{"title":"Sow and litter performance after cross-fostering one surplus piglet and co-mingling the litters at early lactation","authors":"G.P. Zanin, L. Santos, D.M.S. Tomm, D.F. Silveira, F.P. Bortolozzo, R.R. Ulguim, A.P.G. Mellagi","doi":"10.1016/j.animal.2024.101247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The number of piglets born alive is frequently greater than the functional teats, and some farms are equalizing litters with surplus piglets, limiting piglet udder access. Removing the barrier among farrowing crates may allow piglets to socialize and seek other sows. Thus, we evaluated the effects litter size at cross-fostering and socialization on the sow and piglet performance during lactation. Two factors were included in a 2 × 2 factorial design: socialization and litter size relative to sow functional teat number at cross-fostering. Litters (n = 189) were then assigned to one of four groups: <strong>CONT+0</strong> (litters not co-mingled with no additional piglet), <strong>CONT+1</strong> (not co-mingled with one additional piglet), <strong>Co-M+0</strong> (co-mingled with no additional piglet), <strong>Co-M+1</strong> (co-mingled with one additional piglet). Piglets were cross-fostered from 12–16 h after birth, and 24 h later, Co-M groups were socialized by removing the barrier between two adjacent pens. During lactation, sows lost more caliper units in the + 1 group than in the + 0 group (<em>P</em> = 0.04). The number of functional teats did not differ among groups, but Co-M sows had a higher udder lesion score at weaning than CONT (6.55 vs 4.83; <em>P</em> < 0.01). Furthermore, +1 sows had fewer vacant teats throughout lactation (<em>P</em> < 0.01). Milk yield did not differ among the groups (<em>P</em> ≥ 0.13). Regarding the number of weaned piglets, no difference was observed for socialization (<em>P</em> = 0.84), but + 1 sows weaned 0.67 more piglets than + 0 (<em>P</em> < 0.01). Although CONT+0 had the heaviest piglets at weaning (<em>P</em> < 0.01), litter weight did not differ among the groups (<em>P</em> ≥ 0.08). Facial and joint lesions were frequently observed in Co-M (<em>P</em> < 0.01) than CONT. Piglet loss rate did not differ among treatments (overall rate = 12.6%; <em>P</em> ≥ 0.26). The removal rate, however, was more frequent in + 1 litters than in + 0 (<em>P</em> < 0.01). Death due to starvation was higher in CONT+1 than CONT+0 (<em>P</em> < 0.01) but did not differ between the Co-M groups (<em>P</em> = 0.99). Litters formed with one additional piglet relative to functional teat number weaned more piglets, albeit with lower individual weight. Litter socialization may alleviate the impact of high litter size but shows greater percentages of udder injuries and facial and joint lesions in weaned piglets.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50789,"journal":{"name":"Animal","volume":"18 10","pages":"Article 101247"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731124001782","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The number of piglets born alive is frequently greater than the functional teats, and some farms are equalizing litters with surplus piglets, limiting piglet udder access. Removing the barrier among farrowing crates may allow piglets to socialize and seek other sows. Thus, we evaluated the effects litter size at cross-fostering and socialization on the sow and piglet performance during lactation. Two factors were included in a 2 × 2 factorial design: socialization and litter size relative to sow functional teat number at cross-fostering. Litters (n = 189) were then assigned to one of four groups: CONT+0 (litters not co-mingled with no additional piglet), CONT+1 (not co-mingled with one additional piglet), Co-M+0 (co-mingled with no additional piglet), Co-M+1 (co-mingled with one additional piglet). Piglets were cross-fostered from 12–16 h after birth, and 24 h later, Co-M groups were socialized by removing the barrier between two adjacent pens. During lactation, sows lost more caliper units in the + 1 group than in the + 0 group (P = 0.04). The number of functional teats did not differ among groups, but Co-M sows had a higher udder lesion score at weaning than CONT (6.55 vs 4.83; P < 0.01). Furthermore, +1 sows had fewer vacant teats throughout lactation (P < 0.01). Milk yield did not differ among the groups (P ≥ 0.13). Regarding the number of weaned piglets, no difference was observed for socialization (P = 0.84), but + 1 sows weaned 0.67 more piglets than + 0 (P < 0.01). Although CONT+0 had the heaviest piglets at weaning (P < 0.01), litter weight did not differ among the groups (P ≥ 0.08). Facial and joint lesions were frequently observed in Co-M (P < 0.01) than CONT. Piglet loss rate did not differ among treatments (overall rate = 12.6%; P ≥ 0.26). The removal rate, however, was more frequent in + 1 litters than in + 0 (P < 0.01). Death due to starvation was higher in CONT+1 than CONT+0 (P < 0.01) but did not differ between the Co-M groups (P = 0.99). Litters formed with one additional piglet relative to functional teat number weaned more piglets, albeit with lower individual weight. Litter socialization may alleviate the impact of high litter size but shows greater percentages of udder injuries and facial and joint lesions in weaned piglets.
期刊介绍:
Editorial board
animal attracts the best research in animal biology and animal systems from across the spectrum of the agricultural, biomedical, and environmental sciences. It is the central element in an exciting collaboration between the British Society of Animal Science (BSAS), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) and the European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) and represents a merging of three scientific journals: Animal Science; Animal Research; Reproduction, Nutrition, Development. animal publishes original cutting-edge research, ''hot'' topics and horizon-scanning reviews on animal-related aspects of the life sciences at the molecular, cellular, organ, whole animal and production system levels. The main subject areas include: breeding and genetics; nutrition; physiology and functional biology of systems; behaviour, health and welfare; farming systems, environmental impact and climate change; product quality, human health and well-being. Animal models and papers dealing with the integration of research between these topics and their impact on the environment and people are particularly welcome.