KSU Swine Day 2015 Latest Update on K-State Applied Swine Nutrition - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

KSU Swine Day 2015

Latest Update on K-State Applied Swine Nutrition Research

• The ones that do the work!

2015 – Year of change

Depop

• Dr. Kyle Coble – New Fashion Pork
• Dr. Jon De Jong – Pipestone Finishing
• Dr. Josh Flohr – Nutriquest
• Julie Feldpausch – Purdue University
• Dr. Hyatt Frobose – YGA Technologies
• Dr. Marcio Goncalves – PIC
• Kyle Jordan
• Ethan Stephenson – Pillen Family Farms

3

2015 – Year of change

Depop

• Dr. Kyle Coble
• Dr. Jon De Jong
• Dr. Josh Flohr
• Julie Feldpausch
• Dr. Hyatt Frobose
• Dr. Marcio Goncalves
• Kyle Jordan
• Ethan Stephenson

Repop

• Corey Carpenter
• Annie Clark
• Jordan Gebhardt
• Kiah Gourley
• Aaron Jones
• Jose Soto
• Hayden Williams
• Arkin Wu

4

“Holdovers” - Lori Thomas, Loni Schumacher

Congratulations!

• Kyle Coble – ASAS Midwest Young Scholar; 1st place Ph.D. poster
• Jon De Jong – 3rd place Ph.D. Oral abstract
• Hyatt Frobose - 3rd place Ph.D. poster
• Ethan Stephenson - 2nd place M.S. oral abstract
• Jordan Gebhardt – 1st place undergraduate oral, Concurrent

PhD/DVM Scholarship

• Cheyenne Evans – 1st place undergraduate poster
• Roger Cochrane – International Ingredients Pinnacle Award,

Presidential Doctoral Scholarship

• Kiah Gourley - Donoghue Scholarship
• Corey Carpenter – Presidential Doctoral and Nunemacher

Scholarships

• Annie Clark – Donoghue Scholarship

Congratulations! Newest Team Member

• Brooks Dean De Jong

– Born November 12th to Jon and Karis De Jong

6

2015 Swine Day Report

available at: www.KSUswine.org

• 42 papers
• 53 experiments
• 25,222 pigs

7

Antibiotic or Feed Additives for Nursery Pigs

 Pharmacological Cu, Zn and CTC consistently improved ADG and ADFI.  Due to their additive benefits, pharmacological Zn and CTC could be included together in diets to get the maximum benefit in growth performance of weaned pigs.  Neither pharmacological Cu nor Zn improved feed efficiency.  Origanum essential oil elicited no growth benefits and worsened G:F.  There were minimal carryover effects from any of these dietary treatments on subsequent nursery growth performance.

Feldpausch et al., 2015

Effects of Dietary Cu, Zn, and Ractopamine HCl on Finishing Pig Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Antibiotic Susceptibility of Enteric Bacteria

Feldpausch et al., 2015

Added Cu, Zn and Ractopamine in Finishing Pigs

 Dietary inclusion of 10 ppm ractopamine HCl for 28 d prior to marketing in heavy weight pigs dramatically improved carcass leanness as well as the feed and caloric efficiencies.  Addition of 125 ppm Cu (CuSO4) or 150 ppm Zn (ZnO) above basal premix TM levels in diets containing ractopamine HCl did not improve finishing pig growth or carcass performance.  Over time, resistance to most antibiotics decreased or remained low for those with low baseline percentages.  Extended feeding of 125 ppm CuSO4 thru finishing period sustained Enterococcus spp. resistance to a few antibiotics.  No adverse effects of Ractopamine HCl or 150 ppm added ZnO on antimicrobial resistance among bacterial isolates observed.

Feldpausch et al., 2015

Enterococcus spp. Resistance

• By d 90, 0% resistance to chloramphenicol, gentamicin, linezolid,

nitrofurantoin, penicillin, tigecycline, & vancomycin.

• No adverse effect of 150 ppm Zn or Ractopamine on bacterial resistance

20 40 60 80 100 120 Erythromycin Lincomycin Quin./Dalfo. Tetracycline Tylosin tartrate

% Resistant

d 0, - Cu d 0, + Cu d 90, - Cu d 90, + Cu a ab c b a b a a a ab bc ab Cu(day), P < 0.05 Feldpausch et al., 2015

In total, 18 production systems representing approximately 2.3 million sows (~40% of the U.S. sow herd) participated in the survey.

Flohr et al., 2015

54% 59% 83% 78% 56% 41% 29% 12% 111.4 118.2 158.0 112.3 82.3 65.9 51.4 22.9 16.1 16.1 19.8 5 to 7 kg 7 to 11 kg 11 to 25 kg 25 to 50 kg 50 to 100 kg 100 to 135 kg Ractopamine HCl Gilt development Gestation Lactation Boar % respondents feeding growth promoting (> 25 ppm) levels

Copper, ppm

17.0 to 31.6 Times NRC, 2012 1.6, 0.8, and 4.0 Times NRC, 2012 Flohr et al., 2015 Weaning – 15 lb 15 – 25 lb 25 – 50 lb 50 – 120 lb 120 – 220 lb 220 lb - market

Zinc, ppm

1.5 to 30.3 Times NRC, 2012 1.2, 1.2, and 2.8 Times NRC, 2012

100% 94% 11% 3,032.0 2,081.0 401.0 98.8 84.8 73.8 112.5 121.5 123.0 123.0 142.5 5 to 7 kg 7 to 11 kg 11 to 25 kg 25 to 50 kg 50 to 100 kg 100 to 135 kg Ractopamine HCl Gilt development Gestation Lactation Boar % respondents providing growth promoting (> 250 ppm) levels

Flohr et al., 2015 Weaning – 15 lb 15 – 25 lb 25 – 50 lb 50 – 120 lb 120 – 220 lb 220 lb - market

Vitamin A, IU/kg

3.2 to 5.1 Times NRC, 2012 2.6, 5.2, and 2.8 Times NRC, 2012 10,622 10,296 8,887 5,655 4,852 4,195 4,482 9,425 10,384 10,426 11,272 5 to 7 kg 7 to 11 kg 11 to 25 kg 25 to 50 kg 50 to 100 kg 100 to 135 kg Ractopamine HCl Gilt development Gestation Lactation Boar

Production Phase

Flohr et al., 2015 Weaning – 15 lb 15 – 25 lb 25 – 50 lb 50 – 120 lb 120 – 220 lb 220 lb - market

Vitamin D, IU/kg

5.0 to 11.6 Times NRC, 2012 2.2, 2.2, and 9.3 Times NRC, 2012 2,560 1,777 1,541 1,001 861 747 776 1,625 1,786 1,793 1,851 5 to 7 kg 7 to 11 kg 11 to 25 kg 25 to 50 kg 50 to 100 kg 100 to 135 kg Ractopamine HCl Gilt development Gestation Lactation Boar

Production Phase

Flohr et al., 2015 Weaning – 15 lb 15 – 25 lb 25 – 50 lb 50 – 120 lb 120 – 220 lb 220 lb - market

Vitamin E, IU/kg

1.8 to 4.6 Times NRC, 2012 1.6, 1.6, and 1.8 Times NRC, 2012 74 63 47 27 23 20 21 63 70 70 78 5 to 7 kg 7 to 11 kg 11 to 25 kg 25 to 50 kg 50 to 100 kg 100 to 135 kg Ractopamine HCl Gilt development Gestation Lactation Boar

Production Phase

Flohr et al., 2015 Weaning – 15 lb 15 – 25 lb 25 – 50 lb 50 – 120 lb 120 – 220 lb 220 lb - market

Effect of Vitamin D source on Sow serum 25OHD3

27.6 25.1 34.6 29.2 26.1 50.9 82.5 68.2 110.6 59.5 55.4 94.6

20 40 60 80 100 120 d 0 d 100 Farrowing Weaning

Serum 25OHD3, ng/mL

a,b,c a,b,c

SEM = 3.5 Maternal × day interaction, P < 0.001

Gestation

• Vit. D3, IU/kg

25OHD3, IU/kg

800 2,000 9,600

2,000

a,b,c

a = vitamin D3 linear, P < 0.001 b = 2,000 IU vitamin D3 vs. 25OHD3, P < 0.001 c = 9,600 IU vitamin D3 vs. 25OHD3, P < 0.005

Flohr et al., 2015

Effect of Vitamin D source on Pre-weaned pig serum 25OHD3

2.0 4.3 2.2 7.0 5.5 16.3 3.5 6.1

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 Birth Weaning

Serum 25OHD3, ng/mL

Vitamin D3, IU/kg

800 2,000 9,600

25OHD3, IU/kg 2,000 w = vitamin D3 linear, P < 0.001 x = vitamin D3 quadratic, P = 0.033 y = 2,000 IU vitamin D3 vs. 25OHD3, P < 0.001 z = 9,600 IU vitamin D3 vs. 25OHD3, P < 0.001

w,y,z x,z

Flohr et al., 2015 Collect prior to colostrum intake

Effect of Maternal Vitamin D on Offspring Growth Performance

Maternal Vitamin D Probability, P < Vitamin D3 25OHD3 Vitamin D3 2,000 D3 vs. 25OHD3 9,600 D3 vs. 25OHD3 Item 800 2,000 9,600 2,000 SEM Lin Quad Average BW, lb d 0 14.2 14.9 14.6 14.6 0.13 0.566 0.001 0.371 0.985 d 35 46.8 48.9 47.7 49.3 1.14 0.555 0.001 0.997 0.141 Market 292.2 300.9 297.5 303.1 6.31 0.480 0.006 0.866 0.240

Flohr et al., 2015

Effect of Conditioning Temperature

• n Residual Phytase Activity

20 40 60 80 100 120 149 167 185 203 Residual phytase activity, % Conditioning Temperature, ˚F Quantum Blue G Ronozyme HiPhos GT Axtra Phy TPT Microtech 5000 Plus

P < 0.001; Linear temperature P < 0.05; Microtech 5000 Plus SEM = 8.80 De Jong et al., 2015

20 40 60 80 100 120 50 100 150 200 250 300 % of initial phytase activity Storage time, d Pure Product Vitamin Premix VTM Premix

P < 0.001; time × form P < 0.001; form main effect De Jong et al., 2016

Phytase stability in pure product, vitamin premix, and VTM premix

Effects of AA and energy intake during late gestation on reproductive performance of gilts and sows under commercial conditions

Difference in individual piglet birth weight, g

120 100 80 60 40 20

• 20
• 40

Absolute difference in piglet birth weight compared to January 2014

(PIC, 2015)

+ 60 g

• 100 g

Recent sow research: Feeding during last 2 to 3 weeks before farrowing

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Days after conception Fetal wt, g

Objective

To determine the effects of lysine and energy intake during late gestation on reproductive performance of gilts and sows.

29.5 36.2 40.6 54.0 23.1 29.5 40.8 50.7 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BW gain d 90 to d 111, lb Gilts Sows

BW gain (d 90 to d 111)

SEM = 0.68 Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.128 Lysine x Energy, P<0.001 Parity x Energy, P<0.001

SID Lysine, g/d

10.7 20.0 10.7 20.0

Net energy, Mcal/d

4.50 6.75 Goncalves et al., 2015

Total piglets born

SEM = 0.32 Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.249 Parity, P<0.001

SID Lysine, g/d

10.7 20.0 10.7 20.0

Net energy, Mcal/d

4.50 6.75

14.2 14.1 14.1 14.2 15.3 14.8 15.1 15.5 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Total piglets born, n Gilts Sows

Goncalves et al., 2015

Piglets born alive

SEM = 1.0 Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.569 Parity x Energy, P=0.092

SID Lysine, g/d

10.7 20.0 10.7 20.0

Net energy, Mcal/d

4.50 6.75

94.6 95.0 93.6 94.2 93.3 93.1 89.6 90.8 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 Born alive, % Gilts Sows

13.4 13.4 13.2 13.3 14.3 13.5 13.7 14.1

Goncalves et al., 2015

Stillborn piglets

SEM = 0.83 Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.456 Parity x Energy, P=0.014 Lysine, P=0.049

3.5 3.2 3.6 3.2 5.1 3.7 6.9 6.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Still born rate, % Gilts Sows

SID Lysine, g/d

10.7 20.0 10.7 20.0

Net energy, Mcal/d

4.50 6.75 Goncalves et al., 2015

2.82 2.82 2.87 2.89 3.00 3.06 3.09 3.11 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 Piglet birth weight, lb Gilts Sows

SEM = 0.02 Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.489 Energy, P=0.011 Parity, P<0.001

Individual piglet birth weight

(Born alive)

Energy effect: + 1 oz (30 g/pig) Parity effect: + 3 oz (97 g/pig)

SID Lysine, g/d

10.7 20.0 10.7 20.0

Net energy, Mcal/d

4.50 6.75 Goncalves et al., 2015

Take home message

• 1. “Bump feeding” sows increases stillborn rate.
• 2. In this study, there was no evidence of differences in

total litter weight between a diet with 0.59% SID Lys and 4 lb per day of a corn/soybean-meal based diet compared to the other dietary treatments.

• 3. Average piglet birth weight (born alive) increased by

30 g in females fed high energy.

• 4. Feed cost per weaned pig increased in $0.21 when

sows were fed 6 lb compared to 4 lb of a corn-soy diet during late gestation.

Difference in individual piglet birth weight, g

120 100 80 60 40 20

• 20
• 40

Absolute difference in piglet birth weight compared to January 2014

(PIC, 2015)

+ 60 g

• 100 g

Full Feed before and Around Farrowing?

Ad lib vs restricted feeding from d -4 to d 7 of lactation

Cool et al. 2014

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

Recent sow research: Peripartum feeding conclusions

• For sows with less than 22 mm backfat at

farrowing:

• Ad libitum feed intake from placement in the farrowing

room

• Increase total feed consumption prior to weaning
• Reduce loss of body weight and backfat
• Improve litter growth and weaning weight
• Demonstrates need to not have sows over 22 mm

backfat at farrowing

SID Trp:Lys ratio at different target performance levels of finishing pigs

Percent of maximum performance, % Item 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% ADG QP1 17.6% 18.3% 18.9% 19.8% 20.8% 23.5% G:F BLL2 13.9% 14.5% 15.1% 15.7% 16.3% 16.9% BLQ3 14.4% 14.7% 15.2% 15.7% 16.2% 17.0%

1ADG = – 0.329 + 6.3 × (Trp:Lys ratio) – 13.5 × (Trp:Lys ratio)2 + 0.015 × (Initial BW, kg) – 0.000098 × (Initial BW, kg)2 2 G:F = 0.599 – 1.0 × (0.169 – Trp:Lys ratio) – 0.004 × (Initial BW, kg) + 0.000017 × (Initial BW, kg)2 if SID Trp:Lys ratio <

16.9%

3 G:F = 0.6014 – 0.603 × (0.170 – Trp:Lys ratio)– 20.0 × (0.170 – Trp:Lys ratio)2 – 0.004 × (Initial BW, kg) + 0.000017 × (Initial

BW, kg)2 if SID Trp:Lys ratio < 17.0%

Goncalves et al., 2015

SID Val:Lys on ADG of 55- to 100-lb pigs

Maximum mean ADG was estimated at 74.4% (95% CI: [69.5, >78.0%]) SID Val:Lys ratio

Data adjusted for random effects, heterogeneous variance, and initial body weight Goncalves et al., 2015

SID Val:Lys ratio at different target performance levels of 55 to 100 lb pigs

Percent of maximum performance, % Item 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% ADG1 58.9 60.5 62.3 64.5 67.3 74.4 G:F2 <57.0 58.5 60.4 62.6 65.5 72.3

1 QP equation for ADG =–1.15 + 4.13 × (SID Val:Lys ratio) – 2.78 × (SID

Val:Lys ratio)2 + 0.012 × (Initial BW, kg), estimated to 35 kg pigs.

2 QP equation for G:F = – 0.04 + 1.36 × (SID Val:Lys ratio) – 0.94 × (SID

Val:Lys ratio)2. Goncalves et al., 2015

1.60 1.67 1.76 1.82 1.75 1.89 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.76 0.82 ADG, lb

SID Lys, %

Gebhardt et al. 2015

SID Lysine in low crude protein diets for finishing pigs from 230 to 280 lb

3.60 3.48 3.25 3.29 3.29 3.13 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.76 0.82 F/G SID Lys, %

Gebhardt et al. 2015

SID Lysine in low crude protein diets for finishing pigs from 230 to 280 lb

8.02 8.52 9.87 9.50 8.67 9.93 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.76 0.82 IOFC, $ per pig SID Lys, %

SID Lysine in low crude protein diets for finishing pigs from 230 to 280 lb

Gebhardt et al. 2015

www.KSUswine.org

Calculators and tools Premix updates Journal papers Abstracts Podcasts Swine Day

45

Feed Efficiency Evaluation tool

46

De Jong, 2015

47

De Jong, 2015

Example: Increasing energy, but not SID lysine

48

5%

De Jong, 2015

49

Example: increasing energy and SID Lysine

7.8%

De Jong, 2015

50

De Jong, 2015

51

Evaluating feed processing technologies

52

De Jong, 2015

Evaluating feed processing technologies

53

De Jong, 2015

56

Floor space Tool

Floor space calculator

57

Flohr, 2015

Floor space calculator

58

Flohr, 2015

59

Goncalves, 2015

60

Goncalves, 2015

2015 Swine Day Report

available at: www.KSUswine.org

• 42 papers
• 53 experiments
• 25,222 pigs

61

KSU Swine Day 2015