Effects of lactation feed intake and creep feeding on sow and piglet performance1

Abstract

Recommended Citation Recommended CitationSulabo, R C.; Jacela, J Y.; Wiedemann, E J.; Tokach, Michael D.; Nelssen, Jim L.; DeRouchey, Joel M.; Goodband, Robert D.; and Dritz, Steven S. (2007) "Effects of lactation feed intake and creep feeding on sow and piglet performance," Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 0: Iss. 10. Abstract AbstractA total of 84 sows (PIC, Line 1050) and their litters were used to determine the effects of lactation and creep feeding on sow and piglet performance. Three groups of sows were blocked according to day of farrowing and parity and allotted to four treatments in a 2 Ã-2 factorial with lactation feed intake (ad libitum vs. restricted) and creep feeding (none vs. creep) as factors. Piglets were cross-fostered within each block to standardize litter weights and litter size (>11 pigs). A common lactation diet (1,586 kcal ME/lb, 0.97% TID Lys) was used in the study. From d 3 of lactation, ad libitum sows were allowed free access to feed while restricted sows were fed 25% less than those fed ad libitum. A pelleted creep diet (1,585 ME/lb, 1.56% TID Lys) with 1.0% chromium oxide was offered to creep-fed pigs from d 3 to weaning (d 21). Piglets were weighed individually at d 3, 7, 14, and 21. Amount of creep feed consumed was determined daily. Fecal samples from all creep-fed pigs were taken on d 7, 14, and 21 and fecal color was assessed to categorize pigs as eaters or non-eaters. Sow weight and P2 backfat thickness (6.5 cm from the midline over the last rib) were measured after farrowing and at weaning. There was no interaction between lactation feed intake and creep feeding. Ad libitum feeding of sows reduced BW loss (-33.0 vs. -52.9 lb; P<0.01), improved total (P<0.04) and daily (P<0.04) gains of litters, and increased (90 vs. 71%; P<0.03) the percentage of sows returning to estrus by d 14 compared with limit-fed sows. Creep feeding did not affect (P>0.30) sow BW and backfat loss, but increased days to estrus (5.4 vs. 4.9 d; P<0.03) for sows that returned to heat by 14 d. Creep feeding tended to improve litter weaning weights (132.7 vs. 124.9 lb/d; P<0.09) by reducing mortality rate after cross-fostering (3.9 vs. 7.3%; P<0.06). Total creep feed intake of litters did not differ (2.24 vs. 2.28 lb/litter; P<0.93) between ad libitum and limit-fed sows. About 60% of the creep-fed pigs were categorized as eaters. Of those identified as eaters, 23, 20, and 57% began consuming creep feeding from d 3 to 7, 7 to 14, and 14 to 21, respectively. From d 0 to 28 post-weaning, there was no effect of creep feeding on d 28 weights (P<0.93), ADG (P<0.86), ADFI (P<0.93), and F/G (P<0.95) compared to non-creep fed pigs. Eaters tended to be heavier until d 28 postweaning (P<0.16) and had greater (P<0.06) ADG and total gains than non-eaters and no creep pigs. In conclusion, creep feeding improved survivability, but had no effects on pre-weaning gain and sow performance. Low feed intake during lactation negatively affected both sow and litter performance. Creating more eaters in w...

Effects of different creep feed types on pre-weaning and post-weaning performance and gut development

“…Differences of creep feed intake among treatments may not have been enough to affect sow performance. These results are in agreement with Sulabo et al [ 19 ], who also demonstrated the providing creep feed did not affect body weight or alter back-fat thickness.…”

Characterization of energy and performance of swine fed a novel corn-soybean extruded product

“…The failure of energy-dense, PRODUCT and OIL, to improve litter weight at weaning over that of CONTROL (Contrast I, P = 0.89) is not in agreement with previous research that reported increased litter gains when sows were fed energy-dense lactation diets [ 30 , 31 ]. However, this may be attributed to the sows’ ADFI, as low feed intakes inhibit litter gain [ 9 ]; sows in the experiment did not consume enough feed to obtain lysine intakes required to maximize litter growth, based on the estimations of Coma et al [ 26 ]. Coma et al [ 27 ] reported that modern, adult sows supporting litters of 10 piglets require 55 g/d of lysine to support 2.2 kg of litter growth per day.…”

“…Feed intake, or more specifically dietary energy intake, is closely related to both sow and litter performance [ 8 ]. A decrease in energy intake may inhibit litter growth potential and increase body weight loss of sows [ 9 ], whereas, litter gains were increased with increased dietary energy utilization in the sow [ 8 ]. Therefore, since it should be higher in energy content the extruded product’s use in lactation diets has been hypothesized to improve litter gains.…”

Obesity of Sows at Late Pregnancy Aggravates Metabolic Disorder of Perinatal Sows and Affects Performance and Intestinal Health of Piglets

“…Data measurements and collection were conducted by the research team with the help of farm workers. The thickness of backfat was measured by using ultrasound (PIGLOG105, SFAK-Technology, A Mode Scanner, SFK Technology A/S Helver, Denmark) on the last rib (P2; 6.5 cm from the midline of the last rib) and operated by the same employee throughout the experiment according to the method of Sulabo et al [18]. Body weight of piglets were individually recorded on day of delivery, after cross-fostering and 7, 14, and 21 days of lactation to calculate litter weight and daily gain (ADG).…”