Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:05:34.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestating sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. N. Marchant  and
D. M. Broom
J. N. Marchant
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES
D. M. Broom
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES
Get access

Abstract

The time taken to lie down and stand up was determined for dry sows from different housing systems and related to physical and genetic parameters. In experiment 1, the times taken to lie down by 32 sows in two dry-sow housing conditions were measured. Sows housed long-term in stalls took longer to lie down than group-housed sows (20·42 v. 9·28 s, P < 0·001). Group-housed sows took longer to lie down in the open than to lie down against a wall (11·07 v. 7·48 s, P = 0·004). The length of time taken for stall-housed sows to lie down had strongest association with body length (P = 0·033, R2 = 0·718). The length of time taken for group-housed sows to lie down in the open had strongest association with the proportional weight of the extensor carpi radialis, (P = 0·001, R2 = 0·915). In experiment 2, the times taken for 30 sows in stalls to lie down and stand up were measured and genotype differences investigated. There were no differences between genotypes in total times taken to stand up or lie down, but total times taken to stand up quickly and lie down had strongest association with body length (P = 0·032, R2 = 0·185, and P < 0·001, R2 = 0·574 respectively). The results indicate that sows housed long-term in gestation stalls experience difficulty of movement when standing up quickly and lying down. Although the chronic effects of lack of exercise and the acute effects offloor type may contribute to this difficulty, the major factor is likely to be space restriction as the times taken to lie down and stand up quickly both increase as body length, and hence dynamic space requirement, increases. Lying down in an unrestricted environment is under muscular control and the degree of control depends on the proportion of muscle weight to total body weight. The factors affecting lying down and standing up should be considered when designing dry-sow and farrowing accommodation.

Keywords

genotypeshousingmovementposturesows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , December 1996 , pp. 477 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Bäckström, L. 1973. Environment and animal health in piglet production. Ada Veterinaria Scandinavica 41: (suppl.) 1–240.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. and Schwaller, C. 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 pp. 181–194. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Baxter, S. H. 1981. Welfare and the housing of the sow and suckling pigs. In The welfare of pigs (ed. Sybesma, W.). Current topics in veterinary medicine and animal science, vol. pp. 276–311. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, S. H. 1984. Intensive pig production: environmental management and design. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K. and Hagelso, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell Committee. 1965. Report of technical committee enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry systems. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. and Cropley, J. A. 1991. The effect of piglet stimuli on the posture changing behaviour of recently farrowed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 30: 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, S. E., Hurst, R. J., Widowski, T., Shanks, R., Jensen, A., Gonyou, D., Bane, A., Muehling, A. and Kesler, R. 1989. Effects of sow-crate design on health and performance of sows and piglets. Journal ofAnimal Science. 67: 80–93.Google ScholarPubMed
Edwards, S. A. and Malkin, S. J. 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. and Morrison, V. 1984. Causes and prevention of piglet mortality. Pig News and Information. 5: 369–376.Google Scholar
English, P. R. and Wilkinson, V. 1982. Management of the sow and litter in late pregnancy and lactation in relation to piglet survival and growth. In Control of pig production (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 479–506. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, G. D., Wilkinson, J. L. and Luxford, B. G. 1991. The response of lactating sows to tactile, visual and auditory stimuli associated with a model piglet. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 32: 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn, C. C. and Munksgaard, L. 1993. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose-housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. II. Lying and lying-down behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 37: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, J. N. and Broom, D. M. 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Animal Science 62: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, J. N., Broom, D. M. and Corning, S. 1996. The effects of sow maternal behaviour on piglet mortality in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 62: 675 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Marchant, J. N. and Rudd, A. R. 1993. Differences in heart rate response at feeding between stall-housed and group-housed sows. Animal Production 56: 423 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1990. Codes of recommendation for the welfare of livestock. Her Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1983. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. 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. 103–120. Martinus Nijhoff, Hague.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. and Hirt, H. 1993. Influence of domestication and housing conditions on the behaviour of lying down in sows. In Proceedings of the international congress on ethology (ed. Nichelmann, M., Wierenga, H. K. and Braun, S.), pp. 458–462. K.T.B.L., Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Taylor, L., Friend, T. and Smith, L. A. 1988. Effects of housing on in situ postures of gestating gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 19: 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillon, J. P. and Madec, F. 1984. Diseases affecting confined sows. Data from epidemiological observations. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires. 15: 195–199.Google ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, C. T. 1994. Causes and consequences of change in the mature size of the domestic pig. Outlook on Agriculture. 23: 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar