Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:27:39.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Body condition, live weight and success in agonistic encounters in mixed parity groups of sows during gestation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2018

M. Norring ,
A. Valros Open the ORCID record for A. Valros [Opens in a new window] ,
P. Bergman ,
J. N. Marchant-Forde  and
M. Heinonen
M. Norring*
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, Research Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
A. Valros
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, Research Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
P. Bergman
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, Paroninkuja 20, 04920 Saarentaus, Finland
J. N. Marchant-Forde
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
M. Heinonen
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, Paroninkuja 20, 04920 Saarentaus, Finland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Group housing of gestating sows benefits their welfare by allowing them freedom of movement and the opportunity for social interaction. However, social life could also bring disadvantages for individuals who receive direct aggression or are displaced from the feeder. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between social behaviour, body condition and live weight. Gestating sows (n=298) were investigated on a commercial farm. Sows were housed in mixed parity groups where two single space, ad libitum trough feeders served 12 animals. Sows were weighed, body condition scored and had their back fat layer measured at mixing, 4 weeks after insemination and again before farrowing. Social status was estimated based on the numbers of won and lost agonistic interactions at mixing and at the end of gestation. In addition, tear staining was scored before the farrowing and reproductive performance data were collected. With the aid of video recordings, 100 to 150 interactions per group were observed. Winning percentage at mixing and at the end of gestation were associated (P<0.05) and appeared relatively stable within individuals. Tear staining scores and litter sizes were not associated with winning percentage at the end of gestation. However, live weight, relative weight, body condition and back fat thickness were associated with winning percentage (P<0.05), giving heavier animals an advantage. Low winning percentage related to lower live weight gain, probably due to poorer success in competition for feed. Live weight within a mixed parity group could be used as a proxy measure for social status. Sows with low body condition score and submissive sows might need special attention with regard to group dynamics and housing to alleviate the effects of competition in group housing.

Keywords

animal welfarepigsocial behaviourSus scrofatear staining
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , February 2019 , pp. 392 - 398
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 

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

Andersen, IL, Bøe, KE and Kristiansen, AL 1999. The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 91–104.Google Scholar
Brouns, F and Edwards, SA 1994. Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 225–235.Google Scholar
Camerlink, I, Turner, SP, Ursinus, WW, Reimert, I and Bolhuis, JE 2014. Aggression and affiliation during social conflict in pigs. PloS one 9, e113502.Google Scholar
Chapinal, N, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Cerisuelo, A, Gasa, J, Baucells, MD and Manteca, X 2010. Aggressive behavior in two different group-housing systems for pregnant sows. Journal Applied Animal Welfare Science 13, 137–153.Google Scholar
Charette, R, Bigras-Poulin, M and Martineau, GP 1996. Body condition evaluation in sows. Livestock Production Science 46, 107–115.Google Scholar
DeBoer, SP, Garner, JP, McCain, RR, Lay, DC jr, Eicher, SD and Marchant-Forde, JN 2015. An initial investigation into the effects of social isolation and enrichment on the welfare of laboratory pigs housed in the PigTurn System assessed using tear staining, behaviour, physiology and haematology. Animal Welfare 24, 15–27.Google Scholar
Durrell, JL, Sneddon, IA, O’Connell, NE and Whitehead, H 2004. Do pigs form preferential associations? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89, 41–52.Google Scholar
Horback, KM and Parsons, TD 2016. Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal 10, 1351–1359.Google Scholar
Hoy, S, Bauer, J, Borberg, C, Chonsch, L, and Weirich, C 2009. Impact of rank position on fertility of sows. Livestock Science 126, 69–72.Google Scholar
Ison, SH, Donald, RD, Jarvis, S, Robson, SK, Lawrence, AB and Rutherford, KMD 2014. Behavioral and physiological responses of primiparous sows to mixing with older, unfamiliar sows. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1647–1655.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1980. An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 341–350.Google Scholar
Kranendonk, G, van der Mheen, H, Fillerup, M and Hopster, H 2007. Social rank of pregnant sows affects their body weight gain and behavior and performance of the offspring. Journal of Animal Science 85, 420–429.Google Scholar
Krauss, V and Hoy, S 2011. Dry sows in dynamic groups: An investigation of social behaviour when introducing new sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 20–27.Google Scholar
Langbein, J and Puppe, B 2004. Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods – a plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 293–315.Google Scholar
Li, YZ and Gonyou, HW 2013. Comparison of management options for sows kept in pens with electronic feeding stations. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 93, 445–452.Google Scholar
Li, YZ, Wang, LH and Johnston, LJ 2012. Sorting by parity to reduce aggression toward first-parity sows in group-gestation housing systems. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4514–4522.Google Scholar
Li, YZ, Wang, LH and Johnston, LJ 2017. Effects of social rank on welfare and performance of gestating sows housed in two group sizes. Journal of Swine Health and Production 25, 290–298.Google Scholar
Maes, DGD, Janssens, GPJ, Delputte, P, Lammertyn, A and de Kruif, A 2004. Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livestock Production Science 91, 57–67.Google Scholar
Marchant-Forde, AEM and Marchant-Forde, JN 2014. Social status and tear staining in nursery piglets. In Proceedings of the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 29 July–2 August, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 145 pp.Google Scholar
Martin, JE and Edwards, SA 1994. Feeding behaviour of outdoor sows: the effects of diet quantity and type. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41, 63–74.Google Scholar
O’Connell, NE, Beattie, VE and Moss, BW 2003. Influence of social status on the welfare of sows in static and dynamic groups. Animal Welfare 12, 239–249.Google Scholar
Ohl, F and Van der Staay, FJ 2012. Animal welfare: at the interface between science and society. The Veterinary Journal 192, 13–19.Google Scholar
Olsson, AC, Svendsen, J, Botermans, J and Bergsten, C 2016. An experimental model for studying claw lesions in growing female pigs. Livestock Science 184, 58–63.Google Scholar
Parent, J-P, Meunier-Salaün, M-C, Vasseur, E and Bergeron, R 2012. Stability of social hierarchy in growing female pigs and pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 1–10.Google Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Geudeke, MJ, Van der Peet-Schwering, CMC and Soede, NM 2009. Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: a review of success and risk factors. Livestock Science 125, 1–14.Google Scholar
Thomsen, LR, Nielsen, BL and Larsen, ON 2010. Implications of food patch distribution on social foraging in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122, 111–118.Google Scholar
Telkänranta, H, Marchant-Forde, JN and Valros, A 2016. Tear staining in pigs: a potential tool for welfare assessment on commercial farms. Animal 10, 318–325.Google Scholar
Van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Kemp, B, Plagge, JG, Vereijken, PFG, Den Hartog, LA, Spoolder, HAM and Verstegen, MWA 2004. Performance and individual feed intake characteristics of group-housed sows fed a nonstarch polysaccharides diet ad libitum during gestation over three parities. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1246–1257.Google Scholar
Verdon, M, Hansen, CF, Rault, J-L, Jongman, E, Hansen, LU, Plush, K and Hemsworth, PH 2015. Effects of group housing on sow welfare: a review. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1999–2017.Google Scholar
Verdon, M, Morrison, RS, Rice, M and Hemsworth, PH 2016. Individual variation in sow aggressive behavior and its relationship with sow welfare. Journal of Animal Science 94, 1203–1214.Google Scholar
Wang, LH and Li, YZ 2016. Effect of continuous access to feeding stalls during mixing on behavior, welfare, and performance of group-housed gestating sows in different social ranks. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 96, 386–396.Google Scholar
Wang, J, Yang, M, Cao, M, Lin, Y, Che, L, Duraipandiyan, V, Al-Dhabib, NA, Fanga, Z, Xua, S, Fenga, B, Liu, G and Wu, D 2016. Moderately increased energy intake during gestation improves body condition of primiparous sows, piglet growth performance, and milk fat and protein output. Livestock Science 194, 23–30.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y, Flowers, WL, Saraiva, A, Yeum, KJ and Kim, SW 2013. Effect of social ranks and gestation housing systems on oxidative stress status, reproductive performance, and immune status of sows. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5848–5858.Google Scholar