Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:03:54.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. N. Marchant ,
D. M. Broom  and
S. Corning
J. N. Marchant
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK ADAS Terrington, Terrington St Clement, King’s Lynn, Norfolk PE34 4PW, UK
D. M. Broom
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK
S. Corning
Affiliation:
ADAS Terrington, Terrington St Clement, King’s Lynn, Norfolk PE34 4PW, UK
Get access

Abstract

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.

Keywords

farrowingpigsmaternal behaviourmortality
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 19 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arey, D. S. and Sancha, E. S. 1996. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1991. The ‘freedom’ farrowing system. Farm Building Progress 104: 9–15.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. and Schwaller, C. E. 1983. Space requirements for sows in confinement. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S. H., Baxter, M. R. and MacCormack, J.A. C.). Current topics in veterinary medicine and animal science, vol. 24, pp. 181–194. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K., Blackshaw, A. W., Thomas, F. J. and Newman, F. W. 1994. Comparison of behaviour patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 281–295.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K. and Hagelsø, A. M. 1990. Getting up and lying down behaviours of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day 1 and day 8 after parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 61–70.Google Scholar
Carr, J. and Walton, J. R. 1995. Recognising the stillborn piglet. PIGS-Misset March 1995: 30–31.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M., Barnett, J. L., Hodge, F. M., Smith, J. A. and McCallum, T. H. 1991. The welfare of pigs in two farrowing/lactation environments: cortisol responses of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 117–127.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M., Simpson, G. J. and Hemsworth, P. H. 1996. The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, G. M. and Smith, J. A. 1992. Effects of accommodation type and straw bedding around parturition and during lactation on the behaviour of primiparous sows and survival and growth of piglets to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, G. W. and Swierstra, E. E. 1987. Causes of piglet death from birth to weaning. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 453–547.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. and Fraser, D. 1997. Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. The Pig Journal 39: 77–89.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Malkin, S. J. and Spechter, H. H. 1986. An analysis of piglet mortality with behavioural observations. Animal Production 42: 470 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Smith, W. J., Fordyce, C. and MacMenemy, F. 1994. An analysis of the causes of piglet mortality in a breeding herd kept outdoors. Veterinary Record 135: 324–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, P. R. 1993. A review of farrowing facilities in relation to the needs of the sow and her piglets and the aspirations of the caring stockperson. Pig Veterinary Journal 31: 124–143.Google Scholar
English, P. R., Smith, W. J. and MacLean, A. 1977. The sow: improving her efficiency. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Glastonbury, J. R. W. 1976. A survey of preweaning mortality in the pig. Australian Veterinary Journal 52: 272–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, M. J. and Gonyou, H. W. 1998. Increasing available space in a farrowing crate does not facilitate postural changes or maternal responses in gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59: 285–296.Google Scholar
Hausmann, M. F., Lay, D. C., Buchanan, H. S. and Hopper, J. G. 1999. Butorphanol tartrate acts to decrease sow activity which could lead to reduced pig crushing. Journal of Animal Science 77: 2054–2059.Google Scholar
Herskin, M. S., Jensen, K. H. and Thodberg, K. 1998. Influence of environmental stimuli on maternal behaviour related to bonding, reactivity and crushing of piglets in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 241–254.Google Scholar
Holyoake, P. K., Dial, G. D., Trigg, T. and King, V. L. 1995. Reducing pig mortality through supervision during the perinatal period. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3543–3551.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., McLean, K. A., Calvert, S. K., Deans, L. A., Chirnside, J. and Lawrence, A. B. 1999. The responsiveness of sows to their piglets in relation to the length of parturition and the involvement of endogenous opioids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 195–207.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1988. Maternal behaviour of free-ranging pigs. I. Results of a three-year study. Report 22, Department of Animal Hygiene, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, N. T. 1995. A comparison between free-access farrowing nests and farrowing crates on a 500-sow unit. The Pig Journal 35: 10–18.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. G. C., Wood-Gush, D. G. M., Moser, B. D. and Whittemore, C. T. 1988. Enrichment of the production environment and the enhancement of welfare through the use of the Edinburgh family pen system of pig production. Research and Development in Agriculture 5: 171–186.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., Petherick, J. C., McLean, K. A., Deans, L. A., Chirnside, J., Vaughan, A., Clutton, E. and Terlouw, E. M. C. 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolaction in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 313–330.Google Scholar
Lay, D. C., Haussmann, M. F., Buchanan, H. S. and Daniels, M. J. 1999. Danger to pigs due to crushing can be reduced by the use of a simulated udder. Journal of Animal Science 77: 2060–2064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lou, Z. and Hurnik, F. J. 1994. An ellipsoid farrowing crate: its ergonomical design and effects on pig productivity. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2610–2616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, J. N. 1998. Sow aggression towards the stockperson: relationships with approach test parameters and piglet survival. Proceedings of the 32nd international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. Veissier, I. and Boissy, A.), p. 109. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France.Google Scholar
Marchant, J. N. and Broom, D. M. 1996. Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestating sows. Animal Science 63: 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MINITAB. 1998. MINITAB reference manual (release 12·1). MINITAB Inc. USA.Google Scholar
Olsson, A.-C. and Svendsen, J. 1989. Grisningsförlopp och moder-avkomma-samspel I olika inhysningsystem. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Intsitut för landbrukets byggnadsteknik, Lund, Rapport 65.Google Scholar
Randall, G. C. B. and Penny, R. H. C. 1967. Stillbirths in pigs: the possible role of anoxia. Veterinary Record 81: 360–361.Google Scholar
Rudd, A. R., Mendl, M. T., Simmins, P. H. and Broom, D. M. 1992. Behavioural consequences of allowing the farrowing and lactating sow greater freedom. Journal of Animal Science 70: 168 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Schmid, H. 1991. Natürliche Verhaltenssicherungen der Hausschweine gegen das Erdrücken der Ferkel durch die Muttersau und die Auswirkungen haltungsbedingter Störungen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Zurich. Google Scholar
Schmid, H. and Hirt, H. 1993. Species specific behaviour of sows and piglets that prevent crushing. Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology (ed. Nichelmann, M., Wierenga, H. K. and Braun, S.), pp. 455–458. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Signoret, J. P., Baldwin, B. A., Fraser, D. and Hafez, E. S. E. 1975. The behaviour of swine. In The behaviour of domestic animals (ed. Hafez, E. S. E.), pp. 295–329. Balliere Tindall, London.Google Scholar
Svendsen, J., Bengtsson, A. C. H. and Svendsen, L. S. 1986. Occurrence and causes of traumatic injuries in neonatal pigs. Pig News and Information 7: 159–179.Google Scholar
Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., Bonenfant, M., Ross, S., Fraser, D. and Kramer, D. L. 1999. Alternative housing for sows and litters. 2. Effects of a communal piglet area on pre- and post-weaning behaviour and performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 123–135.Google Scholar
Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., Fraser, D. and Honkanen, A.-M. 1996a. Sow body movements that crush piglets: A comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 149–158.Google Scholar
Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., Thompson, B. K. and Fraser, D. 1996b. Risky behaviour by piglets: a trade-off between feeding and risk of mortality by maternal crushing? Animal Behaviour 51: 619–624.Google Scholar
Weary, D. M., Phillips, P. A., Pajor, E. A., Fraser, D. and Thompson, B. K. 1998. Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 103–111.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B. and Hegglin, D. 1997. Individual differences in the behaviour of sows at the nest-site and the crushing of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 39–49.Google Scholar
Wells, G. A. H. 1978. Post mortem technique for the pig. The Pig Journal 2: 19–25.Google Scholar