Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:53:31.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2015

E.-J. Bos ,
E. Nalon ,
D. Maes ,
B. Ampe ,
S. Buijs ,
M. M. J. van Riet ,
S. Millet ,
G. P. J. Janssens  and
F. A. M. Tuyttens
E.-J. Bos*
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Department of Obstetrics, Reproduction and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
E. Nalon
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, Reproduction and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
D. Maes
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, Reproduction and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
B. Ampe
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
S. Buijs
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
M. M. J. van Riet
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Department of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Millet
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
G. P. J. Janssens
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
F. A. M. Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Department of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Sows housed in groups have to move through their pen to fulfil their behavioural and physiological needs such as feeding and resting. In addition to causing pain and discomfort, lameness may restrict the ability of sows to fulfil such needs. The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which the mobility of sows is affected by different degrees of lameness. Mobility was measured as the sow’s willingness or capability to cover distances. Feed-restricted hybrid sows with different gait scores were subjected to a feed reward collection test in which they had to walk distances to obtain subsequent rewards. In all, 29 group-housed sows at similar gestation stage (day 96.6±7 s.d.) were visually recorded for gait and classified as non-lame, mildly lame, moderately lame or severely lame. All sows received 2.6 kg of standard commercial gestation feed per day. The test arena consisted of two feeding locations separated from each other by a Y-shaped middle barrier. Feed rewards were presented at the two feeders in turn, using both light and sound cues to signal the availability of a new feed reward. Sows were individually trained during 5 non-consecutive days for 10 min/day with increasing barrier length (range: 0 to 3.5 m) each day. After training, sows were individually tested once per day on 3 non-consecutive days with the maximum barrier length such that they had to cover 9.3 m to walk from one feeder to the other. The outcome variable was the number of rewards collected in a 15-min time span. Non-lame and mildly lame sows obtained more rewards than moderately lame and severely lame sows (P<0.01). However, no significant difference was found between non-lame and mildly lame sows (P=0.69), nor between moderately lame and severely lame sows (P=1.00). This feed reward collection test indicates that both moderately lame and severely lame sows are limited in their combined ability and willingness to walk, but did not reveal an effect of mild lameness on mobility. These findings suggest that moderately and more severely lame sows, but not mildly lame sows, might suffer from reduced access to valuable resources in group housing systems.

Keywords

lamenessfeed motivationpiggaitmobility
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 10 , October 2015 , pp. 1698 - 1703
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Anil, SS, Anil, L and Deen, J 2005. Evaluation of patterns of removal and associations among culling because of lameness and sow productivity traits in swine breeding herds. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226, 956–961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anil, S, Anil, L and Deen, J 2009. Effect of lameness in pigs in terms of ‘five freedoms’. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 144–145.Google Scholar
Baldwin, BA 1976. Quantitative studies on taste preference in pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brendle, J and Hoy, S 2011. Investigation of distances covered by fattening pigs measured with VideoMotionTracker® . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F, Edwards, SA and English, PR 1995. Influence of fibrous feed ingredients on voluntary intake of dry sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54, 301–313.Google Scholar
Chapinal, N, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J and Wagner, S 2010a. Automated methods for detecting lameness and measuring analgesia in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2007–2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, Ruiz de la Torre, J, Cerisuelo, A, Gasa, J, Baucells, MD, Coma, J, Vidal, A and Manteca, X 2010b. Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 5, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1990. From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 1–9.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RD 2012. Repeated locomotion scoring of a sow herd to measure lameness: consistency over time, the effect of sow characteristics and inter-observer reliability. Animal Welfare 21, 219–231.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RD, Conington, J, Lawrence, AB, Olsson, IAS and Sandøe, P 2010. Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations. Animal Welfare 19, 17–27.Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 2012. Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal 10, 2774.Google Scholar
Grégoire, J, Bergeron, R, D’Allaire, S, Meunier-Salaün, MC and Devillers, N 2013. Assessment of lameness in sows using gait, footprints, postural behaviour and foot lesion analysis. Animal 7, 1163–1173.Google Scholar
Harris, MJ, Pajor, EA, Sorrells, AD, Eicher, SD, Richert, BT and Marchant-Forde, JN 2006. Effects of stall or small group gestation housing on the production, health and behaviour of gilts. Livestock Science 102, 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinonen, M, Oravainen, J, Orro, T, Seppä-Lassila, L, Ala-Kurikka, E, Virolainen, J, Tast, A and Peltoniemi, OAT 2006. Lameness and fertility of sows and gilts in randomly selected loose-housed herds in Finland. Veterinary Record 159, 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilbride, AL, Gillman, CE and Green, LE 2009. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness in finishing pigs, gilts and pregnant sows and associations with limb lesions and floor types on commercial farms in England. Animal Welfare 18, 215–224.Google Scholar
Kirkden, RD and Pajor, EA 2006. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100, 29–47.Google Scholar
Kroneman, A, Vellenga, L, van der Wilt, FJ and Vermeer, HM 1993. Review of health problems in group housed sows, with special emphasis on lameness. Veterinary Quarterly 15, 26–29.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB and Terlouw, EM 1993. A review of behavioral factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2815–2825.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Appleby, MC and Macleod, HA 1988. Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47, 131–137.Google Scholar
Leach, KA, Tisdall, DA, Bell, NJ, Main, DCJ and Green, LE 2012. The effects of early treatment for hindlimb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. The Veterinary Journal 193, 626–632.Google Scholar
Levis, DG, Consultancy, LWS and Connor, L 2013. Group housing systems: choices and designs. National Pork Board No. 800-456-7675, Des Moines, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Main, DCJ, Clegg, J, Spatz, A and Green, LE 2000. Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147, 574–576.Google Scholar
McGeown, D, Danbury, TC, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Kestin, SC 1999. Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 144, 668–671.Google Scholar
Meijer, E, Bertholle, CP, Oosterlinck, M, van der Staay, FJ, Back, W and van Nes, A 2014. Pressure mat analysis of the longitudinal development of pig locomotion in growing pigs after weaning. BMC Veterinary Research 10, 37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Edwards, SA and Robert, S 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalon, E, Conte, S, Maes, D, Tuyttens, FAM and Devillers, N 2013. Assessment of lameness and claw lesions in sows. Livestock Science 156, 10–23.Google Scholar
Nalon, E, Maes, D, Van Dongen, S, van Riet, MMJ, Janssens, GPJ, Millet, S and Tuyttens, FAM 2014. Comparison of the inter- and intra-observer repeatability of three gait-scoring scales for sows. Animal 8, 650–659.Google Scholar
Patterson-Kane, EG, Kirkden, RD and Pajor, EA 2011. Measuring motivation in swine: the food-metric scale. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 14, 175–186.Google Scholar
Paxton, H, Daley, MA, Corr, SA and Hutchinson, JR 2013. The gait dynamics of the modern broiler chicken: a cautionary tale of selective breeding. The Journal of Experimental Biology 216, 3237–3248.Google Scholar
Pluym, LM, Van Nuffel, A, Van Weyenberg, S and Maes, D 2013a. Prevalence of lameness and claw lesions during different stages in the reproductive cycle of sows and the impact on reproduction results. Animal 7, 1174–1181.Google Scholar
Pluym, LM, Maes, D, Vangeyte, J, Mertens, K, Baert, J, Van Weyenberg, S, Millet, S and Van Nuffel, A 2013b. Development of a system for automatic measurements of force and visual stance variables for objective lameness detection in sows: SowSIS. Biosystems Engineering 116, 64–74.Google Scholar
Ringgenberg, N, Bergeron, R and Devillers, N 2010. Validation of accelerometers to automatically record sow postures and stepping behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 128, 37–44.Google Scholar
Robert, S, Rushen, J and Farmer, C 1997. Both energy content and bulk of food affect stereotypic behaviour, heart rate and feeding motivation of female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 161–171.Google Scholar
Tapper, KR, Johnson, AK, Karriker, LA, Stalder, KJ, Parsons, RL, Wang, C and Millman, ST 2013. Pressure algometry and thermal sensitivity for assessing pain sensitivity and effects of flunixin meglumine and sodium salicylate in a transient lameness model in sows. Livestock Science 157, 245–253.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Huzzey, JM and Von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009. Board-invited review: using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals. Journal of Animal Science 87, 770–777.Google Scholar
Willgert, K 2011. The economic and welfare impact of lameness in sows in England. Royal Veterinary College. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from htttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/TheeconomicandwelfareimpactoflamenessinsowsinEngland.pdf Google Scholar