Uterine blood flow in sows: effects of pregnancy stage and litter size

Père, Marie-Christine; Etienne, Michel Louis

doi:10.1051/rnd:2000105

Cited by 91 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Zaleski and Hacker [26], this may reflect the quality of uterine support of the litter and the vigour of the litter at the onset of parturition. The decreased uterine space per foetus explains why piglets from large litters are lighter at birth [20]. Uterine space may partially be connected to sow body weight, which could explain the smaller uterine space of primiparous sows in comparison with multiparous animals [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with stillborn and mummified piglets in high-prolific sows

Cozler¹,

Guyomarc'h

Pichodo³

et al. 2002

Anim. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Stillbirth concerns about 2.5 million piglets each year in France and is expected to worsen in the coming years, due to hyperprolific sows. The present study was performed to determine the risk factors of the presence of stillborn piglets or mummies in the litter using data from three experimental herds. From June 1999 until June 2000, sow, stillborn and mummy characteristics were closely recorded around farrowing. Information was recorded on 455 litters, from 308 sows. After selection, a total of 447 litters, originating from 302 crossbred (Large White × Landrace) sows were used. Two hundred and fifty-five litters had no stillborn. Neither individual piglet body weight nor variability of piglet body weight within litters were found to influence stillbirth. A reduction in the average litter or sow live weights increased the probability of having a stillbirth. When a full litter was born with a human presence, the proportion of litters without a stillborn was higher than in cases of partial supervision (65.7 vs. 4.5 to 45.6%). At the same time, the number of litters with two or more stillborn piglets was lower (11.2 vs. 23.6 to 30.9%). Only 46% of the litters had no stillborn when no supervision was performed. These results indicate that good supervision (more than 75% of births with a human presence) decreased stillbirth in pigs, while individual piglet weight did not alter it. A reduction in litter live weight decreased the risk of having mummies, whereas an increased litter size had the opposite effect. hyperprolifiques dans les troupeaux. L'objectif de cette étude est de déterminer les facteurs de risques liés à la présence de porcelets mort-nés et momifiés dans une portée, à partir d'observations réalisées dans trois stations expérimentales. De juin 1999 à juin 2000, les informations autour de la mise bas concernant les truies, les porcelets mort-nés et momifiées sont enregistrées. Ces informations sont disponibles sur 455 portées, issues de 308 truies. Après sélection, 447 portées provenant de 302 truies croisées (Large White × Landrace) sont utilisées. Au total, 255 portées n'ont pas de porcelets mortnés. Le poids individuel du porcelet et la variabilité du poids individuel intra-portée n'ont pas d'influence sur la mortinatalité. La réduction du poids de la portée ou de la truie augmente la probabilité d'avoir des porcelets mort-nés. Lorsque toutes les naissances se déroulent en présence humaine, la proportion de portée sans mort-né est plus élevée que dans le cas d'une présence partielle (65,7 % contre 4,5 à 45,6 %). Dans ce cas, le nombre de portée avec deux porcelets mort-nés ou plus, est plus faible (11,2 % contre 23,6 à 30,9 %). En absence de surveillance, seulement 46 % des portées n'ont pas de porcelets mort-nés. Ces résultats indiquent également qu'une bonne surveillance des mises bas (plus de 75 % des naissances en présence humaine) permet de diminuer la mortinatalité chez le porc, et que le poids individuel n'a pas d'effet. Une diminution du poids moyen de la portée entraîne une baisse ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with stillborn and mummified piglets in high-prolific sows

Cozler¹,

Guyomarc'h

Pichodo³

et al. 2002

Anim. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Convincing data revealed that development of Meishan conceptuses was more uniform between Days 8 and 14 of gestation (Bazer et al, 1988), and within-litter variation in birth weight was lower in Meishan litters than in Large White litters (Lee and Haley, 1995). Differences in growth patterns for placentas and uterine capacity (Père and Etienne, 2000) between the two breeds can account for a large portion of the significant differences in birth-weight distribution. The Meishan placentas are smaller at farrowing , while vascular density progressively increases between Days 90 and 110 of gestation with constant placental size.…”

Section: Breed Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Within-litter variation in birth weight: impact of nutritional status in the sow

Yuan

Zhu

Shi

et al. 2015

J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accompanying the beneficial improvement in litter size from genetic selection for high-prolificacy sows, within-litter variation in birth weight has increased with detrimental effects on post-natal growth and survival due to an increase in the proportion of piglets with low birth-weight. Causes of within-litter variation in birth weight include breed characteristics that affect uterine space, ovulation rate, degree of maturation of oocytes, duration of time required for ovulation, interval between ovulation and fertilization, uterine capacity for implantation and placentation, size and efficiency of placental transport of nutrients, communication between conceptus/fetus and maternal systems, as well as nutritional status and environmental influences during gestation. Because these factors contribute to within-litter variation in birth weight, nutritional status of the sow to improve fetal-placental development must focus on the following three important stages in the reproductive cycle: pre-mating or weaning to estrus, early gestation and late gestation. The goal is to increase the homogeneity of development of oocytes and conceptuses, decrease variations in conceptus development during implantation and placentation, and improve birth weights of newborn piglets. Though some progress has been made in nutritional regulation of within-litter variation in the birth weight of piglets, additional studies, with a focus on and insights into molecular mechanisms of reproductive physiology from the aspects of maternal growth and offspring development, as well as their regulation by nutrients provided to the sow, are urgently needed.

show abstract

“…Such techniques can be applied to AGA, IUGR and LGA fetuses since they can be easily identified in the uterine horns during surgical intervention. To use all these techniques in one study is difficult and can be simplified by only using catheters (blood sample collections), since blood flow rates are available from other studies during several stages of pregnancy (177) . Scientists now have new tools such as genomic, proteomic and metabolomic techniques.…”

Section: Large For Gestational Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional programming of gastrointestinal tract development. Is the pig a good model for man?

Guilloteau

Zabielski²,

Hammon³

et al. 2010

Nutr. Res. Rev.

265

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The consequences of early-life nutritional programming in man and other mammalian species have been studied chiefly at the metabolic level. Very few studies, if any, have been performed in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) as the target organ, but extensive GIT studies are needed since the GIT plays a key role in nutrient supply and has an impact on functions of the entire organism. The possible deleterious effects of nutritional programming at the metabolic level were discovered following epidemiological studies in human subjects, and confirmed in animal models. Investigating the impact of programming on GIT structure and function would need appropriate animal models due to ethical restrictions in the use of human subjects. The aim of the present review is to discuss the use of pigs as an animal model as a compromise between ethically acceptable animal studies and the requirement of data which can be interpolated to the human situation. In nutritional programming studies, rodents are the most frequently used model for man, but GIT development and digestive function in rodents are considerably different from those in man. In that aspect, the pig GIT is much closer to the human than that of rodents. The swine species is closely comparable with man in many nutritional and digestive aspects, and thus provides ample opportunity to be used in investigations on the consequences of nutritional programming for the GIT. In particular, the 'sow -piglets' dyad could be a useful tool to simulate the 'human mother-infant' dyad in studies which examine short-, middle-and long-term effects and is suggested as the reference model.

show abstract

Uterine blood flow in sows: effects of pregnancy stage and litter size

Cited by 91 publications

References 44 publications

Factors associated with stillborn and mummified piglets in high-prolific sows

Factors associated with stillborn and mummified piglets in high-prolific sows

Within-litter variation in birth weight: impact of nutritional status in the sow

Nutritional programming of gastrointestinal tract development. Is the pig a good model for man?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About