Table 4.
Linoleic acid, % | 2.1 | 2.7 | 3.3 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
α-Linolenic acid, % | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.45 | ||
Item1 | Controlc | SEM | |||||||||
Sows weaned, n | 24 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 22 | 24 | 23 | |
Sows bred: weaned, % | 91.7 | 87.6 | 96.0 | 95.7 | 87.0 | 87.5 | 100.0 | 86.4 | 95.8 | 87.5 | 5.7 |
Wean-to-estrus interval,2 d | 4.6e | 5.0e | 4.1de | 3.7d | 4.4de | 4.3de | 4.6e | 4.2de | 4.0de | 3.8d | 0.1 |
Farrowing rate,3 % | 79.2de | 74.9e | 75.8e | 95.7d | 87.3de | 83.7de | 95.9d | 86.8de | 83.6de | 87.4de | 7.2 |
Culling rate,4 % | 16.7de | 25.0e | 25.0e | 4.3d | 13.0de | 16.7de | 4.2d | 13.6de | 4.3d | 13.0de | 6.0 |
aModified from [48]
bDiets supplemented to lactation sows were isocaloric and contained 4 % added lipids obtained by blending canola, corn and flaxseed oils
1Supplemental linoleic × α-linolenic acid interactions were not detected for any of the variables (P > 0.10)
cControl diet was calculated to contain 1.3 % linoleic and 0.07 % α-linoleic acid from diet ingredients
2Linear tendency for supplemental α-linolenic acid (linear P = 0.098, lack of fit P = 0.699)
3Proportion of sows farrowed: weaned; linear tendency for supplemental α-linolenic acid (linear P = 0.080, lack of fit P = 0.100)
4Proportion of cull sows: weaned; linear tendency for supplemental α-linolenic acid (linear P = 0.079, lack of fit P = 0.662)
d,eWithin a row, estimated means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05)