New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe