3.8 Article

Effect of offering maize, linseed or tuna oils throughout pregnancy and lactation on sow and piglet tissue composition and piglet performance

Journal

ANIMAL SCIENCE
Volume 71, Issue -, Pages 289-299

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1357729800055132

Keywords

fatty acids; linseed oil; pigs; pregnancy; tuna oil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of different dietary essential fatty acids on piglet tissue composition at birth and performance until 7 days post weaning were investigated by offering the sow diets containing (17.5 g oil per kg diet) either maize oil (MO) as a control treatment, tuna oil (TO) as a source of long chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, particularly 22:6 n-3, or a mixture of maize and linseed oils (LO) which supplied the same amount of n-3 acids as TO but in the form of 18:3 n-3. Ten sows were allocated to each treatment which was offered throughout pregnancy and lactation. Compared with MO, offering TO increased sow plasma and subcutaneous adipose tissue 22:6 n-3 proportions whereas LO increased 18:3 n-3 and, to a much lesser extent than TO, 22:6 n-3. Offering TO to the sow increased the proportions of 20:5 n-3 and 22:6 n-3 in piglet brain and liver at birth and decreased the n-6 acids, 20:4, 22:4 and 22:5. LO only increased piglet liver 20:5 n-3 proportions but to a lesser extent than TO; however LO also decreased the proportions of 20:4, 22:4 and 22:5 n-6 in piglet tissues. Offering the pregnant sow dietary 18:3 n-3 therefore increased deposition of 22:6 n-3 in foetal piglet tissues to a much lesser extent than tuna oil and so it is necessary to offer the sow pre-formed 22:6 n-3 in order to achieve maximum foetal 22:6 n-3 deposition. By experimentally allocating piglets at birth, effects of sow nutrition during pregnancy and lactation were separated. Piglets sucking MO or TO sows were heavier than piglets sucking LO sows 7 days post weaning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available