Katherine D Vande Pol, Alicia Olivo, Heath Harper, Caleb M Shull, Catherine B Brown, Michael Ellis
{"title":"交叉培养窝料比例和源窝料数量对仔猪断奶前生产性能的影响。","authors":"Katherine D Vande Pol, Alicia Olivo, Heath Harper, Caleb M Shull, Catherine B Brown, Michael Ellis","doi":"10.1093/tas/txaf074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the proportion of a litter that was cross-fostered and the number of source litters used to form a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance. The study was carried out at 2 commercial farrowing facilities using a RCBD with 53 blocks (265 litters, 3675 piglets). Sows within a block were of similar parity, body condition score, and functional teat number that farrowed at the same facility on the same day. Litters within a block were the same size after cross-fostering (13 or 14 piglets), with similar average and CV of piglet birth weight. Treatments involved the percentage of piglets in the litter that were cross-fostered (0% = none; 50% = half from birth sow, half from other litters; 100% = all from other litters) and number of source litters (sows to which piglets were born) contributing piglets to the cross-fostered litter. The 5 cross-fostering treatments (% of litter cross-fostered/number of source litters) were: 1) 0%/1 (all piglets from birth sow); 2) 100%/1 (all piglets from one other sow); 3) 100%/multiple (all piglets from 6 to 11 other sows; mean 6.8); 4) 50%/multiple (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from 4 to 8 other sows; mean 5.5); 5) 50%/2 (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from one other sow). Piglets were weighed and allotted to treatment 24 hour after birth and weighed at weaning (WW; 19.2 ± 0.97 d); pre-weaning mortality (PWM) was recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS; models accounted for the fixed effect of cross-fostering treatment and random effects of farrowing facility and block within farrowing facility. There were no interactions (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between farrowing facility and cross-fostering treatment. There were no differences (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of cross-fostering per se. There were no differences (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between 100%/multiple and 50%/multiple treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of proportion of the litter cross-fostered. Pre-weaning mortality for the 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments was greater (3.2 to 5.7 percentage units; <i>P</i> ≤ 0.05) compared to the other 3 treatments, which were similar (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Neither cross-fostering per se nor the proportion of the litter cross-fostered affected piglet performance; however, cross-fostered litters created with piglets from multiple sources had lower pre-weaning mortality than those created with piglets from a single litter.</p>","PeriodicalId":23272,"journal":{"name":"Translational Animal Science","volume":"9 ","pages":"txaf074"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12260151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of the proportion of the litter cross-fostered and number of source litters used to create a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine D Vande Pol, Alicia Olivo, Heath Harper, Caleb M Shull, Catherine B Brown, Michael Ellis\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tas/txaf074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the proportion of a litter that was cross-fostered and the number of source litters used to form a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance. The study was carried out at 2 commercial farrowing facilities using a RCBD with 53 blocks (265 litters, 3675 piglets). Sows within a block were of similar parity, body condition score, and functional teat number that farrowed at the same facility on the same day. Litters within a block were the same size after cross-fostering (13 or 14 piglets), with similar average and CV of piglet birth weight. Treatments involved the percentage of piglets in the litter that were cross-fostered (0% = none; 50% = half from birth sow, half from other litters; 100% = all from other litters) and number of source litters (sows to which piglets were born) contributing piglets to the cross-fostered litter. The 5 cross-fostering treatments (% of litter cross-fostered/number of source litters) were: 1) 0%/1 (all piglets from birth sow); 2) 100%/1 (all piglets from one other sow); 3) 100%/multiple (all piglets from 6 to 11 other sows; mean 6.8); 4) 50%/multiple (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from 4 to 8 other sows; mean 5.5); 5) 50%/2 (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from one other sow). Piglets were weighed and allotted to treatment 24 hour after birth and weighed at weaning (WW; 19.2 ± 0.97 d); pre-weaning mortality (PWM) was recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS; models accounted for the fixed effect of cross-fostering treatment and random effects of farrowing facility and block within farrowing facility. There were no interactions (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between farrowing facility and cross-fostering treatment. There were no differences (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of cross-fostering per se. There were no differences (<i>P</i> > 0.05) between 100%/multiple and 50%/multiple treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of proportion of the litter cross-fostered. Pre-weaning mortality for the 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments was greater (3.2 to 5.7 percentage units; <i>P</i> ≤ 0.05) compared to the other 3 treatments, which were similar (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Neither cross-fostering per se nor the proportion of the litter cross-fostered affected piglet performance; however, cross-fostered litters created with piglets from multiple sources had lower pre-weaning mortality than those created with piglets from a single litter.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"txaf074\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12260151/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaf074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaf074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effects of the proportion of the litter cross-fostered and number of source litters used to create a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance.
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the proportion of a litter that was cross-fostered and the number of source litters used to form a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance. The study was carried out at 2 commercial farrowing facilities using a RCBD with 53 blocks (265 litters, 3675 piglets). Sows within a block were of similar parity, body condition score, and functional teat number that farrowed at the same facility on the same day. Litters within a block were the same size after cross-fostering (13 or 14 piglets), with similar average and CV of piglet birth weight. Treatments involved the percentage of piglets in the litter that were cross-fostered (0% = none; 50% = half from birth sow, half from other litters; 100% = all from other litters) and number of source litters (sows to which piglets were born) contributing piglets to the cross-fostered litter. The 5 cross-fostering treatments (% of litter cross-fostered/number of source litters) were: 1) 0%/1 (all piglets from birth sow); 2) 100%/1 (all piglets from one other sow); 3) 100%/multiple (all piglets from 6 to 11 other sows; mean 6.8); 4) 50%/multiple (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from 4 to 8 other sows; mean 5.5); 5) 50%/2 (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from one other sow). Piglets were weighed and allotted to treatment 24 hour after birth and weighed at weaning (WW; 19.2 ± 0.97 d); pre-weaning mortality (PWM) was recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS; models accounted for the fixed effect of cross-fostering treatment and random effects of farrowing facility and block within farrowing facility. There were no interactions (P > 0.05) between farrowing facility and cross-fostering treatment. There were no differences (P > 0.05) between 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of cross-fostering per se. There were no differences (P > 0.05) between 100%/multiple and 50%/multiple treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of proportion of the litter cross-fostered. Pre-weaning mortality for the 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments was greater (3.2 to 5.7 percentage units; P ≤ 0.05) compared to the other 3 treatments, which were similar (P > 0.05). Neither cross-fostering per se nor the proportion of the litter cross-fostered affected piglet performance; however, cross-fostered litters created with piglets from multiple sources had lower pre-weaning mortality than those created with piglets from a single litter.
期刊介绍:
Translational Animal Science (TAS) is the first open access-open review animal science journal, encompassing a broad scope of research topics in animal science. TAS focuses on translating basic science to innovation, and validation of these innovations by various segments of the allied animal industry. Readers of TAS will typically represent education, industry, and government, including research, teaching, administration, extension, management, quality assurance, product development, and technical services. Those interested in TAS typically include animal breeders, economists, embryologists, engineers, food scientists, geneticists, microbiologists, nutritionists, veterinarians, physiologists, processors, public health professionals, and others with an interest in animal production and applied aspects of animal sciences.