Equipping Farrowing Pens with Straw Improves Maternal Behavior and Physiology of Min-Pig Hybrid Sows
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals
2.2. Housing and Management
2.3. Behavioral Observations
2.4. Physiological Indicators
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Nest-Building Behavior
3.2. Postpartum Behavior
3.3. Physiological Indexes
4. Discussion
4.1. Sow Nest-Building Behavior
4.2. Sow Postpartum Behavior
4.3. Sow Physiology
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Baxter, E.M.; Lawrence, A.B.; Edwards, S.A. Alternative farrowing accommodation: Welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs. Animal 2012, 6, 96–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kilbride, A.L.; Mendl, M.; Statham, P.; Held, S.; Harris, M.; Cooper, S.; Green, L.E. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 104, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melišová, M.; Illmann, G.; Chaloupková, H.; Bozděchová, B. Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- O’Reilly, K.M.; Harris, M.J.; Mendl, M.; Held, S.; Moinard, C.; Statham, P.; Marchant-Forde, P.J.; Green, L.E. Factors associated with preweaning mortality on commercial pig farms in England and Wales. Vet. Rec. 2006, 159, 193–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weber, R.; Keil, N.; Fehr, M.; Horat, R. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 277–279. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, H.; Yi, R.; Wang, C.; Zhao, P.; Zhang, M.; Xu, S.; Bao, J. Behavior and physiology of two different sow breeds in a farrowing environment during late 35-day lactation. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blomberg, M. Maternal Behaviour in Pigs and Its Relation to Piglet Performance and Survival; First cycle, G2E; SLU, Dept. of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fraser, D. Behavioural perspectives on piglet survival. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 1990, 40, 355–370. [Google Scholar]
- Wallenbeck, A.; Rydhmer, L.; Thodberg, K. Maternal behaviour and performance in first-parity outdoor sows. Livest. Sci. 2008, 116, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Algers, B.; Uvnäs-Moberg, K. Maternal behavior in pigs. Horm. Behav. 2007, 52, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaloupková, H.; Illmann, G.; Neuhauserová, K.; Simecková, M.; Kratinová, P. The effect of nesting material on the nest-building and maternal behavior of domestic sows and piglet production. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herskin, M.S.; Jensen, K.H.; Thodberg, K. Influence of environmental stimuli on maternal behaviour related to bonding, reactivity and crushing of piglets in domestic sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 58, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.; Swan, K.M.; Farmer, C.; Oliviero, C.; Peltoniemi, O.; Valros, A. Prepartum nest-building has an impact on postpartum nursing performance and maternal behaviour in early lactating sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 160, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedersen, L.J.; Damm, B.I.; Marchant-Forde, J.N.; Jensen, K.H. Effects of feed-back from the nest on maternal responsiveness and postural changes in primiparous sows during the first 24 h after farrowing onset. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 83, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohnenkamp, A.L.; Meyer, C.; Müller, K.; Krieter, J. Group housing with electronically controlled crates for lactating sows. Effect on farrowing, suckling and activity behavior of sows and piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 145, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šilerováa, J.; Špinkaa, M.; Šárováa, R.; Slámovác, K.; Algersb, B. Short communication A note on differences in nursing behaviour on pig farms employing individual and group housing of lactating sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 101, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, G.M.; Smith, J.A. Suckling behaviour of sows in farrowing crates and straw-bedded pens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1992, 33, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J. Importance of Maternal Behaviour and Circulating Oxytocin for Successful Lactation in Sows: Effects of Prepartum Housing Environment. 2015. Available online: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-0558-5 (accessed on 13 February 2015).
- Leeuw, J.A.D.; Ekkel, E.D.; Jongbloed, A.W.; Verstegen, M.W.A. Effects of floor-feeding and the presence of a foraging substrate on the behaviour and stress physiological response of individually housed gilts. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 80, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvis, S.; Bj, V.D.V.; Lawrence, A.B.; Mclean, K.A.; Deans, L.A.; Chirnside, J.; Calvert, S.K. The effect of parity and environmental restriction on behavioural and physiological responses of pre-parturient pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 71, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvis, S.; D’Eath, R.B.; Robson, S.K.; Lawrence, A.B. The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiol. Behav. 2006, 87, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gäde, S.; Bennewitz, J.; Kirchner, K.; Looft, H.; Knap, P.W.; Thaller, G.; Kalm, E. Genetic parameters for maternal behaviour traits in sows. Livest. Sci. 2008, 114, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, S.; Chen, D.; Li, J.; Li, X.; Yin, G.; Bao, J. comparison of postural changes and maternal responsiveness during early lactation in Landrace and Minpig sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 131, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.G.; Wang, C.; Lv, J.; Yu, Y.Q.; Zhang, J.L.; Bao, J. Behavior and performance in primiparous sows of two Min pig hybrid breeds in outdoor housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 146, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter, E.M.; Jarvis, S.; Sherwood, L.; Farish, M.; Roehe, R.; Lawrence, A.B.; Sandra, A.E. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 130, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beirendonck, S.V.; Thielen, J.V. The association between sow and piglet behavior. J. Vet. Behav. 2014, 9, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.; Swan, K.M.; Vienola, K.; Farmer, C.; Oliviero, C.; Peltoniemi, O.; Anna, V. Nest-building in sows: Effects of farrowing housing on hormonal modulation of maternal characteristics. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 148, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Illmann, G.; Chaloupková, H.; Neuhauserová, K. Effect of pre- and post-partum sow activity on maternal behaviour and piglet weight gain 24 h after birth. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 163, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thodberg, K.; Jensen, K.H.; Herskin, M.S.; Jørgensen, E. Influence of environmental stimuli on nest building and farrowing behaviour in domestic sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999, 63, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringgenberg, N.; Bergeron, R.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C.; Devillers, N. Impact of social stress during gestation and environmental enrichment during lactation on the maternal behavior of sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 136, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, P.; Stangel, G.; Bo, A. Nursing and suckling behaviour of semi-naturally kept pigs during the first 10 days postpartum. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1991, 31, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valros, A.; Rundgren, M.; Špinka, M.; Saloniemi, H.; Rydhmer, L.; Hultén, F.; Uvnäs-Moberg, K.; Tománek, M.; Krejcí, P.; Algers, B. Metabolic state of the sow, nursing behaviour and milk production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 79, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Studnitz, M.; Jensen, M.B.; Pedersen, L.J. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 107, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hales, J.; Moustsen, V.A.; Nielsen, M.B.; Hansen, C.F. Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms. Animal 2014, 8, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vieuille, C.; Berger, F.; Pape, G.L.; Bellanger, D. Sow behaviour involved in the crushing of piglets in outdoor farrowing huts—A brief report. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 80, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wischner, D.; Kemper, N.; Stamer, E.; Hellbruegge, B.; Presuhn, U.; Krieter, J. Characterisation of sows’ postures and posture changes with regard to crushing piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcglone, J.J.; Morrowtesch, J. Productivity and behaviour of sows in level vs. sloped farrowing pens and crates. J. Anim. Sci. 1990, 68, 82–87. [Google Scholar]
- Jarvis, S.; Reed, B.; Lawrence, A.; Calvert, S.; Stevenson, J. Peri-natal environmental effects on maternal behaviour, pituitary and adrenal activation, and the progress of parturition in the primiparous sow. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 171–181. [Google Scholar]
- Drake, A.; Fraser, D.; Weary, D.M. Parent–offspring resource allocation in domestic pigs. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2008, 62, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tuyttens, F.A.M. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 92, 261–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, Z.; Hurnik, J.F. Peripartum sows in three farrowing crates: Posture patterns and behavioural activities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 58, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weary, D.M.; Pajor, E.A.; Fraser, D.; Honkanen, A.M. Sow body movements that crush piglets: A comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996, 49, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weary, D.M.; Phillips, P.A.; Pajor, E.A.; Fraser, D.; Thompson, B.K. Crushing of piglets by sows: Effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 61, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinka, M.; Illmann, G.; Algers, B.; Stétkova, Z. The role of nursing frequency in milk production in domestic pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 1223–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Alonso-Spilsbury, M.; Ramirez-Necoechea, R.; González-Lozano, M.; Mota-Rojas, D.; Trujillo-Ortega, M. Piglet survival in early lactation: A review. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2007, 6, 76–86. [Google Scholar]
- Valros, A.E.; Rundgren, M.; Špinka, M.; Saloniemi, H.; Rydhmer, L.; Algers, B. Nursing behaviour of sows during 5 weeks lactation and effects on piglet growth. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 76, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafsson, M.; Jensen, P.; Jonge, F.H.D.; Illmann, G.; Spinka, M. Maternal behaviour of domestic sows and crosses between domestic sows and wild boar. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999, 65, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valros, A.; Rundgren, M.; Spinka, M.; Saloniemi, H.; Hulten, F.; Uvnasmoberg, K.; Tománek, M.; Krejčí, P.; Algers, B. Oxytocin, prolactin and somatostatin in lactating sows: Associations with mobilisation of body resources and maternal behaviour. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2004, 85, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojkittikhun, T.; Einarsson, S.; Uvnäsmoberg, K.; Lundeheim, N.; Madej, A. Patterns of release of oxytocin, prolactin, insulin and LH in lactating sows, studied using continuous blood collection technique. J. Vet. Med. A. 2010, 40, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvis, S.; Lawrence, A.B.; Mclean, K.A.; Chirnside, J.; Deans, L.A.; Calvert, S.K. The effect of environment on plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin in the parturient pig and the involvement of endogenous opioids. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 1998, 52, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, A.B.; Petherick, J.C.; Mclean, K.; Gilbert, C.L.; Chapman, C.; Russell, J.A. Naloxone prevents interruption of parturition and increases plasma oxytocin following environmental disturbance in parturient sows. Physiol. Behav. 1992, 52, 917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Behavioral Parameters | Definitions |
---|---|
Nest-building behavior [13] | |
Rooting | Pushing the floor or attempting to turn up the ground with the snout |
Pawing | Attempting to scrape the floor with the front legs |
Arranging | Manipulating or arranging nesting materials with the snout or mouth |
Duration of nest-building | Actively performing nest-building for longer than 5 s between not performing nest-building for longer than 30 s |
Nest-building frequency | Number of times when sows perform nest-building in a predetermined time period [16] |
Posture [23,25,26] | |
Standing or walking | Body weight supported by four legs; motionless or walking; including walking combined with other behaviors |
Ventral recumbency | Sow’s chest and abdomen touching the floor and front legs stretched or folded beneath the body |
Lateral recumbency | Sow’s head, ear, scapular, and waist all touching the floor and all four legs visible |
Sitting | Most of the sow’s body weight and the posterior of her body trunk were in contact with and supported by the ground |
Posture change [23,25] | |
Lateral lying-to-other posture | Posture change from lateral lying to ventral lying, sitting, or standing |
Ventral-to-lateral lying | Posture change from ventral lying to lateral lying |
Sitting-to-lying | Posture change from sitting to lying, including ventral lying and lateral lying |
Standing-to-lying | Posture change from standing to lying, including ventral lying and lateral lying |
Nursing behavior [23,27] | |
Duration of nursing | Duration was identified by the rapid suckling of piglets with milk ejection, calculated in seconds |
Nursing frequency | Number of times when sows released milk within a predetermined time period |
Duration of premassage | Premassage was considered to start when at least half the litter started to massage the udder and ended once the milk was ejected |
Duration of postmassage | Postmassage was initiated when the milk ejection ended and terminated when at least half the litter stopped massaging the udder. If the sow changed postures, such as by rolling over or by walking away from the piglets, the postmassage was finished |
Nursing terminated by the sow | After milk ejection, piglet suckling was terminated by a posture change of the sow |
Treatment | Behavior | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency (n = 12) | Duration (min) (n = 12) | Single Duration (s) (n = 12) | ||
LYB | 38.8 ± 16.46 Aa | 45.7 ± 33.57 Aa | 72.3 ± 98.17 A | |
LYE | 45.8 ± 28.65 Ba | 55.4 ± 29.12 Ba | 85.9 ± 116.19 B | |
DMB | 62.3 ± 22.18 Ab | 80.9 ± 48.18 Ab | 80.8 ± 107.93 A | |
DME | 98.3 ± 8.69 Bb | 158.9 ± 33.48 Bb | 97.6 ± 139.35 B | |
LMB | 65.7 ± 9.07 Ab | 92.1 ± 31.14 Ab | 82.5 ± 92.41 A | |
LME | 78.8 ± 21.22 Bb | 144.8 ± 27.52 Bb | 100.9 ± 133.64 B | |
p-Value | E | 0.0063 | 0.0003 | 0.0006 |
B | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.23 |
Behavior | Environment | Crossbreed | Day | p-Value | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EE (n = 12) | BE (n = 12) | DM (n = 12) | LM (n = 12) | LY (n = 12) | d1 (n = 12) | d2 (n = 12) | d3 (n = 12) | E | C | D | |
Lateral Recumbency (%) | 76.9 ± 11.16 | 73.3 ± 11.98 | 74.2 ± 11.41 | 74.2 ± 11.87 | 77.0 ± 11.85 | 82.1 ± 7.26 a | 74.4 ± 8.75 b | 68.5 ± 14.05 c | 0.08 F0.05(1,70) = 2.75 | 0.35 F0.05(2,69) = 1.04 | <0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 17.46 |
Ventral Recumbency (%) | 14.6 ± 8.63 a | 17.5 ± 7.83 b | 17.9 ± 10.03 | 15.3 ± 7.49 | 14.9 ± 6.96 | 11.1 ± 5.46 a | 17.3 ± 7.43 b | 19.9 ± 9.33 b | 0.05 F0.05(1,70) = 3.91 | 0.16 F0.05(2,69) = 1.78 | <0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 11.39 |
Sitting (%) | 1.0 ±0.93 | 1.2 ± 1.1 | 0.9 ± 0.71 a | 0.8 ± 0.97 a | 1.7 ± 1.16 b | 0.9 ± 0.80 | 1.1 ± 1.17 | 1.4 ± 1.04 | 0.40 F0.05(1,70) = 0.67 | <0.05 F0.05(2,69) = 3.72 | 0.16 F0.05(2,69) = 1.79 |
Standing (%) | 5.9 ± 2.45 | 6.7 ± 3.18 | 6.5 ± 2.58 a | 7.6 ± 3.23 a | 4.7 ± 1.84 b | 5.5 ± 2.75 | 6.5 ± 2.49 | 6.7 ± 3.24 | 0.1148 F0.05(1,70) = 2.21 | <0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 8.94 | 0.09 F0.05(2,69) = 2.74 |
Lateral recumbency to Others | 19.0 ± 7.99 a | 15.2 ± 7.15 b | 19.2 ± 6.56 | 17.1 ± 8.31 | 14.9 ± 7.99 | 17.9 ± 8.18 | 15.1 ± 7.44 | 18.3 ± 7.51 | 0.01 F0.05(1,70) = 6.07 | 0.08 F0.05(2,69) = 2.81 | 0.16 F0.05(2,69) = 1.74 |
Standing to Lateral recumbency | 15.7 ± 7.63 | 13.8 ± 6.22 | 16.2 ± 6.93 | 14.3 ± 7.13 | 13.6 ± 6.81 | 14.2 ± 7.16 | 14.2 ± 6.63 | 15.9 ± 7.22 | 0.18 F0.05(1,70) = 1.66 | 0.31 F0.05(2,69) = 1.18 | 0.50 F0.05(2,69) = 0.48 |
Sitting to Ventral recumbency | 6.8 ± 7.07 | 4.8 ± 4.98 | 5.3 ± 5.68 | 5.0 ± 5.6 | 7.2 ± 7.12 | 5.7 ± 5.65 | 6.4 ± 7.62 | 5.3 ± 4.98 | 0.09 F0.05(1,70) = 2.84 | 0.26 F0.05(2,69) = 1.33 | 0.72 F0.05(2,69) = 0.39 |
Standing to Ventral recumbency | 14.3 ± 5.56 | 15.1 ± 7.28 | 18.5 ± 4.95 a | 15.2 ± 7.43 b | 10.2 ± 3.36 c | 16.3 ± 7.61 | 13.3 ± 5.98 | 14.5 ± 5.36 | 0.41 F0.05(1,70) = 0.64 | <0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 11.90 | 0.07 F0.05(2,69) = 2.71 |
Behavior | Environment | Crossbreed | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EE (n = 12) | BE (n = 12) | DM (n = 12) | LM (n = 12) | LY (n = 12) | E | C | |
Lateral Recumbency (%) | 32.1 ± 15.94 | 27.5 ± 17.55 | 28.4 ± 16.85 | 32.1 ± 15.81 | 28.9 ± 17.97 | 0.09 F0.05(1,70) = 2.44 | 0.48 F0.05(2,69) = 0.65 |
Ventral Recumbency (%) | 41.7 ± 13.75 a | 52.2 ± 14.62 b | 50.9 ± 15.82 a | 43.5 ± 14.95 b | 46.4 ± 13.85 ab | <0.0001 F0.05(1,70) = 15.3 | 0.03 F0.05(2,69) = 4.15 |
Sitting (%) | 4.5 ± 4.66 | 3.9 ± 4.06 | 2.5 ± 2.90 a | 4.7 ± 5.07 b | 5.2 ± 4.43 b | 0.40 F0.05(1,70) = 0.67 | 0.0054 F0.05(2,69) = 5.39 |
Standing (%) | 18.0 ± 11.49 a | 14.7 ± 6.66 b | 15.9 ± 8.83 | 17.4 ± 11.53 | 15.7 ± 7.87 | 0.04 F0.05(1,70) = 4.15 | 0.56 F0.05(2,69) = 0.57 |
Lateral recumbency to Others | 10.3 ± 3.91 | 10.8 ± 3.79 | 11.5 ± 4.00 | 10.3 ± 4.04 | 9.9 ± 3.36 | 0.43 F0.05(1,70) = 0.86 | 0.09 F0.05(2,69) = 2.44 |
Standing to Lateral recumbency | 8.1 ± 4.33 | 9.6 ± 8.17 | 8.4 ± 4.71 | 9.9 ± 9.92 | 8.3 ± 2.96 | 0.17 F0.05(1,70) = 1.81 | 0.41 F0.05(2,69) = 0.68 |
Sitting to Ventral recumbency | 6.6 ± 6.23 | 6.6 ± 4.59 | 4.2 ± 3.89 a | 8.7 ± 5.74 b | 6.9 ± 5.62 b | 0.97 F0.05(1,70) = 0.11 | 0.0002 F0.05(2,69) = 8.53 |
Standing to Ventral recumbency | 10.0 ± 4.52 a | 11.5 ± 5.51 b | 12.0 ± 5.42 a | 12.5 ± 4.66 a | 7.8 ± 3.68 b | 0.04 F0.05(1,70) = 4.15 | <0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 11.60 |
Behavior | Environment | Crossbreed | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EE (n = 12) | BE (n = 12) | DM (n = 12) | LM (n = 12) | LY (n = 12) | E (n = 12) | C (n = 12) | |
Duration of nursing (s) | 14.9 ± 3.65 | 14.9 ± 3.50 | 14.9 ± 3.56 ab | 15.4 ± 3.62 a | 14.5 ± 3.48 b | 0.89 F0.05(1,70) = 0.04 | 0.0005 F0.05(2,69) = 8.13 |
Duration of premassage (min) | 1.6 ± 0.53 a | 1.8 ± 0.59 b | 1.8 ± 0.57 a | 1.6 ± 0.53 b | 1.7 ± 0.59 a | <0.0001 F0.05(1,70) = 16.1 | <0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 15.9 |
Duration of postmassage (min) | 2.7 ± 2.65 a | 2.2 ± 2.41 b | 2.2 ± 2.23 b | 2.8 ± 2.83 a | 2.3 ± 2.5 b | 0.0002 F0.05(1,70) = 8.53 | 0.0053 F0.05(2,69) = 7.93 |
Frequency of nursing | 8.7 ± 1.70 | 8.7 ± 1.94 | 8.5 ± 1.49 b | 9.5 ± 1.82 a | 8.0 ± 1.85 b | 0.96 F0.05(1,70) = 0.08 | 0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 15.3 |
Frequency of nursing terminated | 7.1 ± 2.25 a | 6.4 ± 1.73 b | 67.0 ± 1.73 | 7.0 ± 2.27 | 6.3 ± 2.01 | 0.04 F0.05(1,70) = 4.09 | 0.16 F0.05(2,69) = 1.79 |
Physiological Indexes | Environment | Crossbreeds | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EE (n = 12) | BE (n = 12) | DM (n = 12) | LM (n = 12) | LY (n = 12) | E | C | |
OT (ng/mL) | 44.3 ± 5.67 a | 40.8 ± 5.02 b | 44.4 ± 5.30 a | 44.5 ± 5.30 a | 38.7 ± 4.31 b | 0.03 F0.05(1,70) = 5.12 | 0.0066 F0.05(2,69) = 7.43 |
PRL (ng/mL) | 19.6 ± 3.61 a | 17.3 ± 3.50 b | 18.2 ± 3.50 a | 17.4 ± 3.49 b | 19.8 ± 3.83 c | <0.0001 F0.05(1,70) = 57.00 | <0.0001 F0.05(2,69) = 41.09 |
COR (ng/mL) | 90.5 ± 16.74 a | 101.5 ± 15.63 b | 97.4 ± 16.78 | 94.5 ± 15.66 | 96.0 ± 18.75 | <0.0001 F0.05(1,70) = 69.31 | 0.17 F0.05(2,69) = 4.94 |
Physiological Indexes | Day before Farrowing (n = 12) | Farrowing Day (n = 12) | 2nd Week Postpartum (n = 12) | 3rd Week Postpartum (n = 12) | 4th Week Postpartum (n = 12) | 5th Week Postpartum (n = 12) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRL (ng/mL) | 23.2 ± 2.91 a | 20.9 ± 2.16 b | 19.2 ± 2.52 c | 17.0 ± 2.10 d | 15.3 ± 1.89 e | 15.1 ± 1.84 e | <0.0001 F0.05(5,66) = 27.49 |
COR (ng/mL) | 116.2 ± 11.58 a | 105.7 ± 9.62 b | 100.9 ± 11.42 b | 92.6 ± 12.83 c | 83.9 ± 8.96 d | 76.6 ± 9.84 e | <0.0001 F0.05(5,66) = 38.93 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, C.; Han, Q.; Liu, R.; Ji, W.; Bi, Y.; Wen, P.; Yi, R.; Zhao, P.; Bao, J.; Liu, H. Equipping Farrowing Pens with Straw Improves Maternal Behavior and Physiology of Min-Pig Hybrid Sows. Animals 2020, 10, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010105
Wang C, Han Q, Liu R, Ji W, Bi Y, Wen P, Yi R, Zhao P, Bao J, Liu H. Equipping Farrowing Pens with Straw Improves Maternal Behavior and Physiology of Min-Pig Hybrid Sows. Animals. 2020; 10(1):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010105
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Chao, Qian Han, Runze Liu, Wenbo Ji, Yanju Bi, Pengfei Wen, Ran Yi, Peng Zhao, Jun Bao, and Honggui Liu. 2020. "Equipping Farrowing Pens with Straw Improves Maternal Behavior and Physiology of Min-Pig Hybrid Sows" Animals 10, no. 1: 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010105
APA StyleWang, C., Han, Q., Liu, R., Ji, W., Bi, Y., Wen, P., Yi, R., Zhao, P., Bao, J., & Liu, H. (2020). Equipping Farrowing Pens with Straw Improves Maternal Behavior and Physiology of Min-Pig Hybrid Sows. Animals, 10(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010105