PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R G Main

Publications and source records attributed to R G Main.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Effect of sow parity and weight at service on target maternal weight and energy for gain in gestation.

The objective of this study was to evaluate targeted maternal weight gains in sows by parity group during gestation. Weight and backfat gains during gestation by parity, weight, and backfat groups also were analyzed. The data evaluated were a subset (374 sows) of a larger experiment that compared three methods of feeding sows during gestation on weight and backfat gains and subsequent reproductive performance. Feed allowances were based on modeled calculations of energy and nutrient requirements to achieve target sow maternal weight and backfat gains. Actual backfat gain for gilts and sows was regressed on maternal weight gain and estimated energy available for gain. The regression equations were then used to predict maternal weight gains for target backfat gains for three parity groups (gilts, Parity 1 and 2 sows, and Parity 3 and older sows). For gilts and Parity 1 and 2 sows, much greater target maternal weight gains are required to achieve 6 and 9 mm of backfat gain, whereas Parity 3 and older sows require maternal weight gains similar to those targeted to achieve the desired backfat gain. Given similar energy intake levels above maintenance, gilts gained more weight than multiparous sows, as gain was based more on protein and less on fat and thus was more efficient. Gilts required more maternal weight gain than sows to achieve similar backfat gains due to the higher protein and low fat contents of gain in younger, lighter sows compared with older parity sows. Low-backfat sows that needed to gain large amounts of backfat failed to achieve these large gains. We speculate this failure may be due to lower tissue insulation levels with the low backfat levels and higher activity levels of these sows compared with high-backfat sows. It seems that both parity and weight are individually important factors that influence energy and nutrient requirements for gestation in the modern sow.

Adipose Tissue↗
PubMed2004

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

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.

Adipose Tissue↗
PubMed2004

Increasing weaning age improves pig performance in a multisite production system.

Two trials were conducted to determine the effects of weaning age on pig performance in a multisite production system. The second trial also evaluated the effects of modifying the nursery feeding program according to weaning age. In Trial 1 (2,272 pigs), treatments included weaning litters at 12, 15, 18, or 21 d of age. In Trial 2 (3,456 pigs), litters were weaned at 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, or 22 d of age and categorized into three treatments (15.5, 18.5, or 21.5 d of age). In Trial 2, pigs in each age group were fed one of two nursery feeding programs. Nursery feeding programs varied in both diet formulation and in the quantity of diets fed containing increased levels of whey and spray-dried animal plasma. Each trial was conducted as a randomized complete block design with four blocks of nursery and finishing sites. All weaning-age treatments were weaned from a 7,300-sow farm on the same day into the same nursery. Each block remained intact as pigs moved from nursery to finishing site. Increasing weaning age (12, 15, 18, or 21 d in Trials 1; and 15.5, 18.5, or 21.5 d in Trial 2) increased (linear, P < 0.001) ADG (299, 368, 409, 474 +/- 7 g/d; 435, 482, 525 +/- 13 g/d) and tended to decrease (linear, P < 0.09) mortality (5.25, 2.82, 2.11, 0.54 +/- 0.76%; 2.17, 1.56, 1.30 +/- 0.36%) in the initial 42 d after weaning. Finishing ADG (722, 728, 736, 768 +/- 11 g/d; 783, 790, 805 +/- 11 g/d) also improved (linear, P < 0.01) with increasing weaning age. Overall, increasing weaning age increased (linear, P < 0.001) wean-to-finish ADG (580, 616, 637, 687 +/- 8 g/d; 676, 697, 722 +/- 6 g/d), weight sold per pig weaned (94.1, 100.5, 104.4, 113.1 +/- 1.3 kg; 107.6, 111.6, 116.2 +/- 1.1 kg), and decreased (linear, P < 0.03) mortality rate (9.4, 7.9, 6.8, 3.6 +/- 0.95%; 3.9, 3.4, 2.5 +/- 0.5%). Altering the nursery feeding program did not affect wean-to-finish growth performance. In this multisite production system, increasing weaning age from 12 to 21.5 d of age increased weight sold per pig weaned by 1.80 +/- 0.12 kg for each day increase in weaning age. These studies suggest increasing weaning age up to 21.5 d can be an effective management strategy to improve wean-to-finish growth performance in multisite pig production.

Age Factors↗