Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.11109/JAES.2013.19.2.141

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

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Animal Environmental Science / v.19, no.2, 2013 , pp. 141-148 More about this Journal
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
Welfare; Automatic sow feeder; Group housing; Sow; Piglet;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.
2 Arey, D.S., 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Anim. Welfare. 2, 235-246.
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   DOI
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 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.
11 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 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.
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.   DOI
15 Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1980. Statistical Methods (7th ed). Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.
16 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 SAS Institute, 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
18 Schouten, W.G.P., 1991. Effects of rearing on subsequent performance in pigs. Pig News Inform. 12, 245-247.
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.