Understanding weaning distress

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.

Section: Nutritional Development and Weaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nutritional Development and Weaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2011

114

112

“…milk. Because this is done without a period of transition necessary to make the solid feed attractive to the piglets, weaning generally is followed by a period of low feed intake (Weary et al, 2008). Additionally, at this age the digestive system of the piglets is not adapted to digest solid feed, which predisposes the young animals to diarrhoea and secondary infections (Dong and Pluske, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term behavioural effects of weaning age in outdoor-reared piglets

Hötzel

Filho

Irgang

et al. 2010

Age at weaning affects the behaviour of piglets weaned in conventional confined environments. The adaptation of piglets to this event, which exposes piglets to important stressors, has not been examined in detail in outdoor systems. The aim of this study was to compare the behaviour of piglets weaned at 3 or 4 weeks of age in an outdoor production system. Six replicates of four piglets born and raised outdoors, originated from different litters but previously acquainted, were weaned at the age of approximately 20 (D20) or 30 (D30) days in 36 m 2 outdoor pens and offered high-quality diets. Their behaviour was recorded by direct visual observation during four consecutive days after weaning (days 1 to 4). Data were analysed by repeated measures ANOVA. An effect of weaning age was observed on feeding and rooting ( P , 0.01), and a day-by-weaning age interaction for escape attempts, vocalizing, walking and fighting ( P , 0.01), and playing ( P , 0.03). Compared to D30 piglets, D20 piglets showed a higher frequency of escape attempts on day 1, vocalized more during days 1 and 2, and walked more during days 1 to 3 ( P , 0.05). Feeding behaviour, on the other hand, was higher in D30 piglets on days 1 to 3 ( P , 0.05). On days 3 and 4, D30 piglets spent more time interacting with peers (playing and fighting; P , 0.05) and on day 4 were more active than D20 piglets ( P , 0.05). As previously reported in confined environments, age at weaning affected the behaviour of piglets raised on the outdoors system. Weaning appeared to be more stressful for the piglets at 3 than at 4 weeks of age. The impact of weaning age on welfare cannot be ignored, especially when outdoor breeding of pigs is proposed to address welfare concerns of the public.Keywords: pig, housing, social, ingestive, welfare ImplicationsIncreasing the age at weaning from 3 to 4 weeks improves the welfare of piglets reared outdoors by reducing distress behaviours and improving feeding behaviour. This is relevant considering that a key reason for rearing pigs in outdoor environments is to address ethical concerns of consumers regarding the wellbeing of the animals. IntroductionConventional weaning in the pig industry involves exposing young piglets to several concomitant stressors: transfer to a novel environment; separation from the sow and littermates, often mixing with unknown peers; and the loss of the main source of nutrition, i.e. milk. Because this is done without a period of transition necessary to make the solid feed attractive to the piglets, weaning generally is followed by a period of low feed intake (Weary et al., 2008). Additionally, at this age the digestive system of the piglets is not adapted to digest solid feed, which predisposes the young animals to diarrhoea and secondary infections (Dong and Pluske, 2007). In order to overcome this problem, diets especially designed for the digestive system of very young piglets have been formulated (Dritz et al., 1996). However, because the behaviour of piglets weaned at very young ages indicates distress an...

“…Two non-opposed mechanisms may underlie the influence of the effects of milk yield of dams on the weaning response of lambs. First, as LPA lambs had access to a lower milk yield, they may have achieved a greater nutritional independence from the dam before weaning, thus, reducing the weaning stress as it has been reported in other mammal species (Weary et al, 2008;Ungerfeld et al, 2009). Second, the differential response of LPA and HPA lambs to weaning may be mediated by differences in oxytocin concentrations, the main hormone promoting mammal offspring affiliative bond (Nelson and Panksepp, 1998;Nowak and Boivin, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Low pasture allowance until late gestation in ewes: behavioural and physiological changes in ewes and lambs from lambing to weaning

Freitas‐de‐Melo

Ungerfeld²,

Hötzel

et al. 2017

Low pasture allowance during gestation affects ewes' BW at parturition, the bond with their lamb, lamb development, and thus also may affect their responses to weaning. The objectives were to determine if native pasture allowance from before conception until late pregnancy affects ewe-lamb behaviours at lambing, ewes' milk yield, lambs' BW, and the behavioural and physiological changes of ewes and lambs at weaning. From 23 days before conception until 122 days of pregnancy, 24 ewes grazed on two different native pasture allowances: high (10 to 12 kg of dry matter (DM)/100 kg of BW per day; HPA treatment; n = 12) or low (5 to 8 kg of DM/100 kg of BW per day; LPA treatment; n = 12). Thereafter, all ewes grazed on Festuca arundinacea and received rice bran and crude glycerine. Ewes' body condition score (BCS) and BW were recorded during pregnancy and postpartum periods. Milk yield was determined on days 32, 41 and 54 after lambing. Lambs' BW was recorded from birth until 72 days after lambing. Latency from parturition until the ewe licked her lamb, maternal behaviour score (a test that evaluates maternal attachment to the lamb) and latency for lamb to stand up and suckle were determined. The behaviour of the lambs and ewes was recorded before and after weaning (at 65 days). The ewes' serum total protein, albumin and globulin concentrations were measured before and after weaning. The HPA ewes presented greater BW ( P < 0.005) and BCS ( P < 0.005) than the LPA ewes during pregnancy and postpartum (P < 0.04), and had a greater milk yield than the LPA ewes ( P < 0.03). Treatments did not influence any behaviour at lambing, lambs' BW, neither the ewes' behavioural and physiological changes at weaning. HPA lambs paced and vocalized more than LPA lambs ( P < 0.0001). The variation of albumin concentration before and after weaning was greater in the HPA lambs than in the LPA lambs ( P < 0.0001). In conclusion, although ewes' BW, BCS and milk production were affected by pasture allowance until late pregnancy, this did not affect the behaviours that lead to the establishment of the mother-young bond, nor the ewes' behavioural responses at weaning. Lambs reared by ewes that grazed on low pasture allowance during pregnancy presented fewer behavioural changes and a lower decrease of albumin concentration after weaning. Lambs' BW was not affected by the feeding received by their mothers.