Hello everyone. I’m Diego Rodriguez. I am a Masters student in the University of
Illinois under the supervision of Dr. Hans Stein. And today I will talk about
the effect of using two different sources of DDGS—Dakota gold and a conventional
DDGS—on wean to finish growth performance and carcass quality of pigs fed diets
that were provided in a pelleted or in a meal form.

This is the outline of this presentation. First, I’m going to talk about Dakota
gold DDGS and the nutritional values, followed by the advantages and
disadvantages of pelleting diets. Then I’m going to move into the materials and
methods. And after that, I will present the results of this study and draw some
conclusions.

Dakota Gold is a corn distillers dried grain with solubles that is produced by
Poet. It is obtained by a cold fermentation process that is also called a BPX
process. Dakota Gold DDGS is characterized for having a low oil concentration,
and this heat free process and a low fat concentration could affect energy and
amino acid digestibility and have implications in terms of growth performance.

Each source of the two types of DDGS—Dakota Gold and conventional DDGS—were
evaluated before we started the experiment. The first thing that we can observe
here is that Dakota Gold has a lower fat concentration compared with the
conventional DDGS. In a previous experiment, we determined the metabolizable
energy. And we observed that Dakota Gold had lower ME compared with the
conventional DDGS. This difference was around 200 kcal/kg, and this is probably
because of the lower concentration of fat in Dakota Gold. The crude protein is
slightly greater in Dakota Gold as well. In a previous experiment, we evaluated
the amino acid digestibility and we calculated digestible amino acids of the two
sources of DDGS. And we found out that concentration of digestible amino acids
is greater in Dakota Gold compared with conventional DDGS.

Pelleting process is a technology that is usually used in the feed industry. As
a technology, it has some advantages. For example, there is an improvement in
handling properties. Some authors have reported that pelleted diets may increase
digestibility of nutrients, and therefore the growth performance will be
improved. On the other hand, it has been reported that the heat process used at
the moment of pelleting diets may damage the amino acids. It’s also good to take
into consideration that pelleting diets will generate extra costs to the
process.

However, there is limited information about the effect of pelleting diets that
contain conventional DDGS or Dakota Gold DDGS in growth performance and meat
quality.

Therefore, the objective of this research was to determine the effect of
including Dakota Gold or a conventional DDGS in diets that were fed in a meal or
a pelleted form to pigs from weaning to market phase.

Let’s move on into the materials and methods. We used 160 weaned barrows and
gilts. the pigs were weaned at day 21. We formulated 4 diets and we had 10 pens
per diet with 4 pigs per pen.

Let me explain the experimental diets. During the nursery phase, we had three
different phases. During the phase 1, pigs were fed for the initial 7 days on a
corn-soybean meal diet with no inclusion of DDGS. During the phase 2, pigs were
fed for 14 days on diets containing corn, soybean meal, plus 15% of DDGS. During
the Phase 3, pigs were fed for 22 days, and we increased to 30% inclusion of
DDGS into the corn-soybean meal diets. During the grower phase, pigs were fed
for 38 days, for early finishing phase pigs were fed for the 38 days, and during
the late finishing phase, pigs were fed for 18 days. And all diets during
growing to finisher period contained 30% of DDGS in a corn-soybean meal diet.

All diets were formulated based on the metabolizable energy values and the
concentration of digestible amino acids obtained in the previous experiments. We
balanced the diets for amino acid by including more synthetic amino acids in
diets containing the conventional DDGS because of the lower concentration of
digestible amino acids in conventional DDGS. However, we did not balance the
energy concentration in diets; therefore, diets containing Dakota Gold DDGS has
a lower metabolizable energy compared with diets containing the conventional
DDGS.

The dietary treatment, we had two factors: As factor 1, the source of
DDGS—Dakota Gold or conventional DDGS. And as factor 2, the diet form—in a meal
or in a pelleted form.

For the statistical analysis, data were analyzed the MIXED procedure of SAS. We
had a 2x2 factorial treatment regimen with the DDGS source, the diet form, and
the interaction between the diet form and the DDGS source. Even though we
analyzed the interaction, it was not significant in our response criteria and
therefore, it was eliminated in the final model. Pigs were blocked by body
weight but balanced by sex.

Let’s move on into the results. Because the interaction was removed from the
final model, the data will be presented as two main effects, which are the
source of DDGS and the diet form.

Pigs were fed the diets containing DDGS during three nursery phases; however,
the data will be presented for the overall nursery phase.

First off, let me set up the slides. The source of DDGS will be presented with
orange bars, where Dakota Gold is presented in dark orange and the conventional
DDGS in light orange. Diet form will be presented with blue bars, where meal
diet is presented in dark blue and pelleted diets in light blue. Average daily
feed intake was not different between pigs fed the two sources of DDGS. However,
pigs fed meal diets had a greater average daily feed intake than pigs fed
pelleted diets. The reason for this difference may be because of more feed
wastage or just because pigs ate more.

Average daily gain did not differ between pigs fed diets containing the two
sources of DDGS. The same story was observed that average daily gain of pigs was
not affected by diet form.

Gain:feed ratio did not differ between pigs fed either Dakota Gold or
conventional DDGS. When we formulated diets, the metabolizable energy was not
balanced, even though diets containing Dakota Gold DDGS had a lower
metabolizable energy. And with this result, we assume that we probably
underestimated the ME in Dakota Gold DDGS. Meanwhile, pigs fed diets in a meal
form had a lower gain:feed ratio compared with pigs fed pelleted diets. That is
because of the no difference in average daily gain between pigs fed meal or
pelleted diets, and the higher feed intake in pigs fed the meal diets.

For the final body weight, pigs did show any differences between the two sources
of DDGS or between the two diet forms.

On day 43, pigs were moved into a growing to finishing barn to continue the
trial. Pigs stayed in the same allotment with the same treatment until the end
of the experiment. There were three phases, and the phases include grower, early
finisher, and late finisher. However, the data here will be presented as an
overall.

Average daily feed intake did not differ between pigs fed Dakota Gold or
conventional DDGS. However, pigs fed diets in a meal form tend to have greater
feed intake compared with pigs fed pelleted diets. These results were similar to
what we observed during the nursery phase.

Pigs fed the two sources of DDGS did not show any difference in average daily
gain. And the same was observed between pigs fed diets in a meal or in a
pelleted form.

For the gain:feed ratio, pigs fed Dakota Gold or conventional DDGS did not show
any difference. That, again, is telling us that the difference in ME between
Dakota Gold and the conventional DDGS is not that great, to affect the gain:feed
ratio during the growing to finishing phase if DDGS is included by 30% in diets.
However, pigs fed pelleted diets had a greater gain:feed ratio compared with
pigs fed meal diets.

Now we are seeing the final body weight of the pigs, and there was no difference
between pigs fed either Dakota Gold or conventional DDGS, or pigs fed diets in a
meal or in a pelleted form.

At the conclusion of the experiment, the pig that was closer to the average
final body weight of each pen was euthanized and carcass characteristics were
evaluated.

The percentage of dressing in carcass did not differ between pigs fed diets
containing either Dakota Gold or conventional DDGS. The same was observed that
dressing percentage did not differ between pigs fed diets in a meal or in a
pelleted form.

The back fat was not different between pigs fed diets containing either Dakota
Gold or conventional DDGs. However, pigs fed diets in a meal form had a lower
back fat compared with pigs fed diets in a pelleted form. Combined with growth
performance data, it appears that pigs fed pelleted diets were available to
utilize more energy from the diets, which may result in more fat deposition from
the excess of energy.

Fat free lean was calculated with the hot carcass weight, the loin muscle area,
and the back fat. There was no difference in the calculated fat free lean
between pigs fed diets containing the two sources of DDGS. But as a result of
greater back fat in pigs fed pelleted diets, there was a reduction in fat free
lean compared with pigs fed diets in a meal form.

Let me summarize what we have discussed. Even though Dakota Gold DDGS contained
lower metabolizable energy compared with conventional DDGS, the growth
performance was no different between pigs fed diets containing the two sources
of DDGS if 30% of DDGS is included in diets. However, pigs fed pelleted diets
have improved gain:feed ratio compared with pigs fed diets in a meal form. On
the other hand, for carcass characteristics, there was no difference between
pigs fed diets containing either Dakota Gold or the conventional DDGS. But pigs
fed diets in a pelleted form had a greater back fat compared with pigs fed diets
in a meal form.

And with that, I would like to appreciate Poet for supporting this experiment,
and our team members for supporting me with unconditional help. Thank you for
listening, and if you would like to know more about this topic or about swine
nutrition in general, I would encourage you to visit our website at
nuturition.ansci.illinois.edu. Thank you.