Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:59:27.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of sow and piglet behaviour and performance in group housing systems for lactating sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

S. E. van Nieuwamerongen ,
J. E. Bolhuis ,
C. M. C. van der Peet-Schwering  and
N. M. Soede
S. E. van Nieuwamerongen*
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. E. Bolhuis
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
C. M. C. van der Peet-Schwering
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands
N. M. Soede
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
† E-mail: Sofie.vannieuwamerongen@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

Commercial use of group housing systems for lactating sows is limited, but the recent transition to group housing during gestation in the EU may result in a renewed interest in such systems. Therefore, this review aims to identify key factors that may contribute to the success or failure of group housing of lactating sows in comparison with individual housing by describing the variety in group housing systems and discussing animal behaviour and performance compared with individual housing. Group housing systems can be divided in multi-suckling (MS) systems, in which sows are grouped with their litters, and get-away (GA) systems, which include a separate communal area accessible to sows only. These systems differ in many aspects regarding management and layout but, compared with individual housing, generally provide more environmental complexity, more freedom of movement for the sows and more freedom to express behaviours related to, for example, maternal care and social interactions. Group housing poses several risks, such as disrupted nursing and an increased level of crushing during the MS phase, and in the GA systems there is a risk for early cessation of nursing. On the other hand, pre-weaning mingling of litters clearly benefits piglet social development and may improve adaptation to the post-weaning situation. In addition, group-housed sows may show lactational ovulation, which provides opportunities for insemination during an extended lactation period, which benefits the piglets. Gradual transitions in social and physical environment around gestation, farrowing, grouping and weaning seem to be key success factors for group housing systems during lactation. In addition, selection of suitable sows and quality of stockmanship seem important.

Keywords

multi-sucklingcross-sucklingsocial developmentlactational ovulationpig
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 448 - 460
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Algers, B 1991. Group housing of farrowing sows – health aspects on a new system. In 7th International Congress on Animal Hygiene, 20–24 August 1991, Leipzig, Germany, pp. 851–857.Google Scholar
Arey, DS and Sancha, ES 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, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011a. Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal 5, 580–600.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Farish, M, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011b. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2012. Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs. Animal 6, 96–117.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M and Byers, JA 1981. A critical reanalysis of the ontogeny and phylogeny of mammalian social and locomotor play: an ethological hornet's nest. In Behavioral development. The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project (ed. K Immelman, GW Barlow, L Petrinovic and M Main), pp. 296–337. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Berkeveld, M, Langendijk, P, Soede, NM, Kemp, B, Taverne, MAM, Verheijden, JHM, Kuijken, N and Koets, AP 2009. Improving adaptation to weaning: Effect of intermittent suckling regimens on piglet feed intake, growth, and gut characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3156–3166.Google Scholar
Bøe, K 1993. Maternal behaviour of lactating sows in a loose housing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35, 327–338.Google Scholar
Bøe, K and Jensen, P 1995. Individual differences in suckling and solid food intake by piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 183–192.Google Scholar
Bohnenkamp, AL, Meyer, C, Müller, K and Krieter, J 2013a. Group housing with electronically controlled crates for lactating sows. Effect on farrowing, suckling and activity behavior of sows and piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 145, 37–43.Google Scholar
Bohnenkamp, AL, Traulsen, I, Meyer, C, Müller, K and Krieter, J 2013b. Comparison of growth performance and agonistic interaction in weaned piglets of different weight classes from farrowing systems with group or single housing. Animal 7, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2005. Individual coping characteristics, aggressiveness and fighting strategies in pigs. Animal Behaviour 69, 1085–1091.Google Scholar
Bruininx, EMAM, Binnendijk, GP, Van Der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Schrama, JW, Den Hartog, LA, Everts, H and Beynen, AC 2002. Effect of creep feed consumption on individual feed intake characteristics and performance of group-housed weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1413–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, MJ and Rowlinson, P 1984. Nursing and suckling behaviour of sows and their litters before and after grouping in multi-accommodation pens. Animal Science 38, 277–282.Google Scholar
Bryant, MJ, Rowlinson, P and Van der Steen, HAM 1983. A comparison of the nursing and suckling behaviour of group- and individually-housed sows and their litters. Animal Science 36, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bünger, B 2002. Effects of housing conditions of farrowing and nursing sows on development of piglets: own studies and an evaluation of literature. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 109, 277–289.Google Scholar
Bünger, B, Hillmann, E and Von Hollen, F 2000. Effects of housing conditions during farrowing and nursing of sows on growth and behaviour of piglets before and after weaning. Archiv fur Tierzucht 43, 196–202.Google Scholar
Burgwal-Konertz, B 1996. Das Saug- und Säugeverhalten bei der Gruppenhaltung abferkelnder und ferkelführender Sauen und ihren Würfen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Fremdsaugens. PhD Thesis, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Burke, J, Brooks, PH, Kirk, JA and Eddison, JC 2000. Daily food intakes and feeding strategies of sows given food ad libitum and allocated to two different space allowances in a communal farrowing system over parturition and during lactation. Animal Science 71, 547–559.Google Scholar
DʼEath, RB 2005. Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93(3–4), 199–211.Google Scholar
Dybkjær, L, Olsen, ANW, Moøller, F and Jensen, KH 2001. Effects of farrowing conditions on behaviour in multi-suckling pens for pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica – Section A: Animal Science 51, 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dybkjær, L, Olsen, ANW, Møller, F, Jensen, KH and Giersing, M 2003. Effects of group size during pregnancy and introduction method on behaviour of relevance for piglet performance in multi-suckling pens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica – Section A: Animal Science 53, 83–91.Google Scholar
Goetz, M and Troxler, J 1995. Group housing of sows during farrowing and lactation. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 38, 1495–1500.Google Scholar
Götz, M 1991. Changes in nursing and suckling behaviour of sows and their piglets in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 271–275.Google Scholar
Hessel, EF, Reiners, K and Van Den Weghe, HFA 2006. Socializing piglets before weaning: effects on behavior of lactating sows, pre- and postweaning behavior, and performance of piglets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2847–2855.Google Scholar
Hillmann, E, Von Hollen, F, Bünger, B, Todt, D and Schrader, L 2003. Farrowing conditions affect the reactions of piglets towards novel environment and social confrontation at weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I 1997. The characterisation of suckling in wild boar. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I and Hodgson, J 1992. The bases of sow-piglet identification. 2. Cues used by piglets to identify their dam and home pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 329–343.Google Scholar
Houwers, HWJ, Buré, RG and Lokhorst, C 1996. Voermethode, bedrijfsvoering, stalinrichting en diergedrag bij geïntegreerde groepshuisvesting van zeugen. In Wageningen: IMAG-DLO, 1996 (Rapport/Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, Instituut voor Milieu- en Agritechniek 96-04).Google Scholar
Hoy, S, Bauer, J, Borberg, C, Chonsch, L and Weirich, C 2009. Investigations on dynamics of social rank of sows during several parities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultén, F, Wallenbeck, A and Rydhmer, L 2006. Ovarian activity and oestrous signs among group-housed, lactating sows: influence of behaviour, environment and production. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41, 448–454.Google Scholar
Hultén, F, Dalin, AM, Lundeheim, N and Einarsson, S 1995a. Ovulation frequency among sows group-housed during late lactation. Animal Reproduction Science 39, 223–233.Google Scholar
Hultén, F, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, AM and Einarsson, S 1995b. A field study on group housing of lactating sows with special reference to sow health at weaning. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 36, 201–212.Google Scholar
Hultén, F, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, AM and Einarsson, S 1997. Pre- and post-weaning piglet performance, sow food intake and change in backfat thickness in a group-housing system for lactating sows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 38, 119–133.Google Scholar
Hultén, F, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, AM and Einarsson, S 1998. Reproductive performance among sows group-housed during late lactation. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 39, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Illmann, G, Pokorná, Z and Špinka, M 2007. Allosuckling in domestic pigs: teat acquisition strategy and consequences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106, 26–38.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 131–142.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1988. Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 297–308.Google Scholar
Jensen, P and Redbo, I 1987. Behaviour during nest leaving in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 355–362.Google Scholar
Jensen, P and Recén, B 1989. When to wean – observations from free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 49–60.Google Scholar
Johnson, AK and Marchant-Forde, JN 2009. Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In The welfare of pigs (ed. JN Marchant-Forde), pp. 141–188. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kanaan, VT, Lay, DC Jr, Richert, BT and Pajor, EA 2012. Increasing the frequency of co-mingling piglets during the lactation period alters the development of social behavior before and after weaning. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 15, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kongsted, AG and Hermansen, JE 2009. Induction of lactational estrus in organic piglet production. Theriogenology 72, 1188–1194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korthals, R 2003. Pig performance comparing a production system using large static groups formed during lactation to a production system using sized and resorted groups in nursery and finisher. Journal of Swine Health and Production 11, 19–24.Google Scholar
Kutzer, T, Bünger, B, Kjaer, JB and Schrader, L 2009. Effects of early contact between non-littermate piglets and of the complexity of farrowing conditions on social behaviour and weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, GJ and Schouten, WGP 1985. Effects of pen size during rearing on later agonistic behaviour in piglets. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 33, 307–309.Google Scholar
Langendijk, P, Soede, NM and Kemp, B 2006. Effects of boar stimuli on the follicular phase and on oestrous behaviour in sows. Society of Reproduction and Fertility supplement 62, 219–230.Google Scholar
Li, Y and Wang, L 2011. Effects of previous housing system on agonistic behaviors of growing pigs at mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, 20–26.Google Scholar
Li, Y, Johnston, L and Hilbrands, A 2010. Pre-weaning mortality of piglets in a bedded group-farrowing system. Journal of Swine Health and Production 18, 75–80.Google Scholar
Li, YZ, Wang, LH and Johnston, LJ 2012. Effects of farrowing system on behavior and growth performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 1008–1014.Google Scholar
Løvendahl, P, Damgaard, LH, Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Su, G and Rydhmer, L 2005. Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 73–85.Google Scholar
Maletínská, J and Špinka, M 2001. Cross-suckling and nursing synchronisation in group housed lactating sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 17–32.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM and Corning, S 2001. The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72, 19–28.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S and Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.Google Scholar
Melotti, L, Oostindjer, M, Bolhuis, JE, Held, S and Mendl, M 2011. Coping personality type and environmental enrichment affect aggression at weaning in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 144–153.Google Scholar
Meynhardt, H 1980. Schwarzwild-Report: Vier Jahre unter Wildschweinen. Verlag J. Neumann-Neudamm, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Morgan, CA, Lawrence, AB, Chirnside, J and Deans, LA 2001. Can information about solid food be transmitted from one piglet to another? Animal Science 73, 471–478.Google Scholar
Olsen, ANW, Dybkjær, L and Vestergaard, KS 1998. Cross-suckling and associated behaviour in piglets and sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 13–24.Google Scholar
Oostindjer, M, van den Brand, H, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2011. Effects of environmental enrichment and loose housing of lactating sows on piglet behaviour before and after weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 31–41.Google Scholar
Oostindjer, M, Bolhuis, JE, Mendl, M, Held, S, Gerrits, W, Van den Brand, H and Kemp, B 2010. Effects of environmental enrichment and loose housing of lactating sows on piglet performance before and after weaning. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3554–3562.Google Scholar
Parratt, CA, Chapman, KJ, Turner, C, Jones, PH, Mendl, MT and Miller, BG 2006. The fighting behaviour of piglets mixed before and after weaning in the presence or absence of a sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 54–67.Google Scholar
Pearce, GP and Pearce, AN 1992. Contact with a sow in oestrus or a mature boar stimulates the onset of oestrus in weaned sows. Veterinary Record 130, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedersen, LJ, Studnitz, M, Jensen, KH and Giersing, AM 1998. Suckling behaviour of piglets in relation to accessibility to the sow and the presence of foreign litters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 267–279.Google Scholar
Quesnel, H and Prunier, A 1995. Endocrine bases of lactational anoestrus in the sow. Reproduction Nutrition Development 35, 395–414.Google Scholar
Rantzer, D, Svendsen, J and Weström, B 1995. Weaning of pigs raised in sow-controlled and in conventional housing systems, 1: description of systems, production and bacteriology. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 25, 37–46.Google Scholar
Rantzer, D, Svendsen, J and Weström, B 1997. Weaning of pigs in group housing and in conventional housing systems for lactating sows. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 27, 23–31.Google Scholar
Roulin, A 2002. Why do lactating females nurse alien offspring? A review of hypotheses and empirical evidence. Animal Behaviour 63, 201–208.Google Scholar
Rushen, J, Ladewig, J and de Passillé, AMB 1995. A novel environment inhibits milk ejection in the pig but not through HPA activity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samarakone, TS and Gonyou, HW 2009. Domestic pigs alter their social strategy in response to social group size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 8–15.Google Scholar
Šilerová, J, Špinka, M, Šárová, R and Algers, B 2010. Playing and fighting by piglets around weaning on farms, employing individual or group housing of lactating sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 124, 83–89.Google Scholar
Šilerová, J, Špinka, M, Šárová, R, Slámová, K and Algers, B 2006. A note on differences in nursing behaviour on pig farms employing individual and group housing of lactating sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 167–176.Google Scholar
Soede, NM, Laurenssen, B, Abrahamse-Berkeveld, M, Gerritsen, R, Dirx-Kuijken, N, Langendijk, P and Kemp, B 2012. Timing of lactational oestrus in intermittent suckling regimes: consequences for sow fertility. Animal Reproduction Science 130, 74–81.Google Scholar
Valros, AE, Rundgren, M, Špinka, M, Saloniemi, H, Rydhmer, L and Algers, B 2002. Nursing behaviour of sows during 5 weeks lactation and effects on piglet growth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 93–104.Google Scholar
Wattanakul, W, Edwards, SA, Stewart, AH and English, PR 1998. Effect of familiarity with the environment on the behaviour and performance response of sows and piglets to grouping during lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 25–39.Google Scholar
Wattanakul, W, Sinclair, AG, Stewart, AH, Edwards, SA and English, PR 1997. Performance and behaviour of lactating sows and piglets in crate and multisuckling systems: a study involving European White and Manor Meishan genotypes. Animal Science 64, 339–349.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Bonenfant, M, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2002. Alternative housing for sows and litters. Part 4. Effects of sow-controlled housing combined with a communal piglet area on pre- and post-weaning behaviour and performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B 1996. Rearing pigs in species-specific family groups. Animal Welfare 5, 25–35.Google Scholar
Worobec, EK, Duncan, IJH and Widowski, TM 1999. The effects of weaning at 7, 14 and 28 days on piglet behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 173–182.Google Scholar
Wülbers-Mindermann, M 1992. Characteristics of cross-suckling piglets reared in a group housing system. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för husdjurshygien, Skara, Sweden.Google Scholar
Yan, L, Jang, HD and Kim, IH 2011. Effects of varying creep feed duration on pre-weaning and post-weaning performance and behavior of piglet and sow. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 24, 1601–1606.Google Scholar