Use of a crush-reducing device to decrease crushing of suckling piglets by sows.
Weanling pigs tend to avoid wind, and suckling piglets are thought to be more sensitive to wind than weanlings, owing to their thinner s.c. fat layer. We developed a crush-reducing device based on the anticipated behavior of suckling piglets toward wind and evaluated the performance of the device through field testing. The crush-reducing device consisted of six photo sensors, a controller, six solenoid valves, and an air compressor. In this study, 206 sows and their suckling piglets (Landrace xYorkshire) were investigated to ascertain the individual effects of several factors. Some of the newborn piglets were cross-fostered before the crush-reducing device was implemented. Litter weights were measured on d 0 and 4 to determine the influence of the crush-reducing device on the weights of suckling piglets. The crushing of suckling piglets by sows was affected by season (P < 0.01) and litter size (P < 0.05), but not by the parity of the sows; however, the number of crushed piglets per litter was less (P < 0.01) in the crush-reducing device group (0.05 +/- 0.02 crushed piglets/litter) than in the control group (0.23 +/- 0.04 crushed piglets/litter), regardless of litter size or season. The BW gain of suckling piglets did not differ between the control and the crush-reducing device groups. Based on these results, the crush-reducing device is expected to decrease the number of crushed piglets per litter without influencing the BW gain of suckling piglets, thereby greatly contributing to the productivity of pig breeders.
Welfare of Pigs in the Farrowing Environment
In the U.S.A., housing for the lactating sow and her piglets can be divided into five main areas. Total confinement, defined as the farrowing crate, houses the highest number of sows at 83.4 4.0%. Remaining operations house fewer sows with open buildings that have outside access at 12.4 4.1%, open building with no outside access, 2.9 0.5%, lot with hut or no building, 0.6 0.2% and pasture with hut or no building the lowest at 0.7 0.3% (NAHMS, 2000). In the U.K., it is estimated that around 70% of sows farrow in crates, 27% farrow outdoors in farrowing arks and only 3% farrow in loose-housed indoor systems (BPEX, 2004). Farrowing crates have become widely accepted by the industry for numerous reasons: it has made sow management easier, it allows for a higher stocking density of sows/unit of land and it can help to reduce piglet mortality (Fraser and Broom, 1997). However, the farrowing crate has received criticism due to potential detrimental effects it may inflict on the welfare of the sow. The prevalence of decubital ulcers (Davies et al., 1996; Rountree et al., 1997), behaviours considered maladaptive (Cronin and Wiepkema, 1984; Rushen, 1984; Haskell andHutson, 1996), and a limitation on allowing the sow complete postural adjustments are a few considerations. The development of an alternative, economical farrowing system that retains the advantages of the conventional farrowing crate could be beneficial to the industry (Collins, 1987). Alternative outdoor swine operations for the gestating sow are increasing in popularity in some countries. In 1975, only 6% of the U.K.’s national herd was housed outdoors. This trend can be seen in other European countries, France now houses 10% of its herd outdoors, and Denmark and Sweden are conducting feasibility studies to determine if their cooler climates would permit
Patterns of crossfostering and piglet mortality on commercial U.S. and Canadian swine farms.
A data base of 300 farms using computerized records was used to examine the extent and timing of crossfostering being practiced in commercial herds in the Midwestern U.S. and Canada in 1994-1995. Crossfostering was used on 98% of farms. Across all farms, the mean percent of piglets crossfostered was 8.6%. Farms varied greatly in the age at which they moved piglets. The 20 farms that moved piglets the earliest after birth were classified as early-move farms and the 20 that moved the oldest piglets were classified as late-move farms. Early-move and late-move farms did not differ in herd size (P = 0.14), average parity of farrowed sows (P = 0.47) or age at weaning (P = 0.37). There were differences between early-move and late-move farms in percent of piglets fostered (P = 0.0001), pigs born alive/litter (P = 0.04), and pre-weaning mortality (P = 0.0005). A subset of late-move farms that were part of an integrated production group had unique production parameters that suggested inaccurate record-keeping.