Short confinement of sows after farrowing, but not pen type affects live-born piglet mortality

Review of Temporary Crating of Farrowing and Lactating Sows

“…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. Even though farrowing and lactation pens basically only need places for sows to eat, drink, rest, and dung and a creep area for piglets, the differences in dimensions of sows and piglets, the increasing litter sizes, the work conditions for caretakers, and differences in construction lead to a large variation in the pens available and used both in trials ( 32 , 37 ) and on farms ( 19 , 28 , 38 , 39 ). The higher neonatal piglet mortality observed in studies where sows were loose during farrowing compared to sows that were in crates ( 5 , 24 , 54 ) has led to consideration of the opportunity to temporarily confine the sows in pens designed for loose sows ( 26 , 28 , 32 ).…”

“…Even though farrowing and lactation pens basically only need places for sows to eat, drink, rest, and dung and a creep area for piglets, the differences in dimensions of sows and piglets, the increasing litter sizes, the work conditions for caretakers, and differences in construction lead to a large variation in the pens available and used both in trials ( 32 , 37 ) and on farms ( 19 , 28 , 38 , 39 ). The higher neonatal piglet mortality observed in studies where sows were loose during farrowing compared to sows that were in crates ( 5 , 24 , 54 ) has led to consideration of the opportunity to temporarily confine the sows in pens designed for loose sows ( 26 , 28 , 32 ). However, some pens with TC used in trials and available on the market have more similarities with traditional farrowing crates for confined sows than with designed pens for loose sows.…”

“…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 )]. This makes it difficult to compare the pens and to recommend which pen to use in future trials or farm installation or in assisting other stakeholders such as policy-influencers and policymakers.…”

“…This makes it difficult to compare the pens and to recommend which pen to use in future trials or farm installation or in assisting other stakeholders such as policy-influencers and policymakers. According to the information available ( Table 2 ), the pens differ in total footprint from 2.66 m 2 ( 23 ) to 7.4 m 2 ( 32 ) and 9.22 m 2 in a pen with access to an outdoor area ( 37 ). The area available for sows when loose differs from 1.9 m 2 ( 23 ), 5.3 m 2 ( 27 ), to 7.6 m 2 in a pen with access to an outdoor area ( 37 ) and the available space for piglets protected from the sow varies from 0.44 m 2 ( 62 ) to 2.25 m 2 ( 37 ).…”

“…In some designs, there has been a focus on zonation to meet the behavioral predisposition of sows to avoid resting, eating, drinking, and defecating at the same location ( 15 , 63 ). Some designs supply a part-solid floor for the sows to nest build ( 27 , 32 , 37 ). Zonation is supported by the shape of the pen, where rectangular pens with an excreting area at one short end of the pen have been reported to facilitate the partition of the pen into a dunging area and a lying area by ensuring a larger distance between them ( 59 ).…”