Rotational grazing 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’agriculture 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 free range 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 " pasture « 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 farms Rotating pasture with paddocks Less• Regulationprotein in suppliedof organicfeed farming ( fodder for monogastrics )
Evaluation in an experimental farm of an innovative farmer practice Experimental design ( organic free range pregnant sows ). 2016/2017
CONTROL SOWS PASTURING SOWS TOPIC INDICATOR (continue grazing ) ( rotational 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