Feed- and feed additives-related aspects of gut health and development in weanling pigs

The development of new/different management and feeding strategies to stimulate gut development and health in newly-weaned pigs, in order to improve growth performance while minimizing the use of antimicrobial compounds such as antibiotic growth promotants (AGP) and heavy mineral compounds, is essential for the long-term sustainability of the pig industry. Factors including the sub-optimal intake of nutrients and energy, inappropriate microbiota biomass and (or) balance, immature and compromised immune function, and psychosomatic factors caused by weaning can compromise both the efficiency of digestion and absorption and intestinal barrier function through mucosal damage and alteration of tight junction integrity. As a consequence, pigs at weaning are highly susceptible to pathogenic enteric conditions such as post-weaning diarrhea that may be caused by serotypes of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Many dietary components, e.g., protein, fiber, feed additives and minerals, are known to influence microbial growth in the gastrointestinal tract that in turn can impact upon pig growth and health, although the relationships between these are sometimes not necessarily apparent or obvious. In a world climate of increased scrutiny over the use of antibiotics per se in pig production, certain feed additives are seen as alternatives/replacements to antibiotics, and have evolved in some cases to have important roles in everyday commercial pig nutrition. Nevertheless and in general, there remains inconsistency and variability in the efficacy of some feed additives and in cases of severe disease outbreaks, for example, therapeutic antibiotics and/or heavy minerals such as zinc oxide (ZnO) are generally relied upon. If feed ingredients and (or) feed additives are to be used with greater regularity and reliability, then it is necessary to better understand the mechanisms whereby antibiotics and minerals such as ZnO influence animal physiology, in conjunction with the use of appropriate challenge models and in vitro and in vivo techniques

Effect of diet type and added copper on growth performance, carcass characteristics, total tract digestibility, gut morphology, and mucosal mRNA expression of finishing pigs

Citation: Coble, K., Burnett, D., Goodband, R. D., Gonzalez, J. M., Usry, J. L., Tokach, M. D., . . . Vaughn, M. A. (2016). Effect of diet type and added copper on growth performance, carcass characteristics, total tract digestibility, gut morphology, and mucosal mRNA expression of finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 94, 140-141. doi:10.2527/msasas2016-299A total of 757 pigs (PIC 337 × 1050; initially 27.6 kg BW) were used in a 117-d experiment to determine the effects of added Cu (TBCC; tribasic copper chloride, IntelliBond C; Micronutrients, Inc., Indianapolis, IN) and diet type on growth performance, carcass characteristics, energy digestibility, gut morphology, and mucosal mRNA expression of finishing pigs. Pens of pigs were allotted to 1 of 4 dietary treatments, balanced on average pen weight in a randomized complete-block design with 26 to 28 pigs/pen and 7 replications/treatment. Treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement with main effects of diet type, a corn-soybean meal-based diet (corn-soy) or a high byproduct diet (byproduct) with 30% distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) and 15% bakery meal, and added Cu (0 (10 mg/kg basal) or 150 mg/kg added Cu). There were no Cu×diet type interactions for growth performance. Neither added Cu nor diet type significantly influenced overall growth performance, although adding Cu during the early finishing period tended to increase (P = 0.076) ADG compared to pigs fed none (0.85 vs. 0.83). However, NE caloric efficiency was improved (P = 0.001) for pigs fed the corn-soy diet compared to the byproduct diet (6.76 vs. 7.15 Mcal intake/kg BW gain). Pigs fed the corn-soy diet had improved carcass yield (P = 0.007; 74.33 vs. 73.19%) and HCW G:F (P = 0.011; 0.274 vs. 0.266), and tended to have increased HCW (P = 0.067; 94.60 vs. 92.65 kg) and HCW ADG (P = 0.056; 0.635 vs. 0.615 kg/d) compared to pigs fed the byproduct diet. A Cu×diet type interaction (P < 0.05) existed for DM and GE digestibility in phase 2 as added Cu improved digestibility of DM and GE in the corn-soy diet, but not in the byproduct diet. In phase 4, added Cu tended to increase DM and GE digestibility (P = 0.060) while pigs fed the byproduct diet had decreased DM and GE digestibility (P = 0.001) compared to the corn-soy diet. For gut morphology, pigs fed added Cu had decreased distal small intestine crypt depth (P = 0.017; 207 vs. 225 um) compared to those fed no added Cu. Furthermore, pigs fed added Cu had decreased (P = 0.032; 0.618 vs. 0.935) relative mRNA expression of intestinal fatty acid binding protein (iFABP) compared to those fed no added Cu. In summary, 150 mg/kg added TBCC did not significantly affect overall growth but did influence diet digestibility and some gut morphology or mRNA expression measurements. Feeding a high byproduct diet decreased yield, caloric efficiency, and diet digestibility

Evolving technological change in pork production supporting expectations of improved productivity, sustainability and flexibility

The Australasian Pig Science Association (APSA) has a long and storied history of helping to lead thoughtful discussion on important topics affecting pork production. Established in 1987, it has hosted the Manipulating Pig Production conference every 2 years, with the 2019 meeting the 17th such event. This conference is viewed globally as an innovative and progressive event. In this regard, the global pork industry is working hard to respond to the many forces affecting its future: management and prevention of diseases, including the debilitating viral disease African swine fever (Sanchez-Cordon et al., 2018), improving productivity to fulfil expectations of demand for product, attention to pork’s environmental footprint and satisfying an increasingly demanding and diverse consumer marketplace (Busch and Spiller, 2019). A special issue of Animal, including many topics seeking to address the aforementioned issues, is therefore appropriate and timely. The content of this special issue, reflected in its diversity, reveals some of the approaches that are being brought to bear to address these challenges, from precision agriculture to alternative protein sources to improved control of reproduction

Restricting microbial exposure in early life negates the immune benefits associated with gut colonization in environments of high microbial diversity

© 2011 Mulder et al.Peer reviewe

Environmentally-acquired bacteria influence microbial diversity and natural innate immune responses at gut surfaces

Background: Early microbial colonization of the gut reduces the incidence of infectious, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Recent population studies reveal that childhood hygiene is a significant risk factor for development of inflammatory bowel disease, thereby reinforcing the hygiene hypothesis and the potential importance of microbial colonization during early life. The extent to which early-life environment impacts on microbial diversity of the adult gut and subsequent immune processes has not been comprehensively investigated thus far. We addressed this important question using the pig as a model to evaluate the impact of early-life environment on microbe/host gut interactions during development. Results: Genetically-related piglets were housed in either indoor or outdoor environments or in experimental isolators. Analysis of over 3,000 16S rRNA sequences revealed major differences in mucosa-adherent microbial diversity in the ileum of adult pigs attributable to differences in early-life environment. Pigs housed in a natural outdoor environment showed a dominance of Firmicutes, in particular Lactobacillus, whereas animals housed in a hygienic indoor environment had reduced Lactobacillus and higher numbers of potentially pathogenic phylotypes. Our analysis revealed a strong negative correlation between the abundance of Firmicutes and pathogenic bacterial populations in the gut. These differences were exaggerated in animals housed in experimental isolators. Affymetrix microarray technology and Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction revealed significant gut-specific gene responses also related to early-life environment. Significantly, indoor-housed pigs displayed increased expression of Type 1 interferon genes, Major Histocompatibility Complex class I and several chemokines. Gene Ontology and pathway analysis further confirmed these results. Conclusion: Early-life environment significantly affects both microbial composition of the adult gut and mucosal innate immune function. We observed that a microbiota dominated by lactobacilli may function to maintain mucosal immune homeostasis and limit pathogen colonization

Crop Updates 2005 - Farming Systems

This session covers forty four papers from different authors: PLENARY 1. 2005 Outlook, David Stephens and Nicola Telcik, Department of Agriculture FERTILITY AND NUTRITION 2. The effect of higher nitrogen fertiliser prices on rotation and fertiliser strategies in cropping systems, Ross Kingwell, Department of Agriculture and University of Western Australia 3. Stubble management: The short and long term implications for crop nutrition and soil fertility, Wayne Pluske, Nutrient Management Systems and Bill Bowden, Department of Agriculture 4. Stubble management: The pros and cons of different methods, Bill Bowden, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia and Mike Collins, WANTFA 5. Effect of stubble burning and seasonality on microbial processes and nutrient recycling, Frances Hoyle, The University of Western Australia 6. Soil biology and crop production in Western Australian farming systems, D.V. Murphy, N. Milton, M. Osman, F.C. Hoyle, L.K Abbott, W.R. Cookson and S. Darmawanto, The University of Western Australia 7. Urea is as effective as CAN when no rain for 10 days, Bill Crabtree, Crabtree Agricultural Consulting 8. Fertiliser (N,P,S,K) and lime requirements for wheat production in the Merredin district, Geoff Anderson, Department of Agriculture and Darren Kidson, Summit Fertilizers 9. Trace element applications: Up-front verses foliar? Bill Bowden and Ross Brennan, Department of Agriculture 10. Fertcare®, Environmental Product Stewardship and Advisor Standards for thee Fertiliser Industry, Nick Drew, Fertilizer Industry Federation of Australia (FIFA) SOIL AND LAND MANAGEMENT 11. Species response to row spacing, density and nutrition, Bill Bowden, Craig Scanlan, Lisa Sherriff, Bob French and Reg Lunt, Department of Agriculture 12. Investigation into the influence of row orientation in lupin crops, Jeff Russell, Department of Agriculture and Angie Roe, Farm Focus Consultants 13. Deriving variable rate management zones for crops, Ian Maling, Silverfox Solutions and Matthew Adams, DLI 14. In a world of Precision Agriculture, weigh trailers are not passé, Jeff Russell, Department of Agriculture 15. Cover crop management to combat ryegrass resistance and improve yields, Jeff Russell, Department of Agriculture and Angie Roe, Farm Focus Consultants 16. ARGT home page, the place to find information on annual ryegrass toxicity on the web, Dr George Yan, BART Pty Ltd 17. Shallow leading tine (SLT) ripper significantly reduces draft force, improves soil tilth and allows even distribution of subsoil ameliorants, Mohammad Hamza, Glen Riethmuller and Wal Anderson, Department of Agriculture PASTURE ANS SUMMER CROP SYSTEMS 18. New annual pasture legumes for Mediteranean farming systems, Angelo Loi, Phil Nichols, Clinton Revell and David Ferris, Department of Agriculture 19. How sustainable are phase rotations with Lucerne? Phil Ward, CSIRO Plant Industry 20. Management practicalities of summer cropping, Andrea Hills and Sally-Anne Penny, Department of Agriculture 21. Rainfall zone determines the effect of summer crops on winter yields, Andrea Hills, Sally-Anne Penny and David Hall, Department of Agriculture 22. Summer crops and water use, Andrea Hills, Sally-Anne Penny and David Hall, Department of Agriculture, and Michael Robertson and Don Gaydon, CSIRO Brisbane 23. Risk analysis of sorgum cropping, Andrea Hills and Sally-Anne Penny, Department of Agriculture, and Dr Michael Robertson and Don Gaydon, CSIRO Brisbane FARMER DECISION SUPPORT AND ADOPTION 24. Variety release and End Point Royalties – a new system? Tress Walmsley, Department of Agriculture 25. Farming system analaysis using the STEP Tool, Caroline Peek and Megan Abrahams, Department of Agriculture 26. The Leakage Calculator: A simple tool for groundwater recharge assessment, Paul Raper, Department of Agriculture 27. The cost of Salinity Calculator – your tool to assessing the profitability of salinity management options, Richard O’Donnell and Trevor Lacey, Department of Agriculture 28. Climate decision support tools, Meredith Fairbanks and David Tennant, Department of Agriculture 29. Horses for courses – using the best tools to manage climate risk, Cameron Weeks, Mingenew-Irwin Group/Planfarm and Richard Quinlan, Planfarm Agronomy 30. Use of seasonal outlook for making N decisions in Merredin, Meredith Fairbanks and Alexandra Edward, Department of Agriculture 31. Forecasts and profits, Benefits or bulldust? Chris Carter and Doug Hamilton, Department of Agriculture 32. A tool to estimate fixed and variable header and tractor depreciation costs, Peter Tozer, Department of Agriculture 33. Partners in grain: ‘Putting new faces in new places’, Renaye Horne, Department of Agriculture 34. Results from the Grower group Alliance, Tracey Gianatti, Grower Group Alliance 35. Local Farmer Group Network – farming systems research opportunities through local groups, Paul Carmody, Local Farmer Group Network GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE 36. Changing rainfall patterns in the grainbelt, Ian Foster, Department of Agriculture 37. Vulnerability of broadscale agriculture to the impacts of climate change, Michele John, CSIRO (formerly Department of Agriculture) and Ross George, Department of Agriculture 38. Impacts of climate change on wheat yield at Merredin, Imma Farré and Ian Foster, Department of Agriculture 39. Climate change, land use suitability and water security, Ian Kininmonth, Dennis van Gool and Neil Coles, Department of Agriculture 40. Nitrous oxide emissions from cropping systems, Bill Porter, Department of Agriculture, Louise Barton, University of Western Australia 41. The potential of greenhouse sinks to underwrite improved land management in Western Australia, Richard Harper and Peter Ritson, CRC for Greenhouse Accounting and Forest Products Commission, Tony Beck, Tony Beck Consulting Services, Chris Mitchell and Michael Hill, CRC for Greenhouse Accounting 42. Removing uncertainty from greenhouse emissions, Fiona Barker-Reid, Will Gates, Ken Wilson and Rob Baigent, Department of Primary Industries - Victoria and CRC for Greenhouse Accounting (CRCGA), and Ian Galbally, Mick Meyer and Ian Weeks, CSIRO Atmospheric Research and CRCGA 43. Greenhouse in Agriculture Program (GIA), Traci Griffin, CRC for Greenhouse Accounting 44. Grains Greenhouse Accounting framework, D. Rodriguez, M. Probust, M. Meyers, D. Chen, A. Bennett, W. Strong, R. Nussey, I. Galbally and M. Howden CONTACT DETAILS FOR PRINCIPAL AUTHOR