Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:21:26.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consistency of piglet crushing by sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S Jarvis ,
RB D'Eath  and
K Fujita
S Jarvis*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
RB D'Eath
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
K Fujita
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: susan.jarvis@sac.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Piglet mortality is a major welfare and economic problem in the pig industry. Despite the use of farrowing crates, piglet crushing remains a major contributor to pre-weaning piglet mortality, which is typically around 12%. Our aims in this study were to quantify variability between sows and consistency across parities in crushing mortality, and to examine the effect of the environment on variability. In our first study, we compared the variability in crushing mortality in 122 primiparous sows (gilts) that farrowed in crates (71) or open pens (51). Certain sows crushed more or fewer piglets than expected by chance. Crushing was more frequent and more variable in pens compared to crates, indicating that crates may mask differences between sows. In our second study, we recorded piglet mortality for 125 sows, which farrowed in crates over several (4–9) parities. After adjusting for litter size, litter weight and parity effects, consistent individual differences between sows were evident. The repeatability of crushing was estimated at 0.14, with estimates of 0.18 and 0.05 for stillborns and total liveborn mortality, respectively. Although these repeatabilities are relatively low, there was a high degree of phenotypic variance (eg sows crushed between 0 and 30.8% of their piglets). Given that sows show some consistency in piglet mortality over parities, this could be used to inform culling decisions. Additionally, if differences in piglet crushing between sows have a genetic component, a breeding programme might reduce mortality from crushing. Because crates restrict maternal behaviour, genetic selection in this system may have relaxed selection for good maternal behaviour. Selection for reduced piglet mortality, and thus improved maternal abilities, could remove a major obstacle to the wider adoption of less restrictive farrowing systems, with positive welfare consequences for the sow and piglets.

Keywords

animal welfarebreeding goalsindividual differencespre-weaning piglet mortalityrepeatabilitysow
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 43 - 51
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avalos, E and Smith, C 1987 Genetic improvement of litter size in pigs. Animal Production 44: 153–164Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK and Hagelsø, AM 1990 Getting-up and lying-down behaviors of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day-1 and day-8 after parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJ and Newman, FW 1994 Comparison of behaviour patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøe, K 1994 Variation in maternal-behavior and production of sows in integrated loose housing systems in Norway. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, LG 1998 Possibilities for genetic improvement of disease resistance, functional traits and animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science, Suppl 29: 77–89Google Scholar
Collett, D 2003 Modelling Binary Data, 2nd Edition. Chapman & Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 2003 Recommendation Concerning Pigs. Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes: Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM and Cropley, JA 1991 The effect of piglet stimuli on the posture changing behaviour of recently farrowed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, GW and Swierstra, EE 1987 Causes of piglet death from birth to weaning. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002 Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78: 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA and Fraser, D 1997 Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. Pig Journal 39: 77–89Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Smith, WJ, Fordyce, C and MacMenemy, F 1994 An analysis of the causes of piglet mortality in a breeding herd kept outdoors. Veterinary Record 135: 324–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, PR 1993 A review of farrowing facilities in relation to the needs of the sow and her piglets and the aspirations of the caring stockperson. Pig Veterinary Journal 31: 124–142Google Scholar
English, PR and Smith, WJ 1975 Some causes of death in neonatal piglets. Veterinary Annals 15: 95–104Google Scholar
EUSVC (European Union Scientific Veterinary Committee) 1997 The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the EU. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, JBS and Duarte, FAD 1991 Repeatability of litter characteristics from birth to weaning in the large white breed. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 26: 575–583Google Scholar
Frädrich, H 1974 A comparison of behaviour in the Suidae. In: Geist, V and Walther, F (eds) The Behaviour of Ungulates and its Relation to Management pp 133–143. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Morges, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1990 Behavioural perspectives on piglet survival. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 40: 355–370 (Suppl)Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK, Pajor, EA, Weary, DM and Braithwaite, LA 1995 Behavioural aspects of piglet survival and growth. In: Varley, MA (ed) The Neonatal Pig: Development and Survival pp 287–312. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Lund, MS, Rydhmer, L and Strandberg, E 2002 Genetic parameters for the piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science 52: 167–173Google Scholar
Herpin, P, Damon, M and Le Dividich, J 2002 Development of thermoregulation and neonatal survival in pigs. Livestock Production Science 78: 25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herpin, P, LeDividich, J and Amaral, N 1993 Effect of selection for lean tissue-growth on body-composition and physiological-state of the pig at birth. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2645–2653CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutson, GD, Argent, MF, Dickenson, LG and Luxford, BG 1992 Influence of parity and time since parturition on responsiveness of sows to a piglet distress call. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, GD, Price, EO and Dickenson, LG 1993 The effect of playback volume and duration on the response of sows to piglet distress calls. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, GD, Wilkinson, JL and Luxford, BG 1991 The response of lactating sows to tactile, visual and auditory stimuli associated with a model piglet. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Calvert, SK, Stevenson, J, vanLeeuwen, N and Lawrence, AB 2002 Pituitary–adrenal activation in pre-parturient pigs (Sus scrofa) is associated with behavioural restriction due to lack of space rather than nesting substrate. Animal Welfare 11: 371–384Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 1997 The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, beta-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 65: 465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Reed, BT, Lawrence, AB, Calvert, SK and Stevenson, J 2004 Peri-natal environmental effects on maternal behaviour, pituitary and adrenal activation, and the progress of parturition in the primiparous sow. Animal Welfare 13: 171–181Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1986 Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, PW and Merks, JWM 1987 A note on the genetics of aggressiveness of primiparous sows towards their piglets. Livestock Production Science 17: 161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knol, EF, Leenhouwers, JI and van der Lende, T 2002 Genetic aspects of piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78: 47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, GJ and De Lange, A 1986 Pre-farrowing and post-farrowing behavior in primiparous domesticated pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E and Terlouw, EMC 1994 The effect of environment on behavior, plasma-cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lay, DCJ, Matteri, RL, Carroll, JA, Fangman, TJ and Safranski, TJ 2002 Preweaning survival in swine. Journal of Animal Science 80: E74–E86 (Suppl 1)Google Scholar
Leenhouwers, JI, Knol, EF and van der Lende, T 2002 Differences in late prenatal development as an explanation for genetic differences in piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78: 57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luxford, BG and Beilharz, RG 1990 Selection response for litter size at birth and litter weight at weaning in the 1st parity in mice. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 80: 625–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luxford, BG, Buis, RC and Beilharz, RG 1990 Lifetime reproductive performance of lines of mice after long term selection for first parity litter size at birth. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 107: 188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM and Corning, S 2001 The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72: 19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S and Simmins, PH 2000 Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147: 209–214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, JJ and Morrow-Tesch, J 1990 Productivity and behavior of sows in level vs sloped farrowing pens and crates. Journal of Animal Science 68: 82–87Google Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Gort, F, Prunier, A and Schouten, WPG 1991 Behavioral-patterns and progesterone, cortisol and prolactin levels around parturition in European (Large-White) and Chinese (Meishan) sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2002 Within-litter birth weight variation in the domestic pig and its relation to pre-weaning survival, weight gain, and variation in weaning weights. Livestock Production Science 76: 181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MLC (Meat and Livestock Commission) 2002 Pig Yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission: Milton Keynes, UKGoogle Scholar
Pitts, AD, Weary, DM, Fraser, D, Pajor, EA and Kramer, DL 2002 Alternative housing for sows and litters: Part 5. Individual differences in the maternal behaviour of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 291–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryce, JE, Esslemont, RJ, Thompson, R, Veerkamp, RF, Kossaibati, MA and Simm, G 1998 Estimation of genetic parameters using health, fertility and production data from a management recording system for dairy cattle. Animal Science 66: 577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J and Gaudre, D 2002 Variation of piglets birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78: 63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauw, WM, Luiting, P, Beilharz, RG, Verstegen, MWA and Vangen, O 1999 Selection for litter size and its consequences for the allocation of feed resources: a concept and its implications illustrated by mice selection experiments. Livestock Production Science 60: 329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehe, R and Kalm, E 2000 Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70: 227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) 2000 Welfare Standards for Pigs. Freedom Foods. RSPCA: West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
Rudd, AR and Marchant, JN 1995 Aspects of farrowing and lactating sow behaviour. The Pig Journal 34: 21–30Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L 2000 Genetics of sow reproduction, including puberty, oestrus, pregnancy, farrowing and lactation. Livestock Production Science 66: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewerdt, F and Cardellino, RA 1995 The efficiency of using more than one record as the selection criteria for litter traits in pigs. Revista Brasileira De Genetica 18: 397–403Google Scholar
Siewerdt, F and Cardellino, RA 1998 Repeatability of litter size and weight and of piglet mortality at birth. Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia — Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 27: 1102–1106Google Scholar
Simm, G 1998 Genetic Improvement of Cattle and Sheep. Farming Press: Ipswich, UKGoogle Scholar
Skorupski, MT, Garrick, DJ and Blair, HT 1996 Estimates of genetic parameters for production and reproduction traits in three breeds of pigs. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 39: 387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Špinka, M, Illmann, G, de Jonge, F, Andersson, M, Schuurman, T and Jensen, P 2000 Dimensions of maternal behaviour characteristics in domestic and wild × domestic crossbred sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, S 2002 Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuchscherer, M, Puppe, B, Tuchscherer, A and Tiemann, U 2000 Early identification of neonates at risk: traits of newborn piglets with respect to survival. Theriogenology 54: 371–388CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valros, A, Rundgren, M, Špinka, M, Saloniemi, H and Algers, B 2003 Sow activity level, frequency of standing-to-lying posture changes and anti-crushing behaviour — within sow-repeatability and interactions with nursing behaviour and piglet performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Arendonk, JAM, van Rosmeulen, C, Janss, LLG and Knol, EF 1996 Estimation of direct and maternal genetic (co) variances for survival within litters of piglets. Livestock Production Science 46: 163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Steen, HM and Degroot, PN 1992 Direct and maternal breed effects on growth and milk intake of piglets — Meishan versus Dutch breeds. Livestock Production Science 30: 361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Steen, HAM, Schaeffer, LR, Dejong, H and Degroot, PN 1988 Aggressive behavior of sows at parturition. Journal of Animal Science 66: 271–279CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrbanac, I, Balenovic, T, Yammine, R, Valpotic, I and Krsnik, B 1995 Preweaning losses of piglets on a state farm in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 24: 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, D, Welham, SJ, Gilmour, AR and Thompson, R 1995 Comparisons of some GLMM estimators for a simple binomial model. Genstat Newsletter 30: 13–24Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D and Honkanen, AM 1996a Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Thompson, BK and Fraser, D 1996b Risky behaviour by piglets: a trade off between feeding and risk of mortality by maternal crushing? Animal Behaviour 51: 619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Phillips, PA, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D and Thompson, BK 1998 Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B and Hegglin, D 1997 Individual differences in the behaviour of sows at the nest-site and the crushing of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, CT 1994 Causes and consequences of change in the mature size of the domestic pig. Outlook on Agriculture 23: 55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar