Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:42:12.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of feed restriction on the performance of highly prolific lactating sows and its effect on the subsequent lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2015

S. De Bettio ,
A. Maiorka ,
L. N. E. Barrilli ,
R. Bergsma  and
B. A. N. Silva
S. De Bettio
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
A. Maiorka
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
L. N. E. Barrilli
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
R. Bergsma
Affiliation:
TOPIGS Research Center IPG, Schoenaker 6, 6640 AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
B. A. N. Silva*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Sciences/ICA, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), 39404-547 Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A total of 50 mixed parity sows of a high-prolificacy genetic line were used to evaluate the impact of feed restriction during lactation on their production and reproductive performance and their performance in the subsequent lactation. From day 7 of lactation, sows were distributed according to a completely randomized experimental design into two treatments. In treatment 1, sows were fed 8.0 kg feed/day (control) and in treatment 2, sows were fed 4.0 kg/day. The same suckling pressure was maintained until weaning on day 28 of lactation. Average minimum and maximum temperatures measured during the experimental period were 32.1°C and 16.5°C, respectively. Control sows presented significantly higher feed intake (P<0.001) compared with the restricted sows (6.43 v. 4.14 kg/day, respectively). Treatments influenced BW and backfat thickness losses (P<0.001). Control sows lost less BW than the restricted-fed sows (7.8 v. 28.2 kg). Restricted-fed sows lost more backfat thickness than those in the control group (3.97 v. 2.07 mm; P<0.01). Restricted-fed sows tended (P<0.10) to be lighter at weaning compared with the control sows (211 v. 227 kg). The composition of BW loss was influenced by the treatments (P<0.001), as the restricted-fed sows lost more body protein, lipids and energy compared with the control sows (3.90 v. 0.98 kg, 11.78 v. 4.83 kg and 584 v. 224 MJ, respectively). Litter weight gain was greater (P<0.05) in control sows than in restricted-fed sows (2.70 v. 2.43 kg/day). Daily milk production was 19% higher (P<0.01) in the control sows compared with the restricted-fed sows (8.33 v. 6.99 kg/day). However, restricted-fed sows presented a higher (P<0.05) lactation efficiency than the sows of the control group (82.30% v. 72.93%). No differences were detected (P>0.10) in weaning-to-estrus interval and averaged 4.3 days. No effect of the treatment (P>0.10) was observed on any of the studied performance traits in the subsequent lactation, except for litter size at birth that tended (15.2 v. 14.1; P<0.10) to be lower for the restricted sows. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that feed restriction during lactation leads to intense catabolism of the body tissues of sows, negatively affecting their milk production, and the litter weight gain and possibly number of piglets born in the next litter. On the other hand, restricted-fed sows are more efficient, producing more milk per amount of feed intake.

Keywords

efficiencyfeed restrictionlactationmilk productionsows
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , March 2016 , pp. 396 - 402
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Aherne, F and Foxcroft, G 2000. Manejo da leitoa e da porca primípara: manejo nutricional na gestação e lactação. Simpósio Internacional de Reprodução e Inseminação Artificial em Suínos (ed. EMBRAPA Aves e Suínos), pp. 145-165. EMBRAPA, Foz do Iguaçu, PR, Brazil.Google Scholar
AOAC 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. The Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC. 1106pp.Google Scholar
Ashworth, CJ, Toma, LM and Hunter, MG 2009. Nutritional effects on oocyte and embryo development in mammals: implications for reproductive efficiency and environmental sustainability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 364, 3351–3361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergsma, R, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA, Van Der Peet-Schering, CMC and Knol, EF 2009. Lactation efficiency as a result of body composition dynamics and feed intake in sows. Livestock Science 125, 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsma, R, Mathur, PK, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA, Knol, EF and Van Arendonk, JAM 2013. Genetic correlations between lactation performance and growing-finishing traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3601–3611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clowes, EJ, Aherne, FX, Foxcroft, GR and Baracos, VE 2003a. Selective protein loss in lactation sows is associated with reduced litter growth and ovarian function. Journal of Animal Science 81, 753–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clowes, EJ, Aherne, FX, Schaefer, AL, Foxcroft, GR and Baracos, VE 2003b. Parturition body size and body protein loss during lactation influence performance during lactation and ovarian function at weaning in first-parity sows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1517–1528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dourmad, JY, Etienne, M, Noblet, J and Causeur, D 1997. Prediction de la composition chimique des truies reproductrices a partir du poids vif et de l’epaisseur de lard dorsal. Journees de la Recherche Porcine 29, 255–262.Google Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Etienne, M, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, van Milgen, J and Noblet, J 2008. InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, JJ, Apeldoorn, EJ, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA and Greef, KH 2003. The importance of a high feed intake during lactation of primiparous sows nursing large litters. Journal of Animal Science 81, 594–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foxcroft, G 2008. Hyper-prolificacy and acceptable postnatal development – a possible contradiction. Advances in Pork Production 19, 205–211.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, GR, Aherne, FX, Clowes, EC, Miller, H and Zak, LJ 1995. Sow fertility: the role of suckling inhibition and metabolic status. In Animal science research and development: moving toward a new century ((ed.) M Ivan), pp. 377–393. Centre for Food and Animal Research, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, GR, Dixon, WT, Dyck, MK, Novak, S, Harding, JCS and Almeida, FCRL 2009. Prenatal programming of postnatal development in the pig. In Control of pig reproduction VIII (ed. H Rodriguez-Martinez, JL Vallet and AJ Ziecik), pp. 213–232. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, GR, Vinsky, MD, Paradis, F, Tse, WY, Town, SC, Putman, CT, Dyck, MK and Dixon, WT 2007. Macro-environment effects on oocytes and embryos in swine. Theriogenology 68, 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoving, LL, Soede, NM, Graat, EAM, Feitsma, H and Kemp, B 2011. Reproductive performance of second parity sows: relations with subsequent reproduction. Livestock Science 140, 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jittakhot, S, Hasinnarong, LD and Kaeoket, K 2012. Influence of dietary protein and energy levels on sow backfat thickness. Journal of Applied Animal Science 5, 47–56.Google Scholar
Jones, DB and Stahly, TS 1999. Impact of amino acid nutrition during lactation on body nutrient mobilization and milk nutrient output in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1513–1522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Hurley, WL, Han, IK, Stein, HH and Easter, RA 1999. Effect of nutrient intake on mammary gland growth in lactating sows. Journal of Animal Science 77, 3304–3315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knabe, DA, Brendemuhl, JH, Chiba, LI and Dove, CR 1996. Supplemental lysine for sows nursing large litters. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1635–1640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köppen, W 1948. Climatología: Con un estudio de los climas de la Tierra. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econômica, 479pp.Google Scholar
Noblet, J and Etienne, M 1989. Estimation of sow milk nutrient output. Journal of Animal Science 67, 3352–3359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oelke, CA, Dahlke, F, Beltrani, OC, Pozza, PC, Pazuch, D and Meurer, RFP 2008. Níveis de lisina digestível em dietas para fêmeas suínas primíparas em lactação. Acta Scientiarum Animal Sciences 30, 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, JL, Cameron, AC, Smith, TA, Kummer, AB, Schott, RL, Greiner, LL, Connor, JF and Foxcroft, GR 2010. The effect of gonadotrophin treatment at weaning on primiparous sow performance. Swine Health Production 18, 196–199.Google Scholar
Patterson, JL, Smit, MN, Novak, S, Wellen, AP and Foxcroft, GR 2011. Restricted feed intake in lactating primiparous sows. Effects on sow metabolic state and subsequente reproductive performance. Reproduction Fertility Development 23, 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quesnel, H 2009. Nutritional and lactational effects on follicular development in the pig. In Control of pig reproduction VIII (ed. H Rodriguez-Martinez, JL Vallet and AJ Ziecik), pp. 121–134. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Quesnel, H, Etienne, M and Père, MC 2007. Influence of litter size on metabolic status and reproductive axis in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 85, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revell, DK, Williams, IH, Mullan, BP, Randford, JL and Smits, RJ 1998. Body composition at farrowing and nutrition during lactation affect the performance of primiparous sows: I. Voluntary feed intake, weight loss, and plasma metabolites. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1729–1737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rostagno, HS (ed.) 2011. Brazilian tables for poultry and swine: composition of feedstuffs and nutritional requirements, translated by Bettina Gertum Becker, 3rd edition, 251pp. Press Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, Brazil.Google Scholar
Schenkel, AC, Bernardi, ML, Bortolozzo, FP and Wentz, I 2010. Body reserve mobilization during lactation in first parity soes and its effect on second litter size. Livestock Science 132, 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, BAN, Noblet, J, Donzele, JL, Oliveira, RFM, Primot, Y, Gourdine, JL and Renaudeau, D 2009. Effects of dietary protein level and amino acid supplementation on performance of mixed-parity lactating sows in a tropical humid climate. Journal of Animal Science 87, 4003–4012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, BAN, Taveira, VM, Pinto, MFA and Araujo, GGA 2013. Estresse Oxidativo e o Desempenho de Fêmeas Suínas Hiperprolíficas. In Proceedings of VI Congresso da Sociedade Cientifica de Suinicultura, 14–16 November, Santarém, Portugal, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ and Wine, RH 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Vinsky, MD, Novak, S, Dixon, WT, Dyck, MK and Foxcroft, GR 2006. Nutritional restriction in lactating primiparous sows selectively affects female embryo survival and overall litter development. Reproduction Fertility Development 18, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zak, LJ, Cosgrove, JR, Aherne, FX and Foxcroft, GR 1997. Pattern of feed intake, and associated metabolic and endocrine changes, differentially affect post-weaning fertility in the primiparous lactating sow. Journal of Animal Science 75, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar