National Swine Nutrition Guide tables on nutrient recommendations, ingredient composition, and use rates

Swine nutrition and feeding management is a complex process. Feed is the largest single item among the costs of producing pork, historically accounting for about 60% of all costs in farrow-to-finish systems. Pork producers are encouraged to employ a comprehensive feeding program based on sound principles and tailored to the operation. The National Swine Nutrition Guide (NSNG), which includes the Diet Formulation and Evaluation CD to allow direct application of its contents to practical feeding situations, provides the basis for the development and management of such swine feeding programs.

 

---

 

The purpose of the NSNG is to enhance the understanding of basic nutrition, feeding principles and related management practices and to serve as a reference for pork producers, students, educators and allied industry personnel. Users of the NSNG will be able to estimate the nutritional needs of pigs by considering specific factors that affect nutrient recommendations.

 

The NSNG consists of 35 factsheets and the Diet Formulator CD. For those seeking only nutrient recommendations for various classes of swine and ingredient composition and use rates, we prepared this summary. More details regarding nutrient recommendations, ingredient composition, formulating diets, and feeding program management are presented in the factsheets and on the Diet Formulator CD.

 

General explanation of nutrient recommendations

 

Nutrient requirements established by the 1998 National Research Council (NRC) and research results published since then were used as the basis for nutrient recommendations in the NSNG. Values published by the NRC do not include any intentional surpluses; they are the committee’s best estimates of minimum requirements for nutrients. Those requirements are based on pigs fed corn and soybean meal-based diets under experimental conditions that normally provide ideal growing conditions. In commercial production situations, a margin of safety is added to the published nutrient requirements; in the NSNG those levels are referred to as “recommendations”. A margin of safety was applied to each nutrient in order to establish a recommendation for that nutrient in the NSNG. Margins of safety are necessary to account for any number of factors that affect nutrient needs (see PIG Factsheet # 07-01-07, Factors Affecting Nutrient Requirements) and variability in nutrient composition and in nutrient bioavailability of feed ingredients (see PIG factsheet #07-07-09, Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets). Nutrient cost and environmental issues surrounding nutrient excretion were also considered when determining safety margins.

 

Nutrient recommendations in the NSNG were established according to predetermined pig performance standards; for example, daily weight gain, feed intake, carcass lean gain, litter size and litter weaning weight. Those standards accompany the nutrient recommendations in the NSNG to provide transparency and to allow individuals to tailor recommendations to specific situations.

 

The nutrient recommendations presented herein should result in a “best cost” feeding strategy for most pork producers the majority of the time. However, certain conditions (i.e., specific genetic populations, economics, environmental conditions, nutrient availability, nutrient profile, and nutrient interactions) may exist that require significant deviations from the recommendations presented.

 

Although crude protein values still appear on feed labels and in some feeding recommendations, we did not list dietary protein recommendations because pigs do not require protein in their diet. Instead they require amino acids, which are found in protein. Recommended levels for six of the most critical amino acids are provided in Tables 1 to 10. Lysine is the first limiting amino acid in grain soybean meal based diets. Lysine recommendations are provided on a total and a standardized ileal digestible (SID) basis. Recommendations for total lysine are applicable to corn-soybean meal based diets only. Formulating diets on a SID basis allows one to account for differences in the usable amino acids present in the diet and more closely meets the pig’s amino acid needs while minimizing excess nitrogen excretion.

 

The recommendations for threonine, methionine, methionine+cysteine, tryptophan, isoleucine and valine are also expressed on an SID basis. These recommendations were derived from an optimal pattern or ratio among amino acids that we established (see PIG Factsheet # 07-02-03, Understanding Swine Nutrient Recommendations).

 

Recommendations for phosphorus are expressed on a total, available and digestible basis. Like amino acids, a certain proportion of the phosphorus in a feedstuff cannot be utilized by pigs. In order to more closely meet the pig’s phosphorus requirements while minimizing phosphorus excretion, swine diets should be formulated on an available or digestible phosphorus basis. The total phosphorus recommendations presented in this factsheet should be used as a guideline only; those recommendations may not be obtained when formulating practical diets on an available or digestible basis. Also, the total phosphorus recommendations in this factsheet will not be achieved when phytase is included in the diet.

 

Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations are expressed both as percentage of the total content of the diet and amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy concentration. When expressing nutrient recommendations on a percentage of the diet basis, dietary energy density or feed intake must be considered. Otherwise, it is likely that the animal’s nutrient needs will not be met as intended. Expressing nutrient recommendations relative to dietary energy ensures nutrient concentrations are altered in accordance to changes in dietary energy density, for example when fat is added to the diet.

 

Recommendations for trace mineral and vitamin additions to swine diets are shown in Table 11. The values represent our best estimate of trace mineral and vitamin needs of pigs in practical situations. These values are based on NRC requirements to which a safety margin has been added. While there are vitamins and trace minerals in grain and protein sources, it is necessary to fortify swine diets with additional quantities of several vitamins and trace minerals to ensure deficiencies do not occur.

 

Information gaps exist in trace mineral and vitamin nutrition of pigs, making it difficult to establish firm recommendations. Therefore, we feel it is important to offer feed manufacturers and producers some flexibility in preparing and utilizing products based on our recommendations. Thus, we established ranges for recommended additions of salt, trace mineral and vitamin additions to swine diets (see PIG Factsheet #07- 02-06, Trace Minerals and Vitamins for Swine Diets).

 

Tables 12 to 15 contain nutritional information for the manufacturing of basemixes and premixes for swine diets. The recommended trace mineral and vitamin additions shown in Table 11 are met or exceeded with the trace mineral premix and three vitamin premixes shown.

 

1 This booklet of tables was compiled to provide users with a quick reference to all the tables from the National Swine Nutrition Guide (NSNG). The NSNG is a perfect example of collaboration made possible by the US Pork Center of Excellence (USPCE) which has as its mission to add value to the pork industry by facilitating research and learning for U.S. pork producers through national collaboration. The steering committee can be very proud of this work. This tables booklet, the NSNG book and the Diet Formulation and Evaluation CD will be widely accepted and utilized by the pork industries in the US and, indeed, around the world. This national collaboration could only be possible with the input, writing, reviewing, commitment and a lot of hard work by several people including many academic and industry swine nutritionists. I have attempted to list all of these individuals who have contributed so much of their time to make this effort a success. The Steering Committee would like to extend a special thank you to Katie Beeler, communications specialist with the US Pork Center of Excellence, for all her hard work in staffing the Committee and in formatting all the fact sheets for publication.

 

David J. Meisinger
Executive Director
US Pork Center of Excellence

 

Steering Committee

 

Duane Reese, University of Nebraska (Chair of Development) Bob Thaler, South Dakota State University (Chair of Outreach) Brian Richert, Purdue University (PIG Swine Nutrition Domain Leader) Scott Carter, Oklahoma State University Garland Dahlke, Iowa State University Joel DeRouchey, Kansas State University John Patience, Iowa State University Marcia Carlson Shannon, University of Missouri Hans Stein, University of Illinois Eric van Heugten, North Carolina State University Mark Whitney, University of Minnesota Charlotte Kirk Baer, USDA/NIFA ex-officio

 

Authors

All of the Steering Committee members were involved as authors of NSNG fact sheets. In addition, the following individuals also contributed as authors or co-authors on several papers:

Gary Allee, University of Missouri
Jason Apple, University of Arkansas
Justin Benz, Kansas State University
Gary Cromwell, University of Kentucky
Steve Dritz, Kansas State University
Bob Goodband, Kansas State University
Lee Johnston, University of Minnesota
Claire Masker, Iowa Corn Growers Association
Gretchen Myers Hill, Michigan State University
Jim Nelssen, Kansas State University
Allan Schinckel, Purdue University
Jerry Shurson, University of Minnesota
Alan Sutton, Purdue University
Ken Stalder, Iowa State University
Mike Tokach, Kansas State University
Theo van Kempen, Provimi

 

Reviewers

 

All of the Steering Committee members provided critical reviews of the fact sheets for the NSNG. In addition, many other academicians and industry representatives assisted with input, modifications and helpful advice in their critical reviews. They are listed as follows:

Samuel Baidoo, University of Minnesota
Eric Berg, North Dakota State University
Bart Borg, Murphy Brown LLC R.
Dean Boyd, The Hanor Company
Mike Brumm, Brumm Consulting
Tom Burkey, University of Nebraska
Wayne Cast, Production Input Solutions
Donnie Campbell, DSM Nutritional Products
Kevin Cera, Akey Joe Crenshaw, APC Functional Proteins
Mark Crenshaw, Mississippi State University
Tommy Crenshaw, University of Wisconsin
Dustin Dean, International Ingredients Corp.
Robert Dove, University of Georgia
Jerry Faber, ADM Alliance Nutrition
Tim Fakler, Kerber Milling
Jason Frank, University of Arkansas
Aaron Gaines, The Maschhoffs
John Goihl, Agri-Nutrition Services, Inc.
Bob Goodband, Kansas State University
Gene Gourley, Swine Graphics Enterprises
Ross Hamilton, Darling International
Gretchen Myers Hill, Michigan State University
Palmer Holden, Iowa State University
Chris Hostetler, South Dakota State University
Roger Johnson, Farmland Foods
Brian Kerr, USDA/ARS /SOMMRU
David Kirstein, Darling International
Don Levis, University of Nebraska
Merlin Lindemann, University of Kentucky
Dennis Liptrap, Ralco Nutrition
Leland McKinney, Kansas State University
Charles Maxwell, University of Arkansas
Terry Meyer, Land O’ Lakes Purina Feed LLC
Phil Miller, University of Nebraska
Ronny Moser, JBS United, Inc.
Rob Musser, Soda Ingredients
Betsy Newton, Akey
Rob Payne, Evonik Degussa Corporation
Scott Radcliffe, Purdue University
Dale Rozeboom, Michigan State University
Kari Sadorris, Akey
Tom Sauber, Pioneer
Wayne Schiefelbein, Elite Swine Program
Allan Schinckel, Purdue University
Jerry Shurson, University of Minnesota
Jim Smith, Hubbard Feeds
Joel Spencer, JBS United, Inc.
Charles Stark, North Carolina State University
Dave Stender, Iowa State University
Alan Sutton, Purdue University
Mike Tokach, Kansas State University
W. Randy Walker, DPI Global
Bryan Wiegand, University of Missouri
Noel Williams, PIC
Gawain Willis, Land 0’ Lakes Purina Feed LLC
Mark Wilson, Zinpro Corporation
Bob Woerman, Woerman’s Animal Nutrition Consulting LLC
Ruurd Zijlstra, University of Alberta

 

At the outset of the project, the NSNG Steering Committee queried the feed industry to obtain their input on a number of questions in a survey including their willingness to be involved in some aspect of reviewing the individual fact sheets. The response was 100% from these polled individuals. The names of these responders who provided the initial guidance for the program outline were as follows:

Bart Borg, Murphy Brown LLC
Stewart Galloway, Hubbard Feeds
Bruce Aversman, Kent Feeds
Wayne Cast, Production Input Solutions
Ken Ferrell, MFA
Chris Sparks, ADM
Wayne Schiefelbein, Elite Swine Program
Janet Snow, Exseed Genetics
Craig Maloney, Seaboard Foods
John Eggert, Monsanto
Dale Kavan, Akey
Bob Woerman, Woerman’s Animal Nutrition Consulting LLC
Neil Allen, Goldsboro Milling
John Sondermann, DanBred NA
Ronny Moser, JBS United Feeds
John Goihl, Agri-Nutrition Services
Dean Koehler, Vita Plus
David Funderburke, Cape Fear Consulting
Patrick O’Quinn, Prestage Farms
Dustin Kendall, Murphy Brown LLC
John Thompson, Wilson Milling

 

Table 1.  Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for nursery pigs (as-fed basis)^a

^aAll diets are full-fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-08 (Nursery Swine Nutrient Recom- mendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^bRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations. ^cTotal phosphorus values will be reduced with increasing levels of added phytase in each diet. However, P release from phytase is reduced 30% when growth promoting levels of Zn are added.

 

Table 2. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for HIGH^a lean gain lines of growing-finishing swine (as-fed basis)^b

^a>0.80 lb of fat-free lean/day from 45 to 270 lb. ^bAll diets are full fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-09 (Growing-Finishing Swine Nutrient Recommendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^cRactopamine hydrochloride (Paylean®). ^dB = barrows and G = gilts. ^eRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 3. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for MEDIUM^alean gain lines growing-finishing swine (as-fed basis)^b

^a0.65 to 0.80 lb of fat free lean/day from 45 to 270 lb. ^bAll diets are full fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-09 (Growing-Finishing Swine Nutrient Recommendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^cRactopamine hydrochloride (Paylean®). ^dB = barrows and G = gilts. ^eRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 4. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for LOW^a lean gain lines of growing-finishing swine (as-fed basis)^b

^a< 0.65 lb of fat-free lean/day from 45 to 270 lb. ^bAll diets are full fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-09 (Growing-Finishing Swine Nutrient Recommendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^cRactopamine hydrochloride (Paylean®). ^dB = barrows and G = gilts. ^eRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 5. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for gestating swine fed higher energy diets (as-fed basis)^a

^aAll diets are limit-fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-11 (Gestating Swine Nutrient Recommendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^bParity 0 = first gestation period (female has not farrowed a litter); parity 1 = second gestation period (female has farrowed one litter previously). ^cParity 2 = third gestation period (female has farrowed two litters previously). ^dAdjust to achieve a desired body condition or weight gain. ^eRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07- 07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 6. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for gestating swine fed lower energy diets (as-fed basis)^a

^aAll diets are limit-fed under thermoneutral conditions; PIG factsheet #07-01-11 (Gestating Swine Nutrient Recommendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^bParity 0 = first gestation period (female has not farrowed a litter); parity 1 = second gestation period (female has farrowed one litter previously). ^cParity 2 = third gestation period (female has farrowed two litters previously). ^dAdjust to achieve a desired body condition or weight gain. ^eRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07- 07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 7. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for lactating swine (as-fed basis)^ab

^aAll diets are full-fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-12 (Lactating Swine Nutrient Recom- mendations and Feeding Management) for more details; parity 1 = first lactation period, parity 2 = second lactation period, etc. ^bSow performance assumptions: 21-day lactation length, initial piglet weight = 3 lb, sow weight at weaning = = 350 – 400 lb (parity 1) and 400 – 450 lb (parity 2+). ^cParity 1 = first lactation period; parity 2 = second lactation period. ^dRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 8. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for breeding boars (as-fed basis)^a

^aAll diets are limit-fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-13 (Breeding Boar Nutrient Recom- mendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^bAdjust to achieve a desired body condition or weight gain. ^cRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 9. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for maternal-line replacement gilts (as-fed basis)^ab

^aAll diets are full-fed under themoneutral conditions except diet 6L, which is limit-fed and is used in place of diet 6F for limit-feeding programs; see PIG factsheet #07-01-10 (Replacement Gilt and Boar Nutrient Recommendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^bSufficient data are not available to indicate that requirements for other nutrients are different from those in Table 11 for animals of these weights. Provide breeding herd levels of trace minerals and vitamins beginning at about 270 lb. cRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 10. Amino acid, calcium and phosphorus recommendations for terminal-line replacement boars (as-fed basis)^ab

^aAll diets are full-fed under thermoneutral conditions; see PIG factsheet #07-01-10 (Replacement Gilt and Boar Nutrient Recommendations and Feeding Management) for more details. ^bSufficient data are not available to indicate that requirements for other nutrients are different from those in Table 11 for animals of these weights. Provide breeding herd levels of trace minerals and vitamins beginning at about 270 lb. cRecommended amount relative to dietary metabolizable energy (ME) density; energy values of ingredients from PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) were used in the calculations.

 

Table 11. Recommended dietary additions of lactose, trace minerals and vitamins from concentrates, base mixes or premixes

^aRactopamine hydrochloride (Paylean®). ^b23, 18, 7.2 and 0% for phase 1 (9 to 11 lb), phase 2 (11 to 15 lb), phase 3 (15 to 25 lb) and phase 4 (25 to 45 lb), respectively. ^cSalt is usually added at the rate of 5 to 7 lb/ton in nursery diets, 6 to 7 lb/ton in grower-finisher diets and 10 lb/ton in sow and breeding boar diets to help provide a significant portion of the total dietary sodium and chloride recommendations. ^dRecommendations for sodium and chloride represent total dietary amounts, not additions; 0.25, 0.20, 0.20 and 0.15% for nursery phase 1 (9 to 11 lb), nursery phase 2 (11 to 15 lb), nursery phase 3 (15 to 25 lb) and nursery phase 4 (25 to 45 lb), respectively. ^eLevels of 3,000 ppm Zn for Phases 1 and 2 ( 9 to 15 lb) and 2,000 ppm Zn for Phase 3 ( 15 to 25 lb) from zinc ox- ide should be added to growth promotion; or 125 to 250 ppm Cu from copper sulfate or tri-basic copper chloride in Phases 1, 2, and 3 ( 9 to 25 lb). ^fMaximum legal addition is 0.3 ppm. ^gMenadione activity. See PIG factsheet #07-02-06 (Trace Minerals and Vitamins for Swine Diets) for more details, including a recommended minimum and maximum amount to add to diets.

 

Table 12. Trace mineral premix specifications^abc

^aMineral sources are listed in Table 22. ^bPremix usage rates: Sows, breeding boars and nursery pigs, 3 lb/ton of complete feed. Grower (45 to 135 lb pigs), 2.5 lb/ton of complete feed. Finisher 1 (135 to 225 lb pigs), 2 lb/ton of complete feed. Finisher 2 (225 to 315 lb pigs), 1.5 lb/ton of complete feed. Finisher + RAC (225 to 315 lb pigs), 2.5 lb/ton of complete feed. ^cThe mineral additions shown in Table 11 are met or exceeded with a premix containing the potency indicated and used as directed.

 

Table 13. Vitamin premix specifications for nursery diets^abc

^aVitamin sources are listed Table 24. ^bPremix usage rate: 5 lb/ton of complete feed. ^cA premix containing the potency indicated and used as directed will fortify diets as shown in Table 11.

 

Table 14. Vitamin premix specifications for growing-finishing dietsabc

^aVitamin sources are listed Table 24. ^bPremix usage rates: Grower (45 to 135 lb pigs), 5 lb/ton of complete feed. Finisher 1 (135 to 225 lb pigs), 4 lb/ton of complete feed. Finisher 2 (225 to 315 lb pigs), 3 lb/ton of complete feed. Finisher + RAC (225 to 315 lb pigs), 5 lb/ton of complete feed. ^cA premix containing the potency indicated and used as directed will fortify diets as shown in Table 11.

 

Table 15. Vitamin premix specifications for sow and breeding boar diets^abc

^aVitamin sources are listed in Table 24. ^bPremix usage rate: 5 lb/ton of complete feed. ^cA premix containing the potency indicated and used as directed will fortify diets as shown in Table 11.

 

Ingredient composition and use rate

 

Individual ingredients can vary widely in composition because of the variation in species or variety, storage conditions, climate, soil moisture, agronomic differences and manufacturing practices. Variations in chemical analytical procedures can also affect the values obtained. Therefore, the values listed in this publication should be used as a guide in formulating diets. Otherwise, rely on ingredient analyses as necessary prior to diet formulation.

 

Most of the tabular information contained herein was obtained from the NRC (1998). Information published since the NRC (1998) was also included. An attempt was made to include analytical results of feed ingredients obtained from contemporary crop cultivars, newer processing techniques, and improved analytical procedures.

 

Net energy

 

The net energy value for approximately 40% of the ingredients in Table 16 was obtained from EvaPig (2008); for other ingredients, net energy was calculated from one of the following equations where ME = metabolizable energy, EE = ether extract, ST = starch, CP = crude protein, CF = crude fiber and ADF = acid detergent fiber. Equation NE1 was used when values for EE, ST, CP and ADF were known or could be reasonably estimated. When ADF was not available, equation NE2 was used to estimate NE.

NE1 = 0.726 x ME + 1.33 x EE + 0.39 x ST – 0.62 x CP – 0.83 x ADF
(R2 = 0.97; Noblet et al., 1994)

 

NE2 = 0.730 x ME + 1.31 x EE + 0.37 x ST – 0.67 x CP – 0.97 x CF
(R2 = 0.97; Noblet et al., 1994)

 

The net energy value for fats and oils (Table 24) was calculated by multiplying ME by 0.90, the estimated efficiency with which fat is converted from ME to NE (INRA, 2004).

 

Iodine value and iodine product

 

Due to carcass fat quality concerns when feeding high levels of dietary unsaturated fat, both iodine value (IV) and iodine value product (IVP) are listed for each ingredient. The iodine value for each ingredient reflects the fat saturation level of each ingredient. A lower iodine value indicates a higher degree of fat saturation in the ingredient. Iodine value product is the value assigned to each ingredient that accounts for its IV and percentage fat it contains. Once calculated, IVP can be used to help predict the carcass fat IV of pigs fed those diets. Iodine values for available ingredients were obtained from the NRC (1998). For ingredients not listed in the NRC (1998), fatty acid profiles were obtained from cited references from which iodine values were calculated using the following equation:

 

IV = [C16:1] × 0.95 + [C18:1] × 0.86 + [C18:2] × 1.732 + [C18:3] × 2.616 + [C20:1] × 0.785 + [C22:1] × 0.723,
where the brackets indicate concentration (percentage) of the fatty acid (AOCS, 1998).

 

Iodine value product for each ingredient was calculated using the following equation:

 

IVP = IV of the ingredient oil × % oil in the ingredient × 0.10
(Christensen, 1962).

 

Ingredient use rate

 

The upper limits of usage presented in this factsheet (Table 25) represent conservative estimates of the extent ingredients can be included in swine diets balanced for energy, amino acids, minerals and vitamins and not negatively impact growth and reproductive performance and/or carcass composition. We acknowledge that establishing upper limits of usage is greatly dependent on individual risk tolerance. Also, situations exist were it is economically justified to increase the inclusion rate of an ingredient even if performance is negatively impacted.

 

In general, factors such as palatability, risk of gastrointestinal disturbance, unspecified loss of performance, appetite impairment and others that are involved in affecting growth and reproductive performance and/or carcass composition were considered in establishing the upper limits of usage indicated in this factsheet.

 

Table 16. Chemical composition of feed ingredients for swine (as-fed basis).^ab

^aDashes indicate no data were available. ^bSee PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 17. Amino acid composition of feed ingredients for swine (as-fed basis). Percent standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of amino acids for swine shown in parenthesis^ab

^aDashes indicate no data were available. ^bSee PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 18. Chemical composition of manufactured amino acids sources for swine (as-fed basis).^ab

^aDashes indicate no data were available. ^bSee PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 19. Chemical composition of fats, oils and crude glycerol for swine (as-fed basis).^ab

^aDashes indicate no data were available. ^bSee PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 20. Mineral composition of feed ingredients for swine (as-fed basis). Percent bio-availablity and apparent digestibility of phosphorus for swine shown in parenthesis, respectively ^a*

^aDashes indicate no data were available. bAssumes the ingredient is not heated or cooked; if the ingredient is heat-treated, the digestibility coefficient shown will be reduced by the following percentage units due to the inactivation of endogenous phytase (barley, 9; rye, 20; triticale, 18; wheat bran, 25; wheat, 15; wheat midds, 25). *See PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 21. Mineral concentrations in macro mineral sources for swine (as-fed basis)a. Percent bio-availablity and apparent total tract digestibility of phosphorus for swine shown in parenthesis, respectively^a*

^aThese mineral supplements are not chemically pure compounds, and the composition may vary substantially among sources. The supplier’s analysis should be used if it is available. For example, feed-grade dicalcium phosphate contains some monocalcium phosphate and feed-grade monocalcium phosphate contains some dicalcium phosphate. Dashes indicate that no data were available. Most common sources are in italic. ^bEstimates indicate 90 to 100% relative bioavailability of calcium in most sources of monocalcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, defluorinated phosphate, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, and calcitic limestone. The calcium in high-mag- nesium limestone or dolomtic limestone is less bioavailable (50 to 80%). ^cBioavailability estimates are generally expressed as a percentage of monosodium phosphate or monocalcium phosphate. dIron in defluorinated phosphate is about 65% as available as the iron in ferrous sulfate. *See PIG factsheets #07-02-07 (Macro-Minerals for Swine Diets) and #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 22. Mineral concentrations in micro or trace mineral sources for swine^a*

^aMost common sources are in bold-italic; dashes indicate no data were available ^bIn research a frequently used mineral source is often assumed to be 100% bioavailable and other forms are com- pared based on amount that accumulates in body tissues. The mineral source listed first within each category was generally the standard with which the other sources were compared to determine relative bioavailability. *See PIG factsheets #07-02-06 (Trace Minerals and Vitamins for Swine Diets) and #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 23. Vitamin composition of feed ingredients for swine (as-fed basis).^ab

^aDashes indicate no data were available. ^bSee PIG factsheet #07-07-09 (Composition and Usage Rate of Feed Ingredients for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 24. Vitamin concentration in manufactured vitamin sources for swine^ab

^aMost common sources are in italic. ^bSee PIG factsheet #07-02-06 (Trace Minerals and Vitamins for Swine Diets) for more details.

 

Table 25. Recommended upper limits of usage (% of the diet) for feed ingredients in swine diets. An * denotes no nutritional limitations in a balanced diet^ab

^aAssumes diets are balanced for energy, essential amino acids, minerals and vitamins. ^bHigher levels may be fed although growth and reproductive performance and carcass composition and quality may be negatively impacted. Economic considerations should influence actual inclusion rates.