Impact of low energy diets on the bottom lineDepartment/deptdocs.nsf/...ADFI, kg Caloric intake,...

Impact of low energy

diets on the bottom line

Miranda Smit, Garrett Rozeboom, Vicente Zamora, José Landero,

Malachy Young, Denise Beaulieu, and Eduardo Beltranena

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development ©

Feed energy

1. Feed is the largest single cost of pork production.

2. Energy is the most costly component of feed.

3. Hogs consume the most feed in farrow-to-finish.

•Therefore, nothing impacts the profitability of pork producers more than feed energy level.


What are the energy requirements of pigs?

•Feeding diets high in coproducts, we have been wondering if we are feeding enough or too low energy.

•No table for feed energy requirements in NRC 2012.

•Tables show a ‘standard’ 2475 kcal/kg NE.

•Footnoted ‘dietary energy content relates to corn-SBM based diets’.


Dietary energy When dietary energy concentration

was increased, feed intake was reduced, G:F was improved (Beaulieu et al., 2009).

As dietary energy decreased, growth was decreased when energy intake or caloric efficiency were reduced (Quiniou and Noblet, 2012).

If caloric intake is maintained, growth is unaffected when changing dietary energy concentration(Weber et al., 2006).


High, enough or low energy?

•The answer is ‘it depends…’ largely on feed intake.

•American reports showed that hogs fed corn-SBM diets respond to fat inclusion by growing faster.

•What about diets based on our Prairie grains instead of corn-SBM?

•Share results of 2 commercial trials where we evaluated how our Prairie grain diets stacked to feed energy levels similar to a corn-SBM diets.


Exp 1.‘Constant’ feed NE levels

• 1008 (30 kg) housed in 48 pens, 21 barrows or 21 gilts.

• Fed 2.4, 2.3, 2.2, or 2.1 Mcal NE/kg over 5 phases.

•Wheat DDGS inclusion decreased from 25 to 16.5% .

•Wheat, field pea, and canola oil included in 2.4 NE diets.

• Barley and oat grain included in 2.1 Mcal NE diets.

• Pen BW and ADFI were measured d0, 21, 42, 56, 70, weekly thereafter, and slaughter weight (120kg).

•Hogs were slaughtered at Maple Leaf, Brandon, MB.


Constant feed NE levels 2

.66

6

6.2

8

1.0

49

0.4

06

2.7

47

6.3

1

1.0

52

0.3

96

2.7

99

6.1

0

1.0

56

0.3

89

2.8

26

5.9

4

1.0

49

0.3

85

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ADFI, kg Caloric intake,Mcal/d

ADG, kg G:F, kg/kg

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1

Linear P < 0.001

SEM 0.04

Linear P < 0.001

SEM 0.09

SEM 0.01

Linear P < 0.001

SEM 0.004

6 barrow + 6 gilt pens/NE level Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development ©

% hogs remaining in pens

95

.26

62

.23

7.9

50

14

.16

96

.73

6.3

1

28

.44

13

.51

93

.66

6.1

0

28

.52

12

.71

98

.16

72

.67

47

.81

23

.83

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Day 78 Day 85 Day 93 Day 106

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1

P < 0.05

SEM 1.20

P < 0.01

SEM 3.05

P < 0.001

SEM 3.02

P < 0.01

SEM 2.30

ab ab b a

b b b a

b c c

a

b b b a

6 barrow + 6 gilt pens/ NE level Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development ©

Days to slaughter, dressing

25

.1

12

3.1

98

.5

80

.0

22

.8

12

3.5

98

.3

79

.6

23

.0

12

3.4

97

.8

79

.3

27

.5

12

5.5

99

.4

79

.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

D70 to slaughter, d Ship weight, kg Carcass weight, kg Dressing, %

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1

P < 0.05

SEM 1.2

P < 0.05

SEM 0.5

P < 0.05

SEM 0.4 P < 0.01

SEM 0.18

ab b b

a

b b b a

ab b b a

a ab b b


Carcass traits

18

.6

63

.5

60

.7

10

9.4

18

.7

63

.3

60

.7

10

9.6

18

.5

63

.6

60

.8

10

9.5

18

.5

63

.0

60

.7

10

9.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Backfat, mm Loin, mm Yield ,% Index

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1

SEM 0.27

SEM 0.47 SEM 0.13

SEM 0.23


Efficiencies

Constant NE, Mcal/kg P value

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 SEM NE Linear

Lean gain, g /d 468.8 477.5 473.9 465.4 5.12 0.358 0.550

g lean gain/Mcal NE 76.2b 76.2b 77.7ab 78.9a 0.87 <0.050 <0.010

g lean gain/g SID Lys 31.8 31.9 32.3 32.4 0.25 0.183 <0.050

6 barrow + 6 gilt pens/NE level


Income over feed cost

Constant NE, Mcal/kg P value

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 SEM Linear

Feed cost per tonne, $

249.51a 233.13b 216.22c 198.81d 0.354 <0.001

Feed cost per kg BW gain, $

0.67a 0.63b 0.60c 0.57d 0.006 <0.001

Feed cost per hog, $

62.50a 59.58b 56.72c 54.66d 0.530 <0.001

IOFC per hog, $ 61.02d 63.50c 65.93b 71.43a 0.853 <0.001

6 barrow + 6 gilt pens/NE level


Exp 2. Decreasing feed NE level

• In young pigs, appetite or digestive capacity restricts energy intake limiting protein deposition.

•As pigs grow, they overcome this limitation, but fat deposition then increases progressively faster.

•Dietary energy level could potentially be reduced as pigs grow to mitigate feed cost.

•However, it is not clear… 1) at what dietary energy level pigs should start, 2) how long it should be fed for, 3) if it should drop (curve) down, and if so, 4) how aggressively feed energy should curve down.


Decreasing feed NE level

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

30-45 45-60 60-75 75-90 90-105 105-120

NE,

Mca

l/kg

of

fee

d

Body weight, kg

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

8 barrow + 8 gilt pens/NE regimen


Decreasing feed NE level 2

.69

6.3

8

0.9

9

0.3

9

2.7

8

6.4

1

0.9

9

0.3

8

2.7

6

5.9

5

0.9

9

0.3

8

2.8

0

6.0

6

1.0

0

0.3

8

2.8

6

6.0

9

1.0

0

0.3

7

2.9

2

6.1

2

1.0

0

0.3

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

ADFI, kg Caloric intake, Mcal/d ADG, kg FE, kg/kg

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 8 barrow + 8 gilt pens/NE regimen

P <0.001

SEM 0.05

P <0.001

SEM 0.11

SEM 0.006

d c

cd bc

ab a

a a b b b b

a b b b c d

P <0.001

SEM 0.03


% hogs remaining in pens 8

7.9

61

.6

46

.1

17

.7

92

.2

60

.4

43

.9

18

.3

90

.6

60

.3

47

.0

19

.7

88

.8

61

.0

46

.3

14

.0

85

.9

54

.9

41

.1

14

.9

91

.2

55

.2

38

.5

13

.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Day 85 Day 92 Day 99 Day 106

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

SEM 2.0

SEM 1.5

SEM 1.5

SEM 1.2

8 barrow + 8 gilt pens/NE regimen Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development ©

Days to slaughter, dressing % 2

2.5

12

4.9

98

.7

79

.1

21

.8

12

5.0

97

.7

78

.1

22

.3

12

5.0

98

.0

78

.4

22

.0

12

5.3

97

.5

78

.0

20

.8

12

4.8

97

.5

78

.2

21

.1

12

5.4

97

.5

77

.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

D75 to slaughter, d Ship wt, kg Carcass, kg Dressing, %

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

SEM 0.7

SEM 0.5 P <0.05

SEM 0.006 a

b ab b b b

a bc b

cd bc d

P <0.001

SEM 0.1


Carcass traits 2

1.4

63

.6

59

.6

10

9.9

20

.9

63

.7

59

.8

11

0.2

21

.3

63

.0

59

.6

10

9.8

20

.6

64

.0

60

.0

11

0.6

21

.1

63

.5

59

.7

11

0.2

20

.7

63

.6

59

.9

11

0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Backfat, mm Loin, mm Yield, % Index

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

SEM 0.3

SEM 0.3

SEM 0.1

b ab b a ab a

P =0.05

SEM 0.1


Efficiencies

NE Regimen P value

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 SEM NE

Lean gain, g /d 442.1 439.6 436.9 442.3 441.7 441.2 3.0 0.682

g lean gain/Mcal NE 71.3c 69.7d 74.5a 73.6ab 73.6ab 72.4bc 0.9 <0.001

g lean gain/g SID Lys 17.4b 18.0a 18.2a 18.1a 17.5b 18.2a 0.2 <0.001



Income over feed cost

NE Regimen P value

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 SEM NE

Feed cost per tonne, $ 261.57a 248.49b 243.97c 238.70d 235.07e 226.71f 0.15 <0.001

Feed cost per kg BW gain, $

0.71a 0.70b 0.68c 0.67d 0.67d 0.66d 0.01 <0.001

Feed cost per kg lean gain, $

1.51a 1.51a 1.47b 1.44b 1.45b 1.44b 0.02 <0.001

IOFC per hog, $ 62.22b 62.50b 63.74b 65.52a 65.46a 65.87a 0.90 <0.001



Conclusions

•Not crystal clear whether abrupt drops in feed energy level had advantages to gradual decreases.

•This trial did show again that hogs perform well feeding lower net energy diets than equivalent corn-SBM NE level resulting in greater profit margin for producers.


Effect of crowding

Feed intake is reduced because of a restriction in feeder access.

Or Crowding reduces growth which decreases feed intake.


Objectives

The primary objective of this project was to investigate the interaction between dietary energy and stocking density on net returns for swine producers. The secondary objective was to determine the

interaction of dietary net energy and stocking density on pig welfare and feeding behavior.


Materials and methods

932 pigs used in 3 replications of 18 treatments. • 3 x 3 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments

3 dietary energies (2.15, 2.30, 2.45 Mcal NE/kg) 3 stocking densities (14, 17, 20 pigs/pen) 2 sexes (barrows and gilts)

Pigs were assigned to treatment at 75 ± 15 kg BW.

Pigs were marketed at 118 kg BW.

Pigs were slaughtered and graded at Thunder Creek Pork (Moose Jaw, SK).


k-values

Stocking Density

14 17 20 Area/pig (m2) 0.93 0.76 0.65

BW

(kg

) 75 0.052 0.043 0.036

80 0.050 0.041 0.035

100 0.043 0.035 0.030

120 0.038 0.031 0.027

2014 Code of Practice states a k-value of at least 0.0335.


Daily feed intake1 (75 to 118 kg BW)

3.65

3.75

3.85

3.95

4.05

4.15

AD

FI (

kg)

Pig/pen

Stocking Density

14 17 20

3.65

3.75

3.85

3.95

4.05

4.15

Mcal of NE/kg

Dietary Energy

Low Medium High

1Dietary energy x stocking density ( P > 0.10 )

SEM = 0.08 Linear < 0.01

SEM = 0.08 Linear < 0.01


Daily weight gain1 (75 to 118 kg BW)

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.17

1.18

1.19

1.20

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

AD

G (

kg)

Pigs/pen

Stocking Density

14 17 20

1.15

1.16

1.17

1.18

1.19

1.20

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

Mcal of NE/kg

Dietary Energy

Low Medium HIgh


SEM = 0.03 Linear < 0.01

SEM = 0.03 Linear < 0.01


Gain:feed1 (75 to 118 kg BW)

0.26

0.27

0.28

0.29

0.30

0.31

0.32

0.33

Mcal of NE/kg

Dietary Energy

Low Medium High

0.26

0.27

0.28

0.29

0.30

0.31

0.32

0.33

Gai

n:f

ee

d (

kg:k

g)

Pigs/pen

Stocking Density

14 17 20


SEM = 0.004 NS

SEM = 0.004 Linear < 0.01


Caloric intake1 (75 to 118 kg BW)

8.50

8.60

8.70

8.80

8.90

9.00

9.10

9.20

9.30

Mcal of NE/kg

Dietary Energy

Low Medium High

8.50

8.60

8.70

8.80

8.90

9.00

9.10

9.20

9.30

Cal

ori

c in

take

(M

cal o

f N

E/d

)

Pigs/pen

Stocking Density

14 17 20


SEM = 0.17 Linear < 0.01

SEM = 0.17 Linear < 0.01


Carcass traits

Neither dietary energy nor stocking density affected: • Market weight • 10th rib backfat depth • 10th rib loin depth • Carcass index • Yield class • Carcass lean yield %.

Stocking density x dietary energy, P > 0.10.


Stocking density effects on economics1

1 Dietary energy x stocking density ( P > 0.10 ) 2 Barn throughput= finisher rotations x pigs per pen

Stocking density P-value

Pigs per pen

Item 14 17 20 SEM Linear Days to market 35.4 36.0 37.0 1.3 0.01 Barn throughput2 48.5 58.6 68.3 0.7 <0.01 Carcass revenue/pig, $ 134.3 135.4 133.1 1.4 0.70

Ann. carcass revenue/ pen, $ 6497 7911 9110 119 <0.01 Feed cost/pig d-1, CDN $ 0.87 0.86 0.83 0.02 <0.01

Feed cost/pen, CDN $ 429.5 525.5 614.1 16.8 <0.01

Carcass margin/pig CDN $ 103.4 104.2 102.9 1.6 0.72


Dietary energy effects on economics1

1 Dietary energy x stocking density ( P > 0.10 ) 2 Barn throughput= finisher rotations x pigs per pen

Diet regime P-value

Dietary NE

Item Low Medium High SEM Linear Days to market 36.9 36.0 35.5 1.3 0.02 Barn throughput2 58.0 58.5 58.9 0.7 <0.01 Carcass revenue/pig, $ 133.1 134.4 136.1 1.4 0.03 Ann. carcass revenue/ pen, $ 7682 7840 7996 119 <0.01 Feed cost/pig d-1, CDN $ 0.81 0.85 0.90 0.02 <0.01 Feed cost/pen, CDN $ 508.7 520.3 540.1 16.8 <0.01

Carcass margin/pig CDN $ 103.0 103.5 104.0 1.6 0.48


Summary (performance) Increasing dietary energy:

• ↑ ADG

• ↓ ADFI

• ↑ G:F

• ↑ Caloric intake

As stocking density increased from 14 to 20 pigs/pen: • ↓ ADG

• ↓ ADFI and caloric intake

Stocking density x dietary energy P > 0.10.


Implications

•We achieved lower feed energy by incorporating lower cost cereal grains like oats and food, bio-industrial co-products.

• Get more pork per tonne of high-energy cereal grains by diluting with food, bioindustrial coproducts.

•We highlighted, again, the ability of the omnivorous pig to convert co-products into human food protein.

• There is a penalty on dressing % that requires increasing live ship weight by 1-2 kg to sustain target carcass weight.

• Heavier ship weights may extend barn utilization by a few days, but lower feed cost per hog likely makes up for it.

• Feeding small cereal Prairie grains likely results in whiter, firmer pork fat, a consumer pork preference advantage.


Some words of caution …

• Experiments were NOT conducted in summer when feeding denser diets may mitigate drops in intake.

•We did not evaluate genetics, disearse, feeder space.

• Feeding fibrous diets increases manure production.

• Feeding fibrous diets complicates feed flow in augers.

• Feed commodities and pork prices vary. Profitability shown here is repeatable, but consistency will vary.

• Consider housing, environmental and economic factors to guide decisions about feeding lower energy levels.


Acknowledgments

Funding for Garrett’s project was provided by Gowans

Feed Consulting and Agriculture and Agri-Food

Canada through the Canadian Agriculture Adaptation Program.

Program funding to Prairie Swine Centre Inc. provided

by Saskatchewan Pork Development Board,

Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, Manitoba Pork Council, Alberta Pork, and

Ontario Pork.


Impact of low energy diets on the bottom lineDepartment/deptdocs.nsf/...ADFI, kg Caloric intake,...

Documents

Transcript of Impact of low energy diets on the bottom lineDepartment/deptdocs.nsf/...ADFI, kg Caloric intake,...