Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.43

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.5 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 50 issue 1 (february 2016) : 118-122

Effect of artificial suckling devices on behaviour, adaptation pattern and growth performance of early weaned piglets

Imtiwati*, Sanjay Kumar, Superna Sharma, M.Patel, D.V. Singh, A.Shyam Singh
1<p>Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology (G.B.P.U.A&amp;T) College of Veterinary &amp; Animal Sciences, Pantnagar, Uttarkhand -263145, India.&nbsp;</p>
Cite article:- Imtiwati*, Kumar Sanjay, Sharma Superna, M.Patel, Singh D.V., Singh A.Shyam (NaN). Effect of artificial suckling devices on behaviour, adaptation pattern and growth performance of early weaned piglets . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 50(1): 118-122. doi: 10.18805/ijar.6712.

Eighteen Large White Yorkshire piglets weaned at 10 ±2 days were divided randomly into three groups (n=6) and each group was allotted to circular (T1), horizontal (T2) device and control (T3). Piglets in T3 were reared with sow through natural suckling. Piglets were acclimatised for 5 days; during this period milk was given at the rate 25 ml per piglets four times daily. Further, during first, second, third and forth fortnights feeding continued at the rate of 100, 150 and 200 ml for four, three and two times daily in T1 and T2 devices respectively. Piglets were observed for behaviour, adaptation pattern and average milk consumption time daily, while body weight gained was recorded fortnightly. 100% of piglets in T3 showed non-nutritive suckling, belly nosing, massaging and teat order behaviours, but no such observations were recorded in T1 and T2. Adaptation pattern of piglets in T1 was 66.7 % and 100% in T2 and T3. Effects of suckling devices on average milk consumption time were 10.09 % and 13.79 % lower (Pe”0.05) in T1 and T2 device respectively compared to T3. Mean body weight gain in T1 and T2 devices were 5.12% and 16.89 % higher than T3. Horizontal suckling device (T2) performed better than T1 and T3 (control). Hence it can be recommended for early weaning in piglets.

  1. Anonymous (2003) census, GOI. New hall Anonymous (2007) 18th Livestock Census, (2007). GOI Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Krishi Bhawan New Delhi.

  2. Azain, M.J. and Jewell, D.E. (1991). Impact of early nutrition on piglets performance. Proc. Georgia Nuti. conf. pp 99-107.

  3. FAO, (2011-12). FAO Statistics on Livestock Production of the countries in Asia Pacific Region, 2011-12. Asian Livestock XIV, 8: 94. 

  4. Fraser, D., Thompson, B.K.; Ferguson, D.K. and Darroch, R.L. (1986). The teat order of suckling pigs.III. Relation to competition within litters. J. Agric. Sci.(Comb) 92 : 257-261.

  5. Gonyou, H.W. Beltranena, E.; Whittington, D.L. and Patience, J.F. (1998). The behaviour of pigs weaned at 12 and 21 days of age from weaning to market. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 517–523.

  6. Harrell, R. J., Thomas, M. J. and R. D. Boyd. (1993). Limitations on sow milk yield on baby pig growth. Proc. Cornell. Nutr. Conf. Ithaca, NY. Pp. 156-164.

  7. Hartsock, T.G. and Graves, H.B. (1976). Piglet fighting behaviour, nursing order and growth. J. Anim. Sci. 43:209.

  8. Jeppensen. (1981); Lewis. (1982). “Nursing apparatus for neonatal piglets” Can.J.Anim.Sci. 62:975- 978 

  9. Lewis, N.J. (1982). Epimeletic and Et. Epimelctic behaviour of swine in first week of lactation. Ph.D. Thesis Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. (Cited by Hurnik, 1985).

  10. Mc Bridge, G. (1963). The “teat order;’ and communication in young pigs. Anim. Behav. 11: 53-56.

  11. Mc Clead, R.E., Lentz M.E., Vieth R. (1990). A simple technique to feed newborn piglets. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 10:107-110

  12. Morgan, C.A.; Lawrence, A.B. Chirnside, J. and Deans, L.A. (2001). Can information about solid food be transmitted from    one piglet to another? Anim. Sci. 73: 471–478.

  13. Phillips, P.A. Fraser, D. (1991). Discovery of selected water dispensers by newborn pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 233–236.

  14. Roychoudhury, R., and Bhatia, S.S. (1980). Studies on pre-weaning growth in Landrace pigs. Journal Res. AAU, 1: 35-39.

  15. SAS, (2000). Statistical Analysis system SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North America.

  16. Stephanie Torrey and Widowski, T. M. (2006). A note on piglets’ preferences for drinker types at two weaning ages. Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. 100: 333–341 

  17. Surdacki, Z., and Klocek, M. (1983). Teat order of suckling and growth of piglets. Zootechnica 1: 103-111. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 55:1000.

  18. Van Enckevort, L. C. M. (2002). Benefits of milk replacer for neonatal. Piglets International Pig Topics. 18: 3

  19. Zijlstra, R.T., Whang, K-Y.; Easter, R.A. and Odle, J. (1996b). Effect of feeding a milk replacer to early-weaned pigs on growth, body composition and small intestinal morphology, compared with suckled littermates. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2948-2959.

Editorial Board

View all (0)