Whilst there is mounting scientific evidence that total piglet mortality is not
significantly higher in well-designed free farrowing systems, including the studies in the current thesis, there are further barriers for the widespread commercial uptake of free farrowing systems.
Besides piglet mortality, arguably one of the most important barriers for commercial viability is the increased financial cost of free farrowing systems. Modern farrowing systems must be cheap to construct and economical with space, unlike the design of the long-standing free farrowing pen used in Chapter three and Chapter four, which would not be economically viable to build today. Moreover, even modern higher welfare farrowing systems, such as the temporary confinement crate used in Chapter three and Chapter five, and the designed free farrowing pen in Chapter six, have greater capital costs of £500 and £1,218 per place above the capital cost of a standard farrowing crate (Guy et al., 2012). Part of this increased cost is the
increased floor space required per sow with unconfined farrowing systems. Although some temporary confinement systems, such as the one used in Chapter three and Chapter five, fit within the same footprint as a conventional farrowing crate, the majority of true free farrowing systems require a significantly larger floor space per pen, such as the true free farrowing systems used in Chapter three, Chapter four and Chapter six. Furthermore, piglet mortality is increased in free farrowing systems which are smaller than 5m² (Weber et al., 2009). Higher welfare farrowing systems should provide enough space for sows to achieve their basic behavioural needs, including pre-partum nest-building behaviours, as well as sufficient space for the safety of the piglets, which may not be true for the temporary confinement system used in Chapter three and Chapter five. Therefore, whilst the increased floor space requirements of free farrowing systems is an expensive outlay, it should be
considered a necessity to ensure the system is able to provide for the needs of both the sow and her piglets.
For example, although the straw pen system used in Chapter three and Chapter four was not modern, it facilitated many of the sow’s natural farrowing behaviours – such as visual isolation from other sows, space for locomotor nest-site seeking, a small, dark nest area that was enclosed on three sides and sufficient nest-building
materials. As such, sows were often observed performing a large repertoire of nest- building behaviours in the straw pen system, and piglet mortality rates that were
127
comparable to farrowing crates. The free farrowing system used in Chapter six also facilitated the above behaviours, being designed with significant insight of sow peri- partum behaviour to ensure the behavioural needs of the sow and piglets were met in a more cost-effective system for the producer (Edwards et al., 2012). Conversely, the temporary confinement system provided no visual isolation, no space for locomotor nest-site seeking, no high walls to provide an enclosed nest area and a poorer quality nest-building substrate. Furthermore, as sows were confined throughout the pre- partum period, rooting and pawing of the nest-building substrate meant that it was often pushed outside of the crate, therefore becoming out of reach and possibly even more frustrating for the sow than having no nest-building materials. Thus, whilst larger and more complex free farrowing systems may be more costly to commission, they should result in more contented – and more productive – sows.
In addition to the higher capital costs of free farrowing systems, the running costs are also often higher than conventional farrowing crates. The additional provision of manipulable materials to facilitate sow nest-building behaviour, such as straw or shredded paper, can prove costly in the long-term and they are often subject to fluctuating prices when sourced externally to the farm. Furthermore, the use of manipulable materials increases the associated labour costs in disposing of and replenishing these materials. The two farms in the current studies performed this management routine differently, with the farm using the older farrowing pens providing a large amount of straw which was replenished weekly, whilst the farm using the designed farrowing pen provided a small amount of straw which was replenished daily. Differences in this routine can have further implications, as Westin et al. (2015a, 2015b) found the provision of a large amount of straw before farrowing, instead of several smaller amounts of straw, increased sow nest-building behaviour and reduced the incidence of stillborn piglets. However, anecdotally, stockpersons on the former farm reported the additional labour of mucking out free farrowing pens as a significant drawback, which was probably highlighted by the comparative ease of maintaining the conventional and temporary crate farrowing systems.
An additional barrier for free farrowing systems is ensuring that stockpeople are both capable and willing to handle free farrowing sows. Highly maternal sows can be dangerous and unpredictable, and will attack stockpersons and their own offspring if they are perceived as a threat, which was seen in all of the farrowing systems used in the current studies. The collection of piglets to perform routine health procedures
128
often took longer within the free farrowing pens on both of the experimental farms, as stockpersons had to navigate the responsiveness of the sow whilst catching the piglets. Farmers must find the right balance in working calmly yet quickly when handling sows and piglets soon after birth to avoid unnecessary disruption.
Furthermore, in free farrowing systems, it was sometimes more beneficial for overall litter survival to not intervene to save a crushed or hypothermic piglet, as the
intervention resulted in other piglets becoming savaged or crushed instead. These problems may be farm-specific, with stockperson management improving with continued trial-and-error and learning from experience (E M Baxter, personal
communication). However, providing opportunities for farmers to share and discuss their experiences and successes of managing free farrowing systems could facilitate a grass-roots initiative of optimising unconfined farrowing sow management which would be more effective than trial-and-error or research alone.
Finally, the current economic and political climate may prevent British farmers from investing in free farrowing systems. Current uncertainties around Brexit – including the prospect of cheaper, lower-welfare meat imports – means that many farmers are unsure about the future viability of their business, irrespective of any potential
investment in higher welfare systems. However, public awareness and demand for higher welfare farming systems looks to increase year-on-year, both in the UK and other countries such as the US (Animal Welfare Institute, 2018), and therefore Brexit may provide the opportunity for additional trade deals with other countries outside of the EU that also show increasing interest in higher welfare meat products.