Farrowing Pens for Individually Loose-Housed Sows: Results on the Development of the SowComfort Farrowing Pen
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Test Farms and Animals
2.2. The Pens
2.3. Feeding and Management
2.4. Postmortem Analysis and Assessment of Carpal Lesions
2.5. Sow–Piglet Communication
2.6. Statistics
2.7. Ethical Statement
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Pen Type, Batch, and Litter Size in Herd 1
3.2. Effects of Pen Type, Batch, and Litter Size in Herd 2
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Andersen, I.L.; Nævdal, E.; Bøe, K.E. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2011, 65, 1159–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ocepek, M.; Rosvold, E.M.; Andersen-Ranberg, I.; Andersen, I.L. Can we improve maternal care in sows? Maternal behavioural traits important for piglet survival in loose-housed sow herds. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 4708–4717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cronin, G.M.; Leeson, E.; Dunsmore, B.W.N. Sow preference for farrowing site orientation. In Manipulating Pig Production VI; Cranwell, P.D., Ed.; Australasian Pig Science Association: Werribee, Australia, 1997; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
- Damm, B.I.; Lisborg, L.; Vestergaard, K.S.; Vanicek, J. Nest-building, behavioural disturbances and heart rate in farrowing sows kept in crates and Schmid pens. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 80, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, G.M.; Dunsmore, B.; Leeson, E. The effects of farrowing nest size and width on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 60, 331–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter, E.M.; Adeleye, O.; Jack, M.; Farish, M. Achieving optimum performance in a loose housed farrowing system for sows: The effects of space and temperature. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 169, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ocepek, M.; Andersen, I.L. What makes a good mother? Maternal behavioural traits important for piglet survival. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 193, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ocepek, M.; Andersen, I.L. Sow communication with piglets while being active is a good predictor of maternal skills, piglet survival and litter quality in three different breeds of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus). PLoS ONE 2018, 13, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, G.M. Practical Alternatives for Farrowing Sows; Pig Research Report; Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Agriculture Victoria: Attwood, VIC, Australia, 1997; Volume 82, p. 11. [Google Scholar]
- Cronin, G.M.; Lefébure, B.; McClintock, S.A. Comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee Farrowing Pen and conventional farrowing crates at a commercial farm. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2000, 40, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, R.; Keil, N.M.; Fehr, M.; Horat, R. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Anim. Wel. 2007, 16, 277–279. [Google Scholar]
- Baxter, E.M.; Jarvis, S.; Sherwood, L.; Farish, M.; Roehe, R.; Lawrence, A.B.; Edwards, S.A. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 130, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosvold, E.M.; Framstad, T.; Newberry, R.C.; Andersen, I.L. Nest-building behaviour and activity budgets of sows provided with different materials. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 200, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosvold, E.M.; Andersen, I.L. Straw vs. peat as nest-building material—The impact on farrowing duration and piglet mortality in loose-housed sows. Livest. Sci. 2019, 229, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosvold, E.M.; Newberry, R.; Andersen, I.L. Early mother-young interactions in domestic sows—nest-building material increases maternal investment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 219, 104837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damm, B.I.; Moustsen, V.; Jørgensen, E.; Pedersen, L.J.; Heiskanen, T.; Forkman, B. Sow preferences for walls to lean against when lying down. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 99, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malmkvist, J.; Pedersen, L.J.; Damgaard, B.M.; Thodberg, K.; Jørgensen, E.; Labouriau, R. Does floor heating around parturition affect the vitality of piglets born to loose-housed sows? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 99, 88–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stangel, G.; Jensen, P. Behaviour of semi-naturally kept sows and piglets (except suckling) during 10 days postpartum. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1991, 31, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasdal, G.; Glærum, M.; Melišová, M.; Bøe, K.E.; Broom, D.M.; Andersen, I.L. Increasing the piglets’ use of the creep area—A battle against biology? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 125, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melisová, M.; Illmann, G.; Andersen, I.L.; Vasdal, G.; Haman, J. Can sow pre-lying communication or good piglet condition prevent piglets from getting crushed? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 134, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, P.A.; Fraser, D.; Pawluczuk, B. Floor temperature preference of sows at farrowing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 67, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirkden, R.D.; Broom, D.M.; Andersen, I.L. Piglet mortality: Management solutions. Invited review. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 3361–3389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosvold, E.M.; Kielland, C.; Ocepek, M.; Framstad, T.; Fredriksen, B.; Andersen-Ranberg, I.; Næss, G.; Andersen, I.L. Management routines influencing piglet survival in loose-housed sow herds. Livest. Sci. 2017, 196, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andersen, I.L.; Haukvik, I.A.; Bøe, K.E. Drying and warming immediately after birth may reduce piglet mortality. Animal 2009, 3, 592–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Andersen, I.L.; Vasdal, G.; Pedersen, L.J. Nest building and posture changes and activity budgets of gilts housed in pens and crates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 159, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bøe, K.E.; Hall, E.J.S.; Cronin, G. The effect of pen design on pen floor cleanliness in farrowing pens for loose housed lactating sows. Livest. Sci. 2019, 229, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ocepek, M.; Andersen-Ranberg, I.; Edwards, S.; Fredriksen, B.; Framstad, T.; Andersen, I.L. Can a super sow be a robust sow? Consequences of litter investment in purebred and crossbred sows of different parities. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 3550–3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ocepek, M.; Newberry, R.C.; Andersen, I.L. Trade-offs between litter size and offspring fitness in domestic pigs subjected to different genetic selection pressures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 193, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Effect of Pen Type | Effect of Batch | Effect of Litter Size | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
γ2 | p-Value | γ2 | p-Value | γ2 | p-Value | |
Mortality of live born, % | 8.5 | 0.0035 | 150.2 | <0.0001 | 105.2 | <0.0001 |
Overlain, % | 108.3 | <0.0001 | 90.5 | <0.0001 | 55.7 | <0.0001 |
No milk, % | 52.2 | <0.0001 | 375.4 | <0.0001 | 25.1 | <0.0001 |
Other causes, % | 25.1 | <0.0001 | 41.5 | <0.0001 | 40.1 | <0.0001 |
Still born, % | 0.9 | 0.3384 | 49.6 | <0.0001 | 151.1 | <0.0001 |
No. of weaned pigs | 1.7 | 0.194 | 10.8 | 0.147 | 19.3 | <0.0001 |
TRAD | SOWCOMF | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Batch 1 | Batch 2 | Batch 3 | Batch 1 | Batch 2 | |
No. of live born | 14.4 ± 0.6 a | 12.4 ± 0.9 b | 12.2 ± 0.6 b | 12.7 ± 0.6 | 13.2 ± 0.7 |
Mortality of live born, % | 19.6 ± 3.0 a | 12.5 ± 2.4 b | 9.3 ± 2.0 c | 11.8 ± 2.2 a | 15.9 ± 2.9 b |
Stillborn, % | 4.3 ± 1.2 a | 4.1 ± 1.7 a | 8.9 ± 1.7 b | 4.9 ± 1.3 | 4.9 ± 1.2 |
Dead without milk, % | 2.7 ± 0.9 a | 1.8 ± 1.1 b | 0.7 ± 0.7 c | 0.3 ± 0.3 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 b |
Overlain, % | 12.6 ± 2.1 a | 8.8 ± 1.8 b | 7.5 ± 2.0 c | 10.5 ± 2.2 a | 15.1 ± 2.8 b |
Other causes, % | 4.4 ± 2.5 a | 2.1 ± 1.3 b | 1.5 ± 0.9 c | 1.3 ± 0.5 a | 0.8 ± 0.4 b |
No. of weaned piglets | 11.6 ± 0.7 a | 10.7 ± 0.8 b | 10.9 ± 0.5 b | 11.0 ± 0.5 | 11.0 ± 0.6 |
Effect of Pen Type | Effect of Batch | Effect of Litter Size | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
γ2 | p-Value | γ2 | p-Value | γ2 | p-Value | |
Mortality of live born, % | 8.5 | 0.004 | 150.2 | <0.0001 | 105.2 | <0.0001 |
Overlain; % | 108.3 | <0.0001 | 90.5 | <0.0001 | 55.7 | <0.0001 |
No milk, % | 52.2 | <0.0001 | 375.4 | <0.0001 | 25.1 | <0.0001 |
Other causes, % | 25.1 | <0.0001 | 41.5 | <0.0001 | 40.1 | <0.0001 |
Still born, % | 0.9 | 0.338 | 49.6 | <0.0001 | 151.1 | <0.0001 |
No. of weaned pigs | 1.7 | 0.194 | 10.8 | 0.147 | 19.3 | <0.0001 |
TRAD | SOWCOMF | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Batch 1 | Batch 2 | Batch 3 | Batch 1 | Batch 2 | Batch 3 | Batch 4 | Batch 5 | Batch 6 | Batch 7 | |
No. of live born | 15.0 ± 0.4 | 15.4 ± 0.4 | 14.6 ± 0.4 | 15.0 ± 0.3 | 14.5 ± 0.3 | 14.3 ± 0.4 | 14.2 ± 0.2 | 15.6 ± 0.3 | 13.7 ± 0.3 | 13.8 ± 0.2 |
Mortality of live born | 13.4 ± 1.6 a | 14.5 ± 1.4 a | 20.9 ± 2.3 b | 15.4 ± 1.6 a | 15.1 ± 1.3 a | 13.0 ± 1.8 b | 12.3 ± 1.6 c | 12.4 ± 1.3 c | 11.7 ± 1.6 c | 12.4 ± 1.8 c |
Stillborn | 4.1 ± 0.9 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 4.7 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.7 a | 4.8 ± 1.0 b | 5.5 ± 1.2 b | 5.5 ± 1.1 b | 4.6 ± 0.8 b | 6.5 ± 1.2 b | 6.3 ± 1.5 b |
Dead without milk | 6.1 ± 1.2 a | 3.8 ± 1.0 b | 9.9 ± 1.7 c | 3.6 ± 0.7 a | 2.1 ± 0.6 b | 1.0 ± 0.3 c | 1.7 ± 0.6 bc | 0.2 ± 0.2 d | 1.3 ± 0.5 bc | 0.7 ± 0.4 d |
Overlain | 5.6 ± 0.8 a | 7.8 ± 1.0 b | 8.8 ± 1.2 c | 9.8 ± 1.4 a | 12.1 ± 1.4 a | 10.7 ± 1.7 a | 9.1 ± 1.4 a | 10.7 ± 1.3 a | 7.8 ± 1.2 b | 9.9 ± 1.8 a |
Other causes | 2.1 ± 0.7 a | 3.5 ± 1.2 b | 2.4 ± 1.4 a | 2.7 ± 0.6 a | 0.7 ± 0.3 b | 1.1 ± 0.3 b | 1.7 ± 0.6 b | 1.5 ± 0.5 b | 2.4. ± 0.8 a | 2.1 ± 0.7 a |
No. of weaned | 13.2 ± 0.2 a | 12.9 ± 0.1 a | 11.6 ± 0.3 b | 12.2 ± 0.3 | 12.4 ± 0.2 | 12.5 ± 0.4 | 12.3 ± 0.2 | 13.8 ± 0.4 | 12.2 ± 0.2 | 11.7 ± 0.4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Andersen, I.L.; Ocepek, M. Farrowing Pens for Individually Loose-Housed Sows: Results on the Development of the SowComfort Farrowing Pen. Agriculture 2022, 12, 868. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060868
Andersen IL, Ocepek M. Farrowing Pens for Individually Loose-Housed Sows: Results on the Development of the SowComfort Farrowing Pen. Agriculture. 2022; 12(6):868. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060868
Chicago/Turabian StyleAndersen, Inger Lise, and Marko Ocepek. 2022. "Farrowing Pens for Individually Loose-Housed Sows: Results on the Development of the SowComfort Farrowing Pen" Agriculture 12, no. 6: 868. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060868