Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:43:04.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colostrum production by sows: variability of colostrum yield and immunoglobulin G concentrations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2011

H. Quesnel
H. Quesnel*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d'Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 SENAH, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Colostrum provides newborn piglets with energy, immunoglobulins and growth, thereby playing an essential role in piglet survival. However, colostrum yield and composition are highly variable among sows. Some of the factors involved in this variability have been identified. The aim of the study was to confirm previous findings on a large number of animals and to investigate other potential factors of variation, such as the process of farrowing and the morphological changes of the mammary epithelium that occur during the 24 h postpartum. The experiment was conducted on 16 Large White (LW) and 56 Landrace (LR) × Large White (LR × LW) crossbred sows of mixed parities and their litters. Most farrowings were induced at 113 days of gestation and all farrowings were attended. Each piglet was weighed at birth and 24 h after farrowing started (t24). Colostrum ingestion by individual piglets was estimated using piglet weight gains from birth to t24. Colostrum production by sows was estimated by summing up colostrum intakes by each piglet of the litter. Colostrum was collected at the onset of farrowing (t0) and at t24 to determine concentrations of immunoglobulins G (IgG), Na and K. Analyses of correlations and multiple regressions were performed to identify the variables involved in variation of colostrum yield and IgG concentrations. Colostrum yield was not related to litter size and weight (P > 0.1). It was negatively correlated with the number of stillborn piglets (r = −0.33, P = 0.005) and within-litter variation of piglet birth weight (r = −0.24, P = 0.04). It was not related to the Na/K ratio in the colostrum, which is an indicator of the integrity of the mammary epithelium. When sows were categorised according to their level of colostrum yield, sows that produced a low yield of colostrum had more stillborn piglets at birth than the other sows (P < 0.05) and tended to have a longer birth interval during the early process of parturition (P < 0.1). At t24, concentrations of IgG in the colostrum were positively correlated with the Na/K ratio in the colostrum (r = 0.53, P < 0.001), which indicates the concomitance of the cessation of IgG transfer to the colostrum and the changes in the morphology of the mammary epithelium. This study points out the need for future research on the role of the hormones involved in both the process of parturition and lactogenesis in the relationship between stillbirth, process of parturition and colostrum production.

Keywords

colostrumcolostrum yieldimmunoglobulinlactogenesispigletsow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 10 , 26 August 2011 , pp. 1546 - 1553
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Barrington, GM, McFadden, TB, Huyler, MT, Besser, TE 2001. Regulation of colostrogenesis in cattle. Livestock Production Science 70, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, FJ, Curtis, J 1973. The transfer of immunoglobins IgG, IgA and IgM from serum to colostrum and milk in the sow. Immunology 24, 157–162.Google ScholarPubMed
Canario, L, Cantoni, E, Le Bihan, E, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Bidanel, JP, Foulley, JL 2006. Between-breed variability of stillbirth and its relationship with sow and piglet characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3185–3196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J 1989. Using early suckling behavior and weight gain to identify piglets at risk. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devillers, N, Farmer, C, Le Dividich, J, Prunier, A 2007. Variability of colostrum yield and colostrum intake in swine. Animal 1, 1033–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devillers, N, Farmer, C, Mounier, AM, Le Dividich, J, Prunier, A 2004a. Hormones, IgG and lactose changes around parturition in plasma, and colostrum or saliva of multiparous sows. Reproduction Nutrition Development 44, 381–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devillers, N, van Milgen, J, Prunier, A, Le Dividich, J 2004b. Estimation of colostrum intake in the neonatal pig. Animal Science 78, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, C, Quesnel, H 2009. Nutritional, hormonal and environmental effects on colostrum in sows. Journal of Animal Science 87 (suppl. 1), 56–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foisnet, A, Farmer, C, David, C, Quesnel, H 2010a. Relationships between colostrum production by primiparous sows and sow physiology around parturition. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1672–1683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foisnet, A, Boulot, S, Passet, M, Farmer, C, Quesnel, H 2010b. L'induction de la mise bas affecte-t-elle la production de colostrum chez la truie ? Journées de la Recherche Porcine 42, 15–20.Google Scholar
Foisnet, A, Farmer, C, David, C, Quesnel, H 2010c. Altrenogest treatment during late pregnancy did not reduce colostrum yield in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1684–1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Rushen, J 1992. Colostrum intake by newborn piglets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK 1997. Farrowing behaviour and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IFIP-GTTT (Institut du porc – Gestion Technique des Troupeaux de Truies) 2009. Average National GTTT result from 1970 to 2008 in France. Retrieved 1 September 2009, from http://www.itp.asso.fr/eco/resultat/pdf/retro/00gttt.pdfGoogle Scholar
Inoue, T, Kitano, K, Inoue, K 1980. Possible factors influencing the immunoglobulin G concentration in swine colostrum. American Journal of Veterinary Research 41, 1134–1136.Google ScholarPubMed
Klobasa, F, Butler, JE 1987. Absolute and relative concentrations of immunoglobulins G, M and A, and albumin in the lacteal secretions of sows of different lactation numbers. American Journal of Veterinary Research 48, 176–182.Google Scholar
Le Dividich, J, Rooke, JA, Herpin, P 2005. Review: nutritional and immunological importance of colostrum for the newborn pig. Journal of Agricultural Science 143, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenhouwers, JI, van der Lende, T, Knol, EF 1999. Analysis of stillbirth in different lines of pig. Livestock Production Science 57, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 2002. Within-litter birth weight variation in the domestic pig and its relation to pre-weaning survival, weight gain, and variation in weaning weights. Livestock Production Science 76, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quesnel, H, Brossard, L, Valancogne, A, Quiniou, N 2008. Influence of some sow characteristics on within-litter variation of piglet birth weight. Animal 2, 1842–1849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J, Gaudré, D 2002. Variation of piglets’ birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooke, JA, Bland, IM 2002. The acquisition of passive immunity in the new-born piglet. Livestock Production Science 78, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, DB, Peaker, M 2000. Transport of milk constituents by the mammary gland. Physiological Reviews 80, 925–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnulle, PM, Hurley, WL 2003. Sequence and expression of the FcRn in the porcine mammary gland. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 91, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed