Effects of flush feeding strategy before breeding on reproductive performance of modern replacement gilts: impacts on ovulation rate and litter traits.
embryo survival
feeding
flushing
gilts
ovulation rate
Journal
Journal of animal science
ISSN: 1525-3163
Titre abrégé: J Anim Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003002
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2020
01 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
10
04
2020
accepted:
03
06
2020
pubmed:
9
6
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
8
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
AbstractThe effects of two feed levels offered during two estrous cycles before insemination were evaluated on the reproductive performance of gilts. A total of 93 gilts (PIC Hendersonville, TN) were individually housed and manually fed twice a day with 2.1 or 3.6 kg/d of a corn and soybean meal-based diet (3.15 Mcal ME/kg and 0.64% standardized ileal digestible lysine), during two estrous cycles before breeding (cycle 1, between first and second estrus; cycle 2, between second and third estrus). Gilts were weighed at the beginning of the experiment, at second and third estrus, and at slaughter (30.2 ± 1.2 d of gestation). Follicles were counted at second estrus, and the embryo-placental units and the corpora lutea were individually counted, measured, and weighed at slaughter. Gilts fed 3.6 kg/d had greater BW gain during cycle 1 and cycle 2 (P < 0.001; + 9.8 kg and + 10.0 kg, respectively) becoming heavier at second and third estrus (P < 0.001). At second estrus, gilts fed 3.6 kg/d had 1.6 more medium-large follicles (P = 0.074) but no difference in follicle size (P = 0.530) was observed. Gilts fed 3.6 kg/d in cycle 1 or cycle 2 had a greater ovulation rate at third estrus (P < 0.016) than those receiving 2.1 kg/d. Also, 3.6 kg/d in cycle 2 increased early embryo mortality (P = 0.006; 2.3 vs. 1.1 dead embryos) and consequently reduced total embryo survival (P = 0.002; 84.6 vs. 90.1%). Gilts fed 3.6 kg/d during cycle 1 had two more total embryos (P < 0.001; 17.2 vs. 15.1) and two more vital embryos on day 30 (P < 0.001; 16.7 vs. 14.5) in comparison with gilts fed 2.1 kg/d. The coefficient of variation for placental length was greater for gilts fed 3.6 kg/d during cycle 1 (P = 0.003). No further significant effects of feeding levels were observed on embryo and placental traits (P ≥ 0.063). These results suggest that the feeding level during the first cycle after pubertal estrus is crucial to set ovulation rate and potential litter size for breeding at next estrus. However, flush feeding gilts before insemination can negatively impact litter size by reducing embryo survival when breeding at third estrus.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32506131
pii: 5854341
doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa186
pmc: PMC7447920
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Lysine
K3Z4F929H6
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Reprod Domest Anim. 2010 Aug;45(4):685-93
pubmed: 19210667
Reprod Domest Anim. 2007 Jun;42(3):329-32
pubmed: 17506814
Reprod Fertil Dev. 1999;11(6):323-7
pubmed: 10972300
Reprod Fertil Dev. 2017 Jul;29(7):1349-1355
pubmed: 27225350
J Anim Sci. 2000 Jun;78(6):1556-63
pubmed: 10875639
Reprod Domest Anim. 2009 Apr;44(2):255-9
pubmed: 18694424
J Anim Sci. 2010 Aug;88(8):2611-9
pubmed: 20382879
Theriogenology. 2011 Apr 15;75(7):1301-10
pubmed: 21295828
J Anim Sci. 1991 Jan;69(1):34-40
pubmed: 2005028
Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2005 Aug;29(2):362-70
pubmed: 15878256
Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2005 Aug;29(2):385-97
pubmed: 15998504
Prev Vet Med. 2015 Sep 1;121(1-2):108-14
pubmed: 26119515
Transl Anim Sci. 2017 Dec 01;1(4):507-517
pubmed: 32704674
Reprod Domest Anim. 2017 Oct;52 Suppl 4:75-77
pubmed: 29052320
Animal. 2020 Sep;14(9):1906-1915
pubmed: 32209145
Animal. 2016 Aug;10(8):1336-41
pubmed: 26927693
J Anim Sci. 1987 Feb;64(2):507-16
pubmed: 3104271
J Anim Sci. 2017 Jul;95(7):3160-3172
pubmed: 28727117
J Anim Sci. 1991 Mar;69(3):886-93
pubmed: 2061258
Reprod Fertil Dev. 2013;25(3):531-8
pubmed: 23464500
J Anim Sci. 1996 Mar;74(3):620-4
pubmed: 8707720
J Anim Sci. 1997 Apr;75(4):1063-70
pubmed: 9110221
Animal. 2016 Jul;10(7):1192-9
pubmed: 26891961
J Reprod Fertil. 1997 May;110(1):99-106
pubmed: 9227363
Reproduction. 2003 Jul;126(1):61-71
pubmed: 12814348
Biol Reprod. 1985 Oct;33(3):679-89
pubmed: 3931712
Anim Reprod Sci. 2014 Aug;148(3-4):130-6
pubmed: 24974187
Anim Reprod Sci. 2010 Jun;119(3-4):258-64
pubmed: 20223607
J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 1990;40:251-60
pubmed: 2192042
Animal. 2014 Feb;8(2):293-9
pubmed: 24284005
Anim Reprod Sci. 2019 Jun;205:70-77
pubmed: 31010717