Journal of Animal Science, 2021, Vol. 99, No.

3, 1–8

doi:10.1093/jas/skab066
Advance Access publication March 2, 2021
Received: 21 July 2020 and Accepted: 1 March 2021
Housing and Management

Housing and Management

Effects of cooled floor pads combined with chilled
drinking water on behavior and performance of
lactating sows under heat stress
Y. Zhu, L. J. Johnston, M. H. Reese, E. S. Buchanan, J. E. Tallaksen,
A. H. Hilbrands, and Y. Z. Li1
West Central Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris, MN 56267

1
Corresponding author: yuzhili@umn.edu

ORCiD numbers: 0000-0003-4164-1835 (L. J. Johnston).

Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate whether cooled floor pads combined with chilled drinking water could
alleviate negative impacts of heat stress on lactating sows. Thirty sows (Landrace × Yorkshire, Parity = 1 to 6) were
housed in individual farrowing stalls in two rooms with temperatures being controlled at 29.4°C (0700–1900 hours)
and 23.9°C (1900–0700 hours). Sows in one room (Cool), but not in the other room (Control) were provided cooled
floor pads (21–22°C) and chilled drinking water (13–15°C). Behavior of sows (15 sows/treatment) was video recorded
during farrowing, and days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 21 after farrowing. Videos were viewed continuously to register the birth
time of each piglet, from which total farrowing duration and birth intervals were calculated. The number of drinking
bouts and the duration of each drinking bout were registered for each sow through viewing videos continuously for
2 h (1530–1730 hours) each video-recording day. Postures (lying laterally, lying ventrally, sitting, and standing) were
recorded by scanning video recordings at 5-min intervals for 24 h each video-recording day, and time budget for each
posture was calculated. Rectal temperature and respiration rate were measured for all sows the day before and after
farrowing, and then once weekly. Sow and litter performance was recorded. Data were analyzed using the Glimmix
procedure of SAS. The cooling treatment did not affect sow behavior or litter performance. Sows in the Cool room
had lower rectal temperature (P = 0.03) and lower respiration rate (P < 0.001), consumed more feed (P = 0.03), tended
to have reduced weight loss (P = 0.07), and backfat loss (P = 0.07) during lactation than sows in the Control room. As
lactation progressed, sows increased drinking frequency (P < 0.001) and time spent lying ventrally (P < 0.0001), standing
(P < 0.001), and sitting (P < 0.0001), and decreased time spent lying laterally (P < 0.0001) in both Cool and Control rooms.
While cooled floor pads combined with chilled drinking water did not affect sow behavior, they did alleviate heat stress
partially, as indicated by decreased rectal temperature, respiration rate, weight, and backfat loss, and increased feed
intake in lactating sows.

Key words: behavior, floor cooling, heat stress, lactating sows

  

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

1
 2 | Journal of Animal Science, 2021, Vol. 99, No. 3

Introduction to farrowing rooms, sows were group-housed (30 sows/pen) in

a straw-bedded hoop gestation barn. Each pen in the gestation
Heat stress is detrimental to sow performance and welfare,
barn was equipped with a water fountain and individual feeding
and consequently causes economic losses to pork producers
stalls. Once daily, sows were fed 2.3 kg of a corn–soybean meal-
(Bjerg et al., 2019). Due to high metabolic rate, lactating sows
based gestation diet formulated to meet or exceed nutrient
with a thermoneutral zone of 15–20°C are sensitive to high
requirements for gestating sows (National Research Council,
environmental temperatures (Black et al., 1993). Under heat
2012). Sows had free access to water fountains.
stress, lactating sows decrease feed intake, lose more body
Five days (day 109 of gestation) before the expected
weight, and produce lighter piglets than sows housed under
farrowing date, sows were transferred to two confinement
thermoneutral conditions (Christon et al., 1999; Safranski et al.,
farrowing rooms. The two farrowing rooms were designed the
2015; Johnson, 2018). Heat stress can cause prolonged farrowing
same in terms of dimensions, the number of farrowing stalls
duration, and increased respiration rate and rectal temperature
(16 stalls/room), heating and ventilation systems, and the
in sows (Ross et al., 2015; Safranski et al., 2015; Johnson, 2018)
manure management system. Both rooms were equipped with
which may compromise animal welfare.
individual farrowing stalls (150 cm × 210 cm) on slotted floors.
To combat heat stress, different cooling systems, including
Each stall consisted of a sow stall (61 cm × 210 cm), a piglet creep
snout cooling, drip cooling, and floor cooling, have been
area (46 cm × 10 cm) on each side of the sow stall, a dry-feeder
researched (Heard et al., 1986; Barbari and Guerri, 2005; Silva
for the sow, and two nipple drinkers, one for the sow and one for
et al., 2009; Cabezón et al., 2017b). Among them, floor cooling
the piglets. Floors for sow stalls and piglet areas were made of
is reported to be an effective way to alleviate heat stress in
cast iron and plastic, respectively. Farrowing room temperature
sows (Bjerg et al., 2019). Another cooling method is to provide
was controlled by heaters and ventilation fans. Ceiling-mounted
chilled drinking water to sows. Under heat stress, lactating sows
lights were illuminated for 8 h daily starting from 0700 hours.
provided cooled floors (Cabezón et al., 2017a; Maskal et al., 2018)
Upon entering the farrowing barn, sows were provided
or chilled drinking water (Jeon et al., 2006; Jeon and Kim, 2014)
2.3 kg of a corn–soybean meal-based lactation diet formulated
reduced respiratory rate and rectal temperature, and increased
to meet or exceed nutrient requirements for lactating sows
feed intake and piglet weaning weight compared with control
(National Research Council, 2012) until they farrowed. Sows
sows housed in thermoneutral conditions. While both floor
farrowed without artificial induction. Beginning the day after
cooling and chilled drinking water could be an efficient way to
parturition, sows were fed an increasing quantity of feed
combat heat stress, a combination of the two cooling systems to
according to appetite until day 4 postpartum. All sows farrowed
alleviate heat stress in lactating sows has not been researched.
without any farrowing assistance or intervention provided. After
When evaluating cooling systems to alleviate heat stress
d 4 postpartum, sows were allowed ad libitum access to feed
in sows, researchers usually examine sow performance and
until the day of weaning. Fresh water was available to sows
physiological indicators (Silva et al., 2006; Cabezón et al.,
continuously from a nipple drinker at a flow rate of 1.5 L/min
2017a; Bjerg et al., 2019), and rarely investigate sow behavioral
in both rooms. Piglets were processed (e.g., surgical castration,
indicators to determine the efficacy of the systems (Bull et al.,
docking tail, and iron injection) within 24 h after birth and were
1997). Thermoregulatory behavior helps pigs alleviate heat
cross-fostered if litter size was larger than 14. Cross-fostering
stress. Under heat stress, sows spend more time lying laterally
was conducted among sows in the same treatment group (see
with legs stretched out to maximize exposure of their body
Experimental Design). Piglets were not offered creep feed and
surface (Shi et al., 2005; Malmkvist et al., 2012; Parois et al.,
were weaned at 23.3 ± 1.20 (SD) d of age.
2018). Thus, changes in thermoregulatory behavior may be used
to evaluate the efficacy of cooling systems for sows. Farrowing Experimental design
duration is another behavioral indicator of heat stress for sows.
One farrowing room served as the Cool room and the other was
Since heat stress can increase farrowing duration (Malmkvist
the Control room. In the Cool room, sows were provided cooled
et al., 2012; Muns et al., 2016), one can hypothesize that an
floor pads and chilled drinking water from the day they entered
effective cooling system could prevent heat-induced increases
the room until weaning. No cooled floor pads or cooled drinking
in farrowing duration. The objective of the current study was to
water was available to sows in the Control room. In both rooms,
evaluate a combination of cooled floor pads and chilled drinking
temperature was controlled to maintain 29.4°C (26.7–32.2°C)
water to alleviate heat stress in sows. Sow behavior, respiration
during daytime (0700–1900 hours) and 23.9°C (21.1–26.7°C)
rate, rectal temperature, and performance of sows under heat
during nighttime (1900–0700 hours).
stress during farrowing and lactation were used to assess the
A cast-iron pad (56 cm × 56 cm × 5 cm deep; Cool Sow
ability of the cooling methods to reduce heat stress.
System, Nooyen Corporation, The Netherlands) was embedded
in the floor of each stall where the sow’s shoulder or chest
rested while lying. Serpentine tubing was attached underneath
Materials and Methods
the flooring pad to allow circulation of cool water. A liquid-to-
The protocol for this study was reviewed and approved by the liquid heat pump (Carrier Corp, Indianapolis, IN; Model GW62wl)
University of Minnesota Institutional Animal Care and Use maintained water temperature in a reserve buffer tank of the
Committee (Protocol No. 1704-34744A). water at about 18°C. Pumps circulated cooled water at a flow
rate of 1.9 L/min to each farrowing stall through a Tichelmann
Animals, housing, and management system configuration so that each stall received cool water at
This study was conducted in the swine research facilities at the a similar temperature. Cooled water reached the cooling pads
University of Minnesota’s West Central Research and Outreach (inlet) at about 21.1°C, while the water leaving the cooled pad
Center (WCROC) in Morris, Minnesota in the summers of 2017 (outlet) averaged 1.1°C higher than the inlet temperature. The
and 2018. Sows used in this study farrowed in two contemporary same cast iron flooring pads were installed in each farrowing
groups. The first group (14 sows) farrowed in August 2017, and stall in the Control room but the underfloor tubing was not
the second group (16 sows) farrowed in June 2018. Before moving connected to any cooling system.

In the Cool room, drinking water was chilled by the same
heat pump as for the cooled floor pads. Chilled water (13–16°C)
was circulated continuously to each nipple drinker through
insulated water lines to ensure the temperature of water at
nipple drinkers was consistent. Drinking water in the Control
room was not cooled or circulated. Sows in both rooms were
supplied with no other forms of supplemental cooling, such as
snout cooling or drip cooling.
Within each contemporary farrowing group, an equal
number of sows were allocated to each room to balance parity
and expected farrowing date between the two rooms. Within
each room, sows were allocated randomly to non-adjacent
stalls where video cameras were installed. Sows and their litters
remained in their assigned stalls until weaning.
Data collection
Sow behavior
Behavior of sows was recorded using infrared digital cameras
and a computer equipped with video-recording software
(Geo Vision Multicam Digital Surveillance System V8.2; USA
Vision System Inc., Irvine, CA). Eight cameras (tru-Vision
High Definition TVI Bullet, Built-in IR, Interlogix, Costa Mesa,
CA) were mounted over eight farrowing stalls in each room.
Sows were video-recorded 24 h daily beginning the day before
farrowing through the first week of lactation. Additionally,
video recording took place for 24 h on days 14 and 21
postpartum. Video images were transcribed using continuous
observation for farrowing behavior and drinking behavior,
and using the scan sampling method (Martin and Bateson,
2007) for postures. For farrowing behavior, the total duration
of farrowing started from delivery of the first piglet until the
last piglet, and intervals between deliveries of piglets were
registered. Drinking behavior and postures were registered
for days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 21 after farrowing. Day 1 was defined
as the first 24 h after birth of the last piglet of the litter. For
drinking behavior, the number of drinking bouts and duration
of each drinking bout were registered for 2 h between 1530
and 1730 hours when sows were least disturbed by routine
management and room temperature was at the highest point
during the day. A drinking bout was defined as when the sow
touched the drinker with its snout for more than 2 s. The
definition for drinking bouts was based on previous work (Li
et al., 2005), and was modified for lactating sows housed in
stalls. For postures, each sow was scanned at 5-min intervals
for 24 h on each of the five observation days. At each scan,
postures of standing (four legs up straight), lying ventrally (on
belly with sternum touching the floor), lying laterally (on the
side without sternum touching the floor), or sitting (front legs
upright with hindquarters touching the floor) for each sow
were recorded (Li and Gonyou, 2007). In total, each sow was
scanned 288 times for each observation day. Behavioral time
budget for each posture was defined as time spent within
each posture as a percentage of total observation time (Martin
and Bateson, 2007).
Rectal temperature and respiration rate
Rectal temperature and respiration rate were recorded for each
sow at entry to the farrowing room, within 24 h after farrowing,
and once weekly thereafter until weaning. Rectal temperature
was measured using a veterinary digital thermometer
(QuickTemp Thermometer 480110, Agri-Pro Enterprises of Iowa
Inc., Iowa Falls, IA). Respiration rate was recorded through
visual observation of flank movement (Quiniou and Noblet,
1999). Flank movements were counted for 30 s for each sow to
Zhu et al. | 3
estimate respiration rate. Measurements of rectal temperature
and respiration rate were recorded between 1400 and 1500 hours
when heat stress conditions were highest during the day.
Sow and litter performance
Sows were weighed at entry to the farrowing room, within
24 h after farrowing, and at weaning. Backfat depth and
loineye muscle area at the last rib were measured using real-
time ultrasonography (Exago model, Echo Control Medical,
Angouleme, France) on d 109 of gestation and at weaning by one
trained technician. Feed intake was recorded for individual sows
from the day of farrowing until weaning. Litter size at farrowing
(total born, live born, stillborn, and mummies), after cross-
fostering, and at weaning were recorded. Individual piglets were
weighed at birth and at weaning. Piglets that died from birth to
weaning were registered.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using the Glimmix procedure of SAS (Version
9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). For analysis of data on farrowing
behavior and sow and litter performance, cooling treatment
was the fixed effect and contemporary farrowing group served
as a random effect. Total litter size was used as a covariate
for analysis of farrowing behavior. Data for drinking behavior,
postures, rectal temperature, and respiration rate were analyzed
using the Glimmix procedure with repeated measurements in
time. The statistical model included cooling treatment, day,
and their interaction as fixed effects, and farrowing group as
a random effect. The Gaussian (for ADFI, backfat depth, rectal
temperature, and respiration rate), Poisson (for litter size and
drinking behavior), or negative binomial (for the remaining
variables) distributions were used to model variance of the
data with the goal to achieve the general chi-square divided
by the degrees of freedom close to 1. Data (drinking behavior
and respiration rate) that were not distributed normally were
transformed logarithmically to achieve normal distribution. In
all cases, sow or litter was the experimental unit. Results are
presented as least-square means with pooled standard errors
(the maximum SE within the group). Differences among least-
square means were tested using Tukey’s test adjusted for
multiple comparisons. All tests were two-tailed tests. A P-value
of ≤0.050 was considered statistically significant; P-values of
>0.050 and ≤0.100 were considered a statistical trend.
Results
Sow behavior
In general, sows did not change their behavior in response to
the cooling treatment (Table 1). Sows in the Cool room spent a
similar amount of time farrowing their litters as did sows in the
Control room. Birth intervals were similar for sows housed in
the Cool and Control rooms. Likewise, no difference in drinking
behavior or postures of sows between the Control and Cool
rooms was detected. There was no interaction between cooling
treatment and day after farrowing for drinking behavior or
postures.
As lactation progressed, sows increased the number
(P < 0.001; Table 2) and duration of drinking bouts (P = 0.021). The
number of drinking bouts and duration of each drinking bout
increased (P < 0.050) from d 7 until weaning, compared with d 1
after farrowing. In addition, sows spent less time lying laterally,
and spent more time lying sternally, standing, and sitting (all
 4 | Journal of Animal Science, 2021, Vol. 99, No. 3

Table 1. Effects of cooled floor pad combined with chilled drinking water on behavior of farrowing and lactating sows under heat stress1

Treatment P-value

Trait Control Cooled SEM Treatment Day Treatment × Day

No. of sows 15 15 - - - -
Farrowing behaviors
Total duration2, min/litter 260.8 270.9 25.7 0.781 - -
Birth interval3, min/piglet 17.4 18.0 2.09 0.837 - -
Drinking behaviors
Drinking bouts4, drinks/2 h 2.8 3.4 - - - -
   Transformed bouts5 1.40 1.48 0.174 0.744 0.001 0.873
Duration of each drinking bout6, s/drink 9.7 10.7 0.98 - - -
   Transformed duration5 2.69 2.77 0.200 0.775 0.021 0.999
Postures (Time budget7), %
Lying laterally 77.5 77.0 0.91 0.652 <0.0001 0.902
Lying ventrally 11.1 11.5 0.65 0.669 <0.0001 0.782
Standing 6.9 7.2 0.38 0.481 <0.0001 0.949
Sitting 2.8 3.1 0.23 0.461 <0.0001 0.902

1
Room temperature was controlled to maintain 29.4°C (26.7–32.2°C) during daytime (0700 to1900 hours) and 23.9°C (21.1–26.7°C) during
nighttime (1900 to 0700 hours) from d 109 of gestation when sows entered lactation rooms until weaning at 23 d after farrowing.
2
Time from delivery of the first piglet until the last piglet in each litter adjusted by covariate analysis for total litter size.
3
Time between delivery of one piglet and the subsequent piglet.
4
Number of drinking bouts (raw means) during 2 h (1530 to 1730 hours) of each observation day.
5
A logarithm transformation was performed to normalize distribution of data.
6
Raw means for duration of each drinking bout during 2 h (1530 to 1730 hours) of each observation day.
7
Time spent in each posture as a percentage of total observation time (24 h for each day).

Table 2. Behavior of heat-stressed lactating sows throughout lactation1

Days after farrowing Pooled2

Trait 1 3 7 14 21 SEM P-value

Drinking behavior
Drinking bouts3, drinks/2h 1.2 2.5 3.7 4.9 5.3 - -
   Transformed bouts4 0.73a 1.27ab 1.71b 1.95b 2.00b 0.272 0.001
Duration of each drinking bout5, s/drink 7.8 9.4 12.0 11.4 10.7 - -
   Transformed duration4 1.90a 2.61ab 3.23b 3.13b 3.03b 0.330 0.021
Postures (Time budget6), %
Lying laterally 85.8a 83.1a 79.8b 72.4c 66.7d 1.44 <0.0001
Lying ventrally 8.0a 9.2a 10.8ab 14.2bc 16.3c 1.12 <0.0001
Standing 4.2a 5.5ab 6.5b 9.8c 11.8c 0.76 <0.0001
Sitting 1.8a 2.2a 3.0ab 3.6bc 5.1c 0.47 <0.0001

1
All sows (n = 30) contributed to data in the table. Room temperature was controlled to maintain 29.4°C (26.7–32.2°C) during daytime (0700
to1900 h) and 23.9°C (21.1–26.7°C) during nighttime (1900 to 0700 h) from d 109 of gestation when sows entered lactation rooms until weaning
at 23 d after farrowing.
2
Maximal SEM.
3
Number of drinking bouts (raw means) during 2 h (1530 to 1730 h) of each observation day.
4
A logarithm transformation was performed to normalize distribution of data.
5
Raw means of duration of each drinking bout during 2 h (1530 to 1730 h) of each observation day.
6
Time spent in each posture as a percentage of total observation time (24 h for each day).
abcd
Means in a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050).

P < 0.001) as lactation progressed. Lying laterally decreased
(P < 0.050) and standing increased (P < 0.050) from d 7 until
weaning compared with d 1 after farrowing. Lying ventrally
(P < 0.050) and sitting (P < 0.050) increased from d 14 until
weaning compared with d 1 and d 3 after farrowing.
interaction between cooling treatment and day after farrowing
for rectal temperature or respiration rate. Rectal temperature
was higher postpartum and reached the highest at wk 3
compared with prepartum (P < 0.001; Table 4). Respiration rate
was higher (P = 0.006) at wk 3 compared with 24 h postpartum
and wk 1 after farrowing.

Rectal temperature and respiration rate

Rectal temperature of sows in the Cool room was lower (P < 0.001; Sow and litter performance
Table 3) than that of sows in the Control room. Likewise, Body weight of sows was not different between the two rooms
respiration rate of sows in the Cool room was lower (P < 0.001) when sows entered the farrowing room or at any point during
than that of sows housed in the Control room. There was no the experiment (Table 5). Sows in the Cool room tended
 Zhu et al. | 5

Table 3. Effects of cooled floor pad combined with chilled drinking water on rectal temperature and respiration rate of lactating sows under
heat stress1

Treatment P-value

Trait Control Cooled SEM Treatment Day Interaction

No. of sows 15 15 - - - -
Rectal temperature, °C 39.5 39.2 0.09 0.028 <0.001 0.802
Respiration rate2, breaths/min 125.7 88.2 9.7 - - -
Transformed respiration rate3 4.8 4.4 0.07 0.001 0.006 0.513

1
Room temperature was controlled to maintain 29.4°C (26.7–32.2°C) during daytime (0700 to1900 h) and 23.9°C (21.1–26.7°C) during nighttime
(1900 to 0700 h) from d 109 of gestation when sows entered lactation rooms until weaning at 23 d after farrowing.
2
Raw means.
3
A logarithm transformation was performed to normalize distribution of data.

Table 4. Rectal temperature and respiration rate of heat-stressed lactating sows through farrowing and lactation1

Number of weeks after farrowing2 Pooled3

Trait Prepartum Postpartum wk1 wk2 wk3 SEM P-value

Rectal temperature, °C 38.2c 39.4b 39.6b 39.5b 40.0a 0.10 <0.001

Respiration rate4, breaths/min 110.7 90.4 90.3 109.1 131.2 - -
Transformed respiration rate5 4.6ab 4.4b 4.4b 4.6ab 4.8a 0.09 0.006

1
All sows (n = 30) contributed to data in the table. Room temperature was controlled to maintain 29.4°C (26.7–32.2°C) during daytime (0700
to1900 h) and 23.9°C (21.1–26.7°C) during nighttime (1900 to 0700 h) from d 109 of gestation when sows entered lactation rooms until weaning
at 23 d after farrowing.
2
Measurements of rectal temperature and respiration rate were recorded for each sow at: Prepartum = at entry to the farrowing room (d 109
of gestation); Postpartum = within 24 h after farrowing; wk 1, wk 2 and wk 3 after farrowing.
3
Maximal SEM.
4
Raw means
5
A logarithm transformation was performed to normalize distribution of data.
abc
Means in a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.050).

(P = 0.066) to lose less weight than sows in the Control room
during the lactation period. Backfat depth of sows was not
different between two rooms initially or at weaning. However,
sows in the Cool room tended (P = 0.066) to lose less backfat
than sows in the Control room throughout farrowing and
lactation. The cooling system did not affect loineye area of
sows at entry to the farrowing room or at weaning. In addition,
changes in loin area from entry to the farrowing room to
weaning were not influenced by the cooling treatment. Sows
in the Control room consumed less feed (P = 0.031) than sows
in the Cool room during lactation. Cooled floor pads and
chilled drinking water did not affect any measurements of
litter performance (Table 6).
Discussion
In the current study, we observed that cooled floor pads
combined with chilled drinking water alleviated heat stress
of sows during lactation. Sows in the Cool room had higher
voluntary feed intake, and tendencies for reduced weight loss
and backfat loss compared with sows in the Control room
during lactation. Admittedly, feed intake of sows in the Cool
room (5.7 kg averaged over lactation period) was lower than
desired (Eissen et al., 2000), suggesting that these sows still
experienced some degree of heat stress but the magnitude was
less than for sows housed in the Control room. No difference
was detected for sow loin area or litter performance between
the two rooms. This is not surprising because litter performance
is less sensitive to heat stress compared with sow feed intake
(Bjerg et al., 2019).
Rectal temperature of sows housed in the Cool room was
0.3°C lower over the entire study period compared with sows
housed in the Control room. In the current study, rectal
temperatures were recorded in the early afternoon when
heat stress conditions were at the highest point during the
day. While rectal temperature of sows was reduced by the
cooling treatment, it did not reach the desired temperature
(38.6–39.0°C) for lactating sows in thermoneutral conditions
(Quiniou and Noblet, 1999; Jeon et al., 2006; Ribeiro et al., 2018).
Likewise, the respiration rate of sows in the Cool room was lower
than sows housed in the Control room. Elevated respiration rate
is an early indicator of heat stress in pigs (Nienaber and Hahn,
2007). In a thermoneutral zone, the respiration rate of lactating
sows is reported to be 20–30 breaths/min (Johnston et al., 1999;
Quiniou and Noblet, 1999; Cabezón et al., 2017a; Lucy and
Safranski, 2017). Lactating sows start to increase respiration
rate at a room temperature of 22°C (Quiniou and Noblet, 1999;
Lucy and Safranski, 2017). In the current study, respiration rates
of sows in the Cool room (88 breaths/min) and Control room
(126 breaths/min) are comparable to those of sows at room
temperatures of 27°C (84 breaths/min) and 29°C (124 breaths/
min), respectively, in the study by Quiniou and Noblet (1999).
While the Cooled sows had lower respiration rate than Control
sows, their respiration rate was still higher than that expected
for sows housed in thermoneutral conditions.
In general, the cooling treatment did not change behaviors
of sows in the current study. This may be partially attributed
to the fact that sow behavior during farrowing and lactation
is affected by factors other than the cooling system, such as
intensive labor during farrowing, recovery from the fatigue
 6 | Journal of Animal Science, 2021, Vol. 99, No. 3

Table 5. Performance of sows provided cooled floor pads and chilled Table 6. Performance of litters farrowed by sows provided cooled
drinking water under heat stress1 floor pads and chilled drinking water under heat stress1

Treatment Treatment

Trait Control Cooled SEM P-value Trait Control Cooled SEM P-value

No. of sows 15 15 - - No of litters 15 15

Parity of sows2 2.9±1.41 2.9±1.39 - - Litter size, piglets/litter
Sow weight, kg Total born 14.0 15.6 1.02 0.265
Day 109 of gestation 267.6 263.3 8.15 0.706 Born live 13.2 14.5 0.98 0.359
24 h post-farrowing 246.8 240.1 10.11 0.575 Stillborn 0.7 0.9 0.24 0.538
Weaning3 225.3 231.3 7.64 0.572 Mummies 0.1 0.3 0.13 0.431
Weight loss in lactation4, kg 21.5 14.6 3.27 0.066 After cross-fostering2 13.5 13.1 0.95 0.804
Backfat depth, cm Dead3 1.6 1.1 0.33 0.286
Day 109 of gestation 2.98 2.97 0.52 0.968 Weaning4 11.9 12.0 0.89 0.917
Weaning3 2.25 2.50 0.35 0.332 Litter weight, kg
Backfat loss5, cm 0.73 0.47 0.18 0.066 Total litter at birth5 21.2 21.9 1.20 0.673
Loineye area, cm2 Live litter at birth5 20.4 20.9 1.17 0.754
Day 109 of gestation 51.7 48.8 1.86 0.265 At weaning4 78.3 80.7 13.59 0.590
Weaning3 46.0 45.9 1.86 0.953 Piglet weight, kg
Loineye area loss5, cm2 6.8 4.9 1.11 0.220 At birth5 1.6 1.5 0.06 0.238
ADFI in lactation5, kg 4.6 5.7 0.34 0.031 At weaning4 6.6 6.9 1.43 0.772

1
Room temperature was controlled to maintain 29.4°C (26.7–32.2°C) 1
Room temperature was controlled to maintain 29.4°C (26.7–32.2°C)
during daytime (0700 to1900 h) and 23.9°C (21.1–26.7°C) during during daytime (0700 to1900 h) and 23.9°C (21.1–26.7°C) during
nighttime (1900 to 0700 h) from d 109 of gestation when sows nighttime (1900 to 0700 h) from d 109 of gestation when sows
entered lactation rooms until weaning. entered lactation rooms until weaning at d 23 after farrowing.
2
Mean±SD. 2
Cross-fostering took place within 24 h after birth.
3
Weaning occurred 23 d after farrowing. 3
The number of piglets that died from birth to weaning.
4
Difference in sow weight between 24 h postpartum and weaning. 4
Weaning occurred 23 d after farrowing.
5
Over the period between sow entry to the farrowing room (d 109 of 5
Piglets were weighed within 24 h after birth.
gestation) and weaning.

of farrowing, and nursing instincts of the sow. Farrowing is a
labor-intensive act for sows and increases respiration rate and
rectal temperature when housed in thermoneutral conditions
(Dong et al., 2001; Williams et al., 2013; Justino et al., 2014).
Heat stress may complicate the farrowing process, resulting
in prolonged farrowing duration (Christon et al., 1999;
Muns et al., 2016), and consequently, increasing incidence
of stillborn piglets (Langendijk and Plush, 2019). Muns et al.
(2016) reported sows that were exposed to a room temperature
of 25°C before and during parturition took 168 min longer to
farrow a litter compared with sows at a room temperature
of 20°C. However, we did not detect differences in farrowing
duration between sows in the Cool room and Control room
in the current study. Farrowing duration (271 and 261 min for
sows in the Cool and Control room, respectively) in the current
study was shorter than previously reported (Malmkvist et al.,
2012; Muns et al., 2016). One reason for the discrepancy could
be due to the fewer number of total piglets born per litter in our
study than in previous work (Muns et al., 2016). Sows usually
need more time to farrow a large litter than to farrow a small
litter (Farmer and Robert, 2003). In addition to total farrowing
duration, we recorded and analyzed inter-birth intervals for
each sow. On average, sows delivered a piglet every 18 min in
the current study which is close to the inter-birth intervals
(18–23 min) reported by Malmkvist et al. (2012) and Muns
et al. (2016) for sows under thermoneutral conditions. In other
words, farrowing behavior of sows in the current study did
not appear to be influenced by heat stress. Several factors can
affect farrowing behavior of sows. One of them is sow parity
(Langendijk and Plush, 2019). Older sows need more time to
farrow a litter than young sows (Oliviero et al., 2010), which
may be associated with reduced muscle strength as sows
age. Therefore, in the current study, sow parity was balanced
between the two treatment groups.
The cooling treatment did not affect drinking behavior
or posture of sows. We hypothesized that if sows prefer cool
drinking water under heat stress, sows in the Cool room may
spend more time drinking than sows in the Control room. Sows
generally drink more water under heat stress compared with
thermoneutral conditions to compensate for water lost through
enhanced respiration evaporation. Malmkvist et al. (2012)
observed that lactating sows increased water consumption
at room temperature of 25°C compared to 15 and 20°C. Parois
et al. (2018) reported that floor cooling reduced drinking time of
lactating sows when compared with their counterparts without
floor cooling. Because heat stress increases drinking behavior,
one may theorize that an effective cooling system would reduce
drinking behavior of sows under heat stress. However, this may
not apply to a chilled water cooling system. Previous work (Jeon
et al., 2006) demonstrated that when provided chilled water
(15°C), lactating sows under heat stress exhibited increased
water intake and feed intake, lowered respiration rate and rectal
temperature over the lactation period, and weaned heavier pigs
compared with control sows. In the current study, we observed
increased feed intake of sows in the Cool room, but we did not
detect any difference in drinking behavior for sows between
the two rooms. This may be partially attributed to the fact that
three of the five days of data collection for drinking behavior
were within the first week after farrowing. There is evidence
that sows generally do not consume much water until 8 d after
farrowing, regardless of heat stress (Malmkvist et al., 2012).
This is supported by the change in drinking behavior over the
lactation period observed in the current study. Sows gradually
increased the number and duration of drinking bouts until d 7

after farrowing. There was no interaction between treatment
and day after farrowing, indicating that the cooling treatment
did not change the drinking pattern of sows over the lactating
period. Taken together, drinking behavior appears dictated
more by lactation stage than by the cooling treatment in the
current study.
No difference was detected in posture for sows between
the Cool and Control rooms in the current study. Sows spent
most of their time lying during the lactation period. As
lactation progressed, sows reduced time in the lateral lying
posture, and increased time in ventral lying, standing, and
sitting. These results are in agreement with results of previous
work (Dourmad, 1993; Valros et al., 2003; Lucy et al., 2012).
Under heat stress, sows spend more time lying laterally, and
less time lying ventrally and standing to increase conductive
heat loss through cool floors (Canaday et al., 2013; Muns et al.,
2016). An effective floor cooling system can be evaluated by
sow postures that maximize the use of the system (Shi et al.,
2005). Parois et al. (2018) reported that floor cooling increased
lying laterally in sows under heat stress compared with sows
that did not have floor cooling. We expected that sows in the
Cool room would spend more time lying on cooled floor pads,
but that was not the case in the current study. We speculate
this may be related to the small area of the cooled floor pads
in the current study, as Parois et al. (2018) used full-size pads
(about 80% of sow body length) for the cooling system. To
avoid any potential negative impact of the cooled floor pads
on piglets’ nursing, we selected the cooled pad with a small
area that a sow can only rest the shoulder or chest on while
lying. This may be another reason that the cooling system
only alleviated heat stress in sows to a certain degree, and
sows in the Cool room still experienced heat stress. Further
studies may investigate the optimal area and location (for
shoulder or belly or both) of the cooled floor pads to optimize
the potential of the cooling system.
This study used two farrowing rooms with one room serving
as treatment and the other as control. While the two rooms
were the same by design, they may not be the same in terms of
environmental control. Any difference in room environment can
potentially confound with treatment effect. Ideally, control and
treatment should be imposed in each room to avoid any potential
room effect. However, we did not have the capability of imposing
both control and cooling treatment in the same room in this study.
This can be improved in future research. In this study, sow or
litter was used as the experimental unit. The reason for using sow
as the experimental unit is that sow is the minimal independent
observational unit. In other words, all variables collected from
a sow are independent from variables of another sow. Thus, we
used the observational unit as the experimental unit in this study.
One may argue that using room as the experimental unit is more
robust than using sow or pen in heat stress studies. However, it
is not always practical for using room as the experimental unit,
which was the case in the current study.
In summary, cooled floor pads combined with chilled drinking
water partially alleviated heat stress in sows during lactation in the
current study. Sows provided with the cooling system increased
feed intake, tended to reduce body weight loss and backfat loss,
and reduced rectal temperature and respiration rate compared
to Control sows during the lactation period. Farrowing behavior,
drinking behavior and postures were not influenced by the cooling
treatment. Further studies may investigate the optimal size and
installation location of cooled floor pads.
Zhu et al. | 7
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate M. Smith, K. T. Sharpe, K. Janni,
B. Hetchler, B. Lozinski, and students and staff of the University
of Minnesota’s West Central Research and Outreach Center for
assisting in conducting the animal trials and data collection
from video-recordings. This work was partially supported by
The Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund
as recommended by the Legislative—Citizen Commission on
Minnesota Resources (Project #: LCCMR-2016-07e).
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no
role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or
interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the
decision to publish the results.
Literature Cited
Barbari, M., and F. S. Guerri. 2005. Cooling systems for heat
protection of farrowing sows. Livestock Environment, VII:
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium. ASABE. p.
122.
Bjerg, B., P. Brandt, K. Sørensen, P. Pedersen, and G. Zhang. 2019.
Review of methods to mitigate heat stress among sows.
Proceedings of the 2019 ASABE Annual International Meeting,
Boston, MT, USA. ASABE. p. 1. doi:10.13031/aim.201900741
Black, J. L., B. P. Mullan, M. L. Lorschy, and L. R. Giles. 1993.
Lactation in the sow during heat-stress. Livest. Prod. Sci.
35:153–170. doi:10.1016/0301-6226(93)90188-N
Bull, R. P., P. C. Harrison, G. L. Riskowski, and H. W. Gonyou. 1997.
Preference among cooling systems by gilts under heat stress.
J. Anim. Sci. 75:2078–2083. doi:10.2527/1997.7582078x
Cabezón, F. A., A. P. Schinckel, J. N. Marchant-Forde, J. S. Johnson,
and R. M. Stwalley. 2017a. Effect of floor cooling on late
lactation sows under acute heat stress. Livest. Sci. 206:113–
120. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2017.10.017
Cabezón, F. A., A. P. Schinckel, K. R. Stewart, B. T. Richert,
M. Gandarillas, J. N. Marchant-Forde, J. S. Johnson,
W. A. Peralta, and R. M. Stwalley. 2017b. Heat stress alleviation
in lactating sows by dietary betaine supplementation
and cooling pads. J. Anim. Sci. 95(Suppl_2):116–117 (Abstr.)
doi:10.2527/asasmw.2017.243
Canaday, D. C., J. L. Salak-Johnson, A. M. Visconti, X. Wang,
K. Bhalerao, and R. V. Knox. 2013. Effect of variability in
lighting and temperature environments for mature gilts
housed in gestation crates on measures of reproduction and
animal well-being. J. Anim. Sci. 91:1225–1236. doi:10.2527/
jas.2012-5733
Christon, R., G. Saminadin, H. Lionet, and B. Racon. 1999. Dietary
fat and climate alter food intake, performance of lactating
sows and their litters and fatty acid composition of milk.
Anim. Sci. 69:353–365. doi:10.1017/S135772980005092x
Dong, H., X. Tao, J. Lin, Y. Li, and H. Xin. 2001. Comparative
evaluation of cooling systems for farrowing sows. Appl. Eng.
Agri. 17:91–96.
Dourmad, J. Y. 1993. Standing and feeding-behavior of the
lactating sow—effect of feeding level during pregnancy. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 37:311–319.
Eissen, J. J., E. Kanis, and B. Kemp. 2000. Sow factors affecting
voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livest. Prod. Sci.
64:147–165. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00153-0
Farmer, C., and S. Robert. 2003. Hormonal, behavioural and
performance characteristics of Meishan sows during
pregnancy and lactation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83:1–12. doi:10.4141/
A02-034
 8 | Journal of Animal Science, 2021, Vol. 99, No. 3
Heard, L. R., D. P. Froehlich, L. L. Christiansen, R. Woerman, and
W. Witmer. 1986. Snout cooling effects on sows and litters.
Trans. ASAE 29:1097–1101.
Jeon, J. H., and D. H. Kim. 2014. Methods to supply chilled drinking
water for lactating sows during high ambient temperatures.
Italian J. Anim. Sci. 13:3431. doi:10.4081/ijas.2014.3431
Jeon, J. H., S. C. Yeon, Y. H. Choi, W. Min, S. Kim, P. J. Kim, and
H. H. Chang. 2006. Effects of chilled drinking water on the
performance of lactating sows and their litters during high
ambient temperatures under farm conditions. Livest. Sci.
105:86–93. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.04.035
Johnson, J. S. 2018. Heat stress: impact on livestock well-being
and productivity and mitigation strategies to alleviate the
negative effects. Anim. Prod. Sci. 58:1404–1413. doi:10.1071/
An17725
Johnston, L. J., M. Ellis, G. W. Libal, V. B. Mayrose, W. C. Weldon,
and NCR-89 Committee on Swine Management. 1999. Effect
of room temperature and dietary amino acid concentration
on performance of lactating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1638–1644.
Justino, E., I. D. Nääs, T. M. R. Carvalho, D. P. Neves, and
D. D. Salgado. 2014. The impact of evaporative cooling on
the thermoregulation and sensible heat Loss of sows during
farrowing. Engenharia Agrícola 34:1050–1061. doi:10.1590/
S0100-69162014000600003
Langendijk, P., and K. Plush. 2019. Parturition and its relationship
with stillbirths and asphyxiated piglets. Anim. 9:885–896.
doi:10.3390/ani9110885
Li, Y. Z., L. Chénard, S. P. Lemay, and H. W. Gonyou. 2005. Water
intake and wastage at nipple drinkers by growing-finishing
pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 83:1413–1422. doi:10.2527/2005.8361413x
Li, Y. Z., and H. W. Gonyou. 2007. Effects of stall width and sow
size on behaviour of gestating sows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 87:129–
138. doi:10.4141/A06-034
Lucy, M. C., and T. J. Safranski. 2017. Heat stress in pregnant sows:
thermal responses and subsequent performance of sows
and their offspring. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 84:946–956. doi:10.1002/
mrd.22844
Lucy, M. C., T. J. Safranski, J. N. Rhoades, J. W. Ross, N. K. Gabler,
R. P. Rhoads, and L. H. Baumgard. 2012. Litter characteristics
and thermoregulatory behavior of first parity sows exposed
to a controlled heat stress (HS) during gestation. J. Anim. Sci.
90(Suppl 3):731–732 (Abstr.).
Malmkvist, J., L. J. Pedersen, T. S. Kammersgaard, and
E. Jørgensen. 2012. Influence of thermal environment on sows
around farrowing and during the lactation period. J. Anim. Sci.
90:3186–3199. doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4342
Martin, P., and P. Bateson. 2007. Measuring behavior: an introductory
guide, 3rd ed. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. p.
84–100.
Maskal, J., F. A. Cabezón, A. P. Schinckel, J. N. Marchant-Forde,
J. S. Johnson, and R. M. Stwalley. 2018. Evaluation of floor
cooling on lactating sows under mild and moderate heat
stress. Prof. Anim. Sci. 34:84–94. doi:10.15232/pas.2017-01661
Muns, R., J. Malmkvist, M. L. Larsen, D. Sørensen, and
L. J. Pedersen. 2016. High environmental temperature around
farrowing induced heat stress in crated sows. J. Anim. Sci.
94:377–384. doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9623
National Research Council. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine,
11th rev. ed. Washington (DC): National Academic Press.
Nienaber, J. A., and G. L. Hahn. 2007. Livestock production
system management responses to thermal challenges. Int.
J. Biometeorol. 52:149–157. doi:10.1007/s00484-007-0103-x
Oliviero, C., M. Heinonen, A. Valros, and O. Peltoniemi. 2010.
Environmental and sow-related factors affecting the duration
of farrowing. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 119:85–91. doi:10.1016/j.
anireprosci.2009.12.009
Parois, S. P., F. A. Cabezón, A. P. Schinckel, J. S. Johnson,
R. M. Stwalley, and J. N. Marchant-Forde. 2018. Effect of floor
cooling on behavior and heart rate of late lactation sows
under acute heat stress. Front. Vet. Sci. 5:223. doi:10.3389/
fvets.2018.00223
Quiniou, N., and J. Noblet. 1999. Influence of high ambient
temperatures on performance of multiparous lactating sows.
J. Anim. Sci. 77:2124–2134. doi:10.2527/1999.7782124x
Ribeiro, B. P. V. B., E. Lanferdini, J. Y. P. Palencia, M. A. G. Lemes,
M. L. T. de Abreu, V. D. Cantarelli, and R. A. Ferreira. 2018. Heat
negatively affects lactating swine: a meta-analysis. J. Therm.
Bio. 74:325–330. doi:10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.04.015
Ross, J. W., B. J. Hale, N. K. Gabler, R. P. Rhoads, A. F. Keating, and
L. H. Baumgard. 2015. Physiological consequences of heat stress
in pigs. Anim. Prod. Sci. 55:1381–1390. doi:10.1071/An15267
Safranski, T., M. Lucy, J. Rhoades, M. Estienne, J. Wiegert,
M. Rhoads, R. Rhoads, L. Baumgard, and J. Ross. 2015.
Reproductive performance of gilts having developed in heat
stressed dams. J. Anim. Sci. 93(Suppl.2):85 (Abstr.).
Shi, Z., B. Li, X. Zhang, C. Wang, D. Zhou, and G. Zhang. 2005.
Using floor cooling as an approach to improve the thermal
environment in the sleeping area in an open pig house. Biosys.
Eng. 93:359–364. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.12.012
Silva, B. A. N., R. F. M. Oliveira, J. L. Donzele, H. C. Fernandes,
M. L. T. Abreu, J. Noblet, and C. G. V. Nunes. 2006. Effect of floor
cooling on performance of lactating sows during summer.
Livest. Sci. 105:176–184. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.06.007
Silva, B. A. N., R. F. M. Oliveira, J. L. Donzele, H. C. Fernandes,
A. L. Lima, D. Renaudeau, and J. Noblet. 2009. Effect of floor
cooling and dietary amino acids content on performance and
behaviour of lactating primiparous sows during summer.
Livest. Sci. 120:25–34. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.04.015
Valros, A., M. Rundgren, M. Špinka, H. Saloniemi, and B. Algers.
2003. Sow activity level, frequency of standing-to-lying
posture changes and anti-crushing behaviour—within
sow-repeatability and interactions with nursing behaviour
and piglet performance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 83:29–40.
doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00109-6
Williams, A. M., T. J. Safranski, D. E. Spiers, P. A. Eichen,
E. A. Coate, and M. C. Lucy. 2013. Effects of a controlled heat
stress during late gestation, lactation, and after weaning
on thermoregulation, metabolism, and reproduction of
primiparous sows. J. Anim. Sci. 91:2700–2714. doi:10.2527/
jas.2012-6055