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

Ceballos, Maria Camila; Góis, Karen Camille Rocha; Parsons, Thomas D.; Pierdon, Meghann K.

doi:10.3390/ani11040969

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also showed that different temporary crating pen designs may have different effects on body lesions. Ceballos et al ( 17 , 18 ) did not find any effect of crate opening (on D4 or D7) on udder and body lesions or lameness until weaning, compared to farrowing crates. However, the authors reported less teat and udder lesions in the third week post-partum in sows housed in TC compared to sows remaining in closed crates.…”

Section: The Interpretation Of Pig Welfare In Different Farrowing Sys...mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Similarly, Moustsen et al ( 46 ), with 55 sows per treatment, found no improvement in survival when comparing release on D4 or D7. However, Ceballos et al ( 18 ) did find a significant difference in mortality when comparing TC until D4 or D7 with 161–185 sows per treatment, although with an atypically high overall mortality level (27.8 vs. 23.9% mortality).…”

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The extent to which each of these components might be considered optimal, or even adequate, can be questioned in some studies. To accommodate the sow's opportunity to turn around when loose ( 15 ), most pens for loose sows are larger (4–8 m 2 ) ( Table 2 ) than the space provided in conventional farrowing crate pens [~1.23 m 2 crate within 3.5–4.5 m 2 pen; ( 18 , 27 , 46 )]. As a result, farmers need to either build new facilities or reduce the number of pens, where the latter includes reduction in herd size, both involving long-term cost implications.…”

Section: Pen Design Variability: From Crate To Temporary Confinement ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pen designs, both without and with options to confine, referred to in most peer-reviewed publications listed in the review consist of compromises [e.g., ( 18 , 27 )], and few, if any, meet all criteria to satisfy the needs of sows, piglets, and staff. In addition, not all pen details are described in peer-reviewed papers [e.g., ( 27 , 32 , 44 )].…”

Section: Pen Design Variability: From Crate To Temporary Confinement ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The greatest concern about changing from a fully crated to a TC system is that piglet mortality will be increased as a result of allowing the sow greater freedom. In TC studies where the cause of mortality has been determined, it has been reported that significantly more piglets are crushed with earlier opening of the crate ( 18 , 36 , 42 ). However, since the majority of liveborn piglet mortality in all systems is reported to occur in the first few days after farrowing [e.g., 62% within the first 2 days and >80% within the first 7 days ( 89 , 90 )], there is debate about the period of time for which it is necessary to confine the sow.…”

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 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: The Interpretation Of Pig Welfare In Different Farrowing Sys...mentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Management Choices In Temporary Crating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 94%