Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:34:25.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Short Communication: effect of positive handling of sows on litter performance and pre-weaning piglet mortality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2020

D. De Meyer
Affiliation:
Vedanko BVBA, Keukelstraat 66a, 8750Wingene, Belgium
A. Amalraj*
Affiliation:
Unit of Porcine Health Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
T. Van Limbergen
Affiliation:
Unit of Porcine Health Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
M. Fockedey
Affiliation:
Vedanko BVBA, Keukelstraat 66a, 8750Wingene, Belgium
S. Edwards
Affiliation:
Agriculture, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon TyneNE1 7RU, UK
V. A. Moustsen
Affiliation:
SEGES Danish Pig Research Centre, Agro Food Park 15, DK 8620Aarhus N, Denmark
I. Chantziaras
Affiliation:
Unit of Porcine Health Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, B. Van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820, Merelbeke, Belgium
D. Maes
Affiliation:
Unit of Porcine Health Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

Fear and environmental stressors may negatively affect the welfare of farm animals such as pigs. The present study investigated the effects of music and positive handling on reproductive performance of sows (n = 1014; parity 1 to 8) from a commercial pig farm practicing a batch farrowing system. Every 2 weeks, 56 sows were moved from the gestation unit to conventional-crated farrowing houses 1 week prior to expected farrowing. Treated (T; n = 299) and control (C; n = 715) sows were included in the study. In the farrowing houses, auditory enrichment (music from a radio) was provided to sows of T groups daily from 0600 to 1800 h until the end of lactation. Until the day of farrowing, T sows were additionally subjected, for 15 s per day per sow, to continuous back scratching by one member of farm staff. Litter performance and piglet mortality were recorded and analysed between T and C sows using linear mixed regression models. The number of liveborn piglets (C 13.85 v. T 13.26) and liveborn corrected for fostering (C 13.85 v. T 13.43) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in C groups compared to the T groups. The number of stillborn piglets was 0.60 and 0.72 in T and C groups, respectively (P > 0.05). With regard to piglet mortality, a linear mixed regression model showed a significant overall effect of treatment in reducing piglet mortality (P < 0.01). Yet, the effect of treatment varied according to litter size (number of liveborn piglets) with a diminishing treatment effect in sows with a high litter size (P < 0.01). Pre-weaning survival was improved in the current study by the combined effect of daily back scratching of sows prior to farrowing and providing music to sows and piglets during lactation. Further research is needed to assess the separate effects of both interventions.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Alworth, L and Buerkle, SC 2013. The effects of music on animal physiology, behavior and welfare. Laboratory Animal 42, 54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, IL, Berg, S, Boe, KE and Edwards, S 2006. Positive handling in late pregnancy and the consequences for maternal behavior and production in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 6476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, R, Meunier-Salaün, MC and Robert, S 2008. The welfare of pregnant and lactating sows. In Welfare of pigs: from birth to slaughter (ed. Faucitano, L and Schaefer, AL), pp. 6595. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Coleman, K 2012. Individual differences in temperament and behavioral management practices for nonhuman primates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 137, 106113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, GM and Van Amerongen, G 1991. The effects of modifying the farrowing environment on sow behavior and survival and growth of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 287298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, FH, Boleij, H, Baars, AM, Dudink, S and Spruijt, BM 2008. Music during play-time: using context conditioning as a tool to improve welfare in piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 115, 138148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA and Baxter, EM 2015. Piglet mortality – causes and prevention. In The gestating and lactating sow (ed. Farmer, C), pp. 253278. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekachat, K and Vajrabukka, C 1994. Effect of music rhythm on growth performance of growing pigs. Kasetsart Journal Natural Science, Bangkok 28, 640643.Google Scholar
English, PR, Grant, SA, McPherson, O and Edwards, SA 1999. Evaluation of the effects of positive befriending of sows and gilts (pleasant treatment) prior to parturition and in early lactation on sow behavior, the process of parturition and piglet survival. In Farm animal welfare - who writes the rules? (ed. Russel, AJF, Morgan, CA, Savory, CJ, Appleby, MC and Lawrence, TLJ), volume 23, pp. 132136. British Society of Animal Science, Occasional Publication, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Farmer, C and Quesnel, H 2009. Nutritional, hormonal and environmental effects on colostrum in sows. Journal of Animal Science 87, 5664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fix, JS, Cassady, JP, Holl, JW, Herring, WO, Culbertson, MS and See, MT 2010. Effect of piglet birth weight on survival and quality of commercial market swine. Livestock Science 132, 98106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Hemsworth, PH and Barnett, JL 1986. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 269278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Hansen, C 1986. The influence of handling by humans on the behavior, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 303314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2011. Human-animal Interactions and animal productivity and welfare. In Human-livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively-farmed animals (ed. Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ), pp. 4783. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Cox, M and Barnett, JL 1994. Stimulus generalization: the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 402, 129142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Pedersen, V, Cox, M, Cronin, GM and Coleman, GJ 1999. A note on the relationship between the behavioral response of lactating sows to humans and the survival of their piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 4352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, S, Schwandt, M, Fritz, J, Roeder, E and Nelson, C 2003. A stereo music system as environmental enrichment for captive chimpanzees. Laboratory Animal 32, 3136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janczak, AM, Pedersen, LJ, Rydhmer, L and Bakken, M 2003. Relation between early fear-and anxiety-related behavior and maternal ability in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 121135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, McLean, KA, Calvert, SK, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Lawrence, AB 1999. The responsiveness of sows to their piglets in relation to the length of parturition and the involvement of endogenous opioids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 195207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Jarvis, S, Gilbert, CL and Petherick, JC 1997. Stress and parturition in the pig. Reproduction Domestic Animal 32, 231236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y, Johnston, , LJ and Hilbrands, AM 2010. Pre-weaning mortality of piglets in a bedded group-farrowing system. Journal of Swine Health and Production 18, 7580.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S and Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosnier, E, Dourmad, JY, Etienne, M, Le Floc’h, N, Pere, MC, Ramaekers, P and Meunier-Salaun, MC 2009. Feed intake in the multiparous lactating sow: its relationship with reactivity during gestation and tryptophan status. Journal of Animal Science 87, 12821291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moustsen, VA, Johansson, KP, Forkman, B, Nielsen, MBF and Andreasen, SN 2016. Impact of playing classical music and scratching on avoidance distance in loose housed farrowing sows. In Proceedings of the 50th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 12–15 July 2016, Edinburgh, UK, p. 276.Google Scholar
Otten, W, Kanitz, E, Puppe, B, Tuchscherer, M, Brussow, KP, Nurnberg, G and Stabenow, B 2004. Acute and long term effects of chronic intermittent noise stress on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical and sympatho-adrenomedullary axis in pigs. Animal Science 78, 271283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson-Kane, EG and Farnworth, MJ 2006. Noise exposure, music, and animals in the laboratory: a commentary based on Laboratory Animal Refinement and Enrichment Forum (LAREF) discussions. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9, 327332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearce, GP, Paterson, AM and Pearce, AN 1989. The influence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the provision of toys on the growth and behavior of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 2737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, C, Hemsworth, LM, Rice, M and Hemsworth, PH 2016. Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in commercial breeding gilts and sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 181, 7075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehe, R and Kalm, E 2000. Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70, 227240.Google Scholar
Silva, FR, Miranda, KODS, Piedade, SMDS and Salgado, DDA 2017. Effect of auditory enrichment (music) in pregnant sows’ welfare. Engenharia Agrícola 37, 215225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toates, F 2000. Multiple factors controlling behavior: implications for stress and welfare. In The biology of animal stress: basic principles and implications for animal welfare (ed. Moberg, GP and Mench, JA), pp. 199226. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, AI, Hemsworth, PH and Tilbrook, AJ 2005. Susceptibility of reproduction in female pigs to impairment by stress or elevation of cortisol. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 29, 398410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderhaeghe, C, Dewulf, J, de Kruif, A and Maes, D 2013. Non-infectious factors associated with stillbirth in pigs: a review. Animal Reproduction Science 139, 7688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wientjes, JGM, Soede, NM, Van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Van den Brand, H and Kemp, B 2012. Piglet uniformity and mortality in large organic litters: effects of parity and pre-mating diet composition. Livestock Science 144, 218229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YongJun, K, MoonHee, J, JeongGon, C and MyoungSoon, K 1999. Investigation of the causes of abortion and infertility in swine after consecutive detonation into base rock and use of heavy equipment. Korean Journal Veterinary Clinical Medicine 16, 381388.Google Scholar