Development of ingestive behaviour and the relationship to belly nosing in early-weaned piglets

Burlap and buddies: the effects of social enrichment (preweaning mixing) and object enrichment (burlap) on piglet performance, behavior, and welfare in the preweaning environment

When weaned in commercial operations, piglets are not only separated from their sow but also mixed with unfamiliar pigs in an unfamiliar environment with a new diet. These abrupt changes can be stressful for piglets, often having negative welfare consequences. Our objective was to study the effects of early-life preweaning socialization and object enrichment in the preweaning environment. We compared piglet performance, behavior, and welfare across six treatments that combined multi-litter group size (1 vs. 2 vs. 4 litters) and burlap (yes vs. no). We recorded piglet behavior and lesion-scored sows and piglets. Normal conforming data, expressed per experimental unit (and behavior data were averaged over time), were analyzed by ANOVA. When given the opportunity in the sow barn, piglets in multi-litter groups socialized with other litters. Burlap use (P = 0.08) was observed in < 5% of the observations but tended to increase in mixed litter groups. Cross-sucking was observed in ~12% of the observations within mixed litter groups and tended to increase with mixed group size (P = 0.08). While there was no difference in the proportion of piglets nursing (P > 0.10), piglets were less active in the single crate groups and most active in the groups of two litters mixed (P = 0.03). Additionally, observed piglet/sow biting behaviors did not differ between treatments; however, piglet-piglet biting (P = 0.07), and pen object manipulation (P = 0.07) tended to be observed more frequently in non-enriched groups. Piglet displacements were observed more often in non-enriched groups around the pen (P = 0.03) but tended to be observed more often in enriched groups at the teat (P = 0.07). Preweaning socialization and object enrichment had no impact on the average number of piglets weaned per sow or total piglet mortality (P > 0.10). However, the proportion of laid-on piglets decreased as the number of mixed litters increased (P = 0.02). The average number of lesions per piglet did not differ between treatments. Although the final lesion scores of sow teat and udder condition did not differ between treatments (P > 0.10), sow udder scores tended to worsen more in the single litters than in the mixed litters (P = 0.08). Overall, social and object enrichment allows piglets to socialize at a younger age and to redirect their attention toward an object (burlap) which does not negatively impact piglet or sow performance, or behavior, and may improve piglet welfare around weaning.

Burlap and buddies: the effects of social enrichment (preweaning mixing) and object enrichment (burlap) on piglet behavior and welfare in the postweaning environment

The process of weaning piglets in commercial swine operations subjects them to numerous abrupt and stressful changes often resulting in negative welfare consequences. The objective was to study the postweaning effects of early-life (1 to 3 d of age) preweaning socialization in multi-litter groups as well as object enrichment (burlap sheet) in the pre- and postweaning environment by comparing six treatments that combined mixing of one vs. two vs. four litters mixed preweaning with and without burlap provision. An ANOVA linear model was run on all normal data, expressed per experimental unit (and behavior data were averaged over time), while non-normal data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Non-enriched groups of piglets were observed manipulating pen objects more often than the enriched groups (P = 0.005). Biting behaviors, including the chewing of ears and tails of pen-mates but excluding fighting, were observed the least in groups of pigs of four litters mixed preweaning, while piglets that were not mixed preweaning were observed biting the most (P = 0.03). Piglets who were not mixed preweaning also manipulated the burlap more frequently than the piglets from groups of 4 litters mixed preweaning (P = 0.02). Biting (P < 0.001) and displacements (P = 0.03) and fighting (P = 0.002) throughout the pen were observed less in the enriched groups. There were fewer lesions per pig in the enriched groups vs. non-enriched groups initially (P = 0.07) and 1 wk after weaning (P = 0.10). Furthermore, pigs mixed in groups of four litters preweaning also tended to have lower lesion scores (P = 0.07) 1-wk postweaning compared to the other treatments. However, there were no differences between treatments in the proportion of piglets resting, eating/drinking, being active, or using the burlap, or for the observed frequency of displacements at the feeder, social behaviors, or belly nosing (P > 0.10). Overall, social enrichment encourages socialization with unfamiliar conspecifics at a younger age while object enrichment allows pigs to redirect their attention toward objects such as burlap. Both may improve pig behavior and welfare after weaning.

Environmental enrichment strategies for weaned pigs: Welfare and behavior

This research aims to evaluate the effects of different types and strategies of environmental enrichment for weaned pigs on behavior. Forty weaned piglets aged 21 to 28 days were distributed in a completely randomized design in five treatments: without enrichment object, full-time cognitive enrichment, intermittent cognitive enrichment, alternate cognitive and sensory enrichment every 24 hours, and alternate cognitive and sensory enrichment every 48 hours. Behavioral observations were made for 15 days considering pig as experimental unit. Pigs of control and continuous cognitive enrichment treatments were submitted to human approach test, novel arena test, and novel object test. Pigs kept in an unstimulated environment show a higher frequency of unwanted behaviors compared to pigs in other treatments regardless of enrichment type. Pigs with alternation of enrichment type every 24 hours showed a longer interaction time with enrichment objects. Enrichment objects in rearing environment during nursery phase reduced undesirable behaviors and reactivity to unknown situations. Strategies such as alternating the type of enrichment every 24 or 48 hours are effective in maintaining the novelty and the animals' interest.

Early weaning leads to the remodeling of lipid profile in piglet jejunal crypt cells during post-weaning days

Reportedly, proteins involved in lipid metabolism change significantly in the jejunal crypt cells of early-weaned piglets, but the exact lipid profile change remains uncertain. In the present study, 32 piglets weaned at 21 d of age were randomly divided into 4 groups with 8 replicates. The jejunal crypt cells of a group of piglets on the post-weaning day (PWD) 1, 3, 7, and 14 were isolated per time point. Crypt cell lipid profiles were analyzed using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with hybrid quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. This study showed that piglets suffered the greatest weaning stress on PWD 3 in terms of the lowest relative weight of the small intestine, the highest relative weight of the spleen, and the highest levels of malondialdehyde, cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The lipid profile of jejunal crypt cells including carnitine, sulfatide, sphingomyelin, hexosylceramide, and ceramide greatly changed after weaning, especially between PWD 3 and 14 (P < 0.05). The differential lipid species between these 2 d were mainly involved in the glycerophospholipid metabolism pathway. In addition, potential lipid biomarkers for weaning stress in crypt cells such as phosphatidylcholine (PC) (9:0/26:1), PC (17:0/18:2), carnitine (24:0), carnitine (22:0), sphingomyelin (d14:1/22:0), PC (P-18:0/18:4), phosphatidylethanolamine (P-16:0/20:4), phosphatidylinositol (15:1/24:4), and dihexosylceramide (d14:1/26:1) were identified. The changes in lipid profile might be related to the inflammation caused by early weaning. These findings might provide new therapeutical targets for intestinal dysfunctions caused by weaning stress.

Welfare of pigs on farm

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal-based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative 'End the Cage Age'. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long-stemmed or long-cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest-building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live-born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on-farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Herd Health Management of Porcine Post-Weaning Diarrhea

Simple Summary

In this paper, you will find recommendations on how to prevent post-weaning diarrhea in pigs kept in indoor pig herds. The recommendations are based on the scientific knowledge that is currently available. The authors first validated that Danish veterinarians working with pigs demanded such recommendations. Then, we collected papers written by other researchers who had summarized the scientific knowledge on different topics related to post-weaning diarrhea. From the papers, we extracted and synthesized 79 specific recommendations that may help veterinarians and pig producers make good decisions for their pig herd. The paper exemplifies a novel approach to summarizing and transferring science into practice that may be of interest to people that are not involved with pigs and post-weaning diarrhea.

Abstract

Aided by their advising veterinarians, pig producers need to make difficult decisions regarding herd health management strategies. For instance, the preventive use of antimicrobials and medicinal zinc oxide must be substituted with more sustainable preventive approaches to porcine post-weaning diarrhea. Veterinarians and pig producers may find assistance in knowledge based on evidence in this regard; however, the overwhelming scientific literature is not always readily available. The overall aim of this paper is to suggest herd health management decision-support tools that can aid veterinary-assisted decision making in the control of porcine post-weaning diarrhea at a tactical level. The first objective was to validate the need for a herd health management concept, including two decision-support tools. The second objective was to develop evidence-based recommendations that can aid veterinary-assisted decision-making for the herd health management of post-weaning diarrhea. The first objective was investigated by a questionnaire-based study among veterinary pig practitioners in Denmark. For the second objective, we conducted a scientific summary based on scientific review papers identified through a systematic search in three databases. From the papers, we synthesized and extracted 79 specific recommendations. In this paper, we report comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for the herd health management of post-weaning diarrhea.

Improving young pig welfare on-farm: The Five Domains Model

Considering welfare through the "neonatal and nursery pig perspective" is an exciting approach, and one that resonates with consumers. Overlaying this with the Five Domains Model, as we suggest in this review, points to practical on-farm improvements that provide each pig the opportunity to experience positive mental states. The Five Domains Model is broken into physical and functional states, that includes Domain 1 Nutrition, Domain 2 Physical Environment, Domain 3 Health and, Domain 4 Behavioral Interaction, and Domain 5 Mental State. The Five Domains Model can build on the breadth and depth of swine welfare science to highlight opportunities to improve welfare on-farm. In Domain 1 management of increasingly large litters is considered, with examples of sow vs. artificial rearing, colostrum quality and quantity, and creep feed management strategies. Efforts can result in positive mental states such as feeling full and content and the ability to experience pleasure of drinking and food tastes/smells. Domain 2 considers space complexity and access to key resources, along with thermal and physical amenities, to promote feelings of physical comfort. Domain 3 considers pig health in three broad, yet inter-linking categories, (a) congenital and hereditary health, (b) environmental pathogen load and, (c) colostrum quality and quantity, and its effect on the microbiome. Improvements can result in a pig that displays vitality and feels healthy. Domain 4 provides the pig opportunities to express its rich behavioral repertoire, specifically positive social interactions, play, and exploration. These efforts can result in pigs feeling calm, safe, comfortable, having companionship, engaged, interested and rewarded. In conclusion, using the Five Domains Model can highlight numerous opportunities to improve current and future housing and management through the "neonatal and nursery pig perspective" with a focus on inducing positive mental states that can result in improved quality of life and welfare state.

Effect of alternative farrowing pens with temporary crating on the performance of lactating sows and their litters

This study was performed to development the alternative farrowing pen (AFP) and to investigate performance and behavior of lactating sows and their litter. A total of 64 multiparous sows were randomly divided into two groups and were allocated to farrowing crates (FCs) and AFPs. The AFPs contained a crate and support bars that could be folded to provide the sows with extra space on day 5 postpartum. Behavior was recorded by charge-coupled device cameras and digital video recorders, and the data were scanned every 2 min to obtain an instantaneous behavioral sample. Farrowing systems did not affect feed intake, back-fat thickness, litter size and piglet weight at birth and weaning (p > 0.05). In addition, there were no differences in the number of crushed piglets between the two farrowing systems (p > 0.05). However, the weaning-to-estrus interval was shorter in the sows of the AFPs than in thous of the FCs (p < 0.05). The sows spent most of their time lying down during the lactating period, at about 80% lateral recumbency and 10%–15% ventral recumbency. The only significant differences were in the feeding and drinking behavior between sows in the two farrowing systems (p < 0.05). The FC sows displayed more feeding and drinking behavior than the AFP sows, especially in the late lactating period (p < 0.05). Piglets in the FCs tended to spend more time walking than piglets in the AFPs (p < 0.05), whereas there were no differences in suckling and lying behavior between piglets in the two farrowing systems (p > 0.05). It is concluded that the AFPs with temporary crating until day 4 postpartum did not negatively affect performance and crushed piglet compared with the FCs. It also may improve animal welfare by allowing sows to move and turn around during the lactating period. Further research is needed to find suitable housing designs to enhance productivity and animal welfare.

Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming-A Review

Preventative measures, such as biosecurity and vaccinations, are essential but not sufficient to ensure high standards of health in pig production systems. Restrictive, barren housing and many widely used management practices that cause pain and stress predispose high-performance pigs reared in intensive systems to disease. In this context, antibiotics are used as part of the infrastructure that sustains health and high levels of production in pig farms. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global emergency affecting human and animal health, and the use of antibiotics (AMU) in intensive livestock farming is considered an important risk factor for the emergence and spread of resistant bacteria from animals to humans. Tackling the issue of AMR demands profound changes in AMU, e.g., reducing their use for prophylaxis and ending it for growth promotion. In support of such recommendations, we revise the link between animal welfare and AMU and argue that it is crucial to sustainably reduce AMU while ensuring that pigs can live happy lives. In support of such recommendations, we aimed to revise the link between animal welfare and AMU in pigs by analysing stress factors related to housing and management and their impact on pig welfare. In particular, we reviewed critical management practices that increase stress and, therefore, pigs' susceptibility to disease and reduce the quality of life of pigs. We also reviewed some alternatives that can be adopted in pig farms to improve animal welfare and that go beyond the reduction in stress. By minimising environmental and management stressors, pigs can become more immunocompetent and prepared to overcome pathogenic challenges. This outcome can contribute to reducing AMU and the risk of AMR while simultaneously improving the quality of life of pigs and, ultimately, maintaining the pig industry's social license.

My pigs are ok, why change? - animal welfare accounts of pig farmers

Intensive pig production systems are a source of stress, which is linked to reduced animal welfare and increased antimicrobial use. As the gatekeepers of the welfare of the animals under their care, farmers are seen as the stakeholder responsible for improving animal welfare. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of pig farmers towards pig welfare and the impact of such attitudes on farmers' selection of management strategies on the farm. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 44 pig farmers in one of the main pig producing regions of Brazil. Interviews covered knowledge and attitudes towards pig sentience and behaviour and welfare-related issues commonly observed in intensive pig farms (belly-nosing, fights, tail-biting, diarrhoea and castration without pain control) and farmers' conception and attitudes towards pig welfare. We identified many management and animal-based indicators of poor welfare, such as the use of painful and stressful management practices and use of environments that limit the expression of natural behaviours. However, most farmers were satisfied with animal welfare standards at their farms. Farmers' perceptions are aligned with their understanding of animal welfare. Although they identified all the dimensions that impact the welfare of a pig on a farm (affect, biological functioning and naturalness), their social reality, industry demands and available advice pushed them to perceive their range of action limited to biological and environmental aspects of the animals that do not necessarily benefit affective state. This precluded farmers from making associations between good health and the animal's ability to express a full behavioural repertoire, as well as from viewing abnormal behaviours as problems. The negative consequences for the welfare of the animals were commonly alleviated by routines that relied on constant use of medication, including high dependence on antibiotics. Expressions of estrangement from the production chain were common voices among the participants. This suggests that farmers may not be sufficiently informed or engaged in responding to consumers' expectations and commitments made by companies, which can pose a severe economic risk for farmers. The findings of this study indicate that economic, technical and social factors restrict farmers' autonomy and their ability to perform their role as stewards of animal welfare. (Re)connecting different human, animal and environmental interests may be a step to changing this scenario.

Environmental enrichment strategies for nursery piglets and efficacy for maintaining interest

Context Animals in situations of stress and constant fear exhibit unwanted behaviours for production. Pigs that are afraid of humans tend to associate any management as stressful. The use of environment enrichment for pigs may help to alleviate anxiety and fear, and hence reduce unwanted behaviours during handling. However, provision of appropriate enrichment presents challenges such as the rapid loss of interest in objects by animals. Aims The present study evaluated the effects of different environmental enrichment strategies on the behaviour of pigs at the nursery stage, maintenance of animal interest in the enrichment objects, and their reflexes when faced with emotionally negative situations. Methods Piglets (n = 425) were assigned in a completely randomised design with five treatments and five replicates per treatment (17 animal per replicate). The treatments employed were: control, no enriching objects in the environment; WB, wooden box with popcorn and wood shavings; PT, objects made of plastic tubing; WB and PT concurrently; and WB or PT on alternate days. Behavioural observations were made over 10 days for 8 h each day, divided into four periods of 2 h. Piglets from enriched (n = 10) and non-enriched (n = 10) environments were subjected to three fear tests (human approach, novel object and novel arena). Key results No significant (P &gt; 0.05) effect was found for the type of enrichment provided or strategy adopted (concurrent vs alternating) on the time piglets interacted with the enrichment objects. Animals kept in an environment with no stimulus had higher frequency (P &lt; 0.05) of undesirable behaviours than those with enrichment, regardless of enrichment type or strategy adopted. Piglets reared without enrichment, when isolated in a new environment, had higher frequency of behaviours such as defecating, urinating and attempting escape, as well as more and longer vocalisation events (P &lt; 0.05). Piglets reared in an enriched environment had higher frequency and duration of interaction with a new object, as well as shorter latency time for the first contact with the object (P &lt; 0.05). Conclusions The use of enrichment objects in the rearing environment of piglets at the nursery stage reduced undesirable behaviours, suggesting reduced fear and anxiety, and may therefore improve their psychological wellbeing. Implications Use of enrichment objects during rearing may have implications for alleviation of chronic stress, which leads to constant release of cortisol, an immune suppressor hormone that reduces the health status of the batch and hence production indices.

Effects of Environmental Enrichment on Pig Welfare-A Review

Good husbandry conditions on farms is of key importance for assuring animal welfare. One of the most important legal documents regulating the rules of maintaining pigs is the Directive 2008/120/EC, which states that group-housed pigs should have access to litter or other materials that provide exploration and occupation. Released in 2016, the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 on the application of the Council Directive 2008/120/EC characterizes the various categories of materials that may be used to improve animal welfare. According to the document, straw is considered as an optimal material for pig housing, however, materials categorized as suboptimal (e.g., wood bark) and materials of marginal interest (e.g., plastic toys) are often used in practice and scientific research. As such, the aim of this paper is to review and systematize the current state of knowledge on the topic of the impact of environmental enrichment on pig welfare. This article raises mainly issues, such as the effectiveness of the use of various enrichment on the reduction of undesirable behavior-tail biting; aggression; and stereotypies at the pre-weaning, post-weaning, and fattening stage of pig production.

Safety and efficacy of iron dextran as a feed additive for piglets

The additive, 'Iron dextran 10%', is a liquid preparation containing iron dextran (25%, of which 10% is total iron), sodium chloride (1.5%), phenol (0.4%) and water (73.1%). Iron dextran 10% is considered safe for suckling piglets when given at an oral dose of 1 mL/kg body weight (bw) once in each of the first 2 weeks of life; this dose corresponds to 100 mg Fe/kg bw. The administration of iron dextran 10% to piglets deficient in vitamin E and/or selenium is considered a risk. The oral use of iron dextran 10% in suckling piglets does not pose any safety concerns to consumers, provided that the conditions identified as safe for the target animal are respected. Iron dextran 10% is considered a respiratory sensitiser and may be harmful if inhaled; however, exposure by inhalation is not expected; therefore, the risk is considered to be negligible. Iron dextran 10% is an irritant to skin and eyes; a risk by skin sensitisation cannot be excluded. The presence of phenol in the additive should be considered to pose a hazard for users. The use of the additive for suckling piglets at the proposed level does not pose a safety concern to the environment. The available studies with orally administered iron dextran indicate that the additive is a bioavailable source of iron for suckling piglets; however, the efficacy of the additive when given to newborn pigs as proposed via water for drinking (voluntary intake) has not been demonstrated. The Panel proposed some recommendations regarding the dextran used in the manufacture of the additive and the procedure for administering the additive to piglets.

Development of piglets raised in a new multi-litter housing system vs. conventional single-litter housing until 9 weeks of age

This study compared the development until 9 wk of age of piglets raised in either a multi-litter (ML) system or a conventional single-litter (SL) system. The ML system consisted of a multi-suckling system with 5 sows and their litters before weaning, followed by housing in a pen with enrichment in a group of 40 piglets after weaning. In the SL system, piglets were housed with a crated sow before weaning, followed by postweaning housing in groups of 10 littermates in a standard pen. Fifty litters were used in 5 batches and piglets were weaned at 4 wk of age. Preweaning mortality was higher in the ML system than in the SL system (3.22 ± 0.42 vs. 1.52 ± 0.25 piglets per litter, < 0.01), mainly due to crushing before grouping of litters. Litter size at grouping did not differ between systems. ML piglets showed more feed-directed behavior at 2 wk of age (6.80 ± 0.96 vs. 2.35 ± 0.59, < 0.01), suggesting an earlier start of feed exploration, possibly due to social learning from the floor-fed sows and other piglets. Moreover, before weaning, ML piglets showed less damaging oral manipulation (e.g., tail biting) than SL piglets (1.4 ± 0.2 vs. 3.6 ± 0.3 freq/h, < 0.001), which was likely related to the more enriched environment in the ML system. After weaning, ML piglets ate 81% more feed between d 1 and 2 (0.29 ± 0.02 vs. 0.16 ± 0.03 kg/piglet, < 0.01) and had an 82% higher weight gain until d 5 than SL piglets (1.35 ± 0.21 vs. 0.75 ± 0.17 kg, < 0.05) despite a similar weaning weight (ML: 8.4 ± 0.2 kg, SL: 8.3 ± 0.2 kg). Within the first 2 wk after weaning, ML piglets had a lower fecal consistency score (0.27 ± 0.03 vs. 0.39 ± 0.03, < 0.05), indicating a lower occurrence of diarrhea compared with SL piglets. Over the entire 5-wk postweaning phase, ML piglets had a 24% higher weight gain ( < 0.05) and showed more play behavior (4.0 ± 0.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.3 freq/h, < 0.05) and less damaging oral manipulation (1.8 ± 0.3 vs. 3.5 ± 0.4 freq/h, < 0.01) than SL piglets. These results are probably explained by a combination of the differences in preweaning development, early postweaning performance, and postweaning environment, with a larger and more diverse social group and more physical enrichment in the ML pen. To summarize, provided that preweaning mortality can be reduced, the ML system seems promising for raising robust piglets with better welfare, indicated by a better preweaning behavioral development, improved transition to the postweaning phase, and better postweaning performance.

Metabolic indicators of nutritional stress are not predictive of abnormal oral behavior in piglets

Belly nosing is an abnormal oral-nasal behavior that can develop to high levels in newly weaned piglets and may signal nutritional need. The effects of feed restriction on both behavior and metabolic serum parameters were examined in 128 weaned piglets. All pigs were fed ad libitum during week 1, and during week 2, half of all pens (N=8) were restricted to 65% of ad libitum intake. Blood samples were collected on days 3 and 10 after weaning and behavior was observed from video recordings on days 5 and 12. Piglets were classified as early 'nosers' or early 'non-nosers' based on their behavior on day 5. Feed restriction resulted in elevated non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) and both lower glucose and a NEFA/glucose ratio, but belly nosing was not affected. Piglets classified as 'nosers' did not have blood profiles indicating they were in greater nutritional need compared to 'non-nosers' in the first week of weaning, nor did they increase belly nosing or other piglet directed behaviors when restricted in week 2. Overall, no associations were found between blood parameters indicative of nutritional stress and belly nosing. This study identifies serum glucose, BHB and NEFA as well as the glucose/NEFA ratio as useful indicators of nutritional stress in newly weaned piglets.

Prenatal flavor exposure affects growth, health and behavior of newly weaned piglets

Young animals can learn about flavors from the maternal diet that appear in the amniotic fluid and mother's milk, which may reduce neophobia for similarly flavored food types at weaning. Flavor learning may be beneficial for piglets, which after the rather abrupt weaning in pig husbandry frequently show a period of anorexia, reduced health, and stress-induced behaviors. We investigated the effects of pre- and postnatal flavor exposure through the maternal diet on acceptance of a similarly flavored food and subsequent growth, health and behavior of newly weaned piglets. Sows were offered anise-flavored (F) or control (C) food during late gestation. Piglets were cross-fostered after birth, with each sow fostering 5 piglets from an F sow and 5 from a C sow. During lactation, sows were offered F or C food, resulting in FF, CF, FC and CC piglets. Piglets were weaned on day 25 and were given both control and flavored food for two weeks using a double food choice approach. The flavored food was not preferred. Yet, prenatally exposed animals showed a higher food intake and a higher body weight in the first days after weaning, and a lower occurrence of diarrhoea than non-exposed piglets. Prenatal exposure also increased the latency to fight, and reduced oral manipulation of pen mates and mounting during the first two weeks after weaning. Prenatal exposure, but not postnatal exposure alone, to anisic flavor through the maternal diet reduced weaning-associated problems in piglets and enhanced their health and welfare in the period after weaning.

Effect of drinker type on water intake and waste in newly weaned piglets

During the first few days after weaning, pigs often experience BW loss as they adapt to eating solid food. During this time period, they are also known to drink excessively and develop abnormal oral behavior such as belly nosing. The excessive drinking may stem from the piglets' attempt to satiate hunger through gut fill from a familiar ingestive source. Gut fill through water intake may affect the establishment of feeding behavior. Using drinker devices other than the standard nipple drinker may ease the piglets' transition at weaning by facilitating the initiation of feeding and preventing the development of behavioral problems such as excessive drinking and belly nosing. In this experiment, we examined the effect of drinker type on water and food intake, growth rates, and belly nosing in newly weaned piglets. Eighteen pens of 15 piglets each (270 piglets total) were weaned at 18.1 +/- 0.1 d of age and housed in pens containing 1 of 3 drinker devices (standard nipple, push-lever bowl, and float bowl). Piglets' water and feed intake, water use, BW, and behavior were examined on a pen basis through 2 wk after weaning. Piglets with nipple drinkers wasted more water than the other piglets (P < 0.001; float, 295 +/- 70 mL x pig(-1) . d(-1); nipple, 1,114 +/- 63 mL x pig(-1) . d(-1); and push-lever, 186 +/- 63 mL x pig(-1) . d(-1)), whereas piglets with float bowls consumed less water than the other piglets (P < 0.001; float, 475 +/- 81 mL . pig(-1) x d(-1); nipple, 870 +/- 76 mL x pig(-1) . d(-1); push-lever, 774 +/- 76 mL x pig(-1) . d(-1)). Drinker type affected feeding behavior (P = 0.02); piglets with push-lever bowls spent less time at the feeder than the other piglets, although no difference was detected for feed intake (P = 0.64) or overall ADG (P = 0.16). Piglets with push-lever bowls also tended to perform less piglet-directed nosing behavior than piglets with the float bowl (P = 0.04). Piglets appear to use more water during the first 2 d after weaning with certain drinker devices. However, piglets do not appear to attain satiety through water consumption because most of the water used during the first few days after weaning is wasted. This excessive drinking and water wastage can be abated through the use of push-lever drinkers without negative implications for feed intake or growth rates.