Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:54:44.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

R Weber ,
NM Keil ,
M Fehr  and
R Horat
R Weber*
Affiliation:
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
NM Keil
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
M Fehr
Affiliation:
Anicom AG, Saentisstrasse 2, 9501 Wil, Switzerland
R Horat
Affiliation:
Anicom AG, Saentisstrasse 2, 9501 Wil, Switzerland
*
* Contact for correspondence and request for reprints: roland.weber@art.admin.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crating sows in farrowing systems greatly restricts their normal behaviour, which is usually justified by the assumption that piglet mortality is higher with loose-housed sows. Based on experiments showing that this is not the case, farrowing crates were banned in Switzerland in 1997. Since then, many farms have introduced loose farrowing systems, enabling a comparison of piglet mortality in farrowing systems with and without crates based on a large sample size. Data of a sow-recording scheme (UFA2000) were analysed using generalised linear mixed-effects models with an underlying Poisson distribution. In 2002 and 2003, the average total piglet mortality on 173 farms (n = 18,824 litters) with loose farrowing systems amounted to 1.40 piglets per litter and did not differ from that of 482 farms (n = 44,837 litters) with crates (1.42 piglets per litter). Nevertheless, the number of crushed piglets was significantly higher in pens with loose-housed sows (0.62 versus 0.52 piglets per litter), whereas the number of piglets that died for other reasons was significantly higher in crates (0.78 versus 0.89 piglets per litter). Total piglet mortality was influenced by litter size at birth, age of the sow and season. Consequently, evaluation of the reproductive data of commercial farms shows that no more piglet losses occur in loose farrowing pens, common nowadays in Switzerland, than in farrowing pens with crates, and that litter size at birth is the main influence on piglet losses.

Keywords

animal welfarefarrowing pensloose-housingpiglet lossesreproductive performancesows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 277 - 279
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blackshaw, JK and Hagelsø, AM 1990 Getting-up and lying-down behaviour of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day 1 and day 8 after parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJ and Newman, FW 1994 Comparison of behaviour patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Lefébure, B and McClintock, S 2000 A comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee Farrowing Pen and conventional farrowing crates at a commercial farm. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40: 17–23Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Vestergaard, KS, Schroder-Petersen, DL and Ladewig, J 2000 The effects of branches on prepartum nest building in gilts with access to straw. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 113–124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 1990 Behavioural perspectives on piglet survival. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, Supplementum 40: 355–370Google ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, S, Van der Vegt, BJ, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 2001 The effect of parity and environmental restriction on behavioural and physiological responses of pre-parturient pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 203–216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P 1989 Nest site choice and nest building of free-ranging domestic pigs due to farrow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S and Simmins, PH 2000 Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. The Veterinary Record 147: 209–214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stabenow, B 2001 Mehr Bewegung für säugende Sauen in Scan-Abferkelbuchten. Tierärztliche Umschau 56: 528–533. [Title translation: More moving for sows in Scan- farrowing pens]Google Scholar
Weber, R 2000 Alternative housing systems for farrowing and lactating sows. In: Blokhuis HJ, Ekkel ED and Wechsler B (eds) Improving health and welfare in animal production. EAAP publication No. 102 Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar