These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of three methods of feeding sows in gestation and the subsequent effects on lactation performance.
    Author: Young MG, Tokach MD, Aherne FX, Main RG, Dritz SS, Goodband RD, Nelssen JL.
    Journal: J Anim Sci; 2004 Oct; 82(10):3058-70. PubMed ID: 15484959.
    Abstract:
    A total of 684 sows from breeding groups over 6 wk was used to compare three methods of feeding during gestation on gestation and lactation performance. Control gilts and sows were fed according to body condition based on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = thin, 5 = fat). Sows were visually assessed for body condition at breeding and were assigned a daily feed allowance to achieve a BCS of 3 at farrowing. Treatment 2 used feeding levels based on backfat thickness (measured between d 0 and 5 after breeding) and weight at weaning for sows or service for gilts. Feed allowance was calculated to achieve a target backfat of 19 mm at farrowing, and remained constant from d 0 to 101 of gestation. Feed allowances were based on modeled calculations of energy and nutrient requirements to achieve target sow maternal weight and backfat gains. Treatment 3 was identical to Treatment 2, except that feeding pattern was altered for thin sows and gilts (<15 mm at service) in an attempt to reach 19 mm by d 36 of gestation. Sows were weighed at the previous weaning, and gilts were weighed at service, with both weighed again between d 112 and 114 of gestation. Backfat was measured between d 0 and 5, and again between d 108 and 113 of gestation. At farrowing, sows on Treatments 2 and 3 had 19 and 19.1 mm of backfat, respectively, whereas control sows tended to have greater (P < 0.07) backfat (20 mm). On average, sows targeted to gain 6 to 9 mm of backfat failed to reach target gains regardless of feeding method. Feeding sows in gestation based on backfat (Treatments 2 and 3) resulted in a numerically higher proportion of sows in the target backfat range of 17 to 21 mm (40.2, 53.3, and 52.6% for control and Treatments 2 and 3, respectively) at farrowing and a numerically lower percentage of fat sows (>21 mm), but no difference in the percentage of thin sows (<17 mm) compared with feeding based on body condition. In conjunction with this observation, sows fed based on BCS were fed higher (P < 0.05) feeding levels in gestation than were sows fed based on backfat depth. Gestation feeding method had no effect on performance during lactation. Feed intake in lactation was lower (P < 0.05) for high backfat sows (>21 mm) at farrowing compared with sows with <21 mm. The high proportion of sows in the optimal backfat category demonstrates that feeding based on backfat and BW has potential for facilitating more precise feeding during gestation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]