Vocal Response of Piglets to Weaning: Effect of Piglet Age

Piglets vocalize a great deal during the first few days after weaning. The aim of this experiment was to determine if the calls given by piglets vary in response to one factor thought to influence post-weaning adaptation: weaning age. In 22 litters, each containing a minimum of 9 piglets, 3 piglets were weaned under identical conditions at 3, 4 and 5 weeks of age. Vocalizations and weight gain were monitored for the week after weaning. The number of calls produced by piglets of all three ages declined from an average of 8.2 calls/min per piglet on the day of weaning to only 1.6 calls/min 4 days later. Overall, piglets weaned at younger ages called more (P \u3c 0.001): piglets weaned at 3 weeks produced an average of 3.6 calls/min during the week after weaning, while those weaned at 4 and 5 weeks produced 2.9 and 2.3 calls/min respectively. The average frequency of the calls also fell (P \u3c 0.001), from 441 Hz for piglets weaned at 3 weeks of age to 384 Hz for those weaned at 5 weeks. These results suggest that vocalizations can be useful for monitoring post-weaning adaptation in piglets

Calling by Domestic Piglets: Reliable Signals of Need?

Two manipulations were performed on domestic piglets to determine whether differences in calling during periods of separation from the mother can indicate differences in need. In both cases, the aim was to manipulate the piglet\u27s need for the sow\u27s attention. In the first manipulation a \u27thriving\u27 piglet (i.e. the piglet with the heaviest weight and most rapid weight gain) and a \u27non-thriving\u27 one (lightest and slowest weight gain) were selected from each of 15 litters. The two piglets were removed from the sow and litter and recorded for 13 min in separate isolated enclosures. For the second manipulation, two piglets of intermediate weight and weight gain were selected from each of the same 15 litters, and were removed from the sow during nursing under one of two conditions. The \u27unfed\u27 piglet was removed just before the milk ejection and the \u27fed\u27 one just after receiving milk. Both were recorded as in the first manipulation. \u27Non-thriving\u27 and \u27unfed\u27 piglets called more and used more high-frequency calls, longer calls, and calls that rose more in frequency than their \u27thriving\u27 and \u27fed\u27 litter-mates. By means of a playback experiment, the assumption that sows respond to these piglet calls was tested. Sows were more likely to vocalize and approach the loudspeaker during playback of the piglet isolation calls than during playback of white noise. It is argued that if a piglet\u27s calls provide reliable information about its need for the sow\u27s resources, then this calling can be used as a measure of its welfare. These results are consistent with theoretical models of honest signalling

Partial Tooth-Clipping of Suckling Pigs: Effects on Neonatal Competition and Facial Injuries

Piglets are born with fully erupted ‘needle teeth’ which are used in competition for access to teats. Producers often clip these teeth to the gum line soon after birth to avoid any resulting facial lacerations, but this clipping can itself lead to injury or infection. Two experiments investigated the effects on facial injury and piglet performance of the potentially less damaging practice of ‘partial clipping’ whereby only the distal third of the tooth is removed. In Experiment 1, teeth were (1) partially clipped, (2) fully clipped to the gum line, or (3) left intact. All piglets of a litter received one treatment on one side of the mouth and a different treatment on the other side, with the three treatments balanced over the two sides in different litters. Facial lesions, scored separately for the two sides of the face at 3, 7, and 14 days, were negligible on the side facing either partially clipped or fully clipped teeth, but lesions on the side facing intact teeth were significantly greater (P \u3c 0.02). In Experiment 2, some piglets in each of 22 litters had their teeth partially clipped, fully clipped, or left intact. In the first week after birth, piglets with fully clipped teeth gained the least (132 ± 6 g/day), those with partially clipped teeth were intermediate (144 ± 7), and those with intact teeth gained the most (154 ± 7; P \u3c 0.02). There was no significant effect of treatment on later weight gain, the number of piglet deaths, or piglet suckling position (anterior to posterior). Thus, teeth that were partially clipped appeared to have a slight effect in competition among litter-mates, but caused little injury to other piglets

Parent-Offspring Resource Allocation in Domestic Pigs

Behavioural research on domestic pigs has included parent-offspring conflict, sibling competition, and the use of signals which influence resource allocation. In this paper, we review key sow-piglet behavioural studies and discuss their relevance to resource allocation theory. Sibling competition begins in the uterus and continues after birth, as piglets compete directly for access to the sow\u27s teats. This competition is made more severe by a unique dentition, which newborn piglets use to lacerate the faces of siblings during teat disputes. Competition often leads to the death of some littermates, especially those of low birth weight. Piglets also compete indirectly for milk, apparently by stimulating milk production at the teats that they habitually use at the expense of milk production by other teats. The complex nursing behavior of the sow appears designed to prevent the more vigorous piglets from monopolizing the milk. Sows give vocal signals which both attract piglets to suckle and synchronize their behavior during nursing episodes. Piglets give loud vocal signals when separated from the sow; calls which vary in intensity and appear to be honest signals of need. Udder massage by piglets may also serve as an honest signal of need. Parent-offspring conflict has been demonstrated experimentally in pigs. Specifically, when given the opportunity to control contact with their piglets, sows nurse less frequently, provide less milk, and lose less weight during lactation than sows that cannot control their level of contact. Because of this interesting natural history and because they are so amenable to experimentation, domestic pigs provide a rich system for testing ideas drawn from resource allocation theory

Vocalizations by Isolated Piglets: A Reliable Indicator of Piglet Need Directed Towards the Sow

When suckling piglets are isolated from the sow and litter-mates they vocalize a great deal. Sows also call when isolated from their piglets. In one experiment, we found that isolated piglets doubled their call rate in response to playback of sow calls, indicating that piglets are directing calls towards the sow. In a second experiment, we found that variation in the piglet isolation calls related to aspects of the piglet\u27s condition: piglets isolated for 13 min in an enclosure kept at approximately 14°C called more, used higher frequency calls and longer calls, than litter-mates isolated in an enclosure kept at 30°C. These differences in vocal behaviour were significant at 8 and 12 min of isolation, but not at 1, 2 or 4 min. These results for pigs correspond to those found with other species, indicating that characteristics of isolation calls can provide information about a young animal\u27s need for supplemental heat that can be supplied by the parent. The results also agree with a previous study on pigs, showing that features of these vocalizations vary with the piglet\u27s need for other resources such as milk

Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs

Understanding concerns about the welfare of farm animals is important for the development of socially sustainable production practices. This study used an online survey to test how views on group versus stall housing for pregnant sows varied when Canadian and US participants were provided information about these systems, including access to scientific papers, YouTube videos, Google images, and a frequently-asked-questions page (S1 Appendix). Initial responses and changes in responses after accessing the information were analyzed from Likert scores of 242 participants and from their written comments. Participants were less willing to accept the use of gestation stalls after viewing information on sow housing. For example, initially 30.4% of respondents indicated that they supported the use of gestation stalls; this declined to 17.8%after participants were provided additional information. Qualitative analysis of comments showed that supporters of gestation stalls expressed concern about the spread of disease and aggression between animals in less confined systems, whereas supporters of group housing placed more emphasis on the sow’s ability to interact socially and perform natural behaviors. These results point to public opposition to the use of gestation stalls, and indicate that the more that the public learns about gestation stalls the less willing they will be to accept their use

Tail Docking Dairy Cattle: Effects on Cow Cleanliness and Udder Health

To determine whether tail docking would influence cow cleanliness and udder health in a free-stall system, we monitored milking cows after half the animals in a herd were docked. A sample of 223 docked and 190 undocked cows (reducing to 169 and 105 over the study as cows were dried off) were monitored for 8 wk. Cow cleanliness was scored in two areas: along the spine, and the rump adjacent to the tail at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 wk after docking. Cleanliness was evaluated by counting squares that were soiled (0 to 14 on a 5- × 17.5-cm grid) and judging soiling severity on a scale from 0 (clean) to 3 (thickly caked). Udder cleanliness was scored with the same scale (0 to 3) and by counting the number of teats with debris on them. Udder health was assessed by measuring SCC of two milk samples and the number of animals diagnosed as mastitic by the on-farm veterinarian. No treatment differences were found in four measures of cow cleanliness, two measures of udder cleanliness, or udder health. However, cow cleanliness did differ over time, and analysis of a subsample of cows illustrated individual differences in cleanliness

Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs

Understanding concerns about the welfare of farm animals is important for the development of socially sustainable production practices. This study used an online survey to test how views on group versus stall housing for pregnant sows varied when Canadian and US participants were provided information about these systems, including access to scientific papers, YouTube videos, Google images, and a frequently-asked-questions page (S1 Appendix). Initial responses and changes in responses after accessing the information were analyzed from Likert scores of 242 participants and from their written comments. Participants were less willing to accept the use of gestation stalls after viewing information on sow housing. For example, initially 30.4% of respondents indicated that they supported the use of gestation stalls; this declined to 17.8%after participants were provided additional information. Qualitative analysis of comments showed that supporters of gestation stalls expressed concern about the spread of disease and aggression between animals in less confined systems, whereas supporters of group housing placed more emphasis on the sow’s ability to interact socially and perform natural behaviors. These results point to public opposition to the use of gestation stalls, and indicate that the more that the public learns about gestation stalls the less willing they will be to accept their use

Effects of Three Types of Free-Stall Surfaces on Preferences and Stall Usage by Dairy Cows

One important criterion in choosing appropriate housing systems for dairy cattle is that the freestall provides a comfortable surface for the cow. This paper describes two experiments testing the effects of commonly used lying surfaces on stall preference and stall usage by Holstein cows. In both experiments, 12 cows were housed individually in separate pens. Each pen contained three free stalls with a different surface: deep-bedded sawdust, deep-bedded sand, and a geotextile mattress covered with 2 to 3 cm of sawdust. The animals were restricted to each surface in turn, in a random order for either 2 (Experiment 1) or 3 d (Experiment 2). Both before and after this restriction phase, the animals were allowed access to all three surfaces, and preference was determined, based on lying times. Of the 12 cows used in Experiment 1, 10 preferred sawdust before and nine after the restriction phase. During the restriction phase, average lying times and number of lying events during the restriction phase were significantly lower for the sand-bedded stalls (P ≤ 0.05), and standing times were higher on mattresses (P ≤ 0.05), compared with sawdust. Although these cows had some experience with all three surfaces during the experiment, they had been housed in sawdust-bedded stalls during their previous lactation. Cows used in Experiment 2 had spent their previous lactation in sand bedded stalls. In this experiment, about half the cows preferred sand and half sawdust, after the restriction phase. During the restriction phase of experiment, lying times and number of lying events were lower, and standing times were higher when the animals were restricted to the mattresses compared to either sand or sawdust (P ≤ 0.05). These results indicate that (1) free stall surface can affect both stall preferences and stall usage, and (2) mattresses are less preferred

Influence of Neck-Rail Placement on Free-Stall Preference, Use, and Cleanliness

Three experiments examined how the presence of a neck rail at different heights and locations influenced dairy cattle behavior and stall cleanliness. Experiment 1 compared 4 levels of neck-rail height (102, 114, and 127 cm and no neck rail; presented at 160 or 180 cm from the curb) in a preference test. Cows (n = 10) showed no consistent preference based on neck-rail height, regardless of the horizontal position of the neck rail. When cows were restricted to each treatment in turn, however, time spent standing fully (with all 4 hooves) in the stall was least in the stall with the lowest neck rail (mean, 22 min/24 h) and was greatest in the stall with no neck rail (mean, 83 min/24 h). A second experiment examined the effect of a neck rail placed at 3 distances from the curb (140, 175, and 233 cm) when height was held constant (131 cm; n = 12). Time spent standing fully in the stall was least when the neck rail was close to the curb (140 cm; mean, 11 min/24 h) and was greatest when the neck rail was furthest from the curb (233 cm; mean, 86 min/24 h). When the neck rail was far from the curb, the cows were more likely to soil the stall by defecating while standing fully in the stall. Experiment 3 compared soiling of the stall by 14 cows with and without a neck rail at a height of 124.5 cm. When the neck rail was removed, cows were more than twice as likely to soil the stall by defecating while standing fully in the stall compared with when the neck rail was present (1.3 vs. 0.5 defecations/24 h). Thus, restrictive neck-rail placement prevents cows from standing in stall, but helps keep stalls clean. Access to more comfortable flooring surfaces outside the stall may help mitigate the negative effects of restrictive neck rails