Locomotion disorders and skin and claw lesions in gestating sows housed in dynamic versus static groups

Lameness and lesions to the skin and claws of sows in group housing are commonly occurring indicators of reduced welfare. Typically, these problems are more common in group housing than in individual housing systems. Group management type (dynamic versus static) and stage of gestation influence the behavior of the animals, which in turn influences the occurrence of these problems. The present study compared prevalence, incidence and mean scores of lameness and skin and claw lesions in static versus dynamic group housed sows at different stages of gestation during three consecutive reproductive cycles. A total of 10 Belgian sow herds were monitored; 5 in which dynamic groups and 5 in which static groups were utilized. All sows were visually assessed for lameness and skin lesions three times per cycle and the claws of the hind limbs were assessed once per cycle. Lameness and claw lesions were assessed using visual analogue scales. Static groups, in comparison with dynamic groups, demonstrated lower lameness scores (P<0.05) and decreased skin lesion prevalence (24.9 vs. 47.3%, P<0.05) at the end of gestation. There was no difference between treatment group regarding claw lesion prevalence with 75.5% of sows demonstrating claw lesions regardless of group management. Prevalences of lameness (22.4 vs. 8.9%, P<0.05) and skin lesions (46.6 vs. 4.4%, P<0.05) were highest during the group-housed phase compared to the individually housed phases. Although the prevalence of lameness and skin lesions did not differ three days after grouping versus at the end of the group-housing phase, their incidence peaked during the first three days after moving from the insemination stalls to the group. In conclusion, the first three days after grouping was the most risky period for lameness incidence, but there was no significant difference between static or dynamic group management

Impact of group housing of pregnant sows on health

Group housing of sows during gestation is mandatory in the EU since 2013. Compared to housing in individual crates, group housing allows the animals to express normal activity and behavior. The present paper discusses the impact of group housing on health, with emphasis on lameness, aggression and possible spread of infectious diseases. The prevalence of lameness is generally higher in sows housed in group than in sows housed individually. Floor space per sow, group size, pen design and flooring are the main factors of group housing involved in lameness development. Especially floor characteristics are important, and particular attention should be paid to the type, building material and quality of the floor, hygiene and the use of bedding such as straw or rubber mats. Aggression between sows is another critical issue in group housing systems. It occurs predominantly because of competition for access to a limited resource, or to establish a social hierarchy. Key factors to prevent aggression in group housing include gradual familiarization of unfamiliar animals, sufficient space and pen structure during initial mixing, minimizing opportunities for dominant sows to steal food from subordinates, provision of a good quality floor, environmental enrichment and use of straw bedding. Very scarce evidence-based information is available on the relationship between group housing and infectious disease. Compared to individual housing, sows in group housing have more nose-to-nose contact, and they have more oral contact with feces and urine. These factors could contribute to a higher or faster transmission of pathogens, but so far, there is no evidence showing more disease problems in group housing systems. In conclusion, in group housing systems, particular attention should be paid to prevention of lameness and aggression. Management is crucial but also feeding strategies, floor and bedding, and design of housing are very important as relatively minor adjustments may exert major effects on the animals.Peer reviewe

Causes, consequences and biomarkers of stress in swine: an update

BACKGROUND: In recent decades there has been a growing concern about animal stress on intensive pig farms due to the undesirable consequences that stress produces in the normal physiology of pigs and its effects on their welfare and general productive performance. This review analyses the most important types of stress (social, environmental, metabolic, immunological and due to human handling), and their biological consequences for pigs. The physio-pathological changes associated with stress are described, as well as the negative effects of stress on pig production. In addition an update of the different biomarkers used for the evaluation of stress is provided. These biomarkers can be classified into four groups according to the physiological system or axis evaluated: sympathetic nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and immune system. CONCLUSIONS: Stress it is a process with multifactorial causes and produces an organic response that generates negative effects on animal health and production. Ideally, a panel of various biomarkers should be used to assess and evaluate the stress resulting from diverse causes and the different physiological systems involved in the stress response. We hope that this review will increase the understanding of the stress process, contribute to a better control and reduction of potential stressful stimuli in pigs and, finally, encourage future studies and developments to better monitor, detect and manage stress on pig farms

Truies gestantes alimentées au DAC, faut-il réserver un logement séparé aux nullipares?

peer reviewe

Bien-être et élevage des porcs

peer reviewedThe current intensive system of pig production is the outcome of better control of the environment, prevention of infectious disease, a feeding strategy adapted to the nutritional needs of pigs, and genetic selection oriented towards increased growth and reproductive performances. Meanwhile, certain practices have been shown to be detrimental to pig welfare. During the last few decades, research conducted on pig welfare has mainly been oriented towards measurement of behavioural and physiological responses to housing, feeding and management practices. The results have demonstrated the animals' difficulties to adapt to their conditions, particularly regarding changes in social relationships, impoverishment of the environment, restriction of space, and the development of management practices leading to discomfort, fear or pain. This review presents a summary of the scientific research conducted on the consequences of husbandry conditions and management practices on pig welfare. Finally, some possible solutions are presented for improving pig welfare by providing greater harmony between the animals and their environment

Le cortisol salivaire comme indicateur du bien-être chez la truie gestante lors de regroupement.

peer reviewe

Identification et hiérarchisation des facteurs de risque de pénalité économique pour des concentration cellulaires élevées dans 349 fermes laitières en Wallonie

peer reviewedIn Belgium, the main economic penalty accounted for bovine milk quality is the bulk milk somatic cell count geometric mean over 3 months reaching more than 400,000 cells/ml. Yet, it is still difficult to make progress on udder health and milk quality because regional risks related to endemic farming practices are not broadly known. Hence, a first step in understanding specific udder health risks associated with herd management has to be a broad ecopathological survey. A random stratified sample of 349 dairy farms, representing 25% of producers registered for performance recording, was selected with a total of 16,000 cows. Thorough audits recording 400 farming practices were made in each farm by 2 different surveyors during milking. The practices were recorded across four categories: Herd structure, Housing, Milking practices and Herd Management (including Nutrition). Our chosen variable was the geometric mean of the herd composite somatic cell count from the last three months compared to the 400,000 cells/ml European threshold. The sample had a mean somatic cell count of 287,000 cells/ml following a normal distribution between 73,000 and 807,000 cells/ml. From 19 risk indicators identified through univariate logistic analysis (p<0.15), half were related to milking practices and 5 were underlined by significant odds-ratios (OR) found through multivariate logistic analysis (p<0.05). Therefore, it was found that cubicle housing had the least risk (OR= 0.59 compared with tightened stalls, OR= 0.42 compared with straw stalls); Presence of a calving pen (OR= 0.40), use of post-dipping (OR= 0.50) had a positive impact; whereas pre-dip had a negative impact in our study (OR= 3) though it was not clear if this routine was performed correctly. Stripping also had a bad impact on milk quality whether it was systematic (OR = 1.90) or occasional (OR = 2.43). It was also found that farms with poor milking liner hygiene had more trouble (OR = 2.34). The results were comparable to other ecopathological studies such as northern and southern American and European studies. This study is a prerequisite in operational veterinary advice in southern Belgium dairy farms, because it provides a cross-sectional study of dairy practices and states on major epidemiological risk factors in dairy management for this region.RW D31-111