Coping behaviour in pigs : consequences for welfare and performance

In this study we have investigated individual differences in coping with management-related stressors such as cross-fostering, weaning and mixing. Animals differ in the way they cope with stressors. An active coping strategy is characterized by an autonomous response, with higher heart rate, blood pressure and blood glucose levels, necessary for a fight or flight response, while a reactive (or passive) coping strategy is associated with conservation and withdrawal and characterized by a HPA response with elevated cortisol levels. The coping style is the preference of each individual for a certain coping strategy. Coping styles are determined by the personality, and the coping style and the situation determine the coping behaviour. In pigs, the backtest can be used as an instrument to measure (a dimension of) the coping style of the pigs at a young age. In this test, a piglet is put on its back and during 1 minute the number of escape attempts is recorded (mean 2-3, range 0-10). Active copers respond with many escape attempts (HR, high resisting), while reactive copers resist less (LR, low resisting). We performed backtests at 3, 10 and 17 days of age. Our study results confirmed that weaning and mixing of pigs induced acute, physiologically measurable stress responses, while moving of pigs did not. Cross-fostering and mixing of pigs resulted in lower cell-mediated immune responses at 9 weeks of age, and more active behaviour at 10-12 weeks of age. Mixing enhanced humoral and cell-mediated immune responses shortly after the stressor, but mixed animals were more susceptible for infection with Salmonella later on. Correlations between successive backtests were about 0.4. The backtest is relatively consistent in a stable environment, but our cross-fostering study showed that backtest response in young piglets could change in an extreme social environment (uniform HR or LR pens). We found no associations between backtest response and salivary cortisol rise after weaning or mixing. Backtest responses were predictive for a human approach test at 5-7 weeks of age, but not for a novel object test or an open door test, or for these group tests at 10-12 weeks of age. Possibly, these tests measure different behavioural characteristics. HR animals showed a better cell-mediated immune response after weaning and a lower risk of infection with Salmonella. HR animals also showed better performance results, with a higher daily weight gain in the fattening period, and a higher lean meat percentage and better carcass classification at slaughter. However, it cannot be concluded that one coping style is "better" than the other. HR animals showed better performance results in mixed HR/LR groups. HR animals showed better cell-mediated immunity and lower susceptibility for infection with Salmonella, but once infected they might show a lower humoral immune response. Because of the association with lean meat percentage and daily weight gain, selection for production parameters will probably favour HR animals in the current husbandry systems. The organic farming systems which offer more stimuli (group housing, straw, outdoor area), probably favour the LR sows, because they may be better equipped to cope with a less predictable environment, as other studies showed. Furthermore, in group housing systems, the most active and aggressive HR animals will be excluded in the selection process

Lying Postures of Dairy Cows in Cubicles and on Pasture

Cows housed indoors with cubicles are probably more restricted in their choice of lying posture and orientation compared with cows housed on pasture. We therefore compared lying postures on pasture in Uruguay and the Netherlands with lying postures in cubicles in the Netherlands, also recording orientation on pasture in Uruguay and divider and bedding type in Dutch cubicles. We visited one farm with four herds in Uruguay, doing live observations, and 25 Dutch farms, taking pictures of cows. Observations of 205 cows on pasture in Uruguay showed more long postures, lying on their belly with their neck stretched. Two herds preferred lying towards north and south, while one herd preferred west and east. Pictures of 217 cows on pasture in the Netherlands showed more wide postures (lying on the side with three or four legs stretched out). Pictures of 527 cows in cubicles in the Netherlands showed more narrow postures (lying on the side with hind legs folded). More long postures (lying on the belly with a stretched neck) and less short postures (lying with the head folded back) were seen in cubicles with soft floors and English dividers; more narrow postures were seen in cubicles with concrete floors. Wide postures were seen more in cubicles with mattresses and free-hanging dividers. We conclude that since cows in cubicles show more narrow postures than on pasture and cannot choose their orientation, their choice in showing preferred behavior is restricted. More research is needed to study the consequences of restricted choice in lying behavior on the health and welfare of dairy cows

Lying Postures of Dairy Cows in Cubicles and on Pasture

Cows housed indoors with cubicles are probably more restricted in their choice of lying posture and orientation compared with cows housed on pasture. We therefore compared lying postures on pasture in Uruguay and the Netherlands with lying postures in cubicles in the Netherlands, also recording orientation on pasture in Uruguay and divider and bedding type in Dutch cubicles. We visited one farm with four herds in Uruguay, doing live observations, and 25 Dutch farms, taking pictures of cows. Observations of 205 cows on pasture in Uruguay showed more long postures, lying on their belly with their neck stretched. Two herds preferred lying towards north and south, while one herd preferred west and east. Pictures of 217 cows on pasture in the Netherlands showed more wide postures (lying on the side with three or four legs stretched out). Pictures of 527 cows in cubicles in the Netherlands showed more narrow postures (lying on the side with hind legs folded). More long postures (lying on the belly with a stretched neck) and less short postures (lying with the head folded back) were seen in cubicles with soft floors and English dividers; more narrow postures were seen in cubicles with concrete floors. Wide postures were seen more in cubicles with mattresses and free-hanging dividers. We conclude that since cows in cubicles show more narrow postures than on pasture and cannot choose their orientation, their choice in showing preferred behavior is restricted. More research is needed to study the consequences of restricted choice in lying behavior on the health and welfare of dairy cows

Mapping Welfare: Location Determining Techniques and Their Potential for Managing Cattle Welfare—A Review

Several studies have suggested that precision livestock farming (PLF) is a useful tool for animal welfare management and assessment. Location, posture and movement of an individual are key elements in identifying the animal and recording its behaviour. Currently, multiple technologies are available for automated monitoring of the location of individual animals, ranging from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) to ultra-wideband (UWB), RFID, wireless sensor networks (WSN) and even computer vision. These techniques and developments all yield potential to manage and assess animal welfare, but also have their constraints, such as range and accuracy. Combining sensors such as accelerometers with any location determining technique into a sensor fusion system can give more detailed information on the individual cow, achieving an even more reliable and accurate indication of animal welfare. We conclude that location systems are a promising approach to determining animal welfare, especially when applied in conjunction with additional sensors, but additional research focused on the use of technology in animal welfare monitoring is needed

Using Sound Location to Monitor Farrowing in Sows

Precision Livestock Farming systems can help pig farmers prevent health and welfare issues around farrowing. Five sows were monitored in two field studies. A Sorama L642V sound camera, visualising sound sources as coloured spots using a 64-microphone array, and a Bascom XD10-4 security camera with a built-in microphone were used in a farrowing unit. Firstly, sound spots were compared with audible sounds, using the Observer XT (Noldus Information Technology), analysing video data at normal speed. This gave many false positives, including visible sound spots without audible sounds. In total, 23 of 50 piglet births were visible, but none were audible. The sow’s behaviour changed when farrowing started. One piglet was silently crushed. Secondly, data were analysed at a 10-fold slower speed when comparing sound spots with audible sounds and sow behaviour. This improved results, but accuracy and specificity were still low. When combining audible sound with visible sow behaviour and comparing sound spots with combined sound and behaviour, the accuracy was 91.2%, the error was 8.8%, the sensitivity was 99.6%, and the specificity was 69.7%. We conclude that sound cameras are promising tools, detecting sound more accurately than the human ear. There is potential to use sound cameras to detect the onset of farrowing, but more research is needed to detect piglet births or crushing