Influence of pig weight classification at cross-fostering on the performance of the primiparous sow and the adopted litter

Bierhals, Thomas; Magnabosco, Diogo; Ribeiro, Renato Rosa; Perin, Jonas; Cruz, Rodrigo Caberlon; Bernardi, Mari Lourdes; Wentz, Ivo; Bortolozzo, Fernando Pandolfo

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.02.026

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences among groups observed for litter average piglet BW at d 10 and 19 postfarrowing were expected because of the presence of BP piglets in HL litters and the important effect of birth weight on piglet growth (Muns et al, 2013a). Our results are consistent with those of Bierhals et al (2012), who also observed that litter average piglet BW differ among groups with different levels of cross-fostering. However, COL-HL tended to enhance SP piglets BW at d 10 and 19 and SP piglet BW gain at d 19 compared to CON-HL; these results are in agreement with those of Quesnel et al (2012), who pointed out that piglet BW gain increases concomitantly with colostrum intake, and Devillers et al (2011), who found long-term effects of colostrum intake on piglet growth, which improved their BW gain.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Moreover, because of large variability in birth weight and to reduce preweaning mortality rate, cross-fostering is an important management practice usually adopted in commercial farms. Different authors have studied the benefits of cross-fostering on growth performance and survival rate of piglets (Deen and Bilkei, 2004;Bierhals et al, 2012;Heim et al, 2012). Theoretically, a combination of colostrum supplementation and cross-fostering strategies should enhance piglet growth and survival.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of cross-fostering and oral supplementation with colostrums on performance of newborn piglets

Muns

Silva

Manteca

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the experiment was to study the effect on litter performance of two oral supplementation strategies on piglets born weighing 1.35 kg or less (SP; CON: no oral supplementation; COL: supplementation with 15 mL of sow colostrum orally administered to piglets within 4 h after the farrowing was completed). Two levels of cross-fostering strategies, performed 24 h after farrowing, were also studied (HL: litters fixed at 12 piglets, ensuring that less than 50% of the piglets of the litter were SP; LL: litters fixed at 12 piglets, with most of the piglets of the litter being SP; in both cases the aim was to minimize moving piglets from one sow to another as much as possible). The combination of the 2 management strategies described above resulted in a 2 × 2 factorial model. Forty-six litters were used. Litters were allocated to 1 of the 4 treatments: CON-HL, CON-LL, COL-HL, and COL-LL. Piglets were weighed on d 1 and 19 postpartum. Mortality was recorded. On d 4 postpartum, a 2-mL blood sample was obtained from 79 SP piglets born from multiparous sows included in the experiment. To obtain a negative control group, blood samples were obtained on d 4 postpartum from 8 additional SP piglets that were separated from their mothers at birth and bottle fed with milk replacement for 12 h. LL sows had lower within-litter CV of BW at d 1 than HL sows (16.2% vs. 21.9% ± 0.91%; P = 0.003), but they did not differ for litter CV of BW at d 19 (23.2% vs. 23.4% ± 1.72%). At d 19, HL sows had fewer dead piglets per litter than LL sows (0.80 vs. 1.69 ± 0.307; P = 0.022), and COL-HL sows had fewer dead piglets per litter than CON-HL (0.47 vs. 1.14 ± 0.160; P = 0.062). Cross-fostering SP in the same litter did not prevent a litter's CV of BW from increasing at weaning. Piglets from the COL group had higher IgG concentration than piglets from the CON group (P = 0.001). However, piglets from the negative control group had lower IgG concentration than those from the COL and CON groups (5.41 ± 2.320 vs. 30.60 ± 1.582 and 21.53 ± 0.951 mg/mL, respectively; P < 0.001 in both cases). Allocating small piglets to the same litter through cross-fostering had a negative effect on mortality and did not improve litter CV of BW at weaning. Colostrum supplementation of SP piglets improved IgG blood level on d 4. In addition, in nonhomogenized litters, colostrum supplementation of SP piglets might be a good management strategy to improve litter performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of cross-fostering and oral supplementation with colostrums on performance of newborn piglets

Muns

Silva

Manteca

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is most likely attributed to the fact that small piglets have reduced energy requirements. Given that the above-mentioned studies and others [ 46 ] show no difference or even improvements in weight gain when small piglets are grouped to one sow, there is little indication of reduced milk production of sows suckling litters consisting of small piglets. None the less, careful monitoring of small litters should take place.…”

Section: Piglet Fosteringmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…However, a recent report containing data from a large commercial piggery identified that piglet survival did not differ between gilt and sow litters when managed appropriately (89% versus 90% [ 31 ]). Secondly, the suckling load of first parity sows may influence subsequent rebreeding success [ 46 ] as they can be more sensitive to weight loss in lactation than older parities [ 47 ]. However, there are strategies outside the scope of this review than can be employed to manage this issue.…”

Section: Assessment Of Sow Rearing Ability Prior To Farrowingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Success Factors for Piglet Fostering in Lactation

Alexopoulos¹,

Lines²,

Hallett³

et al. 2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryAn understanding of behavioural and physiological mechanisms responsible for piglet survival and growth will assist in developing the best recommendations in which to manage piglet movements in the farrowing house. This review has identified six key principles that should underpin successful piglet fostering. These fostering principles will improve productivity and welfare of sows and piglets in commercial pig production.AbstractPiglet movement from one sow to another, or fostering, is required in modern pig farming but there is little available literature on the most effective strategy. In this review, we focus on the behavioural and physiological mechanisms responsible for piglet survival and growth, and have identified six key principles. (1) Colostrum provides piglets with warmth, energy and immunity. It is most accessible during the first 12 h from the birth sow, therefore no piglet should be moved before this; (2) To ensure even intake of birth sow colostrum, techniques such as split suckling prior to piglet movement should be implemented; (3) Udder assessment for functional teats should occur at farrowing, with number of fostered piglets not exceeding teat number; (4) Primiparous sows should receive as many piglets as the udder allows to maximise mammary stimulation, although older parities should be assessed for rearing ability; (5) Piglet fostering should occur between 12 and 24 h and movement kept to a minimum to prevent transfer of disease; Litter outliers should be moved and relocated to a litter of similar size; (6) Piglet movement after 24 h should be minimised. When required, strategies such as nurse usage should be employed. These principles will result in improved farrowing house performance by increasing the litter weight weaned per sow.

show abstract

“…No crossfostering technique was used in this farm. Usually, the crossfostering is applied to obtain litters with a similar number of piglets or with homogeneous weight, which increases the survival and weight gain of piglets until weaning (Bierhals et al, 2012). However, the use of this technique implies in unrealistic genetic parameters (heritabilities and genetic correlations) estimation for NPB and NWP (Roehe and Kennedy, 1995).…”

Section: Data Origin and Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing multi-trait Poisson and Gaussian Bayesian models for genetic evaluation of litter traits in pigs

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tReproductive traits as number of piglets born (NPB) and weaned (NWP) are directly related to the economic efficiency of swine production systems. Pig breeding programs seek to increase the number of weaned piglets per sow per year, and the NPB is among the factors that directly and indirectly influence the NWP. Thus, multi-trait evaluations are essential to estimate heritabilities and mainly genetic correlations between these traits over different farrowing orders. In general, Gaussian linear mixed models have been used to genetic evaluation of litter traits; however since these traits are characterized as count variables, Poisson models are also indicated. Some studies were carried out using Poisson mixed models in the area of Animal Breeding and Genetics, but they do not point out for a multi-trait scenario, as it should be for litter size at birth and weaning. Toward this orientation, we aimed to apply a multi-trait Poisson mixed model (MPM) for the genetic evaluation of the number of born and weaned piglets under a Bayesian framework. It was aimed also to compare the proposed model with the traditional multi-trait Gaussian model (MGM) by using posterior based goodness-of-fit measures. Two-trait analyses for NPB and NWP were performed separately by each considered farrowing order (first, second and third) using MPM and MGM fitted to data from a commercial Landrace population. Based on DIC (Deviance Information Criterion) and PMP (Posterior Model Probability) values, the MGM outperformed the MPM, but the genetic parameter and breeding values provided by both models were consistent and similar over the three first farrowing orders. Bayesian generalized a multi-trait mixed model approach is feasible for genetic evaluations in the animal breeding context and can be an alternative method for genetic evaluations assuming non-Normal phenotypes.

show abstract

Influence of pig weight classification at cross-fostering on the performance of the primiparous sow and the adopted litter

Cited by 13 publications

References 35 publications

Effect of cross-fostering and oral supplementation with colostrums on performance of newborn piglets

Effect of cross-fostering and oral supplementation with colostrums on performance of newborn piglets

A Review of Success Factors for Piglet Fostering in Lactation

Comparing multi-trait Poisson and Gaussian Bayesian models for genetic evaluation of litter traits in pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About