Swine Grist
A PERIODIC NEWSLETTER PRODUCED BY GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS LTD. VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4 WINTER 2017
Dear Friends, Once again, Christmas is upon us as we celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus. As we ponder this momentous event, our hearts and minds marvel at the wonder of it all. Imagine God sending His only Son to become the Saviour of the world! May this good news continue to be a blessing to you and all of your family at this Christmas time and throughout the coming year. Wishing you good farming this winter. Sincerely, Jim Ross, Founder & Chairman
FEEDING THE BREEDING HERD WITH ELECTRONIC SOW FEED SYSTEMS
by: DR. MARTIN CLUNIES PhD., Monogastric Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers Ltd. he management of sows in group housing systems is gaining in popularity in Canada. While the original group housing systems were met with a certain amount of skepticism as a step back in time, more recent data comparing traditional gestating stalls with group-housed sows indicates very little, if any difference in sow and litter performance. This is encouraging more producers to embrace the concept of group housing their sows. As pork producers look to modern technologies for managing their breeding herd, the combination of group housed sows and electronic sow feeding systems (ESFs) provide an opportunity to improve their management and save on labour. There are a number of reasons for the rise in interest in ESFs, which include: • ESFs can be used for collection of a great amount of data on the breeding herd. • Digitization of farming operations to attract the next generation of farmers, comprised of the millennial generation. • As farms attempt to leverage the skills of its best people, the systems provide savings in labour with greater inputs for making decision. • The use of many management tools such that sorting and separating animals can be used to facilitate: - Heat detection - Vaccinations - Movement to farrowing - More individual feeding strategies - Pig diagnosis, etc. • Potential feed savings of 0.1 to 0.15 kg feed per sow per day. • Facilitate multi-feed strategies during gestation, facilitating feedback, supplementation, etc.
T
Alberta 1-866-610-5770 Saskatchewan 1-877-242-8882 Manitoba 1-866-626-3933
• The beginning of more computerized control of the breeding herd. There are, however, a number of challenges to loose housing and ESFs, which include: • The challenge of learning new technologies; how well will the people adapt to new systems. • Dealing with increased variability in sow body condition. • In the initial stages of use there may be lameness and some skin lesions, correlated with fighting over feed and establishing the order in which sows feed. - The order in which sows eat on a daily basis roughly correlates with the decreasing body condition. - Animals lower on the hierarchy are found further from the feeder. Feeding sows with ESFs results in several challenges that are based on the combination of the technology associated with the ESFs and the natural behaviour of the sow. What we have found, however, is that the sow easily adapts to the system and that most often, it is the people that are the greatest challenge. What we have already discovered is that there are certain factors, which are repeatable from system to system. A recent study completed by Kansas State University (Thomas et al., 2016), where university researchers worked in large commercial sow herds using ESFs, revealed some interesting results. The study Ian Ross, President & CEO | Jim Ross, Chairman Clarke Walker, VP & COO Dr. Martin Clunies, Monogastric Nutritionist David Ross/Patti Bobier, Publishers
using observations on approximately 300 gilts and 560 sows fed by an ESF, provided a great deal of insight to daily feed intake, sow weight gain and sow behaviour. In the study there were three feed allocations used, depending on age and body condition. Gilts were provided with 4.4 lbs (2 kg) of feed daily and sows were provided 5.0 lbs (2.2 kg). Under-conditioned sows were provided with 6.6 lb (3 kg) until body condition improved, then returned to their respective feed allocations. Over-conditioned sows were provided with 4.4 lbs of feed daily until their body condition returned to target, then they were placed on 5 lbs of feed daily. The electronic feeder used in this study included a scale, over which all the gilts and sows had to walk after feeding. The measures taken included; daily feed intake, body weight gain or loss throughout gestation, the number of daily entries into the feed system, the order in which sows entered the system and how adaptable the sows were to using the ESFs. Sows were allowed to enter the feed system as many times as they wished, while researchers recorded measures of performance and behaviour (daily feed intake and body weight gain or loss throughout gestation, the number of daily entries into the feed system, the order in which sows entered the system and how adaptable the sows were to using the ESFs). Despite being previously trained to use the ESFs, both gilts and sows took between 5-15 days to re-adapt to the feeding system after being re-introduced following breeding. This was indicated by the percentage of gilts or sows not eating or eating incomplete meals in the first 5-15 days after being re-introduced to the system. Gilts took a longer time to re-adapt to the feeding system compared to sows. It was surprising that many gilts and sows did not eat their daily feed allocation throughout the gestation period, and some animals ate no feed at all some days. Many of the gilts entering the ESFs did not consume their daily feed allocation. As a result, the average consumption for the gilts was below the 4.4 lbs allocated per day. Given the choice, many sows entered the feed station up to three times daily despite not being fed after their first visit. Gilts were more efficient than sows; gaining more weight on less feed. Gilts also gained more weight during gestation than sows despite being fed less feed and not consuming all of their daily feed allocation. As a percentage, more gilts than sows had days where they did not eat any feed. Daily feed intake patterns correlated to the hierarchy of animals within the group, such that the bigger sows ate earlier in the day compared to sows of lower body weight. The design and the layout of penning along with the orientation of the ESF in the pen are important to taking advantage of the previously mentioned hierarchal observations. The entry to the ESF feeder can be a challenge to manage, with many of the bigger, boss sows lying close to the entrance of the feed station. There are a number of strategies that can be used to reduce this practice. • Designing the loose pens so sows on exiting the feeder have to walk around the perimeter of the penning area to return to the entrance, will reduce the number of larger sows guarding the feed station. Most sows will take their time to return to the front of the feeder, investigating other sows, the penning areas, lying down to rest after eating, etc., as they make their way around the pen. • For systems where the pens do not allow for this animal flow, a number of feed formulation strategies can be used. One is to increase
the bulk density of the feed, by including more fibrous ingredients such as wheat shorts, soy hulls or beet pulp. These will increase the satiety effect of the feed, resulting in more sows lying down and resting/sleeping following their daily meal. • Placing swing nipples close to the entrance of the ESF makes the area wetter and creates more traffic flow as sows and gilts come to drink, discouraging sows from lying in this area. • By limiting the sow’s access to the feed system to once daily, they soon learn that hanging around the entrance is futile. Whatever the strategy, the entrance and exit from the ESF must be managed carefully and ideally be the least congested areas in the loose house pen, allowing more timid animals to enter that area and make their way to the feeder. The use of ESFs is sweeping North America, allowing a tremendous amount of data to be collected. Data collected from the daily feed allocation and body weight gain can then be incorporated into a feed curve to attain daily targets to control weight gain in gilts and sows separately. We already know that feed efficiency differs with parity. Furthermore, body weight data collected from the scale, combined with the parity of the sow, can be used in the farrowing room to adjust feed allocation relative to body condition. As a result, we will need to spend more time evaluating the performance of the system by calibrating animal response to feed allocation. The future of all of this is very near. n
FEEDING CHINA’S GROWING APPETITE
by: PETER G HALL Vice President and Chief Economist, Export Development Canada (EDC)
T
his is big. In fact, of all the issues I have covered in the past 10 years – and I have covered a lot of issues – this could be the biggest. And it should come as no surprise that it’s about China. Just when you might have thought that we exhausted the last known superlative to describe a China issue, here’s another. It concerns the 1.3 billion mouths the economy has to feed. Here’s the news: their collective appetite is growing. And keeping that hunger satisfied is going to be one of the greatest challenges, not just for China, but for the world economy, in the coming decades. So, does Canada have a role to play? First, a few details of the story. The current driver of additional food demand in China is rising wealth. McKinsey estimates that by 2022, just over three-quarters of China’s urban population will have ascended into the middle class, with a comfortable majority being in the upper end of that group. Other estimates put annual growth of the middle class at close to Canadian population. That is staggering. Studies also show that one of the top categories that these neo-wealthy consumers throw more money at is food. What’s even more interesting is that they are very interested in imported food. Trust is a problem in China’s food supply chain. But if product is coming from someplace abroad where food governance is better – like Canada – the interest goes way up. If so, does Canada have a piece of the action? To say ‘yes’ is a gross understatement. Back in 2000, Canadian food shipments to China were just 3 percent of our total food exports, a distant third behind Japan. Since then, China’s share has lurched to 11 percent, vaulting past Japan to take a commanding lead of second place. For the last 16 years, growth in our food exports to China has averaged over 15 percent annually, triple the rate of growth to the US. Better still, the number is accelerating. Since 2008, yearly
Swine Swine GGrist rist growth has averaged 18 percent, while the US number hasn’t changed. One more fact: since 2000, China has accounted for 17 percent of the total growth of our food exports abroad. But in the past 8 years, it has risen to over onequarter of total growth. No country other than the US even comes close. What are we shipping to China? The categories are lopsided. The vast bulk of our China-bound agri-food exports (74 percent) are raw and processed grains and oilseeds, with growth numbers much like the overall stats. If that’s not exactly inspiring, then consider this: rising wealth should mean that higher value-added products are the new upand-comers. Any hints of that in the data? Check out meat products, number two on the list. They are above average, up 17 percent annually. But this is changing: in the last 8 years, that number has zoomed up to 27 percent, lifting its export share to 13 percent of the total. Just behind this are fish and fish products. Raw product is where the growth is, with salt water fish up by 24 percent annually, and aquaculture, still in export infancy, up explosively. Prepared products are rising by double-digits, but below the overall average. That’s not likely to be the case for too long. Well, there are other, much smaller, categories that are also racking up very impressive growth. If that continues, they will also become part of a sector that is only likely to be more dynamic as time rolls on. How do we know that? Well, according to estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization, China’s food needs will outstrip its production in certain key food categories, notably pork. The growth rates implied by this net dependency on imports are arresting: double-digits annually through 2030 and beyond. That means that just being present in the market is enough to get radical growth. Increase market share, and the sky’s the limit! What’s inspiring about this story is that in many ways, Canada has only just begun. Our foray into China’s food chain is still fairly concentrated, and there’s lots of capacity to up our game. Getting the business requires products appropriate to the market, and high quality standards. Keeping the business requires reliability – which likely means considerable investment. The bottom line? When it comes to future agri-food sales to China, Canada has a lot going for it. We have the resource. We have the knowhow. We have the supporting infrastructure. And this is one of those rare industries in which we actually have the scale to meet China-sized needs. One last ingredient: do we have the vision? n Interested in hearing more? Plan to join us on March 27 at 5:30pm following the first day of the London Swine Conference in London, Ontario.
Lakeside Colony harvest 2017. Photo courtesy of Kevin Bond.
customers were above 11% and 13% CP, respectively (Figure 1 and 2). One would ask, shall we stop singing the songs of harvest? The purpose of this article is to highlight the various challenges of rations with high protein content and the possible ways to lessen this effect. Figure 1: Crude Protein content (%) of 50 barley samples from FNL Customers between August to November 2017. Approximately 50% of the samples had CP of greater than 11%. 19
Crude Protein (%) (%) Crude Protein
19
15 11 11 7
50 barley sample measurements 7 50 barley sample measurements Figure 2: Crude Protein content (%) in 50 wheat samples from FNL Customer Base between August to November 2017. 21 Approximately 72% of the samples had CP of greater than 13%.
Crude Protein (%) (%) Crude Protein
21
These Reports are a compilation of publicly available information and are not intended to provide specific advice and should not be relied on as such. No action or decisions should be taken without independent research and professional advice. While EDC makes reasonable commercial efforts to ensure that the information contained in the Reports is accurate at the time it is placed on the site, EDC does not represent or warrant the accurateness, timeliness or completeness of the information contained in the Reports. EDC is not liable whatsoever for any loss or damage caused by or resulting from any inaccuracies, errors or omissions in such information.
BUMPER HARVEST WITH HIGH CRUDE PROTEIN CONTENT: BLESSINGS WITH A CHALLENGE
17 17 13 13 9
50 wheat sample measurements
9
by: DR. SAMUEL WAITITU PhD., Swine & Poultry Nutritionist FNL
mg N / mg kg effluent N / kg effluent
T
he sweetness of Thanksgiving Day is experiencing the reality of God’s blessings in multiplying the seeds we sowed in faith in the form of a bumper harvest. Thinking of this, it reminds us of Psalms 126:5-6, “Those who sow with tears will reap with songs of joy. Those who go out weeping, carrying seed to sow, will return with songs of joy, carrying sheaves with them.” However, for the swine producer, the high protein content in the recently harvested barley and wheat poses a challenge for nutrition and management. Most of the wheat and barley samples of our
15
50 wheat sample measurements
High dietary protein is associated with an increase in the incidence of 600 post-weaning diarrhea in weaned pigs, leading to poor performance. When 20% CP the 600 500availability of carbohydrates for microbial fermentation in the hind gut 16%CP CPprotein can be broken down, used as an energy is limiting, undigested 20% 500 source and 12% CP yield potentially harmful compounds including 400 for microbes, 16% CP ammonia, which can have toxic effects on pigs and can influence function 400 and gutCPbacteria (Lalles et al., 2007; Gaskins 2003; Jeaurond 300diversity of the12% et al., 2007). The association of high ammonia emission with high protein 300 200 was demonstrated by Portejoie et al. (2004) who reported a 63% rations decrease in slurry ammonia emission when dietary protein decreased from 200 100 to 12% in diets of finishing pigs (Figure 3). 20% 1000 0
0
24
48
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
72
96
120
144
www.grandvalley.com Time (h) Time (h)
9
50 wheat sample measurements
Figure 3: Effect of dietary treatment on the emission of ammonia (in mg of N/kg manure) during the storage of fresh slurry. 600 20% CP
mg N / kg effluent
500
16% CP 12% CP
400 300 200 100 0 0
24
48
72
96
120
144
Time (h)
Excess unmetabolized nitrogen is excreted in the urine and feces where further microbial action releases ammonia into the air during manure decomposition. High indoor ammonia levels reduce performance in poultry (> 25 ppm) and pigs (> 50 ppm). Ammonia is toxic to human health and the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety has established a permissible worker exposure limit for ammonia of 25 ppm over an eight-hour period. It is therefore imperative that we consider ways of reducing the dietary protein content of our pig rations. In summary, the following strategies may help in reducing CP content in the rations or mitigate some negative effects of feeding rations with high CP content: a) Using corn as diluent: The CP content of most of the corn in the market is below 9%, hence corn can be used to dilute the CP content. b) Using synthetic amino acids, vegetable oil and a fibre source: Supplementing amino acids will reduce the soybean meal inclusion level and increasing vegetable oil content will boost energy hence reducing grain content. Once energy and amino acids requirements are met, a cost effective fibre source (e.g. hulls) can be used to further dilute CP and enhance gut fill. This strategy will work best for finishing pigs and sows since they can tolerate rations with slightly higher fibre content. c) Using Plus-Factor™: The composition, mechanism of action and benefits of Plus-Factor™ were extensively discussed in the 2017 fall issue of Swine Grist. In summary, Plus-Factor™ is a product exclusive to the GVF group of companies and contains Yucca schidigera extracts. According to Yeo and Kyulf (1997), yucca extracts cause a reduction in ammonia by reducing the activity of urease enzyme present in gut cells and bacteria (in the gut and manure), which converts urea to ammonia. Plus-Factor™ is an organic product, has no withdrawal time, can be used in all stages of production, reduces ammonia emission by 40 to 60% and has been shown to enhance weight gain by 4.3% and feed efficiency by 3.35%. We believe that with these strategies we can keep on singing the sweet songs of harvest and thereby testify that ‘the blessing of the LORD makes one rich, and he adds no sorrow with it (Proverbs 10:22). n
To add Plus-Factor™ into your FNL premix please contact FNL Swine & Poultry Nutritionist Samuel Waititu at 1-866-626-3933.
2017 Christmas & New Year’s Schedule Please be advised that our holiday hours are as follows: Monday, December 25 – Closed for Christmas Day Tuesday, December 26 – Closed for Boxing Day Monday, January 1 – Closed for New Year’s Day We would like to wish you and your family a wonderful holiday season!
Thought for theDay For unto us a Child is born. Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6