Thumbnail Image
Publication

Studies on Housing of Pregnant Sows in Groups and Individually

Lynch, P Brendan
; 
Boyle, Laura
; 
Leonard, Nola
; 
Tergny, Annabel
; 
Brophy, P.
Citations
Altmetric:
Keywords
Pregnant sows, Housing systems, animal welfare
Date
2000-09-01
Collections
AGRIP End of Project Reports
Show all metadata
Files
Thumbnail Image
eopr-4563.pdf
Adobe PDF, 1.28 MB
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11019/1414
Citation
Lynch, P.B., Boyle, L., Leonard, F., Tergny, A., Brophy, P., Studies on Housing of Pregnant Sows in Groups and Individually, End of Project Reports, Teagasc, 2000.
Abstract
Intensive methods of sow housing and their effects on health and welfare have become a topic of intense debate. In the EU the use of tethers for pregnant sows must be phased out by 2006. At pre s e n t there are no plans to ban stalls for pregnant sows. In 1997 the EU released a report on sow housing which was critical of stalls but did not recommend a ban (SVC, 1997). Some member countries have introduced more stringent legislation. The UK government has banned the use of both stalls and tethers for pregnant sows fro m January 1, 1999. Sweden has also imposed a ban on both stalls and tethers, and the Netherlands and De n m a rk have announced restrictions on when individual penning may be used. • This study included a comparison of pregnant gilts in loose housing (groups of 4) and in individual stalls from early pregnancy. Behaviour and skin lesions were monitored both during pregnancy and in the farrowing house. Stalled gilts tended to have higher skin lesion scores. Salivary cortisol levels in stalled gilts showed evidence of a chronic stress response. Loose gilts showed more distress when confined in the farrowing crate pre - f a r rowing than did gilts which had been housed in stalls in pregnancy. • Comparison of two group housing systems namely, groups of four with 3.0m2 per sow and groups of eight with 2.2m2 per sow showed a higher level of aggression in the larger group. Both treatments had free-access stalls with full length partitions but the groups of eight had a smaller communal lying area and they spent a greater proportion of their time in the stalls.
Funder
Grant Number
Embedded videos