Optimizing Energy Formulation for Finishing Swine

James Usry Roger Campbell Dave Burnham

Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. Bunge Meats, Ltd. Ajinomoto Heartland Inc.

Introduction
The energy content of feeds is a major determinant of pig performance and consequently, is the
single most important and expensive component of the diet. Therefore, from a financial point of
view, it is important to accurately determine the energy value of ingredients. However, the most
significant economic value for the feed formulator to decide on, is the total energy level of the
complete diet.

The objective of this paper is to review recent experiments designed to establish responses of pigs
to dietary energy and to develop a simple model that estimates the economic value of energy in
finishing swine diets. In other words - what is the most economic/ profitable dietary energy level to
feed?

Current Energy Systems

Figure 1. Energy utilization in pigs (Noblet, 1995)

Gross energy (100.0)

Dce = 82% Feces (18.0)

Digestible energy (82.0)

ME / DE = 96% Urine (3.0)

Methane (0.3)

Metabolizable energy (78.7)

k = 74% Heat (20.5)

Net energy (58.2)

The most commonly used energy systems today are digestible (DE) and metabolizable (ME). In
Europe, thanks to Dr. Jean Noblet, the Net Energy Systems (NE) is now being widely used. Table
1 compares the different energy values of some commonly used ingredients.
If one were to take the approach that the energy value of an ingredient was a good indicator of the
economic value of that ingredient, then Table 1 shows that tallow is worth between 2 and 2.5 times
the value of corn and that wheat midds are worth between 60 and 70% of corn. This is the
approach that most least cost formulation packages use and it is appropriate for a medium range
energy diet (i.e. corn/sbm). It’s simply a matter of replacing the energy in corn with a less
expensive energy source.

In the US, it is common to reduce the energy content of diets in finishing pigs in order to try and
reduce backfat (Johnston et al., 1996). This recommendation was developed from data collected
several years ago on genotypes that were not very lean and diets that may not have been
adequate (i.e. not balancing the amino acids to the energy content of the diet). Is the energy value
of a typical corn/sbm diet the most appropriate for the newer lean growth genetics?

Table 1. Energy values for commonly used ingredients (Noblet, 1995)

(Mcal/kg DM) DE ME NE
Ingredients DE ME NE to corn to corn to corn
Corn 3.99 3.92 3.10 100 100 100
Wheat 3.90 3.81 2.94 98 97 95
Tallow 8.54 8.46 7.52 214 216 243
SBM 4.12 3.72 2.26 103 95 73
Midds 2.76 2.62 1.87 69 67 60

In the US, the ME system is the most commonly used. To justify a change in energy systems, one
must see the benefit of such a change. However, with our present day practical formulations using
corn and sbm, the NE system parallels the ME system (see Figure 2). As long as the two systems
parallel each other there is really no benefit in changing from one system to the other.

Figure 2. Energy system comparison

Noblet, 1995

4.2
ME
4
Energy (Mcal/kg DM)

3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2 NE
3
2.8
2.6
6% Fat Corn/SBM 10% Wheat Bran

ME NE
However, when the CP level of the diet changes, the NE:ME ratio does not remain constant. This
is also true in Europe where by-products are commonly used ingredients. There will also become
a time when the third, fourth and fifth limiting amino acids will become economical to consider in
diet formulation in the US.

Under these situations when the NE:ME ratios differ, a change from the current ME system to the
more sophisticated NE system is warranted.

Effective Energy System

The Effective Energy System has not received the same level of attention as the other systems.
The effective energy system differs in that it pulls out from the energy pool of the diet, the amino
acids that will be deposited directly as protein in the animal. The remaining energy in the diet is
then available to be used to drive protein and fat accretion and to maintain body functions. This is
a modified NE system mainly used by modelers. It requires a lot of information about the diet as
well as the genotype.

Although current least cost software technology does not allow one to formulate diets
using this system, the system can be used to evaluate diets once formulated (for more information
see Emmans, 1994).

Recent Energy Density Studies

University of IL (Stein and Easter, 1996)

An experiment was conducted at the University of Illinois to examine the hypothesis that carcass
lean can be increased by diluting the dietary energy concentration of ad libitum fed finishing pigs.

One hundred and fifty PIC barrows (approximately 54 kg) were allotted to one of five treatment
groups. Five energy levels were examined (Table 2). All pigs were slaughtered at approximately
112 kg.

Table 2. University of IL’s experimental diets

Diet # 1 2 3 4 5

Ingredients (%)
Corn 67.85 75.9 62.5 49.4 36.15
SBM (48%) 24.4 22.0 17.5 12.9 8.4
Soy oil 5.5
Wheat Bran 10.0 20.0 30.0
CGF 5.0 10.0 15.0
Alfalfa Meal 3.0 6.0 9.0
Vit&Mins 2.25 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.45
Calculated
Nutrients
ME (Mcal/kg) 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7
T LYS (g/Mcal) 2.60 2.60 2.58 2.52 2.48
D LYS (g/Mcal) 2.10 2.10 1.98 1.86 1.70
The results from the experiment are shown in Table 3. Tenth rib backfat decreased from 21.6 mm
(0.85 inches) on the high energy diet to 17.8 mm (0.70 inches) on the low energy diet. There was
no significant difference in LEA across treatments. Therefore, the calculated percent lean
increased from 50.5% to 52% from the high energy treatment to the low energy treatment. It is
interesting to note that the lower ADG’s on the low energy diets were associated with a lower
average daily lean gain.

Table 3. Results from the University of IL growth experiment*

Diet # 1 2 3 4 5

Initial weight (kg) 53.9 54.7 54.4 53.6 54.1

Final weight (kg) 113.8 113.9 111.8 112.9 111.2
Average daily gain (g) 1017a 1038a 1006ab 931bc 872c
Feed intake (kg/day) 2.91a 3.28b 3.36b 3.23b 3.31b
Energy intake, (Mcal/day) 10.17ab 10.83a 10.41a 9.36bc 8.93c
Gain:feed (kg/kg) 0.35a 0.32b 0.30bc 0.29c 0.26d
Gain:feed (g/Mcal) 100 96 97 100 98
Dressing (%) 75.97a 74.9 ab 74.56bc 73.96c 73.51c
10th Rib fat (mm) 21.6 a 21.8 a 19.8 ab 17.8 b 17.5 b
Loin Eye Area (cm 2) 36.8 35.9 36.6 36.3 34.5
Carcass lean (%) 50.78ab 50.42b 51.72ab 52.32a 52.0 ab
Avg. Daily lean gain (g) 392a 382ab 386ab 358bc 330c
Tot. Lysine Intake (g/d) 26 28 27 24 22
Dig. Lysine Intake (g/d) 21 23 21 17 15
*Values with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05)

The carcass yield was also significantly influenced by energy concentration (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Effect of Energy Density on Dressing Percentage

Carcass Weight, kg

90

88
86.5
85.3
86

83.4 83.5
84
81.7
82

80
1 2 3 4 5
Treatment
It should be noted that treatments 4 and 5 only contained 2.5 g Lys/Mcal ME whereas treatments
1, 2 and 3 contained 2.6 g Lys/Mcal ME. With this in mind, the pigs on the first three treatments
were not significantly fatter at 10th Rib (P < 0.05). They ate the same level of energy and grew at
the same rate (P < 0.05). The FCR was improved by their adjustment in average daily feed intake.

Spanish Study (Lopez-Bote, et al., 1997)

The effect of increasing the energy concentration of G/F pig diets through inclusion of lard on
performance and carcass traits was studied.

Seven hundred twenty Landrace x LW pigs (same number of males and females) initially weighing
30 kg were fed ad-libitum one of the two diets in Table 4. The animals were slaughtered at 90 kg.

Table 4. Composition of experimental diets for Spanish Study

Ingredients (%) Low Fat High Fat

Barley 75.9 69.1

SBM (44%) 20.6 19.1
Sunflower Meal - 4.0
Lard 0.7 4.9
Salt 0.4 0.4
Limestone 0.7 0.7
Dical 1.1 1.1
VTM 0.5 0.5
L-Lysine 0.03 0.09
Calculated Nutrients
Lysine (%) .78 .82
ME (Mcal/kg) 3.0 3.2
Lys:ME (g/Mcal) 2.6 2.6

Table 5 shows that dietary treatment did not affect weight gain, but modified feed intake (P =
0.0196) and consequently, the FCR (P= 0.001). Dressing percentage (P = 0.0143) and carcass
weight (P < 0.01) were higher in animals fed the high fat diet. Lean percentage was not markedly
affected by dietary treatment. Backfat at the last rib was slightly higher in pigs fed the high fat diet,
but not significantly (P = .08).

Table 5. Results from the Spanish experiment*

Sex Diet

Gilts Boars Low Fat Hi Fat

a b
Initial wt. (kg) 30.26 30.65 30.39 30.53
Final wt. (kg) 87.58a 91.65b 89.09 90.14
Daily gain (kg/d) 0.68a 0.73b 0.70 0.71
Feed Intake (kg/d) 1.76 1.75 1.78a 1.73b
FCR 2.57a 2.42b 2.55a 2.44b
Energy Intake (Mcal/d) 5.50 5.32
Carcass wt. (kg) 72.14 73.71 72.13a 73.75b
Yield (%) 79.64a 78.59b 78.75a 79.46b
Last rib fat (mm) 14.15 14.10 13.61 14.63
Lean (%) 55.47 55.31 55.73 55.04
*Values with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)
This study shows the same response as the University of Illinois data. The pigs adjusted feed
intake to achieve a constant level of energy and consequently grew at the same rate. Carcass
yield on the other hand increased with the energy level of the diet. Backfat also increased slightly
by 1 mm (0.04 inches).

PIC USA (Boyd and Johnston, Technical Report 48, 1997)

An experiment was conducted with 240 PIC 327 x Camborough 22 progeny on feeding a high
energy dense diet to G/F pigs. Castrate and female pigs of 25 kg were allocated to either a 3.3 or
3.5 Mcal ME/kg diet. A five phase feeding program was fed to127 kg (see Table 6).

Table 6. Experimental diets for PIC trial

Control Energya High Energyb

NRC ME Lysine NRC ME Lysine

Phase (kg) (Mcal/kg) (%) (Mcal/kg) (%)
27 - 36 3.35 1.12 3.51 1.17
36 - 54 3.29 1.02 3.49 1.09
54 - 73 3.29 .94 3.49 1.00
73 - 95 3.29 .86 3.49 .94
95 - 127 3.29 .73 3.49 .78
a
Contains 7.5 - 10% wheat midds. Corn-soy diet has 3.3 Mcal ME/kg
b
Contains - 3.5% added fat

Table 7. Impact of energy level on performance for PIC triala

Energy Level

Item Control High Energy

Start wt., (kg) 24 25

Final wt., (kg) 128 129
Gain (kg/d)b .844 .885
Efficiency (F/G)c 3.15 2.98
Intake (kg/d) 2.66 2.64
Energy intake (Mcal/d)c 8.73 9.18
Start Pen CV (%) 16.3 15.5
Final Pen CV (%) 8.0 7.3
RTUS BF P2 (mm)b 19.3 21.6
FOM BF (mm)b 19.5 22.4
FOM loin depth (mm) 61.0 60.4
FOM lean (%)b 54.3 52.5
Carcass yield (%)* 75.20 76.60
a
120 pigs allotted per treatment , sex balanced death loss, 5 total
Covariate = end wt for RTUS BF; hot carcass wt as covariate for FOM
b
Energy level, P < .01
c
Energy level, P < .05
*Personal communication (Mike Johnston, PIC USA); P=0.07 and end weight
as covariate.
The results of the PIC experiment are presented in Table 7. The feed intake of pigs offered both
energy levels remained the same indicating that social or physical conditions within the pen kept
the pigs from adjusting FI to a constant energy intake. This effect was not seen in the first two
studies.

In summary, the pigs on the high energy diet consumed more energy (P < 0.05) and grew faster
(P < 0.01), FCR was improved on the high energy diet (P < 0.05), and FOM backfat increased by
3 mm (P < 0.01). Carcass yield was improved with energy density (P = 0.07).

Bunge Meat Ltd. - Australia (Campbell, R.G., Internal Research Report, 1997)

The experiment was designed to evaluate the effects of dietary DE content on dressing
percentage. One hundred and fifty female pigs (3 replications/ treatment) with an average starting
weight of 65 kg were allotted to one of five treatments (see Table 8). The pigs were selected
based on age, weight and ultra-sound backfat. The diets were formulated to 1.84 g available
lysine per Mcal DE. The experiment was terminated when the first pen reached an average weight
of 105 kg (49 days).

Table 8. Composition of experimental diet for Bunge trial

Dietary DE content (Mcal/kg)

Diet Ingredients 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

Wheat 5.1 23.5 42.0 60.5 78.9

Barley 80.0 60.7 41.5 22.1 3.0
Canola Meal 10.0 9.3 8.5 7.8 7.1
Hipro Meatmeal 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.9 3.3
Tallow - 1.2 2.3 3.4 4.5
L-Lysine 0.08 .13 .18 .23 .29
Threonine - .02 .04 .06 .09
Other Min + Vitamins 3.32 3.25 2.98 3.01 2.82

Table 9. Results of Bunge study (Pigs fed for 49 days)

Dietary DE content (Mcal/kg) Significance

2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 (P = )

Daily gain (g) 676b 782ab 826a 825a 876a 0.05

Feed intake (kg/d) 2.33 2.58 2.57 2.48 2.49 NS
Energy intake (Mcal/d) 6.85 7.95 8.29 8.35 8.75
Feed:gain 3.45c 3.27bc 3.11b 2.96b 2.84a 0.05
Final weight (kg) 96.6 b 99.9 b 102.4 ab 105.8 ab 105.2 a 0.05
Carcass weight (kg) 76.5 b 79.8 b 82.4 ab 84.7 ab 85.8 a 0.05
Dressing percentage (%) 79.6 cd 79.8 c 80.5 bc 81.0 b 82.0 a 0.05
P2 (mm) 11.6 a 12.8 ab 14.3 b 13.9 b 14.1 b 0.05
a,b,c,d
Treatment means followed by a different superscript letter are significantly different (P < .05)
The results from the Bunge trial (Table 9) were similar to those from the PIC experiment in that
pigs did not eat to a specific energy intake but rather to a specific feed intake. This is probably
what happens under commercial conditions, when maximum feed intake is set by physical and/or
behavioral factors. The results indicate that, the higher the energy density, the more energy pigs
eat and the faster they grow. The better growth rate/throughput responses to the higher energy
diets are likely to be more pronounced in commercial situations because feed intake is often
limited by physical rather than physiological reasons. The closer an animal approaches its ‘real’
energy demand, the lower the growth rate responses to dietary energy (R.G. Campbell, personal
communication, 1997).

The ADG response was most obvious at the two lowest energy levels, but FCR continued to
improve linearly with increasing energy density (P < 0.05) to the highest level tested. Dressing
percentage increased with energy density (P < 0.05). There was also an increase in P2 backfat (P
< .05) but only from 2.9 to 3.2 Mcal DE/kg. P2 backfat remained constant from 3.2 to 3.5 Mcal/kg.

Model Development

From the research presented in this paper, it is safe to assume:

I. When amino acids are balanced to the energy level of the diet, pigs of modern
genotypes do not appear to become excessively fat with high energy diets.

I. Feed conversion is improved with high energy diets. If pigs eat to a constant level
of intake, growth rate is increased. If pigs eat to a constant energy level, feed intake
is reduced. In either instance, FCR is improved.

I. Carcass yield seems to increase with higher dietary energy. This effect seems to
hold true either if, pigs are fed high energy diets through both the grower and
finisher phases, or just during the finishing stage (above 50 kg). This effect also
seems to hold true whether or not pigs are fed to a constant weight or to a fixed
number of days. End weight also does not appear to be a factor (studies from 90 -
127 kg).

These assumptions will form the basis of the simple economic model developed here.

Prediction of carcass yield

The effect of energy density on yield, for the four studies presented here is plotted in Figure 4.

Two regression equations are presented for the University of Illinois data. As stated previously,
the lowest two energy levels were not completely balanced to the same concentrations of lysine
per Mcal of ME. Therefore, only the three highest levels of energy were used in the final analysis.
In the Bunge and the Lopez-Bote studies’ dressing percentage included ‘head-on’ while the PIC
and University of Illinois data are with ‘head-off’.
 Figure 4. Energy Density and Yield
82 BUNGE
DP (%) = 4.185*DE (Mcal/kg) + 67.08
R 2 =0.96
80

Dressing %
78 LOPEZ-BOTE
DP (%) = 3.72*ME (Mcal/kg) +67.7
PIC
DP (%) = 7.00*ME (Mcal/kg) +52.1

IL - 5 POINTS
76 DP (%) = 2.93*ME (Mcal/kg) +65.45
R 2 =0.96

74 IL - 3 POINTS
DP (%) = 3.68*ME (Mcal/kg) +62.98
R 2 =0.92

72
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Energy Density (Mcal ME/kg)

PIC data yielded the highest slope of 7.00 (DP /(Mcal ME/kg)) while the slopes of the other three
studies yielded between 3.68 and 4.19 (DP/(Mcal ME/kg)). Conservatively, 3.68 (DP/(Mcal
ME/kg)) was chosen for the model. Since only two studies with heads-off were examined, the
average intercept of these two studies will be used (i.e. 63.4%). Also note - if only the two highest
energy density levels were analyzed (going from a typical corn/sbm diet to a high fat diet), the
slope of the relationship almost doubles from our conservative estimate (PIC - 7.0, Univ IL - 5.4
and Bunge 5.0 DP/(Mcal/kg)).

Dressing % = 3.68 x ME (Mcal/kg) + 63.4

For example, assuming a typical corn/sbm diet contains 3.3 Mcal ME/kg and a 5% added fat diet
contains 3.5 Mcal ME/kg, then yield would be predicted to increase by 0.8%. On a 120 kg live
weight pig that would yield 1.0 kg more carcass.

Predictions of FCR

Assuming that a typical corn/sbm diet contains 3.3 Mcal ME/kg and this should be used as the
standard when deciding on the energy level to formulate to, then an adjustment factor can be
calculated to predict the expected change in FCR for a given energy level. This adjustment
was made in order to incorporate FCR’s of pigs during different weight periods. For example,
if the energy density of the diet changes from 3.3 to 3.5 ME Mcal/kg, the equation in Figure 5
would yield 0.99 for a 3.3 Mcal/kg diet and 0.925 for a 3.5 Mcal ME/kg diet. This means that
one would expect a 6.5% improvement (i.e. 99-92.5=6.5%) in FCR by formulating to the 3.5
Mcal ME/kg level.

It is interesting to note that the PIC USA experimental pigs became fatter on the high energy diet.
This is reflected in the FCR adjustment factor. If a regression line for FCR with ME was
constructed using only the two points of this study, the slope of the adjustment factor would not be
as steep (-0.25 rather than -0.33). However, if the University of Illinois data for the two highest
energy data points were used for the analysis, the slope would be steeper (-0.40). The pigs within
the University if Illinois trial did not get fatter on the higher energy diet.

Figure 5. Energy and FCR

1.15
IL
1.1
FCR Adj. Factor

Spanish
1.05
PIC
1

0.95 Bunge
Adj Fact=-0.33*ME(Mcal/kg)+2.08
2
R =0.98
0.9 Model
2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
ME (Mcal/kg)

Carcass Quality

In this simple model the assumption is that carcass quality does not change significantly,
when increasing energy density, if the diet is balanced to the same concentration of lysine per
Mcal of ME. In the University of Illinois study, 10th rib backfat remained the same for the 3.3
and 3.5 Mcal ME/kg diets (21.8 to 21.6 mm, respectively). In the Spanish study, the pigs on
the barley-no-fat diet measured 13.6 mm of last rib backfat while the pigs on the barley-fat diet
measured 14.6 mm. During the PIC experiment, the pigs put on 3 mm more backfat on the
high energy diet than they did for the lower energy diet. The Bunge pigs did not get fatter at
P2 above 3.2 Mcal DE/kg. In only one of the four studies was the carcass quality affected at
the higher energy density. This aspect is important when it comes to economics and one
should evaluate this under their own particular situation and carcass value packer matrix.
Example calculation

Table 10 contains the two diets to be compared. Each contains 2.6 grams of lysine per Mcal ME.

Table 10. Example diets for economical comparison

Ingredient Cost ($/kg) Hi Energy (%) Med Energy (%)

Corn .1045 70.34 77.95

L-Lysine 2.205 .14 .16
SBM 48% 0.22 21.66 19.00
Fat 0.418 5 -
Other 0.3 2.86 2.89
Cost ($/kg) 0.154 0.138
Calculated Nutrient Composition

NCR ME (Mcal/kg) 3.53 3.31

Lysine (%) .92 .87
g Lysine / Mcal ME 2.6 2.6

The diets will be fed from 50-120 kg of live body weight. FCR of the Medium Energy diet is
assumed to be 3.08 for the given weight range.

From the FCR adjustment equation, the predicted FCR from the high energy diet should be 2.85.
Therefore, feed cost for the high energy diet is calculated as $1.00/pig higher than for the
corn/sbm diet.

From the Dressing Percent Equation one should expect a 0.8% increase for the pigs on the
high energy diet (i.e. 1 kg). If the carcass base price is $1.60/kg, then one would gross
$
1.60/pig. Therefore, the net return after feed cost would be $0.60/pig.

This is a very conservative estimate of the actual savings. The 7% savings in feed delivery
cost and feed mill wear were not included in this estimate. Also, the higher yield could elevate
a producer to a higher yield class in a particular packer’s grade and yield matrix which could
be an additional few points of pork value. Heavier carcasses usually receive a premium when
they move into the next yield class, if they meet the same quality standards.

Quality of Energy Source

PIC USA TD Technical Memo 153 (Boyd et al., 1997)is a good source of information when
choosing energy sources. This report indicates that diet is a major determinant of body fat
composition since the pig quantitatively transfers dietary fatty acids to fat depots. Saturated fatty
acids have a positive influence on firmness and cohesiveness of fat, while monounsaturated and
polyunsaturated fatty acids, in particular, have a negative influence (for references see Boyd et al.,
1997). Pigs cannot synthesize polyunsaturated fatty acids, therefore, they are only deposited if
they are included in the diet. Extensive use of unsaturated fat sources results in their deposition
with the result being soft body fat and increased tendency for its oxidation and rancidity. PIC USA
developed a curve that allows nutritionist to predict the impact of dietary fat (type and level) on
body fat (see Figure 6).
 Figure 6. Predicted Body Fat IV KEY:
PIC USA, 1997
NCorn - Normal Corn
85 IV=128
NCorn+AV 5%
HOC(65) - High Oil Corn
Mean Body Fat IV

80 NCorn+Veg 5%
65% replacement
NCorn+Tallow 5%
IV=128
Tallow - IV=47
75 CWG - Choice White
NCorn Grease, IV=65
70 NCorn+CWG 5% AV - Animal Vegetable
Blend, IV=78
Veg - Vegetable Oil,
65 HOC(65)
IV=120
60
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dietary IV Product

Conclusion

The energy value of individual ingredients is not a good estimate of the economical value of these
ingredients. To try and estimate the true value of energy in finishing swine diets, a simple model
was developed. The model takes into account the effects of dietary energy on feed conversion and
carcass yield. The issue of fat quality (particularly for export markets) in terms of backfat increase
with the high energy diets is real but undefined and more work needs to be done in this area with
various genotypes.

The model is only presented as a demonstration tool in order to show how to evaluate energy
density and profitability. The equations presented here were created using some recent data sets.
On-farm-trials should be used to develop one’s own equations under his/her conditions and
genotypes to determine profitability.
References

Boyd, R.D. and M.E. Johnston. 1997. Comparison of two dietary energy strategies for
growth. PIC USA T&D Technical Report 48. PIC USA, Franklin, KY.

Boyd, R.D., M.E. Johnston, K. Scheller, A.A. Sosnicki and E.R. Wilson. 1997. Relationship
between dietary fatty acid profile and body fat composition in growing pigs. PIC USA T&D
Technical Report 153. PIC USA, Franklin, KY.

Campbell, R.G. 1997. The effect of dietary energy content on the performance and dressing
percentage of female pigs offered feed ad libitum, from 65 to 105 kg. Internal research report,
Bunge Australia, Corowa, N.S.W.

Emmans, G.C. 1994. Effective energy : a concept of energy utilization applied across
species. British J. Nutr. 71: 801-821.

Johnston, L.J., J.E. Pettigrew and G.C. Shurson. 1996. Energy systems and their value for
use in swine diet formulation. Proc. 57th Minnesota Nutrition Conference and Protiva
Technical Symposium, pp 199-221.

Lopez-Bote, et al., 1997. Effect of dietary lard on performance, fatty acid composition and
susceptibility to lipid peroxidation in growing-finishing female and entire male pigs. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. 77: 301-306.

Noblet, J. 1995. The net energy system: application to US swine industry. Swine Summit
Proceedings, Heartland Lysine, Inc.

Stein, H.H., J.D. Hahn and R.A. Easter, 1996. Effects of decreasing dietary energy
concentration in finishing pigs on carcass composition, Journal of Animal Science, 74 (Suppl.
1) : 65.