Evaluation of reproductive and animal welfare parameters of swine females of different genetic lines submitted to different reproductive management and housing systems during pregnancy

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate swine females of different genetic lines submitted to different reproductive management and housing systems during pregnancy on reproductive performance and animal welfare parameters. After artificial insemination protocol, 524 females were divided into two gestation housing systems: PEN1=animals housed in individual stalls during the breeding and after group-housed; PEN32=animals housed in individual stalls from breeding until 32 days of pregnancy and after group-housed. The number of piglets born, and the pregnancy and farrowing rates were evaluated. Welfare parameters related to the pregnancy phase were used. Females who weaned more piglets in the previous farrowing had a higher number of piglets born at the next farrowing. The pregnancy rate was affected by the number of semen doses. The farrowing rate was not influenced by the evaluated parameters, with average value of 91.36%. There was no effect of the gestation housing system and the genetic lines on pregnancy and farrowing rates, with values above 90.0%. The animal welfare indicators showed more compromised parameters in PEN1 system. PEN1 system did not impair the reproductive performance although it presented more compromised animal welfare parameters.

Welfare of pigs on farm

“…Van der Mheen et al ( 2003) looked at 375 sows during 800 pregnancies and found the highest litter size in sows that were introduced (grouped) into dynamic groups immediately after insemination compared to sows introduced to dynamic groups at 2 or 4 weeks post-service. The majority of other studies show no effect of grouping time on litter size (Galli et al, under review;Kirkwood and Zanella, 2005;Li and Gonyou, 2013;Knox et al, 2014;Stevens et al, 2015;Cunha et al, 2018;Bampi et al, 2020). However, Knox et al (2014) reported lower pregnancy rates for sows grouped in early pregnancy (d3) compared to sows regrouped 14 or 35 days after service (the low space allowance in this study of 1.74 m 2 /sow should be noted).…”

“…Most of the studies show no effect on farrowing rate of grouping at 3 compared to 28 days postinsemination (van der Mheen et al, 2003;Kirkwood and Zanella, 2005;Stevens et al, 2015;Cunha et al, 2018;Bampi et al, 2020;Galli et al, under review). However, two studies reported lower farrowing rates for sows grouped very soon after insemination compared to sows grouped 4 weeks later (Li and Gonyou, 2013 [82.3 vs. 86.7%]; Knox et al, 2014 [82.8 vs. 90.5%]).…”

“…In general, if grouping takes place immediately or in the first days after service, reproductive performance can be as good as that with grouping at 4 weeks after service (van der Mheen et al., 2003; Kirkwood and Zanella, 2005; Stevens et al., 2015; Cunha et al., 2018; Bampi et al., 2020). This is supported by Soede et al.…”

Performance and Welfare of Sows Exposed to Auditory Environmental Enrichment in Mixed or Collective Housing Systems

“…Regardless of the use of auditory environmental enrichment, no effects of type of housing during gestation were observed on sow reproductive indices, which indicates that the collective housing system may be considered a viable alternative to reduce the time of individual confinement without compromising economic and performance results. Gentilini et al and Bampi et al, [ 32 , 33 ] found no differences in birth rates between the two housing systems, crates or collective pens. Mixed housing, in which sows are kept for about 28 to 35 days in individual crates after artificial insemination, mainly aims to avoid embryo losses, which is influenced by stress due to disputes to establish a social hierarchy or for food [ 9 ]; thus, fights related to social hierarchy may be observed in the first days of regrouping.…”

“…Additionally, piglets exposed to music had a lower expression of agonistic behaviors and an increased expression of playful behaviors [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. The expression of abnormal behaviors, such as stereotypies and excessive aggressiveness, indicate unfavorable welfare conditions [ 40 ], which are related to facility issues and improper animal management, resulting in a decrease in productive performance.…”