Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T22:12:16.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Social Status on the Welfare of Sows in Static and Dynamic Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

N E O'Connell ,
V E Beattie  and
B W Moss
N E O'Connell*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, Co Down, BT26 6DR, UK
V E Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, Co Down, BT26 6DR, UK
B W Moss
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Queen's University Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
*
‡ Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: niamh.o'connell@dardni.gov.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forty-eight Large White x Landrace multiparous sows were mixed into twelve groups of four animals after their piglets were weaned. These groups were defined as static, with no animals being added to or removed from the groups after their formation. Aggressive and submissive behaviours were recorded continuously for 9 h after the sows were mixed, and the sows were assigned high or low social status on the basis of their relative aggressiveness and success in aggressive interactions. After five weeks, each static group was mixed into a dynamic group of 40 ±2 sows for an 11-week period. Three static groups (ie 12 animals) at a time were added to the dynamic group at three-week intervals; the same number of animals was removed at these time-points in order to maintain the group number at 40 ± 2. Injury levels increased significantly with the transition from static groups to the dynamic group (P < 0.001). Sows with low social status had lower bodyweights (P < 0.001) and higher injury levels one week after mixing into static and dynamic groups (P < 0.01). Social status did not significantly affect salivary Cortisol levels. Sows with low social status were positioned lower in the feed order, determined using an electronic feeder (P < 0.001), and tended to be displaced from the feeder queue more often (P < 0.1) in the dynamic group. Sows with low social status were also displaced from the drinker more often than highranking sows in the dynamic group (P < 0.01). This may have led to the greater frequency of drinking behaviour shown by low-ranking sows (P < 0.05). Sows with low social status were observed less often in the kennel areas than were the high-ranking sows in the dynamic group (P < 0.05), suggesting that they were denied access to the prime lying areas. The results suggest that the welfare of sows is negatively affected by low social status in both small static and large dynamic groups.

Keywords

animal welfaredynamic groupssocial statussowsstatic groups
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 2003 , pp. 239 - 249
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Andersen, I L, Bøe, K E and Kristiansen, A L 1999 The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, D S 1999 Time course for the formation and disruption of social organisation in group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, D S and Edwards, S A 1998 Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56: 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1988 The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M and Johnson, K G 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M, Mendl, M T and Zanella, A J 1995 A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61: 369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F and Edwards, S A 1994 Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrell, J L 2000 Improving the welfare of group housed sows. PhD Thesis, Queen's University Belfast, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H, Barnett, J L and Coleman, G J 1993 The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2: 33–51Google Scholar
Hunter, E J, Broom, D M, Edwards, S A and Sibly, R M 1988 Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Animal Production 47: 139–148Google Scholar
Jensen, K H, Sørensen, L S, Bertelsen, D, Pedersen, A R, Jørgensen, E, Neilsen, N P and Vestergaard, K S 2000 Management factors affecting activity and aggression in dynamic group housing systems with electronic sow feeding: a field trial. Animal Science 71: 535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P and Yngvesson, J 1998 Aggression between unacquainted pigs — sequential assessment and effects of familiarity and weight. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1989 Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M, Zanella, A J and Broom, D M 1992 Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour 44: 1107–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A S, Gonyou, H W and Ghent, A W 1993 Integration of newly introduced and resident sows following grouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, N E and Beattie, V E 1999 Influence of environmental enrichment on aggressive behaviour and dominance relationships in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 8: 269–279Google Scholar
Olsson, A C and Svendsen, J 1997 The importance of familiarity when grouping gilts, and the effect of frequent grouping during gestation. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 27: 33–43Google Scholar
Rushen, J 1987 A difference in weight reduces fighting when unacquainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 951–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signoret, J P 1983 General conclusions. In: Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 245–247. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmins, P H 1993 Reproductive performance of sows entering stable and dynamic groups after mating. Animal Production 57: 293–298Google Scholar
Spoolder, HAM 1998 Effects of food motivation on stereotypies and aggression in group housed sows. PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Walker, N and Beattie, V E 1994 Welfare of sows in loose housed systems. 67th Annual Report. Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland: Hillsborough, Co Down, UKGoogle Scholar