Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany.
Clinic for Swine, Small Ruminants and Forensic Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany.
Animal. 2019 Nov;13(11):2612-2620. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119000661. Epub 2019 May 20.
While group housing (GH) is mandatory in the European Union for the greater part of pregnancy, single housing in farrowing crates (FCs) during lactation that restrict sows in most of their natural behaviour patterns is still practised on a large scale. Research is urgently needed to develop alternative farrowing systems that improve sows' welfare. Therefore, sows in three different farrowing systems - pens with FC, loose housing (LH) pens and GH for six sows - were compared regarding the level of skin injuries and their active and resting behaviour. A skin injury score was assessed for 15 body parts of 102 sows in six batches on 3 days (days 1, 14 and 34). In total, the active and resting behaviour of 77 sows in six batches was examined on 3 days (days 18, 25 and 32) between 0700 h and 1900 h by means of a scan sampling method. The suckling behaviour and the level of cross-suckling were analysed in GH by means of direct observation in four batches during three 4-h sampling periods (days 17, 24 and 31). No significant differences were found in total skin injuries when the sows entered the systems (day 1), but GH sows showed significantly higher total skin injuries compared to FC and LH sows in the middle (day 14) and at the end (day 34) of the lactation period. A significant difference between FC and LH sows was never seen. Differences were found for the proportion of different body postures between the three systems. The odds for lying in lateral recumbency versus standing and sitting versus standing were significantly higher for FC and LH sows compared to GH sows. Additionally, sows were significantly more likely to be standing as opposed to lying in lateral recumbency as the lactation period progressed. Cross-suckling was a frequent behaviour in GH, seen in 35.0% of all successful suckling bouts. However, only an average of 0.56 piglets per successful suckling bout was observed cross-suckling, suggesting only a few piglets were engaged in cross-suckling. In conclusion, the skin injury score was only moderately increased in GH compared to FC and LH and comparable to pregnant group-housed sows, both free farrowing systems seemed to be an environmental enrichment for lactating sows and good management cannot prevent the occurrence of cross-suckling in a GH system, but can probably reduce it.
虽然在很大程度上，欧盟要求对母猪进行群体饲养（GH），但在哺乳期仍广泛采用限制母猪大部分自然行为的产仔箱（FC）单独饲养。因此，迫切需要研究开发替代分娩系统，以提高母猪的福利。因此，在三种不同的分娩系统（带 FC 的产仔栏、散养（LH）产仔栏和 6 头母猪的 GH）中，对 102 头母猪的 15 个身体部位进行了皮肤损伤评分，并对其活动和休息行为进行了比较。在 6 批中，共对 77 头母猪的 3 天（第 1、14 和 34 天）进行了 15 个身体部位的皮肤损伤评分。总共在 6 批中对 77 头母猪的 3 天（第 18、25 和 32 天）的活动和休息行为进行了检查，使用扫描采样法，在 0700 至 1900 小时之间进行。在 GH 中，通过在四个批次中进行四次 4 小时采样期间（第 17、24 和 31 天）的直接观察，分析了哺乳行为和交叉哺乳水平。当母猪进入系统时（第 1 天），总皮肤损伤没有明显差异，但 GH 母猪在哺乳期中期（第 14 天）和末期（第 34 天）的总皮肤损伤明显高于 FC 和 LH 母猪。FC 和 LH 母猪之间从未出现过差异。三种系统之间的不同身体姿势的比例存在差异。与 GH 母猪相比，FC 和 LH 母猪侧卧的几率明显更高，站立和坐姿与站立相比。此外，随着哺乳期的进展，母猪站立的可能性明显高于侧卧。交叉哺乳在 GH 中是一种常见行为，在所有成功哺乳的回合中占 35.0%。然而，在每个成功哺乳回合中，只有平均 0.56 头仔猪进行了交叉哺乳，这表明只有少数仔猪参与了交叉哺乳。总之，与 FC 和 LH 相比，GH 中的皮肤损伤评分仅略有增加，与妊娠群体饲养的母猪相当，这两个自由分娩系统似乎对哺乳期母猪是一种环境丰富，良好的管理不能防止 GH 系统中发生交叉哺乳，但可能会减少。
