Future Issues in Swine Nutrition - Kees de Lange Professor of Swine Nutrition Research Program Director for Animal Production Systems University ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Future Issues in Swine Nutrition
Kees de Lange
Professor of Swine Nutrition
Research Program Director for Animal Production Systems
University of Guelph
Nov 14, ‘12
Outline
Continued need for wisdom & research
Changing research environment; paradox of progress
• Production systems, society concerns, advanced methodology,
interdisciplinary
Selected areas for research and practical application
1. (Methodology for) ingredient evaluation (Dr. John Patience
presentation)
2. Society concerns: environmental foot print; animal well being;
animal product quality and safety
3. From static nutrient requirements to dynamic responses to diet
(nutrients and non-nutrients)
4. Animal robustness (animal’s ability to cope with environmental stressors)
5. Animals (pigs) as models for humans (peri-natal nutrition; apatite &
obesity; allergenicity)
Outline
Continued need for wisdom & research
Changing research environment; paradox of progress
• Production systems, society concerns, advanced methodology,
interdisciplinary
Selected areas for research and practical application
1. (Methodology for) ingredient evaluation (Dr. John Patience
presentation)
2. Society concerns: environmental foot print; animal well being;
animal product quality and safety
3. From static nutrient requirements to dynamic responses to diet
(nutrients and non-nutrients)
4. Animal robustness (animal’s ability to cope with environmental stressors)
5. Animals (pigs) as models for humans (peri-natal nutrition; apatite &
obesity; allergenicity)
Wisdom….
"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and
corruption abound. Children no longer obey their
parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is
evident that the end of the world is fast
approaching.“
Assyrian tablet, ca. 2800 BC
Courtesy: Dr. Peter Davies; Univ. of Minnesota
Society’s need for PROTEIN
• Most expensive component of the human
diet
• Part of a healthy balanced diet
• Global demand for animal protein will
increase by 30% by 2030:
• Global population 7 billion in 2012 => 8 billion
in 2030
• Per capita consumption: 24.2 kg/yr in 1961 =>
36.4 kg/yr in 1999 => 45.3 kg/yr by 2030
“Agricultural production and productivity
will need to be stepped up”
70% of increased production must come
from efficiency enhancing technologies (UN-
FAO 2002)
Schoenfeldt, 2011
…...A changing animal production industry….. • Larger and/or more specialized animal units • Increased and more predictable animal performance levels – genetic selection – better environmental management, including nutrition • Consumer demand: – more animal products – high quality, consistent & safe animal products – reduced use of feed additives – focus on animal welfare • Environmental concerns: – Environmental foot print, life cycle analyses, etc. • Economic pressures
Improved efficiency and safety of (US) pork
production
30
25 Foodborne outbreaks
Outbreaks per year (pork)
linked to pork (CDC)
20
15
10
5
0
73-77 78-82 83-87 88-92 90-01
Period
Courtesy: Dr. Peter Davies; Univ. of Minnesota
Acceptability of modern food and livestock
industries….
• “Sometimes...it is not all that easy to draw a line
between outright villainy…and the standard,
legitimate practices of the modern food production
industry.“
Colin Tudge, Biologist, UK
• “The present system of producing food animals in
the USA is not sustainable and presents an
unacceptable level of risk to public health and
damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary
harm to the animals we raise for food.”
Pew Commission Report on Industrial
Farm Animal Production, 2006
‘The paradox of progress’
“Something’s just not right – our air is clean, our water is pure, we
all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free
range, and yet……..
…..nobody lives past thirty”
Courtesy: Dr. Peter Davies; Univ. of Minnesota
Experimental methodology
‘Era of omics’
• Genomics, proteomics and metabolomics to
characterize gut microbiome and animal
physiology
• Allows manipulation of the animal’s functional
genome (genetic engineering & nutrigenomics)
Consequences
• Impressive toolbox, with some limitations
• Needs a multidisciplinary research team,
including specialists and integrators
• Increased need for well characterized animal
phenotypes and whole-body responsesExperimental methodology
‘Era of omics’
• Genomics, proteomics and metabolomics to
characterize gut microbiome and animal
physiology
• Allows manipulation of the animal’s functional
genome (nutrigenomics)
Consequences
• Impressive toolbox, with some limitations
• Needs a multidisciplinary research team,
including specialists and integrators
• Increased need for well characterized animal
phenotypes and whole-body responses
• Public debate about ethicsApplication of biotechnology:
‘Bacterial’ epidermal growth factor (EGF)
• Powerful growth factor stimulating gut development in
young pigs; present in milk, saliva and blood
• Porcine EGF gene has been isolated, inserted in
Lactococcus Lactus & modified to increase expression
• ‘Bacterial’ EGF: just as effective as purified EGF to
stimulate gut development newly weaned piglets
Gut mucosa
(stained for cell proliferation)
Univ. of Guelph; Bedford et al., 2012a,bEGF from engineered LL bacteria is just as effective
as blood plasma in supporting growth of newly
weaned piglets
Control + -Blood -Blood
Blood plasma plasma +
plasma EGF
Overall performance, week 1 to 3 post-weaning
BW gain, g/d 329 258 313 (+21%)
Feed:Gain 1.43 1.56 1.42 (-9%)
Feed usage, kg/pig 9.90 8.44 9.34
Univ. of Guelph; Bedford et al., 2012a,bEGF from engineered LL bacteria is just as effective
as blood plasma in supporting growth of newly
weaned piglets
Control + -Blood -Blood
Blood plasma plasma +
plasma EGF
Overall performance, week 1 to 3 post-weaning
BW gain, g/d 329 258 313 (+21%)
Feed:Gain 1.43 1.56 1.42 (-9%)
Feed usage, kg/pig 9.90 8.44 9.34
Feed ingredient cost*, $/kg 0.944 0.743 0.743
Feed cost*, $/pig 9.34 6.94
* Dr. Clunies; September 18; EXCLUDING cost of EGF ‘Savings’: $2.40 per pig
Univ. of Guelph; Bedford et al., 2012a,b1. Feed Ingredient Evaluation
Essence of animal production is conversion of inexpensive
ingredients into high-quality value-added animal products
• Needs continuous updating of tables about nutritional values of
feed ingredients, due to new plant varieties, growing and
processing conditions, as well as new ingredients
• Consider methodology for estimating nutrient bioavailability:
• Digestibility ≠ bioavailability
• Interactions among nutrients: fermentable fiber & amino acid
bio-availability
• Interactive effects of diet composition and feeding behavior
• Energy utilization: function of nutrient source & animal state
• Impact of animal state (e.g., disease) on nutrient digestibility
• Simple means to enhance and predict feeding values
• Should remain in public domainUtilization of Standardized Ileal Digestible AA Intake for Body
protein gain (%):
Impact of dietary AA Source
95 94
Protein Deposition, g/d
91
90
Casein
85
Wheat Shorts
80 79
77
75
70
Lysine Threonine
Growing pigs fed threonine or lysine limiting diets; N balance
Univ. of Guelph; Libao et al, 2006Energetic efficiencies:
determined by (1) dietary sources of energy and
(2) purpose for which energy is used
Absorbed nutrients
LC Fatty Acids Glucose VFA Amino Acids (N)
Intermediary metabolism
(Acetyl-CoA & ATP
Lipid Dep. Maintenance Protein Dep.
Use of energy
Birkett & de Lange, 2001; NOT compatible with least-cost feed formulation2. Animal Nutrition & Society
Need for objective, quantitative, transparent information
that is acceptable to policy makers (& general public) and
that illustrates the impact of alternative management/feeding
strategies on society issues:
• Environment (carbon footprint, GHG, etc.), animal well-being,
food safety and quality, well documented functional food attributes
E.g., International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
detailed (Tier 2) prediction of CH4 emission from manure:
• Allows local adjustments to excretion of volatile solids, manure
handling systems and climatic conditions
• Adjustments require solid scientific support, and need updating
with changes in management practices (Vellinga et al., 2012)Nutrient balances of gestating sows - 2 phase feeding
NRC (2012)
Nitrogen Phosphorus Carbon
Intake, kg/sow 5.27 1.5 103
Retention, kg/sow 1.24 0.35 12.8
Retention, % of intake 23.53 23.36 12.4
Excretion, kg/sow 4.03 1.15 90.3
Does NOT consider consequences of feeding below SID amino acid or
STTD phosphorus requirements3. From Static Nutrient Requirements to Dynamic
Responses to Nutrient Intake
Feeding to requirements ≠ optimum feeding strategy
Optimizing feeding strategies requires quantitative
relationships between dietary nutrient levels and dynamic
responses of groups of animals, considering:
• Animal performance potentials, including feed intake
• Between animal variability
• Marginal responses to nutrient intakes
• Nutritional history & environmental conditions
• Interactions among nutrients (see feed ingredient
evaluation) and with non-nutrients (e.g., chemo-sensing)
Decision support systems for analysis of cost-benefit and
environmental impactsBetween animal variability in lean gain (body protein
deposition; PD) & AA requirements
CV of PD is 10% or more
(closely related to variability in
ADG; DeGrau et al., 2003)
Maximum efficiency of AA
utilization increases slightly
with maximum PD (Möhn et
al., 2004; NRC, 2012)
Cost benefit (?): estimate
variability & meet
requirements of 70% or more
of pigs (Pomar et al., 2003)50% of pigs:
5.44 % lysine
CV of PD
10% CV of PD:
70% of pigs:
5.70 % lysine (+5%)
85% of pigs:
5.95 % lysine (+10%)
20% CV of PD:
70% of pigs:
5.96 % lysine (+10%)
80 kg BW pigs; PDmax 140 g/d; intake 100% of NRC (2012); diet DE 14 MJ/kgNursery feeding program (wk 1-6 after weaning) &
performance up to market weight (110 kg BW)
Feeding ‘low quality’ nursery diets:
• ADG: - 12%
• Gain:Feed: - 2.5%
• Feed cost per nursery pig: - $2 to 3
PNursery feeding program (wk 1-6 after weaning) &
performance up to market weight (110 kg BW)
P < 0.10
NS
PNursery feeding program (wk 1-6 after weaning) impacts
response to a disease challenge (Strep Suis & Erysipelas)
P < 0.10
NS P < 0.05
PImpact of galacto-manan oligosaccharides (GMOS) on
gene expression
Control GMOS
IL-1 / GAPDH 0.301b 0.617a
(jejunum mucous)
IGF-1 / GADH 0.841b 2.099a
(liver)
Growth Hormone (ng/ml) 0.829b 1.155a
(plasma)
1000bp
500bp
508bp IL-1β
312bp GAPDH
Pigs at 14 days post-weaning; Tang, 2004; Chinese Academy of Science4. Animal Robustness & Nutrition (1/2)
Animal’s genotype and peri-natal management impacts the
animal’s response to the environment
• Mediated by changes in the animal’s physiology, that can be
manipulated
Sick Sick + IL-1
receptor
antagonist
Feed intake, kg/d 0.51 0.52
ADG, g 200a 278b
Carcass protein gain, g/d 32.4a + 2.9 44.3b + 3.3
Carcass lipid gain, g/d -1.8 + 3.1 5.8 + 3.6
Univ. of Guelph; Dionnissopoulos et al. (2006);
10 to 17 kg BW; pigs infected with mycoplasma & PRRS vaccine; controlled feeding; 28 d period4. Animal robustness & Nutrition (2/2)
Immuno-nutrition
Mechanisms Nutrient or bioactives
Nourish cells of immune system All
Nourish pathogens Biotin, iron
Modify the response of leukocytes Energy, PUFA, some AA, Vit. A,D,E
Protect against immuno pathology PUFA, Vit. A, some AA, polyphenols
Influence gut microbiome Pre-biotics, some AA, probiotics
Stimulate immune system ANFs, Mannan oligosaccharides
A basis for genotype and environment specific
nutrition: ‘peri-natal’ and ‘real-time’
Adjusted from Klasing (2007)In Summary
Many swine nutrition issues remain:
• Research agenda driven increasingly by society issues
• New research methodology is available, which brings with it
new opportunities
Keep ‘production’ research in the public domain
Important roles for animal nutritionists:
• e.g., as integrators across disciplinesNutritional history / feeding patterns
When growing pigs are fed once daily, efficiency of utilizing synthetic
lysine for PD is reduced (Batterham, 1984; Partridge et al., 1985)
• Of limited practical relevance when pigs are fed ad libitum or more
than once daily
Following a period of AA intake restriction pigs may demonstrate
compensatory PD (many studies):
• Reduces need for phase feeding & reduced need for ‘expensive’
feed protein for young pigs
Predict the rate and extent of compensatory growth1.0
MLC (2004):
Lysine (g/MJ DE)
0.9
0.8 1024 pigs in pen groups
0.7
35 kg to 102 kg BW
0.6
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Live weight (kg)
Single feed Blend feeding P
Feed intake (kg/d) 2.06 1.99Hypothesis: compensatory PD occurs only during the
energy intake dependent phase of PD
• Driven by a target body composition (body lipid/body protein ratio)
• Constrained by maximum PD (PDmax)Growth during & following lysine intake restriction:
I. Barrows & restricted feeding
NS
PGrowth during & following lysine intake restriction:
II. Entire males & restricted feeding
ab b
a
NS
b
a a
15-38 kg BW 38-111 kg BW 15-111 kg BW
1.4
Body lipid / body protein
1.2 b NS
Complete compensatory
1 ab growth following AA
0.8 a intake restriction
0.6
0.4
0.2 Martinez –Ramirez & de Lange (2007)Consequences of feeding below AA requirements
Reductions in protein/lean gain, and thus in growth rate and feed
efficiency
May be followed compensatory protein/lean gain:
• Seems constrained by the pig’s protein /n gain potential and
amino acid intake
• Appears driven by a target body composition (body lipid / body
protein ratio)
• Quantification remains a challenge, but it represents a means to
reduce:
• intake of ‘expensive’ feed protein at early stages of growth,
without compromising overall pig performance
• the need for phase feeding
MLC (2004); Martinez-Ramirez & de Lange (2007)You can also read
