Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-7wlv9 Total loading time: 0.299 Render date: 2022-05-29T07:55:17.550Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Article contents

The impact of daily multiphase feeding on animal performance, body composition, nitrogen and phosphorus excretions, and feed costs in growing–finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2014

C. Pomar*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2000 College Street, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1M 1Z3
J. Pomar
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Lleida, Alcalde Rovira Roure, 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain
F. Dubeau
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1
E. Joannopoulos
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1
J.-P. Dussault
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1
Get access

Abstract

The effect of feeding pigs in a three-phase feeding (3PF) system or a daily-phase feeding (DPF) system on growth performance, body composition, and N and P excretions was studied on 8 pens of 10 pigs each. Feeds for the 3PF and DPF treatments were obtained by mixing two feeds, one with a high nutrient concentration and the other with a low nutrient concentration. The DPF pigs tended (P=0.08) to consume more feed (+3.7%) than the 3PF pigs, but only during the first feeding phase. The DPF pigs consumed 7.3% less protein (P<0.01) but a similar amount of total P. For the whole growing period, the DPF pigs tended (P=0.08) to gain more weight (+2.4%) than the 3PF pigs, mainly because of faster growth (P=0.02) during the first feeding period. At the end of the experiment, total body protein mass was similar in the two treatment groups, but the DPF pigs had 8% more body lipids (P=0.04) than the 3PF pigs. Daily multiphase feeding reduced N excretion by 12% (P<0.01) but did not significantly reduce P excretion. In addition, feed costs, nutrient intake and nutrient excretion under the two feeding strategies were simulated and compared after different approaches were used to formulate complete feeds for each phase of the 3PF system, as well as the two feeds used in the DPF program. Simulated feed intake and growth was similar to those observed in the animal experiment. In comparison with the simulated 3PF system, the feed cost for the DPF pigs was reduced by 1.0%, the simulated N and P intakes were reduced by 7.3% and 4.4%, respectively, and the expected N and P excretions were reduced by 12.6% and 6.6%, respectively. The concomitant adjustment of the dietary concentration of nutrients to match the evaluated requirements of pig populations can be an efficient approach to significantly reduce feeding costs and N and P excretions in pig production systems.

Type
Full Paper
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in Canada 2014 

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

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1993. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals – pigs. AAFC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official methods of analysis. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Beaulieu, AD, Williams, NH and Patience, JF 2009. Response to dietary digestible energy concentration in growing pigs fed cereal grain-based diets. Journal of Animal Science 87, 965976.CrossRefGoogle 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, 121145.Google Scholar
Bourdon, D, Dourmad, J-Y and Henry, Y 1995. Réduction des rejets azotés chez les porcs en croissance par la mise en oeuvre de l’alimentation multiphase, associée à l’abaissement du taux azoté. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 27, 269278.Google Scholar
Brossard, L, Quiniou, N, Dourmad, J-Y, Salaün, Y and van Milgen, J 2010. Définir des stratégies alimentaires alliant performance économique et impact environnemental grâce à la modélisation du groupe de porcs en croissance. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 42, 131132.Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care 1993. Guide to the care and use of experimental animals, vol. 1. CCAC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Comité d’ORientation pour des Pratiques agricoles respectueuses de l’ENvironnement (Groupe Porc) 2003. Estimation des rejets d’azote – phosphore – potassium – cuivre – zinc des porcs. CORPEN, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Czyzyk, J, Mesnier, MP and More, JJ 1998. NEOS server. IEEE Computational Science & Engineering 5, 6875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Guingand, N, Latimier, P and Sève, B 1999aNitrogen and phosphorus consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production: France. Livestock Production Science 58, 199211.Google Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Sève, B, Latimier, P, Boisen, S, Fernández, J, van der Peet-Schwering, C and Jongbloed, AW 1999bNitrogen consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production in France, The Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Production Science 58, 261264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, GC 1981. A model of the growth and feed intake of ad libitum fed animals, particularly poultry. In Computers in animal production. Occasional Publication No. 5 (eds GM Hillyer, CT Whittemore and RG Gunn), pp. 103110. British Society of Animal Production, Thames Ditton, Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
Feddes, JJR, Ouellette, CA and Leonard, JJ 2000. A system for providing protein for pigs in intermediately sized grower/finisher barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 42, 209213.Google Scholar
Fourer, R, Gay, DM and Kernighan, BW 2002. AMPL: a modeling language for mathematical programming. Thomson/Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Joannopoulos, E 2012. Nouvelles approaches de modélisation et d’optimisation de diète animale. Master Thesis, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
Joannopoulos, E, Pomar, C, Dussault, J-P and Dubeau, F 2014. The diet problem. In Handbook of operational research in agriculture and agri-food industry (ed. LM Plà-Aragonés), Springer, New York (In press).Google Scholar
Jondreville, C and Dourmad, J-Y 2005. Le phosphore dans la nutrition des porcs. INRA Productions Animales 18, 183192.Google Scholar
Kerr, BJ, Yen, JT, Nienaber, JA and Easter, RA 2003. Influences of dietary protein level, amino acid supplementation and environmental temperature on performance, body composition, organ weights and total heat production of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 19982007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Bellego, L and Noblet, J 2002. Performance and utilization of dietary energy and amino acids in piglets fed low protein diets. Livestock Production Science 76, 4558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesschen, JP, van den Berg, M, Westhoek, HJ, Witzke, HP and Oenema, O 2011. Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letourneau Montminy, M-P, Boucher, C, Pomar, C, Dubeau, F and Dussault, J-P 2005. Impact de la méthode de formulation et du nombre de phases d’alimentation sur le coût d’alimentation et les rejets d’azote et de phosphore chez le porc charcutier. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 37, 2532.Google Scholar
Möhn, S and de Lange, CFM 1998. The effect of body weight on the upper limit to protein deposition in a defined population of growing gilts. Journal of Animal Science 76, 124133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Niemann, H, Kuhla, B and Flachowsky, G 2011. Perspectives for feed-efficient animal production. Journal of Animal Science 89, 43444363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noblet, J, Henry, Y and Dubois, S 1987. Effect of protein and lysine levels in the diet on body gain composition and energy utilization in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 65, 717726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pomar, C and Matte, JJ 1995. Effet de l’incorporation d’écailles d’avoine dans l’aliment servi à volonté sur le rationnement en nutriments, la prise alimentaire et les performances de croissance du porc en finition. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 27, 231236.Google 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). Proceedings of 46th Annual Conference of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, 7–11 July, Lethbridge, AB, Canada, 26pp.Google Scholar
Pomar, C and Pomar, J 2012. Sustainable precision livestock farming: a vision for the Canadian swine industry. Advances in Pig Production 23, 207213.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Dubeau, F, Letourneau Montminy, M-P, Mahé, M, Julien, P-O and Jondreville, C 2004. Réduction de l’excrétion de phosphore et d’azote chez le porc charcutier par l’ajout d’un objectif environnemental dans l’algorithme traditionnel de formulation. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 36, 251258.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, J-M and Tran, G 2004. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d'élevage: porcs, volailles, bovins, ovins, caprins, lapins, chevaux, poissons. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Schinckel, AP and de Lange, CFM 1996. Characterization of growth parameters needed as inputs for pig growth models. Journal of Animal Science 74, 20212036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Verdoes, N and Beelen, GM 1996. Effect of feeding and housing on the ammonia emission of growing and finishing pig facilities. Research Institute for Pig Husbandry 5.3, 2728.Google Scholar
van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Jongbloed, AW and Aarnink, AJA 1999. Nitrogen and phosphorus consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production: the Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 58, 213224.CrossRefGoogle 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, 387405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, CT and Fawcett, RH 1976. Theoretical aspects of a flexible model to stimulate protein and lipid growth in pigs. Animal Production 22, 8796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, CT, Green, DM and Knap, PW 2001. Technical review of the energy and protein requirements of growing pigs: food intake. Animal Production 73, 317.Google Scholar
Zervas, S and Zijlstra, RT 2002. Effects of dietary protein and fermentable fiber on nitrogen excretion patterns and plasma urea in grower pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 32473256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The impact of daily multiphase feeding on animal performance, body composition, nitrogen and phosphorus excretions, and feed costs in growing–finishing pigs
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The impact of daily multiphase feeding on animal performance, body composition, nitrogen and phosphorus excretions, and feed costs in growing–finishing pigs
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The impact of daily multiphase feeding on animal performance, body composition, nitrogen and phosphorus excretions, and feed costs in growing–finishing pigs
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *