CAN DIET BE USED TO IMPROVE GUT HEALTH? WHAT ROLE …

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION

CAN DIET BE USED TO IMPROVE GUT

HEALTH? WHAT ROLE DOES DRINKING WATER

PLAY?John F. Patience

Dept. of Animal ScienceIowa State University

Ames, IA

Presented at Iowa Swine Day, June 29, 2017


What do we mean by “gut health”

• “Health” is the absence of disease• “Improved gut health” is reduction in disease

– Improved structure?• Barrier function• Greater digestive and absorptive surface area• Mucous integrity

– Improved function?• Digestive function• Absorptive function

– Improved microflora• Fewer pathogens• More commensal bacteria

– Optimal immunological response


Can diet be used to improve gut health


Can diet be used to improve gut health

• Antibiotics• Selection of functional ingredients in starter diets

– Lactose– Zinc oxide

• Avoidance of ingredients containing ANF– Raw soybeans

• Use of ingredients to break down ANF– Phytase to break down phytate


Using the diet to improve gut health


Impact of 15% lactose (LA) and fermentation product (FP) on butyric acid concentration in the colon

15.2 14.620.6 20.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

But

yric

aci

d, µ

M/g

Lactose: P = 0.037FP: P = 0.844Interaction: P = 0.971

CT FP LA LA+FP

Source: Acosta et al., 2016


P = 0.002

CTL FP FP+ABABTreatment


Sometimes antibiotics and another additives provide benefit greater than either one alone

FP: SynGenX; AB: Chlortetracycline and Tiamulin in phases 1 and 2 only424 newly‐weaned pigs, initial BW 12.8 lb; 12 pens of 9 pigs per pen per treatment; 35 d trial

0.806 0.808 0.8300.859

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

A.D.G., lb


1.580 1.570 1.5601.520

1.301.351.401.451.501.551.601.65

Feed

:Gai

n, k

g

P = 0.043

CTL FP FP+ABABTreatment


Sometimes antibiotics and another additives provide benefit greater than either one alone

FP: SynGenX; AB: Chlortetracycline and Tiamulin in phases 1 and 2 only 424 newly‐weaned pigs, initial BW 12.8 lb; 12 pens of 9 pigs per pen per treatment; 35 d trial


Total number of injectable medications per treatment

121105

9883

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Inje

ctab

le m

edic

atio

ns P = 0.022

CTL FP FP+ABAB

↓31%

Treatment


FP: SynGenX; AB: Chlortetracycline and Tiamulin in phases 1 and 2 only 424 newly‐weaned pigs, initial BW 12.8 lb; 12 pens of 9 pigs per pen per treatment; 35 d trial


Impact of dietary levels of an enzymatically hydrolyzed yeast product on performance and mortality

0 0.01% 0.02% 0.04% P‐valueInitial, wt, lb 66.6 66.4 66.0 66.1 0.986Final wt, lb 309.0 310.1 309.0 306.2 0.497ADG, lb 1.86 1.88 1.89 1.85 0.666ADF, lb 5.25 5.36 5.38 5.24 0.846Feed:gain 3.03 2.94 2.94 2.94 0.765Mortality, % 7.5 6.7 2.8 4.3 0.028

PILOT SCP, Arm and Hammer; 64 pens (16/trt) of 21 pigs each; PRRS break in phase 2 and suspected ileitis break about 1 month later.

Source: Gould et al., 2015


0

5

10

15

20

25

Control 1000 FTU/kg 1750 FTU/kg 2500 FTU/kg

Con

cent

ratio

n, μ

mol

/g

Impact of super-dosing phytase on the concentration of phytate (IP6) at the terminal ileum, 40 kg

P-valuesTRT LIN QUAD<0.001 <0.001 0.041

Source: Holloway et al., 2016


Impact of super-dosing phytase on the concentration of lower inositol derivatives and free inositol at the terminal ileum, 40 kg

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Con

cent

ratio

n, μ

mol

/g

IP5IP4IP3Inositol

P-values

TRT LIN QUAD

IP5 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001IP4 0.011 0.640 0.003

IP3 0.002 0.003 0.004

Inositol 0.002 <0.001 0.219

Source: Holloway et al., 2016


76.9

74.476.8 76.3

89.5 89.390.3 90.6

70

75

80

85

90

95


% AIDATTD

P-values

TRT LIN

AID 0.259 0.892

ATTD 0.030 0.007

Impact of super-dosing phytase on the AID and ATTD of DM, 60 kg


Impact of dietary fiber on fecal scores during dpi 1-7

0

1

2

3

4

NC PC SBP SBP+E DDGS DDGS+E

Log

(odd

s ra

tio) o

f fec

al s

core

Contrast PC vs. NC PC vs. SF PC vs. IF

P-value <.0001 0.596 0.026

Source: Li et al., 2017


0

10

20

30

40

dpi 0 dpi 1 dpi 2 dpi 3 dpi 5 dpi 7

Cum

ulat

ive

shed

ding

sco

re

NC

PC

SBP

SBP+E

DDGS

DDGS+E

Impact of dietary fiber on E. coli shedding scores

Contrast PC vs. NC PC vs. SF PC vs. IF

dpi 5 0.003 0.989 0.045



Impact of dietary fiber on ileal E. coli attachment, %

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Ileal

E. c

oli a

ttach

men

t, %

Contrast P-value

PC vs. NC 0.012

PC vs. SBP 0.048

SBP vs. SBP+E 0.080



Cytokines and tight junction proteins mRNA abundance (∆∆CT) in ileum

ItemXyl EB

SEMP-value

- + - + Xyl EB Xyl*EBIL-1ß -0.23 0.24 -0.10 0.10 0.25 0.141 0.527 0.453

IL-22 0.90 1.25 0.67 1.48 0.27 0.363 0.037 0.742

Occludin -0.10 0.10 0.30 -0.30 0.34 0.684 0.226 0.225

Claudin 3 0.10 -0.10 0.50 -0.50 0.28 0.573 0.007 0.260



What does the future hold?

Botanicals Direct feed microbials (probiotics) Enzymes Lysozyme Metabolic modifiers Minerals Nucleotides Organic acids and their salts Plant extracts Prebiotics Yeast and yeast-related products


What does the future hold?

We are picking away at the edges and making progress, but progress is need in 2 critical areas:• Understanding the mode of action• Application in the field


What does the future hold

• Diet formulation will evolve from primarily nutrient-based to nutrients + functional effects of ingredients

– Product development efforts are expanding with broader scientific investigation

– While antibiotics are broadly effective, non-Ab feed additives will be more specific in their target use


Water and Water Quality


Intake refers to the actual quantity of water consumed

Disappearance refers to the amount of water that flows through the pipe, and thus includes wastage In a typical nipple drinker, waste can easily

represent 35% of disappearance In hot weather, intake increases by 15% to 75%,

but waste may increase 3- to 4-fold!

Water intake vs disappearance


Typical water balance in the growing pig

IntakeDrinking Metabolic Feed

19%

OutputUrine Respiration Tissue accr. Feces

30%

10%5%

Source: Patience et al., 1995

77%

4%

55%


Relationship between water intake and scour score in newly weaned pigs

Daily water intake in newly‐weaned piglets declines, even when diarrhea is increasing in incidence and

severity. Poor quality water (b) reduced

intake relative to fresh water (a).

Source: McLeese and Patience

Post-weaning water intake pattern

Water consumption determined in newly weaned (4 week-old) pigs fed an unmedicated diet.Control (150 ppm; ) or high sulphate (2,300 ppm; ) water was compared. Source: Tremblay et al., unpublished data)

Water consumption determined in newly weaned (4 week-old) pigs fed an unmedicated diet.Control (150 ppm; ) or high sulphate (2,300 ppm; ) water was compared. Source: Tremblay et al., unpublished data)

Lowest water intakeoccurred when

scour score was at its peak!

Lowest water intakeoccurred when

scour score was at its peak!

This water intake patternis consistent from

experiment to experiment

This water intake patternis consistent from

experiment to experiment


Water: SulfatesSerious contributor to diarrhea• Causes osmotic diarrhea

• Does not impair performance unless at extremely high levels (>3,000 ppm) unless other issues exist in the barn

• May lead to “rotten egg” odor if reducing bacteria present

• Does elevated sulfate in the water increase susceptibility to other gastrointestinal problems?


Water: SulfatesSerious contributor to diarrhea• Sodium sulfate (Glaubers Salts)

– Common (but harsh) laxative

• Magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts)– Common (but harsh) laxative

• Removal of sulfates from the water– Reverse osmosis– Distillation– Electrodialysis


Effect of sulfates on weanling pig performance: on-farm study

TDS = 217 ppm TDS = 2,350 ppm TDS = 4,390 ppm

Sulfates, ppm 83 1280 2650

Calcium, ppm 24 184 288

Chloride, ppm 8 34 70

Magnesium, ppm 15 74 88

Sodium, ppm 24 446 947

Hardness, ppm 124 767 1080

ADG, g/d 430 430 440

ADF, g/d 550 560 570

Feed:gain 1.28 1.31 1.30

Water intake, kg/d 1.60 1.84 1.81

Scour score (1‐3) 1.07 1.30 1.46

Source: Tremblay et al.


Effect of sulfates on weanling pig performance: on-farm study - 2004

Raw Water RO WaterSulfates, ppm 1,650 29Calcium, ppm 431 26Chloride, ppm 12 7Magnesium, ppm

188 11

Sodium, ppm 164 46Iron, ppm 14 .04pH 7.49 6.96Hardness 1,849 109

Patience et al., 2004


Effect of low quality water on weanling pig performance: on-farm study – 2004 #1

Raw Water RO Water SEMInit. Wt., lb 13.0 13.0 ‐Final wt., lb 47.0 46.2 2.0ADG, lb 0.97 0.95 0.02ADF, lb 1.48 1.44 0.04Feed:gain 1.51 1.51 ‐


Experiment conducted on 1,200 sow farrow‐to‐finish farm, weaning at ~21 d of age, 13 pens per treatment, study lasted 35 days.


Effect of low quality water on weanling pig performance: on-farm study – 2004 #2

Raw Water RO Water SEMInit. Wt., lb 12.9 12.9 ‐Final wt., lb 41.8 42.6 0.5ADG, lb 0.88 0.90 0.01ADF, lb 1.41 1.43 0.04Feed:gain 1.61 1.58 ‐


Experiment conducted on 1,200 sow farrow‐to‐finish farm, weaning at ~21 d of age, 13 pens per treatment, study lasted 35 days.


Effect of sulfates added to drinking water on weanling pig performance: Study #1

Control Added SO4 SEMSulfate, ppm 84 2,000Sodium, ppm 38 750

Calcium, ppm 25 26Magnesium, ppm 12 12ADG, lb 0.61 0.50 0.03ADF, lb 0.79 0.69 0.03Feed:gain 1.30 1.37 ‐

Flohr et al, 2014

Experiment conducted on 320 hd research farm, BW of 11.9 lb, 8 pens per treatment, study lasted 24 days.


Effect of sulfates added to drinking water on weanling pig performance: Study #2

Control Added SO4 SEMSulfate, ppm 77 1,700Sodium, ppm 34 565

Calcium, ppm 13 14Magnesium, ppm 10 10ADG, lb 0.59 0.58 0.03ADF, lb 0.82 0.81 0.03Feed:gain 1.39 1.41 ‐

Flohr et al, 2014

Experiment conducted on 320 hd research farm, BW of 12.6 lb, 7 pens per treatment, study lasted 21 days.

CAN DIET BE USED TO IMPROVE GUT HEALTH? WHAT ROLE …

Documents