Reproduction performances and conditions of group-housed non ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- General discussion - lem, because three weeks after mating their reproduction will already have been impaired. However, assessment of back fat gain can provide the farm manager with valuable indica- tions of whether variation in back fat gain, in general, could be a contributing reason for impaired reproduction in group housed sows. The time necessary for back fat measurements was not recorded in this farm study. However, the back fat measurements were estimated to be possible to perform within two or three minutes per sow including finding the measuring points, shaving and measuring. A recent Danish test trial showed that back fat measurements with a similar digital ultrasound back fat indicator, in average requested approximately one minute per sow if the measuring points were marked and the sows were shaved in advance (Thorup, 2004 pers. comm.). This, in combination with a low price (DKK 4,800 ~ EUR 650) makes LEAN-MEATER® a potential management tool. However, the suitability of the equipment has recently been questioned due to a large withinobserver variation, which makes it inappropriate for use at individual sow-level (Thorup, pers. comm.). More accurate two-dimensional back fat indicators are available on the market. As some of these can be used for pregnancy diagnosis too, they will perhaps be potential management tools in spite of the considerable larger price. The 14 herds involved in the farm study differed markedly with respect to the reproduction performance of the approximately 40 sows observed per herd. Return percentage varied from 0 to 45% with an average of 11% and litter size differed from 13.6 to 15.7 with an average of 14.8 total born piglets per litter. These figures support the assumption that group housing of non-lactating sows does not ‘automatically’ lead to poor reproduction performance and further that it will be possible to improve the reproduction performance in some commercial herds. Improving the reproduction performances is, however, not the only challenge that managers of group housed sows are facing. Group housing was implemented with the aim to improve the animal welfare in commercial pig production. However, submissive sows eating in less than 20% of all observations during feeding because they are kept away from the feed, sows having less than 10 mm back fat at farrowing and sows with more than 150 skin lesions at the end of the gestation, as found in the present farm study are not equal to animal welfare. Therefore, efforts should be made to improve not only the reproduction performance but also the animal welfare in group housed sows. 106
References - General discussion - Andersen, I.L., Bøe, K., Kristiansen, A.L., 1999. The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65, 91-104. Brouns, F., Edwards, S.A., 1994. Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 225-235. Csermely, D. & Wood-Gush, D.G.M. 1990. Agonistic behaviour in grouped sows. II. How social rank affects feeding and drinking behaviour. Boll. Zool. 57, 55-58. Halberg, N. 1996. Miljø- og ressourceindikatorer til brug i et etisk regnskab for husdyrbrug. Ph.D. Statens Husdyrbrugsforsøg. Madsen, T. N. 2001. Tools for monitoring growing pigs. Ph.D. The royal veterinary and agricultural univer- sity, Copenhagen. Mendl, M., Zanella, A.J., Broom, D.M., 1992. Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural stra- tegies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour 44, 1107-1121. O'Connell, N.E., Beattie, V.E., Moss, B.W., 2003. Influence of social status on the welfare of sows in static and dynamic groups. Animal Welfare 12, 239-249. Olsson, A.-C., Svendsen, J., 1997. Effekter av olika konkurrensförhållanden vid utfodring på suggors hälsa och produktion. SLU Rapport 113, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, 37pp. Rasmussen, J.D.L.K., 2003. Erfaringer med tidsforbrug i drægtighedsstalde. Erfaring 301, Den rullende Af- prøvning, Landsudvalget for Svin, Danske Slagterier, 11pp. Rousing, T., Bonde, M., Sørensen, J.T., 2001. Aggregating welfare indicators into an operational welfare assesment system: A bottom-up approach. Acta Agric. Scand. , Sect. A, Animal Science Suppl. 30, 53-57. Ruis, M.A.W., te Brake, J.H.A., Engel, B., Buist, W.G., Blokhuis, H.J., Koolhaas, J.M., 2002. Implications of coping characteristics and social status for welfare and production of paired growing gilts. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 75, 207-231. Sørensen, J.T., Sandøe, P., Halberg, N., 2001. Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: The idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agric. Scand. , Sect. A, Animal Science Suppl. 30, 11-16. Thorup, F. 2004. Ph.D. The National Committee for Pig Production, Danish Bacon and Meat Council. Per- sonal Communication. Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V. Vaarst, M., 2003. Evaluating a concept for animal welfare assessment systems as decision support using qualitative interviews. Animal Welfare 12, 541-546. 107
Page 1 and 2:
Reproduction performances and condi
Page 4:
Contents Summary………………
Page 7 and 8:
Paper II - Summary - A review of 15
Page 10 and 11:
- Sammendrag - SAMMENDRAG Antallet
Page 12:
- Sammendrag - søgt. Positive korr
Page 15 and 16:
- Background and aim - systems and
Page 18:
- Outline of this thesis - OUTLINE
Page 21 and 22:
- How does group housing vary in pr
Page 23 and 24:
- How does group housing vary in pr
Page 26 and 27:
- Paper I - Effect of energy intake
Page 28 and 29:
- Paper I - 1. Introduction The num
Page 30 and 31:
- Paper I - Therefore, the aim of t
Page 32 and 33:
Refer ence Table 1. Effect of energ
Page 34 and 35:
- Paper I - Therefore, low energy s
Page 36 and 37:
Table 2. Effect of energy intake in
Page 38 and 39:
- Paper I - However, this does not
Page 40 and 41:
Table 3. Effect of energy intake in
Page 42 and 43:
- Paper I - Feeding sows 16, 27 or
Page 44 and 45:
- Paper I - gonadotrophins (LH, FSH
Page 46 and 47:
- Paper I - the first four weeks af
Page 48 and 49:
- Paper I - Cosgrove, J.R., Foxcrof
Page 50 and 51:
- Paper I - Matschke, G.H., 1964. T
Page 52: - Paper I - Tribble, L.F., Orr, D.E
Page 55 and 56: - Paper III - Indicators of feed in
Page 57 and 58: - Paper III - 1. Introduction The n
Page 59 and 60: Table 1. Applied feeding and housin
Page 61 and 62: - Paper III - performed. The sow ha
Page 63 and 64: - Paper III - proximately three wee
Page 65 and 66: - Paper III - Table 3. Overall mean
Page 67 and 68: Table 5. Correlations between all c
Page 69 and 70: Back fat W, mm Back fat gain, AM-F,
Page 71 and 72: - Paper III - from three weeks afte
Page 73 and 74: - Paper III - Number of skin lesion
Page 75 and 76: - Paper III - In herds practising g
Page 77 and 78: - Paper III - Previous work have fo
Page 79 and 80: References - Paper III - Andersen,
Page 81 and 82: - Paper III - Kongsted, A.G. 2004a.
Page 83 and 84: - Paper IV - Relation between repro
Page 85 and 86: - Paper IV - 1. Introduction Group
Page 87 and 88: - Paper IV - ing compared to number
Page 89 and 90: - Paper IV - mixed model using the
Page 91 and 92: Table 2. Estimates and standard err
Page 93 and 94: - Paper IV - cial effect on high ra
Page 95 and 96: References - Paper IV - Aherne, F.X
Page 97 and 98: - Paper IV - Olsson, A.-C., Svendse
Page 99 and 100: - General discussion - GENERAL DISC
Page 101: - General discussion - However, an
Page 105 and 106: - Conclusions - 6. CONCLUSIONS Two
Page 107 and 108: - Appendix 1 - APPENDIX 1 LITTER SI
Page 109 and 110: - Appendix 1 - they are mature i.e.
Page 111 and 112: - Appendix 1 - Soon after ovulation
Page 113 and 114: - Appendix 1 - Crombie, P.L., 1970.
Page 115: - Appendix 1 - Scott, M.A., 2000. A
show all

Reproduction performances and conditions of group-housed non ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?