Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T18:05:23.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peripartal behaviour and teat lesions of sows in farrowing crates and in a loose-housing system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D Verhovsek ,
J Troxler  and
J Baumgartner
D Verhovsek
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
J Troxler
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
J Baumgartner*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: johannes.baumgartner@vu-wien.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Housing of farrowing and lactating sows in farrowing crates can cause a number of welfare problems. Recently, alternative farrowing pens have been developed which allow the sow to turn around and move freely. In this experiment a conventional farrowing crate (C; 5.0 m2; the sow is crated permanently), the Trapez pen (T; 6.7 m2; with a crate opened two days after farrowing) and a modified FAT2 pen (F; 6.7 m2; loose-housing system with nest and dunging area), were compared. The behaviour of sows was recorded from 6 hours ante partum to 24 hours post partum and analysed for duration of birth, number of posture changes, activities indicating nest building and piglet crushing. Sows were inspected for skin lesions at days 5 and 23, post farrowing. There was a tendency for longer birth duration and restlessness during farrowing when sows were crated. Sows in F and T crushed more piglets than sows in C but only few sows were concerned. In C more sows had severe injuries on the udder and on the limbs than in F and T. It can be concluded that the health and behaviour of farrowing and lactating sows are negatively affected when being housed in conventional pens with crates and slatted flooring. Further development is required to minimise piglet crushing in loose-housing systems.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourfarrowing penpigpiglet crushingskin lesions
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 273 - 276
Copyright
© 2007 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

Arey, DS, Petchey, AM and Fowler, VR 1991 The preparturient behaviour of sows in enriched pens and the effect of preformed nests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 61–68Google 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
Drossart van Dusseldorp, PA 1997 Haltungssysteme für abferkelnde Sauen und puerperale Mastitis bei der Sau. PhD Thesis, The University of Zürich, Switzerland. [Title translation: The effect of different farrowing pens on the prevalence of mastitis in sows]Google Scholar
EU 2001 Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities L316Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1993 Nest building in domestic sows: the role of external stimuli. Animal Behaviour 45: 351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putz, K 2002 Haltungsbedingte Verletzungen bei Sauen und Ferkeln in strohlosen Abferkelstallungen. PhD Thesis, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria. [Title translation: Skin lesions of sows and piglets in farrowing pens without straw]Google Scholar
Schmid, H 1992 Arttypische Strukturierung der Abferkelbucht. KTBL-Schrift 351: 27–36. [Title translation: Ethological design of a practicable farrowing pen]Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002 Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 77: 21–42Google Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M and Horat, R 2005 Kann die Haltung von abferkelnden Sauen in Kastenständen mit einer Reduktion der Ferkelverluste begründet werden. KTBL-Schrift 441: 31–39. [Title translation: Gives the reduction of piglet losses reason to keep farrowing and lactating sows in crates]Google Scholar
Weber, R and Schick, M 1996 Neue Abferkelbuchten ohne Fixation der Muttersau. FAT-Bericht 481: Tänikon, Schweiz. [Title translation: New farrowing pens without fixation of the sow]Google Scholar
Weber, R and Troxler, J 1988 Die Bedeutung der Zeitdauer der Geburt in verschiedenen Abferkelbuchten zur Beurteilung auf Tiergerechtheit. KTBL-Schrift 323: 172–184. [Title translation: The duration of birth as an indicator for animal welfare in different farrowing pens]Google Scholar