Feeding Strategies Using Dried Distillers

Grain with Solubles and Immunologically

Castrated Pigs – Considerations for

Producers and Packers

1University of Minnesota, Department of Animal

Science, St. Paul2Zoetis, Inc. Florham Park, NJ

3University of Minnesota, West Central ROC, Morris

E.K. Harris1, A. M. Hilbrands3, C. Calhoun2, M. A. Mellencamp2,

R. Cox1, L.J. Johnston3, and G.C. Shurson1

Future challenges of pork production

Growth of the global population & incomes

Increased consumption & demand for lean meat

Using fewer, non-traditional resources

More high fiber co-products will be used to supply

dietary calories and amino acids

New technologies are needed to enhance global

competiveness of U.S. pork production

Use of boars in pork production Advantages

Disadvantages Unpalatable off-odors = boar taint

Aggressive behavior

3

Squires 2011 and Suster et al., 2006

Boar vs. Barrow

Feed intake

Growth rate

Carcass fat

Lean gain efficiency

Improvest® (gonadotropin releasing factor analog –

diphtheria toxoid conjugate, Zoetis Inc, Florham Park, NJ)

Vaccine-like – pig produces antibodies

Subcutaneous injection (2 doses) by a trained technician

Immunological castration

1st dose

~ 11-15

2nd dose

15+

Quality

assuranceHarvest

≥ 4 weeks 3-10 weeks

Week of age

Feeding DDGS to

gilts and barrows

Superior growth

performance (Dunshea et al.,

2001)

Leaner carcasses(Dunshea et al., 2001)

Reduced dressing

percentage (Boler et al.,

2014)

Adequate growth

performance (Stein and Shurson

2009)

Soft pork fat (Xu et al., 2010)

Reduced dressing

percentage (Stein and Shurson

2009)

Immunological

castration(relative to traditional barrows)

Feeding Strategies??

Objectives

Evaluate effects of marketing time of

immunologically castrated pigs using different

DDGS feeding strategies:

1) Growth performance

2) Backfat deposition

3) Feed cost of lean gain

4) Pork quality

Experimental design

Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg)

Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial

arrangement

Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0%

Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10%

Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0%

Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40%

15 19 2411

Phase 1

(3 wks)Phase 2

(4 wks)

Phase 3

(4 wks)

Phase 4

(5 wks)

8Age (weeks)

% DDGS in diets

Experimental design

Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg)

Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial

arrangement

Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0%

Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10%

Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0%

Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40%

15 19 2411

1st dose Improvest

Age (weeks)

Phase 1

(3 wks)Phase 2

(4 wks)

Phase 3

(4 wks)

Phase 4

(5 wks)

8

% DDGS in diets

Experimental design

Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg)

Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial

arrangement

Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0%

Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10%

Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0%

Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40%

2nd dose Improvest

15

9 (TD9)

17

7 (TD7)

19

5 (TD5)

24

Harvest11

1st dose Improvest

Age (weeks)Time to harvest after 2nd dose (weeks)

Phase 1

(3 wks)Phase 2

(4 wks)

Phase 3

(4 wks)

Phase 4

(5 wks)

8

% DDGS in diets

Diet composition

DDGS source contained 10.4% crude fat

Corn-soybean meal-DDGS diets were formulated to

meet NRC (2012) nutrient requirements for boars

Phase 1 Phase 2

0%

DDGS

40%

DDGS

0%

DDGS

30%

DDGS

40%

DDGS

SID Lys:ME (g/Mcal ME) 3.31 3.32 2.88 2.89 2.88

Phase 3 Phase 4

0%

DDGS

30%

DDGS

40%

DDGS

0%

DDGS

30%

DDGS

40%

DDGS

SID Lys:ME (g/Mcal ME) 2.55 2.56 2.55 2.39 2.39 2.41

Materials & methods – live animal

Growth performance Pig body weight and feed disappearance

determined to calculate ADG, ADFI, G:F

Body composition B-mode ultrasound for 10th rib backfat depth

Single trained technician

Beginning at 2nd Improvest dose

Materials & methods – live animal

Statistical analysis

Experimental unit = Pen

Growth performance - Proc MIXED

Repeated Measure = Week

Backfat – Proc GLIMMIX

Pork quality – Proc MIXED

Significance P ≤ 0.05

Live Animal Results -

Improvest

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Ga

in e

ffic

ien

cy

Week of Age

TD9

TD7

TD5

G:F from 8-24 weeks of ageTD × Week; P < 0.01

a

a, b TD5 differs from TD7 and TD9 within week P ≤ 0.05

b

Overall G:F

0.413 0.417 0.428

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

TD9 TD7 TD5

Ga

in e

ffic

ien

cy

Diet (P < 0.01)

TD (P < 0.05)

Diet ×TD (P > 0.10)

a b

a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)

Overall ADG

0.930 0.936 0.941

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

TD9 TD7 TD5

AD

G, k

g/d

Diet (P > 0.05)

TD (P > 0.05)

Diet ×TD (P > 0.05)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

AD

FI, k

g/d

Week of Age

TD9

TD7

TD5

ADFI from 8-24 weeks of ageTD × Week (P < 0.001)

a

a, b TD9 differs from TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05

b

a

b

Live Animal Results - Diet

Overall G:F

0.427 0.424 0.414 0.413

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

PCon SD WD NCon

Ga

in e

ffic

ien

cy

Dietary Treatment

Diet (P < 0.01)

TD (P < 0.05)

Diet ×TD (P > 0.10)

a ba b

a, b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)

Overall ADG

0.959 0.940 0.929 0.913

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PCon SD WD NCon

AD

G, k

g/d

Dietary Treatment

Diet (P < 0.01)

TD (P > 0.05)

Diet ×TD (P > 0.05)

a b

a, b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

AD

FI, k

g/d

Week of Age

PCon

SD

WD

NCon

b

ADFI from 8-24 weeks of ageDiet × Week (P < 0.01)

B,aA

a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ by dietary treatment (P ≤ 0.05)A,B Means with unlike superscripts differ by week (P ≤ 0.05)

Backfat deposition - marketing 9

weeks after 2nd dose

a,b PCon-TD9 and SD-TD9 differs from WD-TD9 and NCon-TD9 within week (P ≤ 0.05)c,d NCon-TD9 differs from all other dietary treatments within week (P ≤ 0.05)

Diet × TD × Time2 (P < 0.01)

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

10

th r

ib b

ac

kfa

t, c

m

Week of Age

PCon TD9

SD TD9

WD TD9

NCon TD9

c

d

d

c

a

b

Response did not occur in TD5 or TD7

Backfat deposition – negative

control feeding strategyDiet × TD × Time2 (P < 0.01)

a,b TD9 and TD7 differs from TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05c,d TD7 differs from TD9 and TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

10

th r

ib b

ac

kfa

t, c

m

Week of Age

NCon TD9

NCon TD7

NCon TD5

a

b

c

d

0

15

30

45

60

75

Dre

ss

ing

, %

TD9 TD7 TD5

Dressing percentage

0

15

30

45

60

75

Dre

ss

ing

, %

PCon SD WD NCon

a a b

Diet (P < 0.05)

TD (P < 0.05)

Diet × TD (P > 0.05)

a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)

a ab ab b

Diet cost of lean gain

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

SD WD NConDie

t co

st

of

lean

gain

re

lati

ve

to

PC

on

, $

/kg

HIGH MED LOW

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

TD7 TD5

Die

t c

os

t o

f le

an

ga

in

rela

tive

to

TD

9, $

/kg

HIGH MED LOW

Price Scenario (USD)

Feed Ingredient LOW MED HIGH

Corn ($/bushel) 4.00 6.00 8.00

Soybean Meal ($/ton) 450.00 500.00 550.00

DDGS ($/ton) 200.00 250.00 300.00

Feeding DDGS to

gilts and barrows

Superior growth

performance (Dunshea et al.,

2001)

Leaner carcasses (Dunshea

et al., 2001)

Adequate growth

performance (Stein and Shurson

2009)

Soft pork fat (Xu et al., 2010)

Immunological

castration(relative to traditional barrows)

↓Backfat in TD5 and TD9 pigs

Especially fed NCon

Lean and pork fat quality

Materials & methods - harvest

Harvested subsample at 24 weeks of age

Pigs selected at 13 weeks of age (n = 2 per pen)

Transported to U of M Meat Science Lab

Determined longissimus muscle pH at 45 min and 48 h

Fabricated to NAMP #414 – Canadian Back loin

Subjective firmness and marbling

Drip loss and purge loss

Collected subcutaneous belly fat

Anterior dorsal corner for fatty acid analysis

Loin pH

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

45 min 48 h

pH

TD9 TD7 TD5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

45 min 48 h

pH

PCon SD WD NCon

x y

Diet (P > 0.05)

TD (P > 0.05)

Diet × TD (P > 0.05)

x,y Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.10)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Chop driploss

Roast purgeloss

LM

lo

ss, %

TD9 TD7 TD5

Loin drip & purge loss

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Chop drip loss Roast purgeloss

LM

lo

ss

, %

PCon SD WD NCon

Diet (P > 0.05)

TD (P > 0.05)

Diet × TD (P > 0.05)

Loin firmness score

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Marbling Firmness

Su

bje

cti

ve

Sc

ore

TD9 TD7 TD5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Marbling Firmness

Su

bje

cti

ve S

co

re

PCon SD WD NCon

ab ab b

bbby

ax

Diet (P < 0.05)

TD (P > 0.05)

Diet × TD (P > 0.05)

a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)x,y Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.10)

Belly fat IV

59.4 65.6 66.7 74.90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PCon SD WD NCon

Iod

ine

Va

lue

ab b

c

66.3 66.0 67.70

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

TD9 TD7 TD5Io

din

e V

alu

e

a a b

a-c Least squares means with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)

Iodine Value = ([C16:1] x 0.95) + ([C18:1] x 0.86) + ([C18:2] x 1.732) + ([C18:3] x 2.616)

+ ([C20:1] x 0.785) + [C22:1] x 0.723) (AOCS, 1998)

Diet (P < 0.05)

TD (P < 0.05)

Diet × TD (P > 0.05)

Summary1) Growth performance - gain efficiency improvements when:

Fed DDGS SD strategy

Marketed 5 weeks after the second Improvest dose

2) Body composition – changes in backfat deposition greatest effect when

fed NCon:

Especially when harvested at 9 and 5 weeks after 2nd dose

Removing DDGS in WD fed pigs, backfat deposition rapidly accelerated

3) Diet cost of lean gain – reduced when pigs fed SD

Greatest savings relative to PCon

4) Carcass composition – influenced by time of second Improvest dose

5) Lean and fat quality – influenced by dietary treatment

Take home messagesGrowth performance

• Selection of DDGS feeding strategy and Improvest timing are independent

• Optimized when feeding step down strategy and marketed 5 weeks post second dose

Diet cost of lean gain

• Greatest reduction using the SD strategy due to changes in body composition & dressing percentage

Lean & fat quality

• Feeding 40% DDGS = Softer loins with less marbling and higher belly fat IV

• Interval between 2nd Improvest dose and harvest = minimal changes in lean and fat quality

Implications

Goal: producing lean pork for consumption

Implications

Goal: producing lean pork for consumption

Improving nutritional efficiency to promote

competiveness of pork

AcknowledgementsZoetis Inc.

Natural Food Holdings

Dr. Jon Anderson

West Central Research and Outreach Center

Adrienne Hilbrands

Farm Animal Attendants

U of MN Animal Science Graduate Students