English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The U.S. Pork Industry uses a one-phase lactation feeding program based on logistical constraints and ease. The objective of this experiment was to quantify the sow performance differences between a one-phase and two-phase lactation feeding program to allow pork producers to calculate the economics of switching to a two-phase lactation feeding program. 257 gilts and sows (PIC 1050; Hendersonville, TN) were randomly assigned to a two-phase or one-phase lactation feeding program. Animals on the one-phase treatment were fed a typical lactation diet (2.55 Mcal/kg NE, 12.7% NDF, 0.99% SID Lys) for the duration of the experiment. Animals on the two-phase treatment were fed a high-fiber, lower-lysine transition diet (2.35 Mcal/kg NE, 18.5% NDF, 0.65% SID Lys) from the time they were loaded into the farrowing room until switching to the lactation diet on d 3 post-farrowing. From loading to farrowing, animals on both treatments were fed 1.82 kg/d, split between 2 meals at 630 and 1530 h. Daily feed amount was increased on the farrowing day and the 2 subsequent days (2.73, 4.09, 5.45 kg) until allowed ad libitum access to the lactation feed for both treatment groups on the third day after farrowing. Data were analyzed using Proc MIXED (SAS 9.4; Cary, NC) with treatment as the main effect and sow as the experimental unit. Comparing treatments, no significant differences on total born (one-phase = 16.2 vs. two-phase = 16.0, pigs/litter), live born (one-phase = 14.6 vs. two-phase = 14.4, pigs/litter), stillborn rate (one-phase = 8.1% vs. two-phase = 7.4%), number weaned (one-phase = 12.1 vs. two-phase = 11.9, pigs/litter), or weaning weight (one-phase = 5.67 vs. two-phase = 5.71, kg/pig; P ≥ 0.37) were detected. In conclusion, a two-phase lactation feeding program did not impair sow performance can be utilized to reduce lactation feed costs by $0.42/female/lactation cycle.

120 Impact of a Two-phase Lactation Feeding Program on Farrowing and Weaning Performance of Sows