NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT OF GROW-FINISH PIGS: ENERGY AND FEED EFFICIENCY John F. Patience, Ph.D. Applied Swine Nutrition Dept. of Animal Science Iowa State University
THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM
THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM
FEED EFFICIENCY IS A DANGEROUS PRODUCTION TARGET WHEN VIEWED IN ISOLATION Influenced by feed composition Energy, amino acid concentration, nutrient balance Gross deficiencies of other nutrients Feed processing: grinding, pelleting, enzymes Feed additives Influenced by environmental factors Temperature, health (huge), access to feed Influenced by the pig Growth rate, protein:lipid ratio, starting and final weight, mortality
2010 PERFORMANCE RECORDS ON 30 MILLION GROW-FINISH HOGS Dietary Energy Mcal/kg Feed Conversion Caloric Efficiency Mcal/kg gain ADG g/d Mortality % Canada 3.11 USA 3.37 Source: Agristats, 2011
2010 PERFORMANCE RECORDS ON 30 MILLION GROW-FINISH HOGS Dietary Energy Mcal/kg Feed Conversion Caloric Efficiency Mcal/kg gain ADG g/d Mortality % Canada 3.11 2.97 USA 3.37 2.72 Source: Agristats, 2011
2010 PERFORMANCE RECORDS ON 30 MILLION GROW-FINISH HOGS Dietary Energy Mcal/kg Feed Conversion Caloric Efficiency Mcal/kg gain Canada 3.11 2.97 9.2 ADG g/d Mortality % USA 3.37 2.72 9.2 Source: Agristats, 2011
2010 PERFORMANCE RECORDS ON 30 MILLION GROW-FINISH HOGS Dietary Energy Mcal/kg Feed Conversion Caloric Efficiency Mcal/kg gain ADG g/d Canada 3.11 2.97 9.2 835 Mortality % USA 3.37 2.72 9.2 785 Source: Agristats, 2011
2010 PERFORMANCE RECORDS ON 30 MILLION GROW-FINISH HOGS Dietary Energy Mcal/kg Feed Conversion Caloric Efficiency Mcal/kg gain ADG g/d Mortality Canada 3.11 2.97 9.2 835 3.67 % USA 3.37 2.72 9.2 785 5.36 Source: Agristats, 2011
2010 PERFORMANCE RECORDS ON 30 MILLION GROW-FINISH HOGS Dietary Energy Mcal/kg Feed Conversion Caloric Efficiency Mcal/kg gain Feed Cost /kg gain Cost of Energy /Mcal ME Canada 3.11 2.97 9.2 53.1 5.75 USA 3.37 2.72 9.2 63.2 6.88 A critical issue in this comparison is the cost of calories Source: Agristats, 2011
FEED EFFICIENCY SHOULD BE A SECONDARY DRIVER FOR MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
THE CHANGING COST OF ENERGY Ingredient Energy Content 2005 Cost 2012 Cost Mcal NE/kg $/tonne /Mcal NE $/tonne /Mcal NE Corn 2.67 72 2.7 328 11.8 Soybean meal 2.09 220 10.5 668 31.9 Corn DDGS 2.34 55 2.4 340 14.5 Wheat midds 2.12 66 3.1 316 14.9 Fat: AV blend 7.23 331 4.6 1,032 14.3
Take Home Message #1: We need to know and continually monitor the unit cost of energy
Value per pig of 0.01 improvement in feed conversion WHAT IS THE VALUE OF FEED CONVERSION? 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 Each feed conversion point is worth about 47 cents per pig Feed Conversion = 2.63 Average wean-to-finish feed cost, $/ton
Ingredient, % Prices $/t Energy only Add protein/ amino acids Add minerals/ vitamins Corn 220 54.93 47.65 47.01 Corn DDGS 190 30.00 25.58 27.68 Wheat midds 200 7.60 5.50 - Soybean meal 300-13.50 14.19 Bakery product 230 7.50 7.50 7.50 l-lysine HCl 2500-0.30 0.30 Limestone 50 - - 1.10 Salt 90 - - 0.45 Vitamin premix 1750 - - 0.15 Trace mineral premix 1000 - - 0.12 Phytase 5000 - - 0.08 AV-blend 900 - - 1.16 Cost, $ $210.24 $229.58 $244.00 86.2% 94.1% 100.0% Diets formulated to meet 1) energy spec only, 2) energy & amino acid specs only, & 3) all nutrients
Take Home Message #2: Because energy is by far the most costly specification to meet in practical diets, we must pay more attention to it
INFLUENCE OF FAT SOURCE AND LEVEL ON CARCASS QUALITY AT 300 LB Diet ME, Mcal/kg 2.93 3.09 3.17 3.24 3.39 Backfat, mm 16.8 17.8 18.3 18.5 19.3 Loin, cm 6.17 6.07 6.27 6.02 6.12 Increasing the energy content of the diet will not likely change loin size but it will increase back fat thickness Source: Beaulieu at al., 2009
Feed Conversion IMPACT OF INCREASED ME ON FEED CONVERSION FROM 75 TO 136 KG. 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 3.35 3.48 3.68 ME, Mcal/kg Increasing the energy content of the diet will always improve feed efficiency Source: Kellner at al., 2011
Daily Gain, kg/d IMPACT OF INCREASED ME ON AVERAGE DAILY GAIN FROM 75 TO 136 KG. 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 3.35 3.48 3.68 ME, Mcal/kg Increasing the energy content of the diet will often but not always Increase growth rate Source: Kellner at al., 2011
EFFECT OF FAT SOURCE AND LEVEL ON CARCASS (JOWL) IV WHEN FED FROM 75 TO 132 KG Carcass Jowl IV 80 3% 6% P < 0.05 d 75 70 a ab a b b c 65 60 Control Tallow CWG Corn Oil IV=42 IV=67 IV=123 Increasing the energy content of the diet by adding a fat source may change the quality of fat in the carcass Kellner et al., 2011
Take Home Message #3: Changing the energy concentration of the diet will change feed efficiency and back fat thickness and may change growth rate and carcass fat quality
IMPACT OF INCREASED DIET ME ON PERFORMANCE FROM 36 TO 120 KG ME, Mcal/kg 3.35 3.40 3.50 3.60 P-value Fat level, % 0 2 4 6 Final wt, kg 118.1 118.1 120.6 121.5 0.06 Gain, kg/d 0.74 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.01 Feed, kg/d 2.20 2.14 2.15 2.07 0.13 ME intake, Mcal/d 7.35 7.32 7.56 7.47 0.52 Feed:gain 2.98 2.88 2.75 2.65 0.01 ME, Mcal/kg gain 9.00 9.81 9.63 9.52 0.04 Source: De la Llata et al., 2001
INCREASING ENERGY CONCENTRATION IN GROW-FINISH DIET ME, Mcal/k 2.95 3.05 3.15 3.25 3.35 Initial wt., kg 31.2 31.1 31.5 31.2 31.1 Final wt., kg 115.1 115.3 115.1 115.0 115.5 Daily gain, kg 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.03 Daily feed, kg 1 2.80 2.66 2.64 2.61 2.47 Feed conversion 1 2.78 2.63 2.56 2.56 2.38 ME intake, Mcal/d 8.21 8.20 8.38 8.45 8.38 Energy efficiency, Mcal/kg 8.15 8.11 8.13 8.29 8.09 1 Effect of diet ME content significant, P < 0.05 Source: Beaulieu et al., 2009
EFFECT OF INCREASING DIET ME IN GROW- FINISH: COMMERCIAL FARM DIET ME, Mcal/kg 2.95 3.13 3.26 Initial wt., kg 37.4 36.6 36.5 Final wt., kg 118.6 118.0 119.0 Ave. daily gain, kg 0.99 0.98 1.00 Ave. daily feed, kg 1 2.94 2.85 2.77 Feed conversion 1 2.94 2.94 2.78 Tail-enders, n 48 45 37 ME intake, Mcal/d 8.68 8.92 9.04 Energy efficiency, Mcal/kg 8.68 9.19 9.06 1 Effect of diet significant, P<0.05 Source: Patience et al., 2005
Growth rate HERDS DIFFER WIDELY IN DAILY FEED AND THUS ENERGY INTAKE, LEADING TO DIFFERING OUTCOMES WHEN DIET ME IS INCREASED Daily energy intake
Take Home Message #4: We must know energy intake for our herds because they differ widely in their daily energy intake, and thus in their response to changes in dietary energy content.
ENERGY CALCULATIONS ME intake = ME maintenance + (PDR/k p ) + (LDR/k l ) Kielanowski, 1965
HOW DAILY ENERGY INTAKE IS DIVIDED BETWEEN MAINTENANCE AND GAIN Functions Gain ME intake, Mcal/d Maintenance - 2.52 (34%) Protein (lean) gain 138 g/d (16%) 1.46 (20%) Fat gain 267 g/d (31%) 3.36 (46%) Total 862 g/d 7.3 (100%) Assume the diet contains 3.31 Mcal ME/kg and 0.85% SID lysine. The pig weighs about 70 kg, is gaining about 0.86 kg/d (total growout ADG = 0.84 kg) and is eating 2.22 kg of feed/day, giving a feed conversion of 2.58 (total feeder to finish growout FC is 2.85:1).
WAYS TO REDUCE MAINTENANCE ENERGY COSTS Thermal comfort Prevent need for pigs to keep cool or keep warm Minimize social stressors Minimize immunological challenges Maintain highest possible health standards Maximize growth rate Fewer days in the barn means fewer days of maintenance energy costs Others?
Take Home Message #5: To maximize dietary energetic efficiency, producers can reduce maintenance energy requirements or increase portion of gain that is lean
INTEGRATED QUALITY CONTROL Ensure pig performance is within the tolerance of your targets: growth, carcass, etc PIGS Ensure feed delivered to the pigs meets their requirements for daily nutrient intake MIXED FEED Feed Manufacturing Ensure feed mixing is achieving uniform mixture according to the formulation INCOMING INGREDIENTS Confirm composition in terms of both desirable & undesirable constituents
Take Home Message #6: Quality control in pork production should focus on outcomes (growth rate, barn throughput, carcass quality) and less on inputs (diet composition)
PIG AND BARN MANAGEMENT
FEEDER COVERS Feeder space treatments were: 4.1 cm/pig (1.6 inches/pig) 4.9 cm/pig (1.9 inches/pig) 5.7 cm/pig (2.2 inches/pig)
FEEDER MANAGEMENT
BW, kg MARKET BODY WEIGHT 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 121.5 122.2 122.9 4.1 4.9 5.7 P = 0.07 SEM = 0.502 Feeder Space, cm/pig
ADG, kg G:F ADG AND F:G PHASE 8 1 0.9 b ab P = 0.02 SEM = 0.012 a 0.45 0.4 P = 0.09 SEM = 0.006 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.1 0 0.83 0.84 0.88 4.1 4.9 5.7 0.05 0 0.34 0.35 0.36 4.1 4.9 5.7 Feeder Space, cm/pig Feeder Space, cm/pig
ADG carcass, kg IMPACT OF DDGS LEVEL ON ADG MEASURED ON A CARCASS WEIGHT BASIS- DDGS 0.8 P = 0.07 SEM = 0.005 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.71 0.69 D30 D60 Diet
BARN TEMPERATURE AND PIG COMFORT
BARN TEMPERATURE AND PIG COMFORT Unthrifty pigs eat less feed than their healthy contemporaries. Digesting and using feed generates body heat. This is a bad thing in hot weather, because it makes heat stress worse. But for pigs in cooler conditions it is an important part of keeping warm Because unthrifty pigs eat less, they are chilled at a temperature that is perfectly comfortable for healthy pigs. Therefore, they need to be kept in warmer and in less drafty conditions.
TAKE HOME MESSAGES 1. We need to know and continually monitor the unit cost of energy 2. We must pay more attention to dietary energy because it is by far the most costly specification to meet in practical diets 3. Changing the energy concentration of the diet will change feed efficiency and back fat thickness and may change growth rate and carcass fat quality 4. We must know energy intake for our herds because herds differ widely in their daily energy intake, and thus in their response to changes in dietary energy content
TAKE HOME MESSAGES 5. To maximize dietary energetic efficiency, producers can reduce maintenance energy requirements or increase portion of gain that is lean 6. Quality control in pork production should focus on more on outcomes (growth rate, barn throughput, carcass quality) and less on inputs (diet composition)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION TEAM