Happy summer and welcome to WAGS Q3 2026 newsletter!

Looks like we have had timely moisture and heat so far this summer which is shaping up for western Canada to be one of the better growing regions in North America this year. Coupled with continued strong livestock prices, Western Canadian producers remain optimistic.

We appreciate the participation in our workshops again this past quarter as an overview was provided on feeding low zinc diets in the swine nursery phase as well as some research updates on vitamin C and D. Thanks for all those who attended and of course for your continued trust in our nutrition consulting services. This has put us in a position to help support more producers which we truly appreciate.


To support our growing customer base, WAGS has made a few additions this past quarter. Christine Ellis began in May as Controller for WAGS and will continue to bolster our administrative team. As well, Kobe Smallwood started in early July as Sales & Warehouse Coordinator in Great Falls. We are excited to have them both on the team and, likewise, they are both excited to get to know and support the livestock producers we work with.

Thanks for your business and best of luck in your operations as we get closer to harvest!

We have firmly entered weather market season and are seeing weekly swings based on weather forecasts in both Western Canada and the US Midwest. We have seen favourable weather patterns in the Prairies which have softened prices until the past few days. Recent upcoming weather reports in the US show hot and dry for the next week or so which has led to some strengthening of futures markets. However, models do show temperatures cooling closer to normal a week later in major corn growing areas. In short, expect continued volatility but it looks like we are sitting in a part of the world positioned relatively well for crop output this year.


Figures 1 and 2 show drought conditions in Canada and the US. Western Canada looks great with very little drought. The US War in the Middle East continues to play havoc with energy prices, this has impacted on truck and ocean freight as well as oilseed markets. Both sides are still talking but time will tell whether a deal comes together soon.

The weather data and energy market increase has led to an increase in corn prices to around $308 per MT, Lethbridge and $280-290 per MT across areas of Saskatchewan.

Wheat markets have risen recently as a result of continued fighting between Russia and Ukraine. Russia is the largest global wheat exporter accounting for over 20% of wheat exports and has recently had to divert shipments from the Sea of Azov – their largest shipment corridor. This combined with a short crop in the US this year has led to strengthening wheat futures. Wheat is currently pricing at $320 per MT, Lethbridge and $300 +/- $10 per MT across areas of central and southern Saskatchewan.

Barley on the other hand has remained somewhat flat at $305 per MT, Lethbridge and $285 per MT, Saskatchewan with a good amount of acreage planted and positive weather developments in Western Canada.

Soybean meal rose a few weeks ago and has stayed strong at around $635 per MT, Lethbridge ($580-590 per MT, Saskatchewan) because of high oil prices leading to demand for all things oilseed as well as China stepping back into the market to start to fulfill buying commitments they have made in negotiations with the US.

Canola meal followed suit, pulled upwards by soybean meal. However, there is a record canola acreage in Canada and an expanding domestic crush capacity which could keep a lid on new crop canola meal. Pricing is currently around $360 per MT, Lethbridge and similar pricing in Central and Southern Saskatchewan.

Amino acid and vitamin prices have been slowly coming down from the spike we saw at the start of the war in the Middle East. While high container freight prices are muting the drop a little, prices FOB China have fallen. We could see this continue as we move through the summer and freight prices weaken.

Modern hyper-prolific sows present both opportunity and challenge. Genetic selection has dramatically increased litter size and milk output, sharply raising nutrient and energy requirements during lactation. At the same time, modern sows are leaner, with lower body fat reserves and reduced appetite (Lewis and Bunter, 2011). The result is a fragile balance between nutrient supply and demand, one that directly determines sow longevity, milk yield, and litter performance.

Recent research underscores how variable feed intake can be among individual sows. About 20% of lactating sows fail to meet daily lysine needs due to feed intake variation (Estrada et al., 2024). Lysine is the first-limiting amino acid for milk production and litter growth. Diets are typically formulated to meet the herd-average intake, even though actual consumption varies widely. Consequently, many first- and second-parity sows consume less feed than the herd average (Piñeiro et al., 2019) and therefore fail to meet their nutrient and energy needs. Gilts (parity 1 sows), in particular, eat roughly 15% less feed than multiparous sows (Strathe et al., 2017).

When intake is inadequate, sows lose excess body tissue, leading to poorer litter growth, reduced milk yield, higher pre-weaning mortality, and longer wean-to-estrus intervals (Koketsu et al.,1997; Prunier et al., 1997; Sulabo et al., 2010; Kruse et al., 2011). Because milk production represents 65–80% of total energy needs during lactation (Figure 1; Pedersen et al., 2019), even a brief intake deficit can tip the sow into negative energy balance. She will then mobilize fat and muscle to sustain milk production, which, if excessive, compromises reproductive recovery and next-parity performance (De Bettio et al., 2016; Thaker and Bilkei, 2005).

Simply put, feed intake and nutrient supply are two faces of the same coin — both must be managed together to protect milk yield, sow condition, and fertility.


Figure 3. Estimated metabolizable energy requirements for maintenance and milk production, and the projected ME intake, in lactating sows. Calculations assume a litter size of 11.5 piglets and a daily litter gain of 2.67 kg over a 21-day lactation period, based on NRC (2012) for multiparous sows.

The limits of voluntary intake: Why feed intake and nutrients must go hand in hand.

Even the most precise diet formulation fails if the sow cannot physically consume enough feed. Modern, high-lean genetics have lower voluntary intake potential (Greiner et al., 2020). Moreover, sows differ not only in total daily intake but also in their feeding pattern, some show sharp day-to-day variation, others steadily declines late in lactation (Koketsu et al., 1996a).

Nutrient density and its trade-offs

To compensate for limited feed intake, energy and amino acid density can be increased. Adding 2–11% fat typically raises daily energy intake by ~7% (~0.9 Mcal net energy (NE)/day), supporting higher milk output (Tokach et al., 2020). However, overly energy-dense diets (2.6 - 2.7 Mcal NE/kg) can depress appetite due to early satiety or digestive constraints (Tokach et al., 2020). Including moderate fibre (5–8%) in gestation diets improves gut motility and appetite regulation, leading to higher feed intake in lactation (Zhang et al., 2023). Nutrition before farrowing, therefore, sets the stage for intake potential during lactation.

Body tissue mobilization: compensation at a cost

When nutrient intake falls short, sows draw on body reserves. Mobilizing fat and muscle supports milk yield but also accelerates body condition loss, extending wean-to-estrus intervals and lowering subsequent litter size (Clowes et al., 2003). Modern lean sows have little energy reserve capacity; therefore, managing intake is key to minimizing excessive mobilization.

Practical implications

1. Formulate for the realistic, not the ideal. Design diets around conservative feed intake assumptions (e.g., 3.5 kg/day in early lactation). This ensures that even lower-intake sows receive essential nutrients.

2. Step-up feeding and multiple meals. Gradually increase feed intake post-farrowing. Dividing feedings into two or more meals per day encourages consumption and reduces digestive stress (Tremblay et al., 2024).

3. Enhance energy density — but cautiously. Use fat sources to raise NE without excessive bulk. Monitor sow response and avoid energy levels that suppress appetite. But beyond being an energy source, some vegetable oils such as soybean, canola, corn, and flaxseed oil are rich in essential fatty acids (linoleic and α-linolenic acids), nutrients pigs cannot synthesize that support milk quality, litter growth, and subsequent reproductive performance (Rosero et al., 2016).

4. Use “top dressing” for individual sows. In farrowing rooms where feed intake varies widely, targeted top dressing can help individual sows meet nutrient requirements without altering the base diet. Research supports this strategy: when low-intake sows received high energy or high-amino-acid top-dresses, milk yield and litter gain improved compared with control-fed sows (Chae et al., 1998; Cabezón et al., 2017). Top dressing also facilitates precise nutrient delivery to gilts or thin sows that cannot consume sufficient base feed.

5. Optimize gestation diets to prime appetite. Gestation diets with moderate fibre and controlled energy help preserve condition while maintaining high postpartum intake (Miller et al., 2000).

6. Monitor daily feed curves and intervene early. Track individual intakes. A drop of >15% from a sow’s baseline signals a problem. Check feed freshness, temperature, and sow health immediately.

7. Manage environment and comfort. Maintain 18–22°C in farrowing rooms and ensure proper ventilation, water access, and feeder adjustment. Environmental comfort is a powerful driver of appetite.

Summary and Recommendations

Feed intake is the vehicle that delivers nutrients to the sow. Properly balancing feed intake with nutrient supply supports optimal milk production, maintains sow body condition, and promotes reproductive recovery, forming the foundation for sow longevity and sustainable herd profitability.

For much of the modern era of poultry nutrition, fiber was regarded as an anti-nutrient, an ingredient that diluted dietary energy, occupied gut capacity, and offered little in return. That view has shifted considerably over the past two decades. A substantial body of peer-reviewed research now demonstrates that specific, well-characterized fiber sources, included at appropriate levels and particle sizes, can meaningfully improve digestive physiology, gut health, and even flock welfare. This is the basis for what now we call functional fiber.

This article summarizes the current scientific understanding of functional fiber in poultry diets and translates it into practical guidance for producers.

What is Functional Fiber?

Dietary fiber is not a single, uniform category. Nutritionally, it is broadly divided by solubility. Soluble fiber (e.g., β-glucans, arabinoxylans, pectins) dissolves in water and forms a viscous gel in the gut. At high inclusion, it can raise digesta viscosity, impair nutrient absorption, and increase litter moisture; the historical basis for fiber's poor reputation in poultry diets. Insoluble fiber (cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin) predominantly found in oat hulls, sunflower hulls, soybean hulls, coarse wheat bran etc. does not dissolve and largely resists fermentation in the upper gut. It passes through largely intact, adding bulk and stimulating gastrointestinal motility. "Functional fiber" in the applied sense generally refers to coarse, insoluble fiber sources deliberately included to elicit specific physiological responses, rather than incidental fiber present as a by-product of other raw materials. A comprehensive review (Jiménez-Moreno et al., 2021) summarizes this distinction and its practical implications for nutrient utilization and gut health across poultry classes.

The Gizzard: The Central Mechanism

The most well-documented benefit of functional fiber relates to gizzard development and function. Finely ground, pelleted diets; while efficient for feed manufacturing tend to produce a smaller, less muscular gizzard with reduced grinding capacity.

In a controlled trial (Sacranie et al., 2012), broilers fed diets containing 15% coarse oat and barley hulls developed significantly heavier, fuller gizzards with lower gizzard pH compared with birds fed a basal diet, without any negative effect on weight gain or feed conversion; an outcome partly attributed to improved starch digestibility. The same study confirmed that insoluble fiber increases reverse peristaltic contractions, extending the exposure of digesta to gizzard acid and mechanical action regardless of feeding regimen.


Earlier work (Hetland & Svihus, 2001; Hetland, Svihus & Krogdahl, 2003) similarly established that oat hulls and coarse structural components increase gizzard size, prolong feed passage time, and enhance nutrient digestibility in broilers fed wheat-based diets. In layers, (Hetland, Svihus & Choct, 2005) reported comparable improvements in gizzard activity, reinforcing that this response is not limited to fast-growing broiler genetics.

A well-developed, active gizzard has downstream consequences beyond digestion: the lower luminal pH associated with a functioning gizzard is understood to reduce survival of acid-sensitive pathogens such as Salmonella spp. as digesta transits the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Gut Microbiota and Fermentation Effects

Beyond mechanical effects on the gizzard, fiber fractions including the more fermentable components present even within nominally “insoluble” sources influence hindgut microbial ecology. A review (Shang et al., 2022) describes how dietary fibers can selectively promote short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)-producing bacterial populations in the ceca, with SCFAs such as butyrate, propionate, and acetate exhibiting bacteriostatic activity against pathogens including Salmonella, E. coli, and Clostridium perfringens, the causative agent of necrotic enteritis.

A separate review (Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2021) similarly outlines the role of butyrate in maintaining tight-junction integrity and intestinal barrier function, both relevant to necrotic enteritis control strategies in antibiotic-reduced production systems. These fermentation-driven mechanisms are considered complementary to, rather than a substitute for, the mechanical gizzard effects described above.

Fiber, Satiety, and Welfare in Breeder Flocks

Functional fiber also has an established role in broiler breeder management, where quantitative feed restriction is standard practice to control body weight and reproductive performance, but is associated with chronic hunger and related welfare concerns. Nielsen et al., 2011 found that increasing the proportion of insoluble fiber in breeder diets reduced signs of hunger-related frustration and feeding motivation relative to soluble-fiber or standard diets. It is also reported that fiber-diluted diets could improve behavioral and physiological welfare indicators in female broiler breeders without compromising body weight uniformity (Hocking et al., 2004). More recent work (Wurtz, Thodberg & Riber, 2025) confirms that oat-hull-based, fiber-diluted diets can reduce indicators of acute stress in breeder pullets under commercial-style rearing conditions, though fiber inclusion alone does not fully resolve the welfare challenges associated with feed restrictions.

Practical Inclusion Guidance

Functional fiber is most effective when used deliberately rather than as a generic dilutant. The literature and field experience point to several practical principles, summarized below.


Particle size is critical: the gizzard-stimulating effect depends on coarse particle geometry, and finely ground fiber sources largely lose their functional benefit (Sacranie et al., 2012). Introduce fiber early, as gizzard responsiveness is highest during the first one to two weeks post-hatch, making starter-phase inclusion disproportionately valuable for the remainder of the production cycle. Rebalance nutrient density, since fiber inclusion dilutes energy and amino acid concentration, particularly in young, fast-growing broilers. Finally, match the fiber source to the objective: coarse, low-fermentability sources such as oat hulls and sunflower hulls are preferred for gizzard stimulation, while sources with greater fermentable fractions may be selected where microbiota modulation is the primary goal.

Conclusion

The scientific evidence supporting functional fiber in poultry diets has matured considerably, moving the ingredient category from an accepted dilutant to a deliberate nutritional tool. Its documented benefits; enhanced gizzard development, improved gut motility and starch digestibility, favorable shifts in hindgut fermentation, and, in breeder flocks, improved welfare indicators under feed restriction; make it a relevant consideration in antibiotic-reduced and gut-health-focused production programs. As with any nutritional intervention, inclusion levels, particle size, and fiber source should be determined in careful consultation and validated under the specific conditions of the production system, ideally with monitoring of gizzard development and litter quality as practical indicators of response.

Farmers sometimes use the term “udder rot” to describe severe infections, skin irritation, or tissue damage affecting the udder and closer skin (1). "Udder rot" is not a precise veterinary diagnosis/term, but general term, so the right treatment depends on what is actually causing the problem.

Udder and skin rot in a lactating cow is most often due to ulcerative bacterial dermatitis, trauma with secondary infection, starting from mild (udder) edema with skin breakdown, dirty skin folds leading to severe infections such as gangrenous dermatitis (1,2,3,4). In such a situation, a veterinary intervention is recommended, especially if the lactating cow appears ill.

Udder rot or udder cleft dermatitis (Figure 1) is an inflammatory, often foul-smelling, necrotic skin disease affecting the skin between the front quarters, front skin belly area or at the fore udder attachment (Figure 2). It is also called as ulcerative mammary dermatitis, foul udder, udder dermatitis, or udder scald (1,2,3).


Possible reasons and start

Udder rot happens when a cow's udder rubs tightly against her leg or belly or beddings while laying down. It usually starts with mild swelling after getting scratched, which leads to painful chafing. The irritated skin oozes fluid, creating a perfect dark, moist home for harmful bacteria to grow faster and cause raw sores, scabs, and a very strong, rot-like smell (1,2,3,4). Cows with poor udder shape and low-hanging or loosely attached udders create deep, hidden skin folds. Moisture and dirt build up in these skin folds by mud, manure, or leaking milk trapped in the skin folds eventually nourish the bad bacteria eventually resulting a wound (2,3).

Treating Udder Rot

Treating this condition requires

- Maintaining clean, dry bedding and good barn hygiene; preventing further rubbing and predisposing factors

- Cleaning the wound area daily by gently washing the hidden sores with saline or a diluted antiseptic wash

- Clipping hair around the affected area if needed to help keep the skin clean and dry.

- Spraying or applying a topical disinfectant after cleaning.

- Keeping the udder and surrounding area dry always; moisture makes the infection worse, so use clean, single-use towels to dry the skin completely

- Applying a protective barrier. Coat the clean, dry skin (wound) with a soothing ointment or powder to block moisture and stop the chafing

- Controlling flies, especially in warm weather.

- If the wounds are severe seek for veterinary advise; antibiotics could be used as prescribed by a veterinarian if a bacterial infection is present. The same way to reduce the pain, anti-inflammatory or pain medication can be used (4).

Supportive nutrition to mitigate the problem

Correct feeding and nutrition practices boost strengthening of skin health and immunity. Optimal feeding practices using correct nutrition program to dry cows, transition cows and then lactating cows would eliminate over-weight, ketosis, udder edema and acidosis. Any of the above conditions can predispose the cow to weaker immunity and skin problems. If there is a possibility of having toxins in the feed, an appropriate measure should be taken to minimize the toxin levels because some mycotoxins interfere with immunity and skin health (1).

Major minerals, micro-minerals and vitamins should be balanced well in the diet to prevent predisposing factors. Magnesium, sodium and potassium play a role to prevent udder and skin edema. Thereby, optimal level of magnesium (0.3-0.4%) in the diet is recommended.

Zinc is important for healthy skin. It keeps the skin barrier tough and flexible so it would minimize occurring cracks or scratches easily when rubbing against the leg. Therefore, optimal Zinc (>40 mg/kg) in the complete diet is recommended (1).

Antioxidants prevent cellular breakdown and tissue trauma in the udder during times of calving and milking stresses. Paying attention to vitamin E (1,200 IU/day or 50 IU/kg) is important.

In addition, vitamin A and beta-carotene are directly tied to skin and udder tissue health. Keeping these levels up (7000 IU/kg) helps mucous membranes and skin cells repair themselves quickly.

Research shows that factors that increase milk urea nitrogen (MUN) have an association with poor skin conditions. Therefore, taking correct measures to avoid factors that increase MUN and aiming for optimal MUN levels would also help (1).

Note: For all articles, references are available upon request.

Congratulations to the WAGS partners who made it to the H@ms Marketing June Top 10 list for carcass quality of pigs going to either Thunder Creek, Britco and North 49 or Olymel.

Well done guys!

THUNDER CREEK, BRITCO AND NORTH 49

INDEXING
4th New Dale Hutterian Brethren
8th Wymark Farming Company Ltd.

PERCENT DEMERIT FREE
3rd Shamrock Farming Co. Ltd.
6th Southland Farming Company Ltd.
7th Vanguard Farming Company Ltd.
10th Wymark Farming Company Ltd.

LEAN PERCENTAGE & LOIN DEPTH

Lean Percent Target
2nd New Dale Hutterian Brethren
9th Vanguard Farming Company Ltd.
10th Hillridge Farming Co.

Loin Depth Target
5th New Dale Hutterian Brethren

Percent in Core Area
5th Wymark Farming Company Ltd.
7th Hillridge Farming Co.

Carcass Wt. Target
3rd Hillridge Farming Co.
9th Raley Colony Ltd.

OLYMEL

INDEXING
1st Old Elm Farming Co. Ltd.
2nd Summerland Colony Farming

PERCENT DEMERIT FREE
6th Clear Lake Farming
8th Old Elm Farming Co. Ltd.

PERCENT CLEAR TATTOO
10th Sovereign Farming Colony

LEAN PERCENT TARGET
3rd Clear Lake Farming

LOIN DEPTH TARGET
8th Summerland Colony Farming

PERCENT IN CORE AREA
1st Summerland Colony Farming
2nd Old Elm Farming Co. Ltd.

Carcass Wt. Target
2nd Old Elm Farming Co. Ltd.
3rd Summerland Colony Farming