Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T14:29:12.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of litter size and littermate weight on pre-weaning performance of low-birth-weight piglets that have been cross-fostered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. G. H. English  and
G. Bilkeit
J. G. H. English
Affiliation:
Bilkei Consulting, Raubbühlstrasse 4, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
G. Bilkeit*
Affiliation:
Bilkei Consulting, Raubbühlstrasse 4, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of litter size and littermate weight on low-birth-weight (< 1 kg) piglets that have been cross-fostered, piglets' pre-weaning performance in the following groups were compared. Group A (no. = 10), low-birth-weight piglets raised with equal number of heavy-birth-weight piglets in small (eight piglets) litters; group B (no. = 10), low-birth-weight piglets raised with equal number of heavy-birth-weight piglets in large (12 piglets) litters; group C (no. = 10), low-birth-weight piglets raised with equal number of average-birth-weight piglets in small (eight piglets) litters; D (no. = 10), low-birth-weight piglets raised with equal number of average-birth-weight piglets in large (12 piglets) litters; E (no. = 10), small (eight piglets) low-birth-weight litters; F (no. = 10), large (12 piglets) low-birth-weight litters.

Mortality of low-birth-weight piglets in large litters was greater (P < 0.001) with heavy littermates, but in small litters was no different. Weight gain of piglets until day 3 post partum was not significantly (P > 0.05) affected by littermate weight and litter size, or their interaction. Weight at 21 days post partum was significantly affected by littermate weight, litter size, and their interaction. Low-birth-weight piglets in small litters had significantly higher 21-day weights in large litters (P < 0.01, P < 0.05 and P < 0.05 with littermates of low, average and heavy birth weight respectively). In large but not small litters, low-birth-weight piglets missed more nursing episodes and spent more time in teat disputes than their heavier littermates whether in heavy-birth-weight (P < 0.01), or average-birth-weight (P < 0.05) litters.

Littermate weight may affect the performance of low-birth-weight piglets due to direct competition for access to a functional teat.

Keywords

birth weightlive-weight gainmortalitypigssucking
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , December 2004 , pp. 439 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aherne, F. 1999. Research spotlights techniques to increase piglet survival. International Pig Letter 18: 4–6.Google Scholar
Beymon, N. 1997. Ten ways to foster pigs. Pig International Magazine October 1997: 20–23.Google Scholar
Bilkei, G. and Biro, O. 1999. Der Einfluss des Geburtsgewichtes auf das Absetzgewicht, auf die Saugferkelverluste und Saugferkelerkrankungen der Ferkel. Tierarztliche Umschau 54: 372–377.Google Scholar
Bilkei, G., Goos, T. and Bolcskei, A. 1993. Der Einfluss der Anzahl funktionierenden Mammarkomplexe auf Vierwochengewicht in der industriellen Schweinezucht. Praktische Tierarzt 1: 16–19.Google Scholar
Bilkei-Papp, G. 1994. Perinatal losses — general condition of sows. IV. Effect of parasympathicomymeticum (Carbamylcholin) on the duration of the delivery and perinatal losses. Hungarian Veterinary Journal 11: 683–686.Google Scholar
Blackwell, T. E. 1988. Studies on the birthweights of pigs. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Caceres, L., Bilkei, G., McGil, M. and Pena, F. J. 2001. The effect of levamisole on the preweaning performance of lightweight born piglets. Medicina Veterinaria 18: 435–438.Google Scholar
Cutler, R. S., Fahi, V. A., Spicer, E. M. and Cronin, G. M. 1999. Preweaning mortality. In Diseases of swine, eighth edition (ed. Straw, B. E., Allaire, S.D., Mengeling, W. L. and Taylor, D. J.), pp. 985–1002. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
English, P., Smith, W. and Maclean, A. 1982. The sow -improving her efficiency. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
English, P. and Wilkinson, V. 1982. Management of the sow and litter in late pregnancy and lactation in relation to piglet survival and growth. In Control of pig reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 479–506. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Kramer, D. L. , Pajor, E. A. and Weary, D. M. 1995. Conflict and cooperation: sociobiological principles and the behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Sciences 44: 139–157.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. and Thompson, B. K. 1986. Variation in piglets weight; relationship to suckling behaviour, parity number and farrowing crate design. Canadian journal of Animal Science 66: 31–46.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Thompson, B. K., Ferguson, D. K. and Darroch, R. L. 1979. The“teat order” of suckling pigs. 111. Relation to competition within litters. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 257–261.Google Scholar
Holtcamp, A. H. 1998. Farrowing house management types. Proceedings of American Association of Swine Practitioners, pp. 317–318.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. and Bennett, J. 1981. Disruption of teat preferences and retardation of growth following cross-fostering of one week old pigs. Animal Production 33: 99–106.Google Scholar
Marcatti, N. A. 1986. Effect of cross fostering on piglets preweaning performance. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria Zootecnia 38: 413–417.Google Scholar
Milligan, B. N., Fraser, D. and Kramer, D. L. 2001. The effect of littermate weight on survival, weight gain, and suckling behaviour of low-birth-weight piglets in cross fostered litters. Swine Health and Production 9: 161–166.Google Scholar
Robert, S. and Martineau, G. P. 1998. Sow-piglet behavioral interactions and the impact of cross-fostering on piglet performance. Proceedings of American Association of Swine Practitioners, pp. 313–316.Google Scholar
Straw, B. 1997. Veterinary practice: art, science and politics; general thoughts illustrated by cross fostering experiences. Proceedings of American Association of Swine Practitioners, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Straw, B. E., Dewey, C. E. and Burgi, E. J. 1998. Patterns of cross fostering and piglet mortality on commercial US and Canadian swine farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 33: 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, J., Svendsen, L. S. and Bengtsson, A. C. 1986. Reducing perinatal mortality in pigs. In Diseases of swine, sixth edition (ed. Leman, A. D., Straw, B., Glock, D., Mengeling, W. L., Penny, R. H. C. and Scholl, E.), pp. 813–825. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L. 1990. The SYSTAT NPAR program system for statistics. Evantson, Illinois.Google Scholar
Zajas-Cruz, E., Pitscher, P. M. and Parsons, T. D. 2000. Motivating and monitoring cross fostering management. Swine Health and Production 8: 269–272.Google Scholar