effects of dietary energy intake during gestation and lactation on milk yield and composition of...

Effects of dietary energy intake during gestation andlactation on milk yield and composition of first, secondand fourth parity sows

MANFRED BEYER1, WERNER JENTSCH1, SIEGFRIED KUHLA1,

HILDEGARD WITTENBURG1, FRED KREIENBRING1,

HELMUT SCHOLZE1, PAUL E. RUDOLPH2, & CORNELIA C. METGES1

1Research Units Nutritional Physiology ‘‘Oskar Kellner’’, and 2Genetics and Biometry,

Research Institute for the Biology of Farm Animals (FBN), Dummerstorf, Germany

(Received 28 March 2007; accepted 5 July 2007)

AbstractIn order to determine the effects of a varied level of dietary energy intake during pregnancy and lactationon milk yield and composition, first, second and fourth parity sows (Large White6German Landrace)were provided with energy at a level of either: (i) 100% of ME requirement (MEreq) during pregnancyand lactation, (ii) 120% MEreq during pregnancy and 80% during lactation, and (iii) 80% MEreqduring pregnancy and 120% during lactation. In spite of equal target levels feed analysis revealed thatgestating first parity sows with 120/80 treatment combination and lactating sows of 80/120 treatmentcombination received 25, and 11 – 17% more digestible N than in the respective 100/100 treatmentcombination. Irrespective of this 120/80 sows responded with the highest milk DM, fat, and energycontents, and the lowest lactose concentrations whereas protein levels where not affected, irrespective ofparity (p5 0.05). Milk yield of sows in 1st and 4th lactation was 85 and 106% of that in 2nd lactation,respectively. Average milk composition was 18.1% DM, 4.9% protein, 6.8% fat, 5.6% lactose, and 0.8%ash. Milk composition changes ceased at day 7 of lactation with a reduction of milk GE and protein,and an increase of lactose content. Concentrations of threonine, arginine, valine, leucine, tyrosine,phenylalanine, cystine, and tryptophan, as well as stearic, oleic, and linoleic acid were higher incolostrum than in milk at later lactation stages. In contrast, laurine, myristic, palmitic, and palmitoleicacids were lower concentrated in colostrum. In conclusion, these results illustrate the importance ofbody reserve mobilization for milk production in sows and indicate that low energy supply duringgestation cannot be compensated by higher energy supply during lactation.

Keywords: Pigs, milk performance, milk composition, amino acids, fatty acids

1. Introduction

Nutrient intake during gestation and lactation affects milk yield and composition which is vital

to the survival of newborns and the number of weaned piglets. During early lactation, body

Correspondence: Dr Cornelia C. Metges, Research Unit Nutritional Physiology ‘‘Oskar Kellner’’, Research Institute for the Biology

of Farm Animals (FBN), D 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany. Tel: þ49 38208 68651. Fax: þ49 38208 68 693.

E-mail: [email protected]

Archives of Animal Nutrition

December 2007; 61(6): 452 – 468

ISSN 1745-039X print/ISSN 1477-2817 online ª 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17450390701563433

reserves are major determinants of milk yield, but later in lactation, the feed intake of sows

becomes important since body reserves are largely exhausted. Defining nutrient requirements

using the factorial approach in the context of diverse genetic and environmental conditions

requires factorial estimates. These include growth of the conceptus and reproductive tissues,

maternal growth, and milk output. To date several studies on the effects of supplemental fat,

protein and specific amino acids in lactating sows are available (Jackson et al. 1995; Dourmad

et al. 1998; Tilton et al. 1999; Moser et al. 2000). Also different dietary energy and protein

intakes during gestation have been investigated (Noblet & Etienne 1986; Kusina et al. 1999;

Cooper et al. 2001; Clowes et al. 2003a, 2003b). However, most of the reports address

nutrient effects during either gestation or lactation but provide no information on the

interaction of energy supply levels provided during gestation and lactation, and subsequent

effects on maternal and litter growth and milk production.

We have earlier reported effects of different energy supply levels during gestation and

lactation on body composition of sows (Beyer et al. 1993a) considering also the growth of

conceptus and reproductive tissues (Beyer et al. 1993b, 1994a), on energy and nitrogen

metabolism of pregnant (Beyer et al. 1994b) and lactating sows (Beyer 1986) and on litter

weight gain (Jentsch et al. 1995) during suckling in 1st, 2nd, and 4th parity sows. We now

aimed to evaluate the effects of energy supply levels during gestation and lactation on milk

production and composition in sows of 1st, 2nd, and 4th parity.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental design, animals and diets

The experimental protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ministry of

Nutrition, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery, Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,

Germany.

Experiments were performed in 24 Large White6German Landrace crossbred sows (first

[n¼ 8], second [n¼ 7] and fourth [n¼ 9] parity). The experiment was conducted as a 3

(parities)6 3 (treatments) factorial arrangement. Starting at the day of insemination sows

were fed either 2.04, 1.71 or 2.26 kg DM/d of a barley-wheat diet providing either 100, 80 or

120% of ME requirement (MEreq) (25.3, 20.8, 30.2 MJ ME/d), respectively, during

gestation. After parturition sows within parity were randomly assigned to receive 4.25, 5.04 or

3.46 kg DM/d of a lactation diet (that supplied 100, 120 or 80% of MEreq (64.3, 75.7,

50.8 MJ ME/d), respectively (Table I). Together three different treatment groups were

formed with sows receiving: (i) 120% MEreq during gestation and 80% MEreq during

lactation, (ii) 80% MEreq during gestation and 120% MEreq during lactation, and (iii) 100%

MEreq during both periods.

With increasing energy supply the proportion of protein rich feedstuffs in the diets was

reduced and those with high starch content increased. As a consequence the diet at 80%

MEreq had the highest whereas the diet at 120% MEreq had the lowest protein content. This

was done to ensure an approximately equivalent protein intake meeting the requirements of

gestating and lactating sows in all treatment combination groups. However, analysis of actual

feed intake and feed composition revealed that in 1st parity sows of 120/80 group there was a

digestible N intake during gestation of about 125% as compared to the 100/100 treatment

group (Table III). Further, lactating sows ingested between 11 – 17% more digestible N

whereas during late gestation it was 88% in 4th parity sows of 80/120 treatment compared to

the respective 100/100 treatment group. To achieve satiation in gestating sows with 80%

MEreq the proportion of dried green fodder in the diet was increased.

Milk yield and composition in sows 453

Age of sows at parturition in first, second, and fourth parity was 409+ 14, 551+ 21, and

893+ 35 d, respectively. The BW at insemination, day 1 and 28 of lactation period are

presented in Table II.

Estrous cycle of sows was synchronized by 500 IU human chorionic gonadotropin

(Choriolutin, Albrecht, Aulendorf, Germany). On day 112 of gestation sows were moved to

farrowing crates with slatted steel floors (1.86 0.7 m) and a rubber-bedded area

(1.86 0.7 m) for piglets on each side of the crate. Sows were induced to farrow by

prostaglandin (175 mg Cloprostenol PGF; Veyx-Pharma GmbH, Schwarzenborn, Germany)

injected on day 114 of gestation. Farrowing occurred within 24 h of injection. Piglets were

allowed to huddle in compartments separate from mothers with hourly access to suckle (see

below) and housed at environmental temperatures of 28 – 328C. Litter size was standardized

Table I. Ingredients and composition of pregnancy and lactation diets of sows.

Dietary energy supply level [%]

Gestation day 1 – 84 Gestation day 85 – 115 Lactation

120 100 80 120 100 80 120 100 80

Ingredients

Barley [g/kg DM] 845 686 601 911 792 728 387 468 568

Wheat [g/kg DM] 425 308 128

Dried green fodder [g/kg DM] 127 275 329 39 130 162

Fish meal [g/kg DM] 17 27 55 29 54 81 77 92 142

Dried skim milk [g/kg DM] 97 116 142

Vitamins* [g/kg DM] 11 12 15 21 24 29 14 16 20

Minerals{ [g/(sow �d)] 35 35 35 40 40 40 70 70 70

Analyzed concentrations per kg DM

Crude protein [g] 138 146 160 148 155 172 205 211 254

Ether extract [g] 29 22 24 28 23 25 22 25 27

Crude fibre [g] 83 111 115 63 76 82 32 33 38

N-free extract [g] 713 669 643 724 703 674 699 688 628

Lysine [g] 5.5 5.4 7.6 6.8 7.1 9.7 11.4 12.1 16.4

Methionineþ cystine [g] 4.8 4.4 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.2 7.6 7.9 9.7

GE [MJ] 18.5 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.5 18.6 18.5 18.6 18.7

ME [MJ] 13.3 12.0 11.9 13.5 13.3 13.0 15.1 15.1 14.7

*Vitamin mixture, per kg DM: A, 444000 IU; D3, 44000 IU; E, 2000 mg; B1, 5.6 mg; B2, 2.1 mg; B6, 3.6 mg; B12,

13 mg; niacin, 69 mg; choline, 1160 mg. {Mineral mixture, per kg DM: Ca, 292 g; P, 35 g; Na, 57 g; Mn, 730 mg;

Zn, 2170 mg.

Table II. Body weights of sows in parities 1, 2 and 4 (Means+SD, n¼number of animals).

Dietary energy supply (gestation/lactation) [%]

Parity No. 1 Parity No. 2 Parity No. 4

120/80 100/100 80/120 120/80 100/100 80/120 120/80 100/100 80/120

n¼ 3 n¼2 n¼ 3 n¼2 n¼3 n¼ 2 n¼3 n¼ 3 n¼ 3

Body weight [kg]

Insemination 124+10 115+8 111+7 130+12 129+7 138+11 148+16 160+13 158+12

First lactation

day

166+7 143+10 127+11 170+2 172+9 163+10 188+16 190+10 168+14

End of lactation 149+12 139+9 134+8 154+7 157+14 160+3 177+19 183+10 175+13

454 M. Beyer et al.

at birth to 10 piglets/litter during first and second lactation and to 11 piglets/litter during

fourth lactation.

The sows were fed twice daily at 07:00 and 15:00 h, 50% of the daily ration each time. The

feed was moistened with water in the trough. Feed spillage was collected, of which DM and

nutrients were analysed and considered for the calculation of nutrient intake. Water was

provided ad libitum and water intake was measured. The piglets were suckled only by the sows

and received no additional feed until weaning (age 28 d).

The energy and nutrient supply during gestation occurred in two levels (gestation days

1 – 84 and 85 – 115). During late gestation (day 85 – 115) energy and nutrient supply was

increased according to sow requirement. Feed intake of lactating sows in the 3 treatment

groups was averaged from day 3 – 28 of lactation (Table III). During the first and second day

of lactation the sows were fed only 50% of the ration to allow adaptation from the lower feed

amount during pregnancy (1.6 – 2.6 kg DM/d) to the higher quantities (3.3 – 5.2 kg DM/d)

during lactation.

Energy digestibility of the diets for lactating sows ranged from 83.4+ 2.0 to 84.4+ 1.8%.

Digestibility of organic matter was 1.8 – 2.3% units higher than energy digestibility. Protein

digestibility was between 84.6+ 3.1 and 86.0+ 2.8%. Metabolizable energy corresponded to

79.0 – 81.5% gross energy (GE) (Beyer 1986; Beyer et al. 1994b, 1995).

2.2. Standardized suckling and milk sampling

Milk production of the sows was measured by weighing the litter before and after suckling

(weigh-suckle-weigh technique). Based on our unpublished observations and previous reports

on suckling-rhythm of the piglets (Spinka et al. 1997; Auldist et al. 2000), piglets were

allowed to suckle for 5 min once per hour for 24 h per day to avoid influences on milk

production (Auldist et al. 2000).

During the first 24 h of lactation, counting from the first piglet’s birth, three milk samples

(1 – 6 h; 7 – 12 h; 13 – 24 h) were obtained during labour-pains and suckling of new-born

piglets without oxytocin administration (Beyer 1986). Thereafter, one sample was taken after

i.m. application of 20 – 30 IU oxytocin four times a week at 10:00 h by hand-milking of four

people simultaneously. On average, the sample volumes corresponded to the suckled

quantity. This method could be used because sows’ milk composition during suckling and

milking is almost identical (Lenkeit & Gutte 1955; Brabant & Schulz 1968; Brabant et al.

1968; Schulz & Brabant 1969).

During suckling faecal and urinary losses as well as metabolic losses due to respiration,

transpiration and saliva occurred in the piglets. Losses of faeces and urine were recorded with

each weighing of the piglets and urine losses were considered to correct milk production

according to Equation 1.

y ¼ 3:6þ 10:53x RSD ¼ 12:1 R2 ¼ 0:637 n ¼ 144 ð1Þ

where y is urine loss in g per piglet, and x the body weight of piglet in kg.

Metabolic losses were measured in separate model experiments by means of suckling

without milk intake (blind suckling according to Lenkeit & Gutte 1955) and considered to

correct milk production according to Equation 2.

y ¼ 0:69þ 0:805x RSD ¼ 0:62 R2 ¼ 0:776 n ¼ 31 ð2Þ

where y is metabolic loss in g per piglet, and x the body weight of piglets in kg.


Tab

leII

I.D

ieta

ryin

take

of

sow

sd

uri

ng

ges

tati

on

and

lact

atio

nin

par

itie

s1

,2

and

4(V

alu

esar

em

ean

san

dm

ean

s+S

D,

n¼

nu

mb

ero

fan

imal

s).

Die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

(ges

tati

on

/lac

tati

on

)[%

]

Par

ity

No

.1

Par

ity

No

.2

Par

ity

No

.4

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

n¼

3n¼

2n¼

3n¼

2n¼

3n¼

2n¼

3n¼

3n¼

3

DM

[g/(

sow�d

)]

Ges

tati

on

day

1–

84

20

10

18

20

15

10

23

40

21

60

18

10

224

02

08

01

74

0

Ges

tati

on

day

85

–1

15

22

50

19

50

16

20

25

60

22

20

18

40

247

02

14

01

76

0

Lac

tati

on

33

47

41

05

48

05

35

13

43

20

51

70

351

84

32

05

16

3

ME

[MJ/

(so

w�d

)]

Ges

tati

on

day

1–

84

26

.5+

1.2

21

.1+

1.3

17

.0+

1.1

30

.3+

2.1

26

.3+

1.0

22

.7+

1.2

30

.8+

0.7

25

.6+

0.8

20

.8+

0.7

Ges

tati

on

day

85

–1

15

29

.5+

1.2

25

.8+

0.7

20

.3+

0.5

33

.1+

1.1

28

.9+

1.5

24

.4+

1.1

35

.7+

0.6

29

.5+

1.3

23

.0+

0.4

Lac

tati

on

47

.5+

1.5

62

.1+

0.6

71

.6+

1.3

50

.1+

0.4

63

.4+

0.6

77

.4+

0.5

54

.9+

0.4

67

.4+

0.6

78

.0+

1.3

Dig

esti

ble

N[g

/(so

w�d

)]

Ges

tati

on

day

1–

84

33

.0+

1.9

25

.8+

1.8

23

.5+

1.8

35

.0+

2.0

32

.2+

2.1

32

.7+

1.8

32

.9+

0.8

30

.9+

1.7

30

.9+

1.3

Ges

tati

on

day

85

–1

15

40

.9+

2.0

32

.6+

1.7

33

.0+

1.0

42

.4+

2.2

40

.0+

2.6

37

.9+

1.8

39

.8+

1.0

38

.8+

1.8

34

.3+

0.8

Lac

tati

on

118

.6+

3.1

11

9.2+

2.6

13

4.1+

4.2

12

3.5+

0.4

12

1.8+

2.7

14

2.8+

2.6

11

9.2+

1.0

12

3.3+

1.5

13

6.3+

2.5

456 M. Beyer et al.

Total mean losses amounted to 15.8% (4.5% urine, 11.3% metabolism) of the sows’ milk

production.

In order to determine whether there was an effect of piglet handling on milk production as

compared with free access to the sow ADG of the piglets was compared (Beyer 1986). During

measurement of milk production ADG of piglets amounted to 151 g/d which contrasted to

174 g/d when piglets had free access to the sow. The differences were 9%, 12% and 5% in the

first, second and fourth lactation, respectively. Handling reduced the calculated milk

production of sows by 8% (p5 0.05).

Milk yield data were corrected for metabolic, urinary and faecal losses during suckling as

well as for negative effects of piglet and sow handling on milk production.

2.3. Chemical analyses of feed and milk samples

Dry matter (DM), crude protein, ether extract, crude fibre, and crude ash contents

were determined according to the Weender standard procedure (Naumann & Bassler

1988). The GE was measured with a bomb calorimeter (Berthelot-Maler-Krocker).

Milk samples were analysed for DM, ash, protein, fat and lactose. Lactose was analysed in

fresh milk (Wiessmann & Nehring 1951). The other analyses were done in dried milk.

Samples were lyophilized combined with the estimation of DM. Ash was estimated

according to Mumm (1970). N content was estimated using the Kjeldahl method and

CP was derived from N � 6.25. Fat was measured by the Soxhlet method after

HCl-treatment.

Amino acids were quantified by an automatic analyser (AAA 881, Microtechna Prague,

Czech Republic) using internal standard calibration. Milk samples were hydrolyzed with HCl

(6 mol/l at 1358C for 2 h) in an autoclave. Due to acid hydrolysis glutamine and asparagine

were converted to glutamic and aspartic acid, respectively. Thus, glutamic and aspartic acid

concentrations represent the sum of glutamine and glutamic acid, as well as asparagine and

aspartic acid, respectively. The sulphurous amino acids, methionine and cystine, were

analyzed as methionine sulfone and cysteic acid after performic acid oxidation. Tryptophan

was analysed microbiologically (Lactobacillus plantarum) after 2 h hydrolysis of the sample

with NaOH, 4 mol/l at 1358C.

Fatty acids composition in milk fat was determined by gas chromatography (GCHF

18.3 – 4, Chromatron, Berlin, Germany) with a heat conductivity detector. Aliquots of milk

were extracted by an ether-alcohol and petrolether mixture to isolate neutral lipids. Fatty acid

methyl esters were generated using methanolic KOH. Fatty acids were separated on a column

filled with porolith 0.2 – 0.3 mmþ 10% hard wax RS (3 m, 4 mm i.d.).

2.4. Statistics

Experimental units were 24 singly fed lactating sows of first (n¼ 8), second (n¼ 7), and fourth

parity (n¼ 9), assigned to three variants of energy supply levels (80, 100 and 120% of

recommendation). Amino acid and fatty acid content in pooled milk of sows during the

course of lactation, and effects of parity number and energy supply during gestation and

lactation on milk yield, milk composition, amino acid contents, and fatty acid contents were

analysed by one-factorial (time period during course of lactation) or two-factorial analyses

(energy supply level and parity number) of variance with only fixed factors using the GLM

procedure of the SAS system, version 9.1.3. (2004). If the F-tests were significant (p5 0.05),

differences were evaluated with multiple t-tests (LSD). Results are presented as means+SD

or LSM.


3. Results

3.1. Effects of parity number and energy supply level on milk composition

The DM, fat and GE contents of milk were affected by parity number, treatment and

interaction (p5 0.05) (Table IV). Lactose concentration was affected by parity number and

treatment. Milk fat concentration was highest and milk lactose concentration was lowest in all

parities analysed when the dietary energy level provided in pregnancy and lactation was 120

and 80%, respectively. Milk GE and fat concentrations were lower in 4th as compared to 1st

parity.

Histidine, arginine and leucine concentrations were highest when 120 and 80% energy was

provided in pregnancy and lactation, respectively, and lowest when energy supply was 80/

120% (Table V). Tyrosine and threonine content were found lowest in 80/120% energy

supply. For all AA contents with the exception of threonine, glutamic acid, methienine and

tryptophan, an interaction between parity number and energy supply was observed. In parity

4 histidine content of milk protein was lowest and Ile content was highest.

With the exception of palmitoleic acid, concentrations of all fatty acids measured were

affected by the interaction between parity number and treatment (Table VI). Palmitic

and palmitoleic acid concentrations increased from 120/80 to 80/120% whereas stearic

acid and oleic acid decreased. Lauric acid was lowest in parity 1 and highest in parity 4.

In parity 4 palmitoleic and linoleic acid were of highest concentration whereas oleic acid was

lowest.

3.2. Effects of parity number and energy supply level on milk performance

Considering the milk quantity produced, milk yield, and milk protein, lactose, and GE output

increased from 1st to 4th lactation (Table VII). With the exception of 2nd parity milk fat,

protein and GE output throughout lactation were lower when energy supplied during

pregnancy was 80% MEreq. Within parities 1 and 4 lactose output was independent of the

energy level supplied.

Related to milk performance of parity 2 milk yield, milk DM, GE, protein, fat and lactose

output was about 15% lower in parity 1. Milk performance in 4th lactation was about 6%

higher than in 2nd lactation except for 5% lower fat performance.

3.3. Milk composition during the course of lactation

Parity number and energy supply level influenced the pooled milk composition (Table IV),

but the course of alterations of milk composition throughout lactation was similar in all

parities. Thus, data of all 3 parities and all 3 treatments investigated were pooled. The largest

change of milk composition occurred within the first three days of lactation during transition

of colostrum to normal milk (Table VIII). Average composition of normal milk (lactation day

8 to 28) amounted to 181+ 8 g DM, 49+ 2 g protein, 68+ 9 g fat, 56+ 3 g lactose,

8+ 1 g ash and 4.8+ 0.3 MJ GE per kg milk.

Milk protein concentration was reduced by 50% at lactation day 3 as compared to lactation

day 1 due to immunoglobulin excretion, whereas lactose concentration increased from 34 g/

kg on lactation day 1 to 56 g/kg at weaning. The fat content increased from the first 12 h of

lactation to lactation day 2, later on fat content decreased slightly. The DM content decreased

from 240 g/kg until lactation day 7 to 75% of the starting value and then remained

approximately on this level. Similarly, GE content decreased from 6.2 – 4.9 MJ/kg until

lactation day 8 and did further change only slightly until end of lactation.

458 M. Beyer et al.

Tab

leIV

.E

ffec

tso

fp

arit

yn

o.

and

die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

leve

ld

uri

ng

ges

tati

on

and

lact

atio

no

nso

ws’

po

ole

dm

ilk

com

po

siti

on

fro

mla

ctat

ion

day

s1

–2

8(V

alu

esar

eL

SM

,

n¼

nu

mb

ero

fsa

mp

les)

.

Die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

(ges

tati

on

/lac

tati

on

)[%

]

Par

ity

No

.1

Par

ity

No

.2

Par

ity

No

.4

120

/80

10

0/1

00

80

/12

01

20

/80

10

0/1

00

80

/12

01

20

/80

100

/10

080

/12

0p-v

alu

e

n¼

84

n¼

56

n¼

84

n¼

56

n¼

84

n¼

56

n¼

84

n¼

84

n¼

84

RM

SE{

P{

E{

P6

E

DM

[g/k

g]

19

4aA

18

6b

A1

81

bB

18

9A

B1

85

A1

87

A1

87

aB

176

cB

18

2b

AB

15

50

.00

15

0.0

01

0.0

1

Pro

tein

[g/k

g]

56

55

53

58

55

53

55

56

55

18

0.7

10

.23

0.8

3

Fat

[g/k

g]

78

aA

71

bA

66

cB

73

aB

69

bA

74

aA

71

aB

59

cB

65

bB

85

0.0

01

50

.00

15

0.0

01

Lac

tose

[g/k

g]

52

b5

3b

B5

5aA

51

b5

3aB

53

aB

53

b5

5ab

A5

5aA

65

0.0

01

50

.00

10

.37

GE

[MJ/

kg]

5.3

aA

5.0

bA

4.8

cB

5.1

aB

4.9

bA

5.0

ab

A5

.0aB

4.6

cB

4.7

bB

45

0.0

01

50

.00

15

0.0

01

{ RM

SE¼

Ro

ot

mea

nsq

uar

eer

ror;

{ P¼

Par

ity

no

.;{ E¼

En

ergy

sup

ply

;a,b

,cV

alu

esw

ith

inp

arit

yn

o.

wit

hd

iffe

ren

tsu

per

scri

pts

dif

fer

sign

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

);A

,BV

alu

es

wit

hin

ener

gy

sup

ply

leve

lw

ith

dif

fere

nt

sup

ersc

rip

tca

pit

alle

tter

sd

iffe

rsi

gn

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

).


Tab

leV

.E

ffec

tso

fp

arit

yn

o.

and

die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

leve

ld

uri

ng

ges

tati

on

and

lact

atio

no

nso

ws’

po

ole

dm

ilk

amin

oac

ids

com

po

siti

on

fro

mla

ctat

ion

day

s1

to2

8

(Val

ues

are

LS

M,

n¼

nu

mb

ero

fsa

mp

les)

.

Die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

(ges

tati

on

/lac

tati

on

)[%

]

Par

ity

No

.1

Par

ity

No

.2

*P

arit

yN

o.

4

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

080

/12

0p-v

alu

e

n¼

11x

n¼

12

n¼

12

n¼

9n¼

13

n¼

12

n¼

11

n¼

12

RM

SE{

P{

E{

P6

E

Am

ino

aci

ds

[g/1

6g

N]

Lys

ine

7.6

aA

7.3

ab

7.0

bB

7.5

AB

7.7

A7

.2b

B7

.2b

7.6

aA

0.4

0.0

90

0.7

15

0.0

01

His

tid

ine

3.3

ab

AB

3.5

aA

3.3

bB

3.6

A3

.6A

3.1

aB

2.9

aB

2.7

bC

0.3

50

.001

0.0

21

0.0

48

Arg

inin

e4

.9aB

5.1

aA

4.5

bB

5.0

B5

.0A

5.6

aA

4.6

bB

4.9

bA

0.4

0.0

55

50

.00

15

0.0

01

Asp

arti

cac

id8

.8b

B9

.7aA

8.6

bB

9.9

A9

.4A

9.8

aA

8.2

cB

8.8

bB

0.6

50

.001

0.0

01

50

.00

1

Th

reo

nin

e4

.5B

5.0

4.3

B5.4

A5

.1A

5.3

aA

B5

.4a

4.4

bA

B0

.90

.004

0.0

08

0.6

9

Ser

ine

5.4

bC

6.1

aA

5.2

bB

6.6

A6

.1A

5.9

aB

5.3

bB

5.4

ab

B0

.75

0.0

01

0.0

20

0.0

15

Glu

tam

icac

id2

0.5

21

.41

9.8

20.8

20

.42

0.8

20

.320

.61

.90

.90

0.4

10

.38

Pro

lin

e1

0.9

bB

12

.4aA

10

.8b

B1

2.1

A1

2.2

A1

2.4

aA

10

.9b

B11

.2b

AB

1.3

0.0

51

0.2

70

.00

1

Gly

cin

e3

.4b

B4

.1aA

3.5

bB

4.0

A3

.9A

3.9

aA

3.2

cB

3.4

bB

0.3

50

.001

0.0

11

50

.00

1

Ala

nin

e3

.8b

B4

.5aA

3.8

bB

4.7

A4

.5A

4.2

aA

B3

.7b

B3

.8b

B0

.55

0.0

01

0.0

79

50

.00

1

Val

ine

5.7

B6

.2A

5.5

6.6

A6

.06

.3aA

B5

.3b

B5

.4b

0.8

0.0

19

0.0

21

0.0

46

Iso

leu

cin

e3

.9B

3.9

3.7

B4.0

B4

.0A

4.4

aA

3.9

b4

.1b

A0

.35

0.0

01

0.0

51

0.0

06

Leu

cin

e9

.3ab

B9

.7aA

9.0

b1

0.1

aA

9.4

b1

0.1

aA

9.1

bB

9.3

b0

.70

.18

0.0

04

0.0

09

Tyr

osi

ne

3.7

B4

.1A

3.7

B4.6

A4

.2A

4.8

aA

3.6

bB

3.6

bB

0.5

0.0

02

50

.00

15

0.0

01

Ph

enyl

alan

ine

4.4

B4

.5A

4.3

4.8

A4

.55

.0aA

4.2

bB

4.3

b0

.40

.13

50

.00

15

0.0

01

Cys

tin

e1

.6B

1.7

A1

.5A

B1.8

A1

.7A

1.6

aA

B1

.4b

B1

.5ab

B0

.20

.002

0.3

50

.04

3

Met

hio

nin

e1

.71

.81

.71.7

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

0.2

0.8

40

.84

0.3

1

Try

pto

ph

an1

.41

.21

.41.5

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.4

0.2

0.3

00

.30

0.1

2

*F

or

ener

gy

leve

l1

00

/100

inp

arit

y2

no

.d

ata

are

avai

lab

le;{ R

MS

E¼

Ro

ot

mea

nsq

uar

eer

ror;

{ P¼

Par

ity

no

.;{ E¼

En

ergy

sup

ply

;a,b

,cV

alu

esw

ith

inp

arit

yn

o.

wit

h

dif

fere

nt

sup

ersc

rip

tsd

iffe

rsi

gn

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

);A

,BV

alu

esw

ith

inen

ergy

sup

ply

leve

lw

ith

dif

fere

nt

sup

ersc

rip

tca

pit

alle

tter

sd

iffe

rsi

gn

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

).

460 M. Beyer et al.

Tab

leV

I.E

ffec

tso

fp

arit

yn

o.

and

die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

leve

ld

uri

ng

ges

tati

on

and

lact

atio

no

nso

ws’

po

ole

dm

ilk

fatt

yac

ids

com

po

siti

on

fro

mla

ctat

ion

day

s1

–2

8(V

alu

es

are

LS

M,

n¼

nu

mb

ero

fsa

mp

les)

.

Die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

(ges

tati

on

/lac

tati

on

)[%

]

Par

ity

No

.1

Par

ity

No

.2

*P

arit

yN

o.

4

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

p-v

alu

e

n¼

33

n¼

29

n¼

30

n¼

32

n¼

10

n¼

38

n¼

41

n¼

42

RM

SE{

P{

E{

P6

E

Fatt

yaci

ds

[%o

fto

tal

fatt

yac

ids]x

Cap

ric

acid

10:0k

0.4

cC

1.0

a0

.8b

B1

.1aA

0.6

bB

0.8

bB

0.9

ab

1.0

aA

0.3

50

.00

15

0.0

01

50

.00

1

Lau

ric

acid

12:0

0.5

bC

0.7

aB

0.7

aB

0.7

aB

0.5

bC

0.8

A0

.8A

0.8

A0

.25

0.0

01

0.2

35

0.0

01

Myr

isti

cac

id

14:0

4.1

bB

5.1

aA

5.0

a4

.2B

4.4

5.2

aA

4.6

bB

5.0

ab

1.0

0.0

16

0.3

05

0.0

01

Pal

mit

icac

id

16:0

31

.9b

AB

36

.8aA

35

.1aA

B3

0.7

B3

2.5

B3

3.1

bA

34

.6b

B3

5.5

aA

3.8

0.0

11

50

.00

10

.04

6

Pal

mit

ole

icac

id

16:1

12

.0cB

14

.6b

B17

.9a

11

.3b

B1

6.0

a1

3.7

bA

16

.4aA

17

.8a

3.5

0.0

03

50

.00

10

.38

Ste

aric

acid

18:0

4.8

aA

3.8

bB

3.7

b4

.4A

B3

.94

.2ab

B4

.4aA

3.8

b1

.00

.96

50

.00

10

.00

5

Ole

icac

id

18:1

n-9

38

.5aA

30

.3b

A28

.7b

B4

0.0

aA

35

.1b

A3

2.4

aB

27

.6b

B2

8.5

bB

4.8

50

.00

15

0.0

01

0.0

04

Lin

ole

icac

id

18:2

n-6

8.0

B7

.9B

8.3

7.8

B7

.19

.9aA

11

.1aA

7.8

b3

.15

0.0

01

0.0

29

0.0

06

*F

or

ener

gy

sup

ply

leve

l1

00

/10

0in

par

ity

2fa

tty

no

.d

ata

are

avai

lab

le;{ R

MS

E¼

Ro

ot

mea

nsq

uar

eer

ror.

{ P¼

Par

ity

no

.;{ E¼

En

ergy

sup

ply

;x C

apri

cac

idan

dla

uri

cac

id:

n¼

29

,2

7,

26

,2

9,

9,

35

,3

5an

d3

8,

resp

ecti

vely

;k C

4,

C6

and

C8

incl

ud

ed;

a,b

,cV

alu

esw

ith

inp

arit

yn

o.

wit

hd

iffe

ren

tsu

per

scri

pts

dif

fer

sign

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

);A

,BV

alu

es

wit

hin

ener

gy

sup

ply

leve

lw

ith

dif

fere

nt

sup

ersc

rip

tca

pit

alle

tter

sd

iffe

rsi

gn

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

).


Tab

leV

II.

Eff

ects

of

par

ity

no

.an

dd

ieta

ryen

ergy

sup

ply

leve

ld

uri

ng

ges

tati

on

and

lact

atio

no

nd

aily

milk

per

form

ance

of

sow

s(l

acta

tio

nd

ay1

–2

8)

(Val

ues

are

LS

M,

n¼

nu

mb

ero

fsa

mp

les)

.

Die

tary

ener

gy

sup

ply

(ges

tati

on

/lac

tati

on

)[%

]

Par

ity

No

.1

Par

ity

No

.2

Par

ity

No

.4

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

08

0/1

20

12

0/8

01

00

/10

080

/12

0p-v

alu

e

n¼

84

n¼

56

n¼

84

n¼

56

n¼

84

n¼

56

n¼

84

n¼

84

n¼

84

RM

SE{

P{

E{

P6

E

Milk

[kg]

6.6

3aB

6.1

4ab

C5

.64

bC

6.7

3b

B7

.11

bB

8.1

7aA

7.7

3A

7.9

0A

7.5

4B

1.8

45

0.0

01

0.8

75

0.0

01

DM

[g]

12

70

aB

11

18

bB

101

4cC

12

55

bB

12

93

bA

15

08

aA

14

29

A1

37

2A

13

51

B3

08

50

.00

10

.16

50

.00

1

Pro

tein

[g]

34

9aB

31

6b

B2

82

cB

36

1b

B3

68

bB

403

aA

40

3aA

41

7aA

388

bA

66

50

.00

10

.08

50

.00

1

Fat

[g]

518

aA

B4

25

bB

371

cC

49

0b

B4

89

bA

607

aA

54

7aA

45

8b

AB

48

3b

B1

30

50

.00

15

0.0

01

50

.00

1

Lac

tose

[g]

34

9B

32

9C

31

5B

35

2b

B3

85

bB

439

aA

42

0A

44

3A

424

A1

18

50

.00

10

.24

50

.00

1

GE

[MJ]

34.6

aB

29.6

bB

26

.8cC

33

.7b

B3

4.1

bA

40

.1aA

38

.2aA

35.5

bA

35

.1b

B8.3

50

.00

15

0.0

15

0.0

01

{ RM

SE¼

Ro

ot

mea

nsq

uar

eer

ror;

{ P¼

Par

ity

no

.;{ E¼

En

ergy

sup

ply

;a,b

,cV

alu

esw

ith

inp

arit

yn

o.

wit

hd

iffe

ren

tsu

per

scri

pts

dif

fer

sign

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

);A

,B,C

Val

ues

wit

hin

ener

gy

sup

ply

leve

lw

ith

dif

fere

nt

sup

ersc

rip

tca

pit

alle

tter

sd

iffe

rsi

gn

ifica

ntl

y(p

50

.05

).

462 M. Beyer et al.

Alterations of amino acid contents occurred during transition from the colostrum period

(lactation day 1 – 3) to the remainder of the lactation period (Table IX). The contents of Glu,

Pro, and methienine were higher in normal milk than in colostrum. Arginine, threonine,

serine, glycine, alanine, valine, leucine, tyrosine, phenylalanine, cystine, and tryptophan had a

higher concentration in colostrum than in normal milk.

During the first three lactation days the content of C18-fatty acids of milk fat was high

(62%), especially that of linoleic acid (Table X). During the course of lactation the content of

C18-fatty acids decreased to 42% and that of C16-fatty acids increased from 35 – 52%.

The sum of saturated C4, C6 and C8 fatty acids amounted to 0.3%, the total concentration of

Table VIII. Pooled milk composition of sows at lactation days 1 – 28 (Means + SD, n¼number of samples).

Lactation days

1* 2 3 4 – 7 8 – 14 15 – 21 22 – 28

Overall

mean

n¼ 24 n¼24 n¼ 24 n¼ 96 n¼168 n¼ 168 n¼ 168 n¼ 672

DM [g/kg] 242+2a 210+18b 196+12c 185+12d 183+9d 180+7e 179+7e 185+16

Protein [g/kg] 137+7a 84+18b 66+7c 55+5d 49+3e 49+2e 50+2e 55+18

Fat [g/kg] 63+4d 79+17a 75+12a 70+10bc 71+9b 68+8c 66+8d 69+10

Lactose [g/kg] 34+1f 40+5e 47+4d 52+4c 55+3b 56+2a 56+2a 53+6

Ash [g/kg] 7+0f 7+1de 8+1ab 8+1a 7+1cd 7+1be 8+1a 7+1

GE [MJ/kg] 6.2+0.1a 5.7+0.7b 5.3+0.5c 4.9+0.5d 4.9+0.4d 4.8+0.3e 4.7+0.3e 4.9+0.5

*Calculated for 12 h. Means+SD with different superscripts differ significantly (p5 0.05).

Table IX. Amino acid concentration in pooled milk of sows at lactation days 1 – 3, 4 – 7, and 8 – 28 (Means+SD,

n¼number of samples).

Lactation days

1 – 3 4 – 7 8 – 28

RMSE* p-valuen¼ 34 n¼15 n¼ 43

Amino acids [g/16 g N]

Lysine 7.3+ 0.4 7.3+0.6 7.5+ 0.4 0.4 0.425

Histidine 3.2+ 0.5 3.2+0.3 3.3+ 0.4 0.4 0.345

Arginine 5.1+ 0.5a 4.8+0.5b 4.8+ 0.4b 0.5 0.013

Aspartic acid 9.4+ 0.9 9.0+0.9 9.0+ 0.7 0.8 0.120

Threonine 5.7+ 1.1a 4.6+0.5b 4.4+ 0.5b 0.8 50.001

Serine 6.2+ 1.0a 5.4+0.5b 5.4+ 0.5b 0.7 50.001

Glutamic acid 18.9+ 1.6b 21.2+1.4a 21.6+ 1.2a 1.4 50.001

Proline 10.6+ 1.3b 12.0+1.0a 12.3+ 1.1a 1.2 50.001

Glycine 3.8+ 0.5a 3.5+0.3b 3.6+ 0.3b 0.4 0.056

Alanine 4.5+ 0.6a 4.0+0.5b 3.8+ 0.4b 0.5 50.001

Valine 6.6+ 1.0a 5.4+0.5b 5.4+ 0.4b 0.7 50.001

Isoleucine 3.9+ 0.4 4.0+0.3 4.0+ 0.3 0.4 0.220

Leucine 9.9+ 0.9a 9.2+0.6b 9.3+ 0.6b 0.7 50.001

Tyrosine 4.5+ 0.6a 3.8+0.4b 3.7+ 0.5b 0.6 50.001

Phenylalanine 4.8+ 0.5a 4.3+0.3b 4.3+ 0.3b 0.4 50.001

Cystine 1.8+ 0.3a 1.5+0.1b 1.5+ 0.1b 0.2 50.001

Methionine 1.6+ 0.1b 1.8+0.2a 1.8+ 0.1a 0.1 50.001

Tryptophan 1.6+ 0.2a 1.3+0.1b 1.3+ 0.1b 0.1 50.001

Means+SD with different superscripts differ significantly at p50.05; *RMSE¼Root mean square error.


chain lengths C11, C13, C15, C17 and C19 was 1.6%, whereas C20:0 (n-eicosanoic acid)

represented 1% of total fatty acids.

3.4. Milk performance during the course of lactation

Daily milk yield was two times higher shortly before weaning as compared to lactation day 2

(Table XI). Milk energy, fat, and lactose output increased 1.6-, 1.7- and 2.8-fold,

respectively, during lactation compared to lactation day 2. Milk protein output decreased

by 12% from lactation day 2 – 3 and then increased by 30% until the end of lactation.

Table X. Fatty acid concentration in pooled milk of sows at lactation days 1 – 3, 4 – 7, and 8 – 28 (Means+SD,

n¼number of samples).

Lactation days

1 – 3 4 – 7 8 – 28

RMSE# p-valuen¼32* n¼ 36 n¼187

Fatty acids [% of total fatty acids]

Capric acid 10:0{ 0.6+0.2 0.8+ 0.3 0.9+0.3 0.3 0.185

Lauric acid 12:0 0.5+0.2b 0.7+ 0.2a 0.7+0.2a 0.2 0.030

Myristic acid 14:0 2.6+0.7b 5.1+ 1.0a 5.0+0.7a 0.8 50.001

Palmitic acid 16:0 27.0+1.5c 32.7+ 3.1b 35.3+3.4a 3.2 50.001

Palmitoleic acid 16:1 8.3+2.5b 16.2+ 3.7a 15.9+3.4a 3.3 50.001

Stearic acid 18:0 6.1+1.0a 4.1+ 0.8b 3.8+0.6c 0.7 50.001

Oleic acid 18:1n-9 39.8+4.3a 32.4+ 6.0b 30.8+6.1b 5.9 50.001

Linoleic acid 18:2n-6 16.0+4.3a 8.2+ 1.5b 7.6+1.1b 1.9 50.001

*Capric acid n¼ 5, lauric acid n¼5; {C4, C6 and C8 included. Means+SD with different superscripts differ

significantly (p5 0.05); #RMSE¼Root mean square error.

Table XI. Daily milk performance of sows at lactation days 1 – 28 (Means+SD, n¼number of samples).

Lactation days

1* 2 3 4 – 7 8 – 14 15 – 21 22 – 28

n¼24 n¼ 24 n¼ 24 n¼96 n¼ 168 n¼168 n¼168

Milk yield [kg] 2.02e 4.09d 4.64d 5.96c 7.28b 7.94a 8.11a

+0.44 +0.95 +1.15 +1.52 +1.49 +1.39 +1.33

DM [g] 488e 859d 900d 1094c 1328b 1433a 1451a

+109 +216 +197 +552 +270 +258 +239

Protein [g] 279f 346cd 304ef 326de 358c 386b 402a

+68 +121 +81 +75 +66 +65 +68

Fat [g] 127e 320d 344d 412c 516b 543a 532a,b

+26 +92 +79 +99 +121 +120 +104

Lactose [g] 69f 163e 214d 310c 401b 445a 454a

+15 +41 +50 +85 +91 +83 +82

GE [MJ] 12.6e 23.2d 24.1d 29.0c 35.4b 37.9a 38.2a

+2.8 +6.0 +5.1 +6.6 +7.4 +7.1 +6.4

*Calculated for 12 h. Means+SD with different superscripts differ significantly (p5 0.05).

464 M. Beyer et al.

4. Discussion

The main focus of the present study was to investigate the interaction of energy supply levels

in gestation and lactation diets on the pooled milk composition (day 1 – 28 of lactation) of 1st,

2nd, and 4th parity sows. However, it turned out that 1st parity sows supplied with 120%

MEreq throughout gestation and 80% MEreq in lactation had also an about 25% higher

protein intake as compared to the 100/100 treatment group. In spite of this the 120/80

treatment group responded with the highest milk DM, fat, and energy contents, and the

lowest lactose concentrations whereas protein was unaltered which was irrespective of parity.

These observations illustrate the importance of body reserve mobilization for milk

production, and especially for the fat and energy content, in sows. This suggests that at

least in the first parity a suboptimal gestation energy intake can not be ameliorated by an

energy level 20% above the requirement.

Oleic acid is the highest concentrated fatty acids in sow fat (Den Hartog et al. 1987; Tilton

et al. 1999). Oleic acid had the highest concentration in milk fat of sows in the 120/80

treatment combination group, probably indicating that it was directly derived from lipolysis of

previously stored fat (Table VI). In contrast, C16 fatty acids were of lower concentration in

this treatment group. Palmitic acid and its desaturated derivative palmitoleic acid are the first

products of de novo fatty acid synthesis, and stored in fat depots (Lehninger 2001). In the 80/

120 treatment group the C16 fatty acids were of higher concentration compared to the C18

fatty acids which suggests that a larger portion of C16 milk fatty acids were either newly

synthesized due to the higher lactation diet energy level or directly incorporated from dietary

fat. This interpretation is supported by the finding that only sows in this treatment group

gained weight between parturition and weaning (4 kg BW), and thus probably synthesize fat,

whereas on average 15 – 9 kg BW was lost in the other sow groups. Since sow diets were

barley and wheat based the dominant dietary fatty acids are C16:0 (18%), C18:1 (16%), and

C18:2 (57%) (Muller et al. 2003; Certik et al. 2006).

Piglet growth of sows in the 120/80 treatment combination in this study was about 15%

higher and directly associated with the 10 – 20% higher energy and nutrient output in the milk

as compared to the other treatments (Jentsch et al. 1995). Van den Brand et al. (2000) also

reported a higher piglet growth due to a higher milk fat content. Growth rate of piglets can be

affected by many reasons, and could also be partially caused by the higher daily milk

performance of the sows, which was however only true for sows of parities 1 and 4 (Table VII).

Furthermore, the piglets birth weight in the 120/80 treatment group was higher than in the 80/

120 group (1.40 vs. 1.21 kg; p5 0.05; unpublished observation) which could be related with

the higher growth rate in the first group. In addition, another reason could be the higher

histidine, arginine, leucine, and phenylalanine in the milk of sows fed 120% and 80% of

recommended energy level in gestation and lactation, respectively (Table V). Possibly, the

deficit of energy supply during lactation caused an increase in proteolysis of body protein

resulting in a shift of milk AA pattern. It has been shown earlier that arginine and histidine

requirements of neonatal piglets are high and that piglet growth rate may be limited by the

arginine supply with sow’s milk (Wu et al. 2004).

It has been previously demonstrated that the body condition of the sow at parturition and

during lactation plays a role for milk composition. Revell et al. (1998) reported a 20% higher

fat content in milk of sows with a high body fat content as compared to lean sows which is in

line with our results. The lower milk fat content in 4th parity sows agreed with the 20% lower

body fat content of these sows as compared to sows in first and second parities (Beyer et al.

1993a). The 4th parity sows had a higher milk protein yield compared to the other groups

(Table VII) which is in contrast to a report by Revell et al. (1998) showing a 12% lower milk

protein concentration in fatter sows compared to lean sows.


In previous studies with comparable feeding levels moderate differences in dietary energy

supply as investigated in the present study did not lead to differences in milk production

(Clowes et al. 1998; Dourmad et al. 1998; McNamara & Pettigrew 2002). This could be

related to the comparably small number of investigated sows per group and thus allows only

very cautious conclusions. Only larger differences in dietary intake levels during lactation, i.e.

1.5- to 2.5-fold, led to significant differences in milk production or milk composition

(Verstegen et al. 1985; Noblet & Etienne 1986, 1987; Clowes et al. 1998). However, the

addition of 10% fat to the diet of lactating sows (corresponding to an increase of about 20%

energy intake) increased the milk fat content by 15 – 28% and the milk yield by 13 – 15%

(Johnston et al. 1986; Shurson et al. 1986; Schoenherr et al. 1989; Jackson et al. 1995;

Averette et al. 1999). Diets containing raw soybeans and soybean oil compared to soybean

meal increased the milk fat content by 7% und 10%, respectively (Yen et al. 1991).

Compared to the 2nd parity milk yield as well as energy and nutrient output of 1st parity

sows was 15% lower whereas 4th parity sows had a 6% higher milk yield and a 7 and 10%

higher protein and lactose output. An increase of milk yield with increasing parity numbers

has been observed earlier (Vanschoubroek 1965) but could be also partly due to the

stimulating effect of 11 as compared to 10 piglets in the litter (Kim & Easter 2001).

During the first few hours after parturition lactating sows produced colostrum characterized

by very high protein, i.e. immunoglobulins, and rather low fat and lactose concentrations on

the first day of lactation (Table VIII). Protein concentration is reduced by about 40% from

first to second day of lactation, and by more than 50% until the third day. The largest

alterations of AA and fatty acid composition in milk occur during the first three lactation days.

In this period AA with highest concentrations are arginine, threonine, leucine, valine,

phenylalanine, cystine, and trypthophan. Among fatty acids the very high linoleic acid content

is striking and emphasizes the importance of polyunsaturated fatty acids for neonatal

development (Danfaer 1999; Lauridsen & Danielsen 2004). In the remainder of the lactation

period the changes are comparably moderate, with the exception of the further increasing

concentration of palmitic acid suggesting a continued exhaustion of body fat stores. The

transition from colostrum to normal milk was completed at the end of the first lactation week

in line with results of literature (Csapo et al. 1995a, 1995b; Bee 2000; Tuchscherer et al.

2006). Milk yield as well as energy and protein output, however, further increases until

weaning and puts a considerable drain on the body reserves of the sow.

5. Conclusions

In view of the small animal numbers in each treatment6 parity group, we cautiously

conclude that at the 120% dietary energy supply level during gestation which was associated

with a 25% higher protein intake in first parity sows as compared to the other treatments, sows

produced milk with a higher energy and fat content as well as a higher energy and nutrient

output when compared to the 80% and 100% dietary energy supply level. This was positively

related to the growth rate of piglets as reported earlier (Jentsch et al. 1995). In view of the milk

yield, a lower energy supply during gestation cannot be compensated by a higher energy

intake during lactation. Sows with limited body fat stores also produce milk with a lower fat

and energy content.

References

Auldist DE, Carlson D, Morrish L, Wakeford CM, King RH. 2000. The influence of suckling interval on milk

production of sows. J Anim Sci 78:2026 – 2031.

466 M. Beyer et al.

Averette LA, Odle J, Monaco MH, Donovan SM. 1999. Dietary fat during pregnancy and lactation increases milk fat

and insulin-like growth factor I concentrations and improves neonatal growth rates in swine. J Nutr 129:2123 –

2129.

Bee G. 2000. Dietary conjugated linoleic acids alter adipose tissue and milk lipids of pregnant and lactating sows.

J Nutr 130:2292 – 2298.

Beyer M. 1986. Untersuchungen zum Energie- und Stoffumsatz von graviden und laktierenden Sauen sowie

Saugferkeln - ein Beitrag zur Prazisierung des Energie- und Proteinbedarfs. Diss. B., Akademie der

Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR, Berlin.

Beyer M, Jentsch W, Hoffmann L, Schiemann R. 1993a. Untersuchungen zum Energie- und Stickstoffumsatz von

graviden und laktierenden Sauen sowie von Saugferkeln. 2. Mitteilung – Chemische Zusammensetzung und

Energiegehalt der Tierkorper von graviden, gusten und laktierenden Sauen. Arch Anim Nutr 44:317 – 338.

Beyer M, Jentsch W, Hoffmann L, Schiemann R. 1993b. Untersuchungen zum Energie- und Stickstoffumsatz von

graviden und laktierenden Sauen sowie von Saugferkeln. 3. Mitteilung – Chemische Zusammensetzung und

Energiegehalt von Tierkorperfraktionen sowie Anteile der Tierkorperfraktionen am Leerkorper von gusten,

graviden, und laktierenden Sauen. Arch Anim Nutr 45:13 – 34.

Beyer M, Jentsch W, Hoffmann L, Schiemann R, Klein M. 1994a. Untersuchungen zum Energie- und

Stickstoffumsatz von graviden und laktierenden Sauen sowie von Saugferkeln. 4. Mitteilung – Chemische

Zusammensetzung und Energiegehalt der Konzeptionsprodukte, der reproduktiven Organe und der

Lebendmassezunahmen oder –abnahmen bei graviden und laktierenden Sauen. Arch Anim Nutr 46:7 – 36.

Beyer M, Jentsch W, Hoffmann L, Schiemann R. 1994b. Untersuchungen zum Energie- und Stickstoffumsatz von

graviden und laktierenden Sauen sowie von Saugferkeln. 5. Mitteilung – Energie- und Stickstoffumsatz von

graviden Sauen. Arch Anim Nutr 46:173 – 206.

Beyer M, Jentsch W, Hoffmann L, Schiemann R. 1995. Untersuchungen zum Energie- und Stickstoffumsatz von

graviden und laktierenden Sauen sowie von Saugferkeln. 6. Mitteilung – Vergleichende Energie- und

Stickstoffumsatzmessungen an gusten und graviden Sauen. Arch Anim Nutr 47:187 – 217.

Brabant W, Schulz J. 1968. Beitrage zur Physiologie und Pathologie der Laktation des Schweines. II. Untersuchung

von Sauenmilch aus einzelnen Drusenabteilungen. Fortpflanzung, Besamung und Aufzucht der Haustiere

4:89 – 97.

Brabant W, Schulz J, Schobel R, Lagel E. 1968. Beitrage zur Physiologie und Pathologie der Laktation des Schweines.

I. Untersuchungen zur Sauenmilch. Fortpflanzung, Besamung und Aufzucht der Haustiere 4:60 – 71.

Certik M, Slavikova L, Masrnova S, Sajbidor J. 2006. Enhancement of nutritional value of cereals with g-linolenic

acid by fungal solid-state fermentations. Food Technol Biotechnl 44:75 – 82.

Clowes EJ, Williams IH, Baracos VE, Pluske R, Cegielski AC, Zak LJ, Aherne FX. 1998. Feeding lactating

primiparous sows to establish three divergent metabolic states: II. Effect on nitrogen partitioning and skeletal

muscle composition. J Anim Sci 76:1154 – 1164.

Clowes EJ, Aherne FX, Foxcroft GR, Baracos VE. 2003a. Selective protein loss in lactating sows is associated with

reduced litter growth and ovarian function. J Anim Sci 81:753 – 764.

Clowes EJ, Aherne FX, Schaefer AL, Foxcroft GR, Baracos VE. 2003b. Parturition body size and body protein

loss during lactation influence performance during lactation and ovarian function at weaning in first-parity sows.

J Anim Sci 81:1517 – 1528.

Cooper DR, Patience JF, Zijlstra RT, Rademacher M. 2001. Effect of energy and lysine intake in gestation on sow

performance. J Anim Sci 79:2367 – 2377.

Csapo J, Csapokiss Z, Martin TG, Hazas Z. 1995a. Composition of sows colostrum and milk. 1. Protein-content,

amino-acid-composition and biological value. Acta Alimentaria 24:133 – 144.

Csapo J, Csapokiss Z, Martin TG, Hazas Z. 1995b. Composition of sows colostrum and milk. 2. Fatty-acid com-

position, and contents of fat, vitamins and macroelement and microelements. Acta Alimentaria 24:145 – 159.

Danfaer A. 1999. Carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. In: Kyriazakis I, editor. A quantitative biology of the pig.

Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing. pp 333 – 362.

Den Hartog LA, Boer H, Bosch MW, Klaassen GJ, van der Stehen HAM. 1987. The effect of feeding level, stage of

lactation and method of milk sampling on the composition of milk (fat) in sows. J Anim Physiol a Anim Nutr

58:253 – 261.

Dourmad JY, Noblet J, Etienne M. 1998. Effect of protein and lysine supply on performance, nitrogen balance, and

body composition changes of sows during lactation. J Anim Sci 76:542 – 550.

Jackson JR, Hurley WL, Easter RA, Jensen AH, Odle J. 1995. Effects of induced or delayed parturition and

supplemental dietary fat on colostrum and milk composition in sows. J Anim Sci 73:1906 – 1913.

Jentsch W, Beyer M, Schiemann R, Hoffmann L. 1995. Untersuchungen zum Energie- und Stickstoffumsatz von

graviden und laktierenden Sauen sowie von Saugferkeln. 7. Mitteilung – Energie- und Stickstoffumsatz von

Saugferkeln. Arch Anim Nutr 47:319 – 344.


Johnston LJ, Orr DE Jr, Tribble LF, Clark JR. 1986. Effect of lactation and rebreeding phase energy intake on

promiparous and multiparous sow performance. J Anim Sci 63:804 – 814.

Kim SW, Easter RA. 2001. Nutrient mobilisation from body tissues as influenced by litter size in lactating sows.

J Anim Sci 79:2179 – 2186.

Kusina J, Pettigrew JE, Sower AF, White ME, Crooker BA, Hathaway MR. 1999. Effect of protein intake

during gestation and lactation on the lactational performance of primiparous sows. J Anim Sci 77:931 – 941.

Lauridsen C, Danielsen V. 2004. Lactational dietary fat levels and sources influence milk composition and

performance of sows and their progeny. Livest Prod Sci 91:95 – 105.

Lehninger AL. 2001. Biosynthese von Lipiden. In: Nelson D, Cox M, editors. Lehninger principles of biochemistry.

3rd ed., Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. pp 833 – 885.

Lenkeit W, Gutte JO. 1955. Langfristige Untersuchungen zum außeren und inneren Stoffwechsel des graviden und

laktierenden Schweines. 1. Mitt.: Allgemeine Angaben zur Versuchsmethodik. Z Tierphysiol. Tierernahrg und

Futtermittelkde 10:94 – 102.

McNamara JP, Pettigrew JE. 2002. Protein and fat utilization in lactating sows. I. Effects on milk production and

body composition. J Anim Sci 80:2442 – 2451.

Moser SA, Tokach MD, Dritz SS, Goodband RD, Nelssen JL, Loughmiller JA. 2000. The effects of branched-chain

amino acids on sow and litter performance. J Anim Sci 78:658 – 667.

Mumm H. 1970. Chemische Untersuchungsmethoden. In: Mumm H, Kynast S, Gussek KW, Kellermann R,

Wauschkuhn B, editors. Chemische physikalische und bakteriologische Untersuchungsverfahren fur Milch,

Milcherzeugnisse und Molkereihilfsstoffe. Neumann Verlag. p 48.

Muller S, Reichardt W, Hartung H, Eckert B. 2003. Analyse der Fettsaurenzusammensetzung des Rohfettes von

Pruffutter fur Schweine. Arch Tierz 46:273 – 276.

Naumann C, Bassler R. 1988. Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt.

Noblet J, Etienne M. 1986. Effect of energy level in lactating sows on yield and composition of milk and nutrient

balance of piglets. J Anim Sci 63:1888 – 1896.

Noblet J, Etienne M. 1987. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in lactating sows. J Anim

Sci 64:774 – 781.

Revell DK, Williams IH, Mullan BP, Ranford JL, Smits RJ. 1998. Body composition at farrowing and nutrition

during lactation affect the performance of primiparous sows: II. Milk composition, milk yield, and pig growth.

J Anim Sci 76:1738 – 1743.

SAS Institute Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Schoenherr WD, Stahly TS, Cromwell GL. 1989. The effects or dietary fat or fiber addition on yield and composition

of milk from sows housed in a warm or hot environment. J Anim Sci 67:482 – 495.

Schulz J, Brabant W. 1969. Beitrage zur Physiologie und Pathologie der Laktation des Schweines. III. Vergleichende

Untersuchungen von Fettgehalt und pH-Wert der Sauenmilch. Fortpflanzung, Besamung und Aufzucht der

Haustiere 5:156 – 165.

Shurson GC, Hogberg MG, DeFever N, Radecki SV, Miller ER. 1986. Effects of adding fat to the sow lactation diet

on lactation and rebreeding performance. J Anim Sci 62:672 – 680.

Spinka M, Illmann G, Algers B, Stethova Z. 1997. The role of nursing frequency in milk production in domestic pigs.

J Anim Sci 75:1223 – 1228.

Tilton SL, Miller PS, Lewis AJ, Reese DE, Ermer PM. 1999. Addition of fat to the diets of lactating sows: I. Effects on

milk production and composition and carcass composition of the litter at weaning. J Anim Sci 77:2491 – 2500.

Tuchscherer M, Puppe B, Tuchsherer A. 2006. Untersuchungen zum Einfluss der Zitzenposition auf ausgewahlte

Milchinhaltsstoffe von primiparen Sauen wahrend der Laktation. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 119:74 – 80.

Van den Brand H, Heetkamp MJ, Soede NM, Schrama JW, Kemp B. 2000. Energy balance of lactating primiparous

sows as affected by feeding level and dietary energy source. J Anim Sci 78:1520 – 1528.

Vanschoubroek F. 1965. Physiologische Grundlagen der Energie- und Eiweißernahrung saugender Sauen. Dt

Tierarztl Wochenschr Hannover 72:265 – 272.

Verstegen MWA, Mesu J, van Kempen GJM, Geerse C. 1985. Energy balances of lactating sows in relation to feeding

level and stage of lactation. J Anim Sci 60:731 – 740.

Wiessmann H, Nehring K. 1951. Agrikulturchemisches Praktikum. Paul Parey Verlag fur Landwirtschaft, Gartenbau

und Forstwesen, Berlin.

Wu G, Knabe DA, Mim SW. 2004. Arginine nutrition in neonatal pigs. J Nutr 134:2783 – 2790.

Yen JT, Cromwell GL, Allee GL, Calvert CC, Crenshaw TD, Miller R. 1991. Value of raw soybeans and soybean oil

supplementation in sow gestation and lactation diets: A cooperative study. J Anim Sci 69:656 – 663.

468 M. Beyer et al.

effects of dietary energy intake during gestation and lactation on milk yield and composition of...

Documents