Piglet Morphology: Indicators of Neonatal Viability?

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Early identification of poor-performing and non-viable piglets is important for effective interventions. Weight has been the consistently used indicator of likely survival in commercial production. We found that piglet survival increased with increasing abdominal circumference (girth) and crown to rump length. When a piglet was proportionately long and wide, they were more likely to be heavier at 24 h and survive until weaning, unless they were a small piglet. Small piglets that were disproportionate were more likely to survive than the proportionate small piglets, especially when they consumed more than 200 g of colostrum. We suggest that the girth and length of the piglet should be used when making production decisions for small piglets. ABSTRACT: The morphological measures, crown-to-rump length (CR), and abdominal circumference (AC) have been suggested to be as good, if not better, than birth weight for predicting piglet performance. We explored the relationships between CR and AC, and piglet weights at birth and 24 h, to investigate their predictive value for piglet survival. Piglet weight and AC at birth and 24 h, and CR at 24 h were recorded for 373 piglets born to 31 sows. Morphological measures were categorised into two levels for weight and three levels for AC and CR. Further, AC and CR groupings were concatenated to create a new variable (PigProp) to describe the proportionality of piglet morphology. Proportionate piglets had equal CR and AC levels, and disproportionate piglets had contrasting levels. Birth AC was a good predictor of colostrum intake (p < 0.001) when accounting for birth weight, but 24 h weight and PigProp were good indicators of actual colostrum intake (p < 0.001 for both). The significant interaction of colostrum and PigProp showed that within the smaller piglet groups, those who had greater than 200 g of colostrum had higher 24 h weight and survival (p < 0.001 both). As expected, as body weight and colostrum intake increased, so did weight change to d 21 (P = 0.03 and trend at p = 0.1, respectively). A similar pattern was seen with increasing PigProp group (p < 0.001); however, piglets from the disproportionate group 1,3 had the greatest observed weight change (5.15 ± 0.06 kg). Our data show morphological measures may be more predictive of piglet viability in terms of both performance and survival than weight and there may be subgroups that have higher than expected chances of survival.