Literature DB >> 30299469

Effect of familiarity and mixing method on gestating sow welfare and productivity in large dynamic groups.

Meghann K Pierdon1, Thomas D Parsons1.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were twofold: first, to investigate the effects of sow familiarity prior to mixing into a larger dynamic group of gestating sows and, second, to examine the impact of how the sows entered the pen during this mixing event. The cohort of sows was either familiar with each other because of premixing (PMIX) or unfamiliar (UMIX). This PMIX or containment of sows in a stall (UMIX), occurred from weaning until the sows were mixed into the large gestation pen 8 d later. The cohort of incoming sows was introduced either as a batched unit (BAT) or new sows were introduced into the dynamic group singly (IND) though the electronic sow feeder. Lesion severity and quantity score, lameness, and body condition score (BCS) were tracked throughout the entire gestation period for 213 sows. Overall, there was little effect of the treatment but a strong impact of parity on the outcomes. Younger animals had significantly higher risk for lesions (P < 0.001) and higher risk for more severe lesions (P < 0.001) than higher parity animals. Lower parity had an association with the risk of lameness (P < 0.05), but it had no significant effect on BCS (P > 0.05). The risk of lameness increased on days 15 and 62 compared to weaning (P < 0.001). Risk of low BCS decreased on days 62 and 113 relative to scores at weaning (P < 0.001). A degree of familiarity by day interaction was present for lesion quantity (P < 0.001) and lesion severity (P < 0.001). The risk of more lesions was higher in the premixed groups before going into the dynamic group, but equilibrated with the unmixed group after day 11, 3 d in the large dynamic pen. The highest risk for the greatest quantity of lesions peaked at day 11 then declined, but never reached the lowest level again which was measured at weaning. Despite the variability in the welfare measures, there was no significant impact of treatment or parity on sow productivity. In conclusion, our data demonstrate that a period of premixing sows and varying the method of entering sows into the pen did not have a long-term impact on the welfare of the sows or on their productivity.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30299469      PMCID: PMC6276549          DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky380

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  6 in total

1.  Effect of group size and structure on the welfare and performance of pregnant sows in pens with electronic sow feeders.

Authors:  Leena Anil; Sukumarannair S Anil; John Deen; Samuel K Baidoo; Roger D Walker
Journal:  Can J Vet Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.310

2.  Effects of group housing after weaning on sow welfare and sexual behavior.

Authors:  J-L Rault; R S Morrison; C F Hansen; L U Hansen; P H Hemsworth
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Effect of day of mixing gestating sows on measures of reproductive performance and animal welfare.

Authors:  R Knox; J Salak-Johnson; M Hopgood; L Greiner; J Connor
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Field research on veterinary problems in group-housed sows--a survey of lameness.

Authors:  A Kroneman; L Vellenga; F J van der Wilt; H M Vermeer
Journal:  Zentralbl Veterinarmed A       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec

5.  Local and systemic immune and inflammatory responses to Helicobacter pylori strains.

Authors:  Niranjan Bhat; James Gaensbauer; Richard M Peek; Karen Bloch; Kyi-Toe Tham; Martin J Blaser; Guillermo Perez-Perez
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  2005-12

6.  Lactation weight loss influences subsequent reproductive performance of sows.

Authors:  M Y C Thaker; G Bilkei
Journal:  Anim Reprod Sci       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.145

  6 in total
  3 in total

1.  Judgement bias of group housed gestating sows predicted by behavioral traits, but not physical measures of welfare.

Authors:  Kristina M Horback; Thomas D Parsons
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Risk Factors for Chronic Stress in Sows Housed in Groups, and Associated Risks of Prenatal Stress in Their Offspring.

Authors:  Martyna Ewa Lagoda; Joanna Marchewka; Keelin O'Driscoll; Laura Ann Boyle
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-04-12

3.  A systematic review of the impact of housing on sow welfare during post-weaning and early pregnancy periods.

Authors:  Jen-Yun Chou; Thomas D Parsons
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-08-23
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.