Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T22:32:37.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of farrowing environment and previous experience on the maternal behaviour of sows in indoor pens and outdoor huts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2014

M. Wülbers-Mindermann ,
C. Berg ,
G. Illmann ,
U. Baulain  and
B. Algers
M. Wülbers-Mindermann
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
C. Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
G. Illmann
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Pratelstvi 815, Prague, Czech Republic
U. Baulain
Affiliation:
Institute of Farm Animal Genetics, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Hoeltystrasse 10, 31535 Neustadt-Mariensee, Germany
B. Algers*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
*
† E-mail: Bo.Algers@slu.se
Get access

Abstract

Outdoor farrowing huts facilitate a less restricted maternal behaviour in sows compared with sows kept indoors in farrowing pens. The aim of our study was to investigate whether there are behavioural differences between primiparous sows kept outdoors in farrowing huts and indoors in pens, and whether the maternal behaviour during the second parity, when all sows were kept outdoors in farrowing huts, would differ between sows that have experienced the indoor or the outdoor environment, respectively, during their first parturition. A total of 26 Yorkshire×Swedish Landrace sows were studied. Of these, 11 sows were housed outdoors in farrowing huts during both parturitions (group=OUTOUT). The other 15 sows were kept indoors in a barn with single farrowing pens during their first parturition. During their second parturition, sows were kept outdoors in farrowing huts (group=INOUT). The behaviour was video recorded from 2 h prepartum to 48 h postpartum. The sows’ responsiveness to playbacks of a piglet’s screams was tested on days 2 to 3 postpartum. Parity 1: during the last 2 h prepartum, OUTOUT sows had a higher proportion of observations in the sternal lying position (P<0.01). During parturition, OUTOUT sows changed posture more often (P<0.05) and were lying less (P<0.05) than INOUT sows. All sows in both groups responded with ‘lifting head’ towards the playback of piglet scream, whereas 100% of OUTOUT sows and only 43% of INOUT sows thereafter were ‘getting up’ (P <0.01). Parity 2: There were no behavioural differences between INOUT and OUTOUT sows. In conclusion, it is not problematic for a second parity sow with initial maternal experience from an indoor farrowing pen to be kept outdoors in farrowing huts during its following farrowing.

Keywords

sowhousingparitymaternal behaviourfarrowing

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , April 2015 , pp. 669 - 676
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arey, DS and Sancha, ES 1996. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50, 135–145.Google Scholar
Baxter, E, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011. Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal 5, 580–600.Google Scholar
Chaloupková, H, Illmann, G, Pedersen, LJ, Malmkvist, J and Šimečková, M 2008. Sow responsiveness to human contacts and piglet vocalization during 24 h after onset of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 260–269.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Schirmer, BN, McCallum, TH, Smith, JA and Butler, KL 1993. The effects of providing sawdust to pre-parturient sows in farrowing crates on sow behaviour, the duration of parturition and the occurrence of intra-partum still-born piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Vestergaard, KS, Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Ladewig, J 2000. The effects of branches on prepartum nest building in gilts with access to straw. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA and Thompson, BK 1997. Farrowing behaviour and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 51–66.Google Scholar
Harris, MJ and Gonyou, HW 1998. Increasing available space in a farrowing crate does not facilitate postural changes or maternal responses in gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59, 285–296.Google Scholar
Held, S, Mason, G and Mendl, M 2006. Maternal responsiveness of outdoor sows from first to fourth parities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I and Hodgson, J 1992. The bases of sow-piglet identification. 1. The identification by sows of their own piglets and the presence of intruders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 319–327.Google Scholar
Illmann, G, Hammerschmidt, K, Špinka, M and Tallet, C 2013. Calling by domestic piglets during simulated crushing and isolation: a signal of need? PLoS One 8, e83529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Illmann, G, Neuhauserová, K, Pokorná, Z, Chaloupková, H and Šimečková, M 2008. Maternal responsiveness of sows towards piglet’s screams during the first 24 h postpartum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 131–142.Google Scholar
Jensen, P, Florén, K and Hobroh, I 1987. Peri-parturient changes in behaviour in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Vestergaard, K and Algers, B 1993. Nestbuilding in free-ranging domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E and Terlouw, EMC 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 313–330.Google Scholar
Melišová, M, Illmann, G, Chaloupková, H and Bozděchová, B 2014. Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3064–3072.Google Scholar
Melišová, M, Illmann, G, Andersen, IL, Vasdal, G and Haman, J 2011. Can sow pre-lying communication or good piglet condition prevent piglets from getting crushed? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Dybkjær, L and Vestergaard, EM 2006. Feeding behaviour in pigs. In Feeding in domestic vertebrates: from structure to behaviour (ed. Bels V), pp. 156–178. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Nowicki, J and Schwarz, T 2010. Maternal responsiveness of sows housed in two farrowing environments measured in behavioural tests. Annals of Animal Science 10, 179–186.Google Scholar
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A and Peltoniemi, O 2010. Environmental and sow-related factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Animal Reproduction Science 119, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, V, Recén, B and Vestergaard, K 1990. Behaviour of sows and piglets during farrowing under free-range conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26, 169–179.Google Scholar
Stangel, G and Jensen, P 1991. Behaviour of semi-naturally kept sows and piglets (except suckling) during 10 day postpartum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002a. Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 21–42.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002b. Nursing behaviour, postpartum activity and reactivity in sows: effects of farrowing environment, previous experience and temperament. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 53–76.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH, Herskin, MS and Jørgensen, E 1999. Influence of environmental stimuli on nest building and farrowing behaviour in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 131–144.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, AJ, van der Lende, T and Taverne, MA 2005. Factors affecting duration of the expulsive stage of parturition and piglet birth intervals in sows with uncomplicated, spontaneous farrowings. Theriogenology 64, 1573–1590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasdal, G, Glærum, M, Melišová, M, Bøe, KE, Broom, DM and Andersen, IL 2010. Increasing the piglets‘ use of the creep area – a battle against biology? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125, 96–102.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D and Honkanen, AM 1996. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 149–158.Google Scholar
Wülbers-Mindermann, M, Algers, B, Berg, C, Lundeheim, N and Sigvardsson, J 2002. Primiparous and multiparous maternal ability in sows in relation to indoor and outdoor farrowing systems. Livestock Production Science 73, 285–297.Google Scholar
Zaleski, HM and Hacker, RR 1993. Variables related to the progress of parturition and probability of stillbirth in swine. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 34, 109–113.Google Scholar