1. The document discusses four key considerations for setting diet energy specifications: the basis for selecting diet energy levels, the financial value of fat for growing pigs, the revised emphasis on fat for prolific sows, and tools for evaluating the financial value of fat sources for growth and reproduction. 2. It emphasizes that the goal should be maximizing profit, not just minimizing production costs. Energy is the most expensive diet component, so the appropriate energy level aims to deliver the target carcass weight at the lowest cost per megacalorie, while also considering production impacts. 3. The document provides guidance on determining the net energy values of ingredients, selecting the most profitable diet energy level based on cost per megacalorie

1. 1
Slide 1
Financial Considerations in Setting Diet
Energy Specifications
R. Dean Boyd
Technical Director and Nutrition Leader
The Hanor Company and Triumph Foods Group
Leman Swine Conference,
Enhancing Energy Utilization and Role of Fat, 2015
Road Map –
This Presentation addresses 4 Key Facets in an effort to Guide the
setting of Diet Energy Specifications.
Special Emphasis is given to Properly Valuing FAT –
1. Basis for Selecting Diet Energy Specifications
2. Financial Value of Fat for Growing Pigs
3. Revised Emphasis of Fat for Prolific Sows
4. Purchase Tool for Financial Value Fat Sources for
Growth and Reproduction

2. 2
Perspective: Nutrition Inputs to Deliver Greatest Profit
Practicing Nutritionists have an Sobering responsibility; 65-70%
of Production Cost is Feed.
Best NOT to use Nutrition simply to achieve Lowest Production
Cost because –
Lowest Cost tends not to Maximize Profit
Maximum Profit is more Complex
Ex. Paylean increases FCOG
Ex. FCOG for 290 lb vs 270 lb Pigs
Energy is the Most Expensive Diet Component –
Q How does one choose the Energy level to Formulate to in
Diets that are more complex than Corn-Soybean meal ?
3 Things Distinguish Practicing Nutritionists:
System to ID Best cost Energy level
Accurately Value incoming Ingredients
Use most discriminating Energy term
NE
or Effective ME (EFF ME)

3. 3
Foundation Information
4 Pieces of Information are Essential to setting
Profitable Energy and Lysine specifications, prior
to Formulation.
Total Mcal NE (EFF ME) for by Phase
Fat Dose response data for each Phase
SID Lysine Response curve for Financial Evaluation
of Optimum Profit level (dynamic)
Life-time Equation with Multiple criteria esp. Feed
Cost, Carcass Lbs, Lean $
Crystalline Lysine response curve (4 amino acids set
96% asymptote; Valine, Isoleucine float)
Energy – Select Specification with Discriminating Term
Starting Point:
Energy measure that is discriminating (NE, EFF ME)
NE has always been the most discriminating measure of useful
energy for Ingredients. It has not been widely used to Formulate
pig diets in North America until recently (exclu. Purina, Cargill).
Our diets were relatively simple, but this has changed.
2 Game-changers allow us to use NE reliably:
NRC 2012 provided trustworthy estimates, which can be . . .
Validated by Growth Assay (Boyd et al. 2010)
Empirical Validation of Ingredient Value is Essential !

4. 4
Energy – NE Values Must be Correct for Ingredients
ADG 2.02 2.09 2.17
ADFI 5.54 5.64 5.36
Mcal NE/d 6.123 6.395 6.584
200 Lb, d 99 96 92
Lean, % 53.2 53.0 52.8
Yield, % NC NC NC
Caloric FCR variance
from C-S Standard:
 0.995 LO NE (NDF)
 0.997 HI NE (Fat)
2.850
2.900
2.950
3.000
3.050
3.100
3.150
3.200
3.250
LO NE CS NE HI NE
Caloric FCR: Mcal NE/Lb Gain
Hanor Memo 2008-08, 70-280 lbs
Energy – Selecting the most Profitable Diet NE
Next Step:
Select Lowest Cost Energy ($ per Mcal NE) required to
Maximize Profit.
In Practice –
IF Target Carcass weight deliverable . . .
Simple (Lowest Cost, $/Mcal NE wins)
IF Target Carcass WT is a challenge . . .
Not as Simple (Not Lowest Cost  Best Cost)
i.e. Energy level that allows Adequate Time.

5. 5
Foundation Data: NE Caloric Gain for each Phase
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
18.5 42.5 69 101 147 192 235 268
Mean Body Weight - Phase, Lbs
Caloric FCR in Kcal NE : Lb Gain
Spreadsheet Requires 1 Critical Piece to Compute Cost of Various
Diet Energies in meeting the Caloric Requirement for Gain.
Phase Caloric FCR Phase C‐S Standard Diet Marginal
Start End Mcal NE T Mcal NE Mcal/lb Lbs/Phase $/Ton $/Phase $/Phase
60 78 1.930 34.7 1.141 30.4 264.7 4.03 ‐
78 124 2.291 105.4 1.141 92.4 254.7 11.76 ‐
Ex.
Optimum Profit Weight deliverable
1. ID Cheapest $/Mcal NE Diet
2. Refine Estimate in Formulation
program (Lowest $/Mcal Energy)
3. Review for Production Negatives
Principle: Caloric FCR
Modest ADG compromise
High NE Diet, Fat 4.0%
1.224 28.4 297.3 4.22 +0.19
1.224 86.1 287.3 12.37 +0.61
Low NE Diet, NDF 16.5%
1.116 31.1 236.7 3.69 ‐0.34
1.116 94.4 226.7 10.70 ‐1.06
Energy – ID Approximate NE by Probing Diet Types

6. 6
Energy – Fat Financial Value IF Feed Cost of Gain Driven
0.390
0.395
0.400
0.405
0.410
0.415
0.420
0.425
20 40 60 80 100
FeedCostofGain,$/lb
Fat Addition to C-S Diet, %
Fat : Corn 3.0 Fat : Corn 3.5 Fat : Corn 2.5
NRC 2012 ME Fat : Corn = 2.39
HAN 2012 NE Fat : Corn = 2.85
Hanor Memo 2012-00
Energy – Fat Financial Value IF Value Gain Creation (Summer)
0.390
0.395
0.400
0.405
0.410
0.415
0.420
0.425
20 40 60 80 100
FeedCostofGain,$/lb
Fat Addition to C-S Diet, %
Fat : Corn 3.5 Fat : Corn 3.5 Gain Created
Carcass Lbs Created due to Increased Carcass ADG, $0.85/lb

7. 7
Energy – Selecting the most Profitable Diet NE
FAT Conundrum
FAT Addition used to deliver the Lowest Feed Cost of Gain,
most of the Time.
What Happened ?
What IF Management is Fixated on a certain FCR ?
FCR Targets must be Dynamic to Optimize Profit
Normal: The Norm has been to use FAT in Diets because FCE is
improved enough to reduce Feed Cost of Gain. FAT tended to
provide Energy at a Cost that was < to Corn.
4.500
4.700
4.900
5.100
5.300
5.500
5.700
5.900
6.100
6.300
6.500
38 65 105 155 205 240 265
Body Weight, Lbs
Cents/McalME
HI FAT C-SBM
Fat:Corn Price,
2.65 : 1
2006 Internal Illustration

8. 8
Continued – and the Outcome tended to be . . . that the
Best Nutritional FCR also Delivered Lowest Feed Cost
$45.00
$46.00
$47.00
$48.00
$49.00
$50.00
$51.00
$52.00
$53.00
$54.00
$55.00
Feed Energy LevelFeedCost,$/Pig(38-280lbs)
HI-FAT C-SBM
2.000
2.150
2.300
2.450
2.600
2.750
2.900
3.050
3.200
3.350
3.500
Feed Energy Level
Feed:Gainratio
Hi-FAT C-SBM
New Normal: After 2006, the Price relationship between Corn energy
and Fat energy has become Turbulent. This New norm requires FCR
Targets on Caloric basis for Nutritional reasons.
4.500
4.700
4.900
5.100
5.300
5.500
5.700
5.900
6.100
6.300
6.500
38 65 105 155 205 240 265
Body Weight, Lbs
DietCostinCents/McalME
HI FAT C-SBM
FCR Targets must be Dynamic to Optimize Profit
(Things are getting Confusing for Non-Nutritionists)
Fat:Corn Price,
4.65 : 1
2006 Internal Illustration

9. 9
Continued – In this Relationship the Best Diet FCR
Delivered Highest Feed Cost
$48.00
$49.00
$50.00
$51.00
$52.00
$53.00
$54.00
$55.00
$56.00
$57.00
$58.00
Feed Energy Level
FeedCost,$/Pig(38-280Lbs)
HI-FAT C-SBM
2.000
2.150
2.300
2.450
2.600
2.750
2.900
3.050
3.200
3.350
3.500
Feed Energy Level
Feed:Gainratio
Hi-FAT C-SBM
Two FAT Sources: CWG vs A-V Blend Dose Study
Produced a Different Effects in Lactation (FCR), but
Same Positive Effects on Subsequent Reproduction
Deficit in Essential Fatty Acids
was being Satisfied ?
Lipid Nutrition of the Lactating Sow:
TURNING POINT – Revised Focus
Lipid Nutrition of the Lactating Sow:
TURNING POINT – Revised Focus
Harmon Commentary

10. 10
*
*
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Proportionofsowsbred,%
Days Post-Weaning
2.1 2.7 3.3
* *
*
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 Farrow
Proportionofpregnantsows,%
Days Post-Conception
RESULTS: Linoleic acid (Omega 6)
(Parity 3+ Sows)
RESULTS: Linoleic acid (Omega 6)
(Parity 3+ Sows)
Linoleic acid (%) :
* P < 0.10
Purchase Considerations for Dietary Fat
Sources Differ for Growth vs Reproduction
Purchase Considerations for Dietary Fat
Sources Differ for Growth vs Reproduction
1Feedstuffs, May 2014.
2NRC, 2012 (Table 17-4).

11. 11
11
12
13
14
15
0 2 4 6
A-V blend
CWG
Control
50
60
70
80
90
0 2 4 6
Farrowrate,%
Farrow rate Subsequent litter size
Totalpigsborn,n
Linear, P<0.001
Impact of Lipid (Level and Type) during Lactation on
Subsequent Reproductive Performance
Impact of Lipid (Level and Type) during Lactation on
Subsequent Reproductive Performance
Control vs. Added Lipid, P <0.05
Supplemental lipid level, %

12. 12
Calculated Estimates of FAT NE for Early and Late
Phases of Growth
Early
38-66 kg,
7.776
Late
79-107 kg,
8.058
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
ComputeFatNE,mcal/kg