Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:43:25.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of crate opening from day 3 postpartum to weaning on nursing and suckling behaviour in domestic pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2019

G. Illmann ,
S. Goumon ,
M. Šimečková  and
I. Leszkowová
G. Illmann*
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Přatelství 815, 104 00 Prague-Uhříněves, Czech Republic Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 160 21 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic
S. Goumon
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Přatelství 815, 104 00 Prague-Uhříněves, Czech Republic
M. Šimečková
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Přatelství 815, 104 00 Prague-Uhříněves, Czech Republic
I. Leszkowová
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Přatelství 815, 104 00 Prague-Uhříněves, Czech Republic
*
†E-mail: gudrun.illmann@vuzv.cz
Get access

Abstract

Temporary crating may be a more acceptable housing system for lactating sows than permanent crating and loose-housing because it combines benefits of both systems while reducing some of their limitations. It remains unclear whether nursing and sucking behaviour is influenced after crate opening. The aim of this study was to assess the short- (24 h post-crate opening) and long-term (day 25 postpartum (pp.)) effects of opening the farrowing crate from day 3 pp. to weaning on nursing and suckling behaviour. Sows were crated from 5 days prepartum either to weaning (permanently crated group; n = 14) or 3 days pp. (temporarily crated group; n = 13). Sows and their litters were observed on days 4 and 25. Duration of pre- and post-massages, nursing termination, number of piglets missing milk ejection and number of piglets fighting during pre- and post-massages were scored at 15-s intervals. Nursing success (i.e. with or without milk ejection) was also recorded. Data were analysed using PROC GLM and PROC GENMOD of SAS including housing, litter size and parity as fixed effects. Nursing behaviour did not differ between sows housed in temporary crates and those housed in permanent crates on days 4 and 25 pp., that is, same number of nutritive nursings (NNs), same proportion of non-NNs, same duration of post-massages and same proportion of termination of post-massages. There was only a housing effect on day 25; with sows having longer pre-massages in permanent crates (P < 0.05). Suckling behaviour was overall similar between treatments. There were no differences in the number of piglets attending pre- and post-massages, proportion of piglets fighting during pre-and post-massages and the proportion of piglets missing milk ejection on both days. The only housing effect was found on day 25 during which fewer piglets attended post-massages (P < 0.05) in permanent crates. Sows with larger litters terminated post-massages more often (P < 0.05), allowed shorter post-massages (P < 0.05) on day 4, and had more piglets miss milk ejection on days 4 and 25 (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the results of this study showed that housing had a very limited effect on nursing and suckling behaviour. Sow and piglet behaviours were not altered after crate opening (short-term effect) and nursing was to some extent calmer (shorter pre-massages and more piglets attended post-massages) in temporary crates on day 25. Increased litter size impaired nursing and suckling behaviour of sows and piglets independently of the housing system.

Keywords

animal welfarehousinglactationsow behaviournursing
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 9 , September 2019 , pp. 2018 - 2024
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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, IL, Naevdal, E and Bøe, KE 2011. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 1159–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M, Weary, D, Taylor, A and Illmann, G 1999. Vocal communication in pigs: who are nursing piglet sreaming at? Ethology 105, 881–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auldist, DE, Carlson, D, Morrish, L, Wakeford, CM and King, RH 2000. The influence of suckling interval on milk production of sows. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2026–2031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozděchová, B, Illmann, G, Andersen, IL, Haman, J and Ehrlenbruch, R 2014. Litter competition during nursings and its effect on sow response on Day 2 postpartum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 150, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chidgey, KL, Morel, PCH, Stafford, KJ and Barugh, IW 2017. Sow and piglet behavioral associations in farrowing pens with temporary crating and in farrowing crates. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research 20, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Passille, AMB and Rushen, J 1989. Suckling and teat disputes by neonatal piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1973. The nursing and suckling behaviour of pigs. I. The importance of stimulation of anterior teats. British Veterinary Journal 129, 324–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goumon, S, Leszkowová, L, Šimečková, M and Illmann, G 2018. Sow stress levels and behavior and piglet performances in farrowing crates and farrowing pens with temporary crating. Journal of Animal Science 96, 4571–4578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heidinger, B, Stinglmayr, J, Maschat, K, Oberer, M, Kuchling, S, Leeb, C, Hatzmann, E, Zentner, E, Hochfellner, L, Laubichler, C, Dolezal, M, Schwarz, L, Mösenbacher-Molterer, I, Vockenhuber, D and Baumgartner, J 2017. Evaluierung von neuen Abferkelbuchten mit Bewegungsmöglichkeit für die Sau (Pro-SAU). Forschungsprojekt 100964, 100986 und 101062 BMLFUW-LE.1.3.2/0086-II/1/2013, Wien, Projektabschlussbericht. Retrieved on 1 December 2018 from https://www.dafne.at/dafne_plus_homepage/index.php?section=dafneplus&content=result&come_from=homepage&&project_id=331.Google Scholar
Illmann, G, Leszkowová, I and Šimečková, M 2018. Do sows respond to sibling competition at the udder day 1 post-partum? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 200, 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illmann, G, Špinka, M and Štětková, Z 1999. Predictability of nursings without milk ejection in domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Gustafsson, M and Augustsson, H 1998. Teat massage after milk ingestion in domestic piglets: an example of honest begging? Animal Behaviour 55, 779–786.Google ScholarPubMed
KilBride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Cooper, S and Green, LE 2012. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2001. Birth weight variation in the domestic pig: effects on offspring survival, weight gain and suckling behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moustsen, VA, Hales, J, Lahrmann, HP, Weber, PM and Hansen, CF 2013. Confinement of lactating sows in crates for 4 days after farrowing reduces piglet mortality. Animal 7, 648–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ocepek, M, Newberry, RC and Andersen, IL 2017. Trade-offs between litter size and offspring fitness in domestic pigs subjected to different genetic selection pressures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 193, 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, ML, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Kristensen, AR 2011. Improved udder access prolongs duration of milk letdown and increases piglet weight gain. Livestock Science 140, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, B and Tuchscherer, A 1999. Developmental and territorial aspects of suckling behaviour in the domestic pig (sus scrofa f. domestica). Journal of Zoology 249, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Baxter, EM, D’Eath, RB, Turner, SP, Arnott, G, Roehe, R, Ask, B, Sandoe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA, Berg, P and Lawrence, AB 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors. Animal Welfare 22, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, C, Verdon, M, Cronin, GM and Hemsworth, PH 2017. The behaviour and welfare of sows and piglets in farrowing crates or lactation pens. Animal 11, 1210–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Špinka, M, Illmann, G, Algers, B and Stětková, Z 1997. The role of nursing frequency in milk production in domestic pig. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1223–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Špinka, M, Illmann, G, Stetkova, Z, Krejci, P, Tomanek, M, Sedlak, L and Lidicky, J 1999. Prolactin and insulin levels in lactating sows in relation to nursing frequency. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 17, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka, Y and Koketsu, Y 2007. A field study of the associations between behaviors and reproductive performance in lactating sows. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 69, 1229–1233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2007. Loose farrowing systems: challenges and solutions. Animal Welfare 16, 295–307.Google Scholar