Operación Supervivencia
Neonatal Reducción de la mortalidad en sistemas de parideras alternativas
Emma BaxterInvestigadoraexpertaenComportamientoyBienestarAnimal, Scotland’sRuralCollege(SRUC)
Talk outline
Trends in piglet mortality and litter size
Risk factors for mortality
Farrowing system regulations
Alternative systems:
Performance
How to optimise performance
Trends in live-born mortality
Trends in live-born mortality and litter size
Trends in live-born mortality and litter size - Spain
Porc Health Manag
Koketsu et al. 2021
Causes and pre-disposing risk factors for mortality
Hyperprolific sows increased farrowing duration by ~150mins (Hales et al. 2015)
IUGR reported in 10-40% of all piglets born (Edwards et al. 2019)
Reducing piglet mortality
A multifactorial problem needs multifactorial solutions
Environmental Biological
Traditional tool for reducing mortality
Sustainable practice?
40% of herd outdoors
“Phase out” (DE) by 2035
Free farrowing (i.e. zero-confinement)
10% of herd by 2021 (DK), from 2023 new builds loose lactating
“Phase out” (AT) by 2033
Temporary crating permitted
Standards for farrowing crates ruled ‘unlawful’
Phase out by 2025
û
Sustainable practice?
Rest of Europe?
“Commission intends to propose to phase out and finally prohibit the use of such cage systems…under conditions
(including the length of the transition period) to be determined based on EFSA opinions and an impact assessment.”
organisers expressed their ambition for a ban on cages to come into effect in 2027
EFSA Welfare of pigs on farm published August 2022
71 recommendations including use of pens not crates
What are the options for farrowing and lactation?
3.6-4.3m2 Prodromi,
4.3m2 5.5m2 6.0m2 6.5m2 7.4m2 7.6-8.9m2 7.0-8.0m2 7.0m2 20+m2
J. Baumgartner ©
How well do alternatives perform?
True comparisons very difficult to summarise
Different staff, systems, different quan:ty and quality of data made available, different genotypes
Summarising data removes details explaining performance
• Some systems perform poorly, some perform well (Baxter et al. 2012, 2021, 2022)
Some studies use systems designed for TC as FF for comparison
PWM% BA PWM% BA PWM% BA Days PRE Days POST Morrison and Baxter 2012 13.5 10.8 14.9 11.2 8.6 7.9 NS Heidinger et al 2018 11.0 17.5 -1 4 5.5-7.6 *** Heidinger et al 2018 12.0 17.5 -1 6 5.5-7.6 *** Heidinger et al 2021 11.9 12.6 -1 6 5.5 NS Heidinger et al 2021 11.9 12.4 -1 6 5.5 NS Gouman et al 2018 10.5 9.8 -5 3 5.9 4.6 NS Hales et al. 2014 12.6 15.2 14.2 15.1 5.4 4.5 *** Hales et al. 2014 12.1 15.6 15.8 15.4 5.2 4.1 *** Hales et al. 2014 10.7 14.8 11.7 14.7 6.3 5.3 *** Hales et al. 2015b 17.9 17 21.4 16.8 21.4 0 4 6.3 5.3 NS Hales et al. 2016 6.5 17.0 5.5 16.5 8.9 16.8 6.3 5.3 NS Moustsen et al 2013 6.8 14.8 15.2 14.5 -5 7 4.7 *** Moustsen et al 2013 8.2 14.7 15.2 14.5 0 4 4.7 *** Moustsen et al 2013 8.2 14.6 15.2 14.5 0 7 4.7 *** Yun et al. 2014 12.8 12.2 15.1 11.3 0 7 7.0 4.8 NS Yun et al. 2014 12.8 12.2 11.3 11.7 0 7 7.0 4.8 NS Bohnenkamp et al. 2013 15.7 14.7 -3 1 17.7 4.7 NS Höbel et al 2018 18.3 15.7 19.7 16.0 -5 10 6.9 3.7 NS Höbel et al 2018 18.3 15.7 19.2 14.7 -5 10 5.5 2.7 NS Lohmeier et al 2020 16.1 18.1 20.1 16.3 -1 4 7.0-7.6 3.2-4.3 * Lohmeier et al 2020 19.3 17.7 27.5 16.8 0 0 7-7.6 3.2-4.3 NS Nicolaisen, et al. 2019 12.3 14.9 25.6 14.2 7.3 6.5 * Nicolaisen, et al. 2019 12.3 14.9 19.3 5.0 * Schnier, et al. 2019 13.2 14.8 24.4 14.2 7.3 6.5 * Schnier, et al. 2019 13.2 19.3 5.0 * Spindler et al 2018 24.2 14.9 22.5 15.1 -5 7 NS Kinane et al 2021 14.4 14.8 15.9 14.6 -1 4 5.5 3.4 NS Chidgey et al 2015 6.1 11.9 10.2 11.9 -5 4 5.9 5.0 *** Chidgey et al 2016a 10.0 11.1 11.8 10.9 -5 4 5.9 5.0 NS Condous et al 2016 15.6 11.9 15.1 12.9 -5 7 6.0 4.9 NS Condous et al 2016 15.6 11.9 17.2 12.2 -5 3 6.0 4.9 NS Condous et al 2016 15.6 11.9 19.6 12.5 0 7 6.0 4.9 * Condous et al 2016 15.6 11.9 30.9 12.1 0 3 6.0 4.9 * Olsson et al 2018 19.4 14.5 26.6 14.2 0 4 6.0 *** Lambertz et al 2015 11.4 12.8 13.3 12.8 0 7 4.6 2.8 NS Lambertz et al 2015 11.4 12.8 12.9 12.8 0 14 4.6 2.8 NS Edwards and Baxter 2015 9.0 9.6 0 0 7.6 6.9 NS King et al 2019a 12.3 13.0 -5 10 4.6 3.8 NS Loftus et al 2020 8.1 12.8 8.9 13.1 0 5 5.6 3.2 NS Ceballos et al 2021 25.9 14.5 27.8 14.4 -2 4 4.2 3.3 * Ceballos et al 2021 25.9 14.5 23.9 13.8 -2 7 4.2 3.3 NS Mack et al 2017 8.2 17.2 -5 14 4.1 3.6 *** Mack et al 2017 12.7 13.0 26.7 13.4 7.1 6.3 ** Confinement period Space (m2) Sow space Reported difference Authors and year Crate Temporary Crate Zero Confinement
Crate Baxter et al. 2021, 2022 reviews Temporary Crate Free Farrowing
How well do alternatives perform?
Pre-weaning piglet mortality – long-term data
Largest datasets from countries with commercial FF systems
Data sources: InterPig 2019; INGRIS Ǻrsstatistikk 2019
How well do alternatives perform?
Pre-weaning piglet mortality
Largest datasets from countries with commercial FF systems
Data sources: InterPig 2019; INGRIS Ǻrsstatistikk 2019
How well do alternatives perform?
Pre-weaning piglet mortality
Largest datasets from countries with commercial FF systems
Data sources: InterPig 2019; INGRIS Ǻrsstatistikk 2019
Consistent performance?
Optimising Pen design Op:mising People Op:mising Pigs
Optimising pen design
Pen size, shape and dimensions
Square or rectangular pens?
Seclusion and functional areas
Farrowing location
Hygiene
Flooring suitable for hygiene maintenance and substrate provision for nest-building
Temperature differentials
Farrowing location
Hygiene
Health, welfare, performance
Piglet protection
Creep/piglet nest accessed early
Sloped walls or rails (walls preferred)
https://www.freefarrowing.org/info/17/specific_pen_features
DETAILS MATTER!
Space
Starting point
Dictates finances
Planning permission
Herd size
Impacts on animal health, welfare and performance
Impacts on labour
What do we know about space and pig’ needs?
Socialise
• Understanding:
• What do pigs do
• When do they do it
• Why do they do it
• How do they do it •
Rest
Explore, nest
Urinate, defaecate
Farrow and nurse
Drink and eat
…
Jensen, 1988 AABS 20; Baxter et al. 2011, 2018
Quantity of space
Sow’s dimensions
üGood data on sow dimensions, static and some dynamic space
Nielsen et al., 2018 Vivi Aarestrup Moustsen, SEGES Moustsen et al. 2011 (measured in 2004) Nielsen et al. 2018 (measured in 2017) Number of sows 126 103 Body dimension Mean ± s.e. 95% percentile Mean ± s.e. 95% percentile Height, cm 90 (±0.4) 96 90 (±0.4) 96 Length, cm 193 (±0.6) 202 192 (±0.6) 203 Width, cm 44 (±0.3) 48 43 (±0.5) 48 Depth, cm 66 (±0.4) 72 65 (±0.6) 72
Quantity of space
What about turning?
Why is it important?
Quantity of space
Turning space allows pre-lying behaviour and grouping/gathering piglets before lying down
Weber et al. 2007, 2009 noted that FF pens less than 5m2 = higher mortality
Theory - Not enough space to turnaround and group piglets safely
Supported by other studies (e.g. Yun et al. 2019; EFSA 2022)
Pen size (m2) Losses Total Crushed Blackshaw et al. (1994) 3.9 ↗↗ ↗↗ Mardarowicz (2000) 4.4 → no info Haus Düsse (1995-96) 4.6 4.4 ↗ ↗ ↗ ↗ Kamphues (2004) 5.0 ↗ ↗ Stabenow (2001) 6.0 → → Fritsche and Kempkens (1999) 6.5 → no info Arkenau et al. (1999) 7.0 → ↗ Hessel et al. (2000) 7.0 → ↗ Schmid and Weber (1992) 7.0 → ↗ Weber and Schick (1996) 7.3 7.0 → → ↗ ↗ Cronin et al. (2000) 7.2 → no info Anonymous (1999) 7.6 7.8 ↘ →(↘) no info Hofstetter (1998) 5.3 - 8.1 → - ↗ ↗ Steiner (2001) >6.5 ↗ ↗ Weber et al. (2007) 482 / 173 farms 5.1 - 12.2 → ↗ ≤5m2 ≥5m2
↗ = increased → = unchanged ↘ = decreased
Reproduced from Roland Weber ©Agroscope
Implication for design choice
Too small = not enough room for sow and litter to occupy same space
Small TC operated open = high mortality
Headline result: Mortality in first 24h: 1.4% vs. 17.9%
Litter size: 18.1 vs. 19.3
Authors:
• Inadequate space to inspect and group piglets before lying down
• Large litter size
• Sow experience
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118002549
TRAPEZOID 6m2 (2.5 x 2.4) SOW SPACE OPEN: ~2.86m2 SOW SPACE CLOSED: 1.76m2 Yun et al.
paper -
2019
Space and piglet mortality
Effect of space allowance of the sow on piglet mortality in pens expressed relative to the mortality in farrowing crates (= 100%).
Quantity of space
Piglet’ dimensions ü Good data on piglet dimensions
Dimensions of 4week old piglets (7kg) Moustsen and Poulson 2004 Smith and Ramirez 2021 (n=118) Length 0.56m 0.53 Width 0.13m 0.13 Depth 0.14m Not measured
Quantity of space
Piglet’ dimensions
Pens need to accommodate:
Larger litter at udder
Large litter size in pen
Functional areas
Piglet safety zones and creep
(enough for 14 piglets to weaning)
Quantity of space
Piglet’ dimensions
Improved udder access when loose lactating → longer letdown of milk (Pedersen et al. 2011)
Increased weaning weights when loose lactating in some studies (Pedersen et al. 2011; Baxter & Edwards, 2021; Nowland et al. 2018)
Piglet safety zones and creep
Larger creeps needed for larger litters, creep feeding, milk feeding etc BUT if too big huddling for neonatal piglets difficult, udder access more challenging
Implications?
Quality of space
Quality of space maybe more important than quantity (within reason)
A certain footprint may ‘tick a box’ for legislation BUT… Need to think about how the pigs will use the pen not just ‘tick a box’
Quality of space
E.g., Creep positioning
Temple et al. pigs333
Quality of space
E.g., Functional areas – encourages good animal behaviour
6m2
Moustsen et al. (SEGES Innovation). See also Andersen & Pedersen 2011
Quality of space
E.g., Functional areas – encourages good animal behaviour
Separate nesting and dunging
Temperature differentials (different flooring types)
pigs333
Quality of space
Substrate to promote nest building – implications for performance
Positive maternal behaviours are increased when nest-building is satisfied (e.g. Andersen et al., 2005; Jarvis et al. 2005; Yun et al. 2013, 2014; Swan et al. 2018; Bolhuis et al. 2018)
Reduced pre-weaning mortality (also seen in crates e.g. – Swan et al. 2018)
Reduced activity during parturition (e.g. Bolhuis et al. 2018 – loose with burlap sacs)
Increased suckling success (Yun et al. 2013, 2014) oxytocin and prolactin levels colostrum intake and piglet IgG levels
Reduced inter-birth interval (cf. EFSA, 2022)
Sows in pens had reduced inter-birth interval by 4 minutes
daera
Quality of space
Sloped walls for piglet protection
Sows prefer walls to rails
Sloped walls have multiple functions
Poor placement when sow in TC
Wall height?
Consider ease of management and safety (0.90-1.0m)
Too low sows might climb
Too high sows can be fearful (Hayes et al. 2021)
Note to organisers – Video will be inserted here
Quality of space
Temporary crating
Quality of fixtures and fittings influence performance, health and human-animal relationship
Interaction with management
Ergonomics are important Choose TC with easy and safe opening/closing mechanism
Note to organisersVideo will be inserted here
Temporary crating - closing and opening recommendations
Sow should move in and be unconfined
‘Shut in at feeding at night, release in the morning’
Confinement period?
Confinement to start at the end of nestbuilding until day 4
(Austria/ProSAU – Heidinger et al. 2018)
Confinement to start at day 115 of gestation until day 4
(Denmark – Hansen 2018; Hales et al. 2015)
E.M. and Edwards, S.A., 2022. Review of temporary crating of farrowing and lactating sows. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9, p.811810.
Delaying crate closing until farrowing is completed, results in increased neonatal piglet mortality. Large litter size increases risk further
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.811810
Temporary crating opening and mortality
Effect of crate opening time on piglet mortality expressed relative to the mortality of fully crated sows (= 100%).
Temporary crating opening – one or all?
INDIVIDUAL AM or PM ALL
King RL, et al. 2019 Temporary crate opening procedure affects immediate post-opening piglet mortality and sow behaviour. Animal. 2019 Jan;13(1):189-197.
Optimising human inputs
Interaction with pen design
Interaction with pig temperament
Management routines not necessarily same as crates – Staff have to be happy
“A year ago, everyone was new, the previous employees were no longer here, only one had experience—but not about loose sows in the farrowing unit. We had no history.”
Anneberg and Sørensen 2020
There can be a learning curve for sows (cf. King et al. 2019) and staff (cf. Baxter and Edwards, 2021; Andersen and Ocepek, 2022)
cbs.nl
Different farms, same system, different results
Baxter, E.M. and Edwards, S., 2021. Optimising sow and piglet welfare during farrowing and lactation. In Understanding the behaviour and improving the welfare of pigs. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.
Influence of experience on piglet mortality
Baxter, E.M. and Edwards, S., 2021. Optimising sow and piglet welfare during farrowing and lactation. In Understanding the behaviour and improving the welfare of pigs. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.
Influence of experience on piglet mortality
SowComfort Pen (7.7m2)
Andersen, I.L. and Ocepek, M., 2022. Farrowing pens for individually loose-housed sows: results on the development of the sowcomfort farrowing pen. Agriculture, 12(6),
Optimising people/human inputs
“How to guides” for FF routines (e.g. PracticalPigApp for FF, EURCAW, freefarrowing.org)
Good sow-human relationship for best results, pre-farrow routine, etc.
How to manage large litters
FF communities, ‘stable schools’, video guides
Optimising pig selection
Do piglets in free farrowing systems require different characteristics?
Probably not (selection for robustness is important in all systems)
But need more responsible litter size for all systems (EFSA, 2022 – 12-14 born alive recommended)
System design and maternal characteristics will influence piglet performance more
Optimising pig selection
Most sows can perform well (Baxter et al. in prep)
Selection for good lying behaviour
Lying control
Pre-lying behaviour
Selection for calmness of sows in the post farrowing period
Restlessness post-farrowing
Response to humans
Considerations and take home messages - 2023
Piglet mortality is a challenge in all systems
Farrowing crates are not sustainable
Deciding on a new farrowing system is multi-layered and complex
Free farrowing or Temporary crating?
Design choice and pen details will impact performance
Interaction with animal behaviour
Interaction with management
SPACE and DETAILS (Quantity and Quality)
Successfully free farrowing requires enough space to encourage zonation - good maternal behaviours, good hygiene (>7m2)
Considerations and take home messages - 2023
Design for loose with option to confine not vice versa
If confining – loose pre-farrowing, no more than 4 days post
Different management routines and mindset needed
Well designed and managed alternatives can perform as well as conventional systems
Transition period needed
Performance implications when sows (and staff) swap between systems
Sows and staff need time to learn the system → improved
performance
More information
information https://www.freefarrowing.org/resea rch/references/freedom-infarrowing-and-lactation-2021 ffl21/ www.freefarrowing.org
More
Acknowledgements
Vivi Moustsen, SEGES Innovation
Sandra Edwards
Johannes Baumgartner, VetMedUni, Vienna
Farmers
Funders
Older parity sows have higher mortality
Body condition, fitness, size, support?
King RL, et al. 2019 Temporary crate opening procedure affects immediate post -opening piglet mortality and sow behaviour. Animal. 2019 Jan;13(1):189-197.
Crushing: Distribution of sows that crushed
0-13 piglets
Baxter et al. in prep
Performance and experience
Baxter et al. in prep
