Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:08:43.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of condition at service and plane of nutrition in early pregnancy in the sow 1. Uterine and extra-uterine changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. H. Pike  and
T. G. Boaz
I. H. Pike
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, Agricultural Sciences Building, The University, Leeds
T. G. Boaz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, Agricultural Sciences Building, The University, Leeds
Get access

Summary

Twelve sows (F) were fed 7·3 kg/day and twelve (T) 3·7 kg/day of a 16% crude protein (CP) diet for the last 5 weeks of an 8-week lactation, so that at the subsequent service F sows were heavier (16%) and in better condition.

From service to slaughter 70 days later, sows received either 3·7 kg/day (H) or 1·8 kg/day (L) of a 15% CP diet, giving four treatment combinations; FH, FL, TH and TL.

In pregnancy H sows gained more weight than L sows and, on the low plane, F sows gained more weight than T sows. Ovulation rate as measured by corpora lutea count at slaughter was higher for TH than TL sows and for FL sows than FH sows. A combination of low ovulation rate and high mortality rate gave fewer foetuses (10·0) in the TL sows than in sows on the other treatments (13·5). Similarly mean foetal weight and thus foetal litter weight was least in TL sows. Foetal membranes, uterine fluids and uterine wall were lighter at slaughter in T sows than F sows and lighter in L sows than H sows, those of TL sows being appreciably the lightest.

The results indicate that when the sow is in poor condition at service, body reserves being depleted, the uterus and its contents become more vulnerable to adverse pregnancy nutrition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , October 1972 , pp. 147 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1972

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

Adam, J. L. and Smith, W. C. 1964. The use of specific gravity and its reciprocal in predicting the carcass composition of pigs slaughtered at three weights. Anim. Prod. 6: 97–105.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1967. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 3. Pigs. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Allen, D. M. and Lamming, G. E. 1961. Nutrition and reproduction in the ewe. J. agric. Set, Camb. 56: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, C. R. 1959. In Reproduction of Domestic Animals, Vol. I, p. 399 (ed. Cole, H. H. and Cupps, P. I.). Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Bourdel, G. and Jacquot, R. 1956. Importance of the placenta in protein anabolism during gestation. Case of diets low in nitrogen. C.r.lebd. Seance Acad. Set Paris 243: 310–312.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., MacPherson, R. M. and Lodge, G. A. 1968. The effects of level of feeding of sows during pregnancy. III. Body composition. Anim. Prod. 10: 149–156.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., Bannerman, Mary, 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 in lactation upon the productivity of sows. Anim. Prod. 11: 225–241.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1944. Physiological factors affecting birth weight. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2: 8–12.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1960. Farm Animals. 3rd ed. Edward Arnold Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Hardy, B. and Lodge, G. A. 1969a. The influence of nutrition during post-lactational oestrus on ovulation rate in the sow and the accuracy of corpora lutea counts in estimating ovulations. J. Reprod. Fert. 19: 555–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardy, B. and Lodge, G. A. 1969b. The effect of body condition on ovulation rate in the sow. Anim. Prod. 11: 505–510.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. and Pomeroy, R. W. 1955. An analysis of carcass measurements of post-war British pigs. J. agric. Set, Camb. 45: 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, F. C., Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E. 1967. The influence of plane of nutrition in early pregnancy on the survival and development of embryos in the sow. J. Reprod. Fert. 13: 269–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, J. W. B. and Young, G. B. 1957. Maternal influences on litter size in pigs. J. agric. Set, Camb. 48: 457–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, G. A. 1969. The effects of pattern of feed distribution during the reproductive cycle on the performance of sows. Anim. Prod. 11: 133–143.Google Scholar
MacLean, C. W. 1968. The thin sow problem. Vet. Rec. 83: 308–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, H. H., Carroll, W. E., Hamilton, T. S. and Hunt, G. E. 1931. Food requirement of pregnancy in swine. Bull. III. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 375.Google Scholar
Moustgaard, J. 1962. Foetal nutrition in the pig. In Nutrition of Pigs and Poultry (ed. Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D.), pp. 189–206. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1964. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 11. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. No. 1192.Google Scholar
Pike, I. and Boaz, T. G. 1966. Effect of condition at service and feed level in pregnancy on the pregnant sow. Anim. Prod. 8: 353 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. 1960. Infertility and neonatal mortality in the sow. III. Neonatal mortality and foetal development. J. agric. Set, Camb. 54: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathnasabapathy, V., Lasley, J. F. and Mayer, D. T. 1956. Genetic and environmental factors affecting litter size in swine. Bull. Miss, agric. Exp. Stn., No. 615.Google Scholar
Rigor, E. M., Meyer, R. K., First, N. L. and Casida, L. E. 1963. Endocrine differences associated with foUicular development and ovulation rate in swine due to breed and energy intake. J. Anim. Set 22: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkerson, V. A. and Gortner, R. A. 1932. The chemistry of embryonic growth. 3. A biochemical study of the embryonic growth of the pig with special reference to nitrogenous compounds. Am. J. Physiol. 102: 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar