Feeding pregnant and lactating sows
O'Grady J.F.
in
Aumaître A. (ed.).
The production of pig meat in Mediterranean Countries Paris : CIHEAM
Options Méditerranéennes : Série Etudes; n. 1989-I 1989
pages 151-156
Article available on lin e / Article dispon ible en lign e à l’adresse :
--- http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?ID PD F=CI010924
--- To cite th is article / Pou r citer cet article
--- O'Grady J.F. Feedin g pregn an t an d lactatin g sows. In : Aumaître A. (ed.). The production of pig meat in Mediterranean Countries. Paris : CIHEAM, 1989. p. 151-156 (Options Méditerranéennes : Série Etudes; n. 1989-I)
---
http://www.ciheam.org/
http://om.ciheam.org/
Feeding pregnant and lactating sows
James F.
An Taluntais - Centre
Dusany, County -
The literature on sow nutrition and feeding has been well reviewed up to the beginning of the present decade
this paper, therefore, propose to examine only literature published since 1980 with the aim o f identifying those areas where new data allow a better understanding of feeding or modify existing concepts.
The period under review is noteworthy in that it coincided with dramatic improvements in sow productivity at the farm level. This in turn resulted
in new demands for information to ensure that productivity is not hindered by inadequate feeding.
be stated that these improvements in productivity were mostly the result of changes i n
management systems. example, the widespread change to crossbred and hybrid sows; the reduction i n weaning age and the improvement in fertility through controlled mating management (O Grady,
1983; Tilton and Cole, 1982).
The consequences were, for example, a 33%
increase i n sow output in 1974 to 1982 (Tuite, 1983) and a 42% increase i n national sow output in Denmark from 1976 to 1984 (Anon., 1985).
T h i s c h a n g e d s i t u a t i o n h a d a n e f f e c t o n the approach to sow experimentation. Aspects such as weaning to mating interval, ignored i n the earlier experiments, took on a new importance. Other areas such as the importance of culling rate were date little has been achieved in solving the
enormous losses from culling after the first litter.
Sow body condition has been identified as a factor separate from feeding level and is likely to yield interesting information with further study.
- Sow body conditions and fat reserves
( 1 9 8 0 ) a
the sows gained 22
second weaning, they lost 6.8 mm of backfat.
adequacy of the feed level
of et
al., 1984). The planned in backfat did as sows u s e d l a c t a t i o n t o
by
attempts conclusions not possible on the basis of the
Fat at
by Elsley (1976) a n d t h e
effects of highlighted by
(1985) who show that i n 90
19.6 mm to 15.4 1973 to 1984.
options
~~
152
(1984) backfat thickness
at position as follows:
Time
mating 20
25
Second mating 15
20 1 5 20
et al. (1984) examined the effects of weight and backfat loss in lactation and concluded that catabolism of
of muscle.
They also showed that sows not
they had little in weight loss.
(1982) that backfat loss in lactation was positively
l e n g t h of
weaning and mating.
1. Climate
of by feed
quantity and composition but also by the climatic maintained.
sow bodyweight as seen in Table
expanded on this concept
to the system of housing as
well as loss below
20°C in individually housed sows but only when below 14°C SOWS i n of
2. Energy
(1983) on
the effects of
the lactation length was
1 4 1.5 to
2.5 kglday i n
of pigs was not affected a n d
2,3 and 4 and postnatal liveweight gain i n 2 and 4 by sow
to conception was least on the highest feed level.
A of
feed
(1984a, 1984b) showed
ovulation, mating and conception times among sows fed 2 kg uersus
32 day lactations. On feed level post weaning was without effect possibly due to
of of
of sows
within eight days of weaning was 88 on uersus
Nelssen et al. (1985) showed t h a t 1 0 in lactation delayed the onset of
et al. (1984) showed .93 following
16 uersus .'42 on 8
et al. (1982) showed 8
by 7, 14, 21 et al., 1982b) showed that 8
incidence of
evidence implicates low in lactation a s
ovulation is
et al. (1985) showed that while the sow
is 62 to 68% efflcient feed to
milk it 0.5 to 0.6
kg/day of additional feed to meet the needs of a n
additional et al.
(1985) in an analysis of by
each
Although it is common lactating sows close to
on feed intake. These have been listed by et al. (1985) and include
of
effects on is wide
intakes between individual sows maintained has
in Table a
a s well a s a n to the 4th
CIHEAM - Options Mediterraneennes
is the of sows with less than 4
to t h e d a t a of et al.
(1982 b) these may be at of
- Fat supplementation of sow diets
of boosting at by feeding high levels of f a t i n t h e last d a y s of
topic 1974
to 1981 by (1985).
concluded of
0.3 fat feeding, although this
has Two
published since (Cieslak et al., 1983 and Cox et al., 1983)
of piglets was most
700 and 1,100 g. The Cox et al. show that fat fed in 20.9 .2.1 to 12.6 2.1 days.
of sows
by 10 34 to 59.
t h e
effects of to fat per se is
- Feeding after weaning
a
conception and Cole,
1972)
1981;
1982). One is left to conclude that excessive weight loss in lactation and that post weaning feeding is ineffective with the possible
exception of sows weight
losses in lactation.
- Protein and amino acids
e t a l .
1980 and concluded
that 11-12% gestation will give
the maximum output of weaned pigs in almost any 9-10%
of the piglets at
placed at 0.45-0.5%.
state t h a t
intake by
of Taking economic
they opted a of 15%
Since 1980 a of
published that of
(1984) no in gestation beyond 0.5%
e t a l . (1983) show that t h e supplementation of maize based diets with 0.26%
lysine and 0.02%
et al. (1981) s h o w e d n o of
14/14, 12/16 9118%. Wilkinson et al. (1984) showed that with diets based and fishmeal the second
Wilkinson et al. (1982) examined the lysine of
l a c t a t i o n u s i n g m e t a b o l i c t e c h n i q u e s . T h e y showed
of on the basis of this
test placed at
48.5g. Table 3 shows
V - Feedstuffs
of least cost techniques in feed
(1985)
constitute up to 77% of pelleted diets
finishing pigs and 66% i n would
feel confident be
used in sow diets.
1
(1985) f o u n d n o fed to supply all the sow diets
(1981) fed
at 8% inclusion in diets in a mu1
5,000 piglets in the study, fed sows.
et al. (1982) included 25-50%
100 of gestation 1 4 day lactations. As expected, fat in
no was affected.
at the 50%
house fly
was fed by (1980)
- Vitamins
in feed of et al.
(1977)
incidence of foot to
time, emphasis has been placed on the availability of
(1984) table of availability values showed
to 100% in whey Of the most common (41% available) and tapioca
(6% while
is listed as 21.6%
in et al.,
1978). et al. (1985) fed based 440pg of supplemental biotin sows
conception
of the based diets, the expected X
was not of
vitamins seen in a et
al. (1984) who show 12.0
51 sows that folk acid and been
10.5, 10.7 a n d 1 0 . 9 i n is obviously a topic
of of
sows. on
lactation feeding. This is
size and intake of low intakes in
lactation of
is likely to be is a n indication that post weaning flushing, when combined with folic acid supplementation, may
Aherne, of P i g
11, Journal Fertility. 33
Suppl. 169-183.
Anderson, J. Anim.
Sci. 47:654-659.
Anon., Bacon
Copenhagen.
of Farm No. Pigs.
Bayadina G.V. and Z.G. Zhurnal.
58:8.58-6.01.
Brooks, Cole, 1972. Anim. Prod. 15:259-264.
101~46-50.
Bryant, E.T. J.W. Webb, and
1985. J.Anim. Sci. 60:145-153.
Cieslak, and N.J. Benevenga, 1983. J.
Anim. Sci., 1983,57:954-959.
Corley, N.W. Esch, J.N. Bahr, and Easter, 1983. J.
Anim. Sci., 56:108-117.
Britt, Armstrong and 1983.
J. Anim. Sci. 56:21-29.
Crenshaw, 60:163-170.
van der Steen, 1981. Neth. J.
Agric. Sci., 29:285-296.
CIHEAM - Options Mediterraneennes
Elsley, and of 27th Annual
Filipovich, E., 1984. Svinovodstvo. No. 6.30.
Conf. pp 52-67. An
Science. 63:750-753.
1984. Anim. 38:477-485.
B. S. A.L.
Lightfoot, Toplis, N. Williams, and
Yeo, 30:395-406.
T.J. and J.F. J.
23~117-125.
Nahan, 1981. J.
Anim.Sci. 53:1262-1268
Libal and J.
Anim. Sci. 55:1082-1086.
and Williams, 1984b. Anim. 38:249- 256.
Williams and 1982. Aust.
Soc. Anim. 14557-560.
Y. and van Sci.,
6:179-184.
Lynch, 1985. communication.
J.J., C.L. G.J. 1984. J. Anim.
Sci.59:1020-1025.
1985.
Cole & Eds.
Nelssen, J.L., A.J. Lewis, and 1985.J.Anim.Sci.61:1164-1171.
Animal Ed.
J.F., Lynch, and Livestock Sci., 12:355-365,
J.F., Lynch, and 1983. J.
22:ll-20.
J.E. W.W. 1982a.
Anim. Sci. 55:590-598.
J.E. W.W. J.
Anim. Sci. 55:867-872.
A.J. Lewis, 1984. J. Anim. Sci., 58:1236-1244.
Tilton, J.E. and Cole, 1982. Anim. 34:279-282.
L.F. and 1982. J. Anim, Sci. 55:608-612.
Tuite, 1983. pp. 1-14.
J. C.
J. Anim. Sci. 60:731-740.
N., 1983. Anim. 3795-31.
and 1981. Anim. Feed. Sci.
Tech. 6:297-307.
Anim. 31:183-190.
C.T., A.G. Wilson,
and C. C. no. 29
Wilkinson, Cole, and Lewis, 1982. Anim.
35:15-23.
Wilkinson, Cole, and Lewis, 1984. Anim.
38:263-270.
156
Table 1: feed requirement of pregnant sows 1981) Liveweight at mating kg
2.8 2.6
below 2.4
2.4 2.2 2.0
140kg/day* 160 120
*
Assumed (a) Feed contains 12.5( b ) Net
wt.
20 kgTable 2: Feed intakes of lactating sows fed to appetite 4-5 week lactations
% of sows
1983
-
litter size 8.7 Feedday kg< 3 3.1 to 4
$.l to 5 5.1 to 6
> 6
No. of sows
intake kg : 4.7 0.75 1985
-
litter size 9.1Feedday kg
< 3 3.1 to 4 4.1 to 5.1 to 6
> 6
No. of sows
intake kg: 5.3k0.7
1
44 48 5 O 110 3.98
2 11 51 33 3 106 4.73
2
2 15 61 23 O 101 4.55
2 3 24 60 10 98 5.21
3
O 8 45 47 O 76 4.88
6 2 17 55 21 112 5.36
4
O 14 38 42 5 73 4.95
1 1 15 63 20 103 5,35
Lynch P.B., unpublished
Table 3: Estimates of lysine requirements of the lactating sow
I
g/dayLewis
and Chen et a.?., 1978 Sohail et al., 1978 Wilkinson et al., 1982
20.0 37.2 30.0 26.4 33.0 33.6 35.0 38.5
5
36 53 2 257 4.94
a
a
2 11 61 2€
261 5.62
