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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- Background and aim - BACKGROUND AND AIM For several decades, individual housing of non-lactating sows was preferred, probably because individual housing made it possible to control the individual sows access to important resources like feed and water. However, in the last decade the number of group housed nonlactating sows has begun to increase in Europe. This is mainly caused by elevated public concern of animal welfare with changed legislations as a consequence. For instance, according to EU legislation all sows have, from January 2013, to be loose-housed in smaller or larger groups from four weeks after mating until seven days before expected farrowing (Council Directive 2001/88/EC amending Directive 91/630/EEC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs). In addition, national extraordinary laws have been introduced in several countries. In England, for instance, all sows have to be group housed in the entire period from weaning to seven days before expected farrowing according to the national legislation (The welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003). In Norway, the sows may only be fixed from three days before until one week after farrowing, and in Sweden it is only allowed to keep sows in crates for maximum one week if necessary during the production cyclus (Baustad & Lium, 2002). Although no laws or regulations so far, similar tendencies are also seen in other parts of the world (McGlone, 2001; Trezona, 2003). In Denmark it is still legal to keep the sows in crates from weaning until four weeks after mating. Nevertheless, the Danish Bacon and Meat Council, motivated by export interests, has introduced an extra pay for slaughter pigs produced by sows that are group housed in the entire non-lactating period. This additional price has caused an increase in the number of sows that are group housed from weaning to shortly before farrowing in Denmark. However, impaired reproduction in form of reduced litter size and pregnancy rate in group housed compared to individual housed sows in parts of or in the entire non-lactating period has been observed in several Danish on-farm experiments. Sows group housed from weaning until two days after mating had significant fewer total born piglets compared to sows individually housed in the same period (Hansen, 2000). Sows group housed from weaning to farrowing had significant fewer total born piglets per litter than sows kept individually in crates the first four weeks after weaning and thereafter loose housed until farrowing (Fisker, 1995). Equally, in other countries a reduced farrowing rate has been seen in group housed compared to individual housed sows (USA: Hurtgen et al., 1980; Finland: Peltoniemi et al., 1999). Conversely, in other studies, no difference (conception rate and litter size: England & Spurr, 1969) between grouped and individually housed sows or even opposite effects (farrowing rate: Bates et al., 2003; Hansen, 2003) have been found. The divergent results are probably a result of differences in the function of the group housing 9
- Background and aim - systems and shows that group housing do not ‘automatically’ lead to poor reproduction performance. This is further supported by indications of a large variation in reproduction performance between group housing systems. In a pilot study the litter size varied from 10.6 to 13.1 born piglets per litter in five herds with group housed non-lactating sows (Nielsen & Calmann- Hinke, 1998). Data from 78 Danish herds with sows housed outdoor in the lactation period and in groups either inside or outside in paddocks during the non-lactating period showed an average farrowing rate of 78 (range 53-93) % and an average litter size of 12.1 (range 10.6-14.1) born piglets per litter (Kirk, 2001 pers. comm.). The apparently large variation in farrowing rate and litter size between herds with group housed non-lactating sows indicates that it will be possible to improve the reproduction performance in some of these herds. However, to do that it is first of all necessary to identify important causes for impaired reproduction performance in group housed non-lactating sows. It is likely that numerous management-related factors might influence the function of group housing systems. Therefore, it will probably be difficult to forecast which factors may influence reproduction in group housed sows, merely on the background of general defined housing factors like stocking rate, group size, floor type etc. Furthermore, even though main effects of different factors can be demonstrated in experimental studies, interactions might lead to unexpected results in real-life conditions (Capdeville & Veissier, 2001). As a consequence, it seems important that managers are able to make an in situ analysis of the reproduction in group housed sows. To be able to perform an analysis like that, indicators which provide information of the function of group housing systems and suitable for use in practice are needed. On this background the overall aim of this study is to produce knowledge that managers can implement in their decision-making to improve the reproduction performance of group housed non-lactating sows. The specific aims are: • To identify important causes for impaired reproduction performance in group housed non-lactating sows. • To develop and evaluate indicators suitable for use in decision-making in commercial sow herds 10
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 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 and 102:
- General discussion - However, an
Page 103 and 104:
References - General discussion - A
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?