DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Management factors affecting gestating sows' welfare in group housing systems - A review

  • Jang, Jae-Cheol (Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Oh, Sang-Hyon (Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gyeongsang National University)
  • Received : 2022.07.25
  • Accepted : 2022.10.01
  • Published : 2022.12.01

Abstract

Public concern on the methods of raising food-producing animals has increased, especially in the last two decades, leading to voluntary and mandated changes in the animal production methods. The primary objective of these changes is to improve the welfare of farm animals. The use of gestational stalls is currently a major welfare issue in swine production. Several studies assessed the welfare of alternative housing systems for gestating sows. A comparative study was performed with gestating sows housed in either individual stalls or in groups in a pen with an electronic sow feeder. This review assessed the welfare of each housing system using physiological, behavioral, and reproductive performance criteria. The current review identified clear advantages and disadvantages of each housing system. Individual stall housing allowed each sow to be given an individually tailored diet without competition, but the sows had behavioral restrictions and showed stereotypical behaviors (e.g., bar biting, nosing, palate grinding, etc.). Group-housed sows had increased opportunities to display such behavior (e.g., ability to move around and social interactions); however, a higher prevalence of aggressive behavior, especially first mixing in static group type, caused a negative impact on longevity (more body lesions, scratch and bite injuries, and lameness, especially in subordinate sows). Conclusively, a more segmented and diversified welfare assessment could be beneficial for a precise evaluation of each housing system for sows. Further efforts should be made to reduce aggression-driven injuries and design housing systems (feeding regimen, floor, bedding, etc.) to improve the welfare of group-housed sows.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

A part of this manuscript was presented in the Ph.D. dissertation of Jae-Cheol Jang (2016).

References

  1. Tawse J. Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study. Biosci Horiz 2010;3: 156-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020
  2. Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Geers R, Miele M, Veissier I. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Anim Welf 2003;12:445-55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860002604X
  3. Huang JK, Bouis H. Structural changes in the demand for food in Asia: empirical evidence from Taiwan. Agric Econ 2001;26:57-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00054.x
  4. Fraser D. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Anim Welf 2003; 12:433-43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600026038
  5. Winter M, Fry C, Carruthers SP. European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare. Food Policy 1998;23:305-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(98)00036-0
  6. Harper GC, Makatouni A. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. Br Food J 2002; 104:287-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425723
  7. Arey D, Brooke P. Animal welfare aspects of good agricultural practice: pig production. Petersfield, UK: Compassion in World Farming Trust; 2006.
  8. Jang JC, Jung SW, Jin SS, Ohh SJ, Kim JE, Kim YY. The effects of gilts housed either in group with the electronic sow feeding system or conventional stall. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015; 28:1512-8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0819
  9. Scientific Veterinary Committee. 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. In: Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section, to the Comission of the European Union. Doc. XXIV/ScVc/0005/1997; 1997 September 30;Brussels, Belgium.
  10. Bates RO, Edwards DB, Korthals RL. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livest Prod Sci 2003;79:29-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00119-7
  11. Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Newman EA, McCallum TH, Winfield CG. The effect of design of tether and stall housing on some behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1989;24: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90120-2
  12. von Borell EH, Morris JR, Hurnik JF, Mallard BA, Buhr MM. The performance of gilts in a new group housing system: endocrinological and immunological functions. J Anim Sci 1992;70:2714-21. https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.7092714x
  13. Brambell Report. Report of the Technical Committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 1965.
  14. Carenzi C, Verga M. Animal welfare : review of the scientific concept and definition. Ital J Anim Sci 2007;8(suppl. 1):21-30. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.21
  15. Broom DM. Indicators of poor welfare. Br Vet J 1986;142:524-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0
  16. Dockes AC, Kling-Eveillard F. Farmers' and advisers' representations of animals and animal welfare. Livest Sci 2006;103: 243-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.012
  17. Ulrich-Lai YM, Herman JP. Neural regulation of endocrine and autonomic stress responses. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009;10:397-409. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2647
  18. Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Lelystad, Netherlands: Welfare Quality® Consortium; 2009.
  19. McGlone JJ, Borell EH, von Deen J, et al. Compilation of the scientific literatures comparing housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance and health. Prof Anim Sci 2004;20:105-17. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)31285-7
  20. Cannon WB. Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiol Rev 1929;9:399-431. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1929.9.3.399
  21. Moberg GP. Problems in defining stress and distress in animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1987;191:1207-11.
  22. Fernandez X, Meunier-Salaun MC, Mormede P. Agonistic behavior, plasma stress hormones, and metabolites in response to dyadic encounters in domestic pigs: interrelationships and effect of dominance status. Physiol Behav 1994;56:841-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(94)90313-1
  23. Fernandez X, Meunier-Salaun MC, Ecolan P, Mormede P. Interactive effect of food deprivation and agonistic behavior on blood parameters and muscle glycogen in pigs. Physiol Behav 1995;58:337-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(94)00364-b
  24. Ville H, Bertels S, Geers R, et al. Electrocardiogram parameters of piglets during housing, handling and transport. Anim Sci 1993;56:211-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100021280
  25. Guise HJ, Riches HL, Hunter EJ, Jones TA, Warriss PD, Kettlewell PJ. The effect of stocking density in transit on the carcass quality and welfare of slaughter pigs: 1. Carcass measurements. Meat Sci 1998;50:439-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00056-4
  26. Perez MP, Palacio J, Santolaria MP, et al. Effect of transport time on welfare and meat quality in pigs. Meat Sci 2002;61:425-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-1740(01)00216-9
  27. Reichlin S. Williams textbook of endocrinology. In: Wilson JD, Foster DW, Kronenberg HM, Larsen PR. editors. Williams textbook of endocrinology. 10. Philadelphia PA, USA: WB Saunders Co; 1998. p. 165-248.
  28. McMahon M, Gerich J, Rizza R. Effects of glucocorticoids on carbohydrate metabolism. Diabetes Metab Rev 1988;4: 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmr.5610040105
  29. Sapolsky RM, Romero LM, Munck AU. How do glucocorticoids influence stress response? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocr Rev 2000;21: 55-89. https://doi.org/10.1210/edrv.21.1.0389
  30. Leshin LS, Barb C, Kiser TE, Rampacek GB, Kraeling RR. Growth hormone-releasing hormone and somatostatin neurons within the porcine and bovine hypothalamus. Neuroendocrinology 1994;59:251-64. https://doi.org/10.1159/000126666
  31. Tempel DL, Leibowitz SF. Adrenal steroid receptors: interactions with brain neuropeptide systems in relation to nutrient intake and metabolism. J Neuroendocrinol 1994;6:479-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2826.1994.tb00611.x
  32. Hay M, Meunier-Salaun MC, Brulaud F, Monnier M, Mormede P. Assessment of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and sympathetic nervous system activity in pregnant sows through the measurement of glucocorticoids and catecholamines in urine. J Anim Sci 2000;78:420-8. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.782420x
  33. Rushen J. A difference in weight reduces fighting when unacquainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Can J Anim Sci 1987;67:951-60. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas87-100
  34. Arey DS, Edwards SA. Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livest Prod Sci 1998;56:61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00144-4
  35. Dantzer R, Kelley KW. Twenty years of research on cytokineinduced sickness behavior. Brain Behav Immun 2007;21:153-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2006.09.006
  36. Cook CJ, Mellor DJ, Harris PJ, Ingram JR, Mathews LR. Hands-on and hands-off measurement of stress. In: Moberg GP, Mench JA, editors. The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare. Cambridge, MA, USA: CABI Publishing; 2000. p. 123-46. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851993591.0123
  37. Mason GJ, Latham NR. Can't stop, won't stop: is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Anim Welf 2004;13 (Suppl):S57-69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860001438X
  38. Day JEL, Burfoot A, Docking C, Whittaker X, Spoolder HA, Edwards SA. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002;76:189-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00017-5
  39. Guy JH, Rowlinson P, Chadwick JP, Ellis M. Behaviour of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002;75:193-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00197-6
  40. McGlone JJ. Influence of resources on pig aggression and dominance. Behav Processes 1986;12:135-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(86)90052-5
  41. Ewald PW, Carpenter FL. Territorial responses to energy manipulations in the Anna hummingbird. Oecologia 1978; 31:277-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00346248
  42. Armstrong DP. Aggressiveness of breeding territorial honeyeaters corresponds to seasonal changes in nectar availability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1991;29:103-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166484
  43. Chapman MR, Kramer DL. Guarded resources: the effect of intruder number on the tactics and success of defenders and intruders. Anim Behav 1996;52:83-94. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0154
  44. Meese GB, Ewbank RA. A note on instability of the dominance hierarchy and variations in level of aggression within groups of fattening pigs. Anim Sci 1972;14:359-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100011090
  45. Algers B, Jensen P, Steinwall L. Behaviour and weight changes at weaning and regrouping of pigs in relation to teat quality. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1990;26:143-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(90)90094-T
  46. Tuchscherer M, Manteuffel G. The effect of psycho stress on the immune system. Another reason for pursuing animal welfare (Review). Arch Anim Breed 2000;43:547-60. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-43-547-2000
  47. Fraser AF, Broom DM. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. London, UK: Balliere Tindall. Print; 1990.
  48. Bergeron R, Badnell-Waters AJ, Lambton S, Mason G. Stereotypic oral behaviour in captive ungulates: foraging, diet and gastrointestinal function. In: Mason G, Rushen J, editors. Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare, 2nd Edition. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2006. p. 19-57.
  49. Gregory NG. Animal welfare and meat science. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 1998. pp. 53-74.
  50. Jones RB, Boissy A. Fear and other negative emotions. In: Appleby MC, Mench JA, Olsson IAS, Hughes BO, editors. Animal welfare. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2011. p. 78-97.
  51. Mormede P, Lemaire V, Castanon N, Dulluc J, Laval M, Le Moal M. Multiple neuroendocrine responses to chronic social stress: interaction between individual characteristics and situational factors. Physiol Behav 1990;47:1099-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(90)90358-B
  52. Losinger WC, Heinrichs AJ. Management practices associated with high mortality among preweaned dairy heifers. J Dairy Res 1997;64:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022029996001999
  53. Wan R-Q, Pang K, Olton DS. Hippocampal and amygdaloid involvement in nonspatial and spatial working memory in rats: effects of delay and interference. Behav Neurosci 1994; 108:866-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.108.5.866
  54. Stookey JM, Gonyou HW. The effects of regrouping on behavioral and production parameters in finishing swine. J Anim Sci 1994;72:2804-11. https://doi.org/10.2527/1994.72112804x
  55. Sellier P. Genetics of meat and carcass traits. In: Rothschild MF, Ruvinski A, editors. The Genetics of the Pig. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 1998. 463 p.
  56. Bracke MBM, Metz JHM, Spruijt BM, Schouten WGP. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. B. Validation by expert opinion. J Anim Sci 2002;80:1835-45. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8071835x
  57. Marchant JN, Broom DM. Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestation sows. Anim Sci 1996;63:477-85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980001537X
  58. Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Jongman EC, Hutson GD. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Aust J Agric Res 2001;52:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR00057
  59. Gonyou HW. Experience with alternative methods of sow housing. In: Animal Welfare Forum: Sow Housing and Welfare. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;226:1336-9. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2005.226.1336
  60. Jensen KH, Pedersen BK, Pedersen LJ, Jorgensen E. Wellbeing in pregnant sows: Confinement versus group housing with electronic sow feeding. Acta Agric Scand A, Anim Sci 1995;45:266-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064709509413086
  61. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor. EFSA J 2005;268:1-19. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2005.268
  62. Baxter M. Social space requirements of pigs. In: Zayan R, editors. Social space for domestic animals. Dordrecht, the Netherlands; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1985. pp. 116-27.
  63. Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Newman EA, McCallum TH, Chilton D. Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1992;34:207-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80116-9
  64. Weng RC, Edwards SA, English PR. Behaviour, social interactions and lesion scores of group-housed sows in relation to floor space allowance. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1998;59:307-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00143-3
  65. Salak-Johnson JL, Niekamp SR, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Ellis M, Curtis SE. Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: Body condition, skin lesions, and performance. J Anim Sci 2007;85:1758-69. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-510
  66. Remience V, Wavreille J, Canart B, et al. Effects of space allowance on the welfare of dry sows kept in dynamic groups and fed with an electronic sow feeder. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;112:284-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.07.006
  67. Hemsworth PH, Rice M, Nash J, et al. Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: Aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance. J Anim Sci 2013;91:4953-64. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5807
  68. Salak-Johnson JL, DeDecker AE, Horsman MJ, RodriguezZas SL. Space allowance for gestating sows in pens: Behavior and immunity. J Anim Sci 2012;90:3232-42. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4531
  69. Huebner ES. Burnout among school psychologists: An exploratory investigation into its nature, extent, and correlates. Sch Psychol Q 1992;7:129-36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088251
  70. Salleh MR. Live events, stress and illness. Malays J Med Sci 2008;15:9-18.
  71. Tsuma VT, Einarsson S, Madej A, Kindahl H, Lundeheim N, Rojkittikhun T. Endocrine changes during group housing of primiparous sows in early pregnancy. Acta Vet Scand 1996; 37:481-90. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03548088
  72. McGlone JJ, Newby BE. Space requirements for finishing pigs in confinement: behavior and performance while group size and space vary. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1994;39:331-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90166-X
  73. Bench CJ, Rioja-Lang FC, Hayne SM, Gonyou HW. Group gestation housing with individual feeding-II: How space allowance, group size and composition, and flooring affect sow welfare. Livest Sci 2013;152:218-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.12.020
  74. Taylor IA, Barnett JL, Cronin GM. Optimum group size for pigs. In: Bottcher RW, Hoff SJ, editors. Livestock Environment V, (vol. 2). Proc. 5th. Int. Symp. Am. Soc. Agri. Eng., St Joseph, MI, USA; 1997. pp. 965-71.
  75. Spoolder HAM, Geudeke MJ, van der Peet-Schwering CMC, Soede NM. Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: a review of success and risk factors. Livest Sci 2009;125:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.03.009
  76. Rodenburg B, Koene P. The impact of group size on damaging behaviours, aggression, fear and stress in farm animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007;103:205-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.024
  77. Anil SS, Anil L, Deen J, Baidoo SK, Walker RD. Factors associated with claw lesions in gestating sows. J. Swine Health Prod 2007;15:78-83.
  78. Marchant-Forde JN. Welfare of dry sows. In: Marchant-Forde JN, editor. The welfare of pigs. New York, USA: Springer; 2009. pp. 95-139.
  79. Spoolder HAM, Burbidge JA, Edwards SA, Lawrence AB, Simmins PH. Effects of food level on performance and behaviour of sows in a dynamic group housing system with electronic feeding. Anim Sci 1997;65:473-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800008675
  80. Li YZ, Gonyou HW. Comparison of management options for sows kept in pens with electronic feeding stations. Can J Anim Sci 2013;93:445-52. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas2013-044
  81. Van der Mheen H, Spoolder HAM, Kiezebrink MC. Stable versus dynamic group housing systems for pregnant sows and the moment of introduction. In: Proc. 37th. Int. Cong. Appl. Etho.; 2003 June 24-28: Albano, Terme, Italy; 2003. 90 p. https://edepot.wur.nl/25834
  82. Anil L, Anil SS, Deen J, Baidoo SK, Walker RD. Effect of group size and structure on the welfare and performance of pregnant sows in pens with electronic sow feeders. Can J Vet Res 2006; 70:128-36.
  83. Strawford ML, Li YZ, Gonyou HW. The effect of management strategies and parity on the behaviour and physiology of gestating sows housed in an electronic sow feeding system. Can J Anim Sci 2008;88:559-67. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS07114
  84. Meunier-Salaun MC, Edwards SA, Robert S. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2001;90:53-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00196-1
  85. Verdon M, Hansen CF, Rault JL, et al. Effects of group housing on sow welfare: a review. J Anim Sci 2015;93:1999-2017. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8742
  86. Spoolder HAM, Burbidge JA, Edwards SA, Simmins PH, Lawrence AB. Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1995;43: 249-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00566-B
  87. Bergeron R, Gonyou HW. Effects of increasing energy intake and foraging behaviours on the development of stereotypies in pregnant sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1997;53:259-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01169-0
  88. Bench CJ, Rioja-Lang FC, Hayne SM, Gonyou HW. Group gestation housing with individual feeding-I: How feeding regime, resource allocation, and genetic factors affect sow welfare. Livest Sci 2013;152:208-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.12.021
  89. Brouns F, Edwards SA. Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1994;39:225-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90158-9
  90. Barnett JL. Measuring pain in animals. Aust Vet J 1997;75: 878-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1997.tb11256.x
  91. Andersen IL, Boe KE, Kristiansen AL. The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1999;65:91-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00058-1
  92. Olsson A-Ch, Andersson M, Botermans J, Rantzer D, Svendsen J. Animal interaction and response to electronic sow feeding (ESF) in 3 different herds and effects of function settings to increase capacity. Livest Sci 2011;137:268-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.10.014
  93. Arey DS. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Anim Welf 1993;2:235-46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860001589X
  94. Jang JC, Hong JS, Jin SS, Kim YY. Comparing gestating sows housing between electronic sow feeding system and a conventional stall over three consecutive parities. Livest Sci 2017;199:37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.02.023
  95. Bruce JM, Clark JJ. Models of heat production and critical temperature for growing pigs. Anim Sci 1979;28:353-69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100023266
  96. Tuyttens FAM. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2005;92:261-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.007