Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:13:00.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the energy metabolism of the pregnant sow

2. The partition and utilization of metabolizable energy intake in pregnant and non-pregnant animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

W. H. Close ,
J. Noblet  and
R. P. Heavens
W. H. Close
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
J. Noblet
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
R. P. Heavens
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
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. The heat losses and energy and nitrogen balances of pregnant gilts, and of their non-pregnant litter sisters (controls), were measured for periods of 7 d at feed intakes of 1.8 or 2 3 kg/d (20 or 30 MJ metabolizable energy (ME) respectively) at an environmental temperature of 20°. The measurements were made within three separate periods of gestation; 40–60 d (early), 60–80 d (mid) and 90–110 d (late). Values for ME intake, heat loss, energy retention (ER), protein deposition and fat deposition were determined for both the pregnant and control animals on each treatment.

2. When expressed per kg body-Weight 0.75 per d, there was little difference in heat loss between pregnant and non-pregnant animals and between pregnant animals at the different stages of gestation at any given ME intake. However, heat loss was higher at the higher ME intake.

3. ER vaned inversely with heat loss. The decrease in ME intake (kJ/kg body-Weight 0.75 per d) during pregnancy resulted in a decrease in ER so that the pregnant animals were in negative energy balance at the low feed intake during late gestation. From the relation between ER and ME intake, estimates of the maintenance energy requirement (MEm) of 411 and 401 kJ/kg body-weight0.75 per d were calculated, with corresponding partial efficiencies of energy utilization (k) of 0.74 and 0.68 for the pregnant and non-pregnant animals respectively.

4. For the pregnant animals, protein deposition was highest during mid-pregnancy and was relatively independent of level of feeding during mid- and late pregnancy. There was little difference in protein deposition between pregnant and non-pregnant animals at the high feed intake. At the low feed intake, the pregnant animals generally had a higher protein deposition than their non-pregnant litter sisters and this was entirely associated with the accretion in reproductive tissue.

5. Fat deposition depended on the level of feeding, and at any given ME intake was similar for pregnant and control animals. In late gestation the low level of feeding was insufficient to prevent the pregnant animals losing fat. It was calculated that at term these animals lost 140 g fat/d from maternal stores.

6. From the relation between ME intake and protein and fat deposition, estimates of ME, and the energetic efficiencies of protein (k,) and fat (k,) deposition were determined. There was little difference in ME, (422 and 420 kJ/kg body-weight 0.5 per d) and k, (0.88 and 0.90) between pregnant and non-pregnant animals respectively. However, the pregnant animals had a higher k, (0.69 compared with 0.49 for controls) and this reflected the higher rates of protein deposition associated with pregnancy.

7. The efficiency of energy deposition in the reproductive tissue was calculated to be 0.72.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 267 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1981). The Nutritent Requirements of Pigs. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1938). University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experimental Station Research Bulletin no. 283, 1–28.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 11, 441–443.Google Scholar
Burlacu, Gh., Iliescu, M. & Caramida, P. (1982). European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 29, 222–224.Google Scholar
Close, W. H., Heavens, R. P., Noblet, J. & Start, I. B. (1978). Journal of Physiology, London 284, 11–12P.Google Scholar
De Lange, P. G. B., Van Kempen, G. J. M., Klaver, J. & Verstegen, M. W. A. (1980). Journal of Animal Science 50, 886–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Villiers, V., Sørensen, P. H., Jacobsen, P. E. & Moustgaard, J. (1958). Kungliga Veterinaer og Landbøhogskolens Institut fur Sterilitetsforskning, Årsberetning 137–145.Google Scholar
De Wilde, R. (1980 a). Livestock Production Science 7, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wilde, R. (1980 b). Livestock Production Science 7, 505–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wilde, R., Van Spaendonck, R. & Vanschoubroek, F. C. (1974). European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 14, 197–200.Google Scholar
Elliot, J. I. & Lodge, G. A. (1978). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 58, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., Anderson, D. M., McDonald, I., MacPherson, R. M. & Smart, R. (1966). Animal Production 8, 391–400.Google Scholar
Etienne, M. & Henry, Y. (1973). Annales de Zootechnie 22, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, R. E. (1976). In Meat Animals, Growth and Productivity, pp. 327–341 [Lister, D., Rhodes, D. N., Fowler, V. R. and Fuller, M. F., editors]. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Heap, F. C. & Lodge, G. A. (1967). Animal Production 9, 237–246.Google Scholar
Holmes, C. W. & Close, W. H. (1977). In Nutrition and the Climatic Environment, pp. 51–73 [Haresign, W., Swan, H. and Lewis, D., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Holmes, C. W. & MacLean, N. R. (1974). Animal Production 19, 1–12.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB., Gordon, J. G. & MacPherson, R. M. (1977 a). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 523–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB & MacPherson, R. M. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 513–522.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB., MacPherson, R. M., Crofts, R. M. J. & Pennie, K. (1977 b). Animal Production 25, 281–290.Google Scholar
Kleiber, M. (1961). The Fire of Life. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Leitch, I. (1957). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 16, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, G. A. (1972). In Pig Production, pp. 399–416 [Cole, D. J. A., editor]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Lodge, G. A., Friend, D. W. & Wolynetz, M. S. (1979). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 59, 51–61.Google Scholar
MacLean, C. W. (1968). Veterinary Record 83 308–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward, D. J., Garlick, P. J. & Reeds, P. J. (1976). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 339–350.Google Scholar
Müller, H. L. & Kirchgessner, M. (1979). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 42, 271–276.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Close, W. H., Heavens, R. P. & Brown, D. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 53, 251–265.Google Scholar
Rippel, R. H., Rasmussen, O. G., Jensen, A. H., Norton, H. W. & Becker, D. E. (1968). Journal of Animal Science 24, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, E. C. (1969). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 9, Suppl, 27–36.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J., McDonald, I., McHattie, I. & Pennie, K. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 291–304.Google Scholar
Salmon-Legagneur, E. (1965). Annales de Zootechnie 14, 1–135.Google Scholar
Salmon-legagneur, E. & Rerat, A. (1962). In Nutrition of Pigs and Poultry, pp. 206–233 [Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Schneider, D. & Bronsch, K. (1977). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittiekunde 38, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, R. G. & Mahan, D. C. (1983). Journal of Animal Science 57, 594–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorbek, G. (1975). Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbrugs Forsøg no. 424.Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A., Close, W. H., Start, I. B. & Mount, L. E. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 30, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A., Van Es, A. J. H. & Nijkamp, H. J. (1971). Animal Production 13, 677–684.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Franklin, M. K. & Pearce, B. S. (1980). Animal Production 31, 183–190.Google Scholar