Table 2.

The effect of BCAA and Arg supplementation on the sow lactating diet regarding the sow’s performance traits

Item	Dieta				SEM	P-value
	CO	Arg	BCAA	BCAA + Arg		BCAA	Arg	BCAA × Arg
Sows (n)	17	17	17	17
Sow BW d −4, kg	302	302	301	292	7.89	0.925	0.977	0.584
Sow BW d 27, kgb	247	239	245	249	3.50	0.643	0.096	0.078
Sow ADG, kgc	−1.73	−1.95	−1.8	−1.62	0.14	0.741	0.280	0.171
Backfat loss, mmd	3.63	3.79	4.1	3.94	0.30	0.241	0.702	0.598
Muscle loss, mme	5.82	7.11	5.27	8.69	0.85	0.642	0.203	0.193
Backfat loss/muscle lossf	0.65	0.73	0.17	0.78	0.34	0.301	0.879	0.447

^aDiet: CO = the group fed a standard lactating sow diet; Arg = the group fed the standard lactating sow diet plus 22.5 g/d/sow of L-Arg; BCAA = the group fed the standard lactating sow diet plus L-Val, L-Ile and L-Leu at 9, 4.5 and 9 g/d/sow; BCAA + Arg = the group fed the standard lactating sow diet plus L-Val, L-Ile and L-Leu and L-Arg at 9, 4.5, 9 and 22.5 g/d/sow. Parity: 1 = parity 2 to 4, 2 = parity 5 to 7 and 3 = parity 8 to 10

^bSow BW d 27: Orthogonal contrast were not significant; parity class was significant: 1 vs. 2, P = 0.053; 2 vs. 3, P = 0.0089; 1 vs. 3, P < 0.0001; sow BW d −4 was included as covariate and was significant (P < 0.0001; coefficient = 0.590)

^cSow ADG: Parity class tended to be significant: 1 vs. 2, P = 0.068; piglets BW at d 28 was included as covariate and was significant (P = 0.05; coefficient = −0.0001)

^dBackfat loss (mm): Parity class was significant: 2 vs. 3, P = 0.071; litter size and piglet BW at d 28 were included as covariates and were significant (P = 0.020; coefficient = −0.0001)

^eMuscle loss (mm): Parity class was significant: 1 vs. 2, P = 0.0243; 2 vs. 3 not significant; 1 vs. 3, P = 0.056; litter size at d 28 was included as covariate and was significant (P = 0.020; coefficient = −0.0001; P = 0.03; coefficient = 0.00045)

^fBackfat loss/Muscle loss: Initial backfat was included as factor and resulted significant (P = 0.019; coefficient = 0.124)