APBI-314 MIDTERM STUDENT NO 10776094

3 a) Sow stalls are an intensive housing system, used for the confinement of sows during pregnancy.

They consist of narrow cages with metal bars and cement floors, commonly 0.6 - 0.7m wide and 2.0 -

2.1m long, allowing a space of 1.2 to 1.5 m2 per sow, without any bedding or rooting material. These

stalls are so small that the sow may stand in, and sometimes be able to move one step backwards or

forwards, but cannot turn around. Gestation crates are placed side by side in rows, often with more than

20 sows per row and 100 or more sows per shed. Most gilts are breedable at 8 months of age. They are

tested for pregnancy, 45-60 days after service and when found pregnant, are moved into the gestational

stalls. The gestation period is 115 days on an average. She is moved into the farrowing crate, one week

prior to term or just before giving birth. The farrowing crates are barely large enough for her piglets to

live with her. After 15 - 28 days, the piglets are weaned and she goes back to the sow stall. She is again

bred in the next heat and the cycle continues. In some farms, she is given a periodic break from the stall

for a few weeks before next breeding. In most cases, sows are placed in stalls at around one year of

age, and kept there continuously, except for the one month, which she spends in the farrowing pen. An

average sow farrows 2-2.5 times a year and this would mean that for 3.5 - 4 months per gestation and

more than 10 months a year, she is in the stall. Some sows are kept in these crates for the duration of

their life (three to five years).

b) The gestation stalls were developed half a century back to save money, time and space, as well as to

meet the understanding of animal welfare at that time. Sow stalls improve farming intensity, pregnancy

rate and litter size. They help to mitigate the problems associated with sow aggression (leading to injury

and abortions) and competition for feed. Medicines if needed can be administered easily. Sows get

individual attention and protection to embryos during the critical stages of pregnancy. It is more

economical, for the sows don’t exercise and hence require less feed and labour. The sow need not be

moved between the stages of production. The cement flooring has slots for urine and feces to fall

through. So she is kept in a hygienic condition (lower disease incidences) and it is possible to provide

APBI-314 MIDTERM STUDENT NO 10776094

automated feeding. Gestating sows are fed carefully to control body condition so as to prevent fat or thin

sow syndromes.

c) The European Union’s Agriculture Council issued a directive towards the phasing out of stalls by

2013 and banned tethering of sows from 2003. Gestation stalls will be prohibited in France from 1st

January 2013. However, the period from weaning to four weeks after service is excluded. Gestation

stalls are banned in United Kingdom, as early as from 1999. In the United States, seven states have

banned their use (Florida since 2004, Arizona since 2006, Oregon in 2007, Colorado, California since

2008) and reports indicate that more states would follow this trend. In Canada, many producers are

switching to group housing, though there is no ban on gestation crates.

d) ESF is a computerized station in which, sows are allowed to enter after a scanner reads the

transponder that is embedded in a collar, ear tag or implant. The gate closes once the sow is inside, so

she is able to eat without competing with others. The ESF computer dispenses a prescribed amount of

food into a trough, and the sow has 15 minutes time to finish. The ESF has a separate exit gate, so that

the sow can leave without confronting others. Most ESFs allow for computerized recording of each

sow’s intake. It can also separate sick or injured animals by opening a separate gate that leads to an

isolation pen rather than back to the group. Each station typically serves 40 to 60 sows and feeding must

be done sequentially. It allows for group housing in large areas, that can further be divided into dunging,

isolation and lying areas. “As long as they are well designed to include efficient training of sows, a

sufficient number of feeders, stable groups, and good bedding, there will be no significant welfare

problems”. It is also important to have backup electricity generators and detailed emergency protocols

for use during mechanical or power failures.

e) Control of aggression: - EFS system allows freedom of movement and social interaction, which can

sometimes lead to aggression, injury, and uneven body condition. Aggression can be reduced by

providing enough space and ensuring easy access to feed and water. Stall systems minimize fighting and

injury, reduces competition, but makes it impossible for sows to exhibit natural behaviours like roaming,

APBI-314 MIDTERM STUDENT NO 10776094

rooting, and digging. They often become aggressive, trying to root their cement floors or biting the metal

bars of their crates.

Control of food intake: - Both ESF and stalls permit individual feeding, but there is more personal

attention in ESF. Sows need to be trained to use the ESF, and this can be achieved in as little as two

weeks. Gestating sows are fed a strict ration and it is possible to feed specialised diets in stipulated

quantities. With stall housing also, each sow is able to consume her full ration without competition from

other sows. In terms of feeding automation and labour requirements in general, stalls are very

convenient. An ESF is usually shared by 40 to 60 sows, so feeding must be done sequentially. There is

some potential for aggression with this system, but individual feeding is the benefit.

Freedom of movement Sows are able to move freely, engage in more natural behaviours, interact with

others, and experience less physiological and psychological stress under ESF. Chances of aggression and

injury are always there. Sow stalls are too narrow, preventing sows from turning around, exercising,

urinating and defecating away from their lying area, socialising and huddling together. Lack of exercise

can lead to bone weakness and poor cardiovascular fitness. Urinary disorders are common. Restrictions

on behaviour result in abnormal behaviours such as bar-biting and sham chewing.

Economics Though the initial cost for ESF is high (for computers and generators), it has been proved

that it is economically viable in the long run. In the ESF system, since expensive crates are not needed

the building and housing cost per sow decreased, thus reducing the cost of production and improving

income. There is a minimal increase in running costs for labour and training requirements. Productivity

increased as sows returned to oestrus quickly. ESF added a few cents to the cost of producing 1 kg of

pork. Moreover, provision of more space for pigs can produce economic benefits in terms of higher

growth rates and better feed conversion ratios. Gestation stalls are popular because they permit intensive

housing and reduced labour. A ban on stalls will definitely lead to a reduction in the number of pigs

reared and thus increase the cost of production.