Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:26:25.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herd- and sow-related risk factors for lameness in organic and conventional sow herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2013

K. M. Knage-Rasmussen ,
H. Houe ,
T. Rousing  and
J. T. Sørensen
K. M. Knage-Rasmussen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50 DK-Tjele, Denmark
H. Houe
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
T. Rousing
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50 DK-Tjele, Denmark
J. T. Sørensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50 DK-Tjele, Denmark
*
† E-mail: Kristian.knage-rasmussen@agrsci.dk
Get access

Abstract

Lameness in sows is an animal welfare problem which also presents an economic challenge to pig producers. Information about the prevalence of herd lameness in organic sows is relatively scarce. The first objective of this study was to establish the prevalence of lameness and to identify risk factors associated with sow lameness in Danish outdoor organic sow herds by analysing the association between risk factors at both sow and herd level using clinical records of lameness. A total of 1850 sows from nine organic herds were included in the study. Second, the study examined differences in the prevalence of sow lameness between outdoor organic and indoor conventional herds. An additional aim here was to identify risk factors associated with clinical records of sow lameness in Danish sow herds by analysing the association between risk factors with lameness at sow and herd level. One thousand and fifty four gestation sows from 44 indoor conventional and nine organic sow herds were included in this study. The nine organic herds were visited twice: once in summer/autumn 2011, and once in winter/spring 2012. In winter/spring 2011, a total of 44 indoor conventional herds were visited. Risk factors included in the study were clinical parameters and factors related to the production system. Sows were examined visually by one of four trained observers. The organic sows were assigned scores for lameness, body condition, hoof length, bursitis, abscesses and leg wounds, while the conventional sows were assigned scores for lameness, body condition and bursitis. A multivariable analysis was carried out by logistic regression with the herd and observer as random effects. The average herd lameness prevalence in gestation and lactation sows in organic herds was 11% in summer/autumn and 4.6% in winter/spring. ‘Wounds, bursitis and abscess’ on legs (OR=4.7, P<0.001) and body condition score >3 (OR=1.79, P=0.008) were associated with increased risk of lameness in Danish organic sow herds. Season (winter/spring v. summer/autumn) lowered the risk of lameness (OR=0.37, P<0.001). Average prevalence of lameness in gestation sow herds in winter/spring in conventional herds was 24.4%, and in organic herds it was 5.4%. An organic sow had a decreased risk of lameness (OR=0.28, P<0.001) as compared with a conventional sow. Bursitis was associated with increased risk of lameness (OR=2.08, P=0.002) regardless of the production system (i.e. whether the herd was organic or conventional).

Keywords

body conditionhoof lesionslamenessorganicsows
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 121 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Akos, K and Bilkei, G 2004. Comparison of the reproductive performance of sows kept outdoor in Croatia with that of sows kept indoors. Livestock Production Science 85, 293–298.Google Scholar
Bonde, M and Sorensen, JT 2003. Control of heath and welfare problems in organic sow herds. Newsletter from Danish Research centre for organic farming 3, 1–4.Google Scholar
Bonde, M, Rousing, T, Badsmand, 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
Cox, B and Bilkei, G 2004. Lifetime reproduction performance of sows kept indoor and outdoor in Croatia. Veterinary Record 154, 569–570.Google Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2009. Veterinary epidemiology research, 2nd edition. p. 583. VER Inc., Charlattetown, Prince Edwards Island, Canada.Google Scholar
DMI 2013. Vejrarkiv. Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://www.dmi.dk/vejr/arkiver/maanedsaesonaar/.Google Scholar
Dyrenes, Beskyttelse 2010. Mærkekrav svin. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://www.dyrenes-beskyttelse.dk/hvad-g%C3%B8r-vi/landbrugsdyr/svin/m%C3%A6rkekrav-svin.Google Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Strandberg, E, Schneider Mdel, P, Dalin, AM and Anderson, K 2008. Factors affecting length of production life in Swedish commercial sow. Journal of Animal Science 86, 432–441.Google Scholar
Heinonen, M, Oravainen, J, Orro, T, Seppä-Lassila, L, Ala-Kurikka, E, Virolainen, J, Tast, A and Pletoniemi, OAT 2006. Lameness and fertility of sows and gilts in randomly selected loose-housed herds in Finland. Veterinary Record 159, 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, TB, Bonde, MK, Kongsted, AG, Toft, N and Sørensen, JT 2010. The interrelationships between clinical signs and their effect on involuntary culling among pregnant sows in group-housing systems. Animal 4, 1922–1928.Google Scholar
Pluym, L, Van Nuffel, A, Dewulf, J, Cools, A, Vangroenwegne, F, Van Hoorebeke, S and Maes, D 2011. Prevalence and risk factors of hoof lesions and lameness in pregnant sows in two types of group housing. Veterinarni Medicina 56, 101–109.Google Scholar
Stalder, KJ, Knauer, M, Baas, TJ, Rothschild, MF and Mabry, JW 2004. Sow longevity. Pig News and Information 25, 53N–74N.Google Scholar
USDA 2007. Swine 2006, part I: reference of swine health and management practices in the United States, 2006. USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K, Christensen, G, Petersen, LB and Wachmann, H 2004. Afgangsårsager hos søer – samt obduktionsfund hos aflivede of selvdøde søer. Meddelelse nr 656, Landsudvalget for svin og Danskeslagterier, Denmark.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands, ISBN/EAN 978-90-78240-05-1.Google Scholar