HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Esbenshade, K. L. Articles by Stanislaw, C. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Esbenshade, K. L. Articles by Stanislaw, C. M.

Body Condition of Sows Across Parities and Relationship to Reproductive Performance^1,2,

North Carolina State University³ Raleigh, 27695-7621

Abstract

Weight, heartgiith, backfat and body condition of sows was monitored in a commercial, farrow-to-finish unit during 1 yr. Measurements were obtained during the third, ninth and fifteenth week of gestation and the day after weaning. Litter performance and rebreeding rate also were recorded. Body weight and heartgirth increased (P<.01) over parities because gestational gains were larger than lactational losses. Backfat tended to be lower in later parities. Body weight, heartgirth and backfat, but not condition score, declined from weaning to the third week of the subsequent gestation in both first and second litter sows. Correlations among measures of body condition were low (<.45), except the overall correlation between body weight and heartgirth. Number of pigs born alive increased and interval to estrus decreased in later parities. There were no significant relationships between changes in body condition and rebreeding performance of sows. These results suggest that changes in body condition typically observed in sows housed in commercial production units may be too subtle to have an effect on reproductive performance.

¹ Paper No. 9903 of the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agr. Res. Serv., Raleigh 27695-7601. The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Agr. Res. Serv. of the products names, nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned.

² This investigation was supported in part by a grant from the Natl. Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA, and by USDA Cooperative Agreement No. 7004-20370-010-OOS. The authors thank Carta McKinney for secretarial assistance.

³ Dept. of Anim. Sci.