Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow

Baxter, Emma; Jarvis, Suzanne; Sherwood, L.; Farish, Marianne; Roehe, R.; Lawrence, Alistair B.; Edwards, Sandra A.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2010.11.020

Cited by 76 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, further research into breeding for sows adapted to these conditions would most likely benefit performance. Genotype-by-environment interactions have been shown to influence piglet survival in loose farrowing systems (Baxter et al, 2011b) and further investigations are required to define strategies for successfully breeding for better mothering ability, including appropriate reactions to both piglets and stockpersons. In countries where farrowing crates have been banned for a number of years, production results are more favourable and consistent (Andersen et al, 2007;Weber et al, 2009) and it is likely that, because the sows have been farrowing in loose-housed accommodation for several years, they have been indirectly selected for maternal and behavioural traits that optimise performance in this system.…”

Section: Production Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2012

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing societal pressure, expressed through government legislation and consumers' purchasing choices, to abolish livestock systems considered detrimental to farm animal welfare. Such systems include farrowing crates, which are behaviourally and physically restrictive for sows. Therefore, identifying less restrictive farrowing systems for commercial implementation has become an important focus of pig research. Despite numerous attempts to develop indoor alternatives to crates, there is as yet no universal acceptance of such systems at the commercial level. The primary concern is piglet survival, because often favourable figures are reported at the experimental level, but not replicated in commercial evaluation. Alternative farrowing systems should equal or surpass survival levels in conventional systems and perform consistently across a range of farm circumstances for widespread commercial implementation. In addition, it is important that alternatives consider ease of management, operator safety and economic sustainability. Utilising a large database of literature, 12 existing alternative indoor systems were identified and compared against each other, conventional crates and outdoor systems. An assessment of how well alternative systems satisfy the design criteria for meeting animals' biological needs was carried out by developing a welfare design index (WDI). The physical and financial performance of these systems was also evaluated and summarised. The derived WDI yielded values of 0.95 for conventional crates, with higher scores for commercial outdoor systems of 1.10 and indoor group farrowing or multi-suckling systems (e.g. Thorstensson 5 2.20). However, the high total piglet mortality (23.7% 6 s.e. 2.26) in indoor group systems compared with conventional crates (18.3% 6 s.e. 0.63) and outdoor systems (17.0% 6 s.e. 2.05), together with the added capital cost (92% more than conventional crates, 249% more than commercial outdoor huts), mainly as a result of extra building space provided per animal, question their feasibility to deliver from an economic perspective. Designed pen systems offered the best compromise, scoring 1.64 from the WDI, with a total piglet mortality of 16.6% (6s.e. 0.88) and capital costs and labour input more comparable to farrowing crates (17.5% more than crates). The critical review of different systems was hampered by the lack of comprehensive data and detailed system descriptions. When attempting to assess welfare and economic attributes of systems, there are certain caveats that require discussion, in particular weighting of the contribution of different design attributes to pig welfare, the relative importance of the sow and her piglets and the many potential confounding factors that arise. Also, when judging any system, it must be emphasised that the maternal characteristics of sows and the quality of stockpersonship will be integral to its success.

show abstract

Section: Production Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2012

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As maternal behaviour is partly genetically determined (Løvendahl et al, 2005), selecting sows with appropriate maternal behaviour may improve performance in group housing systems. Maternal behaviour can be affected by housing type (Baxter et al, 2011b), and therefore selection of sows has to occur in a suitable environment, for example, not in farrowing crates. Moreover, the previous experiences of sows with housing systems influence their performance; sows that were raised in an MS system showed lower piglet mortality and tended to crush fewer piglets than sows with no previous experience in the system, resulting in 21.4 v. 20.1 raised piglets per year (Wechsler, 1996).…”

mentioning

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

“…Among other changes, offspring have exhibited decreased lymphocyte proliferation (Otten et al, 2000;Tuchscherer et al, 2002;Otten et al, 2007) and serum IgG concentrations (Otten et al, 2000;Tuchscherer et al, 2002). Preweaning mortality of male pigs may be associated with impaired ability to obtain colostrum which reduces homeothermy and can result in delayed gut closure and may increase risk of pathogenesis (Baxter et al, 2011). Whether maternal stress further impairs nursing behavior and contributes to greater male mortality needs to be further examined; however neither latency to first udder contact or milk intake were reduced by maternal ACTH administration (Otten et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth and reproductive development of male piglets are more vulnerable to midgestation maternal stress than that of female piglets12

Mack

Lay

Eicher

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many mammalian species, prenatal stress masculinizes female and feminizes male offspring impairing their reproductive capacity. Regrouping gestating sows is a common, stressful production practice, but its impact on the developing pigs of the sow is not fully known. This study examined the effects of regrouping gestating sows and the administration of exogenous glucocorticoids on the growth and external reproductive morphology of pigs. At 37.2 ± 0.26 d of gestation, 6 cohorts of 18 sows (N = 108) were placed in 1 of 3 treatments: socially stable (Stable), hydrocortisone acetate (HCA), or mixed (Mixed). The HCA sows were administered 70 mg HCA, a synthetic glucocorticoid, twice daily during the 21 d experimental period. Each Mixed sow was penned with 2 companion sows (Companion) and regrouped on d 7 and 14 with 2 different Companion sows in a new pen. Stable and HCA sows were penned in treatment groups of 3 sows. Sow social rank was assessed weekly during feeding. After the 21 d experimental period, all sows were housed in gestation stalls for the duration of pregnancy. During the 21 d, Companion sows gained more weight than HCA and Mixed sows (P < 0.05) with Stable sows intermediate. High ranked sows gained more weight than middle and low ranked sows (P < 0.05). Mixed sows had greater head lesion scores than Stable and HCA sows (P < 0.05) with Companion sows intermediate. Head lesions increased with lower social rank (P < 0.001). Sow treatment did not affect farrowing rate, litter size, or sex ratio (P > 0.10). Social rank also had no effect on farrowing rate (P > 0.10), but affected total litter size (P = 0.03). High ranked sows bore and weaned more live females than low ranked sows (P < 0.05), in part due to differential preweaning mortality among female pigs (P = 0.01). Only male pigs were affected by sow treatment. Preweaning mortality was higher among male pigs from HCA than from Mixed sows (P = 0.04) with other treatments intermediate. Despite no weight differences in the preweaning period, at 160 d of age males from HCA sows weighed more than males from Stable sows (P = 0.01) with other treatments intermediate. Males born to Companion sows had longer relative anogenital distances, a marker of fetal testosterone exposure, than males from Mixed sows (P = 0.03) with other treatments intermediate. The prenatal environment affected the pigs in a sex-specific manner altering the growth and reproductive morphology of the males more than that of the females. 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. middle and low ranked sows (P < 0.05). Mixed sows had greater head lesion scores than Stable and HCA sows (P < 0.05) with Companion sows intermediate. Head lesions increased with lower social rank (P < 0.001). Sow treatment did not affect farrowing rate, litter size, or sex ratio (P > 0.10). Social rank also had no effect on farrowing rate (P > 0.10), but affected total litte...

show abstract

Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow

Cited by 76 publications

References 51 publications

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

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

Growth and reproductive development of male piglets are more vulnerable to midgestation maternal stress than that of female piglets12

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About