View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Minimum limits of nutritional parameters for feed formulation

 
Brazil
France
Gilts Barrows Gilts Barrows
BW, kg 30 115 30 115 30 115 30 115
NE, MJ/kg 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6
SID1 AA, g/kg
    Lysine 8.35 5.81 8.40 5.22 9.84 4.55 10.32 3.89
    Threonine 5.24 3.64 5.27 3.27 6.30 2.96 6.59 2.56
    Methionine 2.53 1.75 2.55 1.58 2.97 1.36 3.13 1.17
    Met + cystine 4.95 3.44 4.98 3.10 5.86 2.74 6.15 2.35
    Tryptophan 1.44 0.99 1.44 0.89 1.75 0.83 1.84 0.72
    Isoleucine 5.01 3.48 5.04 3.13 5.90 2.73 6.19 2.34
    Valine 5.70 3.97 5.72 3.57 6.84 3.24 7.16 2.80
    Leucine 8.35 5.81 8.40 5.22 9.84 4.55 10.32 3.89
    Phenylalanine 4.18 2.90 4.20 2.61 4.92 2.27 5.16 1.95
    Phe + tyrosine 7.94 5.52 7.98 4.96 9.35 4.32 9.80 3.70
    Histidine 2.67 1.86 2.69 1.67 3.15 1.45 3.30 1.25
    Arginine 3.51 2.44 3.53 2.19 4.13 1.91 4.33 1.64
Minerals, g/kg
    Digestible P 2.79 1.99 2.81 1.86 3.01 1.68 3.02 1.53
    Ca 5.80 4.13 5.84 3.87 8.73 4.87 8.74 4.44
1SID = standardized ileal digestible.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Parameters used to describe animal profiles in InraPorc1

 
a b Mean PD (g/d) BGompertz (d)
Brazil
    Barrows 5.31 0.0159 136 0.0118
    Gilts 4.64 0.0171 131 0.0105
France
    Barrows 5.02 0.0189 150 0.0194
    Gilts 4.45 0.0216 143 0.0171
1Ad libitum NE intake was modeled as a gamma function of BW expressing daily NE intake in multiples of NE intake above maintenance with 2 parameters “a” (dimensionless) and “b” (per kilogram BW) and “c,” a fixed parameter representing the maintenance energy requirement (0.75 MJ/kg BW0.60; van Milgen et al., 2015). Protein deposition (PD) was modeled by a Gompertz function described using mean PD and precocity (BGompertz; van Milgen et al., 2008).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 3.

Performance and N and P balance of growing-finishing pigs fed with different protein sources, in 2-phase (2P), 4-phase (4P), daily multiphase (DMP), and individual daily feeding (IDF) feeding programs, without AA addition (noAA), with AA addition and minimal CP constraints (withAA), and with AA without any CP constraint (lowCP)

 
Protein source1
Feeding program
AA inclusion
SOY MIX 2P 4P DMP IDF noAA withAA lowCP
No. batches 96 96 48 48 48 48 64 64 64
Brazil
    CP2, g/kg 144b 147a 152a 146b 143b 141b 160a 149b 126c
    ADG, kg/d 0.847a 0.844b 0.844b 0.834c 0.827a 0.878d 0.847a 0.847a 0.843b
    G:F, kg/kg 0.369 0.368 0.368b 0.363c 0.360d 0.384a 0.370a 0.369ab 0.367b
    Feed cost, €/kg ADG 0.560a 0.537b 0.562a 0.556a 0.554a 0.523b 0.573a 0.553b 0.520c
    N excretion, kg/pig 3.30b 3.41a 3.60a 3.45b 3.39b 2.98c 3.88a 3.50b 2.69c
    P Excretion, kg/pig 0.632b 0.680a 0.665 0.658 0.657 0.642 0.696a 0.670ab 0.602b
France
    CP2, g/kg 156 156 167a 159ab 156b 144c 173a 153b 144c
    ADG, kg/d 0.876b 0.902a 0.885b 0.880b 0.875b 0.915a 0.898 0.884 0.885
    G:F, kg/kg 0.365b 0.370a 0.367ab 0.365b 0.363b 0.375a 0.368 0.364 0.371
    Feed cost, €/kg ADG 0.615a 0.597b 0.634a 0.615ab 0.607b 0.569c 0.639a 0.607b 0.572c
    N excretion, kg/pig 3.81 3.69 4.16a 3.90ab 3.79b 3.17c 4.37a 3.68b 3.22c
    P Excretion, kg/pig 0.688b 0.743a 0.752a 0.725a 0.713ab 0.673b 0.728a 0.744a 0.675b
a–dMeans followed by same or no letter within group (protein source, feeding program, and AA) do not differ (P > 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
1SOY = soybean meal only; MIX = soybean meal, rapeseed meal, and pea (France), or soybean meal and meat and bone meal (Brazil).
2CP = average CP of the diet fed to the pigs.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 4.

Statistical analysis of the effects of country, origin of soybean, protein sources, feeding program, crystalline AA supplementation, and their interactions on average dietary CP content, ADG, F:G, feed cost (Feed), N excretion (N exc.), P excretion (P exc.), and potential environmental impacts on climate change (CC), acidification (AC), eutrophication (EU), cumulative energy demand (CED), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), and land occupation (LO)

 
Performance
LCA1 environmental impact
CP, g/kg ADG, g/d G:F, kg/kg Feed, €/kg BWG N exc.,kg/pig P exc., kg/pig CC,kg CO2–eq AC,g SO2–eq EU,g PO4–eq CED,MJ TE,g DCB-eq LO,m2∙yr
No. batches 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192
Mean 151 867 0.37 0.578 3.55 0.69 2.60 53.8 17.5 13.7 11.5 3.2
Root mean square error 7.5 33 0.01 0.016 0.26 0.05 0.07 2.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1
Country <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Gender <0.001 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04
Origin of soybean (OS) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Protein sources (PS) 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Feeding program (FP) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
AA sup. (AAS) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Country × PS 0.04 0.03 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Country × FP 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.04 <0.001
Country × AAS 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 <0.001
OS × PS <0.001 <0.001
OS × FP <0.001 <0.001
OS × AAS <0.001 <0.001
Country × OS × PS <0.001
Country × OS × FP
Country × OS × AAS 0.02
1LCA = life cycle assessment.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 5.

Potential environmental impacts at the farm gate per kilogram of BW gain of growing-finishing pigs fed with different protein sources in 2-phase (2P), 4-phase (4P), daily multiphase (DMP), and individual daily feeding (IDF) programs without AA addition (noAA), with AA addition and minimal CP constraints (withAA), and with AA without any CP constraint (lowCP)

 
Protein source (PS)1
Feeding program (FP)
AA inclusion
SOY MIX 2P 4P DMP IDF noAA withAA lowCP
No. batches 96 96 48 48 48 48 64 64 64
Impact category2
    CC, kg CO2–eq
        Brazil–South3 2.44a 2.36b 2.41a 2.43a 2.45a 2.31b 2.37b 2.39b 2.45a
        Brazil–Center West 2.99a 2.79b 2.96a 2.93a 2.92a 2.75b 3.00a 2.91b 2.76c
        France–South 2.34 2.32 2.34ab 2.34ab 2.35a 2.28b 2.27b 2.37a 2.35a
        France–Center West 2.93a 2.62b 2.89a 2.81ab 2.78b 2.61c 2.88a 2.78b 2.66c
    AP, g SO2–eq
        Brazil–South 58.4b 60.3a 61.2a 60.6a 60.5a 55.3b 62.4a 60.6b 55.1c
        Brazil–Center West 59.8b 61.4a 62.6a 61.9a 61.7a 56.4b 64.0a 61.9b 56.0c
        France–South 47.2 46.8 50.1a 48.3ab 47.5b 42.1c 51.0a 46.9b 43.2c
        France–Center West 48.9 47.7 51.7a 49.6ab 48.7b 43.1c 52.7a 48.0b 44.1c
    EP, g PO4–eq
        Brazil–South 17.5 17.6 18.1a 17.9a 17.8a 16.4b 18.6a 17.9b 16.1c
        Brazil–Center West 17.4 17.5 18.0a 17.8a 17.7a 16.3b 18.5a 17.7b 16.1c
        France–South 17.9a 17.3b 18.4a 18.0a 17.8a 16.3b 18.9a 17.6b 16.4c
        France–Center West 17.8a 17.3b 18.3a 17.9a 17.7a 16.3b 18.7a 17.5b 16.4c
    CED, MJ
        Brazil–South 13.3 13.1 13.3a 13.3a 13.4a 12.8b 12.6c 13.2b 13.8a
        Brazil–Center West 16.1a 15.3b 16.1a 15.9a 15.8a 15.0b 15.8ab 15.7a 15.4b
        France–South 12.2 12.2 12.5a 12.3a 12.2a 11.7b 11.5c 12.3b 12.7a
        France–Center West 14.2a 13.2b 14.4a 13.9ab 13.7b 12.9c 13.6 13.7 13.8
    TE, g 1,4-DCB-eq
        Brazil–South 9.2a 8.7b 8.9b 9.1ab 9.2a 8.4c 8.7c 8.9b 9.2a
        Brazil–Center West 9.9a 9.2b 9.6a 9.7a 9.8a 9.0b 9.5 9.6 9.6
        France–South 13.6 13.7 14.0a 13.8ab 13.7ac 13.1bd 13.6b 13.9aa 13.3b
        France–Center West 13.8 13.8 14.2a 14.0a 13.9a 13.2b 13.8a 14.1b 13.4a
    LO, m2∙yr
        Brazil–South 2.58a 2.40b 2.52a 2.52a 2.52a 2.38b 2.60a 2.49b 2.41c
        Brazil–Center West 2.52a 2.35b 2.46a 2.46a 2.47a 2.33b 2.53a 2.43b 2.33c
        France–South 4.08a 3.94b 4.03 4.04 4.05 3.93 4.15a 4.01b 3.88c
        France–Center West 4.02a 3.91b 3.97 3.98 4.00 3.89 4.09a 3.96b 3.84c
a–dMeans followed by the same or no letter within group (PS, FP, and AA) do not differ (P > 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
1SOY = soybean meal only; MIX = soybean meal, rapeseed meal, and pea (France) or soybean meal and meat and bone meal (Brazil).
2CC = climate change; AP = acidification potential; EP = eutrophication potential; CED = cumulative energy demand; TE = terrestrial ecotoxicity; LO= land occupation.
3South = soybean meal from south region of Brazil; Center West = soybean meal from the center west region of Brazil.