Behaviour, social interactions and lesion scores of group-housed sows in relation to floor space allowance

Weng, Ruey-Chee; Edwards, Sandra A.; English, P. R.

doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(97)00143-3

Cited by 96 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reducing space allowance in group-housed gestating sows has been associated with increased aggression (Weng et al, 1998), injuries (Taylor et al, 1997), and cortisol concentration (Barnett et al, 1992). Therefore, it was surprising that altering the size of the group space allowance within a gestation FAS system had no effect on any health, physiological, or productivity measure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Group space allowance has little effect on sow health, productivity, or welfare in a free-access stall system1,2

Mack

Lay

Eicher

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free-access stalls allow sows to choose the protection of a stall or use of a shared group space. This study investigated the effect of group space width, 0.91 (SS), 2.13 (IS), and 3.05 (LS) m, on the health, production, behavior, and welfare of gestating sows. Nine replications of 21 (N = 189) gestating sows were used. At gestational d 35.4 ± 2.3, the pregnant sows were distributed into 3 pens of 7 sows, where they remained until 104.6 ± 3.5 d. Each treatment pen had 7 free-access stalls and a group space that together provided 1.93 (SS), 2.68 (IS), or 3.24 (LS) m 2 /sow. Baseline measurements were obtained before mixing. Back fat depth, BW, BCS, and lameness were measured monthly, and skin lesions were scored weekly. Blood was collected monthly for hematological, immunological, and cortisol analyses. Sow behavior was video recorded continuously during the initial 4 d of treatment and 24 h every other week thereafter. Behavior was analyzed for location, posture, pen investigation, social contact, and aggression. Skin response to the mitogen concanavalin A (Con A) was tested at mean gestational d 106. Litter characteristics including size and weight were collected at birth and weaning. The data were analyzed using a mixed model. Multiple comparisons were adjusted with the Tukey-Kramer and Bejamini-Hochberg methods. Group space allowance had no effect on any measure of sow health, physiology, or production (P ≥ 0.10). Sows in the SS, IS, and LS pens spent 77.88% ± 3.88%, 66.02% ± 3.87%, and 63.64% ± 3.91%, respectively, of their time in the free-access stalls (P = 0.12). However, SS sows used the group space less than IS and LS sows (P = 0.01). Overall, pen investigatory behavior was not affected by group space allowance (P = 0.91). Sows in the LS pens spent more time in a social group than SS sows (P = 0.02), whereas sows in IS pens were intermediate to, but not different from, the other treatments (P ≥ 0.10). The size of the social groups was also affected by the group space allowance (P = 0.03), with SS sows forming smaller groups than LS sows; again, IS sows were intermediate to, but not different from, the other treatments. Although the group space allowance had no measurable impact on the health, physiology, or productivity of the sows, the lower group space use and social contact of the SS sows reduced the behavioral diversity benefits of group housing and may indicate an avoidance of social stressors or a lack of physical comfort in the smallest pens. RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. ABSTRACT: Free-access stalls allow sows to choose the protection of a stall or use of a shared group space. This study investigated the effect of group space width, 0.91 (SS), 2.13 (IS), and 3.05 (LS) m, on the health, production, behavior, and welfare of gestating sows. Nine replications of 21 (N = 189) gestating sows were used. At gestational d 35.4 ± 2.3, the pregnant sows w...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many group housing systems, aggression and injuries increase as space allowance decreases (Jensen, 1984;Weng et al, 1998). However, how space allowance impacts sows in a FAS system is unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group space allowance has little effect on sow health, productivity, or welfare in a free-access stall system1,2

Mack

Lay

Eicher

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Space and environmental complexity, which are limited in a conventional farrowing system, are important for piglets to express a range of behaviours, such as play, threatening, and avoidance Weng et al, 1998), which are important for the development of social skills. Also, the lack of social contact with other litters before weaning may hamper piglets' social development, as e.g.…”

Section: Issues Related To the Current Conventional Farrowing Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, space and environmental enrichment are limited, while these aspects are important to stimulate the expression of a range of behaviours related to social development, such as play behaviour, (Spinka et al, 2001) and non-physical agonistic interactions, e.g. threatening and avoidance Weng et al, 1998). Despite social contact with multiple sows and litters, and the provision of a more spacious and enriched environment in our MS system, we found that the frequency of aggressive behaviour (both total occurrence and occurrence of separate elements of aggressive behaviour) and the number of skin lesions related to aggression did not differ between housing systems before weaning in Chapter 3.…”

Section: Pre-weaning Environment and Preparation For The Moment Of Wementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This MS system has several properties that can affect piglets' social and cognitive development; a spacious environment with enrichment, possibilities for interactions with multiple sows, and pre-weaning mingling with piglets from other litters. An increased space allowance and a more complex pen design allow more possibilities for the development of a range of social skills, including avoidance and threatening behaviour Weng et al, 1998), and play behaviour, which is thought to be important for social development (Spinka et al, 2001). Compared with single-litter housing, pre-weaning contact with multiple litters has been shown to reduce aggression after weaning towards familiar pigs and unfamiliar pigs , and to stimulate quicker formation of a stable dominance hierarchy post-weaning (D'Eath, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of pigs raised in a group housing system for lactating sows and their litters

Nieuwamerongen¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social status and housing factors affect reproductive performance of pregnant sows in groups

Salak‐Johnson

2017

Molecular Reproduction Devel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group‐housing systems for pregnant sows are considered a welfare‐promoting alternative to the individual stall. A major concern associated with pregnant sows housed in group pens is increased aggression at mixing and at feeding, which may cause chronic stress among some of the sows in the group due to low feed intake and social stress. Prolonged activation of the stress axis, based on elevated cortisol levels, may inhibit or impair reproductive success via disruption of the reproductive axis. Mixing sows into groups shortly after insemination evokes a stress response, which may affect fertilization and implantation due to sustained, elevated cortisol levels that disrupt reproductive processes. Yet, most studies reported minimal effects of group housing sows during pregnancy on reproduction or cortisol‐related stress response. Differences between housing systems—in terms of group size, floor‐space allowance, feeding system, and genetics—could account for these unexpected results. Indeed, interrupted feed intake, especially in early pregnancy, and sustained aggression in late pregnancy are two unfavorable social stresses that deserve special attention in order to achieve good reproductive performance. Unfortunately, most studies do not consider other factors, such as social rank and parity, which may interactively affect reproductive success and aggressive behavior of sows, especially in group‐pen systems.

show abstract

Behaviour, social interactions and lesion scores of group-housed sows in relation to floor space allowance

Cited by 96 publications

References 13 publications

Group space allowance has little effect on sow health, productivity, or welfare in a free-access stall system1,2

Group space allowance has little effect on sow health, productivity, or welfare in a free-access stall system1,2

Development of pigs raised in a group housing system for lactating sows and their litters

Social status and housing factors affect reproductive performance of pregnant sows in groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About