An increased feed intake during early pregnancy improves sow body weight recovery and increases litter size in young sows1

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of feeding level and protein content in feed in first- and second-parity sows during the first month of gestation on sow BW recovery, farrowing rate, and litter size during the first month of gestation. From d 3 to 32 after the first insemination, sows were fed either 2.5 kg/d of a standard gestation diet (control, n = 49), 3.25 kg/d (+30%) of a standard gestation diet (plus feed, n = 47), or 2.5 kg/d of a gestation diet with 30% greater ileal digestible AA (plus protein, n = 49). Feed intake during the experimental period was 29% greater for sows in the plus feed group compared with those in the control and plus protein groups (93 vs. 72 kg, P < 0.05). Sows in the plus feed group gained 10 kg more BW during the experimental period compared with those in the control and plus protein groups (24.2 ± 1.2 vs. 15.5 ± 1.2 and 16.9 ± 1.2 kg, respectively, P < 0.001). Backfat gain and loin muscle depth gain were not affected by treatment (P = 0.56 and P = 0.37, respectively). Farrowing rate was smaller, although not significantly, for sows in the plus feed group compared with those in the control and plus protein groups (76.6% vs. 89.8 and 89.8%, respectively, P = 0.16). Litter size, however, was larger for sows in the plus feed group (15.2 ± 0.5 total born) compared with those in the control and plus protein groups (13.2 ± 0.4 and 13.6 ± 0.4 total born, respectively, P = 0.006). Piglet birth weight was not different among treatments (P = 0.65). For both first- and second-parity sows, the plus feed treatment showed similar effects on BW gain, farrowing rate, and litter size. In conclusion, an increased feed intake (+30%) during the first month of gestation improved sow BW recovery and increased litter size, but did not significantly affect farrowing rate in the subsequent parity. Feeding a 30% greater level of ileal digestible AA during the same period did not improve sow recovery or reproductive performance in the subsequent parity.

The effect of different dietary energy levels during rearing and mid-gestation on gilt performance and culling rate

“…Nor were there any treatment effects on litter weight at birth and weaning, which is in accordance with the study by Le Cozler et al (1999b). Hoving et al (2011) compared the reproductive performance of gilts after they had been given a standard gestation diet (2.5 kg/d), a plus feed diet (3.25 kg/d of gestation diet) or an extra 30% of protein in the diet the first month after service. They found that the plus feed treatment, which is similar to the higher dietary energy level during mid-gestation in our study, resulted in an average of 2 more piglets without decreasing the average piglet birth weight.…”

Effects of Dietary Supplementation of β‐hydroxy‐β‐methylbutyrate on Sow Performance and mRNA Expression of Myogenic Markers in Skeletal Muscle of Neonatal Piglets

“…), which may stimulate embryo development and progesterone production during early gestation (Hoving et al. ), however, it is presently unclear why HMB may increase the survival of fetal pigs at birth, and this aspect should be investigated further.…”

“…Another important observation was that maternal HMB treatment significantly decreased the rate of stillborn piglets. In this respect, some studies have reported that dietary supplementation of HMB may increase the activity of IGF-1 (Tatara et al 2007), which may stimulate embryo development and progesterone production during early gestation (Hoving et al 2011), however, it is presently unclear why HMB may increase the survival of fetal pigs at birth, and this aspect should be investigated further.…”

Reproductive Issues in Welfare‐Friendly Housing Systems in Pig Husbandry: A Review

“…Other studies have also found that relatively high feeding levels during early pregnancy may be beneficial for litter size in sows (e.g. Sørensen and Thorup 2003; Hoving et al. 2011), although the physiological mechanism has not been elucidated.…”