Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:34:13.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the energy metabolism of the pregnant sow

1. Uterus and mammary tissue development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

J. Noblet ,
W. H. Close ,
R. P. Heavens  and
D. Brown
J. Noblet
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
W. H. Close
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
R. P. Heavens
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
D. Brown
Affiliation:
AFRC Statistics Group, Department of Applied Biology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DX
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Twenty-six gilts were used in an experiment to study the effects of level of feed intake on the growth and chemical composition of the gravid uterus and mammary tissue at several stages of gestation. The animals were given either 1.8 or 2.5 kg feed/d (20 or 30 MJ metabolizable energy (ME) respectively) and were slaughtered at intervals between days 40 and 110 of gestation. The gravid uterus was dissected into fetal, placental, fluid and empty uterus components. From day 70 of gestation the mammary tissue was also dissected. The fresh weight and dry matter (DM), energy and nitrogen contents of the various tissues were determined.

2. (a) With the exception of the fluid component, there was a significant increase (P < 0.01) in the fresh weight of each tissue with both stage of gestation and level of feeding. At comparable litter sizes the total weight of the fetuses in late gestation was 16% higher with the higher feed intake. (b) The DM content of the individual uterine tissues increased significantly (P < 0.01) with increase in stage of gestation so that the mean DM content of the gravid uterus increased from 74.6g/kg at day 50 to 103.1 and 159, 0g/kg at days 90 and 110 of gestation respectively. (c) Neither stage of gestation nor feeding level influenced the respective energy contents of the individual uterine tissues, when expressed per g DM. The mean energy content of the total gravid uterus was 19.5 kJ/g DM. (d) The N content (g/g fresh weight) of the tissues increased with stage of gestation and was generally higher at the higher feeding level. The mean N contents (g/g DM) of the fetal, placental, fluid and empty uterine tissues were 0.090, 0, 101, 0.098 and 0.128 respectively.

3. The mammary tissue was the most variable of all the tissues investigated. Whereas the fresh weight and N content increased with stage of gestation, both the DM and energy content decreased.

4. Gompertz equations were fitted to describe the effects of stage of gestation, level of feed intake and litter size on the fresh weight and chemical content of the individual uterine tissues, total gravid uterus and mammary tissue. The use of these equations for calculating the nutrient requirements of pregnancy is demonstrated.

5. It was calculated that between days 50 and 110 of gestation the ME requirement for reproduction increased from 3 to 12% of maternal energy intake. The calculated requirement for protein was from 7 to 41 % of maternal dietary protein intake respectively.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 251 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Agricultural Research Council (1967). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No. 3, Pigs. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1981). The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 11, 441–443.Google Scholar
Close, W. H., Heavens, R. P., Noblet, J. & Start, I. B. (1978). Journal of Physiology 284, 11P–12P.Google Scholar
Close, W. H., Noblet, J. & Heavens, R. P. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 53, 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Villiers, V., Sorensen, P. H., Jakobsen, P. E. & Moustgaard, J. (1958). Kungliga Veterinaer og Landbøhogskolens Institut fur Sterilitetforskning, Årsberetning 139–145.Google Scholar
Ferrell, C. L., Garrett, W. N. & Hinman, N. (1976). Journal of Animal Science 42, 1477–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemm, E. H. & Ras, M. N. (1976). Agroanimalia 8, 131–140.Google Scholar
Koong, L. J., Garrett, W. N. & Rattray, P. V. (1975). Journal of Animal Science 41, 1065–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, K. A. (1966). Growth 30, 63–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Laird, K. A., Tyler, S. A. & Barton, A. D. (1965). Growth 29, 233–248.Google ScholarPubMed
McKeown, T., Marshall, T. & Record, R. G. (1976). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 47, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, A. (1965). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 9, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Carroll, W. E., Hamilton, T. S. & Hunt, G. E. (1931). University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin no. 375, 467–504.Google Scholar
Moser, B. D. & Lewis, A. J. (1980). Feedstuffs 52, 36–37.Google Scholar
Moustgaard, J. (1962). In Nutrition of Pigs and Poultry, pp. 189–206. [Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, J. E. (1981). Journal of Animal Science 53, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1960). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 54, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J., McDonald, I., Frazer, C. & Crofts, R. M. J. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seerley, R. W. (1981). Feedstuffs 53, 34–41.Google Scholar
Vanschoubroek, F. & Van Spaendonck, R. (1973). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 31, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrathall, A. E., Bailey, J. & Herbert, C. N. (1974). Research in Veterinary Science 17, 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar