Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 31;9(8):513.
doi: 10.3390/ani9080513.

Sow-Piglet Nose Contacts in Free-Farrowing Pens

Katrin Portele  1 , Katharina Scheck  1 , Susanne Siegmann  1 , Romana Feitsch  1 , Kristina Maschat  1 , Jean-Loup Rault  1 , Irene Camerlink  2
Affiliations

Sow-Piglet Nose Contacts in Free-Farrowing Pens

Katrin Portele et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Nose contact is a frequent form of social behaviour in pigs, but the motivational reasons underlying this behaviour remain unclear. We investigated the frequency, direction and type of sow-piglet nosing behaviour and its association with sow and piglet traits. Social nosing behaviour was recorded by live observations and video recordings in 22 sows and their 249 piglets in free-farrowing pens once weekly during the first three weeks after farrowing (3 times 30 min of observations per litter). Piglet-to-sow nosing occurred on average 32.8 ± 2.35 times per 30 min per litter. Heavier piglets at one week of age nosed the sow more than lighter piglets (P = 0.01). Piglet-to-sow nosing was unrelated to the piglet's sex or teat order. Sow-to-piglet nosing occurred on average 3.6 ± 0.53 times per 30 min, and this was unrelated to litter size. Primiparous sows nosed their piglets more in the second week after farrowing. Litters in which piglet-to-sow nosing occurred more showed less variation in the expression of this behaviour across the weeks. Social nosing between sow and piglets deserves further research to understand the positive implications of this behaviour for sow and piglet welfare.

Keywords: behaviour; contact; free-farrowing; maternal care; mother–offspring; nosing; piglet; positive welfare; recognition; sow.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Target areas of the four types of piglet-to-sow nosing behaviours: nose-to-nose (top left), nosing snout, with snout area indicated between dotted lines (top right), nosing ear (bottom left), and nosing head (bottom right).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Average frequency of the four types of piglet-to-sow nosing behaviour (n = 22 litters) by observation week (30 min per week). Values are LS-means with SE. * significant difference indicated by p < 0.05.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relationship between piglet body weight and the frequency of piglet-to-sow nosing behaviour in the first week of life (n = 160 piglets).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Frequency of sow-to-piglet nosing behaviour (per 30 min) for primiparous sows (i.e., gilts; n = 10) and multiparous sows (n = 12) throughout lactation. Values are LS-means with SE. * p < 0.05.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Coefficient of variation (CV; %) for the average frequency (per 30 min of observation) of piglet-to-sow nosing (a) and sow-to-piglet nosing (b) behaviours across the lactation period (n = 22 litters).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

  • Improving young pig welfare on-farm: The Five Domains Model.
    Johnson AK, Rault JL, Marchant JN, Baxter EM, O'Driscoll K. Johnson AK, et al. J Anim Sci. 2022 Jun 1;100(6):skac164. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac164. J Anim Sci. 2022. PMID: 35536191 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Welfare of pigs on farm.
    EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt G, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Mosbach-Schulz O, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Edwards S, Ivanova S, Leeb C, Wechsler B, Fabris C, Lima E, Mosbach-Schulz O, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Spoolder H. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), et al. EFSA J. 2022 Aug 25;20(8):e07421. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7421. eCollection 2022 Aug. EFSA J. 2022. PMID: 36034323 Free PMC article.
  • Impact of proximity definitions and sampling rates on social networks in pigs based on tracking using computer vision.
    Orsini CAEM, Hegedűs B, van der Zande LE, Reimert I, Bijma P, Bolhuis JE. Orsini CAEM, et al. Sci Rep. 2025 Mar 21;15(1):9759. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-93830-8. Sci Rep. 2025. PMID: 40119050 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Caldji C., Tannenbaum B., Sharma S., Francis D., Plotsky P.M., Meaney M.J. Maternal care during infancy regulates the development of neural systems mediating the expression of fearfulness in the rat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1998;95:5335–5340. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.9.5335. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Meaney M.J. Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2001;24:1161–1192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.1161. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sakhai S.A., Saxton K., Francis D.D. The influence of early maternal care on perceptual attentional set shifting and stress reactivity in adult rats. Dev. Psychobiol. 2016;58:39–51. doi: 10.1002/dev.21343. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Edwards S.A., Broom D.M. Behavioural interactions of dairy cows with their newborn calves and the effects of parity. Anim. Behav. 1982;30:525–535. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80065-1. - DOI
    1. Searby A., Jouventin P. Mother-lamb acoustic recognition in sheep: A frequency coding. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2003;270:1765–1771. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2442. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources