Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:58:40.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temporary crate opening procedure affects immediate post-opening piglet mortality and sow behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2018

R. L. King Open the ORCID record for R. L. King [Opens in a new window] ,
E. M. Baxter ,
S. M. Matheson  and
S. A. Edwards
R. L. King*
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
E. M. Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal & Veterinary Sciences, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
S. M. Matheson
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Producers are interested in utilising farrowing systems with reduced confinement to improve sow welfare. However, concerns of increased mortality may limit commercial uptake. Temporary confinement systems utilise a standard crate which is opened 3 to 7 days postpartum, providing protection for neonatal piglets at their most vulnerable age and later increased freedom of movement for sows. However, there is anecdotal evidence that piglet mortality increases immediately after the temporary crate is opened. The current study aims were to determine if piglet mortality increases post-opening, to trial different opening techniques to reduce post-opening piglet mortality and to identify how the different opening techniques influence sow behaviour. Three opening treatments were implemented across 416 sows: two involved opening crates individually within each farrowing house when each litter reached 7 days of age, in either the morning or afternoon (AM or PM), with a control of the standard method used on the farm to open all crates in each farrowing house simultaneously once the average litter age reached 7 days (ALL). Behavioural observations were performed on five sows from each treatment during the 6 h after crate opening, and during the same 6 h period on the previous and subsequent days. Across all treatments, piglet mortality was significantly higher in the post-opening than pre-opening period (P<0.0005). Between opening treatments, there were significant differences in piglet mortality during the 2 days after crate opening (P<0.05), whilst piglet mortality also tended to differ from crate opening until weaning (P=0.052), being highest in ALL and lowest in PM. Only sows in the PM treatment showed no increase in standing behaviour but did show an increased number of potentially dangerous posture changes after crate opening (P=0.01), which may be partly attributed to the temporal difference in observation periods. Sow behaviour only differed between AM and ALL on the day before crate opening, suggesting the AM treatment disrupted behaviour pre-opening. Sows in AM and PM treatments showed more sitting behaviour than ALL, and therefore may have been more alert. In conclusion, increases in piglet mortality after crate opening can be reduced by opening crates individually, more so in the afternoon. Sow habituation to disturbance before crate opening may have reduced post-opening piglet mortality, perhaps by reducing the difference in pre- and post-opening sow behaviour patterns.

Keywords

pigwelfarecrushingfarrowingtemporary confinement
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 189 - 197
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Pork 2017. Prices and Stats\Costings & Herd Performance\Indoor Breeding Herd. Retrieved on 10 July 2017 from https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices-stats/costings-herd-performance/indoor-breeding-herd/ Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011. Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal 5, 580–600.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, RH and Broom, DM 1999. A comparison of the behaviour and performance of sows and piglets in crates and oval pens. Animal Science 69, 327–333.Google Scholar
Chaloupková, H, Illmann, G, Pedersen, LJ, Malmkvist, J and Simeckova, M 2008. Sow responsiveness to human contacts and piglet vocalization during 24h after onset of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 260–269.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
Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) 2015. Opinion on free farrowing systems. FAWC, London, UK.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2015. Temporary confinement of loose-housed hyperprolific sows reduces piglet mortality. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4079–4088.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2016. The effect of temporary confinement of hyperprolific sows in Sow Welfare and Piglet protection pens on sow behaviour and salivary cortisol concentrations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 183, 19–27.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB, Robson, SK and Lawrence, AB 2006. The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiology and Behaviour 87, 345–352.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, L, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 1997. The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, β-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 65, 465–472.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Van der Vegt, BJ, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 2001. The effect of parity and environmental restriction on behavioural and physiological responses of pre-parturient pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 203–216.Google Scholar
KilBride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Cooper, S and Green, LE 2012. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 281–291.Google Scholar
King, RL, Baxter, EM, Matheson, SM and Edwards, SA 2018. Consistency is key: interactions of current and previous farrowing system on litter size and pre-weaning piglet mortality. Animal, in press.Google Scholar
Kirkden, RD, Broom, DM and Andersen, IL 2013. Invited review: piglet mortality: management solutions. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3361–3389.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM and Corning, S 2001. The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72, 19–28.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S and Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.Google Scholar
Melišová, M, Illmann, G, Andersen, IL, Vasdal, G and Haman, J 2011. Can sow pre-lying communication or good piglet condition prevent piglets from getting crushed? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 121–129.Google Scholar
Melišová, M, Illmann, G, Andersen, IL, Vasdal, G and Haman, J 2014. Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3064–3072.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 mortality. Animal 7, 648–654.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Malmkvist, J and Andersen, HML 2013. Housing of sows during farrowing: a review on pen design, welfare and productivity. In Livestock housing: modern management to ensure optimal health and welfare of farm animals (ed. A. Aland and T. Banhazi), pp. 93–112. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002. Nursing behaviour, postpartum activity and reactivity in sows: effect of farrowing environment, previous experience and temperament. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 53–76.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D, Honkanen, A, Chirnside, J, Gaughan, A, Clutton, E and Terlouw, EMC 1996. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 149–158.Google Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM and Horat, R 2007. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Animal Welfare 16, 277–279.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

King et al. supplementary material

King et al. supplementary material 1

Download King et al. supplementary material(File)
File 849.1 KB