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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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).
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
Kellner et al., 2016
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).
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
Kellner et al., 2016
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).
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
Kellner et al., 2016
27.5% Difference
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
Kellner et al., 2016
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
Kellner et al., 2016
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
Kellner et al., 2016
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
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)
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
The role of dietary fat in swine diets
• Energy
• Pork carcass fat qualityCarcass iodine value (fatty acid profile)Belly quality
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
Impact of dietary fat source and level on carcass iodine value
Kellner et al., 2014
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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)
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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, %
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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).
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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.
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
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.