Stockperson attitudes towards Maternity Rings and farrowing crates
- PMID: 40771964
- PMCID: PMC12325031
- DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1579263
Stockperson attitudes towards Maternity Rings and farrowing crates
Abstract
Societal attitudes suggest low support for confinement housing in livestock farming, such as the farrowing crate. The attitudes of stockpersons working in these systems are yet to be understood but should be prioritised as their human-animal interactions have significant effects on animal welfare. The aim of this investigation was to explore the attitudes of stockpeople employed on pig farms with experience working in both free-farrowing and farrowing crate systems, and to better understand the contributing factors that shape these attitudes. An anonymous survey was conducted across four pig breeder farms with both Maternity Rings (MR) and farrowing crates (FC) installed. A total of 86 stockpeople volunteered to participate. The survey consisted of an opinion-based rating of sow welfare that considered four specific behaviours, and two attitude-based questionnaires. The composite score of sow welfare was higher in a MR when compared to a FC (39.8 ± 0.87 versus 28.0 ± 0.87, p < 0.05), regardless of attitude towards working with sows in different lactation housing systems. Stockpeople that believed FC systems would always be necessary were more likely to avoid interactions with difficult pigs (r(84) = 0.327, p = 0.005), and more likely to rate piglet welfare as more important than sow welfare (r(84) = 0.380, p = 0.001). In contrast, stockpeople that were confident in their abilities and understandings of sow behaviour were more likely to rate the sows welfare higher in a MR (r(84) = 0.339, p = 0.002) and believed that it provided an environment that enabled the sow to better interact with her piglets (r(77) = 0.434, p < 0.001). Stockpersons that were more likely to interact with pigs (r(84) = 0.322, p = 0.011) and were more satisfied with their job (β = 0.341, p = 0.003) were more likely to rate sow welfare higher in a MR. Overall, stockpeople rated sow welfare higher in a MR in comparison to a FC. The main driver of negative attitudes towards a MR appeared to be a lack of understanding of sow behaviour. If we can develop ways to modify stockperson behaviour to improve sow and piglet welfare outcomes, we have a better chance of introducing alternative farrowing systems.
Keywords: attitude; farrowing; maternity ring; stockperson; welfare.
Copyright © 2025 Staveley, Plush, Lines, Hemsworth, D’Souza and van Barneveld.
Conflict of interest statement
The Maternity Ring is a patented design (Innovation Patent # 2017101428) held by CHM Alliance Pty Ltd., a subsidiary company of the SunPork Group. LS, KP, DL, DD’S and RB are employees of the SunPork Group. The remaining author declares 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


Similar articles
-
Impact of farrowing crate enrichment strategies on the welfare and performance of sows, suckling piglets, and post-weaned piglets.J Anim Sci. 2025 Jan 4;103:skaf196. doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf196. J Anim Sci. 2025. PMID: 40598811 Free PMC article.
-
Effects of a preweaning socialization system on piglet livability, lifetime growth performance, and subsequent sow performance.J Anim Sci. 2025 Jan 4;103:skae385. doi: 10.1093/jas/skae385. J Anim Sci. 2025. PMID: 39708313
-
The Effect of Labeling During Simulated Contact on Attitudes Toward Autistic Adults.Autism Adulthood. 2025 Feb 5;7(1):93-99. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0081. eCollection 2025 Feb. Autism Adulthood. 2025. PMID: 40151654
-
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29405038 Free PMC article.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 12065068
References
-
- Robertson JB, Laird R, Hall JKS, Forsyth RJ, Thomson JM, Walker-Love J. A comparison of two indoor farrowing systems for sows. Anim Sci. (1966) 8:171–8. doi: 10.1017/S0003356100034553 - DOI
-
- Vandresen B, Hötzel MJ. Pets as family and pigs in crates: public attitudes towards farrowing crates. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2021) 236:105254. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105254 - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources