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
. 2025 Jul 23:12:1579263.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1579263. eCollection 2025.

Stockperson attitudes towards Maternity Rings and farrowing crates

Affiliations

Stockperson attitudes towards Maternity Rings and farrowing crates

Lauren M Staveley et al. Front Vet Sci. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

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

Figure 1
Figure 1
Dimensions of key design features of the (A) Maternity Ring (MR) and (B) farrowing crate [FC; (27)].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean (x) ± SEM opinion-based assessment of sow welfare using four specific behaviours (nesting, lying, changing posture and interacting with piglets) when housed in either a MR or a FC p < 0.001.

Similar articles

References

    1. 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
    1. Baxter EM, Moustsen VA, Goumon S, Illmann G, Edwards SA. Transitioning from crates to free farrowing: a roadmap to navigate key decisions. Front Vet Sci. (2022) 9:998192. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.998192, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Glencorse D, Plush KJ, Hazel S, D’Souza DN, Hebart M. Impact of non-confinement accommodation on farrowing performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of farrowing crates versus pens. Animals. (2019) 9:957. doi: 10.3390/ani9110957, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goumon S, Illmann G, Moustsen VA, Baxter EM, Edwards SA. Review of temporary crating of farrowing and lactating sows. Front Vet Sci. (2022) 9:811810. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.811810, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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