Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:24:59.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying the limitations for growth in low performing piglets from birth until 10 weeks of age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2014

S. P. Paredes ,
A. J. M. Jansman ,
M. W. A. Verstegen ,
L. A. den Hartog ,
H. M. J. van Hees ,
J. E. Bolhuis ,
T. A. T. G. van Kempen  and
W. J. J. Gerrits
S. P. Paredes*
Affiliation:
Nutreco Research and Development, P.O. Box 220, 5830 AE, Boxmeer, the Netherlands Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, 6709 PG Wageningen, the Netherlands
A. J. M. Jansman
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, the Netherlands
M. W. A. Verstegen
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, 6709 PG Wageningen, the Netherlands
L. A. den Hartog
Affiliation:
Nutreco Research and Development, P.O. Box 220, 5830 AE, Boxmeer, the Netherlands Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, 6709 PG Wageningen, the Netherlands
H. M. J. van Hees
Affiliation:
Nutreco Research and Development, P.O. Box 220, 5830 AE, Boxmeer, the Netherlands
J. E. Bolhuis
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
T. A. T. G. van Kempen
Affiliation:
Nutreco Research and Development, P.O. Box 220, 5830 AE, Boxmeer, the Netherlands
W. J. J. Gerrits
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, 6709 PG Wageningen, the Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The evolution of hyper-prolific pig breeds has led to a higher within-litter variation in birth weight and in BW gain during the nursery phase. Based on an algorithm developed in previous research, two populations from a pool of 368 clinically healthy piglets at 6 weeks of age were selected: a low (LP) and a high (HP) performing population and their development was monitored until the end of the nursery phase (10 weeks of age). To understand the cause of the variation in growth between these populations we characterized the LP and HP piglets in terms of body morphology, behaviour, voluntary feed intake, BW gain, and apparent total tract and ileal nutrient digestibility. Piglets were housed individually and were fed a highly digestible diet. At selection, 6 weeks of age, the BW of LP and HP piglets were 6.8±0.1 and 12.2±0.1 kg, respectively. Compared with the LP piglets the HP piglets grew faster (203 g/day), ate more (275 g/day) from 6 to 10 weeks of age and were heavier at 10 weeks (30.0 v. 18.8 kg, all P<0.01). Yet, the differences in average daily gain and average daily feed intake disappeared when compared per kg BW0.75. Assuming similar maintenance requirements per kg BW0.75 the efficiency of feed utilization above maintenance was 0.1 g/g lower for the LP piglets (P=0.09).The gain : feed ratio was similar for both groups. LP piglets tended to take more time to touch a novel object (P=0.10), and spent more time eating (P<0.05). At 10 weeks, LP piglets had a higher body length and head circumference relative to BW (P<0.01). Relative to BW, LP had a 21% higher small intestine weight; 36% longer length, and relative to average FI, the small intestinal weight was 4 g/kg higher (both P=<0.01). Apparent total tract and ileal dry matter, N and gross energy digestibility were similar between groups (P>0.10). We concluded that the low performance of the LP piglets was due to their inability to engage compensatory gain or compensatory feed intake as efficiency of nutrient utilization and feed intake per kg BW0.75 was unaffected. LP piglets tend to be more fearful towards novel objects. The morphological comparisons, increased body length and head circumference relative to BW imply that LP piglets have an increased priority for skeletal growth.

Keywords

behaviourdigestibilitygrowthlimitationspiglet
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 6 , June 2014 , pp. 923 - 930
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Agricultural Research Council (ARC) 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Bianchi, ATJ, Moonen-Leusen, HWM, van der Heijden, PJ and Bokhout, BA 1995. The use of a double antibody sandwich ELISA and monoclonal antibodies for the assessment of porcine IgM, IgG and IgA concentrations. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 44, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biocheck GmbH 2005. Entzündungs- und Belastungsparameter, vol. 2. DAP, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Brody, S 1945. Bioenergetics and growth with special reference to the efficiency complex in domestic animals. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Bruininx, EM, van der Peet-Schwering, CM, Schrama, JW, Vereijken, PF, Vesseur, PC, Everts, H, den Hartog, LA and Beynen, AC 2001. Individually measured feed intake characteristics and growth performance of group-housed weanling pigs: effects of sex, initial body weight, and body weight distribution within groups. Journal of Animal Science 79, 301–308.Google Scholar
Centraal Veervoerderbureau (CVB) 2007. Chemical composition and nutritional values of feed ingredients. CVB serie 32. CVB, The Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Damm, B, Friggens, N, Nielsen, J, Ingvartsen, KL and Pedersen, LJ 2002. Factors affecting the transfer of porcine parvovirus antibodies from sow to piglets. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 49, 487–495.Google Scholar
Desai, M and Crowtheri, A 1996. Organ-selective growth in the offspring of protein-restricted mothers. British Journal of Nutrition 76, 591–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devillers, N, Jvan, M, Prunier, A and Le Dividich, J 2004. Estimation of colostrum intake in the neonatal pig. Animal Science 78, 305–313.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, G, Bee, G, Dixon, W, Hahn, M, Harding, J, Patterson, J, Putman, T, Sarmento, S, Smit, M, Tse, W and Town, S 2007. Consequences of selection for litter size on piglet development. In Paradigms in pig science (ed. J Wiseman, MA Varley, S McOrist and B Kemp), pp. 207–229. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Gieling, ET, Park, SY, Nordquist, RE and van der Staay, FJ 2011. Cognitive performance of low-and normal-birth-weight piglets in a spatial hole-board discrimination task. Pediatric Research 71, 71–76.Google Scholar
Han, F, Hu, L, Xuan, Y, Ding, X, Luo, Y, Bai, S, He, S, Zhang, K and Che, L 2013. Effects of high nutrient intake on the growth performance, intestinal morphology and immune function of neonatal intra-uterine growth-retarded pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 110, 1819–1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 1997. Animal feeding stuffs. Determination of nitrogen content and calculation of crude protein content. Kjeldahl method. ISO 5983. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 1998a. Animal feeding stuffs, animal products, and feces or urine. Determination of gross calorific value. ISO 9831. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 1998b. Animal feeding stuffs. Determination of moisture and other volatile matter content. ISO 6496. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2002. Animal feeding stuffs. Determination of crude ash. ISO 5984. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jones, C, Gabler, N, Patience, JF and Main, RG 2011a. Irrespective of differences in weaning weight, feed efficiency is not different among pigs with varying average daily gain. Animal Industry Report 76, 657–659.Google Scholar
Jones, C, Patience, JF, Gabler, NK and Main, RG 2011b. Both weaning weight and post-weaning growth performance affect nutrient digestibility and energy utilization in pigs. Animal Industry Report 78, 657–659.Google Scholar
Kraft, W 2005. Klinische labordiagnostik in der tiermedizin. Schattauer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Kim, SW, Hurley, WL, Hant, IK and Easter, RA 2000. Growth of nursing pigs related to the characteristics of nursed mammary glands. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1313–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labussière, E, van Milgen, J, de Lange, CF and Noblet, J 2011. Maintenance energy requirements of growing pigs and calves are influenced by feeding level. Journal of Nutrition 141, 1855–1861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magowan, E, Ball, MEE, McCracken, KJ, Beattie, VE, Bradford, R, Robinson, MJ, Scott, M, Gordon, FJ and Mayne, CS 2011. The performance response of pigs of different wean weights to ‘high’ or ‘low’ input dietary regimes between weaning and 20 weeks of age. Livestock Science 136, 232–239.Google Scholar
McBride, G 1963. The “teat order” and communication in young pigs. Animal Behaviour 11, 53–56.Google Scholar
McMillen, IC, Adams, MB, Ross, JT, Coulter, CL, Simonetta, G, Owens, JA, Robinson, JS and Edwards, LJ 2001. Fetal growth restriction: adaptations and consequences. Reproduction 122, 195–204.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1998. Nutrient Requirements of swine, 10th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Paredes, S, Jansman, A, Verstegen, M, Awati, A, Buist, W, Quiniou, N, Hendriks, W and Gerrits, W 2012. Analysis of factors to predict piglet body weight at the end of the nursery phase. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3243–3251.Google Scholar
Paredes, S, Kalbe, C, Jansman, A, Verstegen, M, van Hees, H, Lösel, D, Gerrits, W and Rehfeldt, C 2013. Predicted high-performing piglets exhibit more and larger skeletal muscle fibers. Journal of Animal Science 12, 5589–5598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poore, K and Fowden, A 2004. Insulin sensitivity in juvenile and adult Large White pigs of low and high birthweight. Diabetologia 47, 340–348.Google Scholar
Ritacco, G, Radecki, SV and Schoknecht, PA 1997. Compensatory growth in runt pigs is not mediated by insulin-like growth factor I. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1237–1243.Google Scholar
Sacy, A, Le Treut, Y, Schmidely, P and Chevaux, E 2010. Caractérisation de l'immaturité des porcelets á la naissance. In Proceedings of 42nd Journées Recherche Porcine, 2–3 February 2010, Paris, France, pp. 259–260.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 2002. SAS user’s guide: statistics. SAS for Windows, Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Wang, T, Yong, JH, Fangxiong, S, Ruo, JX, Reinhold, JH and Christoffersen, B 2005. Effects of intrauterine growth retardation on development of the gastrointestinal tract in neonatal pigs. Neonatology 88, 66–72.Google Scholar
Wang, XQ, Wu, WZ, Lin, G, Li, DF, Wu, GY and Wang, JJ 2010. Temporal proteomic analysis reveals continuous impairment of intestinal development in neonatal piglets with intrauterine growth restriction. Journal of Proteome Research 9, 924–935.Google Scholar
Widdowson, EM and McCance, RA 1960. Some effects of accelerating growth. 1. General somatic development. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 152, 188–190.Google Scholar
Winick, M, Rosso, P and Waterlow, J 1970. Cellular growth of cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem in normal and marasmic children. Experimental Neurology 26, 393–400.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Paredes Supplementary material

Paredes Supplementary material

Download Paredes Supplementary material(File)
File 66 KB