Group suckling cohesion as a prelude to the formation of teat order in piglets

Effect of Different Cross-Fostering Strategies on Growth Performance, Stress Status and Immunoglobulin of Piglets

The effect of different cross-fostering strategies on the growth performance, stress and immunity of piglets was investigated in this study. In the first experiment, a total of 20 litters (i.e., 20 sows) and 120 piglets were classified into one of six treatments in a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement. The treatments consisted of piglets without or with cross-fostering and different birth weights (low birth weight, LBW; intermediate birth weight, IBW; high birth weight, HBW). The weaning weight (WW) and average daily gain (ADG) of LBW piglets and IBW piglets were not significantly different between the not cross-fostered (NC-F) group and the cross-fostered (C-F) group. There was a higher (p < 0.05) ADG in the control piglets compared with the cross-fostered piglets. This effect on ADG was only seen in the HBW piglets. In the second experiment, six sows with a similar body condition and farrowed on the same day were selected. Three female piglets with a birth weight of 0.6-0.85 kg were selected from each litter as experimental piglets. Eighteen piglets were grouped into three treatments: (1) not cross-fostered (NC-F1), (2) cross-fostered at 36-48 h after birth (C-F1), (3) cross-fostered at day 7 after birth (C-F2). The growth performance of NC-F1 and C-F1 piglets was higher than C-F2 piglets (p < 0.05), and the suckling positions of NC-F1 and C-F1 piglets on days 8, 12, 16 and 20 were more forward than the C-F2 piglets (p < 0.05). Plasma cortisol (COR) concentrations of NC-F1 and C-F1 piglets were lower than C-F2 piglets (p < 0.05). A significant negative correlation was observed between BW at day 21 and plasma COR concentration. In conclusion, cross-fostering within 24 h of birth has adverse influences on the ADG of HBW piglets, while it has no negative effect on the ADG of LBW and IBW piglets. Moreover, for IBW piglets, late cross-fostering (i.e., on day 7 after farrowing) has negative impacts on the growth performance and teat order of piglets, and it increases the cortisol level of piglets.

Effects of tail docking and/or teeth clipping on behavior, lesions, and physiological indicators of sows and their piglets

To evaluate effects of tail docking and/or teeth clipping on sows and their piglets, a total of 24 sows and their 302 piglets at 3 days of age were randomly allocated to one of four treatments: teeth clipping and tail docking (TCTD), teeth clipping (TC), tail docking (TD), or intact teeth and tail (Intact). Behavior of piglets and sows, lesions on the body and tail of piglets and sows' teats were inspected. Heart rates of processed piglets were increased (p < .01) during the procedures. Teeth clipping decreased body surface temperature (p < .01) of piglets during and after the procedures but tail docking did not (p > .01). Processed piglets spent more (p < .05) time lying alone and playing/fighting than sham-processed piglets. Tail docked piglets spent less (p < .01) time standing than tail sham-docked piglets. Intact teeth increased (p < .05) the avoidance behaviors of sows. Teeth clipping decreased (p < .05) the lesion scores on the anterior, middle, and posterior teats. Taken together, piglet teeth clipping had more impact on sows and their piglets than tail docking did in the lactation period based on our findings.

Sows in mid parity are best foster mothers for the pre- and post-weaning performance of both light and heavy piglets1

To improve the performance of lightweight piglets during suckling, producers are advised to create uniform litters using young sows. However, fostering piglets to primiparous sows may confer penalties due to their lower milk yield and milk immunoglobulin concentrations compared with multiparous sows. The objective was to determine the effect of foster sow parity (primiparous (F), second (S), and mid parity (M: parity 3 to 5)) on the performance from birth to day 68 of piglets born light (L: ≤1.25 kg) or heavy (H: 1.50-2.00 kg) and on creep feed consumption. Piglets (n = 507) considered L or H were cross-fostered, creating litters of 13 similar-sized piglets/litter and were randomly fostered to one of the foster parities. All litters were offered creep feed with a green dye to discern between consumers and nonconsumers, and the medication administered was recorded. Medication administrated pre- and postweaning did not differ (P > 0.05) across the different experimental groups. A significantly (P ≤ 0.025) lower number of H piglets were removed as a result of preweaning weight loss from F and S, rather than M litters. The interaction between birth weight and foster parity only affected piglet BW at day 10 (P = 0.020); foster parity did not influence BW of L piglets, but influenced that of H piglets. H piglets in F and M litters (3.82 and 3.80 kg) were significantly lighter (P ≤ 0.013) than H piglets in S litters (4.15 kg). As expected, L piglets performed worse pre- and postweaning than H piglets; they were 4.50 kg lighter at day 68. Foster parity significantly affected BW: F piglets were weaned lighter (P = 0.004) than S and M piglets (7.52 vs. 8.02 kg). Postweaning (day 68) however, F piglets achieved similar BW as S piglets (29.7 vs. 29.9 kg), whereas M piglets performed best (31.2 kg, P ≤ 0.079). Significantly fewer (almost none) of the L than the H piglets consumed creep feed (P < 0.001); significantly (P = 0.007) more F and M piglets were considered consumers than S piglets. The results suggest that irrespectively of birth weight, piglets tend to perform better when in M litters, being weaned heavy and having a high creep feed intake; however, more piglets are removed from such litters preweaning. Although S litters were weaned heavy, they were unable to maintain this BW advantage postweaning, due to their low creep feed intake and F litters remained small throughout. Long-term performance monitoring to slaughter is recommended.

A Review of Success Factors for Piglet Fostering in Lactation

Simple Summary

An understanding of behavioural and physiological mechanisms responsible for piglet survival and growth will assist in developing the best recommendations in which to manage piglet movements in the farrowing house. This review has identified six key principles that should underpin successful piglet fostering. These fostering principles will improve productivity and welfare of sows and piglets in commercial pig production.

Abstract

Piglet movement from one sow to another, or fostering, is required in modern pig farming but there is little available literature on the most effective strategy. In this review, we focus on the behavioural and physiological mechanisms responsible for piglet survival and growth, and have identified six key principles. (1) Colostrum provides piglets with warmth, energy and immunity. It is most accessible during the first 12 h from the birth sow, therefore no piglet should be moved before this; (2) To ensure even intake of birth sow colostrum, techniques such as split suckling prior to piglet movement should be implemented; (3) Udder assessment for functional teats should occur at farrowing, with number of fostered piglets not exceeding teat number; (4) Primiparous sows should receive as many piglets as the udder allows to maximise mammary stimulation, although older parities should be assessed for rearing ability; (5) Piglet fostering should occur between 12 and 24 h and movement kept to a minimum to prevent transfer of disease; Litter outliers should be moved and relocated to a litter of similar size; (6) Piglet movement after 24 h should be minimised. When required, strategies such as nurse usage should be employed. These principles will result in improved farrowing house performance by increasing the litter weight weaned per sow.

On the presence and absence of suckling order in polytocous mammals

Mammals have developed a variety of suckling behaviours ranging from tenacious nipple attachment in some rodents and marsupials to once-a-day suckling in rabbit. However, a common feature of suckling that was found in many mammals is the suckling order, or a partial preference to suckle a particular teat (teat fidelity) or part of the udder (suckling preference). A lack of suckling order is observed only in a few mammals. In this article, the possible background of the presence or absence of suckling order in eutherian polytocous mammals is discussed either from the maternal investment or sibling competition point of view. Characteristics related to maternal investment in species in which the suckling order has already been studied at least partially, were classified using C4.5 algorithm (J48 classifier in Weka 3.8.1), and decision tree was built. In the context of sibling competition, an extensive form game (game theory) was predicted to show the optimal suckling strategy considering the basic relations among littermates in two situations (littermates of equal strength/dominance and littermates with different strength/dominance). Although no ultimate conclusion can be drawn, it appears that the suckling order is typical for species whose reproductive system requires a lower maternal investment (up to one litter/year, monogamy, biparental care, lower litter birth weight); and, it appears that the suckling order is inherent to the weaker (inferior) siblings.

What is good for small piglets might not be good for big piglets: The consequences of cross-fostering and creep feed provision on performance to slaughter

Major improvements in sow prolificacy have resulted in larger litters but, at the same time, increased the proportion of piglets born light weight. Different management strategies aim to enhance the performance of, and limit light-weight piglet contribution to, BW variation within a batch; however, consequences on heavy-weight littermates are often neglected. This study investigated the effects of different litter compositions, created through cross-fostering, and the provision of creep feed on preweaning behavior and short- and long-term performance of piglets born either light weight (≤1.25 kg) or heavy weight (1.50-2.00 kg). Piglets were cross-fostered at birth to create litters with only similar-sized piglets (light weight or heavy weight; UNIFORM litters) and litters with equal numbers of light-weight and heavy-weight piglets (MIXED litters); half of the litters were offered creep feed and the remaining were not. Piglet behavior during a suckling bout and at the creep feeder was assessed; a green dye was used to discern between consumers and nonconsumers of creep feed. The interaction between litter composition and birth weight (BiW) class influenced piglet BW at weaning ( < 0.001): piglets born light weight were lighter at weaning in MIXED litters than those in UNIFORM litters (6.93 vs. 7.37 kg); however, piglets born heavy weight performed considerably better in MIXED litters (8.93 vs. 7.96 kg). Total litter gain to weaning was not affected ( = 0.565) by litter composition. Teat position affected heavy-weight piglet performance by d 10 ( < 0.001), with heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters being disadvantaged when suckling the middle and posterior teats. Creep feed provision did not affect BW at weaning ( > 0.05) for either BiW class. However, litter composition significantly affected daily creep feed consumption ( = 0.046) and fecal color ( = 0.022), with heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters consuming the highest amount of creep feed and having the greenest feces. In addition, a lower number of heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters were classified as nonconsumers ( = 0.002). The weight advantage heavy-weight and light-weight piglets had at weaning when reared in MIXED and UNIFORM litters, respectively, was sustained throughout the productive period. In conclusion, reducing BW variation within litter (UNIFORM litters) was beneficial for piglets born light weight but not for piglets born heavy weight; the latter were disadvantaged up to slaughter. Although heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters consumed the greatest amount of creep feed, this was not able to overcome their growth disadvantage compared with heavy-weight piglets in MIXED litters.