ksu swine day 2017 - k-state asi › events › swine-day › swine... · – porcine epidemic...

KSU Swine Day 2017

Overview of feed science research

• 3-Sieve particle size analysis• Hammermill tip speed• Feed sampling

3‐Sieve Particle Size Analysis

3‐Sieve Particle Size Analysis

1. 50 ± 5 g samples2. No dispersing agent

recommended3. Hand shaken side‐to‐side

for 90 seconds4. Updated spread sheet

soon on www.ksuswine.org

220

320

420

520

620

720

10,000 15,000 20,000

6/64"10/64"16/64"

Screen hole diameter

linear interaction, P = 0.077

Tip Speed, ft/minGeo

metric

mean diam

eter

(dgw),

µmTip speed and screen hole diameter

Saensukjaroenphon et al. 2017

Main effects of tip speed and screen size on flowability

38.0

41.444.3

30.0

36.0

42.0

48.0

10,250 15,375 20,500Angle of re

pose, °

Tip speed, ft/min

SEM 0.80Linear, P < 0.001

38.641.3

43.9

30.0

36.0

42.0

48.0

16/64 10/64 6/64Angle of re

pose, °

Screen hole diamete

SEM 0.80Linear, P < 0.001

Saensukjaroenphon et al. 2017

Jones et al., 2017

Sample Size Calculations for Cu

Individual Feeder Sampling Composite Samples

Hand Probe Hand Probe

Margin of Error C. I. Feeders Feeders Samples Samples± 10 ppm 95% 39 15 9 6± 15 ppm 95% 17 7 4 2± 20 ppm 95% 10 4 2 1± 25 ppm 95% 6 2 1 1± 30 ppm 95% 4 2 1 1

Jones et al., 2017

Individual Feeder Sampling Composite Samples

Hand Probe Hand Probe

Margin of Error C. I. Feeders Feeders Samples Samples± 10 ppm 95% 12 11 6 5± 15 ppm 95% 5 5 2 2± 20 ppm 95% 3 3 1 1± 25 ppm 95% 2 2 1 1± 30 ppm 95% 1 1 1 1

Sample Size Calculations for Zn

Jones et al., 2017

Summary

• 3‐Sieve particle size analysis spread sheet is updated on www.ksuswine.org

• Variable frequency drives can be used to achieve particle size range for a specified hammermill screen size– Increasing tip speed from 10,250 to 20,500 ft/min reduced dgw by 231, 258, and 350 µm when using a #6, #10, and #16.

• To minimize variation and reduce analytical cost, collect samples with a probe from 6 feeders and composite before analysis

Feed Safety

Cassie JonesKansas State University

November 16th, 2017K-State Swine Day

• Dust control• Receiving procedures• Personnel zoning• Flushing and sequencing

• Point‐in‐time• Thermal processing• Radiation

• Chemical additive application

• Facility decontamination

Feed Safety

Sources of Feed Imports16

IngredientTons

imported

Soybeans 98,623

Lys HCl 23,666

Soybean meal 7,311

Tetracycline 1,556

DL-Met 372

USDA, 2017US Harmonized Tariff Schedule/Dee et al., 2016

17

Disease Distribution

World Animal Health Information Database, 2017

Foot and Mouth Disease

Classical Swine Fever Virus

Ingredient PEDVSenecavirus

(FMDV)

African Swine

Fever Virus

PorcineSapelovirus

(SwineVesicular

Disease Virus) PCV2Pseudorabies

Virus PRRSVSoybean meal-ConventionalSoybean meal-OrganicSoy oil cakeDDGSLysineCholineVitamin DMoist cat food

Moist dog food

Dry dog foodPork sausagecasingsComplete feed(+ control)Complete feed(- control)Stock virus(+ control)

Disease Survival During Transboundary TravelDee et al., 2017

Current Projects• Viruses

– Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus mitigation in swine feed

– African Swine Fever Virus detection and mitigation in swine feed

– Senecavirus A detection and mitigation with FMD modeling in swine feed

– Detection and mitigation of transboundary foreign animal diseases

• Bacteria– Salmonella prevalence in U.S. swine feed mills

– Factors influencing Salmonella growth in poultry fat intended for pet food

• Mycotoxins– Corn cleaning to reduce contamination with aflatoxin and fumonisin

– Swine feeding experiments to evaluate additive impacts

• Antimicrobial replacement strategies

• Feed safety regulatory training

K-State Feed Safety Team• Animal Scientists

– Dr. Cassie Jones, feed safety

– Dr. Jason Woodworth, swine nutrition

• Feed Scientists– Dr. Charles Stark, feed mill operations

– Dr. Chad Paulk, feed quality

• Food Scientists– Dr. Valentina Trinetta, microbiology

• Microbiologists– Dr. Valentina Trinetta, food science

– Dr. Raghu Amachawadi, microbiology

– Dr. T.G. Nagaraja, microbiology

• Diagnostic/Veterinary Medicine– Dr. Jianfa Bai, molecular diagnostics

– Dr. Natalia Cernicchiaro, epidemiology

– Dr. Steve Dritz, swine health

– Dr. Megan Niederwerder, virology

– Dr. Bob Rowland, virology

• Outside Collaborators– Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic

Laboratory

– Murdoch University

– Pipestone Applied Research

• Sponsors– National Pork Board/USDA

– Swine Health Information Center

– State of Kansas National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility Fund

22

Salmonella in swine feed mills

Boccatto et al., 2017

Salmonella in swine feed mills23

59% 56%

82%

31%25%

82% 80%

64% 68%54%

70%

91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P < 0.05

Boccatto et al., 2017

Environmental contamination after PEDV-inoculated feed

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

Po

siti

ve C

t fo

r PED

V, %

Adjacentsurfaces

Structuralsurfaces

Direct feedcontact surfaces

Schumacher et al., 2017

Gebhardt et al. (2016):Dust infectious

Schumacher et al. (2016):First 2 flushes infectious

P < 0.05

Feed Mill Biosecurity

• Control traffic• Do NOT add dust back to feed to save on shrink

25

Management of High Mycotoxin Corn

Maximum levels of mycotoxins in swine feed and ingredients established or recommended in FDA guidance

Aflatoxin

Finishing swine > 100 pounds

200 ppb

Breeding swine 100 ppbImmature animals 20 ppb

Deoxynivalenol/vomitoxin

5 ppm (< 20% of the diet)

Fumonisins20 ppm (< 50% of

the diet)

Yoder et al., 2017

27

“Overs”

“Unders”

Screenings (6% weight)

1/2”

3/16”

Cleaned Corn(94% weight)

• > 3 tons single load corn • 20 lots, 3 cleaning runs per lot• Composite samples analyzed

for mycotoxins


Yoder et al., 2017


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Aflatoxin, ppbUncleaned Cleaned Screenings

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Fumonisin, ppmUncleaned Cleaned Screenings

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Ochratoxin AUncleaned Cleaned Screenings

↓26%

↓45%

No Change

↑393% ↑731% ↑273%

P < 0.05

Yoder et al., 2017

Feed mills frequently return screenings to the ground corn bin to minimize shrink.

Take Home Messages• Extend farm-based biosecurity practices to the feed mill

– Restrict traffic– Strategic flushing/sequencing– Proactive interventions

• Control dust, control dust, control dust• Cleaning can reduce mycotoxin risk• Shrink is expensive, but consider risk of:

– Disease transmission via dust– Pulses of high mycotoxin levels

Congratulations!• Graduate Student Achievements

– Hilda Calderón Cartagena ‐ K‐State Presidential Doctoral Scholarship

– Roger Cochrane – K‐State Presidential Doctoral Scholarship, Endeavour Research Fellow in Australia

– Jordan Gebhardt ‐Midwest ASAS 1st place PhD oral presentation; AASV 1st place poster presentation

– Kiah Gourley – Midwest ASAS 2nd place oral presentation, K‐State Donoghue Graduate Scholarship, Feed Energy Excellence in Ag Scholarship, International Ingredients Pinnacle Award, College of Ag Nunemacher Scholarship

– Jose Soto –Evonik Future Leaders Scholar

Congratulations!• Graduate Student Achievements

– Lori Thomas – K‐State Donoghue Graduate Scholarship, Australasian Pig Science Travel Award

– Carine Vier ‐Midwest ASAS 1st place PhD poster presentation, Australasian Pig Science Travel Award, Bob and Karen ThalerGraduate Student Swine Nutrition Scholarship

– Arkin Wu– Australasian Pig Science Travel Award

• Undergraduate Student Achievements– Gage Nichols, Midwest ASAS oral undergraduate competition and NPB Scholarship recipient

Medium Chain Fatty Acids• Fatty acids with 6‐12 carbons• Not common in most feed ingredients• Potential modes of action

– Bind with cell membrane proteins– Incorporation into the cell membrane– Causes destabilization of the cell membrane bi‐layer

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 10 20 30 40

Quantita

tive CT

Value

Day

Untreated control Medium chain fatty acid Commercial formaldehyde

All effects and interactions, P < 0.0001

Cochrane et al., 2015

Treating Complete Diet with MCFA reduces PEDV

0.56

0.610.65 0.67

0.710.65

0.69

0.59

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

ADG, lb

Medium chain fatty acid inclusion on nursery pig growth performance (15 to 25 lb)

MCFA blend 1:1:1 (C6, C8, C10), % C6 C8 C10

Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P = 0.376SEM = 0.028

Gebhardt et al., 2017

aa

avs control P< 0.02

1.30

1.211.17 1.20 1.17 1.19 1.19

1.22

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

0.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

F/G

Medium chain fatty acid inclusion on nursery pig growth performance (15 to 25 lb)

MCFA blend 1:1:1 (C6, C8, C10), % C6 C8 C10

Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P = 0.012SEM = 0.020

Gebhardt et al., 2017

a

avs control P= 0.005

aa

Formaldehyde treatment of feed

• Treating diets with formaldehyde is a beneficial practice recognized by the poultry industry.

• Formaldehyde is effective at reducing PEDV infectivity in contaminated feed and ingredients (Cochrane et al., 2015).

• Formaldehyde is known to produce reactions with numerous groups of AA residues of proteins (Metz et al., 2004).

• Little data on formaldehyde impacts on swine performance

Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on ADG

‐ Sal CURB + Sal CURB

1.32

1.20 1.20

1.13 1.14

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

Control Low Syn High Syn Low Syn High Syn

ADG, lb

SEM = 0.02Sal CURB, P < 0.001Control vs. Others, P < 0.001

Williams et al., 2017

Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on F/G


1.57

1.711.77

1.811.77

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00


SEM = 0.01Sal CURB, P < 0.001Sal CURB x AA, P < 0.001Control vs. Others, P < 0.001


a

dc

b

c

Lysine Content, %

‐Sal Curb + Sal Curb

Item Control Low Syn High Syn Low Syn High Syn

Calculated

Total Lys 1.64 1.36 1.33 1.36 1.33

Free Lys 0.41 0.05 0.34 0.05 0.34

Analyzed

Total Lys 1.59 1.32 1.28 1.21 1.24

Available Lys 1.56 1.32 1.29 1.19 1.25

Free Lys 0.30 0.06 0.25 0.06 0.26


Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on abundance of Lactobacillaceae


17.3

11.99.9

0.60 1.040.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0


%


SEM = 1.88Sal CURB, P < 0.001Low vs High, P < 0.001

Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on abundance Streptococcaceae


4.52

6.19

3.3

0.02 0.310

2

4

6

8

Control Low AA High AA Low AA High AA

%



Effect of Sal Curb and crystalline AA level on abundance Clostridiaceae


19.0 19.2

25.928.0

35.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


%



Effects of replacing fish meal with ESBM on ADG

0.55

0.610.59

0.560.54

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70P =0.081SEM = 023

yz

x

yzxy

z

Negcontrol

FMcontrol

Lb for lb SID Lys 15%ESBM

ESBM replacingfish meal

Jones et al., 2017

Effects of replacing fish meal with ESBM on F/G

1.55

1.46

1.41 1.41

1.45

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60P < 0.001SEM = 025

a

Negcontrol

FMcontrol

Lb for lb SID Lys 15%ESBM

ESBM replacingfish meal

Jones et al., 2017

b

b b

b

Increasing fish solubles in fish meal on ADG

0.65

0.71

0.68

0.71 0.71

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

Control 0.87 8.70 16.52 24.35

lb

Linear, P = 0.704Quadratic, P = 0.395Control vs. Fish meal, P = 0.001SEM = 0.033

Fish Solubles, %

Jones et al., 2017

Increasing fish solubles in fish meal on F/G

1.41

1.381.40 1.39 1.40

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

Control 0.87 8.70 16.52 24.35

Linear, P = 0.359Quadratic, P = 0.630Control vs. Fish meal, P = 0.277SEM = 0.033

Fish Solubles, %

Jones et al., 2017

Recent Graduates with Statistics Emphasis:

MarcioGoncalvesDVM PhD

SureemasNitikanchanaDVM PhD

Chad PaulkPhD

Josh FlohrPhD

• Hilda Calderón Cartagena, MS• Kessinee Chitakasempornkul, MS• Carine Vier DVM

• Dr. Nora Bello DVM PhD• Dr. Trevor Hefley PhD• Dr. Chris Vahl PhD

• Dr. Ernie Minton – Ag Experiment Station Support

:Special Recognition to our current Statistical Team:

0.62

0.55

0.63

0.60

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Whey Lactose Lactose Lactose

ADG, lb

7 lbsalt

Added Na and Cl for 15–24 lb nursery pigs

ab Means differ P < 0.05SEM = 0.021

Shawk et al., 2016

Diet Na, % 0.37 0.18 0.35 0.35Diet Cl, % 0.75 0.47 0.72 0.45

12 lbsalt

15.5 lbsalt

23 lbNaHCO3+ 8 lb KCl

a

b

a

ab

0.430.48

0.52 0.56 0.56

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0 4 8 12 16

ADG, lb

Added salt for 15–22 lb nursery pigs on ADG

Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.13 0.21 0.29 0.37 0.45

Linear, P < 0.001SEM = 0.023

Shawk et al., 2016

NRC, 20120.35% Na

1.161.31 1.34 1.40 1.39

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00

4 7 10 13 16

ADG, lb

Added salt for 25–45 lb nursery pigs on ADG


Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P < 0.001SEM = 0.027

Shawk et al., 2017

NRC, 20120.28% Na

1.611.48 1.46 1.45 1.44

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

4 7 10 13 16

F/G

Added salt for 25–45 lb nursery pigs on F/G



Shawk et al., 2017

NRC, 20120.28% Na

1.78 1.771.84

1.80 1.82

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

4 7 10 13 16

ADG, lb

Added salt for 45‐67 lb nursery pigs on ADG



Shawk et al., 2017NRC, 2012

0.28 to 0.10% Na

1.64 1.64 1.631.70

1.67

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

4 7 10 13 16

F/G

Added salt for 45‐67 lb nursery pigs on F/G



Shawk et al., 2017NRC, 2012

0.28 to 0.10% Na

1.88 1.87 1.88 1.87

1.25

1.75

2.25

2.75

2.0 6.5 11.0 15.0

ADG, lb

Added salt for 60–140 lb pigs on ADG

Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.22 0.25 0.34


NRC, 20120.10% Na Shawk et al., 2017

1.96 2.00 2.01 1.98

1.25

1.75

2.25

2.75

2.0 6.5 11.0 15.0

Added salt for 60–140 lb pigs on F/G

Added Salt, lb/tonDiet Na, % 0.11 0.22 0.25 0.34


NRC, 20120.10% Na Shawk et al., 2017

Determining the standardized total tract digestible phosphorus requirement of

nursery pigs

Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus ADG, 25 to 50 lb pigs

STTD P, %

1.13 1.121.17 1.17

1.25 1.24 1.26

1.00

1.07

1.14

1.21

1.28

1.35

0.26 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53

ADG, lb

SEM = 0.026Linear, P < 0.001Quadratic, P < 0.718

% of NRC 80 90 100 115 130 145 160

Vier et al., 2017

Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus F/G, 25 to 50 lb pigs

STTD P, %

1.521.50

1.46 1.471.45 1.46 1.45

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

0.26 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53

F/G


% of NRC 80 90 100 115 130 145 160

Vier et al. 2017

Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus Income over feed cost, 25 to 50 lb pigs

STTD P, %

7.26 7.26

7.69 7.62

8.14 8.038.19

6.80

7.40

8.00

8.60

0.26 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53

$/pig


% of NRC 80 90 100 115 130 145 160

Vier et al., 2017

Effects of dietary Ca:P ratio on growth performance of nursery pigs

• Objective:To determine the growth performance of nursery pigs fed 2 levels of Ca in combination with 3 standardized total tract digestible (STTD) P treatments.

Wu et al., 2017

Effects of dietary Ca:STTD P ratio on ADG (d 0 to 28)

0.81 c0.84 bc

0.81 c

0.69 d

0.91 a0.88 ab

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

Analyzed Ca 0.58 1.03 0.58 1.03 0.46 0.91Ca with phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.58 1.03STTD P no phytase 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33STTD P w/phytase ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.45 0.45Total Ca:STTD P 1.29 2.29 1.76 3.12 1.29 2.29

ADG, lb

Ca × P: P < 0.01 Ca: P < 0.01P: P < 0.01SEM = 0.015

NRC, 2012:STTD P = 0.40%Total Ca = 0.80%

Wu et al., 2017

F/G

1.37 b 1.39 b1.35 b

1.56 a

1.35 b1.40 b

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80NRC, 2012:STTD P = 0.40%Total Ca = 0.80%

Ca × P: P < 0.01Ca: P < 0.01P: P < 0.01SEM = 0.013


Effects of dietary Ca:STTD P ratio on F/G (d 0 to 28)

Wu et al., 2017

%

45.62 ab

47.95 a

44.11 bc

42.63 c

45.75 ab 45.50 ab

41.00

43.00

45.00

47.00

49.00Ca × P: P < 0.007Ca: P < 0.69P: P < 0.001SEM = 0.611


Effects of dietary Ca:STTD P ratio on bone ash (d 0 to 28)

Wu et al., 2017

Phosphorus and phytase on nursery pig ADG

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170%

ADG, lb

P, % of NRC requirement

No phytase Phytase

Wu et al., 2018

Phytase, P < 0.001P no phytase, Quad. P < 0.005P with phytase, Quad. P < 0.031 Phytase = 2,000 FYT HiPhos

Phosphorus and phytase on nursery pig ADFI

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170%

ADFI, lb


No phytase Phytase

Wu et al., 2018

Phytase, P < 0.001P no phytase, Quad. P < 0.043P with phytase, Quad. P < 0.262 Phytase = 2,000 FYT HiPhos

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170%

F/G


No phytase Phytase

Phosphorus and phytase on nursery pig F/G

Wu et al., 2018

Phytase = 2,000 FYT HiPhos

Phytase, P < 0.001P no phytase, Quad. P < 0.063P with phytase, Quad. P < 0.065

Effects of standardized total tract digestible phosphorus on

growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing‐finishing pigs

Modeled ADG

QP model estimated the maximum mean ADG at 122% (95% CI: [104, 143%]) of the NRC (2012)

140

140

Modeled G:F

QP model estimated the maximum mean G:F at 116% (95% CI: [90, >150%]) of the NRC (2012)

140

Modeled bone ash%

The BLL model estimated the maximum mean ash % at 131% (95% CI: [113, 148%]) of the NRC (2012)

Change in average U.S. nursery and finishing performance over the last 25 years

Nursery Finishing1990 2005 2015 % 1990 2005 2015 %

Start wt, lb 13.0 12.2 14.1 14% 50.0 50.0 53.6 7%End wt, lb 50.0 50.0 53.6 7% 250.0 259.5 277.3 7%ADG, lb 0.71 0.81 0.82 1% 1.47 1.61 1.85 15%ADFI, lb 1.42 1.27 1.26 0% 5.10 4.54 4.98 10%F/G 2.00 1.57 1.54 ‐2% 3.47 2.82 2.69 ‐5%

1990 PigChamp Summary; U.S. Pork Industry Productivity Summary

The theory behind the economic model for optimum energy level for growing‐finishing pigs

J. A. Soto1*, M. D. Tokach1, S. S. Dritz1, M. A. D. Gonçalves2, J. C. Woodworth1, J. M. DeRouchey1,

R. D. Goodband1, and U. Orlando2

1Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS2PIC‐USA Hendersonville, TN

Setting dietary energy level

• Must know how in incremental change in dietary energy influences:– Diet cost– Pig performance (ADG, F/G)– Carcass criteria (dressing %, lean %)

• Market price to determine value of changes in pig performance

Influence of energy intake on feed efficiency

70%75%80%85%90%95%100%105%

2700 2900 3100 3300 3500

% of M

ax G/F

ME, kcal/kg

Stein et al., 1996

Beaulieu et al., 2015

Predicted ADG of pigs fed varying Dietary NE

NE, kcal/kg

2,800

2,4002,000

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

– 0.05068×[Average BW (kg)]2+ 275.99

Nitikanchana et al. (2015). J. Anim. Sci. 93:2826‐2839

Impact of increasing NDF on Carcass Yield

Coble et al. (2015).

Carcass yield prediction equation Summary of papers used in regression analysis

Soto et al. (2017)

First author, year Source1 NDF12, % NDF23, % WP4, d Initial BW, kg Final BW, kg Yield, %

Asmus, 2014 J 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐47 41.0 122.8 71.6 ‐ 73.2Coble, 2015 (exp. 1) T 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐20 38.4 126.0 71.2 ‐ 72.7Coble, 2015 (exp. 2) T 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.3 0‐24 44.5 132.5 74.3 ‐ 75.4Gaines, 2007 J 8.7 ‐ 15.3 8.8 ‐ 15.3 0‐42 66.1 128.5 75.9 ‐ 77.1Graham, 2014 J 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐24 55.8 126.8 72.8 ‐ 74.2Jacela, 2009 M 8.5 ‐ 15.0 8.4 ‐ 14.9 0‐41 39.0 121.5 75.1 ‐ 75.9Nemecheck, 2013 J 8.8 ‐ 20.2 8.8 ‐ 20.2 0‐17 49.6 129.0 74.7 ‐ 75.1Xu, 2010 J 8.8 ‐ 15.3 8.8 ‐ 15.3 0‐63 30.0 125.0 75.8 ‐ 77.0

1 Source type: J=Journal, T=Thesis, M=Technical memo.2 Range of NDF concentration in dietary phase before the final phase.3 Range of NDF concentration in final dietary phase before marketing.4 Range of withdrawal period.

Carcass yield prediction equation

Resulting equation:

Database building Each dietary treatment was reformulated NRC ingredient library (Chapter 17, 2012).

Soto et al. (2017)

= 0.03492 × WP (d) – 0.05092 × NDF1 (%) – 0.06897 × NDF2 (%) – 0.00289 × (NDF2 (%) × WP (d)) + 76.0769

NDF1 (%) = NDF concentration in dietary phase before final dietary phase.

NDF2 (%) = NDF concentration in final dietary phase before marketing.

WP (d) = Withdrawal period.

Yield, %

Predicted carcass yield

73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pred

icted carcass y

ield, %

Withdrawal period, d

9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF

Soto et al. (2017)


73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pred

icted carcass y

ield, %


9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF 16 to 9% NDF

Soto et al. (2017)


73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pred

icted carcass y

ield, %


9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF 16 to 9% NDF 21 to 9% NDF

Soto et al. (2017)


73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pred

icted carcass y

ield, %


9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF16 to 9% NDF 16 to 13% NDF 21 to 9% NDF

Soto et al. (2017)


73.473.673.874.074.274.474.674.875.075.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pred

icted carcass y

ield, %


9% NDF 16% NDF 21% NDF 16 to 9% NDF16 to 13% NDF 21 to 9% NDF 21 to 13% NDF

Soto et al. (2017)

Economics & System Performance

Model settings Nutritional program

Economic model for optimum dietary energy for growing‐finishing pigs

www.KSUswine.org

Phase feeding strategies and lysine specifications for grow‐finish pigs

Phase 1 2 3 4Weight, lb 60‐110 110‐160 160‐220 220‐280Treatment SID Lys, %MAX 1.13 0.96 0.82 0.77STD 1.02 0.87 0.76 0.67STD/MAX 1.02 0.87 0.82 0.772‐PHASE (MAX) 0.96 0.77

Treatment SID Lys:ME, g/McalMAX 3.42 2.89 2.46 2.29STD 3.08 2.62 2.28 1.99STD/MAX 3.08 2.62 2.46 2.292‐PHASE (MAX) 2.89 2.29

Menegat et al., 2017

1.93ab

1.88b1.92ab

1.94a

1.80

1.85

1.90

1.95

2.00

2.05

MAX STD STD/MAX 2‐PHASE

ADG, lb

ADG, d 0 to 117


SEM = 0.014ab P = 0.048


2.62 2.64 2.63 2.60

2.30

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80


F/G

F/G, d 0 to 117


SEM = 0.019P = 0.193


207.7204.4

207.3 208.5

180

190

200

210

220


HCW

, lb

Hot Carcass Weight


SEM = 1.79P = 0.218


0.212a

0.206b0.210a

0.213a

$0.19

$0.20

$0.21

$0.22


Feed

cost, $/lbgain

Feed cost per lb of gain


SEM = 0.001ab P < 0.001


Corn $3.30/bu; soybean meal $290/ton; DDGS $94/ton; L‐lys $0.75/lb

65.08 65.42 65.72 65.43

$60

$62

$64

$66

$68

$70


IOFC, $/pig

Income Over Feed Cost


SEM = 0.83P = 0.957


Corn $3.30/bu; soybean meal $290/ton; DDGS $94/ton; L‐lys $0.75/lbRevenue = $70/cwt of carcass gain

Late Finishing Dietary Crude Protein

• Use of synthetic amino acids allow for diets that “on paper” are balanced for essential amino acids.

• However clear evidence exists that late finishing pigs will not perform as expected if crude protein is allowed to decrease.– Specific reason has yet to be identified

1.791.88

1.97 2.01 2.05

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

9 10 11 12 13

ADG, lb

Crude protein, %

Soto et al., 2017

Linear, P = 0.508Quadratic, P < 0.001SEM = 0.050

Determination of optimum levels of crude protein in finishing pigs from 245 to 300 lb

Determination of optimum levels of crude protein in finishing pigs from 245 to 300 lb

3.71 3.71

3.513.42

3.34

3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.8

9 10 11 12 13

F/G

Crude protein, %

Linear, P = 0.336Quadratic, P < 0.001SEM = 0.057

Soto et al., 2017

Percent of maximum response at different CP levels for finishing pigs from 240 to 300 lb

Crude protein, %9 10 11 12 13

ADG, %PIC1 ‐‐‐ 84.1 94.0 100.0 99.0DNA2 87.3 91.7 96.1 98.0 100.0ADFI, %PIC ‐‐‐ 90.9 95.7 100.0 97.3DNA 95.2 100.0 99.9 99.1 98.8G:F, %PIC ‐‐‐ 91.3 96.2 98.4 100.0DNA 90.3 90.6 95.3 98.0 100.0

1A total of 224 pigs (PIC 1050 × 327; initially 241.1 lb) were used in a 20‐d experiment. Diets contained 0.66 SID Lys and 1,194 Kcal NE/lb.2A total of 238 pigs (DNA 600 × 241; initially 246.4 lb) were used in a 26‐d experiment. Diets contained 0.55 SID Lys and 1,198 Kcal NE/lb. Soto et al., 2017

Effects of soybean meal level in 12% CP diets on performance of finishing pigs from 250 to 300 lb

280 finishing pigs (DNA 600 × 241, BW 251.9 lb) 26‐d trial 6 pens per treatment with 7 or 8 pigs/pen Pen allotted by BW and assigned to 1 of 6 dietary treatments

Treatments Soybean Meal, % Crude Protein, %1 (Neg. Control) 4.0 10.02 (Pos. Control) 10.6 12.0

3 7.7 12.04 4.9 12.05 2.7 12.06 0.0 12.0

Soto et al. 2017

2.12 2.102.06 2.06

1.99 1.98

1.85

1.95

2.05

2.15

4.0 10.6 7.7 4.9 2.7 0.0

10.0 12.0

ADG, lb

Effect of soybean meal level on ADG of finishingpigs from 250 to 300 lb (d 0 to 26)

SBM, %:

CP, %:

NC vs. PC P= 0.774Linear, P = 0.061Quadratic, P = 0.952SEM = 0.049

Soto et al. 2017

3.76

3.543.61

3.67

3.96 3.91

3.30

3.50

3.70

3.90

4.10

4.0 10.6 7.7 4.9 2.7 0.0

10.0 12.0

F/G

SBM, %:

CP, %:

NC vs. PC P= 0.087Linear, P = 0.007Quadratic, P = 0.950SEM = 0.100

Effect of soybean meal level on F/G of finishingpigs from 250 to 300 lb (d 0 to 26)

Soto et al. 2017

Failed attempts to restore performance in low crude protein diets

• Added choline chloride• Added potassium chloride• Dietary electrolyte balance• Soy protein concentrate

Effect of number of cup waterers per pen on growing and finishing pig performance

(27 pigs/pen; 36 to 250 lb)

Conducted May to

September 2017

Vier et al., 2018

Vier et al., 2018



Linear, P = 0.038Quadratic = 0.646SEM = 0.013

1.841.87 1.88

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

1 2 3

ADG

Cup drinkers per 27 pigs

Vier et al., 2018




4.44 4.454.51

4.104.204.304.404.504.604.704.80

1 2 3

ADFI


Vier et al., 2018




2.41 2.39 2.40

2.002.102.202.302.402.502.602.702.80

1 2 3

F/G


Average number of pigs included in papers published in Swine Day

1,044 1,619 2,909 3,0944,763

9,044

14,52815,160

25,432 27,007

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,00019

68‐1972

1973

‐1977

1978

‐1982

1983

‐1987

1988

‐1992

1993

‐1997

1998

‐2002

2003

‐2007

2008

‐2012

2013

‐2017

Pigs, n

2017 Swine Day Reportavailable at:

www.KSUswine.org

• 54 papers• 56 experiments• > 39,000 pigs

2017

Swine Network Analysis• Objective: Characterize causal biological

relationships between reproductive traits in high-performing gilts and sows.

• Data: Goncalves et al., 2016 JAS • Structural equation models combined with structure‐

learning algorithms adapted to a hierarchical Bayesian framework.

Chitakasempornkul et al., 2018

Electronic Sow Feeding

To determine the effects of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on sow performance and

piglet birth weight

Graduate student: Lori ThomasUndergraduate student: Lauren Herd

Objective

Procedures• A total of 971 females (498 gilts and 473 parity 2+ sows)

• Pens equipped with 6 ESFs with approximately 275 females per pen

• Females had to walk over a scale after leaving the feeding stations for calculating daily weight changes

Electronic Sow Feeders

Scale System

514 515

522

527

500

510

520

530

540

11 13.5 16 18.5

lb

SEM = 1.7Linear P < 0.001

Thomas et al., 2018

SID Lysine % .54 .66 .78 .91SID Lysine g/d

Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on final BW

Initial BW = 412 lb

17.3 17.5 17.5 17.5

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

11 13.5 16 18.5

mm

SEM = 0.25No differences P > 0.10

Thomas et al., 2018


Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on final backfat

Initial backfat = 14.7 mm

15.5 15.7 15.5 15.6

13

14

15

16

17

11 13.5 16 18.5

Total born, n


Thomas et al., 2018


Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on total born

2.82 2.802.84 2.82

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

11 13.5 16 18.5

lb

SID Lysine % .54 .66 .78 .91


SID Lysine g/d

Thomas et al., 2018

Effect of increasing dietary lysine during gestation on piglet BW

Initial Analysis• No treatment by parity interactions

• No effects on total born piglet birth weight

Future Analysis• Effects on number of pigs born alive and weaned?

• Effects on subsequent reproductive performance?

• What effect does increased lean gain have on sow

performance?

Stay Tuned!!!!

To determine the effects of increasing dietary lysine during lactation on sow and litter

performance

Graduate Student: Kiah Gourley

Objective

Materials and Methods

• 710 mixed parity sows (DNA Line 241)• Pillen Family Farms (Columbus, NE)• On d 112 of gestation, sows were allotted by BW to treatment diets:–0.75, 0.90, 1.05, 1.20% SID Lys

• Fed diets from d 114 of gestation to weaning

SID Lysine Intake, g/d

48.4

57.2

70.2 70.6

35

45

55

65

75

85

0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20

g/d

SID Lysine, %

Gourley et al., 2017

‐78.7‐70.3

‐62.8‐69.7

‐80

‐60

‐40

‐200.75 0.90 1.05 1.20

BW Change, lb

SEM = 1.50linear, P = 0.003

quadratic, P = 0.004Trt within Parity, P = 0.02

SID Lysine, %

Sow BW Change, d 112 to Wean


SEM = 3.1linear, P = 0.361quadratic, P = 0.107

Sow BW Change, d 112 to Wean

‐82 ‐84

‐68

‐82

‐66‐62

‐66

‐75

‐49

‐84

‐64 ‐62

‐100

‐80

‐60

‐40

‐20P1 P2 P3 plus

lb

Series1 Series2 Series3 Series40.75 0.90SIDLys



1.05 1.20


Loin Eye Depth Change, d 112 to Wean

‐1.9

‐1.0

‐0.1

0.5

‐3

‐2

‐1

0

1

0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20

mm

SID Lysine, %



Females Bred by d 7 after Weaning

77

8995

84

95 9692

96 9693 91 94

70

80

90

100

110

P1 P2 P3 plus

%

SID Lys 0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20





134.9 135.3

141.0

132.4

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20

lb

SID Lysine, %

SEM = 1.4Linear, P = 0.807Quadratic = 0.001

Litter Weaning Weight


Thank You to Our Research Partners

available at:www.KSUswine.org

• 1,222 experiments• 472,053 pigs

ksu swine day 2017 - k-state asi › events › swine-day › swine... · – porcine epidemic...

Documents