Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:58:28.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2011

E. M. Baxter ,
A. B. Lawrence  and
S. A. Edwards
E. M. Baxter*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Agriculture Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

There is growing societal pressure, expressed through government legislation and consumers’ purchasing choices, to abolish livestock systems considered detrimental to farm animal welfare. Such systems include farrowing crates, which are behaviourally and physically restrictive for sows. Therefore, identifying less restrictive farrowing systems for commercial implementation has become an important focus of pig research. Despite numerous attempts to develop indoor alternatives to crates, there is as yet no universal acceptance of such systems at the commercial level. The primary concern is piglet survival, because often favourable figures are reported at the experimental level, but not replicated in commercial evaluation. Alternative farrowing systems should equal or surpass survival levels in conventional systems and perform consistently across a range of farm circumstances for widespread commercial implementation. In addition, it is important that alternatives consider ease of management, operator safety and economic sustainability. Utilising a large database of literature, 12 existing alternative indoor systems were identified and compared against each other, conventional crates and outdoor systems. An assessment of how well alternative systems satisfy the design criteria for meeting animals’ biological needs was carried out by developing a welfare design index (WDI). The physical and financial performance of these systems was also evaluated and summarised. The derived WDI yielded values of 0.95 for conventional crates, with higher scores for commercial outdoor systems of 1.10 and indoor group farrowing or multi-suckling systems (e.g. Thorstensson = 2.20). However, the high total piglet mortality (23.7% ± s.e. 2.26) in indoor group systems compared with conventional crates (18.3% ± s.e. 0.63) and outdoor systems (17.0% ± s.e. 2.05), together with the added capital cost (92% more than conventional crates, 249% more than commercial outdoor huts), mainly as a result of extra building space provided per animal, question their feasibility to deliver from an economic perspective. Designed pen systems offered the best compromise, scoring 1.64 from the WDI, with a total piglet mortality of 16.6% (±s.e. 0.88) and capital costs and labour input more comparable to farrowing crates (17.5% more than crates). The critical review of different systems was hampered by the lack of comprehensive data and detailed system descriptions. When attempting to assess welfare and economic attributes of systems, there are certain caveats that require discussion, in particular weighting of the contribution of different design attributes to pig welfare, the relative importance of the sow and her piglets and the many potential confounding factors that arise. Also, when judging any system, it must be emphasised that the maternal characteristics of sows and the quality of stockpersonship will be integral to its success.

Keywords

pigfarrowinglactationhousingwelfareperformanceeconomics
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 96 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aherne, FX 1982. Some management practices affecting the survival and growth rate of suckling pigs. Report no. 61, Annual Feeders Day Report, p. 78. [Table 1, reference 39].Google Scholar
Algers, B 1991. Group housing of farrowing sows – health aspects of a new system. In Proceedings of the VII International Congress on Animal Hygiene, Leipzig, Germany, p. 851. [Table 1, reference 67].Google Scholar
Algers, B, Jensen, P 1990. Thermal microclimate in winter farrowing nests of free-ranging domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 25, 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, IL, Berg, S, Bøe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243. [Table 1, reference 1].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, IL, Tajet, GM, Haukvik, IA, Kongsrud, S, Boe, KE 2007. Relationship between postnatal piglet mortality, environmental factors and management around farrowing in herds with loose-housed, lactating sows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 57, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS 1994. The Family System for pigs: developments at Aberdeen. Farm Building Progress 116, 8–12. [Table 1, reference 40].Google Scholar
Arey, DS 1997. Behavioural observations of peri-parturient sows and the development of alternative farrowing accommodation: a review. Animal Welfare 6, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS, Sancha, ES 1996. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50, 135–145 [Table 1, reference 68].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS, Brooke, P 2006. Animal welfare aspects of good agricultural practice: pig production. Compassion in World Farming, p. 97, 102, 117 [Table 1, reference 69].Google Scholar
Arey, DS, Petchey, AM, Fowler, VR 1989. Farrowing site preference by sows. Animal Production 48, p. 643. [Table 1, reference 2].Google Scholar
Arey, DS, Petchey, AM, Fowler, VR 1991. The preparturient behavior of sows in enriched pens and the effect of preformed nests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 61–68. [Table 1, reference 3].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS, Petchey, AM, Fowler, VR 1992. Farrowing accommodation and piglet mortality. Farm Building Progress 107, 5–7. [Table 1, reference 70].Google Scholar
Bäckström, L, Algers, B, Nilsson, J, Ekesbo, I 1994. Effects of sow housing on production and health. In Proceedings of the 13th IPVS Congress, 26–30 June, Bangkok, Thailand, p. 427. [Table 1, reference 41].Google Scholar
Barbari, M, Ferrari, P 2001. Evaluation of thermal characteristics of different types of farrowing huts for outdoor pig production in hot climatic areas. Proceedings of the International Congress II Section CIGR. Agribuilding, Campinas, Brazil, pp. 125–135. [Table 1, reference 4].Google Scholar
Barnett, JL 2007. Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC, Hutson, GD 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999. A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, J 2008. Welfare and economic aspects of non-crate farrowing systems. In Housing of farrowing and lactating sows in non-crate systems (ed. LJ Pedersen and VA Moustsen). Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 37–39. [Table 1, reference 144].Google Scholar
Baxter, MR 1983. Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, MR 1991. The freedom farrowing system. Farm Building Progress 104, 9–15. [Table 1, reference 42].Google Scholar
Baxter, EM 2008. Behavioural and physiological indicators of piglet survival and the influence of genetics and environment. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle, UK. [Table 1, reference 71].Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, D'Eath, RB, Ross, DW, Robson, SK, Farish, M, Nevison, IM, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2008. Investigating the behavioural and physiological indicators of neonatal survival in pigs. Theriogenology 69, 773–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Robson, SK, Ormandy, E, Farish, M, Smurthwaite, KM, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2009. Indicators of piglet survival in an outdoor farrowing system. Livestock Science 124, 266–276. [Table 1, reference 72].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2011a. Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal 5, 580–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Farish, M, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2011b. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J 1789. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, S, Andersen, IL, Tajet, GM, Haukvik, IA, Kongsrud, S, Boe, KE 2006. Piglet use of the creep area and piglet mortality – effects of closing the piglets inside the creep area during sow feeding time in pens for individually loose-housed sows. Animal Science 82, 277–281. [Table 1, reference 73].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, F, Dagorn, J, Le Denmat, M, Quillien, JP, Vaudelet, JC, Signoret, JP 1997. Perinatal losses in outdoor pig breeding. A survey of factors influencing piglet mortality. Annals of Zootechnology 46, 321–329. [Table 1, reference 43].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biensen, NJ, vonBorell, EH, Ford, SP 1996. Effects of space allocation and temperature on periparturient maternal behaviors, steroid concentrations, and piglet growth rates. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2641–2648. [Table 1, reference 74].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackshaw, JK, Blackshaw, AW, Thomas, FJ, Newman, FW 1994. Comparison of behavior patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 281–295. [Table 1, reference 75].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøe, K 1993. Maternal behaviour of lactating sows in a loose housing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35, 327–338. [Table 1, reference 76].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøe, K 1994. Variation in maternal-behavior and production of sows in integrated loose housing systems in Norway. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41, 53–62. [Table 1, reference 77].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornett, HLI, Guy, JH, Cain, PJ 2003. Impact of animal welfare on costs and viability of pig production in the UK. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 16, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J, Veissier, I 2007. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1, 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, LA, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB, Brophy, P 2000a. Influence of housing system during gestation on the behaviour and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates. Animal Science 71, 561–570. [Table 1, reference 78].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, LA, Regan, D, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB, Brophy, P 2000b. The effect of mats on the welfare of sows and piglets in the farrowing house. Animal Welfare 9, 39–48. [Table 1, reference 5].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, LA, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB, Brophy, P 2002. Effect of gestation housing on behaviour and skin lesions of sows in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 119–134. [Table 1, reference 79].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BPEX (British Pig Executive) 2004. An industry update on farrowing systems. Milton Keynes, UK. [Table 1, reference 80].Google Scholar
British Pig Executive (BPEX) 2009. The pig yearbook 2009. Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM 1999a. Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM 1999b. Overall animal welfare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM, Schouten, WGP 2002a. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1835–1845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM, Schouten, WGP 2002b. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1819–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, RH, Broom, DM 1999a. A comparison of the behaviour and performance of sows and piglets in crates and oval pens. Animal Science 69, 327–333. [Table 1, reference 81].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, RH, Broom, DM 1999b. Behaviour and performance of sows and piglets in crates and a Thorstensson system. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, UK, p. 179. [Table 1, reference 82] .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, S, Algers, B 1993. Schweden-Stall fur grosse Altgebaude. Report no. 4, DLG-Mitteilungen, p. 60. [Table 1, reference 44].Google Scholar
Bunger, B, Schlichting, MC 1995. Evaluation of 2 alternative housing systems for farrowing and nursing sows in comparison to 2 forms of farrowing crates by ethological and developmental parameters of the piglets. Landbauforschung Volkenrode 45, 12–29. [Table 1, reference 83].Google Scholar
Callaway, TR, Morrow, JL, Johnson, AK, Dailey, JW, Wallace, FM, Wagstrom, EA, McGlone, JJ, Lewis, AR, Dowd, SE, Poole, TL, Edrington, TS, Anderson, RC, Genovese, KJ, Byrd, JA, Harvey, RB, Nisbet, DJ 2005. Environmental prevalence and persistence of Salmonella spp. in outdoor swine wallows. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 2, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canario, L, Cantoni, E, Le Bihan, E, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Bidanel, JP, Foulley, JL 2006. Between-breed variability of stillbirth and its relationship with sow and piglet characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3185–3196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandrahas, D, Chhabra, AK, Bisht, GS, Abraham, J 2004. Effect of three farrowing systems on the performance of crossbred primiparous sows and their litters. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 74, 1085–1087. [Table 1, reference 84].Google Scholar
Christison, GI, Lewis, NJ, Bayne, GR 1987. Effects of farrowing crate floors on health and performance of piglets and sows. Veterinary Record 121, 37–41. [Table 1, reference 85].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, ER, Kornegay, ET, Bonnette, ED 1987. The effects of two confinement systems on the performance of nursing sows and their litters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 51–59. [Table 1, reference 86].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, DJ, Mulrow, CD, Haynes, RB 1997. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine 126, 376–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe 2001. Commission Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities L316, 1–3. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_316/l_31620011201en00010004.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM 2007. Practical farrowing pens. Report no. MIS07347. Department of Primary Industries, Animal Welfare Science Centre, Werribee, Australia. [Table 1, reference 87].Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Vanamerongen, G 1991. The effects of modifying the farrowing environment on sow behavior and survival and growth of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 287–298. [Table 1, reference 88].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Smith, JA 1992a. Effects of accommodation type and straw bedding around parturition and during lactation on the behavior of primiparous sows and survival and growth of piglets to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 191–208. [Table 1, reference 89].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Smith, JA 1992b. Suckling behavior of sows in farrowing crates and straw-bedded pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 175–189. [Table 1, reference 90].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Butler, KL 2007. Piglet mortality in farrowing pens and farrowing crates. In Manipulating pig production XI. Australasian Pig Science Association (Inc), Werribee, Australia, p. 35. [Table 1, reference 91].Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Simpson, GJ, Hemsworth, PH 1996. The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46, 175–192. [Table 1, reference 92].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Dunsmore, B, Leeson, E 1998. The effects of farrowing nest size and width on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60, 331–345. [Table 1, reference 93].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Lefebure, B, McClintock, S 2000. A comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee farrowing pen and conventional farrowing crates at a commercial farm. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 17–23. [Table 1, reference 145].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Barnett, JL, Hodge, FM, Smith, JA, Mccallum, TH 1991. The welfare of pigs in 2 farrowing lactation environments – cortisol responses of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 117–127. [Table 1, reference 94].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Bildsoe, M, Gilbert, C, Ladewig, J, Vestergaard, KS 2002. The effects of confinement on periparturient behaviour and circulating prolactin, prostaglandin F2[alpha] and oxytocin in gilts with access to a variety of nest materials. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 135–156. [Table 1, reference 6].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Lisborg, L, Vestergaard, KS, and Vanicek, J 2003. Nest building, behavioural disturbances and heart rate in farrowing sows kept in crates and Schmid pens. Livestock Production Science 80, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Pedersen, LJ, Heiskanen, T, Nielsen, NP 2005. Long-stemmed straw as an additional nesting material in modified Schmid pens in a commercial breeding unit: effects on sow behaviour, and on piglet mortality and growth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 45–60. [Table 1, reference 95].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danske, S 1993. Loose nursing sows. Annual Report, The National Committee for Pig Breeding Health and Production, The Federation of Danish Pig Producers and Slaughterhouses, p. 41. [Table 1, reference 45].Google Scholar
Dawkins, M 1977. Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Animal Behaviour 25, 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, IC, Prelle, IT, van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Blokhuis, HJ, Koolhaas, JM 2000. Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioral responses to novelty, learning, and memory, and the circadian rhythm in cortisol in growing pigs. Physiology & Behavior 68, 571–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devilat, J, Camps, J, Skoknic, A 1971. Farrowing crate and conventional pen for sows. Journal of Animal Science 33, p. 208. [Table 1, reference 46].Google Scholar
Dubois, A, Meunier-Salaun, M-C, Le Gall, R 2008. Performances et comportement des truies et de leurs portees dans une maternite alternative en batiment: resultats preliminaires. Journees Recherche Porcine 40, 233–238. [Table 1, reference 96].Google Scholar
Dun, N 1992. Swiss alternative farrowing pen. Pigs Misset, Sept/Oct 26–28. [Table 1, reference 146].Google Scholar
Dybjaer, L, Olsen, ANW, Moller, F, Jensen, KH 2001. Effects of farrowing conditions on behaviour in multi-suckling pens for pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 134–141. [Table 1, reference 97].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 1996. Designing systems to meet behavioural needs: The Family Pen System for pigs. In Animal behavior and the design of livestock and poultry systems, pp. 115–125. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, USA.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2005. Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science 94, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA, Fraser, D 1997. Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. The Pig Journal 39, 77–89.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Furniss, SJ 1988. The effects of straw in crated farrowing systems on peripartal behavior of sows and piglets. British Veterinary Journal 144, 139–146. [Table 1, reference 98].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, SA, Zanella, A 1996. Producao de suinos ao ar livre na Europa: bem-estar e consideracoes ambientais. [Pig production in outdoor systems in Europe: production, welfare and environmental considerations]. A Hora Veterinara 92, 86–93.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Riddoch, I, Fordyce, C 1995. Effect of outdoor farrowing hut insulation on piglet mortality and growth. Farm Building Progress 117, 33–35. [Table 1, reference 99].Google Scholar
England, DC, Spurr, DT 1969. Litter size of swine confined during gestation. Journal of Animal Science 28, 220–223. [Table 1, reference 100].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Food Safety Authority 2007. Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets [1], pp. 1–13. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, EFSA.Google Scholar
Farmer, C, Robert, S, Choiniere, Y 1998. Reducing ambient temperature in farrowing houses with a new controlled-environment system. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78, 23–28. [Table 1, reference 101].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, C, Devillers, N, Widowski, T, Masse, D 2006. Impacts of a modified farrowing pen design on sow and litter performances and air quality during two seasons. Livestock Science 104, 303–312. [Table 1, reference 7].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, DM 1990. The application of electronic identification to groups of farrowing and lactating sows in straw bedded housing. In Electronic identification in pig production, RASE, Stoneleigh, UK, p. 101. [Table 1, reference 47].Google Scholar
Fowler, T 2009. 2008 pig cost of production in selected countries. BPEX, Stoneleigh, UK.Google Scholar
Fraser, AF 1983. The behaviour of maintenance and the intensive husbandry of cattle, sheep and pigs. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 9, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK 1988. Initial test of a farrowing crate with inward-sloping sides. Livestock Production Science 20, 249–256. [Table 1, reference 102].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK 1997. Farrowing behaviour and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 51–66. [Table 1, reference 103].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glastonbury, JRW 1976. A survey of preweaning mortality in the pig. Australian Veterinary Journal 52, 272–276. [Table 1, reference 48].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goetz, M, Troxler, J 1993. Farrowing and nursing in the group. In Livestock environment IV (ed. E Collins and C Boon), p. 159. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, MI, USA. [Table 1, reference 49].Google Scholar
Goetz, M, Troxler, J 1995. Group housing of sows during farrowing and lactation. Transactions of the ASAE 38, 1495–1500. [Table 1, reference 147].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, C, Ortega, J, Vecchionacce, H, Diaz, I 1999. A note on the effect of bedding materials on the performance of lactating piglets. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 33, 383–386. [Table 1, reference 50].Google Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E, Thodberg, K 2003. Genetic analysis of on-farm tests of maternal behaviour in sows. Livestock Production Science 83, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grissom, KK, Friend, TH, Dellmeier, GR, Knabe, DA, Dahm, PF 1990. Effects of various farrowing systems on piglet survivability. Journal of Animal Science 68 (suppl. 1), p. 253. [Table 1, reference 51].Google Scholar
Gustafsson, B 1982. Effects of sow housing systems in practical pig production. Trans actions of the ASAE 26, 1181. [Table 1, reference 52].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, KE, Curtis, SE 1980. Prepartal activity of sows in stall or pen. Journal of Animal Science 51, 456–460. [Table 1, reference 8].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, MJ, Gonyou, HW 1998. Increasing available space in a farrowing crate does not facilitate postural changes or maternal responses in gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59, 285–296. [Table 1, reference 9].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsock, TG, Barczewski, RA 1997. Prepartum behavior in swine: effects of pen size. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2899–2904. [Table 1, reference 10].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, MJ, Hutson, GD 1994. Factors affecting the choice of farrowing site in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 259–268. [Table 1, reference 11].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, MJ, Hutson, GD 1996. The pre-farrowing behaviour of sows with access to straw and space for locomotion. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 375–387. [Table 1, reference 12].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckt, WL, Widowski, TM, Curtis, SE, Gonyou, HW 1988. Prepartum behavior of gilts in three farrowing environments. Journal of Animal Science 66, 1378–1385. [Table 1, reference 13].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirst, WM, Le Fevre, AM, Logue, DN, Offer, JE, Chaplin, SJ, Murray, RD, Ward, WR, French, NP 2002. A systematic compilation and classification of the literature on lameness in cattle. Veterinary Journal 164, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honeyman, MS, Kent, D 2001. Performance of a Swedish deep-bedded feeder pig production system in Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 16, 50–56. [Table 1, reference 104].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeyman, MS, Roush, WB, Penner, AD 1998. Pig crushing mortality by hut type in outdoor farrowing. Annual Progress Report. Iowa State University, Ames, USA, pp. 16–17. [Table 1, reference 105].Google Scholar
Houwers, HWJ, Bure, R, Walvoort, J 1993. Production aspects of integrated housing of sows with confined litters. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production, UK, pp. 229–230. [Table 1, reference 106] .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO, Black, AJ 1973. The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science 14, 615–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO, Duncan, IJH 1988. Behavioural needs: can they be explained in terms of motivational models? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19, 352–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, ML, Yang, WF, Ma, HW, Yang, YM 2006. A novel multiobjective programming approach dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for environmental management. Ecological Economics 56, 584–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K, Petchey, AM 1987. A study of the environmental preferences of sows around farrowing. Farm Building Progress 89, 11–14. [Table 1, reference 14].Google Scholar
Hunt, K, Petchey, AM 1989. Degree of enclosure preferred by sows around farrowing. Animal Production 48, p. 643. [Table 1, reference 107].Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Calvert, SK, Stevenson, J, van Leeuwen, N, Lawrence, AB 2002. Pituitary-adrenal activation in pre-parturient pigs (Sus scrofa) is associated with behavioural restriction due to lack of space rather than nesting substrate. Animal Welfare 11, 371–384. [Table 1, reference 15].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Reed, BT, Lawrence, AB, Calvert, SK, Stevenson, J 2004. Peri-natal environmental effects on maternal behaviour, pituitary and adrenal activation, and the progress of parturition in the primiparous sow. Animal Welfare 13, 171–181. [Table 1, reference 16].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, Mclean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Calvert, SK 1997. The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, beta-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 65, 465–472. [Table 1, reference 17].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, Mclean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Calvert, SK 1999. The effect of piglet expulsion in the sow on plasma cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone and beta-endorphin. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 34, 89–94. [Table 1, reference 108].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Van der Vegt, BJ, Lawrence, AB, Mclean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Calvert, SK 2001. The effect of parity and environmental restriction on behavioural and physiological responses of pre-parturient pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 203–216. [Table 1, reference 18].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Toates, FM 1993. Who needs ‘behavioural needs’? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AK, Morrow, JL, Dailey, JW, McGlone, JJ 2007. Preweaning mortality in loose-housed lactating sows: behavioral and performance differences between sows who crush or do not crush piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 59–74. [Table 1, reference 109].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AK, Marchant-Forde, JN 2009. Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In The welfare of pigs (ed. JN Marchant-Forde), pp. 141–188. Springer, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, NT 1995. A comparison between free-access farrowing nests and farrowing crates on a 500-sow unit. The Pig Journal 35, 10–19. [Table 1, reference 53].Google Scholar
Keeling, L, Svedberg, J 1999. Legislation banning conventional battery cages in Sweden and subsequent phase-out programme. Proceedings of the Congress ‘Regulation of Animal Production in Europe’ (ed. M Kunisch and H Eckel), Wiesbaden, Germany, pp. 73–78.Google Scholar
Kerr, SGC, Wood-Gush, DGM, Moser, H, Whittemore, CT 1988. Enrichment of the production environment and the enhancement of welfare through the use of the Edinburgh Family Pen System of pig production. Research and Development in Agriculture 5, 171–186. [Table 1, reference 148].Google Scholar
Krieter, J 2002. Evaluation of different pig production systems including economic, welfare and environmental aspects. Archiv Fur Tierzucht – Archives of Animal Breeding 45, 223–235. [Table 1, reference 142].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, GJ, Delange, A 1986. Pre-farrowing and post-farrowing behavior in primiparous domesticated pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 31–43. [Table 1, reference 19].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, Mclean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Gilbert, CL, Forsling, ML 1993. The effect of behavioural restriction on vasopressin and oxytocin concentrations in farrowing sows. Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology, Berlin (ed. M Nichelmann, HK Wierenga and S Braun), pp. 338–340. [Table 1, reference 20] .Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, Mclean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E, Terlouw, EMC 1994. The effect of environment on behavior, plasma-cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 313–330. [Table 1, reference 21].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenhouwers, JI, Knol, EF, van der Lende, T 2002. Differences in late prenatal development as an explanation for genetic differences in piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, E, Boyle, LA, O'Doherty, JV, Brophy, P, Lynch, PB 2005. The effect of floor type in farrowing crates on piglet welfare. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 69–81. [Table 1, reference 110].Google Scholar
Li, YZ, Johnston, LJ, Hilbrands, AM 2006. Factors related to piglet pre-weaning mortality in a bedded group farrowing system. Journal of Animal Science 84, 269–269. [Table 1, reference 111].Google Scholar
Lou, ZS, Hurnik, JF 1994. An ellipsoid farrowing crate – its ergonomic design and effects on pig productivity. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2610–2616. [Table 1, reference 112].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lou, ZS, Hurnik, JF 1998. Peripartum sows in three farrowing crates: posture patterns and behavioural activities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 77–86. [Table 1, reference 22].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louden, E 2008. Demonstration and evaluation of the Werribee farrowing pen modified for use in a low-cost shelter. In Final report for project 2074 (ed. WA Pig Skills Centre Pty Ltd), Australian Pork Limited, Australia. [Table 1, reference 113].Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Pedersen, LJ, Damgaard, BM, Thodberg, K, Jørgensen, E, Labouriau, R 2006. Does floor heating around parturition affect the vitality of piglets born to loose housed sows? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 88–105. [Table 1, reference 114].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM 1993. The effects of dry sow housing conditions on responses to farrowing. British Society of Animal Production, UK, p. 221. [Table 1, reference 54].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Corning, S, Broom, DM 1996. The effects of production parameters on piglet mortality in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 62, p. 675. [Table 1, reference 55].Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM, Corning, S 2001. The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72, 19–28. [Table 1, reference 115].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S, Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214. [Table 1, reference 116].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattsson, B 1996. Digivande suggor i grupp. Slakteriförbundets FoU-grupp Svin. Report no. 9, Scan, p. 16. [Table 1, reference 143].Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ 2006. Comparison of sow welfare in the Swedish deep-bedded system and the US crated–sow system. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 1377–1380. [Table 1, reference 117].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, JJ, Morrowtesch, J 1990. Productivity and behavior of sows in level vs sloped farrowing pens and crates. Journal of Animal Science 68, 82–87. [Table 1, reference 118].Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Hicks, TA 2000. Farrowing hut design and sow genotype (Camborough-15 vs 25% Meishan) effects on outdoor sow and litter productivity. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2832–2835. [Table 1, reference 149].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, JJ, Blecha, F 1987. An examination of behavioral, immunological and productive traits in four management systems for sows and piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 269–286. [Table 1, reference 119].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mclean, KA, Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, Deans, L, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Nielsen, BL, Webb, R 1998. Investigation of the relationship between farrowing environment, sex steroid concentrations and maternal aggression in gilts. Animal Reproduction Science 50, 95–109. [Table 1, reference 23].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meat and Livestock Commission 2000–2009. The Pig Yearbooks 2000–2009. [Table 1, reference 56] .Google Scholar
Miele, M, Parisi, V 2001. L'etica del mangiare. Il valore e le preoccupazione dei consumatori per il benessere animale negli allevamenti: un'applicazione dell'analisi means-end chain. Rivista di Economia Agraria 1, 81–102.Google Scholar
Mount, LE 1967. The heat loss from new-born pigs to the floor. Research in Veterinary Science 8, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moustsen, VA, Poulsen, HL 2004. Sammenligning af produktionsresultater opnået i henholdsvis en traditionel kassesti og en sti til løsgående farende og diegivende søer. Report no. 679, Landsudvalget fur Svin (ed. S Danske), Faglig Publikation. [Table 1, reference 120].Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Pedersen, LJ, Jensen, T 2007. Afprøvning af stikoncepter til løse farende og diegivende søer. Report no. 805, Landsudvalget fur Svin (ed. S Danske), Faglig Publikation. [Table 1, reference 24].Google Scholar
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) 2010. Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare 2010. Animal Welfare Directorate, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/req/codes/pigs/pigs-code-of-welfare.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, NC 1980. Disease monitoring and diagnostic procedures in pig production as an aid in reducing piglet mortality and morbidity. Proceedings Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Practioners, pp. 1–25. [Table 1, reference 57].Google Scholar
Nocella, G, Hubbard, L, Scarpa, R 2010. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32, 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogle, B, Bell, A 1989. The Hogby Gate: an opportunity for a freer system for nursing sows. Report no. 8, FAKTA Husdjur. [Table 1, reference 58].Google Scholar
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A, Halli, O, Peltoniemi, OAT 2006. Duration of farrowing is longer in sows housed in farrowing crates than in pens. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41, 367–367. [Table 1, reference 25].Google Scholar
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A, Halli, O, Peltoniemi, OAT 2008. Effect of the environment on the physiology of the sow during late pregnancy, farrowing and early lactation. Animal Reproduction Science 105, 365–377. [Table 1, reference 121].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, ACh, Svendsen, J 1989. Observations at farrowing and mother-offspring interactions in different housing systems. Report no. 65, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. [Table 1, reference 26].Google Scholar
Olsson, ACh, Andersson, M, Lorincz, A, Rantzer, D, Botermans, J 2009. Labour efficient farrowing pens – a field study. Report no. 2009:4 Landskap Tradgard Jordbruk SLU, Alnarp, Sweden. [Table 1, reference 141].Google Scholar
O'Reilly, KM, Harris, MJ, Mendl, M, Held, S, Moinard, C, Statham, P, Marchant-Forde, J, Green, LE 2006. Factors associated with preweaning mortality on commercial pig farms in England and Wales. Veterinary Record 159, 193–196. [Table 1, reference 59].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pajor, EA, Kramer, DL, Fraser, D 2000. Regulation of contact with offspring by domestic sows: temporal patterns and individual variation. Ethology 106, 37–51. [Table 1, reference 27].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajor, EA, Weary, DM, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 1999. Alternative housing for sows and litters: 1. Effects of sow-controlled housing on responses to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 105–121. [Table 1, reference 28].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajor, EA, Weary, DM, Caceres, C, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 2002. Alternative housing for sows and litters: Part 3. Effects of piglet diet quality and sow-controlled housing on performance and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 267–277. [Table 1, reference 29].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Malmkvist, J, Jorgensen, E 2007. The use of a heated floor area by sows and piglets in farrowing pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 1–11. [Table 1, reference 122].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Damm, BI, Marchant-Forde, JN, Jensen, KH 2003. Effects of feed-back from the nest on maternal responsiveness and postural changes in primiparous sows during the first 24 h after farrowing onset. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Jorgensen, E, Heiskanen, T, Damm, BI 2006. Early piglet mortality in loose-housed sows related to sow and piglet behaviour and to the progress of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 215–232. [Table 1, reference 123].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Berg, P, Jorgensen, G, Andersen, IL 2011. Neonatal piglet traits of importance for survival in crates and indoor pens. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1207–1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D 1993. Developments in farrowing housing for sows and litters. Pig News and Information 14, 51N–55N.Google Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D, Thompson, BK 1991. Preference by sows for a partially enclosed farrowing crate. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 35–43. [Table 1, reference 30].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PISC (Primary Industries Standing Committee) 2008. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals: pigs, 3rd edition. PISC Report 92, CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Pitts, AD, Weary, DM, Fraser, D, Pajor, EA, Kramer, DL 2002. Alternative housing for sows and litters: Part 5. Individual differences in the maternal behaviour of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 291–306. [Table 1, reference 31].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randolph, CE, O'Gorman, AJ, Potter, RA, Jones, PH, Miller, BG 2005. Effects of insulation on the temperature within farrowing huts and the weaning weights of piglets reared on a commercial outdoor pig unit. The Veterinary Record 157, 800–805. [Table 1, reference 32].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rantzer, D, Svendsen, J 2001. Slatted versus solid floors in the dung area of farrowing pens: effects on hygiene and pig performance, birth to weaning. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 167–174. [Table 1, reference 124].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, JB, Laird, R, Hall, KS, Forsyth, RJ, Thompson, JM, Walker Love, J 1966. A comparison of two indoor farrowing housing systems for sows. Animal Production 8, 171–178. [Table 1, reference 60].Google Scholar
Rohde-Parfet, KA, Gonyou, HW 1990. Directing the teat-seeking behavior of newborn piglets – use of sloped floors and curved corners in the design of farrowing units. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 71–84. [Table 1, reference 125].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde Parfet, KA, Gonyou, HW, Curtis, SE, Hurst, RJ, Jensen, AH, Muehling, AJ 1989. Effects of sow–crate design on sow and piglet behavior. Journal of Animal Science 67, 94–104. [Table 1, reference 33].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roehe, R, Kalm, E 2000. Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudd, AR, Mendl, M, Simmins, PH, Broom, DM 1993. Summer–winter behavioural comparisons of allowing the farrowing and lactating sow greater freedom. British Society of Animal Production, UK, pp. 224–225. [Table 1, reference 126] .Google Scholar
SAC 2008. The farm management handbook 2008/09 (ed. C. Beaton). The Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Sancha, ES, Arey, DS 1995. Roofed farrowing areas and sow preference. Farm Building Progress 117, 36–39. [Table 1, reference 127].Google Scholar
Schmid, H 1991. A practicable, behaviour specific housing system for farrowing and lactating sowsProceedings International Conference on Alternatives in Animal Husbandry, p. 33, Witzenhausen, Germany. [Table 1, reference 128].Google Scholar
Schmid, H 1993. Ethological design of a practical farrowing pen. Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Meeting of the International Congress on Applied Ethology (ed. M Nichelmann, HK Wierenga and S Braun), pp. 238–242. Humboldt University, Berlin. [Table 1, reference 129].Google Scholar
Silerová, J, Špinka, M, Šárová, R, Slámová, K, Algers, B 2006. A note on differences in nursing behaviour on pig farms employing individual and group housing of lactating sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 167–176. [Table 1, reference 34].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, A, Edwards, SA, Cruickshank, A, English, PR 1993. Behaviour and performance of lactating sows and piglets housed individually or in a multisuckle system, pp. 223–224. British Society of Animal Production, UK. [Table 1, reference 130].Google Scholar
Spicer, EM, Drissen, SJ, Fahy, VA, Horton, BJ, Sims, LD, Jones, RT, Cutler, RS, Prime, RW 1986. Causes of preweaning mortality on a large intensive piggery. Australian Veterinary Journal 63, 71–75. [Table 1, reference 131].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spoolder, H, De Rosa, G, Horning, B, Waiblinger, S, Wemelsfelder, F 2003. Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12, 529–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stabenow, B 2001. More moving for sows in Scan-farrowing pens. Tierarztliche Umschau 56, 528–533. [Table 1, reference 132].Google Scholar
Stolba, A, Wood-Gush, DGM 1984. The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales De Recherches Veterinaires 15, 287–299.Google ScholarPubMed
Stuhec, I, Kovac, M, Malovrh, S 2002. Efficient heating of piglet nests. Archiv Fur Tierzucht – Archives of Animal Breeding 45, 491–499. [Table 1, reference 61].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, J, Bengtsson, AC, Svendsen, LS 1986. Occurrence and causes of traumatic injuries in neonatal pigs. Pig News and Information 7, 159–170. [Table 1, reference 62].Google Scholar
Tajet, GM, Haukvik, IA, Kongsrud, S 2003. Effect of managemental factors on piglet mortality with focus on herds with loose-housed sowsProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, p. 366. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Table 1, reference 63] .Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH, Herskin, MS 2002. Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 21–42. [Table 1, reference 35].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH, Herskin, MS, Jorgensen, E 1999. Influence of environmental stimuli on nest building and farrowing behaviour in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 131–144. [Table 1, reference 36].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, F 2010. An assessment of the productivity of freedom farrowing pens as an alternative to conventional farrowing crates at a commercial pig farm. Undergraduate Dissertation, Royal Veterinary College, London. [Table 1, reference 133].Google Scholar
Vasdal, G, Glærum, M, Melišová, M, Bøe, KE, Broom, DM, Andersen, IL 2010. Increasing the piglets’ use of the creep area – a battle against biology? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125, 96–102. [Table 1, reference 134].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasdal, G, Østensen, I, Melišová, M, Bozděchová, B, Illmann, G, Andersen, IL 2011. Management routines at the time of farrowing – effects on teat success and postnatal piglet mortality from loose housed sows. Livestock Science 136, 225–231. [Table 1, reference 135].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellenga, L, Vanveen, HM, Hoogerbrugge, A 1983. Mortality, morbidity, and external injuries in piglets housed in 2 different housing systems 1. Farrowing house. Veterinary Quarterly 5, 101–106. [Table 1, reference 64].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosough Ahmadi, B, Stott, AW, Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2011. Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems. Animal Welfare 20, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WA Pig Skills Centre Pty Ltd 2008. Demonstration and evaluation of the Werribee Farrowing Pen modified for use in a low-cost shelter. Report no. 2074. [Table 1, reference 150] .Google Scholar
Wallenbeck, A 2009. Pigs for organic production: Studies of sow behaviour, piglet-production and GxE interactions for performance. PhD Thesis, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae. [Table 1, reference 136].Google Scholar
Wattanakul, W, Sinclair, AG, Stewart, AH, Edwards, SA, English, PR 1997. Performance and behaviour of lactating sows and piglets in crate and multisuckling systems: a study involving European White and Manor Meishan genotypes. Animal Science 64, 339–349. [Table 1, reference 137].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D, Honkanen, AM 1996. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 149–158. [Table 1, reference 37].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Phillips, PA, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D, Thompson, BK 1998. Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 103–111. [Table 1, reference 138].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Bonenfant, M, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 2002. Alternative housing for sows and litters: Part 4. Effects of sow-controlled housing combined with a communal piglet area on pre- and post-weaning behaviour and performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 279–290. [Table 1, reference 38].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R 1984. Entwicklung einer Abferkelbucht nach ethologischen und verfahrenstechnischen Gesichtspunkten. [Translation: Development of a farrowing pen considering behavioural and technical aspects]. KTBL-Schrift 299, 153–165. [Table 1, reference 65].Google Scholar
Weber, R 2000. Alternative housing systems for farrowing and lactating sows. In EAAP (ed. HJ Blokhuis, ED Ekkel and B Wechsler), pp. 109–115. The Hague, The Netherlands. [Table 1, reference 151].Google Scholar
Weber, R, Schick, M 1996. Neue Abferkelbuchten ohne fixation der muttersau. Report no. 481, FAT-Berichte, pp. 1–7. [Table 1, reference 152].Google Scholar
Weber, R, Keli, N, Fehr, M, Horat, R 2007. Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Animal Welfare 16, 277–279. [Table 1, reference 139].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M, Horat, R 2009. Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science 124, 216–222. [Table 1, reference 140].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B 1996. Rearing pigs in species-specific family groups. Animal Welfare 5, 25–35. [Table 1, reference 153].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weng, RC, Edwards, SA, Hsia, LC 2009. Effect of individual, group or ESF housing in pregnancy and individual or group housing in lactation on sow behavior. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 22, 1574–1580. [Table 1, reference 66].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wischner, D, Kemper, N, Krieter, J 2009. Nest-building behaviour in sows and consequences for pig husbandry. Livestock Science 124, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar