IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v9y2019i1p12-d195598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Two Free-Farrowing Systems and a Conventional Farrowing Crate System with Special Regard to Air Hygiene

Author

Listed:
  • Eyke Lühken

    (Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

  • Thies Nicolaisen

    (Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

  • Britta Risch

    (Clinic for Swine, Small Ruminants and Forensic Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

  • Nina Volkmann

    (Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

  • Sandra Schnier

    (Institute for Animal Nutrition, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

  • Jochen Schulz

    (Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

  • Nicole Kemper

    (Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the air quality in two different commercially available free-farrowing systems in comparison with a conventional farrowing crate system. A group housing system for six lactating sows (GH) and a single loose-housing system (LH) were tested against systems with farrowing crates (FC) under similar conditions. In eight evaluated batches with 148 farrowings, measurements were performed at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the occupancy period of 33 days. The mean dust concentration was significantly higher in GH than in LH and FC at the mid-point. The mean ammonia concentration was significantly higher in GH compared to LH and FC at the beginning of occupancy. The mean concentration of endotoxins was significantly higher in FC than in LH and GH at the end of occupancy. Furthermore, the systems did not differ significantly from each other. Spearman’s analysis revealed correlations between dust and time of occupancy, between ammonia and carbon dioxide, and between ammonia and the inside temperature and outside temperature. The new husbandry systems offer animals more opportunities to move without endangering animal welfare through deteriorated air hygiene.

Suggested Citation

  • Eyke Lühken & Thies Nicolaisen & Britta Risch & Nina Volkmann & Sandra Schnier & Jochen Schulz & Nicole Kemper, 2019. "Comparison of Two Free-Farrowing Systems and a Conventional Farrowing Crate System with Special Regard to Air Hygiene," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:12-:d:195598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/1/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/1/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:12-:d:195598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.