Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Third-parity sows received s.c. injections of sterile water (CTL, n = 12) or 15 mg of recombinant porcine prolactin (pPRL, n = 12) at 0730, 1530, and 2330 from d 2 to 23 of lactation. Litters were standardized to 11 or 12 pigs and were weighed weekly until weaning (d 24). On d 22 of lactation, milk production was estimated, and a milk sample was obtained the next day. Jugular blood samples were collected from sows on d 2, 7, 14, and 21 of lactation. Sows were slaughtered and mammary glands collected at d 24. Injections of pPRL doubled the serum concentrations of prolactin (P < .001) on d 7, 14, and 21 of lactation and decreased IGF-I concentrations on d 14 (P = .07) and 21 (P < .01). Weight, backfat, and milk yield of sows and mean pig weights were not affected by pPRL (P > . 1), yet the mean duration of intervals between nursings was reduced by 4.2 min (P = .06) in pPRL litters (45.9 vs 41.7 min). Dry matter and fat percentages in milk were lower in pPRL sows (P < .01). Weights of parenchymal and extraparenchymal tissues were not altered by pPRL treatment (P > .1). Number of prolactin receptors in parenchymal tissue as well as receptor affinity were similar in both groups (P > .1). Results indicate that virtually all prolactin receptors were saturated in CTL sows. This is probably the reason why additional exogenous prolactin had negligible effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Farmer et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: