Influence of PEP2 on nursery pig performance (D 0 to 25) f (D 0 t 25) SBM vs Pos control P< 0.01 0.80 PEP quadratic P < 0.02 PEP quadratic P < 0 02 SEM 0.02 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 ADG, lb b 0.65 0.60 0.50 SBM Plasma/fish 4% 8% 12% PEP 2 Myers et al., 2009
PEP 2 Summary 2 � Pigs fed PEP 2 had greater ADG and improved F/G compared to pigs fed 4% select menhaden fish meal
Nursery Growth Promoting Copper and Zinc Post weaning Zn Cu+Zn Day Control Cu Zn Cu+Zn Cu Cu d 0 to 14 d 14 to 42 Zn= 3,000 ppm d 0 to 14 and 2,000 ppm d 14 to 42 C Cu= 125 ppm 125
Nursery Growth Promoting Copper and Zinc 65 60.0 60 0 59.5 59.3 60 58.4 58.0 t, lb 54.2 54.2 55 55 Weight 50 45 Control Cu Zn Cu+Zn Zn/Cu Cu+Zn/Cu Zn from d 0 to 14 and Cu from 14 to 42 resulted in the heaviest Pig with $0.56 less cost per pig compared to Cu+Zn g $ p p g p Shelton et al., 2009
Influence of dietary antibiotics on ADG (d 0 to 21) y ( ) 0.7 Antibiotics P < 0.01 0.6 0.55 0.54 0.53 G, lb 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.5 0 5 ADG 0.4 0 34 0.34 0.3 d 0 to 21 No med Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil d 21 to 42 No med Den/CTC Den/CTC No med No med Mec/OTC Mec/OTC Steidinger et al., 2009
Influence of dietary antibiotics on ADG (d 21 to 42) y ( ) 1.2 Antibiotics P < 0.01 1.11 1.11 1.1 1.06 1.05 1.03 G, lb 1 1 ADG 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.9 0.8 d 0 to 21 No med Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil d 21 to 42 No med Den/CTC Den/CTC No med No med Mec/OTC Mec/OTC Steidinger et al., 2009
Influence of dietary antibiotics on final pig weight (d 42) (d 42) 50 Antibiotics d 0 to 21; P = 0.05 48 Antibiotics d 21 to 42; P = 0 02 Antibiotics d 21 to 42; P = 0.02 45.8 45.4 46 44.9 44.8 ht, lb 44 42.7 42.4 42.4 Weigh 42 39.4 40 38 36 d 0 to 21 No med Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil Den/CTC Pulmotil d 21 to 42 No med Den/CTC Den/CTC No med No med Mec/OTC Mec/OTC Steidinger et al., 2009
Antibiotic summary � Adding antibiotics to the nursery diet improved pig performance and improved pig performance and economic return
Available P released by phytase source and level source and level 0.16 0.14 ed from e ash 0.12 0 10 0.10 e calculate tage bone 0.08 Optiphos 2000 – M 0.06 Phyzyme XP Phyzyme XP percent P release 0.04 y = ‐ 0.000000125x2 + 0.000236245x + 0.015482000 0.02 R² = 0.73 R 0.73 0.00 a 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Analyzed AOAC Phytase FTU/kg Analyzed AOAC Phytase FTU/kg Jones et al., 2009
Phytase stability trial y y � 3 sources (Ronozyme P, Optiphos, Phyzyme) � 2 coatings (Coated and uncoated) 2 i ( d d d) � 3 forms (pure, vitamin premix VTM premix) � 4 temperatures ( ‐ 18, 5, 23, 37 C) � 6 periods (0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180 d) � All analysis by DSM � Source x coating x form x temperature x day interaction (P < 0.001) Jones et al., 2010
Phytase shelf life at different storage temperatures 100 100 Temp, ◦ C ◦ F ning, % 90 80 -18 0 70 se remain 5 41 60 50 23 73 40 30 30 Phytas 37 99 20 10 0 0 0 30 60 90 120 Day of analysis Jones et al., 2010
Phytase activity remaining in pure form at 23 C (73 F) at 180 days 100% 100% 93% 93% 91% 86% 84% 80% 61% 60% Uncoated 40% 40% C Coated t d 20% 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme Jones et al., 2010
Phytase activity remaining in vitamin premix at 23 C (73 F) at 180 days 100% 100% 94% 94% 94% 94% 87% 76% 80% 73% 6 % 67% 60% Uncoated 40% 40% C Coated t d 20% 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme Jones et al., 2010
Phytase activity remaining in VTM premix at 23 C (73 F) at 180 days 100% 100% 92% 92% 76% 80% 70% 64% 64% 60% 60% 43% Uncoated 40% 40% C Coated t d 20% 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme Jones et al., 2010
Phytase activity remaining in pure form at 37 C (99 F) at 180 days 100% 100% 80% 60% 53% 43% Uncoated 39% 40% 40% C Coated t d 21% 15% 20% 3% 0% Ronozyme P Optiphos Phyzyme Jones et al., 2010
Phytase stability trial y y � Source x coating x form x temperature x day interaction (P < 0 001) interaction (P < 0.001) � Pure products held at 23°C or less were the most stable stable. � In premixes, longer storage time and higher temperature reduced phytase activity temperature reduced phytase activity. � Coating mitigated some of the negative effects of storage time and temperature for premixes. storage time and temperature for premixes. Jones et al., 2010
Influence of lysine level on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 35) f (d 0 t 35) 1 Phase 3 lysine P = 0.04 0 94 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.9 0.87 0.87 lb 0.86 ADG, 0.8 0.7 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 D 0 to 7 D 7 to 21 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 D 21 to 35 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 SID Lysine, % Nemechek et al., 2010
Influence of lysine level on nursery pig performance (d 0 to 35) f (d 0 t 35) 1.7 Phase 2 lysine P = 0.005 Ph Phase 3 lysine P = 0.003 3 l i P 0 003 1.6 1.54 Interaction P > 0.20 1.52 1.49 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.5 1 45 1.45 1 45 1.45 F/G G 1.4 1.3 1 3 1.2 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 D 0 to 7 D 7 to 21 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 1.15 1.15 1.35 1.35 D 21 to 35 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 SID Lysine, % Nemechek et al., 2010
Lysine study summary Lysine study summary � Marginally deficient diets can be fed for the M i ll d fi i t di t b f d f th first 21 days after weaning provided that th l t the late nursery diet is not deficient in di t i t d fi i t i lysine � May provide more flexibility in diet formulation
Effect of Vaccination on Production Responses
Effect of PCV2 and M. hyo vaccination on nursery pig weight (d 35) nursery pig weight (d 35) PCV2 × M. hyo : P = 0.68 PCV2: P < 0.01 M. hyo : P = 0.06 SE = 1 3 SE 1.3 M. hyo Control a a RespiSure Potter et al., 2009
Effect of PCV2/ M. hyo vaccine strategy on y gy Fainting Pigs and Post Weaning Losses No Difference P < .0001 3.0 12 10.7 10.1 2.5 10 10 % Fainting, % % Losses, % 2.0 8 1.6 Culls 6.8 6.8 1.5 6 F 1.0 4 0.5 2 3.9 Deaths 3.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 BI Intervet BI Intervet Bergstrom et al., 2009
Effect of PCV2/ M. hyo vaccine strategy on ADG d 0 to 73 d 73 to 156 d 73 to 156 1.4 P < .0001 2.0 P < .05 1.92 1.92 1.89 1.3 1.27 1.9 DG, lb DG, lb 1.24 AD A 1.2 1.8 1.7 1.1 BI Intervet BI Intervet Bergstrom et al., 2009
Effect of PCV2/ M. hyo vaccine strategy on wean to finisher ADG (d 0 to 155) wean ‐ to ‐ finisher ADG (d 0 to 155) P = 0.98 1.7 1 60 1.60 1 60 1.60 1.6 ADG, lb 1.5 1.4 BI Intervet Bergstrom et al., 2009
Effect of PCV2 vaccine strategy on ADG under a PRRS Challenge under a PRRS Challenge d 0 and 15 = PCV2 Vaccination d 0 to 15 d 0 to 15 d 15 to 29 d 15 to 29 1.1 1.1 P < .02 No Difference 0.96 1.0 1.0 0 91 0.91 0.9 0.9 DG, lb DG, lb 0.8 0.8 AD 0 7 0.7 0.7 0 7 AD 0.60 0.59 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 None PCV2 None PCV2 Shelton et al., 2009
Effect of PCV2 vaccine strategy on ADG under a PRRS Challenge under a PRRS Challenge d 29= PRRS Challenge d 29 to 50 d 0 to 50 1.1 P < .08 1.1 No Difference 1.0 1.0 0 94 0.94 0.9 0.83 0.81 0.87 0.9 DG, lb DG, lb 0.8 AD AD 0 7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 None PCV2 None PCV2 Shelton et al., 2009
Effect of PCV2 vaccine on Survival under a PRRS Challenge under a PRRS Challenge None PCV2 b 99.6 99 6 99 5 99.5 99 2 99.2 99 1 99.1 98.7 98 7 b b 97 3 97.3 96.5 96 5 95.7 100 a 80.2 a 80 73.1 % vival, % 60 40 40 Surv 20 0 d 15 d 29 d 50 d 71 d 99 Shelton et al., 2009
Sirrah PRRSV ‐ RS Vaccine Trial Sirrah PRRSV RS Vaccine Trial Potter et al., 2009 ,
Effect of Sirrah PRRSV ‐ RS Vaccine on Mortality V i M t lit 25% No Significant Difference No Significant Difference 21.5% 20.6% Control Vaccinate 20% ortality, % % 15% 9.5% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2% 10% 10% Mo 7.1% 5.9% 4.4% 5% 0% Pre ‐ Weaning Pre Weaning Nursery Nursery Finisher Finisher Cumulative Cumulative Potter et al., 2009
Effect of Sirrah PRRSV ‐ RS Vaccine on Finisher ADG and Feed Efficiency ADG, lb F/G P = 0.45 P = 0.15 4.0 3.0 2 5 2.5 3.5 1.96 1.93 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.78 2.74 1.0 2.5 0.5 0.0 2 0 2.0 Control Vaccinate Control Vaccinate Potter et al., 2009
Key Take Home Messages for V Vaccination Strategies: i ti St t i � Some vaccines negatively impact nursery g y p y performance • The impact needs to be evaluated against p g effectiveness in the finisher � Although overall growth rate was similar – pattern of growth rate was different between the two PCV2/ M. hyo vaccination strategies � We failed to find an impact on production f l d f d d parameters for the PRRS vaccine
Thank You! Thank You!
Grow Finish Research Update Grow ‐ Finish Research Update � Feeder design and adjustment � Amino acid levels � DDGS and other alternatives � Mycotoxins � Mycotoxins � Marketing • Mixing and topping pigs and Paylean use i i d i i d l
Effects of feeder type and adjustment on finishing pig growth fi i hi i th Bergstrom et al. 2008
Effects of feeder type on final weight Exp. 1 Exp. 2 230 230 280 280 227.3 P < .01 P < .01 273 225 270 270 lb 220 261 216.4 260 260 215 210 210 250 250 Dry Wet/Dry Dry Wet/Dry Bergstrom et al Bergstrom et al. 2008 2008
Effects of feeder type on F/G Effects of feeder type on F/G Exp. 1 Exp. 2 2 70 2.70 2 80 2.80 P < .01 2.68 2.60 2.70 2.62 2.50 2.60 2.47 2.44 2.40 2.50 2.30 2 30 2 40 2.40 Dry Wet/Dry Dry Wet/Dry Bergstrom et al Bergstrom et al. 2008 2008
Influence of feeder type and DDGS level (20 or 60%) on pig performance (20 60%) i f 2.2 2.2 2.11 2.07 2.1 2.03 2.01 ADG, lb 2 1.95 1.9 Barrows 1.89 1.9 1.87 Gilts Gilts 1.8 1 7 1.7 Dry 20% Dry 60% Wet/dry Wet/dry 20% 60% Bergstrom et al Bergstrom et al. 2009 2009
Influence of feeder type and DDGS level (20 or 60%) on pig performance (20 60%) i f 3 3 2.89 2.9 2.79 2.8 2.72 2 68 2.68 2 7 2.7 2.61 2.61 F/G 2.6 2.54 Barrows 2.5 2.5 Gilts Gilts 2.4 2.3 2 2 2.2 Dry 20% Dry 60% Wet/dry Wet/dry 20% 60% Bergstrom et al Bergstrom et al. 2009 2009
Effects of feeder design and changing water source at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance ab P< 0.05 2.00 2.75 1 96 1.96 c 2.70 1.89 1.90 2.65 b ADG, lb 2.63 1.84 1.84 F/G b 2.6 a a 2.60 2.58 ab ab 1 80 1.80 2.56 ab a 2.55 1.70 2.50 WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry Bergstrom et al., 2010
Effects of feeder design and changing water source at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance at 4 and 8 weeks before market on pig performance ab P< 0.05 $7 $60 $6 5.32 cost, $ $58 , $/pig $5 a 56.05 56 05 premium, over feed $56 $4 3.49 ab $3 2.6 53.59 2.3 $54 b b Income Lean $2 b 52.45 52.42 $52 $1 $0 $50 WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry WD8 WD4 WD0 Dry Bergstrom et al., 2010
Effects of feeder design and adjustment on average daily gain from 42 to 85 lb average daily gain from 42 to 85 lb 1.8 1 65 1.65 1.56 65% 1.6 1.51 1.51 1 in 57% 1.46 79% 79% 21% 21% 3/4 3/4 9% 1.4 1 ¼ lb 1 in 3/4 1.29 35% 35% 1.2 1/2 1 0 1.0 6 10 14 6 8 10 Wet ‐ Dry Conventional Dry y y Bergstrom et al., 2010
Effects of feeder design and adjustment on percentage pan coverage percentage pan coverage Setting of 10 with a 0.75 inch Setting of 14 with a 1 inch opening and ~53% coverage opening and ~73% coverage Bergstrom et al., 2010
Effects of feeder design and adjustment on feed efficiency from 42 to 85 lb on feed efficiency from 42 to 85 lb 1.95 1.89 1.90 79% 1.85 1 ¼ 1.84 1.85 1.85 1 83 1.83 21% F/G 9% 1.81 35% 1 in 1.79 3/4 1.80 57% 1/2 65% 65% 3/4 3/4 1 in 1.75 1 70 1.70 6 10 14 6 8 10 Wet ‐ Dry Conventional Dry y y Bergstrom et al., 2010
Effects of feeder design and adjustment on feed efficiency through 270 lb on feed efficiency through 270 lb 2.4 2.90 2 85 2.85 2.3 2.22 2.80 2.75 2.2 2.15 2.75 2 71 2.71 b ADG, lb 2.08 F/G 2.68 2.67 2.1 2.70 2.67 2.03 2.02 2.64 2.65 2.0 1 95 1.95 2.60 1.9 2.55 1 8 1.8 2.50 2 50 10 14 18 6 8 10 10 14 18 6 8 10 Wet ‐ Dry Dry y y Wet ‐ Dry Dry Bergstrom et al., 2010
Percentage difference in ADG and F/G with more open adjustment (18 vs 10) for wet/dry feeder open adjustment (18 vs 10) for wet/dry feeder 15.0 Setting Setting inch inch 12.0 6 ½ 9.7 10 ¾ e, % 9.0 9.0 Response 14 14 1 1 7.2 18 1¼ 6.0 3 6 3.6 3.0 0.2 0 0 0.0 ADG F/G ADG F/G 70 to 190 lb 190 to 270 lb Bergstrom et al., 2010
Current Feeder Recommendations Current Feeder Recommendations � Dry feeders Dry feeders • 50% of pan should be covered with feed - 1 to 1.25 inch below adjustment gate • Minimum of 2 inch of feeder space/pig � Wet/dry feeders • Increased weight gain and intake compared to dry feeders • Still determining optimal feeder settings - 1.25 inch opening from placement to 200 lb - 0.75 inch opening after 200 lb
New KSU Swine Finishing Barn • First pigs placed in early December 2008 • Eight research projects completed or in progress: • Eight research projects completed or in progress: 1) DDGS x dietary enzyme 2) Four separate lysine requirement experiments 3) Feeding blended diets or corn ‐ supplement blend 4) DDGS x wheat midds 5) Feeder space x feeder adjustment 5) Feeder space x feeder adjustment
SID lysine requirements in the new KSU finishing barn (no added fat diets) barn (no added fat diets) 0.95 KSU - mixed 0.90 PIC PIC - gilt ilt 0.85 PIC - barrow ne, % 0.80 SID lysi 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 112 156 205 254 Body weight, lb Body weight, lb Bergstrom et al., 2009
Feed blending using the FEEDPro system on growth performance growth performance 3.5 a,b P < 0.05; x,y P < 0.09 ADG, lb F/G P 0.05; P 0.09 2.98 by 2.93 ax 2.90 a 3.0 2.5 2.10 2.10 2 07 2.07 2 06 2.06 2.0 1.5 4 Diet Phase Feeding 2 Diet Curve Corn ‐ Supplement Phase Feeding Sulabo et al., 2010
Feed blending using the FEEDPro system on feed cost/pig feed cost/pig 54 No effects , P > 0.10 SEM = 0.62 SEM 0 62 52 51.56 /pig 50.36 $/ 50 49.64 48 46 46 4 Diet Phase Feeding 2 Diet Curve Corn ‐ Supplement Phase Feeding Sulabo et al., 2010
Feed blending using the FEEDPro system on income over feed cost income over feed cost 60 No effects , P > 0.10 SEM = 1 03 SEM = 1.03 58 56.86 ig $/p 56 55.29 54.91 54 52 4 Diet Phase Feeding 2 Diet Curve Corn ‐ Supplement Phase Feeding Sulabo et al., 2010
Use synthetic amino acids i id continue to be used economically in finishing diets diets www KSUswine org www.KSUswine.org
When supplementing Lysine, Threonine, and Methionine – Tryptophan is typically the Tryptophan is typically the limiting amino acid in growing pig diets
Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing ADG (d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb) (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb) 2.0 ab abc Superscripts differ, P < 0.05 a 1.94 1.93 SEM = 0.035 SEM 0.035 ab 1.9 1.87 b 1.84 lb/d 1.8 c 1.72 1.7 1.6 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5% Added Try Added Try SID Try:Lys SID Try:Lys Barnes et al., 2010
Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing ADFI (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb) (d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb) 5.5 ab Superscripts differ, P < 0.05 SEM = 0.107 SEM 0.107 5.0 a a a 4 56 4.56 a a a 4.50 4.50 lb/d 4.43 4.5 b b 3.96 4.0 3.5 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5% Added Try Added Try SID Try:Lys SID Try:Lys Barnes et al., 2010
Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing F/G (d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb) (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb) 2.6 No effect, P > 0.05 SEM = 0.050 SEM 0.050 2.5 2 5 2.41 2.40 2.4 2.36 2 32 2.32 2.30 F/G 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5% SID Try:Lys SID Try:Lys Added Try Added Try Barnes et al., 2010
Effect of TID Try:Lys on finishing ADG (d 0 42; initial BW 80 lb) (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb) 165 ab abc Superscripts differ, P < 0.05 a 161.6 161.7 SEM 0.035 SEM = 0.035 ab 159.3 160 b 157.4 lb Weight, 155 c 152.2 150 145 18% 16.5% 15% 14% to 16.5% SID Try:Lys SID Try:Lys Added Try Added Try Barnes et al., 2010
Grow Finish Research Update Grow ‐ Finish Research Update � Feeder design and adjustment � Amino acid levels � DDGS and other alternatives � Mycotoxins � Mycotoxins � Marketing • Mixing and topping pigs and Paylean use i i d i i d l
www KSUswine org www.KSUswine.org
DDGS step ‐ down or withdrawal regimen on ADG 2.15 No effect, P > 0.10 SEM = 0.031 2.09 2.04 2.04 2.03 2.03 2.00 lb/d 1.98 1.98 1 97 1.97 1.91 1.85 DDGS, % 1 2 3 4 5 6 d 0 to 48: 0 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 0 0 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: d 69 to 89: 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 30 30 Jacela et al., 2009
DDGS step ‐ down or withdrawal regimen on final BW 280 No effect, P > 0.10 SEM = 4.06 270 267.8 266.4 267.0 lb 263.2 261.4 261.7 260 250 DDGS, % 1 2 3 4 5 6 d 0 to 48: 0 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 0 0 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: d 69 to 89: 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 30 30 Jacela et al., 2009
DDGS step ‐ down or withdrawal regimen on F/G 2.90 No effect, P > 0.10 SEM = 0.037 2.80 2.72 2.70 2.66 2.64 2.64 F/G 2.62 2.61 2.60 2.50 2.40 DDGS, % 1 2 3 4 5 6 d 0 to 48: 0 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 0 0 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: d 69 to 89: 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 30 30 Jacela et al., 2009
DDGS step ‐ down or withdrawal regimen on carcass yield 80 No effect, P = 0.59 SEM = 0.422 78 78 75.7 75.9 75.7 76 % 75.2 75.2 75 1 75.1 75 1 75.1 74 72 DDGS, % 1 2 3 4 5 6 d 0 to 48: 0 30 30 30 30 30 d 48 to 69: 0 0 30 15 30 30 d 69 to 89: d 69 to 89: 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 30 30 Jacela et al., 2009
Recommend
More recommend
