Which Freedom Farrowing System? The role of alternative farrowing systems in the future

Transcription

1

2 Which Freedom Farrowing System? The role of alternative farrowing systems in the future Emma Baxter Leading the way in Agriculture and Rural Research, Education and Consulting

3 Status Quo Crate bans UK = 40% outdoor Total ban since 1997 (CH, SE, NO) No EU-wide ban on crates but momentum and industry interest 10% of herd by 2021 (DK) Phase out (AT) by 2033

4 Targets for change AUSTRIA: Public pressure from a legal challenge to the crate in Animal Welfare Regulation not in line with Animal Welfare Act. New regulation = Crating phased out by 2033 Until then pens must be 4-5m 2 minimum with 1/3 of the floor solid After 2033 all pens must allow the sow to turn around and be minimum of 5.5m 2 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

5 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 Large investment in R&D New showroom exhibiting 10 different temporary crate options

6 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

7 The Research Free 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

8 Market opportunities Assurance schemes with specific standards for completely free farrowing RSPCA Assured: E6.15 equipment that has the potential to confine the sow for farrowing must not be used RSPCA Assured: E Minimum total footprint = 5.7m 2 Minimum bedded lying area of 2.8m 2 Minimum total pen size is 5m 2 Minimum creep area 0.70m 2

9 Market opportunities

10 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 for nesting material, 2.00 for FF) Consumer is blind to changes farmers choose to make

11 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 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

12 Which free farrowing and lactation system? Crates Conventional Temporary crates Pens Simple Designed Group Kennel and run Outdoor

13 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)

14 Temporary crating options m 2 Midland Pig Producer Ltd.

15 Temporary crating options 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) 4.3m 2 Midland Pig Producer Ltd. 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

16 Temporary crating options Wing Pen (STEWA) Big Dutchman (5.2m 2 ) 5.5m 2 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. Photos courtesy of Johannes Baumgartner, VetMedUni, Vienna

17 Temporary crating options Jetwash ( m 2 ) Vissing Agro Combi-flex (5.76m 2 ) 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

18 Photos courtesy of Johannes Baumgartner, VetMedUni, Vienna Temporary crating options Pro-dromi 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

19 Temporary crating options SWAP - Sow Welfare and Piglet Protection (SEGES, UoC) PROS: 6.6m Start with 6.6ma pen 2 2 allows freedom for nesting, solid floor for nest-building material Large creep, focus on large litters and management of them Photos courtesy of Johannes Baumgartner, VetMedUni, Vienna & Janni Hales, Jyden Bur

20 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

21 Individual pens Designed pens (zero-confinement) m 2 PigSAFE 22

22 Individual pens Designed pens (zero-confinement) 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 m (cf. Damm 2 & Pedersen 2000) Sow: Sloped walls for careful lying (cf. Damm et al. 2006) 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 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) 23

23 Individual pens Designed pens (zero-confinement) SowComfort Pen, NO (7.7m 2 ) WelCon, AUT (6-6.5m 2 ) 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

24 Individual pens Designed pens (zero-confinement) FAT2, CH (7.0m 2 ) Danish Free Farrower (6.0m 2 ) -WebCam e-nursing-sows-jlf10/

25 Group systems Multi-suckle (Rivalea, Aus) Start off in designed pens, move into cheaper multisuckle after 10 days Multi-suckle (Wagningen, NL) Crate + group (DE) Futterkamp

26 Group systems Pros Farmer: Potential to remove weaner facility (remove cost, labour) Multi-suckle (Rivalea, Aus) Sow: Loose for nest-building, Start off farrowing in and lactation Sow: Easy provision of designed nest-building pens, substrate Sow: Space to perform move good into maternal behaviours (e.g. grouping) cheaper multisuckle reduced after aggression 10 Sow: Pre-wean mixing, days 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 for review) Multi-suckle (Wagningen, NL) Cons Farmer: Sensitive to management (i.e. lactational oestrus needs managed) Farmer: Different mind-set Crate to crate + group and individual (DE) 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 Futterkamp

27 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

28 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 not sign.) CH report 11.8% in pens and crates (Weber et al 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 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%)

29 How can we get it right consistently? Optimising pen design Optimising pig selection Optimising human inputs

30 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!

31 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

32 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 curve pigworld.com

33 What is the future? 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?

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

35