Optimizing feed processing to improve the feed efficiency of nursery and finishing pigs. J. C. Woodworth, C. B. Paulk, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, and C. R. Stark Kansas State University Applied Swine Nutrition Team & Grain Science
Outline §
Reducing particle size § § §
§
Pelleting § § § §
§
Procedures Impact on digestibility Impact on nursery and finisher Quality Nursery Finisher Pellet diameter
Summary and conclusions
K-State Extension Bulletin (MF3342) Recommenda)ons: • Sieve agitators • Dispersing/Flow agent • 10 minutes sieving )me
Types of Grinding Equipment Hammer Mill
Roller Mill
Characteristic
Hammer Mill
Roller Mill
Grinding Action
Impact
Shear
Versatility
Higher
Lower
Particle Size
Smaller
Larger
Variation in Particle Size
Higher
Lower
Initial Cost
Lower
Higher
Energy Cost
Higher
Lower
Maintenance Cost & Ease
Lower
Higher
Heat Generation/Moisture Loss
Higher
Lower
Fahrenholz, 2012
Particle size differences by mill type
Hammer Mill Geometric Mean: 502 µm Standard Deviation: 2.53 µm
Roller Mill Geometric Mean: 513 µm Standard Deviation: 1.98 µm
ATTD GE, % Impact of grinding method and particle size on corn ATTD of GE, % 90,0 ATTD GE, %
88,0 86,0 84,0 82,0 80,0 78,0
Grinding method x particle size, P < 0.001 b SEM = 0.6 87,5 300 500 700 a b a 84,2 83,0 83,3 83,3 a a a a 80,3 c
76,0 Hammermill
Roller mill Pa4ence et al., 2015
Effects of particle size and milling equipment on finishing pig F/G 3,6
3,52
Particle Size, P < .004
3,5
3,44
3,4 3,3
3,28
3,25
3,2 3,1
µm=
800
400
Hammermill
800
400
Roller Mill Wondra et al., 1995
Mill Type on Finishing Pig Performance
Impact of Mill Type on Finisher Pig Performance P < 0.534 SEM = 0.021
1,4
P < 0.254 SEM = 0.007
0,500
1,00
1,0 0,8
1,00
a
0,400 G:F
ADG, kg
1,2 0,365
0,374
Hammermill
Roller mill
a
0,300
0,6 0,4
Hammermill Roller mill
0,200
200 pigs, 75 d experiment, BW 55 To 130 kg, Diet particle size 500 µm Wecker et al., 2017
Particle size reduction for nursery pigs • Benefits in F/G are observed until grain fraction reaches 500-600 microns, but no further improvement as particle size is reduced • Similar response for corn and other grain sources • Feed preference data suggests pigs prefer not to consume feed made with fine particle size corn
Effect of grain source particle size on nursery pig F/G (6-18 kg BW) Quadratic, P < 0.05
Healy et al., 1994
Influence of wheat particle size on F/G of 6-20 kg pigs 1,40 1,35 1,30 1,25 1,20 1,15 1,10 1,05 1,00
Quadratic, P < 0.01
1,29
1300
1,18
1,19
600
400
Particle size, µm
Mavromichalis et al., 2000
Impact of roller mill configuration on F/G of 11-22 kg pigs 1,70 1,65 1,60 1,55 1,50 1,45 1,40 1,35 1,30 Rolls Par4cle Size Std. Dev.
P < 0.122
1,55
2 525 3.14
1,54
3 394 2.73
1,54
4-‐Fine 267 2.57 Gebhardt et al., 2015
1,50
4-‐Course 403 2.81
Effect of corn par4cle size and diet form on nursery pig F/G (BW 11-‐20 kg) 1,8 1,7
Diet form × corn µ P < 0.38 Diet form P < 0.01 SEM = 0.01
Pellet
1,57
1,6 1,5
Meal
1,52
1,51 1,45
1,45
1,42
1,4 1,3 650 micron corn
320 micron corn
360 micron diet De Jong et al., 2013
Corn particle size affects feed preference of nursery pigs **Particle size (µm) of corn is noted above columns** 0,60
P = 0.01
ADFI, kg
P = 0.01
525
0,50
403
P = 0.01 P = 0.11 700 Pelleted Diets
403 525
0,40 0,30
P = 0.89
267
267
700 250
0,20
400
0,10 0,00
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Trial 5
Gebhardt, 2015; Bokelman, 2015
Particle size reduction for finishing pigs •
Reducing particle size of grain through approximately 300 µm improves F/G in meal diets, but little benefit to reduce below 600 in quality pelleted diets
•
Current genetics result in approximately a 1% improvement in F/G for every 100 µm reduction
Effect of wheat par4cle size in meal diets on F/G (44-‐120 kg) 2,86
F/G
2,82
Linear P = 0.001 Quadra)c P = 0.82 SEM = 0.02
2,83 2,77
2,78
2,73
2,74 2,70 2,66 728 µ
579 µ
326 µ De Jong et al., 2014
Effect of wheat par4cle size in pelleted diets on F/G (44-‐127 kg) 2,82
No effect, P = 0.85 SEM = 0.01
F/G
2,74 2,66
2,60
2,58
2,58
2,59
400 µ
200 µ
2,50 2,42 600 µ
De Jong et al., 2014
Effect of par4cle size and diet form on finishing pig F/G (26-‐130 kg) 2,9 2,8 2,7
2,69
Grind x form P < 0.005 linear Par)cle size P > 0.34 Diet form P < 0.001 SEM = 0.02
Pellet
2,67 2,62
2,6 2,5
Meal
2,51
2,55
2,56
2,4 Corn particle size:
650 microns
50:50 blend
325 microns Nemechek et al., 2013
Effect of par4cle size and diet form on finishing pig F/G (25-‐130 kg) 3,0 2,9
2,82
300 vs 600 microns P < 0.001 Grind x form P = 0.37 Grind P = 0.52; Form P < 0.001 SEM = 0.03
2,8
2,60
2,6
Pellet
2,74
2,71
2,7
Meal
2,60
2,5 600 micron corn
300 micron corn
300 micron diet De Jong et al., 2012
Influence of roller mill configuration on F/G of 40-130 kg pigs 3,6
a
3,4
ab ab
b
3,2 3,0 2,8 2,6 2,4 d 0-‐56 2-High; 572 µm
3-High; 484 µm
d 56-‐97 4-High Fine; 295 µm
d 0-‐97 4-High Course; 382 µm
Gebhardt et al., 2015
Effects of particle size on F/G of finishing pigs 3,5
1.2% per 100 microns
1.0% per 100 microns
3,5
Paulk, 2011 DeJong, 2012 Nemecheck, 2013 De Jong, 2014 Gebhardt, 2015
3,3 3,1
3,3 3,1 2,9
2,9
250
400
350
600
450
Particle size, microns: 800
550
Wondra, 1995
650
2,5
2,7
Cabrera, 1994b
750
2,7
Cabrera, 1994a
2,5
Predicting ME of Ground Corn
Bertol et al., 2017
Change in average U.S. nursery and finishing performance from 1990 to 2015
Nursery
Finishing
1990 2005 % 2015 %
Start wt, kg
5.90 5.53 -‐6% 6.40 16% 22.7 22.7 0% 24.3 7%
End wt, kg ADG, kg ADFI, kg F/G
22.7 0.32 0.64 2.00
22.7 0.37 0.58 1.57
0% 16% -‐9% -‐22%
24.3 0.37 0.57 1.54
7% 0% -‐2% -‐2%
1990 2005 % 2015 % 113.4 117.7 4% 125.8 7% 0.67 0.73 9% 0.84 15% 2.31 2.06 -‐11% 2.26 10% 3.47 2.82 -‐19% 2.69 -‐5%
1990 PigChamp Summary; U.S. Pork Industry Produc)vity Summary
Particle Size Conclusions •
Nursery Pigs •
•
Finishing Pigs •
•
Benefits in F/G observed as particle size is decreased until 500-600 µm, then little benefit Meal diets result in 1% improvement in F/G for every 100 µm reduction through 300 µm
Feed Preference •
It appears pigs prefer not to consume finely ground feed
Pelleting Swine Feeds Feeder
Condi)oner
Die & Rolls hdp://www.cpmroskamp.com/pelletmill/products/pelletmills/
Production vs. Pelleting, a Conundrum! Maximizing Feed Mill Performance Throughput
Maximizing Animal Performance Nutrient Pellet Quality Quality Feed Safety
Effects of pellet quality on finisher F/G Linear, P < 0.01
2,85
F/G
2,80
2,78
2,82
2,78
2,77
20
40
2,75 2,70
2,65
2,65 2,60 2,55 Meal
Good Pellets
60
Percent Fines Stark et al., 1993
F/G
Effects of pellet quality on nursery F/G 1,62 1,60 1,58 1,56 1,54 1,52 1,50 1,48 1,46
Linear, P < 0.01
1,60
1,61 1,58
1,56 1,54 1,52
Meal
0
25
50
75
100
Percent Fines Fruge et al., 2013
$/pig
Effects of pellet quality on nursery return, $/pig 14,50 14,00 13,50 13,00 12,50 12,00 11,50 11,00
13,98
Linear, P < 0.01
13,47 12,97
12,95
12,48 12,00
Meal
0
25
50
75
100
Percent Fines Fruge et al., 2013
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on nursery F/G 1,70
F/G
1,65 1,60
Narrow
Wide
1,59 1,59
1,55
Meal or poor quality vs screened, P < 0.01 Narrow vs wide, P = 0.70 SEM = 0.01
1,56 1,57 1,51 1,51
1,50 1,45 1,40 Meal
Pellets
Pellets with 30% fines Nemechek et al. 2012
F/G
Effects of feeder adjustment and pellet quality on finisher F/G 3,20 3,10 3,00 2,90 2,80 2,70 2,60 2,50 2,40
Narrow
Wide
2,98
Diet form P < 0.001; Feeder adjust. P < 0.03
2,87
2,83 2,68 2,55 2,58
Meal
Pellets
Pellets with 50% fines Nemechek et al. 2012
Pan Coverage
Meal Diets
Narrow adjustment: 31% coverage
Wide Adjustment 95% coverage
Pellet Diets Narrow adjustment: 44% coverage
Wide Adjustment 96% coverage
Effect of fiber level and diet form on finishing pig performance (50-‐130 kg) 3,30
F/G
3,10
Interac)on P = 0.19 Pellet P = 0.001 Diet P = 0.001 SEM = 0.037
2,90 2,70 2,50
d 0 to 64: d 64 to 81:
2,71 2,61 Corn-‐soy Corn-‐soy Corn-‐soy
Meal
2,86 2,71
High DfiDGS ber 30% Corn-‐soy
Pellet 2,94 2,70
High DfiDGS ber 30% High fiber
Nemechek et al., 2012
Influence of feed processing method on F/G of 52-135 kg pigs fed high fiber diets 3,20 3,10 3,00 2,90 2,80 2,70 2,60 2,50
a,b=P< 0.05
a
2,93
Mash
b
b
2,76
2,76
2,73
45 s pellet
90 s pellet
Extruded
b
Bokelman et al., 2015
Effects of pelleting regime on G:F (30-136 kg) abc P < 0.05
0,46
SEM = 0.002 a 0,43
G:F
0,44 0,42
c 0,41
b 0,42
b 0,42
b 0,42
b 0,42
0,40 0,38 Meal
Pellet
Meal/Pellet Pellet/Meal Rotated
Rotated
De Jong et al., 2016
G:F after meal/pellet rotation
Effects of pelleting regime on pig removals per pen (30-136 kg) Removals/pen
3,0 a
2,5
1,0 0,5
SEM = 0.265
1,9
2,0 1,5
ab P < 0.05
b 1,1
b 0,5
b 0,9
b 0,9
b 0,9
Rotated
Rotated
0,0 Meal
Pellet
Meal/Pellet Pellet/Meal
De Jong et al., 2016
Effect of pellet diameter in creep and nursery feed on d 0-10 post wean F/G 1,50 1,40
Creep, P < 0.03 Nursery, P < 0.31
1,40 1,31
1,30
1,24
1,23
2
12
1,20 1,10 1,00 Nursery pellet, mm=
2
12
2 mm Creep pellet
12 mm Creep pellet Van den Brand et al., 2014
Effect of pellet diameter in creep and nursery feed on d 0-21 post wean F/G 1,50
Creep, P < 0.009 Nursery, P < 0.019
1,40 1,30
1,27 1,21
1,20
1,17
1,16
3
12
1,10 1,00 Nursery pellet, mm=
3
12
3 mm Creep pellet
12 mm Creep pellet Clark et al., 2016
Tools for nutri4on and management decisions
Available at: www.KSUswine.org
Feed Efficiency Tool Demonstrates impact of changes in:
www.KSUswine.org
Net energy Ractopamine use Temperature in the barn Pelle)ng and par)cle size Floor space Produc)on management changes Mortality
Changes in Particle Size
Pelleting vs Meal Diets
Conclusions – Particle size • Reducing particle size of grain improves F/G • For grow-finish pigs • Benefit is linear to at least 300 microns in meal diets (1% per 100 µ) • Does not appear to be as beneficial to grind below 600 microns in high quality pellets
• For nursery pigs: • No benefit in F/G to grind corn below 600 microns
• Feed intake and gain are reduced when corn is ground to 300 microns in meal diets for nursery or finisher pigs
Conclusions - Pelleting • Improves F/G ~ 5% • Response depends on particle size • Greater F/G response at higher particle sizes
• Response depends on diet formulation • Greater response in higher byproduct diets
• Response depends on pellet quality • Linear response to improving pellet quality
• Economic analysis must include the potential increase in mortality with pellets
Thank you!
WWW.KSUswine.org