Associations between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition, limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2003.08.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Health problems, difficulties in lying down and skin lesions are relevant indicators of poor welfare in sows confined in farrowing crates. This study investigated limb disorders, injuries, body condition and lying-down behaviour in 10 commercial sow herds. Five hundred seventy lactating sows were examined clinically, and 555 sows were further observed when lying down. Forty-one percent of the sows showed some difficulties in lying down and 15% were lame. Skin lesions were most frequently observed on lateral hind feet or shoulders, each in approximately 20% of the sows. The data were analysed for conditional associations among the parameters applying hierarchical log-linear models for contingency tables. Slipping and interruptions while lying down were associated (P<0.05), but other difficulties in lying down were conditionally independent within the herd. Shoulder wounds were more common in thin or lame sows (odds ratio 5.5 and 2.5, respectively), and lameness was further related to hock lesions (OR 11.9, severely lame sows), hind feet lesions (OR 2.5–4.3 depending on the severity of lameness) and uncontrolled lying-down behaviour (OR 1.8–5.8). Fat sows were more likely to show stepping behaviour when lying down (OR 2.7), slipping was associated with hind feet lesions (OR 2.2) and overgrown hooves were associated with abnormal lying-down behaviour (OR 11.5). The specific difficulties in lying down may provide relevant support for the clinical findings.

Introduction

The majority of domestic sows in intensive livestock production are housed in farrowing crates during farrowing and lactation, while loose-housing systems for dry sows are getting progressively more common. The application of farrowing crates during lactation combined with loose housing in the gestation period could pose particular welfare problems as the sows might be more frustrated by confinement in the crate if they have been habituated to loose housing during gestation (see for example Boyle et al., 2002). Further, Marchant and Broom (1996a) found that older sows in group-housing systems were heavier than their stall-housed peers, and their body length tended to be longer; Gjein and Larssen (1995) have reported that group-housed herds had a larger average prevalence of fat sows than confined herds. Sows that are loose-housed during gestation might thus experience a higher degree of restriction in their movements when confined in farrowing crates compared with sows that are confined during gestation. On the other hand, loose-housed sows have the advantage of higher muscle and bone strength and thus better movement control according to Marchant and Broom (1996a).

As reviewed by Barnett et al. (2001), the restriction in movement imposed on the sows housed in farrowing crates is an important issue concerning the welfare of sows, and Marchant and Broom (1996b) stated that pigs, which cannot carry out normal movements or which have movement difficulties, do experience poorer welfare.

Apart from any discomfort and frustration caused by the restricted space provided, the physical environment may, in itself, lead to welfare problems as crate structures and flooring can injure the animal. The association between injuries and the physical characteristics of the floor such as friction, abrasiveness, hardness, surface profile and thermal properties have been reviewed by Webb and Nilsson (1983), and as documented by Leonard et al. (1997), the floor type might also affect the sows' standing and lying-down behaviour. However, studies have shown that the housing conditions are not the only factors responsible for injuries and difficulties in lying down. The sow body weight, leg strength and movement control are all factors presumed to affect the lying-down behaviour Marchant and Broom, 1994, Marchant and Broom, 1996b, Boyle et al., 2002 as well as the occurrence of pressure-induced skin lesions (Davies et al., 1997).

Therefore, it seems relevant to include animal-based indicators when evaluating the welfare of the sow in relation to her physical environment.

When assessing animal welfare on-farm, it is important to include parameters that are relevant for animal welfare, and furthermore, the recordings should be applicable on-farm (Rousing et al., 2001). Marchant and Broom (1996b) recorded the time taken to lie down and they found that it was fairly consistent as regards individual sows. Clinical examination of, for example, lameness might be difficult to perform on confined sows under the constraints of farm management (Baadsgaard et al., 1997), and additional diagnostic support from related indicators might be advisable. Whay et al. (2002) found a correlation between hock lesions in dairy cows and lameness as well as bedding substrates, and they suggested that hock lesions might be a relevant indicator of lameness as well as cow comfort in the lying area.

It was the purpose of this study to investigate the association between lying-down behaviour problems and clinical parameters related to limb conditions and injuries, in systems applying farrowing crates in combination with loose-housed dry sows. The conditional associations between the clinical parameters and between different behaviours indicating lying-down behaviour problems are investigated, and furthermore, the associations between the lying-down behaviours and clinical health are described.

Section snippets

Herds and animals

Data were collected from 10 commercial sow herds with a herd size ranging from 350 to 550 sows. All herds were employing batch production systems with approximately 15–25 sows per farrowing batch. The dry sows were housed in the various group-housing systems applied in the individual herds. Seven herds used deep bedding or other straw-based housing systems, while the remaining three herds kept the sows in groups on partially slatted concrete floor without bedding material. The lactating sows

Associations between the lying-down behaviours

Forty-one percent of the sows showed difficulties in lying down. Overall, each of the lying-down behaviour problems was performed by 10–15% of the sows in the 10 herds, apart from abnormal lying-down behaviour, which occurred in 2.5% of the sows. The mean occurrences of lying-down behaviours diverging from normal lying-down behaviour observed during six visits in the 10 herds are illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 3 describes the final graphical model of the conditional associations between the

Discussion

Most clinical and behavioural measures were affected by the flooring and other system and management factors on-farm. Another herd factor, which may affect the lying-down behaviour of the sows, might be genetic differences in, for example, the muscular conformation as described by Marchant and Broom (1996b). Abnormal lying-down behaviour, interruptions and slipping seemed to be affected by the flooring, which is in agreement with Boyle et al. (2000) who found that the floor type affected

Conclusion

Skin lesions and lying-down behaviour were associated with flooring and other herd-specific factors as well as the sow condition regarding body condition and leg disorders and might therefore assist in describing the relationship between the sow and her environment. The different lying-down behaviour patterns were mostly independent within the herd, a fact suggesting that they generally might have different causes.

Lameness seemed to be causally related to various skin lesions and uncontrolled

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the participating farmers and their staffs for their hospitality and cooperation during the farm visits. Further, we would like to thank Lars F. de Tengnagel for his assistance in preparing the sow parity data and Niels P. Baadsgaard for his valuable comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (93)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text