Literature DB >> 29293727

What is good for small piglets might not be good for big piglets: The consequences of cross-fostering and creep feed provision on performance to slaughter.

A M S Huting, K Almond, I Wellock, I Kyriazakis.   

Abstract

Major improvements in sow prolificacy have resulted in larger litters but, at the same time, increased the proportion of piglets born light weight. Different management strategies aim to enhance the performance of, and limit light-weight piglet contribution to, BW variation within a batch; however, consequences on heavy-weight littermates are often neglected. This study investigated the effects of different litter compositions, created through cross-fostering, and the provision of creep feed on preweaning behavior and short- and long-term performance of piglets born either light weight (≤1.25 kg) or heavy weight (1.50-2.00 kg). Piglets were cross-fostered at birth to create litters with only similar-sized piglets (light weight or heavy weight; UNIFORM litters) and litters with equal numbers of light-weight and heavy-weight piglets (MIXED litters); half of the litters were offered creep feed and the remaining were not. Piglet behavior during a suckling bout and at the creep feeder was assessed; a green dye was used to discern between consumers and nonconsumers of creep feed. The interaction between litter composition and birth weight (BiW) class influenced piglet BW at weaning ( < 0.001): piglets born light weight were lighter at weaning in MIXED litters than those in UNIFORM litters (6.93 vs. 7.37 kg); however, piglets born heavy weight performed considerably better in MIXED litters (8.93 vs. 7.96 kg). Total litter gain to weaning was not affected ( = 0.565) by litter composition. Teat position affected heavy-weight piglet performance by d 10 ( < 0.001), with heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters being disadvantaged when suckling the middle and posterior teats. Creep feed provision did not affect BW at weaning ( > 0.05) for either BiW class. However, litter composition significantly affected daily creep feed consumption ( = 0.046) and fecal color ( = 0.022), with heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters consuming the highest amount of creep feed and having the greenest feces. In addition, a lower number of heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters were classified as nonconsumers ( = 0.002). The weight advantage heavy-weight and light-weight piglets had at weaning when reared in MIXED and UNIFORM litters, respectively, was sustained throughout the productive period. In conclusion, reducing BW variation within litter (UNIFORM litters) was beneficial for piglets born light weight but not for piglets born heavy weight; the latter were disadvantaged up to slaughter. Although heavy-weight piglets in UNIFORM litters consumed the greatest amount of creep feed, this was not able to overcome their growth disadvantage compared with heavy-weight piglets in MIXED litters.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29293727      PMCID: PMC6292320          DOI: 10.2527/jas2017.1889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  19 in total

1.  Growth of nursing pigs related to the characteristics of nursed mammary glands.

Authors:  S W Kim; W L Hurley; I K Hant; R A Easter
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Effect of creep feed consumption on individual feed intake characteristics and performance of group-housed weanling pigs.

Authors:  E M A M Bruininx; G P Binnendijk; C M C van der Peet-Schwering; J W Schrama; L A den Hartog; H Everts; A C Beynen
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Influence of litter size and creep feeding on preweaning gain and influence of preweaning growth on growth to slaughter in barrows.

Authors:  J Klindt
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Effects of intermittent suckling and creep feed intake on pig performance from birth to slaughter.

Authors:  W I Kuller; N M Soede; H M G van Beers-Schreurs; P Langendijk; M A M Taverne; B Kemp; J H M Verheijden
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2007-01-03       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  CowLog: open-source software for coding behaviors from digital video.

Authors:  Laura Hänninen; Matti Pastell
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-05

Review 6.  The thrifty phenotype hypothesis.

Authors:  C N Hales; D J Barker
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.291

7.  Low birth weight is associated with enlarged muscle fiber area and impaired meat tenderness of the longissimus muscle in pigs.

Authors:  F Gondret; L Lefaucheur; H Juin; I Louveau; B Lebret
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Survival analysis of preweaning piglet survival in a dry-cured ham-producing crossbred line.

Authors:  A Cecchinato; V Bonfatti; L Gallo; P Carnier
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 9.  The biological basis for prenatal programming of postnatal performance in pigs.

Authors:  G R Foxcroft; W T Dixon; S Novak; C T Putman; S C Town; M D A Vinsky
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.159

10.  Addition of chromic oxide to creep feed as a fecal marker for selection of creep feed-eating suckling pigs.

Authors:  Wikke I Kuller; Hetty M G van Beers-Schreurs; Nicoline M Soede; Marcel A M Taverne; Bas Kemp; Jos H M Verheijden
Journal:  Am J Vet Res       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.156

View more
  11 in total

1.  Sows in mid parity are best foster mothers for the pre- and post-weaning performance of both light and heavy piglets1.

Authors:  Anne M S Huting; Panagiotis Sakkas; Ilias Kyriazakis
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Differential Effects of Breed and Nursing on Early-Life Colonic Microbiota and Immune Status as Revealed in a Cross-Fostering Piglet Model.

Authors:  Chunlong Mu; Gaorui Bian; Yong Su; Weiyun Zhu
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2019-04-18       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 3.  Review on Preventive Measures to Reduce Post-Weaning Diarrhoea in Piglets.

Authors:  Nuria Canibe; Ole Højberg; Hanne Kongsted; Darya Vodolazska; Charlotte Lauridsen; Tina Skau Nielsen; Anna A Schönherz
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 3.231

4.  Weaning age and post-weaning nursery feeding regime are important in improving the performance of lightweight pigs.

Authors:  Anne M S Huting; Ian Wellock; Steve Tuer; Ilias Kyriazakis
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 5.  A Review of Success Factors for Piglet Fostering in Lactation.

Authors:  Jena G Alexopoulos; David S Lines; Suzanne Hallett; Kate J Plush
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 2.752

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

Authors:  A M S Huting; P Sakkas; I Wellock; K Almond; I Kyriazakis
Journal:  Porcine Health Manag       Date:  2018-07-23

7.  Changes in Faecal Microbiota Profiles Associated With Performance and Birthweight of Piglets.

Authors:  Clare H Gaukroger; Christopher J Stewart; Sandra A Edwards; John Walshaw; Ian P Adams; Ilias Kyriazakis
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 8.  Maintaining continuity of nutrient intake after weaning. I. Review of pre-weaning strategies.

Authors:  Madie R Wensley; Mike D Tokach; Jason C Woodworth; Robert D Goodband; Jordan T Gebhardt; Joel M DeRouchey; Denny McKilligan
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2021-02-08

Review 9.  Using Nutritional Strategies to Shape the Gastro-Intestinal Tracts of Suckling and Weaned Piglets.

Authors:  Anne M S Huting; Anouschka Middelkoop; Xiaonan Guan; Francesc Molist
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 2.752

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

Authors:  Jordi Camp Montoro; Edgar Garcia Manzanilla; David Solà-Oriol; Ramon Muns; Josep Gasa; Oliver Clear; Julia Adriana Calderón Díaz
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.