A two-diet system andad libitumlactation feeding of the sow 1. Sow performance

Abstract

Effects of a two-diet system combined withad libitumlactation feeding of sows on food consumption, sow live weight (LW), backfat depth, condition scoring, rebreeding interval, symptoms of agalactia and culling were studied on 60 sows followed for four parities. Feeding regimes were: CR, conventional i.e. restricted during gestation and lactation; SA, a simplified diet offered at a restricted level during gestation and a conventional dietad libitumduring lactation; CA, conventional during gestation and the same dietad libitumduring lactation. During lactation CR sows consumed 5·9 kg food daily (71 MJ metabolizable energy (ME)), whereas SA and CA sows consumed on average 7·0 kg (85 MJ ME), the difference being larger in multiparous than in primiparous sows and larger in the first than in later weeks of lactation. From the second farrowing onward sows on CR treatment were lighter and had thinner backfat and lower condition scores than sows on CA treatment, with sows on SA treatment in between, i.e. approaching the CR sows in the gestation periods and the CA sows in the lactation periods. At first service LW was 130 kg and backfat thickness 14 mm. During the fourth lactation LW averaged 190 kg in CR sows and around 220 kg for SA and CA sows, and backfat thickness was 11 mm in CR sows and around 16 mm in SA and CA sows. SA sows tended to rebreed earlier after weaning than did CR or CA sows. CA sows and in particular SA sows had higher incidences of agalactia symptoms and higher rectal temperatures post partum than CR sows. The culling rates did not differ between feeding regimes, although the predominant causes for culling did, being shoulder lesions and abscesses in thin CR sows and leg disorders in SA and CA sows. At the end of the experiment, however, more SA sows than others were retained in the experimental herd. It was concluded that the SA feeding regime was superior in terms of sow performance, despite an increased incidence of agalactia symptoms.

Effects of different parities on productive performance of lactating sows

“…These results are in agreement with results from previous studies (Neil et al, 1996;Mahan, 1998). Milk production is another important concern in the management of lactating sows because it is directly related to litter performance.It is also known that parity is one of factors affecting milk yield during lactation Noblet et al, 1998;Eissen et al, 2000).…”

Methodological considerations as to quantify nutrient and energy metabolism in lactating sows

“…As seen in Table 4 the sows mobilized fat during the whole lactation period. Apparently, the intake of energy was not sufficient to cover the energy requirement for milk production which is a problem in modern production as pointed out by Neil et al (1996) and Cole (1990). The present studies suggest that the energy supply rather than the protein supply is the limiting factor for milk production.…”

“…The litter size has increased considerably over the last decades, and the size of the sows has increased as well (Moustsen et al, 2004). The voluntary feed intake does not always meet the requirements of the sow for energy and nutrients, resulting in mobilization of body tissues (Neil et al, 1996), which may affect future reproduction negatively (King et al, 1984). The selection for lean pigs has further charged the ability of sows to mobilize body fat during lactation and reduced the voluntary feed intake (Cole, 1990).…”

Analysis of water, feed intake and performance of lactating sows

“…An adequate water and feed intake is important for sow health (Neil et al, 1996), performance and reproduction (Koketsu et al, 1997). Several studies have shown that an increased feed intake decreases body weight loss, increases litter performance and backfat depth (Eissen et al, 2003;Le Cozler et al, 1999;Peng et al, 2007;Prunier et al, 1997).…”