Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:59:34.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Feeding and management of pregnant sows on pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1959

Dudley E. Eyles
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks
Get access

Extract

1. Wessex Saddleback sows were fed 4 lb. or 2 lb. of a balanced meal per head per day during the first 13 weeks after mating with a Large White boar. All sows received 6 lb. of meal for the last 3 weeks of pregnancy, and approximately 14 lb. (4 lb. plus 1 lb. for each piglet) during lactation. From mating to weaning half the sows on each feeding treatment had access to small soil pens, and the other half to range grazing of lucerne or grass/clover swards.

2. During the first 3 months of gestation sows on soil receiving 2 lb. of meal gained 20 lb. while those on grazing gained 40 lb., equal to the gain of sows fed 4 lb. of meal.

3. Approximately 10·5 piglets were born per sow under all treatments. Piglet mortality was highest with sows which had been fed 4 lb. of meal during pregnancy and were confined in small soil pens, because this treatment produced the greatest number of over-fat sows. Mean piglet weight at 3 weeks (≏ 12 lb.) and 8 weeks (≏ 39 lb.) and total creep-fed meal consumption per piglet (≏ 30 lb.) were similar for all treatments.

4. In a preliminary trial 3½ lb. of dried grass plus ½ lb. of meal per head per day was fed to gilts during the second and third months of pregnancy without adversely affecting farrowing results.

5. From these experiments and the published work it is suggested:—

(a) Pasture alone would probably have been sufficient during the second and third months of pregnancy of the sows used in these trials.

(b) Feeding standards for pregnant sows of 250-350 lb. live-weight may be too generous, and produce ‘fat not fit’ sows at farrowing.

(c) In practice the reduction of meal feeding and the greater dependence on grazing should be applied individually to each sow according to her condition and response.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1959

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

Ballinger, C., 1939. Pasture consumption by sows. N.Z. J. Agric., 59: 117.Google Scholar
Ballinger, C., 1940. Feeding sows immediately after weaning and six weeks before farrowing means more pigs per litter. N.Z. J. Agric., 60: 351.Google Scholar
Ballinger, C., 1944. Nutrition of breeding sows. N.Z. J, Agric., 69: 101.Google Scholar
Barber, R., Braude, R., & Mitchell, K., 1955. Studies on anaemia in pigs. 2. Comparison of haemoglobin levels in blood of pigs reared indoors and outdoors on pasture. Vet. Rec., 67: 543.Google Scholar
Beeson, W., Crampton, E., Cunha, T., Ellis, N., & Luecke, R., 1953-Nutrient requirements for swine. Publ. nat. Res. Court., (Wash., D.C.), 295: 2.Google Scholar
Boaz, T., 1956. Do in-pig sows need much protein ? Pig Fmg., 4 (7): 41.Google Scholar
Boaz, T., 1957. Protein for pregnant sows. Pig Fmg., 5 (8): 41.Google Scholar
Braude, R., 1954. Pig nutrition. In Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals. Ed. Hammond, J.. Butterworths Scientific Publications, London. Vol. 1, p. 58.Google Scholar
Davidson, H., 1952. The Production and Marketing of Pigs. Longmans, Green & Co., London. P. 436.Google Scholar
De Pape, J., Burkitt, W., & Flower, A., 1953. Dehydrated alfalfa and antibiotic supplements in gestation-lactation rations for swine. J. Anim. Sci., 12: 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H., & Fleming, I., 1938. The effect of prenatal weight-changes in breeding sows on the number and size of new-born pigs. Emp. J. exp. Agric., 6: 341.Google Scholar
Eyles, D., & Alder, F., 1955. Fattening pigs on pasture. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., 1955: 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gard, D., Terrill, S., & Becker, D., 1955. Effects of the addition of dehydrated alfalfa meal, fish solubles and a ‘vitamin B13’ concentrate to a purified diet for sows. J. Anim. Sci., 14: 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halnan, E., & Garner, F., 1944. The Principles and Practice of Feeding Farm Animals. Longmans, Green & Co., London. P.262.Google Scholar
Hammond, J., 1937. Pigs in the Argentine. Pig Breed. Annu., 17: 28.Google Scholar
Krider, J., Fairbanks, B., Van Poucke, R., Becker, D., & Carroll, W., 1946. Sardine condensed fish solubles and rye pasture for sows during gestation and lactation. J. Anim. Sci., 5: 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linton, R., & Williamson, G., 1943. Animal Nutrition and Veterinary Dietetics. W. Green & Son Ltd., Edinburgh. P.418.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C., 1952. Pig Production. Whitcombe & Tombs Ltd., Christchurch, N. Z. P. 81.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K., 1957. In time of farrowing. Agriculture (Lond.), 64: 433.Google Scholar
Morrison, F., 1949. Feeds and Feeding. Morrison Publishing Co., New York. Pp. (a) 941; (b) 958; (c) 1152.Google Scholar
Nordfeldt, S., 1946. The ability of brood sows to digest the feed as compared to that of young pigs. Lantbrhbgskol. Ann. (Uppsala), 13: 136.Google Scholar
Smith, D., 1955. The management and utilisation of pasture by pigs. Proc. N.Z. Grassl. Ass. 1955: 119.Google Scholar
Smith, D., 1957. Feeding and management of the sow and litter. N.Z. J. Agri., 94: 49.Google Scholar
Teague, H., 1955. The influence of alfalfa on ovulation rate and other reproductive phenomena in gilts. J. Anim. Sci., 14: 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrill, S., Becker, D., Edwards, R., & Nesheim, M. C, 1953. Ladino clover pasture and grass-legume silage for bred gilts and sows. J. Anim. Sci., 12: 941. (Soc. Proc.)Google Scholar
Weipers, M., & Inglis, J. S., 1956. Studies on the relationship of the nutrition and management of the sow to the health of litters. Vet. Rec., 68: 315.Google Scholar
Woodman, H., & Norman, D., 1934. Nutritive value of pasture. X. The utilisation of young grass by swine. J. agric. Sci., 24: 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar