Three experiments were conducted to compare different phase-feeding regimens with blending diets using an automated feed-delivery system (FeedPro;
Key words: feed blending, feed budgeting, finishing pig, growth, phase feeding
The swine industry has evolved from feeding as little as a single diet during the finishing period to more extensive programs using up to 7 diets; however, optimal nutrient concentrations vary with changes in lean growth and live weight, so there are frequently periods when the diet being fed is supplying excess nutrients (
Blend feeding, which involves mixing and delivering 2 diets in proportionate ratios, may provide feed-cost savings. A general trend for increasing average slaughter weights may also augment the cost benefits of phase feeding; Fowler (1984), Bikker et al. (1996), and Gill (1999) have shown that there is greater scope for reducing protein supply with increasing BW. The primary objective of the current research was to determine the effects of daily blending complete diets to a predetermined Lys curve compared with conventional phasefeeding strategies in finishing pigs. A secondary objective was to determine growth and economics of overor under-budgeting a standard phasefeeding program.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All practices and procedures used in these experiments were approved by the
In all 3 trials, feed cost was calculated as the sum of individual diet cost plus grinding, mixing, and delivery (GMD) costs. The individual components of the GMD charges used were (1) grinding =
A total of 283 mixed-sex pigs (TR4 x 1050; PIC,
Pigs were weighed and feed disappearance was determined at the end of each phase to calculate ADG, ADFI, and G:F (Table 4). At the end of the trial, pigs were weighed and transported (approximately 204 km) to an abattoir (
A total of 808 mixed-sex pigs (337 x 1050, PIC; initially 35.5 ± 0.7 kg of BW) were used in a 110-d trial to compare phase feeding with blending 2 complete finishing diets on a Lys curve in a commercial environment. Pens were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments according to average BW within pen in a completely randomized design. There were 26 to 27 pigs per pen (no confounding due to random sex allocation) with 10 replicate pens per treatment. The 3 experimental treatments were (1) a standard 4-phase complete feed program (standard), (2) blending a highand low-Lys complete diet (curve), and (3) blending ground corn and a complete supplement within each phase (corn supplement). For the standard 4-phase feeding program, 4 finishing diets (Table 6) were formulated to provide 2.83, 2.59, 2.32, and 2.05 g of SID Lys/Mcal of ME and were fed from 35 to 52 (phase 1), 52 to 71 (phase 2), 71 to 86 (phase 3), and 86 to 108 kg (phase 4), respectively.
For the curve treatment, a complete highand low-Lys diet was formulated to provide 2.98 and 1.93 g of SID Lys/Mcal of ME, respectively. The complete highand low-Lys diets were blended in different ratios daily (Figure 3) to meet a SID Lys requirement curve that was configured using previously determined SID Lys requirements in this facility with the same genetics. For the corn-supplement treatment, complete supplements were manufactured (Table 7) by phase, and the FeedPro system blended ground corn and the complete supplement in calculated ratios to be identical in dietary nutrient composition to the standard phase-feeding program for each growing phase. Figure 4 illustrates the stair-step reduction of SID Lys:ME ratios used for the standard and corn-supplement treatments and the more gradual reduction in SID Lys:ME ratio for the curve treatment. The gradual reduction in SID Lys:ME ratio was achieved by changing the ratio of the 2 diets provided on a daily basis. All complete diets, ground corn, and supplements were manufactured at the
A common complete diet containing 5.0 mg/kg of ractopamine HCl (RAC; Paylean,
All complete diets, ground corn, and supplements were manufactured at the
Pigs from each pen were weighed as a group, and feed disappearance was determined approximately every 21 d to determine ADG, ADFI, and G:F (Table 9). On d 88 of the experiment, the 4 heaviest pigs from each pen (determined visually) were weighed and removed in accordance with the normal marketing procedure of the farm. On d 110, pigs were transported (approximately 95 km) to a commer- cial abattoir (
A total of 252 mixed-sex pigs (327 x 1050, PIC; initial BW = 36.2 ± 0.4 kg of BW) were used in a 95-d trial to compare feed-budgeting strategies and blending 2 complete finishing diets on a Lys curve on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and economics. Pens were allotted to 1 of 4 experimental treatments using a randomized complete block design. Each treatment had 9 replicate pens and 7 pigs per pen (4 gilts and 3 barrows per pen). The 4 experimental treatments were ( 1 ) a standard 4-phase complete feed program (standard), (2) blending a highand low-Lys complete diet over the entire experiment (curve), (3) treatment 1 diets with 20% greater feed budget for phases 1, 2, and 3 (over-budgeted), and (4) treatment 1 diets with 20% lower feed budget for phases 1, 2, and 3 (under-budgeted). All diets were dispensed using the FeedPro system and provided ad libitum access to feed. For the standard 4-phase feeding program as well as the over-budgeted and under-budgeted treatments, 4 finishing diets (Table 12) were formulated to provide 2.72, 2.30, 2.00, and 1.81 g of SID Lys/ Meal of ME.
The FeedPro system was programmed to deliver a predetermined amount of feed from each diet to each pen and to automatically update allotted budgets when pigs were removed due to death or illness. Pigs fed the standard treatment were programmed to receive a set feed budget of 53.1, 62.6, 72.7, and 79.4 kg for diets 1 to 4, respectively. Pigs fed the overand under-budgeted treatments were assigned feed budgets 20% higher and 20% lower than their standard counterparts for phases 1, 2, and 3, with phase 4 fed for the remainder of the trial after the phase-3 diet was consumed. When budgeted allotment of each phase was exhausted for the over-budgeted and under-budgeted treatments, the FeedPro system automatically switched phases on an individual pen basis.
Pigs from all treatments were weighed and feed disappearance was recorded on the date of phase changes for the standard treatment to establish equal periods for data compari- son. Measurements of ADG, ADFI, and G:F were calculated at each of these phase changes (Table 13). Based on the feed budgeted for the standard treatment, the data periods were d 0 to 23 (phase 1), 23 to 49 (phase 2), 49 to 72 (phase 3), and 72 to 95 (phase 4).
For the curve treatment, a complete high-Lys and low-Lys diet was formulated to provide 2.97 and 1.75 g of SID Lys/Mcal of ME, respectively. The complete highand low-Lys diets were blended in varying ratios on a daily basis (Figure 5) to meet an SID Lys requirement curve, which was set using previously documented feed-intake data in this facility. The SID Lys:ME ratios (g/Mcal) provided by the 4 feeding programs to pigs throughout the finishing period are shown in Figure 6, which illustrates the stair-step reduction of SID Lys: ME ratios used for the differ- ent phase-feeding treatments and the more gradual reduction in SID Lys:ME ratio for the diet-blending treatment. The gradual reduction in SID Lys:ME ratio was achieved by changing the ratio of the 2 diets provided on a daily basis. Feed was manufactured, sampled, and analyzed as in Exp. 1 and 2 (Table 14).
On d 84, pigs were weighed and transported (approximately 204 km) to an abattoir (
In Exp. 1, data were analyzed as a completely randomized design using PROC GLM in SAS (
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Diet samples collected for Exp. 1 were lost and therefore not available for analysis. The analyzed Lys levels for standard and curve regimens in Exp. 2 confirm the decreasing Lys content over the growing period and are within permitted analytical variation limits according to AAFCO (2005); however, the analyzed Lys levels for the corn-supplement blend varied more greatly compared with formulated levels than for standard and curve treatments (Table 7), suggesting that there either may have been sampling error or the FeedPro system could have inaccurately blended the corn and supplement. Analyzed Lys levels in diets from Exp. 3 are in general agreement with formulated Lys content.
Average daily gain and pig BW were similar (P > 0.12) across treatments in each of the 4 phases. In phases 1 to 3, ADFI was also similar (P > 0.14), but in phase 4, pigs fed using curve diets had lower (P < 0.03) ADFI than pigs fed using standard phase feeding of complete diets or the corn-supplement blend. For feed efficiency, during phase 1 (35 to 55 kg) pigs fed the corn-supplement blend had greater (P < 0.03) G:F than pigs fed standard or curve diets; however, G:F was poorer (P < 0.05) in pigs fed the corn-supplement blend in phase 3 (80 to 100 kg) than in pigs fed standard or curve diets. In phase 4 (100 to 126 kg), pigs fed curve diets had poorer (P < 0.04) G:F than pigs fed using standard phase feeding of either complete diets or the ground corn-supplement blend. Overall (35 to 126 kg), ADG, ADFI, and final BW were similar (P > 0.14) across treatments, but pigs fed the cornsupplement blend had poorer (P < 0.01) G:F than pigs fed curve diets and tended to have poorer (P < 0.09) G:F than pigs fed using the standard program.
For carcass characteristics, no differences were detected (P > 0.18) in HCW, percentage yield, or loin depth across treatments. Pigs fed using the corn-supplement blend had greater (P < 0.03) percentage lean and lower (P < 0.04) fat depth than pigs fed using standard phase-fed diets or curve diets blended using the FeedPro system.
Feeding curve diets tended (P < 0.07) to result in feed savings (
In phase 1 (35 to 52 kg) and phase 2 (52 to 71 kg), growth performance and pig BW were similar (P > 0.13) across all treatments. For phase 3 (71 to 86 kg), ADG, G:F, and pig BW were not influenced (P > 0.18) by blending treatments, but pigs fed diets blended on a Lys curve had lower (P < 0.01) ADFI than pigs fed either standard phase diets or those fed a corn-supplement blend. In phase 4 (86 to 108 kg), pigs fed the corn-supplement blend had poorer (P < 0.04) ADG than pigs fed either standard phase-feeding or blended diets on a Lys curve. In addition, pigs fed standard diets had improved (P < 0.02) ADFI compared with pigs fed curve diets or a corn-supplement blend; however, pigs fed curve diets had increased (P < 0.03) G:F compared with pigs fed the cornsupplement blend, with standard pigs intermediate. For BW in phase 4, pigs fed standard diets were heavier (P < 0.02) than pigs fed curve diets and tended to be heavier (P < 0.02) than those fed the corn-supplement blend. Within the overall trial period (35 to 108 kg), pigs fed standard diets had greater (P < 0.02) ADG compared with both blending treatments and had greater ADFI (P < 0.01) than pigs fed a curve diet, with those fed a corn-supplement blend intermediate. However, pigs fed curve diets had improved (P < 0.04) G:F compared with other treatments. During phase 5 (108 to 127 kg), in which all pigs were fed a common diet containing ractopamine HC1, pigs previously fed the corn-supplement blended diets had greater (P < 0.02) ADFI than those previously fed curve diets. In addition, pigs formerly fed standard phase diets tended to be heavier (P < 0.10) than pigs formerly fed a ground corn-supplement blend.
Over the entire finishing period (35 to 127 kg), pigs fed standard diets had greater (P < 0.04) ADG than pigs fed either curve diets or a corn-supplement blend, and pigs fed standard diets or a corn-supplement blend had greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than curve pigs. Pigs fed curve diets, however, had improved (P < 0.04) G:F compared with pigs fed a cornsupplement blend. For carcass characteristics, no differences were observed (P > 0.22) in percentage yield, FFLI, back fat depth, or loin depth across all treatments, but pigs fed standard diets had heavier (P < 0.03) HCW than pigs fed a corn-supplement blend and tended to have heavier (P < 0.07) HCW than those fed curve diets.
Higher ADG and ADFI for pigs fed standard diets led to greater (P < 0.01) feed cost per pig compared with curve pigs and a trend (P < 0.08) for higher feed costs compared with pigs fed the corn-supplement blend. Because standard pigs experienced greater gain, however, feed cost per kilogram of gain was similar (P > 0.10) across all treatments overall and for most individual phases. Furthermore, no differences were observed (P>0 .15) in total revenue per pig. Although IOFC did not differ (P > 0.15) across treatments, pigs fed diets blended to a Lys curve had a
Although pen weights and feed disappearance were recorded on d 23, 49, 72, and 95 according to average phase changes in the standard treatment, phase changes in the overand underbudgeted treatments took place when allotted feed budgets were exhausted on a per-pen basis. In the over-bud- geted treatment, the average dates of diet change were d 29, 56, and 83 for phases 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In the under-budgeted treatment, the average dates of diet changes were d 18, 42, and 61 for phases 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
In phase 1 (d 0 to 23), ADG was lower (P < 0.04) in pigs fed the curve treatment compared with each of the 3 phase-fed programs. Although no differences (P > 0.47) in ADFI were seen across treatments, pigs fed the curve diet had poorer (P < 0.04) G:F than pigs fed overand under-budgeted phase-feeding programs. Although ADG was similar (P > 0.16) across all treatments during phase 2 (d 23 to 49), under-budgeted pigs had higher ADFI (P < 0.05) than curve pigs and poorer (P < 0.05) G:F than pigs fed standard or curve diets. In phase 3 (d 49 to 72), pigs in the phase and under-budgeted treatments had greater (P < 0.05) ADG than pigs fed the over-budgeted treatment, with curve-fed pigs intermediate. Average daily feed intake was similar ( P > 0.18) across treatments in phase 3, but pigs fed the under-budgeted treatment had improved (P < 0.05) G:F compared with pigs that were overbudgeted for each phase. In phase 4 (d 72 to 95), no differences (P > 0.13) were observed in ADG, ADFI, or G:F across treatments. Overall (d 0 to 95), no differences (P > 0.11) were detected in ADG, ADFI, G:F, or final BW across treatments.
For carcass characteristics, there was a trend (P = 0.09) for pigs fed the standard phase-feeding program to have higher-yielding carcasses than pigs over-budgeted or fed to a Lys curve. This result was driven by a trend (P = 0.10) for heavier HCW in pigs fed the standard rather than curve treatments. Across treatments, no differences (P > 0.14) were observed in percentage lean, fat depth, or loin depth.
Feeding diets blended to a Lys curve resulted in the lowest (P < 0.03) feed costs in phases 2 and 3 and overall, resulting in average feed savings per pig of
With the advent of onsite computer programming and feed-delivery systems that can blend and deliver diets daily, the capability of modern feeding technology has radically evolved in recent years. These advances allow producers to exploit nutritional science that has been known for years, such as the decrease in Lys:ME requirements over the course of the growing period (Gill, 1999). Blending base diets daily according to known requirements offers potential benefits, including lower feed costs and the minimization of nutrient excretion while maintaining optimal growth performance. Although these perceived benefits are essential to the development of sustainable swine production systems (Honeyman, 1996), comprehensive evaluations of this practice using current technology on commercial farms are limited.
Although Pomar et al. (2007) reported faster growth rates for pigs fed using a daily Lys curve via an automated feed-delivery system compared with pigs fed a 3-phase diet, the results of the present study generally disagree, with consistent reductions in growth rate across all 3 experiments. The observed differences may be attributed to the fact that in Pomar et al. (2007), curve-fed pigs had greater total Lys intake than phase-fed pigs, whereas all pigs across treatments in the present study had similar Lys intake because phase-fed diets were formulated to SID Lys:ME ratios (Figure 2; Figure 4; Figure 6) that provided both an excess and shortage of nutrients based on expected requirements in each phase.
Overall feed efficiency improved in pigs fed diets blended to a Lys curve compared with those phase-fed a series of 4 diets, particularly in Exp. 1 and 2. Increasing the number of feeding phases in finishing has shown consistent improvements in feed efficiency (Lee et ah, 2000; Pomar et ah, 2007;
Mixing ground corn and a complete supplement to provide diets equivalent to standard phase-feeding regimens is an additional avenue to use the feed-blending capabilities of the FeedPro system. In Exp. 1 and 2, corn-supplement blending resulted in poorer feed efficiency compared with blending diets to a Lys curve and reduced ADG compared with standard phase feeding. Feed cost per kilogram of gain for pigs fed the cornsupplement blend was almost as high as in standard pigs in both experiments, but net revenue suffered due to the numerically lighter HCW in the corn-supplement treatment. High feed costs combined with the lowest returns resulted in pigs fed the cornsupplement blend having the poorest IOFC in Exp. 1 and 2. Although diet samples could not be analyzed in Exp. 1, in Exp. 2 the variation in analyzed Lys content compared with formulated Lys levels for the cornsupplement blend was concerning. This variation may explain the poorer growth performance, particularly during the later stages of the growingfinishing period. Because the cornsupplement blend theoretically should have provided a diet equivalent to the standard program, the reason for this variation in Lys content remains unclear. Explanations could include sampling error, incorrect supplement nutrient levels, or inaccuracy of the FeedPro blending capabilities when handling diets differing in form and density. The accuracy of feed blending was determined using diets of similar texture upon installation of the FeedPro system at each facility, but future research evaluating similar blending strategies to verify the blending capability of the system with ingredients of different bulk densities would be prudent. Recent increases in feed ingredient costs within
Evaluation of diet budgeting strategies in Exp. 3 revealed that overbudgeted diets may have restricted growth in the midand late-finishing period because of an oversupply of protein. Lenis (1989), Lee et al. (2000), and Garry et al. (2007) have shown that excess amino acids that cannot be used for body protein deposition have to be deaminated and excreted, resulting in deterioration in growth and feed efficiency. Conversely, under-budgeted diets supplied an SID Lys:ME ratio slightly below biological requirements throughout the duration of the experiment. Growth performance for under-budgeted pigs was slightly poorer during phases 1 and 2 (36 to 81 kg), but similar to standard pigs in the late finishing period (81 to 132 kg). Based on well-documented compensatory growth responses seen when feeding adequate protein in later growth periods (
Feeding diets blended to a Lys curve can effectively reduce overall feed costs but may lead to reductions in growth performance. The reason growth performance in curve-fed pigs was consistently poorer than in phasefed pigs is unclear, and additional research may elucidate the underlying reasons. Although these experiments have shown the effectiveness of blending 2 base diets on finishing pig growth performance, evaluating the nutrient excretion of finishing pigs fed curve diets compared with phase feeding would be beneficial. Finally, overand under-feed budgeting did not significantly influence overall growth rate or economic return.
Appreciation is expressed to
1 Contribution no. 14-007-J from the
AAFCO. 2005. Official Publication. Assoc. Am. Feed Control Off.,
AOAC. 2006. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. AOAC,
Bikker, P., M. W. Versiegen, and
Boland, M. A.,
Fowler, V. R. 1984. Improving efficiency in pig production. S. Afr.
Garry, B. P.,
Gill, B. P. 1999. Phase-feeding: Converting science into commercial practice. Feed Compounder 19:18-21.
Honeyman, M. S. 1996. Sustainability issues of U.S. swine production.
Jongbloed, A. W., and
Lenis, N. P. 1989. Lower nutrient excretion in pig husbandry by feeding: Current and future possibilities. Neth. J. Agrie. Sei. 37:61-70.
Main, R. G., S. S. Dritz,
NPPC. 1991. Procedures to Evaluate Market Hogs. 3rd ed. Natl. Pork Prod. Counc.,
NPPC. 2000. Fat-Free Lean Index. Natl. Pork Prod. Counc.,
NRC. 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 10th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press,
Paik, I. K.,
Plain, R. L. 2007. Where are ingredient and hog prices going in the coming months? Pages 25-28 in Swine Nutr. Conf. Proc.,
Wahlstrom, R. C., and
'Department of Animal Sciences and Industry,
Consumer and Environmental Sciences,
2 Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Most Popular Stories
- Frightfully Fun Films Return for Halloween
- Pfizer Approves $11 Billion Buyback Plan
- Would Soccer Be Richer Without Small Clubs?
- Cloud Lifts Microsoft's Quarterly Results
- Jennifer Aniston, Justin Theroux Set the Date
- Hollywood Eager to Grasp Hispanic Market
- IS Funded by Black Market Oil Sales, Racketeering
- Weekly Jobless Claims Rise but Remain Low
- Stocks Continue Strong After Opening Surge
- Teresa Giudice Must Serve Time in Prison