Skip to main content
×
Home

On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows

  • S. Conte (a1), R. Bergeron (a2), J. Grégoire (a1), M. Gète (a1), S. D’Allaire (a3), M.-C. Meunier-Salaün (a4) and N. Devillers (a1)...
Abstract

The objectives were to evaluate quantitative animal-based measures of sow welfare (lameness, oral stereotypies and reactivity to humans) under commercial farm conditions, and to estimate the influence of housing, sow parity and stage of gestation on the outcome of these measures. Across 10 farms, 311 sows were used. Farms differed in terms of housing design (pen v. stall), space allowance, floor type in stalls (partially v. fully slatted), and feeding system in pens (floor v. trough). Lameness was assessed in terms of gait score, walking speed, stride length, stepping behaviour, response to a stand-up test and latency to lie down after feeding. The presence of oral stereotypies and saliva foam were recorded. Reactivity to humans was assessed by approach (attempt to touch the sow between the ears) and handling tests (exit of the stall for stall-housed sows, or isolation of the animal for pen-housed sows). Only stride length and walking speed were associated with lameness in stall-housed sows (P<0.05 and P<0.01). In stalls, the probability that a sow was lame when it presented a short stride length (<83 cm) or a low speed (<1 m/s) was high (69% and 72%, respectively), suggesting that these variables were good indicators of lameness, but were not sufficient to detect every lame sow in a herd (sensitivity of 0.39 and 0.71, respectively). The stage of gestation and parity also influenced measures of stride length and walking speed (P<0.05). Saliva foam around the mouth was associated with the presence of sham chewing and fixture biting (P<0.05). The probability that a sow presents sham chewing behaviour when saliva foam around her mouth was observed was moderate (63%) but was not sufficient to detect all sows with stereotypies (41%). A high discrimination index was obtained for behavioural measures (aggressions, escapes) and vocalisations during the approach test (stalls: 78.0 and 64.0; pens: 71.9 and 75.0, respectively), the number of interventions needed to make the sow exit the stall during the handling test for stall-housed sows (74.9), and attempts to escape during the handling test for pen-housed sows (96.9). These results suggest that these measures have a good power to discriminate between sows with low and high reactivity to humans. Finally, the outcome of several measures of lameness, stereotypies and reactivity to humans were influenced by the housing characteristics, sow parity and stage of gestation. Therefore, these factors should be considered to avoid misinterpretations of these measures in terms of welfare.

  • 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.

      On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows
      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.

      On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows
      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.

      On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mail: Nicolas.Devillers@agr.gc.ca
References
Hide All
Bergeron R, Badnell-Waters AJ, Lambton S and Mason G 2006. Stereotypic oral behaviour in captive ungulates: foraging, diet and gastrointestinal function. In Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare (ed. G Mason and J Rushen), pp. 1957. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Broom DM, Mendl MT and Zanella AJ 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61, 369385.
Buddle JR, Madec F and Fourichon C 1994. Investigations préliminaires sur les méthodes d'appréciation des troubles locomoteurs chez la truie. Recueil de Médecine Vétérinaire 170, 2936.
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). 2009. Guidelines on the care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. CCAC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Canadian Pork Council. 2010. Animal care assessment – animal care at work. Canadian Pork Council, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Chapinal N, de Passillé AM, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG and Rushen J 2009. Using gait score, walking speed, and lying behavior to detect hoof lesions in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 43654374.
Clouard C, Meunier-Salaün M-C and Devillers N 2011. Development of approach and handling tests for the assessment of reactivity to humans of sows housed in stall or in group. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 2639.
Cronin GM and Wiepkema PR 1984. An analysis of stereotyped behaviour in tethered sows. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15, 263270.
Dewey CE, Friendship RM and Wilson MR 1993. Clinical and postmortem examination of sows culled for lameness. Canadian Veterinary Journal 34, 555556.
Edwards SA 2007. Experimental welfare assessment and on-farm application. Animal Welfare 16, 111115.
Flower FC and Weary DM 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3, 8795.
Fraser AF and Broom DM 1990. Abnormal behaviour 1: stereotypies. In Domestic animal behaviour and welfare (ed. AF Fraser and DM Broom), pp. 305317. Baillière Tindall, London, UK.
Grégoire J, Bergeron R, D’Allaire S, Meunier-Salaün M-C and Devillers N 2013. Assessment of lameness in sows using gait, footprints, postural behaviour and foot lesions 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.
Hemsworth PH, Brand A and Willems P 1981. The behavioural response of sows to the presence of human beings and its relation to productivity. Livestock Production Science 8, 6774.
Hulbert LE and McGlone JJ 2006. Evaluation of drop vs. trickle-feeding systems for crated or group-penned gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 10041014.
Johnsen PF, Johannesson T and Sandøe P 2001. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 51, 2633.
Jørgensen B 2000. Osteochondrosis/osteoarthrosis and claw disorders in sows, associated with leg weakness. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavia 41, 123138.
Keeling L 2009. Defining a framework for developing assessment systems. In An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® Assessment Systems. Welfare Quality® reports no. 12 (ed. L Keeling), pp. 18. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Main DCJ, Clegg J, Spatz A and Green LE 2000. Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147, 574576.
Martin P and Bateson P 2007. Measuring behaviour, an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Mosnier E, Dourmad J-Y, Etienne M, Le Floc’h N, Père M-C, Ramaekers P, Sève B, Van Milgen J and Meunier-Salaün M-C 2009. Feed intake in the multiparous lactating sow: its relationship with reactivity during gestation and tryptophan status. Journal of Animal Science 87, 12821291.
Parikh R, Mathai A, Parikh S, Chandra Sekhar G and Thomas R 2008. Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 56, 4550.
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.
Salak-Johnson JL, DeDecker AE, Horsman MJ and Rodriguez-Zas SL 2012. Space allowance for gestating sows in pens: behavior and immunity. Journal of Animal Science 90, 32323242.
Schenck EL, McMunn KA, Rosenstein DS, Stroshine RL, Nielsen BD, Richert BT, Marchant-Forde JN and Lay DC 2008. Exercising stall-housed gestating gilts: effects on lameness, the musculo-skeletal system, production, and behavior. Journal of Animal Science 86, 31663180.
Scott K, Laws DM, Courboulay V, Meunier-Salaün M-C and Edwards SA 2009. Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 3641.
Tuyttens F 2007. Stereotypies. In On farm monitoring of pig welfare (ed. A Velarde and R Geers), pp. 4146. Wageningen Academic Publisher, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Von Wachenfelt H, Pinzke S and Nilsson C 2009. Gait and force analysis of provoked pig gait on clean and fouled concrete surfaces. Biosystems Engineering 104, 534544.
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
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

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 82 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 245 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.