Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:00:46.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The behaviour and welfare of sows and piglets in farrowing crates or lactation pens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2016

C. Singh ,
M. Verdon ,
G. M. Cronin  and
P. H. Hemsworth
C. Singh
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010 VIC, Australia
M. Verdon*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010 VIC, Australia
G. M. Cronin
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, 2570 NSW, Australia
P. H. Hemsworth
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010 VIC, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Temporary confinement during parturition and early postpartum may provide an intermediary step preceding loose housing that offers improvement in sow and piglet welfare. Three experiments were conducted to investigate the implications of replacing farrowing crates (FCs) with an alternative housing system from 3 days postpartum until weaning. In each experiment sows farrowed in FCs and were randomly allocated at day 3 of lactation to either a FC or a pen with increased floor space (lactation pen (LP)) until weaning. In experiment 1, piglet growth and sow and piglet skin injuries were recorded for 32 sows and 128 focal piglets in these litters. Behaviour around nursing and piglet behavioural time budgets were also recorded for 24 of these litters (96 focal piglets for time budgets). In experiment 2, measures of skin injury and behavioural time budgets were conducted on 28 sows and 112 focal piglets. The behavioural response of sows to piglet vocalisation (maternal responsiveness test (MRT)) was also assessed. In experiment 3, piglet mortality from day 3 of lactation until weaning was recorded in 672 litters over 12 months. While housing did not affect piglet weight gain in experiment 1, or piglet skin injuries in experiments 1 or 2, sows in both experiments sustained more injuries in LP than FC (experiment 1, 2.9 v. 1.4; experiment 2, 2.5 v. 0.8 lesions/sow; P<0.05). Sow–piglet interactions were more frequent in LP than FC at days 11 and 18 postpartum in both experiment 1 (day 11, 1.4% v. 1.2%; day 18, 1.7% v. 1.0% of observations; P=0.05) and 2 (day 11, 1.0% v. 0.3%; and at day 18 were 1.0% v. 0.6% of observations; P<0.01), and LP sows were more responsive in the MRT in experiment 2 (2 v. 0 median number of tests in which sows react, P<0.01). In experiment 1 piglets played more (0.7% v. 0.3% of observations, P=0.05) and manipulated others less (0.3% v. 0.7% of observations, P=0.04) in LP, but more piglets missed nursing bouts (0.2 v. 0.1 piglets/bout, P<0.01) compared with FC. There was no effect of housing on piglet mortality from day 3 of lactation until weaning in experiment 3 (0.63 and 0.64 deaths/litter for LP and FC, respectively, P>0.05). Thus, housing sows and litters in LP from day 3 of lactation minimises piglet mortality while improving maternal behaviour in sows and social behaviour in piglets.

Keywords

animal welfarelactation housingloose-housed sowsbehaviourpiglet mortality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 7 , July 2017 , pp. 1210 - 1221
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011. Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs for sows and piglets. Animal 5, 580–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bøe, KE, Cronin, GM and Andersen, IL 2011. Turning around by pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM and Fraser, AF 2010. Maternal and neonatal behaviour. In Domestic animal behaviour and welfare (4th edition) (ed. DM Broom and AF Fraser), pp. 173–187. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Brown, SM, Klaffenböck, M, Nevison, IM and Lawrence, AB 2015. Evidence for litter differences in play behaviour in pre-weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 172, 17–25.Google Scholar
Chaloupková, H, Illmann, G, Bartoš, L and Špinka, M 2007. The effect of pre-weaning housing on the play and agonistic behaviour of domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 25–34.Google Scholar
Chidgey, KL, Morel, PCH, Stafford, KJ and Barugh, IW 2015. Sow and piglet productivity and sow reproductive performance in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial New Zealand pig farm. Livestock Science 173, 87–94.Google Scholar
Condous, PC, Plush, KJ, Tilbrook, AJ and van Wettere, WHEJ 2016. Reducing sow confinement during farrowing and in early lactation increases piglet mortality. Journal of Animal Science 94, 3022–3029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, GM, Lefébure, B and McClintock, S 2000. A comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee Farrowing Pen and conventional farrowing crates at a commercial farm. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Simpson, GJ and Hemsworth, PH 1996. The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46, 175–192.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM and Smith, JA 1992. Suckling behaviour of sows in farrowing crates and straw-bedded pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 175–189.Google Scholar
Dybkjær, L 1992. The identification of behavioural indicators of ‘stress’ in early weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2014. Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms. Animal 8, 113–120.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2015. Temporary confinement of loose housed hyper-prolific sows reduces piglet mortality. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4079–4088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, SD, Mason, G and Mendl, M 2006. Maternal responsiveness of outdoor sows from first to fourth parities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 216–233.Google Scholar
Held, SDE and Špinka, M 2011. Animal play and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 81, 891–899.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Mellor, DJ, Cronin, GM and Tilbrook, AJ 2015. Scientific assessment of animal welfare. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 24–30.Google Scholar
Hutson, GD, Price, EO and Dickenson, LG 1993. The effect of playback volume and duration on the response of sows to piglets distress calls. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illmann, G, Neuhauserová, K, Pokorná, Z, Chaloupková, H and Šimečková, M 2008. Maternal responsiveness of sows towards piglet’s screams during the first 24 h postpartum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 248–259.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 131–142.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1988. Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 297–308.Google Scholar
Johnson, AK and Marchant-Forde, JN 2009. Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In The welfare of pigs (ed. JN Marchant-Forde), pp. 141–188. Spring Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlen, GAM, Hemsworth, PH, Gonyou, HW, Fabrega, E, Strom, AD and Smits, RJ 2007. The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls and large groups on deep litter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 87–101.Google Scholar
Lambertz, C, Petig, M, Elkmann, A and Gauly, M 2015. Confinement of sows for different periods during lactation: effects on behaviour and lesions of sows and performance of piglets. Animal 9, 1373–1378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, JE, Ison, SH and Baxter, EM 2015. The influence of neonatal environment on piglet play behaviour and post-weaning social and cognitive development. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 163, 69–79.Google Scholar
Morrison, RS, Cronin, GM and Hemsworth, PH 2011. Sow housing in Australia – current Australian welfare research and future directions. In Proceedings of the 13th Biennial Conference of the Australian Pig Science Association, 27–30 November 2011, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 219–233.Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Hales, J, Lahrmann, HP, Weber, PM and Hansen, CF 2013. Confinement of lactating sows in crates for 4 days after farrowing reduces piglet mortalities. Animal 7, 648–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC, Wood-gush, DGM and Hall, JW 1988. Playful behaviour of piglets. Behavioural Processes 17, 205–216.Google Scholar
Oostindjer, M, Bolhuis, JE, Mendl, M, Held, S, van den Brand, H and Kemp, B 2011a. Learning how to eat like a pig: effectiveness of mechanisms for vertical social learning in piglets. Animal Behaviour 82, 503–511.Google Scholar
Oostindjer, M, van den, Brand H, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, J 2011b. Effects of environmental enrichment and loose housing of lactating sows on piglet behaviour before and after weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 31–41.Google Scholar
Pedersen, J 2015. Loose housing or temporary confinement of sows in designed farrowing pens. PhD, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Pedersen, MI, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Kristensen, AP 2011. Improved udder access prolongs duration of milk-let down and increases piglet weight gain. Livestock Science 140, 253–261.Google Scholar
Sih, A 2013. Frontiers on the interface between behavioural syndromes and social behavioural ecology. In Animal personalities: behavior, physiology, and evolution (ed. C Carere and D Maestripieri), pp. 221–251. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002. Nursing behaviour, postpartum activity and reactivity in sows: effects of farrowing environment, previous experience and temperament. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 53–76.Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E, Buijs, S and Tuyttens, FAM 2009. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science 123, 16–22.Google Scholar
Verdon, M, Morrison, RS and Hemsworth, PH 2016. Rearing piglets in multi-litter group lactation systems: effects on piglet aggression and injuries post-weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 183, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar