The impact of providing hiding spaces to farmed animals: A scoping review

Many wild animals perform hiding behaviours for a variety of reasons, such as evading predators or other conspecifics. Unlike their wild counterparts, farmed animals often live in relatively barren environments without the opportunity to hide. Researchers have begun to study the impact of access to hiding spaces ("hides") in farmed animals, including possible effects on animal welfare. The aims of this scoping review were to: 1) identify the farmed species that have been most used in research investigating the provision of hides, 2) describe the context in which hides have been provided to farmed animals, and 3) describe the impact (positive, negative or neutral/inconclusive) that hides have on animals, including indicators of animal welfare. Three online databases (CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, and PubMed) were used to search for a target population of farmed animals with access to hiding spaces. From this search, 4,631 citations were screened and 151 were included in the review. Fourteen animal types were represented, most commonly chickens (48% of papers), cattle (9%), foxes (8%), and fish (7%). Relatively few papers were found on other species including deer, quail, ducks, lobsters, turkeys, and goats. Hides were used in four contexts: at parturition or oviposition (56%), for general enrichment (43%), for neonatal animals (4%), or for sick or injured animals (1%). A total of 218 outcomes relevant to our objectives were found including 7 categories: hide use, motivation, and/or preference (47% of outcomes), behavioural indicators of affective state (17%), health, injuries, and/or production (16%), agonistic behaviour (8%), abnormal repetitive behaviours (6%), physiological indicators of stress (5%), and affiliative behaviours (1%). Hiding places resulted in 162 positive (74%), 14 negative (6%), and 42 neutral/inconclusive (19%) outcomes. Hides had a generally positive impact on the animals included in this review; more research is encouraged for under-represented species.

Identifying Risk Factors for Low Piglet Birth Weight, High Within-Litter Variation and Occurrence of Intrauterine Growth-Restricted Piglets in Hyperprolific Sows

Simple Summary

Piglet mortality is an ongoing concern for pig production worldwide. Piglets that have a low piglet birth weight (PBW), suffer from intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or are born from litters with a high within-litter variation in PBW (CV_PBW) have an increased risk of dying before weaning. IUGR piglets, CV_PBW and a low PBW might be connected by the same risk factors, and in order to optimize fetal development in the litter, these risk factors should be identified. Free-access stall feeding, floor feeding and electronic sow feeding systems are commonly used feeding systems for gestating sows in Denmark. These systems differ in several points, including in sow competition at feeding. The nutritional status of the sow is important for fetal development, and so the feeding method during gestation is also expected to affect such development. Of the risk factors identified in this study, increasing litter size was considered the most critical. Only small differences were found between the feeding systems and these differed amongst groups. The results should inspire further investigation of those risk factors to clarify causes of the observed effects and what drives individual herd differences.

Abstract

This study aimed to identify risk factors affecting PBW, high CV_PBW and the occurrence of IUGR piglets in 12 commercial Danish herds with hyperprolific sows using free-access stalls, floor or electronic sow feeding systems in the gestation unit. The following factors were investigated: the duration of previous lactation, the length of the interval from weaning to insemination, the length of gestation, litter size, parity, sow backfat thickness in late gestation and the type of feeding system in the gestation unit. The study included newborn piglets from 452 litters with the following production indicator averages: 21.3 piglets/L, 1235 g PBW, 22.9% CV_PBW and 10.9% and 11.8% within-litter occurrence of severe and mild IUGR piglets, respectively. Increasing length of weaning-to-insemination interval decreased PBW by 25.8 g/day. For 2nd to 9th parity sows, each additional piglet in the litter increased CV_PBW by 0.38%, the occurrence of severe IUGR piglets by 0.68% and mild IUGR piglets by 0.50%. Sows of 5th parity and older had a 1.39% higher CV_PBW and 49.1 g lighter piglets compared with sows of 2nd to 4th parity. PBW was lower in one ESF herd, suggesting complex interactions that need to be further elucidated. The main critical risk factor observed was litter size.

Social Status Differentially Affects Behavioral and Immunological Outcomes of Group-Kept Sows Fed Different Dietary Fiber Using Different Length Feeding Barriers

Social conflict is inevitable among group-housed sows and may contribute to poorer welfare among those sows experiencing more social stress. The degree of individual welfare is associated with social position within the group. Therefore, this study examined the effects of social status on behavior, immune, endocrine, and productivity of group-housed pregnant sows fed a diet supplemented with 30% wheat middlings and 15% soybean hulls (MID-SH) or 30% distillers dried grains with solubles and 30% corn germ meal (DDGS-GM) and in pens with individual feeding places made from short (58.4 cm) or long (203.2 cm) barriers. A 2 × 2 factorial design resulted in 4 experimental treatment groups (n = 9 sows/diet-length-block combination): (1) MID-SHshort; (2) MID-SHlong; (3) DDGS-GMshort; (4) DDGS-GMlong. Groups of sows equally representing all diet-length combinations across 4 blocks (n = 36 sows/block) were subjected to a feeding competition test to identify highest (dominant) and lowest (subordinate) ranked sows within each group resulting in 64 sows (n = 16 sows/treatment; n = 32 sows/social status). Data revealed 2- and 3-way interactive effects on aggressive behavior (P < 0.005), postural (P < 0.01), oral (P < 0.0001), and eating (P < 0.005) behaviors, sow mean body weights and gains (P < 0.05) and litter weaning weights (P < 0.05), especially among subordinates in pens with long barriers. Subordinates in pens with long barriers received 21% less aggression and were 73% less likely to be displaced than subordinates in pens with short ones (P < 0.0001). Dietary treatment also influenced some of these measures among the subordinates in pens with long barriers. For example, subordinates in DDGS-GMlong received 64 and 67% less aggression than subordinates in DDGS-GMshort and MID-SHshort (P < 0.005). Eat bouts were greatest among subordinates in MID-SHlong, and sitting and sham-chewing were less. However, those in DDGS-GMlong spent less time standing and laying, and their litters were 15.28 kg heavier (P = 0.01), but overall subordinates fed DDGS-GM diet were lightest and gained less total body weight than those fed MID-SH (P < 0.05). Other measures such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were elevated among dominants in MID-SHlong (P < 0.05); whereas, cortisol (P = 0.06) was lowest and glucose (P = 0.09) highest for subordinates in DDGS-GMlong. These data imply that subordinates benefited from being housed in pens with long barriers, but the type of dietary fiber consumed differentially influenced behavioral budget and several sow- or litter-related traits among subordinates in pens with long barriers. In contrast, the subordinates in pens with short barriers had poorer welfare regardless of diet. Collectively, these data imply that social status is a crucial factor contributing to variation in individual well-being among group-housed sows and that sows of different social positions within a group may evoke different biological responses in an attempt to cope.

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.

Body condition, live weight and success in agonistic encounters in mixed parity groups of sows during gestation

Group housing of gestating sows benefits their welfare by allowing them freedom of movement and the opportunity for social interaction. However, social life could also bring disadvantages for individuals who receive direct aggression or are displaced from the feeder. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between social behaviour, body condition and live weight. Gestating sows (n=298) were investigated on a commercial farm. Sows were housed in mixed parity groups where two single space, ad libitum trough feeders served 12 animals. Sows were weighed, body condition scored and had their back fat layer measured at mixing, 4 weeks after insemination and again before farrowing. Social status was estimated based on the numbers of won and lost agonistic interactions at mixing and at the end of gestation. In addition, tear staining was scored before the farrowing and reproductive performance data were collected. With the aid of video recordings, 100 to 150 interactions per group were observed. Winning percentage at mixing and at the end of gestation were associated (P&lt;0.05) and appeared relatively stable within individuals. Tear staining scores and litter sizes were not associated with winning percentage at the end of gestation. However, live weight, relative weight, body condition and back fat thickness were associated with winning percentage (P&lt;0.05), giving heavier animals an advantage. Low winning percentage related to lower live weight gain, probably due to poorer success in competition for feed. Live weight within a mixed parity group could be used as a proxy measure for social status. Sows with low body condition score and submissive sows might need special attention with regard to group dynamics and housing to alleviate the effects of competition in group housing.

Key determinants of pig welfare: implications of animal management and housing design on livestock welfare

The present review using the pig as a model has highlighted the importance of the design of the housing system on the welfare of farm animals. It has emphasised the need for research on animal welfare in new and modified housing systems, as well as current but contentious systems, to be attentive to the design contributions of these systems to animal welfare. The review has highlighted areas for future research to safeguard sow and piglet welfare, including the following: effective environmental enrichment for gestating sows in intensive, indoor and non-bedded systems; opportunities to increase foraging and feeding times in feed-restricted gestating sows; design features that allow both access to important resources, such as feed, water and a comfortable lying area, and escape opportunities to reduce aggression and minimise risks to the welfare of group-housed sows; and less confined farrowing and lactation systems. The review also shows that animal welfare problems may be less a function of the type of housing system than of how well it operates. The skills, knowledge and motivation of stockpeople to effectively care for and manage their animals are integral to the standard of welfare experienced by their animals. Attitudes influence not only the manner in which stockpeople handle animals, but also their motivation to care for their animals. Thus, training targeting technical skills and knowledge as well as the attitudes and behaviours of stockpeople should be a primary component of the human resource management practices at a farm. While public concerns and policy debates often focus on intensive housing systems, research indicates that the design and management of both indoor and outdoor housing systems is probably more important for animal welfare than is generally recognised.