Management routines at the time of farrowing—effects on teat success and postnatal piglet mortality from loose housed sows

Vasdal, Guro; Østensen, Ingrid; Melišová, Michala; Bozděchová, Barbora; Illmann, Gudrun; Andersen, Inger Lise

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.09.012

Cited by 56 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Birth weight and rectal temperature shortly after birth are indicators of postnatal survival (e.g., Baxter et al, 2009;Vasdal et al, 2011). Further, piglets with low BW gain are more likely to be crushed (e.g., Dyck and Swierstra, 1987;Melisova et al, 2011).…”

Section: Effect O F Housing On Bw and Piglet Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Melišová

Illmann

Chaloupková

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free farrowing pens (pens) improve the welfare of sows but may increase sow activity and negatively influence piglet production. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of pens and crates on sow postural changes, piglet trapping, sow responses to piglet screams, piglet mortality, and piglet BW gain. It was predicted that provision of greater space (in pens) would increase not only the frequency of sow postural changes and the probability of trappisng but also sow responses to the screams of piglets; thus, the outcome would be no differences in fatal piglet crushing or overall mortality between the housing systems. Sows were randomly moved to either a farrowing pen (n = 20) or farrowing crate (n = 18). Sow behavior was recorded and analyzed for 72 h from the birth of the first piglet (BFP). Sow postural changes included rolling from a ventral to lateral position and vice versa and going from standing to sitting, standing to lying, and sitting to lying. Occurrences of piglet trapping and sow responsiveness to real crushing situations were analyzed. Sow responsiveness was assessed in response to audio playbacks (PB) of piglet screams on d 3 postpartum (48 to 72 h after BFP; PB crush calls) and real piglet crushing during the first 72 h after BFP (real crush calls). Piglet BW gain was estimated 24 h after BFP, piglet BW was recorded at weaning, and piglet crushing and piglet mortality were recorded during the 72 h after BFP. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED and PROC GENMOD of SAS. Sows in pens showed more postural changes (P = 0.04) and tended to have greater incidences of piglet trapping (P = 0.07) than those in crates. Sow response to PB crush calls was greater in pens (P = 0.04) but did not differ for real crush calls between pens and crates (P = 0.62). There was no effect on the probability of piglet crushing (P = 0.38) and mortality (P = 0.41) during the 72 h after BFP nor in piglet mortality at weaning (P = 0.81) between pens and crates. Piglet BW gain at 24 h after BFP (P = 0.01) and piglet BW at weaning (P = 0.02) were greater in pens. Sows in pens showed more postural changes and tended to trap more piglets; however, the response to real crush calls did not differ between the two housing systems. Despite this, there was no increase in piglet crushing or mortality in pens, which might be influenced by the better piglet body condition observed in pens, which in turn could influence their ability to avoid crushing by the sow.

show abstract

Section: Effect O F Housing On Bw and Piglet Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Melišová

Illmann

Chaloupková

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This individual maximum has not increased proportionally to the number of piglets born alive over the recent decades, and therefore, the actual amount of milk per piglet has decreased [3]. Reduced colostrum and milk intake leads to negative effects in piglets such as rising pre-weaning mortality [4], and a decreasing average pre-weaning daily weight gain [5]. Moreover, by larger litter size, body weight losses in sows increase [6, 7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing supplementary, artificial milk for large litters during lactation: effects on performance and health of sows and piglets: a case study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOne possible way to support raising large litter sizes in pigs is to offer supplementary, artificial milk ad libitum in the farrowing pen in addition to the sow’s milk. In order to evaluate the potential use of this method and its effects on performance and health, supplemented (n = 60) and control sows (n = 60) with their litters were tested over 15 batches in one herd during one year. In the supplemented group (SG), piglets had access to supplementary milk in addition to sow’s milk from their 2nd day of life until weaning (day 27). The litters of SG sows were adjusted to contain as many piglets as the sow had functional teats, whereas in the control group (CG), piglets were set to the number of functional teats minus one, due to animal welfare reasons.Case presentationWith supplementary milk provision, the weaning of large litters was achieved without any negative impacts on performance and health. On average, 13.5 and 12.4 piglets were weaned in SG and CG, respectively (P < 0.05). While average weaning weights (SG: 7.8 kg v. CG: 7.8 kg; P > 0.05) and average daily weight gain of the piglets (SG: 0.25 kg v. CG: 0.25 kg; P > 0.05) did not differ, total litter weight was consequently higher in SG than in CG (104.9 kg v. 96.7 kg; P < 0.001). The average milk replacer intakes were 1.1 kg milk powder per day and batch, and varied significantly between the “warm” and “cold” seasons (1.5 v. 0.9 kg milk powder per batch and day; P < 0.001). No significant differences in the mortality rate or the occurrence of diarrhoea were detected in the piglets of both SG and CG (P > 0.05). With regard to documented medical treatments, facial lesions were treated less frequently in piglets of SG (46 v. 32 treatments; P < 0.05). There was no effect of supplementary milk on the loss of body weight, backfat thickness and body condition score of the sows (P > 0.05).ConclusionsTo summarise, in the presented case offering ad libitum supplementary, artificial milk supported the sow in raising large litters by compensating possible negative impacts of high piglet numbers on the weight gain of piglets and the body condition of the sows.

show abstract

“…Colostrum intake is crucial for piglet growth since it provides piglets with the energy necessary at a very early stage (Quesnel et al, 2012). Some authors have studied different management techniques to improve piglets colostrum intake after birth by drying and placing colostrum close to the udder (Christison et al, 1997;Andersen et al, 2007;Vasdal et al, 2011). Furthermore, Svendsen et al (2005) studied different feeding regimens for piglets in large litters, and Gomez et al (1998) studied the effect of feeding newborn piglets with different products on piglet growth and mortality.…”

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

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

Management routines at the time of farrowing—effects on teat success and postnatal piglet mortality from loose housed sows

Cited by 56 publications

References 20 publications

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Providing supplementary, artificial milk for large litters during lactation: effects on performance and health of sows and piglets: a case study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About