Cargando…

The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets

Despite much interest in sow welfare, the impact of the acoustic environment on sow reactivity to her piglets is rarely considered. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of noise produced by mechanical ventilation and other sows on a sow’s reactivity to her piglets. Sows were farr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chapel, Nichole M, Radcliffe, J Scott, Stewart, Kara R, Lucas, Jeffrey R, Lay, Donald C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7200536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32704789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy134
_version_ 1783529355081678848
author Chapel, Nichole M
Radcliffe, J Scott
Stewart, Kara R
Lucas, Jeffrey R
Lay, Donald C
author_facet Chapel, Nichole M
Radcliffe, J Scott
Stewart, Kara R
Lucas, Jeffrey R
Lay, Donald C
author_sort Chapel, Nichole M
collection PubMed
description Despite much interest in sow welfare, the impact of the acoustic environment on sow reactivity to her piglets is rarely considered. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of noise produced by mechanical ventilation and other sows on a sow’s reactivity to her piglets. Sows were farrowed in one of three environments: 1) with eight other sows exposed to constant fan noise (GROUP-FAN; n = 10), 2) alone with fan noise present (ISO-FAN; n = 10), and 3) alone without fans running (ISO-QUIET; n = 10). Sows were subjected for 5 min to a piglet removal event (REMOVAL) by an unknown handler twice, at 24 and 48 h postfarrowing. During a REMOVAL, sows were observed via video recording for changes in posture, eating and drinking behavior, and head orientation. Audio was recorded to quantify vocalizations by the sow. Once piglets were returned, sows underwent further behavior observations for 10 min (RETURN), resulting in approximately 15 min of total video observation. Sows were classified as young (second and third parity) and old (fifth parity and older). The YOUNG sows tended to be more Alert (looking toward the handler or their piglets) during REMOVE than OLD sows (P = 0.07; 2.01 and 1.33, respectively). The ISO-FAN sows vocalized the loudest during REMOVAL (P < 0.001) with ISO-QUIET sows performing the quietest vocalizations (GROUP-FAN: 72.22 ± 1.06 dB; ISO-FAN: 73.61 ± 1.07 dB; ISO-QUIET: 67.41 ± 0.99 dB). During RETURN, YOUNG sows spent more time sitting than OLD sows (P < 0.01; 7.48 ± 1.6% and 0.91 ± 1.8%, respectively). The ISO-QUIET sows tended to have more posture changes during the RETURN with ISO-FAN having the least changes (P = 0.06; GROUP-FAN: 1.23 ± 0.4; ISO-FAN: 0.44 ± 0.3; ISO-QUIET: 1.61 ± 0.4). Finally, sows decreased the amount of time Alert in the second RETURN (P = 0.03; first: 3.9 ± 0.6%; second: 2.5 ± 0.6%). Overall, sows acclimated to the removal and return events with decreased vocalizations and decreased Alert behaviors in the second REMOVAL and RETURN. Additionally, YOUNG sows performed more active behaviors than OLD sows, indicating that sows may become less interested in or cannot hear their piglets as they age. Finally, there is some indication that ventilation presence has an effect on sow–piglet communication with ISO-FAN sows having the loudest vocalizations when compared with sows without ventilation noise, indicating that ventilation noise may be a possible competitor with a sow’s ability to communicate with her piglets.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7200536
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72005362020-07-22 The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets Chapel, Nichole M Radcliffe, J Scott Stewart, Kara R Lucas, Jeffrey R Lay, Donald C Transl Anim Sci Animal Health and Well Being Despite much interest in sow welfare, the impact of the acoustic environment on sow reactivity to her piglets is rarely considered. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of noise produced by mechanical ventilation and other sows on a sow’s reactivity to her piglets. Sows were farrowed in one of three environments: 1) with eight other sows exposed to constant fan noise (GROUP-FAN; n = 10), 2) alone with fan noise present (ISO-FAN; n = 10), and 3) alone without fans running (ISO-QUIET; n = 10). Sows were subjected for 5 min to a piglet removal event (REMOVAL) by an unknown handler twice, at 24 and 48 h postfarrowing. During a REMOVAL, sows were observed via video recording for changes in posture, eating and drinking behavior, and head orientation. Audio was recorded to quantify vocalizations by the sow. Once piglets were returned, sows underwent further behavior observations for 10 min (RETURN), resulting in approximately 15 min of total video observation. Sows were classified as young (second and third parity) and old (fifth parity and older). The YOUNG sows tended to be more Alert (looking toward the handler or their piglets) during REMOVE than OLD sows (P = 0.07; 2.01 and 1.33, respectively). The ISO-FAN sows vocalized the loudest during REMOVAL (P < 0.001) with ISO-QUIET sows performing the quietest vocalizations (GROUP-FAN: 72.22 ± 1.06 dB; ISO-FAN: 73.61 ± 1.07 dB; ISO-QUIET: 67.41 ± 0.99 dB). During RETURN, YOUNG sows spent more time sitting than OLD sows (P < 0.01; 7.48 ± 1.6% and 0.91 ± 1.8%, respectively). The ISO-QUIET sows tended to have more posture changes during the RETURN with ISO-FAN having the least changes (P = 0.06; GROUP-FAN: 1.23 ± 0.4; ISO-FAN: 0.44 ± 0.3; ISO-QUIET: 1.61 ± 0.4). Finally, sows decreased the amount of time Alert in the second RETURN (P = 0.03; first: 3.9 ± 0.6%; second: 2.5 ± 0.6%). Overall, sows acclimated to the removal and return events with decreased vocalizations and decreased Alert behaviors in the second REMOVAL and RETURN. Additionally, YOUNG sows performed more active behaviors than OLD sows, indicating that sows may become less interested in or cannot hear their piglets as they age. Finally, there is some indication that ventilation presence has an effect on sow–piglet communication with ISO-FAN sows having the loudest vocalizations when compared with sows without ventilation noise, indicating that ventilation noise may be a possible competitor with a sow’s ability to communicate with her piglets. Oxford University Press 2018-12-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7200536/ /pubmed/32704789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy134 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Animal Health and Well Being
Chapel, Nichole M
Radcliffe, J Scott
Stewart, Kara R
Lucas, Jeffrey R
Lay, Donald C
The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets
title The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets
title_full The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets
title_fullStr The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets
title_full_unstemmed The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets
title_short The impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets
title_sort impact of farrowing room noise on sows’ reactivity to piglets
topic Animal Health and Well Being
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7200536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32704789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy134
work_keys_str_mv AT chapelnicholem theimpactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT radcliffejscott theimpactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT stewartkarar theimpactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT lucasjeffreyr theimpactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT laydonaldc theimpactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT chapelnicholem impactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT radcliffejscott impactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT stewartkarar impactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT lucasjeffreyr impactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets
AT laydonaldc impactoffarrowingroomnoiseonsowsreactivitytopiglets