QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schoknecht, P. A. Articles by Maurer, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schoknecht, P. A. Articles by Maurer, R. R.

Protein Restriction during Pregnancy Affects Postnatal Growth in Swine Progeny^{1, 2,}

P. A. Schoknecht^*,3, W. G. Pond^*,, H. J. Mersmann^*, and R. R. Maurer

^* USDA-ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX 77030-2600 U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933

Protein deficiency during pregnancy affects fetal development. The critical period, when the fetus is most susceptible to maternal protein deficiency and its effect on neonatal growth, is unknown. Therefore, we studied the effect of a protein-restricted diet during early and late pregnancy and throughout pregnancy on growth of pigs from birth to market weight. Sows were fed a control (13% protein) or protein-restricted (0.5% protein) diet throughout pregnancy or protein-restricted diet from d 1 to 44, then control diet to term or control diet from d 1 to 81, then the protein-restricted diet to term. In Experiment 1, birth weights were measured, and 12 pigs/diet group were weaned at 4 wk and raised to market weight. Feeding the protein-restricted diet throughout pregnancy reduced birth and slaughter weights, whereas the control followed by protein-restricted and protein-restricted followed by control diets reduced only birth weight relative to controls. Indices of carcass lean were reduced in the protein-restricted piglets, with carcass fat not affected. In Experiment 2, control and control-protein-restricted litters were reduced to six piglets and 3/litter cross-fostered to a sow of the other treatment group. After weaning at 4 wk, 4 piglets/group were individually fed to 8 wk. The control and control followed by protein-restricted diet fed piglets had similar weights at birth, but piglets raised by a control-protein-restricted sow tended to weigh less at weaning than their littermates raised by a control sow. After weaning, these piglets had greater feed intakes relative to other groups and there were no weight differences by 8 wk. These results demonstrated that maternal protein restriction throughout pregnancy stunted the postnatal development of the swine progeny. Protein restriction during the first or last trimester, however, did not have a permanent effect upon postnatal growth of pigs, once any restriction of intake was removed.

KEY WORDS: • protein restriction • gestation • postnatal growth • swine

¹ This work is a publication of the USDA-ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. This project has been funded in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service under Cooperative Agreement number 58-6250-1-003. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the United States Government.

² The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

³ To whom correspondence should be addressed.

Manuscript received 14 April 1993. Revision accepted 7 June 1993.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Wu, F. W. Bazer, J. M. Wallace, and T. E. Spencer BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Intrauterine growth retardation: Implications for the animal sciences J Anim Sci, September 1, 2006; 84(9): 2316 - 2337. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]