Improved udder access prolongs duration of milk letdown and increases piglet weight gain

A five domains assessment of sow welfare in a novel free farrowing system

The Maternity Ring was developed as a free farrowing alternative to crates that preserved space whilst providing the sow with unrestricted movement. This experiment aimed to apply the Five Domains model to assess sow welfare in the Maternity Ring in comparison with the farrowing crate. Eighty-eight sows were housed in a farrowing crate (FC) and 83 in a Maternity Ring (MR), and measures collected focussed on nutrition, environment, health, behaviour, and mental state outcomes. MR sows consumed less feed than FC sows (total feed intake: 93.8 ± 3.06 kg vs. 111.2 ± 3.13 kg; p < 0.001) but had reduced P2 backfat loss during lactation (0.0 ± 0.11 vs. 1.2 ± 0.11, p < 0.001). Fewer frustrated and pain-related behaviours during farrowing were observed in MR sows (bar biting: FC 3.3 ± 2.12 vs. MR 0.5 ± 0.29 events, p = 0.038, and back leg forward: FC 227 ± 50.7 vs. MR 127 ± 26.4 events, p = 0.019), and a decreased proportion of MR sows had facial injuries after farrowing (10% CI [5, 20] vs. 67% CI [47, 95], p < 0.001). More FC sows had udder damage at weaning (70% CI [48, 97] vs. 10% CI [6, 24], p < 0.001), and their piglets were medicated more frequently when compared to those in MR (51% CI [40, 61] vs. 30% [21, 41], p = 0.008). MR sows tended to have a higher reaction score to piglet processing (MR 2.0 ± 0.38 vs. FC 1.2 ± 0.27, p = 0.094) and had more contact with piglets once the procedure was complete than FC sows (13.5 ± 2.55 vs. 6.9 ± 1.26 events, respectively, p = 0.016). Whilst there was no difference in anticipation of a feeding event (p > 0.05), MR sows displayed a reduced startle response to an aversive noise stimulus at day 18 (FC 2.8 ± 0.35, MR 0.7 ± 0.16, p < 0.001). Using the Five Domains framework, sows housed in the MR during farrowing and lactation have improved welfare than those in FC and can be thought of as being in a positive affective state.

Impact of farrowing system and prepartum nest-building material on nest-building behaviour and farrowing in sows

Farrowing crates are widely used as the main housing system for farrowing and lactating sows on commercial farms although they have a negative impact on sow welfare and behaviour. One of the main reasons for using farrowing crates is to reduce piglet mortality during farrowing and lactation. We compared the effects of temporary crating (TC) versus free farrowing (FF) with different nest-building materials on production and welfare measures. Sows were investigated using a 2 × 3 factorial design. Sows were allocated to two farrowing treatments: FF sows were not crated around farrowing, and TC sows were crated from 2 days before expected farrowing until 3 days after farrowing, when the crate was opened. In both farrowing treatments, the nest-building material was given from 7 days prior to farrowing as follows: (1) 1 L of straw twice per day, (2) 1 sheet of newspaper twice per day or (3) fastened jute fabric to the farrowing crate. The study consisted of two parts; part 1 included a total of 87 sows for data on piglet mortality and growth, and part 2 included data on nest-building and farrowing behaviour from a subset of these sows (n = 34). Farrowing treatment affected piglet mortality; FF sows had a lower number of stillborn piglets than TC sows (P = 0.04), but the number of crushed piglets was higher (P < 0.01). Nest-building material tended to have an impact on total number of crushed piglets (P = 0.08) and piglets that died during 3 days of lactation (P = 0.09). Litter growth was better in the FF group than in the TC group from piglet age of 1 day to 3 weeks (P = 0.04). Overall, little nest-building-related behaviour occurred, probably due to the small amount of nest-building material. The usability of the nest-building material varied with farrowing treatment; FF sows used newspaper most for nest-building, while TC sows used straw and jute fabric (P = 0.01). There were no differences in the piglet birth intervals or the farrowing duration. In conclusion, free farrowing can have positive effects on piglet growth but negative effects on piglet survival in early lactation. Different nest-building materials have different effects depending on the type of farrowing system.

Effects of free farrowing system on the productive performance and welfare of sows and piglets

Regardless of international animal welfare regulations, most sows in production currently spend most of their lives and the peripartum period in caged housing systems. Although this type of management is intended to reduce neonatal mortality in piglets, several studies consider that there has been no significant reduction in its incidence over the last 30 years. On the contrary, cage housing has promoted the appearance of alterations during the farrowing process such as dystocia, as well as in maternal behavior and health, promoting stereotypes, skin lesions and other alterations, which not only impact the sows but also their progeny during the lactational period. Therefore, the aim of the present review is to compare the productive performance and welfare of sows and their piglets within the farrowing, lactation, and post-weaning period in both traditional and free-farrowing systems, highlighting the differences in these indicators in each of them.

Animal board invited review: The need to consider emissions, economics and pig welfare in the transition from farrowing crates to pens with loose lactating sows

In the development and implementation of housing systems for pigs, there has been a significant focus on pig welfare including loose housing of lactating sows either indoors or outdoors. However, it is equally important to consider the environmental and economic aspects of housing systems to ensure sustainability in livestock production. The aim of this work was to review the sustainability (societal and animal welfare, environmental and economic impact) of different approaches for housing farrowing and lactating sows in indoor environments. The review illustrates that like outdoor systems, indoor housing systems are challenged in meeting the three pillars of sustainability when changing the housing of lactating sows from conventional crates with permanent confinement to systems with temporary or zero-confinement. Increased space allowance increases sow welfare, but in addition, pen designs with increased space increase ammonia emission, investment and running costs. Furthermore, indoor loose lactation systems come with an increased risk for piglet mortality, which unless effectively managed, reduces animal welfare and the economic sustainability of the system. If farms retrofit existing buildings, the larger space per loose farrowing pen leads to a reduction in pen numbers and therefore herd size, reducing the farm profitability. If farmers choose to reduce herd size to meet requirements, welfare will be reduced while emissions will be increased as more sows are brought into production again in other countries, often in conventional systems with fully slatted flooring, to meet the demand for animal protein to feed the growing global population. The review indicates there are ways to house lactating sows loose indoors with increased opportunity to perform highly motivated species-specific behaviours compared to the conventional crates with continuous confinement. These systems can offer a lower risk for environmental impact and economic risk through reducing piglet mortality. Nevertheless, a trade-off for continual freedom of sow movement may be required as zero-confinement increases the risk of piglet mortality and increased emissions. It is important to raise awareness among citizens and policy makers that loose farrowing and lactating systems if applied today, come with a higher production cost and the risk of increased environmental impact. More research and development is needed in relation to the environmental and economic impact of these systems in order to give farmers the best information to invest in new and more sustainable production systems.

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.

Welfare of pigs on farm

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal-based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative 'End the Cage Age'. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long-stemmed or long-cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest-building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live-born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on-farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.

Improving young pig welfare on-farm: The Five Domains Model

Considering welfare through the "neonatal and nursery pig perspective" is an exciting approach, and one that resonates with consumers. Overlaying this with the Five Domains Model, as we suggest in this review, points to practical on-farm improvements that provide each pig the opportunity to experience positive mental states. The Five Domains Model is broken into physical and functional states, that includes Domain 1 Nutrition, Domain 2 Physical Environment, Domain 3 Health and, Domain 4 Behavioral Interaction, and Domain 5 Mental State. The Five Domains Model can build on the breadth and depth of swine welfare science to highlight opportunities to improve welfare on-farm. In Domain 1 management of increasingly large litters is considered, with examples of sow vs. artificial rearing, colostrum quality and quantity, and creep feed management strategies. Efforts can result in positive mental states such as feeling full and content and the ability to experience pleasure of drinking and food tastes/smells. Domain 2 considers space complexity and access to key resources, along with thermal and physical amenities, to promote feelings of physical comfort. Domain 3 considers pig health in three broad, yet inter-linking categories, (a) congenital and hereditary health, (b) environmental pathogen load and, (c) colostrum quality and quantity, and its effect on the microbiome. Improvements can result in a pig that displays vitality and feels healthy. Domain 4 provides the pig opportunities to express its rich behavioral repertoire, specifically positive social interactions, play, and exploration. These efforts can result in pigs feeling calm, safe, comfortable, having companionship, engaged, interested and rewarded. In conclusion, using the Five Domains Model can highlight numerous opportunities to improve current and future housing and management through the "neonatal and nursery pig perspective" with a focus on inducing positive mental states that can result in improved quality of life and welfare state.

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.

Does Nursing Behaviour of Sows in Loose-Housing Pens Differ from That of Sows in Farrowing Pens with Crates?

Sows confined to farrowing crates are restricted in performing natural behaviour such as maternal behaviour. Loose-housing farrowing pens (LH) and farrowing pens with crates (FC) were compared regarding sows’ nursing behaviour via video analyses over four weeks per batch (one day per week). Nursing frequency was similar in LH and FC pens (1.25 ± 0.82 vs. 1.19 ± 0.75 nursings/sow/hour; p > 0.05). However, nursing duration differed between the two systems (LH: 5.7 ± 4.6 min vs. FC: 7.0 ± 5.0 min; odds ratio (OR) 1.168, p = 0.011). In LH pens, more nursing bouts were sow-terminated than in FC pens (OR 0.427, p = 0.001). The probability of sow-terminated nursing occurring increased from week 1 to week 4 (OR 3.479, adjusted p (padj) < 0.001), while that of observing unnursed piglets decreased from week 1 to week 4 (OR 0.301, padj < 0.001) and rose with increasing litter size (OR 1.174, p = 0.010). We conclude that nursing behaviour was affected by the farrowing system, with shorter nursing duration and more nursing terminations by the sow in LH than in FC pens. Since this corresponds to the nursing behaviour of sows in semi-natural conditions, it can be assumed that sows in LH pens are more likely to exhibit natural nursing behaviour.

Freedom to Grow: Improving Sow Welfare also Benefits Piglets

Piglet mortality, especially due to crushing, is a concern in pig production. While current systems use farrowing crates to reduce mortality, they present major animal welfare problems for the sow. This study investigated the effects of free lactation farrowing accommodation on the welfare of piglets born and reared in such accommodation when compared with conventional farrowing crates. Piglets were born to sows in one of two farrowing accommodation treatments and followed from birth to slaughter. Treatments were conventional farrowing crates (control, n = 24 litters) and free lactation pens, which were larger and allowed the sow freedom of movement both pre and post farrowing, (free, n = 22 litters) (675 total piglets). Individual weights were recorded from birth to slaughter. Hoof score was recorded at weaning. Behaviour was recorded during lactation and during the weaner stage. Pre-weaning percentage mortality was equal in treatments (free = 15.95 ± 2.31, control = 14.42 ± 2.15, p = 0.61). Final weight was influenced by treatment (p < 0.05) with pigs from free lactation pens significantly heavier at 114.73 kg compared to 110.82 kg for control pigs. Free pigs took fewer days than control pigs to reach the target weight of 105 kg (147.6 vs. 149.23 days). Throughout lactation, fewer instances of damaging behaviour (ear and tail biting) were observed in free pigs (p = 0.07). Improved growth rates and a decrease in damaging behaviours provide evidence to suggest that pigs from free lactation pens experience improved welfare when compared with control pigs.

Coping with large litters: management effects on welfare and nursing capacity of the sow

A number of management issues can be used as drivers for change in order to improve animal welfare and nursing capacity of the hyperprolific sow. Group housing of sows during gestation is a recommended practice from the perspective of animal welfare. Related health issues include reproductive health and the locomotor system. It appears that management of pregnant sows in groups is challenging for a producer and considerable skill is required. We explored the benefits and challenges of group housing, including feeding issues. Increasing litter size requires additional attention to the mammary gland and its ability to provide sufficient nursing for the growing litter. We discuss the fundamentals of mammary development and the specific challenges related to the hyperprolific sow. We also address challenges with the farrowing environment. It appears that the old-fashioned farrowing crate is not only outdated in terms of welfare from the public’s perspective, but also fails to provide the environment that the sow needs to support her physiology of farrowing, nursing, and maternal behaviour. Studies from our group and others indicate that providing the sow with a loose housing system adequate in space and nesting material, along with reasonable chance for isolation, can be considered as fundamental for successful farrowing of the hyperprolific sow. It has also been shown that management strategies, such as split suckling and cross fostering, are necessary to ensure proper colostrum intake for all piglets born alive in a large litter. We thus conclude that welfare and nursing capacity of the sow can be improved by management. However, current megatrends such as the climate change may change sow management and force the industry to rethink goals of breeding and, for instance, breeding for better resilience may need to be included as goals for the future.

Impact of litter size, supplementary milk replacer and housing on the body composition of piglets from hyper-prolific sows at weaning

The modern hyper-prolific sow gives birth to 17 live-born piglets on average. An alternative strategy to nurse sows and artificial rearing may be providing milk replacer while letting all the piglets stay with their dam. However, milk replacer is of lower nutritional quality than sow milk and may reduce the body fat content of piglets who use milk replacer to compensate for low suckling success due to competition at the udder. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the body composition at weaning of two random sow-reared piglets per litter from 93 litters by using the deuterium oxide dilution technique. The piglets were part of large study with a 2×2×2 factorial design of either 14 or 17 piglets from day 1 (LS: LS14/LS17) with or without access to milk replacer (MILK: -MILK/+MILK) and reared by crated or loose-housed sows (HOUSING: CRATE/ LOOSE). From behavioral observations day 21 in +MILK, piglets were divided according to their frequency of drinking milk replacer and suckling (Nutrition Source). Increasing LS from 14 to 17 reduced the average daily gain from 258 to 228 g/d and body fat % from 14.4 to 12.7% (P<0.01). In a two-way interaction between LS and HOUSNG, the body fat percentage was lower (P=0.04) and the water percentage tended to be higher (P=0.07) in LS17 CRATE compared to the other treatments (i.e. LS17 LOOSE, LS14 CRATE and LOOSE). There was no effect of MILK on piglet composition day 28 (P>0.1). In +MILK, the Nutrition Source affected piglet body composition (P<0.05) as piglets with low suckling frequency (LOW) had lower body fat and higher water content compared to piglets who had high suckling frequency (SUCKLE). Unexpectedly, drinking milk replacer in addition to suckling (MIXED) did not increase piglet body fat content. Relying mainly on milk replacer (CUP) caused body fat and water contents to be intermediate to piglets with high (SUCKLE and MIXED) and low suckling frequency (LOW). In conclusion, LS had a clear impact on piglet growth and body composition at weaning. In contrast, supplementation of milk and housing had only negligible impact on litter performance. Some individual piglets that had low frequency of sow milk intake benefitted from milk supplementation. Loose housing appeared to benefit piglet body fat at weaning but this was due to a greater piglet mortality.

Sow behaviour and piglet weight gain after late cross-fostering in farrowing crates and pens

Determining best practices for managing free farrowing systems is crucial for uptake. Cross-fostering, the exchange of piglets between litters, is routinely performed amongst crate-housed sows. However, cross-fostering can increase fighting amongst the litter and may be more challenging within free farrowing systems as sows have more freedom to respond to cross-fostered piglets. This study compared the effect of either cross-fostering (FOS), or a control of sham-fostering (CON), of four focal piglets per litter on Day 6 postpartum in crates (CRATE) and free farrowing pens (PEN). The post-treatment behavioural responses of sows were recorded (Day 6 = 60 min; Day 7 = 300 min; n = 48), as were the average daily gain (ADG; g/day), total weight gain (TWG; kg) and body lesion scores of focal piglets and their littermates throughout lactation (Day 6, Day 8, Day 11 and Day 26; n = 539) and the post-weaning period (Day 29, Day 32 and Day 60; n = 108). On Day 6, though post-reunion latency to nursing did not differ, latency to successful nursing was longer amongst FOS than CON litters (P < 0.001), more so amongst CRATE FOS than PEN FOS (P < 0.01). On Day 7, PEN FOS sows had fewer successful nursing bouts (P < 0.05) and exhibited decreased lateral (P < 0.01) and increased ventral lying frequencies (P < 0.01) compared to all other housing and treatment combinations. Focal piglet ADG was lower for FOS than CON in the CRATE during Day 6 to Day 8 (P < 0.01) and lower in the PEN during Day 6 to Day 8 (P < 0.001), Day 8 to Day 11 (P < 0.01) and Day 11 to Day 26 (P < 0.05). The TWG of pre-weaned focal piglets (Day 6 to Day 26) was higher amongst CON than FOS litters (P = 0.01). Post-weaning, piglet ADG was higher for PEN than CRATE during Day 26 to Day 29 (P < 0.01) and higher for FOS than CON during Day 26 to Day 29 (P < 0.05), Day 29 to Day 32 (P < 0.001) and Day 32 to Day 60 (P < 0.01); thus, TWG was higher for FOS than CON during the weaner (P = 0.001) and the combined lactation and weaner periods (P = 0.09). In conclusion, sow behaviour was disrupted by cross-fostering in the crates and pens and continued to be disturbed on the following day amongst penned sows. FOS piglets exhibited reduced ADG after cross-fostering, which extended throughout lactation in the pens. However, the increased post-weaning weight gain of FOS piglets meant that their TWG was higher than CON piglets, irrespective of the farrowing system used.

Effects of Farrowing Stall Layout and Number of Heat Lamps on Sow and Piglet Production Performance

Simple Summary

In the commercial swine industry, farrowing stalls are commonly used as a strategy to reduce piglet pre-weaning mortalities caused by sow over-lay. Farrowing stall dimensions have generally remained the same over the past 50 years in the United States, even though the sizes of both the sows and litters have increased considerably. This extensive field study investigated if sow and piglet productivity would be affected when housed in stalls of traditional layout, additional area for the piglets, or additional area for the sow. All three layouts were also tested with use of one or two supplementary heat lamps in the creep area. Results show that stall layout and number of heat lamps had no statistical impact on production outcomes. However, seasonal differences, sow parity, and number of litter mates did have significant effects. Providing larger stalls or an additional heat lamp costs more for the producer but did not yield production improvements.

Abstract

Most farrowing facilities in the United States use stalls and heat lamps to improve sow and piglet productivity. This study investigated these factors by comparing production outcomes for three different farrowing stall layouts (traditional, expanded creep area, expanded sow area) and use of one or two heat lamps. Data were collected on 427 sows and their litters over one year. Results showed no statistical differences due to experimental treatment for any of the production metrics recorded, excluding percent stillborn. Parity one sows had fewer piglets born alive (p < 0.001), lower percent mortality (p = 0.001) and over-lay (p = 0.003), and a greater number of piglets weaned (p < 0.001) with lower average daily weight gain (ADG) (p < 0.001) and more uniform litters (p = 0.001) as compared to higher parity sows. Farrowing turn, associated with group/seasonal changes, had a significant impact on most of the production metrics measured. Number of piglets born influenced the percent stillborn (p < 0.001). Adjusted litter size had a significant impact on percent mortality (p < 0.001), percent over-lay (p < 0.001), and number of piglets weaned (p < 0.001). As the number of piglets weaned per litter increased, both piglet ADG and litter uniformity decreased (p < 0.001). This information can be used to guide producers in farrowing facility design.

Effect of litter size, milk replacer and housing on production results of hyper-prolific sows

The modern hyper-prolific sow gives birth to more piglets than she has functional teats (in the following called supernumerary piglets). The aim of the present study was (1) to investigate the production consequences of hyper-prolific sows rearing supernumerary piglets equal to the mean live-born litter size, and (2) investigate whether potential negative effects on survival and growth could be alleviated by providing access to milk replacer and/or providing easier access to the udder (by loose housing). At day 1 (D1) postpartum (pp), 93 litters were standardised to 14 or 17 piglets (LS14/LS17) after which no piglets were moved between sows leading to decreased litter size if piglets died. Litters were provided with or without milk replacer in milk cups (+MILK/-MILK), and sows were either crated or loose housed (CRATE/LOOSE) in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. Piglet mortality was higher in LS17 compared to LS14 (P < 0.01; OR = 2.0), higher in -MILK compared to +MILK (P = 0.01; OR = 1.2) and higher in LOOSE compared to CRATE (P = 0.02; OR = 1.8). This study showed that sow rearing of supernumerary piglets while supplying with milk replacer can increase piglet survival. It also showed that early mortality before piglets learned to drink milk replacer posed a challenge using this automatic milk replacer system. An interaction between access to milk replacer and the standardised litter size D1 affected litter weight (P < 0.01) and piglet weight day 28 (D28) (P = 0.03). The highest litter weight D28 was found in LS17 +MILK (P < 0.01) but with a lower individual piglet weight than in LS14 -MILK. Piglet weight D28 was higher in LS14 -MILK compared to LS17 regardless of access to milk replacer. Heterogeneity in piglet weight within litters D28 was larger in LS17 (P = 0.03) but could be reduced with +MILK in CRATE (P < 0.01). No effects were found on sow weight loss and feed intake (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the results showed that sows cannot rear the supernumerary piglets without further management interventions to reduce mortality. Supplying supernumerary piglets equal to the mean live-born litter size of hyper-prolific sows with milk replacer can from results of this study be an alternative strategy to the use of nurse sows.

The behaviour and welfare of sows and piglets in farrowing crates or lactation pens

Temporary confinement during parturition and early postpartum may provide an intermediary step preceding loose housing that offers improvement in sow and piglet welfare. Three experiments were conducted to investigate the implications of replacing farrowing crates (FCs) with an alternative housing system from 3 days postpartum until weaning. In each experiment sows farrowed in FCs and were randomly allocated at day 3 of lactation to either a FC or a pen with increased floor space (lactation pen (LP)) until weaning. In experiment 1, piglet growth and sow and piglet skin injuries were recorded for 32 sows and 128 focal piglets in these litters. Behaviour around nursing and piglet behavioural time budgets were also recorded for 24 of these litters (96 focal piglets for time budgets). In experiment 2, measures of skin injury and behavioural time budgets were conducted on 28 sows and 112 focal piglets. The behavioural response of sows to piglet vocalisation (maternal responsiveness test (MRT)) was also assessed. In experiment 3, piglet mortality from day 3 of lactation until weaning was recorded in 672 litters over 12 months. While housing did not affect piglet weight gain in experiment 1, or piglet skin injuries in experiments 1 or 2, sows in both experiments sustained more injuries in LP than FC (experiment 1, 2.9 v. 1.4; experiment 2, 2.5 v. 0.8 lesions/sow; P0.05). Thus, housing sows and litters in LP from day 3 of lactation minimises piglet mortality while improving maternal behaviour in sows and social behaviour in piglets.

Consequences for Piglet Performance of Group Housing Lactating Sows at One, Two, or Three Weeks Post-Farrowing

Housing lactating sows with piglets in a multi-suckling pen from around 14 days post-farrowing is common practice in Swedish organic piglet production. However, nursing-suckling interaction is less frequent in multi-suckling pens than in individual farrowing pens, thus affecting piglet performance, e.g., piglet growth. Moreover, piglet mortality is higher in systems using multi-suckling pens. Three management routines whereby lactating sows with piglets were moved from individual farrowing pens to multi-suckling pens at one, two, or three weeks post-farrowing were compared in terms of nursing-suckling interaction and piglet performance. Correlations between nursing-suckling interaction, piglet performance, and piglet mortality were also examined. In total, 43 Yorkshire sows with piglets were included in the study. Nursing-suckling interaction and all piglet performance parameters except piglet mortality did not differ between management routines. Piglet mortality in the individual farrowing pens did not differ between management routines, but piglet mortality in the multi-suckling pen was lower (P<0.05) when piglets were group housed at three weeks compared with one week post-farrowing. Overall piglet mortality was positively correlated with mortality in the multi-suckling pen for piglets group housed at one week (r = 0.61: P<0.05) and at two weeks post-farrowing (r = 0.62: P<0.05) but not for piglets group housed at three weeks post-farrowing. In conclusion, overall piglet mortality could be reduced if sows and piglets are group housed at three weeks post-farrowing and piglet survival the first week post-farrowing is improved.

Confinement of sows for different periods during lactation: effects on behaviour and lesions of sows and performance of piglets

Alternatives to farrowing crates with continuous confinement of the sow are urgently needed because the animal welfare is negatively impacted. Given the increase of herd sizes, practical experience with loose-housing is needed to force the implementation of these systems in the field. Next to aspects of labour efficiency, detrimental piglet mortality rates that may occur during the first days postpartum (pp) is a major criticism. Therefore, loose-housing after a crating period limited to the first days pp might be a feasible alternative to improve welfare under intensive production conditions. The aim was to investigate the effect of crating sows during lactation for different periods on their behaviour and integument alterations and on piglets' performance. Gilts from a commercial herd were observed from 5 to 26 days pp and housed in farrowing crates (1.85×2.50 m) that could be altered between confinement crates and loose-housing pens. Animals were divided into three groups, that were either crated continuously from birth until weaning (Group A, n=55), until 14 days pp (Group B; n=54) or 7 days pp (Group C, n=59). The behaviour of six randomly selected gilts per group was video recorded from 5 to 26 days pp and analysed by time sampling technique. Lesions on the legs, shoulder and lumbar vertebra were scored on days 7, 14 and 25 pp. Piglets were weighed weekly, causes of losses recorded and weight losses of gilts measured. Not different between groups (P>0.05), animals spent 72 to 76% lying laterally, 14 to 17% lying in abdominal or semi-abdominal position, 9 to 10% standing and 1 to 3% sitting. B-sows were lying longer in week 3 and 4 of lactation compared to A- and C-sows (P0.05), whereas almost 90% of the losses occurred in the first week pp. In conclusion, loose-housing of lactating gilts after a reduced postnatal crating period of 7 days affected neither the activity level of the gilts and lesions on the integument nor pre-weaning mortality. Therefore, it is recommended to allow sows to move around to some extent during the later lactation period.

Sow postural changes, responsiveness to piglet screams, and their impact on piglet mortality in pens and crates

Free farrowing pens (pens) improve the welfare of sows but may increase sow activity and negatively influence piglet production. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of pens and crates on sow postural changes, piglet trapping, sow responses to piglet screams, piglet mortality, and piglet BW gain. It was predicted that provision of greater space (in pens) would increase not only the frequency of sow postural changes and the probability of trappisng but also sow responses to the screams of piglets; thus, the outcome would be no differences in fatal piglet crushing or overall mortality between the housing systems. Sows were randomly moved to either a farrowing pen (n = 20) or farrowing crate (n = 18). Sow behavior was recorded and analyzed for 72 h from the birth of the first piglet (BFP). Sow postural changes included rolling from a ventral to lateral position and vice versa and going from standing to sitting, standing to lying, and sitting to lying. Occurrences of piglet trapping and sow responsiveness to real crushing situations were analyzed. Sow responsiveness was assessed in response to audio playbacks (PB) of piglet screams on d 3 postpartum (48 to 72 h after BFP; PB crush calls) and real piglet crushing during the first 72 h after BFP (real crush calls). Piglet BW gain was estimated 24 h after BFP, piglet BW was recorded at weaning, and piglet crushing and piglet mortality were recorded during the 72 h after BFP. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED and PROC GENMOD of SAS. Sows in pens showed more postural changes (P = 0.04) and tended to have greater incidences of piglet trapping (P = 0.07) than those in crates. Sow response to PB crush calls was greater in pens (P = 0.04) but did not differ for real crush calls between pens and crates (P = 0.62). There was no effect on the probability of piglet crushing (P = 0.38) and mortality (P = 0.41) during the 72 h after BFP nor in piglet mortality at weaning (P = 0.81) between pens and crates. Piglet BW gain at 24 h after BFP (P = 0.01) and piglet BW at weaning (P = 0.02) were greater in pens. Sows in pens showed more postural changes and tended to trap more piglets; however, the response to real crush calls did not differ between the two housing systems. Despite this, there was no increase in piglet crushing or mortality in pens, which might be influenced by the better piglet body condition observed in pens, which in turn could influence their ability to avoid crushing by the sow.