Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:13:37.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

B Vosough Ahmadi ,
AW Stott ,
EM Baxter ,
AB Lawrence  and
SA Edwards
B Vosough Ahmadi*
Affiliation:
Land Economy and Environment Research Group, Scottish Agricultural College, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
AW Stott
Affiliation:
Land Economy and Environment Research Group, Scottish Agricultural College, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
EM Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Scottish Agricultural College, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
AB Lawrence
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Scottish Agricultural College, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
SA Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Agriculture Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: bouda.v.ahmadi@sac.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many countries, including the UK, the majority of domestic sows are housed in farrowing crates during the farrowing and lactation periods. Such systems raise welfare problems due to the close confinement of the sow. Despite the fact that many alternative housing systems have been developed, no commercially viable/feasible option has emerged for large scale units. Current scientific and practical knowledge of farrowing systems were reviewed in this study to identify alternative systems, their welfare and production potential. The aim was to establish acceptable trade-offs between profit and welfare within alternative farrowing systems. Linear programming (LP) was used to examine possible trade-offs and to support the design of welfare-friendly yet commercially viable alternatives. The objective of the LP was to optimise the economic performance of conventional crates, simple pens and designed pens subject to both managerial and animal welfare constraints. Quantitative values for constraints were derived from the literature. The potential effects of each welfare component on productivity were assessed by a group of animal welfare scientists and used in the model. The modelled welfare components (inputs) were extra space, substrate and temperature. Results showed that, when using piglet survival rate in the LP based on data drawn from the literature and incorporating costs of extra inputs in the model, the crates obtained the highest annual net margin and the designed pens and the pens were in second and third place, respectively. The designed pens and the pens were able to improve their annual net margin once alternative reference points, following expert-derived production functions, were used to adjust piglet survival rates in response to extra space, extra substrate and modified pen heating. The non-crate systems then provided higher welfare and higher net margin for sows and piglets than crates, implying the possibility of a win-win situation.

Keywords

alternative housing systemsanimal welfareeconomic optimisationfarrowing systemslinear programmingpig
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 57 - 67
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

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

References

Algers, B and Uvnäs-Moberg, K 2007 Maternal behavior in pigs. Hormones and Behavior 52: 78–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AWB 2009 Agricultural Wages and Board. AWB: Noble House, 17 Smith Square, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Robson, SK, Ormandy, E, Farish, M, Smurthwaite, KM, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2009 Indicators of piglet survival in an outdoor farrowing system. Livestock Science 124: 266–276CrossRefGoogle 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, in press. Doi: 10.1017/S1751731110002272Google Scholar
Black, JL, Mullan, BP, Lorschy, ML and Giles, LR 1993 Lactation in the sow during heat stress. Livestock Production Science 35: 153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BPEX 2009 British Pig Executive. Pig Yearbook. BPEX: Milton Keynes, UKGoogle Scholar
Cain, PJ and Guy, JH 2006 Counting the cost of improved welfare for breeding sows in the UK. Journal of Farm Management 12(8): 427–442Google Scholar
Carbon Trust 2005 Energy Use In Pig Farming. ECG089 Energy Consumption Guide. Carbon Trust: London, UKGoogle 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: 17–23CrossRefGoogle 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: 175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Bildsoe, M, Gilbert, C, Ladewig, J and Vestergaard, KS 2002 The effects of confinement on periparturient behaviour and circulating prolactin, prostaglandin F2[alpha] and oxytocin in gilts with access to a variety of nest materials. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Lisborg, L, Vestergaard, KS and Vanicek, J 2003 Nest-building, behavioural disturbances and heart rate in farrowing sows kept in crates and Schmid pens. Livestock Production Science 80: 175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debertin, D 1986 Agricultural Production Economics. Macmillan: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Defra 2007 Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA and Fraser, D 1997 Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. The Pig Journal 39: 77–89Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. In: Thompson, PB (ed) The Ethics of Intensification pp 167–189. Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazell, PBR and Norton, RD 1986 Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in Agriculture. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Herpin, P, Damon, M and Le Dividich, J 2002 Development of thermoregulation and neonatal survival in pigs. Livestock Production Science 78: 25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 1997 The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, beta-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 65: 465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Chirnside, J, Deans, LA and Calvert, SK 1998 The effect of environment on plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin in the parturient pig and the involvement of endogenous opioids. Animal Reproduction Science 52: 139–151CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, S, Calvert, SK, Stevenson, J, van Leeuwen, N and Lawrence, AB 2002 Pituitary-adrenal activation in pre-parturient pigs (Sus scrofa) is associated with behavioural restriction due to lack of space rather than nesting substrate. Animal Welfare 11: 371–384Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1986 Observations on the maternal behaviour of freeranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AK and Marchant-Forde, JN 2009 Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In: Marchant-Forde, JN (ed) The Welfare of Pigs pp 141–188. Springer: The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E and Terlouw, EMC 1994 The effect of environment on behavior, plasma-cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luenburger, DG and Ye, YY 2008 Linear and Non-Linear Programming, 3rd Edition. Springer: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAC 2009 Farm Management Handbook. SAC: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H 1993 Ethological design of a practical farrowing pen. In: Nichelmann, M, Wierenga, HK and Braun, S (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Meeting of the International Congress on Applied Ethology pp 238–242. Humboldt University, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Stott, AW and Lawrence, AB 2009 Combining economics with science to design for welfare. Proceedings of the Knowing Animals Conference. 5-6 March 2009, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Weber, R 2000 Alternative housing systems for farrowing and lactating sows. In: Blokhuis, HJ, Ekkel, ED and Wechsler, B (eds) Improving Health and Welfare in Animal Production EAAP 102 pp 109–115. Wageningen Pers: The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Williams, HP 2008 Model Building in Mathematical Programming, 4th Edition. Wiley: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Wischner, D, Kemper, N and Krieter, J 2009 Nest-building behaviour in sows and consequences for pig husbandry. Livestock Science 124: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar