000095815 001__ 95815
000095815 005__ 20210902121823.0
000095815 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.5424/sjar/2020182-15825
000095815 0248_ $$2sideral$$a120150
000095815 037__ $$aART-2020-120150
000095815 041__ $$aeng
000095815 100__ $$aSeoane, S.
000095815 245__ $$aResponses to different feeding levels during the first month post-insemination in highly prolific multiparous sows
000095815 260__ $$c2020
000095815 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000095815 5203_ $$aAim of study: To evaluate the impact of the feed level during the first month of gestation on body weight evolution, backfat and loin muscle depths and reproductive performances in highly prolific sows. Area of study: Galicia (Northwestern Spain).
Material and methods: Thirty-six Danbred sows were assigned to three experimental groups (n=12) receiving, from day 1 to 30 of pregnancy, 2.5, 3.0 or 3.5 kg/d of a standard diet (8.83 MJ net energy and 138.5 g crude protein/kg). In each group, the number of sows in the second-, third-and fourth-cycle was the same. All animals received, of the same diet, 2.5 kg/d from day 31 to 90 and 3.0 kg/d from day 91 to 107. Seven days prior the parturition, sows were moved to the farrowing-lactating facilities where spent until weaning receiving a common standard lactation diet. At 24 h post-farrowing, litters were standardized to 13 piglets each by cross-fostering.
Main results: The optimal feeding level during the first 30 days of gestation was 3.0 kg/d because a lower amount penalized their body weight gain and a higher amount did not improve their fatty reserves. It is worth considering that the increase from 2.5 to 3.5 kg/d generated advantages at birth (higher and more homogenous piglet weights) but also handicaps (lower litter size). The effects were similar irrespective of the cycle number.
Research highlights: Different feeding levels during the early pregnancy were tested because it is a critical period. Suppling 3.0 kg/d carried out the best productive and reproductive implications.
000095815 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby$$uhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
000095815 590__ $$a1.238$$b2020
000095815 591__ $$aAGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY$$b31 / 58 = 0.534$$c2020$$dQ3$$eT2
000095815 592__ $$a0.337$$b2020
000095815 593__ $$aAgronomy and Crop Science$$c2020$$dQ3
000095815 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000095815 700__ $$aDe Palo, P.
000095815 700__ $$aLorenzo, J.M.
000095815 700__ $$aMaggiolino, A.
000095815 700__ $$aGonzález, P.
000095815 700__ $$aPérez-Ciria, L.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000095815 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-3005-2675$$aLatorre, M.A.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000095815 7102_ $$12008$$2700$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Produc.Animal Cienc.Ali.$$cÁrea Producción Animal
000095815 773__ $$g18, 2 (2020), 1-12$$pSpan. j. agric. res.$$tSpanish Journal of Agricultural Research$$x1695-971X
000095815 8564_ $$s197671$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/95815/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000095815 8564_ $$s469964$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/95815/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000095815 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:95815$$particulos$$pdriver
000095815 951__ $$a2021-09-02-10:10:25
000095815 980__ $$aARTICLE