Group space allowance has little effect on sow health, productivity, or welfare in a free-access stall system1,2

Abstract

Free-access stalls allow sows to choose the protection of a stall or use of a shared group space. This study investigated the effect of group space width, 0.91 (SS), 2.13 (IS), and 3.05 (LS) m, on the health, production, behavior, and welfare of gestating sows. Nine replications of 21 (N = 189) gestating sows were used. At gestational d 35.4 ± 2.3, the pregnant sows were distributed into 3 pens of 7 sows, where they remained until 104.6 ± 3.5 d. Each treatment pen had 7 free-access stalls and a group space that together provided 1.93 (SS), 2.68 (IS), or 3.24 (LS) m 2 /sow. Baseline measurements were obtained before mixing. Back fat depth, BW, BCS, and lameness were measured monthly, and skin lesions were scored weekly. Blood was collected monthly for hematological, immunological, and cortisol analyses. Sow behavior was video recorded continuously during the initial 4 d of treatment and 24 h every other week thereafter. Behavior was analyzed for location, posture, pen investigation, social contact, and aggression. Skin response to the mitogen concanavalin A (Con A) was tested at mean gestational d 106. Litter characteristics including size and weight were collected at birth and weaning. The data were analyzed using a mixed model. Multiple comparisons were adjusted with the Tukey-Kramer and Bejamini-Hochberg methods. Group space allowance had no effect on any measure of sow health, physiology, or production (P ≥ 0.10). Sows in the SS, IS, and LS pens spent 77.88% ± 3.88%, 66.02% ± 3.87%, and 63.64% ± 3.91%, respectively, of their time in the free-access stalls (P = 0.12). However, SS sows used the group space less than IS and LS sows (P = 0.01). Overall, pen investigatory behavior was not affected by group space allowance (P = 0.91). Sows in the LS pens spent more time in a social group than SS sows (P = 0.02), whereas sows in IS pens were intermediate to, but not different from, the other treatments (P ≥ 0.10). The size of the social groups was also affected by the group space allowance (P = 0.03), with SS sows forming smaller groups than LS sows; again, IS sows were intermediate to, but not different from, the other treatments. Although the group space allowance had no measurable impact on the health, physiology, or productivity of the sows, the lower group space use and social contact of the SS sows reduced the behavioral diversity benefits of group housing and may indicate an avoidance of social stressors or a lack of physical comfort in the smallest pens. RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. ABSTRACT: Free-access stalls allow sows to choose the protection of a stall or use of a shared group space. This study investigated the effect of group space width, 0.91 (SS), 2.13 (IS), and 3.05 (LS) m, on the health, production, behavior, and welfare of gestating sows. Nine replications of 21 (N = 189) gestating sows were used. At gestational d 35.4 ± 2.3, the pregnant sows w...

Effect of Social Rank on Well-Being and Space Utilization of Dry Sows Kept in a Free Access Stall-Pen Housing Environment

“…These results are in agreement with others who reported that dominant sows spend more time utilizing the group-pen area than did lower-ranking sows [24]. Still, others report that larger-bodied sows spend more time in the group-pen area than smaller sows mainly due to space restriction in stalls, insuf-ficient space in the group-pen area, or pen design [15] [19] [25]. However, we speculate that the dominant sows may influence the activities of the other sows based on their location within the free access stall-pen housing environment.…”

The Behaviour and Productivity of Mid-Lactation Dairy Cows Provided Daily Pasture Allowance over 2 or 7 Intensively Grazed Strips

“…Further, multi-level modelling (i.e., hierarchical linear models, or nesting) are able to assess correlations within groups while also quantifying variability between groups [ 20 , 28 ]. Such statistical models have been advocated [ 20 , 22 ] and utilised [ 29 , 30 , 31 ] to overcome many perceived issues associated with statistical nonindependence, and are therefore used by the present experiment. Nonetheless, care should be taken when ascribing causation to treatment effects in the present experiment.…”

Risk Factors for Chronic Stress in Sows Housed in Groups, and Associated Risks of Prenatal Stress in Their Offspring

“…As such, restriction of space is associated with chronic stress in all species [i.e., fish: Sundh et al ( 95 ); birds: Selvam et al ( 96 ); cattle: Schubach et al ( 97 )]. Indeed, the behavioural diversity of sows housed at lower space allowances can be curtailed ( 98 ), and inability to perform a full behavioural repertoire is a source of frustration and stress for animals ( 6 ). Following on from this, inadequate space allowance can lead to overcrowded conditions, exacerbating agonistic interactions between pen mates ( 99 , 100 ), which leads to elevated cortisol levels, indicative of stress ( 38 ).…”