Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

Instituto de Ciências Agrárias

Campus Montes Claros

Feeding Highly Prolific Sows in

Hot, Humid Climates
Prof. Dr. Bruno A. N. Silva
Swine Nutrition and Production
Environmental Adaptation

Nutriad BFI Innovations Seminar, China 2016

Nutriad BFI Innovations Seminar, China 2016
Brazilian Swine Industry
 Introduction: Brazil
 Population (2014 estimative): 202 768 562 hab.;

 Total area 8 515 767,049 km2 = 197 x Denmark;

 Total PIB (2014 estimative) - US$ 3,072 trilhion (7°) or per capita US$ 15 153 (63°);

 Climate: equatorial, subtropical, arid, temperate and tropical;

 26 states; Capital: Brasilia; Language: Portuguese.

Introduction: Swine Industry
 1.5 million sows;

 Well segmented;

 Most part is integrated;

 2/3 belongs to industry and cooperative;

 BRF (Brasil Foods) have 27.30% of all herd.

Herd Distribution

56% of Population

2014/2015 Changes

MG – 14.1% (aprox. 200.000 sows)

RS – 20.7%
MT and GO = 6.0%
 Genetic Companies
Brazilian Market Share

Others; TOPIGS; 21,71%

Aurora; 4,77%
11,59%

Sadia*; 12,96%

Agroceres/PIC;
Génétiporc; 3,21% 25,71%
Pen Ar Lan; 3,34%

DB DanBread;
16,71%
ABIPECS: 2013
 Employment related
Direct related
Professional 49.932
Backyard 50.010
Agricultural business 86.663
Total Direct 186.606

Employment generated
Direct 186.606
Indirect 405.272
Total 591.272
Who are the Main Players?
Rank Company Herd %

1 BRF 409,629 27,30%

2 Aurora 140,147 9,34%

3 Seara 90,500 6,03%

4 Alibem 70,965 4,73%

5 Pamplona 58,527 3,90%

6 Frangosul 35,300 2,35%

7 Frimesa 28,734 1,91%

8 Excelência 26,271 1,75%

9 PIF PAF 23,754 1,58%

10 Cotrijuí 13,629 0,90%

11 Cosuel 13,568 0,90%

12 Majestade 5,500 0,36%

13 Coopavel 5,468 0,36%

Sub Total 921,992

Independent 578,008
Segmentation – Piglet
Integration Cooperatives Independent Backyard
Sow Herd 720,450 201,550 578,000 800,000
+ 1,000 sows 50% 35% 30%
Feed Ingredients corn/soya corn/soya 3% by product
Production System 2 site 2 site 40% 2 site
Segmentation – Finisher
Integration Cooperatives Independent Backyard
Sow Herd 720,450 201,550 578,000 800,000
Production Target 70% Indust 30% Indust 100 % Fresh Meat 100% Fresh
20% Export 20% Export
10% Fresh 50% Fresh
Slaughter Weigth 118 kg 112 kg 95 kg
Production System 2 site 2 site 40% 2 site
Technology 45% 20% 90% Ractopamine
Imunocastrated Imunocastrated
100% Ractopamine 90% Ractopamine
Feed Strategy 100% Curve 100% Curve 100% “ad libitum”
Production Costs
 Meat Production
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Indust. 2,644 2,686 2,873 2,957 3,120 3,238 3,209
Backyard 354 342 317 280 278 250 220
Total 2,998 3,028 3,190 3,237 3,398 3,488 3,429

1,000 ton

ABIPECS: 2014
 Market
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Internal 2,415 2,391 2,499 2,583 2,697 2,882 2,907
External 528 607 529 607 540 516 581
Total 2,943 2,998 3,028 3,190 3,237 3,398 3,488

1,000 ton
ABIPECS: 2014
 Per capta consumption (kg)
Países 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

China 34,5 35,0 32,3 35,1 36,5 38,1 37,1 38,3 38,5

União Européia 42,2 42,1 43,8 42,8 42,8 41,5 41,3 40,7 40,1

Estados Unidos 29,3 29,0 29,8 29,0 29,3 27,9 26,6 26,7 26,2

Rússia 14,8 16,4 18,1 20,2 19,4 19,8 20,8 21,1 21,5

Brasil 10,3 11,4 11,7 12,2 12,2 13,7 14,3 14,9 15,1

Japão 19,7 19,2 19,4 19,5 19,4 19,7 19,9 20,0 20,0

Vietnam 18,7 19,9 21,1 20,9 21,3 21,8 21,8 22,0 22,0

México 13,8 13,9 14,0 14,6 15,9 15,7 14,9 15,5 15,2

Coréia do Sul 27,3 29,5 31,1 31,4 30,5 31,9 30,7 31,7 31,7

Filipinas 13,5 13,6 13,8 13,9 13,7 15,1 14,7 14,8 14,2

Taiwan 41,6 41,8 40,6 39,1 40,4 38,2 38,9 37,9 37,7

Ucrânia 11,6 12,5 15,4 18,0 15,6 17,1 17,8 18,3 17,8
ABIPECS and ANUALPEC: 2013
Canadá 25,0 25,2 26,6 25,5 25,5 23,6 22,8 23,0 23,1

Hong Kong 59,6 59,6 61,5 21,6 21,8 18,1 17,8 18,9 19,4
 Main Export Destination (2014/2015)
Rank Country Ton %

1 Russia 186,594 37.75

2 Hong Kong 110,922 22.44

3 Angola 52,284 10.58

4 Singapore 32,288 6.53

5 Uruguay 20,836 4.22

6 Georgia, Rep. of 8,617 1.74

7 Chile 8,367 1.69

8 Argentina 7,960 1.61

9 Moldavia, Rep. Of 5,840 1.18

10 Albany 5,839 1.18

11 Others 54,680 11.06

ABIPECS: 2015
Conclusion
 Well structured industry;

 Internal consumption is low, almost 15 kg/habitant;

 Last 10 years focused on external market;

 High dependency of Russia;

 Lower cost of production is the past;

 Sector improvement and better internal organization in the past years.

The Modern Sow
Genetic selection:
 Litter size;
 Vitality;
 Short WEI;
 Lactation efficiency.
Correlation between Number of born and birth weight

Fonte: Adaptado de Smit (2007)

 Correlation between farms and
litter performance
1.8
y = -0.0475x + 2.005
R2 = 0.2548

1.6
B irth w e ig h t

y = -0.0594x + 2.1296
R2 = 0.3328
1.4

1.2
BRAZIL

NETHERLANDS
1
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Total number born
Fonte: Knol (2009)
Do we have KNOW
HOW ?
Longevity
14,5

14,0
litte r s iz e

13,5

13,0

12,5

12,0
 Longevity: h2 = 0,10 – 0,18
11,5
1 2
 Farm mannagement
3 4 5 6 7 8
parity

Fonte: Merks, 2008.

Investment Return Rate

Fonte: Pinilla & Lecznieski (2010)

 Retention rate 3rd parity
• Brazil
Farms, n 4*
13
Gilts inseminated, n 30.503 6.530
Weaned sow/year, n 28,4 29,6
Retention rate 3rd parity, % 73,5 78,4
* 4 best farms
 Correlation between longevity and weaning weight

<130 kg 130 – 145 kg

1st Insem. Age 234 234
BW, kg 120 140
Parity 1 BW farrowing, kg 183 210
Born alive 12,1 12,1
BW weaning, kg 140 175
Parity 2 Born alive 10,9 13,6
Parity 5 Born alive 11,9 14,2
Longevity 3,8 5,5

Source: Topigs Norsvin (2012)

Nutritional Plan for the Sow

Factors:

- Genetics;
- Physiology;
- Parity order.
Factors:

- Environment
- Management;
- Nutrition.
Nutrition of the Modern Sow
 More productive » less body reserves;

 Limited feed intake capacity;

 High nutritional requirements;

 Real nutritional requirements not well known.

 “Intergrated Feeding Strategy”

Early gestation

Gilts Mid gestation

WEI Late gestation

Lactation
Nutrition of the Gestating Sow

1) Different metabolic changes

2) Different feed intake capacities
 Muscle fibre development

Formação
das fibras Formação das fibras
primárias secundárias

Genética Nutrição
Superpopulação Total de fibras musculares
uterina estabelecidas

Dia 0
35 dias 55 dias 90-95 dias Parto
Concepção
↑ diâmetro fibras
↑ do nº fibras musculares musculares
(HIPERPLASIA) (HIPERTROFIA)

Fonte: Adaptado
Foxcroft (2006)
de Wu et al. (2004)
 AA Requirements...
M a m m a ry g la n d , g /g la n d

350
300 3
y = 0.0002296x + 10.402
Fetal development (indiv.)
250
2
R = 0.9845; P < 0.001 0 – 70 d ➢ 0,25 g protein/day
200
150
71 – 114 d ➢ 4,63 g protein/day
100
50
0
1.800
1.600

F e ta l w eig h t, g
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
1.400
Day of gestation 1.200 y = 0.00108x3 - 69.922
1.000 (R2 = 0.94, P < 0.001)
800
600
400

Mamary gland (indiv.) 200

0

0 – 80 d ➢ 0,14 g protein/day 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Day of gestation
81 – 114 d ➢ 3,41 g protein/day
Fonte: adaptado de Kim et al., 2009
Nutrictional requirements for primiparous

tura
r
o be
C Uterus

Piglets

Placenta

Liquid

Mammary gland

0 Fase 1 49 Fase 2 85 Fase 3 115

Reconstitution of body reserves
27
24
21 Multíparas Nulíparas
Retenção Nitrogênio (g/d)

18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Gestação (d)

Fonte: adaptado de Dourmad et al. (1996); Clowes et al. (2003); e De Bettio et al. (2014)
Nutritional Requirements for Multiparous

ra
er t
u
arto
b H P
Co Uterus
H
Piglets
L Placenta

Liquid

Mammary gland

Body recovery and

Maternal gain
0 Fase 1 49 Fase 2 85 Fase 3 115
Lysine requirements for primiparous (g/d)

16
For protein gain
12 For maintenance
15,34
g/d

6,10
4

2,07 2,31
0
Before d 70 of gestation After d 70 of gestation

8,17 g/d 17,65 g/d

Fonte: Dados próprios.
Lysine requirements for multiparous (g/d)
For protein gain
16 For maintenance

12

10,75 11,43
g/d

4
2,78 2,84
0
Before d 70 of gestation After d 70 of gestation

13,53 g/d 14,27 g/d

Fonte: Dados próprios.
Oxidative Stress in Modern Sows

Fonte: Zhao (2011)

Plasma concetrations of antioxidants

Vit E

Vit A

Fonte: Berchieri-Ronchi et al. (2011)

Fonte: Zhao (2011)
 Supplementation of Antioxidant components and DHA
Vitimins + Minerals
Control +DHA Diff *

Lactation duration (d) 25,0 25,0 -

Litter size born (n) 13,06 13,29 -

Piglet weight at birth (kg) 1,166 1,281 +9,8%

Litter size weaning (n) 11,86 12,25 +3,2%

Piglet weight weaning (kg) 5,58 6,01 +8%

Litter weight weaning (kg) 66,21 73,35 +10,8%

Piglet daily gain (g/d) 0,177 0,191 +8%

Milk production (kg/d) 9,26 10,22 +10,4%

Source: Gobira et al. (2015 – Non published data)

Nutrition of the Lactating Sow

1) Catabolic status and milk production

2) Reproduction post weaning
Lysine requirements according to lactation week

Week Lysine Thr Met Trp Val

1 45,5 29,6 13,6 8,52 38,4

2 57,9 37,6 17,5 10,9 49,4
g/d
3 59,5 38,7 18,0 11,2 50,8
4 56,0 36,5 16,9 10,6 478

Source: Adapted from Strathe et al. (2015)

 Mammary Gland Growth

Sows need 6,2 g lysine SID/d for mammary

gland growth
14% deposition and 86% oxidated
Lysine (%) requirements according to genetic company

25%

Challenges for systems with several

genetics

Source: Rostagno (2011).

 Nutritional Strategies:
Sows have different feed intake patterns

Ideal
Metabolic disorders
Below potential

Lactation (d)
Alltech (2013)
Lysine requirements based on feed intake
capacity
(PIC, 2012)
Target: 63g Lysine SID /d

Daily Feed intake (Kg) % Lysine SID

5,60 1,12
6,00 1,05
6,60 0,95
7,00 0,90
Impact of BW Loss during Lactation on Embryo Survival
BW loss (%)

Parameters 10% 17% P value

Loin muscle loss (mm) 5,8 10,0 0,002

BF loss (mm) 4,6 4,8 0,59
NEFA (μm/l) 815,9 988,8 0,10
N° viable embryos, 35 d gest 16,8 14,9 0,02
Embryo survival rate, 35 d gest (%) 86,7 71,1 0,002
Adapted from Hoving et al. (2012)
Body weight dynamics in lactating sows based
on Ad lib feeding system

Farm with 4.000 sows. Av. daily feed intake: 8,13 Kg

Source: Fonseca et al. (2013 – UFLA; dados não publicados)

Body weight dynamics in lactating sows based
on controlled feeding system

Economy: 1,63 kg/sow/d

38 ton feed month Av. daily feed intake: 6,50Kg

Fonte: Fonseca et al. (2013 – UFLA; dados não publicados)

The Modern Sow Around the World

Netherlands:
NTB: ~16.7
W/S/Y: >32.6
Retention 3rd: >78%
Farrowing Rate: >90%

Brazil:
NTB: <15.7
W/S/Y: <29.4
Retention 3rd: ~70%
Farrowing Rate: <89%
Climate is the First Limiting Factor for
Efficient Pig Production
 Effects of Heat Stress on Sow Performance

• Negative Impacts:
 Reduction voluntary feed intake ➢

⇓ TEF; ↑ body reserve mobilization;

 Reduction milk production;

 ↑ embryo mortality;

• Ball et al. (2008) ➢ modern genotypes

produce 18.1% more heat
 Consequences of Genetic Improvement...

>2.8% increase in lean meat % (Ball et al. 2008)

↑ Protein Turnover
↑ 18.7% Heat production
Impact of Temperature and BW on Feed Intake
of Lactating Sows
8000
Feed intake (g/d)
6000
270 kg
250 kg
4000 230 kg
210 kg
2000

0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Temperature (°C)

Adapted from Quiniou & Noblet (1999)

Effect of Climate on Daily Feed Intake Kinetics
F e e d In ta k e (g /h )
of Lactating Sows

600

500

400

300
War
m
200 Hot
100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of day (h)

Silva et al., 2009

 Reduction of Milk Production
Temperature Milk Production
% Reduction
(o C) (kg/d)

18 7,5 Quiniou & Noblet

18
29 6,2 (1999)
18 8,3
26 Quiniou et al (2000)
29 6,1
20 10,4 Renaudeau & Noblet
30
29 7,3 (2001)

26 9,5
23 Silva et al. (2009)
36 7,3
 Plasmatic concentration of
T3 in gilts under diferente thermal conditions

Adpated from Oliveira et al. (1996)

Heat Stress Enhances Sow Oxidative Stress and
reduces Litter Growth Rates during Lactation

MDA, ng/mL
Adaptado de Zhao et al. (2015)
Source: Zhao (2011)
 What can we do?
3 Basic Procedures

Thermal-tolerance Nutritional Strategies Environmental

Genetics Modification

Dietary density CP, EB, feed flavours

1
Effect of temperature and sow line performance

Litt er size
12.00
Linhagem A
Linhagem B
11.50

11.00

10.50

10.00
21,7ºC
9.50
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

Max. Temperature at day of insemination (°C)

Adapted from Bloemhof et al. (2008)

Environmental Changes

Adapted from Silva et al., 2006 and 2009

Effect of Floor Cooling on Performance and Behaviour of
Lactating Sows during Summer
Treatments VC
Parameters Floor No-Floor (%)
cooling Cooling
Room temperature (o C) 24,5 24,5
Floor temperature (o C) 15 % 28,0 36,2 6,6
Voluntary feed intake (kg/dia) 6,47 5,60 14,3
Milk production (kg/porca/dia) 10,22 7,20 16,5
Sow BW loss (kg) - 6,9 -12,2 45,6
WEI (d) 3,9 4,2 41,5
Piglet daily gain (g/d) 28 % 257 201 15,1

Adapted from Silva et al., 2006

Effect of Farm Managment on Sow Feed Intake

Voluntary feed intake Weaning weight

7 6,1
6 5,5 5,4 5,5
4,9 4,7 5,1
Kg 5 4,3
4
3
1 2 3 4
Room
Alltech (2013)
Effect of fibre levels on BW loss of lactating sows
in hot, humid climate
Control High fibre
Temp. = 27,5 o C
UR = 83,5%

BW loss (kg)
Adapted from Renaudeau et al. (2003)
Effect of Dietary Energy Levels during Lactation in Mixed
Parity Sows under Heat Stress

T1 T2 T3 T4

Variables 0% 2% 4% 6% P
3.24 Mcal/kg 3.34 Mcal/kg 3.43 Mcal/kg 3.53 Mcal/kg
13.1 Mcal/d 13.9 Mcal/d 15.2 Mcal/d 15.3 Mcal/d

Voluntary feed intake, kg 4.08 4.18 4.44 4.34  NS

BW loss, % -1.25 0.00 0.00 -1.27 NS

BF loss, mm -0.36 -0.31 -0.29 -0.26  NS

WEI, d 9.2 7.8 7.9 8.0  NS
Litter size at weaning, n 10.75 10.11 10.34 9.99 NS
Average piglet weight at 21 d, kg 5.45 5.84 5.61 5.57 NS
Average litter weight at 21 d, kg 58.7 59.0 57.9 55.3 NS

Adapted from Rosero et al. (2012)

Effect of Dietary Energy Levels during Lactation in Mixed
Parity Sows under Heat Stress
T1 T2 T3 T4
Variables 18.9 Mcal d-1 20.1 Mcal d-1 21.3 Mcal d-1 22.5 Mcal d-1 P
3.15 Mcal kg-1 3.35 Mcal kg-1 3.55 Mcal kg-1 3.75 Mcal kg-1
Voluntary feed intake, kg 5.42 5.26 5.35 5.39  NS
BW loss, % -5.32 -3.00 -4.44 -4.12 NS
BF loss, mm -1.8 -2.5 -1.8 -1.8  NS
WEI, d 5.0 5.3 5.2 3.8  NS
Litter size at weaning, n 11.4 11.3 11.5 11.3 NS
Piglet weight at 21 d, kg 5.6 5.3 5.2 5.3 NS
Litter weight at 21 d, kg 64.3 61.2 60.0 59.9 NS
Milk production, kg d-1 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.2  NS

Adapted from Taveira et al. (2014) – UFMG/ICA

 Impact of Heat Stress on Lactating Sows Daily
Requirements (model approach)
Environmental situation Heat stress Comfort
Litter size 13 13
Litter daily gain, kg/d 2.4 2.8 +0.4 kg/d
Milk production, kg/d 8.8 10.3 +1.5 kg/d
Nutritional Requirements
Lysine SID, g/d 45.0 56.3 +11.3 g/d
Met. energy, Mcal/d 12.9 20.9 +8.0 Mcal/d
Source: Own data
 Effect of Temperature on Lysine Requirements and Protein
Deposition in Gilts from 30 to 60 kg

Heat Stress 32 ⁰C; Batista et al. (2011)

22 g/dia Lis dig.

18 g/dia Lis dig.

Thermalneutral 22 ⁰C; Abreu et al. (2007)

 Effects of dietary protein level and amino acid
supplementation on performance of mixed-parity lactating
sows in a tropical humid climate
Dietary CP level
Variable
17,3% CP 14,1% CP + AA 17,3% CP + AA

Litter size at weaning 10,1 10,1 10,7

Voluntary feed intake (kg/d) 4,39 4,93 4,91

Energy intake (MJ/d) 44,78 49,80 50,10

Milk production (kg/d) 7,6 7,3 7,5

Litter daily gain (kg/d) 2,2 2,1 2,1

Sow body weight loss (kg) 27,0 25,4 21,8

Adapted from Silva et al. (2009)

Effect of floor cooling and dietary amino acids content on
performance and behaviour of lactating primiparous
sows during summer

Adapted from Silva et al. (2009)

 Impact of feed restriction on the performance of
highly prolific lactating sows and its
effect on the subsequent lactation
Variables Control ad lib Restricted 50% P-value
N 20 20
Feed intake, kg/d 6,43 4,14 P<0,001
BW loss, % 4,0% 13,0% P<0,001
WEI, d 4,26 4,32
Litter size weaning 11,88 11,78
Litter daily gain, kg/d 2,73 2,38 P<0,01
Piglet weaning weight, kg 7,4 6,9 P<0,05
Milk production, kg/d 9,3 8,0 P<0,01
Lactation effiency, % 72,9 82,3 P<0,05

Adapted from De Bettio et al. (2015)

 Evaluation of feed flavour (KRAVETM) supplementation on the
performance of lactating high-prolific sows during summer

T1 T2 T3
Variáveis Control + KRAVE Control + KRAVE P<0,05
Control 250 g/t 500 g/t

N Conclusions99regarding the use

99 of KRAVE for
98
Lactation duration sows
23,3 during summer:
23,4 23,5
Voluntary feed intake, kg 5,08 6,02 6,60 *
BW loss, % -7,80 -8,29 -7,68
Piglet weight at start, kg +29%
1,394 voluntary feed
1,369 intake 1,335
Litter size at start, kg +4% weaned piglets
14,83 14,82 14,80
Litter size at weaning, n +19%
12,95 b weaning13,07
weight
ab 13,45 a *
Piglet weight at weaning, kg 5,86 c 6,16 b 7,00 a *
Litter weight at weaning, kg
+4 kg/d
75,88
milk production
80,51 94,15 *
Milk production, kg d-1 8,59 b 9,55 b 12,99 a *

Adapted from Tolentino et al. (2015) – UFMG/ICA

 Evaluation of the Use of Water Flavour (OptisweetTM) on the
Stimulation of Voluntary Water intake and Performance of Nursing
Piglets
T1 T2 T3 T4
Variáveis P<0,05
Control Control + 0.1 ml/L Control + 0.2 ml/L Control + 0.4 ml/L
Conclusions regarding the use of water flavour
N litters 20 20 20 20
Sow voluntary feed intake, kg
during
7,02
summer for
7,13
nursing piglets:
7,16 7,07
Sow BW loss, % 11,8 11,8 12,0 12,0
Piglet weight at start, kg 1,91
+34% weaning weight
+34% weaning
1,97 weight 1,91 1,92
Litter size at start, kg 12,0 +24% water
12,0 intake 12,0 12,0
Litter size at weaning, n +22% creep11,8
11,8 feed intake 12,0 12,0
Piglet weight at weaning, kg 4,58 4,79 5,38 6,15 *
Litter weight at weaning, kg 54,09 56,84 64,56 73,80 *
Litter total water intake, L 66,1 69,6 74,4 82,3 *
Piglet total water intake, L 5,5 5,8 6,2 6,8 *

Source: Silva (2016 – Non Published) – UFMG/ICA

Concluding Remarks

 Modern sows have different requirements

 Modern sows are less tolerant to heat stress
 Adapt feeding strategies to improve sow and/or litter output under
heat stress conditions
 BrunoSilva@ufmg.br

Thank you for the

Attention!!