Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-24T02:02:22.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fatness, live weight and performance responses of sows to food level in pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. T. Whittemore ,
W. C. Smith  and
P. Phillips
C. T. Whittemore
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
W. C. Smith
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
P. Phillips
Affiliation:
AFRC Unit of Statistics, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
Get access

Abstract

Sixty crossbred females received one of three pregnancy feeding rates over five parities: high (2·3 kg/day); medium (2·0 kg/day) and low (1·7 kg/day) to produce variation in body fatness and live weight. During a 32-day lactation all sows were fed the same allowance according to litter size. At the start of parity 5 ultrasonic P2 backfat depths for the high, medium and low treatments respectively were 11·2, 11·0 and 10·6 (s.e. 1·77) mm while live weight was 184, 177 and 167 (s.e. 8·6) kg. Averaged over five parities, backfat depths at conception were not significantly different between treatments. Sows given higher pregnancy feeding rates in pregnancy were heavier and fatter pre-partum but lost relatively more live weight and backfat during lactation. Regression coefficients for the slope of the relationship between total sow pregnancy weight (kg) and fatness (mm) change, and food intake (kg/day) were 0·2 and 0·04 respectively. Pregnancy feeding rate did not influence the number of live births but total litter weight at weaning was positively related to the weight and fatness of the sow at parturition and her subsequent rate of weight and fat loss during lactation (these characteristics of the sow also being positively related): live weight of litter at 32 days (kg) = 67 – 1·8 sow backfat change in lactation (mm) – 0·4 sow live-weight change in lactation (kg). Absolute sow live weight and fatness were positive influences on readiness to rebreed after weaning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 123 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Campbell, R. G., Williams, I. H., James, K. J. and Davies, G. T. 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 121–145.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.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 Keats, J. C. R.), pp. 71–87. Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. 1981. Factors influencing the weaning to oestrous interval in swine: a review. World Review of Animal Production 17: 15–28.Google Scholar
Harker, A. J. and Cole, D. J. A. 1984. The effect of pattern of food distribution during late pregnancy and lactation on sow productivity. Animal Production 38: 528 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
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
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1984. Genstat V, Mark 4.04. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Lee, P. A. and Close, W. H. 1986. Effect of pattern of energy intake during pregnancy and lactation on sow performance and productivity. Animal Production 42: 438 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lee, P. A. and Mitchell, K. G. 1984. Verification of the Agricultural Research Council recommendations on energy requirements of the pregnant sow. Animal Production 38: 528 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Walker, N. 1983. The effects of food intake in gestation on sows lactating for 14 days. Animal Production 37: 25–31.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
Williams, I. H., Close, W. H. and Cole, D. J. A. 1985. Strategies for sow nutrition: predicting the response of pregnant animals to protein and energy intake. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1985 (ed Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 133–147. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar