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。

IF 1.8 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Translational Animal Science Pub Date : 2025-07-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/tas/txaf074
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是确定交叉培养窝的比例和用于形成交叉培养窝的源窝的数量对仔猪断奶前生产性能的影响。该研究在2个商业产仔设施中进行,使用RCBD,共有53块(265窝,3675头仔猪)。同一小区内母猪胎次、体况评分和功能奶头数相近,且同一天在同一设施分娩。同一小区内的窝仔数相同(13头或14头),平均出生重和CV相近。处理涉及窝中交叉饲养仔猪的百分比(0% =无;50% =一半来自出生母猪,一半来自其他窝;100% =所有来自其他窝)和源窝(仔猪出生的母猪)为交叉饲养窝贡献仔猪的数量。5种交叉培养处理(交叉培养窝数/源窝数百分比)分别为:1)0%/1(均为初生母猪仔猪);2) 100%/1(所有仔猪来自另一头母猪);3) 100%/次(所有仔猪6 ~ 11头其他母猪;平均6.8);4) 50%/多头(母猪出生仔猪的一半);4 ~ 8头母猪半头仔猪;平均5.5);5) 50%/2(母猪出生仔猪的一半);另一头母猪的半头小猪)。仔猪出生后24小时称重,并在断奶时称重(WW;19.2±0.97 d);记录断奶前死亡率(PWM)。数据采用SAS分析;模型考虑了交叉饲养处理的固定效应和分娩设施和分娩设施内阻塞的随机效应。分产设施与交叉饲养处理之间无交互作用(P < 0.05)。0%/1和100%/1处理的PWM和WW没有差异(P > 0.05),表明交叉培养本身没有影响。100%/次处理和50%/次处理的PWM和WW无显著差异(P > 0.05),说明交叉培养凋落物比例不受影响。0%/1和100%/1处理的断奶前死亡率更高(3.2%至5.7个百分点单位;P≤0.05),与其他3个处理比较差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。交叉饲养本身和交叉饲养的窝料比例都不影响仔猪的生产性能;然而,与单窝仔猪相比,由多个来源仔猪组成的交叉培养仔猪断奶前死亡率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Animal Science
Translational Animal Science Veterinary-Veterinary (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信