Group gestation housing with individual feeding—I: How feeding regime, resource allocation, and genetic factors affect sow welfare

Bench, C. J.; Rioja-Lang, Fiona C.; Hayne, S. M.; Gonyou, H. W.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.12.021

Cited by 46 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…High levels of aggression are commonly observed in newly formed groups of sows after mixing (Velarde 2007; Bench et al 2013a). This aggression, especially if intense and prolonged, has obvious welfare implications particularly for subordinate sows because of injuries and stress caused (Mendl et al 1992;Nicholson et al 1993;Verdon et al 2013) and their probable links to pain and fear.…”

Section: Group Housing and Sow Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific assessment of animal welfare

Hemsworth

Mellor

Cronin

et al. 2014

New Zealand Veterinary Journal

172

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare is a state within the animal and a scientific perspective provides methodologies for evidence-based assessment of an animal's welfare. A simplistic definition of animal welfare might be how the animal feels now. Affective experiences including emotions, are subjective states so cannot be measured directly in animals, but there are informative indirect physiological and behavioural indices that can be cautiously used to interpret such experiences. This review enunciates several key science-based frameworks for understanding animal welfare. The biological functioning and affective state frameworks were initially seen as competing, but a recent more unified approach is that biological functioning is taken to include affective experiences and affective experiences are recognised as products of biological functioning, and knowledge of the dynamic interactions between the two is considered to be fundamental to managing and improving animal welfare. The value of these two frameworks in understanding the welfare of group-housed sows is reviewed. The majority of studies of the welfare of group-housed sows have employed the biological functioning framework to infer compromised sow welfare, on the basis that suboptimal biological functioning accompanies negative affective states such as sow hunger, pain, fear, helplessness, frustration and anger. Group housing facilitates social living, but group housing of gestating sows raises different welfare considerations to stall housing, such as high levels of aggression, injuries and stress, at least for several days after mixing, as well as subordinate sows being underfed due to competition at feeding. This paper highlights the challenges and potential opportunities for the continued improvement in sow management through well-focused research and multidisciplinary assessment of animal welfare. In future the management of sentient animals will require the promotion of positive affective experiences in animals and this is likely to be a major focus for animal welfare science activity in the early twenty-first century.

show abstract

Section: Group Housing and Sow Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific assessment of animal welfare

Hemsworth

Mellor

Cronin

et al. 2014

New Zealand Veterinary Journal

172

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aggressive Behavior at Feeding. Aggression between group-housed sows that are restrictively fed is most pronounced when feeding or accessing feeding areas (Arey and Edwards, 1998;Barnett et al, 2001;Bench et al, 2013). To observe aggressive behavior at feeding, 3.6-mm infrared closed circuit television cameras were installed overhead near a feeder to record behavior at the time that feed was distributed on the solid floor below the drop feeder.…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: Aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance1

Hemsworth

Rice

Nash

et al. 2013

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A total of 3,120 sows, in 4 time replicates, were used to determine the effects of group size and floor space on sow welfare using behavioral, physiological, health, and fitness variables. Within 1 to 7 d postinsemination, sows were assigned randomly to treatments of a 3 by 6 factorial arrangement, with 3 group sizes (10, 30, or 80 sows/pen) and 6 floor space allowances (1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, or 3.0 m(2)/sow). Sows were housed on partially slatted concrete floors, and overhead feeders delivered 4 times/day to provide a total of 2.5 kg of feed/sow. As pen space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow, aggression at feeding decreased from about 9 to 7 bouts/sow (linear, P = 0.029) and plasma cortisol concentrations decreased from about 28 to 21 ng/mL (linear, P = 0.0089) at 2 d. Although the results are in accord with a linear decline from 1.4 to 3 m(2)/sow, the results are also in accord with a decline in these measurements from 1.4 to 1.8 m(2)/sow and no further decline greater than 1.8 m(2)/sow. Farrowing rate (percentage of inseminated sows that farrowed) also increased from about 60 to 75% as space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow (linear, P = 0.012). Group size was related to skin injuries on d 9 (P = 0.0017), 23 (P = 0.0046), and 51 (P = 0.0006), with groups of 10 consistently having the lowest number of total injuries over this period. Based on the aggression and cortisol results, it is credible to judge that, within the range of floor space allowances studied, sow welfare improves with increased space. However, from a sow welfare perspective, the experiment had insufficient precision to determine what is an adequate space allowance for sows. Thus, although the results definitely support a space allowance of 1.4 m(2)/sow being too small, it is not possible to give guidance on an actual space allowance at mixing that is adequate.

show abstract

“…The welfare level of individual sows within a grouphousing system can vary greatly depending on the social rank of the animal. Often, low-ranking sows are the most vulnerable to social stress and may have poorer welfare when housed in group pens during gestation [1]. Often, they sustain more skin lesions as a result of inter-sow aggression than high-ranking sows [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Social Rank on Well-Being and Space Utilization of Dry Sows Kept in a Free Access Stall-Pen Housing Environment

DeDecker¹,

Salak‐Johnson²

2020

OJAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the impact of social rank on the well-being of gestating sows housed in a free access stall-pen housing environment. At d 30 post-breeding, 32 multiparous crossbred sows in groups of 4 were allocated to a stall-pen housing environment. Blood samples were taken at gestational d 30 (before mixing) and d 31 (24-h post-mixing), and then again at d 89 and 110; whereas, sow behavior was recorded at gestational d 30, 66, 87, and 102. Social rank was determined based on aggressive encounters, dyadic fighting wins and losses, and displacements between sows by 48-h post-mixing. At d 31 (post-mixing), regardless of social rank, total WBC decreased and, lymphocyte counts increased, but % change was more significant among the subordinates than dominants. The same trend occurred with neutrophil chemotaxis increased more in subordinates, but ConA-induced lymphocyte proliferation increased more in dominants, whereas LPS-induced lymphocyte proliferation was reduced among dominants. Sow behavior was differentially affected by social rank and time-periods or gestational day, with subordinates spending more time sitting and drinking, especially during time-periods 1, 3, and 4. Dominants displayed more oral-nasal-facial behaviors during mid-gestation but more sham-chew during time-period 2, which included feeding time. Social rank also influenced the percentage of time sows spent in either the stall or pen area, with subordinates in stalls and dominants in pen. These data imply that social rank differentially influences physiology and behavior of dry sows housed in a free access stall-pen environment. More specifically, the location of the dominant sow, time of day, and activity may influence when and where the subordinates spend their time within this housing system.

show abstract

Group gestation housing with individual feeding—I: How feeding regime, resource allocation, and genetic factors affect sow welfare

Cited by 46 publications

References 49 publications

Scientific assessment of animal welfare

Scientific assessment of animal welfare

Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: Aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance1

Effect of Social Rank on Well-Being and Space Utilization of Dry Sows Kept in a Free Access Stall-Pen Housing Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About