Issuu

Swine Grist

A PERIODIC NEWSLETTER PRODUCED BY GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS VOLUME 22, 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 30Â°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 have 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 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

ow constipation around the time of farrowing is often associated with decreased sow productivity along with increased number of stillborn pigs, poor sow feed intake, reduced suckling pig survival and poorer litter weight gain. Sow constipation is often regarded as a consequence of confinement and feeding low fibre diets, although it is more likely a terrestrial mammal adaption associated with the birthing process. The strategy prevents fouling of the nest where piglets are born and allows the sow to stay with the litter in their early days of life by reducing her desire to eat. Constipation around the time of farrowing has consequences which reduce the productivity of the sow. There are a number of factors which contribute to the severity of constipation in sows. While we know that part of the issue is the lack of exercise due to sows housed in farrowing crates, it is impractical for sows to be exercised daily in those systems. The addition of fibre to the diet generally comes at a cost since 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. Typically, 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. The result is that there is less undigested organic matter to be passed resulting in less water being bound to the organic matter in the hindgut, all of which results in a greater degree of

GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS PO Box 726 Cambridge ON N1R 5W6 1-800-567-4400 grandvalley.com

constipation. As a result the sow begins to experience constipation 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, hence pathogenic bacteria such as Clostridia and E.coli multiply, producing powerful endo-toxins which, when absorbed, perturbs hormone secretion and challenges the immune system, all of which can affect sow feed intake and milk production. Endotoxemia can suppress prolactin release and milk let-down, leading to hard udders and mastitis. Therefore, piglets nursing poor milking teats begin to starve, become runts, and even die. In this chronic constipation, piglet performance is compromised, and a solution is demanded. There are several 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, and wheat shorts can be added to the diet in that order of preference. Ingredients should be included to provide a minimum of 5% fibre, with 8% fibre being 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 the sow takes to have that first manure, the greater likelihood of decreased sow feed intake, along with lower piglet livability, and weaning weight. Company research has shown that many sows did not have their first manure 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 occurrence of that first post-farrow manure, with the fermentable fibre resulting in the earliest manure event. Soon after having that first manure 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 piglets survival. In 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 few mineral salts with laxative properties can be used. Magnesium sulfate or 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 does resolve the constipation condition it is not without potential problems. Some customers have reported problems with early milk let down with the use of Epsom salts. 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 contraction. Some studies have shown magnesium sulphate supplementation decreases fat content of both colostrum and milk, reducing piglet survival, piglet and litter weights (Hou et at., 2014). In that study, magnesium sulphate supplementation also increased the amount of the colostrum antibodies IgG and subsequently milk antibodies IgA, both of which would have contributed to the survival and growth of nursing piglets. Other studies 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. Their mono-valence results in not competing with calcium with less negative effect on early milk let down. Used in combination with magnesium to mitigate its negative effect, 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 results 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 - 8% fibre to the sows diet reduces the time delay to that first post farrow manure 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

TESTING OUT TRANSITION FEEDS

by: VICTORIA SEIP Production Improvement Specialist, Grand Valley Fortifiers

main focus for Grand Valley Fortifiers nursery trial work is to look at the most effective ways to feed pigs in terms of productivity and profitability throughout the nursery period. The choice to feed certain nursery programs depends on what the producer is looking to achieve, whether it be extra gain with a greater focus on cost/kg gain and margin over feed or a more cost effective program narrowing down the feed cost per pig. One of the most recent nursery trials conducted looked at feeding 1 kg of Respond followed by 4 kg of BioForce® 180 or BioForce® 100 (Table 1). Table 1: BioForce® 180 vs. BioForce® 100 Feed Budget Program 1

Program 2

Respond CT

1 kg

BioForce® 180 CT

4 kg

—

BioForce® 100 CT

—

4 kg

Balance

BioForce® Piglet 32 CT

This trial was conducted side by side on a group of 510 pigs, with 255 pigs per treatment. Piglets were weighed at weaning and at 14 days and feed was weighed and tracked during that period. The average weaning weight was 7.96 kg for the BioForce® 180 program and 7.87 kg for the BioForce® 100 program. We predicted that the pigs fed the BioForce® 180 would likely come out with extra weight gain. However, the pigs fed the BioForce® 100 would have a reduced feed cost. The results for the first 14 days were as follows (Table 2). Table 2: 14 Day Trial Results BioForce® 180

BioForce® 100

Weight Gain (kg)

5.07

4.51

Average Daily Gain (g/d)

362

322

Feed Consumed/Pig (kg)

6.2

5.56

FCR

1.22

1.23

Feed Cost/Pig ($)

$4.94

$4.19

Feed Cost/kg LWG ($/kg)

$0.98

$0.93

Margin Over Feed ($/Pig)

$10.26

$9.34

Margin over feed (MOF) can be defined by the margin made by the producer based on $3/kg feeder pig value multiplied by nursery weight gain minus the nursery feed cost. In this case, at 14 days, the BioForce® 180 pigs had a MOF that was $0.92 more per pig than the animals on the BioForce® 100 budget. This difference is greater than the savings in overall feed cost. When analyzing the results of these two nursery budgets, it important to consider the time and place for each feeding regime. In this case, the pigs performed very well on both the BioForce® 180 and BioForce® 100. It is always critical to consider the weaning weight of the pigs when choosing the nursery budget and transition feed because, for example, a 6 kg

Swine Grist pig will not have the same performance capabilities as an 8 kg pig on a lower inclusion base mix. However, this information does show us that with a heavy weaning weight, we may be able to save a few dollars with decent performance by choosing the lower inclusion BioForce® 100. In this trial, the pigs on the BioForce® 180 did finish up their transition feed two days earlier than the pigs on the BioForce® 100. This may be a result of palatability and digestibility. Overall, our hypothesis was proven true. Feeding the BioForce® 180 program did result in improved performance, however the BioForce® 100 resulted in a feed cost savings/pig. A better start in the nursery has proven to lead to a better finish, with extra kilograms out of the nursery resulting in fewer days to finish. It is important to have a clear understanding of farm specific nursery goals in order to maximize efficiency, whether it be extra weight gain or feed cost savings. Stay tuned for more trial numbers! n

THE SMART PIG FARM: BENEFITS OF ON-FARM MONITORING

by: SADIE DOUGLAS Nutritionist, Primary Diets

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 into 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 underutilized 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 analyze 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 ex-

amining 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 usually 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 program. 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 program 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

grandvalley.com

COMPARISON OF FEEDING WITHOUT ANTIBIOTICS IN THE NURSERY

by: VICTORIA SEIP Production Improvement Specialist, Grand Valley Fortifiers

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)

BioSure™ Surge CT

Nature’s Blend® #2

BioForce® 180 CT

Nature’s Blend® 220

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 20 15 10 5 0

4.01

4.0

13 Day

38 Day

BioForce® Nature’s Blend® Figure 2: Average Daily Gain Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® 512 482 500

g/d

450

BioForce®

Nature’s Blend®

Figure 5: Feed Cost/ Kg Gain Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® $1.16 $1.08 $1.10 $1.00 $0.90 $0.74 $0.79 $0.80 $0.70 13 Day 38 Day BioForce®

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

400 350 300 250

308

13 Day BioForce®

38 Day Nature’s Blend®

Figure 3: Feed Conversion Between BioSure™/BioForce® vs. Nature’s Blend® 1.54 1.55

FCR

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

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