Datasets:

---

Recag

/

Rp_CommonC_151

like 0

ERROR: type should be string, got "https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/sites/all/themes/penton_subtheme_nationalhogfarmer/images/logos/footer.png\nNational Hog Farmer is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC\nGlobal Mega Producer\nHog Equipment and Facilities HQ\nFood Animal Report\nLivestock Facilities\nHome>Livestock>Nutrition\nGVL contributes to National Pork Producers Council\nMicroalgae culture to recover nutrients from manure\nObjectively scoring sow body condition\nHog slaughter remains high\nRepresentatives urge CBP to bolster agricultural inspections\nLegislation addresses shortage of agricultural inspectors, canines\nWork continues to evaluate performance responses from feeding DDGS\nPart 3 in the series “What have we learned about feeding DDGS to pigs over the past 20 years?”\nBy Jerry Shurson, University of Minnesota Department of Animal Science\nNumerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the addition of high-oil (> 10% crude fat) and reduced-oil (< 10% crude fat) distiller’s dried grains with solubles sources at inclusion rates up to 60% of the diet, using ME or NE formulation methods, for nursery and growing finishing pigs. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the overall growth performance responses of nursery and growing-finishing pigs using data from 26 peer-reviewed references and one thesis published from 2010 to 2017 (Asmus et al, 2014; Benz et al., 2011; Coble et al., 2017; Cromwell et al., 2011; Davis et al., 2015; Duttlinger et al., 2012; Graham et al., 2014a,b,c; Hardman, 2013; Jacela et al., 2011; Jha et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2010; Kerr et al., 2015; Lammers et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2013; Li et al., 2012; McDonnell et al., 2011; Nemechek et al., 2015; Overholt et al., 2016; Pompeu et al., 2013; Salyer et al., 2013; Seabolt et al., 2010; Tsai et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2016; Ying et al., 2013).\nIn practice, if accurate energy, digestible amino acid and phosphorus are used in diet formulation, and are specific for the DDGS source being fed, there should be no change in growth performance at relatively high (30%) diet inclusion rates compared with feeding corn-soybean meal diets without DDGS. Although there were fewer observations for growth performance responses of nursery pigs (n = 19) compared with growing-finishing pigs (n = 87), the proportion of responses showing reduced ADG (32%) and Gain:Feed (26%) from feeding DDGS diets was similar in nursery pigs (Table 1) with those for growing-finishing pigs (28 and 26%, respectively).\nInstallments in the DDGS series\nPart 1: 20 years of DDGS lessons in pig diets\nPart 2: Varied energy and digestible amino acids levels in DDGS manageable\nPart 3: Work continues to evaluate performance responses from feeding DDGS\nPart 4: Managing carcass yield, pork fat quality when feeding corn DDGS\nPart 5: Reaching an understanding of fiber characteristics of corn DDGS\nPart 6: Enzymes, pre-treatment improve fiber and nutrient digestibility\nPart 7: DDGS show greater antioxidant capacity than in corn grain\nHowever, the majority of all observations for nursery and growing-finishing pigs, showed no change in average daily gain (71%), average daily feed intake (63%) and Gain:Feed (67%). Therefore, if nursery and growing-finishing diets are formulated using accurate energy and digestible amino acid values for the DDGS source being fed, the majority of studies show that feeding diets containing DDGS provides growth performance responses similar to feeding corn-soybean meal diets the majority of the time.\nOne of the common misconceptions among swine nutritionists is that reduced-oil (< 10% crude fat) DDGS sources have less energy and feeding value that traditional high-oil DDGS sources. While this is true for some DDGS sources, crude fat content of DDGS is a poor single predictor of energy content among DDGS sources (see Part 2 of this series).\nHowever, if published energy and digestible amino acid prediction equations are used to dynamically estimate these important nutritional components in the DDGS source(s) being fed, and appropriate formulation adjustments are made, there should not be a reduction in growth performance unless there is mycotoxin contamination.\nA summary of growth responses from feeding DDGS sources containing high-oil (> 10%) and reduced-oil (< 10%) is shown in Table 2. Overall, the majority of observations in these 27 studies showed an increase or no change in ADG between feeding high-oil (88%) or reduced-oil (64%) DDGS. For ADFI, 82% of the observations showed an increase or no change when feeding high-oil DDGS sources, which was greater than the 68% of responses for reduced-oil DDGS. In contrast, 65% of observations from feeding high-oil DDGS sources showed an increase or no change in Gain:Feed, while 78% of responses showed improved or no change in Gain:Feed when feeding reduced-oil DDGS (Table 2). The majority of responses showing reduced ADG, ADFI, or G:F were due to using inaccurate energy and digestible amino acid values for reduced-oil DDGS sources.\nBecause of the increased use of high fiber co-products (e.g. DDGS, wheat midds) in swine diets, many swine nutritionists have adopted the use of the net energy system as a more accurate approach to evaluate feed ingredients and formulate swine diets for optimal caloric utilization efficiency compared with the metabolizable energy system. Unfortunately, the NE content and prediction for DDGS sources are not as well defined as for ME content. Although the majority of studies (22 out of 27) in our meta-analysis used the ME system compared with the NE system (Table 3) to formulate DDGS diets, the majority of observations showed similar responses (increase or no change) in ADG (71% for ME, 76% for NE). A greater proportion of observations showed an increase or no change in ADFI using the ME (75%) compared with the NE (62%) system, and all of the Gain:Feed responses resulted in no change when using the NE system compared with 67% of responses showing increases or no change when using the ME system. These results suggest that improved caloric efficiency can be achieved by using accurate NE values for DDGS sources, but more research is needed to develop and validate accurate NE prediction equations for DDGS.\nA summary of growth performance responses at various dietary DDGS inclusion rates is shown in Table 4. Negligible effects of feeding diets containing up to 20% on ADG, ADFI, and Gain:Feed have been observed when feeding reduced-oil DDGS to nursery and growing finishing pigs. In fact, the majority of responses for ADG (70%), ADFI (68%), and Gain:Feed (62%) showed no change when feeding diets containing 25 to 30% DDGS. However, although the number of observations were limited (n = 9) when feeding diets containing more than 30% DDGS, about half showed no change in ADG and ADFI, while the other half showed about a 2.4 to 2.8% reduction, respectively. However, the magnitude of these negative responses is small (e.g. 0.90 vs. 0.92 kg/day ADG between DDGS and control diets).\nThere are several reasons that may explain why feeding diets containing high inclusion rates (> 30%) of DDGS in diets for swine may result in small decreases in growth performance of pigs. First, DDGS has much greater fiber content (35 to 45% NDF) compared with corn and soybean meal. Fiber reduces the ME and NE content of swine diets and also can limit feed intake due to gut fill. As a result, pigs in the nursery and early grower stages may not be able to physically consume enough of a high-fiber diet to meet their energy requirement. Research to improve fiber utilization and ME and NE content of DDGS diets by supplementing diets with feed enzymes, has become one of the most widely researched topics in recent years.\nUnfortunately, the use of commercially available carbohydrases and proteases in DDGS diets has not provided consistent or substantial improvements in fiber digestibility and energy utilization by pigs. Secondly, use of accurate ME or NE values for DDGS in diet formulation is essential. Many nutritionists are unaware of the opportunity to use accurate prediction equations to estimate the variable energy (ME) content in DDGS (Urriola et al., 2014), which have been in Part 2 of this series. Use of ME values derived from these equations will ensure optimum diet formulations to minimize suboptimal feed intake and growth. Furthermore, standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids are affected by the fiber concentration in DDGS (Urriola and Stein, 2010), which led us to conduct a meta-analysis of published data to provide accurate prediction equations for dynamically estimate the SID amino acid values of corn DDGS sources based on total amino acid and NDF content (Zeng et al., 2017). In fact, some commercial companies (e.g. Nutriquest, Cargill, and Evonik) offer services to nutritionists to estimate the NE and/or SID of amino acids for DDGS. Therefore, these prediction equations or services should be used by nutritionists to estimate the ME, NE and SID amino acid content among sources of corn DDGS.\nOther aspects of DDGS composition that may affect growth performance of pigs when feeding high (> 30%) dietary inclusion rates to pigs have been less studied. Corn DDGS contains high concentrations of fiber, and high dietary fiber increases the threonine requirement of pigs (Zhu et al., 2005). Mathai et al. (2016) showed that the threonine requirement, expressed as a ratio to lysine, was increased for pigs consuming diets with soybean hulls and pea fiber compared with pigs consuming a low fiber diet. Depending on fiber composition, endogenous losses of threonine, and the subsequent requirement of threonine is likely increased when feeding diets containing high concentrations of DDGS (Blank et al., 2012). Based on data from Huang et al. (2017) and Saqui-Salces et al. (2017), and the NRC (2012) model, the estimated threonine endogenous losses (as a % of the requirement) from feeding a high DDGS diets is 7.7% compared to feeding a corn-soybean meal diet (3.2%). As a result, the optimal SID Thr to Lys ratio in DDGS diets may be 61% compared with 59% in corn-soybean meal diets.\nIn addition to the role of DDGS fiber on endogenous losses of Thr, DDGS also contains a 3.3 times greater concentration of leucine than soybean meal, and the high proportion of leucine relative to isoleucine (1.12×) and valine (1.47×) may result in a deficiency of isoleucine and valine when feeding high (> 30%) DDGS diets with reduced soybean meal content to pigs. These three-branch chain amino acids share the same degradation pathway through the α-keto-acid dehydrogenase complex (BCKDC).\nThis enzyme is inactivated by a kinase, and its activity is modified by the product of catabolism of leucine (Harris et al., 2004). Consequently, excess intake of leucine increases catabolism of isoleucine and valine (Wiltafsky et al., 2010; Gloaguen et al., 2012). Although Htoo et al. (2017) determined the isoleucine and valine requirements of pigs fed excess leucine (> 160 of SID Leu:Lys), diets containing DDGS have different proportions of leucine to isoleucine and valine, and the validity of using these branch chain amino acid ratios when formulating DDGS diets has not been evaluated in large commercial swine production systems. The effect of excess dietary leucine primarily results in a reduction in feed intake. Excess leucine content in DDGS, and subsequent catabolism of isoleucine and valine can be mitigated by allowing crude protein from soybean meal to meet the amino acid requirement, and avoiding the use of high amounts of synthetic lysine and other amino acids (< 0.15% Lys HCl; Stein and Shurson, 2009).\nHowever, the current relatively low price of synthetic amino acids and DDGS supports reducing the use of soybean meal and increasing the use of synthetic amino acids in swine diets containing > 30% DDGS. Furthermore, the effects of excess dietary leucine on catabolism of isoleucine and valine may also be reduced by adding synthetic isoleucine to the diet to achieve adequate amino acid balance. Studies are underway to evaluate branch chain amino acid balance in diets containing > 30% DDGS for nursery and growing-finishing pigs.\nAsmus, M.D., J.M. DeRouchey, M.D. Tokach, S.S. Dritz, T.A. Houser, J.L. Nelssen, and R.D. Goodband. 2014. Effects of lowering dietary fiber before marketing on finishing pig growth performance, carcass characteristics, carcass fat quality, and intestinal weights. J. Anim. Sci. 92:119-128.\nBenz, J. M., M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, J. L. Nelssen, J. M. DeRouchey, R. C. Sulabo, and R. D. Goodband. 2011. Effects of dietary iodine value product on growth performance and carcass fat quality of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:1419-1428.\nBlank, B., E. Schlecht, and A. Susenbeth. 2012. Effect of dietary fibre on nitrogen retention and fibre associated threonine losses in growing pigs. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 66:86–101.\nCoble, K.F., J.M. DeRouchey, M.D. Tokach, S.S. Dritz, R.D. Goodband, and J.C. Woodworth. 2017. Effects of distillers dried grains with solubles and added fat fed immediately before slaughter on growth performance and carcass characteristics of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 95:270-278.\nCromwell, G. L., M. J. Azain, O. Adeola, S. K. Baidoo, S. D. Carter, T. D. Crenshaw, S. W. Kim, D. C. Mahan, P. S. Miller, and M. C. Shannon. 2011. Corn distillers dried grains with solubles in diets for growing-finishing pigs: A cooperative study. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2801-2811.\nDavis, J. M., P. E. Urriola, G. C. Shurson, S. K. Baidoo, and L. J. Johnston. 2015. Effects of adding supplemental tallow to diets containing 30% distillers dried grains with solubles on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and pork fat quality in growing–finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 93:266-277.\nDuttlinger, A.J., J.M. DeRouchey, M.D. Tokach, S.S. Dritz, R.D. Goodband, J.L. Nelssen, T.A. Houser, and R.C. Sulabo. 2012. Effects of increasing crude glycerol and dried distillers grains with solubles on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and carcass fat quality of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 90:840-852.\nGloaguen, M., N. Le Floc’h, E. Corrent, Y. Primot, and J. van Milgen. 2012. Providing a diet deficient in valine but with excess leucine results in a rapid decrease in feed intake and modifies the postprandial plasma amino acid and alpha-keto acid concentrations in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 90:3135–3142.\nGraham, A.B., R.D. Goodband, M.D. Tokach, S.S. Dritz, J.M. DeRouchey, and S. Nitikanchana. 2014a. The effects of medium-oil dried distillers grains with solubles on growth performance, carcass traits, and nutrient digestibility in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 92:604-611.\nGraham, A. B., R. D. Goodband, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, J. M. DeRouchey, S. Nitikanchana., and J. J. Updike. 2014b. The effects of low-, medium-, and high-oil distillers dried grains with solubles on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and fat quality in finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3610-3623.\nGraham, A.B., R.D. Goodband, M.D. Tokach, S.S. Dritz, J.M. DeRouchey, and S. Nitikanchana. 2014c. The interactive effects of high-fat, high-fiber diets and ractopamine HCl on finishing pig growth performance, carcass characteristics, and carcass fat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4585-4597.\nHardman, S.J. 2013. Effect of dietary distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) and pig removal strategy at harvest on the growth performance, carcass characteristics, and fat quality of growing-finishing pigs. M.S. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.\nHarris, R. A., M. Joshi, and N. H. Jeoung. 2004. Mechanisms responsible for regulation of branched-chain amino acid catabolism. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 313:391–396.\nHtoo, J. K., K. Manner, and J. Zentek. 2017. Excess dietary leucine level increases the optimal dietary isoleucine-to-lysine ratio in 8- to 21-kilogram pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 95:195.\nHuang, Z., P.E. Urriola, and G.C. Shurson. 2017. Use of in vitro DM digestibility and gas production to predict apparent total tract digestibility of total dietary fiber for growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci 95:5474-5484.\nJacela, J.Y., J.M. DeRouchey, S.S. Dritz, M.D. Tokach, R.D. Goodband, J.L. Nelssen, R.C. Sulabo, R.C. Thaler, L. Brandts, D.E. Little, and K.J. Prusa. 2011. Amino acid digestibility and energy content of deoiled (solvent-extracted) corn distillers dried grains with solubles for swine and effects on growth performance and carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 89:1817-1829.\nJha, R., J.K. Htoo, M.G. Young, E. Beltranena, and R.T. Zijlstra. 2013. Effects of increasing co-product inclusion and reducing dietary protein on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and jowl fatty acid profile of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 91:2178-2191.\nJones, C.K., J.R. Bergstrom, M.D. Tokach, J.M. DeRouchey, R.D. Goodband, J.L. Nelssen, and S.S. Dritz. 2010. Efficacy of commercial enzymes in diets containing various concentrations and sources of dried distillers grains with solubles for nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88:2084-2091.\nKerr, B.J., N.K. Gabler, and G.C. Shurson. 2015. Formulating diets containing corn distillers dried grains with solubles on a net energy basis: Effects on pig performance and energy and nutrient digestibility. Prof. Anim. Scientist 31:497-503.\nLammers, P.J., B.J. Kerr, and M.S. Honeyman. 2015. Biofuel co-products as swine feed ingredients: Combining corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) and crude glycerin. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 201:110-114.\nLee, J.W., D.Y. Kil, B.D. Keever, J. Killefer, F.K. McKeith, R.C. Sulabo, and H.H. Stein. 2013. Carcass fat quality of pigs is not improved by adding corn germ, beef tallow, palm kernel oil, or glycerol to finishing diets containing distillers dried grains with solubles. J. Anim. Sci. 91:2426-2437.\nLi, G., Z. Wang, M. Lin, Z. Lu, and W. Yao. 2012. Effects of corn DDGS in combination with compound enzymes on growth performance, carcass fat quality, plasma and tissue redox homeostasis of growing-finishing pigs. Livest. Sci. 149:46-52.\nMathai, J. K., J. K. Htoo, J. E. Thomson, K. J. Touchette, and H. H. Stein. 2016. Effects of dietary fiber on the ideal standardized ileal digestible threonine: Lysine ratio for twenty-five to fifty kilogram growing gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 94:4217–4230.\nMcDonnell, P., C.J. O’Shea, J.J. Callan, and J.V. O’Doherty. 2011. The response of growth performance, nitrogen, and phosphorus excretion of growing-finishing pigs to diets containing incremental levels of maize dried distiller’s grains with solubles. An. Feed Sci. Tech. 169:104-112.\nNemechek, J.E., M.D. Tokach, S.S. Dritz, R.D. Goodband, J.M. DeRouchey, and J.C. Woodworth. 2015. Effects of diet form and type on growth performance, carcass yield, and iodine value of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 93:4486-4499.\nNRC. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.\nOverholt, M.F., J.E. Lowell, E.K. Arkfeld, I.M. Grossman, H.H. Stein, A.C. Dilger, and D.D. Boler. 2016. Effects of pelleting diets without or with distillers’ dried grains with solubles on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and gastrointestinal weights of growing-finishing barrows and gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 94:2172-2183.\nPompeu, D. B.R. Wiegand, H.L. Evans, J.W. Rickard, G.D. Gerlemann, R.B. Hinson, S.N. Carr, M.J. Ritter, R.D. Boyd, and G.L. Allee. 2013. Effect of corn dried distillers grains with solubles, conjugated linoleic acid, and ractopamine (Paylean) on growth performance and fat characteristics of late finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 91:793-803.\nSalyer, J.A., M.D. Tokach, J.M. DeRouchey, S.S. Dritz, R.D. Goodband, and J.L. Nelssen. 2013. Effects of standardized ileal digestible tryptophan:lysine in diets containing 30% dried distiller’s grains with solubles on finishing pig performance and carcass traits. J. Anim. Sci. 91:3244-3252.\nSaqui-Salces, M., Z. Luo, P.E. Urriola, G.C. Shurson, and B.J. Kerr. 2017. Effect of dietary fiber and diet particle size on nutrient digestibility and gastrointestinal secretory function in growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 95:2640-2648.\nSeabolt, B.S., E. van Heughten, S.W. Kim, K.D. Ange-van Heugten, and E. Roura. 2010. Feed preference and performance of nursery pigs fed diets containing various inclusion amounts and qualities of distiller’s coproducts and flavor. J. Anim. Sci. 88:3725-3738.\nStein, H. H., and G. C. Shurson. 2009. The use and application of distillers dried grains with solubles in swine diets. J. Anim. Sci. 87:1292–1303.\nTsai, T., C.R. Dove, P.M. Cline, A. Owusu-Asiedu, M.C. Walsh, and M. Azain. 2017. The effect of adding xylanase or β-glucanase to diets with corn distillers dried grains with solubles (CDDGS) on growth performance and nutrient digestibility in nursery pigs. Livest. Sci. 197:46-52.\nUrriola, P. E., M. Li, B. J. Kerr, and G. C. Shurson. 2014. Evaluation of prediction equations to estimate gross, digestible, and metabolizable energy content of maize dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) for swine based on variable chemical composition. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 198:196-202.\nUrriola, P. E., and H. H. Stein. 2010. Effects of distillers dried grains with solubles on amino acid, energy, and fiber digestibility and on hindgut fermentation of dietary fiber in a corn-soybean meal diet fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88:1454–1462.\nWang, H., L.S. Wang, B.M Shi, and A.S. Shan. 2012. Effects of dietary corn dried distiller’s grains with solubles and vitamin E on growth performance, meat quality, fatty acid profiles, and pork shelf life of finishing pigs. Livest. Sci. 149:155-166.\nWiltafsky, M. K., M. W. Pfaffl, and F. X. Roth. 2010. The effects of branched-chain amino acid interactions on growth performance, blood metabolites, enzyme kinetics and transcriptomics in weaned pigs. Br. J. Nutr. 103:964–76.\nWu, F., L.J. Johnston, P.E. Urriola, A.M. Hilbrands, and G.C. Shurson. 2016. Evaluation of ME predictions and the impact of feeding maize distillers dried grains with solubles with variable oil content on growth performance, carcass composition, and pork fat quality of growing-finishing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 213:128-141.\nYing, W., M.D. Tokach, J.M. DeRouchey, T.E. Houser, S.S. Dritz, R.D. Goodband, and J.L. Nelssen. 2013. Effects of dietary L-carnitine and dried distillers grains with solubles on growth, carcass characteristics, and loin and fat quality of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 91:3211-3219.\nZeng, Z.K., G.C. Shurson, and P.E. Urriola. 2017. Prediction of the concentration of standardized ileal digestible amino acids and safety margins among sources of distillers dried grains with solubles for growing pigs: A meta-analysis approach. Anim. Feed Sci. and Technol. 231:150-159.\nZhu, C. L., M. Rademacher, and C. F. M. De Lange. 2005. Increasing dietary pectin level reduces utilization of digestible threonine intake, but not lysine intake, for body protein deposition in growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 83:1044–1053.\nTAGS: Feed\nNew Product Tour: Kemin CaptiSURE\nMedium chain fatty acids’ results vary as antimicrobial replacements\nTaking a holistic approach\nSingle-cell protein to be evaluated for pig, poultry feed"