View
219
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Feeding the breeding herd:Developing gilts, gestating sows
and lactating sows
Typical Problems when Feeding the Breeding Herd
1) Gilt development
Wrong weight
Too fat, too old
2) Gestation
Feeding correct amount
Over‐formulated diets
3) Lactation Feed intake Feed intake Feed intake Feed intake Feed intake Inadequate nutrients
2
Gilt guidelines
Breed at 210 days of age
Minimum weight of 300 lb (130 kg)
At least 1 recorded estrus
3
2
Gilt Development Goals
Breed at second or later estrous at 300 lb(approximately 210 d of age)
• Moderate Growth Rate- Approximately 16 mm back fat at breeding
- 400 lb and < 21 mm backfat at farrowing
– target 15 to 19 mm
Feed 0.1% higher Ca:P than finishing pigs
Feed sow vitamins for at least 30 days before breeding.
4
Gilt Development feed management problems
Healthy gilts growing too fast
Sick gilts growing too slow
Training gilts to ESF setting them back 3 weeks in growth
Obese gilts from being on full‐feed feeders for multiple cycles
Feeding too little/much in first gestation
Problems with overfeeding gestating sows:
Unnecessary expense Impaired mammary development
Reduced feed intake in lactationProblem with thin sows:
Poor reproductive performance
Increased mortality
Welfare (ex. shoulder sores)
Common Nutritional Problem:Over‐feeding gestating sows
6
3
Tracking gestation and lactation feed intakeSix month rolling average
kg
kg
7
Translating Condition Score to Feeding Rate
• Calibration of feed boxes
• Determine “base” feeding rate– Female size
– Thermal environment
• Feed “base” to females in ideal condition
• Feed less to fat sows
• Feed more to thin sows
8
Gestation feed usage
Feed delivered (total kg in period)gestation sow inventory x days in period
• Normal range of 7.0 to 7.7 Mcal ME/sow/day
• Daily feed intake should be:
If diet ME is 3.1 Mcal ME/kg = 4.8 to 5.4 lb/d
If diet ME is 3.3 Mcal ME/kg = 4.6 to 5.0 lb/d
9
4
Sow maintenance requirements in gestation
80% of feed requirement
10
Using the weight tape
11
Backfat by Percent of Sows at Farrowing
12
5
Body Condition Scoring
Courtesy Dr. Joe ConnorCarthage Vet Service
13
Influence of Backfat at Farrowing on Lactation Feed Intake
a, b P < 0.05SED = 0.14
a, b, c P < 0.05SED = 0.38
a ab
a
b
c
Young et al., 2004
14
Influence of Backfat at Farrowing on Subsequent Total Born
a, b, c P < 0.05SED = 0.44
ab
a
b
Young et al., 2004
15
6
Why Condition Score?
• Sow condition drives lactation feed intake
• Lactation feed intake drives weaning weight and subsequent reproductive performance
• Body condition can affect sow productivity
• Sow condition affects longevity
• Over-feeding increases feed cost
16
Effect of Gilt Gestation Feeding on Lactation Intake
1 7 14 21Day of Lactation
12
10
8
6
4
Lb
Gestation Feed Intake, lb4 5 6
Dourmad et al., 1991
90O
75O
60O
7
Case Study
• Large production system in the U.S. with high gestation feed usage and low lactation intake
• Changed gestation feeding program to lower intake and tracked changes in reproductive performance
20
Tracking gestation and lactation feed intakeSix month rolling average
kg
8
Relationship between lactation feed intake and subsequent born alive
Relationship between lactation feed intake and interval from wean to estrus
Average Daily Gestation Intake, lb
Implementation of Gestation Feeding program was July/August 2003
24
9
Pigs Weaned per Sow Per Year
25
Annual Sow Mortality
26
Is the Gestation Feed Intake Pattern Important?
0 12 45 75 100 112
We
an
ing
Gestation Lactation
Yes ‐ Research supports this pattern!
and
No ‐ You can have great production without a pattern!
10
Sow – Feeding Strategy
8
7
6
5
4
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Wea
n
Feed to Condition
Mat
e
lbs offeed
Weeks post-mating
Reduce EmbryonicMortality
HigherIntake
Farr
ow
Post Weaning Recovery: Influence of feed intake in early gestation on embryo survival
67.4
75.8
84.680.6
50
60
70
80
90
100
4 lb 8 lb 4 lb 8 lb
Embr
yo s
urvi
val,
%
Baidoo et al. (1992)
Low High During Lactation
29
Good Resource in Feeding After Breeding• Dr Tim Safranski University of Missouri-
Columbia
• 573-884-7994
• sanfranskit@missouri.edu
30
11
Day 0 to 30 of gestation Classic data indicated high intake from d 0
to 30 reduced embryo survival
Now know:
• Only in gilts or sows in good condition
• First 48 to 72 hours are the critical period
• Want to provide more nutrients for sows in poor condition
0 12 30 45 75 100 112
Gestation Lactation
Day 12 to 45 of gestation
Feed to maintain body condition
May be impact area of the future???
•Period of muscle differentiation
•pST, high feed intake, or other possibilities
0 12 45 75 100 112
Gestation Lactation
Gestation Treatments that Increase Total Muscle Fiber Number in Offspring
Tota
l mu
scle
fib
ers
12
Day 45 to 100 of gestation
Feed to maintain body condition
Critical period for mammary development (d75 to 100)
• Excess energy will decrease secretory cells, DNA, and RNA in mammary gland and lower milk production
Day 45 to 100
0 12 45 75 100 112
Gestation Lactation
Effect of gestation energy intake on mammary development and milk production
Item
Mammary DNA, mg/g tissue
Secretory Cells, 106/g tissue
Milk production, kg/d
Fat Gilts
0.5
15.4
7.0
Lean gilts
2.1
19.7
8.9
Head and Williams, 1991
Day 100 to 112 of gestation Increase intake by 1 to 2 kg per day
Period of exponential fetal growth
• Failure to increase energy may result in sows in catabolic state at farrowing.
- May contribute to sows gorging and “going off feed” after farrowing
0 12 30 45 75 100 112
Gestation Lactation
13
Bump Feeding Late Gestation
• Rapid growth of fetuses last 3 weeks of gestation
• Historically have done it “blindly”
• As feed prices increase is bump feeding still cost effective?– Each 1 lb bump for 30 days costs >
$2.60/litter
37
Difference in
individual piglet
birth weight, g
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
‐20
‐40
Absolute difference in piglet birth weight compared to January 2014
(PIC, 2015)
+ 60 g‐ 100 g
How easy is to manipulate piglet birth weight from a nutritional
perspective?
14
Buitrago et al., 1974
1.03a
1.18ab1.21b
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
2.2 5.1 8.0
Piglet birth weight, kg
Feed intake, kg/d
0.7 1.5 2.4
P < 0.05SD = 0.07
Feed intake x Piglet birth weight
Early and mid(virtually no impact)
Late
Dwyer et al., 1994Nissen et al., 2003Bee, 2004Heyer et al., 2004Lawlor et al., 2007
Cromwell et al., 1989Miller et al., 2000Shelton et al., 2009Soto et al., 2011Gonçalves et al., 2015
Gestation length
Feed intake x Piglet birth weight
Cromwell et al., 1989
8 universities; 1,080 females; 10,6 Total born
1.44a 1.48b
1.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.7
1.8 3.2Piglet birth weight, kg
Feed intake, kg/d
P < 0.01SD = 0.21
Corn-SBM based diet
+ 40 g(2.7%)
15
1.31.4
1.5 1.5
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.40 (0.49) 0.49 (0.59) 0.59 (0.68) 0.68 (0.78)
Piglet birth weight, kg
Quadratic, P < 0.01EPM = 0.02
SID Lys x Piglet birth weight
SID Lys (Total), %
Zhang et al., 2011
9.7 Total born
Energy x piglet birth weightIndependently of SID Lys or parity
(Gonçalves et al., 2015)
1.33a1.36b
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.85 2.75
Born alive piglet birth
weight, kg
Consumo de ração, kg/d
P = 0.01SEM = 0.008
+ 30 g(2.3%)
5,90 8,85
Energy intake, Mcal NE/d
4.50 6.75
Lysine x Piglet birth weightIndependently of Energy or Parity
(Gonçalves et al., 2015)
1.34 1.35
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.85 2.75
Born alive piglet birth
weight, kg
SID Lys, g/d
P = 0.29EPM = 0.008
10.7 20.0
16
Energy x StillbirthIndependently of SID Lys
(Gonçalves et al., 2015)
3.4a 3.4a4.4a
6.5b
0
2
4
6
8
1.85 2.75
Stillbirth, %
Consumo de ração, kg/d
LeitoasPorcas
Parity x Energy, P = 0.01SEM = 0.8
5,90 8,85
Energy intake, Mcal NE/d
4.50 6.75
GiltsSows
Increasing feeding level from d 90 to farrowing by 2 lb(0.9 kg) will:
• Increase sow and gilt weight gain
• Increase birth weight by 30 g/pig
• Increase feed cost by $3.00 to $5.00 per sow
Current recommendation –
• If you bump feed, do gilts and/or thin sows
• No more than 2 lb and no sooner than d 90 of gestation
Bump feeding summary47
48
3.23
2.84
2.98
2.85
3.04
2.842.91
2.82
2.69
2.91 2.91
3.63
2.92
3.20
2.85
3.08
2.832.94
2.962.91
2.943.03
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
Kentucky NebraskaCommercial
Applewood IowaCommercial
SouthAmerica
Commercial
UtahCommercial
Applewood Applewood Applewood Applewood Applewood Average
Birth Weight, lb
* Means statistically different than negative control (P < 0.05)** Means statistically different than negative control (P < 0.10)
Control
Gen 1
Gen 2
Evosure
***
*
*
17
Pre-Weaning Mortality, %
8.2
13.4
12.2
12.8
11.6
12.9
12.2
10.410.8
8
10.4
11.2
6.3
10.8
9.3
10.9
10.2
11.6
11
9.9 10.1
7.5
8.4
9.6
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
University ofKentucky
NebraskaCommercial
Applewood IowaCommercial
SouthAmerica
Commercial
UtahCommercial
Applewood Applewood Applewood Applewood Applewood Average
*
* Means statistically different than negative control (P < 0.05)** Means statistically different than negative control (P < 0.10)
Control
Gen 1
Gen 2
Evosure
*
***
Wean Weight, lb
13.6
12.9
10.8
11.8
12.5
14.6
10.8
12.6
11.1
12.1
12.612.3
15.3
13.5
11.0
12.7 12.6
15.1
10.6
13.2
11.4
12.6
13.5
12.9
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
Kentucky NebraskaCommercial
Applewood IowaCommercial
SouthAmerica
Commercial
UtahCommercial
Applewood Applewood Applewood Applewood Applewood Average
* Means statistically different than negative control (P < 0.05)** Means statistically different than negative control (P < 0.10)
Control
Gen 1
Gen 2
Evosure
*
*
*
**
Day 112 to 114 of gestation
Controversial area
Recommend feeding at least 1.8 kg/day to:
• increase feed intake rapidly after farrowing
•prevent potential ulcer problems
•Consider full feeding
0 12 30 45 75 100 112
Gestation Lactation
18
Ad lib vs restricted feeding from d ‐4 to d 7 of lactation
52
Cool et al. 2014
Ad lib vs restricted feeding from d ‐4 to d 7 of lactation
Cool et al. 2014
Full feed from d 108 of gestation to weaning vs. normal program
Item Full feed Normal P <
Lactation intake, kg/d 5.3 5.8 0.166
Intake from d 108 to wean, total kg 129 117 0.054
Backfat change in lactation, mm ‐2.6 ‐1.6 0.034
Backfat change d 108 to farrow, mm ‐0.05 ‐1.7 0.001
Backfat change d 108 to wean, mm ‐2.6 ‐3.3 0.188
Colostrum yield, kg 4.0 3.5 0.074
Increased PUFA in colostrum and decreased NEFA in plasma with full feed
54
Decaluwe et al. 2014
19
Energy Requirements
Feed requirements for gestating sow by standing time
Scenario 1 2 3
Housing system ‐ Individual ‐ ‐Group ‐
Sow standing time, min/day 240 360 360
Temperature, ºF 68 68 68
Floor type Slat Slat Slat
Feed intake (d 0 to 90), lb/d 4.87 5.09 5.09
Avg feed intake (d 0 to 114), lb/dc 5.07 5.29 5.29
Energy required, kcal ME 7,203 7,517 7,517
55
Energy Requirements
Feed requirements for gestating sow by temperature and floor type
Scenario 3 4 5
Housing system ‐ ‐ Group ‐ ‐
Sow standing time, min/day 360 360 360
Temperature, ºF 68 50 50
Floor type Slat Slat Straw
Feed intake (d 0 to 90), lb/dc 5.09 5.60 5.26
Avg feed intake (d 0 to 114), lb/dc 5.29 5.79 5.46
Energy required, kcal MEd 7,517 8,238 7,758
56
Energy Requirements
Accounting for Feed Wastage
• Feeding levels will likely need to be increased by 5 to 10% for wastage for sows that are floor‐fed compared to ESF‐fed.– ~0.5 lb per day
57
20
Energy Requirements
Adjusting for body condition – Competitive Systems
• Sows should be grouped by parity and body condition.
• Feeding levels may need to be increased slightly to account for variation in feed intake that occurs in competitive feeding situations.
58
Energy Requirements
Extra feed before and after mixing
• Providing high levels of feed just prior to and for the first couple days after mixing may be necessary to have sow’s nearly full fed to reduce fighting. – Extra feed will increase feed wastage and cost.
59Photo: Lee Whittington, Prairie Swine Centre (Canada)
Diet and Feed Characteristics
Decreasing the energy density by adding fiber
• Suggested to provide gut fill and make the sows feel more comfortable.
• Most research has demonstrated reduced stereotypic behaviors in gestating sows fed high dietary fiber; however, not all research has observed this response.
• Increasing fecal excretion and difficulties in manure handling systems also must be considered
60
21
Diet and Feed Characteristics
Calibrating feeding levels
• The quantity delivered must be adjusted as the bulk density of the diet changes to provide the proper amount of feed to the sow.
61
Common Nutritional Problem:Limiting Lactation Feed Intake
62
Lactation FeedingGoals:
Maximize feed intake•Prepare sow for rebreeding
- Litter size and prompt return to estrus
•Maximize milk production
Match nutrient levels to feed intake and level of productivity
Maintain reasonable feed cost per weaned pig
22
Lactation Feed Intake Problem:
•Too many people voluntarily or involuntarily limit sow feed intake
Goal:•Get sows to eat as much as possible!
Reasons why:•Energy intake (and amino acids) will drive milk production
•Energy intake affects reproductive hormones
64
Effect of feed intake during lactation on milk yield and sow weight loss
Adapted from Whittemore, 1984
65
Impact of Lactation Weight Loss
Thaker et al., 2005
66
23
How to determine feed intake
3,000 sow farm
450 farrowing crates
3,615 litters in 6 month period
Weaning weight = 46 kg at 19 days
381 tons of lactation feed used in 6 months
Meticulous lactation sow feed intake records
How to calculate lactation feed intake?
Total feedCrates x days
2)
Total feedLitters x lactation length
3)
Count feed records for individual sows1)
How to calculate lactation feed intake?
Total feedCrates x days
2)
Total feedLitters x lact length
3)
Count feed records for individual sows1) = 6.5 kg/day
381 tons x 1000 kg450 crates x 182 d
= = 4.7 kg/day
381 tons x 1000 kg3,615 x 19 d
= = 5.5 kg/d
24
Factors affecting sow lactation feed intake
Ambient Environment
Facilities Equipment
Sow Factors
Gestation Feed Intake
Feeding Management
Air Velocity
Ambient Temperature
Evaporative Cooling
Humidity
Ventilation Rates
Feeder Design
Floor Surface
Crate Design
Lactation Length
Litter Size
Genetics
Parity
Disease
Feeding Frequency
Amount/feeding
Feed Monitoring
70
Factors influencing lactation feed intake
Gestation feed intake
Feeding management
• Frequency
• Level
Barn temperature
Water availability
71
Water Availability
Nipple drinker should allow a flow of 2 liters per minute
72
25
10 19 22 30
Effects of ambient temperature on energy intake of lactating sows
Zone of thermal comfort
Ambient Temperature, Celsius
Vol
unta
ry e
nerg
y in
take Critical Temperature
LCT UCT19 22 C66 72 F
73
Temperature & lactation performance
Quiniou and Noblet, 1999
Effect of Drip Cooling
Drip Control
Feed/day, kg5.8 4.8
Sow Wt Loss, kg3.8 17.5
Litter Weaning Wt, kg56 51
Nichols et al. 1983
75
26
Hand-feeding vs. self-feeder
• Treatments– Hand-fed (57 sows)
• Fed to appetite 2x/d– An amount slightly exceeding
disappearance in previous meals
– Self-feeder (57 sows)• Feed manually added to
hopper 1 to 2 times/d• Nipple in feeder
Automated ProductionSystems
J. Anim. Sci. 85:853
Feed disappearance
P < 0.01
+ 8%
J. Anim. Sci. 85:853
78
27
Piglet weaning wt
+ 8%
P < 0.01
J. Anim. Sci. 85:853
Hand-feeding vs. self-feeder
• Treatments (96 PIC C23 gilts)– Hand-fed
• Fed to appetite 4x/d
– Self-feeder• Sow operated a dispensing
mechanism with a hopper
J. Anim. Sci 82(Suppl 2):6580
Feed Disappearance
P < 0.05
+ 7%
J. Anim. Sci 82(Suppl 2):65
28
Backfat Loss
P < 0.05
- 42%
J. Anim. Sci 82(Suppl 2):65
Hand vs. Self-Feeding Summary
Study % increase in feed
disappearanceP value
Michigan State 8 < 0.01
Univ. Illinois 7 < 0.05
Netherlands –Hoofs et al. 1993
10 ?
Time of Day & Feed Consumed
Time % of total daily feed
consumed
Midnight to 6:00 am 24
6:00 am to noon 38
Noon to 6:00 pm 20
6:00 pm to midnight 18
2007 ASAS Midwest abstract #32189 lactating sows
29
Corn Particle Size for Sows
Linear P = 0.04
J. Anim. Sci: 73:421
Corn Particle Size for Sows
J. Anim. Sci: 73:421
Linear P = 0.05
Courtesy Dr. Joe Connor
87
6.8 kg4.8 kg5.2 kg
Avg
30
Feed Wastage
• Poor feeder design
• Worn-out feeders
• Poorly adjusted
88
Lactation diet basics
More energy than corn‐soy diet
At least 60 g/d of SID lysine intake•Typically 0.95 to 1.15% SID lysine
0.75 to 1.0% total Ca (without phytase)
> 0.4% avail P
10 lb/ton of salt
89
Nutrition for the breeding herd: Focus on the basics
1) Gilts
135 kg at 210 d
2nd estrus
2) Gestation
Average 4.5 to 5.0 lb/d
Don’t over‐formulated
3) Lactation Ad libitum intake Higher amino acids andenergy with increased litter size
90
31
Meeting Nutritional Needs of Breeding Boars
91
• Kemp, 1989 - Lysine intake 18g/d vs.31g/d no difference in sperm production
• Louis, 1993 – Extreme restriction ofprotein, 7 g/d lysine reduced libido
Protein Effects on Sperm Output
92
Effects of fiber upon doses of semen/ejaculate
1 2 3 4 5 6
Weeks
Doses of semen
2.9% fiber 4.9% fiber
Mark Wilson, when with JBS
32
Monitor and Avoid Mycotoxins
• Zearalenone - Ruhr et al, 1983 decreased sperm production
• Aflatoxin B1- decreased fertility and semen quality - Levis,1997
94
(billions/week) as affected by feeding level
Kemp, 1989
1-6 7 8 9 10 11 120
50
100
150
200
HM
L
Number of Sperm Cells Ejaculated
Boar Nutrition
• How to set feeding rates and minimum feeding levels
http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2748/boar-nutrition/
96
33
Good Source on Boar Feed Questions• Mark E Wilson
• 952-983-3841
• mwilson@zinpro.com
97
Specific Nutritional Considerations
• Meeting protein and energy needs– Under feeding results in reduced libido and semen output
• Vitamins – Feet and legs (biotin)
– Vitamin C (not likely needed)
– Vitamin E (likely do not need more than the sow)
• Trace Minerals– Zinc, copper, chromium, selenium, manganese, iron
– I do use some organic selenium
• Other (not compelling)– L-carnitine
– Betaine
• Fiber– Welfare
– Satiety
98
Boar Basic Plan
• Ask what the least they feed any boar
• Put 16 grams of TID lysine in that amount of feed
• Use the TID amino acid ratios– 70 for methionine plus cysteine
– 74 for threonine
– 67 for valine
– 58 for isoleucine
– 20 for tryptophan
• Use the sow VTM
• Clean fiber if available 5% crude fiber in diet
• 9 lb of salt99
34
Thank You!
Recommended