[PPT] - KSU Swine Day 2012 KSU Swine Day 2012 Morning Sows (Vitamin E, PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

KSU Swine Day 2012

SLIDE 2

KSU Swine Day 2012

Morning – Sows (Vitamin E, carnitine, chromium) Vitamin D

Feed additives

Afternoon – Nursery (soy hulls, wheat middlings) Grow‐finish

Wheat
DDGS (low vs high oil)
Feed processing
Improvest
Marketing

SLIDE 3

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Productivity growth needed to double output Current productivity growth

Technology Gap

Agricultural Output 2010 = 100

SLIDE 4

SLIDE 5

Introduction

Vitamin E is a generic term for 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols

that serve as antioxidants in the lipid components of animal and plant tissues.

The α‐tocopherol form is the most bioactive form for animals and

has eight stereoisomers.

The biological activities of these 8 stereoisomers range from 25 to

100% (Blatt et al., 2004), with the RRR‐ α‐tocopherol form being the most bioactive.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/attp.html

SLIDE 6

Introduction

Common to utilize the esterified forms of a‐tocopherol to prolong

stability

Two common sources of vitamin E:

– Natural vitamin E (RRR‐ α‐tocopherol acetate or d‐α‐tocopherol acetate) is compromised only of the RRR stereoisomer. – Synthetic vitamin E (all rac‐α‐tocopherol acetate or dl‐α‐ tocopherol acetate ) is a combination of the 8 stereoisomers

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/attp.html

SLIDE 7

Objective

The objectives of this study are to:

1) determine the level of α‐tocopherol in plasma, milk, and piglet body tissues when supplied from synthetic or natural vitamin E. 2) estimate the bioavailability of natural vitamin E relative to synthetic vitamin E when included in diets containing a large proportion of DDGS.

SLIDE 8

Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg

8.19 10.31 7.62 11.39 9.40 17.76 6 10 14 18 22 44 66 11 22 33 44 dl‐α‐tocopherol acetate d‐α‐tocopherol acetate Colostrum α‐tocopherol, µg/mL

Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=2.165

Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.45

Natural Linear, P < 0.004 Natural Quadratic, P > 0.26

Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on sow colostrum α‐tocopherol levels

SLIDE 9

Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg

8.19 10.31 6 10 14 18 22 44 66 11 22 33 44 dl‐α‐tocopherol acetate d‐α‐tocopherol acetate Colostrum α‐tocopherol, µg/mL

Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=2.165

Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.45

Natural Linear, P < 0.004 Natural Quadratic, P > 0.26

Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on sow colostrum α‐tocopherol levels

Calculated BA=2.9 Calculated BA=3.0

SLIDE 10

Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg

2.47 2.38 2.11 3.03 3.51 3.78 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 44 66 11 22 33 44 dl‐α‐tocopherol acetate d‐α‐tocopherol acetate Plasma α‐tocopherol, µg/mL

Trt effect, P < 0.03; SEM=0.376

Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.68

Natural Linear, P < 0.004 Natural Quadratic, P > 0.40

Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet plasma α‐tocopherol levels at weaning

SLIDE 11

Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg

2.47 2.38 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 44 66 11 22 33 44 dl‐α‐tocopherol acetate d‐α‐tocopherol acetate Plasma α‐tocopherol, µg/mL

Trt effect, P < 0.03; SEM=0.376

Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.68

Natural Linear, P < 0.004 Natural Quadratic, P > 0.40

Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet plasma α‐tocopherol levels at weaning

Calculated BA=3.0 Calculated BA=5.1

SLIDE 12

Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg

4.84 3.93 3.60 4.75 5.93 6.00 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 44 66 11 22 33 44 dl‐α‐tocopherol acetate d‐α‐tocopherol acetate

Heart α‐tocopherol, µg/mL Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=0.619

Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.22

Natural Linear, P < 0.002 Natural Quadratic, P > 0.31

Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet heart α‐tocopherol levels at weaning

SLIDE 13

Dietary α‐tocopherol level, mg/kg

4.84 3.93 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 44 66 11 22 33 44 dl‐α‐tocopherol acetate d‐α‐tocopherol acetate

Heart α‐tocopherol, µg/mL Trt effect, P < 0.02; SEM=0.619

Syn. 44 vs. 66, P > 0.22

Natural Linear, P < 0.002 Natural Quadratic, P > 0.31

Effects of dietary vitamin E level and source on piglet heart α‐tocopherol levels at weaning

Calculated BA=1.8 Calculated BA=5.3

SLIDE 14

Conclusions

Treatment effects were not observed (P > 0.10) for lactation feed

intake, piglet BW or BW gain, or sow BW measures.

As Natural E increased in the diet, sow plasma, colostrum, milk,

piglet plasma, and piglet heart concentrations of α‐tocopherol increased (linear; P < 0.03).

This study shows that the relative bioavailability for Natural E:Syn

E varies depending on the response criteria but is greater than the potency of 1.36.

SLIDE 15

SLIDE 16

Introduction

Adding L‐carnitine to sow diets at 50 ppm been shown to:

– Increase birth weight (Musser et al., 1999) – Increase litter size (Ramanau et al., 2004) – Increase conception rates (Real et al., 2008) – Improve nutrient utilization (Musser et al., 1999; Ramanau et al., 2004) – Increase plasma leptin concentrations (Woodworth et al., 2004) – Increase maternal IGF‐I concentrations (Musser et al., 1999; Doberenz et al., 2006) and decrease mRNA for IGF‐II in porcine embryonic muscle cells (Waylon et al., 2005)

Adding chromium picolinate to sow diets has been shown to:

– Increase litter size (Lindemann et al., 1995, 2004) – Improve efficiency of insulin (Lindemann et al., 1995)

SLIDE 17

Introduction

The modes of actions for L‐carnitine and

chromium appear to be different; therefore, combining both may result in additive responses.

Objective‐To evaluate the effects of L‐carnitine

and chromium on sow feed utilization, as well as litter size, birth weight, and variation in birth weight on a commercial sow farm.

SLIDE 18

Effect of dietary Carnichrome on individual birth weights

2.97 3.08 3.00 2.97

2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0

Pig weight, lb

SEM = 0.050 Parity × Diet, P = 0.49 Parity, P = 0.67 Diet, P = 0.58

Carnichrome: Parity:

No No Yes Yes 1 and 2 3 +

SLIDE 19

Conclusion

Feeding 25 ppm of carnitine and 200 ppb of chromium picolinate did not improve piglet birth weight or litter size.

SLIDE 20

2012 Vitamin D Update

Oral dose in farrowing
Vitamin D3 in nursery diet
Vitamin D3 in sow diet

SLIDE 21

Effect of oral vitamin D3 dose on weaning weight

Dose effect, P = 0.17 SEM = 0.15 11.4 11.6 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 None 40,000 IU BW, lb Oral vitamin D3 dosage

Flohr et al., 2012

SLIDE 22

Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 by oral dose

r in early nursery diets on nursery ADG

(d 21 to 45)

0.68 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1,378 13,780 1,378 13,780

ADG, lb

Oral Dosage: Dietary D3, IU/kg: None None 40,000 IU 40,000 IU Dose × diet interaction, P = 0.59 Dose effect, P = 0.83 SEM = 0.018 Diet effect, P = 0.92 Flohr et al., 2012

SLIDE 23

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

21 31 45 Serum 25(OH)D3, ng/mL Day of blood collection

None None 40,000 IU 40,000 IU

Oral D3 Dietary D3

Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 by oral dose or in early nursery diets on pig serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations

*d 21, Oral dose, P < 0.01 **d 31, Oral dose, P = 0.08; Diet, P < 0.01 Dose × Diet interaction, P > 0.25 1,378 IU/kg 13,780 IU/kg 1,378 IU/kg 13,780 IU/kg

* **

Flohr et al., 2012

SLIDE 24

Analyzed dietary vitamin D3 concentrations

Diet A Diet B Vitamin Premix Vitamin D3 premix Formulated level, IU/kg 1,378 13,780 550,000 12,375,000 Analyzed level, IU/kg 1,267 10,346 597,886 8,948,486 Analytical error** ± 25% ± 20% ± 10% ± 5%

* Vitamin D3 feed assays were conducted by DSM Nutritional Products Inc. (Parsippany, NJ). ** Laboratory assay variability associated with vitamin D3 content.

Flohr et al., 2012

73% of Expected

SLIDE 25

Effect of Oral Vitamin D Supplementation above basal Dietary Supplementation

Trial Wean Weight, lb Wean 25(OH)D3, ng/ml Nursery End Weight, lb Nursery 25(OH)D3, ng/ml Neonatal Oral Dosing Flohr (SD 2011) 1 +.3 +20.1 +.5 +1.1 Rortvedt (MW 2012) 1,2 NS +20.3 ‐2.3 ‐‐ Flohr (SD 2012) 3 +0.2 +16.4 0.0 +2.4 Tousignant (UMN) +0.2 NS NS +17.0 Field Trial 2,4 0.0 ‐‐ ‐0.4 ‐‐ Nursery H20 Flohr (SD 2012) ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐0.9 +90 (d10) +18 (d31) Field Trial (2 wk) ‐‐ ‐‐ +0.2 +6 (d 49)

1 NS Effect on bone ash, 2 NS effect on mortality 3 NS effect on PCV2 Antibody 4 SIV/PRRS positive NS Effect on WF ADG or Mortality NS=Not significant

SLIDE 26

Dietary Vitamin D Preference Trials

d 7 to 21 after weaning

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Trial 1 Trial 2 44,000 IU/kg 1,375 IU/kg 1,375 IU/kg 13,750 IU/kg

Flohr et al., 2012

SLIDE 27

5 10 15

10 21 Serum 25(OH)D3, ng/mL Day of lactation

1,500 3,000 6,000

* Sow Feed D3 IU/kg

Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 in sow diets on pig serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations

#Quadratic P < 0.01 *Quadratic P = 0.03;

# #

Flohr et al., 2013

SLIDE 28

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

10 21 35 Serum 25(OH)D3, ng/mL Day after weaning

1.5k/1.8k 1.5/18k 3.0/1.8k 3.0/18k 6.0/3.0k 6.0/18.k

# Sow/Nurs D3 Th IU

Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 in sow or nursery diets

n pig serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations

Sow × Nurs interaction, P < 0.01 #d 10,20 Sow Diet Linear P < 0.01 *d 10, 21, Nur Diet P < 0.01 **d 35 Nur Diet P = 0.04;

# ** ** *

Flohr et al., 2013

SLIDE 29

Field Case

May 2011 – Rachitic Rosary noted as an

incidental finding in a necropsy survey of PWM, Confirmed histologically

August 2011 – Reports of broken legs when

loading out pigs (20 to 30 per 1,200 head barn)

September 2011 – Survey of multiple feed

samples Ca/Phos meet targets

October 2011 – Submit Premix for analysis

SLIDE 30

Premix Vitamin D3, IU/lb

Premix Result Expected % of Expected GF VTM Lot 1 No measurable amount 250,000 NA GF VTM Lot 2 No measurable amount 250,000 NA Sow VTM Lot 1 169,875 500,000 34% Sow VTM Lot 2 227,408 500,000 45% Nur VTM Lot 1 373,688 400,000 93% Nur VTM Lot 2 159,890 400,000 40%

SLIDE 31

Slaughter Plant Defect Data

SLIDE 32

Slaughter Plant Defect Data

Little evidence of effects could be found when evaluating sow or growing pig performance

SLIDE 33

Comparison of vitamin D recommendations

Source, IU/kg NRC, 1998 NRC, 2012 KSU Gestation 200 800 1378 Lactation 200 800 1378 Early nursery 220 220 1378 Late nursery 200 200 1378 Grower 150 150 827 Finisher 150 150 551 Paylean phase 150 150 413

SLIDE 34

Steps to ensure vitamin D is supplemented

correctly (and other vitamins and trace minerals):

Develop clear premix specifications
Use reputable premix suppliers
Verify premix production batch sheets
Ensure product rotation
Separate vitamin and trace mineral premix
Verify premix additions

– Inventory control – Eliminate hand adds

Evaluate mixer efficiency
Consider premix testing

SLIDE 35

0.49 0.53 0.54 0.47 0.52 0.54 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 Low Medium High ADG, lb No Enzyme Added Enzyme Complexity linear, P < 0.01 Enzyme, P = 0.44 SEM = 0.023

Influence of enzyme blend and Diet Complexity

n nursery ADG (d 0 – 18; initially 13 lb)

Diet Complexity

DeRouchey et al., 2012

SLIDE 36

1.44 1.36 1.37 1.46 1.39 1.37 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Low Medium High F/G No Enzyme Added Enzyme Complexity linear, P < 0.01 Enzyme, P = 0.39 SEM = 0.030

Influence of enzyme blend and diet complexity

n nursery F/G (d 0 – 18; initially 13 lb)

Diet Complexity

DeRouchey et al., 2012

SLIDE 37

1.19 1.12 1.21 1.10 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 Corn-Soy 30% Wheat Midds ADG, lb

No Enzyme Easzyme

Influence of Easyzyme and Wheat Middlings

n nursery ADG (Exp. 1; d 0 – 21; initially 22 lb)

Graham et al., 2012 Easyzyme x diet, P = 0.34 Easyzyme, P = 1.00 Diet, P = 0.0003 SEM = 0.02

SLIDE 38

1.61 1.69 1.55 1.85 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 Corn-Soy 30% Wheat Midds F/G

No Enzyme Easzyme

Influence of Easyzyme and Wheat Middlings

n nursery F/G (Exp. 1; d 0 – 21; initially 22 lb)

Graham et al., 2012 Easyzyme x diet, P = 0.01 Easyzyme, P = 0.15 Diet, P = 0.001 SEM = 0.04

SLIDE 39

1.12 1.11 1.13 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 500 1,200 ADG, lb Phytase, P > 0.61 SEM = 0.02

Influence of Easyzyme and Phytase in high by‐product diets on nursery ADG (Exp. 2; d 0 – 21; initially 25 lb)

Easyzyme Graham et al., 2012 1.13 1.11 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 No Yes ADG, lb Easyzyme, P = 0.37 SEM = 0.02 Phyzyme Phytase, FTU/kg

SLIDE 40

1.67 1.68 1.65 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 500 1,200 F/G Phytase, P > 0.41 SEM = 0.03

Influence of Easyzyme and Phytase in high by‐product diets on nursery F/G (Exp. 2; d 0 – 21; initially 25 lb)

Easyzyme Graham et al., 2012 1.63 1.70 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 No Yes F/G Easyzyme, P = 0.001 SEM = 0.02 Phyzyme Phytase, FTU/kg

SLIDE 41

1.98 1.96 1.95 1.96 1.93 1.95

1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Control MicroSource 1.3x MicroSource ADG, lb CS DDGS/Bakery

Microsource NS Diet Type NS SEM = 0.017

Effect of diet type and Microsurce S on finishing pig performance (ADG, d 0 to 90)

Nitikanchana et al., 2012

SLIDE 42

2.76 2.79 2.79 2.96 2.92 2.94

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 Control MicroSource 1.3x MicroSource FG CS DDGS/Bakery

Microsource NS Diet Type P < 0.01 SEM = 0.032

Effect of diet type and Microsurce S on finishing pig performance (FG, d 0 to 90)

Nitikanchana et al., 2012

SLIDE 43

6.3 6.1 6.3 8.7 8.2 9.7

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Control MicroSource 1.3x MicroSource Wash Time, min/pen CS DDGS/Bakery

Microsource NS Diet Type P < 0.01 SEM = 0.66

Effect of diet type and Microsurce S on Pen Wash Time (min/pen)

Nitikanchana et al., 2012 ~2 hr more wash time for a 1,200 head barn when feeding DDGS/Bakery

SLIDE 44

KSU Swine Day 2012

Morning – Sows (Vitamin E, carnitine, chromium)

Vitamin D

Feed additives Afternoon – Nursery (soy hulls, wheat middlings) Grow‐finish

Wheat
DDGS (low vs high oil)
Feed processing
Improvest
Marketing

SLIDE 45

Wheat Middlings

During the wheat milling process, about 70 to 75%
f the grain becomes flour, leaving 25 to 30% as

wheat byproducts.

Wheat middlings

– 16% CP; 89% the ME value of corn. – Wheat midds contain between 7.0 and 9.5% fiber. – Low bulk density (anywhere from 18 to 24 lb/cubic ft.) increases the volume of the feed unless they are pelleted at the flour mill.

Wheat midds are commonly added to pelleted feeds

SLIDE 51

1.59 1.64 1.66 1.60 1.65 1.71

1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 Corn‐Soy 10% Midds 20% Midds F/G No DDGS 20% DDGS

No Interactive or DDGS effects Midds linear, P < 0.01 SEM = 0.032

Effect of Wheat Middlings and DDGS in nursery pig diets (d 0 to 21; BW 27 to 54 lb)

De Jong et al., 2012

SLIDE 52

53.4 48.7 46.4 48.8 44.9 42.4 40 44 48 52 56 Corn‐Soy 10% Midds 20% Midds Bulk density, lb/bu No DDGS 20% DDGS

Economics of Wheat Middlings and DDGS in nursery pig diets (d 0 to 21; BW 27 to 54 lb)

De Jong et al., 2012

SLIDE 53

0.97 0.97 0.94 1.00 0.97 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.95 Midds, level, P = 0.12 NE formulation, P = 0.13 SEM = 0.021

ADG, lb

Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8% 1.4% Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20% De Jong et al., 2012

Effect of Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation on nursery pig performance ( d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)

SLIDE 54

1.56 1.55 1.64 1.55 1.60 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.34 Midds linear, P < 0.06 Midds, level, P < 0.01 NE formulation, P = 0.35 SEM = 0.025

F/G

Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8% 1.4% Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20% De Jong et al., 2012

Effect of Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)

SLIDE 55

9.18 8.94 9.03 9.57 9.60 $8.50 $9.00 $9.50 $10.00 Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.88 Midds, level, P > 0.79 NE formulation, P = 0.01 SEM = 0.200

Feed cost/pig, $

Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8% 1.4% Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20% De Jong et al., 2012

Economics of increasing Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation in nursery pigs (d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)

SLIDE 56

9.19 9.35 8.62 9.30 8.70 8.40 8.80 9.20 9.60 10.00 Midds × balanced NE interaction, P > 0.81 Midds quadratic, P > 0.12 Midds, level, P > 0.02 NE formulation, P = 0.96 SEM = 0.270

IOFC, $/pig

Added fat: 0% 0% 0% 2.8% 1.4% Midds: None 10% 20% 10% 20% De Jong et al., 2012

Economics of increasing Wheat Middlings and NE Formulation in nursery pigs (d 0 to 29; BW 15 to 43 lb)

SLIDE 57

SLIDE 58

KSU Swine Day 2012

Morning – Sows (Vitamin E, carnitine, chromium)

Vitamin D

Feed additives Afternoon – Nursery (soy hulls, wheat middlings) Grow‐finish

Wheat
DDGS (low vs high oil)
Feed processing
Improvest
Marketing

SLIDE 59

Soybean Hulls

During the soybean crush process, the hulls is

separated which represents ~8% of the seed.

Soybean hulls

– 10.3% CP; 1.3% fat; 50% the ME of corn (NRC, 2012).

High fiber, bulky ingredient typically used in

ruminant rations.

Very little information is available on nursery and

finishing diets.

– Research supported by National Pork Board

SLIDE 60

1.25 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.18 1.09

0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% ADG, lb No DDGS DDGS added

No Interactive effect Soybean hulls w/out DDGS, P > 0.28 Soybean hulls with DDGS, quadratic P < 0.05 SEM = 0.036

Effect of Soybean Hulls and DDGS in nursery pig diets (Exp. 1, d 0 to 42; BW 15 to 65 lb)

Goehring et al., 2012

Soybean Hulls

SLIDE 61

1.51 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.51 1.48 1.47 1.53 1.55 1.53

1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% F/G No DDGS DDGS added

Hulls level x DDGS, quadratic P < 0.05 Soybean hulls w/out DDGS, P < 0.03 Soybean hulls with DDGS, quadratic P < 0.01 SEM = 0.024

Effect of Soybean Hulls and DDGS in nursery pig diets (Exp. 1, d 0 to 42; BW 15 to 65 lb)

Goehring et al., 2012

Soybean Hulls

SLIDE 62

1.22 1.20 1.22 1.20 1.17 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 0% 3% 6% 9% 12%

ADG, lb

No effects, P > 0.23 SEM = 0.026