Abstract
ABSTRACT This study aimed to evaluate the effect of wood shaving bedding on pregnant sows under two housing conditions. Sixty-four animals were distributed into four treatments, each treatment included 54 sows split into three replicates. A 2 × 2 factorial design was used (two types of housing, collective pens (CP) and combined housing (cages + CP [CCP]); and two types of floor, concrete floor without wood shavings (CFWS-) and concrete floor with wood shavings (CFWS+), allowing establishing the following treatment combinations: CP+CFWS+, CP+CFWS-, CCP+CFWS+, and CCP+CFWS-. Animal behavior, body injuries, reproductive efficiency, and abiotic variables were evaluated. The sows kept on wood shaving bedding presented a higher frequency of standing postures (20.9% and 31.4% for CCP+CFWS- and CCCP+CFWS+ and 20.6% and 39.2% for CP+CFWS- and CP+CFWS+, respectively). The presence of bedding decreased the occurrence of oral stereotypies and the frequency of injuries in the head, neck/shoulder, and side (12.30% and 6.02% for CCP+CFWS- and CCCP+CFWS+, and 8.07% and 5.69% for CP+CFWS- and CP+CFWS+, respectively). The treatments had no effect on stillbirth rates and on the number of piglets born alive, and the number of mummified piglets was higher in CP+CFWS+ than in was in CCP+CFWS-. However, the presence of bedding changed animal activity and decreased the incidence of injuries.
Highlights
A primary focus of the discussion on animal welfare is the use of cages in pig farming
The frequency of interactions with the floor in the absence of wood shavings was lower than that in the presence of shavings. These results demonstrate the importance of the existence of substrates for pigs to root, especially when under food restriction
The present results indicate that the frequency of behavioral stereotypies was higher in the treatments without bedding (12.76% in CCP+CFWS– and 9.65% in collective pens (CP)+CFWS–) (Table 2)
Summary
A primary focus of the discussion on animal welfare is the use of cages in pig farming. In Brazil, most of the production systems still use individual cages, but this scenario began to change. The world’s leading animal meat processing and pig production companies, including JBS and BRF, recently announced the migration of their supply chain to the collective housing of sows, in all their farms. It should be noted that the reproductive impact of this management strategy in comparison with gestation under collective housing systems is controversial (Arey & Edwards, 1998; Cassar et al, 2008). The social aggressiveness observed in housing systems for pregnant sows is considered an animal welfare problem, which brings physiological and behavioral impacts to piglets (Ison et al, 2010)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
