swine day slides 2013 - k-state asi day slides 2013.pdf · special events during ksu swine day •...
TRANSCRIPT
KSU Swine Day 2013
Special Events During KSU Swine Day• 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. ‐ Trade Show Open
• 11:00 a.m. ‐ Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Presentation by Dr. Henry and Dr. Hesse
• 11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. ‐ CHEW ON THIS presentation in the west parking lot
• 12:00 noon ‐ Pork Lunch in Main Ballroom
• 1:15 p.m. – Recent Developments in Feed Mill Technology – Dr. Charles Stark
• 3:30 – 5:00 p.m. – Tour of the Feed Mill and K‐State Ice Cream Reception
Simulation of Estrus and Ovulation in Lactating Sows
Background• Continued pressure to transition away from gestation stalls necessitates investigation of alternative breeding management strategies.
• Breeding sows in lactation could reduce sow non‐productive days while increasing lactation length to the benefit of the litter.
• Previous research indicates that reducing suckling pressure and boar exposure are critical stimuli.
Treatments1) Traditional Lactation2) Altered Suckling Treatment
Altered Suckling Treatment
Heaviest pigs weaned on d 18
Lightweight pigs combined
AA B
B
Piglets alternated between sows
Boar Exposure
Sow PerformanceItem Control ALT SEM
Sows, n 25 28 ‐‐‐‐
Days in estrus post‐farrowing 24.6a 23.0b 0.54
Inseminated in lactation, % ‐‐‐ 89.3% ‐‐‐
Inseminated after weaning, % 96.0% 10.7% ‐‐‐
Pregnancy rate, % 92.0% 89.0%
Subsequent reproductive performance
Number born alive 13.1 13.0 1.5
Litter weight, lb 39.0 39.7 4.1a, b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sows in Estrus, n
Day in Estrus Post‐Farrowing
ALT
Control
Piglet PerformanceItem Control ALT SEM
Pigs, n 289 322 ‐‐‐
Weaning age, d 21 18 / 25
Gain d 18 to 32, lb 7.21 7.27 0.727
Litter standard deviation
d 18 2.19 2.12 0.178
d 32 3.11 2.55 0.290
SD change, d 18 to 32 0.92b 0.43a 0.133a, b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05.
5.72a
6.91
7.63
8.16b
6.71b6.97
7.407.57a
5
6
7
8
9
10
<10 lb 10‐12 lb 12‐14 lb >14 lb
Weight g
ain from
d 18 to 32, lb
Pig Weight Category
ControlALT
SEM: 0.30<10 lb: P < 0.001 >14 lb: P < 0.01
a, b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05.
Conclusions• Lactational estrus can be stimulated at rates similar to conventional weaning.
• No detrimental effects were seen for farrowing rate or subsequent litter size.
• Litter growth was similar between treatments, but litter weight variation was reduced by over 50%. Future research should track weights to market.
• Additional research is needed to develop the most practical protocols and confirm results in a commercial setting.
OvuGel™(triptorelin acetate)
100 mcg triptorelin per mL (as triptorelin acetate)Gel for intravaginal use
INDICATIONS FOR USE:For the synchronization of time of insemination in weaned sows to facilitate a single fixed-time artificial insemination.Not approved for use in gilts. Safety and effectiveness have not been evaluated in these animals.DESCRIPTION:OvuGel™ is a thin, clear to slightly hazy gel. Each mL of OvuGel™ contains 100 mcg of triptorelin (as triptorelin acetate) for intravaginal administration.
OvuGel® is a GnRH agonist given to sows intravaginally, four days post‐weaning. OvuGel® stimulates the release of LH, inducing ovulation 40‐48 hours post‐treatment. It facilitates single dose fixed‐time insemination without estrus detection in weaned sows, resulting in normal fertility.• OvuGel® is administered on the morning of day 4, approximately 96 hours post‐
weaning.• A single insemination is performed early on day 5 post‐weaning, approximately 24
hours post‐treatment.• No estrus detection is required to determine insemination time.• The OvuGel® program potentially allows producers to utilize labor more efficiently.• Pigs per semen dose are increased, leveraging high value genetics.
Effectiveness Trials Comparing Untreated Control Sows with OvuGel™‐Treated Sows
Control OvuGel™Service Eligible Sows 1092 490
No. Inseminated by 7 d post‐weaning 947 490
Doses of Semen per Sow Inseminated 2.1 1.0
No. Sows Farrowed 838 396
Farrow Rate for Service Eligible Sows 76.7 80.8
Born Alive per Litter 11.2 11.2
Total Born per Semen Dose 5.3 9.9
Piglet Index (Pigs born live/100 eligible sows) 861 9081Numbers in table are unadjusted means and raw numbers of studies performed at 5 US Locations. PTK 9‐06 (Trials D‐H).
Effect of Timed Insemination Following OvuGel™ Treatment on Fertility1
Control OvuGel™Service Eligible Sows 105 100% Detected in Estrus 94.3 92.0No. Inseminated by 7 d post‐weaning 99 100Doses of Semen per Sow Inseminated 2.2 1.0No. Sows Farrowed 94 92Farrow Rate for Service Eligible Sows 89.5 92.0Born Alive per Litter 12.2 12.3Total Born per Semen Dose 5.9 12.4
Piglet Index (Pigs born live/100 eligible sows) 1094 11301 2,500 sow farm (Trial C). Numbers in the table are unadjusted means and raw numbers. PTK 1‐10‐02.
Effect of Timed Insemination Following OvuGel™ Treatment on Fertility1
Control OvuGel™Service Eligible Sows 148 149
% Detected in Estrus 82 84
No. Inseminated by 7 d post‐weaning 121 149
Doses of Semen per Sow Inseminated 2.2 1.0
No. Sows Farrowed 109 115
Farrow Rate for Service Eligible Sows 73.6 77.2
Born Alive per Litter 10.9 11.3
Total Born per Semen Dose 4.9 9.7
Piglet Index (Pigs born live/100 eligible sows) 805 8721 14,000 sow farm (Trial B). Numbers in the table are unadjusted means and raw numbers. PTK 4‐07
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
DDGS Update
1) Economics of medium‐ and low‐oil DDGS2) DDGS/fiber withdrawal in late finishing
2.27 2.292.25
2.27 2.27
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
ADG, lb
5.4% 9.6%Graham et al., 2013
Effects of DDGS Source and Level on Average Daily Gain (d 0 to 82)
2.51
2.59
2.70
2.512.56
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
F/G
Graham et al., 2013
Effects of DDGS Source and Level on Feed Efficiency (d 0 to 82)
5.4% 9.6%
NE values, kcal/kg (as‐fed)
2672
21332320
2732
2497
2887
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
Corn 5.4 7.6 9.4 9.6 12.1
DDGS oil, %
DE and NE prediction equations
• Stepwise regression was then used to establish DE and NE prediction equations.
• Variables included in the regression analysis were the linear and quadratic terms of oil (ether extract), CP, CF, ADF, NDF, particle size, and bulk density.
• Only oil (ether extract) content was found to be significant in the model.
Predicted Digestible and Net Energy of DDGS
y = 115.01x + 1501R2 = .86
y = 62.347x + 3058.1R2 = .41
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Energy, Kcal/k
g
Oil, %
Net EnergyDigestible Energy
Available online at www.KSUswine.org
K-State DDGS Calculator (Variable DDGS Energy)
Corn, $/bu 4.25$ 151.79$ 132% =DDGS to Corn price ratio
SBM, $/ton 425.00$ Use fat to equalize energy NoMonocal, $/ton 600.00$ Include L-Trp in diets? No DDGS NLimestone, $/ton 36.20$ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, %Lysine HCl, $/lb 0.80$ DDGS oil content, % 8.0%DL-Met, $/lb 1.90$ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70$ L-Threonine, $/lb 1.25$ Fat, $/lb 0.40$ DDGS, $/ton 200.00$ L-Trp, $/lb 9.00$
Start weight, lb 50 75 125 170 210 246End weight, lb 75 125 170 210 246 280
DDGS maximum value F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 TotalDDGS % at max savings 25 15 15 5 5 10Max savings, $/pig $0.08 $0.10 $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 $0.04 $0.29
DDGS levels chosen 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% - Savings, $/pig $0.06 $0.09 $0.00 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.17
Calculator attempts to consider economic return per pig from change in diet cost, feed efficiency, and growth rate. It does not account for any economic impact on yield or iodine value.
Available online at www.KSUswine.org
K-State DDGS Calculator (Variable DDGS Energy)
Corn, $/bu 4.25$ 151.79$ 145% =DDGS to Corn price ratioSBM, $/ton 425.00$ Use fat to equalize energy NoMonocal, $/ton 600.00$ Include L-Trp in diets? No DDGS Limestone, $/ton 36.20$ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, %Lysine HCl, $/lb 0.80$ DDGS oil content, % 8.0%DL-Met, $/lb 1.90$ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70$ L-Threonine, $/lb 1.25$ Fat, $/lb 0.40$ DDGS, $/ton 220.00$ L-Trp, $/lb 9.00$
Start weight, lb 50 75 125 170 210 246End weight, lb 75 125 170 210 246 280
DDGS maximum value F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 TotalDDGS % at max savings 0 0 0 0 0 0Max savings, $/pig $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
DDGS levels chosen 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% - Savings, $/pig -$0.04 -$0.14 -$0.25 -$0.28 -$0.11 -$0.08 -$0.90
Calculator attempts to consider economic return per pig from change in diet cost, feed efficiency, and growth rate. It does not account for any economic impact on yield or iodine value.
Available online at www.KSUswine.org
Available online at www.KSUswine.org
K-State DDGS Calculator (Variable DDGS Energy)
Corn, $/bu 4.25$ 151.79$ 132% =DDGS to Corn price ratioSBM, $/ton 425.00$ Use fat to equalize energy NoMonocal, $/ton 600.00$ Include L-Trp in diets? Yes DDGS Limestone, $/ton 36.20$ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, %Lysine HCl, $/lb 0.80$ DDGS oil content, % 8.0%DL-Met, $/lb 1.90$ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70$ L-Threonine, $/lb 1.25$ Fat, $/lb 0.33$ DDGS, $/ton 200.00$ L-Trp, $/lb 9.00$
Start weight, lb 50 75 125 170 210 246End weight, lb 75 125 170 210 246 280
DDGS maximum value F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 TotalDDGS % at max savings 40 40 35 30 25 20Max savings, $/pig $0.40 $0.88 $0.74 $0.65 $0.51 $0.39 $3.58
DDGS levels chosen 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% - Savings, $/pig $0.22 $0.45 $0.49 $0.45 $0.24 $0.22 $2.05
Calculator attempts to consider economic return per pig from change in diet cost, feed efficiency, and growth rate. It does not account for any economic impact on yield or iodine value.
Feeding of high fiber diets before market
• Feeding diets containing DDGS reduce feed cost in many situations, but also reduce carcass yield
73.473.0
71.5 71.7
71
72
73
74
75
0% 10% 20% 30%
Yield, %
DDGS, %
SEM = 0.50Quad P < 0.01Linear, P < 0.003
Whitney et al., 2006
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb)
73.272.9
71.6
73.072.4
71.7
70
71
72
73
74
75
Yield, %
d 0 to 43: Low High High High High Highd 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High Highd 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High
Asmus et al., 2011
Duration P=.002Level P= 0.001SEM 0.26
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb)
6.67.1
8.2
6.7
7.5
8.7
5
6
7
8
9
10
Full large intestine, lb
d 0 to 43: Low High High High High Highd 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High Highd 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High
Asmus et al., 2011
Duration P<0.01Level P< 0.05SEM 0.46
Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter
Exp. 1
72.7 72.5 72.572.2
72.0
71.2
69.0
70.0
71.0
72.0
73.0
74.0
Carcass Y
ield, %
Corn‐Soy 20 d 15 d 10 d 5 d High fiber
Coble et al., 2013
Corn‐soy vs high fiber, P = 0.01 Withdraw effects, quadratic P < 0.03SEM 0.20
Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing
Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter
Exp. 2
74.85
74.1074.62 74.54 74.43
73.93
72
73
74
75
76
77
Farm
yield, %
Corn‐Soy 24 d 19 d 14 d 9 d High fiber
Coble et al., 2013
Corn‐soy vs high fiber, P = 0.19 No withdraw effects, P > 0.27SEM 0.50
Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing
Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter
Exp. 2 (at time of study)
$26.01$26.63
$28.86
$28.04$27.75
$26.61
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Income over fe
ed, $/pig
Corn‐Soy 24 d 19 d 14 d 9 d High fiber
Coble et al., 2013
Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing
Value, $ 111.53 105.91 107.22 106.68 105.45 104.22Feed, $ 85.52 79.28 78.36 78.65 77.70 77.61
Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter
Exp. 2 (June 20, 2013 prices)
$59.33
$58.27
$60.89
$59.90$59.25
$57.74
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Income over fe
ed, $/pig
Corn‐Soy 24 d 19 d 14 d 9 d High fiber
Coble et al., 2013
Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing
Value, $ 144.85 137.55 139.25 138.55 139.95 135.35Feed, $ 85.52 79.28 78.36 78.65 77.70 77.61
Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter
Exp. 2 (September, 2013 prices)
$63.78
$59.53
$61.64
$60.53$59.61
$57.67575859606162636465
Income over fe
ed, $/pig
Corn‐Soy 24 d 19 d 14 d 9 d High fiber
Coble et al., 2013
Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing
Value, $ 134.71 127.92 129.50 128.85 127.36 125.88Feed, $ 74.02 73.25 72.84 73.49 73.01 73.85
Removing pigs from high fiber diets
• Reduction in yield– Short term = < 5 days
• Ex. high oil DDGS
• Reduction in carcass weight due to lower ADG?– Carcass weight appears to increase linearly to 15 to 20 d of withdrawal.
• Ex. Low oil DDGS or wheat midds
Removing pigs from high fiber diets Not the same as removal from diets with high levels of unsaturated fat!
Shorter withdrawal
Yield Fat quality
Longer withdrawal
• Phytase is routinely added to swine diets to improve utilization of phytate‐bound phosphorus within cereal grains which is typically unavailable to the animal.
• Additions of phytase at amounts greater than that needed to meet the P requirement, “superdosing”, could potentially increase digestibility of nutrients other than P and result in improved gain and feed efficiency.
Phytase Introduction
• Studies were conducted in commercial research facilities as well as the KSU STRC.
• Three sources of phytase were used: – Ronozyme HiPhos, Optiphos, and Quantum.
• Exp. 1 and 2 evaluated the effects of phytase in low‐lysine diets compared with a high lysine positive control.
• Exp. 3 and 4 used existing diets with phytase added on top of a nutritionally adequate diet.
Phytase Introduction
1.25
1.19
1.22
1.25 1.25
1.22
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
250 250 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
ADG, lb
Effects of increasing Ronozyme HiPhos in low lysine diets on nursery pig growth performance (d 0 to 36)
Phytase, FYT/kg
SID lysine, % High Low
Phytase, quadratic P < 0.02High vs. Low Lys P < 0.02
Langbein et al., 2013
1.56
1.62
1.58 1.57
1.60 1.59
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
250 250 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
F/G
Phytase, quadratic P < 0.21High vs. Low Lys P < 0.01
Phytase, FYT/kg
SID lysine, % High Low
Langbein et al., 2013
Effects of increasing Ronozyme HiPhos in low lysine diets on nursery pig growth performance (d 0 to 36)
1.28 1.251.20
1.18
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
500 3,000 500 3,000
ADG, lb
Influence of added Ronozyme HiPhos in low or high lysine diets on growth performance of nursery pigs (d 0 to 18)
Phytase, FYT/kgSID lysine, % 1.20 1.05
Phytase, P < 0.33High vs. Low Lys P < 0.01
Langbein et al., 2013
1.62 1.62
1.711.74
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
500 3,000 500 3,000
F/G
Influence of added Ronozyme HiPhos in low or high lysine diets on growth performance of nursery pigs (d 0 to 18)
Phytase, FYT/kgSID lysine, % 1.20 1.05
Phytase, P < 0.39High vs. Low Lys P < 0.01
Langbein et al., 2013
2.28 2.282.30
2.26
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.30
2.35
0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00
ADG, lb
No differences, P > 0.10
Effects of increasing Optiphos 2000 in growth performance of finishing pigs (d 0 to 92)
Goodband et al., 2013
Phytase, FTU/kg 250 500 1000 2000 Phytase, lb/ton
2.54
2.45
2.50 2.51
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00
F/G
ab ab
Effects of increasing Optiphos 2000 in growth performance of finishing pigs (d 0 to 92)
b
a
Cubic effect of phytase, P < 0.01
Goodband et al., 2013
Phytase, FTU/kg 250 500 1000 2000 Phytase, lb/ton
1.22
1.20
1.15
1.17
1.19
1.21
1.23
1.25
NoPhytase
2,500FTU/kg
P = 0.01SEM = 0.007
0.55
0.62
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
NoPhytase
2,500FTU/kg
P < 0.01SEM = 0.01
Effects of superdosing Quantum phytase on growth performance of weanling pigs; Commercial facilities (d 0 to 21)
ADG, lb
Feed
/gain
3.36
3.87
3.00
3.40
3.80
4.20
NoPhytase
2,500FTU/kg
P < 0.01SEM = 0.077
0.76
0.93
0.50
0.70
0.90
1.10
1.30
NoPhytase
2,500FTU/kg
P = 0.04SEM = 0.054
Effects of superdosing Quantum phytase on IOFC for weanling pigs
IOFC, $/hd
IOFC, $/hd
D 0 ‐ 11 D 0 ‐ 21
• Similar to previous studies, these experiments emphasize the importance of adequate lysine to promote growth performance.
• These studies also illustrate the differences between experiments conducted in university vs. commercial setting because a phytase response was detected only in the commercial studies.
• Although very cautious to lower lysine with increasing phytase, there could be benefits to increasing phytaseabove that needed for the P requirement.
Summary of superdose phytase trials
1.44
1.40
1.47
1.42
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
None RoxazymeG2G
RonozymeVP
RoxazymeG2G + VP
F/G
Trt, P = 0.09SEM 0.019
Drought‐affected corn and/or carbohydraseenzyme inclusion on F/G (d 10‐35 post‐weaning)
Enzyme Inclusion
1.44
1.42
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
Normal Drought
F/G
Source, P = 0.32SEM 0.013
Jones et al., 2013
• Recently, data has suggested that pigs feed additional zinc above that provided in the trace mineral premix can improve growth.
• More research was needed to evaluate zinc source and added levels for optimum growth and economic return.
• Additionally, more data was needed to understand “why” this response was occurring when pigs are being fed Paylean.
Additional Zinc in Paylean Diets
218.1
223.9225.7
224.1
226.4
224.5 223.9
222.4
214
220
226
232
Control Paylean 75 150 225
HCW, lb
ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.04Zinc source, P = 0.28No Zinc level effect, P > 0.81SEM 3.1
Zinc level and source with Paylean on Hot Carcass Weight ‐ Exp. 1 (d 0 to 35)
Paulk et al., 2013
Paylean + Added Zn, ppm
21.16
22.74
24.00 23.83 23.5623.65
22.0921.78
18.00
23.00
28.00
Control Paylean 75 150 225
IOFC, $/pig
ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.33Zinc source, P = 0.17No Zinc level effect, P > 0.44SEM 2.04
Zinc level and source with Paylean on Income Over Feed Cost ‐ Exp. 1 (d 0 to 35)
Paulk et al., 2013
Paylean + Added Zn, ppm
306293
314
345329
290
326
395
260
300
340
380
420
Control Paylean 75 150 225
Liver,
µg/g
ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.55Level x source, linear P = 0.01SEM 17.44
Zinc level and source with Paylean on Liver Concentrations (DM basis) ‐ Exp. 1
Paulk et al., 2013
Paylean + Added Zn, ppm
1.08
1.011.07 1.07
1.131.07 1.09
1.13
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Control Paylean 75 150 225
Plasma, µ
g/m
L
ZnO Availa‐ZnControl vs Paylean, P = 0.19Zinc source, P = 0.77Zinc, linear P = 0.01SEM 0.04
Zinc level and source with Paylean on Plasma Zinc, Exp. 1 (d 32)
Paulk et al., 2013
Paylean + Added Zn, ppm
207.9
215.6
218.3216.1
200
206
212
218
224
230
Control Paylean Zinc oxide Availa‐Zn
HCW, lb
Control vs Paylean, P = 0.001Paylean vs added zinc, P = 0.32Zinc oxide vs Availa‐Zn, P = 0.22SEM = 2.53
Added zinc source and Paylean on Hot Carcass WeightExp. 2 (d 28)
Paulk et al., 2013Paylean + 50 ppm added Zn
16.52
19.77
21.22
20.04
$15
$17
$19
$21
$23
$25
Control Paylean Zinc oxide Availa‐Zn
IOFC, $/pig
Control vs Paylean, P = 0.001Paylean vs added zinc, P = 0.21Zinc oxide vs Availa‐Zn, P = 0.14SEM = 0.57
Added zinc source and Paylean on IOFCExp. 2 (d 28)
Paulk et al., 2013Paylean + 50 ppm added Zn
• Small, but consistent improvements in growth rate have been found with added zinc in the Paylean diet.
• An additional 50 to 75 ppm added zinc has been the most economical on an IOFC basis.
• Avoid excess Zn to minimize excretion in manure.
Added Zinc to the Paylean Diet Summary
• Historically added Cu above that in the trace mineral premix has been shown to improve feed intake and daily gain in the nursery, grower and early finishing.
• Industry added levels can range from 75 to 250 ppm.• Data on tribasic copper chloride (TBCC) was limited and thus evaluated in a series of experiments.
Added Cu in Growing and Finishing Pigs
1.99 2.00
2.07 2.052.08 2.09
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
Corn‐Soy By‐product 75 150
ADG, lb
CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.76CuSO4 linear, P = 0.08TBCC linear, P = 0.01SEM = 0.025
Copper source and level on ADG(d 0 to 111)
Coble et al., 2013
Added Cu to By‐product, ppm
2.52
2.582.60
2.622.612.58
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
Corn‐Soy By‐product 75 150
F/G
CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.01CuSO4 linear, P = 0.10TBCC no effect, P > 0.11SEM = 0.024
Copper source and level on F/G(d 0 to 111)
Coble et al., 2013
Added Cu to By‐product, ppm
48.39 48.50
49.32
48.12
49.4050.01
$45
$47
$49
$51
$53
Corn‐Soy By‐product 75 150
IOFC, $/pig
CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.91CuSO4 no effect, P > 0.26TBCC no effect, P > 0.15SEM = 0.749
Copper source and level on Income Over Feed Cost(Constant Days)
Coble et al., 2013
Added Cu to By‐product, ppm
268
417 413383373
389
200
300
400
500
600
Corn‐Soy By‐product 75 150
Wash tim
e, se
c
CuSO4 TBCCCorn‐Soy vs By‐product, P = 0.01CuSO4 no effect, P > 0.27TBCC no effect, P > 0.26SEM = 21.5
Copper source and level on Pen Cleanup
Coble et al., 2013
Added Cu to By‐product, ppm
Feed preference between copper sources
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Control vs TBCC Control vs CuSO4 TBCC vs CuSO4
TBCC
TBCC
CuSO4 CuSO4
ControlControl
Coble et al., 2013
P = 0.02 P < 0.01 P < 0.01
• Adding supplemental copper as either CuSO4or TBCC improved growth.
• Pigs fed TBCC continued to have increased growth rate in late finishing, especially those fed 150 ppm added copper.
• When given a choice of feed, pigs eat a greater quantity of a diet without Cu. When comparing TBCC and CuSO4, pigs consume a greater quantity of the diet with TBCC.
Added Cu Summary
Tryptophan
Tryptophan (Trp) is the 3rd limiting AA in swine diets based on corn and soybean meal
Extensive use of crystalline AA in the diet to optimize feed cost has stressed the importance of accurately defining the Trprequirement
The increasing usage of DDGS in swine diet cause Trpbecome more limiting due to the low‐Trp in this product
Requirement estimates for SID Trp:Lys vary from 14.5 to 23.1% across various BW ranges (Quant, 2008)
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
% of M
axim
um ADG
SID Trp:Lys ratio, %
Eder, 2003 Guzik, 2005
Kendall, 2007 exp1 Kendall, 2007 exp2
Kendall, 2007 exp3 Barnes, 2011 exp1
Barnes, 2011 exp2 Nitikanchana, 2012 L‐Trp
Nitikanchana, 2012 SBM
Influence of SID Trp:Lys ratio on ADG
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
% of M
axim
um ADG
SID Trp:Lys ratio, %
Eder, 2003 Guzik, 2005
Kendall, 2007 exp1 Kendall, 2007 exp2
Kendall, 2007 exp3 Barnes, 2011 exp1
Barnes, 2011 exp2 Nitikanchana, 2012 L‐Trp
Nitikanchana, 2012 SBM
Influence of SID Trp:Lys ratio on ADG
Effect of Lysine and Trp on Performance21 d trial – 48 to 81 lb BW
1.57 1.60
1.08
1.44
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
ADG, lb
abcP<0.05
1.621.71
2.061.93
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
F/G
abcP<0.05a
Goncalves et al, 2014
a
b
c
ADG F/G
aa
bcc
CP, % 23.2 20.2 17.6 17.6SID Lys 1.09 1.09 0.92 0.92Trp:lys 20 20 14.5 20
CP, % 23.2 20.2 17.6 17.6SID Lys 1.09 1.09 0.92 0.92Trp:lys 20 20 14.5 20
KSU Swine Day 2013
Processing and complete diet grinding for high
byproduct diets
Kansas State Universitywww.KSUswine.org
Background
• Series of experiments partially supported by the National Pork Board and USDA‐AFRI–Particle size and pelleting of high byproduct diets• Grow‐finish pigs• Nursery pigs
2.022.06
1.99
2.112.17
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
650 micron corn 320 micron corn 360 micron diet
ADG, lb
Meal Pellet320 vs 650 microns P < 0.15Grind x form P < 0.001Grind P = 0.89; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.018
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
2.82
2.712.74
2.60 2.60
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
650 micron corn 320 micron corn 360 micron diet
F/G
Meal Pellet320 vs 650 microns P < 0.001Grind x form P = 0.37Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001SEM = 0.03
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012
Project 2: Effect of particle size and diet form for nursery pigs
• Two diet types (meal vs pellet)• Three processing treatments
– Corn ground to 747 microns (650 micron diet)– Corn ground to 324 microns (425 micron diet)– Complete diet ground to 541 microns
• 996 pigs• 6 pens per treatment
0.95
0.89
0.93
0.96
1.00 1.00
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
737 micron corn 324 micron corn 541 micron diet
ADG, lb
Meal Pellet
Effect of particle size and diet form on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 21; BW 24.5 to 45 lb)
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2013
Diet form × corn µ P < 0.07Diet form P < 0.002SEM = 0.02
1.51
1.57
1.52
1.45 1.451.42
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
737 micron corn 324 micron corn 541 micron diet
F/G
Meal PelletDiet form × corn µ P < 0.38Diet form P < 0.01SEM = 0.01
Effect of particle size and diet form on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 21; BW 24.5 to 45 lb)
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2013
Corn particle size affects feed intake preference of nursery pigs fed meal diets
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Light Pigs Heavy Pigs
ADFI, lb
600 micron300 micron
De Jong et al., 2014
72.5%82.8%
Corn particle size
Project 3: Effect of pellet quality and feeder adjustment on performance of nursery pigs
• Two experiments (210 and 1,005 pigs)• Three diet types
– Meal– Pellets (screened with < 5% fines)– Poor quality pellets (30% fines
• Two feeder adjustments– 0.5 inch (approximately 40 to 60% pan coverage)– 1 inch (92 to 99% pan coverage)
• 5 or 7 pens per treatment• Diets with 20% DDGS
Field Trial Pan CoverageNarrow adjustment
with meal diet
Wide adjustment with meal diet
52%
Narrow adjustment with poor pellets
Narrow adjustment with good pellets
98%
61% 57%
99% 97%
Wide adjustment with poor pellets
Wide adjustment with good pellets
1.52
1.591.57
1.58
1.631.62
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
Meal Pellets Pellets with30% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on nursery ADG
ADG, lb
Feeder opening and diet form P < 0.05
Feeder opening, in.
Nemechek et al. 2012
Meal vs poor quality or screened, P < 0.03Narrow vs wide, P = 0.02SEM = 0.02
1.59
1.51
1.561.59
1.51
1.57
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
Meal Pellets Pellets with30% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on nursery F/G
F/G
Diet form P < 0.05
Feeder opening, in.
Nemechek et al. 2012
Meal or poor quality vs screened, P < 0.01Narrow vs wide, P = 0.70SEM = 0.01
Project 4: Effect of pellet quality and feeder adjustment on performance of finisher pigs
• Three diet types – Meal– Pellets (screened with < 10% fines)– Poor quality pellets (50% fines
• Two feeder adjustments– 0.5 inch (Pan coverage was 30 to 50% in P 1; 90% in P 3)– 1 inch (Pan coverage was 83 to 96% in P 1; 95% in P 3)
• 6 pens per treatment• Diets with 20% DDGS until 200 lb, then 10% DDGS
Pan Coverage – Meal DietsNarrow adjustment with meal diet
Phase 1, averaged 31% coverage Phase 3, averaged 89% coverage
Wide adjustment with meal dietPhase 1, averaged 83% coverage Phase 3, averaged 95% coverage
Pan Coverage – Screened PelletsNarrow adjustment with screened pellets
Phase 1, averaged 44% coverage Phase 3, averaged 92% coverage
Wide adjustment with screened pelletsPhase 1, averaged 86% coverage Phase 3, averaged 96% coverage
2.10
2.21 2.202.17
2.21 2.21
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
Meal Pellets Pellets with50% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on finisher ADG
ADG, lb
Diet form P = 0.08Feeder opening, lb
Nemechek et al. 2012
2.87
2.55
2.68
2.98
2.58
2.83
2.402.502.602.702.802.903.003.103.20
Meal Pellets Pellets with50% fines
0.75 1.25
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on F/GF/G
Diet form P < 0.001; Feeder adjust. P < 0.03
Feeder opening, in.
Nemechek et al. 2012
Project 5: Effect of high byproducts and diet form on growth performance of finishing pigs.
• Two diet types – Meal– Pellets (screened with < 10% fines)
• Three diet regimens– Corn‐soybean meal diets– High fiber diets (30% DDGS and 19% wheat midds)– High fiber diets to 245 lb, then corn‐soy for 17 days
• 6 pens per treatment• University research facility
65.7
71.7
74.7
67.0
75.5
78.4
65
68
71
74
77
80
Corn‐soy 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
Iodine
value
, mg/g
Meal PelletInteraction P = 0.003Pellet P < 0.001Diet P < 0.001SEM = 0.38
Effect of fiber level and diet form on finishing pig belly fat iodine value (d 81; BW 287 lb)
Nemechek et al., 2012
d 0 to 64: Corn‐soy High fiber High fiberd 64 to 81: Corn‐soy Corn‐soy High fiber
Project 6: Effect of particle size and diet form for finishing pigs
• Two diet types (meal vs pellet)• Three corn particle sizes
– Roller mill at 650 microns– Hammer mill at 350 microns– Blend of roller and hammer mill (500 microns)
• 960 pigs• 8 pens per treatment
1.97 1.96
1.91
2.07 2.05 2.03
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
650 microns 50:50 blend 350 microns
ADG, lb
Meal PelletGrind x form P > 0.58Particle size P < 0.01 linearDiet form P < 0.001SEM = 0.021
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 101; BW 76 to 275 lb)
Corn particle size
Nemechek et al., 2013
2.692.67
2.62
2.512.55 2.56
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
650 microns 50:50 blend 350 microns
F/G
Meal PelletGrind x form P < 0.005 linearParticle size P > 0.34Diet form P < 0.001SEM = 0.02
Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
Corn particle size
Nemechek et al., 2013
2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.5
800 600 400
Cabrera, 1994aCabrera, 1994bWondra, 1995
Effects of particle size in meal diets on feed efficiency of finishing pigs
F/G
Particle size, microns
2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.5
300
400
500
600
700
800
Paulk, 2011DeJong, 2012Nemechek, 2013
1.2% per 100 microns 1.0% per 100 microns
Particle size, microns
Conclusions – Particle size
• Reducing particle size of grain improves F/G– For grow‐finish pigs
• Benefit is linear to at least 300 microns in meal diets• Does not appear to be as beneficial to grind below 600 microns in high quality pellets (more research may be needed to validate)
– For nursery pigs:• No benefit in F/G to grind corn below 600 microns
• Feed intake and gain are reduced when corn is ground to 300 microns in meal diets for nursery or finisher pigs
Pelleting on growth performance of grow‐finish pigs 2005 to 2013
Reference
Meal PelletADG F/G ADG F/G
Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.83 1.25 0.90 1.22Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.62 1.43 0.65 1.37Groesbeck et al.(2006) 0.80 1.25 0.78 1.17Potter et al. (2009) 1.95 2.12 2.05 2.07Potter et al. (2009) 1.92 2.83 2.04 2.68Myers et al. (2010) 1.81 2.76 1.94 2.82Potter et al. (2010) 1.92 2.86 2.03 2.70Frobose et al. (2011) 1.46 1.72 1.43 1.63Frobose et al. (2011) 1.29 1.51 1.38 1.40Myers et al. (2011) 1.96 2.73 1.97 2.67Paulk et al. (2011) 2.50 2.75 2.63 2.55Paulk et al. (2011) 2.31 2.50 2.44 2.40Nemecheck et al. (2012) 2.10 2.83 2.17 2.67Nemecheck et al. (2012) 2.14 2.93 2.21 2.57De Jong et al. (2012) 2.03 2.73 2.14 2.6Nemechek et al. (2013) 1.95 2.66 2.05 2.54
Average 1.72 2.30 1.80 2.19
Average response = 4.4% for ADG and 5.1% for F/G 187
Conclusions ‐ Pelleting• Pelleting
– Improves ADG and F/G– Response depends on particle size
• Greater F/G response at higher particle sizes
– Response depends on diet formulation• Greater response in higher byproduct diets
– Response depends on pellet quality• Linear response to improving pellet quality
– Negatively impacts fat firmness (increased iodine value)– Economic analysis must include the potential increase in mortality with pellets
Conclusions – Complete diet grinding
• Complete diet grinding– Does not appear to improve performance in high fiber diets that we have tested (DDGS, wheat middlings)
– No performance benefit found to grinding other ingredients• DDGS (may depend on initial particle size)• Wheat middlings• Soybean hulls• Soybean meal
– Reduces intake in meal diets– Must gain enough benefit in pellet quality to justify cost
Feed efficiency Factsheets• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25a: Not Always Linked to Net Income• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25b: Genetic Impact• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25c: Particle Size Testing Methodology• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25d: Influence of Particle Size• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25e: Influence of Pelleting• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25f: Influence of Temperature• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25g: Decision Tree• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC25h: Influence of Market Weight• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25i: Effect of Dietary Energy • Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25j: Influence of Ractopamine• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25k: Feeder Design and Management• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25l: Influence of Amino Acids• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25m: Sow Feed on Whole Farm Efficiency
www.swinefeedefficiency.com
Net Energy
Regression Analysis to Predict Growth Performance from Dietary Net Energy in Growing‐Finishing Pigs
Low energy diets typically reduce feed cost but also lower growth performance
Prediction of growth and feed efficiency is essential to quantify the feeding value dietary energy
NE is the most accurate system to evaluate effect of energy on growth
Gross Energy (GE)
Digestible Energy(DE)
Metabolizable Energy (ME)
Net Energy (NE)
Fecal energy
Urine energyGas energy
Heat increment
Can NE predict growth responses? A literature search using CABI search engine including
thesis, technical memos, and university publications from 1991 to 2012
Selection for inclusion and exclusion criteria Treatment diets vary in DE, ME, or NE ≥ 4 replications/treatment 41 trials from 17 journal articles, 10 technical memos, and a
thesis resulting in 285 observations Diet composition calculation Reformulated diets using a spreadsheet‐based software
program (Kansas State University Diet Formulation Program)
The NRC (2012) ingredient library was used as a reference for nutrient ingredients in diet reformulation
Nitikanchana et al., 2013
Net energy meta‐analysis Statistical analysis Diet Characteristics:
NE, 1,980 to 2,815 kcal/kg Fat, 1.8 to 10% Ash, 3.1 to 6.7%CF, 1.9 to 12.5% NDF, 6.7 to 29.5% ADF, 2.5 to 14.9% CP, 8.9 to 22.9 SID Lys, 0.51 to 1.15%
Average BW, 73 to 280 lb The PROC MIXED procedure of SAS with Linear and quadratic terms of NE, average BW, CP, SID
Lys, CF, NDF, ADF, fat, and ash, including their interaction terms evaluated as predictors of ADG and G:F
Experiment within trial was random effect
Nitikanchana et al., 2013
Predicted ADG of 167‐lb pig fed increasing dietary NEat varying levels of SID Lys
SID Lys,%
1.0
0.8
0.6
ADG, g = – 0.1004×NE(kcal/kg) + 1.6744×Average BW(kg) – 289.56×SID Lys(%) + 0.1918×NE(kcal/kg)×SID Lys(%) + 836.56
Nitikanchana et al., 2013
Predicted G:F of 167 lb pig fed increasing dietary NEat varying levels of SID Lys
SID Lys,%
1.0
0.8
0.6
GF= 0.000004365×NE(kcal/kg) – 0.00162×Average BW(kg) –0.08023×SID Lys(%) +0.000094×NE(kcal/kg)×SID Lys(%) + 0.3496
Nitikanchana et al., 2013
Predicted ADG of pigs fed varying Dietary NE
NE, kcal/kg
2,800
2,4002,000
ADG, g = 0.1135×NE (kcal/kg) + 8.8142×Average BW (kg)
– 0.05068×[Average BW (kg)]2+ 275.99
Nitikanchana et al., 2013
Predicted G:F of 167 lb pigs fed increasing dietary NEat varying dietary fat levels
Dietary fat8%5%3%
GF = 0.000096×NE (kcal/kg) – 0.0025×Average BW (kg)
+ 0.003071×Fat (%) + 0.3257
Nitikanchana et al., 2013
Dietary NE is an important predictor of the growth performance of growing‐finishing pigs.
Improvements in growth rate and feed efficiency could be obtained by increasing dietary NE across a wide variety of trials with different dietary ingredients and under different environmental conditions.
The magnitude of improvement in growth performances by dietary NE will be minimized if the amino acids are limiting.
The improvement of G:F with fat in the model indicating that NE may underestimate the influence of fat on feed efficiency.
Conclusion
Nitikanchana et al., 2013
The Effect of Feeding Different Dietary Net Energy Levels to Growing‐Finishing Pigs when Dietary Lysine
is Above Requirements
2 experiments using 543 pigs (PIC 1050 x 327) The SID Lys was formulated at 105% requirement of the
lightest BW pig fed high energy level in each feeding phase
Dietary treatments included 3 dietary NE levels1) 30% DDGS + 20% midds + 4% Soybean hulls2) 20% midds + 5% Soybean hulls3) 20% midds + 5% Soybean hulls + 3.7% CWG4) Corn‐SBM5) Corn‐SBM+ 3.7% CWG
Low NE
Medium NE
High NE
166 kcal/kg
166 kcal/kg
Nitikanchana et al., 2014
Results : Predicted vs. Actual ADG
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
ADG, lb
Exp.1 Exp.2
MiddsHullsDDGS
MiddsHulls
MiddsHullsCWG
CSB CSB+
CWG
Nitikanchana et al., 2014
MiddsHullsDDGS
MiddsHulls
MiddsHullsCWG
CSB CSB+
CWG
Results : Predicted vs. Actual G:FExp.1 Exp.2
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.44
G:F
Nitikanchana et al., 2014
MiddsHullsDDGS
MiddsHulls
MiddsHullsCWG
CSB CSB+
CWG
MiddsHullsDDGS
MiddsHulls
MiddsHullsCWG
CSB CSB+
CWG
Results : NE caloric efficiency (NEE)
3.22 3.13 3.15 3.20 3.22
4.674.37 4.44 4.45 4.45
1
2
3
4
5
Midds/Hulls/ Midds/Hulls Midds/Hulls/ Corn‐soy Corn‐soy/
NEE, M
cal/lb
Live wt NEE, SEM = 0.09Carcass wt NEE, SEM = 0.15
b
DDGS CWG CWG
ab b b
Nitikanchana et al., 2014
KSU Swine Day 2013
Summary
Exciting times in pork production!
Cooney, Pork Network, 11/18/2013
SEW pig price, $/pig Weekly changeAverage price $73.69 5.97Low price $65 7.00High price $82 7.00
Contract Lean hogs, $/cwtDec, 2013 85.40Feb, 2014 89.975Apr, 2014 92.50May, 2014 97.225June, 2014 98.45July, 2014 96.80Aug, 2014 94.75Oct, 2014 81.925
Exciting times in pork production!For the Week Ended 11/15/2013 Weekly Change
Weaner pig breakeven $84.29 ($1.36)Margin over variable costs $106.12 ($1.36)
Pig purchase month Dec, 2013 Nov, 2013
Live hog sale month May, 2014 May, 2014
Lean hog futures $98.65 ($0.98)
Weighted average sbm futures $403.08 ($8.59)
Weighted average corn futures $4.35 ($0.08)
Nursery cost/space/yr $35.00 $0.00Finisher cost/space/yr $40.00 $0.00Other feed cost $21.50 $0.00Assumed carcass weight 205 0.00
Cooney, Pork Network, 11/18/2013
Average corn price received by U.S. Farmers
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.0019
08
1918
1928
1938
1948
1958
1968
1978
1988
1998
2008
$/Bu 1890‐1940
50 yearsAvg $0.60
1941‐197130 yearsAvg $1.24
1972‐200533 yearsAvg $2.34 ?
3.71
6.12
Historical Hog Prices
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8019
09
1917
1925
1933
1941
1949
1957
1965
1973
1981
1989
1997
2005
2013
Live
pric
e, $
/cw
t
1909-1942 34 years Avg 8.41
1943-1972 30 years
Avg $18.07
1973-2006 34 years
Avg $44.92
?
KSU Swine Day Research Summary• Breeding sows in lactation is possible
– More work is needed to determine protocol and whether it is feasible in commercial production
• DDGS energy levels are highly variable – oil doesn’t tell everything, but important for NE– Withdraw for at least 20 d before market
• DDGS has priced itself out of many diets– Use of L‐Trp drives economics currently
• Can you add it at appropriate levels in your mill– New economic model at www.KSUswine.org
KSU Swine Day Research Summary• Superdosing of phytase appears to provide value in the nursery and early grower
• Paylean appears to increase the Zinc requirement • TBCC provides value in finishing pig diets• Low Trp:Lys levels increase risk• Particle size
– Less than 500 for F/G, but lowers ADG– Recommend 500 to 600 microns until further notice
• Each 100 kcal/kg of NE increases ADG by 11 g/d– 100 kcal/lb = 0.056 lb/d
www.KSUswine.org
Directions to OH Kruse Feed Mill
North on Denison Ave. about 1.25 miles
West (Left) on Kimball Ave. about .25 miles
Right into the Grain Science Complex
Thank You!KSUswine.org
Pellet quality
Pellets with fines
Good quality pellets
Nemecheck et al. 2012 217
K‐State Web Resourceswww.ksuswine.org
• DDGS Calculator
• Synthetic Amino Acid Calculator
• Fat Analysis Calculator
• Feed Budget Calculator
• Feeder Adjustment Cards
• Particle Size Information
• Marketing Calculators
• Gestation Feeding Tools
Every 100 microns = 1. F/G improves by ~1.2%2. 7 lbs less feed/finishing pig 3. Current $0.98/pig savings in feed cost
Grain Particle Size • F/G directly impacted by particle size of cereal grains• Research in high co‐product diets:
– While corn in diet is decreased, finishing pigs still respond similarly to improved F/G with reduced corn particle size
– Whole diet grinding – not a benefit in meal diets– High fiber, low digestibly ingredients may be negatively affected by particle size reduction.
• Takes more time/energy to grind cereals finer, however, less total tonnage is manufactured by the mill.
• Testing method impacts results: – Lab using a flow agent will report a value approximately 80 µ lower then actual.