AREA DE CONCLUSIONES

During the time leading up to farrowing, sows have specific welfare needs, such as privacy, need for nest building, increased hunger and an increase in activity levels. While wild sows generally live in family groups, a sow about to

92

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, ‘Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-bases measures to assess the welfare on pigs’ (2014) 12(5) EFSA Journal 3702; M.J.C. Hessing, A.M. Hagelsøm J.A.M. Van Beek, P.R. Wiepkema, W.G.P. Schouten, R. Krukow ‘Individual behavioural characteristics in pigs’

(1993) 37 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 285;B. Wechsler, R. Weber ‘Loose farrowing

systems; challenges and solutions’ (2007) 16 Animal Welfare 296,298; F.H.De Jonge, E.A.M. Bokkers, W.G.P. Schouten, F.A. Helmond ‘Rearing piglets in a poor environment: Developmental aspects of social stress in pigs’ (1996) 60 Physiology & Behaviour 389; D.G.M Wood-Gush, K. Verstergaard, H.V. Petersen ‘The significance of motivation and environment in the development of exploration in pigs’ (1990) 15 Biology of Behaviour 39; K. Scott, D.J. Chennells, D. Armstrong, L. Taylor, B.P. Gill, S.A. Edwards ‘The welfare of finishing pigs under different housing and feeding systems: liquid versus dry feeding in fully slatted and straw-based housing’ (2007) 16 Animal Welfare 53,60; V.E. Beattie, N.E. O’Connell, D.J. Kilpatrick, B.W. Moss ‘Influence of environmental enrichment on welfare related behaviour and physiological parameters in growing pigs.’ (2002) 11 Animal Welfare 295; V. Petersen, H.B. Simonsen, L.G. Lawson ‘The effect of environmental enrichment on the development of behaviours in pigs’ (1995) 68 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 191

93

JG Gentry, AK Johnson, JJ McGlone, ‘The welfare of growing-finishing pigs’ in JN Marchant Forde (ed) The Welfare of Pigs (Springer 2009) 4.2; D’Eath, Turner (n. 86) 2.5.2.; D. Fraser, P.A. Phillips, B.K. Thompson, T. Tennesse ‘Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs’ (1991) 30 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 307; L Rydhmer, N Lundheim ‘Breeding pigs for improved welfare’ in JN Marchant-Forde (ed) The Welfare of Pigs (Springer 2009) 9; JC Petherick, ‘A biological basis of the design of space in livestock housing’ in SH Baxter, MR Baxter, JAD MacCormack (eds.) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1983); O’Connell (n. 89) 6.2.1.1

94

O’Connell (n. 89) 197; V.E. Beattie, N. Walker, I.A. Sneddon ‘Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs’ (1998) 7 Animal Welfare 27

95

Marchant-Forde (n. 88) 110,119; S Baxter, Intensive Pig Production: Environmental Management and Design (Granada Publishing Ltd London 1984); Gentry, Johnson, McGlone (n. 93) 4

farrow withdraws from the family group in the days leading up to the

farrowing. Once withdrawn, she builds a nest, farrows, and initially keeps her piglets separate from the other sows.96 _{A common farming practice of}

moving the sows to individual housing in the days leading up to farrowing echoes this natural behaviour. Therefore, from an ethological point of view, the separation from the group of the farrowing sow is appropriate.

However, the farrowing sows are commonly housed in individual farrowing pens or gestation crates, which are –barring the privacy aspect– not

appropriate for their welfare needs. Both farrowing pens and gestation crates are far too restrictive in space allowance and effectively hinder the sow from performing a range of important natural behaviours such as choosing a nesting site, satisfying her nest-building need, and establishing physical contact with her piglets, all of which are essential welfare needs. 97

Additionally, housing a sow in a gestation crate or a farrowing pen hinders the sow from moving around in the week leading up to the farrowing, a time during which the natural behaviour of a sow shows an increase in activity levels. Studies have confirmed that such a restriction of movement for the farrowing sow causes distress and has a negative impact on her welfare.98

Sows have a strong desire for nest-building and they display this behaviour very intensely during the time leading up to the farrowing.99 _{Lack of available}

96

P. Jensen ‘Nest site choice and nest building of free-ranging domestic pigs due to farrow.’ (1989) 22 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13; Bergeron, Meunier-Salaün, Robert (n. 71) 5.4

97

B. Wechsler, R. Weber ‘Loose farrowing systems; challenges and solutions’ (2007) 16 Animal Welfare 296; D.S. Arey ‘Behavioural observations of peri-parturient sows and the development of alternative farrowing accommodation: A review’ (1997) 6 Animal Welfare 217; Scientific Veterinary Committee ‘The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report to the

Directorate General XXVI of the European Commission. Adopted 30th _{September 1997. Doc}

XXVI/ScVc/0005/97 (Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section 1997); B.I. Damm ‘Loose housing of sows – is this good welfare?’ (2008) 50 Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (Suppl I):S9; Bergeron, Meunier-Salaün, Robert (n. 71) 3.1

98

S. Jarvis, R.B. D’Eath, S.K. Robson, A.B. Lawrence ‘The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows (2006) 87 Physiology and Behaviour 345; Bergeron, Meunier-Salaün, Robert (n. 71) 3.1,5.3; M.J. Haskell, G.D. Hutson, L.G. Dickenson. S. Palmer ‘The pre-farrowing behaviour of sows with operant access to space for locomotion’ (1997) 51 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51

99

nesting material does not hinder the sow from exhibiting nest building behaviour, even if it is limited to the pen (or crate) fittings.100 _{However, when} it is provided, it must not only be of suitable material, but it is essential that the material is of a sufficient quantity, to enable the sow to build something she would consider to be a nest to have an actual, positive impact on her welfare.101 _{Nesting material, as an environmental enrichment, is also} important for the sow and piglet relationship. Studies have shown that an enriched environment around the time of the farrowing has positive effects on the sow’s mothering skills, which improves the piglets’ survival ratio, as a natural co-ordinated behaviour between the sow and her litter has been identified.102

The co-ordinated behaviour reduces the risk of piglet crushing, but is only effective if the sow has a sufficient amount of space available to her. Piglet mortality on farms using pens (compared to crates) shows no significant difference on the overall number of piglet mortality, provided that the farrowing space is at least 5m², the size required for the co-ordinated behaviour to be effective.103

farrowing systems with or without crates’ (2007) 16 Animal Welfare 277, 277

100

S. Jarvis, B.J. Van der Vegt, A.B. Lawrence, K.A. McLean, L.A. Deans, J. Chirnside, S.K. Calvert ‘The effect of parity and environmental restriction on behavioural and

physiological responses of preiparturient pigs.’ (2001) 71 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 203; B.I. Damm, K.S. Verstergaard D.L. Schroder-Petersen, J. Ladevig ‘The effects of branches on perpartum nest building in gilts with access to straw’ (2000) 60 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113; Weber, Keil, Fehr, Horat (n. 99) 277; Wechsler, Weber (97); G.J. Lammers, A. De Lange ‘Pre- and post-farrowing behaviour in primiparous domesticated pigs (1989) 15 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31; A.B. Lawrence, J.C. Petherick, K.A. McLean, L.A. Deans, J. Chirnside, A. Vaughan, E. Clutton, E.M.C. Terlouw ‘The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows’ (1994) 39 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 313

101

Jensen (n. 66)

102

Wechsler, Weber (97); M.S. Herskin, K.H. Jensen, K. Thodberg ‘Influence of

environmental stimuli on maternal behaviour relating to bonding, reactivity and crushing of piglets in domestic sows’ (1998) 58 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 241; Bergeron, Meunier-Salaün, Robert (n. 71) 5.3

103

The farrowing pens had a higher level of losses due to crushing, but significantly fewer deaths from other causes, while gestation crates had fewer deaths due to crushing but significantly more deaths from other causes, both ending up with a similar amount of losses. Weber, Keil, Fehr, Horat (n. 99) 279; G.M. Cronin, B. Lefébure, S. McClintock ‘A comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee Farrowing Pen and

conventional farrowing crates at a commercial farm’ (2000) 40 Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 17; J.K. Blackshaw, A.M. Hagelø ‘Getting-up and lying-down behaviour of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day 1 and day 8 after parturition (1990) 25 Applied Animal Behaviour Science

61; R Weber ‘Alternative housing systems for farrowing and lactating sows’ in HJ Blokhuis, ED Ekkel, B Wechsler (eds.) Improving health and welfare in animal production