Welcome to 2009 Swine Day! y Outline for the Day Sow Research - - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Welcome to 2009 Swine Day! y

Outline for the Day

• Sow Research
• Creep Feeding
• Late Gestation Feeding
• Importance of Birth Weight
• Nursery Research
• Starter Diet Ingredients
• Feed Additives
• Lysine Requirements
• PCV2 V

i ti

• PCV2 Vaccination
• H1N1 Panel

Outline for the Day

• Grow‐Finish Research

F d d i d dj t t

• Feeder design and adjustment
• Amino acid research
• DDGS and other alternatives
• DDGS and other alternatives
• Mycotoxins
• Marketing

g

– Mixing and topping pigs and Paylean use

• Kent Bang – Bank of the West
• Ice Cream Reception

Creep Feeding Creep Feeding

K‐State Creep Feeding Research

Study #

• No. of

Litters Topic # Litters Topic 1 84 Creep feeding x lactation feed intake 2 54 Creep feeding duration 2 54 Creep feeding duration 3 54 Creep feeder design 4 50 F d fl i f d 4 50 Feed flavors in creep feed 5 96 Creep diet complexity

Sulabo PhD Dissertation, 2009

Creep Feed Impact on Post‐weaning Growth

24.3a 24.4

0.87

Overall ADG, lb Total Gain, lb 0.866a 23.6 24

0.85 0.86

, 23.1b 23.4b 23.2 23.6

0.83 0.84

0.829b 0.833b 22.8

0.82

22.4

0.81 Eaters Non-eaters No creep pigs

a,bP<0.05

Sulabo et al., 2009

Creep Feeder Design p g

Rotary feeder with a hopper Rotary feeder without a hopper Stainless pan feeder

Sulabo et al., 2009

Materials and Methods (Exp. 5) ( p )

96 sows (PIC) and their litters Conducted in a commercial facility

Di

Dietary treatments:

• Treatment 1 – No Creep (n = 26)
• Treatment 2 – Simple creep diet (n = 26)
• Treatment 3 – Complex creep diet (n = 44)

Creep fed from d 18 to 21 (weaning) using the

rotary feeder with a hopper y pp

Sulabo et al., 2009

Exp 5 Simple (Sow Feed) vs Complex Creep (Pelleted Diet with Milk Products and Animal Proteins Diet with Milk Products and Animal Proteins

2.73b

2 5 3.0

ke (lb)

Total

a,bP<0.01

2.0 2.5

feed intak

ADFI

1.37a 0.908b

1.0 1.5

er creep f

0.452a

0.0 0.5

Litte

Simple Complex

Creep diet complexity Sulabo et al., 2009

Effect of creep diet complexity on the proportion of piglets consuming creep feed (Eaters) piglets consuming creep feed (Eaters)

68b

80.0 60.0

(%)

28a

20 0 40.0

Percent (

0.0 20.0

P

Simple Complex

Creep diet complexity

a,bP<0.0001

Sulabo et al., 2009

Proportion of Eaters According to Weight Category Weight Category

83a

75 100 s (%)

a,bP <.0001

62b 65b 47a

50 75

• f Eaters

23b 25b

25 50 portion o 25 Prop Bottom Middle Top Bottom Middle Top

C Di t C l it

Simple Complex

Creep Diet Complexity

Sulabo et al., 2009

Percentage of pigs failing to gain weight during the initial 3 d after weaning initial 3 d after weaning

40.0

%)

28a 29a

ulation (%

17b

20.0

nt of popu

0.0

Percen

No creep Non-eater Eater

Creep consumption category

a,bP<0.0001

Sulabo et al., 2009

Influence of creep feed consumption on performance after weaning after weaning

0 75 0.90 0.60 0.75

lb

P < 0.04

D 21 to 49, lb/d Non‐eat 0 67

0.30 0.45

ADG,

Non-eaters Eaters

P < 0.01

Non eat 0.67 Eater 0.72

P < 0.01

0.00 0.15 D 21 to 24 D 25 to 28 D 29 to 49

Creep consumption category Sulabo et al., 2009

Creep Feeding Practical Recommendations: Creep Feeding Practical Recommendations:

Start 3 to 5 days before weaning Use appropriate creep feeder design and a complex creep feed Target 1.1 to 2.2 lb creep feed consumption per litter

Effect of Increased Late Gestation Feed Intake Gestation Feed Intake

+2.0 lb from d 90 to 112 PIC 1050 Sows PIC 1050 Sows

Shelton et al., 2010

Fetal Growth in Gestation Fetal Growth in Gestation

1200

The majority of fetal growth occurs during th l t 1/3 f

800 1000 1200 g

the last 1/3 of

• gestation. As a result

many producers

400 600 800 Fetal wt,

many producers increase feed intake in late gestation.

200 400 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Days after conception

Gestation Weight Change d 90 112 d 90 to 112

43.9 46.6 50

Feed Level, P < 0.01

32.2 35.5 30 40 ange, lb

Feed Level, P 0.01

20 30 eight Cha 10 We None +2.0 lb None +2.0 lb

Gilts Sows

F t D th 19 0 19 9 14 9 15 3 Fat Depth, mm: 19.0 19.9 14.9 15.3 Shelton et al., 2010

Piglet Birth Weight Piglet Birth Weight

3.38 3.40

Feed Level x Parity P < 0.01

3.29 3.30 ht, lb

Feed Level x Parity P 0.01

3.10 3.14 3 10 3.20 th Weigh 3.00 3.10 Bir None +2.0 lb None +2.0 lb

Gilts Sows

Live Born: 13.8 12.9 11.2 12.3 Shelton et al., 2010

Lactation Feed Intake Lactation Feed Intake

13 4 16

Feed Level x Parity P < 0.01

11.7 9.9 12.8 13.4 12

Feed Level x Parity P 0.01

4 8 ADFI, lb 4 None +2.0 lb None +2.0 lb

Gilts Sows

Shelton et al., 2010

Farrowing to Weaning Weight Change

Feed Level x Parity P < 0.12

‐16 7 ‐15.3 ‐20 ‐10 None +2.0 lb None +2.0 lb ange, lb ‐30.1 16.7 ‐30 20 eight Cha 30. ‐41.2 ‐50 ‐40 We

Gilts Sows

Shelton et al., 2010

Summary – Increased Feed in Late Gestation Offered no benefit in sows Decreased lactation feed intake and increased Decreased lactation feed intake and increased weight loss in gilts with adequate or marginally excessive back fat marginally excessive back fat Increased sow feed cost by $3.50 to $5.00 per sow Bottom line

• Bump thin sows no more than 2 lb and no

sooner than d 90 of gestation

Effect of Piglet Birth Weight and Litter Size on Subsequent Growth Rate

Bergstrom et al., 2009

Procedures

• 2,204 pigs (PIC sired) from a commercial sow farm

were weighed then weaned at 25 days of age

• 4 birth weight categories, lb
• ≤ 2.3
• 2.4 to 3.3
• 3.4 to 4.3
• ≥ 4.4
• 3 total born categories
• ≤ 11
• 12 to 14

≥ 15

• ≥ 15

Influence of total born category on weight of pigs born alive

1.9

13 14 15 16 r

weight of pigs born alive

6.0 1.3

9 10 11 12 13 live/litter

2.3 4.9 0.7

5 6 7 8 9 age born

≤ 2.3 lb 2.4 to 3.3 lb 3.4 to 4.3 lb

2.4 1.3 0 9 3.4 4.4 6.1

1 2 3 4 5 Avera

≥ 4.4 lb

1.3 0.9

≤ 11 12 to 14 ≥ 15 Total born category g y Bergstrom et al., 2009

Influence of total born and weight category on number of pigs weaned

13 14 15 16 itter

category on number of pigs weaned

5.2 1.0 1.4

9 10 11 12 13 weaned/l

2.1 4.3 5.2 0.6

5 6 7 8 9 number w

≤ 2.3 lb 2.4 to 3.3 lb 3.4 to 4.3 lb

2.2 1 2 0 9 3.2 4.1 5.8

1 2 3 4 5 Average

≥ 4.4 lb

1.2 0.9

≤ 11 12 to 14 ≥ 15 Total born category g y Bergstrom et al., 2009

Influence of total born category on pig weaning weight

17 18

weaning weight

16.3 15.9 15.8

15 16 eight, lb 13 14 15 eaning we 12 13 We 11 ≤ 11 12 to 14 ≥ 15 Total born category g y Bergstrom et al., 2009

Influence of total born category on preweaning mortality

18% 20% %

preweaning mortality

12.6% 11.5%

12% 14% 16%

• rtality, %

8.6%

6% 8% 10% eaning mo % 2% 4% 6% Prew 0% ≤ 11 12 to 14 ≥ 15 Total born category g y Bergstrom et al., 2009

Influence of birth weight category on pig market weight (d 156 after weaning)

286.1

290 300

market weight (d 156 after weaning)

265.0 268.8 276.4 282.8 286.1

270 280 , lb

239 2 258.1

250 260 Weight,

239.2

230 240 220 ≤ 2.5 2.6‐3.0 3.1‐3.3 3.4‐3.6 3.7‐3.9 4‐4.4 ≥ 4.5 Birth weight category, lb g g y, Bergstrom et al., 2009

Influence of birth weight category on percentage of culls and pigs < 215 lb

17.4

17.5 20

percentage of culls and pigs < 215 lb

10 5

12.5 15 215 lb, %

10.5 5 0 7.4

7.5 10 ls and < 2

5.0 3.1 2.4 1.8

2.5 5 Cul ≤ 2.5 2.6‐3.0 3.1‐3.3 3.4‐3.6 3.7‐3.9 4‐4.4 ≥ 4.5 Birth weight category, lb g g y, Bergstrom et al., 2009

Bergstrom et al., 2009

Summary

L litt ill h li ht i ht Larger litters will have more lightweight pigs than small litters but… Large litters still have more heavy pigs. Low birth weight pigs, < 1.5 to 2 lb are very unlikely to reach an acceptable market weight.

Lactation Feeding ‐ Key Points Lactation Feeding Key Points

Feed intake drives subsequent reproduction High producing maternal line sows with High producing maternal line sows with lower feed intake will continue to drive milk production at the expense of body milk production at the expense of body stores Many US swine producers are installing ad Many US swine producers are installing ad lib lactation feeders

Nursery pig research y p g

Influence of PEP2 on nursery pig performance (D 0 to 11)

0 60 0.49 0.50 0.55 0.60 b

SBM vs Plasma P< 0.05 Plasma vs PEP P < 0.01 SEM 0.02

0.43 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.45 0.50 ADG, lb 0.30 0.35 SBM Plasma 4% 8% 12%

PEP2

Myers et al., 2009

Influence of PEP2 on nursery pig f (D 11 t 25) performance (D 11 to 25)

1.10

SBM vs Fish P< 0.01 Fish vs PEP P < 0 01

0.96 0.94 0 92 1.00 b

Fish vs PEP P < 0.01 PEP quadratic P < 0.01 SEM 0.03

0.82 0.88 0.92 0 80 0.90 ADG, lb 0.70 0.80 SBM Fish meal 4% 8% 12%

PEP2

Myers et al., 2009

Influence of PEP2 on nursery pig f (D 0 t 25) performance (D 0 to 25)

0.80

SBM vs Pos control P< 0.01 PEP quadratic P < 0 02

0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 b

PEP quadratic P < 0.02 SEM 0.02

0.65 0.60 ADG, lb 0.50 SBM Plasma/fish 4% 8% 12%

PEP2

Myers et al., 2009

2

PEP2 Summary

Pigs fed PEP2 had greater ADG and improved F/G compared to pigs fed 4% select menhaden fish meal

Nursery Growth Promoting Copper and Zinc

Post weaning Day Control Cu Zn Cu+Zn Zn Cu Cu+Zn Cu

d 0 to 14 d 14 to 42

Zn= 3,000 ppm d 0 to 14 and 2,000 ppm d 14 to 42 C 125 Cu= 125 ppm

Nursery Growth Promoting Copper and Zinc

60 0 65 54.2 58.4 58.0 59.5 60.0 59.3 55 60 t, lb 54.2 50 55 Weight 45 Control Cu Zn Cu+Zn Zn/Cu Cu+Zn/Cu

Zn from d 0 to 14 and Cu from 14 to 42 resulted in the heaviest Pig with $0.56 less cost per pig compared to Cu+Zn g $ p p g p Shelton et al., 2009

Influence of dietary antibiotics on ADG (d 0 to 21) y ( )

0.7

Antibiotics P < 0.01

0.53 0.51 0.54 0.51 0.55 0.51 0 5 0.6 G, lb 0 34 0.4 0.5 ADG 0.34 0.3

d 0 to 21 No med Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil d 21 to 42 No med Den/CTC Den/CTC No med No med Mec/OTC Mec/OTC

Steidinger et al., 2009

Influence of dietary antibiotics on ADG (d 21 to 42) y ( )

1.11 1.2

Antibiotics P < 0.01

1.03 1.06 1.05 1.11 1 1.1 G, lb 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.9 1 ADG 0.8

d 0 to 21 No med Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil d 21 to 42 No med Den/CTC Den/CTC No med No med Mec/OTC Mec/OTC

Steidinger et al., 2009

Influence of dietary antibiotics on final pig weight (d 42) (d 42)

48 50

Antibiotics d 0 to 21; P = 0.05 Antibiotics d 21 to 42; P = 0 02

44.9 44.8 42.7 42.4 45.4 45.8 44 46 ht, lb

Antibiotics d 21 to 42; P = 0.02

39.4 42.4 40 42 Weigh 36 38

d 0 to 21 No med Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil d 21 to 42 No med Den/CTC Den/CTC No med No med Mec/OTC Mec/OTC

Steidinger et al., 2009

Antibiotic summary

Adding antibiotics to the nursery diet improved pig performance and improved pig performance and economic return

Available P released by phytase source and level source and level

0.16 0 10 0.12 0.14

ed from e ash

0.06 0.08 0.10

e calculate tage bone

Optiphos 2000 – M Phyzyme XP y = ‐0.000000125x2 + 0.000236245x + 0.015482000 R² = 0.73 0.02 0.04

P release percent

Phyzyme XP R 0.73 0.00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

a Analyzed AOAC Phytase FTU/kg Analyzed AOAC Phytase FTU/kg

Jones et al., 2009

Phytase stability trial y y

3 sources (Ronozyme P, Optiphos, Phyzyme) 2 i ( d d d) 2 coatings (Coated and uncoated) 3 forms (pure, vitamin premix VTM premix) 4 temperatures (‐18, 5, 23, 37 C) 6 periods (0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180 d) All analysis by DSM Source x coating x form x temperature x day interaction (P < 0.001)

Jones et al., 2010

Phytase shelf life at different storage temperatures

100 70 80 90 100 ning, %

• 18

Temp, ◦C

• F

30 40 50 60 se remain 5 23 41 73 10 20 30 Phytas 37 99 30 60 90 120 Day of analysis Jones et al., 2010

Phytase activity remaining in pure form at 23 C (73 F) at 180 days

93% 100% 86% 84% 93% 91% 80% 100% 61% 40% 60% Uncoated C t d 20% 40% Coated 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme

Jones et al., 2010

Phytase activity remaining in vitamin premix at 23 C (73 F) at 180 days

94% 94% 100% 73% 76% 67% 94% 94% 87% 80% 100% 6 % 40% 60% Uncoated C t d 20% 40% Coated 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme

Jones et al., 2010

Phytase activity remaining in VTM premix at 23 C (73 F) at 180 days

92% 100% 64% 76% 70% 92% 80% 100% 64% 43% 60% 40% 60% Uncoated C t d 20% 40% Coated 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme

Jones et al., 2010

Phytase activity remaining in pure form at 37 C (99 F) at 180 days

100% 80% 100% 39% 43% 53% 40% 60% Uncoated C t d 15% 21% 20% 40% Coated 3% 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme

Jones et al., 2010

Phytase stability trial y y

Source x coating x form x temperature x day interaction (P < 0 001) interaction (P < 0.001) Pure products held at 23°C or less were the most stable stable. In premixes, longer storage time and higher temperature reduced phytase activity temperature reduced phytase activity. Coating mitigated some of the negative effects of storage time and temperature for premixes. storage time and temperature for premixes.

Jones et al., 2010

Influence of lysine level on nursery pig f (d 0 t 35) performance (d 0 to 35)

0 94 1

Phase 3 lysine P = 0.04

0.89 0.93 0.90 0.94 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.9 lb 0.8 ADG, 0.7 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 D 7 to 21 D 0 to 7 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 D 21 to 35 SID Lysine, %

Nemechek et al., 2010

Influence of lysine level on nursery pig f (d 0 t 35) performance (d 0 to 35)

1.7

Phase 2 lysine P = 0.005 Ph 3 l i P 0 003

1.54 1 45 1.49 1.47 1.52 1.47 1.47 1 45 1.5 1.6 G

Phase 3 lysine P = 0.003 Interaction P > 0.20

1.45 1.45 1 3 1.4 F/G 1.2 1.3 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 D 7 to 21 D 0 to 7 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 D 21 to 35 SID Lysine, %

Nemechek et al., 2010

Lysine study summary Lysine study summary

M i ll d fi i t di t b f d f th Marginally deficient diets can be fed for the first 21 days after weaning provided that th l t di t i t d fi i t i the late nursery diet is not deficient in lysine May provide more flexibility in diet formulation

Effect of Vaccination on Production Responses

Effect of PCV2 and M. hyo vaccination on nursery pig weight (d 35) nursery pig weight (d 35)

PCV2 × M. hyo: P = 0.68 PCV2: P < 0.01 M. hyo: P = 0.06 SE = 1 3 a a SE 1.3

• M. hyo Control

RespiSure

Potter et al., 2009

Effect of PCV2/M. hyo vaccine strategy on y gy Fainting Pigs and Post Weaning Losses

10 12 % No Difference 2.5 3.0 % P < .0001 10.7 10.1 6.8 6.8 6 8 10 Losses, % 1.6 1.5 2.0 Fainting, % Culls 3.9 3.3 2 4 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 F Deaths BI Intervet BI Intervet Bergstrom et al., 2009

Effect of PCV2/M. hyo vaccine strategy on ADG

d 0 to 73 d 73 to 156 1.4 P < .0001 1.92 2.0 P < .05 d 73 to 156 1.27 1.24 1.3 DG, lb 1.89 1.92 1.9 DG, lb 1.2 A 1.8 AD 1.1 BI Intervet 1.7 BI Intervet Bergstrom et al., 2009

Effect of PCV2/M. hyo vaccine strategy on wean to finisher ADG (d 0 to 155) wean‐to‐finisher ADG (d 0 to 155)

P = 0.98

1 60 1 60 1.7 1.60 1.60 1.6 ADG, lb 1.5 1.4 BI Intervet Bergstrom et al., 2009

Effect of PCV2 vaccine strategy on ADG under a PRRS Challenge under a PRRS Challenge

d 0 to 15 d 15 to 29 d 0 and 15 = PCV2 Vaccination 1.0 1.1 No Difference d 0 to 15 0.96 0 91 1.0 1.1 P < .02 d 15 to 29 0 7 0.8 0.9 DG, lb 0.91 0 7 0.8 0.9 DG, lb 0.60 0.59 0.5 0.6 0.7 AD 0.5 0.6 0.7 AD 0.4 0.5 None PCV2 0.4 None PCV2 Shelton et al., 2009

Effect of PCV2 vaccine strategy on ADG under a PRRS Challenge under a PRRS Challenge

d 29 to 50 d 0 to 50 d 29= PRRS Challenge 0 94 1.0 1.1 P < .08 1.0 1.1 No Difference 0.87 0.94 0.9 DG, lb 0.81 0.83 0 7 0.8 0.9 DG, lb 0.7 0.8 AD 0.5 0.6 0.7 AD 0.6 None PCV2 0.4 None PCV2 Shelton et al., 2009

Effect of PCV2 vaccine on Survival under a PRRS Challenge under a PRRS Challenge

99 6 99 2 99 5 99 1 98 7 97 3 96 5 None PCV2

b b

99.6 99.2 95.7 80.2 73.1 99.5 99.1 98.7 97.3 96.5

80 100

%

a a b

40 60

vival, %

20 40

Surv

d 15 d 29 d 50 d 71 d 99

Shelton et al., 2009

Sirrah PRRSV‐RS Vaccine Trial Sirrah PRRSV RS Vaccine Trial

Potter et al., 2009 ,

Effect of Sirrah PRRSV‐RS V i M t lit Vaccine on Mortality

25%

No Significant Difference

21.5% 20.6%

20% % Control Vaccinate

No Significant Difference

9.5% 9.3% 9.2%

10% 15%

• rtality, %

4.4% 7.1% 9.2% 5.9%

5% 10% Mo 0% Pre‐Weaning Nursery Finisher Cumulative Pre Weaning Nursery Finisher Cumulative

Potter et al., 2009

Effect of Sirrah PRRSV‐RS Vaccine on Finisher ADG and Feed Efficiency

4.0 F/G 2 5 3.0 ADG, lb

P = 0.45 P = 0.15

2.74 2.78 3.0 3.5 1.96 1.93 1.5 2.0 2.5 2 0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 Control Vaccinate Control Vaccinate

Potter et al., 2009

Key Take Home Messages for V i ti St t i Vaccination Strategies:

Some vaccines negatively impact nursery g y p y performance

• The impact needs to be evaluated against

p g effectiveness in the finisher

Although overall growth rate was similar – pattern of growth rate was different between the two PCV2/M. hyo vaccination strategies f l d f d d We failed to find an impact on production parameters for the PRRS vaccine

Thank You! Thank You!

Grow Finish Research Update Grow‐Finish Research Update

Feeder design and adjustment Amino acid levels DDGS and other alternatives Mycotoxins Mycotoxins Marketing

i i d i i d l

• Mixing and topping pigs and Paylean use

Effects of feeder type and adjustment fi i hi i th

• n finishing pig growth

Bergstrom et al. 2008

Effects of feeder type on final weight

230 280

• Exp. 1
• Exp. 2

227.3

225 230

273

270 280

P < .01 P < .01 216.4

220

261

260 270

lb

210 215 250 260 210

Dry Wet/Dry

250

Dry Wet/Dry Bergstrom et al 2008 Bergstrom et al. 2008

Effects of feeder type on F/G Effects of feeder type on F/G

2 70 2 80

• Exp. 1
• Exp. 2

2.60 2.70

2.68

2.70 2.80

P < .01 2.44 2.47

2.50

2.62

2.60 2 30 2.40 2 40 2.50 2.30

Dry Wet/Dry

2.40

Dry Wet/Dry Bergstrom et al 2008 Bergstrom et al. 2008

Influence of feeder type and DDGS level (20 60%) i f (20 or 60%) on pig performance

2.2

2.11 2.03 2.07 2.01

2.1 2.2

1.95 1.9 1.89 1.87

1.9 2 ADG, lb Barrows Gilts 1 7 1.8 Gilts 1.7 Dry 20% Dry 60% Wet/dry 20% Wet/dry 60% Bergstrom et al 2009 Bergstrom et al. 2009

Influence of feeder type and DDGS level (20 60%) i f (20 or 60%) on pig performance

3

2.72 2.79 2.89 2 68

2 7 2.8 2.9 3

2.61 2.5 2.54 2.61 2.68

2.5 2.6 2.7 F/G Barrows Gilts 2 2 2.3 2.4 Gilts 2.2 Dry 20% Dry 60% Wet/dry 20% Wet/dry 60% Bergstrom et al 2009 Bergstrom et al. 2009

Effects of feeder design and changing water source at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance

1 96 2.00

at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance

2.75 ab P< 0.05 1.89 1.96 1.90 2.70 c 1.84 1.84 1 80 ADG, lb 2.58 2.63 2.6 2.60 2.65 F/G a b a b ab 1.80 2.56 2.55 a ab ab 1.70 WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry 2.50 WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry Bergstrom et al., 2010

Effects of feeder design and changing water source at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance

$60

at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance

$7 ab P< 0.05 56 05 $58 cost, $ 5.32 $5 $6 , $/pig a 56.05 53.59 $54 $56

• ver feed

2.3 3.49 2.6 $3 $4 premium, ab b 52.45 52.42 $52 Income $1 $2 Lean b b $50 WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry $0 WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry Bergstrom et al., 2010

Effects of feeder design and adjustment on average daily gain from 42 to 85 lb

1 65 1.8

average daily gain from 42 to 85 lb

1.56 1.65 1.46 1.51 1.51 1.6 57% 3/4 65% 1 in 21% 79% 1.29 1.4 lb 35% 3/4 9% 3/4 21% 1 in 79% 1 ¼ 1 0 1.2 35% 1/2 1.0 6 10 14 6 8 10

Wet‐Dry Conventional Dry y y

Bergstrom et al., 2010

Effects of feeder design and adjustment on percentage pan coverage percentage pan coverage

Setting of 10 with a 0.75 inch

• pening and ~53% coverage

Setting of 14 with a 1 inch

• pening and ~73% coverage

Bergstrom et al., 2010

Effects of feeder design and adjustment

• n feed efficiency from 42 to 85 lb

1.95

• n feed efficiency from 42 to 85 lb

1 83 1.84 1.85 1.89 1.85 1.90 79% 1 ¼ 1.83 1.81 1.79 1.80 1.85 F/G 35% 1/2 57% 3/4 65% 9% 3/4 21% 1 in 1 70 1.75 3/4 65% 1 in 1.70 6 10 14 6 8 10

Wet‐Dry Conventional Dry y y

Bergstrom et al., 2010

Effects of feeder design and adjustment

• n feed efficiency through 270 lb

2.4

• n feed efficiency through 270 lb

2 85 2.90 2.15 2.22 2.2 2.3 b 2 71 2.75 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.08 1 95 2.03 2.02 2.0 2.1 ADG, lb 2.67 2.71 2.68 2.67 2.64 2.65 2.70 F/G 1.95 1 8 1.9 2 50 2.55 2.60 1.8 10 14 18 6 8 10

Wet‐Dry Dry

2.50 10 14 18 6 8 10

Wet‐Dry Dry y y

Bergstrom et al., 2010

Percentage difference in ADG and F/G with more

• pen adjustment (18 vs 10) for wet/dry feeder

15.0

• pen adjustment (18 vs 10) for wet/dry feeder

Setting inch

9.7 9.0 12.0 e, %

6 ½ 10 ¾ 14 1 Setting inch

3 6 7.2 6.0 9.0 Response

14 1 18 1¼

0.2 3.6 0 0 3.0 0.0 ADG F/G ADG F/G

70 to 190 lb 190 to 270 lb

Bergstrom et al., 2010

Current Feeder Recommendations Current Feeder Recommendations

Dry feeders Dry feeders

• 50% of pan should be covered with feed
• 1 to 1.25 inch below adjustment gate
• Minimum of 2 inch of feeder space/pig

Wet/dry feeders

• Increased weight gain and intake compared to dry feeders
• Still determining optimal feeder settings
• 1.25 inch opening from placement to 200 lb
• 0.75 inch opening after 200 lb

New KSU Swine Finishing Barn

• First pigs placed in early December 2008
• Eight research projects completed or in progress:
• Eight research projects completed or in progress:

1) DDGS x dietary enzyme 2) Four separate lysine requirement experiments 3) Feeding blended diets or corn‐supplement blend 4) DDGS x wheat midds 5) Feeder space x feeder adjustment 5) Feeder space x feeder adjustment

SID lysine requirements in the new KSU finishing barn (no added fat diets)

0.90 0.95 KSU - mixed PIC ilt

barn (no added fat diets)

0.80 0.85 ne, % PIC - gilt PIC - barrow 0.70 0.75 SID lysi 0.60 0.65 0.55 112 156 205 254 Body weight, lb Body weight, lb

Bergstrom et al., 2009

Feed blending using the FEEDPro system on growth performance

3.5 ADG, lb F/G

growth performance

a,b P < 0.05; x,y P < 0.09

2.93ax 2.90a 2.98by 3.0 P 0.05; P 0.09 2.10 2 07 2 06 2.5 2.10 2.07 2.06 2.0 1.5 4 Diet Phase Feeding 2 Diet Curve Corn‐Supplement Phase Feeding Sulabo et al., 2010

Feed blending using the FEEDPro system on feed cost/pig

54

feed cost/pig

No effects , P > 0.10 SEM 0 62 51.56 50.36 52 SEM = 0.62

/pig

49.64 50

$/

46 48 46 4 Diet Phase Feeding 2 Diet Curve Corn‐Supplement Phase Feeding Sulabo et al., 2010

Feed blending using the FEEDPro system on income over feed cost

60

income over feed cost

No effects , P > 0.10 SEM = 1 03 56.86 58 SEM = 1.03 ig 55.29 54.91 56 $/p 54 52 4 Diet Phase Feeding 2 Diet Curve Corn‐Supplement Phase Feeding Sulabo et al., 2010

Use synthetic i id amino acids continue to be used economically in finishing diets diets

www KSUswine org www.KSUswine.org

When supplementing Lysine, Threonine, and Methionine – Tryptophan is typically the Tryptophan is typically the limiting amino acid in growing pig diets

Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing ADG (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb)

1.93 1.94 2.0

abcSuperscripts differ, P < 0.05

SEM = 0.035

(d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb)

ab a

1.84 1.87 1.9 SEM 0.035

b ab

1.72 1.8 lb/d

c

1.7 1.6 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5%

SID Try:Lys

Added Try

SID Try:Lys

Added Try Barnes et al., 2010

Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing ADFI (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb)

5.5

abSuperscripts differ, P < 0.05

SEM = 0.107

(d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb)

4 56 5.0 SEM 0.107

a a a

4.56 4.50 4.43 4.50 4.5 lb/d

a b a a

3.96 4.0

b

3.5 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5%

SID Try:Lys

Added Try

SID Try:Lys

Added Try Barnes et al., 2010

Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing F/G (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb)

2 5 2.6

(d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb)

No effect, P > 0.05 SEM = 0.050 2.36 2 32 2.41 2.40 2.4 2.5 SEM 0.050 2.32 2.30 2.2 2.3 F/G 2.1 2.2 2.0 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5%

SID Try:Lys

Added Try

SID Try:Lys

Added Try Barnes et al., 2010

Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing ADG (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb)

161.6 161.7 165

abcSuperscripts differ, P < 0.05

SEM = 0.035

(d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb)

ab a 157.4 159.3 160 lb SEM 0.035 b ab 152.2 155 Weight, c 150 145 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5%

SID Try:Lys Added Try SID Try:Lys Added Try

Barnes et al., 2010

Grow Finish Research Update Grow‐Finish Research Update

Feeder design and adjustment Amino acid levels DDGS and other alternatives Mycotoxins Mycotoxins Marketing

i i d i i d l

• Mixing and topping pigs and Paylean use

www KSUswine org www.KSUswine.org

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on ADG

2.09 2.15

No effect, P > 0.10 SEM = 0.031

2.04 2.04 2.03 1.98 1.98 2.00 1 97 2.03 lb/d 1.91 1.97 1.85 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on final BW

280

No effect, P > 0.10 SEM = 4.06

267.8 266.4 267.0 263.2 261.7 261.4 270 lb 260 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on F/G

2.80 2.90

No effect, P > 0.10 SEM = 0.037

2.61 2.62 2.64 2.72 2.66 2.64 2.70 F/G 2.50 2.60 2.40 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on carcass yield

78 80

No effect, P = 0.59 SEM = 0.422

75 1 75.7 75.9 75 1 75.2 75.7 76 78 % 75.1 75.1 75.2 74 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on FFLI

51 52

No effect, P = 0.89 SEM = 0.494

49.8 49.9 49.9 50.2 49 4 50.1 50 51 % 49.4 49 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on jowl fat iodine value

74.6 74.7 75 78 0 g

iodine value

Linear effect of duration (trts 1, 2, 3, & 6), P < 0.01 SEM = 0.852

72.6 73.3 74.2 74.6 72 75 alue, g/100 68.6 69 Iodine Va 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on jowl fat iodine value by gender

74.2 75

Gender effect , P < 0.05 SEM = 0.852

fat iodine value by gender

73 74 g/100 g 71.8 72 dine Value 71 Iod 70 Barrow Gilt Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on feed cost/pig

44.81 44 46

cost/pig

Linear effect of duration (trts 1, 2, 3, & 6), P < 0.01 SEM = 0.755

43.45 42.65 42.46 41.56 40 99 42 44 $/pig 40.99 40 $ 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

DDGS step‐down or withdrawal regimen on income over feed cost

80 84

No effect , P > 0.10 SEM = 1.969

income over feed cost

74 30 77.32 76.88 78.65 76.02 78.86 76 80 $/pig 74.30 72 $ 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 DDGS, % d 0 to 48: 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 d 69 to 89: 15 15 30 Jacela et al., 2009

Meta analysis of dietary enzymes on growth of finishing pigs

Details of individual experiments included in the meta‐analysis Start

finishing pigs

Experiment Duration, d Start weight, lb DDGS, % Enzyme activity of product 1 92 65.3 15 ß‐mannanase 2 56 75.8 15 ß‐glucanase, cellulase, and protease 3 90 101.5 45 and 60 Proprietary blend of enzymes 4 66 87.4 30 Bacterial endo‐1,4‐beta‐ xylanase Jacela et al., 2009

Meta analysis of dietary enzymes on ADG

3.0 Control Enzyme

No effects , P > 0.33

2.21 2 08 2 00 2.22 2 07 2.5 2.08 1.89 1.82 2.00 2.07 1.88 1.81 2.00 2.0 lb/d 1.5 1.0 Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3 Exp 4 Combined Jacela et al., 2009

Meta analysis of dietary enzymes on F/G

2 8 3.0 Control Enzyme

No effects , P > 0.33

2.71 2.57 2.52 2.69 2.58 2.52 2.6 2.8 2.45 2.37 2.52 2.46 2.38 2.52 2.4 2.2 2.0 Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3 Exp 4 Combined Jacela et al., 2009

Effect of corn hominy feed on d il i f 80 t 270 lb average daily gain from 80 to 270 lb

2.5

Linear P < 0 01

7.0

Linear P < 0 01

2 20 2.3 2.4 lb

Linear P < 0.01

6.32 6 4 6.7 , lb

Linear P < 0.01

2.20 2.07 2.09 2.05 2.1 2.2 ADG, 5.90 5.91 6.1 6.4 ADFI, 1.9 2.0 5.72 5.5 5.8 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% Corn hominy feed, % 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% Corn hominy feed, %

Potter et al., 2009

Effect of corn hominy feed on f d ffi i f 80 t 270 lb feed efficiency from 80 to 270 lb

3 3 3.5 3.1 3.3 G 2.82 2.78 2.80 2.78 2.9 F/G 2.5 2.7 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% Corn hominy feed, % Corn hominy feed, %

Potter et al., 2009

Effect of DDGS and wheat midds i f

• n pig performance

2.36 2.5

Wheat midds linear P < 0.01

2.36 2.33 2.23 2.21 2.3 lb 2.1 ADG, 1.9 Corn‐soy 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% Wheat Midds (%) in 30% DDGS diets Wheat Midds (%) in 30% DDGS diets

Barnes et al., 2010

Effect of DDGS and wheat midds i f

• n pig performance

2 9 3.0

Wheat midds linear P < 0.01

2.75 2.77 2.82 2.8 2.9 G 2.71 2.7 F/G 2.5 2.6 Corn‐soy 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% Wheat Midds (%) in 30% DDGS diets

Barnes et al., 2010

Mycotoxins and New Crop Corn

Observations of black mold on corn in Kansas and surrounding states and surrounding states

• Most test results have shown limited mycotoxin

contamination contamination

• Deoxynivalenol (DON), also commonly known as

vomitoxin has been the most common this year vomitoxin, has been the most common this year

• > 1 ppm may reduce feed intake and rate of gain
• > 5 ppm may result in feed refusal

> 5 ppm may result in feed refusal

• > 10 ppm may result in vomiting

DDGS – 3 times the level of original corn level DDGS 3 times the level of original corn level

Mycotoxins – What can we do?

Collect a good sample to test if suspected / l h ld h d Screen/clean the grain – molds are in the dust and stressed small kernels Blend contaminated grain with clean grain to get below a maximum threshold for feeding Separate contaminated grain and feed higher levels to finishing pigs or sell for cattle feed g p g Binders – generally do not help with vomitoxin

• Balance binder cost with other alternatives
• Balance binder cost with other alternatives

Managing Pigs at Close Out Managing Pigs at Close Out

Impact of pen unloading on feed efficiency and average daily gain

4.24 3.76 3 63 4 4.5 Marginal ADG, lb Marginal F/G

y g y g

3.63 2 5 3 3.5 1.45 1.83 1.84 1.5 2 2.5 0.5 1 Pigs/Pen 24 24 24 Pigs Removed 0 6 12 Pig space sq ft 7 25 9 67 14 50 Pig space, sq ft 7.25 9.67 14.50 Boyd et al., 2008

Impact of pen unloading on feed efficiency and average daily gain

2 58 2.81 2.67 3.0 Marginal ADG, lb Marginal F/G

g y g

2.26 2.52 2.58 2.52 2.2 2.6 1.8 1 0 1.4 1.0 Pigs/Pen 25 25 25 Pigs Removed 0 2 4 Pig space sq ft 7 2 7 8 8 6 Pig space, sq ft 7.2 7.8 8.6 Jacela et al., 2009

$1 20

Impact of pen unloading on profit per pig

$1.08 $0 84 $1.00 $1.20 $0.84 $0 60 $0.80 $0.40 $0.60 $0.00 $0 00 $0.20 $0.00 Pigs/Pen 25 25 25 Pigs Removed 0 2 4 Pig space sq ft 7 2 7 8 8 6 Pig space, sq ft 7.2 7.8 8.6 Jacela et al., 2009

Effect of Paylean on Day 0 to 21 Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency

ADG, lb F/G P = 0 01

2.31 2.26 2 3 2.3 2.4

ADG, lb F/G P 0.01

3.62 3 23 3 4 3.7 4.0 2.16 2.2 2.2 2.3 3.23 3.17 2 8 3.1 3.4 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.8

Potter et al., 2009

Effects of different Paylean feeding programs

• n average daily gain

2.09b 2 05b

2 1 2.2

• n average daily gain

a,b (P<.05)

2.05

1 9 2.0 2.1

1.76a

1 7 1.8 1.9 lb. 1 5 1.6 1.7 1.5 Control Constant, 21 d Step Up, 28 d

Jacela et al., 2009

Effects of different Paylean feeding programs

• n percentage lean

57.0b

57 0 57.5

• n percentage lean

a,b (P<0.05)

56.1a

56 0 56.5 57.0

55.2a

55 0 55.5 56.0 % 54.0 54.5 55.0 Control Constant, 21 d Step Up, 28 d

Jacela et al., 2009

Effects of different Paylean feeding programs

• n income over feed cost

115

• n income over feed cost

$109.03 $108.61 110 115 $101.18 105 $/pig 95 100 Control Constant, 21 d Step Up, 28 d

Jacela et al., 2009

Effect of Mixing Pigs at 260 lb on ADG

2.5 d 0 to 7 d 0 to 15 2.5 1.9 1.76 1.58 1 46 2.0 b 2.02 2.02 1.76 1.65 2.0 b

a a ab b

1.46 1.0 1.5 ADG, l 1.0 1.5 ADG, l 0.5 Control Mixed Mixed2 Mixed3 0.5 Control Mixed Mixed2 Mixed3 Control Mixed Mixed2 Mixed3 Control Mixed Mixed2 Mixed3

Pigs/pen: 12 12 20 20 Pigs/pen: 12 12 20 20 No/Barns: 1 2 2 1 No/Barns: 1 2 2 1

Potter et al., 2010

Effect of Mixing Pigs at 260 lb on F/G

4.29 4.44 4.5 d 0 to 7 d 0 to 15 4 08 4.5 3.85 4.06 4.0 /G 3.78 3.67 3.89 4.08 4.0 F/G 3.0 3.5 F/ 3.0 3.5 F 2.5 C t l Mi d Mi d2 Mi d3 2.5 C t l Mi d Mi d2 Mi d3 Control Mixed Mixed2 Mixed3 Control Mixed Mixed2 Mixed3

Pigs/pen: 12 12 20 20 Pigs/pen: 12 12 20 20 No/Barns: 1 2 2 1 No/Barns: 1 2 2 1

Potter et al., 2010

Key Take Home Messages for Managing Pigs at Close Out: Managing Pigs at Close Out:

Top a minimum of 2 pigs from each pen 15 to 20 d prior to closeout closeout

• Gate cut pigs into pens so pigs can be marketed uniformly
• Limit further tops unless pigs will be heavier than top of the grid

Feed Paylean for 14 to 21 d prior to closeout

• Shorter durations if achieving optimum market weight
• Longer durations will continue to improve lean but little benefit in

g p growth rate

If allowed enough time ‐ mixing pigs at closeout is not detrimental to growth rate detrimental to growth rate

• Enables more efficient site utilization
• Feed efficiency is poor in the immediate period after mixing
• FG Improves over time as growth rate and feed intake increases

Thank You! Thank You!