Latest Update on K-State Applied Swine Nutrition Research

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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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



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%


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


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.


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, %



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, %



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

Latest Update on K-State Applied Swine Nutrition Research

Documents