Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0973

Effects of Gestational Housing on Reproductive Performance and Behavior of Sows with Different Backfat Thickness  

Kim, K.H. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Hosseindoust, A. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Ingale, S.L. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Lee, S.H. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Noh, H.S. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Choi, Y.H. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Jeon, S.M. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Kim, Y.H. (Department of Animal Resources Development, Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Chae, B.J. (Department of Animal Resources Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
Publication Information
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences / v.29, no.1, 2016 , pp. 142-148 More about this Journal
Abstract
The present study investigated the effects of back-fat thickness at d 107 of gestation and housing types during gestation on reproductive performance and behavior of sows. A total of 64 crossbred sows ($Landrace{\times}Yorkshire$) in their 3 to 4 parities were allotted to one of four treatments (n = 16) over two consecutive parities. During each parity, sows were assigned to two gestational housing types (stall or group housing) and two level of back-fat thickness (<20 or ${\geq}20$) at d 107 of gestation. Gestating sows were transferred from gestational crates to stalls or pens (group housing) 5 weeks before farrowing. All sows were moved to farrowing crates on d 109 of gestation. At weaning, back-fat thickness changes were lesser (p<0.05) in sows having back-fat thickness <20 mm than that of sows with ${\geq}20mm$ back-fat thickness at 107 d of gestation. Group housed sows had greater (p<0.05) feed intake and shorter (p<0.05) weaning-to-estrus interval than that of sows in stalls. At weaning, back-fat thickness changes were lesser (p<0.05) in group housed sows than that of sows in stalls. The number of piglets at weaning, growth rate and average daily gain were greater (p<0.05) in group housed sows than that of sows in stalls. During gestation, walking duration was more (p<0.05) in group housed sows. Group housed sows had lesser (p<0.05) farrowing duration and greater (p<0.05) eating time than that of sows in stalls. Result obtained in present study indicated that sows with ${\geq}20mm$ back-fat thickness at 107 days had better reproductive performance. Additionally, group housing of sows during last five week of gestation improved the performance and behavior and reproductive efficiency of sows.
Keywords
Back-fat Thickness; Behavior; Housing; Reproductive Performance; Sows;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Aherne, F., G. Foxcroft, and J. E. Pettigrew. 1999. Nutrition of the sow. In: Diseases of Swine. 8th edn (Eds. B. E. Straw, S. D'Allaire, W. L. Mengeling, and D. J. Taylor). Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA. pp. 1029-1043.
2 Barbari, M. 2000. Analysis of reproductive performance of sows in relation to housing systems. In: ASAE proceedings, 1st International Conference on Swine Housing. Des Moines, IA, USA. pp. 188-196.
3 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
4 Boyle, L. A. 2005. Reducing aggression in group housed Sows. In: Proceedings of the Teagasc Pig Farmers Conferences Pages, Teagasc Oakpark, Carlow, Ireland. pp. 10-18.
5 Boyle, L. A., F. C. Leonard, P. B. Lynch, and P. Brophy. 2000. Influence of housing systems during gestation on the behavior and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates. Anim. Sci. 71:561-570.   DOI
6 Calderon Diaz, J. A., A. G. Fahey, and L. A. Boyel. 2014. Effects of gestation housing system and floor type during lactation on locomotory ability; body, lim, and clow legions; and lying-down behavior of lactating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 92:1675-1683.   DOI
7 Charette, R., M. Bigras-Poulin, and G. Martineau. 1996. Body condition evaluation in sows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 46:107-115.   DOI
8 De Rensis, F., M. Gherpelli, P. Superchi, and R. N. Kirkwood. 2005. Relationships between backfat depth and plasma leptin during lactation and sow reproductive performance after weaning. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 90:95-100.   DOI
9 Den Hartog, L. A., G. B. C. Backus, and H. M. Vermeer. 1993. Evaluation of housing systems for sows. J. Anim. Sci. 71:1339-1344.   DOI
10 Dourmad, J. Y., M. E'tienne, and J. Noblet. 2001. Measuring backfat depth in sows to optimize feeding strategy. Prod Anim, 14(1), 41-50. INRA Prod. Anim. 14:41-50.
11 Gunn, H. and R. Friendship. 2003. Gestation sows housing in Ontario. In: Proceedings of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, Orlando, USA. pp. 61-65.
12 Hemsworth, P. H. 1982. Social environment and reproduction. In: Control of Pig Reproduction (Eds. D. J. A. Cole and G. R. Foxcroft), Butterworths, London, UK. pp. 585-601.
13 Hemsworth, P. H., M. Rice, J. Nash, K. Giri, K. L. Butler, A. J. Tilbrook, and R. S. Morrison. 2013. Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: Aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance. J. Anim. Sci. 91:4953-4964.   DOI
14 Houde, A. A., S. Me'thot, B. D. Murphy, V. Bordignon, and M. F. Pali. 2010. Relationships between backfat thickness and reproductive efficiency of sows: A two-year trial involving two commercial herds fixing backfat thickness at breeding. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 90:429-436.   DOI
15 Maes, D. G. D., G. P. J. Janssens, P. Delputte, A. Lammertyn, and A. de Kruif. 2004. Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livest. Prod. Sci. 91:57-67.   DOI
16 Martineau, G. P. and C. Klopfenstein. 1996. Body building syndromes in sows (BBS) thin sow syndrome, fat sow syndrome, accordeon sow syndrome. French Swine Research Days, January 30 to February 1, 1996. Paris, France. 28:331-338.
17 McGlone, J. J., E. H. von Borrell, J. Deen, A. K. Johnson, D. G. Levis, M. Meunier-Salaun, J. Morrow, D. Reeves, J. L. Salak-Johnson, and P. L. Sundberg. 2004. Review: Compilation of the scientific literature comparing housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance, and health. Prof. Anim. Sci. 20:105-117.
18 McKay, R. M. 1993. Preweaning losses of piglets as a result of index selection for reduced backfat thickness and increased growth rate. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 73:437-442.   DOI
19 National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 10th edn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
20 Rhodes, R. T., M. C. Appleby, K. Chinn, L. Douglas, L. D. Firkins, K. A. Houpt, C. Irwin, J. J. McGlone, P. Sundberg, L. Tokach, and R. W. Wills. 2005. Task Force Report: A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 227:1580-1590.   DOI
21 Serenius, T., K. J. Stalder, T. J. Baas, J. W. Mabry, R. N. Goodwin, R. K. Johnson, O. W. Robinson, M. Tokach, and R. K. Miller. 2006. National Pork Producers Council Maternal Line National Genetic Evaluation Program: A comparison of sow longevity and trait associations with sow longevity. J. Anim. Sci. 84:2590-2595.   DOI
22 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2014. Swine 2012, Part I: Baseline Reference of Swine Health and Management, 2012. National Animal Health Monitoring System. Fort Collins, CO #663.0814.
23 Von Borrell, E., D. M. Broom, D. Scermely, A. A. Dijkhuizen, S. Hylkema, S. A. Edwards, P. Jensen, F. Madec, and C. Stamataris. 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, European Commission, December 24, 1997. B3.
24 Weng, R. C., S. A. Edwards, and L. C. Hsia. 2009a. Effect of individual, group or ESF housing in pregnancy and individual or group housing in lactation on the performance of sows and their piglets. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 22:1328-1333.   DOI
25 Zaleski, H. M. and R. R. Hacker. 1993. Variables related to the progress of parturition and probability of stillbirth in swine. Can. Vet. J. 34:109-113.
26 Weng, R. C., S. A. Edwards, and L. C. Hsia. 2009b. Effect of individual, group or ESF housing in pregnancy and individual or group housing in lactation on sow behavior. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 22:1574-1580.   DOI
27 Whittemore, C. T., J. Y. Dourmad, and M. Ettiene. 1995. Reproduction in primiparous sows nutrition and body condition in relation to productivity. 46th EAAP, Praha Czech Republic, 301.
28 Whittemore, C. T. 1996. Nutrition reproduction interactions in primiparous sow: A review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 46:65-83.   DOI
29 Zhao, Y., W. L. Flowers, A. Saraiva, K. J. Yeum, and S. W. Kim. 2013. Effect of social ranks and gestation housing systems on oxidative stress status, reproductive performance, and immune status of sows. J. Anim. Sci. 91:5848-5858.   DOI