Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T01:41:48.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2010

E. M. Baxter ,
A. B. Lawrence  and
S. A. Edwards
E. M. Baxter*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Agriculture Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The construction of a suitable farrowing environment is a continuing dilemma: the piglet’s needs must be matched with those of the sow and the farmer during the main phases that constitute farrowing: nest building, parturition and lactation. Difficulties exist in resolving the various conflicts of interest between and within these three parties (e.g. sow v. farmer: space needed for nest building v. space needed to maximise the amount of farrowing accommodation, or sow v. sow: ensuring the survival of the current litter v. maintaining condition for future litters). Thus, the challenge is to resolve these conflicts and design a system that maximises sow and piglet welfare while maintaining an economically efficient and sustainable enterprise. In order to successfully design a farrowing and lactation environment, it is necessary to consider the biological needs of both the sow and her litter. The natural behaviour of the sow has been well documented and very little variation exists between reports of peri-parturient behaviour observed in extensively kept domestic sows and their wild counterparts. The failure for domestication to significantly alter these behavioural patterns provides evidence that they are biologically significant and that the commercial farrowing environment should attempt to accommodate this behavioural repertoire. In addition, the behavioural needs of the piglets, as well as the physiological needs of both sows and their offspring should be considered. This article aims to review the considerable body of literature detailing the behavioural repertoire of sows and their offspring during the different phases of farrowing, and the accompanying physiological processes. The focus is on identifying biological needs of the animals involved in order to synthesise the appropriate design criteria for farrowing and lactation systems, which should optimise both welfare and animal production.

Keywords

pignest buildingfarrowinglactationwelfare
Type
Review
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , 23 February 2011 , pp. 580 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Aherne, FX, Danielsen, V, Nielsen, HE 1982. The effects of creep feeding on pre- and post-weaning pig performance. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 32, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlström, S, Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB 2002. Savaging gilts are more restless and more responsive to piglets during the expulsive phase of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algers, B 1984. Early weaning and cage rearing of piglets; influence on behaviour. Zentralblatt für Veterinärmedizin Reihe A 31, 14–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Algers, B, Jensen, P 1985. Communication during suckling in the domestic pig. Effects of continuous noise. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algers, B, Jensen, P 1990. Thermal microclimate in winter farrowing nests of free-ranging domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 25, 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algers, B, Uvnäs-Moberg, K 2007. Maternal behavior in pigs. Hormones and Behavior 52, 78–85.Google Scholar
Algers, B, Madej, A, Rojanasthien, S, Uvnasmoberg, K 1991. Quantitative relationships between suckling-induced teat stimulation and the release of prolactin, gastrin, somatostatin, insulin, glucagon and vasoactive intestinal polypeptide in sows. Veterinary Research Communications 15, 395–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, IL, Berg, S, Bøe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243.Google Scholar
Appleby, MC, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D 1991. Effects of management options on creep feeding by piglets. Animal Production 53, 361–366.Google Scholar
Appleby, MC, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D 1992. Individual variation in feeding and growth of piglets – effects of increased access to creep food. Animal Production 55, 147–152.Google Scholar
Arey, DS 1992. Straw and food as reinforcers for prepartal sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS 1997. Behavioural observations of peri-parturient sows and the development of alternative farrowing accommodation: a review. Animal Welfare 6, 217–229.Google Scholar
Arey, DS 1999. Time course for the formation and disruption of social organisation in group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 199–207.Google Scholar
Arey, DS, Edwards, SA 1998. Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS, Petchey, AM, Fowler, VR 1991. The preparturient behavior of sows in enriched pens and the effect of preformed nests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 61–68.Google Scholar
Arey, DS, Petchey, AM, Fowler, VR 1992. The effect of straw on farrowing site choice and nest building behavior in sows. Animal Production 54, 129–133.Google Scholar
Barnett, KL, Kornegay, ET, Risley, CR, Lindemann, MD, Schurig, GG 1989. Characterization of creep feed consumption and its subsequent effects on immune response, scouring index and performance of weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 67, 2698–2708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, MR 1982. Environmental determinants of excretory and lying areas in domestic pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 195.Google Scholar
Baxter, MR 1983. Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, MR 1985. Social space requirements for pigs. In Social space requirements for domestic animals (ed. R Zayan), pp. 116–127. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, MR 1991. The freedom farrowing system. Farm Building Progress 104, 9–15.Google Scholar
Baxter, MR, Schwaller, C 1983. Space requirements for sows in confinement. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. SH Baxter, MR Baxter and JAD MacCormack), pp. 181–195. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB, Ross, DW, Robson, SK, Farish, M, Nevison, IM, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2008. Investigating the behavioural and physiological indicators of neonatal survival in pigs. Theriogenology 69, 773–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Robson, SK, Ormandy, E, Farish, M, Smurthwaite, KM, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2009. Indicators of piglet survival in an outdoor farrowing system. Livestock Science 124, 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N, Sneddon, IA 1998. Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7, 27–34.Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE, Moss, BW 2000. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, JL, Mullan, BP, Lorschy, ML, Giles, LR 1993. Lactation in the sow during heat stress. Livestock Production Science 35, 153–170.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Hagelsø, AM 1990. Getting-up and lying-down behaviors of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day-1 and day-8 after parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 61–70.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJ, Newman, FW 1994. Comparison of behavior patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 281–295.Google Scholar
Bøe, K 1991. The process of weaning in pigs: when the sow decides. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 47–59.Google Scholar
Bøe, K 1993. The effect of age at weaning and post-weaning environment on the behaviour of pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 43, 173–180.Google Scholar
Bøe, K, Jensen, P 1995. Individual differences in suckling and solid food intake by piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 183–192.Google Scholar
Boyle, LA, Regan, D, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB, Brophy, P 2000. The effect of mats on the welfare of sows and piglets in the farrowing house. Animal Welfare 9, 39–48.Google Scholar
BPEX 2004. An industry update on farrowing systems. BPEX/MLC, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Brambell, FWR 1965. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. HMSO, London, UK.Google Scholar
Burri, M, Wechsler, B, Gygax, L, Weber, R 2009. Influence of straw length, sow behaviour and room temperature on the incidence of dangerous situations for piglets in a loose farrowing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callesen, J, Halas, D, Thorup, F, Bach Knudsen, KE, Kim, JC, Mullan, BP, Wilson, RH, Pluske, JR 2007. The influence of nutritional and management factors on piglet weight gain to weaning in a commercial herd in Denmark. Livestock Science 108, 117–119.Google Scholar
Castrén, H, Algers, B, de Passillé, A-M, Rushen, J, Uvnäs-Moberg, K 1993a. Preparturient variation in progesterone, prolactin, oxytocin and somatostatin in relation to nest building in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38, 91–102.Google Scholar
Castrén, H, Algers, B, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Uvnäs-Moberg, K 1993b. Early milk ejection, prolonged parturition and periparturient oxytocin release in the pig. Animal Production 57, 465–471.Google Scholar
Clark, M 1985. Farrowing pen floor abrasiveness measured using a rubber-block drag test. Farm Building Progress 80, 29–32.Google Scholar
Council of Europe 2001. Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities L316, 1–3. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_316/l_31620011201en00010004.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cranwell, PD 1995. Development of the Neonatal Gut. In The neonatal pig development and survival (ed. MA Varley), pp. 99–154. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Vanamerongen, G 1991. The effects of modifying the farrowing environment on sow behavior and survival and growth of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle 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
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, Barnett, JL, Hodge, FM, Smith, JA, McCallum, TH 1991. The welfare of pigs in 2 farrowing lactation environments – cortisol responses of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, SE, Hurst, RJ, Gonyou, HW, Jensen, AH, Muehling, AJ 1989. The physical space requirement of the sow. Journal of Animal Science 67, 1242–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB 2005. Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daan, S, Tinbergen, JM 1997. Adaptation of life histories. In Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (ed. JR Krebs and NB Davis), pp. 311–333. Wiley-Blackwell, UK.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Pedersen, LJ 2000. Eliminative behaviour in preparturient gilts previously kept in pens or stalls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science 50, 316–320.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Forkman, B, Pedersen, LJ 2005. Lying down and rolling behaviour in sows in relation to piglet crushing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 3–20.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Vestergaard, KS, Schröder-Petersen, DL, Ladewig, J 2000. The effects of branches on prepartum nest building in gilts with access to straw. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 113–124.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Pedersen, LJ, Marchant-Forde, JN, Gilbert, CL 2003. Does feed-back from a nest affect periparturient behaviour, heart rate and circulatory cortisol and oxytocin in gilts? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 55–76.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Bildsøe, M, Gilbert, C, Ladewig, J, Vestergaard, KS 2002. The effects of confinement on periparturient behaviour and circulating prolactin, prostaglandin F2[alpha] and oxytocin in gilts with access to a variety of nest materials. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 135–156.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Moustsen, V, Jørgensen, E, Pedersen, LJ, Heiskanen, T, Forkman, BR 2006. Sow preferences for walls to lean against when lying down. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M 1977. Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Animal Behaviour 25, 1034–1046.Google Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM, Edwards, SA 2002. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 189–202.Google Scholar
Defra publications 2003. Code of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: pigs. Defra publications, Admail 6000, London SW1A 2XX.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, Prelle, IT, van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Blokhuis, HJ, Koolhaas, JM 2000. Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioral responses to novelty, learning, and memory, and the circadian rhythm in cortisol in growing pigs. Physiology & Behavior 68, 571–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jonge, FH, Bokkers, EAM, Schouten, WGP, Helmond, FA 1996. Rearing piglets in a poor environment: developmental aspects of social stress in pigs. Physiology & Behavior 60, 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellmeier, GR, Friend, TH 1991. Behavior and extensive management of domestic sows (Sus-Scrofa) and litters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 29, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dybkjaer, L, Jacobsen, AP, Togersen, FA, Poulsen, HD 2006. Eating and drinking activity of newly weaned piglets: effects of individual characteristics, social mixing, and addition of extra zinc to the feed. Journal of Animal Science 84, 702–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 1996. Designing systems to meet behavioural needs: the family pen system for pigs. In Animal behavior and the design of livestock and poultry systems, pp. 115–125. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, USA.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Lightfoot, AL 1986. The effect of floor type in farrowing pens on pig injury. II. Leg and teat damage of sows. British Veterinary Journal 142, 441–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, SA, Fraser, D 1997. Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. The Pig Journal 39, 77–89.Google Scholar
Ekkel, ED, Spoolder, HAM, Hulsegge, I, Hopster, H 2003. Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 19–30.Google Scholar
Elsley, FWH 1971. Nutrition and lactation in the sow. In Lactation (ed. ED Falconer), pp. 393–411. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
English, PR, Morrison, V 1984. Causes and prevention of piglet mortality. Pig News Information 5, 369–375.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2007. Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets, pp. 1–13. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, EFSA.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record 131, 357.Google Scholar
Foley, CW, Seerley, RW, Hansen, WJ, Curtis, SE 1971. Thermoregulatory responses to cold environment by neonatal wild and domestic piglets. Journal of Animal Science 32, 926–929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frädrich, H 1974. A comparison of behaviour in the Suidae. In The Behavior of Ungulates and its relation to management (ed. V Geist), pp. 133–143. IUCN Publication New Series, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1980. A review of the behavioural mechanism of milk ejection of the domestic pig. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 247–255.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1985. Selection of bedded and unbedded areas by pigs in relation to environmental-temperature and behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furniss, SJ, Edwards, SA, Lightfoot, AL, Spechter, HH 1986. The effect of floor type in farrowing pens on pig injury. 1. Leg and teat damage of suckling piglets. British Veterinary Journal 142, 434–440.Google Scholar
Gaskins, HR, Kelley, KW 1995. Immunology and neonatal mortality. In The neonatal pig: development and survival (ed. MA Varley), pp. 39–56. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Gill, JC, Thomson, W 1956. Observations on the behaviour of suckling pigs. The British Journal of Animal Behaviour 4, 46–51.Google Scholar
Graves, HB 1984. Behavior and ecology of wild and feral swine (Sus Scrofa). Journal of Animal Science 58, 482–492.Google Scholar
Gundlach, H 1968. Brutfürsorge, Brutpflege, Verhaltensontogenese und Tagesperiodik beim Europäischen Wildschwein Sus Scrofa L (translation: maternal care, ontogony of behaviour and daily periodicity in European wild boars, Sus Scrofa L). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 25, 955–995.Google Scholar
Hafez, ESE, Sumption, LJ, Jakway, JS 1962. The behaviour of swine. In The behavior of domestic animals (ed. ESE Hafez), pp. 334–369. The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, USA.Google Scholar
Halverson, M, Honeyman, MS, Adams, M 1997. Swedish deep-bedded group nursing systems for feeder pig production. Swine system options for Iowa. Extension Publication p. 12 Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Hamilton, WD 1964a. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, WD 1964b. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 17–52.Google Scholar
Haskell, MJ, Hutson, GD 1994. Factors affecting the choice of farrowing site in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herpin, P, Le Dividich, J, Vanos, M 1992. Contribution of colostral fat to thermogenesis and glucose-homeostasis in the newborn pig. Journal of Developmental Physiology 17, 133–141.Google Scholar
Herpin, P, Damon, M, Le Dividich, J 2002. Development of thermoregulation and neonatal survival in pigs. Livestock Production Science 78, 25–45.Google Scholar
Hessel, EF, Reiners, K, Van den Weghe, HFA 2006. Socializing piglets before weaning: effects on behavior of lactating sows, pre- and postweaning behavior, and performance of piglets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2847–2855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horrell, I, Hodgson, J 1992. The bases of sow-piglet identification. 1. The identification by sows of their own piglets and the presence of intruders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO, Black, AJ 1973. The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science 14, 615–619.Google Scholar
Hughes, BO, Duncan, IJH 1988. Behavioural needs: can they be explained in terms of motivational models? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19, 352–355.Google Scholar
Hunt, K, Petchey, AM 1987. A study of the environmental preferences of sows around farrowing. Farm Building Progress 89, 11–14.Google Scholar
Hutson, GD 1988. Do sows need straw for nest-building? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28, 187–194.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Calvert, SK, Stevenson, J, van Leeuwen, N, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, Mclean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Calvert, SK 1997. The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, beta-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 65, 465–472.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, Mclean, KA, Chirnside, J, Deans, LA, Calvert, SK 1998. The effect of environment on plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin in the parturient pig and the involvement of endogenous opioids. Animal Reproduction Science 52, 139–151.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Mclean, KA, Calvert, SK, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Lawrence, AB 1999. The responsiveness of sows to their piglets in relation to the length of parturition and the involvement of endogenous opioids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, van der 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
Jensen, P 1982. An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows – aggression regulation through an ‘avoidance order’. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1984. Effects of confinement on social interaction patterns in dry sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1993. Nest building in domestic sows: the role of external stimuli. Animal Behaviour 45, 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 2002. Behaviour of pigs. In The ethology of domestic animals (ed. P Jensen), pp. 159–172. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Jensen, P, Redbo, I 1987. Behaviour during nest leaving in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Recén, B 1989. When to wean – observations from free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 49–60.Google Scholar
Jensen, P, Toates, FM 1993. Who needs ‘behavioural needs’? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Gustafsson, M 1997. Towards a functional view on domestication. In Proceedings of 31st International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, pp. 43–44. Prague, Polygravia SAV, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Jeppesen, LE 1981. An artificial sow to investigate the behaviour of sucking piglets. Applied Animal Ethology 7, 359–367.Google Scholar
Jeppesen, LE 1982. Teat-order in groups of piglets reared on an artificial sow. II. Maintenance of teat-order with some evidence for the use of odour cues. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AK, Marchant-Forde, JN 2009. Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In The welfare of pigs (ed. JN Marchant-Forde), pp. 141–188. Springer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kelly, HRC, Bruce, JM, English, PR, Fowler, VR, Edwards, SA 2000. Behaviour of 3-week weaned pigs in straw-flow, deep straw and flatdeck housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, SGC, Wood-Gush, DGM, Moser, H, Whittemore, CT 1988. Enrichment of the production environment and the enhancement of welfare through the use of the Edinburgh family pen system of pig production. Research and Development in Agriculture 5, 171–186.Google Scholar
Kuller, WI, Tobias, TJ, van Nes, A 2010. Creep feed intake in unweaned piglets is increased by exploration stimulating feeder. Livestock Science 129, 228–231.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, Mclean, K, Gilbert, CL, Chapman, C, Russell, JA 1992. Naloxone prevents interruption of parturition and increases plasma oxytocin following environmental disturbance in parturient sows. Physiology & Behavior 52, 917–923.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, Mclean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E, Terlouw, EMC 1994. The effect of environment on behavior, plasma-cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 313–330.Google Scholar
Lay, DCJ, Haussmann, MF, Buchanan, HS, Daniels, MJ 1999. Danger to pigs due to crushing can be reduced by the use of a simulated udder. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2060–2064.Google Scholar
Le Dividich, J, Rooke, JA, Herpin, P 2005. Nutritional and immunological importance of colostrum for the new-born pig. The Journal of Agricultural Science 143, 469–485.Google Scholar
Lent, PC 1974. Mother-infant relationships in ungulates. In The behaviour of ungulates and its relationship to management (ed. V Geist and F Walther), pp. 14–55. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Lewis, NJ, Hurnik, JF 1985. The development of nursing behaviour in swine. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 225–232.Google Scholar
Lewis, E, Boyle, LA, O’Doherty, JV, Brophy, P, Lynch, PB 2005. The effect of floor type in farrowing crates on piglet welfare. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 69–81.Google Scholar
Lou, ZS, Hurnik, JF 1994. An ellipsoid farrowing crate – its ergonomic design and effects on pig productivity. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2610–2616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, AA 2000. Comparative anatomy, physiology and ecology of pregnancy and lactation in wild pigs: a review. In Zoo animal nutrition (ed. J Nijboer, JM Hatt, W Kaumans and U Ganslober), pp. 213–236. Filander, Furth.Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Palme, R 2008. Periparturient nest building: Implications for parturition, kit survival, maternal stress and behaviour in farmed mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 270–283.Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Damgaard, BM, Pedersen, LJ, Jørgensen, E, Thodberg, K, Chaloupková, H, Bruckmaier, RM 2009. Effects of thermal environment on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hormones, oxytocin, and behavioral activity in periparturient sows. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2796–2805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM, 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, Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.Google Scholar
Mckee, CI, Dumelow, J 1995. A review of the factors involved in developing effective non-slip floors for pigs. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 60, 35–42.Google Scholar
Mitchell, CD, Smith, WJ 1978. Piglet foot dimensions for design of slotted floors. Farm Buildings Progress 51, 7–9.Google Scholar
Morrow-Tesch, J, McGlone, JJ 1990. Sources of maternal odors and the development of odor preferences in baby pigs. Journal of Animal Science 68, 3563–3571.Google Scholar
Mount, LE 1967. The heat loss from new-born pigs to the floor. Research in Veterinary Science 8, 175–186.Google Scholar
Mount, LE 1968. The climatic physiology of the pig. Edward Arnold, London, UK.Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Poulsen, HL 2004a. Anbefalinger vedr. dimensioner på fareboks og kassesti. Landsudvalget fur Svin, Danske Slagterier, Faglig Publikation 0414.Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Poulsen, HL 2004b. Pattegrise dimensioner. Landsudvalget fur Svin, Danske Slagterier, Faglig Publikation 0432.Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Poulsen, HD, Nielsen, MBF 2004. Krydsningssøer dimensioner. Landsudvalget fur Svin, Danske Slagterier, Faglig Publikation 649.Google Scholar
Mouttotou, N, Green, LE 1999. Incidence of foot and skin lesions in nursing piglets and their association with behavioural activities. Veterinary Record 145, 160–165.Google Scholar
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, FM, Green, LE 1999. The prevalence and risk factors associated with forelimb skin abrasions and sole bruising in preweaning piglets. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 39, 231–245.Google Scholar
Newberry, RC, Swanson, JC 2008. Implications of breaking mother-young social bonds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 3–23.Google Scholar
Noblet, J, Le Dividich, J 1981. Energy-metabolism of the newborn pig during the 1st 24-h of life. Biology of the Neonate 40, 175–182.Google Scholar
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A, Halli, O, Peltoniemi, OAT 2006. Duration of farrowing is longer in sows housed in farrowing crates than in pens. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41, 367–367.Google Scholar
Olsson, ACh, Svendsen, J 1997. The importance of familiarity when grouping gilts, and the effect of frequent grouping during gestation. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 27, 33–43.Google Scholar
Pajor, EA 1998. Parent–offspring conflict and its implications for maternal housing systems in domestic pigs. PhD, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pajor, EA, Weary, DM, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 1999. Alternative housing for sows and litters: 1. Effects of sow-controlled housing on responses to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 105–121.Google Scholar
Parfet, KA, Gonyou, HW 1991. Attraction of newborn piglets to auditory, visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli. Journal of Animal Science 69, 125–133.Google Scholar
Parratt, CA, Chapman, KJ, Turner, C, Jones, PH, Mendl, MT, Miller, BG 2006. The fighting behaviour of piglets mixed before and after weaning in the presence or absence of a sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 54–67.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Malmkvist, J, Jørgensen, E 2007. The use of a heated floor area by sows and piglets in farrowing pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 1–11.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Studnitz, M, Jensen, KH, Giersing, AM 1998. Suckling behaviour of piglets in relation to accessibility to the sow and the presence of foreign litters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 267–279.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Damm, BI, Marchant-Forde, JN, Jensen, KH 2003. Effects of feed-back from the nest on maternal responsiveness and postural changes in primiparous sows during the first 24 h after farrowing onset. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Holm, L, Jensen, MB, Jørgensen, E 2005. The strength of pigs’ preferences for different rooting materials measured using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Jorgensen, 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.Google Scholar
Petersen, V 1994. The development of feeding and investigatory behaviour in free-ranging domestic pigs during their first 18 weeks of life. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, HV, Vestergaard, K, Jensen, P 1989. Integration of piglets into social groups of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC 1983a. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. SH Baxter, MR Baxter and JAD MacCormack), pp. 103–121. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Petherick, JC 1983b. A note on the space use for excretory behaviour of suckling piglets. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 367–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D 1991. Discovery of selected water dispensers by newborn piglets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71, 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D 2001. Modifying water nipples for newborn piglets. Canadian Biosystems Engineering 43, 5.1–5.4.Google Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D, Thompson, BK 1991. Preference by sows for a partially enclosed farrowing crate. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 35–43.Google Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D, Thompson, BK 1992. Sow preference for farrowing-crate width. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72, 745–750.Google Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D, Pawluczuk, B 2000. Floor temperature preference of sows at farrowing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pluske, JR, Williams, IH, Aherne, FX 1995. Nutrition of the neonatal pig. In The neonatal pig development and survival (ed. MA Varley), pp. 187–235. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Puppe, B, Schön, PC, Tuchscherer, A, Manteuffel, G 2003. The influence of domestic piglets’ (Sus scrofa) age and test experience on the preference for the replayed maternal nursing vocalisation in a modified open-field test. Acta Ethologica 5, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quesnel, H, Prunier, A 1995. Endocrine bases of lactational anoestrus in the sow. Reproduction Nutrition Development 35, 395–414.Google Scholar
Randall, JM, Armsby, AW, Sharp, JR 1983. Cooling gradients across pens in a finishing piggery. 2. Effects on excretory behavior. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 28, 247–259.Google 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
Robertson, AM, Alliston, JC, Bruce, AI 1972. Dimensions of individual pens for dry and in-pig sows. Farm Building Progress 29, 29–36.Google Scholar
Roehe, R, Kalm, E 2000. Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70, 227–240.Google Scholar
Rooke, JA, Bland, IM 2002. The acquisition of passive immunity in the new-born piglet. Livestock Production Science 78, 13–23.Google Scholar
Schmidt, I, Herpin, P 1998. Carnitine palmitoyltransferase I (CPT I) activity and its regulation by malonyl-CoA are modulated by age and cold exposure in skeletal muscle mitochondria from newborn pigs. Journal of Nutrition 128, 886–893.Google Scholar
Schouten, WGP 1987. Effects of rearing conditions on the behavior of gilts around farrowing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 367–367.Google Scholar
Signoret, JP, Baldwin, BA, Fraser, D, Hafez, ESE 1975. The behaviour of swine. In The behaviour of domestic animals (ed. ESE Hafez), pp. 349–389. Baillière Tindall and Cassell, London, UK.Google Scholar
Silva, BAN, Oliveira, RFM, Donzele, JL, Fernandes, HC, Abreu, MLT, Noblet, J, Nunes, CGV 2006. Effect of floor cooling on performance of lactating sows during summer. Livestock Science 105, 176–184.Google Scholar
Stangel, G, Jensen, P 1991. Behaviour of semi-naturally kept sows and piglets (except suckling) during 10 days postpartum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 211–227.Google Scholar
Stansbury, WF, McGlone, JJ, Tribble, LF 1987. Effects of season, floor type, air temperature and snout coolers on sow and litter performance. Journal of Animal Science 65, 1507–1513.Google Scholar
Stolba, A, Wood-Gush, DGM 1980. Arousal and exploration in growing pigs in different environments. Proceedings Conference SVE, Applied Animal Ethology 6, 382–383.Google Scholar
Stolba, A, Wood-Gush, DGM 1981. The assessment of behavioural needs of pigs under free-range and confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 7, 388–389.Google Scholar
Stolba, A, Wood-Gush, DGM 1984. The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales De Recherches Veterinaires 15, 287–299.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH, Herskin, MS 2002. Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 21–42.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH, Herskin, MS, Jørgensen, E 1999. Influence of environmental stimuli on nest building and farrowing behaviour in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 131–144.Google Scholar
Trivers, RL 1974. Parent-offspring conflict. Integrative and Comparative Biology 14, 249–264.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Rundgren, M, Špinka, M, Saloniemi, H, Rydhmer, L, Hultén, F, Uvnäs-Moberg, K, Tománek, M, Krejcí, P, Algers, B 2003. Metabolic state of the sow, nursing behaviour and milk production. Livestock Production Science 79, 155–167.Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ, Edwards, SA 2003. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Wagenberg, AV, van der Peet-Schwering, C, Binnendijk, GP, Claessen, PJPW 2006. Effect of floor cooling on farrowing sow and litter performance: field experiment under Dutch conditions. Transactions of the ASABE 49, 1521–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasdal, G, Møgedal, I, Bøe, KE, Kirkden, R, Andersen, IL 2010. Piglet preference for infrared temperature and flooring. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122, 92–97.Google Scholar
Vellenga, L, Vanveen, HM, Hoogerbrugge, A 1983. Mortality, morbidity, and external injuries in piglets housed in 2 different housing systems. 1. Farrowing house. Veterinary Quarterly 5, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walser, EES 1986. Recognition of the sow’s voice by neonatal piglets. Behaviour 99, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waran, NK, Broom, DM 1993. The influence of a barrier on the behavior and growth of early-weaned piglets. Animal Production 56, 115–119.Google Scholar
Wathes, C, Whittemore, CT 2006. Environmental management of pigs. In Whittemore’s science and practice of pig production (ed. I Kyriazakis and CT Whittemore), pp. 533–592. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Wattanakul, W, Bulman, CA, Edge, HL, Edwards, SA 2005. The effect of creep feed presentation method on feeding behaviour, intake and performance of suckling piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 27–36.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Jasper, J, Hotzel, MJ 2008. Understanding weaning distress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 24–41.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R, Keli, N, 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
Wechsler, B, Hegglin, D 1997. Individual differences in the behaviour of sows at the nest-site and the crushing of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51, 39–49.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B, Weber, R 2007. Loose farrowing systems: challenges and solutions. Animal Welfare 16, 295–307.Google Scholar
Welch, AR, Baxter, MR 1986. Responses of newborn piglets to thermal and tactile properties of their environment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 203–215.Google Scholar
Whatson, TS 1978. The development of dunging preferences in piglets. Applied Animal Ethology 4, 293.Google Scholar
Whittemore, CT, Kyriazakis, I 2006. Growth and body composition changes in pigs. In Whittemore’s science and practice of pig production (ed. I Kyriazakis and CT Whittemore), pp. 65–103. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widowski, TM, Curtis, SE 1990. The influence of straw, cloth tassel or both on the prepartum behavior of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27, 53–71.Google Scholar
Widowski, TM, Curtis, SE, Dziuk, PJ, Wagner, WC, Sherwood, OD 1990. Behavioral and endocrine responses of sows to prostaglandin F2 alpha and cloprostenol. Biology of Reproduction 43, 290–297.Google Scholar
Wiepkema, PR 1986. Remarks on the behaviour of wild boar. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 179–180.Google Scholar
Wischner, D, Kemper, N, Krieter, J 2009. Nest-building behaviour in sows and consequences for pig husbandry. Livestock Science 124, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, RJ, Wang, F, Zhang, SH 2000. Postnatal adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract in neonatal pigs: a possible role of milk-borne growth factors. Livestock Production Science 66, 95–107.Google Scholar
Zanella, AJ, Zanella, EL 1993. Nesting material used by free-range sows in Brazil. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Meeting of the International Congress on Applied Ethology (ed. M Nichelmann, HK Wierenga and S Braun), p. 411. KTBL, Berlin, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Zoric, M, Nilsson, E, Lundeheim, N, Wallgren, P 2009. Incidence of lameness and abrasions in piglets in identical farrowing pens with four different types of floor. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51, 23.Google Scholar
Zoric, M, Nilsson, E, Mattsson, S, Lundeheim, N, Wallgren, P 2008. Abrasions and lameness in piglets born in different farrowing systems with different types of floor. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 37.Google Scholar
Ziron, M, Hoy, S 2003. Effect of a warm and flexible piglet nest heating system – the warm water bed – on piglet behaviour, live weight management and skin lesions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 9–18.Google Scholar