Identifying the limitations for growth in low performing piglets from birth until 10 weeks of age

Abstract

The evolution of hyper-prolific pig breeds has led to a higher within-litter variation in birth weight and in BW gain during the nursery phase. Based on an algorithm developed in previous research, two populations from a pool of 368 clinically healthy piglets at 6 weeks of age were selected: a low (LP) and a high (HP) performing population and their development was monitored until the end of the nursery phase (10 weeks of age). To understand the cause of the variation in growth between these populations we characterized the LP and HP piglets in terms of body morphology, behaviour, voluntary feed intake, BW gain, and apparent total tract and ileal nutrient digestibility. Piglets were housed individually and were fed a highly digestible diet. At selection, 6 weeks of age, the BW of LP and HP piglets were 6.8 ± 0.1 and 12.2 ± 0.1 kg, respectively. Compared with the LP piglets the HP piglets grew faster (203 g/day), ate more (275 g/day) from 6 to 10 weeks of age and were heavier at 10 weeks (30.0 v. 18.8 kg, all P < 0.01). Yet, the differences in average daily gain and average daily feed intake disappeared when compared per kg BW 0.75 . Assuming similar maintenance requirements per kg BW 0.75 the efficiency of feed utilization above maintenance was 0.1 g/g lower for the LP piglets ( P = 0.09).The gain : feed ratio was similar for both groups. LP piglets tended to take more time to touch a novel object ( P = 0.10), and spent more time eating ( P < 0.05). At 10 weeks, LP piglets had a higher body length and head circumference relative to BW ( P < 0.01). Relative to BW, LP had a 21% higher small intestine weight; 36% longer length, and relative to average FI, the small intestinal weight was 4 g/kg higher (both P = < 0.01). Apparent total tract and ileal dry matter, N and gross energy digestibility were similar between groups ( P > 0.10). We concluded that the low performance of the LP piglets was due to their inability to engage compensatory gain or compensatory feed intake as efficiency of nutrient utilization and feed intake per kg BW 0.75 was unaffected. LP piglets tend to be more fearful towards novel objects. The morphological comparisons, increased body length and head circumference relative to BW imply that LP piglets have an increased priority for skeletal growth.

Predicting Productive Performance in Grow-Finisher Pigs Using Birth and Weaning Body Weight

“…In Model 1, SMALL–SMALL pigs had lower ADFI compared with the other groups. This result agrees with those observed in earlier studies [ 46 , 47 ]. However, in Model 2, SMALL–SMALL pigs had similar ADFI as SMALL–BIG and BIG–BIG pigs.…”

“…On the contrary, SMALL–SMALL pigs were as feed-efficient as BIG–BIG and SMALL–BIG pigs in both Model 1 and Model 2. This finding is in accordance with previous results reported by Douglas et al [ 2 ], Collins et al [ 3 ] and Paredes et al [ 47 ] but contrary to those reported by Gondret et al [ 20 ], who suggested that the poor growth performance of slow growing pigs was due to poorer feed efficiency. Feed efficiency is a key factor in pork production, with economic and environmental implications.…”

Potential risk factors related to pig body weight variability from birth to slaughter in commercial conditions

“…An unequal growth rate within a group of pigs leads to an increase in BW variability, resulting in a decrease of the global efficiency throughout the productive cycle. The literature reported some factors responsible for this variability, like BBW ( Quiniou et al, 2002 ; Fix et al, 2010 ), suckling position during lactation, sex, season of birth, weaning BW ( Paredes et al 2012 , 2014 ), environment, nutrition, and genetic potential ( Botermans et al, 2000 ; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2002 ; Quiniou et al, 2002 ). Nevertheless, it is very challenging to study and quantify all of the factors involved in BW variability in one trial because of the several sources of variation potentially interacting at the same time.…”

Once small always small? To what extent morphometric characteristics and post-weaning starter regime affect pig lifetime growth performance

“…A chi-square test was carried out to test whether the reason for removal and pre- and post-weaning mortality was different among pigs of different BW classes and whether this was affected by starter regime and/or gender. In addition, a chi-square was used to test whether the number of pigs that decreased, remained or increased at least one BW class at weaner or finisher [ 3 , 20 ] was different among the different BW classes.…”