Sulabo, R.C.Papadopoulos, G.A.Bergstrom, J.R.Ryder, D.DeRouchey, Joel M.Tokach, Michael D.Goodband, Robert D.Nelssen, Jim L.Dritz, Steven S.2010-11-222010-11-222010-11-22http://hdl.handle.net/2097/6582A total of 283 pigs (PIC TR4 × 1050, initially 77.2 ± 1.4 lb BW) were used to compare phase feeding with blending finishing diets by using the FeedPro system (Feedlogic Corporation, Willmar, MN). There were 3 experimental treatments: (1) a standard 4-phase complete feed program, (2) blending high- and low-lysine complete diets over the entire experiment, and (3) blending ground corn and a separate complete supplement within each phase. FeedPro is an integrated feed dispensing system that can deliver and blend 2 separate diets while dispensing. The 4 phases were 77 to 120, 120 to 175, 175 to 221, and 221 to 278 lb. Each treatment had 12 replicate pens and 8 pigs per pen. Overall (77 to 278 lb), ADG and ADFI were similar (P > 0.24) across treatments. However, pigs fed the ground corn-supplement blend had poorer (P < 0.01) F/G than pigs fed diets blended in multiple phases and tended to have poorer (P < 0.09) F/G than pigs fed the standard phase diets. There were no differences (P > 0.70) in HCW, percentage yield, and loin depth across treatments. Pigs fed using phase feeding of the ground corn-supplement blend had greater (P < 0.02) percentage lean and lower (P < 0.04) fat depth than pigs fed using phase feeding of complete diets or diet blending. There were no (P > 0.28) statistical differences in total revenue and income over feed costs (IOFC) across treatments. However, the highest IOFC was obtained from diet blending, which had a numeric advantage of $1.44 to $2.32/pig over other treatments. In conclusion, the FeedPro system blended separate complete diets and a ground corn-supplement combination without adversely affecting growth performance and carcass characteristics.SwineCarcass characteristicsFeed blendingGrowthConference paper