Dietary manipulation using AUSPIG to optimise pig production.

Abstract

9A Dietary manipulation using AUSPIG to optimise pig production C.E. Foote1, B. Hosking2, J.Gaughan1 and J.E. Riley 3 1School of Veterinary Science and Animal Production, University of Queensland, Gatton College, Lawes Qld 4343; 2Better Blend Stockfeeds, Oakey Qld 4401; 3JCR Associates International, `Warreners' M.S. 150, Pittsworth Qld 4356 With a constant drive for improved efficiency, pig producers are being forced to consider the many factors such as genotype, piggery environment, nutrition and market requirements that account for the variation seen in their herds (Patience et al. 1996; Willis, 1998). Because of these complex interactions, effective management in industry can only be achieved using simulation models such as AUSPIG (DSL Systems Centre, CSIRO Animal Production, Blacktown NSW 2148) which bring together a depth of knowledge about the factors determining animal performance and enterprise profitability (Black et al. 1993). In an experiment conducted to investigate the optimal dietary formulation to meet herd requirements, AUSPIG was used to design three diets to supply 100, 115 and 130% of the requirements of the average male in the herd. AUSPIG 100 satisfies the mean animal in the herd, while AUSPIG 115 and 130 support a higher than average rate of protein deposition allowing for a greater number of animals in the herd to express their genetic potential. Results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 A difference is clearly shown in the way each sex responded to each treatment; significant effects (P<0.05) of sex and treatment on weight gain and backfat support this observation. These results suggest that split-sex feeding might be considered as a method of improving productivity within this piggery. AUSPIG has the capacity to interpret what-if scenarios and assist producers in developing strategies for improving efficiency and profitability. Black, J.L., Davies, G.T. and Fleming, J.F. (1993). Role of computer simulation in the application of knowledge to animal industries. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 44, 541-55. Patience, J.F. and de Lange, D.F.M. (1996). Swine nutrition in the 21st century. Animal Feed Science and Technology 19-27. Willis, S. (1998). AUSPIG In action a Queensland experience. In: Pan Pacific Pork Expo Seminar Day Proceedings, pp. 4147 (eds. S. Kratzmann and P. Fearon). Department of Primary Industries, Toowoomba, Qld. Results of dietary experiment with male and female pigs. AUSPIG 100 Male Female 71 32.7 9 92 49.6 1.73 2.15 133 91.0 1010 2.99 2.96 15 940 2.72 144.00 30.25 113.75 AUSPIG 115 Male 68 32.0 9 89 49.8 1.71 2.02 130 92.1 1032 3.11 3.02 14 969 2.72 142.50 33.35 109.15 Female 67 30.4 8 88 47.6 1.65 2.02 129 87.2 966 3.06 3.16 14 916 2.82 141.60 32.65 108.95 Male 70 33.4 8 91 51.5 1.66 1.92 132 95.6 1076 2.95 2.75 13 1003 2.51 148.75 34.05 114.70 AUSPIG 130 Female 71 30.6 9 92 47.3 1.77 2.23 134 86.3 951 2.96 3.11 14 898 2.84 140.20 34.65 105.55 Starting Age (days) Liveweight (kg) P2 (mm) End Grower Phase Age (d) Liveweight (kg) Feed Offered (kg/d) Feed Efficiency End Finisher Phase Age (d) Liveweight (kg) ADG (g/d) Feed Offered (kg/d) Feed Efficiency P2 farm Overall ADG (g/d) Feed Efficiency Profitability ($/pig) Net return Feed Cost Margin over feed 69 27.4 8 90 44.0 1.74 2.20 131 87.2 1054 3.15 2.99 13 965 2.77 141.20 31.50 109.70 Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia, Volume 12 (1999)