<p>Effective enrichments for farm animals are increasingly important to address public concerns about farm animal welfare and improve the welfare of the animals we raise. The public’s concern has increased in recent years as the management and care that farmers give their animals has become more apparent to them. Some of the conditions in which animals are kept are emotionally not appealing to the public. One such condition is farrowing crates for sows and piglets. The sows are confined in a small space with no social contact and cannot perform nesting behaviors. Farrowing crates are widely used though, as they allow farmers to handle piglets without fear of sow aggression, meet individual sow nutritional needs, and personalize care. Piglet mortality due to crushing is also decreased with crate use. Sow welfare in farrowing crates can be improved through environmental enrichments. Enrichments improve welfare by increasing species-specific behaviors, creating a more complex environment, reducing abnormal behaviors, and increasing an animal’s ability to cope with stressful situations. For pigs, different enrichments have been shown to decrease stereotypies, like sham chewing and bar biting, decrease harmful redirected behavior towards pen mates, like tail biting and belly nosing, increased exploratory behavior, and increase positive affect. Straw has been found to be the best enrichment for pigs because it allows them to perform motivational behaviors such as rooting, foraging, and nest building. It is also complex, manipulatable, destructible, and ingestible, which are important attributes of effective enrichments. Unfortunately, straw cannot be used in farms that have slurry systems, as the straw will fall through the slats into the pit below and cause drainage issues. This includes farrowing crates. There have been a few studies on alternative enrichments for sows in crates, like cloth tassels, but they are not as effective as straw and are rarely used on farm.</p> <p> Most enrichments target pigs’ motivations to forage, root, graze, or build nests. Pigs perform other behaviors and may have other motivations that enrichments have not targeted yet. One such behavior is scratching. In a semi-natural environment, pigs will rub against trees and bushes. In confinement, pigs rub on fences, walls, and even allow people to scratch them with their hands. There have been no recorded studies done on scratching enrichment for pigs. Many studies have been done in the dairy industry exploring rotating brushes. These brushes have been implemented successfully on commercial farms and are used by cows to groom and scratch themselves. A similar device may allow pigs to also satisfy their itch. Our aim is to provide scratching enrichment to sows in farrowing crates. Since there have been no studies recorded on scratching enrichment or scratching in pigs in general, several steps had to take place before addressing the topic for sows in crates. The first project’s aim was to see what materials pigs prefer to scratch on and their willingness to use such an enrichment.</p> <p><a> The first project consisted of 2 experiments. Exp. 1 was a pilot study where 5 different materials on scratch posts were presented to a pen of gestating sows. The scratch posts were constructed from polyvinyl chloride (<b>PVC</b>) pipes, boards, and a gate post. Five different materials were attached to the boards: white, soft, long-bristled brushes (<b>White Brush</b>), red, hard, short-bristled brush (<b>Red Brush</b>), black, short-bristled, astro-turf-like mat (<b>Plastic Mat</b>), colorful coir, hard, short-bristled mat (<b>Fiber Mat</b>), and blue, plastic, large-round-bristled combs (<b>Plastic Combs</b>). The 8 sows received all 5 scratch posts in their pen for a habituation day and then 7 d of testing. During testing, video was continuously recorded from which 2 behaviors were collected; scratching and interacting. Sows scratched the most on Plastic Mat followed by Fiber Mat, Plastic Combs, and Red Brush. The White Brush was scratched on the least. The top 3 preferences were chosen to proceed to Exp. 2.</a></p> <p> Experiment 2 for sow preference was performed on several pens (N=14) of sows and gilts with Plastic Mat, Fiber Mat, and Plastic Combs to narrow the preference down to 2 materials to proceed to the farrowing crates. The experiment was carried out in repetitions. Each repetition tested 4 pens at a time. The scratch posts were modified from Exp. 1 and each material was placed in a pen. Due to material destruction only 2 repetitions were carried out, both ending a little early (N=8). During the first repetition (<b>Rep 1</b>), sows ate and destroyed all the Plastic Combs within 2 d. The Plastic Comb scratch posts were pulled from the study and the second repetition (<b>Rep 2</b>) only had the Plastic Mat and Fiber Mat represented. An observation was made that one of the pens in Rep1 had extra feed on their floor and were not destroying their materials as fast as the other pens. So for Rep 2, more modifications to the scratch posts were made and the sows were given a little extra feed. The scratch posts were still destroyed in Rep 2 proving that the sows’ hunger and motivation to perform oral manipulations overwhelmed scratching behaviors. However, from the data that was collected sows spent more time and more frequently interacted with the Fiber Mat compared to the Plastic Mat. They more frequently and spent more time interacting than scratching with the enrichments but scratched on both enrichments the same amount of time and frequency (Durations: F_1,112.6= 13.63, <i>P</i> = 0.0003; Frequencies: F_1,111.9= 19.72, <i>P</i> < 0.0001).</p> <p> The plastic and fiber mats were presented to sows in farrowing crates for the second project by default. Sows (N=18) of parities 2 (<b>P2</b>) and 3 (<b>P3</b>) were housed for 25 d and assigned no enrichment (<b>Control</b>) or to a scratch pad treatment of plastic mats (<b>Plastic</b>) or fiber mats (<b>Fiber</b>). All were assessed for lesions, abnormal behaviors, eating and scratching behaviors, and time spent in different postures and behaviors. Scratching bouts occurred in short durations and were intermittent throughout the day. Parity 2 Plastic sows scratched for a longer total duration than P2 and P3 Fiber sows, P3 Plastic sows, and P2 Control sows (F_2,11= 11.94,<i> P</i> = 0.002). Parity 2 Plastic sows also displayed scratching bouts more frequently than all except P3 Control sows (F_2,11= 18.46, <i>P</i> = 0.0003). There were no body lesion differences between treatments (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Abnormal behaviors (<i>P</i> > 0.05) and proportion of time spent in different postures (F_2,94= 0.0003, <i>P</i> = 0.999) did not differ among treatments. </p> In conclusion, if a sow is experiencing hunger while in gestation pens this motivation may be overwhelming any other behavior needs. Scratch posts were destroyed and eaten. In this sort of environment, focusing on an enrichment that meets the need to forage and root would be more successful. Sows still scratched on the posts, so their preference and scratching use was still recorded to an extent to proceed to the experiment in farrowing crates. In farrowing crates, plastic scratch pads may be a suitable enrichment as they increased the natural behavior of scratching and did not increase abnormal behaviors. More research is needed to refine the scratch pad design and identify additional measures needed to examine the suitability of scratch pads as a form of environmental enrichment for sows in farrowing crates. In addition, the behavioral characteristics and sows’ underlying motivation for scratching need to be studied because very little is known about scratching behavior of sows. If sows are motivated to scratch, and scratching helps improve their welfare, then scratching enrichment may be beneficial to sows and farmers.

<p dir="ltr">To meet the growing demands for pork products, lactating sows are often housed in farrowing crates to reduce piglet crushing. However, the public has raised welfare concerns about farrowing crate systems due to the confinement and barren environment, which can impair social interactions between sow and piglets, change their activity levels, and alter how sows and piglets satisfy their motivated behaviors to chew and explore by oral manipulation of pen and pen mates. Barren and confined environments can result in skin abrasions caused by oral manipulations and fighting, physiological stress, inactivity, and abnormal behaviors, which can have an impact on sows’ and piglets’ welfare, productivity, and behavior. Previous work on environmental enrichments has shown promise to improve average daily gain, activity levels, stress, and behavioral repertoire. However, the majority of studies on pig environmental enrichments take place after weaning and research investigating the impact enrichments have during lactation is limited. In addition, research on maximizing the use of environmental enrichments based on the location inside the farrowing crate systems has not been conducted. To address the knowledge gaps concerning the impact of the location of environmental enrichments on the welfare, behavior, and productivity of sows and piglets in farrowing crate systems and to provide educational material on pig enrichment, this dissertation consists of two parts: Chapters 2 and 3 examine the effects of the location of environmental enrichments in farrowing crate systems on sows’ and piglet’s welfare, productivity, and behavior. Chapter 5 is an extension article on the different types of environmental enrichments and the best strategies for implementing enrichment in swine operations.</p><p dir="ltr">In Chapter 2, sows (n = 37) and focal piglets (n = 148) were assigned to three treatment groups: SPE (both sows and piglets had access to enrichment objects), PE (only piglets had access to enrichment objects), and CON (control group with no enrichment) blocked by sow parity and genetics. Sow posture and piglet behavior during the lactation and nursery phases were observed at various times after birth and weaning. Environmental enrichments significantly influenced the behaviors of suckling piglets, reducing pig-directed and agonistic behaviors. Piglets with enrichments tended to explore the pen less and engage in more social behaviors. The location of enrichments also impacted behaviors, with higher nursing behavior observed during mid-lactation for piglets with access to enrichments (PE) and increased interaction with enrichments when they were accessible to both sows and piglets (SPE). Treatment did not affect sow postural changes or most nursery behaviors, except for walking, which increased in SPE nursery piglets compared to CON piglets. Overall, the study demonstrated positive effects of environmental enrichments on suckling piglets in farrowing crate systems, highlighting the importance of enrichment placement on nursing behaviors and enrichment interaction.</p><p dir="ltr">In Chapter 3, the same sows and piglets were used to investigate the effects of enrichment location on the welfare (skin lesions, pressure sores, salivary cortisol, and tear stains) and performance (average daily gain and piglet crushing) of the sows and piglets. This study used the same animals that were assigned the treatment group, housing, and management practices from Chapter 2. Salivary cortisol samples were collected from sows at four time points: 24 hours after moving into farrowing crates, 24 hours after treatment group assignment, midway between moving into crates and weaning, and on the day of weaning. Pressure sores of sows were scored on days 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, and 17 after farrowing. For suckling piglets, tear stains and skin lesions were assessed on the same days, and their average daily gain (ADG) was analyzed weekly during lactation. In the nursery phase, salivary cortisol was collected from piglets on the day of weaning and days 1, 7, and 14 post-weaning, with tear stains and skin lesions measured on those days as well. Nursery ADG was analyzed from weaning to day 14 post-weaning. Results indicated that control (CON) sows were less likely to have no pressure sores compared to sows with shared (SPE) enrichments, while piglets in the enriched treatment groups (PE and SPE) had smaller tear stain areas than those in the CON group. Treatment influenced skin lesions in suckling piglets, with enriched piglets having fewer lesions in the ear and front body regions. There was no treatment effect on salivary cortisol for both sows and nursery piglets, nor did treatment affect ADG, piglet crushing, or nursery skin lesions. The provision of environmental enrichments in farrowing crates reduced pressure sores of sows, skin lesions of suckling piglets and tear stains of suckling and nursery piglets.</p><p dir="ltr">Overall, providing environmental enrichments to suckling piglets reduced aggression, as evidenced by fewer agonistic and pig-directed behaviors, and resulted in fewer skin lesions compared to piglets without enrichments. This suggests potentially reduced stress levels in enriched piglets, indicated by smaller tear stain areas. While most behaviors and skin lesion scores showed no significant differences during the nursery phase, enriched piglets continued to have smaller tear stains. Enrichment location influenced the following: sows had fewer pressure sores, and suckling piglets interacted more with enrichments and exhibited fewer pig-directed behaviors when enrichments were accessible to both sows and piglets compared to the only piglet enriched treatment group. Piglets with access only to enrichments also performed more nursing behaviors during mid-lactation compared to the control group. Overall, the study highlights the benefits of environmental enrichments in farrowing crate systems, particularly the positive impact of enrichment location on the welfare and behavior of sows and piglets.</p><p dir="ltr">Lastly, in Chapter 5, the extension article discusses the definition of environmental enrichment and its impact on pigs’ welfare. The article also delves into the five types of environmental enrichments (nutritional, occupational, physical, sensory, and social), providing examples of each. Additionally, the article offers five practical tips for efficiently and successfully implementing environmental enrichments in swine herds.</p>