Optimal PayleanTM Sequence (Step-up/Step-down)
When Fed to Late-Finishing Swine

C.T. Herr1, A.P. Schinckel1, L. Watkins2, B. Weldon2, and B.T. Richert1
1Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN and 2Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN

Introduction

Previous research trials that were conducted at Purdue University with Paylean have shown that even though growth performance parameters of pigs fed Paylean stay at levels above conventionally fed pigs, performance parameters peak and slowly decline 4 to 6 weeks after animals are fed this product. Average daily gain (ADG) peaks, then plateaus until approximately day 21, followed by a decline, and lean accretion is affected in a similar way. Fat deposition rate in pigs fed Paylean declines immediately and remains lower the first 10-14 days on Paylean. During subsequent time on Paylean, fat deposition rates are lower but parallel control pigs. The effects explained above are enhanced as the level of Paylean is increased. Although the effects seen in fat deposition are desired, questions have been raised as to why growth performance and protein accretion parameters plateau and then decline. Possible explanations may include: 1) Receptors to this product begin to be desensitized when feeding a constant level of Paylean and 2) As the animal's growth potential begins to decline, so does the responsiveness to the product.

With the recent approval of Paylean to be fed to pigs from 150-240 lbs. of body weight (BW), multiple feeding regimes are being examined to identify which will maximize growth performance and carcass characteristics while minimizing cost to the producer. Most pigs receiving Paylean are fed a constant level between 4.5-18 g/ton of feed. This trial was designed to determine whether the response to Paylean could be enhanced or maintained if fed at increasing and/or decreasing intervals during the finishing phase compared to pigs that were fed a constant level throughout the finishing stage. Specific objectives of this trial were to determine whether the response could be extended if Paylean dose were increased throughout the finishing phase, and whether the response to Paylean would be maintained if Paylean dose were decreased throughout the finishing trial.

Therefore, a late-finishing study (last six weeks) was conducted to evaluate the effects of feeding a constant level of Paylean vs. a phase-feeding treatment of varying Paylean levels on ADG, average daily feed intake (ADFI), feed efficiency (F:G), fat and loin depth, carcass weight, premiums, percent yield, percent lean, and lean cut weights. This trial was conducted over a six-week period from June to July, 2000.

Experimental Procedure

Four dietary treatments were fed during the six-week period. Treatments 1 and 4 were fed constantly throughout the six-week trial, while treatments 2 and 3 were changed every two weeks. Treatments were as follows:

  1. Control diet containing no Paylean
  2. Step-down diet sequence: 18 g/ton Paylean weeks 1 and 2; 9 g/ton Paylean weeks 3 and 4; and 4.5 g/ton Paylean weeks 5 and 6
  3. Step-up diet sequence: 4.5 g/ton Paylean weeks 1 and 2; 9 g/ton Paylean weeks 3 and 4; and 18 g/ton Paylean weeks 5 and 6
  4. Constant diet containing 10.5 g/ton Paylean.

Gilts and barrows were fed the same treatments but with different dietary lysine levels. Gilts were fed a 19.6% CP diet with a 1.2% lysine level while barrows were fed an 18.5% CP diet with a 1.1% lysine level. Swine yellow grease was added to all diets at a 5% level. Diet formulations can be seen in Tables 1a and 1b.

Control animals were expected to perform at a level similar to pigs previously fed in the same facility and with similar genotype. In past trials, pigs averaged 1.9 lbs/d ADG. Using this information, and with a starting weight of approximately 158 lbs, control animals were expected to finish the six-week testing period at 238 lbs. This was also a time trial (six weeks) in which pigs were not marketed at an average weight, but after six weeks on test.

Eighty barrows and 80 gilts (PIC 355 x YxL) were blocked by weight and sex into 32 pens (5 pigs/pen; 11 ft2/pig). Each pen within a block was randomly assigned one of the four dietary treatments. Pigs were weighed and feed intakes were recorded weekly for the six-week period to determine ADG and ADFI, from which F:G was calculated. Backfat and loin eye areas were measured every two weeks on all pigs using real-time ultrasound (Aloka 500). Pigs were marketed after six weeks on test, at which time fat and loin depth, percent yield, percent lean, carcass weight, and carcass premium data were collected on 96 pigs (3/pen, 24/treatment) at a commercial slaughter facility. Pigs sent to the commercial slaughter facility were killed approximately three days after being weighed off their treatment diet, and pigs were maintained on their final diet until they were harvested. Sixty-four pigs (2/pen, 16/treatment) were brought to the Purdue University meat lab, where fat and loin depths were taken with real-time ultrasound and Fat-O-Meter technology. In addition, fat thickness, loin eye area, carcass length, pork quality characteristics, and primal and sub-primal cut weights also were collected.

Statistical analysis of the data collected was performed using the GLM procedure of SAS. Pigs were blocked by initial body weight. Dietary treatment, pig sex, and interaction were examined to determine their effects on growth and carcass characteristics. No treatment x sex interactions were detected (P>.10), therefore only treatment main effects are reported. Live weight was used as a covariate to adjust carcass parameters and characteristics to a common slaughter weight.

Results and Discussion

All pigs in the trial had very good growth performance. The control pigs grew faster than expected (2.09 lb/d vs. 1.9 lb/d), which led to the control and treated pigs being 5 to 10 pounds heavier than projected at the end of the trial. Potential reasons for this increase in performance are: 1) The test was conducted during a time when high temperatures usually decrease performance, but lower than normal summer temperature's were observed during the time pigs were on test. 2) Pigs were potentially under less disease pressure than is normally observed in the facility.

During period 1 (weeks 1 and 2), all pigs fed Paylean had improved ADG and F:G compared to those pigs fed no Paylean. Average daily gain was increased by an average of 22.9% (P<.05) for pigs fed Paylean compared to the control pigs, while F:G was improved by an average of 27.5% (P<.05). An average decrease of .15 lb/d (2.5%) ADFI was observed when comparing those pigs on Paylean treatments to control pigs. It should be noted that no significant differences were observed in ADG and F:G among those pigs fed the varying Paylean treatments, even though three different levels were being fed during this stage (Step-up = 18 g/ton; Step-down = 4.5 g/ton; Constant = 10.5 g/ton). This would indicate that at this stage of growth, animals may experience maximal sensitivity near the 4.5 g/ton level, and this level of Paylean will return approximately 80% of the growth performance as the higher levels of Paylean.

During period 2 (weeks 3 and 4), a continued improvement in growth performance was observed for pigs fed Paylean compared to those fed no Paylean, and differences between phase-feeding treatments also were seen even though pigs were fed similar Paylean levels (Step-down = 9g/ton; Step-up = 9g/ton; Constant = 10.5g/ton). No significant differences were observed in ADG between the control pigs and those on the step-down treatment. However, the step-up and constant treatments had a significant increase in ADG (.29 lbs/d; P<.05) compared to the control pigs. The step-up treatment also had a 10.8% increase in ADG (P<.05) compared to the step-down treatment. No significant difference in ADG was observed between the step-up and constant treatments during period 2. The step-up and step-down treatments also had an average decrease in ADFI of 7.2% (P<.05) compared to the control pigs. All pigs fed Paylean had a 15.5% improvement in F:G (P<.05) compared to the controls, while the step-up treatment had a 11.4% improvement (P<.05) in F:G compared to the average of the step-down and constant treatments.

During period 3 (weeks 5 and 6), the step-up treatment had a significant increase in ADG of .36 lbs/d (P<.05) compared to the step-down treatment, and an average increase of .17 lbs/d (P<.05) compared to the constant and the control treatment fed pigs. Pigs on the step-up and constant treatments had a average decrease in ADFI of .83 lbs/d compared to the control pigs, but only a numerical difference in ADFI compared to the step-down treatment. During period 3, F:G was improved by 16.4% (P<.05) for pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments compared to the step-down and control treatments.

Overall, ADG increased 10.4% for pigs fed a Paylean treatment (P<.05) compared to those fed the control diet. In addition, the step-up and constant treatments had a 12.4% (P<.05) average increase in ADG compared to the control treatment. No significant difference in ADG was observed between the step-up treatment and those pigs fed a constant diet containing 10.5 g/ton throughout the trial. The step-up treatment was the only feeding program in this trial that significantly decreased overall ADFI compared to the control pigs. Pigs fed the step-up treatment had 8.1% lower ADFI (P<.05) than control pigs. No significant differences in ADFI were observed among the control, step-down, and constant treatments. The step-up and constant treatments had significantly lower F:G compared to the step-down and control pigs. A 17.4% (P<.05) average improvement in F:G was observed for those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments compared to the control pigs, and a 7.3% improvement (P<.05) in F:G over the step-down treatment. No significant difference was detected between the step-up and constant treatments for overall F:G. This data would indicate that the step-down treatment will not maintain the growth-performance response of Paylean, but the step-up treatment improves some aspects of growth performance over the constant level of 10.5 g/ton Paylean.

As expected, cost per ton of feed increased as Paylean levels were increased in the diet (Table 1a & 1b). Cost/lb of gain however did not necessarily increase (Table 2). A significant decrease in cost/lb of live weight gain was observed in period 1 (14.4%; P<.05) when comparing the step-up treatment to the step-down and control treatments, and during period 2 (11.4%; P<.05) when comparing the step-up treatment to the other three treatments. This is a good indication that the 4.5g/ton level is the most cost-effective level (the step-down treatment was an 18 g/ton level and the constant treatment was a 10.5g/ton level during the first two weeks on trial) for the first two weeks of feeding Paylean. The significance observed during period 2 may indicate that the level of Paylean must be increased the longer the animals are fed Paylean to maintain or extend the growth response and maintain cost effectiveness of the product. Cost/lb of gain was numerically higher during period 3 in all pigs on Paylean compared to the control animals. This is due to the decline in Paylean response observed in the growth performance parameters during the 5th and 6th week on Paylean and the increase diet cost due to the added Paylean. Overall cost/lb of gain was significantly lower ($.0169) in the step-up and constant treatments compared to the step-down treatment (P<.05), and numerically lower ($.0005) than the control pigs. The pigs on the step-up and constant treatments were 11.2 lbs heavier than the control group in the same amount of time, and showed improved carcass characteristics with this decrease in cost per lb of gain.

The economics of Paylean need to be further evaluated compared to a lower dietary CP, more traditional feeding program. A more traditional feeding program, footnoted in Table 2, has significantly lower expected overall feed cost/lb of gain ($.1710/lb vs. $.2215/lb) for the control treatment animals. This feeding program included a .80% dietary lysine level for the first two weeks, and a .60% dietary lysine level for the last four weeks. These lysine levels were verified by using the NRC computer model, included in the 1998 NRC publication. A midpoint weight of 175 lbs for the first two weeks was used; feed intake used to calculate this lysine level was determined by taking the actual feed intake of the control treatment for the first two weeks and subtracting 7.5% estimated feed wastage to estimate actual nutrient intakes, and then matching ADG (2.26 lb/d) with this intake (5.66 lb/d) and feed efficiency (2.5 F:G). Lean gain determined by the model was 346 g/d for gilts and 316 g/d for barrows. The performance observed in this trial for the controls would need a .74% dietary lysine level, determined by the model, a level very close to the .80% lysine level suggested for the first two weeks.

A midpoint weight of 215 lbs was used for the next four weeks for the control pigs. Feed intake used in the model was 6.22 lb/d (actual minus 7.5% feed wastage) and ADG during this stage was 1.97 lb/d, with a 3.16 feed efficiency. Lean gain determined by the model was 244 g/d for gilts and 214 g/d for barrows. A .46% dietary lysine level was calculated by the program for the performance observed by the control pigs in the trial during this time period. A .60% dietary lysine level was used in determining the cost/lb gain during this time period as it is more typical of the industry and would provide some formulation cushion for mixing errors. A dietary energy level of 3540 kcal/kg of DE was also used in the model for both weight periods. This DE level was the actual level fed throughout this trial.

For comparison, we calculating the requirements for the constant Paylean treatment during these time periods using the NRC model. A 1.13% lysine level was calculated for the first weight period using a weight of 178 lbs, ADG of 2.83 lbs/d, and feed intake of 5.6 lbs/d (actual minus 7.5% feed wastage) for a feed efficiency of 1.98. Lean gain for gilts was 530 g/d and lean gain for barrows was 500 g/d.

Calculations for the second weight period were done using a live weight of 226 lbs, ADG of 2.09 lbs/d, and feed intake was 5.67 lbs/d (actual minus 7.5% feed wastage), resulting in a feed efficiency of 2.71. Lean gain for the gilts was 360 g/d and lean gain for barrows was 330 g/d. The NRC model calculated a .72% lysine level would be required for the second weight period for the constant treatment.

This reduction in cost/lb gain for the control pigs fed a more typical phase feeding program would yield approximately $4.28 less in total feed cost for the control pigs. This reduction in actual feed cost assumes that the control treatment pigs would gain similarly and have similar carcass characteristics if fed the reduced lysine levels and is for discretionary purposes only. However, it does raise added cost pressure for the Paylean product to be cost effective.

Carcass Data (Unadjusted)

Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 report the carcass data from this study as unadjusted. This allows the data to be analyzed as if the pigs were fed for an equal amount of time, and not to a certain market weight. Producers that utilize a production system that only allows for a certain amount of time for the animal in the finishing facility should utilize these tables to analyze the effects Paylean would have on the carcass merit of their market animals.

Table 3 reports the unadjusted values for those animals slaughtered at the Purdue University meat lab. Tenth rib backfat was decreased by .185 in (P<.05) and LEA was increased by .89 in (P<.05) for those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments compared to the step-down and control treatments. Percent lean was increased by an average of 2.75 percentage units (56.05% vs 53.3%; P<.05) when comparing the step-up and constant treatments to the step-down and control treatments, and % yield was increased in all pigs fed Paylean by 1.73 percentage units (76.94 vs 75.21; P<.05). A significant increase in % yield (77.16 vs 76.5; P<.05) was also observed between the step-up and constant treatments and those animals fed the step-down treatment. There were no significance changes in pork quality parameters (color, marbling, firmness) due to Paylean.

Data in Table 4 is a combination of the ultrasound data collected for those pigs slaughtered at the Purdue University meat lab (64 hd) and a commercial slaughter facility (95 hd). All pigs fed Paylean had an average increase in hot carcass weight (HCW) of 5.1% (P<.05) compared to those pigs fed the control diet, and the step-up treatment had an increase in HCW of 3.4% compared to the step-down treatment. All pigs fed Paylean had an average decrease of 10.3% (P<.05) in 10th rib fat depth compared to the control, and the constant treatment had a decrease of 11.5% (P<.05) in 10th rib fat depth compared to the step-down treatment. Paylean fed pigs had an average increase of .24 ins (P<.05) in loin depth compared to the controls, and the step-up and constant treatments had an average increase in loin depth of .18 in (P<.05) compared to the step-down treatment. The step-up and constant treatment had an average increase in percent lean of 1.93 percentage units (54.9 vs 53.0%; P<.05) compared to the step-down and control treatments, and all pigs fed Paylean had an average increase in carcass yield of 1.39 percentage units (77.29 vs 75.9%; P<.05) compared to the control fed pigs.

The unadjusted primal and sub-primal cut data, collected from the 64 pigs slaughtered at the Purdue University meat lab, is shown in table 5. Rough cut shoulder weights were increased by an average of 7.6% (P<.05) in all pigs fed Paylean compared to the control treatment, and the step-up treatment had a 5.5% increase in roughcut shoulder weight (P<.05) compared to the step-down and constant treatments. The step-up and constant treatments had an average increase of 9.0% (P<.05) in boston butt weight compared to the step-down and control treatments, and the step-up treatment had a .95 lb increase (P<.05) compared to the step-down and control fed pigs.

All pigs fed Paylean had a .93 lb increase in picnic weight (P<.05) compared to the control treatment. The step-up and constant treatments had an average increase of 7.2% (P<.05) in rough cut loin weight, and an average increase of 1.55 lb (P<.05) in boneless loin weight, when compared to the step-down and control treatments. Tenderloin weight was increased by 13.1% (P<.05) by those pigs fed the step-up and constant diets compared to the control treatment, and the step-up treatment had an increase in tenderloin weight of 16% (P<.05) when compared to the step-down and control fed pigs. No significant differences were seen in babyback rib weights between treatments, nor were any significant differences observed in belly weights between treatments.

All pigs fed Paylean had an average increase in rough cut ham weight of 8.8% (P<.05) compared to the control treatment, and the step-up and constant treatments had an average increase in rough cut ham weight of 2.83 lb (P<.05) compared to the step-down treatment. The semimembranosis muscle of the ham was increased in weight by 11.1% (P<.05) for those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments. All pigs fed Paylean had an average increase of 20.6% (P<.05) in the bicep femoris muscle of the ham compared to the control treatment, and the step-up and constant treatments had an average increase of 11.1% (P<.05) in the bicep femoris muscle compared to the step-down treatment. The quadriceps femoris muscle of the ham was increased by 16.6% (P<.05) by all pigs fed Paylean when compared to the control treatment, and the step-up and constant treatments had an average increase of .35 lb (P<.05) in the same muscle compared to the step-down treatment. The step-up and constant treatments also had an average increase of 16.4% (P<.05) in the semitendinosis muscle of the ham compared to the control fed pigs.

Cost and premium data for the unadjusted values are shown in table 6. Pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments had a numerically lower 42-day total feed cost of $.72 and $.19, respectively, compared to the control treatment. In addition, the step-up, constant, and control treatments had a significantly lower 42-day feed cost when compared to the step-down treatment.

All pigs fed Paylean had a higher premium/cwt of carcass, thus resulting in a higher premium/pig received. The step-up and constant treatments had a significantly higher Prem/cwt of $5.79 and $5.57, respectively, compared to the control treatment ($2.79). In total carcass premium, pigs on the step-down treatment received $1.84/pig more than the control treatment; the step-up treatment received $6.49/pig more than the control treatment; and the constant treatment received $5.87/pig more than the control treatment.

Carcass Data (Adjusted)

Data in tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 are adjusted for live weight, which adjusts the data as if all the pigs on trial were fed to an equal market weight. Producers that feed there market animals to a common final market weight should utilize these tables to determine the effects Paylean would have on the carcass merit of their pigs if fed in their production system.

Table 7 reports a summary of the data collected on the 64 animals that were killed at the Purdue University meat lab. Pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments had a significant increase (P<.05) in slaughter weights compared to the pigs on the step-down and control treatments. Pigs fed Paylean had a significantly higher hot carcass weight than the control pigs, and pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments had significantly higher (P<.05) carcass weights compared to the step-down treatment. Tenth rib back fat decreased by .23 in (P<.05) and loin eye area increased by .95 in (P<.05) for those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments compared to those fed the step-down and control treatments.

Similar results in percent lean were observed for those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments, having a 3.9 percentage unit increase in percent lean (52.7% vs 56.6%; P<.05) compared to those pigs fed the step-down and control treatments. Following the hot carcass weight data, all pigs fed Paylean had an increase in percent yield (P<.05) over the control pigs, and those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments had a significant improvement (P<.05) over those pigs fed the step-down treatment. When looking at the carcass-quality data, the pigs on the constant treatment had a significant decrease (P<.05) in color over the other three treatments, however marbling and firmness showed no significant changes due to Paylean treatment. It should be noted that this significant decrease in color is contrary to historical data, which shows that Paylean has no effect on pork quality parameters.

Real-time ultrasound data was taken at both sites in which pigs were harvested. The data taken from the Purdue University meat lab (64 hd.) and the commercial slaughter facility (95 hd.) were combined and summarized in Table 8. A significant increase (P<.05) was observed in slaughter weight for those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments compared to those fed the step-down and control treatment, and all pigs that were fed Paylean had a significantly higher hot carcass weight (HCW) than the control pigs. A significant reduction in fat depth was observed for pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments, and all pigs fed Paylean had an increase (P<.05) in loin depth. The step-up and constant treatments had an additional .135 in. increase in loin depth (P<.05) compared to the step-down treatment. All pigs fed Paylean had a higher yield (1.42 percentage units; P<.05), and those pigs on the step-up and constant diets had a significant improvement in percent lean (2.05 percentage units; P<.05) compared to those animals on the step-down and control treatments.

The primal and sub-primal cut weights were taken from one side of the carcass of those pigs killed at the Purdue University meat lab (Table 9). Pigs fed Paylean had 1.00 lb heavier shoulder weights and pigs on the step-up treatment had 1.44 lbs. heavier shoulder weights (P<.05) than pigs on the control treatment. Although no significant differences were observed in boston butt weight, all pigs on Paylean treatments had higher picnic weights (P<.05) when compared to the control treatment.

There was an increase (+1.4 lbs; P<.05) in boneless loin weights from those pigs fed the step-up and constant treatments compared to those pigs fed the control and step-down treatments. In addition, tenderloin weights significantly increased from pigs fed the step-up treatment when compared to the control pigs. Only numerical differences were seen in the rough cut loin weights between treatments. No significant differences were observed between treatments in babyback rib weights.

Roughcut ham weights were increased in pigs fed the step-up and constant Paylean treatments compared to the step-down and control treatments (P<.05). An increase of .48 lbs (P<.05) was observed in the semimembrinosous muscle of those pigs fed the step-up and constant diets compared to the pigs fed the control and step-down treatments. All pigs fed Paylean had a significant increase in biceps femoris muscle weight, with the step-up and constant treatments having an 8.6% increase in biceps femoris weight (P<.05) compared to the step-down treatment. Pigs on the step-up and constant treatments had increased quadricep femoris weights compared to the control animals, and those pigs on the constant treatment had a significant increase in quadriceps femoris weight compared to the control and step-down treatments. In addition, those pigs fed the constant level of Paylean had greater semitendinosous muscle weights (P<.05) than the pigs fed the control treatment. All pigs fed Paylean had a significant increase in total ham lean (total muscle from the ham) compared to the control treatment (+2.14 lb: P<.05), and the step-up and constant treatments had an increase in total ham lean when compared to the step-down treatment (+1.56 lb; P<.05). Overall, this data indicates that an increase in muscle is seen mainly in the loin and ham, a small improvement is seen in the shoulder, and no significant change in belly weight is observed when feeding Paylean.

Feed cost for the 42-days the animals were on test and carcass premiums received for the pigs are shown in Table 10. Animals on the step-up and constant treatments had numerically lower 42-day total feed cost of $.72 and $.19, respectively, compared to the control pigs. The step-up and constant treatments, as well as the control treatment, had a significantly lower 42-day total feed cost compared to those animals on the step-down treatment.

In addition, all pigs fed Paylean had a higher premium/cwt of carcass, thus resulting in a higher premium/pig. Pigs on the step-up and constant treatments had significantly increased premiums per hundred weight of carcass (Prem/cwt) of $5.81 and $5.58, respectively, compared to the control pigs ($2.78), the step-down treatment also had a numerical increase in premium of $3.55/cwt carcass compared to the control animals. When analyzing total premium per pig, pigs on the step-down treatment received $1.74/pig more than the control treatment; the step-up treatment received $6.19/pig more than control treatment fed pigs; and the constant treatment (10.5 g/ton Paylean fed for the entire 42 days) received $5.64/pig more than the control treatment.

Application

The response to Paylean was better maintained when the level of Paylean fed was increased every two weeks (step-up treatment), however, the response to Paylean was not maintained when decreasing the level fed every two weeks. Improvements in ADG and F:G in pigs on the step-up and constant treatments pay for the additional cost of Paylean and the elevated dietary protein levels that must be fed with the Paylean product. These results would indicate that the carcass premiums received from pigs fed the step-up and constant Paylean levels would allow for additional profit over the premiums received from control animals and enhance the economical potential of this product over current, conventional feeding programs.

 

Table 1a: Experimental Diets for Barrows

Diet

Control

4.5g/ton Payleana

9g/ton Payleana

10.5g/ton Paylean (Constant)

18g/ton Payleana

Ingredient, %

 

 

 

 

 

Corn

64.66

64.63

64.61

64.60

64.56

SBM, 48%

27.60

27.60

27.60

27.60

27.60

Fat

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

Limestone

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

Dical.

1.22

1.22

1.22

1.22

1.22

Vit/Min/Salt

.475

.475

.475

.475

.475

Lysine-HCl

.125

.125

.125

.125

.125

Paylean-9b

0.00

.025

.05

.058

0.10

 

Lys, %

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

ME, Kcal/lb

1606

1606

1605

1605

1605

CP, %

18.47

18.47

18.47

18.47

18.47

Ca, %

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

P, %

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

Cost, $/tonc

139.29

150.52

161.75

165.35

184.21

a Diets used in the step-up and step-down phase feeding treatments
b Paylean was deducted from corn based on the control diet formulation
c Ingredient prices used in calculation: Corn, $.04/lb; 48% CP SBM, $.113/lb; Fat, $.12/lb; Vit/Min/Salt, $2.30/lb; Limestone, $.05/lb; Dical, $.15/lb; Lys., $.55/lb; Paylean-9, $22.50/lb

 

Table 1b: Experimental Diets for Gilts

Diet

Control

4.5g/ton Payleana

9g/ton Payleana

10.5g/ton Paylean (Constant)

18g/ton Payleana

Ingredient, %

 

 

 

 

 

Corn

61.77

61.75

61.72

61.71

61.67

SBM, 48%

30.50

30.50

30.50

30.50

30.50

Fat

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

Limestone

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

Dical.

1.22

1.22

1.22

1.22

1.22

Vit/Min/Salt

.475

.475

.475

.475

.475

Lysine-HCl

.15

.15

.15

.15

.15

Paylean-9b

0.00

.025

.05

.058

0.10

 

Lys, %

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

ME, Kcal/lb

1605

1605

1604

1604

1604

CP, %

19.61

19.61

19.61

19.61

19.61

Ca, %

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

P, %

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

Cost, $/tonc

143.77

155.00

166.23

169.82

188.69

a Diets used in the step-up and step-down phase feeding treatments
b Paylean was deducted from corn based on the control diet formulation
c Ingredient prices used in calculation: Corn, $.04/lb; 48% CP SBM, $.113/lb; Fat, $.12/lb; Vit/Min/Salt, $2.30/lb; Limestone, $.05/lb; Dical, $.15/lb; Lys., $.55/lb; Paylean-9, $22.50/lb

 

Table 2: Effect of diet on bi-weekly ADG, ADFI, and F:G in late finishing pigs.

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrow

Gilt

# of Pigs, hd.

39

40

40

40

 

79

80

Initial Weight

158.6

158.2

158.8

158.6

1.63

161.29

155.81

Period 1 (d0-14)

ADG

2.26a

2.80b

2.70b

2.83b

.096

2.79y

2.50z

ADFI

6.17a

6.03a

5.96a

6.08a

.190

6.51y

5.62z

F:G

2.78a

2.16b

2.23b

2.15b

.083

2.38

2.28

Cost/lb gain,$*

.1965bc

.2013c

.1702a

.1802ba

.006

.1882

.1859

Period 2 (d14-28)

ADG

2.01a

2.13ab

2.36c

2.24bc

.058

2.19

2.18

ADFI

6.61a

6.22b

6.05b

6.33ab

.141

6.64y

5.97z

F:G

3.29a

2.94b

2.56c

2.84b

.090

3.06y

2.76z

Cost/lb gain,$*

.2326b

.2412b

.2100a

.2376b

.007

.2391y

.2216z

Period 3 (d28-42)

ADG

1.92b

1.74a

2.10c

1.94b

.049

1.90

1.95

ADFI

6.85a

6.29ba

6.04b

6.00b

.199

6.54y

6.05z

F:G

3.58a

3.62a

2.89b

3.13b

.135

3.47y

3.14z

Cost/lb gain,$*

.2531a

.2766a

.2693a

.2621a

.011

.2758

.2548

Overall (d0-42)

ADG

2.09a

2.22b

2.36c

2.34bc

.043

2.31y

2.19z

ADFI

6.54a

6.18ab

6.01b

6.14ab

.155

6.56y

5.88z

F:G

3.13a

2.79b

2.55c

2.62c

.055

2.85y

2.69z

Cost/lb gain,$*

.2215ab

.2334b

.2136a

.2195a

.004

.2255

.2185

 

Final Wt.

243.3a

247.4ab

255.8c

253.2bc

2.56

254.57y

245.31z

Slaughter Wt.

246.7a

250.7ab

259.1c

256.4bc

2.35

258.2y

248.2z

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
y,z Sex means with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
* Cost of Paylean included for those diets containing Paylean
- Pen is unit of measurement
- Calculated cost/lb gain for control pigs fed a more traditional .80% lys during period 1 and a .6% lys during periods 2 and 3 are: Period 1 = $.1684, Period 2 = $.1657, Period 3 = $.1798, Overall = $.1710

 

Table 3: Effect of Paylean on ribbed carcass characteristics in late finishing pigs

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrow

Gilt

# of pigs, hd.

16

16

16

16

 

32

32

Slaughter BW, lbs

247.9a

251.5a

261.7b

257.6b

2.24

258.6y

250.7z

HCW, lbs

186.3a

192.3b

201.6c

199.1c

1.72

197.5y

192.2z

10th Rib BF, in.

.91a

.91a

.73b

.76b

.052

.85

.80

LEA, in

7.09a

7.33a

8.14b

8.06b

.275

7.75

7.56

% Lean

53.18a

53.41a

56.22b

55.89b

.926

54.43

54.92

% Yield

75.21a

76.50b

77.03c

77.29c

.414

76.36

76.66

Color**

2.47a

2.50a

2.24ab

2.07b

.156

2.25

2.39

Marbling**

1.97a

1.96a

1.79a

1.68a

.160

1.87

1.83

Firmness**

2.44a

2.19a

2.11a

1.98a

.184

2.20

2.15

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
y,z Sex means with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
** Scores determined on a 1-5 scale (NPPC, 1991)
- Not adjusted for slaughter weight

 

Table 4: Effect of Paylean on plant carcass characteristics in late finishing pigs

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrow

Gilt

# of pigs, hd.

39

40

40

40

 

79

80

Slaughter BW, lbs

246.7a

250.7ab

259.1c

256.4bc

2.45

257.3y

252.6z

HCW, lbs

187.2a

193.4b

200.2c

198.3bc

2.09

199.1y

190.5z

10th Rib Fat Depth, in.

.81a

.78b

.71bc

.69c

.032

.76y

.69z

Loin Depth, in

2.35a

2.47b

2.66c

2.63c

.065

2.49

2.46

% Lean

52.63a

53.36a

54.89b

54.96b

.460

53.52

54.45

% Yield

75.90a

77.16b

77.35b

77.33b

.428

77.09

76.74

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
y,z Sex means with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
- 10th Rib fat depth and loin depth collected using real time ultrasound
- Not adjusted for slaughter weight

 

Table 5: Effect of Paylean on Primal and Sub-primal cuts in late-finishing pigs

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrow

Gilt

# of pigs, hd.

16

16

16

16

 

32

32

Shoulder

Rough Cut Weight, lbs

19.55a

20.62b

21.92c

20.94b

.346

21.27y

20.24z

Boston Butt, lbs

8.13a

8.53ab

9.28c

8.89bc

.258

8.96y

8.46z

Picnic, lbs

6.24a

7.00b

7.44b

7.08b

.211

6.94

6.94

Loin

Rough Cut Loin, lbs

22.66a

23.37a

24.86b

24.48b

.422

24.48y

23.21z

Boneless Loin, lbs

8.93a

9.56a

10.83b

10.75b

.262

10.19

9.84

Tenderloin, lbs

.85a

.88ab

1.03c

.96bc

.035

.93

.93

Babyback Ribs

1.08a

1.13a

1.17a

1.09a

.053

1.09

1.14

Belly

Rough Cut Belly, lbs

17.64a

17.80a

17.99a

18.22a

.396

18.14

17.69

Spare Ribs, lbs

3.42a

3.84a

3.71a

3.77a

.280

3.85

3.53

Trimmed Belly, lbs

10.32a

10.09a

10.47a

10.70a

.393

10.46

10.32

Ham

Rough Cut, lbs

23.20a

24.29b

26.21c

25.85c

.395

25.10

24.68

Semimembranosis, lbs

4.05a

4.13a

4.67b

4.53b

.134

4.39

4.30

Biceps Femoris, lbs

3.89a

4.37b

4.88c

4.83c

.105

4.47

4.52

Quadriceps Femoris, lbs

2.62a

2.91b

3.27c

3.25c

.097

3.02

3.01

Semitendinosis, lbs

1.13a

1.23ab

1.31b

1.32b

.048

1.28

1.22

Total Ham Lean, lbs

16.52a

17.76b

19.84c

19.42c

.418

18.50

18.28

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
y,z Sex means with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
- Not adjusted for slaughter weight

 

Table 6: Effect of Paylean on Cost/Premium (not adjusted for slaughter weight) in late finishing pigs.

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrows

Gilts

HCW, lbs

187.2a

193.4b

200.2c

195.6bc

2.09

199.1y

190.5z

Cost/lb gain, $ **

.2215ab

.2334b

.2136a

.2195a

.004

.2255

.2185

Feed cost for 42 days on test, $ **

19.94a

21.01b

19.22a

19.75a

.404

20.30

19.66

Prem/cwt carcass, $

2.79a

3.55a

5.79b

5.57b

.491

4.21

4.64

Prem/pig, $

5.16a

7.00a

11.65b

11.03b

1.00

8.44

8.98

Value over control, $

0.00

1.84

6.49

5.87

 

 

 

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
y,z Sex means with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
** Cost of Paylean included for those diets containing Paylean
- Premiums figured by using % lean and HCW from table 4, and applying them to a premium grid from a commercial slaughter facility
- Calculated cost/lb gain for control pigs fed a more traditional .80% lys during period 1 and a .60% lys during periods 2 and 3 are: Period 1 = $.1684, Period 2 = $.1657, Period 3 = $.1798, Overall = $.1710

 

Table 7: Effect of Paylean on ribbed carcass characteristics in late finishing pigs

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrows

Gilts

# of Pigs, hd.

16

16

16

16

 

32

32

Slaughter BW, lbs

247.9a

251.5a

261.7b

257.6b

2.24

258.6y

250.7z

HCW, lbs*

190.5a

194.3b

197.3c

197.3c

1.11

195.0

194.7

10th Rib BF, in.*

.95a

.93a

.68b

.74b

.055

.83

.82

LEA, in*

7.05a

7.31a

8.17b

8.08b

.302

7.77

7.54

% Lean*

52.40a

53.05a

57.01b

56.23b

.423

54.88

54.47

% Yield*

74.82a

76.32b

77.43c

77.46c

.432

76.59

76.43

Color**

2.55a

2.53a

2.15ab

2.03b

.168

2.20

2.44

Marbling**

2.03a

1.98a

1.72a

1.65a

.174

1.83

1.86

Firmness**

2.43a

2.18a

2.12a

1.98a

.202

2.21

2.15

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
y,z Sex means with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
* Adjusted for slaughter weight
** Scores determined on a 1-5 scale (NPPC, 1991)
- Data obtained from Purdue University meat lab

 

Table 8: Effect of Paylean on plant carcass characteristics in late finishing pigs

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrow

Gilt

# of Pigs, hd.

39

40

40

40

 

79

80

Slaughter BW, lbs

246.7a

250.7ab

259.1c

256.4bc

1.84

257.3y

252.6z

HCW, lbs*

191.8a

195.0b

195.5b

195.6b

1.00

195.0

193.9

10th Rib Fat Depth, in.*

.79a

.77a

.66b

.67b

.029

.75

.70

Loin Depth, in*

2.31a

2.44b

2.58c

2.57c

.040

2.47

2.48

% Lean*

52.64a

53.31a

55.05b

54.99b

.423

53.75

54.25

% Yield*

75.85a

77.18b

77.31b

77.33b

.400

77.12

76.72

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
y,z Sex means with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
* Adjusted for slaughter weight
- 10th Rib fat depth and loin depth collected using real time ultrasound
- Combined data from Purdue University meat lab and the commercial slaughter facility

 

Table 9: Effect of Paylean on Primal and Sub-primal cuts in late-finishing pigs

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrows

Gilts

# of Pigs, hd.

16

16

16

16

 

32

32

Shoulder

Rough Cut Weight, lbs *

20.01a

20.83ab

21.45b

20.74ab

.342

21.00

20.51

Boston Butt, lbs *

8.32a

8.62a

9.09a

8.81a

.275

8.85

8.56

Picnic, lbs *

6.42a

7.08b

7.26b

7.01b

.223

6.83

7.05

Loin

Rough Cut Loin, lbs *

23.17a

23.60a

24.34a

24.26a

.425

24.18

23.50

Boneless Loin, lbs *

9.03a

9.60a

10.73b

10.71b

.286

10.14

9.90

Tenderloin, lbs *

.86a

.88a

1.02b

.96ab

.038

.93

.93

Babyback Ribs *

1.10a

1.14a

1.14a

1.08a

.038

1.07

1.16

Belly

Rough Cut Belly, lbs *

18.27a

18.09a

17.33a

17.95a

.369

17.77

18.05

Spare Ribs, lbs *

3.44a

3.86a

3.69a

3.76a

.308

3.83

3.54

Belly, lbs *

10.75a

10.28a

10.02a

10.51a

.402

10.21

10.57

Ham

Rough Cut, lbs *

23.62a

24.48a

25.78b

25.67b

.407

24.86

24.92

Semimembranosis, lbs *

4.07a

4.14a

4.65b

4.52b

.147

4.37

4.31

Biceps Femoris, lbs *

3.98a

4.41b

4.79c

4.79c

.110

4.42

4.57

Quadriceps Femoris, lbs *

2.71a

2.95ab

3.18bc

3.21c

.102

2.96

3.06

Semitendinosis, lbs *

1.15a

1.24ab

1.29ab

1.31b

.052

1.27

1.23

Total Ham Lean, lbs *

16.78a

17.88b

19.57c

19.30c

.449

18.34

18.43

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
* Adjusted for slaughter weight

 

Table 10: Effect of Paylean on Cost/Premium in late finishing pigs.

 

Control

Step-down

Step-up

Constant

Std. Error

Barrows

Gilts

HCW, lbs *

191.8a

195.0b

195.5b

195.6b

1.00

195.0

193.9

Cost/lb gain, $ **

.2215ab

.2334b

.2136a

.2195a

.004

.2255

.2185

Feed cost for 42 days on test, $ **

19.94a

21.01b

19.22a

19.75a

.404

20.30

19.66

Prem/cwt carcass, $ *

2.78a

3.55a

5.81b

5.58b

.525

4.22

4.63

Prem/pig, $ *

5.31a

7.05a

11.50b

10.95b

1.02

8.31

9.09

Value over control, $

0.00

1.74

6.19

5.64

 

 

 

a,b Means in a row with different superscript differ, P<.05 (pdiff)
* Adjusted for slaughter weight
** Cost of Paylean included for those diets containing Paylean
- Premiums figured by using % lean and HCW from table 8, and applying them to a premium grid from a commercial slaughter facility
- Calculated cost/lb gain for control pigs fed a more traditional .80% lys during period 1 and a .60% lys during periods 2 and 3 are: Period 1 = $.1684, Period 2 = $.1657, Period 3 = $.1798, Overall = $.1710


If you have trouble accessing this page because of a disability, please email anscweb@purdue.edu