Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:20:55.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta-analysis of feed intake and growth responses of growing pigs after a sanitary challenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2011

H. Pastorelli ,
J. van Milgen ,
P. Lovatto  and
L. Montagne
H. Pastorelli
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d'Elevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 Systèmes d'Elevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35000 Rennes, France
J. van Milgen
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d'Elevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 Systèmes d'Elevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35000 Rennes, France
P. Lovatto
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Campus Camobi, Santa Maria, RS, 97105-900, Brazil
L. Montagne*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d'Elevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 Systèmes d'Elevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Sanitary challenges negatively affect feed intake and growth, leading to a negative impact on animal well-being and economic losses. The aim of this study was to carry out a meta-analysis to quantify the dynamic feed intake and growth responses of growing pigs after a sanitary challenge. A database was constructed using 122 published experiments reporting the average daily feed intake (ADFI) and the average daily gain (ADG) of pigs subjected to one of six sanitary challenges: digestive bacterial infections, poor housing conditions, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenges, mycotoxicoses, parasitic infections and respiratory diseases. The responses to experimental challenges were calculated relative to that of a control group. Statistical analyses were carried out for each challenge to quantify the mean and the dynamic responses in feed intake and growth and to identify the basis of the reduction in growth (i.e. reduction in feed intake or reduction in feed efficiency related to changes in maintenance requirements). All challenges resulted in a reduction in ADFI and ADG, with the strongest responses for mycotoxicoses, respiratory diseases and digestive bacterial infections (8% to 23% reduction in ADFI and 16% to 29% reduction in ADG). The reduction in ADG was linearly related to the reduction in ADFI for digestive bacterial infections, LPS challenge, parasitic infections and respiratory diseases. For poor housing conditions and mycotoxicoses, the relationship was curvilinear. A 10% reduction in ADFI resulted in a reduction in ADG varying from 10% for mycotoxicoses to 43% for digestive bacterial infections. More than 70% of the reduction in ADG could be explained by the reduction in ADFI for mycotoxicoses, LPS challenge and respiratory diseases. For challenges associated with the gastrointestinal tract, a large part of the reduction in ADG was due to an increase in maintenance requirements, suggesting digestive and metabolic changes. A dynamic pattern in the reduction in feed intake and growth rate could be identified for digestive bacterial infections, mycotoxicoses and respiratory diseases. For digestive bacterial infections and mycotoxicoses, pigs did not fully recover from the challenge during the experimental period. The results of this study can be used to quantify the effects of a sanitary challenge in growth models of pigs.

Keywords

meta-analysispigsfeed intakegrowthsanitary challenge
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , June 2012 , pp. 952 - 961
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Black, JL 2009. Models to predict feed intake. In Voluntary feed intake in pigs (ed. D Torrallardona and E Roura), pp. 323–351. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, JL, Bray, HJ, Giles, LR 1999. The thermal and infectious environment. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. I Kyriazakis), pp. 71–97. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Boudergue, C, Burel, C, Dragacci, S, Favrot, MC, Fremy, JM, Massimi, C, Prigent, P, Debongnie, P, Pussemier, L, Boudra, H, Morgavi, D, Oswald, IP, Perez, A, Avantaggiato, G 2009. Review of mycotoxin-detoxifying agents used as feed additives: mode of action, efficacy and feed/food safety. Scientific report submitted to EFSA. Reference number of the call for proposal: CFP/EFSA/FEEDAP/2009/01, 192pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, RL, Kyriazakis, I 1999. Nutrition–parasite interaction. Veterinary Parasitology 84, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, JEL, Kyriazakis, I, Rogers, PJ 1998. Food choice and intake: towards a unifying framework of learning and feeding motivation. Nutrition Research Reviews 11, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Done, SH, Paton, DJ, White, MEC 1996. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS): a review, with emphasis on pathological, virological and diagnostic aspects. British Veterinary Journal 152, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escobar, J, Van Alstine, WG, Baker, DH, Johnson, RW 2004. Decreased protein accretion in pigs with viral and bacterial pneumonia is associated with increased myostatin expression in muscle. Journal of Nutrition 134, 3047–3053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etienne, M, 2007. Effets biologiques et physiologiques d'une mycotoxine, le déoxynivalénol (DON), chez le porc. In Journées Recherche Porcine 39, pp. 407–418. FRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Hale, OM, Stewart, TB, Marti, OG 1985. Influence of an experimental infection of Ascaris suum on performance of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 60, 220–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, RW 1997. Inhibition of growth by pro-inflammatory cytokines: an integrated view. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1244–1255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klasing, KC 1998a. Nutritional modulation of resistance to infectious diseases. Poultry Science 77, 1119–1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klasing, KC 1998b. Avian macrophages: regulators of local and systemic immune responses. Poultry Science 77, 983–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klasing, KC, Johnstone, BJ 1991. Monokines in growth and development. Poultry Science 70, 1781–1789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klasing, KC, Johnstone, BJ, Benson, BN 1991. Implications of an immune response on growth and nutrient requirements of chicks. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. W Haresign and DJA Cole), pp. 135–146. Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, MA.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I 2010. Is anorexia during infection in animals affected by food composition? Animal Feed Science and Technology 156, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC 1992. The growth of mammals following a period of nutritional limitation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 156, 485–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I, Houdijk, JGM 2007. Food intake and performance of pigs during health, disease and recovery. In 62nd Easter School in the Agricultural and Food Sciences (ed. J Wiseman, MA Varley, S McOrist and B kemp), pp. 493–513. University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, UK.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Doeschl-Wilson, A 2009. Anorexia during infection in mammals: variation and its sources. In Voluntary feed intake in pigs (ed. D Torrallardona and E Roura), pp. 307–321. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Tolkamp, BJ, Hutchings, MR 1998. Towards a functional explanation for the occurrence of anorexia during parasitic infections. Animal Behaviour 56, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lallès, J-P, Bosi, P, Smidt, H, Stokes, CR 2007. Nutritional management of gut health in pigs around weaning. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 66, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Floc'h, N, Jondreville, C, Matte, JJ, Seve, B 2006. Importance of sanitary environment for growth performance and plasma nutrient homeostasis during the post-weaning period in piglets. Archives of Animal Nutrition 60, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovatto, PA, Sauvant, D 2003. Modeling homeorhetic and homeostatic controls of pig growth. Journal of Animal Science 81, 683–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovatto, PA, Sauvant, D, van Milgen, J 2000. Étude et modélisation du phénomène de croissance compensatrice chez le porc. In Journées Recherche Porcine, 32, pp. 241–246, FRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Minitab 2007. Minitab version 15.1.1.0. for Windows. Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Harris, DL, Minvielle, F 1991. Computer simulation model of swine production systems: I. Modeling the growth of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 69, 1468–1488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandberg, FB, Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I 2006. A model for predicting feed intake of growing animals during exposure to pathogens. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1552–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, FB, Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I 2007. The effects of pathogen challenges on the performance of native and immune animals: the problem of prediction. Animal 1, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2000. Proprietary software release 8.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Schmidely, P, Daudin, JJ, St-Pierre, NR 2008. Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal 2, 1203–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spurlock, ME 1997. Regulation of metabolism and growth during immune challenge: an overview of cytokine function. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1773–1783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tillon, JP, Madec, F 1985. Quelques indicateurs pathologiques à prendre en considération dans l’évaluation du bâtiment en élevage porcin. In Journées Recherche Porcine 17, pp. 251–264. FRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Turk, DE 1972. Protozoan parasitic infections of the chick intestine and protein digestion and absorption. Journal of Nutrition 102, 1217–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Dourmad, J-Y, Sève, B, 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
Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I 2003. Predicting the consequences of social stressors on pig food intake and performance. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2995–3007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, NH, Stahly, TS, Zimmerman, DR 1997. Effect of chronic immune system activation on the rate, efficiency, and composition of growth and lysine needs of pigs fed from 6 to 27 kg. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2463–2471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, JJ, Yoon, KJ, Wills, RW, Swenson, SL 1997. General overview of PRRSV: a perspective from the United States. Veterinary Microbiology 55, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Pastorelli Supplementary Material

Supplementary material: List of references used in the meta-analysis for each sanitary challenge

Download Pastorelli Supplementary Material(File)
File 154.1 KB