Phase Feeding of Sows during Gestation and Lactation - Devi Pangeni, University of Minnesota, from the 2014 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 15-16, 2014, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2014-leman-swine-conference-material

1. Phase feeding of sows in
gestation and lactation
Devi P. Pangeni
Department of Animal Science,
University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.

2. Background
USDA ERS, 2013
 Sow reproductive performance
2

3. 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

4. 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. 5
Predicted total protein gain of second
parity sows during gestation
Days of gestation
Predicted total protein gain, g/d
NRC, 2012

6. 6
Amino Acid requirement for gestation
(NRC, 2012)
Days of gestation
SID lysine requirement, g/d

7. 7
Energy requirement for gestation
(Goodband et al., 2013)
(Goodband et al., 2013)
Feeding a single gestation ration leads to overfeeding in
early gestation and underfeeding in late gestation

8. 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

9. 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

10. Lysine level and litter growth rate
(Dourmad et al., 1998)
10

11. 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)

12. Hypothesis
12
 Three phase sow feeding program
Gestation (d) Lactation (d)
Phase 1 0 - 35 0 – 6
Phase 2 36 - 70 7 – 12
Phase 3 71 - 109 13 - 18
 Based on lysine level and balanced for other essential AA
 Provide essential amount of nutrients at appropriate phase

13. Objective
13
To evaluate the effect of phase feeding lysine
to multiparous gestating and lactating sows
during gestation and lactation

14. 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. 15
Materials and Methods
Experiment is being performed at SROC, Waseca, MN
Lactation1 Gestation Lactation2

16. 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. 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)

18. 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

19. 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. 20
Results

21. 21
Feed Intake, kg
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on
sows feed intake during lactation 1
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total feed
intake
Phase
Control
P > 0.05

22. 22
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on sows
weight change during lactation 1
Weight, kg
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
240
Day 0
(Farrowing)
Day 6 Day 12 Day 18
(Weaning)
Phase
Control
P > 0.05

23. 23
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on sows
backfat change during lactation 1
Back Fat, mm
25
23
21
19
17
15
Day 0
(Farrowing)
Day 6 Day 12 Day 18
(Weaning)
Phase
Control
P > 0.05

24. 24
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on litter weight
during lactation 1
Litter wt. kg
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Day 0
(Farrowing)
Day 6 Day 12 Day 18
(Weaning)
Phase
Control
P > 0.05

25. P > 0.05
25
Effect of phase feeding vs.
control on no. of piglets weaned
11
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.2
10
P > 0.05
Phase
Control
Effect of phase feeding vs.
control on piglet survivability
No. of pigs
100
80
60
40
20
0
Phase
Control
Piglet survivability, %

26. 26
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Phase
Control
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on wean to
estrus interval
Days
W-E interval
P > 0.05

27. 27
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on sows
weight change during Gestation
Weight, kg
280
260
240
220
200
At Breeding Day 35 Day 70 Day 109
Phase
Control
P > 0.05

28. 28
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on sows backfat
change during Gestation
Back Fat, mm
20
19
18
17
16
At Breeding Day 35 Day 70 Day 109
Phase
Control
P > 0.05

29. 29
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on
sows feed intake during lactation
Feed Intake, kg
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total feed
intake
P > 0.05
Phase
Control

30. 30
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on sows
weight change during lactation
Weight, kg
260
255
250
245
240
235
230
Day 0
(Farrowing)
Day 6 Day 12 Day 18
(Weaning)
Phase
Control
P > 0.05

31. 31
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on sows
backfat change during lactation
Back Fat, mm
19
18
17
16
15
14
Day 0
(Farrowing)
Day 6 Day 12 Day 18
(Weaning)
P > 0.05
Phase
Control

32. 32
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on litter weight
during lactation
Litter wt. kg
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Day 0
(Farrowing)
Day 6 Day 12 Day 18
(Weaning)
P > 0.05
Phase
Control

33. Effect of phase feeding vs.
control on no. of piglets weaned
P > 0.05
33
Effect of phase feeding vs.
control on no. of born alive
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
Born Alive
P > 0.05
Phase
Control
No. of pigs
No. of pigs
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
No. Weaned
Phase
Control

34. 34
Effect of phase feeding vs.
control on number of mummies
and stillborn per litter
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Mummies Stillborn
P > 0.05
Phase
Control
No. of pigs
Effect of phase feeding vs.
control on piglet survivability
from birth to weaning
100
80
60
40
20
0
Phase
Control
Survivability
Piglet survivability, %
P > 0.05

35. 35
Effect of phase feeding vs. control on wean
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W- E interval
Phase
Control
to estrus interval
Days
P > 0.05

36. 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. 37
SID lysine requirement and intake during gestation
NRC, 2012
Phase
Control
Days of gestation (NRC, 2012)
SID lysine, g/d

38. 38
SID lysine requirement and intake during Lactation
Phase
Control
NRC, 2012
72 g/d
Days of lactation (NRC, 2012)
SID lysine, g/d

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. Acknowledgements
 Minnesota Pork Board
 Swine Unit Staff, SROC, Waseca, UMN
42

43. Any Questions?
43

44. Appendices
44

45. Ingredients Control
Treatment 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

46. Composition
Control
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

47. Ingredients
Control
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

48. Composition
Control
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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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