Dimensions of maternal behaviour characteristics in domestic and wild×domestic crossbred sows

Špinka, Marek; Illmann, Gudrun; Jonge, Francien de; Andersson, Maria; Schuurman, T.; Jensen, Per

doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(00)00151-9

Cited by 69 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study indicate that sow respon siveness to PB crush calls and real crush calls was not associated with piglet crushing or with mortality in ei ther pens or in crates, which supports the results of other playback experiments (Spinka et al, 2000;Grandinson et al, 2003;Held et al, 2006;Illmann et al, 2008). In contrast, there is some evidence from two studies (based on small sample sizes) that sows that were more respon sive in a playback test crushed fewer piglets than less re sponsive sows (Wechsler and Hegglin, 1997;Andersen et al, 2005).…”

Section: Association Between Sow Behavior and Piglet Crushing And Morsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…In general, there is a large variability in the propor tion of sow responsiveness to playbacks of piglet screams simulating crushing (Arey and Sancha, 1996;Wechsler and Hegglin, 1997;Herskin et al, 1998;Spinka et al, 2000;Grandinson et al, 2003;Held et al, 2006;Illmann et al, 2008;Nowicki and Schwarz, 2010). One explana tion could be that small, healthy piglets, which are more prone to crushing , might not be able to perform the energy-expensive, high-pitched screaming vocalizations during trapping.…”

Section: General Discussion Regarding Sow Response To Piglets Crush Smentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Melišová

Illmann

Chaloupková

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free farrowing pens (pens) improve the welfare of sows but may increase sow activity and negatively influence piglet production. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of pens and crates on sow postural changes, piglet trapping, sow responses to piglet screams, piglet mortality, and piglet BW gain. It was predicted that provision of greater space (in pens) would increase not only the frequency of sow postural changes and the probability of trappisng but also sow responses to the screams of piglets; thus, the outcome would be no differences in fatal piglet crushing or overall mortality between the housing systems. Sows were randomly moved to either a farrowing pen (n = 20) or farrowing crate (n = 18). Sow behavior was recorded and analyzed for 72 h from the birth of the first piglet (BFP). Sow postural changes included rolling from a ventral to lateral position and vice versa and going from standing to sitting, standing to lying, and sitting to lying. Occurrences of piglet trapping and sow responsiveness to real crushing situations were analyzed. Sow responsiveness was assessed in response to audio playbacks (PB) of piglet screams on d 3 postpartum (48 to 72 h after BFP; PB crush calls) and real piglet crushing during the first 72 h after BFP (real crush calls). Piglet BW gain was estimated 24 h after BFP, piglet BW was recorded at weaning, and piglet crushing and piglet mortality were recorded during the 72 h after BFP. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED and PROC GENMOD of SAS. Sows in pens showed more postural changes (P = 0.04) and tended to have greater incidences of piglet trapping (P = 0.07) than those in crates. Sow response to PB crush calls was greater in pens (P = 0.04) but did not differ for real crush calls between pens and crates (P = 0.62). There was no effect on the probability of piglet crushing (P = 0.38) and mortality (P = 0.41) during the 72 h after BFP nor in piglet mortality at weaning (P = 0.81) between pens and crates. Piglet BW gain at 24 h after BFP (P = 0.01) and piglet BW at weaning (P = 0.02) were greater in pens. Sows in pens showed more postural changes and tended to trap more piglets; however, the response to real crush calls did not differ between the two housing systems. Despite this, there was no increase in piglet crushing or mortality in pens, which might be influenced by the better piglet body condition observed in pens, which in turn could influence their ability to avoid crushing by the sow.

show abstract

Section: Association Between Sow Behavior and Piglet Crushing And Morsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: General Discussion Regarding Sow Response To Piglets Crush Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Melišová

Illmann

Chaloupková

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hutson et al, 1991;Wechsler and Hegglin, 1997;Š pinka et al, 2000;Pitts et al, 2002) we found large individual variation in the maternal responsiveness of outdoor sows. Hutson et al (1991) had reported that about 60% of their 65 sows were responding while the remainder ignored the piglet stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

Maternal responsiveness of outdoor sows from first to fourth parities

Held

Mason

Mendl

2006

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sows of indoor breeds are well known to differ in the speed and strength with which they respond to a piglet trapped under their bodies. There is also evidence from two previous studies that a sow's responsiveness to playback of a simulated trapped piglet scream is related to the number of crushed piglets in her litter. This raises the possibility of using responsiveness in the Piglet Scream Test as a measure of mothering ability in commercial pigs. In outdoor sows, piglet losses due to crushing are thought to be even higher than in indoor sows, yet comparatively little is known about the maternal responsiveness in these animals, or about its relationship to piglet mortality. The present study therefore investigated the behaviour of outdoor sows in the Piglet Scream Test and a piglet handling test. Its main aims were to investigate changes and individual consistency in test responses over several parities, and the relationship between a sow's behaviour in these tests and the survival of her piglets under commercial outdoor production conditions. Data were collected for first to fourth parities on 41 Landrace/Duroc Â Large White sows kept in individual farrowing paddocks. Data from second and third parities had to be combined because of data losses incurred by severe floods in 2000 and the UK Foot and Mouth Epidemic of 2001. Tests of maternal responsiveness comprised a Piglet Scream Test on Day 5 or 6 post-partum and a test of the sows' responses to handling of their piglets on Days 1, 9 or 10, and 24 or 25 (Piglet Defence Test). Comparisons within parities revealed that sows responded more strongly and faster to playback of a piglet scream than of a control sound (bird call). Large individual differences were evident in responses in both tests, and there was some evidence for consistency in individual differences across parities. The responses to playback of the

show abstract

“…Recent studies indicate that some of the variation in piglet mortality between sows may be explained by individual differences in maternal ability (Wechsler and Hegglin, 1997;Spinka et al, 2000;Andersen et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second trait was used to test the sow's reaction to the distress call from a piglet, as if it is being crushed under the sow, and may reflect the sow's responsiveness toward her piglets. Spinka et al (2000) stated two aspects of the sow's behaviour influencing the probability of crushing, first, the sow's general restlessness and her lying-down behaviour, and secondly, the sow's individual reactivity to a screaming piglet. Grandinson et al (2003) showed that alertness to piglet screams is genetically related to the survival of piglets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%