1 / 23

Evaluation of sow stall dimensions

Evaluation of sow stall dimensions. John Barnett Animal Welfare Science Centre, Department of Primary Industries, Werribee. Background . Stall housing is a controversial welfare issue for the pork industry Criticisms of individual (stall) housing of sows sows unable to exercise

hesper
Download Presentation

Evaluation of sow stall dimensions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of sow stall dimensions John Barnett Animal Welfare Science Centre, Department of Primary Industries, Werribee

  2. Background • Stall housing is a controversial welfare issue for the pork industry • Criticisms of individual (stall) housing of sows • sows unable to exercise • limited social contact between sows • restriction of “naturalistic” behaviours • eg. dunging vs lying vs feeding area • 40-60%(?) of gestating sows in Australia are stall housed • ~26%(?) of Australian sows are stall housed for 15 weeks / parity • concern over long-term individual housing (15 weeks) in stalls then crates • Code of Practice (welfare) defines minimum stall dimensions: • stall width = 0.6 m • stall length = 2.0 m (“clear space”: excludes feeder and water facilities)

  3. Overseas recommendations on stalls • Stalls banned in some countries • Sweden, Norway(?), Finland (2006), Switzerland (2007), Netherlands (2008), Denmark (2014) • Restricted time in stalls • European Union - maximum of 4 weeks post-mating from 2013 • New Zealand - (recommendation only at this stage) maximum of 6 weeks post-mating from 2009 and 4 weeks post-mating from 2013 (to be reviewed in 2009) (new stalls max of 4 weeks post-mating)

  4. Cortisol concentrations in 4 housing treatments (nmol) From Barnett et al., 1991b

  5. Objectives of Project To determine: 1) the effects of stall dimensions on the welfare of sows 2) if there is a minimum time in stalls that results in improved reproduction without compromising sow welfare

  6. Experiments to: Evaluate the effects of: 1) Sow stall dimensions on welfare  2) Time in sow stalls on reproduction and welfare - commercial facility 3) Sow stall length and time in stalls on reproduction and welfare - commercial facility Student project: 4) Effects of housing in stalls and implications for forming social relationships

  7. Experiment 1 - Sow Stall Dimensions • 2 years • 4 replicates in time • 7 treatments (3 x 2 factorial) plus external, negative control • Factors examined: • Stall length (2.0 m vs 2.2 m vs 2.4 m) • Stall width (0.6 m vs 0.75 m) • External, negative control = tether stalls • Positions of treatments (banks of stalls) randomised between reps • 4 sows per bank of stalls • 2 non-experimental and 2 experimental sows • 56 experimental & 56 non-experimental sows • parities 2-6

  8. Stall width Conventional width stall (0.6 m wide) Wide stall (0.75 m wide)

  9. Stall length 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 m long in banks of 4

  10. Tether stall - control (0.6 m wide)

  11. Measurements • 1) Sow physiology • Surgery to implant catheter in cephalic vein • at ~8 weeks into treatment • day-time profile of plasma cortisol concentrations • cortisol response to ACTH injection • cell-mediated immune response • 2) Sow lameness and live weight • measured at entry and exit from treatments

  12. Measurements • 3) Sow behaviour post-feeding & “at rest” • Video recording at ~7 weeks after entry to stalls • level of activity • social behaviour • aggression • affiliative behaviour (lying together vs apart) • angle of turn in stalls

  13. Results - cortisol concentrations Width of stall Length of stall Tether 0.6 m 0.75 m2.0 m 2.2 m 2.4 m Total cortisol conc.nMol18.4p 25.5q22.5 20.8 22.6 36.6 Free cortisol conc. nMol2.3x 3.0y2.7b 2.3a 2.9b 3.5 a,b: P<0.05; x,y: P<0.01; p,q:P<0.001 Free cortisol concentrations were lower in the 0.6 m wide stall & the 2.2 m long stall

  14. Results - response to ACTH Width of stallLength of stall Tether 0.6 m 0.75 m2.0 m 2.2 m 2.4 m Total cortisol conc. 18.4p 25.5q 22.5 20.8 22.6 26.1 pre-ACTHnMol Total cortisol conc.2.80a 3.02b2.95q 2.76p 3.02q 3.13 post-ACTH % increase(log value) a,b: P<0.05; p,q:P<0.001 In a chronic stress response the response to ACTH is increased There was a lower response to ACTH in the 0.6 m wide stall and the 2.2 m long stall

  15. Results - cell mediated immunity Width of stallLength of stall Tether 0.6 m 0.75 m 2.0 m 2.2 m 2.4 m Cell mediated immunity 108.4b 91.2a 91.1pq 119.1q 89.1p81.7 (% increase in skin thickness) a,b: P<0.05; p,q:P<0.001 The greater the % response the “better” the animal’s immune system (higher response in 0.6 m wide stall and 2.2 m(?) long stall)

  16. Results - Behaviour • Activity Post-feeding observations: • sows in 0.75 m wide stalls were • more active (86% vs 74% of time; P<0.05); and • took longer to lie down (101 min vs 86 min) • No effects of treatment on aggression

  17. Results - Affiliative behaviour (forward index) Index score of the preference of sows to occupy the same spatial alignment as their neighbours during the 2-h observation period ie. heads of neighbours at the front of the stall Width of stallLength of stall Observation period0.6 m 0.75 m 2.0 m 2.2 m 2.4 m Post-feeding-0.04 -0.23-0.16 -0.35 +0.11 Afternoon -0.53 -0.47-0.39 -0.80 -0.31 • A negative index indicates that neighbouring sows were separated. • A positive score indicates that neighbouring sows were together. • A score close to zero implies the spatial alignment between neighbouring sows was random. Sows were generally lying apart (ie. lack of head to head contact)

  18. Results - Angle of turn (post-feeding) Width of stallLength of stall Tether 0.6 m 0.75 m2.0 m 2.2 m 2.4 m Mean turn angle°38p 50q48b 42a 41a36 Mean maximum angle°47x 59y61y 50x 49x 44 a,b: P<0.05; x,y: P<0.01; p,q:P<0.001 Conventional stall width (0.6 m) Wide stall width (0.75 m) Angle of turn greater in 0.75 m wide stall and 2.0 m long stall

  19. Summary - Physiology • Welfare improved in: • 0.6 m wide compared to 0.75 m wide stalls • based on lower total and free cortisol concentrations • reduced responsiveness to ACTH • increased immunoresponsiveness • 2.2 m long stalls compared to 2.0 m long stalls • based on lower free cortisol concentrations • reduced responsiveness to ACTH • increased immunoresponsiveness (vs. 2.4 but not 2.0 m long stalls)

  20. Summary - Behaviour • Behaviour data inconclusive: • No effect on social behaviour? • wider stalls allowed sows to turn more • 2.4 m long stalls allowed more movement • how are these social behaviours perceived? eg threatening • Affiliative behaviour • generally negative scores • indicates sows preferred to be apart at front of stall

  21. Constraints • Experimental study on stall dimensions • stall divisions were horizontal bars • no positive control treatment

  22. Overall conclusions • Stall Width • improved welfare with a stall width of 0.6 m stall Length • improved welfare with a stall length of 2.2 m It is the design of the system rather than the housing system per se that is important to welfare

  23. Thanks A collaborative project between: • Animal Welfare Science Centre / Department of Primary Industries • Australian Pork Limited Thanks to: co-researchers: Greg Cronin, Paul Hemsworth technical staff: Lisa Newman, Samantha Borg, Bruce Schirmer and AWSC students at DPI Werribee

More Related