The responsiveness of sows to their piglets in relation to the length of parturition and the involvement of endogenous opioids

Piglet crushing remains a major problem in pig production. Reduced crushing might be obtained through genetic selection on sow behavioural traits. The aim of the study was to assess the relationship between behavioural responses at 6 months of age, around farrowing, and sows' reproductive performance including crushing levels. At 6 months of age, behavioural responses of 75 nulliparous sows were observed both during behavioural tests to human presence and to the presence of a novel object in their home pen, and their responses when placed in a weighing device. At first farrowing, nervousness of the sows was observed when placed in the farrowing crate 1 week before and the day of farrowing, as well as their fear responses when approached by a human from behind or at the front of the farrowing crate. At 6 months of age, escape from a human tended to be correlated with the reactivity in the weighing device (r s 5 0.21, P 5 0.09). Around first farrowing, the withdrawal reaction when a human approached at the front was correlated with the fear response when approached from behind and the nervousness of the sow in the crate (r s 5 0.29, P , 0.05; r s 5 0.37, P , 0.01). The fear response when approached from behind was correlated with nervousness in the crate and around farrowing (r s 5 0.70, P , 0.001; r s 5 0.25, P , 0.05), and nervousness in the crate was significantly correlated with the nervousness around farrowing (r s 5 0.34, P , 0.01). The escape from a human at 6 months was correlated with withdrawal when approached from the front before farrowing (r s 5 0.38, P , 0.01) and with nervousness of the sow in the crate (r s 5 0.24, P , 0.05). The number of piglets crushed at first farrowing was correlated with the latency to approach a novel object at 6 months and nervousness around farrowing (r s 5 20.27, P , 0.05; r s 5 0.28, P , 0.05), and tended to be correlated with the escape behaviour from human at 6 months and withdrawal away from human presence before farrowing (r s 5 0.21, P 5 0.09; r s 5 0.22, P 5 0.08). These results suggest that behavioural responses to humans and during management practices of nulliparous sows at 6 months of age are, to some extent, related with their behaviour around farrowing and crushing levels of piglets at farrowing.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between the behaviour of sows at 6 months old and the behaviour and performance at farrowing

Lensink

Leruste

Roux³

et al. 2009

“…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%

“…A quiet, enclosed area with a suitable and complete nest should result in a sow that performs increased lateral lying during farrowing (Jarvis et al, 1999). The needs of the piglet during this crucial time are more complex than those of the sow; however, they are invariably linked to the behaviour of the sow.…”

Section: Parturition Early Lactation and Nest-occupationmentioning

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.

“…Sow's restlessness level has been studied through the frequency of postural changes during parturition (Jarvis et al, 1999;Ahlströ m et al, 2002;Thodberg et al, 2002). Fibre, parturition and reproductive performance A greater incidence of piglet crushing is recorded when postural changes are frequent (Weary et al, 1996).…”

Section: --mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This low level has been shown to play in favour of piglets' survival. Jarvis et al (1999) reported that farrowing sows are generally unresponsive to their piglets during parturition, and suggested that such unresponsiveness could be related to good maternal abilities. Similarly, Ahlströ m et al (2002) showed that the sows that are more responsive towards their piglets through an important level of piglet investigation are more likely to become savaging sows.…”

Section: --mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dietary fibre for gestating sows: effects on parturition progress, behaviour, litter and sow performance

Guillemet

Hamard

Quesnel

et al. 2007

In pig production, parturition progress is a key event for sow's reproductive performance, evaluated by piglet survival and piglets' performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of feeding a high-fibre (HF) diet during gestation on parturition progress and reproductive performance of sows. Forty-two primiparous sows (Large-White 3 Landrace crossbred) were fed during gestation either a control diet (C diet; 2.40 kg/day, 3.2% crude fibre, in % of dry matter (DM)), or a HF diet (2.80 kg/day, 12.4% crude fibre, in % of DM). All sows received 33 MJ digestible energy per day. Continuous video recordings were done on the parturition day to determine postural changes (standing, sitting, lying) and behavioural activities (nesting behaviour, uterine contractions, restlessness, social behaviour towards piglets) during parturition. Duration of parturition and individual birth intervals were also measured. Piglets' growth was evaluated by weekly weighing from birth until weaning, at 26.5 days of age. Sows were weighed and backfat thickness was measured at mating, on day 105 of gestation, on the 1st day post partum, and at weaning. Durations of parturition and of birth intervals were not affected by the gestation diet and averaged 211 6 12 min and 16.5 6 0.9 min (mean 6 s.e.), respectively. During the parturition progress, the gestation diet did not affect the frequency and the time devoted to postural and behavioural activities. Dietary treatment during gestation did not influence duration of gestation and weaning-to-oestrus interval, as well as litter size, and number of stillborn and weaned piglets. Piglet weight at birth did not differ between gestation dietary treatments but piglets nursed by HF sows showed a 13.5% greater growth rate during the 1st week of life (P , 0.01) and tended to be heavier at weaning (P 5 0.06) compared with C piglets. The HF sows were leaner at the end of gestation (P , 0.05), but variations of sows' weight during gestation and lactation were not affected by the gestation diet. All sows lost the same amount of backfat thickness during lactation. During lactation, the average daily feed intake was not significantly affected by the gestation diet. This study shows that substituting a control diet for a HF diet during gestation has limited effects on farrowing progress and reproductive performance, but improved piglets' growth rate during the 1st week of life and tended to increase their live weight at weaning.