6 results
Artificial rearing affects the emotional state and reactivity of pigs post-weaning
- O Schmitt, K O’Driscoll, EM Baxter, LA Boye
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 28 / Issue 4 / November 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 433-442
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Artificial rearing involves removing piglets from their mother at seven days of age and feeding them milk replacer until weaning. Early-life rearing conditions can influence piglets’ mental development, as reflected by their emotional state and reactivity. This study compared the post-weaning emotional state and reactivity of pigs which were either sow-reared or artificially reared pre-weaning. Behavioural tests (startle test, novel object test, human-animal relationship test and open door test) were conducted one week post-weaning (weaner 1, 34 [± 0.6] days old), one week after movement to weaner 2 (69 [±1.2] days old) and to finisher (100 [± 1.3] days old) stages. Qualitative Behavioural Assessments (QBA) were conducted on the same days in weaner 2 and finisher stages. QBA descriptors were computed by PCA and all other data were analysed using linear models. Artificially reared pigs were less fearful of human contact in weaner 1 (45.1 [± 8.43] vs 81.3 [± 7.89]%) and finisher (25.8 [± 5.19] vs 45.7 [± 6.00]%) stages; but there was no difference in the other tests. Artificially reared pigs had a higher QBA score (more positive) than sow-reared pigs in weaner 2 (54.49 [± 10.102] vs 17.88 [± 9.94]) but not in finisher (70.71 [± 8.860] vs 52.76 [± 9.735]) stage. In conclusion, artificially reared pigs appeared to have a more positive emotional state transiently post-weaning and a lower fearfulness towards humans, which are likely mediated by their pre-weaning conditions. These data emphasise the need to consider the entire life of the animals to fully evaluate the long-term impacts of a rearing system.
Trough half empty: Pregnant sows are fed under half of their ad libitum intake
- E Read, EM Baxter, M Farish, RB D’Eath
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 29 / Issue 2 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 151-162
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Pregnant (dry) sows (Sus scrofa) are fed a rationed amount of feed to maintain healthy weight and production but this does not satisfy their hunger. This study measured the extent of feed restriction compared to sows’ desired intake. Forty-seven Large White × Landrace sows were housed in small groups with straw bedding and individual feeding stalls. Following three days on a standard ration of 2.5 kg, they were offered 10 kg a day of commercial dry sow feed for three days, split into four 2.5-kg meals a day which enabled individual intakes to be measured. This quantity was effectively ad libitum (maximum daily intake 9.4 kg). Mean (± SEM) intake per day over the three ad libitum days was 5.67 (± 0.24) kg, compared to the 2.5-kg standard ration. The ration thus provides less than half (44.1%) of sows’ desired intake. Behaviour on their third rationed day was compared with behaviour on the third day of ad libitum. Eating rate and the display of hunger-related behaviours, particularly following the morning feed, was greater under ration feeding; sows spent more time in the food stall and less in the straw bed, and more time active rather than resting. During ration-feeding sows also chewed and nosed more at straw bedding and pen equipment and used the drinker more after their morning meal than when they were fed ad libitum. Eating rate on the last rationed day was positively correlated with feed intake on each of the ad libitum days. Despite an EU requirement for fibre to be added to diets to ameliorate this problem, and the provision of straw bedding, hunger resulting from food restriction remains a welfare concern for dry sows.
Economic evaluation of high welfare indoor farrowing systems for pigs
- JH Guy, PJ Cain, YM Seddon, EM Baxter, SA Edwards
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 21 / Issue S1 / May 2012
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 19-24
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
New livestock housing systems designed to improve animal welfare will only see large-scale commercial adoption if they improve profitability, or are at least cost neutral to the farm business. Economic evaluation of new system developments is therefore essential to determine their effect on cost of production and hence the extent of any market premium necessary to stimulate adoption. This paper describes such an evaluation in relation to high welfare farrowing systems for sows where any potential system needs to reconcile the behavioural needs of the sow with piglet survivability, acceptable capital and running costs, farm practicality and ease of management. In the Defra-sponsored PigSAFE project, a new farrowing system has been developed which comprises a loose, straw-bedded pen with embedded design features which promote piglet survival. Data on this and four other farrowing systems (new systems: 360° Farrower and a Danish pen; existing systems: crate and outdoor paddock) were used to populate a model of production cost taking account of both capital and running costs (feed, labour, bedding etc). Assuming equitable pig performance across all indoor farrowing systems, the model estimated a higher production cost for non-crate systems by 1.6, 1.7 and 3.5%, respectively, for 360° Farrower, Danish and PigSAFE systems on a per-sow basis. The outdoor production system had the lowest production cost. An online survey of pig producers confirmed that, whilst some producers would consider installing a non-crate system, the majority of producers remain cautious about considering alternatives to the farrowing crate. If pig performance in alternative indoor systems could be improved from the crate baseline (eg through reduced piglet mortality, improved weaning weight or sow re-breeding), then the differential cost of production could be reduced. Indeed, with further innovation by pig producers, management of alternative farrowing systems may evolve to a point where there can be improvements in both welfare and pig production. However, larger data sets of alternative systems on commercial farms will be needed to explore fully the welfare/production interface before such a relationship can be confirmed for those pig producers who will be replacing their units in the next ten years.
The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors
- KMD Rutherford, EM Baxter, RB D’Eath, SP Turner, G Arnott, R Roehe, B Ask, P SandØe, VA Moustsen, F Thorup, SA Edwards, P Berg, AB Lawrence
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 22 / Issue 2 / May 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 199-218
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Increasing litter size has long been a goal of pig breeders and producers, and may have implications for pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) welfare. This paper reviews the scientific evidence on biological factors affecting sow and piglet welfare in relation to large litter size. It is concluded that, in a number of ways, large litter size is a risk factor for decreased animal welfare in pig production. Increased litter size is associated with increased piglet mortality, which is likely to be associated with significant negative animal welfare impacts. In surviving piglets, many of the causes of mortality can also occur in non-lethal forms that cause suffering. Intense teat competition may increase the likelihood that some piglets do not gain adequate access to milk, causing starvation in the short term and possibly long-term detriments to health. Also, increased litter size leads to more piglets with low birth weight which is associated with a variety of negative long-term effects. Finally, increased production pressure placed on sows bearing large litters may produce health and welfare concerns for the sow. However, possible biological approaches to mitigating health and welfare issues associated with large litters are being implemented. An important mitigation strategy is genetic selection encompassing traits that promote piglet survival, vitality and growth. Sow nutrition and the minimisation of stress during gestation could also contribute to improving outcomes in terms of piglet welfare. Awareness of the possible negative welfare consequences of large litter size in pigs should lead to further active measures being taken to mitigate the mentioned effects.
The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors
- EM Baxter, KMD Rutherford, RB D’Eath, G Arnott, SP Turner, P SandØe, VA Moustsen, F Thorup, SA Edwards, AB Lawrence
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 22 / Issue 2 / May 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 219-238
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Increasing litter size has long been a goal of pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) breeders and producers in many countries. Whilst this has economic and environmental benefits for the pig industry, there are also implications for pig welfare. Certain management interventions are used when litter size routinely exceeds the ability of individual sows to successfully rear all the piglets (ie viable piglets outnumber functional teats). Such interventions include: tooth reduction; split suckling; cross-fostering; use of nurse sow systems and early weaning, including split weaning; and use of artificial rearing systems. These practices raise welfare questions for both the piglets and sow and are described and discussed in this review. In addition, possible management approaches which might mitigate health and welfare issues associated with large litters are identified. These include early intervention to provide increased care for vulnerable neonates and improvements to farrowing accommodation to mitigate negative effects, particularly for nurse sows. An important concept is that management at all stages of the reproductive cycle, not simply in the farrowing accommodation, can impact on piglet outcomes. For example, poor stockhandling at earlier stages of the reproductive cycle can create fearful animals with increased likelihood of showing poor maternal behaviour. Benefits of good sow and litter management, including positive human-animal relationships, are discussed. Such practices apply to all production situations, not just those involving large litters. However, given that interventions for large litters involve increased handling of piglets and increased interaction with sows, there are likely to be even greater benefits for management of hyper-prolific herds.
Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems
- B Vosough Ahmadi, AW Stott, EM Baxter, AB Lawrence, SA Edwards
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 20 / Issue 1 / February 2011
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 57-67
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In many countries, including the UK, the majority of domestic sows are housed in farrowing crates during the farrowing and lactation periods. Such systems raise welfare problems due to the close confinement of the sow. Despite the fact that many alternative housing systems have been developed, no commercially viable/feasible option has emerged for large scale units. Current scientific and practical knowledge of farrowing systems were reviewed in this study to identify alternative systems, their welfare and production potential. The aim was to establish acceptable trade-offs between profit and welfare within alternative farrowing systems. Linear programming (LP) was used to examine possible trade-offs and to support the design of welfare-friendly yet commercially viable alternatives. The objective of the LP was to optimise the economic performance of conventional crates, simple pens and designed pens subject to both managerial and animal welfare constraints. Quantitative values for constraints were derived from the literature. The potential effects of each welfare component on productivity were assessed by a group of animal welfare scientists and used in the model. The modelled welfare components (inputs) were extra space, substrate and temperature. Results showed that, when using piglet survival rate in the LP based on data drawn from the literature and incorporating costs of extra inputs in the model, the crates obtained the highest annual net margin and the designed pens and the pens were in second and third place, respectively. The designed pens and the pens were able to improve their annual net margin once alternative reference points, following expert-derived production functions, were used to adjust piglet survival rates in response to extra space, extra substrate and modified pen heating. The non-crate systems then provided higher welfare and higher net margin for sows and piglets than crates, implying the possibility of a win-win situation.