Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:30:28.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving the estimation of amino acid requirements to maximize nitrogen retention in precision feeding for growing-finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2020

A. Remus ,
J. R. E. del Castillo  and
C. Pomar
A. Remus
Affiliation:
Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Sherbrooke, QuebecJ1M 0C8, Canada Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 boul. de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QuebecJ1K 2R1, Canada
J. R. E. del Castillo
Affiliation:
Quebec’s Animal Pharmacology Research Group (GREPAQ), Department of Veterinary Biomedicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, 3200 Sicotte, Saint-Hyacinthe, QuebecJ2S 2M2, Canada
C. Pomar*
Affiliation:
Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Sherbrooke, QuebecJ1M 0C8, Canada
*
†E-mail: candido.pomar@canada.ca
Get access

Abstract

Precision feeding requires a mathematical model to estimate standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine (Lys) requirements (SIDLysR) in real time. However, this type of model requires constant calibration updates. The objective of this study was to review the calibration of the model used to estimate the real-time Lys requirements of individual growing-finishing pigs. A digestibility trial (n = 10) was conducted to evaluate amino acids digestibility during the growing and finishing phases. Additionally, 120 pigs were used in two 28-day growth experiments conducted as completely randomized design with growing (25 ± 2.1 kg BW, n = 60; 10 pigs per treatment) or finishing barrows (68.1 ± 6 kg BW, n = 60; 10 pigs per treatment). In each experiment, the pigs were divided into six equal treatment groups and fed 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100% or 110% of their estimated individual SIDLysR. The Lys requirement of each pig was estimated daily using a real-time model. Body composition was measured with dual-energy X-ray densitometry on day 1 and 28 of the experiments. Average daily feed intake increased quadratically (P < 0.05) during both growth phases. Maximum average daily gain (ADG) (0.98 kg) and maximum protein deposition (PD; 170 g/day) were observed in growing pigs fed 100% of the estimated SIDLysR (P < 0.001). During the growing period, PD in BW gain (17% to 19%) and N efficiency (52% to 65%) increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing inclusion rates of SID Lys. Finishing pigs had maximum ADG (1.2 kg/day) when they were fed 100% of the requirements. However, the amount of protein in BW gain (13% to 16%) and N efficiency (40% to 55%) increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing inclusion rates of SID Lys. In conclusion, the model proposed for precision feeding is correctly calibrated to predict SIDLysR that maximize PD and ADG of average pigs from 25 to 50 kg BW. Still, there is an opportunity to improve the estimation of SIDLysR and N retention in individual pigs by better representing the individual proportion of protein in BW gain and the factors controlling the efficiency of Lys utilization in individual pigs.

Keywords

digestibilityprecision livestock farmingnutrient efficiencyprotein depositionlysine
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 10 , October 2020 , pp. 2032 - 2041
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Minister of Health Canada 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andretta, I, Pomar, C, Kipper, M, Hauschild, L and Rivest, J 2016. Feeding behavior of growing–finishing pigs reared under precision feeding strategies. Journal of Animal Science 94, 3042–3050.10.2527/jas.2016-0392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andretta, I, Pomar, C, Rivest, J, Pomar, J, Lovatto, PA and Radünz Neto, J 2014. The impact of feeding growing–finishing pigs with daily tailored diets using precision feeding techniques on animal performance, nutrient utilization, and body and carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3925–3936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis. AOAC, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Barea, R, Brossard, L, Le Floc’h, N, Primot, Y, Melchior, D and van Milgen, J 2009. The standardized ileal digestible valine-to-lysine requirement ratio is at least seventy percent in postweaned piglets. Journal of Animal Science 87, 935–947.10.2527/jas.2008-1006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batterham, ES, Andersen, LM, Baigent, DR and White, E 1990. Utilization of ileal digestible amino acids by growing pigs: effect of dietary lysine concentration on efficiency of lysine retention. British Journal of Nutrition 64, 81–94.10.1079/BJN19900011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bikker, P, Verstegen, MWA and Campbell, RG 1996. Performance and body composition of finishing gilts (45 to 85 kilograms) as affected by energy intake and nutrition in earlier life: II. Protein and lipid accretion in body components. Journal of Animal Science 74, 817–826.10.2527/1996.744817xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, JL, Campbell, RG, Williams, IH, James, KJ and Davies, GT 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3, 121–145.Google Scholar
Calder, AG, Garden, KE, Anderson, SE and Lobley, GE 1999. Quantitation of blood and plasma amino acids using isotope dilution electron impact gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with U‐13C amino acids as internal standards. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 13, 2080–2083.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Council on Animal Care 2009. CCAC guidelines on: the care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. CCAC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Castellano, R, Perruchot, M-H, Conde-Aguilera, JA, van Milgen, J, Collin, A, Tesseraud, S, Mercier, Y and Gondret, F 2015. A methionine deficient diet enhances adipose tissue lipid metabolism and alters anti-oxidant pathways in young growing pigs. PLoS ONE 10, e0130514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloutier, L, Pomar, C, Létourneau Montminy, MP, Bernier, JF and Pomar, J 2015. Evaluation of a method estimating real-time individual lysine requirements in two lines of growing–finishing pigs. Animal 9, 561–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conde-Aguilera, JA, Barea, R, Le Floc’h, N, Lefaucheur, L and van Milgen, J 2010. A sulfur amino acid deficiency changes the amino acid composition of body protein in piglets. Animal 4, 1349–1358.10.1017/S1751731110000340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lange, CFM, Gillis, AM and Simpson, GJ 2001. Influence of threonine intake on whole-body protein deposition and threonine utilization in growing pigs fed purified diets. Journal of Animal Science 79, 3087–3095.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lange, CFM, Morel, PCH and Birkett, SH 2003. Modeling chemical and physical body composition of the growing pig. Journal of Animal Science 81, E159–E165.Google Scholar
Hahn, JD, Biehl, RR and Baker, DH 1995. Ideal digestible lysine level for early- and late-finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 73, 773–784.10.2527/1995.733773xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauschild, L, Lovatto, PA, Pomar, J and Pomar, C 2012. Development of sustainable precision farming systems for swine: Estimating real-time individual amino acid requirements in growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2255–2263.10.2527/jas.2011-4252CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jondreville, C and Dourmad, J-Y 2005. Phosphorus in pig nutrition. INRA Productions Animales 18, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Q and Patience, JF 2017. Factors involved in the regulation of feed and energy intake of pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 233, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahan, DC and Shields, RC Jr 1998. Essential and nonessential amino acid composition of pigs from birth to 145 kilograms of body weight, and comparison to other studies. Journal of Animal Science 76, 513–521.10.2527/1998.762513xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez-Ramírez, HR, Jeaurond, EA and de Lange, CFM 2008. Dynamics of body protein deposition and changes in body composition after sudden changes in amino acid intake: II. Entire male pigs. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2168–2179.10.2527/jas.2007-0236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Möhn, S, Gillis, AM, Moughan, PJ and de Lange, CFM 2000. Influence of dietary lysine and energy intakes on body protein deposition and lysine utilization in the growing pig. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1510–1519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Farm Animal Care Council 2012. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals: pigs. AAFC Publication, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th revised edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nyachoti, CM, Zijlstra, RT, de Lange, CFM and Patience, JF 2004. Voluntary feed intake in growing-finishing pigs: a review of the main determining factors and potential approaches for accurate predictions. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomar, C and Rivest, J 1996. The effect of body position and data analysis on the estimation of body composition of pigs by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, 7–11 July 1996, Lethbridge, Alberta, p. 26.Google Scholar
Remus, A, Hauschild, L, Corrent, E, Létourneau-Montminy, M-P and Pomar, C 2019. Pigs receiving daily tailored diets using precision-feeding techniques have different threonine requirements than pigs fed in conventional phase-feeding systems. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 10, 16.10.1186/s40104-019-0328-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remus, A, Hauschild, L and Pomar, C 2020. Simulated amino acid requirements of growing pigs differ between current factorial methods. Animal 14, 725–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remus, A and Pomar, C 2019. PSVII-21 revision of the model estimating real-time Lys requirements in individual growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 97, 223–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Sánchez, JA, Sanz, MA, Blanco, M, Serrano, MP, Joy, M and Latorre, MA 2011. The influence of dietary lysine restriction during the finishing period on growth performance and carcass, meat, and fat characteristics of barrows and gilts intended for dry-cured ham production. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3651–3662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvant, D, Perez, J-M, Tran, G 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses and fish. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinckel, AP, Li, N, Richert, BT, Preckel, PV, Foster, K and Einstein, ME 2006. Development of a model to describe the compositional growth and dietary lysine requirements of pigs fed increasing dietary concentrations of ractopamine. The Professional Animal Scientist 22, 438–449.10.15232/S1080-7446(15)31144-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, P, van Kleef, DJ, van Kempen, GJM, Huisman, J and Verstegen, MWA 1991. The Post Valve T‐Caecum cannulation technique in pigs applicated to determine the digestibility of amino acid in maize, groundnut and sunflower meal. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 65, 183–193.Google Scholar
van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Dourmad, J-Y, Sève, B and Noblet, J 2008. InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, EC, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2003. The relationship between live weight and the intake of bulky foods in pigs. Animal Science 76, 89–100.10.1017/S1357729800053352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Remus et al. Supplementary Materials

Remus et al. Supplementary Materials

Download Remus et al. Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 370.2 KB