Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:14:59.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of litter size, milk replacer and housing on production results of hyper-prolific sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2019

C. Kobek-Kjeldager ,
V. A. Moustsen ,
P. K. Theil  and
L. J. Pedersen
C. Kobek-Kjeldager*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
V. A. Moustsen
Affiliation:
SEGES Pig Research Centre, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark
P. K. Theil
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. J. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: cecilie.kobek-kjeldager@anis.au.dk
Get access

Abstract

The modern hyper-prolific sow gives birth to more piglets than she has functional teats (in the following called supernumerary piglets). The aim of the present study was (1) to investigate the production consequences of hyper-prolific sows rearing supernumerary piglets equal to the mean live-born litter size, and (2) investigate whether potential negative effects on survival and growth could be alleviated by providing access to milk replacer and/or providing easier access to the udder (by loose housing). At day 1 (D1) postpartum (pp), 93 litters were standardised to 14 or 17 piglets (LS14/LS17) after which no piglets were moved between sows leading to decreased litter size if piglets died. Litters were provided with or without milk replacer in milk cups (+MILK/−MILK), and sows were either crated or loose housed (CRATE/LOOSE) in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. Piglet mortality was higher in LS17 compared to LS14 (P < 0.01; OR = 2.0), higher in −MILK compared to +MILK (P = 0.01; OR = 1.2) and higher in LOOSE compared to CRATE (P = 0.02; OR = 1.8). This study showed that sow rearing of supernumerary piglets while supplying with milk replacer can increase piglet survival. It also showed that early mortality before piglets learned to drink milk replacer posed a challenge using this automatic milk replacer system. An interaction between access to milk replacer and the standardised litter size D1 affected litter weight (P < 0.01) and piglet weight day 28 (D28) (P = 0.03). The highest litter weight D28 was found in LS17 +MILK (P < 0.01) but with a lower individual piglet weight than in LS14 −MILK. Piglet weight D28 was higher in LS14 −MILK compared to LS17 regardless of access to milk replacer. Heterogeneity in piglet weight within litters D28 was larger in LS17 (P = 0.03) but could be reduced with +MILK in CRATE (P < 0.01). No effects were found on sow weight loss and feed intake (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the results showed that sows cannot rear the supernumerary piglets without further management interventions to reduce mortality. Supplying supernumerary piglets equal to the mean live-born litter size of hyper-prolific sows with milk replacer can from results of this study be an alternative strategy to the use of nurse sows.

Keywords

sow rearinglarge littersurplus pigletsloose housingmilk supplementation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 824 - 833
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Amdi, C, Moustsen, V, Oxholm, L, Baxter, E, Sørensen, G, Eriksson, K, Diness, L, Nielsen, M and Hansen, C 2017. Comparable cortisol, heart rate and milk let-down in nurse sows and non-nurse sows. Livestock Science 198, 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, IL, Naevdal, E and Boe, KE 2011. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 1159–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auldist, DE, Morrish, L, Eason, P and King, RH 1998. The influence of litter size on milk production of sows. Animal Science 67, 333–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azain, M, Tomkins, T, Sowinski, J, Arentson, R and Jewell, D 1996. Effect of supplemental pig milk replacer on litter performance: seasonal variation in response. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2195–2202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chidgey, KL, Morel, PCH, Stafford, KJ and Barugh, IW 2015. Sow and piglet productivity and sow reproductive performance in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial New Zealand pig farm. Livestock Science 173, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradini, C, Cavazza, A and Bignardi, C 2012. High-performance anion-exchange chromatography coupled with pulsed electrochemical detection as a powerful tool to evaluate carbohydrates of food interest: principles and applications. International Journal of Carbohydrate Chemistry 2012, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MB and Hansen, CF 2014. Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms. Animal 8, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, B 1989. Determination of nitrogen as elementary N, an alternative to Kjeldahl. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 39, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, C 2018. National average productivity in the pig production 2017 [In Danish: Landsgennemsnit for produktivitet i svineproduktionen 2017]. Report no. 1819. SEGES The Danish Pig Research Center, Axelborg, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Højgaard, CK, Bruun, TS and Theil, PK 2019. Optimal crude protein in diets supplemented with crystalline amino acids fed to high-yielding lactating sows. Journal of Animal Science 97, 3399–3414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilbride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Cooper, S and Green, LE 2012. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knudsen, KEB 1997. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, PG, Lynch, PB, Caffrey, PJ and O’ Doherty, JV 2002. Effect of pre- and post-weaning management on subsequent pig performance to slaughter and carcass quality. Animal Science 75, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2001. Birth weight variation in the domestic pig: effects on offspring survival, weight gain and suckling behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moustsen, VA and Nielsen, MB 2017. Mammary glands and teats on Danish sows [In Danish: Mælkekirtler og patter på danske søer]. Report no. 1117. SEGES The Danish Pig Research Center, Axelborg, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Muns, R, Manteca, X and Gasa, J 2015. Effect of different management techniques to enhance colostrum intake on piglets’ growth and mortality. Animal Welfare 24, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuntapaitoon, M, Muns, R, Theil, PK and Tummaruk, P 2018. l-arginine supplementation in sow diet during late gestation decrease stillborn piglet, increase piglet birth weight and increase immunoglobulin G concentration in colostrum. Theriogenology 121, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pajor, EA, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 1991. Consumption of solid food by suckling pigs: individual variation and relation to weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ , Malmkvist, J and Andersen, HM 2013. Housing of sows during farrowing: a review on pen design, welfare and productivity. In Livestock housing: modern management to ensure optimal health and welfare of farm animals (eds. Aland, A and Banhazi, T), pp. 93–112. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, ML, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Kristensen, AR 2011. Improved udder access prolongs duration of milk letdown and increases piglet weight gain. Livestock Science 140, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Schild, S-L, Bonde, M and Serup, T 2018. Sow maternal characteristics in an outdoor farrowing system of two genetic selection lines. In Book of Abstracts No. 24 of 69th European Federation of Animal Science, 27 August–2 September 2018, pp. 434. Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J and Gaudré, D 2002. Variation of piglets’ birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rangstrup-Christensen, L 2017. Risk factors for piglet mortality in Danish organic sow herds. PhD thesis, Aarhus University, Foulum, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Rzezniczek, M, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2015. Comparison of the behaviour of piglets raised in an artificial rearing system or reared by the sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 165, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, O, Baxter, EM, Boyle, LA and O’Driscoll, K 2018a. Nurse sow strategies in the domestic pig: I. Consequences for selected measures of sow welfare. Animal 13, 580–589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, O, Baxter, EM, Boyle, LA and O’Driscoll, K 2018b. Nurse sow strategies in the domestic pig: II. Consequences for piglet growth, suckling behaviour and sow nursing behaviour. Animal 13, 590–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, O, O’Driscoll, K, Boyle, LA and Baxter, EM 2019a. Artificial rearing affects piglets pre-weaning behaviour, welfare and growth performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 210, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, O, Baxter, EM, Lawlor, PG, Boyle, LA and O’Driscoll, K 2019b. A single dose of fat-based energy supplement to light birth weight pigs shortly after birth does not increase their survival and growth. Animals 9, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, JT and Pedersen, LJ 2015. The extent of the use of nurse sows and possible actions to improve their welfare. [In Danish: Omfanget af brugen af ammesøer og mulige tiltag til forbedring af deres velfærd]. DCA-report. DCA – Danish Center for Food and Agriculture, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT, Rousing, T, Kudahl, AB, Hansted, HJ and Pedersen, LJ 2016. Do nurse sows and foster litters have impaired animal welfare? Results from a cross-sectional study in sow herds. Animal 10, 681–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoldt, W 1952. Vorschlag zur vereinheitlichung der fettbestimmung in lebensmitteln. Fette und Seifen 54, 206–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Danish Ministry of Justice 1995. Animal testing act, consolidation act no. 726 of September 9, 1993 (as amended by act no. 1081 of December 20, 1995). The Danish Ministry of Justice, Copenhagen, Denmark.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybirk, P, Sloth, NM and Jørgensen, L 2018. Nutrient Recommendations [In Danish: Normer for næringsstoffer]. In 28th ed. SEGES The Danish Research Center, Axelborg, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M and Horat, R 2009. Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science 124, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B, Ellis, M, Corrigan, B and DeDecker, J 2002. The effect of birth weight and feeding of supplemental milk replacer to piglets during lactation on preweaning and postweaning growth performance and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 80, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed