Search

This paper develops a simple and effective method for detection of sows and piglets in grayscale video recordings of farrowing pens. This approach consists of three stages: background updating, calculation of pseudo-wavelet coefficients and foreground object segmentation. In the first stage, the texture integration is used to update the background modelling (i.e. the reference image). In the second stage, we apply an “à trous” wavelet transform on the current reference image and then perform subtraction between the current original image and the approximation of the current reference image. In the third stage, the pairwise relationships between a pixel and its neighbours on a factor graph are modelled based on the pseudo-wavelet coefficients, and the image probabilities are approximated by using loopy belief propagation. Experiments have shown promising results in extracting foreground objects from complex farrowing pen scenes, such as sudden light changes and dynamic background as well as motionless foreground objects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• High piglet mortality in outdoor production conflicts with the organic principles. • A consistent problem related to mortality appears to be large litter sizes. • Optimise breeding strategies by using less prolific genetics. • Select for improved maternal behaviour and piglet robustness. The current level of piglet mortality in production systems with outdoor farrowing is high and conflicts with the ethical principles of organic farming. Over the last decade, there has been a rise in scientific studies addressing the level of piglet mortality in outdoor pig production and the causes for mortality. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to review current literature on risk factors for piglet mortality in outdoor pig production, to identify causes of mortality and possibilities for improving piglet survival. A consistent problem related to outdoor piglet mortality appears to be the use of highly prolific sow hybrids. Large litter sizes are accompanied by long parturitions and the birth of piglets displaying signs of lowered viability. Management interventions such as use of birth assistance and caretaking of less viable piglets, as is common in indoor systems, is more difficult to apply in outdoor production. Therefore, based on the present review, we suggest that use of less prolific sow genetics, in systems with outdoor farrowing, may be one way to increase piglet survival. Sows used in outdoor systems should give birth to piglets displaying signs of high vitality and the sows should be able to nurse their own litter. This solution also conforms to the organic mind-set of operating a system with the least possible human intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • When inside the hut sow surface temperature increased with increasing hut temperature. • Sows without alternative shade appeared to seek shade in the farrowing hut. • Sows lay down more in the shade of the poplars at increasing hut temperature. • Piglets followed the sow around in the farrowing paddock. Abstract The hut temperature in outdoor pig production during summer can exceed the upper critical temperature of lactating sows. Therefore, sows may experience hyperthermia, a condition which has several adverse consequences for the welfare of both sow and piglets. Thus, the aim of the current study was to investigate possible benefits of providing sows with access to an alternative shaded area, apart from the huts, constituted by an area with poplar trees within the farrowing paddock. The study consisted of two parts: Part one was an experimental study investigating the effects of providing sows with access to poplars. Fourteen sows with access to poplars and 14 sows without access to poplars were included. In the second part of the study, including 57 sows, the sows' use of the poplars was studied. In both study parts, sows were studied during four periods: pre-partum (day 2 pre-partum until, and including, the day of farrowing (day 0), early postpartum (day 1 to 4 postpartum), late postpartum (day 5 to 7 postpartum) and late lactation (two observation days, 13 and 28 days after expected farrowing, range day 11 to 31 postpartum). Access to poplars affected the sows' use of the farrowing hut, and an interaction was found between temperature and treatment (access to poplars or no access) so that access to poplars resulted in a decreased use of the hut at higher hut temperatures. No effect of temperature was seen for controls. Maximum surface temperature of sows was only affected by hut temperature and increased with increasing temperature, whereas wallowing was affected by parity group and period. The odds of wallowing were higher for parity group 1 and pre-partum. Whether the sows chose to enter the poplar area was unaffected by hut temperature but higher pre-partum and in late lactation compared to early and late postpartum. Once inside the poplars, sows lay more when hut temperature increased. Sow location had a major impact on the location of the piglets after removal of the fender, and the piglets followed the sow into the hut and the poplar tree area. In conclusion, sows lay more in the poplar area when hut temperature increased, but the sows total use of the poplars was unaffected by temperature, suggesting, poplars in the farrowing field may serve several purposes this could be as an area for thermoregulation, exploration and foraging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: It has previously been shown that when sows lie down in the open there is a much greater risk of piglet crushing than when they lie down alongside a wall, probably because the wall provides support and/or a piglet escape zone. Therefore, walls in farrowing pens should be attractive to the sow, so that she chooses to use them when lying down. EU-regulations state that farrowing pens must be given “some means of protecting the piglets, such as farrowing rails”. Walls with farrowing rails may, however, not be the most appropriate option as they may be unattractive to the sows. We tested sow preferences for lying down alongside a plain wall, a sloping wall or a wall with a farrowing rail. Beforehand, we tested preferences for three sloping wall designs (plain, curved and multiple bars) in order to use the preferred one in the later choice experiment. In both experiments, 4×6 pregnant second–seventh parity individually housed sows were used over a 3-day training and a 4-day testing period. In both experiments, the three types of walls were balanced on position in the pen. In both tests, the sows predominantly lay down alongside the walls (on average, 80±4 and 86±3% of lying down events, respectively). In the test of the three sloping wall designs, the sows had no significant preferences for wall designs. For practical reasons the plain sloping wall was used in the subsequent test. Here, there was a significant effect of wall type (on average, 16±5% of lying down events alongside the wall with the farrowing rail, 48±8% alongside the plain wall and 36±8% alongside the plain sloping wall (P <0.025)). The sows lay down alongside the wall with the farrowing rail less than alongside the plain or the plain sloping wall (P <0.01), but the preference for the two latter wall types did not differ significantly. Irrespective of the wall type, the sows had a significant preference for the back wall of the pen (P <0.001 in both experiments). In conclusion, walls with farrowing rails appear to be less attractive to lie down against than other wall designs. Although farrowing rails provide piglets with escape zones they may not be optimal for piglet survival because they do not encourage the sow to lie down alongside a wall, rather than in the open. Moreover, they may not be optimal from a sow welfare perspective due to lack of support for the sow when lying down. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• One sow did not allow foster piglets to suckle within 24 h. • Milk yield dropped for four of the nine sows who accepted the foster piglets. • Latency to the first milk ejection for foster piglets ranged from 1 to 8 h. • Foster piglets had lower growth, more competition and longer nursing intervals. • Sow nutritional status was not compromised - dietary protein appeared oversupplied. Selection for increased litter size has led to the use of so-called nurse sows in several European countries. A nurse sow receives new piglets after having weaned her own. Nurse sows are often made in two-steps. In the two-step strategy, new-born piglets are given to a sow 4–7 days into lactation. Her 4–7 days old piglets are given to a so-called intermediate sow 21 days into lactation whose piglets are weaned at day 21. The use of nurse sows has been associated with welfare problems caused by an extended length of crating and/or by the disturbance of the nursing pattern by moving and mixing of foster piglets. The aim of this study was to investigate growth and welfare indicators (latency to suckle after transfer, teat fighting, snout- and knee abrasions) of ten foster litters at the intermediate sow and to compare these with the sows' own litter at the same age as well as to compare the sows' milk production, nutritional status and fat mobilisation in the period where she nursed her own piglets compared to the foster piglets. One of the ten sows did not accept the foster litter. The results on the remaining 9 litters showed reduced growth, increased teat fighting and missing milk letdown for the foster piglets compared to the sows' own litter at the same age (P < 0.05) and more udder abrasions on the sows after transfer (P < 0.05). There were signs of milk intake being insufficient (i.e. lower growth rate of foster piglets) as the foster piglets experienced longer nursing intervals (P < 0.05) and four of the sows' milk yield dropped considerably after transfer. The sows' nutritional status did not seem to be compromised but the study indicated an oversupply of dietary protein after becoming nurse sows. In conclusion, there were signs of impaired welfare and growth of foster piglets reared by intermediate nurse sows and indications of a mismatch between sow milk yield and piglet milk removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Larger piglets within-litter drank milk replacer as a supplement to suckling. • Few smaller piglets with low suckling success compensated with milk replacer. • In larger litters; more compensated for low suckling success with milk replacer. • Piglets were not weaned early and nourished solely on milk replacer. • Sub-optimal milk cup design and/or milk replacer for smaller piglets. Due to genetic selection for large litters in pig production, piglets are often supernumerary to the teats on the sow. Providing milk replacer as a second feed source is increasingly being used to rear large litters. This results in increased competition at the udder when all piglets remain at the sow. We hypothesise that larger litter size and being amongst the smaller piglets within-litter (irrespective of absolute weight) is associated with increased likelihood of drinking milk replacer as a supplement to suckling or to compensate for low suckling success. The study design was 2 × 2 factorial with two standardised litter sizes at day 1 (LSD1) of either 14 piglets (LS14) or 17 piglets (LS17) and two housing conditions in either crates (CRATE) or loose housing (LOOSE). If piglets died, they were not replaced. The piglets' suckling and drinking behaviour along with their growth rate was recorded weekly. The results showed a clear preference for suckling the sow over milk replacer. None of the piglets changed entirely to drink milk replacer. LS17 compared to LS14 was associated with more piglets with low suckling success (P ≤ 0.05) and the risk of having low suckling success was higher for the smaller piglets within-litter (P ≤ 0.05). About half of the piglets with low suckling success were able to compensate and sustain growth by drinking milk replacer (P ≤ 0.05). The largest piglets within-litter were more likely to drink milk replacer as supplement to high suckling success compared to only suckling (P ≤ 0.05). When taking into account the absolute weight of the piglets in the start of the week, piglets drinking milk replacer in addition to suckling had a higher growth rate in the following week compared to piglets who did not supplement suckling with milk replacer (P ≤ 0.05). Thus, the present study could confirm that some of the piglets experiencing a competitive disadvantage at the udder could compensate with milk replacer. However, the milk replacer was mainly used by the larger piglets within-litter and as a supplement to increase growth of piglets who had access to a teat. Several factors may have affected the piglets' ability to use the milk replacer: high effort to drink from the milk cup due to inadequate design, poorer nutrient quality of milk replacer than of sow milk, and/or suckling the sow satisfies other behavioural and physiological needs than solely nourishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Increasing litter size increased sibling competition at the udder. • Smaller piglets had a competitive disadvantage. • Commercial milk replacer and loose housing only minimally reduced competition. Litter sizes where piglets are supernumerary to teats leads to the practice of fostering to nurse sows or to artificial rearing systems, which is associated with compromised welfare. An alternative strategy is to leave the supernumerary piglets with their own dam and provide milk replacer in the farrowing pen. To provide sufficient space around the sow's udder, loose housing could be an alternative to the use of farrowing crates. However, large litters have been associated with increased teat fighting, abrasions on sows and piglets and signs of hunger. The aim of this study was to investigate whether provision of milk replacer and/or loose housing could alleviate signs of hunger and sibling competition at the udder. Ninety-eight litters were studied in a 2 × 2 factorial design. The sows were housed in crates or loose (CRATE/LOOSE), and litters had access to milk replacer or no milk replacer (+MILK/-MILK). The litter size was either 14 or 17 piglets on day 1 postpartum but decreased as piglets died. Recordings included drinking bouts of milk replacer, teat fighting, udder massage and abrasions on sow and piglets. On day 3, at least one observation of milk replacer consumption was observed in 90% of the litters in +MILK but at less than five bouts per litter/12 h in all except two litters. On days 7, 14 and 21, 59-65% of the piglets in +MILK consumed milk replacer at least once with a mean frequency of 0.4-1.9 bouts/h/piglet. Increasing litter size resulted in more piglets involved in teat fighting, having low suckling success and snout abrasions (P < 0.05). The risk for all indicators were generally higher for smaller compared to larger piglets. Access to milk replacer reduced risk of piglet snout abrasions (P < 0.05), but not of teat fighting (P> 0.1). Loose housing reduced the risk of udder abrasions (P < 0.05) and tended to decrease udder massage (P < 0.10). Thus, milk replacer and loose housing minimally reduced litter competition in litters from hyper-prolific sows, indicating that supplementing large litters with milk replacer can be associated with compromised welfare. The welfare consequences of using milk replacer appear comparable to when surplus piglets are fostered by nurse sows or artificially reared. Before supplementing milk replacer to large litters is further applied under commercial conditions, research and innovation is needed to improve quality of milk replacer and cup design to alleviate the negative impact on welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]