Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:41:07.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sow behaviour and piglet weight gain after late cross-fostering in farrowing crates and pens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2020

R. L. King Open the ORCID record for R. L. King [Opens in a new window] ,
S. M. Matheson ,
E. M. Baxter  and
S. A. Edwards
R. L. King*
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, King's Road, Newcastle upon TyneNE1 7RU, UK
S. M. Matheson
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, King's Road, Newcastle upon TyneNE1 7RU, UK
E. M. Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal & Veterinary Sciences, Scotlandʼs Rural College (SRUC), Peter Wilson Building, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, EdinburghEH9 3JG, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, King's Road, Newcastle upon TyneNE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Determining best practices for managing free farrowing systems is crucial for uptake. Cross-fostering, the exchange of piglets between litters, is routinely performed amongst crate-housed sows. However, cross-fostering can increase fighting amongst the litter and may be more challenging within free farrowing systems as sows have more freedom to respond to cross-fostered piglets. This study compared the effect of either cross-fostering (FOS), or a control of sham-fostering (CON), of four focal piglets per litter on Day 6 postpartum in crates (CRATE) and free farrowing pens (PEN). The post-treatment behavioural responses of sows were recorded (Day 6 = 60 min; Day 7 = 300 min; n = 48), as were the average daily gain (ADG; g/day), total weight gain (TWG; kg) and body lesion scores of focal piglets and their littermates throughout lactation (Day 6, Day 8, Day 11 and Day 26; n = 539) and the post-weaning period (Day 29, Day 32 and Day 60; n = 108). On Day 6, though post-reunion latency to nursing did not differ, latency to successful nursing was longer amongst FOS than CON litters (P < 0.001), more so amongst CRATE FOS than PEN FOS (P < 0.01). On Day 7, PEN FOS sows had fewer successful nursing bouts (P < 0.05) and exhibited decreased lateral (P < 0.01) and increased ventral lying frequencies (P < 0.01) compared to all other housing and treatment combinations. Focal piglet ADG was lower for FOS than CON in the CRATE during Day 6 to Day 8 (P < 0.01) and lower in the PEN during Day 6 to Day 8 (P < 0.001), Day 8 to Day 11 (P < 0.01) and Day 11 to Day 26 (P < 0.05). The TWG of pre-weaned focal piglets (Day 6 to Day 26) was higher amongst CON than FOS litters (P = 0.01). Post-weaning, piglet ADG was higher for PEN than CRATE during Day 26 to Day 29 (P < 0.01) and higher for FOS than CON during Day 26 to Day 29 (P < 0.05), Day 29 to Day 32 (P < 0.001) and Day 32 to Day 60 (P < 0.01); thus, TWG was higher for FOS than CON during the weaner (P = 0.001) and the combined lactation and weaner periods (P = 0.09). In conclusion, sow behaviour was disrupted by cross-fostering in the crates and pens and continued to be disturbed on the following day amongst penned sows. FOS piglets exhibited reduced ADG after cross-fostering, which extended throughout lactation in the pens. However, the increased post-weaning weight gain of FOS piglets meant that their TWG was higher than CON piglets, irrespective of the farrowing system used.

Keywords

piglactation housingaverage daily gainbody lesion scoresweaning
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 9 , September 2020 , pp. 1923 - 1933
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Algers, B and Jensen, P 1991. Teat stimulation and milk production during early lactation in sows: effects of continuous noise. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amdi, C, Moustsen, VA, Oxholm, LC, Baxter, EM, Sørensen, G, Eriksson, KB, Diness, LH, Nielsen, MF and Hansen, CF 2017. Comparable cortisol, heart rate and milk let-down in nurse sows and non-nurse sows. Livestock Science 198, 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, EM, Rutherford, KMD, D'Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Sandøe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA and Lawrence, AB 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors. Animal Welfare 22, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkeveld, M, Langendijk, P, Van Beers-Schreurs, HMG, Koets, AP, Taverne, MAM and Verheijden, JHM 2007. Postweaning growth check in pigs is markedly reduced by intermittent suckling and extended lactation. Journal of Animal Science 85, 258–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calderón Díaz, JA, García Manzanilla, E, Diana, A and Boyle, LA 2018. Cross-fostering implications for pig mortality, welfare and performance. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5, 123.10.3389/fvets.2018.00123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chidgey, KL, Morel, PCH, Stafford, KJ and Barugh, IW 2016. Observations of sows and piglets housed in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 176, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA, Brett, M, Ison, SH, Jack, MC, Seddon, YM and Baxter, EM 2012. Design principles and practical evaluation of the PigSAFE free farrowing pen. In Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium on Porcine Health Management (ESPHM), 25–27 April 2012, Ghent, Belgium, pp. 113.Google Scholar
Giroux, S, Robert, S and Martineau, G-P 2000. The effects of cross-fostering on growth rate and post-weaning behavior of segregated early-weaned piglets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80, 533–538.CrossRefGoogle 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, 296–303.10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.08.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heim, G, Mellagi, APG, Bierhals, T, de Souza, LP, de Fries, HCC, Piuco, P, Seidel, E, Bernardi, ML, Wentz, I and Bortolozzo, FP 2012. Effects of cross-fostering within 24 h after birth on pre-weaning behaviour, growth performance and survival rate of biological and adopted piglets. Livestock Science 150, 121–127.10.1016/j.livsci.2012.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Winfield, CG and Mullaney, PD 1976. A study of the development of the teat order in piglets. Applied Animal Ethology 2, 225–233.10.1016/0304-3762(76)90054-7CrossRefGoogle 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 behavioural consequences of fostering 1-week-old piglets. The Journal of Agricultural Science 99, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huting, AMS, Almond, K, Wellock, I and Kyriazakis, I 2017. What is good for small piglets might not be good for big piglets: the consequences of cross-fostering and creep feed provision on performance to slaughter. Journal of Animal Science 95, 4926–4944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutzer, T, Bü, B, Kjaer, JB and Schrader, L 2009. Effects of early contact between non-littermate piglets and of the complexity of farrowing conditions on social behaviour and weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, G 1963. The “teat order” and communication in young pigs. Animal Behaviour 11, 53–56.10.1016/0003-3472(63)90008-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melotti, L, Oostindjer, M, Bolhuis, JE, Held, S and Mendl, M 2011. Coping personality type and environmental enrichment affect aggression at weaning in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 144–153.10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Jensen, H and Thodberg, K 2008. Cross fostering of piglets in farrowing pens. In Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Symposium of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 16–18 January 2008, Oscarborg, Norway, pp. 18.Google Scholar
Pedersen, ML, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Kristensen, AR 2011. Improved udder access prolongs duration of milk letdown and increases piglet weight gain. Livestock Science 140, 253–261.10.1016/j.livsci.2011.04.001CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robert, S and Martineau, GP 2001. Effects of repeated cross-fosterings on preweaning behavior and growth performance of piglets and on maternal behaviour of sows. Journal of Animal Science 79, 88–93.10.2527/2001.79188xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Straw, BE, Dewey, CE and Burgi, EJ 1998. Patterns of crossfostering and piglet mortality on commercial U.S. and Canadian swine farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 33, 83–89.10.1016/S0167-5877(97)00051-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed