Alternative Feeds

KSU Research Update
Bob Goodband,
Mike Tokach, Steve Dritz
and Joel DeRouchey
KSUswine.org

Introduction - Dried Distillers Grains
with Solubles Research
1. Tryptophan requirements with DDGS.
2. Evaluating energy values in DDGS with
varying oil content.

Conclusions - Dried Distillers Grains with
Solubles Research
• Tryptophan requirements with DDGS
– Economical to provide a margin of safety:
>18% of SID Lysine
• Evaluating energy in DDGS with varying oil content.
– Oil content is VERY important; if less than 9% I get very
concerned!

Introduction - Dried Distillers Grains
with Solubles Research
1. Tryptophan requirements with DDGS.
2. Evaluating energy content in DDGS with
varying oil content.

0.50
0.54 0.54
0.59
0.57 0.57
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
14.7 16.5 18.4 20.3 22.1 24
Tryptophan:lysine ratio, %
Linear = < 0.02
Quadratic = 0.33
SEM = 0.026
ADG,lb
Nitikanchana et al., 2011
Effect of Trp:Lys ratio on ADG of pigs from
13 to 22 lb

1.46
1.41 1.41
1.32 1.33
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
14.7 16.5 18.4 20.3 22.1 24
Tryptophan:lysine ratio, %
Linear = < 0.06
Quadratic = 0.08
SEM = 0.039
Feed/gain
Effect of Trp:Lys ratio on F/G of pigs
from 13 to 22 lb

Influence of SID Trp:Lys ratio on IOFC
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
PercentofmaximumIOFC
SID Trp:Lys
Guzik, 2002
Petersen, 2011
Jansman, 2010
Ma, 2010
Quant, 2008
Nitikanchana, 2011

1.72
1.84
1.94 1.93
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
14.0% 15.0% 16.5% 18.0%
lb/d
abcSuperscripts differ, P < 0.05
Quadratic P < 0.06
SEM = 0.038
Effect of TID Try:Lys in 30% DDGS diets on
finishing ADG (d 0 – 42; initial BW 80 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
aba
b
c
Barnes et al., 2010

1.76
1.80
1.88
2.01
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
14.0% 15.0% 16.5% 18.0%
lb/d
Linear, P < 0.001
SEM = 0.023
finishing ADG (d 42 to 105; BW 160 to 290 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Barnes et al., 2010

1.62
1.67
1.73
1.79
1.71
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
15% 16.5% 18% 19.5% 15% to 18%
lb/d
Linear, P < 0.001
SEM = 0.023
finishing ADG (Exp. 2; d 0 to 73; BW 150 to 275 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Barnes et al., 2010
with L-Trp

3.30
3.21 3.20
3.11
3.15
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
15% 16.5% 18% 19.5% 15% to 18%
Feed/gain
Linear, P < 0.01
SEM = 0.042
finishing F/G (Exp. 2; d 0 to 73; BW 150 to 275 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
Barnes et al., 2010
with L-Trp

1.98
2.03
2.11
2.02
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
16% 18% 20% 22%
ADG,lb
Trp x source P = 0.20
Trp quad P < 0.01
SEM = 0.026
SID Trp:Lys ratio and Trp source for finishing pigs
(Exp. 3; d 0 to 56; BW 156 to 285 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
2.04
2.07
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
L-Trp SBM
ADG,lb
Source P = 0.07
SEM = 0.026
Trp source

3.16
3.02 3.02
3.09
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
16% 18% 20% 22%
Feed/gain
Trp quad P < 0.01
SEM = 0.014
SID Trp:Lys ratio and Trp source for finishing pigs
(Exp. 6; d 0 to 56; BW 156 to 285 lb)
SID Trp:Lys
3.05 3.04
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
L-Trp SBM
Feed/gain
Source P = 0.70
SEM = 0.014
Trp source

Summary – Tryptophan
• Tryptophan requirements appear to be higher than
what we used in the past.
• Can add crystalline Tryptophan or lower the amount
of L-lysine (increase SBM) addition to increase
Trp:Lys ratio.
• Economics suggest its better to have a safety value
slightly above the requirement rather than being
marginal.

The effects of medium-oil dried
distillers grains with solubles (7.6%
oil) on growth performance, carcass
traits, and fat quality in growing-
finishing pigs

1.93
1.87
1.85
1.80
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
0% 15% 30% 45%
ADG,lb
Linear P > 0.01
SEM = 0.02
Effect of Medium-oil DDGS on
Average Daily Gain
Medium-oil DDGS
Graham et al., 2012
7.6% fat,
28.1% CP,
10.8% ADF,
25.6% NDF

3.13
3.19 3.20
3.26
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
0% 15% 30% 45%
F/G
Linear P > 0.02
SEM = 0.04
Feed Efficiency
Medium-oil DDGS (7.6% oil)
Graham et al., 2012

74.0
73.2
72.4
71.8
70
71
72
73
74
75
0% 15% 30% 45%
Yield,%
Linear P > 0.02
SEM = 0.04
Effect of medium-oil DDGS on
Carcass Yield
Graham et al., 2012

70.2
71.1
73.7
76.3
65
68
71
74
77
80
0% 15% 30% 45%
Jowlfatiodinevalue,mg/g
Linear P > 0.02
SEM = 0.04
Jowl Fat Iodine Value
Graham et al., 2012

Gross Energy
Digestible Energy
Metabolizable
Energy
Net Energy
Feces
Urine & gas
Heat of digestion
Energy Systems for Swine

Evaluating Energy in Ingredients
Increasing amount of test ingredient
CaloricEfficiency
Good
Poor
If caloric efficiency improves (F/G gets better)
then we underestimated the energy content
of the ingredient – its energy is greater than
what we initially thought

CaloricEfficiency
Good
Poor
If caloric efficiency worsens (F/G gets poorer)
then we overestimated the energy content of
the ingredient – its energy is less than what
we initially thought

CaloricEfficiency
Good
Poor If caloric efficiency doesn’t change at all
then we correctly estimated the energy
content of the ingredient – we pegged it!

Effect of medium-oil DDGS
on caloric efficiency
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0% 15.0% 30% 45.0%
Medium-oil DDGS
ME, linear, P < 0.02
NE, no difference
Graham et al., 2012
Mcal/lb

2.27
2.29
2.25
2.27 2.27
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
ADG
5.4% 9.6%
Graham et al., 2013
Effects of DDGS Source and Level on
Average Daily Gain (d 0 to 82)

2.51
2.59
2.70
2.51
2.56
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
F:G
Graham et al., 2013
Feed Efficiency (d 0 to 82)
5.4% 9.6%

76.2
76.0
74.9
75.4
75.2
73.0
73.5
74.0
74.5
75.0
75.5
76.0
76.5
77.0
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
Yield,%
Graham et al., 2013
Carcass Yield
5.4% 9.6%

66.6
70.7
75.0
71.1
77.4
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
Control 20% 40% 20% 40%
IodineValue
Graham et al., 2013
Iodine Value
5.4% 9.6%

Summary
• ADG was unaffected by DDGS source or level
• Increasing 5.4% oil DDGS increased ADFI and
worsened F/G
• Regardless of DDGS source, carcass yield and
HCW decreased with increasing DDGS
• Increasing DDGS increased jowl, belly and
backfat IV, but the magnitude was greater in
those fed the 9.6% oil DDGS compared with
those fed 5.4% oil DDGS.

–
Determining energy content and
nutrient digestibility of dried
distillers grains with solubles with
varying oil content

Net Energy efficiency calculations
• Net energy efficiency (NEE) was determined by calculating the
calories of NE intake in kcal/kg per kg of gain on a phase basis.
• The NE of the DDGS sources was calculated based on the
actual growth performance of the 3 studies using the 5
sources.
• Used solving functions in Excel to set the NEE of pigs fed each
DDGS source equal to that of the corn-soybean meal control
diet.
– This was done with the assumption that the NE content of
corn and soybean meal are 2,672 and 2,087 kcal/kg,
respectively (as-fed; NRC, 2012).

NE values, kcal/kg (as-fed)
2672
2133
2320
2732
2497
2887
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
Corn 5.4 7.6 9.4 9.6 12.1
DDGS oil, %

DE and NE prediction equations
• Stepwise regression was then used to
establish DE and NE prediction equations.
• Variables included in the regression analysis
were the linear and quadratic terms of oil
(ether extract), CP, CF, ADF, NDF, particle size,
and bulk density.
• Only oil (ether extract) content was found to
be significant in the model.

Predicted Digestible and Net Energy of DDGS
y = 115.01x + 1501
R2 = .86
y = 62.347x + 3058.1
R2 = .41
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Energy,Kcal/kg
Oil, %
Net Energy
Digestible Energy

Prediction equations
• DE (kcal/kg) =62.347 * ether extract (%) +
3058.13 (n=5, Adjusted R2 = 0.41)
• NE (kcal/kg) =115.011 * ether extract (%) +
1501.01 (n=5, Adjusted R2 = 0.86)
• These equations indicate changing the oil
content 1% in DDGS will change the DE by 62
kcal/kg and NE by 115 kcal/kg on an as-fed
basis.

Corn DDGS quality control
• Variability in DDGS quality
– Main issue is fat level Fat, % NE, %
• Low = < 5% fat 4.0 80.0%
• Medium = 6 to 9% fat 7.5 87.5%
• High = > 9% fat 11.0 100%
– Need to monitor DDGS quality or work with
company that monitors DDGS quality
– Ethanol plants guarantee often underestimate the
true oil content – guarantee 6% but really 9%

Conclusions
• Swine producers and nutritionists can now
better estimate the feeding and economic
value of various DDGS sources based on their
oil content.

K-State Web Resources
www.ksuswine.org
• DDGS Calculator
• Synthetic Amino Acid Calculator
• Fat Analysis Calculator
• Feed Budget Calculator
• Feeder Adjustment Cards
• Particle Size Information
• Marketing Calculators
• Gestation Feeding Tools
38

Historical Ingredient Prices
June
2009
June
2010
June
2011
June
2012
June
2013
Corn, $/bu $4.00 $3.20 $7.25 $6.00 $7.30
SBM, $/ton $395 $285 $350 $400 $474
DDGS, $/ton $150 $120 $200 $240 $220
CWG, $/cwt $27 $33 $50 $46 $42
Dical, $/cwt $23 $26 $28 $33 $27
L-lysine, $/cwt $70 $110 $120 $113 $83
~cost/finishing pig $64 $57 $90 $87 $97

Higher Meat & Wheat DDGS &
Ingredient Corn/soy AA bone DDGS midds midds
Corn 1537 1573 1569 1121 1303 830
SBM, 46.5% 417 377 314 235 247 124
Meat & bone meal 100
DDGS, 7.5% fat 600 600
Wheat middlings 400 400
Lysine HCl 3 5.4 3.9 6.4 6.7 7.9
DL-Methionine 0.25 0.3
L-Threonine 1.2 0.6 1.5
Monocal P, 21% P 16 16 2 10
Limestone 15 15.5 23.5 20 26
VTM & Salt 12 12 12 12 12 12
Diet w/ processing $322.00 $318.00 $326.28 $289.88 $297.52 $268.79
Budget, lb/pig 120.0 120.0 120.2 122.8 122.7 125.8
Feed cost, $/pig $19.32 $19.08 $19.61 $17.80 $18.25 $16.91
F/G 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.73 2.73 2.80

3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
800 600 400
Cabrera, 1994a
Cabrera, 1994b
Wondra, 1995
Effects of particle size on feed efficiency
F/G
Particle size, microns
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
300
400
500
600
700
800
Paulk, 2011
DeJong, 2012
1.2% per 100 microns 1.0% per 100 microns
Particle size, microns

Every 100 microns =
1. F/G improves by ~1.2%
2. 7 lbs less feed/finishing pig
3. Current $0.98/pig savings in feed cost

Grain Particle Size
• F/G directly impacted by particle size of cereal grains
• Research in high co-product diets:
– While corn in diet is decreased, finishing pigs still respond
similarly to improved F/G with reduced corn particle size
– Whole diet grinding – not a benefit in meal diets
– High fiber, low digestibly ingredients may be negatively affected
by particle size reduction.
• Takes more time/energy to grind cereals finer, however,
less total tonnage is manufactured by the mill.
• Testing method impacts results:
– Lab using a flow agent will report a value approximately 80 µ
lower then actual.

Why a feed link?
• Introduction of foreign virus from a location
where a large number of feed ingredients are
sourced
• Initial cases across multiple states in a similar
time frame

Feed
• Virtually no scientific literature linking viral
transfer in feed for transmission of swine
disease
• Feed has never been linked to transmission in
Europe or Asia
• Sampling and testing of feed for PEDV is not
warranted without clinical signs present
– No way to test feed to guarantee free
– Tests not validated for feed

Potential for increase risk:
• Specialty proteins in nursery diets
– Porcine Derived from infected pigs
• Enteric derived products
• Plasma protein
• Blood Meal
– Other Animal proteins (would need cross contamination)
• Fish meal
• Meat and bone meal
• Bovine Blood products
• Poultry meals
– Carriers

Potential for increase risk:
• Cross contamination – fecal matter
– Need dual purpose transport
– Reusing containers or totes
• Ingredients sourced from endemic areas
– Vitamins, trace minerals, additives from China
• Can remain active in desiccated form
– Thus, spray-drying has potential for preserving virus in an infective
form
– Unaware of any documented evidence this can occur

Example of one investigation of minor
ingredient sourcing in pig diets:

Things that reduce risk:
• Virus is relatively heat sensitive
– Any thermal processing method is going to reduce
infectivity
– ie pelleting, extrusion, etc
• Sensitive to drying
• Most classes of disinfectants are effective

Current status of feed testing:
(not all this is verified fact and is based on limited information)
• No tests are validated for feed or feed ingredients
• One initial sample has tested positive for PEDV nucleic acid
via PCR from an infected herd.
• Retesting at NVSL failed to detect PEDV genetic material.
• Bio assays are being performed
• Several samples have tested negative (unknown number of
samples tested).
• Samples of porcine derived products have been reported as
positive for presence of PEDV genetic material
– Significance is unknown, presence of RNA and infectivity are not
the same
– Circo DNA /PRRS RNA can be detected in plasma but plasma is
not considered a source of infection for these viruses

K-State Recommendations:
• Evaluate use of porcine derived products in diets
– Likely that as there will be viral genetic material in
porcine derived products if derived from infected pigs
– Potential for infectivity is unknown
– Risk would appear to be very low in growing pig farms
– Have removed from some multiplier/nucleus farms
• Presence of viral genetic material in other
ingredients
– Signifies potential cross contamination
– Infectivity potential unknown

K-State Recommendations:
• Ingredient testing not warranted in unaffected farms
– Probability of detection is very low, even if ingredients are a source of
infection
– If virus is present in an ingredient it likely will have a heterogeneous
distribution of virus within batches and across batches of ingredients
• Retain premix sample for potential future testing (samples should be
available due to GMP)
• We are not advocating removal of premixes from diets
– Some sow farms in the US have removed all vitamins from diets for an
extended period of time
• Sourcing all non-Chinese vitamins/ingredients is going to be very difficult
– DSM is the only vitamin company with appreciable capacity that is non-
chinese.
• Consider using mainline vitamin companies for multiplier or nucleus farms

GE digestibility
91.14%
78.61%
73.20%
81.27%
79.39%
76.14%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
Corn 5.4 7.6 9.4 9.6 12.1
DDGS oil, %

GE values, kcal/kg (as-fed)
3871
4347
4585
4723 4648
4904
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
Corn 5.4 7.6 9.4 9.6 12.1
DDGS oil, %

DE values, kcal/kg (as-fed)
3515
3417
3356
3838
3690
3734
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
Corn 5.4 7.6 9.4 9.6 12.1% oil
DDGS oil, %
Kcal/kg

Characteristics of various viruses:

Alternative Feeds

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Alternative Feeds

Similar to Alternative Feeds (20)

More from National Pork Board

More from National Pork Board (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Alternative Feeds