All the pig production systems are geared towards reducing loss of animals or quality of product due to disease, injury, inefficient gains or death. Often piglets are castrated, tails are docked and needle teeth are clipped. These practices are common to decrease possibility of injury to each other or the sow. Swine are highly hierarchical, and fighting, tail pulling or general bullying are common within group housing. Maybe the greatest point of contention among welfare issues is the use of gestation and farrowing crates. The use of gestation crates utilizes placement of gestational sows into a 2x7 stall to limit any kind of possibility of interference with gestation. Physical injuries, diseases or inability to compete for resources with the rest of the herd are common, and lower production of viable offspring is highly likely if sows in gestation are not separated.

Farrowing crates became popular within production systems to reduce the possibility of injury to the piglets. It is common for the sow to crush or injure he piglets unintentionally. Sows are almost 10 times larger than the offspring and if they are not allowed proper sources of heat, piglets commonly rest next to the mother – increasing the chance of accidental crushing. Farrowing crate thus limits the ability of the sow to move laterally and increases the area where the offspring can rest without running the risk of crushing.

Alternative techniques promote the use of other elements to increase the safety of piglets housed with the mother. Strategic placement of heat lamps or heat pads circulating warm water away from the sow allow the piglets to find alternative sources of warmth, while guard rails 10 – 12 inches above ground on the perimeter of the stall offer safe space to hide under, and prevent the sow to press against the wall. Furthermore, swine are highly organized species, and if given a choice separate their living space into sleeping quarters, eating quarters and space for elimination. With proper planning and space design, gestation areas can minimize the amount of time the sow spends in confined spaces.

Group housing of gilts, weaner, grower and finisher stocks presents difficulties to minimize injuries, disease spread and resource competition on their own. With limited space, social hierarchy can affect the quality and quantity of resources available to some of the less dominant animals. If fed in large food troughs, more dominant animals can prevent the less dominant ones to consume appropriate amounts, which not only lowers the average daily gain, but can also affect general health of the herd. Favorable areas for resting are also at a premium at socially structured groups like swine herds, which can easily increase the incidence of disease spread if less favored animals are forced to rest in the elimination areas. More dominant individuals also tend to spend much more time in the warmer, dryer areas with better ventilation, also contributing to the poorer condition of those not allowed in these areas.

Several solutions have been experimented with to minimize competition for resources none of which were probably as successful as the automatic feeders based on each animal’s radio frequency identification. This system for example, if used properly (training of the animals is necessary), can not only control individual rations but also can alert the manager of a sow not eating properly. Some other alternative techniques are allowing access to the outdoors or group housing with smaller open stalls dedicated to wallowing and sleeping. Each of these targets the seemingly natural behavioral tendencies of swine groups, and allow them a choice in their environmental enrichment on an individual basis. None of these systems are without some drawbacks, but can increase the animal well-being if used, designed and planned properly.

Considering these examples, it is necessary to mention that in all instances physical injury due to infighting can add to complications; and, in many ways can be prevented by either limiting space available – by using invidual housing stalls, or expanding the space available in group housing. However, because space is at a premium, it is not always a question of simply increasing the amounts of resources available, because it can quickly become expensive and can significantly lower efficiency husbandry practices used in the facility. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, any adjustments used to lower the chances of physical injury and group housing segregation must be considered from the point of view of the animal’s natural behavioral tendencies.

At this point, it is important to note that bad welfare practices directly correlate with lower quality of products as well as noticeable decrease in productivity. Therefore evaluating husbandry in light of sound animal welfare practices is not only an ethical issue but has a significant production efficiency implications.

For more information and more specifics, please select a stage within the lifecycle you are interested in at the top of the page using the navigation ribbon