The effects of two confinement systems on the performance of nursing sows and their litters

Collins, E. R.; Kornegay, E. T.; Bonnette, E. D.

doi:10.1016/0168-1591(87)90007-4

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under increasing societal pressure, various alternative farrowing accommodations were created and studied aiming to abolish the conventional farrowing crates [2]. For example, farrowing systems of outdoor farrowing systems [8], non-confined indoor farrowing systems (such as hillside/sloped pens [9], mushroom pens [10], and simple/well designed pens [11]), and group systems [12,13] were continuously studied. Based on a large amount of credible data, the mortality of live-born piglets pre-weaning between loose farrowing systems and farrowing crates had no big difference [2] but with inevitable extra economic investment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Farrowing Environments on the Behavior of Sows and Piglets

Zhang

Hao

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the effect of different farrowing systems on the behavior of sows and piglets. In total, 22 hybrid sows (Yorkshire × Landrace) were randomly assigned into three farrowing systems, farrowing crate (FC), free farrowing pen with sloping walls (FFS), and free farrowing pen with sloping walls and nest materials (FFSN). The FFS and FFSN sows were more active, and exhibited less abnormal behaviors compared with the FC sows before and after parturition. FFS and FFSN piglets were more active compared with FC piglets. The increased activity of the FFS and FFSN sows might encourage the activity of their piglets, resulting in more proximity to sow behavior of their piglets. Providing nest materials improved the investigative behavior of sows and piglets. The total mortality of piglets in the free farrowing systems tended to be higher compared with the farrowing crate system. In conclusion, free farrowing system has beneficial effects on the behavior of sows and piglets but extra care in management needs to be taken to avoid piglet loss. Adding nest material in the farrowing pens is suggested to enrich the behavioral pattern of sows and piglets.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Farrowing Environments on the Behavior of Sows and Piglets

Zhang

Hao

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the use of crates was confounded with other differences in the studies of Aherne (1982) and Collins et al (1987), and few studies correctly incorporate the large and wellknown influence of litter size when analysing piglet deaths.…”

Section: Results From Controlledmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural perspectives on piglet survival

Fraser

2020

Proc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Litters of domestic piglets show strong sibling competition. large differences among litter-mates in birth weight and rate of growth, and, in the absence of human intervention, a high mortality rate. This combination of traits suggests that pigs are using a reproductive strategy similar to that of certain bird species which produce one or more small 'spare' young whose death or survival is determined by sibling competition. Death through competition is natural in such species. Prevention a death requires the early identification and separate rearing of unsuccessful competitors. The major behavioural pathways leading to piglet deaths are considered to be malnutrition through unsuccessful suckling behaviour, and crushing of piglets by the sow. Crushing involves two distinct behavioural sequences: posterior crushing (beneath the sow's hind quarters) and ventral crushing (beneath the udder and rib cage). Farrowing crates are designed to prevent posterior but not ventral crushing. Malnourished piglets appear to be more vulnerable to crushing, perhaps because persistent suckling attempts cause them to spend more time near the sow. Prevention of crushing thus requires a reduction in malnutrition, not merely restriction of the sowDs movements. Under certain conditions, dehydration may be an important but neglected aspect of malnutrition. Some litters of piglets have much higher death losses than others, presumably because of risk factors that apply to the litter as a whole. Early malnutrition, resulting from hypogalactia in the sow in the first days after farrowing, appears to be an important risk factor. Farrowing difficulties leading to piglet hypoxia during [he birth process may be another. Risk factors [hat affect whole litters deserve greater emphasis in future resea rch.

show abstract

“…sloped pens and Mushroom pens); such systems aimed to develop an alternative within the footprint of a farrowing crate place and to add certain design criteria that might reduce the risk to piglets from crushing (i.e. 'mushroom' protrusions to support sow posture changes -BPEX, 2004; sloped floors to encourage piglets into the creep - Collins et al, 1987). However, these systems were built on fully slatted floors, with no reported provision of substrate -thus lacking a design criterion that confers many positive welfare points to both sows and piglets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These systems include a range of modified designs in which the crate is absent: the hillside or sloped pens (e.g. hillside pens - Collins et al, 1987) attempt to occupy a footprint similar to that of the conventional farrowing crate with fully slatted floors that are profiled with the intention of directing piglets towards the creep area and away from the sow lying area; mushroom pens are designed to occupy a (n 5 4) (n 5 4) (n 5 4) Plastic coated metal (75%) (n 5 3) Rails (25%) (n 5 1) (n 5 4) Mushroom Mushroom (n 5 1) 3.74 (n/a) 6.34 (n/a) 0 (n 5 1) Perforated round slats (100%) Plastic (100%) 0 (100%) Mushroom posts (100%) Not reported Mat (100%) (n 5 1) (n 5 1) (n 5 1) (n 5 1) (n 5 1) (n 5 1)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2012

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing societal pressure, expressed through government legislation and consumers' purchasing choices, to abolish livestock systems considered detrimental to farm animal welfare. Such systems include farrowing crates, which are behaviourally and physically restrictive for sows. Therefore, identifying less restrictive farrowing systems for commercial implementation has become an important focus of pig research. Despite numerous attempts to develop indoor alternatives to crates, there is as yet no universal acceptance of such systems at the commercial level. The primary concern is piglet survival, because often favourable figures are reported at the experimental level, but not replicated in commercial evaluation. Alternative farrowing systems should equal or surpass survival levels in conventional systems and perform consistently across a range of farm circumstances for widespread commercial implementation. In addition, it is important that alternatives consider ease of management, operator safety and economic sustainability. Utilising a large database of literature, 12 existing alternative indoor systems were identified and compared against each other, conventional crates and outdoor systems. An assessment of how well alternative systems satisfy the design criteria for meeting animals' biological needs was carried out by developing a welfare design index (WDI). The physical and financial performance of these systems was also evaluated and summarised. The derived WDI yielded values of 0.95 for conventional crates, with higher scores for commercial outdoor systems of 1.10 and indoor group farrowing or multi-suckling systems (e.g. Thorstensson 5 2.20). However, the high total piglet mortality (23.7% 6 s.e. 2.26) in indoor group systems compared with conventional crates (18.3% 6 s.e. 0.63) and outdoor systems (17.0% 6 s.e. 2.05), together with the added capital cost (92% more than conventional crates, 249% more than commercial outdoor huts), mainly as a result of extra building space provided per animal, question their feasibility to deliver from an economic perspective. Designed pen systems offered the best compromise, scoring 1.64 from the WDI, with a total piglet mortality of 16.6% (6s.e. 0.88) and capital costs and labour input more comparable to farrowing crates (17.5% more than crates). The critical review of different systems was hampered by the lack of comprehensive data and detailed system descriptions. When attempting to assess welfare and economic attributes of systems, there are certain caveats that require discussion, in particular weighting of the contribution of different design attributes to pig welfare, the relative importance of the sow and her piglets and the many potential confounding factors that arise. Also, when judging any system, it must be emphasised that the maternal characteristics of sows and the quality of stockpersonship will be integral to its success.

show abstract

The effects of two confinement systems on the performance of nursing sows and their litters

Cited by 18 publications

References 4 publications

Effects of Different Farrowing Environments on the Behavior of Sows and Piglets

Effects of Different Farrowing Environments on the Behavior of Sows and Piglets

Behavioural perspectives on piglet survival

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About