The relationship between the well-being and fatness of sows with a fixed content on the farrowing site in the conditions of industrial technology

The aim of the study was to assess the well-being of sows at a farrowing site with a fixed content in the conditions of industrial pork production technology. The object of the study was suckling sows contained in BDSwing machines on lattice floors. The Welfare Quality® protocol was used for the assessment, modified in accordance with local production features. The well-being of the sows was assessed on the first day after farrowing and again on the 15th day of the suckling period. When processing the data, the total welfare score of the sows was calculated. The fatness of the sows was determined by the thickness of the fat above the last rib on the 30th day of pregnancy and at weaning at 28 days. The statistical analysis was performed using the statistical programming environment R. The reliability of differences between groups of animals in fatness on the 30th day of pregnancy and at weaning was assessed by the Kraskel-Wallis method. Pairwise comparisons were carried out with the Hill correction. In the group of well–off sows, the total score was 0.62 points, while for the conditionally well-off, this parameter was already 2.51 points and the disadvantaged – 4.9 points. The re-evaluation was carried out on the 15th day after farrowing by the same researcher. With minor changes in the total assessment of animals (0.59, 2.49 and 5.12 points, respectively), there is an increase in the total assessment in the group of disadvantaged sows, as well as the movement of animals from one group to another in the direction of aggravation of the condition. Significant differences in fatness between well-off and conditionally well-off and dysfunctional sows on the 30th day of pregnancy were determined. At the same time, although healthy sows differed in the smallest fat thickness, during pregnancy and suckling period, in this group the least loss of fatness to weaning was noted (-0.3 mm).

1. Pietrosemoli S., Tang, C., Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review, Agriculture, 2020, No. 10, pp. 223, DOI: 10.3390/agriculture10060223.

2. Broom D.M., Animal welfare: concepts and measurement, Journal of Animal Science, 1991, Vol. 69, No. 10, pp. 4167–4175, DOI: 10.2527/1991.69104167x.

3. Chantziaras I., Meyer D.De, Vrielinck L. [et al.], Environment-, health-, performance- and welfare-related parameters in pig barns with natural and mechanical ventilation, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2020, Vol. 183, pp. 105150, DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105150.

4. Delsart M., Pol F., Dufour B. [et al.], Pig Farming in Alternative Systems: Strengths and Challenges in Terms of Animal Welfare, Biosecurity, Animal Health and Pork Safety, Agriculture, 2020, Vol. 10, pp. 261, DOI: 10.3390/agriculture10070261.

5. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens), Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009, 122 p.

6. Bombik T., Bombik E., Biesiada-Drzazga B., Animal welfare in terms of evaluation criteria and methods, Przeglad Hod, 2013, Vol. 6, pp. 25–27.

7. Buller H., Blokhuis H., Lokhorst K. [et al.] Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World, Animals, 2020, No. 10, pp. 1779, DOI: 10.3390/ani10101779.

8. Orlov D.A., Zhuchaev K.V., Papshev S.V., Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskii gosudarstvennyi agrarnyi universitet), 2014, No. 2(31), pp. 82–85, EDN SIBWYB. (In Russ.)

9. Afonyushkin V.N., Donchenko N.A., Bushmeleva P.V. [et al.], Veterinarnyi vrach, 2018, No. 4, pp. 63–68, EDN XWBHHF. (In Russ.)

10. Suetov N.V., Zhuchaev K.V., Kaufmann O., Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskii gosudarstvennyi agrarnyi universitet), 2011, No. 3(19), pp. 66–71, EDN OYHZSL. (In Russ.)

11. Nielsen S.S., Alvarez J., Bicout D.J. [et al.], EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Scientific Opinion on the welfare of pigs on farm. EFSA Journal, 2022, Vol. 20(8):7421, 319 pp., DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7421.

12. Titto C.G., Ricci G.D., Behavioral and physiological changes in sows and piglets maintained in farrowing cages or open stalls during summer, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2023, Vol. 63, pp. 36–41, DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2023.05.001.

13. Nevrkla P., Sečkář J., Weisbauerová E. [et al.], The Effect of Different Farrowing Housing Systems on the Reproductive Performance of Sows and the Losses and Growth of Piglets, Agriculture, 2024, Vol. 14, pp. 1084, DOI: 10.3390/agriculture14071084.

14. Vandresen B., Chou J.-Y., Hötzel M.J., How is pig welfare assessed in studies on farrowing housing systems? A systematic review, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2024, Vol. 275, pp. 106298, DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106298.

15. Barsukova M.A., Teoriya i praktika sovremennoi agrarnoi nauki (Theory and practice of modern agricultural science), Sbornik V natsional’noi (vserossiiskoi) nauchnoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, Novosibirsk, 2022, pp. 772–775, EDN VPUZYH. (In Russ.)

16. Sánchez-Salcedo J.A., Yáñez-Pizaña A., Effects of free farrowing system on the productive performance and welfare of sows and piglets, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2022, Vol. 27(1), pp. 1–11, DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2021.2008935.

17. Malak-Rawlikowska A., Majewski E. [et al.], Unlocking Sows’ Welfare: The Farm-Level Economic Impact of Phasing out Farrowing Crates for Sows in the European Union’s Pig Breeding Industry, Agriculture, 2024, Vol. 14, pp. 187, DOI: 10.3390/agriculture14020187.

18. Racewicz P., Ludwiczak A., Skrzypczak E. [et al.], Welfare Health and Productivity in Commercial Pig Herds, Animals, 2021, Vol. 11, pp. 1176, DOI: 10.3390/ani11041176.

19. Mun H.-S., Ampode K.M.B., Lagua E.B. [et al.], Backfat Thickness at Pre-Farrowing: Indicators of Sow Reproductive Performance, Milk Yield, and Piglet Birth Weight in Smart Farm-Based Systems, Agriculture, 2024, Vol. 14, pp. 24, DOI: 10.3390/agriculture14010024.

20. Thongkhuy S., Chuaychu SH., Burarnrak P. [et al.], Effect of backfat thickness during late gestation on farrowing duration, piglet birth weight, colostrum yield, milk yield and reproductive performance of sows, Livestock Science, 2020, Vol. 234, pp. 103983, DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2020.103983.

21. Knecht D., Środoń S., Czyż, K., Does the Degree of Fatness and Muscularity Determined by Ultrasound Method Affect Sows’ Reproductive Performance? Animals, 2020, Vol. 10, pp. 794, DOI: 10.3390/ani10050794.

22. Lankin V.S., Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskii gosudarstvennyi agrarnyi universitet), 2011, № 2(18), pp. 66–71, EDN PAJHXZ. (In Russ.)

23. Barsukova M.A., Lankin V.S., Zhuchaev K.V., Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskii gosudarstvennyi agrarnyi universitet), 2010, No. 1(13), pp. 22–25, EDN LLTBTN. (In Russ.)

24. Zhuchaev K.V., Kochneva M.L., Borisenko E.A. [et al.], Blagopoluchie i potentsial prisposoblennosti lokal’nykh porod svinei Sibiri (Well-being and fitness potential of local Siberian pig breeds), Novosibirsk, 2022, 218 pp, EDN GYZSDT.

25. Zhuchaev K.V., Borisenko E.A., Barsukova M.A., Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskii gosudarstvennyi agrarnyi universitet, 2010, No. 4(16), pp. 28–31, EDN OZHYCR. (In Russ.)

26. Narozhnykh K.N., Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskii gosudarstvennyi agrarnyi universitet, 2020, No. 4(57), pp. 111–117, DOI: 10.31677/2072-6724-2020-57-4-111-117, EDN NUFMKG. (In Russ.)

27. Narozhnykh, K.N., Dostizheniya nauki i tekhniki APK, 2024, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 57–62, DOI: 10.53859/02352451_2024_38_4_57, EDN ASEGLG. (In Russ.)

28. Narozhnykh K., Development of a Predictive Model for Iron Levels in Bovine Muscle Tissue Using Hair as a Predictor, Animals, 2024, Vol. 14, pp. 1028, DOI: 10.3390/ani14071028.

29. Conover W.J., Practical Nonparametric Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, 1999, 608 p.

30. Kruskal W.H., Wallis A., Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1952, Vol. 47, pp. 583–621.

31. Costermans N.G.J., Soede N.M., Middelkoop A. [et al.], Influence of the metabolic state during lactation on milk production in modern sows, Animal, 2020, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp. 2543–2553, DOI: 10.1017/S1751731120001536.

32. Peltoniemi O., Han T., Jinhyeon Y., Coping with large litters: management effects on welfare and nursing capacity of the sow, J Anim Sci Technol, 2021, No. 63(2), pp. 199–210, DOI: 10.5187/jast.2021.e46.

33. Vargovic L., Athorn R.Z., Hermesch S. [et al.], Improving sow welfare and outcomes in the farrowing house by identifying early indicators from pre-farrowing assessment, Journal of Animal Science, 2022, Vol. 100, No. 11, pp. 294, DOI: 10.1093/jas/skac294.