210
Effect of Diet Complexity and Specialty Protein Source on Nursery Pig Performance

Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Grand Ballroom Foyer (Century Link Center)
Aaron M. Jones , Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Jason C. Woodworth , Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Joel M. DeRouchey , Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Gary E. Fitzner , Hamlet Protein, Findlay, OH
Mike D. Tokach , Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Steve S Dritz , Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Robert D. Goodband , Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Seven-hundred twenty nursery pigs (PIC C-29×359, initial BW 5.83 kg and 18-20d of age) with 10 pigs/pen and 12 replications/treatment were used in a 42-d growth study evaluating diet type (DT; complex vs. simple) and protein source (PS; fish meal, HP300, or HP800) on growth performance. Complex diets contained 20 and 10% lactose, while simple diets contained 12 and 5% lactose in phase 1 and 2, respectively. Complex diets contained 10% oat meal in both phases, while all diets contained 2% plasma in Phase 1 only. Soybean meal and SID Lys levels were equal within phase by adjusting fish meal, HP300, and HP800. Pens were allotted to 6 treatments in a 2×3 factorial arrangement with main effects of DT and PS. Dietary treatments were the fixed effect and block and room served as the random effect. Phase 1 was budgeted at 2.27 kg/pig and Phase 2 was fed thereafter until d-21. A common diet was fed from d 21-42. For the overall treatment period (d0-21), pigs fed complex had improved G:F (P=0.040) compared to pigs fed simple diets, but ADG and ADFI were not affected. Overall, (d0-42), no differences in growth were observed among treatments. In summary, the 3 specialty protein sources used resulted in similar growth. The complex diet had small positive benefits on growth during the first 21d; however, the benefits were not evident at the end of the common diet period. The general lack of responses to DT or PS could be related to health, a common ingredient quality issue or lower than expected performance from this facility.

Complex

Simple

Probability, P<

Fish meal

HP300

HP800

Fish meal

HP300

HP800

DT×PS

DT

PS

Phase 1, %

7.75

10.25

10.45

7.75

10.25

10.45

Phase 2, %

6.00

8.21

8.35

6.00

8.20

8.37

d 0,kg

5.83

5.85

5.83

5.83

5.83

5.84

0.197

0.695

0.413

d 21,kg

9.74

9.76

9.56

9.55

9.57

9.54

0.707

0.160

0.610

d 42,kg

21.42

21.38

21.35

21.07

21.18

21.51

0.719

0.622

0.831

d 0 to 21

ADG,g

186

186

178

177

178

176

0.755

0.169

0.650

ADFI,g

247

253

248

244

255

248

0.927

0.973

0.279

G:F

0.76

0.73

0.72

0.72

0.70

0.71

0.462

0.040

0.131

d 0 to 42

ADG,g

370

370

367

363

366

373

0.625

0.730

0.866

ADFI,g

514

506

507

498

508

514

0.363

0.766

0.868

G:F

0.72

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.72

0.73

0.269

0.581

0.963

SEM=BW d0(0.160);d21(0.299);d42(0.320);d0-21 ADG(7.6),ADFI(9.8),G:F(0.408); d0-42 ADG(9.3),ADFI(8.4),G:F(0.011).