An Australian perspective on non-crate farrowing …animalwelfare.net.au/comm/download/Alt Farr...

An Australian perspective on non-crate farrowing systems

Greg Cronin

The University of SydneyFaculty of Veterinary Science425 Werombi RoadCamden, NSW, 2570

Background

Farrowing crates were developed (in part) to reduce piglet mortality

Traditional housing involved "loose" farrowing pens

From Potts (1922)

Pen size:3.2 m x 2.75 m

There have been many changes over the last 50 years relevant to farrowing accommodation and piglet survival.

Less space provided per sow and litter.Shed design for better control over climate variation (macro & micro).• under-floor drainage has eliminated the use of straw & saved labour.More durable & stronger building materials (e.g. slatted flooring).Better hygiene standards (includes type of flooring for crates).Use of different breeds of pigs.Genetic selection:• for bigger / heavier sows (less robust?).• for larger litters (of faster growing, leaner pigs).• for bigger piglets.• against aggressive sows.Earlier age at weaning.Better knowledge of veterinary medicine and sow nutrition.Better knowledge of the causes of piglet mortality & morbidity.Knowledge of the importance of the stockperson for piglet survival.More sows per stockperson (& mechanization, e.g. feeding).etc.

Farrowing site of a European Wild SwineEuropean Wild Swine

Maternal behaviour evolved to promote piglet survival and growth

A major criticism of farrowing crates is that maternal behaviour is restricted.

Meishan sow and litterIntensively housed in China for 5,000 years?Large litters and low piglet mortality

Environment - Maternal behaviour is dampened in crates

Artificial selection• e.g. sows that were aggressive towards the stockperson were culled

Factors influencing maternal behaviour?

Natural selection (occurs in the absence of artificial selection)• i.e. only piglets that survive can breed

Genetics

Based on the Five Freedoms Concept for Australian pig farms with

Sows:

are unable to select their preferred farrowing site

have no bedding for nest-building behaviour

have restricted access to their piglets

• Confinement in a crate means the sow is unable to locomote to satisfy these motivations.

Maternal behaviour evolved to promote piglet survival and growth

indoor housing in crates, sows cannot perform 'normal' behaviour

Does "better" maternal behaviour contribute to piglet survival?


Cronin GM, van Amerongen G (1991) The effects of modifying the farrowing environment on sow behaviour and survival and growth of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 287-298.

Findings:

In the ‘nest’ treatment• more nest-building-like behaviour• more responsive to piglet distress calls• more suckling behaviour• improved piglet survival

Enriching the farrowing environment modified maternal behaviour and improved piglet survival.

1982/1983

8

Farrowing shed constructed for research on sow behaviour and piglet survival and growth at Werribee.

1986


9

Accommodation:

Bedding: No straw bedding Straw bedding added

Farrowing crate

'Open' farrowing pen

Does "better" maternal behaviour contribute to piglet survival?Bedding and space

10

Key findings in relation to piglet survival:

Although the addition of bedding modified maternal behaviour.......

providing extra space in the pen decreased piglet survival.

Piglet survival decreased especially at colder ambient temperatures.

The provision of straw bedding in "open pens" only resulted in a small improvement in piglet survival.

Too much space in the farrowing pen risked neonatal survival.


11

Cronin GM, Cropley JA (1991) The effect of piglet stimuli on the posture changing behaviour of recently farrowed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 167-172.

Cronin GM, Barnett JL, Hodge FM, Smith JA, McCallum TH (1991) The welfare of pigs in two farrowing / lactation environments: cortisol responses of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 117-127.

Cronin GM, Smith JA (1992) Suckling behaviour of sows in farrowing crates and straw-bedded pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 175-189.

Cronin GM, Smith JA (1992) Effects of accommodation type and straw bedding around parturition and during lactation on the behaviour of primiparous sows and survival and growth of piglets to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 190-208.

Cronin GM, Smith JA, Hodge FM, Hemsworth PH (1994) The behaviour of primiparous sows around farrowing in response to restraint and straw bedding. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 269- 280.

Publications from this work

Werribee farrowing pen (circa 1990)Research tool to study maternal behaviour and piglet survival without the confounding effects of too much space for the piglets

features included for the sow:• extra space - 2 areas• privacy / security• bedding for nesting (rice hulls not straw)• sloping panels to assist posture changing

features included for the piglets:• limited space (equivalent to crates)• bedding (comfort?)• creep with thermostatically controlled heater• protected creep zones beneath sloping panels


Could we limit space for the piglet but provide space & bedding for the sow?

Gestation x farrowing/lactation housing

Gestation

Farrowing / lactation

Individual stall

Group pen

Farrowingcrate

Farrowingpen

5.3% 2.4%

8.3% 5.4%STILLBIRTHS

Individual stall

Group pen

6.6% 9.1%

13.0% 8.5%

PIGLETDEATHS

Evidence for 1) effects of experience and adaptation2) piglet survival equivalent in crates and pens

Findings for gilts

Size and orientation of the nest area

Nest size: Large (4.3 m2) 20% Smaller (3.4 m2)

2.0% 5.0%STILLBIRTHS

7.3% 13.3%PIGLET DEATHS to DAY 23

Nest orientation:

Wide(side on)

Narrow(front on)

No effects of nest area orientation

2.4 m1.8 m

Full pen width:Internal width:

2.0 m1.4 m

1.8 m1.2 m

Full pen width:Internal width:

1.7 m1.1 m

Findings for gilts

If nest-building-like behaviour is stimulated, then nest size is important

How practical was the Werribee pen for adoption by pig farmers?

Summary of Werribee experiments

11.4% (7.6% - 17.5%)

Farrowing Pen

Exp A (gilts only; N=40)

Farrowing Crate

Crate comparison not included

Exp B (sows & gilts; N=60) 14.3% (12.5% - 16.2%) 8.5%

Exp C (sows & gilts; N=42) 12.9% (12.2% - 13.6%) Crate comparison not included

Piglet deaths (% of born alive)

Piglet survival in gilt litters was equivalent between farrowing crates and pens

Piglet survival in sow litters was higher in farrowing crates than pens• The 'new' farrowing pens may have been too narrow for sows

Piglet mortality in one farrowing shed

Pens (N=294 litters) Crates (N=610 litters)

Gilt litters only; N=75) 19.7% 16.5%

15.7% 16.6%Gilt litters only; N=66)Selected on piglet survival in pens

Breeding herd sows & gilts - data for 2002-2006

15.1%22.8%

20.0%

14.1%

19.4%

Piglet deaths (% of live born)

Werribee pen(no bedding)

Turn around pen(fully mesh floor)

(no bedding)

Summary of trials on 2 commercial farms

15.3%

PenFarm 1

Pens 2.3 m wide

Crate

Piglet mortality

Farm 2

Pens 2.0 m wide 16.7% (11.2% - 24.2%) 13.4%

17.5%

66N Sows 80

44N Sows 45

Piglet mortality

Pen Crate

Piglet deaths (% of live born)

18

Publications from this work

Cronin GM et al. (1993) The effects of providing sawdust to pre-parturient sows in farrowing crates on sow behaviour, the duration of parturition and the occurrence of intra-partum stillborn piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 301-315.

Cronin GM et al. (1995) The effects of bedding and human contact before parturition on the onset of parturition in sows. Manipulating Pig Production vol. V, Eds. Hennessy DP, Cranwell PD, p. 20.

Cronin GM, Simpson GJ, 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.

Cronin GM (1997) Sow preference for farrowing site orientation. Manipulating Pig Production vol. VI, Ed. Cranwell PD, Australasian Pig Science Association, p. 63.

Cronin GM et al. (1998) The effects of farrowing nest size and width on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60, 331-345.

Cronin GM et al. (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.

Cronin GM, Butler KL (2007) Piglet mortality in farrowing pens and farrowing crates. In: Manipulating Pig Production, vol. XI, Eds. Paterson JE, Barker JA; p. 35.

Cronin GM, Butler KL (2007) Sow behaviour and piglet overlay in farrowing pens. In: Manipulating Pig Production, vol. XI, Eds. Paterson JE, Barker JA; p. 55.

Cronin GM, Dhand NK (2010) Efficacy of selecting on-farm for reduced piglet mortality from overlying in farrowing pens. Proc. 28th Biennial Conf. of the Aust. Soc. of Animal Production, 11-15 July 2010 Armidale NSW, p. 106.

19

Performance by the Swiss pig industry

Swiss farm survey results: Pens CratesNumber of farms 173 482

Number of litters 18,824 44,837

Piglet deaths / litter 1.40 (12.1%) 1.42 (12.1%)

Piglets crushed / litter 0.62 (45%) 0.52 (37%)

From:

Weber R, Keil NM, Fehr M, Horat R (2007) Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with and without crates. Animal Welfare 16: 277-279.

Weber R, Keil NM, Fehr M, Horat R (2009) Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science 124: 216-222.

20

Piglet growth was equivalent, & sometimes better, in pens than crates• sows ate more in pens than crates

Piglet survival in farrowing pens can be the same as farrowing crates• importance of nest area dimensions• importance of stockperson attitude and skills

Concluding remarks from farrowing pen research

Nest designA narrow nest area adversely affected pre-farrowing nesting behaviour, suckling and piglet survival

• the minimum nest width (2.4 m? - probably related to the length of the sow and her ability to turn around without hindrance)

Sows that used the sloping panels more often, had fewer overlays

Is low piglet viability (vitality) associated with overlying in pens?

Less space provided per sow and litter.Shed design for better control over climate variation (macro & micro).• under-floor drainage has eliminated the use of straw & saved labour.More durable & stronger building materials (e.g. slatted flooring).Better hygiene standards (includes type of flooring for crates).Use of different breeds of pigs.Genetic selection:• for bigger / heavier sows (less robust?).• for larger litters (of faster growing, leaner pigs).• for bigger piglets.• against aggressive sows.Earlier age at weaning.Better knowledge of veterinary medicine and sow nutrition.Better knowledge of the causes of piglet mortality & morbidity.Knowledge of the importance of the stockperson for piglet survival.More sows per stockperson (& mechanization, e.g. feeding).etc.

There have been many changes over the last 50 years relevant to farrowing accommodation and piglet survival.

Where to now for farrowing pens?

For managing sows in "loose" farrowing systems, we have lost:• husbandry knowledge & skills• sow genetics

22

Thanks to

Australian Pork Limited (nee Pig Research and Development Corporation)

An Australian Perspective on Non-crate Farrowing Systems

Western Australian Trials

Hugh Payne and Greg Cronin

Trial 1 - Swedish group-farrowing system adapted for use in a low-cost shelter

• Designed to meet behavioural and welfare needs of the sow at parturition

• 10 sows per group• Continuous access to self-feeder• Free access to farrowing cubicles• 7 day farrowing period• Cubicles removed after 10-14 days

Plan of farrowing shelter

2.4Dry creep feeders

Skim milk trough

25.2

Water troughs

5 removable cubicles

Spray cooling

Utilityarea Wet/dry sow feeders

1.821.6

Milk troughCreep feeder

4.2

2.4

Number of litters 163

Total born per litter 11.1

Born alive per litter 10.6

Stillbirths (%) 5.0

Number weaned per litter 7.6

Pre-weaning mortality (%) 28.4

Results

Pre-weaning mortality

21

30

21 2428

23

52

20 2416

35

0102030405060

Dec 97

Feb 98

May 98

Jul 9

8Sep

98 Dec

98Feb

99May

99Ju

l 99

Sep 99

Dec 99

%

Target15%

Average 28.4%

Summer 32.2%

Autumn, winter, spring 22.2%

Age distribution of piglets at death

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 7 14 21 28 35

Age at death (days)

%

Spatial distribution of overlaid piglets (where found)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Grid Reference

% o

f ove

rlays

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Door

Key to grid

Large litters

(= ↑

mortality)

Dispersion in pen

(= ↑

overlays)

Some of the problems

Cross suckling

(= variable weaning wts)

Split litters - sows calling piglets out of cubicle

Doubling up

Straw management

Other issues

• Sow to sow aggression– bullying, vulva-biting– dominant sows monopolise resources

• Sow to stockperson aggression• Poor hygiene in hot conditions• Excessive cross-suckling• Variation in piglet weaning wt. & sow body

condition• Self weaning• Return to oestrus and riding

Why did it fail?

System fundamentally flawed ?• No isolation at parturition• Insufficient separation distance between

cubicles• Group lactation not viable• Inadequate protection for piglets• Bedded system too warm for lactating

sows in summer

Lessons learned – what might work?

• Individual pens• Protection zones and heated creep

areas for piglets• Minimum straw use to meet sow’s

behavioural needs • Separate nest and utility areas• In other words:

A Werribee Farrowing Pen (WFP)!• WFP not yet tested in a shelter, so…

Study 2 - The WFP project• In collaboration with Dr Greg Cronin:

– Designed and installed 2 modified WFP in existing shelter

– Evaluated prototypes over three seasons– Finalised design – Built and installed 10 more pens (n=12)– Recorded productivity of 13 batches of sows

over a 12 month period (156 litters per treatment)

Changes to original WFP design• Sloping solid floor with 3% fall from

centre passageway to side drain• Underfloor heating in nest area • Feeder moved to front of nest area• Heated creep box provided• Breeze-way created in non-nest area• Provision of gate to confine sow as reqd.• No sloping panels to assist sow posture

changing• No piglet barrier• Minimal bedding used

Overcoming low air temperatures

• Danish research* on farrowing pens in rooms kept at 22°C reported:– 15.7% PWM from 0-7 days, no floor heating– 8.7% PWM from 0-7 days, with floor heating

• Based on this evidence, installed underfloor heating in each WFP (individual pen control)

* From Malmkvist et al. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99 (2006) 88-105

Prototype modified WFP

Plan of final version

under floor heating

Creep boxEntrance

Heat lamp

Sow feeder

Gate

Drinker

Movable gate

100 mm deepopen drain

Gate

Gate

250 high moveable barrier

3.9 m

2.4 m

3% slope

Final Design (with flaws)

Design limitations

• Retrofitting necessitated design compromises

• Issues– Size (?larger than necessary)– Floor totally solid (? slotted floor in non-nest

area)– Open drain (avoid!)

Management changes to improve performance

• Sows confined for first 24 hours• Cross-fostering reduced• Compromised piglets removed• Culling policy - old sows less suited to

WFP

Pre-farrowing mode

Redundant

Farrowing mode

Lactation mode

How the other half lived

Sow productivityCrate WFP Sig.

No. of litters 156 156Average parity 4.3 4.3Total piglets born 12.25 11.92Born alive 11.04 10.94Stillborn 0.88 0.83Mummified 0.33 0.15 **Pre-weaning deaths 0.70 1.12 ***Weaned per litter 10.34 9.82 ***

PWM (%) 6.34 10.23 ***

Seasonal effects

5.77.4

4.3

7.77.7

15.5

7.28.7

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.0

Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Pre

-wea

ning

mor

tality

(%)

Crates (6.3% PWM) WFP (10.2% PWM)

Ambient temperature (daily minima and maxima)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1-Sep

1-Oct

1-Nov

1-Dec

1-Jan

1-Feb

1-Mar

1-Apr

1-May

1-Jun

1-Jul

1-Aug

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Av. daily max 23.9° C

Av. daily min 11.1° C

minima maxima mean & range mean & rangeSpring 10.6 (2.3 - 18.4) 24.2 (12.0 - 39.4)Summer 15.8 (8.5 - 25.0) 32.0 (16.9 - 46.9)Autumn 11.8 (2.3 - 22.0) 24.6 (14.2 - 40.0)Winter 7.5 (1.0 - 15.7) 17.2 (12.9 - 26.3)

Unresolved issues• Optimal pen design

– ?Size, ?flooring, ?partitioning, ?creep areas• Mitigation of high temperatures• Effect of 12-24 h confinement around farrowing• Repeatability of results in large herds• Herd productivity over time• Resolution of occupational health and safety

issues• Genetic selection - fitness for purpose

Acknowledgements

•Richard, Sandy & Annette Gardiner, Piggery Operators•Emalyn Loudon, Company Secretary, Western Australian Pig Industry Skills Centre•Australian Pork Ltd•Department of Agriculture and Food WA

The Pigsafe pen design - derivation, principles and

practicalities

The The PigsafePigsafe pen design pen design -- derivation, principles and derivation, principles and

practicalitiespracticalities

Emma BaxterAlistair Lawrence, Sandra

Edwards

1

2

Pigsafe projectPigsafePigsafe projectproject

• Defra funded PigSAFE project (Piglet and sow alternative farrowing environment)

• Collaborate with farmers, welfare groups and scientists

• Design for optimum welfare and economics– Look at all the literature and reports of what has gone

before– Learn from successes and failures

3

What must an alternative deliver?What must an alternative deliver?

Sow

Piglets

Farmer

It must satisfy the “triangle of needs”

4


Sow

Largest conflict of interests: Sows vs. Piglets and Farmer

Piglets Farmer

VS.

5


Sow Piglets Farmer

VS.

Return to first principles:

What are the biological needs of the sow?

What are the biological needs of the piglets?

i.e. what does it need to survive?

What are the needs of the farmer?

Economics

Safety

Ease

6

What are the biological needs of the sow and piglets? What are the biological needs of the sow and piglets?

NEST-BUILDING• Sow’s needs

– Space (how much?)– Isolation– Enclosure– Substrate (how much?)– Quiet?– Thermal comfort?

• Piglets’ needs– Linked to the sow via the

improvement of maternal behaviour and the progress of farrowing

7

Needs during lactationNeeds during lactation

• Sows– Early = quiet, physical and thermal

comfort– Late = space (how much?)

(piglet escape area, social integration), physical and thermal comfort

• Piglets– Early = protection, continuous udder

access, thermal comfort– Late = protection, udder access,

enrichment, social integration

EARLY (0-7 DAYS)

LATE (7-28 DAYS)

MethodologyMethodology

• Literature reviews– Alternative farrowing systems: Design criteria for

farrowing based on the biological needs of the sows and piglets – (Baxter et al. in press)

– Alternative farrowing systems: A review of welfare and economic aspects of existing systems – (Baxter et al. submitted)

8


• Database of information complied:– 340 items of literature considered (journal

papers, reports, conference proceedings, etc…) 151 items used

– 30 systems identified, reduced to 14 by grouping based on common features

• Crates, modified crates, pens, group systems, outdoor systems

– Summary data gathered to assess welfare and economic performance

9


• Welfare score developed:– Systems were “asked” 50+ questions based on

biological needs during nest-building, farrowing and lactation

– Physical and biological attributes assessed

– Positive response considered positive for welfare

10

Assessing welfare – development of welfare score Assessing welfare – development of welfare score

Welfare scoreWelfare score

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Crate

Turnaro

und c

rate

Hinged

/Swing

-side

crate

Simple

pen

Design

ed pe

nSlop

ed pe

nMus

hroom

pen

Ljung

ström

Thorst

enss

on

Free ac

cess

then

grp

Crate t

hen g

roup

Family

pen

Kenne

l+run

Outdoo

r

System

Wel

fare

sco

re

Weighted (1:11) Not weighted (1:1)

PerformancePerformance

System LittersizeBorn alive

% Total mort %Stillborn

%Live- born

mortality

Sample size

(sows or litters)

Crate 11.11 10.36 18.34 7.11 11.52 902.12

Ellipsoid/Ottawa/Turnaround 10.04 8.86 16.26 5.15 11.36 28.38

Hinged/Swing-side 11.86 10.95 17.35 6.99 11.74 2327.36

Pen 11.66 11.32 20.72 5.69 14.22 297.33

Defined/Designed 11.22 10.60 16.53 7.27 12.01 752.15

Sloped/Hill-side 10.69 10.08 19.60 5.84 12.18 17.25

Mushroom 12.01 11.27 16.36 6.16 10.20 105.00

Ljungstrum 12.50 11.85 28.00 8.00 22.30 18.00

Thorstensson 12.11 11.26 23.65 7.12 19.19 94.14

Free access then grp 10.45 10.92 18.71 4.99 16.98 40.78

Rest then grp 11.08 10.99 16.64 8.26 18.12 650.00

Family pen 13.00 10.75 22.29 4.99 18.83 243.63

Kennel 11.66 10.83 20.43 6.89 15.03 122.25

Outdoor 11.88 9.20 16.98 8.41 16.75 354.63

PerformancePerformancePerformance

System LittersizeBorn alive

% Total mort %Stillborn

%Live- born

mortality

Sample size

(sows or litters)

Crate 11.11 10.36 18.34 7.11 11.52 902.12

Ellipsoid/Ottawa/Turnaround 10.04 8.86 16.26 5.15 11.36 28.38

Hinged/Swing-side 11.86 10.95 17.35 6.99 11.74 2327.36

Pen 11.66 11.32 20.72 5.69 14.22 297.33

Defined/Designed 11.22 10.60 16.53 7.27 12.01 752.15

Sloped/Hill-side 10.69 10.08 19.60 5.84 12.18 17.25

Mushroom 12.01 11.27 16.36 6.16 105.00

Ljungstrum 12.50 11.85 28.00 8.00 22.30 18.00

Thorstensson 12.11 11.26 23.65 7.12 19.19 94.14

Free access then grp 10.45 10.92 18.71 4.99 16.98 40.78

Rest then grp 11.08 10.99 16.64 8.26 18.12 650.00

Family pen 13.00 10.75 22.29 4.99 18.83 243.63

Kennel 11.66 10.83 20.43 6.89 15.03 122.25

Outdoor 11.88 9.20 16.98 8.41 16.75 354.63

1818

Overview of designsOverview of designs

SAC

“New build”

Whole room view

12 pens to a room

19

Overview of designs - SACOverview of designs Overview of designs -- SACSAC

20

Pigsafe pensPigsafe pens

2121

Overview of designs - NewcastleOverview of designs - Newcastle

Smaller space arrangements, same design features

Slurry system

Plastic floors

Only solid area in nesting section

Conversion of a farrowing house room which had 5 crates

Now 4 Pigsafe pens per room

Original farrowing crate room Conversion to Pigsafe pens

22

NewcastleNewcastleNewcastle

23

Prototype designPrototype design

• Defined space– At least separate

dunging and lying areas

24




– Separate feeding area preferred

25




– Separate feeding area preferred

– Creep recommended (solid and heated)

CREEP

26


Design challenges• Hygiene –

– Getting the sow to dung in the dunging area

– Keeping the nesting material in the lying area

• Farrowing – getting the sow to lay on the solid area near the creep

• Protection – providing protection for the piglets when the sow is changing posture

• Operator safety, ease of management

CREEP

27

Design challenge - HygieneDesign challenge - Hygiene

28

CREEP

Design challenge – Farrowing locationDesign challenge – Farrowing location

How do we get the sow to farrow in the lying area and next to the creep?

Make the space “attractive” to the sowWhat are her biological needs?SpaceIsolationEnclosureNesting materialQuiet?

29

Design challenge – Farrowing locationDesign challenge – Farrowing location

SOLID WALLS

around lying area

CREEP

Barred walls and gates to see/contact

neighbouring sows

(half solid to prevent piglet

escapes)

30

Design challenge– Farrowing locationDesign challenge– Farrowing location

CREEP

31

Prototype design – Farrowing locationPrototype design – Farrowing location

CREEP

32

Design challenge – Piglet protectionDesign challenge – Piglet protection

CREEP

SLOPED WALLS: Piglet protection and sow welfare

33

Design challenge – Piglet protectionDesign challenge – Piglet protection

34

Design challenge - ManagementDesign challenge - ManagementLow creep wall for easier access from passageway

High sided walls bars to prevent

jumping

What about the farmer?Safe access to piglets and for

mucking outEase of husbandry

CREEP

Lock-in feeder

Access gates to get sows

and humans in

and out

35

Design challenge - ManagementDesign challenge - Management

3636

Pigsafe post-experimental changesPigsafe post-experimental changes

Space = nest converted to smaller space


37

Creep design – details important


Hygiene challenge: Pop-hole put in when space constrained

38

3939

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

Pigsafe layoutPigsafe layout

40

Relevant papersRelevant papers

• Baxter EM, Lawrence AB & Edwards, SA. Alternative farrowing systems: Design criteria for farrowing based on the biological needs of the sows and piglets. Animal in press.

• Vosough Ahmadi B, Stott AW, Baxter EM, Lawrence AB & Edwards SA. Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems. Animal Welfare in press.

• Baxter EM, Lawrence AB & Edwards SA. Alternative farrowing systems: A review of welfare and economic aspects of existing systems – Animal - submitted

41

Performance of the Performance of the PIGSAFEPIGSAFE system system

in the UK/EU Industry Contextin the UK/EU Industry Context

Sandra Edwards, Emma Baxter, Alistair Lawrence

Alternative Farrowing workshop, Attwood 2010

APL are gratefully acknowledged for sponsorship of this visit

Report of EU Scientific Veterinary Committee 1997

Recommendation 80

“The further development of farrowing systems in which the sow can be kept loose and carry out normal nest building, without the systems compromising piglet survival, should be strongly encouraged”

EFSA Scientific Report 2007

“Housing of sows in farrowing crates severely restricts their freedom of movement which increases the risk of frustration… It does not allow them … to show normal nest building behaviour….”

“The motivation for nest building is high…Lack of nesting material is very likely to cause stress”

EFSA Scientific Report 2007

“The level of piglet welfare and mortality on farms remains a major problem. Great variation in piglet mortality in different systems makes it difficult to draw a general conclusion about the influence of farrowing systems…”

“The use of loose farrowing systems should be implemented only if piglet mortality in them is no greater…”

The Current EU Situation

No legislation addressing a phasing out of farrowing crates.

Only one EU country has unilaterally gone further in national legislation– Sweden: farrowing crates not permitted

(except for a few days for problem animals)

The Current EU Situation:

Sows still in farrowing crates (EFSA 2007 survey)

– France 83%– Germany 90%– Denmark 97%

UK– 40% of sows outdoors– >95% of indoor sows farrow in crates

Heather Mills is supporting a campaign Heather Mills is supporting a campaign to stop farrowing crate farmingto stop farrowing crate farming

Welfare campaigns against farrowing crates

1990s “Motherhood behind bars” press campaign

Letter to members 8th January 2009

From 23rd January 2010, new producers will not be allowed to use farrowing crates at any time.

Existing members of the scheme will be allowed to use farrowing crates for up to five days after farrowing, until 31st December 2013.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/freedomfood

Since 2000, Since 2000, CiWFCiWF has highlighted practices of has highlighted practices of the biggest UK supermarkets on farm animal the biggest UK supermarkets on farm animal

welfare standards welfare standards

‘‘Supermarkets and Farm Animal Welfare Supermarkets and Farm Animal Welfare –– Raising the StandardRaising the Standard’’

“Farrowing crates: At least 70% of the pig meat sold by Asda, Sainsbury’s, Somerfield and Tesco comes from the offspring of sows kept in farrowing crates”

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/

The UK Retailer Response

Not purchasing meat from crate systems(currently sourcing outdoor)– Waitrose (4% pigmeat market share)– Marks & Spencer– Co-op

Hoping to phase out (but currently crates)– Sainsbury’s (moving towards Freedom Food standard)

No public initiatives (but concerned)– Tesco (28% market share)– ASDA– Morrisons

PIGLET SURVIVAL: EU BenchmarksPIGLET SURVIVAL: EU Benchmarks

UK Denmark Sweden

Born alive 11.2 14.0 12.6

Pre-weaning mortality (%)

12.6 13.8 16.4

Weaned/litter 9.8 12.1 10.5

Weaned/year 22.1 27.2 23.2

Interpig, 2009

PIGLET SURVIVAL: UK benchmarksPIGLET SURVIVAL: UK benchmarks

UK all Indoor Outdoor

Born alive 11.2 11.5 10.9

Pre-weaning mortality (%)

12.5 12.3 12.6

Weaned/litter 9.8 10.1 9.6

Weaned/year 22.2 22.8 21.6

BPEX, 2010

What alternatives have been tried in UK ?What alternatives have been tried in UK ?

Outdoor

40% of UK breeding herd(very successful with correct

location & management)

Indoor OutdoorTotal born 12.1 11.5Liveborn mortality % 12.0 10.5Total mortality % 19.5 16.2Weaned 9.7 9.6

MLC Pigplan herds (2000-07)


Two stage systems

Swing side crates(on a few farms)

360o farrower(launched at 2010 Pig Fair)


Two stage systems

Multisuckling(tried on a few farms but too unreliable)


Indoor loose systems

Solari system(on a few more traditional farms)


Group systems

Freedom Farrowing(worked in research but not robust in practice)


Hut and run systems

Outdoors on concrete or in clear span buildings

(recently installed at a few colleges, variable results)

Danish loose farrowing Danish loose farrowing researchresearch activities inactivities in 2007/092007/09

Close collaboration of industry body, Universities, The Danish Animal Welfare Society

20

>500 pens on commercial farms being monitored

How does How does ““PIGSAFEPIGSAFE”” perform?perform?

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=RSPCAHome

http://www.defra.gov.uk/

http://www.qmscotland.co.uk/index.php

The Contrasting PrototypesThe Contrasting Prototypes

Newcastle SAC

Sow BehaviourSow Behaviour

The nest design appears to be working

02468

101214161820

Total born(BA+BD)

Totalweaned

% totalmortality

% livebornmortality

% stillbornmortality

PIGSAFEBPEX indoor average

PIGSAFE Prototype PerformancePIGSAFE Prototype Performance Interim results (all designs combined)Interim results (all designs combined)

2 sites152 litters23% gilts

Very high litter sizes have been a challenge with restricted fostering possibilities (research farms)

Prototype Development ComparisonsPrototype Development Comparisons

Experimental design:– 2x2 factorial designs asking different questions of the system

regarding outstanding issues

Newcastle: QUIET/ROOF, NEST SUBSTRATE AMOUNTSAC : PEN SIZE, TEMPERATURE OF HEATED FLOOR

Measures taken• Production (Labour, time, costs, problems)• Performance (Piglet survival, health, injuries, return to oestrus, etc)• Behaviour (Use of space, Sow-Piglet interactions, Maternal behaviour)

02468

1012141618202224

Total born(BA+BD)

Total weaned % totalmortality

% livebornmortality

% stillbornmortality

Newcastle SAC small SAC Large

PIGSAFE Prototype PerformancePIGSAFE Prototype Performance (interim results)(interim results)

No treatment differences at NewcastleLarger nest has given higher mortality at SAC

Other Practical ConsiderationsOther Practical Considerations

Capital cost– We expect this to be commercially ~50% higher

than crates (depends how you do it!)

Labour demand– Similar to crates (routine tasks and washing)– Nest hygiene is critical

Working routines– Our staff like it– Safety not an issue

PigSAFEPigSAFE PlansPlans

Objective 3: PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT (2009-10)Build and develop prototypes (completed)

Objective 4: PROTOTYPE TESTING (2010-11)Scale up final best system and test commercially against crates– Newcastle, SAC (in progress)– Commercial units – several now in planning

Objective 5: EVALUATE (summer 2011)Carry out impact evaluations of new system– Economic, Environmental, Trade implications

The The GENOMUMGENOMUM project project

(Genetic selection for improved (Genetic selection for improved prepre--weaning survival of outdoor piglets)weaning survival of outdoor piglets)

Do we need different sows in loose farrowing systems?

Partners:Newcastle University

SAC

PIC, JSRGCFGSSPCA

Sponsors:Defra - LivestockDefra - WelfareScottish Office

The GENOMUM ProjectThe GENOMUM Project

Random400 sows

SIRESDam line

DAMSGrampianx

High14 boars

Average14 boars

~3,000 piglets/parity 1 GILTS 2nd gen. x 3 parities

BOARSSire line

High15 boars

x

High300 sows

~3,000 piglets/parity 1

Average15 boars Average

300 sows

Selection response of the firstSelection response of the first--parity sows parity sows (2(2nd nd generation) in piglet survivalgeneration) in piglet survival

Maternal EBV selection

Phenotypic mean

Genetic mean

High EBV group

2.67%

91.1%

3.03% +1.18

Av. EBV group

0

88.4%

0

(Roehe et al., 2008)

The influence of genotype: The influence of genotype: Maternal behaviourMaternal behaviour

Crushing behaviour

0123456789

High Survival Control

Genotype

Num

ber o

f eve

nts

P=0.002

(Baxter., 2008)

Conclusions (so far)Conclusions (so far)

The PigSAFE system is promising

Valid commercial comparisons now needed

How robust is it to different management and staff?

Staff experience and attitude are likely to be important

Different genotypes may be needed to optimise system performance

The Norwegian UMB farrowing

pen system

Greg Cronina, Inger Lise Andersenb

and Knut Bøeb

a The University of Sydney, Faculty of Veterinary Science,

Camden, NSW, 2570

b Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of

Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Ås, Norway

Content

Description of the UMB farrowing pen

Design principles incorporated in the UMB pen

Gaps in knowledge

Inger-Lise Andersen and Knut Bøe from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences visited

the Faculty of Veterinary Science, Camden, from late May to early August 2010. Their

farrowing project has donated 4 prototype farrowing pens to the University of Sydney

piggery at Camden for collaborative research projects and for teaching.

Assoc. Prof. Inger-Lise Andersen Prof. Knut Bøe

Prototype UMB Farrowing Pens - Camden 2010

Concrete delivery - 29 June 2010

Preparing the shed at Mayfarm Pig Unit Camden

We were watching the concrete dry ........

Technicians from Norway came to assemble the pens

The technicians, Christian and Sivert did a great job!!

We would also like to thank the companies Fjøssystemer (and especially Harald

Bore) in Norway and Jyden in Denmark for their positive attitude and asisstance.

Design principles for farrowing pens

1) "nest" area contains design features that are attractive to the peri-parturient sow for

farrowing and which provide protection to piglets

2) "activity" area that provides the sow with space for feeding, dunging and exercise

The UMB Farrowing Pen consists of 2 areas

The "nest" area should be the sow's preferred farrowing site

Principles of pen design

Basic components of porcine maternal behaviour

1) Selection of the birth site

2) Site formation (nest-building activities)

3) Parturition

4) Acceptance of the young and suckling

5) Defence of the nest and/or litter

The function of porcine maternal behaviour is to promote piglet survival.

Key question:

How do these components contribute to piglet survival?

1) Selection of the birth site and piglet survival

What do wild swine do?

Behaviour Motivation(s) Functions

Leaves the herd

(walks up to 6 km)

Seek isolated birth site

(outside the home range)

Reduce disturbance

Chooses site

(often in a grove)

View of approach paths

Find a protected aspect

Avoid predators

Reduce disturbance

Weather protection

Chooses site Ability to dig in the earth?

(surface not too hard?)

Provide a comfortable

base for "nest"?

1) Selection of the birth site and piglet survival

In a farrowing pen system that offers sows a choice of

farrowing location, selection of birth site is very relevant.

How to maximize the use of the nest area provided?

What are sows looking for in a loose farrowing pen?

Factorial experiment:

(1) orientation of nest entrance

• opened forwards or backwards

(2) distance to human activity zone

• near or far from disturbance area

Preference for birth site by gilts in Werribee farrowing pens

8 gilts / treatmentView of approaching disturbance

Distance from disturbance

Near nest Far nest

Forwards Forwards

Forwards Backwards

Backwards Forwards

Backwards Backwards

Locations where litters born

Near nest Far nest

3/8 5/8

2/8 3/8

3/8 4/8

3/8 1/8

Mixed Outside nest

0/8 0/8

3/8 0/8

1/8 0/8

1/8 3/8

24/32

(75%)8/32

(25%)

Backwards nest entrance orientation was associated with farrowing problems.

Preference for birth site by gilts in Werribee farrowing pens

Results

11/32 13/32 5/32 3/32

2) Site formation

Nest-building activities and piglet survival

What do wild swine do?

Behaviour Motivation Function

Root, nose & paw

the earth

Seek a "workable" but

comfortable birth site ?

A depression shaped

like the sow's body

(comfort?)

Gather materials Ambient temperature

Thermal insulation?

Comfort?

Piglet survival

Reduce sow's need

to change position

frequently?

Place and build

up materials to

form the nest

Insulation?

Containment?

Camouflage?

Comfort?

Piglet survival

2) Site formation

Nest-building activities and piglet survival

Evidence is increasing for a positive relationship

between the performance of nest-building behaviour,

"ease" of parturition and piglet survival.

Piglet survival may be promoted through:

• piglets having higher vitality / viability

• reduced risk of crushing - more careful sow behaviour

• others ?

5) Defence of the nest site and litter

Potential OH&S risks

Importance of competent stockpeople & correct

handling of "loose" sows

• training (safety)

• knowledge (what to look for)

• attitude (positive attitude important)

• motivation (respond at the right time)

Piglet survival risks due to fearful sows?

Some gaps in knowledge

Ambient (room) temperature

• Cold weather

• Hot weather

Dunging locations & pen hygiene

Increasing litter size and piglet viability

• Getting the piglets to use the safety zones

• Piglets that are crushed are on average lighter

weight at birth than piglets that survive to weaning

(crushed: 1.17 kg vs survived: 1.42 kg; Weber 2009)

After all the challenging obstacles, someone is happy to have the pens up and running!!

Thank you

RSPCA views on traditional and alternative farrowing systems

Melina TensenScientific Officer (Farm Animals)

RSPCA Australia

Animal welfarePhysical and behavioural needs

Animal welfareProductive and profitable industry

Freedom from hunger and thirstFreedom from discomfortFreedom from pain, injury, or diseaseFreedom to express natural behaviourFreedom from fear and distress

Pig welfare

rspca.org.au

RSPCA AustraliaPO Box 265

Deakin West ACT 2600

T: 02 6282 8300

E: [email protected]

Industry perspective on housing of farrowing sows in non-crated

systems Gaps in knowledge.Rebecca Morrison PhD.

Rivalea’s current position

MCOP Farrowing cratesAgreed that farrowing crates are essential and have no commercial alternative that provides adequate welfare for pigletsMaximum duration in farrowing crates limited to 6 weeks.

Rivalea’s commitment to investigate non‐crated farrowing systems.

Sow welfareCustomer demand

Investigating non‐crated farrowing systems which do not constrain the sow pre‐ and post‐farrowing.

Components of maternal behaviour in pigs:

Selection of the birth site

Site formation (nest-building activities)

Parturition

Acceptance of the young and suckling

Defence of the nest and/or litter

Definition of maternal behaviour:That behaviour, exhibited by mothers towards their young, which is presumed to aid the young in their survival, growth and development, both physically and behaviourally.

Background to farrowing research

(From Cronin, 2007)

Non-crated systems must be commercially viable

i.e.

Piglet survival similar to farrowing crates ‐ 88% survival of piglets born

(i.e. 12% piglet mortality)

Piglet welfare and economics

Non‐crated farrowing system must fit into existing “footprint” of

farrowing sheds /infrastructue or “Free Range”.

Producers must be able to use existing infrastructure‐capital investment

Effluent system management

Welfare of sow and piglet taken into consideration

Non-crated farrowing systems

Rivalea are investigating :

Free‐Range (whole life cycle for boars, sows and piglets)

Deep‐litter, group lactation

PIGSafe farrowing pen

5

St Bernard’s Free-Range System

Deep-litter, group lactation in Ecoshelters.

Thorstensson system:

Sows farrow in boxes in a group room-boxes removed when pigs are 10 days old.

10 sows and litters/room

7m2/sow and litter

Individual farrowing boxes

(From WCROC, Uni. Minnesota)

Deep-litter, group lactation in Ecoshelters.

Direction of future researchDesigns that adapted to Australian environment

Optimum number sows/ecoshelter/paddock? Farrowing pen design?

Bedding requirements? Free Range vs. indoor systems

Cost effective designs‐fit into existing shed “footprint”/ecoshelter

Piglet survival

Genetic selection/mothering ability. Is piglet survival in the first 24 hrs sufficient?

Indicators at gilt selection that determine mothering ability?

Farrowing pen/box design

Investigation of systems must include comprehensive measures of sow and

piglet welfare .

CRC rebid‐Designs for confinement‐free sow and piglet management

Non-crated systems must be commercially viable

Piglet survival of 88%

Must fit into existing “footprint” of farrowing sheds /infrastructue or

“Free Range”.

Welfare of sow and piglet taken into consideration

An Australian perspective on non-crate farrowing …animalwelfare.net.au/comm/download/Alt Farr...

Documents

Transcript of An Australian perspective on non-crate farrowing …animalwelfare.net.au/comm/download/Alt Farr...