Straw vs. peat as nest-building material – The impact on farrowing duration and piglet mortality in loose-housed sows

Impact of farrowing system and prepartum nest-building material on nest-building behaviour and farrowing in sows

Farrowing crates are widely used as the main housing system for farrowing and lactating sows on commercial farms although they have a negative impact on sow welfare and behaviour. One of the main reasons for using farrowing crates is to reduce piglet mortality during farrowing and lactation. We compared the effects of temporary crating (TC) versus free farrowing (FF) with different nest-building materials on production and welfare measures. Sows were investigated using a 2 × 3 factorial design. Sows were allocated to two farrowing treatments: FF sows were not crated around farrowing, and TC sows were crated from 2 days before expected farrowing until 3 days after farrowing, when the crate was opened. In both farrowing treatments, the nest-building material was given from 7 days prior to farrowing as follows: (1) 1 L of straw twice per day, (2) 1 sheet of newspaper twice per day or (3) fastened jute fabric to the farrowing crate. The study consisted of two parts; part 1 included a total of 87 sows for data on piglet mortality and growth, and part 2 included data on nest-building and farrowing behaviour from a subset of these sows (n = 34). Farrowing treatment affected piglet mortality; FF sows had a lower number of stillborn piglets than TC sows (P = 0.04), but the number of crushed piglets was higher (P < 0.01). Nest-building material tended to have an impact on total number of crushed piglets (P = 0.08) and piglets that died during 3 days of lactation (P = 0.09). Litter growth was better in the FF group than in the TC group from piglet age of 1 day to 3 weeks (P = 0.04). Overall, little nest-building-related behaviour occurred, probably due to the small amount of nest-building material. The usability of the nest-building material varied with farrowing treatment; FF sows used newspaper most for nest-building, while TC sows used straw and jute fabric (P = 0.01). There were no differences in the piglet birth intervals or the farrowing duration. In conclusion, free farrowing can have positive effects on piglet growth but negative effects on piglet survival in early lactation. Different nest-building materials have different effects depending on the type of farrowing system.

Investigating the effects of jute nesting material and enriched piglet mats on sow welfare and piglet survival

Domesticated sows are motivated to perform nesting behavior prior to farrowing, and nesting material can reduce piglet cold stress. However, nesting material may not be practical in most production systems due to the potential for clogging slurry systems. Therefore, the study objectives were to assess an alternative nesting material provided prior to farrowing on sow welfare and piglet survival, and to investigate the effect of the entire nesting environment on piglet survival and growth performance. We hypothesized that the provision of jute nesting material would decrease sow stress and farrowing duration, and that nesting mat provision would allow piglets to remain euthermic and improve survival and growth. Sows (N = 20) were randomly assigned to one of two treatments: a farrowing crate with three pieces of 40.6 × 21.6 cm jute nesting material (Nest; n = 10) and two enriched piglet mats made from an acrylic board (28.0 × 86.4 cm) covered with a microfiber material, or a farrowing crate without nesting material (Control; n = 10) and one standard plastic piglet mat (28.0 × 86.4 cm). Jute pieces were attached to the front of the crate to prevent substrate from falling through the slatted floors. Saliva samples were collected to measure cortisol and immunoglobulin A (IgA), on days -1, 0, 1, and 2 relative to farrowing, and a final sample was collected at weaning (day 16.9 ± 0.18). Blood was collected from four piglets per litter to measure immunoglobulin G (IgG) at 48 h, day 7, and weaning. Piglet skin temperature (TS) was measured on two piglets per litter using an infrared camera for 3 d after birth at 0800, 1200, 1600, and 2000 h. One piglet was randomly chosen from the heat lamp and nonheat lamp side of the crate to measure TS. Video was continuously coded for observations of jute- and crate-directed interactions. Data were analyzed as a mixed model analysis of variance in SAS 9.4. Nest sows performed less crate-directed behavior than Control sows (P = 0.02). Cortisol tended to be reduced in Nest sows (P = 0.08) when compared to Controls, but no differences in IgA concentrations (P > 0.40) were detected. Nest piglets tended to be heavier on day 7 (P < 0.10), had greater IgG concentrations (P = 0.03), and had greater TS (P = 0.02) versus Controls. No farrowing duration or number of stillbirth differences were observed (P > 0.70). The jute material and piglet nests positively impacted sow welfare and piglet measures but did not translate into improved piglet survival.

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.

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.