Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:23:26.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of a non-starch polysaccharide-hydrolysing enzyme (Rovabio® Excel) on feed intake and body condition of sows during lactation and on progeny growth performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2012

M. C. Walsh ,
P. A. Geraert ,
R. Maillard ,
J. Kluess  and
P. G. Lawlor
M. C. Walsh
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland
P. A. Geraert
Affiliation:
Adisseo France S.A.S., 92160 Antony, France
R. Maillard
Affiliation:
Adisseo France S.A.S., 92160 Antony, France
J. Kluess
Affiliation:
Adisseo France S.A.S., 92160 Antony, France
P. G. Lawlor*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A total of 200 (Large White × Landrace) sows were used in a 39-day study to evaluate the effects of feeding a non-starch polysaccharide (NSP)-hydrolysing enzyme multicomplex (Rovabio® Excel) in conjunction with a high- or reduced nutrient-density diet during lactation on sow body condition, feed intake and progeny performance. Eight sows were selected each week for 25 weeks, blocked by parity and BW into groups of four, and within the block randomly assigned to one of the four treatments (n = 50/treatment). Treatments were: (1) LND: low energy (13.14 MJ of DE/kg), low CP (15%) diet; (2) LND + RE: LND with 50 mg/kg NSP-hydrolysing enzyme; (3) HND: high energy (14.5 MJ of DE/kg), high CP (16.5%) diet; and (4) HND + RE: HND with 50 mg/kg NSP-hydrolysing enzyme. Sows were fed treatment diets from day 109 of gestation until the day of subsequent service. Between weaning and re-service, Rovabio® Excel addition to LND diets resulted in an increase in energy intake; however, a reduction was observed when supplemented to the HND diet (P < 0.05). The inclusion of Rovabio® Excel increased feed and energy intake during week 3 (days 15 to 21) of lactation (P < 0.05). Sows fed diets supplemented with Rovabio® Excel had greater back-fat depth at weaning and service (P < 0.05); however, the magnitude of change in back-fat depth during lactation and from farrowing to service was not different between treatments. Feeding the HND diet increased energy intake before farrowing, throughout lactation and during the weaning to service interval (P < 0.01); however, overall, average daily feed intake tended to be reduced (P < 0.10). At service, sows fed the HND diet were heavier than sows fed the LND diet (P < 0.05); however, the magnitude of change in BW between treatments was not different. Feeding the HND diet to sows resulted in a tendency for heavier piglets at birth (P = 0.10) that tended to grow at a faster rate and be heavier at weaning than piglets from sows fed the LND diet (P = 0.06). These results indicate that NSP-degrading enzymes offer minimal benefit to sows and their progeny when fed before and during lactation; however, increasing energy intake of sows during lactation may beneficially affect progeny.

Keywords

body conditionfeed intakeNSP-hydrolysing enzymepigRovabio® Excel
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 10 , October 2012 , pp. 1627 - 1633
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Aherne, FX, Williams, IH 1992. Nutrition for optimizing breeding herd performance. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 8, 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babinszky, L 1998. Dietary fat and milk production. In The lactating sow (ed. MWA Verstegen, PJ Moughan and JW Schrama), pp. 143–157. Wageningen Press, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE, Jorgensen, H 2001. Intestinal degradation of dietary carbohydrates from birth to maturity. In Digestive physiology of pigs (ed. LE Lindberg and B Ogle), pp. 109–121. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Bedford, MR, Schulze, H 1998. Exogenous enzymes for pigs and poultry. Nutrition Research Reviews 11, 91–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brendemuhl, JH, Lewis, AJ, Peo, ER Jr 1987. Effect of protein and energy intake by primiparous sows during lactation on sow and litter performance and sow serum thyroxine and urea concentrations. Journal of Animal Science 64, 1060–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, PH, Cole, DJA, Rowlinson, P 1975. Studies in sow reproduction. 3. The effect of nutrition between weaning and remating on the reproductive performance of multiparous sows. Animal Production 20, 407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clowes, EJ, Aherne, FX, Foxcroft, GR, Baracos, VE 2003. Selective protein loss in lactating sows is associated with reduced litter growth and ovarian function. Journal of Animal Science 81, 753–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Souza, ALP, Lindemann, MD, Cromwell, GL 2007. Supplementation of dietary enzymes has varying effects on apparent protein and amino acid digestibility in reproducing sows. Livestock Science 109, 122–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diebold, G, Mosenthin, R, Piepho, HP, Sauer, WC 2004. Effect of supplementation of xylanase and phospholipase to a wheat-based diet for weanling pigs on nutrient digestibility and concentrations of microbial metabolites in ileal digesta and feces. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2647–2656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eissen, JJ, Apeldoorn, EJ, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA, de Greef, KH 2003. The importance of a high feed intake during lactation of primiparous sows nursing large litters. Journal of Animal Science 81, 594–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kavanagh, S. 1995. Manipulation of pig weaning weight and the effect of weaning weight on post-weaning performance of pigs. M.Agr.Sc. Thesis, National College of Ireland, 172pp.Google Scholar
Kim, JC, Simmins, PH, Mullan, BP, Pluske, JR 2005. The digestible energy value of wheat for pigs, with special reference to the post-weaned animal – a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 122, 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koketsu, Y, Dial, GD, Pettigrew, JE, King, VL 1997. Influence of feed intake during individual weeks of lactation on reproductive performance of sows on commercial farms. Livestock Production Science 49, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, PG, Lynch, BP. 2007. A review of factors influencing litter size in Irish sows. Irish Veterinary Journal 60, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, MJ, Payne, JD 1991. The pelleting handbook. A guide for production staff in the compound feed industry. Borregaard Lignotech, Sarpsborg, Norway.Google Scholar
Noblet, J, Perez, JM 1993. Prediction of digestibility of nutrients and energy values of pig diets from chemical analysis. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3389–3398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NRC 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine. National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
O'Grady, JF, Lynch, PB 1978. Voluntary feed intake by lactating sows: influence of system of feeding and nutrient density of the diet. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 1–5.Google Scholar
O'Grady, JF, Elsley, FWH, MacPherson, RM, McDonald, I 1973. The response of lactating sows and their litters to different dietary energy allowances. Animal Production 17, 65–74.Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Dourmad, JY, Etienne, M 1993. Feeding level, metabolic parameters and reproductive performance of primiparous sows. Livestock Production Science 37, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems Institute) 2000. SAS user's guide, statistics. SAS Institute INC, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sterk, A, Verdonk, JMAJ, Mul, AJ, Soenen, B, Bezençon, ML, Frehner, M, Losa, R 2007. Effect of xylanase supplementation to a cereal-based diet on the apparent faecal digestibility in weanling piglets. Livestock Science 108, 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trottier, NL, Johnston, LJ 2001. Feeding gilts during development and sows during gestation and lactation. In Swine nutrition (ed. AJ Lewis and LL Southern), pp. 725–770. CRC Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Usher, CD, Green, CJ, Smith, A 1973. The rapid estimation of fat in various foods using the Foss-Let density apparatus. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 8, 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, ML, Corzo, A, Dozier Iii, WA, Blair, ME, Kidd, MT 2007. Assessment of dietary Rovabio Excel in practical United States broiler diets. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, YL, McEvoy, JDG, Schulze, H, Hennig, U, Souffrant, WB, McCracken, KJ 2000. Apparent digestibility (ileal and overall) of nutrients and endogenous nitrogen losses in growing pigs fed wheat (var. Soissons) or its by-products without or with xylanase supplementation. Livestock Production Science 62, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar