Effects of stage of gestation at mixing on aggression, injuries and stress in sows

Stevens, Bronwyn H; Karlen, Guillermo M.; Morrison, Rebecca; Gonyou, H. W.; Butler, K. L.; Kerswell, Keven John; Hemsworth, P.H.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.02.002

Cited by 27 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both types of group management systems, but in dynamic groups in particular, the first days after grouping are by far the most risky period for sows to develop lameness. This is to be expected, as aggression between sows is greatest when sows are first introduced to each other and they fight to form hierarchies, often resulting in locomotor problems [ 54 ]. The incidence during the other phases in the reproductive cycle was much lower, also in dynamic groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prevalence of lameness was very low at the end of the time spent in the insemination crates. A reason for this can be that when sows are housed individually, no interactions can take place with other sows, and the sows do not have to cover distances in the pen in order to eat, sleep or defecate and urinate [ 54 ; 55 ]. Diminished locomotion and interaction both decrease the risk of becoming lame or maintaining locomotor problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Locomotion Disorders and Skin and Claw Lesions in Gestating Sows Housed in Dynamic versus Static Groups

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lameness and lesions to the skin and claws of sows in group housing are commonly occurring indicators of reduced welfare. Typically, these problems are more common in group housing than in individual housing systems. Group management type (dynamic versus static) and stage of gestation influence the behavior of the animals, which in turn influences the occurrence of these problems. The present study compared prevalence, incidence and mean scores of lameness and skin and claw lesions in static versus dynamic group housed sows at different stages of gestation during three consecutive reproductive cycles. A total of 10 Belgian sow herds were monitored; 5 in which dynamic groups and 5 in which static groups were utilized. All sows were visually assessed for lameness and skin lesions three times per cycle and the claws of the hind limbs were assessed once per cycle. Lameness and claw lesions were assessed using visual analogue scales. Static groups, in comparison with dynamic groups, demonstrated lower lameness scores (P<0.05) and decreased skin lesion prevalence (24.9 vs. 47.3%, P<0.05) at the end of gestation. There was no difference between treatment group regarding claw lesion prevalence with 75.5% of sows demonstrating claw lesions regardless of group management. Prevalences of lameness (22.4 vs. 8.9%, P<0.05) and skin lesions (46.6 vs. 4.4%, P<0.05) were highest during the group-housed phase compared to the individually housed phases. Although the prevalence of lameness and skin lesions did not differ three days after grouping versus at the end of the group-housing phase, their incidence peaked during the first three days after moving from the insemination stalls to the group. In conclusion, the first three days after grouping was the most risky period for lameness incidence, but there was no significant difference between static or dynamic group management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locomotion Disorders and Skin and Claw Lesions in Gestating Sows Housed in Dynamic versus Static Groups

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aggression which occurs during mixing does result in physiological stress responses, and such responses can have detrimental effects on reproductive parameters, especially at a critical time in the reproductive cycle, such as the period of implantation (Arey and Edwards, 1998). Thus, it is recommended to move weaned sows to the same room or barn with the pregnant sows only after embryo implantation has been complete (Stevens et al, 2015;Peltoniemi et al, 2016). Providing a separate housing unit for insemination ensures a less stressful environment for the weaned piglets and the pregnant sows as well .…”

Section: Sow-related Performance Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with specific health, welfare and reproductive performance indicators in pig herds from five EU countries

Chantziaras

Dewulf

Limbergen

et al. 2018

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production diseases are often of multi-factorial origin in which environment (housing, nutrition and management) health and reproductive challenges show complex interactions. The aim of this study was to identify specific environment-related factors and to discuss their associations with health, welfare and reproductive performance in sows and piglets, in diverse systems using data from 130 farms from five EU countries. Two sets of data were used: a) a questionnaire was developed for sows and piglets covering farm management, interventions and housing and b) farm production data covering various performance parameters. Eight parameters were further selected, four of which were related to sow reproductive performance (litter index, replacement rate, repeat breeding (i.e. failure to breed after one mating), weaning to first mating interval) and the remaining four to litter / piglet health performance (piglets born alive per litter, piglets born dead per litter, preweaning mortality rate and weaned piglets per litter). Univariable and multivariable linear models were employed to identify risk factors. Associations were considered significant if P ≤ 0.007 (a criterion of p≤0.05 corrected for the number of parameters tested). Various risk and protective factors were identified for each tested outcome variable. Country effects were included in all models as a fixed factor. Adjusted R-squared values for the multivariable models varied between 9.6% (preweaning mortality) and 66% (litter index). Litter index (litters/sow/year) was negatively associated with a higher weaning age of the piglets. Housing recently weaned sows to be inseminated in a separate unit from the gestation unit had a positive association with litter index. Repeat breeding was negatively associated with PRRS-free farms, farms that bred (raised) all gilts on the farm and farms that perform farrowing induction of sows. PRRS-free farms were also associated with a higher replacement rate. Farms that bred gilts on the farm and PRRS-free farms were negatively associated with preweaning mortality. Natural ventilation in the gestation unit was associated with fewer piglets born alive and with fewer weaned piglets. Closed type of farms was associated with less piglets born dead. The use of open box housing system for pregnant sows (provision of individual resting areas) was associated with more weaned piglets. In conclusion, several factors related to applying good farm and health management, and optimal housing conditions showed positive association with various sow and piglet performance parameters. Further studies will help to assess causal links for these factors.

show abstract

“…Key factors to prevent aggression include a gradual familiarization of unfamiliar animals, sufficient space and pen structure during initial mixing (less aggression in rectangular pens than in squared pens), minimizing opportunities for dominant sows to steal food from subordinates, the provision of a good quality floor, environmental enrichment and the use of straw bedding [42, 43]. Stevens et al [44] found less aggression when mixing sows at day 35 of gestation compared to mixing them between day one and seven post-insemination. In a similar study, Knox et al [45] observed the poorest reproductive performance and welfare when sows were mixed 3 to 7 days after breeding.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of group housing of pregnant sows on health

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group housing of sows during gestation is mandatory in the EU since 2013. Compared to housing in individual crates, group housing allows the animals to express normal activity and behavior. The present paper discusses the impact of group housing on health, with emphasis on lameness, aggression and possible spread of infectious diseases. The prevalence of lameness is generally higher in sows housed in group than in sows housed individually. Floor space per sow, group size, pen design and flooring are the main factors of group housing involved in lameness development. Especially floor characteristics are important, and particular attention should be paid to the type, building material and quality of the floor, hygiene and the use of bedding such as straw or rubber mats. Aggression between sows is another critical issue in group housing systems. It occurs predominantly because of competition for access to a limited resource, or to establish a social hierarchy. Key factors to prevent aggression in group housing include gradual familiarization of unfamiliar animals, sufficient space and pen structure during initial mixing, minimizing opportunities for dominant sows to steal food from subordinates, provision of a good quality floor, environmental enrichment and use of straw bedding. Very scarce evidence-based information is available on the relationship between group housing and infectious disease. Compared to individual housing, sows in group housing have more nose-to-nose contact, and they have more oral contact with feces and urine. These factors could contribute to a higher or faster transmission of pathogens, but so far, there is no evidence showing more disease problems in group housing systems. In conclusion, in group housing systems, particular attention should be paid to prevention of lameness and aggression. Management is crucial but also feeding strategies, floor and bedding, and design of housing are very important as relatively minor adjustments may exert major effects on the animals.

show abstract

Effects of stage of gestation at mixing on aggression, injuries and stress in sows

Cited by 27 publications

References 20 publications

Locomotion Disorders and Skin and Claw Lesions in Gestating Sows Housed in Dynamic versus Static Groups

Locomotion Disorders and Skin and Claw Lesions in Gestating Sows Housed in Dynamic versus Static Groups

Factors associated with specific health, welfare and reproductive performance indicators in pig herds from five EU countries

Impact of group housing of pregnant sows on health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About