Discussion
The inclusion of the Biopeptide UP 1672 protein source in the phase 1 diet did not effectively replace blood plasma, but it was as equally effective during the subsequent period. This suggests that the Biopeptide UP 1672 lacks the component found in plasma protein that stimulates feed intake and therefore pig gains during the initial nursery phase, but it did not seem to have a long-term detrimental effect. The reduction in performance during phase 1 did not continue into the subsequent phase or for the overall 38-day trial period. Weaning pig performance during the overall periods for all treatment groups performed similarly.
The two proteins evaluated in this study were of different origins. One was of plant and yeast (Biopeptide), and the other of animal (Plasma protein). An attribute of blood plasma protein is its the subsequent periods. Although the UP 1672 biopeptides are composed of plant and yeast protein sources, and does not contain an immunological component, our results suggest that due to the lack of diarrhea and the good performance responses achieved, the pigs in our experiment were probably relatively disease free.
When evaluating feed cost per lb of gain, the inclusion of biopeptide UP 1672 into the nursery diet was more economical (Table 2). During the 2 initial phases there was a difference of $0.04 per pound of gain. It would appear that during the 10 to 24-day period, the Biopeptide UP 1672 could be used to reduce diet costs with no negative effects on starter pig performance. A Feed cost per pound of gain over the entire 38-day study was $0.28 for the Biopeptide and $0.30 for plasma protein. The projected savings in feed costs from 12.3 lb to 50.5 lb was $1.18 per pig using the Biopeptide UP 1672.