Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:52:28.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sow-level risk factors for stillbirth of piglets in organic sow herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2016

L. Rangstrup-Christensen ,
M. A. Krogh ,
L. J. Pedersen  and
J. T. Sørensen
L. Rangstrup-Christensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. A. Krogh
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. J. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
J. T. Sørensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: lena.rangstrup@anis.au.dk
Get access

Abstract

In Danish organic pig production, one-third of total born piglets die before weaning, and stillbirth has previously crudely been estimated to account for 27% of the total preweaning mortality. The objective of this study was to evaluate season, litter size, parity and body condition of the sow as risk factors for stillbirth in nine commercial Danish organic pig herds. The study was conducted over a 1-year period, and the data included registrations on 5170 farrowings with 82 906 total born piglets. The average number of total born piglets per litter was 16.0, and the number of stillborn piglets per litter was 1.1. A significant effect of season was seen with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 1.15 during summer (May to August) compared with the remaining part of the year. A non-linear effect of litter size was seen where an increase in litter size from 11 to 16 resulted in an odds ratio of stillbirth of 1.11. An increase in litter size from 16 to 21 resulted in an odds ratio of stillbirth of 1.45. A significant interaction between body condition and parity was present. In first parity sows, an increase in body condition score from 2 (thin) to 3 (moderate) and from 3 to 4 (fat) increased the probability of stillbirth with an odds ratio of 1.23 and 1.36, respectively. In sows with parity above 4, an increase in body condition score from 2 to 3 and from 3 to 4 decreases the probability of stillbirth with an odds ratio of 0.68 and 0.79, respectively. In conclusion, increasing litter size and being born during the summer months of May to August were found to be risk factors for stillbirth. Furthermore, an interaction between body condition and parity showed that thin sows with parity above 4 had a substantially increased risk of stillbirth compared with normal and fat sows with parity above 4. In contrast, for parity 1 sows risk of stillbirth was increased in fat sows.

Keywords

stillbirthorganic pig productionbody conditionparitylitter size
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 1078 - 1083
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Farish, M, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 130, 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Robson, SK, Ormandy, E, Farish, M, Smurthwaite, KM, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2009. Indicators of piglet survival in an outdoor farrowing system. Livestock Science 124, 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borges, VF, Bernardi, ML, Bortolozzo, FP and Wentz, I 2005. Risk factors for stillbirth and foetal mummification in four Brazilian swine herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 70, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canario, L, Cantoni, E, Le Bihan, E, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Bidanel, JP and Foulley, JL 2006. Between-breed variability of stillbirth and its relationship with sow and piglet characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3185–3196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cappelen, J 2014. Vejret i Danmark – Sommer 2014. Retrieved on 16 June 2016 from http://www.dmi.dk/vejr/arkiver/maanedsaesonaar/201402/vejret-i-danmark-sommeren-2014/.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Pedersen, LJ, Heiskanen, T and Nielsen, NP 2005. Long-stemmed straw as an additional nesting material in modified Schmid pens in a commercial breeding unit: effects on sow behaviour, and on piglet mortality and growth. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 92, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA and Thompson, BK 1997. Farrowing behaviour and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 55, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2014. Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms. Animal 8, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2015. Temporary confinement of loose-housed hyperprolific sows reduces piglet mortality. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4079–4088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herpin, P, Le Dividich, J, Hulin, JC, Fillaut, M, De Marco, F and Bertin, R 1996. Effects of the level of asphyxia during delivery on viability at birth and early postnatal vitality of newborn pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2067–2075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holinger, M, Edwards, S, Illmann, G, Leeb, C, Milsova, M, Prunier, A, Rudolph, G and Früh, B 2015. Fertility. Improving health and welfare of pigs – a handbook for organic farmers, pp. 7–26. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kilbride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Marchant-Forde, JN, Booth, H and Green, LE 2014. Risks associated with preweaning mortality in 855 litter on 39 commercial outdoor pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 117, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Cozler, Y, Guyomarc’h, C, Pichodo, X, Quinio, PY and Pellois, H 2002. Factors associated with stillborn and mummified piglets in high-prolific sows. Animal Research 51, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenhouwers, JI, van der Lende, T and Knol, EF 1999. Analysis of stillbirth in different lines of pig. Livestock Production Science 57, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucia, T, Correa, MN, Deschamps, JC, Bianchi, I, Donin, MA, Machado, AC, Meincke, W and Matheus, JEM 2002. Risk factors for stillbirths in two swine farms in the south of Brazil. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 53, 285–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maes, DGD, Janssens, GPJ, Delputte, P, Lammertyn, A and de Kruif, A 2004. Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livestock Production Science 91, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odehnalova, S, Vinkler, A, Novak, P and Drabek, J 2008. The dynamics of changes in selected parameters in relation to different air temperature in the farrowing house for sows. Czech Journal of Animal Science 53, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, A, Valros, A, Halli, O and Peltoniemi, OAT 2008. Effect of the environment on the physiology of the sow during late pregnancy, farrowing and early lactation. Animal Reproduction Science 105, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A and Peltoniemi, O 2010. Environmental and sow-related factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Animal Reproduction Science 119, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, O 2016. Landsgennemsnit for produktivitet i svineproduktionen 2015 Notat nr. 1611. Retrieved on 16 June 2016 from http://vsp.lf.dk/~/media/Files/PDF%20-%20Publikationer/Notater%202016/Notat_1611.pdf.Google Scholar
Sorensen, JT and Pedersen, LJ 2013. Status, årsager og udfordringer i forhold til løsning af forhøjet dødelighed hos økologiske pattegrise DCA rapport 021. Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Sprecher, DJ, Leman, AD, Dziuk, PD, Cropper, M and Dedecker, M 1974. Causes and control of swine stillbirths. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 165, 698–701.Google ScholarPubMed
Su, G, Lund, MS and Sorensen, D 2007. Selection for litter size at day five to improve litter size at weaning and piglet survival rate. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1385–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaillancourt, JP, Stein, TE, Marsh, WE, Leman, AD and Dial, GD 1990. Validation of producer-recorded causes of preweaning mortality in swine. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 10, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderhaeghe, C, Dewulf, J, de Kruif, A and Maes, D 2013. Non-infectious factors associated with stillbirth in pigs: a review. Animal Reproduction Science 139, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderhaeghe, C, Dewulf, J, De Vliegher, S, Papadopoulos, GA, de Kruif, A and Maes, D 2010a. Longitudinal field study to assess sow level risk factors associated with stillborn piglets. Animal Reproduction Science 120, 78–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderhaeghe, C, Dewulf, J, Ribbens, S, de Kruif, A and Maes, D 2010b. A cross-sectional study to collect risk factors associated with stillbirths in pig herds. Animal Reproduction Science 118, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wientjes, JGM, Soede, NM, van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, van den Brand, H and Kemp, B 2012. Piglet uniformity and mortality in large organic litters: effects of parity and pre-mating diet composition. Livestock Science 144, 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaleski, HM and Hacker, RR 1993. Variables related to the progress of parturition and probability of stillbirth in swine. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 34, 109–113.Google Scholar
Zander, K and Hamm, U 2010. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preference 21, 495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar