Location: Livestock Behavior Research
Title: The effects of diet ingredients on gastric ulceration and salivary pH in gestating sows Authors
Submitted to: American Society of Animal Science
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: April 3, 2011
Publication Date: July 11, 2011
Citation: Wiscom, S.L., Richert, B.T., Radcliffe, J., Lay Jr, D.C., Marchant Forde, J.N. 2011. The effects of diet ingredients on gastric ulceration and salivary pH in gestating sows. American Society of Animal Science. Proceedings. Technical Abstract: Diet and stress are thought to have a significant influence on the development of ulceration of the pars esophagea (UPE) region of the stomach in swine. the objective of this experiment was to determine the effects of diet ingredients on UPE and salivary pH in breeding sows. Forty-eight sows were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups with parities (avg.1.81 ± 0.21) balanced across treatments. Treatments were: 1) control, a commercial gestating sow diet; 2) proton pump inhibitor, a commercial gestating sow diet plus a single daily dose of 60 mg omeprazole; 3)sodium bicarbonate, a commercial gestating sow diet with sodium bicarbonate included at 2% of the diet; 4) roughage, a high fiber diet (25% SB hulls) fed at a higher feed intake to an equal total ME as control. Treatments treatments began on d 30 of gestation and all diets were fed once per day. All sows underwent initial endoscopic evaluation at d 30 to assess UPE already present and initial salivary pH was measured. Salivary pH and UPE were also investigated at d 60 and d 90 of gestation. Ulcers were scored using a 7-point scale, ranging from 0, showing no visible lesions, to 6, showing deep ulcerations in >20% of the pars esophagea. Salivary pH was measured 5 times throughout the day at 0700 h, 1000 h, 1300 h, 1600 h and 1900 h. Data were analyzed using mixed procedure of SAS. UPE differed between groups before treatment was applied (P < 0.01), but using d 30 UPE as a covariate, there were no effects of treatment on d 60 or d 90 (both P > 0.05). Treatment also had no effect on litter size, piglet weight, or lactation feed intake (P > 0.05). The average UPE score was 1.06 ± 0.23 ranging from 0 to 6, with the largest individual score difference changing from score 5 to 0. Salivary pH did not correlate with UPE and there was no treatment effect (both P > 0.05), but there was a change in salivary pH throughout the day (P < 0.01) with the highest pH (8.99 ± 0.05) at 0700 h and lowest pH (8.88 ± 0.02) at 1300 h. The results indicate that the selected treatments did not influence UPE. To evaluate the impact of natural changes in salivary pH, further investigations are needed.