Editor’s Note: Dr. Thomas G. Gillespie, DVM, is owner of Rensselaer (Indiana) Swine Services, P.C. Dr. Gillespie presented a paper on managing seven percent pre-weaning mortality at the 2009 American Association of Swine Veterinarians Annual Meeting. Last month, Dr. Gillespie provided an overview of bump-fostering, bump-weaning (BFBW), sow welfare and management, and management of the farrowing process. In second and final installment of the two-part series, he writes about how to keep piglets alive, facility design considerations, and provides a summary of his presentation:
Keeping Piglets Alive
Personnel with good husbandry skills know colostrum is imperative for piglet survival. An early study indicates that lymphoid cells of the dam can be found in the mesenteric lymph nodes of the piglet eight hours after oral administration of colostrum.7 An additional study shows that labeled maternal colostral leukocytes are detected in liver, lung, lymph nodes, spleen and gastrointestinal tissues by 24 hours post-feeding. Once absorption occurred, it was demonstrated that colostral leukocytes bestow an immuno-modulating effect on the neonatal pigs.8 While various other studies have supported these findings, additional work is needed to determine specific pathogen transfer and the ability of the maternal antibodies to protect the offspring early in life.
There is information to support the management practices of using “hot boxes,” zonal heat sources, drying agents and fiber sources to promote viable piglets at birth. Having stronger piglets at birth helps the farrowing staff focus on maximizing colostrum consumed by newborns with motivation to utilize their own dam whenever possible. Piglets are left on their dam overnight whenever possible after split-nursing activities earlier in the day. Processing of piglets, in some herds, has been postponed until day 2 or day 3. In some herds, a two-step processing program is split between day 2 and day 3, post-farrowing.
Fostering is a widely used technique with specific programs and an extensive variety of protocols, (i.e. BFBW), to ensure piglets of differing weights and various size litters receive an adequate supply of milk. The act of fostering
piglets is altered or stopped when active disease is present in the sow farm. It is temporarily discontinued due to disease transfer from one litter to another. In addition, excessive fostering and an attitude of “saving every piglet” will have detrimental effects on average piglet weaning weight and the quality of piglets at weaning.
Fostering techniques have changed over the years with recent modifications being driven by many aspects. The most notable aspects are small birth weights and the desire to reach 30 PW/MF/Y. Fostering still occurs, but it is slightly delayed to ensure that adequate colostrum is consumed. In addition, later fostering is reduced with the use of decks and milk replacer products. Compromised piglets are placed into the decks for several days to see if they recover and become “more normal” piglets. These deck piglets are often placed back onto a cull sow prior to being moved with their farrowing group to the nursery. In some cases, BFBW will still need to be practiced when a more intense farrowing program is utilized due to facility design and lactation length.
Facility Design Considerations
A ratio of approximately seven inventoried females per farrowing crate was the standard for many years when lactation length was around 17 days or shorter. The ratio has decreased to a range from 5.5 to 6.6, as research supported the economic approach to considering longer lactation lengths. BFBW fostering technology is used less often as a more “relaxed” ratio is implemented in remodeled or new facilities. Existing farrowing facilities required additional rooms and crates to be installed to accomplish a longer lactation length, and the less intense program allows for better fostering management.
In addition, decks and systems to deliver milk replacer to farrowing crates and decks have been installed. Formulation of milk replacer products has improved, which allows for even the smallest piglets to be weaned. However, the cost of providing milk replacer mounts quickly when it is provided to a wide range of piglets. Therefore, limited use of milk replacer products provided to small and/or compromised piglets has shown tremendous benefits. A balance between fostering techniques, availability of milk replacer and longer lactation lengths are impacting piglet survival rates, resulting in lower pre-weaning mortality rates.
Take-Home Message:
• The staff’s skill level impacts farrowing room performance, especially pre-weaning mortality percentage.
• A seven percent pre-weaning mortality rate is achievable for top-performing herds, even when the average birth weight is small. The farm’s goal is to wean high-quality piglets.
• Facility design determines what technologies are successful for many units. The ratio of inventoried sows to the number of farrowing crates impacts and determines what other management technologies are needed.
• The use of milk replacer has recently increased the flexibility of how compromised piglets are handled.
• Increased litter sizes at birth have been positively associated with increased within-litter variation in piglet birth weight, and negatively correlated with an overall decrease in average birth weight.
Although litter size has increased (and despite a considerable amount of research on the negative aspects of small birth weight piglets), producers are achieving amazing production levels. Both nursery and finisher close-outs are maintaining and surpassing previous expectations. The goal of achieving 30 PW/MF/Y is a reality for this industry.
References
1. Foxcroft, G.R. and Town, S.; Prenatal programming of postnatal performance – the unseen cause of variance. Advances in Pork Produc¬tion 2004, 15:269-279.
2. Harding, J.C., Auckland, C., Patterson, J. and Foxcroft, G.R.; Hid¬den ramifications of attaining 30 pigs per sow per year induced by adverse fetal programming. Pre-conference Symposium paper, AASV, Annual Conference Proceedings 2006, p. 7.
3. Foxcroft, G. R.; Pre-natal programming of variation in post-natal performance – How and When? Advances in Pork Production 2007, 18:167-189.
4. Cutler, R.S., Fahy, V.A., Cronin, G.M. and Spicer, E.M.; Preweaning Mortality, Diseases of Swine, 9 ed.: 993-1009.
5. Peet, B.; 30 pigs/sow/year – Impacts on the sow. Advances in Pork Production 2008, 19:239-245.
6. Sorensen, G. and Thorup, F.; Energy allocation in the implantation period. National Committee for Pig Production Research Report 618, 2003.
7. Tuboly, S., Bernath, S., Glavits, R.k and Medveczky, I.; Intestinal absorption of colostral lymphoid cells in newborn piglets. Vet Immunology and Immunopathology, December 1988, 20 (1):75-85
8. Williams, P.; Immunomodulating effects on intestinal absorbed maternal colostral leukocytes by neonatal pigs. Can Journal of Vet Res 1993: 75:1-8.
Editor’s Note: This commentary is sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. For more information, go to www.bivi.com
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.