Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T18:42:17.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nurse sow strategies in the domestic pig: II. Consequences for piglet growth, suckling behaviour and sow nursing behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2018

O. Schmitt Open the ORCID record for O. Schmitt [Opens in a new window] ,
E. M. Baxter ,
L. A. Boyle  and
K. O’Driscoll
O. Schmitt*
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland Department of Animal Production, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK
E. M. Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare Team, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, SRUC, West Mains Road, EdinburghEH9 3JG, UK
L. A. Boyle
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland
K. O’Driscoll
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Nurse sow strategies are used to manage large litters on commercial pig farms. However, new-born piglets transferred to nurse sows in late lactation might be compromised in terms of growth and survival. We investigated the effects of two nurse sow strategies on piglet growth, suckling behaviour and sow nursing behaviour. At 1-day post-farrowing, the four heaviest piglets from large litters were transferred to a nurse sow either 21 (1STEP21, n=9 litters) or 7 (2STEP7, n=10 litters) days into lactation. The remainder of the litter remained with their mother and was either kept intact (remain intact (RI), n=10 litters) or had some piglets cross-fostered to equalise birth weights (remain equalised (RE), n=9 litters). The 7-day-old piglets from 2STEP7 were transferred onto a sow 21 days into lactation (2STEP21, n=10 litters). The growth of new-born piglets on 1STEP21 and 2STEP7 nurse sows was initially lower than in RI litters (F3,33.8=4.61; P<0.01), but weaning weights did not significantly differ (F4,32.7=0.78; P>0.5). After the 1st week of lactation, the weights and growth rates did not differ between treatments. Fighting behaviour during nursing bouts decreased over time. The frequency of fights was higher in 1STEP21 and 2STEP21 litters compared with RI litters (t122=3.06 and t123=3.00, respectively, P<0.05). The 2STEP21 litters had shorter nursing bouts than RI and 1STEP21 litters (t107=−2.81 and t81.7=2.8, respectively, P<0.05), which were more frequently terminated by 2STEP21 than RI sows (t595=2.93; P<0.05). Transferring heaviest piglets from RI and RE litters to nurse sows reduced the percentage of teat changes during nursing bouts (RI: F1,275=16.61; RE: F1,308=43.59; P<0.001). In conclusion, nurse sow strategies do not appear to compromise piglet growth. However, new-born piglets transferred onto sows in late lactation experienced more competition at the udder, suggesting that the sows’ stage of lactation is of importance to how achievable nurse sow strategies are. Thus, the two-step nurse sow strategy is likely the best option (in relation to growth and suckling behaviour), as it minimises the difference between piglet age and sow stage of lactation.

Keywords

large litterspigbehaviourperformancewelfare
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 590 - 599
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Pork 2017. 2016 Pig cost of production in selected countries. Retrieved on 22 May 2018 from https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/media/274535/2016-pig-cost-of-production-in-selected-countries.pdf.Google Scholar
Algers, B 1993. Nursing in pigs: communicating needs and distributing resources. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2826–2831.Google Scholar
Andersen, IL, Berg, S and Bøe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243.Google Scholar
Andersen, IL, Nævdal, E and Bøe, KE 2011. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 1159–1167.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB, Ross, DW, Robson, SK, Farish, M, Nevison, IM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2008. Investigating the behavioural and physiological indicators of neonatal survival in pigs. Theriogenology 69, 773–783.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Rutherford, KMD, D‘Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Sandøe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA and Lawrence, AB 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors. Animal Welfare 22, 219–238.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Swain, AJ, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJM and Gillies, KJ 1997. The development of playful behaviour in piglets from birth to weaning in three farrowing environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 37–49.Google Scholar
De Pastille, AMB and Rushen, J 1989. Suckling and teat disputes by neonatal piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22, 23–38.Google Scholar
Donaldson, TM, Newberry, RC, Špinka, M and Cloutier, S 2002. Effects of early play experience on play behaviour of piglets after weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 221–231.Google Scholar
Douglas, SL, Edwards, SA, Sutcliffe, E, Knap, PW and Kyriazakis, I 2013. Identification of risk factors associated with poor lifetime growth performance in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4123–4132.Google Scholar
The Council of the European Union 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. The Official Journal L47, 5–13.Google Scholar
Heim, G, Mellagi, APG, Bierhals, T, de Souza, LP, de Fries, HCC, Piuco, P, Seidel, E, Bernardi, ML, Wentz, I and Bortolozzo, FP 2012. Effects of cross-fostering within 24h after birth on pre-weaning behaviour, growth performance and survival rate of biological and adopted piglets. Livestock Science 150, 121–127.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Winfield, CG and Mullaney, PD 1976. A study of the development of the teat order in piglets. Applied Animal Ethology 2, 225–233.Google Scholar
Hurley, WL 2015. Composition of sow colostrum and milk. In The gestating and lactating sow (ed. C Farmer), pp. 193–229. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Martin, JE, Ison, SH and Baxter, EM 2015. The influence of neonatal environment on piglet play behaviour and post-weaning social and cognitive development. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 163, 69–79.Google Scholar
Martin, P, Bateson, PPG and Bateson, P 1993. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2001. The effect of littermate weight on survival, weight gain, and suckling behavior of low-birth-weight piglets in cross-fostered litters. Journal of Swine Health and Production 99, 161–166.Google Scholar
Moutsen, VA, Lahrmann, HP and D’Eath, RB 2011. Relationship between size and age of modern hyper-prolific crossbred sows. Livestock Science 141, 272–275.Google Scholar
Muirhead, MR and Alexander, TJL 1997. Managing pig health and the treatment of disease: a reference for the farm. 5M Enterprises Ltd, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
Muns, R, Silva, C, Manteca, X and Gasa, J 2014. Effect of cross-fostering and oral supplementation with colostrums on performance of newborn piglets. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1193–1199.Google Scholar
Ocepek, M and Andersen, IL 2017. What makes a good mother? Maternal behavioural traits important for piglet survival. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 193, 29–36.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ 2016. Large litter size and the challenges in loose housing. In Proceedings of the Report of the Free Farrowing Workshop 2016. Belfast, UK, pp. 320–338. Retrieved on 15 May 2018 from https://www.freefarrowing.org/info/2/research/45/free_farrowing_workshops.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Studnitz, M, Jensen, KH and Giersing, AM 1998. Suckling behaviour of piglets in relation to accessibility to the sow and the presence of foreign litters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 267–279.Google Scholar
Puppe, B and Tuchscherer, A 1999. Developmental and territorial aspects of suckling behaviour in the domestic pig (Sus scrofa f. domestica). Journal of Zoology 249, 307–313.Google Scholar
Quesnel, H 2011. Colostrum production by sows: variability of colostrum yield and immunoglobulin G concentrations. Animal 5, 1546–1553.Google Scholar
Reese, DE and Straw, BE 2006. The case against evening-up litters until weaning. In Nebraska Swine Reports (ed. D Moser), pp. 7–10. The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA.Google Scholar
Rutherford, K, Baxter, E, D’Eath, R, Turner, S, Arnott, G, Roehe, R, Ask, B, Sandøe, P, Moustsen, V, Thorup, F, Edwards, S, Berg, P and Lawrence, A 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors. Animal Welfare 22, 199–218.Google Scholar
Schmitt, O, Baxter, EM, Boyle, LA and O’Driscoll, K 2018. Nurse sow strategies in the domestic pig: I. Consequences on selected measures of sow welfare. Animal, doi.org/10.1017/S175173111800160X.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002. Nursing behaviour, postpartum activity and reactivity in sows Effects of farrowing environment, previous experience and temperament. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 53–76.Google Scholar
Thorup, F 2015. Nurse sows for super numerous piglets. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Pig Welfare, 29-30 April 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark p. 75.Google Scholar
Tuchscherer, M, Puppe, B, Tuchscherer, A and Tiemann, U 2000. Early identification of neonates at risk: traits of newborn piglets with respect to survival. Theriogenology 54, 371–388.Google Scholar
Ward, PA, Blanchard, RJ and Bolivar, V 2008. Stress and distress: definitions. In Recognition and alleviation of distress in laboratory animals (ed. C Fletcher and R Haycraft), pp. 13–24. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Newberry, RC and Swanson, JC 2008. Implications of breaking mother-young social bonds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 3–23.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Ross, S and Fraser, D 1997. Vocalizations by isolated piglets: a reliable indicator of piglet need directed towards the sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 249–257.Google Scholar