Vande Pol Katherine D, Olivo Alicia, Harper Heath, Shull Caleb M, Brown Catherine B, Ellis Michael
Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA.
The Maschhoffs LLC, Carlyle, IL 62231, USA.
Transl Anim Sci. 2025 Jul 14;9:txaf074. doi: 10.1093/tas/txaf074. eCollection 2025.
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the proportion of a litter that was cross-fostered and the number of source litters used to form a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance. The study was carried out at 2 commercial farrowing facilities using a RCBD with 53 blocks (265 litters, 3675 piglets). Sows within a block were of similar parity, body condition score, and functional teat number that farrowed at the same facility on the same day. Litters within a block were the same size after cross-fostering (13 or 14 piglets), with similar average and CV of piglet birth weight. Treatments involved the percentage of piglets in the litter that were cross-fostered (0% = none; 50% = half from birth sow, half from other litters; 100% = all from other litters) and number of source litters (sows to which piglets were born) contributing piglets to the cross-fostered litter. The 5 cross-fostering treatments (% of litter cross-fostered/number of source litters) were: 1) 0%/1 (all piglets from birth sow); 2) 100%/1 (all piglets from one other sow); 3) 100%/multiple (all piglets from 6 to 11 other sows; mean 6.8); 4) 50%/multiple (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from 4 to 8 other sows; mean 5.5); 5) 50%/2 (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from one other sow). Piglets were weighed and allotted to treatment 24 hour after birth and weighed at weaning (WW; 19.2 ± 0.97 d); pre-weaning mortality (PWM) was recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS; models accounted for the fixed effect of cross-fostering treatment and random effects of farrowing facility and block within farrowing facility. There were no interactions ( > 0.05) between farrowing facility and cross-fostering treatment. There were no differences ( > 0.05) between 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of cross-fostering per se. There were no differences ( > 0.05) between 100%/multiple and 50%/multiple treatments for PWM or WW, indicating no effect of proportion of the litter cross-fostered. Pre-weaning mortality for the 0%/1 and 100%/1 treatments was greater (3.2 to 5.7 percentage units; ≤ 0.05) compared to the other 3 treatments, which were similar ( > 0.05). Neither cross-fostering per se nor the proportion of the litter cross-fostered affected piglet performance; however, cross-fostered litters created with piglets from multiple sources had lower pre-weaning mortality than those created with piglets from a single litter.
本研究的目的是确定交叉寄养仔猪在一窝仔猪中所占比例以及用于组成一窝交叉寄养仔猪的来源窝数对仔猪断奶前性能的影响。该研究在2个商业分娩设施中进行,采用随机区组设计,共53个区组(265窝,3675头仔猪)。同一区组内的母猪胎次、体况评分和有效乳头数相似,且在同一天于同一设施分娩。交叉寄养后,同一区组内的仔猪窝大小相同(13或14头仔猪),仔猪出生体重的平均值和变异系数相似。处理方式涉及一窝仔猪中交叉寄养仔猪的百分比(0% = 无;50% = 一半来自出生母猪,一半来自其他窝;100% = 全部来自其他窝)以及为交叉寄养仔猪窝提供仔猪的来源窝数(仔猪出生的母猪)。5种交叉寄养处理方式(交叉寄养仔猪在一窝中的百分比/来源窝数)分别为:1)0%/1(所有仔猪来自出生母猪);2)100%/1(所有仔猪来自另一头母猪);3)100%/多(所有仔猪来自6至11头其他母猪;平均6.8头);4)50%/多(一半仔猪来自出生母猪;一半仔猪来自4至8头其他母猪;平均5.5头);5)50%/2(一半仔猪来自出生母猪;一半仔猪来自另一头母猪)。仔猪在出生后24小时称重并分配至各处理组,断奶时(19.2 ± 0.97天)再次称重;记录断奶前死亡率(PWM)。数据采用SAS进行分析;模型考虑了交叉寄养处理的固定效应以及分娩设施和分娩设施内区组的随机效应。分娩设施和交叉寄养处理之间不存在交互作用(> 0.05)。0%/1和100%/1处理在PWM或断奶体重方面无差异(> 0.05),表明交叉寄养本身无影响。100%/多和50%/多处理在PWM或断奶体重方面无差异(> 0.05),表明一窝中交叉寄养仔猪的比例无影响。0%/1和100%/处理的断奶前死亡率高于其他3种处理(高3.2至5.7个百分点;≤ 0.05),而后3种处理相似(> 0.05)。交叉寄养本身以及一窝中交叉寄养仔猪的比例均未影响仔猪性能;然而,由多个来源的仔猪组成的交叉寄养仔猪窝的断奶前死亡率低于由单个窝的仔猪组成的交叉寄养仔猪窝。