Dr. Erin Harris - Feeding Strategies for Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles with Immunologically Castrated Pigs-Considerations for Producers and Packers
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like578 views
The document discusses feeding strategies involving dried distillers grain with solubles (DDGS) and immunologically castrated pigs, assessing their effects on growth performance, body composition, and pork quality. It evaluates different feeding strategies, particularly highlighting the advantages of a step-down approach and the marketing timing post-immunological treatment. Key findings indicate improved growth efficiency and reduced costs of lean gain when using specific DDGS strategies while producing leaner pork with altered fat quality.
![Belly fat IV
59.4 65.6 66.7 74.9
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PCon SD WD NCon
Iodine Value
a
b b
c
Diet (P < 0.05)
TD (P < 0.05)
Diet × TD (P > 0.05)
66.3 66.0 67.7
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TD9 TD7 TD5
Iodine Value
a a b
a-c Least squares means with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
Iodine Value = ([C16:1] x 0.95) + ([C18:1] x 0.86) + ([C18:2] x 1.732) + ([C18:3] x 2.616)
+ ([C20:1] x 0.785) + [C22:1] x 0.723) (AOCS, 1998)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/140916lemangrowingpigsharris-141205131915-conversion-gate01/85/Dr-Erin-Harris-Feeding-Strategies-for-Dried-Distillers-Grain-with-Solubles-with-Immunologically-Castrated-Pigs-Considerations-for-Producers-and-Packers-32-320.jpg)
Dr. Erin Harris - Feeding Strategies for Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles with Immunologically Castrated Pigs-Considerations for Producers and Packers
- 1. Feeding Strategies Using Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles and Immunologically Castrated Pigs – Considerations for Producers and Packers E.K. Harris1, A. M. Hilbrands3, C. Calhoun2, M. A. Mellencamp2, R. Cox1, L.J. Johnston3, and G.C. Shurson1 1University of Minnesota, Department of Animal Science, St. Paul 2Zoetis, Inc. Florham Park, NJ 3University of Minnesota, West Central ROC, Morris
- 2. Future challenges of pork production Growth of the global population & incomes Increased consumption & demand for lean meat Using fewer, non-traditional resources More high fiber co-products will be used to supply dietary calories and amino acids New technologies are needed to enhance global competiveness of U.S. pork production
- 3. Use of boars in pork production Advantages Disadvantages Unpalatable off-odors = boar taint Aggressive behavior 3 Squires 2011 and Suster et al., 2006 Boar vs. Barrow Feed intake Growth rate Carcass fat Lean gain efficiency
- 4. Immunological castration Improvest® (gonadotropin releasing factor analog – diphtheria toxoid conjugate, Zoetis Inc, Florham Park, NJ) Vaccine-like – pig produces antibodies Subcutaneous injection (2 doses) by a trained technician 1st dose ~ 11-15 2nd dose 15+ Quality assurance Harvest ≥ 4 weeks 3-10 weeks Week of age
- 5. Feeding DDGS to gilts and barrows Superior growth performance (Dunshea et al., 2001) Leaner carcasses (Dunshea et al., 2001) Reduced dressing percentage (Boler et al., 2014) Adequate growth performance (Stein and Shurson 2009) Soft pork fat (Xu et al., 2010) Reduced dressing percentage (Stein and Shurson 2009) Immunological castration (relative to traditional barrows) Feeding Strategies??
- 6. Objectives Evaluate effects of marketing time of immunologically castrated pigs using different DDGS feeding strategies: 1) Growth performance 2) Backfat deposition 3) Feed cost of lean gain 4) Pork quality
- 7. Experimental design Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg) Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial arrangement 11 15 19 24 Phase 1 (3 wks) Phase 2 (4 wks) Phase 3 (4 wks) Phase 4 (5 wks) Age (weeks) 8 Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0% Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10% Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0% Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40% % DDGS in diets
- 8. Experimental design Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg) Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial arrangement 1st dose Improvest 11 15 19 24 Age (weeks) Phase 1 (3 wks) Phase 2 (4 wks) Phase 3 (4 wks) Phase 4 (5 wks) 8 Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0% Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10% Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0% Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40% % DDGS in diets
- 9. Experimental design Genetiporc pigs (n = 863; BW = 21.5 kg) Randomly assigned to treatment – 3 x 4 factorial arrangement 2nd dose Improvest 15 9 (TD9) 17 7 (TD7) 19 5 (TD5) 1st dose Improvest Positive Control (PCon) 0% 0% 0% 0% Step Down (SD) 40% 30% 20% 10% Withdrawal (WD) 40% 40% 40% 0% Negative Control (NCon) 40% 40% 40% 40% 24 Harvest 11 Age (weeks) Time to harvest after 2nd dose (weeks) Phase 1 (3 wks) Phase 2 (4 wks) Phase 3 (4 wks) Phase 4 (5 wks) 8 % DDGS in diets
- 10. Diet composition DDGS source contained 10.4% crude fat Corn-soybean meal-DDGS diets were formulated to meet NRC (2012) nutrient requirements for boars Phase 1 Phase 2 0% 40% 0% 30% DDGS DDGS DDGS DDGS 40% DDGS SID Lys:ME (g/Mcal ME) 3.31 3.32 2.88 2.89 2.88 Phase 3 Phase 4 0% DDGS 30% DDGS 40% DDGS 0% DDGS 30% DDGS 40% DDGS SID Lys:ME (g/Mcal ME) 2.55 2.56 2.55 2.39 2.39 2.41
- 11. Materials & methods – live animal Growth performance Pig body weight and feed disappearance determined to calculate ADG, ADFI, G:F Body composition B-mode ultrasound for 10th rib backfat depth Single trained technician Beginning at 2nd Improvest dose
- 12. Materials & methods – live animal Statistical analysis Experimental unit = Pen Growth performance - Proc MIXED Repeated Measure = Week Backfat – Proc GLIMMIX Pork quality – Proc MIXED Significance P ≤ 0.05
- 13. Live Animal Results - Improvest
- 14. 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Gain efficiency Week of Age TD9 TD7 TD5 G:F from 8-24 weeks of age TD × Week; P < 0.01 a a, b TD5 differs from TD7 and TD9 within week P ≤ 0.05 b
- 15. Overall G:F 0.413 0.417 0.428 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 TD9 TD7 TD5 Gain efficiency Diet (P < 0.01) TD (P < 0.05) Diet ×TD (P > 0.10) a b a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
- 16. Overall ADG 0.930 0.936 0.941 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 TD9 TD7 TD5 ADG, kg/d Diet (P > 0.05) TD (P > 0.05) Diet ×TD (P > 0.05)
- 17. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 ADFI, kg/d Week of Age TD9 TD7 TD5 ADFI from 8-24 weeks of age TD × Week (P < 0.001) a a, b TD9 differs from TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05 b a b
- 18. Live Animal Results - Diet
- 19. Overall G:F 0.427 0.424 0.414 0.413 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 PCon SD WD NCon Gain efficiency Dietary Treatment Diet (P < 0.01) TD (P < 0.05) Diet ×TD (P > 0.10) a a b b a, b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
- 20. Overall ADG 0.959 0.940 0.929 0.913 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 PCon SD WD NCon ADG, kg/d Dietary Treatment Diet (P < 0.01) TD (P > 0.05) Diet ×TD (P > 0.05) a b a, b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05)
- 21. ADFI from 8-24 weeks of age 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Diet × Week (P < 0.01) B,a 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 ADFI, kg/d Week of Age PCon SD WD NCon b A a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ by dietary treatment (P ≤ 0.05) A,B Means with unlike superscripts differ by week (P ≤ 0.05)
- 22. Backfat deposition - marketing 9 weeks after 2nd dose Diet × TD × Time2 (P < 0.01) 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 c d c d a b Response did not occur in TD5 or TD7 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 10th rib backfat, cm Week of Age PCon TD9 SD TD9 WD TD9 NCon TD9 a,b PCon-TD9 and SD-TD9 differs from WD-TD9 and NCon-TD9 within week (P ≤ 0.05) c,d NCon-TD9 differs from all other dietary treatments within week (P ≤ 0.05)
- 23. Backfat deposition – negative control feeding strategy Diet × TD × Time2 (P < 0.01) 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 10th rib backfat, cm Week of Age a,b TD9 and TD7 differs from TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05 c,d TD7 differs from TD9 and TD5 within week P ≤ 0.05 NCon TD9 NCon TD7 NCon TD5 a b c d
- 24. Dressing percentage 75 60 45 30 15 0 Dressing, % TD9 TD7 TD5 75 60 45 30 15 0 Dressing, % PCon SD WD NCon a a b Diet (P < 0.05) TD (P < 0.05) Diet × TD (P > 0.05) a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05) a ab ab b
- 25. Diet cost of lean gain 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 SD WD NCon Diet cost of lean gain relative to PCon, $/kg HIGH MED LOW 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 TD7 TD5 Diet cost of lean gain relative to TD9, $/kg HIGH MED LOW Price Scenario (USD) Feed Ingredient LOW MED HIGH Corn ($/bushel) 4.00 6.00 8.00 Soybean Meal ($/ton) 450.00 500.00 550.00 DDGS ($/ton) 200.00 250.00 300.00
- 26. Feeding DDGS to gilts and barrows Superior growth performance (Dunshea et al., 2001) Leaner carcasses (Dunshea et al., 2001) Adequate growth performance (Stein and Shurson 2009) Soft pork fat (Xu et al., 2010) Immunological castration (relative to traditional barrows) ↓Backfat in TD5 and TD9 pigs Especially fed NCon
- 27. Lean and pork fat quality
- 28. Materials & methods - harvest Harvested subsample at 24 weeks of age Pigs selected at 13 weeks of age (n = 2 per pen) Transported to U of M Meat Science Lab Determined longissimus muscle pH at 45 min and 48 h Fabricated to NAMP #414 – Canadian Back loin Subjective firmness and marbling Drip loss and purge loss Collected subcutaneous belly fat Anterior dorsal corner for fatty acid analysis
- 29. Loin pH 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 45 min 48 h pH TD9 TD7 TD5 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Diet (P > 0.05) TD (P > 0.05) Diet × TD (P > 0.05) 45 min 48 h pH PCon SD WD NCon x y x,y Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.10)
- 30. Loin drip & purge loss 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Chop drip loss Roast purge loss LM loss, % TD9 TD7 TD5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Diet (P > 0.05) TD (P > 0.05) Diet × TD (P > 0.05) Chop drip loss Roast purge loss LM loss, % PCon SD WD NCon
- 31. Loin firmness score 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Marbling Firmness Subjective Score TD9 TD7 TD5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Diet (P < 0.05) TD (P > 0.05) Diet × TD (P > 0.05) Marbling Firmness Subjective Score PCon SD WD NCon a b ab b by b b ax a,b Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05) x,y Means with unlike superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.10)
- 32. Belly fat IV 59.4 65.6 66.7 74.9 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PCon SD WD NCon Iodine Value a b b c Diet (P < 0.05) TD (P < 0.05) Diet × TD (P > 0.05) 66.3 66.0 67.7 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TD9 TD7 TD5 Iodine Value a a b a-c Least squares means with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05) Iodine Value = ([C16:1] x 0.95) + ([C18:1] x 0.86) + ([C18:2] x 1.732) + ([C18:3] x 2.616) + ([C20:1] x 0.785) + [C22:1] x 0.723) (AOCS, 1998)
- 33. Summary 1) Growth performance - gain efficiency improvements when: Fed DDGS SD strategy Marketed 5 weeks after the second Improvest dose 2) Body composition – changes in backfat deposition greatest effect when fed NCon: Especially when harvested at 9 and 5 weeks after 2nd dose Removing DDGS in WD fed pigs, backfat deposition rapidly accelerated 3) Diet cost of lean gain – reduced when pigs fed SD Greatest savings relative to PCon 4) Carcass composition – influenced by time of second Improvest dose 5) Lean and fat quality – influenced by dietary treatment
- 34. Take home messages Growth performance • Selection of DDGS feeding strategy and Improvest timing are independent • Optimized when feeding step down strategy and marketed 5 weeks post second dose Diet cost of lean gain • Greatest reduction using the SD strategy due to changes in body composition & dressing percentage Lean & fat quality • Feeding 40% DDGS = Softer loins with less marbling and higher belly fat IV • Interval between 2nd Improvest dose and harvest = minimal changes in lean and fat quality
- 35. Implications Goal: producing lean pork for consumption
- 36. Implications Goal: producing lean pork for consumption Improving nutritional efficiency to promote competiveness of pork
- 37. Acknowledgements Zoetis Inc. Natural Food Holdings Dr. Jon Anderson West Central Research and Outreach Center Adrienne Hilbrands Farm Animal Attendants U of MN Animal Science Graduate Students
Editor's Notes
- #23: These changes in ADFI were also reflected in changes in backfat deposition as determined by real-time ultrasound. As a reminder collection of real-time ultrasound data began when each treatment received their respective second dose of Improvest. Specific to pigs marketed 9 weeks after the second dose, removal of DDGS at 19 WOA in the withdrawal feeding strategy resulted in a rapid acceleration of backfat deposition. By 21 WOA, only pigs fed negative control had less backfat than all other dietary treatments and remained until harvest at 24WOA. This response did not occur in TD7 or TD5 pigs.
- #24: Considering only pigs fed negative control, at 21 WOA, pigs marketed 5 weeks after the second dose had less BF than pigs marketed at 9 or 7 weeks after second dose. This is expected at TD5 pigs were boars for the longest period of time. However at 24 WOA, rate of backfat deposition of pigs fed the negative control feeding strategy and marketed 9 weeks after the second dose tappered during the final 3 weeks and was lower compared to NC7 pigs.
- #34: In summary gain efficiency was improved when pigs were fed the stepdown feeding strategy compared to all other DDGS containing treatments. As well as when pigs were marketed 5 weeks after the second dose of Improvest. Changes in backfat deposition were greatest when pigs were fed negative control. Especially when harvested 9 weeks after the second dose. By removing the DDGS 5 weeks before harvest, backfat deposition rapidly accelerated Carcass composition, specifically backfat at the 10th rib was reduced when pigs were harvested 5 weeks after the second dose but there were no differences among dietary treatments. In contrast, lean quality, particularly subjective firmness and marbling were lower when pigs were fed negative control while lean quality was not different among Improvest treatments.
- #35: Since there was no interaction between diet and timing of the second dose for overall growth performance, implementation of Improvest and DDGS feeding strategies can be made independently. In this study, growth performance was optimized when feeding the DDGS step down strategy and marketing pigs 5 weeks after the 2nd dose. However, backfat deposition was reduced when pigs were fed negative control and marketed 9 and 5 weeks after the 2nd Improvest dose. With this reduction in backfat we would expect poorer pork fat quality and the feeding of 40% DDGS would magnify poor fat quality and is reflected by the softer loins and marbling in the loin face.