North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

NC STATE UNIVE RS ITY

SWINECollege of Agriculture and life Sciences

NewsMay, 2007

ECONOMIC COST OF MAJOR HEALTHCHALLENGES IN LARGE US SWINEPRODUCTION SYSTEMS-PART 2Derald Holtkamp, DVM, Iowa State University, AmesHans Rotto, DVM, Innovative Agriculture Solutions,Ames , Iowa Roberto Garcia, DVM, Merial Ltd., Duluth,Georgia

Finishing herdIn the finishing herd, swine influenza, Mycoplasmahyopneumoniae, and PRRSV were the top three. Swineinfluenza was cited as a health challenge in the finisherfor 18 of 19 companies surveyed with an average rankof 3.1. Swine influenza in combination with PCV2 wascited as a health challenge for 3 herds with an averagerank of3 .3. PRRSV was ranked as a health challenge

Volume 30, Number 4

for 16 of the 19 companies with an average rank of 3.1.PRRS in combination with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniaewas ranked as a health challenge for I I companies withan average rank of 4.0. PRRS in combination with PCV2was ranked for 5 companies with an average rank of 2.4 .

While a relatively infrequent health challengein the finisher at the time the survey was conducted,when PRRSV in combination with PCV2 was cited asa prob lem, productivity losses were ranked greater, onaverage, than for any other health challenge in finishing .Ileitis was ranked as a health challenge for 14 of the 19companies surveyed with an average rank of 4.9. Ileitisin combination with Salmonella was ranked by a singlecompany with an average rank of3 .0. PMWS was rankedby 10 companies with an average rank of 4.0.

Figure 3: Rank of health challenges in the finishing herd

2018

~16III

e'tl 14Q)oXt:III 12...'"Q) 10~15 8...Q).c 6E:::lZ 4

20

Q)

~> l!!«s 00 Q)·c

Q) a: "0 :::> a: 5E~

n,":::>

Q)~<= Q)

0.. <= '"~.3' e>00

'"E'"'""i'i0

">-::E

_._----_.•

•

.-_.-.

- --------_.._----_._--_..._-

- .........__.. ..- --_..._------------..0;- co Q) '" '" Q) '" 1L Q) N N '" .~ .!l1 '" 0; .!l1.~

"0 '" ·5 00 ·5 E .~ o, ee > > .~

~ "" <= ~·0 ·c l(j :;: '" e ~ o <.) a. -c; ·c:2 .9 0

::E en "0 ~:'5. o, c, l'1 Q) 0 ~ '" ""3 15 '" :::> <= Q) 0.. + + Q) '" E Q) EW 0.. o, " G> 0 <5 ~

Q)~

.~E Q)

'" " ·0 '" ·in 00 > .c rn e rn.!l1 <= .=?

0 '" ·c :::> a: (j) " <= 00 so 000.. " W .0 0 <;; 0

~ 0 :c ~ 15 g 15 -E a: .!l1 e + '" Eo +'>, 0.. X

c, W .0 00 e> '"'" :::> .c 0 i!' .0 "i~ Q)~ <= .!l1 a: <5 ""·c .gj '" E U5 " -c <= 0

*a: Q)

" ~0eo rii Q) .5> 0.. "5 E a, :0

~ n, '" '" e w rn .~ u.ico '" :r: -E :::> 0.. 00 1:>,:. "i'i Q)

.~ 0 .~8 0 "i'i co

'" E~

<=

~ ~ Q) w '"+:r: ·0 C-

oo '" W.0 e>a: 0a: c; f-c, "i~

-c

Health Challenge

16.0

14.0

12.0 'tlQ)

oXe

10.0 ~eQ)

..c:8.0 ::

oXt:III

6.0...Q)ClIII

4.0 Qj

~

2.0

0.0

PCV2 in combination with swine influenza was ranked for3 companies with an average rank of 3.3. Six other healthchallenges were ranked for more than half of the companiessurveyed. They were gastric ulcers, Pasteurella multocida,Haemophilus para suis, Streptococcus suis, hemorrhagicbowel syndrome, and Actinobacillus suis.

DiscussionThe information generated by this survey is valu-

able for indus try benchmarking and to help guide animalhealth related investments in the industry. However, seve rallimitations of the approach used should be kept in mind .The quality of the results from the survey are only as goodas the participant's knowledge of productivity losses andhealth -related expenditures associated with specific healthchallenges. Sorting out the impact of individual healthchallen ges over time , when multiple health challenges maybe present , was subjective. To minimize this limitation, thedesign of the surve y and the method of administration wereformul ated to facilit ate a rigorous and common thoughtprocess for the participating veterinarians . They were guidedthrough a series of questions starting with identific ation andsubjective ranking of each health challenge and culminat­ing in the estimation of ranges of productivity losses andhealth -related expenditures in affec ted herds. In addition,the part icipant s were informed of the content of the survey

BYPRODUCTS FROM ENERGY PRODUCTIONFOR SWINE

There is considerable interest in the production ofenergy from com (ethanol) and fat (biodiesel). Theseprocesses yield byproducts that may have a place inswine nutrition. This article will briefly evaluate recentresearch on glycerol and dried distillers grains withsolubles (DOGS) which result from biodiesel andethanol production, respectively.Crude Glycerol

The production ofbiodiesel involves theseparation of glycerol from fat or oil, a process calledtransesterification. The end products of this process aremethyl esters, or biodiesel , and glycerol. Typically, oilsor fats are reacted with alcohols (usually methanol)in the presence of a catalyst (sodium or potassiumhydroxide) and converted to ethyl esters and glycerin.The yield of this process is approximately 86 percentbiodiesel, 9 percent glycerin, and 4 percent alcohol.

The co-product glycerin can be used in themanufacturing of soaps and other products. Howe ver,it also has potential value for the use in swine diets.Crude glycerol from biodiesel production containsapproximately 85 percent glycerol, 10 percent water,and 3 to 7 percent salt. The gross energy value ranges

to-face interview so that they were prepared. Parti cipantswere also quizzed and screened for their ability to providegood estimates for the questions in the survey.

It is also important to note that only the segment of -../the U.S. industry producing more than 150,000 pigs peryear was included in the study population . Extrapolation ofthe results to the entire U.S. industry shou ld be done withcaution. Anot her limitation was that the selection of sur-veyed companies was not random. However, the companiessurveyed represented nearly half of the pigs marketed in thestudy population and approximately one-quarter of the pigsmark eted in the U.S.

It is interesti ng to note that PMWS and PCV2 in com­bination with PRRSV were both ranked among the moreimportant health challenges. Anec dotal evidence sugges tsthat the losses associated with PCV2 would not have rankedthis high had the survey been conducted ear lier. Likewise,the rankings likely have increased since the survey wasconducted.

References1Neuma n, E.J, Kliebenstein, J.B. , Johnson, C D., Mabry,Lw., Bush, E.J., Seitzinger, A.H., Green, A.L., Zimmerman,lJ. 2005. Assessment of the economic impact of porcinereproductive and respiratory syndrome on swine productionin the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 227(3):385 -92.

from 3600 to 3750 dependin ~n its purit)' ureglycerol contains 4305 kca l/kg gross energy).

Studies in finisher pigs have shown that glycerolis highly palat able and improved feed intake wasobserved with 10% supplemental glycerol withouteffects on daily gain (Kijora , 1996; Kijora et aI., 1995,1997; Mourot et aI., 1994). Kuhn (1996) reported that10 percent technic al rapeseed glycerol could be fed tofinishing pigs without affecting growth performance.However, an increased proportion of saturated fattyacids in the body fat was observed in pigs fed glycerol.Most recently, Lammers and coworkers (2007)reported results from a study publi shed at the Midw estAmerican Soc iety ofAnimal Science meetings. Theystudied the digestible energy value of crude glyce rol inweanling pigs and finishing pigs . Crude glycero l wasadded to the diets such that glycerol concentrat ionswere 0, 5, 10, and 20 percent. The apparent digestibleenergy value (DE) of crude glycerol was 3386 kcal/kgfor nursery pigs and 3772 kcal/kg for finishing pigs.They reported that these values were not different fromthe GE of the crude glycerol examined (3625 kcal/kg for the product they used) , which indicated thatglycerol is highly digestible. They further reported thatthe metabolizable energy (ME) content of glycerol

in nursery pigs, but not finishing pigs , depended onthe level of glycero l that was fed . As glycerol level inthe nursery diet increased, ME content of the glyceroldecreased, indicating increased loss of energy (in thiscase from glycero l) in urine with increasing dietaryglycerol. The authors conc luded that the ME value forcrude glycero l when included at 0 to 10 perce nt was3463 kcal/kg for nursery pigs and 3081 kcal/kg infinishing pigs when included up to 20 percent.Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DOGS)

A summary of research with DOGS in swine wasrecently published by Dr. Hans Stein in Volume 30,No. I of Swine News. Since then, several other studieswere reported at the Midwest American Societyof Animal Science meet ings, recently held in DesMoines, IA. One of these studies (Feoli et aI., 2007")evaluated the DE content of DOGS obtained fromeither corn or sorghum. Diets consisted of a referencediet containing 97.5 percent corn with added vitamins,minerals, and amino acids . The test diets containedeither one of two sources of corn-based DOGS or oneof two sources of sorghum based DOGS and rep laced50 percent of the corn in the reference diet. Themeasured DE content of com -based DOGS were 3,628

_ and 2,940 kcal/kg for the two different sources and'-" 3,205 and 2,918 kcal/kg for the two different sources

of sorghum based DOGS. The authors concluded thatboth substrate used in the ethanol production processand the plant from which the DOGS was derivedgreat ly affect the digestible energy content of DOGS.

In a subsequent study (Feoli et aI., 2007b) , these

researchers used the DOGS from com with high andlow DE (as obtaine d in the previous study) and theDOGS from sorghum with the highest DE in a growthperformance study . They used II pigs per pen and 4pens per dietary treatment. The three sources of DOGSwere included at 40 percent in a com-soybean mealbased diet and the impact on pig performance wasevaluated compared to a control without DOGS. Theirresearc h showed decreased average daily gain in pigsfed the DOGS based diets compared to the contro l.In addition, pigs fed the com-based DOGS with highDE content had reduced daily gain and feed intake,but better feed efficiency compared to the other twotreatments. Dressing percentage was lower for all pigsfed DOGS.

Researchers from Kansas State University(Linneen et aI., 2007) evaluated the effects of DOGSinclusion in three separate experiments. In the first

experiment, 1,050 pigs (24 to 26 pigs per pen; 7pens per treatment) were fed diets with either 0 or15 percent DOGS to which 0, 3, or 6 percent fat wasadded (6 diets tota l). Addition of DOGS to the diet didnot affec t pig performance. However, addition of fatimproved average daily gain, and gain to feed ration,regardless whether DOGS was included in the diet.In experiment 2, 1,038 pigs (25 to 28 pigs per pen;10 pens per treatment) were fed diets with 0, 10, 20,or 30 percent DOGS. Diets containing more than 10percent DOGS appeared to have lower daily gain andfeed intake , but there were no differences in gain tofeed ration . In expo 3, 1,112 pigs (25 to 28 pigs perpen; 9 pens per treatment) were fed diets containing0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 percent DOGS . Pigs fed dietswithout DOGS had greater daily gain compared tothose fed 20 percent DOGS. Feed intake tended tobe decreased with increasing levels of DOGS . Theauthors concluded that 15 percent DOGS from thatparticular source could be added to diets withoutaffecting growth rate.

Research from JBS United, Inc. (Gaines etaI., 2007) aimed to determine the effects of DOGSinclusion with or without enzyme addition. Pigs (880total; 12 pens per treatment) were fed a diet with eitheroor 30 percent DOGS or a diet with 30 percent DOGSwith a ~upplementa l cellulose enzyme. No differenceswere observed for daily gain or feed intake . However,gain per unit of feed was lower for pigs fed 30 percentDOGS, regardless of enzyme supplementation.Carcass yield, loin depth, and carcass percent leanwere lower for pigs fed DOGS, irrespective of enzymesupplementation. The authors concl uded that whenfeeding high levels of DOGS, a reduction in carcassyield and lean should be considered in the economicevaluation.

In a second study from JBS United, Inc. (Spenceret aI., 2007), two experiments were conducted toevaluate DOGS supp lementation (DOGS contained10.2 percent fat, 25.4 percent CP, and 0.86 percentlysine) to nursery pigs. In experi ment I, 1,500 pigs(20 to 27 pigs per pen; 15 pens per treatment) wereassigned to 4 treatments as follows : 1) control with 0percent DOGS; 2) 7.5 percent DOGS in the phase Idiet and 15 percent throughout the remainder of the6 week nursery period; 3) 15 percent DOGS startingin phase 2 diets; and 4) 15 percent starting in phase3 diets. The feeding program consisted of 4 dietaryphases. Pigs fed DOGS had greater gain to feed ratios,

regardless of when DOGS was introduced to the diets .No other differences were observed. In experiment2,300 pigs weighing 9.0 kg and 31 days of age (10pigs per pen ; 10 pens per treatment) were used todetermine the impact of DOGS feeding (30 percent)with or without the addition of a combination ofenzymes (alpha-galactosidase, galactomannanase,xylanase, beta-glucana se). Pigs fed diets containing30 percent DOGS had greater gain to feed ratios thanpigs fed control diets . Supplementation of enzyme to

the diet with DOGS impro ved daily gain comparedto the other two diets. The authors concluded thatDOGS can be supplemented to diets for nursery pigsat 7.5 to 15 percent at any time during the nurseryperiod without negati vely affecting pig growthperformance. In addition, the authors indicated thatthe supplementation of enzymes to diets with DOGSmay further improve nursery pig performance.

Eric van Heugten

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

May16-18 Pork Management Conference

Destin, Florida22-24 Pork 101

Colleg e Station, Texas

June7-9 World Pork Expo

Des Moines , IowaJuly7-12 ADSAIASAS 2007 Joint Annual Meeting

San Antonio, Texas

Published by

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Serv ice

Distributed infurtherance ofthe acts ofCongress ofMay 8and June 3D, 1914. North Carol ina State University and North Carolina A&TState Universitycommit themselves topositive action tosecure equal opportunityregard less ofrace, color, creed,national orig in, rel igion, sex, age, ordisabil ity. Inaddition, the twoUniversities welcome all personswithout regardtosexual orientation. NorthCarolinaState University, NorthCarolina A&TState University, U.S. DepartmentofAgriculture, and localgovernmentscooperating.

North Carolina Cooperative Extension ServiceNorth Carolina State UniversityExtension Swine HusbandryBox 7621Raleigh , North Carolina 27695-7621