Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2009.80254

Effect of Individual, Group or ESF Housing in Pregnancy and Individual or Group Housing in Lactation on Sow Behavior  

Weng, R.C. (Department of Biological Science and Technology, Meiho Institute of Technology)
Edwards, S.A. (School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University)
Hsia, L.C. (Department of Biological Science and Technology, Meiho Institute of Technology)
Publication Information
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences / v.22, no.11, 2009 , pp. 1574-1580 More about this Journal
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of different housing systems on sow behavior, 80 gilts were randomly allocated at puberty to four treatments: i) sow stall in gestation followed by farrowing crate (SC), ii) group housing with individual feeding in gestation followed by farrowing crate (GC), iii) ESF (Electronic Sow Feeding) system in gestation followed by farrowing crate (EC), and iv) ESF system followed by group farrowing pen (EG). Behavioral observations were carried out on a total of 16 animals per treatment at the following stages: first day of allocation to housing treatment, day of service, 80 days after service, 109 days after service on entry to farrowing accommodation, 24 h before farrowing, day of farrowing, 14, 27 and 28 days after farrowing, at weaning. On each occasion, individual animals were observed for a 24 period with one minute time sampling. There were significant differences (p<0.001) between stages of the reproductive cycle for all the behavior patterns in all treatments. On the first day in experimental housing treatments, sows spent more time rooting and dog-sitting. Activity and investigatory behavior decreased as pregnancy progressed. An activity peak was apparent just before farrowing, followed by a high level of inactivity on the day of farrowing. Time spent active, eating and drinking increased as lactation progressed, and greatest activity and locomotion was seen immediately following weaning. There were significant differences between housing treatments (p<0.01) for standing, moving, eating, drinking, dog-sitting and lying. During pregnancy SC sows spent more time standing, rooting, drinking and dog sitting, while EC sows spent less time rooting and drinking and more time lying. During lactation, GC sows spent more time standing, moving and eating, less time dog sitting and lateral lying. Nursing frequency was reduced in GC sows (p<0.001). The maternal and piglet behaviors were influenced strongly by environment during lactation. However, it was also shown that previous housing history can influence the maternal behavior in the pre-farrowing stage and during early lactation.
Keywords
Group; Individual; Housing; ESF; Sow; Behavior;
Citations & Related Records

Times Cited By Web Of Science : 3  (Related Records In Web of Science)
Times Cited By SCOPUS : 2
연도 인용수 순위
1 Broom, D. M., M. T. Mendl and A. J. Zanella. 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim. Sci. 61:369-385   DOI
2 Fraser, A. F. and D. M. Broom. 1997. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. 3rd. edition, Center of Agriculture and Biosciences International, Wallingford, UK
3 Jensen, P. 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free ranging domestic pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16:131-142   DOI   ScienceOn
4 SAS. 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC
5 Terlouw, E. M. C., A. B. Lawrence and A. W. Illius. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Anim. Behav. 42:981-991   DOI
6 Vestergaard, K. and L. L. Hansen. 1984. Tether versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity. I. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15:245-256
7 Weary, D. M. and D. Fraser. 1995. Calling by domestic piglets: reliable signals of needs? Anim. Behav. 50:1047-1055   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Kiley-Worthington, M. 1977. Behavioural problems of farm animals. Oriel Press, Stocksfield
9 Pettigrew, J. E., R. L. Moser, S. G. Cornelious and K. P. Miller. 1984. Feed consumption by lactating sows as affected by feeder design and corn particle size. J. Anim. Sci. (Suppl.) 61:107
10 Jensen, P. 1988. Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in free-ranging domestic pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20: 297-308   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Spoolder, H. A. M., J. A. Burbidge, S. A. Edwards, A. B. Lawrence and P. H. Simmins. 1997. Effects of food level on performance and behaviour of sows in a dynamic grouphousing system with electronic feeding. Anim. Sci. 65:473-482   DOI
12 Lammers, G. J. and A. de Lange. 1986. Pre and post farrowing behaviour in primiparous domesticated pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15:31-43   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Turner, J. 2000. The welfare of Europe's sows in close confinement stalls. Compassion in World Farming Trust, Hampshire, UK
14 Edwards, S. A. and D. Fraser. 1997. Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. Pig Journal 39:77-87
15 Bates, R. O., D. B. Edwards and R. L. Korthals. 2003. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 79:29-35   DOI   ScienceOn
16 O'Grady, J. F., P. B. Lynch and P. A. Kearney. 1985. Voluntary feed intake by lactating sows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 12:355-365   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Brouns, F. and S. A. Edwards. 1992. Future prospects for housing of non-lactating sows. Pig News Info. 13(1):47N-50N   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Jensen, P., J. Rushen and B. Forkman. 1995. Behavioural strategies or just individual variation in behaviour?-A lack of evidence for active and passive piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 43:135-139   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Wechsler, B. and R. Weber. 2007. Loose farrowing systems: challenges and solutions. Anim. Welf. 16:295-307