Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:21:40.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fat changes in breeding sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. T. Whittemore ,
M. F. Franklin  and
B. S. Pearce
C. T. Whittemore
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
M. F. Franklin
Affiliation:
ARC Unit of Statistics, James Clerk Maxwell Building, May field Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
B. S. Pearce
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Bletchley MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

One hundred and eight crossbred sows from nine different commercial sources were monitored over two parities for changes in live weight and fatness. All sows were given a common nutritional regime. Thirty sows were slaughtered and physically dissected. After weaning the second litter, mean carcass measurements ( ± s.d.) were: live weight, 139±9·5kg; lean mass, 26·6 ± 2·8kg; subcutaneous fat mass, 4·l ± l·7kg; ultrasonic P2 backfat depth (USP2), 11·3±2·8mm; total dissected fat (kg) = 0·63 ± 0·073 USP2 —1·1 ±0·85(r = 0·85). Between mating (parity 1) and weaning (parity 2) sows gained 22kg live weight and lost 6·8mm backfat. There were significant differences between sources with respect to fatness, despite standardized feeding. It is suggested that for breeding pigs such as these, starting their reproductive life with limited fat reserves (16·4 ± 3·0mm USP2 at 92 ± 6kg live weight), a conventional fat-exploiting feeding regime is unlikely to be appropriate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , October 1980 , pp. 183 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1980

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1967. Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 3, Figs. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H. 1972. Some aspects of productivity in the sow. In The Improvement of Sow Productivity (ed. Jones, A. S.Fowler, V. R. and Yeats, J. C. R.), pp. 71–87. Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen.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
Elsley, F. W. H., Bathurst, E. V. J., Bracewell, A. G., Cunningham, J. M. M., Dent, J. B., Dodsworth, T. L., MacPherson, R. M. and Walker, N. 1971. The effect of pattern of food intake in pregnancy upon sow productivity. Anim. Prod. 13: 257–270.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
Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Elsley, F. W. H., Grubb, D. A., Lightfoot, A. L., Saul, D. W., Smith, P., Walker, N., Williams, D. and Yeo, M. L. 1977. Coordinated trials on the protein requirements of sows. 1. A comparison of four levels of dietary protein in gestation and two in lactation. Anim. Prod. 24: 307–321.Google Scholar
Lodge, G. A., Elsley, F. W. H. and MacPherson, R. M. 1966. The effects of level of feeding of sows during pregnancy. II. Changes in body weight. Anim. Prod. 8: 499–506.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1978. Nutrient allowances for pigs. Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food, London.Google Scholar
O'Grady, J. F., Elsley, F. W. H., MacPherson, R. M. and McDonald, I. 1975. The response of lactationg sows and their litters to different dietary energy allowances. 2. Weight changes and carcass composition of sows. Anim. Prod. 20: 257–265.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1976. A study of growth responses to nutrient inputs by modelling. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35: 383–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed