Farrowing conditions affect the reactions of piglets towards novel environment and social confrontation at weaning

Hillmann, Edna; Hollen, Felicitas von; Bünger, Beate; Todt, Dietmar; Schrader, Lars

doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(02)00254-x

Cited by 46 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Jumping could be seen as form of agitation and distress (Worobec et al, 1999), and therefore reactivity, and may also reflect that these animals were not habituated to confinement. In contrast with our results, for a similar novel environment test, Hillmann et al (2003) reported that piglets from a group farrowing system showed less behavioural signs of distress and more explorative behaviour than individual farrowing system piglets, which showed more locomotion, agitated behaviour (e.g. jumping and raising against the surroundings) and more high-frequency vocalisations.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…where they have been allowed contact between litters during the suckling period) demonstrate more positive social interactions than piglets raised in single-litter farrowing systems. For example, there is decreased incidence of injuries (Pluske and Williams, 1996;Wattanakul et al, 1997;Kutzer et al, 2009), greater hierarchy stabilisation (De Jonge et al, 1996;Pitts et al, 2000;Hillmann et al, 2003;D'Eath, 2005), reduced latency to approach an unfamiliar pig upon first contact (Hillmann et al, 2003) and also reduced levels of aggression (Erhard et al, 1997). The introduction of another piglet (social encounter test), therefore, tested the social interaction skills of these piglets.…”

Section: Lau Pluske and Flemingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is not ideal from a welfare point of view, as rearing environment in early life influences behavioural development, which consequently modifies responses of pigs to stressful environments in later stages of production (e.g. De Jonge et al, 1996;Hillmann et al, 2003;Chaloupková et al, 2007b). For example, De Jong et al (2000) showed that barren housing conditions hampers the expression of normal behaviour, and piglets perform more manipulative social behaviour (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

Lau

Pluske

Fleming

2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under intensive pig husbandry, outdoor systems offer a more complex physical and social environment compared with indoor systems (farrowing sheds). As the rearing environment affects behavioural development, it can, therefore, influence behavioural responses of pigs to stressful environments in later stages of production. We tested how the rearing environment influenced behavioural responses to a novel arena test in piglets on the day that they were weaned and mixed into large groups. We recorded video footage and compared the behavioural responses of 30 outdoor-raised and 30 farrowing shed-raised piglets tested in an experimental arena and sequentially exposed to four challenges (each for 5 min) on the day of weaning. Quantitative and qualitative behavioural measures were recorded using time budgets and scoring demeanour or 'qualitative behavioural expression' (using Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA)). When held in isolation (challenge 1), both groups were scored as more 'scared/ worried', while outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating and jumping against the arena walls. Both groups interacted with a plastic ball (challenge 2: exposure to a novel object) during which they were scored as more 'playful/curious' than other challenges. When a food bowl was introduced (challenge 3), farrowing shed-raised piglets were more interested in playing with the food bowl itself, whereas outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating the feed. Finally, there were no significant differences in social behaviour (challenge 4: introduction of another piglet) between the two groups in terms of the latency to contact each other, amount of time recorded engaged in aggressive/non-aggressive social interactions or QBA scores. Although piglets spent 30% of their time interacting with the other piglet, and half of this time (47%) was engaged in negative interactions (pushing, biting), the levels of aggression were not different between the two groups. Overall, outdoor-raised piglets ate more and were scored as more 'calm/passive', whereas farrowing shed-raised piglets spent more time investigating their environment and were scored as more 'playful/inquisitive'. In conclusion, we did not find differences in behaviour between outdoor-raised and farrowing shed-raised piglets that would highlight welfare issues. The differences found in this study may reflect conflicting affective states, with responses to confinement, neophobia and motivation for exploration evident.Keywords: assessment, behaviour, free-range, piggery, piglet ImplicationsThe day of weaning is particularly challenging both physiologically and psychologically for piglets, and the behaviour of piglets towards their environment and each other affects their overall welfare. One of the concerns for the pork industry is that confinement housing can detrimentally influence social behaviour; however, we found no differences in aggressive or non-aggressive social interactions. Piglets raised under the confinement system demonstrated more exploratory behaviour, whereas ou...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Lau Pluske and Flemingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

Lau

Pluske

Fleming

2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was likely because new hierarchies did not need to be established. Compared with piglets from single litter housing, piglets raised in the MS systems also showed reduced aggression towards unfamiliar piglets in a social confrontation test (Hillmann et al, 2003) and towards unfamiliar piglets when mixed at weaning (Li and Wang, 2011;Bohnenkamp et al, 2013b). This reduced aggression may have several reasons.…”

Section: Piglet (Social) Developmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In a novel environment test, MS-reared piglets showed less activity, escape attempts and vocalisations (Bünger et al, 2000;Hillmann et al, 2003), and more exploration (Hillmann et al, 2003) than piglets reared with individually housed sows.…”

Section: Piglet (Social) Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Nieuwamerongen

Bolhuis

Peet–Schwering

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Ungulates (Ungulata)

Yeates¹,

McGreevy²

2018

Companion Animal Care and Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farrowing conditions affect the reactions of piglets towards novel environment and social confrontation at weaning

Cited by 46 publications

References 13 publications

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

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

Ungulates (Ungulata)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About