Maternal responsiveness of sows towards piglet's screams during the first 24h postpartum

Illmann, Gudrun; Neuhauserová, Kristýna; Pokorná, Zuzana; Chaloupková, Helena; Šimečková, Marie

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.08.012

Cited by 34 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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: 96%

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: General Discussion Regarding Sow Response To Piglets Crush Smentioning

confidence: 96%

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

“…During the neonatal period, and specifically during the first 24 h, there is strong sibling competition, during which piglets will fight and scream for access to the sow's teats to establish a teat order (De Passillé and Rushen, 1989;Puppe and Tuchscherer, 2000;D'eath and Lawrence, 2004;Illmann et al, 2008;Bozděchová et al, 2014). Sows often react to piglet screams during fighting for teats and will terminate nursings before milk ejection; those terminated nursings are without milk ejection (Appleby et al, 1999;Illmann et al, 2008). Nursings without milk ejection prolong the time interval to the next nursings and decrease milk input per nursing event (Špinka et al, 1997, 2011).…”

Section: Relationship Between Sow Behaviour (Pre-and Post-partum) Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of pre- and post-partum sow activity on maternal behaviour and piglet weight gain 24h after birth

Illmann¹,

Chaloupková

Neuhauserová³

2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since maternal behaviour has been shown to have a genetic component (Grandinson et al, 2003;Gäde et al, 2008), investigating the consistency and possibility for change in important maternal behaviours such as carefulness (e.g. pre-lying behaviour, offspring communication and maternal responsiveness - Wechsler and Hegglin, 1997;Valros et al, 2003;Illmann et al, 2008), aggression (e.g. offspring-directed - Chen et al, 2007;Baxter et al, 2011b, andstock-person directed -Marchant-Forde, 2002) and temperament (e.g.…”

Section: Maternal Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving optimum performance in a loose-housed farrowing system for sows: The effects of space and temperature

Baxter

Adeleye

Jack

et al. 2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article in press as: Baxter, E.M., et al., Achieving optimum performance in a loose-housed farrowing system for sows: The effects of space and temperature. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. (2015), http://dx. a b s t r a c tPiglet survival relies on interactive influences of the sow, her piglets and their environment. There are a number of design challenges in a loose-housed farrowing and lactation system to optimise this dynamic, including achieving farrowing in the desired location (i.e. a protected nest area) and minimising crushings. The PigSAFE (Piglet and Sow Alternative Farrowing Environment) pen was developed with these challenges in mind. It has different areas to fulfil different biological and managerial needs, including a solid-floored nest area with piglet protection features (sloped walls, heated creep) intended for farrowing. Two hypotheses regarding pen design features to optimise farrowing location and improve piglet survival were tested: (i) greater space would improve maternal behaviour; and (ii) a heated nest-site would be more attractive to the farrowing sow. PigSAFE was adapted to give a LARGE treatment, 9.7 m 2 in total with a nest area of 4.0 m 2 , and a SMALL treatment, same design but 7.9 m 2 in total with a nest area of 3.3 m 2 . The nest floor was heated to either 30 • C (T30) or 20 • C (T20) from 48 h before until 24 h after farrowing. A 2 × 2 factorial design saw 88 Large White × Landrace sows randomly assigned to space and temperature treatments. Generalised linear mixed models were used to analyse performance data. Farrowing location analysis involved dividing the pen into seven areas (L1-L7); L1 deemed the safest location for the piglets to be born (in the nest, furthest from dunging area, closest to creep) and L7 the least protected (in the dunging area). Of all the piglets born 97% were born in the nest area. The majority of sows started farrowing in L1 (56%), with 39% of remaining piglets being born in this location. There was a significant Space × Temperature interaction for farrowing location (P = 0.011) with SMALL T20 achieving the most L1 births. Temperature had no significant influence on piglet survival (Total mortality P = 0.401; Live-born mortality P = 0.826). However space influenced mortality, with significantly greater live-born mortality when sows were afforded a larger farrowing space (LARGE = 18.1% vs. SMALL = 10.9% P = 0.028). There were no significant interactions between space and temperature for either total mortality (P = 0.394) or live-born mortality (P = 0.685). The overall design successfully promoted farrowing in the nest location, irrespective of nest size and floor temperature. The higher piglet mortality in the LARGE treatment suggests that the larger nest size was less protective for the piglets and thus a smaller nest, within an adequate total pen size for differentiation of functional areas, would be recommended.

show abstract

Maternal responsiveness of sows towards piglet's screams during the first 24h postpartum

Cited by 34 publications

References 28 publications

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

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

Effect of pre- and post-partum sow activity on maternal behaviour and piglet weight gain 24h after birth

Achieving optimum performance in a loose-housed farrowing system for sows: The effects of space and temperature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About