Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:13:13.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teat productivity in second lactation sows: influence of use or non-use of teats during the first lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Fraser ,
B. K. Thompson  and
J. Rushen
D. Fraser
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Agriculture Canada, Building 94, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada
B. K. Thompson
Affiliation:
Research Program Service, Agriculture Canada, Building 54, Ottawa, K1A 0C6, Canada
J. Rushen
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Agriculture Canada, Building 94, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Previous research has shown that piglets using the sow's more anterior teats tend to have greater average weight gains, but this difference is often slight in the first lactation and increases in subsequent lactations. In this study, 27 sows were used to determine whether this difference develops because of the piglets' preferential use of the anterior teats during the first lactation. In their first lactation, 14 sows had their anterior teats (pairs 1 to 3) and 13 sows had their posterior teats (pairs 4 to 7) covered so that the piglets could use only one end of the udder. In the second lactation, all the teats were left uncovered and the sucking positions and weight gains of the piglets were studied. Piglets in the second lactation showed the usual preference for anterior teats regardless of which teats had been used in the first lactation. Where the anterior teats had been covered in the first lactation, there was no difference in weight gain between anterior- and posterior-sucking piglets in the 1st week of the second lactation, but a degree of anterior superiority had developed by the 3rd week (P < 0·01). Where posterior teats had been covered in the first lactation, piglets using anterior teats showed substantially greater weight gains than those using posterior teats throughout the first 3 weeks of the second lactation (P < 0·001). Thus, non-use of a teat in the first lactation tended to reduce its productivity, at least in the early part of the next lactation. We conclude that previous non-use of posterior teats can contribute to their tendency for lower productivity, but the effect does not explain completely the greater piglet weight gains usually associated with using the anterior teats.

Keywords

lactationsowssucklingteats
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , December 1992 , pp. 419 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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
Dyck, G. W., Swierstra, E. E., McKay, R. M. and Mount, K. 1987. Effect of location of the teat suckled, breed and parity on piglet growth. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 929–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. 1973. The nursing and suckling behaviour of pigs. I. The importance of stimulation of the anterior teats. British Veterinary Journal 129: 324–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D. 1984. The role of behavior in swine production: a review of research. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. and Jones, R. M. 1975. The ‘teat order’ of suckling pigs. I. Relation to birth weight and subsequent growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84: 387–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. and Rushen, J. 1992. Colostrum intake by newborn piglets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. and Thompson, B. K. 1986. Variation in piglet weights: Relationship to suckling behavior, parity number and farrowing crate design. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 66: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, H. B. and Graves, K. L. 1977. Some observations on biobehavioral adaptions of swine. In Research and management of wild hog populations (ed. Wood, G. W.), pp. 103–110. Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute of Clemson University, Georgetown, South Carolina.Google Scholar
Haring, F. 1939. Einfluss der Erstlingsleistung auf die Hohe der lebensleistung in der schweinezucht. Zeitschrift für Schweinezucht 46: 62–64. (An English translation of this paper is available from D. Fraser).Google Scholar
Hartman, D. A., Ludwick, T. M. and Wilson, R. F. 1962. Certain aspects of lactation performance in sows. Journal of Animal Science 21: 883–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsock, T. G., Graves, H. B. and Baumgardt, B. R. 1977. Agonistic behavior and the nursing order in suckling piglets: relationships with survival, growth and body composition. Journal of Animal Science 44: 320–330.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Winfield, C. G. and Mullaney, P. D. 1976. Within-litter variation in the performance of piglets to three weeks of age. Animal Production 22: 351–357.Google Scholar
Jeppesen, L. E. 1982. Teat-order in groups of piglets reared on an artificial sow. I. Formation of teat order and influence of milk yield on teat preference. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascelles, A. K. and Lee, C. S. 1978. Involution of the mammary gland. In Lactation — a comprehensive treatise, Vol. 4 (ed. Larson, B. L.), pp. 115–117. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Linzell, J. L. 1971. Mammary blood vessels, lymphatics and nerves. In Lactation (ed. Falconer, I. R.), pp. 41–50. Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
McBride, G., James, J. W. and Wyeth, G. S. F. 1965. Social behaviour of domestic animals. VII. Variation in weaning weight in pigs. Animal Production 7: 67–74.Google Scholar
Pajor, E. A., Fraser, D. and Kramer, D. L. 1991. Consumption of solid food by suckling pigs: individual variation and relation to weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passillé, A. M. B. de and Rushen, J. 1989. Suckling and teat disputes by neonatal piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passillé, A. M. B. de, Rushen, J. and Hartsock, T. G. 1988. Ontogeny of teat fidelity in pigs and its relation to competition at suckling. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosillon-Warnier, A. and Paquay, R. 1984. Development and consequences of teat-order in piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, C. J., Henderson, A. J., Knight, C. H., Blatchford, D. R., Faulkner, A. and Vernon, R. G. 1987. Effects of long-term thrice-daily milking on mammary enzyme activity, cell population and milk yield in the goat. Journal of Animal Science 64: 533–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed