Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T21:32:44.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance and behaviour of lactating sows and piglets in crate and multisuckling systems: a study involving European White and Manor Meishan genotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. Wattanakul ,
A. G. Sinclair ,
A. H. Stewart ,
S. A. Edwards  and
P. R. English
W. Wattanakul
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA University of Aberdeen, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB24 5UA
A. G. Sinclair
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
A. H. Stewart
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
P. R. English
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB24 5UA
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to compare the performance and behaviour of lactating sows and piglets in farrowing pens with crates or multisuckling systems (group housing of sows and piglets in the second half of lactation). All sows were farrowed in commercial accommodation based on farrowing pens with crates. In experiment 1, fifteen purebred Landrace or Large White sows and litters were recorded in crates as a control (C). Three replicates of six sows and litters were recorded in a multisuckling system (M) in which the sows and litters were group-housed from 2 weeks after farrowing until weaning. Experiment 2 involved 30 Manor Meishan sows (0·25 Meishan genes). The sows and litters were arranged into three treatments and two replicates with five sows and litters in each group. Treatments comprised a control farrowing pen with crate system and two multisuckling systems differing in degree of accessibility of the piglet creep area. Multisuckling 1 (Ml) had a solid creep front with an open doorway (0·5 X 0·9 m) for piglet access. In multisuckling 2 (Ml), the lower 30 cm of the solid creep front was removed to facilitate piglet access and allow visual contact with the sows. Piglets were weaned at 31 days in experiment 1 and 29 days in experiment 2. After weaning, piglets were moved to controiled-environment, fully slatted accommodation and monitored for 7 days in experiment 1 and for 12 days in experiment 2. Mortality rate in the two systems was not significantly different. However, some piglets in the M system were crushed after grouping (0·3 and 0·2 piglets per litter in experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Growth rate was reduced in M piglets in the week after grouping (256, 184 (s.e.d. 21·4) g/day, P < 0·01 for C and M respectively in experiment 1 and 243, 150 and 209 (s.e.d. 12·2) g/day, P < 0·01 for C, Ml and Ml respectively in experiment 2) but was higher after weaning (271, 313 (s.e.d. 35·7) g/day, P > 0·05 for C and M respectively in experiment 1 and 148, 280 and 222 (s.e.d. 15·0) g/day, P < 0·01 for C, Ml and Ml respectively in experiment 2). In consequence, piglet live weight at 1 week after weaning did not differ between treatments (9·33, 9·74 (s.e.d. 0·36) kg for C and M respectively in experiment 1 and 9·30, 914 and 9·53 (s.e.d. Oil) kg for C, Ml and Ml respectively in experiment 2). Sucking behaviour of M piglets in both experiments was severely disrupted (P < 0·01) on the day of grouping and the day after grouping. Despite synchronized suckling, M litters had a high incidence of cross suckling (> 50%) throughout lactation. M piglets spent more time than C outside the creep area, even with a more open creep (Ml). The Meishan sows tended to be more docile and fought less at grouping than the white breeds (0·39 and 1-71 fights per sow per h). Immediately after weaning, C piglets spent more time fighting (8·0 and 1·0 (s.e.d. 0·99) % of time, P < 0·01 for C and M respectively in experiment 1 and 4·51, 0·09 and 0·09 (s.e.d. 019) % of time, P < 0·01 for C, Ml and M2 respectively in experiment 2). These studies demonstrate that, in a multisuckling system, piglets achieved similar overall growth rate to C piglets, since both received checks in growth at different times and for different reasons.

Keywords

behaviourhousingpigletssows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 339 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Andersson, C. and Andreasson, E. 1992. [Group housed lactating sows in small groups: duration rhythm, social interaction and suckling and nursing behaviour.] Examensarbete no. 41. Swedish University of Agriculture Science, Uppsala.Google Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Legault, C. 1991. Ten years of experiments with Chinese pigs in France 1. Breed evaluation. Pigs News and Information 11: 345–348.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K., Bodero, D. A. V. and Blackshaw, A. W. 1987. The effect of group composition on behaviour and performance of weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, S. 1995. Individual variation in behaviour and growth piglets in a combined system of individual and loose housing sows. Rapport 36. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. J. and Rowlinson, P. 1984. Nursing and suckling behaviour of sows and their litter before and after grouping in multi-accommodation pens. Animal Production 38: 277–282.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. J., Rowlinson, P. and Van der Steen, H. A. M. 1983. A comparison of the nursing and suckling behaviour of group- and individually-housed sows and their litters. Animal Production 36: 445–451.Google Scholar
Chappie, R. P., Cuaron, J. A. and Easter, R. A. 1989. Effect of glucocorticoids and limiting nursing on the carbohydrate digestive capacity and growth rate of piglets. Journal of Animal Science 67: 2956–2973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, J. V. 1986. Measuring social behavior: social dominance. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1120–1129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crighton, D. B. 1970. The induction of pregnancy during lactation in the sow: the effects of a treatment imposed at 21 days of lactation. Animal Production 12: 611–617.Google Scholar
English, P. R. 1969. Mortality and variation in growth of piglets: a study of predisposing factors with particular reference to sow and piglet behaviour. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
English, P. R., MacPherson, C., Edwards, S. A., Fowler, V. R., Gill, B. P., Taylor, A. G., Birnie, M. and Haley, C. S. 1990. Evaluation of the Chinese Meishan as a nurse sow for establishing ill-nourished 3-week-old White bred pigs. Animal Production 50: 561 (abstr.).Google Scholar
English, P. R., Smith, W. J. and MacLean, A. 1982. The sow: improving her efficiency. Second ed. Farming Press Ltd, Ipswich, Suffolk.Google Scholar
Fraser, A. F. and Broom, D. M. 1990. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. Bailliere Tindall, UK.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1980. A review of the behavioural mechanisms of milk ejection of the domestic pig. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, T. H., Knabe, D. A. and Tanksley, T. D. Jr. 1983. Behaviour and performance of pigs grouped by three different methods at weaning. Journal of Animal Science 57: 1406–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, R. and Hughes, P. E. 1984. The effects of partial weaning, movement and boar contact on the subsequent reproductive performance of lactating sows. Animal Production 39: 131–135.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. and Bennett, J. 1981. Disruption of teat preferences and relation of growth following cross-fostering of 1-week-old pigs. Animal Production 33: 99–106.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. and Hodgson, J. 1992a. The bases of sow-piglet identification. 1. The identification by sows of their own piglets and the presence of intruders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I. and Hodgson, J. 1992b. The bases of sow-piglet identification. 2. Cues used by piglets to identify their dam and home pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, R. T. 1982. Immediate behavioural consequences of fostering 1 week old piglets. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99: 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. 1988. Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. and Recen, B. 1989. When to wean — observations from free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, J. J. 1986. Agonistic behavior in food animals: review of research and techniques. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1130–1139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, J. J. and Curtis, S. E. 1985. Behaviour and performance of weanling pigs in pens equipped with hide areas. Journal of Animal Science 60: 20–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, A. S., Gonyou, H. W., Stookey, J. M. and Mclaren, D. G. 1994. Effect of group composition and pen size on behaviour, productivity and immune response of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow-Tesch, J. and McGlone, J. J. 1990. Sources of maternal odors and the development of odor preferences in baby pigs. Journal of Animal Science 68: 3563–3571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petchey, A. M., Dodsworth, T. L. and English, P. R. 1978. The performance of sows and litters penned individually or grouped in late lactation. Animal Production 27: 215–221.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. and Blackshaw, J. K. 1987. A review of the factors influencing the aggressive and agonistic behaviour of the domestic pig. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27: 605–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde Parfet, K. A. and Gonyou, H. W. 1991. Attraction of newborn piglets to auditory, visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli. Journal of Animal Science 69: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlinson, P. and Bryant, M. J. 1982. Lactational oestrus in the sow: the influence of group-housing, boar presence and feeding level upon the occurrence of oestrus in lactating sows. Animal Production 34: 283–290.Google Scholar
Rundgren, M. and Lofquist, L. 1989. Effects on performance and behaviour of mixing 20-kg pigs fed individually. Animal Production 49: 311–315.Google Scholar
Ryan, B. F., Joiner, B. L. and Ryan, T. A. Jr. 1985. Minitab. Second ed. Hilliday Lithograph, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Sinclair, A. G., Edwards, S. A., Hoste, S. and McCartney, A. 1995. Evaluation of the maternal characteristics of the Meishan synthetic and European White breeds of pig. In Proceedings of the 29th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. Rutter, S. M., Rushen, J., Randle, H. D. and Eddison, J. C.), pp. 233–234. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. 1961. The effect of daily separation of sows from their litters upon milk yield, creep intake and energetic efficiency. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 4: 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, J. S. and Britt, J. H. 1981. Interval to oestrus in sows and performance of pigs after alteration of litter size during lactation. Journal of Animal Science 53: 177–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, T. S. and Diekman, M. A. 1989. Effect of birth and fraternal litter size and cross-fostering on growth and reproduction in swine. Journal of Animal Science 67: 635–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, L. H., Hanford, K. J. and Jensen, A. H. 1981. Oestrus and fertility in lactating sows and piglet performance as influenced by limited nursing. Journal of Animal Science 53: 1419–1423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Putten, G. 1989. The pig: a model for discussing animal behaviour and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waran, N. K. and Broom, D. M. 1993. The influence of a barrier on the behaviour and growth of early-weaned piglets. Animal Production 56: 115–119.Google Scholar
Wattanakul, W., Stewart, A. H., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1996. The effect of grouping piglets and changing sow location on sucking behaviour and performance. Animal Production 62: 676 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Wheatley, L. E. 1987. Minimizing disruption of piglets at weaning. Animal Production 44: 465 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Winfield, C. G., Hemworth, P. H., Taverner, M. R. and Mullaney, P. D. 1974. Observations on the suckling behaviour of piglets in litters of varying size. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 10: 307–310.Google Scholar