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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- How does group housing vary in practice? - HOW DOES GROUP HOUSING VARY IN PRACTICE? A basic knowledge of how group housing varies in practice is a prerequisite for identifying important causes for impaired reproduction performance in group housed non-lactating sows. In this chapter some of the applied housing conditions are shortly described. The description is based on a combination of own observations, personal communication with people who work with pig production in practice (e.g. advisors), literature presented in pig magazines and scientific journals. The description is to a large degree founded on Danish conditions. However, it is aimed also to include experiences from outside Denmark. Housing conditions may e.g. vary with respect to feeding procedure, timing of mixing of groups, group dynamics, group size, stocking rate and floor type. Feeding procedure In general, feeding procedure can be divided into two different principles: Group feeding and individual feeding. Common group feeding procedures are 1. Floor feeding, 2. Providing liquid feed in long feeding troughs with or without individual troughs dividers and 3. Biofix. (Svendsen et al., 1990; Brouns & Edwards, 1992; Olsson et al., 1993; Fisker, 1994). In biofix the feed is provided in a trough with individual troughs dividers in a speed that match the eating rate of the sows in order to ensure that each sow are ‘fixed’ at one place throughout the feeding (‘biological fixed’). In biofix, as in the other group feeding systems differential feeding within a group is not possible. The group feeding procedures mentioned are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Floor feeding, liquid feed in long feeding troughs and biofix (photos: L.U. Hansen and A.G. Kongsted). 15
- How does group housing vary in practice? - Individual feeding systems employed in practice are Electronic Sow Feeding (ESF), fitmix, free access feeding stalls (FAFS) and individual feeding stalls (IFS) (Brouns & Edwards, 1992; Nielsen et al., 2000; Hansen & Petersen, 2003). In ESF, the sows are provided with an electronic identification mark. When the sow enters a feeding box the sow are identified and the ration determent to this particular sow is provided automatically. Fitmix is based on the same principle as ESF but the sow does not stay in a box while eating. In FAFS all sows are fed at the same time in individual stalls that closes when the sow enters the stall. In FAFS the sows have permanently access to the stalls in opposite to IFS where the sows only have access to the feeding stalls during feeding. In IFS, one group is feed at a time and when the sows from one group are finished eating the sows return to their pen and the next group is allowed access to the stalls. These individual feeding procedures are shown in Fig- ure 2. Figure 2. Electronic Sow Feeding (ESF), fitmix, free access feeding stalls (FAFS) and individual feeding stalls (IFS) (photos: L.U. Hansen). 16
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?