trey kellner - impact of dietary fat source and level on growth, feed efficiency, digestibility, and...

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION

OVERVIEW OF THE IMPACTS DIETARY FAT SOURCE AND INCLUSION LEVEL HAS ON

PORK PRODUCTION

T. A. Kellner, M.S.Department of Animal ScienceIowa State University, Ames

September 19th, 2016

Allen D. Leman Swine Conference


The role of dietary fat in swine diets

• Energy Improve barn throughputMaintain energy intake

When using lower energy ingredientsWhen insults to intake occur

When the cost/lb of gain or the cost/unit of energy provided is advantageous

• Pork carcass fat quality


Impact of dietary fat source and level on growth performance1

Kellner et al., 2016

Item

Treatment

SEMP-value2Corn oil

Choice white grease

2% 4% 6% 2% 4% 6% FS FLME intake, Mcal/d 8.71 8.91 8.77 8.65 8.63 8.74 0.14 0.426 0.890ADG, lbs. 1.99 2.01 2.03 1.99 1.99 2.04 0.02 0.907 0.266ADFI, lbs. 5.73 5.67 5.45 5.69 5.50 5.43 0.09 0.325 0.028Feed to gain ratio 2.88 2.82 2.68 2.86 2.76 2.66 0.01 0.107 <0.001C.V. (d 0), % 19.7 19.3 19.8 19.0 20.0 20.4 1.1 0.857 0.832C.V. (d 105), % 8.9 8.8 8.5 8.1 9.3 9.1 0.5 0.799 0.589Average market BW, lbs.

308 310 310 308 308 310 1 0.749 0.513

Pig days/number of head sold

119 119 119 120 119 116 2 0.407 0.417

110 pens (7.53 ft2/pig) and 200 pigs per treatment; Starting BW 70.5 ± 0.9 lbs.2No significant interaction between fat source and fat level was evident (P > 0.30).


Impact of dietary fat source and level on caloric efficiency of carcass gain1,2

5.85 5.76

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

CO CWG

ME

inta

ke to

car

cass

gai

n,

Mca

l:lb

5.85 5.81 5.76

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2% 4% 6%

ME

inta

ke to

car

cass

gai

n,

Mca

l:lb

P = 0.074 P = 0.350


110 pens (7.53 ft2/pig) and 200 pigs/treatment; start BW 70.5 lbs. to end BW 309 lbs.2No significant interaction between fat source and fat level was evident (P > 0.68).


Impact of dietary fat source and level on apparent (ATTD) and true total tract (TTTD) digestibility on d 391

Item

Treatment

SEMP-valueCO CWG

2% 4% 6% 2% 4% 6% FS FL FS × FLATTD2

DM, % 77.4 82.0 83.7 78.3 82.0 80.5 0.6 0.048 <0.001 <0.001

GE, % 78.6 82.7 84.2 78.8 82.5 81.1 0.3 0.006 <0.001 <0.001

AEE, % 66.2 74.9 79.2 65.2 75.4 75.7 0.9 0.017 <0.001 0.012

TTTD3

AEE, % 95.0 94.1 93.4 91.6 92.8 92.9 0.8 0.062 0.954 0.395


110 pens (7.53 ft2/pig) and 200 pigs/treatment; start BW 70.5 lbs. to end BW 309 lbs.2Titanium dioxide was included at 0.40%; Apparent total track digestibility (ATTD; %) of either AEE, DM, or GE was calculated according to Oresanya et al. (2007).3True total tract digestibility (TTTD; %) of AEE was calculated by correcting ATTD of AEE for endogenous fat losses at 20 g of AEE/kg of DM intake (Acosta et al., 2015).


Effects of ad libitum feed intake in thermal neutral conditions (TN)1, pair feeding in thermal neutral conditions (PFTN)1,2, or heat stress (HS)3, additional inclusion of no dietary fat (CNTR), 3% tallow (TAL), or 3% corn oil (CO) on energy intake

a,bMeans among treatments with different superscripts differ, P < 0.051Constant thermal neutral environment of ~75.2°F.2Limit-fed based on HS feed intake on the previous day3Heat stress environment of ~91.4°F between 0800 h to 2000 h and ~82.4°F 2000 h to 0800 h

13.1

9.6 9.5

02468

1012141618

TN PFTN HS

ME

inta

ke, M

cal/d

a

b

10.7 10.4 11.0

02468

1012141618

CNTR TAL COM

E in

take

, Mca

l/d

P < 0.001 P = 0.090

b


27.5% Difference


Effects of ad libitum feed intake in thermal neutral conditions (TN)1, pair feeding in thermal neutral conditions (PFTN)1,2, or heat stress (HS)3, additional inclusion of no dietary fat (CNTR), 3% tallow (TAL), or 3% corn oil (CO) on caloric efficiency

5.9

4.6

6.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

TN PFTN HS

ME

inta

ke:B

Wga

in, M

cal/l

b

aba

5.8 5.9 5.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

CNTR TAL COM

E in

take

:BW

gain

, Mca

l/lbP = 0.013 P = 0.654

b




Effects of ad libitum feed intake in thermal neutral conditions (TN)1, pair feeding in thermal neutral conditions (PFTN)1,2, or heat stress (HS)3, additional inclusion of no dietary fat (CNTR), 3% tallow (TAL), or 3% corn oil (CO) on apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of acid hydrolyzed ether extract (AEE)

60.2 61.4 59.0

30405060708090

100110120

TN PFTN HS

ATTD

of A

EE

, %

41.6

67.9 71.2

30405060708090

100110120

CNTR TAL COAT

TD o

f AE

E, %

P = 0.054 P < 0.001

a

c

b




97.9 98.5 96.7

30405060708090

100110120

TN PFTN HS

TTTD

of A

EE

, %

97.3 96.3 99.3

30405060708090

100110120

CNTR TAL COTT

TD o

f AE

E, %

P = 0.118 P = 0.012

a

b b



Effects of ad libitum feed intake in thermal neutral conditions (TN)1, pair feeding in thermal neutral conditions (PFTN)1,2, or heat stress (HS)3, additional inclusion of no dietary fat (CNTR), 3% tallow (TAL), or 3% corn oil (CO) on true total tract digestibility (TTTD) of acid hydrolyzed ether extract (AEE)


Effects of ad-libitum feed intake in thermal neutral conditions (TN), pair-feeding in thermal neutral conditions (PFTN), or heat stress (HS) on mRNA abundance in adipose tissue on d 7

a,b Means among treatments with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05

Gene Description

Environment, ΔΔCt

SEM P-valueTN PFTN HSACLY ATP citrate lyase 0.30 -0.64 0.21 0.63 0.537

ACSS2 Acyl-CoA synthetase short-chain family member 2 0.23 -0.38 -0.45 0.72 0.633

ACACA Acetyl CoA carboxylase -0.20 -0.56 0.27 1.25 0.517FASN Fatty acid synthase -0.42 -0.23 -1.15 0.81 0.249SCD Stearoyl CoA desaturase 0.48a -0.29ab -2.13b 1.19 0.047

PRKAG1 Protein kinase, AMP-activated, gamma 1 non-catalytic subunit 0.36 0.02 0.30 1.84 0.889

PLIN1 Perilipin 1 0.35 0.45 -0.85 1.60 0.418ATGL Adipose triglyceride lipase 0.08a -1.80b 1.15a 0.88 <0.001HSL Hormone sensitive lipase -0.01b -0.36b 1.54a 1.53 0.041INSR Insulin receptor -0.39 0.40 -0.02 0.81 0.823


Effects of dietary fat (CNTR), 3% tallow (TAL), or 3% corn oil (CO) on mRNA abundance in adipose tissue on d 7

a,b Means among treatments with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05

Gene Description

Dietary fat, ΔΔCt

SEM P-valueCNTR TAL COACLY ATP citrate lyase -0.04 0.78 -0.85 0.63 0.201

ACSS2 Acyl-CoA synthetase short-chain family member 2 -0.81 0.52 -0.33 0.72 0.215

ACACA Acetyl CoA carboxylase 0.15 0.02 -0.66 1.25 0.566FASN Fatty acid synthase -0.36a 0.20a -1.64b 0.81 0.011SCD Stearoyl CoA desaturase 0.11a 0.90a -2.94b 1.18 0.002

PRKAG1 Protein kinase, AMP-activated, gamma 1 non-catalytic subunit 0.69 0.21 -0.22 1.84 0.444

PLIN1 Perilipin 1 0.51 0.90 -1.46 1.60 0.101ATGL Adipose triglyceride lipase 0.04 0.31 -0.92 0.88 0.258HSL Hormone sensitive lipase 0.13 0.36 0.68 1.53 0.807INSR Insulin receptor 0.91 -0.04 -0.88 0.81 0.313


Implications

• Dietary fat is highly digested regardless of level of inclusion

• Sources of dietary fat (even of high quality) with different degrees of unsaturation, differ in TTTD of AEE and caloric efficiency that need to be further defined and understood, to maximize value and economic outcomes

• Adding dietary fat will reduce ADFI and not impact ADG if energy intake is not limited


Implications

• Heat stress not only impairs energy intake, but reduces the efficiency of converting dietary energy intake into body weight gain

• Heat stress suppresses lipids being used as a source of energy Dietary lipids are directed towards deposition and not mobilized for

products and processes Concerning, as diets formulated in seasonally warm conditions have a

higher proportion of dietary lipids

• Employment of an unsaturated fat source versus a saturated fat source had no further advantage in alleviating heat stress


The role of dietary fat in swine diets

• Energy

• Pork carcass fat qualityCarcass iodine value (fatty acid profile)Belly quality


Impact of dietary fat source and level on carcass iodine value


65.4 66.3 67.2 70.2 70.3 72.680.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 3 6 3 6 3 6

Control Tallow CWG Corn Oil

Iodi

ne v

alue

, g/1

00g

d d d c c b a

P-values:Level < 0.001; Source < 0.001; Level × Source < 0.001


Prediction of carcass iodine value (IV) by iodine value product (IVP)1

IV = 42.99 + (0.373 × IVP)R2 = 0.85 P = 0.008 Root MSE = 2.87

1Developed via 10 pens (7.53 ft2/pig) and 200 pigs/treatment; start BW 70.5 lbs. to end BW 309 lbs.

2% CWG

4% CWG6% CWG

2% CO 4% CO

6% CO

60

70

80

90

100

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Car

cass

IV, g

/100

g

Dietary IVP (measured)


Prediction of carcass iodine value (IV) by linoleic acid (C18:2) concentration in the diet

IV = 49.94 + (7.000 × C18:2%)R2 = 0.95 P < 0.001 Root MSE = 1.69

1Developed via 10 pens (7.53 ft2/pig) and 200 pigs/treatment; start BW 70.5 lbs. to end BW 309 lbs.

2% CWG

4% CWG6% CWG

2% CO 4% CO

6% CO

60

70

80

90

100

2 3 4 5 6

Car

cass

IV, g

/100

g

Dietary C18:2 concentration, %


Effects of marketing pull1 on carcass iodine value (IV)

77.2 77.2 76.7

505560657075808590

d 105 d 117 d 134

Car

cass

IV, g

/100

g

P = 0.899

1Difference among pulls was evident for HCW (d 105 = 230.8, d 117 = 228.6, d 134 = 233.7 lbs.; P < 0.001).


Implications

• C18:2 (and C18:3 if using fish oil) can be used as a predictor of carcass IV in a commercial setting

• Limiting C18:2 dietary concentration or intake is key to lowering carcass IV

• Under these experimental conditions to meet a carcass IV standard of 74 g/100 g (Semen et al., 2013) Maximum dietary concentration of C18:2 had to be less than

3.4% Daily C18:2 intake had to be less than 88 g/d.


Implications• It is important to note that among the attempts to predict

carcass IV: What is consistent is the strong linear relationship between dietary fat

composition and carcass fat composition What is not consistent among these attempts is range of carcass IV,

the slope, and the resulting y-intercept

For example • To meet a carcass IV standard of 74 g/100 g

– Kellner et al. (2014) found that maximum daily C18:2 intake needs to be less than 111 g/d

– These data indicate the maximum daily C18:2 intake needs to be less than 88 g/d


Ongoing research• What is the actual difference in energy value of dietary fats that differ in

their degree of unsaturation?

A regression equation will be developed from:• 14 different dietary fat sources (ranging from highly saturated to highly

unsaturated)• 128 individually housed pigs• 2 different stages of growth (mid-nursery and mid-grower)• An adjustment of total tract gastrointestinal endogenous losses of fat

digestion through feeding of a fat-free diet

mRNA abundance will be measured in 4 different tissues to determine why differences in digestion, absorption, and metabolism occur due to different chemical compositions of dietary fats

Funded by the National Pork Board


Thank you

This research was supported by National Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68004-30336 from the USDA National

Institute of Food and Agriculture and the National Pork Board.Appreciation is expressed to Swine Graphics Enterprises and Gourley

Research Group for in-kind support or contributions.

trey kellner - impact of dietary fat source and level on growth, feed efficiency, digestibility, and...

Health & Medicine