Challenges for feeding swine in 2020Dan Bussières, Groupe Cérès inc

• Animal production faces various challenges to which the industry

must be able to adapt to keep its markets and especially, maintain

some profitability

• Pork is no exception, and we must continue to innovate but also

sometimes go back to the basics of nutrition and management to

ensure the success of our business

• Safety nets in nutrition and health are wearing thin, now forcing us

to walk on the fine line between the financial success and failure of

our herd

• The purpose of the presentation is to provide an overview of the

factors linked to feed and management, which are critical in facing

the new realities

Introduction

• The new realities

• Impact of zinc and feed additives

• Day 1 – birth, immunity

• Birth weight and weaning age/weight

• Environment-temperature-barn sanitation

• Water acidification and treatment

• Feed formulation – level of protein, fibre, energy

• Alternatives to zinc, other additives

• Green feed – no animal by-product

• Ingredients biosecurity

Presentation plan

• Reduced antibiotic use

• 20% reduction goal in Quebec

• Ban on classes 1

• New standards to come for zinc

• Will we still be able to use doses of 2,000-3,000 ppm?

• Restriction for source of animal protein

• Blood plasma and others

• New technologies vs. approval in Canada

• Hard to have new product/technology approved

• Biosecurity vs. ingredient source

• PPP – China/Asia

The new realities

Challenge #1:

• Nutrition and management for the period around weaning

• Need healthy piglet with a good feed intake

• Quick and optimal feed intake to avoid compromising intestinal epithelium development

• Importance of doing things right, day after day

Where is the challenge?

Impact of zinc and medicated feed additives

Zinc (4 trials)

Medicated feed additive

(12 trials)

ADG 15 to 25 g/day 0 to 55 g/day

Weight 0.70 to 1.25 kg 0 to 2.30 kg

FE 0 to 0.03 pts 0 to 0.07 pts

Mortality 0 to 7% 0.30 to 3.50%

$/piglets $1.10 to $9.10 $0.30 to $7.80

Average trials data HyLife-Cérès 2006-2019

Impact of zinc and medicated feed additives

Zinc (10 trials)

Medicated feed additive

(13 trials)

ADG 10 to 55 g/day 5 to 75 g/day

Weight 0.50 to 2.90 kg 0.25 to 3.50 kg

FE 0 to 0.06 pts 0 to 0.05 pts

Mortality 1% * 1%*

$/piglets $1.75 to $6.20 $1.40 to $7.00

Data - KSU Swine Day 2014-2019

* Mortality not available, assume 1% on average

• For zinc, reduction to doses < 500 ppm during phases 1 and 2

• Average impact of $1.50 to $7.50/piglet

• For complete removal of medicated feed additives

• Impact will be $0.80 to $7.40/piglet

• Does not always include the use of soluble and injectable antibiotic

• Not necessarily ABF or RWA full program

• Combined impacts of lower zinc doses and the removal of feed additives?

• Greater impact, maybe even double

Impact of zinc and medicated feed additives

• Sow well prepared before farrowing, need to avoid overweight female

• Proper nutrition, avoid the MMA syndrome

• Fibre, water, avoid constipation, no toxin…

• Importance of colostrum

• Heat and dry condition

• Vigorous piglets – avoid too early induction

• Short farrowing process

• Temperature monitoring – know how to recognize and treat sows with fever– ex. Meloxicam

Birth – Day 1 – Essentials

• Make sure to provide the piglets with a proper environment

• Impact of thermal stress during transport and/or upon arrival

Environment and sanitation

Weight loss can represent $0.80/piglet excluding costs of treatments and runts

M.Vignola Porc Show 2018. Source: J. Spencer ( 2018) Banff Pork Seminar

ADG ADFI FE # Runts # Injections

0-8 d weaning stress/cold -14.30% -2.80%

9-15 d post-weaning normal -4.30% -7.80%

Total duration post-weaning -2.00% -1.7% -1.40% X 8 X 10

• Temperature, drying, washing and disinfecting

• Priority #1 - washing

• Priority #2 - drying

• Priority #3 – disinfecting with soap

Environment and sanitation

Section Washing with disinfection

No washing with disinfection

% difference

Starter 572 g/d 500 g/d 14.4%

Grower 671 g/d 621 g/d 8.1%

Finisher 736 g/d 692 g/d 6.4%

Source: Cargill and Banhazi 1998, Australia

Environment and sanitation

Method ADG (g/d) % difference ADG vs. washing alone

Washing alone 866

Washing + soap 889 + 2.67%

Washing + disinfecting 894 + 3.19%

Washing + soap + disinfecting

917 + 5.91%

Source: London Swine Conference, April 2005

Impact of washing + soap + disinfecting

• Need piglets that are easier to manage during lactation and post-weaning

• Need piglets that are older so heavier, but also piglets as heavy as possible for the same age

• Impact on performances and mortality

• HyLife data on more than 7,600 piglets followed from birth to slaughter

Birth weight, age and weaning weight

• Birth weight is important

• Harder to influence, but just think about the impact of farrowing induction being done too early

Birth weight - performances

1 day gestation =

+ 75 g birth

+ 0.165 kg weaning

+ 0.50 kg nursery

+ 1.35 kg at market

PIC not published: 75 g birth = 220 g weaning

• + 75 grams on average at birth = 1.30% reduction PWM and a further 0.20% mortality in nursery

• Adapted from PIC Tech Memo 338-ES 401

Birth weight - mortality

Performances

• Economically speaking, this represents a potential added margin of $24/sow or $0.90/pig sold

Mortality

• Reduction in pre-weaning and nursery mortality equivalent to $0.75/pig

Total: $1.65/pig

Birth weight - economic

• Impact of increasing weaning age on weight

Weaning age - performances

+ 1 day=

+ 0.245 kg weaning + 0.80 kg nursery

+ 1.70 kg at market(fixed time)

#1 no impact on the number of litters/sow/year

• + 1 day represents a potential added margin of $27/sow or $1/pig sold

#2 impact on the number of litters/sow/year

• + 1 day represents a potential added margin of $21/sow or $0.80/pig sold

+ impact on mortality 0.25% = $0.15/pig

(Main et al 2004)

Weaning age - economic

• Do you optimize the use of your farrowing crate?

• Washing period vs. farrowing create loading

• Entry in farrowing vs. date of farrowing

• Pre-batch breeding for batch farrowing system

• Impact of the non-management of your gilt pool with heat no serve date and your schedule for batch breeding

• Use of Regumate, early detection, heat no serve (HNS)

• Pre-weaning of pig during lactation

Weaning age - others

• In addition to having to optimize the weaning age, it is also important to optimize the weight of the piglets, regardless of their age

Weaning weight - performances

+ 0.5 kg weaning(for same weaning age)

+ 1 kg nursery+ 1.75 kg at market

Weaning weight - mortality

7.36%

5.33%

4.18%

3.18%

2.14%

3.50%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

< 4.0 kg 4.0-5.0 kg 5.0-6.0 kg 6.0-7.0 kg > 7.0 kg Moyenne

% m

ort

alit

y

Weaning weight (kg)

Weaning weight vs. % nursery mortality

Source: HyLife R&D Farm

Weaning weight - mortality

% < 4 kg % 4-5 kg % 5-6 kg % 6-7 kg % > 7 kg

6,3 kg 4.10% 11.90% 23.80% 28.50% 31.70%

6,8 kg 2.50% 7.90% 17.90% 26.00% 45.70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Weaning weight vs. weight category

6,3 kg 6,8 kg

+ 0.5 kg weaning = 0.40% reduction in mortality

Source: HyLife R&D Farm

Performances

• Economically speaking, + 0.5 kg represents a potential added margin of $31/sow or $1.15/pig sold

Mortality

• 0.40% mortality = $0.25/pig

Total: $1.40/pig

Weaning weight - economic

Summary – age and weight

• With our actual production context with the use of high dose

of zinc and the use of medicated feed additives, there is a

global impact of $4/pig produced if the birth weight is

increased by 75 g, the weaning weight by 0.5 kg and the

weaning age by 1 day.

• Imagine the impact as we have to reduce our safety nets?

• Think outside the box– look at what European are doing

• What seem to be logical for early wean diets?

• Feed that is sufficiently high in energy and protein to meet the needs of the piglets and compensate for their low feed intake

• This could work well and we have seen excellent results at times

• BUT when facing challenges with gut health issue and others, maybe it is time to think in a different way

• One solution: using feed that is not as high in protein and energy, but higher in fibre

Post-weaning nutrition and feeding

27

MODIFIERS OF THE GUT

INTESTINAL FLORAPROMOTERS OF FEED

CONSUMPTION

• Acidifiers

• Prebiotics

• Probiotics

• Short/Medium fatty acid

• Plant extracts

• Minerals: ZnO & Cu

• Dietary fibre

• Diets low in CP

• Role of fat

• Palatable ingredients

• Digestible ingredients

• Flavours

• Synthetic amino acids

How can we help piglets to get a good start?

• Interesting concept to enhance intestinal health

• Addition of fibre to the post-weaning diet

• Inert fibre/low fermentation: oat hulls, wheat bran, rice hulls

• Avoid soya hulls, beet pulp– fibre that ferments

• Reduce the net energy level of the feed

• Stimulation of intake and reduction of intestinal load

Addition of fibre and reduction of energy

29

• Improves the digestive function

• Modifies the GIT intestinal flora

• Improves microbial fermentation

• Reduces the digestibility of nutrients

• Can penalize the performance of animals

• Slows down gastric emptying

• Proximal fermentation in the hind gut

• Increases luminal viscosity

Oat hulls

Beet pulp

Inert fibre

Fermentable fibre

Inert (I-CHO) vs. fermentable (F-CHO) fibre

Protein level

• Reduce the risk of undigested protein that increases the risk of fermentation and proliferation of pathogenic agents in the hind gut

• Optimize the use of synthetic amino acids

• Evaluate the interest of proteases to reduce the need for additional protein sources

• Enzyme that improves protein digestibility

• % protein without the addition of valine: 22%

• % protein + added valine: 21.5%

• % protein + added valine + protease: 21%

• % protein by reducing the EN by 100 kcal/kg: - 1%

• Importance for supporting the immune system

• Higher requirement for the immune system for certain amino acids

• Threonine and tryptophan must be higher

• Threonine is the most important amino acid for the intestinal epithelium development

• Threonine SID / Lysine SID: 65%

• Tryptophan SID/Lysine SID: 20-22%

Amino acid level and ratio

Schothorst

14 days - 36 piglets

Control

2350 kcal NE

Test 2030 kcal NE

+ Fibre (I-CHO)P value

ADG 0-14 d 99.1 131.3 <0.01

ADFI 0-14 d 147 173 <0.01

FE 0-14 j 1.47 1.32 <0.10

Feces 5.2 5.5 <0.01

E.coli ileum (log

10)5.6 3.8 <0.01

E.coli colon (log

10)6.6 3.9 <0.01

Stomach weight

(% of body weight)0.78 0.89 <0.10

• Trials conducted with this concept on our R&D farm

• Comparison with a standard nutrition program

• Reduction of NE level from 4 to 6%

• Reduction of 1-2% for the crude protein level

• Reduction of 2% for the Lys SID/NE ratio during phase 1

• For the first 5 weeks post-weaning

• Last phase (week 6-7) with a higher NE and Lys SID/NE ratio

• Compensatory growth, if loss of performance in the earlier phases

Fibre concept and ↓ NE and protein

NE + fibre trials

C-122-125 (- 4% EN) Test vs Control P value

Final weight (kg) + 2.5% p<0.05

Total ADG (g/d) + 2.6% p<0.05

Total FE + 0.70% NS

Scour index - 25% p<0.10

Same level of Zn Ox added

#328 (- 6% EN) Test vs Control P value

Final weight (kg) - 1% NS

Total ADG (g/d) - 1.4% NS

Total FE + 3% p<0.01

Scour index - 50% p<0.10

Trial #328 done with no Zn Ox added (500 ppm max)

• Free acid vs. protected acid

• Organic vs. inorganic acid

• Tests conducted with different acids

• Protected acids vs. butyric acid vs. combination

• Formic acid vs. Ca formate and ortho-phosphoric acid

• Some data suggests a positive impact of feed acidification after 3 weeks post-weaning, but profitability?

Feed acidifier

Protected acidifier and butyric acid test

A

Protected

acid

B

Butyric acidA+B P value

Start weight (kg) 6.75 6.74 6.75 NS

Finish weight (kg) 31.24 30.99 31.45 0.19

ADG 0-21 d 296ab 292b 307a <0.05

Total ADG 515 511 522 0.15

FE 0-21 d 1.10a 1.09ab 1.07b <0.05

Total FE 1.40 1.40 1.38 <0.10

Acid period 0-21 days post-weaning

Formic acid

Ca-Formate and

ortho-phosphoric

acid

Formic acid P value

Start weight (kg) 6.01 6.01 NS

Finish weight (kg) 29.77 30.19 <0.05

ADG 0-21 d 326 340 <0.01

Total ADG 498 504 0.11

FE 0-21 d 1.18 1.13 <0.01

Total FE 1.46 1.43 <0.01

Scour index 0.21 0.12 <0.05

Formic acid for 21 days post-weaning

Water quality – Importance

• Importance of water both in terms of quantity and quality

• Do you measure your water quality?

• Do you clean your water lines regularly?

• Do you acidify water in nursery?

• Make sure the piglets have easy access to water at weaning

Water quality – Importance

A B C D

GMQ 613 652 712 747

CA 1.63 1.51 1.44 1.44

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

FE

AD

G (

G/d

)

Water quality-cleaning vs. performance

A: witness, B: washed lines, C: B+cleaning, D: B+C+pH

Pitkin et al 2012

Water acidification

• Optimize HCL and pepsin production for better protein digestibility

• Less substrate for bacterial fermentation in the small intestine

• Improve chlorine efficiency (pH < 7.0)

• Increases water consumption

• Impact on performances?

Trial D-32 (0-3 weeks)

Control Acetic acid ($0.10/piglet) P value

ADG 0-3 (g/d) 338 348 0.35

Total ADG (g/d) 480 480 0.94

Scour index 0.10 0.12 0.42

Mortality % 1.52 1.88 0.79

Control Polyacid ($0.06/piglet) P value

ADG 0-3 (g/d) 345 357 0.30

Total ADG (g/d) 488 487 0.90

Scour index 0.18 0.11 0.05

Mortality % 2.29 2.69 0.80

Trial D-34 (0-5 weeks)

Control Polyacid($0.14/piglet)

P value

ADG 0-3 (g/d) 304 315 0.08

Total ADG (g/d) 447 453 0.28

FE (0-3) 1.17 1.17 0.45

Total FE 1.47 1.47 0.44

Scour 0.18 0.15 0.22

Mortality % 1.96 1.61 0.67

42

Water acidification

• Recommend to lower the water pH level to 3.5 – 4.0 for +/- 21 days post-weaning

• Choose the right acid and do a specific titration for the type of water

• All acids are not identical and strongly depend on water quality – presence of mineral salts

• Need to run a titration (see graph)

• Preference for an organic and inorganic acid mix

• Not costly: < $0.10/pig in general

Water quality vs. acidification

• Bonanza Nursery – R&D Manitoba

• With a pH of 7.73, need 1,500 ml/2,000L to lower the pH

level to 4.5

• Brenelm Farm - Ontario

• With a pH of 7.75, need 600 ml/2,000L to lower the pH

level to 4.5

• Méthot Nursery - R&D Quebec

• With a pH of 8.0, need 375 ml/2,000L to lower the pH

level to 4.5

Lactose level

• Potential for reduction of scour incidence with a lower lactose level in the post-weaning diet without compromising performance

• Can pigs be lactose intolerant?

• We fed PED affected pigs with a lactose-free diet somewhat successfully!

Lactose level (trials #300-308)

High

lactose

Average

lactose

Low

lactoseP value

P1 0-10 days 18% 12.5% 9%

P2 11-21 days 5% 2.5% 0%

Start weight (kg) 6.49 6.49 6.49 NS

Finish weight (kg) 28.0 28.55 28.60 NS

Total ADG (g/d) 493 487 492 NS

Total FE 1.39 1.38 1.38 NS

Scour index 0.26a 0.14b 0.15b <0.01

Mortality % 2.57 2.97 2.30 NS

Zinc oxide alternative

• Different zinc sources are available and positioned as zinc oxide alternatives, but using smaller doses

• Nano zinc/potentiated zinc

• Better quality source, finer and more porous particles

• Protected zinc

• Not solubilized in the stomach, does not form ZnCl

• Protected, so no buffering effect affecting pH reduction

• Released in the small intestine

• Lack of reliable and repeatable data to prove their efficiency

• Vaccination vs. E. coli vs. zinc dosage

Trial #179 – potentiated Zn (2011)

ZnOx2500-2000 ppm

ZnOx250 ppm

Zinpot112.5-225 ppm

+ 250 ppm ZnOx

P value

ADG 0-3 (g/d) 273a 232b 230b < 0.01

Total ADG (g/d) 463a 436b 438b < 0.05

FE 1.42 1.42 1.43 NS

Mortality % 4.1b 11.8a 13.2b < 0.01

49

KSU trial – protected Zn (2014)

ZnOx3,000 ppm

ZnOx 110 ppm

Protected zinc500 ppm

P value

ADG 0-31 d (g/d) 349a 304b 313b < 0.05

FE 1.56b 1.62a 1.58b < 0.05

Mortality % 4.1b 11.8a 13.2b < 0.01

50

Trial #128 - E. coli vaccine (2009)

ZnOx2500-2000 ppm

ZnOx 250 ppm

ZnOx 250 ppm + Coliprotec

P value

ADG 0-3 weeks (g/d)

263a 248b 258ab < 0.05

Total ADG (g/d) 483a 467b 478ab < 0.05

FE 1.43b 1.46a 1.44ab < 0.05

Mortality % 3.8 2.1 2.1 NS

51

None-animal ingredient diet

• Questioning the use of animal by-products in the diet

• Grain Fed with No Antibiotics and No Animal By-Products

• No plasma, animal fat, vit. D3 (sheep wool lanolin), vit. A 1000 (pig gelatine) no added zinc, no antibiotic feed, no injectable or water antiobiotic

Feed ingredients biosecurity

• Risks with imported ingredient from China or other countries with PPA

• Storage/Quarantine period recommended by the ANAC/CPC/EQSP is 20 days at 20°C or 100 days at 10°C

• American studies – transmission of exotic diseases

Average time needed for the virus to reduce to 99.9%

Days at 4°C Days at 15°C Days at 30°C

Soya 143 52 26

DDGS 494 182 26

Vitamin D3 39 26 26

Lysine 78 13 13

Feed ingredients biosecurity

Conclusion

• For the feed industry, we must provide producers with the tools needed to face challenges

• For producers, a revision of the management aspects mentioned in the presentation, and others, will be part of solutions and will be your best allies for the future

• Feed biosecurity is also an important aspect to consider in the protection of our farms and accesses to export markets

56

Dan Bussières

dbussieres@gceres.com

418-956-5638

CollaboratorsJean Poulin, PICGilbert Gagnon, CargillFrancis Simard, NutrecoMartin Bonneau, Demeter Services Vétérinaires