Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000...
Transcript of Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000...
![Page 1: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
L. Eastwood
R.Q. Buis
C.F.M de Lange
Capturing Potential
Through Nutrition:
Group Housed Gestating Sows
![Page 2: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Goal: Increase Sow Lifetime Productivity
Optimize # of healthy pigs
weaned per sow per lifetime
# of pigs
weaned
per litter
Non-
productive
days
Reproductive
lifetime
Birth
weight and
uniformity
• Control feed costs
• Maintain good sow welfare
• Good sow health
• Reduce nutrient losses into the environment
![Page 3: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Total Born per Litter: 2005 vs 2015
PigChamp Benchmark Summaries
Year Lower 10
percentile Mean
Upper 10
percentile
2005 9.8 10.6 11.93
2015 11.3 12.4 13.5
Change, % + 15.3% + 17.0% + 13.2%
• Farms now approaching and surpassing 30 pigs
weaned / sow / year
![Page 4: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Influence of Birth Weight Category on Pig BW at d 156 of Age
Bergstrom et al., 2009
![Page 5: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Key to Management of Sows
MINIMIZE SOW BODY CONDITION AND WEIGHT
CHANGES THROUGHOUT HER REPRODUCTIVE LIFE
• Gestation:
Pregnancy related weight gain (~30kg)
Allow for maternal growth
– Achieve maturity (~parity 3 or 4)
– Recover losses of previous lactation
Excess gain of weight or condition
• Lactation:
Maternal weight loss
![Page 6: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Desirable Body Weight Changes in Sows
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time, days
Bo
dy w
eig
ht,
kg
NRC, 2012
![Page 7: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Actual Changes in Body Fat Content
Whittemore, 1998, NRC, 2012
Farrowing
Weaning
Weaned
Time (months)
Body fat (%
)
![Page 8: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Effect of Increased Back Fat at Farrowing
1) Reduces lactation feed intake
2) Results in increased back fat loss during lactation
3) Severe back fat loss during lactation, reduces next litter
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.0
5.4
5.8
6.2
< 17 17-21 > 21
Feed I
nta
ke,
kg
Backfat, mm
1.9
3.0
4.6
1
2
3
4
5
< 17 17-21 > 21
Ba
ckfa
t lo
ss,
mm
Backfat, mm
11.8
12.1
11.1
10.4
10.8
11.2
11.6
12.0
12.4
< 17 17-21 > 21
Su
bse
qu
en
t to
tal b
orn
Treatment
Bars with different letters within graphs represent P < 0.05
Young et al., 2004 J. Anim Sci. 82:3058
a
a
a b
b
ab
b
c a
![Page 9: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Gestation Nutrition
• Two most important nutrients: • Energy
• Amino acids (protein, especially lysine)
• Other nutrition issues: • Sufficient intake of critical vitamins and
minerals
• Use fiber in diet to induce satiety and reduce abnormal (stereotypic) behavior of restricted fed gestating sows
![Page 10: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Determinants of Nutrient Requirements in Gestating Sows
(1/3)
Energy Amino Acids
Maintenance
Maintain body mass, no net loss or gain
Determined by:
• Body weight
• BW = Requirements
• Genetics
• Environment
• Below Lower Critical Temp = Requirements
• Housing System
• Activity = Requirements
![Page 11: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Determinants of Nutrient Requirements in Gestating Sows
(2/3)
Energy Amino Acids
Maintenance
Conceptus
0
500
1000
1500
2000
20 40 60 80 100
Day of gestation
Fetus
Placenta & fluids
Uterus
Mammary
• Day 12-14: Implantation & placenta
formation
• Day 30: Litter size largely
determined
• Day 20 to 70: Rapid placental
growth (& muscle fiber development in
piglets)
• Day 50: Start exponential fetal
growth, following placenta growth
Bazer et al. (2012); NRC (2012)
![Page 12: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Determinants of Nutrient Requirements in Gestating Sows
(3/3)
Energy Amino Acids
Maintenance
Conceptus
Lipid
Deposition
Protein
Deposition
Maternal
Body
• Maternal growth • Towards maturity
• Recover losses
• Total BW and BCS gain
![Page 13: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
NRC 2012 Gestating Sow Model
Energy (Feed) intake
Some measures of sow
Performance
Response to energy
intake
Requirements for AA, Ca,
P
NRC Model
+
Energy Amino Acids
Maintenance
Conceptus
Lipid
Deposition
Protein
Deposition
Maternal
Body
![Page 14: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Estimated Lysine Requirements of Gestating Sows
+ 33%
- 38%
Move towards phase or
blend feeding of individual
gestating sows within and
across parities
![Page 15: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Estimated Energy and Lysine Requirements of Gestating Gilt*
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113
SID
Lys,
g/d
ME
, k
cal/d
Day of gestation
Energy Lys
+194%
+45%
*Completed with a modified NRC (2012) from Q.Buis et al., 2016
![Page 16: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Feeding Strategies in Group Housed Systems
• Multiple options:
• Competitive • Floor feeding
• Trough feeding
• Trickle feeding
• Half or shoulder stalls
• Non-competitive • Free access stalls
• Electronic sow feeders
![Page 17: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Electronic Sow Feeders (ESF)
• Technology is developing quickly, in real-time, linking individual
sow performance and state to feeding strategy
• Opportunity for (and value of) precision feeding is increasingly
recognized (e.g., dairy industry)
More closely meeting nutrient requirements of individual sows
and over time:
• Reduced feeding costs and nutrient losses into the
environment (Clowes et al. 2002; Pomar et al., 2012) √
• Improved long-term sow productivity and longevity ?
• Improved sow welfare ?
![Page 18: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
‘Simple’ Group Housed Systems, Can Work!
• Respect amount and quality of space
• Plan or manage grouping (ex. large and small sows together)
• Expect slightly higher variability in sow body condition
– May need some stalls (small pens / more aggressive culling)
to isolate sows with extreme body condition
Will lose opportunity to feed and manage each sow individually
![Page 19: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Potential Gestation Feeding Strategies
• Bump Feeding
• Top dressing
• Providing an additional supplemental diet during late
gestation or for thin sows
• Adjusting based on BCS
• Increasing or decreasing feed per sow on visual
assessment
• Phase feeding
• Different feeding levels at different periods of gestation
and for each parity
• Switch feeding
• Changing between diets at set points in gestation
• Blend feeding
![Page 20: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Increased amount of gestation feed starting day 85-90 of
gestation
• Increases intake of amino acids and energy, in same ratio
• Scientific evidence of effectiveness is unclear*:
– No effect: Miller et al. (2000), Hughes and van Wettere (2012), Eckhardt
et al. (2013)
– Shelton et al. (2009) in gilts no effect and added $5.00 per litter in cost
– Cromwell et al. (1989) positive influence but controls under fed
– Soto et al. (2011) did find a positive influence in gilts
• Several of these studies reported increased sow weight gain
*Courtesy: S. Dritz Kansas State University
Bump Feeding
![Page 21: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Precision Feeding Two Diets in Varying Amounts (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP)
0
5
10
15
20
25
01000200030004000500060007000
1
15
29
43
57
71
85
99
11
3
g L
ys
kcal
Days
Precision feeding (PF)
HP LP Energy Lys
• Blended two feeds at ESF
according to modified NRC 2012 for
parity 1 sows
• Results: Compared to controls that
received the same total amount
feed and lysine, Sows on PF grew
faster during late gestation,
when needs of conceptus were
highest
• Validation of effectiveness requires
larger number of animals as well as
a multi-parity approach to study
effects on long term sow
performance
R.Q.Buis et al. 2016
![Page 22: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Summary Thus Far
• Goal: Increase sow Lifetime Productivity
• Requirements of sows change with:
- Size
- Parity
- Stage of gestation
• Consider variations in requirements between sows
• Energy requirements can easily vary by more than 0.5 kg feed
between sows
• Increased amino acid requirements late gestation
• Reduced amino acid requirement of parity 3+ sows
• Consider benefit of phase and parity segregated feeding
• Electronic sow feeders (ESFs) will allow (dynamic) precision
feeding of individual sows
![Page 23: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Important Considerations for Group Feeding
• Consumer perspective: shift to groups will improve sow welfare
• Improved welfare from increased freedom of movement can be
quickly erased by excessive and uncontrolled aggression
– Aggression at/around feeding can lead to injury, lameness, low feed
intake and poor performance (Kemp and Soede, 2012)
• Increased activity levels may alter the sows nutritional requirements
Key Nutritional Aspects to consider with Group Housing Systems
• Reduce aggression through nutrition (and management) – satiety!
• Feed allowance
• Bone development and strength
![Page 24: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Satiety
• Over-feeding of gestating sows is still an issue
– Reduces sow productivity and longevity
• Feed intake restriction can lead to abnormal (stereotypic) behaviour
– Animal welfare concern
• How can we ↑ satiety and ↓ abnormal behaviour in sows?
Amount? Type?
Physical
Characteristics?
FIBRE
![Page 25: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Satiety • European Union
– 9-12% Crude Fibre is common, some diets up to 20% CF
OR
– ‘regular’ gestation diets should be supplemented with additional
fibre sources
• More important than crude fibre concentration:
– Physical size - for gut fill
• Coarsely ground material better at reducing hunger
– Balance between fermentable fibre and crude fibre
• Fermentable fibre provides a slow, consistent release of energy
throughout the day, helping with longer-term satiation
• Formulate diets based on NE to account for fermentable fibre
![Page 26: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Fibre Content (%) in Pig Feed Ingredients
Crude
Fiber
ADF NDF NSP* Fermentability
of NSP*
Corn 1.98 2.88 9.11 12.7 55
SBM, 47% CP 3.89 5.28 8.21 28.7 88
Barley 3.90 5.78 18.3 23.9 45
Wheat shorts 5.15 5.98 35.0 35.8 38
DDGS, 6-9% oil 8.92 12.0 30.5 39.4 70
Sugar beet pulp 18* 23.5 44.9 70.8 85
Soybean hulls 35.7 41.6 59.4 70.9 51
Alfalfa meal 24** 32.2 42.0 60.9 45
NRC, 2012; **Lewis and Southern 2000; *CVB, 2004
![Page 27: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Feeding Sugar Beet Pulp to Gestating Sows
Control + SBP P Value
Diet NE (Kcal/kg) 2036 2053 NS
Feed Intake (kg/d): gestation 1 2.61 2.58 NS
gestation 2 2.74 2.73 NS
Parity 2 Weaning Weight (kg) 185.6 176.6 <0.05
Change in Back Fat (mm): gestation 1 +7.0 +4.4 <0.05
gestation 2 +5.2 +4.4 <0.05
Piglets Born Alive: Parity 1 10.5 11.0 <0.05
Parity 2 11.5 12.2 <0.05
Non-feeding oral activities (% of obs.) 23.8 13.7 <0.001
Sham Chewing (% of obs.) 14.4 5.6 <0.001
No effect on: # stillborn, litter birth weight, PWM, wean to estrus, farrowing rate
*38.3% sugar beet pulp in gestation; replacing tapioca, alfalfa meal and straw; initial body weight 124 kg;
initial back fat 13.7 mm; >170 sows/treatment Van der Peet-Schwering et al. 2003a,b
![Page 28: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Feeding Fibre
![Page 29: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Feed Allowance
• ↑ energy requirement due to ↑ exercise/activity
• Difficult to predict because not every sow or system is the same
– Body condition
– Expected litter sizes
– Animal temperament
– Housing conditions (layout, thermal environment, etc.)
– Overall management
• Additional feed energy required may be as high as 10-20%
– If sows are over-conditioned, exercise will help and feed allowance
should not be increased
• Daily feed allowance should be monitored closely and adjusted
periodically to meet desired body condition score
![Page 30: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Bone Development and Strength
• Do group housed sows require increased Calcium and Phosphorus
for bone development and strength?
• NRC 2012 Ca and P values are adequate for group housed sows
(Tan and Beaulieu, 2014)
– 3 diets (NRC Ca & P, +15% Ca & P, -15% Ca & P
– 2 housing systems (stalls or groups with non-competitive feeding)
– -15%/group housed had low serum calcium, but NRC/group were fine
– Increased piglets born alive in group vs. stall
• 1 piglet more/litter in -15% and NRC groups
• 2 piglets more/litter in +15% group
• Possible ↑ performance potential with ↑ Ca/P??
• Subsequent parities?
![Page 31: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Capturing Potential Through Nutrition
• Remember the importance of body condition scoring in any system
• Consider feeding requirements to support optimal productivity and
longevity, as well as welfare
– Dietary fibre levels to reduce abnormal behaviour
– Full feed for 24-48 hours after mixing to reduce aggression?
NFACC Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs, 2014
![Page 32: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Capturing Potential Through Nutrition
• Open Stall, Floor & Trough Feeding Systems:
– Reduce feeding competition as much as possible
• Space feed drops or stations around pen
– Sort pens to reduce competition
• Eating speed
• Body condition
• Size
• Parity
– Sort pens to improve feeding accuracy
• Gestation stage (phase feeding)
www.groupsowhousing.com
www.groupsowhousing.com
![Page 33: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Capturing Potential Through Nutrition
• ESF Feeding Systems:
– Reduce pre-feeding competition as much as possible
• Well designed pens
– Access to multiple feed lines for precision or phase feeding
– Timely identification of sows needing special attention
• Ability to notice reduced feed consumption rapidly
www.jygatech.com www.groupsowhousing.com
![Page 34: Capturing Potential Through Nutrition · (High vs Low protein; HP vs LP) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 al s Days Precision feeding](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050404/5f813a768b02dc333b115e6c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Additional Opportunities
• Reduced Lower Critical Temperature?
– LCT for stall housed sows = ~16oC
– Group housed sows given a choice preferred 9 to 12oC (Predicala, 2016)
• Reduced heating costs in winter months?
– 78% savings in natural gas consumption during 6-wk winter trial in Western Canada
• Decreased feed requirements in winter months?
– Modify diet to a high heat-increment (fibre) diet to maintain performance
Prairie Swine Centre Inc.