Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T16:21:09.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulated amino acid requirements of growing pigs differ between current factorial methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2019

A. Remus,
L. Hauschild and
C. Pomar
A. Remus
Affiliation:
Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Sherbrooke, QC J1M 0C8, CanadaDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Studies, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
L. Hauschild
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Studies, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
C. Pomar*
Affiliation:
Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Sherbrooke, QC J1M 0C8, CanadaDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Studies, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
*
†E-mail: candido.pomar@canada.ca
Get access

Abstract

Significant differences in the estimation of amino acid requirements exist between the available factorial methods. This study aimed to compare current factorial models used to estimate the individual and population standardised ileal digestible (SID) lysine (Lys) requirements of growing pigs during a 26-day feeding phase. Individual daily feed intake and BW data from 40 high-performance pigs (25-kg initial BW) were smoothed by linear regression. Body weight gain was constant (regression slope not different from 0) for all the pigs. The CV of the SID Lys requirements ranged from 22% at the beginning of the trial to 8% at the end. The population Brazilian tables (BT-2017) and National Research Council (NRC-2012) SID Lys requirements for the average pig were 16% higher than the average requirement estimated by the individual precision-feeding model (IPF), but similar to the estimated for the population assuming that population requirements are those of the 80th-percentile pig of the population (IPF-80). Meaning that, the IPF-80, BT-2017, and NRC-2012 models would yield similar recommendations when pigs are group-fed in conventional multi-phase systems. Additionally, the IPF-80 estimates are independent of the phase length, whereas the BT-2017 and NRC-2012 models use average population values in the middle of the feeding phase for the calculations and therefore, conventional requirement estimations decrease as the length of the feeding phase increases. In conclusion, the BT-2017 and NRC-2012 methods were calibrated for maximum population responses, which explains why these methods yield higher values than those estimated for the average pig by the IPF model. This study shows the limitations of conventional factorial methods to estimate amino acid requirements for precision-feeding systems.

Keywords

precision feedingswinenutritional modellinglysineprecision nutrition

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020, pp. 725 - 730
Copyright
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andretta, I, Pomar, C, Rivest, J, Pomar, J and Radünz, J 2016. Precision feeding can significantly reduce lysine intake and nitrogen excretion without compromising the performance of growing pigs. Animal 10, 1137–1147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 supply and feeding strategy. Animal 3, 1114–1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brossard, L, Vautier, B, van Milgen, J, Salaun, Y and Quiniou, N 2014. Comparison of in vivo and in silico growth performance and variability in pigs when applying a feeding strategy designed by simulation to control the variability of slaughter weight. Animal Production Science 54, 1939–1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloutier, L, Létourneau-Montminy, M-P, Bernier, J, Pomar, J and Pomar, C 2016. Effect of a lysine depletion–repletion protocol on the compensatory growth of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 94, 2551–2266.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
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
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.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
Heyer, A and Lebret, B 2007. Compensatory growth response in pigs: effects on growth performance, composition of weight gain at carcass and muscle levels, and meat quality 1. Journal of Animal Science 85, 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovatto, PA, Sauvant, D, Noblet, J, Dubois, S and Van Milgen, J 2006. Effects of feed restriction and subsequent refeeding on energy utilization in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3329–3336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1510–1519.10.2527/2000.7861510xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th revised edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google 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, E178–E186.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Pomar, J, Rivest, J, Cloutier, L, Letourneau-Montminy, MP, Andretta, I and Hauschild, L 2015. Estimating real-time individual amino acid requirements in growing-finishing pigs: towards a new definition of nutrient requirements in growing-finishing pigs? In Nutritional modelling for pigs and poultry (ed. Sakomura, NK, Gous, RM, Kyriazakis, I and Hauschild, L), pp. 157–174. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N, Vautier, B, Salaün, Y, Van Milgen, J and Brossard, L 2013. Modélisation de l’effet de la stratégie alimentaire et du contexte de prix des matières premières sur les performances moyennes, leur variabilité et les rejets azotés à l’échelle d’une population de porcs. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 45, 155–160.Google Scholar
Remus, A 2015. Modelos para estimar exigências nutricionais de aminoácidos e resposta à ingestão de metionina: sistema tradicional por fases x nutrição de precisão [in Portuguese]. MSc thesis, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Studies, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, Brazil.Google Scholar
Remus, A, Pomar, C, Perondi, D, Gobi, JP, da Silva, WC, de Souza, LJ and Hauschild, L 2019. Response to dietary methionine supply of growing pigs fed daily tailored diets or fed according to a conventional phase feeding system. Livestock Science 222, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostagno, HS, Albino, LFT, Hannas, MI, Donzele, JL, Sakomura, NK, Perazzo, FG, Saraiva, A, Teixeira, ML, Rodrigues, PB, Oliveira, RF, Barreto, SLT and Brito, CO 2017. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: Composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais [in Portuguese], 4th edition. Editora UFV, Viçosa, Brazil.Google Scholar
van Milgen, J and Noblet, J 2003. Partitioning of energy intake to heat, protein, and fat in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, E86–E93.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
Zhang, GH, Pomar, C, Pomar, J and Del Castillo, JRE 2012. L’alimentation de précision chez le porc charcutier : estimation des niveaux dynamiques de lysine digestible nécessaires à la maximisation du gain de poids. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 44, 171–176.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Remus et al. supplementary material

Remus et al. supplementary material

Download Remus et al. supplementary material(File)
File 190.1 KB