A two-diet system and<i>ad libitum</i>lactation feeding of the sow. 2. Litter size and piglet performance

Neil, Maria; Ogle, B.

doi:10.1017/s1357729800014661

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Presumably, young sows may have to use more nutrient reserves for lactation purposes because of their reduced feed disappearance. This is confirming the studies conducted by Neil et al (1996) and Sinclair et al (1996) where parity 1 sows lost more backfat thickness during lactation compared with multiparous sows.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Sow and litter response to supplemental dietary fat in lactation diets during high ambient temperatures1

Rosero

Heugten

Odle

et al. 2012

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this experiment was to determine the impact of supplemental dietary fat on total lactation energy intake and sow and litter performance during high ambient temperatures (27 ± 3°C). Data were collected from 337 mixed-parity sows from July to September in a 2,600-sow commercial unit in Oklahoma. Diets were corn-soybean meal-based with 7.5% corn distillers dried grains with solubles and 6.0% wheat middlings and contained 3.24 g of standardized ileal digestible Lys/Mcal of ME. Animal-vegetable fat blend (A-V) was supplemented at 0, 2, 4, or 6%. Sows were balanced by parity, with 113, 109, and 115 sows representing parity 1, 2, and 3 to 7 (P3+), respectively. Feed disappearance (subset of 190 sows; 4.08, 4.18, 4.44, and 4.34 kg/d, for 0, 2, 4, and 6%, respectively; P < 0.05) and apparent caloric intake (12.83, 13.54, 14.78, and 14.89 Mcal of ME/d, respectively; P < 0.001) increased linearly with increasing dietary fat. Gain:feed (sow and litter BW gain relative to feed intake) was not affected (P = 0.56), but gain:Mcal ME declined linearly with the addition of A-V (0.16, 0.15, 0.15, and 0.14 for 0, 2, 4, and 6%, respectively; P < 0.01). Parity 1 sows (3.95 kg/d) had less (P < 0.05) feed disappearance than P2 (4.48 kg/d) and P3+ (4.34 kg/d) sows. Body weight change in P1 sows was greater (P < 0.01) than either P2 or P3+ sows (-0.32 vs. -0.07 and 0.12 kg/d), whereas backfat loss was less (P < 0.05) and loin depth gain was greater (P < 0.05) in P3+ sows compared with P1 and P2 sows. Dietary A-V improved litter ADG (P < 0.05; 1.95, 2.13, 2.07, and 2.31 kg/d for 0, 2, 4, and 6% fat, respectively) only in P3+ sows. Sows bred within 8 d after weaning (58.3, 72.0, 70.2, and 74.7% for 0, 2, 4, and 6%, respectively); conception rate (78.5, 89.5, 89.2, and 85.7%) and farrowing rate (71.4, 81.4, 85.5, and 78.6%) were improved (P < 0.01) by additional A-V, but weaning-to-breeding interval was not affected. Rectal and skin temperature and respiration rate of sows were greater (P < 0.002) when measured at wk 3 compared with wk 1 of lactation, but were not affected by A-V addition. Parity 3+ sows had lower (P < 0.05) rectal temperature than P1 and P2 sows, and respiration rate was reduced (P < 0.001) in P1 sows compared with P2 and P3+ sows. In conclusion, A-V improved feed disappearance and caloric intake, resulting in improved litter weight gain and subsequent reproductive performance of sows; however, feed and caloric efficiency were negatively affected.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Sow and litter response to supplemental dietary fat in lactation diets during high ambient temperatures1

Rosero

Heugten

Odle

et al. 2012

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sows were weaned with 1.69 cm of back fat. Researchers have reported a substantial reduction of back fat in sows during lactation, especially those exposed to high ambient temperatures (Neil et al, 1996;Sinclair et al, 1996). However, supplemental fat during lactation may reduce the loss of back fat during lactation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supplemental fat in lactation diets has been benefi cial (Stahly et al, 1980;Shurson and Irvin, 1992;Averette et al, 1999), especially when sows were heat stressed (Coffey et al, 1982;Neil et al, 1996;Spencer et al, 2003). Because of the high energy density of fat and low heat increment associated with fat digestion and metabolism (O'Grady et al, 1985;Schoenherr et al, 1989), greater energy intake by sows may be expected if fat is added to the diets (Schoenherr et al, 1989;Pettigrew and Moser, 1991;Tilton et al, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of the modern lactating sow and progeny to source and level of supplemental dietary fat during high ambient temperatures

Rosero

Heugten

Odle

et al. 2012

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine the response to increments of 2 sources of dietary fat on lactating sow and progeny performance during high ambient temperatures. Data were collected from 391 sows (PIC Camborough) from June to September in a 2,600-sow commercial unit in Oklahoma. Sows were randomly assigned to a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement of treatments and a control diet. Factors included 1) fat sources, animal-vegetable blend (A-V) and choice white grease (CWG), and 2) fat levels (2%, 4%, and 6%). The A-V blend contained 14.5% FFA with an iodine value of 89, peroxide value of 4.2 mEq/kg, and anisidine value of 23, whereas CWG contained 3.7% FFA with an iodine value of 62, peroxide value of 9.8 mEq/kg, and anisidine value of 5. Diets were corn-soybean meal based, with 8.0% distillers dried grains with solubles and 6.0% wheat middlings, and contained 3.56-g standardized ileal digestible Lys/Mcal ME. Sows were balanced by parity, with 192 and 199 sows representing parity 1 and parity 3 to 5, respectively. Feed refusal increased linearly (P < 0.001) with the addition of supplemental fat, but feed and energy intake increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing dietary fat. Sows fed CWG diets had reduced (linear, P < 0.05) BW loss during lactation. Litter growth rate was not affected by additional dietary fat. Addition of CWG to the diets improved G:F (sow and litter gain relative to feed intake) compared with the G:F of sows fed the control diet or the diets containing the A-V blend (0.50, 0.43, and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.05). Gain:ME (kg/Mcal ME) was greater (P < 0.05) for CWG (0.146) than A-V blend (0.129) but was not different from that of the control diet (0.131). Addition of A-V blend and CWG both improved (P < 0.05) conception and farrowing rates and subsequent litter size compared with the control diet. In conclusion, energy intake increased with the addition of fat. The A-V blend contained a greater amount of aldehydes (quantified by anisidine value) and was more susceptible to oxidation, resulting in reduced feed efficiency than CWG. Subsequent litter size and reproductive performance was improved by inclusion of both sources of fat in diets fed to lactating sows.

show abstract

“…An appropriate feeding strategy during lactation, when dietary requirements are high, creates the opportunity to use a simpler and cheaper diet during gestation when requirements are considerably lower. In the present report, effects on food consumption and sow performance are presented, whereas effects on piglet performance will be dealt with elsewhere (Neil and Ogle, 1996). Since high feeding levels usually are avoided near farrowing for fear of agalactia (discussed by Goransson, 1989a), it was considered of particular interest to monitor symptoms of agalactia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A two-diet system andad libitumlactation feeding of the sow 1. Sow performance

1996

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of a two-diet system combined withad libitumlactation 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 dietad libitumduring lactation; CA, conventional during gestation and the same dietad libitumduring 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.

show abstract

A two-diet system andad libitumlactation feeding of the sow. 2. Litter size and piglet performance

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Sow and litter response to supplemental dietary fat in lactation diets during high ambient temperatures1

Sow and litter response to supplemental dietary fat in lactation diets during high ambient temperatures1

Response of the modern lactating sow and progeny to source and level of supplemental dietary fat during high ambient temperatures

A two-diet system andad libitumlactation feeding of the sow 1. Sow performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About