Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e36

Effect of alternative farrowing pens with temporary crating on the performance of lactating sows and their litters  

Si Nae, Cheon (Animal Welfare Research Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Agriculture)
So Hee, Jeong (Animal Welfare Research Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Agriculture)
Guem Zoo, Yoo (Animal Welfare Research Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Agriculture)
Se Jin, Lim (Animal Welfare Research Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Agriculture)
Chan Ho, Kim (Animal Welfare Research Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Agriculture)
Gul Won, Jang (Animal Welfare Research Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Agriculture)
Jung Hwan, Jeon (Animal Welfare Research Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Agriculture)
Publication Information
Journal of Animal Science and Technology / v.64, no.3, 2022 , pp. 574-587 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study was performed to development the alternative farrowing pen (AFP) and to investigate performance and behavior of lactating sows and their litter. A total of 64 multiparous sows were randomly divided into two groups and were allocated to farrowing crates (FCs) and AFPs. The AFPs contained a crate and support bars that could be folded to provide the sows with extra space on day 5 postpartum. Behavior was recorded by charge-coupled device cameras and digital video recorders, and the data were scanned every 2 min to obtain an instantaneous behavioral sample. Farrowing systems did not affect feed intake, back-fat thickness, litter size and piglet weight at birth and weaning (p > 0.05). In addition, there were no differences in the number of crushed piglets between the two farrowing systems (p > 0.05). However, the weaning-to-estrus interval was shorter in the sows of the AFPs than in thous of the FCs (p < 0.05). The sows spent most of their time lying down during the lactating period, at about 80% lateral recumbency and 10%-15% ventral recumbency. The only significant differences were in the feeding and drinking behavior between sows in the two farrowing systems (p < 0.05). The FC sows displayed more feeding and drinking behavior than the AFP sows, especially in the late lactating period (p < 0.05). Piglets in the FCs tended to spend more time walking than piglets in the AFPs (p < 0.05), whereas there were no differences in suckling and lying behavior between piglets in the two farrowing systems (p > 0.05). It is concluded that the AFPs with temporary crating until day 4 postpartum did not negatively affect performance and crushed piglet compared with the FCs. It also may improve animal welfare by allowing sows to move and turn around during the lactating period. Further research is needed to find suitable housing designs to enhance productivity and animal welfare.
Keywords
Alternative farrowing pen; Animal welfare; Lactating sows; Piglets; Temporary crating;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cronin GM, Smith JA. Suckling behaviour of sows in farrowing crates and straw-bedded pens. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1992;33:175-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(05)80006-1   DOI
2 Cronin GM, Dunsmore B, Leeson E. The effects of farrowing nest size and width on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998;60:331-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(98)00159-2   DOI
3 Hotzel MJ. Improving farm animal welfare: is evolution or revolution needed in production systems? In: Appleby MC, Weary DM, Sandoe P, editors. Dilemmas in animal welfare. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI; 2014. p. 67-84.
4 Petersen V, Simonsen HB, Lawson LG. The effect of environmental stimulation on the development of behaviour in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1995;45:215-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00631-2   DOI
5 Oostindjer M, van den Brand H, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE. Effects of environmental enrichment and loose housing of lactating sows on piglet behaviour before and after weaning. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2011;134:31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.06.011   DOI
6 Arey DS, Sancha ES. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;50:135-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01075-1   DOI
7 Chidgey KL, Morel PCH, Stafford KJ, Barugh IW. Observations of sows and piglets housed in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial farm. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2016;176:12-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.004   DOI
8 Van Beirendonck S, Van Thielen J, Verbeke G, Driessen B. The association between sow and piglet behavior. J Vet Behav. 2014;9:107-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.01.005   DOI
9 Cronin GM, van Amerongen G. The effects of modifying the farrowing environment on sow behaviour and survival and growth of piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1991;30:287-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90133-i   DOI
10 Damm BI, Lisborg L, Vestergaard KS, Vanicek J. Nest-building, behavioural disturbances and heart rate in farrowing sows kept in crates and Schmid pens. Livest Prod Sci. 2003;80:175-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-6226(02)00186-0   DOI
11 Jarvis S, D'Eath RB, Robson SK, Lawrence AB. The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiol Behav. 2006;87:345-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.10.004   DOI
12 Baxter EM, Lawrence AB, Edwards SA. Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs. Animal. 2012;6:96-117. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731111001224   DOI
13 Johnson AK, Marchant-Forde JN. Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In: Marchant-Forde JN, editor. The welfare of pigs. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009. p. 141-88.
14 Hansen LU. Test of 10 different farrowing pens for loose-housed sows. Copenhagen: Seges Danish Pig Research Center; 2018. Report No.: 1803.
15 Lou Z, Hurnik JF. Peripartum sows in three farrowing crates: posture patterns and behavioural activities. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998;58:77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01144-6   DOI
16 Blackshaw JK, Blackshaw AW, Thomas FJ, Newman FW. Comparison of behaviour patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1994;39:281-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90163-5   DOI
17 Moustsen VA, Hales J, Lahrmann HP, Weber PM, Hansen CF. Confinement of lactating sows in crates for 4 days after farrowing reduces piglet mortality. Animal. 2013;7:648-54. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731112002170   DOI
18 Edwards SA, Malkin SJ, Spechter HH. An analysis of piglet mortality with behavioural observations. Proc Br Soc Anim Prod. 1972.1986;1986:126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0308229600016329   DOI
19 Weary DM, Pajor EA, Fraser D, Honkanen AM. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;49:149-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01042-8   DOI
20 Cronin GM, Lefebure B, McClintock S. A comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee Farrowing Pen and conventional farrowing crates at a commercial farm. Aust J Exp Agric. 2000;40:17-23. https://doi.org/10.1071/ea99124   DOI
21 Svendsen J. Perinatal mortality in pigs. Anim Reprod Sci. 1992;28:59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4320(92)90092-r   DOI
22 Damm BI, Forkman B, Pedersen LJ. Lying down and rolling behaviour in sows in relation to piglet crushing. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2005;90:3-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.008   DOI
23 Glencorse D, Plush K, Hazel S, D'Souza D, Hebart M. Impact of non-confinement accommodation on farrowing performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of farrowing crates versus pens. Animals. 2019;9:957. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110957   DOI
24 Marchant JN, Broom DM, Corning S. The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Anim Sci. 2001;72:19-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s135772980005551x   DOI
25 Quiniou N, Noblet J. Influence of high ambient temperatures on performance of multiparous lactating sows. J Anim Sci. 1999;77:2124-34. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7782124x   DOI
26 Gu Z, Gao Y, Lin B, Zhong Z, Liu Z, Wang C, et al. Impacts of a freedom farrowing pen design on sow behaviours and performance. Prev Vet Med. 2011;102:296-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.08.001   DOI
27 Damm BI, Moustsen V, Jorgensen E, Pedersen LJ, Heiskanen T, Forkman B. Sow preferences for walls to lean against when lying down. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006;99:53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.09.014   DOI
28 Weber R, Keil NM, Fehr M, Horat R. Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livest Sci. 2009;124:216-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.02.002   DOI
29 Renaudeau D, Noblet J. Effects of exposure to high ambient temperature and dietary protein level on sow milk production and performance of piglets. J Anim Sci. 2001;79:1540-8. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7961540x   DOI
30 Runyon RP, Haber A. Fundamentals of behavioral statistics. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley;1971.
31 Pluske JR, Williams IH, Zak LJ, Clowes EJ, Cegielski AC, Aherne FX. Feeding lactating primiparous sows to establish three divergent metabolic states: III. milk production and pig growth. J Anim Sci. 1998;76:1165-71. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7641165x   DOI
32 Charette R, Bigras-Poulin M, Martineau GP. Body condition evaluation in sows. Livest Prod Sci. 1996;46:107-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(96)00022-x   DOI
33 Kim JS, Yang X, Pangeni D, Baidoo SK. Relationship between backfat thickness of sows during late gestation and reproductive efficiency at different parities. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci. 2015;65:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2015.1045932   DOI
34 Maes DGD, Janssens GPJ, Delputte P, Lammertyn A, de Kruif A. Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livest Prod Sci. 2004;91:57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.06.015   DOI
35 Farmer C, Martineau JP, Methot S, Bussieres D. Comparative study on the relations between backfat thickness in late-pregnant gilts, mammary development and piglet growth. Transl Anim Sci. 2017;1:154-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/tas2017.0018   DOI
36 Zaleski HM, Hacker RR. Variables related to the progress of parturition and probability of stillbirth in swine. Can Vet J. 1993;34:109-13.
37 Xue JL, Dial GD, Marsh WE, Davies PR, Momont HW. Influence of lactation length on sow productivity. Livest Prod Sci. 1993;34:253-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(93)90111-T   DOI
38 Svajgr AJ, Hays VW, Cromwell GL, Dutt RH. Effect of lactation duration on reproductive performance of sows. J Anim Sci. 1974;38:100-5. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1974.381100x   DOI
39 Hughes PE. Effects of parity, season and boar contact on the reproductive performance of weaned sows. Livest Prod Sci. 1998;54:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-6226(97)00175-9   DOI
40 Fahmy MH, Holtmann WB, Baker RD. Failure to recycle after weaning, and weaning to oestrus interval in crossbred sows. Anim Sci. 1979;29:193-202. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003356100023412   DOI
41 Prunier A, de Braganca MM, Le Dividich J. Influence of high ambient temperature on performance of reproductive sows. Livest Prod Sci. 1997;52:123-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-6226(97)00137-1   DOI
42 Stevenson JS, Britt JH. Interval to estrus in sows and performance of pigs after alteration of litter size during late lactation. J Anim Sci. 1981;53:177-81. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1981.531177x   DOI
43 Stevenson JS, Pollmann DS, Davis DL, Murphy JP. Influence of supplemental light on sow performance during and after lactation. J Anim Sci. 1983;56:1282-6. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1983.5661282x   DOI
44 McGlone JJ, Stansbury WF, Tribble LF, Morrow JL. Photoperiod and heat stress influence on lactating sow performance and photoperiod effects on nursery pig performance. J Anim Sci. 1988;66:1915-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.6681915x   DOI
45 King RH, Mullan BP, Dunshea FR, Dove H. The influence of piglet body weight on milk production of sows. Livest Prod Sci. 1997;47:169-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-6226(96)01404-2   DOI
46 Hurley WL. Mammary gland growth in the lactating sow. Livest Prod Sci. 2001;70:149-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-6226(01)00208-1   DOI
47 Noblet J, Etienne M. Estimation of sow milk nutrient output. J Anim Sci. 1989;67:3352-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1989.67123352x   DOI
48 Hartmann PE, McCauley I, Gooneratne AD, Whitely JL. Inadequacies of sow lactation: survival of the fittest. In: Physiological strategies in lactation: the proceedings of a symposium held at the Zoological Society of London on 11 and 12 November 1982. London: Academic Press; 1984. p. 301-26.
49 Mahan DC, Lepine AJ. Effect of pig weaning weight and associated nursery feeding programs on subsequent performance to 105 kilograms body weight. J Anim Sci. 1991;69:1370-8. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6941370x   DOI
50 Condous PC, Plush KJ, Tilbrook AJ, van Wettere WHEJ. Reducing sow confinement during farrowing and in early lactation increases piglet mortality. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:3022-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0145   DOI
51 Marchant JN, Rudd AR, Mendl MT, Broom DM, Meredith MJ, Corning S, et al. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Vet Rec. 2000;147:209-14. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.8.209   DOI
52 Melisova M, Illmann G, Chaloupkova H, Bozdechova B. Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates. J Anim Sci. 2014;92:3064-72. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7340   DOI
53 Hales J, Moustsen VA, Nielsen MBF, Hansen CF. The effect of temporary confinement of hyperprolific sows in sow welfare and piglet protection pens on sow behaviour and salivary cortisol concentrations. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2016;183:19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.07.008   DOI
54 Weary DM, Phillips PA, Pajor EA, Fraser D, Thompson BK. Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998;61:103-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(98)00187-7   DOI
55 Goumon S, Leszkowova I, Simeckova M, Illmann G. Sow stress levels and behavior and piglet performances in farrowing crates and farrowing pens with temporary crating. J Anim Sci. 2018;96:4571-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky324   DOI
56 KilBride AL, Mendl M, Statham P, Held S, Harris M, Cooper S, et al. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Prev Vet Med. 2012;104:281-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.11.011   DOI
57 Fraser D. The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Anim Sci. 1975;21:59-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003356100030415   DOI
58 Pedersen LJ, Berg P, Jorgensen G, Andersen IL. Neonatal piglet traits of importance for survival in crates and indoor pens. J Anim Sci. 2011;89:1207-18. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3248   DOI
59 Weber R, Keil NM, Fehr M, Horat R. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Anim Welf. 2007;16:277-9.   DOI
60 Fraser AF, Broom DM. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. 3rd ed. Wallingford: CAB International; 1997.
61 Dantzer R. Behavioral, physiological and functional aspects of stereotyped behavior: a review and a re-interpretation. J Anim Sci. 1986;62:1776-86. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6261776x   DOI
62 Appleby MC, Lawrence AB. Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Anim Sci. 1987;45:103-10. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003356100036680   DOI
63 Johnson AK, Morrow-Tesch JL, McGlone JJ. Behavior and performance of lactating sows and piglets reared indoors or outdoors. J Anim Sci. 2001;79:2571-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.79102571x   DOI
64 Arellano PE, Pijoan C, Jacobson LD, Algers B. Stereotyped behaviour, social interactions and suckling pattern of pigs housed in groups or in single crates. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1992;35:157-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(92)90006-W   DOI
65 Lambertz C, Petig M, Elkmann A, Gauly M. Confinement of sows for different periods during lactation: effects on behaviour and lesions of sows and performance of piglets. Animal. 2015;9:1373-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731115000889   DOI
66 Bolhuis JE, Raats-van den Boogaard AME, Hoofs AIJ, Soede NM. Effects of loose housing and the provision of alternative nesting material on peri-partum sow behaviour and piglet survival. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2018;202:28-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.01.004   DOI
67 Zhang X, Li C, Hao Y, Gu X. Effects of different farrowing environments on the behavior of sows and piglets. Animals. 2020;10:320. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020320   DOI
68 Thodberg K, Jensen KH, Herskin MS. Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2002;77:21-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(02)00026-6   DOI
69 Chidgey KL, Morel PCH, Stafford KJ, Barugh IW. Sow and piglet behavioral associations in farrowing pens with temporary crating and in farrowing crates. J Vet Behav. 2017;20:91-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.01.003   DOI
70 Singh C, Verdon M, Cronin GM, Hemsworth PH. The behaviour and welfare of sows and piglets in farrowing crates or lactation pens. Animal. 2017;11:1210-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731116002573   DOI
71 Baxter EM, Lawrence AB, Edwards SA. Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal. 2011;5:580-600. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731110002272   DOI
72 Verdon M, Hansen CF, Rault JL, Jongman E, Hansen LU, Plush K 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   DOI
73 Luo L, Reimert I, Middelkoop A, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE. Effects of early and current environmental enrichment on behavior and growth in pigs. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:268. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00268   DOI
74 De Passille AMB, Rushen J. Suckling and teat disputes by neonatal piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1989;22:23-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90077-4   DOI
75 Lewis NJ, Hurnik JF. The development of nursing behaviour in swine. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1985;14:225-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(85)90003-6   DOI
76 Quesnel H, Farmer C, Devillers N. Colostrum intake: influence on piglet performance and factors of variation. Livest Sci. 2012;146:105-14.   DOI
77 Widowski TM, Torrey S, Bench CJ, Gonyou HW. Development of ingestive behaviour and the relationship to belly nosing in early-weaned piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008;110:109-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.010   DOI
78 Whittemore CT, Fraser D. The nursing and suckling behaviour of pigs. II. Vocalization of the sow in relation to suckling behaviour and milk ejection. Br Vet J. 1974;130:346-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1935(17)35837-2   DOI
79 Fraser D. A review of the behavioural mechanism of milk ejection of the domestic pig. Appl Anim Ethol. 1980;6:247-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(80)90026-7   DOI
80 Castren H, Algers B, Jensen P, Saloniemi H. Suckling behaviour and milk consumption in newborn piglets as a response to sow grunting. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1989;24:227-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90069-5   DOI
81 Algers B, Jensen P. Communication during suckling in the domestic pig. Effects of continuous noise. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1985;14:49-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(85)90037-1   DOI
82 Boe K. Maternal behaviour of lactating sows in a loosehousing system. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1993;35:327-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90084-3   DOI
83 Jensen P. Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in free-ranging domestic pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1988;20:297-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(88)90054-8   DOI
84 Ellendorff F, Forsling ML, Poulain DA. The milk ejection reflex in the pig. J Physiol. 1982;333:577-94. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1982.sp014470   DOI
85 Lohmeier RY, Gimberg-Henrici CGE, Burfeind O, Krieter J. Suckling behaviour and health parameters of sows and piglets in free-farrowing pens. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2019;211:25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.006   DOI
86 Jensen P, Gustafsson M, Augustsson H. Teat massage after milk ingestion in domestic piglets: an example of honest begging? Anim Behav. 1998;55:779-86. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1997.0651   DOI
87 Algers B. Nursing in pigs: communicating needs and distributing resources. J Anim Sci. 1993;71:2826-31. https://doi.org/10.2527/1993.71102826x   DOI