1. Introduction
Pork industries worldwide face loss of profit due to high piglet pre-weaning mortality (PWM), which can account for 10 to 20% of all live born piglets [1,2]. Attempts to reduce PWM are ongoing through research and the formulation of new industry guidelines. However, this PWM continues to increase, with 80% of deaths occurring within the first 72 h of life [3]. There are many factors that impact PWM, although non-viable or low-viability piglets are a major contributor (Figure 1), second only to the occurrence of stillbirths [4]. The term viable, when referring to a foetus, is the ability to survive outside the uterus [5]. However, although the term viable, per se, is simple, the accuracy of measures used to determine the viability of piglets at birth is contentious. The absence of universally agreed measures for piglet viability contributes to the inaccurate prediction of survival and subsequent PWM. This raises concerns for the accuracy of identifying factors contributing to low viability and the effectiveness of associated remedial management strategies. Evidence within the literature strongly suggests that increased litter size, largely due to genetic selection to increase the number of piglets born, is the major contributing factor for the greater occurrence of low-viability piglets and the consequently increased PWM [6,7,8]. The continual increase in PWM indicates current methods to identify and manage low viability piglets are inadequate [9]. The aims of this review are to identify how the literature defines low-viability piglets and to evaluate the management strategies implemented to improve PWM. A variety of neonatal measures for viability, contributing factors and current management strategies will be discussed within this review (Figure 1).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Birth Weight (BW)
In commercial practice, BW is the most commonly used indicator of a piglet’s ability to survive until weaning [1,10,11,12,13,14]. The long-term effects of low BW on piglet survival and growth have been investigated, but with contradictory findings on the ability of piglets to compensate and catch up to littermates in terms of growth. It was documented that the lightest-BW piglets could compensate during postnatal growth [15] although others have stated that low-BW piglets have a higher chance of demonstrating poor pre-weaning growth and a lower BW at weaning [16]. Further, lower-BW piglets exhibit poorer lifetime growth rates and increased days to market weight compared to their heavier-BW littermates [6,15]. Low-BW piglets have been categorised based on their number of standard deviations (SDs) from the mean BW of the batch [11]. Within the experimental population of that study, piglets with a BW that was within 2.5 SDs of the mean BW of the population had the potential to compensate growth in other stages. However, piglets with a BW more than 2.5 SDs below the mean did not show compensatory growth. Regardless of the BW category, not all piglets showed improved performance, suggesting that the BW is not the sole predictor of pre-weaning growth and survival [11]. Some of the variation in performance may be the result of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Many small foetuses are genetically small but are normal, while others are the result of placental insufficiency, often termed IUGR piglets. These IUGR neonates are a major contributor to perinatal mortality across many species. In humans, there are cut-off birth weights, and other morphological measures are used to identify IUGR babies [16]. There are two types of delayed foetal growth, asymmetric and symmetric. With asymmetric growth the body is disproportionately small for the head size, while with symmetric growth, heads are proportionally affected. The most commonly identified IUGR piglets are asymmetrical, identifiable by the so-called dolphin-like head shape [17,18]. These IUGR piglets grow at a slower rate than their littermates, with an impaired energy supply, underdeveloped organs and impaired gastrointestinal and skeletal development [19,20,21,22,23]. Symmetrical foetal growth restriction is harder to identify and, as such, possibly influences the performance reported for low-BW piglets in the literature. Only asymmetric IUGR is referred to in the literature for pigs, and the degree of IUGR severity can be identified by the use of morphological measures of the head [21,24]. However, the assessment of these head characteristics is subjective, and consequently, the identification of IUGR piglets using head morphology is often inconsistent. Thus, the validation of more objective measures of the head would improve the validity of classification. Head morphology is not the most robust method for identifying IUGR piglets. Clearly, the parameters used to classify piglets as having low viability require further clarification to improve the relevance and effectiveness of early intervention strategies for these low-viability piglets.
2.2. Novel Predictors
In humans, morphological measures have been recorded for newborns as being better indicators of potential growth and development than BW alone [16]. As such, the morphology of piglets at birth potentially may provide relatively novel predictors of their potential postnatal growth and development [18,21,23,25]. A variety of morphological measurements which improve the prediction of a piglet’s ability to survive have been identified. The body mass index (BMI = weight (kg)/crown – rump (cm)2) and the abdominal circumference (AC) have been identified as the most accurate predictors of piglet growth from days 1 to 28 of life, and thereafter, the AC and the ponderal index (PI = weight/crown – rump3) are the best predictors of growth from days 28 to 70 [25]. These findings are supported by Huting et al. [18], who found the BMI is associated with pre- and post-weaning average daily gain.
2.3. Colostrum Intake
Sufficient colostrum intake within the first 24 h of life is a well-established determinant for continued survival. Colostrum provides piglets with energy for thermoregulation and weight gain, passive immunity and growth factors [26,27,28]. It is recommended that to survive and thrive before and after weaning, a colostrum intake of at least 250 g per pig is required [29]. Accordingly, sufficient intake could be the most appropriate measure of viability. Amdi et al. [17] identified a large variation in stomach weight and capacity in both IUGR and normal piglets at birth. Under artificial feeding conditions, the maximum capacity of a newborn IUGR piglet’s stomach was ~50 mL per kg/BW [30]. This would require the feeding of colostrum at least 5 times within the first 24 h to achieve appropriate intake for improved survival. Piglet stomachs grow rapidly, and increases in functional maturation occur within the first 3 days post-partum [31], with gut closure occurring by about 24 h of life [27]. The rapid developmental changes in the stomach of the piglet highlights the importance of time relative to birth, if management strategies are to be implemented with optimal outcomes. However, applications within many production systems are currently impractical, as the sufficiently precise prediction of birth time is not possible, with approximately 15 h of the day (i.e., overnight) being unstaffed on most farms.
Regardless of the stomach capacity or frequency of feeding, recent studies have questioned the ability of the gastrointestinal tract of low-viability piglets to digest and absorb the colostrum components ingested [32,33]. The poorer nutrient absorption and potential lack of organ maturation in IUGR or low-viability piglets [17,34] could reduce the effectiveness of supplemental feed. Therefore, a measure of colostrum absorption requires research into the gut function of low-viability piglets as their ability to uptake colostrum is crucial. Intestinal closure is where the ability of intestinal cells to uptake macromolecules into the lymphatics and blood decreases. In the pig, this process begins at about first 6–12 h post-ingestion of colostrum and is complete at 24–36 h [35,36]. During the time when the gut is “open”, the piglet can obtain necessary immunoglobulins and other immune elements required to acquire their passive immunity [37]. This highlights the importance of timely intervention and the availability and uptake of sufficient colostrum. Additionally, when farrowings are unattended, a way to record the time of birth would aid in the timely implementation of effective management strategies.
2.4. Piglet Body Temperature
Piglets are born with a limited energy supply, having little readily mobilizable adipose tissue and no brown fat that plays an important role in thermoregulation in many other species [38]. Piglets must rely on their ability to access a teat to suck and thermoregulate. The in utero temperature fluctuates between 38 and 40 °C [39] and is influenced by sow parity [40]. The minimum temperature of the environment immediately following birth must be 34–35 °C for thermoneutrality [41]. Ambient temperature varies greatly with the geographical location, and the temperature at the piglet level will be influenced by the type of production system. Commercial production facilities often operate with suboptimal environments for piglets, with draughts, skin wetness and cold flooring being contributing factors to PWM. This environment can directly impact the severity of the initial temperature drop and the time for piglets to recover to near the optimal temperature [42]. At their birth, farrowing house temperatures are often 10–12 °C lower than a piglet’s lower critical temperature of ~34 °C [39], accentuating reductions in piglet temperatures with near normal body temperatures not being achieved for several hours (Figure 2) [42]. Being born into a suboptimal environment could further negatively impact the chance of survival for a piglet already disadvantaged in utero. The ability of piglets to thermoregulate is directly related to their weight, and as such, their body temperature at 24 h post-partum may be a good predictor of early-lactation piglet performance [12,38]. Caldara et al. [43] showed that at 30 to 45 min post-partum, as weight increased, so did skin temperatures. This indicates less of a postnatal drop in body temperature of heavier piglets (≥1.4 kg) compared to that of lighter-weight piglets [44]. Further comparisons between weight groups were not reported, likely due to the small sample size (n = 4 sows) used in the study. Small piglets have a higher surface area-to-volume ratio than large piglets; thus, heat loss is proportionally greater. It has been suggested that a birth weight less than 1.1 kg in European breed piglets predisposes to an impaired ability to thermoregulate [39]. This may be explained by IUGR piglets usually being under 1.1 kg at birth and having a lower rectal temperature than normal-weight piglets [17,44]. There is potential for these measures to act as indicators for piglet survival in the immediate postnatal period and could influence decisions on the distribution of farrowing house resources and fostering movements.
3. Contributing Factors to Low Viability
3.1. Selection for Larger Litters
Many studies have focused on increasing the reproductive output of the sow, with increasing litter size at the forefront of industry research. Modern Danish sows have the capability to produce an average of 16.9 piglets born alive per litter [45], which is significantly greater than the available teat capacity. It is well established that larger litters at birth have a higher within-litter BW variation and a higher proportion of low-viability piglets [6,46]. This means that, despite higher numbers of piglets produced, piglets born alive are more likely to be relatively small, underdeveloped and at higher risk of mortality. The size of piglets from large litters is impaired in utero, because there is a greater competition for available resources [47,48]. The increased energy requirement of a large litter can also accentuate a lack of energy in the sow, contributing to an increased PWM due to difficulties during farrowing and inadequate colostrum and milk supply [49,50,51]. Extended farrowing durations as a result of a larger litter size can increase the incidence of intrapartum hypoxia, leading to higher stillbirth rates [52,53] and/or permanent brain damage in live born pigs (Figure 1) [54,55]. The increased occurrence of stillbirth is exacerbated in higher parity sows, as their uterine contractility may decrease, possibly due to older sows experiencing poorer calcium homeostasis, limiting the ability of the sow to expedite piglet delivery [56,57]. Although Australia lags behind many countries in terms of litter size, there is evidence that even with smaller litters there are trends in commercial herds for an increased total born alive per litter, with the Pork CRC reporting an increase of total piglets born from 12.4 to 12.8 between 2013 and 2016 and a similar trend also seen in the Australian average piglet PWM, being 10.9% and 11.5% for 2013 and 2016, respectively [58]. These reported figures indicate that although a slight increase in litter size was achieved, the net effect on overall productivity would be minimal given the higher mortality rate, as also described by others [59]. Accordingly, the increased presence of low-viability piglets in larger litters has encouraged the industry to develop better fostering and management techniques, but there are still a growing number of piglet deaths due to increased litter sizes and associated lower viability at birth.
3.2. Farrowing Induction
Induced farrowing is used to increase the likelihood of the sow farrowing during supervised hours [60,61]. Indeed, supervision is recommended when inducing farrowing, as several potential negative side effects have been reported [62,63]. Some studies report an increase in stillbirths, but this is largely considered a result of extended farrowing duration due to dystocia [52,63]. Regardless, if not timed correctly, inducing sows to farrow has been associated with an increase in PWM [62]. Premature piglets born as a result of inappropriately timed farrowing induction are born lighter and have a lower average daily gain than those born to non-induced sows [53]. The induction of farrowing uses prostaglandins and/or oxytocin, and globally, consumers are becoming more interested in animal industries and how medication and hormones are used [64]. Therefore, the practice of inducing sows is not universally viewed favourably, so induction protocols should be assessed to better suit the developmental needs of the piglet.
3.3. Transition into Parturition
Farrowing can be long and problematic for the sow and her piglets. Parity, nutrition and the sow’s environment may influence the farrowing outcome [48,65,66]. Traditional research typically focused on the gestation and lactation periods as separate phases, defined as being before and after farrowing is complete, respectively. More recently, research has redefined the period of change from gestation to lactation as a separate state categorised as the transition period with its own management challenges, including nutritional. A relationship between the time from the last feed to the onset of farrowing and the duration of farrowing has been documented [67]. Specifically, farrowing duration was 3.8 ± 1.5 h, if farrowing started within 3.1 ± 0.34 h of the last meal. However, if farrowing commenced more than 3.13 h after the last feed, there was a decrease in arterial glucose concentrations and an increase in farrowing duration to 9.3 h if farrowing commenced 8 h after the last feed. To our knowledge, only one other study by Gourley et al. [68] has focused on the time from feed to farrow intervals. There was no decrease in farrowing duration recorded, when the feed-to-farrow interval was reduced by more frequent feeding sessions. The difference between the two studies has been suggested to be due to the difference in average farrowing duration and born alive for the study populations. This highlights that although some sows may still farrow within a safe timeframe, with the selection for larger litter sizes farrowing duration is likely to increase as will the possible negative effects of prolonged farrowing duration on stillbirth rate and neonatal viability [52,69,70]. Extended farrowing durations increase the incidence and degree of hypoxic events experienced by piglets [12]. Hypoxia slows the responses of piglets to their environment, increases their chance of being overlaid by the sow and/or reduces their ability to compete for sufficient colostrum and milk, lowering their chance of survival. The findings of Langendijk et al. [52] and Feyera et al. [67] highlighted the importance of developing better sow and piglet management strategies during the transition period. Further research into the mechanisms behind the relationship between the time from the last feed to the onset of farrowing and the farrowing duration is crucial for reducing the impact of farrowing duration on piglet viability.
4. Management Strategies for Improving Piglet Survival
4.1. Sow-Specific Diets
Extensive research has explored numerous diet compositions for sow gestation and lactation feed which may influence sow and piglet performance [71,72]. However, the use of feed additives by producers is limited, as the associated costs can outweigh the benefit. There are generally three main phases targeted for gestation-specific diets, which differ between gilts and sows, with these being early gestation (days 1–28), mid gestation (days 29–84) and late gestation (days 85–115). Early-gestation diets are targeted at priming the sow for optimal metabolic and endocrine conditions to develop and maintain good-quality embryos and foetuses [73]. Mid gestation feeding is focused on maintenance and maternal body gain, usually met by a gradual increase in feed and energy intake [74]. Late gestation is crucial for foetal and mammary growth and influences the production of colostrum and sow performance throughout lactation [75,76]. Despite the transition period from late gestation into lactation being critical for sow performance and piglet development, there is a paucity of research in this area. The transition from gestation to lactation is traditionally considered to occur, after the sow farrows; however, recent research has put more importance on the lead up to farrowing as a part of the transition period to prime the sow to be in a positive energy state prior to farrowing [67]. Parturition requires large amounts of energy, but sows consume little or no feed immediately prior to or during farrowing. Extended farrowing durations reduce piglet viability and increase stillbirth rates. Recent research documented a significant positive association between the time interval from the last feeding to the onset of farrowing and the farrowing duration [67]. These authors suggested the relationship is directly related to a depleted energy supply if the interval between eating and farrowing is more than 3 h. Others have found that farrowing duration, stillbirths and 24 h mortality are not impacted by increased feeding frequency or amount offered in the 2–3-day prepartum, although there is a decrease in overall PWM [77]. Another contributing factor to farrowing difficulty and extended farrowing durations could be weak muscle tone reducing the effectiveness of muscle contractions, and a decline in blood calcium levels may result in insufficient calcium for optimal myometrial contraction and result in the delayed expulsion of piglets. A deficit in calcium can also reduce the effectiveness of both endogenous and exogenous oxytocin, which also may impair myometrial contractions [78]. There are reports of calcium supplementation reducing stillbirth rates, presumably by reducing the duration of farrowing [77,79]. One method for increasing the calcium mobilisation from bone and the uptake from the gut is by manipulation of the dietary cation-anion differences (DCAD) [80]. Negative-DCAD-transition diets are used extensively in the dairy industry to increase milk production and reduce the occurrence of post-parturient hypocalcaemia [80,81,82]. Negative-DCAD diets contain larger amounts of negatively charged ions which when absorbed into the blood cause a mild acidaemia that promotes parathyroid sensitivity and increased mobilisation of calcium from bone, increased renal vitamin D activation and increased calcium uptake from the intestinal tract. Studies have shown that the effects of feeding negative-DCAD diets for an extensive time prior to calving have minimal negative effects on the cow [83,84]. However, one recent study showed that calves born to cows fed a negative-DCAD diet had a lower BW and an average daily weight gain than calves from cows fed positive-DCAD diets [85]. We are not aware of any published research investigating the feeding of negative-DCAD diets on the sow farrowing duration and the stillbirth rate. However, as sows produce litters of multiple young as opposed to singular young in dairy cows, the same effect may not be clear on the individual offspring. These studies identify the importance of sow nutrition immediately prior to farrowing, both in diet content and feeding frequency, for the optimal farrowing performance.
4.2. Interventions at Farrowing
Supervision during farrowing is recommended but often not implemented due to the relatively unpredictable timing of piglet delivery. Behavioural indicators, such as bar biting, pawing and nest building attempts in conjunction with colostrum leakage, are the typical indicators for impending farrowing. Unfortunately, the presentation of these signs varies greatly in degree and timing relative to the onset of piglet delivery [86]. Further, these indicators are reliant on a person being present to observe and are used to monitor their progress. Piglet mortality in the neonatal period is significantly reduced by the presence of staff during the farrowing [63,87]. However, to reduce overall PWM, ongoing supervision for at least three days is recommended [63,88]. Supervision allows the use of practices such as timely manual delivery assistance, drying and rubbing of piglets and fostering techniques [65,88]. The ability of production systems to implement the adequate supervision of farrowing may be constrained by labour costs and staff availability. However, modern technology can be used to supervise farrowing and reduce piglet mortality without increased labour costs. With the increasing interest in smart farming technologies across multiple agricultural sectors, there have been growing numbers of studies conducted to develop and demonstrate the use of technology such as movement sensors that detect postural changes or patterns of behaviour to predict the onset of farrowing. It has been noted, however, that most of these technologies require large amounts of power resulting in a need for frequent battery changes and are currently not ready for applications within commercial production [89,90]. Further, these examples are focused on detecting the onset, but not the process of farrowing, which does not replace the labour needed for the adequate supervision of farrowing. Other promising systems, such as thermal cameras which use the detection of heat differences to notify personnel when a sow has not had a piglet in a set interval, would allow for timely assistance and potentially piglet assistance prior to the onset of hypothermia.
The standard farrowing crate design includes a creep area often with some sources of heat such as heat lamps, mats and/or bedding [91,92]. However, piglets prefer to lie close to the udder of the sow during the first 24 h of life, when the risk of hypothermia is greatest [93]. Piglets naturally adapt their behaviours to reduce heat loss by huddling with littermates and shivering [38]. The intensity at which they are able to shiver is inversely related to the body temperature down to 34 °C, but below this, the shivering intensity does not increase and heat production decreases [38]. The early re-warming of a hypothermic piglet can reverse some of the biological reactions and metabolism restrictions associated with the drop in temperature [38]. In human medicine, warm intravenous fluids are given to hypothermic patients to increase their core temperature [94]. This is standard practice during surgical operations as well as in cases of severe hypothermia [95]. Administering warm fluids (65 °C) to hypothermic dogs has been shown to increase their temperature with no adverse reactions [96,97]. To our knowledge, there has been no published research on the administration of warm fluids to piglets as a treatment for hypothermia. Current applied interventions such as drying and rubbing of piglets have been shown to be highly effective in increasing rectal temperature if applied at birth [98]. However, this requires personnel to be present at birth to apply these techniques within an effective time frame. With litter sizes continuing to increase, improved supervision practices will become necessary to maintain piglet neonatal survival and to reduce PWM.
4.3. Management during the First 24 h Post-Partum
Fostering is used to increase piglet access to colostrum, milk and warmth, when these essential resources are limited for a piglet to thrive. Various fostering techniques have been developed, but those commonly used are cross-fostering and the use of nurse sows [99,100,101]. Cross-fostering is a standard practice, as it permits the equalising of piglet numbers per litter, allowing more equitable teat access, generally with the minimal movement within a farrowing house. However, if most sows are producing greater numbers of piglets than their teat capacity, then there are limited options to move piglets to available teats. The implementation of split suckling protocols and the use of nurse sows are becoming more popular to ensure piglets in large litters consume sufficient colostrum and milk [88,102]. Split suckling involves the temporary removal of larger piglets from the udder for a series of milk let down events to provide smaller piglets with opportunities to suckle, allowing all piglets to remain with their birth mother [99]. Unlike split suckling, cross-fostering is the movement of piglets from one litter into a new litter to increase their access to colostrum and milk [88]. The proper implementation of split suckling prior to gut closure requires a greater presence of personnel in a farrowing house than does cross-fostering. To ensure lower viability, piglets get the greatest opportunity to consume sufficient colostrum (250 g minimum) and survive, and further investigations into new piglet management options are required.
One-third of sows do not produce enough colostrum to provide 250 g to each of their piglets [29]. The quality of colostrum available to the piglet, rather than the quantity and the amount of colostrum produced per sow, is often not considered, and it has been shown that colostrum quality has not increased with litter size [103,104]. To offset the gap, many energy and milk supplements have become available, but their effectiveness for supporting low-viability piglets is largely undocumented. The main goal of these products is to supply a “boost” of energy to provide piglets with greater opportunities to suckle and obtain colostrum [105,106]. Studies suggest that low-viability and IUGR piglets have underdeveloped gut function, potentially impairing their ability to digest colostrum and supplementary products efficiently [32,33,34]. If the gut is impaired, regardless of the amount of colostrum or energy supplied, nutrient and immunoglobulin uptake from the gut will be reduced. The development of a supplementary product that not only provides energy but also improves the gut function of piglets would be beneficial. As the litter size continues to increase, the need for more research and development in the management of neonatal low-viability piglets becomes increasingly urgent.
5. Conclusions/Summary
Figure 1 summarises various interactions impacting PWM. Low-viability piglets are increasingly the result of pressure to drive economic growth by increasing larger litter sizes. The lack of consistency in the definition of low-viability piglets increases the confusion when comparing methods for identifying low-viability piglets and the efficacy of management strategies to improve their survival. The Danish pig industry has proven that selection can successfully increase litter sizes. However, sows may not be able to supply adequate support immediately following birth to nurse them to weaning. Staff attendance and supervision is critical, but the availability of appropriately trained personnel is often the largest production constraint. To optimise the number of high-quality pigs weaned per sow, solutions and management strategies need to be developed to reduce the occurrence of low-viability piglets and improve their survival and growth to weaning. The findings of this review suggest that the current measures used to define low-viability piglets and the focus of management practices to improve their performance and pre-weaning survival rates require further refinement. This review has highlighted the lack of consistency of definitions for low-viability piglets used within the literature which, in turn, questions the effectiveness of a number of these research outcomes for industry applications.
Conceptualization, B.S.T., J.R.C., R.S.M., R.J.S. and R.N.K.; methodology, B.S.T., J.R.C., R.S.M., R.J.S. and R.N.K.; investigation, B.S.T.; writing—original draft preparation, B.S.T.; writing—review and editing, B.S.T., J.R.C., R.S.M., R.J.S. and R.N.K.; supervision, J.R.C., R.S.M., R.J.S. and R.N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received APL Student funding.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Bryony Tucker acknowledges the University of Adelaide and Australian Pork limited for their provision of a scholarship.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
![View Image - Figure 2. Piglet rectal temperature change from 15 min to 24 h post-partum. Modified from Anderson et al. [42].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/4/ZGfzK?_a=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%2BgIBWYIDA1dlYooDHENJRDoyMDI1MDkxMTAyMzgzNDU0ODo5MTAyMTk%3D&_s=KKTmyOf1AnZBKSgz8aWi9BjzyqM%3D "View Image - Figure 2. Piglet rectal temperature change from 15 min to 24 h post-partum. Modified from Anderson et al. [42].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Piglet rectal temperature change from 15 min to 24 h post-partum. Modified from Anderson et al. [42].
References
1. Tuchscherer, M.; Puppe, B.; Tuchscherer, A.; Tiemann, U. Early identification of neonates at risk: Traits of newborn piglets with respect to survival. Theriogenology; 2000; 54, pp. 371-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00355-1]
2. Kirkden, R.D.; Broom, D.M.; Andersen, I.L. Piglet mortality: The impact of induction of farrowing using prostaglandins and oxytocin. Anim. Reprod. Sci.; 2013; 138, pp. 14-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.02.009]
3. Edwards, S.A. Perinatal mortality in the pig: Environmental or physiological solutions?. Livest. Prod. Sci.; 2002; 78, pp. 3-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00180-X]
4. Pandolfi, F.; Edwards, S.A.; Robert, F.; Kyriazakis, I. Risk factors associated with the different categories of piglet perinatal mortality in French farms. Prev. Vet. Med.; 2017; 137, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.12.005]
5. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster “Viability”. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viability (accessed on 5 February 2021).
6. Quiniou, N.; Dagorn, J.; Gaudré, D. Variation of piglets’ birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livest. Prod. Sci.; 2002; 78, pp. 63-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00181-1]
7. Riddersholm, K.V.; Bahnsen, I.; Bruun, T.S.; de Knegt, L.V.; Amdi, C. Identifying Risk Factors for Low Piglet Birth Weight, High Within-Litter Variation and Occurrence of Intrauterine Growth-Restricted Piglets in Hyperprolific Sows. Animals; 2021; 11, 2731. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11092731]
8. Arango, J.; Misztal, I.; Tsuruta, S.; Culbertson, M.; Holl, J.; Herring, W. Genetic study of individual preweaning mortality and birth weight in Large White piglets using threshold-linear models. Livest. Sci.; 2006; 101, pp. 208-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.11.011]
9. Koketsu, Y.; Iida, R.; Piñeiro, C. A 10-year trend in piglet pre-weaning mortality in breeding herds associated with sow herd size and number of piglets born alive. Porc. Health Manag.; 2021; 7, pp. 4-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40813-020-00182-y]
10. Gondret, F.; Lefaucheur, L.; Louveau, I.; Lebret, B.; Pichodo, X.; Le Cozler, Y. Influence of piglet birth weight on postnatal growth performance, tissue lipogenic capacity and muscle histological traits at market weight. Livest. Prod. Sci.; 2005; 93, pp. 137-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.09.009]
11. Paredes, S.; Jansman, A.; Verstegen, M.; Awati, A.; Buist, W.; Den Hartog, L.; van Hees, H.; Quiniou, N.; Hendriks, W.; Gerrits, W. Analysis of factors to predict piglet body weight at the end of the nursery phase. J. Anim. Sci.; 2012; 90, pp. 3243-3251. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4574]
12. Panzardi, A.; Bernardi, M.L.; Mellagi, A.P.; Bierhals, T.; Bortolozzo, F.P.; Wentz, I. Newborn piglet traits associated with survival and growth performance until weaning. Prev. Vet. Med.; 2013; 110, pp. 206-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.11.016]
13. Decaluwé, R.; Maes, D.; Wuyts, B.; Cools, A.; Piepers, S.; Janssens, G.P.J. Piglets’ colostrum intake associates with daily weight gain and survival until weaning. Livest. Sci.; 2014; 162, pp. 185-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.024]
14. Feldpausch, J.; Jourquin, J.; Bergstrom, J.; Bokenkroger, C.; Nelssen, J.L.; Ritter, M.; Davis, D.L.; Gonzalez, J.M. Birth weight threshold for identifying piglets at-risk for preweaning mortality. J. Anim. Sci.; 2016; 94, 34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/msasas2016-074]
15. Beaulieu, A.D.; Aalhus, J.L.; Williams, N.H.; Patience, J.F. Impact of piglet birth weight, birth order, and litter size on subsequent growth performance, carcass quality, muscle composition, and eating quality of pork. J. Anim. Sci.; 2010; 88, pp. 2767-2778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2222]
16. Baschat, A.; Galan, H. Fetal Growth Restriction. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies; 8th ed. Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020; Volume 1, pp. 555-585.
17. Amdi, C.; Klarlund, M.V.; Hales, J.; Thymann, T.; Hansen, C.F. Intrauterine growth-restricted piglets have similar gastric emptying rates but lower rectal temperatures and altered blood values when compared with normal-weight piglets at birth. J. Anim. Sci.; 2016; 94, pp. 4583-4590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0639]
18. Huting, A.M.S.; Sakkas, P.; Wellock, I.; Almond, K.; Kyriazakis, I. Once small always small? To what extent morphometric characteristics and post-weaning starter regime affect pig lifetime growth performance. Porc. Health Manag.; 2018; 4, pp. 21-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40813-018-0098-1]
19. Wang, J.; Chen, L.; Li, D.; Yin, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, P.; Dangott, L.J.; Hu, W.; Wu, G. Intrauterine growth restriction affects the proteomes of the small intestine, liver, and skeletal muscle in newborn pigs. J. Nutr.; 2008; 138, pp. 60-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jn/138.1.60]
20. Souza da Silva, C.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Gerrits, W.J.; Kemp, B.; van den Borne, J.J. Effects of dietary fibers with different fermentation characteristics on feeding motivation in adult female pigs. Physiol. Behav.; 2013; 110–111, pp. 148-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.01.006]
21. Amdi, C.; Krogh, U.; Flummer, C.; Oksbjerg, N.; Hansen, C.F.; Theil, P.K. Intrauterine growth restricted piglets defined by their head shape ingest insufficient amounts of colostrum. J. Anim. Sci.; 2013; 91, pp. 5605-5613. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6824]
22. Chen, F.; Wang, T.; Feng, C.; Lin, G.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, G.; Johnson, G.; Wang, J. Proteome Differences in Placenta and Endometrium between Normal and Intrauterine Growth Restricted Pig Fetuses. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0142396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142396]
23. Hales, J.; Moustsen, V.A.; Nielsen, M.B.; Hansen, C.F. Individual physical characteristics of neonatal piglets affect preweaning survival of piglets born in a noncrated system. J. Anim. Sci.; 2013; 91, pp. 4991-5003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5740]
24. Hansen, C.F.; Hales, J.; Amdi, C.; Moustsen, V.A. Intrauterine growth-restricted piglets defined by their head shape have impaired survival and growth during the suckling period. Anim. Prod. Sci.; 2019; 59, pp. 1056-1062. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN17581]
25. Douglas, S.L.; Edwards, S.A.; Kyriazakis, I. Are all piglets born lightweight alike? Morphological measurements as predictors of postnatal performance. J. Anim. Sci.; 2016; 94, pp. 3510-3518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0142]
26. Theil, P.K.; Lauridsen, C.; Quesnel, H. Neonatal piglet survival: Impact of sow nutrition around parturition on fetal glycogen deposition and production and composition of colostrum and transient milk. Animal; 2014; 8, pp. 1021-1030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114000950]
27. Rooke, J.A.; Bland, I.M. The acquisition of passive immunity in the new-born piglet. Livest. Prod. Sci.; 2002; 78, pp. 13-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00182-3]
28. Xu, R.; Wang, F.; Zhang, S. Postnatal adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract in neonatal pigs: A possible role of milk-borne growth factors. Livest. Prod. Sci.; 2000; 66, pp. 95-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00217-7]
29. Quesnel, H.; Farmer, C.; Devillers, N. Colostrum intake: Influence on piglet performance and factors of variation. Livest. Sci.; 2012; 146, pp. 105-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.03.010]
30. Lynegaard, J.C.; Hales, J.; Nielsen, M.N.; Hansen, C.F.; Amdi, C. The Stomach Capacity is Reduced in Intrauterine Growth Restricted Piglets Compared to Normal Piglets. Animals; 2020; 10, 1291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10081291] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32731630]
31. Xu, R.J.; Tungthanathanich, P.; Birtles, M.J.; Mellor, D.J.; Reynolds, G.W.; Simpson, H.V. Growth and morphological changes in the stomach of newborn pigs during the first three days after birth. J. Dev. Physiol.; 1992; 17, pp. 7-14.
32. Li, N.; Huang, S.; Jiang, L.; Wang, W.; Li, T.; Zuo, B.; Li, Z.; Wang, J. Differences in the Gut Microbiota Establishment and Metabolome Characteristics Between Low- and Normal-Birth-Weight Piglets During Early-Life. Front. Microbiol.; 2018; 9, pp. 1798-1814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01798]
33. D’Inca, R.; Gras-Le Guen, C.; Che, L.; Sangild, P.T.; Le Huerou-Luron, I. Intrauterine growth restriction delays feeding-induced gut adaptation in term newborn pigs. Neonatology; 2011; 99, pp. 208-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000314919] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20881437]
34. D’Inca, R.; Che, L.; Thymann, T.; Sangild, P.T.; Le Huerou-Luron, I. Intrauterine growth restriction reduces intestinal structure and modifies the response to colostrum in preterm and term piglets. Livest. Sci.; 2010; 133, pp. 20-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.06.015]
35. Weström, B.; Svendsen, J.; Ohlsson, B.; Tagesson, C.; Karlsson, B. Intestinal transmission of macromolecules (BSA and FITC-labelled dextrans) in the neonatal pig. Neonatology; 1984; 46, pp. 20-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000242028] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6204696]
36. Weström, B.; Ohlsson, B.; Svendsen, J.; Tagesson, C.; Karlsson, B. Intestinal transmission of macromolecules (BSA and FITC-dextran) in the neonatal pig: Enhancing effect of colostrum, proteins and proteinase inhibitors. Neonatology; 1985; 47, pp. 359-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000242140]
37. Weström, B.; Arévalo Sureda, E.; Pierzynowska, K.; Pierzynowski, S.G.; Pérez-Cano, F.-J. The immature gut barrier and its importance in establishing immunity in newborn mammals. Front. Immunol.; 2020; 11, pp. 1153-1167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01153]
38. Herpin, P.; Damon, M.; Le Dividich, J. Development of thermoregulation and neonatal survival in pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci.; 2002; 78, pp. 25-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00183-5]
39. Kammersgaard, T.S.; Pedersen, L.J.; Jørgensen, E. Hypothermia in neonatal piglets: Interactions and causes of individual differences. J. Anim. Sci.; 2011; 89, pp. 2073-2085. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3022] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21317343]
40. Santiago, P.R.; Martínez-Burnes, J.; Mayagoitia, A.L.; Ramírez-Necoechea, R.; Mota-Rojas, D. Relationship of vitality and weight with the temperature of newborn piglets born to sows of different parity. Livest. Sci.; 2019; 220, pp. 26-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.12.011]
41. Mount, L.E. The metabolic rate of the new-born pig in relation to environmental temperature and to age. J. Physiol.; 1959; 147, pp. 333-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006247]
42. Andersen, H.M.; Pedersen, L.J. Effect of radiant heat at the birth site in farrowing crates on hypothermia and behaviour in neonatal piglets. Animal; 2016; 10, pp. 128-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001913]
43. Caldara, F.R.; Dos Santos, L.S.; Machado, S.T.; Moi, M.; de Alencar Naas, I.; Foppa, L.; Garcia, R.G.; de Kassia Silva Dos Santos, R. Piglets’ surface temperature change at different weights at birth. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci.; 2014; 27, pp. 431-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13505] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25049971]
44. Cooper, N.; Vande Pol, K.D.; Ellis, M.; Xiong, Y.; Gates, R. Effect of piglet birth weight and drying on post-natal changes in rectal temperature. J. Anim. Sci.; 2019; 97, 4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz122.006]
45. Hansen, C. National Average Productivity of Danish Pig Farms 2017; Report no.1819 SEGES Danish Pig Research Centre: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018; 19.
46. Wolf, J.; Žáková, E.; Groeneveld, E. Within-litter variation of birth weight in hyperprolific Czech Large White sows and its relation to litter size traits, stillborn piglets and losses until weaning. Livest. Sci.; 2008; 115, pp. 195-205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.07.009]
47. Rootwelt, V.; Reksen, O.; Farstad, W.; Framstad, T. Postpartum deaths: Piglet, placental, and umbilical characteristics. J. Anim. Sci.; 2013; 91, pp. 2647-2656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5531] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23482582]
48. Pere, M.C.; Etienne, M. Uterine blood flow in sows: Effects of pregnancy stage and litter size. Reprod. Nutr. Dev.; 2000; 40, pp. 369-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/rnd:2000105] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11081664]
49. Wientjes, J.; Soede, N.; van der Peet-Schwering, C.; van den Brand, H.; Kemp, B. Piglet uniformity and mortality in large organic litters: Effects of parity and pre-mating diet composition. Livest. Sci.; 2012; 144, pp. 218-229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.11.018]
50. Strathe, A.V.; Bruun, T.S.; Tauson, A.H.; Theil, P.K.; Hansen, C.F. Increased dietary protein for lactating sows affects body composition, blood metabolites and milk production. Animal; 2020; 14, pp. 285-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119001678] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31368423]
51. Oliviero, C.; Junnikkala, S.; Peltoniemi, O. The challenge of large litters on the immune system of the sow and the piglets. Reprod. Domest. Anim.; 2019; 54, pp. 12-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rda.13463]
52. Langendijk, P.; Fleuren, M.; van Hees, H.; van Kempen, T. The Course of Parturition Affects Piglet Condition at Birth and Survival and Growth through the Nursery Phase. Animals; 2018; 8, 60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8050060]
53. Peltoniemi, O.A.T.; Oliviero, C. Housing, management and environment during farrowing and early lactation. The Gestating and Lactating Sow; Farmer, C. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 231-252.
54. Mota-Rojas, D.; Fierro, R.; Roldan-Santiago, P.; Orozco-Gregorio, H.; Gonzalez-Lozano, M.; Bonilla, H.; Martinez-Rodriguez, R.; García-Herrera, R.; Mora-Medina, P.; Flores-Peinado, S. Outcomes of gestation length in relation to farrowing performance in sows and daily weight gain and metabolic profiles in piglets. Anim. Prod. Sci.; 2015; 55, pp. 93-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN13175]
55. Alonso-Spilsbury, M.; Mota-Rojas, D.; Villanueva-García, D.; Martínez-Burnes, J.; Orozco, H.; Ramírez-Necoechea, R.; Mayagoitia, A.L.; Trujillo, M.E. Perinatal asphyxia pathophysiology in pig and human: A review. Anim. Reprod. Sci.; 2005; 90, pp. 1-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2005.01.007]
56. Langendijk, P.; Plush, K. Parturition and Its Relationship with Stillbirths and Asphyxiated Piglets. Animals; 2019; 9, 885. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9110885]
57. Gao, L.; Lin, X.; Xie, C.; Zhang, T.; Wu, X.; Yin, Y. The time of Calcium Feeding Affects the Productive Performance of Sows. Animals; 2019; 9, 337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9060337] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31185632]
58. Campbell, R. Benchmarked Australian pork producers cop a hit. Pork CRC Initiatives March 2017; Pork CRC: Roseworthy, SA, Australia, 2017.
59. Wallgren, P.; Karolina, R. How large litters do we need?. Proceedings of the Happy Pigs Happy people, International Pig Veterinary Society Congress; Jeju, Korea, 10–13 June 2012.
60. King, G.J.; Robertson, H.A.; Elliot, J.I. Induced parturition in swine herds. Can. Vet. J.; 1979; 20, pp. 157-160.
61. Decaluwe, R.; Janssens, G.; Declerck, I.; de Kruif, A.; Maes, D. Induction of parturition in the sow. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift; 2012; 81, pp. 158-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21825/vdt.v81i3.18353]
62. Gunvaldsen, R.; Waldner, C.; Harding, J. Effects of farrowing induction on suckling piglet performance. J. Swine Health Prod.; 2007; 15, pp. 84-91.
63. Nguyen, K.; Cassar, G.; Friendship, R.; Dewey, C.; Farzan, A.; Kirkwood, R. Stillbirth and preweaning mortality in litters of sows induced to farrow with supervision compared to litters of naturally farrowing sows with minimal supervision. J. Swine Health Prod.; 2011; 19, pp. 214-217.
64. Barcellos, M.; Grunert, K.G.; Zhou, Y.; Verbeke, W.; Perez-Cueto, F.; Krystallis, A. Consumer attitudes to different pig production systems: A study from mainland China. Agric. Hum. Values; 2013; 30, pp. 443-455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9416-4]
65. Le Cozler, Y.; Guyomarc’h, C.; Pichodo, X.; Quinio, P.-Y.; Pellois, H. Factors associated with stillborn and mummified piglets in high-prolific sows. Anim. Res.; 2002; 51, pp. 261-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/animres:2002017]
66. Tummaruk, P.; Tantasuparuk, W.; Techakumphu, M.; Kunavongkrit, A. Seasonal influences on the litter size at birth of pigs are more pronounced in the gilt than sow litters. J. Agric. Sci.; 2010; 148, pp. 421-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000110]
67. Feyera, T.; Pedersen, T.F.; Krogh, U.; Foldager, L.; Theil, P.K. Impact of sow energy status during farrowing on farrowing kinetics, frequency of stillborn piglets, and farrowing assistance. J. Anim. Sci.; 2018; 96, pp. 2320-2331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky141]
68. Gourley, K.M.; Swanson, A.J.; Royall, R.Q.; DeRouchey, J.M.; Tokach, M.D.; Dritz, S.S.; Goodband, R.D.; Hastad, C.W.; Woodworth, J.C. Effects of timing and size of meals prior to farrowing on sow and litter performance. Transl. Anim. Sci.; 2020; 4, txaa066. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa066]
69. Van Dijk, A.J.; van Rens, B.T.; van der Lende, T.; Taverne, M.A. Factors affecting duration of the expulsive stage of parturition and piglet birth intervals in sows with uncomplicated, spontaneous farrowings. Theriogenology; 2005; 64, pp. 1573-1590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.03.017]
70. Oliviero, C.; Heinonen, M.; Valros, A.; Peltoniemi, O. Environmental and sow-related factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Anim. Reprod. Sci.; 2010; 119, pp. 85-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2009.12.009]
71. Feyera, T.; Theil, P.K. Energy and lysine requirements and balances of sows during transition and lactation: A factorial approach. Livest. Sci.; 2017; 201, pp. 50-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.05.001]
72. Van den Bosch, M.; Wijnen, J.; van de Linde, I.B.; van Wesel, A.A.M.; Melchior, D.; Kemp, B.; Clouard, C.; van den Brand, H. Effects of maternal dietary nitrate supplementation during the perinatal period on piglet survival, body weight, and litter uniformity. Transl. Anim. Sci.; 2019; 3, pp. 464-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy137] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32704817]
73. Mallmann, A.L.; Oliveira, G.S.; Ulguim, R.R.; Mellagi, A.P.G.; Bernardi, M.L.; Orlando, U.A.D.; Gonçalves, M.A.D.; Cogo, R.J.; Bortolozzo, F.P. Impact of feed intake in early gestation on maternal growth and litter size according to body reserves at weaning of young parity sows. J. Anim. Sci.; 2020; 98, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa075] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150274]
74. King, R.; Eason, P.; Smitsb, R.; Morley, W.; Henman, D. The response of sows to increased nutrient intake during mid to late gestation. Aust. J. Agric. Res.; 2006; 57, pp. 33-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR05195]
75. Noblet, J.; Close, W.H.; Heavens, R.P.; Brown, D. Studies on the energy metabolism of the pregnant sow: 1. Uterus and mammary tissue development. Br. J. Nutr.; 1985; 53, pp. 251-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/BJN19850033]
76. Mallmann, A.L.; Camilotti, E.; Fagundes, D.P.; Vier, C.E.; Mellagi, A.P.G.; Ulguim, R.R.; Bernardi, M.L.; Orlando, U.A.D.; Goncalves, M.A.D.; Kummer, R. et al. Impact of feed intake during late gestation on piglet birth weight and reproductive performance: A dose-response study performed in gilts. J. Anim. Sci.; 2019; 97, pp. 1262-1272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz017]
77. Elrod, N.D.; Harp, R.M.; Bryan, K.G. Effect of Calcium Ion Supplementation on Swine Parturition. Tex. J. Agric. Nat. Resour.; 2015; 28, pp. 12-17.
78. Pehlivanoğlu, B.; Bayrak, S.; Doğan, M. A close look at the contraction and relaxation of the myometrium; the role of calcium. J. Turk. Ger. Gynecol. Assoc.; 2013; 14, pp. 230-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2013.67763] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24592112]
79. Thaler, R.C.; Christopherson, B.; Fuhrman, M. Efficacy of WEANMOR in enhancing sow performance in a 1600-sow commercial operation. Proceedings of the AASV Annual Meeting; Orlando, FL, USA, 8–11 March 2003.
80. Tucker, W.B.; Xin, Z.; Hemken, R.W. Influence of Calcium Chloride on Systemic Acid-Base Status and Calcium Metabolism in Dairy Heifers. J. Dairy Sci.; 1991; 74, pp. 1401-1407. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78295-7]
81. Block, E. Manipulating dietary anions and cations for prepartum dairy cows to reduce incidence of milk fever. J. Dairy Sci.; 1984; 67, pp. 2939-2948. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81657-4]
82. Goff, J.P.; Horst, R.L. Use of Hydrochloric Acid as a Source of Anions for Prevention of Milk Fever1. J. Dairy Sci.; 1998; 81, pp. 2874-2880. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75847-3]
83. Weich, W.; Block, E.; Litherland, N.B. Extended negative dietary cation-anion difference feeding does not negatively affect postpartum performance of multiparous dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.; 2013; 96, pp. 5780-5792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6479]
84. Wu, Z.; Bernard, J.K.; Zanzalari, K.P.; Chapman, J.D. Effect of feeding a negative dietary cation-anion difference diet for an extended time prepartum on postpartum serum and urine metabolites and performance. J. Dairy Sci.; 2014; 97, pp. 7133-7143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8273]
85. Rajaeerad, A.; Ghorbani, G.R.; Khorvash, M.; Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A.; Mahdavi, A.H.; Rashidi, S.; Wilkens, M.R.; Hünerberg, M. Impact of a Ration Negative in Dietary Cation–Anion Difference and Varying Calcium Supply Fed before Calving on Colostrum Quality of the Dams and Health Status and Growth Performance of the Calves. Animals; 2020; 10, 1465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10091465]
86. English, P.; Bampton, P. The importance of within litter varation in piglet birthweight in relation to piglet survival and the influence of crossfostering simultaneously farrowed litters so as to achieve more uniform birthweight within litters. Proceedings of the International Pig Veterinary Society; Mexico City, Mexico, 26–31 July 1982; 248.
87. Andersen, I.L.; Haukvik, I.A.; Bøe, K.E. Drying and warming immediately after birth may reduce piglet mortality in loose-housed sows. Animal; 2009; 3, pp. 592-597. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108003650]
88. Rosvold, E.M.; Kielland, C.; Ocepek, M.; Framstad, T.; Fredriksen, B.; Andersen-Ranberg, I.; Næss, G.; Andersen, I.L. Management routines influencing piglet survival in loose-housed sow herds. Livest. Sci.; 2017; 196, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.12.001]
89. Marchioro, G.; Cornou, C.; Kristensen, A.; Madsen, J. Sows’ activity classification device using acceleration data—A resource constrained approach. Comput. Electron. Agric.; 2011; 77, pp. 110-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.04.004]
90. Oliviero, C.; Pastell, M.; Heinonen, M.; Heikkonen, J.; Valros, A.; Ahokas, J.; Vainio, O.; Peltoniemi, O.A.T. Using movement sensors to detect the onset of farrowing. Biosyst. Eng.; 2008; 100, pp. 281-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.03.008]
91. Pedersen, L.J.; Larsen, M.L.; Malmkvist, J. The ability of different thermal aids to reduce hypothermia in neonatal piglets. J. Anim. Sci.; 2016; 94, pp. 2151-2159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0219]
92. Larsen, M.L.V.; Thodberg, K.; Pedersen, L. Radiant heat increases piglet’ use of the heated creep area on the critical days after birth. Livest. Sci.; 2017; 201, pp. 74-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.05.008]
93. Baxter, E.M.; Edwards, S.A. Piglet mortality and morbidity: Inevitable or unacceptable?. Advances in Pig Welfare; Špinka, M. Woodhead Publishing: Swaston, UK, 2018; pp. 73-100.
94. Oshvandi, K.; Shiri, F.H.; Fazel, M.R.; Safari, M.; Ravari, A. The effect of pre-warmed intravenous fluids on prevention of intraoperative hypothermia in cesarean section. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res.; 2014; 19, pp. 64-69.
95. Gentilello, L.M. Advances in the management of hypothermia. Surg. Clin.; 1995; 75, pp. 243-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(16)46586-2]
96. Sheaff, C.M.; Fildes, J.J.; Keogh, P.; Smith, R.F.; Barrett, J.A. Safety of 65 °C intravenous fluid for the treatment of hypothermia. Am. J. Surg.; 1996; 172, pp. 52-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00055-4]
97. Fildes, J.; Sheaff, C.; Barrett, J. Very hot intravenous fluid in the treatment of hypothermia. J. Trauma; 1993; 35, pp. 683-686. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005373-199311000-00005]
98. Vande Pol, K.D.; Cooper, N.; Tolosa, A.; Ellis, M.; Shull, C.M.; Brown, K.; Alencar, S. Effect of method of drying piglets at birth on rectal temperature over the first 24 hours after birth. Transl. Anim. Sci.; 2020; 97, pp. 4-5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz122.007]
99. Alexopoulos, J.G.; Lines, D.S.; Hallett, S.; Plush, K.J. A Review of Success Factors for Piglet Fostering in Lactation. Animals; 2018; 8, 38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8030038]
100. Straw, B.E.; Dewey, C.E.; Burgi, E.J. Patterns of crossfostering and piglet mortality on commercial U.S. and Canadian swine farms. Prev. Vet. Med.; 1998; 33, pp. 83-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(97)00051-2]
101. Wattanaphansak, S.; Luengyosluechakul, S.; Larriestra, A.; Deen, J. The impact of cross-fostering on swine production. Thai J. Vet. Med.; 2002; 32, pp. 101-106.
102. Bruun, T.S.; Amdi, C.; Vinther, J.; Schop, M.; Strathe, A.B.; Hansen, C.F. Reproductive performance of “nurse sows” in Danish piggeries. Theriogenology; 2016; 86, pp. 981-987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.03.023]
103. Devillers, N.; Farmer, C.; Le Dividich, J.; Prunier, A. Variability of colostrum yield and colostrum intake in pigs. Animal; 2007; 1, pp. 1033-1041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S175173110700016X]
104. Quesnel, H. Colostrum production by sows: Variability of colostrum yield and immunoglobulin G concentrations. Animal; 2011; 5, pp. 1546-1553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S175173111100070X]
105. Moreira, L.P.; Menegat, M.B.; Barros, G.P.; Bernardi, M.L.; Wentz, I.; Bortolozzo, F.P. Effects of colostrum, and protein and energy supplementation on survival and performance of low-birth-weight piglets. Livest. Sci.; 2017; 202, pp. 188-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.06.006]
106. Declerck, I.; Dewulf, J.; Decaluwé, R.; Maes, D. Effects of energy supplementation to neonatal (very) low birth weight piglets on mortality, weaning weight, daily weight gain and colostrum intake. Livest. Sci.; 2016; 183, pp. 48-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.11.015]
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Craig, Jessica R 2
; Morrison, Rebecca S 2
; Smits, Robert J 3 ; Kirkwood, Roy N 1
1 School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia;
2 Research and Innovation, Rivalea Australia Pty Ltd., Corowa, NSW 2646, Australia;
3 Research and Innovation, Australian Pork Limited, Barton, ACT 2600, Australia;