Animal sciences, zootechny, veterinary medicine, Sciences animales, zootechnie, médecine vétérinaire, Sciences biologiques et medicales, Biological and medical sciences, Sciences biologiques fondamentales et appliquees. Psychologie, Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology, Productions animales, Animal productions, Productions animales terrestres, Terrestrial animal productions, Vertébrés, Vertebrates, Animal à viande, Meat animals, Animales de carne, Animal élevage, Farming animal, Animal cría, Artiodactyla, Mammalia, Ungulata, Vertebrata, Alimentation animale, Animal feeding, Alimentación animal, Femelle, Female, Hembra, Lactation, Lactación, Performance, Rendimiento, Porc, Pig, Cerdo, Tétée, Suckling, Mamada, creep feeding, lactation feeding level, and suckling pig
A total of 84 sows (PIC Line 1050) were blocked according to day of farrowing and parity and allotted in a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments with lactation feed intake (ad libitum vs. restricted) and creep feeding (no vs. yes) as factors. Sows fed for ad libitum intake (ad libitum-fed) were allowed free access to a common lactation diet (3,503 kcal of ME/kg, 0.97% standardized ileal digestible Lys), and sows with restricted intake (restricted-fed) were fed 25% less than ad libitum-fed sows. A creep diet (3,495 ME/kg, 1.56% standardized ileal digestible Lys) with 1.0% chromic oxide was offered to creep-fed pigs from d 3 to 21. Fecal samples from creep-fed pigs were taken with sterile swabs on d 7, 14, and 21, and color was assessed to categorize pigs as eaters or non-eaters. There were no interactions (P > 0.15) between lactation feed intake and creep feeding. Ad libitum-fed sows had greater (P < 0.01) total feed intake and ADFI (99.4, 4.9 kg) than restricted-fed sows (67.9, 3.6 kg). Ad libitum-fed sows had reduced BW loss (-15 vs. -24 kg; P < 0.01), improved total (46.7 vs. 43.0 kg; P < 0.04) and daily (2.56 vs. 2.36 kg; P < 0.04) BW gains of litters, and increased (90 vs. 71%; P < 0.03) percentage of sows returning to estrus by d 14 compared with restricted-fed sows. Creep feeding for 18 d did not affect (P > 0.34) sow BW and backfat loss but increased days to estrus (5.4 vs. 4.9 d; P < 0.03). Creep feeding had no (P > 0.16) effect on preweaning growth performance. Postweaning performance of creep-fed and non-creep-fed pigs was similar (P > 0.86). When individual pigs were categorized on the basis of creep feed consumption category, eaters had greater (P < 0.05) ADG (393, 376, and 378 g) and total BW gains (11.0, 10.5, and 10.6 kg) than non-eaters or non-creep-fed pigs. In conclusion, creep feeding for 18 d did not affect preweaning and lactating sow performance. Low feed intake during lactation negatively affected sow and litter performance. Creating more creep-feed eaters during the lactation period may benefit postweaning performance. Therefore, dietary and nondietary factors that can enhance the proportion of eaters in litters should be investigated.