Evaluation of Vegetable Protein Sources on Nursery Pig Evaluation of Vegetable Protein Sources on Nursery Pig Performance in a Commercial Environment Performance in a Commercial Environment

Summary This experiment was conducted to determine the effect of vegetable protein sources on growth and economic performance of nursery pigs in a commercial research environment. A total of 2,592 pigs (L337 × 1050, PIC; initial BW of 11.8 ± 0.11 lb) were used in a 42-d study. Pens of pigs were blocked by BW and weaning date and allotted to 1 of 6 dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design with 27 pigs per pen and 16 replications per treatment across 2 rooms. Similar numbers of barrows and gilts were placed in each pen. There were six dietary treatments which included: 1) soybean meal control diet with no specialty vegetable protein source, and 5 diets containing either 2) soy protein concentrate 1; 3) soy protein concentrate 2; 4) enzyme-treated soybean meal; 5) fermented soybean meal; and 6) high protein corn DDGS. Treatment diets were formulated in two dietary phases and fed at a rate of 5 lb/pig and 18 lb/pig, respectively, with a common phase 3 diet fed for the remainder of the study. During the experimental diet feeding period (d 0 to 21) or overall (d 0 to 42), there was no evidence of difference ( P > 0.05) for BW, ADG, ADFI, or F/G. Additionally, there was no evidence of significant difference ( P > 0.05) for total removals, removals, or mortality. For economic analysis, there was no evidence for significant difference ( P > 0.05) for any response criteria. In summary, no differences existed between soybean meal and the specialty vegetable protein sources used in this study.


Introduction
Soybean meal is one of the most used and important protein sources in swine diets due to its highly concentrated and digestible AA profile. 4However, the presence of various anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitors and antigens, along with indigestible Swine Day 2021 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service oligosaccharides, can have adverse effects on nursery pig performance and health. 5In addition, it has been demonstrated that further processed soybean meal and other vegetable protein sources can be more tolerable in weanling pigs when compared to conventional soybean meal.The suggested improvement in gastrointestinal health should therefore lead to improvements in growth performance and feed efficiency during the early nursery period.Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various specialty vegetable protein sources on nursery pig growth, feed efficiency, and economic performance.

Materials and Methods
The Kansas State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved the protocol used in this experiment.This study was conducted at a commercial nursery research site owned and operated by New Horizon Farms (Pipestone, MN).This study was conducted in two rooms with 96 pens that were completely enclosed, environmentally controlled, and mechanically ventilated.Each pen (12 × 8 ft) had plastic slatted floors and was equipped with a six-hole stainless steel dry feeder and pan waterer to provide ad libitum access to feed and water.Feed additions were accomplished using a robotic feeding system (FeedPro, FeedLogic Corp., Wilmar, MN) that was able to record daily feed additions for individual pens.Pens of pigs were weighed, and feed disappearance was recorded weekly during the course of the study to determine ADG, ADFI, and F/G.

Animals and diets
A total of 2,592 pigs (L337 × 1050, PIC; initial BW 11.8 ± 0.11 lb) were used in a 42-d growth study with 27 pigs per pen.The rooms were filled over the course of 7 days and all pens were balanced equally with gilts and barrows.Pens of pigs were assigned to 1 of 6 dietary treatments with 16 replications per treatment in a randomized complete block design with pens blocked by BW and weaning date.Dietary treatments included: 1) soybean meal-based control diet with no specialty vegetable protein source, along with 5 diets containing either 2) soy protein concentrate 1 (XSoy 600; CJ America-Bio Downers Grove, IL); 3) soy protein concentrate 2 (Soytide 600; CJ America-Bio Downers Grove, IL); 4) enzyme-treated soybean meal (HP 300; Hamlet Protein, Findlay, OH); 5) fermented soybean meal (Fermex 200; Purina Animal Nutrition, Shoreview, MN); and 6) high protein corn DDGS (NexPro; POET, Wichita, KS).Pigs were fed based on a budget and received 5 lb of phase 1 diet and then 18 lb of phase 2 diet.A common diet, without specialty vegetable protein sources, was fed from the end of phase 2 until d 42 (Tables 1 and 2).On d 21, 1 room of pigs (8 reps per treatment) was removed from the trial due to a PRRSV outbreak.Data from this room of pigs were included during the experimental period (d 0 to 21), but not the subsequent common period (d 21 to 42).
For experimental diets in phase 1, a control corn-soybean meal-based diet was formulated to meet or exceed NRC 6  diets were formulated to contain equal levels of SID Lys from the respective vegetable protein sources as that of the soy protein concentrate 1.For phase 2 diets, the level of each specialty vegetable protein source was set to half the phase 1 inclusion rate.Phase 1 diets were manufactured by Hubbard Feeds (Worthington, MN) and fed in pellet form, while phases 2 and 3 were manufactured by New Horizon Farms (Pipestone, MN) and fed in meal form.

Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design for a one-way ANOVA using the lmer function from the lme4 package in R Studio (Version 3.5.2,R Core Team.Vienna, Austria) with pen serving as the experimental unit, weaning date and initial BW as blocking factor, and treatment as fixed effect.Differences between treatments were determined using estimated marginal means.When treatment was a significant source of variation, differences were determined by pairwise comparison using the Tukey-Kramer multiplicity adjustment to control for type I error.Results were considered significant with P ≤ 0.05 and were considered marginally significant with P ≤ 0.10.

Results and Discussion
From d 0 to 21, there was no evidence of difference (P > 0.05) for ADG, ADFI, or F/G (Table 3).However, at d 21 there was a tendency for differences (P = 0.089) in BW, with pigs fed diets containing the fermented soybean meal product having the greatest numeric BW and the control diet the lowest.During the common phase (d 21 to 42), there was marginally significant evidence that one treatment differed from another, but when using a Tukey multiple comparison adjustment, no pairwise differences (P > 0.05) for ADG and ADFI were observed.For the overall trial period (d 0 to 42), there was no evidence of difference (P > 0.05) for any response criteria.Additionally, there was no evidence of significant difference (P > 0.05) for total removals, removals, or mortality.For economic analysis there was no evidence for significant difference (P > 0.05) for any response criteria.However, the fermented SBM product numerically had the greatest IOFC for each analyzed economic scenario.
In summary, feeding pigs the specialty vegetable protein sources did not significantly impact growth performance, mortality, removals, or economic return during the nursery period, compared with those pigs fed soybean meal.Thus, it appears that any of various vegetable protein sources in this study can be used to reduce the amount of soybean meal in the starter diets, although none resulted in improved performance over the control diet.

Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only.
No endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned.Persons using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current label directions of the manufacturer.Phase 1 diets were fed at a rate of 5 lb per pig and manufactured by Hubbard Feeds (Worthington, MN). 2 The control diet did not contain any specialty vegetable protein source. 31) XSoy 600; CJ America-Bio, Downers Grove, IL. 2) Soytide; CJ America-Bio, Downers Grove, IL. 3) HP 300; Hamlet Protein, Findlay, OH. 4) Fermex 200; Purina Animal Nutrition, Shoreview, MN. 5) NexPro; POET, Wichita, KS. 4 Quantum Blue 5G (AB Vista, Plantation, FL) provided 889 FTU/lb. 5ZnO was fed to supply 3,000 ppm of Zn.Phase 2 diets were fed from the completion of Phase 1 at a rate of 18 lb per pig and a phase 3 common diet was fed from the completion of Phase 2 until d 42 (approximately 39.8 lb BW).Both phase 2 and 3 diets were manufactured by New Horizon Farms (Pipestone, MN). 2 The control diet did not contain any specialty vegetable protein source.

Table 1 .
1omposition of phase 1 diets (as-fed basis)1 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

Table 1 .
1omposition of phase 1 diets (as-fed basis)1 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service Day 2021 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

Table 3 .
1,2ects of vegetable protein sources on nursery pig performance1,2 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service