The Effects of an Altered Suckling Method on Piglet Performance during Late Lactation and the Nursery Period - Dr. Hyatt Frobose, Kansas State University, from the 2014 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 15-16, 2014, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2014-leman-swine-conference-material

1. K.M. Gourley, H.L. Frobose, M.D. Tokach, J.M. DeRouchey,
S.S. Dritz, R.D. Goodband, J.L. Nelssen, and D.L. Davis
Kansas State University, Manhattan
2014 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference

2. Introduction
 Mounting consumer pressure to transition away from
individual sow housing in gestation necessitates consideration
of alternative lactation and gestation management strategies.
 An accompanying sow trial evaluated whether combining
boar exposure and reduced suckling pressure can elicit estrus
during lactation in sows.
 Any modifications of the lactation environment must consider
the performance and welfare of the nursing pigs.
 Here we report the effects of an altered suckling treatment on
the performance of pigs.

3. Introduction
 Two strategies have been used to reduce the suckling
stimulus:
1) Split Weaning (SW) - Weaning the heaviest piglets early but
allowing light weight littermates to continue to suckle.
2) Litter Separation- Removing the piglets from the sow for a portion
of the day (Minimum 8 hrs).
In this trial, a novel presentation combining these strategies
was designed to provide an environment to benefit the
lightweight pig.

4. Introduction
 Lightweight pigs at weaning
have shown a negative effect on
pig quality and obtaining full
value at market (Fix et al., 2010)
• Reduced daily gain
• Reduced daily feed intake
 Lighter weaning weights typically result in more
days for pigs to reach market weight.

5. Objectives
1) To compare the collective growth performance of piglets
subjected to an altered suckling regimen (ALT) versus those
weaned conventionally.
2) To evaluate the performance of heavyweight piglets split-weaned
on d 18 compared to lightweight piglets allowed to
suckle until d 25.
3) To compare both of these weight groups to a conventional
21 d lactation.

6. Procedures
 This study incorporated a total of 611 pigs (PIC 327 x 1050;
3.22 lb at birth) originating from 54 sows over 2 farrowing
groups.
 Within each farrowing group, the day on which most litters
were born was considered d 0 of lactation.
 On d 18, sows were allotted to 1 of 2 treatments based on
parity, suckled litter size and date farrowed.
1) Control
2) Altered Suckling Regimen (ALT)

7. Procedures
 On d 18, ALT sows were placed in adjacent pairs.
 All but the 5 lightweight pigs/litter were weaned and moved
to the nursery on d 18.
 Lightweight pigs were combined to
form a new litter of 10 pigs and were
rotationally suckled (RS) between
paired sows by temporarily lifting the
divider at 12 h intervals.
 All procedures were approved by KSU
Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee.

8. Altered Suckling Treatment
Heaviest pigs weaned
on d 18
Lightweight pigs
combined
A
A B
B
Piglets alternated
between sows until d 25

9. Procedures
 At weaning, pigs were randomly allotted to nursery pens (7 pigs/pen)
within weaning age.
1) Split-Weaned: Weaned on d 18
2) Control: Weaned on d 21
• Heavy and lightweight control pigs housed together in the nursery.
3) Rotationally-suckled: Weaned on d 25
 Each nursery pen contained a 4-hole dry self feeder and nipple
waterer. Feed and water were available ad libitum.
 All pigs were fed the same diet consisting of 4 lb/pig of phase 1,
followed by phase 2 until the end of the experiment.
 Pigs were weighed individually at birth and on d 18, 21.5, 25, 28.5,
and 32.

10. Procedures
 All experimental data were analyzed using the MIXED
procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
 Pig was the experimental unit, and both nursery pen and
farrowing group were random effects.
 Least squares means were calculated for each independent
variable, and treatments were separated using preplanned
contrast statements.
 Significance was set at P < 0.05 and tendencies set at P < 0.10.

11. ALT vs. Control, P > 0.67
SEM = 0.33
12.2
14.0
15.3
17.2
19.4
12.3
13.5
15.6
17.1
19.6
21.0
19.0
17.0
15.0
13.0
11.0
9.0
18 21.5 25 28.5 32
Pig body weight, lb
Day
ALT
Control
Gain: d 18 to d 32
a
b
a,b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05

12. Effects of altered suckling on piglet growth
Trt × Wt, P < 0.01
SEM = 0.33
13.8
15.7
17.1
19.1
c c
b
a,b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05
21.5
13.9
14.4
16.8
18.4
20.9
10.7
12.6
14.4
15.8
18.2
10.6
12.2
13.5
15.2
17.3
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
18 21.5 25 28.5 32
Pig body weight, lb
Day
Control Heavy
Split-weaned
Rotationally
Suckled
Control Light
b
c b
b
b
b
b
a
a a
a a
a
a
b
a
a

13. Weight gain from d 18 to 32
< 4.5 kg: P < 0.001
>6.4 kg: P < 0.01
SEM = 0.30
a
5.72
6.91
7.63
Control
ALT
8.16
6.71
6.97
7.40
7.57
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
16%
22% 24% 28% 34% 32%
20% 16%
24%
<10 lb 10-12 lb 12-14 lb >14 lb
a
b
b
a,b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05
Body weight gain , lb

14. Weight variation from d 18 to d 32
17.9 17.9
16.4 16.2 16.0
17.2
a
13.9
14.6
13.9
13.0
20
18
16
14
12
10
18 21.5 25 28.5 32
Coefficient of Variation for litter weight
Day
Control ALT
b
a,b Means without a common superscript differ P < 0.05
b
a

15. Summary
 While there was no difference in
overall BW between ALT and Controls,
SW pigs experienced a more marked
post weaning growth check, resulting
in 15% lower total gain compared to
heavyweight controls.
 Conversely, RS pigs experienced a 15%
growth benefit compared to
lightweight controls.

16. Summary
 Altered suckling as a component of stimulating lactational
estrus did not significantly affect overall pig performance
during late lactation and the early nursery period.
 Variation in pig weight was reduced in ALT pigs as RS pigs
were heavier than lightweight controls due to extended
lactation.

17. Implications
 Additional research is needed to determine whether the
reduction in litter weight variation is sustained to market and
its economic implications.
 As additional lactational estrus strategies are evaluated, their
effects on piglet performance must also be considered.

18. Thank you!
K-STATE
RESEARCH
and
EXTENSION
WWW.ksuswine.org