Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:53:41.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Higher light intensity and mat temperature attract piglets to creep areas in farrowing pens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2019

G. M. Morello Open the ORCID record for G. M. Morello [Opens in a new window] ,
J. N. Marchant-Forde Open the ORCID record for J. N. Marchant-Forde [Opens in a new window] ,
G. M. Cronin Open the ORCID record for G. M. Cronin [Opens in a new window] ,
R. S. Morrison  and
J.-L. Rault Open the ORCID record for J.-L. Rault [Opens in a new window]
G. M. Morello*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC3010, Australia
J. N. Marchant-Forde
Affiliation:
Livestock Behavior Research Unit, USDA-ARS, 270 S. Russell Street, West Lafayette, IN47907, USAc
G. M. Cronin
Affiliation:
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW2570, Australia
R. S. Morrison
Affiliation:
Rivalea Australia, Corowa, NSW2646, Australia
J.-L. Rault
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC3010, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Loose farrowing pens have been considered as alternatives to crates to enhance sow welfare. A major concern with pen systems is often higher piglet pre-weaning mortality, especially due to crushing by the sow. An optimal management of light and mat surface temperature may promote greater piglet use of the creep, which has been associated with reduced piglet crushing. A total of 108 sows and their piglets were studied in sow welfare and piglet protection pens on a commercial piggery, across two replicates. Sows were randomly assigned to pens arranged within two creep treatments (bright creep: 300 lx v. dark creep: 4 lx), considering mat temperature as a covariate. Twelve sows and their litters in each treatment (24 in total) had their behaviour continuously recorded for 72-h postpartum (pp), and four focal piglets per litter were weighed on the first and third days pp. In situ behaviour observations were performed daily (from 0800 to 1700 h) on all sows and their litters, every 15 min over 72-h pp to record piglet time spent in the creep, latency to enter the creep for the first time, latency for the litter to remain in the creep for at least 10 min, and piglet and sow use of pen areas immediately in front of (A2) and farthest from the creep (A3). Piglets with access to bright creeps spent on average 7.2% more time (P<0.01) in the creeps than piglets in pens with Dark creeps. In addition, for each degree increase in mat temperature, piglets spent on average 2.1% more time (P<0.01) in the creep. Piglets in pens with bright creeps spent less time in A2 (P=0.04) and the least time in A3 (P=0.01). Light or mat temperature did not affect sow use of pen areas or piglet weight gain. Piglets with bright creeps tended (P=0.06) to take longer to enter the creep for the first time after birth, but the latency for 30.0% of the litter to remain clustered for 10 min tended (P=0.08) to be shorter in bright compared to dark creeps. Overall, piglet use of the creep increased with warm mat temperatures and brightness, which should be further investigated as potential strategies to promote piglet safety and reduce crushing in pen farrowing systems.

Keywords

welfarecrushingloose farrowingluminositythermal environment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 8 , August 2019 , pp. 1696 - 1703
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Institute for Research and Innovation in Health, University of Porto, 208 Alfredo Allen St., Porto 4700-135, Portugal.

b

Present address: Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.

c

Mention of any trade name, proprietary product or specific equipment does not constitute a guarantee or warranty by USDA-ARS and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable. The USDA-ARS is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer and all agency services are available without discrimination.

References

Andersen, IL, Berg, S and 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
Andersen, IL, Nævdal, E and Bøe, KE 2011. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 1159–1167.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Robson, SK, Ormandy, E, Farish, M, Smurthwaite, KM, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2009. Indicators of piglet survival in an outdoor farrowing system. Livestock Science 124, 266–276.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJ and 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
Bozděchová, B, Illmann, G, Andersen, IL, Haman, J and Ehrlenbruch, R 2014. Litter competition during nursings and its effect on sow response on day 2 postpartum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 150, 9–16.Google Scholar
Brown-Brandl, TM, Nienaber, JA, Xin, H and Gates, RS 2004. A literature review of swine heat production. Transactions of the ASAE 47, 259–270.Google Scholar
Burri, M, Wechsler, B, Gygax, L and 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.Google Scholar
Gu, Z, Gao, Y, Lin, B, Zhong, Z, Liu, Z, Wang, C and Li, B 2011. Impacts of a freedom farrowing pen design on sow behaviours and performance. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 102, 296–303.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2015. Temporary confinement of loose-housed hyperprolific sows reduces piglet mortality. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4079–4088.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2016. The effect of temporary confinement of hyperprolific sows in sow welfare and piglet protection pens on sow behaviour and salivary cortisol concentrations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 183, 19–27.Google Scholar
Hoy, S, Lutter, C, Puppe, B and Wähner, M 1995. Correlations between the vitality of newborn piglets, teat order, mortality, and live weight development up to weaning. Berliner und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 108, 224–228.Google Scholar
Hrupka, BJ, Leibbrandt, VD, Crenshaw, TD and Benevenga, NJ 1998. The effect of farrowing crate heat lamp location on sow and pig patterns of lying and pig survival. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2995–3002.Google Scholar
Kilbride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Cooper, S and Green, LE 2012. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 281–291.Google Scholar
Larsen, MLV and Pedersen, LJ 2015. Does light attract piglets to the creep area? Animal 9, 1032–1037.Google Scholar
Li, Y, Johnston, L and Hilbrands, A 2009. Pre-weaning mortality of piglets in a bedded group-farrowing system. Journal of Swine Health Production 18, 75–80.Google Scholar
Lou, Z and Hurnik, JF 1994. An ellipsoid farrowing crate: its ergonomical design and effects on pig productivity. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2610–2616.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM and 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
McGlone, JJ and Morrow-tesch, J 1990. Productivity and behavior of sows in level vs. sloped farrowing pens and crates. Journal of Animal Science 68, 82–87.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Stansbury, WF, Tribble, LF and Morrow, JL 1988. Photoperiod and heat stress influence on lactating sow performance and photoperiod effects on nursery pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 66, 1915–1919.Google Scholar
Morello, GM 2015. Investigating piglet crushing by the sow: a data mining approach. PhD thesis, Purdue Univeristy, West Lafayette, IN, USA.Google Scholar
Morrow-tesch, J and Mcglone, JJ 1990. Sources of maternal odors and the development of odor preferences in baby pigs. Journal Animal Science 68, 3563–3571.Google Scholar
Parfet, KAR and Gonyou, HW 1991. Attraction of newborn piglets to auditory, visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli. Journal of Animal Science 69, 125–133.Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Dourmad, JY and Etienne, M 1994. Effect of light regimen under various ambient temperatures on sow and litter performance. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1461–1466.Google Scholar
Schormann, R and Hoy, S 2006. Effects of room and nest temperature on the preferred lying place of piglets – a brief note. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 369–374.Google Scholar
Stevenson, JS, Pollmann, DS, Davis, DL and Murphy, JP 1983. Influence of supplemental light on sow performance during and after lactation. Journal of Animal Science 56, 1282–1286.Google Scholar
Tanida, H, Miura, A, Tanaka, T and Yoshimoto, T 1996. Behavioral responses of piglets to darkness and shadows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 173–183.Google Scholar
Taylor, N, Prescott, N, Perry, G, Potter, M, Le Suerur, C and Wathes, C 2006. Preference of growing pigs for illuminance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 19–31.Google Scholar
Vasdal, G, Møgedal, I, Bøe, K, Kirkden, R, and Andersen, IL 2010. Piglet preference for infrared temperature and flooring. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122, 92–97.Google Scholar
Vasdal, G, Østensen, I, Melišová, M, Bozděchová, B, Illmann, G and Andersen, IL 2011. Management routines at the time of farrowing – effects on teat success and postnatal piglet mortality from loose housed sows. Livestock Science 136, 225–231.Google Scholar
Xin, H and Zhang, Q 1999. Preference for lamp or mat heat by piglets at cool and warm ambient temperatures with low to high drafts. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 15, 547–551.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q and Xin, H 2000a. Modeling heat mat operation for piglet creep heating. Transactions of the ASAE 43, 1261–1267.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q and Xin, H 2000b. Static and dynamic temperature distribution of heat mats for swine farrowing creep heating. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 16, 563–569.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q and Xin, H 2001. Responses of piglets to creep heat type. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 17, 515–519.Google Scholar