Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:00:59.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A two-diet system and ad libitum lactation feeding of the sow 1. Sow performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Neil ,
B. Ogle  and
K. Annèr
M. Neil
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Funbo-Lövsta Research Station, S-755 97 Uppsala, Sweden
B. Ogle
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Funbo-Lövsta Research Station, S-755 97 Uppsala, Sweden
K. Annèr
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Funbo-Lövsta Research Station, S-755 97 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

Effects of a two-diet system combined with ad libitum lactation feeding of sows on food consumption, sow live weight (LW), backfat depth, condition scoring, rebreeding interval, symptoms of agalactia and culling were studied on 60 sows followed for four parities. Feeding regimes were: CR, conventional i.e. restricted during gestation and lactation; SA, a simplified diet offered at a restricted level during gestation and a conventional diet ad libitum during lactation; CA, conventional during gestation and the same diet ad libitum during lactation. During lactation CR sows consumed 5·9 kg food daily (71 MJ metabolizable energy (ME)), whereas SA and CA sows consumed on average 7·0 kg (85 MJ ME), the difference being larger in multiparous than in primiparous sows and larger in the first than in later weeks of lactation. From the second farrowing onward sows on CR treatment were lighter and had thinner backfat and lower condition scores than sows on CA treatment, with sows on SA treatment in between, i.e. approaching the CR sows in the gestation periods and the CA sows in the lactation periods. At first service LW was 130 kg and backfat thickness 14 mm. During the fourth lactation LW averaged 190 kg in CR sows and around 220 kg for SA and CA sows, and backfat thickness was 11 mm in CR sows and around 16 mm in SA and CA sows. SA sows tended to rebreed earlier after weaning than did CR or CA sows. CA sows and in particular SA sows had higher incidences of agalactia symptoms and higher rectal temperatures post partum than CR sows. The culling rates did not differ between feeding regimes, although the predominant causes for culling did, being shoulder lesions and abscesses in thin CR sows and leg disorders in SA and CA sows. At the end of the experiment, however, more SA sows than others were retained in the experimental herd. It was concluded that the SA feeding regime was superior in terms of sow performance, despite an increased incidence of agalactia symptoms.

Keywords

backfatbody weightfood intakelongevitysows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 337 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aherne, F. X. and Kirkwood, R. N. 1985. Nutrition and sow prolificacy. journal of Reproduction and Fertility Suppl. 33, pp. 169–183.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cole, D. J. A. 1982. Nutrition and reproduction. In Control of pig reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 603–619. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. J. A. 1990. Nutritional strategies to optimize reproduction in pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Suppl. 40, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
Cole, D. J. A. and Chadd, S. A. 1989. Voluntary food intake of growing pigs. In The voluntary food intake of pigs (ed. Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), Occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 13, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
Danielsen, V., Eklundh Larsen, A. and Nielsen, H.E. 1983. Fodring av diegivende søer efter ædelyst. Statens Husdyrbrugforsøg, Meddelelser 494.Google Scholar
Danielsen, V. and Nielsen, H. E. 1982. Ny energinorm til diegivende Søer. Statens Husdyrbrugsforseg, Meddelelser 416.Google Scholar
Dourmad, J. Y., Etienne, M., Prunier, A. and Noblet, J. 1993. The effect of energy and protein intake of sows on their longevity. European Association for Animal Production forty fourth meeting, Aarhus, Denmark.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastham, P. R., Smith, W. C., Whittemore, C. T. and Phillips, P. 1988. Responses of lactating sows to food level. Animal Production 46: 71–77.Google Scholar
Einarsson, S. 1986. Agalactia in sows. In Current therapy in theriogenology 2 (ed. Morrow, D. A.), pp. 935–937. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., Bannerman, M., Bathurst, E. v. J., Bracewell, A. G., Cunningham, J. M. M., Dodsworth, T. L., Dodds, P. A., Forbes, T. J. and Laird, R. 1969. The effect of level of feed intake in pregnancy and lactation upon the productivity of sows. Animal Production 11: 225–241.Google Scholar
Frobish, L. T., Steele, N. C. and Davey, R. J. 1973. Long term effects of energy intake on reproductive performance of swine. Journal of Animal Science 36: 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goransson, L. 1984. Förslag till ny utfodringsnorm till suggor. Fakta-Husdjur, no. 3. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Research Information Centre.Google Scholar
Göransson, L. 1989a.The effect of nutrition on post partum agalactia in the sow. Dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, report 188. 28 pp.Google Scholar
Göransson, L. 1989b. The effect of feed allowance in late pregnancy on the occurrence of agalactia post partum in the sow. Journal ofVerterinary Medicine A 36: 505–513.Google ScholarPubMed
Harker, A. J. and Cole, D. J. A. 1985. The influence of pregnancy feeding on sow and litter performance during the first two parities. Animal Production 40: 540 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Johnston, L. J., Fogwell, R. L., Weldon, W. C., Ames, N. K., Ullrey, D. E. and Miller, E. R. 1989. Relationship between body fat and postweaning interval to estrus in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 67: 943–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkwood, R. N., Mitaru, B. N., Gooneratne, A. D., Blair, R. and Thacker, P. A. 1988. The influence of dietary energy intake during successive lactations on sow prolificacy. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68: 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolstad, K. and Sehested, E. 1991. Holdbarhet hos norske purker. En utredning gjort for NORSVIN. Ås-NLH. Norges Landbrukshøgskole. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
Kungliga Lantbruksstyrelsen. 1966. Kungörelser m.m. nr 15. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Lee, P. A. and Close, W. H. 1988. The influence of energy intake in pregnancy and lacatation on weight and backfat change of the sow and its effect on piglet performance. Animal Production 46: 521 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Lee, P. A. and Close, W. H. 1991. The effects of feeding level during both pregnancy and lactation on long-term productivity and body composition of sows. Animal Production 52: 561 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Littledike, E. T., Witzel, D. A. and Riley, J. L. 1979. Body temperature changes in sows during the periparturient period. Laboratory Animal Science 29: 621–624.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahan, D. C. 1977. Effect of feeding various gestation and lactation dietary protein sequences on long-term reproductive performance in swine. Journal of Animal Science 45: 1061–1072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahan, D. C. 1979. Effect of dietary protein sequence on long-term sow reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 49: 514–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahan, D. C. and Mangan, L. T. 1975. Evaluation of various protein sequences on the nutritional carry-over from gestation to lactation with first-litter sows. Journal of Nutrition 105: 1291–1298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moser, R. L., Cornelius, S. G., Pettigrew, J. E., Hanke, H. E., Heeg, T. R. and Miller, K. P. 1987. Influence of postpartum feeding method on performance of the lactating sow. Livestock Production Science 16: 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Agricultural Centre. 1982. Sow feeding, condition and performance. Pig Unit, National Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1987. Predicting feed intake of food producing animals. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Neil, M. and Ogle, B. 1996. A two-diet system and ad libitum lactation feeding of the sow. 2. Litter size and piglet performance. Animal Science 62: 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, H. E. and Danielsen, V. 1983. To energinormer og to proteinnormer til drægtige søer. Statens Husdyrbrugsforsøg, Meddelelser 461.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Dourmad, J. Y. and Etienne, M. 1990. Energy utilization in pregnant and lactating sows: Modeling of energy requirements. journal of Animal Science 68: 562–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noblet, J. and Etienne, M. 1987. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in lactating sows. Journal of Animal Science 64: 774–781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Dowd, S., Hoste, S., Mercer, J. T., Fowler, V. R. and Edwards, S. A. 1993. Nutritional modification of body composition and the consequences for longevity of genetically lean sows. European Association for Animal Production forty fourth meeting, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
O'Grady, J. F., Lynch, P. B. and Kearney, P. A. 1985. Voluntary feed intake by lactating sows. Livestock Production Science 12: 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahly, T. S., Cromwell, G. L. and Simpson, W. S. 1979. Effects of full vs restricted feeding of the sow immediately postpartum on lactation performance. Journal of Animal Science 49: 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SASAS® users guide: statistics, version 5 edition. Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
Sterning, M., Rydhmer, L., Eliasson, L., Einarsson, S. and Andersson, K. 1990. A study on primiparous sows of the ability to show standing oestrus and to ovulate after weaning. Influences of loss of body weight and backfat during lactation and of litter size, litter weight gain and season. Acta veterinaria scandinavica 31: 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1987. Elements of pig science. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Franklin, M. F. and Pearce, B. S. 1980. Fat changes in breeding sows. Animal Production 31: 183–190.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Smith, W. C. and Phillips, P. 1988. Fatness, live weight and performance responses of sows to food level in pregnancy. Animal Production 47: 123–130.Google Scholar
Yang, H., Eastham, P. R., Phillips, P. and Whittemore, C. T. 1989. Reproductive performance, body weight and body condition of breeding sows with differing body fatness at parturition, differing nutrition during lactation, and differing litter size. Animal Production 48: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. G., King, G. J., Shaw, J., Quinton, M., Walton, J. S. and McMillan, I. 1991. Interrelationships among age, body weight, backfat and lactation feed intake with reproductive performance and longevity of sows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 567–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. G., King, G. J., Walton, J. S., MacMillan, I., Klevorick, M. and Shaw, J. 1990. Gestation energy and reproduction in sows over four parities. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar