An experiment was conducted to study effects of intermittent suckling on creep feed intake and weight gain of litters. Loss of weight and backfat during lactation, as well as reproductive performance, were also measured. Batches of multiparous sows (Parity 1 to 12, 4.1 on average) were either suckled intermittently (IS, eight batches; n = 50) or continuously (control, eight batches; n = 62). Litters were weaned at 27 +/- 2 d of age, on average. Litter size (11.1 +/- 0.2 piglets, on average) was standardized within a batch within 3 d of birth. All litters had free access to creep feed and water from 1 wk of age onward. In the IS group, litters were separated from the sow for a period of 12 h/d (0930 to 2130), starting 11 d before weaning. Rectal ultrasonography was applied at d 3 after weaning to check the ovaries for follicle development or presence of corpora lutea. Creep feed intake by the litters during lactation was higher in IS litters than in control litters (686 +/- 57 vs. 314 +/- 42 g/piglet, P < 0.01). The distribution of creep feed intake shifted from a skewed one, with a majority of litters consuming less than 250 g/piglet in control litters, to a normal distribution, with an average creep feed intake of 500 to 750 g/piglet in IS litters. During the 7 d after weaning, creep feed intake in IS litters was also higher (281 +/- 15 vs. 204 +/- 9 g-piglet(-1) x d(-1), P < 0.01). The ADG of piglets during lactation was negatively affected by IS, resulting in lower weight at weaning (7,229 +/- 140 vs. 7,893 +/- 145 g/piglet, P < 0.05). During the 7 d after weaning, however, ADG was higher in IS litters (255 +/- 10 vs. 177 +/- 8 g-piglet-1 x d(-1), P < 0.01), and 7 d after weaning, the weights of the litters were similar (9,011 +/- 167 vs. 9,132 +/- 164 g/ piglet, P = 0.81). The IS litters that consumed little or no feed during lactation had an ADG after lactation that was higher than in control litters, with comparable creep feed intake during lactation: 204 vs. 136 g/d. Body weight loss by the sows during lactation was lower in IS sows (-10 +/- 2 vs. -16 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05). A higher percentage of IS sows ovulated during lactation (22 vs. 3%, P < 0.01), and weaning-to-ovulation interval (excluding sows with lactational ovulation) was shorter in IS sows (4.7 +/- 0.2 vs. 5.3 +/- 0.2 d, P < 0.05). We conclude that IS increased creep feed intake during lactation, and that IS increased ADG after weaning, despite lower weaning weights. Ovulation during lactation was induced in 22% of the IS sows.

An experiment was conducted to determine if the improved creep feed intake observed during intermittent suckling (IS) is important for postweaning performance. Therefore, creep feed intake of litters was assessed, and within litters, eaters and noneaters were distinguished using chromic oxide as an indigestible marker. Batches of sows were suckled intermittently (IS, 7 batches; n = 31) or continuously (control, 7 batches; n = 31). In the IS group, litters were separated from the sow for a period of 12 h/d (0930 to 2130), beginning 11 d before weaning. Litters were weaned at 4 wk of age. Litters had free access to creep feed from 1 wk of age onward. Five days after weaning, the piglets were moved as a litter to weanling pens. At 8 wk of age, 2 barrows and 2 gilts were randomly chosen from each litter and moved to a finishing facility. Feed intake was improved by IS during the last 11 d of lactation (IS, 284 +/- 27 vs. control, 83 +/- 28 g/piglet; P < 0.001) and after weaning during the first (IS, 201 +/- 24 vs. control, 157 +/- 25 g x piglet(-1) x d(-1); P < 0.05) and second (IS, 667 +/- 33 vs. control, 570 +/- 35 g x piglet(-1) x d(-1); P < 0.05) wk. Thereafter, no differences were found to slaughter. Weaning BW was lower in IS litters (IS, 7.1 +/- 0.01 vs. control, 8.1 +/- 0.01 kg/piglet; P < 0.05), but 7 d after weaning BW was similar (IS, 8.5 +/- 0.2 vs. control, 8.7 +/- 0.2 kg/piglet; P = 0.18), and no differences were found to slaughter. The percentage of eaters within a litter was not increased by IS during lactation (IS, 23 +/- 4.5% vs. control, 19 +/- 4.1%; P = 0.15). Weaning BW did not differ between eaters and noneaters (eater, 7.7 +/- 0.1 vs. noneater, 7.5 +/- 0.08 kg/piglet; P = 0.63). From 1 until 4 wk after weaning, piglets that were eaters during lactation had heavier BW than noneaters (eater, 20.3 +/- 0.3 kg vs. noneater, 18.2 +/- 0.2 kg; P < 0.05). The influence of eating creep feed during lactation on BW and ADG and the influence of suckling treatment never showed an interaction. We conclude that IS increases ADFI during lactation on a litter level and improves ADG in the first week and ADFI in the first and second weeks after weaning. No long-term effects on ADFI or ADG were observed throughout the finishing period. In the current experiment, in which creep feed intake was low, the percentage of eaters within a litter was not increased, suggesting that creep feed intake of piglets that were already eating was stimulated by IS. Further, piglets that were eaters during lactation had heavier BW up to 4 wk after weaning.

No abstract

No abstract

Low-birth-weight (LBW) children are born with several risk factors for disease, morbidity and neonatal mortality, even if carried to term. Placental insufficiency leading to hypoxemia and reduced nutritional supply is the main cause for LBW. Brain damage and poor neurological outcome can be the consequence. LBW after being carried to term gives better chances for survival, but these children are still at risk for poor health and the development of cognitive impairments. Preventive therapies are not yet available. We studied the risk/efficacy of chronic prenatal treatment with the anti-oxidative drug allopurinol, as putative preventive treatment in piglets. LBW piglets served as a natural model for LBW. A cognitive holeboard test was applied to study the learning and memory abilities of these allopurinol treated piglets after weaning. Preliminary analysis of the plasma concentrations in sows and their piglets suggested that a daily dose of 15 mg.kg−1 resulted in effective plasma concentration of allopurinol in piglets. No adverse effects of chronic allopurinol treatment were found on farrowing, birth weight, open field behavior, learning abilities, relative brain, hippocampus and spleen weights. LBW piglets showed increased anxiety levels in an open field test, but cognitive performance was not affected by allopurinol treatment. LBW animals treated with allopurinol showed the largest postnatal compensatory body weight gain. In contrast to a previous study, no differences in learning abilities were found between LBW and normal-birth-weight piglets. This discrepancy might be attributable to experimental differences. Our results indicate that chronic prenatal allopurinol treatment during the third trimester of pregnancy is safe, as no adverse side effects were observed. Compensatory weight gain of treated piglets is a positive indication for the chronic prenatal use of allopurinol in these animals. Further studies are needed to assess the possible preventive effects of allopurinol on brain functions in LBW piglets.