Search

Alternatives to farrowing crates have been developed to improve sow welfare. These alternative farrowing systems have been designed to provide more space, allowing sows greater freedom of movement during lactation. This experiment was part of a larger study comparing sow and piglet performance and behaviour in two farrowing systems. In one farrowing system, sows were housed in crates from 5 days pre- until 28 days post-farrowing ( N = 15 sows and 187 piglets born). In the other farrowing system, sows were initially housed in crates from 3 days pre-farrowing until day 4 of lactation, after which they were loose within a pen until weaning at 28 days ( N = 16 sows and 178 piglets born). The objective was to compare the behaviour of sows and piglets in crates and pens during days 1–6 post-farrowing. Sows in both systems spent the majority of their time lying (88–94% of the time in crates, and 72–94% of the time in pens) and there was no difference between crates and pens for the amount of time sows spent standing ( P = 0.20), sitting ( P = 0.63), or lying ( P = 0.45) during days 1–6. Sows in pens investigated ( P = 0.03) and touched ( P < 0.01) their piglets more than sows in crates. Piglets in pens tended to spend less time inactive in open areas of the farrowing space compared to piglets in crates ( P = 0.04). The current study demonstrated that the farrowing system design can influence sow behaviour, with pens allowing for more interactions between sows and their piglets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lactating New Zealand (NZ) sea lions ( Phocarctos hookeri) exhibit different foraging patterns during their foraging trips, with benthic divers spending more energy at sea than mesopelagic conspecifics. We compared blubber fatty acids (FAs) of 14 benthic and 12 mesopelagic females captured at the Auckland Islands, NZ subantarctic, in late January 2000 using an analysis of similarities (ANOSIM). FA profiles between foraging types were significantly different (global R = 0.30, p = 0.001), suggesting a different use in prey resources. We then compared the diet predictions by quantitative FA signature analysis (QFASA) by using a prey FA library available in the region. Overall, diet predictions were significantly distinct between benthic and mesopelagic females (global R = 0.17, p = 0.022), although the diets consisted of the same prey but in different contributions. The results suggest benthic females do not compensate their higher foraging costs by feeding on prey with higher energy densities. Foraging areas of benthic females are not exploited by the trawling fishery; therefore, the benthic tactic might be a trade-off between a higher foraging cost and less resource competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]