Effects of stall or small group gestation housing on the production, health and behaviour of gilts

Harris, Moira; Pajor, E. A.; Sorrells, A. D.; Eicher, S.D.; Richert, B. T.; Marchant‐Forde, Jeremy N.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2005.12.004

Cited by 43 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No differences were observed in the prevalence of lameness between stalls and pens in the present study. Discrepancies are also found in the literature on the influence of housing systems (stall v. group housing) on the occurrence of lameness, and this may partly be confounded by other factors such as the floor type and the possibility to exercise and walk, which have an impact on sows lameness (Harris et al, 2006;Schenck et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows

Conte

Bergeron

Gregoire

et al. 2014

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives were to evaluate quantitative animal-based measures of sow welfare (lameness, oral stereotypies and reactivity to humans) under commercial farm conditions, and to estimate the influence of housing, sow parity and stage of gestation on the outcome of these measures. Across 10 farms, 311 sows were used. Farms differed in terms of housing design (pen v. stall), space allowance, floor type in stalls (partially v. fully slatted), and feeding system in pens (floor v. trough). Lameness was assessed in terms of gait score, walking speed, stride length, stepping behaviour, response to a stand-up test and latency to lie down after feeding. The presence of oral stereotypies and saliva foam were recorded. Reactivity to humans was assessed by approach (attempt to touch the sow between the ears) and handling tests (exit of the stall for stall-housed sows, or isolation of the animal for pen-housed sows). Only stride length and walking speed were associated with lameness in stall-housed sows (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01). In stalls, the probability that a sow was lame when it presented a short stride length (<83 cm) or a low speed (<1 m/s) was high (69% and 72%, respectively), suggesting that these variables were good indicators of lameness, but were not sufficient to detect every lame sow in a herd (sensitivity of 0.39 and 0.71, respectively). The stage of gestation and parity also influenced measures of stride length and walking speed (P < 0.05). Saliva foam around the mouth was associated with the presence of sham chewing and fixture biting (P < 0.05). The probability that a sow presents sham chewing behaviour when saliva foam around her mouth was observed was moderate (63%) but was not sufficient to detect all sows with stereotypies (41%). A high discrimination index was obtained for behavioural measures (aggressions, escapes) and vocalisations during the approach test (stalls: 78.0 and 64.0; pens: 71.9 and 75.0, respectively), the number of interventions needed to make the sow exit the stall during the handling test for stall-housed sows (74.9), and attempts to escape during the handling test for pen-housed sows (96.9). These results suggest that these measures have a good power to discriminate between sows with low and high reactivity to humans. Finally, the outcome of several measures of lameness, stereotypies and reactivity to humans were influenced by the housing characteristics, sow parity and stage of gestation. Therefore, these factors should be considered to avoid misinterpretations of these measures in terms of welfare.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows

Conte

Bergeron

Gregoire

et al. 2014

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of this study indicate that the stall sizes may need to be increased slightly from those currently in use in order to avoid negative welfare effects, especially in the late gestation period. Harris et al (2006) studied the effects of stall or small group gestation housing on the production, health and behaviour of gilts and found that there were relatively few differences between the two housing systems. They did note, however, that the stalls were relatively large (2.21 3 0.61 m), considering they had used gilts and felt that this may have influenced the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring changes in physical size and predicting weight of sows during gestation

O'Connell

Lynch

Bertholot³

et al. 2007

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes in physical body size during gestation were monitored using 529 sets of sow measurements. All sows were from the same herd and production system with a range in parity from 1 to 8. Sows were individually weighed, P2 backfat thickness was determined by ultrasound and morphometric measurements of body size were taken five times during gestation: day 0 (at service), day 25, day 50, day 80 and day 110. The morphometric measurements included sow height (from floor to last rib at the midline, from floor to ventral surface and from floor to hip), heart girth, depth of last rib, length (from snout to tail and from anterior scapula to tail) and width (at ham, at last rib and at shoulder). Regression analyses were used to model the relationship between day of gestation or parity number and morphometric measurements of body size. Regression equations were also developed to estimate sow weight from physical measurements, day of gestation and parity. As expected, sow dimensions, in general, increased as pregnancy progressed and also with increasing parity number. The relationships between day of gestation and body dimensions were described by linear and quadratic regression models, which had a range of adjusted R 2 values up to 0.99. Similar relationships to parity number had a range of R 2 values between 0.51 and 0.96. Sow depth, which can be used as an estimate of the width of the sow when lying, equalled the maximum width of the gestation stall (650 mm) at day 103 of gestation. However, by day 40 of gestation, predicted mean sow depth (570 mm) equalled the width at the rear of the crate. The implication of this is that after day 40 of gestation, the average sow was too wide for the rear of the crate when lying in a recumbent position. On day 110 of gestation, 95% of the mean sow body depths would be accommodated in stalls that were 674 mm wide; however, the range in body sizes with increasing parity number suggests the use of more than one stall width would be appropriate. Sow weight could be estimated with an adjusted R 2 value of 0.81 and with a residual standard deviation (r.s.d.) of 16.5 kg using heart girth alone, or more accurately using a model with parity, day of gestation, P2 backfat depth and heart girth as the parameters (R 2 5 0.89, r.s.d. 12.4 kg).

show abstract

“…Most of the time individual penning of sows led to a preweaning mortality similar to group housing (Broom et al, 1995;Bates et al, 2003;Harris et al, 2006;Hulbert and McGlone, 2006), except for some studies where a lower (Cronin et al, 1996) or a higher (Karlen et al, 2007) mortality were found in litters from individually housed sows. Providing straw bedding to group-housed sows (Von Borell et al, 1992;Spoolder et al, 1996) or combining group penning with provision of foraging materials (wood shavings) during pregnancy (Von Borell et al, 1992;Spoolder et al, 1996) did not influence pre-weaning mortality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Compared with individual stalls, group housing increases circadian cortisol secretion (Melchior et al, 2012), but not in response to an ACTH challenge (Broom et al, 1995;Boyle et al, 2002). Group housing decreases oral stereotypes and aggression (Broom et al, 1995); however, the impact on body lesions is uncertain and probably strongly Prenatal stress and neonatal health depends on the interaction with the presence of foraging material and the housing design (Boyle et al, 2002;Harris et al, 2006;Hulbert and McGlone, 2006). Although these studies do not provide contrasted groups in terms of maternal stress, they are included in the review because of their practical relevance for pig husbandry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prenatal stress, immunity and neonatal health in farm animal species

Merlot

Quesnel

Prunier

2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The high pre-weaning mortality in farm animal species and poor welfare conditions of reproductive females question modern industrial farming acceptability. A growing body of literature has been produced recently, investigating the impact of maternal stress during gestation on maternal and offspring physiology and behavior in farm animals. Until now, the possible impact of prenatal stress on neonatal health, growth and survival could not be consistently demonstrated, probably because experimental studies use small numbers of animals and thus do not allow accurate estimations. However, the data from literature synthesized in the present review show that in ungulates, maternal stress can sometimes alter important maternal parameters of neonatal survival such as colostrum production (ruminants) and maternal care to the newborn (pigs). Furthermore, maternal stress during gestation can affect maternal immune system and impair her health, which can have an impact on the transfer of pathogens from the mother to her fetus or neonate. Finally, prenatal stress can decrease the ability of the neonate to absorb colostral immunoglobulins, and alter its inflammatory response and lymphocyte functions during the first few weeks of life. Cortisol and reproductive hormones in the case of colostrogenesis are pointed out as possible hormonal mediators. Field data and epidemiological studies are needed to quantify the role of maternal welfare problems in neonatal health and survival.

show abstract

Effects of stall or small group gestation housing on the production, health and behaviour of gilts

Cited by 43 publications

References 19 publications

On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows

On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows

Measuring changes in physical size and predicting weight of sows during gestation

Prenatal stress, immunity and neonatal health in farm animal species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About