R. S. Morrison

Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: Aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance

A total of 3,120 sows, in 4 time replicates, were used to determine the effects of group size and floor space on sow welfare using behavioral, physiological, health, and fitness variables. Within 1 to 7 d postinsemination, sows were assigned randomly to treatments of a 3 by 6 factorial arrangement, with 3 group sizes (10, 30, or 80 sows/pen) and 6 floor space allowances (1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, or 3.0 m(2)/sow). Sows were housed on partially slatted concrete floors, and overhead feeders delivered 4 times/day to provide a total of 2.5 kg of feed/sow. As pen space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow, aggression at feeding decreased from about 9 to 7 bouts/sow (linear, P = 0.029) and plasma cortisol concentrations decreased from about 28 to 21 ng/mL (linear, P = 0.0089) at 2 d. Although the results are in accord with a linear decline from 1.4 to 3 m(2)/sow, the results are also in accord with a decline in these measurements from 1.4 to 1.8 m(2)/sow and no further decline greater than 1.8 m(2)/sow. Farrowing rate (percentage of inseminated sows that farrowed) also increased from about 60 to 75% as space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow (linear, P = 0.012). Group size was related to skin injuries on d 9 (P = 0.0017), 23 (P = 0.0046), and 51 (P = 0.0006), with groups of 10 consistently having the lowest number of total injuries over this period. Based on the aggression and cortisol results, it is credible to judge that, within the range of floor space allowances studied, sow welfare improves with increased space. However, from a sow welfare perspective, the experiment had insufficient precision to determine what is an adequate space allowance for sows. Thus, although the results definitely support a space allowance of 1.4 m(2)/sow being too small, it is not possible to give guidance on an actual space allowance at mixing that is adequate.

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

This project compared the effects of grouping sows after weaning or within 2 d after insemination on sexual behavior, aggression, injuries, stress, and mating success. At weaning (d 0), 360 sows were housed in groups of 10 sows at 4.4 m2 per sow (group weaned [GpW]) or individual stalls (stall weaned [StW]), with 18 groups per treatment. Six days after weaning (d 6), 7 inseminated GpW sows were moved to pens at 2.1 m2 per sow and keeping acquainted sows, and simultaneously, groups of 7 inseminated StW sows were mixed at 2.1 m2 per sow. Group-weaned sows showed greater variation in the onset of estrus (P=0.02) but not in the length of estrus compared to StW sows (P=0.21), with 7% fewer GpW sows inseminated within 5 d of weaning (P=0.05). Group-weaned sows showed lower sexual receptivity scores, showing less spontaneous standing during boar exposure and partly compensating by a greater response to the back-pressure test (both P<0.01). The GpW treatment also showed greater variability in sows inseminated twice within 6 d of weaning, with 3 out of 18 pens having only 5 mated sows out of 10. Mixing after weaning resulted in higher levels of stress than mixing after insemination, with GpW sows having higher plasma cortisol concentration than StW sows on d 1 (P<0.001) but no treatment differences on d 7 in cortisol concentration or aggression at feeding (P=0.48). Group-weaned sows experienced greater weight loss during the first week postweaning (P=0.05). Anogenital sniffing in GpW sows was frequently observed from d 2 to 5, but mounting and flank nosing increased on d 4 and 5. Frequency of sexual behavior initiated by GpW sows tended to correlate with weight loss (P=0.08), and sexual behavior received correlated positively with cortisol concentration at d 1 (P=0.005). In conclusion, sows housed in groups at weaning and regrouped after insemination experienced higher stress than sows housed in individual stalls at weaning and mixed in groups after insemination. This resulted in lower mating success within 5 d of weaning, which in turn increased between-week variability. The lower sexual receptivity in sows grouped at weaning may be due to suppressed estrus-related behaviour, with ovulation occurring, or delayed ovulation beyond d 6. Further research is needed to identify underlying mechanisms to reduce variability, manage aggression and sexual behavior, and optimize estrus detection in group-housed weaning systems.

Effects of varying floor space on aggressive behavior and cortisol concentrations in group-housed sows1

Floor space is an important determinant of aggression and stress in group-housed sows, and the aim of the present experiment was to comprehensively examine the effects of floor space in the range of 1.45 to 2.90 m/sow from mixing until 27 d after insemination on aggression, stress, and reproduction of group-housed sows. A previous experiment on the effects of floor space indicated spatial variability across and along the research facility in both sow aggression and stress. To minimize this spatial variability within the research facility, similar-sized pens but with varying groups sizes (10-20) in 4 separate blocks of 3 contiguous pens within each of 9 time replicates (180 sows/replicate) were used to examine 6 space allowances (1.45-2.9 m/sow). Space treatments were appropriately randomized to pens. Although it may be argued that space allowance is confounded with group size in this design, there was no evidence in our previous experiment of group size effects, for pens of 10 to 80 sows, or appreciable interactions between space and group size on aggression, stress, and reproduction. In the present experiment, sows were introduced to treatments within 4 d of insemination and were floor fed 4 times per day (2.5 kg/sow per d). On both Days 2 and 26 after mixing, aggressive behavior (bites and knocks) at feeding and plasma cortisol concentrations were measured. Restricted maximum likelihood mixed model analyses were used to examine the treatment effect after accounting for replicate and random spatial location effects within replicate. There was a consistent linear effect of floor space allowance on aggression at feeding at Day 2 ( < 0.0001) and plasma cortisol concentrations at Day 2 ( = 0.0003), with aggression and stress declining with increasing space. However, there were no effects of space allowance on aggression and stress at Day 26 ( = 0.14 and = 0.79, respectively). These results show that increased floor space in the immediate post-mixing period reduces aggression and stress and that sows may adapt to reduced floor space over time. A strategy of staged-gestation penning, with more space immediately after mixing and less space later in gestation, may address both animal welfare and economic considerations, but this clearly requires further examination.

The short-term behavioural response of sows, but not gilts, to a social stimulus is related to sow aggressiveness in groups

This study examined relationships between the behavioural response of pregnant gilts (n=200, gestation 1) and sows (n=200, gestation 2) to a live, similarly-aged female pig (unfamiliar pig test, UPT) and to a fibre-glass model pig (model pig test, MPT), and aggressive behaviour on the day after mixing (day 2). Sows with a short latency to make contact with an unfamiliar sow in the UPT were more likely to deliver high levels of aggression at day 2 of gestation 2 (P=0.005), but this relationship was stronger when a model pig was used (P<0.001). Similarly, sows with a long duration of tactile contact with the model pig in the MPT were more likely to deliver high levels of aggression at day 2 of gestation 2 (P=0.015), but this relationship was weaker than that between aggression and the latency to contact the model pig. When the terms the latency to contact the unfamiliar pig in the UPT and the model pig in the MPT, as well as the duration of contact with the model pig in the MPT, were included in an overall model of aggression at day 2 of gestation 2, behaviour towards the unfamiliar pig became not statistically significant (P>0.05). A strong relationship was not apparent with gilts (P>0.05). Thus, the socially inexperienced pig may not be an ideal model for sow behaviour. This study indicates that sows with a short latency to contact a model pig are more likely to be aggressive when mixed into groups.

Forming groups of aggressive sows based on a predictive test of aggression does not affect overall sow aggression or welfare

This experiment examined the effects of group composition on sow aggressive behaviour and welfare. Over 6 time replicates, 360 sows (parity 1-6) were mixed into groups (10 sows per pen, 1.8 m2/sow) composed of animals that were predicted to be aggressive (n = 18 pens) or groups composed of animals that were randomly selected (n = 18 pens). Predicted aggressive sows were selected based on a model-pig test that has been shown to be related to the aggressive behaviour of parity 2 sows when subsequently mixed in groups. Measurements were taken on aggression delivered post-mixing, and aggression delivered around feeding, fresh skin injuries and plasma cortisol concentrations at days 2 and 24 post-mixing. Live weight gain, litter size (born alive, total born, stillborn piglets), and farrowing rate were also recorded. Manipulating the group composition based on predicted sow aggressiveness had no effect (P > 0.05) on sow aggression delivered at mixing or around feeding, fresh injuries, cortisol, weight gain from day 2 to day 24, farrowing rate, or litter size. The lack of treatment effects in the present experiment could be attributed to (1) a failure of the model-pig test to predict aggression in older sows in groups, or (2) the dependence of the expression of the aggressive phenotype on factors such as social experience and characteristics (e.g., physical size and aggressive phenotype) of pen mates. This research draws attention to the intrinsic difficulties associated with predicting behaviour across contexts, particularly when the behaviour is highly dependent on interactions with conspecifics, and highlights the social complexities involved in the presentation of a behavioural phenotype.