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

Weng, Ruey-Chee; Edwards, S.A.; Hsia, Liang Chou

doi:10.5713/ajas.2009.80254

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More standing, sitting, rooting, and drinking were also observed in stalled sows than in group-penned sows and sows housed in electronic sow feeding (ESF) system (Weng et al, 2009). The ESF sows had higher time spent for lying and less time spent for rooting and drinking (Weng et al, 2009). This was consistent with the results of Chapinal et al (2010a) indicating more lying in ESF sows than in stalled sows and group-penned sows with trickle feeding system.…”

Section: Table 3 Effects Of Housing On Behavior Of Gestating Sowssupporting

confidence: 71%

“…• Munsterhjelm et al (2008) found that stalled sows engaged more in standing inactive, which was an indicator of poor welfare, than did group-penned sows. More standing, sitting, rooting, and drinking were also observed in stalled sows than in group-penned sows and sows housed in electronic sow feeding (ESF) system (Weng et al, 2009). The ESF sows had higher time spent for lying and less time spent for rooting and drinking (Weng et al, 2009).…”

Section: Table 3 Effects Of Housing On Behavior Of Gestating Sowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

REVIEW: Updated scientific evidence on the welfare of gestating sows kept in different housing systems

McGlone

2013

The Professional Animal Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gestation sow housing is a contemporary animal welfare issue with legislative actions in the United States to ban individual gestation sow systems. This review sought to summarize the scientific literature since earlier reviews were published in 2004 and 2005. Seventeen papers comparing effect of housing systems on the welfare of gestating sows were published from 2005 to 2012. Stalls or crates, tether housing, and group pens including conventional group pens, loose-house pens, electronic sow feeders pens, and hoop barns were reported. The majority of recent findings were similar to the previous conclusions from papers and reviews. Cortisol concentrations were not different between stalled and group-penned sows but were higher shortly after mixing in concert with increased sow aggression and skin lesions. The effects of gestation housing system on neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio were still mixed. In the recent literature, stereotypies were greater among stalled sows compared with group-penned sows, which may reflect a change in sow genetics, because the basic housing systems have not changed. Recent papers indicated more sitting or standing inactive, leg and claw problems, and higher farrowing rate (in some studies) among stalled sows. Other studies reported more lying down among group-penned sows and no differences in other reproductive and productivity measures between stalled and group-penned sows. Weaning-to-estrus intervals were similar between stalled and group-penned sows in contrast to previous reviews that observed a shorter interval among stalled compared with grouped sows. In conclusion, recent papers found similar productivity, physiology, health, and behavior among individually or grouped sows during gestation.

show abstract

Section: Table 3 Effects Of Housing On Behavior Of Gestating Sowssupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Table 3 Effects Of Housing On Behavior Of Gestating Sowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

REVIEW: Updated scientific evidence on the welfare of gestating sows kept in different housing systems

McGlone

2013

The Professional Animal Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because group-farrowing systems are designed to accommodate natural behaviors performed by sows during farrowing and lactation, research on group-farrowing systems usually focuses on behavior and performance of sows (Weng et al, 2009;Baxter 'Corresponding author: lhwang2007@sina.com Current address: College of Animal Science and Technology, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, Shandong, China 266109.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of farrowing system on behavior and growth performance of growing-finishing pigs

Wang

Johnston

2012

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was conducted to compare growth performance and behaviors of group-farrowed pigs with those of confinement-farrowed pigs. A total of 216 pigs (8 wk of age) were used, with an equal number of group-farrowed or confinement-farrowed pigs from 1 farrowing batch. Group-farrowed pigs were farrowed in bedded, individual pens and mingled into a group of 8 litters at 12 (±1.3) d of age. Pigs were weaned at 33 (±1.3) d and remained in the farrowing room until 8 wk of age. Confinement-farrowed pigs were farrowed in farrowing crates. At weaning (32 ± 2.0 d of age), confinement-farrowed pigs were mixed and moved to pens of 9 pigs in a confinement nursery and remained there until 8 wk of age. At 8 wk of age, pigs from the 2 housing systems were allocated to 24 pens of 9 pigs in a confinement growing-finishing barn, with 12 pens from each of the housing systems. Within farrowing system, pigs from different groups or pens were mixed upon entering the growing-finishing barn. Individual BW was recorded at allotment (wk 0) to the growing-finishing barn and every 2 wk thereafter for 14 wk. Feed intake and G:F were monitored on a pen basis every 2 wk between wk 0 and 14 of the study period. Behaviors of pigs were video recorded in 6 pens of each housing treatment for 24 h on the day of mixing (d 0), d 7, and d 14 after mixing in the finisher barn. The video recordings were scanned at 5-min intervals to calculate behavioral time budgets for lying, standing, eating, drinking, and belly nosing. Data were analyzed using the Proc Mixed model of SAS with repeated measures. Compared with confinement-farrowed pigs, group-farrowed pigs spent more time lying (85.7 vs. 82.7%; SE = 0.75; P < 0.001) and belly nosing (0.05 vs. 0.02%; P < 0.05) and less time standing (5.8 vs. 7.5%; SE = 0.49; P < 0.01) and eating (7.3 vs. 9.3%; SE = 0.40; P < 0.001). The difference in behavioral time budgets was associated with differences in performance of pigs from the 2 housing systems. Group-farrowed pigs exhibited greater ADG (866 vs. 814 g; SE = 10.3; P < 0.01) for the initial 2 wk after mixing, less ADFI (2,004 vs. 2,188 g; SE = 42.5; P < 0.05), and improved G:F (0.431 vs. 0.393; SE = 0.0078; P < 0.01) for the entire 14-wk study period compared with confinement-farrowed pigs. These results suggest that group-farrowed pigs were more efficient than confinement-farrowed pigs in utilizing dietary energy for BW gain by lying more and standing and eating less during the growing and finishing period.

show abstract

“…Another thing to consider is that older sows in the FF-pens were likely to have farrowed in crates in their previous parities and did as such not have any experience with the free farrowing system. Previous housing experience can influence sow behaviour during early lactation (Cronin et al, 1996;Weng et al, 2009) and this can also explain why older sows seemed to perform worse than younger sows. Our results also showed that older sows had more stillborn piglets; but this might be linked to the higher number of total born piglets of older sows .…”

Section: Influence Of Parity On Piglet Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms

Hales

Moustsen

Nielsen

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If loose-housed farrowing systems are to be an alternative to traditional farrowing crates, it is important that they can deliver the same production results as can be achieved in farrowing crates under commercial conditions. The aim of this study was to compare preweaning mortality in farrowing crates and free farrowing pens (FF-pens) within herds that had both systems. The study was conducted over 2 years in three commercial Danish herds that had FF-pens as well as traditional farrowing crates in their farrowing unit. Piglet mortality was analysed in two periods: before litter equalisation and after litter equalisation. Linear models were used to analyse effects of housing (crate or pen), herd (Herd A, B or C), parity (parities 1, 2, 3 to 4 or 5 to 8) as well as the effect of number of total born piglets on mortality before litter equalisation, and the effect of equalised litter size on piglet mortality after litter equalisation. All corresponding interactions were included in the models. Before litter equalisation piglet mortality was higher ( P < 0.001) in pens (13.7%) than in crates (11.8%). Similarly, piglet mortality after litter equalisation was higher in pens than in crates in all three herds, but the difference between pens and crates were dissimilar ( P < 0.05) in the different herds. In addition, piglet mortality, both before ( P < 0.001) and after litter equalisation ( P < 0.001), grew with increasing parity of the sows. Mortality before litter equalisation moreover increased with increasing number of total born piglets per litter ( P < 0.001), and mortality after equalisation increased when equalised litter size increased ( P < 0.001). No significant interactions were detected between housing and parity or housing and litter size for any of the analysed variables. In conclusion, there is knowledge how to design pens for free farrowing; but this study showed a higher preweaning mortality in the FF-pen. Nonetheless a noteworthy proportion of the sows in the FF-pens delivered results comparable to those farrowing in crates. This indicates that FF-pens are not yet a robust type of housing for farrowing sows.

show abstract

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

Cited by 17 publications

References 12 publications

REVIEW: Updated scientific evidence on the welfare of gestating sows kept in different housing systems

REVIEW: Updated scientific evidence on the welfare of gestating sows kept in different housing systems

Effects of farrowing system on behavior and growth performance of growing-finishing pigs

Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About