Presented by Katherine McCormick, Research Associate II, United Animal Health

Nonruminant Nutrition III: Grow-Finish Pig Nutrition I
CHI Health Center Convention Center, Ballroom A
A. McCormick, R. B. Hinson, C. L. Puls, and T. S. Kresel. Abstr. 82

Why Attend?

Feed mills frequently operate at or near capacity, limiting their ability to consistently manufacture pelleted diets. Yet pelleting is widely recognized for improving growth rate, feed efficiency, and reducing feed wastage. When mills are forced to switch between pellet and meal diets, the performance implications for grow‑finish pigs are not always clear. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of how continuous feed form—and transitions between feed forms—affects growth performance and carcass characteristics across a full 112‑day finishing period.

Attendees will gain practical insight into when pelleting matters most, how feed‑form changes influence efficiency, and what performance trade‑offs to expect when operational constraints require switching to meal diets.

What You’ll Learn

• How four feeding strategies (Pellet throughout, Pellet‑to‑Meal, Meal‑to‑Pellet, and Meal throughout) impacted growth performance in 1,216 pigs across a 6‑phase finishing program.
• Evidence showing that pigs fed pellets throughout had:
  • 0 kg greater final body weight
  • 88% higher ADG
  • 60% improved G:F compared to pigs fed meal diets throughout.
• Pigs switched from Meal‑to‑Pellet performed similarly to pigs fed pellets continuously, while pigs switched from Pellet‑to‑Meal resembled pigs fed meal diets throughout.
• Feeding pellets during any phase improved overall feed efficiency compared to meal diets.
• Carcass outcomes showing increased hot carcass weight for pellet‑fed pigs, with no differences in carcass yield among treatments.
• Practical implications for feed mills: switching to meal diets late in finishing—when pigs are least efficient—can reduce overall growth performance, emphasizing the importance of pelleting during late‑finishing phases when possible

Presented by Devin Goehring, Associate Research Scientist II, United Animal Health

Swine Translational Symposium: Advancing Precision Feeding Strategies in Swine Production
CHI Health Center Convention Center, Ballroom C
Goehring, C. L. Puls, and R. K. Pritchett. Abstr. 123.

Why Attend?

Commercial swine production has made remarkable progress in genetics, health, welfare, and nutrition over the past two decades. Yet one major area has remained largely unchanged: how pigs are fed in finishing barns. Despite clear evidence that nutrient requirements differ substantially among pigs based on body weight, growth rate, and genetics, most facilities still deliver a single diet to all pigs—formulated to the “average” animal. With late‑finishing weight variation often exceeding 50 kg within a barn, this approach inherently over‑feeds half the population while under‑feeding the other half.

This presentation highlights new research demonstrating how precision feeding—using technology to deliver diets tailored to weight‑based subpopulations—can reduce variation, improve performance of lightweight pigs, and decrease nutrient waste in heavier pigs. Attendees will gain insight into how precision nutrition can be practically implemented in commercial systems and where the greatest economic value may lie.

What You’ll Learn

• Why conventional feeding practices fail to meet the true nutrient needs of individual pigs, especially in late finishing where BW variation commonly exceeds 10 kg standard deviation.
• How United Animal Health conducted multi‑year trials using computerized feeding systems to deliver weight‑specific diets to Heavy, Medium, and Light BW subgroups.
• Evidence showing:
  • An 8.6 kg BW improvement in the lightest pigs in one precision‑feeding study.
  • A 0.91 kg BW increase and 3.0 percentage‑unit reduction in BW coefficient of variation in another trial.
• How precision feeding can improve marketing outcomes by boosting the performance of lightweight pigs while reducing unnecessary nutrient oversupply to heavier pigs.
• Practical considerations for implementation, including labor, technology requirements, and ongoing research evaluating economic return on investment.
• Why precision feeding represents a promising next step in modernizing finishing‑barn nutrition to match the advancements seen in genetics, health, and management.

Presented by Michelle McCallum, Research Associate II, United Animal Health

Nonruminant Nutrition IX: Nursery Pig Nutrition II
CHI Health Center Convention Center, Ballroom A
N. McCallum, R. B. Hinson, C. L. Puls, and J. Archibald. Abstr. 266.

Why Attend?

The transition to solid feed at weaning is one of the most significant stressors young pigs face, and early dietary form can influence intake, growth, and overall nursery success. While pelleted diets have historically shown performance advantages, modern nursery formulations—now more complex and ingredient‑dense—may behave differently during pelleting than diets used in older research. This study provides updated, commercially relevant data evaluating how pelleted versus meal‑plus‑crumble diets impact growth during the critical first weeks post‑weaning.

Attendees will gain insight into how feed form affects early performance under today’s diet formulations, helping nutritionists and production teams make informed decisions about pelleting strategies in the nursery.

What You’ll Learn

• How 800 nursery pigs were assigned to either a Pellet diet or a Meal diet using a crumble basemix, with identical ingredient composition across treatments.
• Evidence showing that pelleted diets improved early performance, including:
  • 26 kg greater day‑21 BW (P = 0.018),
  • 26% higher ADG (P = 0.015),
  • Numerical increases in ADFI and G:F during the first 21 days.
• How performance advantages from pelleting carried numerically through day 42, including:
  • 31 kg greater final BW,
  • 38% higher overall ADG,
  • A tendency for improved overall G:F (P = 0.062).
• Confirmation that morbidity and mortality did not differ between treatments, supporting the safety and practicality of pelleted diets.
• How these results align with historical research while validating that pelleted diets continue to provide measurable performance benefits in modern nursery systems

Presented by Chris Puls, Manager – Swine Innovation and Product Development, United Animal Health

Swine Translational II
CHI Health Center Convention Center, 213/214
L. Puls, C. Eden, B. Altman, and K. A. McCormick. Abstr. 238.

Why Attend?

Processing procedures such as castration, tail docking, and injections are routine in the swine industry, yet the timing of these interventions may influence piglet survivability and welfare. Scrotal ruptures in male piglets—often linked to improper or early castration—pose both welfare concerns and economic losses. Despite the importance of these outcomes, limited research has evaluated how processing age interacts with birth weight to affect pre‑weaning mortality (PWM) and scrotal rupture incidence.

This retrospective analysis leverages more than 80,000 piglet records collected over three years from a commercial research sow farm equipped with RFID‑based individual tracking. Attendees will gain new insights into how birth weight and processing age jointly influence survivability and castration‑related complications, helping refine processing protocols to improve piglet outcomes.

What You’ll Learn

• How 80,000 individually tracked piglet records were analyzed to evaluate the effects of birth weight, sex, and processing age (1–11 days) on PWM and scrotal ruptures.
• Confirmation that lower‑birth‑weight piglets have higher PWM, regardless of sex, reinforcing well‑established risk patterns.
• For male piglets, evidence of a birth‑weight × processing‑age interaction, where increasing both factors reduced PWM (e.g., 21.3% PWM for a 1.13‑kg pig processed at 3 days vs. 8.5% PWM for a 1.36‑kg pig processed at 7 days).
• Strong evidence that delaying processing reduces scrotal ruptures, with incidence decreasing from 7.2% at 3 days to 2.7% at 8 days of age.
• Findings showing that birth weight did not influence scrotal rupture incidence, which remained consistent across weight categories.
• Practical implications for refining processing protocols—particularly for light‑birth‑weight males—to improve survivability and reduce castration‑related complications.
• How these data support the potential value of adjusting processing timing as part of broader pre‑weaning management strategies.

Presented by Nathan Horn, Sr Staff Scientist, United Animal Health

Nonruminant Nutrition X: Meta, Omics and Other Applications in Swine Nutrition
CHI Health Center Convention Center, 210/211/212
Horn, J. Spencer, A. Bhunia, N. Gallina, and A. Gaines. Abstr. 279.

Why Attend?

Streptococcus suis remains one of the most economically significant bacterial pathogens in global swine production, contributing to meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and elevated nursery mortality. As antimicrobial resistance continues to rise, the industry urgently needs alternative strategies that reduce pathogen pressure without relying solely on antibiotics. FXP™, a novel dairy bioactive rich in immunoglobulins, lipids, and bioactive proteins, has shown promising antipathogenic potential.

This presentation highlights new in vitro research demonstrating how FXP™ interacts with porcine epithelial cells during Strep. suis infection. Attendees will gain insight into how this technology may help protect intestinal integrity and reduce pathogen adhesion and translocation—key early steps in disease development.

What You’ll Learn

• How Porcine epithelial cell culture model (IPEC‑J2) was used to evaluate FXP™’s ability to mitigate Strep. suis serotype 2 infectivity.
• Why IPEC‑J2 cells were selected after preliminary work confirmed similar infectivity profiles to the classical HBE‑135 human epithelial model.
• Evidence showing that co‑incubation with 0.50% FXP™ reduced Strep. suis adhesion by 46% and translocation by 95% (P ≤02).
• How FXP™ partially preserved epithelial barrier integrity, as indicated by improved transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) compared to pathogen‑only controls.
• Confirmation that cytotoxicity remained low (<20%) across treatments, supporting the safety of FXP™ in this model.
• Practical implications for how FXP™ may help reduce pathogen pressure and support gut health in nursery pigs facing Strep. suis challenges.
• How this research contributes to a growing body of evidence supporting FXP™ as a multimode technology with both gut‑supportive and antipathogenic properties.

Presented by Rebecca Pritchett, Research Associate I, United Animal Health

Swine Translational II
CHI Health Center Convention Center, 213/214
K. Pritchett, C. L. Puls, D. L. Goehring, G. Suffy, E. Ward, E. Nyberg, and M. J. Ritter. Abstr. 243

Why Attend?

Commercial swine facilities typically feed a single dietary phase to all pigs in a barn, formulating diets to the “average” animal. While simple and practical, this approach inherently over‑feeds heavier pigs and under‑feeds lighter pigs—limiting performance potential and contributing to wide body‑weight variation at marketing. Precision feeding, where pigs are sorted by body weight and fed diets tailored to their specific nutrient needs, offers a promising strategy to improve uniformity and overall efficiency.

This presentation highlights large‑scale commercial research evaluating precision feeding compared to standard industry practice. Attendees will gain insight into how targeted nutrition can improve growth, feed efficiency, and population uniformity, and where precision feeding may offer the greatest economic value.

What You’ll Learn

• How 2,223 pigs were evaluated across three feeding strategies:
  • Precision Feeding (sorted by BW and fed weight‑specific diets),
  • Size Sorting (sorted by BW but fed a common diet),
  • Commercial Practice (mixed‑weight pens fed a common diet).
• Evidence showing that Size Sorting alone did not improve performance compared to Commercial Practice.
• How Precision Feeding improved key performance metrics, including:
  • 1 kg heavier final BW at day 71 (P = 0.011),
  • 43% higher overall ADG (P = 0.026),
  • 12% improved G:F (P < 0.001).
• Strong reductions in population variation with Precision Feeding, including:
  • 3‑kg reduction in BW standard deviation,
  • 3‑percentage‑unit reduction in coefficient of variation (P < 0.001).
• How Size Sorting provided modest improvements in uniformity but did not enhance growth performance.
• Practical implications for implementing precision feeding in commercial systems, including potential returns through improved uniformity and performance

Presented by Sarah Phelps, Research Scientist I, Iowa State University

Swine Translational II
CHI Health Center Convention Center, 213/214
Phelps, N. Vander Werff, E. Nyberg, J. Bell, C. Puls, M. Ritter, J. Kolb, N. Sharon, T. Stein, and D. Rosero. Abstr. 244. 

Why Attend?

Routine body‑weight monitoring is essential for tracking growth, feed efficiency, and health in commercial swine production, yet manual weighing is labor‑intensive and often impractical at scale. Computer‑vision systems offer a promising alternative, but producers need clear, real‑world evidence of their accuracy and reliability before adopting them.

This presentation highlights large‑scale commercial research evaluating a novel camera‑based system (Swine Sense Hub®️) designed to automatically estimate individual pig body weight. Attendees will gain a clear understanding of how well this technology performs under true production conditions, how reliably it captures usable data, and where automated weight monitoring can add the most value in modern swine systems.

What You’ll Learn

• How the camera system performed across more than 900 paired observations, including accuracy metrics with CCC values above 0.98 and mean absolute percent errors near 2%.
• How reliably the system captured usable weight data, with 85–86% of expected daily observations recorded in commercial barn conditions.
• How accuracy and reliability held across different pig sizes and growth stages, from ~47 kg growers to ~124 kg finishers.
• Where automated body‑weight monitoring adds value, including labor savings, improved growth tracking, marketing precision, and integration opportunities within precision‑livestock systems.