Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T00:02:04.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of partial weaning, movement and boar contact on the subsequent reproductive performance of lactating sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

Ruth Henderson  and
P. E. Hughes
Ruth Henderson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
P. E. Hughes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
Get access

Abstract

Forty multiparous Large White × Landrace sows were randomly allocated to five treatment groups: (1) control (C) — no partial weaning, movement or boar contact, (2) partial weaning (PW) only — sow and litter separated for 12 h/day, (3) PW + boar contact (B) in the sow's pen (1 h/day), (4) PW + sow moved (M) to empty pen (1 h/day), (5) PW + sow moved to occupied boar pen (1 h/day). Treatments were imposed from day 10 post partum until weaning at day 35 (s.e. 1). All sows were generously fed throughout lactation (7 kg/day) and in the post-weaning period (3 kg/day). One sow (treatment 5) exhibited lactational oestrus and was mated on day 33 of lactation, while the remaining sows on treatments 2 to 5 had significantly reduced (P < 0·05) weaning to remating intervals relative to control sows (4·84 v. 6·63 days, respectively). Litter creep food intakes tended to be higher in PW litters than controls (512 v. 376 g/day; P > 0·05), whereas sow live-weight gains during lactation were significantly increased when PW was employed (+0·43 kg/day v. −0·13 kg/day for control sows; P < 0·001). Partial weaning significantly (P < 0·001) reduced litter weaning weights (74·8 v. 87·0 kg for controls). However, there were no significant treatment effects on individual piglet weaning weights, subsequent growth performance of the weaned litters, or the size of litter subsequently produced by the sows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , August 1984 , pp. 131 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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

REFERENCES

Alifakiotis, T., Matsoukas, I., Gavrilidis, G. and Matzaris, E. 1980. Hormonal induction of breeding in lactating sows. Proc. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. Meet., Munich, P5/6.24 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Britt, J. H. and Levis, D. G. 1980. Effect of altered suckling on rebreeding performance in early-weaned sows. Proc. int. Pig Vet. Soc. Congr. 5: 322 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Bryant, M. J., Palmer, G., Petherick, D. J. and Rowlinson, P. 1983. Lactational oestrus in the sow. 4. Variation in the incidence and timing of lactational oestrus in groups of sows. Anim. Prod. 36: 453–460.Google Scholar
Burger, J. F. 1952. Sex physiology of pigs. Onderstepoort J. vet. Res. Suppl. 2.Google Scholar
Cole, D. J. A., Brooks, P. H. and Kay, R. M. 1972. Lactational anoestrus in the sow. Vet. Rec. 90: 681–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, H. H. and Hughes, E. H. 1946. Induction of estrus in lactating sows with equine gonadotropin. J. Anim. Sci. 5: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crighton, D. B. 1970. Induction of pregnancy during lactation in the sow. J. Reprod. Pert. 22: 223–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, S. 1982. The endocrinology of the post-partum sow. In Control of Pig Reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 439–458. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, P. E. 1982. Factors affecting the natural attainment of puberty in the gilt. In Control of Pig Reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 117–138. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R. N. and Hughes, P. E. 1980. A note on the influence of ‘boar effect‘component stimuli on puberty attainment in the gilt. Anim. Prod. 31: 209–211.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1980. Genstat V, Mark 4·03. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Petchey, A. M., Dodsworth, T. L. and English, P. R. 1978. The performance of sows and litters penned individually or grouped in late lactation. Anim. Prod. 27: 215–221.Google Scholar
Petchey, A. M. and English, P. R. 1980. A note on the effects of boar presence on the performance of sows and their litters when penned as groups in late lactation. Anim. Prod. 31: 107–109.Google Scholar
Petchey, A. M. and Jolly, G. M. 1979. Sow service in lactation: an analysis of data from one herd. Anim. Prod. 29: 183–191.Google Scholar
Rowlinson, P. and Bryant, M. J. 1982. Lactational oestrus in the sow. 2. The influence of group-housing, boar presence and feeding level upon the occurrence of oestrus in lactating sows. Anim. Prod. 34: 283–290.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. 1961. The effect of daily separation of sows from their litters upon milk yields, creep intake, and energetic efficiency. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 4: 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, J. S. and Britt, J. H. 1980. Luteinizing hormone, total estrogens and progesterone secretion during lactation and after weaning in sows. Theriogenology 14: 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, J. S. and Britt, J. H. 1981. Interval to estrus in sows and performance of pigs after alteration of litter size during late lactation. J. Anim. Sci. 53: 177–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolba, A. 1981. A family system in enriched pens as a novel method of pig housing. In Alternatives to Intensive Husbandry Systems (ed. Ewbank, R.), pp. 52–67. University Federation for Animal Welfare Conference, Potters Bar.Google Scholar
Varley, M. A. 1982. The time of weaning and its effects on reproductive function. In Control of Pig Reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 459–478. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, C. and England, D. C. 1977. Mating of sows during lactation. Special Rep. Ore. agric. Exp. Stn No. 494, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar