Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:38:41.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of protein and amino acid requirements of lactating sows using a population-based factorial approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2015

A. V. Strathe ,
A. B. Strathe ,
P. K. Theil ,
C. F. Hansen  and
E. Kebreab
A. V. Strathe*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 2, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
A. B. Strathe
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, Groennegaardsvej 7, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
P. K. Theil
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
C. F. Hansen
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 2, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
E. Kebreab
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Determination of appropriate nutritional requirements is essential to optimize the productivity and longevity of lactating sows. The current recommendations for requirements do not consider the large variation between animals. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the amino acid recommendations for lactating sows using a stochastic modeling approach that integrates population variation and uncertainty of key parameters into establishing nutritional recommendations for lactating sows. The requirement for individual sows was calculated using a factorial approach by adding the requirement for maintenance and milk. The energy balance of the sows was either negative or zero depending on feed intake being a limiting factor. Some parameters in the model were sow-specific and others were population-specific, depending on state of knowledge. Each simulation was for 1000 sows repeated 100 times using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. BW, back fat thickness of the sow, litter size (LS), average litter gain (LG), dietary energy density and feed intake were inputs to the model. The model was tested using results from the literature, and the values were all within ±1 s.d. of the estimated requirements. Simulations were made for a group of low- (LS=10 (s.d.=1), LG=2 kg/day (s.d.=0.6)), medium- (LS=12 (s.d.=1), LG=2.5 kg/day (s.d.=0.6)) and high-producing (LS=14 (s.d.=1), LG=3.5 kg/day (s.d.=0.6)) sows, where the average requirement was the result. In another simulation, the requirements were estimated for each week of lactation. The results were given as the median and s.d. The average daily standardized ileal digestible (SID) protein and lysine requirements for low-, medium- and high-producing sows were 623 (CV=2.5%) and 45.1 (CV=4.8%); 765 (CV=4.9%) and 54.7 (CV=7.0%); and 996 (CV=8.5%) and 70.8 g/day (CV=9.6%), respectively. The SID protein and lysine requirements were lowest at week 1, intermediate at week 2 and 4 and the highest at week 3 of lactation. The model is a valuable tool to develop new feeding strategies by taking into account the variable requirement between groups of sows and changes during lactation. The inclusion of between-sow variation gives information on safety margins when developing new dietary recommendations of amino acids and protein for lactating sows.

Keywords

amino acid requirementsbetween-animal variationdietary recommendationslactating sowsprotein requirement
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1319 - 1328
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Brossard, L, Dourmad, J-Y, Rivest, J and van Milgen, J 2009. Modelling the variation in performance of a population of growing pig as affected by lysine and feeding strategy. Animal 3, 1114–1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coma, J, Zimmerman, DR and Carrion, D 1996. Lysine requirement of the lactating sow determined by using plasma urea nitrogen as a rapid response criterion. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1056–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darragh, AJ and Moughan, PJ 1998. The composition of colostrum and milk. In The lactating sow (ed. MWA Verstegen, PJ Moughan and JW Schrama), pp. 3–21. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dourmad, J-Y, Noblet, J and Etienne, M 1998a. Effect of protein and lysine supply on performance, nitrogen balance, and body composition changes of sows during lactation. Journal of Animal Science 76, 542–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dourmad, J-Y, Noblet, J, Pere, MC and Etienne, M 1998b. Mating, pregnancy and prenatal growth. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. I Kyriazakis), pp. 129–153. CABI publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Dourmad, J-Y, Etienne, M, Noblet, J and Causeur, D 1997. Prediction de la composition chimique des truies reproductrices a partir du poids vif et de l’epaisseur de lard dorsal. Journees de la Recherche Porcine en France 29, 255–262.Google Scholar
Dourmad, J-Y, Etienne, M, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Van Milgen, J and Noblet, J 2008. Inraporc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, JJ, Kanis, E and Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, BP 2006. Body composition of breeding gilts in response to dietary protein and energy balance from thirty kilograms of body weight to completion of first parity. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1926–1934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, AV, Strathe, AB, Theil, PK and Kebreab, E 2014. Energy and nutrient deposition and excretion in the reproducing sow: model development and evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2458–2472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, AV, Lauridsen, C, Sørensen, MT, Bach Knudsen, KE and Theil, PK 2012a. Effect of nutrient supply, plasma metabolites, and nutritional status of sows during transition on performance in the next lactation. Journal of Animal Science 90, 466–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, AV, Strathe, AB, Kebreab, E, France, J and Theil, PK 2012b. Predicting milk yield and composition in lactating sows: a Bayesian approach. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2285–2298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauschild, L, Pomar, C and Lovatto, PA 2010. Systematic comparison of the empirical and factorial methods used to estimate the nutrient requirements of growing pigs. Animal 4, 714–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, FR, Liu, HB, Sun, HQ and Peng, J 2013. Effects of lysine and protein intake over two consecutive lactations on lactation and subsequent reproductive performance in multiparous sows. Livestock Science 157, 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, DB and Stahly, TS 1999. Impact of amino acid nutrition during lactation on body nutrient mobilization and milk nutrient output in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1513–1522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Baker, DH and Easter, RA 2001. Dynamic ideal protein and limiting amino acids for lactating sows: the impact of amino acid mobilization. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2356–2366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Hurley, WL, Han, IK and Easter, RA 1999. Changes in tissue composition associated with mammary gland growth during lactation in sows. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2510–2516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Hurley, WL, Wu, G and Ji, F 2009. Ideal amino acid balance for sows during gestation and lactation. Journal of Animal Science 87, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, RH and Williams, IH 1984. The effect of nutrition on the productive performance of first-litter sows 2. Protein and energy intakes during lactation. Animal Science 38, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, RH, Toner, MS, Dove, H, Atwood, CS and Brown, WG 1993. The response of first-litter sows to dietary protein level during lactation. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2457–2463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, AR and Pedersen, CV 2003. Representation of uncertainty in a Monte Carlo simulation model of a scavenging chicken production system. In Conference Proceedings of the European Federation for Information Technology in Agriculture, Food and the Environment, 5–9 July, Debrecen, Hungary, pp. 451–459.Google Scholar
Kruse, S, Traulsen, I and Krieter, J 2011. Analysis of water, feed intake and performance of lactating sows. Livestock Science 135, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, JP and Pettigrew, JE 2002. Protein and fat utilization in lactating sows: I. Effects on milk production and body composition. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2442–2451.Google ScholarPubMed
Mosnier, E, Etienne, M, Ramaekers, P and Pere, MC 2010. The metabolic status during the peri partum period affects the voluntary feed intake and the metabolism of the lactating multiparous sow. Livestock Science 127, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th revised edition. The National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Noblet, J, Dourmad, J-Y and Etienne, M 1990. Energy utilization in pregnant and lactating sows: modeling of energy requirements. Journal of Animal Science 68, 562–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Grady, JF, Lynch, PB and Kearney, PA 1985. Voluntary feed intake by lactating sows. Livestock Production Science 12, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomar, C, Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC and Knap, PW 2003. Modeling stochasticity: dealing with populations rather than individual pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 178–186.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Hauschild, L, Zhang, GH, Pomar, J and Lovatto, PA 2011. Precision feeding can significantly reduce feeding cost and nutrient excretion in growing animals. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals (ed. D Sauvant, J van Milgen, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 327–334. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puillet, L, Martin, O, Sauvant, D and Tichit, M 2011. Evaluation of two feeding strategies with a herd model integrating individual variability. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals (ed. D Sauvant, J van Milgen, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 347–353. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauber, TE, Stahly, TS, Williams, NH and Ewan, RC 1998. Effect on lean growth genotype and dietary amino acid regimen on lactational performance of sows. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1098–1111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schinckel, AP, Li, N, Preckel, PV, Einstein, ME and Miller, D 2003. Development of a stochastic pig compositional growth model. The Professional Animal Scientist 19, 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, PK, Jørgensen, H and Jacobsen, K 2004. Energy and protein metabolism in lactating sows fed two levels of dietary fat. Livestock Production Science 89, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trottier, NL and Guan, XF 2000. Research paradigms behind amino acid requirements of lactation sow: theory and future application. Journal of Animal Science 78, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Dorumad, J-Y, Seve, B and Noblet, J 2008. Inraporc: a model and decision support tool for nutrition for growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, H, Pettigrew, JE, Johnston, LJ, Shurson, GC, Wheaton, JE, White, ME, Koketsu, Y and Rathmacher, JA 2000. Effects of dietary lysine intake during lactation on blood metabolites, hormones, and reproductive performance in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1001–1009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed