Rotational for organic pregnant sows : a mechanism to reduce feed consumption ?

A. Roinsard 1 , F. Maupertuis 2 , C. Gain 1 , P. Pierre 3

1 ITAB , 9, rue André Brouard , 49105 Angers, France, 2 Chambre d’ Pays de la loire , La Géraudière , 44939 NANTES CEDEX 9, France 3 IDELE, 9, rue André Brouard , 49105 Angers, France; [email protected] Introduction

• Growing of organic pig production in Europe (Agence bio, 2019) • In France, 50 % of organic sows are raised in systems (Roinsard & Bertin, 2018) • 80 % of cost = feed ;

1 2 3

EU regulation towards A lack of protein feeds Make a better use of 100% organic feeds for in organic production organic protein feeds organic animal (CASDAR SECALIBIO) production W hy can grazing help to this challenge ? • Significant consumption ( Jurjanz et al, 2014) in " « by sows Could pregnant sows graze pasture rich in legumes in order • A potentialto nutritionalreduce proteinvaluein ? supplied feed ? • An interesting economic lever ( low cost ) Grassland• A resourcerich in legumesavailable( cloverin AB) monogastric Rotating pasture with paddocks Less• Regulationprotein in suppliedof organicfeed farming ( fodder for monogastrics )

Evaluation in an experimental of an innovative practice Experimental design ( organic free range pregnant sows ). 2016/2017

CONTROL SOWS PASTURING SOWS TOPIC INDICATOR (continue grazing ) ( ) Zootecnic n=52 (5 groups) n=22 (2 groups) Weight gain performances Dorsal fat gain

Grassland Kg DM / sow intake - n=14

Selectivity % grassland species of sows - n=14

Contribution of % LYS an EM cover by nutritional needs n=52 n=14 pasturing

Economical Feed cost impact Global for one year

4 Experimental design : feed management

CONTROL : 100% of classical feed PASTURE : 80% of experimental feed (match with pregnant sows needs ) (1 month after insemination )

EXTRUDED PEA/FABA SOYA BEAN SUNFLOWER 8% CAKE 5% 2% ALFALFA DRIED SOYA CAKE 3% 3% ALFALFA MINERALS CEREALS DRIED CEREALS 3% 40% 3% 40% WHEAT MINERALS … WHEAT BRAN BRAN 20% 20% MAIZE MAIZE 16% 16%

5 Experimental design : feed management

CONTROL PASTURE

CP (%) 13,6% 10,2%

LYS (%) 0,64 0,38

CB (%) 6,4 6,0 Net energy (MJ / 9,3 9,1 kg)

6 Experimental design : grassland intake

Grassland height Density of grassland kg of DM/cm/ha • Before grazing • Before grazing •  Height i n cm  Grassland density and quantity available for Grasslandsows intake = • After grazing •  Height in cm • After grazing biomass before grazing Grassland– biomassdensity andafter quantitygrazingnot grazed by sows Herbomètre Number of sows in the paddocks Jenquip néozélandais Quadrat 70 cm de côté

7 Experimental design : sow selectivity

16%

8 Experimental design : grassland management

Grassland 1 Pregnant sows Pregnant sows - Ray - grass Hybride 8 kg/ha ( pasturing ) (control) - White clover 3 kg/ha - Red clover 3 kg/ha

Grassland 2

- Ray - grass Anglais 16 kg/ha - White clover 3 kg/ha - Hybrid clover 3 kg/ha - Alfalfa 5 kg/ha

Pregnant sows Pregnant sows ( pasturing ) (control)

9 1st group : small sows

1 paddock = 270 m²

2 nd group : big sows Less productive grassland After grazing

Before grazing Experimental design : nutrients provide by grazing  Calculation method : INRA Porc based on measured performances ( herd scale )

Nutrients intake by pasture =

Animal requirement – nutrients intake by concentrate

13 Main results : zootecnic performance

10,0

5,0 ) m m ( n i a 0,0 g -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 t a f l a s r o -5,0 D Weight Gain : p_value = 0,1 : NS Dorsal Fat Gain: p_value =0,7 NS

-10,0 Weight gain ( kg) 14 Main results : herbage intake

• Small sows : 1,5 kg DM/ day • Big sows : 2 kg DM/ day

4,50

4,00 y a 3,50 d /

w 3,00 o s

/ 2,50 V M 2,00 D

Vd

g 1,50

k VJ

n 1,00 o i t

s 0,50 e g

n 0,00 i 16-mars 26-mars 05-avr. 15-avr. 25-avr. 05-mai 15-mai 25-mai 04-juin 14-juin

Date of entry in the paddock 15 Main results : selectivity

Before grazing % After grazing % (n=43) (n=43)

10,4 9,7 12,0 43,2 46,3 78,2

Grass Legumes Other 16 Main results : contribution of nutritional needs

EM LYS dig

22% 33%

78% 67%

couverture par l'aliment concentré couvertureFeed par le pâturage Pasture 17 Main results : feed cost for pregnant sow

coûtAnnual alimentfeed cost FAF coûtPasturing pâturagecost

- 16 %

10

362 294

Control Pasture Système classique "témoin" Système pâturage tournant 18 Pasturing system improvement :

Too much competition Individual feeding at feeding for pasturing sows ( refectory )

Back to a complete feed 3 Less interest to pasture weeks before farrowing at the end gestating period Start pasturing system at the beginning of pregnancy

Other elements : Silage distribution when pasturing is not possible Increase knowledge of fodder value for pigs and sows Long term impact on lactating performances 19