2018 Swine Day available at: www.KSUswine.org 46 papers 54 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2018 Swine Day

available at: www.KSUswine.org

• 46 papers
• 54 experiments
• > 52,000 pigs

Feeding The Breeding Herd

SID Lysine for gestating sows Born alive piglet birth weight

SEM = 0.04 Trt × Parity, P = 0.719 Linear, P = 0.955 Quadratic, P = 0.725

2.78 2.81 2.79 2.81 2.94 2.87 2.97 2.87

2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 11.0 13.5 16.0 18.5 Born alive piglet BW, lb SID Lys, g/d Gilts Sows

Thomas et al., 2018

SID Lysine for gestating sows Number of pigs born alive

SEM = 0.29 Trt × Parity, P = 0.737 Linear, P = 0.280 Quadratic, P = 0.583

14.3 14.5 14.5 14.4 14.6 15.1 14.9 15.3

5 10 15 20 25 30 11.0 13.5 16.0 18.5 Born alive, n SID Lys, g/d Gilts Sows

Thomas et al., 2018

SID Lysine for gestating sows Percentage of pigs born alive

SEM = 0.62 Trt × Parity, P = 0.152 Linear, P = 0.030 Linear within sows, P = 0.006 Linear within gilts, P = 0.756 94.0 95.3 94.8 94.5 92.8 93.6 93.8 95.2 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 11.0 13.5 16.0 18.5 Born alive, % SID Lys, g/d Gilts Sows

Thomas et al., 2018

SID Lysine for gestating sows Percentage of stillborns

SEM = 0.54 Trt × Parity, P = 0.043 Linear, P = 0.109 Linear within sows, P = 0.002 Linear within gilts, P = 0.408 2.8 2.2 3.0 2.9 4.6 3.3 3.5 2.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11.0 13.5 16.0 18.5 Stillborn, % SID Lys, g/d Gilts Sows

Thomas et al., 2018

SID Lysine for gestating sows Profit Per Weaned Pig

0.00 0.00 ‐0.01 ‐0.24 ‐0.25 ‐0.20 ‐0.15 ‐0.10 ‐0.05 0.00 11 13.5 16 18.5 Profit/weaned pig, $

SID Lys, g/d $32/weaned pig $308/ton SBM $0.69/lb L‐Lys HCl

Thomas et al., 2018

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing on sow and litter performance

Influence of peripartum feeding of the sow on piglet weight gain

14.4 13.2 15.1 15.4 15.4 13.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 < 18 18 to 22 > 22 Pig weight gain, lb Standard Ad lib

Sow backfat at farrowing, mm

Cool et al. 2014 BF x feed P < 0.035

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing

Gourley et al., 2018 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 9.4 9.4 9.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3

4 6 8 10 12 14 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 d of gestation ME, Mcal/d Lactation from day 107 Control Lactation from day 113

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing

12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 28 28 28 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

10 20 30 40 50 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 d of gestation SID Lys, g/d Lactation from day 107

Gourley et al., 2018

Lactation from day 113 Control

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing

4.7 8.9 15.7 5.1 7.3 19.3 10 20 30 1 2 3 1 2 3 Gilts Sows BW gain, lb

Sow BW gain, d 106 to loading

a a b b b ab

Control 113 107

Gourley et al., 2018 Trt within parity, P < 0.05 Gilt SEM = 1.92 Sow SEM = 1.22

Control 113 107

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing

0.27 0.58 0.80 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1 2 3 Backfat gain, mm Treatment

Backfat gain, d 106 to loading

Trt, P < 0.05 SEM = 0.13

a ab b

Gourley et al., 2018

Control 113 107

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing

2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 2 3 1 2 3 Gilts Sows Pig BW, lb

Average born alive pig BW, 0 h

b a a

Trt within parity, P < 0.05 Gilt SEM = 0.07 Sow SEM = 0.05 Gourley et al., 2018

Control 113 107 Control 113 107

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing

12.4 12.7 12.5 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 Yield, lb/sow Colostrum yield

Gourley et al., 2018 Trt, P = 0.758 SEM = 0.25

Treatment Control 113 107

Increasing feeding duration of high dietary lysine and energy before farrowing

120.2 119.4 116.1 100 110 120 130 1 2 3 Litter gain, lb

Litter gain to weaning

Gourley et al., 2018

Treatment

Trt, P = 0.291 SEM = 2.11

Control 113 107

Effect of soybean meal concentration on lactating sow diets on sow and litter performance

8.1 14.6 16.4 12.8 8.1 14.3 15.9 12.5 8.1 13.4 14.6 11.9 4 8 12 16 20 d 0 to 7 d 7 to 14 d 14 to wean Farrow to wean ADFI, lb

25% 30% 35%

Linear, P=0.684 SEM=0.24 Linear, P=0.001 SEM=0.30 Linear, P=0.001 SEM=0.25 Linear, P=0.001 SEM=0.24 Gourley et al., 2018

Soybean meal

Effects of increasing soybean meal in lactation diets

6.6 6.5 6.7 2 4 6 8 10 25% 30% 35% Litter ADG, lb Soybean meal concentration

linear, P=0.288 SEM=0.17

Gourley et al., 2018

Effects of increasing soybean meal in lactation diets

Recent Sow Research ‐ Take Home Messages

• 1. Gestation – a wide range of lysine levels appear

to be economical – suggest 13 g/day

• 2. Pre‐farrowing (day 113+) ‐ full feed lactation diet
• 3. Lactation‐ Keep soybean meal levels below 600

lb per ton

71

72

• Objective of this study: evaluate the effect of

supplementation of sow diets with Bacillus subtilis C‐3102 during gestation and lactation on sow and litter performance

• 29 mixed‐parity sows (DNA 241), KSU Swine Teaching and

Research Center

• Fed from d 30 of gestation to weaning
• Sow diet: control diet or probiotic diet with Bacillus subtilis

C‐3102 (Calsporin)

– Gestation: probiotic diet top dressed with Calsporinto achieve 500,000 CFU/g of diet – Lactation: probiotic diet supplemented with Calsporinto achieve 1,000,000 CFU/g of diet

Menegat et al., 2018

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic on sow and litter performance

73

15.5 14.1 1.4

16.8 14.5 2.3 5 10 15 20 Total born Born alive Stillborn and mummy

Piglets, n

Control Probiotic

SEM: TB = 0.95 BA = 0.72 BD = 0.59 P‐value: P > 0.10

Menegat et al., 2018

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic on sow farrowing performance

74

13.3 13.8

12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0

Control Probiotic Litter size, n

Cross‐fostering within treatment

• n d 2 of lactation

SEM = 0.24 P = 0.060

Menegat et al., 2018

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic on litter size at cross‐fostering

75

12.7 12.7

10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

Control Probiotic Litter size, n

Weaning on d 19 of lactation

SEM = 0.32 P = 0.916

Menegat et al., 2018

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic on litter size at weaning

77

13.1 13.7

12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5

Control Probiotic ADFI, lb

SEM = 0.38 P = 0.056

Menegat et al., 2018

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic on sow lactation feed intake

79

4.25 3.39

6.22 5.41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sow Piglet

Total Bacillus sp., log10 CFU/g

Control Probiotic

SEM: Sow = 0.05 Pig = 0.20 P‐value: P < 0.01

Menegat et al., 2018

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic on piglet total fecal Bacillus sp. at weaning

80

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic and prebiotics on nursery pig ADG

– On day 19 post‐farrowing, piglets were weaned and moved to nursery by sow treatment. – Sow diet: control diet or probiotic diet with Bacillus subtilis C‐3102 in gestation and lactation (Calsporin

 at

500,000 and 1,000,000 CFU/g, respectively) – Nursery diet: control diet or probiotic diet with Bacillus subtilis C‐3102 and yeast cell wall prebiotic (BacPack ABF



at 0.05% of diet)

Menegat et al., 2018

81

0.94 0.93 0.91 0.90

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

Control Probiotic Control Probiotic ADG, lb

Overall, d 0 to 42

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic and prebiotics on nursery pig ADG

Control Probiotic

Nursery diet: Sow diet: SEM = 0.018 Sow × Nursery diet: P = 0.755 Sow diet: P = 0.135 Nursery diet: P = 0.535

Menegat et al., 2018

83

1.47 1.48 1.48 1.48

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

Control Probiotic Control Probiotic F/G

Overall, d 0 to 42

Effect of a Bacillus‐based probiotic and prebiotics on nursery pig F/G

Control Probiotic

SEM = 0.008 Sow × Nursery diet: P = 0.467 Sow diet: P = 0.994 Nursery diet: P = 0.518

Menegat et al., 2018

Nursery diet: Sow diet:

• H. Williams1*, J. DeRouchey1, J. Woodworth1,
• M. Tokach1, S. Dritz1, R. Goodband1, and A. Holtcamp2

1Kansas State University, Manhattan 2Ceva, Lenexa, KS

Introduction

• Newborn piglets are more susceptible to iron

deficiency.

– Inadequate iron stores at birth – Rapid growth rate before weaning

• Injection of 200 mg of iron is commonplace in the

swine industry at time of piglet processing.

– Improved growth rate and iron status of piglets

• Concern over level provided with one injection
• pposed to giving a booster before weaning.

Joliff and Mahan, 2011; Starzyński et al., 2013

10.4 12.5 12.9 12.7 12.7 12.6 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 50 100 150 200 200 + 100 BW, lb

Effects of Fe Dosage on Suckling Piglet Weaning Weight

Williams et al., 2018

SEM = 0.32 Quadratic, P = 0.001 200 vs. 200 + 100, P = 0.800

Fe, mg

42.7 46.5 47.6 50.1 50.5 49.9 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 50 100 150 200 200 + 100 BW, lb

Effects of Fe Dosage on Nursery Ending BW

Williams et al., 2018

SEM = 1.17 Linear, P = 0.001 200 vs. 200 + 100, P = 0.730

Fe, mg

1.75 1.61 1.57 1.54 1.59 1.58 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 50 100 150 200 200 + 100 F/G

Effects of Fe Dosage on Nursery Feed Efficiency (d 0 to 42)

Williams et al., 2018

SEM = 0.036 Quadratic, P = 0.007 200 vs. 200 + 100, P = 0.803

Fe, mg

Effects of Fe Dosage on Hemoglobin (d 0 to 63)

*SEM ranged from 0.22 to 0.24 **100 mg of Fe given at d 11 Williams et al., 2018

3 6 9 12 15 3 11 21 35 63 Hb, g/dl Day 50 100 150 200 200 + 100

**

Fe, mg

Trt x Day, P = 0.001

aQuadratic, P < 0.05 bLinear, P < 0.05 c200 vs. 200 + 100, P < 0.05

a a,c b,c

12.0 13.0 13.7 13.6 12.8 13.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 2 4 6 8 10 BW, lb

Timing of 200 mg Injectable Fe on Suckling Piglet Weaning Weight

Williams et al., 2018 SEM = 0.36 Quadratic, P = 0.113 0 vs. Others , P = 0.001

Age, d

1.01 1.06 1.14 1.11 1.13 1.11 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 2 4 6 8 10 ADG, lb

Timing of 200 mg of Injectable Fe on Nursery Average Daily Gain (d 21 to 80)

Williams et al., 2018 SEM = 0.030 0 vs. Others , P = 0.003

Age, d

72.6 76.1 81.1 81.8 80.1 78.9 60.0 67.0 74.0 81.0 88.0 2 4 6 8 10 BW, lb

Timing of 200 mg Injectable Fe on Nursery Ending BW (d 21 to 80)

Williams et al., 2018 SEM = 1.62 Quadratic, P = 0.013 0 vs. Others , P = 0.001

Age, d

Timing of 200 mg Injectable Fe on Hemoglobin (d 0 to 35)

*SEM ranged from 0.21 to 0.22 Williams et al., 2018

3 6 9 12 15 2 12 21 35 Hb, g/dL Day 2 4 6 8 10 Age, d

Trt x Day, P = 0.001

aQuadratic, P < 0.05 bLinear, P < 0.05 c0 vs. Others, P < 0.05

a,c c b,c

Overview of Feed Science and Nutrition Research

• Phytase Stability
• Phosphorus Requirement
• Ca:P Ratio

Pellet Mill Processing Parameters

• 245 mm × 1397 mm Wenger

twin staff pre‐conditioner

• 30 HP CPM 1012‐2 HD Master

Model

• 4.8 mm × 50.8 mm pellet die;

L:D = 10.67

• 4.5 kg/min production rate

(30% of rated throughput)

Truelock et al., 2018

Hot Pellet Temperature

Interaction, P = 0.11 Source, P = 0.39 Temp., Quadratic, P = 0.03 205 207 211 202 208 212 203 208 210 201 208 211 195 200 205 210 215 180 190 200 Hot Pellet Temperature, ˚F Conditioning Temperature, ˚F A B C D

Hot Pellet Temperature, °F

Truelock et al., 2018

33.7 17.5 16.3 13.0 8.3 9.0 24.2 11.2 11.8 20.7 11.5 9.7 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 180 203 190 208 200 211 Phytase Stability, % Temperature, ˚F A B C D

Phytase Stability, %

Condition: Hot Pellet: Interaction, P < 0.01 Source, P < 0.01 Temp., Quadratic, P < 0.01

Truelock et al., 2018

Hot Pellet Temperature, °F

Truelock et al., 2018

192 189 201 197 209 208 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Hot Pellet Temperature, °F 50% Production Rate 100% Production Rate 170 190 180 170 180 190

Conditioned Mash Phytase Stability, %

Truelock et al., 2018

110 105 82 115 43 81 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Phytase Stability, % 50% Production Rate 100% Production Rate 170 190 180 170 180 190

Pellet Phytase Stability, %

Truelock et al., 2018

40 92 18 45 6 14 20 40 60 80 100 Phytase Stability, % 50% Production Rate 100% Production Rate 170 190 180 170 180 190 192 210 197 189 201 209 Condition: Hot Pellet:

Pellet Mill Comparison

Detail Model 1012‐2 3016‐4 7936‐12 L:D ratio 8 12 8 12 8 12 Die work area (inch2) 85 85 226 226 1379 1379 Effective length (inch) 1.50 2.25 1.50 2.25 1.50 2.25 Production rate (ton/hr) 1 1 5 5 60 60 Holes per Die 1,223 1,223 3,262 3,262 19,900 19,900 Volumn per die (inch3) 270 405 720 1,080 4,394 6,590

Saensukjaroenphon et al., 2018

Die Retention Time, sec

10.7 5.7 2.9 16.1 8.6 4.4 4 8 12 16 20 1 ton 5 ton 60 ton Retention time, sec 8 12 L:D Ratio

Saensukjaroenphon et al., 2018

Effects of phytase source and storage time on phytase activity (85 F, 75% humidity)

Linear time, P<0.001 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 30 60 90 AOAC Ratio Day of storage Pure HP Pure AP Pure QB VTM HP VTM AP VTM QB

Ratio of average AOAC analyzed values to calculated values.

Vier et al.,2018

Effects of phytase source and storage time

(85 F, 75% humidity)

Bone ash, 25 to 50 lb pigs

Vier et al.,2018

38.4 46.9 44.6 42.8 43.3 44.1 41.3 42.8 35 38 41 44 47 50 NC PC HP AP QB HP AP QB Bone ash, % PURE VTM

d

a a,b b,c b,c b,c b

c

SEM = 0.031 Overall, P<0.001

STTD P requirement of 13‐ to 28‐lb pigs fed diets with or without phytase

0.53 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.67 0.66 0.64

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170% ADG, lb STTD P, as % of NRC

No phytase 2,000 FYT Phytase

No phytase: 117% of NRC (99% performance at 106%) W/ phytase: 138% of NRC (99% performance at 122%)

Phytase: P < 0.01 No phytase: quad, P < 0.01 W/ phytase: quad, P = 0.03

Wu et al., 2018

STTD P requirement of 13‐ to 28‐lb pigs fed diets with or without phytase

1.42 1.38 1.33 1.34 1.32 1.30 1.31 1.29 1.27 1.26 1.27 1.27

1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 80% 90% 100% 110% 125% 140% 155% 170% F/G STTD P, as % of NRC

No phytase 2,000 FYT Phytase

Phytase: P < 0.01 No phytase: linear, P < 0.01 quad, P = 0.06 W/ phytase: linear, P < 0.01 quad, P = 0.07

Wu et al., 2018

ADG, 25 to 50 lb

STTD P, % 1.14 1.15 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53 0.58 ADG, lb

SEM = 0.019 Linear, P = 0.001 Quadratic, P = 0.008

% of NRC 90 100 115 130 145 160 175

Vier et al.,2018

STTD P for nursery pigs fed diets with phytase

Phytase= 1000FYT of HiPhos

0.75:1 1.00:1 1.25:1 1.50:1 1.75:1 2.00:1

ADG, g

1050 1000 950 900 850

Total Ca:P ratio

Pen QP 95% CI

ADG, 58 to 281 lb

Vier et al.,2018

Effects of analyzed Ca:P ratio on pig performance

QP: 1.38 Ca:P ratio

0.75:1 1.00:1 1.25:1 1.50:1 1.75:1 2.00:1 Analyzed total Ca:P ratio

ADG, lb

2.31 2.20 2.09 1.98 1.87

HCW, 58 to 281 lb

Vier et al.,2018

Effects of analyzed Ca:P ratio on pig performance

205.0 211.4 212.1 208.6 208.1 204.3 200 205 210 215 220 0.75:1 1.00:1 1.25:1 1.50:1 1.75:1 2.00:1 HCW, lb Analyzed total Ca:P ratio

SEM = 1.175 Linear, P=0.298 Quadratic, P=0.003

HCW, 57 to 279 lb

Vier et al.,2018

Effects of analyzed Ca:P ratio on pig performance

199.6 204.9 206.4 208.4 206.7 190 200 210 220 0.75:1 1.00:1 1.25:1 1.50:1 1.75:1 2.00:1 HCW, lb Analyzed Ca:P ratio

SEM = 2.99 Linear, P = 0.007 Quadratic, P = 0.015 Phytase= 1000FYT of HiPhos

Amino acid research update

• The “next” limiting amino acid: histidine
• Phase feeding

– 2017 Swine Day: could reduce phases to 2 phases in grow‐ finish if formulate lysine for max performance

• Diets with high corn levels or corn‐byproducts have

high leucine:lysine ratios.

– Have lower feed intake and lower ADG. – Do these high ratios influence requirement to other amino acids?

SID His:Lys requirement for nursery pigs

• Practical nursery diets are formulated with increasing

amounts of feed‐grade amino acids

– Currently added: Lys, Thr, Met, Trp, and Val – Soon: Isoleucine

• Histidine could be the sixth limiting amino acid in many of

these diets – NRC (2012) suggests: 34% SID His:Lys

• Therefore, the SID His:Lys could dictate the maximum

inclusion of other feed‐grade amino acids

Cemin et al., 2018

SID His:Lys requirement for ADG

Breakpoint: 31.0% SID His:Lys 95% CI: [29.7, 32.3%] Cemin et al., 2018

SID His:Lys requirement for feed efficiency

Breakpoint: 28.6% SID His:Lys 95% CI: [29.7, 32.3%] Cemin et al., 2018

Simplification of phase‐feeding:

161

Phase‐feeding programs for grow‐finish pigs

Menegat et al., 2017

2‐PHASE 4‐PHASE

=

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb

1‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 4‐PHASE

209.7 215.3 212.6 215.7

195 200 205 210 215 220 225

1‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 4‐PHASE HCW, lb

Hot Carcass Weight

169

SEM = 2.31

ab P = 0.014

b a ab a

Effect of phase‐feeding program on HCW

Lysine at requirement for maximum performance

Menegat et al., 2018

59.79 60.36 59.34 60.58

$52 $55 $58 $61 $64

1‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 4‐PHASE IOFC, $/pig

Income over feed cost

170

SEM = 0.83 P = 0.601

Effect of phase‐feeding program on IOFC

Lysine at requirement for maximum performance

Menegat et al., 2018

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb

1‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 4‐PHASE

172

1.43 2.01 2.17 2.11 1.58 2.19 2.12 1.99 1.71 2.10 2.10 1.98 1.69 2.20 2.09 2.02 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 ADG, lb

1‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 4‐PHASE

Effect of phase feeding program on Average daily gain by phase

abc P < 0.05

within phase 0.79 0.91 1.07 1.07

SID Lys, %

0.79 0.91 0.85 0.91 0.79 0.91 0.85 0.79 0.79 0.72 0.72 0.72

c b a a SEM =

Ph 1: 0.011 Ph 2: 0.013 Ph 3: 0.015 Ph 4: 0.011

a b b ab b a ab a

• Exp. 3

Menegat et al., 2018

1.90 1.94 1.96 1.98

1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05

1‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 4‐PHASE ADG, lb

Overall, d 0 to 119

174

SEM = 0.02

ab P = 0.009

b ab ab a

Effect of phase‐feeding program on ADG

Lysine at requirement for feed cost/lb of gain

Menegat et al., 2018

2.66 2.60 2.60 2.55

2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8

1‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 4‐PHASE F/G

Overall, d 0 to 119

176

SEM = 0.01

ab P < 0.001

c b b a

Effect of phase‐feeding program on F/G

Lysine at requirement for feed cost/lb of gain

Menegat et al., 2018

210.4 213.8 215.3 217.4

200 205 210 215 220 225

1‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 4‐PHASE HCW, lb

Hot Carcass Weight

178

SEM = 1.61

ab P = 0.005

b ab ab a

Effect of phase‐feeding program on HCW

Lysine at requirement for feed cost/lb of gain

Menegat et al., 2018

64.56 65.04 65.82 67.65

$60 $62 $64 $66 $68 $70

1‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 3‐PHASE 4‐PHASE IOFC, $/pig

Income over feed cost

179

SEM = 0.69

ab P = 0.018

b ab ab a

Effect of phase‐feeding program on IOFC

Lysine at requirement for feed cost/lb of gain

Menegat et al., 2018

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb

2‐PHASE 4‐PHASE 2‐PHASE 4‐PHASE

= ≠

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal BW, lb

Effects of HP DDG on nursery pig performance

1.18 1.21 1.09 1.06 1.08 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% ADG, lb HP DDG

BW range = 25 to 48 lb

Cemin et al., 2018 Linear, P = 0.001 SEM = 0.027

Effects of HP DDG on nursery pig performance

BW range = 25 to 48 lb

Cemin et al., 2018 Linear, P = 0.001 SEM = 0.040

1.83 1.89 1.71 1.66 1.64 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% ADFI, lb HP DDG

Effects of HP DDG on nursery pig performance

BW range = 25 to 48 lb

Cemin et al., 2018 Quadratic, P = 0.051 SEM = 0.017

1.55 1.55 1.58 1.57 1.52 1.5 1.6 1.7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% F/G HP DDG

High protein DDGS

• 97% of productive energy of corn
• Linear reduction in ADG and ADFI. Why?
• Leucine? – Meta analysis by Cemin (2019)

ADG, g = – 574.08 + 0.9652  average BW (kg) + 1.1977  Leu:Lys + 21.1981  Ile:Lys – 0.1530  Ile:Lys  Ile:Lys + 10.7388  (Ile+Val):Leu – 0.0394  (Ile+Val):Leu  (Ile+Val):Leu – 0.5498  Ile:Trp

Cemin et al., 2019

Predicting performance of pigs fed high corn byproduct diets

Cemin et al., 2019

Mycotoxins in 2018 Kansas corn crop

• Fumonisin toxicity

– Pigs

• Sample 1: B1 = 753 ppm; B2 = 223 ppm; B3= 105 ppm
• Sample 2: B1 = 523 ppm; B2 = 137 ppm; B3= 69 ppm

– Horses

• Desired fumonisin levels

– < 10 ppm; concern between 5 and 10 ppm – If concerned, consider cleaning corn, remove dust & test

• Toxicologist: Dr. Steve Ensley

Feed Mill Biosecurity

Pathogen Transmission Through Feed

K-State Outreach Associated with Pathogen Survival in Feed in 2018

257

Exclude High Risk Ingredients Active Mitigation Extend Biosecurity Practices from Farms to Mills

Feed Biosecurity: Hurdles to Prevent Pathogen Transfer through Feed

• High risk ingredients:

– Have the potential to have pathogen contamination

• Source location, agricultural

practices, transportation

– Have characteristics to harbor virus that can survive at infectious levels

• Porcine‐based, vegetable

carriers, natural protein, high surface area:mass ratio

Whole Soybean Soybean Meal

Exclude High Risk Ingredients from Mills

• Use receiving mats/funnels
• Route vehicle traffic strategically
• Use your own employees to unload
• Start treating your mill like your farm:

physical barriers, foot baths, zoning

• In high stress times, sanitize trucks

Pictures by Scott Dee and Jason Woodworth

Extend Biosecurity from Farms to Mills

n/d 34.7 n/d 35.3 n/d 33.3 33.1 34.1 28.8 29.9 35.3 31.2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Enterobacteriaceae contamination rate Funded by SHIC Green: PDCoV > 35, SVA > 40 Orange: PDCoV < 35, SVA > 40 Red: PDCoV < 35, SVA < 40 Data labels = PDCoV Ct

Consider Surveillance to Find Weak Points in Biosecurity Compliance

Active Mitigation: Your Last Hurdle

• Quarantine via ASFV half‐life

– Viral decay is time × temp dependent – ASFV is stable at cold temps, but is sensitive to heat – Currently no direct time × temp for ASFV – Extrapolation of other data suggests ASFV risk will be lowered with higher temp

• Consider MCFA or

formaldehyde‐based products

y = -0.0667x + 8 y = -40x + 8 y = -102.86x + 8 y = -240x + 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 ASFV Decay, Log TCID50/d Days

Theoretical Time by Thermal Decay Curve for ASFV

54 F 122 F 133 F 140 F

Updated Feed Safety Resources www.ksuswine.org

www.ksuswine.org

Best strategy to prevent pathogen entry:

• 1. Exclude high risk ingredients from diets and mills
• 2. Extend biosecurity practices to feed mills

– Monitor pathogen loads to identify potential entry risks

• 3. Proactively mitigate to further reduce risk

RESEARCH UPDATE:

Risk of African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) Introduction and Transmission in Feed

Megan C. Niederwerder, DVM, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology College of Veterinary Medicine Kansas State University

FAD Important to U.S. Industry

• ASFV Risk: presence in China, lack of an

effective vaccine, stability in environment

https://www.swinehealth.org/swine-disease-matrix/ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/downloads/animal_diseases/swine/asf-china.pdf

3 Part Approach

• 1. Determine survival in feed and feed

ingredients under transboundary model

• 2. Investigate oral infectious dose through

natural feeding and drinking behavior

• 3. Assess tools for mitigating risk of virus

transmission in feed and feed ingredients

Transboundary Model

Dee et al., 2018

Mean Temperature: 54°F (Range 32-79°F) Mean Humidity: 74% (Range 20-100%)

ASFV in Feed Ingredients

Dee et al., 2018

Transboundary Model

Dee et al., 2018

3 Part Approach

• 1. Determine survival in feed and feed

ingredients under transboundary model

• 2. Investigate oral infectious dose through

natural feeding and drinking behavior

• 3. Assess tools for mitigating risk of virus

transmission in feed and feed ingredients

Oral Dose Model

• 14 replicates = 84 total pigs (7-8 weeks old)

– Natural drinking and consumption of feed

• ASFV Georgia 2007

– Challenge doses: 100 – 108 TCID50

Niederwerder et al., 2018 Submitted to EID

Probability of Infection

Niederwerder et al., 2018 Submitted to EID

Multiple Exposures

Niederwerder et al., 2018 Submitted to EID

• 1. Determine survival in feed and feed

ingredients under transboundary model

• 2. Investigate oral infectious dose through

natural feeding and drinking behavior

• 3. Assess tools for mitigating risk of virus

transmission in feed and feed ingredients

3 Part Approach

State of Kansas NBAF Fund

What are we doing in feed mills?

Biosecurity Audit List of all ingredients in the mill

Review and classify into negligible or moderate risk

Ingredients:

• Review protocols from

suppliers

• Specify all carriers are

North America origin

• Porcine and other

animal protein products:

• None in the mill
• Bulk ingredients
• None used from outside

North America or Europe

Vitamin levels for finishing pigs

Vitamin Units/lb Old New Vitamin A IU 1,600,00 750,000 Vitamin D IU 400,000 300,000 Vitamin E mg 8,000 8,000 Vitamin K mg 800 600 Vitamin B12 mg 7 6 Niacin mg 15,000 9,000 Pantothenic acid mg 5,000 5,000 Riboflavin mg 1,500 1,500

Del Tuffo et al., 2018

Vitamin levels for finishing pigs

1 2 3 4 5 ADG, lb ADFI, lb F/G Old New 1.73 1.73 4.27 4.23 2.47 2.45

P = 0.393 P = 0.732 P = 0.309

BW range = 35 to 278 lb

Del Tuffo et al., 2018

Projecting changes in pig growth, pork quality, eating experience, and muscle physiology

due to increasing live and carcass weights

377 369 365 359 353 356 300 330 360 390 12.7 10.4 8.8 7.7 7.1 7.7 BW, lb

Final BW, d 160

Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy for heavy weight pigs

Initial Space Allowance: Final Space Allowance:

12.7 10.4 8.8 7.7 10.4 10.4

SEM = 3.5 Linear, P = 0.001 Quadratic, P = 0.925 Multiple marketing vs. trt 4: P > 0.05

Lerner et al., 2018

SEM = 0.024 Linear, P = 0.650 Quadratic, P = 0.605

Lerner et al., 2018

Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy for heavy weight pigs

2.04 1.98 1.95 1.92 1.96 1.95

1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20

12.7 10.4 8.8 7.7 7.1 7.7 ADG, lb

ADG, d 0 to 160

Initial Space Allowance: Final Space Allowance: 12.7

10.4 8.8 7.7 10.4 10.4

SEM = 0.017 Linear, P = 0.001 Quadratic, P = 0.713 Multiple marketing vs. trt 4: P > 0.05

Lerner et al., 2018

SEM = 0.024 Linear, P = 0.650 Quadratic, P = 0.605

Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy for heavy weight pigs

Initial Space Allowance:

12.7 10.4 8.8 7.7 10.4 10.4

SEM = 0.017 Linear, P = 0.001 Quadratic, P = 0.713 Multiple marketing vs. trt 4: P > 0.05

6.20 5.91 5.82 5.77 5.64 5.72 5.20 5.60 6.00 6.40 12.7 10.4 8.8 7.7 7.1 7.7 ADFI, lb

ADFI, d 0 to 160

Initial Space Allowance: Final Space Allowance: 12.7

10.4 8.8 7.7 10.4 10.4

SEM = 0.069 Linear, P = 0.001 Quadratic, P = 0.169 Multiple marketing vs. trt 4: P > 0.05

Lerner et al., 2018

Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy for heavy weight pigs

3.04 2.99 2.98 3.00 2.87 2.94 2.65 2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.15 12.7 10.4 8.8 7.7 7.1 7.7 F/G

F/G, d 0 to 160

Initial Space Allowance: Final Space Allowance: 12.7

10.4 8.8 7.7 10.4 10.4

SEM = 0.021 Linear, P = 0.091 Quadratic, P = 0.04 Multiple marketing vs. trt 4: P < 0.05

a b c Lerner et al., 2018

Consumer Preference & Palatability

Hot Carcass Weights Light – Less than 246.5 lbs; LT Med Light – 246.6 to 262.5 lbs; MLT Med Heavy – 262.5 to 276.5 lbs; MHVY Heavy – 276.5 lbs and greater; HVY

Rice et al., 2018

Consumer Appearance, purchase intent ratings for chops from varying carcass weight categories

20 40 60 80 100 Appearance Rating Purchase Intent Purchase, % yes LT MLT MHVY HVY

ab c bc a ab bc c a

Rice et al., 2018

Percentage of consumers who indicated the sample was acceptable for juiciness, tenderness, flavor, and

• verall for varying hot carcass weights

20 40 60 80 100 Juiciness Tenderness Flavor Overall Like LT MLT MHVY HVY

a b b b a a a b

Rice et al., 2018

Consumer perceived quality for varying hot carcass weights

10 20 30 40 50 60 Unsatisfactory Everyday Quality Better than Everyday Quality Premium LT MLT MHVY HVY

b a b a

Rice et al., 2018

2.02 1.94 1.97 1.95 1.90 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 76 42 27 15 ADG, lb Withdrawal time, d

ADG, d ‐76 to 0

SEM = 0.028 Linear, P = 0.002 Quadratic, P = 0.973

Lerner et al., 2018

Effects of DDGS withdrawal prior to market

3.03 3.18 3.19 3.13 3.17 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 76 42 27 15 F/G Withdrawal time, d

F/G, d ‐76 to 0

SEM = 0.062 Linear, P = 0.003 Quadratic, P = 0.022

Lerner et al., 2018

Effects of DDGS withdrawal prior to market

219 216 214 212 209 200 206 212 218 224 76 42 27 15 HCW Withdrawal time, d

Hot Carcass Weight

SEM = 4.03 Linear, P =0.009 Quadratic, P = 0.554

Lerner et al., 2018

Effects of DDGS withdrawal prior to market

73.6 73.6 73.3 73.0 73.0 71 72 73 74 75 76 42 27 15 Yield, % Withdrawal time, d

Carcass yield

SEM = 4.13 Linear, P =0.094 Quadratic, P = 0.615

Lerner et al., 2018

Effects of DDGS withdrawal prior to market

65.2 66.5 67.0 65.8 69.4 60.0 62.0 64.0 66.0 68.0 70.0 76 42 27 15 IV Withdrawal time, d

Iodine value of belly fat

SEM = 1.08 Linear, P =0.030 Quadratic, P = 0.364

Lerner et al., 2018

Effects of DDGS withdrawal prior to market

“Other” research in 2018 KSU Swine Day

• Lysine fermentation byproduct for sows
• Vaccination timing on nursery pig performance
• Sugar beet pulp on finishing pig performance
• Added fat for grow‐finish pigs
• Isoflavone in low CP diets for late finishing pigs
• Quality of premium pork loins
• Particle size variation impact on pig performance
• Pellet binders for high fat diets
• Tylosin route of administration on antimicrobial resistance
• Number of drinkers for finishing pigs
• Dietary iron source for nursery pigs
• Probiotics for nursery pigs
• More medium chain fatty acid work
• Sodium metabisulfite on nursery pig growth
• Amount of finishing diet that can be fed in nursery for wean‐to‐finish pigs
• Insoluble fiber source for nursery pigs
• Soybean meal level in late nursery diets

346

Building Memorable Experiences

Graduate Student Achievements ‐ Congratulations!

– Annie Lerner ‐ International Ingredients Pinnacle Award – Jordan Gebhardt ‐ AASV 1st place poster presentation – Kiah Gourley – K‐State Donoghue Graduate Scholarship – Henrique Cemin – Midwest ASAS 1st place poster presentation, Evonik Future Leaders Scholar, Feed Energy Excellence in Ag Scholarship, College of Ag Nunemacher Scholarship, Pureitein Agri‐LLC Scholarship – Hayden Williams ‐ Pureitein Agri‐LLC, Bob and Karen Thaler Graduate Student Swine Nutrition Scholarship – Lori Thomas – K‐State Donoghue Graduate Scholarship – Mariana Menegat ‐ Midwest ASAS 1st place PhD oral presentation, National ASAS Young Scholar – Madie Wensley ‐ K‐State Donoghue Graduate Scholarship – Ashton Yoder – Midwest ASAS 3rd place MS poster presentation – Roger Cochrane – Midwest ASAS Young Scholar

Undergraduate Achievements ‐ Congratulations!

Midwest ASAS Undergraduate Competitions

– Oral Competition

• 1st: Katelyn Thomson, mentored by the Applied Swine Nutrition Team

– Poster Competition I:

• 1st: Abbie Smith, mentored by Dr. Cassie Jones

– Poster Competition II:

• 1st: Ethan Sylvester, mentored by Dr. Cassie Jones

– Poster Competition III:

• 1st: Haley Wecker, mentored by Dr. Chad Paulk
• 3rd Michael Braun, mentored by Dr. Chad Paulk
• Chloe Creager ‐ Top 3 Poster Presentation Award from Gamma

Sigma Delta Undergraduate Research Showcase.

• Chloe Creager and Gage Nichols ‐ Each won Gamma Sigma Delta

Undergraduate Research Award.

• Katelyn Thompson ‐ Represent K‐State at the Undergraduate

Research Day at the Capitol.

Building Unique Experiences

Mar’Quell Collins

Building Tomorrow’s Swine Leaders

Finishing Barn 2009: $850,000 West Finishing Barn 1980: $100,000 South Nursery 2014: $350,000 Gestation 2000: $250,000 Office, Classroom, & Student Apartments 1968 Farrowing & Old Nursery 1968 Breeding 1968 Original facilities built in 1968 Cost are at the time

• f construction

Existing Farrowing House Existing Nursery

Phase 1 and 2 Focus

• Phase 1: Replace aging nursery facility built in 1968

– Expected cost: $350,000 – Why – facilities are required to train undergraduate and graduate students and to conduct breakthrough and exploratory research before taking to field research facilities.

• Phase 2: Replace farrowing facility built in 1968

– Expected cost $300,000 – Similar to the nursery facility, the farrowing facility is critical for training of students and conducting research. **Financial and effort efficiencies would be gained by constructing Phase 1 & 2 at the same time**

Phase 3 and 4 Focus

• Phase 3: New on‐site student housing and

classroom at the K‐State Teaching and Research Center

– Expected cost $300,000 – Original building was built 50 years ago in 1968. Although it has been remodeled

• ver the years to accommodate farm biosecurity, it is nearing the end of its useful

life. – Facility would include an apartment to house 3 student employees and provide an

• ffice, workshop, and classroom.
• Phase 4: Establishment of endowed chairs

and professorships

– Endowed chairs and professorships are needed to ensure swine positions are maintained in the long‐term future at Kansas State University and for salary to be competitive with industry positions. – Endowed Professorships require a $1 million endowment – Endowed Chairs require a $2 million endowment

Current Status

• Generous and unsolicited gift of $250,000 was

already provided by Roy and Linda Henry

• Additional momentum to cover Phase 1
• Raise remaining funds from industry friends,

partners, and beneficiaries of our program

• Goal: New farrowing house and nursery in use by

2020