Lee J. Johnston, Professor
West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris
and
Gerald C. Shurson, Professor
Department of Animal Science, St. Paul
University of Minnesota
Relative nutritional value
Feeding management
Logistical concerns
Cost
Moisture content
Availability of nutrients
Protein quality
Anti-nutritional factors
Feeding limits
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
DM CP Lys
Co
eff
icie
nt
of
Vari
ati
on
, %
Corn
SBM
DDGS
Midds
Cromwell et al., 1999 & 2000; Spiehs et al., 2002
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Calcium Phosphorus
Co
eff
icie
nt
of
Vari
ati
on
, %
Corn
SBM
DDGS
Midds
Cromwell et al., 1999 & 2000; Spiehs et al., 2002
Nutrients are expressed on “total” or
“digestible” or “available” basis
Digestible and available estimates require a
pig to determine
Total nutrient content will always be greater
than digestible or available nutrient content
NCR- 42:
* %Lys = 0.0172(%CP) + 0.1138; r = 0.73
Ward:
* %Lys = 0.026(%CP) + 0.049; r = 0.66
Kerr and Wilson:
* %Lys = 0.0205(%CP) + 0.1162; r = 0.64
r = 0.73
ME (kcal/kg DM) = 4167 – 9.1 x Ash + 1.1 x CP + 4.2 x
EE – 2.6 x Hemi – 4.0 x Cell – 6.8 x ADL; R2 = .93 (Noblet
and Perez, 1993)
ME (kcal/kg DM) = 872 + .782 x GE – 4.6 x Ash – 3.4 x
NDF – 5.7 x ADL; R2 = .92 (Noblet and Perez, 1993)
ME (kcal/kg DM) = 4369 – 10.9 x Ash + 4.01 x EE – 6.5 x
CF; R2 = .87 (Noblet and Perez, 1993)
DE (kcal/kg DM) = -9,929 – 180.38 x Ash – 106.82 x EE –
120.44 x ADF + 3.202 x GE; R2 = .96 (Pedersen et al., 2007)
ME (kcal/kg DM) = -10,267 – 175.78 x Ash + 23.09 x CP –
71.22 x EE – 137.93 x ADF + 3.036 x; R2 = .99 (Pedersen et al.,
2007)
ME (kcal/kg DM) = 2,815 + 94.5 x Cfat + 96.2 x CF – 33.2 x
NDF – 66.2 x Ash + 25.9 x Starch; R2 = .90 (Mendoza et al., 2010)
ME (kcal/kg DM) = .90 x GE – 29.95 x TDF; R2 = .72 (Anderson et al., 2011)
Analytical
Starch Neutral detergent fiber
Acid detergent fiber
Crude fiber
Non-starch polysaccharides
Soluble dietary fiber
Total dietary fiber
Non-structural carbohydrates
Water-soluble carbohydrates
Dashed lines indicate that recovery of included compounds may be incomplete
Plant Carbohydrates
Cell Contents Cell Wall
Starch Disaccharides
Oligosaccharides –
including
fructooligosaccharides
Fructan
polysaccharides Β-Glucans
Pectins
and
Gums
Hemicelluloses Cellulose Lignin/Phenolics Resistant
Starch
Sugars
Dlys = 0.01(L*) + 0.32
R2 = 0.03
Dlys = 0.02(L*) - 0.25
R2 = 0.48
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Color parameter L*
Dig
. ly
s co
nte
nt,
%
Urriola et al., 2007
SID Lys = 0.023 + 0.637 x reactive Lys (%)
* R2 = 0.66
* Reactive Lys = analyzed Lys % - furosine(%)/(0.32 x 0.40)
SID Lys = -0.636 + (0.858 x Lys) x (0.12 x
(100 x Lys/CP))
Stein, 2011
Method SID Crude Protein SID Lysine
R2
Minolta color .85 .53
Optical density
without Crude Protein .90 .97
with Crude Protein .99 .93
Front Face Fluorescence 1.00 .99
Urriola et al., 2007
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Pred
icte
d D
ig-L
ys,
%
Digestible Lys, %
Urriola et al., 2007
r2 = 0.99
Shurson et al., Unpublished
R2= 0.0168
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 10 20 30 40
Furosine/Lysine, %
IDE
A V
alu
e
Zhang et al., 2010
Need lots of samples to develop equations
Need lots of samples to validate equations
Equations need to be re-calibrated
periodically
Equations may be specific to an individual
model of spectrometer
Equations have been developed for a variety
of nutrients and feed ingredients
EvaPig
* Ajinomoto/INRA (www.evapig.com)
* Customizable
AminoDAT
* Evonik
National Swine Nutrition Guide
NRC, 2012
Purdue Univ. – Substitution Value
Calculator * www.ansc.purdue.edu/compute/subvalue.htm
Michigan State – equations for specific
ingredients
Univ. of MO – byproduct price list * http://agebb.missouri.edu/dairy/byprod/bpmenu.asp
National Swine Nutrition Guide
DDGS replaces corn, SBM, and inorganic P in diets
Value of DDGS depends on relative costs of ingredients being replaced and pig performance
Calculator spreadsheets are available from: * Univ. of Illinois
* South Dakota State Univ.
* Kansas State Univ.
* Iowa State Univ.
* Spreadsheets (IL and SD) can be found at www.ddgs.umn.edu
Feed ingredients are variable in nutrient
content
Evaluation of nutrient content of ingredients
in pigs is still the “Gold Standard” for
nutritionists
New technologies are under development
that show promise as practical replacements
for the Gold Standard