研究结果

哺乳期饲料效率：我们为何要讨论这个问题？

在2025年GESTAL养猪峰会上，Carine Vier博士和Hyatt Frobose博士致力于重新定义现代母猪的哺乳期饲料效率。

他们对饲料的摄入量和母猪体脂变化的长期假设提出了质疑，并引入了一种新的性能评估方法，同时考虑生产成本和生物学成本。

Carine Vier and Hyatt Frobose on stage during the GESTAL Swine Summit

要点速览

• 哺乳期饲料效率比传统指标所显示的更为复杂
• 现代母猪需求更高但摄入量有限，加大了对体脂储备的依赖
• 传统指标可能通过忽视脂肪和肌肉损失而掩盖低效现象
• 产仔性能相似的母猪在体况影响上可能差异很大
• 母猪个体差异很大，尤其是初产母猪
• 新的分类方式表明，高性能并不意味着真正的高效率
• 哺乳初期饲料摄入量对总体效率至关重要
• 更好的测量和精准饲喂是改善的关键

什么是哺乳期饲料效率？

哺乳期饲料效率是母猪将饲料摄入和体脂储备转化为泌乳并用于仔猪生长，同时将体况损失降至最低的能力。它取决于三个要素：饲料摄入量（外部能量）、体脂储备动员（内部能量）以及泌乳和仔猪生长（产出）。

正如Carine Vier博士在演讲中指出：“哺乳期间的饲料效率不仅仅是一个饲料指标……我们需要考虑母猪自身的状况。”

传统指标（如每公斤仔猪增重的饲料量或每头断奶仔猪的饲料量）忽视了体脂储备动员，因此是不完整的。考虑两头产仔生长相似的母猪：一头吃的饲料较少，按传统指标看似效率更高，但它通过动员更多体脂和肌肉来实现这一性能。另一头则维持甚至改善了体况。第一头母猪并没有真正的表现出更高效的结果。它更多依赖自身的体脂储备，产生了更高的生物学成本，下个周期需要额外调膘恢复，并可能降低其寿命和繁殖性能。

Importance of Lactation Feed Efficiency
Modern High-producing Lactating Sow

为什么现代母猪需要新的评估方法？

现代母猪断奶仔猪数更多、断奶的窝重更大，身体更瘦，哺乳期需求比过去高出约40%。不但饲料摄入量没有成比例增加，其对体脂储备的依赖度反而增加了。

妊娠期体况同样直接影响哺乳表现。正如Vier博士解释的：“当母猪在妊娠期间没有增重时……她们会在哺乳期优先补充自身储备，即使这意味着仔猪得到的奶水会减少。” 这在抚育仔猪和恢复母猪体况之间产生了根本性的生物学权衡，有助于解释动物间效率变异的大部分原因。

四种效率类别：自私型、低效型、牺牲型和超级型

研究案例一： Brenneman Pork（约900头母猪，爱荷华州）

利用GESTAL精准饲喂器采集个体饲料摄入量以及体重、背膘厚度、眼肌深度和产仔数等数据，将母猪划分为四个效率类别：

• 自私型：泌乳量低，分解代谢低
• 低效型：泌乳量低，分解代谢高
• 牺牲型：泌乳量高，分解代谢高
• 超级型：泌乳量高，分解代谢低
牺牲型母猪是数量最大的群体（初产母猪约44%，经产母猪约36%），超级型母猪则是少数（<20%）。约80%的初产母猪属于高分解代谢类别，是风险最高的群体。尤其值得注意的是，约30%的经产母猪断奶时体重高于分娩时，这对所有母猪在哺乳期间都会丧失体脂储备的假设提出了挑战。

The Fourth Efficiency Categories

研究还发现，背膘厚度的变化与预估的体脂动员高度相关，而眼肌深度与蛋白质动员相关性弱，这表明现有方程可能无法准确反映现代瘦肉型母猪的肌肉损失。单独的体重数据反应出的，并不是组织动员的可靠指标。

饲料摄入模式同样很重要。母猪采食被分为六种模式：快速增长型、大体正常型、短期降低型、循序渐进型、前低后高型（LHH）和全期低采食量型（LLL）。约75%的母猪表现出的结果是我们可接受的模式，而约25%呈现次优模式。LLL母猪风险最高，LHH母猪错过了关键的第一周。次优模式与更高的分解代谢和更低的效率密切相关，初产母猪的次优模式比经产母猪更多。哺乳初期饲料摄入被认定为泌乳量、体脂储备动员和总效率的关键驱动因素。

尽管效率和分解代谢存在差异，但断奶至发情间隔、发情表现、分娩率或后续产仔数均未观察到显著的短期繁殖性能影响，但是长期影响仍不明确。

限制饲料摄入量能提高效率吗？

研究案例二： Brenneman Pork（约315头经产母猪）

由于部分母猪在哺乳期间体重增加，研究测试了在哺乳高峰期后（约第10天），限制饲料摄入量是否能在不影响生产性能的情况下提高效率。假设的是部分母猪，在哺乳高峰期后不再需要无限摄入饲料。

比较了两种策略：整个哺乳期自由采食，以及自由采食至第10天后对哺乳中后期进行饲料摄入限制。

Study 2: Controlling Max Feed Intake in Late Lactation

结果：限制组每天少吃约700克饲料，对产仔数量、产仔生长或繁殖性能无负面影响。这表明部分母猪在哺乳后期消耗的能量多于所需，多余摄入并不会转化为额外产乳，而可能促进体重增加和营养素的无效利用。

Study 2: Controlling Max Feed Intake in Late Lactation

这对精准饲喂管理意味着什么？

两项研究都指向同一转变：哺乳期饲喂不应一拉到底。真正的效率需要将饲料摄入量、体脂储备动员和生产产出一起衡量。过多饲喂和饲喂不足都会降低效率。高产量并不一定表示真正高效率，体脂储备动员是评估中一个关键但往往被忽视的要素。

对养猪生产的主要启示包括：

• 哺乳期间不应对所有母猪采用相同的饲喂方式
• 哺乳初期饲料摄入量仍是关键控制点
• 初产母猪是最羸弱的群体，需要采用采针对性的管理
• 通过背膘厚度和腰部眼肌深度测量评估体况，对准确评估效率至关重要
• 能够采集每头母猪个体数据的精准饲喂技术是将研究成果转化为实践的关键

Importance of Lactation Feed Efficiency - Take home Messages

正如Hyatt Frobose博士总结的：“如果我们拥有数据，就有机会实现饲喂管理的个性化。”

Presentation: Lactational Feed Efficiency: Why Should We Talk About it?

阅读摘要

Defining Lactation Feed Efficiency Classifications Through Milk Production and Sow Body Composition Dynamics in Modern Gilts and Sows by Dr. Carine Vier, Dr. Hyatt Fobrose, Dr. Dalton Obermier, et al.

How do I stop my sow from losing too much weight during lactation?

Maximizing feed intake in the first seven to ten days after farrowing is the most effective lever. Research conducted with GESTAL Quattro Opti precision feeders on nearly 900 sows at Brenneman Pork (Iowa) identifies early lactation intake as the single most critical driver of body reserve mobilization. Sows with chronically low intake in that first week cannot compensate later and burn significantly more body fat and muscle throughout lactation.

Gestation condition compounds the risk. Sows entering the farrowing crate under-conditioned will prioritize rebuilding their own reserves over milk production, increasing body loss regardless of lactation feeding. GESTAL Quattro Opti feeders capture individual intake curves from day one, allowing producers to identify and intervene on at-risk sows before body condition damage accumulates.

How does body condition at weaning affect next litter size?

Sows that mobilize excessive body fat and muscle during lactation carry a biological debt into the next reproductive cycle. Research enabled by GESTAL Quattro Opti precision feeders, which track individual feed intake alongside body weight, backfat, and loin depth measurements, shows that even when short-term metrics like wean-to-estrus interval appear unaffected, the recovery demand on the sow increases with every high-catabolism lactation.

The study at Brenneman Pork using GESTAL Quattro Opti found that the majority of sows, and up to 80% of gilts, fall into high-catabolism efficiency categories during lactation. Over successive parities, this pattern is directly associated with reduced sow longevity and declining reproductive performance. A sow that consistently exits lactation having burned excessive reserves is not a productive sow. She is a sow in chronic recovery.

Body condition at weaning, accurately measured through backfat and loin depth, is the most reliable indicator of whether a sow enters the next gestation with adequate reserves or begins the next cycle already in deficit. GESTAL Quattro Opti's individual sow data makes it possible to identify which animals are on this trajectory and act before it costs a parity.

How do I feed gilts vs. multiparous sows differently?

Gilts cannot be managed with the same lactation feeding program as mature sows. Research using GESTAL Quattro Opti precision feeders on nearly 900 sows found that approximately 80% of gilts fall into high-catabolism efficiency categories during lactation, compared to roughly 36% of multiparous sows. Gilts also show significantly higher rates of poor early-lactation intake, the window that most determines body reserve loss for the entire cycle.

In practice, gilts require more intensive monitoring from farrowing day one and earlier intervention when intake falls below curve. A one-size-fits-all feeding program without individual intake visibility systematically under-serves gilts every parity. GESTAL Quattro Opti precision feeders provide the per-animal data that makes parity-specific lactation management actionable at commercial scale.

参考文献

Baker, D.H., Becker, D.E., Norton, H.W., Sasse, C.E., Jensen, A.H., & Harmon, B.G. (1969). Reproductive performance and progeny development in swine as influenced by feed intake during pregnancy. Journal of Nutrition, 97, 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/97.4.489

Bergsma, R., Kanis, E., Verstegen, M.W.A., van der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C., & Knol, E.F. (2009). Lactation efficiency as a result of body composition dynamics and feed intake in sows. Livestock Science, 125(2–3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.04.011

Bruun, T.S., et al. (2018). Journal of Animal Science, 96, 2320–2331. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky141

Dourmad, J.Y., Guingand, N., Latimer, P., & Sève, B. (1999). Nitrogen and phosphorous consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production: France. Livestock Production Science, 58, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00207-0

Dourmad, J.Y., Étienne, M., Valancogne, A., Dubois, S., van Milgen, J., & Noblet, J. (2008). InraPorc: A model and decision support tool for the nutrition of sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 143, 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.05.019

Everts, H., & Dekker, R.A. (1995). Effect of protein supply during pregnancy and lactation on body composition of sows during three reproductive cycles. Livestock Production Science, 43(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(95)00039-I

Frobose, H. (2022). Individual sow intake in lactation: What variation exists today and how can ADFI be optimized? GESTAL Swine Summit 2022, Third Edition. Jyga Technologies. https://jygatech.com/blogs/news/videos-from-gestal-swine-summit-2022

King, R.H., & Dunkin, A.C. (1986). The effect of nutrition on the reproductive performance of first-litter sows. 3. The response to graded increases in food intake during lactation. Animal Production, 42, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100017888

King, R.H., & Dunkin, A.C. (1986). The effect of nutrition on the reproductive performance of first-litter sows. 4. The relative effects of energy and protein intakes during lactation on the performance of sows and their piglets. Animal Production, 43, 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100001938

Koketsu, Y., Tani, S., & Iida, R. (2017). Factors for improving reproductive performance of sows and herd productivity in commercial breeding herds. Porcine Health Management, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-016-0049-7

Manis, C., et al. (Unpublished). Effects of feed allowance after day 15 of lactation on litter growth and reproductive performance.

Mullan, B.P., & Williams, I.H. (1989). The effect of body reserves at farrowing on the reproductive performance of first-litter sows. Animal Production, 48,
449–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000335610000408X

National Research Council. (2012). Nutrient requirements of swine (11th rev. ed.). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13298

Noblet, J., Dourmad, J.Y., & Etienne, M. (1990). Energy utilization in pregnant and lactating sows: Modeling of energy requirements. Journal of Animal Science, 68, 562–572. https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.682562x

Stender, D. Iowa State
University Extension.

Vales, R. (Unpublished). Dynamics of sow body weight changes during gestation and impacts on lactation performance. Kansas State University.

Vier, C., & Frobose, H. (2025). Lactation feed efficiency in modern sows. GESTAL Swine Summit 2025. Jyga Technologies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-13QtWlnMKE

Zak, L.J., Xu, X., Hardin, R.T., & Foxcroft, G.R. (1997). Impact of different patterns of feed intake during lactation in the primiparous sow on follicular development and oocyte maturation. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 110, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1530/jrf.0.1100099

阅读我们的博客

1 3