You have enough to worry about without testing every batch of DDGS. That's why Dakota Gold offers: ‘© Consistency. Every batch of Dakota Gold meets the same stringent nutritional requirements. * Traceability. You'll know exactly where Dakote Gold ‘comes from. * Superior Quality. POET's innovative process maintains nutritional integrity. SeDakota Gold by POET Fee Eo ac ed ‘onlyonedakotagold.com.Feedstuffs Welcome to the 2012 Feedstuffs Reference Issue & Buyers Guide — a multifaceted and unique source of information for the feed and livestock industries. The Feedstuffs Reference Issue provides: * The feed industry's best calculations of feed production. Reference Issue numbers, based on state-by-state animal inventories, indicate how much primary feed is consumed per species in each part of the country. * Information about where livestock are concentrated and in what volumes. + Updated nutritional analyses for hundreds of feed ingredients. Check the fold-out table beginning on page 16. * The latest on the nutritional needs of swine, beef and dairy cattle, poultry, horses and companion/exotic animals, written by some of the top scientists in the world. ‘The latest information pertaining to feed quality. + A.comprehensive Buyer's Guide of products used in the feed grain and livestock industries, from vitamins to safety cages, and the businesses the provide them, * A directory of trade and industry associations and how to contact them, as well as the names and addresses of al federal grain inspection agencies. + Finally, “yellow pages” section containing thousands of company names, addresses, phone numbers, email and internet locations. TET The Feedstutfs Reference Issue & Buyers Guide is designed for desktop use though the year. Additional copies arevavailable for $40 from Feedstuffs, Circulation Department, 255 38th Ave., Suite P, St. Charles, Il. 60174, phone (690) 462-2883. Publisher: Sarah Muirhead Editor: Tim Lundeen Production Coordinator: Jessi Brummer Contributing authors: Amy Batal, Nick Dale, Mike Persia, John Waller, J.E. Pettigrew, M. Ellis, R.A. Easter, H.H. Stein, G.C. Duff, s.D. Allen, Jim Linn, Steven’ Kline, Charles R Stark, Frank. Jones, LW. Whitlow, WAM. Hagler Jr. and DE: Diaz ! Dr, Suite 160, Minnetonka, ‘Minn. 55343; (952) 931-0211; FAX: CP "ADVERTISING OFFICES Charles, ll. 60174; Phone: (630) 462-2211; FAX (630) 462-2251 — Clayton Gil oa Classified: 12400 Whitewalér Drive, Suite 160, Minfistonka, Mian. 55343 "Prone" (052). 930-4377. FAX (052) 936-1602 — Cory Huseby : Team "Germany, Switzeriand, Austris: Media’ & Markeiing” SeAvees, ‘Am Spick 7, D-40568- Meertusch: \Phone: 2150 2860; FAX 49. 2150. 6531, ema’ ebilerand@tonline.de Erich Hillerbrand, “POSTAL INFORMATION : Sy FEEDSTUFFS — (USPS 188380; ISSN 0014-9624) is pubished “meokiy except semiweehy during the third week in September. ‘Published by the Miler Publshing Ca, 12400 Whitewater Dr, Suite 160, Minnetonka, Minn 55543. Periodicals postage paid at »'St Charles, li; and additional entry offices: ‘SUBSCRIPTION AND SERVICE INFORMATION ‘SUBSCRIBERS: Please send subscription correspondence and Change of addressto Circulation Manager, Feedstus,25538th Ave, Suite P, St. Charles, Il 60174; (8C0) 441-1410 or e-mail circhelp@ feedstutis.com. Subscribers should notify publisher prompty of ‘any change of address, giving od as well as new addrass label from a recent issue. Allow 4 weeks for change to become effective. ‘SUBSCRIPTION RATES: US. and possessions, $148.00 one Year, or $230.00 two years. Canada, $150.00 one year or $240 ‘wo years. EuropelMid East $235.00 one'year, Metico, Central and ‘South America, $210.00 one year; Japan, Far East and Australia. ‘$280.00 one year .. rate includes air delivery. All other foreign countries $210.00 one year (surface delivery). All orders outside the U.S. must be made payable in US. dollars. Reference Issue copies: $40.00, POSTMASTER: Please send actress corrections to Feedstuts, 255 Sh Ave, Suite P, St Charles, 00174-5410. ,©2011 Faiax Mesa. Alrighs reserved. No partof this publication ‘may be reproduced o transmitted by any form or by any means, (elon gallons per year) ‘Archer Daniels Miand ____ 1.750 2.POET Biorfning _ ae ‘lero Renewable Fuels 1.130 2‘ Grean Plains Renevable Enea S.Flnt ils Resources LP 5. Abengoa Bioenesay Cop, a Aveating Renewable EoergyiLG 354 ‘The Andersons is 10.BloFuel Energy a0 [As of June 23, 2011. Does nt nude facies under contusion or expansion Total curent capac at 28 ean Beretneres egeais ‘HEs3t tion gars por yar Top regulated animal health product suppliers, 2010 Fiscal 2010 sales Company terenue, aon § ‘Tee Aina eat ‘ers a 23s me iterate Pa Med 2008 ‘aye: Animalbeih—‘.ang oo TT 6. Boeheogec aaa Verne Not nil Heath {iden aborts 8:08 Pat radi Don jovmecsA1. Estimated primary feed production required to support animal inventory, 2005-10, by region* (1,000 tons) 2010082 Region eof 2000 Nocheast [Bi Pecitic states Southern Plains (vote states2. Estimated primary feed required to support animal inventory, 2010, by Go StarterGrowed Dairy Beet eat Tayeroreeder —Broler coe Det sheen Pa Pcie ag "Soma ile includ Gata rm chor laos and regions: ND = not determined. Soros Feeds estima 3. Animal inventories: NORTHEAST, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons i Other Sheep and Layers! rotors Turkeys! cows! cate Tomb" 51.6. Massachusata ‘Now Hares New Jersey New or Peseta 1285.69) icant change on 2008 show a pareness or ole ornate, se Tai 1 Sure: Aapad er Fees fom US Dearnent Agee 4, Animal inventories: LAKE STATES, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons lk other ‘Sheep and Hogs Broters! cons! cattet lambs and pigst 81. res 2) 74111040) 4.000 470 tt 10 2h “120 =| rr008) 46.900 (2) 8 3.285 (=)___2.185 @) 90 ge ep.g00.-2) 47,000 2.008) 4.2041 gaa) 3.080.) For foonoe formation, 96 Tale 12, Soues: Adapied or Feeds rom US Department of Agius statsncs. ‘5. Animal inventories: MOUNTAIN STATES, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons i other ‘Shoop and cows! cate! Tame on a4 15065) Percent charge fom 2009 shown ln pavethess Fo foonoe rormaton seo Table 12 Sues Adapled fo Feedeie fom US. Deparment ct Agreuture ‘states 6. Animal inventories: CORN BELT, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons ik other ‘Sheep and Layers tet rte owe cate peFeed Marketing « Distribution 7. Animal inventories: APPALACHIAN STATES, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons Other Shoop and Hogs. Broilers? ‘Turkeys? Tams" and pigst 003) 7018) (3) 3.09 (3) 1607 500.) i 1 255) Percrt change fom 2009 shown parenthesis. For ooros internation, see Tae 12. Source Adapted for Feeds rom U.S. Deparment of Agrcutue stshes Animal inventories: NORTHERN PLAINS, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons Mik Otner Sheep and Turkeys? cows! cate lambs" wi 78, mut 58. rare Toa “4.5002 1 erent chang rom 2008 shown in parenhesla. For loco information, se Table 12 Source: Adapted or Feeds rom U'S. Department of Agrcute 9. Animal inventories: SOUTHEAST, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons ni Otter Steep and arts tage? come! cami amet ta __soseeon ca i, sate fons “seman —— aaa ita iain Seo ach aisann ee moa ase) —— 2010048 i oo aarasich rm zig h_——ais a) — Porn change Wo 209 show partes. Fr ein rato, se Table 1a Sure dap fr avd om US. Doane Agee 10, Animal inventories: DELTA STATES, 2010 (1,000 hea) with comparisons oy Sheepend Hogs Layers! streaks? co! cat beta get Avtansas gieiy iossoin —seomen ety sume tage an ea _— eigen so ate Z a saa en 25) toa nar ini estan) sa) a) ae oor change Fa 2009 shown pares. Por bert romaton, seo Tae 2 See aad fr Powdl om U.S. Dope gree 11. Animal inventories: SOUTHERN PLAINS, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons Mik Otmer Sheep and Hoga: lambs and pigst 7) 22200 0st) ——21ains—_aRSOD-2 ———S67AR =| 70) 17.924 2) 955), 29901) arcent ange fmi2008 shown in parenibsis. For loiote oration, s68 Table 12 Source Adapted for Foods tem U.S. Doparimont of Agree satsics, 12. Animal inventories: PACIFIC STATES, 2010 (1,000 head) with comparisons oo ‘otmer Sheep and Hogs: arkays? cons! cate! Tame and pigs? 610) _ans ‘Percent change rom 2009 shown in parathess. NR = nt reported by USDA: (—) ndcates a change of ss than 1%. Cicada except ‘ik cone tat have cae belore Jan 1,201, 'Aral average. ‘Producion Dee 1, 2008, 19 Nov. 30, 2070. "Anns! produetion an , 2093 meri13. Feed/price ratios, 2007-11 ‘Suc: Asses Facets tom US. Oaparmat ot Arce stats le al bat 12 Loyoogs rf 86119153 107 Milieed = ceunds of 16% mixed dein feed eaalinvabe in 1b. whole milk 241 27157 2151.88 Tueyieed — pounds of tury otower fst equal vale 01. ry. oe nah wen QTE ag MD GT HOA 14. Prices received, dollars, U.S., May 2011 ammosty____________uni_902 erage _May. 2010 _anizuit_may2on 3 128.0 "47.00 38100 8470, 119.0 11800, 0820 090 “0500 2630 1050. 22 ‘ae oas7 ‘see Lb O56 oss4 882 Sou: Ate Feasts rom US. parm of Api ttt, 15. All cattle and calves, top 10 states, 2010 site 1000heed — Rank'10 Rank tae a Netosta Cato ‘tama a Sunita Wace Come fie 0a Preentel US ta Source: Asn Fone ton US. primero Arce ses. 16. Cattle and calves on feed, top 10 states, 2010 1900 head Rank-t0 nko ei “May 2011s pretrinary "Bec cows and cl dary Gwe sod for slaugher"Animals ol fr day replacement ony Pics svalsble Ter Janay Apr uy and October "Before deductons for raving, nudes quay, quariy nd cher premiums: Equant i weg p tment pe, 17. Milk cow inventory, top 10 states, 2010 ste 100head — Rank1D Rank 08 Catoma_""srs New e10 Mana sre eens 3 2 —__\___ as —_ 7 rr ‘alicia —a90 ae Pecentol US taal ms i Sov: Aad sss Yon US. ee eae sce 18. Hog inventory, top 10 states, 2010 000 ness. -Rank-10—Rank'co __ in oo — 5) meso pgFeed Marketing & Distribution —_— —- | 19. Broiler inventory, top 10 states, 2010 state 1,000hnead —Rank't0—Rank’09 | secraia tai * 21. Laying hen inventory, top 10 states, 2010 ‘state ‘000 need = Rank'10Rank'09 | ta 5.089.500, ‘lsbams. as.400 2 3 Missin 07,800 ‘4 4 ‘Norn Csoine 78 500 be 500 6 4 enuciy — 8 z z Mana 500. 3 5 eona_____2sn.4a0 9. 2 7 at 10 0 Pementotalbaies 779 71 ‘Seve: Ade fr Fees tom US Deparment Agra aes 20. Turkey inventory, top 9 states, 2010 state 1,000 head Rank'T0—Rank’08 iinescta 27.000 ‘ + Save: Ape te Poca an US Ooparnart Ae a 22. Sheep inventory, top 10 states, 2010 Rank ‘10 Pennsyivnia——7a00 9s Oregon. Tale 90.500 500 toes 200 “0 1 Percent of al ures Ao ia Toa oO aes 680 10 “Noe: Tep trey fa rankings wore ol Geermined in 208. Sav: Atte er Foes om US Ospaant Agr ats Country atte Swine Aust, Belgium — 3g 3688 ular 23. Compound feed production in the European Union, 2010, 1,000 metric tons Pouty ae roptacors Omer ParcontofUS inecion 652 9 ‘SoueeASping or ascste romULS Deparment Apt ssNiacin from Lonza ~ Proven quality you can trust ‘Niacinamidem from Lonza — Proven quality you can trust onza or 40 years In 1971, Lonza began producing high quality Niacin” in Visp, Switzerland Over the past four decades, we have in- vested to align production with market, environmental and quality demands. Today, we continue that traditian and are committed to being the pre-eminent ‘supplier to the feed industry based on ur extensive experience and our high quality standards. Lonza Ltd, Muenchensteinerstrasse 38, 4002 Base, Switzerland, Tel +41 6 336 81 11 ‘As the world’s largest manufacturer of vitamin B3, Lonza covers more than half of the total vitamin B3 demand in the glcbal feed and food industries. Lonza's free-flowing Niacin” and Nia: cinamide™ are the trusted brands for batch-to-batch consistency and full traceability www.niacin.com niacin@lonza.com24. Milk cows, yield per cow and production in specified countries, 2009-10 ak coms reduction per otal milk production (00 head) {metric tone por heac) (7,000 metric tons) country 2000 2010 ‘2008 "2010 2009) 2010 eu 28.19 eee 33 z 3331 134200 Pussia 2 200. va 5 740 eda "42.500 —ss.000 1 1 8.160 50.300, Chins 7.350 r = 2a 00 ae ar 4 378 7397. 16397 Atala “1.876 S630. zr 2.328 2400 ce 10.600 Mees 200 6. Ta) 70 066 11.178 Saneda— “$72 7 ase rm 8.280 33 us. m1 st masa 0 asa7s 7.50 Tal 22298 390.135 2 28 438.078. “7.901 ‘Sc: Alaid Foot rom Foon Aeatul Snic, Oa, Liesoc & outy Oven 25. Feed prices paid (dollars), by regions and U.S., March 2011 ‘Appa Corn Moun- Northe Northern ‘South Southern Unit schlan Belt Dein Lake tain east Plains Pacific Plins US. 22202400 402 3800 17.19 ‘rapa! ‘32.38% protein concent Hog teed 718% prea’ 38-42% pein concent Masses. ud Poutey fed! ale one Chick sari ing ina Tukey 1 Soybean moa Soybean meal_=48% Shock sat “ace mineral acs “Complete aon lee, fed with mang or svplemenaion. Excuaing ip sane. Dashes indies tor not surveyed. (S)ndeatesineiient urbe of rapors fo estaba an estima, (0) inca data wit o avo dosing for india! operations. “Sour: Ace Peet om US Osparment Agree ates. 26. Cattle & calves: Number of operations and percent of inventory by ie groups, 2010 Percent of inventory 27. Beef cows: Number of operations and percent of inventery by size groups, 2010 Head Operations Percent of ventory 18 S090 122.000. 6 00s tego 500998 18.700 135 Source: Add x Foss ro US Depart Age SaIk cows: Number of operations, percent of inventory and percent of production of milk products by size groups, 2010 Porcnt ——ercntof of ventory ‘Sou: Aspe Feasts Hom US Department Aras sate. 29. Hogs & pigs: Number of operations and percent of inventory by size group, based on ownership, 2010 Operations Percent of inventory 32. Goats: number by class, U.S., Jan. 1, 2010-11, thousand head 201-2011 ehange. Svcs Aaapte er Fees om US Oearnart of Arce ne. 33. Farrowings: Number of sows, pig crop and pigs per litter, U.S., 2009-11 ‘Sows farrowing ne ‘Sours: Adsoted or Feeds am US. Deparment of Aree statics 30. Cattle & calves: Number by class, U.S., Jan. 1, 2010-11, thousand head change ‘Decombr pir your. Seve: eet tom US Depwtnen Ae a 34. Poultry slaughtered: Number by type, 2009-10, thousand head Type 2000 2010 Chickens 31. Sheep & lambs: Number by class, U.S., Jan. 1, 2010-11, thousand head 20102011 % enange35. Canadian livestock and poultry inventories on Jan. 1, 2011, thousand head Province Ming cows and naiers Aother cate ‘Alswine'" Allsheepandlamee Chickens" ‘Quebec a 310 3m 228 172208 ian 7.08 251 ars fh anions. 45 ERT 26 53 23 1394 tchewan 28: 8 Abert 30 260. 1480 x 55.09. 15 ‘nich Coubia zm a zt e708 aria Mantes” z rs 10 37 228 ea ec rbd Rw nt, Neve Si, Pry Eas nanos Lara Gen Sn T=) ni 6 ese rk ae Pet quarter 2011 "2010 aval Snuce Adapted Feces rm Stas Cans ct. 36. Number of farms, land in farms and average farm size, U.S., 2000-2010 Farms Landinarms Average farm size (eaition) eure rat a ena ON INTERNATIONAL, INGREDIENT Z CORPORATION leag@iceg.com 636.943.4111We're celebrating twenty-five successful years of continuous amino acid production in North America, for North America, Thank you! Tat Pret . AJINOMOTO. AJINOMOTO HEARTLAND LLC wine com | 773.360.0900 150 90012008 ana 180 14001:2008raitered faity ISF/SF & FON.0S corti cay YOU CAN COUNT ON US TO BE YOUR CONSISTENT, DEPENDABLE SUPPLIER... ALWAYS.By AMY BATAL, NICK DALE and MIKE PERSIA, Dr. Batal (bata! @uga.edu) Is the director of technical services for Huvepharma LLC. Or Dale (ndale @uge.od.) i a poulty scientist atthe University of Georgia. Dr. Persia mpersia@iastate.edu) is @ pouty scientist at lowa State University. Ingredient Analysis Table:.2012 Edition ‘One of the dynamic aspects of animal nutrition is the industry's interest in utilizing new and/or modified feed ingredients as they become available in commercial ‘quantities. The authors are pleased to include new Ingredients in the Table once adequate analytical work has been completed. For example, camelina meal was first introduced in the Table two years ago. If uture samples have more oil extracted which might be expected, the current ME ‘Value will almost certainly be overestimated. This will be ‘examined and updated by the authors in the future. During the past several years, there have been marked changes in several ingredients. The tremendous interest in biofuel production has led to an effort to characterize the nutrient profile of a number of novel byproducts in addition to corn dried distillers grains plus solubles. We have and will continue to update the nutrient profile of such ingredients as data are received. The authors recognize that inereased interest in the frzctionation process in relation to fermentation for ethanol production results in different byproducts that may have similar names with products that ‘were already available. Because there has only been limited {analysis of these new, different byproducts, the authors no not feel they can include averages in the Table at this time. However, it is our objective to include these ingredients in future Tables as more analysis are conducted. he purpose of the Reedstuffs Ingredient Analysis Table is to provide nutritionists with a reasonable estimate of the nutritive values of common feed ingredients. ‘These values are based on current analysis and are ‘reviewed yearly. For each ingredient listed, significant dlifferenees in composition can and do exist due to factors. suchas regional location, manufacturing practices and climat- ic conditions. In a number of cases, especially with rendered animal proteins, blends of poultry meal, meat and bone meal, fish meal, feather meal, et, ingredients are prepared to meet ‘a specific objective. Such ingredients will vary in composition ‘Over time and market conditions. Thus, the reader is urged to use the values listed in this Table as a guide, and to invest in ingredient analyses as necessary prior to diet formulation. The authors emphasize that in no way should the use of any table of ‘nutrient value replace a well-designed quality control program. "The authors recognize that many values in the Table were determined several decades ago, and may not have been recently verified. This is particularly true of the mineral Content of major ingredients. To address this problem, @ ‘study was conducted by the authors in which commercial nutritionists from different regions of the US. submitted ‘samples of distillers dried grains with solubles. At our laboratory, the macro-and micro-mineral content of each ‘was determined. Results are included in the current Table. Of particular interest for many will be phosphorus. x * % mio 048 * ¥ * | V gE E 4. Mineral analysis table (Prepared by Amy Batal’, Nick Dale* and Mike Persia’; ‘Huvepharma LLC; University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; “lowa State University, Ames, lowa) Calcium Total phos. “Ash Sodium Potasslum Magnesium Floveine Manganese Iron Copper Zine Selenium Ni og NA 94 849 | Fanouecaronate FSCO, 1480 — 0. 035 NA ‘The authors very much appreciate correspondence from those wishing to propose changes to elther the listing of ingredients or their respeciive profiles. Its fully recognized that those active in a specific industry will be better attuned than we to such modifications, as we sincerely appreciate their enabling us to improve the Table listings. Unfortunately, some errors are bound to occur in a Table ‘with so many individual values. Any comments or questions ‘can be sent to the authors by mail or email. * Cy “ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm z he zg g LINGREDIENTS BYPRODUCTS 2. Liquid supplement ingredient table (Prepared _ a, Batal', Nick Dale* and Mike Persia’; 'Huvepharma LLC; *University of Georgia, ra State University, Ames, lo : ‘iamniim shosnhale—_$50 1125 = Une Wiel fe} Wet ede Bh a ‘September 14,2011, Feedstufis 17| ‘| By JOHN C. WALLER Waller is a boot cate autriionst, University of Tennessee. ‘eeding programs often include byproducts ind unusual feedstuffs to provide key nut ts to animals. The data presented in the Table should be considered as a guide to rnutrient content rather than a precise state- f nutrient composition. Because many of the feedstuffs are byproducts, they are, by the nature of their origin, offen subject to variation in composi- tion. Other factors that contribute to the wide varia tion in nutrient composition of these feedstuffs are growing conditions, harvest conditions, post harvest processing, storage and handling. ‘The following abbreviations are used in the Table: ADF is acid detergent fiber; Cais calcium; CFis crude fiber; CP is erude protein; DE is digestible energy; DM is dry matter; EE is ether extract (crude fat): Kis po- tassium; Meal is megacalorie; Mech-extd is mechani cally extracted; Mg is magnesium; NEg is net energy for gain; NEI is net energy for lactation; NEm is net energy for maintenance; NFE is nitrogen-free extract: | | Byproducts and unusual feedstuffs hp eae mma SO NE NEs NE CP EE —(ieallh—%)_ C5) | | | P is phosphorus; Sclv-extd is solvent extracted, TDN is total digestible nutrients. A dash indicates there is no information available. Energy values marked with an asteriskin the table were calculated from chemical analysis data when ‘actual energy values were not available from diges- tion trials. The vahues were then reduced 10% to provide a safety factor when using them for ration, formulation, The fellowing formulas were used (all constituents on a DM basis): (1) XSTDN = 1.15 C% + 1.75 EE% + 0.45 CP% + 0.0085, NDF « 0.25 NFEX- 3.4 (2) NEI (Meal/Ib.)» (0.0245 TDN% -0.12) * 0.4536. (3) DE (Meal) = 020229 CP% + 0.0349 EEX + 0.0091 CF% « 0.00017 NFEX? + 0,005 NFE% - 0.068. (A) NEm (Meal/Ib) = 0.655 DE (Meal/b,)-0.185 () NEg (Mcal/Ib.} = 0.815 DE (Mcalflb.} - 0.0497 DE (Mecal/Ib.)- 0.625. Several items listed in this Table have been in- cluded in the Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, seventh revised edition (2001) and in the Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, update (2000). Both of these references include estimates for soluble nitro- gen, rumen degradable protein, rumen undegradable protein, amino acids, minerals and vitamins. (CF ADF Ash ca 2%) 8 ea ax ae wtih 35 086 030138 O14if a Byproducts & Unusual Feedstutts Nel Nem NG CP EE Gr ADF Ash Ga K Mea) (8) OH) OH) OO) OW) ODO) Benn oods.iehet_____aae sod og oe: oz 5209 ae @ 79 ~ @ ©Dit basi CF ADF Ash ca som 0) © oO) oO al L ‘Byproducts & Unusual Feedstutts EE CF ADF Ash ca pK ©) © &) oH eH CH ep tes e174 2 16 aa pa0 Poe 91 ssn 099 Toss go 412 5290 072.38 095 072 0aea NED NEnNEy cP Feedstutt certaiorm 0) Pato si nos! 76 04 40 rune mi+ —i== ie te ae September 14,2011 Feedstutts 23 A ue fi yi8y JE. PETTIGREW, R.A. EASTER, MM. ELLIS and HH. STEIN Pettigrew, Easter, Elis and Stein are faculty members atthe University of lines department of animal IE purpose of this paper is to provide brief overview of salient aspects of treatment of the sujet such as Lewis and Southern, 20 (Gwine Nutrition, 2n ‘The National Research Council (1998) provides estimates of nutrient requirements for all phases of pig production. It Is important to remember that these estimates do not con- tain safety factors to allow for variation in pig requirements, variation in level or availability of nutrients or loss of vitamin potency during processing and storage, so it is normal to feed higher levels of some nutrients, especially vitamins and. trace minerals. Overview of nutritional needs ‘The pig requires energy, amino acids, minerals and vitamins from its diet plus water, which is usually provided separate- ly. Several other items may also be included in the diet for purposes other than to meet the nutritional needs of the ani- mals, but they will not be considered in this section. Energy. Energy is perhaps the most basic of the nutritional needs, as itis needed to drive all productive functions of the body: Fats, carbohydrates and proteins all contribute energy to the body, but they vary in energy density and in the ef ficiency with which that energy is used ‘An energy system expresses the energy needs of the body ‘and the energy supplied by feeds in the same units. The en- ergy systems commonly used in swine nutrition are digest- Ible energy (DE), metabolizable energy (ME) and net energy (NE). Each has advantages and disadvantages. The total amount of energy in feedstuffs (the amount lb- erated by burning) is the gross energy (GE), but the animal cannot use all of it. Some of the energy-containing nutrients are not digested and absorbed from the digestive tract and are excreted in feces, and the amount of fecal energy varies. ‘enormously among feedstuffs. Subtraction of fecal energy gives DE. Actually, some of the fecal energy is not in und gested dietary components but comes from the body (is en- dogenous), so what we measure is technically apparent DE In contrast to the theoretical true DE that would account for ‘endogenous energy. DE is a useful and widely used energy system. ‘Some energy is also excreted in urine, and some is lost as methane gas from the digestive tract. Subtraction of these losses from DE produces ME. Energy lost in methane is small. ‘and is usually not measured. Energy lost in urine is assoc ‘ated with nitrogen excretion, so it Is closely related to the protein level and amino acid balance of the entire diet. The ME:DE ratio ie quite constant across feedetuffe, with a emall ‘systematic variation associated with protein concentration. ‘There is, therefore, little advantage in using ME rather than DE as an energy system for pigs. in fact, ME values are less reliably additive because of their sensitivity to total dietary ‘amino acid balance, so many prefer DE to ME as a practical ‘energy system. Unfortunately, DE and ME share serious defects, because NS Eas ied ~ Nutrition & Health: Swine ‘they are unable to reflect *he widely different metabolic ef ficiencies of use of different energy substrates by the body. ‘The heat increment (metatolic ineificiency of use) of protein _is high, so DE and ME systematically overvalue high-protein feedstuffs. The heat increment of fiber is also high due to inefficiencies in both fermentation in the digestive tract and the use of the resulting shert-chain fatty acids in the tissues, $0 DE and ME also overvalue fibrous feedstuffs. The heat in ccrement of dietary fat is low, especially when itis deposited in the body or in milk, so DE and ME undervalue fats. These errors are non-trivial — large enough to be practically im- portant. An NE system corrects a substantial part of these sys- ‘tematic errors. The magnitude of the errors is indicated by the variation in NE:ME in the examples in Table 1, based on published values. NE is theoretically much more accurate in matching energy needs and energy supply than are DE and ME, but accurate NE values are substantially more difficult and expensive to generate experimentally. The key practical ‘question facing nutritionists is whether the available NE val- ues are accurate enough te gain theoretical advantages from using NE over DE or ME. Recent data support the concern about currently available NE values but suggest they are su- ‘perior to ME in most cases. ‘The efficiency of using dietary energy depends not only ‘on the diet composition but also on the use to which the animal puts the energy (eg., protein versus fat accretion). Therefore the ultimate energy system will go beyond NE to consider animal factors as wel Amino acids, The amino acid supply from the diet Is deter- mined largely by the amino acid composition of the diet and the digestibility of the provein in which the amino acids are ound. Protein digestibility varies enough among feedstutts, that itis important to formulate diets on the basis of digest- ible rather than total amino acids. Amino acid digestibility must be measured to the end of the small intestine (ileum) Decauise the microbes in the hindgut degrade and/or synthe- size amino acids, largely without making them available for use by the host animal's tissues. ‘Measures of apparent digestibility always show low values, for a few key amino acids (threonine, tryptophan, cysteine) because they are in high concentrations in endogenous pro- teins. We recommend the use of standardized digestibility values, derived using a protein-free diet to provide an esti mate of endogenous losses. Many values labeled true digest- are more correctly identified as standardized digest- The pig an adequate dietary supply of each of the 10 essential (natspensable) aminy acids Independent estimation of requirements for each of the 10 under vary- ing conditions is a daunting task, especially considering the limited resources for research. Therefore, nutritionists have ‘a short-cut method for estimating requirements for all 10, using the concept of ideal amino acid ratios. First, ‘we measure the requirement for lysine under the conditions of interest. Then we estimate the corresponding require- ‘ment for each of the other nine expressed as a ratio to the requirement for lysine. These ratios are quite different for ‘maintenance than for protein accretion, so we prefer to use both sets of ratios in a factorial approach to estimation of requirements. ‘The ratios estimated by NRC (1998) are shown in Table 2. Note that some ratios would be different ifusing apparent di- sgestibility. There is currently a great deal of research activity directed to improving the values reported in Table 2 ‘Minerals. Of the macro-minerals, calcium, phosphorus, so- dium and chloride are routinely added to swine diets. Most recent interest has been in phosphorus because of the entryinto the market of phytase enzymes. ‘Much of the phosphorus in major feed ingredients of plant ‘origin occurs in the form of phytate, a compound that is poorly digested in the nonruminant digestive tract. The poor bioavailability of phytate phosphorus creates a need for phosphorus supplementation from expensive mineral ingre- dients. Phytase enzyme products added to the feed increase the bioavailability of phytate phosphorus, thus reducing the need for phosphorus supplements. The most important ben- fit is a substantial reduction in the amount of phosphorus. ‘Six micro-minerals (iron, zinc, manganese, copper, iodine and selenium) are added to ail swine diets, and another (chromium) is often added to sow diets. Of special current interest is whether organic forms of these minerals are supe- rior to the inorganic forms. Chromium must be provided in ‘an organic form, and there is growing evidence of the value Of selenium in the form of selenomethionine. Vitamins. All four fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) are usually added as specific supplements to ali swine diets. In addition, four B-vitamins (riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid and B12) are usually added to all swine diets. Sow diets are usually supplemented with rather high levels of three ad- ditional vitamins (choline, biotin and folic acid). Nursery pig diets often contain supplements of vitamin B6, choline, bio- tin and a stabilized form of vitamin C, and some nutritionists add choline to finishing pig diets. Water. Water is usually provided separately, but an ad equate supply of easily available and safe water Is critical {or pig health and performance. It Is especially important to ensure that nipple waterers deliver an adequate water flow rate, Nutritional programs: Finishing pigs Relationship of protein accretion to energy intake. Much of our logiein designing nutritional programs for finishing pigs derives from the perccived relationship of protein accretion rate to energy intake Figure). The “Mr represents the energy requirement for maintenance. This Figure shows that pro- tein accretion increases as energy intake increases until it reaches a maximum point, and then plateaus. The evidence 1. Energy values (kcal/kg) of selected gredients Ingredient DE ME ONE NEME com 525420 2305 970 Sorotum sg 3302255 0.58 Soybean meal 085 sso 2020 080 Canola men 2585 26401610 061 Wheat mds 0750281880052 ‘Ata meal. dy. 17% GP1.830 1.650 $10. 088 2. Ideal ratios of amino acids to lysine’ amino Maint. Proton Mik Bay ans nance accretion synthesis taeue Jysine__ Indicates that the upslope is linear, The maximum level of protein accretion occurs when energy intake no longer limits it. The limitation then is some other factor, such as araino acid supply or anebulous “genetic limit.” If protein accretion becomes limited by amino acid supply, and that limitation is. released by providing a higher level of that amino acid, then the upslope can extend to higher levels of protein accretion and energy intake. The slope of the ascending line in the Figure indicates the proportion of incremental energy used to drive protein ac- ‘cretion, and therefore the leanness of the animal ‘Sometimes, especially in young pigs, the graph ia the Figure slows only the linear upslope and no plateau, sug- ‘gesting that the pig is unable to consume enough energy to exceed its requirement to surport protein accretion. In this situation, the lysine requirement expressed in grams per day ‘changes dramatically as feed intake changes, but the lysine requirement expressed as a percentage of the diet is rela- tively constant. As the pig grows, its intake increases relative to the breakpoint and may reach the plateau. In this situa- ton, the lysine requirement expressed in grams per day is relatively constant, but the lysine requirement as a percent- age of the diet varies. Voluntary feed intake of pigs in com- ‘mercial production is usually notably less than that of pigs in research farms, so pigs on commercial farms may spend ‘more of their time in the energy-limiting (no plateau) stage of growth. Energy density. The response to increasing the energy density of the diet of finishing pigs, usually by adding fat, appears to depend on the environment. Feed efficiency is always improved. Growth rate stays constant or Increases slightly in most researchfarm studies, but increases mark edly in commercialfarm experiments, The difference should be expected from the lower feed intake on commercial farms, TANKS. Pron ay + Spcone toed and ‘alone easton = Canola ard ‘rae 501 16000 plors + Deseo ya nd is peters Fats. * Ost ania ant amiralvepetie bres Festck an pet ‘ods + oon ws pesos arene Daring can prise ou wh yore ‘ltt tanding ets. wr sragetais ane ual gas mate cerspsens cone QUAL FAT Pee ae Eo Soy = Seen 515-288-2166‘Nutrition 2 Health - DIETARY ALLOWANCES FOR SWINE leaving those pigs on the ascending slope ofthe Figure. Ener gy densities greater than those of acorm-oy diet are usually Beneficial in diets for fishing pigs on commercial farms. ‘Amino acids. We recommend using the mathematical model offered by NRC (1998) to estimate amino acid needs of finishing pigs, This model uses factorial approach, estimat- ing separate daly equirements for maintenance and protein accretion. Itestimates the amount of each amino acid need- ‘ed to support the level of performance of pigs in a given situ- ation, but has no way to determine whether higher amino: acid levels might increase the performance. first estimates the requirement for lysine, then uses ratios (Table 2) to es: timate the requirements for the other essential amino acids. - ‘The maintenance requirement is taken from empirical data, and is 0.036 g/(kg bodyweight)" in the case of lysine. The iysine requirement to support each gram of protein ac- cretion is taken to be 0.12 g from a review of pertinent data. ‘Then the challenge is to estimate the protein aceretion rate Of pigs at a given time and under a given set of conditions. Key to this estimate is the close relationship between body protein content and carcass fatfree lean content (2.55 g car- ‘cass fat-free lean/g protein), so the challenge is to estimate the daily fat-free carcass lean accretion. ‘There are two methods for estimation of daily carcass {at‘ree lean accretion. The simpler one is to estimate total ‘carcass fat-free lean accretion for the entire feeding period and divide by the number of days on feed to get the mean daily accretion rate. That value can be converted to an ac~ cretion rate for each day on feed, using an equation in the model that describes the shape of a typical accretion curve ‘over time. The total carcass fat-ree lean accretion for the: entire feeding period can be obtained by subtracting the lean content of the pig at the beginning of the feeding period (taken as a proportion of bodyweight) from the content at slaughter. The content at slaughter is the product of the hot carcass weight and the percent fat-free lean in the carcass. Note that many slaughter plants provide a different leanness. value than this one. ‘The second method for estimation of dally fat-ree lean accretion relies on serial ultrasound measurements of a sample of pigs throughout the feeding period. The fat-free carcass lean content (and thus the body protein content) can be estimated on each of the measurement days from the ultrasound data, and mathematical procedures can convert those values to a protein accretion curve over time. The steps outlined above will produce an estimate of the You supply. the feed: rt Std CCAir ato Box e008 26 _Feedstfis, September 12011 EE EERE RE SS Protein accretion versus digestible energy intake. v Energy intake, KcaV/day daily lysine requirement or pigs under the target conditions teach stage of growth. Requirements for the other essential amino acids are estimated from the lysine values using the ratios in Table 2 Then, itis necessary to convert the dally requirements to percent ofthe diet, which requires data on daily feed intake At each growth stage. It is imperative that the feed intake ‘Values be measured under the same conditions. The model Contains adefault fed intace equation, butt should be used only asa last resort. Remember that the model provides estimates of the amount of amino acids needed to support the measured level of growth performance. I these estimates are less than currently fed, they are relitble. However If they are similar to the levels currently fed. these levels may be restricting growth. In that case, i is appropriate to increase amino acid levels and measure the resulting performance to determine whether itis increased. Phase-feeding. Amino acd requirements expressed as per- cent of the diet decline suostantially during the feeding pe- od for finishing pgs, so feeding appropriate diets requites frequent diet changes. Feeding too few diets causes signif cant over‘eeding of amino acids, with detrimental elfects on Doth cost and the nitrogen content of manure. The most sat- Isfactory method for managing those changes is provision of a predetermined amount o' each feed (a feed budget) Nutritional programs: Gestating sows Energy. Gestating sows dliter from pigs in most other stages of production in needing a Te striction of feed intake, That Creates. substantial. challenges in the physical. management Of feed delivery, to ensure that tach animal consumes the tar get amount of feed. Sows that Eonsume too litte during gesta tion enter the challenging lacta tion phase in a precarious con- tition with limited body stores Of fat and protein to draw upon, Sows that consume too much luring gestation eat too little during lactation, when adequate feneray intake Is most critical. The fact that the energy te quirement of gestating sows Is iéss than their voluntary intake allows the use offbrous ingred ents in the diet, without reduc- ing performance. "Aiming acids. The amino acié requirements ot gstting ss 7 Clarks, MO 64430 5006 «Fax: 616-007-5427 www.primalac.com