Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:32:11.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nurse sow strategies in the domestic pig: I. Consequences for selected measures of sow welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2018

O. Schmitt Open the ORCID record for O. Schmitt [Opens in a new window] ,
E. M. Baxter ,
L. A. Boyle  and
K. O’Driscoll
O. Schmitt*
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland Department of Animal Production, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK
E. M. Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare Team, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
L. A. Boyle
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
K. O’Driscoll
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: schmitt.oce@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Management strategies are needed to optimise the number of piglets weaned from hyper-prolific sows. Nurse sow strategies involve transferring supernumerary new-born piglets onto a sow whose own piglets are either weaned or fostered onto another sow. Such ‘nurse sows’ have extended lactations spent in farrowing crates, which could have negative implications for their welfare. This study used 47 sows, 20 of which farrowed large litters and had their biggest piglets fostered onto nurse sows which were either 1 week (2STEP7, n=9) or 3 weeks into lactation (1STEP21, n=10). Sows from which piglets were removed (R) were either left with the remainder of the litter intact (I) (remain intact (RI) sows, n=10), or had their litters equalised (E) for birth weight using piglets of the same age from non-experimental sows (remain equalised (RE) sows, n=9). Piglets from 2STEP7 were fostered onto another nurse sow which was 3 weeks into lactation (2STEP21, n=9). Back-fat thickness was measured at entry to the farrowing house, at fostering (nurse sows only) and weaning. Sows were scored for ease of locomotion and skin and claw lesions at entry to the farrowing house and weaning. Salivary cortisol samples were collected and tear staining was scored at 0900 h weekly from entry until weaning. Saliva samples were also taken at fostering. Data were analysed using GLMs with appropriate random and repeated factors, or non-parametric tests were applied where appropriate. Back-fat thickness decreased between entry and weaning for all sows (F1,42=26.59, P<0.001) and tended to differ between treatments (F4,16=2.91; P=0.06). At weaning RI sows had lower limb lesion scores than 2STEP7 and RE sows (χ24=10.8, P<0.05). No treatment effects were detected on salivary cortisol concentrations (P>0.05) and all nurse sows had a higher salivary cortisol concentration at fostering, compared with the other days (F10,426=3.47; P<0.05). Acute effects of fostering differed between nurse sow treatments (F2,113=3.45, P<0.05); 2STEP7 sows had a higher salivary cortisol concentration than 1STEP21 and 2STEP21 sows on the day of fostering. 2STEP7 sows had a higher salivary cortisol concentration at fostering, compared with 1STEP21 and 2STEP21 sows. Tear staining scores were not influenced by treatment (P>0.05). In conclusion, no difference was detected between nurse sows and non-nurse sows in body condition or severity of lesions. Although some nurse sows experienced stress at fostering, no long-term effect of the nurse sow strategies was detected on stress levels compared with sows that raised their own litter.

Keywords

pighyper-prolificacystressback-fatlesions
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 580 - 589
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) Pork 2017. 2016 Pig cost of production in selected countries. Retrieved on 22 May 2018 from https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/media/274535/2016-pig-cost-of-production-in-selected-countries.pdf.Google Scholar
Amdi, C, Moustsen, VA, Oxholm, LC, Baxter, EM, Sørensen, G, Eriksson, KB, Diness, LH, Nielsen, MF and Hansen, CF 2017. Comparable cortisol, heart rate and milk let-down in nurse sows and non-nurse sows. Livestock Science 198, 174–181.Google Scholar
Anil, SS, Anil, L and Deen, J 2009. Effect of lameness on sow longevity. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 235, 734–738.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Rutherford, KMD, D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Sandøe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA and Lawrence, AB 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors. Animal Welfare 22, 219–238.Google Scholar
Bonde, M, Rousing, T, Badsberg, JH and Sørensen, JT 2004. Associations between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition, limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds. Livestock Production Science 87, 179–187.Google Scholar
Boyle, LA, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB and Brophy, P 2000. Influence of housing system during gestation on the behaviour and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates. Animal Science 71, 561–570.Google Scholar
BPEX 2007. 2006 Pig cost of production in selected countries. Retrieved on 22 May 2018 from https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/media/2369/2006_pig_cost_of_production_in_selected_countries.pdf.Google Scholar
Calderón Díaz, JA, Fahey, AG and Boyle, LA 2014. Effects of gestation housing system and floor type during lactation on locomotory ability; body, limb, and claw lesions; and lying-down behavior of lactating sows. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1673–1683.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Barnett, JL, Hodge, FM, Smith, JA and McCallum, TH 1991. The welfare of pigs in two farrowing/lactation environments: cortisol responses of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 117–127.Google Scholar
Dagorn, J and Aumaitre, A 1979. Sow culling: reasons for and effect on productivity. Livestock Production Science 6, 167–177.Google Scholar
DeBoer, SP, Garner, JP, McCain, RR, Lay, DC Jr, Eicher, SD and Marchant-Forde, JN 2015. An initial investigation into the effects of isolation and enrichment on the welfare of laboratory pigs housed in the PigTurn system, assessed using tear staining, behaviour, physiology and haematology. Animal Welfare 24, 15–27.Google Scholar
de Koning R 1985. On the well-being of dry sows. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
De Rensis, F, Gherpelli, M, Superchi, P and Kirkwood, RN 2005. Relationships between backfat depth and plasma leptin during lactation and sow reproductive performance after weaning. Animal Reproduction Science 90, 95–100.Google Scholar
Drake, A, Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2008. Parent-offspring resource allocation in domestic pigs. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 62, 309–319.Google Scholar
Fredriksen, B, Benan, O and Karlsen, OM 2015. Shoulder lesions in Norwegian sows at slaughter. Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Pig Welfare, 29–30 April 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark, 121 pp.Google Scholar
Heim, G, Mellagi, APG, Bierhals, T, de Souza, LP, de Fries, HCC, Piuco, P, Seidel, E, Bernardi, ML, Wentz, I and Bortolozzo, FP 2012. Effects of cross-fostering within 24h after birth on pre-weaning behaviour, growth performance and survival rate of biological and adopted piglets. Livestock Science 150, 121–127.Google Scholar
Janssens, CJ, Helmond, FA, Loyens, LW, Schouten, WG and Wiegant, VM 1995. Chronic stress increases the opioid-mediated inhibition of the pituitary-adrenocortical response to acute stress in pigs. Endocrynology 136, 1468–1473.Google Scholar
Jarvis S, D’Eath RB, Robson SK and Lawrence AB 2006. The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiology and Behavior 87, 345–352.Google Scholar
Jensen, HE 2009. Investigation into the pathology of shoulder ulcerations in sows. Veterinary Records 165, 171–174.Google Scholar
KilBride, AL, Gillman, CE and Green, LE 2009. A cross sectional study of the prevalence, risk factors and population attributable fractions for limb and body lesions in lactating sows on commercial farms in England. BMC Veterinary Research 5, 30.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Jarvis, S, Gilbert, CL and Petherick, JC 1997. Stress and parturition in the pig. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 32, 231–236.Google Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2001. The effect of littermate weight on survival, weight gain, and suckling behavior of low-birth-weight piglets in cross-fostered litters. Journal of Swine Health and Production 99, 161–166.Google Scholar
Muirhead, MR and Alexander, TJL 1997. Managing pig health and the treatment of disease: a reference for the farm. 5M Enterprises Ltd, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
Ocepek, M, Andersen-Ranberg, I, Edwards, SA, Fredriksen, B, Framstad, T and Andersen, IL 2016. Can a super sow be a robust sow? Consequences of litter investment in purebred and crossbred sows of different parities. Journal of Animal Science 94, 3550–3560.Google Scholar
Quesnel H, Pastorelli H, Merlot E, Louveau I, Lefaucheur L, Robert F, Lefaucheur L, Robert F, Pere MC and Gondret F 2016. Effects of gestation housing system on maternal stress, piglet maturity at birth and early survival. Book of abstracts of the 67th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP), 29 August to 3 September 2016, Belfast, UK, 315 pp.Google Scholar
Reese, DE and Straw, BE 2006. The case against evening-up litters until weaning. Nebraska Swine Reports, pp. 7–10. The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA.Google Scholar
Rich, EL and Romero, LM 2005. Exposure to chronic stress downregulates corticosterone responses to acute stressors. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 288, R1628–R1636.Google Scholar
Ruis, MAW, Te Brake, JHA, Engel, B, Ekkel, ED, Buist, WG, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 1997. The circadian rhythm of salivary cortisol in growing pigs: effects of age, gender, and stress. Physiology & Behavior 62, 623–630.Google Scholar
Rutherford, K, Baxter, E, D’Eath, R, Turner, S, Arnott, G, Roehe, R, Ask, B, Sandøe, P, Moustsen, V, Thorup, F, Edwards, S, Berg, P and Lawrence, A 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors. Animal Welfare 22, 199–218.Google Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Baxter, EM, Ask, B, Berg, P, D’Eath, RB, Jarvis, S, Jensen, KK, Lawrence, AB, Moutsen, VA, Robson, SK, Thorup, F, Turner, SP and Sandoe, P 2011. The ethical and welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig. Project Report No. 17, Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment (CeBRA), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Schmitt, O, Baxter, EM, Boyle, LA and O’Driscoll, K 2018. Nurse sow strategies in the domestic pig: II. Consequences for the piglets’ pre-weaning survival, growth and behaviour. Animal doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118001702.Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT, Rousing, T, Kudahl, AB, Hansted, HJ and Pedersen, LJ 2016. Do nurse sows and foster litters have impaired animal welfare? Results from a cross-sectional study in sow herds. Animal 10, 681–686.Google Scholar
Telkänranta, H, Marchant-Forde, JN and Valros, A 2016. Tear staining in pigs: a potential tool for welfare assessment on commercial farms. Animal 10, 318–325.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002. Nursing behaviour, postpartum activity and reactivity in sows: effects of farrowing environment, previous experience and temperament. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 53–76.Google Scholar
Verhovsek, D, Troxler, J and Baumgartner, J 2007. Peripartal behaviour and teat lesions of sows in farrowing crates and in a loose-housing system. Animal Welfare 16, 273–276.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schmitt et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S4 and Figure S1

Download Schmitt et al. supplementary material(File)
File 93.8 KB