Feed restriction and type of forage influence performance and behaviour of outdoor gestating sows

• Published in: Animal (Cambridge, England) England), 2021-10, Vol.15 (10), p.100346-100346, Article 100346
• Main Authors: Aubé, L., Guay, F., Bergeron, R., Bélanger, G., Tremblay, G.F., Edwards, S.A., Guy, J.H., Devillers, N.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Body condition; Grazing; Hay; Life Sciences; Pasture; Sus scrofa
• ISSN: 1751-7311; 1751-732X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100346

Forages can contribute to the nutrient supply for sows but the extent to which they can replace concentrate feeding is not well known. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of level of feed restriction and type of forage on the performance and activity of gestating sows under outdoor conditions. A total of 45 sows were distributed among three treatments, with five replicates of three sows/treatment, from week 5 of gestation until farrowing. Treatments differed in the daily level of concentrate feed provided and the type of forage offered during gestation: 90% of metabolisable energy (ME) requirements provided by concentrates and free access to a pasture (P90); 40% of ME requirements provided by concentrates and free access to a pasture (P40); and 40% of ME requirements provided by concentrates and free access to a bare paddock with hay ad libitum (H40). From farrowing to weaning (5 weeks), concentrate feed was offered to all sows ad libitum. Body weight and backfat thickness (BF) were measured seven times during gestation and lactation. Postures of sows and time spent in the pasture were assessed at the beginning, middle and end of gestation. Forage intake was estimated with a method based on sow performance using the InraPorc® model. At farrowing, P90 sows were heavier and had greater BF than P40 and H40 sows. At weaning, P90 sows maintained a higher BW and tended to have greater BF than H40 sows, but no longer differed from P40 sows. Treatments did not influence litter size, but piglets from P40 sows were lighter at birth than those from P90 sows (1.44 vs. 1.69 kg, P = 0.004). In late gestation, P90 sows spent less time standing over 24 h and less time in the pasture during daytime than P40 sows, suggesting less foraging behaviour. Sows fed concentrates to meet 40% of ME requirements during gestation did not consume enough forage to maintain the same body condition as sows fed at 90% of ME requirements. Despite their inability to fully compensate for concentrate restriction during gestation by consuming more forage, P40 sows reached a similar body condition to P90 sows at weaning. In conclusion, forage intake for outdoor gestating sows can compensate a concentrate feed reduction of 10% and possibly more, but not as much as 60%.