Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:41:31.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and body condition of sows given different feeding regimes during the rearing stage and through eight parities when housed in groups with straw bedding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

P. H. Simmins ,
S. A. Edwards  and
H. H. Spechter
P. H. Simmins
Affiliation:
ADAS Terrington, Terrington St Clement, King's Lynn, Norfolk PE34 4PW
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
ADAS Terrington, Terrington St Clement, King's Lynn, Norfolk PE34 4PW
H. H. Spechter
Affiliation:
ADAS Biometrics Unit, Rivershill House, St George's Road, Cheltenham, Gloucester GL50 3EY
Get access

Abstract

A 2 X 3 factorial experiment was designed to study the consequences of feeding strategy during rearing and pregnancy over eight parities on sow growth and body condition. Two hundred and fifty-four gilts were group-fed on a restricted scale rising to either 2·25 (L) or 2·70 (H) kg/day (12·5 MJ/kg digestible energy (DE), 193 g/kg crude protein (CP) diet) from 70 to 175 days of age. A total of 156 of the L and H gilts were then given either 1·8 (l), 2·1 (m) or 2·4 (h) kg/day during subsequent pregnancies (12·9 MJ/kg DE; 177 g/kg CP diet). The same diet was offered to a standard scale during lactation. Sows were group-housed in pregnancy and given straw bedding. Losses of sows in rearing and each parity were not associated with treatment. After rearing, data have been presented only for those sows which completed eight parities. At 175 days of age, H gilts had grown faster (P < 0·001). From 175 days to service all gilts were given the same feeding regime but L gilts put on significantly more weight than H gilts, exhibiting more efficient utilization of food. There were no statistically significant differences in weights between L and H sows after the third pregnancy but L sows gained more weight than H sows in most pregnancies. The sows grew in each parity, indicating mature body size was not achieved. The pregnancy regimes had a significant (P < 0·05) effect on live weight, P2 backfat measurement, body length, neck circumference and condition score. Pregnancy treatment h produced the heavier and fatter animals but not all treatment l sows maintained adequate backfat levels for six parities. When housed in groups and given a generous supply of straw, the nutritional requirements of sows to sustain growth and body condition suitable for a long life may be less than has been previously identified for sows housed on concrete and slats without bedding.

Keywords

backfatbody weightgroup housingnutritionsows.
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 271 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Agriculture and Food Research Council, Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. 1990. Advisory booklet, nutrient requirements of sows and boars. HMG Publications.Google Scholar
Aherne, F. X. and Kirkwood, R. N. 1985. Nutrition and sow prolificacy. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 33: Suppl, pp. 169–183.Google ScholarPubMed
Brooks, P. H. 1982. The gilt for breeding and for meat. In Control of pig reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 211–224. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. H. and Smith, D. A. 1980. The effect of mating age on the reproductive performance, food utilization and live weight change of the female pig. Livestock Production Science 7: 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. J. A. 1990. Nutritional strategies to optimise reproduction in pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 40: Suppl, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
Deering, J. 1977. Condition scoring sows. Pig Farming Supplement, November 1977, pp. 57–59.Google Scholar
Duée, P. H., Treil, F. and Camous, S. 1980. Influence de l'apport proteique durant la croissance et la premiére gestation sur les performances de reproduction et la composition corporelle chez la truie. Annual Zootechnique 29: 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Brouns, F. and Stewart, A. H. 1993. Influence of feeding systems on the welfare and production of group-housed sows. Proceedings of fourth international livestock environment symposium, pp. 166–172.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H. 1972. Some aspects of productivity in the sow. In The improvement of sow productivity (ed. Jones, A. S., Fowler, V. R. and Keats, J. C. R.), pp. 71–87. Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., MacPherson, R. M. and Lodge, G. A. 1968. The effects of level of feeding of sows during pregnancy. III. Body composition. Animal Production 10: 149–156.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Curran, M., Davies, O., Edwards, S., Ellis, M., Franklin, M., Hazzledine, M., Lee, P., Lynch, B., Petchey, A. M., Walker, N. and Wood, J. 1987. Effects of feeding level and of late pregnancy increases in food allocation on the reproductive performance of sows. Animal Production 44: 464 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Gatel, F., Castaing, J. and Lucbert, J. 1987. Changes in productivity and culling rate according to pregnancy feed intake and litter parity. Livestock Production Science 17: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, L. R., Murison, R. D. and Wilson, B. R. 1981. Backfat studies in growing pigs. 1. Influence of energy intake on growth and carcass measurements at varying live weights. Animal Production 32: 39–46.Google Scholar
Harker, A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1985. The influence of pregnancy feeding on sow and litter performance during the first two parities. Animal Production 40: 540 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Hartog, L. A. den, and Noordewier, G. J. 1984. The effect of energy intake on age at puberty in gilts. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 28: 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R. N. and Aherne, F. X. 1985. Energy intake, body composition and reproductive performance of the gilt. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1518–1529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koning, R. de. 1985. The well-being of dry sows. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1984. Genstat IV Mark 4.04. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Lee, P. A. and Mitchell, K. G. 1989. Feeding sows for specific weight gains in pregnancy and its effect on reproductive performance. Animal Production 48: 407–417.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. 1978. Nutrient allowances for pigs. Booklet 2089. MAFF, Alnwick.Google Scholar
Simmins, P. H., Edwards, S. A., Spechter, H. H. and Riley, J. E. 1992. Lifetime performance of sows given different rearing and pregnancy feeding regimes. Animal Production 54: 457 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A. and Hartog, L. A. den. 1989. Nutrition of sows in relation to environment. Pig News and Information 10: 341–344.Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A., Verhagen, J. M. F. and Hartog, L. A. den. 1987. Energy requirements of pigs during pregnancy: a review. Livestock Production Science 16: 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, N. 1983. The effects of food intake in gestation on sows lactating for 14 days. Animal Production 37: 25–31.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Elsley, F. W. H. 1976. Practical pig nutrition. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Franklin, M. F. and Pearce, B. S. 1988. Fat changes in breeding sows. Animal Production 31: 183–190.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Smith, W. C. and Phillips, P. 1988. Fatness, live weight and performance responses of sows to food level in pregnancy. Animal Production 47: 123–130.Google Scholar
Yang, H., Eastham, P. R., Phillips, P. and Whittemore, C. T. 1989. Reproductive performance, body weight and body condition of breeding sows with differing body fatness at parturition, differing nutrition during lactation, and differing litter size. Animal Production 48: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. G., King, G. J., Walton, J. S., McMillan, I., Klevorick, M. and Shaw, J. 1990. Gestation energy and reproduction in sows over four parities. Canadian journal of Animal Science 70: 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar