Reproductive performance, offspring characteristics, and injury scores according to the housing system of gestating gilts

Managing Reproduction in Hyperprolific Sow Herds

The rearing of large litters from hyperprolific sows is a characteristic of modern genotypes. However, these sows have body and reproductive characteristics that differentiate them from the genotypes of the past decades, making it necessary to adopt different management strategies. This review describes the main care and challenges associated with the hyperprolificity of sows during the period in which replacement gilts are selected, along with gestation, parturition, lactation, and the weaning-estrus interval. It describes the challenges that these sows' piglets will face during the lactation period and includes some strategies adopted to develop these surplus piglets. In addition, it identifies areas where more research is needed to understand the reproductive management of modern genotypes.

Reproductive performance of gilts and weaned sows grouped at different days after insemination

The objective of the study was to compare the reproductive performances of gilts and weaned sows grouped at different days after insemination. The study was conducted on a sow farm in the Midwest of Paraná State, Brazil, using animals from the Camborough genetic line (PIC®, Patos de Minas, Brazil, Landrace × Large White crossbred). The groups of comparison have considered the distribution of gilts (n = 407) and sows (parity 1 to 5; n = 843) according to the day of group housing in collective pens in relation to the day of last insemination (AI). Thus, gilts were distributed in four groups of comparison: group housing on days 1, 2, 3, or 4 after the last AI (AI). Sows were distributed in three groups of comparison: group housing on the day after the last AI (0), at day 1 or 2 after the last AI. Farrowing rate (FR), the total number of piglets born (TB), and return to estrus (RE) were recorded. In a subsample (254 gilts and 622 sows), the presence and the score of skin lesions (0, no lesions; 1, low; 2, moderate; or 3, high) were evaluated 24 and 48 h after mixing. Statistical analysis was performed using the SAS^® 9.4 software using the GLIMMIX procedure. Comparisons of means were performed using the Tukey-Kramer test and frequencies by logistic regression. Group housing gilts on different days after insemination did not affect FR, TB, and RE (P ≥ 0.79). However, sows mixed 2 days after AI had a reduction in TB compared to those mixed on day 1 (P = 0.05), without differences from sows mixed on the day of the last AI. All the females had low (score 1; 60.5%) or moderate (score 2; 39.5%) skin lesions. For both female categories, the presence of low or moderate lesion scores did not affect ER, FR, and TB (P ≥ 0.25). Fights within 48 h were not severe enough to compromise reproductive performance (P ≥ 0.25). In conclusion, group housing gestating sows 2 days after breeding compromised litter size; however, mixing gilts on days 1 to 4 after breeding did not impair reproductive performance.

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.

Social status and previous experience in the group as predictors of welfare of sows housed in large semi-static groups

Mixing gestating sows implies hierarchy formation and has detrimental consequences on welfare. The effects of social stress on the most vulnerable individuals may be underestimated and it is therefore important to evaluate welfare between individuals within groups. This study aimed at investigating the impact of social status and previous experience in the group on well-being of sows housed in large semi-static groups. We assessed aggression (d0 (mixing), d2, d27, d29), body lesions (d1, d26, d84) and feeding order on 20 groups of 46–91 animals. Social status was based on the proportion of fights won during a 6-hr observation period between d0 and d2. Dominants (29%) were those who won more fights than they lost, Subdominants (25%) won fewer fights than they lost, Losers (23%) never won any fight in which they were involved while Avoiders (23%) were never involved in fights. Resident sows (70%) were already present in the group in the previous gestation while New sows (30%) were newly introduced at mixing. Subdominants and Dominants were highly involved in fights around mixing but this was more detrimental for Subdominants than Dominants, Losers and Avoiders since they had the highest body lesion scores at mixing. Avoiders received less non-reciprocal agonistic acts than Losers on d2 (P = 0.0001) and had the lowest body lesion scores after mixing. However, Avoiders and Losers were more at risk in the long-term since they had the highest body lesions scores at d26 and d84. They were followed by Subdominants and then Dominants. New sows fought more (P<0.0001), tended to be involved in longer fights (P = 0.075) around mixing and had more body lesions throughout gestation than Resident sows. Feeding order from one-month post-mixing was influenced both by the previous experience in the group and social status (P<0.0001). New sows, especially with a low social status, are more vulnerable throughout gestation and could serve as indicators of non-optimal conditions.

Evaluation of reproductive and animal welfare parameters of swine females of different genetic lines submitted to different reproductive management and housing systems during pregnancy

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate swine females of different genetic lines submitted to different reproductive management and housing systems during pregnancy on reproductive performance and animal welfare parameters. After artificial insemination protocol, 524 females were divided into two gestation housing systems: PEN1=animals housed in individual stalls during the breeding and after group-housed; PEN32=animals housed in individual stalls from breeding until 32 days of pregnancy and after group-housed. The number of piglets born, and the pregnancy and farrowing rates were evaluated. Welfare parameters related to the pregnancy phase were used. Females who weaned more piglets in the previous farrowing had a higher number of piglets born at the next farrowing. The pregnancy rate was affected by the number of semen doses. The farrowing rate was not influenced by the evaluated parameters, with average value of 91.36%. There was no effect of the gestation housing system and the genetic lines on pregnancy and farrowing rates, with values above 90.0%. The animal welfare indicators showed more compromised parameters in PEN1 system. PEN1 system did not impair the reproductive performance although it presented more compromised animal welfare parameters.