Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T06:12:55.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutrition in relation to reproduction in sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. E. Hafez
E. S. E. Hafez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Gilts of the ‘Palouse’ breed were divided into two groups; one group was full fed from weaning to 1501b. and the other group was fed 70% of full feeding. After six generations, one-half of the pigs in each group were shifted to the other plane of nutrition, thus forming four groups: high-high (HH), low-high (LH), low-low (LL) and high-low (HL). F10 gilts were slaughtered 38 or 100 days post-coitum to study reproductive and prenatal phenomena.

1. Ten successive generations of controlled feeding had no significant effect on: length of Fallopian tubes, weight of corpus luteum, percentage of implantation, number of viable foetuses, foetus weight, weight of placental membranes, volume of placental fluids or embryonic mortality.

2. There were significant differences between the high and low planes of nutrition in: weight of pituitary, thyroid and adrenals, weaning weight, puberty weight, puberty weight to birth weight, puberty weight to weaning weight and puberty age. The effect of six generations of controlled feeding was not maintained when the plane of nutrition was changed from high to low or low to high.

3. The frequency of silent heat and the number of services per conception was lower in the low planes than in the high planes.

4. Ova migration occurred in both directions in 41% of the gilts; one to four ova migrated. The foetal sex ratio ranged from 4:0 to 1:7 with an average of 1:1. The sexes were unevenly distributed in the horns.

5. Foetus weight at 38 or 100 days post-coitum was not affected by plane of nutrition or sequence in the uterine horn.

6. Within-litter variations were highest in the volume of allantoic fluid followed in order by variations in weight of placental membranes and then the amniotic fluid and foetus.

7. Foetal mortality was not related to sequence in the uterine horn or the number of implantations.

8. There seemed to be two peaks of early prenatal mortality, one at implantation and another at the onset of organo-genesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 170 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

REFERENCES

Baker, L. N., Chapman, A. B., Grummer, B. H. & Casida, L. E. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. F. (1952). Onderste, J. Vet. Res. (Suppl.) no. 2, 218 pp.Google Scholar
Casida, L. E. (1956). Variations in the maternal environment affecting prenatal survival and development. Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Anim. Reprod. Plen. Sec. p. 19. (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Christian, R. E. & Nofziger, J. C. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. (Abst.), 11, 789.Google Scholar
Eckstein, P., McKeown, T. & Record, R. B. (1955). J. Endocrin. 12, 108.Google Scholar
Fekete, E. (1947). Anat. Rec. 98, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1914). J. Agric. Sci. 6, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1921). J. Agric. Sci. 11, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1956). Discussion, Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Anim. Reprod. Plen. Ses. p. 32. (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Holz, K. & Fortuin, V. (1956). Dtsch. tierärztl. Wschr. 63, 339. (A.B.A. 25, 181.)Google Scholar
Nalbandov, A. V. (1952). Fertil. & Steril. 3, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. S. (1954). J. Embryol. Exp. Morph. 2, 308.Google Scholar
Perry, J. S. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. S. & Pomeroy, R. W. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R. W. & Zeller, J. H. (1943). Anat. Rec. 85, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, C. L., Casida, L. E., Grummer, R. H. & Chapman, A. B. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Self, H. L., Grummer, R. H. & Casida, L. E. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 573.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1950). Statistical Methods, 4th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Waldorf, D. P., Spies, H. G., Zimmerman, D. R., Self, H. L., Chapman, A. B. & Casida, L. E. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, B. L. (1926). Anat. Rec. 33, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar