View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Composition and calculated analysis of basal diet (as-fed basis)

 
Ingredient Content
Corn, % 58.31
Soybean meal, 43% CP 20.00
Rice bran meal, % 14.70
Soybean oil, % 3.00
Monocalcium phosphate, % 0.82
Ground limestone, % 1.32
Sodium chloride, % 0.30
Met, % 0.01
Vitamin E, % 0.04
Premix,1,2 % 1.50
Total, % 100.00
Calculated analysis
ME, Mcal/kg 3.11
CP, % 15.51
Lys, % 0.77
Met + Cys, % 0.55
Thr, % 0.59
Trp, % 0.18
Total Ca, % 0.83
Total P, % 0.73
Available P, % 0.31
1Supplied per kilogram of diet: 5 mg Cu, 80 mg Fe, 50 mg Zn, 20 mg Mn, 0.14 mg I, 0.30 mg Se, 15,000 IU vitamin A, 2,400 IU vitamin D3, 50 mg 25 (OH)D, 0.48 mg menadione, 2 mg thiamin, 7.2 mg riboflavin, 3.6 mg pyridoxine, 25 mg vitamin B12, 0.48 mg biotin, 25 mg pantothenic acid, 4 mg folic acid, 400 mg niacin.
2Premix was provided by Roche vitamins co., LTD, Shanghai, China



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Body measurements from boars with different feeding regimens

 
Treatment1
P-value
Item L M H SEM2 L vs. M L vs. H M vs. H
No. of boars 20 20 193
BW, kg
wk 0 178.5 178.4 179.4 5.7 0.99 0.85 0.84
wk 8 202.8b 205.8ab 210.7a 4.8 0.41 < 0.05 0.20
wk 29 249.6c 263.2b 274.0a 3.9 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
Testis volume, cm3
wk 0 1162.2 1244.0 1143.0 90.3 0.23 0.78 0.14
wk 8 1508.6 1644.3 1519.3 106.9 0.11 0.90 0.14
wk 29 1991.0 2140.0 2011.6 163.9 0.25 0.88 0.33
Period 1: from wk 0 to wk 84
ADG, g/d 398.4b 454.5ab 512.9a 44.5 0.18 < 0.01 0.12
Change in testis volume, cm3 346.3 400.3 376.3 69.7 0.34 0.60 0.67
Period 2: from wk 8 to wk 295
ADG, g/d 306.5c 375.3b 413.9a 22.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.05
Change in testis volume, cm3 482.4 495.7 492.3 121.1 0.89 0.92 0.97
Entire experiment period: from wk 0 to wk 296
ADG, g/d 332.7c 396.3b 442.1a 14.3 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.05
Change in testis volume, cm3 828.8 896.0 868.6 33.1 0.56 0.74 0.82
a–cLsmeans within a row with different superscripts significantly differ (P < 0.05).
1L = low energy intake; M = medium energy intake; H = high energy intake.
2SEM = Pooled SEM.
3Two boars were culled due to lameness in the H group.
4Period 1 was defined basing on BW from 170 to 200 kg.
5Period 2 was defined basing on BW from 200 to 250 kg.
6Entire experiment period was defined basing on BW from 170 to 250 kg.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 3.

Semen parameters from boars with different feeding regimens

 
Treatment1
P-value
Item L M H SEM2 L vs. M L vs. H M vs. H
Period 1: from 170 to 200 kg of BW3
No. of boars 20 20 21
Semen quality parameters
Semen volume, mL 142.1b 158.4a 156.7a 10.0 0.02 0.04 0.82
Sperm motility, % 83.6 84.2 83.9 1.1 0.48 0.71 0.75
Abnormal sperm, % 16.0 14.1 13.5 3.5 0.50 0.36 0.80
Sperm concentration, ×106/mL 226.8 229.8 247.9 13.1 0.46 0.06 0.24
Total sperm number, ×109/ejaculate 31.3b 36.0a 38.7a 3.0 0.02 < 0.01 0.40
Functional sperm number, ×109/ejaculate 22.0b 26.1a 28.0a 2.5 0.02 < 0.01 0.53
Period 2: from 200 to 250 kg of BW4
No. of boars 20 20 196
Semen quality parameters
Semen volume, mL 169.6b 184.0a 191.8a 10.7 0.04 < 0.01 0.35
Sperm motility, % 85.49 85.45 85.93 0.6 0.87 0.39 0.31
Abnormal sperm, % 13.43 13.83 12.90 2.4 0.94 0.74 0.68
Sperm concentration, ×106/mL 270.3 285.0 279.7 14.9 0.27 0.53 0.64
Total sperm number, ×109/ejaculate 45.3b 52.3a 53.3a 4.2 0.03 0.02 0.88
Functional sperm number, ×109/ejaculate 33.8b 38.8a 40.3a 3.6 0.04 0.03 0.69
Entire experiment period: from 170 to 250 kg of BW5
No. of boars 20 20 196
Semen quality parameters
Semen volume, mL 163.2b 178.1a 184.7a 9.5 0.03 < 0.01 0.37
Sperm motility, % 85.0 85.2 85.6 0.6 0.88 0.31 0.39
Abnormal sperm, % 14.0 13.9 12.8 2.4 0.87 0.47 0.57
Sperm concentration, ×106/mL 260.2 272.2 272.3 12.1 0.21 0.22 0.99
Total sperm number, ×109/ejaculate 42.1b 48.5a 50.5a 3.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.56
Functional sperm number, ×109/ejaculate 31.1b 35.8a 38.0a 2.9 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.42
a,bLsmeans within a row with different superscripts significantly differ (P < 0.05).
1L = low energy intake; M = medium energy intake; H = high energy intake.
2SEM = Pooled SEM.
3Period 1 was from wk 0 to wk 8.
4Period 2 was from wk 8 to wk 28.
5Entire experiment period was from wk 0 to wk 28.
6Two boars were culled due to lameness in the H group.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 4.

Toe measurements of inside (I) and outside (O) toes on front (F) and rear (R) feet from boars with different feeding regimens

 
Treatment1
P-value
Item L M H SEM2 L vs. M L vs. H M vs. H
No. of boars 20 20 192
wk 0
Horn length, mm
FI 23.4 23.4 23.8 0.7 0.96 0.47 0.50
FO 25.0 25.8 26.1 0.9 0.26 0.14 0.71
RI 25.1 25.6 25.3 0.9 0.50 0.74 0.73
RO 28.5 27.3 28.8 1.3 0.26 0.82 0.18
Toe width, mm
FI 31.7 31.3 31.3 0.8 0.58 0.60 0.98
FO 35.5 34.1 34.9 1.1 0.11 0.53 0.32
RI 30.3 29.1 29.4 1.0 0.14 0.30 0.67
RO 34.5 33.5 34.0 1.0 0.19 0.52 0.51
Horn height, mm
FI 36.1 37.3 36.1 1.2 0.22 0.99 0.22
FO 37.4 39.3 38.2 1.2 0.07 0.50 0.27
RI 40.9 39.9 40.2 1.6 0.45 0.58 0.84
RO 43.6 41.7 42.8 1.9 0.20 0.58 0.48
Toe length, mm
FI 50.3 51.9 51.6 1.4 0.08 0.18 0.67
FO 53.6 54.0 54.2 1.2 0.68 0.56 0.86
RI 54.1 54.4 55.0 1.4 0.75 0.43 0.63
RO 57.8 57.5 58.5 1.6 0.78 0.63 0.45
wk 29
Horn length, mm
FI 29.2c 30.2b 31.3a 0.4 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
FO 30.7c 32.1b 33.2a 0.6 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.05
RI 30.1b 31.0ab 32.0a 0.6 0.06 < 0.01 0.06
RO 32.9b 32.2b 34.5a 0.7 0.19 < 0.01 < 0.01
Toe width, mm
FI 38.1 37.6 38.5 0.8 0.36 0.51 0.27
FO 42.7 41.6 43.0 0.9 0.16 0.66 0.07
RI 34.3 33.9 35.0 0.8 0.61 0.30 0.13
RO 38.1 38.6 38.8 1.1 0.56 0.46 0.87
Horn height, mm
FI 42.4b 43.9a 43.6a 0.8 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.70
FO 44.9b 46.5a 46.3a 0.8 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.76
RI 46.0 46.0 46.2 1.2 0.99 0.83 0.82
RO 49.5 50.4 50.0 1.2 0.37 0.58 0.74
Toe length, mm
FI 56.7b 58.4a 59.2a 1.0 < 0.05 < 0.01 0.40
FO 60.2 61.1 61.4 1.3 0.38 0.29 0.77
RI 59.3b 60.7a 62.0a 1.0 < 0.05 < 0.01 0.12
RO 63.1b 65.0a 66.6a 1.2 < 0.05 < 0.01 0.14
Change in toe sizes (from wk 0 to wk 29)
Horn length, mm
FI 5.8b 6.8ab 7.5a 0.7 0.09 < 0.01 0.29
FO 5.7 6.3 7.1 1.1 0.49 0.11 0.36
RI 5.0b 5.4b 6.7a 0.7 0.34 < 0.01 < 0.05
RO 4.4 4.9 5.8 1.0 0.54 0.10 0.31
Toe width, mm
FI 6.5b 6.3b 7.7a 0.6 0.63 < 0.05 < 0.01
FO 7.2 7.5 8.1 0.8 0.65 0.18 0.36
RI 4.0b 4.8ab 5.5a 0.5 0.07 < 0.01 0.12
RO 3.6b 4.5ab 5.2a 0.9 0.32 < 0.05 0.59
Horn height, mm
FI 6.2b 6.6ab 7.5a 0.7 0.60 < 0.05 0.12
FO 7.4 7.3 8.2 0.8 0.78 0.24 0.15
RI 5.1b 6.1ab 6.7a 0.8 0.18 < 0.05 0.38
RO 5.9b 7.3ab 8.7a 0.9 0.08 < 0.01 0.07
Toe length, mm
FI 6.3b 6.5ab 7.6a 0.7 0.77 < 0.05 0.07
FO 6.6b 7.1ab 8.2a 1.1 0.59 < 0.05 0.23
RI 5.2b 6.3ab 7.0a 0.7 0.07 < 0.01 0.20
RO 5.3b 6.5ab 8.1a 1.3 0.24 < 0.01 0.13
a–cLsmeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).
1L = low energy intake; M = medium energy intake; H = high energy intake.
2SEM = Pooled SEM.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 5.

Scores of claw lesion from boars with different feeding regimens

 
Treatment1
Item L M H SEM2 P-value
wk 0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.1087
wk 8 1.3 1.3 1.5 0.7 0.7249
wk 19 2.0 2.1 2.9 1.1 0.7101
wk 29 3.1 2.9 3.9 1.3 0.9125
1L = low energy intake; M = medium energy intake; H = high energy intake.
2SEM = Pooled SEM.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 6.

The percentage of claw lesion and lameness, culling rate from boars with different feeding regimens

 
Treatment1
Item
L
M
H
No. of boars
20
20
21
Periods % n2 % n2 % n2 P-value
The percentage of claw lesion
    wk 0 40.0 8 30.0 6 19.0 4 0.3383
    wk 8 40.0 8 50.0 10 61.9 13 0.4055
    wk 19 55.0 11 60.0 12 66.7 14 0.7599
    wk 29 75.0 15 65.0 13 76.2 15 0.8314
The percentage of lameness
    wk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
    wk 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
    wk 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
    wk 12 0.0 0 5.0 1 4.8 1 1.0000
    wk 19 0.0 0 5.0 1 4.8 1 1.0000
    wk 23 0.0 0 5.0 1 4.8 1 1.0000
    wk 27 0.0b 0 5.0ab 2 23.8a 5 0.0399
    wk 29 0.0b 0 5.0ab 2 23.8a 5 0.0399
Boar culling rate
From wk 0 to wk 29 0.0 0 0.0 0 9.5 23 0.3224
a–b% within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).
1L = low energy intake; M = medium energy intake; H = high energy intake.
2Numbers of boars within claw lesion of lameness in each group.
3The 2 boars culled due to lameness were used to calculate for the percentage of lameness.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 7.

Libido from boars with different feeding regimens

 
Treatment1
P-value
Item L M H SEM2 L vs. M H L vs. H
Period 1: from 170 to 200 kg of BW3
No. of boars 20 20 21
Boar libido
Time to mount firstly, s 47.5b 30.6c 64.4a 8.7 0.02 0.02 < 0.01
Time to ejaculation, s 145.3b 110.9c 173.4a 12.3 < 0.01 0.04 < 0.01
Duration of ejaculation, s 269.5 281.2 294.1 25.7 0.55 0.23 0.53
Period 2: from 200 to 250 kg of BW4
No. of boars 20 20 196
Boar libido
Time to mount firstly, s 83.6b 58.0b 136.9a 23.3 0.18 < 0.01 < 0.01
Time to ejaculation, s 200.7b 183.0b 286.1a 43.3 0.62 0.02 < 0.01
Duration of ejaculation, s 368.2 408.6 402.5 30.7 0.11 0.18 0.81
Entire experiment period: from 170 to 250 kg of BW5
No. of boars 20 20 196
Boar libido
Time to mount firstly, s 65.6b 44.3b 100.6a 13.5 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01
Time to ejaculation, s 178.0b 146.9b 229.8a 23.5 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.01
Duration of ejaculation, s 319.9 344.9 348.4 23.5 0.17 0.13 0.85
a–cLsmeans within a row with different superscripts significantly differ (P < 0.05).
1L = low energy intake; M = medium energy intake; H = high energy intake.
2SEM = Pooled SEM.
3Period 1 was from wk 0 to wk 8.
4Period 2 was from wk 8 to wk 28.
5Entire experiment period was from wk 0 to wk 28.
6Two boars were culled due to lameness in the H group.