| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ANIMAL PRODUCTION |
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506-0210
4 Correspondence: 242 Weber Hall (phone: 85-532-1228; fax: 785-532-7059; e-mail: Goodband{at}ksu.edu).
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 (< 5mm 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 < 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.
Key Words: Backfat • Body Condition Score • Sows
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. P. Schinckel, M. E. Einstein, S. Jungst, C. Booher, and S. Newman Evaluation of Different Mixed Model Nonlinear Functions to Describe the Body Weight Growth of Pigs of Different Sire and Dam Lines Professional Animal Scientist, June 1, 2009; 25(3): 307 - 324. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. M. Hill, J. E. Link, M. J. Rincker, D. L. Kirkpatrick, M. L. Gibson, and K. Karges Utilization of distillers dried grains with solubles and phytase in sow lactation diets to meet the phosphorus requirement of the sow and reduce fecal phosphorus concentration J Anim Sci, January 1, 2008; 86(1): 112 - 118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Young, M. D. Tokach, F. X. Aherne, R. G. Main, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, and J. L. Nelssen Effect of sow parity and weight at service on target maternal weight and energy for gain in gestation J Anim Sci, January 1, 2005; 83(1): 255 - 261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
