A negative energy balance in sows can affect piglet performance.
Table 2 – The effect of lysolecithins on colostrum and milk composition.
Control
Colostrum Dry matter (g/100 g DM)† Ash (g/kg DM)
Protein (g/kg DM) Fat (g/kg DM)
Lactose calculated (g/kg DM)°
Milk Dry matter (g/100 g DM)† Ash (g/kg DM)
Protein (g/kg DM) Fat (g/kg DM)
Lactose calculated (g/kg DM)°
41.0 26.0
617.7a 224.2a 132.1
35.1a 41.5
248.0a 429.3 281.2
Lysolecithins*
41.2 25.3
657.0b 186.9b 130.8
38.6b 40.9
257.3b 422.1 279.8
*1,000 g FRA LeciMax Dry per tonne of feed. Different superscripts in the same row indicate significant differences (a,b † Dry Matter content has been calculated by subtracting the moisture measured
according to VDLUFA Methoden Buch 3. °
Lactose calculated = 1,000 – crude ash – crude protein – crude fat : P≤0.05).
to the feed curve, whereas in the control group four sows did not consume all the feed. The lower reduction in body condition in the lysolecithin group also resulted in improved fertility, which was conclud- ed from the reduction of the number of open days (wean- ing-to-oestrus interval): 5.2 days compared to 5.7 days in the control group. Furthermore, the percentage of sows having fewer than five open days increased 15.4% compared to the control group.
Higher milk quality and piglet growth As shown in Table 2, both colostrum and milk collected from lysolecithin-fed sows contained a higher dry matter content and a significantly higher protein level. Fat levels were lower, but no differences were observed in the lactose or ash con- centration. It can be suggested that this higher colostrum and milk quality contributed to the better piglet growth ob- served in the treatment group. The number of stillborn piglets was reduced substantially by almost 1 piglet from 2.5 to 1.6 piglets in the lysolecithins group (Table 3), which was probably due to the better energy supply around farrowing. Suckling piglets in the lysolecithins group showed a higher average daily weight gain compared to the control group. Despite the lower starting weight in the treatment group (after compensation to 13 piglets per sow), the body weight at weaning was higher. Moreover, piglet mortality was substantially lower in the lysolecithin-fed sows: 0.6 piglets compared to 1.0 in the control group. As a result, these sows weaned more piglets. The combination of higher
weight gain, higher weaning weight and more weaned pig- lets per sow resulted in an increased litter weight.
Concluding remarks Sows fed the energy booster with lysolecithins in their lactation diet lost less backfat during confinement and had a lower re- duction in body condition score, which resulted in a lower number of stillbirths and a reduction of the weaning-to-oes- trus interval. In addition, colostrum and milk quality were bet- ter, resulting in a higher number and heavier weaned piglets. With a calculated return on investment of 21.7, the bonus is that this is not only beneficial for sow and piglet performance, but also very interesting from an economical point of view.
Table 3 – The effect of lysolecithins on suckling piglet performance.
Birth weight (kg)# Stillborn piglets (n)
Weight gain (g/piglet/day) Weaned piglets (n/sow) Weaning weight (kg/piglet) Weaning weight litter (kg/litter) Mortality suckling piglets (n/sow) Lactation days (n)
All litters were corrected to 13 piglets.
Control 1.41 2.5
227
12.1 7.2
86.9 1.0
25.6
*1,000 g FRA LeciMax Dry per tonne of feed. #
Lysolecithins* 1.36 1.6
234
12.5 7.3
90.6 0.6
25.5
▶PIG PROGRESS | Volume 36, No. 8, 2020
29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
