FEED FOR THOUGHT ▶▶▶
New terminology and methods S
wine nutrition is ever-evolving, and as we adapt we create new termi- nology, methodologies and methods for formulating swine rations. During ASAS Midwest meetings, Cargill discussed their approach to cal- culating and formulating fermentable protein versus the traditional fi-
bre and fermentation synergy. Furthermore, Dr Crystal Loving introduced a new word to me, “alterbiotics”, which are alternatives to antibiotics. These would be known as “eubiotics” from a DSM nutritional perspective. Furthermore, in a ne- glected area of swine nutrition, PIC described their new Optimal Boar Feeding Tool, which I found to be a great start to developing tools for an important component of our herd, yet still needs some fine tuning. With all these new concepts it is hard to keep up with how you should be formu- lating swine diets, and we are all still changing the basic concepts of replacing one ingredient with another or basing feed intake on energy or protein content of diets. One of the resounding messages from the meetings is that we have come a long way in nutrition, but our job will never be done in optimising formu- las for both performance and health. But I would have to agree with Dr Loving that in the future we will need to formulate for an individual herd or group of pigs based on a complex matrix of genetics, feedstuffs, health and microbiome. Post-weaning diarrhoea is still a major problem for the industry, whether it is due to the removal of pharmacological levels of zinc oxide, antibiotics, specialty feedstuffs or a disease challenge itself. That is why I was excited to learn more about Cargill’s perspective on fermentable protein and the opportunity to either lower crude protein or reduce scours post-weaning. In both experiments, reduc- ing fermentable protein optimised performance, as I would have anticipated. But is this strategy to formulate nursery diets much different from the other con- cepts of “ideal protein” or “precision nutrition” or – my crazy new term – “arche- typal protein”? The major flaws I find in all these methodologies is that they do not consider the benefits or synergies of feed additives, such as enzymes or or- ganic acids. The end game is all the same: digest the protein in the upper por- tion of the gastrointestinal tract, which will prevent the fermentation of protein in the hindgut while making the animal as efficient as possible. Will the future of these concepts need different strategies or a more ro- bust matrix for formulation than today’s general least-cost formulation perspectives, as Dr Loving mentioned in her presentation? Let us take it further. What happens if we reduce fermentable protein by 20% in the nursery pig on the mature microbiome, and what is the sub- sequent finisher performance of these pigs? Or another step: do we create a completely different need in the future offspring of gilts? Do they become naturally more efficient in digesting protein than previous generations? Obviously, there is job security for us yet, but at the same time the desperate need remains for more advanced tools and analytics to as- sess the full picture of swine nutrition and health. And yes, we will have more new terminology and nutrients in our formulation models in the future and I hope you welcome them the same as I do.
18 ▶ PIG PROGRESS | Volume 37, No. 3, 2021
Casey Bradley For Casey Bradley, growing up on a mixed swine and crop farm in Southwest Michigan eventually led to a successful career in swine nutrition. She currently spends her days as president of the Sunswine Group.
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
