Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:59:18.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the behaviour and performance of sows and piglets in crates and oval pens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R.H. Bradshaw  and
D.M. Broom
R.H. Bradshaw
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES
D.M. Broom
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES
Get access

Abstract

A comparison was made of sow lying behaviour, piglet aggregation behaviour and performance in crates (no. = 10) and oval pens (no. = 8). Twenty-four hour time-lapse video tapes were made and a farrowing day defined for each sow by noting the 24-h period during which the sow gave birth (09:00 to 09:00 h). Each sow and litter, balanced for parity and time of year, was analysed from 12:00 to 20:00 h during the 24 h immediately following this day. The following analyses were conducted: (1) the number and type of lying behaviour; (2) each litter was scanned every 10 min and at each lying event the number of piglets within 0·3 m of the sow noted; two indices were then calculated, based on the mean of the 10-min scans and the mean for the lying events, for each sow expressed as a proportion of the total litter size. Any dead piglets were removed and cause of mortality established by post-mortem examination. Production data showed that there was no significant difference between litter size at birth and at weaning but overall level of mortality was higher in the pen compared with the crate due to crushing. The majority of crushing events occurred in the first 3 days after farrowing (crate 75%; oval pen 64%). The total number of lying events and related posture changes did not differ between systems; only ‘roll-over’ events (movement from lateral on one side to the other within 10 s) were higher in the oval pen. There was no difference in the proportion of aggregating piglets at the 10-min scans or the lying events. Increased crushing mortality in the pen does not appear to be due to the aggregation behaviour of piglets but to the increased number of sow roll-over behaviours.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourfarrowing penspigletssows

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , October 1999 , pp. 327 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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, F.X. 1982. Some management practices affecting the survival and growth rate of suckling pigs. Annual feeders day report, Department of Animal Science, Alberta, no. 61, p. 78.Google Scholar
Arey, D.S. 1995. The family system for pigs — from pig park to production systems. Pig News and Information 16: 123N–126N.Google Scholar
Arey, D.S. 1997. Behavioural observations of periparturient sows and the development of alternative farrowing accommodation: a review. Animal Welfare 6: 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M.R. 1991. The ‘Freedom’ farrowing system. Farm Building Progress 104: 9–15.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J.K., Blackshaw, A.W., Thomas, F.J. and Newman, F.W. 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
Bryant, M.J., Rowlinson, P. and Van der Steen, H.A.M. 1983. A comparison of the nursing and suckling behaviour of group- and individually-housed sows and their litters. Animal Production 36: 445–451.Google Scholar
Collins, E.R. Jr, Kornegay, E.T. and Bonnette, E.D. 1987. The effects of two confinement systems on the performance of nursing sows and their litters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, G.M.; Barnett, J.L. Hodge, F.M., Smith, J.A. and McCallum, T.H. 1991. The welfare of pigs in two farrowing/lactation environments: cortisol responses of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, G.M., Simpson, G.J. and Hemsworth, P.H. 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, G.M. and Smith, J.A. 1992. Effects of accommodation type and straw bedding around parturition and during lactation on the behaviour of primiparous sows and survival and growth of piglets to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danske Slagterier. 1993. Loose nursing sows. Annual report. The National Committee for Pig Breeding, Health and Production. In The Federation of Danish Pig Producers and Slaughterhouses, p. 41.Google Scholar
Edwards, S.A. and Fraser, D. 1997. Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. The Pig Journal 39: 77–89.Google Scholar
English, P.R. and Smith, W.J. 1975. Some causes of death in neonatal piglets. Veterinary Annual 15: 95.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Phillips, P.A. and Thompson, B.K. 1988. Initial test of a farrowing crate with inward-sloping sides. Livestock Production Science 20: 249–256.Google Scholar
Gotz, M. and Troxler, J. 1993. Farrowing and nursing in the group. In Livestock environment IV (ed. Collins, E. and Boon, C.), pp. 159–166. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, USA.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Cox, M. and Barnett, J.L. 1994. Stimulus-generalisation — the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 129–142.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P.H., Price, E.D. and Borgwardt, R. 1996a. Behavioral-responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P.H., Verge, J. and Coleman, G.J. 1996b. Conditioned approach-avoidance responses to humans — the ability of pigs to associate feeding and aversive social experiences in the presence of humans with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 71–82.Google Scholar
Houwers, H.W., Bure, R.G. and Koomans, P. 1992. Behaviour of sows in a free-access farrowing section. Farm Building Progress 109: 9.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A.F., Petherick, J.C., McClean, K.A., Deans, L.A., Chirnside, J., Vaughan, A., Clutton, E. and Terlouw, E.M.C. 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lou, Z. and Hurnik, J.F. 1994. An ellipsoid farrowing crate: its ergonomie design and effects on pig productivity. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2610–2616.Google Scholar
McGlone, J.J. and Blecha, F. 1987. An examination of behavioural immunological and productive traits in four management systems for sows and piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 269–286.Google Scholar
McGlone, J.J. and Morrow-Tesch, J. 1990. Productivity and behaviour of sows in level vs. sloped farrowing pens and crates. journal of Animal Science 68: 82–87.Google Scholar
Mount, L.E. 1972. Environmental physiology in relation to pig production. In Pig production (ed. Cole, D.J.A.), pp. 71–79. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Nielsen, N.C. 1980. Disease monitoring and diagnostic procedures in pig production as an aid in reducing piglet mortality and morbidity. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Association of Swine Practitioners.Google Scholar
Putten, G. van and Burgwal, J.A. van de. 1990. Group-housing systems for farrowing and lactating sows. In Group housing of sows (ed. Carter, V. and Carter, H.). CEC, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Rantzer, D., Svendsen, J. and Westrom, B. 1995. Weaning of pigs raised in sow-controlled and in conventional housing systems. 1. Description of systems, production and bacteriology. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 25: 37–46.Google Scholar
Rudd, A.R., Simmins, P.H., Mendl, M.T. and Malkin, S. 1993. Production comparisons between farrowing crates and community farrowing systems. Animal Production 56: 423 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Schmid, H. 1991. A practicable behaviour specific housing system for farrowing and lactating sows. Proceedings of the international conference on alternatives in animal husbandry, University of Kassel, Germany, vol. 33.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. and Hirt, H. 1993. Species specific behaviour of sows and piglets that prevent crushing. In Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology (ed. Nickelmann, M. Wierenga, H.K. and Braun, S.), p. 465. KTBL, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Stanton, H.C. and Carroll, J.K. 1974. Potential mechanisms responsible for prenatal and perinatal mortality or low viability of swine. Journal of Animal Science 38: 1037–1041.Google Scholar
Svendsen, J., Bengtsson, A. Ch. and Svendsen, L.S. 1986. Occurrence and causes of traumatic injuries in neonatal pigs. Pig News and Information 7: 159.Google Scholar
Weary, D.M., Pajor, E.A., Fraser, D. and Honkanen, A.M. 1996. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 149–158.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B. 1996. Rearing pigs in species-specific family groups. Animal Welfare 5: 25–35.Google Scholar