| Literature DB >> 35681820 |
Shuangshuang Li1,2, Hongqing Hu1,2, Jian Huang1,2, Yuxuan Yang1,2, Weijing Xu1,2, Junfeng Chen3, Jiawei Wan1,2, Lianghua Li4, Rong Zheng1,2, Siwen Jiang1,2, Jin Chai1,2.
Abstract
Modern intensive pig breeding harms animal welfare, which is especially noticeable for pregnant sows kept in confinement stalls. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of enrichment items on the movement and physiological parameters of sows in the third trimester of pregnancy. A total of 30 large white pregnant sows were randomly divided into three equal treatment groups (n = 10): control, pine wood, and scented wood groups. Interestingly, compared with the control group, the sows in the pine wood or scented wood groups showed less ventral lying and more lateral lying behavior (p < 0.01), coupled with significant reduction in the frequency of scratching and sham-chewing (p < 0.01), but with no significant difference in the degree of preference for these enrichment items (p > 0.05). Additionally, the sows in the pine wood or scented wood groups also decreased significantly in the concentration of immunoglobulin A (IgA) (p < 0.01) and the concentration of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) (p < 0.05) throughout the late pregnancy period. Overall, adding enrichment items to confinement stalls can alleviate the chronic stress and the stereotypic behavior of sows, suggesting their potential to reduce welfare compromise.Entities:
Keywords: behavior; confinement stalls; environmental enrichment; physiology; reproductive
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681820 PMCID: PMC9179893 DOI: 10.3390/ani12111355
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 3.231
Figure 1Schematic diagram of confinement stalls.
Nutritional composition of pregnant sow feed.
| Nutrient | Amount (%) |
|---|---|
| Crude protein (%) | 15.00 |
| Crude fiber (%) | 8.00 |
| Crude ash (%) | 10.00 |
| Calcium (%) | 1.00 |
| Total phosphorus (%) | 0.40 |
| Lysine (%) | 0.85 |
Figure 2Enrichment items for pregnant sows in confinement stalls: (A) pine and (B) scented wood.
Ethogram of behaviors used in the study.
| Behavior | Description |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Standing | Supporting weight on the 4 limbs at the same time, but the forelimbs can kneel on the ground, and the limbs cannot be in the same plane |
| Lateral Lying | Lying with one shoulder on the floor, with 4 visible limbs [ |
| Ventral Lying | Sow’s chest and abdomen touching the floor, with front legs stretched or folded under the body [ |
| Sitting | Dog-sitting, with rear and front hooves on the floor [ |
|
| |
| Drinking | Manipulating the drinker or apparently ingesting water |
|
| |
| Sham chewing | No food in the mouth and just oral activities with saliva |
| Scratching | Limb movements, licking, biting and rubbing [ |
|
| |
| Enrichment items manipulation | Arching, sniffing, chewing, and licking enrichment items |
Labor score for pregnant sows.
| Scores | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Delivery time is 1–1.5 h, and the delivery interval is 15–20 min/head; vulva is red and swollen; breathing is slightly deepened, lying calmly on her side and slightly humming. |
| 2 | The delivery time is 1.5–3 h, and the delivery interval is 20–30 min/head; the vulva is slightly edema; the birth canal shows slight hemorrhage; the breathing is fast; she likes to move and hums from time to time. |
| 3 | The delivery time is 3–4.5 h; the delivery interval is more than 30 min/head; the vulva has severe edema, hematoma, and a small amount of bleeding, coupled with abnormal breathing, small swings, and slight shouting. |
| 4 | The delivery time is 4.5–6 h and the delivery interval is 30 min/head; the vagina shows malignant edema, hematoma, and heavy bleeding, coupled with abnormal breathing, moderate swing, and violent shouting. |
| 5 | The delivery time is more than 6 h and the delivery interval is more than 30 min/head; the vagina shows malignant edema, hematoma, and heavy bleeding, coupled with abnormal breathing, large swing, and violent shouting. |
Figure 3The effect of enrichment items on the posture behaviors of sows. ** p < 0.01 in enrichment item groups vs. control group. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10).
Figure 4(A) The frequency of water drinking. (B,C) The frequency of sham-chewing and scratching behaviors. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 in enrichment item groups vs. control group. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10).
Figure 5The manipulation frequency and duration of enrichment items. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10).
Figure 6(A–C): Effect of enrichment items on the concentration of cortisol, IgA, and TNF-α in the saliva of sows (12 W–15 W). * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 in the enrichment item groups vs. the control group. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10).
Effect of enrichment items on the reproductive performance of late pregnant sows.
| Control | Pine | Scented Wood | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 10 | n = 10 | n = 10 | |
| Number of litters | 13.11 ± 1.87 | 13.33 ± 1.05 | 12.90 ± 1.37 |
| Number of live pigs | 11.67 ± 1.25 | 12.33 ± 1.03 | 11.80 ± 1.14 |
| Number of stillbirths | 0.89 ± 0.45 | 1.00 ± 0.67 | 1.10 ± 0.43 |
| Number of mummies | 0.56 ± 0.44 | 0 | 0 |
| Birth weight | 15.20 ± 1.19 | 17.14 ± 1.39 | 16.30 ± 1.28 |
| Average birth weight | 1.36 ± 0.08 | 1.41 ± 0.07 | 1.43 ± 0.09 |
| Labor score | 2.78 ± 0.36 | 2.67 ± 0.24 | 2.40 ± 0.27 |
| Duration of farrowing | 227.22 ± 23.02 | 223.89 ± 11.72 | 214.00 ± 14.70 |
Note: The data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 10).