Cross-fostering is commonly used in commercial swine production to equalize litter sizes and/or adjust piglet birth weights within litters. However, there is limited published information on optimum cross-fostering procedures. This study evaluated effects of within-litter birth weight variation after cross-fostering (using litters of 14 piglets) on piglet pre-weaning mortality (PWM) and weaning weight (WW). A RCBD was used (blocking factors were day of farrowing and sow parity, body condition score, and functional teat number) with an incomplete factorial arrangement of the following two treatments: 1) Birth Weight Category (BWC): Light (< 1.0 kg), Medium (1.0 to 1.5 kg), or Heavy (1.5 to 2.0 kg); 2) Litter Composition: Uniform, all piglets in the litter of the same BWC [UNIFORM LIGHT (14 Light piglets); UNIFORM MEDIUM (14 Medium piglets); UNIFORM HEAVY (14 Heavy piglets)]; Mixed, piglets in the litter of two or more BWC [L+M (7 Light and 7 Medium piglets); M+H (7 Medium and 7 Heavy piglets); L+M+H (3 Light, 6 Medium, and 5 Heavy piglets)]. Piglets were weighed at 24 h after birth and randomly allotted to Litter Composition treatment from within BWC; all piglets were cross-fostered. There were 47 blocks of 6 litters (total 282 litters and 3,948 piglets). Weaning weights were collected at 18.7 ± 0.64 d of age; all PWM was recorded. Individual piglet WW and PWM data were analyzed using PROC MIXED and PROC GLIMMIX of SAS, respectively; models included fixed effects of BWC, Litter Composition, and the interaction, and random effects of sow within block. There were Litter Composition by BWC interactions (P ≤ 0.05) for WW and PWM. Within each BWC, WW generally increased and PWM generally decreased as littermate weight decreased. For example, WW were greatest (P ≤ 0.05) for Light piglets in UNIFORM LIGHT litters, for Medium piglets in L+M litters, and for Heavy piglets in L+M+H litters. Pre-weaning mortality was lowest (P ≤ 0.05) for Medium piglets in L+M litters, and for Heavy piglets in L+M+H litters; however, Litter Composition had no effect (P > 0.05) on PWM of Light piglets. In conclusion, increasing the average birth weight of littermates after cross-fostering generally decreased WW and increased PWM for piglets of all birth weight categories. This implies that the optimum approach to cross-fostering that maximizes piglet pre-weaning growth and survival is likely to vary depending on the birth weight distribution of the population.

Cross-fostering is a practice commonly used in the swine industry to equalize litter sizes, however, there is limited understanding of the optimum cross-fostering methods that will maximize piglet pre-weaning growth and survival. This study evaluated the effects of within-litter variation in birth weight after cross-fostering on piglet pre-weaning mortality (PWM) and weaning weight (WW) using litters of 15 piglets. A hierarchical incomplete block design was used (blocking factors: day of farrowing and sow parity, body condition score, and number of functional teats) with a 3 by 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) Birth Weight Category (BWC): Light (< 1.0 kg), Medium (1.0 to 1.5 kg), or Heavy (1.5 to 2.0 kg); 2) Litter Composition: UNIFORM (all 15 piglets in each litter of the same BWC), or MIXED (5 piglets in each litter from each BWC; i.e., 5 Light, 5 Medium, and 5 Heavy piglets). At 24 h after birth, piglets were weighed and randomly allotted to Litter Composition treatments from within BWC. The experimental unit was five piglets of the same BWC; there were three experimental units within each Litter Composition treatment litter. There were 17 blocks, each of six litters (one UNIFORM litter of each BWC; three MIXED litters) and 51 replicates (three replicates per block of six litters) for a total of 102 cross-fostered litters and 1,530 piglets. Piglets were weaned at 19.7 ± 0.46 d of age; WW and PWM were measured. PROC GLIMMIX and MIXED of SAS were used to analyze PWM and WW, respectively. Models included BWC, Litter Composition, the interaction, and replicate within block. There were BWC by Litter Composition treatment interactions (P ≤ 0.05) for PWM and WW. Pre-weaning mortality was greater (P ≤ 0.05) for Light piglets in MIXED than UNIFORM litters. In contrast, for Heavy piglets PWM was greater (P ≤ 0.05) and WW was lower (P ≤ 0.05) in UNIFORM than MIXED litters. Medium piglets had similar (P > 0.05) PWM and WW in UNIFORM and MIXED litters. The results of this study, which involved large litter sizes typical of current commercial production, suggested that for piglet survival to weaning, using cross-fostering to form litters of piglets of similar birth weight was beneficial for Light piglets, detrimental for Heavy piglets, and neutral for Medium piglets.

There is limited understanding of optimum cross-fostering methods to use to maximize piglet performance. This study evaluated effects of within-litter birth weight variation after cross-fostering on pre-weaning piglet removals (PR; morbidity and mortality) and ADG. A hierarchical incomplete block design was used (blocking factors day of farrowing and sow parity and structure) with a 3x2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) Birth Weight Category (BWC): Light (< 1.0 kg), Medium (1.0-1.5 kg), or Heavy (1.5-2.0 kg); 2) Litter Composition (LC): Uniform (piglets of the same BWC), and Mixed (equal numbers of piglets from each BWC). Piglets were weighed 24 h after birth and allotted to form litters of 15 cross-fostered piglets. The experimental unit was 5 piglets of the same BWC (3 experimental units per litter). A total of 102 litters were allotted to 17 blocks of 6 litters (1 Uniform litter of each BWC; 3 Mixed litters) with 51 replicates (3 replicates/block of 6 litters). Weaning weights and PR were measured. PROC GLIMMIX and MIXED of SAS were used to analyze PR and other data, respectively. Models included BWC, LC, the interaction, and replicate within block. There were treatment interactions (P < 0.05) for all measures except birth weight. There was no effect (P > 0.05) of LC on weaning weight or ADG for Light or Medium piglets; Heavy piglets had greater (P < 0.05) weaning weight and ADG in Mixed than in Uniform litters. PR were greater (P < 0.05) for Light piglets in Mixed than in Uniform litters, and for Heavy piglets in Uniform than in Mixed litters. PR for Medium piglets were similar (P > 0.05) across LC treatments. In conclusion, rearing cross-fostered piglets in Uniform litters reduced PR for Light piglets, but increased PR and reduced ADG of Heavy piglets, with no effect for Medium piglets.

Litter sizes of commercial sows have increased considerably over recent decades, and often exceed the number of functional teats on the sow. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of litter size after cross-fostering relative to sow functional teat number on piglet preweaning growth and mortality. A total of 39 litters (561 piglets) were used in a randomized complete block design; blocking factors were farrowing day and sow parity, body condition score, and functional teat number. Three Litter Size treatments were compared (relative to sow functional teat number): Decreased (two piglets less); Control (same number of piglets); Increased (two piglets more). Piglets were randomly allotted to treatment at 24 h after birth to form litters of the appropriate size, with similar mean and CV of birth weight within block. Weaning weights (WW) were collected at 19.5 ± 0.50 d of age; preweaning mortality (PWM) was recorded. Litter sizes were between 11 and 17 piglets, depending on block and treatment. The Decreased treatment had lower (P ≤ 0.05) PWM than the Increased (7.7% and 17.9%, respectively); the Control was intermediate (11.5%) and not different (P > 0.05) from the other treatments. The rate of decline in litter size from birth to weaning was greater (P ≤ 0.05) for the Increased than the Decreased treatment (−0.16 vs. −0.05 piglets per day), with the Control (−0.09 piglets per day) being intermediate and different (P ≤ 0.05) to the other two treatments. Litter sizes at weaning were greater (P ≤ 0.05) for the Increased than the Decreased treatment (13.3 and 11.3, respectively); the Control treatment was intermediate (12.6) and not different (P > 0.05) to the other treatments. The log odds of PWM increased with the decreasing birth weight, at a similar rate (P > 0.05) for all Litter Size treatments. However, the intercept was greater (P ≤ 0.05) for the Increased compared with the Decreased treatment; the Control was intermediate and different (P > 0.05) to the other two treatments. Mean WW tended (P = 0.07) to be greater for the Decreased (6.17 kg) compared to the Control and Increased treatments (5.86 and 5.84 kg, respectively). In conclusion, increasing litter size after cross-fostering relative to the number of functional teats of the sow increased piglet PWM, and tended to decrease WW.

The objective was to determine effects of cross-fostering and number of litters used to create cross-fostered litters on piglet pre-weaning mortality (PWM) and weight. The study was conducted on 2 commercial farrowing facilities using a RCBD (53 blocks; total of 265 litters/3675 piglets). Blocking factors were farrowing day, sow parity, body condition score, functional teat number, and average and CV of piglet birth weight. Treatments involved cross-fostering different percentages of the litter (0% = no cross-fostering; 50% = half cross-fostered, half from the birth sow; 100% = all piglets cross-fostered) and differing number of litters used in cross-fostering. The 5 Treatments were (% fostered/number of litters used): 1) 0%/1 litter; 2) 100%/1 litter; 3) 100%/6+ litters; 4) 50%/4+ litters; 5) 50%/2 litters. Litter sizes at cross-fostering (13 or 14 piglets) were equalized across Treatments within block. Piglets were weighed 24 h after birth (when cross-fostering was carried out) and at weaning (19.2 ± 0.97 d); all PWM was recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS, models accounted for the fixed effect of Treatment and random effects of sow, block, and farm. The 0%/1 litter and 100%/1 litter Treatments were similar (P > 0.05; Table 1) for all measurements, indicating no effect of cross-fostering per se. Litter sizes at 7 and 14 d, and weaning were lower (P ≤ 0.05) for the two 1-litter Treatments compared with the 50%/2 litters Treatment; other Treatments were intermediate. There was no effect (P > 0.05) of Treatment on piglet weight. Pre-weaning mortality was greater (P ≤ 0.05) for the two 1-litter treatments compared with the other 3 Treatments, which were similar (P > 0.05). In conclusion, cross-fostering had no effect on piglet performance, however, PWM was greater for treatments comprised of piglets from a single litter compared with those from several litters.

Litter sizes of commercial sows have increased recently, often resulting in the number of piglets exceeding the sow functional teat number. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of litter size after cross-fostering on piglet pre-weaning mortality (PWM) and growth. A RCBD was used with 13 blocks of 3 litters (total 39 litters/561 piglets); blocking factors were farrowing day, sow parity, body condition score, and functional teat number. Three Litter Size treatments (LS) relative to sow functional teat number were compared: Under (2 piglets below); Equal (same number of piglets); Over (2 piglets above). Piglets were weighed 24 h after birth and allotted to LS to create litters with similar gender ratio and average and CV of birth weight. Weaning was at 19.5 ± 0.50 d, weights and PWM were recorded. Piglet weight data were analyzed using PROC MIXED of SAS; PWM data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS. Models included LS and sow within block. Litter sizes averaged 12.1, 14.1, and 16.1 for the Under, Equal, and Over treatments, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). The Under treatment tended (P = 0.07) to have greater weaning weights compared to the Equal and Over treatments (Table 1). The Under treatment had lower (P ≤ 0.05) PWM than the Over treatment, with the Equal treatment being intermediate and not different to the other 2 (P > 0.05; Table 1). In conclusion, reducing litter size after cross-fostering to two piglets below the number of functional teats of the sow decreased PWM and tended to increase weaning weights.

No abstract

Sow litter sizes have increased over recent decades, increasing the need for cross-fostering. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of the number of source litters used to create cross-fostered litters on piglet pre-weaning mortality (PWM) and weaning weight. A RCBD was used with 26 blocks of 5 litters (total 130 litters/1820 piglets), all litters consisted of 14 piglets. Blocking factors were farrowing day, sow parity, body condition score, and functional teat number, and the average and CV of piglet birth weight. Five cross-fostering treatments were compared: 0%, 1 source (all piglets remaining on the birth sow); 100%, 1 source (all piglets moved from birth to a different sow); 100%, 6+ sources (piglets from ≥ 6 birth sows used to form a litter on a different sow); 50%, 2 sources (7 piglets remaining with birth sow, 7 from one other sow); 50%, 4+ sources (7 piglets remaining with the birth sow, 7 from ≥ 3 other sows). The single-source litters were selected from those with > 14 piglets at birth, with excess piglets removed. For other treatments, piglets were selected to meet blocking factors. Piglets were weighed 24 h after birth and at weaning (19.5 ± 0.50 d); all PWM was recorded. Weight data were analyzed using PROC MIXED of SAS; PWM data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS. Models included Treatment and sow within block. There was no effect (P > 0.05) of treatment on weaning weights. Pre-weaning mortality was greater (P < 0.05) for the 0%, 1 source compared to the 50%, 2 source treatment, with the others being intermediate and generally not statistically different (Table 1). In conclusion, cross-fostering and/or mixing litters had no effect on weaning weights, but pre-weaning mortality was highest for the non-fostered treatment.