Canola meal is second only to soybean meal as a protein source used in animal diets. However, the digestibility of amino acids and digestible energy is lower in canola meal than in soybean meal because of the high concentration of fiber in canola meal. The high fiber content and the presence of glucosinolates limit inclusion of canola meal in diets fed to pigs.
Research on using canola meal in pig diets at different stages has indicated that it can be used in gestation diets without limitation and 15 to 20% may be included in lactation diets. However, at least one study indicated that including canola meal in gestating and lactation diets reduced the number of pigs born alive and the number of pigs weaned, and also reduced lactation feed intake and litter weaning weight.
New canola varieties have been developed that yield meal with more protein and less fiber compared with conventional canola meal (CM-CV). The objectives of this research were to determine the effects of feeding diets containing high protein canola meal (CM-HP) or CM-CV to sows during gestation and lactation, and to determine the optimum inclusion rates of CM-HP and CM-CV in gestation and lactation diets.
Experimental design
A total of 190 sows with an average parity of around 2.3 and an average initial body weight of 207.8 kg were used in this experiment. Gestation diets were fed from day 7 to day 107 of gestation and lactation diets were fed from day 107 of gestation until weaning. Within each phase, five diets were formulated, for a total of 10 diets. One diet in each phase was a control diet based on corn and soybean meal, with soybean hulls added in the gestation diet. Two diets in each phase replaced 50 or 100 of the soybean meal with CM-HP, and in two additional diets 50 or 100% of the soybean meal was replaced with CM-CV. The diets were formulated to contain the same amount of crude protein—therefore, the diets in which CM-CV replaced 100% of the soybean meal contained 23.3% canola meal in the gestation phase and 35.1% canola meal in the lactation phase. For CM-HP, the inclusion rates to replace 100% of soybean meal were 20.3% during gestation and 29.9% during lactation.
A total of 1947 piglets were born to sows in the experiment. To equalize litter size, 55 piglets were cross fostered within the same dietary treatments on day 1 post farrowing.
Sow responses to conventional and high protein canola meal
Replacing 50 or 100% of soybean meal with CM-HP or CM-CV had little effect on sow responses (Table 1). There was no difference among sows fed any of the tested diets on the following measures: sow body weight at days 7 and 107 of gestation, day 1 post-farrowing, or weaning; lactation body weight change; overall body weight change; or average daily feed intake (ADFI) during lactation. There was a tendency (P = 0.06) for reduced ADFI in gestation in sows fed CM-HP compared with sows fed CM-CV. Sow body weight between day 107 of gestation and day 1 post-farrowing changed more (P < 0.05) in sows fed 50% CM-HP compared with sows fed the other diets. Wean to first estrus interval was longer (P < 0.05) in sows fed 100% CM-CV compared with sows fed all other diets.
Litter responses
No differences were observed among sows fed the five different diets on the following measures: total pigs born, pigs born alive, pigs born dead, litter birth weight, live litter birth weight, litter BW at weaning, litter ADG, average pig birth weight, average live pig birth weight, average pig BW at weaning, pig ADG, and the number of pigs per litter at weaning.
Average live pig birth weight was less (P < 0.05) for sows fed diets containing CM-HP than for sows fed CM-CV (Table 2). Average pig body weight at weaning was less (P < 0.05) for pigs born from sows fed CM-HP than from sows fed CM-CV, and decreased (P < 0.05) as inclusion of CM-HP increased. Pig ADG was less (P < 0.05) when sows were fed 100% CM-HP than any of the other diets. Pig survival to weaning increased (P < 0.05) as inclusion of either CM-CV or CM-HP increased. There was a tendency (P = 0.07) for more stillbirths in sows fed CM-HP than in sows fed CM-CV. With the exception of the increased survival of pigs during lactation, no differences in litter performance between sows fed the corn-soybean meal diets and sows fed the diets in which 50 or 100% of the soybean meal was replaced by CM-CV.
Key points
- Results of this study provide evidence that conventional canola meal can be included at levels of up to 23.3% in a gestation diet and 35.1% in a lactation diet without significantly reducing reproductive and litter performance.
- High protein canola meal can be included at levels of up to 20.3% in a gestation diet and 29.9% in a lactation diet without significantly reducing reproductive and litter performance with the exception that pig gain during lactation may be reduced.
- In this study, feeding diets containing either high-protein or conventional canola meal increased pig survivability during lactation compared with feeding a corn-soybean meal diet without canola meal.
Table 1. Effects of replacing 50 or 100% of soybean meal (SBM) with high-protein canola meal (CM-HP) or conventional canola meal (CM-CV) on sow responses
Item |
Diet |
P-value |
|||||||||
|
Control |
CM-HP |
CM-CV |
Diet |
CM-HP |
CM-CV |
CM-HP vs. CM-CV |
||||
|
|
50% |
100% |
50% |
100% |
|
Lin. |
Quad. |
Lin. |
Quad. |
|
No. of sows |
40 |
40 |
37 |
37 |
36 |
- | - | - | - | - | - |
Parity |
2.33 |
2.38 |
2.22 |
2.32 |
2.33 |
1.00 |
0.79 |
0.77 |
1.00 |
0.98 |
0.93 |
Sow BW at d 7 gestation, kg |
211.3 |
205.3 |
210.0 |
207.7 |
204.5 |
0.83 |
0.84 |
0.36 |
0.33 |
0.97 |
0.76 |
Sow BW at d 107 gestation, kg |
271.3 |
264.9 |
266.0 |
268.1 |
266.8 |
0.84 |
0.36 |
0.47 |
0.45 |
0.85 |
0.64 |
Sow BW at d 1 post-farrowing, kg |
262.2 |
250.4 |
253.1 |
256.4 |
252.8 |
0.34 |
0.14 |
0.17 |
0.12 |
0.84 |
0.52 |
Sow pre-farrowing BW change,1 kg |
-9.16a |
-14.73b |
-12.98ab |
-11.43ab |
-13.71b |
<0.05 |
0.06 |
<0.05 |
<0.05 |
1.00 |
0.37 |
Sow BW at weaning, kg |
243.3 |
235.6 |
235.6 |
240.9 |
233.6 |
0.57 |
0.26 |
0.51 |
0.15 |
0.67 |
0.73 |
Sow lactation BW change,2 kg |
-19.02 |
-15.04 |
-17.55 |
-15.68 |
-19.09 |
0.50 |
0.60 |
0.19 |
0.98 |
0.18 |
0.60 |
Sow overall BW change,3 kg |
-28.23 |
-29.89 |
-30.56 |
-27.23 |
-32.75 |
0.62 |
0.52 |
0.88 |
0.22 |
0.32 |
0.93 |
ADFI in gestation, kg |
2.41 |
2.37 |
2.37 |
2.41 |
2.42 |
0.39 |
0.24 |
0.56 |
0.65 |
0.81 |
0.06 |
ADFI in lactation, kg |
4.76 |
4.56 |
4.71 |
4.66 |
4.52 |
0.78 |
0.81 |
0.35 |
0.26 |
0.90 |
0.78 |
Wean to first estrus interval, d |
5.42b |
5.33b |
5.35b |
5.22b |
5.80a |
<0.01 |
0.62 |
0.69 |
<0.05 |
<0.01 |
0.12 |
a,bWithin a row, means without a common superscript letter are different (P < 0.05).
1Sow pre-farrowing BW change was calculated as the difference between sow BW at d 1 post farrowing and sow BW at d 107.
2Sow lactation BW change was calculated as the difference between sow weaning weight and sow BW at d 1 post-farrowing.
3Sow overall BW change was calculated as the difference between sow weaning weight and sow BW at d 107.
Table 2. Effects of replacing 50 or 100% of soybean meal (SBM) with high-protein canola meal (CM-HP) or conventional canola meal (CM-CV) on litter responses
Item |
Diet |
P-value |
|||||||||
Control |
CM-HP |
CM-CV |
Diet |
CM-HP |
CM-CV |
CM-HP vs. CM-CV |
|||||
50% |
100% |
50% |
100% |
Lin. |
Quad. |
Lin. |
Quad. |
||||
Total pigs born |
13.97 |
14.05 |
14.27 |
12.94 |
13.78 |
0.62 |
0.73 |
0.92 |
0.82 |
0.23 |
0.20 |
Pigs born alive |
12.46 |
12.36 |
12.76 |
11.92 |
12.22 |
0.88 |
0.71 |
0.71 |
0.76 |
0.54 |
0.39 |
Pigs born dead1 |
1.51 |
1.87 |
1.49 |
1.03 |
1.56 |
0.36 |
0.95 |
0.28 |
0.92 |
0.16 |
0.18 |
Stillbirths |
1.26 |
1.59 |
1.41 |
0.86 |
1.17 |
0.36 |
0.68 |
0.41 |
0.81 |
0.28 |
0.07 |
Pigs born alive after cross fostering |
12.51 |
12.36 |
12.81 |
12.08 |
12.25 |
0.89 |
0.68 |
0.62 |
0.72 |
0.64 |
0.42 |
Litter birth wt, kg |
20.40 |
21.36 |
21.38 |
20.26 |
20.66 |
0.72 |
0.34 |
0.60 |
0.80 |
0.77 |
0.22 |
Live litter birth wt, kg |
18.68 |
18.88 |
19.52 |
19.12 |
19.13 |
0.93 |
0.39 |
0.80 |
0.65 |
0.80 |
0.92 |
Live litter birth wt after cross fostering, kg |
15.74 |
16.10 |
17.28 |
17.27 |
17.14 |
0.25 |
0.09 |
0.59 |
0.12 |
0.29 |
0.42 |
Litter BW at weaning, kg |
64.49 |
63.24 |
65.90 |
66.20 |
66.91 |
0.82 |
0.67 |
0.49 |
0.47 |
0.86 |
0.41 |
Litter ADG, kg |
2.32 |
2.25 |
2.32 |
2.33 |
2.37 |
0.90 |
0.96 |
0.49 |
0.71 |
0.89 |
0.44 |
Average pig birth wt, kg |
1.51 |
1.71 |
1.53 |
1.63 |
1.55 |
0.57 |
0.86 |
0.11 |
0.76 |
0.43 |
0.73 |
Average live pig birth wt, kg |
1.54 |
1.56 |
1.56 |
1.66 |
1.63 |
0.22 |
0.83 |
0.81 |
0.17 |
0.15 |
<0.05 |
Average pig BW at weaning, kg |
6.52 |
6.43 |
6.08 |
6.53 |
6.58 |
0.10 |
<0.05 |
0.49 |
0.78 |
0.92 |
<0.05 |
Pig ADG, kg |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0.21 |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0.10 |
<0.05 |
0.54 |
0.96 |
0.49 |
0.10 |
Pigs per litter at weaning |
10.00 |
9.91 |
10.98 |
10.31 |
10.40 |
0.37 |
0.09 |
0.24 |
0.49 |
0.84 |
0.83 |
Pigs survival to weaning,2 % |
80.20 |
81.64 |
86.68 |
86.98 |
87.03 |
0.06 |
<0.05 |
0.50 |
<0.05 |
0.22 |
0.20 |
a,bWithin a row, means without a common superscript letter are different (P < 0.05).
1Dead pigs included stillbirths and mummies.
2Survivability (%) = (pigs weaned/pigs born alive after cross fostering) × 100.
This report is based on unpublished research by Yanhong Liu and Hans H. Stein.