Betty R. McConn;A. P. Schinckel;Lindsey Robbins;Brianna N. Gaskill;Angela R Green-Miller;D. C. Lay;Jay S Johnso

Decision support;Gestation;Heat stress;Management;Sows;Thermal inde

BACKGROUND: Although thermal indices have been proposed for swine, none to our knowledge differentiate by reproductive stage or predict thermal comfort using behavioral and physiological data. The study objective was to develop a behavior and physiology-based decision support tool to predict thermal comfort and stress in multiparous (3.28 ± 0.81) non-pregnant (n = 11), mid-gestation (n = 13), and late-gestation (n = 12) sows. RESULTS: Regression analyses were performed using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.4 to determine the optimal environmental indicator [dry bulb temperature (T(DB)) and dew point] of heat stress (HS) in non-pregnant, mid-gestation, and late-gestation sows with respiration rate (RR) and body temperature (T(B)) successively used as the dependent variable in a cubic function. A linear relationship was observed for skin temperature (T(S)) indicating that T(DB) rather than the sow HS response impacted T(S) and so T(S) was excluded from further analyses. Reproductive stage was significant for all analyses (P < 0.05). Heat stress thresholds for each reproductive stage were calculated using the inflections points of RR for mild HS and T(B) for moderate and severe HS. Mild HS inflection points differed for non-pregnant, mid-gestation, and late gestation sows and occurred at 25.5, 25.1, and 24.0 °C, respectively. Moderate HS inflection points differed for non-pregnant, mid-gestation, and late gestation sows and occurred at 28.1, 27.8, and 25.5 °C, respectively. Severe HS inflection points were similar for non-pregnant and mid-gestation sows (32.9 °C) but differed for late-gestation sows (30.8 °C). These data were integrated with previously collected behavioral thermal preference data to estimate the T(DB) that non-pregnant, mid-gestation, and late-gestation sows found to be cool (T(DB) < T(DB) preference range), comfortable (T(DB) = T(DB) preference range), and warm (T(DB) preference range < T(DB) < mild HS). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide valuable information about thermal comfort and thermal stress thresholds in sows at three reproductive stages. The development of a behavior and physiology-based decision support tool to predict thermal comfort and stress in non-pregnant, mid-gestation, and late-gestation sows is expected to provide swine producers with a more accurate means of managing sow environments.