Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T16:05:53.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2013

J. Hales ,
V. A. Moustsen ,
M. B. F. Nielsen  and
C. F. Hansen
J. Hales
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, HERD – Centre for Herd-oriented Education, Research and Development, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
V. A. Moustsen
Affiliation:
Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
M. B. F. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
C. F. Hansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, HERD – Centre for Herd-oriented Education, Research and Development, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
*
† E-mail: cfh@sund.ku.dk
Get access

Abstract

If loose-housed farrowing systems are to be an alternative to traditional farrowing crates, it is important that they can deliver the same production results as can be achieved in farrowing crates under commercial conditions. The aim of this study was to compare preweaning mortality in farrowing crates and free farrowing pens (FF-pens) within herds that had both systems. The study was conducted over 2 years in three commercial Danish herds that had FF-pens as well as traditional farrowing crates in their farrowing unit. Piglet mortality was analysed in two periods: before litter equalisation and after litter equalisation. Linear models were used to analyse effects of housing (crate or pen), herd (Herd A, B or C), parity (parities 1, 2, 3 to 4 or 5 to 8) as well as the effect of number of total born piglets on mortality before litter equalisation, and the effect of equalised litter size on piglet mortality after litter equalisation. All corresponding interactions were included in the models. Before litter equalisation piglet mortality was higher (P<0.001) in pens (13.7%) than in crates (11.8%). Similarly, piglet mortality after litter equalisation was higher in pens than in crates in all three herds, but the difference between pens and crates were dissimilar (P<0.05) in the different herds. In addition, piglet mortality, both before (P<0.001) and after litter equalisation (P<0.001), grew with increasing parity of the sows. Mortality before litter equalisation moreover increased with increasing number of total born piglets per litter (P<0.001), and mortality after equalisation increased when equalised litter size increased (P<0.001). No significant interactions were detected between housing and parity or housing and litter size for any of the analysed variables. In conclusion, there is knowledge how to design pens for free farrowing; but this study showed a higher preweaning mortality in the FF-pen. Nonetheless a noteworthy proportion of the sows in the FF-pens delivered results comparable to those farrowing in crates. This indicates that FF-pens are not yet a robust type of housing for farrowing sows.

Keywords

animal welfarefarrowing accommodationloose sowspiglet mortality

Information

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 113 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, IL, Naevdal, E and Boe, KE 2011. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 1159–1167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, IL, Tajet, GM, Haukvik, IA, Kongsrud, S and Boe, KE 2007. Relationship between postnatal piglet mortality, environmental factors and management around farrowing in herds with loose-housed, lactating sows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science 57, 38–45.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2011. SLUTRAPPORT for PROJEKTET Udvikling af farestald for løse søer 10. maj 2011 J.nr.: 3412-08-02100.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011. Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal 5, 580–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2012. Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs. Animal 6, 96–117.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB, Ross, DW, Robson, SK, Farish, M, Nevison, IM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2008. Investigating the behavioural and physiological indicators of neonatal survival in pigs. Theriogenology 69, 773–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 281–295.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Simpson, GJ and Hemsworth, PH 1996. The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Lefebure, 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, 17–23.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Forkman, B and Pedersen, LJ 2005. Lying down and rolling behaviour in sows in relation to piglet crushing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 3–20.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Moustsen, V, Jorgensen, E, Pedersen, LJ, Heiskanen, T and Forkman, B 2006. Sow preferences for walls to lean against when lying down. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 53–63.Google Scholar
Danholt, L, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Kristensen, AR 2011. Rolling behaviour of sows in relation to piglet crushing on sloped versus level floor pens. Livestock Science 141, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2007. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. The EFSA Journal 572, 1–13.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Hansen, CF and Nielsen, MBF 2013. Individual physical characteristics of neonatal piglets affect preweaning survival of piglets born in a non-crated system. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4991–5003.Google Scholar
Herpin, P, Damon, M and Dividich, J 2002. Development of thermoregulation and neonatal survival in pigs. Livestock Production Science 78, 25–45.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB and Fujita, K 2005. Consistency of piglet crushing by sows. Animal Welfare 14, 43–51.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB, Robson, SK and Lawrence, AB 2006. The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiology & Behavior 87, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KilBride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Cooper, S and Green, LE 2012. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM and Corning, S 2001. The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle 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. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Lahrmann, HP and D’Eath, RB 2011. Relationship between size and age of modern hyper-prolific crossbred sows. Livestock Science 141, 272–275.Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Hales, J, Lahrmann, HP, Weber, PM and Hansen, CF 2013. Confinement of lactating sows in crates for 4 days after farrowing reduces piglet mortality. Animal 7, 648–654.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Jorgensen, E, Heiskanen, T and Damm, BI 2006. Early piglet mortality in loose-housed sows related to sow and piglet behaviour and to the progress of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 215–232.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J and Gaudre, D 2002. Variation of piglets' birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78, 63–70.Google Scholar
Vinther, J 2012. Landsgennemsnit for produktivitet i svineproduktionen 2011. Videncenter for Svineproduktion. Notat nr. 1212.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D and Honkanen, AM 1996. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 149–158.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Phillips, PA, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D and Thompson, BK 1998. Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M and Horat, R 2007. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Animal Welfare 16, 277–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M and Horat, R 2009. Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science 124, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2007. Loose farrowing systems: challenges and solutions. Animal Welfare 16, 295–307.Google Scholar
Weng, RC, Edwards, SA and Hsia, LC 2009. Effect of individual, group or ESF housing in pregnancy and individual or group housing in lactation on sow behavior. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 22, 1574–1580.Google Scholar
Wolf, J, Zakova, E and Groeneveld, E 2008. Within-litter variation of birth weight in hyperprolific Czech Large White sows and its relation to litter size traits, stillborn piglets and losses until weaning. Livestock Science 115, 195–205.Google Scholar