Case Study: Differences in social behaviors and mortality among piglets housed in alternative lactational systems

Mack, Laurie A.; Rossini, Shawna P.; Leventhal, Sabrina J.; Parsons, Thomas D.

doi:10.15232/pas.2016-01564

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, Kinane et al ( 36 ) found no difference between TC until D4 and permanent crating in interactions with the sow, interactions with other piglets or agonistic behavior, although, interestingly, there was a tendency for less tail and ear biting following crate opening. Mack et al ( 43 ) reported that piglets in permanent crating or TC spent less time touching (non-aggressive interactions) their companion piglets than in zero confinement. Controlled tests of piglet fearfulness/exploration in open field, human interaction, and startle tests have generally shown no difference between piglets from TC, permanent crating, and zero-confinement systems ( 36 , 43 ).…”

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mack et al ( 43 ) reported that piglets in permanent crating or TC spent less time touching (non-aggressive interactions) their companion piglets than in zero confinement. Controlled tests of piglet fearfulness/exploration in open field, human interaction, and startle tests have generally shown no difference between piglets from TC, permanent crating, and zero-confinement systems ( 36 , 43 ). It should be noted that the TC systems in all these studies were reasonably basic, and no enrichment (e.g., straw) was provided.…”

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this appears mainly attributable to values in the first 4–5 days, after which no further benefit is apparent. One extreme outlier to this trend, which has been omitted from the figure, is a single extreme result for 14-day confinement, which reported a standardized mortality of 210% [( 43 ); non-significant effect with 19–30 sows per treatment group]. The trend in Figure 3 is also in contrast to the within-farm study of Morgan et al ( 45 ), who analyzed mortality data from a sample of 77 sows with confinement period ranging from 3 to 24 days.…”

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review of Temporary Crating of Farrowing and Lactating Sows

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporary crating (TC) provides lactating sows with the opportunity to move more freely after crate opening a few days after parturition. The aim of this paper was to evaluate whether TC gives overall welfare improvement when compared to permanent crating or free farrowing. This review shows that when pens with TC allow the sows to turn during the majority of time in the farrowing unit, it is the pen design and period of confinement in a crate within it that influence the extent to which different functional and motivated behaviors can be fulfilled. This review also indicates that there are at least short-term benefits to sows when confinement is reduced, as shown by reported increases in motivated behaviors such as exploration and interactions with piglets when not permanently crated. It remains unclear whether there are any longer-term beneficial effects (until or beyond weaning) due to the paucity of studies. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the observed short-term benefits translate to other welfare indicators. Research findings indicate no reduction in the frequency of stereotypies or body lesions and do not provide a clear answer regarding sow stress response when released from confinement. Compared to free farrowing, TC appears beneficial for reducing piglet mortality. The impact of the time of onset of TC on the farrowing process and piglet mortality have been inconsistent. While confinement before farrowing prevents nest building behavior, consequences of this for sow physiology have been ambiguous. Confining the sow briefly after farrowing may be the best compromise, allowing the sow to perform motivated nest-building behavior, but the risks of crushing during the unconfined farrowing period may increase. Subsequent crate reopening seems to increase piglet mortality but only if done earlier than 3–5 days after farrowing. The review also provides methodological considerations, a proposal for consistent and accurate terminology when describing systems and highlights gaps of knowledge. In conclusion, TC is a step forward to better pig welfare compared to the farrowing crate, as it allows some freedom of movement for sows without impairing piglet welfare. However, more comprehensive research is needed to draw sound conclusions as to whether TC is a viable transition from permanent crating to free farrowing.

show abstract

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of Temporary Crating of Farrowing and Lactating Sows

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have reported that closed crate sows weaned more pigs than open crate sows [ 10 , 11 ]. However, Mack et al [ 12 ] reported that hinged crates could yield similar pre-weaning mortality to a closed crate. Similarly, Moustsen et al [ 13 ] observed no differences in mortality or litter size at weaning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Moustsen et al [ 13 ] observed no differences in mortality or litter size at weaning. Verhovsek et al [ 10 ] opened the crates when the pigs were 2 days of age; Chidgey et al [ 11 ] and Moustsen et al [ 13 ] opened the crates at 4 days of age; and Mack et al [ 12 ] opened them at 14 days of age. These results suggest that 2 days closed is not sufficient for piglet protection and that, although 4 days may be long enough, piglet mortality may be lower with longer crate closure duration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Duration of Farrowing Crate Closure on Physical Indicators of Sow Welfare and Piglet Mortality

Ceballos

Góis

Parsons

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines effects of opening hinged farrowing crates 4 or 7 days post-farrowing. Sows (n = 696) allocated to 3 treatments: PC—crate closed, T4—crate opened day 4, and T7—crate opened day 7 were assessed for body condition score (BCS), lameness, shoulder lesions and teat lesions. Piglet mortality was higher in T4 (27.8%) compared to T7 (23.9%) and PC (25.9%) (p < 0.05) which did not differ with T7 (p > 0.05). No difference in risk of being laid on was found 1–3 days post-farrowing with all crates closed (p > 0.05). Day 4–6, piglets in T4, experienced higher risk of being laid on compared to PC (IRR = 2.5, p < 0.05), and T7 (IRR = 2.3, p < 0.05). Days 7–15 post-farrowing, risk of piglets dying from being laid on was higher in open crates, T4 and T7, versus PC (T4: IRR = 3.89, T7: IRR = 3.5, p < 0.05). We found higher risk for teat lesions in PC sows at weaning (p < 0.05). With crates open, risk of piglets being laid on increased between 7 days and weaning, but total piglet mortality did not differ and the sow’s risk for teat lesions decreased. Our results, therefore, support opening crates at day 7.

show abstract