Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:47:37.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of cross-suckling and presence of additional piglets on sucking behaviour and performance of individually housed litters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. Wattanakul ,
A. H. Stewart ,
S. A. Edwards  and
P. R. English
W. Wattanakul
Affiliation:
Scottish Agriculture College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA Department of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB24 5UA
A. H. Stewart
Affiliation:
Scottish Agriculture College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Scottish Agriculture College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
P. R. English
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB24 5UA
Get access

Abstract

Grouping of sows and piglets during lactation can cause performance problems associated with disruption of suckling. Cross-suckling and an increase in the number of piglets at the udder during milk let-down have been observed. To investigate the role of these factors, 24 sows and litters were used to study their independent effect on sucking behaviour and performance. Control sows (C) remained in farrowing pens with crates until weaning at 28 days. In treatment 1 (Tl) on day 14 after farrowing, five piglets were removed from the resident (Rl) litter and replaced by five piglets (cross-suckers; CS1) of the same age from a different litter. In treatment 2 (T2) on day 14, five additional piglets (CS2) from other litters were added to the 10 resident (R2) piglets for a period of 24 h. Behaviours of the sows and piglets were video recorded prior to mixing and for 3 days after mixing. Litter weight gain of 11 was significantly reduced in the week after mixing (2–06,1·61 and 2·00 (s.e.d. 0·18) kg/day, P < 0·05 for C, Tl, T2, respectively). Within Tl the growth rates ofRl and CS1 piglets were not significantly different. In the 24 h after mixing, C, Rl, CS1 and R2 piglets gained weight whilst CS2 lost weight (247,186,182,151 and -116 (s.e.d. 44·2) glday, P < 0·01). On the day of mixing, the proportion of suckling attempts which resulted in milk letdown was reduced in treatment groups (0·93, 0·75 and 0·70 (s.e.d. 0·04), P < 0·02 for C, Tl, T2 respectively) and the proportion ofT2 piglets lying near the sow's udder between milk let-down was higher than on C and Tl (0·15, 017 and 0·29 (s.e.d. 0·06), P < 0·05). There was no significant difference in piglet behaviour from 2 days after mixing. Both cross-suckling and introduction of additional piglets transiently disrupted sucking behaviour and adversely affected the performance of the piglets. Increased competition had a much greater effect than unfamiliarity with the environment, with added cross-sucking piglets being greatly disadvantaged relative to substituted cross-sucking piglets.

Keywords

behaviourlitter sizepigssuckingsuckling
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 449 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barber, R. S., Braude, R. and Mitchell, K. G. 1955. Studies on milk production of Large White pigs Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 46: 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, S. 1995. Individual variation in behaviour and growth of piglets in a combined system of individual and loose housing in sows. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. J. and Rowlinson, P. 1984. Nursing and suckling behaviour of sows and their litters before and after grouping in multi-accommodation pens Animal Production 38: 277–282.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. J., Rowlinson, P. and Van der Steen, H. A. M. 1983. A comparison of the nursing and suckling behaviour of group- and individually-housed sows and their litters. Animal Production 36: 445–451.Google Scholar
Ebner, J. 1993. Group-housing of lactating sows: studies on health, behaviour and nest temperature. Thesis, Swedish University ofAgriculture Science, Skara.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. 1987. Development of behaviour in piglets. In Welfare aspects of piglet rearing (ed. Marx, D., Grauvogl, A. and Smidt, D. C.), pp. 70–80. Commission of the European Communities, Mariensee.Google Scholar
English, P. R. and Wilkinson, V. 1982. Management of the sow and litter in late pregnancy and lactation in relation to piglet survival and growth. In Control of pig reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), proceedings of the 34th Nottingham Easter school in agriculture science, pp. 479–506Butterworth Scientific, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. 1980. A review of the behavioural mechanisms of milk ejection of the domestic pig Applied Animal Ethology 6: 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz, M. 1991. Changes in nursing and suckling behaviour of sows and their piglets in farrowing crates Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatet, G., Edwards, S. A., Gall, K. and Arey, D. S. 1994. Effect of three lactation housing systems on sow and piglet performance and behaviour. Animal Production 58: 475 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Horrell, I. and Bennett, J. 1981. Disruption of teat preferences and retardation of growth following cross-fostering of 1-week-old pigs Animal Production 33: 99–106.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. and Hodgson, J. 1992a. The bases of sow-piglet identification. 1. The identification by sows of their own piglets and the presence of intruders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I. and Hodgson, J. 1992b. The bases of sow-piglet identification. 2. Cues used by piglets to identify their dam and home pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, R. I. 1982. Immediate behavioural consequences of fostering 1-week-old piglets Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99:329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaver, J., Kempen, G. J. M. van, Lange, P. G. B. de, Verstegen, M. W. A. and Boer, H. 1981. Milk composition and daily yield of different milk components as affected by sow condition and lactation/feeding regimen. Journal of Animal Science 52: 1091–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minitab. 1993. Minitab software (release 9). Minitab Inc., USA.Google Scholar
Passille, A. M. B. de and Rushen, J. 1989. Using early. suckling behavior and weight gain to identify piglets at risk. Canadian Journal ofAnimal Science 69: 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petchey, A. M. 1976. Some determinants of efficiency in pig production with special reference to the reproductive ability of the sow during lactation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Steen, H. A. M. van der and Groot, P. N. de. 1992. Direct and maternal breed effects on growth and milk intake of piglets: Meishan versus Dutch breeds Livestock Production Science 30: 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattanakul, W., Sinclair, A. G., Stewart, A. H., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1997. Performance and behaviour of lactating sows and piglets in crate and multisuckling systems: a study involving European White and Manor Meishan genotypes Animal Science 64: 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., Thompson, B. K. and Fraser, D. 1996. Risky behaviour by piglets: a trade-off between feeding and risk of mortality by maternal crushing Animal Behaviour 51: 619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegand, R. M., Gonyou, H. W. and Curtis, S. E. 1994. Pen shape and size: effects on pig behavior and performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar