Leading the way in Agriculture and Rural Research, Education and Consulting

“Which” Freedom Farrowing System?

The role of alternative farrowing systems

in the futureEmma Baxter

Status Quo – Crate bans

UK = 40%

outdoor

“Phase out” (AT)

by 2033

10% of herd by

2021 (DK)

Total ban since 1997

(CH, SE, NO) No EU-wide ban on

crates but momentum

and industry interest

Targets for change

• AUSTRIA: Public pressure from a legal challenge to the crate in 2010. Animal Welfare Regulation not in line with Animal Welfare Act.

• New regulation = Crating phased out by 2033

• Until then pens must be 4-5m2 minimum with 1/3 of the floor solid

• After 2033 all pens must allow the sow to turn around and be minimum of 5.5m2

• Crating only permitted during critical period of piglet’s life

• “Free farrowing” terminology not used. Only temporary crating.

• Large R&D investment – “ProSAU” (Pro-Sow) project – testing many different temporary crate options, investigating the “critical period”

Targets for change

• DENMARK: No crate bans but some specifics (i.e. “[Sows] must be placed in the farrowing unit no later than three days before expected farrowing”).

• But 2014 action plan to improve pig welfare in Denmark and one of the pledges was to have 10% of the national herd FF by 2021.

• Large investment in R&D

• New showroom – exhibiting 10 different temporary crate options

Status Quo – UK government

FAWC report 2015

• Design, commercial development

• Shorter confinement period

• Collate data

• Genetics – Best sow for FF

– Litter size controls

• Management– Stockperson training needed

• Review in 2020

The ResearchFree farrowing workshops

Denmark 2008

– DK, UK, CH, SW, NO, AU

– Academic talks – piglet survival, maternal behaviour

Austria 2011

– AT, CH, CZ, DK, DE, NL, NO, UK

– Academic and industry

– Legislation, design, piglet survival, maternal behaviour

UK 2016

– AT, AU, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, NL, NO, SE, UK

– Academic, industry, NGOs, retailer, government

– Legislation, assurance schemes, design, uptake, KTE, piglet survival, maternal behaviour, management

Market opportunities

• Assurance schemes with specific

standards for completely free

farrowing

RSPCA Assured: E6.9-6.12

Minimum total footprint = 5.7m2

Minimum bedded lying area of 2.8m2

Minimum total pen size is 5m2

Minimum creep area 0.70m2

RSPCA Assured: E6.15

“…equipment that has the potential to confine

the sow for farrowing must not be used”

Market opportunities

Market opportunities• Aktion Tierwohl – “Action for animal welfare”

– Finances are capped

– Farmers enter a lottery to be included

– Choose which changes they want to make for varying

increases in payment

(e.g. €0.90 for nesting material, €2.00 for FF)

– Consumer is “blind” to changes farmers choose to make

Market opportunities• Aktion Tierwohl – “Action for animal welfare”

– Finances are capped

– Farmers enter a lottery to be included

– Choose which changes they want to make for varying increases in payment

(e.g. €0.90 for nesting material, €2.00 for FF)

– Consumer is “blind” to changes farmers choose to make

• Bedre Dyrevelfaerd – “Better Animal Welfare” Confine up to 4 days, no tail docking, straw 24/7

Only allowed to confine for up to 2 days + above

Farrow outdoors, weaners-finishers with outdoor runs

• Danish COOP released own label:“The good indoor life”, “The good outdoor life”, “The organic life”, “The extra good life”

Which free farrowing and lactation system?

• Crates

– Conventional

– Temporary crates

• Pens

– Simple

– Designed

• Group

• Kennel and run

• Outdoor

Modified crates/Temporary crating

• Usually built on same spatial footprint as crate

• Some are more generous

• Fully slatted

• Designed for temporary crating during the “critical” period for piglet survival (i.e. - days 0-5)

Temporary crating options

Midland Pig Producer Ltd.

4.3m2

360

Temporary crating options

Midland Pig Producer Ltd.

4.3m2

Pros

Farmer: Same footprint as crate (cost, labour)

Farmer: Similar mind-set as crate

Sow: Loose for lactation

Piglets: Similar protection as crates

Piglets: Easier udder access during lactation (cf.

Pedersen et al. 2011)

Cons

Farmer: Same footprint as the crate (litter size)

Farmer: Access to piglets when loose difficult,

no dedicated creep area

Sow: Confined for nest-building, farrowing*

Sow: Limitations for substrate provision

Sow: Limited space to perform good maternal

behaviours (e.g. grouping – cf. Weber et al. 2009;

Baxter et al. 2011)

Piglets: limited space and opportunities for

enriched environment

Piglets: no dedicated creep area*

Piglets: limited protection if crate left open

Temporary crating options

Photos courtesy of Johannes Baumgartner, VetMedUni, Vienna

Wing Pen (STEWA) Big Dutchman (5.2m2)

http://bigdutchmanusa.com/swine-production/sow-

care/farrowing/free-movement-pen/

5.5m2

Similar pros and cons as 360°. But PRO: larger footprint for larger litters.

CON: More metal work left in pen once opened. Wing pen probably does not allow any full turning circle.

Temporary crating options

Vissing Agro – Combi-flex

(5.76m2)

http://www.vissingagro.dk/en/equipment/farrowing-

units/combi-farrowing-pen

Jetwash (4.5-7.2m2)

Similar pros and cons as 360°. But PRO: large creep, easy access from passageway. Combi-flex creep placement good during farrowing +

more space once opened

Temporary crating options

Pro-dromi

Photos courtesy of Johannes Baumgartner, VetMedUni, Vienna

http://www.vereijkenhooijer.nl/en/prodromi_

PROS: • Much larger space once opened (metal work to sides

not in middle), easy for sows to avoid piglets, sloped wall for lying down.

• Large creep, focus on large litters and management of them

Temporary crating optionsSWAP - Sow Welfare and Piglet Protection (SEGES, UoC)

Photos courtesy of Johannes Baumgartner, VetMedUni, Vienna & Janni Hales, Jyden Bur

http://vsp.lf.dk/Viden/Stalde/Staldindretning/Farestald/Swap%202%20i%20showroom.aspx

6.6m2

6.6m2

PROS: • “Start with a pen” – allows freedom for nesting, solid

floor for nest-building material• Large creep, focus on large litters and management of

them

Individual pens – “Designed pens” (zero-confinement)

• Larger space

• Zoned areas to accommodate biological needs, promote good maternal

behaviour

• Usually solid or part-slatted or part-slotted

22

7.6-8.9m2

Individual pens – “Designed pens” (zero-confinement)

https://www.freefarrowing.org/info/5/individual_farrowing_pens/1/pigsafe

“PigSAFE”

23

7.6-8.9m2

Individual pens – “Designed pens” (zero-confinement)

https://www.freefarrowing.org/info/5/individual_farrowing_pens/1/pigsafe

Pros

Farmer: Safe working if separate sow feeding area

Farmer: Creep easily accessible for passageway

Sow: Loose for nest-building, farrowing and lactation

Sow: Easy provision of nest-building substrate

(benefits for farrowing - cf. Jarvis et al. 1997; Yun et

al. 2015)

Sow: Space to perform good maternal behaviours

and good hygiene (cf. Damm & Pedersen 2000)

Sow: Sloped walls for careful lying (cf. Damm et al.

2006)

Piglets: Easier udder access throughout

Piglets: Large, easily accessible creep (cf. Moustsen

& Poulsen 2004)

Piglets: More dynamic environment, greater space

for play, social interactions, faster growth rate, later

health benefits (cf. Dixhoorn et al. 2016, Martin et al.

2015, Brown et al. 2015)

Cons

Farmer: Very different to crate (cost cf. Guy et al.

2012, labour)

Farmer: Different mind-set to crate and different

operating protocols

Piglets: Protection more dependent on maternal

behaviour

Individual pens – “Designed pens” (zero-confinement)SowComfort Pen, NO (7.7m2)

http://www.fjossystemer.no/nyheter/280-comfort-

fodebinge-comfort-farrowing-pen

WelCon, AUT (6-6.5m2)

http://www.schauer-agrotronic.com/en/pig-

equipment/housing/nature-line/

Similar pros and cons as PigSAFE. But SowComfort has no creep or easy method of

separating sow and piglets. WelCon uses rails rather than sloped walls

Individual pens – “Designed pens” (zero-confinement)

http://www.suisseporcs.ch/Schweinestall

-WebCam

FAT2, CH (7.0m2) Danish Free Farrower (6.0m2)

http://www.jydendirect.com/loos

e-nursing-sows-jlf10/

Group systems

Multi-suckle (Rivalea, Aus) Multi-suckle (Wagningen, NL)

Start off in

designed pens,

move into

cheaper multi-

suckle after 10

days

Crate + group (DE)

‘Futterkamp’

Group systems

Multi-suckle (Rivalea, Aus) Multi-suckle (Wagningen, NL)

Start off in

designed pens,

move into

cheaper multi-

suckle after 10

days

Crate + group (DE)

‘Futterkamp’

Pros

Farmer: Potential to remove weaner facility (remove

cost, labour)

Sow: Loose for nest-building, farrowing and lactation

Sow: Easy provision of nest-building substrate

Sow: Space to perform good maternal behaviours

(e.g. grouping)

Sow: Pre-wean mixing, reduced aggression

Piglets: Easier udder access throughout

Piglets: More dynamic environment, greater space

for play, social interactions, faster growth rate

Piglets: Pre-weaning mixing, reduced weaning

stress, increased weaning age, potential to reduce

antibiotic use, increased growth rate (cf.

Nieuwamerangen et al. 2014 for review)

Cons

Farmer: Sensitive to management (i.e. lactational

oestrus needs managed)

Farmer: Different mind-set to crate and individual

farrowing, different operating protocols

Farmer: Mixing can lead to spikes in mortality and

difficult to treat individual piglets

Sow: Potential for cross-suckling to be disruptive

Piglets: Protection more dependent on maternal

behaviour

Piglets: Cross-suckling can lead to individuals

missing sucklings

Decisions?

• What do you want to focus on:

– Stockperson input?

– Sow input?

– Both?

• Cost

• Standards (assurance schemes, retailers)

• Will the system be future-proofed?

• Performance

How well do systems perform?

• Lack of robust scientific data with system comparisons– NZ report 10.2% in temporary crating vs. 6.1% crates (Chidgey et al. 2015)– DE report 13.3% (7d opening) vs. 12.9% (14d opening) vs. 11.4% (crates) (Lambertz et al. 2015 – not sign.)– CH report 11.8% in pens and crates (Weber et al. 2009 – not sign.)– UK report 6.6% in designed pens vs. 7.4% in crates and 12.7% in designed pens vs. 10.6% in crates

(Edwards et al. 2012 – not sign.)– DK report 13.7% loose vs. 11.8% crates (Moustsen et al. 2013, Hales et al. 2014)– Litter size is a significant challenge

• Anecdotal reports from commercial early adopters

“Freedom pens doing well but 4% higher mortality than crates” or “both run the same at about 11% mortality”

• Actual data have been made available from three farms (live-born mortality varies between 8-24%)

How can we get it right consistently?

• Optimising pen design

• Optimising pig selection

• Optimising human inputs

Optimising pen design

• Pen size and nest size • Seclusion and functional areas • Flooring suitable for hygiene maintenance• Substrate to promote nest building • An appropriate piglet microclimate accessed early • Sloped walls for piglet protection

DETAILS MATTER!

https://www.freefarrowing.org/info/17/specific_pen_features

Optimising pig selection

• Piglets: probably no special selection (all systems require robust piglets)

• Sows: selection for successful FF would include:

– Carefulness

– Calmness

• Potential for the sow to “do the work” given the right system and optimal condition/fitness (see next talk!)

GOOD STOCKPERSON IS KEY

Optimising human inputs

• Interaction with pen design

• Interaction with pig temperament

• Management routines not necessarily same as crates – Staff have to be happy

• There can be a learning curvepigworld.com

• There will be an increase in loose lactation

• There will be a limited increase in full free farrowing

Why?

• Optimisation takes time, money, commitment

• Are there enough drivers to offset risk of full free

farrowing now?

2022

2027

2032

What is the future?

Leading the way in Agriculture and Rural Research, Education and Consulting