Producers in the European Union (EU) discuss sow housing alternatives and welfare compliance.

Not many U.S. pork producers probably know it, but the ban on gestation stalls scheduled to go into effect in the European Union (EU) in 2013 actually grew out of a debate over a different sow housing system, says Sherrie Niekamp, Director of Animal Welfare for the National Pork Board.

Producers in the EU commonly used sow tethers in an open-backed stall system until welfare concerns led to its ban in January 2006.

That's when sow stalls popped up on EU legislators' radar screens, which eventually led to the upcoming ban.

Sow gestation stalls won't actually be outlawed, clarifies Niekamp. In general, the EU regulation allows stall use during the first four weeks or so after breeding and also a week or two prior to farrowing.

EU Regulations Differ

Representatives of the National Pork Board and the National Pork Producers Council, which toured Germany and Denmark in early November, learned there were differences in regulations.

“While the EU has set regulations, countries have their own rules that may or may not be more strict than the EU regulations,” Niekamp says.

For instance, the United Kingdom (UK) passed its own version of the sow stall ban back in 2003. It specified that the ban is not in effect “for the period between seven days before the predicted day of farrowing and the day on which the weaning of her piglets (including any fostered by her) is complete,” according to the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock from the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Niekamp says most EU producers they talked to made it clear they didn't intend to convert their stall systems until the 2013 deadline.

Sow Systems

The U.S. producer groups visited the Laake Company in Germany, which manufactures the Free-Access Sow Gestation System, recently purchased by Chore-Time Hog Production Systems (See: National Hog Farmer, Feb. 15, 2007, page 38). With this system, sows can manipulate the back gate to move in and out of the stall to spend time in a loafing area, then return to the stall at will for feeding.

U.S. producers expressed interest in this free-access stall system and visited three farms in Germany where this system was employed. Two other farms used an electronic sow feeder (ESF) system similar to the group sow housing system offered by Schauer Company, and one other producer utilized a trickle feeding system for sows.

“I think the number one take-home lesson that everybody learned, regardless of housing system, was that management was the key,” Niekamp recalls. “Every system has the potential to be successful as long as it is managed correctly. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to each system, but that is something the producer can adapt to.”

Niekamp stresses that this was borne out by the enthusiasm and competitiveness that each German producer displayed in talking about his respective sow housing system.

“It became apparent that there are different management practices associated with each of the different housing types, and those differences in personality, labor force and willingness to adapt need to be matched up with the type of sow housing system,” she says.

Article continued on next page>