1
|
Gómez-Prado J, Pereira AMF, Wang D, Villanueva-García D, Domínguez-Oliva A, Mora-Medina P, Hernández-Avalos I, Martínez-Burnes J, Casas-Alvarado A, Olmos-Hernández A, Ramírez-Necoechea R, Verduzco-Mendoza A, Hernández A, Torres F, Mota-Rojas D. Thermoregulation mechanisms and perspectives for validating thermal windows in pigs with hypothermia and hyperthermia: An overview. Front Vet Sci 2022; 9:1023294. [PMID: 36532356 PMCID: PMC9751486 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1023294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Specific anatomical characteristics make the porcine species especially sensitive to extreme temperature changes, predisposing them to pathologies and even death due to thermal stress. Interest in improving animal welfare and porcine productivity has led to the development of various lines of research that seek to understand the effect of certain environmental conditions on productivity and the impact of implementing strategies designed to mitigate adverse effects. The non-invasive infrared thermography technique is one of the tools most widely used to carry out these studies, based on detecting changes in microcirculation. However, evaluations using this tool require reliable thermal windows; this can be challenging because several factors can affect the sensitivity and specificity of the regions selected. This review discusses the thermal windows used with domestic pigs and the association of thermal changes in these regions with the thermoregulatory capacity of piglets and hogs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jocelyn Gómez-Prado
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assessment, DPAA, Xochimilco Campus, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Alfredo M. F. Pereira
- Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development (MED), Institute for Advanced Studies and Research, Universidade de Évora, Polo da Mitra, Évora, Portugal
| | - Dehua Wang
- School of Life Sciences, Shandong University, Qingdao, China
| | - Dina Villanueva-García
- Division of Neonatology, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Adriana Domínguez-Oliva
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assessment, DPAA, Xochimilco Campus, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Patricia Mora-Medina
- Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Ismael Hernández-Avalos
- Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Julio Martínez-Burnes
- Animal Health Group, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Ciudad Victoria, Mexico
| | - Alejandro Casas-Alvarado
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assessment, DPAA, Xochimilco Campus, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Adriana Olmos-Hernández
- Division of Biotechnology—Bioterio and Experimental Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación-Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Ramiro Ramírez-Necoechea
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assessment, DPAA, Xochimilco Campus, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Antonio Verduzco-Mendoza
- Division of Biotechnology—Bioterio and Experimental Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación-Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Astrid Hernández
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assessment, DPAA, Xochimilco Campus, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Fabiola Torres
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assessment, DPAA, Xochimilco Campus, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Daniel Mota-Rojas
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assessment, DPAA, Xochimilco Campus, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wijesiriwardana UA, Craig JR, Cottrell JJ, Dunshea FR, Pluske JR. Animal board invited review: Factors affecting the early growth and development of gilt progeny compared to sow progeny. Animal 2022; 16:100596. [PMID: 35952479 DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100596] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2021] [Revised: 06/24/2022] [Accepted: 06/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Progeny born to primiparous sows farrowing their first litter, often called gilt progeny (GP), are typically characterised by their poorer overall production performance than progeny from multiparous sows (sow progeny; SP). Gilt progeny consistently grow slower, are born and weaned lighter, and have higher postweaning illness and mortality rates than SP. Collectively, their poorer performance culminates in a long time to reach market weight and, ultimately, reduced revenue. Due to the high replacement rates of sows, the primiparous sow and her progeny represent a large proportion of the herd resulting in a significant loss for the pig industry. While the reasons for poorer performance are complex and multifaceted, they may largely be attributed to the immature age at which gilts are often mated and the significant impact of this on their metabolism during gestation and lactation. As a result, this can have negative consequences on the piglet itself. To improve GP performance, it is crucial to understand the biological basis for differences between GP and SP. The purpose of this review is to summarise published literature investigating differences in growth performance and health status between GP and SP. It also examines the primiparous sow during gestation and lactation and how the young sow must support her own growth while supporting the metabolic demands of her pregnancy and the growth and development of her litter. Finally, the underlying physiology of GP is discussed in terms of growth and development in utero, the neonatal period, and the early development of the gastrointestinal tract. The present review concludes that there are a number of interplaying factors relating to the anatomy and physiology of the primiparous sow and of GP themselves. The studies presented herein strongly suggest that poor support of piglet growth in utero and reduced colostrum and milk production and consumption are largely responsible for the underperformance of GP. It is therefore recommended that future management strategies focus on supporting the primiparous sow during gestation and lactation, increasing the preweaning growth of GP to improve their ability to cope with the stressors of weaning, selection of reproductive traits such as uterine capacity to improve birth weights and ultimately GP performance, and finally, increase the longevity of sows to reduce the proportion of GP entering the herd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- U A Wijesiriwardana
- Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
| | - J R Craig
- Research and Innovation, Rivalea (Australia) Pty. Ltd, Redlands Road, Corowa, New South Wales 2646, Australia
| | - J J Cottrell
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
| | - F R Dunshea
- Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
| | - J R Pluske
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia; Australasian Pork Research Institute Ltd, PO Box 466, Willaston, South Australia 5118, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rodrigues GDA, Júnior DTV, Soares MH, da Silva CB, Fialho FA, Barbosa LMDR, Neves MM, Rocha GC, Duarte MDS, Saraiva A. L-Arginine Supplementation for Nulliparous Sows during the Last Third of Gestation. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11123476. [PMID: 34944251 PMCID: PMC8698042 DOI: 10.3390/ani11123476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2021] [Revised: 11/30/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
We evaluated the effects of L-arginine supplementation during the last third of gestation on molecular mechanisms related to skeletal muscle development of piglets and litter traits at birth. Twenty-three nulliparous sows averaging 205.37 ± 11.50 kg of body weight were randomly assigned to the following experimental treatments: control (CON), where pregnant sows were fed diets to meet their nutritional requirements; arginine (ARG), where sows where fed CON + 1.0% L-arginine. Skeletal muscle from piglets born from sows from ARG group had greater mRNA expression of MYOD (p = 0.043) and MYOG (p ≤ 0.01), and tended to present greater mRNA expression (p = 0.06) of IGF-2 gene compared to those born from CON sows. However, there were no differences (p > 0.05) in the histomorphometric variables of fetuses' skeletal muscle. The total weight of born piglets, total weight of born alive piglets, piglet weight at birth, coefficient of variation of birth weight, and the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) piglets did not differ between groups. No stillborn piglets (p < 0.01) were verified in the ARG sows compared to CON group. The blood levels of estradiol (p = 0.035) and urea (p = 0.03) were higher in ARG sows compared to those from the CON group. In summary, our data show that arginine supplementation of nulliparous sows at late gestation enhance mRNA expression of key myogenic regulatory factors, which likely contribute to improve animal growth rates in later stages of development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustavo de Amorim Rodrigues
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Muscle Biology and Nutrigenomics Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
| | - Dante Teixeira Valente Júnior
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Muscle Biology and Nutrigenomics Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
| | - Marcos Henrique Soares
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Muscle Biology and Nutrigenomics Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
| | - Caroline Brito da Silva
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Muscle Biology and Nutrigenomics Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
| | - Fernanda Abranches Fialho
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Muscle Biology and Nutrigenomics Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
| | - Lívia Maria dos Reis Barbosa
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
| | - Mariana Machado Neves
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Structural Biology Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
| | - Gabriel Cipriano Rocha
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Muscle Biology and Nutrigenomics Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
| | | | - Alysson Saraiva
- Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil; (G.d.A.R.); (D.T.V.J.); (M.H.S.); (C.B.d.S.); (F.A.F.); (L.M.d.R.B.); (M.M.N.); (G.C.R.)
- Muscle Biology and Nutrigenomics Laboratory, Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Craig JR, Dunshea FR, Cottrell JJ, Furness JB, Wijesiriwardana UA, Pluske JR. A comparison of the anatomical and gastrointestinal functional development between gilt and sow progeny around birth and weaning1. J Anim Sci 2019; 97:3809-3822. [PMID: 31268143 PMCID: PMC6735937 DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2019] [Accepted: 06/30/2019] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Gilt progeny (GP) often have restricted growth performance and health status in comparison to sow progeny (SP) from birth, with the underlying mechanisms responsible for this yet to be fully understood. The present study aimed to compare differences in growth and development between GP and SP in the first 24 h after birth and in the periweaning period. Two cohorts of pigs including 36 GP and 37 SP were euthanized at 1 of 4 time points: a birth cohort (at birth before suckling, 0 h; and 24 h after birth, 24 h; n = 33) and a weaning cohort (at approximately 29 d of age; "pre-weaning," PrW; and 24 h after weaning; "post-weaning," PoW; n = 40). Pigs were individually weighed at 0 h, 24 h, PrW, and PoW up until the point of euthanasia, at which time the weights of selected tissues and organs were recorded and analyzed relative to BW. The length of the small intestine (SI), femur, and body were also measured, and a serum sample was collected and analyzed for IgG concentration. Samples of jejunal and ileal mucosa were collected and analyzed for total protein and specific activity of lactase. Euthanized GP were lighter (P < 0.01) than SP at all time points. At all time points, the ratios of quadriceps weight to femur length, BW to body length, spleen to BW (all P < 0.05), and SI weight to length (P < 0.10) were lower in GP than in SP. There was no difference (P ≥ 0.05) in stomach or heart to BW ratios between GP and SP in either cohort. The brain to liver weight ratio was greater (P = 0.044) in GP than in SP in the birth cohort, and the brain to BW ratio was greater (P < 0.01) in GP in both the birth and weaning cohorts. The liver to BW ratio was similar (P = 0.35) at birth but greater (P = 0.014) in GP around weaning. Total mucosal protein content in the jejunum and ileum was lower (P = 0.007) in GP at 24 h compared with SP, and specific activity of lactase was greater (P = 0.022) in GP in the birth cohort, whereas there were no differences in the weaning cohort (P ≥ 0.10). Gilt progeny had lower (P < 0.001) serum IgG concentration compared with SP at 24 h, but there was no difference (P ≥ 0.10) in the weaning cohort. Collectively, these findings suggest that the early development of GP may be delayed compared with SP and that a number of the anatomical differences between GP and SP that exist after birth are also present at weaning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica R Craig
- Rivalea (Australia) Pty. Ltd., Corowa, NSW, Australia
- Agricultural Sciences, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia
| | - Frank R Dunshea
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Jeremy J Cottrell
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - John B Furness
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Florey Institute for Neuroscience and Mental Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Udani A Wijesiriwardana
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - John R Pluske
- Agricultural Sciences, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia
- Australasian Pork Research Institute Ltd., Willaston, SA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Craig JR, Dunshea FR, Cottrell JJ, Wijesiriwardana UA, Pluske JR. Primiparous and Multiparous Sows Have Largely Similar Colostrum and Milk Composition Profiles Throughout Lactation. Animals (Basel) 2019; 9:E35. [PMID: 30691116 PMCID: PMC6407016 DOI: 10.3390/ani9020035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2019] [Accepted: 01/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
It is important to understand the biological factors influencing the poorer lifetime performance of gilt progeny in comparison to sow progeny and determine whether this may be partially due to differences in lactation performance between primiparous and multiparous sows. It was hypothesized that primiparous sows would have lower levels of immunoglobulin G (IgG) in colostrum and milk compared to multiparous sows, and lower levels of other energetic components. Differences in colostrum and milk composition between ten primiparous and ten multiparous sows (parities 3 and 4) from a commercial herd were examined throughout lactation (day 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 21). Overall, there were no (p ≥ 0.05) parity differences in total IgG, fat, protein, lactose, and net energy (NE) concentrations. Primiparous sows had higher lactose levels at day 2 (parity by timepoint interaction; p = 0.036) and lower NE at day 3 (p = 0.091), and multiparous sows had higher lactose levels at days 14 and 21. Results suggest that shortcomings of gilt progeny are unlikely due to insufficient nutrient levels in colostrum and milk, and more likely to reduced colostrum and milk intake and their capacity to digest and absorb each component.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica R Craig
- Research and Innovation, Rivalea (Australia) Pty. Ltd., Corowa, NSW 2646, Australia.
- School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
| | - Frank R Dunshea
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic 3010, Australia.
| | - Jeremy J Cottrell
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic 3010, Australia.
| | - Udani A Wijesiriwardana
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic 3010, Australia.
| | - John R Pluske
- School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
- Australasian Pork Research Institute Ltd. (APRIL), Willaston, SA 5118, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|