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

Learn More →

Increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme on growth performance and carcass traits of growing-finishing barrows and gilts

Increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme on growth performance... Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme on growth performance and carcass traits of growing-finishing barrows and gilts * † † † *2 M. N. Smit , X. Zhou , J. L. Landero , M. G. Young , and E. Beltranena Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Edmonton, T6H 5T6, Alberta, Canada Gowans Feed Consulting, Wainwright, T9W 1L2, Alberta, Canada We would like to thank KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany) and GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK for financial support. Appreciation is expressed to the Drumloche team for animal care and their expertise running the trial. Thanks also to Lewisville Pork Farm for the use of the animals and Sunhaven Farms Milling for supplying the feed. To Dr. Bogdan Slominski, our thanks for conducting the non-starch polysaccharides analysis in your lab at University of Manitoba. Corresponding author: eduardo.beltranena@gov.ab.ca © The Author(s) 2019. 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 Non- Commercial 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 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 ABSTRACT: New European, fall-planted hybrid rye grown in western Canada is more resistant to ergot and fusarium and has lower content of anti-nutritional factors than common rye. We evaluated the effect of feeding increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) enzyme inclusion in diets fed to growing-finishing pigs raised under western Canadian commercial conditions. In total, 1008 pigs (~44 kg BW) housed in 48 pens by sex, 21 pigs/pen, were fed diets with one of three rye (var. KWS Bono; KWS LOCHOW GMBH) inclusion levels substituting wheat grain: low (L;1/3rd of wheat replaced), medium (M; 2/3rd of wheat replaced), or high (H; most wheat replaced), either without (WO) or with (W) enzyme inclusion (280 units of β-glucanase and 900 units of xylanase per kg feed; Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm) over 4 growth phases (Grower 2: d 0-22, Grower 3: d 23-42, Finisher 1: d 43-63, Finisher 2: d 64-slaughter). Pen BW, feed added, and orts were measured on d 0, 22, 42, 63, 76, 91, and at slaughter weight (130 kg). Warm carcasses were weighed and graded (Destron). Body weight was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion throughout the trial. For the entire trial (d 0-76), pigs fed increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain had decreased (P < 0.050) ADFI (L 3.05, M 2.98, H 2.91 kg/d) and ADG (L 1.01, M 1.00, H 0.97 kg/d). Enzyme inclusion did not affect ADFI but tended (P = 0.080) to increase ADG (WO 0.98, W 1.00 kg/d). Enzyme inclusion improved (P < 0.050) G:F only in pigs fed the H rye level. Most carcass traits were not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion. Increasing dietary hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain increased (P < 0.001) cost per tonne of feed (L 240.28, M 241.28, H 242.20 CDN$/kg), but did not affect feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain. Enzyme inclusion increased (P < 0.001) cost per tonne of feed (WO 240.36, W 242.15 $/kg), but feed cost per pig (WO 82.14, W 80.44 $/pig) and per kg BW gain (WO 0.96, W 0.94 $/kg gain) were reduced (P < 0.050). In conclusion, fall planted hybrid Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 rye can completely replace wheat grain in grower-finisher pig diets without affecting feed efficiency, feed cost/pig or feed cost/kg BW gain. Inclusion of NSP enzyme would be recommended for diets containing high rye levels to improve feed efficiency and ADG. Key words: Carcass traits, enzyme, growth performance, pig, hybrid rye Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 INTRODUCTION Wheat and barley are the most commonly fed grains to swine in western Canada. Small cereals such as rye can also be available at competitive prices to replace or complement wheat or barley. Traditionally, rye has not been fed widely to pigs mainly because of concerns over ergot alkaloids and anti-nutritional factors that could reduce feed intake and affect growth performance (Friend and MacIntyre, 1970). A new European fall-planted hybrid rye grown in western Canada is more resistant to ergot (Miedaner and Geiger, 2015) and fusarium and produces greater yield per unit of land (Jürgens et al., 2012). Rye has greater non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) such as arabinoxylans than wheat or barley grain (McGhee and Stein, 2018) and could therefore benefit from NSP enzyme inclusion in diets. Enzymes could hydrolyze NSP in rye grain to improve digestibility of most nutrients (Campbell and Bedford, 1992). Net energy (NE) value (NRC, 2012), standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine content (Cervantes-Pahm et al., 2014), and price (King, 2017) of rye fall in between those of wheat and barley grain making rye a potential cereal feedstuff that can be cost effective in swine diets. Few growth trials feeding rye to growing-finishing pigs have been documented and the few publications that exist mostly focused on feeding rye substituting barley grain (Hooper et al., 2002; Schwarz et al., 2014, 2016; Thacker et al., 1999, 2002). Therefore, our objective was to determine the effect of increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and NSP enzyme inclusion in diets fed to barrows and gilts raised under western Canadian commercial conditions by comparing the growth performance, dressing, carcass traits, and feed cost vs. benefit. The null hypothesis of this experiment was that growing-finishing barrows and gilts fed increasing hybrid rye level Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 substituting wheat grain with or without NSP enzyme would perform, dress and grade not different from each other. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study procedures were reviewed and animal use was approved by the University of Alberta Animal Care and Use Committee for Livestock and followed principles established by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC, 2009). The study was conducted at a commercial pig farm that had a grower-finisher barn set up as a test facility (Lougheed, AB, Canada). Animals and housing In total, 1,008 pigs [504 barrows and 504 gilts; PIC380 x Large White/Landrace (PIC Camborough; PIC Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada) were randomly placed into 48 pens by sex, 21 pigs per pen. At the start of the trial, pigs averaged 44 kg initial body weight (BW) and between- pen variation was 2.6 kg. Pens measured 6.1 × 2.4 m, allowing 0.7 m /pig. Flooring of each pen was fully slatted concrete, sidings were concrete panels with open slotting, and the front gate was made of polyvinyl chloride planking hinged at both ends. Each pen was equipped with one wet- dry feeder (model F1-115, Crystal Spring Hog Equipment, St. Agathe, MB, Canada) with two opposing feeding places located halfway along a dividing wall between pens. An additional water bowl drinker was located on the opposite sidewall towards the back of the pen. The room was ventilated using negative pressure and temperature was maintained within the thermo-neutral zone for pigs. Artificial light was provided for 14-h (0600 to 2000 h) followed by 10-h of darkness in the windowless barn. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Experiment design and diets Pens were blocked by area of the rectangular growout room. Within area block, pens of barrows or gilts were randomly allocated to be fed diets with one of three rye substitution levels: rd rd low (1/3 of wheat replaced), medium (2/3 of wheat replaced), or high (most wheat replaced; Table 1), either with or without enzyme inclusion (200 mg/kg replacing wheat grain) containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per g of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada. Hybrid rye fed in this trial was the variety ‘KWS Bono’ developed by KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany) grown at Kalco Farms, Gibbons (AB, Canada). The nutrient content of rye, wheat, field pea and wheat DDGS fed is presented in Table Before the start of the trial, a common Grower 1 diet was fed to all pigs for 13 days. Test diets were fed to slaughter weight over 4 growth phases (Grower 2: d 0-22, Grower 3: d 23-42, Finisher 1: d 43-63, Finisher 2: d 64 – slaughter). Diets had similar inclusion of wheat DDGS and field pea per growth phase. Ingredient NE values were calculated using EvaPig based on chemical analysis of samples for that year’s crop; SID AA coefficients were taken from AminoDat 5.0 . A NE value of 2.47 and 2.39 Mcal/kg and a SID Lys content of 0.26 and 0.28% was used for wheat and rye, respectively. Diets were formulated to provide 3.9, 3.3, 2.9, and 2.7 g SID Lys/Mcal NE per growth phase. Other amino acid ratios to Lys were set as per the ideal protein concept (NRC, 2012). Premixes were added to exceed vitamins and trace mineral requirements (NRC, 2012) per growth phase. Pigs had free access to water and the assigned phase test diet in mash form. Measurements and calculations A robotic feeding system (Feed Logic, Feed Logic Co., Willmar, MN) delivered and electronically tracked the amount of assigned test diet fed to each pen. Pigs were group-weighed Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 at the initiation of feeding the experimental diets (d 0) and on d 22, 42, 63, 76, 91, and at target slaughter weight. Feed remaining in the pen feeder on weigh days was estimated by levelling the feed, measuring to the top of the feeder hopper, and calculating the leftover orts using an equation that accounted for measured diet bulk density (maximum weight error 0.1%; Seneviratne et al., 2010). Collected data were used to calculate pen average daily feed intake (ADFI), average daily weight gain (ADG), and feed efficiency expressed as ADG/ADFI (G:F). Pigs were fed the assigned test regimen until the attainment of target slaughter weight (130 kg). As pigs grew near target market weight, several pigs from each pen were individually weighed and used as reference size pigs to select other pigs to be sent for slaughter that week. Pigs were shipped for slaughter on days 73, 75, 80, 82, 87, 89, 96, 102 and 109. Pigs were fasted for 16-20 hours prior to slaughter. Pigs were slaughtered at a commercial abattoir (Maple Leaf, Brandon, MB, Canada) following typical commercial procedures. Warm carcasses were weighed including head, kidneys, omental fat and feet, and were graded for backfat and loin depth using a light- reflectance probe (Destron PG-100, Destron Technologies, Markham, ON, Canada) inserted between the third and fourth last ribs, 7 cm off the midline (Pomar and Marcoux, 2003). Lean yield was estimated using an established equation (lean, % = 68.1863 − 0.7833 × backfat + 0.0689 × loin + 0.0008 × backfat × backfat − 0.0002 × loin × loin + 0.0006 × backfat × loin, [backfat and loin depth measurements in mm]; AAFC et al., 1994). Carcass index was determined using the packer’s grid that interpolated warm carcass weight and estimated lean yield. Carcass dressing was calculated as carcass weight divided by farm live weight at the time of shipping. Feed cost was calculated as the sum of products of ingredient cost by inclusion level. Feed cost/pig was calculated as the sum of products of phase diet ADFI by diet cost. Feed cost/kg BW gain was calculated as the sum of products of phase diet ADFI by diet cost divided by overall Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 ADG. Gross income subtracting feed cost (ISFC) was calculated multiplying carcass weight by index by pork price on the day of slaughter minus the sum of products of phase diet ADFI by diet cost. Index 110 indicates that the producer was paid a 10% premium over the 100-index base pork price on the day of slaughter. Chemical analyses Diets and main ingredients were ground through a 0.5 mm screen in a centrifugal mill (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany). Diets and ingredients were analyzed using the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 2016), American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS, 2017), or Ankom Technology (2017) methods for moisture (AOAC 930.15), crude protein (CP; AOAC 990.03[M]), crude fat (AOCS Am 5-04), ash (AOAC 923.03), crude fiber (AOCS BA 6a-05), acid detergent fiber (ADF; Ankom method 12[M]), neutral detergent fiber (NDF; Ankom method 13[M]), starch (enzymatic UV method, Cat. No. 10207748035; R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany) and amino acid (AA; AOAC 994.12) content at the Central Testing Laboratories (CTL), Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Wheat and rye samples were also analyzed for mycotoxins using ELISA tests at CTL, for NSP content using gas-liquid chromatography (as described by Meng et al., 2005) at the University of Manitoba, and for ergot alkaloid semi-quantitatively using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (as described by Krska et al., 2008) at the Organic Residue Laboratory of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (Edmonton, AB, Canada). Statistical analyses Trial data were analyzed as 3 × 2 × 2 factorial resulting in 4 pens per rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Growth performance, dressing, carcass and feed cost vs. benefit data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. Pen was the experimental unit for all variables. Models included the fixed effects of rye level substituting wheat grain (low, medium, Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 high), enzyme inclusion (with or without), sex (barrows, gilts), and interactions. Block was the random term in the model. Initial body weight (BW) was tested as covariate for ADFI, ADG, and G:F, and was included if it improved the fit of the model. Overall ADFI, ADG, and G:F were analyzed using closeout data. Body weight, ADFI, ADG and G:F were analyzed as repeated measures including growth phase as repeated term; growth phase was added as a fixed effect and the interactions of growth phase with the other fixed effects were analyzed. An appropriate covariance structure was selected by comparing the goodness-of-fit measures of different structures. The Kenwardroger approximation was used for the denominator degrees of freedom. The proportion of pigs shipped for slaughter was analyzed with a generalized linear model (GLIMMIX procedure in SAS) using a binomial distribution and logit link function. Growth performance data are reported until day 76 on test. To test the hypotheses, P < 0.05 was considered significant and P < 0.10 a trend. RESULTS Dietary nutrients Increasing dietary hybrid rye inclusion in substitution for wheat grain generally decreased dietary starch, CP, ADF, and crude fibre content whereas it generally increased dietary NDF and crude fat content (Table 1). Numerically, hybrid rye batches fed in this trial had lower CP and crude fibre, and slightly greater NDF content than the three batches of wheat grain (Table 2). Starch, ADF, ash and mineral content were within a similar range for the hybrid rye and wheat grain batches. Crude fat content was variable between the two hybrid rye batches (Table 2). Each measured NSP component, except for uronic acid, was greater in hybrid rye than wheat, resulting in greater total NSP content. Of the measured ergot alkaloids, ergosine, ergocornine, ergocryptine, Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 and ergotamine were greater in one of the three wheat samples compared with the two hybrid rye grain samples, whereas ergocristine was greater in hybrid rye than wheat grain (Table 2). Mycotoxin levels were low for all wheat and hybrid rye grain samples (Table 2). Growth performance As the number of pigs remaining in pens after start of shipment for slaughter was not different among treatments on d 76, but was different on d 91 (data not shown), we decided to use d 76 as the end of the study for growth performance variables, so as to not confound treatment effects with stocking density effects. There were no three-way interactions among hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain, enzyme inclusion and sex for growth performance parameters. Effects of sex were as expected and are not described. There were no two-way interactions between hybrid rye substitution level and enzyme inclusion, hybrid rye substitution level and sex, or enzyme inclusion and sex unless described below. Body weight was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion throughout the trial (Table 3). For the entire trial (d 0-76), pigs fed increasing hybrid rye substitutions had decreased ADFI and ADG. Enzyme inclusion did not affect ADFI but tended (P = 0.080) to increase ADG by 20 g/d. There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between hybrid rye substitution level and enzyme inclusion for feed efficiency; enzyme inclusion improved G:F only in pigs fed the high rye substitution level whereas enzyme inclusion did not affect G:F in pigs fed low or medium rye inclusion levels (Table 4). There was also an interaction (P < 0.050) between enzyme inclusion and sex for G:F; enzyme inclusion improved G:F in gilts but not in barrows (Table 5). Increasing dietary hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and enzyme inclusion did not affect ADFI in grower phases (Table 3). There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between hybrid rye Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 substitution level and enzyme inclusion for ADFI in finisher phases; in Finisher 1 phase, high hybrid rye substitution resulted in lower ADFI than low rye inclusion when no enzyme was added, whereas in Finisher 2 phase, high hybrid rye substitution resulted in lower ADFI than low hybrid rye inclusion when an enzyme was included (Table 4). Inclusion of enzyme reduced (P < 0.050) ADG in Grower 2 phase, increased (P = 0.054) ADG in Grower 3 phase, but did not affect ADG in Finisher phases (Table 3). There was an interaction (P < 0.050) among dietary hybrid rye substitution level, sex and growth phase for ADG; for barrows, increasing hybrid rye substitution increased ADG in Grower 2 phase, did not affect ADG in Grower 3 phase, and decreased ADG in Finisher phases whereas for gilts, increasing hybrid rye substitution did not affect ADG in Grower 2 and 3 and Finisher 2 phases, and decreased ADG in Finisher 1 phase (Table 6). Feed efficiency (G:F) was not affected by increasing hybrid rye inclusion or enzyme inclusion for any of the growth phases (Table 3). Shipping for slaughter and carcass characteristics The total proportion of pigs shipped to slaughter was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion (Table 7). Although the aim was to ship pigs at a fixed live BW as required by the packer, shipping weight (Table 8) was greater (P < 0.050) for pigs fed the low hybrid rye substitution level than those fed the medium level. Therefore, number of days to slaughter was confounded with shipping weight and the estimated number of days to a fixed live BW of 130 kg was calculated. Estimated days to 130 kg live BW was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion. Because of the difference in live shipping weight, carcass weight also tended (P = 0.074) to be greater in pigs fed low vs. medium hybrid rye substitution levels. However, dressing percentage was not different among hybrid rye substitution levels. Backfat, loin depth, lean yield and Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 calculated carcass revenue were not affected by increasing dietary hybrid rye substitution level (Table 8). Enzyme inclusion did not affect most carcass traits. There was a three-way interaction (P < 0.050) for index among dietary hybrid rye substitution level, enzyme inclusion and sex; enzyme inclusion did not affect index in gilts, nor in barrows fed low or medium hybrid rye substitution levels, but decreased index in barrows fed high hybrid rye substitution level (data not shown). Feed cost vs. benefit Enzyme inclusion increased (P < 0.001) feed cost per tonne by CA$ 1.79 (Table 9). However, feed cost per pig and per kg BW gain were reduced (P < 0.050) by CA$ 1.70 and CA$ 0.02, respectively, when enzyme was included in the diets, whereas ISFC was not affected by enzyme inclusion (Table 9). There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between increasing dietary hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex for feed cost/tonne, feed cost/pig, feed cost/kg BW gain, and ISFC. Feed cost/tonne increased with increasing hybrid rye substitution level in both barrows and gilts; sex did not affect feed cost/tonne in low and medium hybrid rye diets, but feed cost/tonne was greater in barrows than gilts for the high hybrid rye diet (Table 10). For barrows, both feed cost per pig and per kg BW gain were lower in the medium than the high hybrid rye diet with the low hybrid rye diet being intermediate, whereas for gilts, the low hybrid rye diet had lower feed cost per pig and per kg BW gain than the medium hybrid rye diet with the high hybrid rye diet being intermediate (Table 10). For barrows, ISFC was not affected by increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain, whereas for gilts, ISFC was lower for the low vs. the medium hybrid rye diet, with the high hybrid rye diet being intermediate (Table 10). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 DISCUSSION Rye is a cereal crop similar to wheat. It is popular in northern and eastern European countries for the production of dark bread and food products (Jürgens et al., 2012), grain stock for ethanol production, as forage/silage crop for ruminants, and cereal grain for pigs (http://www.ryebelt.com). In Canada, rye grain is best known for the production of whisky and spirits. Its winter hardiness allows efficient use of spring melting snow runoff and extends the ‘work season’ vs. spring-planted cereals for grain producers. Of ~175,000 hectares planted to rye in Canada, about 80% grows in the Prairie provinces (AAFC, 2019). Novel European hybrid rye cultivars have recently been introduced to Canada. These hybrid rye cultivars yield 25-40% more over conventional rye, 15-20% over barley and ~15% over winter wheat (King, 2017). Modern rye hybrids produce vast amounts of pollen because of PollenPlus technology (https://www.kws.com/corp/en/products/oilseed-rape/ryevolution/). The pollen overwhelm the stigma giving mold spores a lower chance of infecting the ear before the stigma closes. Fall planted rye flowers earlier than spring planted cereals so ergot and fusarium contamination risk is lower. Rye is not popular as an ingredient in pig feed in Canada compared with corn, wheat and barley, even triticale. However, greater hybrid rye grain yield compared with wheat (5000-7500 vs. 2700-5400 kg/ha) was an attractive incentive for us to evaluate feeding hybrid fall rye grain to pigs even if that might result in somewhat lower pig performance. Early research showed decreased growth performance when pigs were fed high inclusions of rye grain (Friend and MacIntyre, 1969; Thacker et al., 1991; Thacker and Baas, 1996). However, these trials looked at rye replacing barley grain. Instead, we decided to evaluate feeding increasing Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 hybrid rye inclusions replacing wheat grain. To our knowledge, our trial is the first one comparing hybrid rye with wheat rather than barley (Schwarz et al., 2014, 2016) or a combination of barley, wheat, and triticale grain (Meyer et al., 2003; Bussières, 2018). Feed intake was reduced feeding increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain in finisher diets but not in grower diets, possibly due to finisher diets containing a greater proportion of cereal grain, and thus hybrid rye, than grower diets. The decrease in feed intake with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain was initially suspected to be because of greater mycotoxin or ergot alkaloid levels in the hybrid rye than wheat grain. However, lab tests on both hybrid rye and wheat grain samples confirmed that neither mycotoxins nor ergot alkaloids were a factor in reducing feed intake. We, therefore, believe that the decreased feed intake observed with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain was possibly caused by greater NSP content in rye vs. wheat grain fed in this trial. Increased NSP content makes digesta more viscous, slowing down passage rate through the gut (Bach Knudsen, 2011). Arabinoxylans are known to form highly viscous solutions in water associated with reduced feed intake (Jürgens et al., 2012). Hybrid rye fed in this trial had indeed greater amounts of arabinose and xylose than wheat grain. Therefore, pigs fed these less digestible complex sugars in high rye diets likely felt more full and were satisfied with slightly less feed. Thacker et al. (1999) showed that young pigs fed a low viscosity rye diet consumed 9% more feed than pigs fed a high viscosity rye diet. However, this difference did not reach statistical significance, making it hard to conclude whether viscosity was indeed a determining factor in feed consumption. Because both feed intake and weight gain were reduced in parallel, feed efficiency was not affected by increasing hybrid rye inclusion level. Previous reports feeding rye substituting barley grain showed similar feed efficiency between high rye and barley control diets (Meyer et al., 2003; Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Schwarz et al., 2014; Bussières, 2018) whereas others showed better feed efficiency feeding high rye compared with barley control diets (Thacker et al., 1991, Thacker and Baas, 1996; Schwarz et al., 2016 [only numerically]). The improved feed efficiency feeding rye vs. barley was likely because rye had lower NDF and ADF content than barley grain (Thacker et al., 1991; NRC, 2012). Hybrid rye fed in our study had NDF and ADF content close to those of our wheat grain as well as similar starch and CP content. Moreover, our diets were formulated based on NE level and SID AA ratios, ensuring that our rye diets had similar feeding value. Similar feed efficiency showed that we estimated the NE level and SID AA content of the hybrid rye adequately. Some of the complex soluble sugars that make up the NSP fraction could potentially be made more digestible by inclusion of pentosanases, enzymes that break down pentosans (Campbell and Bedford, 1992). Feed enzymes have greater effect in poultry than pigs likely due to a more hostile environment for feed enzymes in the pig stomach given the lower pH. Nevertheless, Thacker and Baas (1996) found pentosanase activity in the small intestine, suggesting an opportunity for pentosanases to affect digestibility and growth performance. Indeed, in earlier research, Thacker’s lab showed improved F:G in one of their experiments with enzyme-supplemented meal-based rye diets (Thacker et al., 1991) but not with pelleted rye diets (Thacker et al., 1991, 1992; Thacker and Baas, 1996). More recent research has also found limited benefits of feeding NSP enzymes to growing pigs. Laerke et al. (2015) found that the ability of a combination of two xylanases to reduce viscosity, solubilize arabinoxylans, and release arabinoxylan degradation products was lower in rye than in wheat grain, and that these enzymes did not improve the digestibility of rye. Norgaard et al. (2016) fed 4000 units xylanase/kg and found no improvement in nutrient digestibility in rye diets compared to diets without xylanase. On the other hand, Villca et al. (2016) found that an enzyme complex including several glucanases and xylanase supplemented to a Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 pelleted rye diet fed in a liquid feeding system improved digestibility of nutrients but did not result in significant effects on growth performance. Our trial fed non-pelleted/mash diets supplemented with an enzyme complex containing both xylanase and β-glucanase. This enzyme complex tended to increase ADG. Enzyme inclusion also resulted in better G:F but that was only evident at the high rye level substituting wheat grain. The mostly-rye grain diet likely transited slower along the gut, staying longer and held the most water giving feed enzymes more time to break down rye pentosans. Often, feeding alternative ingredients with greater fibre content results in reduced carcass dressing because increased total empty weight of the gastrointestinal tract and(or) increased volume of digesta in the gut at slaughter (Kerr and Shurson, 2013). In our trial, carcass dressing was not reduced by increasing hybrid rye inclusion substituting wheat grain because rye NSP were mostly soluble instead of bulky, insoluble cereal hulls. Indeed, NDF content was rather similar between the wheat and hybrid rye grain fed in this trial. Jha et al. (2013) showed that decreased carcass dressing was related to increased NDF content in diets. Differences in carcass traits like backfat, loin depth and lean yield are generally related to erroneous NE or SID AA values at feed formulation. In our trial, backfat did not increase or decrease with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain because we accounted for the greater rye NSP content as a lower NE value for rye compared with wheat grain. Loin depth was also not affected because we correctly accounted for differences in amino acid digestibility between rye and wheat grain when formulating diets. Most other studies that measured carcass characteristics also found no effect of feeding rye on backfat, loin depth or lean yield (Hooper et al., 2002; Meyer et al., 2003; Schwarz et al, 2014, 2016; Villca et al., 2016). In one publication, enzyme inclusion in rye diets resulted in greater backfat and smaller loin depth and lean yield (Schwarz et al., 2016) whereas another Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 publication showed a tendency for improved lean yield with enzyme inclusion in rye diets (Alert and Fröhlich, 2006). In our trial, enzyme inclusion did not have an effect on carcass traits, except for reduced index in barrows fed high hybrid rye inclusion levels. It is not clear what caused the reduced index because index was a packer’s grid extrapolation of carcass weight and lean yield, and both were similar between pigs fed diets with or without enzyme inclusion. Hybrid fall rye was sourced at $180 vs. $190 per metric tonne for wheat grain. However, diets with increasing rye level were costlier than wheat grain diets because canola oil was added to compensate for the lower net energy value of rye. Nonetheless, the feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain was not different when increasing hybrid rye levels substituting wheat grain were fed. Schwarz et al. (2016) also mentioned greater feed cost for diets with rye substituting barley grain, and lower feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain. In our trial, gross income after subtracting feed cost was $2 lower for the high vs. the low rye diets although this difference did not reach significance. Previous results did show a significant improvement of the simplified direct surplus (similar to income subtracting feed cost) for diets with high rye inclusions compared to barley diets (Schwarz et al., 2014, 2016). Assuming hybrid fall rye yields 2700 kg/ha more than wheat grain, using our trial results that would imply 691 kg more lean pork/ha feeding 60% rye inclusion substituting wheat grain from 43.7 to 132.7 kg slaughter weight. Our study is unique in that it ties up pork to grain yield per unit of land, which is of paramount importance to pork producers growing their own crops and aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of pork production. In conclusion, although increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain decreased overall ADFI and ADG, hybrid rye can completely substitute wheat grain in grower-finisher pig diets without affecting carcass traits, feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain, and gross income subtracting feed cost. Enzyme inclusion tended to improve overall ADG and improved feed efficiency in pigs Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 fed the high rye substitution level for wheat grain. Inclusion of NSP enzyme would therefore be recommended for diets containing high rye levels to improve feed efficiency and ADG. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 LITERATURE CITED AAFC. 2019. Canada: Outlook for principal field crops. 19 July 2019. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Market Analysis Group. Available online: http://www.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/misb/mag-gam/fco-ppc/fco-ppc_2019-07-19- th eng.pdf (Accessed 14 of August 2019). AAFC, CVC, & CCP. 1994. Enquête nationale sur le rendement boucher du porc (1992): une initiative de recherche commune d’Agriculture et Agro-alimentaire Canada, le Conseil des viands du Canada et le Conseil canadien du porc, 107 p. Alert, H.-J., and B. Fröhlich. 2006. Roggeneinsatz in der Schweinemast. Schriftenreihe der Sächsischen Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Heft 5/2006. Available online: th https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/14092. (Accessed 14 of August 2019) [In German]. Ankom Technology. 2017. Analytical methods for Fiber Analyzer A2000. [Online] Available: th https://www.ankom.com/analytical-methods-support/fiber-analyzer-a2000. (Accessed 14 of August 2019). th AOAC. 2016. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 20 ed. Rockville, MD. th AOCS. 2017. Official methods and recommended practices of the AOCS. 7 ed. Urbana, IL. Bach Knudsen, K. E. 2011. Effects of polymeric carbohydrates on growth and development in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:1965-1980. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3602. Bussières, D. 2018. Impact of hybrid rye (Brasetto) on finisher pig performance, carcass and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 96 (Suppl. S2): 140. [Abstr.] Campbell, G. L., and M. R. Bedford. 1992. Enzyme applications for monogastric feeds: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:449-466. doi: 10.4141/cjas92-058. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Canadian Council on Animal Care in Science (CCAC), 2009. The care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care in Science, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Cervantes-Pahm, S. K., Y. Liu, and H. H. Stein. 2014. Digestible indispensable amino acid score and digestible amino acids in eight cereal grains. British J. Nutr. 111:1663-1672. doi: 10.1017/S0007114513004273. Friend, D. W., and T. M. MacIntyre. 1969. Digestibility of rye and its value in pelleted rations for pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 49:375-381. doi: 10.4141/cjas69-049. Friend, D. W., and T. M. MacIntyre. 1970. Effect of rye ergot on growth and N-retention in growing pigs. Can. J. Comp. Med. 34:198-202. Hooper, W., P. Horne, A. McKellop, M. Perry, A. Roloson, I. Mutch, A. Ling, D. Mol, T. Rogers, R. Milton, L. Dalziel, D. Pratt, and M. Delaney. 2002. Optimal whole soybean inclusion rate for commercial swine diets and the use of rye as a feed ingredient for swine rations on Prince th Edward Island. Final Report for PEI Pork, Industry Chair for Swine Research, 15 of March 2002. Not available online anymore. Jha, R., J. K. Htoo, M .G. Young, E. Beltranena, and R. T. Zijlstra. 2013. Effects of increasing co- product inclusion and reducing dietary protein on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and jowl fatty acid profile of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 91:2178-2191. doi: 10.2527/jas.2011-5065. Jürgens, H. U., G. Jansen, and C. B. Wegener. 2012. Characterisation of several rye cultivars with respect to arabinoxylans and extract viscosity. J. Agric. Sci. 4:1-12. doi: 10.5539/jas.v4n5p1. Kerr, B. J., and G. C. Shurson. 2013. Strategies to improve fiber utilization in swine. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 4(11), 12, 263. doi: 10.1186/2049-1891-4-11. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 King, C. 2017. Why you should grow hybrid rye: yield advantages, pricing and market th opportunities. Top Crop Manager, 19 of June, 2017. Available online th https://www.topcropmanager.com/hybrid-rye-gaining-ground-20191 (Accessed 14 of August 2019). Krska, R., G. Stubbings, R. Macarthur, and C. Crews. 2008. Simultaneous determination of six major ergot alkaloids and their epimers in cereals and foodstuffs by LC-MS-MS. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 391:563-576. doi: 10.1007/s00216-008-2036-6. Laerke, H. N., S. Arent, S. Dalsgaard, and K. E. Bach Knudsen. 2015. Effect of xylanases on ileal viscosity, intestinal fiber modification, and apparent ileal fiber an nutrient digestibility of rye and wheat in growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 93:4323-4335. doi: 10.2527/jas2015-9096. McGhee, M. L., and H. H. Stein. 2018. Apparent and standardized ileal digestibility of AA and starch in hybrid rye, barley, wheat, and corn fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 96:3319-3329. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky206. Meyer, A., A. Schön, A. Brade, and P. Köhler. 2003. Wie wirkt sich ein Mischfutter mit Roggen als alleiniger Getreidekomponente auf die Leistung und Fettqualität von Mastschweinen aus? Forum angewandte Forschung in der Rinder- und Schweinefütterung, Fulda, Tagungsunterlage. pp. 104-105. (Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Germany) [In German]. Miedaner, T., and H. H. Geiger. 2015. Biology, genetics, and management of ergot (Claviceps spp.) in rye, sorghum, and pearl millet. Toxins 7:659-678. doi: 10.3390/toxins7030659. Meng, X., B. A. Sliminski, C. M. Nyachoti, L. D. Campbell, and W. Guenter. 2005. Degradation of cell wall polysaccharides by combinations of carbohydrase enzymes and their effect on nutrient utilization and broiler chicken performance. Poultry Sci. 84:37-47. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Nørgaard, J. V., T. F. Pedersen, K. Blaabjerg, K. E. Bach Knudsen, and H. N. Laerke. 2016. Xylanase supplementation to rye diets for growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94:91-94. doi: 10.2527/jas2015-9775. th NRC. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11 rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Pomar, C., and M. Marcoux. 2003. Comparing the Canadian pork lean yields and grading indexes predicted from grading methods based on Destron and Hennessy probe measurements. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 451-458. Schwarz, T., W. Kuleta, A. Turek, R. Tuz, J. Nowicki, B. Rudzki, and P. M. Bartlewski. 2014. Assessing the efficiency of using a modern hybrid rye cultivar for pig fattening, with emphasis on production costs and carcass quality. Anim. Prod. Sci. 55:467-473. doi: 10.1071/AN13386. Schwarz, T., A. Turek, J. Nowicki., R. Tuz, B. Rudzki, and P. M. Bartlewski. 2016. Production value and cost-effectiveness of pig fattening using liquid feeding or enzyme-supplemented dry mixes containing rye grain. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 61:341-350. doi: 10.17221/73/2015- CJAS. Seneviratne, R. W., M. G. Young, E. Beltranena, L. A. Goonewardene, R. W. Newkirk, and R. T. Zijlstra. 2010. The nutritional value of expeller pressed canola meal for grower-finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88:2073-2083. doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2437. Thacker, P. A., and T. C. Baas. 1996. Effects of gastric pH on the activity of exogenous pentosanase and the effect of pentosanase supplementation of the diet on the performance of growing-finishing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 63:187-200. doi: 10.1016/S0377- 8401(96)01028-0. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Thacker, P. A., G. L. Campbell, and J. GrootWassink. 1991. The effect of enzyme supplementation on the nutritive value of rye-based diets for swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71:489-496. doi: 10.4141/cjas91-058. Thacker, P. A., G. L. Campbell, and J. W. D. GrootWassink. 1992. Effect of salinomycin and enzyme supplementation on nutrient digestibility and the performance of pigs fed barley- or rye-based diets. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:117-125. doi: 10.4141/cjas92-013. Thacker, P. A., G. L. Campbell, and G. J. Scoles. 1999. Performance of young growing pigs (17- 34 kg) fed rye-based diets selected for reduced viscosity. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 8:549-556. doi: 10.22358/jafs/69179/1999. Thacker, P. A., J. G. McLeod, and G. L. Campbell. 2002. Performance of growing-finishing pigs fed diets based on normal or low viscosity rye fed with and without enzyme supplementation. Arch. Tierernahr. 56:361-370. doi: 10.1080/00039420215631. Villca, B., R. Lizardo, J. Broz, J. Brufau, and D. Torrallardona. 2016. Effect of a carbohydrase enzyme complex on the nutrient apparent total tract digestibility of rye-based diets fed to growing-finishing pigs under liquid feeding. J. Anim. Sci. 94:230-233. doi: 10.2527/jas2015- Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 1. Ingredient composition and analyzed nutrients (%, standardized to 12% moisture) of grower and finisher diets with increasing 2 3 4 hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion. Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Ingredients, % Wheat, ground 31.32 15.58 1.99 41.20 20.51 1.99 44.08 21.93 2.00 45.64 22.68 1.99 Rye, ground 15.66 31.20 44.60 20.60 41.03 59.15 22.03 43.90 63.58 22.82 45.50 65.93 Wheat DDGS 28.72 28.72 28.72 21.72 21.72 21.72 23.45 23.45 23.45 24.01 24.01 24.01 Field pea, ground 20.48 20.48 20.48 13.91 13.91 13.91 8.10 8.10 8.10 5.22 5.22 5.22 Canola oil 1.32 1.54 1.73 0.40 0.69 1.00 0.40 0.71 0.99 0.40 0.72 1.02 Limestone 1.22 1.19 1.16 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.89 1.01 0.97 0.93 Mono-dicalcium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 phosphate Salt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 L-Lysine·HCl 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.31 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Vitamin/mineral 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 5,6,7 premix L-Threonine 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03 DL-Methionine 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 CuSO4 • 5 H2O 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phytase 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 L-Tryptophan 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Analyzed nutrient content, % Starch 41.16 35.55 35.51 40.05 32.87 39.60 42.13 34.79 28.51 36.12 41.89 37.37 Crude protein 19.29 18.91 18.72 17.72 16.92 17.35 18.75 17.56 17.09 17.53 17.49 16.21 NDF 11.76 12.61 11.83 11.56 11.27 12.19 11.40 11.61 11.54 11.02 11.77 11.94 ADF 6.46 6.69 5.88 6.49 5.82 5.77 6.05 5.77 5.77 5.62 5.49 5.79 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Crude fibre 3.20 3.31 2.98 3.23 3.24 3.02 2.82 3.05 2.79 3.17 2.85 2.60 Crude fat 3.57 3.82 4.00 2.99 3.07 3.19 2.90 2.82 3.47 3.24 3.34 3.51 Ash 4.04 4.14 4.38 3.94 3.82 3.70 3.77 3.73 4.05 4.03 4.58 4.29 Potassium 0.74 0.73 0.71 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.62 Calcium 0.56 0.58 0.71 0.55 0.57 0.48 0.53 0.48 0.59 0.54 0.62 0.61 Phosphorus 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.41 0.44 0.43 0.42 Chloride 0.46 0.54 0.53 0.48 0.52 0.46 0.50 0.47 0.56 0.59 0.71 0.68 Sodium 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.28 0.27 0.33 0.36 0.44 0.40 Magnesium 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Amino acids, % Alanine 0.64 0.62 0.24 0.57 0.67 0.54 0.62 0.55 0.57 0.48 0.61 0.55 Arginine 0.81 0.90 1.01 1.45 0.87 0.60 0.77 1.00 0.60 1.17 0.89 0.71 Aspartic acid 1.22 1.21 1.29 1.04 1.06 0.99 1.09 0.95 0.96 0.81 0.91 0.97 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Cysteine 0.77 0.55 7.85 3.44 0.63 0.24 0.45 0.95 1.31 1.66 0.40 0.49 Glutamic acid 4.19 4.30 4.60 4.52 3.84 3.13 4.65 5.19 3.43 4.45 1.06 3.43 Glycine 0.71 0.82 0.81 0.63 0.72 0.59 0.74 0.84 0.62 0.71 0.62 0.74 Histidine 0.33 0.38 0.77 0.28 0.39 0.27 0.34 0.48 0.28 0.60 0.36 0.32 Isoleucine 0.40 0.68 0.40 0.32 0.68 0.24 0.62 0.69 0.25 0.67 0.61 0.56 Leucine 1.01 1.17 0.68 1.29 1.11 0.72 0.98 1.15 0.75 0.93 1.10 0.75 Lysine 0.81 0.70 0.99 0.71 0.90 0.67 0.79 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.71 0.60 Methionine 0.45 0.32 0.69 0.65 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.38 0.40 0.45 0.27 0.26 Phenylalanine 0.69 0.63 0.71 0.59 0.74 0.50 0.64 0.75 0.52 0.62 0.79 0.62 Proline 1.41 1.36 1.49 1.28 1.42 1.08 1.46 1.66 1.21 1.40 1.58 1.41 Serine 0.84 0.65 0.61 0.73 0.35 0.65 0.88 0.74 0.69 0.31 0.72 0.67 Threonine 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.47 0.39 0.44 0.48 0.64 0.43 0.68 0.47 0.43 Tryptophan 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.17 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Tyrosine 0.55 0.49 0.55 0.37 0.43 0.31 0.51 0.59 0.32 0.48 0.38 0.47 Valine 0.55 0.85 0.48 0.47 0.84 0.36 0.51 0.65 0.40 0.48 0.77 0.46 Non-starch polysaccharides, % Glucose 3.92 4.68 4.41 4.37 4.31 4.47 3.81 4.20 4.30 3.81 3.87 4.13 Xylose 3.19 3.58 3.56 3.44 3.50 3.60 3.30 3.37 3.65 3.33 3.52 3.62 Arabinose 2.26 2.52 2.51 2.54 2.56 2.71 2.36 2.48 2.64 2.38 2.47 2.58 Uronic acids 0.80 0.84 0.73 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.64 0.70 0.64 0.64 0.57 0.60 Galactose 0.59 0.57 0.59 0.50 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 Mannose 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.43 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.39 0.51 0.41 0.45 0.48 Total 11.20 12.67 12.32 12.07 12.01 12.44 10.91 11.50 12.12 10.95 11.25 11.77 Grower 2 diets were fed from d 0-22, Grower 3 diets from d 23-42, Finisher 1 diets from d 43-63, and Finisher 2 diets from d 63 until the day of shipping for slaughter. KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 A small amount of ground wheat (1.97 to 2%) was used to flush the microscale after adding the small inclusion ingredients. Enzyme (Endofeed W DC, GNC bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada) provided 280 units of β-glucanase and 900 units of xylanase per kilogram diet. Provided the following per kilogram of Grower 2 and 3 diets: Zn, 100 mg; Fe, 100 mg; Cu, 15 mg; Mn, 40 mg; I, 1 mg; Se, 0.3 mg; vitamin A, 8000 IU; vitamin D, 1500 IU; vitamin E, 30 IU; niacin, 20 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 12 mg; riboflavin, 4 mg; menadione, 2 mg; pyridoxine, 2 mg; folic acid, 0.5 mg; thiamine,1 mg; D-biotin, 0.1 mg and vitamin B12, 0.02 mg. Provided the following per kilogram of Finisher 1 diet: Zn, 70 mg; Fe, 70 mg; Cu, 10.5 mg; Mn, 28 mg; I, 0.7 mg; Se, 0.21 mg; vitamin A, 5600 IU; vitamin D, 1050 IU; vitamin E, 21 IU; niacin, 14 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 8.4 mg; riboflavin, 2.8 mg; menadione, 1.4 mg; pyridoxine, 1.4 mg; folic acid, 0.35 mg; thiamine, 0.7 mg; D-biotin, 0.07 mg and vitamin B12, 0.01 mg. Provided the following per kilogram of Finisher 2 diet: Zn, 50 mg; Fe, 50 mg; Cu, 7.5 mg; Mn, 20 mg; I, 0.5 mg; Se, 0.15 mg; vitamin A, 400 IU; vitamin D, 750 IU; vitamin E, 15 IU; niacin, 10 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 6 mg; riboflavin, 2 mg; menadione, 1 mg; pyridoxine, 1 mg; folic acid, 0.25 mg; thiamine, 0.5 mg; D-biotin, 0.05 mg and vitamin B12, 0.01 mg. Ronozyme P-(M) 200; DSM Nutritional Products Canada Inc., Ayr, ON, Canada. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 2. Analyzed nutrient content (%, as fed basis), ergot and mycotoxin content (ppb, as fed basis) of ingredients fed in the trial Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 DDGS pea (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Dry matter 86.62 86.87 87.14 87.29 87.41 91.28 86.34 Starch 60.92 52.67 49.77 46.06 55.04 na na Crude protein 11.65 11.74 12.59 10.03 10.07 35.16 19.75 NDF 8.84 11.26 9.04 11.56 10.18 23.21 8.06 ADF 2.70 2.55 2.67 2.65 2.46 16.98 6.68 Crude fibre 2.03 2.03 2.11 1.76 1.87 6.37 4.64 Crude fat 1.78 1.85 1.85 1.12 2.35 6.24 1.19 Ash 1.44 1.41 1.51 1.40 1.34 4.97 2.37 Potassium 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.49 0.44 1.22 0.95 Phosphorus 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.25 0.27 0.87 0.33 Magnesium 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.32 0.11 Chloride 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.15 0.08 Calcium 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.09 Sodium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01 Amino acids, % Alanine 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.40 0.35 na na Arginine 0.44 0.43 0.60 0.48 0.40 na na Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field DDGS pea Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Aspartic acid 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.67 0.50 na na Cysteine 10.21 11.83 1.13 17.26 0.51 na na Glutamic acid 2.97 2.91 3.65 2.24 2.05 na na Glycine 0.44 0.44 0.57 0.65 0.38 na na Histidine 0.25 0.22 0.32 0.24 0.22 na na Isoleucine 0.21 0.20 0.37 0.34 0.26 na na Leucine 0.59 0.57 0.80 0.57 0.46 na na Lysine 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.33 0.26 na na Methionine 0.64 0.66 0.28 0.66 0.20 na na Phenylalanine 0.41 0.39 0.55 0.41 0.32 na na Proline 1.01 0.98 1.21 0.87 0.74 na na Serine 0.71 0.70 0.09 0.60 0.40 na na Threonine 0.27 0.26 0.36 0.24 0.12 na na Tryptophan 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.10 na na Tyrosine 0.26 0.25 0.34 0.22 0.17 na na Valine 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.48 0.43 na na Non-starch polysaccharides, % Glucose 3.46 3.45 3.49 5.25 4.32 na na Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field DDGS pea Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Xylose 3.46 3.50 3.46 4.80 4.42 na na Arabinose 2.11 2.01 2.17 2.87 2.66 na na Uronic acids 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.25 0.34 na na Galactose 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.29 na na Mannose 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.36 0.39 na na Total 9.78 9.73 9.95 13.82 12.41 na na Ergot alkaloids Ergometrine ND ND ND ND ND na na Ergosine ND low ND ND ND na na Ergocornine ND mid ND ND ND na na Ergocryptine ND mid ND ND ND na na Ergotamine ND ND mid low low na na Ergocristine ND ND ND mid mid na na Mycotoxin content Vomitoxin (ppm) 0.3 < 0.2 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 na na Fumonisin (ppb) < 222 < 222 < 222 < 222 < 222 na na T-2 toxin (ppb) < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 na na Ochratoxin A < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 na na (ppb) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field DDGS pea Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Zearalenone < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 na na (ppb) Aflatoxin (ppb) < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 na na Not analyzed Not detected. Detection limit was ≤ 20 ng/g. A result labelled as ‘low’ is close to, but above, the limit of detection, 20-40 ng/g. A result labelled as ‘mid’ is at least an order of magnitude higher than ‘low’, 200-400 ng/g. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 3. Growth performance per growth phase and overall (d 0-76) of grower-finisher barrows and gilts fed diets with increasing 1 2 3 hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex BW, kg Overall (d 0.695 0.9899 <0.0001 0-76) d 0 43.7 43.7 43.8 43.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 1.2 na na 0.8447 d 22 64.7 66.0 66.0 66.1 65.0 66.4 64.7 1.2 na na 0.0006 d 42 84.6 86.0 85.9 85.7 85.3 87.0 84.0 1.2 na na <0.0001 d 63 106.5 109.6 108.1 107.5 108.7 108.8 107.4 1.6 na na 0.3829 d 76 116.0 115.7 115.2 115.6 115.7 118.0 113.2 1.3 na na <0.0001 ADFI, kg/d z z,y y Overall (d 3.049 2.975 2.911 2.966 2.990 3.183 2.773 0.024 0.0067 0.4664 <0.0001 0-76) Grower 2 2.243 2.264 2.257 2.294 2.215 2.363 2.146 0.020 0.8289 na <0.0001 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Grower 3 2.732 2.703 2.747 2.727 2.728 2.872 2.583 0.020 0.4420 na <0.0001 6 z z y Finisher 1 3.126 3.035 2.886 2.991 3.041 3.259 2.773 0.039 0.0039 na <0.0001 6 z y y Finisher 2 3.431 3.314 3.213 3.311 3.328 3.561 3.078 0.032 0.0017 na <0.0001 ADG, kg/d z z,y y Overall (d 1.013 0.998 0.971 0.984 1.004 1.037 0.950 0.012 0.0114 0.0798 <0.0001 0-76) 7 y z z Grower 2 0.954 1.014 1.008 1.015 0.969 1.027 0.957 0.017 0.0217 0.0168 na Grower 3 0.994 0.996 0.995 0.977 1.014 1.029 0.962 0.017 0.9964 0.0543 na 7 z z,y y Finisher 1 1.006 0.981 0.947 0.970 0.986 1.024 0.932 0.015 0.0067 0.2577 na 7 z y y Finisher 2 1.056 1.003 0.970 1.002 1.016 1.056 0.962 0.017 0.0014 0.4333 na G:F, kg/kg Overall (d 0.333 0.336 0.334 0.332 0.337 0.326 0.343 0.003 0.7211 0.1148 <0.0001 5,6 0-76) Grower 2 0.426 0.442 0.447 0.438 0.438 0.435 0.442 0.006 na na na Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Grower 3 0.364 0.369 0.363 0.358 0.372 0.358 0.372 0.005 na na na Finisher 1 0.324 0.325 0.329 0.325 0.327 0.316 0.337 0.005 na na na Finisher 2 0.308 0.303 0.303 0.303 0.306 0.296 0.313 0.005 na na na x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Not applicable. There was no interaction between the fixed effect and growth phase; therefore, P-values are not given for each growth phase. There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between enzyme inclusion and sex. There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and enzyme inclusion. There was an interaction (P < 0.010) between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 4. Interactions between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and enzyme inclusion on growth performance Low rye substitution Medium rye substitution High rye substitution SEM P-value level level level Enzyme inclusion Without With Without With Without With y y,z z y,z y z G:F, overall (d0-76), kg/kg 0.329 0.337 0.339 0.333 0.328 0.341 0.004 0.0212 z,y z y,x z,y y,x x ADFI, Finisher 1, kg/d 3.088 3.165 2.953 3.118 2.933 2.839 0.067 0.0107 z z,y z,y,x z,y,x,w w y,x,w ADFI, Finisher 2, kg/d 3.445 3.4176 3.337 3.291 3.152 3.274 0.056 0.0090 w,x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 5. Interactions between enzyme inclusion and sex on growth performance Barrow Gilts SEM P-value Enzyme inclusion Without With Without With z z y y ADFI, overall (d0-76), kg/d 3.136 3.230 2.796 2.751 0.033 0.0456 x x y z G:F, overall (d0-76), kg/kg 0.327 0.325 0.338 0.348 0.004 0.0435 x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 6. Interactions between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex on growth performance Barrows Gilts SEM P-value Rye substitution level Low Medium High Low Medium High ADG, kg/d y,x z,y z x y,x x Grower 2 0.979 1.036 1.067 0.930 0.992 0.948 0.025 0.0009 z,y z z z,y y y Grower 3 1.014 1.035 1.036 0.974 0.958 0.954 0.025 0.0338 z z,y y,x x,w w,v v Finisher 1 1.046 1.033 0.994 0.965 0.930 0.901 0.021 <0.0001 z y x x x x Finisher 2 1.128 1.065 0.975 0.983 0.940 0.964 0.024 <0.0001 v,w,x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 1 2 Table 7. Effects of feeding diets with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion on the proportion of grower-finisher barrows and gilts shipped per period (d 73-105) and in total Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Shipped by 22.4 24.8 22.4 22.9 23.4 30.7 17.0 1.9 0.7159 0.8422 <0.0001 d 76, % Shipped by 52.8 58.3 52.3 52.1 56.9 64.0 44.6 2.2 0.2463 0.1425 <0.0001 d 91, % Pigs shipped 96.3 94.6 97.8 95.9 96.9 95.7 97.1 0.9 0.1582 0.4187 0.2804 total, % KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Calculated as # pigs shipped/# pigs on d 0 x 100. Calculated as (# pigs on d 0 - # pig removed from trial due to mortality or morbidity)/# pigs on d 0 x 100. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 8. Carcass characteristics and calculated carcass revenue of barrows and gilts fed diets with increasing hybrid rye level 2 3 substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex z y zy Ship weight, kg 133.4 132.0 132.5 132.7 132.6 132.9 132.4 0.4 0.0361 0.9098 0.3056 Estimated days to 130 kg live BW 24.9 24.6 26.1 25.4 25.0 21.5 28.9 1.0 0.2934 0.6414 <0.0001 from d 63 Carcass weight, kg 104.7 103.5 103.6 103.9 103.9 103.8 104.1 0.3 0.0742 0.9792 0.4402 Dressing, % 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.1 78.3 78.0 78.4 0.2 0.9809 0.4476 0.0808 Backfat, mm 18.0 17.6 17.6 17.7 17.7 18.9 16.5 0.3 0.4336 0.8275 <0.0001 Loin depth, mm 62.7 63.6 64.1 63.2 63.7 62.2 64.7 0.4 0.1226 0.3942 <0.0001 Lean yield, g/kg 61.0 61.3 61.3 61.1 61.2 60.6 61.7 0.1 0.1197 0.6271 <0.0001 4,5,6 y z y Index 110.5 112.0 110.2 111.4 110.4 111.6 110.2 0.3 0.0125 0.0501 0.0066 Carcass revenue, 174.28 173.39 170.95 173.65 172.10 173.52 172.23 0.98 0.1409 0.2732 0.3598 CA$ y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Carcass weight used as covariate. Index 110 indicates that the producer was paid a 10% premium over the 100-index base pork price on the day of slaughter. There was a three-way interaction (P < 0.010) between hybrid rye substitution level for wheat grain, enzyme inclusion and sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 9. Feed cost and gross income subtracting feed cost (ISFC) in CA$ of grower-finisher barrows and gilts fed diets with 1 2 3 increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Feed x y z 240.28 241.28 242.20 240.36 242.15 241.51 241.00 0.11 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 4,5 cost/tonne Feed cost/pig 80.57 81.55 81.75 82.14 80.44 83.53 79.05 1.00 0.3049 0.0142 <0.0001 Feed cost/kg 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.97 0.92 0.01 0.3401 0.0129 <0.0001 BW gain ISFC 30.66 28.20 28.31 28.53 29.59 26.66 31.45 1.38 0.1328 0.3382 0.0001 x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. There was an interaction (P<0.050) between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Ingredient cost in Canadian dollars per tonne used in this analysis were: wheat grain $190, hybrid rye grain $180, wheat DDGS $200, field pea $250, canola oil $950, limestone $108, mono/dicalcium phosphate $928, salt $84, L-Lysine-HCl $2000, L-Threonine $3150, DL-Methionine $3800, L-Tryptophan $19000, vitamin/mineral premix $6100, CuSO4 • 5 H2O $2920, phytase $2910, Endofeed W DC enzyme $10000. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 10. Interactions between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex on feed cost and gross income subtracting feed cost (ISFC) in CA$ Barrows Gilts SEM P-value Rye substitution level Low Medium High Low Medium High 4,5 w y,x z w x y Feed cost/tonne 240.45 241.38 242.69 240.11 241.18 241.71 0.16 0.0150 4 z,y y,x z v x,w w,v Feed cost/pig 83.27 82.42 84.90 77.88 80.68 78.60 1.20 0.0184 4 z,y y,x z v x,w w,v Feed cost/kg BW gain 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.01 0.0195 4 x y,x x z y,x z,y ISFC 26.89 28.12 24.98 34.44 28.28 31.64 1.76 0.0184 v,w,x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Translational Animal Science Oxford University Press

Increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme on growth performance and carcass traits of growing-finishing barrows and gilts

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/increasing-hybrid-rye-level-substituting-wheat-grain-with-or-without-IU9aqaxB4e

References (66)

Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
eISSN
2573-2102
DOI
10.1093/tas/txz141
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme on growth performance and carcass traits of growing-finishing barrows and gilts * † † † *2 M. N. Smit , X. Zhou , J. L. Landero , M. G. Young , and E. Beltranena Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Edmonton, T6H 5T6, Alberta, Canada Gowans Feed Consulting, Wainwright, T9W 1L2, Alberta, Canada We would like to thank KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany) and GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK for financial support. Appreciation is expressed to the Drumloche team for animal care and their expertise running the trial. Thanks also to Lewisville Pork Farm for the use of the animals and Sunhaven Farms Milling for supplying the feed. To Dr. Bogdan Slominski, our thanks for conducting the non-starch polysaccharides analysis in your lab at University of Manitoba. Corresponding author: eduardo.beltranena@gov.ab.ca © The Author(s) 2019. 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 Non- Commercial 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 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 ABSTRACT: New European, fall-planted hybrid rye grown in western Canada is more resistant to ergot and fusarium and has lower content of anti-nutritional factors than common rye. We evaluated the effect of feeding increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) enzyme inclusion in diets fed to growing-finishing pigs raised under western Canadian commercial conditions. In total, 1008 pigs (~44 kg BW) housed in 48 pens by sex, 21 pigs/pen, were fed diets with one of three rye (var. KWS Bono; KWS LOCHOW GMBH) inclusion levels substituting wheat grain: low (L;1/3rd of wheat replaced), medium (M; 2/3rd of wheat replaced), or high (H; most wheat replaced), either without (WO) or with (W) enzyme inclusion (280 units of β-glucanase and 900 units of xylanase per kg feed; Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm) over 4 growth phases (Grower 2: d 0-22, Grower 3: d 23-42, Finisher 1: d 43-63, Finisher 2: d 64-slaughter). Pen BW, feed added, and orts were measured on d 0, 22, 42, 63, 76, 91, and at slaughter weight (130 kg). Warm carcasses were weighed and graded (Destron). Body weight was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion throughout the trial. For the entire trial (d 0-76), pigs fed increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain had decreased (P < 0.050) ADFI (L 3.05, M 2.98, H 2.91 kg/d) and ADG (L 1.01, M 1.00, H 0.97 kg/d). Enzyme inclusion did not affect ADFI but tended (P = 0.080) to increase ADG (WO 0.98, W 1.00 kg/d). Enzyme inclusion improved (P < 0.050) G:F only in pigs fed the H rye level. Most carcass traits were not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion. Increasing dietary hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain increased (P < 0.001) cost per tonne of feed (L 240.28, M 241.28, H 242.20 CDN$/kg), but did not affect feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain. Enzyme inclusion increased (P < 0.001) cost per tonne of feed (WO 240.36, W 242.15 $/kg), but feed cost per pig (WO 82.14, W 80.44 $/pig) and per kg BW gain (WO 0.96, W 0.94 $/kg gain) were reduced (P < 0.050). In conclusion, fall planted hybrid Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 rye can completely replace wheat grain in grower-finisher pig diets without affecting feed efficiency, feed cost/pig or feed cost/kg BW gain. Inclusion of NSP enzyme would be recommended for diets containing high rye levels to improve feed efficiency and ADG. Key words: Carcass traits, enzyme, growth performance, pig, hybrid rye Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 INTRODUCTION Wheat and barley are the most commonly fed grains to swine in western Canada. Small cereals such as rye can also be available at competitive prices to replace or complement wheat or barley. Traditionally, rye has not been fed widely to pigs mainly because of concerns over ergot alkaloids and anti-nutritional factors that could reduce feed intake and affect growth performance (Friend and MacIntyre, 1970). A new European fall-planted hybrid rye grown in western Canada is more resistant to ergot (Miedaner and Geiger, 2015) and fusarium and produces greater yield per unit of land (Jürgens et al., 2012). Rye has greater non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) such as arabinoxylans than wheat or barley grain (McGhee and Stein, 2018) and could therefore benefit from NSP enzyme inclusion in diets. Enzymes could hydrolyze NSP in rye grain to improve digestibility of most nutrients (Campbell and Bedford, 1992). Net energy (NE) value (NRC, 2012), standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine content (Cervantes-Pahm et al., 2014), and price (King, 2017) of rye fall in between those of wheat and barley grain making rye a potential cereal feedstuff that can be cost effective in swine diets. Few growth trials feeding rye to growing-finishing pigs have been documented and the few publications that exist mostly focused on feeding rye substituting barley grain (Hooper et al., 2002; Schwarz et al., 2014, 2016; Thacker et al., 1999, 2002). Therefore, our objective was to determine the effect of increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and NSP enzyme inclusion in diets fed to barrows and gilts raised under western Canadian commercial conditions by comparing the growth performance, dressing, carcass traits, and feed cost vs. benefit. The null hypothesis of this experiment was that growing-finishing barrows and gilts fed increasing hybrid rye level Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 substituting wheat grain with or without NSP enzyme would perform, dress and grade not different from each other. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study procedures were reviewed and animal use was approved by the University of Alberta Animal Care and Use Committee for Livestock and followed principles established by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC, 2009). The study was conducted at a commercial pig farm that had a grower-finisher barn set up as a test facility (Lougheed, AB, Canada). Animals and housing In total, 1,008 pigs [504 barrows and 504 gilts; PIC380 x Large White/Landrace (PIC Camborough; PIC Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada) were randomly placed into 48 pens by sex, 21 pigs per pen. At the start of the trial, pigs averaged 44 kg initial body weight (BW) and between- pen variation was 2.6 kg. Pens measured 6.1 × 2.4 m, allowing 0.7 m /pig. Flooring of each pen was fully slatted concrete, sidings were concrete panels with open slotting, and the front gate was made of polyvinyl chloride planking hinged at both ends. Each pen was equipped with one wet- dry feeder (model F1-115, Crystal Spring Hog Equipment, St. Agathe, MB, Canada) with two opposing feeding places located halfway along a dividing wall between pens. An additional water bowl drinker was located on the opposite sidewall towards the back of the pen. The room was ventilated using negative pressure and temperature was maintained within the thermo-neutral zone for pigs. Artificial light was provided for 14-h (0600 to 2000 h) followed by 10-h of darkness in the windowless barn. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Experiment design and diets Pens were blocked by area of the rectangular growout room. Within area block, pens of barrows or gilts were randomly allocated to be fed diets with one of three rye substitution levels: rd rd low (1/3 of wheat replaced), medium (2/3 of wheat replaced), or high (most wheat replaced; Table 1), either with or without enzyme inclusion (200 mg/kg replacing wheat grain) containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per g of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada. Hybrid rye fed in this trial was the variety ‘KWS Bono’ developed by KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany) grown at Kalco Farms, Gibbons (AB, Canada). The nutrient content of rye, wheat, field pea and wheat DDGS fed is presented in Table Before the start of the trial, a common Grower 1 diet was fed to all pigs for 13 days. Test diets were fed to slaughter weight over 4 growth phases (Grower 2: d 0-22, Grower 3: d 23-42, Finisher 1: d 43-63, Finisher 2: d 64 – slaughter). Diets had similar inclusion of wheat DDGS and field pea per growth phase. Ingredient NE values were calculated using EvaPig based on chemical analysis of samples for that year’s crop; SID AA coefficients were taken from AminoDat 5.0 . A NE value of 2.47 and 2.39 Mcal/kg and a SID Lys content of 0.26 and 0.28% was used for wheat and rye, respectively. Diets were formulated to provide 3.9, 3.3, 2.9, and 2.7 g SID Lys/Mcal NE per growth phase. Other amino acid ratios to Lys were set as per the ideal protein concept (NRC, 2012). Premixes were added to exceed vitamins and trace mineral requirements (NRC, 2012) per growth phase. Pigs had free access to water and the assigned phase test diet in mash form. Measurements and calculations A robotic feeding system (Feed Logic, Feed Logic Co., Willmar, MN) delivered and electronically tracked the amount of assigned test diet fed to each pen. Pigs were group-weighed Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 at the initiation of feeding the experimental diets (d 0) and on d 22, 42, 63, 76, 91, and at target slaughter weight. Feed remaining in the pen feeder on weigh days was estimated by levelling the feed, measuring to the top of the feeder hopper, and calculating the leftover orts using an equation that accounted for measured diet bulk density (maximum weight error 0.1%; Seneviratne et al., 2010). Collected data were used to calculate pen average daily feed intake (ADFI), average daily weight gain (ADG), and feed efficiency expressed as ADG/ADFI (G:F). Pigs were fed the assigned test regimen until the attainment of target slaughter weight (130 kg). As pigs grew near target market weight, several pigs from each pen were individually weighed and used as reference size pigs to select other pigs to be sent for slaughter that week. Pigs were shipped for slaughter on days 73, 75, 80, 82, 87, 89, 96, 102 and 109. Pigs were fasted for 16-20 hours prior to slaughter. Pigs were slaughtered at a commercial abattoir (Maple Leaf, Brandon, MB, Canada) following typical commercial procedures. Warm carcasses were weighed including head, kidneys, omental fat and feet, and were graded for backfat and loin depth using a light- reflectance probe (Destron PG-100, Destron Technologies, Markham, ON, Canada) inserted between the third and fourth last ribs, 7 cm off the midline (Pomar and Marcoux, 2003). Lean yield was estimated using an established equation (lean, % = 68.1863 − 0.7833 × backfat + 0.0689 × loin + 0.0008 × backfat × backfat − 0.0002 × loin × loin + 0.0006 × backfat × loin, [backfat and loin depth measurements in mm]; AAFC et al., 1994). Carcass index was determined using the packer’s grid that interpolated warm carcass weight and estimated lean yield. Carcass dressing was calculated as carcass weight divided by farm live weight at the time of shipping. Feed cost was calculated as the sum of products of ingredient cost by inclusion level. Feed cost/pig was calculated as the sum of products of phase diet ADFI by diet cost. Feed cost/kg BW gain was calculated as the sum of products of phase diet ADFI by diet cost divided by overall Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 ADG. Gross income subtracting feed cost (ISFC) was calculated multiplying carcass weight by index by pork price on the day of slaughter minus the sum of products of phase diet ADFI by diet cost. Index 110 indicates that the producer was paid a 10% premium over the 100-index base pork price on the day of slaughter. Chemical analyses Diets and main ingredients were ground through a 0.5 mm screen in a centrifugal mill (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany). Diets and ingredients were analyzed using the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 2016), American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS, 2017), or Ankom Technology (2017) methods for moisture (AOAC 930.15), crude protein (CP; AOAC 990.03[M]), crude fat (AOCS Am 5-04), ash (AOAC 923.03), crude fiber (AOCS BA 6a-05), acid detergent fiber (ADF; Ankom method 12[M]), neutral detergent fiber (NDF; Ankom method 13[M]), starch (enzymatic UV method, Cat. No. 10207748035; R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany) and amino acid (AA; AOAC 994.12) content at the Central Testing Laboratories (CTL), Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Wheat and rye samples were also analyzed for mycotoxins using ELISA tests at CTL, for NSP content using gas-liquid chromatography (as described by Meng et al., 2005) at the University of Manitoba, and for ergot alkaloid semi-quantitatively using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (as described by Krska et al., 2008) at the Organic Residue Laboratory of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (Edmonton, AB, Canada). Statistical analyses Trial data were analyzed as 3 × 2 × 2 factorial resulting in 4 pens per rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Growth performance, dressing, carcass and feed cost vs. benefit data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. Pen was the experimental unit for all variables. Models included the fixed effects of rye level substituting wheat grain (low, medium, Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 high), enzyme inclusion (with or without), sex (barrows, gilts), and interactions. Block was the random term in the model. Initial body weight (BW) was tested as covariate for ADFI, ADG, and G:F, and was included if it improved the fit of the model. Overall ADFI, ADG, and G:F were analyzed using closeout data. Body weight, ADFI, ADG and G:F were analyzed as repeated measures including growth phase as repeated term; growth phase was added as a fixed effect and the interactions of growth phase with the other fixed effects were analyzed. An appropriate covariance structure was selected by comparing the goodness-of-fit measures of different structures. The Kenwardroger approximation was used for the denominator degrees of freedom. The proportion of pigs shipped for slaughter was analyzed with a generalized linear model (GLIMMIX procedure in SAS) using a binomial distribution and logit link function. Growth performance data are reported until day 76 on test. To test the hypotheses, P < 0.05 was considered significant and P < 0.10 a trend. RESULTS Dietary nutrients Increasing dietary hybrid rye inclusion in substitution for wheat grain generally decreased dietary starch, CP, ADF, and crude fibre content whereas it generally increased dietary NDF and crude fat content (Table 1). Numerically, hybrid rye batches fed in this trial had lower CP and crude fibre, and slightly greater NDF content than the three batches of wheat grain (Table 2). Starch, ADF, ash and mineral content were within a similar range for the hybrid rye and wheat grain batches. Crude fat content was variable between the two hybrid rye batches (Table 2). Each measured NSP component, except for uronic acid, was greater in hybrid rye than wheat, resulting in greater total NSP content. Of the measured ergot alkaloids, ergosine, ergocornine, ergocryptine, Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 and ergotamine were greater in one of the three wheat samples compared with the two hybrid rye grain samples, whereas ergocristine was greater in hybrid rye than wheat grain (Table 2). Mycotoxin levels were low for all wheat and hybrid rye grain samples (Table 2). Growth performance As the number of pigs remaining in pens after start of shipment for slaughter was not different among treatments on d 76, but was different on d 91 (data not shown), we decided to use d 76 as the end of the study for growth performance variables, so as to not confound treatment effects with stocking density effects. There were no three-way interactions among hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain, enzyme inclusion and sex for growth performance parameters. Effects of sex were as expected and are not described. There were no two-way interactions between hybrid rye substitution level and enzyme inclusion, hybrid rye substitution level and sex, or enzyme inclusion and sex unless described below. Body weight was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion throughout the trial (Table 3). For the entire trial (d 0-76), pigs fed increasing hybrid rye substitutions had decreased ADFI and ADG. Enzyme inclusion did not affect ADFI but tended (P = 0.080) to increase ADG by 20 g/d. There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between hybrid rye substitution level and enzyme inclusion for feed efficiency; enzyme inclusion improved G:F only in pigs fed the high rye substitution level whereas enzyme inclusion did not affect G:F in pigs fed low or medium rye inclusion levels (Table 4). There was also an interaction (P < 0.050) between enzyme inclusion and sex for G:F; enzyme inclusion improved G:F in gilts but not in barrows (Table 5). Increasing dietary hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and enzyme inclusion did not affect ADFI in grower phases (Table 3). There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between hybrid rye Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 substitution level and enzyme inclusion for ADFI in finisher phases; in Finisher 1 phase, high hybrid rye substitution resulted in lower ADFI than low rye inclusion when no enzyme was added, whereas in Finisher 2 phase, high hybrid rye substitution resulted in lower ADFI than low hybrid rye inclusion when an enzyme was included (Table 4). Inclusion of enzyme reduced (P < 0.050) ADG in Grower 2 phase, increased (P = 0.054) ADG in Grower 3 phase, but did not affect ADG in Finisher phases (Table 3). There was an interaction (P < 0.050) among dietary hybrid rye substitution level, sex and growth phase for ADG; for barrows, increasing hybrid rye substitution increased ADG in Grower 2 phase, did not affect ADG in Grower 3 phase, and decreased ADG in Finisher phases whereas for gilts, increasing hybrid rye substitution did not affect ADG in Grower 2 and 3 and Finisher 2 phases, and decreased ADG in Finisher 1 phase (Table 6). Feed efficiency (G:F) was not affected by increasing hybrid rye inclusion or enzyme inclusion for any of the growth phases (Table 3). Shipping for slaughter and carcass characteristics The total proportion of pigs shipped to slaughter was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion (Table 7). Although the aim was to ship pigs at a fixed live BW as required by the packer, shipping weight (Table 8) was greater (P < 0.050) for pigs fed the low hybrid rye substitution level than those fed the medium level. Therefore, number of days to slaughter was confounded with shipping weight and the estimated number of days to a fixed live BW of 130 kg was calculated. Estimated days to 130 kg live BW was not affected by either increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain or enzyme inclusion. Because of the difference in live shipping weight, carcass weight also tended (P = 0.074) to be greater in pigs fed low vs. medium hybrid rye substitution levels. However, dressing percentage was not different among hybrid rye substitution levels. Backfat, loin depth, lean yield and Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 calculated carcass revenue were not affected by increasing dietary hybrid rye substitution level (Table 8). Enzyme inclusion did not affect most carcass traits. There was a three-way interaction (P < 0.050) for index among dietary hybrid rye substitution level, enzyme inclusion and sex; enzyme inclusion did not affect index in gilts, nor in barrows fed low or medium hybrid rye substitution levels, but decreased index in barrows fed high hybrid rye substitution level (data not shown). Feed cost vs. benefit Enzyme inclusion increased (P < 0.001) feed cost per tonne by CA$ 1.79 (Table 9). However, feed cost per pig and per kg BW gain were reduced (P < 0.050) by CA$ 1.70 and CA$ 0.02, respectively, when enzyme was included in the diets, whereas ISFC was not affected by enzyme inclusion (Table 9). There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between increasing dietary hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex for feed cost/tonne, feed cost/pig, feed cost/kg BW gain, and ISFC. Feed cost/tonne increased with increasing hybrid rye substitution level in both barrows and gilts; sex did not affect feed cost/tonne in low and medium hybrid rye diets, but feed cost/tonne was greater in barrows than gilts for the high hybrid rye diet (Table 10). For barrows, both feed cost per pig and per kg BW gain were lower in the medium than the high hybrid rye diet with the low hybrid rye diet being intermediate, whereas for gilts, the low hybrid rye diet had lower feed cost per pig and per kg BW gain than the medium hybrid rye diet with the high hybrid rye diet being intermediate (Table 10). For barrows, ISFC was not affected by increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain, whereas for gilts, ISFC was lower for the low vs. the medium hybrid rye diet, with the high hybrid rye diet being intermediate (Table 10). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 DISCUSSION Rye is a cereal crop similar to wheat. It is popular in northern and eastern European countries for the production of dark bread and food products (Jürgens et al., 2012), grain stock for ethanol production, as forage/silage crop for ruminants, and cereal grain for pigs (http://www.ryebelt.com). In Canada, rye grain is best known for the production of whisky and spirits. Its winter hardiness allows efficient use of spring melting snow runoff and extends the ‘work season’ vs. spring-planted cereals for grain producers. Of ~175,000 hectares planted to rye in Canada, about 80% grows in the Prairie provinces (AAFC, 2019). Novel European hybrid rye cultivars have recently been introduced to Canada. These hybrid rye cultivars yield 25-40% more over conventional rye, 15-20% over barley and ~15% over winter wheat (King, 2017). Modern rye hybrids produce vast amounts of pollen because of PollenPlus technology (https://www.kws.com/corp/en/products/oilseed-rape/ryevolution/). The pollen overwhelm the stigma giving mold spores a lower chance of infecting the ear before the stigma closes. Fall planted rye flowers earlier than spring planted cereals so ergot and fusarium contamination risk is lower. Rye is not popular as an ingredient in pig feed in Canada compared with corn, wheat and barley, even triticale. However, greater hybrid rye grain yield compared with wheat (5000-7500 vs. 2700-5400 kg/ha) was an attractive incentive for us to evaluate feeding hybrid fall rye grain to pigs even if that might result in somewhat lower pig performance. Early research showed decreased growth performance when pigs were fed high inclusions of rye grain (Friend and MacIntyre, 1969; Thacker et al., 1991; Thacker and Baas, 1996). However, these trials looked at rye replacing barley grain. Instead, we decided to evaluate feeding increasing Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 hybrid rye inclusions replacing wheat grain. To our knowledge, our trial is the first one comparing hybrid rye with wheat rather than barley (Schwarz et al., 2014, 2016) or a combination of barley, wheat, and triticale grain (Meyer et al., 2003; Bussières, 2018). Feed intake was reduced feeding increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain in finisher diets but not in grower diets, possibly due to finisher diets containing a greater proportion of cereal grain, and thus hybrid rye, than grower diets. The decrease in feed intake with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain was initially suspected to be because of greater mycotoxin or ergot alkaloid levels in the hybrid rye than wheat grain. However, lab tests on both hybrid rye and wheat grain samples confirmed that neither mycotoxins nor ergot alkaloids were a factor in reducing feed intake. We, therefore, believe that the decreased feed intake observed with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain was possibly caused by greater NSP content in rye vs. wheat grain fed in this trial. Increased NSP content makes digesta more viscous, slowing down passage rate through the gut (Bach Knudsen, 2011). Arabinoxylans are known to form highly viscous solutions in water associated with reduced feed intake (Jürgens et al., 2012). Hybrid rye fed in this trial had indeed greater amounts of arabinose and xylose than wheat grain. Therefore, pigs fed these less digestible complex sugars in high rye diets likely felt more full and were satisfied with slightly less feed. Thacker et al. (1999) showed that young pigs fed a low viscosity rye diet consumed 9% more feed than pigs fed a high viscosity rye diet. However, this difference did not reach statistical significance, making it hard to conclude whether viscosity was indeed a determining factor in feed consumption. Because both feed intake and weight gain were reduced in parallel, feed efficiency was not affected by increasing hybrid rye inclusion level. Previous reports feeding rye substituting barley grain showed similar feed efficiency between high rye and barley control diets (Meyer et al., 2003; Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Schwarz et al., 2014; Bussières, 2018) whereas others showed better feed efficiency feeding high rye compared with barley control diets (Thacker et al., 1991, Thacker and Baas, 1996; Schwarz et al., 2016 [only numerically]). The improved feed efficiency feeding rye vs. barley was likely because rye had lower NDF and ADF content than barley grain (Thacker et al., 1991; NRC, 2012). Hybrid rye fed in our study had NDF and ADF content close to those of our wheat grain as well as similar starch and CP content. Moreover, our diets were formulated based on NE level and SID AA ratios, ensuring that our rye diets had similar feeding value. Similar feed efficiency showed that we estimated the NE level and SID AA content of the hybrid rye adequately. Some of the complex soluble sugars that make up the NSP fraction could potentially be made more digestible by inclusion of pentosanases, enzymes that break down pentosans (Campbell and Bedford, 1992). Feed enzymes have greater effect in poultry than pigs likely due to a more hostile environment for feed enzymes in the pig stomach given the lower pH. Nevertheless, Thacker and Baas (1996) found pentosanase activity in the small intestine, suggesting an opportunity for pentosanases to affect digestibility and growth performance. Indeed, in earlier research, Thacker’s lab showed improved F:G in one of their experiments with enzyme-supplemented meal-based rye diets (Thacker et al., 1991) but not with pelleted rye diets (Thacker et al., 1991, 1992; Thacker and Baas, 1996). More recent research has also found limited benefits of feeding NSP enzymes to growing pigs. Laerke et al. (2015) found that the ability of a combination of two xylanases to reduce viscosity, solubilize arabinoxylans, and release arabinoxylan degradation products was lower in rye than in wheat grain, and that these enzymes did not improve the digestibility of rye. Norgaard et al. (2016) fed 4000 units xylanase/kg and found no improvement in nutrient digestibility in rye diets compared to diets without xylanase. On the other hand, Villca et al. (2016) found that an enzyme complex including several glucanases and xylanase supplemented to a Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 pelleted rye diet fed in a liquid feeding system improved digestibility of nutrients but did not result in significant effects on growth performance. Our trial fed non-pelleted/mash diets supplemented with an enzyme complex containing both xylanase and β-glucanase. This enzyme complex tended to increase ADG. Enzyme inclusion also resulted in better G:F but that was only evident at the high rye level substituting wheat grain. The mostly-rye grain diet likely transited slower along the gut, staying longer and held the most water giving feed enzymes more time to break down rye pentosans. Often, feeding alternative ingredients with greater fibre content results in reduced carcass dressing because increased total empty weight of the gastrointestinal tract and(or) increased volume of digesta in the gut at slaughter (Kerr and Shurson, 2013). In our trial, carcass dressing was not reduced by increasing hybrid rye inclusion substituting wheat grain because rye NSP were mostly soluble instead of bulky, insoluble cereal hulls. Indeed, NDF content was rather similar between the wheat and hybrid rye grain fed in this trial. Jha et al. (2013) showed that decreased carcass dressing was related to increased NDF content in diets. Differences in carcass traits like backfat, loin depth and lean yield are generally related to erroneous NE or SID AA values at feed formulation. In our trial, backfat did not increase or decrease with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain because we accounted for the greater rye NSP content as a lower NE value for rye compared with wheat grain. Loin depth was also not affected because we correctly accounted for differences in amino acid digestibility between rye and wheat grain when formulating diets. Most other studies that measured carcass characteristics also found no effect of feeding rye on backfat, loin depth or lean yield (Hooper et al., 2002; Meyer et al., 2003; Schwarz et al, 2014, 2016; Villca et al., 2016). In one publication, enzyme inclusion in rye diets resulted in greater backfat and smaller loin depth and lean yield (Schwarz et al., 2016) whereas another Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 publication showed a tendency for improved lean yield with enzyme inclusion in rye diets (Alert and Fröhlich, 2006). In our trial, enzyme inclusion did not have an effect on carcass traits, except for reduced index in barrows fed high hybrid rye inclusion levels. It is not clear what caused the reduced index because index was a packer’s grid extrapolation of carcass weight and lean yield, and both were similar between pigs fed diets with or without enzyme inclusion. Hybrid fall rye was sourced at $180 vs. $190 per metric tonne for wheat grain. However, diets with increasing rye level were costlier than wheat grain diets because canola oil was added to compensate for the lower net energy value of rye. Nonetheless, the feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain was not different when increasing hybrid rye levels substituting wheat grain were fed. Schwarz et al. (2016) also mentioned greater feed cost for diets with rye substituting barley grain, and lower feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain. In our trial, gross income after subtracting feed cost was $2 lower for the high vs. the low rye diets although this difference did not reach significance. Previous results did show a significant improvement of the simplified direct surplus (similar to income subtracting feed cost) for diets with high rye inclusions compared to barley diets (Schwarz et al., 2014, 2016). Assuming hybrid fall rye yields 2700 kg/ha more than wheat grain, using our trial results that would imply 691 kg more lean pork/ha feeding 60% rye inclusion substituting wheat grain from 43.7 to 132.7 kg slaughter weight. Our study is unique in that it ties up pork to grain yield per unit of land, which is of paramount importance to pork producers growing their own crops and aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of pork production. In conclusion, although increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain decreased overall ADFI and ADG, hybrid rye can completely substitute wheat grain in grower-finisher pig diets without affecting carcass traits, feed cost per pig or per kg BW gain, and gross income subtracting feed cost. Enzyme inclusion tended to improve overall ADG and improved feed efficiency in pigs Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 fed the high rye substitution level for wheat grain. Inclusion of NSP enzyme would therefore be recommended for diets containing high rye levels to improve feed efficiency and ADG. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 LITERATURE CITED AAFC. 2019. Canada: Outlook for principal field crops. 19 July 2019. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Market Analysis Group. Available online: http://www.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/misb/mag-gam/fco-ppc/fco-ppc_2019-07-19- th eng.pdf (Accessed 14 of August 2019). AAFC, CVC, & CCP. 1994. Enquête nationale sur le rendement boucher du porc (1992): une initiative de recherche commune d’Agriculture et Agro-alimentaire Canada, le Conseil des viands du Canada et le Conseil canadien du porc, 107 p. Alert, H.-J., and B. Fröhlich. 2006. Roggeneinsatz in der Schweinemast. Schriftenreihe der Sächsischen Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Heft 5/2006. Available online: th https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/14092. (Accessed 14 of August 2019) [In German]. Ankom Technology. 2017. Analytical methods for Fiber Analyzer A2000. [Online] Available: th https://www.ankom.com/analytical-methods-support/fiber-analyzer-a2000. (Accessed 14 of August 2019). th AOAC. 2016. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 20 ed. Rockville, MD. th AOCS. 2017. Official methods and recommended practices of the AOCS. 7 ed. Urbana, IL. Bach Knudsen, K. E. 2011. Effects of polymeric carbohydrates on growth and development in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:1965-1980. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3602. Bussières, D. 2018. Impact of hybrid rye (Brasetto) on finisher pig performance, carcass and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 96 (Suppl. S2): 140. [Abstr.] Campbell, G. L., and M. R. Bedford. 1992. Enzyme applications for monogastric feeds: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:449-466. doi: 10.4141/cjas92-058. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Canadian Council on Animal Care in Science (CCAC), 2009. The care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care in Science, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Cervantes-Pahm, S. K., Y. Liu, and H. H. Stein. 2014. Digestible indispensable amino acid score and digestible amino acids in eight cereal grains. British J. Nutr. 111:1663-1672. doi: 10.1017/S0007114513004273. Friend, D. W., and T. M. MacIntyre. 1969. Digestibility of rye and its value in pelleted rations for pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 49:375-381. doi: 10.4141/cjas69-049. Friend, D. W., and T. M. MacIntyre. 1970. Effect of rye ergot on growth and N-retention in growing pigs. Can. J. Comp. Med. 34:198-202. Hooper, W., P. Horne, A. McKellop, M. Perry, A. Roloson, I. Mutch, A. Ling, D. Mol, T. Rogers, R. Milton, L. Dalziel, D. Pratt, and M. Delaney. 2002. Optimal whole soybean inclusion rate for commercial swine diets and the use of rye as a feed ingredient for swine rations on Prince th Edward Island. Final Report for PEI Pork, Industry Chair for Swine Research, 15 of March 2002. Not available online anymore. Jha, R., J. K. Htoo, M .G. Young, E. Beltranena, and R. T. Zijlstra. 2013. Effects of increasing co- product inclusion and reducing dietary protein on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and jowl fatty acid profile of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 91:2178-2191. doi: 10.2527/jas.2011-5065. Jürgens, H. U., G. Jansen, and C. B. Wegener. 2012. Characterisation of several rye cultivars with respect to arabinoxylans and extract viscosity. J. Agric. Sci. 4:1-12. doi: 10.5539/jas.v4n5p1. Kerr, B. J., and G. C. Shurson. 2013. Strategies to improve fiber utilization in swine. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 4(11), 12, 263. doi: 10.1186/2049-1891-4-11. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 King, C. 2017. Why you should grow hybrid rye: yield advantages, pricing and market th opportunities. Top Crop Manager, 19 of June, 2017. Available online th https://www.topcropmanager.com/hybrid-rye-gaining-ground-20191 (Accessed 14 of August 2019). Krska, R., G. Stubbings, R. Macarthur, and C. Crews. 2008. Simultaneous determination of six major ergot alkaloids and their epimers in cereals and foodstuffs by LC-MS-MS. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 391:563-576. doi: 10.1007/s00216-008-2036-6. Laerke, H. N., S. Arent, S. Dalsgaard, and K. E. Bach Knudsen. 2015. Effect of xylanases on ileal viscosity, intestinal fiber modification, and apparent ileal fiber an nutrient digestibility of rye and wheat in growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 93:4323-4335. doi: 10.2527/jas2015-9096. McGhee, M. L., and H. H. Stein. 2018. Apparent and standardized ileal digestibility of AA and starch in hybrid rye, barley, wheat, and corn fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 96:3319-3329. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky206. Meyer, A., A. Schön, A. Brade, and P. Köhler. 2003. Wie wirkt sich ein Mischfutter mit Roggen als alleiniger Getreidekomponente auf die Leistung und Fettqualität von Mastschweinen aus? Forum angewandte Forschung in der Rinder- und Schweinefütterung, Fulda, Tagungsunterlage. pp. 104-105. (Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Germany) [In German]. Miedaner, T., and H. H. Geiger. 2015. Biology, genetics, and management of ergot (Claviceps spp.) in rye, sorghum, and pearl millet. Toxins 7:659-678. doi: 10.3390/toxins7030659. Meng, X., B. A. Sliminski, C. M. Nyachoti, L. D. Campbell, and W. Guenter. 2005. Degradation of cell wall polysaccharides by combinations of carbohydrase enzymes and their effect on nutrient utilization and broiler chicken performance. Poultry Sci. 84:37-47. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Nørgaard, J. V., T. F. Pedersen, K. Blaabjerg, K. E. Bach Knudsen, and H. N. Laerke. 2016. Xylanase supplementation to rye diets for growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94:91-94. doi: 10.2527/jas2015-9775. th NRC. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11 rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Pomar, C., and M. Marcoux. 2003. Comparing the Canadian pork lean yields and grading indexes predicted from grading methods based on Destron and Hennessy probe measurements. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 451-458. Schwarz, T., W. Kuleta, A. Turek, R. Tuz, J. Nowicki, B. Rudzki, and P. M. Bartlewski. 2014. Assessing the efficiency of using a modern hybrid rye cultivar for pig fattening, with emphasis on production costs and carcass quality. Anim. Prod. Sci. 55:467-473. doi: 10.1071/AN13386. Schwarz, T., A. Turek, J. Nowicki., R. Tuz, B. Rudzki, and P. M. Bartlewski. 2016. Production value and cost-effectiveness of pig fattening using liquid feeding or enzyme-supplemented dry mixes containing rye grain. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 61:341-350. doi: 10.17221/73/2015- CJAS. Seneviratne, R. W., M. G. Young, E. Beltranena, L. A. Goonewardene, R. W. Newkirk, and R. T. Zijlstra. 2010. The nutritional value of expeller pressed canola meal for grower-finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88:2073-2083. doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2437. Thacker, P. A., and T. C. Baas. 1996. Effects of gastric pH on the activity of exogenous pentosanase and the effect of pentosanase supplementation of the diet on the performance of growing-finishing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 63:187-200. doi: 10.1016/S0377- 8401(96)01028-0. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Thacker, P. A., G. L. Campbell, and J. GrootWassink. 1991. The effect of enzyme supplementation on the nutritive value of rye-based diets for swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71:489-496. doi: 10.4141/cjas91-058. Thacker, P. A., G. L. Campbell, and J. W. D. GrootWassink. 1992. Effect of salinomycin and enzyme supplementation on nutrient digestibility and the performance of pigs fed barley- or rye-based diets. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:117-125. doi: 10.4141/cjas92-013. Thacker, P. A., G. L. Campbell, and G. J. Scoles. 1999. Performance of young growing pigs (17- 34 kg) fed rye-based diets selected for reduced viscosity. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 8:549-556. doi: 10.22358/jafs/69179/1999. Thacker, P. A., J. G. McLeod, and G. L. Campbell. 2002. Performance of growing-finishing pigs fed diets based on normal or low viscosity rye fed with and without enzyme supplementation. Arch. Tierernahr. 56:361-370. doi: 10.1080/00039420215631. Villca, B., R. Lizardo, J. Broz, J. Brufau, and D. Torrallardona. 2016. Effect of a carbohydrase enzyme complex on the nutrient apparent total tract digestibility of rye-based diets fed to growing-finishing pigs under liquid feeding. J. Anim. Sci. 94:230-233. doi: 10.2527/jas2015- Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 1. Ingredient composition and analyzed nutrients (%, standardized to 12% moisture) of grower and finisher diets with increasing 2 3 4 hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion. Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Ingredients, % Wheat, ground 31.32 15.58 1.99 41.20 20.51 1.99 44.08 21.93 2.00 45.64 22.68 1.99 Rye, ground 15.66 31.20 44.60 20.60 41.03 59.15 22.03 43.90 63.58 22.82 45.50 65.93 Wheat DDGS 28.72 28.72 28.72 21.72 21.72 21.72 23.45 23.45 23.45 24.01 24.01 24.01 Field pea, ground 20.48 20.48 20.48 13.91 13.91 13.91 8.10 8.10 8.10 5.22 5.22 5.22 Canola oil 1.32 1.54 1.73 0.40 0.69 1.00 0.40 0.71 0.99 0.40 0.72 1.02 Limestone 1.22 1.19 1.16 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.89 1.01 0.97 0.93 Mono-dicalcium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 phosphate Salt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 L-Lysine·HCl 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.31 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Vitamin/mineral 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 5,6,7 premix L-Threonine 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03 DL-Methionine 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 CuSO4 • 5 H2O 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phytase 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 L-Tryptophan 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Analyzed nutrient content, % Starch 41.16 35.55 35.51 40.05 32.87 39.60 42.13 34.79 28.51 36.12 41.89 37.37 Crude protein 19.29 18.91 18.72 17.72 16.92 17.35 18.75 17.56 17.09 17.53 17.49 16.21 NDF 11.76 12.61 11.83 11.56 11.27 12.19 11.40 11.61 11.54 11.02 11.77 11.94 ADF 6.46 6.69 5.88 6.49 5.82 5.77 6.05 5.77 5.77 5.62 5.49 5.79 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Crude fibre 3.20 3.31 2.98 3.23 3.24 3.02 2.82 3.05 2.79 3.17 2.85 2.60 Crude fat 3.57 3.82 4.00 2.99 3.07 3.19 2.90 2.82 3.47 3.24 3.34 3.51 Ash 4.04 4.14 4.38 3.94 3.82 3.70 3.77 3.73 4.05 4.03 4.58 4.29 Potassium 0.74 0.73 0.71 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.62 Calcium 0.56 0.58 0.71 0.55 0.57 0.48 0.53 0.48 0.59 0.54 0.62 0.61 Phosphorus 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.41 0.44 0.43 0.42 Chloride 0.46 0.54 0.53 0.48 0.52 0.46 0.50 0.47 0.56 0.59 0.71 0.68 Sodium 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.28 0.27 0.33 0.36 0.44 0.40 Magnesium 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Amino acids, % Alanine 0.64 0.62 0.24 0.57 0.67 0.54 0.62 0.55 0.57 0.48 0.61 0.55 Arginine 0.81 0.90 1.01 1.45 0.87 0.60 0.77 1.00 0.60 1.17 0.89 0.71 Aspartic acid 1.22 1.21 1.29 1.04 1.06 0.99 1.09 0.95 0.96 0.81 0.91 0.97 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Cysteine 0.77 0.55 7.85 3.44 0.63 0.24 0.45 0.95 1.31 1.66 0.40 0.49 Glutamic acid 4.19 4.30 4.60 4.52 3.84 3.13 4.65 5.19 3.43 4.45 1.06 3.43 Glycine 0.71 0.82 0.81 0.63 0.72 0.59 0.74 0.84 0.62 0.71 0.62 0.74 Histidine 0.33 0.38 0.77 0.28 0.39 0.27 0.34 0.48 0.28 0.60 0.36 0.32 Isoleucine 0.40 0.68 0.40 0.32 0.68 0.24 0.62 0.69 0.25 0.67 0.61 0.56 Leucine 1.01 1.17 0.68 1.29 1.11 0.72 0.98 1.15 0.75 0.93 1.10 0.75 Lysine 0.81 0.70 0.99 0.71 0.90 0.67 0.79 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.71 0.60 Methionine 0.45 0.32 0.69 0.65 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.38 0.40 0.45 0.27 0.26 Phenylalanine 0.69 0.63 0.71 0.59 0.74 0.50 0.64 0.75 0.52 0.62 0.79 0.62 Proline 1.41 1.36 1.49 1.28 1.42 1.08 1.46 1.66 1.21 1.40 1.58 1.41 Serine 0.84 0.65 0.61 0.73 0.35 0.65 0.88 0.74 0.69 0.31 0.72 0.67 Threonine 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.47 0.39 0.44 0.48 0.64 0.43 0.68 0.47 0.43 Tryptophan 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.17 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Grower 2 Grower 3 Finisher 1 Finisher 2 Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Rye substituting wheat Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Tyrosine 0.55 0.49 0.55 0.37 0.43 0.31 0.51 0.59 0.32 0.48 0.38 0.47 Valine 0.55 0.85 0.48 0.47 0.84 0.36 0.51 0.65 0.40 0.48 0.77 0.46 Non-starch polysaccharides, % Glucose 3.92 4.68 4.41 4.37 4.31 4.47 3.81 4.20 4.30 3.81 3.87 4.13 Xylose 3.19 3.58 3.56 3.44 3.50 3.60 3.30 3.37 3.65 3.33 3.52 3.62 Arabinose 2.26 2.52 2.51 2.54 2.56 2.71 2.36 2.48 2.64 2.38 2.47 2.58 Uronic acids 0.80 0.84 0.73 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.64 0.70 0.64 0.64 0.57 0.60 Galactose 0.59 0.57 0.59 0.50 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 Mannose 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.43 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.39 0.51 0.41 0.45 0.48 Total 11.20 12.67 12.32 12.07 12.01 12.44 10.91 11.50 12.12 10.95 11.25 11.77 Grower 2 diets were fed from d 0-22, Grower 3 diets from d 23-42, Finisher 1 diets from d 43-63, and Finisher 2 diets from d 63 until the day of shipping for slaughter. KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 A small amount of ground wheat (1.97 to 2%) was used to flush the microscale after adding the small inclusion ingredients. Enzyme (Endofeed W DC, GNC bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada) provided 280 units of β-glucanase and 900 units of xylanase per kilogram diet. Provided the following per kilogram of Grower 2 and 3 diets: Zn, 100 mg; Fe, 100 mg; Cu, 15 mg; Mn, 40 mg; I, 1 mg; Se, 0.3 mg; vitamin A, 8000 IU; vitamin D, 1500 IU; vitamin E, 30 IU; niacin, 20 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 12 mg; riboflavin, 4 mg; menadione, 2 mg; pyridoxine, 2 mg; folic acid, 0.5 mg; thiamine,1 mg; D-biotin, 0.1 mg and vitamin B12, 0.02 mg. Provided the following per kilogram of Finisher 1 diet: Zn, 70 mg; Fe, 70 mg; Cu, 10.5 mg; Mn, 28 mg; I, 0.7 mg; Se, 0.21 mg; vitamin A, 5600 IU; vitamin D, 1050 IU; vitamin E, 21 IU; niacin, 14 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 8.4 mg; riboflavin, 2.8 mg; menadione, 1.4 mg; pyridoxine, 1.4 mg; folic acid, 0.35 mg; thiamine, 0.7 mg; D-biotin, 0.07 mg and vitamin B12, 0.01 mg. Provided the following per kilogram of Finisher 2 diet: Zn, 50 mg; Fe, 50 mg; Cu, 7.5 mg; Mn, 20 mg; I, 0.5 mg; Se, 0.15 mg; vitamin A, 400 IU; vitamin D, 750 IU; vitamin E, 15 IU; niacin, 10 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 6 mg; riboflavin, 2 mg; menadione, 1 mg; pyridoxine, 1 mg; folic acid, 0.25 mg; thiamine, 0.5 mg; D-biotin, 0.05 mg and vitamin B12, 0.01 mg. Ronozyme P-(M) 200; DSM Nutritional Products Canada Inc., Ayr, ON, Canada. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 2. Analyzed nutrient content (%, as fed basis), ergot and mycotoxin content (ppb, as fed basis) of ingredients fed in the trial Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 DDGS pea (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Dry matter 86.62 86.87 87.14 87.29 87.41 91.28 86.34 Starch 60.92 52.67 49.77 46.06 55.04 na na Crude protein 11.65 11.74 12.59 10.03 10.07 35.16 19.75 NDF 8.84 11.26 9.04 11.56 10.18 23.21 8.06 ADF 2.70 2.55 2.67 2.65 2.46 16.98 6.68 Crude fibre 2.03 2.03 2.11 1.76 1.87 6.37 4.64 Crude fat 1.78 1.85 1.85 1.12 2.35 6.24 1.19 Ash 1.44 1.41 1.51 1.40 1.34 4.97 2.37 Potassium 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.49 0.44 1.22 0.95 Phosphorus 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.25 0.27 0.87 0.33 Magnesium 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.32 0.11 Chloride 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.15 0.08 Calcium 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.09 Sodium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01 Amino acids, % Alanine 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.40 0.35 na na Arginine 0.44 0.43 0.60 0.48 0.40 na na Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field DDGS pea Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Aspartic acid 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.67 0.50 na na Cysteine 10.21 11.83 1.13 17.26 0.51 na na Glutamic acid 2.97 2.91 3.65 2.24 2.05 na na Glycine 0.44 0.44 0.57 0.65 0.38 na na Histidine 0.25 0.22 0.32 0.24 0.22 na na Isoleucine 0.21 0.20 0.37 0.34 0.26 na na Leucine 0.59 0.57 0.80 0.57 0.46 na na Lysine 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.33 0.26 na na Methionine 0.64 0.66 0.28 0.66 0.20 na na Phenylalanine 0.41 0.39 0.55 0.41 0.32 na na Proline 1.01 0.98 1.21 0.87 0.74 na na Serine 0.71 0.70 0.09 0.60 0.40 na na Threonine 0.27 0.26 0.36 0.24 0.12 na na Tryptophan 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.10 na na Tyrosine 0.26 0.25 0.34 0.22 0.17 na na Valine 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.48 0.43 na na Non-starch polysaccharides, % Glucose 3.46 3.45 3.49 5.25 4.32 na na Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field DDGS pea Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Xylose 3.46 3.50 3.46 4.80 4.42 na na Arabinose 2.11 2.01 2.17 2.87 2.66 na na Uronic acids 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.25 0.34 na na Galactose 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.29 na na Mannose 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.36 0.39 na na Total 9.78 9.73 9.95 13.82 12.41 na na Ergot alkaloids Ergometrine ND ND ND ND ND na na Ergosine ND low ND ND ND na na Ergocornine ND mid ND ND ND na na Ergocryptine ND mid ND ND ND na na Ergotamine ND ND mid low low na na Ergocristine ND ND ND mid mid na na Mycotoxin content Vomitoxin (ppm) 0.3 < 0.2 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 na na Fumonisin (ppb) < 222 < 222 < 222 < 222 < 222 na na T-2 toxin (ppb) < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 na na Ochratoxin A < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 na na (ppb) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Wheat Rye (KWS Bono) Wheat Field DDGS pea Nutrient, % Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 1 Batch 2 (Grower (Finisher (Finisher (Grower (Finisher 2 and 3) 1) 2) 2 and 3) 1 and 2) Zearalenone < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 na na (ppb) Aflatoxin (ppb) < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 na na Not analyzed Not detected. Detection limit was ≤ 20 ng/g. A result labelled as ‘low’ is close to, but above, the limit of detection, 20-40 ng/g. A result labelled as ‘mid’ is at least an order of magnitude higher than ‘low’, 200-400 ng/g. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 3. Growth performance per growth phase and overall (d 0-76) of grower-finisher barrows and gilts fed diets with increasing 1 2 3 hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex BW, kg Overall (d 0.695 0.9899 <0.0001 0-76) d 0 43.7 43.7 43.8 43.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 1.2 na na 0.8447 d 22 64.7 66.0 66.0 66.1 65.0 66.4 64.7 1.2 na na 0.0006 d 42 84.6 86.0 85.9 85.7 85.3 87.0 84.0 1.2 na na <0.0001 d 63 106.5 109.6 108.1 107.5 108.7 108.8 107.4 1.6 na na 0.3829 d 76 116.0 115.7 115.2 115.6 115.7 118.0 113.2 1.3 na na <0.0001 ADFI, kg/d z z,y y Overall (d 3.049 2.975 2.911 2.966 2.990 3.183 2.773 0.024 0.0067 0.4664 <0.0001 0-76) Grower 2 2.243 2.264 2.257 2.294 2.215 2.363 2.146 0.020 0.8289 na <0.0001 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Grower 3 2.732 2.703 2.747 2.727 2.728 2.872 2.583 0.020 0.4420 na <0.0001 6 z z y Finisher 1 3.126 3.035 2.886 2.991 3.041 3.259 2.773 0.039 0.0039 na <0.0001 6 z y y Finisher 2 3.431 3.314 3.213 3.311 3.328 3.561 3.078 0.032 0.0017 na <0.0001 ADG, kg/d z z,y y Overall (d 1.013 0.998 0.971 0.984 1.004 1.037 0.950 0.012 0.0114 0.0798 <0.0001 0-76) 7 y z z Grower 2 0.954 1.014 1.008 1.015 0.969 1.027 0.957 0.017 0.0217 0.0168 na Grower 3 0.994 0.996 0.995 0.977 1.014 1.029 0.962 0.017 0.9964 0.0543 na 7 z z,y y Finisher 1 1.006 0.981 0.947 0.970 0.986 1.024 0.932 0.015 0.0067 0.2577 na 7 z y y Finisher 2 1.056 1.003 0.970 1.002 1.016 1.056 0.962 0.017 0.0014 0.4333 na G:F, kg/kg Overall (d 0.333 0.336 0.334 0.332 0.337 0.326 0.343 0.003 0.7211 0.1148 <0.0001 5,6 0-76) Grower 2 0.426 0.442 0.447 0.438 0.438 0.435 0.442 0.006 na na na Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Grower 3 0.364 0.369 0.363 0.358 0.372 0.358 0.372 0.005 na na na Finisher 1 0.324 0.325 0.329 0.325 0.327 0.316 0.337 0.005 na na na Finisher 2 0.308 0.303 0.303 0.303 0.306 0.296 0.313 0.005 na na na x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Not applicable. There was no interaction between the fixed effect and growth phase; therefore, P-values are not given for each growth phase. There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between enzyme inclusion and sex. There was an interaction (P < 0.050) between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and enzyme inclusion. There was an interaction (P < 0.010) between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 4. Interactions between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and enzyme inclusion on growth performance Low rye substitution Medium rye substitution High rye substitution SEM P-value level level level Enzyme inclusion Without With Without With Without With y y,z z y,z y z G:F, overall (d0-76), kg/kg 0.329 0.337 0.339 0.333 0.328 0.341 0.004 0.0212 z,y z y,x z,y y,x x ADFI, Finisher 1, kg/d 3.088 3.165 2.953 3.118 2.933 2.839 0.067 0.0107 z z,y z,y,x z,y,x,w w y,x,w ADFI, Finisher 2, kg/d 3.445 3.4176 3.337 3.291 3.152 3.274 0.056 0.0090 w,x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 5. Interactions between enzyme inclusion and sex on growth performance Barrow Gilts SEM P-value Enzyme inclusion Without With Without With z z y y ADFI, overall (d0-76), kg/d 3.136 3.230 2.796 2.751 0.033 0.0456 x x y z G:F, overall (d0-76), kg/kg 0.327 0.325 0.338 0.348 0.004 0.0435 x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 6. Interactions between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex on growth performance Barrows Gilts SEM P-value Rye substitution level Low Medium High Low Medium High ADG, kg/d y,x z,y z x y,x x Grower 2 0.979 1.036 1.067 0.930 0.992 0.948 0.025 0.0009 z,y z z z,y y y Grower 3 1.014 1.035 1.036 0.974 0.958 0.954 0.025 0.0338 z z,y y,x x,w w,v v Finisher 1 1.046 1.033 0.994 0.965 0.930 0.901 0.021 <0.0001 z y x x x x Finisher 2 1.128 1.065 0.975 0.983 0.940 0.964 0.024 <0.0001 v,w,x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 1 2 Table 7. Effects of feeding diets with increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion on the proportion of grower-finisher barrows and gilts shipped per period (d 73-105) and in total Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Shipped by 22.4 24.8 22.4 22.9 23.4 30.7 17.0 1.9 0.7159 0.8422 <0.0001 d 76, % Shipped by 52.8 58.3 52.3 52.1 56.9 64.0 44.6 2.2 0.2463 0.1425 <0.0001 d 91, % Pigs shipped 96.3 94.6 97.8 95.9 96.9 95.7 97.1 0.9 0.1582 0.4187 0.2804 total, % KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Calculated as # pigs shipped/# pigs on d 0 x 100. Calculated as (# pigs on d 0 - # pig removed from trial due to mortality or morbidity)/# pigs on d 0 x 100. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 8. Carcass characteristics and calculated carcass revenue of barrows and gilts fed diets with increasing hybrid rye level 2 3 substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex z y zy Ship weight, kg 133.4 132.0 132.5 132.7 132.6 132.9 132.4 0.4 0.0361 0.9098 0.3056 Estimated days to 130 kg live BW 24.9 24.6 26.1 25.4 25.0 21.5 28.9 1.0 0.2934 0.6414 <0.0001 from d 63 Carcass weight, kg 104.7 103.5 103.6 103.9 103.9 103.8 104.1 0.3 0.0742 0.9792 0.4402 Dressing, % 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.1 78.3 78.0 78.4 0.2 0.9809 0.4476 0.0808 Backfat, mm 18.0 17.6 17.6 17.7 17.7 18.9 16.5 0.3 0.4336 0.8275 <0.0001 Loin depth, mm 62.7 63.6 64.1 63.2 63.7 62.2 64.7 0.4 0.1226 0.3942 <0.0001 Lean yield, g/kg 61.0 61.3 61.3 61.1 61.2 60.6 61.7 0.1 0.1197 0.6271 <0.0001 4,5,6 y z y Index 110.5 112.0 110.2 111.4 110.4 111.6 110.2 0.3 0.0125 0.0501 0.0066 Carcass revenue, 174.28 173.39 170.95 173.65 172.10 173.52 172.23 0.98 0.1409 0.2732 0.3598 CA$ y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Carcass weight used as covariate. Index 110 indicates that the producer was paid a 10% premium over the 100-index base pork price on the day of slaughter. There was a three-way interaction (P < 0.010) between hybrid rye substitution level for wheat grain, enzyme inclusion and sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 9. Feed cost and gross income subtracting feed cost (ISFC) in CA$ of grower-finisher barrows and gilts fed diets with 1 2 3 increasing hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain with or without enzyme inclusion Rye substituting wheat Enzyme inclusion Sex SEM P-value Low Medium High Without With Barrows Gilts Rye Enzyme Sex Feed x y z 240.28 241.28 242.20 240.36 242.15 241.51 241.00 0.11 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 4,5 cost/tonne Feed cost/pig 80.57 81.55 81.75 82.14 80.44 83.53 79.05 1.00 0.3049 0.0142 <0.0001 Feed cost/kg 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.97 0.92 0.01 0.3401 0.0129 <0.0001 BW gain ISFC 30.66 28.20 28.31 28.53 29.59 26.66 31.45 1.38 0.1328 0.3382 0.0001 x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). KWS LOCHOW GMBH (Bergen, Germany). 200 mg/kg inclusion rate containing 1400 units of β-glucanase and 4500 units of xylanase per gram of product (Endofeed W DC, GNC Bioferm, Bradwell, SK, Canada). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. There was an interaction (P<0.050) between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Ingredient cost in Canadian dollars per tonne used in this analysis were: wheat grain $190, hybrid rye grain $180, wheat DDGS $200, field pea $250, canola oil $950, limestone $108, mono/dicalcium phosphate $928, salt $84, L-Lysine-HCl $2000, L-Threonine $3150, DL-Methionine $3800, L-Tryptophan $19000, vitamin/mineral premix $6100, CuSO4 • 5 H2O $2920, phytase $2910, Endofeed W DC enzyme $10000. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz141/5553866 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 27 August 2019 Table 10. Interactions between hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain and sex on feed cost and gross income subtracting feed cost (ISFC) in CA$ Barrows Gilts SEM P-value Rye substitution level Low Medium High Low Medium High 4,5 w y,x z w x y Feed cost/tonne 240.45 241.38 242.69 240.11 241.18 241.71 0.16 0.0150 4 z,y y,x z v x,w w,v Feed cost/pig 83.27 82.42 84.90 77.88 80.68 78.60 1.20 0.0184 4 z,y y,x z v x,w w,v Feed cost/kg BW gain 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.01 0.0195 4 x y,x x z y,x z,y ISFC 26.89 28.12 24.98 34.44 28.28 31.64 1.76 0.0184 v,w,x,y,z Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050). LSmeans based on 4 pens of 21 pigs each per hybrid rye level substituting wheat grain × enzyme inclusion × sex. Accepted Manuscript

Journal

Translational Animal ScienceOxford University Press

Published: Jul 1, 2019

There are no references for this article.