Alternative housing for sows and litters: 2. Effects of a communal piglet area on pre- and post-weaning behaviour and performance

Reducing Weaning Stress in Piglets by Pre-Weaning Socialization and Gradual Separation from the Sow: A Review

The weaning of pigs in most commercial pork production systems is an abrupt event performed at a fairly young age, i.e., mostly between 2.5 and 5 weeks of age. This practice induces a stress response, and its impact on behavior, performance and the gastrointestinal tract has been well described. Historically, there has been a focus on pre- and post-weaning nutritional strategies and post-weaning housing conditions and medication to improve production and reduce mortality after weaning. However, alternative pre-weaning housing and management systems that promote the development of natural social behaviors of piglets before weaning have recently received more attention. Co-mingling of non-littermates before weaning is a strategy that aims to initiate social interactions prior to weaning. The separation of the litter from the sow in the period leading up to weaning, termed intermittent suckling, aims to enhance the gradual separation from the sow. In addition, these practices encourage the young pig to learn explorative nutrient sourcing. Altogether, they may reduce weaning-associated stress. In this review, these strategies are defined, and their effects on behavior, performance, mortality, gastrointestinal function and immunocompetence are described. Though these strategies may be adapted to a commercial setting, it also becomes clear that many factors can contribute to the success of these strategies.

The Evidence for a Causal Link Between Disease and Damaging Behavior in Pigs

Damaging behaviors (DB) such as tail and ear biting are prevalent in pig production and reduce welfare and performance. Anecdotal reports suggest that health challenges increase the risk of tail-biting. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems show high correlations across batches within and between farms. There are many common risk factors for tail-biting and health problems, notably respiratory, enteric and locomotory diseases. These include suboptimal thermal climate, hygiene, stocking density and feed quality. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems also show high correlations across batches within and between farms. However, limited evidence supports two likely causal mechanisms for a direct link between DB and health problems. The first is that generalized poor health (e.g., enzootic pneumonia) on farm poses an increased risk of pigs performing DB. Recent studies indicate a possible causal link between an experimental inflammation and an increase in DB, and suggest a link between cytokines and tail-biting. The negative effects of poor health on the ingestion and processing of nutrients means that immune-stimulated pigs may develop specific nutrient deficiencies, increasing DB. The second causal mechanism involves tail-biting causing poor health. Indirectly, pathogens enter the body via the tail lesion and once infected, systemic spread of infection may occur. This occurs mainly via the venous route targeting the lungs, and to a lesser extent via cerebrospinal fluid and the lymphatic system. In carcasses with tail lesions, there is an increase in lung lesions, abscessation, arthritis and osteomyelitis. There is also evidence for the direct spread of pathogens between biters and victims. In summary, the literature supports the association between poor health and DB, particularly tail-biting. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm causality in either direction. Nevertheless, the limited evidence is compelling enough to suggest that improvements to management and housing to enhance pig health will reduce DB. In the same way, improvements to housing and management designed to address DB, are likely to result in benefits to pig health. While most of the available literature relates to tail-biting, we suggest that similar mechanisms are responsible for links between health and other DB.

Review: Early life predisposing factors for biting in pigs

The pig industry faces many animal welfare issues. Among these, biting behaviour has a high incidence. It is indicative of an existing problem in biters and is a source of physical damage and psychological stress for the victims. We categorize this behaviour into aggressive and non-aggressive biting, the latter often being directed towards the tail. This review focusses specifically on predisposing factors in early life, comprising the prenatal and postnatal periods up to weaning, for the expression of aggressive and non-aggressive biting later in life. The influence of personality and coping style has been examined in a few studies. It varies according to these studies and, thus, further evaluation is needed. Regarding the effect of environmental factors, the number of scientific papers is low (less than five papers for most factors). No clear influence of prenatal factors has been identified to date. Aggressive biting is reduced by undernutrition, cross-fostering and socialization before weaning. Non-aggressive biting is increased by undernutrition, social stress due to competition and cross-fostering. These latter three factors are highly dependent on litter size at birth. The use of familiar odours may contribute to reducing biting when pigs are moved from one environment to another by alleviating the level of stress associated with novelty. Even though the current environment in which pigs are expressing biting behaviours is of major importance, the pre-weaning environment should be optimized to reduce the likelihood of this problem.

Comparison of three different farrowing systems: skin lesions and behaviour of sows with special regard to nursing behaviour in a group housing system for lactating sows

While group housing (GH) is mandatory in the European Union for the greater part of pregnancy, single housing in farrowing crates (FCs) during lactation that restrict sows in most of their natural behaviour patterns is still practised on a large scale. Research is urgently needed to develop alternative farrowing systems that improve sows' welfare. Therefore, sows in three different farrowing systems - pens with FC, loose housing (LH) pens and GH for six sows - were compared regarding the level of skin injuries and their active and resting behaviour. A skin injury score was assessed for 15 body parts of 102 sows in six batches on 3 days (days 1, 14 and 34). In total, the active and resting behaviour of 77 sows in six batches was examined on 3 days (days 18, 25 and 32) between 0700 h and 1900 h by means of a scan sampling method. The suckling behaviour and the level of cross-suckling were analysed in GH by means of direct observation in four batches during three 4-h sampling periods (days 17, 24 and 31). No significant differences were found in total skin injuries when the sows entered the systems (day 1), but GH sows showed significantly higher total skin injuries compared to FC and LH sows in the middle (day 14) and at the end (day 34) of the lactation period. A significant difference between FC and LH sows was never seen. Differences were found for the proportion of different body postures between the three systems. The odds for lying in lateral recumbency versus standing and sitting versus standing were significantly higher for FC and LH sows compared to GH sows. Additionally, sows were significantly more likely to be standing as opposed to lying in lateral recumbency as the lactation period progressed. Cross-suckling was a frequent behaviour in GH, seen in 35.0% of all successful suckling bouts. However, only an average of 0.56 piglets per successful suckling bout was observed cross-suckling, suggesting only a few piglets were engaged in cross-suckling. In conclusion, the skin injury score was only moderately increased in GH compared to FC and LH and comparable to pregnant group-housed sows, both free farrowing systems seemed to be an environmental enrichment for lactating sows and good management cannot prevent the occurrence of cross-suckling in a GH system, but can probably reduce it.

The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system

The objectives of this study were to establish what changes in posture by sows carried a high risk of piglet crushing in a group farrowing system during early lactation and also to determine what factors influenced the risk of crushing during lying down. A total of 24 Large White ✕ Landrace sows were studied during the first 7 days of lactation in a group farrowing system. Cross-fostering was not carried out so as not to influence behaviour. Dead piglets were removed and cause of death ascertained from external observation and post-mortem examination. Sow and piglet behaviour was video-recorded continuously. A total of 268 piglets were born alive, with 67 liveborn piglets subsequently dying during the 7-day experimental period, 50 as a result of crushing. A total of 7425 posture changes were analysed and 11 types of posture change were identified, the most dangerous being lying down from standing and those involving swapping sides, or rolling over, whilst lying.

Dangerous events during lying down were more likely to occur (1) in the first 24 h after farrowing, (2) when the sow lay down in the middle of the pen, (3) when the sow lay down without carrying out much piglet-directed pre-lying behaviour and (4) when the piglets were spread out but near to the sow. The amount of pre-lying behaviour decreased over time and crushing mortality also decreased. The results confirm that the piglets are most vulnerable to crushing during the first 24 h of life, when they are spending much of their time near the udder and have relatively poor mobility. Co-ordination of behaviour between the sow and her litter is important to reduce the risk of crushing. It is also important that the design of open farrowing systems incorporates knowledge about how crushing deaths occur in order to improve piglet welfare.

An opportunity to revolutionise sow management

Research in any area of animal production can provide the opportunity to change how the system operates and is managed. The reliance on having to wean lactating sows to re-mate them has limited the commercial options for sow management. The desire to limit lactation length to maximise the litters per sow per year concurrently creates major challenges for such-aged piglets weaned abruptly. These issues are discussed in the review. This management system also fails to recognise that sows have the potential to spontaneously ovulate in lactation even when housed in farrowing crates. Inhibition of luteinising hormone release is the basis of lactational anoestrus with the suckling stimulus providing the strongest afferent signal to this inhibitory system. Any management strategy that reduces this inhibition has the potential to trigger lactational oestrus. In this review, group housing of sows, boar exposure and intermittent suckling are identified as strong stimuli that can promote lactational oestrus. Removing the need to wean sows to mate them offers further opportunities to change the way lactating sows are managed. One option is a two-stage lactation system in which the sows are housed in farrowing crates for the first 10–14 days and then moved to group accommodation for the remainder of lactation. This system provides welfare benefits for the litter in the early stage of lactation and then the benefits of less confinement for the sows in later lactation. Group lactation would also lend itself to the implementation of stimuli to assist the mating of sows in lactation, such as piglet separation and/or boar exposure. It also accommodates the mating of sows that spontaneously ovulate in lactation. Removing the need to wean sows to re-mate them provides the opportunity to increase weaning age and implement a gradual weaning, helping to attenuate the post-weaning growth check and potentially limiting antimicrobial use in weaner pigs.

Group housing for lactating sows with electronically controlled crates: 1. Reproductive traits, body condition, and feed intake

The aim was to compare a group housing system (GROUP) and a conventional single housing (SINGLE) for lactating sows with regard to the performance of sows and piglets. Data of 132 cross-breed sows were collected in 11 batches with 6 sows in GROUP and SINGLE in each batch. The GROUP had single pens (4.7 m(2)) with electronically controlled crates and a shared running area (13 m(2)). The sows in GROUP were retained in the crates 3 d prepartum until 1 d postpartum. Piglets were able to leave the single pens on d 5 postpartum. Recorded traits per litter included the number of piglets born alive and weaned, piglet losses, and individual BW at birth and weaning. In addition, body condition and back fat thickness before and after lactation (26 d) and the daily feed intake of the sows were measured. Gilts and sows were analyzed separately. The reproductive traits did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) between the farrowing systems with exception of the weaning weights (GROUP = 7.6 ± 0.12 kg vs. SINGLE = 8.1 ± 0.12 kg; P < 0.05). Group housed and SINGLE sows had 14.4 ± 0.47 and 14.6 ± 0.45 piglets born alive, respectively. In both housing systems, sows weaned 11.4 piglets (SEM = 0.14 and 0.13 for GROUP and SINGLE), respectively. Most piglet losses (72%) occurred during the first 3 d postpartum. At this point in time, piglets in GROUP and SINGLE were housed in single pens. In the single pens, GROUP sows could leave the farrowing crate whereas SINGLE sows were fixed in crates during the whole lactation. In total, piglet losses were not significantly different during lactation between GROUP and SINGLE treatments (2.2 ± 0.05 and 2.4 ± 0.05 piglets per litter, respectively). Sows housed in GROUP had a significantly lower (P < 0.05) BCS (2.2 ± 0.05) after lactation compared with SINGLE sows (BCS = 2.4 ± 0.05). This development could not be verified using the back fat thickness value at weaning (GROUP = 14.4 ± 0.25 mm vs. SINGLE = 14.6 ± 0.23 mm). Daily feed intake was significantly greater for GROUP sows (6.4 ± 0.08 kg per day) than SINGLE sows (6.15 ± 0.08 kg per day; P < 0.05). In conclusion, the performance of GROUP and SINGLE sows was similar with the exception of lighter weaning weights in GROUP housing.

Socializing piglets before weaning: effects on behavior of lactating sows, pre- and postweaning behavior, and performance of piglets

This study evaluated how socializing piglets before weaning affects behavior of lactating sows and the pre- and postweaning behavior and performance of piglets. Two farrowing rooms, each with 6 pens, and 1 nursery with 4 pens were used. In total, data were obtained from 24 sows and their litters. In each farrowing room, the solid barriers between 3 farrowing pens were removed on d 12 after farrowing, and the sows remained confined in their crates (experimental group). In the other 3 farrowing pens of each farrowing room, sows and their litters were kept under conventional conditions until weaning (control group). All piglets were weaned 28 d after birth. After weaning, piglets from each group remained together in 1 pen of the nursery. The behavior of sows (lying, standing, sitting, nursing) and piglets (lying, active, suckling) in the farrowing rooms was observed for 24 h before and for 48 h after removal of the barriers between the pens. In addition, behavior (active, lying, feeding, agonistic behavior) of piglets was observed in the nursery during the initial 48-h period after weaning. Each piglet was weighed on d 5, 12, and 28 after birth and thereafter weekly until the fifth week of rearing. In the farrowing room, mixing of litters did not influence behavior of piglets and sows. Preweaning weight gain of the piglets did not differ (P = 0.60) between the treatments. In the initial 48 h after weaning, less agonistic behavior (P < 0.001) was observed in piglets belonging to the experimental group. During 5 wk of rearing, piglets in the experimental group gained more weight compared with the control group (P = 0.05). The advantage shown by the experimental group became especially conspicuous in the first week after weaning (P = 0.05). By socializing unfamiliar piglets before weaning, stress due to mixing could at least be distanced in time from the other burdens of weaning, thereby improving performance.

Intermittent suckling during an extended lactation period: Effects on piglet behavior1

The objectives of the current study were to determine how intermittent suckling (IS) affects nursing behavior, litter activity, and general behavioral patterns during lactation, and whether IS during an extended lactation period results in behavioral patterns associated with piglet distress. Intermittent suckling was applied either with 6-h separation intervals (IS6) or with 12-h separation intervals (IS12) and was compared with the conventional treatment (CT). In the CT (n = 17 litters), sows were continuously present until weaning (d 21, d 0 = farrowing). In both IS6 and IS12, sows were separated from their litter for 12 h/d, beginning at d 14 and lasting until weaning (d 43 +/- 1 d). In IS6, litters (n = 14) and sows were separated from 0800 to 1400 and from 2000 to 0200; in IS12 litters (n = 14) and sows were separated between 0800 and 2000. In IS litters, the activity pattern over the 24-h cycle was markedly changed by IS; litter activity was lower (P < 0.001) during sow absence and greater (P < 0.001) during sow presence compared with the unweaned CT litters. Moreover, both total nursing frequency (P < 0.001) and the percentage (P < 0.002) of successful nursings were reduced by IS. Although total nursing frequency was greater in IS6 compared with IS12 (on d 21 and 28), no differences in the frequency of successful nursings existed between IS6 and IS12 from d 14 onward. Eating behavior was increased shortly after the onset of IS (d 17) in both IS6 (P = 0.059) and IS12 (P < 0.001) compared with the unweaned CT litters. The IS12 litters showed more eating behavior compared with IS6 and their exploratory behavior increased in time (P < 0.001), whereas IS6 showed more nursing behavior. Aggressive or manipulative behavior of both IS treatments was similar compared with the unweaned CT, and remained relatively unaltered with time in IS12 and IS6. Weaning in the CT resulted in more manipulative (P < 0.001) and aggressive (P = 0.004) behavior compared with pre-weaning values. Intermittent suckling may contribute to adaptation to the postweaning state by stimulating eating behavior, without causing obvious behavioral distress.

Effect of drinker type and sound stimuli on early-weaned pig performance and behavior

Early-weaned pigs appear to be highly motivated to engage in motor patterns associated with nursing, which is thought to lead to the development of abnormal ingestive behaviors. If performance of these behaviors is related to sucking motivation, then the normal stimuli associated with nursing should stimulate pigs to perform these abnormal behaviors, specifically belly nosing. The goal of this study was to determine whether belly nosing could be affected by sow nursing vocalizations and whether the style of the drinker device influenced early-weaned pig behavior. Over six trials, 352 Yorkshire pigs were weaned at 15 d and assigned to pens (n = 44) of eight pigs based on litter, weight, and sex. Four pens in each of two rooms were outfitted with either a water nipple drinker or a drinker bowl. Rooms either had recorded sow vocalizations broadcast at hourly intervals or no sound (control). Pig behaviors were videotaped in a sample of pens (n = 32) on d 0, 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 18 after weaning. On d 0 to 2, pigs were observed continuously for feeding and drinking behaviors. On d 5 to 18, pigs were observed by scan sampling every 5 min for time budgets. Pigs with drinker bowls had higher apparent feed intakes during the first 2 d after weaning (P = 0.024), whereas they spent less time engaged in drinking behavior (P = 0.001). This coincided with an overall lower water use (P = 0.001) than that of pigs with nipple drinkers. Pigs with bowl drinkers also spent less time belly nosing than those with access to a nipple drinker (P = 0.012). Pigs in the sow vocalization treatment tended to have a higher ADG (P = 0.075), whereas they spent less time performing feeding behavior (P = 0.064). However, there was no effect of sow nursing grunts on belly nosing. These results suggest that there is a complex relationship between feeding, drinking and sucking, and belly nosing is not controlled by the same external stimuli as sucking. Because drinker type and the motor patterns that it accommodates affect belly nosing, it may be that the internal stimuli associated with nursing, such as the actual act of sucking, play a large role in the development of abnormal oral-nasal behaviors.

Behavior of miniature pet pigs

Pigs are clean, intelligent, and entertaining animals. Because they are domesticated animals, they are not even as unusual a pet as a hedgehog or snake. The animal lover that buys a pig on impulse, however, is likely to have a disappointing experience. Those who acquire a pet pig with the most common preconceived but inaccurate notions are even more likely to be quickly disenchanted with their "exotic pet." Many pet owners will complain of the size that their pig attains; but if the pig were more manageable and better behaved, its ultimate size would probably be of less concern. Given the proper environment, diet and veterinary care, the miniature pig can be a terrific pet.

Mixing at young ages reduces fighting in unacquainted domestic pigs

Under normal farming practices, piglets from different litters are often mixed around the time of weaning, and a high incidence of fighting and minor injuries often occur. The aim of this experiment was to determine the effect of age on the incidence of fighting in piglets mixed before weaning, at different ages between 5 and 26 days. We found no significant relationship between age and the likelihood that a pair of piglets would fight during the first 75 min after mixing. However, the duration of the first fight observed increased from 101+/-38 s at 5 days to 621+/-278 s at 26 days, mainly because of higher levels of unretaliated harassment and resting during the bouts. Younger pigs also showed 80% fewer injuries from the fighting. The results suggest some potential welfare advantage to allowing litters to mix at younger ages.