Reproductive Issues in Welfare‐Friendly Housing Systems in Pig Husbandry: A Review

Kemp, B.; Soede, N.M.

doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02108.x

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is the most crucial finding from an economic point of view and supports the use of farrowing pens as a suitable alternative to crates. Although several authors have found results contrary to ours, reporting that loose-housed sows showed greater levels of piglet mor tality compared to crated sows (Blackshaw et al, 1994;Weary et al, 1996a,b;Marchant et al, 2000), other studies (based on larger sample sizes) show agreement with our findings (Weber et al, 2009;KilBride et al, 2012;Kemp and Soede, 2012).…”

Section: Association Between Sow Behavior and Piglet Crushing And Morcontrasting

confidence: 67%

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Melišová

Illmann

Chaloupková

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free farrowing pens (pens) improve the welfare of sows but may increase sow activity and negatively influence piglet production. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of pens and crates on sow postural changes, piglet trapping, sow responses to piglet screams, piglet mortality, and piglet BW gain. It was predicted that provision of greater space (in pens) would increase not only the frequency of sow postural changes and the probability of trappisng but also sow responses to the screams of piglets; thus, the outcome would be no differences in fatal piglet crushing or overall mortality between the housing systems. Sows were randomly moved to either a farrowing pen (n = 20) or farrowing crate (n = 18). Sow behavior was recorded and analyzed for 72 h from the birth of the first piglet (BFP). Sow postural changes included rolling from a ventral to lateral position and vice versa and going from standing to sitting, standing to lying, and sitting to lying. Occurrences of piglet trapping and sow responsiveness to real crushing situations were analyzed. Sow responsiveness was assessed in response to audio playbacks (PB) of piglet screams on d 3 postpartum (48 to 72 h after BFP; PB crush calls) and real piglet crushing during the first 72 h after BFP (real crush calls). Piglet BW gain was estimated 24 h after BFP, piglet BW was recorded at weaning, and piglet crushing and piglet mortality were recorded during the 72 h after BFP. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED and PROC GENMOD of SAS. Sows in pens showed more postural changes (P = 0.04) and tended to have greater incidences of piglet trapping (P = 0.07) than those in crates. Sow response to PB crush calls was greater in pens (P = 0.04) but did not differ for real crush calls between pens and crates (P = 0.62). There was no effect on the probability of piglet crushing (P = 0.38) and mortality (P = 0.41) during the 72 h after BFP nor in piglet mortality at weaning (P = 0.81) between pens and crates. Piglet BW gain at 24 h after BFP (P = 0.01) and piglet BW at weaning (P = 0.02) were greater in pens. Sows in pens showed more postural changes and tended to trap more piglets; however, the response to real crush calls did not differ between the two housing systems. Despite this, there was no increase in piglet crushing or mortality in pens, which might be influenced by the better piglet body condition observed in pens, which in turn could influence their ability to avoid crushing by the sow.

show abstract

Section: Association Between Sow Behavior and Piglet Crushing And Morcontrasting

confidence: 67%

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Melišová

Illmann

Chaloupková

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There appears to be a growing need for animal friendly models of grouping sows in Europe [11, 18, 22]. One phase of production where keeping sows in groupssuch a development appears possible is keeping sows in groups duringthe lactation [5].…”

Section: Group Housing During Lactationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in a large scale comparison, having all sows grouped after weaning did not appear to have a detrimental effect on reproductive performance [5]. Furthermore, when different housing systems were reviewed [11], increased rate of returns to oestrus was associated by level of management and expertise rather than group housing per se [11]. In conclusion, sows may exhibit oestrous behavior better when in groups already after weaning.…”

Section: Grouping Sows After Weaning and Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also important to make sure that all sows can eat undisturbed. Regarding space allowance, a number of studies suggest that as a general rule sows should be provided with 2.5–3.5 m 2 per sow in order to reach a reasonably high farrowing rate [11]. In addition, feeding enough bulk and fibre and provide the pen with areas to escape helps to alleviate aggressive behaviour problems of housing [21].…”

Section: Group Housing Of Pregnant Sowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reproduction of group-housed sows

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sow is a social animal in her behavior throughout the reproductive cycle. An exception to her preference for being a part of a social group occurs one to two1–2 d days prior to farrowing, when she separates from her group and seeks for isolation in order to build up a nest. She then spends the first week or two with her piglets, mainly in the nest. After this short period of separation of 1–2 weeks, she brings her litter with her and rejoins the group. In modern intensive pig production, the sow is often restricted to an individual cage for lactation and, in many European countries, she may still spend additional periods in stalls during pregnancy. In the intensive production, isolation of the sow from the rest of the group is therefore a relatively long period of six to ten6-10 weeks, which creates a challenge for the social memory of the sow. While grouping of sows during lactation is an interesting option, until now this is encountered mostly in organic or otherwise extensive farming systems, such as outdoor farming. However, the present society is asking for more animal friendly models of production and there appears to be more need for studies of group housing issues during lactation. Grouping of sows after weaning causes stress, which imposes risks for fertility. Thus, timing of grouping is probably very critical. It is well documented that the embryonic period of the pregnancy, lasting up to Day 35, is more vulnerable for loss of pregnancy than the subsequent fetal period. There are indications that stress of grouping may cause some harm to vitality parameters of blastocysts already while at the site of fertilization in the oviduct. Later on, during the critical periods of maternal recognition of pregnancy, endocrinological models testing maintenance of pregnancy suggest that chronic stress lasting for more than two2 days may cause abortion and loss of the whole litter. However, the sow may be resistant, in terms of her reproductive function, to acute stress lasting for hours or up to a day. In conclusion, grouping of sows during lactation may be of interest in the future. At present, issues of group housed sows after weaning and early pregnancy seem to be of most practical relevance. Chronic stress of sows lasting for more than two2 days may lead to loss of the whole litter.

show abstract

“…Worldwide, pig-housing systems are diverse. In the US where there is a strong intensification related to industrialized production of livestock, more than 80% of sows are estimated to be kept individually confined throughout pregnancy [4]. In the emerging economies in Asia showing the world’s most rapid increase in pig production, the majority of pigs are still kept in small-scale production systems sometimes including free-ranging systems [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 25 years experience of group-housed sows–reproduction in animal welfare-friendly systems

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since January 1 2013, group housing of sows has been compulsory within the European Union (EU) in all pig holdings with more than ten sows. Sows and gilts need to be kept in groups from 4 weeks after service to 1 week before the expected time of farrowing (Article 3(4) of Directive 2008/120/EC on the protection of pigs). The legislation regarding group housing was adopted already in 2001 and a long transitional period was allowed to give member states and producers enough time for adaptation. Even so, group housing of sows still seems to be uncommon in the EU, and is also uncommon in commercial pig farming systems in the rest of the world. In this review we share our experience of the Swedish 25 years of animal welfare legislation stipulating that sows must be loose-housed which de facto means group housed. The two most important concerns related to reproductive function among group-housed sows are the occurrence of lactational oestrus when sows are group-housed during lactation, and the stress that is associated with group housing during mating and gestation. Field and clinical observations in non-lactating, group-housed sows in Sweden suggest that by making basic facts known about the pig reproductive physiology related to mating, we might achieve application of efficient batch-wise breeding without pharmacological interventions. Group housing of lactating sows has some production disadvantages and somewhat lower productivity would likely have to be expected. Recordings of behavioural indicators in different housing systems suggest a lower welfare level in stalled animals compared with group-housed ones. However, there are no consistent effects on the reproductive performance associated with different housing systems. Experimental studies suggest that the most sensitive period, regarding disturbance of reproductive functions by external stressors, is the time around oestrus. We conclude that by keeping sows according to the pig welfare-friendly Directive 2008/120/EC, it is possible to combine group-housing of sows with good reproductive performance and productivity. However, substantially increased research and development is needed to optimize these systems.

show abstract

Reproductive Issues in Welfare‐Friendly Housing Systems in Pig Husbandry: A Review

Cited by 22 publications

References 47 publications

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates1,2

Reproduction of group-housed sows

A 25 years experience of group-housed sows–reproduction in animal welfare-friendly systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About