0
A major public issue of global scale is farm animal welfare, more specifically how to keep gestating sows. Producers can choose from multiple housing choices but most do not equate to safeguarding sow welfare. It is imperative that welfare-friendly systems are developed based on scientific-assessments of sow welfare before implementation. Hence, the objectives of these studies were to evaluate the impact that various housing components within alternative individual-housing (Exp. 1) and group-pen (Exp. 2) systems have on sow well-being. Exp 1, at d 30 of gestation, 60 multiparous crossbred sows were randomly allotted to standard crate (CRATE; control), with adjustable crate (FLEX), or free access stall-pen (FREE). In Exp 2, 300 multiparous sows were kept in group-pens (10 sows/pen) and randomly allotted to pens with floor-space allowance of 1.7 m2 or 2.3 m2 per sow and dietary treatment of control or high-fiber supplemented diet after d 30 of gestation. Prior to d 30, sows were kept in a standard (STS) or turn-around (TAS) stall. Sow performance, productivity, behavior, and immune and endocrine status were assessed at various time points throughout gestation.
Data from Exp. 1 show that sows kept in FREE had greater (P < 0.05) leg swelling, lesions, backfat, and BW than sows kept in FLEX or CRATE. Sows kept in FREE had greater (P < 0.05) neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio 24 h after being placed into FREE. Sows kept in CRATE performed more (P < 0.05) oral-nasalfacial and stand behaviors than sows in other systems. Data from Exp. 2, indicate that sows kept in group-pens at floor-space of 1.7 m2 had greater (P < 0.05) lesion scores than sows at 2.3 m2, while sows fed a high-fiber diet had greater (P < 0.10) BW and BW gain than sows fed control diet. Sows fed control diet had greater (P < 0.05) cortisol and phagocytosis than sows fed high-fiber diet. Sows kept in STS had greater (P < 0.01) total white blood cell counts and phagocytosis than sows kept in TAS. Natural sequence of maintenance behaviors were positively influenced among sows fed high-fiber diet (P < 0.05).
These data imply that gestation-environment and physical components of housing system per se can positively and negatively impact sow welfare. Thus, optimizing housing systems that better compliment sow behavior and physiology may enhance sow well-being.
AE DeDecker, PM Walker, JL Salak-Johnson. Optimizing individual and group housing systems based on indicators of sow well-being. 2011. Journal of Animal Science, 89, E-Suppl. 2, page 49.
