8,804
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Piglet mortality – A parallel comparison between loose-housed and temporarily confined farrowing sows in the same herd

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon &
Pages 52-62 | Received 18 Jul 2018, Accepted 09 Dec 2018, Published online: 07 Jan 2019

Figures & data

Figure 1. Over-view of the two farrowing systems compared in the study. Picture A- TC-pen in which sows were temporarily confound at farrowing + movable heating lamp behind the sow. Picture B- TC-pen in which sows were loose 3 days after farrowing. Picture C- L-pen with loose sows at farrowing and during the whole lactation period.

Figure 1. Over-view of the two farrowing systems compared in the study. Picture A- TC-pen in which sows were temporarily confound at farrowing + movable heating lamp behind the sow. Picture B- TC-pen in which sows were loose 3 days after farrowing. Picture C- L-pen with loose sows at farrowing and during the whole lactation period.

Table 1. Template used to classify causes of death of live-born piglets.

Table 2. Template used to classify morbidity/treatments in the sows.

Table 3. Template used to classify treatments/morbidity in the piglets.

Figure 2. Number of dead piglets per litter within different litter sizes and with specified causes of death.

Figure 2. Number of dead piglets per litter within different litter sizes and with specified causes of death.

Table 4. Overview of litters, production results and mortality in the study.

Table 5. Number of total born, live born, ‘at risk’, dead before weaning and weaned (mean ± std).

Table 6. Preweaning mortality. Cause of death, age and percent of piglets per litter, which died before weaning (lsmeans ± SE).

Table 7. Actual and estimated farrowing duration (h) (mean ± SE).

Table 8. Morbidity/treatments in sows and piglets. Percent of pens with morbidity/treatments.