Effects of Sow Stalls on the Sow
Animal welfare is defined as the ‘state’ of an animal (AVMA, 2016). The Animal Welfare Act 2006 ensures that the standards in which owners kept animals are at a respectable level and meeting the individual needs of the animal, it is a modernised version of the 1911 Protection of Animals Act (Gov, 2016). In 2002 a separate act was enforced named The Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2007 which focused primarily on the welfare of farmed animals (Gov, 2007). A study found 41% of 2000 people questioned were ‘ very concerned’ about farm animal’s welfare and assumed they were frequently mistreated (R.M.Bennett, 1997).
[endif]-- Sow stalls are used in countless intensive pig-farming systems. It was found that 70% of sows were kept in sow stalls after mating (Barnett et al 2000). Sow stalls have been banned in the UK since 1999, however in the EU the ban has only been in place since January 2013). Although Sow stalls can still be used for a maximum of 4 weeks after the pig has been copulated (RSPCA, 2016). The sow stalls confine the sow to a small space enclosed by metal bars; the sow stall is a maximum of 0.7 metres and a maximum of 2.1 metres in length (Turner, 2000). Which is a tight fit for the sows as in an intensive unit the sow weighs around 300kgs (Rare Breeds Survival Trust RBST, 2015). The size of the stall restricts the movement of the sows and they are unable to turn around, this is because it is deemed that the more movement the greater risk of complications during the gestation period. ![endif]--
Picture showing an example of a Sow Stall (BCSPCA , 2013)
There are copious welfare concerns surrounding farrowing crates, consequently they are banned in the UK. One concern is the restrictiveness of stalls; they reduce the ability of the sow to exhibit natural behaviours. In addition to this a study was carried out which compared large group housing systems alongside sow stalls concluding that sows living in larger group systems were significantly more active and demonstrated more natural behaviours such as foraging (Morrison et al 2006). As well as this sows kept in stalls were limited to basic loco-motor movements such as lying and standing. There was evidence that the body conformation of sows kept in stalls changed due to this restriction, it is shown that there is a reduction in bone strength (Marchant-Forde, 2010), resulting in pain; breaking the freedom, to protect animals from discomfort. Confinement in stalls increases the risk of confinement injuries including pressure sores (AVMA, 2015) these can deteriorate to become degree 4 sores, where bone is visible (BPEX, 2008) this breaks the freedom from pain, injury and disease. In contrast to this sow stalls do allow individuals to receive adapted diets, therefore receiving specialised nutritional necessities during the gestation period. In comparison to this in-group-housing feeding is harder to control, sows may consume a lower amount of food due to competition (AVMA, 2015)
In conclusion sow stalls have more negative aspects including detrimental physiological well-being issues as well as physical problems (Pickett et al 2014). There is evidence from different research that demonstrates sows confined in stalls have a greater risk of lameness and urinary tract infections (Compassion in world farming , 2016). However there are alternative methods to consider that guarantee lower damage to their health and well-being. Deep bedded systems are easy to accommodate in a range of building types and can be a cheaper substitute to conventional building, which require mechanical ventilation systems, deep bedded systems are commonly naturally ventilated (Harmon et al 2015).
References
AVMA. (2016, 01 01). Animal Welfate: What is it? Retrieved 10 21, 2016, from AVMA: https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/AnimalWelfare/Pages/what-is-animal-welfare.aspx
AVMA. (2015). Welfare implications of gestation sow housing . 1-4.
Barnett, J. K., Hemsworth, P. H., Cronin, G. M., & Hutson, G. D. (2000). A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Crop and pasture science , 1-28.
BCSPCA . (2013). The welfare of pigs in Canada: Sow Housing. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from spca.bc.ca: http://www.spca.bc.ca/animal-issues/farm-animal-welfare/farm-animals/welfare-of-pigs-sow-housing.html
BPEX. (2008, July 18). Shoulder sores in sows: causes and treatment. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from The Pig Site: http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2345/shoulder-sores-in-sows-causes-and-treatment/
Compassion in world farming . (2016). Welfare issues for pigs. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from ciwf.org: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/pigs/welfare-issues/
Gov. (2016, March 10). Animal Welfare. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from Gov: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/animal-welfare
Gov. (2007, July 19). The welfare of farmed animals (England) Regulations 2007. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from legislation.gov: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2078/contents/made
Harmon, J. D., & Levis, D. G. (2015). Sow housing options for gestation .
Marchant-Forde, D. J. (2010). Housing and welfare of sows during gestation. Sow welfare fact sheet , 1-3.
Morrison, R. S., Johnston, L. J., & Hilbrands, A. M. (2006). The behaviour, welfare, growth performance and meat quality of pigs housed in a deep-litter, large group-housing system compared to a conventional confinement system. Applied animal behaviour science , 12-24.
Pickett, H., Crossley, D., & Sutton, C. (2014). Farm animal welfare past, present and future.
R.M.Bennett. (1997). Farm animal welfare and food policy . Food policy , 281-288.
Rare Breeds Survival Trust RBST. (2015). Large white . Retrieved October 19, 2016, from rbst.org: http://www.rbst.org.uk/layout/set/print/Rare-and-Native-Breeds/Pigs/Large-White
RSPCA. (2016). Pigs- key welfare issues . Retrieved October 19, 2016, from rspca.org: https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/pigs/keyissues
Turner, D. J. (2000). The welfare of europe's sows in close confinement stalls. Hampshire: CWF.
