» Articles » PMID: 39229595

A Five Domains Assessment of Sow Welfare in a Novel Free Farrowing System

Overview
Journal Front Vet Sci
Date 2024 Sep 4
PMID 39229595
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Maternity Ring was developed as a free farrowing alternative to crates that preserved space whilst providing the sow with unrestricted movement. This experiment aimed to apply the Five Domains model to assess sow welfare in the Maternity Ring in comparison with the farrowing crate. Eighty-eight sows were housed in a farrowing crate (FC) and 83 in a Maternity Ring (MR), and measures collected focussed on nutrition, environment, health, behaviour, and mental state outcomes. MR sows consumed less feed than FC sows (total feed intake: 93.8 ± 3.06 kg vs. 111.2 ± 3.13 kg;  < 0.001) but had reduced P2 backfat loss during lactation (0.0 ± 0.11 vs. 1.2 ± 0.11,  < 0.001). Fewer frustrated and pain-related behaviours during farrowing were observed in MR sows (bar biting: FC 3.3 ± 2.12 vs. MR 0.5 ± 0.29 events,  = 0.038, and back leg forward: FC 227 ± 50.7 vs. MR 127 ± 26.4 events,  = 0.019), and a decreased proportion of MR sows had facial injuries after farrowing (10% CI [5, 20] vs. 67% CI [47, 95],  < 0.001). More FC sows had udder damage at weaning (70% CI [48, 97] vs. 10% CI [6, 24],  < 0.001), and their piglets were medicated more frequently when compared to those in MR (51% CI [40, 61] vs. 30% [21, 41],  = 0.008). MR sows tended to have a higher reaction score to piglet processing (MR 2.0 ± 0.38 vs. FC 1.2 ± 0.27,  = 0.094) and had more contact with piglets once the procedure was complete than FC sows (13.5 ± 2.55 vs. 6.9 ± 1.26 events, respectively,  = 0.016). Whilst there was no difference in anticipation of a feeding event ( > 0.05), MR sows displayed a reduced startle response to an aversive noise stimulus at day 18 (FC 2.8 ± 0.35, MR 0.7 ± 0.16,  < 0.001). Using the Five Domains framework, sows housed in the MR during farrowing and lactation have improved welfare than those in FC and can be thought of as being in a positive affective state.

References
1.
Kozlowska K, Walker P, McLean L, Carrive P . Fear and the Defense Cascade: Clinical Implications and Management. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2015; 23(4):263-87. PMC: 4495877. DOI: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000065. View

2.
Hennessy D, Stelmasiak T, Johnston N, Jackson P, Outch K . Consistent capacity for adrenocortical response to ACTH administration in pigs. Am J Vet Res. 1988; 49(8):1276-83. View

3.
Panksepp J . Affective consciousness: Core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Conscious Cogn. 2005; 14(1):30-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.004. View

4.
Jarvis S, DEath R, Robson S, Lawrence A . The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiol Behav. 2005; 87(2):345-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.10.004. View

5.
Oliviero C, Heinonen M, Valros A, Peltoniemi O . Environmental and sow-related factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Anim Reprod Sci. 2010; 119(1-2):85-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2009.12.009. View