Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T12:24:29.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on milk production of Large White pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. S. Barber ,
R. Braude  and
K. G. Mitchell
R. S. Barber
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
R. Braude
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
K. G. Mitchell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A review of the literature relating to the frequency at which pigs suckle under natural conditions was made. The evidence indicated that the average interval between successive sucklings is approximately 1–1¼ hr.

2. A number of sows and their litters were continuously observed for varying periods of time under natural conditions and a similar average interval between sucklings was observed.

3. A review of the literature relating to the determination of milk production of sows was made. This showed that the majority of previous workers imposed, during the periods when the litters were being weighed before and after every suckling, a suckling frequency that did not simulate the natural behaviour of the animals. Evidence suggesting that the imposition of such unnatural conditions invalidated the findings, in so far as they might indicate the true milking capacity of the animals, was discussed.

4. An experiment to obtain direct evidence on the importance of the suckling interval in relation to the milk obtained by the pigs was carried out. Conclusive evidence was obtained that when suckling was allowed every hour, both the quantity of milk obtained by the litters and their live-weight gain in 24 hr. periods were much greater than was the case when suckling was allowed only every 2½ or 3 hr. In addition, the pigs on the hourly suckling frequency utilized their milk intake more efficiently.

5. An experiment was carried out in which an attempt was made to obtain, under natural conditions, a valid estimate of the 56 days' lactation yield of three Large White gilts. The method of weighing the individual pigs before and after suckling was used, and the animals were allowed to suckle every hour.

6. The estimated average lactation yield was 768 lb., with a range of from 882 to 655 lb., although it was suggested that the true yield might be some 5–10% higher. The figures obtained in this work were shown to be very much higher than the yields reported by most of the previous workers.

7. The nursing and suckling behaviour of the dams and their litters was studied. Observations of significance in relation to the variation in growth of pigs within a litter were made.

8. Data were obtained concerning the average amount of milk obtained by individual pigs at a suckling, the total amount ejected at a suckling, the effect of daylight and of darkness on the amount of milk obtained, the relative productivity of the individual mammary glands and the efficiency with which the milk intake was utilized by the individual pigs in the litter.

9. A close positive relation between milk intake and live-weight gain during the first 3 weeks of life was found. During the last 5 weeks of lactation, when supplementary food was available, this close relationship was not seen.

10. The growth rate of the suckling pig, as related to the supply of food, was discussed. The evidence available suggested that the supply of sow's milk was frequently insufficient to meet the requirements of the pigs for optimum growth.

11. The chemical composition of sow's milk in relation to the stage of lactation was studied.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , June 1955 , pp. 97 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Albig, A. Z. (1939). Z. Schweinez. 46, 626.Google Scholar
Albig, A. Z. (1940). Tierernahrung, 12, 131.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Bratude, B. & Mitchell, K. G. (1953). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 12, xiii.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. & Oosthuizen, P. M. (1935). S. Afr. J. Sci. 32, 360.Google Scholar
Borowsky, W. W. & Kwasnitzky, A. W. (1932). Wiss. Mitt. Inst. Schweinez. U.S.S.R. 8, 141.Google Scholar
Bowland, J. P., Grummer, R. H., Phillips, P. H. & Bohstedt, G. (1949 a). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowland, J. P., Grummer, R. H., Phillips, P. H. & Bohstedt, G. (1949 b). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowland, J. P., Grummer, R. H., Phillips, P. H. & Bohstedt, G. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Coates, M. E., Henry, K. M., Kon, S. K., Rowland, S. J., Thompson, S. Y. & Walker, D. M. (1947). Brit. J. Nutr. 1, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Mitchell, K. G. (1950). Nature, Lond., 165, 937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlyle, W. L. (1903). Bull. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 104.Google Scholar
Comstook, R. E., Winters, L. M., Jordan, P. S. & Kiser, O. M. (1942). J. Agric. Res. 65, 379.Google Scholar
Contescu, D., Roman, G. & Breaban, T. (1937). Z. Zücht. B, 38, 367.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. T., Folley, S. J., Cross, B. A., Harris, G. W., Jacobsohn, D. & Richardson, K. C. (1951). Nature, Lond., 168, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, B. A. (1954). Nature, Lond., 173, 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, L. R. (1904). 21st Ann. Rep. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1937 a). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 5, 349.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1937 b). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 5, 361.Google Scholar
Forshaw, R. P., Maddock, H. M., Homeyer, P. G. & Catron, D. V. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gohren, T. Von (1865). Landw. VersSta. 7, 351.Google Scholar
Heidebrecht, A. A., MacVicar, R., Ross, O. B. & Whitehair, C. K. (1951). J. Nutr. 44, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, K. (1928). Arb. dtsch. Ges. Zilcht. 37, 19.Google Scholar
Henry, W. A. & Woll, F. W. (1897). 14th Ann. Rep. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta.Google Scholar
Hughes, E. H. & Hart, H. G. (1935). J. Nutr. 9, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvasnitzky, S. V. (1932). Probl. Zhivotn. 8, 72.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. G. (1953). Sow's milk: its production, nutritional properties and factors involved in its ejection from the mammary gland. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Niwa, T., Ito, S., Yokoyama, H. & Otsuka, M. (1951). Bull. nat. Inst. Agric. Sci., Japan, Ser. G, no. 1, p. 135.Google Scholar
Ohligmacher, K. (1928). Arb. dtsch. Ges. Zücht. 37, 42.Google Scholar
Olofsson, N. E. & Larsson, S. (1930). Medd. Cent Anst. Försöksv. Jordbr., Stockh., no. 371.Google Scholar
Ostertag, N. E. & Zuntz, S. (1908). Landw. Jb. Schweiz. 37, 201.Google Scholar
Racz, M. (1931). Mon. Bull. Agric. Sci. Pract. 22, 467.Google Scholar
Rodewald, J. (1928). Arb. dtsch. Ges. Zücht. 37, 68.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. & Lauprecht, E. (1926). Züchtungskunde, 1, 50.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. T. (1934). Landw. Jb. Schweiz. 80, 3.Google Scholar
Shepperd, J. H. (1929). Bull. N. Dak. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 230.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. (1952 a). N. Z. J. Sci. Tech. Sec. A, 34, 65.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. (1952 b). Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 12, 102.Google Scholar
Smith, W. W. (1921). Pork Production, p. 114. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. P. (1931). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 24th Ann. Meeting, p. 266.Google Scholar
Vinogradsky, C. P. (1939). Quoted by Smith (1952 b).Google Scholar
Wells, W., Beeson, W. M. & Brady, D. E. (1940). Bull. Idaho Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 236, p. 9.Google Scholar
Wohlbier, W. (1928). Biochem. Z. 202, 29.Google Scholar