Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T14:05:30.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Individual variation in feeding and growth of piglets: effects of increased access to creep food

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. C. Appleby
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
E. A. Pajor
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal H3A 1B1, Canada
D. Fraser
Affiliation:
Centre for Food and Animal Research, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Consumption of solid food before weaning and growth before and after weaning were studied in 24 litters of eight to 13 Yorkshire × Landrace piglets per litter. From day 21 until weaning at day 28,12 litters were provided with a single two-space feeder, while the other 12 litters were provided with four similar feeders. Daily food intake by each litter was recorded throughout this period and feeding behaviour of individual piglets was filmed during the final 24 h. On the one-feeder treatment there were 4·1 (s.e. 0·6) piglets per litter which fed very little on the day before weaning (< 0·005 of sample video frames). These tended to have high birth weights and high growth rates on days 0 to 21, but low growth rates on days 28 to 42. Conversely, piglets which fed most on creep food were often those which had gained least on days 0 to 21. The four-feeder treatment increased average intake in the last 3 days before weaning and reduced the number of piglets which fed very little in the final 24 h to 0·6 (s.e. 0·3) per litter. However, neither average growth after weaning nor the occurrence of poorly performing individuals was different between treatments. Furthermore, regression analysis of factors related to weight gain from days 28 to 42 showed that feeding behaviour proportionately accounted for 0·02 only of within-litter variation and food intake on days 21 to 28 did not contribute significantly to between-Utter variation. These results suggest that low consumption of solid food before weaning is a predictor of poor growth after weaning, but not a cause.

Type
Research Article
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

Algers, B., Jensen, P. and Steinwall, L. 1990. Behaviour and weight changes at weaning and regrouping of pigs in relation to teat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 143155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M. C, Pajor, E. A. and Fraser, D. 1991. Effects of management options on creep feeding by piglets. Animal Production 53: 361366.Google Scholar
Aumaitre, A. 1972. Development of enzyme activity in the digestive tract of the suckling pig: nutritional significance and implications for weaning. World Review of Animal Production 8: (3), 5468.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R. and Mitchell, K. G. 1955. Studies on milk production of Large White pigs, journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 46: 97118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranwell, P. D., Noakes, D. E. and Hill, K. J. 1976. Gastric secretion and fermentation in the suckling pig. British Journal of Nutrition 36: 7186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, B. G., Newby, T. J., Stokes, C. R. and Bourne, F. J. 1984. Influence of diet on postweaning malabsorption and diarrhoea in the pig. Research in Veterinary Science 36: 187193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 32:139155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar