Weakest Piglets May Sneak Help from Strongest Siblings

If a weak piglet positions itself next to a strong sibling while feeding, it may get some extra nutrition from inadvertently stimulated mammary glands.   

 

PHOTODISC (MARS)

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Human parents usually have one or sometimes two offspring at a time, and when babies get delivered we pour all our energy into child rearing. But other animals raise lots of babies at once. And the weaker individuals can be at a big disadvantage. If there's not enough food, for example, a mother bird might offer more to those chicks who are more likely to survive. Nature's a rough place.

But mammals like pigs can't selectively provision their offspring the way birds do, because all the babies nurse at the same time. And yet the strongest piglets still seem to have an edge. One hypothesis goes that the weaklings might not have sufficient energy to stimulate the mammary gland while they suckle, so they eventually starve from a lack of nutrition.

But it turns out that vigorous stimulation of one mammary gland can increase blood flow in neighboring glands. So if a weakling was canny enough to position himself next to one of his strongest siblings, he might get more milk than positioned elsewhere.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"I got this idea during observations of piglets, of course, because I had a feeling that weaklings are doing better in the company of [the] strongest siblings."

Biologist Janko Skok from Slovenia's University of Maribor.

To see if his hunch was right, Skok observed 18 litters, including 150 piglets. Twenty-three of them were classified as weaklings, which meant they weighed less than one kilogram at birth or they died before weaning. Then he looked to see what differentiated the weaklings that survived from those that died.

And indeed, those weaklings that survived were more likely to nurse next to their strongest brothers and sisters. "Weaklings, which are limited in terms of mammary gland stimulation, actually take advantage of strong stimulation implemented by their heavier siblings, who in turn do not suffer any costs from this activity."

The research were published in the journal Behavioural Processes. [Janko Skok, Being a weakling and surviving: Keep the fittest siblings close-by when eating.]

Skok says that pig breeders commonly sort piglets into different weight classes, so the heaviest babies nurse together with one mother while a different mother raises the weaker babies. But his results might mean that more piglets could survive if breeders instead mixed piglets of different sizes, so that the smaller ones could take advantage of their larger counterparts.

What this finding does not explain is why my younger brother, who as a kid always and failed to steal my dessert, is now stronger than I am.

—Jason G. Goldman

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Jason G. Goldman is a science journalist based in Los Angeles. He has written about animal behavior, wildlife biology, conservation, and ecology for Scientific American, Los Angeles magazine, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Conservation magazine, and elsewhere. He contributes to Scientific American's "60-Second Science" podcast, and is co-editor of Science Blogging: The Essential Guide (Yale University Press). He enjoys sharing his wildlife knowledge on television and on the radio, and often speaks to the public about wildlife and science communication.

More by Jason G. Goldman

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe