Out-of-Feed Events in Grow-Finish Pigs: Causes and Consequences

In theory, bulk bins and automated feed delivery systems assure an uninterrupted flow of feed to the feeder in swine grow-finish facilities. In practice, growing-finishing pigs have varying disruptions in feed availability, some of which may have serious consequences. While every swine grow-finish facility has occasional disruptions due to mechanical failures in the feed delivery system, there are additional disruptions due to human errors associated with keeping feed in the bulk bin and feed bridging associated with feed removal from the bin. Out-of-feed events are a known cause of ulcers in pigs and are suspected of being associated with increased incidence of hemorrhagic bowel syndrome and ileitis. It is speculated that each 20 to 24 hour out-of-feed event results in an increase in variation in growth within a population of pigs and results in a reduction in daily gain

Body condition, live weight and success in agonistic encounters in mixed parity groups of sows during gestation

Group housing of gestating sows benefits their welfare by allowing them freedom of movement and the opportunity for social interaction. However, social life could also bring disadvantages for individuals who receive direct aggression or are displaced from the feeder. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between social behaviour, body condition and live weight. Gestating sows (n=298) were investigated on a commercial farm. Sows were housed in mixed parity groups where two single space, ad libitum trough feeders served 12 animals. Sows were weighed, body condition scored and had their back fat layer measured at mixing, 4 weeks after insemination and again before farrowing. Social status was estimated based on the numbers of won and lost agonistic interactions at mixing and at the end of gestation. In addition, tear staining was scored before the farrowing and reproductive performance data were collected. With the aid of video recordings, 100 to 150 interactions per group were observed. Winning percentage at mixing and at the end of gestation were associated (PPeer reviewe

Effect of Floor Cooling on Behavior and Heart Rate of Late Lactation Sows Under Acute Heat Stress

Much U.S. swine production is in Köppen climate types classified as “hot-summer humid continental” and “humid subtropical.” As a result, farrowing sows are often exposed to temperatures above their upper critical temperature. This heat stress (HS) can affect sow welfare and productivity and have a negative economic impact. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of a cooling pad on sows' behavioral and heart rate responses to acute HS. Treatments were randomly allotted to ten multiparous sows to receive a constant cool water flow of 0.00 (CONTROL, n = 4), 0.25 (LOW, n = 2), 0.55 (MEDIUM, n = 2), or 0.85 (HIGH, n = 2) L/min for 100 min and replicated eight times, switching treatments so that each sow was exposed to each treatment. The cooling was initiated 1 h after the room reached 35°C for 100 min. Eating, drinking and nursing behaviors, postures, and heart rate were recorded before heating (Period 1), prior to cooling (Period 2), and during cooling (Period 3). There were no differences between LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH flow rates for any periods on all behavioral and heart rate traits, so data were pooled (COOLED). There were no differences in any of the measures during Periods 1 and 2, except for the ratio of short term to long term heart rate variability (SD1:SD2) with higher values for CONTROL than COOLED sows in Period 2. During Period 3, CONTROL sows changed postures more frequently (11.5 ±1.6 vs. 5.1 ±1.6 changes per hour), spent more time drinker-pressing/drinking (4.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.4 ± 0.4% of time), standing (6.6 ± 1.7 vs. 3.8 ± 1.6% of time), sitting (10.0 ± 1.2 vs. 4.0 ± 1.1), less time lying (83.0 ±1.8 vs. 92.0 ±1.7% of time), especially lying laterally (62.0 ± 5.6 vs. 75.0 ± 5.3% of time), than sows in all three cooling treatments (all P < 0.001). Heart rate during Period 3 was lower for COOLED sows compared to the CONTROL sows (100.2 ± 3.4 vs. 119.0 ± 4.0 beat per min, P < 0.001). Sows response to increased thermal load can be effectively reduced using water-cooled cooling pads, thereby improving sow comfort and welfare. The beneficial effects on behavior are noticeable from the lowest flow rate

Natural Farrowing Behavior of the Sow and Piglets

To determine the best practices for providing good sow and litter welfare in the farrowing accommodation, a good starting point is to re-examine the behavioral patterns that have been documented around farrowing and during lactation, in a natural or semi-natural environment. There is a series of behaviors carried out, with sows and piglets undergoing various phases of isolation, community integration, and living. Jensen has proposed that maternal behavior can be divided into six distinct parts: (i) isolation and nest site seeking, (ii) nest building, (iii) farrowing, (iv) nest occupation, (v) social integration, and (vi) weaning [1].This report is published as Johnson, A. K., and J. N. Marchant-Forde. 2011. Natural farrowing behavior of the sow and her piglets. Pork Information Gateway. Factsheet PIG 05-04-01.</p

Farrowing Systems for the Sow and her Piglets

In the U.S., housing for the lactating sow and her piglets can be divided into five main areas. Total confinement (farrowing stall) houses 83.4 % of the sows. Remaining operations house far fewer sows with open buildings that have outside access at 12.4 %, open building with no outside access, 2.9 %, pasture with hut or no building, 0.7 %, and lot with hut or no building the lowest at 0.6 % [1]. Farrowing stalls have become widely accepted by the industry for numerous reasons: they have made sow management easier, efficiently utilized space, and they can help to reduce piglet mortality [2]. However, the farrowing stall has received criticism due to potential detrimental effects it may impose on the welfare of the sow (such as occurrence of shoulder ulcers [3, 4], behaviors considered problematic [5, 6, 7], and sow’s movements are more restricted). The development of an alternative, economical farrowing system that retains the advantages of the conventional farrowing stall, and provides welfare benefits to the sow and piglets, could be beneficial to the industry [8, 9].This report is published as Johnson, A. K., and J. N. Marchant-Forde. 2011. Farrowing systems for the sow and her piglets. Pork Information Gateway. Factsheet PIG 05-05-02.</p

Hypothetical Welfare Assessments for the Sow and Her Litter

The assessment of welfare within farrowing systems presents a unique challenge for pork producers, veterinarians, and animal scientists. Welfare assessment within all other phases of swine production involves pigs at a single stage of their productive life. Within the farrowing environment, the sow and her piglets are at two very different stages of their life, and have different requirements in regards to their thermal, social, and physical environments [1]. A system that may be ideal for the welfare needs and requirements of the sow may be far from optimal for her piglets, and vice versa. In order for objective and science-based assessments to be conducted on swine farms, we must have an appreciation of the sows and her piglets welfare during farrowing and lactation.This report is published as Johnson, A. K., and J. N. Marchant-Forde. 2011. Hypothetical welfare assessments for the sow and her litter. Pork Information Gateway. Factsheet PIG 05-05-01. </p