This document summarizes research on managing high feed costs for swine production. It discusses factors that influence feed efficiency such as genetics, health, environment and diet quality. Improving feed efficiency through reduced particle size and pelleting can lower costs. The document also reviews using alternative ingredients like DDGS in swine diets and their effects on performance. Maintaining low diet costs while meeting nutrient needs is important for optimal growth and profitability.

1. Managing High Feed Costs
Joel DeRouchey, Mike Tokach, Bob Goodband
and Steve Dritz
Kansas State University
www.KSUswine.org

2. Presentation Outline
• Feed efficiency drivers to reduce feed cost
• Feed processing advancements
• Alternative ingredients
• Current diet cost examples
• Additional resources

3. Historical Ingredient Prices
June June June June January
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Corn, $/bu $4.00 $3.20 $7.25 $6.00 $7.05
SBM, $/ton $395 $285 $350 $400 $420
DDGS, $/ton $150 $120 $200 $240 $250
CWG, $/cwt $27 $33 $50 $46 $40
Dical, $/cwt $23 $26 $28 $33 $33
L-lysine, $/cwt $70 $110 $120 $113 $117
~cost/finishing pig $64 $57 $90 $87 $96

4. Means to Reduce Feed Cost
• Improved F/G = more profit?
– Does the best achieving F/G producers mean they
are the most profitable? – NO
– Then is F/G tied to profitability? – YES, but is
complicated based on individual situations.
• Lowest cost diet = optimal return?
– No, diet energy must be accounted for to assure
growth rate is not jeopardized for optimal marketing
– Another complicated decision making process

5. Feed Efficiency
Feed Efficiency
HighHigh feed
feed
Low ADG
Low ADG Other factors
Other factors
disappearance
disappearance
Genetics Disease Particle size
Feed wastage Genetics Diet form
Temperature Feed availability
Mortality Water availability
Feed delivery Diet deficiency
Amino acid
Temperature
deficiency
Low Energy diets

6. Feeder Adjustment
– Poor adjustment with pans greater than 60%
covered can increase feed wastage, especially in
late finishing
– Old feeders with poor feeder design or inability to
adjust will increase wastage

7. Meta-analysis results (15 experiments)
Items Dry Wet-dry SEM P - value
Initial wt, lb 74.3 74.3 5.9 0.27
Final wt, lb 228.6 235.9 13.8 <0.01
ADG, lb 1.92 2.01 0.046 <0.01
ADFI, lb 5.09 5.36 0.223 <0.01
F/G 2.59 2.59 0.10 0.93
Yield, % 75.8 75.6 0.26 0.57
HCW, lb 201.7 208.1 2.1 <0.01
BF, mm 16.7 18.1 0.23 <0.01
Loin, mm 62.2 61.6 0.68 0.14
Lean, % 51.4 50.8 0.85 <0.01
Water disappearance,
L/pig/d 6.4 5.0 0.34 0.02
Nitikanchana et al., 2012

8. Wet-dry feeder economic analysis
(IOFC, Income over feed cost)
Feed cost = 306 $/ton, Carcass price = 0.88 $/lb, 1.5$/ %lean reduction
Same F/G Poor F/G
Same F/G Reduction in Lean Poor F/G Reduction in lean
Dry 90.81 90.81 88.86 88.86
Wet-Dry 92.42 91.55 88.77 87.81
$/pig + 1.61 +0.74 - 0.09 -0.95
Nitikanchana et al., 2012

9. Effective Temperature
– If temperature is too low, pigs will increase their feed intake to
maintain body temperature. Because the feed is going towards
heat needs and not growth, feed efficiency will become poorer.
100
95 Upper Critical Limit
90
Effective temperature, oF
85 Lower Critical Limit
80
75 Heat Stress
70
65
60
55
50
45
40 Cold Stress
35
30
Body weight, lb

10. Effective Temperature
Effect of environmental temperature on the performance of growing
pigs (50 to 125 pounds)1
Temperature, oF
Item 50 72.5 95
ADG, lb 1.70 1.76 1.41
ADFI, lb 4.86 4.21 3.52
Feed/gain 2.91 2.41 2.52
1Summary of 3 experiments; Stahly and Cromwell, 1979, 1981.

11. Disease or Other Stress
– Disease problems that lower ADFI will greatly
lower ADG. Mortality will increase F/G by about
0.015 for each 1% increase in mortality when
spread across the finishing period.
– Stressors are additive
• Reducing stress will improve F/G

12. Effect of PCV2 Vaccination on Feed Efficiency
2.7
P < 0.01
2.6 2.57
2.52
Feed/gain
2.5
2.4
2.3
Control Vaccine
Jacela et al., 2011 JSHAP

13. Update on Feed
Processing Research
to Reduce Costs

14. Steps to ensure vitamins and trace minerals are
supplemented correctly
• Develop clear premix specifications
• Use reputable premix suppliers
• Verify premix production batch sheets
• Ensure product rotation
• Separate vitamin and trace mineral premix
• Verify premix additions
– Inventory control
– Eliminate hand adds
• Evaluate mixer efficiency
• Consider premix testing

15. Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig
performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
2.4
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.15
Grind x form P < 0.001 Meal Pellet
2.3 Grind P = 0.89; Form P < 0.001
SEM = 0.018
2.2 2.17
ADG, lb
2.11
2.1 2.06
2.02
2.0 1.99
1.9
1.8
600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012

16. Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig
performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
3.0
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.001
Grind x form P = 0.37 Meal Pellet
2.9 Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001
SEM = 0.03
2.82
2.8
2.74
F/G
2.71
2.7
2.60 2.60
2.6
2.5
600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012

17. Effect of particle size and diet form on finishing pig
performance (d 0 to 111; BW 57 to 288 lb)
$70
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.01
Grind x form P = 0.15 Meal Pellet
Income over feed cost, $/pig
Grind P = 0.03; Form P < 0.001
$65 SEM = 1.143
$62.20
$61.35
$60
$57.94
$55 $53.27 $53.96
$50
600 micron corn 300 micron corn 300 micron diet
Particle size and portion ground
De Jong et al., 2012

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

19. 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

20. Effects of soybean hulls level and particle size on
finishing pigs (0 to 118; BW 68 to 280 lb)
2.80
Soybean hull particle size, P < 0.04 Ground hulls (370 µ)
Soybean hulls level, P > 0.26
Soybean hulls linear, P < 0.02 Unground hulls (787 µ)
2.70 SEM = 0.026
2.67
2.63
F/G
2.60
2.60 2.58
2.56
2.50
2.40
0 7.5% 15%
Soybean Hulls
Goehring et al., 2012

21. 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.

22. Pelleting on growth performance of grow-finish pigs 2005 to 2011
Meal Pellet
Reference ADG F/G ADG F/G
Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.83 1.25 0.90 1.22
Groesbeck et al. (2005) 0.62 1.43 0.65 1.37
Groesbeck et al.(2006) 0.80 1.25 0.78 1.17
Potter et al. (2009) 1.95 2.12 2.05 2.07
Potter et al. (2009) 1.92 2.83 2.04 2.68
Myers et al. (2010) 1.81 2.76 1.94 2.82
Potter et al. (2010) 1.92 2.86 2.03 2.70
Frobose et al. (2011) 1.46 1.72 1.43 1.63
Frobose et al. (2011) 1.29 1.51 1.38 1.40
Myers et al. (2011) 1.96 2.73 1.97 2.67
Paulk et al. (2011) 2.50 2.75 2.63 2.55
Paulk et al. (2011) 2.31 2.50 2.44 2.40
Average 1.61 2.14 1.69 2.06
Average response = 5.0% for ADG and 4.0% for F/G
22

23. Effects of pellet quality on F/G
in 30 to 70 lb pigs
1.70
P < 0.05
a
1.60 1.59 a
1.57
F/G
1.51b
1.50
1.40
Meal Pellets Pellets with
30% fines
Nemecheck et al. 2012

24. Pellet quality
Pellets with fines
Good quality pellets
24
Nemecheck et al. 2012

25. Alternative Feed Ingredients
Cost
Processing
Storage
Animal Quality Control
Performance Agronomics

26. Effect of medium-oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
2.1 7.4% fat,
Linear P > 0.01
28.1% CP,
SEM = 0.02
10.8% ADF,
2.0 25.6% NDF
1.93
ADG, lb
1.9 1.87
1.85
1.80
1.8
1.7
0% 15% 30% 45%
Medium-oil DDGS
Graham et al., 2012

27. Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
3.4
Linear P > 0.02
SEM = 0.04
3.3 3.26
3.19 3.20
3.2
3.13
F/G
3.1
3.0
2.9
0% 15% 30% 45%
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012

28. Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
75
Linear P > 0.02
74.0 SEM = 0.04
74
73.2
73
Yield, %
72.4
72 71.8
71
70
0% 15% 30% 45%
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012

29. Effect of medium oil DDGS on pig performance
(d 0 to 67; BW 152 to 280 lb)
80
Linear P > 0.02
Jowl fat iodine value, mg/g
SEM = 0.04
77 76.3
74 73.7
71.1
71 70.2
68
65
0% 15% 30% 45%
Medium-oil DDGS (7.4% oil)
Graham et al., 2012

30. 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 95.0%
– 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%

31. Bakery Meal
• Things to recognize:
• Bakery products can vary in fat content which directly
affects the assigned energy value.
– NRC, 2012
• Bakery = 8.1% fat, 1,749 kcal/lb ME (+13.6% ↑ME vs. corn)
• Corn = 3.5% fat, 1,540 kcal/lb ME
• Many bakery products contain lower levels of fat then
book values. Recent analysis from a Midwest
commercial mill using bakery:
• Bakery = 6.4% Fat, Calculated ME value was 92% of corn

32. Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig
performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)
2.20
Bakery, quadratic P < 0.07
SEM = 0.01
2.10
2.06
2.05
2.02
ADG, lb
2.00
1.90
1.80
0.0% 7.5% 15.0%
Bakery meal
Paulk et al., 2012

33. Effects of bakery meal on finishing pig
performance (Exp. 1, d 0 to 102; BW 78 to 280 lb)
2.80
Bakery, linear P < 0.02
SEM = 0.02
2.70
2.70 2.68
F/G
2.63
2.60
2.50
0.0% 7.5% 15.0%
Bakery meal
Paulk et al., 2012

34. Added Fat Calculator available at www.KSUswine.org
Corn, $/bu $7.05 Carcass price $ 95.00
SBM, $/ton $ 420 Est. live price 72.64
Fat, $/cwt $ 40
Grind/mix/delivery, $/ton $ 15
$1.00
2.5% fat
$0.60 $0.46 5% fat
Net return, $/pig
$0.34 $0.32
$0.21
$0.20 $0.07
$(0.20) $(0.06) $(0.10) $(0.00)
$(0.17)
$(0.30)
$(0.60) $(0.45)
$(0.83)
$(1.00)

35. Added Fat Recommendations
• Should I have fat in my diets currently?
– Long on space = No
• Gain improvements not required while increasing feed cost
– Short on space = Yes/No/Maybe
• Evaluate net return and determine optimum level by dietary phase.
• Strategy should be different as economics change
• Which season are pigs to be marketed?
– Pigs placed in late summer/fall/early winter months can/should
forgo added fat due to growth rate improvements to come with
cooler weather.
– Late Spring/Summer marketed pigs should begin to receive
added fat in February/March to capture growth rate.

36. Example Diets with Alternatives
• Phase = 125 – 170 lb of body weight
• Corn = $7.05/bu
• SBM, 46.5% = $420/ton
• DDGS (>10% Fat) = $250/ton
• Wheat midds = $245/ton
• Meat and Bone = $405/ton
• Moncal P, 21% = $660/ton
• L-Lysine = $1.17/lb

37. Higher Meat & Wheat DDGS &
Ingredient Corn/soy AA bone DDGS midds midds
Corn 1529 1607 1576 1120 1318 828
SBM, 46.5% 425 342 307 236 231 126
Meat & bone meal 100
DDGS 600 600
Wheat middlings 400 400
Lysine HCl 3 5.7 4.4 7 7.2 8.5
DL-Methionine 0.3 0.3
L-Threonine 1.2 0.6 1.7
Monocal P, 21% P 16 16 2 10
Limestone 15 16 23.5 20 26
VTM & Salt 12 12 12 12 12 12
SID Lys:ME, g/Mcal 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55
SID Lys 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.83 0.84
SID Met & cys:lys 60 56 57 70 57 71
SID Thr:lys 62 62 62 64 62 62
SID Trp:lys 19.1 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5
ME, kcal/lb 1,515 1,515 1,513 1,522 1,483 1,487
CP, % 16.5 15.1 16.6 18.7 14.6 18.2
Available P, % 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.23 0.23 0.27

38. Higher Meat & Wheat DDGS &
Ingredient Corn/soy AA bone DDGS midds midds
Corn 1529 1607 1576 1120 1318 828
SBM, 46.5% 425 342 307 236 231 126
Meat & bone meal 100
DDGS 600 600
Wheat middlings 400 400
Lysine HCl 3 5.7 4.4 7 7.2 8.5
DL-Methionine 0.3 0.3
L-Threonine 1.2 0.6 1.7
Monocal P, 21% P 16 16 2 10
Limestone 15 16 23.5 20 26
VTM & Salt 12 12 12 12 12 12
Diet w/ processing $306.54 $304.04 $304.93 $290.55 $293.65 $280.62
Budget, lb/pig 120.0 120.0 120.2 119.5 122.7 122.3
Feed cost, $/pig $18.39 $18.24 $18.32 $17.36 $18.01 $17.16
F/G 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.66 2.73 2.72

39. Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0,
9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb)
75
Duration P=.002
74 Level P= 0.001
73.2 73.0 SEM 0.26
Yield, %
72.9
73
72.4
72 71.6 71.7
71
70
d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High
d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High
d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High
Asmus et al., 2011

40. Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds
(0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270
lb)
197
195.8 Duration P > 0.38
Carcass weight, lb
195.5
195 194.3
SEM 2.54
193.7 193.5
193
191.4
191
189
d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High
d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High
d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High
Asmus et al., 2011

42. Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds
(0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270
lb)
10
Duration P < 0.01
9 Level P< 0.05 8.7
Full large intestine, lb
SEM 0.46 8.2
8 7.5
7.1
7 6.6 6.7
6
5
d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High
d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High
d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High
Asmus et al., 2011

43. 43
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

44. 44
www.KSUswine.org

45. 45
www.swinefeedefficiency.com

46. Newly Developed F/G Factsheets 46
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25a: Not Always Linked to Net Income
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25b: Genetic Impact
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25c: Particle Size Testing Methodology
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25d: Influence of Particle Size
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25e: Influence of Pelleting
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25f: Influence of Temperature
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25g: Decision Tree
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC25h: Influence of Market Weight
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25i: Effect of Dietary Energy
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25j: Influence of Ractopamine
• Swine Feed Effciency, IPIC 25k: Feeder Design and Management
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25l: Influence of Amino Acids
• Swine Feed Efficiency, IPIC 25m: Sow Feed on Whole Farm Efficiency
www.swinefeedefficiency.com

47. 47
Thank you!
WWW.KSUswine.org