Swine Grist
A PERIODIC NEWSLETTER PRODUCED BY GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS VOLUME 7, ISSUE 2 | SUMMER 2020
Dear Friends, After a long cool spring, the temperatures finally started to rise during the month of May. We even experienced some 30°C-plus days in the last week of May in Ontario. Thankfully the drier months of April and May allowed farmers in Ontario to get out on the land and successfully plant a lot of acres much earlier than last year. We pray that summer will bring days of good heat and rains to produce a bumper crop this fall. Since mid-March Canada and most of the world has been managing the challenges of COVID-19. It is at times like these, I am very thankful we are involved in agriculture and food production as we have all been reminded how essential it is to grow healthy, nutritious food for our country. We at Fortfiied Nutrition and Grand Valley Fortifiers are honoured to be part of the food production system in Canada. We have done our utmost to keep our customer service levels high and openly communicate the changes to protocols and company policies while adapting to many staff working from home. We trust our service to you has met your expectations. I know many of our Swine Specialists are very excited to get back to regular sales calls as they were limited to essential visits by appointment only for the months of April and May. Thank you all for your continued business during this challenging time. We look forward to better days ahead! Sincerely, Jim Ross, Founder & Chairman
FIBRE REPLACEMENT AND CONSTIPATION
by: MARTIN CLUNIES PhD., Monogastric Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers
S
ow constipation around the time of farrowing is often associated with poor sow feed intake and subsequently, decreased sow productivity, often resulting in increased stillborn pigs, poor suckling pig survival and poorer litter weight gain. Often regarded as a consequence of confinement and feeding low fibre diets, sow constipation is more likely a terrestrial mammal adaption associated with the birthing process; to prevent fouling of the nest where piglets are born and allow the sow to stay with the litter in their early days of life by reducing her desire to eat. There are a number of factors which contribute to the severity of constipation in sows. While we know that a part of the syndrome is due to lack of exercise; with a large numbers of sows housed in farrowing crates, it is impractical for sows to be exercised daily in those systems. Adding fibre to the sows diet can be considered, but often comes at a cost, as the most functional fibre ingredients are often more expensive compared to corn. Furthermore, the cost of including high fibre in nurse sow diets is expensive as it displaces the high energy and digestible protein ingredients. During the last 4-5 days before farrowing, it is a common practice to reduce the amount of feed given to the sow to reduce fecal load of the gut. The theory being, that this makes the birthing process easier for the sow as a result of less undigested organic matter needing to be passed. However, this will result in less total water in the hindgut resulting in a greater degree of constipation. Thus, the sow begins to experience con-
Dr. Samuel Waititu, Dr. Saymore Ndou, Monogastric Nutritionists AB/SK: 1-866-610-5770 | MB: 1-866-626-3933 fortifiednutritionltd.com
stipation even before farrowing. Research has confirmed this, showing many sows do not pass feces for 24-48 hrs after being moved to farrowing crates prior to farrowing. The result of constipation is a stagnation of the gut contents, which at times, can lead to pathogenic bacteria such as Clostridia and E.coli multiplying. The latter can produce powerful endo-toxins which when absorbed perturbed hormone secretion and challenge the immune system, all of which can affect sow feed intake and milk production. Endotoxemia can suppress prolactin release and milk let-down, resulting in hard udders and mastitis. Subsequently, piglets nursing poor milking teats may begin to starve, become runts and even die. In this chronic constipation piglet performance is compromised, and a solution is demanded. There are a number of strategies to reduce the occurrence of constipation and its impact on sow productivity. The addition of dietary fibre ingredients such as beet pulp, soybean hulls, wheat shorts, etc. can be added to the diet in that order of preference. Ingredients should be included so as to provide a minimum of 5% fibre, with 8% fibre being about optimum. Loisel et al., (2013) showed that piglets nursing sows fed high fibre diets consumed more colostrum and experienced half as much mortality. The longer a sow takes to have its first stool, the greater the likelihood of decreased sow feed intake, with lower piglet livability and weaning weight. Company research shows that many sows did not have their first stool until day 3 or 4 after farrowing. When we compared a non-fermentable and a fermentable source of fibre, there was only 0.5 day difference between the occurrences of that first post-farrow stool; with the fermentable fibre resulting in the earliest stool event. Soon after having that first stool sows began to increase feed intake rapidly. With the high requirements for energy and digestible protein/amino acids during lactation, the days of not eating have a huge impact on the smaller piglet’s survival. In
Ian Ross, President | Jim Ross, Chairman | David Ross, VP & CMO Dr. Martin Clunies | Bruce Schumann | Adam Totafurno | Kayla Silva, Monogastric Nutritionists Michael Peckover, Publisher
lactation diets, high levels of fibre are often difficult to accommodate nutritionally, such that it may be more practical to feed a high fibre gestating diet prior to farrowing to reduce the impact of constipation. Where the inclusion of fibrous ingredients is not possible, a number of mineral salts with laxative properties can be used. Magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts) with its laxative effect, can be included in the diet at 7.5 to 10 kg per tonne or top dressed to the sow’s feed. Including magnesium sulphate in the diet of sows at farrowing time increases the moisture content of the feces, reducing constipation. While magnesium sulphate can resolve constipation, it is not without potential problems. Some customers have reported problems with early milk let down with the use of magnesium sulphate. Magnesium a di-valent metal, with multiple functions throughout the body, partially competes with the di-valent calcium when at high concentrations in the blood, and may affect calcium dependent physiological processes such as smooth muscle contraction. Some studies have shown magnesium sulphate supplementation decreases fat content of both colostrum and milk, which has been associated with lower piglet survival and litter weights (Hou et al., 2014). In contradiction, magnesium sulphate supplementation has also been shown to increase the amount of the colostrum antibodies IgG and subsequently milk antibodies IgA, both of which actually contribute to the survival and growth of nursing piglets. Other studies have also reported no effect or an increase in pig survival and weaning weight as the negative effects are reduced. Other minerals such as sodium and potassium sulphates also have a laxative effect, though to a lesser extent. As both these minerals are monovalent, and therefore will not be “competing” with calcium; less negative effects on early milk let down is expected. Used in combination with magnesium to ameliorate its negative effects, these mixtures reduce the impact of peri-parturient constipation. One of the challenges with adding these salts on a continual basis to feeds, is that the sows physiology adapts to the laxative effect of these minerals, such that after a while it appears that they have not been added to the sow feed. Last but not least is the impact of the sow barn’s water chemistry on constipation. Water that is high in pH, calcium and magnesium typically result in more sow constipation. Removing the minerals or reducing the pH of that water typically reduces sow constipation. In some situations, changing to town water lower in minerals or acidifying the water will have a marked impact on the occurrence of sow constipation. The opposite effect can also occur regionally where water high in sulphates will often cause looseness or diarrhea in sow herds. The best strategy to combat sow constipation is to use a combination approach, with the addition of high fibre to the gestating sow feed, then using a combination of the fibre ingredients and mineral laxatives to the nurse sow diet. This allows the high nutrient levels of the nurse sow feed to be attained, while the combination of the fibre and mineral laxatives provide early punch to reduce constipation prior to and/or after farrowing, which dissipates as the sows physiology adapts to the added minerals in subsequent days. Constipation is perceived as a sow performance limiting syndrome. Sows that are very constipated delay in eating lactation feed. This delay in consuming lactation feed results in poorer early milk production, piglet survival and eventual weaning weight. Adding 4 to 8 % fibre to the sow’s diet reduces the time delay to that first post farrow stool event, initiating increased feed intake. Epsom salts and other mineral sulphates have a laxative effect, and can be used to to reduce the impact of peri-parturent constipation. Developing a high fibre/mineral laxative strategy should be done in conjunction with the farm’s sow feed management. n
THE SMART PIG FARM: BENEFITS OF ON-FARM MONITORING
by: SADIE DOUGLAS Nutritionist, Primary Diets
W
hatever you want to call it; smart farming, precision livestock, real-time monitoring, the rise of technology on pig farms has been increasing in recent years. As producers move towards running their own trials and seeing the benefits of collecting their own data, you can now step onto pig units and see pieces of equipment that were once only found at research institutions. The potential benefits of smart farming are varied and include improving animal health and welfare, increasing profitability, helping with labour shortages, improving farm sustainability and a way to attract young talent to the industry. Whilst the benefit of data is undeniable, it is all too common to see data underutilised or misinterpreted, particularly if the data coming from these technologies isn’t clear or suitably supported and that is where it can be helpful to get other interested parties involved or choosing a monitoring package that is fully supported. As pig nutritionists, we are often crying out for data to help us make more informed decisions and therefore when producers are considering investing in new technologies, it may be useful to get other parties such as nutritionists, veterinarians and other allied industries involved to discuss what data could be useful and whether certain pieces of equipment are going to generate the information wanted as well as how to analyse that data and make informed decisions going forward. The type and level of information that we want will ultimately depend on what the aim of the data collection is. If we are doing a specific trial, for example comparing two different starter feed regimes, then we need to consider proper trial design and the data collection needs to reflect this. For example, if the trial involves the comparison of a number of pens then we need pen feed intake and pen body weights which will allow calculation of FCR’s. Whereas if we are looking for more general monitoring then it may be sufficient to monitor data across multiple pens or at a room level. The very basic information we would want is body weight and feed consumption. From this we can calculate average daily gain, average daily feed intake and feed conversion ratios. Therefore, one of the most obvious benefits of smart farming is the availability of continuous, up to date data which means that we can monitor interventions much more readily and continue to monitor them on a regular basis. The ability to monitor individual piglet birth weight, survivability and performance to slaughter is rare. However, having access to this information allows us to better manage variation throughout the system, for example by examining data for lighter and slower growing pigs can allow us to identify farm-specific issues and then testing and monitoring interventions with the aim of improving the overall performance of the batch. As pig nutritionists, we are required to put together feed regimes and advise on pig performance, and the level of information we are given by producers in order to do this, can vary massively. For example, more often than not we have a weaning weight estimate, but we are unlikely to know weight off the creep regime or out of the nursery. Feed intake is often unknown although the benefit of bagged creep feed means that we can usu-
Swine Grist ally get a good indication of pig feed intake by knowing how many bags of feed a pen of pigs consumed in a set period of time however this is usually done on a temporary basis rather than long term monitoring. This means data is often historical and given how rapidly things change on farm due to changes in genetics, health, environment, management, data can quickly become irrelevant. When putting together feeding regimes and feed specifications, most nutritionists will use growth models to help them determine the optimum programme. Whilst these models will be informed by on farm data, such as ADG and ADFI, ultimately, they are based on estimates. By using technology, we can instead use farm-specific growth curves to help us identify irregularities. This then allows us to more accurately supply nutrients to the pigs and better evaluate the benefits of difference approaches such as grouping pigs and feeding by size, as well as reduce nutrient excess and nitrogen (N) and phosphorus excretion. While we want performance measurements, there can also be benefits from collecting environmental data such as room temperature and water consumption. The use of environmental data can give us a clearer picture about what is happening on farm, for example, are rooms reaching set temperature at weaning? Because low temperature on entry for weaner pigs could certainly impact early feed intake and performance. The benefit of monitoring the performance of pigs to enable adjustments to be made as and when they are needed ensures the continual improvement of pig performance in a world where everything on farm from the genetics to the feed is continually developing. New and existing technologies can assist producers and nutritionists in making better, more informed decisions on feeding programmes based on relevant data. Given the investment required, to ensure that producers get the most benefit from systems, it’s important to consult relevant parties such as nutritionists who can not only help navigate the data but can then make recommendations for feeding and management based on the data, working towards benefits for both the producers and the pig. It is encouraging to hear of GVF’s work trialing new herd management technologies in Canada. n
FNL’S SWINE & POULTRY NUTRITION TEAM EXPANDED TO SERVE CUSTOMERS BETTER
Welcome: SAYMORE NDOU Ph.D., Monogastric Nutritionist, Fortified Nutrition Limited
F
ortified Nutrition Limited wishes to officially introduce Dr. Saymore Ndou who recently joined the Swine and Poultry Nutrition team of Fortified Nutrition Limited in March 2020. Dr. Saymore obtained both his B.Sc. (Agriculture) from Fort Hare University and M.Sc. (Monogastric Nutrition) from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. His Masters studies focused on predicting the voluntary feed intake in nursery to finisher pigs using physicochemical properties of High-fiber diets. His M.Sc. research demonstrated that the physical properties of fibrous co-products in the ration that are often ignored during diet formulation play a central role in detecting the quantity of feed consumed by the pigs and poultry. Among all the physicochemical properties of the feed, water holding capacity emerged to be the most accurate descriptor of bulkiness of feed that controls voluntary feed intake. It is highly recommended that physical properties of the feed should not be ignored during diet formulation. Dr. Saymore graduated with his PhD. in Swine Nutrition from the University of Manitoba in 2019. His PhD. research investigated the interactive effects of dietary fiber and lipid on performance, gut health, fatty acids flows and fermentation in the pig gut. The results from the studies show that both soluble and insoluble fiber reduced fatty acids digestibility, increased bile acids excretion, induced variable effects on performance,
intestinal fermentation, gut development, lipid metabolism and gastrointestinal microbiota composition. Moreover, although soluble fiberenriched diets were more fermentable than insoluble fiber-containing rations, dietary supplementation with beef tallow reduced intestinal fermentation in pigs fed both soluble and insoluble fiber-containing diets. Besides ration formulation for our customers, Dr. Saymore’s other roles at FNL include in-house nutritional support, trouble shooting on-farm issues and lab results, and providing solutions to issues raised. Soon Dr. Ndou will resume farm visits to observe how the products are doing and work hand in hand with Fortified Sales representatives to support customers. Dr. Saymore will work together with Dr. Samuel Waititu from our FNL Winnipeg office. We hope you will have the opportunity to meet in-person and work with Dr. Saymore in the near future. n
BIOFORCE® 100 NEW TRANSITION FEED
by: SAMUEL WAITITU Monogastric Nutritionist, Fortified Nutrition Limited
A
s a company, we have endeavored to design products and feeding programs that are effective, affordable and profitable to the enterprises of our producers. Our alliance with Primary Diets in the U.K on piglet nutrition research gave birth to a superior nursery feeding program starting with a powerful lineup of BioSure™ creep (Boost, Ignite, Surge, Respond and Link), followed by the unbeatable BioForce® Piglet 180 Premix and ends with either BioForce® Piglet 75 Premix or BioForce® Piglet 50 Premix as the transition feeds to the pregrower. These combinations of products have resulted in tremendous and consistent performance that remain unmatched across the Canadian Prairies. Sincerely speaking, we lack enough words to thank the producers who believed in us, tried the products, reported their observations and shared their performance data with us because that feedback has guided our research goals and helped to fine tune the design of our products. Indeed, BioForce® Piglet 100 Premix owes its birth to the producer-initiated feedback and search for a much better transition feed. Producer experience and on farm trials indicate that most often there is a smooth transition between BioForce® Piglet 180 premixe and BioForce® Piglet 75 premix or BioForce® Piglet 50 premix. On some farms with disease challenges and/or poor-quality grains producers are looking for a smoother transition between these diets. Some producers have had to prolong the duration of pigs on the BioForce® Piglet 180 Premix ration or offer a 50-50 blend of BioForce® Piglet 180 Premix with either BioForce® Piglet 75 Premix or BioForce® Piglet 50 Premix, but both strategies increase feed cost. Likewise, some producers have sought special supplements and medication from different sources to mitigate these challenges at an added cost. After considering the challenge, we made the decision to develop BioForce® Piglet 100 Premix as a cost-effective solution for transitioning piglets after BioForce® Piglet 180 Premix. BioForce® Piglet 100 Premix is thus designed to offer a very powerful gut health enhancing formula almost comparable to that of BioForce® Piglet 180 Premix but targeting piglets at a different growth phase. It contains highly digestible protein sources, acidification, multiple amino acids, probiotics, heat stress regulating supplements and essential oils as well as flavours and sweeteners to stimulate the appetites of the piglet. Enhancing gut health, driving higher feed consumption and improving the feed digestibility with BioForce® Piglet 100 Premix will enhance the performance levels of average daily gain and improved feed efficiency. In conclusion, BioForce® Piglet 100 Premix is more suitable for herds with disease challenges, farms with lowquality grains and producers who desire a smoother transition in order to maximize growth performance and shorter time to market. n
for tifiednutritionltd.com
COMPARISON OF FEEDING WITHOUT ANTIBIOTICS IN THE NURSERY
by: VICTORIA SEIP Production Improvement Specialist, Grand Valley Fortifiers
O
ver the past decade, Grand Valley Fortifiers has worked diligently to develop tools and programs to raise an animal from birth to market without the use of antibiotics. Over 3,200,000 hogs have been raised successfully from birth to market without antibiotics (RWA) under the Loblaws PC Free From® program. At one of our trial sites, we wanted to compare a similar conventional nursery budget feeding our BioSure™/BioForce® line of feeds with medications (Chlortetracycline/Tiamulin) and compare it to feeding a similar nutrient based program using Nature’s Blend® feeds without the use of antibiotics (RWA). The budget that was fed can be seen in Table 1. Pigs were housed in two rooms; one room fed the conventional budget and the other fed the RWA budget. Only one pig was lost on each program. Pigs were weighed at weaning, 13 days and upon leaving the nursery. The performance at 13 days and the end of the nursery can be seen in Figures 1-5. Table 1: BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® Nursery Feed Budgets
BioSure™/BioForce®
Nature’s Blend®
Per Pig (kg)
Feed
Per Pig (kg)
Feed
BioSure™ Surge CT
1
Nature’s Blend® #2
1
BioForce® 180 CT
4
Nature’s Blend® 220
4
BioForce® Piglet 32 CT
Balance
Nature’s Blend® Piglet 45
Balance
Figure 1: Weight Gain Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® 19.48 18.34
kg
20 15 10 5 0
4.01
4.0
13 Day BioForce®
38 Day Nature’s Blend™
Figure 2: Average Daily Gain Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® 512
500
482
Figure 4: Feed Cost/Pig Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend $14.44 $14.56 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $4.65 $4.32 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 13 Day 38 Day BioForce®
Nature’s Blend™
Figure 5: Feed Cost/ Kg Gain Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® $1.16 $1.10 $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70
$1.08
$0.74 $0.79 13 Day BioForce®
38 Day Nature’s Blend™
When comparing these two sets of results, we see that performance in the first 13 days is quite comparable; almost the same between the pigs fed the conventional versus RWA program. Similar weight gain was achieved leading to excellent performance results for average daily gain on both sides. It ended up being slightly less expensive in terms of total feed cost and cost/kg gain feeding the Nature’s Blend for the first 13 days, which in the end was likely due to the cost of medications that is included in the conventional feeding regime. It is interesting to see that in the case of this herd, plain feeds did not impact the productivity of the pigs in the first two weeks which contributed to a lower feed cost/pig and feed cost/ kg gain. When analyzing the results just prior to leaving the nursery, we see that the pigs on the conventional feed program did make up some gain over the RWA group of pigs, however the efficiency in feed conversion was comparable between the two groups. The overall cost did come out to be slightly less on the conventional pigs, which may be attributed to a lower inclusion rate conventional premix in the last phase. Overall, both groups of pigs performed very well in the 38 days spent in the nursery. We were able to capture some of the growth and cost differences at different periods of the nursery cycle to help us compare programs and have a better understanding of what feeds can be tailored to certain herds and groups of animals. Producer feedback was very positive. Both groups flew through, with minimal individual treatments, mortality and overall a great group of pigs. We are looking forward to doing more comparisons between conventional and RWA programs in the nursery, testing out our feed technologies and tools in the toolbox. n
g/d
450 400 350 300 250
308
308
13 Day BioForce®
38 Day Nature’s Blend™
FCR
Figure 3: Feed Conversion Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® 1.54 1.55 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1
1.18 1.17
13 Day BioForce®
38 Day Nature’s Blend™
Thought for the Day “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him.” – 2 Chronicles 16:9