Translational Animal Science -

Modeling the effects of standardized ileal digestible valine to lysine ratio on growth performance of nursery pigs1,2

 

This article in TAS

  1. Vol. 1 No. 4, p. 448-457
    unlockOPEN ACCESS
     
    Received: July 28, 2017
    Accepted: Sept 05, 2017
    Published: September 28, 2017


    3 Corresponding author(s): abclark@ksu.edu
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
Request Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2527/tas2017.0049
  1. A. B. Clark 3*,
  2. M. D. Tokach*,
  3. J. M. DeRouchey*,
  4. S. S. Dritz,
  5. R. D. Goodband*,
  6. J. C. Woodworth*,
  7. K. J. Touchette and
  8. N. M. Bello§
  1. * Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
     Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
     Ajinomoto Heartland, Inc., Chicago, IL
    § Department of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506

Abstract

Two experiments evaluated the effects of increasing Lys and Val on growth performance of nursery pigs. In Exp. 1,300 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.7 ± 1.4 kg BW) were randomly allotted to 1 of 6 diets containing 1.10, 1.20, 1.30, 1.40, 1.50, or 1.60% standardized ileal digestible (SID) Lys, with 10 pens per dietary treatment and 5 pigs per pen. Linear and nonlinear mixed models were fitted to estimate dose responses. From d 0 to 14, and for the overall 28 d period, ADG and G:F increased (linear, P < 0.001) as SID Lys increased, with no evidence of differences in ADFI. Dose response modeling indicated the SID Lys requirement for ADG and G:F was at 1.45% using a broken line linear (BLL) and greater than 1.60% using a quadratic polynomial (QP) model. In Exp. 2, 280 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.5 ± 1.3 kg BW) were allotted to 1 of 7 diets containing SID Val:Lys ratios of 50, 57, 63, 68, 73, 78, or 85%. The dietary SID Lys concentration 1.24% SID Lys which was below the estimated requirement from Exp. 1 and ensured the Val:Lys ratio was not underestimated. From d 0 to 14, ADG, ADFI, and G:F increased (quadratic, P < 0.039) with increasing SID Val:Lys. For ADG, the best fitting model was a BLL, with a breakpoint estimate of 62.9% SID Val:Lys [52.2, 73.7] ratio while for G:F the best fit model was a quadratic polynomial with a maximum G:F at 71.7% SID Val:Lys (95%CI:[58, > 85]). Average daily feed intake was also modeled with a quadratic polynomial and maximized at 73.7% Val:Lys (95% CI: [61, > 85]). In conclusion, the Val requirement ranged from approximately 63 to 74% of Lys depending on the response criteria modeled.


Keywords:

    amino acids; growth; lysine; nursery; pig; valine

INTRODUCTION

Amino acid requirement estimates are often expressed on a standardized ileal digestible (SID) basis and in ratios relative to Lys, which is typically the first limiting AA in corn and soybean meal diets for swine. While much is understood about the Lys requirement, it is important that it be determined prior to evaluating another limiting AA. The NRC (2012) estimates the SID Lys requirement for 7- to 11-kg pigs at 1.35%. Wiltafsky et al. (2009), Gaines et al. (2011), and Nemechek et al. (2014) reported that a SID Val:Lys ratio of approximately 65 to 67% was necessary for optimal growth of pigs ranging from 8 to 32 kg of BW. These values are often used as a recommendation for formulating diets under conditions of untested requirements.

When determining an AA requirement, advanced statistical methods may allow researchers to predict biological requirements with enhanced accuracy and precision. For example, Gonçalves et al. (2016a) detailed modeling strategies that account for heterogeneity of residual variance, also known as heteroskedasticity. Heteroskedasticity seems to be a rather common phenomenon in animal agriculture (Cernicchiaro et al., 2013; Gonçalves et al., 2015; Gonçalves et al., 2016a) and is characterized by unequal dispersion of residuals across groups of interest. Heteroskedasticity can be explicitly accommodated using a mixed modeling framework, which then translates into differential inferential precision across groups (Littell et al., 2006). This can be useful in the context of titration studies to characterize dose–response curves (Gonçalves et al., 2016b) and better predict nutrient requirements with enhanced precision.

Therefore, the objectives of these experiments were, first to validate the Lys in our experimental setting; and second, to determine the Val requirement over a dose–response for growth performance of 7- to 11-kg nursery pigs in a marginally Lys deficient scenario using a mixed modeling framework accounting for heteroskedasticity.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Kansas State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved the protocol used in this experiment.

General

Similar protocols were used in both experiments. Pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, Hendersonville, TN) were weaned at approximately 21 d of age, placed in nursery pens according to BW and gender, and fed a common pelleted starter diet for 6 (Exp. 1) or 5 d (Exp. 2). Then, pens of pigs were allotted to dietary treatments, and this was considered d 0 of the study. Each pen (1.52 × 1.52 m, Exp. 1; 1.52 × 1.22 m, Exp. 2) contained a 4-hole dry self-feeder and a nipple-waterer for ad libitum access to feed and water. Both experiments were conducted at the Kansas State University Swine Teaching and Research Center. Pens of pigs and feeders were weighed on d 0, 14, and 28 to calculate ADG, ADFI, and G:F.

Dietary treatments were fed for 14 d followed by a common diet from d 14 to 28. Dietary treatments were corn- and soybean meal-based and contained 10% dried whey, fed in meal form. Crystalline AA replaced corn in diets as treatment levels of AA increased. During the common diet phase, diets were also corn- and soybean meal-based containing no specialty protein sources and formulated to 1.22% SID Lys. In Exp. 1, NRC (2012) ingredient nutrient values and SID AA coefficients were used in diet formulation. In Exp. 1, enzymatically treated soybean meal (HP 300, Hamlet Protein, Findlay, OH) was included at 10% and AA values and SID coefficients provided by the manufacturer were used. For Exp. 2, corn, soybean meal, and dried whey were analyzed for AA content prior to formulation (Table 1). All diets were fed in meal form and prepared at the O.H. Kruse Feed Technology and Innovation Center located in Manhattan, KS. For both experiments, basal diets were manufactured for the extreme dietary treatments, and then blended at the feed mill to create the intermediate levels. Samples of experimental diets were submitted (Ward Laboratories, Kearney, NE) for analysis of DM (method 935.29; AOAC International, 2012), crude fiber [method 978.10; AOAC International, 2012 for preparation and Ankom 2000 (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY) Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology)], ash (method 942.05; AOAC International, 2012), ether extract [method 920.39 a; AOAC International, 2012 for preparation and ANKOM XT20 Fat Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY)], Ca and P [method 968.08 b; AOAC International, 2012 for preparation using ICAP 6500 (ThermoElectron Corp., Waltham, MA)], Additional samples were submitted (Ajinomoto Heartland, Inc., Chicago, IL) for AA analysis (excluding Trp; method 994.12; AOAC International, 2012) and Trp (method 13904:2005; ISO, 2005; Ajinomoto Heartland, Inc., Chicago, IL).


View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Chemical analysis of ingredients for Exp. 21,2

 
Item, % Corn Soybean meal Dried whey
DM 88.81 89.09 90.04
CP 9.01 47.00 11.84
Total AA
    Lys 0.29 2.88 0.79
    Ile 0.31 2.09 0.65
    Leu 1.10 3.51 1.07
    Met 0.18 0.66 0.16
    Thr 0.30 1.80 0.68
    Trp 0.07 0.65 0.22
    Val 0.40 2.12 0.59
    His 0.24 1.17 0.18
    Phe 0.43 2.35 0.37
Standardized ileal digestible AA, % (Calculated)
    Lys 0.21 2.56 0.77
    Ile 0.25 1.86 0.62
    Leu 0.95 3.09 1.05
    Met 0.15 0.59 0.16
    Thr 0.23 1.53 0.61
    Trp 0.06 0.59 0.21
    Val 0.32 1.84 0.56
    His 0.20 1.05 0.17
    Phe 0.36 2.07 0.34
1Analyzed for AA content at Ajinomoto Heartland, Inc. (Chicago, IL).
2Standardized ileal digestible (SID) concentration calculated using SID coefficients from the NRC (NRC, 2012).

Experiment 1

A total of 300 nursery pigs (initially 6.7 ± 0.06 kg BW) were used to evaluate the effects of increasing SID Lys on growth performance. Dietary treatments were formulated to contain 1.10, 1.20, 1.30, 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60% SID Lys (Table 2). All other AAs exceeded estimated requirements on a ratio relative to Lys. After 6 d in the nursery, pens were randomly allocated to dietary treatments in a completely randomized design resulting in 10 pens per dietary treatment with 5 pigs per pen.


View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Diet composition (as-fed basis), Exp. 11

 
Formulated SID2 Lys, %
Item 1.10 1.60 Common phase
Ingredient, %
    Corn 59.06 48.15 63.77
    Soybean meal, 48% CP 26.89 27.05 32.86
    Dried whey 10.00 10.00
    Limestone 1.00 1.00 0.98
    Monocalcium phosphate, 22% P 1.60 1.50 1.10
    Salt 0.30 0.30 0.35
    L-Lys-HCl 0.25 0.55 0.3
    DL-Met 0.13 0.33 0.12
    L-Thr 0.10 0.26 0.12
    L-Trp 0.02 0.06
    L-Val 0.01 0.15
    Trace mineral premix3 0.15 0.15 0.15
    Vitamin premix4 0.25 0.25 0.25
    Zinc oxide 0.25 0.25
    HP 3005 10.00
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Calculated analysis6
SID AA, %
    Lys 1.10 1.60 1.22
    Ile:Lys 64 57 63
    Leu:Lys 133 109 129
    Met:Lys 35 40 33
    Met & Cys:Lys 60 59 57
    Thr:Lys 65 65 63
    Trp:lys 20.4 20.3 18.7
    Val:Lys 70 70 69
Total Lys, % 1.23 1.77 1.37
ME, kcal/kg 3,256 3,302 3,272
NE, kcal/kg 2,427 2,407 2,407
SID Lys:ME, g/Mcal 3.38 4.84 3.73
SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal 4.57 7.44 5.16
CP, % 19.3 24.7 21.4
Ca, % 0.82 0.83 0.70
P, % 0.76 0.79 0.64
Available P, % 0.48 0.48 0.41
1Dietary treatments 1.10 and 1.60% SID Lys were manufactured and blended at the feed mill to create the intermediate levels of 1.20, 1.30, 1.40, and 1.50% SID Lys.
2SID = Standardized ileal digestible.
3Provided per kilogram of premix: 22 g Mn from manganese oxide; 73 g Fe from iron sulfate; 73 g Zn from zinc sulphate; 11 g Cu from copper sulfate; 198 mg I from calcium iodate; and 198 mg Se from sodium selenite.
4Provided per kilogram of premix: 3,527,360 IU vitamin A; 881,840 IU vitamin D3; 17,637 IU vitamin E; 3,307 mg riboflavin; 1,764 mg menadione; 11,023 mg pantothenic acid; 33,069 mg niacin; and 15.4 mg vitamin B12.
5Hamlet Protein, Findley, OH.

Experiment 2

A total of 280 nursery pigs (initially 6.5 ± 0.03 kg BW) were used to evaluate the effects of increasing SID Val:Lys ratio on growth performance. Dietary treatments were formulated to contain SID Val at 50, 57, 63, 68, 73, 78, and 85% of Lys (Table 3). Based on the results in Exp.1, dietary treatments were formulated to contain 1.24% SID Lys to ensure pigs were below their requirement. After 5 d in the nursery, pens of pigs were blocked by initial BW and then randomly assigned to dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design, resulting in 8 pens per dietary treatment and 5 pigs per pen.


View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 3.

Diet composition (as-fed basis), Exp. 21

 
Formulated SID2 Val:Lys ratio, %
Item 50 85 Common phase
Ingredient, %
    Corn 62.97 62.50 63.77
    Soybean meal, 48% CP 22.07 22.11 32.86
    Dried whey 10.00 10.00
    Limestone 1.00 1.00 0.98
    Monocalcium phosphate, 22% P 1.65 1.65 1.10
    Salt 0.30 0.30 0.35
    L-Lys-HCl 0.63 0.63 0.3
    DL-Met 0.27 0.27 0.12
    L-Thr 0.29 0.29 0.12
    L-Trp 0.08 0.08
    L-Val 0.00 0.44
    L-Ile 0.10 0.10
    Trace mineral premix3 0.15 0.15 0.15
    Vitamin premix4 0.25 0.25 0.25
    Zinc oxide 0.25 0.25
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Calculated analysis
SID AA, %
    Lys 1.24 1.24 1.22
    Ile:Lys 57 57 63
    Leu:Lys 110 110 129
    Met:Lys 40 40 33
    Met & Cys:Lys 60 60 57
    Thr:Lys 66 66 63
    Trp:Lys 20.1 20.1 18.7
    Val:Lys 50 85 69
Total Lys, % 1.36 1.36 1.37
ME, kcal/kg 3,289 3,298 3,272
NE, kcal/kg 2,427 2,407 2,407
SID Lys:ME, g/Mcal 3.75 3.74 3.73
SID Lys:NE, g/Mcal 5.09 5.08 5.16
CP, % 17.6 17.9 21.4
Ca, % 0.82 0.82 0.70
P, % 0.73 0.73 0.64
Available P, % 0.49 0.49 0.41
1The 50 and 85% SID Val:Lys diets were manufactured and blended at the feed mill to create the intermediate Val Concentrations at 57, 63, 68, 73, and 78% of Lys.
2SID = Standardized ileal digestible.
3Provided per kilogram of premix: 22 g Mn from manganese oxide; 73 g Fe from iron sulfate; 73 g Zn from zinc sulphate; 11 g Cu from copper sulfate; 198 mg I from calcium iodate; and 198 mg Se from sodium selenite.
4Provided per kilogram of premix: 3,527,360 IU vitamin A; 881,840 IU vitamin D3; 17,637 IU vitamin E; 3,307 mg riboflavin; 1,764 mg menadione; 11,023 mg pantothenic acid; 33,069 mg niacin; and 15.4 mg vitamin B12.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed separately for each experiment following the approach proposed by Gonçalves et al. (2016a). Briefly, preliminary analyses steps included fitting a base mixed model to response variables, recognizing pen as the experimental unit and their respective designs (i.e., Exp.1: completely randomized design; Exp. 2: a randomized complete block design). For Exp. 1, the linear predictor included a fixed effect of dietary treatment whereas for Exp. 2, it included a fixed effect of dietary treatment and a random effect of BW block. For Exp. 2, initial BW was also used as an explanatory covariate in all base models as it enhanced model fit beyond that of the random effect of block. For ADFI, the random effect of block was removed from the model as its variance component estimate converged to 0. For each response, the base model was also used to explore heterogeneity of residual variances across dietary treatments using Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) to decide on best fitting approaches to account for heteroscedasticity and thus meet modeling assumptions. For Exp. 1, heterogeneous residual variances were specified for G:F. For Exp. 2, heterogeneous residual variances were specified for ADG and ADFI. For each response, studentized residuals were used to assess model assumptions. Estimated least square means and corresponding SEM were obtained for each dietary treatment. Orthogonal polynomial contrasts of first and second order were built with coefficients modified to accommodate unequal spacing between dietary treatments. Linear and quadratic trends were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P < 0.10. For Exp. 1, data from 1 pen on the 1.30% SID Lys treatment and 1 pen on 1.40% SID Lys treatment were excluded from analysis after review of daily pig monitoring indicated pigs with poor physical condition that did not appear to be treatment related.

Following base models, competing dose–response models were fitted to evaluate the functional form of ADG and G:F as a function of increased Lys dose for Exp. 1. Also, base models indicated no evidence for a Lys dose response on ADFI so dose response models were not pursued further on ADFI. In Exp. 2, competing dose response models were fitted to ADG, ADFI, and G:F. All dose models were evaluated during the experimental period (d 0 to 14) when increasing doses were fed. Competing dose–response models implemented here were the quadratic polynomial (QP), broken-line linear (BLL), or broken-line quadratic (BLQ), following Gonçalves et al. (2016a). The best-fitting dose–response model was decided using BIC, whereby a smaller BIC indicated a better fitting model. For best-fitting BLL and BLQ models, we obtained estimated breakpoints with corresponding 95% CI. When the QP model was best-fitting, the estimated SID % at maximum response and its corresponding CI was calculated as explained by Gonçalves et al. (2016a).

Base models were fitted using GLIMMIX and competing dose–response models were fitted using PROC GLIMMIX and PROC NLMIXED procedures of SAS (version 9.4; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC).


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of proximate and total AA analysis for both experiments closely matched formulated values (Tables 4 and 5). For Exp. 1, Lys content consistently increased across dietary treatments. For Exp. 2, Val content increased in a step-wise manner and Lys remained constant.


View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 4.

Chemical analysis of diets (as-fed basis), Exp. 11

 
Formulated standardized ileal digestible Lys, %2
Item 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60
Item, %3
    DM 88.77 88.24 88.81 87.35 89.18 89.22
    CP 20.6 20.9 21.6 23.0 23.4 24.4
    Crude fiber 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.2
    Ether extract 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4
    Ash 5.05 5.58 5.31 5.60 5.81 5.52
AA analysis, %4
    Lys 1.26 1.38 1.42 1.52 1.60 1.75
    Ile 0.83 0.86 0.91 0.94 0.96 1.02
    Leu 1.76 1.76 1.83 1.88 1.93 1.98
    Met 0.40 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.65
    Met + Cys 0.75 0.81 0.84 0.88 0.92 1.04
    Thr 0.80 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.02 1.12
    Trp 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.35
    Val 0.91 0.95 1.03 1.08 1.12 1.22
    His 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.56 0.58 0.60
    Phe 0.95 0.98 1.03 1.06 1.11 1.15
1Diet samples were collected at the feed mill after manufacturing.
2 SID = Standardized ileal digestible; Low (1.10% SID Lys) and high (1.60% SID Lys) diets were blended at the feed mill to create the intermediate treatments.
3Composite samples were submitted to Ward Laboratories (Kearney, NE) for analysis.
4Composite samples were submitted to Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. (Chicago, IL) for AA analysis.

View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 5.

Chemical analysis of diets (as-fed basis), Exp. 21

 
Formulated standardized ileal digestible Val:Lys ratio, %2
Item 50 57 63 68 73 78 85
Item, %3
    DM 89.84 90.16 90.37 90.24 90.35 90.06 90.24
    CP 17.0 18.7 17.6 18.0 18.0 19.3 17.6
    Crude fiber 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.2 2.0 1.8
    Ether extract 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2
    Ash 5.25 5.58 5.26 5.08 5.17 5.14 5.14
AA analysis, %4
    Lys 1.32 1.33 1.37 1.35 1.35 1.33 1.34
    Ile 0.76 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.87 0.80
    Leu 1.56 1.54 1.54 1.51 1.55 1.61 1.59
    Met 0.46 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.46 0.48
    Met + Cys 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.78 0.75 0.77
    Thr 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.89 0.90 0.94 0.96
    Trp 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
    Val 0.78 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.99 1.04 1.10
    His 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.43
    Phe 0.83 0.92 0.82 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.84
1Treatment diet samples were collected at the feed mill after manufacturing.
2SID = Standardized ileal digestible; Low (50% SID Val:Lys) and high (85% SID Val:Lys) diets were blended at the feed mill to create the intermediate treatments.
3Composite samples were submitted to Ward Laboratories (Kearney, NE) for analysis.
4Composite samples were submitted to Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. (Chicago, IL) for AA analysis.

Experiment 1: Validation of Lys Requirements

In Exp. 1, from d 0 to 14, ADG and G:F increased (linear; P < 0.001) as SID Lys increased, with no evidence for differences in ADFI across dietary treatments (Table 6). Furthermore, there was no evidence for treatment differences in ADG, ADFI, or G:F during the common period (d 14 to 28). For the overall period (d 0 to 28), ADG and G:F increased (linear; P < 0.001) as SID Lys increased. Similarly, BW on d 14 and 28 also increased (linear; P < 0.001) with increasing SID Lys.


View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 6.

Least square means and SEM of standardized ileal digestible (SID) Lys on nursery pig growth performance1,2

 
Formulated SID Lys, %
Probability, P <
Item 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 Linear Quadratic
Treatment period (d 0 to 14)
    ADG, g 265 263 298 313 319 320 0.001 0.278
        SEM 9.6 9.6 10.1 10.1 9.6 9.6
    ADFI, g 432 417 446 438 441 442 0.336 0.835
        SEM 13.9 13.9 14.6 14.6 13.9 13.9
    G:F 0.616 0.631 0.670 0.714 0.725 0.729 0.001 0.249
        SEM 0.0188 0.0188 0.0096 0.0096 0.0188 0.0188
Post-treatment period (d 14 to 28)
    ADG, g 565 568 580 554 578 582 0.391 0.653
        SEM 12.6 12.6 13.3 13.3 12.6 12.6
    ADFI, g 886 890 916 875 909 925 0.154 0.558
        SEM 17.2 17.2 18.1 18.1 17.2 17.2
    G:F 0.637 0.639 0.633 0.634 0.636 0.630 0.578 0.954
        SEM 0.0068 0.0068 0.0091 0.0091 0.0086 0.0086
Overall (d 0 to 28)
    ADG, g 415 416 439 433 448 451 0.001 0.797
        SEM 9.3 9.3 9.8 9.8 9.3 9.3
    ADFI, g 659 653 681 657 675 683 0.180 0.799
        SEM 14.1 14.1 14.9 14.9 14.1 14.1
    G:F 0.630 0.636 0.645 0.661 0.665 0.661 0.001 0.401
        SEM 0.0086 0.0086 0.0091 0.0091 0.0086 0.0086
BW, kg
    d 0 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 0.952 0.721
        SEM 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
    d 14 10.4 10.4 10.9 11.1 11.2 11.2 0.001 0.263
        SEM 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
    d 28 18.3 18.3 19.0 18.9 19.3 19.3 0.001 0.758
        SEM 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.27
1A total of 300 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.7 kg BW) were used. Each mean with the SEM listed below is from 9 pens for 1.30 and 1.40 SID Lys treatments and 10 pens for the remaining treatments. All pens had 5 pigs per pen. Pigs were weaned at approximately 21 d, fed a common starter diet for 6 d post-weaning, then fed experimental diets.
2Experimental diets were fed from d 0 to 14 and a common diet was fed from d 14 to 28.

Dose response models fitted to ADG (Fig. 1) indicated BLL and QP as competing best-fitting models (BLL BIC: 305.8 and QP BIC 306.8). For the BLL, maximum ADG was achieved with an estimated minimum of 1.45% SID Lys [95% CI: (1.31, 1.58%)]. The QP model indicated a maximum ADG above 1.60% SID Lys [95% CI: (1.47, > 1.60)], whereas 95% of maximum performance was achieved with 1.43% SID Lys.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Nursery pig ADG dose response curves dependent on standardized ileal digestible (SID) Lys. Broken-line linear Estimated breakpoint 1.45% SID Lys, [95% CI: (1.31, 1.58)]; BIC = 305.8. QP Estimated > 1.60% SID Lys that maximized ADG [95% CI: (1.47, > 1.60)]; 95% of Maximum: 1.43% SID Lys; BIC = 306.8. A total of 300 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.7 kg BW) were used in a 28-d growth trial with 5 pigs per pen and 10 pens per treatment. Pigs were weaned at approximately 21 d, fed a common starter diet for 6 d post-weaning, then fed dietary treatments. Quadratic polynomial (QP), broken-line linear (BLL), and broken-line quadratic (BLQ) models were fit to characterize the SID Lys dose response curve.

 

The estimated regression equation for the BLL model was:where the SID Lys level is expressed as a percentage.

The estimated regression equation for the QP model was:

In both cases, feed efficiency (i.e., G:F) for the experimental period (d 0 to 14) was specified to have heterogeneous variance across treatments and showed comparable (Fig. 2), had similar fit between models of BLL (BIC 627.7) and QP (BIC 629.6) forms. For the BLL, maximum G:F was achieved with an estimated minimum of 1.45% SID Lys [95% CI: (1.35, 1.54%)]. Based on the QP model, G:F was maximixed above 1.60% SID Lys [95% CI: (1.53, > 1.60)] and 95% of maximum performance was achieved with 1.41% SID Lys.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Nursery pig feed efficiency (G:F) dose response curves dependent on standardized ileal digestible (SID) Lys. Quadratic polynomial Estimated > 1.60% SID Lys that maximized G:F; [95% CI: (1.53, > 1.60)]; 95% of Maximum: 1.41% SID Lys; BIC = 629.6. Broken-line linear estimated breakpoint: 1.45% SID Lys; [95% CI: (1.35, 1.54)]; BIC = 627.7. A total of 300 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.7 kg BW) were used in a 28-d growth trial with 5 pigs per pen and 10 pens per treatment. Pigs were weaned at approximately 21 d, fed a common starter diet for 6 d post-weaning, then fed dietary treatments. Quadratic polynomial (QP), broken-line linear (BLL), and broken-line quadratic (BLQ) models were fit to characterize the SID Lys dose response curve.

 

The estimated regression equation for the BLL model was:

The estimated regression equation for the QP model was:

While the BLL and QP dose response models were competing models for both ADG and QP indicating similar, fit the estimated maximum response ranged from 1.45% SID Lys for the BLL model and > 1.60% SID Lys for the QP model. This information validated that the SID Lys requirement for 7- to 11-kg pigs in Exp. 1 was at or above 1.45% across performance responses. The estimate in Exp. 1 ensured pigs were fed a marginally Lys deficient diet (1.24% SID Lys), thus ensuring that the SID Val:Lys ratio requirement would not be underestimated.

The NRC (2012) estimates the SID Lys requirement for pigs weighing 7- to 11- kg to be 1.35% and the NRC (2012) requirement does not differentiate between different growth responses, specifically ADG and G:F. Indeed, studies have shown that the requirement can differ across response criteria. For example, Nemechek et al. (2012) determined that the SID Lys requirement for 7- to 11-kg pigs was 1.30 and 1.37% for ADG and G:F, respectively, using broken-line linear analysis. When using a quadratic broken-line analysis, the requirement increased to 1.37 and 1.54% SID Lys for ADG and G:F, respectively. In turn, Kendall et al. (2008) concluded that the true ileal digestible Lys requirement for 11- to 27-kg pigs was 1.30% when evaluated across various response criteria. More recently, Park and Kim (2015) estimated the SID Lys requirement for 6- to 10-kg pigs to be 1.43% for ADG and ranging from 1.39 to 1.49% for G:F depending on alternative modeling strategies. These results are consistent to those of the current study where it appears the requirement may be greater than current NRC (2012) estimates. Our observed dietary SID Lys concentration at levels greater than previously estimated may be due to modern genetics with potential for increased lean tissue accretion with lower feed intake (NRC, 2012).

Experiment 2: Assessment of Val Requirement

In Exp. 2, during the experimental period (d 0 to 14), ADG, ADFI, and G:F increased (quadratic, P < 0.039) as SID Val:Lys ratio increased (Table 7). During the common phase (d 14 to 28), ADFI increased and G:F decreased (linear, P < 0.028) in pigs previously fed diets containing increasing SID Val:Lys ratio. During the overall period (d 0 to 28), ADG marginally improved (quadratic, P = 0.089), while ADFI increased (linear, P = 0.006) as SID Val:Lys ratio fed from d 0 to 14 increased. There was a quadratic (P = 0.001) response in BW on d 14 and marginal quadratic (linear, P = 0.057) response on d 28.


View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 7.

Effects of standardized ileal digestible (SID) Val:Lys ratio on nursery pig growth performance1,2

 
Formulated SID Val:Lys, %3
Probability, P <
Item 50 57 63 68 73 78 85 Linear Quadratic
Treatment period (d 0 to 14)
    ADG, g 190 221 249 249 248 251 238 0.001 0.001
    SEM 5.9 11.8 11.8 11.9 11.8 11.8 11.8
    ADFI, g 331 363 394 388 403 390 386 0.012 0.030
    SEM 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.2 17.1 17.1 17.1
    G:F 0.579 0.612 0.635 0.646 0.614 0.645 0.617 0.101 0.039
    SEM 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0189 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188
Post-treatment period (d 14 to 28)
    ADG, g 541 531 515 575 522 530 539 0.992 0.945
    SEM 15.4 15.5 15.4 15.5 15.4 15.4 15.4
    ADFI, g 826 817 825 878 847 866 876 0.028 0.965
    SEM 22.9 22.9 22.9 23.0 22.9 22.9 22.9
    G:F 0.654 0.651 0.624 0.655 0.616 0.612 0.616 0.001 0.923
    SEM 0.0099 0.0099 0.0099 0.0100 0.0099 0.0099 0.0099
Overall (d 0 to 28)
    ADG, g 366 376 382 412 385 391 389 0.067 0.089
    SEM 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
    ADFI, g 579 590 609 633 625 628 631 0.006 0.266
    SEM 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.2 17.1 17.1 17.1
    G:F 0.632 0.639 0.628 0.652 0.616 0.622 0.616 0.104 0.303
    SEM 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105
BW, kg
    d 14 9.2 9.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 0.001 0.001
    SEM 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
    d 28 16.8 17.1 17.1 18.1 17.3 17.5 17.5 0.057 0.146
    SEM 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
1A total of 280 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.5 kg BW) were used in a 28-d growth trial with 5 pigs per pen and 8 pens per treatment. Pigs were weaned at approximately 21 d, fed a common starter diet for 5 d post-weaning, then fed experimental diets. Initial (d 0) BW was used as a covariate.
2Experimental diets were fed from d 0 to 14 and a common diet was fed from d 14 to 28.
3Low (50% SID Val:Lys ratio) and high (85% SID Val:Lys ratio) diets were blended upon manufacturing at the feed mill to create the 57, 63, 68, 73, and 78% SID Val:Lys ratio dietary treatments.

For ADG (Fig. 3), from d 0 to 14 when experimental diets were fed, the BLL dose response was the best fitting model. Maximum ADG was obtained with an estimated 62.9% SID Val:Lys ratio [95% CI: (52.2, 73.7%)].

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Nursery pig ADG dose response curve dependent on standardized ileal digestible (SID) Val:Lys ratio. Broken-line linear Estimated breakpoint: 62.9% SID Val:Lys, [95% CI: (52.2, 73.7)]. A total of 280 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.5 kg BW) were used in a 28-d growth trial with 5 pigs per pen and 8 pens per treatment. Pigs were weaned at approximately 21 d, fed a common starter diet for 5 d post-weaning, then fed dietary treatments. Quadratic polynomial (QP), broken-line linear (BLL), and broken-line quadratic (BLQ) models were fit to estimate the dose response to feeding increasing SID Val:Lys.

 

The estimated regression equation for the BLL model was:whereby Val was expressed as a percentage of Lys (i.e., 50%) and initial BW was specified at its mean in the data (i.e., 6.5 kg).

For ADFI (Fig. 4), the QP functional form showed the best fit and estimated maximum feed intake at 73.7% SID Val:Lys ratio [95% CI: (61, > 85)], with 99% of maximum performance achieved with 68.0% SID Val:Lys ratio.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Nursery pig ADFI dose response curve dependent on standardized ileal digestible (SID) Val:Lys ratio. Quadratic polynomial estimated 73.7% SID Val:Lys that maximized ADFI [95% CI: (61, > 85)]; 99% of Maximum: 68.0% SID Val:Lys. A total of 280 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.5 kg BW) were used in a 28-d growth trial with 5 pigs per pen and 8 pens per treatment. Pigs were weaned at approximately 21 d, fed a common starter diet for 5 d post-weaning, then fed dietary treatments. Quadratic polynomial (QP), broken-line linear (BLL), and broken-line quadratic (BLQ) models were fit to estimate the dose response to feeding increasing SID Val:Lys.

 

The estimated regression equation, considering an average initial BW of 6.5 kg, was as follows:

For G:F (Fig. 5), the best fitting model showed a QP functional form and yielded maximum G:F at an estimated 71.7% SID Val:Lys ratio [95% CI: (58, > 85)], with 99% of maximum performance achieved with 64.4% SID Val:Lys.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Nursery pig feed efficiency (G:F) dose response curve dependent on standardized ileal digestible (SID) Val:Lys ratio. Quadratic polynomial estimated 71.7% SID Val:Lys that maximized G:F [95% CI: (58, > 85)]; 99% of Maximum: 64.6% SID Val:Lys. A total of 280 nursery pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050, initially 6.5 kg BW) were used in a 28-d growth trial with 5 pigs per pen and 8 pens per treatment. Pigs were weaned at approximately 21 d, fed a common starter diet for 5 d post-weaning, then fed dietary treatments. Quadratic polynomial (QP), broken-line linear (BLL), and broken-line quadratic (BLQ) models were fit to estimate the dose response to feeding increasing SID Val:Lys.

 

The estimated QP regression equation for G:F for a pig of average initial BW (i.e., 6.5 kg) was as follows:

The lowest Val:Lys ratio used in this experiment was previously confirmed to be deficient for nursery pigs weighing 7- to 11-kg by Nemechek et al. (2014).We designed our dietary treatments to increase SID Val:Lys ratio from 50 to 85%, thus enabling dose-response modeling and estimation of requirement values at which performance can be maximized. The SID Val:Lys levels at which no further increase in performance was observed in the present experiment were 63, 74, and 72% SID Val:Lys ratio for ADG, ADFI, and G:F, respectively. Several other studies have observed similar ranges of requirement estimates across responses (Gaines et al., 2011; Nemechek et al., 2014; Soumeh et al., 2015). Specifically, Gaines et al. (2011) used single-slope broken-line methods in determining a SID Val:Lys ratio requirement estimate for 13- to 32-kg pigs and found that a ratio of 65% was sufficient for ADG and G:F. Barea et al. (2009) determined that the SID Val:Lys ratio requirement for pigs weighing approximately 12- to 25-kg post-weaned pigs was 70, 74, and 68% for ADG, ADFI, and G:F, respectively, using a linear-plateau model and 75, 81, and 68, respectively, using curvilinear-plateau models. Furthermore, Wiltafsky et al. (2009) estimated that the ideal SID Val:Lys ratio for 8- to 25-kg pigs was 65 to 67%. Nemechek et al. (2014) reported that 65% SID Val:Lys was adequate for optimal growth of 7- to 11-kg pigs. Using individually housed pigs weighing 8- to 14-kg, Soumeh et al. (2015) identified that SID Val needed to be 70% of Lys using linear and curvilinear models. Finally, the NRC (2012) suggests a 64% SID Val:Lys ratio for 7- to 11-kg nursery pigs.

An estimated range of SID Val:Lys ratio requirements is also available for heavier pigs. Waguespack et al. (2012) cite a 67 to 70% SID Val:Lys ratio requirement for 20- to 45-kg pigs. Additionally, when observing the Val:Lys ratio requirement for several weight ranges of pigs, Liu et al. (2015) cite the requirement of SID Val at 62, 66, 67, and 68% of Lys for 26- to 46-kg, 49- to 70-kg, 71- to 92-kg, and 94- to 199-kg pigs, respectively, using broken-line linear models. However, when using quadratic models, these requirements increased to 71, 72, 73, and 72% of Lys, respectively. These models sought to maximize ADG and minimize serum urea N. Lastly, Gonçalves et al. (2016b) evaluated the Val:Lys ratio requirement in a commercial research environment (25 pigs/pen) of pigs weighing 25- to 45-kg using the same modeling techniques as used in these studies and concluded that SID Val at 67% of Lys was sufficient to capture 99% of ADG and G:F.

While our estimated requirement values agree well with NRC (2012), there seems to be a wide range of discrepancies in the Val requirement values reported in the literature (Gaines et al., 2011; Barea et al., 2009). These discrepancies in estimated requirements are to be expected given 1) the differences in underlying assumptions on the functional form of the dose-response relationship made by the models used, and 2) the physiological differences between the responses considered. For instance, modeling the results for ADG returned a much lower point of maximum return using the BLL at 63% as compared to the 73% SID Val:Lys QP maximum for ADFI models, reiterating that the suggested requirement is dependent on how each response is handled via statistical models. Thus, the ability to apply subjective performance goals (i.e., 95 or 99% of maximum performance) allows nutritionists to determine an optimal AA level that may vary depending on production system goals and economics. Providing requirements for all growth response criteria enables producers to, for instance, determine where 100% of maximum ADG can be captured, while still ensuring 99% performance on another response. This will ultimately create the best scenario to optimize economic value in setting a dietary AA level. For example, formulating SID Val to 63% of Lys captures 100% of ADG performance, while also achieving 96.6 and 98.6% of ADFI and G:F performance, respectively. Thus, these responses can be considered first individually and then jointly for a more comprehensive decision making process.

 

References

Footnotes


Comments
Be the first to comment.



Please log in to post a comment.
*Society members, certified professionals, and authors are permitted to comment.