The impact of dietary supplementation of arginine during gestation in a commercial swine herd: I. Gilt reproductive performance

Elizabeth A. Hines, Matthew R. Romoser, Zoë E. Kiefer, Aileen F. Keating, Lance H. Baumgard, Jarad Niemi, Nicholas K. Gabler, John F. Patience, Benjamin Haberl, Noel H. Williams, Brian J. Kerr, Kevin J. Touchette, Jason W. Ross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Supplemental arginine (Arg) during gestation purportedly benefits fetal development. However, the benefits of a gestational Arg dietary strategy in commercial production are unclear. Therefore, the objectives of this study examined Arg supplementation during different gestational stages and the effects on gilt reproductive performance. Pubertal gilts (n = 548) were allocated into 4 treatment groups: Control (n = 143; 0% supplemental Arg) or 1 of 3 supplemental Arg (1% as fed) treatments: from 15 to 45 d of gestation (n = 138; Early-Arg); from 15 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 139; Full-Arg); or from 85 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 128; Late-Arg). At farrowing, the number of total born (TB), born alive (BA), stillborn piglets (SB), mummified fetuses (MM), and individual piglet birth weights (BiWt) were recorded. The wean-to-estrus interval (WEI) and subsequent sow reproductive performance (to third parity) were also monitored. No significant effect of supplemental Arg during any part of P0 gestation was observed for TB, BA, SB, or MM (P ≥ 0.29). Offspring BiWt and variation among individual piglet birth weights did not differ (P = 0.42 and 0.89, respectively) among treatment groups. Following weaning, the WEI was similar among treatments (average of 8.0 ± 0.8 d; P = 0.88). Litter performance over 3 parities revealed a decrease (P = 0.02) in BA for Early-Arg fed gilts compared with all other treatments, whereas TB and WEI were similar among treatments over 3 parities (P > 0.05). There was an increased proportion of sows with average size litters (12 to 16 TB) from the Full-Arg treatment sows (76.8% ± 3.7%) when compared with Control (58.7% ± 4.2%; P = 0.01); however, the proportion of sows with high (>16 TB) and low (<12 TB) litters was not different among treatments (P = 0.20). These results suggest that gestational Arg supplementation had a minimal impact on reproductive performance in first parity sows. These data underscore the complexity of AA supplementation and the need for continued research into understanding how and when utilizing a gestational dietary Arg strategy can optimize fetal development and sow performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3617-3625
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of animal science
Volume97
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Dietary Supplements
gilts
arginine
Arginine
dietary supplements
reproductive performance
Swine
herds
pregnancy
Pregnancy
swine
sows
parity (reproduction)
Parity
piglets
Estrus
farrowing
Birth Weight
birth weight
estrus

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Food Science
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Genetics

Cite this

Hines, Elizabeth A. ; Romoser, Matthew R. ; Kiefer, Zoë E. ; Keating, Aileen F. ; Baumgard, Lance H. ; Niemi, Jarad ; Gabler, Nicholas K. ; Patience, John F. ; Haberl, Benjamin ; Williams, Noel H. ; Kerr, Brian J. ; Touchette, Kevin J. ; Ross, Jason W. / The impact of dietary supplementation of arginine during gestation in a commercial swine herd : I. Gilt reproductive performance. In: Journal of animal science. 2019 ; Vol. 97, No. 9. pp. 3617-3625.
@article{5a850f35b5b6459491f373ad37177d96,
title = "The impact of dietary supplementation of arginine during gestation in a commercial swine herd: I. Gilt reproductive performance",
abstract = "Supplemental arginine (Arg) during gestation purportedly benefits fetal development. However, the benefits of a gestational Arg dietary strategy in commercial production are unclear. Therefore, the objectives of this study examined Arg supplementation during different gestational stages and the effects on gilt reproductive performance. Pubertal gilts (n = 548) were allocated into 4 treatment groups: Control (n = 143; 0{\%} supplemental Arg) or 1 of 3 supplemental Arg (1{\%} as fed) treatments: from 15 to 45 d of gestation (n = 138; Early-Arg); from 15 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 139; Full-Arg); or from 85 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 128; Late-Arg). At farrowing, the number of total born (TB), born alive (BA), stillborn piglets (SB), mummified fetuses (MM), and individual piglet birth weights (BiWt) were recorded. The wean-to-estrus interval (WEI) and subsequent sow reproductive performance (to third parity) were also monitored. No significant effect of supplemental Arg during any part of P0 gestation was observed for TB, BA, SB, or MM (P ≥ 0.29). Offspring BiWt and variation among individual piglet birth weights did not differ (P = 0.42 and 0.89, respectively) among treatment groups. Following weaning, the WEI was similar among treatments (average of 8.0 ± 0.8 d; P = 0.88). Litter performance over 3 parities revealed a decrease (P = 0.02) in BA for Early-Arg fed gilts compared with all other treatments, whereas TB and WEI were similar among treatments over 3 parities (P > 0.05). There was an increased proportion of sows with average size litters (12 to 16 TB) from the Full-Arg treatment sows (76.8{\%} ± 3.7{\%}) when compared with Control (58.7{\%} ± 4.2{\%}; P = 0.01); however, the proportion of sows with high (>16 TB) and low (<12 TB) litters was not different among treatments (P = 0.20). These results suggest that gestational Arg supplementation had a minimal impact on reproductive performance in first parity sows. These data underscore the complexity of AA supplementation and the need for continued research into understanding how and when utilizing a gestational dietary Arg strategy can optimize fetal development and sow performance.",
author = "Hines, {Elizabeth A.} and Romoser, {Matthew R.} and Kiefer, {Zo{\"e} E.} and Keating, {Aileen F.} and Baumgard, {Lance H.} and Jarad Niemi and Gabler, {Nicholas K.} and Patience, {John F.} and Benjamin Haberl and Williams, {Noel H.} and Kerr, {Brian J.} and Touchette, {Kevin J.} and Ross, {Jason W.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jas/skz233",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "97",
pages = "3617--3625",
journal = "Journal of Animal Science",
issn = "0021-8812",
publisher = "American Society of Animal Science",
number = "9",

}

Hines, EA, Romoser, MR, Kiefer, ZE, Keating, AF, Baumgard, LH, Niemi, J, Gabler, NK, Patience, JF, Haberl, B, Williams, NH, Kerr, BJ, Touchette, KJ & Ross, JW 2019, 'The impact of dietary supplementation of arginine during gestation in a commercial swine herd: I. Gilt reproductive performance', Journal of animal science, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 3617-3625. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz233

The impact of dietary supplementation of arginine during gestation in a commercial swine herd : I. Gilt reproductive performance. / Hines, Elizabeth A.; Romoser, Matthew R.; Kiefer, Zoë E.; Keating, Aileen F.; Baumgard, Lance H.; Niemi, Jarad; Gabler, Nicholas K.; Patience, John F.; Haberl, Benjamin; Williams, Noel H.; Kerr, Brian J.; Touchette, Kevin J.; Ross, Jason W.

In: Journal of animal science, Vol. 97, No. 9, 01.01.2019, p. 3617-3625.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of dietary supplementation of arginine during gestation in a commercial swine herd

T2 - I. Gilt reproductive performance

AU - Hines, Elizabeth A.

AU - Romoser, Matthew R.

AU - Kiefer, Zoë E.

AU - Keating, Aileen F.

AU - Baumgard, Lance H.

AU - Niemi, Jarad

AU - Gabler, Nicholas K.

AU - Patience, John F.

AU - Haberl, Benjamin

AU - Williams, Noel H.

AU - Kerr, Brian J.

AU - Touchette, Kevin J.

AU - Ross, Jason W.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Supplemental arginine (Arg) during gestation purportedly benefits fetal development. However, the benefits of a gestational Arg dietary strategy in commercial production are unclear. Therefore, the objectives of this study examined Arg supplementation during different gestational stages and the effects on gilt reproductive performance. Pubertal gilts (n = 548) were allocated into 4 treatment groups: Control (n = 143; 0% supplemental Arg) or 1 of 3 supplemental Arg (1% as fed) treatments: from 15 to 45 d of gestation (n = 138; Early-Arg); from 15 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 139; Full-Arg); or from 85 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 128; Late-Arg). At farrowing, the number of total born (TB), born alive (BA), stillborn piglets (SB), mummified fetuses (MM), and individual piglet birth weights (BiWt) were recorded. The wean-to-estrus interval (WEI) and subsequent sow reproductive performance (to third parity) were also monitored. No significant effect of supplemental Arg during any part of P0 gestation was observed for TB, BA, SB, or MM (P ≥ 0.29). Offspring BiWt and variation among individual piglet birth weights did not differ (P = 0.42 and 0.89, respectively) among treatment groups. Following weaning, the WEI was similar among treatments (average of 8.0 ± 0.8 d; P = 0.88). Litter performance over 3 parities revealed a decrease (P = 0.02) in BA for Early-Arg fed gilts compared with all other treatments, whereas TB and WEI were similar among treatments over 3 parities (P > 0.05). There was an increased proportion of sows with average size litters (12 to 16 TB) from the Full-Arg treatment sows (76.8% ± 3.7%) when compared with Control (58.7% ± 4.2%; P = 0.01); however, the proportion of sows with high (>16 TB) and low (<12 TB) litters was not different among treatments (P = 0.20). These results suggest that gestational Arg supplementation had a minimal impact on reproductive performance in first parity sows. These data underscore the complexity of AA supplementation and the need for continued research into understanding how and when utilizing a gestational dietary Arg strategy can optimize fetal development and sow performance.

AB - Supplemental arginine (Arg) during gestation purportedly benefits fetal development. However, the benefits of a gestational Arg dietary strategy in commercial production are unclear. Therefore, the objectives of this study examined Arg supplementation during different gestational stages and the effects on gilt reproductive performance. Pubertal gilts (n = 548) were allocated into 4 treatment groups: Control (n = 143; 0% supplemental Arg) or 1 of 3 supplemental Arg (1% as fed) treatments: from 15 to 45 d of gestation (n = 138; Early-Arg); from 15 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 139; Full-Arg); or from 85 d of gestation until farrowing (n = 128; Late-Arg). At farrowing, the number of total born (TB), born alive (BA), stillborn piglets (SB), mummified fetuses (MM), and individual piglet birth weights (BiWt) were recorded. The wean-to-estrus interval (WEI) and subsequent sow reproductive performance (to third parity) were also monitored. No significant effect of supplemental Arg during any part of P0 gestation was observed for TB, BA, SB, or MM (P ≥ 0.29). Offspring BiWt and variation among individual piglet birth weights did not differ (P = 0.42 and 0.89, respectively) among treatment groups. Following weaning, the WEI was similar among treatments (average of 8.0 ± 0.8 d; P = 0.88). Litter performance over 3 parities revealed a decrease (P = 0.02) in BA for Early-Arg fed gilts compared with all other treatments, whereas TB and WEI were similar among treatments over 3 parities (P > 0.05). There was an increased proportion of sows with average size litters (12 to 16 TB) from the Full-Arg treatment sows (76.8% ± 3.7%) when compared with Control (58.7% ± 4.2%; P = 0.01); however, the proportion of sows with high (>16 TB) and low (<12 TB) litters was not different among treatments (P = 0.20). These results suggest that gestational Arg supplementation had a minimal impact on reproductive performance in first parity sows. These data underscore the complexity of AA supplementation and the need for continued research into understanding how and when utilizing a gestational dietary Arg strategy can optimize fetal development and sow performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072058908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072058908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jas/skz233

DO - 10.1093/jas/skz233

M3 - Article

C2 - 31298271

AN - SCOPUS:85072058908

VL - 97

SP - 3617

EP - 3625

JO - Journal of Animal Science

JF - Journal of Animal Science

SN - 0021-8812

IS - 9

ER -