Elsevier

Livestock Science

Volume 184, February 2016, Pages 78-84
Livestock Science

Suckling strategies in the pig: The Göttingen minipig as a model

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.12.012Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examined variations in suckling strategies in pigs.

  • Göttingen minipig was studied and compared with commercial breeds and wild boar.

  • Our study reveals alterations of suckling behaviour in different genotypes of pigs.

  • There is a certain degree of behavioural conservatism in suckling behaviour.

  • Tendency to suckle middle (abdominal) teats appears to originate from the wild ancestor.

Abstract

Göttingen minipig (GMP) has gained importance as model animal in human medicine. However, little is known about the suckling behaviour of GMP. Suckling is considered as a fundamental behavioural trait in mammals, most important for development and survival of the individual. Understanding its development and changes due to artificial selection is important when planning selection on reproductive traits in sows. GMP is a highly valuable model for studying the suckling behaviour in the pig, because its key features are intermediate between commercial breeds (CB) and wild boar (WB), namely, similar teat number as CB, similar litter size as WB and balanced muscularity of extremities. We compared the suckling behaviour of GMP and CB based on measures of suckling stability (the probability of consecutive sucklings on the same suckling position), suckling ranges (number of teat pairs in the range of the outermost teat pairs that piglets occupied) and piglets’ distribution along the udder by use of the MDE-model (effect of geometric constraints, normally expressed as a hump-shaped distribution of organisms). We also incorporated published date on suckling preferences of WB piglets. Our study revealed alterations of suckling behaviour in piglets, wherein GMP showed intermediate suckling strategies (i.e. suckling ranges). However, there appeared to be a certain degree of behavioural conservatism. Domestic piglets maintained the tendency to prefer abdominal (middle) teats, which are anatomically posterior in WB and preferred by wild piglets. It can be suggested, that this general tendency seen in domestic piglets (GMP and CB), is not generated by geometric constraints (mid-domain effect), but appears to originate from the wild ancestor. Results of the present study suggest that the selection of CB for increasing litter size and higher number of teats might have led to imbalances between suckling behaviour, teat number and udder space availability.

Introduction

The Göttingen minipig (GMP) is a synthetic breed developed at the University of Göttingen (Germany) artificially selected for small body size, and has gained importance as model animal for studies in human medicine. Minipigs were mainly used in translational research, surgical models, procedural training, and for preclinical toxicological testing of pharmaceuticals (Swindle et al., 2012). Behavioural studies in minipigs mainly focused on behavioural tests suitable for e.g. preclinical toxicity testing (Bode et al., 2010), and on their cognitive abilities (e.g. Moustgaard et al., 2002, Moustgaard et al., 2004). However, much less is known on other aspects of its behaviour. Moreover, to our knowledge the suckling behaviour of minipigs has not even been described, although suckling is considered as a fundamental behavioural trait in mammals, most important for development and survival of the individual. On the other hand the suckling behaviour of commercial pig breeds (CB) has been much more extensively studied (e.g. McBride, 1963; Hemsworth et al., 1976; Puppe and Tuchscherer, 1999; Skok and Škorjanc, 2013, Skok and Škorjanc, 2014a, Skok and Škorjanc, 2014b, Skok and Škorjanc, 2014c), while only one study was published on suckling preferences in wild boar (WB) piglets (Fernandez-Llario and Mateos-Quesada, 2005). In general, these studies showed, that piglets of these two genotypes have diametrically opposite suckling orientation, i.e. to the cranial in CB and the caudal udder in WB. It may be concluded from these observations, that genetic selection in domestic pigs not only caused morphological and reproductive changes, but also differences in suckling behaviour. In particular, in the course of domestication, two features which might crucially affect piglets suckling behaviour have been modified: number of teats and litter size. An average litter size in CB pigs is with about 12 piglets up to three times greater than that of WB (see Fernandez-Llario and Mateos-Quesada, 1998; Fernández-Llario et al., 1999; Gethöffer et al., 2007). Moreover, the litter size in modern high prolific CB sows can be even higher, with litters of 16–20 piglets (see Andersen et al., 2011; Vasdal et al., 2011). However, the number of teats also increased from four teat pairs in the WB (Fernandez-Llario and Mateos-Quesada, 2005) to at least seven teat pairs in CB (up to 17–18 teats in high prolific sows, see Vasdal et al., 2011).

Against this background, the GMP is a highly valuable model for studying the development of suckling behaviour, because its key features are intermediate between that of CB and WB. GMP sows have similar numbers of teats as CB sows, but their litter size is as small as that of WB. Furthermore, although GMP sows have a smaller body size than either CB or WB sows, their body composition and conformation is intermediate, i.e. the GMP has balanced extremity muscularity (Glodek and Oldigs, 1981). The comparative study of suckling behaviour in Göttingen minipigs could, therefore, elucidate how genetic changes in litter size, number of teats, and specific body structure affect suckling behaviour in piglets.

The aims of this study were to collect data on suckling in GMP litters and (1) to characterize suckling behaviour of GMP piglets with regard to the suckling stability (the probability of consecutive sucklings on the same suckling position), suckling ranges (number of teat pairs in the range of the outermost teat pairs that piglets occupied), and piglets' distribution along the udder estimated using the mid-domain effect (MDE) model, i.e. the effect of the geometric constraints (see Colwell and Lees, 2000; Colwell et al., 2004), and (2) to compare their suckling strategies with data from CB and WB. We hypothesized that, (1) differences in key features (e.g., teat number, litter size, body conformation) results in corresponding differences in suckling behaviour, and (2) some ancestral (wild) patterns of suckling behaviour have been maintained in domestic piglets despite selection for increased litter size and teat number.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

This study was carried out according to the European Commission Directive 2010/63/EU (2010) and to the ABS/ASSAB Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching.

Suckling stability

Already from the beginning of the lactation period, GMP piglets exhibited relatively high suckling stability, with a 60% probability that the same individual would suckle at the same position in two consecutive sucklings (PSuck approx 0.6). In contrast, it was not before the second week of lactation, following the establishment and stabilization of teat order, that CB piglets attained a similar probability (PSuck=0.55–0.62). Initial suckling stability of CB piglets was only about 0.3 (Fig. 1).

Discussion

Our results showed interesting alterations in suckling behaviour patterns in GMP, compared to CB or WB, with diverse suckling strategies used by the piglets. Furthermore, our observations indicated possible traces of behavioural conservatism in the context of suckling.

In general, during lactation piglets acquire the own suckling territory (teat), wherein each individual piglet tends to suckle permanently on a particular teat, resulting in the formation of a teat order (e.g. McBride, 1963). GMP

Conclusions

The suckling behaviour of the minipigs, which was characterised here for the first time, elucidated some new aspects of the suckling behaviour and its development in the pigs. In general, GMP piglets showed more stable teat order than CB piglets, but their suckling ranges strongly depended on the litter size. Our study, therefore, revealed alterations of suckling behaviour in piglets, wherein GMP showed intermediate suckling strategies (i.e. suckling ranges) compared to the CB and WB. There

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

We owe special thanks to Otto Schwerdtfeger, the barn manager at the Göttingen minipig breeding station in Relliehausen, for his invaluable help during the research. Without his expertise the observations would not have been done that smoothly and efficiently. Thanks also to the Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences at University of Maribor (especially to the Department of Animal Science), for support and financial assistance (P1-0164 Programme Research). First author of this article (JS)

References (37)

  • G. Vasdal et al.

    Increasing the piglets’ use of the creep area—A battle against biology?

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2010)
  • G. Vasdal et al.

    Management routines at the time of farrowing—effects on teat success and postnatal piglet mortality from loose housed sows

    Livest. Sci.

    (2011)
  • J. Yun et al.

    Farrowing environment has an impact on sow metabolic status and piglet colostrum intake in early lactation

    Livest. Sci.

    (2014)
  • I.L. Andersen et al.

    Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa)

    Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.

    (2011)
  • Colwell, R.K., 2006. RangeModel: a Monte Carlo simulation tool for visualizing and assessing geometric constraints on...
  • R.K. Colwell et al.

    Nonbiological gradients in species richness and a spurious Rapoport effect

    Am. Nat.

    (1994)
  • R.K. Colwell et al.

    The mid-domain effect and species richness patterns: what have we learned so far?

    Am. Nat.

    (2004)
  • E.A. Dunnington et al.

    Mating frequency in male chickens: long-term selection

    Theor. Appl. Genet.

    (1983)
  • Cited by (9)

    • Managing large litters: Selected measures of performance in 10 intermediate nurse sows and welfare of foster piglets

      2020, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Recall that the intermediate sows were given 1–2 piglet less than they weaned on day 21. The negative effect on growth may have been amplified if a larger litter size was used or if the piglets had been mixed at transfer due to a more difficult establishment of a teat order (Horrell and Bennett, 1981; Skok and Gerken, 2016). The main energy source for piglets is the content of milk fat in sow milk.

    • Cross-fostering into smaller or older litter makes piglets integration difficult: Suckling stability-based rationale

      2019, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      The same suckling stability-based mechanism might play an important role also in the case of C-F litter size asymmetry, where we have found that piglets transferred to the smaller litter had deprived integration, being significantly more often completely uninterested in the suckling process. It has been reported already, that increasing sibling competition with deviations in suckling order stability amplifies by increasing litter size and vice versa, it was found that piglets in smaller litters are more consistent (stable) in suckling order (Hemsworth et al., 1976; Hartsock et al., 1977; Rosillon-Warnier and Paquay, 1984; Andersen et al., 2011) with relatively high suckling stability on the beginning of lactation already (Skok and Gerken, 2016). Therefore, teat fidelity is expected to be more rigid in small litter comparing to piglets from larger litter whose tendency to occupy a specific suckling position is expected to be weaker.

    • Trade-offs between litter size and offspring fitness in domestic pigs subjected to different genetic selection pressures

      2017, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Similarly, the CB line also showed evidence of suboptimal teat access. Some studies indicate that piglets prefer more anterior teats (Fraser et al., 1979; Newberry and Wood-Gush, 1985; Skok and Gerken, 2016). Recently, Ocepek et al. (2016a) showed that competition for, and suckling of, the anterior teats was elevated because those teats were more accessible.

    • Being a weakling and surviving: Keep the fittest siblings close-by when eating

      2016, Behavioural Processes
      Citation Excerpt :

      The sow’s udder was categorized in relation to teat pairs (TP), which were numbered 1–8 in a caudal direction. Suckling stability was measured as the probability that the same piglet suckled at the same teat for two consecutive sucklings (Skok and Gerken, 2016). All statistical analyses were conducted in R 3.3.0 (R Core Team, 2016).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text