Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:25:05.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group housing during gestation affects the behaviour of sows and the physiological indices of offspring at weaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2014

Q. Zhou ,
Q. Sun ,
G. Wang ,
B. Zhou ,
M. Lu ,
J. N. Marchant-Forde ,
X. Yang  and
R. Zhao
Q. Zhou
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, People’s Republic of China
Q. Sun
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, People’s Republic of China
G. Wang
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, People’s Republic of China
B. Zhou
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, People’s Republic of China
M. Lu
Affiliation:
College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, People’s Republic of China
J. N. Marchant-Forde
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
X. Yang*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, People’s Republic of China
R. Zhao
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, People’s Republic of China
*
†E-mail: yangxj@njau.edu.cn
Get access

Abstract

To compare the behaviour of sows and the physiological indices of their offspring in stall and group-housing systems, 28 sows were randomly distributed into two systems with 16 sows in stalls, and the other 12 sows were divided into three groups with four sows per pen. The area per sow in stalls and groups was 1.2 and 2.5 m2, respectively. Back fat depth of the sow was measured. Salivary cortisol concentration of the sows, colostrum composition and piglets’ serum biochemical indicators were evaluated. The behaviour of the sows, including agonistic behaviour, non-agonistic social behaviour, stereotypical behaviour and other behaviours at weeks 2, 9 and 14 of pregnancy were analysed. The results showed no differences in the back fat depth of sows. Colostrum protein, triglyceride, triiodothyronine, thyroxine and prolactin concentrations in the whey also demonstrated no significant differences between the two housing systems. Salivary cortisol concentration was significantly higher in the sows housed in groups than the sows in stalls. The concentrations of serum total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were significantly higher in the offspring of sows housed in groups (P=0.006 and 0.005, respectively). The GLM procedure for repeated measures analysis showed the frequency of drinking, and non-agonistic social behaviour was significantly higher in the sows housed in groups than the sows in stalls; yet the frequency of agonistic and sham chewing demonstrated the opposite direction. The duration of standing was significantly longer in the sows housed in groups, but the sitting and stereotypical behaviour duration were significantly shorter compared with the sows in stalls. These results indicated that group housing has no obvious influence on the colostrum composition of sows; however, it was better for sows to express their non-agonistic social behaviour and reduce the frequency of agonistic behaviour and stereotypical behaviour. Meanwhile, group housing during gestation significantly increased serum total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol of offspring.

Keywords

sowhousing systembehaviorpigletphysiological indices
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 7 , July 2014 , pp. 1162 - 1169
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Anil, L, Anil, SS and Deen, J 2002. Relationship between postural behaviour and gestation stall dimensions in relation to sow size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 173–181.Google Scholar
Anil, L, Anil, SS, Deen, J and Baidoo, SK 2006a. Cortisol, behavioral responses, and injury scores of sows housed in gestation stalls. Journal of Swine Health and Production 14, 196–201.Google Scholar
Anil, L, Anil, SS, Deen, J, Baidoo, SK and Walker, RD 2006b. Effect of group size and structure on the welfare and performance of pregnant sows in pens with electronic sow feeders. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 70, 128–136.Google ScholarPubMed
Anil, L, Bhend, KMG, Baidoo, SK, Morrison, R and Deen, J 2003. Comparison of injuries in sows housed in gestation stalls versus group pens with electronic sow feeders. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 223, 1334–1338.Google Scholar
Arey, D 1999. Time course for the formation and disruption of social organisation in group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH and Winfield, CG 1987. The effects of design of individual stalls on the social behaviour and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 133–142.Google Scholar
Bates, R, Edwards, D and Korthals, R 2003. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livestock Production Science 79, 29–35.Google Scholar
Boyle, LA, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB and Brophy, P 2000. Influence of housing system during gestation on the behaviour and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates. Animal Science 71, 561– 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, LA, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB and Brophy, P 2002. Effect of gestation housing on behavior and skin lesions of sows in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 119–134.Google Scholar
Broom, D, Mendl, M and Zanella, A 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushong, DM, Friend, TH and Knabe, DA 2000. Salivary and plasma cortisol response to adrenocorticotropin administration in pigs. Laboratory Animals 34, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Cerisuelo, A, Gasa, J, Baucells, MD, Coma, J, Vidal, A and Manteca, X 2010. 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, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Hartog, LA, Backus, GBC and Vermeer, HM 1993. Evaluation of housing systems for sows. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1339–1344.Google Scholar
Estienne, MJ and Harper, AF 2010. Type of accommodation during gestation affects growth performance and reproductive characteristics of gilt offspring. Journal of Animal Science 88, 400–407.Google Scholar
Haley, DB, de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2001. Assessing cow comfort: effects of two floor types and two tie stall designs on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 105–117.Google Scholar
Hicks, TA, McGlone, JJ, Whisnant, CS, Kattesh, HG and Norman, RL 1998. Behavioral, endocrine, immune, and performance measures for pigs exposed to acute stress. Journal of Animal Science 76, 474–483.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1988. Diurnal rhythm of bar-biting in relation to other behaviour in pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 21, 337–346.Google Scholar
Kapell, DN, Ashworth, CJ, Walling, GA, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA and Roehe, R 2009. Estimation of genetic associations between reproduction and production traits based on a sire and dam line with common ancestry. Animal 3, 1354–1362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlen, GAM, Hemsworth, PH, Gonyou, HW, Fabrega, E, Strom, AD and Smits, RJ 2007. The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls and large groups on deep litter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 87–101.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB and Terlouw, E 1993. A review of behavioral factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2815–2825.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ, VonBorell, EH, Deen, J, Johnson, AK, Levis, DG, Meunier-Salaün, M, Morrow, J, Reeves, D, Salak-Johnson, JL and Sundberg, PL 2004. Review: compilation of the scientific literature comparing housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance, and health. The Professional Animal Scientist 20, 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petry, CJ and Hales, CN 2000. Long-term effects on offspring of intrauterine exposure to deficits in nutrition. Human Reproduction Update 6, 578–586.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Portolés, O, Corella, D, Soler, J, Reixach, J, Tibau, J, Prat, JM, Diaz, I and Gómez-Raya, L 2007. Behaviour influences cholesterol plasma levels in a pig model. Animal 1, 865–871.Google Scholar
Rushen, J 1984. Stereotyped behavior, adjunctive drinking and the feeding periods of tethered sows. Animal Behavior 32, 1059–1067.Google Scholar
Sorrells, AD, Eicher, SD, Harris, MJ, Pajor, EA and Richert, BT 2007. Periparturient cortisol, acute phase cytokine, and acute phase protein profiles of gilts housed in groups or stalls during gestation. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1750–1757.Google Scholar
Sorrells, AD, Eicher, SD, Scott, KA, Harris, MJ, Pajor, EA, Lay, DC Jr and Richert, BT 2006. Postnatal behavioral and physiological responses of piglets from gilts housed individually or in groups during gestation. Journal of Animal Science 84, 757–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolba, A, Baker, N and Wood-Gush, D 1983. The characterisation of stereotyped behaviour in stalled sows by informational redundancy. Behaviour 87, 157–182.Google Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, AB and Illius, AW 1991. Influence of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behavior 42, 981–991.Google Scholar
Van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Spoolder, HAM, Kemp, B, Binnendijk, GP, Den Hartog, LA and Verstegen, MWA 2003. Development of stereotypic behaviour in sows fed a starch diet or a non-starch polysaccharide diet during gestation and lactation over two parities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieuille-Thomas, C, G, Le Pape and Signoret, JP 1995. Stereotypies in pregnant sows: indications of influence of the housing system on the patterns expressed by the animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zambrano, E, Bautista, CJ, Deas, M, Martinez-Samayoa, PM, Gonzalez-Zamorano, M, Ledesma, H, Morales, J, Larrea, F and Nathanielsz, PW 2006. A low maternal protein diet during pregnancy and lactation has sex- and window of exposure-specific effects on offspring growth and food intake, glucose metabolism and serum leptin in the rat. Journal of Physiology 571, 221–230.Google Scholar