Analysis of water, feed intake and performance of lactating sows

Kruse, Susanne; Traulsen, Imke; Krieter, Joachim

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.07.002

Cited by 33 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present experiment, only first parity sows were used and the effect of water deprivation may be stronger for later parity sows due to a higher milk yield. The found diurnal variation with 78% of water intake in the day and 22% during the night is in accordance with previous studies in outdoor lactating sows (Andersen and Pedersen, 2014), indoor housed pregnant sows (Kruse et al, 2011) and growing pigs . Contrary to expectation, the daily water consumption was unaffected by treatment and sows were able to compensate for nightly restriction by drinking more water in the morning.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The effect of varying duration of water restriction on drinking behaviour, welfare and production of lactating sows

Jensen

Schild

Theil

et al. 2016

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to drinking water is essential for animal welfare, but it is unclear if temporary water restriction during the night represents a welfare problem. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of various durations of nightly restriction of water on thirst in loose housed lactating sows from day 10 to 28 of lactation. A total of 48 sows were deprived of water for either 0 h (n = 12; control), 3 h (n = 12; 0500 to 0800 h), 6 h (n = 12; 0200 to 0800 h) or 12 h (n = 12; 2000 to 0800 h). Control sows consumed 22% of their water intake during the night (2000 to 0800 h), whereas water consumption during this time was reduced to 13%, 7% and 0% in sows restricted for 3, 6 and 12 h. With increased duration of nightly water restriction a reduced latency to drink (26.8, 18.0, 5.3 and 6.7 min for 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P < 0.001) and an increased water intake during the 1 st hour after water became accessible (2.1, 3.4, 4.7 and 5.6 l for 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P < 0.001) was seen. During the last 30 min before water became accessible more sows deprived of water investigated (0%, 50%, 75%,and 50% of 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P < 0.01) or forcefully manipulated (0%, 17%, 50% and 33% of 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P < 0.05) the water trough, suggesting frustration and a negative experience of thirst. When all signs of imminent water access were provided, but access was delayed by 25 min, a tendency for more of the sows deprived of water for 6 and 12 h to interact forcefully with the water trough was seen (22%, 18%, 42% and 67% of 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P = 0.09). Duration of water restriction did not affect water consumption on a 24-h basis, nursing behaviour or performance. In conclusion, behavioural indicators of thirst increased with increasing duration of nightly water restriction in lactating sows.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The effect of varying duration of water restriction on drinking behaviour, welfare and production of lactating sows

Jensen

Schild

Theil

et al. 2016

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is opposite of the findings reported by Kruse et al (2011) who found a low negative correlation between weight loss and feed intake during the earlier parts of lactation and higher negative correlation towards the end of lactation. Individual data from the present study suggest that the sows lose most of their weight during the first three weeks of lactation, which is natural considering that all sows were fed restrictedly during the first 9 or 14 day.…”

Section: Weight Losscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…This becomes even more important with a long lactation period. Overall feed consumption level across treatment, parity and herd was 8.2 kg/day, which is in accordance with feed levels found in some studies (Danielsen, 2003;Neil, 1996), but higher than in other reports (Hermesch, 2007;Koketsu et al, 1996a,b;Kruse et al, 2011;Revell et al, 1998;Stahly et al, 1979) where feed intake ranged from 3.5-6 kg/day. The lack of difference in feed consumption between the treatment groups could be related to the timing of the ad libitum feed access.…”

Section: Feed Consumption and Feed Refusalsupporting

confidence: 90%

Ad libitum versus step-up feeding during late lactation: The effect on feed consumption, body composition and production performance in dry fed loose housed sows

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The curve applied as an example of feed intake in this model is developed from a data set from a study with only 40 second-parity sows (Hansen et al 2012a), and the variation is probably higher between sows and between parities (e.g. Kruse et al, 2011) within a herd than captured by this data. If total requirement of protein and AA are known, a decision can be made for a certain percentage of the requirement to be covered by mobilization of body protein and the remaining by the dietary intake.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of protein and amino acid requirements of lactating sows using a population-based factorial approach

Strathe

Theil

Hansen

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determination of appropriate nutritional requirements is essential to optimize the productivity and longevity of lactating sows. The current recommendations for requirements do not consider the large variation between animals. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the amino acid recommendations for lactating sows using a stochastic modeling approach that integrates population variation and uncertainty of key parameters into establishing nutritional recommendations for lactating sows. The requirement for individual sows was calculated using a factorial approach by adding the requirement for maintenance and milk. The energy balance of the sows was either negative or zero depending on feed intake being a limiting factor. Some parameters in the model were sow-specific and others were population-specific, depending on state of knowledge. Each simulation was for 1000 sows repeated 100 times using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. BW, back fat thickness of the sow, litter size (LS), average litter gain (LG), dietary energy density and feed intake were inputs to the model. The model was tested using results from the literature, and the values were all within ±1 s.d. of the estimated requirements. Simulations were made for a group of low-(LS = 10 (s.d. = 1), LG = 2 kg/day (s.d. = 0.6)), medium-(LS = 12 (s.d. = 1), LG = 2.5 kg/day (s.d. = 0.6)) and high-producing (LS = 14 (s.d. = 1), LG = 3.5 kg/day (s.d. = 0.6)) sows, where the average requirement was the result. In another simulation, the requirements were estimated for each week of lactation. The results were given as the median and s.d. The average daily standardized ileal digestible (SID) protein and lysine requirements for low-, medium-and high-producing sows were 623 (CV = 2.5%) and 45.1 (CV = 4.8%); 765 (CV = 4.9%) and 54.7 (CV = 7.0%); and 996 (CV = 8.5%) and 70.8 g/day (CV = 9.6%), respectively. The SID protein and lysine requirements were lowest at week 1, intermediate at week 2 and 4 and the highest at week 3 of lactation. The model is a valuable tool to develop new feeding strategies by taking into account the variable requirement between groups of sows and changes during lactation. The inclusion of between-sow variation gives information on safety margins when developing new dietary recommendations of amino acids and protein for lactating sows.

show abstract

Analysis of water, feed intake and performance of lactating sows

Cited by 33 publications

References 36 publications

The effect of varying duration of water restriction on drinking behaviour, welfare and production of lactating sows

The effect of varying duration of water restriction on drinking behaviour, welfare and production of lactating sows

Ad libitum versus step-up feeding during late lactation: The effect on feed consumption, body composition and production performance in dry fed loose housed sows

Determination of protein and amino acid requirements of lactating sows using a population-based factorial approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About