REVIEW ▶▶▶
ESPHM: How feeding affects swine health
How can innovative pig nutrition be helpful for pig health? That question was key during two online keynote lectures at the digitally held European Symposium of Porcine Health Management (ESPHM) in April 2021. Two others dealt with more traditional pig health strategies, like vaccination and antibiotics.
Pig health and smart precision feeding
Dr Candido Pomar, research scientist at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, spoke of smart precision farming as the way ahead. Describing it as “the combination of precision agriculture and Big Data analysis techniques”, he predicted it has the potential to be the next revolution in agriculture. The focus in his keynote lecture was the question of how to increase nutrition efficiency. A one-size-fits-all approach, he said, does not work optimally in pig production. Precision feeding can make a difference: the right amount of feed with the right composition provided at the right time to each animal in the herd. Three components are needed to achieve that: measuring devices (for scanning), numerical methods (for estimating nutritional needs) and control devices (automatic feeders). Dr Pomar showed results of validation trials. Summarising, he said that
individual precision feeding would allow a reduction of 5–10% in feeding costs; 2–3% in feed fabri- cation costs; and over 40% in the excretion of nitrogen, phosphorus and other polluting constituents. He added, “The easy application of dietary treatments facilitates the early detection of diseases by monitoring individ- ual feed intake patterns and other animal parameters. In addition, it reduces antibiotic use by precise application of individual veterinary treatments, resulting in improved herd performance and lower veterinary cost.”
Pig health and controlled fermentation
Professor Josef Kamphues of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hanover, Germany presented out- comes of a study into controlled fer- mentation. He said that controlled fermentation works with a starter cul- ture and two fermenters and revolves around high lactic acid formation and fast
pH reduction.
He discussed two trials, both using ten pigs. In the first a totally ferment- ed diet was fed, which led to gastric ulcers due to very fine feed particles. A second trial consisted of 60% fermented rye and rapeseed and 40% non-fermented roller mill ground cereals. In that trial, the apparent total
6 ▶ PIG PROGRESS | Volume 37, No. 4, 2021
tract digestibility for phosphorus went up compared to the control group, and the same applied to crude protein. This time no gastric ulcers were found. Prof Kamphues pointed to a “hygienising potential” of the fermentation, which would suppress levels of Escherichia coli, Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella Typhimurium. Analysis of the pigs’ small intes- tinal microbiome was performed. In the case of the fermented feed and rolled cereals, levels of lactobacillaceae went up to +90%, whereas the microbiome of animals having had non-fermented feed was a mixture. He concluded: “With controlled fermentation, the diet acts as a probiotic in the small intestine; with secondary adding of rolled rye, the diet acts as a prebiotic in the hindgut.” He added that fermentation did not require further acidifying agents, and the impact of nitrogen and phosphorus for the environment would be lower.
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
