Review of temporary crating of farrowing and lactating sows

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

Transitioning from crates to free farrowing: A roadmap to navigate key decisions

There are animal welfare concerns about the continued use of permanent crating systems for farrowing and lactating sows, which is the most prevalent maternity system in global pig production. Greater societal attention in recent years has culminated in changes (or proposed changes) to regulations as well as market-driven initiatives to move away from crated systems. Transitioning from farrowing crates to systems that allow the sow greater freedom of movement and behavioral expression requires a number of key decisions, with various trade-offs apparent when trying to balance the needs of different stakeholders. This review discusses these decisions based on common questions asked by farmers, policy makers and other stakeholders when deciding on a new system to build/approve. Based on the latest scientific evidence and practical insight, decisions such as: whether to retrofit an existing barn or build a new one, what spatial dimensions are necessary per sow place, whether to adopt free farrowing or temporary crating, how to provide substrate/enrichment and be hygienic and environmentally friendly, and how to optimize the human inputs and transition between systems are considered. The aim of this paper is to provide a roadmap for those interested in uptake of higher welfare systems and practices, as well as to highlight areas requiring further optimization and research

Factors contributing to high performance of sows in free farrowing systems

BackgroundPressure to abolish farrowing crates is increasing, and producers are faced with decisions about which alternative system to adopt. For sow welfare, well designed free farrowing systems without close confinement are considered optimal but producers have concerns about increased piglet mortality, particularly crushing by the sow. Reporting accurate performance figures from commercial farms newly operating such systems could inform the transition process. This study investigated performance on three commercial farms operating four different zero-confinement systems, three of which were newly installed. A total of 3212 litters from 2920 sows were followed from farrowing to weaning over a three-year period with key performance indicators (KPIs) recorded. Mixed Models (LMMs, GLMMs) determined the influence of different factors (e.g. farrowing system, sow parity, management aspects) and litter characteristics on performance, including levels and causes of piglet mortality.ResultsPiglet mortality was significantly influenced by farm/system. Live-born mortality ranged from 10.3 to 20.6% with stillbirths ranging from 2.5 to 5.9%. A larger litter size and higher parity resulted in higher levels of mortality regardless of system. In all systems, crushing was the main cause of piglet mortality (59%), but 31% of sows did not crush any piglets, whilst 26% crushed only one piglet and the remaining sows (43%) crushed two or more piglets. System significantly influenced crushing as a percentage of all deaths, with the system with the smallest spatial footprint (m2) compared to the other systems, recording the highest levels of crushing. Time from the start of the study influenced mortality, with significant reductions in crushing mortality (by ~ 4%) over the course of the three-year study. There was a highly significant effect of length of time (days) between moving sows into the farrowing accommodation and sows farrowing on piglet mortality (P < 0.001). The less time between sows moving in and farrowing, the higher the levels of piglet mortality, with ~ 3% increase in total mortality every five days. System effects were highly significant after adjusting for parity, litter size, and days pre-farrowing.ConclusionThese results from commercial farms demonstrate that even sows that have not been specifically selected for free farrowing are able, in many cases, to perform well in these zero-confinement systems, but that a period of adaptation is to be expected for overall farm performance. There are performance differences between the farms/systems which can be attributed to individual farm/system characteristics (e.g. pen design and management, staff expertise, pig genotypes, etc.). Higher parity sows and those producing very large litters provide a greater challenge to piglet mortality in these free farrowing systems (just as they do in crate systems). Management significantly influences performance, and ensuring sows have plenty of time to acclimatise between moving in to farrowing accommodation and giving birth is a critical aspect of improving piglet survival

Factors contributing to high performance of sows in free farrowing systems

\ua9 The Author(s) 2024. Background: Pressure to abolish farrowing crates is increasing, and producers are faced with decisions about which alternative system to adopt. For sow welfare, well designed free farrowing systems without close confinement are considered optimal but producers have concerns about increased piglet mortality, particularly crushing by the sow. Reporting accurate performance figures from commercial farms newly operating such systems could inform the transition process. This study investigated performance on three commercial farms operating four different zero-confinement systems, three of which were newly installed. A total of 3212 litters from 2920 sows were followed from farrowing to weaning over a three-year period with key performance indicators (KPIs) recorded. Mixed Models (LMMs, GLMMs) determined the influence of different factors (e.g. farrowing system, sow parity, management aspects) and litter characteristics on performance, including levels and causes of piglet mortality. Results: Piglet mortality was significantly influenced by farm/system. Live-born mortality ranged from 10.3 to 20.6% with stillbirths ranging from 2.5 to 5.9%. A larger litter size and higher parity resulted in higher levels of mortality regardless of system. In all systems, crushing was the main cause of piglet mortality (59%), but 31% of sows did not crush any piglets, whilst 26% crushed only one piglet and the remaining sows (43%) crushed two or more piglets. System significantly influenced crushing as a percentage of all deaths, with the system with the smallest spatial footprint (m2) compared to the other systems, recording the highest levels of crushing. Time from the start of the study influenced mortality, with significant reductions in crushing mortality (by ~ 4%) over the course of the three-year study. There was a highly significant effect of length of time (days) between moving sows into the farrowing accommodation and sows farrowing on piglet mortality (P < 0.001). The less time between sows moving in and farrowing, the higher the levels of piglet mortality, with ~ 3% increase in total mortality every five days. System effects were highly significant after adjusting for parity, litter size, and days pre-farrowing. Conclusion: These results from commercial farms demonstrate that even sows that have not been specifically selected for free farrowing are able, in many cases, to perform well in these zero-confinement systems, but that a period of adaptation is to be expected for overall farm performance. There are performance differences between the farms/systems which can be attributed to individual farm/system characteristics (e.g. pen design and management, staff expertise, pig genotypes, etc.). Higher parity sows and those producing very large litters provide a greater challenge to piglet mortality in these free farrowing systems (just as they do in crate systems). Management significantly influences performance, and ensuring sows have plenty of time to acclimatise between moving in to farrowing accommodation and giving birth is a critical aspect of improving piglet survival