The fighting behaviour of piglets mixed before and after weaning in the presence or absence of a sow

Parratt, Christopher A.; Chapman, Kathryn J.; Turner, Christine; Jones, Philip H.; Mendl, Michael; Miller, B. G.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.01.009

Cited by 59 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By providing an additional area to that of the farrowing pen, inaccessible to the sow or providing pop-holes between farrowing pens to be opened during later lactation, unfamiliar piglets could socialise. However, although there are reported benefits (D'Eath, 2005) to pre-weaning mixing, there are also reported negative consequences, including an increase in risk of disease transmission and pre-weaning fighting with the potential to negate the post-weaning benefits (Parratt et al, 2006). There are also reports of the presence of foreign litters increasing teat disputes, disrupting nursing frequency and thus reducing milk intake (Pedersen et al, 1998).…”

Section: Nest Departure and Social Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2011

Animal

114

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Nest Departure and Social Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2011

Animal

114

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…GH-pigs fought less compared with SH-pigs, which resulted in fewer skin lesions after weaning. Rantzer et al (1997) and Parratt et al (2006) verified less of agonistic patterns in the pens with GH-pigs. Andersen et al (2004) added that unacquainted pigs in groups of six and 12 pigs fought significantly less compared with pigs in groups of 24.…”

Section: Lsdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of growth performance and agonistic interaction in weaned piglets of different weight classes from farrowing systems with group or single housing

Bohnenkamp

Traulsen

Meyer

et al. 2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to analyze the growth performance, behavioral patterns and intensity of injuries of weaned pigs (26 days) during a rearing period of 6 weeks. The farrowing system (group housing (GH) v. single housing (SH)) and the post-weaning regrouping weight class (light, medium, heavy) were considered as the main factors. A number of 120 GH-pigs and 120 SH-pigs were kept in three batches (20 pens, 12 pigs each). The GH-and SH-pigs were divided by weight into three groups: light (5 to <7 kg), medium (.7 to <9 kg) and heavy (.9 to <12 kg), with two pigs of six different litters in each pen. The pigs were weighed individually at weaning (week 1) and during rearing (weeks 2, 3 and 7). The feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated between weeks 1 and 7. The duration and number of fights (NF) per pen and hour were determined by continuous sampling (40 h after weaning). Lesions of the integument were scored into four classes (none, minor, medium, severe) and recorded at weaning and 48 h afterwards. The farrowing system had no effect on the weights in week 1 (GH: 7.8 kg v. SH: 7.7 kg; week as linear, quadratic regression nested within housing systems) or in week 7 (GH: 29.4 kg v. SH: 28.6 kg). The body weights were influenced significantly by the weaning weight class (light: 11.7 kg (s.e. . The SH-pigs had more new skin lesions at the shoulders than the GH-pigs 48 h after weaning ( P , 0.05). In conclusion, early mixing of unacquainted litters during lactation had no influence on their growth performance during rearing but reduced agonistic behavior and lesion score difference during the first 2 days after weaning. No significant interaction between the farrowing system and weaning weight class was detected with regard to growth performance and NF.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the mixing of non-littermates at weaning causes aggression that is of welfare concern (Parratt et al, 2006). Increased fighting due to mixing (Ewbank and Bryant, 1972) may lead to wounds, infection and abscesses (Teague and Grifo, 1961), and coupled with the challenges of dietary change at 50 weaning, there is generally decreased disease resistance, growth performance as well as increased mortality recorded at weaning (Gross, 1972;Gross and Colmano, 1969).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour

Morgan

Pluske

Miller

et al. 2014

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although commercial farrowing sheds keep individual litters separated, previous studies have suggested that housing systems that allow socialisation of piglets pre-weaning can reduce 15 aggression after weaning. This study tested whether pigs socialised with non-litter mates preweaning would show less aggression during mixing at weaning (when piglets are taken from their sows and mixed in group housing), and whether socialisation influenced the time budgets or behavioural expression of piglets at weaning. In total, 353 piglets were followed from birth through to one week after weaning. Piglets from 24 sows were allowed to socialise in groups of four litters 20 ('socialised' treatment group) from 10 d of age; litters from nine sows were followed as controls.Socialised piglets were monitored to determine the prevalence of cross-suckling. Body weight was recorded at birth, prior to weaning and one week after weaning. Continuous video footage was collected for 1.5 days after weaning for behavioural analyses. There was no difference in the body weight of socialised pigs compared to control pigs at weaning or one week after weaning. 25Quantitative scoring of behaviour revealed no significant difference in aggression displayed between treatment groups or between the sexes; however, compared with overall averages, a greater proportion of socialised males spent time lying (57% of time compared with an average of 43% for the other sex-treatment groups, P < 0.001; but less eating/drinking 4% cf. average 8%, P < 0.001), and a greater proportion of socialised females were investigating (17% cf. average 12%, P < 30 0.001 with less lying 40% cf. 48%, P < 0.001). Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) was used to assess the body language of pigs during an active period (the middle of the day after weaning).Observers reached consensus in regard to their assessments of pig behavioural expression (P < 0.001). Two main dimensions of behavioural expression were identified, which accounted for 41% and 19% of the correlation between pigs. There were significant socialisation treatment effect (P = 35 0.002 and P = 0.007) on both dimensions, with socialised pigs more likely to be described as 'sleepy'/'tired' or 'content'/'relaxed' than control pigs (described as more 'active'/'curious' or 'aggressive'/'dominant'). Because socialising piglets had no effect on body weight pre-weaning, and there was a low occurrence of cross-suckling (2.9 ± 6.5 % of piglets recorded suckling), socialisation was not disadvantageous. On the contrary, the behavioural difference at weaning suggests 40 socialising piglets may be beneficial from a welfare perspective.

show abstract

The fighting behaviour of piglets mixed before and after weaning in the presence or absence of a sow

Cited by 59 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Comparison of growth performance and agonistic interaction in weaned piglets of different weight classes from farrowing systems with group or single housing

Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About