progenys growth and health J. Leblois 1,2* , J. Bindelle 2 , F. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Impact of high-wheat bran diet on sows’ microbiota, performances and progeny’s growth and health

• J. Leblois1,2*, J. Bindelle2, F. Dehareng3, S. Massart2, B. Li2, H. Soyeurt2,
• Y. Beckers2, J. Wavreille3, N. Everaert2

1 FRIA-FNRS, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Rue d’Egmont, 5. 1000 Brussels, Belgium 2GxABT, ULg, Passage des Déportés, 2. B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium 3Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, Rue de Liroux, 9. B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium

*julie.leblois@ulg.ac.be

Objective

Improve piglets’ health without using antibiotics HOW? Acting on SOWS’ diet  Use of high quantities

• f wheat bran (WB)

WHEAT BRAN

Rich in insoluble NSPs Sows’ diet: bulking properties Ivarsson et al. (2014): pigs’ microbiota changes and increased butyrate production Cereal by-product

Objective

High WB diet

Microbiota changes Milk composition « Healthy » microbiota

• f piglets

Boost piglets’ immunity

Hypothesis

7 CON sows & 8 WB sows

Gestation 240g/kg DM WB Lactation 140g/kg DM WB Sequencing ELISA, mid- infrared

Methods

SCFA Sequencing

• Backfat/bodyweight changes: no impact of treatment

(p=0.60 and p=0.77, respectively)

• Litters’ bodyweights: no effect of maternal treatment (p=0.51)

from birth until weaning

• Ingestion of both groups similar except for the last 4 days of

the lactation period (drop in WB ingestion), 66% of their planned feed intake-curve WB group vs 89% CON group

Results: performances

• Ingestion of both groups similar except for the last 4 days of

the lactation period (drop in WB ingestion), 66% of their planned feed intake-curve WB group vs 89% CON group

20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

% of target ingestion curve reached Period

% of target ingestion curve by treatment

control Wheat bran

Results: performances

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Colostrum Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Concentration (g/100g milk)

Chemical composition of milk at different time points

Protein CON Protein WB Fat CON Fat WB Lactose CON Lactose WB 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Colostrum Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Ig concentration (mg/ml milk)

IgA and IgG concentrations of sow milk at different time points

IgA CON IgA WB IgG CON IgG WB

Results: milk composition

THE BIG PICTURE…

Results: MICROBIOTA

WB G- WB G+ WB L CON G- CON G+ CON L Gestation BEFORE diet change (G-) Gestation AFTER diet change (G+) Lactation (L)

2.66 2.14 2.22

CON G+

3.35

CON G-

1.25 1.35

CON L

3.35%  2.66% 2.14%  1.25% 2.22%  1.35% Anecdotal Anecdotal

CONTROL GROUP

8.86 2.08

WB G-

15.14 1.55 1.47

WB G+

0.96

WB L

8.86%  15.14% 2.08% 1.47% 1.55% 0.96%

WHEAT BRAN GROUP

CON G+ WB G+ CON L WB L

TREATMENT DIFFERENCES - NS

Gestation Lactation

AND THE DETAIL…

(Duke University student affairs)

Results: MICROBIOTA

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Lactobacillus WB G+/L

15.14

WB G+

10.19

WB L

NS

15% 10% G+ L

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Occurrence in the microbiota (%)

Streptococcus CON G-/G+

2.44

CON G-

6.47

CON G+ G- G+

NS

• No impact of dietary treatment on performances

except for ingestion (last period)

• No impact on milk composition
• Conclusions concerning microbiota hard to draw due

to high variability between individuals

Conclusion

Increasing WB proportion is not detrimental

• Microbiota and short-chain fatty acids (SCFA)
• f piglets

– Related to sows? – Microbiota vs SCFA correlation? – Less variability for piglets’ microbiota?

Next step

• For financial support:

– National Fund For Scientific Research (FNRS-FRIA) – COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action PiGutNet FA1401 – University of Liège

Julie.leblois@ulg.ac.be

Acknowledgments