|
楼主 |
发表于 2017-11-10 11:49:52
|
显示全部楼层
Measurements
Two consecutive parities of each female were studied. All sows that began the trial farrowed a second time. Body weights of gilts and sows were recorded at the beginning and end of lactation. Parameters recorded or calculated included body weight loss during the first lactation, P2 backfat thickness at the beginning and end of lactation, backfat loss, average daily feed intake of gilts and sows, total born piglets, piglets born alive, stillborn piglets, litter weight at birth, litter weight at weaning, weaned piglets per gilt or sow, weaning-to-estrus interval, and lactation duration. The following parameters were recorded for the second studied parity: total born piglets, piglets born alive, stillborn piglets, and weaned piglets per sow.
Gilts and sows were weighed on a digital mobile scale with a range of 0 to 300 kg, accurate to 0.1 kg, and litters were weighed on a digital mobile scale with a range of 0 to 30 kg, accurate to 0.1 kg. Backfat thickness at P2 for gilts and sows was measured with an A-mode ultrasonic instrument (Renco Lean-Meater series 12; Renco, Minneapolis, Minnesota).
Colostrum and milk sample collection
The quality of colostrum and milk was assessed for each female in the study. Samples were collected from all sows and gilts on the day of farrowing (Day 0) and on Day 13. Sows and gilts were injected intramuscularly with 20 IU of oxytocin and were hand milked. A total of 50 mL of colostrum and 50 mL of milk were collected in sterile polypropylene tubes and immediately frozen and stored at -20oC until analysis.
Colostrum and milk analysis
Colostrum and milk samples were analyzed at the Laboratory of the Food Technology Department of the Veterinary School in the University of Murcia. Parameters analyzed included fat, protein, lactose, non-fat solids, total solids, and freezing point using a Milkoscan FT6000 (Foss, Hillerød, Denmark) and somatic cell count using a Fossomatic FC (Foss).
Methyl-donating compounds content was analyzed in the laboratory of Danisco Kantvik (Kantvik, Finland). The compounds analyzed were methionine, carnitine, betaine, and creatine plus creatinine using a YSI 2700 SELECT Biochemistry Analyzer (YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs, Ohio).
Fatty acid composition of milk was analyzed in the Chemical Analysis Service of the University Autonoma of Barcelona (Spain) using a gas chromatography system (6890 Agilent with FID detector; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, California) and using as standard a Supelco 37 FAME mix (Sigma-Aldrich, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania). The fatty acids analyzed were butyric, caproic, caprylic, capric, undecanoic, lauric, tridecanoic, myristic, myristoleic, pentadecanoic, cis-10-pentadecenoic, palmitic, palmitoleic, heptadecanoic, cis-10-heptadecenoic, stearic, elaidic, oleic, cis-vaccenic, linolelaidic, linoleic, arachidic, gamma-linolenic, cis-11-eicosenoic, linolenic, heneicosanoic, cis-11, 14-eicosadienoic, behenic, cis-8, 11, 14-eicosatrienoic, erucic, cis-11, 14, 17-eicosatrienoic, arachidonic, tricosanoic, cis-5, 8, 11, 14, 17-eicosapentaenoic, cis-13, 16-docosadienoic, lignoceric, nervonic, and cis-4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19-docosahexaenoic. Results were expressed as percentages of the total fatty acid content.
Calculations and statistical analysis
Production data were subjected to a multifactorial analysis of variance (MANOVA) in SPSS version 14 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois). A power study showed that a sample size of 18 females would have 90% power to detect a difference of 0.5 piglets born alive at α = .05. For breeders, the following model was used:
Yijklm = Ti + Pj + BWLk + P2l + (Ti × Pj)ij + (Ti × BWLk)ik + (Ti × P2l)il + (Pj × BWLk)jk + (Pj × P2 l)jl + Eijklm
Where Yijklm = general mean
i = treatments (Betaine and Control)
j = parity (gilts and sows)
k = body-weight loss during suckling
l = P2 backfat thickness (ultrasound)
ij = treatment × parity interaction
ik = treatment × body-weight loss during lactation interaction
il = treatment × P2 backfat thickness interaction
jk = parity × body-weight loss during lactation interaction
jl = parity × P2 backfat thickness interaction
Eijklm = error
For piglets, the following model was used:
Yijkl = Ti + Pj + LWk + (Ti × Pj)ij + (Ti × LWk)ik + (Opj + LWk)jk + Eijkl,
where Yijk = general mean
i = treatments (Betaine and Control)
j = parity (gilts and sows)
k = litter weight
ij = treatment × parity interaction
ik = treatment × litter weight interaction
jk = parity × litter weight interaction
Eijkl = error
Data for milk and colostrum quality were analyzed using an ANOVA in SPSS version 14. For all analyses, P < .05 was considered significant.
Results
Performance of females and litters
At the beginning of lactation in the first studied parity, weight averaged 219 ± 9.1 kg and 223 ± 11.4 kg in gilts in the Control and Betaine groups, respectively, and P2 backfat thickness averaged 18 ± 1.6 mm and 21.1 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. In multiparous sows, weight averaged 246 ± 5.4 kg and 245 ± 5.2 kg for the Control and Betaine groups, respectively, and P2 backfat thickness averaged 20.5 ± 0.9 mm and 19.4 ± 0.4 mm, respectively. These parameters did not differ between treatment groups (P > .05). Body-weight loss and backfat loss during lactation did not differ (P > .05) either by treatment group or by parity group (gilt or sow) (Table 2). Average daily feed intake was lower in the Betaine group than in the Control group (Table 2), but there was no difference between gilts and sows in either group (P > .05). The maximum difference in average daily intake was observed in gilts (5.20 ± 0.17 and 6.31 ± 0.77 for Betaine and Control groups, respectively; P < .001).
|
|