Skip to main content
×
Home

Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test

  • E.-J. Bos (a1) (a2), E. Nalon (a2), D. Maes (a2), B. Ampe (a1), S. Buijs (a1), M. M. J. van Riet (a1) (a3), S. Millet (a1), G. P. J. Janssens (a3) and F. A. M. Tuyttens (a1) (a3)...
Abstract

Sows housed in groups have to move through their pen to fulfil their behavioural and physiological needs such as feeding and resting. In addition to causing pain and discomfort, lameness may restrict the ability of sows to fulfil such needs. The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which the mobility of sows is affected by different degrees of lameness. Mobility was measured as the sow’s willingness or capability to cover distances. Feed-restricted hybrid sows with different gait scores were subjected to a feed reward collection test in which they had to walk distances to obtain subsequent rewards. In all, 29 group-housed sows at similar gestation stage (day 96.6±7 s.d.) were visually recorded for gait and classified as non-lame, mildly lame, moderately lame or severely lame. All sows received 2.6 kg of standard commercial gestation feed per day. The test arena consisted of two feeding locations separated from each other by a Y-shaped middle barrier. Feed rewards were presented at the two feeders in turn, using both light and sound cues to signal the availability of a new feed reward. Sows were individually trained during 5 non-consecutive days for 10 min/day with increasing barrier length (range: 0 to 3.5 m) each day. After training, sows were individually tested once per day on 3 non-consecutive days with the maximum barrier length such that they had to cover 9.3 m to walk from one feeder to the other. The outcome variable was the number of rewards collected in a 15-min time span. Non-lame and mildly lame sows obtained more rewards than moderately lame and severely lame sows (P<0.01). However, no significant difference was found between non-lame and mildly lame sows (P=0.69), nor between moderately lame and severely lame sows (P=1.00). This feed reward collection test indicates that both moderately lame and severely lame sows are limited in their combined ability and willingness to walk, but did not reveal an effect of mild lameness on mobility. These findings suggest that moderately and more severely lame sows, but not mildly lame sows, might suffer from reduced access to valuable resources in group housing systems.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mail: emiliejulie.bos@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
References
Hide All
Anil SS, Anil L and Deen J 2005. Evaluation of patterns of removal and associations among culling because of lameness and sow productivity traits in swine breeding herds. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226, 956961.
Anil S, Anil L and Deen J 2009. Effect of lameness in pigs in terms of ‘five freedoms’. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 144145.
Baldwin BA 1976. Quantitative studies on taste preference in pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 6973.
Brendle J and Hoy S 2011. Investigation of distances covered by fattening pigs measured with VideoMotionTracker® . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, 2732.
Brouns F, Edwards SA and English PR 1995. Influence of fibrous feed ingredients on voluntary intake of dry sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54, 301313.
Chapinal N, de Passillé AM, Rushen J and Wagner S 2010a. Automated methods for detecting lameness and measuring analgesia in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 20072013.
Chapinal N, Ruiz de la Torre J, Cerisuelo A, Gasa J, Baucells MD, Coma J, Vidal A and Manteca X 2010b. Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 5, 8293.
Dawkins MS 1990. From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 19.
D’Eath RD 2012. Repeated locomotion scoring of a sow herd to measure lameness: consistency over time, the effect of sow characteristics and inter-observer reliability. Animal Welfare 21, 219231.
D’Eath RD, Conington J, Lawrence AB, Olsson IAS and Sandøe P 2010. Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations. Animal Welfare 19, 1727.
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 2012. Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal 10, 2774.
Grégoire J, Bergeron R, D’Allaire S, Meunier-Salaün MC and Devillers N 2013. Assessment of lameness in sows using gait, footprints, postural behaviour and foot lesion analysis. Animal 7, 11631173.
Harris MJ, Pajor EA, Sorrells AD, Eicher SD, Richert BT and Marchant-Forde JN 2006. Effects of stall or small group gestation housing on the production, health and behaviour of gilts. Livestock Science 102, 171179.
Heinonen M, Oravainen J, Orro T, Seppä-Lassila L, Ala-Kurikka E, Virolainen J, Tast A and Peltoniemi OAT 2006. Lameness and fertility of sows and gilts in randomly selected loose-housed herds in Finland. Veterinary Record 159, 383387.
Kilbride AL, Gillman CE and Green LE 2009. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness in finishing pigs, gilts and pregnant sows and associations with limb lesions and floor types on commercial farms in England. Animal Welfare 18, 215224.
Kirkden RD and Pajor EA 2006. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100, 2947.
Kroneman A, Vellenga L, van der Wilt FJ and Vermeer HM 1993. Review of health problems in group housed sows, with special emphasis on lameness. Veterinary Quarterly 15, 2629.
Lawrence AB and Terlouw EM 1993. A review of behavioral factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71, 28152825.
Lawrence AB, Appleby MC and Macleod HA 1988. Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47, 131137.
Leach KA, Tisdall DA, Bell NJ, Main DCJ and Green LE 2012. The effects of early treatment for hindlimb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. The Veterinary Journal 193, 626632.
Levis DG, Consultancy LWS and Connor L 2013. Group housing systems: choices and designs. National Pork Board No. 800-456-7675, Des Moines, IA, USA.
Main DCJ, Clegg J, Spatz A and Green LE 2000. Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147, 574576.
McGeown D, Danbury TC, Waterman-Pearson AE and Kestin SC 1999. Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 144, 668671.
Meijer E, Bertholle CP, Oosterlinck M, van der Staay FJ, Back W and van Nes A 2014. Pressure mat analysis of the longitudinal development of pig locomotion in growing pigs after weaning. BMC Veterinary Research 10, 37.
Meunier-Salaün MC, Edwards SA and Robert S 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 5369.
Nalon E, Conte S, Maes D, Tuyttens FAM and Devillers N 2013. Assessment of lameness and claw lesions in sows. Livestock Science 156, 1023.
Nalon E, Maes D, Van Dongen S, van Riet MMJ, Janssens GPJ, Millet S and Tuyttens FAM 2014. Comparison of the inter- and intra-observer repeatability of three gait-scoring scales for sows. Animal 8, 650659.
Patterson-Kane EG, Kirkden RD and Pajor EA 2011. Measuring motivation in swine: the food-metric scale. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 14, 175186.
Paxton H, Daley MA, Corr SA and Hutchinson JR 2013. The gait dynamics of the modern broiler chicken: a cautionary tale of selective breeding. The Journal of Experimental Biology 216, 32373248.
Pluym LM, Van Nuffel A, Van Weyenberg S and Maes D 2013a. Prevalence of lameness and claw lesions during different stages in the reproductive cycle of sows and the impact on reproduction results. Animal 7, 11741181.
Pluym LM, Maes D, Vangeyte J, Mertens K, Baert J, Van Weyenberg S, Millet S and Van Nuffel A 2013b. Development of a system for automatic measurements of force and visual stance variables for objective lameness detection in sows: SowSIS. Biosystems Engineering 116, 6474.
Ringgenberg N, Bergeron R and Devillers N 2010. Validation of accelerometers to automatically record sow postures and stepping behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 128, 3744.
Robert S, Rushen J and Farmer C 1997. Both energy content and bulk of food affect stereotypic behaviour, heart rate and feeding motivation of female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 161171.
Tapper KR, Johnson AK, Karriker LA, Stalder KJ, Parsons RL, Wang C and Millman ST 2013. Pressure algometry and thermal sensitivity for assessing pain sensitivity and effects of flunixin meglumine and sodium salicylate in a transient lameness model in sows. Livestock Science 157, 245253.
Weary DM, Huzzey JM and Von Keyserlingk MAG 2009. Board-invited review: using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals. Journal of Animal Science 87, 770777.
Willgert K 2011. The economic and welfare impact of lameness in sows in England. Royal Veterinary College. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from htttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/TheeconomicandwelfareimpactoflamenessinsowsinEngland.pdf
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

animal
  • ISSN: 1751-7311
  • EISSN: 1751-732X
  • URL: /core/journals/animal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 77 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 139 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.