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 RactopamineHCl 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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Erythromycin Lincomycin Quin./Dalfo. Tetracycline Tylosintartrate
% R
esi
stan
t
d 0, - Cu
d 0, + Cu
d 90, - Cu
d 90, + Cua 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 31.6Times
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 30.3Times 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 5.1Times 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
Pro
du
ctio
n P
has
e
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 11.6Times 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
Pro
du
ctio
n P
has
e
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 4.6Times 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
Pro
du
ctio
n P
has
e
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
34.629.2 26.1
50.9
82.5
68.2
110.6
59.5 55.4
94.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
d 0 d 100 Farrowing Weaning
Seru
m 2
5O
HD
3, n
g/m
L
a,b,c a,b,c
SEM = 3.5Maternal × day interaction, P < 0.001
Gestation
Vit. D3, IU/kg
25OHD3, IU/kg
8002,0009,600
2,000
a,b,c
a = vitamin D3 linear, P < 0.001b = 2,000 IU vitamin D3 vs. 25OHD3, P < 0.001c = 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
Seru
m 2
5O
HD
3, n
g/m
L
Vitamin D3, IU/kg
8002,0009,600
25OHD3, IU/kg
2,000
w = vitamin D3 linear, P < 0.001x = vitamin D3 quadratic, P = 0.033 y = 2,000 IU vitamin D3 vs. 25OHD3, P < 0.001z = 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 on Residual Phytase Activity
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
149 167 185 203
Re
sid
ual
ph
ytas
e a
ctiv
ity,
%
Conditioning Temperature, ˚F
Quantum Blue G
Ronozyme HiPhos GT
Axtra Phy TPT
Microtech 5000 Plus
P < 0.001; Linear temperatureP < 0.05; Microtech 5000 PlusSEM = 8.80
De Jong et al., 2015
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
% o
f in
itia
l ph
ytas
e a
ctiv
ity
Storage time, d
Pure Product Vitamin Premix VTM Premix
P < 0.001; time × formP < 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
Dif
fere
nce
in in
div
idu
al p
igle
t b
irth
we
igh
t, g
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-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
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Days after conception
Feta
l w
t, g
ObjectiveTo determine the effects of lysine and energy
intake during late gestation on reproductive
performance of gilts and sows.
29.536.2
40.6
54.0
23.129.5
40.8
50.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
BW
gai
n d
90
to
d 1
11
, lb Gilts Sows
BW gain (d 90 to d 111)SEM = 0.68
Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.128Lysine x Energy, P<0.001Parity 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 bornSEM = 0.32
Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.249Parity, 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 14.215.3 14.8 15.1 15.5
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Tota
l pig
lets
bo
rn, n
Gilts
Sows
Goncalves et al., 2015
Piglets born aliveSEM = 1.0
Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.569Parity 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 95.093.6 94.2
93.3 93.1
89.690.8
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100B
orn
aliv
e, %
Gilts
Sows
13.4 13.4 13.2 13.314.3 13.513.7 14.1
Goncalves et al., 2015
Stillborn piglets SEM = 0.83Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.456
Parity x Energy, P=0.014Lysine, P=0.049
3.5 3.23.6
3.2
5.1
3.7
6.96.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8St
ill b
orn
rat
e, %
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 2.893.00 3.06 3.09 3.11
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
Pig
let
bir
th w
eig
ht,
lb
Gilts Sows
SEM = 0.02Lysine x Energy x Parity, P=0.489
Energy, P=0.011Parity, 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 message1. “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.
Dif
fere
nce
in in
div
idu
al p
igle
t b
irth
we
igh
t, g
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-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
15.115.4 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
weig
ht
ga
in,
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
o Increase total feed consumption prior to weaning
o Reduce loss of body weight and backfat
o 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
AD
G, l
b
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
3.253.29 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
8.028.52
9.879.50
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
, $ p
er
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 technologies52
De Jong, 2015
Evaluating feed processing technologies53
De Jong, 2015
56
Floor space Tool
Floor space calculator57
Flohr, 2015
Floor space calculator58
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