Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:01:48.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Meat production from pigs which have farrowed 1. Reproductive performance and food conversion efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. H. Brooks
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicester
D. J. A. Cole
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicester
Get access

Summary

The reproductive performance and food conversion efficiency ofyoung female pigs (gilts) destined for slaughter after weaning their first litter were investigated using four treatment groups of 19 Landrace × (Landrace × Large White) gilts. In two treatment groups gilts were mated at pubertal heat and suckled for 5 to 11 and 35 to 42 days respectively. These gilts were slaughtered following weaning. A third group of gilts were conventionally mated at third oestrus and suckled for 35 to 42 days. These animals acted as controls for reproductive performace. The fourth treatment group consisted of unmated gilts, slaughtered at 118 kg live weight, which served as controls for food conversion efficiency, growth rate and carcass measurements.

There were no significant differences in either the number or weight of piglets born in any of the treatment groups. The food conversion efficiency and growth rate of the mated gilts was significantly (P< 0·001) worse than that of the unmated gilts marketed at heavy weights. Of the mated gilts those mated at puberty and weaned at 35 to 42 days had the best overall feed conversion efficiency (4·56: 1) between the start of the experiment and weaning and required less food per piglet reared to 6 weeks of age than the gilts mated at third heat.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1973

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

Brooks, P. H. and Cole, D. J. A. 1969. The effect of boar presence on the age at puberty of gilts. Rep. Sch. Agric. Univ. Nott. pp. 7477.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H. and Cole, D. J. A. 1970. The effect of the presence of a boar on the attain-ment of puberty in gilts. J. Reprod. Fert. 23: 435500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, P. H. and Cooper, K. J. 1972. Short term nutrition and litter size. In Pig Production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 385398, Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H., Pattinson, M. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1970. Reproduction in the young gilt. Rep. Sch. Agric. Univ. Nott. pp. 6568.Google Scholar
Cooper, K. J., Scofield, A. M. and Brooks, P. H. 1970. Excess uterine fluid: a possible relationship with failure to return to service in non-pregnant gilts. Vet. Rec. 86: 384.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. L. and Lodge, G. E. 1960. Diet in relation to reproduction and viability of the young. Part III. Pigs. Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Nutrition, Technical Communication No. 21, Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Harter, H. L. 1960. Critical values for Duncan's new multiple range test. Biometrics 16: 671685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempthorne, O. 1952. The Design and Analysis of Experiments. J. Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon-Legagneur, E. and Rerat, A. 1962. Nutrition of the sow during pregnancy. In Nutrition of Pigs and Poultry (ed. Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D.) pp. 207237, Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Signoret, J. P. 1972. The mating behaviour of the sow. In Pig Production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.) pp. 295314, Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Warnick, A. C, Wiggins, E. L., Casida, L. E., Grummer, R. H. and Chapman, A. B. 1951. Variation in puberty phenomena in inbred gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 10: 479493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed