Neil Ferguson, Ph.D.

Pierre Lessard, M.Sc.

Manager - Swine R&D

Nutreco Canada Agresearch

Swine nutritionnist
Shur-Gain Qubec

TECHNICAL ARTICLE

WATSON 2.0,

a precision and
dependability role model!
In the previous edition of At a Glance, we introduced the latest version of our integrated swine growth model WATSON. We explained
how WATSON2.0 helps you identify the optimal solution for your farm without performing an expensive trial and error process or
by simply guessing! In summary, by using WATSON2.0 the decision making process is quicker, less risky and more economical
for you. So why are we so condent about this exclusive technology innovation? The simple answer is that we put it to the test
in commercial conditions and it proved its accuracy. Since its introduction, WATSON has demonstrated it can simulate reality with
an accuracy of 96% or more.
Today, well present you another highlight of our swine performance investigator. We conducted a G-F growth trial in commercial
conditions to validate WATSON2.0 by comparing its predicted
economical and technical performances with... reality.

Ferme Laamme et Gauthier

During this trial, we compared feeding programs with various

dietary amino-acid levels but with similar energy contents. Our
goal was to identify, among the 3 different programs, the one
which would maximize the margin over feed costs (MOFC).
This trial was run in Qubec, at Ferme Laamme et Gauthier
located in Saint-Simon-de-Bagot, between November 2009 and
February 2010. Pigs entered at an average weight of 31.0 kg
and delivered to slaughter at 118.6 kg after 92.6 days on feed.

We put WATSON2.0 to the test in commercial conditions

and it proved its accuracy.
The three (3) dietary treatments we compared can be
described as follow:

* Treatment 1: Control, this is the current commercial

program;

* Treatment 2: Optimum, this is the single best solution

among all those simulated by WATSON2.0
according to the dened upper and lower
amino-acid boundaries;

* Treatment 3: Average, this program represents the

average of all solutions which can
improve MOFC.

goal was to
Our
maximize the margin
over feed costs (MOFC).

It is important to note that all programs which were considered as

possible optimum solutions needed to improve MOFC by at least
$0.50/pig! The 2 solutions have been identied by WATSON2.0
among 4,096 simulated combinations of feeding program. All
simulations used to design these programs were based on the
current genetic, physical environment and costs specic to this
farm and time of the year.

were

And the results

The overall growth performances measured on each program are summarized in Table 1. The rst point to note is that
all pigs on test had excellent rate of gains (ADG) and feed/gain
ratios (F/G). Secondly, the treatments which were designed to
improve MOFC do not necessarily minimize feed conversion.
Thirdly, even though the nutrient density of the diets suggested
by WATSON2.0 to improve MOFC were lower than the Control,
the carcass quality was not affected and growth performances
were maintained. Finally, the goal to improve MOFC by at least
$0.50/pig was attained!

Table 1. Growth and carcass results for pigs fed current

and 2 programs optimized using WATSON2.0

Entry weight, kg
Days on feed
ADFI (kg/d)
ADG (kg/d)
Feed/Gain
Carcass weight (kg)
Index
Feed cost ($/pig)
MOFC Difference ($/pig)
Standardized at 99 kg
Carcass Weight

Control

Optimum

Average

31.03
93.6
2.52
0.946
2.67
99.05
112.1
65.02

30.96
92.4
2.54
0.946
2.73
97.60
112.1
63.83

31.06
92.7
2.49
0.931
2.70
97.12
112.1
62.75

+0.69

+0.49

Table 2. Precision (%) between predicted performances by

WATSON2.0 and actual growth and carcass data of pigs fed
current and 2 programs optimized using WATSON2.0
(Predicted/Actual *100)
ADFI
ADG
Feed/gain
Back fat
Carcass Lean Yield %
Feed cost/pig
Cost/kg gain
MOFC

Control

Optimum

Average

97.6 %
96.9 %
100.4 %
103.0 %
99.3 %
100.5 %
101.4 %
97.5 %

97.6 %
97.4 %
98.9 %
104.1 %
99.2 %
99.0 %
100 %
97.6 %

98.0 %
98.2 %
98.9 %
100.5 %
99.7 %
99.2 %
100 %
98.2 %

These results validate the ability of...

WATSON2.0 to reproduce actual growth performances of
pigs with a precision equal or superior to 96%. If we
consider the goal of this trial to improve MOFC, WATSON2.0
predicted values that were within 97% of reality.

With such experimental results plus the positive experiences

accumulate each week from other clients, we are condent
we
Now, what about the precision of WATSON2.0 to predict the
you can rely on the science of WATSON2.0 to maintain a
performance results for each treatment in the growth trial? Table competitive advantage!
2, highlights the accuracy of WATSON2.0 to predict the actual
growth performances measured in this commercial trial.

In order to learn or to take advantage of this exclusive

decision-making tool as soon as possible, contact your
Shur-Gain Swine Nutrition Advisor.

THE

WITHIN YOUR REA

SEARCH
CH
OF RE
R
E
W
O
P

Mark Bodenham, B.Sc.

Swine Sales and
marketing manager
Shur-Gain Central

Dr Andrew Pharazyn, Ph.D.

Quality Assurance Manager
Nutreco Canada Agresearch

AT A GLANCE FALL 2010

TECHNICAL ARTICLE

Feeding corn distillers

dried grain with solubles
to growing-nishing pigs: pitfall and potential
Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (CDDGS) has
become a staple ingredient for formulating swine diets
in recent years. This ingredient has been very successful
helping to reduce costs in sow and grow nisher diets.
As with any ingredient a thorough understanding of
its properties is essential in order to optimize its use
in swine diets.
The quality of CDDGS depends on a number of factors such as corn
quality, the fermentation process, drying time and temperatures,
and the presence of mycotoxins. The color of CDDGS should be in
the gold to yellow color range. The Shur-Gain QC program includes
monitoring the quality of CDDGS.
CDDGS are similar to corn for energy content but the protein and
mineral fractions are approximately 3x the concentration of the
original grain. The protein content of CDDGS is high (>27%) However,
like corn, the balance of the amino acids is poor in comparison to
other protein sources such as soybean meal. In addition, there can
be increased variability in amino acid availability. Work conducted
at South Dakota State University determined the availability of
lysine in CDDGS ranged from 44%- 63%.
Nutreco Canada Agresearch has conducted research on the levels
of CDDGS that can be utilized in swine diets over the past few years.
When diets are properly balanced, CDDGS can be included up to
20% in grower-nisher diets with no signicant difference in animal
performance (Table 1). There was a signicant decrease in cost per
kg of gain, however, the degree of cost savings are also dependent
on relative costs of other ingredients (i.e. corn, wheat, barley, canola
meal, soybean meal, etc.). The decision as to whether CDDGS is
a cost effective ingredient should be made in consultation with
your Shur-Gain Swine Nutritionist.

Table 1. Swine grower-nisher performance

in response to graded levels of CDDGS
in diets of pigs fed from 25 to 115 kg.
Treatment, % CDDGS
ADFI, kg/d
ADG, g/d
Feed:Gain

0-0-0
2.34a
864
2.71

5-10-10
2.29ab
855
2.68

10-20-20 Signicance
2.23b
0.01
848
2.63

Source: Nutreco Canada Agresearch (2007)

Using CDDGS at higher levels may cause some alteration in carcass

quality. The concern with CDDGS is the high content of polyunsturated
fat that it contains (i.e. corn oil).When CDDGS exceeds 10% of the diet,
there is a tendency to have softer fat in the carcass. Because CDDGS

contains 10-12% fat, every 100 kg/tonne of CDDGS added to the diet
adds the equivalent of about 10-12 kg/tonne corn oil.
Research at Nutreco Canada Agresearch (Table 2) has shown that
increasing the level of CDDGS in the grow-nish diets elevated the
level of linoleic acid and other polyunstaturated fatty acids by 45%
compared to control diets. To keep fat rmness at an acceptable

level it would be recommended to keep CDDGS levels to 10% or

less in nisher diets. This is in agreement with Alberta Agricultures
Dr. Eduardo Beltranenas and University of Albertas Dr. Ruurd Zijlstras
recommendations (Farmscape Episode 3368, 2010 and Advances in
Pork Production, 2008) who recommend removal of CDDGS 2-4 weeks
before slaughter.

Table 2. Swine carcass characteristics

in response to graded levels of CDDGS
in diets of pigs fed from 25 to 115 kg.
Treatment, % CDDGS
Carcass Weight, kg
Backfat, mm
Loin Depth, mm
Lean Yield, %
Index
Bending
Fat Firmness*
Loin Firmness, mm
Fat Color Japan
Loin Colour Japan
Texture

0-0-0

5-10-10

89.09
16.9
59.1
61.3
108
2.1
2.6a
2.9
1.8
2.3
2.0

89.06
16.7
57.8
61.3
108
1.9
2.1b
3.1
1.8
2.7
2.1

10-20-20 Signiance
89.78
16.5
57.6
61.4
110
1.8
1.8c
2.7
1.9
2.1
1.7

0.09

Source: Nutreco Canada Agresearch (2007)

*Fat Firmness the higher the value, the rmer the fat

In summary, CDDGS represent an opportunity ingredient that

has the potential to reduce feed costs. It is important to have
a complete understanding of the ingredient and assess its use
with a full understanding of the potential risks. Responsible
inclusion levels for grower and nisher diets formulated in
consultation with a Shur-Gain swine nutritionist can yield
favourable performance and nancial results.