Phase feeding of sows in

gestation and lactation

Devi P. Pangeni

Department of Animal Science,

University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.

Background

USDA ERS, 2013

Sow reproductive performance

2

Background

(Kim et al., 2013)

3

Sow selected for:

• Larger litter size

• Milk production (weaning wt.)

• Lean genetics (lower appetite)

Challenging to manage and feed highly

productive sows

Need continuous feeding assessment to fulfill

the requirement

Introduction

Gestational nutrition prepares sow for successful

reproduction throughout their lifetime

As gestation progresses sow shifts from recovering

their body condition from early gestation to build fetal

and mammary tissues in late gestation

4

5

Predicted total protein gain of second

parity sows during gestation

Days of gestation

Pre

dic

ted

to

tal

pro

tein

ga

in, g/d

NRC, 2012

6

Amino Acid requirement for gestation

(NRC, 2012)

Days of gestation

SID

ly

sin

e re

qu

irem

ent,

g/d

7

Energy requirement for gestation

(Goodband et al., 2013)

Feeding a single gestation ration leads to overfeeding in

early gestation and underfeeding in late gestation

(Goodband et al., 2013)

Introduction

Late gestation and early lactation sow often becomes

catabolic mobilizing both protein and fat reserve to

support fetal growth and milk production

(Aherne and Williams, 1992; Pluske et al., 1998)

Extended catabolic condition negatively affect longevity

and productivity of sows

(Foxcroft et al., 1995)

8

Introduction

Milk production in sows peak around third or fourth

week of lactation

As milk production of sows increases, the demand for

lysine also increases

(Noblet and Etienne, 1987)

9

Lysine level and litter growth rate

(Dourmad et al., 1998)

10

Introduction

11

Recent studies suggests AA requirement:

Early gestation is generally less than estimated

Late gestation significantly greater than thought

(Samuel et al., 2012; Levesque et al., 2011)

Estimates are based on N retention and other

metabolic indicators from AA oxidation method(Goodband et al., 2013; Moehn and Ball, 2013; Kim et al., 2013)

Hypothesis

12

Three phase sow feeding program

Based on lysine level and balanced for other essential AA

Provide essential amount of nutrients at appropriate phase

Gestation (d) Lactation (d)

Phase 1 0 - 35 0 – 6

Phase 2 36 - 70 7 – 12

Phase 3 71 - 109 13 - 18

Objective

13

To evaluate the effect of phase feeding lysine

to multiparous gestating and lactating sows

during gestation and lactation

Specific Objectives

14

To determine the effect of phase feeding on:

Sow and litter performance

Plasma metabolomics during the period of

gestation and lactation

Piglet growth performance and robustness through

the nursery phase

15

Materials and Methods

Experiment is being performed at SROC, Waseca, MN

Lactation1 Gestation Lactation2

16

Materials and Methods

Lactation

Phase feeding

N = 88; BW = 267.75 ± 25.6 kg,

BF = 20.8 ± 4.71mm

Phase 1

D (0-6)

0.8 % SID lysine

Phase 2

D (7-12)

1.0 % SID lysine

Phase 3

D (13-18)

1.2 % SID lysine

Control D(0-18)

N = 89; BW = 270.23 ± 25.9kg,

BF = 20.6 ± 4.5 mm

1.0 % SID lysine

Amino acid ratio as percentage of lysine (NRC, 2012)

17

Gestation

Phase feeding

N=38

Phase 1

D (0-35)

0.4% SID lysine

Phase 2

D (36-70)

0.57% SID lysine

Phase 3

D (71-109)

0.7% SID lysine

Control

N=42

D(0-109)

0.57% SID lysine

Materials and Methods

Amino acid ratio as percentage of lysine (NRC, 2012)

Materials and Methods

Sow body weight and backfat measurement at the start

and end of each phase

Litter weight measured within 24 h of birth and end of

each phase

Sows housed in stalls from breeding to 35 days gestation

gestation group pen till 109

farrowing room

18

Statistical Analysis

Analysis was performed using Mixed procedure of SAS

(version 9.3, SAS inst., Inc., Cary, NC)

Generalized Linear model with Poisson distribution for

counts (mummies & Stillborn)

Individual sow as well litter was experimental unit

Significance at P < 0.05

19

20

Results

21

Fee

d I

nta

ke,

kg

Effect of phase feeding vs. control on

sows feed intake during lactation 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total feedintake

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

22

Wei

gh

t, k

gEffect of phase feeding vs. control on sows

weight change during lactation 1

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

Day 0(Farrowing)

Day 6 Day 12 Day 18(Weaning)

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

23

Back

Fa

t, m

mEffect of phase feeding vs. control on sows

backfat change during lactation 1

15

17

19

21

23

25

Day 0(Farrowing)

Day 6 Day 12 Day 18(Weaning)

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

24

Lit

ter

wt.

kg

Effect of phase feeding vs. control on litter weight

during lactation 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Day 0(Farrowing)

Day 6 Day 12 Day 18(Weaning)

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

25

10

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

Effect of phase feeding vs.

control on no. of piglets weanedEffect of phase feeding vs.

control on piglet survivability

No

. of

pig

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

Pig

let

surv

iva

bil

ity, %

26

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Phase

Control

Effect of phase feeding vs. control on wean to

estrus interval

Da

ys

W-E interval

P > 0.05

27

Wei

gh

t, k

gEffect of phase feeding vs. control on sowsweight change during Gestation

200

220

240

260

280

At Breeding Day 35 Day 70 Day 109

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

28

Back

Fa

t, m

mEffect of phase feeding vs. control on sows backfat

change during Gestation

16

17

18

19

20

At Breeding Day 35 Day 70 Day 109

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

29

Fee

d I

nta

ke,

kg

Effect of phase feeding vs. control on

sows feed intake during lactation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total feed

intake

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

30

Wei

gh

t, k

gEffect of phase feeding vs. control on sows

weight change during lactation

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

Day 0(Farrowing)

Day 6 Day 12 Day 18(Weaning)

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

31

Back

Fa

t, m

mEffect of phase feeding vs. control on sows

backfat change during lactation

14

15

16

17

18

19

Day 0(Farrowing)

Day 6 Day 12 Day 18(Weaning)

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

32

Lit

ter

wt.

kg

Effect of phase feeding vs. control on litter weight

during lactation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Day 0(Farrowing)

Day 6 Day 12 Day 18(Weaning)

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

33

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Born Alive

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

Effect of phase feeding vs.

control on no. of born alive

No

. o

f p

igs

No

. o

f p

igs

Effect of phase feeding vs.

control on no. of piglets weaned

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

No. Weaned

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

34

Effect of phase feeding vs.

control on number of mummies

and stillborn per litter

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

Mummies Stillborn

Phase

Control

P > 0.05

No

. o

f p

igs

Effect of phase feeding vs.

control on piglet survivability

from birth to weaning

0

20

40

60

80

100

Phase

Control

Survivability

Pig

let

surv

iva

bil

ity, %

P > 0.05

35

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

W- E interval

Phase

Control

Effect of phase feeding vs. control on wean

to estrus interval

Da

ys

P > 0.05

Summary

Feeding multiparous sow with low SID lysine diet in

early gestation (breeding to 35 days) had no effect on sow

body weight and backfat change during

Feeding high SID lysine diet in late gestation (day 71 to

109) did not improve sow reproductive performance

36

37

SID lysine requirement and intake during gestation

NRC, 2012

Control

Phase

(NRC, 2012)Days of gestation

SID

ly

sin

e, g

/d

38

SID lysine requirement and intake during Lactation

Control

Phase

NRC, 2012

72 g/d

(NRC, 2012)Days of lactation

SID

ly

sin

e, g

/d

Summary

Feed intake during lactational phases and total feed

intake was not affected by phase feeding

Neither litter performance nor sow body weight change

and backfat was affected by treatment

Sows on either treatment maintain their body weight

during lactation however backfat was decreased in

lactation

39

Conclusion

Phase feeding multiparous sow based on lysine

level during lactation and gestation did not affect

sow and litter performance in our experimental

condition

40

Ongoing Research

Plasma metabolomics during the period of gestation and lactation

• Related to amino acid metabolism

Nitrogen Balance study during lactation

Piglet growth performance and robustness through the nursery

phase

• Muscle characteristics at birth

• Nutritional and immunological challenge during

nursery

41

Acknowledgements

Minnesota Pork Board

Swine Unit Staff, SROC, Waseca, UMN

42

Any Questions?

43

Appendices

44

Ingredients ControlTreatment Diet

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Corn 61.155 65.995 61.155 56.045

SBM 17.2 12.5 17.2 22.15

cDDGS 15 15 15 15

CWG 3 3 3 3

ME, kcal/kg 3,381 3,382 3,381 3,379

Crude Protein, % 18.01 16 18.01 20.12

Fermentable fiber, % 13.07 12.24 13.07 13.94

Total Phosphorus 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.67

STTD Phosphorus 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

Calcium 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80

45

Table 1. Ingredient and composition of

(% as fed basis) experimental diets fed to lactating sows

CompositionControl

Treatment Diet

SID, % Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Crude Protein 14.28 12.65 14.28 16.0

Lysine 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.2

Methionine 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.32

Threonine 0.64 0.51 0.64 0.77

Tryptophan 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.23

Arginine 0.91 0.78 0.91 1.06

Histidine 0.42 0.37 0.42 0.46

Isoleucine 0.58 0.51 0.58 0.67

Met+Cyst 0.51 0.46 0.51 0.59

46

Table 1. Ingredient and composition of

(% as fed basis) experimental diets fed to lactating sows

IngredientsControl

Treatment Diet

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Corn 65.03 69.05 65.03 60.62

SBM 10 6 10 14

cDDGS 20 20 20 20

CWG 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

ME, kcal/kg 3,342 3,343 3,342 3,341

Crude Protein, % 15.5 14.03 15.5 17.5

Fermentable fiber, % 12.53 11.82 12.53 13.22

Total Phosphorus 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.8

STTD Phosphorus 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.53

Calcium 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.64

47

Table 1. Ingredient and composition of

(% as fed basis) experimental diets fed to gestating sows

CompositionControl

Treatment Diet

SID, % Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Crude Protein 12.49 11.09 12.49 13.86

Lysine 0.57 0.4 0.57 0.7

Methionine 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.4

Threonine 0.44 0.38 0.44 0.61

Tryptophan 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.19

Arginine 0.73 0.62 0.73 0.85

Histidine 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.40

Isoleucine 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.57

Met+Cyst 1.41 1.31 1.41 1.50

48

Table 1. Ingredient and composition of

(% as fed basis) experimental diets fed to gestating sows

References

Aherne and Williams (1992). Aherne, F.X. and I. H. Williams, 1992. Nutrition for

optimizing breeding herd performance. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food

Animal Practice. 8 (3): 589-608

Aherne, F. 2001. Feeding the lactating sow.

http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/493/feeding-the-lactating-sow.

Clowes, EJ, R Kirkwood, A Cegielski, and FX Aherne. 2003. Phase-feeding protein to

gestating sows over three parities reduced nitrogen excretion without affecting sow

performance. Livest. Prod. Sci.81: 235–246.

Dourmad, J. Y., J. Noblet, and M. E´ tienne. 1998. Effect of protein and lysine supply

on performance, nitrogen balance, and body composition changes of sows during

lactation. J. Anim. Sci. 76:542−550.

Foxcroft, G. R., F. X. Aherne, E. J. Clowes, H. Miller, and L. Zak. 1995. Sow fertility:

The role of suckling inhibition and metabolic status. Pages 377–393 in Animal Science

Research and Development-Moving towards a New Century. Ed. M. Ivan. Ottawa,Ont.,

Canada: Agriculture and Ag-Food Canada

49

References

Goodband, RD, MD Tokach, MAD Goncalves, JC Woodworth, SS Dritz, and

JM DeRouchey. 2013. Nutritional enhancement during pregnancy and its effects

on reproduction in swine. Animal Frontiers. 3(4): 68-75.

Kim, SW, WL Hurley, G Wu, and F Ji. 2009. Ideal amino acid balance for sows

during gestation and lactation. J. Anim. Sci. 87: E123-E132.

Kim, SW, Alexandra C Weaver, Yan Bin Shen and Yan Zhao 2013. Improving

efficiency of sow productivity: nutrition and health Journal of Animal Science

and Biotechnology 2013, 4:26

Levesque, CL, S Moehn, PB Pencharz, and RO Ball. 2011. The threonine

requirement of sows increases in late gestation. J. Anim. Sci. 89: 93-102.

McPherson, RL, F Ji, G Wu, JR Jr. Blanton, and SW Kim. 2004. Growth and

compositional changes in fetal tissues in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 2534-2540.

50

References

Moehn, S., and R. O. Ball. 2013. Nutrition of pregnant sows. In: Proceedings of

the 2013 London Swine Conference, Managing for Production, London,

Ontario. p. 55–63

Noblet, J., and M. Etienne. 1987. Metabolic utilization of energy and

maintenance requirements in lactating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 64:774−781.

NRC. 2012. Nutrient Requirements of Swine (11th edition). National Academic

Press, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 2011. USDA

National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Accessed Sep 10, 2014

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Hogs_and_Pigs/litter_e.asp

51