PIGLET USE OF THE CREEP AREA AND PIGLET MORTALITY-EFFECTS OF CLOSING

THE PIGLETS INSIDE THE CREEP AREA DURING SOW FEEDING TIME IN PENS FOR

INDIVIDUALLY LOOSE-HOUSED SOWSPRESENTED BY: JOSHUA NII BORTIEH

SUPERVISOR: PROF. ELK OSAFOINDEX NUMBER: 7030012DATE: 15TH OCTOBER, 2015

Source: official journal of the British society Of Animal Science

INTRODUCTIONBarnett et al.(2007),reported 12 to 13% in the pre-weaning piglet mortality in the UK.

Some experiments by Marchant et al.(2000),(Cronin and smith,1992) reveal that keeping sows in farrowing crates reduces the piglet mortality, because fewer piglets are crushed.

INTRODUCTION CONT’DHowever, it is possible to achieve the same or a better result when sows are kept loose in

individual pens(schm d,1992.Weber and schick,1996; Cronin et al.,2000)

INTRODUCTION CONT’DStarvation and crushing also accounts for 50 to 80% of the mortality(dyck and

swiestra,1987;marchant et al 2001)Piglets are kept inside the creep area while the sows are being fed to prevent the sows from

crushing the piglets when lying down after feeding.

INTRODUCTION CONT’D

Sows are given concentrates at a restricted level before farrowing.

During the first 3days after parturition the piglets increase their lying time in the creep area and decrease their lying time in contact with the sow .(Bomber and Bourne ,1987).

To reduce the incidence of crushing, it is important that the piglets start using the creep area as soon as possible after farrowing .

INTRODUCTION CONT’DLatency to use the creep area after birth and the extent of the use on the first days after

farrowing will depend strongly on how attractive the creep area is.

It was hypothesized that closing the piglets inside an attractive creep area while feeding the sow will increase the piglet use of the creep area in general, make the sow more attractive towards the piglets after feeding and thereby reduce piglet mortality caused by crushing when the sow is lying down.

OBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to investigate the effects of closing the piglets inside the creep area

during the first two or four feeding on piglet mortality from birth until weaning and piglet use of the creep area within the first 3 days after farrowing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted in a commercial pig unit in Norway. Ninty-six litters from three batches of healthy ,landrace × Yorkshire sows with parity 1 to 6 were used. The sows within each batch were randomly assigned to the following treatments.(1)Control group –no piglet close inside the creep area during the first two feedings after farrowing, day1(C2)-(3)piglets closed inside the creep area during the first four feedings after farrowing ,day1 and 2 (C 4).In treatment C2 and C4, then piglets were closed inside the creep area immediately before feeding and let out again after 20mins.

HOUSINGDuring pregnancy, the sows were housed in pens with 20 to 30 sows and individual self-closing

feeding stalls.

Two weeks before expected farrowing, the sows were moved from the pregnant sow section and into individual farrowing pens where they were kept loose both during farrowing and lactation. The farrowing pens (width × length:2.2m × 0.8m) in the dunging area in the rear end of the pen, and a piglet creep area in one of the front corners. The sow feeder was placed in the other front corner of the pen. The creep area was triangular in shape (with sides:1.5×0.8). The size of the creep area made it possible for all piglets to lie simultaneously in the first 2 weeks of age.

The concrete floor was water heated(25 c) with a layer of sawdust and straw covering the ̊concrete floor, a solid, wooden roof with skirt (to reduce inlet of cold air),and a solid wooden wall that could be manually closed to keep the piglets inside the creep area.

FEEDING AND MANAGEMENTThe sows were offered a standard concentrated diet. After parturition the ration was slowly increased from

2.45kg per sow, reaching the maximum amount of food 2weeks after farrowing(2.45kg+ 0.55kg per live born piglet).

BEHAVIOURAL OBSERVATIONS33 out of the 96 litters were observed by a present observer, using instantaneous sampling every 10 min for 6hr

on day 1,2 and 3 after farrowing. The percent of piglets within each litter that was (1) active(not lying) or (2) lying in the creep area,(3) close to the sow (less than 20 cm from the sow), (4) in the centre of the pen(when the piglets were more than 20cm away from the sow, the wall of the creep area)or (5) close to a pen wall(less than 20cm from the wall), was calculated. The sows state (lying or active) was recorded for every observation.

Behavioural observations were recorded for 33 of the 96 litters. To test the effects of treatments, the behaviour of sow and piglets in groups Co (no=14) and C2(no=8) were compared on day 2 after farrowing, and Co and C4 (no=11) were compared on day 3.

Total number of observations per litter and day in Co was 36, whereas this was only 33 on day 1 for C2 and day 1 and 2 for C4. the reason for this was that the piglets were closed inside the creep area during three observation.

PRODUCTION PARAMETERSProduction parameters were included for all 96 sows.

STATISTICSTreatment differences between groups In production parameters and piglet use of the creep area

were analysed by using a one-way analysis with sow defined as a random effect was used to investigate the effects of day after parturition on piglet use of the creep area (Hatcher and Stepanski,1994). Spearman correlation analysis was conducted (Hatcher and stepansk,1994) to investigate the relationship between piglet mortality and sow or piglet activity in the pen.

RESULTSClosing the piglets inside the creep area the first two or four feedings after farrowing had no effect

on the piglet mortality(Table 1).There were no significant differences between the three treatments in parity of the sows, litter size,

number of live born piglets, piglet mortality or number of weaned piglets(Table 1)

Table 1 PRODUCTION VARIABLES (MEAN )Control(Co)

Closed inside twoFeedings(C2)

Closed inside fourFeedings (C4)

P value

mean mean mean

No. Of litters 33 31 32

parity 2.4 2.7 2.6 0.2

Litter size(live and still born)

13.5 14.3 13.4 0.7

Live born(no.) 12.9 13.4 12.5 0.6

Piglet mortality(%) 15.8 17.3 17.5 0.0

EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON PIGLET AREA USEThere were no significant effects of closing the piglets inside the creep area the first two or four

feedings after farrowing on mean percent of the litter that was lying in the piglet creep area during the 6h on days 2 and 3(day 2:C0) (no=14),33±7.8;C2(no.=8),44.1± 9.5,F₁,₂₀=0.7,P>0.05;day3:C0(no.=11),54.3± 7.7;C4(no.=7),51.4± 10.4,F₁,₁₆=0.1,P>0.05).

DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FI GURE 1 PERCENTAGE OF THE L I TTER LYI NG AND ACTI VE IN THE CREEP AREA, AND LYI NG AND ACTI VE CLOS E TO THE S OW ON DAYS 1, 2 AND 3 AFTER FARROWI NG.

LYING IN THE CREEP AREA LYING CLOSE TO THE SOW ACTIVE IN THE CREEP AREA ACTIVE BY THE SOW

% O

F O

BSER

VATI

ON

S.

The percent of piglets lying in the creep area increased significantly the first 3 days after farrowing (F₂40=21.5,P<0.001), while the percent of piglets lying in close proximity to the sow decreased F₂40=22.4,P<0.001;Figure 1).The variation in piglet activity was large but there were no differences in the percent of piglets being active in the creep area (F₂40=0.9,P>0.05) or by the sow(F₂,40=0.3,P>0.05; Figure 1).There was a significant effect on both parameters (lying in creep area :P <0.01;estimated variance component for sow and error were 374.5 and 277.4, respectively; lying close to the sow P<0.01; estimated variance component for sow and error were 329.8 and 212.4, respectively ).There was also significant effect of sow on percent of piglets being active in the creep area (P<0.05;estimated variance component for sow and error were 1.4 and 2.9, respectively) but not on percent of piglets being active close to the sow P<0.05).Most of the time piglets spent in the creep area they were lying, and mean percent of the litter lying were varied between 0% and 59% for the different litters on day 1, between 1% and 90% on day 2 and between 11% and 91% on day 3.

Figure 1 Mean percentage of the litter lying active in the creep area ,and lying and active close to the sow on days 1,2 and 3 after farrowing (lying in the creep area P<0.001; active in creep area P>0.05; lying by sow P<0.001; active by sow P>0.05).

Piglet mortality in relation to sow and piglet activity and piglet locationThere were no significant relationships between piglet mortality and piglet and sow activity , or

between piglet mortality and piglet location in the pen in the 3days post partum.

There was no significant difference between the three first after farrowing in percent of the litter that were staying (both lying and being active ) close to a wall or in the centre of the pen (close to the wall: day1,3.6±0.6; day 2, 4.0±1.9; day3,4.8±1.5; F₂,40=0.2,P>0.05, in the centre: day 1,8.5±2.0; F₂ ,₄₀=1.1,P>0.05) in the centre day 1, 8.5± 2,2; day 2,4.3±1.6 ;day3, 6.1 ± 2.0;F₂₄₀=1.1,P>0.05).No effects of sow were found on these parameters( P>0.05).

Sow activity did not change during days 1,2 and 3 after farrowing (day1,11.0 ± 1.8; day 2,10.5± 1.6; day3, 8.5±2.3; F₂,₄₀=0.4,P>0.05)

DISCUSSION In a production system with individually loose-housed sows, the only option to let the sow eat

without being disrupted by her piglets is to close them inside the creep area during feeding time.

This is also a common routine for many farmers with individually loosed-housed sows to protect the piglets from being crushed when the sows are lying down after feeding.

Most studies reveal that death caused by crushing occur when lying down from a standing position or when rolling over during lying(Wechsler and haggin,1997).

The present experiment showed that there were no significant effects of closing the piglets inside the creep area during the first two or four feedings after farrowing on piglet mortality and use of the creep area.

DISCUSSION CONT’D

In the present experiment, piglet closed inside the creep area for longer time may disturb colostrum intake by the new born piglets.

The creep area in this study was rather lager, had a solid roof and a floor heating with a layer of litter covering the concrete floor.

The piglets increased time spent lying in the creep area from day 1 to day 3 after farrowing, whereas the time spent lying close in proximity with the sow declined in the same time period.

How much the piglets used the creep area differed strongly between sows, which are quite surprising.

The result may indicate that consistency in activity pattern of the sow and her ability to communicate with the piglets may have strong effects on piglet area use.

CONCLUSION

We did not find any effects of closing the piglets inside the creep area on piglet mortality or piglet use of the creep area in the present study. However to make this conclusion reliable, this should be tested for a larger number of litters and preferably in several herds with different types of creep area. The piglets increased the lying time in the creep area from day 1 to day 3 and decreased the lying time in close proximity of the mother.

RECOMMENDATION

Future studies should thus focus on the consistency of the sow activity-nursing, and resting pattern in relation to sow-piglet communication and piglet mortality.

There should also be a further investigation for lager number of litters and preferably in several commercial herds with different creep areas.

THANK YOU….