Journal of Animal Environmental Science (한국축산시설환경학회지)

The Korean Society of Animal Environmental Science & Technology (한국축산환경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Different Housing with Automatic Feeder on Sow Performances and Growth Performances of Piglets during Gestation

자동급이기를 활용한 군사 사양이 모돈의 번식능력과 자돈의 성장능력에 미치는 영향

  • Lee, Jun-Yeob (Animal Environment Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Jeon, Jung-Hwan (Animal Environment Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Hycuk-Joo (Animal Environment Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Song, Jun-Ik (Department of Animal Science, Cheonan yonam College)
  • 이준엽 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 축산환경과) ;
  • 전중환 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 축산환경과) ;
  • 김혁주 (농촌진흥청 국립농업과학원) ;
  • 송준익 (생산자동화기계과 천안연암대학)
  • Received : 2013.11.08
  • Accepted : 2013.12.12
  • Published : 2013.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of different housing systems on the performances of sows and their piglets during gestation. A total of 90 sows (Landrace ${\times}$ Yorkshire) were employed into 3 experimental farms to give 3 treatments, stall housing, group housing in either slatted floor or litter floor. Individual sow was used as an experimental unit. Group housed sows were fed with electronic sow feeder during gestation. Performance measures were taken on sows and piglets. Back-fat thickness and body condition score of sows were not affected by housing systems for pregnant sows. There was no difference of estrus interval of pregnant sows between housing systems. The lower number of still-birth was observed in group housing type. The number of wounded sows in slatted floor was remarkably increased compared with sows in litter floor. This study showed that the housing systems could fairly impact sow and piglet performances.

Keywords

References

  1. Arey, D.S., 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Anim. Welfare. 2, 235-246.
  2. Barbari, M., 2000. Analysis of reproductive performance of sows in relation to housing systems. Pages 188-196 in Swine Housing. Proc. 1st Int. Conf., Des Moines, IA. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
  3. Bates, R.O., Edwards, D.B., Korthals. R.L., 2003. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 79, 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00119-7
  4. Broom, D.M., Mendl, M.T., Zanella, A.J., 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim. Sci. 61, 369-385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800013928
  5. Chapinal, N., Ruiz de la Torre, J.L., Cerisuelo, A., Gasa, J., Baucells, M.D., Coma, J., Vidal, A., Manteca, X. 2010. Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems. J. Vet. Behav. 5, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.09.046
  6. den Hartog, L.A., Backus, G.B.C., Vermeer, H.M., 1993. Evaluation of housing systems for sows. J. Anim. Sci. 71, 1339-1344.
  7. European Union., 2001. Council directive 2001/88/EC amending directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official. J. Eur. Community. 316, 1-4.
  8. Fraser, D., Phillips, P.A., Thompson, B.K., 1997. Farrowing behavior and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00007-5
  9. Gonyou, H.W., 2001. The social behaviour of pigs. In: Keeling, L.J., Gonyou, H.W. (Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 147-176.
  10. Guy, J.H., Rowlinson, P., Chadwick, J.P., Ellis, M., 2002. Health conditions of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems: implications for welfare. Livest. Prod. Sci. 75, 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00327-X
  11. Jensen, K.H., Pedersen, B.K., Pedersen, L.J., Jorgensen, E., 1995. Well-being in pregnant sows: confinement versus group housing with Electronic Sow Feeder. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. 45, 266-275.
  12. Lyons, C.A.P., Bruce, J.M., Fowler, V.R., English, P.R., 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 43, 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(95)00050-U
  13. Morris, J.R., Hurnik, J.F., Friendship, R.M., Evans, N.M., 1998. The effect of the Hurnik-Morris (HM) system on sow reproduction, attrition, and longevity. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 2759-2762.
  14. Mouttotou, N., Hatchell, F.M., Green, L.E., 1999. Foot lesions in finishing pigs and their associations with the type of floor. Vet. Rec. 144, 629-632. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.23.629
  15. Olsson, A.C., Andersson, M., Botermans, J., Rantzer, D., Svendsen, J., 2011. Animal interaction and response to electronic sow feeding (ESF) in 3 different herds and effects of function settings to increase capacity. Livest. Sci. 137, 268- 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.10.014
  16. SAS Institute, 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
  17. Schouten, W.G.P., 1991. Effects of rearing on subsequent performance in pigs. Pig News Inform. 12, 245-247.
  18. Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1980. Statistical Methods (7th ed). Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.
  19. van de Weerd, H.A., Day, J.E., 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.001
  20. Vestergaard, K., Hansen, L.L., 1984. Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity.1. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Annales de Recherches Ve'te'rinaires. 15, 245-256.