Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Effects of season and parity on performance of lactating sows in a tropical climate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. L. Gourdine
Affiliation:
Unite de Recherches Zootechniques, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies
D. Renaudeau
Affiliation:
Unite de Recherches Zootechniques, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies
J. Noblet
Affiliation:
Unité Mixte de Recherches sur le Veau el le Pore, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 35590 St-Gilles, France
J. P. Bidanel
Affiliation:
Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 78352 ]ouy-en-]osas Cedex, France
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

The effects of season in a tropical climate and parity on lactation performance of 106 Large White sows over several reproductive cycles (301 lactations in total) were studied in Guadeloupe (French West Indies, 16°N latitude, 61°W longitude) between January 1999 and March 2003. Two seasons were determined a posteriori from climatic parameters recorded continuously in a station close to the experimental unit. During the warm season, ambient temperature and relative humidity averaged 23-5°C and 0-831, respectively. In the hot season, the corresponding values were 26-0°C and 0-834, respectively. Over the 28-day lactation period, average daily food intake (ADFI) was lower (P < 0-001) and live-weight (LW) loss was higher (P < 0-05) during the hot season than during the warm season (3-9 v. 4-7 kg/day and 17 v. 12 kg, respectively). Growth rate and mean LW of piglets at weaning were lower (P < 0-05) during the hot season (203 v. 220 g/day and 7-0 v. 7-5 kg, respectively). However, the weaning-to-oestrus interval was not affected by season (5-4 days on average). The effect of season on ad libitum ADFI was less accentuated for primiparous than for multiparous sows (warm-hot 360 v. 2002 g/day). Irrespective of the season, ADFI was lower (P < 0-01) and piglet growth rate tended to be lower (P < 0-2) in primiparous than in multiparous sows (4-0 v. 4-4 kg/day and 205 v. 215 g/day, respectively). Moreover, the percentage of sows that returned to oestrus later than 5 days after weaning was higher in primiparous than in multiparous sows (25 v. 2%, P < 0-001). This study confirmed the negative effects of the hot season on performance of lactating sows raised in a humid tropical climate; the effects of season are dependent on parity number.

Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

AmiPig. 2000. [Standardized ileal digestibilities of amino acid in pig.] In Proceedings of the Association Francaise de Zootechnie, 2000, Ajinomoto Eurolysine, Aventis Animal Nutrition, INRA, ITCF, Paris.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC.Google ScholarPubMed
Auldist, D. E., Morrish, L., Eason, P. and King, R. H. 1998. The influence of litter size on milk production of sows. Animal Science 67: 333337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azain, M. J., Tomkins, T., Sowinski, J. S., Arentson, R. A. and Jewell, D. E. 1996. Effect of supplemental pig milk replacer on litter performance: seasonal variation in response. Journal of Animal Science 74:21952202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, J. L., Mullan, B. P., Lorschy, M. L. and Giles, L. R. 1993. Lactation in the sow during heat stress. Livestock Production Science 35:153170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S. W., Chen, Z. Y. and Dziuk, P. J. 1995. Determination of pregnancy and estimation of litter size in gilts based on concentration of estrone glucuronide and estradiol glucoronide in plasma. Animal Reproduction Science 40:99106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christon, R., Saminadin, G., Lionet, H. and Racon, B. 1999. Dietary fat and climate alter food intake, performance of lactating sows and their litters and fatty acid composition of milk. Animal Science 69:353365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dourmad, J. Y. 1988. [Spontaneous feed ingestion in lactating sow: many factors of variation.] INRA Productions Animates 1:141146.Google Scholar
Dourmad, J. Y., Etienne, M., Noblet, J. and Causeur, D. 1997. [Prediction of the chemical composition of reproductive sows from their body weight and backfat depth — utilization for determining the energy recordance.]. Journees de la Recherche Porcine en Prance 29: 255262.Google Scholar
Eissen, J. J., Kanis, E. and Kemp, B. 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64:147165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etienne, M., Dourmad, J. Y. and Noblet, J. 1998. The influence of some sow and piglet characteristics and of environmental conditions on milk production. In The lactating sow (ed. Verstegen, M. W., Moughan, P. J. and Schrama, J. W.), pp. 285299. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Etienne, M., Legault, C., Dourmad, J. -Y. and Noblet, J. 2000. [Milk production in the sow: estimation, composition, factors of variation and evolution.] Journees de la Recherche Porcine en Prance 32:253264.Google Scholar
Giles, L. R. and Black, J. L. 1991. Voluntary feed intake in growing pigs at ambient temperatures above the zone of thermal comfort. In Manipulating pig production III (ed. Batterham, E. S.), pp. 162166. Australasian Pig Science, Attwood.Google Scholar
Granier, R., Massabie, P. and Bouby, A. 1998. [Effect of the humidity level of ambient air (temperature 28°C) on the growth performance of growing-finishing pigs.] Journees de la Recherche Porcine en Prance 30: 331336.Google Scholar
Holmes, C. W. and Close, W. H. 1977. The influence of climatic variables on energy metabolism and associated aspects of productivity in the pig. In Nutrition and climatic environment (ed. Haresign, W., Swan, H., and Lewis, D.), pp. 5171. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Hughes, P. E. 1993. The effects of food level during lactation and early gestation on the reproductive performance of mature sows. Animal Production 57:437445.Google Scholar
Hulten, F., Valros, A., Rundgren, M. and Einarsson, S. 2002. Reproductive endocrinology and postweaning performance in the multiparous sow. 2. Influence of nursing behavior. Theriogenology 58:15191530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Goff, G. and Noblet, J. 2001. Comparative total tract digestibility of dietary energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows. Journal of Animal Science 79: 24182427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, P. B. 1977. Effect of environmental temperature on lactating sows and their litters. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 16:123130.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J., Stansbury, W. F. and Tribble, L. F. 1988a. Management of lactating sows during heat stress: effects of water drip, snout coolers, floor type and a high energydensity diet. Journal of Animal Science 66:885891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, J. J., Stansbury, W. F., Tribble, L. F. and Morrow, J. L. 1988b. Photoperiod and heat stress influence on lactating sow performance and photoperiod effects on nursery pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 66: 19151919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient requirement of swine, 10th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Google ScholarPubMed
Neil, M., Ogle, B. and Anner, K. 1996. A two-diet system and ad libitum lactation feeding of the sow. 1. Sow performance. Animal Science 62:337347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J. and Etienne, M. 1989. Estimation of sow milk nutrient output. Journal of Animal Science 67: 33523359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J., Fortune, H., Shi, X. S. and Dubois, S. 1994. Prediction of net energy value of feeds for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72: 344354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluske, J. R., Williams, I. H., Zak, L. J., Clowes, E. J., Cegielski, A. C. and Aherne, F. X. 1998. Feeding lactating primiparous sows to establish three divergent metabolic states. III. Milk production and pig growth. Journal of Animal Science 76:11651171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prunier, A., Messias de Bragança, M. and Le Dividich, J. 1997. Influence of high ambient temperature on performance of reproductive sows. Livestock Production Science 52:123133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N., Gaudré, D. and Guillou, D. 2001. [Effect of ambient temperature and diet composition on lactation performance of primiparous sows.] Journees de la Recherche Porcine en France 33:173180.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N. and Noblet, J. 1999. Influence of high ambient temperatures on performance of multiparous lactating sows. Journal of Animal Science 77:21242134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiniou, N., Noblet, J. and Renaudeau, D. 2000. [A source of stress for nursing sow: the ambient temperature.] Techniporc 23:2330.Google Scholar
Renaudeau, D., Anai's, C. and Noblet, J. 2003. Effects of dietary fiber on performance of multiparous lactating sows in a tropical climate. Journal of Animal Science 81: 717725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renaudeau, D. and Noblet, J. 2001. Effects of exposure to high ambient temperature and dietary protein level on sow milk production and performance of piglets. Journal of Animal Science 79:15401548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, J. D., Boyd, R. D., Cabrera, R. and Allee, G. L. 2003. Early weaning to reduce tissue mobilization in lactating sows and milk supplementation to enhance pig weaning during extreme heat stress. Journal of Animal Science 81:20412052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stansbury, W. E., McGlone, J. J. and Tribble, L. F. 1987. Effects of season, floor type, air temperature and snout coolers on sow and litter performance. Journal of Animal Science 65:15071513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT® user's guide, version 6, fourth edition. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Google Scholar
Steinbach, J. 1971. Effects of season and breed on sow performance in the seasonal-equatorial climate of Southern Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77: 331336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterman Ferraz, J. B. and De Moura Duarte, E A. 1991. [Influence of non genetic factors on Large White sows productivity] Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 26:535548.Google Scholar
Systéme Pour l'Analyse des Donnees. 1993. SPAD-TM® Analyse de tableaux multiples. Manuel de reference (version 4. 5) Centre International de Statistique et d'Informatique Appliquees, Paris.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Wine, R. H. 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV Determination of plant cellwall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50:5055.Google Scholar
Vesseur, P. C., Kemp, B. and den Hartog, L. A. 1994. Factors affecting the weaning to oestrus interval in the sow. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 72:225233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 17 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-t2lmn Total loading time: 0.23 Render date: 2021-01-27T02:27:05.399Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Effects of season and parity on performance of lactating sows in a tropical climate
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Effects of season and parity on performance of lactating sows in a tropical climate
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Effects of season and parity on performance of lactating sows in a tropical climate
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *