Effects of feed-back from the nest on maternal responsiveness and postural changes in primiparous sows during the first 24 h after farrowing onset

It has been documented that floor heating of the farrowing area in loose housed sows improves survival of piglets significantly. However, today, the majority of farrowing pens are designed with crating of sows and slatted floor at the birth site. The aim of this study was to investigate whether providing radiant heat at the birth site to new-born piglets in pens with crated sows reduced hypothermia, time to first milk intake and growth of the piglets during the 1 st week. Second parity Danish Landrace × Yorkshire sows (n = 36) were randomly divided into two groups: Control (CG) and heat (HG). In the area behind the sow (zone 1), two radiant heat panels were mounted above the slatted floor in the HG. The farrowings were attended, and the heaters were turned on at birth of first piglet and turned off 12 h after. Birth time, time to leave zone 1, time to first contact with udder and time to first suckling were registered by direct observation. The piglet's rectal temperature (RT) was measured 15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240 min after birth and 12, 14 and 24 h after birth of first piglet. Piglets were weighed at birth, 24 and 48 h and 7 days after birth. Data were analysed in a mixed model in SAS. The drop in RT was lower in HG compared with CG ( P = 0.002), and the RT in HG remained higher than in CG from 30 to 240 min after birth ( P < 0.05), whereas no difference was found at 12 h after birth of first piglet ( P = 0.92). Piglets in HG stayed longer in zone 1 than those in CG ( P = 0.01), whereas time to reach udder ( P = 0.35) and to first suckling ( P = 0.56) did not differ. No difference in weight gain was found between piglets in HG and CG at 24 h ( P = 0.23), 48 h ( P = 0.28) and 7 days after birth ( P = 0.44). Birth weight had a positive effect on RT ( P < 0.001) and reduced time to leave zone 1 ( P < 0.01), reach udder ( P < 0.001) and time to first suckling ( P < 0.001). The results showed that radiant heating behind the sows reduced hypothermia in new-born piglets and indicate that providing heat during the first half hour after birth is important.

Section: Animals and Housingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of radiant heat at the birth site in farrowing crates on hypothermia and behaviour in neonatal piglets

Andersen

Pedersen

2016

“…Despite only rudimentary maternal care during parturition in this species, sows in seminatural environments will get up during parturition to inspect their offspring, making nose-to-nose contact before rooting the nest to move piglets out of the way and then resuming lateral lying (Gundlach, 1968;Jensen, 1986). Reactivity patterns of farrowing sows have been described by several authors (Jensen, 1986;Jarvis et al, 1999;Pedersen et al, 2003), with sow's responsiveness being highest in the first 2 h of parturition followed by a prolonged (approximately 6 h) non-responsive phase and then, in conjunction with general activity, responsiveness returns. This pattern is accompanied by endocrine changes (Algers and Uvnä s-Moberg, 2007), but is also influenced by the environment.…”

Section: Parturition Early Lactation and Nest-occupationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, we can hypothesise that it is not just the nest that contributes to reproductive success by protecting the offspring, but also the motivation to build and the performance of building that nest. Feedback from building and completing a nest can affect neuro-endocrine regulation of maternal behaviour (Castrén et al, 1993a;Damm et al, 2003;Pedersen et al, 2003;Algers and Uvnä s-Moberg, 2007) during farrowing, with evidence that positive parturient maternal behaviour is influenced by the satisfaction of the nest-building phase (Arey et al, 1991;Jensen, 1993;Damm et al, 2003;Pedersen et al, 2003). For example, several authors have proposed a link between high nest-building activity and reduced risk of crushing (Andersen et al, 2005;Pedersen et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2011

114

112

The construction of a suitable farrowing environment is a continuing dilemma: the piglet's needs must be matched with those of the sow and the farmer during the main phases that constitute farrowing: nest building, parturition and lactation. Difficulties exist in resolving the various conflicts of interest between and within these three parties (e.g. sow v. farmer: space needed for nest building v. space needed to maximise the amount of farrowing accommodation, or sow v. sow: ensuring the survival of the current litter v. maintaining condition for future litters). Thus, the challenge is to resolve these conflicts and design a system that maximises sow and piglet welfare while maintaining an economically efficient and sustainable enterprise. In order to successfully design a farrowing and lactation environment, it is necessary to consider the biological needs of both the sow and her litter. The natural behaviour of the sow has been well documented and very little variation exists between reports of peri-parturient behaviour observed in extensively kept domestic sows and their wild counterparts. The failure for domestication to significantly alter these behavioural patterns provides evidence that they are biologically significant and that the commercial farrowing environment should attempt to accommodate this behavioural repertoire. In addition, the behavioural needs of the piglets, as well as the physiological needs of both sows and their offspring should be considered. This article aims to review the considerable body of literature detailing the behavioural repertoire of sows and their offspring during the different phases of farrowing, and the accompanying physiological processes. The focus is on identifying biological needs of the animals involved in order to synthesise the appropriate design criteria for farrowing and lactation systems, which should optimise both welfare and animal production.

“…Pedersen et al (2003) concluded that the responsiveness of the sow for her piglets is an indicator of good maternal care. The newborn piglets are completely dependent on the sow for access to colostrum and milk, but at the same time the sow contributes the greatest risk factor to their health and welfare (Grandinson et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic aspects regarding piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. Part 2. Genetic relationship between maternal behaviour in sows and piglet mortality

Hellbrügge

Tölle

Bennewitz

et al. 2008

The aim of the study was to analyse the genetic background of different traits to characterise the maternal behaviour of sows and to evaluate the relationship to different causes of piglet losses -increasing piglet survival due to higher maternal abilities of the sow. A total of 1538 purebred litters from 943 German Landrace sows in the year 2004 were available for data analysis. Around 13 971 individually earmarked piglets were included in the analyses. Maternal abilities were characterised through the sow's reaction to the separation from her litter during the first 24 h after farrowing, and on day 21 of lactation, the reaction towards the playback of a piglet's distress call and the reaction towards an unknown noise (music). In 1220 of these litters, the sows were also scored for aggressiveness in the group when regrouped before entering the farrowing crates. To describe fertility, the number of piglets born alive, stillborn piglets, number of piglets born in total and the individual birth weight were utilised. Different causes of piglet losses were evaluated as binary traits of the dam with survival rate, different definitions for crushing by the sow, being underweight and runts. The heritability for being aggressive in the group was h 2 5 0.32 and for the behaviour traits during lactation, the heritabilities ranged from h 2 5 0.06 to 0.14. The genetic correlations showed that more-reactive sows had fewer piglet losses.