This study investigates the genetic basis of lamb vigour (defined as neonatal lamb activity and sucking ability) and lambing difficulty as potential traits to be included in selection programmes to improve ewe and lamb welfare. Scores for lamb birth difficulty, vigour and sucking ability were collected shortly after birth on 1,520 lambs born in 2006 in 19 different flocks that were members of the UK Suffolk Sire Referencing Scheme. Scores evaluated each trait on a scale of 1 to 4; 1 being no assistance given either during birth or to suck, or excellent vigour, through to 4 where a large degree of assistance was required, or poor vigour. Genetic parameters (heritabilities, genetic correlations) were estimated by fitting an individual animal model using ASREML. Variance components obtained from univariate and bivariate analyses were averaged to provide genetic parameter estimates. Heritabilities for birth difficulty and vigour were moderate but heritability for sucking ability was not significant. The genetic correlation between vigour and sucking ability was positive and high, that between vigour and birth difficulty moderately negative, and that between birth difficulty and sucking ability not significant. Birth difficulty and vigour could be included in Suffolk breeding programmes to help reduce health and welfare problems associated with these traits in Suffolk sheep, and in flocks producing crossbred lambs sired by Suffolk rams. Further work is required to evaluate correlations between these traits and performance traits and to comprehensively validate the scoring system once more data become available.

Early weaning may be used in beef cattle production to improve reproduction rates in range conditions. However, weaning causes a stress response in cows, which may be especially strong in early weaning management, as the bond between the cow and the calf is still strong. We hypothesized that weaning calves in two steps, with the aid of anti-sucking devices (nose flaps) would reduce the behavioural stress response in the cows separated from their calves 2 months after parturition. We compared the behaviour frequency and weight change in cows that were weaned abruptly, by separation of the calf on day 0 of the study, or in two steps, consisting of the use of anti-sucking nose flaps for 5 days before permanent separation; a third group was not weaned to serve as control. Thirty-six crossbred multiparous Aberdeen Angus×Hereford cows and their calves (n=12/treatment) were managed in three paddocks with similar pasture availability, with four dyads from each treatment per paddock. Cows’ behaviour was observed by direct visual instantaneous sampling, at 10 min intervals from days −3 to 11. Weaning the calves in two steps clearly attenuated the behavioural stress response observed in abruptly weaned cows, which included reductions in grazing and lying, and increases in pacing, walking and vocalizing. Our results corroborate those previously shown for cows nursing older calves, and indicate that step weaning can reduce the behavioural stress response of cows at weaning, even when the calf is weaned shortly after birth, when the bond between the cow and calf is still very strong.

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.

It is generally presumed that allosucking brings benefits to the allosucking infants. Nevertheless, the data supporting such a presumption are rare. The aim of the study was to determine whether allosucking has any impact on growth rates of the allosucking calves. Fifty pregnant hinds were observed between 28 May (1st day of calving) and 2 September (abrupt weaning of all calves) on a red deer farm at Vimperk, South Bohemia, the Czech Republic. Of the 50 calves born the growth curve was calculated for 39 calves. During their 1st month of life these calves were observed in 1015 sucking bouts. In 690 cases the calves sucked from maternal hinds and in 325 cases non-maternal hinds. Only 25·64% of calves sucked exclusively from maternal hinds. The prevailing type of sucking behaviour was a combination of sucking from maternal hinds and allosucking (74·36%). Calves sucking from maternal and non-maternal hinds showed 1·6-fold higher sucking frequency than did calves feeding from maternal hinds only. Our results indicate that to some extend allonursing behaviour of the hind may affect their calves’ feeding behaviour. The more non-filial calves the maternal hind nursed, the higher frequency of the sucking by their calves occurred. The groups of calves did not differ in birth weight. With increasing age, the relative body weight increased faster in calves sucking maternal hinds only than in calves sucking maternal and non-maternal hinds. This gain in body weight was not essentially influenced by the fact whether or not the calf’s maternal hind nursed non-filial or exclusively filial calves. However, at weaning (99 days), the lowest body weight occurred in allosucking calves whose maternal hinds were allonursing. The results suggest that allosucking does not mean an extra profit to the allosucker. Instead, in our subjects, allosucking was rather attributed to compensation of nutritional requirements based on a combination of various factors, such as discrete differences in body weight at birth and also later and allonursing of the maternal hind.

Following a pilot study, the aim of this study was to test the hypothesis whether occurrence of massaging the anogenital region of a calf by a non-maternal hind is a reliable indicator of adoption. The investigation was conducted between 28 May (1st day of calving) and 2 September (abrupt weaning of all calves) on a red deer farm at Vimperk, Czech Republic. Fifty hinds and their calves were observed but only complete data sets of sucking bouts were considered for evaluation. Massaging occurred mostly during the 1st month of the calf’s life. All filial calves were massaged repeatedly. Other calves received ano-genital massage at least twice (termed adopted), on a single occasion or not at all (termed non-filial). Filial and adopted calves behaved in a similar way but differently from non-filial calves. They sucked in an antiparallel standing position so that the hind could lick their ano-genital region more often than the non-filial calves. This occurred even when two calves were involved in the bout. When two calves were involved in the sucking bout, non-filial calves sucked from behind, between the hind’s hind legs. This position occurred more frequently with non-filial than among the filial and adopted calves. It was therefore concluded, that repeated allonursing accompanied with massaging of the ano-genital region of the sucking calf by the hind can be considered a signal of adoption. Hinds usually adopted calves older than their own progeny. The adopted calves were on average 2·5 days old. This suggests that it is most likely the calf’s activity which leads to bonding. No reciprocity was found in allosucking and/or allonursing. The fact that non-filial calves commonly initiated allosucking from a non-maternal hind during the day when she gave birth appeared crucial for establishing bonding which subsequently led to adoption. Hinds may be bonded with several calves including their own. Therefore, bonding with a non-filial calf did not principally mean failure in looking after their own progeny as shown in other studies.

Grouping of sows and piglets during lactation can cause performance problems associated with disruption of suckling. Cross-suckling and an increase in the number of piglets at the udder during milk let-down have been observed. To investigate the role of these factors, 24 sows and litters were used to study their independent effect on sucking behaviour and performance. Control sows (C) remained in farrowing pens with crates until weaning at 28 days. In treatment 1 (Tl) on day 14 after farrowing, five piglets were removed from the resident (Rl) litter and replaced by five piglets (cross-suckers; CS1) of the same age from a different litter. In treatment 2 (T2) on day 14, five additional piglets (CS2) from other litters were added to the 10 resident (R2) piglets for a period of 24 h. Behaviours of the sows and piglets were video recorded prior to mixing and for 3 days after mixing. Litter weight gain of 11 was significantly reduced in the week after mixing (2–06,1·61 and 2·00 (s.e.d. 0·18) kg/day, P < 0·05 for C, Tl, T2, respectively). Within Tl the growth rates ofRl and CS1 piglets were not significantly different. In the 24 h after mixing, C, Rl, CS1 and R2 piglets gained weight whilst CS2 lost weight (247,186,182,151 and -116 (s.e.d. 44·2) glday, P < 0·01). On the day of mixing, the proportion of suckling attempts which resulted in milk letdown was reduced in treatment groups (0·93, 0·75 and 0·70 (s.e.d. 0·04), P < 0·02 for C, Tl, T2 respectively) and the proportion ofT2 piglets lying near the sow's udder between milk let-down was higher than on C and Tl (0·15, 017 and 0·29 (s.e.d. 0·06), P < 0·05). There was no significant difference in piglet behaviour from 2 days after mixing. Both cross-suckling and introduction of additional piglets transiently disrupted sucking behaviour and adversely affected the performance of the piglets. Increased competition had a much greater effect than unfamiliarity with the environment, with added cross-sucking piglets being greatly disadvantaged relative to substituted cross-sucking piglets.