Methods for feeding sows and for improving the health of young piglets

Abstract

A method of improving the health of a first group of young monogastric mammals, the first group of young monogastric mammals nursing from a first lactating monogastric mammal during a pre-weaning period, the method including feeding the first lactating monogastric mammal an effective amount of an animal feed during the pre-weaning period, and feeding the first lactating monogastric mammal an effective amount of sugar alcohol during the pre-weaning period.

Claims

1. A method of decreasing the mortality rate of a group of piglets nursing from a lactating sow during a pre-weaning period, the method comprising: feeding the lactating sow sugar alcohol during a period after farrowing and up to weaning, the sow ingesting an effective amount of the sugar alcohol during the period to decrease the mortality rate of the group of piglets, wherein the effective amount of the sugar alcohol is from at least 5 grams and up to 200 grams per day.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises one or more of adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, sorbitol, threitol or xylitol.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the lactating sow ingests, on average, at least 25 grams of sugar alcohol per day over the period.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises sorbitol.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol is fed for at least about 21 days during the period.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol is fed orally.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol is employed as a solid.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol is employed as a syrup.

9. A method of decreasing the mortality rate of a group of piglets nursing from a lactating sow during a pre-weaning period, the method comprising: feeding the lactating sow sugar alcohol during the pre-weaning period extending at least from farrowing to weaning, wherein the sugar alcohol is contained in an animal feed, and the sugar alcohol constitutes at least 0.1 wt % and up to about 10 wt % of the animal feed, and wherein an amount of the animal feed and the sugar alcohol fed to the lactating sow is effective to decrease the mortality rate of the group of piglets.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises one or more of adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, sorbitol, threitol or xylitol.

11. The method of claim 9, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises sorbitol.

12. The method of claim 9, wherein the sugar alcohol is fed for at least about 14 days during the period.

13. The method of claim 9, wherein the sugar alcohol is fed for at least about 21 days during the period.

14. The method of claim 9, wherein the sugar alcohol is fed orally.

15. The method of claim 9, wherein the sugar alcohol is employed as a solid.

16. The method of claim 9, wherein the sugar alcohol is employed as a syrup.

17. A method of feeding a lactating sow nursing a group of piglets, the method comprising: feeding the lactating sow sugar alcohol during a period after farrowing and up to weaning, the sow ingesting an effective amount of the sugar alcohol during the period to improve performance of the group of piglets, wherein the effective amount of the sugar alcohol is from at least 5 grams and up to 200 grams per day.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein the improved performance is an increased live weight at weaning of at least one piglet of the group of piglets.

19. The method of claim 17, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises one or more of adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, sorbitol, threitol or xylitol.

20. The method of claim 17, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises sorbitol.

Description

EXAMPLES

(1) The examples provided below demonstrate the effect, during the pre-weaning period, of feeding lactating monogastric mammals, generally, and lactating sows, specifically, a control feed in combination with a sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, as compared to the effect of feeding lactating monogastric mammals, generally, and lactating sows, specifically, the control feed in the absence of any sugar alcohol. In these examples, statistical analysis is provided for comparing the results of feeding the lactating sows the control feed in combination with sugar alcohol versus the results of feeding the lactating sows the control feed in the absence of sugar alcohol. Each lactating sow and each piglet included in these examples received routine care and management consistent with appropriate recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (1st edition, March 1988).

(2) In each of the Examples provided below, each piglet was weighed two days after birth, fourteen days after birth, and again at weaning. All data that is provided in Tables 4-9 below for the lactating sows is based upon individual data for each lactating sow, then-present, as least square means of the particular data over all lactating sows present in the test at the time the particular data was recorded. All data that is provided in Tables 4-9 below for the piglets is based upon data for each litter of piglets, then-present, as least square means of the particular data over all piglets of the litter present in the test at the time the particular data was recorded. Data for parameters presented in Tables 4-9 was analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) statistical procedure of SAS™ statistical analysis software for a randomized complete block design that included both the particular Iced regimen and the week of the test period in the model statement. The SAS™ statistical analysis software is available from SAS Institute, Inc. of Cary, N.C. Additionally, all data was analyzed to determine the mean of the data for each variable under consideration during the collection period for the particular data.

(3) Additionally, the PDiff function of the GLM statistical procedure was used to characterize the mean values of the data by providing for comparisons between mean data values for the piglets or lactating sows of different treatments for particular test parameters or variables. The probability value P is a measure of the statistical probability that the differing parameter values derived from (1) lactating sows fed sugar alcohol versus (2) lactating sows not fed any sugar alcohol may be explained by the difference between receiving sugar alcohol and not receiving sugar alcohol.

(4) A P value of 0.05 means that five times out of 100 the results can be explained by factors other than differences between the different treatments. Likewise, a P value of 0.77 means that 77 times out of 100, the difference in value between the control group fed only the control feed and the group fed the control feed and sugar alcohol may be explained by factors other than the differing feeding regimens. For purposes of comparing data in this document, P values of 0.10, or lower, are considered to be statistically significant. Thus, where a P value of 0.10 or less is returned for a particular variable, it is assumed the differing results are fully explained by the test regimen, i.e.: the presence or lack of the sugar alcohol in the diet of the particular lactating sow(s).

(5) Also, many of Tables 4-9 include a coefficient of variation for data in a particular row. A coefficient of variation is simply the standard deviation of a particular variable that is divided by the mean of the variable and then multiplied by 100. Because variances and standard deviations are used to measure error, and because these values for variances and standard deviations are sensitive to the absolute scale of the variable, coefficients of variations are provided, since coefficients of variation remove the influence of the overall magnitude of the data.

(6) In each of the Examples below, the control feed had the composition set forth in Table 1 below and the nutrient composition set forth in Table 2 below:

(7) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Control Diet Ingredient Composition Ingredient Concentration.sup.a (weight percent) Ground Corn 63.95 High Protein Soybean Meal 28.65 LitterMax ® HML Premix 5.00 Choice White Grease 2.30 Micro-Aid Premix 0.10 .sup.aBased on the total weight of the Control Diet

(8) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Control Diet Nutrient Composition Nutritional Parameters Value Metabolizable Energy (Kcal/lb) 1525 Crude Fat (weight percent).sup.a 2.798 Crude Protein (weight percent).sup.a 18.8 Lysine (weight percent).sup.a 1.00 Methionine (weight percent).sup.a 0.306 Cysteine + Methionine (weight percent).sup.a 0.632 Threonine (weight percent).sup.a 0.734 Tryptophan (weight percent).sup.a 0.232 Valine (weight percent).sup.a 0.887 Calcium (weight percent).sup.a 1.000 Phosphorus (weight percent).sup.a 0.800 .sup.aBased on the total weight of the Control Diet
The lactating sows were held in individual crates in a conventional farrowing facility and were individually fed. Each crate had wire flooring, a nipple water drinker, and a feeder. The sows in each crate had ad libitum access to water at all times.

(9) For each individual lactating sow, the amount of the control feed consumed by the individual lactating sow was determined and recorded once daily by subtracting the weight of the control feed remaining at the end of the last daily feeding in the crate of the individual lactating sow from the total weight of control feed provided to the individual lactating sow during the three (morning, noon, afternoon) individual daily feed additions to the feed container of the individual lactating sow.

Example 1

(10) In this example, sixty-two (62) lactating sows were subjected to one of three different feeding trials that each began shortly (within 48 hours) after the lactating sows gave birth to piglets (i.e.: shortly after farrowing) and extended to the day the different piglets were wearied from the respective sows. The purpose of this example was to evaluate the effect of feeding lactating sows varying amounts of sugar alcohol, or no sugar alcohol, on subsequent piglet litter performance parameters, such as mortality prior to weaning and litter weight gain during the pre-weaning period. Sorbitol was used as the sugar alcohol in this example.

(11) Immediately after farrowing, twenty sows were randomly assigned to the Control, twenty-one sows were randomly assigned to Trial A, and twenty-one sows were randomly assigned to Trial B. Sow assignment did take into account parity (number of litters per sow) to artificially balance parity across the Control, Trial A, and Trial B. The different sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B had parities ranging from one to more than two. Additionally, litter size was equalized between the different sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B within forty-eight hours after farrowing to assure that all sows, whether assigned to the Control, Trial A or Trial B, had the same, or about the same, number of nursing piglets. The reason for waiting forty-eight hours before cross-fostering in this fashion was to assure each piglet received colostrum from their original dam.

(12) In the Control, each of the twenty lactating sows were fed the control feed throughout the lactation period, where the control feed did not include any sugar alcohol. In Trial A, each of the lactating sows received the control feed plus about twenty-six grams of sorbitol per day. In Trial B, each of the lactating sows received the control feed plus about fifty-two grams of sorbitol per day.

(13) The lactating sows of both Trial A and Trial B received the same daily amount of control feed that was fed to the lactating sows of the Control with the exception that two pounds of the control feed provided daily to the lactating sows of both Trial A and Trial B were replaced with two pounds of a sorbitol-coated control feed (hereinafter referred to as “top-dressed control feed”). To create the top-dressed control feed, liquid sorbitol was heated to a temperature ranging from about 100° F. and about 120° F. The heated liquid sorbitol was then sprayed over a batch of about three hundred to four hundred pounds of the control feed and thoroughly mixed to form the top-dressed control feed. Following mixing, the top-dressed control feed was divided and separately bagged in two pound increments. An appropriate ratio of the liquid sorbitol to the control feed was selected for the top-dressed control feed destined for the Trial A lactating sows to assure that each two pound allotment of the control feed destined for the Trial A lactating sows included about twenty-six grams of sorbitol. Likewise, an appropriate ratio of the liquid sorbitol to the control feed was selected for the top-dressed control feed destined for the Trial B lactating sows to assure that each two pound allotment of the top-dressed control feed destined for the Trial B lactating sows included about fifty-two grams of sorbitol.

(14) During the feeding trial of this example, the top dressed control feed was applied three times daily to the balance of the control feed being provided individually at that feeding to the individual lactating sows of Trial A and Trial B. Approximately one-third of the top-dressed control feed was provided to the sows in the morning feeding, approximately one-third of the top dressed control feed was provided to the lactating sows in the noon feeding, and the remaining approximate one-third of the top-dressed control feed was provided to the sows in the afternoon feeding. The twenty-one sows of Trial A each received a total of about two pounds of the top-dressed control feed containing about 26 grams of sorbitol per day. The twenty-one sows of Trial B each received a total of about two pounds of the top-dressed control feed containing about 52 grams of sorbitol per day.

(15) All sixty-two lactating sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B were offered a maximum of four (4) pounds of the control feed during the first twenty-four (24) hours after farrowing, a maximum of eight (8) pounds of the control feed during the second day (24 hours to 48 hours) after farrowing, and a maximum of twelve (12) pounds of the control feed during the third day (48 hours to 72 hours) after farrowing to mimic typical feeding patters of lactating sows during the first seventy-two hours post-farrowing and minimize waste of the control feed. Thereafter, subsequent to the third day after farrowing, the sows were allowed ad libitum access to the control feed until the piglets were weaned from the lactating sows. Table 3 provides a scheduling summary for the trial diets of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B.

(16) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Trial Diet Schedule Diet Control Sorbitol Time Period Name Feed (grams per day) First 24 hours post Control offered 4 pounds daily 0 farrowing Trial A offered 4 pounds daily.sup.a 26 Trial B offered 4 pounds daily.sup.b 52 24 hours to 48 hours Control offered 8 pounds daily 0 post farrowing Trial A offered 8 pounds daily.sup.a 26 Trial B offered 8 pounds daily.sup.b 52 48 hours to 72 hours Control offered 12 pounds daily 0 post farrowing Trial A offered 12 pounds daily.sup.a 26 Trial B offered 12 pounds daily.sup.b 52 >72 hours Control ad libitum 0 post farrowing Trial A ad libitum.sup.a 26 Trial B ad libitum.sup.b 52 .sup.aAbout two pounds of the top-dressed control feed including about 26 grams of sorbitol were provided daily in place of about two pounds of the untreated control feed. .sup.bAbout two pounds of the top-dressed control feed including about 52 grams of sorbitol were provided daily in place of about two pounds of the untreated control feed.
The trial of this example began at farrowing when the lactating sows were fed in accordance with the schedule of Table 3. However, as noted above, the piglets were not removed from their birth sow until about forty-eight hours of birth to allow each piglet to receive colostrum from its birth sow. Thereafter, about forty-eight hours after birth (on day two after farrowing), the litters were equalized between the different sows, and the number of live nursing piglets per litter was counted and recorded.

(17) The number of live piglets per litter was also counted and recorded fourteen days after farrowing and again at weaning. The average numbers of live piglets in the Control, Trial A, and Trial B were calculated by separately adding together the number of piglets per litter in the Control, in Trial A, and in Trial B and thereafter dividing that number of total piglets per trial (Control, Trial A, or Trial B) by the number of nursing sows in that particular trial (Control, Trial A, or Trial B). The average number of piglets per litter for each trial (Control, Trial A, or Trial B) was calculated two days after farrowing, fourteen days after farrowing, and again at weaning. The average numbers of piglets per litter at these measurement times are listed in Table 4 below for the Control, Trial A, and Trial B.

(18) Litter mortality rates for the Control, Trial A, Trial B were separately calculated by comparing the number of piglets alive on day two post-farrowing with the number of piglets alive at day fourteen post-farrowing, with the results shown in Table 4 below as a percentage mortality during the period spanning from day two post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Litter mortality rates for the Control, Trial A, Trial B were also separately calculated by comparing the number of piglets alive on day fourteen post-farrowing with the number of piglets alive on the day of weaning, with the results shown in Table 4 below as a percentage mortality during the period spanning from day fourteen post-farrowing to the weaning day. Finally, litter mortality rates for the Control, Trial A, Trial B were again separately calculated by comparing the number of piglets alive on day two post-farrowing with the number of piglets alive on the day of weaning, with the results shown in Table 4 below as a percentage mortality during the period spanning from day two post-farrowing to the day of weaning.

(19) Additionally, the collective body weights of the piglets assigned to each lactating sow of the three different trials were measured and recorded on day two post-farrowing (about forty-eight hours after farrowing), on day fourteen post-farrowing (fourteen days after farrowing), and on the day the piglets were weaned. The mean body weight values for each individual piglet of the three different trials were derived for each piglet individually from the weight data recorded for each piglet litter by dividing the collective litter weight determined for a particular litter by the total number of piglets then-present in the litter to attain the mean individual piglet weights on day two post-farrowing (about forty-eight hours after farrowing), on day fourteen post-farrowing (fourteen days after farrowing), and on the day the piglets were weaned.

(20) The data of Table 4 illustrates the effects of the sugar alcohol feedings of Trial A and Trial B, versus the absence of sugar alcohol feedings in the Control, on litter performance (piglet mortality, litter live weight, and mean individual piglet weight) for each of the three different trials (Control, Trial A, and Trial B).

(21) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Litter Performance (Parity ≥ 1) Trial Name Coefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-Value Number of Sows 20 21 21 Mean Parity 2.40 2.90 2.75 56.9 0.55 Length of Lactation (Days) 21.21 20.71 21.41 10.38 0.57 Litter Performance: Day 2 10.65 10.57 10.50 7.52 0.83 Number of Nursing Day 14 9.70 10.14 10.0 11.22 0.43 Piglets At Weaning 9.51 9.95 10.03 11.44 0.2 Litter Performance: Day 1 to Day 14 8.86.sup.d 3.99.sup.c 4.61.sup.e 135 0.10 Percentage Piglet Day 14 to weaning 2.09.sup.d 1.74.sup.d 0.00.sup.e 260 0.09 Mortality.sup.x Day 1 to Weaning 10.75.sup.b 5.69.sup.c 4.60.sup.c 119.2 0.04 Litter Performance: Day 2 40.80 43.29 41.17 21.05 0.62 Total Live Weight Day 14 96.99 107.85 104.39 19.69 0.22 of Litter (pounds) At Weaning 137.59.sup.d 147.53.sup.de 154.81.sup.e 17.18 0.09 Litter Performance: Day 2 3.83 4.11 3.90 19.1 0.48 Mean Weight of Day 14 10.03 10.59 10.39 15.2 0.53 Individual Piglets At Weaning 14.53 14.80 15.55 13.75 0.26 (pounds) .sup.bcNumbers within the same row with different single letter superscripts differ at a probabilily value of P < 0.05. .sup.deNumbers within the same row with different single letter superscripts differ at a probability value of P < 0.10. .sup.xBased on number of piglets present at start of measurement period
The litter performance data of Table 4 demonstrates the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial A and Trial B caused the health of the piglets of the Trial A litters and the Trial B litters to be improved, relative to the health of the piglets of the Control litters. One illustration of the improved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibited lower mortality rates than the Control piglet litters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning).

(22) Another illustration of the improved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibited increased total litter live weights as compared to the Control piglet litters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning). Yet another illustration of the improved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibited increased individual piglet mean weights versus the piglets of the Control litters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning).

(23) Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate the health improvements of the Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial A of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 3.99 percent for the Trial A piglet litters from the 8.86 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 4.87 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 54.97 percent {((8.86−3.99)÷8.86)×100%} for the Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.

(24) Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial A of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 5.69 percent for the Trial A piglet litters from the 10.75 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 5.06 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 47.07 percent {((10.75−5.69)÷10.75)×100%} for the Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

(25) Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate the health improvements of the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 4.61 percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 8.86 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 4.25 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-furrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 47.97 percent {((8.86−4.61)÷8.86)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.

(26) Next, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 0.00 percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 2.09 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 2.09 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 100 percent {((2.09−0.00)÷2.09)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning.

(27) Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 4.60 percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 10.75 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 6.15 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 57.21 percent {((10.75−4.60)÷10.75)×100%}. For the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

(28) Specific examples concerning increased total litter live weights that further demonstrate the health improvements of the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial B of this example resulted in a total litter live weight increase to 154.81 pounds for the Trial B piglet litters versus the 137.59 pound litter live weight for the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the total litter live weight to increase by 17.22 pounds for the Trial B piglet litters versus the total litter live weight of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the total litter live weight to increase about 12.52 percent {((154.81−137.59)÷137.59)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

(29) In another aspect of the present invention, the mean daily feed intake for the lactating sows of the Control, Trial A and Trial B was determined for various time periods during the pre-weaning period, such as (1) day one post-farrowing through day seven post-farrowing, (2) day eight post-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (3) day one post-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (4) day one post-farrowing through day eighteen post-farrowing, and (5) day one post-farrowing through the day of piglet weaning. Each sow of the Control, Trial A and Trial B nursed piglets of the assigned litter until at least day eighteen post-farrowing. These mean daily feed intake values are presented in Table 5 below and were derived from the average daily feed intake data recorded for each lactating sow. Table 5 demonstrates the impact of the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages employed in Trial A and in Trial B, as compared to the Control that was free of sugar alcohol, on sow feed intake during the pre-weaning period for the sows assigned to the Control, Trial A, and Trial B.

(30) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Sow Performance - Feed Intake (Parity ≥ 1) Trial Name Coefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-Value Number of Sows 20 21 21 Mean Parity 2.40 2.90 2.75 56.9 0.55 Length of Lactation (Days) 21.21 20.71 21.41 10.38 0.57 Sow Day 1 thru Day 7 9.39 9.77 8.65 27.0 0.34 Feed Day 8 thru Day 14 13.84 13.92 13.11 24.5 0.68 Intake Day 1 thru Day 14 11.61 11.84 10.87 24.4 0.50 (pounds) Day 1 thru Day 18 12.28 12.45 11.68 22.5 0.60 Day 1 thru Weaning 12.80 12.91 12.22 19.9 0.63
The inventors of the present invention anticipated that sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages would exhibit a significant increase in feed intake during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the saws of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Surprisingly, however, as demonstrated by the data of Table 5, the lactating sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages did not experience any significant increase in feed intake during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the lactating sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

(31) Indeed, the results of Table 5 demonstrate that feed intake actually decreased by about 0.70 pounds for the Trial B sows, as compared to the Control sow feed intake, over each of the measurement periods of the pre-weaning period. Nonetheless, this decrease in feed intake for the Trial B sows did not have a negative impact upon the mortality rates of the litters of the sows in Trial B, upon the overall litter live weights of the Trial B litter, or upon the mean piglet weight of the individual piglets of the Trial B litters, as compared to the mortality rates of the litters of the sows in the Control, the overall litter live weights of the Control litters, or the mean piglet weight of the individual piglets of the Control litters. (See Table 4 above and related discussion). Similar comments apply to the sows of Trial A of this example that generally showed a slight, insignificant feed intake versus the sows of the Control. These slight variations in feed intake of the Trial A sows and the Trial B sows, versus the feed intake of the Control sows, nevertheless correspond with lower mortality rates and increased live weights for the Trial A litters and the Trial B litters, as compared to the Control litters, and suggest the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed sugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently than the Control sows and therefore needed fewer calories to produce beneficial amounts of milk with beneficial nutritional composition, as compared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

(32) In another aspect of this example, backfat thickness for the Control sows, the Trial A sows, and the Trial B sows was individually measured and recorded on day one post-farrowing (within twelve hours of farrowing), on day fourteen post-farrowing), and on the day the piglets were weaned from the various lactating sows. Backfat thicknesses were measured using a Linear Array Ultrasound unit obtained from E.I. Medical of Loveland, Colo. in accordance with the backfat measurement instructions provided with the Linear Array Ultrasound unit. Using the backfat thickness measurements for the individual Control sows, the individual Trial A sows, and the individual Trial B sows, the mean backfat thickness for the sows of the Control, for the sows of Trial A, and for the sows of Trial B were then calculated and recorded as of day one post-farrowing (within twelve hours of farrowing), on day fourteen post-farrowing), and on the day the piglets were weaned from the various lactating sows. The results of these mean backfat thickness determinations for the sows of the Control, for the sows of Trial A, and for the sows of Trial B are tabulated in Table 6.

(33) In this example, covariance analysis was used to increase the precision of the backfat measurements. Covariance analysis entails removing, by regression analysis, certain recognized treatment effects that cannot be or have not been effectively controlled by the experimental design. For example, if weight is correlated with weight gain, a portion of the experimental error for weight gain may be the result of differences in initial weight. Because the sows assigned to any group (such as the Control, Trial A, and Trial B) will typically vary in initial weight (and thus typically will vary in initial backfat thickness), this variation in initial hack fat thickness was taken into account to help improve the accuracy of the results for changes in backfat thickness. To make each group (such as the Control, Trial A, and Trial B) of sows more comparable, backfat measurements were adjusted, via regression analysis, to more accurately estimate what the backfat measurements would have been if all the sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B had had the same backfat thickness at the start of the pre-weaning period of this example (i.e. on day one post-farrowing). Thus, the changes in mean backfat thickness for the sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B provided in Table 6 below take into account the described covariance analysis that calculates and eliminates (accounts for) variations of initial sow backfat thicknesses. Again, Table 6 shows the impact of the sugar alcohol fed to the sows of Trial A and Trial B versus the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol on changes in mean backfat thickness for the sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B during the pre-weaning period.

(34) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Sow Performance - Backfat Changes (Parity ≥ 1) Trial Name Coefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-Value Number of Sows 20 21 21 Mean Parity 2.40 2.90 2.75 56.9 0.55 Length of Lactation (Days) 21.21 20.71 21.41 10.38 0.57 Sow Day One Post-farrowing.sup.a 0.58 0.70 0.61 0.02 Backfat Adj. Day One Post-farrowing.sup.a 0.598 0.598 0.598 (Inches) Weaning.sup.b 0.584 0.580 0.567 0.95 Change.sup.b −0.014 −0.0176 −0.031 0.95 .sup.aPost-farrowing backfat measurements taken about 12 hours after farrowing .sup.bPost farrowing backfat was used as a covariance.
Though not necessarily desirable, the inventors of the present invention expected the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages would exhibit a significant decrease in backfat during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Surprisingly, however, as demonstrated by the data of Table 6, the lactating sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages did not experience any significant backfat decrease during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the lactating sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Indeed, the results presented in Table 6 demonstrate the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed sugar alcohol lost only an insignificant amount of backfat between day one post-farrowing and weaning, as compared to the Control sows not fed any sugar alcohol. These backfat maintenance results of Table 6 further suggest the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed sugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently than the Control sows and therefore needed fewer calories to produce beneficial amounts of milk with beneficial nutritional composition, as compared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

Example 2

(35) In this example, the data from Example 1 was analyzed to remove data attributable to sows with a parity of only one. Parity refers to the number of litters a sow has previously given birth to during its life. Gilts or first-parity sows typically consume approximately fifteen to twenty percent less feed during lactation and also typically produce less milk than sows with parities greater than one. The litters of parity one sows also tend to have lower weaning weights and more health problems than the litters of sows with parities greater than one. The purpose of looking at the Example 1 data, as re-analyzed to remove the effect of parity one data, is to determine the influence of natural differences in feed intake and litter performance of parity one sows on the data presented in Example 1 above. Removing the data contributed by the seventeen parity one sows in Example 1, left the Control with fourteen sows of parity two or higher, left Trial A with sixteen sows of parity two or higher, and left Trial B with sixteen sows of parity two or higher. The remaining data contributed by the forty-five parity two or higher sows distributed between the Control, Trial A, and Trial B was analyzed and is presented as Example 2.

(36) The data of Table 7 below illustrates the effects of the sugar alcohol feedings of Trial A and Trial B, versus the absence of sugar alcohol feedings in the Control, on litter performance (piglet mortality, litter live weight, and mean individual piglet weight) for each of the three different trials (Control, Trial A, and Trial B).

(37) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Litter Performance (Parity ≥2) Trial Name Coefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-Value Number of Sows 14 16 15 Mean Parity 3.02 3.53 3.48 37.7 0.49 Length of Lactation (Days) 20.53 20.16 20.75 8.66 0.64 Litter Performance: Day 2 10.70 10.51 10.62 5.86 0.71 Number of Nursing Day 14 9.55 10.14 10.02 9.43 0.21 Piglets At Weaning 9.34 10.01 10.02 10.12 0.12 Litter Performance: Day 1 to Day 14 10.73.sup.b 3.52.sup.c 5.68.sup.c 106.9 0.02 Percentage Piglet Day 14 to weaning 2.33 1.23 0.00 285.7 0.17 Mortality.sup.x Day 1 to Weaning 12.77.sup.b 4.69.sup.c 5.71.sup.c 103.1 0.01 Litter Performance: Day 2 42.60 43.37 44.48 19.56 0.83 Total Live Weight Day 14 98.77 109.76 109.25 18.47 0.24 of Litter (pounds) At Weaning 136.59.sup.b 150.42.sup.bc 159.86.sup.c 16.50 0.04 Litter Performance: Day 2 3.97 4.14 4.18 18.40 0.74 Mean Weight of Day 14 10.38 10.82 10.87 14.94 0.66 Individual Piglets At Weaning 14.67 15.02 16.03 13.73 0.19 (pounds) .sup.bcNumbers within the same row with different single letter superscripts differ at a probability value of P < 0.05. .sup.xBased on number of piglets present at start of measurement period
The litter performance data of Table 7 demonstrates the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial A and Trial B caused the health of the piglets of the Trial A litters and the Trial B litters to be improved, relative to the health of the piglets of the Control litters. One illustration of the improved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibited lower mortality rates than the Control piglet litters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning).

(38) Another illustration of the improved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibited increased total litter live weights as compared to the Control piglet litters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning). Yet another illustration of the improved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibited increased individual piglet mean weights versus the piglets of the Control litters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing to weaning).

(39) Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate the health improvements of the Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial A of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 3.52 percent for the Trial A piglet litters from the 10.73 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 7.21 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 67.20 percent {((010.73−3.52)÷10.73)×100%} for the Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.

(40) Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial A of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 4.69 percent for the Trial A piglet litters from the 12.77 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 8.08 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet liners (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 63.27 percent {((12.77−4.69)÷12.77)×100%} for the Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

(41) Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate the health improvements of the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 5.68 percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 10.73 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 5.05 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 47.06 percent {((10.73−5.68)÷10.73)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.

(42) Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 5.71 percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 12.77 percent mortality rate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to drop by 7.06 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 55.29 percent {((12.77−5.71)÷12.77)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

(43) When comparing the parity≥one data of Table 4 from Example 1 with the parity≥two data of Table 7 from this example, one observation is that the Trial A percentage rate of litter mortality decreases, versus the Control, were noticeably larger for the parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data. Similar comments do not apply to the Trial B results where the percentage rate of litter mortality decreases, versus the Control, were quite similar for the parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data. This observation may suggest, at least for purposes of decreasing mortality in litters, the lower 26 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, has more beneficial impact than the higher 52 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol.

(44) Another observation when comparing the parity≥one data of Table 4 from Example 1 with the parity≥two data of Table 7 from this example is that the Trial A percentage point declines in litter mortality, versus the Control, were noticeably larger for the parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data. Similar comments also apply to the Trial B results, though the percentage point declines of litter mortality, versus the Control, were less dramatic for the Trial B results than for the Trial A results when comparing the parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data. This observation supports the prior suggestion, at least for purposes of decreasing mortality in litters, that the lower 26 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, has more beneficial impact than the higher 52 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol.

(45) An additional observation when comparing the parity 2 one data of Table 4 from Example 1 with the parity z two data of Table 7 from this example is that the Trial A litter mortality rate decreases to a smaller ending percentage for the parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data. Similar comments do not apply to the Trial B results, since the Trial B litter mortality rate, while still decreasing versus the litter mortality rate of the Control, actually decreases to a larger ending percentage for the parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data. This observation further supports the prior suggestion, at least for purposes of decreasing mortality in litters, that the lower 26 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, has more beneficial impact than the higher 52 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol.

(46) Specific examples about increased total litter live weights that further demonstrate the health improvements of the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial B of this example resulted in a total litter live weight increase to 159.86 pounds for the Trial B piglet litters from the 136.59 pounds for the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the total litter live weight to increase by 23.27 pounds for the Trial B piglet litters versus the total litter live weight of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused the total litter live weight to increase about 17.04 percent {((159.86−136.59)÷136.59)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

(47) When comparing the parity≥one data of Table 4 from Example 1 with the parity≥two data of Table 7 from this example, one observation is that the Trial B litter live weight gain percentage, versus the Control, were noticeably larger for the parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data. No meaningful comparisons are available for the Trial A parity≥two data versus the Trial A parity≥1 one data since this data has no statistical significance relative to either the Control data or the Trial B data. Nonetheless, the available parity≥two data versus the parity≥one data comparison discussed above for Trial B suggests that litters of parity≥two that are nursed from sows fed sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, in accordance with the present invention gain weight more quickly than litters of parity≥one that are nursed from sows fed sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, in accordance with the present invention.

(48) It is generally known that parity one sows typically consume less feed per day during lactation as compared to older sows. This is primarily due to the stress of farrowing a first litter. However, Table 5 shows a numeric decrease in feed intake for sows fed 52 grams of sorbitol per day. Although this decrease was not significant, concern existed over whether this decrease was related to parity one sows or common to all sows. Data from Table 5 was analyzed in the absence of feed intake data from parity one sows to form Table 8.

(49) In another aspect of the present invention, mean daily feed intake values for the lactating sows (parity≥two) of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B were derived from the Table 5 data of Example 1 for various time periods during the pre-weaning period, such as (1) day one post-farrowing through day seven post-farrowing, (2) day eight post-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (3) day one post-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (4) day one post-farrowing through day eighteen post-farrowing, and (5) day one post-farrowing through the day of piglet weaning and are presented in Table 8 below. The Table 8 data demonstrates the impact of the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages employed in Trial A and in Trial B, as compared to the Control that was free of sugar alcohol, on sow feed intake during the pre-weaning period for the sows (parity≥two) assigned to the Control, Trial A, and Trial B.

(50) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Sow Performance - Feed Intake (Parity ≥ 2) Trial Name Coefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-Value Number of Sows 14 16 15 Mean Parity 3.02 3.53 3.48 37.7 0.49 Length of Lactation (Days) 20.53 20.16 20.75 8.66 0.64 Sow Day 1 thru Day 7 9.98 10.67 10.00 16.14 0.42 Feed Day 8 thru Day 14 14.92 14.87 14.74 17.27 0.98 Intake Day 1 thru Day 14 12.45 12.77 12.37 15.87 0.83 (pounds) Day 1 thru Day 18 13.09 13.31 13.07 15.18 0.93 Day 1 thru Weaning 13.49 13.70 13.55 13.88 0.95
The inventors of the present invention, as previously discussed in Example 1, anticipated that sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages would exhibit a significant feed intake increase during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Surprisingly, however, as demonstrated by the data of Table 8, the lactating sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages did not experience any significant increase in feed intake during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the lactating sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Thus, despite excluding the parity one sow data from the data of Table 8, the natural tendency of parity one sows to consume less feed as compared to parity≥two sows did not cause any significant changes in the Table 8 results of this example versus the Table 5 results of Example 1.

(51) Indeed, the results of Table 8 demonstrate that feed intake actually decreased by a very small amount for the Trial B sows or stayed approximately the same, as compared to the Control sow feed intake, over the different measurement periods of the pre-weaning period. Nonetheless, this decreased or similar feed intake for the Trial B sows of parity≥two did not have a negative impact upon the mortality rates of the litters of the sows in Trial B, upon the overall litter live weights of the Trial B litters, or upon the mean piglet weight of the individual piglets of the Trial B litters, as compared to the mortality rates of the litters of the sows in the Control, the overall litter live weights of the Control litters, or the mean piglet weight of the individual piglets of the Control litters. (See Table 7 above and related discussion). Similar comments apply to the sows of Trial A of this example that generally showed a slight, insignificant feed intake versus the sows of the Control. These slight variations in feed intake of the Trial A sows and the Trial B sows, versus the feed intake of the Control sows, nevertheless correspond with lower mortality rates and increased weights for the Trial A litters and the Trial B litters, as compared to the Control litters, and suggest the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed sugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently than the Control sows and therefore needed fewer calories to produce beneficial amounts of milk with beneficial nutritional composition, as compared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

(52) In another aspect of this example, the backfat thickness data of Table 6 in Example 1 for the Control sows, the Trial A sows, and the Trial B sows was re-analyzed to removed data attributable to sows with a parity of one. The results of these mean backfat thickness determinations for the sows (parity two) of the Control, for the sows of Trial A, and for the sows of Trial B sows are tabulated in Table 9 below.

(53) In this data of Table 9, covariance analysis was again employed, as described with respect to the data of Table 6 in Example 1, to increase the precision of the backfat measurements. Thus, the changes in mean backfat thickness for the sows (parity≥two) of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B provided in Table 9 below take into account the described covariance analysis that calculates and eliminates (accounts for) variations of initial sow backfat thicknesses that are attributable to differences in initial sow weights. Again, the data of Table 9 show the impact of the sugar alcohol fed to the sows (parity≥two) of Trial A and Trial B versus the sows (parity≥two) of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol on changes in mean backfat thickness for the sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B during the pre-weaning period.

(54) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Sow Performance - Backfat Changes (Parity ≥ 2) Trial Name Coefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-Value Number of Sows 14 16 15 Mean Parity 3.02 3.53 3.48 37.7 0.49 Length of Lactation (Days) 20.53 20.16 20.75 8.66 0.64 Sow Day One Post-farrowing.sup.a 0.557 0.685 0.597 23.5 0.05 Backfat Adj. day one Post- farrowing.sup.a 0.616 0.616 0.616 (Inches) Weaning.sup.b 0.598 0.577 0.593 18.67 0.87 Change.sup.b −0.018 −0.039 −0.024 −362 0.87 .sup.aPost-farrowing backfat measurements taken about 12 hours after farrowing .sup.bPost farrowing backfat was used as a covariance.
Though not necessarily desirable, the inventors of the present invention expected the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages would exhibit a significant decrease in backfat during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Surprisingly, however, as demonstrated by the data of Table 9, the lactating sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages did not experience any significant backfat decrease during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the lactating sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. This result from the Table 9 data for the sows (parity≥two) does not differ in any significant way from the result of the Table 6 data for the sows (parity≥one), so parity appears to play no significant role in the quantification of backfat changes.

(55) Indeed, the results presented in Table 9 demonstrate the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed sugar alcohol lost only an insignificant amount of backfat between day one post-farrowing and weaning, as compared to the Control sows not fed any sugar alcohol. These backfat maintenance results of Table 9 further suggest the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed sugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently than the Control sows and therefore needed fewer calories to produce beneficial amounts of milk with beneficial nutritional composition, as compared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

(56) Although the present invention has been described with reference to preferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.