Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:26:44.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of dietary inclusion of sugar-beet pulp on the feeding behaviour of dry sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

F. Brouns
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
P. R. English
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
Get access

Abstract

Feeding behaviour of six sows receiving a diet with a high inclusion (500 g/kg) of sugar-beet pulp (SBP) was compared with that of six sows receiving a conventional cereal-based diet (control). The feeding rate was determined for both the rate of consumption of the daily food allowance (SBP or control diet) and of a test portion (of control diet) offered at different intervals after the daily food allowance. SBP sows consumed their daily food allowance more slowly than control sows, SBP sows also consumed the test portion more slowly than control sows, when this was offered immediately after the daily food allowance. Prolonging the time taken to eat the control diet, by presenting it in meal form, did not change the feeding rate of the test diet. Offering the test portion 2 h after the daily food allowance, increased the feeding rate of the test portion for both control and SBP sows, with a smaller but still significant treatment difference. Gastric distension appeared to be a major factor in regulating intake when feeding a diet containing SBP. The extent to which feeding rate could be used as an index of feeding motivation and the welfare consequences of using bulky diets for sows are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertin, C.Rouau, X. and Thibault, J.-F. 1988. Structure and properties of sugar-beet fibres. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 44: 1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1992. Feeding motivation of sows fed a sugar beet pulp diet. Animal Production 54: 486487.Google Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1994a. Effect of dietary fibre and feeding system on activity and oral behaviours of group-housed gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 15223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1994b. Metabolic effects of fibrous ingredients in pig diets. Animal Production 58: 467 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1995. Influence of fibrous feed ingredients on voluntary intake of dry sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54: 301313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J. E. L., Kyriazakis, I. and Lawrence, A. B. 1996. The effect of foods of different water-holding capacity on the level of feeding motivation in growing pigs. Animal Science 62: 623 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Doucet, P. G. and Straalen, N. M. van. 1980. Analysis of hunger from feeding rate observations. Animal Behaviour 28: 913921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, K. H., Bacon, J. A. and Weinsier, R. L. 1983. The effects of high and low energy density diets on satiety, energy intake and eating time of obese and non obese subjects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 37: 763767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farningham, D. A. H. and Whyte, C. C. 1993. The role of propionate and acetate in the control of feed intake in sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 70: 3746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kritchevsky, D. 1988. Dietary fibre. Annual Reviews Nutrition 8: 301328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Magnen, J. 1985. Hunger. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar