Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:13:34.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suckling effects in sows: importance for mammary development and productivity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2013

C. Farmer
C. Farmer*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, 2000 College St., Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1M 0C8
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An understanding of the mechanisms regulating milk yield in sows is crucial for producers to make the best management decisions during lactation. Suckling of mammary glands by piglets is one factor that is essential for development of these glands during lactation and for the maintenance of lactation in sows. The process of mammary development is not static as the majority of it takes place in the last third of gestation, continues during lactation, is followed by involution at weaning and starts over again in the next gestation. During involution, the mammary glands undergo a rapid and drastic regression in parenchymal tissue, and this can also occur during lactation if a gland is not suckled regularly. Indeed, the pattern of regression is similar for glands that involute at weaning or during lactation. Suckling during 12 to 14 h postpartum is insufficient to maintain lactation and the process of involution that occurs in early lactation is reversible within 1 day of farrowing but is irreversible if a gland is not used for 3 days. However, milk yield from a gland which is ‘rescued’ within the first 24 h remains lower throughout lactation. Suckling does not only affect milk yield in the ongoing lactation, but it also seems to affect that of the next lactation. Indeed, non-suckling of a mammary gland in first-parity sows decreased development and milk yield of that gland in second parity. Nursing behaviour of piglets in early lactation was also affected, where changes were indicative of piglets in second parity being hungrier when suckling glands that were not previously used. It is not known, however, if the same effects would be seen between the second and third lactation. Furthermore, the minimum suckling period required to ensure maximal milk yield from a gland in the next lactation is not known. This review provides an update on our current knowledge of the importance of suckling for mammary development and milk yield in swine.

Keywords

involutionlactationmammary glandsowssuckling
Type
Physiology and functional biology of systems
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 12 , December 2013 , pp. 1964 - 1968
Copyright
Copyright © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Prepared from a presentation given at the symposium on Biology of Lactation in Farm Animals held jointly with EAAP 2012 in Bratislava, Slovakia.

References

Atwood, CS, Hartmann, PE 1995. Assessment of mammary gland metabolism in the sow. III. Cellular metabolites in the mammary secretion and plasma following weaning. Journal of Dairy Research 62, 221–236.Google Scholar
Beyer, M, Jentsch, W, Hoffmann, L, Schiemann, R, Klein, M 1994. Studies on energy and nitrogen metabolism of pregnant and lactating sows and sucking piglets. 4. Chemical composition and energy content of the conception products, the reproductive organs as well as liveweight gains or losses of pregnant and lactating sows. Archives in Animal Nutrition 46, 7–36.Google Scholar
Cross, BA, Goodwin, RFW, Silver, IA 1958. A histological and functional study of the mammary gland in normal and agalactic sows. Journal of Endocrinology 17, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyck, GW, Swierstra, EE, McKay, RM, Mount, K 1987. Effect of location of the teat suckled, breed and parity on piglet growth. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 929–939.Google Scholar
Farmer, C, Knight, C, Flint, D 2007. Mammary gland involution and endocrine status in sows: effects of weaning age and lactation heat stress. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, C, Palin, M-F, Hovey, R 2010. Greater milk yield is related to increased DNA and RNA content but not to mRNA abundance of select genes in sow mammary tissue. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90, 379–388.Google Scholar
Farmer, C, Palin, M-F, Theil, PK, Sorensen, MT, Devillers, N 2012. Milk production in sows from a teat in second parity is influenced by whether it was suckled in first parity. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3743–3751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, JA Jr, Kim, SW, Rodriguez-Zas, SL, Hurley, WL 2003. Quantification of mammary gland tissue size and composition changes after weaning in sows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2583–2589.Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Thompson, BK, Rushen, J 1992. Teat productivity in second lactation sows: influence of use or non-use of teats during the first lactation. Animal Production 55, 419–424.Google Scholar
Hacker, RR, Hill, DL 1972. Nucleic acid content of mammary glands of virgin and pregnant gilts. Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1295–1299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrell, RJ, Thomas, MJ, Boyd, RD 1993. Limitations of sow milk yield on baby pig growth. Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference, pp. 156–164.Google Scholar
Head, RH, Williams, IH 1991. Mammogenesis is influenced by pregnancy nutrition. Manipulating pig production III. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Australia, p. 33.Google Scholar
Hurley, WL 2001. Mammary gland growth in the lactating sow. Livestock Production Science 70, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illmann, G, Pokorna, Z, Spinka, M 2007. Allosuckling in domestic pigs: teat acquisition strategy and consequences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106, 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ji, F, Hurley, WL, Kim, SW 2006. Characterization of mammary gland development in pregnant gilts. Journal of Animal Science 84, 579–587.Google Scholar
Kensinger, RS, Collier, RJ, Bazer, FW, Ducsay, CA, Becker, HN 1982. Nucleic acid, metabolic and histological changes in gilt mammary tissue during pregnancy and lactogenesis. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1297–1308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Easter, RA, Hurley, WL 2001. The regression of unsuckled mammary glands during lactation in sows: The influence of lactation stage, dietary nutrients, and litter size. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2659–2668.Google Scholar
Kim, SW, Hurley, WL, Han, IK, Easter, RA 1999. Changes in tissue composition associated with mammary gland growth during lactation in sows. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2510–2516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Hurley, WL, Han, IK, Easter, RA 2000. Growth of nursing pigs related to the characteristics of nursed mammary glands. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1313–1318.Google Scholar
Nielsen, OL, Pederson, AR, Sorensen, MT 2001. Relationships between piglet growth rate and mammary gland size of the sow. Livestock Production Science 67, 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, MT, Sejrsen, K, Purup, S 2002. Mammary gland development in gilts. Livestock Production Science 75, 143–148.Google Scholar
Theil, PK, Labouriau, R, Sejrsen, K, Thomsen, B, Sorensen, MT 2005. Expression of genes involved in regulation of cell turnover during milk stasis and lactation rescue in sow mammary tissue. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2349–2356.Google Scholar
Theil, PK, Sejrsen, K, Hurley, WL, Labouriau, R, Thomsen, B, Sorensen, MT 2006. Role of suckling in regulating cell turnover and onset and maintenance of lactation in individual mammary glands of sows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1691–1698.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Sorensen, MT 2006. Mammary development and milk production in the sow: effects of udder massage, genotype and feeding in late gestation. Livestock Science 101, 116–125.Google Scholar
Thorup, F 1998. Kuldudjaevningens betydning for fravaenningsvaegten [The importance of litter standardization for litter weight at weaning]. Erfaring fra Landsudvalget for svin, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Turner, CW 1952. The mammary gland. I. The anatomy of the udder of cattle and domestic animals. Lucas Brothers, Missouri.Google Scholar
Wilde, CJ, Addey, CVP, Boddy, LM, Peaker, M 1995. Autocrine regulation of milk secretion by a protein in milk. Biochemistry Journal 305, 51–58.Google Scholar