Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:43:03.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confinement of lactating sows in crates for 4 days after farrowing reduces piglet mortality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2012

V. A. Moustsen ,
J. Hales ,
H. P. Lahrmann ,
P. M. Weber  and
C. F. Hansen
V. A. Moustsen
Affiliation:
Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
J. Hales
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, HERD – Centre for Herd-oriented Education, Research and Development, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
H. P. Lahrmann
Affiliation:
Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
P. M. Weber
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, HERD – Centre for Herd-oriented Education, Research and Development, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
C. F. Hansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, HERD – Centre for Herd-oriented Education, Research and Development, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

To reduce mortality among suckling piglets, lactating sows are traditionally housed in farrowing crates. Alternatively, lactating sows can be housed in farrowing pens where the sow is loose to ensure more behavioural freedom and consequently a better welfare for the sow, although under commercial conditions, farrowing pens have been associated with increased piglet mortality. Most suckling piglets that die do so within the first week of life, so potentially lactating sows do not have to be restrained during the entire lactation period. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate whether confinement of the sow for a limited number of days after farrowing would affect piglet mortality. A total of 210 sows (Danish Landrace × Danish Yorkshire) were farrowed in specially designed swing-aside combination farrowing pens measuring 2.6 m × 1.8 m (combi-pen), where the sows could be kept loose or in a crate. The sows were either: (a) loose during the entire experimental period, (b) crated from days 0 to 4 postpartum, (c) crated from days 0 to 7 postpartum or (d) crated from introduction to the farrowing pen to day 7 postpartum. The sows and their subsequent litters were studied from introduction to the combi-pen ∼1 week before expected farrowing and until 10 days postpartum. Confinement period of the sow failed to affect the number of stillborn piglets; however, sows that were crated after farrowing had fewer live-born mortality deaths (P < 0.001) compared with the sows that were loose during the experimental period. The increased piglet mortality among the loose sows was because of higher mortality in the first 4 days after farrowing. In conclusion, the current study demonstrated that crating the sow for 4 days postpartum was sufficient to reduce piglet mortality.

Keywords

combi-penconfinementfarrowing crateloose lactating sowspiglet mortality
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 648 - 654
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Andersen, IL, Tajet, GM, Haukvik, IA, Kongsrud, S, Bøe, KE 2007. Relationship between postnatal piglet mortality, environmental factors and management around farrowing in herds with loose-housed, lactating sows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section A, Animal Science 57, 38–45.Google Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC, 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.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB, 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
Blackshaw, JK, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJ, Newman, FW 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
Borges, VF, Bernardi, ML, Bortolozzo, FP, Wentz, I 2005. Risk factors for stillbirth and foetal mummification in four Brazilian swine herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 70, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canario, L, Cantoni, E, Le Bihan, E, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Bidanel, JP, Foulley, JL 2006. Between-breed variability of stillbirth and its relationship with sow and piglet characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3185–3196.Google Scholar
Christensen, J, Svensmark, B 1997. Evaluation of producer-recorded causes of preweaning mortality in Danish sow herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 32, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, GM, Dunsmore, B, Leeson, E 1998. The effects of farrowing nest size and width on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60, 331–345.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Lefébure, B, McClintock, 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
Cronin, GM, Simpson, GJ, Hemsworth, PH 1996. The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46, 175–192.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Lisborg, L, Vestergaard, KS, Vanicek, J 2003. Nest-building, behavioral disturbances and heart rate in farrowing sows kept in crates and Schmid pens. Livestock Production Science 80, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Moustsen, V, Jørgensen, E, Pedersen, LJ, Heiskanen, T, Forkman, B 2006. Sow preferences for walls to lean against when lying down. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 53–63.Google Scholar
Dyck, GW, Swierstra, EE 1987. Causes of piglet death from birth to weaning. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 453–547.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK 1997. Farrowing behaviour and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 51–66.Google Scholar
Holyoake, PK, Dial, GD, Trigg, T, King, VL 1995. Reducing pig mortality through supervision during the perinatal period. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3543–3551.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Calvert, SK, Stevenson, J, Leeuwen, Nv, Lawrence, AB 2002. Pituitary-adrenal activation in pre-parturient pigs (Sus scrofa) is associated with behavioural restriction due to lack of space rather than nesting substrate. Animal Welfare 11, 371–384.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Reed, BT, Lawrence, AB, Calvert, SK, Stevenson, J 2004. Peri-natal environmental effects on maternal behaviour, pituitary and adrenal activation, and the progress of parturition in the primiparous sow. Animal Welfare 13, 171–181.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, S, McLean, K, Deans, L, Chirnside, J, Calvert, S 1997. The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, β-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 63, 465–472.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Vegt, BJ, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, 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
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E, Terlouw, EMC 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN 2002. Piglet- and stockperson-directed sow aggression after farrowing and the relationship with a pre-farrowing, human approach test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM 1993. The effects of sow housing on responses to farrowing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38, 81–82.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S, Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.Google Scholar
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A, Peltoniemi, O 2010. Environmental and sow-related factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Animal Reproduction Science 119, 85–91.Google Scholar
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A, HcTlli, O, Peltoniemi, OAT 2008. Effect of the environment on the physiology of the sow during late pregnancy, farrowing and early lactation. Animal Reproduction Science 105, 365–377.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Berg, P, Jørgensen, G, Andersen, IL 2011. Neonatal piglet traits of importance for survival in crates and indoor pens. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1207–1218.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Jørgensen, E, Heiskanen, T, Damm, BI 2006. Early piglet mortality in loose-housed sows related to sow and piglet behaviour and to the progress of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantzer, D, Svendsen, J 2001. Slatted versus solid floors in the dung area of farrowing pens: effects on hygiene and pig performance, birth to weaning. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section A, Animal Science 51, 167–174.Google Scholar
Vaillancourt, JP, Marsh, WE, Dial, GD 1992. Internal consistency of preweaning mortality data collected by swine producers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 14, 115–128.Google Scholar
Vaillancourt, JP, Stein, TE, Marsh, WE, Leman, AD, Dial, GD 1990. Validation of producer-recorded causes of preweaning mortality in swine. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 10, 119–130.Google Scholar
Verhovsek, D, Troxler, J, Baumgartner, J 2007. Peripartal behaviour and teat lesions of sows in farrowing crates and in a loose-housing system. Animal Welfare 16, 273–276.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Thompson, BK, Fraser, D 1996. Risky behaviour by piglets: a trade off between feeding and risk of mortality by maternal crushing? Animal Behaviour 51, 619–624.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Phillips, PA, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D, Thompson, BK 1998. Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 103–111.Google Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M, Horat, R 2007. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Animal Welfare 16, 277–279.Google Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M, Horat, R 2009. Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science 124, 216–222.Google Scholar