The effect of two different farrowing systems on sow behaviour, and piglet behaviour, mortality and growth

Piglet mortality, especially due to crushing, is a concern in pig production. While current systems use farrowing crates to reduce mortality, they present major animal welfare problems for the sow. This study investigated the effects of free lactation farrowing accommodation on the welfare of piglets born and reared in such accommodation when compared with conventional farrowing crates. Piglets were born to sows in one of two farrowing accommodation treatments and followed from birth to slaughter. Treatments were conventional farrowing crates (control, n = 24 litters) and free lactation pens, which were larger and allowed the sow freedom of movement both pre and post farrowing, (free, n = 22 litters) (675 total piglets). Individual weights were recorded from birth to slaughter. Hoof score was recorded at weaning. Behaviour was recorded during lactation and during the weaner stage. Pre-weaning percentage mortality was equal in treatments (free = 15.95 ± 2.31, control = 14.42 ± 2.15, p = 0.61). Final weight was influenced by treatment (p < 0.05) with pigs from free lactation pens significantly heavier at 114.73 kg compared to 110.82 kg for control pigs. Free pigs took fewer days than control pigs to reach the target weight of 105 kg (147.6 vs. 149.23 days). Throughout lactation, fewer instances of damaging behaviour (ear and tail biting) were observed in free pigs (p = 0.07). Improved growth rates and a decrease in damaging behaviours provide evidence to suggest that pigs from free lactation pens experience improved welfare when compared with control pigs.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Freedom to Grow: Improving Sow Welfare also Benefits Piglets

Kinane

Butler

O’Driscoll

2021

“…Thus, housing sows in single loose-housing pens does not seem to impair nursing activity in general. It was even reported in an earlier study that loose-housed sows spent a greater proportion of time nursing than crated sows [ 32 ], but our study did not provide any indications for this. Even if there have only been few studies on this topic so far, our results agree with some earlier studies that also found no differences in nursing frequency between loose-housed and crated sows [ 7 , 24 ].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Does Nursing Behaviour of Sows in Loose-Housing Pens Differ from That of Sows in Farrowing Pens with Crates?

Wiechers

Herbrandt

Kemper

2022

Sows confined to farrowing crates are restricted in performing natural behaviour such as maternal behaviour. Loose-housing farrowing pens (LH) and farrowing pens with crates (FC) were compared regarding sows’ nursing behaviour via video analyses over four weeks per batch (one day per week). Nursing frequency was similar in LH and FC pens (1.25 ± 0.82 vs. 1.19 ± 0.75 nursings/sow/hour; p > 0.05). However, nursing duration differed between the two systems (LH: 5.7 ± 4.6 min vs. FC: 7.0 ± 5.0 min; odds ratio (OR) 1.168, p = 0.011). In LH pens, more nursing bouts were sow-terminated than in FC pens (OR 0.427, p = 0.001). The probability of sow-terminated nursing occurring increased from week 1 to week 4 (OR 3.479, adjusted p (padj) < 0.001), while that of observing unnursed piglets decreased from week 1 to week 4 (OR 0.301, padj < 0.001) and rose with increasing litter size (OR 1.174, p = 0.010). We conclude that nursing behaviour was affected by the farrowing system, with shorter nursing duration and more nursing terminations by the sow in LH than in FC pens. Since this corresponds to the nursing behaviour of sows in semi-natural conditions, it can be assumed that sows in LH pens are more likely to exhibit natural nursing behaviour.

“…Confining a farrowing sow into a cage impairs her welfare compared to free far-rowing by preventing the sow from fulfilling its behavioral needs, especially nest building behavior prior to farrowing [ 30 , 31 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of 12 Different Animal Welfare Labeling Schemes in the Pig Sector

Heinola

Kauppinen

Niemi

et al. 2021

Animal welfare labeling schemes have been developed to respond to consumers’ expectations regarding farm animal welfare. They are designed to certify that labeled products comply with certain animal welfare standards. In this study, 12 pig welfare labeling schemes were reviewed, and their criteria related to pig welfare were compared. Information regarding farrowing criteria, space allowance, outdoor access, mutilations, and provision of enrichments and bedding material were gathered from the labels’ internet pages and documentation. The results indicated a substantial variation between the labels in terms of the level of animal welfare they ensure. While certain schemes barely exceeded the minimum standards for the protection of pigs in the European Union, more demanding tiers of the multitier schemes had the potential to improve animal welfare substantially. The most ambitious tiers of multistage schemes were often comparable to organic standards providing outdoor facilities and additional space. The heterogeneity of the labels’ standards complicates the comparison of labels.