The current science on group The current science on group housing of sowshousing of sows

Dr. Ed PajorDr. Ed Pajor

Professor of Animal Welfare and BehaviourProfessor of Animal Welfare and Behaviour

Research Leader, Animal Pain and Welfare GroupResearch Leader, Animal Pain and Welfare Group

Department of Production Animal HealthDepartment of Production Animal Healtheapajor@ucalgary.ca

Sept. 16 2012Sept. 16 2012

OutlineOutline Science from my labScience from my lab Preference and motivation testPreference and motivation test Preference for space Preference for space Preference for flooringPreference for flooring Motivation for housing featuresMotivation for housing features Free access systems and sow useFree access systems and sow use Future direction in housing and other Future direction in housing and other

issuesissues

Animal Welfare DefinitionAnimal Welfare Definition

““Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and is not well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal received is covered by other terms such as animal care, received is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment.” animal husbandry, and humane treatment.”

OIE, 2008OIE, 2008

Swine Welfare IssuesSwine Welfare Issues

Sow HousingSow Housing Pain ManagementPain Management EuthanasiaEuthanasia

Animal Transportation and handlingAnimal Transportation and handling Validity of Assessment/Audit Validity of Assessment/Audit

ProgramsPrograms

Sow HousingSow Housing

Gestation sow housing – immediate Gestation sow housing – immediate concernconcern

FarrowingFarrowing Post-BreedingPost-Breeding

Issue is the same, individual housing, Issue is the same, individual housing, limited space, no enrichments. limited space, no enrichments.

Preference and MotivationPreference and Motivation 4 types of research questions4 types of research questions Is an animal motivated to obtain or avoid a Is an animal motivated to obtain or avoid a

resourceresource Does the animal have preferences Does the animal have preferences

amongst alternative resourcesamongst alternative resources How strong its motivation or preference isHow strong its motivation or preference is Is preference or motivation altered by Is preference or motivation altered by

changes in its internal or external changes in its internal or external environmentenvironment

LimitationsLimitations

Motivation experiments very difficult Motivation experiments very difficult to doto do

Do preferences really matter in Do preferences really matter in terms of animal welfare?terms of animal welfare?

What role does previous experience What role does previous experience play in preferences?play in preferences?

LYNDSEY JONES

The Influence of Previous Housing Experience and

Social Rank on Sow Preference for Different Types

of Stall Housing

Does previous experience influence Does previous experience influence the choice of the animal?the choice of the animal?

Sows from standard gestation stallsSows from standard gestation stalls Sows from large pensSows from large pens

Slatted floor

Pulley gate

Alley to L stall

Choice point

Choice point

Maze 2

Maze 1

Pen Stall

Center corridor

Choice box

Empty stall

Slatted floor

Pulley gate

Alley to L stall

Choice point

Choice point

Maze 2

Maze 1

Pen Stall

Center corridor

Choice box

Empty stall

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods Monday – HabituationMonday – Habituation

Complete access (3 hr)Complete access (3 hr) Tuesday – Training Day Tuesday – Training Day

2 reps/ side (30 min)2 reps/ side (30 min) Wednesday – Session 1Wednesday – Session 1

2 reminder trials (15 2 reminder trials (15 min)min)

8 free trials (15 min) 8 free trials (15 min) Thursday – Rest DayThursday – Rest Day Friday – Session 2Friday – Session 2

8 free trials (15 min)8 free trials (15 min)

Group sows - Stall TypeGroup sows - Stall TypeP = 0.02

Stall sows - Stall TypeStall sows - Stall TypeP < 0.001

Choice ConclusionsChoice Conclusions Regardless of housing Regardless of housing

background, sows background, sows demonstrated a clear demonstrated a clear preference for the FA stallpreference for the FA stall

access to spaceaccess to space

freedom of movement and/or freedom of movement and/or choicechoice

A flooring comparison: A flooring comparison: The impact of rubber mats on The impact of rubber mats on the health, behavior, and the health, behavior, and welfare of group-housed sows welfare of group-housed sows at breedingat breeding

M.R.P. Elmore1, J.P. Garner1, A.K. Johnson2, B.T. Richert1, E.A. Pajor1

1Purdue University, Department of Animal Sciences2Iowa State University, Department of Animal Sciences

BackgroundBackground Barren concrete is commonly used for Barren concrete is commonly used for

swineswine High incidence of leg and hoof injuriesHigh incidence of leg and hoof injuries Lameness ranked as #3 reason for culling Lameness ranked as #3 reason for culling

sowssows Indicator that flooring comfort needs not Indicator that flooring comfort needs not

being metbeing met

Buckner et al., 1998; Mouttotou et al., 1999; Boyle et al., 2000; Day et al., 2002; Tuyttens, 2005; Zurbrigg, 2006; USDA 2007

Objective and HypothesisObjective and Hypothesis

Objective: to determine the impact of Objective: to determine the impact of rubber flooring on group-housed rubber flooring on group-housed Yorkshire x Landrace sows at breeding Yorkshire x Landrace sows at breeding (10 days)(10 days)

Hypothesis: the addition of rubber Hypothesis: the addition of rubber mats to feeding stalls in group pens mats to feeding stalls in group pens would improve sow health, comfort would improve sow health, comfort and welfareand welfare

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

Data Collected (n=16/treatment):• Lesions and Lameness • Resting behavior• Frequency of postural changes

Concrete Pen Matted Pen

Flooring PreferencesFlooring Preferences

Group Area Stall Area Group Area Stall Area

Per

cent

of O

bser

vatio

ns

0.1%

1.0%

10%

100%

Concrete Pen Matted Pen

** Other

RestingStanding

Sows Prefer to Rest Sows Prefer to Rest in Stalls with Rubber Matsin Stalls with Rubber Mats

*P < 0.05

Sows Prefer Mats for Sows Prefer Mats for RestingResting

Sows rested more on Sows rested more on the mat compared to the mat compared to all other pen areas all other pen areas (P (P < 0.05)< 0.05)

Inactivity by pen Inactivity by pen area did not differ area did not differ due to sow status due to sow status (P (P = 0.82) = 0.82)

Sow

Rubber Mat

Straw Hopper

Compost Trough

Cotton Cord

Key

Nipple Drinker

T

Area 1: 8% ± 2

Area 2:

20% ± 7

Area 3:

53% ± 8

Area 4:

8% ± 2

Purdue Purdue UniversityUniversity

The influence of The influence of gestational housing gestational housing

on the welfare, on the welfare, physiology, and physiology, and

productivity of the sow productivity of the sow and her pigletsand her piglets

Laurie MackLaurie Mack

ObjectivesObjectives

Investigate the effect of pen size in a free-access housing system on gestating sows’

Health Physiology Productivity Behavior Welfare

Treatments & housing

0.9 m (small)

Mov

able

Wal

l

Feed

and

wat

er t

roug

h

7 free-access stalls/ pen

Shared group pen

2.13 m (medium)

Feed

and

wat

er t

roug

h

Feed

and

wat

er t

roug

h

3.05 m (large)

Number liveborn

Productivity resultsProductivity results

Measure

Total litter size

Litter wt, wean

Pen size

Piglet mortality

Litter wt, process

Farrowing rate

Percentage rebredWean to estrus, d

Cull rate

Percentage of pigs using penPercentage of pigs using pen

Pen sizePen size ((PP = 0.06) = 0.06) small (58.9%) < large (72.8%) (small (58.9%) < large (72.8%) (PP = 0.052) = 0.052) medium (67.5% ± 3.9)medium (67.5% ± 3.9)

Rank (Rank (PP < 0.0001) < 0.0001) all differentall different

low (47.0%)low (47.0%) middle (66.6%)middle (66.6%) high (85.6%)high (85.6%)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

1 3 5 7 9

%

Treatment week

TTime in ime in penpen: small < : small < medmed & & largelarge

small

large

med

pen size P < 0.0001wk P < 0.0001

Unlike space restriction in other group housing systems Unlike space restriction in other group housing systems group space size has very little impact on health, group space size has very little impact on health, productivity, or physiology of gestating sowsproductivity, or physiology of gestating sows

However sows with a 0.9 m alley show restricted However sows with a 0.9 m alley show restricted natural behavior and social interactionsnatural behavior and social interactions

High ranking sows use space moreHigh ranking sows use space more

Free-access housing conclusionsFree-access housing conclusions

MEASURING SOW MEASURING SOW MOTIVATION FOR MOTIVATION FOR ENRICHMENTSENRICHMENTS

Measuring Sow MotivationMeasuring Sow Motivation

Getting around social status: Getting around social status: Motivation and enrichment Motivation and enrichment use of dominant and use of dominant and subordinate sows in a group subordinate sows in a group settingsetting

M.R.P. Elmore1, A.K. Johnson2, R.D. Kirkden3, B.T. Richert1, J.P. Garner1, E.A. Pajor1

1Purdue University, Department of Animal Sciences2Iowa State University, Department of Animal Sciences3University of Cambridge, Department of Veterinary Medicine

7’ 5.5’

8’

6’

2’

12’

Sow

Rubber Mat

Straw Hopper

Compost Trough

Cotton Cord

Key

Nipple Drinker

4’

T

Motivation Not Affected by Motivation Not Affected by StatusStatus

HPP - Not significant Latency - Not significantP = 0.72

Dominant Subordinate

Hig

hest

Pric

e P

aid

(HP

P)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 P = 0.70

Dominant Subordinate

Late

ncy

to P

ress

the

Pan

el (

s)

0

1

10

Differing results for behavioral Differing results for behavioral measures and motivation tests: measures and motivation tests: The value of environmental The value of environmental enrichment to gestating sows enrichment to gestating sows housed in stallshoused in stalls

M.R.P. Elmore1, A.K. Johnson2, R.D. Kirkden3, E.G. Patterson-Kane4 , B.T. Richert1, J.P. Garner1, E.A. Pajor1

1Purdue University, Department of Animal Sciences2Iowa State University, Department of Animal Sciences3University of Cambridge, Department of Veterinary Medicine4American Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Welfare Division

Compare the motivation of stall-Compare the motivation of stall-housed sows for access to 1 of 4 housed sows for access to 1 of 4 resources resources (n=8/treatment)(n=8/treatment):: Spent mushroom compost in a trough (2.27 kg)Spent mushroom compost in a trough (2.27 kg) Straw in a rack (0.45 kg)Straw in a rack (0.45 kg) Food in a trough (0.91 kg, positive control)Food in a trough (0.91 kg, positive control) Empty trough (negative control)Empty trough (negative control)

ObjectiveObjective

DiscussionDiscussion Motivation highest for compostMotivation highest for compost Sow spent most time using strawSow spent most time using straw

Feed restricted sows biased Feed restricted sows biased towards “food-like” rewardstowards “food-like” rewards

Overall ConclusionsOverall Conclusions Sows motivated for enrichments in both Sows motivated for enrichments in both

stall and group settingsstall and group settings Compost and straw highly valuedCompost and straw highly valued Welfare benefits from mats, work well in Welfare benefits from mats, work well in

groupsgroups First studies to investigate

enrichments in groups

Ground work for future motivation tests and applied industry knowledge

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONS

ConclusionConclusion

Animal welfare is about the state of Animal welfare is about the state of the animal.the animal.

Animal behaviour is linked to animal Animal behaviour is linked to animal welfare.welfare.

All systems have welfare challengesAll systems have welfare challenges Preference and motivational testing Preference and motivational testing

show promise in gaining insight into show promise in gaining insight into the animal’s perspectivethe animal’s perspective

Future directionsFuture directions

All systems have welfare challengesAll systems have welfare challenges Numerous sow housing issuesNumerous sow housing issues

Bedding, space, social, enrichments, etcBedding, space, social, enrichments, etc How to best manage alternativesHow to best manage alternatives Framed by the new definition of Framed by the new definition of

welfarewelfare Influenced by the public with or Influenced by the public with or

without sciencewithout science

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Dr. Monica Pittman, Dr. Laurie Mack Dr. Monica Pittman, Dr. Laurie Mack Ms. Lyndsey JonesMs. Lyndsey Jones

National Pork BoardNational Pork Board Department of Animal Sciences, Department of Animal Sciences,

Purdue UniversityPurdue University USDA –Livestock Behavior Research USDA –Livestock Behavior Research

UnitUnit