View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Diet composition (as-fed basis)

 
Exp. 3
Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Ingredient, %
    Corn 42.78 48.30 59.75 63.08 76.04
    Soybean meal, 46.5% CP 30.95 27.10 17.05 14.00 11.65
    Dried distillers grains with solubles 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 10.00
    Soybean oil 3.00
    Choice white grease 1.30 1.35 1.15 0.75
    Monocalcium P, 21% P 0.60 0.60
    Limestone 1.25 0.87 1.01 0.99 0.85
    Salt 0.35 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.35
    Trace mineral premix1 0.150 0.075 0.100 0.100 0.085
    Vitamin premix2 0.250 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
    Copper sulfate 0.066
    Selenium, 0.2% Se 0.015 0.015 0.015
    L-Lys×HCl 0.375 0.402 0.300 0.250 0.200
    DL-Met 0.060
    Methionine hydroxy analog 0.120
    L-Thr 0.070 0.092
    Phytase3 0.165 0.040 0.041 0.041 0.041
    Antibiotic4 0.400
    Mold inhibitor5 0.100
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Calculated analysis
Standardized ileal digestible (SID) AA, %
    Lys 1.30 1.20 0.90 0.79 0.67
    Ile:Lys 64 62 68 71 71
    Met:Lys 33 34 32 35 35
    Met + Cys:Lys 58 58 62 68 69
    Thr:Lys 62 62 61 64 64
    Trp:Lys 17.6 18 18 19 19
    Val:Lys 73 73 83 88 88
Total Lys, % 1.50 1.38 1.04 0.92 0.77
ME, kcal/kg 3,468 3,309 3,351 3,352 3,358
NE, kcal/kg 2,306 2,345 2,477 2,053 2,556
CP, % 23.9 21.9 17.7 16.5 13.7
Ca, % 0.71 0.68 0.48 0.47 0.40
P, % 0.60 0.59 0.42 0.40 0.35
Available P, % 0.43 0.41 0.28 0.27 0.22
1For Exp. 1, provided per kilogram of premix: 26.5 g Mn from manganese oxide, 110 g Fe from iron sulfate, 110 g Zn from zinc sulfate, 11 g Cu from copper sulfate, 198 mg I from calcium iodate, and 198 mg Se from sodium selenite. For Exp. 2 and 3, provided per kilogram of premix: 53.3 g Mn from manganese sulfate and manganous oxide, 134 g Fe from iron sulfate, 160 g Zn from zinc sulfate, 13.3 g Cu from copper sulfate, and 1,370 mg I from calcium iodate.
2For Exp. 1, provided per kilogram of premix: 4,409,200 IU vitamin A; 551,150 IU vitamin D3; 17,637 IU vitamin E; 1,764 mg vitamin K; 3,307 mg riboflavin; 11,023 mg pantothenic acid; 19,841 mg niacin; and 15.4 mg vitamin B12. For Exp. 2 and 3, provided per kilogram of premix: 22,046,244 IU vitamin A; 3,968,324 IU vitamin D3; 97,003 IU vitamin E; 10,288 mg vitamin K; 13,228 mg riboflavin; 61,729 mg pantothenic acid; 79,366 mg niacin; and 88 mg vitamin B12.
3For Exp. 1, Phyzyme 600 (Danisco Animal Nutrition, St. Louis, MO) provided 992 phytase units (FTU)/kg, with a release of 0.13% available P. For Exp. 2 and 3, Natuphos 2500 (BASF Corporation, Florham Park, NJ), provided 1,000 FTU/kg, with a release of 0.12% available P.
4Chlortetracycline (CTC-50).
5Propionic acid-based mold inhibitor (AMMO Kurb; Kemin Industries Inc., Des Moines, IA).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Percentage fines of pelleted diets1

 
Item Poor-quality pellet Screened pellet
Percentage fines2
Exp. 1 33 3
Exp. 2 37 5
Exp. 3
    Phase 1 44 8
    Phase 2 52 8
    Phase 3 55 10
1Feed samples were taken at the feeder for all trials. For Exp. 1 and 2, samples were pooled throughout the entire trial. For Exp. 3, samples were taken and pooled within each phase. All samples were run in duplicate for percentage fines determination.
2Fines were characterized as material that would pass through a number 6 sieve (3,360-μm openings).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 3.

Effects of diet form and feeder adjustment on nursery pig growth performance, Exp. 11

 
Minimum feeder gap opening
Diet form
Probability, P <
1.27 cm 2.54 cm SEM Meal Poor-quality pellet Pellet SEM Diet form × feeder adjustment Feeder adjustment Diet form
d 0 to 21
    ADG, g 599 611 5.55 629a 593b 593b 6.80 0.138 0.134 0.001
    ADFI, g 875 897 11.35 938a 875b 845b 13.90 0.300 0.177 0.001
    G:F 0.685 0.682 0.006 0.672b 0.678b 0.702a 0.007 0.967 0.727 0.010
BW, kg
    d 0 11.9 11.9 0.13 11.9 11.9 11.9 0.16 0.999 0.981 0.998
    d 21 24.2 24.7 0.21 25.1a 24.3b 24.3b 0.26 0.533 0.412 0.077
Pan coverage on d 21, % 41.2 94.1 2.07 66.6 71.6 64.7 2.54 .0770 0.001 0.162
a,bWithin a row, means for diet form without a common superscript significantly differ (P < 0.05).
1A total of 210 nursery pigs (PIC 1,050 × 327) were used with 7 pigs per pen and 5 pens per treatment. For the main effect of feeder adjustment, there were 15 pens (replications) per treatment. For the main effect of diet form, there were 10 pens (replications) per treatment.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 4.

Effects of diet form and feeder adjustment on nursery pig growth performance, Exp. 21

 
Minimum feeder gap opening
Diet form
Probability, P <
1.27 cm 2.54 cm SEM Meal Poor-quality pellet Pellet SEM Diet form × feeder adjustment Feeder adjustment Diet form
d 0 to 28
    ADG, g 708 730 8.65 703a 726b 730b 8.02 0.883 0.020 0.026
    ADFI, g 1,098 1,139 18.55 1,116 1,134 1,102 16.24 0.889 0.025 0.252
    G:F 0.645 0.641 0.008 0.630b 0.640b 0.663a 0.007 0.944 0.703 0.007
BW, kg
    d 0 14.2 14.1 0.09 14.2 14.1 14.1 0.08 0.996 0.929 0.984
    d 28 34.0 34.6 0.16 33.8a 34.4b 34.6b 0.15 0.867 0.024 0.048
Pan coverage on d 28, % 57.3 98.5 3.09 75.25 80.6 77.9 2.53 0.584 0.001 0.484
a,bWithin a row, means for diet form without a common superscript significantly differ (P < 0.05).
1A total of 1,005 nursery pigs (Fast × PIC sows × TR4 boars) were used with 26 to 28 pigs per pen and 6 pens per treatment. For the main effect of feeder adjustment, there were 18 pens (replications) per treatment. For the main effect of diet form, there were 12 pens (replications) per treatment.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 5.

Effects of diet form and feeder adjustment on finishing pig growth performance, Exp. 31

 
Minimum feeder gap opening
Diet form
Probability, P <
1.27 cm 2.54 cm SEM Meal Poor-quality pellet Pellet SEM Diet form × feeder adjustment Feeder adjustment Diet form
d 0 to 22
    ADG, kg 0.97 0.98 0.017 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.021 0.880 0.611 0.319
    ADFI, kg 2.19 2.30 0.040 2.35a 2.21b 2.18b 0.049 0.662 0.069 0.039
    G:F 0.442 0.427 0.004 0.415a 0.431b 0.457c 0.005 0.765 0.016 0.001
d 22 to 48
    ADG, kg 1.01 1.03 0.012 1.00a 1.05b 1.01a 0.015 0.525 0.280 0.056
    ADFI, kg 2.60 2.76 0.044 2.79a 2.74a 2.51b 0.054 0.490 0.017 0.002
    G:F 0.391 0.376 0.004 0.360a 0.385b 0.405c 0.005 0.130 0.030 0.001
d 48 to 69
    ADG, kg 0.97 0.97 0.018 0.92a 0.99b 1.00b 0.022 0.742 0.934 0.041
    ADFI, kg 3.23 3.35 0.063 3.41a 3.36a 3.10b 0.077 0.340 0.173 0.016
    G:F 0.301 0.292 0.005 0.273a 0.294b 0.323c 0.006 0.756 0.219 0.001
d 0 to 69
    ADG, kg 0.98 1.00 0.011 0.97a 0.99ab 1.00b 0.014 0.722 0.463 0.162
    ADFI, kg 2.66 2.79 0.042 2.84a 2.75a 2.58b 0.051 0.515 0.033 0.004
    G:F 0.371 0.359 0.003 0.343a 0.363b 0.390c 0.004 0.450 0.020 0.001
BW, kg
    d 0 56.8 56.8 0.69 56.8 56.8 56.8 0.84 0.999 0.994 0.999
    d 22 78.3 78.4 0.87 78.3 78.1 78.7 1.07 0.965 0.932 0.914
    d 48 104.8 105.4 1.07 104.3 105.7 105.4 1.32 0.893 0.735 0.736
    d 69 125.4 125.8 1.22 123.6 126.8 126.4 1.50 0.753 0.845 0.289
Pan coverage, %
    d 22 41.3 88.2 1.24 56.8c 72.5a 65.0b 1.52 0.060 0.001 0.001
    d 48 69.5 93.5 1.26 76.4c 87.8a 80.5b 1.03 0.188 0.001 0.001
    d 69 91.4 96.7 0.87 92.2b 95.8a 94.3ab 1.06 0.640 0.001 0.066
a–cWithin a row, means for diet form without a common superscript significantly differ (P < 0.05).
1A total of 246 finishing pigs (PIC 327 × 1,050) were used. There were 5 pens per treatment with 7 pigs and 1 replicate with 6 pigs per pen. For the main effect of feeder adjustment, there were 15 pens per treatment with 7 pigs and 3 replicates with 6 pigs per pen. For the main effect of diet form, there were 10 pens per treatment with 7 pigs and 2 replicates with 6 pigs per pen.