Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Mar 17:9:811810.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.811810. eCollection 2022.

Review of Temporary Crating of Farrowing and Lactating Sows

Affiliations
Review

Review of Temporary Crating of Farrowing and Lactating Sows

Sébastien Goumon et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: free farrowing; lactation; permanent crating; piglets; sows; temporary crating; welfare.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

VAM worked for SEGES Danish Pig Research Center. The aim of the Danish Pig Research Center is to safeguard the interests of the Danish pig producers. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of pens with temporary crating: (A) swing-side crate and (B) SWAP pen.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Liveborn mortality in temporary crating systems from birth to weaning compared to systems with zero confinement (values are given as the reported mean for temporary crating when expressed as a % of the contemporary zero-confinement treatment).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Liveborn mortality in temporary crating systems from birth to weaning compared to systems with permanent crating (values are given as the reported mean for temporary crating when expressed as a % of the contemporary permanent crating treatment).

References

    1. Baxter EM, Andersen IL, Edwards SA. Sow welfare in the farrowing crate and alternatives. In: Špinka M, editor. Advances in Pig Welfare. Cambridge: Elsevier Ltd., Woodhead Publishing; (2018). p. 27–72. 10.1016/B978-0-08-101012-9.00002-2 - DOI
    1. Oliviero C, Heinonen M, Valros A, Hlli O, Peltoniemi OAT. Effect of the environment on the physiology of the sow during late pregnancy, farrowing and early lactation. Anim Reprod Sci. (2008) 105:365–77. 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.03.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gu Z, Gao Y, Lin B, Zhong Z, Liu Z, Wang C, et al. . Impacts of a freedom farrowing pen design on sow behaviours and performance. Prevent Vet Med. (2011) 102:296–303. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.08.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peltoniemi OAT, Oliviero C. Housing, management and environment during farrowing and early lactation. In: Farmer C, editor. The Gestating and Lactating Sow. Wageningen Academic Publishers (2015). p. 1–452. 10.3920/978-90-8686-803-2_10 - DOI
    1. Hales J, Moustsen VA, Nielsen MBF, Hansen CF. Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms. Animal. (2014) 8:113–20. 10.1017/S1751731113001869 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources