Comparison of three methods of feeding sows in gestation and the subsequent effects on lactation performance

• Published in: Journal of animal science Vol. 82; no. 10; pp. 3058 - 3070
• Main Authors: Young, M.G, Tokach, M.D, Aherne, F.X, Main, R.G, Dritz, S.S, Goodband, R.D, Nelssen, J.L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Savoy, IL Am Soc Animal Sci 01-10-2004; American Society of Animal Science
• Subjects: Adipose Tissue - anatomy & histology; Adipose Tissue - growth & development; Animal Feed; Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; animal performance; Animal productions; Animals; backfat; Biological and medical sciences; body condition; Body Constitution; body fat; Body Weight - physiology; feed requirements; Female; Food industries; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; lactation; Lactation - physiology; maternal nutrition; Meat and meat product industries; Parity; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Animal - physiology; Random Allocation; sow feeding; sows; Swine - anatomy & histology; Swine - physiology; Terrestrial animal productions; thickness; Vertebrates; weaning weight; Farming animal; Lactation; Meat product; Body condition score; Method; Feeding; Pig; Vertebrata; Meat animals; Mammalia; Backfat; Female; Artiodactyla; Performance; Ungulata; Sows
• ISSN: 0021-8812; 1525-3163
• DOI: 10.2527/2004.82103058x

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.