Artificial rearing of piglets: Effects on small intestinal morphology and digestion capacity

Vos, M. De; Huygelen, V.; Willemen, S.; Fransén, Erik; Casteleyn, Christophe; Cruchten, Steven Van; Michiels, Joris; Ginneken, Chris Van

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.11.012

Cited by 42 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicates that the capacity of LW piglets to ingest feed during the nursing period exceeds the previously established assumed requirements for daily intake (Kim & Wu, ). In addition, the weaning weight recorded in the present study was comparable to a recent and similar study, where artificially reared LW piglets reached a BW of 6.2 kg at day 28 of age (De Vos, Huygelen, et al., ). Still, the positive impact of rescue decks on growth and, thus assumed better welfare, has been questioned by a recent study comparing behaviour between piglets reared in rescue decks and piglets reared by the sow in a loose housed sow system (Rzezniczek et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…In recent years, the novel measure of artificial rearing of piglets in rescue decks has been introduced and investigated in its suitability to improve survival rate of the increased number of growth‐impaired LW piglets from hyperprolific sows (De Vos, Huygelen, et al., ; Rzezniczek, Gygax, Wechsler, & Weber, ). In alternative rearing strategies such as split‐nursing, it is common practice that the largest piglets of the litters are transferred to nursing sows, while the smaller piglets remain with the sow of origin (De Vos, Che, et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of l‐carnitine and l‐arginine on protein synthesis and maturation of the semitendinosus muscle of lightweight piglets

Madsen

Seoni

Kreuzer

et al. 2017

Animal Physiology Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryLightweight (LW) piglets from large litters display impaired growth performance compared with heavier littermates. This study investigated the growth performance and muscle development of early-weaned LW piglets (birthweight <1.2 kg) from large litters (17.3 ± 3.0 total born per litter), fed ad libitum a milk replacer supplemented with either l-carnitine (CAR) or l-arginine (ARG) from day 7 to day 28 of age. In total, 36 female and entire male Swiss Large White piglets, weaned on day 7 of age, were artificially reared in pairs in rescue decks. They were allocated to one of three dietary treatments: unsupplemented control (CON), 0.48 g l-carnitine·piglet ·day −1 (ARG). Milk replacer was prepared daily in a 1:4 powder-to-water ratio and fed ad libitum. Piglets were weighed at birth and on days 7, 14, 21 and 28.Feed intake was assessed daily. Piglets were euthanized on day 28. The entire semitendinosus muscle (STM) was collected, and organs were weighed. Subsequently, the STM was divided into the light (STM l ) and dark (STM d ) portion, and contractile and metabolic traits were analysed by ATP histochemistry, enzyme activities and gene expression. No differences in growth performance, organ and STM weight and on contractile traits were found between groups. A tendency (p < .10) for an elevated lipid oxidation enzyme activity in the STM l and STM d and greater (p < .05) phosphorylation of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway in the STM l of CAR compared with CON piglets was found.Despite these metabolic responses, the lack of effect of CAR and ARG supplementation on growth performance suggests that providing the milk replacer ad libitum in combination with added CAR and ARG is insufficient for eliciting faster growth of LW piglets. K E Y W O R D Samino acid, artificial rearing, growth performance, litter size, milk replacer | INTRODUCTIONIncreased litter size, a large within-litter variation and decrease in the average birthweight (BtW) of the litter are all consequences of selection for hyperprolific sows in the commercial pig production (Rutherford et al., 2013). Simultaneously in such sows, milk yield and number of functioning teats does no longer correspond to the number of piglets in the litter (Andersen, Naevdal, & Boe, 2011). This compromises the growth of the piglets in a way that they are unable to reach their full potential (Harrell, Thomas, & Boyd, 1993). Furthermore, lightweight compared with the litter average (Quiniou, Dagorn, & Gaudré, 2002), where the main cause of death across all BtW categories is documented to be crushing by the sow (Edwards, 2002). However, it is argued that due to undernourishment, LW piglets reside for longer periods in close proximity of the sow, thereby increasing the risk of crushing (Weary, Pajor, Thompson, & Fraser, 1996). In this context, early artificial rearing by relocating excess piglets to rescue decks and feeding them on milk replacer will naturally remove their risk of being crushed by the sow. Applying milk replacer to early-weaned piglets has been sh...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of l‐carnitine and l‐arginine on protein synthesis and maturation of the semitendinosus muscle of lightweight piglets

Madsen

Seoni

Kreuzer

et al. 2017

Animal Physiology Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Around d 18–19, sow milk starts to be very limiting and becomes hard to compare to the ad libitum access for the artificially reared piglets [43]. Using a weigh-suckle-weigh technique, De Vos et al [26] showed that piglets with ad libitum access to milk replacer have a higher relative energy intake compared to sow-reared piglets [28]. Our findings confirm this and other previous research where LBW piglets receiving an energy rich diet—comparable with our LBW piglets fed a milk replacer ad libitum—presented a comparable body weight gain as NBW piglets receiving a lower energy intake—comparable with our NBW piglets fed by the sow [44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Next to cross-fostering [25], supplementing piglets [26] and split nursing [27], piglets can be transferred to a nursery and artificially reared [28–30]. Similar to conventional weaning, the artificially reared piglet encounters psychological and physical stressors including maternal and littermate separation, abrupt changes in diet composition and environment, lower intake of bioactive substances, as well as unfamiliar drinking nipples, increased exposure to pathogens and antigens, comingling and establishment of social hierarchy with unfamiliar pigs from different litters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial rearing influences the morphology, permeability and redox state of the gastrointestinal tract of low and normal birth weight piglets

Vergauwen

Degroote

Prims

et al. 2017

J Animal Sci Biotechnol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn this study the physiological implications of artificial rearing were investigated. Low (LBW) and normal birth weight (NBW) piglets were compared as they might react differently to stressors caused by artificial rearing. In total, 42 pairs of LBW and NBW piglets from 16 litters suckled the sow until d19 of age or were artificially reared starting at d3 until d19 of age. Blood and tissue samples that were collected after euthanasia at 0, 3, 5, 8 and 19 d of age. Histology, ELISA, and Ussing chamber analysis were used to study proximal and distal small intestine histo-morphology, proliferation, apoptosis, tight junction protein expression, and permeability. Furthermore, small intestine, liver and systemic redox parameters (GSH, GSSG, GSH-Px and MDA) were investigated using HPLC.ResultsLBW and NBW artificially reared piglets weighed respectively 40 and 33% more than LBW and NBW sow-reared piglets at d19 (P < 0.01). Transferring piglets to a nursery at d3 resulted in villus atrophy, increased intestinal FD-4 and HRP permeability and elevated GSSG/GSH ratio in the distal small intestine at d5 (P < 0.05). GSH concentrations in the proximal small intestine remained stable, while they decreased in the liver (P < 0.05). From d5 until d19, villus width and crypt depth increased, whereas PCNA, caspase-3, occludin and claudin-3 protein expressions were reduced. GSH, GSSG and permeability recovered in artificially reared piglets (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe results suggest that artificial rearing altered the morphology, permeability and redox state without compromising piglet performance. The observed effects were not depending on birth weight.

show abstract

“…Hence, the early commercial milk (CM) supplement could be beneficial for piglets and sows. Previous studies suggested that the early CM supple ment could reduce the nutritional digestive capacity of the small intestine in piglets [7,8]. However, another study re vealed that the piglets fed the CM supplement grew faster and were heavier than unsupplemented piglets [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of early commercial milk supplement on the mucosal morphology, bacterial community and bacterial metabolites in jejunum of the pre- and post-weaning piglets

Niu

Zhu

et al. 2020

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Sow milk (SM) may not be able to meet the piglet’s nutritional needs in late lactation. Hence, this study was conducted to investigate the effects of early commercial milk (CM) supplement on the mucosal morphology, bacterial community and bacterial metabolites in jejunum of piglets.Methods: Ten litters of newborn piglets ([Yorkshire×Landrace]×Duroc) were randomly divided into 2 groups of 5 litters. The piglets in the control group were suckled by the sow (SM), while the piglets in the treatment group (CM supplement) were supplemented with a CM supplement along with suckling from d 4 to d 28 of age.Results: No significant differences were observed about jejunal mucosal morphology on d 28 and d 35 between two groups. On d 28, the activity of lactase in the jejunum was significantly decreased in the CM group, while the activity of sucrase and the ratio of maltase to lactase were significantly increased (p<0.05). On d 35, the activity of maltase in the jejunum was significantly increased in the CM group (p<0.05), and maltase to lactase ratio tended to increase in the CM group (p = 0.065). In addition, piglets in the CM group had a higher abundance of Clostridium XI, Tuicibater, and Moraxella in the jejunum on d 28, while the abundance of Lactobacillus was significantly increased on d 35 (p<0.05).Conclusion: The early CM supplement improved the maturation of the jejunum to some extent by enhancing the maltase and sucrase activities. Moreover, the early CM supplement could help maintain the homeostasis of internal environment in jejunum by increasing the microbial-derived metabolites.

show abstract

Artificial rearing of piglets: Effects on small intestinal morphology and digestion capacity

Cited by 42 publications

References 23 publications

Influence of l‐carnitine and l‐arginine on protein synthesis and maturation of the semitendinosus muscle of lightweight piglets

Influence of l‐carnitine and l‐arginine on protein synthesis and maturation of the semitendinosus muscle of lightweight piglets

Artificial rearing influences the morphology, permeability and redox state of the gastrointestinal tract of low and normal birth weight piglets

Effects of early commercial milk supplement on the mucosal morphology, bacterial community and bacterial metabolites in jejunum of the pre- and post-weaning piglets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About