Main Article Content
Growth evaluation and survivability of piglets farrowed by gilts of different ages in the rain-forest zone of Nigeria
Abstract
Two hundred and sixteen (216) piglets farrowed by gilts of different ages were used to evaluate growth performance and survivability. There were twelve (12) gilts and their ages constituted the treatment groups, viz: 11 months (treatment 1), 9 months (treatment 2) and 7 months (treatment 3). The three treatments had four gilts each, and piglets obtained from each treatment were pooled and randomly replicated six times (11 piglets per replicate for treatment 1, 12 piglets per replicate for treatment 2 and 13 piglets per replicate for treatment 3) to monitor growth parameters. The piglets were fed formulated starter diet containing 20% CP and 3500 ME KCal/kg. Treatment 2 had a higher mean birth weight (1.18kg), followed by treatment 3 (1.17kg), while treatment 1 had the lowest (1.13kg). Treatment 2 also had the highest mean pre-meaning and weaning body weight (5.52±0.23kg and 6.23±0.27kg), followed by treatment 3 (5.23±0.18kg and 5.87±0.19kg) and treatment 1 (5.09±o.32kg and 5.95±0.34kg). Variations between the pre-weaning and weaning weights did not differ significantly (P>0.05) between treatments. There were relative variations in the mean daily weight gains: treatment 1 (0.11±0.02kg), treatment 2 (0.12±0.02kg) and treatment 3 (0.11±0.01kg). Similarly, treatment 1 had a mean weekly weight gain of 0.8kg, treatment 2 (0.8kg) and treatment 3 (0.78kg). Variations in daily and weekly weight gains were not significant (P>0.05). Piglets of treatment 1 recorded higher birth and weaning mortalities (10.81% and 45.95%), while treatment 3 had lower birth and weaning mortalities (3.7% and 17.28%). Based on these findings, gilts can be crossed from 7months of age. At this age, they would have attained full sexual maturity and can nurse their piglets to weaning.
International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development Vol. 7(1) 2006: 44-49
International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development Vol. 7(1) 2006: 44-49