Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T06:32:40.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of housing system during gestation on the behaviour and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

L. A. Boyle ,
F. C. Leonard ,
P. B. Lynch  and
P. Brophy
L. A. Boyle*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Pig Production Department, Moorepark Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland Department of Animal Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
F. C. Leonard
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. B. Lynch
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Pig Production Department, Moorepark Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
P. Brophy
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
† Address for correspondence
Get access

Abstract

There is some evidence to show that loose housing during gestation has a negative influence on the welfare of sows subsequently in farrowing crates. However, little is known about the effects of the gestation housing on the initial responses of gilts to the farrowing crate or of the effects on gilt welfare throughout lactation. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate three gestation housing systems (1) stalls (ST); (2) loose-bedded (LB) and (3) loose-unbedded (LU) pens for their effect on behaviour, heart rate and skin lesion scores of gilts in farrowing crates. During the 1st h in the farrowing crate, LB gilts were more active, while ST gilts were more vocal. Although heart rates during the 1st h did not differ significantly between treatments, LB and LU gilts had significantly higher mean heart rates during the first 5 min in the crate, compared with 35 min later. Posture changes during the first 24 h did not differ between treatments. However, there was a significant reduction in the number of posture changes made by ST gilts but not LB or LU gilts by day 8. Increases in the skin lesion score of gilts in all three treatments were observed after 24 h in the crate, further increases were observed post farrowing in both loose treatments. Although no significant differences in the skin lesion score were observed during lactation, LB gilts were weaned with lower lesion scores than LU or ST gilts. Gilts from both loose treatments experienced greater distress at first introduction to the farrowing crate. However, the change in environment also had an adverse affect on the welfare of ST gilts. Skin damage and continuing discomfort of the loose-housed gilts post farrowing suggests that they experienced more stress at parturition. Bedding during gestation had a beneficial effect on skin health in the farrowing crate that persisted until weaning.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourfarrowing pensheart rateskin lesions
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 2000 , pp. 561 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Arey, D. S. 1993a. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235—246.Google Scholar
Arey, D. S. 1993b. The welfare of pigs in confined and non-confined farrowing systems. Pig News and Information 14: 81—84.Google Scholar
Arnone, M. and Dantzer, R. 1980. Does frustration induce aggression in pigs? Applied Animal Ethology 6: 351—362.Google Scholar
Backstrom, L. 1973. Environment and animal health in piglet production. A field study of incidences and correlations. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 41: 1—223 (Suppl. 1).Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1982. The nesting behaviour of sows and its disturbance by confinement at farrowing. Disturbed behaviour in farm animals (ed. Bessai, W.), pp. 101—114. Eugen Ulmer, Hohenheim.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. and Petherick, J. C. 1980. The effect of restraint on parturition in the sow. Proceedings of the sixth international congress of the Pig Veterinary Society (ed. Nielsen, N. C., Hogh, P. and Bille, N.), p. 84.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1993. Behaviour and productivity of the domestic pig in barren and enriched environments. In Livestock environment I V. Proceedings of the fourth international symposium of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp. 43—50. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1995. Effect of rearing environment and change of environment on the behaviour of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 57—65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1998. Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27—34.Google Scholar
Boyle, L. A. 1997. Skin lesions, culling reasons and overgrown hooves in sows housed individually. M.Agr.Sc. thesis, National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Boyle, L. A., Leonard, F. C., Lynch, P. B. and Brophy, P. 1999. Prevalence and severity of skin lesions in sows housed individually during the production cycle. Irish Veterinary Journal 52: 601—605.Google 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—385.Google Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1994. Effect of dietary fibre and feeding system on activity and oral behaviour of group housed gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 215—223.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. M. and Clark, J. J. 1979. Models of heat production and critical temperature for growing pigs. Animal Production 28: 353—369.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. 1985. The development and significance of abnormal stereotyped behaviour in tethered sows. Ph.D thesis, Agricultural University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M., Simpson, G. J. and Hemsworth, P. H. 1996. The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 175—192.Google Scholar
Csermely, D. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1990. Agonistic behaviour in grouped sows. II. How social rank affects feeding and drinking behaviour. Bolettino di Zooloogia 57: 55—58.Google Scholar
Gjein, H. and Larssen, R. B. 1995. Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems-a field study. 1. Vulva and body lesions, culling reasons and production results. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 36: 185—200.Google Scholar
Hansen, K. E. and Curtis, S. E. 1980. Pre-partal activity of sows in stall or pen. Journal of Animal Science 51: 456—460.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. L. and Vestergaard, K. 1984. Tethered versus loose sows-ethological observations and measures of productivity. 2. Production results. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 185—191.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, M. J. and Gonyou, H. W. 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
Hartog, L. A. den, Backus, G. B. C. and Vermeer, H. M. 1993. Evaluation of housing systems for sows. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1339—1344.Google Scholar
Haskell, M., Wemelsfelder, F., Mendl, M. T., Calvert, S. and Lawrence, A. B. 1996. The effect of substrate-enriched and substrate-impoverished housing environments on the diversity of behaviour in pigs. Behaviour 133: 741—761.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H. 1982. Social environment and reproduction. In Control of pig production (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 585—601. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Henry, J. P. and Stephens, P. M. 1977. Stress, health and the social environment: a sociobiologic approach to medicine. Springer Verlag, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Hessing, M. J. C., Hagelso, A. M., Schouten, W. P. G., Wiepkema, P. R. and Beek, J. A. M. van. 1994. Individual behavioural and physiological strategies in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 55: 39—46.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. 1992. Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 483 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., Vegt, B. J. van der, Lawrence, A. B., McLean, K. A., Calvert, S. K., Deans, L. A. and Chirnside, J. 1998. The effect of parity on the behavioural and physiological responses of parturient pigs to the farrowing environment. Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology (ed. Veissier, I. and Boissy, A.), p. 129 Clermont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
Kilgour, R. and Dalton, C. 1984. Farrowing pens and behaviour. In Livestock behaviour: a practical guide, pp. 150—191. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Koning, R. de. 1985. On the well-being of dry sows. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kruskal, W. H. and Wallis, W. A. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47: 583—621.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., Petherick, J. C., McLean, K., Deans, L., Chirnside, J., Vaughan, A., Clutton, E. and Terlouw, E. M. C. 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 313—330.Google Scholar
Lynch, P. B., O’Grady, J. F. and Kearney, P. A. 1984. Effect of housing system on sow productivity. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 181—184.Google Scholar
Marchant, J. N. 1994. The effects of dry sow housing conditions on welfare at farrowing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Marchant, J. N. and Broom, D. M. 1993. The effects of dry sow housing conditions on responses to farrowing. Animal Production 56: 475—476 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Marchant, J. M., Mendl, M. T., Rudd, A. R. and Broom, D. M. 1995. The effect of agonistic interactions on the heart rate of group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 49—56.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Ewbank, R. 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326—334.Google Scholar
Noldus Information Technology. 1993. The Observer, base package for DOS, reference manual, version 3•0. Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Noldus Information Technology. 1994. The Observer, support package for Psion Organisere. user’s manual, version 3•0. Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
O’Connell, J. M., Leonard, F. C. and Lynch, P. B. 1996. The effect of different floor types on the behavioural activity of sows in the farrowing house. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 35: 66 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Putten, G. van and Burgwal, J. A. van de. 1990. Vulva biting in group housed sows: preliminary report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 181—186.Google Scholar
Schlichting, M. C., Andreae, U., Thielscher, H. -H. and Smidt, D. 1983. Application of an integrated system of indicators in animal welfare research. In Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare (ed. Smidt, D.), pp. 215—221. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Schouten, W. G. P. 1991. Effects of rearing conditions on the behaviour of gilts around farrowing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 367 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 6, fourth edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Taylor, L., Friend, T. H. and Smith, L. A. 1988. Effects of housing on in situ postures of gestating gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 265—272.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K. and Hansen, L. L. 1984. Tethered versus loose sows — ethological observations and measures of productivity. 1. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 245—256.Google Scholar
Webb, N. G. and Nilsson, C. 1983. Flooring and injury — an overview. Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S. H., M. R. Baxter, and MacCormack, J. A. C.), pp. 226—259. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Widowski, T. M. and Curtis, S. E. 1990. The influence of straw, cloth tassel, or both on the pre-partum behaviour of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 53—71.Google Scholar