Reproductive performance of sows entering stable and dynamic groups after mating

1993 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. H. Simmins
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Reproductive Performance ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Stable Group ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Litter Weight ◽  
Dynamic Group ◽  
Dynamic Treatment ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
Farrowing Rate

AbstractHousing soivs in large groups is increasing in popularity but some group-housing systems may compromise subsequent reproductive performance. An experiment was designed to test this hypothesis using multiparous sows weaned at 21 ±2 days. Two treatments were studied: a stable group of 12 sows and a dynamic group of 18 sows. Both treatments had similar space allowances in the lying area (1·24 m2 per sow). Sows were allocated to treatment within 1 week of service and remained on treatment until after day 40 of pregnancy. Each stable treatment group remained unchanged, whereas sows were replaced weekly in the dynamic treatment. Sows were fed using a single electronic feeder for each pen. All sows were treated similarly for the rest of pregnancy. Eighty and 120 sows from the stable and dynamic treatments respectively completed pregnancy. Five second parity sows from the dynamic treatment were removed having suffered from aggression. The farrowing rate was 0·78 and 0·85 for stable and dynamic treatment sows respectively. The stable treatment sows had larger litters and a higher proportion of litters having 10 or more total piglets born (P < 0·01). The stable treatment showed a significantly heavier (P < 0·05) litter weight for total pigs born (16·9 v. 14.6 (s.e.d. 0·57) kg per litter). The parities were uneven so the data must be treated with caution. However, the results indicate that the present advice, that soivs should be housed in stable groups for the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, should remain unchanged.

A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing

2001 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Barnett ◽  
P. H. Hemsworth ◽  
G. M. Cronin ◽  
E. C. Jongman ◽  
G. D. Hutson
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Performance ◽  
Maternal Behaviour ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Alternative Systems ◽  
Conventional Alternative ◽  
Informed Consumer ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
Piglet Survival ◽  
Research Recommendations

This review of sow welfare addresses all aspects of housing for adult female pigs, including the issue of piglet welfare during lactation. It puts the issue of sow welfare in perspective by briefly outlining different approaches to the scientific assessment of welfare, the ‘feelings, preference, nature, and the functional or homeostasis’ approaches. We believe the last approach currently offers science the best assessment of welfare and is the approach that is utilised in this review. It involves comparing housing or husbandry systems and risks to welfare on the basis of relative changes in biological (behavioural and physiological) responses and corresponding decreases in fitness (growth rate, reproductive performance, or health/injury/immunology). The review discusses the following areas: (i) housing of individually housed pregnant pigs, with subsections on tethers, stalls, reproductive performance, exercise, and new stall designs; conventional, alternative, and outdoor group housing with subsections on aggression, electronic feeding stations, ecoshelters, and other alternative group housing designs; and other issues, such as lameness, culling, straw and other substrates, diet and hunger, quality of stockpeople, and housing around mating including oestrus detection and mating; and (ii) farrowing and lactating pigs with subsections on farrowing crates and alternative farrowing systems, stress around farrowing and during lactation, maternal behaviour and piglet survival, and sow and piglet injury and lameness. Conclusions and recommendations arising from the review include the need for public education to provide an informed consumer base that will result in some consensus on welfare issues among diverse interest groups and the need for industry education that results in better animal welfare and a sustainable industry. Some specific research recommendations include space allowance and the duration of housing for individually housed pigs, welfare issues of breeding sows in ecoshelters, piglet mortality in alternative systems, aggression in conventional and large groups, bedding, and hunger.

Social activity and feeder use of a dynamic group of 40 sows using a sow-operated computerised feeder

1989 ◽  
Vol 1989 ◽  
pp. 90-90
Author(s):  
E.J. Hunter ◽  
S.A. Edwards ◽  
P.H. Simmins
Keyword(s):  
Direct Observation ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Video Recording ◽  
Social Activity ◽  
Stable Group ◽  
Constant Size ◽  
Dynamic Group ◽  
Large Groups

Keeping sows in large groups necessitates ‘dynamic’ grouping, that is, the removal and addition of sows at regular intervals to a group of more or less constant size. However, the lack of stability of dynamic groups raises questions about the nature of the dominance hierarchy and the pattern of feeder use within them. Behaviour and feeder use was observed in a dynamic group of 35-40 sows by both direct observation and video-recording over 13 feed cycles. An initial 4-day recording was made of a stable group of 40 sows to evaluate each sow's feeder use before removal/addition began. On three occasions at weekly intervals five sows were removed and five trained sows added to the group after feeding. Recording covered each day before addition, the day of addition and the following day. Direct observation was carried out for 8 hours on the days before each addition and for 6.5 hours on the following days, starting within 20 minutes of sows being added to the group. The 25 sows remaining in the group throughout removal/addition (‘resident’ sows) were individually marked and observed. Each batch of five sows added was marked as a group and each groups’ feeder use and social activity was recorded.

scholarly journals Evaluation of reproductive and animal welfare parameters of swine females of different genetic lines submitted to different reproductive management and housing systems during pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 1675-1682
Author(s):  
D. Bampi ◽  
K.K. Borstnez ◽  
C.P. Dias ◽  
O.A.D. Costa ◽  
F. Moreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Reproductive Performance ◽  
Artificial Insemination ◽  
Housing System ◽  
Welfare Indicators ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Average Value ◽  
Reproductive Management ◽  
Farrowing Rate

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate swine females of different genetic lines submitted to different reproductive management and housing systems during pregnancy on reproductive performance and animal welfare parameters. After artificial insemination protocol, 524 females were divided into two gestation housing systems: PEN1=animals housed in individual stalls during the breeding and after group-housed; PEN32=animals housed in individual stalls from breeding until 32 days of pregnancy and after group-housed. The number of piglets born, and the pregnancy and farrowing rates were evaluated. Welfare parameters related to the pregnancy phase were used. Females who weaned more piglets in the previous farrowing had a higher number of piglets born at the next farrowing. The pregnancy rate was affected by the number of semen doses. The farrowing rate was not influenced by the evaluated parameters, with average value of 91.36%. There was no effect of the gestation housing system and the genetic lines on pregnancy and farrowing rates, with values above 90.0%. The animal welfare indicators showed more compromised parameters in PEN1 system. PEN1 system did not impair the reproductive performance although it presented more compromised animal welfare parameters.

Sow behaviour and welfare in voluntary cubicle pens (small static groups) and split-yard systems (large dynamic groups)

2002 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.L. Durrell ◽  
I.A. Sneddon ◽  
V.E. Beattie ◽  
D.J. Kilpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Skin Lesion ◽  
Physical Environment ◽  
Housing System ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Skin Damage ◽  
Agonistic Interactions ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Dynamic Group ◽  
Social And Physical Environment ◽  
Observation Period

AbstractThe welfare of sows kept in two different group housing systems, namely voluntary cubicle pens housing small static groups and a split-yard housing system housing a large dynamic group, were examined. Each week, four newly weaned sows were introduced into either a voluntary cubicle pen or the split-yard system, with a total of eight groups of four sows introduced into each system. Behavioural and skin lesion data were recorded during the sows’ first 5 weeks in either system. Agonistic behaviours were performed more frequently during week 1 than in subsequent weeks in both housing systems (P < 0001). Sows in the voluntary cubicle pens spent more time standing inactive (P < 0001) and spent less time in exploratory (P < 005) and locomotory (P < 001) behaviours. However, sows in the split-yard system had higher skin lesion scores (P < 001) and engaged in more social (P < 005) and agonistic interactions (P < 005). These agonistic interactions included attacks (P < 005) and fleeing (P < 0001) throughout the 5-week observation period and fighting (P < 0001) during week 1 only. The split-yard system, therefore, appeared to offer sows a more stimulating social and physical environment than the voluntary cubicle pens, but also led to higher levels of aggression and skin damage. Both housing systems, therefore, appear to compromise sow welfare in different ways.

Adrenal cortex activity, reproduction and welfare of pregnant gilts in a group housing system

1991 ◽  
Vol 1991 ◽  
pp. 64-64
Author(s):  
M.T. Mendl ◽  
D.M. Broom ◽  
A.J. Zanella
Keyword(s):  
Social Environment ◽  
Social Stress ◽  
Housing System ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Detailed Data ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
The Social ◽  
Group Members ◽  
High Production ◽  
Large Groups

On many farms in Britain, the housing of pregnant sows in groups, principally in electronic sow feeder systems, is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to housing them individually in stalls or tethers. When sows are housed in large groups, particularly in "dynamic groups" where individuals are continually leaving the group to farrow and re-joining it after lactation, aggression between group members may become a problem. Aggression may give rise to social stress and injuries and may also have detrimental effects on production. In order to ensure good welfare and high production in group housing systems, it is essential to gain some fundamental knowledge as to how individual sows are affected by the social environment in which they live. This paper examines how a group of gilts responded to being introduced into an electronic sow feeder system and mixed with unfamiliar animals. Detailed data on behaviour, physiology and reproduction were collected for each individual in the group /in an attempt to examine whether the way in which individuals responded to the social environment had consequences for measures of their welfare and productivity.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Productivity of Primiparous Sows Housed in Individual Stalls and Group Housing Systems

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1940
Author(s):  
Yejin Min ◽  
Yohan Choi ◽  
Joeun Kim ◽  
Doowan Kim ◽  
Yongdae Jeong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Performance ◽  
Radio Frequency Identification ◽  
Housing System ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Restricted Feeding ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Productive Performance ◽  
Initial Body Weight ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Frequency Identification

This study was conducted to provide commercial pig farms with information about group housing systems for sows in accordance with the amendment of the prohibition law for individual stalls for sows in South Korea. Therefore, this experiment was performed to compare the effects of individual stalls (IS) and group housing systems (GS) on the productivity of sows to investigate the feasibility of replacing individual stalls with group housing systems in commercial sow units. Forty primiparous sows (Landrace × Yorkshire; 210.67 ± 2.22 kg average initial body weight) were randomly assigned to four treatments with restricted feeding after 8 weeks from artificial insemination. The four treatments were (i) individual stalls (IS; housed in pen stalls), (ii) short stalls (SS; sows housed in pens with non-gated feeding stalls), (iii) free access stalls (FAS; a non-competitive housing system), and (iv) electronic sow feeders (ESF; used with radio frequency identification technology to allow individual sow management without individual confinement). All sows were transferred to farrowing crates at 110 days of gestation. There were no differences in sow productive performance, reproductive performance, and colostrum composition between IS and GS and among GS. The considered GS did not negatively affect any productivity parameters of primiparous sows compared with IS; the GS could replace IS in commercial sow units.

Management factors affecting activity and aggression in dynamic group housing systems with electronic sow feeding: a field trial

2000 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. H. Jensen ◽  
L. S. Sørensen ◽  
D. Bertelsen ◽  
A. R. Pedersen ◽  
E. Jørgensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Stocking Density ◽  
Average Frequency ◽  
Bedding Material ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Night Time ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Dynamic Group ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Feeding Cycle

AbstractA series of 24-h video studies on four commercial Danish pig herds investigated the behaviour of pregnant sows kept in dynamic groups (72 to 200 sows) with electronic sow feeding (ESF). The herds mainly differed with respect to provision of a layer of unchopped straw as bedding material, the frequency of introduction/removal of animals, space allowance in the lying area, group size and number of feeding stations, and starting times for the feeding cycle. All herds had one feeding cycle per 24 h. Six 24-h video recordings in the most settled period with respect to rank relationships (2 to 12 days after the last introduction) were collected from each herd and analysed according to activity and aggressive interactions. In two of the four herds recordings were collected in two separate periods with different starting times for the feeding cycle. In all herds peaks of activity in the morning and in the afternoon were evident. Furthermore, the diurnal variation was overlaid by an increase in activity at the start of the feeding cycle. The activity and aggression in the feeding area as well as the duration per sow of the period with high feeder occupation were lowest in herds where a layer of straw bedding was provided. Changing feeding start from day time to night time was accompanied by a reduced feeder occupation in the period following start of the feeding cycle. However, in herd 1 (characterized by no litter, high stocking density and high frequency of grouping) the level of aggression was reduced, whereas it was increased in herd 2 (characterized by straw in lying area, low stocking density, low frequency of regrouping). Number of regroupings and space allowance apparently had no obvious effects on the average frequency of aggression or the aggression per sow at risk in periods between introduction of new animals, but space allowance may have improved social function by weakening the association between activity and aggression. Due to the small number of herds included the present results were descriptive rather than conclusive. However, the study supports the suggestions that provision of unchopped straw as bedding material and starting the feeding cycle in the evening for overnight feeding may improve behaviour in dynamic group housing systems with ESF. However, the benefits of starting the feeding cycle in the evening may depend on low disturbance in daytime from other management procedures.

Effects of Buserelin on day of service or 12 days post service on farrowing rate and litter size to first service in outdoor sows and gilts

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 ◽  
pp. 176-176
Author(s):  
A.R. Peters ◽  
L.A. Dwyer ◽  
A. Dawson ◽  
P.A. Canham ◽  
J.D. Mackinnon
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Litter Size ◽  
East Anglia ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Prolonged Weaning ◽  
Breeding Herd ◽  
Commercial Breeding ◽  
Buserelin Treatment ◽  
Seasonal Infertility ◽  
Farrowing Rate

The problem of seasonal infertility in pigs has been recognised for many years. The infertility complex can may be manifested by increased returns to service, prolonged weaning to oestrus intervals and decreased litter size. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effects of Buserelin treatment on fertility in sows and gilts during the seasonally infertile period.A total of 1231 mixed parity sows and gilts from five outdoor herds in East Anglia were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups. Any sows not presented for service at first post weaning oestrus were excluded. All sows and gilts judged to be in adequate health and condition to be kept in a commercial breeding herd were included. Group C sows and gilts were given no treatment. Group R1 sows and gilts were injected i.m. with 8μg Buserelin (2.0ml Receptal; Hoechst Roussel Vet UK Ltd) on the day of service.

Are aggressiveness and social status of group housed sows predictable from observations of earlier behaviour?

1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 ◽  
pp. 87-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Mendl
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Social Behaviour ◽  
Time Consistency ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Individual Characteristic ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Induced Stress ◽  
General Decrease ◽  
Fundamental Understanding

The forthcoming UK ban on stall and tether housing for sows will result in an increase in the use of group housing for these animals. In group housing systems, certain individuals may be particularly aggressive or bullied by others, and this may result in injury or socially induced stress. To attempt to overcome these problems we need to know the answers to questions such as whether removal of a particularly aggressive animal from a group will result in a general decrease in aggression, or whether it will simply result in other animals becoming more aggressive. Answers to these sorts of question require a fundamental understanding of pig social behaviour and individual characteristics. For example, is aggressivness a stable individual characteristic across time and situation? This research addressed these issues by examining the cross-time consistency of individual aggressiveness and social status in groups of pigs.

Reproductive performance of group-synchronized Merino d'Arles and Romanov crossbred ewes. 1. A note on the effects of lactation on fecundity

1977 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. J. Galindez ◽  
M. Prud'hon ◽  
G. Reboul
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Reproductive Performance ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fertility Level ◽  
Homogeneous Groups ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Significant Superiority

SUMMARYFifty-six Merino d'Aries and 56 Romanov × Merino crossbred lactating ewes were divided into two treatment groups, one (T1) with a ewe-to-ram ratio of 48: 1 (24 Merino and 24 crossbred) and the other (T2) of 64: 1 (32 Merino and 32 crossbred).Intravaginal sponges with 40 mg FGA (Searle) were inserted in two subgroups at 8-day intervals and withdrawn after 12 and 16 days in situ, in four equal groups at 4-day intervals. A dose of 400 IU pregnant mare's serum gonadotrophin (PMSG) was applied at sponge withdrawal.Fertility after two oestrous cycles was equally satisfactory in both treatments, though it was lower in treatment group T2. This could be due to the significantly low (P<0·01) number of Merino ewes raddled by the T2 ram (0·33 Merino against 0·92 crossbred) suggesting preferential behaviour by the ram in this treatment.Comparisons between breeds show a slight superiority in the fertility of crossbred ewes and a highly significant superiority in prolificacy These results suggest that using the described method, 2% of rams seems more than adequate to mate with progestagen-synchronized ewes with a satisfactory fertility level. It is, however, recommended to use homogeneous groups of ewes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document