Swine Grist
A PERIODIC NEWSLETTER PRODUCED BY GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS LTD. VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3 | FALL 2017
Dear Friends, Once again, the summer has slipped us by and fall is beginning to put on its gorgeous display of fall colours. We are so blessed to enjoy this each year at this time. This year I have experienced some health issues which required serious attention by skilled heart specialists to correct my damaged heart. The medical team at Hamilton General Hospital did an outstanding job of replacing my aortic valve which had become very stenotic. After a couple of weeks of care by my eldest daughter Nancy Schoenmaker, I returned home thankful for the return to good health. Thank you for your prayers and well wishes as we experienced God’s goodness to us. Summer weather has been stressful as we have had to put up with lots of moisture in Ontario, dry weather in Manitoba and forest fires in Alberta and BC. We pray that the fall weather will turn around so that crops will mature and provide improved harvest weather. Wishing you good farming this fall. Sincerely, Jim Ross, Founder & Chairman
THE CHANGING REGULATORY LANDSCAPE OF LIVESTOCK FEEDS by: DR. MARTIN CLUNIES PhD., Monogastric Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers Ltd.
W
e keep being reminded that in life there is one constant, there will be change. Looming in 2018 are two big changes anticipated with respect to livestock feed regulations. The first is the revision of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA’s) Table 4 guide for the feed industry, which lists the allowable levels of various nutrients included in animal feeds. The second is changes to the types and amounts of medications that can be included in animal feeds. While these have been anticipated for some time, they will significantly change the way in which we formulate and manufacture animal feeds in the new year. Table 4 is a guide published by CFIA, which lists the minimum and maximum levels of certain nutrients that can be included in commercial feeds. These have been purposed to prevent deficiencies and toxicities from occurring in animals fed these feeds. There are separate guides for beef cattle and dairy cows, swine and poultry. The impending revisions to this nutrient table are to allow nutritionists more latitude as to what levels of nutrients could be included in the diet in order to be more up to date with nutritional advances. For example, with the introduction of phytase enzymes which release the phytate bound phosphorus from feed ingredients, the minimum amounts of total phosphorus indicated for animal feeds has become obsolete, with
Alberta 1-866-610-5770 Saskatchewan 1-877-242-8882 Manitoba 1-866-626-3933
available phosphorus now accepted as a more accurate means of describing the phosphorus requirements of pigs and poultry. Similarly, in different geographical regions of Canada where selenium is deficient in some soils, supplementation needs to be higher than the maximum 0.3 ppm recommended by Table 4. With the transportability of grain, this requirement for additional selenium supplementation could be in any diet fed those selenium deficient grains. The decision as to what
amounts to include are to be left up to the nutritionist responsible for the formulation of those feeds. Further, with the desire to reduce our reliance on antibiotics for raising livestock, the use of some minerals to control the pathogens have been recognized. The addition of copper and zinc to the diets of pigs has been shown to modify the gut microbiome resulting in the reduction of certain pathogens. The
Ian Ross, President & CEO | Jim Ross, Chairman Clarke Walker, VP & COO Dr. Martin Clunies, Monogastric Nutritionist David Ross/Patti Bobier, Publishers
initial regulatory indications are that there will be allowances to take advantage of higher levels of these two minerals in nursery feeds to control certain aspects of gut health. There will be, however, animal age restrictions regarding the length of time for which these higher levels can be used. The second big change will be the change in the regulations regarding the use of medications and other drugs in livestock feeds. This is in response to the growing concern of increased antibiotic resistant bacteria as a result of livestock rearing. Recent research demonstrating increases in resistance genes in pathogenic bacteria in animals fed antibiotic containing feeds, has advanced the adoption of new regulations in the US. Those drugs fed at levels which were assumed to be simply for growth promotion will be eliminated from use. Left will be only those drugs fed at levels which have a therapeutic effect in treating some disease or infectious pathogens in the animals. The exceptions to this will be, those drugs used in human medicine, which will no longer be allowed in livestock production whatsoever. In addition, any drug used to treat a disease or pathogen in livestock will require a veterinary prescription. Veterinarians will also be restricted as to the drugs they prescribe, not being able to prescribe or mix the use of drugs in ways or at levels that they were not approved for (off label use). No longer will in-feed antibiotics be used for improving the efficiency of production outside of therapeutic control of disease conditions. Thus veterinarians, in a consultative process with the livestock producers, will establish the health requirements of the farm and provide vaccination protocols as a first line of defense followed by the judicious use of allowed antibiotics. The veterinarian is tasked with restricting the use of antibiotics on the farm with the goal of thereby controlling the selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria on the farm. As a result of the latter changes, there is an increased need to develop strategies to remove and replace antibiotics from animal production while maintaining the efficiencies of production. There are many new evolving technologies which can be used to improve the efficiencies of livestock production. These include acidifiers, probiotics, enzymes, essential oils, etc. While all these may have an effect on the microbiology (microbiome) of the digestive system, they do not replace antibiotics effects. They may manipulate some aspect of the feed, often resulting in improved gut health. For example, enzymes improve the digestibility of some components of the grain or feed which the animals’ endogenous enzymes are not capable of hydrolysing. In this way, they negate some anti-nutritional factors, which improves the health of the digestive system while providing more nutrients for absorption. The microbiome of the digestive system also plays an important role in developing the immune function and health of the animal. In a healthy animal, there is a natural balance between the pathogenic and beneficial bacteria in the gut required for proper immune development. Both genetic and environmental factors can cause an imbalance in this system, leading to a cascade of events resulting in overstimulation of the immune response or disease outbreak. By taking advantage of the cross-talk between the gut microbiota and the immune system, we can create a positive physiological response using alternative feed ingredients instead of antibiotics. With this in mind, the Canadian Feed Inspection Agency is trying to creating a more flexible system for approval of new and novel ingredient technologies which will advance livestock production. They have created new categories for different and emerging technologies and put review processes in place to speed up the evaluation and approval process. Here they have indicated their focus will be on assessing the safety aspect of each new technology and product. All
these steps are in an effort to increase the robustness of the Canadian feed industry and livestock production. In the future feed manipulation and gut health will be key components in ensuring a safe and efficient livestock production system. At Grand Valley Fortifiers we continue to explore ingredients to modulate the balance between beneficial and pathogenic bacteria. We were innovators by investigating the use of enzymes, probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids and herbal extracts when they were considered voodoo science. These decisions were based on the early science that new innovative companies brought to us. Today, the journals of animal nutrition devote a large amount of space to reporting the emerging science of these now mainstream feed additives. We have been taking advantage of these alternatives for over a two decades and continue to explore these technologies to improve our product lines. All these additives play an important role in improving the gut microbiota, thereby resulting in improved growth and feed efficiency. This emerging knowledge has been put into practice and refined with the development of the Natures Blend line of feeds and premixes used successfully in feeding animals without antibiotics. n
THE CONSEQUENCES OF SMALL PIGS IN MODERN, COMMERCIAL PIG PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
by: NATALIE LITVAK B.Sc., M.Sc., Monogastric Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers Ltd. n previous articles titled “Modern Sow Productivity”, published in the 2015 & 2016 Swine Grists, we outlined the key role that nutrition plays in optimizing the genetic potential of the highly prolific, modern day sows. Today’s modern sows have been selected to farrow large numbers of piglets annually. The consequence of larger litter numbers has been a reduction in average piglet birth weight by 0.06 - 0.10 kg. Even more significant, there has been an increase in the number of pigs weighing less than 1.1 kg at birth from 0.7 to 2.4 pigs/litter between the years 2013 to 2015 (Dean Boyd 2015). Why is 1.1 kg so critical? Research has shown that at less than 1.1 kg birth weight, the survivability of these pigs decreases significantly. This birth weight has been confirmed as being biologically critical in separate studies done in Europe and the USA, with 50% of pigs not surviving at 0.8 kg body weight. Furthermore, pigs that were small at birth were typically smaller at weaning. Pigs that were 2.2 kg lighter at weaning were typically 30 kg lighter at 160 days of age (Dean Boyd 2015). The reasons for this is multifactorial and has biological implications. At the core of this is that the small piglet is actually less mature in many ways compared to its larger littermates. These smaller, less developed piglets are characterized by dome shaped heads, which appear larger in proportion to their bodies. This is, because during fetal development, brain growth is a
I
Swine Swine GGrist rist first priority and typically preserved at the expense of other tissues. There are also other important physiological differences between smaller and larger pigs. For example, in terms of muscle development, the small fetuses have approximately 13% and 30% less muscle area than the medium and larger pigs of the litter, respectively (Gonzales, 2015). Even more important for muscle growth, these small fetuses have 13% and 24% less satellite muscle cells compared to the medium and large sized pigs, respectively. The number of muscle satellite cells are an important determinant of muscle growth rate, from birth to market (Gonzales, 2015). Similarly, smaller piglets are born with less fat cells for storing energy, and so are born with less energy reserves (Hausman and Kauffman, 1986; Gondret et al., 2013). From the postnatal period, the smaller pigs continue to produce more fat cells and continue to do so until marketing. As a result they tend to be fatter compared to their larger litter mates (Bergstrom et al., 2011). All of these differences have major implications to the post-natal survival and growth. Birth weight has a significant impact on the piglet’s ability to obtain nutrients following birth. At birth, a 1.1 kg piglet requires 36 g less colostrum compared to a 1.45 kg piglet; the real difficulty is that the smaller piglet actually gets 68 g less colostrum than its larger littermate. Not only does this put the smaller pig at greater metabolic risk, due to lower nutrient intake, but also provides an immunological disadvantage to that pig from colostrum transfer. This has even greater implications for females selected for the breeding herd. Gilts with lower colostrum intake took 7-8 days longer to attain puberty, had smaller litter sizes and the resulting piglets had poorer post-weaning growth rates (Vallet et al., 2015). This is a part of the new science of epigenetics, where the genetic expression of the offspring is determined by conditions during the prenatal period of development. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a tremendous challenge to managing the small pigs in a pig production system. Gestation is becoming increasingly recognized as a critical period for programming the development of the young pig. Figure 1, which demonstrates fetal muscle and fat (adipose) development, puts this into perspective.
Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy
Secondary Myogenesis Primary Myogenesis
Adipogenesis
0 10 Conception
20 30
Embryonic Stage
40
50 60
70
80 90 100 110 114 Days Birth
Fetal Stage
Figure 1. Fetal muscle and adipose development (Gonzales, 2015). Myogenesis is the formation of muscle tissue during embryonic development. Adipogenesis is the formation of adipose or fat tissue during embryonic development. Subsequent articles will discuss the effect that nutrition has on the consequences of placental development and birth weight on the lifetime performance of the pig. We will also discuss the strategies that can be implemented to deal with the small birth weight pig. These will include improving colostrum quality and intake, strategies to use in the farrowing room including nurse sow diets and creep feeding, along with post-wean care and feeding. n
HIGH AMMONIA LEVELS? THE BENEFITS OF YUCCA SCHIDIGERA
by: BRUCE SCHUMANN B.Sc. (Agric.), M.Sc., Monogastric Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers Ltd.
W
e have made great strides with genetic selection to increase the number of piglets weaned per sow per year. Many producers however have not reduced the number of sows they breed as a result of this increased reproductive performance. This results in higher numbers of piglets in the nursery and grow-finish barns, without making any spatial allowances for the increased numbers. Producers are also raising grow-finish hogs to heavier weights, which means hogs remain in the barn longer than previously. Stocking density pressures, because of increased numbers and size of animals, can have a significantly negative impact on the health, welfare and performance of your herd. Bacteria in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) produce ammonia as a by-product of normal metabolism in the digestion of feed within the GIT. The bacteria produce an enzyme called urease, which breaks down urea to ammonia in the GIT. Ammonia in the GIT is then absorbed by the intestine, which enters the bloodstream as blood urea nitrogen or BUN. The liver and kidneys filter and detoxify the BUN out of the blood, excreting a substantial amount of urea out in the urine. High levels of urea that are excreted in the urine combine with the ammonia from the fecal matter in the pit, increasing the ammonia level in the barn further, as bacteria in the manure pit will continue to metabolize urea into ammonia. There is a significant energy cost associated with this detoxification process; energy which would normally be allocated towards weight gain. High environmental ammonia and high BUN levels can contribute to a wide array of issues in the barn. We can see increases in reproductive issues, such as delayed onset of puberty, reduced litter sizes, poor return to estrus as well as chronic scours in piglets or nurse sows. Higher levels of circulating ammonia can also cause irritation to the mucosal lining of the respiratory tract. When we disrupt the integrity of the mucosal lining, pigs are more prone to respiratory infections such as pneumonia. In addition, higher circulating ammonia levels in the barn can increase the incidence of negative vices such as tail biting, ear biting, flank chewing and unexplained hyperactivity. There is, of course, a human welfare component to high levels of ammonia, which not surprisingly can have a similar damaging impact on our respiratory system as we see with our livestock. So how can we reduce the ammonia content in the barn and the BUN levels in our herds? One way we can reduce BUN is by using crystalline amino acids (such as lysine, methionine and threonine) to reduce the total protein level and provide a balance of amino acids, rather than providing excess protein and amino acids, which will just be broken down and utilized by the bacteria in the GIT. Another is to ensure there is adequate barn ventilation, so that the excess ammonia can be removed from the barn. Lastly, you can incorporate our Plus Factor additive, which contains extracts from the Yucca schidigera plant. These extracts cause a reduction in the amount of urease in the GIT, which keeps more intact urea in the GIT of the animal and therefore significantly less ammonia.
www.grandvalley.com
Ammonia Reduction 200 100 0
% Ammonia Reduction Plus Factor Summary on Grow/Finish Performance 150 Control
% Change
15
Plus Factor
100
10
50
Ammonia Reduction
Effect of Plus Factor on Intestinal Ammonia Content (ppm)
5
0
0130
125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 200 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -5120 125 100 Figure 1 110 -10 105 Trial Number 0 100 This results in aDiet significant reduction in ammonia content, and in some cases, Control Control Diet + Gain Weight Feed Conversion Control Plus Factor Plus Factor
Control
Plus Factor
in excess of a 40% reduction in ammonia content in the barn (Figure 1). Manure Ammonia content mg/100ml 130 125 120 125 110 105 100
Control Diet
Effect of Plus Factor on Intestinal Ammonia Content (ppm) 130 125 120 125 110 105 100
Control Diet + Plus Factor
Control Diet
Control Diet + Plus Factor
Figure 2 & 3 Plus Factor Summary on Grow/Finish Manure Ammonia content mg/100ml Performance The Yucca schidigera extract works not only in reducing the ammonia 130 15 content of the GIT, but has a continuing 125impact on the ammonia in the 10 manure (Figures 2 & 3). The benefits for having 120 less environmental ammonia 5 content0 in the barn and lower BUN levels 125 is improved performance, because 110 1 2 3 the 4 5metabolic 6 7 8 stress 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Average we are-5removing on 105the animal. In a summary of 17 trials, using Plus Factor in the diet resulted in a 4.3% increase in weight gain 100 -10 Control Diet Control Diet + and 3.35% improvement in feed efficiency (Figure 4). Plus Factor Weight Gain
17 Average
FORTIFIED NUTRITION OPENS NEW WAREHOUSE IN MORDEN, MB. This past year Rick Driedger, our FNL Plant Manager, has led the charge on the building of a new 60’ x 150’ warehouse facility, connected to the plant, to provide an additional 9000 square feet of storage. This new facility is now complete and filled with stock. At present the new warehouse is able to hold 308 pallets of product with the option to increase to approximately 1000 pallets of storage with the addition of pallet racking. We are very pleased with this new facility as the additional space has allowed us to take advantage of purchasing ingredients in truck load quantities and creates separation between incoming and outgoing items. The extra space means increased efficiency as staff can now find products faster and not have to shuffle products around in order to get to the item they need. The new warehouse has also resulted in shorter wait times at the loading dock and on rainy days the staff are now able to transfer nursery pellets onto our bulk truck inside the building, keeping the feed dry. We look forward to better serving our customers with this new facility and want to thank Rick and his team for the excellent work that went into creating the new warehouse. n
Feed Conversion
Plus Factor Summary on Grow/Finish Plus Factor Summary on Grow/Finish Performance Performance 15
% Change
15
10
10
5 0
5 0 -5
-5
1
-10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-10 12 11
1
2
3
13 14
4
15
5
6
7
8
9
10
13 14
16 17 Average Weight Gain
Feed Conversion
Trial Number
Weight Gain
11 12
Feed Conversion
Figure 4 Plus Factor is suitable for use in all stages of production (sows, piglets and grow-finish hogs). For more information, or to see if including Plus Factor in your rations would be of benefit to you, talk to your Grand Valley Fortifiers swine specialist or nutritionist. n
Thought for theDay
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him. – Proverbs 13:24
15
16 17 Average
WELCOME ARIANNE & PAUL DE ROND
W
e are pleased to announce the joining of both Paul and Arianne de Rond to our Grand Valley Fortifiers swine team. The de Rond’s immigrated to Ontario from the Netherlands five years ago with Paul becoming a MS Schippers Canada Ltd. HyCare™ Specialist who serviced the hygiene and animal care needs of swine, poultry and dairy producers in Ontario. Paul’s wife, Arianne has been responsible for the receiving, inventorying and distributiing MS Schippers products in Ontario. The new GVF roles for Paul and Arianne de Rond will focus on swine nutrition, farm audits and on-farm trial support. With the recent alliance between Farmers Farmacy® and MS Schippers Canada Ltd. Paul and Arianne will also continue to support the sales of MS Schippers product and service. n