Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T06:52:18.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of N,N-dimethylglycine supplementation in parturition feed for sows on metabolism, nutrient digestibility and reproductive performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2010

A. Cools*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium
D. Maes
Affiliation:
Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium
J. Buyse
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems, Laboratory of Livestock Physiology, Immunology and Genetics, Catholic University of Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
I. D. Kalmar
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium
J.-A. Vandermeiren
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium
G. P. J. Janssens
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium

Abstract

The current pilot study assessed the influence of N,N-dimethylglycine (DMG) on insulin sensitivity, glucose and fat metabolism, nutrient digestibility and reproductive performance of sows in the peripartal period. At day 105 of gestation, 25 sows were randomly assigned to the control (n = 13) or the DMG group (n = 12). Sows from the DMG group were supplemented with 1 g DMG/kg feed until day 3 of lactation. After an overnight fast 1 day after farrowing, a blood sample of each sow was drawn. The plasma was analyzed for insulin, glucose, fructosamine, leptin, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP), non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) and triglycerides (TG) and an oral glucose tolerance test was performed. A rectal feces sample was collected and the apparent fecal digestibility (AFD) of crude fat (CFAT), crude protein (CP) and nitrogen-free extract (NFE) was calculated after proximate analyses. Finally, a colostrum sample was collected from each sow and analyzed for the presence of DMG. Reproductive performance parameters were recorded. The results showed an improvement in the AFD of CFAT, CP and NFE when DMG was supplemented. This beneficial effect confirms the hypothesis that DMG acts as an emulsifying agent. The improvement in digestibility in the DMG group was accompanied by a numerical increase in plasma TG (P = 0.067). Plasma NEFA concentrations were not different between treatment groups. DMG supplementation neither affected glucose clearance nor influenced plasma insulin, glucose, fructosamine or leptin levels. TBARS and FRAP also remained unaffected, despite previously reported anti-oxidative properties of DMG. Furthermore, no significant impact on reproductive performance could be recorded. In conclusion, DMG supplementation significantly improved nutrient digestibility. Possible beneficial effects on energy metabolism and reproductive performance of sows should be tested when DMG is supplemented for a longer period of time or at a higher dose.

Information

Type
Full Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010
Figure 0

Figure 1 Overview of the choline pathway in which dimethylglycine (DMG) is an intermediate metabolite.

Figure 1

Table 1 Feeding scheme and nutrient content of the different diets provided to the sows before, during and after the trial

Figure 2

Table 2 Composition of the parturition diet

Figure 3

Table 3 Results (mean ± s.d.) of the blood parameters of sows in the control group (n = 13) and the DMG group (n = 12)

Figure 4

Table 4 Results (mean % ± s.d.) of the AFD of nutrients of sows of the control group (n = 11) and the DMG group (n = 9)

Figure 5

Table 5 Results (mean ± s.d.) of reproductive performance parameters of sows of the control group (n = 13) and the DMG group (n = 12)