Health care considerations of various gestation housing systems

1
Health care considerations of various gestation
housing systems

• Drs. McKean, Johnson, Stalder, Thomas, Patterson,
  Karriker

2
Gestation crate debate
EU Commission Report
2006
1991
1997
2002
2007
3
Implications for industry

• Gestation stalls societal pressures
• Group gestation more acceptable??
• society acceptance worldwide??
• trade concerns/opportunities
• elevation of husbandry standards
• technology scale-up issues
• genetic compatibilities to environment

4
Presentation overview

• Natural behavior drives well-being considerations
  
• Reproduction and Performance Impacts
• Common injuries in various systems
• Potential implementation issues

5
Well-being comparisons
6
Welfare Evaluations for Intensive Production

• Five Freedoms Animal Welfare
• Freedom from hunger and thirst
• Freedom from discomfort - environment
• Freedom from pain, injury and disease
• Freedom from fear and distress
• Freedom to express natural behavior
• based on Brambell report (1965)

7
Natural Behavior -??

• Social group is made up of two to four adult
  females
• Associated with this core are a number of
  juveniles, sub-adults and one or two adult males
• Stability of social group based on familiarity,
  adequate food resources, and mutual survivability
  

8
Natural Behavior -??

• Aggression purposes
• settle intra-group disputes
• deter intrusions into group space
• ward off predators
• Aggression generally short-lived
• Result Pigs will fight when mixed!!

9
Natural Behavior -??

• Persistent aggression decreases an individuals
  well-being and performance
• Increased stress hormone concentrations (Otten et
  al., 1999)
• Increased heart rates (Marchant et al., 1995)
• Increased injuries (OConnell et al., 2003)
• Restricted access to resources (OConnell et al.,
  2003)
• Increase costs, by slowing growth (Stookey
  Gonyou, 1994)
• Decreasing sow productivity (Mendl et al., 1992)

10
Injuries
11
Gestation crates

• Injuries from structural interactions
• range of skin and foot problems
• may be individual or design defect
• foot lesions interaction with environment
• properly designed/managed will minimize
• Limited injuries from animal interactions
• reduce competition for feed and water
• aggression controlled

12
Group housing

• Injuries from structural interactions
• Range of skin and foot problems
• floor type/consistency hoof issues
• bedding and pen construction
• feeding systems individual vs. group
• Injuries from animal interactions - major
• Aggression and group interactions
• Management/facility planning to minimize

13
How long do sows fight?

• Usually intense only over the first few hours
  (Pritchard, 1996)
• Reach basal levels within 1-2 days (Pritchard,
  1996)
• Duration of fights have been reported to last
  between 1 180 seconds for sows (Mount and
  Seabrook, 1993)
• Should decrease frequency and duration quickly
  over the first few hours post-mixing
• Facilities design and pen size influences

14
Reduced sow aggression

• System designs
• pen configurations
• barriers and sight zones
• Management intervention
• chemicals
• boars
• timing of entry/contact

15
Reduced sow aggression

• Pen shape/size/population can affect aggression
  duration and intensity
• Circular pens cause higher levels of aggression
  (Weigand et al., 1994) than square or rectangular
  pens
• Solid barrier within the pen reduces the total
  number of aggressive interactions over a 12-h
  post-mixing period in sows (Edwards et al., 1993)

16
Reducing sow aggression

• Dynamic systems where sub-groups are mixed into a
  resident group, dividing the pen into distinct
  lying bays may have long-term advantages (Bünger
  and Kallweit, 1994)
• Mixing pen attributes
• A straw bedded pen providing a good foot hold for
  sows when fighting and fleeing
• An absence pf protruding objects or rigid edges
  on which a sow could damage herself
• Absence of confined areas where a sow could be
  cornered and unable to escape from aggressor
• Adequate space in all places for sows to turn
  around and for two sows to pass side by side
  unhindered reduce social friction

17
Potential interventions

• Time of day,
• Chemical intervention,
• Boar presence.

18
Time of day for mixing

• Sows are mixed after sunset, aggressive
  interactions are decreased over the short-term
  (90 minutes post-mixing)
• But next morning aggression levels are the same
  as if pigs are mixed during daylight!!!!
• (Barnett et al., 1994, 1996).

19
Chemicals

• Anti-aggression (Symoens and van den Brande,
  1969 Callear and van Gestel, 1971 Barnett et
  al., 1993, 1996)
• Amperozide
• Sedatives (Luescher et al. 1990, Csermely and
  Wood-Gush, 1990)
• Azaperone

20
Chemicals

• Aggression appears to be reduced whilst the
  effects of the drug last
• But. once the effects have worn off, aggression
  rebounds to that seen with untreated animals

21
Boar Presence

• Aggressive interactions, skin damage and flight
  distance were all reduced by at least 28 over a
  28-hour post-mixing period by the presence of a
  boar in the pen (Docking et al., 2001)

22
Boar Presence

• Comparing boars in the pen versus no boar
• Presence of a boar was minimally effective at
  reducing fighting and scratches
• Sows seemed more stressed!
• Séguin et al., (2006)

23
Social Intervention

• Mixing as piglets prior to weaning has been shown
  to benefit social skills in the longer term
  (DEath, 2004)
• Gilts that are re-mixed three or four times
  post-weaning show reduced aggression (van Putten
  and Buré, 1997)

24
Pre-Mixing strategies.

• The Goal When mixing sows, minimize stress and
  injury associated with social hierarchy
  formation.
• Strategies to accomplish goal
• Forming sub-groups prior to mixing
• Presence of a boar in a mixing pen
• Special mixing pen for 24 hours

25
Social Intervention

• Dynamic systems - pre-mixing is commonly
  beneficial
• Individual sows are grouped first as a sub-group
  then into the large group
• Practice strengthens sub-group behavior and
  reduces aggression between new and resident sows
  (Durrell et al., 2003)

26
Social Intervention

• Practice of pre-exposing pigs prior to mixing,
  untested potential??
• Let resident sows have olfactory, auditory,
  visual and limited physical contact for 5 days
  before mixing
• Once mixed, aggression was consistently reduced
  by
• 60 over the course of the mixing day
• Following 2-week period comparable to gilts that
  were mixed into the resident group without
  pre-exposure
• (Kennedy and Broom, 1994)

27
Injuries

• Vulva biting
• Body lesions
• Claw lesions

28
Vulva Injuries

• Usually a single bite with incisors
• More common in group housing
• Risk factors identified (1998 Rivzi et al.)
• electronic feeders
• automatic waterers
• inadequate numbers of nipples available

29
Body Lesions
30
Claw injuries
31
Injury Research

• Injuries are associated with competition for
  resources and mixing (Anil et al 2002)
• Total body injury scores greater in group-housed
  sows (Anil et al 2003)
• Aggression injuries occur more in group-housed
  situations then stalls (Barnett et al 1989)

32
Prevention of injuries

• Minimize aggression
• Minimize movement of animals
• Dynamic vs. static systems
• Minimize re-mixing of animals
• Plan time of mixing in relation to implantation
• Minimize competition for feed
• Proper layout
• Feed sows individually
• Van Putten and van de Burgwal group formation
  and area acclimatization

33
Prevention of injuries

• Mixing pen qualities
• Adequate flooring avoid slippage
• Barriers for separation
• Management
• Formation of subgroups
• Be present at mixing
• Identify abused or abusers
• Removal to non-compete/injury pens

34
Principles of feeding sows

• Allow isolation during feeding
• Increase control of individual feed intake
• Decrease sow aggression/injuries
• Improve production consistency
• Meet welfare requirements
• Prevent hoarding/competition
• Maintain appropriate BCS
• Adequate and uniform dosing of feed grade
  medications

35
Reproductive and Production Performance
36
Reproductive Performance

• Performance classically used as a measure of sow
  welfare (Reeves)
• Measure such factors as
• Wean-to-estrus interval
• Pigs/litter
• Conception Rate
• Pigs/sow/year

http//animalscience.calpoly.edu/images/swine/nurs
ing.jpg
37
Reproductive Challenges

• Performance Challenges lack of predictability
• Mixing sows leads to fighting and aggression
• Feed competition leads to uneven body condition
  scores
• Labor Challenges quality of management
• Heat detection
• Breeding
• Pregnancy confirmation
• Body Score assessments
• Grouping Sows new skill sets for many

38
Performance Challenges

• Several studies have been conducted to look at
  the effect of group housing on reproductive
  parameters
• Wean-to-estrus interval
• Risk of reduced Litter Sizes
• Pregnancy Loss
• Decreased Conception Rates
• Decreased Farrowing Rates
• Feed and pen management are paramount to reduce
  production losses
• Timing for mixing for groups importance in
  litter size

39
Comparison of farrowing rate in herds with
different dry housing systems
40
Additional issues to consider

• Scalability of current technologies
• currently smaller scale than USA
• dynamic vs. static groups large sizes
• additional footprint for extra space
• require predictability and pig flow
• Biosecurity
• Open construction with some systems
• Bedding/non-bedding and storage

41
What can happen if the principles arent met
Injuries
Poor body condition
42
Questions

• Thanks you for your attention

43
Labor Challenges
44
Pen Management

• Provide for the needs for the sow while
  addressing welfare concerns.
• Group formation and group dynamics.
• Pre-mixing to minimize aggression
• Managing non-competing and unhealthy sows

45
Stockpeople Skills

• Identify sows that are unable to compete within
  the pen.
• Take appropriate action for the welfare of sows
  that are unable to compete.
• Appropriate handling techniques for sorting
  individual animals from a group.
• Identify and treat individual animals.

46
Pen/Facility Design
47
Group Dynamics

• Group make-up and formation varies by the farm.
• Static vs. Dynamic relationships are important to
  the welfare and productivity of the sows.
• Higher and lower Social ranking sows produce
  differently within the herd.
• Reproductive performance
• Health issues (body condition and injury)
• Offspring production
• Gilt Management

48
Managing problem sows within a group

• The goal is to first recognize unhealthy animals
  and animals that are unable to compete.
• Thin body condition
• Sows that have been beat-up / bitten excessively
• Claw injuries
• Treat or supplement feed to animals as needed.
• Pull off animals for removal to the non-compete
  and injury pens.

49
Additional Facilities

• As the transition to group gestation occurs, more
  sow units will be needed to maintain current sow
  inventories.
• Additional sow units may need to be built in low
  animal density areas that will allow industry
  expansion and have appropriate resources locally.
• Preserving biosecurity
• Limiting encroachment on current operations

50
Feeding Systems