Table 2.
Effects of dietary AMP or ADO on reproductive performance of sows1
| Item | CON | ADO | AMP | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of sows2 | 44 | 45 | 43 | |
| No. of total born piglets/litter | 10.8 ± 3.2 | 9.9 ± 1.7 | 10.8 ± 2.1 | 0.10 |
| No. of live-born piglets/litter | 10.0 ± 2.7 | 9.6 ± 1.8 | 10.2 ± 1.9 | 0.39 |
| Birth weight of litter, kg | 13.8 ± 3.7 | 14.3 ± 3.1 | 14.5 ± 2.3 | 0.51 |
| Birth weight of piglets, kg | 1.4 ± 0.2A | 1.5 ± 0.2B | 1.4 ± 0.2AB | <0.05 |
| Placental weight, kg | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.2 ± 0.5 | 0.21 |
| Rate of mummified fetus3, % | 1.3 (6) | 0.5 (2) | 0.7 (3) | 0.32 |
| Rate of weak piglets3, % | 0.7 (3) | 0.9 (4) | 2.3 (10) | 0.08 |
| No. of IUGR piglets/litter4 | 1.3 ± 1.2 | 0.6 ± 1.5 | 1.0 ± 1.6 | 0.09 |
Data are presented as means ± SD. Statistical significance was determined by MIXED procedure of SAS followed by TUKEY comparisons test.
During the experimental period, we eliminated the sows with serious lameness or reproductive failure such as non-pregnant in late gestation.
Rates of mummified fetuses, and weak piglets were calculated using chi square. Piglets with birth weight < 800 g were defined or recorded as born weak piglets.
Intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) was defined as birth weight below 2 standard deviations of average birthweight.
A–B, mean values with different large letters in the same row differ significantly at P < 0.05.