Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:04:21.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confinement of sows for different periods during lactation: effects on behaviour and lesions of sows and performance of piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

C. Lambertz ,
M. Petig ,
A. Elkmann  and
M. Gauly
C. Lambertz*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Universitätsplatz 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
M. Petig
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Göttingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
A. Elkmann
Affiliation:
Big Dutchman Pig Equipment GmbH, Auf der Lage 2, 49377 Calveslage, Germany
M. Gauly
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Universitätsplatz 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
*
† E-mail: Christian.Lambertz@unibz.it
Get access

Abstract

Alternatives to farrowing crates with continuous confinement of the sow are urgently needed because the animal welfare is negatively impacted. Given the increase of herd sizes, practical experience with loose-housing is needed to force the implementation of these systems in the field. Next to aspects of labour efficiency, detrimental piglet mortality rates that may occur during the first days postpartum (pp) is a major criticism. Therefore, loose-housing after a crating period limited to the first days pp might be a feasible alternative to improve welfare under intensive production conditions. The aim was to investigate the effect of crating sows during lactation for different periods on their behaviour and integument alterations and on piglets’ performance. Gilts from a commercial herd were observed from 5 to 26 days pp and housed in farrowing crates (1.85×2.50 m) that could be altered between confinement crates and loose-housing pens. Animals were divided into three groups, that were either crated continuously from birth until weaning (Group A, n=55), until 14 days pp (Group B; n=54) or 7 days pp (Group C, n=59). The behaviour of six randomly selected gilts per group was video recorded from 5 to 26 days pp and analysed by time sampling technique. Lesions on the legs, shoulder and lumbar vertebra were scored on days 7, 14 and 25 pp. Piglets were weighed weekly, causes of losses recorded and weight losses of gilts measured. Not different between groups (P>0.05), animals spent 72 to 76% lying laterally, 14 to 17% lying in abdominal or semi-abdominal position, 9 to 10% standing and 1 to 3% sitting. B-sows were lying longer in week 3 and 4 of lactation compared to A- and C-sows (P<0.05). The incidence of slight shoulder lesions rose from <1% on day 7 to 4% on day 14 and 14% on day 25 pp. On day 25 pp, 5% of all studied gilts showed moderate shoulder lesions. Piglet mortality rates were 11.4%, 12.9% and 13.3% for groups A, B and C, respectively (P>0.05), whereas almost 90% of the losses occurred in the first week pp. In conclusion, loose-housing of lactating gilts after a reduced postnatal crating period of 7 days affected neither the activity level of the gilts and lesions on the integument nor pre-weaning mortality. Therefore, it is recommended to allow sows to move around to some extent during the later lactation period.

Keywords

behaviourfarrowing crateintegumentloose-housingsow

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1373 - 1378
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, ED and Hutson, GD 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, J, Ofner, J, Quendler, E and Winckler, C 2007. Evaluation of different farrowing systems regarding productivity and animal welfare. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, 26 to 29 August 2007, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2012. Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs. Animal 6, 96–117.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJ and Newman, SW 1994. Comparison of behaviour patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 281–295.Google Scholar
Bonde, M, Rousing, T, Badsberg, JH and Sørensen, JT 2004. Associations between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition, limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds. Livestock Science 87, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, LA, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB and Brophy, P 2002. Effect of gestation housing on behaviour and skin lesions of sows in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour 76, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Lefebure, B and Mc Clintock, 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.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2013. Individual physical characteristics of neonatal piglets affect preweaning survival of piglets born in a noncrated system. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4991–5003.Google 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
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, Mc lean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 1997. The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, beta-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 65, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AK, Morrow-Tesch, JL and McGlone, JJ 2001. Behaviour and performance of lactating sows and piglets reared indoors or outdoors. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2571–2579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamphues, B 2004. Comparison between different farrowing systems in particular consideration of animal behaviour and economy. Thesis PhD, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany.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
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, Mc Lean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E and Terlouw, EMC 1994. The effect of environment on behavior, plasma-cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidfors, L, Berg, C and Algers, B 2005. Integration of natural behaviour in housing systems. Ambio 34, 325–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Melisova, M, Illmann, G, Chaloupkova, H and Bozdechova, B 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 and Poulsen, HL 2004. Sammenligning af produk Sammenligning af produktionsresultater opnået i henholdsvis en traditionel kassesti og en sti til løsgående farende og diegivende søer. (Comparison of production results in traditional crates and pens for loose farrowing and lactating sows). Meddelelse 679. Videncenter For Svineproduktion. Retrieved on 1 September 2014 from http://vsp.lf.dk/Publikationer/Kilder/lu_medd/2004/679.aspx 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedersen, LJ, Jørgensen, E, Heiskanen, T and Damm, BI 2006. Early piglet mortality in loose-housed related to sow and piglet behavior and to the process of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 215–232.Google Scholar
Pedersen, ML, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Kristensen, AR 2011. Improved udder access prolongs duration of milk letdown and increases piglet weight gain. Livestock Science 140, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluym, LM, Van Nuffel, A, Van Weyenberg, S and Maes, D 2013. Prevalence of lameness and claw lesions during different stages in the reproductive cycle of sows and the impact on the reproduction results. Animal 7, 1174–1181.Google Scholar
Puppe, B, Ernst, K, Schön, PC and Manteuffel, G 2007. Cognitive enrichment affects behavioural reactivity in domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valros, A, Rundgren, M, Spinka, M, Saloniemi, H and Algers, B 2003. Sow activity level, frequency of standing-to-lying posture changes and anti-crushing behavior – within sow-repeatability and interactions with nursing behaviour and piglet performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 29–40.Google Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M and Horat, R 2007. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Animal Welfare 16, 277–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar