Gestation crates and farrowing crates severely restrict sow movement and natural behaviour. Alternative systems offer welfare improvements but face adoption barriers from cost and complexity.
The welfare case against gestation and farrowing crates is well-established: highly intelligent, social animals confined in spaces that prevent normal movement, social interaction, and natural behaviour suffer chronic frustration and distress. The scientific evidence is clear that sows in crates show higher levels of stereotypic behaviour, stress indicators, and musculoskeletal problems than those in enriched group systems. The counter-argument — that farrowing crates reduce piglet crushing mortality — is real but often overstated: well-designed free farrowing systems with appropriate nest-building material achieve comparable piglet survival. The barrier to transition is primarily economic and managerial, not welfare-scientific. Progress requires regulatory reform backed by retailer purchasing standards that create market pull for crate-free production.