Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing and finishing pigs

Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing... Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing and finishing pigs †,1 † ‡ † Sara K. Linneen, Roger A. Arentson, J. Jeffrey Chewning, and Scott N. Carr † ‡ Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN 46140, USA; and Swine Research Services, Summers, AR 72769, USA ABSTRACT:  The objective of this experiment those fed CON or VIR. Also, during days 28–56 was to determine the effects of narasin (NAR; pigs fed VIR had a greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than Skycis®; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) pigs fed CON. Pigs fed NAR or VIR had greater or virginiamycin (VIR; Stafac®; Phibro Animal (P  <  0.05) carcass yield than those fed CON. In Health Corporation, Teaneck, NJ) on finishing Exp.2, feeding NAR increased (P < 0.05) pig BW pig growth performance and carcass character- from days 54 through 96 compared to pigs fed istics. Two separate experiments were conducted CON or VIR. No differences (P > 0.05) in ADG at the same site in 2013 and 2014. A total of 576 were detected between pigs fed VIR and CON pigs (initial BW = 23.2 ± 0.19 kg) were housed in through the first 74 day, but ADG of pigs fed VIR 24 pens with 8 pigs per pen in Exp. 1. In Exp. 2, was similar to (P > 0.05) those fed NAR from days a total of 888 pigs (initial BW = 26.2 ± 0.12 kg) 26 to 54. From day 0 to 109, NAR improved ADG were housed in 39 pens with 8 pigs per pen. compared to pigs fed VIR, which also had similar Treatments consisted of a series of unmedicated gain to those consuming CON (P  =  0.04). Feed corn–soybean meal diets (CON), CON + NAR efficiency was similar between pigs fed NAR and (15 mg/kg), or CON + VIR (11 mg/kg) fed for 108 VIR with pigs fed CON intermediate (P = 0.05). d (Exp. 1) or 109 d (Exp. 2). Pen was the experi- Pigs fed NAR had a greater (P < 0.05) HCW and mental unit in both studies. Data were analyzed loin depth than those fed CON or VIR. A  sub- as a randomized complete block design with the therapeutic dose of VIR showed improvements in main effects of block and treatment (Exp. 1) and growth performance that were similar to NAR in as an incomplete block design with the fixed effect one experiment. Although there were differences of treatment and the random effects of barn and in the magnitude of growth and carcass effects barn within block (Exp.  2). In Exp.1, NAR and of NAR between the two studies, pigs fed NAR VIR increased (P < 0.05) ADG and ADFI from showed at least a tendency to have greater G:F days 0 to 28, and BW on days 28, 56, 76, and 97 and in some cases increased carcass weight and as compared to pigs fed CON. During days 0–28, yield compared to pigs consuming nonmedicated pigs fed NAR had a greater (P < 0.05) G:F than feed. Key words: carcass, growth, narasin, pig, Skycis, virginiamycin © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Transl. Anim. Sci. 2021.5:1-9 doi: 10.1093/tas/txab020 INTRODUCTION Corresponding author: sara.linneen@elanco.com Narasin (NAR; Skycis®, Elanco Animal Received November 4, 2020. Health, Greenfield, IN) is an ionophore labeled Accepted February 3, 2021. 1 Linneen et al. for increased rate of weight gain (13.6–27.2 g/ton) were used and 39 pens (1.8 • 3.7 m) in a fourth barn and improved feed efficiency (18.1–27.2  g/ton) were added (completely slatted floors and tunnel in growing-finishing swine when fed for at least 4 ventilation). Each pen in barn 4 was equipped with weeks. It is classified as a non-medically important one double-space stainless-steel dry self-feeder and antibiotic and only used in animal medicine (FDA, one nipple waterer. 2012). With increasing pressure on reducing the use of traditional shared-class antibiotics, there is more Animals and Diets opportunity and potential for use of NAR in com- In Exp.  1, a total of 576 pigs (PIC 337  • mercial production. The mechanism of action of 1050) initially weighing 23.2 kg were used in 108-d this ionophore is to increase energy availability by growth trial. Pigs were blocked by gender and body altering volatile fatty acid production in the hind- weight (BW) within each of the 3 barns resulting gut in favor of propionate, which is the most energy in a randomized complete block design with 12 efficient product of fermentation (Wuethrich et al., blocks containing 3 pens of gilts and 3 pens of bar- 1998). Multiple studies have shown that NAR fed rows each. In Exp. 2, 888 pigs (pooled PIC 327 and at 15  ppm increases ADG (Arentson et  al., 2016; Genetipork G Performer 6.0 • PIC 1050; PIC Inc., Knauer and Arentson, 2017; Rickard et al., 2017) Hendersonville, TN) initially weighing 26.2 kg were and G:F (Arentson et al., 2016; Fruge et al., 2016; used in a 109-d growth trial. Pigs were blocked by Knauer and Arentson, 2017) compared to pigs re- gender and weight within each of 4 barns. This re- ceiving no ionophore. At the time of this research, sulted in a randomized incomplete block design no other studies had compared NAR to any other with 18 blocks containing 3 pens of gilts and 3 pens growth-promoting product. of barrows each and 1 block containing 3 pens Virginiamycin (VIR; Stafac®, Phibro Animal of gilts. Health Corporation, Teaneck, NJ) is a feed anti- In both studies, each pen contained 8 pigs biotic that is currently labeled for the therapeutic and pen was the experimental unit. Each pig was treatment of swine dysentery in nonbreeding ani- 2 2 allotted 0.67 m (barns 1 and 3)  or 0.65 m (barn mals. Prior to 2015, VIR was commonly used at 2)  of floor space. Pens of pigs within gender and subtherapeutic levels as a growth-promoting anti- block were randomly assigned to one of three biotic in commercial pig production, but the use dietary treatments. Dietary treatments consisted of is disallowed in the United States with the expan- a series of control corn-soybean meal, unmedicated sion of veterinary feed directives (FDA, 2015). The diet (CON), CON + NAR at 15  mg/kg (Skycis®, comparison of NAR to VIR on growth perform- Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN), or CON + ance was reasonable at the time of these studies VIR at 11  mg/kg (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, (2013 and 2014). Therefore, the objective of these Teaneck, NJ). Diets were manufactured at commer- studies was to determine the effects of NAR or cial feed mills and offered in five phases in pellet VIR on finishing pig growth performance and car - form (Tables 1 and 2). cass characteristics. Pigs were individually weighed and feeders were weighed days 0, 28, 56, 76, 97, and 108 in MATERIALS AND METHODS Exp.  1, and on days 0, 26, 54, 74, 96, and 109 This research was conducted in a manner con- in Exp.  2 to calculate ADG, ADFI, and G:F. sistent with the Guide for the Care and Use of Mortality and morbidity were recorded daily. At Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching the end of each study, pigs were tattooed with (FASS, 2010). a unique identification number and shipped to Cargill Meat Solutions (Beardstown, IL) for processing and carcass data collection. In Facilities Exp.  1, pigs were transported and harvested as Two experiments were conducted at a commer- a single group. In Exp. 2, pigs were marketed in cial research facility in northwest Arkansas in 2013 two groups. One gilt and the three heaviest bar- (Exp.  1) and 2014 (Exp.  2). In both experiments, rows based on final BW from each gender ap- barns 1–3 were used and were naturally ventilated propriate pen were transported on day 96. The with completely slatted floors. Each barn contained second marketing group were the remaining pigs 24 pens (3.0  • 2.3 m), was equipped with two sin- that were greater than 96  kg of BW. Data were gle-space stainless steel dry self-feeders, and one collected by trained personnel and included hot nipple waterer. In Exp. 2, the 3 barns from Exp. 1 carcass weight (HCW), fat depth, and loin depth. Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics Table 1. Composition of the basal diets in Exp. 1 (as-fed basis) Feeding phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Ingredients, % Corn 54.9 59.7 64.1 67.2 69.5 Soybean meal, 47% crude protein 20.1 15.5 11.1 8.2 6.1 DDGS 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Choice white grease 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Limestone 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 Salt 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lysine·HCl 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Monocalcium phosphate 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 Potassium chloride 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Propionic acid premix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Methionine hydroxyl analogue premix 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 || Trace mineral premix 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 L-Threonine 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 Phytase premix, 2500 FTU/g 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Vitamin premix 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Selenium premix, 0.2% 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 ** Narasin premix ± ± ± ± ± †† Virginiamycin premix ± ± ± ± ± Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Calculated composition Crude protein, % 19.2 17.4 15.7 14.6 13.8 Metabolizable energy, kcal/kg 3358 3371 3377 3388 3399 Calcium, % 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.52 Phosphorus, % 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.40 Available phosphorus, % 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.31 Fat, % 5.72 5.84 5.94 6.02 6.08 ‡‡ SID amino acids, % Lysine 1.08 0.96 0.77 0.70 0.64 Isoleucine:lysine 62.8 62.3 68.2 68.5 68.8 Methioine:lysine 35.4 32.8 33.8 35.5 37.0 Methionine and cystine:lysine 60.9 59.1 63.8 66.8 69.4 Threonine:lysine 61.5 61.1 66.0 66.0 65.4 Tryptophan:lysine 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Valine:lysine 73.9 74.7 83.8 85.9 87.8 Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were fed from days 0 to 28, 28 to 56, 56 to 76, 76 to 97, and 97 to 108, respectively. Ammo CURB®Dry; Kemin Industries, Inc., Des Moines, IA. MHA®; Novus International, St. Charles, MO. || Premix provided per kg of diet: 100.0 mg of Fe from ferrous sulfate; 120.0 mg of Zn from zinc sulfate; 40.0 mg Mn from manganous oxide; 10.0 mg Cu from copper sulfate; and 1.0 mg of I from calcium iodate. Premix provided 1000 FTU/kg of diet; Natuphos®2500 Heat Stable, Ludwigshafen, Germany. Provided 0.12% of available phosphorus. Premix provided per kg of diet: 5512 IU of vitamin A; 1323 of vitamin D3; 24.3 IU of vitamin E; 20 µg of vitamin B ; 2.6 mg of menadione; 2.6 mg of riboflavin; 15.4 mg of pantothenic acid; 19.8 mg of niacin. ** Skycis (narasin; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) was added at 15 mg/kg replacing corn. †† Stafac (virginiamycin; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ) as added at 11 mg/kg replacing corn. ‡‡ Standardized Ileal Digestible. Loin depth and backfat were measured using Statistical Analysis an optical probe (Fat-O-Meter; SFK Limited, Pen was the experimental unit in both studies. Hvidovre, Denmark). Percentage lean was cal- Exp. 1 data were analyzed as a randomized complete culated from a plant proprietary equation and block design using the GLM Procedure of SAS 9.2 carcass yield was calculated by dividing the indi- (Statistical Institute, Inc., Cary, NC), with the main vidual pig HCW by the final BW measured at the effects of block and treatment. In Exp. 2, data were research farm. Translate basic science to industry innovation Linneen et al. Table 2. Composition of the basal diets in Exp. 2 (as-fed basis) Feeding phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Ingredients, % Corn 66.3 73.3 77.5 80.5 82.9 Soybean meal, 47% crude protein 29.0 22.1 18.0 15.1 12.8 Poultry fat 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Limestone 0.53 0.51 0.47 0.50 0.51 Defluorinated phosphate 1.12 1.05 1.14 0.98 0.89 Salt 0.47 0.48 0.47 0.49 0.46 Lysine·HCI 0.24 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 Trace mineral premix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ‡,|| Vitamin premix 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 Methionine hydroxyl analogue 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 L-Threonine 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 Phytase premix, 2500 FTU/g 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ** Narasin premix ± ± ± ± ± †† Virginiamycin premix ± ± ± ± ± Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Calculated composition Crude protein, % 18.54 15.84 14.14 12.96 12.05 Metabolizable energy, kcal/kg 3320 3344 3358 3371 3384 Calcium, % 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.52 Phosphorus, % 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.47 0.45 Available Phosphorus, % 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.31 0.29 Fat, % 4.12 4.25 4.32 4.37 4.42 ‡‡ SID amino acids, % Lysine 1.21 1.06 0.92 0.82 0.74 Isoleucine:lysine 63.8 61.0 62.2 63.2 64.3 Leucine:lysine 137.5 139.6 149.2 157.7 166.1 Methioine:lysine 33.0 27.9 28.8 29.3 30.7 Methionine and cystine:lysine 61.1 56.3 58.9 61.1 64.2 Threonine:lysine 60.1 59.9 61.2 61.9 63.7 Tryptophan:lysine 18.2 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Valine:lysine 72.1 70.1 72.4 74.6 76.6 Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were fed from days 0 to 26, 26 to 54, 54 to 74, 74 to 96, and 96 to 109, respectively. Premix provided per kg of diet: 73.0  mg of Fe from ferrous sulfate; 73.0  mg of Zn from zinc sulfate; 22.0  mg Mn from manganous oxide; 11.0 mg Cu from copper sulfate; 0.20 mg of I from calcium iodate; and 0.20 mg of Se from sodium selenite. Premix provided kg of diet in phases 1 to 4: 2293 IU of vitamin A; 573 of vitamin D3; 11.5 IU of vitamin E; 10.0 µg of vitamin B ; 1.1 mg of menadione; 2.1 mg of riboflavin; 7.2 mg of pantothenic acid; 21.5 mg of niacin. || Premix provided kg of diet in phase 5: 2028 IU of vitamin A; 507 of vitamin D3; 10.1 IU of vitamin E; 8.8 µg of vitamin B ; 1.0 mg of mena- dione; 1.9 mg of riboflavin; 6.3 mg of pantothenic acid; 19.0 mg of niacin. MHA®; Novus International, St. Charles, MO Premix provided 500 FTU/kg; Phyzyme®2500, Dupont Animal Nutrition, Marlborough, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. Provided 0.10% of avail- able phosphorus. ** Skycis (narasin; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) was added at 15 mg/kg replacing corn. †† Stafac (virginiamycin; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ) as added at 11 mg/kg replacing corn. ‡‡ Standardized Ileal Digestible. analyzed as an incomplete block design using the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION MIXED Procedure of SAS with the fixed effect of treatment and the random effects of barn and barn Growth Performance within block. The PDIFF option was used to separate least square means in both studies. In both experiments, In Exp.  1, BW of pigs was different (P ≤ 0.02) mortality and morbidity removal was analyzed using among treatment groups on days 28, 56, 76, and Chi-square. Results were considered significant at 97 (Table 3). Pigs fed NAR or VIR had heavier P ≤ 0.05 and a tendency at 0.05 ˂ P ≤ 0.10. (P < 0.05) BW than those fed CON on these days. Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics Table 3. The effects of narasin and virginiamycin on grow-finish pig performance (Exp. 1) Treatment Item CON NAR VIR SEM P BW, kg Day 0 23.3 23.4 23.4 0.16 0.73 b a a Day 28 45.2 47.3 46.8 0.34 < 0.01 b a a Day 56 72.6 75.7 75.4 0.47 < 0.01 b a a Day 76 94.3 96.8 96.9 0.62 0.01 b a a Day 97 116.0 118.6 118.2 0.70 0.02 Day 108 126.4 128.0 127.8 0.79 0.30 Days 0–28 b a a ADG, kg 0.78 0.85 0.83 0.009 < 0.01 a b b ADFI, kg 1.40 1.49 1.47 0.017 < 0.01 b a b G:F 0.558 0.576 0.562 0.003 < 0.01 Days 28–56 ADG, kg 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.008 0.07 a ab b ADFI, kg 2.19 2.23 2.29 0.020 0.01 G:F 0.454 0.457 0.448 0.004 0.20 Days 56–76 ADG, kg 1.06 1.05 1.07 0.015 0.74 ADFI, kg 2.80 2.78 2.83 0.031 0.43 G:F 0.375 0.377 0.376 0.003 0.90 Days 76–97 ADG, kg 1.03 1.03 1.01 0.015 0.40 ADFI, kg 3.01 2.95 2.96 0.033 0.42 G:F 0.344 0.352 0.340 0.004 0.10 Days 97–108 ADG, kg 0.93 0.85 0.87 0.031 0.16 ADFI, kg 2.98 2.88 2.93 0.054 0.45 G:F 0.301 0.288 0.287 0.009 0.53 Days 0–108 ADG, kg 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.007 0.36 ADFI, kg 2.34 2.35 2.37 0.020 0.42 G:F 0.398 0.408 0.400 0.003 0.08 A total of 566 pigs were used in a 108-d study with 8 pigs per pen and 12 replicates per treatment. Control (CON) = corn-soybean meal unmedicated diet; Narasin (NAR) = CON + 15 mg/kg of NAR (Skycis; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN); Virginiamycin (VIR) = CON + 11 mg/kg of VIR (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ). a,b Values within a row that do not have common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05). From days 0 to 28, pigs fed NAR and VIR had In Exp.  2, BW of pigs were similar (P > 0.12) greater (P < 0.05) ADG than pigs fed the CON diet. among treatments for the first 26 days (Table 4). On Pigs consuming NAR and VIR from days 0 to 28 days 54, 74, and 96, BW of pigs was different (P ≤ also had greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than pigs on the 0.03) among treatments with pigs fed NAR having CON diet; however, from days 28 to 56 only pigs heavier BW than pigs on CON or VIR on these days. consuming VIR had greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than Pigs consuming NAR had greater (P < 0.05) ADG those fed CON. Efficiency of pigs during days 0–28 than pigs fed CON for the first 74 days of the study, (P < 0.01) was greater for pigs fed NAR compared as well as increased ADG from days 26 to 54 and to pigs fed CON or VIR. After day 56, there were greater G:F from days 54 to 74. No differences (P > no differences (P > 0.10) across treatment groups for 0.05) in ADG were detected between pigs fed VIR any growth performance parameters. Feed efficiency and CON through the first 74 days, but ADG of pigs tended (P = 0.08) to be different amongst treatments fed VIR was similar to those fed NAR from days for the overall day 0–108 period. Pigs fed NAR and 26 to 54. There tended (P = 0.09) to be a treatment VIR had similar growth performance in Exp. 1, out- effect on ADFI from days 54 to 74. After day 74, performing pigs fed CON, and the greatest impact differences in growth performance become limited. of these additives was early in the grower phase. No differences (P > 0.24) emerged in any response Translate basic science to industry innovation Linneen et al. Table 4. The effects of narasin and virginiamycin on grow-finish pig performance (Exp. 2) Treatment Item CON NAR VIR SEM P BW, kg Day 0 26.4 26.3 26.1 0.38 0.36 Day 26 48.2 48.7 48.0 0.43 0.12 b a b Day 54 77.4 78.9 77.5 0.43 0.01 b a b Day 74 98.1 100.8 98.6 0.56 < 0.01 b a b Day 96 120.1 122.8 120.5 0.65 < 0.01 ab a b Day 109 129.4 131.2 128.5 0.76 0.03 Days 0–26 b a b ADG, kg 0.84 0.86 0.83 0.019 0.04 ADFI, kg 1.57 1.59 1.55 0.027 0.24 G:F 0.533 0.539 0.532 0.006 0.22 Days 26–54 b a ab ADG, kg 1.04 1.07 1.05 0.013 0.02 b a b ADFI, kg 2.29 2.34 2.27 0.020 0.03 G:F 0.455 0.460 0.462 0.006 0.28 Days 54–74 b a b ADG, kg 1.04 1.09 1.06 0.020 < 0.01 ADFI, kg 2.72 2.79 2.73 0.036 0.09 b a ab G:F 0.382 0.394 0.389 0.004 0.02 Days 74–96 ADG, kg 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.020 0.90 ADFI, kg 3.03 3.03 2.97 0.036 0.24 G:F 0.338 0.341 0.341 0.004 0.90 Days 96–109 ADG, kg 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.038 0.26 a b ab ADFI, kg 3.06 2.94 2.97 0.043 0.05 G:F 0.303 0.301 0.298 0.012 0.82 Days 0–109 ab a b ADG, kg 0.95 0.97 0.94 0.009 0.04 ADFI, kg 2.44 2.46 2.42 0.018 0.19 b a ab G:F 0.404 0.410 0.408 0.003 0.05 A total of 566 pigs were used in a 109-d study with 8 pigs per pen and 12 replicates per treatment. Control (CON) = corn-soybean meal unmedicated diet; Narasin (NAR) = CON + 15 mg/kg of NAR (Skycis; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN); Virginiamycin (VIR) = CON + 11 mg/kg of VIR (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ). a,b Values within a row that do not have common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05). from days 74 to 96 or in ADG and G:F from days The results of these studies indicate an improve- 96 to 109. Average daily feed intake was similar (P ment in growth performance due to NAR and VIR > 0.05) among pigs fed CON and VIR, but greater compared to pigs consuming an unmedicated diet. (P < 0.05) for pigs fed NAR compared to those fed In both Exp. 1 and 2, there was at least a tendency CON from days 96 to 109. For the entire day 0–109 for NAR to improve feed efficiency compared to study period, ADFI was similar (P  =  0.19) among CON for the entire feeding period, which is well treatments. Narasin improved (P < 0.05) ADG and supported by previous research (Arkfeld et  al., G:F compared to those fed VIR, which also had 2015; Fruge et  al., 2016; Knauer and Arentson, similar gain to those consuming CON. The growth 2017). Without an effect of NAR on ADFI, this response to feeding VIR in Exp. 2 was not different was likely driving by an increase in ADG. There than pigs consuming CON and was poorer than that was a 2% improvement in ADG for the overall ex- of pigs in Exp. 1. Feeding pigs NAR increased BW periment, which is slightly higher than the 1.5% im- the last 54  days of the study compared to pigs fed provement in growth rate reported on the effects of all other treatments and resulted in similar improve- NAR (Elanco, unpublished observations). ments in G:F to pigs consuming VIR for the entire Adding VIR to the diet increased ADG and study period. ADFI early in Exp. 1 compared to pigs consuming Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics Table 5. The effects of narasin and virginiamycin on grow-finish pig performance Treatment Item CON NAR VIR SEM P Exp. 1 HCW, kg 93.4 94.8 95.1 0.60 0.11 b a a Yield, % 73.5 74.0 74.1 0.15 0.01 Backfat, mm 20.2 21.1 21.3 0.38 0.21 Loin depth, mm 59.8 60.6 60.5 0.68 0.63 Lean, % 51.7 51.7 51.9 0.42 0.92 Exp. 2 b a b HCW, kg 96.1 98.2 95.7 0.50 < 0.01 Yield, % 74.4 74.7 74.2 0.23 0.18 Backfat, mm 22.2 22.5 21.8 0.28 0.23 b a b Loin depth, mm 65.8 67.4 65.9 0.39 0.01 Lean, % 52.7 52.8 52.9 0.12 0.53 A total of 566 pigs were used in a 108-d study with 8 pigs per pen and 12 replicated per treatment. Control (CON) = corn-soybean meal unmedicated diet; Narasin (NAR) = CON + 15 mg/kg of NAR (Skycis; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN); Virginiamycin (VIR) = CON + 11 mg/kg of VIR (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ). a,b Values within a row that do not have common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05). CON. The effect of VIR was minimal in Exp. 2 com- containing 20% dried distillers grains with solubles pared to Exp. 1, rendering it no better than an unmed- (DDGS) whereas diets in Exp.  2 did not contain icated feed in that instance. The high health status of DDGS. Research completed in a commercial en- pigs in both studies and/or a reduction in antibiotic vironment also using diets containing 20% DDGS response with increasing pig BW (Cromwell, 2001; reported NAR improved ADG without affecting Dritz et  al., 2002) could have contributed to these G:F (Rickard et al., 2017). The small-pen study by results. Knauer et al. (2015) used similar treatments Kerr et  al. (2017) investigated the effects of NAR (unmedicated CON, 15 ppm of NAR, and 11 ppm in diets with or without byproducts and reported of VIR) in growing and finishing pigs and found that similar results in performance due to NAR regard- subtherapeutic VIR did not improve ADG, ADFI, less of diet type from 23 kg through harvest. The re- or mortality compared to pigs fed unmedicated feed; sponse to NAR was early in the feeding period and however, it did improve overall G:F in the 90-d study. diminished over time when fed in diets containing Small-pen studies prior to 2015 indicate no response DDGS (Exp. 1) in the current study, differing from in growth performance to VIR (Ravindran et  al., the response found later in the feeding period from 1984; Moser et al., 1985). days 0 to 109 in Exp.  2. Perhaps, the inclusion of In Exp. 1, pigs consuming VIR performed simi- DDGS provides less fermentable carbohydrate larly to those consuming NAR, yet pigs fed NAR than a standard corn–soybean meal diet and cre- in Exp.  2 had superior BW and ADG than those ates less potential for NAR. This study was not de- fed VIR. Both additives provided a similar advan- signed to determine the response of NAR or VIR tage in G:F in Exp. 2, but VIR was similar to CON with or without DDGS; therefore, any differences and NAR was not. Knauer et al. (2015) is the only in response between the experiments due to this is known study to compare NAR and VIR and found speculation. that NAR significantly improved growth perform- ance compared to subtherapeutic levels of VIR Mortality and Morbidity throughout the study, although the improvement in G:F in the overall period was a numeric advantage. In Exp.1, percentage of pigs removed be- At the time of this research, it was informative to cause of mortality or morbidity was not different understand how the two compared in stimulating (P  =  0.60) across diet treatments and were as fol- a growth response even though they currently have lows: CON, 3.65%; NAR, 2.08%; and VIR, 3.65%. different approved uses. Narasin is an acceptable In Exp.2, percentage of pigs removed was not dif- antibiotic alternative to VIR to improve growth per- ferent (P  =  0.20) across diet treatments, and the formance without the use of a shared class antibiotic. percentage of pigs removed fed the CON, NAR, A primary difference between Exp. 1 and 2 was and VIR diet treatments were 3.04%, 4.39%, and byproduct in the diets. Pigs in Exp. 1 were fed diets 6.08%, respectively. Translate basic science to industry innovation Linneen et al. Castell, A. G. 1977. Effects of virginiamycin on the perform- Carcass Characteristics ance of pigs fed barley diets supplemented with soybean meal or low-glucosinolate rapeseed meal. Can. J.  Anim. Exp.1 carcass yield was greater (P  <  0.05) for Sci. 57:313–320. doi:10.4141/cjas77-039 pigs fed NAR or VIR than those CON (Table 5). Cromwell,  G.  L. 2001. Antimicrobial and promicrobial In Exp.  2, pigs fed NAR had a greater (P  <  0.05) agents. In: A.  J.  Lewis and L.  L.  Southern, editors, HCW and loin depth than those fed CON or VIR. Swine nutrition. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 401–426. No other carcass characteristic was influenced (P ≥ Dritz, S. S., M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, and J. L. Nelssen. 0.11) by NAR or VIR in Exp. 1 or 2. 2002. Effects of administration of antimicrobials in feed Past research on VIR does not indicate any on growth rate and feed efficiency of pigs in multisite pro- effect of the antibiotic on any carcass parameter duction systems. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 220:1690–1695. (Castell, 1977). In contrast, Shircliff et  al. (2018) doi:10.2460/javma.2002.220.1690 and Rickard et  al. (2017) reported that NAR sig- FDA. 2012. The judicious use of medically important drugs in food producing animals. U.S. Department of Health nificantly increased HCW because of greater final and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. BW. In the studies reported herein, NAR increased Center of Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for the Industry carcass yield 0.5 and 0.3 percentage units versus #209. April 15, 2012. Available from https://www.fda.gov/ control in Exp.  1 and 2, respectively. This is con- regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/ sistent with published research from Rickard et al. cvm-gfi-209-judicious-use-medically-important-antimi- crobial-drugs-food-producing-animals [accessed July 10, (2017) that reported that 15 ppm of NAR increased 2020]. carcass yield by 0.4 percentage units. Published FDA. 2015. New animal drugs and new animal drug combination commercial research on finishing pigs in a com- products administered in or on medicated feed or drinking mercial environment using these two molecules is water of food-producing animals: Recommendations for limited, especially among the studies that reported drug sponsors for voluntarily aligning product use condi- carcass data. tions with GFI#209. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center of Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for the Industry #213. CONCLUSIONS December 2013. Available from https://www.fda.gov/ regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/ Prior to 2015, antibiotics such as VIR were cvm-gfi-213-new-animal-drugs-and-new-animal-drug- commonly used as growth promotants at subther- combination-products-administered-or-medicated-feed apeutic levels; however, current indications of VIR [accessed July 10, 2020]. are for therapeutic dosages for controlling and FASS (Federation of Animal Science Societies). 2010. Guide treating swine dysentery in nonbreeding animals. for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. 1st revised ed. Savoy IL: FASS. Overall, VIR influenced growth performance simi- Fruge,  E.  D., E.  Hansen, S.  Hansen, A.  J.  Gerhart, larly to NAR in Exp.  1, had minimal impact on J. L. Usry, and C. W. Hastad. 2016. Effects of tribasic pig performance in Exp 2, and no effect on carcass copper chloride (TBCC), Saccharomyces cerevisiae composition. In conclusion, a subtherapeutic dose fermentation product (YFP), and narasin (NAR) of VIR showed minor improvements in growth supplementation on growth performance of 12 to performance that were similar to NAR in one ex- 25  kg pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94(Suppl.  2):138. (Abstr.) doi:10.2527/msasas2016-294 periment. Although there were differences in the Kerr, B. J., S. L. Trabue, and D. S. Andersen. 2017. Narasin ef- magnitude of growth and carcass effects of NAR fects on energy, nutrient, and fiber digestibility in cow-soy- between the two studies, pigs fed NAR showed at bean meal or coy-soybean meal-dried distillers grains with least a tendency to have greater G:F and in some solubles diets fed to 16-, 92-, and 141-kg pigs. J. Anim. Sci. cases increased carcass weight and yield compared 95:4030–4036. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1732 Knauer, M. T., and R. A. Arentson. 2017. The effects of feed- to consuming nonmedicated feed. ing narasin (Skycis) on late phase finishing pig perform- ance. J. Anim. Sci. 95(Suppl. 2):139. (Abstr.) doi:10.2527/ LITERATURE CITED asasmw.2017.287 Arentson, R. A., S. Fry, T. A. Marsteller, and E. L. Christianson. Knauer, M. T., P. J. Rincker, and S. Fry. 2015. The effects of feeding 2016. The effects of feeding 15 or 30 ppm of narasin on Narasin (Skycis) or Virginiamycin (Stafac) on summer fin- growth performance of pigs during the grower period. ishing pig performance. J. Anim. Sci. 93(Suppl. 2):45. (Abstr.) J. Anim. Sci. 94(Suppl.  2):83. (Abstr.) doi:10.2527/ Moser, R. L., S. G. Cornelius, J. E. Pettigrew, Jr., H. E. Hanke, msasas2016-176 and C.  D.  Hagen, 1985. Response of growing-finishing Arkfeld,  E.  K., S.  N.  Carr, P.  J.  Rincker, S.  L.  Gruber, pigs to decreasing floor space allowance and(or) virginia- G.  L.  Allee, A.  C.  Dilger, and D.  D.  Boler. 2015. Effects mycin in the diet. J. Anim. Sci. 61:337–342. doi:10.2527/ of narasin (Skycis) on live performance and carcass trails jas1985.612337x of finishing pigs sold in a three-phase marketing system. J. Ravindran,  V., E.  T.  Kornegay, and K.  E.  Webb, Jr. 1984. Anim. Sci. 93:5028–5035. doi:10.2527/jas2015-9314 Effects of fiber and virginiamycin on nutrient absorption, Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics nutrient retention, and rate of passage in growing swine. J. viscera weight, carcass composition and lean quality com- Anim. Sci. 59:400–408. doi:10.2527/jas1984.592400x pared to controls, but prominent gender differences exist Rickard, J. W., G. L. Allee, P. J. Rincker, S. L. Gruber, C. L. Puls, in carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. 96(Supp. S2):97 and S.  N.  Carr. 2017. Effect of Narasin (Skycis) or zinc (Abstr.). doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.181 bacitracin (Albac) inclusion on the growth performance Wuethrich, A. J., L. F. Richardson, D. H. Mowrey, R. E. Paxton, and carcass characteristics. Transl. Anim. Sci. 1:518–525. and D.  B.  Anderson. 1998. The Effect of narasin on ap- doi:10.2527/tas2017.0058 parent nitrogen digestibility and large intestine volatile Shircliff,  K.  E., S.  N.  Carr, G.  L.  Allee, and B.  R.  Wiegand. fatty acid concentrations in finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 2018. Pigs Fed 15  ppm Skycis® (narasin) have similar 76:1056–1063. doi:10.2527/1998.7641056x Translate basic science to industry innovation http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Translational Animal Science Oxford University Press

Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing and finishing pigs

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/effects-of-narasin-or-virginiamycin-on-growth-performance-and-carcass-EWMQ2Umgnk
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
eISSN
2573-2102
DOI
10.1093/tas/txab020
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing and finishing pigs †,1 † ‡ † Sara K. Linneen, Roger A. Arentson, J. Jeffrey Chewning, and Scott N. Carr † ‡ Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN 46140, USA; and Swine Research Services, Summers, AR 72769, USA ABSTRACT:  The objective of this experiment those fed CON or VIR. Also, during days 28–56 was to determine the effects of narasin (NAR; pigs fed VIR had a greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than Skycis®; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) pigs fed CON. Pigs fed NAR or VIR had greater or virginiamycin (VIR; Stafac®; Phibro Animal (P  <  0.05) carcass yield than those fed CON. In Health Corporation, Teaneck, NJ) on finishing Exp.2, feeding NAR increased (P < 0.05) pig BW pig growth performance and carcass character- from days 54 through 96 compared to pigs fed istics. Two separate experiments were conducted CON or VIR. No differences (P > 0.05) in ADG at the same site in 2013 and 2014. A total of 576 were detected between pigs fed VIR and CON pigs (initial BW = 23.2 ± 0.19 kg) were housed in through the first 74 day, but ADG of pigs fed VIR 24 pens with 8 pigs per pen in Exp. 1. In Exp. 2, was similar to (P > 0.05) those fed NAR from days a total of 888 pigs (initial BW = 26.2 ± 0.12 kg) 26 to 54. From day 0 to 109, NAR improved ADG were housed in 39 pens with 8 pigs per pen. compared to pigs fed VIR, which also had similar Treatments consisted of a series of unmedicated gain to those consuming CON (P  =  0.04). Feed corn–soybean meal diets (CON), CON + NAR efficiency was similar between pigs fed NAR and (15 mg/kg), or CON + VIR (11 mg/kg) fed for 108 VIR with pigs fed CON intermediate (P = 0.05). d (Exp. 1) or 109 d (Exp. 2). Pen was the experi- Pigs fed NAR had a greater (P < 0.05) HCW and mental unit in both studies. Data were analyzed loin depth than those fed CON or VIR. A  sub- as a randomized complete block design with the therapeutic dose of VIR showed improvements in main effects of block and treatment (Exp. 1) and growth performance that were similar to NAR in as an incomplete block design with the fixed effect one experiment. Although there were differences of treatment and the random effects of barn and in the magnitude of growth and carcass effects barn within block (Exp.  2). In Exp.1, NAR and of NAR between the two studies, pigs fed NAR VIR increased (P < 0.05) ADG and ADFI from showed at least a tendency to have greater G:F days 0 to 28, and BW on days 28, 56, 76, and 97 and in some cases increased carcass weight and as compared to pigs fed CON. During days 0–28, yield compared to pigs consuming nonmedicated pigs fed NAR had a greater (P < 0.05) G:F than feed. Key words: carcass, growth, narasin, pig, Skycis, virginiamycin © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Transl. Anim. Sci. 2021.5:1-9 doi: 10.1093/tas/txab020 INTRODUCTION Corresponding author: sara.linneen@elanco.com Narasin (NAR; Skycis®, Elanco Animal Received November 4, 2020. Health, Greenfield, IN) is an ionophore labeled Accepted February 3, 2021. 1 Linneen et al. for increased rate of weight gain (13.6–27.2 g/ton) were used and 39 pens (1.8 • 3.7 m) in a fourth barn and improved feed efficiency (18.1–27.2  g/ton) were added (completely slatted floors and tunnel in growing-finishing swine when fed for at least 4 ventilation). Each pen in barn 4 was equipped with weeks. It is classified as a non-medically important one double-space stainless-steel dry self-feeder and antibiotic and only used in animal medicine (FDA, one nipple waterer. 2012). With increasing pressure on reducing the use of traditional shared-class antibiotics, there is more Animals and Diets opportunity and potential for use of NAR in com- In Exp.  1, a total of 576 pigs (PIC 337  • mercial production. The mechanism of action of 1050) initially weighing 23.2 kg were used in 108-d this ionophore is to increase energy availability by growth trial. Pigs were blocked by gender and body altering volatile fatty acid production in the hind- weight (BW) within each of the 3 barns resulting gut in favor of propionate, which is the most energy in a randomized complete block design with 12 efficient product of fermentation (Wuethrich et al., blocks containing 3 pens of gilts and 3 pens of bar- 1998). Multiple studies have shown that NAR fed rows each. In Exp. 2, 888 pigs (pooled PIC 327 and at 15  ppm increases ADG (Arentson et  al., 2016; Genetipork G Performer 6.0 • PIC 1050; PIC Inc., Knauer and Arentson, 2017; Rickard et al., 2017) Hendersonville, TN) initially weighing 26.2 kg were and G:F (Arentson et al., 2016; Fruge et al., 2016; used in a 109-d growth trial. Pigs were blocked by Knauer and Arentson, 2017) compared to pigs re- gender and weight within each of 4 barns. This re- ceiving no ionophore. At the time of this research, sulted in a randomized incomplete block design no other studies had compared NAR to any other with 18 blocks containing 3 pens of gilts and 3 pens growth-promoting product. of barrows each and 1 block containing 3 pens Virginiamycin (VIR; Stafac®, Phibro Animal of gilts. Health Corporation, Teaneck, NJ) is a feed anti- In both studies, each pen contained 8 pigs biotic that is currently labeled for the therapeutic and pen was the experimental unit. Each pig was treatment of swine dysentery in nonbreeding ani- 2 2 allotted 0.67 m (barns 1 and 3)  or 0.65 m (barn mals. Prior to 2015, VIR was commonly used at 2)  of floor space. Pens of pigs within gender and subtherapeutic levels as a growth-promoting anti- block were randomly assigned to one of three biotic in commercial pig production, but the use dietary treatments. Dietary treatments consisted of is disallowed in the United States with the expan- a series of control corn-soybean meal, unmedicated sion of veterinary feed directives (FDA, 2015). The diet (CON), CON + NAR at 15  mg/kg (Skycis®, comparison of NAR to VIR on growth perform- Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN), or CON + ance was reasonable at the time of these studies VIR at 11  mg/kg (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, (2013 and 2014). Therefore, the objective of these Teaneck, NJ). Diets were manufactured at commer- studies was to determine the effects of NAR or cial feed mills and offered in five phases in pellet VIR on finishing pig growth performance and car - form (Tables 1 and 2). cass characteristics. Pigs were individually weighed and feeders were weighed days 0, 28, 56, 76, 97, and 108 in MATERIALS AND METHODS Exp.  1, and on days 0, 26, 54, 74, 96, and 109 This research was conducted in a manner con- in Exp.  2 to calculate ADG, ADFI, and G:F. sistent with the Guide for the Care and Use of Mortality and morbidity were recorded daily. At Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching the end of each study, pigs were tattooed with (FASS, 2010). a unique identification number and shipped to Cargill Meat Solutions (Beardstown, IL) for processing and carcass data collection. In Facilities Exp.  1, pigs were transported and harvested as Two experiments were conducted at a commer- a single group. In Exp. 2, pigs were marketed in cial research facility in northwest Arkansas in 2013 two groups. One gilt and the three heaviest bar- (Exp.  1) and 2014 (Exp.  2). In both experiments, rows based on final BW from each gender ap- barns 1–3 were used and were naturally ventilated propriate pen were transported on day 96. The with completely slatted floors. Each barn contained second marketing group were the remaining pigs 24 pens (3.0  • 2.3 m), was equipped with two sin- that were greater than 96  kg of BW. Data were gle-space stainless steel dry self-feeders, and one collected by trained personnel and included hot nipple waterer. In Exp. 2, the 3 barns from Exp. 1 carcass weight (HCW), fat depth, and loin depth. Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics Table 1. Composition of the basal diets in Exp. 1 (as-fed basis) Feeding phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Ingredients, % Corn 54.9 59.7 64.1 67.2 69.5 Soybean meal, 47% crude protein 20.1 15.5 11.1 8.2 6.1 DDGS 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Choice white grease 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Limestone 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 Salt 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lysine·HCl 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Monocalcium phosphate 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 Potassium chloride 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Propionic acid premix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Methionine hydroxyl analogue premix 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 || Trace mineral premix 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 L-Threonine 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 Phytase premix, 2500 FTU/g 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Vitamin premix 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Selenium premix, 0.2% 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 ** Narasin premix ± ± ± ± ± †† Virginiamycin premix ± ± ± ± ± Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Calculated composition Crude protein, % 19.2 17.4 15.7 14.6 13.8 Metabolizable energy, kcal/kg 3358 3371 3377 3388 3399 Calcium, % 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.52 Phosphorus, % 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.40 Available phosphorus, % 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.31 Fat, % 5.72 5.84 5.94 6.02 6.08 ‡‡ SID amino acids, % Lysine 1.08 0.96 0.77 0.70 0.64 Isoleucine:lysine 62.8 62.3 68.2 68.5 68.8 Methioine:lysine 35.4 32.8 33.8 35.5 37.0 Methionine and cystine:lysine 60.9 59.1 63.8 66.8 69.4 Threonine:lysine 61.5 61.1 66.0 66.0 65.4 Tryptophan:lysine 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Valine:lysine 73.9 74.7 83.8 85.9 87.8 Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were fed from days 0 to 28, 28 to 56, 56 to 76, 76 to 97, and 97 to 108, respectively. Ammo CURB®Dry; Kemin Industries, Inc., Des Moines, IA. MHA®; Novus International, St. Charles, MO. || Premix provided per kg of diet: 100.0 mg of Fe from ferrous sulfate; 120.0 mg of Zn from zinc sulfate; 40.0 mg Mn from manganous oxide; 10.0 mg Cu from copper sulfate; and 1.0 mg of I from calcium iodate. Premix provided 1000 FTU/kg of diet; Natuphos®2500 Heat Stable, Ludwigshafen, Germany. Provided 0.12% of available phosphorus. Premix provided per kg of diet: 5512 IU of vitamin A; 1323 of vitamin D3; 24.3 IU of vitamin E; 20 µg of vitamin B ; 2.6 mg of menadione; 2.6 mg of riboflavin; 15.4 mg of pantothenic acid; 19.8 mg of niacin. ** Skycis (narasin; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) was added at 15 mg/kg replacing corn. †† Stafac (virginiamycin; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ) as added at 11 mg/kg replacing corn. ‡‡ Standardized Ileal Digestible. Loin depth and backfat were measured using Statistical Analysis an optical probe (Fat-O-Meter; SFK Limited, Pen was the experimental unit in both studies. Hvidovre, Denmark). Percentage lean was cal- Exp. 1 data were analyzed as a randomized complete culated from a plant proprietary equation and block design using the GLM Procedure of SAS 9.2 carcass yield was calculated by dividing the indi- (Statistical Institute, Inc., Cary, NC), with the main vidual pig HCW by the final BW measured at the effects of block and treatment. In Exp. 2, data were research farm. Translate basic science to industry innovation Linneen et al. Table 2. Composition of the basal diets in Exp. 2 (as-fed basis) Feeding phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Ingredients, % Corn 66.3 73.3 77.5 80.5 82.9 Soybean meal, 47% crude protein 29.0 22.1 18.0 15.1 12.8 Poultry fat 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Limestone 0.53 0.51 0.47 0.50 0.51 Defluorinated phosphate 1.12 1.05 1.14 0.98 0.89 Salt 0.47 0.48 0.47 0.49 0.46 Lysine·HCI 0.24 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 Trace mineral premix 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ‡,|| Vitamin premix 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 Methionine hydroxyl analogue 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 L-Threonine 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 Phytase premix, 2500 FTU/g 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ** Narasin premix ± ± ± ± ± †† Virginiamycin premix ± ± ± ± ± Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Calculated composition Crude protein, % 18.54 15.84 14.14 12.96 12.05 Metabolizable energy, kcal/kg 3320 3344 3358 3371 3384 Calcium, % 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.52 Phosphorus, % 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.47 0.45 Available Phosphorus, % 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.31 0.29 Fat, % 4.12 4.25 4.32 4.37 4.42 ‡‡ SID amino acids, % Lysine 1.21 1.06 0.92 0.82 0.74 Isoleucine:lysine 63.8 61.0 62.2 63.2 64.3 Leucine:lysine 137.5 139.6 149.2 157.7 166.1 Methioine:lysine 33.0 27.9 28.8 29.3 30.7 Methionine and cystine:lysine 61.1 56.3 58.9 61.1 64.2 Threonine:lysine 60.1 59.9 61.2 61.9 63.7 Tryptophan:lysine 18.2 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Valine:lysine 72.1 70.1 72.4 74.6 76.6 Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were fed from days 0 to 26, 26 to 54, 54 to 74, 74 to 96, and 96 to 109, respectively. Premix provided per kg of diet: 73.0  mg of Fe from ferrous sulfate; 73.0  mg of Zn from zinc sulfate; 22.0  mg Mn from manganous oxide; 11.0 mg Cu from copper sulfate; 0.20 mg of I from calcium iodate; and 0.20 mg of Se from sodium selenite. Premix provided kg of diet in phases 1 to 4: 2293 IU of vitamin A; 573 of vitamin D3; 11.5 IU of vitamin E; 10.0 µg of vitamin B ; 1.1 mg of menadione; 2.1 mg of riboflavin; 7.2 mg of pantothenic acid; 21.5 mg of niacin. || Premix provided kg of diet in phase 5: 2028 IU of vitamin A; 507 of vitamin D3; 10.1 IU of vitamin E; 8.8 µg of vitamin B ; 1.0 mg of mena- dione; 1.9 mg of riboflavin; 6.3 mg of pantothenic acid; 19.0 mg of niacin. MHA®; Novus International, St. Charles, MO Premix provided 500 FTU/kg; Phyzyme®2500, Dupont Animal Nutrition, Marlborough, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. Provided 0.10% of avail- able phosphorus. ** Skycis (narasin; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) was added at 15 mg/kg replacing corn. †† Stafac (virginiamycin; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ) as added at 11 mg/kg replacing corn. ‡‡ Standardized Ileal Digestible. analyzed as an incomplete block design using the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION MIXED Procedure of SAS with the fixed effect of treatment and the random effects of barn and barn Growth Performance within block. The PDIFF option was used to separate least square means in both studies. In both experiments, In Exp.  1, BW of pigs was different (P ≤ 0.02) mortality and morbidity removal was analyzed using among treatment groups on days 28, 56, 76, and Chi-square. Results were considered significant at 97 (Table 3). Pigs fed NAR or VIR had heavier P ≤ 0.05 and a tendency at 0.05 ˂ P ≤ 0.10. (P < 0.05) BW than those fed CON on these days. Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics Table 3. The effects of narasin and virginiamycin on grow-finish pig performance (Exp. 1) Treatment Item CON NAR VIR SEM P BW, kg Day 0 23.3 23.4 23.4 0.16 0.73 b a a Day 28 45.2 47.3 46.8 0.34 < 0.01 b a a Day 56 72.6 75.7 75.4 0.47 < 0.01 b a a Day 76 94.3 96.8 96.9 0.62 0.01 b a a Day 97 116.0 118.6 118.2 0.70 0.02 Day 108 126.4 128.0 127.8 0.79 0.30 Days 0–28 b a a ADG, kg 0.78 0.85 0.83 0.009 < 0.01 a b b ADFI, kg 1.40 1.49 1.47 0.017 < 0.01 b a b G:F 0.558 0.576 0.562 0.003 < 0.01 Days 28–56 ADG, kg 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.008 0.07 a ab b ADFI, kg 2.19 2.23 2.29 0.020 0.01 G:F 0.454 0.457 0.448 0.004 0.20 Days 56–76 ADG, kg 1.06 1.05 1.07 0.015 0.74 ADFI, kg 2.80 2.78 2.83 0.031 0.43 G:F 0.375 0.377 0.376 0.003 0.90 Days 76–97 ADG, kg 1.03 1.03 1.01 0.015 0.40 ADFI, kg 3.01 2.95 2.96 0.033 0.42 G:F 0.344 0.352 0.340 0.004 0.10 Days 97–108 ADG, kg 0.93 0.85 0.87 0.031 0.16 ADFI, kg 2.98 2.88 2.93 0.054 0.45 G:F 0.301 0.288 0.287 0.009 0.53 Days 0–108 ADG, kg 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.007 0.36 ADFI, kg 2.34 2.35 2.37 0.020 0.42 G:F 0.398 0.408 0.400 0.003 0.08 A total of 566 pigs were used in a 108-d study with 8 pigs per pen and 12 replicates per treatment. Control (CON) = corn-soybean meal unmedicated diet; Narasin (NAR) = CON + 15 mg/kg of NAR (Skycis; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN); Virginiamycin (VIR) = CON + 11 mg/kg of VIR (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ). a,b Values within a row that do not have common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05). From days 0 to 28, pigs fed NAR and VIR had In Exp.  2, BW of pigs were similar (P > 0.12) greater (P < 0.05) ADG than pigs fed the CON diet. among treatments for the first 26 days (Table 4). On Pigs consuming NAR and VIR from days 0 to 28 days 54, 74, and 96, BW of pigs was different (P ≤ also had greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than pigs on the 0.03) among treatments with pigs fed NAR having CON diet; however, from days 28 to 56 only pigs heavier BW than pigs on CON or VIR on these days. consuming VIR had greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than Pigs consuming NAR had greater (P < 0.05) ADG those fed CON. Efficiency of pigs during days 0–28 than pigs fed CON for the first 74 days of the study, (P < 0.01) was greater for pigs fed NAR compared as well as increased ADG from days 26 to 54 and to pigs fed CON or VIR. After day 56, there were greater G:F from days 54 to 74. No differences (P > no differences (P > 0.10) across treatment groups for 0.05) in ADG were detected between pigs fed VIR any growth performance parameters. Feed efficiency and CON through the first 74 days, but ADG of pigs tended (P = 0.08) to be different amongst treatments fed VIR was similar to those fed NAR from days for the overall day 0–108 period. Pigs fed NAR and 26 to 54. There tended (P = 0.09) to be a treatment VIR had similar growth performance in Exp. 1, out- effect on ADFI from days 54 to 74. After day 74, performing pigs fed CON, and the greatest impact differences in growth performance become limited. of these additives was early in the grower phase. No differences (P > 0.24) emerged in any response Translate basic science to industry innovation Linneen et al. Table 4. The effects of narasin and virginiamycin on grow-finish pig performance (Exp. 2) Treatment Item CON NAR VIR SEM P BW, kg Day 0 26.4 26.3 26.1 0.38 0.36 Day 26 48.2 48.7 48.0 0.43 0.12 b a b Day 54 77.4 78.9 77.5 0.43 0.01 b a b Day 74 98.1 100.8 98.6 0.56 < 0.01 b a b Day 96 120.1 122.8 120.5 0.65 < 0.01 ab a b Day 109 129.4 131.2 128.5 0.76 0.03 Days 0–26 b a b ADG, kg 0.84 0.86 0.83 0.019 0.04 ADFI, kg 1.57 1.59 1.55 0.027 0.24 G:F 0.533 0.539 0.532 0.006 0.22 Days 26–54 b a ab ADG, kg 1.04 1.07 1.05 0.013 0.02 b a b ADFI, kg 2.29 2.34 2.27 0.020 0.03 G:F 0.455 0.460 0.462 0.006 0.28 Days 54–74 b a b ADG, kg 1.04 1.09 1.06 0.020 < 0.01 ADFI, kg 2.72 2.79 2.73 0.036 0.09 b a ab G:F 0.382 0.394 0.389 0.004 0.02 Days 74–96 ADG, kg 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.020 0.90 ADFI, kg 3.03 3.03 2.97 0.036 0.24 G:F 0.338 0.341 0.341 0.004 0.90 Days 96–109 ADG, kg 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.038 0.26 a b ab ADFI, kg 3.06 2.94 2.97 0.043 0.05 G:F 0.303 0.301 0.298 0.012 0.82 Days 0–109 ab a b ADG, kg 0.95 0.97 0.94 0.009 0.04 ADFI, kg 2.44 2.46 2.42 0.018 0.19 b a ab G:F 0.404 0.410 0.408 0.003 0.05 A total of 566 pigs were used in a 109-d study with 8 pigs per pen and 12 replicates per treatment. Control (CON) = corn-soybean meal unmedicated diet; Narasin (NAR) = CON + 15 mg/kg of NAR (Skycis; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN); Virginiamycin (VIR) = CON + 11 mg/kg of VIR (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ). a,b Values within a row that do not have common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05). from days 74 to 96 or in ADG and G:F from days The results of these studies indicate an improve- 96 to 109. Average daily feed intake was similar (P ment in growth performance due to NAR and VIR > 0.05) among pigs fed CON and VIR, but greater compared to pigs consuming an unmedicated diet. (P < 0.05) for pigs fed NAR compared to those fed In both Exp. 1 and 2, there was at least a tendency CON from days 96 to 109. For the entire day 0–109 for NAR to improve feed efficiency compared to study period, ADFI was similar (P  =  0.19) among CON for the entire feeding period, which is well treatments. Narasin improved (P < 0.05) ADG and supported by previous research (Arkfeld et  al., G:F compared to those fed VIR, which also had 2015; Fruge et  al., 2016; Knauer and Arentson, similar gain to those consuming CON. The growth 2017). Without an effect of NAR on ADFI, this response to feeding VIR in Exp. 2 was not different was likely driving by an increase in ADG. There than pigs consuming CON and was poorer than that was a 2% improvement in ADG for the overall ex- of pigs in Exp. 1. Feeding pigs NAR increased BW periment, which is slightly higher than the 1.5% im- the last 54  days of the study compared to pigs fed provement in growth rate reported on the effects of all other treatments and resulted in similar improve- NAR (Elanco, unpublished observations). ments in G:F to pigs consuming VIR for the entire Adding VIR to the diet increased ADG and study period. ADFI early in Exp. 1 compared to pigs consuming Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics Table 5. The effects of narasin and virginiamycin on grow-finish pig performance Treatment Item CON NAR VIR SEM P Exp. 1 HCW, kg 93.4 94.8 95.1 0.60 0.11 b a a Yield, % 73.5 74.0 74.1 0.15 0.01 Backfat, mm 20.2 21.1 21.3 0.38 0.21 Loin depth, mm 59.8 60.6 60.5 0.68 0.63 Lean, % 51.7 51.7 51.9 0.42 0.92 Exp. 2 b a b HCW, kg 96.1 98.2 95.7 0.50 < 0.01 Yield, % 74.4 74.7 74.2 0.23 0.18 Backfat, mm 22.2 22.5 21.8 0.28 0.23 b a b Loin depth, mm 65.8 67.4 65.9 0.39 0.01 Lean, % 52.7 52.8 52.9 0.12 0.53 A total of 566 pigs were used in a 108-d study with 8 pigs per pen and 12 replicated per treatment. Control (CON) = corn-soybean meal unmedicated diet; Narasin (NAR) = CON + 15 mg/kg of NAR (Skycis; Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN); Virginiamycin (VIR) = CON + 11 mg/kg of VIR (Stafac; Phibro Animal Health, Teaneck, NJ). a,b Values within a row that do not have common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05). CON. The effect of VIR was minimal in Exp. 2 com- containing 20% dried distillers grains with solubles pared to Exp. 1, rendering it no better than an unmed- (DDGS) whereas diets in Exp.  2 did not contain icated feed in that instance. The high health status of DDGS. Research completed in a commercial en- pigs in both studies and/or a reduction in antibiotic vironment also using diets containing 20% DDGS response with increasing pig BW (Cromwell, 2001; reported NAR improved ADG without affecting Dritz et  al., 2002) could have contributed to these G:F (Rickard et al., 2017). The small-pen study by results. Knauer et al. (2015) used similar treatments Kerr et  al. (2017) investigated the effects of NAR (unmedicated CON, 15 ppm of NAR, and 11 ppm in diets with or without byproducts and reported of VIR) in growing and finishing pigs and found that similar results in performance due to NAR regard- subtherapeutic VIR did not improve ADG, ADFI, less of diet type from 23 kg through harvest. The re- or mortality compared to pigs fed unmedicated feed; sponse to NAR was early in the feeding period and however, it did improve overall G:F in the 90-d study. diminished over time when fed in diets containing Small-pen studies prior to 2015 indicate no response DDGS (Exp. 1) in the current study, differing from in growth performance to VIR (Ravindran et  al., the response found later in the feeding period from 1984; Moser et al., 1985). days 0 to 109 in Exp.  2. Perhaps, the inclusion of In Exp. 1, pigs consuming VIR performed simi- DDGS provides less fermentable carbohydrate larly to those consuming NAR, yet pigs fed NAR than a standard corn–soybean meal diet and cre- in Exp.  2 had superior BW and ADG than those ates less potential for NAR. This study was not de- fed VIR. Both additives provided a similar advan- signed to determine the response of NAR or VIR tage in G:F in Exp. 2, but VIR was similar to CON with or without DDGS; therefore, any differences and NAR was not. Knauer et al. (2015) is the only in response between the experiments due to this is known study to compare NAR and VIR and found speculation. that NAR significantly improved growth perform- ance compared to subtherapeutic levels of VIR Mortality and Morbidity throughout the study, although the improvement in G:F in the overall period was a numeric advantage. In Exp.1, percentage of pigs removed be- At the time of this research, it was informative to cause of mortality or morbidity was not different understand how the two compared in stimulating (P  =  0.60) across diet treatments and were as fol- a growth response even though they currently have lows: CON, 3.65%; NAR, 2.08%; and VIR, 3.65%. different approved uses. Narasin is an acceptable In Exp.2, percentage of pigs removed was not dif- antibiotic alternative to VIR to improve growth per- ferent (P  =  0.20) across diet treatments, and the formance without the use of a shared class antibiotic. percentage of pigs removed fed the CON, NAR, A primary difference between Exp. 1 and 2 was and VIR diet treatments were 3.04%, 4.39%, and byproduct in the diets. Pigs in Exp. 1 were fed diets 6.08%, respectively. Translate basic science to industry innovation Linneen et al. Castell, A. G. 1977. Effects of virginiamycin on the perform- Carcass Characteristics ance of pigs fed barley diets supplemented with soybean meal or low-glucosinolate rapeseed meal. Can. J.  Anim. Exp.1 carcass yield was greater (P  <  0.05) for Sci. 57:313–320. doi:10.4141/cjas77-039 pigs fed NAR or VIR than those CON (Table 5). Cromwell,  G.  L. 2001. Antimicrobial and promicrobial In Exp.  2, pigs fed NAR had a greater (P  <  0.05) agents. In: A.  J.  Lewis and L.  L.  Southern, editors, HCW and loin depth than those fed CON or VIR. Swine nutrition. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 401–426. No other carcass characteristic was influenced (P ≥ Dritz, S. S., M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, and J. L. Nelssen. 0.11) by NAR or VIR in Exp. 1 or 2. 2002. Effects of administration of antimicrobials in feed Past research on VIR does not indicate any on growth rate and feed efficiency of pigs in multisite pro- effect of the antibiotic on any carcass parameter duction systems. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 220:1690–1695. (Castell, 1977). In contrast, Shircliff et  al. (2018) doi:10.2460/javma.2002.220.1690 and Rickard et  al. (2017) reported that NAR sig- FDA. 2012. The judicious use of medically important drugs in food producing animals. U.S. Department of Health nificantly increased HCW because of greater final and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. BW. In the studies reported herein, NAR increased Center of Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for the Industry carcass yield 0.5 and 0.3 percentage units versus #209. April 15, 2012. Available from https://www.fda.gov/ control in Exp.  1 and 2, respectively. This is con- regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/ sistent with published research from Rickard et al. cvm-gfi-209-judicious-use-medically-important-antimi- crobial-drugs-food-producing-animals [accessed July 10, (2017) that reported that 15 ppm of NAR increased 2020]. carcass yield by 0.4 percentage units. Published FDA. 2015. New animal drugs and new animal drug combination commercial research on finishing pigs in a com- products administered in or on medicated feed or drinking mercial environment using these two molecules is water of food-producing animals: Recommendations for limited, especially among the studies that reported drug sponsors for voluntarily aligning product use condi- carcass data. tions with GFI#209. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center of Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for the Industry #213. CONCLUSIONS December 2013. Available from https://www.fda.gov/ regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/ Prior to 2015, antibiotics such as VIR were cvm-gfi-213-new-animal-drugs-and-new-animal-drug- commonly used as growth promotants at subther- combination-products-administered-or-medicated-feed apeutic levels; however, current indications of VIR [accessed July 10, 2020]. are for therapeutic dosages for controlling and FASS (Federation of Animal Science Societies). 2010. Guide treating swine dysentery in nonbreeding animals. for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. 1st revised ed. Savoy IL: FASS. Overall, VIR influenced growth performance simi- Fruge,  E.  D., E.  Hansen, S.  Hansen, A.  J.  Gerhart, larly to NAR in Exp.  1, had minimal impact on J. L. Usry, and C. W. Hastad. 2016. Effects of tribasic pig performance in Exp 2, and no effect on carcass copper chloride (TBCC), Saccharomyces cerevisiae composition. In conclusion, a subtherapeutic dose fermentation product (YFP), and narasin (NAR) of VIR showed minor improvements in growth supplementation on growth performance of 12 to performance that were similar to NAR in one ex- 25  kg pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94(Suppl.  2):138. (Abstr.) doi:10.2527/msasas2016-294 periment. Although there were differences in the Kerr, B. J., S. L. Trabue, and D. S. Andersen. 2017. Narasin ef- magnitude of growth and carcass effects of NAR fects on energy, nutrient, and fiber digestibility in cow-soy- between the two studies, pigs fed NAR showed at bean meal or coy-soybean meal-dried distillers grains with least a tendency to have greater G:F and in some solubles diets fed to 16-, 92-, and 141-kg pigs. J. Anim. Sci. cases increased carcass weight and yield compared 95:4030–4036. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1732 Knauer, M. T., and R. A. Arentson. 2017. The effects of feed- to consuming nonmedicated feed. ing narasin (Skycis) on late phase finishing pig perform- ance. J. Anim. Sci. 95(Suppl. 2):139. (Abstr.) doi:10.2527/ LITERATURE CITED asasmw.2017.287 Arentson, R. A., S. Fry, T. A. Marsteller, and E. L. Christianson. Knauer, M. T., P. J. Rincker, and S. Fry. 2015. The effects of feeding 2016. The effects of feeding 15 or 30 ppm of narasin on Narasin (Skycis) or Virginiamycin (Stafac) on summer fin- growth performance of pigs during the grower period. ishing pig performance. J. Anim. Sci. 93(Suppl. 2):45. (Abstr.) J. Anim. Sci. 94(Suppl.  2):83. (Abstr.) doi:10.2527/ Moser, R. L., S. G. Cornelius, J. E. Pettigrew, Jr., H. E. Hanke, msasas2016-176 and C.  D.  Hagen, 1985. Response of growing-finishing Arkfeld,  E.  K., S.  N.  Carr, P.  J.  Rincker, S.  L.  Gruber, pigs to decreasing floor space allowance and(or) virginia- G.  L.  Allee, A.  C.  Dilger, and D.  D.  Boler. 2015. Effects mycin in the diet. J. Anim. Sci. 61:337–342. doi:10.2527/ of narasin (Skycis) on live performance and carcass trails jas1985.612337x of finishing pigs sold in a three-phase marketing system. J. Ravindran,  V., E.  T.  Kornegay, and K.  E.  Webb, Jr. 1984. Anim. Sci. 93:5028–5035. doi:10.2527/jas2015-9314 Effects of fiber and virginiamycin on nutrient absorption, Translate basic science to industry innovation Effects of narasin or virginiamycin on growth performance and carcass characteristics nutrient retention, and rate of passage in growing swine. J. viscera weight, carcass composition and lean quality com- Anim. Sci. 59:400–408. doi:10.2527/jas1984.592400x pared to controls, but prominent gender differences exist Rickard, J. W., G. L. Allee, P. J. Rincker, S. L. Gruber, C. L. Puls, in carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. 96(Supp. S2):97 and S.  N.  Carr. 2017. Effect of Narasin (Skycis) or zinc (Abstr.). doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.181 bacitracin (Albac) inclusion on the growth performance Wuethrich, A. J., L. F. Richardson, D. H. Mowrey, R. E. Paxton, and carcass characteristics. Transl. Anim. Sci. 1:518–525. and D.  B.  Anderson. 1998. The Effect of narasin on ap- doi:10.2527/tas2017.0058 parent nitrogen digestibility and large intestine volatile Shircliff,  K.  E., S.  N.  Carr, G.  L.  Allee, and B.  R.  Wiegand. fatty acid concentrations in finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 2018. Pigs Fed 15  ppm Skycis® (narasin) have similar 76:1056–1063. doi:10.2527/1998.7641056x Translate basic science to industry innovation

Journal

Translational Animal ScienceOxford University Press

Published: Feb 8, 2021

Keywords: carcass; growth; narasin; pig; Skycis; virginiamycin

References