Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e26

Behavioral changes of sows with changes in flattening rate  

Ka-Young, Yang (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Dong-hwa, Jang (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Kyeong-seok, Kwon (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Taehwan, Ha (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Jong-bok, Kim (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Jae Jung, Ha (Gyeongbuk Livestock Research Institute)
Jun-Yeob, Lee (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Jung Kon, Kim (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Publication Information
Journal of Animal Science and Technology / v.64, no.3, 2022 , pp. 564-573 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, considering the difficulties for all farms to convert farm styles to animal welfare-based housing, an experiment was performed to observe the changes in the behavior and welfare of sows when the slat floor was changed to a collective breeding ground. Twenty-eight sows used in this study were between the second and fifth parities to minimize the influence of parity. Using a flats floor cover, the flattening rates were treated as 0%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%. Data collection was the behavior of sows visually observed using a camera (e.g., standing, lying, fighting and excessive biting behaviors, and abnormal behaviors) and the animal welfare level measured through field visits. Lying behavior was found to be higher (p < 0.01) as the flattening rate increased, and sows lying on the slatted cover also increased as the flattening rate increased (p < 0.01). Fighting behavior wasincreased when the flattening rate was increased to 20%, and chewing behavior was increased (p < 0.05) as the flattening rate increased. The animal welfare level of sows, 'good feeding', it was found that all treatment groups for body condition score and water were good at 100 (p < 0.05). 'Good housing' was the maximum value (100) in each treatment group. As the percentage of floor increased, the minimum good housing was increased from 78 in 0% flattening rate to 96 in 50% flattening rate. The maximum (100) 'good health' was achieved in the 0% and 20% flattening rates, and it was 98, 98, and 99 in the 30%, 50%, and 40% flattening rate, respectively. 'Appropriate behavior' score was significantly lower than that of other paremeters, but when the flattening ratio was 0% and 20%, the maximum and minimum values were 10. At 40% and 50%, the maximum values were 39 and 49, respectively, and the minimum values were analyzed as 19 for both 40% and 50%. These results will be used as basic data about sow welfare for farmers to successfully transition to group housing and flat floors.
Keywords
Behavior; Floor; Group housing; Sow; Welfare;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Livestock Policy Division. Enforcement decree of the livestock act (Implementation, February 28, 2020 / Presidential Decree No. 30477, February 25, 2020, partially amended) [Internet]. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2020 [cited 2021 Dec 7]. https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsEfInfoP.do?lsiSeq=241931#
2 Yang KY, Ha JJ, Kwon KS, Kim JB, Jang DH, Lee JY, et al. Effect of floor types (slat vs. litter) of group housing systems on sow behavior and environmental levels. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2020;21:388-94. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2020.21.8.388   DOI
3 Elmore MRP, Garner JP, Johnson AK, Richert BT, Pajor EA. A flooring comparison: the impact of rubber mats on the health, behavior, and welfare of group-housed sows at breeding. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2010;123:7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.11.012   DOI
4 Diaz JAC, Boyle LA. Effect of rubber slat mats on the behaviour and welfare of group housed pregnant sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2014;151:13-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.11.016   DOI
5 Friedrich L, Krieter J, Kemper N, Czycholl I. Test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health. J Anim Sci. 2019;97:1143-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz018   DOI
6 Vallet JL, Miles JR, Brown-Brandl TM, Nienaber JA. Proportion of the litter farrowed, litter size, and progesterone and estradiol effects on piglet birth intervals and stillbirths. Anim Reprod Sci. 2010;119:68-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2009.11.004   DOI
7 Maes D, Pluym L, Peltoniemi O. Impact of group housing of pregnant sows on health. Porc Health Manag. 2016;2:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-016-0032-3   DOI
8 Devillers N, Janvier E, Delijani F, Methot S, Dick KJ, Zhang Q, et al. Effect of slat and gap width of slatted concrete flooring on sow gait using kinematics analysis. Animals. 2019;9:206. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9050206   DOI
9 Friedrich L, Krieter J, Kemper N, Czycholl I. Animal welfare assessment in sows and piglets-introduction of a new German protocol for farm's self-inspection and of new animal-based indicators for piglets. Agriculture. 2020;10:506. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110506   DOI
10 Ruff GR, Pairis-Garcia MD, Campler MR, Moeller SJ, Johnson AK. Effect of rubber mats on sow behavior and litter performance during lactation. Livest Sci. 2017;204:65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.08.010   DOI
11 Ruff GR. Effects of housing management strategies on performance and welfare in production swine operations [Master's thesis]. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University; 2017.
12 Chapa JM, Maschat K, Iwersen M, Baumgartner J, Drillich M. Accelerometer systems as tools for health and welfare assessment in cattle and pigs: a review. Behav Process. 2020;181:104262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2020.104262   DOI
13 Verdon M, Hansen CF, Rault JL, Jongman E, Hansen LU, Plush K, et al. Effects of group housing on sow welfare: a review. J Anim Sci. 2015;93:1999-2017. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8742   DOI
14 NIAS [National Institute of Animal Science]. Korean feeding standard for pig. Wanju: Rural Development Administration Press; 2007. pp. 38-41.
15 Tuyttens FAM, Wouters F, Struelens E, Sonck B, Duchateau L. Synthetic lying mats may improve lying comfort of gestating sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008;114:76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.015   DOI
16 Sapkota A, Marchant-Forde JN, Richert BT, Lay DC Jr. Including dietary fiber and resistant starch to increase satiety and reduce aggression in gestating sows. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2117-27. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0013   DOI
17 Gregory NG. Physiology and behaviour of animal suffering. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2004. p.12-21.
18 Blokhuis H, Veissier I, Jones B, Miele M. The welfare quality® vision. In: Blokhuis H, Miele M, Veissier I, Jones B, editors. Improving farm animal welfare. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic; 2013. p. 71-89.
19 Martinez-Alvarez O, Chamorro S, Brenes A. Protein hydrolysates from animal processing byproducts as a source of bioactive molecules with interest in animal feeding: a review. Food Res Int. 2015;73:204-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.04.005   DOI
20 Knauer MT, Baitinger DJ. The sow body condition caliper. Appl Eng Agric. 2015;31:175-8. https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.31.10632   DOI
21 Knage-Rasmussen KM, Houe H, Rousing T, Sorensen JT. Herd- and sow-related risk factors for lameness in organic and conventional sow herds. Animal. 2014;8:121-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113001900   DOI
22 Bonde M, Rousing T, Badsberg JH, Sorensen JT. Associations between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition, limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds. Livest Prod Sci. 2004;87:179-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2003.08.005   DOI
23 Rioja-Lang FC, Seddon YM, Brown JA. Shoulder lesions in sows: a review of their causes, prevention, and treatment. J Swine Health Prod. 2018;26:101-7.   DOI
24 Zurbrigg K. Sow shoulder lesions: risk factors and treatment effects on an Ontario farm. J Anim Sci. 2006;84:2509-14. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-713   DOI
25 Remience V, Wavreille J, Canart B, Meunier-Salaun MC, Prunier A, Bartiaux-Thill N, et al. Effects of space allowance on the welfare of dry sows kept in dynamic groups and fed with an electronic sow feeder. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008;112:284-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.07.006   DOI
26 Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Cox M, Barnett JL. Stimulus generalization: the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1994;40:129-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90077-9   DOI
27 Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Hansen C. The influence of handling by humans on the behavior, growth, and corticosteroids in the juvenile female pig. Horm Behav. 1981;15:396-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0018-506X(81)90004-0   DOI
28 Zulkifli I. Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2013;4:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-4-25   DOI