Duration of confinement and pen-type affect health-related measures of welfare in lactating sows

Investigating risk factors behind piglet facial and sow teat lesions through a literature review and a survey on teeth reduction

Introduction

Piglet facial and sow teat lesions are the main reported reasons why pig producers routinely practice teeth resection. This is a painful procedure performed on piglets, where their needle teeth are clipped or ground to resect the pointed tip. The practice raises welfare concerns. In contrast to other procedures, such as tail docking, we know little about the risk factors for these two types of lesions.

Methods

We employed two methods to answer these questions: (1) reviewing the literature to identify potential risk factors, and (2) surveying pig production stakeholders worldwide to identify the occurrence of these lesions and the strategies used in practice that enable pig producers to manage or prevent these lesions while avoiding teeth resection. For the literature review, we used Google Scholar to include peer-reviewed publications and gray literature. We distributed the survey using convenience sampling and documented information on the current situation regarding teeth resection, including the methods, frequencies, and reasons for resecting piglets' teeth, the occurrence of piglet facial and sow teat lesions, and measures used to prevent and control these lesions.

Results

The literature review identified six major risk factors for both lesions, including the presence or absence of teeth resection, housing system, litter size, piglet management, environmental enrichment, milk production and other piglet management practices. However, most studies focused on the effects of the first two factors with very few studies investigating the other risk factors. There were 75 responses to the survey from 17 countries. The survey showed that half of the respondents practiced teeth resection with many recognizing that facial and teat lesions are the main reasons behind this practice. However, many producers used other interventions rather than teeth resection to prevent these lesions. These interventions focused on improving milk production of the sow, managing large litters, and providing environmental enrichment.

Discussion

More research is needed to validate these interventions and more science-based advice is needed to bridge the gap between research and practice to help more producers further understand the cause of piglet facial and sow teat lesions to transition toward the cessation of routine teeth resection.

Where is the sow’s nose: RetinaNet object detector as a basis for monitoring the use of rack with nest-building material

Access to nest-building material in the preparturient period is beneficial for sows’ welfare. However, on slatted floors, long-stem forage can drop into the slurry and block the drainage system. As a compromise considering the needs of sows for access to adequate nest-building material, farrowing pens with slatted floors are equipped with dispensers (racks) accessible by sows. In this study, we developed a computer vision method to monitor the use of the racks with nest-building material. In total, 12 sows were included in the experiment from 5 days before farrowing to the end of farrowing. Hay rack use behaviors were labeled for all the sows, i.e., pulling hay, nose close to the rack, exploratory behavior, and bar biting. The object detection algorithm RetinaNet was used to extract centroids of parts of the sow’s body and the hay rack. Several feature variables were estimated from the centroids of detected parts of the sow’s body, and random forest was used for the classification of hay rack use behaviors. The model for the detection of pulling hay behavior had the best performance: 83.5% sensitivity, 98.7% specificity, and 98.6% accuracy. The distance between the sows’ nose and the hay rack was the most important feature variable, which indicated the importance of nose location for the recognition of behaviors in which pigs interact with other objects. The developed models could be applied for automated monitoring of the use of nest-building material in preparturient sows. Such monitoring might be especially important in sows housed on slatted floors.

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.

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.