Spray-dried plasma can advantageously replace whey on a protein basis in Phase I diets for early-weaned pigs, although less so in a ‘clean’ than in a ‘dirty’ environment. Contrary to previous trials, growth performance of weanling pigs was not affected when dried porcine solubles replaced whey protein

Bassaganya, J.

Bregendahl, K.

Sparks, J. C.

Zimmerman, Dean R.

English

Spray-dried plasma can advantageously replace whey on a protein basis in Phase I diets for early-weaned pigs, although less so in a ‘clean’ than in a ‘dirty’ environment. Contrary to previous trials, growth performance of weanling pigs was not affected when dried porcine solubles replaced whey protein.</p

Sparks, J.

Zimmerman, Dean

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University (ISU)

Iowa State University NutritionEffect of Spray-Dried Plasma and Dried Porcine Solubleson the Growth Performance of Weanling PigsRaised in Different Health-Status EnvironmentsK. Bregendahl, graduate research assistant;J. C. Sparks, graduate research assistant;J. Bassaganya, graduate research assistant; andD. R. Zimmerman, professor,Department of Animal ScienceASL–R1554Summary and ImplicationsSpray-dried plasma can advantageously replace whey ona protein basis in Phase I diets for early-weaned pigs,although less so in a ‘clean’ than in a ‘dirty’ environment.Contrary to previous trials, growth performance of weanlingpigs was not affected when dried porcine solubles replacedwhey protein.IntroductionDiets of weanling pigs often include spray-dried plasma(SDP) because of its content of immunoglobulins and high-quality protein. Another protein source called dried porcinesolubles (DPS) has recently emerged. It is a by-product ofthe heparin extraction from pig intestines. The product isalso a high-quality protein source and both SDP and DPShave been shown to result in improved growth performanceof weanling pigs. Their modes of action, however, probablydiffer; in previous trials, SDP-fed pigs have shown animmediate response in increased feed intake and weight gain,whereas pigs fed DPS have shown a delayed response in feedintake and weight gain.In this trial, dried whey protein was replaced by eitherSDP or DPS in Phase I diets to investigate possible growthperformance responses to the ingredients. Furthermore, pigswere placed in different health-status environments toinvestigate possible interactions with responses to the feedingredients.Because the modes of action of the two protein sourcesare different, it was thought that their effects might beadditive. Therefore, it was expected that pigs fed both SDPand DPS during Phase I would have an improved growthperformance throughout the 5-week trial compared with pigsfed the control, SDP, or DPS diets. In addition, it wasexpected that pigs raised in a high-health environment wouldshow a better growth performance than pigs raised in alow-health status environment and that the high-health pigswould respond less to SDP.Materials and MethodsThe experiment was conducted in two environments:a ‘dirty’ environment in a previously used, on-site nurseryroom that was not cleaned and a ‘clean’ environment in anoff-site nursery room that was cleaned and disinfected beforethe start of the trial. Sixty-four pigs were weaned at 11 to 14days of age, placed in individual pens and fed Phase I dietscontaining 0 or 5% SDP and 0 or 5% DPS in a 2×2factorial arrangement for 2 weeks. Additions replaced driedwhey lysine and L-lysine·HCl. Diets were isolysinic(1.60%) and had equal concentrations of lactose (Table 1).After 2 weeks, pigs in all treatment groups received acommon Phase II diet for 3 weeks. Pigs were monitoreddaily and appearance of feces was subjectively scored forfirmness as an indication of diarrhea. Feed disappearance andgain were measured weekly to calculate average daily feedintake (ADFI), average daily gain (ADG), and feedutilization (gain:feed ratio, G:F). In each environment, eightblocks of four littermate pigs were fed the four dietarytreatments.The data were analyzed as a split-plot design with healthenvironments as main plot treatments and the 2×2 factorialarrangement of diets as subplot treatments by using theGLM procedure of SAS. Differences between treatmentswere separated into main effects of factors and the interactionusing contrasts; significance was declared at P<.05.Results and DiscussionAveraged over environments, ADG (P<.008) and ADFI(P<.006) were increased by SDP but not by DPS duringPhase I. Growth performance was not (P>.05) affected bydiet during Phase II, although, as in Phase I, ADG (P<.03)and ADFI (P<.04) were increased by SDP but not by DPSfor the overall 5-week period (Table 2). Contrary to previoustrials with DPS, we found no delayed effects on growthresponse when DPS was fed during Phase I.The comparable ADG and ADFI between pigs fedcontrol and DPS diets indicate that the protein in DPS is ofcomparable quality to that of dried whey and that 5% DPScan replace dried whey on a protein basis with no adverseeffects on weight gain and feed intake. Furthermore,replacing dried whey protein with 5% SDP on a proteinbasis resulted in improved (P<.05) growth performanceduring Phase I and the overall period (Phase I plus II). Therewere no additive effects (P>.05) of DPS and SDP on growthperformance.Iowa State University NutritionFeed utilization was decreased (P<.04) in Phase I afterdietary inclusions of DPS. During Phase II, feed utilizationimproved (P<.05) in DPS-fed pigs compared with SDP-fedpigs. This improvement may, however, be an effect of thelower body weight in Phase II of pigs not fed SDP, as theyshowed a lower ADG during Phase I (Table 2).Throughout the trial, pigs grew faster (P<.05) in theclean environment than in the dirty environment (Table 3).Also, in the dirty environment, feeding SDP increased ADGby 33.6% during Phase I, whereas in the clean environment,feeding SDP increased ADG by only 10.0% (data notshown), which corroborates the results of previous trials.Pigs fed DPS utilized feed more efficiently (interaction,P<.01) in the dirty environment than did DPS-fed pigsin the clean environment during Phase I plus II. Nodifferences (P>.05) in diarrhea scores were observedbetween the two environments.In conclusion, responses to SDP were typical ofpreviously published research. Pigs fed DPS plus lactoseperformed as well as pigs fed dried whey (the control diet),however, no delayed effects of DPS on growth performancewere observed, as had been reported previously. The dataindicate that a combination of DPS and lactose can replacedried whey with no adverse effects on growth performance.Table 1. Diet composition of Phase I and Phase II diets (as-fed basis).Ingredients, % Phase Ia) Phase IIa)Control SDPb) DPSc) SDP and DPSCorn 32.67 32.67 30.13 31.19 53.92Soybean meal (48%) 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.25 23.53Dried whey 30.00 11.81 22.42 – 15.00SDPb) (AP920) – 5.00 – 5.00 –DPSc) – – 5.00 5.00 –Lactose – 12.73 5.31 21.00 –Dried skim milk 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 –Blood cells (AP301) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00Soy oil 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00L-Lysine·HCl .43 .25 .39 .26 .18DL-Methionine .30 .22 .24 .17 .26Dicalcium phosphate .81 1.56 .28 1.16 1.08Limestone .70 .66 1.14 1.12 .67Salt .25 .25 .25 .25 .25Vitamin premixd) .20 .20 .20 .20 .20Selenium premixe) .05 .05 .05 .05 .05Zinc oxide .30 .30 .30 .30 .30CSP 250 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50Endox .01 .01 .01 .01 .01Calculated Analysis, %Crude protein 22.08 23.02 22.29 22.79 19.60Lysine (total) 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.31Sulfur amino acids .88 .88 .88 .88 .83Calcium .90 .90 .90 .90 .70Phosphorus (total) .70 .71 .70 .70 .62aPhase I, week 1–2; Phase II, week 3–5.bSDP, spray-dried plasma.cDPS, dried porcine solubles.d)Supplied 2,000 IU vitamin A; 500 IU vitamin D3; 3 mg riboflavin; 8 mg pantothenic acid; 15 mg niacin; and 10 µgvitamin B12 per pound of diet.e)Contributed 75 ppm Zn, 87.5 ppm Fe, 30 ppm Mn, 8.75 ppm Cu, and .1 ppm Iodine per pound of diet.Iowa State University NutritionTable 2. Effect of spray-dried plasma protein and dried porcine solubles on the growthperformance of weanling pigs.Response Perioda) Dietary TreatmentsControl SDPb) DPSc) SDP and DPSADG, lbs Phase I .44a .57b .46a .52bPhase II 1.22 1.23 1.17 1.23Phase I plus II .90a .98b .90a .95bADFI, lbs Phase I .49a .61b .54a .61bPhase II 1.83 1.79 1.65 1.81Phase I plus II 1.28a 1.35b 1.22a 1.35bG:F Phase I .91a .93a .86b .84bPhase II .67a .69a .72b .69bPhase I plus II .71 .73 .75 .71aPhase I, week 1–2; Phase II, week 3–5; Phase I plus II, week 1–5bSDP, spray-dried plasma.cDPS, dried porcine solubles.Means with different letters within rows differ (P<.05).Table 3. Effect of environment on the growth performance of weanling pigs.Response Period1) Health StatusClean Environment Dirty EnvironmentADG, lbs Phase I plus II .98a .88bADFI, lbs Phase I plus II 1.37a 1.21bG:F Phase I plus II .72 .731Phase I plus II, week 1–5.Means with different letters within rows differ (P<.05).

Effect of Spray-Dried Plasma and Dried Porcine Solubles on the Growth Performance of Weanling Pigs Raised in Different Health-Status Environments

Iowa State University Computer Science Technical Reports

https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/91112

Effect of Spray-Dried Plasma and Dried Porcine Solubles on the Growth Performance of Weanling Pigs Raised in Different Health-Status Environments

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University (ISU)

Iowa State University Computer Science Technical Reports