Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:01:53.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do nurse sows and foster litters have impaired animal welfare? Results from a cross-sectional study in sow herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2015

J. T. Sørensen ,
T. Rousing ,
A. B. Kudahl ,
H. J. Hansted  and
L. J. Pedersen
J. T. Sørensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK8830, Tjele, Denmark
T. Rousing
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK8830, Tjele, Denmark
A. B. Kudahl
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK8830, Tjele, Denmark
H. J. Hansted
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK8830, Tjele, Denmark
L. J. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK8830, Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Increasing litter size has led to introduction of so-called nurse sows in several EU countries. A nurse sow is a sow receiving piglets after having weaned her own piglets and thereby experiencing an extended lactation. In order to analyse whether nurse sows have more welfare problems than non-nurse sows a cross-sectional study was conducted in 57 sow herds in Denmark. Clinical observations were made on nurse and non-nurse sows and their litters. The clinical observations were dichotomized and the effect of being a nurse sow was analysed based on eight parameters: thin (body condition score<2.5), swollen bursae on legs, dew claw wounds, vulva lesions, poor hygiene, poor skin condition, shoulder lesions and cuts and wounds on the udder. Explanatory variables included in the eight models were: nurse sow (yes=1/no=0), age of piglets (weeks old, 1 to 7), parity (1 to 8+) and all first order interactions between these three variables. The effect of using nurse sows on piglet welfare was analysed with five models. The outcomes were: huddling, poor hygiene, lameness, snout cuts and carpal abrasions. The explanatory variables included in the five models were: nurse sow (yes=1/no=0), age of piglets (weeks old, 1 to 7), parity (1 to 8+) and all first order interactions between these three variables. Herd identity was included as a random factor in all models. The nurse sows had a significantly higher risk of swollen bursae on legs (P=0.038) and udder wounds (P=0.001). No differences in risk of being thin or having shoulder lesions were found. Foster litters had significantly higher risk of being dirty (P=0.026) and getting carpal abrasions (P=0.024) than non-foster litters. There was a tendency for higher lameness in foster litters than in non-foster litters (P=0.052). The results show that nurse sows and their piglets to some extent experience more welfare problems than non-nurse sows with piglets at a similar age.

Keywords

welfarelactating sowspiglets
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , April 2016 , pp. 681 - 686
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous 2015. SAS Institute SAS/STAT® 13.2 user’s guide. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/67523/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_glimmix_overview.htm.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Rutherford, KMD, D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G and Turner, SP 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors. Animal Welfare 22, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Barnett, JL, Hodge, FM, Smith, JA and McCallum, TH 1991. The welfare of pigs in two farrowing/lactation environments: cortisol responses of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 117–127.Google Scholar
European Council Directive 2008. 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. European Council, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Hansted, HJ 2014. Assessing welfare of nursing sows in Denmark. Master thesis Agrobiology, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Arhus University, Denmark, 60pp..Google Scholar
Heim, GA, Mellagi, PG, Bierhals, T, de Souza, LP and de Fries, HCC 2012. Effects of cross-fostering within 24h after birth on pre-weaning behaviour, growth performance and survival rate of biological and adopted piglets. Livestock Science 150, 121–127.Google Scholar
Horrell, I and Bennett, J 1981. Disruption of teat preferences and retardation of growth following cross-fostering of 1-week-old pigs. Animal Production 33, 99–106.Google Scholar
Horrell, RI 1982. Immediate behavioral consequences of fostering 1-week-old piglets. Journal of Agricultural Science 99, 329–336.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB, Robson, SK and Lawrence, AB 2006. The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiology and Behavior 87, 345–352.Google Scholar
Knauer, M, Stalder, KJ, Karriker, L, Baas, TJ, Johnson, C, Serenius, T, Layman, L and McKean, JD 2007. A descriptive survey of lesions from cull sows harvested at two Midwestern US facilities. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 82, 198–212.Google Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2001. The effect of littermate weight on survival, weight gain, and suckling behavior of low-birth-weight piglets in cross-fostered litters. Swine Health and Production 9, 161–166.Google Scholar
Neal, SM and Irvin, KM 1991. The effects of crossfostering pigs on survival and growth. Journal of Animal Science 69, 41–46.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Berg, P, Jørgensen, E, Bonde, MK, Herskin, M, Knage-Rasmussen, KM, Kongsted, AG, Lauridsen, C, Oksbjerg, N, Poulsen, HD, Sorensen, DA, Su, G, Sørensen, MT, Theil, PK, Thodberg, K and Jensen, KH 2010. Pattegrisedødelighed i DK – Muligheder for reduktion af pattegrisedødelighed i Danmark, DanmarksJordbrugsForskning, Denmark DJF-rapport Husdyrbrug nr 86, 77pp.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Jensen, H and Thodberg, K 2008. Cross fostering of piglets in farrowing pens. Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Symposium of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Norway.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Studnitz, M, Jensen, KH and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, EO, Hutson, GD, Price, MI and Borgwardt, R 1994. Fostering in swine as affected by age of offspring. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1697–1701.Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Heinonen, M and Quesnel, H 2010. High physiological demands in intensively raised pigs: impact on health and welfare. Animal 4, 886–898.Google Scholar
Quinn, AJ, Boyle, LA, KilBride, AL and Green, LE 2015. A cross-sectional study on the prevalence and risk factors for foot and limb lesions in piglets on commercial farms in Ireland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 119, 162–171.Google Scholar
Robert, S and Martineau, GP 2001. Effects of repeated cross-fosterings on preweaning behavior and growth performance of piglets and on maternal behavior of sows. Journal of Animal Science 79, 88–93.Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT and Pedersen, LJ 2015. Omfanget af brugen af ammesøer og mulige tiltag til forbedring af deres velfærd, DCA – Nationalt Center for Jordbrug og Fødevarer, Denmark, 6 marts, 10pp.Google Scholar
Spencer, JD, Boyd, RD, Cabrera, R and Allee, GL 2003. Early weaning to reduce tissue mobilization in lactating sows and milk supplementation to enhance pig weaning weight during extreme heat stress. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2041–2052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorup, F 2007. Effect of a sow having functioned as a nurse sow. Report number 793, Dansk Svineproduktion, Denmark. Retrieved May 23, 2015, from http://vsp.lf.dk/Publikationer/kilder/lu-medd/2007/793.aspx.Google Scholar
Zurbrigg, K 2006. Sow shoulder lesions: risk factors and treatment effects on an Ontario farm. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2509–2514.Google Scholar