Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:34:40.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of virginiamycin supplementation in sow diets on the reproductive performance of the gilt/sow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. G. Monetti ,
M. Tassinari ,
G. Vignola ,
L. Maculan  and
M. P. Read
P. G. Monetti
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Morfofisiologia Veterinaria e Produzioni Animali, Universita di Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia — BO, Italy
M. Tassinari
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Morfofisiologia Veterinaria e Produzioni Animali, Universita di Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia — BO, Italy
G. Vignola
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Morfofisiologia Veterinaria e Produzioni Animali, Universita di Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia — BO, Italy
L. Maculan
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Morfofisiologia Veterinaria e Produzioni Animali, Universita di Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia — BO, Italy
M. P. Read
Affiliation:
Pfizer Limited, Sandwich, Kent CT13 9NJ
Get access

Abstract

This trial investigated the effects of virginiamycin on sow and litter performance. Virginiamycin was added to the sow diet during the period of gestation and lactation at the levels of0, 40 and 60 mg/kg, throughout two breeding cycles. Virginiamycin did not significantly affect sow weight change during gestation or lactation, or litter size and weight; there were no significant effects on food consumption (P > 0·05). However, when added at a level of 40 mgl kg virginiamycin tended to produce a better condition of sows which resulted in a significant reduction of replacement rate (P < 0·05), even though the proportion of gilts culled in the treated and untreated groups was high. The most evident result was a significantly shorter weaning-to-conception interval for the virginiamycin group at the end of the second reproductive cycle (first period, 5·9 days less than the control group, 2·5 days less than the 60 mg/kg group; second period, -9·5 days v. control group, P < 0·05, and -7·1 days v. 60 mg/kg group, P < 0·05), allowing a numerical improvement in productivity. Piglet performance was not significantly improved by the use of virginiamycin even though there was an evident trend in favour of the 40 mg/kg group which presented a higher proportion of heavier piglets (P < 0·05) and a reduction of pre-weaning mortality. A significant quadratic regression was found for weaning-to-conception interval and numeric productivity, indicating that the dosage more efficient to improve these parameters was 32 mg/kg. The results obtained in the virginiamycin 60 group were generally inferior to those of the 40 mg/kg group and also to the control group and seem to demonstrate that the 60 mg/kg dosage was too high.

Keywords

growth promoterslitter performancesowsvirginiamycin
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 231 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Bane, D. P., Bevill, R. F. and Hall, W. F. 1990. Effects of salinomycin on sow weight change during lactation and on sow reproductive performance. Proceedings of 11th IPVS congress, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1–5 July, p. 375.Google Scholar
Curran, M., Lean, I., Edge, M., Hawkey-Smith, C. and Read, M. P. 1994. The effect of virginiamycin on sow and litter performance. Proceedings of 13th IPVS congress, Bangkok, Thailand, 26–30 June, p. 290.Google Scholar
Decuypere, J. A., Dierick, J. A., Vervaeke, I. J. and Henderickx, H. K. 1991. Influence of virginiamycin on the digestive physiology in precaecal re-entrant cannulated pigs Archives ofAnimal Nutrition 41: 373–393.Google ScholarPubMed
Dierick, J. A., Vervaeke, I. J., Decuypere, J. A. and Henderickx, H. K. 1986. Influence of the gut flora and of some growth-promoting feed additives on nitrogen metabolism in pigs. I. Studies in vitro. Livestock Production Science 14: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, P., Smith, W. and McLean, A. 1984. The sow: improving her efficiency. Farming Press Ltd, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Haydon, K. D. and Hale, O. M. 1988. Effect of lasalocid on reproductive performance and subsequent lactation in the sow Journal ofAnimal Science 66: 1877–1884.Google ScholarPubMed
Holzgraefe, D. P., Jensen, A. H., Fahey, Jr. G. C. and Grummer, R. R. 1986. Effect of dietary alfalfa-orchardgrass hay and lasalocid on sow reproductive performance Journal ofAnimal Science 62: 1145–1153.Google ScholarPubMed
Hsu, F. S., Chen, H. W., Wung, S. C., Luchsinger, J. H. and Fang, W. S. 1980. Effects of lincomycin on reproductive performance of sows Journal of the Chinese Society of Veterinary Science 6: 71–76.Google Scholar
Ilori, J. O. 1984. The effect of different proportions of protein and antibiotic in the diet on reproductive performance of indigenous pigs in Nigeria Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102: 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, A., Jorgensen, H. and Fernandez, J. A. 1985. The influence of virginiamycin on the ileal and faecal digestibility of nutrients in differently composed diets and the utilization of digestible crude protein and energy. Proceedings of third international seminar on digestive physiology in the pig, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16·18 May, 292–295.Google Scholar
King, R. H. and Williams, I. H. 1984a. Feeding level during lactation, and between weaning and mating. Animal Production 38: 241–247.Google Scholar
King, R. H. and Williams, I. H. 1984b. Protein and energy intakes during lactation. Animal Production 38: 249–256.Google Scholar
Kyriakis, S. C., Vassilopoulos, V., Demade, I., Kissels, W. and Polizopoulou, Z. 1990a. The effect of virginiamycin (VM) on sow performance. Proceedings of 11th IPVS congress, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1–5 July, p. 349.Google Scholar
Kyriakis, S. C., Vassilopoulos, V., Demade, I., Kissels, W. and Polizopoulou, Z. 1990b. The effect of virginiamycin (VM) on litter performance. Proceedings of 11th IPVS congress, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1–5 July, p. 360.Google Scholar
Kyriakis, S. C., Vassilopoulos, V., Demade, I., Kissels, W., Polizopoulou, Z. and Milner, C. K. 1992. The effect of virginiamycin on sow and litter performance Animal Production 55: 431–436.Google Scholar
Mayrose, V. B., Speer, V. C., McCall, J. T. and Hays, V. W. 1962. Effect of an antibiotic and protein source on swine reproduction Journal of Animal Science 21: 1005 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Nelssen, J. L., Lewis, A. J., Peo, Jr. E. R. and Crenshaw, J. D. 1985. Effect of dietary energy intake during lactation on performance of primiparous sows and their litters. Journal ofAnimal Science 61: 1164–1171.Google ScholarPubMed
Ravindran, V., Kornegay, E. T. and Webb, Jr. K. E. 1984. Effects of fiber and virginiamycin on nutrient absorption, nutrient retention and rate of passage in growing swine. Journal of Animal Science 59: 400–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vervaeke, I. J., Decuypere, J. A., Dierick, N. A. and Henderickx, H. K. 1979. Quantitative in vitro evaluation of energy metabolism influenced by virginiamycin and spiramycin used as growth promoters in pig nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 49: 846–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar