Feeding caffeine to sows in gestation reduced stillbirths
B. A. Dearlove A B , K. E. Kind A and W. H. E. J. van Wettere AA The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371.
B Corresponding author. Email: brooke.dearlove@adelaide.edu.au
Animal Production Science 55(12) 1541-1541 https://doi.org/10.1071/ANv55n12Ab118
Published: 11 November 2015
The incidences of piglets born dead or with low viability remains unacceptably high in the pig industry, and is likely to increase with continuing selection for high total litter size (Kerr and Cameron 1995; Rootwelt et al. 2012). Caffeine promoted breathing respiration in premature human babies (Benowitz 1990) and administration of caffeine to sows 24 h prior to an induced parturition improved aspects of neonatal piglet performance (Superchi et al. 2013). The current study hypothesised whether 3 days of oral caffeine ingestion by sows prior to a natural parturition would reduce the number of still births and improve piglet behaviour immediately post-partum.
Sixty-four multiparous (parity 3.2 ± 0.14; mean ± SE) Large White × Landrace sows were moved into farrowing crates at least 5 days prior to their farrowing due date. Treatments commenced 3 days prior to the farrowing due date, with sows receiving either 2 g of caffeine with their daily feed ration three times per day (Caffeine, n = 34), or no caffeine (Control, n = 30). Treatments continued up until the commencement of farrowing. During farrowing, piglets were tagged and the times taken to stand, reach the udder and begin suckling were recorded. The total numbers of piglets born, born alive, born dead and mummified were also recorded. For statistical analysis, piglets were grouped by birth order (first, 1–4; middle, 5–8; last, >8), with the data analysed using a univariate general linear model (IBM SPSS Statistics 21) with birth order, treatment, parity, pen and room as fixed effects and litter size as a covariate. Behaviour data were not normally distributed, and were log transformed prior to analyses. Data are presented as mean ± SE of the mean.
There were no treatment effects (P > 0.05) (Control vs Caffeine) on total born litter size (11.9 ± 0.56 vs 11.8 ± 0.53), piglet survival in the first 24 h (95.1% vs 96.6%) or piglet survival from 24 h to weaning (90.1% vs 90.3%). However, compared to control sows, Caffeine sows gave birth to fewer stillborn piglets (0.29 ± 0.09 vs 0.67 ± 0.15; P < 0.05) and had more live born piglets (11.65 ± 0.22 versus 11.01 ± 0.23; P < 0.05). The impact of treatment on piglet behaviour immediately post-partum was affected by birth order (Table 1). Piglets born to Caffeine-treated sows, and born last, took longer (P < 0.05; Table 1) to reach the udder (14.44 mins) and suckle (15.2 min) compared to piglets born last in Control sows. Piglets born to Caffeine treated sows, and born first, also took longer (P < 0.05; Table 1) to reach the udder (12.97 min) compared to first-born piglets in Control sows.
It is suggested that the increased latency to reach the udder and suckle observed in piglets born last to Caffeine-treated sows reflects a reduction in the number of stillborn piglets. Caffeine promotes breathing, and by reducing the incidence of stillbirths, may have increased the incidence of lower viability piglets born at the end of parturition. These lower viability piglets will always have an increased latency to reach milestones such as reaching the udder and beginning to suckle. Overall, the current data provide preliminary evidence that feeding caffeine to peri-parturient sows reduced farrowing-induced piglet mortalities, and therefore has the potential to increase the number of piglets weaned per sow per litter.
References
Benowitz NL (1990) Annual Review of Medicine 41, 277–288.| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kerr JC, Cameron ND (1995) Animal Science 60, 281–290.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rootwelt V, Reksen O, Farstad W, Framstad T (2012) Journal of Animal Science 90, 4289–4296.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Superchi P, Mazzoni C, Zanardelli P, Piancastelli C, Zambini EM, Beretti V, Sabbiono A (2013) Livestock Science 157, 372–377.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
This project was funded, in part, by Australian Pork Limited.