Group suckling in organic sow units Barbara Frh FiBL www.fibl.org - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
group suckling in organic sow units
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Group suckling in organic sow units Barbara Frh FiBL www.fibl.org - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 11, 2023 272 likes •542 views

Archived at http://orgprints.org/13721/ Group suckling in organic sow units Barbara Frh FiBL www.fibl.org 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20, 2008 Group housing of lactating sows > Study on 31 farms in

slide-1
SLIDE 1

www.fibl.org

Group suckling in organic sow units

Barbara Früh

FiBL

16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20, 2008

Archived at http://orgprints.org/13721/

slide-2
SLIDE 2

www.fibl.org

Group housing of lactating sows

> Study on 31 farms in Switzerland, Germany and Austria > Aim of the study: description of the status quo of group suckling in organic farms and the identification of success factors on farm level

The project was sponsored by the Federal Organic Farming Scene, Germany.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

www.fibl.org

Group suckling – an animal friendly and economic system

Advantages

> Natural behavior > Less farrowing pens needed > Integration in old buildings > Possible for outdoor climate stable > efficient use and acceptability of the areas > Less stress for the piglets during weaning – no grouping > More space – more activity > Higher feed intake

Disadvantages > Higher demand in management > Difficult to control the animals > One additional transfer and cleaning > Increase of weight differences between piglets

slide-4
SLIDE 4

www.fibl.org

Group housing of lactating sows

Group housing without changing the stable

Single system Modified single system

Combination of single and group housing

Two stables

slide-5
SLIDE 5

www.fibl.org

Methods: Success factors

> Health of sows and piglets > homogeneity in piglet’s weight at weaning > normal behavior of the sows at handling > productivity data (amount of weaned piglets per litter, losses in farrowing and group housing pen)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

www.fibl.org

Methods: Evaluation of farms

Target values were defined in the areas > housing > management > feeding > animal health > human-animal relationship > productivity

slide-7
SLIDE 7

www.fibl.org

Methods: Development of scoring system

1 . 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 10 2

2

3 3 3 3 2 1 1 9 2

3

3 2 3 2 2 3 2 8 2

3

2 2 3 2 3 3 2 7 1

2

2 3 1 2 2 3 3 6 2

3

3 2 2 2 3 3 1 5 2

3

2 3 2 1 1 2 2 4 2

2

. 2 . 2 2 3 1 3 2

2

2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2

1

2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 Skin Skin lesions, lesions, BCS BCS, , Behaviour Behaviour Human- Human- Anima Animal Rela Relation tion Productivit Productivit iy iy Anima Animal Health Health Man Manage- age- ment ment Feeding Feeding Outdoor Outdoor run run Pigletnest Pigletnest Pen Pen design design Fa Farm rm

1 =good 2 = mid 3 = bad

slide-8
SLIDE 8

www.fibl.org

Results: Housing

7 outdoor climate, 24 closed 6 new stables, 25 modified stables

slide-9
SLIDE 9

www.fibl.org

Results: Number of sows per farm

10 11 10 N =

Germany Switzerland Austria

Number of sows per farm

100 80 60 40 20

26

A: 27 (11 – 45) CH: 36 (12 – 90) D: 41 (21 – 60)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

www.fibl.org

Results: Number of sows per unit

Number of sows per unit

11 5 4 3 2

Number of farms

20 10 1 3 4 19 4

slide-11
SLIDE 11

www.fibl.org

Results: Management

> Keeping the planned group size > six farms > 75 % of the groups > Keeping a low age difference between litters > less than eight days in 84 % of all groups > Preference for low age difference is more important than to keep the planned group size

slide-12
SLIDE 12

www.fibl.org

Results: Animal health

After weaning evaluation of: injuries at neck, body and teats, wounds at vulva, damage of extremities > Relatively little postural damages > Head-body-injuries correlate with the group-size > Injuries of teats are not correlated with the size

  • f the group and amount of piglets
slide-13
SLIDE 13

www.fibl.org

Results: Human-Animal relationship

> Approach test: reaction of sows and piglets to an unfamiliar person > Handling test: behavior of the stockperson > More approach than retreat, flight or aggression > Sows were little afraid in group housing systems

slide-14
SLIDE 14

www.fibl.org

Results: Body Condition Score and behavior

Evaluation of 192 sows > 74 % in good nutritional condition > 18 % were considered skinny > 8 % were considered fat > Problem of thin sows after lactation: more influence from feeding than from the lactating period > Only 18 of 203 sows (in 12 farms) behaved anxiously or aggressively

slide-15
SLIDE 15

www.fibl.org

Results: Productivity

> 9,1 weaned piglets per sow and litter (5,8 – 11,5) > Losses in the farrowing pen 15,6 % > Losses in the group housing 3,9 %

slide-16
SLIDE 16

www.fibl.org

Final evaluation

> Most critical housing factors: > Piglet nest > Feeding

Factor Good Mid Bad Pen design 9 17 5 Piglet nest 4 8 19 Outdoor run 6 18 7 Feeding 4 10 17 Management 8 11 8

slide-17
SLIDE 17

www.fibl.org

Final evaluation

> None of the farms provided optimal conditions in housing, feeding and management > None of the farms was considered successful in all: productivity, animal health and human animal relationship > No plausible correlations between success criteria and farm specific production conditions could be found

slide-18
SLIDE 18

www.fibl.org

Recommendation: Management factors for successful group housing

> Max. age difference between the piglets is 5 days > Min. piglet age for the day of grouping is 10 days > Group size of 3 – 4 sows

slide-19
SLIDE 19

www.fibl.org

Conclusion

> Group housing is an alternative system to single housing > Group suckling has advantages in animal welfare and economic aspects But > To ensure success the basic requirements in

> Housing > Feeding > Management > Veterinary treatment

must be adhered to.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

www.fibl.org

Thank you for your attention!

slide-21
SLIDE 21

www.fibl.org

Beispiel Bewertungstabelle GS-Bucht

Keine Wärmezufu hr Ferkellampe Fußboden-, Deckelheizu ng Gleichmäßige Wärmeverteilung im Ferkelnest Fußboden- oder Deckelheizung Wärmequelle Nein Ja Ferkelgesundheit Keine Zugluft durch Öffnungen (Spalten) in Deckel und Wänden Zugfreiheit < 0,08 0,1 – 0,08 > 0,1 Ausreichend Platz für Ferkel im Kleinklimabereich > 0,1 Grundfläche pro Ferkel in m2 Ferkelnest bodendeck end; Tiefstreu Stroh, 5 – 10 cm Tierkomfort; Wühlmaterial, Wärmespeicher Stroh 5-10 cm hoch Einstreumaterial und –höhe < 2,4 3,4 – 2,5 > 3,5 Reduziert Ferkelerdrücken: Jede Sau muss ungehindert liegen können und synchrones Säugen auf der Liegefläche muss möglich sein > 3,5 m2 Liegefläche pro Sau in m2 > 7 5 – 7 2 -4 Häufigste in der Praxis anzutreffende Gruppengröβe; stallbaulich und bezüglich Umtriebsplanung gut realisierbar 2 – 4 Sauen pro Gruppe Gruppengröβe GS-Bucht Schlecht Mittel Gut Begründung Anforderung Parameter Ort/Was Bewertung

slide-22
SLIDE 22

www.fibl.org

Idea of group suckling

> Natural behaviour > Reduction of the weaning stress > Economically interesting (stable, work schedule) > Animal friendly and economic system

slide-23
SLIDE 23

www.fibl.org

Results: Weaning age of piglets

Weaning Age of Piglets in Weeks > 9 8 7 6 Amount Farms

30 20 10 2 3 6 20

slide-24
SLIDE 24

www.fibl.org

Methods: Data collection

Researcher > Questionnaire for farm data, management, human-animal relationship > Data sheet for housing, animal health, BCS, human-animal relationship > Arrangement drawing of the group suckling pen Farmer > Productivity data Both > Piglet weight

slide-25
SLIDE 25

www.fibl.org

Final evaluation

Success criteria Good Mid Bad Missing Productivity 1 13 13 4 Animal Health

  • 14

16 1 Skin lesions, BCS, behaviour 6 20 4 1 Human animal relationship 6 13 5 7