.38

0.42

0.36

0.38

0.43

Isol

euci

ne0.

242.

080.

580.

590.

650.

530.

570.

66Le

ucin

e0.

843.

491.

311.

341.

411.

241.

281.

39Ly

sine

0.23

2.83

0.75

(0.7

6)0.

86(0

.92)

1.01

(1.0

1)0.

65(0

.66)

0.78

(0.8

2)0.

89(0

.90)

Met

hion

ine

0.14

0.64

0.23

(0.2

4)0.

29(0

.32)

0.34

(0.3

6)0.

22(0

.23)

0.26

(0.2

8)0.

31(0

.31)

Met

+C

ys0.

291.

330.

47(0

.50)

0.53

(0.5

9)0.

61(0

.64)

0.46

(0.4

7)0.

52(0

.54)

0.57

(0.5

9)Ph

enyl

alan

ine

0.35

2.32

0.69

0.71

0.78

0.64

0.68

0.77

Thre

onin

e0.

251.

830.

54(0

.55)

0.57

(0.6

2)0.

65(0

.68)

0.50

(0.5

2)0.

55(0

.59)

0.62

(0.6

5)T

rypt

opha

n0.

060.

640.

16(0

.16)

0.17

(0.1

8)0.

20(0

.20)

0.15

(0.1

5)0.

16(0

.17)

0.19

(0.1

9)V

alin

e0.

332.

220.

670.

680.

740.

620.

660.

74A

lani

ne---

---0.

770.

790.

830.

730.

760.

82A

spar

ticac

id---

---1.

351.

381.

571.

231.

351.

56C

yste

ine

0.15

0.69

0.24

0.25

0.27

0.24

0.25

0.27

Glu

tam

icac

id---

---2.

502.

552.

812.

342.

482.

80G

lyci

ne---

---0.

560.

580.

640.

530.

570.

65Pr

olin

e---

---0.

910.

920.

970.

870.

900.

97Se

rine

------

0.

670.

680.

77

0.63

0.67

0.76

Val

uesi

npa

rent

hese

srep

rese

ntca

lcul

ated

valu

es.

1 Ingr

edie

ntsm

eans

wer

ebas

edo

n4

subs

ampl

esfr

omva

rious

ingr

edie

ntb

atch

esw

ithan

alys

isby

nea

r-in

frar

edsp

ectr

osco

py,a

ndd

iets

ampl

esre

flect

them

eans

of2

sam

ples

from

diff

eren

tdie

tbat

ches

and

wer

eana

lyze

dby

wet

chem

istry

amin

oac

idan

alys

is.

2 Low

=N

RC

(199

8)re

quire

men

test

imat

es.

3 Mod

erat

e=E

voni

kD

egus

sare

com

men

datio

ns.

4 Hig

h=

10%

grea

tert

han

Die

t2.

138

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Effe

cts o

f fee

ding

vari

ous l

evel

s of b

alan

ced

prot

ein

dens

ity o

n gr

owth

and

carc

ass c

ompo

sitio

n of

gro

win

g an

d fin

ishi

ng p

igs1

Pr

obab

ility

,P

Barr

owG

iltG

ende

r×

Lysin

e

Lysin

eD

ieta

rytr

eatm

ent:2

Low

Mod

erat

eH

igh

Lo

wM

oder

ate

Hig

hSE

MG

ende

rLy

sine

Line

arQ

uadr

atic

Initi

alw

t,lb

113.

911

3.7

113.

9

113.

211

3.2

113.

21.

170.

990.

500.

990.

990.

92d

0to

28

AD

G,l

b1.

961.

982.

16

1.93

2.01

2.03

0.06

10.

410.

320.

060.

030.

34

AD

FI,l

b5.

305.

265.

31

4.95

5.01

4.78

0.11

70.

450.

001

0.67

0.57

0.53

F

/G2.

712.

662.

46

2.57

2.50

2.36

0.04

80.

800.

001

0.00

10.

001

0.03

Inte

rmed

iate

wt,

lb16

9.9

170.

017

4.4

16

8.7

169.

716

9.9

2.12

0.57

0.24

0.35

0.22

0.44

d28

to8

8

A

DG

,lb

1.91

1.87

1.91

1.

721.

761.

760.

036

0.49

0.00

10.

860.

630.

78

AD

FI,l

b6.

356.

306.

45

5.74

5.81

5.71

0.11

30.

560.

001

0.95

0.75

0.91

F

/G3.

343.

383.

38

3.34

3.29

3.26

0.06

20.

560.

180.

970.

820.

88Fi

nalw

t,lb

278.

928

3.6

285.

3

268.

527

2.3

272.

92.

530.

930.

001

0.09

0.03

0.77

d0

to8

8

A

DG

,lb

1.92

1.91

1.99

1.

791.

841.

850.

030

0.31

0.00

10.

110.

060.

37

AD

FI,l

b6.

005.

946.

07

5.47

5.54

5.40

0.10

30.

420.

001

0.99

0.98

0.93

F

/G3.

123.

123.

05

3.06

3.01

2.93

0.04

40.

770.

010.

070.

040.

27C

arca

ssm

easu

rem

ents

Yie

ld,%

374

.97

74.9

174

.74

75

.00

75.0

375

.06

0.42

70.

950.

650.

980.

860.

91

Bac

kfat

dep

th,i

n.0.

820.

840.

82

0.68

0.67

0.66

0.02

0.77

0.00

10.

750.

610.

57

Loi

nde

pth,

in.

2.40

2.41

2.45

2.

472.

562.

490.

042

0.43

0.02

0.47

0.29

0.53

L

ean,

%53

.553

.353

.7

55.9

56.3

56.3

0.38

80.

670.

001

0.71

0.43

0.80

Live

valu

e,$/

cwt4

45.6

945

.53

46.1

3

47.2

747

.85

47.7

00.

459

0.65

0.00

10.

620.

350.

84Fe

edco

st/l

bga

in,$

50.

420.

430.

440.

410.

420.

420.

006

0.73

0.01

0.02

0.00

40.

82IO

FC,$

/hea

d5,6

56.9

956

.43

54.7

2

62.7

662

.62

61.7

41.

930.

950.

001

0.66

0.43

0.66

1 Ato

talo

f1,0

03b

arro

wsa

ndgi

lts(P

IC3

37×

105

0)w

ereh

ouse

dat

27

pigs

/pen

with

7b

arro

wan

d6

gilt

repl

icat

ions

per

lysin

elev

elin

an8

8-d

tria

l.2 L

ow=

NR

C(1

998)

requ

irem

ent(

0.66

%S

IDly

sinei

nth

efirs

tper

iod

and

0.55

%in

thes

econ

d);M

oder

ate=

Evo

nik

Deg

ussa

reco

mm

enda

tions

(0.8

1%S

IDly

sinei

nth

efirs

tper

iod

and

0.71

%in

the

seco

nd);

and

Hig

h=

10%

abov

eDeg

ussa

reco

mm

enda

tions

(0.8

8%S

IDly

sinei

nth

efirs

tper

iod

and

0.78

%in

thes

econ

d).

3 Yie

ldis

expr

esse

din

term

soft

heam

ount

ofw

eigh

tin

theh

otca

rcas

sin

rela

tion

toth

eliv

ewei

ghto

btai

ned

atth

eaba

ttoi

r.4 V

alue

was

det

erm

ined

byu

singa

bas

ecar

cass

pric

eof$

61.4

5,ad

ding

pre

miu

ms,

and

subt

ract

ingd

iscou

nts.

5 F

eed

pric

esar

ebas

edo

nJu

ne2

008

(Inf

orm

aeco

nom

ics)

.6 In

com

eove

rfee

dco

sts=

valu

eper

hea

d-f

eed

cost

sdur

ingt

rialp

erio

d.

139

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

AD

G, l

b/d

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.6 2.82.42.0 3.2

SID lysine:ME ratio, g/Mcal

Main et al. 2002, 130-190 lb

Shelton et al. 2008, 120-180 lb

Shelton et al. 2009, 115-170 lb gilt

Shelton et al. 2009, 115-170 lb barrow

Figure 1. Comparisons of ADG response in relation to SID lysine:calorie ratio from several studies with similar pig weights.

F/G

2.75

2.50

2.25

2.00

1.6 2.82.42.0 3.2

SID lysine:ME ratio, g/Mcal

Main et al. 2002, 130-190 lb

Shelton et al. 2008, 120-180 lb

Shelton et al. 2009, 115-170 lb gilt

Shelton et al. 2009, 115-170 lb barrow

Figure 2. Comparisons of F/G response in relation to dietary SID lysine:calorie ratio from several studies with similar pig weights.

140

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

AD

G, l

b/d

2.35

2.05

1.75

1.45

1.0 2.21.6 2.8

SID lysine:ME ratio, g/Mcal

Main et al. 2002, 170-225 lb

Main et al. 2002, 220-265 lb

Shelton et al. 2008, 185-245 lb

Shelton et al. 2009, 170-280 lb barrow

Shelton et al. 2009, 170-270 lb gilt

Figure 3. Comparisons of ADG response in relation to dietary SID lysine:calorie ratio from several studies with similar pig weights.

F/G

3.5

3.25

3.00

2.75

2.50

1.0 2.21.6 2.8

SID lysine:ME ratio, g/Mcal

Main et al. 2002, 170-225 lb

Main et al. 2002, 220-265 lb

Shelton et al. 2008, 185-245 lb

Shelton et al. 2009, 170-280 lb barrow

Shelton et al. 2009, 170-270 lb gilt

Figure 4. Comparisons of F/G response in relation to dietary SID lysine:calorie ratio from several studies with similar pig weights.

141

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Increasing Standardized Ileal Digestible Lysine:Calorie Ratio on the Growth Performance of Growing-Finishing Pigs

J.R.Bergstrom,N.W.Shelton,G.Papadopoulos,M.L.Potter,J.Y.Jacela1,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,S.S.Dritz1,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof1,080pigs(PICTR4×1050)wereusedinfour28-dexperimentstodeter-minethelysinerequirementsofgrowing-finishingpigsrearedinthenewKansasStateUniversityfinishingbarn.Low-andhigh-lysinecorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietswithnoaddedfatwereformulatedforeachexperimentbyvaryingtheamountsofcorn,soybeanmeal,L-lysineHCl,DL-methionine,andL-threonine.Sixlysinelevelswereevaluatedineachexperiment,withintermediatelysinelevelsobtainedbyblendingthelow-andhigh-lysinediets.Therewere6penscontaininganequalnumberofbarrowsandgiltsforeachtreatment,with6or8pigsperpen.PenswereblockedbyinitialcountandBW.InExp.1,252pigs(initially80.7lb)werefeddietswithstandardizedilealdigest-iblelysine:calorie(SIDlys:cal)ratiosof2.09,2.39,2.69,2.99,3.29,or3.59g/McalME.IncreasingtheSIDlys:calratioimproved(linear;P<0.04)ADGandF/G.Optimumperformanceandincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC)wasobservedat2.69gSIDlys/Mcal,oradietarylevelof1.01%totallysineand0.90%SIDlysine.InExp.2,288pigs(initially122.9lb)werefeddietswithSIDlys:calratiosof2.12,2.35,2.58,2.81,3.04,or3.27g/Mcal.IncreasingtheSIDlys:calratiotended(quadratic;P<0.12)toincreaseADGandimproved(linear;P<0.02)F/G.OptimumperformanceandIOFCwasobservedat2.35gSIDlys/Mcal,oradietarylevelof0.88%totaland0.78%SIDlysine.InExp.3,252pigs(initially177.2lb)werefeddietswithSIDlys:calratiosof1.49,1.79,2.09,2.39,2.69,or2.98g/Mcal.IncreasingtheSIDlys:calratiotended(linear;P<0.06)toimproveADGandimproved(linear;P<0.001)F/G.Optimumperfor-manceandIOFCwasobservedat2.09gSIDlys/Mcal,oradietarylevelof0.80%totaland0.70%SIDlysine.InExp.4,288pigs(initially224.3lb)werefedthesameSIDlys:calratiosasinExp.3.IncreasingtheSIDlys:calratiodecreased(linear;P<0.04)ADFI,F/G,carcassyield,andIOFC.DespitealinearimprovementinF/G,ADGdidnotimproveabove1.79gSIDlys/Mcal,whichresultedinthebestIOFC.Thisrequire-mentisequivalentto0.69%totaland0.60%SIDlysine.Theseexperimentsagreewithpreviousrecommendationsforgrowing-finishingpigsofthisgenotype.Forpigsweigh-ing80to143lb,123to190lb,177to235lb,and224to284lb,growthperformanceandIOFCwereoptimalwithSIDlys:calratiosof2.69,2.35,2.09,and1.79gSIDlys/McalME(or0.90%,0.78%,0.70%and0.60%SIDlysine)incorn-soybeanmealdietswithoutaddedfat.Keywords:incomeoverfeedcost,lysine

1FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

142

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

IntroductionLysineisthefirstlimitingaminoacidincorn-soybeanmeal-basedswinediets.Forthisreason,moreresearchhasfocusedonidentifyingthelife-cyclelysinerequirementsofswinethananyotheraminoacid.Understandingthelysinerequirementsisessentialfordevelopingcost-effectivenutritionprograms.Itisalsoimportanttohaveabasicunder-standingofthelysinerequirementsforpigsintheirenvironmentataparticularfarmbeforeattemptingfurtherdietaryaminoacidorenergyresearch.Theseexperimentsareamongthefirsttobecarriedoutinthenewgrowing-finishingresearchbarnattheKansasStateUniversity(K-State)SwineTeachingandResearchCenter.

Currently,aminoacidrequirementsareoftenexpressedonastandardizedilealdigest-ible(SID)basistoaccountfordifferencesindigestibilityacrosscommonlyusedfeed-stuffs.Thisimprovesourabilitytoformulatedietsthatmeetpigs’aminoacidrequire-mentswithavarietyofingredients.TheSIDlysinerequirementisoftenexpressedasaratioofSIDlysinetotheMEcontentofthedietbecausetheMEdensityofthedietcaninfluenceintake,growthrate,andefficiencyofgain.Identifyingthelysinerequirementsinthesetermshasresultedinimprovementsingrowthperformanceandtheabilitytomanagefeedcostsandhasreducedtheenvironmentalimpactofswineproduction.

Withthecontinuedprogressinswinegeneticstoimprovetheefficiencyofporkproductionandotherdesirablecharacteristics,periodicreevaluationoflysinerequire-mentsisnecessary.Also,thedevelopmentofhighlyefficacious,commercialvaccinesforthepreventionofporcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)hasresultedinremarkableimprove-mentsintheperformanceofgrowingpigs.RecentresearchatK-State(Sheltonetal.,20082)indicatesthatthelysinerequirementforhealthy,PCV2-vaccinatedpigsmaybehigherthanpreviousrequirementestimates.

Therefore,theobjectiveoftheseexperimentswastodeterminethelysinerequirementsofhigh-health,PRRS-negative,PCV2-vaccinated,growing-finishingpigsinthenewK-Stategrowing-finishingresearchbarn.

ProceduresProceduresusedintheseexperimentswereapprovedbytheK-StateInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theseexperimentswereconductedinthenewgrowing-finishingresearchbarnattheK-StateSwineTeachingandResearchCenter.Thefacilitywasatotallyenclosed,environmentallycontrolled,mechanicallyventilatedbarn.Thisfacilityhad2identicalroomscontainingforty8×10ftpenswithadjustablegatesfacingthealleyway.Theadjustablegatesallowedindividualpenadjustmentsforpigspace.EachpenwasequippedwithaFarmweld(Teutopolis,IL)dry,single-sidedself-feederwith2eatingspaceslocatedinthefencelineandacupwaterer.Penswerelocatedoveracompletelyslattedconcretefloorwitha4-ftpitunderneathformanurestorage.Thefacilitywasalsoequippedwith12feedstoragebinsandacomputerizedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)thatdelivered,recorded,andblendeddietsasspecified.Theequipmentprovidedpigswithadlibitumaccesstotheirdietarytreatmentandwater.

2Sheltonetal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.82-97.

143

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Atotalof252(initially80.7lb),288(initially122.9lb),252(initially177.2lb),and288(initially224.3lb)pigs(PICTR4×1050)wereusedinExp.1,2,3,and4,respec-tively.Allpigshadbeenvaccinatedpreviouslywith2dosesofacommercialPCV2vaccineaccordingtolabelrecommendationsandasprescribedbythefarmveterinarian.Therewere36penscontainingeither6or8pigsperpenineachexperiment,depend-ingontheblockandthenumberofavailablebarrowsandgiltswithineachgroup.Penscontaining8pigswereprovided8×10ftofspace,andpenscontaining6pigswereprovided8×8ftofspace.Inallofthepens,halfofthepigsweregilts(3or4),andtheotherhalfwerebarrows(3or4).

Ineachexperiment,penswereallottedbyinitialcountandweightto1ofthe6dietarytreatmentsinarandomizedcompleteblockdesignwith6penspertreatment.Penweightsandfeeddisappearanceweremeasuredthroughouteachofthefour28-dexperiments.Averagedailygain,ADFI,F/G,averageweight,dailySIDlysineintake,SIDlysineintakeperpoundofgain,valueoflivegainperpig(using$44.53/cwtlive),feedcostperpoundofgain,feedcostperpig,andincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC)weredeterminedineachexperiment.InExp.4,allpigswereharvestedattheconclusionofthefeedingperiod,andcarcassdatawerecollectedtoevaluatecarcasscharacteristics.Economiccomparisonswithineachexperimentwerebasedonthesamepricesappliedacrossallexperiments.However,thevaluesoflivegainperpigestimatesinExp.4wereadjustedusingthecarcassbaseprice($57.83/cwt)andcollectedyielddata.

Dietsusedintheseexperimentswerecorn-soybeanmealbased(Table1).Low-andhigh-lysinedietswithnoaddedfatwereformulatedforeachexperimentbyvary-ingamountsofcorn,soybeanmeal,L-lysineHCl,DL-methionine,andL-threonine.Withineachexperiment,thelow-andhigh-lysinedietswereblendedtoachievethedesiredintermediatelysineconcentrationsandmaintainacceptableaminoacidpatternsonanSIDbasis.The6treatmentswithineachexperimentwereachievedusing100:0,80:20,60:40,40:60,20:80,and0:100blendsofthe2diets.ThedietswereformulatedtomeetallothernutritionalrequirementsrecommendedbyNRC(19983).InExp.1,thecalculatedSIDlysine:calorieratiosusedwere2.09,2.39,2.69,2.99,3.29,and3.59g/McalME.CorrespondingtotalandSIDlysineconcentrationswere0.79%,0.90%,1.01%,1.11%,1.22%,and1.33%and0.70%,0.80%,0.90%,1.00%,1.10%,and1.20%,respectively.InExp.2,thecalculatedSIDlysine:calorieratiosusedwere2.12,2.35,2.58,2.81,3.04,and3.27g/McalME.CorrespondingtotalandSIDlysineconcentrationswere0.80%,0.88%,0.96%,1.05%,1.13%,and1.22%and0.71%,0.78%,0.86%,0.93%,1.01%,and1.09%,respectively.ForbothExp.3and4,thecalculatedSIDlysine:calorieratiosusedwere1.49,1.79,2.09,2.39,2.69,and2.98g/McalME.CorrespondingtotalandSIDlysineconcentrationswere0.58%,0.69%,0.80%,0.90%,1.01%,and1.12%and0.50%,0.60%,0.70%,0.80%,0.90%,and1.00%,respectively.Duringtheexperiments,dietsampleswerecollectedfromthefeederstoverifythatthedesiredtotalaminoacidvalueswereachieved.Alsoineachoftheexperiments,8lb/tonofFeOwasincludedasaredmarkerineitherthelow-orhigh-lysinediet.Thisprovidedavisualaidtovalidatedeliveryoftheappropriateblendtotheassignedfeeders.Attheconclusionofeachexperiment,datawereanalyzedforlinearandquadraticeffectsofincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratiosusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureof

3NRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine.10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

144

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

SAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).Penwastheexperimentalunitusedinalldataanalyses.

ResultsForeachexperiment,analyzedconcentrationsofaminoacidsforthefeedsamplescollectedweresimilartothecalculatedtotalvalues(withintheacceptablelimitsforanalyticalvariation).

InExp.1(80to143lbBW),ADGandF/Gimproved(linear;P <0.04,Table2)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio,withthegreatestimprovementsthrough2.69gSIDlysine/McalME.Asexpected,dailySIDlysineintakewasincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingdietarylysine.Lysineintakeperpoundofgainalsoincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingdietarylysine.Approximately9.5gSIDlysineperpoundofgainwasrequiredforoptimalperformance.Thevalueoflivegainperpigincreased(linear;P<0.04)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratioandwasmaximizedat2.69gSIDlysine/McalME.Feedcostperpoundofgainandfeedcostperpigwereincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratios.Therefore,IOFCwasreduced(linear;P<0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratios,withthegreatestIOFCobservedforpigsfed2.69gSIDlysine/McalME.ThesedataillustratethatboththebiologicandeconomicresponseswereoptimizedatanSIDlysine:calorieratioof2.69gSIDlysine/McalME.Usingatypicalcornandsoybeanmealdietwith-outaddedfat,thisisequivalenttoatotallysinecontentof1.01%,oranSIDcontentof0.90%.InExp.2(123to190lbBW),althoughnotsignificant,ADGnumericallyincreased(quadratic;P<0.12,Table3)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratiofrom2.12to2.35,whereitappearedtoplateau,andbecamenumericallylowestatthehighestlysinelevel(3.27gSIDlysine/McalME).Averagedailyfeedintakedecreased(linear;P<0.001)whentheratioexceeded2.35gSIDlysine/McalME.Feedefficiencywasimproved(linear;P <0.02)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio.Despitethelinearresponse,thegreatestincrementalimprovementinF/GoccurredwhentheSIDlysine:calorieratiowasincreasedfrom2.12to2.35.Togethertheseresponsesindicatethattherequirementwasaround2.35gSIDlysine/McalME.DailySIDlysineintakeandSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgainincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine.Optimalperformancewasobservedatapproximately9.8gSIDlysineperpoundofgain.Althoughnotsignificant,thevalueoflivegainperpigincreased(quadratic;P<0.12)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratioandwasnumericallythegreatestat2.35gSIDlysine/McalME.Feedcostperpoundofgainandfeedcostperpigincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio.Theseresponsesresultedinareduction(linear;P<0.001)inIOFCwithincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio,withthegreatestIOFCobservedforpigsfed2.35gSIDlysine/McalME.BiologicandeconomicresponseswereoptimizedataSIDlysine:calorieratioof2.35gSIDlysine/McalME.Thisisequivalenttoatotallysinecontentof0.88%inacornandsoybeanmealdietwithoutaddedfat,or0.78%onanSIDbasis.

InExp.3(177to235lbBW),ADGtended(linear;P<0.06,Table4)toincreasewithincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratioandachievedthemaximumat2.09gSIDlysine/McalME.Feedefficiencywasimproved(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSID

145

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

lysine:calorieratio;however,thegreatestincrementalimprovementinF/GoccurredwhentheSIDlysine:calorieratiowasincreasedfrom1.79to2.09.Theseresponsessuggestarequirementof2.09gSIDlysine/McalME.Asinthepreviousexperiments,dailySIDlysineintakeandSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgainincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine.Optimalperformancewasobservedatapproxi-mately9.8gSIDlysineperpoundofgain.Thevalueoflivegainperpigalsotended(linear;P<0.06)toincreasewithincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratioandwasgreatestat2.09gSIDlysine/McalME.Feedcostperpoundofgainandfeedcostperpigincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio.Theseresponsesresultedinareduction(linear;P<0.03)inIOFCwithincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio,withthegreatestIOFCobservedforpigsfed2.09gSIDlysine/McalME.ThesedataillustratethatboththebiologicandeconomicresponseswereoptimizedataSIDlysine:calorieratioof2.09gSIDlysine/McalME.Inacornandsoybeanmealdietwithoutaddedfat,thisisequivalenttoatotallysinecontentofapproximately0.80%,oranSIDcontentof0.70%.

InExp.4(224to284lbBW),althoughnotsignificant,ADGnumericallyincreased(linear;P<0.13,Table5)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratiofrom1.49to1.79,whereitappearedtoplateau.Averagedailyfeedintakedecreased(linear;P<0.04)whentheratioexceeded1.79gSIDlysine/McalME.Feedefficiencywasimproved(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio,andthebestF/Gwasobservedat2.69gSIDlysine/McalME.However,thegreatestincrementalimprove-mentinF/GoccurredwhentheSIDlysine:calorieratiowasincreasedfrom1.49to1.79.TherewerenodifferencesobservedinHCWorthevariousmeasurementsofcarcassleanandfatcontent.However,carcassyielddecreased(linear;P<0.02)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio,andthegreatestincrementaldecreaseoccurredwhentheSIDlysine:calorieratiowasincreasedfrom1.79to2.09.Togethertheseresponsesindicatethattherequirementisaround1.79gSIDlysine/McalME.Asexpected,thedailySIDlysineintakeandSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgainincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine.Optimalperformancewasobservedatapproxi-mately9.3gSIDlysineperpoundofgain.Althoughnotsignificant,thevalueoflivegainperpigincreased(quadratic;P<0.10)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratioandwasnumericallythegreatestat1.79gSIDlysine/McalME.Feedcostperpoundofgainandfeedcostperpigincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasingSIDlysine:calorieratio.Theseresponsesresultedinareduction(linear;P<0.001)inIOFCwithincreas-ingSIDlysine:calorieratio,withthegreatestIOFCobservedforpigsfed1.79gSIDlysine/McalME.ThesedataillustratethatboththebiologicandeconomicresponseswereoptimizedataSIDlysine:calorieratioof1.79gSIDlysine/McalME.Thisisequivalenttoatotallysinecontentof0.69%inacornandsoybeanmealdietwithoutaddedfat,or0.60%onanSIDbasis.

DiscussionWhenthelysinerequirementsforgrowing-finishingpigsareexpressedusingSIDlysine:calorieratios,theresultsobtainedintheseexperimentsareverysimilartothelatestrecommendationsforpigsofthisgenotypereportedbythegeneticsupplier(Figure1,PICnutrientspecifications,May2008).TheseratiosalsoagreewithcurrentK-Staterecommendationsdevelopedfrompreviousresearchongrowing-finishingpigs

146

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

ofthisgenotype(Mainetal.,20024).Theutilityofexpressingthelysinerequirementusingtheseratiosisfurthersupportedbythedifferencesindietaryenergydensitiesusedbydifferentresearchers.Mainetal.(2002)useddietscontaining6%choicewhitegrease,whereasdietsusedinthecurrentexperimentsdidnotcontainaddedfat.

ResearchreportedlastyearbySheltonetal.(2008)suggestedthattherequiredSIDlysine:calorieratiosarehigherthanpreviouslyreported.Theyobservedthatratiosofatleast3.16,2.58,and2.55gSIDlysine/McalMEwerenecessarytoachieveoptimalperformanceandeconomicreturnfor85-to140-lb,120-to180-lb,and185-to245-lbgilts,respectively.TheseratiosareconsiderablyhigherthantherecentPICandK-State(Mainetal.,2002)recommendationspreviouslydescribed,andithasbeensuggestedthatimprovementsingrowth(primarilytherateofproteindeposition)fromgeneticprogressand/orPCV2vaccinationhaveincreasedtherequirement.However,pigsinthecurrentexperimentswerealsovaccinatedforPCV2andhadmuchgreaterADGandADFIthanpigsinallthepreviouslymentionedexperiments.YettheestimatedrequirementsfromthecurrentexperimentsaresimilartothePICrecommendationsandfindingsofMainetal.(2002)whenreportedasSIDlysine:calorieratios.

AnotherpotentialexplanationforsomeofthedifferencesinestimatedSIDlysine:calorierequirementsisthepotentialdifferencesbetweenthecalculatedandreal-izedenergyvaluesobtainedinthevariousexperiments.Reductionsingrainparticlesizeimprovethedigestibilityofenergyandothernutrients.ThestudiesconductedbySheltonetal.(2008)wereconductedinthesamefacilitiesandusedthesamegenotypeasMainetal.’s(2002)studies.Thefeedfortheirexperimentsalsooriginatedfromthesamemill.However,thetargetedparticlesizeatthismillwas700to750micronsin2002(similartothetargetedcornparticlesizeof700micronsinthecurrentexperi-ments)butwasreducedto400to450micronsin2008tohelpcopewithrisingfeedcostsandtighteningmargins.A300-micronreductioninthecornparticlesizecouldresultinasignificantchangeinthe“realized”MEconcentration.Sheltonetal.(2008)didnotreportanyadjustmentintheenergyvalueforthecornintheirdiets,butitispossiblethattheMEvalueforcornwasunderestimated.Anadjustedenergyvaluetoaccountfordifferencesingrainparticlesizemighthaveresultedinslightlyloweresti-matesofSIDlysine:calorieratios.

AlthoughthereappeartobedifferencesbetweenrecentlysinerequirementestimateswhenexpressedasSIDlysine:calorieratios,theapparentdifferencesintheSIDlysinerequirementsarelessifthegrowthresponsesobservedareusedtoexpresstherequire-mentsintermsofgramsofSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgain(Figure2).WhentheestimatedrequirementsfromMainetal.(2002),Sheltonetal.(2008),andthecurrentexperimentsareexpressedasgramsofSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgain,therequire-mentsappeartoberoughly9to10gofSIDlysineperpoundofgainthroughoutthegrowing-finishingperiod.AcomparisonoftheresponsesonthisbasismaybeusefulinaccountingforsomeofthedifferencesinADFI,potentialgeneticimprovementsinrelativeF/G,and/ordifferencesindietaryenergydensityacrossstudies.

Insummary,thesedatademonstratethatgrowing-finishingpigsrequireapproximately9.5gofSIDlysineperpoundofgainfrom80to284lbBW.Althoughthesedataagree

4Mainetal.,SwineDay2002,ReportofProgress897,pp.135-150.

147

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

withcurrentlyrecommendedSIDlysine:calorieratios,theresearchreportedbySheltonetal.(2008)indicatesthattheSIDlysinerequirementsmaybehigherwhenexpressedintheseterms.However,requirementestimatesforSIDlysinegreaterthanthosereportedhereneedfurthervalidation.Asdemonstratedinthesestudies,over-fortifyingdietswithaminoacidscanbecostly.GrowthperformanceandIOFCmaybeoptimizedwithSIDlysine:calorieratiosof2.69,2.35,2.09,and1.79gSIDlysine/McalMEforpigsweighing80to143lb,123to190lb,177to235lb,and224to284lb,respectively.Correspondingrecommendationsfortypicalcornandsoybeanmealdietswithoutaddedfatare1.01%,0.88%,0.80%,and0.70%totallysine,or0.90%,0.78%,0.70%,and0.60%SIDlysine,respectively.

148

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Diet composition1 Exp.1 Exp.2 Exp.3and4

Ingredient,%Lysinelevel: Low High Low High Low HighCorn 82.06 66.82 82.37 66.76 87.31 70.81Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 15.18 30.48 15.64 30.86 10.40 27.17MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.60 0.55 0.30 0.20 0.35 0.30Limestone 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.85Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Vitaminpremix 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.10Tracemineralpremix 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.10L-lysineHCl 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.15DL-methionine --- 0.13 --- 0.03 --- 0.04L-threonine 0.02 0.13 --- 0.03 --- 0.04Phytase600 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09FeO2 0.40 --- --- 0.40 0.40 ---Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Cost,$/lb3 0.099 0.120 0.099 0.117 0.092 0.113

CalculatedanalysisStandardizedilealdigestible(SID)aminoacidsLysine,% 0.70 1.20 0.71 1.09 0.50 1.00Isoleucine:lysine,% 71 62 71 69 83 69Leucine:lysine,% 178 134 177 148 228 153Methionine:lysine,% 31 34 31 29 40 31Met&Cys:lysine,% 64 60 64 57 82 60Threonine:lysine,% 65 65 63 62 75 65Tryptophan:lysine,% 19 18 19 20 21 19Valine:lysine,% 83 70 83 77 101 78CP,% 14.2 20.3 14.4 20.2 12.3 18.9Totallysine,% 0.79 1.33 0.80 1.22 0.58 1.12ME,kcal/lb 1,510 1,516 1,521 1,519 1,521 1,520SIDlysine:ME,g/Mcal 2.09 3.59 2.12 3.27 1.49 2.98Ca,% 0.51 0.55 0.44 0.48 0.45 0.49P,% 0.46 0.51 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.45AvailableP,%4 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.231Thelow-andhigh-lysinedietsineachexperimentwereblendedinproportionsof100:0,80:20,60:40,40:60,20:80,and0:100usingtheFeedlogicsystem,whichprovided6equallyspacedconcentrationsoflysinefortreatments.2Ironoxidewasincludedinoneofthedietsineachexperimenttoprovidearedmarkerfordietidentificationandforvisualverificationoftheblended,intermediatetreatmentsineachexperiment.3Dietcostswerebasedoncornat$4.00/buand46.5%soybeanmealat$380/ton.4Includedapproximately0.10%to0.12%Preleasefromaddedphytase.

149

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Effects of standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine:calorie ratio on 80- to 143-lb pigs (Exp. 1)1

SIDlysine,%: 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 Probability,P<ItemSIDlysine,g/McalME: 2.09 2.39 2.69 2.99 3.29 3.59 SEM Linear QuadraticInitialwt,lb 80.5 80.6 80.7 80.8 80.9 80.5 2.4 ---2 ---ADG,lb 2.16 2.19 2.28 2.25 2.26 2.26 0.03 0.04 ---ADFI,lb 5.35 5.32 5.30 5.34 5.25 5.18 0.11 --- ---F/G 2.47 2.43 2.32 2.38 2.32 2.29 0.04 0.001 ---Endingwt,lb 141.1 141.9 144.6 143.6 144.3 143.8 2.9 --- ---DailySIDlysineintake,g 16.98 19.29 21.62 24.22 26.19 28.19 0.46 0.001 ---SIDlysineintake/lbgain,g 7.85 8.81 9.47 10.80 11.57 12.48 0.17 0.001 ---Valueofgain/pig(live),$3 26.98 27.30 28.45 27.99 28.23 28.17 0.43 0.04 ---Feedcost/lbgain,$4 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.001 ---Feedcost/pig,$ 14.77 15.33 15.91 16.69 17.05 17.45 0.33 0.001 ---IOFC,$/pig5 12.21 11.97 12.53 11.30 11.18 10.72 0.34 0.001 ---1Atotalof252pigs(PICTR4×1050)werehousedwith3replicationsof6pigsperpenand3replicationsof8pigsperpenina28-dexperiment.2Probability,P>0.13.3Basedonalivepriceof$44.53/cwt.4Dietcostswerebasedoncornat$4.00/buand46.5%soybeanmealat$380/ton.5Incomeoverfeedcost=valueofgain/pig-feedcost/pig.

Table 3. Effects of standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine:calorie ratio on 123- to 190-lb pigs (Exp. 2)1

SIDlysine,%: 0.71 0.78 0.86 0.93 1.01 1.09 Probability,P<ItemSIDlysine,g/McalME: 2.12 2.35 2.58 2.81 3.04 3.27 SEM Linear QuadraticInitialwt,lb 122.6 122.7 123.0 123.2 123.2 122.9 2.0 ---2 ---ADG,lb 2.36 2.43 2.43 2.40 2.41 2.35 0.04 --- 0.12ADFI,lb 6.71 6.72 6.65 6.61 6.47 6.39 0.08 0.001 ---F/G 2.85 2.76 2.74 2.76 2.69 2.72 0.04 0.02 ---Endingwt,lb 188.7 190.8 190.9 190.3 190.7 188.7 2.6 --- ---DailySIDlysineintake,g 21.61 23.77 25.96 27.90 29.65 31.60 0.27 0.001 ---SIDlysineintake/lbgain,g 9.19 9.78 10.71 11.64 12.31 13.47 0.16 0.001 ---Valueofgain/pig(live),$3 29.40 30.32 30.25 29.91 30.03 29.28 0.45 --- 0.12Feedcost/lbgain,$4 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.001 ---Feedcost/pig,$ 18.56 19.28 19.78 20.34 20.57 20.98 0.21 0.001 ---IOFC,$/pig5 10.84 11.04 10.47 9.57 9.46 8.30 0.41 0.001 ---1Atotalof288pigs(PICTR4×1050)werehousedwith6replicationsof8pigsperpenina28-dexperiment.2Probability,P>0.13.3Basedonalivepriceof$44.53/cwt.4Dietcostswerebasedoncornat$4.00/buand46.5%soybeanmealat$380/ton.5Incomeoverfeedcost=valueofgain/pig-feedcost/pig.

150

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effects of standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine:calorie ratio on 177- to 235-lb pigs (Exp. 3)1

SIDlysine,%: 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Probability,P<ItemSIDlysine,g/McalME: 1.49 1.79 2.09 2.39 2.69 2.98 SEM Linear QuadraticInitialwt,lb 177.0 176.9 176.9 177.1 178.0 177.0 2.7 ---2 ---ADG,lb 1.96 1.98 2.14 2.07 2.02 2.14 0.06 0.06 ---ADFI,lb 6.58 6.49 6.64 6.68 6.24 6.45 0.16 --- ---F/G 3.36 3.29 3.10 3.23 3.10 3.02 0.05 0.001 ---Endingwt,lb 232.0 232.4 236.9 235.1 235.2 236.8 3.4 --- ---DailySIDlysineintake,g 14.92 17.68 21.08 24.23 25.51 29.25 0.57 0.001 ---SIDlysineintake/lbgain,g 7.62 8.94 9.84 11.71 12.66 13.69 0.17 0.001 ---Valueofgain/pig(live),$3 24.46 24.70 26.72 25.82 25.23 26.63 0.78 0.06 ---Feedcost/lbgain,$4 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.01 0.001 ---Feedcost/pig,$ 18.20 18.63 19.73 20.53 19.88 21.17 0.49 0.001 ---IOFC,$/pig5 6.26 6.07 6.99 5.28 5.30 5.47 0.45 0.03 ---1Atotalof252pigs(PICTR4×1050)werehousedwith3replicationsof6pigsperpenand3replicationsof8pigsperpenina28-dexperiment.2Probability,P>0.13.3Basedonalivepriceof$44.53/cwt.4Dietcostswerebasedoncornat$4.00/buand46.5%soybeanmealat$380/ton.5Incomeoverfeedcost=valueofgain/pig-feedcost/pig.

Table 5. Effects of standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine:calorie ratio on 224- to 284-lb pigs (Exp. 4)1 SIDlysine,%: 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Probability,P<

ItemSIDlysine,g/McalME: 1.49 1.79 2.09 2.39 2.69 2.98 SE Linear QuadraticInitialwt,lb 224.3 224.3 224.2 224.2 224.4 224.4 2.7 ---2 ---ADG,lb 2.11 2.22 2.22 2.24 2.24 2.22 0.05 0.13 ---ADFI,lb 7.44 7.58 7.47 7.41 7.29 7.26 0.13 0.04 ---F/G 3.53 3.41 3.36 3.30 3.21 3.28 0.05 0.001 ---Endingwt,lb 281.4 284.3 284.2 284.8 284.8 284.3 3.4 --- ---DailySIDlysineintake,g 16.88 20.62 23.72 26.88 29.41 32.94 0.50 0.001 ---SIDlysineintake/lbgain,g 8.00 9.28 10.67 11.99 13.12 14.86 0.17 0.001 ---HCW,lb 208.7 210.4 208.7 209.7 208.5 208.9 2.3 --- ---Yield,% 74.2 74.0 73.4 73.6 73.2 73.5 0.2 0.02 ---Backfatdepth,in. 0.96 0.90 0.87 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.03 --- ---Loindepth,in. 2.43 2.54 2.43 2.49 2.45 2.44 0.04 --- ---NPPCfat-freelean,% 48.4 49.5 49.8 49.0 49.2 49.1 0.5 --- ---Carcassbaseprice,$/cwt 57.83Totalrevenue/carcass,$ 118.28 121.03 119.99 120.07 119.92 119.77 1.68 --- ---Valueofgain/pig(live),$3 23.97 25.55 25.35 25.52 25.49 25.23 0.53 --- 0.10Feedcost/lbgain,$4 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.01 0.001 ---Feedcost/pig,$ 18.46 19.67 20.25 20.93 21.18 22.19 0.38 0.001 ---IOFC,$/pig5 5.51 5.88 5.11 4.59 4.31 3.05 0.46 0.001 ---1Atotalof288pigs(PICTR4×1050)werehousedwith6replicationsof8pigsperpenina28-dexperiment.2Probability,P>0.13.3Determinedfromthecarcassbaseprice×theyield×totallivegainduringtheexperiment.4Dietcostswerebasedoncornat$4.00/buand46.5%soybeanmealat$380/ton.5Incomeoverfeedcost=valueoflivegain/pig-feedcost/pig.

151

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

SID

lysi

ne:M

E r

atio

, g/M

cal M

E

2.85

2.65

2.45

2.25

2.05

1.85

1.65

112 205156 254

Average BW, lb

K-State - 2009 mixed gender experiments

K-State - gilt recommendations (pre-2009)

PIC - gilt recommendations

PIC - barrow recommendations

Figure 1. Recommended SID lysine:calorie ratios for growing-finishing pigs.

SID

lysi

ne, g

/lb

gai

n

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

70 280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

1009080

Body weight, lb

K-State 2009 - mixed (Exp. 1 and 3)

K-State 2009 - mixed (Exp. 2 and 4)

Main 2002 - gilt

Main 2002 - barrow

Shelton 2008 - gilt

Figure 2. Observed intakes of SID lysine per pound of gain at the recommended levels of SID lysine across experiments.Lengthoflineindicatesbodyweightrangeofpigsineachexperiment.

152

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Porcine Circovirus Type 2 Vaccine and Increasing Standardized Ileal Digestible Lysine:Calorie Ratio on Growth Performance and Carcass Composition of Growing and Finishing Pigs1,2

N.W.Shelton,M.D.Tokach,S.S.Dritz3,R.D.Goodband,J.L.Nelssen,J.M.DeRouchey,andJ.L.Usry4

SummaryAseriesof4experimentswasconductedtodeterminetheeffectofporcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)vaccinationonthelysinerequirementofgrowingandfinishingpigs.Experiments1and2evaluatedtherequirementfor85-to140-lbgiltsandbarrows,respectively.Experiments3and4evaluatedtherequirementfor225-to275-lbgiltsand215-to260-lbbarrows,respectively.Datafromeachtrialwereanalyzedas2×4facto-rialdesignswith2PCV2vaccinationtreatments(vaccinatesandnon-vaccinates)and4levelsofincreasingstandardizedilealdigestible(SID)lysine:MEratio(2.24,2.61,2.99,and3.36g/McalinExp.1and2and1.49,1.86,2.23,and2.61g/McalinExp.3and4).

NoPCV2vaccination×SIDlysine:MEratiointeractionswereobserved(P >0.14)inanyofthe4studies.InExp.1and2,PCV2vaccinateshadincreased(P <0.04)ADG,ADFI,finalweight,anddailySIDlysineintakeandtendedtohaveimproved(P <0.09)F/Gcomparedwithnon-vaccinates.InExp.1,ADGandF/Gimproved(quadratic;P <0.03)astheSIDlysine:MEratioincreased,withincreasesthrough2.99g/Mcal.InExp.2,increasingtheSIDlysine:MEratioimproved(linear;P<0.001)F/Gandincreased(linear;P <0.001)dailySIDlysineintakeandSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgain.Thus,3.36gSIDlysine/McalMEappearstomaximizeefficiencyfor85-to140-lbbarrows.

InExp.3,PCV2vaccinateshadimproved(P <0.02)F/Gandincreased(P <0.03)finalweight,SIDlysineintakeperpoundofgain,andbackfatthicknesscomparedwithnon-vaccinates.BothADGandF/Gimproved(quadratic;P <0.05)astheSIDlysine:MEratioincreased,withADGimprovingthrough1.86g/McalandF/Gimprov-ingthrough2.23g/Mcal,indicatingtherequirementmaybebetweenthoselevels.InExp.4,bothADGandADFIweredecreased(P <0.04)invaccinatescomparedwithnon-vaccinates.Inthisstudy,ADG,F/G,dailySIDlysineintake,andSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgainincreased(linear;P <0.001)andF/Gimproved(linear;P <0.001)throughthehighestlevelof2.61glysine/Mcal,withthegreatestmagnitudeofchangewhenlysinewasincreasedfrom2.23to2.61g/Mcal.Becauseofthelackofanyinterac-tionsbetweendietarySIDlysinelevelandPCV2vaccination,itappearsthatPCV2

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsfortheuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrob-jorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2TheauthorsthankAjinimotoHeartlandInc.forpartialfundingofthisproject.3FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.4AjinimotoHeartlandInc.,Chicago,IL.

153

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

vaccinationdidnotincreasethelysinerequirementforgrowingandfinishingbarrowsandgilts.Onthebasisofthesestudies,whichusedcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietswith3%addedfat,therequirementwas1.04%SIDlysineor1.17%totallysinefor85-to135-lbgilts,1.17%SIDlysineor1.31%totallysinefor85-to140-lbbarrows,0.78%SIDlysineor0.88%totallysinefor225-to275-lbgilts,and0.91%SIDlysineor1.02%totallysinefor215-to260-lbbarrows.

Keywords:aminoacidrequirements,lysine,porcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)vaccine

IntroductionEvaluatingaminoacidrequirementsofthecurrenthigh-leanpiggenotypesisessentialforgeneratingcost-effectivedietsforgrowingandfinishingpigs.RecentresearchbySheltonetal.(2008a5

,2008b6)hasshownanincreaseinthelysinerequirementfromrequirementsestimated6yrago(Mainetal.,20027)inthesamefacilitieswiththesamegeneticlines.Also,recentresearch(Jacelaetal.,2007a8,2007b9;Potteretal.,200810)hasshownanincreaseingrowthratesandfinalweightsofgrowingandfinishingpigsadministeredporcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)vaccine.Combinedwiththeadvance-mentwithingeneticlines,theincreaseingrowthrateasafunctionofPCV2vaccinemaybeoneofthemainfactorsdrivingtheincreaseinthelysinerequirement.Therefore,themainobjectiveoftheseexperimentswastoevaluatetheeffectsofincreasingdietarylysinelevelinPCV2-vaccinatedandnon-vaccinatedgrowingandfinishingpigs.

ProceduresProceduresinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitu-tionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theexperimentwasconductedatacommer-cialresearchfinishingfacilityinsouthwesternMinnesota.Thefacilitywasdoublecurtainsidedwithcompletelyslattedflooring.Penswere10×18ftandwereequippedwitha5-holeconventionaldryfeederandacupwaterer.

Atotalof2,571barrowsandgilts(PIC337×1050)wereweanedintoawean-to-finishfacility.Pensweredoublestockedwith56pigsperpen,andgiltsandbarrowswerepennedseparately.TwovaccinationtreatmentsforPCV2werethenallottedbypenatplacement:novaccineorvaccinationwith2dosesofcommercialPCV2vaccine(CircumventPCV;IntervetInc.,Millsboro,DE)givenatplacementintothewean-to-finishbarnandagain21daftertheinitialvaccination.AllpigswerealsoinoculatedwithserumcontainingPRRSvirusaspartofthisproductionsystem’sprotocol.Whenthebarnaveragepigweightreachedapproximately55lb,thebarnwassplitoutbymovinggiltpenstoanadjacentbarntobeusedinExp.1and3andsplittingbarrowspensinhalfintheoriginalbarnforuseinExp.2and4.Additionaldetailsregardingtheeffectofvaccinationonnurseryperformancearepresentedinanotherarticleinthisreportofprogress(Sheltonetal.,200911).5 Shelton et al., Swine Day 2008, Report of Progress 1001, pp. 82-92.6 Shelton et al., Swine Day 2008, Report of Progress 1001, pp. 93-97.7 Main et al., Swine Day 2002, Report of Progress 897, pp. 135-150.8Jacelaetal.,SwineDay2007,ReportofProgress985,pp.5-9.9Jacelaetal.,SwineDay2007,ReportofProgress985,pp.10-16.10Potteretal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.5-13.11Sheltonetal.,SwineDay2009,ReportofProgress1020,pp.28-32.

154

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Atotalof1,008gilts(initially84.5lb)and1,002barrows(initially85.7lb)werethenselectedandusedinExp.1and2,respectively,for28d.FourexperimentaldietswereusedinExp.1and2withstandardizedilealdigestible(SID)lysine:MEratiosof2.24,2.61,2.99,and3.36g/Mcal,whichcorrespondtoSIDlevelsof0.78%,0.91%,1.04%,and1.17%ortotallysinelevelsof0.88%,1.02%,1.17%,and1.31%(Table1).AftertheconclusionofExp.1and2,allpigswereplacedondietsthatwereabovethedeterminedlysinerequirement.Also,beforebeginningExp.3and4,initialmarketingoccurredinwhichpigswereremovedfromeachpen,withmorepigsremovedfromvaccinatedpenstoattempttominimizethedifferenceinpigdensityandinitialweightbetweenthePCV2vaccinatesandnon-vaccinates.

Atotalof930gilts(initially224.3lb)and825barrows(initially215.4lb)werethenselectedandusedinExp.3and4for28and21d,respectively.FourexperimentaldietswereagainusedwithSIDlysine:MEratiosof1.49,1.86,2.23,and2.61g/Mcal,whichcorrespondtodietarySIDlysinelevelsof0.52%,0.65%,0.78%,and0.91%ortotallysinelevelsof0.59%,0.74%,0.88%,and1.02%(Table2).AttheconclusionofExp.3and4,allpigsweremarketedtoaUSDA-inspectedpackingplant.

Foreachexperiment,dietarytreatmentswereallottedtobothPCV2-vaccinatedandnon-vaccinatedpensinacompletelyrandomizeddesign.Eachexperimenthad5replicationsforeachdietandvaccinetreatmentcombination.Alltreatmentdietswerecorn-soybeanmealbasedwith0.15%addedL-lysineHCl.CornandsoybeanmeallevelswerealteredtoachievethedesiredSIDlysine:MEratiointhediet.Inaddition,alldietscontained3%addedfatfromchoicewhitegrease.DietswereformulatedtomeetallotherrequirementsrecommendedbyNRC(199812).Dietsampleswerecollectedfromeachdietineachexperimentandanalyzedforaminoacidconcentrations.Pigweights(bypen)andfeeddisappearanceweremeasuredthroughouttheexperi-ments.Onthebasisofthesemeasurements,ADG,ADFI,F/G,dailySIDlysineintake,andSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgainwerecalculatedforeachpen.AttheconclusionofthegrowthportionofExp.3and4,thepigsweremarketedtoaUSDA-inspectedpackingplantandcarcassdatawerecollected.Pendataforyield,backfatdepth,loindepth,percentagelean,fat-freeleanindex,andlivevalueweredeterminedbythepackingplant.YieldreflectsthepercentageofHCWrelativetoliveweight(obtainedatthepackingplant).Livevaluewasdeterminedbytakingabasecarcasspriceof$55.90,addingleanpremiums,subtractingdiscounts,andconvertingtoaliveweightbasis.Feedcostperpoundofgainandincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC)werealsocalculated.ForExp.1and2,IOFCwasdeterminedonaper-headbasisbyvaluingeachpig’sweightgainat$0.50/lbandsubtractingfeedcostsassociatedwiththetrialperiod.InExp.3and4,IOFCwasdeterminedonaper-headbasisbysubtractingthefeedcostsincurredduringthetrialfromthefullvalueforeachpig.

Datawerethenanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignwithtreatmentsarrangedas2×4factorialdesignsforeachexperiment(2PCV2vaccinetreatmentsand4dietarylysinelevels).GrowthandcarcassdatawereanalyzedusingtheMIXEDproce-dureinSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC),andpencountswereanalyzedusingtheGENMODprocedureinSAS.Dietarylysinevalueswereusedasdoselevelstotestfor

12NRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine.10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

155

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

linearandquadraticresponsestodietarytreatments.Penwasusedastheexperimentalunitinallanalyses.

Results and DiscussionAnalyzedaminoacidlevelsfordietsfromExp.1,2,3and4areshowninTables3,4,5,and6,respectively.Formulateddietvaluesareincludedinparenthesis.Foreachexperi-ment,theanalyzedconcentrationsofaminoacidsforthefeedsamplescollectedweresimilartothecalculatedtotalvalues(withintheacceptablelimitsforanalyticalvaria-tion).Alsoforeachexperiment,noPCV2vaccine×lysineinteractionsweredetected(P >0.14)foranyofthegrowthorcarcassdata(Tables7,8,9,and10).

InExp.1(85-to135-lbgilts),PCV2-vaccinatedpigstended(P <0.08)tobeheavier(3.5lb)atinitiationofthetrialandhadanincreased(P <0.001)numberofpigsperpen(3.6pigsperpen)comparedwithnon-vaccinates(Table7).Thisinitialdifferenceisduetotheincreaseinremovalsanddecreaseinpretrialperformanceofnon-vaccinatedpensthatresultedfromtheinoculationofPRRS.Vaccinateshadincreased(P <0.001)ADG,ADFI,finalweight,dailySIDlysineintake,andIOFCandtendedtohaveimproved(P <0.09)F/Gcomparedwithnon-vaccinates.Inaddition,attheconclusionoftheexperiment,pensvaccinatedwithPCV2vaccinemaintainedagreater(P <0.001)penheadcount(5.0morepigsperpen)thannon-vaccinates.Averagedailygain,F/G,andIOFCimproved(quadratic;P <0.03)astheSIDlysine:MEratioincreased,withincreasesthrough2.99g/Mcal.Increasingthelysinelevelofthedietalsoincreased(linear;P <0.02)dailylysineintakeandSIDlysineperpoundofgain.Theseresultsindicatethat2.99gSIDlysine/McalME,orapproximately9.76gofSIDlysineperpoundofgain,wassufficienttomeettheneedsof85-to135-lbgilts.

InExp.2(85-to140-lbbarrows),similartothegilts,PCV2vaccinatestendedtobeheavier(P <0.06)atthestartoftheexperimentandhadincreased(P <0.001)initialpenheadcounts(4.4morepigsperpen)comparedwithnon-vaccinates(Table8).VaccinationforPCV2alsoincreased(P <0.04)ADG,ADFI,finalweight,dailylysineintake,andIOFCandtendedtoimprove(P <0.08)F/G.AttheconclusionofExp.2,pencountsweregreater(P <0.001)forPCV2-vaccinatedpensthanfornon-vaccinatedpensby7pigs.IncreasingtheSIDlysine:MEratioofthedietimprovedF/G(P<0.001)andincreased(linear;P <0.001)dailySIDlysineintakeandSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgain.AsevidencedbytheimprovementsinF/G,theseresultssuggestthat3.36gSIDlysine/McalME,or11.34gofSIDlysineperpoundofgain,maximizedtheefficiencyof85-to140-lbbarrows.

InExp.3(225-to275-lbgilts),theincreased(P <0.002)startingweightandpenheadcountwasmaintainedforPCV2-vaccinatedpens,butthedifferencewasreducedtoonly2morepigsperpen,whichislessthantheearlierdifferenceof5pigsperpenthatwasaresultofremovingmorepigsfromvaccinatedpensatinitialbarnmarket-ing,whichbeganjustpriortothestartofExp.3and4(Table9).NodifferenceinADGorADFIwasdetected(P >0.23)betweenPCV2vaccinatesandnon-vaccinates.However,PCV2vaccinateshadimproved(P <0.02)F/Gandincreased(P <0.03)finalweight,finalheadcount,SIDlysineintakeperpoundofgain,andbackfat.Asseenfromtheimprovementsinfeedefficiency,PCV2vaccinateshadasmallimprove-ment(P <0.02)infeedcostperpoundofgain,andtheincreaseinfinalweightdrove

156

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

theincrease(P <0.001)inIOFCforvaccinatescomparedwithnon-vaccinates.BothADGandF/Gimproved(quadratic;P <0.05)astheSIDlysine:MEratioincreased,withADGimprovingto1.86g/McalandF/Gimprovingthrough2.23g/Mcal.Feedintaketendedtodecrease(linear;P <0.09)asdietarylysineincreased.Butdespitethedecreasesinfeedintake,dailySIDlysineintakeandSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgainincreased(linear;P <0.001)withincreasesindietarylysine.Nolysineleveleffectswereobserved(P >0.23)foranyofthecarcasscriteria.Feedcostperpoundofgainimproved(quadratic;P <0.001)andIOFCtendedtoincrease(quadratic;P <0.10)aslysineincreasedinthediet,withthegreatestvaluesobtainedat2.23g/Mcalfornon-vaccinatesand1.86g/Mcalforvaccinates.Resultsfromthisexperimentindicatethatapproximately1.86gSIDlysine/McalMEwasrequiredtomaximizegrowthand2.23gSIDlysine/McalMEwasrequiredtomaximizeefficiencyandgeneratethemosteconomicvalue.

InExp.4(215-to260-lbbarrows),therewasadifference(P <0.001)intheinitialaveragepenheadcount,withvaccinatedpenshavingalmost3morepigsperpenthannon-vaccinatedpens.However,therewasnodifference(P >0.85)instartingweightbetweenvaccinationtreatments(Table10).BothADGandADFIweredecreased(P <0.04)invaccinatedpenscomparedwithnon-vaccinatedpens,andtheaveragepenheadcountwasincreased(P <0.001)attheconclusionofthetrialforvaccinatedpens.Inthisstudy,ADG,F/G,dailySIDlysineintake,andSIDlysineintakeperpoundofgainincreased(linear;P <0.01)throughthehighestlevelof2.61g/Mcal,withthegreatestchangeoccurringwhenlysinelevelincreasedfrom2.23to2.61g/Mcal.SimilartoExp.3,nodifferencesinanyofthecarcasscharacteristicswereobserved(P >0.15)astheSIDlysine:MEratioincreased.Resultsfromthistrialindicatethatfeedingupto2.61gSIDlysine/McalME,or12.39gSIDlysineperpoundofgain,improvedperfor-mancefor215-to260-lbbarrows.

Resultsfromthefirst2experimentsindicatethat85-to135-lbBWgiltsrequired2.99gSIDlysine/McalMEand85-to140-lbBWbarrowsrequired3.36gSIDlysine/McalMEtomaximizeperformance.TheserequirementsreflectaSIDlysinelevelof1.04%(1.17%total)forgiltsand1.17%(1.31%total)forbarrowsinacorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwith3%addedfat.TheseresultsaresimilartotherequirementreportedbySheltonetal.(2008a)thatPCV2-vaccinatedgiltsfrom85to140lbrequired3.16gSIDlysine/McalME.Oneitemthatcouldbeaconfoundingfactorinthepresentstudiesisthedifferentnumberofpigsperpen.ThiswasaresultoftheeffectivenessofthePCV2vaccineandchangesindeathlossandreducednumberofcullpigs.However,researchpublishedbyGonyouetal.(200613)indicatesthatpigspaceshouldnothavebeenanissueinExp.1and2betweenvaccinatedandnon-vaccinatedpensbecausepenshadnotreachedthecriticalk-value(0.0336)atwhichspacebecomesalimingfactorforgrowthrate.

Sheltonetal.(2008a)reportedlinearincreasesingrowthandfeedefficiencythrough2.55gSIDlysine/McalMEfor185-to245-lbgilts.ResultsfromExp.3and4showedthattheoptimalSIDlysine:MEratiofor225-to275-lbgiltsappearstobeapproxi-

13Gonyou,H.W.,M.C.Brum,E.Bush,J.Deen,S.A.Edwards,T.Fangman,J.J.McGlone,M.Meunier-Salaun,R.B.Morrison,H.Spoolder,P.L.Sundberg,andA.K.Johnson.2006.Applicationofbroken-lineanalysistoassessfloorspacerequirementsofnurseryandgrower-finisherpigsexpressedonanallometricbasis.J.Anim.Sci.84:229-235.

157

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

mately2.23g/Mcalandthattheoptimallevelfor215-to260-lbbarrowsis2.61g/Mcal.Thegiltrequirementof2.23gSIDlysine/McalMEcorrespondstoacorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwith3%fatcontaining0.78%SIDlysine,or0.88%totallysine,andthebarrowrequirementof2.61g/Mcalreflectsadietwith0.91%SIDlysine,or1.02%totallysine.Despitethebarrowsbeingheavier,thehighrequirementinExp.4issimilartotherequirementobservedbySheltonetal.(2008a),indicatingtheremaybeadvantagestofeedingincreasedSIDlysine:MEratiosintheearlystagesoffinishing.InExp.3and4,pigspacewouldhavebeenalimitingfactorbasedonthecriticalk-valueasdescribedbyGonyouetal.(2006).ThePCV2vaccinateswouldbeatadisadvantageforgrowthandefficiencycomparedwithnon-vaccinatesbecauseoflimitedpigspace.

BecausenointeractionsbetweendietarySIDlysinelevelandPCV2wereobserved,itappearsthattheoverallincreaseinperformancewithPCV2vaccinationdidnotincreasethelysinerequirementforgrowingandfinishingbarrowsandgilts.Withonlyminordifferences,theSIDlysine:MEratiothatoptimizedgrowthandeconomicreturnwassimilarbetweenPCV2vaccinatesandnon-vaccinates.

158

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of diets, Exp. 11 and 22 (as-fed basis)  SID3lysine:ME,g/Mcal

2.24 2.61 2.99 3.36SIDlysine,%

Ingredient,% 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.17Corn 75.52 70.16 64.81 59.44Soybeanmeal(45%CP) 19.38 24.74 30.09 35.45Choicewhitegrease 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.45Limestone 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35L-threonine 0.005 0.015 0.020 0.030Methioninehydroxyanalog --- 0.015 0.045 0.070Vitaminandtracemineralpremix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10Phytase4 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013Liquidlysine(60%lysine) 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSIDaminoacids,%Lysine 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.17Isoleucine:lysine 70 69 69 69Leucine:lysine 167 156 148 142Methionine:lysine 29 29 30 31Met&Cys:lysine 61 59 58 58Threonine:lysine 62 62 62 62Tryptophan:lysine 19 19 20 20Valine:lysine 81 79 77 76ME,kcal/lb 1,580 1,580 1,579 1,579Totallysine,% 0.88 1.02 1.17 1.31CP,% 15.4 17.5 19.5 21.6Ca,% 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.57P,% 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.51AvailableP,%5 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27Dietcost,$/ton6 185.47 194.45 203.51 212.671Atotalof1,008gilts(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis28-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.2Atotalof1,002barrows(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis28-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.3Standardizedilealdigestible.4OptiPhos2000(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN)provided227phytaseunitsperpoundofdiet.5Phytaseprovided0.10%availablePtothediet.6Dietscostswerebasedoncornat$4.00/buandsoybeanmealat$300/ton.

159

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Composition of diets, Exp. 31 and 42 (as-fed basis) SID3lysine:ME,g/Mcal

1.49 1.86 2.23 2.61SIDlysine,%

Ingredient,% 0.52 0.65 0.78 0.91Corn 86.46 81.12 75.77 70.41Soybeanmeal(45%CP) 8.66 14.01 19.36 24.72Choicewhitegrease 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.4 0.375 0.35 0.32Limestone 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35L-threonine --- 0.01 0.02 0.035Methioninehydroxyanalog --- --- 0.005 0.025Vitaminandtracemineralpremix 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08Phytase4 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013Liquidlysine(60%Lys) 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSIDaminoacids,%Lysine 0.52 0.65 0.78 0.91Isoleucine:lysine 71 70 70 69Leucine:lysine 204 182 167 156Methionine:lysine 35 32 30 30Met&Cys:lysine 73 66 61 60Threonine:lysine 65 65 64 65Tryptophan:lysine 18 18 19 19Valine:lysine 89 84 81 79ME,kcal/lb 1,585 1,585 1,584 1,584Totallysine,% 0.59 0.74 0.88 1.02CP,% 11.4 13.4 15.5 17.5Ca,% 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49P,% 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.43AvailableP,%5 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23Dietcost,$/ton6 169.62 178.31 187.10 196.331Atotalof930gilts(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis28-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.2Atotalof825barrows(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis21-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.3Standardizedilealdigestible.4OptiPhos2000(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN)provided227phytaseunitsperpoundofdiet.5Phytaseprovided0.10%availablePtothediet.6Dietscostswerebasedoncornat$4.00/buandsoybeanmealat$300/ton.

160

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Chemical composition of diets (Exp. 1)1 SID2lysine:ME,g/Mcal

2.24 2.61 2.99 3.36SIDlysine,%

Item,% 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.17CP 13.8(15.4)3 15.4(17.5) 17.4(19.5) 19.3(21.6)EssentialaminoacidsArginine 0.88 1.03 1.17 1.34Histidine 0.38 0.42 0.47 0.53Isoleucine 0.60(0.62) 0.69(0.71) 0.78(0.81) 0.88(0.91)Leucine 1.28(1.43) 1.43(1.57) 1.58(1.71) 1.72(1.84)Lysine 0.86(0.88) 0.99(1.02) 1.11(1.17) 1.27(1.31)Methionine 0.25(0.25) 0.28(0.29) 0.30(0.34) 0.33(0.39)Met+Cys 0.48(0.54) 0.53(0.60) 0.58(0.68) 0.64(0.76)Phenylalanine 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.06Threonine 0.57(0.57) 0.63(0.66) 0.71(0.75) 0.81(0.84)Tryptophan 0.16(0.17) 0.18(0.20) 0.22(0.23) 0.24(0.26)Valine 0.65(0.72) 0.74(0.82) 0.83(0.91) 0.94(1.01)NonessentialaminoacidsAlanine 0.76 0.83 0.91 0.99Asparticacid 1.39 1.63 1.85 2.14Cysteine 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.31Glutamicacid 2.47 2.81 3.15 3.54Glycine 0.57 0.65 0.73 0.84Proline 0.83 0.88 0.93 1.00Serine 0.70 0.79 0.89 1.00Tyrosine 0.41 0.48 0.52 0.611Atotalof1,008gilts(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis28-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.2Standardizedilealdigestible.3Valuesinparenthesesindicateformulatedvalues.

161

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Chemical composition of diets (Exp. 2)1 SID2lysine:ME,g/Mcal

2.24 2.61 2.99 3.36SIDlysine,%

Item,% 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.17CP 13.6(15.4)3 15.1(17.5) 17.3(19.5) 19.1(21.6)EssentialaminoacidsArginine 0.86 0.99 1.17 1.29Histidine 0.38 0.42 0.48 0.52Isoleucine 0.57(0.62) 0.66(0.71) 0.75(0.81) 0.81(0.91)Leucine 1.28(1.43) 1.38(1.57) 1.54(1.71) 1.65(1.84)Lysine 0.85(0.88) 0.96(1.02) 1.12(1.17) 1.23(1.31)Methionine 0.25(0.25) 0.270.29) 0.30(0.34) 0.33(0.39)Met+Cys 0.48(0.54) 0.52(0.60) 0.58(0.68) 0.63(0.76)Phenylalanine 0.76 0.83 0.94 1.04Threonine 0.56(0.57) 0.62(0.66) 0.71(0.75) 0.78(0.84)Tryptophan 0.15(0.17) 0.17(0.20) 0.21(0.23) 0.20(0.26)Valine 0.65(0.72) 0.72(0.82) 0.83(0.91) 0.91(1.01)NonessentialaminoacidsAlanine 0.78 0.82 0.90 0.99Asparticacid 1.39 1.58 1.85 2.04Cysteine 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.30Glutamicacid 2.48 2.74 3.13 3.43Glycine 0.58 0.64 0.73 0.82Proline 0.97 1.01 1.04 1.19Serine 0.70 0.77 0.89 0.97Tyrosine 0.42 0.47 0.51 0.561Atotalof1,002barrows(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis28-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.2Standardizedilealdigestible.3Valuesinparenthesesindicateformulatedvalues.

162

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 5. Chemical composition of diets (Exp. 3)1 SID2lysine:ME,g/Mcal

1.49 1.86 2.23 2.61SIDlysine,%

 Item,% 0.52 0.65 0.78 0.91CP 9.8(11.4)3 10.8(13.4) 13.7(15.5) 15.2(17.5)EssentialaminoacidsArginine 0.61 0.69 0.89 1.02Histidine 0.28 0.31 0.38 0.44Isoleucine 0.43(0.42) 0.48(0.52) 0.61(0.62) 0.70(0.71)Leucine 1.05(1.16) 1.08(1.30) 1.29(1.44) 1.47(1.57)Lysine 0.57(0.59) 0.68(0.74) 0.87(0.88) 0.96(1.02)Methionine 0.17(0.20) 0.21(0.23) 0.25(0.26) 0.28(0.30)Met+Cys 0.35(0.43) 0.40(0.48) 0.48(0.54) 0.53(0.61)Phenylalanine 0.58 0.61 0.76 0.84Threonine 0.39(0.41) 0.45(0.50) 0.57(0.59) 0.64(0.68)Tryptophan 0.10(0.11) 0.12(0.14) 0.16(0.17) 0.18(0.20)Valine 0.49(0.53) 0.52(0.62) 0.66(0.72) 0.74(0.82)NonessentialaminoacidsAlanine 0.65 0.67 0.78 0.87Asparticacid 0.93 1.07 1.41 1.62Cysteine 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.25Glutamicacid 1.81 1.97 2.49 2.83Glycine 0.41 0.46 0.58 0.65Proline 0.75 0.29 1.11 1.27Serine 0.50 0.56 0.70 0.79Tyrosine 0.33 0.34 0.42 0.471Atotalof930gilts(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis28-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.2Standardizedilealdigestible.3Valuesinparenthesesindicateformulatedvalues.

163

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 6. Chemical composition of diets (Exp. 4)1 SID2lysine:ME,g/Mcal

1.49 1.86 2.23 2.61SIDlysine,%

 Item,% 0.52 0.65 0.78 0.91CP 9.7(11.4)3 10.9(13.4) 13.6(15.5) 15.1(17.5)EssentialaminoacidsArginine 0.60 0.71 0.92 0.98Histidine 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.41Isoleucine 0.43(0.42) 0.49(0.52) 0.62(0.62) 0.66(0.71)Leucine 1.05(1.16) 1.11(1.30) 1.31(1.44) 1.40(1.57)Lysine 0.56(0.59) 0.68(0.74) 0.87(0.88) 0.93(1.02)Methionine 0.20(0.20) 0.19(0.23) 0.25(0.26) 0.26(0.30)Met+Cys 0.38(0.43) 0.38(0.48) 0.48(0.54) 0.51(0.61)Phenylalanine 0.58 0.64 0.76 0.83Threonine 0.42(0.41) 0.45(0.50) 0.58(0.59) 0.64(0.68)Tryptophan 0.10(0.11) 0.12(0.14) 0.16(0.17) 0.17(0.20)Valine 0.48(0.53) 0.53(0.62) 0.67(0.72) 0.72(0.82)NonessentialaminoacidsAlanine 0.64 0.67 0.78 0.84Asparticacid 0.93 1.10 1.44 1.56Cysteine 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.25Glutamicacid 1.81 2.03 2.54 2.73Glycine 0.41 0.47 0.58 0.63Proline 0.59 0.67 0.71 1.18Serine 0.50 0.57 0.71 0.77Tyrosine 0.32 0.36 0.43 0.451Atotalof825barrows(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthis21-dtrialwith5replicationsperPCV2vaccinationanddietcombination.2Standardizedilealdigestible.3Valuesinparenthesesindicateformulatedvalues.

164

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 7

. Effe

cts o

f SID

lysi

ne:M

E ra

tio an

d PC

V2

vacc

inat

ion

on 8

5- to

135

-lb g

ilts (

Exp.

1)1

PCV

2va

ccin

e2Pr

obab

ility

,P <

No

Yes

Vac

cine

×

Lysin

eLy

sine

SID

lysin

e:M

E,g/

Mca

l:2.

242.

612.

993.

36 

2.24

2.61

2.99

3.36

SEM

Vac

cine

Lysin

eLi

near

Qua

drat

icIn

itial

wt,

lb82

.782

.782

.782

.886

.386

.286

.386

.22.

750.

990.

080.

990.

990.

99In

itial

pen

hea

dco

unt

23.0

23.8

23.0

23.8

26.8

27.2

27.0

27.0

0.86

0.97

0.00

10.

880.

720.

88

AD

G,l

b1.

521.

601.

721.

641.

781.

921.

901.

840.

040.

330.

001

0.00

20.

020.

002

A

DFI

,lb

3.58

3.61

3.56

3.50

4.05

4.06

3.94

3.85

0.08

0.88

0.00

10.

220.

060.

45

F/G

2.36

2.26

2.07

2.15

2.28

2.12

2.07

2.09

0.06

0.71

0.09

0.00

10.

001

0.03

Fina

lwt,

lb12

8.0

130.

913

3.1

130.

313

6.0

140.

013

9.8

137.

82.

980.

990.

001

0.48

0.46

0.18

Fina

lpen

hea

dco

unt

21.2

22.0

21.6

22.8

26.8

27.2

26.8

27.0

0.80

0.68

0.00

10.

840.

370.

93D

aily

SID

lysin

eint

ake,

g12

.68

14.9

216

.78

18.5

814

.33

16.7

718

.56

20.4

30.

390.

990.

001

0.00

10.

001

0.37

SID

lysin

eint

ake/

lbga

in,g

8.36

9.32

9.78

11.3

98.

078.

769.

7411

.11

0.26

0.80

0.13

0.00

10.

001

0.09

Feed

cost

/lb

gain

,$3

0.22

0.22

0.21

0.23

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.22

0.00

60.

750.

100.

070.

140.

04IO

FC,$

/pig

3,4

9.81

10.3

611

.48

10.2

211

.87

13.1

612

.78

11.7

30.

463

0.39

0.00

10.

030.

600.

004

1 Ato

talo

f1,0

08gi

lts(P

IC3

37×

105

0)w

ereu

sed

inth

is28

-dtr

ialw

ith5

repl

icat

ions

per

PC

V2

vacc

inat

ion

and

diet

com

bina

tion.

2 Vac

cina

tion

forP

CV

2w

asad

min

ister

edat

pla

cem

enti

nto

thew

ean-

to-fi

nish

faci

litya

ndag

ain

3w

kla

ter.

3 Die

tsco

stsw

ereb

ased

on

corn

at$

4.00

/bu

and

soyb

ean

mea

lat$

300/

ton.

4 Inco

meo

verf

eed

cost

=(W

eigh

tgai

npe

rpig

×$

0.50

/lb)

-fe

edco

stp

erp

ig.

165

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 8

. Effe

cts o

f SID

lysi

ne:M

E ra

tio an

d PC

V2

vacc

inat

ion

on 8

5- to

140

-lb b

arro

ws (

Exp.

2)1

PCV

2va

ccin

e2Pr

obab

ility

,P <

No

Yes

Vac

cine

×

Lysin

eLy

sine

SID

lysin

e:M

E,g/

Mca

l:2.

242.

612.

993.

362.

242.

612.

993.

36SE

MV

acci

neLy

sine

Line

arQ

uadr

atic

Initi

alw

t,lb

83.4

83.4

83.4

83.5

87.9

88.0

87.8

88.0

3.24

0.99

0.06

0.99

0.97

0.99

Initi

alp

enh

ead

coun

t23

.022

.422

.623

.427

.427

.027

.427

.20.

800.

940.

001

0.89

0.82

0.49

A

DG

,lb

1.77

1.72

1.91

1.91

2.06

2.08

2.05

2.11

0.07

0.44

0.00

10.

390.

130.

66

AD

FI,l

b4.

374.

134.

204.

054.

744.

744.

524.

510.

150.

770.

001

0.31

0.07

0.86

F

/G2.

482.

412.

202.

122.

312.

292.

212.

150.

050.

150.

080.

001

0.00

10.

77Fi

nalw

t,lb

136.

313

9.1

141.

714

3.0

145.

714

6.5

145.

114

7.4

3.94

0.87

0.04

0.77

0.30

0.99

Fina

lpen

hea

dco

unt

21.4

18.8

19.8

20.4

27.2

26.6

27.4

27.0

1.01

0.74

0.00

10.

480.

780.

25D

aily

SID

lysin

eint

ake,

g15

.45

17.0

319

.80

21.4

716

.77

19.5

821

.32

23.9

50.

650.

710.

001

0.00

10.

001

0.96

SID

lysin

eint

ake/

lbga

in,g

8.79

9.95

10.3

711

.27

8.16

9.43

10.4

211

.40

0.22

0.22

0.13

0.00

10.

001

0.37

Feed

cost

/lb

gain

,$3

0.23

0.23

0.22

0.23

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.23

0.00

50.

170.

090.

610.

500.

64IO

FC,$

/pig

3,4

11.0

010

.42

12.1

011

.97

13.5

813

.23

12.8

913

.08

0.59

20.

240.

001

0.63

0.47

0.56

1 Ato

talo

f1,0

02b

arro

ws(

PIC

337

×1

050)

wer

euse

din

this

28-d

tria

lwith

5re

plic

atio

nsp

erP

CV

2va

ccin

atio

nan

ddi

etco

mbi

natio

n.2 V

acci

natio

nfo

rPC

V2

was

adm

inist

ered

atp

lace

men

tint

oth

ewea

n-to

-fini

shfa

cilit

yand

agai

n3

wk

late

r.3 D

iets

cost

swer

ebas

edo

nco

rnat

$4.

00/b

uan

dso

ybea

nm

eala

t$30

0/to

n.4 In

com

eove

rfee

dco

st=

(Wei

ghtg

ain

perp

ig×

$0.

50/l

b)-

feed

cost

per

pig

.

166

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 9

. Effe

cts o

f SID

lysi

ne:M

E ra

tio an

d PC

V2

vacc

inat

ion

on 2

25- t

o 27

5-lb

gilt

s (Ex

p. 3

)1

PCV

2va

ccin

e2Pr

obab

ility

,P <

No

Yes

Vac

cine

×

Lysin

eLy

sine

SID

lysin

e:M

E,g/

Mca

l:1.

491.

862.

232.

61 

1.49

1.86

2.23

2.61

SEM

Vac

cine

Lysin

eLi

near

Qua

drat

icIn

itial

wt,

lb22

0.7

220.

522

0.6

220.

722

7.8

228.

022

7.8

228.

03.

020.

990.

002

0.99

0.98

0.98

Initi

alp

enh

ead

coun

t20

.420

.220

.420

.622

.622

.222

.422

.40.

770.

990.

001

0.98

0.94

0.72

A

DG

,lb

1.62

1.83

1.84

1.80

1.68

1.84

1.85

1.92

0.06

0.79

0.24

0.00

50.

003

0.05

A

DFI

,lb

5.99

5.98

5.78

5.71

5.90

5.90

5.64

5.82

0.14

0.79

0.60

0.21

0.09

0.75

F

/G3.

723.

283.

143.

183.

523.

203.

053.

040.

070.

770.

020.

001

0.00

10.

001

Fina

lwt,

lb26

6.0

271.

727

2.2

271.

527

5.5

279.

627

9.7

281.

73.

220.

970.

001

0.27

0.10

0.36

Fina

lpen

hea

dco

unt

20.4

20.2

20.4

20.4

22.2

22.2

22.4

22.4

0.78

0.99

0.00

10.

990.

850.

93D

aily

SID

lysin

eint

ake,

g14

.14

17.6

420

.44

23.5

613

.91

17.3

919

.94

24.0

0.44

0.72

0.70

0.00

10.

001

0.86

SID

lysin

eint

ake/

lbga

in,g

8.79

9.67

11.1

013

.12

8.29

9.44

10.7

812

.60.

210.

850.

020.

001

0.00

10.

007

Car

cass

mea

sure

men

ts

Bac

kfat

,in.

0.63

0.61

0.59

0.62

0.65

0.65

0.64

0.65

0.02

60.

840.

030.

670.

620.

32

Lea

n,%

56.4

55.9

56.5

56.0

56.3

56.5

56.4

56.4

0.70

0.91

0.71

0.97

0.89

0.91

L

oin

dept

h,in

.2.

412.

452.

472.

442.

472.

532.

452.

470.

070.

860.

350.

870.

950.

51

Yie

ld,%

75.6

75.7

75.9

75.5

76.4

75.6

75.5

75.4

0.50

0.54

0.87

0.67

0.25

0.94

F

FLI,

%3

50.9

51.1

51.4

51.0

50.8

50.9

50.9

50.9

0.28

0.86

0.18

0.67

0.54

0.35

Econ

omic

s

Liv

eval

ue,$

/cw

t48

.08

48.8

349

.17

48.0

949

.03

49.0

148

.87

48.9

30.

530.

480.

210.

580.

970.

18

Fee

dco

st/l

bga

in,$

40.

320.

290.

290.

310.

300.

290.

290.

300.

006

0.81

0.02

0.00

50.

800.

001

IO

FC,$

/pig

4,5

113.

6611

6.90

118.

1111

4.80

120.

7312

2.24

121.

9912

1.86

1.99

0.75

0.00

10.

340.

470.

101 A

tota

lof9

30gi

lts(P

IC3

37×

105

0)w

ereu

sed

inth

is28

-dtr

ialw

ith5

repl

icat

ions

per

PC

V2

vacc

inat

ion

and

diet

com

bina

tion.

2 Vac

cina

tion

forP

CV

2w

asad

min

ister

edat

pla

cem

enti

nto

thew

ean-

to-fi

nish

faci

litya

ndag

ain

3w

kla

ter.

3 Fat

-free

lean

inde

x.4 D

iets

cost

swer

ebas

edo

nco

rnat

$4.

00/b

uan

dso

ybea

nm

eala

t$30

0/to

n.

5 Inco

meo

verf

eed

cost

=va

luep

erp

ig-

feed

cost

sdur

ingt

rialp

erio

d.

167

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 1

0. E

ffect

s of S

ID ly

sine

:ME

ratio

and

PCV

2 va

ccin

atio

n on

215

- to

260-

lb b

arro

ws (

Exp.

4)1

PCV

2va

ccin

e2 Pr

obab

ility

,P <

No

Yes

Vac

cine

×

Lysin

eLy

sine

SID

lysin

e:M

E,g/

Mca

l:1.

491.

862.

232.

611.

491.

862.

232.

61SE

MV

acci

neLy

sine

Line

arQ

uadr

atic

Initi

alw

t,lb

215.

121

5.2

214.

821

5.1

215.

521

5.6

215.

721

5.7

4.34

0.99

0.86

0.99

0.99

0.99

Initi

ald

ayp

enh

ead

coun

t18

.219

.019

.218

.222

.822

.622

.622

.40.

990.

930.

001

0.93

0.88

0.53

A

DG

,lb

2.02

2.14

2.15

2.25

1.90

2.01

2.09

2.25

0.04

0.36

0.02

0.00

10.

001

0.81

A

DFI

,lb

6.70

7.15

7.12

6.80

6.48

6.57

6.85

6.70

0.18

0.62

0.04

0.19

0.31

0.06

F

/G3.

323.

343.

323.

033.

423.

273.

292.

970.

090.

760.

800.

001

0.00

10.

07Fi

nalw

t,lb

259.

026

0.2

259.

926

2.2

255.

925

7.9

259.

826

3.0

3.99

0.96

0.68

0.63

0.21

0.84

Fina

lpen

hea

dco

unt

18.0

19.0

19.0

18.2

22.4

22.6

22.4

22.4

1.01

0.92

0.00

10.

960.

960.

49D

aily

SID

lysin

eint

ake,

g15

.80

21.0

725

.20

28.0

715

.29

19.3

824

.25

27.6

50.

580.

690.

040.

001

0.00

10.

07SI

Dly

sinei

ntak

e/lb

gain

,g7.

849.

8511

.74

12.5

18.

079.

6411

.64

12.2

70.

260.

790.

650.

001

0.00

10.

005

Car

cass

mea

sure

men

ts

Bac

kfat

,in.

0.77

0.75

0.76

0.77

0.81

0.79

0.77

0.76

0.02

40.

740.

240.

700.

290.

63

Lea

n,%

54.0

54.1

54.0

53.8

53.0

53.4

53.9

54.0

0.48

0.59

0.29

0.79

0.37

0.66

L

oin

dept

h,in

.2.

302.

262.

252.

222.

142.

212.

282.

270.

070.

380.

520.

920.

630.

72

Yie

ld,%

74.3

74.6

74.6

74.1

74.8

74.8

74.8

74.8

0.51

0.95

0.25

0.96

0.93

0.60

F

FLI,

%3

48.8

49.1

49.0

48.9

48.2

48.5

48.8

49.0

0.28

0.55

0.11

0.47

0.16

0.48

Econ

omic

s

Liv

eval

ue,$

/cw

t40

.71

41.4

241

.10

40.5

240

.83

41.3

741

.73

42.3

10.

650.

500.

190.

700.

350.

51

Fee

dco

st/l

bga

in,$

40.

280.

300.

310.

300.

290.

290.

310.

290.

008

0.77

0.86

0.04

0.11

0.04

IO

FC,$

/pig

4,5

93.4

994

.52

92.9

392

.36

92.9

094

.44

94.9

897

.47

2.96

0.77

0.45

0.95

0.63

0.94

1 Ato

talo

f825

bar

row

s(PI

C3

37×

105

0)w

ereu

sed

inth

is21

-dtr

ialw

ith5

repl

icat

ions

per

PC

V2

vacc

inat

ion

and

diet

com

bina

tion.

2 Vac

cina

tion

forP

CV

2w

asad

min

ister

edat

pla

cem

enti

nto

thew

ean-

to-fi

nish

faci

litya

ndag

ain

3w

kla

ter.

3 Fat

-free

lean

inde

x.4 D

iets

cost

swer

ebas

edo

nco

rnat

$4.

00/b

uan

dso

ybea

nm

eala

t$30

0/to

n.

5 Inco

meo

verf

eed

cost

=va

luep

erp

ig-

feed

cost

sdur

ingt

rialp

erio

d.

168

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Increasing Hominy Feed in Diets on Finishing Pig Performance1

M.L.Potter2,J.Y.Jacela2,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof1,035finishingpigs(initially79.4lb)wereusedinan84-dgrowthtrialtoevaluatetheeffectsofincreasinghominyfeedonfinishingpiggrowthperformance.PensofpigswereblockedbyaverageinitialpigBWandrandomlyallottedto1of4dietarytreatments(10penspertreatment)withinitialweightsbalancedacrossthetreatmentgroups.Treatmentswereincreasinglevels(0%,12.5%,25%,and37.5%)ofcornhominyfeedaddedtoacorn-soybeanmeal-baseddiet.Alltreatmentdietswerefedin4phases,andhominyfeedinclusionwasconstantamongphases.Increasinghominyfeedresultedinalineardecrease(P <0.01)inADGandADFIfromd0to84.Regard-lessoftreatment,therewasnodifference(P>0.35)inF/G.Thelowerfeedconsump-tionandpoorergrowthperformanceresultedinpigsfeddietscontaininganylevelofhominyfeedweighinglessthanpigsfedstandardcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietsattheendofthetrial.

Thesedataindicatethataddingcornhominyfeedasanalternativeingredientinswinedietsisaviableoption;however,adecreaseinperformanceshouldbeconsideredwhendecidingifitiscost-effectivetoincludehominyfeedinfinishingdiets.

Keywords:alternativeingredient,hominyfeed,growth

IntroductionCornby-productsproducedfromavarietyofprocessingproceduresarewidelyusedasalternativefeedingredientsinswinediets.Theseingredientsareusedwiththeintentofreducingfeedcost.However,ifinclusionoftheseingredientsalsoaffectsperformance,thebenefitofreducedcostmustbeweighedagainsttheeconomicvalueoflostperfor-mance.Cornhominyfeedisfedasanalternativeingredienttoreducedependencyongroundcorn.Corniscomposedof3mainfractions:bran,endosperm,andgerm.Themajorcontributionsfromthesefractionsarefiber,starch,andproteinandoil,respectively.Hominyfeedisaby-productofthedry-millingproductionofthecorngrits,cornmeal,andcornflourindustry,whichprimarilyusestheendospermfraction.Dependingontheproductproduced,hominyfeedconsistsoftheremainingcornbran,corngerm,andsomestarch.Generally,hominyfeedisreportedtohaveahigherfiberandproteincontentandalowerdietaryenergyvaluethancorn(cornME=1,551kcal/lb,cornhominyfeedME=1,456kcal/lb;NRC,19983).Therefore,theobjectiveofthistrialwastodeterminetheeffectsoffeedingincreasingamountsofhominyfeedonADG,ADFIandF/Gofcommercialfinishingpigs.

1AppreciationisexpressedtoJ-SixEnterprises,Seneca,KS,fortheirassistanceandforprovidingthepigsandfacilitiesusedinthisexperiment.2DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity.3NRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine,10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

169

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

ProceduresProceduresusedinthisstudywereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitu-tionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Atotalof1,035finishingpigs(initially79.4lb)wereusedinan84-dgrowthtrialperformedinacommercialresearchfinish-ingbarn.Thebarn,locatedinnortheasternKansas,wasnaturallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsidedwithcompletelyslattedflooring.Barrowsandgiltswerecomingledwithinpensinapproximatelyequalnumbers,with23to27pigsperpen(10×18ft).Eachpenwasequippedwithadoubleswingingwatereranda3-holedryself-feedertoallowadlibitumaccesstowaterandfeed.Anautomatedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)wasusedinthebarntodeliverandmeasurefeedamountsaddedtoindividualpenfeeders.PensofpigswereblockedbyaverageinitialpigBWandrandomlyallottedto1of4dietarytreatments,resultingin10replicatepenspertreat-ment.Initialweightandgenderdistributionwerebalancedacrossthe4dietarytreat-mentgroups.Dietarytreatmentswereincreasinglevels(0%,12.5%,25%,and37.5%)ofhominyfeed.AsampleofthehominyfeedwascollectedandanalyzedforDM,CP,ADF,NDF,crudefiber,ash,Ca,P,andfat(Table1).Metabolizableenergywascalcu-latedusingthefollowingequations: GE=4,143+(56×%etherextract)+(15×%CP)-(44×%Ash)4

DE=949+(0.789×GE)-(43×%Ash)-(41×%NDF)5

ME=DE×(1.003-(0.0021×%CP))5

Alldietswerefedin4phasesbasedonformulationsforaveragepigweightsof80to130,130to180,180to230,and230to310lb(Tables2and3).Pensofpigswereweighedandfeedintakewascollectedond0,12,26,40,54,70,and84.Fromthesedata,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gwerecalculated.

DatawereanalyzedasarandomizedcompleteblockdesignusingtheGLIMMIXprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)withpenastheexperimentalunit.Levelofhominyfeedwasafixedeffect,andweightblockwasarandomeffect.Differ-encesbetweentreatmentsweredeterminedbyusingleastsquaresmeans(P < 0.05).Theeffectsofincreasinghominyfeedinthedietweredeterminedbylinearandquadraticpolynomialcontrasts.

Results and DiscussionOfthe40pensofpigsthatwereinitiallystartedontest,5pensweretakenofftestduringthetrial,anddataforthesepensafterremovalweremanagedasmissingobserva-tionsintheanalysis(Table4).Reasonsforpenremovalincludeddietdeliveryerrorsorlossofpenintegrityduetopigsfrom2pensbecomingmixedduringthetrial.

Fromd0to84asthelevelofcornhominyfeedincreasedfrom0to37.5%,ADGandADFIdecreased(linear;P <0.01).TherewasnoeffectofhominyfeedonF/G(P>0.35).Weightond84decreased(linear;P<0.01)asmorehominyfeedwasincludedinthe

4Ewan,R.C.1989.Predictingtheenergyutilizationofdietsandfeedingredientsbypigs.Pages271-274inEnergyMetabolism,EuropeanAssociationofAnimalProductionBulletinNo.43,Y.vanderHoningandW.H.Close,eds.PudocWageningen,Netherlands.AscitedinNRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine,10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.5Noblet,J.,andJ.M.Perez.1993.Predictionofdigestibilityofnutrientsandenergyvaluesofpigdietsfromchemicalanalysis.J.Anim.Sci.71:3389-3398.AscitedinNRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine,10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

170

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

diet.Atofftest,theseperformancedifferencesresultedinpigsfeddietscontaining37.5%hominyfeedweighingalmost15lblessthanpigsfedthedietwithouthominyfeed.

Althoughthesedietswereformulatedtoasimilarlysinepercentage,thelysine:calorieratiowasallowedtovarybecauseofinitialbestestimatesofenergyvalueforcornhominyfeed.TheNRC(1998)MEvalueofhominyfeed(1,456kcal/lb)wasusedfordietformulation.Ashominyfeedincreasedandcornquantitydecreased,thecalculatedenergyvalueofthedietdecreased.AnalysisofthecornhominyproductusedinthistrialshowedthatthisproducthadlowerpercentagesofNDF,ADF,andfatthantheNRC(1998)reportedvaluesforhominyfeed.ThisproductappearstohaveADF,NDF,andfatcontentclosertotheNRC(1998)publishedvaluesforcorn(2.9%,9.6%,and3.9%,respectively).Itisassumedthatthelowerfibercontentwouldraisetheenergyvalueofthisproduct,comparedwithpublishedvaluesforcornhominy,butatleastaportionofthisenergyadvantageislostbecauseoftheproduct’slowerfatcontent.ThecalculatedMEfortheproductusedinthistrialwas1,569kcal/lb,whichisslightlyhigherthantheNRC(1998)publishedMEvalueforcorn(1,551kcal/lb).ThesimilarenergyvaluesforcornandcornhominyinthistrialexplainwhyincreasingcornhominyinclusiondidnotaffectF/G.However,thedecreaseingrowthrateandfeedintakesuggestthatbesidestheenergycontent,thereissomeotherfactorassociatedwiththehominyfeedthatcouldbeaffectinggrowthrate.Onefactorofconcernisdietflowability.Out-of-feedeventsoccurredduringthistrialbecauseofdietsbridginginthebins.Althoughitseemedthatthisoccurredmostwiththedietcontaininghighlevelsofcornhominyfeed,thenumberoftimesdietsbridgedinthebinsforeachtreatmentwasnotrecorded.Theseobservationsarenoteworthy,andthefeedinterruptionslikelyaffectedgrowthperformance;however,theseverityoftheeffectsofout-of-feedeventsisunknown.Asecondfactorcouldbethatthehominyfeedmaybeaffectingpalatabilityofthedietandthusdecreasingfeedintake.Thisexplanationseemslesslikelybecausehominyfeedhasbeenreportedtobequitepalatable.

Thesedataindicatethatincreasingcornhominyfeedinthedietreducedgrowthrateandfeedconsumption.Therefore,usingcornhominyfeedasanalternativeingredienttoprovideenergytoswinedietsisaviableoption;however,adecreaseinperformanceshouldbeconsideredwhendecidingifitiscost-effectivetoincludecornhominyfeedinfinishingdiets.

Table 1. Analysis of corn hominy feed and NRC published values for hominy feedItem,% Analysisas-fed Hominyfeed1

DM 90.4 90CP 9.5 10.3Fat 4.4 6.7ADF 3.6 8.1NDF 10.0 28.5CF 2.8 ---Ash 2.35 ---Ca 0.02 0.05P 0.51 0.431NRC(1998)publishedvaluesforcorngritsby-product(hominyfeed)onanas-fedbasis.

171

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Phase 1 and 2 diet composition (as-fed basis)1

Diet2

Phase1 Phase2Hominyfeed,%: 0 37.5   0 37.5

Ingredient,%Corn 72.23 36.15 77.96 41.86Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 25.59 24.20 20.01 18.62Cornhominyfeed --- 37.50 --- 37.50Monocalciumphosphate(21%P) 0.50 0.48 0.40 0.40Limestone 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Vitaminpremixwithphytase 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13L-lysineHCl 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSID3aminoacids,%Lysine 0.96 0.96 0.82 0.82Isoleucine:lysine 70 70 70 70Leucine:lysine 155 152 166 162Methionine:lysine 28 27 29 29Met&Cys:lysine 57 56 61 59Threonine:lysine 61 62 62 64Tryptophan:lysine 19 20 19 20Valine:lysine 79 81 81 83SIDLysine:ME,g/Mcal 2.87 2.94 2.45 2.51ME,kcal/lb4 1,516 1,481 1,519 1,484Totallysine,% 1.08 1.09 0.93 0.93CP,% 18.18 18.33 16.08 16.22Ca,% 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.50P,% 0.48 0.53 0.44 0.49AvailableP,% 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.241Phase1dietswerefedfromapproximately80to130lb;Phase2dietswerefedfrom130to180lb.2Treatmentdietsshowncontain0%or37.5%hominyfeed;additionaldietscontained12.5%and25.0%cornhominy.3Standardizedilealdigestible.4TheNRC(1998)MEvalueforhominyfeed(1,456kcal/lb)wasusedfordietformulation.Basedonchemicalanalysisandsubsequentcalculation,theMEvalueofthehominyfeedusedinthetrialwas1,569kcal/lb.There-fore,theactualMEvaluesforthedietscontaining37.5%cornhominywere1,523and1,526kcal/lbforPhase1and2diets,respectively.

172

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Phase 3 and 4 diet composition (as-fed basis)1

Diet2

Phase3 Phase4Hominyfeed,%: 0 37.5   0 37.5

Ingredient,%Corn 81.99 45.89 85.17 49.07Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 16.03 14.64 12.85 11.46Cornhominyfeed --- 37.50 --- 37.50Monocalciumphosphate(21%P) 0.48 0.45 0.50 0.45Limestone 0.85 0.88 0.83 0.88Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Vitaminpremixwithphytase 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08Tracemineralpremix 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08L-lysineHCl 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSID3aminoacids,%Lysine 0.72 0.72 0.64 0.64Isoleucine:lysine 71 71 71 71Leucine:lysine 176 171 187 181Methionine:lysine 31 31 33 32Met&Cys:lysine 64 62 67 65Threonine:lysine 63 65 64 66Tryptophan:lysine 19 19 18 19Valine:lysine 83 86 85 88SIDLysine:ME,g/Mcal 2.15 2.20 1.91 1.95Metabolizableenergy,kcal/lb4 1,521 1,485 1,521 1,486Totallysine,% 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.73CP,% 14.57 14.71 13.36 13.50Ca,% 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48P,% 0.44 0.49 0.43 0.47AvailableP,% 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.221Phase3dietswerefedfromapproximately180to230lb;Phase4dietswerefedfrom230to310lb.2Treatmentdietsshowncontain0%or37.5%hominyfeed;additionaldietscontained12.5%and25.0%cornhominy.3Standardizedilealdigestible.4TheNRC(1998)MEvalueforhominyfeed(1,456kcal/lb)wasusedfordietformulation.Basedonchemicalanalysisandsubsequentcalculation,theMEvalueofthehominyfeedusedinthetrialwas1,569kcal/lb.There-fore,theactualMEvaluesforthedietscontaining37.5%cornhominywere1,528and1,528kcal/lbforPhase3and4diets,respectively.

173

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effect of corn hominy feed inclusion in swine diets on growth performance of finishing pigs1

Cornhominyfeed,% Probability,P< Item 0.0 12.5 25.0 37.5 SEM2 Linear QuadraticPennumbers3

Pencount(d0) 10 10 10 10 --- --- ---Pencount(d84) 8 9 10 8 --- --- ---d0to84ADG,lb 2.24 2.13 2.11 2.05 0.02 <0.01 0.19ADFI,lb 6.32 5.90 5.91 5.72 0.09 <0.01 0.18F/G 2.82 2.78 2.80 2.78 0.03 0.35 0.64Weight,lbd0 79.4 78.8 79.4 79.6 2.0 0.68 0.49d84 268.2 257.8 258.9 253.3 2.6 <0.01 0.211Initially,atotalof1,035pigs(barrowsandgilts)wereusedwith23to27pigsperpenand10penspertreatment.2SEMamongtreatmentgroupsdifferedbecauseofmissingobservations.ThehighestSEMamongthetreatmentgroupsisreported.3Penswereremovedfromtestbecauseofdietdeliveryerrororlossofpenintegrity.

174

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Determination of Amino Acid Digestibility and Calculated Energy Values in High-Protein Sorghum Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles in Growing Pigs1

H.L.Frobose,J.Y.Jacela2,J.M.DeRouchey,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.L.Nelssen,andR.D.Goodband

SummaryAnexperimentwasconductedtodeterminethedigestibilityofaminoacids(AA)andenergyinhigh-proteinsorghumdrieddistillersgrainwithsolubles(DDGS).Sixgrow-ingbarrows(initially50lb)surgicallyfittedwithT-cannulaswererandomlyassignedto1of2dietarytreatmentsina2-periodcrossoverdesign.Thetreatmentswereadietwiththehigh-proteinsorghumDDGS(50%ofthediet)astheonlyproteinsourceandanN-freedietfordeterminingbasalendogenousAAloss.Bothdietscontained0.25%chromicoxideasanindigestiblemarker.FecalandilealdigestasampleswerecollectedduringeachperiodforenergyandAAanalysis.Onthebasisoftheseanalyses,apparent(AID)andstandardized(SID)ilealdigestibilityandenergyvalueswerecalculated.TheanalyzedCPoftheproductwas44.5%withalysine:CPratioof3.6%.Crudefat,ADF,andNDFwere2.9,16.1,and18.8%,respectively.TheAIDforlysine,methionine,thre-onine,andtryptophanwere51.9,73.0,60.6,and71.7%,respectively.TheSIDvalueswere53.7,73.8,63.0,and73.8%forlysine,methionine,threonine,andtryptophan,respectively.TheanalyzedGEoftheproductwas2,317kcal/lbofDM.ThecalculatedDE,ME,andNEvalueswere1,759;1,610;and1,023kcal/lbofDM,respectively.Inconclusion,thehigh-proteinsorghumDDGSishigherinCP,AA,Ca,andPbutlowerinAAdigestibilityandenergycomparedwithreportedvaluesfortraditionalDDGS.

Keywords:aminoacid,digestibility,drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles,sorghum

IntroductionTheUnitedStatesisthelargestproducerofsorghumworldwide(472millionbu);Kansasranksfirst,producing40%ofU.S.production.Currently,morethan80%ofallgrainsorghumproducedinKansasisusedaslivestockfeed.Becauseofthehighstarchcontentofsorghum(≈75%),thebiofuelindustryinKansasusessorghumforethanolproduction.AsofJanuary2009,atotalof12drymillethanolplantsarecurrentlyinoperationinKansaswithatotalcapacityofabout450milliongalofethanolperyear.Thismeansthatdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS),acoproductofethanolproduction,isbecomingmoreavailableforlivestockproducersinKansas.

Withthetechnologicalimprovementsinethanolproduction,companiesarealsocontinuouslydevelopingvalue-addedethanolcoproducts.WhiteEnergyInc.,throughitsethanolplantinRussell,KS,producesahigh-protein,sorghum-basedDDGSfor

1AppreciationisexpressedtoWhiteEnergy,Inc.,Russell,KS,forsupplyingthehigh-proteinDDGSproduct.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

175

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

useinfeedinglivestock.Thehigh-proteinDDGSisproducedbyamethodcalledpost-fermentationfractionation,whichremovesamajorityofthefiberandoilfromatraditionalDDGScoproduct.Becausethisisarelativelynewcoproductwithpotentialforuseinswinediets,determiningthedigestibilityofnutrientsinthisDDGSproductisneededformoreaccuratedietformulation.Theobjectiveofthisexperimentwastoestablishtheaminoacid(AA)andenergydigestibilityofahigh-proteinsorghumDDGSingrowingpigs.

ProceduresTheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommitteeapprovedtheprotocolsusedinthisexperiment.

Sixgrowingbarrows(initially50lb)fittedwithaT-cannulaontheirrightflankwererandomlyallottedto1of2testdietsinacrossoverdesign.Thefirstdietcontained50%ofasorghum-basedDDGS;theseconddietwasN-freefordeterminingbasalAAendogenouslossesfromthesmallintestine(Table1).Bothdietshadchromicoxideaddedat0.25%asanindigestiblemarker.Beforethestartofthetrial,allpigswereputonacommondietfor9d.Thepigswerehousedinindividualstainlesssteelmetabo-lismcrateswithanippledrinkerthatallowedunlimitedaccesstowater.Therewere2periodsintheexperiment.Eachperiodconsistedof4dofadaptationtothediet,fecalsamplecollection(grabsamples)ond5and6,andilealdigestacollectionfor10heachdayond6and7.Eachpigwasweighedatthebeginningofeachperiodbeforebeingfedwiththenextdietarytreatmenttodeterminetheamountoffeedneededperdayatalevel3timestheestimatedmaintenancerequirementforenergy.Dailyfeedallocationwasdividedinto2equalamountsandwasgiventwicedailyat0600and1800h.Feedwaswithdrawnattheendofthefirstperiodbeforegivingthenexttestdiettoavoidcarryovereffect.Fecalsampleswerecollectedinthemorningsofd5and6andstoredinafreezer.Digestasampleswerecollectedbyattachingalatexballoontothecannula.Balloonswereremovedevery30minorassoonastheybecamefullandwereemptiedina1-Lplasticcollectioncontainer.Allcollectedsampleswerestoredinafreezeruntilfurtherprocessingandchemicalanalysiswereconducted.

Attheendofthecollectionphase,eachperiod’sworthoffecalanddigestasamplesfromeachpigwerecombinedandhomogenized.Subsampleswereobtainedfromthehomogenizedfeces,driedinaforced-airovenat140°F,andgroundforenergyanalysis.Subsamplesofthehomogenizeddigestawerefreeze-driedandgroundforAAanalysis.Energyconcentrationinthediets,DDGS,andfecalsamplesweredeterminedusingbombcalorimetry.ProximateandAAanalyseswereconductedonthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGS,diets,anddigestasamples.Atomicabsorptionspectroscopywasusedtodeterminechromicoxideconcentrationinthediet,fecalsamples,anddigestasamples.Aminoacidanalysisforthediets,sorghumDDGS,andilealdigestasampleswasconductedattheAgricultureExperimentStationChemicalLaboratoriesattheUniversityofMissouri-Columbia.

Theapparentilealdigestibility(AID)forAA(%)inthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGSdietwascalculatedusingtheequation:

AID=[1-(AAd/AAf)×(Crf/Crd)]×100%

176

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

whereAAdistheconcentrationoftheAAintheilealdigesta(g/kgofDM),AAfistheconcentrationoftheAAinthediets(g/kgofDM),Crfisthechromiumconcentrationinthediet(g/kgofDM),andCrdisthechromiumconcentrationintheilealdigesta(g/kgofDM).

ThebasalendogenouslossofeachAA(g/kgofDMI)attheileumwasdeterminedfromthedigestasamplesobtainedwhenthepigswerefedwiththeN-freedietwiththeequa-tion:

IAAend=[AAd×(Crf/Crd)]

ByusingthevaluesforAIDandIAAend,thestandardizedilealdigestibility(SID)valueforeachAA(%)wasthencalculatedas:

SID=[AID+(IAAend/AAf)]

Digestibleenergy,ME,andNEvaluesofthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGSwerecalcu-latedusingthefollowingequations:

DE=-174+(0.848×GE)+{2×[100-(CP+EE+Ash+NDF)]}-(16×%ADF)(Ewan,1989)3

ME=1×DE-0.68×CP(NobletandPerez,1993)4

NE=(.726×ME)+(13.3×EE)+(3.9×starch)-(6.7×CP)-(8.7×ADF)(Nobletetal.,1994)5

Results and DiscussionThenutrientcompositionofthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGSusedintheexperimentisreportedinTable2.TheanalyzedCPoftheproductwas44.5%onanas-fedbasis,whichisapproximately17%higherthanthepublishedaverageCPvalueintraditionalcornDDGS.Thecrudefatconcentrationwasonly2.9%,whichislowerthantheaver-ageamountoffatfoundintraditionalDDGS.TheADFvalueof16.1%forthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGSproductwashigherandtheNDFvalueof18.8%waslowerthanpublishedtraditionalcornDDGSvalues.Inaddition,bothCaandPconcentrationswerehigherinthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGSthanintraditionalDDGS.

AminoacidanalysisoftheDDGSproductshowedthatallAAwerepresentinhigherproportionsasaresultofthehighCPvalue.Therecommendedlysine:CPratioforagood-qualityDDGSisatleast2.8%.Thelysinecontentoftheproductwas1.6%onan

3Ewan,R.C.1989.Predictingtheenergyutilizationofdietsandfeedingredientsbypigs.Pages271-274inEnergyMetabolism,EuropeanAssociationofAnimalProduciton,Bulletinno.43.Y.vanderHoning,W.H.Close,eds.Pudoc,Wageningen,Netherlands.4Noblet,J.,andJ.M.Perez.1993.Predictionofdigestibilityofnutrientsandenergyvaluesofpigdietsfromchemicalanalysis.J.Anim.Sci.71:3389-33985Noblet,J.,H.Fortune,X.S.Shi,andS.Dubois.1994.Predictionofnetenergyvalueoffeedsforgrow-ingpigs.J.Anim.Sci.72(2):344-354.

177

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

as-fedbasis,whichisapproximatelydoublewhatisfoundintraditionalDDGS.Thistranslatestoalysine:CPratioof3.6%,indicatingagood-qualityDDGS.

AlthoughCPandAAprofilevaluesofafeedingredientcanindicateitsquality,deter-mininghowmuchoftheavailableAAcanactuallybedigestedandabsorbedinthesmallintestineismoreimportantwhenformulatingdietsandevaluatingtheproduct.TheAIDforlysine,methionine,threonine,andtryptophanwere51.9,73.0,60.6,and71.7%,respectively(Table3).AftertheAIDvalueswerecorrectedforbasalendogenousAAloss,theSIDvalueswerecalculatedtobe53.7,73.8,63.0,and73.8%forlysine,methionine,threonine,andtryptophan,respectively.ThesevaluesarelowerthanthosefoundintraditionalcornDDGSwiththeexceptionoftryptophan.TheoverallpoorerdigestibilityofAAwasexpectedbecausesorghumisknowntohavelowerdigestibilityofproteinscomparedtocorn,butotherfactorsduringprocessingmayhavecontributedtothelowerdigestibilityofthesenutrients.

Thecalculatedenergyvaluesforthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGSarelistedinTable4.TheDEforthisDDGSproductwas1,759kcal/lbofDM,which,asexpected,waslowerthantheDEintraditionalDDGS(1,854kcal/lbDM)becauseofitslowerfatcontent.ThevaluesforMEandNEwere1,610and1,023kcal/lbofDM,respectively.

Theresultsofthisexperimentshowedthatthehigh-proteinsorghumDDGShasahigherlevelofCPandhigherproportionsofAA,Ca,andPthantraditionalDDGS.However,thisethanolcoproducthaslowerAAdigestibilityandlowerenergythantraditionalDDGS.Therefore,specificAAdigestibilityandenergyvaluesforthishigh-proteinsorghumDDGSproductmaybeusedinformulatingdietstomeetthenutri-tionalrequirementsofswine.

178

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of test diets (as-fed basis)Ingredient,% SorghumDDGS N-freeCornstarch 43.40 80.90High-proteinsorghumDDGS1 50.00 ---Soybeanoil 1.00 3.00MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.00 1.75Limestone 1.35 0.40Salt 0.35 0.45Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15Sowaddpack 0.25 0.25Potassiumchloride --- 0.50Magnesiumoxide --- 0.10Chromicoxide 0.25 0.25Solka-Floc --- 3.00Sucrose 3.00 9.00Total 100.0 100.0

Calculatedanalysis,%Totallysine 0.57 0.00CP 24.00 0.00Ca 0.59 0.48P 0.73 0.37AvailableP 0.56 0.371DrieddistillersgrainswithsolublesfromWhiteEnergy,Inc.,Russell,KS.

179

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Analyzed nutrient composition of high-protein sorghum DDGS1

Nutrient,% DMbasis As-fedbasisDM 100.00 92.29CP 48.22 44.50Crudefat 3.14 2.90ADF 17.45 16.10NDF 20.37 18.80Ca 0.13 0.12P 0.82 0.76Ash 5.01 4.62Aminoacids,%Arginine 1.85 1.71Histidine 1.11 1.02Isoleucine 2.18 2.01Leucine 5.89 5.44Lysine 1.73 1.60Methionine 0.85 0.78Phenylalanine 2.47 2.28Threonine 1.79 1.65Tryptophan 0.39 0.36Valine 2.63 2.43Alanine 3.86 3.56Asparticacid 3.48 3.21Cysteine 0.80 0.74Glutamicacid 7.68 7.09Glycine 1.64 1.51Proline 3.11 2.87Serine 1.96 1.81Tyrosine 1.87 1.731DrieddistillersgrainswithsolublesfromWhiteEnergy,Inc.,Russell,KS.

180

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Standardized and apparent ileal digestibility (%) of amino acids in high-protein sorghum DDGS1,2

Aminoacid SID3 AID4

Indispensableaminoacids    Arginine 77.97 76.08Histidine 62.62 61.38Isoleucine 69.71 68.64Leucine 73.74 73.09Lysine 53.71 51.86Methionine 73.78 73.04Phenylalanine 72.85 71.89Threonine 63.01 60.57Tryptophan 73.84 71.72Valine 68.08 66.52DispensableaminoacidsAlanine 68.39 67.42Asparticacid 63.67 62.02Cysteine 65.51 63.70Glutamicacid 69.60 68.73Glycine 46.31 40.10Proline 59.95 54.27Serine 70.72 68.76Tyrosine 71.56 70.461Valuesaremeansof6pigs(initially50lb)usedinacrossoverdesign.2DrieddistillersgrainswithsolublesfromWhiteEnergy,Inc.,Russell,KS.3Standardizedilealdigestibility.4Apparentilealdigestibility.

Table 4. Energy values of high-protein sorghum DDGS1,2 Energy,kcal/lb DMbasis As-isbasisGE 2,317 2,129DE3 1,759 1,616ME3 1,610 1,479NE3 1,023 9401Valuesaremeansof6observationspertreatment.2DrieddistillersgrainswithsolublesfromWhiteEnergy,Inc.,Russell,KS.3SeeproceduressectionforequationsusedtocalculateDE,ME,andNE.

181

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effect of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles Withdrawal Regimens on Finishing Pig Performance and Carcass Characteristics1

J.Y.Jacela2,J.M.Benz,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,J.L.Nelssen,andK.J.Prusa3

SummaryAtotalof962pigs(PICL337×1050,initialBW=86.1lb)wereusedtodeterminetheeffectofdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)withdrawalregimensongrowthperformanceandcarcasstraits.Pigswererandomlyassignedto1of6treatments(6penspertreatment)balancedbyaverageBWwithingender.Treatmentswere:(1)acorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwithoutDDGSfedfor89d(control),(2)30%DDGSfedfromd0to48and0%DDGSfedfromd48to89,(3)30%DDGSfedfromd0to69and0%DDGSfedfromd69to89,(4)30%DDGSfedfromd0to48and15%DDGSfedfromd48to89,(5)30%DDGSfedfromd0to69and15%DDGSfedfromd69to89,and(6)30%DDGSdietfedfromd0to89.Alldietscontained3%addedfat.PigBW,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gweredeterminedevery14d.Attheendofthetrial,carcassfatqualitywasevaluated.Therewerenotreatment×genderinterac-tions(P >0.21)foranycriteriaevaluated.AlthoughthereweresomedifferencesinF/Gwithinphases,therewerenooveralldifferences(P>0.35)ingrowthperformanceamongtreatments.FinalweightnumericallydecreasedastotalDDGSlevelincreased.FeedingcontinuouslyorwithdrawingDDGSfromthediet,regardlessoftheamountorduration,hadnosignificanteffect(P >0.39)onanyofthecarcasscriteriameasured.PigsfedDDGShadincreased(P<0.01)iodinevalueoffatdepotscomparedwithcontrolpigs.WhentheDDGSwithdrawaldurationincreased(Treatments6,3,2,and1),iodinevaluesforallfatdepotsdecreased(linear;P <0.01).Feedcostperpigwashighest(P<0.05)when0%DDGSwasfedorwithdrawn6wkbeforemarketing(Treatments1and2)andlowestwhenDDGSwasaddedinthedietsuntilatleast3wkbeforemarketing(Treatments3,4,5,and6).However,thereductioninfeedcostdidnotsignificantlyimprove(P>0.57)revenueorincomeoverfeedcost.Insummary,DDGSreductionorwithdrawal3or6wkbeforemarketdidnotaffectgrowthperfor-manceortotallyalleviateitsnegativeeffectoncarcassfatiodinevalue.

Keywords:carcass,drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles,growth

IntroductionUseofdrieddistillersgrainswithsoluble(DDGS)inswinedietshasbecomecommonintheswineindustryoverthepastseveralyears.Asidefrombeingarelativelyinex-pensiveingredient,DDGSisagoodsourceofenergyandaminoacids.AvailabilityofphosphorusinDDGSisalsohighcomparedwithcorn,whichreducestheneedto

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrobjorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.3DepartmentofFoodScienceandHumanNutrition,IowaStateUniversity.

182

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

addinorganicphosphorusinthediet.Thus,DDGSisasuitablealternativetoothercommonenergyandproteinsourcessuchascornandsoybeanmeal.

Unfortunately,theuseofDDGSinpigdietshassomedisadvantages.Insomestudies,growthperformanceofpigswasnegativelyaffectedwhenDDGSwasaddedtodiets,especiallyathighlevels(30%orgreater).AnotherdisadvantageisthenegativeeffectofDDGSoncarcassyieldandfatquality.Softcarcassfatwithahighiodinevalue(IV)hasconsistentlybeenobservedinpigsfedhighlevelsofDDGS.Thus,ithasbeensuggestedthatDDGSshouldbewithdrawnfromfinishingdietsseveralweekspriortomarkettoalleviateitsnegativeeffectoncarcassquality.However,theoptimumlevelandtimingofDDGSreductionthatwillresultinamelioratingitsnegativeeffectsonfatquality(asmeasuredbyIV)warrantsfurtherinvestigation.

Therefore,weconductedthisstudytoevaluatetheeffectsofdecreasingorwithdrawingDDGSatdifferenttimesbeforemarketingongrowthperformance,carcasscharacteris-tics,andcarcassfatqualityoffinishingpigs.

ProceduresThisstudywasapprovedbyandconductedinaccordancewiththeguidelinesoftheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theexperi-mentwasconductedinacommercialresearchfinishingbarninsouthwesternMinne-sota.Thebarnswerenaturallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsided.Penshadcompletelyslattedflooringanddeeppitsformanurestorage.Eachpenwasequippedwitha5-holestainlesssteeldryself-feederandacupwatererforadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Dailyfeedadditionstoeachpenwereaccomplishedthrougharoboticfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)capableofprovidingandmeasuringfeedamountsonanindividualpenbasis.

Atotalof962pigs(PICL337×1050,initialBW=86.1lb)wererandomlyassignedto1of6treatmentsbalancedbyaverageBWwithingender.Therewere6single-genderpens(3pensofbarrowsand3pensofgilts)pertreatment.Pigswerefedacommonnurserydietbasedoncornandsoybeanmealwith15%DDGSforapproximately27dbeforethestartoftheexperiment.Treatmentswere:(1)acorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwithoutDDGSfedfor89d(control),(2)30%DDGSfedfromd0to48and0%DDGSfedfromd48to89,(3)30%DDGSfedfromd0to69and0%DDGSfedfromd69to89,(4)30%DDGSfedfromd0to48and15%DDGSfedfromd48to89,(5)30%DDGSfedfromd0to69and15%DDGSfedfromd69to89,and(6)30%DDGSdietfedfromd0to89(Table1).Dietscontained3%addedfatandwerefedin4phasesformulatedtocontainaminimumof2.70,2.43,2.05,and2.72standardizedilealdigestiblelysine/McalMEduringPhases1to4,respectively.Indietformulation,theDDGSusedinthisexperimentwasassumedtohavethesameMEcontentascorn.DietaryPhases1to4werefedfromapproximately80to130,130to185,185to230,and230to270lb,respectively.Pigsfromeachpenwereweighedasagroupandfeeddisappearancewasdeterminedevery2wktodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.

Ond76oftheexperiment,the3heaviestpigsfromeachpen(determinedvisually)weresoldinaccordancewiththenormalmarketingprocedureofthefarm.Attheendoftheexperiment,pigswereindividuallytattooedaccordingtopennumbertoallowfor

183

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

carcassdatacollectionatthepackingplantanddataretrievalbypen.Pigsweretrans-portedtoJBSSwiftandCompany(Worthington,MN)forprocessingandcarcassdatacollection.Standardcarcasscriteriaofloinandbackfatdepth,HCW,percentagelean,andyieldwerecollected.Fat-freeleanindexwascalculatedusingtheequation:50.767+(0.035×HCW)-(8.979×backfat).

Twoaverage-weightpigsfromeverypenweretattooedwithuniqueidentificationnumberstodistinguishthemfromtherestofthepigswhenthewholefinishinggroupwasmarketed.Fromthesepigs,fatsamplesfromjowlfat,backfat,andbellyfatwerecollectedandprocessedforfattyacidanalysisusinggaschromatography.Fattyacidsfromeachofthefatsampleswereexpressedasapercentageofthetotalfattyacids.Iodinevalue,expressedasg/100goffat,wasthencalculatedbasedonthefattyacidprofileofeachsampleaccordingtothefollowingequation4:

IV= [C16:1]×0.95+[C18:1]×0.86+[C18:2]×1.732+[C18:3]×2.616+ [C20:1]×0.785+[C22:1]×0.723wherethebracketsimplyconcentration(percentage)ofthefattyacid.

StatisticalanalysiswasperformedbyanalysisofvarianceusingtheMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC).Datawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignwithpenastheexperimentalunit.Themaineffectsofthedifferenttreatmentregimens,gender,andtheirinteractionweretested.Backfat,loindepth,percentagelean,andfat-freeleanindexwereadjustedtoacommoncarcassweight.Linearandpoly-nomialcontrastswereusedtodeterminetheeffectsofwithdrawaldurationandlevelofDDGSreduction(100%,50%,and0%).Contrastcoefficientsforwithdrawalduration(0,20,41,and89d)weredeterminedforunequallyspacedtreatmentsbyusingtheIMLprocedureofSAS.ThemaineffectsofdurationofDDGSreduction(3vs.6wk)andlevelofDDGSreduction(100%vs.50%)weredeterminedusingsingledegreeoffreedomcontraststatements.

Results and DiscussionTherewerenotreatment×genderinteractions(P >0.21)foranyofthecriteriaevalu-ated.Overallgenderdifferencesingrowthperformancewereasexpected,withbarrowshavinggreater(P<0.05) ADGandADFIbutpoorer(P<0.05)F/Gthangilts(Table2).Fromd0to42,whenallpigswerefed30%DDGSdietswiththeexceptionofthecontrolpigs,therewerenodifferences(P>0.31)amongtreatments.However,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gofpigsfed0%DDGSwerenumericallyimprovedby6.3%,3.6%and2.9%,respectively,comparedwithpigsfed30%DDGS.

Fromd42to69,pigsinalltreatmentgroupshadsimilar(P >0.47)growthperfor-mance.However,whentheamountofDDGSwasloweredto0%or15%ofthediet(6wkvs.3wkwithdrawal;Treatments2and4vs.3and5),reducingDDGSearliertended(P<0.10)toleadtoagreaterADGbutpoorerF/G.

Fromd69to89,ADFIdecreased(linear;P<0.01)butF/Gtendedtoimprove(linear;P<0.10)asthedurationofcompleteDDGSwithdrawalfromthediet(Treatments

4AOCS.1998.OfficialMethodsandRecommendedPracticesoftheAOCS.5thed.Am.Oil.Chem.Soc.,Champaign,IL.

184

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

1,2,3,and6)increased.WhenDDGSlevelduringthelast3wk(0%,15%,and30%;Treatments3,5,and6)wascompared,F/Gtended(P<0.10)toimproveaslessDDGSwaswithdrawnfromthediet.Completewithdrawalorreductionto15%DDGSinthediet6wkbeforepigsweremarketedimproved(P<0.05)F/Gcomparedwitha3-wkcompleteDDGSwithdrawalorreductionto15%(Treatments2and4vs.3and5).Fromd42to89,therewerenodifferences(P >0.42)inADFIorF/Gamongthe6treatments.However,increasingthedurationofDDGSwithdrawalincreasedADG(quadratic;P<0.05;Treatments1,2,3,and6).

Overall,therewerenodifferencesingrowthperformanceamongtreatments(P>0.35).However,whencomparingtheeffectofamountofDDGSwithdrawnfromthedietduringthelast6wkbeforemarket(100%,50%,and0%DDGSwithdrawn;Treat-ments2,4,and6),F/Gbecameworse(quadratic;P=0.05).TheeffectofDDGSwith-drawalobservedinthisexperimentagreeswiththefindingsfromapreviousstudythatevaluatedtheeffectsoffeedingdietswith30%DDGSandawithdrawal(0%DDGS)durationof0,3,or6wkbeforemarketingongrowthperformance(Gainesetal.,20075).Gainesetal.(2007)reportedthatpigscontinuouslyfed30%DDGShadpoorerF/Gthanpigsthatwerefeddietswith0%DDGS.Possibleexplanationsforthediffer-encesinresultsbetweenourstudyandthatofGainesetal.(2007)includethequalityofDDGSusedandmethodofdietformulation.WeusedhigherlevelsofsyntheticaminoacidstominimizeexcessCP.Becauseofthesimilargrowthperformanceexhibitedbyallthetreatmentgroupsinourstudy,nosignificantdifferencesinfinalweightswereobserved.However,feedingDDGSforlongerdurationsnumericallyreducedmarketweight.

FeedingDDGScontinuouslyorwithdrawingitfromthediet,regardlessoftheamount,hadnosignificanteffect(P >0.39)onanyofthecarcasscharacteristicsmeasured(Table3).ThisisincontrasttoresultsofGainesetal.(2007),whoobservedanimprovementincarcassyieldandweightwhenDDGSwaswithdrawnfromthedietseveralweeksbeforemarket.

Asexpected,fatqualitywasnegativelyaffectedinpigsfeddietscontainingDDGS.Fatfirmnessislessdesirablewhenitcontainshighamountsofpolyunsaturatedfattyacids(PUFA),whicharecorrelatedtoahighIV.AllDDGS-fedpigshadincreased(P <0.01)PUFAinallfatdepotscomparedwiththenon-DDGS-fedpigs(Table4).WhenthedurationofDDGSwithdrawaldecreased(Treatments1,2,3,and6),PUFAincreasedinbackfat(quadratic;P <0.01),bellyfat(linear;P <0.01),andjowlfat(linear;P <0.01).Thus,feedingDDGSincreased(P<0.01)theIVofall3fatdepotscomparedwiththecontrols.CompletewithdrawalofDDGSfromthedietdidnotreduceIVtolevelssimilarorclosetothecontrols,whichisnotconsistentwithotherstudiesthatshowedareductioninIVwhenDDGSwaswithdrawnfromthedietforaslittleas3wk(Xuetal.,20086).Resultsofourstudyindicatethata6-wkwithdrawalorreduc-tionofDDGSinthedietsisnotenoughtototallyalleviatethenegativeeffectoffeeding

5Gaines,A.M.,J.D.Spencer,G.I.Petersen,N.R.Augspurger,andS.J.Kitt.2007.Effectofcorndistill-ersdriedgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)withdrawalprogramongrowthperformanceandcarcassyieldingrow-finishpigs.J.Anim.Sci.85(Suppl.1):438.(Abstr.)6Xu,G.,S.K.Baidoo,L.J.Johnston,J.E.Cannon,D.Bibus,andG.C.Shurson.2008.Effectsofdietarycorndrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)andDDGSwithdrawalintervals,onpiggrowthperfor-mance,carcasstraits,andfatquality.J.Anim.Sci.86(Suppl.2):52.(Abstr.)

185

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

DDGSoncarcassfat.However,thismaydependonthequalityorcrudefatcontentoftheDDGS.AsthedurationofcompleteDDGSwithdrawalincreased(Treatments6,3,2,and1),IVforallfatdepotsdecreased(linear;P <0.01).TherateofIVdecreaseinbackfat,bellyfat,andjowlfatwas0.02,0.02,and0.08g/100g,respectively,foreveryweekthatDDGSwasreducedto15%(Figures1,2,and3).WhenDDGSwascompletelywithdrawnfromthediet,IVofbackfat,bellyfat,andjowlfatdecreasedby0.18,0.31,and0.34g/100gperwk,respectively.ThechangeinIVforthe3fatdepotsappearstobemorevariablebetweenthe3and6wkdatawhenDDGSwasreducedtoonly15%comparedwithcompletewithdrawal.

Feedcostperpigwashighest(P<0.05)when0%DDGSwasfedinthedietsorwith-drawn6wkbeforemarketing(Treatments1and2;Table5)andlowerwhenDDGSwasaddedinthedietsuntilatleast3wkbeforemarketing(Treatments3,4,5,and6).AsthenumberofdaysthatDDGSwaswithdrawnfromthedietdecreased(Treat-ments1,2,3,and6),feedcostperpigalsodecreased(linear;P<0.01).Feedcostperpigwasalsoreduced(linear;P<0.05)asthelevelofDDGSwithdrawnfromthedietwasreducedfrom100%to0%duringthelast6wkpriortomarket(Treatments2,4,and6).However,thereductioninfeedcostdidnotresult(P>0.57)inanysignificantimprovementinrevenueorincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC),althoughIOFCwasnumer-icallyhighestinpigsthatwerefed30%DDGScontinuously.

Insummary,feeding30%DDGSinfinishingpigsdidnotaffectgrowthperformancebutresultedinsofterfatasindicatedbyincreasedcarcassfatIV.DietcostwasreducedwhenDDGSwasfedcontinuouslyinfinishingpigs,whichresultedinanumericincreaseinIOFC.ReducingorcompletelywithdrawingDDGSfromdiets3or6wkbeforepigsweremarketeddidnottotallyalleviatethenegativeeffectofDDGSoncarcassfatIVbutnumericallyreducedtheIVcomparedwithcontinuouslyfeedingDDGSuntilmarketing.

186

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Diet composition (as-fed basis)1

Phase1 Phase2 Phase3 Phase4DDGS,%2: 0 30   0 30   0 15 30   0 15 30

Ingredient,%Corn 72.2 49.1 73.7 53.0 78.9 69.4 57.0 69.6 59.0 47.8Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 22.6 15.6 21.4 12.0 16.2 10.9 8.1 25.4 21.3 17.2DDGS --- 30.0 --- 30.0 --- 15.0 30.0 --- 15.0 30.0Choicewhitegrease 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.5 0.3 0.4 --- 0.3 --- --- 0.3 --- ---Limestone 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2Salt 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4L-lysineHCl 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4L-threonine 0.03 --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.04 --- ---DL-methionine 0.02 --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.035 --- ---RactopamineHCl,9g/lb3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.025 0.025 0.025Vitamin-tracemineralpremix 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Phytase4 0.013 --- 0.013 0.005 0.013 0.013 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.005Total 100.0 100.0   100.0 100.0   100.0 100.0 100.0   100.0 100.0 100.0

Calculatedanalysis:SID5aminoacids,%Lysine 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.95 0.95 0.95Isoleucine:lysine 65 69 69 69 70 68 72 69 70 71Leucine:lysine 148 186 161 196 173 192 219 154 171 188Methionine:lysine 28 33 29 34 30 33 38 31 30 33Met&Cys:lysine 56 66 59 69 63 68 77 60 62 67Threonine:lysine 60 63 61 64 62 63 68 65 63 65Tryptophan:lysine 18 17 19 17 19 17 17 19 19 18Valine:lysine 74 83 80 85 82 84 91 78 82 85Totallysine,% 1.05 1.10 0.96 1.00 0.81 0.84 0.87 1.07 1.09 1.12ME,kcal/lb 1,580 1,582 1,582 1,587 1,583 1,589 1,587 1,581 1,587 1,585SIDLysine:ME,g/Mcal 2.70 2.70 2.44 2.43 2.06 2.05 2.06 2.73 2.72 2.72CP,% 16.7 19.6 16.2 18.3 14.2 15.0 16.7 17.7 19.0 20.2Ca,% 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.48 0.50 0.41 0.48 0.54 0.46 0.52P,% 0.46 0.52 0.43 0.44 0.40 0.38 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.47AvailableP,% 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.26Cost,$/ton6 189.3 175.9   183.4 165.6   169.7 159.1 154.7   212.0 202.0 195.01Phases1,2,3,and4werefedfromapproximately80to130,130to185,185to230,and230to270lbBW,respectively.2Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles.3Paylean;ElancoAnimalHealth,Greenfield,IN.4OptiPhos2000(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN)providedperpoundofdiet:227and0FTUinthe0%and30%DDGSdiets,respectively,inPhase1;227and91FTUinthe0%and30%DDGSdiets,respectively,inPhase2;227FTUinthe0%and15%DDGSdietsand91FTUinthe30%DDGSdietinPhase3;and181FTUinthe0%and15%DDGSdietsand91FTUinthe30%DDGSdietinPhase4.5Standardizedilealdigestible.6Dietcostwasbasedoncornat$3.05/buand46.5%soybeanmealat$370/ton.

187

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Effect of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) step-down or withdrawal regimen on growth performance of growing-finishing pigs1

  DDGS,%        Treatment: 1 2 3 4 5 6

d0to48: 0 30 30 30 30 30d48to69: 0 0 30 15 30 30 Genderd69to89: 0 0 0 15 15 30 SEM Barrow Gilt SEM

Weight,lbd0 85.9 85.7 85.9 87.1 86.6 85.1 2.11 86.6 85.6 1.22d42 171.6 166.9 167.3 166.6 166.6 167.4 3.61 169.5 166.0 2.08d69 225.4 221.1 221.3 218.5 218.5 219.1 3.99 223.3 218.0 2.30d76 241.5 237.4 236.7 235.4 233.2 235.0 3.98 239.8 233.3 2.30d89a 267.8 266.4 267.0 263.2 261.7 261.4 4.06 268.1 261.1 2.34d0to42ADG,lb 2.02 1.91 1.91 1.88 1.88 1.92 0.051 1.95 1.89 0.030ADFI,lba 4.84 4.66 4.71 4.80 4.69 4.57 0.135 4.86 4.56 0.078F/Ge 2.40 2.44 2.47 2.57 2.49 2.38 0.063 2.50 2.42 0.036d42to69ADG,lba,h 5.74 5.82 5.73 5.85 5.54 5.71 0.111 5.95 5.51 0.064ADFI,lb 1.92 1.96 1.97 1.89 1.90 1.91 0.050 1.96 1.89 0.029F/Ga,h 3.00 2.97 2.91 3.09 2.93 2.99 0.063 3.04 2.92 0.037d69to89ADG,lb 2.29 2.50 2.25 2.38 2.39 2.41 0.072 2.39 2.34 0.042ADFI,lba,b 5.84 6.30 6.32 6.15 6.34 6.38 0.126 6.48 5.97 0.073F/Ga,c,f,g 2.55 2.54 2.82 2.59 2.67 2.65 0.068 2.72 2.56 0.040d42to89ADG,lbd 2.06 2.17 2.15 2.09 2.09 2.08 0.041 2.13 2.08 0.024ADFI,lba 5.78 6.02 5.97 5.97 5.86 5.98 0.105 6.16 5.70 0.061F/Ga 2.81 2.78 2.79 2.86 2.81 2.88 0.051 2.90 2.74 0.029d0to89ADG,lba 2.04 2.04 2.03 1.98 1.98 2.00 0.031 2.04 1.99 0.018ADFI,lba 5.32 5.35 5.36 5.40 5.29 5.29 0.096 5.53 5.14 0.056F/Ga,e 2.61 2.62 2.64 2.72 2.66 2.64 0.037 2.71 2.59 0.0221Atotalof962pigs(PICL337×1050,initialBW=86.1lb)wereusedwith27pigsperpenand6penspertreatment.aGendereffect:P<0.05.bLineareffectofdecreasingdurationofDDGSwithdrawal(Treatments1,2,3,and6);P <0.05.cLineareffectofdecreasingdurationofDDGSwithdrawal(Treatments1,2,3,and6);P <0.10.dQuadraticeffectofdecreasingdurationofDDGSwithdrawal(Treatments1,2,3,and6);P <0.05.eQuadraticeffectofDDGSlevel(100%,50%,and0%)withdrawnfromthediet41dbeforemarket(Treatments2,4,and6);P <0.05.fLineareffectofDDGSlevel(100%,50%,and0%)withdrawnfromthediet20dbeforemarket(Treatments3,5,and6);P <0.10.gEffectof20dvs.41dstep-downprogramregardlessofDDGSlevelwithdrawnfromthediet(Treatments2and4vs.3and5);P <0.05.hEffectof20dvs.41dstep-downprogramregardlessofDDGSlevelwithdrawnfromthediet(Treatments2and4vs.3and5);P <0.10.

188

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Effect of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) step-down or withdrawal regimen on carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs1

  DDGS,%    Treatment: 1 2 3 4 5 6

d0to48: 0 30 30 30 30 30d48to69: 0 0 30 15 30 30d69to89: 0 0 0 15 15 30 SEM Probability,P <

Carcassweight,lb 201.0 200.3 198.8 198.9 198.0 198.5 3.09 0.98Yield,% 75.11 75.72 75.85 75.09 75.24 75.71 0.422 0.59Backfat2,in. 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.68 0.74 0.68 0.040 0.88Lean,%2 55.16 55.43 54.73 55.68 54.29 55.63 0.731 0.70Loindepth2,in. 2.39 2.34 2.32 2.40 2.26 2.37 0.051 0.39Fat-freeleanindex2 49.81 49.86 49.92 50.19 49.43 50.14 0.494 0.891Atotalof962pigs(PICL337×1050,initialBW=86.1lb)wereusedwith27pigsperpenand6penspertreatment.2Valuesareadjustedtoacommoncarcassweight.

189

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effect of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) step-down or withdrawal regimen on carcass fat composition1

  DDGS2,%        Treatment: 1 2 3 4 5 6

d0to48: 0 30 30 30 30 30d48to69: 0 0 30 15 30 30 Gender3

d69to89: 0 0 0 15 15 30 SEM Barrow Gilt SEMTotalSFA4,%                    Backfata,b 36.96 34.99 34.77 34.80 34.42 34.39 0.601 35.93 34.19 0.322Bellyfata,b 35.11 33.64 33.26 33.09 32.70 32.69 0.524 34.11 32.72 0.281Jowlfata,b 33.71 32.45 31.97 31.67 31.79 31.56 0.454 32.95 31.44 0.247TotalMUFA5,%Backfatc,d 45.68 42.19 43.16 42.72 41.46 42.26 0.522 43.17 42.66 0.279Bellyc 48.12 44.23 44.65 44.66 43.44 44.02 0.569 45.12 44.59 0.305Jowlb 50.03 47.66 47.74 47.38 46.79 47.17 0.545 47.64 47.96 0.297TotalPUFA6,%Backfata,c 16.31 21.86 21.04 21.43 23.17 22.37 0.798 19.89 22.17 0.427Bellya,b 15.70 21.05 21.07 21.23 22.81 22.23 0.749 19.71 21.66 0.402Jowla,b 15.20 18.79 19.15 19.73 20.32 20.14 0.670 18.28 19.50 0.365Iodinevalue,g/100gBackfata,b 66.89 73.19 72.77 73.07 74.89 74.24 1.111 70.77 74.24 0.595Bellya,b 67.82 73.53 73.90 74.21 75.88 75.40 0.993 72.00 74.91 0.532Jowla,b 68.60 72.59 73.34 74.15 74.57 74.65 0.852 71.81 74.16 0.4641Atotalof962pigs(PICL337×1050,initialBW=86.1lb)wereusedwith27pigsperpenand6penspertreatment.2Valuesaremeansof12observationspertreatment.3Valuesaremeansof36observationspertreatment.4Saturatedfattyacids.5Monounstauratedfattyacids.6Polyunsaturatedfattyacids.aGendereffect;P <0.05.bLineareffectofdecreasingdurationofDDGSwithdrawal(Treatments1,2,3,and6);P <0.01.cQuadraticeffectofdecreasingdurationofDDGSwithdrawal(Treatments1,2,3,and6);P<0.05.dQuadraticeffectofDDGSlevel(100%,50%,and0%)withdrawnfromthediet20dbeforemarket(Treatments3,5,and6);P<0.05.

190

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 5. Effect of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) step-down or withdrawal program on economics1

  DDGS,%        Treatment: 1 2 3 4 5 6

d0to48: 0 30 30 30 30 30d48to69: 0 0 30 15 30 30 Genderd69to89: 0 0 0 15 15 30 SEM Barrow Gilt SEM

Feedcost,$/pig2,a,b 44.81 43.45 42.65 42.46 41.56 40.99 0.755 44.24 41.06 0.436Revenue,$/pig 119.61 120.77 119.53 121.10 117.73 119.94 2.265 120.35 119.21 1.264Discount,$/pig 2.18 2.02 1.82 1.57 1.93 2.17 0.550 1.68 2.21 0.307Incomeoverfeedcost,$/pig 74.30 77.32 76.88 78.65 76.02 78.86 1.969 75.92 78.09 1.0981Atotalof962pigs(PICL337×1050,initialBW=86.1lb)wereusedwith27pigsperpenand6penspertreatment.2Feedcostwasbasedoncornat$3.05/buand46.5%soybeanmealat$370/ton.aLineareffectofdecreasingdurationofDDGSwithdrawal(Treatments1,2,3,and6);P <0.01.bLineareffectofDDGSlevel(100%,50%,and0%)withdrawnfromthediet41dbeforemarket(Treatments2,4,and6);P <0.05.

Iod

ine

valu

e, g

/100

g

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

0 3 6

DDGS withdrawl, wk

15% DDGS

No DDGS

74.89

72.77

74.24

74.24 73.19

73.07

Figure 1. Effect of duration and level of DDGS withdrawal on backfat iodine value.

191

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Iod

ine

valu

e, g

/100

g

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

0 3 6

DDGS withdrawl, wk

15% DDGS

No DDGS

75.88

73.9

75.4

75.474.21

73.53

Figure 2. Effect of duration and level of DDGS withdrawal on belly fat iodine value.

Iod

ine

valu

e, g

/100

g

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

0 3 6

DDGS withdrawl, wk

15% DDGS

No DDGS

74.57

73.34

74.65

74.6574.15

72.59

Figure 3. Effect of duration and level of DDGS withdrawal on jowl fat iodine value.

192

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Adding Enzymes to Diets Containing High Levels of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles on Growth Performance of Finishing Pigs1

J.Y.Jacela2,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,J.L.Nelssen,andK.J.Prusa3

SummaryAtotalof1,032pigs(BW=101.5lb)wereusedina90-dexperimenttodeterminetheeffectsofaddingenzymestodietscontaininghighlevelsofdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)ongrowthperformanceandcarcasscharacteristicsoffinish-ingpigs.PigswereblockedbyBWandrandomlyallottedto1of7dietarytreatmentswith6penspertreatment.Thecontroldietcontained30%DDGS.Theremainingtreatmentswerearrangedina2×3factorialdesignbasedonDDGS(45or60%)andenzymeinclusion(none,productA,orproductB).Enzymeproductswerecommer-ciallyavailableanddesignedforuseinswinedietscontainingDDGS.Pigsallottedtothe60%DDGStreatmentwerefed45%DDGSduringthefirst2wkoftheexperimenttoacclimatethepigstoDDGS.The4heaviestpigsfromeachpenweresoldatd78,andDDGSlevelsforalltreatmentsweredecreasedto20%untiltheendofthetrial.Overall(d0to90),enzymesupplementationdidnotaffectADG(P >0.24),ADFI(P >0.30),orF/G(P >0.52).Fromd0to78,regardlessofenzymetreatment,ADGdecreased(linear;P <0.05)asDDGSincreasedbecauseofareduction(quadratic;P <0.04)inADFI.AftertoppingandaddingPayleantothedietsatd78,ADFItendedtoincrease(linear;P<0.06)inpigspreviouslyfed45and60%DDGS.However,thedecreaseinADFIfromd0to78stillresultedinanoverallreduction(linear;P <0.04)withincreasingDDGS.IncreasingDDGSdidnotaffect(P >0.17)overallADG,F/G,orfinalweight.Therewerenodifferencesincarcassweightandyield(P >0.65)orinbackfat,loindepth,percentagelean,andfat-freeleanindex(P >0.38)afteradjustingtoacommoncarcassweight.IncreasingdietaryDDGSincreased(linear;P <0.01)iodinevalueofbellyfat(77.2,83.7,and87.3g/100g,respectively).Thisstudyindicatesthatupto60%DDGSmaybeaddedtopigdietswithoutnegativelyaffectinggrowthperfor-manceorcarcasstraitscomparedto30%DDGSwhenlevelsarereducedto20%for12dbeforemarket;however,fatiodinevalueswillbesignificantlyincreased.Neithercommerciallyavailableenzymeproducthadanyeffectonpiggrowthperformance.

Keywords:enzyme,drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles

IntroductionPricesofmajorfeedingredientsusedinswinediets,suchascorn,haverisentremen-douslyinrecentyears.Thishasresultedinincreaseduseofalternativefeedingredients

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilities,toRichardBrobjorgandMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance,andtoCargillAnimalNutritionfordietformulation.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.3DepartmentofFoodScienceandHumanNutrition,IowaStateUniversity.

193

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

likedrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)toreducedietscosts.Studieshaveshownthatupto20%DDGScanbeeffectivelyusedinnurseryandgrow-finishdietswithoutdecreasingperformance.However,thecontinuedincreaseinpricesofmajorfeedingredientsinthesummerof2008andlowerpigpriceshadproducersoptingtousehigherlevelsofDDGStofurtherreducedietcosts.

SeveralfactorslimittheuseofhigherlevelsofDDGSinswinediets.Comparedwithcorn,DDGShasarelativelyhighCPcontentbutlowerdigestibilityoflysine.ThiscouldmeanthatadditionalsyntheticlysineandotheraminoacidsareneededtoachievetheidealbalanceofaminoacidswhenhighlevelsofDDGSareusedinthediets.Palat-abilityappearstobenegativelyaffectedbyhigherlevelsofDDGS,aspreviousstudieshaveshownreductionsinfeedintakewithincreasingDDGSlevelinpigdiets.CarcassqualityandvaluealsodiminishathighDDGSlevels.BecauseDDGScontainshighamountsofcornoil,whichcontainsahighpercentageofunsaturatedfattyacids,pigsfedDDGStendtohavesofterfatintheircarcassesasmeasuredbyincreasediodinevalue(IV).

Highamountsofnon-starchpolysaccharidesarealsopresentinDDGS,whichcanaffectitsnutritionalvalue.Useofaddeddietaryenzymesisoneapproachthatmayaidinnon-starchpolysaccharidedigestionandimprovetheutilizationoffibrousmateri-alsinDDGS.InrecentstudiesatKansasStateUniversity(K-State),pigsfedDDGS-containingdietswithenzymesupplementationdidnotshowsignificantimprovementsingrowthperformancecomparedwithpigsfednon-enzyme-supplementeddiets.However,thosestudiesusedrelativelylowlevelsofDDGS(15to30%).ThisstudywasconductedtodeterminetheeffectsofenzymesupplementationofdietscontaininghighlevelsofDDGSonthegrowthperformanceandcarcasscharacteristicsofgrowing-finishingpigs.

ProceduresThisstudywasapprovedbyandconductedinaccordancewiththeguidelinesoftheK-StateInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.ThetrialwasconductedinacommercialresearchfinishingbarninsouthwesternMinnesota.Thebarnswerenatu-rallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsided.Penswere18×10ftwithcompletelyslattedflooringanddeeppitsformanurestorage.Eachpencontained1self-feederandacupwaterer.Thebarnwasequippedwitharoboticfeedingsystemcapableofprovidingandmeasuringfeedamountsonanindividualpenbasis.

Atotalof1,032pigs(PIC337×C22,initially101.5lb)wereblockedonthebasisofBWandallottedto1of7dietarytreatmentswith6penspertreatment.Thecontroltreatmentwasacorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietcontaining30%DDGS.Theremainingtreatmentswerearrangedina2×3factorialdesignbasedonthelevelofDDGS(45or60%)andenzymeinclusion(none,productA,orproductB).EnzymesusedwerecommercialenzymesdesignedforuseinDDGS-containingdiets.Dietswerefedin4phases.Duringthefirst2wkoftheexperiment(Phase1),the60%DDGStreatmentscontainedonly45%DDGS.Phase1wasfedfromapproximately100to128lbBW.Phase2wasfedfrom128to185lbBW,Phase3from185to230lbBW,andPhase4from230to270lbBW(Table1).Pigswereweighedevery2wkfromd0to90todetermineADG.Ond78,4oftheheaviestpigsfromeachpenweresoldinaccordance

194

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

withthenormalmarketingprocedureofthefarmandDDGSlevelsweredecreasedto20%inalldietarytreatments.ThisadjustmentwasdonetohelpalleviatethedecreasedcarcassyieldimpactwhenpigsarefedhighlevelsofDDGSpriortomarket.Ractopa-mineHCL(Paylean;ElancoAnimalHealth,Greenfield,IN)wasaddedinalldietarytreatmentsfromd78to90.AveragedailyfeedintakeandF/Gwerecalculatedfromthefeeddeliverydatageneratedthroughtheautomatedfeedingsystemeveryweighday.

PigswereindividuallytattooedattheendofthetrialandtransportedtoJBSSwiftandCompany(Worthington,MN)forprocessingandcarcassdatacollection.Stan-dardcarcasscriteriaofloinandbackfatdepth,HCW,percentagelean,andyieldwerecollected.Fat-freeleanindex(FFLI)wasdeterminedwiththefollowingequation:50.767+(0.035×HCW)-(8.979×backfat).Bellyfatsampleswerecollectedin18randomlyselectedpigs(6pigspertreatment)fromeachofthegroupsthatreceiveddietarytreatmentswithoutenzymetodeterminefatIV.IodinevalueanalyseswereconductedatBarrow-AgeeLaboratories,LLC(Memphis,TN)usingthecyclohexane-aceticacidmethod.4

StatisticalanalysiswasperformedbyanalysisofvariancewiththeMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC).Datawereanalyzedasrandomizedcompleteblockdesignwithpenastheexperimentalunit.Backfat,loindepth,percentagelean,andFFLIwereadjustedtoacommoncarcassweight.LinearandpolynomialcontrastswereusedtodeterminethemaineffectsofincreasingDDGS.Themaineffectsofenzymeaddi-tionandDDGSadditionweredeterminedusingsingledegreeoffreedomcontrastandestimatestatements.

Results and DiscussionFromd0to78,regardlessofenzymetreatment,ADGdecreased(linear;P <0.05)asDDGSincreasedbecauseofareduction(quadratic;P <0.04)inADFI(Table2).ThegreatestreductioninADFIoccurredwhenDDGSwasincreasedfrom30to45%,andtherewasamodestreductionwhenDDGSwasincreasedfrom45to60%.Therewerenodifferencesinweightbetweentreatmentsbeforeandaftertoppingond78.AfterpensweretoppedandractopamineHClwasaddedtothedietsatd78,ADFItendedtoincrease(linear;P <0.06)inpigspreviouslyfed45and60%DDGS.ThedecreaseinADFIfromd0to78resultedinanoverallADFIreduction(linear;P <0.04)withincreasingDDGSbutdidnotaffect(P >0.17)overallADG,F/G,orfinalweight.Pigsfed30%DDGShadanumericallylowermortalityratethanpigsfedthe45and60%DDGS,butthedifferencewasnotstatisticallysignificant.Numerically,thegroupthatwasfed30%DDGShadthehighestpercentageofpigssoldatfullvalue.

Therewerenodifferencesincarcassweightandpercentageyield(P >0.65)regardlessofenzymetreatmentorDDGSlevel(Tables3and4).AlthoughpreviousresearchhasshownareductionincarcassyieldwhenDDGSincreasedinthediets,thereductionofDDGSto20%duringthelast12dinthisstudypossiblyeliminatedthenegativeeffectofhighDDGSlevelsoncarcassyield.Afteradjustingtoacommoncarcassweight,therewerenodifferencesbetweentreatmentsforbackfat,loindepth,percentagelean,andFFLI(P >0.38).Iodinevalueofbellyfatincreased(77.2,83.7,and87.3g/100g,

4AOCS.1998.OfficialmethodsandrecommendedpracticesoftheAOCS.5thed.Am.Oil.Chem.Soc.,Champaign,IL.MethodCd1d-92.

195

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

respectively)withincreasingdietaryDDGS(linear;P <0.01).Overall(d0to90),enzymesupplementationdidnotaffectADG(P >0.24),ADFI(P >0.30),F/G(P >0.53),oranyofthecarcassparametersmeasured(P >0.29)(Table4).

Inthisstudy,addeddietaryenzymesdidnotresultinanyimprovementsinpiggrowthperformanceorcarcasscharacteristics.ThisissimilartotheresultsofpreviousstudiesatK-StateinwhichDDGS-containingdietsweresupplementedwithenzymes.Theprevi-ousstudieshadlowerlevelsofDDGS,whichmighthavebeeninsufficienttodetectasignificantresponsetoenzymeintermsofgrowth.Inthisstudy,however,addeddietaryenzymesdidnotimprovegrowthorfeedefficiency,evenindietscontaining60%DDGS.ItispossiblethattheproductsusedinthisstudymaynothavetheoptimalbalanceofenzymeactivitiesspecificforthesubstratespresentintheDDGSusedintheexperimentaldiets.Otherfactorscanalsoaffecttheefficacyoftheenzymeproducts,suchastheamountofenzymeused,ageoftheanimal,overallnutrientdensityofthediet,andparticlesize.Allofthesecouldhaveplayedaroleinlimitingorpreventingaresponsetotheenzymefromagrowthperformancestandpoint.

PreviousstudiesatK-Stateindicatedthatupto30%DDGScanbeaddedtonurseryandgrow-finishdietswithoutaffectingperformance.Inthisstudy,reductionsinADFIandADGwereobservedasDDGSwasincreasedfrom30to60%fromd0to78.However,nofurtherreductionsinADGandADFIoccurredwhenDDGSlevelsweredecreasedto20%inalltreatmentsandractopamineHClwasaddedtothedietsafterd78.TheseresultssuggestthatdecreasingDDGSlevelsinthedietsto20%foratleast12dpriortomarketcanhelpalleviatethenegativeeffectsofhighlevelsofDDGSonADGandADFI.

ThelinearincreaseinIVseeninthisexperimentwasexpected.PreviousstudiesconductedatK-Stateandbyotheruniversitieshaveconsistentlyshownapositivecorre-lationbetweendietaryDDGSandIV.Thisisduetothehigheramountsofcornoil,whichishighinunsaturatedfat(highIV),presentinDDGS.Iodinevalueincreasedby10.1g/100ginpigsfed60%DDGScomparedtothosefed30%.Thisisequivalenttoa3.4g/100gincreaseinIVforevery10%increase(from30to60%)inDDGS.

Inconclusion,upto60%DDGScanreplacecornindietsforgrowing-finishingpigsasanoptiontoreducefeedcosts.Theadditionofenzymes,however,hadnosignificantimpactongrowthanddidnotimprovefeedefficiencyingrowing-finishingpigs.HighDDGSlevelsmayslightlyinhibitgrowth,butiffinishingspacesareavailabletoaccom-modatepigsforseveralmoredaystomeettargetweightsandaslongasthepotentialsavingsaregreaterthantheextraspacecosts,usinghighlevelsofDDGSinagrow-finishdietishighlyfeasible.Thisstudyindicatesthatupto60%DDGSmaybeaddedtopigdietswithoutnegativelyaffectinggrowthorcarcassyieldcomparedto30%DDGSwhenlevelsarereducedto20%for12dbeforemarket.However,bellyfatIVwillbeincreasedandmayaffectcarcassvaluedependingonthemarketinwhichthepigsaresold.

196

Finishing Pig Nutrition and ManagementT

able

1. P

hase

1 d

iet c

ompo

sitio

n (a

s-fe

d ba

sis)

1

 Ph

ase1

 Ph

ase2

 Ph

ase3

 Ph

ase4

3

Ingr

edie

nt2 ,%

30

%

DD

GS

45%

D

DG

S60

%

DD

GS

30%

D

DG

S45

%

DD

GS

60%

D

DG

S30

%

DD

GS

45%

D

DG

S60

%

DD

GS

30%

D

DG

S45

%

DD

GS

60%

D

DG

SC

orn

46.2

329

.50

29.5

049

.03

32.4

317

.61

52.1

437

.66

22.8

560

.10

60.1

060

.10

Soyb

ean

mea

l(46

.5%

CP)

16.6

115

.40

15.4

014

.12

12.8

411

.69

10.8

59.

688.

5311

.63

11.6

311

.63

Bake

ryp

rodu

ct6.

906.

906.

906.

836.

836.

835.

005.

005.

006.

836.

836.

83C

hoic

ewhi

tegr

ease

0.24

1.19

1.19

0.00

0.95

1.80

0.00

0.74

1.59

------

---Li

mes

tone

0.91

1.07

1.07

0.91

1.07

1.21

1.10

1.06

1.21

0.82

0.82

0.82

Salt

0.21

0.16

0.16

0.21

0.17

0.13

0.28

0.20

0.16

0.24

0.24

0.24

L-th

reon

ine

0.03

------

0.01

------

------

---0.

025

0.02

50.

025

Staf

ac0.

050.

050.

050.

050.

050.

050.

050.

050.

05---

------

L-ly

sineH

Cl

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.50

0.51

0.51

0.27

0.27

0.27

DD

GS4

28.1

045

.00

45.0

028

.17

45.0

060

.00

30.0

045

.00

60.0

020

.00

20.0

020

.00

Opt

iPho

s0.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

01V

itam

in-tr

acem

iner

alp

rem

ix0.

090.

090.

090.

090.

090.

090.

080.

080.

080.

080.

080.

08T

otal

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

Cal

cula

ted

anal

ysis

Stan

dard

ized

ilea

ldig

estib

leam

ino

acid

s

Lys

ine,

%1.

06

1.08

1.

08

0.97

0.

99

1.01

0.

86

0.87

0.

89

0.71

0.

71

0.71

Met

hion

ine:

lysin

erat

io,%

2933

3331

3438

3437

4137

3737

M

et&

Cys

:lysin

erat

io,%

6066

6663

7076

6976

8376

7676

Th

reon

ine:

lysin

erat

io,%

6062

6260

6569

6368

7470

7070

T

rypt

opha

n:ly

siner

atio

,%16

1616

1616

1716

1717

1919

19

Tot

ally

sine,

%1.

22

1.28

1.

28

1.13

1.

18

1.23

1.

01

1.06

1.

11

0.84

0.

84

0.84

CP,

%20

.122

.722

.719

.121

.724

.018

.220

.522

.816

.716

.716

.7

SID

Lys

:cal

orie

ratio

,g/M

calM

E3.

143.

163.

162.

892.

912.

922.

552.

572.

592.

102.

102.

10M

E,k

cal/

lb1,

533

1,55

11,

551

1,52

91,

547

1,56

31,

524

1,54

11,

557

1,53

51,

535

1,53

5C

a,%

0.43

0.49

0.49

0.42

0.48

0.53

0.48

0.47

0.52

0.38

0.38

0.38

P,%

0.46

0.53

0.53

0.45

0.52

0.57

0.45

0.50

0.56

0.41

0.41

0.41

Ava

ilabl

eP,%

0.30

0.38

0.38

 0.

300.

380.

46 

0.30

0.38

0.45

 0.

250.

250.

251 P

hase

s1,2

,3,a

nd4

fed

from

appr

oxim

atel

y100

to1

28lb

BW

,128

to1

85lb

BW

,185

to2

30lb

BW

,and

230

to2

70lb

BW

,res

pect

ivel

y.2 A

com

mer

cial

enzy

meb

lend

cont

aini

ngp

rote

ase,

amyl

ase,

xyla

nase

,β-g

luca

nase

,pec

tinas

e,ce

llulo

se,a

ndp

hyta

se(P

rodu

ctA

)ora

nex

perim

enta

lpro

prie

tary

ble

ndo

fenz

ymes

sele

cted

toh

avem

axim

um

activ

ityfo

rthe

non

-star

chp

olys

acch

arid

esin

DD

GS

(Pro

duct

B)w

asad

ded

ind

iets

cont

aini

ng4

5an

d60

%D

DG

Sin

pla

ceo

fcor

n.3 R

acto

pam

ineH

Cl(

Payl

ean,

Ela

nco

Ani

mal

Hea

lth,G

reen

field

,IN

)at4

.5g/

ton

was

adde

dat

thee

xpen

seo

fcor

n.4 D

iets

inth

e60%

DD

GS

trea

tmen

tcon

tain

edo

nly4

5%D

DG

Sdu

ringP

hase

1(d

0to

14)

.

197

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

cts o

f enz

yme s

uppl

emen

tatio

n in

die

ts co

ntai

ning

hig

h le

vels

of D

DG

S on

gro

wth

per

form

ance

and

carc

ass c

hara

cter

istic

s of g

row

-fini

sh p

igs1

 T

reat

men

t 

30%

DD

GS

 45

%D

DG

S 

60%

DD

GS

No

enzy

me

No

enzy

me

Prod

uctA

Prod

uctB

No

enzy

me

Prod

uctA

Prod

uctB

SEPr

obab

ility

,P <

Wei

ght,

lb 

  

  

  

  

d

010

1.6

101.

610

1.7

101.

210

1.5

101.

410

1.3

2.8

1.00

d

78

(bef

oret

oppi

ng)

249.

824

8.5

247.

724

4.6

243.

724

7.2

247.

34.

20.

95

d7

8(a

ftert

oppi

ng)

244.

524

3.3

242.

723

8.1

238.

924

1.5

241.

94.

30.

94

Top

s227

4.8

272.

927

2.2

277.

026

7.5

274.

927

2.5

5.0

0.81

d

903

270.

927

0.4

270.

826

5.3

266.

926

9.6

269.

74.

40.

96d

0to

784

A

DG

,lb

1.89

1.84

1.85

1.81

1.79

1.84

1.83

0.03

0.33

A

DFI

,lb

5.12

4.91

4.90

4.76

4.78

4.94

4.83

0.07

0.03

F

/G2.

712.

662.

652.

642.

662.

682.

650.

030.

70d

78to

903,

5

A

DG

,lb

2.15

2.22

2.29

2.24

2.30

2.30

2.26

0.08

0.83

A

DFI

,lb

6.11

6.61

6.70

6.40

6.51

6.63

6.57

0.21

0.47

F

/G2.

863.

002.

932.

862.

822.

872.

920.

100.

83d

0to

903,

5

A

DG

,lb

1.92

1.88

1.90

1.86

1.85

1.89

1.87

0.03

0.64

A

DFI

,lb

5.24

5.10

5.11

4.95

4.98

5.13

5.03

0.08

0.18

F

/G2.

732.

712.

682.

682.

692.

712.

680.

030.

88Pi

gsre

mov

edan

dm

arke

ted,

%M

orta

lity6

2.07

4.13

3.33

3.65

2.14

2.79

4.18

1.71

0.95

Mar

gina

lval

ue7

0.95

3.08

2.21

2.70

3.62

1.10

2.12

1.52

0.81

Full

valu

e897

.05

92.9

494

.92

93.0

794

.08

96.3

593

.75

2.00

0.63

cont

inue

d

198

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

cts o

f enz

yme s

uppl

emen

tatio

n in

die

ts co

ntai

ning

hig

h le

vels

of D

DG

S on

gro

wth

per

form

ance

and

carc

ass c

hara

cter

istic

s of g

row

-fini

sh p

igs1

 T

reat

men

t 

30%

DD

GS

 45

%D

DG

S 

60%

DD

GS

No

enzy

me

No

enzy

me

Prod

uctA

Prod

uctB

No

enzy

me

Prod

uctA

Prod

uctB

SEPr

obab

ility

,P <

Car

cass

char

acte

ristic

s

Sla

ught

erw

t,lb

266.

826

6.1

266.

626

1.5

263.

326

4.0

264.

94.

10.

97

Car

cass

wt,

lb20

1.5

199.

120

0.3

198.

819

7.8

198.

819

8.8

3.3

0.99

Y

ield

,%75

.675

.075

.575

.675

.275

.574

.90.

40.

65

Bac

kfat

,in.

90.

670.

670.

670.

680.

680.

700.

650.

010.

44

Loi

nde

pth,

in.9

2.42

2.44

2.44

2.45

2.42

2.40

2.45

0.03

0.93

L

ean,

%9

55.4

255

.90

55.9

255

.85

55.7

055

.36

56.2

50.

310.

40

FFL

I9,10

50.2

2 

50.2

850

.30

50.2

3 

50.1

749

.96

50.5

40.

170.

431 A

tota

lof1

,032

pig

s(PI

C3

37×

C22

),in

itial

ly1

01.5

lb,w

ereu

sed

with

24

pigs

per

pen

and

6re

plic

atio

nsp

ertr

eatm

ent.

2 Rem

oved

after

wei

ghin

gon

d78

.3 O

nlyp

igst

hatw

ereo

nte

stu

pto

d9

0(e

xclu

ding

tops

)wer

einc

lude

din

thed

ataa

naly

sis.

4 All

pigs

that

wer

eon

test

up

tod

78

(incl

udin

gtop

s)w

ereu

sed

inth

edat

aana

lysis

.5 P

ayle

anw

asad

ded

toal

ldie

tary

trea

tmen

tsfr

omd

78

to9

0,an

dal

ldie

tsco

ntai

ned

20%

DD

GS

durin

gthi

s12-

dpe

riod.

6 Incl

udes

pig

stha

tdie

d,w

erec

ulle

d,an

dw

erep

ulle

doff

test

dur

ingt

heex

perim

ent.

7 Lig

htw

eigh

tpig

ssol

dat

thee

ndo

fthe

expe

rimen

t.8 T

opp

igsa

ndp

igst

hatw

eres

old

atth

eend

oft

heex

perim

ente

xclu

ding

ligh

twei

ghtp

igs.

9 Dat

aana

lyze

dus

ingc

arca

ssw

eigh

tasa

cova

riate

.10

Fat

-free

lean

inde

x.

199

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Effe

cts o

f die

ts co

ntai

ning

hig

h le

vels

of D

DG

S on

gro

wth

per

form

ance

and

carc

ass c

hara

cter

istic

s of g

row

-fini

sh p

igs1

 D

DG

S,%

 Pr

obab

ility

, P <

 30

4560

SE30

vs.4

530

vs.6

045

vs.6

0Li

near

Qua

dW

eigh

t,lb

  

  

  

  

 

d0

101.

610

1.5

101.

41.

60.

980.

950.

970.

951.

00

d7

8(b

efor

etop

ping

)24

9.8

247.

024

6.1

2.4

0.55

0.43

0.79

0.43

0.77

d

78

(afte

rtop

ping

)24

4.5

241.

324

0.7

2.5

0.53

0.46

0.87

0.46

0.72

T

op2

274.

827

4.0

271.

63.

00.

890.

550.

500.

550.

83

d9

0327

0.9

268.

826

8.7

2.5

0.69

0.68

0.98

0.68

0.79

d0

to7

84

A

DG

,lb

1.89

1.84

1.82

0.02

0.14

0.05

0.47

0.05

0.45

A

DFI

,lb

5.12

4.86

4.85

0.04

0.00

40.

003

0.87

0.00

30.

04

F/G

2.71

2.65

2.66

0.02

0.11

0.18

0.65

0.18

0.17

d78

to9

03,5

A

DG

,lb

2.15

2.25

2.29

0.05

0.30

0.15

0.57

0.15

0.64

A

DFI

,lb

6.11

6.57

6.57

0.12

0.06

0.06

0.99

0.06

0.17

F

/G2.

862.

932.

870.

060.

540.

940.

410.

940.

41d

0to

904,

6

A

DG

,lb

1.92

1.88

1.87

0.02

0.31

0.17

0.62

0.17

0.61

A

DFI

,lb

5.24

5.05

5.05

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.92

0.04

0.17

F

/G2.

732.

692.

690.

020.

280.

310.

910.

310.

41Pi

gsre

mov

edan

dm

arke

ted,

%

Mor

talit

y62.

073.

703.

040.

990.

410.

620.

630.

620.

42

Mar

gina

lval

ue7

0.95

2.66

2.28

0.90

0.33

0.43

0.74

0.43

0.39

F

ullv

alue

897

.05

93.6

494

.73

1.17

0.14

0.29

0.47

0.29

0.16

cont

inue

d

200

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Effe

cts o

f die

ts co

ntai

ning

hig

h le

vels

of D

DG

S on

gro

wth

per

form

ance

and

carc

ass c

hara

cter

istic

s of g

row

-fini

sh p

igs1

 D

DG

S,%

 Pr

obab

ility

, P <

 30

4560

SE30

vs.4

530

vs.6

045

vs.6

0Li

near

Qua

dC

arca

ssch

arac

teris

tics

S

laug

hter

wt,

lb26

6.8

264.

726

4.1

2.5

0.67

0.57

0.85

0.57

0.84

C

arca

ssw

t,lb

201.

519

9.4

198.

52.

00.

580.

420.

720.

420.

82

Yie

ld,%

75.6

75.4

75.2

0.2

0.63

0.37

0.55

0.37

0.96

B

ackf

at,i

n0.

670.

670.

680.

010.

950.

830.

710.

830.

82

Loi

nde

pth,

in2.

422.

442.

420.

020.

570.

970.

460.

970.

44

Lea

n,%

55.4

255

.955

.80.

20.

200.

330.

650.

330.

26

FFL

I950

.22

50.3

50.2

0.1

0.81

0.98

0.76

0.98

0.75

Belly

fati

odin

eval

ue,g

/100

g1077

.283

.787

.31.

8---

------

0.00

20.

541 A

tota

lof1

,032

pig

s(PI

C3

37×

C22

),in

itial

ly1

01.5

lb,w

ereu

sed

with

24

pigs

per

pen

and

6re

plic

atio

nsp

ertr

eatm

ent.

2 Rem

oved

after

wei

ghin

gon

d78

.3 O

nlyp

igst

hatw

ereo

nte

stu

pto

d9

0(e

xclu

ding

tops

)wer

einc

lude

din

thed

ataa

naly

sis.

4 All

pigs

that

wer

eon

test

up

tod

78

(incl

udin

gtop

s)w

ereu

sed

inth

edat

aana

lysis

.5 P

ayle

anw

asad

ded

toal

ldie

tary

trea

tmen

tsfr

omd

78

to9

0,an

dal

ldie

tsco

ntai

ned

20%

DD

GS

durin

gthi

s12-

dpe

riod.

6 Incl

udes

pig

stha

tdie

d,w

erec

ulle

d,an

dw

erep

ulle

doff

test

dur

ingt

heex

perim

ent.

7 Lig

htw

eigh

tpig

ssol

dat

thee

ndo

fthe

expe

rimen

t.8 T

opp

igsa

ndp

igst

hatw

eres

old

atth

eend

oft

heex

perim

ente

xclu

ding

ligh

twei

ghtp

igs.

9 Fat

-free

lean

inde

x.10

Val

uesa

rem

eans

of6

obs

erva

tions

per

trea

tmen

ttak

enfr

omea

chle

velo

fthe

non

-enz

yme-

supp

lem

ente

dD

DG

Str

eatm

ent.

201

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effects of enzyme supplementation on growth performance and carcass characteristics of grow-finish pigs (main effects)1

  Enzyme2   Probability,P< 

No ProductA ProductB SENovs.

EnzymeNovs.

ProductANovs.

ProductBWeight,lb              d0 101.5 101.5 101.2 2.0 0.94 1.00 0.91d78(beforetopping) 246.1 247.4 246.0 3.0 0.87 0.75 0.97d78(aftertopping) 241.1 242.1 240.0 3.0 0.99 0.82 0.80Top3 270.2 273.5 274.7 3.7 0.29 0.45 0.31d904 268.6 270.2 267.5 3.1 0.95 0.72 0.81d0to785

ADG,lb 1.82 1.85 1.82 0.02 0.48 0.28 0.93ADFI,lb 4.85 4.92 4.80 0.05 0.84 0.30 0.49F/G 2.66 2.66 2.64 0.02 0.73 0.98 0.53d78to904,6

ADG,lb 2.26 2.30 2.25 0.06 0.83 0.64 0.92ADFI,lb 6.56 6.67 6.48 0.15 0.95 0.60 0.68F/G 2.91 2.90 2.89 0.07 0.80 0.88 0.77d0to904,6

ADG,lb 1.87 1.90 1.87 0.02 0.45 0.24 0.92ADFI,lb 5.04 5.12 4.99 0.06 0.84 0.30 0.49F/G 2.70 2.69 2.68 0.02 0.69 0.95 0.53Pigsremovedandmarketed,%Mortality7 3.14 3.06 3.92 1.22 0.81 0.96 0.65Marginalvalue8 3.35 1.65 2.41 1.11 0.27 0.23 0.51Fullvalue9 93.51 95.64 93.41 1.45 0.52 0.25 0.96CarcasscharacteristicsSlaughterwt,lb 264.7 265.3 263.2 3.2 0.91 0.89 0.73Carcasswt,lb 198.5 199.5 198.8 2.5 0.80 0.74 0.92Yield,% 75.1 75.5 75.3 0.3 0.41 0.29 0.70Backfat,in. 0.68 0.69 0.66 0.01 0.79 0.60 0.33Loindepth,in. 2.43 2.42 2.44 0.02 0.92 0.74 0.61Lean,% 55.8 55.6 56.1 0.2 0.88 0.62 0.45FFLI10 50.2 50.1 50.4 0.1 0.84 0.59 0.381Atotalof1,032pigs(PIC337×C22),initially101.5lb,wereusedwith24pigsperpenand6replicationspertreatment.2No=meansof45%DDGSand60%DDGStreatmentswithoutenzyme;A=meansof45%DDGS+ProductAand60%DDGS+ProductA;B=meansof45%DDGS+ProductBand60%DDGS+ProductB.3Removedafterweighingond78.4Onlypigsthatwereontestuptod90(excludingtops)wereincludedinthedataanalysis.5Allpigsthatwereontestuptod78(includingtops)wereusedinthedataanalysis.6Payleanwasaddedtoalldietarytreatmentsfromd78to90,andalldietscontained20%DDGSduringthis12-dperiod.7Includespigsthatdied,wereculled,andwerepulledofftestduringtheexperiment.8Lightweightpigssoldattheendoftheexperiment.9Toppigsandpigsthatweresoldattheendoftheexperimentexcludinglightweightpigs.10Fat-freeleanindex.

202

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Mycotoxin Binders and a Liquid Immunity Enhancer on the Growth Performance of Wean-to-Finish Pigs1

J.Y.Jacela2,S.S.Dritz2,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof1,120pigs(PIC337×C22,initialBW=16.0lb)wereusedinastudytoevaluatetheeffectsof2commercialmycotoxinbindersandaliquidimmunityenhancerproductongrowthperformanceofwean-to-finishpigs.Pigswererandomlyassignedto1of4treatmentsbalancedbyinitialaverageBWwithingenderwith10replicatepenspertreatment.Treatmentswere:(1)controlstandardphase-feddietsbasedoncornandsoybeanmealwithDDGS(20to35%)fedfor132d,(2)acontroldietwithmycotoxinbindersBiomannanfedfromd0to55andT-BINDfedfromd0to132,(3)acontroldietwithBiomannanandT-BINDfedfromd0to132,and(4)Treat-ment3withaliquidimmunityenhancerproductadministeredthroughthewaterlinesofpenscontinuouslyfor7devery3wk.Bothmycotoxinbindersandtheliquidimmu-nityenhancerproductwereprovidedbyBiotechDevelopmentCompany,Inc.(Dexter,MO).Themycotoxinbinderproductswereaddedinthedietsattheexpenseofcorn.Pigsfromeachpenwereweighedasagroupandfeeddisappearancewasdeterminedevery2wktodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.Resultsoflaboratoryanalysisshowedthatallmycotoxinstestedindietsampleswerebelowthepracticalquantitationlimit.Overall,therewerenotreatment×sexinteractions(P >0.50).Asexpected,genderdifferenceswerenotedasbarrowshadgreater(P <0.01)ADGandADFIbutpoorer(P <0.05)F/Gthangilts.Theadditionofmycotoxinbindersandliquidimmunityenhancerproductdidnotaffectgrowthperformance(P >0.73)asalltreatmentgroupshadsimilarperformanceduringthenursery(P >0.28)andgrowing-finishingstages(P >0.61).Undertheconditionsofthepresentstudy,theproductstestedhadnoeffectongrowthperformanceofwean-to-finishpigs.

Keywords:growth,mycotoxinbinder

IntroductionGrainssuchascornaresusceptibletomoldgrowth,particularlywhenexposedtohighmoisturecoupledwithpoorhandlingandstorageprocedures.Althoughmoldsdonotnecessarilyaffectpigs’health,moldscanproducemycotoxinsthatcanhavenegativeeffects.Mycotoxinsaresubstancesthatcancauseavarietyofproblemsingrowing-finishingpigsincludingdecreasedfeedintake,weightloss,andpoorperformance.Theyalsocansuppressthepig’simmunesystem,whichpredisposesthemtoinfectiousdiseases.Thus,keepingpigdietsfreeofmycotoxinsorwithintolerablelevelsrequiresgoodproductionpracticestoavoidproblemsthatmayarisefromconsumptionof

1AppreciationisexpressedtoBiotechDevelopmentCompany,Inc.,Dexter,MO,forsupplyingthetestproducts,NewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilities,andRichardBrobjorgandMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

203

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

contaminatedgrains.Mycotoxinsarenotvisibletothenakedeye,anddetectioningrainsorfeedsrequiresspecificequipment,makingon-farmdetectiondifficult.Also,onlysmalllevels(measuredinppmorppb)arerequiredformycotoxinstoexertanega-tiveeffectonpigs.

Mycotoxinbindersaresubstancesthathavetheabilitytobindmycotoxinsandpreventtheirabsorptioninthegutwhenaddedinthediet.Themostcommonsubstancesusedasmycotoxinbindersareadsorbentclayssuchasbentonite.Yeastcellwallpolysaccha-rides,suchasβ-glucans,alsohavebeenshowntoadsorbvariousmycotoxinsinadditiontotheirknownstimulatoryeffectonmucosalimmunity.Theuseofmycotoxinbind-ersinswinedietshasreceivedmoreattentionastheuseofdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)hasbecomemorewidespread.ConcernshavebeenraisedrecentlyregardingthepossibilityofDDGShavingmoreconcentratedmycotoxins(asmuchas3times)thanthemaingrainsourceitoriginatedfrom.

Also,withmoreemphasisonproductionefficiency,toolsthatcanaidindiseasepreven-tionwithoutcompromisingconsumerhealthandtheenvironmentarereceivingmoreattention.Thus,awidearrayofnaturalproducts,suchasorganicacidsandotherphyto-genicfeedadditives,thatmayhelpprotectpigsfrominfectiousagentsarebecomingmoreavailable.OnesuchproductisARNAp(BiotechDevelopmentCo.,Inc.,Dexter,MO),whichisanaturalmulti-useproductthatcontainsdriedcitruspulpextract,vitaminC,andorganicacids.Itismarketedforuseinpigsasanaidtostrengthentheimmunesystemandprotectthepigfromcommoninfectiousagents.

Weconductedthisstudytodeterminetheeffectoftwocommercialmycotoxinbindersandaliquidimmunityenhancerproductaddedtodrinkingwaterongrowthperfor-manceofgrowing-finishingpigsfeddietscontainingDDGS.

ProceduresThisstudywasapprovedbyandconductedinaccordancewiththeguidelinesoftheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theexperi-mentwasconductedinacommercialresearchfinishingbarninsouthwesternMinne-sota.Thebarnswerenaturallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsided.Penshadcompletelyslattedflooringanddeeppitsformanurestorage.Eachpenwasequippedwitha5-holestainlesssteeldryself-feederandacupwatererforadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Dailyfeedadditionstoeachpenwereaccomplishedthrougharoboticfeedingsystemcapableofprovidingandmeasuringfeedamountsonanindividualpenbasis.

Atotalof1,120pigs(PIC337×C22,initialBW=16.0lb)wererandomlyassignedto1of4treatmentsbalancedbyaverageBWwithingender.Therewere10single-genderpens(5pensofbarrowsand5pensofgilts)pertreatmentwith28pigsperpen.Treatmentswere:(1)controlstandardphase-feddietsbasedoncornandsoybeanmealwithDDGS(20to35%)fedfor132d,(2)acontroldietwithmycotoxinbindersBiomannanfedfromd0to55andT-BINDfedfromd0to132,(3)acontroldietwithT-BINDandBiomannanfedfromd0to132,and(4)Treatment3withARNAp,aliquidimmunityenhancerproduct,administeredat500ppmthroughthewaterlinesofpenscontinuouslyfor7devery3wk.Themycotoxinbinderproductswereaddedinthedietsattheexpenseofcorn.T-BINDisablendofhydratedsodiumcalciumalumi-

204

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

nosilicates,andBiomannanisanaturalmannan-basedoligosaccharideandglucosefermentationproduct.ARNApisanaturalmulti-useproductthatcontainsdriedcitruspulpextract,vitaminC,andorganicacids.Itisbeingmarketedforuseinswinetohelptheimmunesystemfightagainstcommoninfectiousagents.Bothmycotoxinbindersandtheliquidimmunityenhancerproductwereprovidedbyasinglemanufac-turer(BiotechDevelopmentCompany,Inc.,Dexter,MO).Pigsfromeachpenwereweighedasagroupandfeeddisappearancewasdeterminedevery2wktodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.ControlnurseryandfinishingdietsamplesweresubmittedforacompletemycotoxinanalysisattheVeterinaryDiagnosticLaboratoryatNorthDakotaStateUniversity,Fargo.

StatisticalanalysiswasperformedbyanalysisofvarianceusingtheMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC).Datawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignwithpenastheexperimentalunit.Themaineffectsofthedifferenttreatmentregimens,gender,andtheirinteractionweretested.

Results and DiscussionResultsofthelaboratoryanalysisshowedthatallmycotoxinstestedinbothdietsampleswerebelowthepracticalquantitationlimit(Table1).Overall,therewerenotreatment×sexinteractions(P >0.50;Table2).Growthperformanceofbarrowsandgiltswassimilar(P >0.59)duringthenurserystage.However,barrowsexhibitedgreater(P <0.01)ADGandADFIwithpoorer(P <0.02)F/Gduringthefinishingstagethangilts.Overall,barrowshadgreater(P <0.01)ADGandADFIbutpoorer(P <0.02)F/Gthangilts.Theadditionofthemycotoxinbindersortheliquidimmunityenhancerproductdidnotaffectgrowthperformanceofthepigsinthenurserystage(d0to55;P >0.28),growing-finishingstage(d55to132;P >0.61),oroverall(d0to132;P >0.73).

Inthisexperiment,themycotoxinbindersandliquidimmunityenhancerproductusedhadnoeffectongrowthperformanceofwean-to-finishpigs.However,itshouldbenotedthatthepigsusedinthisstudyhadgoodhealthstatusduringtheentirecourseoftheexperiment.Also,allmycotoxinstestedfromfeedsampleswerefoundtobewellbelowthesuggestedcautionarylevels.Therefore,intheabsenceofmycotoxincontami-nationanddiseasechallenge,nobeneficialeffectswererealizedfromtheuseoftheproductsevaluated.

205

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Analyzed mycotoxin content (ppm) in diet samples (as-fed)1

Mycotoxin Nurserydiet2 Finishingdiet3

AflatoxinB1 <0.02 <0.02FumonisinB1 <2.0 <2.0T-2toxin <0.5 <0.5Vomitoxin <0.5 <0.5Zearalenone <0.5 <0.51Majormycotoxinsaffectingfeedstuffscommonlyusedinswinediets.DietsamplesweresubmittedforacompletemycotoxinanalysisattheVeterinaryDiagnosticLaboratoryatNorthDakotaStateUniversity,Fargo.2Thenurserydietwassampled3timesduringthisportionofthestudy,andacompositesamplewassentforanalysis.3Thefinishingdietwassampled4timesduringthisportionofthestudy,andacompositesamplewassentforanalysis.

206

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

ct o

f myc

otox

in b

inde

rs an

d a l

iqui

d im

mun

ity en

hanc

er o

n gr

owth

per

form

ance

of w

ean-

to-fi

nish

pig

s1

Tre

atm

ent

12

34

T-B

IND

2,3 :

-+

++

Biom

anna

n(d

0to

55)

2,4 :

-+

++

Biom

anna

n(d

55

to1

32)2,

5 :-

-+

+Se

xPr

obab

ility

,P <

AR

NA

p6 :-

--

+SE

MBa

rrow

Gilt

SEM

Tre

atm

ent

×se

xT

reat

men

tSe

xW

eigh

t,lb

d

015

.916

.016

.115

.90.

2616

.015

.90.

180.

950.

940.

57

d5

585

.787

.187

.188

.41.

2186

.987

.20.

860.

620.

500.

81

d1

3223

3.0

234.

023

4.6

235.

31.

4423

7.3

231.

11.

020.

770.

730.

0001

d0

to5

5

AD

G,l

b1.

261.

291.

291.

320.

019

1.29

1.29

0.01

30.

580.

280.

73

AD

FI,l

b2.

102.

092.

112.

130.

043

2.10

2.12

0.03

00.

980.

940.

59

F/G

1.66

1.62

1.64

1.61

0.02

41.

631.

640.

017

0.87

0.56

0.71

d55

to1

32

AD

G,l

b1.

911.

891.

911.

900.

020

1.94

1.86

0.01

40.

500.

930.

0004

A

DFI

,lb

4.93

4.93

4.98

4.97

0.04

65.

114.

800.

032

0.61

0.76

<.00

01

F/G

2.58

2.60

2.61

2.62

0.02

22.

632.

580.

015

0.98

0.61

0.02

d0

to1

32

AD

G,l

b1.

641.

641.

651.

650.

011

1.67

1.62

0.00

80.

730.

730.

0004

A

DFI

,lb

3.74

3.74

3.78

3.78

0.03

73.

843.

670.

026

0.81

0.77

<.00

01

F/G

2.28

2.28

2.29

2.28

0.01

92.

312.

260.

013

0.95

0.96

0.02

1 Ato

talo

f1,1

20p

igs(

PIC

337

×C

22,i

nitia

lBW

=1

6.0

lb)w

ereu

sed

with

28

pigs

per

and

10re

plic

atio

nsp

ertr

eatm

ent.

2 Bio

tech

Dev

elop

men

tCom

pany

,Inc

.,Dex

ter,

MO

.3 A

dded

inal

ldie

tary

pha

sesa

t4lb

/ton

inp

lace

ofc

orn.

4 Add

edin

thed

ieta

t4lb

/ton

inp

lace

ofc

orn

and

fed

durin

gthe

nur

sery

stag

e.5 A

dded

inth

edie

tat1

lb/t

onin

pla

ceo

fcor

nan

dfe

ddu

ringt

hefi

nish

ings

tage

.6 A

liqu

idim

mun

esys

tem

enha

ncer

pro

duct

adde

dto

drin

king

wat

erco

ntin

uous

lyfo

r7d

aysa

t3-w

kin

terv

alss

tart

inga

td2

1.

207

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effect of a Commercial Enzyme (Nutrase) on Growth Performance of Growing Pigs Fed Diets Containing Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles1

J.Y.Jacela2,S.S.Dritz2,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof1,076pigs(PIC337×C22,initially87.4lb)wereusedtodeterminetheeffectofacommercialenzymeproductonthegrowthperformanceofpigfeddietscontainingdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS).Pigswererandomlyallottedto1of3treatmentsbalancedbyaverageinitialBWwithingender.Therewere13replicatepens(7barrowand6giltpens)pertreatment.Treatmentsincluded:(1)dietwith3%addedfat(control);(2)dietsupplementedwithenzymewithonly2%addedfatbutformulatedtohaveanenergycontentequaltothatofthecontroldietonthebasisofcalculatedincreasedMEfromtheenzyme(Nutrase;Nutrex,Lille,Belgium);and(3)dietwith2%addedfatwithoutenzymeformulatedusingthesameenergyvaluesforthecontroldiet(lowenergy).Dietswerecorn-soybeanmeal-based,containedDDGS,andwerefedin3phases(87to130lb,130to185lb,and185to210lbBWforPhases1,2,and3,respectively).ThirtypercentDDGSwasincludedindietsfrom87to185lb,and15%DDGSwasincludedinthelastphasefrom187to210lb.ThecontrolandNutrasedietarytreatmentswerebalancedtoaconstantlysine:calorieratioat2.69,2.29,and1.97g/McalMEforPhases1,2,and3,respectively,whereasthelowenergydietarytreatmenthadcalculatedlysine:calorieratiosof2.73,2.32,and2.00g/McalMEforPhases1,2,and3,respectively.Therewerenotreatment×genderinteractions(P>0.25)observedforanyresponsecriteriaevaluated.Theexpecteddifferences(P>0.03)ingrowthperformancebetweenbarrowsandgiltswereobservedinallperiodsandoverall.BarrowshadgreaterADG,ADFI,andfinalweightbutpoorerF/Gcomparedwithgilts.ExceptforthepoorerF/G(P<0.01)ofpigsfedtheenzymetreat-mentcomparedwithpigsfeddietswithoutenzymefromd0to28,therewerenodiffer-encesamongtreatmentsforADG(P>0.70),ADFI(P>0.77),andF/G(P>0.66)atanyoftheperiodsorfortheoverallstudy.Inconclusion,undertheconditionsofthepresentexperiment,thecommercialenzymeusedatthemanufacturer’srecommendedleveldidnotaffectgrowthperformanceofgrowingpigsfeddietscontainingDDGS.

Keywords:drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles,enzyme

IntroductionAconsiderablenumberofstudieshaveshownthatdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)canbeasuitablereplacementforaportionofthecornandsoybeanmealcommonlyusedinswinediets.Addingupto30%DDGSinnurseryandgrow-finish

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrobjorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

208

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

dietscanresultingrowthperformancesimilartothatofpigsfedcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddiets.However,DDGSinclusionlevelsgreaterthan30%canhavenegativeeffectsonbothperformanceandcarcassquality3.OnefactorthatlimitstheuseofDDGSinswinedietsisitshighfibercontent.High-fiberfeedstuffssuchasDDGScontainnon-starchpolysaccharides(NSP),whicharereferredtoasanti-nutritionalfactorsbecauseoftheirnegativeeffectsonthedigestibilityofenergyandothernutrientssuchasaminoacids.

BecausepigslacktheenzymestobreakdownNSP,theuseofexogenousenzymestomaximizenutrientutilizationfromhigh-fiberfeedstuffshasbeenevaluatedinnumer-ousstudies,mostlyindietscontainingwheatorbarley,withmixedresults.Theincon-sistentresultsobtainedfromthesetrialsmaybeduetoanumberoffactorsincludingthesubstratepresentintheingredientandtheuseofappropriateenzymes.Enzymesareknowntoactonspecificsubstrates.Intheory,thereshouldbeenoughsubstrateforthespecificenzymeusedtoachieveameasurableresponse.CornDDGS,forexample,hasbeenfoundtocontainappreciableamountsofarabinoxylans,amajorNSPfoundinmostgrains.Thus,anenzymecontainingxylanaseactivitythatcanbreakdownarabi-noxylansmayaidinimprovingthedigestibilityofnutrientsincornDDGS.Availableenergyalsocanbepotentiallyincreasedwithenzymesupplementation.Thus,energysourceingredientssuchasaddedfatcanbereducedinthedietsandstillmeetthetargetedenergylevelofthedietbecauseoftheexpectedupliftinenergyvalueresult-ingfromtheadditionofenzyme.Thisalsocanhaveasignificantimpactoneconom-icsbyreducingtheoveralldietcost.Therefore,weconductedthisstudytodeterminetheenergyreplacementvalueandeffectofacommercialenzymeproductcontainingbacterialendo-1,4-beta-xylanaseonthegrowthperformanceofgrowingpigsfeddietscontainingDDGS.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Thetrialwasconductedinacommer-cialswineresearchfacilityinsouthwesternMinnesota.Thebarnswerenaturallyventi-latedanddoublecurtainsided.Penswere18×10ftwithcompletelyslattedflooringanddeeppitsformanurestorage.Eachpenwasequippedwithaself-feederandacupwaterer.Thebarnhadanautomatedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Will-mar,MN)capableofdeliveringandrecordingfeedamountsonanindividualpenbasis.

Atotalof1,076pigs(PIC337×C22),initially87.4lb,wererandomlyallottedto1ofthe3treatmentsbalancedbyaverageBWwithingender.Therewere27pigsperpenand13replicatepens(7barrowand6giltpens)pertreatment.Adietwith3%addedfat(control)wasformulatedusingNRC(19984)valuesforMEofcornandsoybeanmeal(1,551and1,533kcalME/lb,respectively;Tables1and2).NotethatforDDGS,wedidnotuseNRC(1998)MEvaluestoformulatethedietsbutratheranMEvalueequaltothatofcorn.Asdirectedbythemanufactureroftheenzymeproducttestedinthisstudy,anincreasedMEvaluewascalculatedforcorn,soybeanmeal,andDDGStoaccountfortheexpectedincreaseinMEwiththeadditionofenzyme(Table1).This

3Stein,H.H.,andG.C.Shurson.2009.Board-invitedreview:Theuseandapplicationofdistillersdriedgrainswithsolublesinswinediets.J.Anim.Sci.87(4):1292-1303.4NRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine.10threv.ed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

209

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

wasbasedontheassumptionthattheadditionofenzymewillincreasetheenergyvalueoftheingredients.UsingthecalculatedincreasedMEvalues,dietaryfatwasremovedproportionatelyintheseconddietarytreatmentwithaddedenzyme(Nutrase)sothatthedietaryenergyvaluewassimilartothecontroldiet.Theenzymeevaluatedintheexperimentwasacommercialproductcontainingbacterialendo-1,4-beta-xylanase(Nutrase;Nutrex,Lille,Belgium)addedattheexpenseofcorn.AthirddietsimilartotheNutrasedietwith2%addedfatbutwithoutaddedenzyme(lowenergy)wasformulatedonthebasisoftheMEvaluesusedinthecontroldiets.Thus,thecalculateddietaryenergycontentwaslowerthanthatofthecontrolandNutrasediets(Table2).Dietswerecorn-soybeanmeal-based,containedDDGS,andwerefedin3phases(87to130lb,130to185lb,and185to210lbBWforPhases1,2,and3,respectively).ThirtypercentDDGSwasincludedindietsfrom87to185lb,and15%DDGSwasincludedinthelastphasefrom187to210lb.ThecontrolandNutrasedietarytreat-mentswerebalancedtoaconstantlysine:calorieratioat2.69,2.29,and1.97g/McalMEforPhases1,2,and3,respectively,whereasthelowenergydietarytreatmenthadcalculatedlysine:calorieratiosof2.73,2.32,and2.00g/McalMEforPhases1,2,and3,respectively.

Pigsfromeachpenwereweighedasagroupevery2wktodetermineADG.Feeddeliv-erydatageneratedthroughtheautomatedfeedingsystemeveryweighdaywereusedtocalculatefeedconsumptionperpenanddetermineADFIandF/G.

StatisticalanalysiswasperformedbyanalysisofvariancewiththeMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC).Datawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandom-izeddesignwithpenastheexperimentalunit.Themaineffectsofdietarytreatmentandgenderaswellastheirinteractionsweretested.

Results and DiscussionTherewerenotreatment×genderinteractions(P>0.25)observedforanycriteriaevaluatedatanytimeduringtheexperiment.Theexpecteddifferences(P>0.03)betweengenderswereobservedinallperiodsandoverallasbarrowsexhibitedgreaterADG,ADFI,andfinalweightbutpoorerF/Gthangilts(Table3).

WiththeexceptionofpoorerF/G(P<0.01)fromd0to28ofpigsfedtheenzymetreatmentcomparedwithpigsfeddietswithoutenzyme,therewerenodifferencesforADG(P>0.70),ADFI(P>0.77),andF/G(P>0.66)inallperiodsortheoverallstudy.ItisnotclearwhatcontributedtothepoorF/Gofpigsfedtheenzymetreatmentduringthefirstperiod.Webelievethismayhavebeenduetorandomvariability.WewerealsounabletodetectasignificantimprovementinF/Ginpigsfedthe3%addedfatdietscomparedwithpigsfed2%addedfat.Thus,eventhoughpigsfeddietswithenzymeperformedsimilarlytopigsfedthebasaldiets,wewereunabletoconcludethattheadditionofenzymewasabletoincreasetheenergyvalueofthedietsbecausepigsfedthelowenergydietsalsoperformedsimilarlytothecontrolpigs.

Theabsenceofanenzymeeffectongrowthperformanceofgrowingpigsrelativetopigsfedthelowenergydietsinthisexperimentissimilartoresultsweobservedinourprevi-ousstudieswithdifferentenzymeproducts.Inthepast,weperformedseveralexperi-mentsthatusedcombinationsofenzymesinanattempttoimprovethenutritional

210

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

valueofcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietswithaddedDDGS.Wedidnotobserveaposi-tiveresponseinpigperformanceinthesepreviousstudies.Anumberofotherresearch-ershavesuggestedthatotherfactorscancontributetotheeffectofenzymes,suchasenzymedoseandamountofsubstrateintheactualdiet.Itisworthmentioningthatbeforeconductingthetrial,cornDDGSsamplesusedindietsfromapreviousenzymeexperimentwereanalyzedtoquantifythearabinoxylancontent.ThesesampleswereobtainedfromthesamesourceastheDDGSusedforthepresenttrial.ResultsoftheanalysisshowedthatcornDDGScontainsaconsiderableamountoftotalarabinoxylans(11.1%ofDM).Theoretically,becauseanenzymeproductwithxylanaseactivitywasused,animprovementinthenutrientvalueoftheDDGSusedinthistrialand,conse-quently,animprovementingrowthperformanceshouldbepossible.However,thiswasnotthecaseinthepresentstudy,evenatthemanufacturer’srecommendedusageleveloftheenzymeproduct.Therefore,undertheconditionsofthepresentexperiment,weconcludethattheenzymeproductuseddidnotaffectgrowthperformanceofgrowingpigsfeddietscontainingDDGS.

Table 1. Metabolizeable energy values used for diet formulationIngredient Control1 Nutrase2

Corn 1,551 1,576Soybeanmeal 1,533 1,546Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles 1,551 1,5761BasedonNRC(1998)values,exceptforDDGS,whichwasassignedanMEvalueequaltocornNRC(1998)value.2CalculatedupliftvaluesforMEwhenenzymewasaddedasrecommendedbythemanufacturerbasedonarabi-noxylancontent.

211

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Diet composition (as-fed basis)1,2

Phase1 Phase2 Phase3

Ingredient,% ControlLow

energy ControlLow

energy ControlLow

energyCorn 49.42 50.60 53.82 55.00 70.47 71.60Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 15.60 15.50 11.22 11.15 9.72 9.65Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 15.00 15.00Choicewhitegrease 3.00 1.92 3.00 1.92 3.00 1.92Limestone 1.08 1.08 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Vitaminandtracemineralpremix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10Phytase3 0.0075 0.0075 0.006 0.006 0.0125 0.0125L-lysineHCl 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35Total 100.00 100.00   100.00 100.00   100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisStandardizedilealdigestible(SID)aminoacids,%Lysine 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69Isoleucine:lysineratio 69 69 72 72 68 69Leucine:lysineratio 186 187 206 207 196 198Methionine:lysineratio 33 33 36 36 34 34Met&Cys:lysineratio 66 66 73 73 70 70Threonine:lysineratio 63 63 67 67 63 63Tryptophan:lysineratio 17 17 17 17 17 17Valine:lysineratio 83 83 89 89 85 85Totallysine,% 1.10 1.10 0.95 0.95 0.80 0.80MD,kcal/lb 1,586 1,564 1,587 1,565 1,589 1,566SIDlysine:MEratio,g/Mcal 2.69 2.73 2.29 2.32 1.97 2.00Ca,% 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.44P,% 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.37 0.37AvailableP,% 0.29 0.29   0.27 0.27   0.23 0.231Phases1,2,and3fedfromapproximately87to130lb,130to185lb,and185to210lbBW,respectively.2Acommercialenzymeproductcontainingbacterialendo-1,4-beta-xylanase(Nutrase)replacedcorninthelowenergydietat0.25lb/tontomakethethirddietarytreatment.3OptiPhos2000(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN);provided136,109,and227phytaseunitsperpoundofdietinPhases1,2,and3,respectively.

212

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Effect of a commercial enzyme product and gender on performance of growing pigs1,2

Treatment Gender Probability,P<3

ItemLow

controlHigh

control Enzyme SEM Barrows Gilts SEM Treatment GenderWeightd0 87.2 87.6 87.3 2.08 87.8 86.9 1.76 0.99 0.71d28 138.0 138.6 137.6 2.65 139.6 136.5 2.25 0.97 0.33d66 209.8 210.2 208.0 3.25 213.9 204.8 2.75 0.88 0.02d0to28ADG,lb 1.81 1.82 1.79 0.031 1.85 1.77 0.026 0.80 0.03ADFI,lb 3.89 3.88 3.96 0.081 4.05 3.77 0.069 0.77 0.01F/G 2.15a 2.13a 2.21b 0.017 2.19 2.13 0.014 0.01 0.003d28to66ADG,lb 1.83 1.79 1.81 0.032 1.87 1.75 0.027 0.70 0.001ADFI,lb 5.25 5.19 5.18 0.084 5.50 4.91 0.072 0.82 <0.0001F/G 2.87 2.90 2.86 0.037 2.94 2.81 0.031 0.66 0.01d0to66ADG,lb 1.82 1.80 1.80 0.026 1.86 1.76 0.022 0.86 0.001ADFI,lb 4.66 4.62 4.65 0.075 4.87 4.42 0.064 0.93 <0.0001F/G 2.56 2.56 2.58 0.021 2.62 2.52 0.018 0.88 0.00031Atotalof1,076pigs(PIC337×C22,initially87.4lb)wereusedwith27pigsperpenand13replicationspertreatment.2Bacterialendo-1,4-beta-xylanase(Nutrase;Nutrex,Lille,Belgium).3Treatment×genderinteractionsforallcriteriawerenotsignificant(P>0.05).abWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

213

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of an Enzyme Blend (Livestock Answer) in Diets Containing Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles on Growth Performance of Nursery and Finishing Pigs

J.M.Benz,J.L.Nelssen,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,andS.S.Dritz1

SummaryTwotrialswereconductedtodeterminetheeffectsofanenzymeblend(LivestockAnswer;EnvironmentalCareandShare,Golden,CO)ongrowthperformanceofnurs-eryandwean-to-finishpigs.LivestockAnswercontainsamylases,cellulases,proteases,lipases,andphytases.InExp.1,atotalof180pigs(PICTR4×1050,initially12.3lband21dold)wereusedina28-dtrial.Pigswereblockedbyweightandallottedatweaningto1of3enzymelevels(0%,0.125%,and0.175%).Therewere6pigsperpenand10replicationspertreatment.Dietswerecorn-soybeanmealbasedandcontained15%drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)duringPhase1(d0to14)and25%DDGSduringPhase2(d14to28).Fromd0to14,increasingenzymelevelimprovedADG(quadratic;P=0.04)andF/G(linear;P=0.05)andtendedtoimprove(P<0.07)ADFIandpigweightond14.Fromd14to28,enzymelevelhadnoeffect(P>0.20)onADGorADFIbutworsenedF/G(quadratic;P=0.04).Pigsfedanenzymeblendforthefirst14dafterweaninghadimprovedgrowthperformance.However,overtheentire28-dnurseryperiod,enzymelevelhadnoeffect(P>0.22)onpigperformance.InExp.2,atotalof224nurserypigs(PICTR4×1050,initially13.4lband21dofage)wereblockedbyweightandallottedto1of4treatments.Therewere8pigsperpenand7penspertreatment.LivestockAnswerwasaddedat0.125%toeitherthenurseryorfinisherstageorbothina2×2factorialarrangement(withandwithoutinnurseryandwithandwithoutinfinisher).Dietswerecorn-soybeanmealbasedandcontained15%DDGSfromd0to14,25%DDGSfromd14to35,and30%DDGSfromd35tod126.Ond126,pigswereharvestedandcarcassdatawerecollected.Addingtheenzymetonursery,finishing,andnurseryandfinishingcombineddietscontainingDDGSdidnotinfluence(P>0.20)ADG,ADFI,F/G,oranyofthecarcasscriteriameasuredinExp2.

Keywords:drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles,enzyme

IntroductionWithrecentfeedpricevolatility,greateremphasishasbeenplacedonimprovingfeedefficiency.EnzymeshavebeenusedextensivelyinEuropeanswinediets,whichcontainmorefibrousfeedstuffsthantraditionalcorn-baseddietsintheUnitedStates.Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)havebeenincorporatedintoswinedietstoreducecost.BecauseDDGSaremorefibrousthancorn,feedingenzymesinDDGS-containingdietsmaybebeneficial.LivestockAnswer(EnvironmentalCareandShare,Golden,CO)isablendof17enzymesincludingamylases,lipases,proteases,cellulases,

1FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

214

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

andphytases.Becauselimiteddataareavailableontheimpactofthisenzymeblendonpigperformance,weconducted2experimentstodeterminetheeffectofLivestockAnswerongrowthperformanceofnurseryandwean-to-finishpigs.

ProceduresExperiment1Atotalof180nurserypigs(12.3lband21dofage)wereblockedbyweightatwean-ingandallottedto1of3dietarytreatments.Therewere6pigsperpenand10penspertreatment.The3dietarytreatmentswereacontroldietwithoutenzymeandthecontroldietwith0.125%or0.25%LivestockAnswer.Corn-soybeanmeal-baseddietswerefedin2phases;Phase1dietscontained15%DDGS,andPhase2dietscontained25%DDGS(Table1).Phases1and2werefromd0to14andd14to28,respectively.Dietsdidnotcontainanantibioticandwerefedinmealform.

Eachpencontained1self-feederand1nipplewaterertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Penswere5×5ft.Pigswereweighedandfeeddisappearancewasdeter-minedond0,7,14,21,and28tocalculateADG,ADFI,andF/G.

Experiment2Atotalof224nurserypigs(13.4lband21dofage)wereblockedbyweightandallot-tedto1of4dietarytreatments.Therewere8pigsperpenand7penspertreatment.LivestockAnswer(0.125%)wasaddedtothedietsineitherthenurseryorfinisherstageorbothtocompletethe2×2factorialarrangementoftreatments(withandwithoutinnurseryandwithandwithoutinfinisher).

Dietswerecorn-soybeanmealbasedandcontained15%DDGSfromd0to14,25%DDGSfromd14to35,and30%DDGSfromd35tod145(endofthetrial;Table2).Dietsdidnotcontainanantibioticandwerefedinmealform.

Pigswerehousedinanurseryin5-×5-ftpensfromd0to35.Ond35,pigsweremovedtoafinishingfacility,wheretheywerehousedin8-×10-ftpensfortheremain-derofthetrial.Feeddeliverytoeachpenwasmeasureddaily.Pigsandfeederswereweighedond7,14,21,28,and35inthenurseryandevery2wkinthefinishertocalcu-lateADG,ADFI,andF/G.Ond126,theheaviest2pigsfromeachpenwereremovedandmarketed.Remainingpigsweremarketedond145afterweaning.CarcassdataincludingHCW,yield,backfat,loindepth,andpercentageleanwerecollected.

DatawereanalyzedusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)withpenastheexperimentalunitforallanalysis.InExp.1,thelinearandquadraticeffectofLivestockAnswerwastested.InExp.2,therewere14replicationsofthe2dietarytreatmentsbeingfedduringthenurseryportionofthetrial(d0to35)and7replicationsduringthefinishingphase.

ResultsExperiment1Fromd0to14,increasingthelevelofenzymeimprovedADG(quadratic;P=0.04)andF/G(linear;P=0.05)andtendedtoimproveADFI(quadratic;P=0.06)andd14BW(quadratic;P =0.07;Table3).Fromd14to28,enzymelevelhadnoeffect

215

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

(P >0.31)onADGorADFIbutworsenedF/G(quadratic;P<0.05).Overall(d0to28),theenzymehadnoeffect(P>0.24)onADG,ADFI,F/G,ord-28BW;however,thetendencyforimprovedBWatd14wasmaintainedatd28,resultingina1.5lbheavierpig.

Experiment2Addingtheenzymetonursery,finishing,andnurseryandfinishingcombineddietscontainingDDGSdidnotinfluenceADG,ADFI,F/G,oranyofthecarcasscriteriameasuredinthestudy(Table4).

SimilartoresultsfrompreviousresearchatKansasStateUniversity,addingtheenzymeblendtocorn-soybeanmealbaseddietscontainingDDGSdidnotresultinimprove-mentsinoverallpigperformance.Additionaltrialsareneededincommercialfacilitiestounderstandthevariablegrowthresponserelatedtofeedingthisenzymeblend.

216

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of nursery diets in Exp. 1 and 2 (as-fed basis)1,2 Ingredient,% Phase1 Phase2Corn 40.86 47.36Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 23.02 23.94CornDDGS3 15.00 25.00Selectmenhadenfishmeal 3.00 ---Spray-driedwhey 15.00 ---MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.70 1.00Limestone 0.75 1.20Salt 0.30 0.35Zincoxide 0.38 ---Vitaminpremix 0.25 0.25Tracemineralpremix 0.15 0.15Lysine-HCl 0.40 0.55DL-methionine 0.10 0.08L-threonine 0.10 0.13Total 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSID4aminoacids,%Lysine,% 1.35 1.30Isoleucine:lysine 61 62Leucine:lysine 129 139Methionine:lysine 33 31Met&Cys:lysine 57 58Threonine:lysine 62 63Tryptophan:lysine 17 17Valine:lysine 68 71SIDlysine:ME,g/Mcal 4.10 3.92Totallysine,% 1.49 1.43CP,% 22.5 22.7ME,kcal/lb 1,546 1536Ca,% 0.80 0.79P,% 0.73 0.70AvailableP,% 0.48 0.411Phase1dietswerefedfromd0to14inbothexperiments.Phase2dietswerefedfromd14to28inExp.1andd14to35inExp.2.2LivestockAnswerwassubstitutedforcorn.3Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles.4Standardizedilealdigestible.

217

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Composition of finishing diets in Exp. 2 (as-fed basis)1

Weightrange,lbIngredient 40to80 80to120 120to165 165to215 >215Corn 48.12 54.51 59.84 63.87 65.91Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 19.58 13.24 8.06 4.08 2.09DDGS2 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.15Limestone 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Vitaminpremix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08Tracemineralpremix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08LysineHCl 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

CalculatedvaluesSID3aminoacids,%Lysine 1.05 0.93 0.80 0.70 0.65Isoleucine:lysine 73 71 71 72 72Methionine:lysine 31 32 34 37 38Met&Cys:lysine 64 65 70 75 78Threonine:lysine 63 62 63 64 65Tryptophan:lysine 19 18 18 17 17Valine:lysine 85 85 88 91 93SIDLysine:ME,g/Mcal 3.14 2.77 2.38 2.08 1.93Totallysine,% 1.18 1.04 0.90 0.79 0.73Protein,% 21.8 19.5 17.5 16.0 15.3ME,kcal/lb 1,519 1,522 1,525 1,527 1,528Ca,% 0.60 0.56 0.50 0.48 0.48P,% 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.47 0.46AvailableP,% 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.211LivestockAnswerwassubstitutedforcorn.2Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles.3Standardizedilealdigestible.

218

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Effect of Livestock Answer on growth performance (Exp. 1)1

Dietaryenzyme,% P<Item 0 0.125 0.175 SEM Linear Quadraticd0to14ADG,lb 0.40 0.50 0.45 0.02 0.04 0.04ADFI,lb 0.51 0.59 0.54 0.02 0.16 0.06F/G 1.28 1.19 1.20 0.03 0.04 0.05d14to28ADG,lb 0.79 0.76 0.80 0.03 0.87 0.31ADFI,lb 1.20 1.23 1.24 0.04 0.36 0.99F/G 1.53 1.61 1.55 0.03 0.21 0.05d0to28ADG,lb 0.59 0.63 0.63 0.02 0.24 0.61ADFI,lb 0.85 0.91 0.89 0.03 0.25 0.44F/G 1.44 1.44 1.42 0.02 0.50 0.33Weight,lbd14 17.8 19.2 18.6 0.61 0.07 0.07d28 28.6 30.4 29.8 0.90 0.22 0.311Atotalof224pigs(initialBW12.3lb)wereusedwith6pigsperpenand10penspertreatment.

219

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effects of Livestock Answer (LA) on growth performance and carcass criteria (Exp. 2)1,2

d0to35: Control Control 0.125%LA 0.125%LAd35to145: Control 0.125%LA Control 0.125%LA SEM

d0to35ADG,lb 0.90 0.86 0.01ADFI,lb 1.27 1.23 0.01F/G 1.41 1.43 0.01d-35wt,lb 44.9 43.4 0.64d35to126ADG,lb 2.18 2.18 2.20 2.16 0.05ADFI,lb 5.65 5.61 5.64 5.60 0.19F/G 2.60 2.58 2.56 2.59 0.04d126to145ADG,lb 2.17 2.31 2.36 2.35 0.17ADFI,lb 7.42 7.19 7.64 7.63 0.43F/G 3.43 3.16 3.24 3.26 0.19d35to145ADG,lb 2.18 2.19 2.22 2.18 0.05ADFI,lb 5.89 5.83 5.91 5.87 0.21F/G 2.71 2.66 2.66 2.69 0.05

CarcasscharacteristicsWeight,lb 203.5 205.0 206.8 204.2 5.8Yield,% 73.2 72.9 72.9 73.2 0.39Backfat,mm 21.9 21.8 22.1 22.0 1.72Loindepth,mm 59.7 58.4 59.8 58.5 1.18Lean,% 51.8 51.6 51.7 51.6 0.81Atotalof224pigs(initialBW13.4lb)wereusedwith8pigsperpenand14penspertreatmentfromd0to35and6penspertreatmentfromd35to145.2The2heaviestpigsineachpenwereremovedond126.

220

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

A Meta-Analysis of Supplemental Enzyme Studies in Growing-Finishing Pigs Fed Diets Containing Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles: Effects on Growth Performance1

J.Y.Jacela2,S.S.Dritz2,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAmeta-analysisof4experimentsinvolving4,506pigswasconductedtodeterminetheeffectsofseveralcommercialenzymesonthegrowthperformanceofgrowing-finishingpigsfedvariousamountsofdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS).Experiments1and2usedcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietswith15%DDGS.Aβ-mannanaseenzyme(Hemicell;ChemGenCorp.,Gaithersburg,MD)wasusedinenzymetreatmentsinExp.1,andablendofenzymesthathadβ-glucanase,cellulase,andproteaseactivi-ties(Agri-kingREAP;Agri-King,Inc.,Fulton,IL)wasusedinExp.2.InExp.3,dietscontaining45%and60%DDGSwerefedwithorwithout2commercialenzymeprod-uctsdesignedforuseindietscontainingDDGS.InExp.4,anenzymeproductwithbacterialendo-1,4-β-xylanasewasevaluatedindietscontaining30%DDGS.Allenzymetreatmentsineachexperimentwerepooledinameta-analysistocomparetheresponsestodietswithorwithoutenzymeadditionregardlessoftheotherfactorstestedineachtrial.Allexperimentswereconductedinthesamecommercialswineresearchfacil-ity.TherewerenodifferencesinADG(P >0.52),ADFI(P >0.33),F/G(P >0.35),andfinalweight(P >0.60)amongpigsfeddietswithaddedenzymeandpigsfeddietswithoutenzymeinanyofthe4experimentsorinthepooleddata.Inconclusion,onthebasisofthecombinedresultsfromthe4experimentsevaluatedinthismeta-analysis,addingtheseenzymesindietscontainingvariousamountsofDDGSdoesnotappeartobebeneficialinpigs.

Keywords:drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles,enzyme

IntroductionTheuseofcarbohydrate-andprotein-degradingenzymesinlivestockdietsasanaidtoimprovenutrientutilizationfromplant-basedingredientshasreceivedagreatdealofattentionoverthepastdecade.Studiesconductedinpoultryhaveconsistentlyshownfavorableresultswiththeuseofexogenousenzymes,butthishasnotbeenthecaseinpigs.Someexperimentshavereportedbeneficialeffectsofenzymesupplementationofdietsonpigperformance,butoverall,resultshavebeeninconsistent.Thissuggeststhattheuseofcurrentlyavailableenzymesmaybebettersuitedforpoultrythanpigs.Never-theless,giventhepotentialbenefitsofimprovedfeedefficiencyandhighcostoffeed,thereisrenewedinterestinaddingexogenousenzymesinswinediets.

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrobjorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

221

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Theincreasedinterestinenzymeusealsohasbeenfueledbytheincreasinguseoflessexpensivealternativefeedingredients,mostnotablydrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS).Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubleshaveahighfibercontentthatislessdigestibletothepig.Thus,thereispotentialtoincreasethenutritionalvalueofDDGSbyusingexogenousenzymestoaidinbreakingdownfibercomponents.Experimen-talresultssuggestthatDDGScanbefedtopigsonlyupto30%inthedietsbeforeadecreaseinperformanceisobserved.Theuseoffiber-degradingenzymesprovidesanopportunitytomaximizethevalueofDDGSforswinebyimprovingitsnutrientdigest-ibilityandcouldalsopotentiallyallowforhigherinclusionratesofDDGSinswinediets.Therefore,weconductedameta-analysisofdatafrom4differentexperimentsusingvariouscommercialenzymeproductscurrentlyavailableinthemarkettodeter-minetheeffectsoftheseenzymesonthegrowthperformanceofgrowing-finishingpigsfedvariousamountsofDDGS.

ProceduresProceduresusedintheexperimentswereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Themeta-analysisinvolved4differ-entexperimentsusingatotalof4,506pigsofthesamegenetics(PICL337×C22).Thefirsttrial(Exp.1)startedonOctober24,2007,andthelasttrial(Exp.4)endedonApril30,2009.Allexperimentswereconductedinacommercialswineresearchfacil-itylocatedinsouthwesternMinnesota.Thebarnswerenaturallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsided.Penswere18×10ftwithcompletelyslattedflooringanddeeppitsformanurestorage.Eachpenwasequippedwithaself-feederandacupwaterer.Eachbarnhadanautomatedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)capableofdeliveringandrecordingdataonfeedamountsaddedonanindividualpenbasis.

Informationregardingthe4trialsisshowninTable1.InExp.1,atotalof1,269pigswereassignedtotreatmentsina2×2×2factorialarrangement.ThefactorswerePorcineCircovirusType2vaccinedose(halforfull),enzyme(withorwithout),andgender(barroworgilt).Theenzymeusedwasacommerciallyavailableβ-mannanase(Hemicell;ChemGenCorp.,Gaithersburg,MD).InExp.2,atotalof1,129pigswereassignedtotreatmentsina2×3factorialarrangement.Thefactorswereenzyme(withorwithout)andaddedfat(0%,2.5%,or5.0%).Thecommercialenzymeusedwasaproprietaryblendofenzymesthathadβ-glucanase,cellulase,andproteaseactivities(Agri-kingREAP;Agri-King,Inc.,Fulton,IL).InExp.1and2,DDGSwasaddedat15%inalldietaryphases.InExp.3,atotalof1,032pigswereallottedtoacontroltreatment(30%DDGS)and6additionaltreatmentsina2×3factorialarrangementbasedonDDGSlevel(45%or60%)andenzymeused(none,productA,orproductB).EnzymesusedwerecommercialenzymesdesignedforuseindietscontainingDDGS.Regardlessoftreatment,levelsofDDGSwerereducedto20%inalldietsduringthelast12doftheexperiment.InExp.4,atotalof1,076pigswereassignedto3treatments:dietswith30%DDGSand2%addedfatwithorwithoutenzymeandadietwith30%DDGSand3%addedfatwithoutenzyme.Theenzymeproductusedcontainedabacte-rialendo-1,4-β-xylanase(Nutrase;Nutrex,Lille,Belgium).Regardlessoftreatment,levelsofDDGSwerereducedto15%inthelastdietaryphase.

WiththeexceptionofExp.3,whichwasblockedbyinitialBW,pigsinallexperimentswererandomlyassignedtotreatmentsbalancedbyinitialBW.Ineachexperiment,all

222

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

enzymetreatmentswerepooledinto1treatment(yes)tocomparetheresponsestotreatmentswithoutenzyme(no).Penwastheexperimentalunitinalltrials.Datafromthe4experimentswerethenpooled,andstatisticalanalysiswasperformedbyanalysisofvarianceusingtheMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC)withthefixedeffectofenzyme(yesvs.no)andtherandomeffectsoftrialandsex.

Results and DiscussionTherewerenodifferencesinADG(P >0.52),ADFI(P >0.33),F/G(P >0.35),andfinalweight(P >0.60)amongpigsfeddietswithorwithoutaddedenzymeinanyofthe4experimentsorinthepooleddata(Table2).Theseresultsaresimilartoanumberofotherexperimentsthatdidnotfindanysignificantimpactofenzymesupplementa-tiononpiggrowthperformance.

Inthefirstexperiment,acommerciallyavailableenzymewithβ-mannanaseactivitywasusedincorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietswith15%addedDDGS.However,themannosefractioninDDGS,unlikeinsoybeanmeal,ispresentinverysmallamountscomparedtotheothercarbohydratefractions,whichcouldlimitthepotentialresponseofpigstotheenzymeused.ThismaybeaplausibleexplanationfortheabsenceofanyresponseseeninExp.1.BecauseDDGSvariesincarbohydratecompositionandenzymesactonspecificsubstrates,acombinationofseveralenzymesthatcanactonvarioussubstratespresentinDDGSmightbeamorelogicalapproach.UsingthesamelevelofDDGSasinExp.1,acommercialenzymeblendknowntoactonandbreakdownvariouscarbohydratefractionswasusedincorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietsinExp.2.SimilartotheresultsobtainedinExp.1,nosignificantimprovementingrowthperformancewasobservedwiththeadditionofthecommercialenzymeproduct.

ThereareseveralpossibleexplanationsastowhyresultsfromenzymesupplementationinDDGS-containingdietshavebeeninconsistent,includingageofanimalandamountofsubstrate.Ithasbeenreportedthatenzymesupplementationofdietscontaining30%DDGSimprovedgrowthandfeedefficiencyinnurserypigs.Inthecommercialresearchfacilitywherethese4experimentswereconducted,dietscontaining30%DDGSfedtogrowing-finishingpigshaveresultedingrowthperformancesimilartothatfromcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietswithoutDDGS.Thus,wetestedtheeffectoffeedinghigherlevelsofDDGS(45%to60%)andwhetherenzymesupplementation,usingtwocommercialenzymesdesignedforuseinDDGS-containingdiets,wouldhelpalleviatethenegativeeffectsofhighlevelsofDDGSongrowthperformance.Intheory,thissignificantlyincreasestheamountofpossiblesubstratesfortheenzymestoacton.However,similartoobservationsinthefirst2experiments,therewasnosignificanteffectofenzymesupplementationongrowthperformanceofgrowing-finishingpigs,evenwithveryhighlevelsofDDGS.

InDDGS,non-starchpolysaccharidearabinoxylansarepresentingreaterproportions.Thus,usingaproductwithxylanaseactivitycanpotentiallyincreasetheenergyvalueofDDGS.InExp.4,weinvestigatedtheeffectofabacterialendo-1,4-β-xylanaseongrowthperformanceofpigsfeddietscontaining30%DDGS.However,similartothefirst3experiments,wedidnotobserveanysignificantimpactofenzymesupplementa-tiononthegrowthperformanceofgrowing-finishingpigs.

223

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Inconclusion,addingtheseenzymesindietscontainingDDGSasameanstoimprovenutrientandenergyutilizationdoesnotappeartobebeneficialinpigs,asmeasuredbygrowthperformancebasedoncombinedresultsfromthe4experiments.Evenwhensomefactorsthataffectenzymeefficacy,suchassubstratespecificityandlevelofDDGS,wereaddressedinthe4experiments,theenzymeproductsuseddidnotexertanyposi-tiveeffectongrowthperformance.Atthispoint,itappearsthatuseoftheseexogenousenzymesincorn-soybeanmeal-basedswinedietscontaininghigh-fiberingredientssuchasDDGSasameanstoimprovepigperformanceisnotjustified.

224

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 1

. Det

ails

of i

ndiv

idua

l exp

erim

ents

incl

uded

in th

e met

a-an

alys

is1

Expe

rimen

tD

urat

ion,

dEx

perim

enta

lun

its,n

Star

twei

ght,

lbD

DG

S2 ,%En

zym

eact

ivity

ofp

rodu

ctu

sed

Ref

eren

ce1

9247

65.3

15β-

man

nana

se2

5642

75.8

15β-

gluc

anas

e,ce

llula

se,a

ndp

rote

ase

Jace

laet

al.,2

0083

390

4210

1.5

45an

d60

Prop

rieta

ryb

lend

ofe

nzym

esJa

cela

etal

.,200

94

466

3987

.430

Bact

eria

lend

o-1,

4-β

-xyl

anas

eJa

cela

etal

.,200

95

1 Dat

afro

m4

expe

rimen

tsin

volv

ing4

,506

pig

s.2 D

ried

dist

iller

sgra

insw

ithso

lubl

es.

3 Jace

laet

al.,S

win

eDay

200

8,R

epor

tofP

rogr

ess1

001,

pp.

111

-116

.4 Ja

cela

etal

.,Sw

ineD

ay2

009,

Rep

orto

fPro

gres

s102

0,p

p.1

92-2

01.

5 Jace

laet

al.,S

win

eDay

200

9,R

epor

tofP

rogr

ess1

020,

pp.

207

-212

.

Tab

le 2

. Effe

ct o

f enz

yme a

dditi

on to

die

ts co

ntai

ning

DD

GS

on g

row

th p

erfo

rman

ce o

f gro

win

g-fin

ishi

ng p

igs1

Fina

lwt,

lbA

DG

,lb

AD

FI,l

bF/

GEx

perim

ent

Con

trol

Enzy

me

SED

2C

ontr

olEn

zym

eSE

DC

ontr

olEn

zym

eSE

DC

ontr

olEn

zym

eSE

D1

266.

626

6.9

1.78

2.21

2.22

0.01

65.

425.

470.

054

2.45

2.46

0.01

62

192.

719

2.2

1.99

2.08

2.07

0.01

64.

934.

940.

066

2.37

2.38

0.03

13

269.

426

8.9

3.20

1.89

1.88

0.02

15.

115.

050.

062

2.71

2.69

0.02

14

210.

420

8.3

4.08

1.82

1.81

0.03

54.

664.

660.

118

2.57

2.58

0.03

0av

g.23

4.8

234.

21.

342.

002.

000.

010

5.03

5.03

0.03

32.

522.

520.

012

1 Dat

afro

m4

expe

rimen

tsin

volv

ing4

,506

pig

s.In

each

expe

rimen

t,pi

gsfe

den

zym

e-su

pple

men

ted

diet

swer

ecom

pare

dw

ithp

igsf

edd

iets

with

oute

nzym

ereg

ardl

esso

foth

erfa

ctor

sbei

ngte

sted

inth

eex

perim

ent.

Ther

ewas

no

signi

fican

tdiff

eren

ce(P

>0

.33)

bet

wee

nco

ntro

land

enzy

mes

uppl

emen

tatio

nfo

rany

resp

onse

crite

riaei

ther

with

inin

divi

dual

expe

rimen

tso

rove

rall

whe

nda

tafr

omal

lexp

eri-

men

tsw

erep

oole

dto

geth

er.

2 Sta

ndar

der

roro

fthe

diff

eren

ce.

225

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Feeding Ractopamine HCl (Paylean) for Various Durations on Late-Finishing Pig Performance and Carcass Characteristics1

M.L.Potter2,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof627pigs(241.5lb)wereusedina21-dfinishingtrialtoevaluatetheeffectsoffeedingractopamineHCl(RAC;Paylean,ElancoAnimalHealth,Greenfield,IN)fordifferentdurationsongrowthperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics.Ond0,pensofpigscontainingbothbarrowsandgiltsinapproximatelyequalnumberswereblockedbyaverageBWandrandomlyallottedto1of3dietarytreatments(8penspertreatment)withaverageinitialweightbalancedacrosstreatments.DietarytreatmentswerefeedingacontroldietwithoutRACandfeedingadietcontaining4.5g/tonRACforthelast14or21dpriortomarketing.Pensofpigswereweighedandfeedintakewascollectedond0,7,and21tocalculateADG,ADFI,andF/G.Carcassdatawerecollectedfromthe4heaviestpigsperpenmarketedond7andfromallpigsmarketedond21.PigsfedRACstartingond0gainedfaster(P =0.01)andconsumedlessfeed(P =0.01)fromd0to7thancontrolpigsandpigsnotyetfedRAC.Fromd7to21,pigsstartedonRACatd7hadimproved(P ≤0.04)ADGandF/GcomparedwithcontrolpigsandpigsthatremainedonRAC.Therewasnodifference(P =0.14)inoverallADGbetweenthetreatmentgroups;however,ADFIwaslower(P <0.01)andF/Gimproved(P <0.01)forpigsfedRAC,regardlessofduration,comparedwithcontrolpigs.Therewerenodifferences(P ≥0.32)inoverallliveweightorHCWatmarketinthistrial.Comparedwithcontrolpigs,pigsfedRACfor21dhadreduced(P <0.01)backfatdepth,increased(P =0.01)loindepth,andimproved(P <0.01)percentagelean.PigsfedRACfor14dhadintermediateresponsestothese2treatmentsforloinandbackfatdepthbuthadahigherpercentageleanthancontrolpigs.

ThesedatademonstratethatfeedingRACtopigsfor14dreducedADFI,improvedF/G,andimprovedpercentageleancomparedwithcontrolpigs.FeedingRACforanadditional7ddidnotinfluenceoverallADFIorF/GcomparedwithfeedingRACfor14dtotalbutfurtherimprovedpercentageleancomparedwithfeedingRACfor14d.PigsfedRACfor21dhaddecreasedbackfatandincreasedloindepthcomparedwithcontrolpigs.Thisstudydemonstratesthatforheavyweightpigs,F/GandADFIresponsesareachievedwitheitherdurationofRACfeeding,butthemagnitudeofthecarcassresponsetofeedingRACappearstobedurationdependent.

Keywords:carcass,growth,Paylean,ractopamine

1AppreciationisexpressedtoJ-SixEnterprises,Seneca,KS,fortheirassistanceandforprovidingthepigsandfacilitiesusedinthisexperiment.2DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity.

226

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

IntroductionUseofractopamineHCl(RAC;Paylean,ElancoAnimalHealth,Greenfield,IN)infinishingpigspriortomarkethasbeendemonstratedtoimprovegrowthrateandcarcasscharacteristics.AlthoughmanyresearchtrialshavedemonstratedtheefficacyofRAC,fewofthesetrialshavebeendoneatheavymarketweights(greaterthan240lb).RactopamineHCl,aβ-adrenergicagonist,islabeledforuseinswinedietsduringthelast45to90lbofgain.Whenfed,itpromotesleangrowthratherthanfatdepositionbydirectingnutrientsawayfromthefattowardmuscledevelopment.Becausefattissuedepositionrequiresmoreenergythanleangrowth,increasingleandepositionleadstoimprovedfeedefficiencypriortomarketandaleanercarcass.BecauseoftheimpactofRAConleanandfatdepositionandthechangingleantofatdepositionratioasBWincreases,pigsmarketedatheavierweightsmayhaveadifferentmagnitudeofresponsetoRACfeedingthanpigsatlighterweights.Therefore,theobjectiveofthistrialwastodeterminetheeffectsoffeedingRACfordifferentdurationspriortomarketonlatecommercialfinishingpigperformanceandcarcasscharacteristicsforpigsmarketedataheavyweight.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthisstudywereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitu-tionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Atotalof627commercialfinishingpigs(initially241.5lb)wereusedina21-dstudyperformedinacommercialresearchfinishingbarn.Thebarn,locatedinnortheasternKansas,wasnaturallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsidedwithcompletelyslattedflooring.Barrowsandgiltswerecomingledinapproximatelyequalnumberswithineachof24pens(10×18ft),andpensinitiallycontained25to27pigs.Eachpenwasequippedwithadoubleswingingwatereranda3-holedryself-feeder,allowingforadlibitumaccesstowaterandfeed.Anautomatedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)wasusedinthebarntodeliverandmeasurefeedamountsaddedtoindividualpenfeeders.PensofpigswereblockedbyaverageinitialpigBWandrandomlyallottedto1of3treatments,resultingin8penspertreatment.Initialweightswerebalancedacrossthe3treatmentgroups.TreatmentswerefeedingacontroldietwithoutRACandfeedingadietcontaining4.5g/tonRACforthelast14or21dpriortomarketing(Table1).

Pensofpigswereweighedandfeedintakewascollectedond0,7,and21(marketingday).Fromthesedata,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gwerecalculated.Ond7,the4heaviestpigsperpenweremarketedfromeachpen,withthebalanceofthepigsremainingontestuntild21.Ond21ofthetrial,allpigsweremarketedexceptthelightestpigfromeachpen.Thisallowedallpigstobegreaterthan215lbtomeettheminimumaccept-ableweightforthepackingplantspecifications.Datafromtheselightweightpigswereincludedinthegrowthandperformancecalculations;however,these24pigsarenotrepresentedinthecarcassdata.Tofacilitatecarcassdatacollection,pigsweretattooedaccordingtopennumber,andcarcassdatawerecollectedforpigsmarketedonbothd7and21.

DatawereanalyzedasarandomizedcompleteblockdesignusingtheGLIMMIXproce-dureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)withpenastheexperimentalunit.Dietarytreatmentwasafixedeffect,andweightblockwasarandomeffect.Backfatdepth,loindepth,andpercentageleanwereadjustedtoacommonHCW.Percentageyieldwas

227

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

calculatedbydividingtheHCWtotalforeachpenbytheliveweightobtainedattheresearchbarnpriortotransporttothepackingfacility.Differencesbetweentreatmentsweredeterminedbyusingleastsquaresmeans(P < 0.05).Inaddition,forresponsecriteriathroughd7,comparisonsbetweenpigsnotfedRAC(controlandlast14-dRACtreatment)andpigsfedRAC(21-dRACtreatment)weremadeusingcontraststatements.

Results and DiscussionWithinthefirst7dofthetrial,pigsfedRACstartingond0gainedmore(P =0.01)andconsumedless(P =0.01)feedthancontrolpigsandpigsnotyetfedRAC(Table2).Thisresultedinanimprovement(P <0.01)inF/Gford0to7andatrend(P =0.08)towardheavierd-7weightsforpigsfedRACcomparedwiththosenotfedRAC.

Fromd7to21,pigsstartedonRACond7hadimproved(P <0.04)ADGandF/GcomparedwithcontrolpigsandpigsthatremainedonRAC.Therewasnodifference(P ≥0.12)inADGorF/GbetweenthecontrolpigsandpigsthatreceivedRACfor21d;however,d7to21feedintakewassimilar(P =0.29)forpigsconsumingRACandlower(P <0.01)thanintakeofcontrolpigs.

Becauseofthefluctuationingainresponseandtheexcellentgrowthratesofpigsfedthecontroldiet,therewasnodifference(P =0.14)inoverallADGbetweenthethreetreat-mentgroups,althoughrateofgainwasnumericallybetterforRAC-fedpigs.Comparedwithcontrolpigs,ADFIwaslower(P <0.01)andF/Gimproved(P <0.01)forpigsfedRAC,regardlessofduration.Therefore,theimprovementinF/GfoundinthistrialwaslargelydrivenbythereducedfeedconsumptionwhenRACwasfed,asoverallgainwassimilaracrossthe3treatmentgroups.

Evaluationofcarcasscharacteristicsofthe4heaviestpigsperpenmarketedond7andremainingpigsmarketedond21showedthattherewasnodifference(P ≥0.23)inliveweightorHCWofpigsmarketed,regardlessoftreatment(Table3).Byd7,pigsfeddietscontainingRACwereleaner(P <0.01)andhadgreater(P <0.01)loindepththanpigsnotfedRAC.Ond21,pigsfedRACforthelast14or21dpriortomarkethadgreater(P<0.01)percentageleanthancontrolpigs.Comparedwithcontrolpigs,thepigsfedRACfor21dhadlower(P<0.05)backfatdepth.PigsfedRACforthelast14dhadbackfatdepthsthatwereintermediatebetweencontrolpigsandpigsfedRACfor21d.

Overall,therewerenodifferences(P ≥0.32)inliveweightorHCWatmarket.PigsfedRACfor21dhadgreater(P =0.02)yieldthanpigsfedRACfor14d,whereasthecontrolpigswereintermediate.PigsfedRACfor21dhadreduced(P <0.01)backfatdepth,increased(P =0.01)loindepth,andimproved(P <0.01)percentageleanofcarcassescomparedwithcontrolpigs.PigsfedRACfor14dhadintermediateresponsestothese2treatmentsforloinandbackfatdepthandhadagreater(P =0.04)percentageleancomparedwithcontrolpigs.

ThesedatademonstratethatfeedingRACtopigsreducedfeedintakeandimprovedF/GcomparedwithnotfeedingRAC.Inaddition,itappearsthatthemajorityofthe

228

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

benefitinF/Gwascapturedwithinthefirst7to14doffeedingduration.Inthistrial,improvementsincarcasscompositionwereachievedbyfeedingRACforashortdura-tionof7dinheavyweightpigs.However,improvementstocarcasscharacteristicsinthe14-dRACtreatmentwereintermediatebetweenthoseofthecontroland21-dRACtreatmentgroups,suggestingthatthemagnitudeofcarcassimprovementisincreasedwithlongerfeedingdurations.Therefore,thesefactorsandthecostoftheproductshouldbeevaluatedbeforedecidinguponuseordurationofincludingRACinswinedietspriortomarket.

Pigsinthisstudywereinthefinalstagesofgrowth,whenADGdecreasesandfatdepositionisincreasingrelativetoleantissuegrowth.Energyrequirementstoproducefatandleantissuearedifferent,asleantissuerequireslessenergytodepositthanfat.WhenRACisfed,morenutrientsareusedtoproduceleantissuethanfattissue,whichdecreasesenergyrequirementsanddropsfeedintake.Themaintainedgrowthduringthisperiodwasachievedwithlowerfeedconsumption;thus,F/Gwasimproved.Also,findingsfromthisstudyindicatethatleandepositionwasincreasedbyRACfeeding,suggestingthatcarcasstraitscanbeinfluencedatlaterstagesofmaturity.

Giventherisingcostoffeed,RACstillcouldbeconsideredasatooltohelpimprovefeedefficiencyandcarcassvalue.Thisstudydemonstratesthatforheavyweightpigs,F/GandADFIresponsesareachievedwitheitherdurationofRACfeeding,butthemagnitudeofthecarcassresponsetofeedingRACappearstobedurationdependent.

229

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Diet composition (as-fed basis)Ingredient,% Control1 RactopamineHCl2

Corn 55.76 44.20Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 4.44 15.97Beeftallow 1.00 1.00Limestone 0.70 0.70Salt 0.30 0.30Vitaminpremixwithphytase 0.06 0.06Tracemineralpremix 0.06 0.06L-lysineHCl 0.18 0.18RactopamineHCl(9g/lb) --- 0.03Fortifiedhominy 37.50 37.50Phytase600 0.01 0.01Total 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSID3aminoacid,%Lysine 0.64 0.93Isoleucine:lysine 73 71Leucine:lysine 193 162Methionine:lysine 38 32Met&Cys:lysine 74 62Threonine:lysine 66 62Tryptophan:lysine 18 19Valine:lysine 92 84SIDLysine:ME,g/Mcal 1.91 2.79ME,kcal/lb 1,517 1,514Totallysine,% 0.74 1.06CP,% 14.48 18.86Ca,% 0.53 0.56P,% 0.48 0.52AvailableP,% 0.21 0.221Controldietsformulatedforaverageweightrangeof240to280lb.2DietscontainedractopamineHClat4.5g/ton.3Standardizedilealdigestible.

230

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Effect of ractopamine HCl (RAC) on growth performance of finishing pigs1

Feedingperiod Probability,P <Item Control2 Last14d3 Last21d4 SEM Treatment Contrastd0to7Initialwt,lb 241.6 241.5 241.5 2.8 1.00 0.97ADG,lb5 2.29a 2.40ab 2.78b 0.13 0.04 0.01ADFI,lb5 7.90a 7.89a 7.49b 0.12 0.04 0.01F/G5 3.52a 3.34a 2.73b 0.14 <0.01 <0.01d7wt,lb 257.7 258.4 260.9 2.6 0.20 0.08d7to216

ADG,lb 2.08a 2.25b 1.95a 0.06 <0.01 ---ADFI,lb 7.69a 7.09b 6.91b 0.15 <0.01 ---F/G 3.70a 3.17b 3.56a 0.09 <0.01 ---d0to21ADG,lb 2.16 2.31 2.26 0.07 0.14 ---ADFI,lb 7.77a 7.39b 7.12b 0.12 <0.01 ---F/G 3.62a 3.22b 3.17b 0.08 <0.01 ---Finalwt,lb 279.6 283.4 281.1 3.0 0.37 ---1Atotalof627pigs(barrowsandgilts)wereusedwith25to27pigsperpenand8penspertreatment.2PigsinthecontroltreatmentgroupwerefedadietwithoutRAC.3Pigswerefedthecontroldietuntild7andthenfedadietcontaining4.5g/tonRACuntild21.4Pigswerefedadietcontaining4.5g/tonRACfor21d.5Controlandlast14dvs.last21d(P<0.05).6Ond7,the4heaviestpigsperpenwereremovedandmarketed.abWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

231

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Effect of ractopamine HCl (RAC) on carcass characteristics of finishing pigs1

Feedingperiod Probability,P <Item Control2 Last14d3 Last21d4 SEM Treatment Contrastd7marketing5,6,7

Livewt,lb8 297.7 294.1 300.7 5.0 0.64 0.43HCW,lb8 222.0 219.0 225.0 3.8 0.46 0.29Yield,%8 74.6 74.5 74.8 0.3 0.30 0.15Lean,%8 51.9a 51.6a 52.8b 0.2 <0.01 <0.01Backfatdepth,mm8 20.3 21.3 19.8 0.6 0.28 0.22Loindepth,mm8 59.7a 59.6a 63.7b 0.9 <0.01 <0.01d21marketing6,7,9

Livewt,lb 282.8 287.3 284.1 3.0 0.23 ---HCW,lb 212.7 215.2 214.8 2.4 0.33 ---Yield,% 75.2ab 74.9a 75.6b 0.2 0.05 ---Lean,% 51.6a 52.3b 52.5b 0.2 <0.01 ---Backfatdepth,mm 22.2a 21.1ab 20.3b 0.4 0.02 ---Loindepth,mm 60.1 61.5 61.6 0.7 0.14 ---Overallmarketing6,7,10

Livewt,lb 285.2 288.2 286.8 2.9 0.43 ---HCW,lb 214.2 215.8 216.4 2.3 0.32 ---Yield,% 75.1ab 74.9a 75.4b 0.2 0.05 ---Lean,% 51.6a 52.2b 52.6b 0.2 <0.01 ---Backfatdepth,mm 22.0a 21.1ab 20.2b 0.4 0.03 ---Loindepth,mm 59.9a 61.2ab 62.0b 0.7 0.04 ---1Atotalof602pigs(barrowsandgilts;8pens/treatment)arerepresentedinthiscarcassdata.2PigsinthecontroltreatmentgroupwerefedadietwithoutRAC.3Pigswerefedthecontroldietuntild7andthenfedadietcontaining4.5g/tonRACuntild21.4Pigswerefedadietcontaining4.5g/tonRACfor21d.5Ond7,the4heaviestpigsperpenwereremovedandmarketed.6Percentagelean,backfatdepth,andloindepthwereadjustedtoacommonHCW.7PercentageyieldwascalculatedbydividingHCWbyliveweightobtainedpriortotransporttothepackingplant.8Controlandlast14dvs.last21d(P<0.05).9Ond21,allbutthesinglelightestpiginthepenweremarketed.10Overallmarketingdatacombinesdatafromallpigsmarketedond7and21.abWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

232

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effect of Constant or Step-Up Ractopamine HCl (Paylean) Feeding Programs on Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Late-Finishing Pigs1

J.Y.Jacela2,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryAtotalof1,099pigs(PIC337×C22;initialBW=208lb)wereusedtoevaluatetheeffectofractopamineHCl(RAC)feedingprogramsongrowthandcarcasstraitsoflate-finishingpigs.Pigswererandomlyassignedto1of3treatmentsbalancedbyaverageBWwithingender.Therewere14penspertreatmentand26pigsperpen.Treatmentswereabasaldietwith:(1)0g/tonRACfor28d(control),(2)0g/tonRACfromd0to7and4.5g/tonRACfromd7to28(constant),and(3)4.5g/tonfromd0to14and6.75g/tonfromd14to28(step-up).PigADG,ADFI,andF/Gweredeterminedweekly,andcarcassdatawerecollectedattheendofexperiment.Fromd0to7,step-uppigshadimproved(P <0.04)ADG,ADFI,andF/Gcomparedwithpigsinallothertreatments.Fromd0to14,RAC-fedpigs,regardlessofthefeedingprogram,hadgreater(P <0.01)ADGandbetter(P <0.01)F/Gthancontrolpigs.Fromd14to28,althoughpigsinbothRAC-fedtreatmentshadgreater(P <0.01)ADGthancontrolpigs,thestep-uppigshadlower(P <0.05)ADGandADFIthantheconstant-fedpigs.RegardlessoftheRACfeedingprogram,allRAC-fedpigsexhibitedbetter(P <0.01)F/Gthancontrolpigs.Fromd7to28,pigsfedtheconstantandstep-uptreatmentsexhibitedgreater(P <0.01)ADGandbetter(P <0.05)F/Gthancontrolpigs.However,whenpigsfedtheRAC-fedtreatmentswerecompared,step-uppigshadlower(P <0.01)ADGandADFIbutsimilar(P >0.27)F/G.Overall(d0to28),ADFI(P =0.15)wassimilarbetweentreatments,butRAC-fedpigshadgreater(P <0.01)ADGthancontrolpigs,whichledtoimproved(P <0.01)F/G.PigsfedeitherRACfeedingstrategyhadsimilarperformanceoverall.RAC-fedpigshadheavier(P < 0.05)carcassweightsandtended(P <0.10)tohavegreateryieldthancontrolpigs.Amongthe3groups,step-uppigshadthegreatest(P <0.05)percentagelean,loindepth,andfat-freeleanindexaswellasthelowest(P <0.01)backfatdepth.ThepigsfedeitherRACprogramhadgreater(P <0.05)revenuethancontrolpigs.Althoughfeedcostwashigher(P <0.01)intheRAC-fedpigsthaninthecontrol,incomeoverfeedcosttended(P <0.07)tobehigherforRAC-fedpigsthanforcontrolpigs.Inconclu-sion,feedingaconstantlevelof4.5g/tonRACfor21dimprovedgrowthsimilarlytofeedingthe28-dstep-upprogram.However,the28-dRACstep-upprogramresultedinadditionalimprovementincarcasstraitsoflate-finishingpigs.

Keywords:growth,ractopamineHCl

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrobjorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

233

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

IntroductionRactopamineHCl(RAC;Paylean;ElancoAnimalHealth,Greenfield,IN)iswidelyusedintheswineindustrytoimprovegrowthandcarcasstraitsoffinishingpigs.Itisclassifiedasaβ-agonistandexertsbeneficialeffectsongrowthandcarcassbydivert-ingnutrientstofavorleanratherthanfattissuegrowth.RactopamineHClistheonlyβ-agonistapprovedbytheU.S.FoodandDrugAdministrationasafeedadditiveinpigdiets.Itislabeledtobeaddedatlevelsof4.5to9g/tonandfedcontinuouslyforthelast45to90lbofgainbeforemarket.Dietaryinclusionhasshownconsistentimprove-mentinpiggrowthperformanceandhasledtoitswidespreaduseintheswineindustry.WhenRACisusedattherecommendeddosage,pigsfedRAC-supplementeddietshaverapidimprovementingrowthperformance.ThemaximumgrowthresponsetoRACoccurswithinthefirst2wk.However,theresponseprogressivelydeclinesovertheremainingdaysofthefeedingperiod.3,4,5TheobserveddecreaseingrowthresponsetoRAChasbeenattributedtodown-regulationordesensitizationofβ-receptorswhenRACisfedataconstantlevelforlongerperiods.6

Astep-upfeedingprogramcanbeusedtocounteractthedeclineingrowthimprove-mentandoptimizetheuseofRAC.Previousstudieshaveshownthatthegrowthperformancebenefitgainedduringthefirst2wkofRACfeedingcanbeextendedbyincreasingthedosageofRACaddedinthediet.7,8However,giventhechallengingeconomicsandhighdietcostsassociatedwithRACuse,itisnecessarytodetermineifimplementingaRACstep-upfeedingprogramiseconomicallyfeasible.

Therefore,weconductedastudytodeterminetheeffectongrowthperformanceandeconomicimpactoftwodifferentRAC-feedingprograms.

ProceduresThisstudywasapprovedbyandconductedinaccordancewiththeguidelinesoftheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theexperi-mentwasconductedinacommercialresearchfinishingbarninsouthwesternMinne-sota.Thebarnwasnaturallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsided.Penshadcompletelyslattedflooringanddeeppitsformanurestorage.Eachpenwasequippedwitha5-hole,stainlesssteel,dryself-feederandacupwatererforadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Thebarnhadanautomatedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)capableofdeliveringandmeasuringfeedamountsaddedonanindividualpenbasis.3Dunshea,F.R.,R.H.King,R.G.Campbell,R.D.Sainz,andY.S.Kim.1993.Interrelationshipsbetweensexandractopamineonproteinandlipiddepositioninrapidlygrowingpigs.J.Anim.Sci.71(11):2919-2930.4Williams,N.H.,T.R.Cline,A.P.Schinckel,andD.J.Jones.1994.Theimpactofractopamine,energyintake,anddietaryfatonfinisherpiggrowthperformanceandcarcassmerit.J.Anim.Sci.72(12):3152-3162.5Kelly,J.A.,M.D.Tokach,andS.S.Dritz.2003.Weeklygrowthandcarcassresponsetofeedingracto-pamine(Paylean®).Pages51-58inProc.Am.Assoc.SwineVet.,Perry,IA.6Spurlock,M.E.,J.C.Cusumano,S.Q.Ji,D.B.Anderson,C.K.Smith2nd,D.L.Hancock,etal.1994.Theeffectofractopamineonbeta-adrenoceptordensityandaffinityinporcineadiposeandskeletalmuscletissue.J.Anim.Sci.72(1):75-80.7Armstrong,T.A.,D.J.Ivers,J.R.Wagner,D.B.Anderson,W.C.Weldon,andE.P.Berg.2004.Theeffectofdietaryractopamineconcentrationanddurationoffeedingongrowthperformance,carcasscharacteristics,andmeatqualityoffinishingpigs.J.Anim.Sci.82(11):3245-3253.8See,M.T.,T.A.Armstrong,andW.C.Weldon.2004.Effectofaractopaminefeedingprogramongrowthperformanceandcarcasscompositioninfinishingpigs.J.Anim.Sci.82(8):2474-2480.

234

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Atotalof1,099pigs(PIC337×C22;initialBW=208lb)wererandomlyassignedto1of3treatmentsbalancedbyaverageBWwithingender.Therewere14penspertreat-mentwith26pigsperpen(8barrowpensand6giltpens).Treatmentswereabasaldietwith:(1)0g/tonRACfor28d(control),(2)0g/tonRACfromd0to7and4.5g/tonRACfromd7to28(constant),and(3)4.5g/tonfromd0to14and6.75g/tonfromd14to28(step-up).CompositionofdietsusedineachofthetreatmentsisshowninTable1.Pigsfromeachpenwereweighedasagroupandfeeddisappearancewasdeter-minedweeklytodetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.

Ond14oftheexperiment,the3heaviestpigsfromeachpen(determinedvisually)weresoldinaccordancewiththenormalmarketingprocedureofthefarm.Attheendoftheexperiment,pigswereindividuallytattooedaccordingtopennumbertoallowforcarcassdatacollectionatthepackingplantanddataretrievalbypen.Pigsweretrans-portedtoJBSSwiftandCompany(Worthington,MN)forprocessingandcarcassdatacollection.Standardcarcasscriteriaofloinandbackfatdepth,HCW,percentagelean,andyieldwerecollected.Fat-freeleanindexwascalculatedusingtheequation:50.767+(0.035×HCW)-(8.979×backfat).

StatisticalanalysiswasperformedbyanalysisofvarianceusingtheMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC).Datawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignwithpenastheexperimentalunit.ThemaineffectsofthedifferentRACfeedingregimensandgenderaswellastheirinteractionsweretested.

Results and DiscussionTherewerenotreatment×genderinteractions(P >0.15)foranyofthecriteriaevalu-ated.Althoughbarrowsandgiltshadsimilar(P >0.92)overallADG,barrowshadgreater(P <0.01)ADFIwithpoorer(P <0.01)F/Gthangilts.Fromd0to7,step-uppigs(theonlygroupfedRACatthistime)hadimproved(P <0.04)ADG,ADFI,andF/Gcomparedwithpigsinallothertreatments(Table2).Thisshowsthatposi-tivegrowthresponsestoRACcanbeseenimmediatelyduringthefirst7doffeeding.PigsfedthecontrolandconstanttreatmentshadsimilarADGandADFIduringthesameperiod,whichwasexpectedbecausebothgroupswerefedthesamediet.However,theconstantgroupexhibitedbetterF/Gthanthecontroleventhoughbothgroupswerefedthesamediets.ItisnotclearwhatcontributedtotheimprovedF/Gintheconstant-fedpigsduringthisperiod.

Fromd0to14,RAC-fedpigs,regardlessofthefeedingprogram,hadgreater(P <0.01)ADGandbetter(P <0.01)F/Gthancontrolpigs.WhenpigsfedRACtreatmentswerecompared,step-uppigshadbetter(P <0.05)F/Gthanpigsfedtheconstanttreatment.ThegreaterimprovementinF/Gofthestep-uppigsmaybeduetothepigshavingbeenfedRAC-supplementeddietsfor14dcomparedtoonly7dfortheconstant-fedpigs.Thisisconsistentwithpreviousresearchindicatingthatthegreatestimprovementinperformanceoccursduringthefirst2wkoffeedingRAC-supplementeddiets.9TheimprovementsinF/Gwere16%and20%fortheconstantandstep-uppigs,respectively,relativetopigsfedthecontroldiet.Duringthesecondhalfoftheexperiment(d14to28),althoughallRAC-fedpigshadgreater(P <0.01)

9Schinckel,A.P.,B.T.Richert,andC.T.Herr.2002.Variationintheresponseofmultiplegeneticpopulationsofpigstoractopamine.J.Anim.Sci.80(E-Suppl_2):E85-E89.

235

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

ADGthanthecontrolpigs,step-uppigshaddecreasedADGcomparedwithpigsfedtheconstanttreatment.Thisoccurredbecausethestep-uppigshaddecreased(P <0.01)ADFIcomparedwithbothcontrolandconstant-fedpigsbuttheirF/Gremainedsimi-lartothatofpigsintheconstanttreatment.RegardlessoftheRACfeedingprogram,allRAC-fedpigsexhibitedbetter(P <0.01)F/Gthancontrolpigs.Therewasnodiffer-ence(P >0.19)inpigweightbetweentreatmentsinanyperiodoftheexperiment.However,itisworthnotingthatRAC-fedpigsnumericallyhadtheheaviestliveweight(262.3and261.7vs.253.0lbforconstantandstep-upvs.controlpigs,respectively)attheendofthetrial.

Becausetheconstant-fedpigswerenotfedRACdietsuntild7,wealsoevaluatedthed7to28performance.Duringthisperiod,pigsfedtheconstantandstep-uptreat-mentsexhibitedgreater(P <0.01)ADGandbetter(P <0.05)F/Gthancontrolpigs.However,whenRAC-fedtreatmentswerecompared,step-uppigshaddecreased(P <0.01)ADGandADFIbutsimilar(P >0.27)F/G.Overall(d0to28),ADFI(P =0.15)wassimilarbetweentreatments,butRAC-fedpigshadgreater(P <0.01)ADGthancontrolpigs,whichresultedinimproved(P <0.01)F/G.TherewerenodifferencesinperformancebetweentheRAC-fedpigs.ThisindicatesthattheincreasedRACdosageinthedietsusedinthestep-upprogramdidnotresultinadditionalimprovementingrowthperformance.

Inadditiontoimprovedgrowthperformance,RACisalsoknowntoimprovecarcasstraitsinpigs.Inthisstudy,bothRACfeedingprogramsresultedinheavier(P = 0.03)carcassweightwithnodifferencebetweenRACtreatments(Table3).PigsfedtheRACtreatmentsalsotended(P <0.10)tohavegreatercarcassyieldthancontrolpigs.Inter-estingly,pigsfedthestep-upfeedingprogramhadincreased(P <0.01)percentagelean,loindepth,andfat-freeleanindexaswellasthelowest(P <0.01)backfatcomparedwiththecontrolandconstant-fedpigs.Theseresultsindicatethat,althoughitwillnotresultinadditionalimprovementingrowthperformance,increasingthelevelsofRACinthedietsorfeedingRACforalongerdurationwillresultinimprovementsincarcassquality.Thishassignificantmanagementimplicationsbecausepigstendtodevelopmorefatthanmuscleatheavierweights.Thisobservationsuggeststhatastep-upprogramcanbeaneffectivetoolinmanagingthecarcassqualityofpigsiftheyhavetostayforanextendedperiodduringthefinishingstage.

Pigsfedthecontroltreatmentnumericallyincurredthegreatestweightdiscounts($2.60vs.$1.26and$1.87/pigforcontrolvs.constant-fedandstep-uppigs,respec-tively; P >0.24;Table4).BothRAC-fedgroupsgeneratedhigher(P <0.03)revenuethanthecontrolgroup.Feedconsumptionwassimilar(P > 0.14)betweentreatments,althoughpigsfedthestep-upprogramnumericallyconsumedtheleastfeed(150.9vs.156.6and155.6lb/pigforstep-upvs.controlandconstant-fedpigs,respectively).Feedcostforboththeconstantandstep-upprogramswashigher(P <0.01)relativetothecontroldiet.However,becauseofimprovedefficiency,incomeoverfeedcosttended(P <0.07)tobehigherinboththeconstantandstep-upprogramscomparedwiththecontroltreatment.

236

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Inconclusion,feedingdietssupplementedwithatleast4.5g/tonRACduringthelast3wkofthefinishingstagewillimprovethegrowthperformanceoflate-finishingpigs.AddingRACinthedietatlevelsgreaterthan4.5g/tondidnotresultinanyadditionalimprovementingrowth.However,implementingastep-upRACfeedingprogram4wkbeforemarketimprovedcarcasstraitsoflate-finishingpigs.Thus,feedingRACataconstantlevelof4.5g/toncontinuouslyfor3wkpriortomarketisidealfromagrowthperformancestandpoint.However,ifpigscannotbemarketedinatimelymannerandmustbekeptinthefinishingbarnforadditionaldays,increasingthelevelofRACinthedietsisrecommended.Therewillbenoadditionalbenefittogrowthperformance,butcarcassqualitywillbeimproved.

Table 1. Diet composition (as-fed basis)Ingredient,% 0g/tonRAC1 4.50g/tonRAC 6.75g/tonRACCorn 75.04 66.73 66.72Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 11.19 19.36 19.36Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles 10.00 10.00 10.00Choicewhitegrease 2.00 2.00 2.00Limestone 0.95 0.95 0.95L-lysine-HCl 0.33 0.40 0.40Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35L-threonine 0.03 0.08 0.08RAC,9g/lb --- 0.0250 0.0375Vitaminandtracemineralpremix 0.10 0.10 0.10Phytase2 0.02 0.02 0.02Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisStandardizedilealdigestible(SID)aminoacids,%Lysine 0.70 0.95 0.95Isoleucine:lysine 68 64 64Leucine:lysine 187 158 158Methionine:lysine 33 28 28Met&Cys:lysine 67 57 57Threonine:lysine 65 65 65Tryptophan:lysine 17 17 17Valine:lysine 83 75 75Totallysine,% 0.81 1.08 1.08ME,kcal/lb 1,568 1,567 1,566SIDlysine:MEratio,g/Mcal 2.02 2.75 2.75Ca,% 0.42 0.45 0.45P,% 0.36 0.39 0.39AvailableP,% 0.22 0.22 0.221RactopamineHCl(Paylean;ElancoAnimalHealth,Greenfield,IN).2OptiPhos2000(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN)provided363,272,and272phytaseunitsperpoundofdietindietswith0,4.5,and6.75g/tonRAC,respectively.

237

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Effect of different feeding programs using diets containing ractopamine HCl (RAC) on growth performance of late-finishing pigs1

Feedingprogram2

Item Control Constant Step-up SEMWeight,lbd0 208.1 208.0 208.1 3.62d7 222.2 223.0 226.0 3.58d14(beforetopping) 235.3 240.4 241.7 3.64d14(toppigs) 265.7 270.9 272.0 2.89d14(aftertopping) 231.3 236.3 237.8 3.83d21 242.9 251.2 251.5 3.74d28 253.0 262.3 261.7 3.99d0to7ADG,lb 2.00a 2.14a 2.50b 0.064ADFI,lb 6.11a 6.04a 6.42b 0.104F/G 3.06a 2.84b 2.60c 0.069d0to14ADG,lb 1.94a 2.31b 2.37b 0.036ADFI,lb 6.13 6.13 6.02 0.091F/G 3.17a 2.66b 2.55c 0.034d14to28ADG,lb 1.55a 1.85b 1.70c 0.045ADFI,lb 5.72a 5.63a 5.38b 0.087F/G 3.72a 3.05b 3.19b 0.065d7to28ADG,lb 1.66a 2.08b 1.89c 0.034ADFI,lb 5.87a 5.85a 5.47b 0.085F/G 3.54a 2.82b 2.90b 0.049d0to28ADG,lb 1.76a 2.09b 2.05b 0.034ADFI,lb 5.94 5.90 5.72 0.081F/G 3.39a 2.82b 2.79b 0.0361Atotalof1,099pigs(PIC337×C22)wereusedwith26pigsperpenand14penspertreatment.2Control=0g/tonRACfor28d;Constant=0g/tonRACond0to7and4.50g/tonRACond7to28;andStep-up=4.50g/tonRACond0to14and6.75g/tonRACond14to28.abcWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

238

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Effect of different feeding programs using diets containing ractopamine HCl (RAC) on carcass characteristics of late-finishing pigs1

Feedingprogram2

Item Control Constant Step-up SEMCarcassweight,lb 191.7a 201.7b 199.3b 3.30Yield,% 75.35 76.18 75.96 0.332Lean,%3 55.21a 56.11a 57.04b 0.442Loin3,in. 2.38a 2.48a 2.56b 0.049Backfat3,in. 0.68a 0.66a 0.62b 0.023Fat-freeleanindex3 50.02a 50.34a 50.84b 0.2561Atotalof1,099(PIC337×C22;initialBW=208lb)pigswereusedwith26pigsperpenand14penspertreat-ment.2Control=0g/tonRACfor28d;Constant=0g/tonRACond0to7and4.50g/tonRACond7to28;andStep-up=4.50g/tonRACond0to14and6.75g/tonRACond14to28.3Valuesareadjustedtoacommoncarcassweight.abWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

Table 4. Economic impact of different feeding programs using diets containing ractopa-mine HCl (RAC)1

Feedingprogram2

Item Control Constant Step-up SEMWeightdiscount,$/pen 62.30 30.35 44.85 15.82Weightdiscount,$/pig 2.60 1.26 1.87 0.66Revenue,$/pen3 2,997a 3,264b 3,220b 87.3Revenue,$/pig3 115.3a 125.6b 123.8b 3.36Feedconsumed,lb/pen 4,071 4,046 3,924 55.4Feedconsumed,lb/pig 156.6 155.6 150.9 2.13Feedcost,$/pen4 366.4a 418.7b 393.0c 5.45Feedcost,$/pig4 14.09a 16.10b 15.12c 0.21Incomeoverfeedcost,$/pen 2,631 2,835 2,824 85.5Incomeoverfeedcost,$/pig 101.18 109.03 108.61 3.2871Atotalof1,099pigs(PIC337×C22;initialBW=208lb)wereusedwith26pigsperpenand14penspertreat-ment.2Control=0g/tonRACfor28d;Constant=0g/tonRACond0to7and4.50g/tonRACond7to28;andStep-up=4.50g/tonRACond0to14and6.75g/tonRACond14to28.3Calculatedbasedon$60.99/cwtcarcassvalue.4Calculatedbasedonthefollowingvalues:$180/tonfordietscontaining0g/tonRAC;$217/tonfordietscontaining4.5g/tonRAC;and$226/tonfordietscontaining6.75g/tonRAC.abcWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

239

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Dietary Astaxanthin on the Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Finishing Pigs1

J.R.Bergstrom,J.L.Nelssen,T.Houser,J.A.Gunderson,A.N.Gipe,J.Jacela2,J.M.Benz,R.C.Sulabo,andM.D.Tokach

SummaryAtotalof48barrows(initially215lb)wereusedtoevaluatetheeffectsofincreasingdietaryastaxanthin(0,5,10,and20ppm)onlate-finishingpigperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics.Pigswereblockedbyweightandrandomlyallottedto1of4dietarytreatmentsina26-dexperiment.Pigswerefedsimplecorn-soybeanmeal-baseddiets.Treatmentsconsistedofacontroldietandthecontroldietwith5,10,or20ppmaddedastaxanthin.Foroverallgrowthperformance(d0to26),ADGandF/Gofpigsfedastaxanthinwasnotdifferentfromthatofthecontrolpigs.However,ADFItended(linear;P <0.10)todecreasewithincreasingastaxanthin.Forthecomparisonofcarcasscharacteristics,pigsfedincreasingastaxanthinhaddecreasedaverage(P<0.03)and10thrib(P <0.06)backfatdepthcomparedwithcontrolpigs.Pigsfed5or10ppmastaxanthintendedtohavethelowest(quadratic;P <0.10)10thribfatdepth.Pigsfedincreasingastaxanthintendedtohaveincreased(quadratic;P <0.10)standardizedfat-freeleanandpercentageoffat-freelean,andpigsfed5or10ppmweretheleanest.TheloinmuscleofpigsfedastaxanthintendedtohavelowerL*andb*(P <0.06andP <0.08,respectively),indicatingadarkercolor.Theimprovedcarcasscharacteristicsofpigsfedastaxanthinresultedinanumericincreaseinthenetprofitperpigforthosefed5and10ppmastaxanthin.Inconclusion,growthperformanceofpigsfed5,10,or20ppmastaxanthinwasnotdifferentfromthatofpigsfedthecontroldiet.However,theimprovedcarcasscharacteristicscouldbeeconomicallybeneficialtoporkproduc-ers.Additionally,theimprovementsobservedinloincolorcouldresultinimprovedconsumeracceptanceoffreshpork.Theseresultswarrantfurtherresearch.

Keywords:astaxanthin,carcasscharacteristics,porkcolor

IntroductionAstaxanthinisacarotenoidthathaspotentantioxidantpropertiesandexistsnaturallyinvariousplants,algae,andseafood.Astaxanthinisusedextensivelyintheaquaculturefeedindustryforitspigmentationcharacteristics,butitisnotcurrentlyapprovedforuseinfeedforfoodanimals(otherthanfarmedaquaticspecies)intheUnitedStates.Althoughitisusedprimarilyforpigmentation,astaxanthinalsohasbeenfoundtobeessentialforthepropergrowthandsurvivalofcertainaquaticspecies.

Inclusionofastaxanthininpoultrydietshasbeenreportedtoimproveeggproduc-tionandthegeneralhealthoflayinghens.Ithasalsobeenfoundtoimprovehatchingpercentageandtheshelflifeofeggs.Inaddition,improvementsinchickgrowthand

1AppreciationisexpressedtoIGENE–AstaxanthinPartners,Ltd.forprovidingtheAquastaastaxan-thinandforpartialfundingofthetrial.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

240

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

feedutilizationduringthefirst3wkoflifeandresistancetoSalmonellainfectionhavealsobeenobservedwithastaxanthinsupplementation.Furthermore,chickmortalityassociatedwithyolksacinflammationhasbeenreduced.Otherstudieshavereportedchangesineggyolkcolorandpoultrymusclecolorthatcouldimproveconsumeraccep-tance.

Fewstudieshavebeenperformedtoevaluatefeedingastaxanthintopigs.ResearchersinScandinavia(Smitsetal.,20003)reportedincreasedsemenvolumeandspermcountforboarsfed3g/dastaxanthin,whichresultedinanincreasednumberofpigsbornalive.Inanotherexperiment(Inborretal.,19974)usingsowsover2consecutiveparities,meanlitterweightat21dofagewasincreasedforsowsfed5ppmastaxanthinfor35dpre-farrowingthroughlactationand21dafterweaning.Duringthesecondparity,thewean-to-serviceintervalwasreducedforsowsfedastaxanthin.

InastudyperformedinKoreabyYangetal.(20065),feeding1.5and3ppmastaxan-thintofinishingpigsfor14dpriortoslaughterlinearlyimproveddressingpercentageandloinmuscleareaanddecreasedbackfatthickness.Therewerenodifferencesinmeatcolorscore.However,fewanimalswereusedinthisstudy,andthelinearresponsesobservedincarcasscharacteristicssuggestthathigherlevelsofastaxanthinneedtobeevaluated.

Therefore,ourobjectivewastoevaluatetheeffectsoffeedingastaxanthintofinishingpigsfor26dpriortoslaughterongrowthperformance,carcasscharacteristics,andloincolor.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthisexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversity(K-State)InstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.TheprojectwasconductedattheK-StateSwineTeachingandResearchFarm.Pigswerehousedinanenviron-mentallyregulatedfinishingbuildingwithpensoveratotallyslattedfloorthatprovidedapproximately8ft2/pig.Eachpenwasequippedwithadryself-feederandanipplewaterertoprovideadlibitumaccesstofeedandwater.Thefacilitywasamechanicallyventilatedroomwithapull-plugmanurestoragepit.

Forty-eightbarrows(PICTR4×C22)averaging215lbwereusedinthisstudy.Pigswereblockedbyweightandrandomlyallottedto1ofthe4dietarytreatments;therewere2pigsperpenand6penspertreatment.Experimentaldietswerefedinmealform,andastaxanthin(0,5,10,and20ppm)wasaddedtothecontroldietattheexpenseofcornstarchtoachievethedietarytreatments(Table1).Pigsandfeederswereweighedond0,7,14,21,and26todetermineADG,ADFI,andF/G.

3Smits,R.J.,P.R.Smith,andJ.Inborr.2000.Nutritionalsupplementationofastaxanthintobreedingboarsaffectssemencharacteristicsandincreaseslittersize.14thIntl.CongressonAnim.Reprod.Stock-holm,July2-6.Posterabstract10:35.4Inborr,J.,R.Campbell,B.Luxford,D.Harrison,andǺ.Lignell.1997.Improvingsowandlitterperformancebyfeedingastaxanthin-richalgaemeal.ProceedingsoftheVIIInternationalSymposiumonDigestivePhysiologyinPigs.SaintMalo,France.EAAPNo.88:479-482.5Yang,Y.X.,Y.J.Kim,Z.Jin,J.D.Lohakare,C.H.Kim,S.H.Ohh,S.H.Lee,J.Y.Choi,andB.J.Chae.2006.Effectsofdietarysupplementationofastaxanthinonproductionperformance,eggqualityinlayersandmeatqualityinfinishingpigs.Asian-Aust.J.Anim.Sci.19(7):1019-1025.

241

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Ond27,onepigperpenwastransportedtotheK-Statemeatslabforhumaneslaugh-terandcollectionofcarcassdata.Hotcarcassweightswerecollectedimmediatelyafterevisceration.First-rib,10thrib,last-rib,andlast-lumbarbackfatdepthaswellasloineyeareaatthe10thribwerecollectedfromtherighthalfofeachcarcass24hpostmortem.Additionally,eachcarcasswasevaluatedforloinmusclecoloratthe10thribwithaHunterLabMiniscanXEPlusspectrophotometer(Model45/0LAV,2.54-cm-diam-eteraperture,10°standardobserver,IlluminantD65,HunterAssociatesLaboratory,Inc.,Reston,VA)tomeasureCIEL*,a*,andb*.Thiswasperformedafter30minofbloomtimeforeachloinmusclesurface.

DatawereanalyzedasarandomizedcompleteblockdesignusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)withpenastheexperimentalunit.Linearandquadraticpolynomialcontrastswereusedtodeterminetheeffectsofincreas-ingastaxanthin.

Results and DiscussionTheanalyzedastaxanthinlevelsfortheexperimentaldietswere0.8,4.8,9.5,and19.8ppm,similartothetargetedvaluesof0,5,10,and20ppmusedindietformulation.

Foroverallgrowthperformance(d0to26),ADGandF/Gofpigsfedastaxanthinwerenotdifferentthanthoseofcontrolpigs(Table2).However,ADFItended(linear;P <0.10)todecreasewithincreasingastaxanthin.

Increasingastaxanthindecreasedaverage(P <0.03)and10thrib(P <0.06)fatdepth.Thereductionin10thribfatdepthtendedtobegreatest(quadratic;P <0.10)atthe5or10ppmlevelofastaxanthin.

Theamountofstandardizedfat-freeleaninthecarcassestended(quadratic;P <0.09)tobeimprovedwithincreasingastaxanthin,andthisresultedinatrend(P <0.09)foranincreasedpercentageoffat-freeleanforpigsfedastaxanthin.Pigsfed5or10ppmastaxanthintended(quadratic;P <0.10)tohavethegreatestpercentageoffat-freelean.

LoincolormeasurementsofCIEL*andb*tended(P <0.06andP <0.08,respectively)tobelowerforpigsfedastaxanthin.TheL*measurementindicatesthedegreeoflight-ness(0=black,100=white).Theb*isameasureofyellowness(positivevalue)vs.blue-ness(negativevalue).TheCIEa*andb*measurementswerelowest(quadratic;P <0.02andP <0.06,respectively)atthe10ppmlevelofastaxanthin;however,theCIEa*ofpigsfed5and20ppmastaxanthinwasnumericallygreaterthanthatofthecontrols.Thea*isameasureofredness(positivevalue)vs.greenness(negativevalue).

Inthisstudy,theimprovedcarcasscharacteristicsassociatedwithfeedingastaxanthinresultedinnumericimprovementsinthenetprofitperpigforthosefed5and10ppm.However,becausetherewasnotanyfurtherimprovementincarcasscharacteristicsforpigsfed20ppmastaxanthin,feedingthislevelwasofnoeconomicbenefit(basedonapriceof$9.07/lbforthe10,000ppmastaxanthinproduct).TheimprovementsincarcasscharacteristicsaresimilartothoseobservedbyYangetal.(2006),whoevaluatedfeeding1.5and3ppmastaxanthinfor14dpreslaughter.However,Yangetal.(2006)didnotobservedifferencesinloinmusclecoloratthe10thrib.

242

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Althoughpackersdonotgenerallyprovideproducerswithpremiumsordiscountsbasedonmusclecolorcharacteristics,consumeracceptancestudiesforporkhavedeter-minedthatlowerCIEL*valuesaremoredesirable.Resultsofthecurrentstudyindicatethatfeedinghigherconcentrationsofastaxanthinoveralongerperiodmayimproveporkcolorcharacteristics.

Inconclusion,growthperformanceofpigsreceiving5,10,or20ppmastaxanthinwasnotdifferentfromthatofpigsfedthecontroldiet.However,theimprovementsincarcasscharacteristicscouldbeeconomicallybeneficialtoporkproducers.Additionally,theimprovementsinloincolorcouldresultinimprovedconsumeracceptanceoffreshpork.However,astaxanthinisnotyetapprovedforfoodanimalsotherthanfarmedaquaticspeciesintheUnitedStates.Theseresultswarrantfurtherresearch.

243

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Composition of the experimental control diet1, 2

Ingredient %Corn 85.40Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 12.44MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.45Limestone 0.85Salt 0.35L-lysineHCl 0.15Vitaminpremix 0.08Tracemineralpremix 0.08Cornstarch3 0.20Total 100.00

CalculatedanalysisTotallysine,% 0.72SID4aminoacidsLysine,% 0.63Isoleucine:lysineratio,% 71Leucine:lysineratio,% 188Methionine:lysineratio,% 33Met&Cys:lysineratio,% 68Threonine:lysineratio,% 64Tryptophan:lysineratio,% 18Valine:lysineratio,% 85Protein,% 13.2ME,kcal/lb 1,522SIDlysine:MEratio,g/Mcal 1.88Ca,% 0.47P,% 0.42AvailableP,% 0.151Experimentaldietswerefedfor26dbeforeslaughter.2Ingredientpricesusedtodeterminethedietcostwere:corn,$118/ton;soybeanmeal,$207/ton;MonocalciumP,$332/ton;Limestone,$30/ton;Salt,$53/ton;L-lysineHCl,$1,800/ton;Processinganddelivery,$12/ton;andAstaxanthin(10,000ppm),$9.07/lb.3Astaxanthinreplacedcornstarchinthecontroldiettoachievethe5,10,and20ppmastaxanthintreatments.4Standardizedilealdigestible.

244

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Gro

wth

per

form

ance

and

carc

ass c

hara

cter

istic

s of p

igs f

ed in

crea

sing

asta

xant

hin1

Ast

axan

thin

,ppm

SEM

Prob

abili

ty,P

<

Item

05

1020

Con

trol

vs.

Ast

axan

thin

Line

arQ

uadr

atic

Gro

wth

per

form

ance

,d0

to2

6

Initi

alw

t,lb

215

215

215

215

2.90

---2

------

A

DG

,lb

2.11

2.23

2.03

1.99

0.12

------

---

AD

FI,l

b6.

676.

766.

246.

200.

24---

0.10

---

F/G

3.22

3.05

3.08

3.16

0.15

------

---

Fin

alw

t,lb

270

273

268

267

3.81

------

---

Fee

d,$

/lb

gain

0.23

0.23

0.25

0.29

0.01

---0.

01---

F

eed,

$/p

ig12

.57

13.5

513

.23

14.5

90.

510.

060.

02---

Car

cass

char

acte

ristic

s

Liv

ewt,

lb27

127

327

127

03.

95---

------

H

CW

,lb

192

192

191

189

3.38

------

---

Yie

ld,%

71.0

70.6

70.6

70.3

0.64

------

---

Ave

rage

bac

kfat

thic

knes

s,in

.1.

000.

890.

850.

870.

050.

03---

---

10t

hrib

fatd

epth

,in.

0.82

0.65

0.65

0.70

0.07

0.06

---0.

10

Loi

ney

eare

a,sq

.in.

7.33

7.72

7.58

7.28

0.30

------

---

Loi

ney

ecol

or3

CIE

L*

60.3

55.3

58.9

56.2

1.42

0.06

------

CIE

a*9.

410

.18.

210

.30.

31---

---0.

02

C

IEb

*15

.814

.814

.415

.10.

470.

08---

0.06

S

tand

ardi

zed

fat-f

reel

ean,

lb10

210

710

610

32.

37---

---0.

09

Fat

-free

lean

,%

53.2

55.6

55.5

54.5

1.04

0.09

---0.

10Ec

onom

icim

plic

atio

ns

Est

imat

edca

rcas

sval

ue,$

/100

lb4

68.7

670

.13

70.0

869

.41

0.65

------

---

Est

imat

edto

talc

arca

ssva

lue,

$12

8.37

131.

7913

0.98

130.

412.

40---

------

E

stim

ated

net

pro

fit/l

ossp

erp

igre

lativ

eto

cont

rol,

$-

2.44

1.95

0.02

3.31

------

---1 A

tota

lof4

8ba

rrow

s(PI

CT

R4

×C

22)w

ereu

sed

with

2p

igsp

erp

enan

d6

pens

per

trea

tmen

t.D

ataw

ereo

btai

ned

from

1p

igp

erp

enfo

rthe

det

erm

inat

ion

ofca

rcas

scha

ract

erist

ics.

2 Pro

babi

lity,

P>

0.10

.3 Th

eran

gefo

rCIE

L*i

s0to

100

(0=

bla

ck,1

00=

whi

te).

Ap

ositi

veC

IEa*

indi

cate

sthe

deg

reeo

fred

ness

.Ap

ositi

veC

IEb

*ind

icat

esth

edeg

reeo

fyel

low

ness

.4 F

rom

theS

ept.

13,2

007,

USD

AN

atio

nalD

aily

Dire

ctN

egot

iate

dH

ogP

urch

aseM

atrix

with

adju

stm

ents

forc

arca

ssw

eigh

tdiff

eren

tials.

245

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Meal or Pellet Diet Form on Finishing Pig Performance and Carcass Characteristics1

M.L.Potter2,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryTwoexperimentswereperformedtodeterminetheeffectsoffeedingdietsinmealorpelletformonfinishingpigperformance.Acorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwasfedinExp.1,andadietcontainingalternativeingredientswasusedinExp.2.AllpelleteddietswereprocessedthroughaCPMpelletmill(CaliforniaPelletMillCo.,Crawfords-ville,IN)equippedwitha3/16in.die.

InExp.1,atotalof1,072pigs(60.7lb)wereusedina112-dtrial.Treatmentswerearrangedin2×2factorialdesign(10penspertreatment)withmaineffectsofdietform(mealorpellet)andgender(barrowsorgilts).Dietformulationandparticlesize(approximately660microns)wasidenticalamongthetreatments.Fromd0to112,pigsfedpelleteddietshadincreasedADG(2.04vs.1.92lb,P <0.01)comparedwithpigsfeddietsinmealform.Therewasnodifference(P =0.69)inADFI,butpigsfedpelleteddietshada5.3%improvement(2.68vs.2.83,P <0.01)inF/Gcomparedwithpigsfedmealdiets.WiththeimprovementsinF/Gdrivingthegrowthresponse,pigsfedpelletswere13.6lbheavier(P <0.01)atofftestthanpigsfedmealdiets.

InExp.2,atotalof1,214pigs(58.3lb)wereusedina42-dtrialtoevaluatedietscontainingalternativeingredientsinpelletormealform.Barrowandgiltpenswererandomlyallottedtoamealorpellettreatmentgroup(11penspertreatment).LikeExp.1,dietparticlesize(approximately660microns)andformulationwereidenticalamongthetreatments.Pigsfedaby-product-baseddietinpelletformhadgreater(2.05vs.1.95lb,P <0.01)ADGthanpigsfedtheidenticaldietinmealform.Therewerenodifferences(P ≥0.15)inoverall(d0to42)ADFIorF/Gbetweenpigsfedmealandpelleteddiets.Pigsfedpelleteddietshadanumerical(P =0.14)weightadvantageof4.1lbond42comparedwithpigsfedmealdiets.

ThesedatademonstratethatfeedingapelleteddietimprovedADGcomparedwithfeedingamealdiet;however,themagnitudeoftheresponsewasinconsistentbetweentrials.Inaddition,F/Gwasimprovedbypelletinginthefirsttrial,withnoeffectfoundinthesecondtrial.Oneexplanationforthisdifferencemightbethequalityofthepellets.SamplesofthepelleteddietscollectedinExp.1containedapproximately25%fines,whereassamplesofthepelleteddietsinExp.2werecomposedofapproximately35%fines.Dietsformulation(corn-soybeanvs.corn-alternativeingredients)caninflu-encepelletquality,whichmayexplaindifferencesbetweentheexperiments.

Keywords:carcass,growth,pellet

1AppreciationisexpressedtoJ-SixEnterprises,Seneca,KS,fortheirassistanceandforprovidingthepigsandfacilitiesusedinthisexperiment.2DepartmentofDiagnosticMedicine/Pathobiology,KansasStateUniversity.

246

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

IntroductionFeedingpelleteddietstopigshasbeenshowntoincreasenutrientdigestibilityandimproveF/Gfrom5%to8%infinishingpigsfedacorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietunderuniversityresearchconditions.Otheradvantagestopelleteddietsincludetheabilitytogrindgraintoasmallermicronsizeandusehighpercentagesofalternativeingredi-entsinthedietsandstillmaintainfeedflowability.However,theimprovementinF/Gmaynotbeaslargeunderfieldconditionsbecauseofpoorpelletquality.Increasedfinebuildupinfeedpansandfeedwastageareoutcomesofapoorqualitypellet.Besidesthecostofpelleting,anotherdisadvantagetofeedingpelleteddietsisamortalityincreaseasaresultofgastriculcers.Thissusceptibilitytoulcersalsoappearstobedependentongenotype.Therecentincreaseinfeedcostshasledproducerstoreevaluatetheeconom-icsoffeedingpelletedfinishingpigdiets.Therefore,theobjectiveofthisstudywastodeterminetheeffectsoffeedingapelletedmiloorcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddiet(Exp.1)oradietcontainingalargeproportionofalternativeingredients(Exp.2)onperformanceofcommercialfinishingpigs.

ProceduresProceduresusedinthesestudieswereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitu-tionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.BothexperimentswereperformedincommercialresearchfinishingbarnslocatedinnortheasternKansas.Thebarnswerenaturallyventi-latedanddoublecurtainsidedwithcompletelyslattedflooring.Eachpen(10×18ft)wasequippedwithadoubleswingingwatereranda3-holedryself-feeder,allowingforadlibitumaccesstowaterandfeed.Anautomatedfeedingsystem(FeedPro;FeedlogicCorp.,Willmar,MN)wasusedineachbarntodeliverandmeasurefeedamountsaddedtoindividualpenfeeders.

InExp.1,atotalof1,072pigs(60.7lb)wereusedina112-dfinishingtrial.Pigsweresortedbygender(barroworgilt)andplacedinpenswith26to28pigsperpen.Pensofpigswererandomlyallottedtoadietformtreatment(mealorpellet)withaveragepigweightbalancedacrosstreatments.Treatmentswerearrangedin2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsofgenderanddietforminacompletelyrandomizeddesign.DietswerepelletedatacommercialmillwithaCPMpelletmill(CaliforniaPelletMillCo.,Crawfordsville,IN)witha3/16in.die.Therewere10pensperdietform×gendertreatment.Thesamedietaryformulationwasusedforbothdietforms.Dietswerecorn-soybeanmealbased,exceptthedietusedfortheinitialbatchoffeedcontained30%milotoreplaceaportionofthecorninthediet.Particlesizewaskeptconstantsothatonlytheprocessingformvariedamongtreatmentgroups.Samplesofthepelleteddietswerecollectedatthebarnduringeachphase,andpelletdurabilityindex(PDI)wasdeter-minedonthecorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietbyusingthestandardtumbling-boxtechnique.Beforetestingpelletsfordurability,fineswereremovedandquantified.AmodifiedPDIwasalsoconductedbyadding5hexagonnutsintothetumblingbox.

Pensofpigswereweighedandfeedintakewasrecordedond0,14,28,41,56,70,90,and112.Fromthesedata,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gwerecalculated.Attheconclusionofthestudy,pigswereindividuallytattooedwithanumbercorrespondingtotheirpentofacilitatecollectionofcarcassdataatharvest.Ond90,the4heaviestpigs(“tops”)ineachpenwereremovedandmarketed.Attheendofthetrial,pigsweresoldover2consecutivedaysinabalancedfashion,withthelastpigsweighedofftestond112.

247

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Inaccordancewithallowableweightguidelinesfromthepackingplant,pigsweigh-ingmorethan215lbweremarketedandcarcassdatawerecollected.Lightweightpigsweighinglessthan215lbwereheldbacktoallowforadditionalweightgain.Datafromtheselightweightpigsareincludedinallgrowthandperformancedatabutnotinthecarcassdata.

FinishergrowthandfeedperformancedatawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignusingtheGLIMMIXprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)andpenastheexperimentalunit.Dietformandgenderwerethemaineffects.Foranalysisofcarcasscharacteristics,percentageyieldwascalculatedbydividingHCWbyliveweightdeterminedatthesitepriortotransporttotheprocessingplant.Forcomparisonsamongtreatmentsforbackfatdepth,loindepthandpercentagelean,HCWwasusedtoadjustresponsestoacommonHCW.Differencesamongtreatmentsweredeterminedbyusingleastsquaresmeans(P < 0.05).

InExp.2, atotalof1,214pigs(58.3lb)wereusedina42-dtrialtodeterminetheeffectsofdietform(mealorpellet)onperformance.Therewere27to28pigspersingle-sexpen,with11pensperdietform×gendertreatment.Althoughtherewere22replica-tionpenspergendertreatment,genderwasconfoundedwithgenotypebecausegiltpenswerecomprisedofprogenyfromterminalsire-linematingsandbarrowpenswereprog-enyofmaternalorterminalsire-linematings.Acommondietcontaining32.5%forti-fiedhominymixturewasusedforbothdietformtreatments.Particlesizewasidenticalamongthetreatments.Tominimizesourcesofvariationbetweendietforms,mealdietsweremadeandmixedatacommoncommercialfeedmill,andthen24tonsofcompletedietweretruckedtoanalternatelocationforpelleting.Dietswerepelletedusinga3/16in.die.Becauseofthistransportschedule,thepelleteddietswerefedbasedonabudgetof24tonsperphase,anddietswerefedin2phases.Mealdietphasesmatchedthephasechangesinthepellettreatment.ThestandardandmodifiedPDIvaluesweredeterminedbyusingthesameproceduresasinExp.1.

Pensofpigswereweighedandfeedintakewasrecordedond0,14,28,and42.Fromthesedata,ADG,ADFI,andF/Gwerecalculated.

PerformancedatawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignusingtheGLIM-MIXprocedureofSASandpenastheexperimentalunit.Dietformwasanalyzedasafixedeffect,andbecauseoftheconfoundingwithgenotype,genderwasconsideredarandomeffect.Differencesamongtreatmentsweredeterminedbyusingleastsquaresmeans(P < 0.05).

Results and DiscussionInExp.1,agender×dietforminteraction(P ≤0.03)wasobservedforADGfromd0to90andd90to112(Table1).Fromd0to90,withinbothbarrowsandgilts,pigsfedpelleteddietshadgreater(P <0.01)ADG;barrowsfedpelleteddietsgained0.19lb/dmorethanbarrowsfedmealdiets,andgiltsfedpelleteddietsgained0.12lb/dmorethangiltsfedmealdiets.ThemagnitudeoftheresponsetoconsumingpelleteddietsonADGfromd0to90wasgreaterinbarrowsthaningilts;however,fromd90to112,barrowsfedpelleteddietshaddecreased(P <0.01)ADGcomparedwithbarrowsfedmealdiets,andtherewasnodifference(P =0.74)inADGattributabletodietformfor

248

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

gilts.Becauseofthevariabilityinthesedata,therewasnogender×dietforminterac-tion(P =0.22)observedforoverall(d0to112)ADG.Fromd0to112,therewasnodifference(P =0.69)infeedintakeamongpigsfedmealandpelleteddiets(Table2).Therefore,thegreater(P <0.01)overallgrowthrateinpigsfedpelleteddietscomparedwithpigsfedmealdietsisattributabletothedifferenceinF/Gbetweenthesetreatmentgroups.Pigsfedpelleteddietshada5.3%improvement(2.68vs.2.83,P <0.01)inoverallF/Gcomparedwithpigsfedmealdiets.Thesedatasupportfindingspreviouslyreportedintheliteratureforimprovementsinfeedefficiencyachievablewithfeedingcorn-soybeanmeal-basedpelleteddiets.WiththeimprovementsinF/Gdrivingtheincreasedgainforpellet-fedpigs,pigsconsumingpelletswere13.6lbheavier(P <0.01)atofftestthanmeal-fedpigs.Fromd0to112,barrowshadgreater(P <0.01)ADGandADFIandpoorer(P <0.01)F/Gthangilts.

Similartoliveweightresults,pigsfedpelletshadheavier(P <0.01)carcassesthanpigsfedmealdiets(Table3).Thoughbackfatdepthwasunaffected(P =0.19)bydietform,therewasatrendforpigsfedpelleteddietstobeless(P =0.07)leanandhavedecreased(P =0.09)loindepth.

Forothercarcasscharacteristics,therewasagender×dietforminteraction(P =0.03)forpercentageyield.Barrowsfedmealdietshadlower(73.4%,P ≤0.02)percentageyieldthanbarrowsfedpelleteddietsorgiltsfedeitherdietform.Therewasnodiffer-ence(P ≥0.08)amongbarrowsfedpellets(74.7%),giltsfedmealdiets(74.1%),andgiltsfedpellets(74.4%).Overall,barrowcarcasseswereheavier(214.0vs.203.9lb,P <0.01)andlesslean(51.9%vs.54.1%,P <0.01)withincreased(21.8vs.17.0mm,P <0.01)backfatdepthanddecreased(60.3vs.62.7mm,P <0.01)loindepth.

Insummary,pigsfedapelletedcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddiethadincreasedADGcomparedwithpigsfedthesamedietsinmealform,butthemagnitudeoftheresponsewasgenderdependent.Regardlessofgender,pigsfedpelleteddietshadimprovedF/Gandheaviermarketandcarcassweightsthanpigsfedmealdiets.

InExp.2,pigsfedafortifiedhominy-baseddietinpelletformfromd0to42hadgreater(P <0.01)ADGthanpigsfedthesamedietformulationinmealform(Table4).Feedingpelleteddietsimproved(P<0.05)F/Gfromd14to28andd28to42butnotfortheoveralltrial(P ≥0.15).TheF/Gimprovementswere3.3%fromd14to28and5.1%fromd28to42.Theoverallresponsefromd0to42was2.4%.Thegrowthperformancedifferencesresultedinpigsfedpelleteddietshavinganumericalweightadvantageof4.1lbatofftestcomparedwithpigsfedmealdiets.

DifferencesinpelletqualitymayhavecontributedtothelowerresponseinExp.2comparedwithExp.1.Itwasunknownwhatpelletqualitywouldbeachievablewiththedietcontainingalternativeingredients.Althoughitwaspossibletoproduceapelleteddietwiththisbasediet,thequalityofthepelletwaspoorerthanthatofthecorn-soybeanmeal-basedpelletusedinExp.1.SamplesofthepelleteddietscollectedinExp.1containedapproximately25%fines,whereassamplesofthepelleteddietsinExp.2werecomposedofapproximately35%fines.StandardandmodifiedPDIaver-agevalueswere87%and80%,respectively,forbothexperiments.ThePDIanalysiswasconductedafterfineswereremovedfromthesamples.

249

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Additionalresearchneedstobecompletedwithfortifiedhominy-baseddietstohelpfurtherexplainthevariabilityintheresponsesfoundintheseexperiments.Thesetrialsindicatethatthemagnitudeofexpectedresponseappearstobeaffectedbydietcompo-sitionandpelletquality.

Table 1. Effect of gender and diet form on growth performance of finishing pigs (Exp. 1)1

Barrow   GiltGender×Form

Dietform2: Meal Pellet   Meal Pellet SEM P<d0to90Initialwt,lb 60.6 60.8 60.8 60.6 0.9 0.81ADG,lb 1.96a 2.15b 1.85c 1.97a 0.02 0.03ADFI,lb 5.39 5.57 4.87 4.92 0.06 0.26F/G 2.75 2.59 2.63 2.50 0.02 0.41d-90wt,lb 238.2a 257.4b 229.2c 239.8b 2.0 0.04d90to1123

ADG,lb 2.12a 1.98b 1.83c 1.85c 0.04 0.03ADFI,lb 7.55 6.96 6.45 6.17 0.09 0.11F/G 3.57 3.52 3.54 3.34 0.06 0.27d0to112ADG,lb 1.99 2.12 1.85 1.95 0.02 0.22ADFI,lb 5.74 5.80 5.13 5.12 0.06 0.60F/G 2.89 2.73 2.77 2.63 0.02 0.70Finalwt,lb 276.8 293.0   261.3 272.3 2.4 0.301Atotalof1,072pigswith26to28pigsperpenwereusedina112-dtrial.Therewere10replicationpenspergender×dietformtreatment.2Acommoncorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwasfedineithermealorpelletform(3/16in.).3Ond90,the4heaviestpigsperpenwereremovedandmarketed.abcWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P <0.05).

250

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Main effects of diet form on growth performance of finishing pigs (Exp. 1)1

Dietform2 Probability,P <Item Meal Pellet SEM Dietd0to90Initialwt,lb 60.7 60.7 0.7 0.99ADG,lb 1.91 2.06 0.01 <0.01ADFI,lb 5.13 5.25 0.04 0.05F/G 2.69 2.54 0.01 <0.01d-90wt,lb 233.7 248.6 1.4 <0.01d90to1123

ADG,lb 1.98 1.91 0.03 0.09ADFI,lb 7.00 6.57 0.07 <0.01F/G 3.55 3.43 0.04 0.06d0to112ADG,lb 1.92 2.04 0.01 <0.01ADFI,lb 5.44 5.46 0.04 0.69F/G 2.83 2.68 0.01 <0.01Finalwt,lb 269.0 282.6 1.7 <0.011Atotalof1,072pigswith26to28pigsperpenwereusedina112-dtrial.Therewere20replicationpensperdietformtreatment.2Acommoncorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwasfedineithermealorpelletform(3/16in.).3Ond90,the4heaviestpigsperpenwereremovedandmarketed.

Table 3. Effect of diet form on carcass characteristics of finishing pigs (Exp. 1)1

Dietform2 Probability,P<

Item Meal Pellet SEM DietGender×Dietform

no.ofpigs(>215lb)marketed 473 480 --- --- ---no.ofpigs(<215lb)heldback 45 29 --- --- ---Overallmarketing3,4,5

Livewt,lb 275.6 287.7 1.5 <0.01 0.69HCW,lb 203.4 214.5 1.3 <0.01 0.30Yield,%6 73.8 74.5 0.1 <0.01 0.03Lean,%7 53.2 52.8 0.1 0.07 0.56Backfatdepth,mm7 19.1 19.7 0.3 0.19 0.40Loindepth,mm7 62.0 61.0 0.4 0.09 0.221Atotalof953pigs(d90:160pigs;d111and112:793pigs)arerepresentedinthecarcassdatafrom20replica-tionpensperdietformtreatment.2Acommoncorn-soybeanmeal-baseddietwasfedineithermealorpelletform.3Ond90,the4heaviestpigsperpenwereremovedandmarketed.4Ond111and112,pigsgreaterthan215lbweremarketedforcarcassdatacollection.5Overallmarketingdatacombinesdatafromallpigsmarketedond90and112.6PercentageyieldwascalculatedbydividingHCWbyliveweightobtainedpriortotransporttothepackingplant.7Percentagelean,backfatdepth,andloindepthwereadjustedtoacommonHCW.

251

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effect of diet form on growth performance of finishing pigs (Exp. 2)1

Dietform2

Item Meal Pellet SEM Probability,P<d0to14ADG,lb 1.87 1.83 0.06 0.39ADFI,lb 3.56 3.58 0.12 0.85F/G 1.90 1.95 0.02 0.12d14to28ADG,lb 1.72 1.97 0.07 <0.01ADFI,lb 3.76 4.17 0.17 <0.01F/G 2.19 2.12 0.03 0.05d28to42ADG,lb 2.27 2.34 0.10 0.03ADFI,lb 5.11 5.01 0.32 0.23F/G 2.25 2.14 0.05 0.01d0to42ADG,lb 1.95 2.05 0.08 <0.01ADFI,lb 4.14 4.25 0.20 0.24F/G 2.12 2.07 0.03 0.15Weight,lbd0 58.2 58.3 1.8 0.98d42 140.4 144.5 4.8 0.141Atotalof1,214pigs(27to28pigsperpen)wereusedina42-dtrial.Therewere22replicationpensperdietformtreatment.2Acommondietconsistingof32.5%fortifiedhominymixturewasfedineithermealorpelletform.

252

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Effects of Feeder Design, Gender, and Dietary Concentration of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles on the Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Growing-Finishing Pigs1

J.R.Bergstrom,M.D.Tokach,S.S.Dritz2,J.L.Nelssen,J.M.DeRoucheyandR.D.Goodband

SummaryA2×2×2factorialexperimentwasconductedtoevaluatetheinteractiveeffectsoffeederdesign(conventionaldryvs.wet-dryfeeder),gender(barrowvs.gilt),anddietaryconcentrationofdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS;20%vs.60%)onfinish-ingpigperformance.Atotalof1,080pigs(PIC337×1050)wereusedinthe99-dexperiment.Pigsweresortedbygender(barrowsandgilts)intogroupsof27,weighed(77.4lbinitialBW),allottedtopenscontaining1ofthe2feedertypes,andassignedtoacorn-soybeanmeal-DDGS-basedfeedingprogramofeither20%or60%DDGS.Acompletelyrandomizeddesignwasusedtoevaluatethe8treatmentcombinations,with5penspertreatment.Thisprovided20penspertreatmentforeachofthethreemaineffects(feedertype,gender,andDDGSconcentration).AllpigswerefedtheirassignedlevelofDDGSin3dietaryphases(d0to28,28to56,and56to78).Ond78,2pigsperpenwereweighedandharvested.Jowlfatsampleswerecollectedfromthesepigsforfattyacidanalysisandiodinevalue(IV).Allremainingpigswerefedacommondietfromd78to99thatcontained20%DDGSand4.5g/tonofractopamineHCl(Paylean;ElancoAnimalHealth,Indianapolis,IN).Ond99,allremainingpigswereharvestedandcarcassdatawereobtainedfrom885pigs.Jowlfatsampleswerecollectedfrom2pigsperpenforfattyacidanalysisandIV.Overall(d0to99),pigsusingthewet-dryfeederhadgreater(P<0.001)ADG,ADFI,F/G,finalBW,feedcostperpig,HCW,andbackfatdepthbutdecreased(P<0.05)fat-freelean,jowlfatIV,premiumperpig,valuepercwtlive,andnetincomeperpig.Feeding60%DDGSfromd0to78resultedindecreased(P<0.02)ADG,finalBW,feedcostperpig,HCW,andbackfatdepthbutincreased(P<0.05)F/G,fat-freelean,jowlfatIV,andnetincomeperpig.Barrowshadgreater(P<0.01)ADG,ADFI,F/G,finalBW,feedcostperpig,HCW,andbackfatdepthbutreducedfat-freelean,jowlfatIV,premiumperpig,valuepercwtlive,andnetincomeperpig.Inconclusion,thegreatestnetincomeperpigresultedfromfeedinggilts60%DDGSfromd0to78and20%DDGSwithPayleanfromd78to99usingaconventionaldryfeeder.However,usingwet-dryfeedersimprovedADGandADFIofgrowing-finishingpigsandmayimprovetheperformanceofslowergrow-ingpopulationswithinagroup(e.g.,gilts).Wet-dryfeedersmayalsorestorethegrowthratesofpigsfedadverselevelsofDDGS.Moreresearchwithwet-dryfeedersisneededtoresolveconcernswithF/G,carcassleanness,andeconomicreturns.

Keywords:drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles,feeders

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrobjorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMaryHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

253

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

IntroductionBecausefinishingfeedcostsrepresentasignificantproportionofthecostofproduction,swineproducersarecontinuallyevaluatingtechnologiesthatmayimprovethegrowthperformanceoffinishingpigsandincomeoverfeedcost.Considerableimprovementsingrowthandefficiencyhavebeenmadeintheareasofgeneticsandnutrition.However,studiesthatimproveourunderstandingofvariousfeedertypesandtheireffectsonperformance,feedingbehavior,andefficiencyarescarce.

Currently,commercialgrowing-finishingbarnsareequippedwithvarioustypesoffeed-ersandwaterersdesignedtoprovidepigswithadlibitumaccesstofeedandwaterwhileattemptingtominimizewaste.Feedisoftenpresentedtopigsinitsoriginal,dryformwithwaterprovidedseparatelyinanipplewaterer,cupwaterer,orwatertroughlocatedincloseproximity.However,somebarnsareequippedwithwet-dryfeeders,andthesetypesoffeedersarebecomingincreasinglycommon.

Withawet-dryfeeder,thewatersourceislocatedinthefeedpan,givingpigsaccesstodryfeedandwaterinthesamelocationandtheopportunitytoconsumewetfeed.PreviousresearchatKansasStateUniversity(Rantanenetal.,19983;Amornthewaphatetal.,20004;Bergstrometal.,20085)hasconsistentlydemonstratedthatusingawet-dryfeederimprovesthegrowthrateoffinishingpigs.Thesepreviousstudiesevaluatedthedifferencesbetweenawet-dryfeederandadryfeederwithwaterprovidedseparately.However,morestudiescomparingtheeffectsofvariousfeederdesignsonthegrowthperformanceandcarcasscharacteristicsoffinishingpigsincommercialfacilitiesareneeded.Theincreasingcostsoftraditionalfeedingredientscoupledwiththeincreasedavailabil-ityofdrieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(DDGS)andothercoproductsoftheethanolindustryhasresultedinanincreaseintheuseofalternativefeedingredients.Researchinrecentyearsindicatesthatupto20%DDGSmaybeincludedindietsforgrowing-finishingwithoutreducingperformance.Feedingmorethan20%DDGSmayresultinreducedfeedintakeandgrowthperformance,andporkfatqualitymaybecomeunac-ceptableforsomemarketoutlets.Feedingpigswithawet-dryfeedercouldovercomesomeofthenegativeaspectsoffeedinghigherlevelsofalternativeingredients,givingswineproducersmoreflexibilitywithingredientselection.

Variationinthegrowthratesofindividualpigswithinagroupreducestheefficiencyoffacilityutilizationinporkproduction.Normalbiologicalvariationresultsfromindivid-ualdifferencesingender,genetics,health,birthweight,BWatplacement,socialstatuswithinthegroup,andnutritionalstatusandrequirements.Typically,giltsandbarrowsarefedadifferentfeedbudgetduringthegrowingandfinishingperiodbecausegiltsgenerallyhavelowerADG,ADFI,andF/G;areleaner;andthereforehavedifferentnutrientrequirements.Usingawet-dryfeederforgiltscouldbemorebeneficialthanforbarrowsandmayimprovetheabilitytomanagewithin-groupvariationtoachievegreatereconomicbenefit.

3Rantanenetal.,SwineDay1995,ReportofProgress746,pp.119-120.4Amornthewaphatetal.,SwineDay2000,ReportofProgress858,pp.123-131.5Bergstrometal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.196-203.

254

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Therefore,theobjectiveofthisresearchwastodetermineifwet-dryfeederswouldimprovetheperformanceandprofitabilityofbarrowsandgiltshousedincommercialconditionsandfeddietscontaining20%or60%DDGS.

ProceduresProceduresusedintheexperimentwereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.TheexperimentwasconductedinacommercialresearchfinishingfacilityinsouthwesternMinnesota.Thefacilitywasdoublecurtainsidedwithpitfansforminimumventilationandcompletelyslattedflooringoveradeeppitformanurestorage.Individualpenswere10×18ft.Halfofthepenswereequippedwithasingle60-in.-wide5-holeconventionaldryfeeder(STACO,Inc.,Schaefferstown,PA)andasinglecupwatererineachpen(Figure1).Theremain-ingpenswereeachequippedwithadouble-sidedwet-dryfeeder(CrystalSprings,GroMaster,Inc.,Omaha,NE)witha15-in.feederopeningonbothsidesthatprovidedaccesstofeedandwater(Figure2). Allpensthatwereequippedwithawet-dryfeedercontainedacupwaterer;however,thesewatererswereshutoffduringtheexperi-ment.Therefore,theonlysourceofwaterforpigsinthesepenswasthroughthewet-dryfeeder.

Atotalof1,080pigs(PIC337×1050)wereusedina99-dexperiment.A2×2×2factorialarrangementoftreatmentswasusedtoevaluatetheinteractiveeffectsoffeederdesign(conventionaldryvs.wet-dryfeeder),gender(barrowvs.gilt),anddietaryconcentrationofDDGS(20%vs.60%)onfinishingpigperformance.Pigsweresortedbygender(barrowsandgilts)intogroupsof27,weighed(77.4lbinitialBW),allottedtopenscontaining1ofthe2feedertypes,andassignedtoacorn-soybeanmeal-DDGS-basedfeedingprogramofeither20%or60%DDGS(Table1).Acompletelyrandom-izeddesignwasusedtoevaluatethe8treatmentcombinations,with5penspertreat-ment.Thisprovided20penspertreatmentforeachofthe3maineffects(feedertype,gender,andDDGSconcentration).AllpigswerefedtheirassignedlevelofDDGSin3dietaryphases(d0to28,28to56,and56to78).Ond78,the2largestpigsineachpenwereweighedandremovedforharvest.Jowlfatsampleswerecollectedfromthesepigsforfattyacidanalysisandiodinevalue(IV).Allremainingpigswerefedacommondietfromd78to99thatcontained20%DDGSand4.5g/tonofractopamineHCl(Paylean;ElancoAnimalHealth,Indianapolis,IN).Ond99,allremainingpigswereharvestedandcarcassdatawereobtainedfrom885pigs.Jowlfatsampleswerecollectedfromthecarcassesof2average-sizedpigswithineachpenforfattyacidanalysisandIV.ThisexperimentwasconductedfromAug.8toNov.12,2008.

Datawereanalyzedas2×2×2factorialarrangementinacompletelyrandomizeddesignusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC).Penwastheexperimentalunit.BecausethereweredifferencesintheinitialBWofbarrowsandgilts,theinitialBWwasusedasacovariateindataanalysis.

ResultsFromd0to78(Table2),feederdesign×DDGS(P<0.05)andfeederdesign×gender(P<0.04)interactionswereobservedforADGandd-78BW.ThereductionsinADGandd-78BWthatwereassociatedwithfeeding60%DDGSweremuchgreaterforpigsusingthewet-dryfeeder.Additionally,theADGandd-78BWofbarrowsandgilts

255

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

usingthewet-dryfeederweresimilar;however,withtheconventionaldryfeeder,theADGandd-78BWofbarrowsweregreaterthanthoseofgilts.Despitetheinterac-tions,ADG,ADFI,andd-78BWweregreaterandF/Gwaspoorerforpigsusingthewet-dryfeeder(P<0.001).Pigsfed20%DDGShadgreater(P<0.001)ADGandd-78BWbutbetter(P<0.001)F/Gthanthosefed60%DDGS.Barrowshadgreater(P<0.02)ADG,ADFI,andd-78BWbutpoorerF/Gthangilts.

Fromd78to99,whenallpigsreceivedacommondietcontaining20%DDGSand4.5g/tonPaylean,atrend(P<0.06)forafeederdesign×genderinteractionwasobservedforADFI.ThisoccurredbecausethedifferenceinADFIbetweenbarrowsandgiltswasgreaterwiththewet-dryfeeder.Despitetheinteraction,ADGandADFIweregreater(P<0.02)forpigsusingthewet-dryfeedercomparedwiththedryfeederandforpigsfed60%DDGScomparedwith20%DDGSinthepreviousperiod.Barrowsalsohadgreater(P<0.01)ADFIandpoorerF/Gthangilts.

Overall(d0to99,Tables2and3),thereweretrends(P<0.10)forafeederdesign×genderinteractionforF/Gandnetincomeperpig.Theseoccurredbecausethediffer-encesinF/Gandnetincomeperpigbetweenpigsusingthewet-dryfeederandconven-tionaldryfeederwerelessforgiltsthanbarrows.Noothersignificantinteractionswereobserved.Pigsusingthewet-dryfeederhadgreater(P<0.001)ADG,ADFI,finalBW,feedcostperpig,HCW,andbackfatdepth;poorer(P<0.05)F/G;anddecreasedfat-freelean,jowlfatIV,premiumperpig,valuepercwtlive,andnetincomeperpig.Therewasalsoatrend(P<0.09)forpigsusingthewet-dryfeedertohavegreatertotalrevenueperpigbecauseoftheirheavierfinalBW.Feeding60%DDGSfromd0to78resultedindecreased(P<0.02)ADG,finalBW,feedcostperpig,HCW,andbackfatdepth;poorer(P<0.05)F/G;anddecreasedfat-freelean,jowlfatIV,andnetincomeperpig.Therewasalsoatrend(P<0.08)forpigsfed60%DDGSfromd0to78tohavegreatervaluepercwtlive.Thiswasprimarilyduetoamarginalimprovementinfat-freeleanbutalsototheabsenceofareductioninyieldthatiscommonlyassociatedwithfeedingincreasinglevelsofDDGS.TheabsenceofareductioninyieldislikelybecausethelevelofDDGSwasreducedfrom60%to20%forthelast21d.Barrowshadgreater(P<0.01)ADG,ADFI,finalBW,feedcostperpig,HCW,andbackfatdepth;poorerF/G;anddecreasedfat-freelean,jowlfatIV,premiumperpig,valuepercwtlive,andnetincomeperpig.

DiscussionFeedinggiltswithaconventionaldryfeederandadietcontaining60%DDGStod78followedby20%DDGSand4.5g/tonPayleanforthelast21dresultedinthegreat-estnetincomeinthisexperiment.Thenetincomeperpigwas$25.23greaterforthesegiltscomparedwithbarrowsfed20%DDGSwiththewet-dryfeeder.Althoughthesegiltsgrewslower,theywereleanerandmoreefficientandhadagreaternetincomethanthesebarrows.

Inthisexperiment,theADG,ADFI,andfinalweightofbarrowsandgiltswereincreasedwithawet-dryfeeder.AlthoughADG,ADFI,andfinalweightweregreaterforbarrowsthanforgilts,thedifferencesinADGandfinalweightbetweenbarrowsandgiltsusingthewet-dryfeederwerelessthanthoseofbarrowsandgiltsusingtheconven-tionaldryfeeder.Also,inspiteoftheexpectedoveralldifferencesingrowthbetween

256

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

barrowsandgilts,theADGofgiltsusingthewet-dryfeederwasnearly5%greaterthanthatofbarrowsusingtheconventionaldryfeeder,andthefinalweightofgiltsusingthewet-dryfeederwasnearly3%greaterthanthatofbarrowsusingtheconventionaldryfeeder.Thesedatasuggestthatswineproducerscouldusewet-dryfeederstomanagevariationingrowthrateswithinapopulationofpigsandpotentiallyimprovefacilityutilization.Althoughthedifferenceinnetincomeperpigbetweengiltsfedwithwet-dryfeedersandbarrowsfedwithconventionalfeederswas$3.73/pigbetterforgiltscomparedwithbarrows,oureconomicanalysisindicatesthatthenetincomeperpigwasstilllowerby$8.09/pigforgiltsfedwiththewet-dryfeedercomparedwithgiltsfedwiththeconventionalfeeder.Thegreaterfeedcostperpig,greaterbackfatdepth,andpoorerF/Gresultedinalowernetincome($9.96)forpigsfedwithawet-dryfeeder.

DespitethereductionsinADGandfinalweightthatwereassociatedwithincreasingDDGSfrom20%to60%duringd0to78,theADGofpigsfed60%DDGSwiththewet-dryfeederwas5%greaterthanthatofpigsfed20%DDGSwithaconventionaldryfeeder,andthefinalweightofpigsfed60%DDGSwiththewet-dryfeederwasnearly4%greaterthanthatofpigsfed20%DDGSwithaconventionaldryfeeder.Clearly,wet-dryfeederscouldbeusedtoovercomethenegativeeffectofincreasinglevelsofDDGSonADG.DespitetheirreducedADGandpoorerF/G,pigsfed60%DDGSfromd0to78hadalowerfeedcostperpigandgreaternetincome($6.16)thanpigsfed20%DDGSfromd0to99.Switchingpigsfed60%DDGSto20%DDGSforthelast21dresultedinimprovementsintheirADGandADFIandlikelyimprovedtheirfinalweightandcarcassyield.However,thejowlfatIVvaluesofthesepigsremainedconsiderablyhigherthanthelevelsdeemedacceptablebyvariouspackers.

Unlikepreviousexperimentscomparingwet-dryandconventionalfeeders(Rantanenetal.,1995;Amornthewaphatetal.,2000;Bergstrometal.,2008),F/Gwasconsider-ablypoorerforpigsusingthewet-dryfeederinthisexperiment,particularlyintheearlyperiodforpigsfed60%DDGS.Also,F/Gwasconsiderablypoorerforpigsfed60%DDGSinthelaterperiods.Anexplanationforthismaybethattherewasmorefeedwastageassociatedwiththetypeofdietsusedinthecurrentexperimentthanfordietsinotherexperiments.Initially,alloftheconventionaldryfeedersweresettoacommonfeedergapopeningofapproximately1in.,whichwasdeterminedtobeoptimalinprevi-ousexperiments(Duttlingeretal.,20086).Thewet-dryfeederswereinitiallyadjustedtoacommonfeedergapopeningofapproximately1.25in.,whichwasusedinpreviousexperimentsassuggestedbyarepresentativeofthefeedermanufacturer.Thissettingappearedtobeacceptableforashortperiodjustpriortotheinitiationoftheexperi-ment.However,oncetheexperimentbegan,thefeedpansinmostofthepensreceivingthe60%DDGSdietbecamecovered(orfilled)withfeedveryquickly,andthiswasobservedtobemuchworseforthewet-dryfeeders.

Inourpreviousexperiments(Bergstrometal.,2008),thedietswereformulatedusing5%bakeryby-product,containedvariousamountsofchoicewhitegrease,andcontainedfrom9%to30%DDGS.Fewexperimentshaveevaluateddietscontaining60%DDGS.DifferencesintheflowabilitycharacteristicsofthefeedsmayaccountforsomeofthedifferencesinADFI(orfeeddisappearance)andF/Gobservedwithinand

6Duttlingeretal.,SwineDay2008,ReportofProgress1001,pp.204-214.

257

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

betweenexperiments.Becauseoftheflowabilitycharacteristicsencounteredinthisexperiment,individualfeederswereadjusteddailyasneededtoobtainatargetedpancoverageofjustgreaterthan50%,assuggestedbyDuttlingeretal.(2008)inpreviousexperiments.Thiswasdifficulttoachieveinitiallybutbecameeasieraspigsgrewlarger.Experimentstoidentifytheoptimaladjustmentforwet-dryfeedershavenotbeenreported,andfurtherexperimentsareneededtodeterminetheoptimumfeederadjust-mentforvariousfeeders,diets(e.g.,pelletvs.meal,highoilvs.lowoilingredients,angleofrepose),feederstockingdensities,andBW.

Inconclusion,usingwet-dryfeedersimprovedADGandADFIofgrowing-finishingpigsandmayimprovetheperformanceofslowergrowingpopulationswithinagroup(e.g.,gilts).Wet-dryfeedersmayalsorestorethegrowthratesofpigsfedadverselevelsofDDGS.However,moreresearchisneededtoresolveconcernswithF/G,carcassleanness,andeconomicreturns.Futureresearchmayimproveourunderstandingofthedynamicsoffeederdesign,watersourceandlocationrelativetothefeeder,feederadjustment,feedintake,feedwastage,feederspace,feedingbehavior,anddietcomposi-tionandtherelatedconsequencesforgrowing-finishingpigs.

258

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Figure 1. Conventional dry feeder with cup waterer.

Figure 2. Wet-dry feeder. Notethatthecupwatererwasshutoffsotheonlysourceofwaterwasthroughthefeeder.

259

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Diet composition1 Dietaryphase

d0to28 d28to56 d56to78 d78to99DDGS,%2: 20 60 20 60 20 60 20

Ingredient,%Corn 60.07 26.45 63.00 29.90 66.84 33.55 58.36Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 18.06 11.20 15.25 7.83 11.49 4.24 19.85DDGS 20.00 60.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 60.00 20.00Limestone 1.00 1.40 0.95 1.35 0.90 1.35 1.00Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Liquidlysine(60%) 0.40 0.50 0.35 0.48 0.33 0.43 0.33VTM+OptiPhos20003 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08Paylean --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.025Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Cost,$/lb4 0.110 0.098 0.107 0.096 0.104 0.093 0.117

CalculatedanalysisSID5aminoacids,%Lysine,% 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.74 0.74 0.95Isoleucine:lysine,% 68 77 70 80 72 85 71Leucine:lysine,% 175 231 188 249 204 278 180Methionine:lysine,% 31 40 33 43 35 48 32Met&Cys:lysine,% 63 81 67 86 72 96 65Threonine:lysine,% 61 73 64 76 67 82 64Tryptophan:lysine,% 17 18 18 18 18 18 18Valine:lysine,% 81 97 85 101 89 110 84CP,% 18.9 23.8 17.9 22.5 16.5 21.1 19.6Totallysine,% 1.10 1.18 0.99 1.07 0.87 0.94 1.10ME,kcal/lb 1,526 1,521 1,527 1,522 1,529 1,523 1,526SIDlysine:MEratio,g/Mcal 2.82 2.83 2.52 2.53 2.20 2.17 2.82Ca,% 0.47 0.60 0.44 0.57 0.41 0.56 0.47P,% 0.43 0.58 0.42 0.56 0.41 0.55 0.44AvailableP,% 0.27 0.32 0.25 0.32 0.23 0.31 0.221Eachdietaryphasewasfedtobothfeedertypesduringtheperiodsdescribedinthetable.2Drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles.3VTM=Vitaminandtracemineralpremix.OptiPhos2000(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN)provided0.07%to0.12%availableP.4Ingredientpricesusedwere:corn,$195/ton;soybeanmeal,$325/ton;DDGS,$160/ton;limestone,$50/ton;salt,$60/ton;liquidlysine,$1,600/ton;VTM,$3,200/ton;phytase,$5,300/ton;Paylean,$57,000/ton;and$12/tonprocessinganddeliveryfee.5Standardizedilealdigestible.

260

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 2

. Effe

cts o

f fee

der d

esig

n, g

ende

r, an

d di

etar

y con

cent

ratio

n of

dri

ed d

istil

lers

gra

ins w

ith so

lubl

es (D

DG

S) o

n th

e gro

wth

per

form

ance

of g

row

ing-

finis

hing

pig

s1,2

Feed

erty

peW

et-D

ryC

onve

ntio

nald

ry20

%D

DG

S60

%D

DG

S20

%D

DG

S60

%D

DG

SPr

obab

ility

,P<

Item

Barr

owG

iltBa

rrow

Gilt

Barr

owG

iltBa

rrow

Gilt

SEM

Feed

er

type

DD

GS

Feed

er×

D

DG

SG

ende

rFe

eder

×

Gen

der

d0

to7

8

AD

G,l

b2.

042.

011.

901.

911.

881.

811.

811.

750.

020.

001

0.00

10.

050.

020.

04

AD

FI,l

b5.

585.

235.

505.

204.

864.

544.

844.

470.

060.

001

---3

---0.

001

---

F/G

2.75

2.60

2.90

2.72

2.59

2.51

2.67

2.56

0.04

0.00

10.

001

---0.

001

---d

78B

W,l

b23

9.5

234.

822

6.6

227.

522

7.3

218.

822

0.2

214.

91.

80.

001

0.00

10.

050.

010.

04d

78to

99

20%

DD

GS

A

DG

,lb

2.45

2.35

2.66

2.50

2.34

2.25

2.42

2.43

0.08

0.02

0.01

------

---

AD

FI,l

b7.

516.

647.

746.

806.

626.

177.

036.

640.

170.

001

0.02

---0.

001

0.06

F

/G3.

072.

832.

932.

722.

832.

742.

922.

730.

08---

------

0.01

---d

0to

99

A

DG

,lb

2.11

2.07

2.05

2.02

1.97

1.89

1.93

1.88

0.02

0.00

10.

01---

0.01

---

AD

FI,l

b5.

945.

505.

935.

515.

194.

865.

274.

890.

060.

001

------

0.00

1---

F

/G2.

822.

652.

902.

722.

642.

562.

732.

600.

030.

001

0.01

---0.

001

0.10

d99

BW

,lb

288.

028

2.0

282.

027

8.2

275.

426

4.9

269.

726

4.3

2.7

0.00

10.

02---

0.00

1---

1 Ato

talo

f1,0

80p

igs(

PIC

337

×1

050)

with

anin

itial

BW

of7

7.4

lbw

erep

lace

din

40

pens

cont

aini

ng2

7pi

gsea

chan

dw

ereu

sed

ina

99-d

expe

rimen

tto

com

pare

theg

row

thp

erfo

rman

ceo

fbar

row

sand

gi

ltsfe

ddi

etsc

onta

inin

g20%

or6

0%D

DG

Sw

ithei

ther

aco

nven

tiona

ldry

feed

erw

itha

cup

wat

erer

ora

wet

-dry

feed

er.

2 Ther

ewer

eno

feed

er×

DD

GS

×ge

nder

orD

DG

S×

gend

erin

tera

ctio

nso

bser

ved

fort

hese

crite

ria.

3 Not

sign

ifica

nt(P

>0

.10)

.

261

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Tab

le 3

. Effe

cts o

f fee

der d

esig

n, g

ende

r, an

d di

etar

y con

cent

ratio

n of

dri

ed d

istil

lers

gra

ins w

ith so

lubl

es (D

DG

S) o

n th

e car

cass

char

acte

rist

ics a

nd p

rofit

-ab

ility

of g

row

ing-

finis

hing

pig

s1,2

Feed

erty

peW

et-D

ryC

onve

ntio

nald

ry20

%D

DG

S60

%D

DG

S20

%D

DG

S60

%D

DG

SPr

obab

ility

,P<

Item

Barr

owG

iltBa

rrow

Gilt

Barr

owG

iltBa

rrow

Gilt

SEM

Feed

er

type

DD

GS

Gen

der

Feed

er×

G

ende

rLi

veB

W,l

b28

9.5

279.

127

7.9

271.

227

3.7

262.

126

7.1

259.

93.

80.

001

0.01

0.00

1---

3

HC

W,l

b21

6.0

209.

720

9.2

203.

120

4.5

196.

520

0.1

196.

03.

00.

001

0.01

0.00

1---

Yiel

d,%

74.6

75.1

75.3

74.9

74.7

75.0

75.0

75.4

0.3

------

------

Back

fatd

epth

,in.

0.84

0.69

0.78

0.65

0.72

0.58

0.70

0.57

0.02

0.00

10.

010.

001

---Lo

ind

epth

,in.

2.33

2.38

2.32

2.32

2.36

2.45

2.33

2.37

0.05

------

------

Fat-f

reel

ean

inde

x48

.850

.449

.350

.749

.951

.250

.051

.50.

20.

001

0.05

0.00

1---

Jow

lIV

4

d

78

(n=

72)

68.7

70.8

80.2

81.3

71.0

74.1

81.2

86.2

1.5

0.00

10.

001

0.00

1---

d

99

(n=

72)

70.3

73.8

79.3

81.4

72.0

75.0

81.0

82.9

1.2

0.05

0.00

10.

001

---Li

veb

id,$

/cw

t40

.50

Prem

ium

/pig

,$-2

.07

4.61

2.13

4.73

4.14

7.35

4.69

7.31

1.09

0.00

1---

0.00

1---

Val

ueli

ve,$

/cw

t39

.91

42.2

541

.38

42.3

442

.13

43.4

042

.36

43.3

90.

400.

001

0.08

0.00

1---

Rev

enue

/pig

,$11

5.52

117.

9511

4.95

114.

8611

5.27

113.

7711

3.14

112.

821.

980.

09---

------

Feed

cost

/pig

,$10

3.67

93.6

892

.94

86.1

789

.04

81.7

181

.86

75.7

41.

270.

001

0.00

10.

001

---Fa

cilit

ycos

t/pi

g,$

10.4

0Pi

gcos

tate

ntry

,$50

.00

Net

inco

me/

pig,

$-4

8.56

-36.

14-3

8.39

-31.

71-3

4.16

-28.

34-2

8.95

-23.

331.

690.

001

0.00

10.

001

0.09

1 Ato

talo

f885

pig

s(PI

C3

37×

105

0)w

ereu

sed

toco

mpa

reca

rcas

scha

ract

erist

icsa

ndp

rofit

abili

tyo

fbar

row

sand

gilts

fed

20%

or6

0%D

DG

Sw

ithei

ther

aco

nven

tiona

ldry

feed

erw

itha

cup

wat

erer

ora

w

et-d

ryfe

eder

.2 Th

erew

eren

ofe

eder

×D

DG

S×

gend

er,f

eede

r×D

DG

S,o

rDD

GS

×ge

nder

inte

ract

ions

obs

erve

dfo

rthe

secr

iteria

.3 N

otsi

gnifi

cant

(P>

0.1

0).

4 AD

DG

S×

dayi

nter

actio

n(P

<0

.02)

was

obs

erve

dfo

rjow

liod

inev

alue

(IV

).Jo

wlI

Vw

asgr

eate

ron

d99

forp

igst

hatw

eref

ed2

0%D

DG

Sth

roug

hout

thee

xper

imen

tbut

was

grea

tero

nd

78fo

rpig

sfe

d60

%D

DG

Sfr

omd

0to

78.

262

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Economic Impact of Removing Pigs Before Marketing on the Remaining Pigs’ Growth Performance1

J.Y.Jacela2,S.S.Dritz2,M.D.Tokach,J.M.DeRouchey,R.D.Goodband,andJ.L.Nelssen

SummaryTheeconomicimpactofremovingtheheaviestpigs(topping)beforemarketingafinish-inggroupandtheeffectoftoppingonperformanceoftheremainingpigsweredeter-minedin2studies.InExp.1,atotalof1,126pigs(BW=241lb;25pigs/pen)wererandomlyassignedto1of3treatments:topping0,2,or4pigs/pen15dbeforemarket-ingtheremainingpigsinthegroup.Aftertopping,floorspaceperpigwas7.2,7.8,and8.6ft2forpenswith0,2,and4pigstoppedperpen,respectively.Overall(d0to15),increasingthenumberofpigstoppedperpenimprovedADG(P <0.02),ADFI(linear;P <0.03),andF/G(quadratic;P <0.04).Revenuesweresimilar(P >0.76)betweentreatments,butfeedusageandcostwasreduced(quadratic;P <0.01)asmorepigsweretoppedperpen.However,therewasnoimpactonincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC).InExp.2,atotalof1,084pigs(BW=234lb;27pigs/pen)wereassignedto1of5treat-ments.Ond0(20dbeforecloseout),2pigsweretoppedfromeachpenexcludingthecontrolpens(0top).Pensthatweretoppedatd0hadanadditional0,2,4,or6pigsperpentoppedond10.Floorspaceperpigwas6.7ft2incontrolpensand7.2ft2

fortheremainingpensfromd0to10.Aftertoppingond10,floorspaceperpigwas7.8,8.6,and9.5ft2forpenswith2,4,or6morepigstopped,respectively.Fromd10to20,theremainingpigshadincreased(linear;P <0.01)ADFI,whichledtoalinearincrease(P <0.01)inADG.Overall,ADGandADFIincreased(linear;P <0.05)withincreasingnumberofpigstopped,andF/Gimproved(P <0.01)intoppedpensrelativetointactpens.Weightdiscountswerehighestinintactpens(P <0.02)comparedtotoppedpens.Revenuedecreased(P <0.05)asadditionalpigsweretoppedafterd10inpenstoppedatd0.Feedusagewashighest(P <0.01)inintactpens.Asmorepigsweretoppedond10,IOFCtendedtodecrease(P =0.07).Topping,regardlessofnumberofpigs,didnotaffect(P >0.23)anyofthecarcasstraitsmeasured.Toppingimprovesgrowthperformanceoftheremainingpigs.BasedonIOFC,topping2pigsonceisthemostoptimal.Improvementsinperformancefromtoppingmorethan2pigswerenotgreatenoughtoovercomethereductionintotalweightproducedbythepen.

Keywords:growth,marketing

IntroductionNaturalvariabilityexistsinpigbodyweightwithinagivengroup.Sourcesofvariabil-itymaybeclassifiedasintrinsic,whichmeansrelatedtothepigitself(e.g.,genetics),orextrinsic,whichreferstoenvironmentalfactorsthataffectthepig(e.g.,stockingdensity).Variabilityinweightsatmarkethasbecomeincreasinglyimportantwiththe

1AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilitiesandtoRichardBrobjorgandMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.2FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter,CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.

263

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

adoptionofall-in-all-outpractices.Pigsthatfalloutsidethespecifiedweightrangesofprocessingplantscanhavesignificanteconomicdiscounts.Althoughitmaybeimpos-sibletoeliminateallsourcesofvariation,severalapproachescanbeimplementedtoeffectivelymanagevariationincludingincreasingthegrowthrateofthewholegroupduringthegrow-finishperiodandsortingfinishingpigsatmarkettofitweightrequire-mentsofprocessingplants.

IntheUnitedStates,marketingtheheaviestpigsseveralweeksbeforetheexpectedbarncloseout(topping)isacommonpractice.Previousstudieshaveshownthatthiskindofmarketingstrategycanalsoleadtoimprovedgrowthperformanceoftheremainingpigsinthepen.Theresultisthatmorepigsaremarketedwithintheweightwindowofaparticularprocessingplantandpremiumsmaybemaximized.Topping,however,alsocanaddtooverallproductioncostsiftoppedpigsarenottheappropriatemarketweightandbecauseoftheincreasedlaborrequirements.Thus,itisnecessarytoevaluatetheeconomicsofremovingpigsbeforebarncloseoutanddeterminetheeconomicallyfeasiblenumberofpigstotop.Thesestudieswereconductedtoevaluatetheeconomicimpactofremovingtheheaviestpigspriortomarketingthewholefinishinggroupanddeterminetheeffectoftoppingongrowthperformanceoftheremainingpigs.

ProceduresThisstudywasapprovedbyandconductedinaccordancewiththeguidelinesoftheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommittee.Theexperi-mentwasconductedinacommercialresearchfinishingbarninsouthwesternMinne-sota.Thebarnswerenaturallyventilatedanddoublecurtainsided.Penswere18×10ftwithcompletelyslattedflooringanddeeppitsformanurestorage.Eachpenwasequippedwitha5-holeSTACO(Schaefferstown,PA)stainlesssteeldryself-feederwithafeedpandimensionof60×7×5.75in.(length×width×height).Waterwasprovidedadlibitumthroughacupwatererinstalledineachpen.Dailyfeedadditionstoeachpenwereaccomplishedthrougharoboticfeedingsystemcapableofprovidingandmeasuringfeedamountsonanindividualpenbasis.

Twoseparateexperimentswereconductedinthisstudy.InExp.1,atotalof1,126pigs(PIC337×C22,initialBW=241lb)wererandomlyassignedto1of3treatmentsbalancedbyaverageBWwithingender.Therewere25pigsperpenand15penspertreatment(7pensofbarrowsand8pensofgilts).Treatmentsweretopping0,2,or4pigsperpenatd0(15dbeforebarncloseout).Pigsselectedfortoppingwerevisuallyselectedastheheaviestpigsinthepen.Theresultingfloorspaceperpigwas7.2,7.8,and8.6ft2forpenswith0,2,and4pigstoppedperpen,respectively.

InExp.2,atotalof1,084pigs(PIC337×C22,initialBW=234lb)wererandomlyassignedto1of5treatmentsbalancedbyaverageBW.Therewere27pigsperpenand8penspertreatment.Ond0(20dpriortocloseout),allpenshad2pigstoppedperpenwiththeexceptionofthecontrolpens(0toppedperpen).Allpensinitiallytoppedond0werethentoppedond10with0,2,4,or6pigsremovedperpentocompletethe5treatments.AsinExp.1,pigsselectedfortoppingwerevisuallyselectedastheheaviestpigsinthepen.Floorspaceperpigwas6.7ft2incontrolpensand7.2ft2forallremainingpensduringthefirst10d.Aftertoppingond10,theresultingfloorspaceperpigwas7.8,8.6,and9.5ft2forpenswithanadditional2,4,or6pigstoppedperpen,respectively.

264

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Immediatelyaftertopping,penswereweighedagain(d0)todeterminetheaver-agepigweightinExp.1and2.Alltreatmentgroupswerefedsimilardietsbasedoncornandsoybeanmeal.Dietscontained5ppmractopamineHCl(Paylean;ElancoAnimalHealth,Greenfield,IN).Pigsfromeachpenwereweighedasagroupandfeedconsumptionwasdeterminedond8and15(offtest)inExp.1andond10and20inExp.2tomeasureADG,ADFI,andF/G.Economiccriteriaincludingtotalrevenue(adjustedto25and27pigsperpeninExp.1and2,respectively),feedcost,andincomeoverfeedcost(IOFC)werecalculatedonapenandpigbasis.AttheendofExp.2,pigswereindividuallytattooedbypenbeforebeingtransportedtoJBSSwiftandCompany(Worthington,MN)forprocessingandcarcassdatacollection.Standardcarcasscriteriaofloinandbackfatdepth,HCW,percentagelean,andyieldwerecollected.Fat-freeleanindex(FFLI)wasdeterminedwiththefollowingequation:50.767+(0.035×HCW)-(8.979×backfat).

StatisticalanalysiswasperformedbyanalysisofvariancewiththeMIXEDproce-dureofSAS(SASInstitute,Inc.,Cary,NC)totestforthemaineffectsandinterac-tionsbetweennumberofpigstoppedandgender.Datawereanalyzedasacompletelyrandomizeddesignwithpenastheexperimentalunit.Linearandpolynomialcontrastswereusedtodeterminethemaineffectsofincreasingnumberofpigstoppedperpen.InExp.2,controlswereexcludedwhenanalyzingthelinearandquadraticeffectsoftopping.Meansforpercentagelean,loindepth,backfat, andFFLIwereadjustedtoacommonHCW,whichwasusedasacovariateinthemodel.

Results and DiscussionInExp.1,therewasnotopping×sexinteraction(P >0.33)foranyofthecriteriameasured(Table1).AverageBWwassimilar(P >0.50)betweentreatmentsaftertopping.Fromd0to8,ADGandF/Goftheremainingpigsimproved(quadratic;P <0.04)asmorepigsweretoppedperpen.Fromd8to15,ADFIincreased(linear;P <0.01)withincreasingnumberofpigstoppedperpen.Overall(d0to15),increasingthenumberofpigstoppedperpenfrom0to2or4increasedADG(P <0.02),ADFI(linear;P <0.03),andF/G(quadratic;P <0.04).Therewerenodifferences(P >0.76)inrevenuebetweentreatments,butfeedusageandfeedcostonapenorpigbasiswasreduced(quadratic;P <0.01)asmorepigsweretoppedperpen(Table2).Thereduc-tioninfeedusageandcostdidnotaffectIOFC.

InExp.2,therewasnodifference(P >0.24)inADGandADFIfromd0to10(Table3).Therewasalinearincrease(P <0.02)inF/Gthatmayhavebeenduetorandomvariability.Fromd10to20,increasingthenumberofpigstoppedlinearlyincreased(P <0.01)ADFIofpigsremaininginthepen,whichledtoalinearincrease(P <0.01)inADG.ThisresultedinoverallimprovementsinADGandADFI(linear;P <0.05)withincreasingnumberofpigstopped.Overall,F/Gimproved(P <0.01)inallpensthatweretoppedrelativetopensthatwerenottopped.However,toppingmorethan2pigsperpendidnotresult(P >0.24)infurtherimprovementinF/G.ThissuggeststhatthelinearincreaseinADGwithincreasingnumberofpigstoppedperpenwasmainlyduetothelinearincreaseinADFI.Attheendofthetrial,averageBWdidnotdiffer(P > 0.91)betweentreatments.Pensthatwerenottoppedhadthehighestweightdiscounts(P <0.02)comparedtopensthatweretopped(Table4).However,therewerenodifferencesinweightdiscountsamongpenswithdifferentnumbersofpigs

265

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

topped.Revenue,eitheronapenorpigbasis,decreased(P <0.05)asadditionalpigsweretoppedafterd10inpensthatweretoppedatd0.SimilartoExp.1,feedusagewashighest(P <0.01)inintactpens.Asmorepigsweretoppedond10,IOFCtendedtodecrease(P >0.07).Topping,regardlessofnumberofpigs,hadnoeffect(P >0.23)onanyofthecarcassparametersmeasured(Table5).

Removingtheheaviestmarket-readypigspriortomarketingallpigsinagroupprovidesanopportunityforproducerstopotentiallymaximizerevenues.Pigsthathavealreadyreachedmarketweightcanbesoldearlier,providingadditionaldaysfortherestofthegrouptoreachtargetweights.Asshowninthisexperiment,theremainingpigsinthepenhaveincreasedfloorspaceand,consequently,increasedaccesstofeedandwater.Thiscouldexplaintheresultingpost-toppingincreaseingrowthperformanceoftheremainingpigsinbothexperiments.Asexpected,totalfeedusagewasreducedasaresultofalowernumberofpigsonfeed.However,theremovalofadditionalpigsafterd10ledtoadecreasingrevenueandIOFCasaresultofdecreasingtotalweightofpigssoldperpenasmorepigswereremoved.Thus,itwasmosteconomicaltotop2pigsoncepriortothefinalmarketingofallpigs.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatExp.2wasconductedduringthewintermonthswhenfloorspacecouldpossiblyhavelessimpactongrowth.Therefore,theeffectsofmarketingstrategiesusedinExp.2shouldalsobeinvestigatedduringthesummermonths.

Anotheradvantageoftoppingappearstobeareductioninvariabilityasindicatedbylessweightdiscountsfrompigsthatcamefromtoppedpensthanfrompigsfromnon-toppedpens.Thissupportstheresultsfrompreviousresearchthatsuggesttoppingisaneffectivetooltomanagevariabilityinfinishingsystems.

Inconclusion,removingtheheaviestpigsbeforemarketingtheentiregroupimprovedgrowthperformanceoftheremainingpigscomparedtopigsfrompensthatwereleftintact.ProducersshouldevaluatetoppingproceduresonanIOFCbasisforoptimaleconomicreturns.Toppingatleast2pigstwicebeforemarketingimprovedgrowthperformancethemost,buttopping2pigsonlyoncewasoptimalbasedonIOFC.Toppingmorethan2pigsprovidedcontinualimprovementsinperformance;however,thebenefitswerenotgreatenoughtoovercomethereductionintotalweightproducedbythepen.

266

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 1. Effect of sex and marketing strategy on growth performance (Exp. 1)1

  Treatment2   Probability,P <Item None 2pigs 4pigs SEM Linear QuadraticWeight,lbd0(beforetopping) 240.6 241.5 241.6 2.29 0.81 0.82d0(aftertopping) 240.6 238.8 236.6 2.38 0.58 0.29Tops --- 271.9 267.0 2.79 --- ---d8 260.0 259.9 259.5 2.39 0.99 0.90d15 275.0 276.9 275.6 2.26 0.56 0.95d0to8ADG,lb 2.41 2.62 2.83 0.120 0.19 0.04ADFI,lb 5.89 6.31 5.93 0.168 0.10 0.39F/G 2.60 2.47 2.11 0.131 0.43 0.01d8to15ADG,lb 2.10 2.40 2.30 0.127 0.12 0.70ADFI,lb 6.62 7.14 7.11 0.131 0.01 0.19F/G 3.52 3.08 3.14 0.239 0.22 0.57d0to15ADG,lb 2.26 2.52 2.58 0.068 0.01 0.02ADFI,lb 6.23 6.70 6.48 0.138 0.03 0.97F/G 2.81 2.67 2.52 0.085 0.24 0.031Atotalof1,126pigs,initially241lb,wereusedwith22to27pigsperpenand15replicationspertreatment.2None=topped0pigs/pen,2pigs=topped2pigs/pen,4pigs=topped4pigs/penond0.

267

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 2. Economic impact of gender and marketing strategy (Exp. 1)1

  Treatment2   Probability,P <Item None 2pigs 4pigs SEM Linear QuadraticTotalpigweightproduced,lb/pen 6,865 6,905 6,850 53.9 0.60 0.65Revenue3

Low,$/pen4 3,089 3,107 3,082 24.3 0.60 0.65High,$/pen4 4,119 4,143 4,110 32.4 0.60 0.65Low,$/pig5 123.57 124.29 123.30 0.972 0.60 0.65High,$/pig5 164.76 165.72 164.40 1.295 0.60 0.65TotalfeedconsumptionFeedusage,lb/pen 2,336 2,310 2,040 47.6 0.66 <0.0001Feedusage,lb/pig 93.4 92.4 81.6 1.90 0.66 <0.0001Feedcost6

Low,$/pen 233.6 231.0 204.0 4.76 0.66 <0.0001High,$/pen 303.6 300.4 265.2 6.19 0.66 <0.0001Low,$/pig7 9.34 9.24 8.16 0.190 0.66 <0.0001High,$/pig7 12.15 12.01 10.61 0.247 0.66 <0.0001IOFC,$/pen8

LowRev-LowFeed 2,856 2,876 2,878 22.0 0.50 0.57HighRev-HighFeed 3,815 3,843 3,845 29.4 0.50 0.59LowRev-HighFeed 2,786 2,807 2,817 21.4 0.47 0.37HighRev-LowFeed 3,885 3,912 3,906 30.0 0.52 0.77IOFC,$/pig8

LowRev-LowFeed 114.23 115.05 115.14 0.879 0.50 0.57HighRev-HighFeed 152.61 153.71 153.79 1.175 0.50 0.59LowRev-HighFeed 111.42 112.28 112.69 0.858 0.47 0.37HighRev-LowFeed 155.42 156.48 156.24 1.199 0.52 0.771Atotalof1,126pigs,initially241lb,wereusedwith22to27pigsperpenand15replicationspertreatment.2None=topped0pigs/pen,2pigs=topped2pigs/pen,4pigs=topped4pigs/penond0.3Basedon$45/cwtforLowand$60/cwtforHigh.4Adjustedto25pigs/penandcalculatedas:

None=[(avg.wtatd0×25)+(ADF×15×25)]×0.45or0.60.2Pigs=Totaltopwt+[(avg.wtafterTop×23)+(ADF×15×23)]×0.45or0.60.4Pigs=Totaltopwt+[(avg.wtafterTop×21)+(ADF×15×21)]×0.45or0.60.

5Revenue/pendividedby25pigs/penforalltreatments.6Basedondietcostsof$200/tonforLowand$260/tonforHigh.7Feedcostperpendividedby25pigs/penforalltreatments.8Incomeoverfeedcost;calculatedasrevenue-feedcost.

268

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 3. Effect of different marketing strategies on growth performance of remaining pigs (Exp. 2)1

  No.ofpigstoppedperpen  Probability,P <d0: 0 2 2 2 2

d10: 0 0 2 4 6 SEM Linear QuadraticWeight,lbd0(beforetop) 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.1 234.0 1.83 0.99 0.96d0(aftertop) 234.0 231.5 231.2 231.4 231.5 1.92 1.00 0.92d0(toppigs) --- 264.0 270.0 268.6 265.1 3.12 --- ---d10(beforetop) 259.9 257.9 257.5 258.7 258.3 2.17 0.83 1.00d10(aftertop) 259.9 257.9 255.3 253.9 250.8 2.39 0.07 0.93d10(toppigs) --- --- 283.4 283.0 281.1 2.77 --- ---d20 275.8 277.7 275.5 274.8 274.3 2.65 0.39 0.76d0to10ADG,lb 2.45 2.57 2.60 2.53 2.52 0.053 0.32 0.75ADFI,lb 5.99 5.96 6.28 6.39 6.28 0.121 0.24 0.29F/G 2.45 2.32 2.41 2.53 2.49 0.043 0.02 0.29d10to20ADG,lb 1.59 1.91 2.02 2.08 2.28 0.093 0.01 0.63ADFI,lb 5.65 5.86 6.31 6.69 6.72 0.098 <0.0001 0.13F/G 3.65 3.20 3.14 3.32 2.95 0.163 0.53 0.42d0to20ADG,lb 2.02 2.24 2.32 2.32 2.42 0.052 0.03 0.88ADFI,lb 5.82 5.91 6.30 6.52 6.47 0.085 0.01 0.17F/G 2.90a 2.66b 2.71bc 2.82c 2.67bc 0.052 0.68 0.241Atotalof1,084pigs,initially234lb,wereusedwith27pigsperpenand8replicationspertreatment.abcWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

269

Finishing Pig Nutrition and Management

Table 4. Effect of different marketing strategies on various economic parameters (Exp. 2)1

No.ofpigstoppedperpenProbability,P <d0: 0 2 2 2 2

d10: 0 0 2 4 6 SEM Linear QuadraticTotalpigweightproduced,lb/pen 7,448 7,471 7,443 7,440 7,429 64.1 0.67 0.90Weightdiscount,$/pen 68.8a 37.0b 32.6b 38.2b 28.7b 8.46 0.61 0.76Revenue,$/100lb 55.8 56.6 56.5 56.4 56.3 0.43 0.59 1.00Revenue,$/pen 3,115 3,178 3,146 3,094 3,095 33.2 0.05 0.61Revenue,$/pig 115.37 117.71 116.54 114.58 114.64 1.228 0.05 0.61Feedusage,lb/pen 3,141a 2,954bc 3,022c 3,002c 2,849b 41.8 0.32 0.14Feedusage,lb/pig 116.3a 109.4bc 111.9c 111.2c 105.5b 1.55 0.32 0.14Feedcost2

Low,$/pen 314.1a 295.4bc 302.2c 300.2c 284.9b 4.18 0.32 0.14High,$/pen 408.4a 384.0bc 392.9c 390.3c 370.3b 5.43 0.32 0.14Low,$/pig 11.63a 10.94bc 11.19c 11.12c 10.55b 0.155 0.32 0.14High,$/pig 15.13a 14.22bc 14.55c 14.45c 13.72b 0.201 0.32 0.14IOFC3

Atlowfeedcost,$/pen 2,801 2,883 2,844 2,794 2,811 31.1 0.07 0.39Athighfeedcost,$/pen 2,707 2,794 2,754 2,703 2,725 30.6 0.08 0.34Atlowfeedcost,$/pig 103.73 106.77 105.34 103.46 104.10 1.153 0.07 0.39Athighfeedcost,$/pig 100.24 103.49 102.98 100.12 100.93 1.134 0.08 0.341Atotalof1,084pigs,initially234lb,wereusedwith27pigsperpenand8replicationspertreatment.2Usedstandardvaluesof$0.10/lbforLowand$0.13/lbforHighfeedcostscenarios.3Incomeoverfeedcost.abcWithinarow,meanswithoutacommonsuperscriptdiffer(P<0.05).

Table 5. Effect of different marketing strategies on carcass characteristics (Exp. 2)1

NumberofpigstoppedperpenProbability,P <d0: 0 2 2 2 2

d10: 0 0 2 4 6 SEM Treatment Linear QuadraticCarcassweight,lb 206.4 208.8 208.1 205.6 205.8 2.40 0.78 0.23 0.70Yield,% 76.6 76.4 76.3 75.5 75.8 0.41 0.23 0.13 0.66Lean2,% 56.4 56.1 57.5 56.4 56.6 0.62 0.54 0.97 0.50Loindepth2,in. 2.48 2.48 2.61 2.53 2.54 0.051 0.36 0.60 0.35Backfat2,in. 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.018 0.29 0.19 0.84Fat-freeleanindex2 51.3 51.3 51.4 51.1 50.9 0.20 0.32 0.25 0.781Atotalof1,084pigs,initially234lb,wereusedwith27pigsperpenand8replicationspertreatment.2Valuesadjustedtoacommoncarcassweight.

270

Meat Quality Research

Incidence and Severity of Arcanobacteriumpyogenes Injection Site Abscesses with Needle or Needle-Free Injection Methods1

B.M.Gerlach,T.A.Houser,L.C.Hollis,M.D.Tokach,J.C.Nietfeld2,J.J.Higgins3,G.A.Anderson2,andB.L.Goehring

SummaryAtotalof198nurseryagepigswereusedtoevaluatethedifferenceintheoccurrenceofinjectionsiteabscessesbetweenneedle-freejetinjectionandconventionalneedle-and-syringeinjectionsystems.Pigswerefedfor21dpriortotreatmentadministrationtoacclimatethepigstotheenvironmentoftheKansasStateUniversitySegregatedEarlyWeaningUnit.Ond21,eachpigreceived4injectionsofaluminumhydroxideadjuvant,1intheneckand1inthehambyneedle-freejetinjection(PulseNeedle-FreeSystems,Lenexa,KS)on1sideand1intheneckand1inthehamontheoppositesidebyconventionalneedle-and-syringeinjection.Immediatelypriortoinjection,theexternalsurfaceoftheinjectionsiteswascontaminatedwithaninoculumofArcano-bacterium pyogenes.Thepigswerethenfedforaperiodof27and28d.Ond27and28,thepigswerehumanelyeuthanizedandsenttotheKansasStateUniversityVeterinaryDiagnosticsLaboratory,wherenecropsieswereperformedandtheinjectionsitesunder-wenthistopathologicalevaluation.Theneedle-freejetinjectionsystemwasassociatedwithmoreinjectionsiteabscessesthantheconventionalneedle-and-syringeinjec-tionmethodforboththeneck(P=0.06)andham(P=0.03)injectionsites.Twelveabscesseswerefoundatneedle-freeinjectionsites,whereasonly1abscesswasfoundwhereaconventionalneedleinjectionmethodwasused.Fiveabscesseswerefoundattheneckinjectionsites,and8abscesseswereobservedatthehaminjectionsites.Ofthe13abscessesfound,10developedontheleftsideoftheanimal,andonly3wereontherightside.Insummary,theimplementationofneedle-freejetinjectionsystemsinmarkethogproductionwillbebeneficialbyeliminatingthepotentialforneedlesandneedlefragmentsinmeatproducts,butitmayincreasetheoccurrenceofinjectionsiteabscessesinporkcarcassesthatwillneedtobetrimmedinporkprocessingplants.

Keywords:abscess,Arcanobacterium pyogenes,needle-freeinjection

IntroductionAccordingtothe1994PorkChainQualityAudit(NPPC,19944),8%ofporkcarcasseshaveabscessespresent.Asaresult,abscessesareaverycostlyproblemforcommer-cialporkharvestingplantsintheUnitedStatesbecausecarcassesexhibitingabscessesrequiretrimmingandmayevenbecondemned.Thepresenceofabscessescontributestocarcasstrimmingon7.4%ofallporkcarcasses(NPPC,1994).

1AppreciationisexpressedtotheNationalPorkBoardforfundingthisproject.2VeterinaryDiagnosticsLaboratory,KansasStateUniversity.3DepartmentofStatistics,KansasStateUniversity.4NPPC(1994).PorkChainQualityAudit(ProgressReport–April6,1994).NationalPorkProducersCouncil,DesMoines,Iowa.

271

Meat Quality Research

Anotherdilemmafacingtheporkpackingindustryisthepotentialforbrokenneedlesorneedlefragmentsinporkproducts.Thisisofgreatconcerntotheindustrybecauseitpresentsasignificantsafetyhazardtoconsumers.Eventhoughmetaldetectionsystemsarecommonplaceinpackingplants,thealloysthattheseneedlesaremadeofandthesizeoftheneedlefragmentscanallowthesemetalpiecestogoundetected(Sundberg,20005).

Needle-freeair-poweredvaccineinjectionsystemsarecurrentlybeingusedinthecommercialswineindustry.Theseinjectionsystemsarecapableofserologicalresponsessimilartothoseofconventionalneedleinjectiondeviceswiththeaddedbenefitofnobrokenneedles(Houseretal.,20046).Additionally,needle-freeinjectionmethodshaveshownpotentialforreducinglateraltransmissionofdiseaseswhenlargenumbersofanimalsarevaccinated(Reinboldetal.,inpress7).However,therehasbeennoresearchinvestigatingtherelationshipbetweeninjectiontypesandabscessoccurrence.Thus,theobjectiveofthisstudywastoinvestigatewhetherdifferentinjectiontypeshavediffer-enteffectsonthedevelopmentofinjectionsiteabscesseswhenpigsareinoculatedwithArcanobacterium pyogenes.

ProceduresTheKansasStateUniversity(K-State)InstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommitteeapprovedprotocolsusedinthisexperiment.PigswerehousedattheK-StateSegregatedEarlyWeaningUnit.

Atotalof198nursery-agepigswereusedinthis49-dstudy.Thepigswerealloweda21-dconditioningperiodtobecomeacclimatedwiththeirenvironmentbeforetreat-mentswereadministered.Ond0ofthetrial,eachpigreceivedatotalof4intramus-cularinjectionsofa2mLdoseofaluminumhydroxidevaccineadjuvant.Ononesideoftheanimal,aconventionalneedle-and-syringeinjectionmethodusingadisposable18gauge×3/4in.needlewasusedtoadministeraninjectionintheneckandham,andneedleswerechangedafterevery25animals.Ontheoppositesideoftheanimal,aPulse250needle-freejetinjector(PulseNeedle-FreeSystems,Lenexa,KS)setat45psiwasusedtoadministerinjectionsintheneckandham.Arandomnumbergeneratorwasusedtorandomizewhichsideoftheanimalreceivedeachtypeofinjection.Immedi-atelypriortoinjection,theskinovertheinjectionsitewascontaminatedwithaninocu-lumofA. pyogenes,abacteriumcommonlyassociatedwithabscessesinswine,whichwaspreparedbytheK-StateVeterinaryDiagnosticLaboratory.Theinjectiondeviceswerenotdecontaminatedordisinfectedbetweeninjections.

Afterinjectionswereadministered,thepigswerehousedintheiroriginallyassignedpensfor27and28dandmonitoreddailywithfeedadditionsweighedandrecorded.

5Sundberg,P.(2000).Detectabilityofneedlefragmentsinporkunderpackingplantconditions.Pages317-320inProceedingsoftheAmericanAssociationofVeterinaryPractitionersPreconferenceWork-shops.6Houser,T.A.,J.G.Sebranek,B.J.Thacker,T.J.Baas,D.Nilubol,E.L.Thacker,andF.Kruse.2004.Effectivenessoftransdermal,needle-freeinjectionsforreducingporkcarcassdefects.MeatSci.68:329-332.7Reinbold,J.B.,J.F.Coetzee,L.C.Hollis,J.S.Nickell,C.Reigel,J.Huff,andR.R.Ganta.Compari-sonofAnaplasma marginalediseasetransmissionwithneedle-freeversusneedleinjection.Acceptedforpublication(Aug.31).AmericanJ.ofVeterinaryResearch–09-07-0279.

272

Meat Quality Research

Ond27and28,thepigswerehumanelyeuthanizedviajugularinjectionof6mLofFatalPlus,390mg/mLpentobarbital.TheeuthanizedpigswerethensenttotheK-StateVeterinaryDiagnosticLaboratory,whereexternallypalpablelesionsweremeasuredthroughtheskinwithcalipers.Necropsieswerethenperformedonallanimals,andabscessedareaswereharvested,measured,andweighed.Representa-tiveportionsofthereactivetissuesurroundingtheinjectionsiteswereplacedin10%neutralbufferedformalinforhistopathologicalevaluation.Ascoreof“0”wasgiventotissuefrominjectionssitesthatwerenormalwhenviewedunderamicroscope.Ascoreof“1”wasgiventotissuethatcontainedgroupsofswollenmacrophageswithsomegranulationsurroundingthemthatwereduetoareactiontotheadjuvant.Ascoreof“2”wasgiventotissuethathadabscessesandgranulationvisiblemicroscopically.

TheFREQprocedureofSAS(SASInstituteInc.,Cary,NC)wasused,andinjectionsiteservedastheexperimentalunit.ThepairedbinarydatawerethenanalyzedusingMcNemar’stest.

Results and DiscussionOfatotalof792injectionsites,only13abscesseswerefoundbygrossandhistologicalevaluation.Therewere11individualpigsthathadinjectionsiteabscesses,with1indi-vidualhaving3abscesses.Therewasagreateramountofabscessesfromtheuseoftheneedle-freejetinjectionsystemthanfromtheconventionalneedle-and-syringeinjec-tionsystemforboththeneck(P=0.0625)andtheham(P=0.0313)injectionloca-tions(Table1).Ofthe13observedabscesses,12occurredatneedle-freeinjectionsites,andonly1developedataconventionalneedle-and-syringeinjectionsite.Addition-ally,nostatisticaldifference(P>0.05)wasobservedwhencomparingabscessoccur-renceandinjectionsite;neckinjectionsiteshad5abscesses,whereas8abscesseswereobservedathaminjectionsites.Therewasnotasignificantdifferenceinoccurrenceofabscessesbetweenrightandleftsides.Ofthe13abscessesfound,10developedontheleftsideoftheanimal,and3wereontherightside.

OurfindingscontradictresultsbyHouseretal.(2004),whofoundnodifferenceinabscessformationbetweenneedle-freeandconventionalneedleinjection.Thisdiffer-encemightbecausedbytheinoculumusedinthisstudybecausenoinoculumwasusedintheirstudy.

Previousauditdatahasshownthatabscessesoccuratarelativelylowrateinthecommercialslaughterhogpopulation(NPPC,1994).Thisisinagreementwithourdatabecauseonly5.6%ofthepigsusedinthepresenttrialwerepositiveforabscessformation.Thisissomewhatsurprisingbecausewepurposelycontaminatedtheexterioroftheskinwithapathogenknowntobefoundinabscessesonporkcarcasses.

Thereisnoquestionthattheuseofneedle-freejetinjectionsystemswillbenefittheporkindustrybyeliminatingthepotentialforneedlesandneedlefragmentsinmeatproducts.However,theseresultssuggestthatimplementingneedle-freejetinjectionsystemsintocommercialswineproductionmayincreasetheamountofinjectionsiteabscessesasaresultofA. pyogenescontamination.Additionalresearchisneededtofurtherunderstandtherelationshipbetweentheoccurrencesofabscesseswithdifferentinjectiontypes.

273

Meat Quality Research

Table 1. Pigs with histological injection site abscesses after vaccination1

Item Needle-and-Syringe Needle-Free2 P-valueNeckTotal 198 198 ----Positive 0 5 0.06Negative 198 193 ----HamTotal 198 198 ----Positive 1 7 0.0313Negative 197 191 ----1Atotalof198pigswereinjectedtwicebyneedle-freeinjectionon1side(neckandham)andtwicebyneedle-and-syringeinjectionontheoppositeside(neckandham).Pigswereeuthanized27or28dlater,andinjectionssiteswereevaluatedforabscessformation.2PulseNeedle-FreeSystems,Lenexa,KS.

274

Meat Quality Research

Sensory Characteristics of Loins from Pigs Fed Glycerol and Ractopamine HCl During the Last 28 Days of Finishing1,2

A.W.Duttlinger,T.A.Houser,J.M.DeRouchey,M.D.Tokach,S.S.Dritz3,J.L.Nelssen,R.D.Goodband,K.J.Prusa4,andL.Huskey5

SummarySensorycharacteristicswereevaluatedonatotalof80loinsfrompigsfeddietscontain-ingglycerol,ractopamineHCl(RAC),andacombinationofglycerolandRACduringthelast28dpriortoharvest.Atotalof1,054pigswereblockedbyweightandrandomlyallottedto1of4dietarytreatmentswith10replicationspertreatment.Pigswerefedcorn-soybeanmeal-baseddiets.Dietarytreatmentswerearrangedina2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsofglycerol(0%or5%)andRAC(0or6.75g/ton).Porkloinsfrom1randomlyselectedbarrowandgiltfromeachpenwereusedforsensoryanalysis.Therewerenoglycerol×RACinteractionsormaintreatmenteffectsforcookinglossorWarner-Bratzlershearforce(WBSF).Additionally,therewerenoglycerol×RACinteractionsormaintreatmenteffectsforthesensorytraitsincludingmyofibrillartenderness,overalltenderness,porkflavorintensity,oroff-flavorintensity.Therewasaglycerol×RACinteraction(P<0.01)forthesensorytraitofconnectivetissueamount.TheinteractionwasaresultofincreasedconnectivetissueamountswhenglycerolwasaddedtothedietwithoutRACbutnumericallydecreasedamountswhenglycerolwasfedincombinationwithRAC.Inconclusion,feedingdietaryglyc-erolorRACsingularlyorincombinationfor28dpriortoslaughterdidnotinfluencesensorycharacteristicsofcenter-cutporkloinchops.

Keywords:glycerol,ractopamineHCl,sensoryanalysis

IntroductionRactopamineHCl(RAC;Paylean,ElancoAnimalHealth,Indianapolis,IN)isawidelyusedfeedadditivefedtofinishingpigspriortomarketingtoimprovegrowthrate,F/G,yield,loindepth,andfat-freeleanindex.However,pigsfedRAChavebeenshowntohaveincreasedlevelsofpolyunsaturatedfattyacidsandincreasediodinevalueincarcassfat.Increasedconcentrationsofpolyunsaturatedfattyacidslowerfatstability,whichcanresultindevelopmentofoff-flavors.

LegislationandenergymandateshavesupportedrapidexpansionofrenewablebiofuelproductionintheUnitedStates.TheEnergyIndependenceandSecurityActof2007increasedtheminimumlevelofrenewablefuels,previouslysetbytheRenewable

1AppreciationisexpressedtoElancoAnimalHealth,Indianapolis,IN,forpartialfundingofthistrial.2AppreciationisexpressedtoNewHorizonFarmsforuseofpigsandfacilitiesandRichardBrobjorg,ScottHeidebrink,andMartyHeintzfortechnicalassistance.3FoodAnimalHealthandManagementCenter.CollegeofVeterinaryMedicine,KansasStateUniversity.4DepartmentofFoodScienceandHumanNutrition,IowaStateUniversity.5JBSSwift&Company,Greeley,CO.

275

Meat Quality Research

FuelsStandardof2005,tobeproducedandconsumedbytheUnitedStatesto136billionlitersby2022.Crudeglycerolistheprimarycoproductfrombiodieselproduc-tion.Therearecurrently176biodieselproductionfacilitiesoperatingintheUnitedStatesproducingmorethan9.88billionlitersofbiodiesel.Thislevelofproductionwillproduceapproximately7.81×108kgofcrudeglycerol.Crudeglycerolhasbeenshowntohaveaminimalimpactongrowthperformanceandcarcasscharacteristics,butMourotetal.(19946)reportedanincreaseinthesaturationofcarcassfatfrompigsfedcrudeglycerol.Littleisknownabouttheeffectofcrudeglycerolonloinsensorycharac-teristics.

ThepotentialincreaseinavailabilityofglycerolasafeedstuffforswinealongwiththecommonpracticeoffeedingRACtofinishingpigswarrantsevaluationoftheseingre-dientsincombinationandtheireffectonloinsensorycharacteristics.Therefore,theobjectiveofthistrialwastoevaluatetheeffectofdietaryglycerolandRAConcookingloss,Warner-BratzlerShearForce(WBSF),andsensorytraits.

ProceduresProceduresusedintheseexperimentswereapprovedbytheKansasStateUniversityInstitutionalAnimalCareandUseCommitteeandInstitutionalReviewBoard.TheexperimentwasconductedatacommercialresearchfacilityinsouthwesternMinnesota.Thefacilityhadatotallyslattedfloor,andeachpenwasequippedwitha4-holedryself-feederandacupwaterer.Thefacilitywasadouble-curtain-sideddeep-pitbarn.Theexperimentwasconductedinthewinterof2008.

Atotalof1,054barrowsandgilts(PIC337×1050,initially207.8lb)wereusedinthe28-dstudy.Pigswererandomlyallottedandblockedto1of4dietarytreatmentswith10penspertreatment.Eachpencontained25to27barrowsandgilts.

Pigswerefedcorn-soybeanmeal-basedexperimentaldiets(Table1)inmealform.Dietarytreatmentswerearrangedina2×2factorialdesignwithmaineffectsofglyc-erol(0%or5%)andRAC(0or6.75g/ton).Glycerolfromasoybeanbiodieselproduc-tionfacility(MinnesotaSoybeanProcessors,Brewster,MN)wasusedinthetrial.Allexperimentaldietswereformulatedtomaintainaconstantstandardizedilealdigestiblelysine:MEratiowithintreatmentsthatincludedordidnotincludeRAC.Forglycerol,theNRC(19987)MEvalueofcorn(1,551kcal/lb)wasusedindietformulation.

Thepigsinthisstudyweremarketedin2differentgroups.First,ond14,thebarnwas“topped”similartonormalmarketingproceduresinmostcommercialproductionoper-ations.The4heaviestpigsfromallpenswerevisuallyselected,removed,andmarketed.Theremainingpigsinthebarnweremarketedattheconclusionofthestudy(d28).

Attheendoftheexperiment,pigsfromeachpenwereindividuallytattooedwithpennumberandshippedtotheJBSSwift&Companyprocessingplant(Worthington,MN).Afterharvest,chilling,andfabrication,wholeloinswerecollectedfrom1barrowand1giltrandomlychosenfromeachpenfromthed-28marketinggroupforloin6Mourot,J.,A.Aumaitre,A.Mounier,P.Peiniau,andA.C.Fracois.1994.Nutritionalandphysiologi-caleffectsofdietaryglycerolinthegrowingpig:Consequencesonfattytissuesandpostmortemmuscularparameters.Livest.Prod.Sci.38:237-244.7NRC.1998.NutrientRequirementsofSwine.10thed.Natl.Acad.Press,Washington,DC.

276

Meat Quality Research

qualityevaluation.Aftertheloinswereidentifiedandpackaged,theyweretransportedtotheKansasStateUniversityMeatLaboratoryandstoredat32°Fto38°F.Loinswerefabricatedinto1-in.chops10dpostmortem.Fivecenter-cutloinchopswereindividuallyvacuumpackagedandfrozen(-40°F)fordeterminationofcookingloss,WBSF,andsensorycharacteristics.Chopswereremovedfromthefreezerandthawedinarefrigerator(32°Fto38°F)overnight.Todeterminecookingloss,thechopswerefirstweighedtodetermineinitialweightandthencookedtoaninternaltemperatureof104°F,turned,andcookedtoafinalinternaltemperatureof158°Finadual-airflowconvectiongasoven(Blodgett,modelDFC-102CH3,G.S.BlodgettCo.,Burling-ton,VT).Chopsweremonitoredwithcopper-constantanthermocouplesplacedintheapproximategeometriccenterofeachchopandattachedtoaDorictemperaturerecorder(Model205,VasEngineering,SanFrancisco,CA).Followinga30-mincoolingperiod,chopswerere-weighedtodeterminecookinglosspercentages.Thechopswerethenchilledat32°Fto38°Fovernight,andsix0.5-in.coreswereremovedparalleltothemusclefiberdirection.EachcorewasshearedonceperpendiculartothedirectionofthemusclefiberswiththeWarner-BratzlerV-shapedbluntblade(G-RManufacturingCo.,Manhattan,KS)attachedtoanInstronUniversalTestingMachine(model4201,InstronCorp.,Canton,MA)witha50-kgcompressionloadcellandacrossheadspeedof250mm/min.Peakshearforcevalueswererecorded.

Todeterminesensorycharacteristics,thechopswereremovedfromthepackage,cookedtoaninternaltemperatureof104°F,turned,andcookedtoafinalinternaltemperatureof158°Finadual-airflowconvectiongasoven.Cookedchopswerethencutinto1-in.×0.5-in.×0.5-in.samples.Sampleswerekeptwarminblueenameldoubleboilerpanswithwarmwaterinthebottomportion.Eighttrainedpanelistsweregiven2cubesofeachchoptoevaluatesensorycharacteristics.Eachpanelistconductedsensoryanalysisonawarm-upchopandachopfromeachtreatmentduringeachsession.Sensorycharacteristicsevaluatedincludemyofibrillartenderness,juiciness,porkflavorintensity,connectivetissue,overalltenderness,andoff-flavorintensity.

DatawereanalyzedasarandomizedcompleteblockdesignbyusingthePROCMIXEDprocedureofSAS(SASInst.,Inc.,Cary,NC)withpenastheexperimentalunit.MaineffectsandinteractionsbetweenpigsfedcrudeglycerolandRACweretested.StatisticalsignificancewassetatP<0.05forallstatisticaltests.

Results and Discussion Thecontrolandtreatmentmeansforcookingloss,WBSF,myofibrillartenderness,connectivetissueamount,overalltenderness,juiciness,porkflavorintensity,andoff-flavorintensityarereportedinTable2.ForcookinglossandWBSF,therewerenoglycerol×RACinteractionsormaintreatmenteffects.Additionally,therewerenoglycerol×RACinteractionsortreatmentdifferencesforthesensorytraitsofmyofi-brillartenderness,overalltenderness,porkflavorintensity,oroff-flavorintensity.However,therewasaglycerol×RACinteraction(P<0.01)forconnectivetissuelevel.TheinteractionwasaresultofincreasedconnectivetissueamountswhenglycerolwasaddedtothedietwithoutRACbutnumericallydecreasedamountswhenglycerolwasfedincombinationwithRAC.Wehavenoexplanationforthisunexpectedinterac-tionbecausewewouldnotexpectanincreaseinconnectivetissuewithoutadecreaseintenderness,whichwasnotobserved.

277

Meat Quality Research

InotherresearchevaluatingRACandloinquality,Fernández-Dueñasetal.(20088)reportedthatinclusionofRACdidnotaffecttheloinqualitytraitsofcookingloss,tenderness,juiciness,andflavor.However,Carretal.(2005a9,2005b10)reportedanincreaseinWBSFandadecreaseinsensorytendernessscoresforloinsfrompigsfedRAC.

Inconclusion,ourresultsindicatethatfeedingpigscrudeglycerolorRACdidnotinfluenceloinsensorycharacteristics.

8Fernández-Dueñas,D.M.,A.J.Myers,S.M.Scramlin,C.W.Parks,S.N.Carr,J.Killefer,andF.K.McKeith.2008.Carcass,meatquality,andsensorycharacteristicsofheavybodyweightpigsfedractopa-minehydrochloride(Paylean).J.Anim.Sci.86:3544-3550.9Carr,S.N.,D.J.Ivers,D.B.Anderson,D.J.Jones,D.H.Mowrey,M.B.England,J.Killefer,P.J.Rincker,andF.K.McKeith.2005a.Theeffectsofractopaminehydrochlorideonleancarcassyieldsandporkqualitycharacteristics.J.Anim.Sci.83:2886-2893.10Carr,S.N.,P.J.Rincker,J.Killefer,D.H.Baker,M.Ellis,andF.K.McKeith.2005b.Effectsofdiffer-entcerealgrainsandractopaminehydrochlorideonperformance,carcasscharacteristics,andfatqualityinlate-finishingpigs.J.Anim.Sci.83:223-230.

278

Meat Quality Research

Table 1. Diet composition (as-fed basis)1

RactopamineHCl,g/ton  0 6.75Ingredient,% 0%glycerol 5%glycerol 0%glycerol 5%glycerolCorn 82.77 77.36 74.81 69.41Soybeanmeal(46.5%CP) 15.24 15.64 23.19 23.59Glycerol --- 5.00 --- 5.00RactopamineHCl(9g/lb) --- --- 0.04 0.04MonocalciumP(21%P) 0.48 0.48 0.43 0.45Limestone 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.85Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35Vitaminpremix 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04Tracemineralpremix 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Phytase2 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03L-LysineHCl 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15DL-methionine --- --- 0.02 0.02L-threonine 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

CalculatedanalysisSID3aminoacids,%Lysine 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.90Methionine:lysine 31 31 30 30Met&Cys:lysine 65 63 61 59Threonine:lysine 64 64 64 64Tryptophan:lysine 19 19 19 19SIDlysine:ME,g/Mcal 2.09 2.09 2.69 2.69ME,kcal/lb 1,521 1,521 1,520 1,520

Totallysine,% 0.79 0.79 1.01 1.01CP,% 14.3 14.0 17.3 17.1Ca,% 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51P,% 0.44 0.42 0.46 0.45AvailableP,%4 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.221Fedfrom208to259lb.2OptiPhos2000(EnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,IN)provided227phytaseunitsofphytaseperpoundofdiet.3Standardizedilealdigestible.4IncludesexpectedPreleaseof.07%fromaddedphytase.

279

Meat Quality Research

Tab

le 2

. Infl

uenc

e of c

rude

gly

cero

l and

ract

opam

ine H

Cl o

n lo

in ch

arac

teri

stic

s1 R

acto

pam

ineH

Cl,

g/to

n 

06.

75Pr

obab

ility

,P <

Item

0%

glyc

erol

5%

glyc

erol

 0%

gl

ycer

ol5%

gl

ycer

olSE

Rac

topa

min

eH

Cl×

Gly

cero

lR

acto

pam

ine

HC

lG

lyce

rol

Coo

king

loss

,%25

.63

24.6

525

.20

24.1

30.

660.

950.

470.

13W

arne

r-Br

atzl

ersh

earf

orce

,lb

8.71

8.40

8.09

8.64

0.24

0.41

0.74

0.81

Sens

oryt

raits

Myo

fibril

lart

ende

rnes

s25.

65.

85.

75.

60.

160.

230.

940.

74C

onne

ctiv

etiss

ueam

ount

37.

27.

47.

57.

30.

080.

010.

370.

76O

vera

llte

nder

ness

25.

86.

16.

15.

90.

150.

150.

890.

73Ju

icin

ess4

5.1

5.0

5.0

5.2

0.13

0.21

0.62

0.83

Pork

flav

orin

tens

ity5

5.4

5.3

5.3

5.4

0.09

0.09

0.64

0.86

Off-

flavo

rint

ensit

y37.

47.

57.

57.

60.

090.

890.

160.

201 A

tota

lof8

0lo

insw

ereu

sed

inth

eexp

erim

entw

ith2

loin

sper

pen

and

10p

ensp

ertr

eatm

ent.

Val

uesa

reth

emea

nof

1gi

ltan

d1

barr

owp

erp

en(1

0ba

rrow

sand

10

gilts

per

trea

tmen

t).

2 1=

extr

emel

ytou

gh,2

=ve

ryto

ugh,

3=

mod

erat

elyt

ough

,4=

slig

htly

toug

h,5

=sl

ight

lyte

nder

,6=

mod

erat

elyt

ende

r,7

=ve

ryte

nder

,8=

extr

emel

yten

der.

3 1=

abun

dant

,2=

mod

erat

elya

bund

ant,

3=

sligh

tlyab

unda

nt,4

=m

oder

ate,

5=

sligh

t,6

=tr

aces

,7=

pra

ctic

ally

non

e,8

=no

ne.

4 1=

extr

emel

ydry

,2=

very

dry

,3=

mod

erat

elyd

ry,4

=sl

ight

lyd

ry,5

=sl

ight

lyju

icy,

6=

mod

erat

elyj

uicy

,7=

very

juic

y,8

=ex

trem

elyj

uicy

.5 1

=ex

trem

elyb

land

,2=

very

bla

nd,3

=m

oder

atel

ybla

nd,4

=sl

ight

lyb

land

,5=

slig

htly

inte

nse,

6=

mod

erat

elyi

nten

se,7

=ve

ryin

tens

e,8

=ex

trem

elyi

nten

se.

280

Index of Key WordsPagenumbersinparentheses

abscess(270)

allotment(96)

alternativeingredient(168)

aminoacid,aminoacidrequirements(132,152,174)

antimicrobial(122)

Arcanobacterium pyogenes (270)

astaxanthin(239)

bacterialsensitivity(73)

behavior(51)

birthweight(1,8)

bonestrength(106)

carcass,carcasscharacteristics(181,225,239,245)

copper(65,73)

creepfeeding(51)

datainterpretation(96)

dietcomplexity(51)

digestibility(174)

diseasechallenge(28)

drieddistillersgrainswithsolubles(174,181,192,207,213,220,252)

enzyme(192,207,213,220)

experimentaldesign(96)

feeders(252)

fishmeal(90)

gender(8)

gestationfeeding(38)

glycerol(274)

growth(8,21,33,80,168,181,202,225,232,245,262)

growthpromotion(65)

hominyfeed(168)

incomeoverfeedcost(141)

lactation(38)

littersize(1)

lysine(132,141,152)

marketing(262)

mortality(33)

Mycoplasma (21)

mycotoxinbinder(202)

needle-freeinjection(270)

Paylean(225)

pellet(245)

PEP2(90)

phytase,phytasesource(106)

Porcinecircovirustype2,PCV2(8,21)

porcinecircovirustype2(PCV2)vaccine(28,152)

porkcolor(239)

proteinsource(80)

PRRSv(33)

ractopamine,ractopamineHCl(225,232,274)

sensoryanalysis(274)

sorghum(174)

sow(38)

spray-driedanimalplasma(90)

spray-driedintestinalmucosa(80)

vaccination,vaccine(8,21,33)

zinc(65,73)

281

AcknowledgmentsAppreciationisexpressedtotheseorganizationsforassistingwithswineresearchatKansasStateUniversity.

AbileneAnimalHospital,Abilene,KSADM,Decatur,ILAgri-King,Inc.,Fulton,ILAjinomotoHeartlandLLC,Chicago,ILCargillAnimalNutrition,

Minneapolis,MNDSMNutritionalProducts,

Parsippany,NJElancoAnimalHealth,Indianapolis,INEngrain,LLC,Salina,KSEnvironmentalCareandShare,

Golden,COEnzyviaLLC,Sheridan,INEvonikDegussaHanau,GermanyFeedlogicCorporation,Willmar,MNForm-A-Feed,Inc.,Stewart,MNHenry’sLTD,Longford,KSHill’sPetNutritionInc.,Topeka,KSHubbardFeeds,Mankato,MNIGENE–AstaxanthinPartners,Ltd.,

Columbia,MOJBS-United,Sheridan,INJ-SixFarms,Seneca,KSKansasPorkAssociation,Manhattan,KS

KansasSwineAlliance,Abilene,KSKeeseckerAgriBusiness,Washington,KSKeyMilling,ClayCenter,KSKyodoShiryo,

Yokohama,Kanagawa,JapanLivestockandMeatIndustryCouncil,

Manhattan,KSLonza,Inc.,Allendale,NJN&NFarms,St.George,KSNationalPorkBoard,DesMoines,IANewHorizonFarms,Pipestone,MNNovartisAnimalHealth,

Greensboro,NCNutra-Flo,SiouxCity,IAPfizerAnimalHealth,NewYork,NYPICUSA,Franklin,KYProteinResourcesLLC,WestBend,IAPurco,Pipestone,MNSwineNutritionServices,Inc.,

Anchor,ILTriumphFoods,St.Joseph,MOZenithProject,Geneseo,KSZephyrProject,Geneseo,KSZoltenkoFarmsInc.,Hardy,NE

WeespeciallyappreciatetheassistanceanddedicationofKansasStateUniversityemployeesJonBergstrom,LyleFiggy,FrankJennings,MarkNelson,andTheresaRathbun.WealsowishtothankJ-Sixfarms,Seneca,KS;Joe,Jim,Jeff,Janie,andJohnKramer;DanandJennyGerety;KirkSturbota;ScottHolthaus;JannieBinneman;andBobBodenfortheirtechnicalassistance.AppreciationisalsoexpressedtoRichardBrobjorg,ScottHeidebrink,MartyHeintz,andBobTaubert,NewHorizonFarms,Pipestone,MN,fortheirdedicatedsupport.

Swine Industry Day CommitteeJimNelssen,Chairman

DuaneDavis JoelDeRouchey SteveDritzMikeTokach BobGoodband JoeHancock

282

The Livestock and Meat Industry Council, Inc.TheLivestockandMeatIndustryCouncil,Inc.(LMIC)isanonprofitcharitableorganizationsupportinganimalagricultureresearch,teaching,andeducation.ThisisaccomplishedthroughthesupportofindividualsandbusinessesthatmakeLMICapartoftheircharitablegiving.

Tax-deductiblecontributionscanbemadethroughgiftsofcash,appreciatedsecuri-ties,realestate,lifeinsurance,charitableremaindertrusts,andbequestsaswellasmanyotherformsofplannedgiving.LMICcanalsoreceivegiftsoflivestock,machinery,orequipment.Thesetypesofgifts,knownasgifts-in-kind,allowthedonortobeeligibleforataxbenefitbasedontheappraisedvalueofthegift.

Sinceitsinceptionin1970,LMIChasprovidedstudentscholarships,researchassis-tance,capitalimprovements,land,buildings,andequipmenttosupportstudents,faculty,andtheindustryofanimalagriculture.Ifyouwouldliketobeapartofthismissionorwouldlikeadditionalinformation,pleasecontacttheLivestockandMeatIndustryCouncil/AnimalSciencesandIndustry,WeberHall,Manhattan,Kansas66506orcall785-532-1227.

LMIC Board MembersKyleBauerJerryBohnMaxDeetsJoeDowneyGalenFinkRandyFisherMarkGardinerCraigGoodLyleGraySamHands

BernieHansenGregHendersonStevenHuntSteveIrsikDanJohnsonLarryJonesMarkKnightPatKoonsKellyLechtenbergJanLyons

GinaMillerAndrewMurphyTomPerrierPhilPharLeeReeveKenStielowMikelStoutWarrenWeibert

Royal Board MembersDellAllenBillAmsteinRichardChaseCalvinDrake

StanFansherHenryGardinerFredGermannDonGood

KennyKnightHarlandPriddleDonSmithDuaneWalker

Ex Officio Board MembersFredCholickRandyCoonrod

AaronHundKenOdde

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

SRP1020 November2009 K-StateResearchandExtensionisanequalopportunityproviderandemployer.

Copyright2009KansasStateUniversityAgriculturalExperimentStationandCooperativeExtensionService.Contentsofthispublicationmaybefreelyreproducedforeducationalpurposes.Allotherrightsreserved.Ineachcase,givecredittotheauthor(s),SwineDay2009,KansasStateUniversity,November2009.Contributionno.10-014-SfromtheKan-sasAgriculturalExperimentStation.

Brandnamesappearinginthispublicationareforproductidentificationpurposesonly.Noendorsementisintended,noriscriticismimpliedofsimilarproductsnotmentioned.

PublicationsfromKansasStateUniversityareavailableontheWorldWideWebat:www.ksre.ksu.edu

SWINEDAY

2009