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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- Paper III - Abstract A.G. Kongsted, J.E. Hermansen and T. Kristensen (Department of Agroecology, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele). Indicators of feed intake, fear and social stress in commercial herds with group housed non-lactating sows. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A, Animal Sci. The number of group housed non-lactating sows is increasing rapidly in Europe as a consequence of changed legislation. With the aim to evaluate indicators of feed intake, fear and stress and to get insight in the level and variation in these indicators in group housed sows under various on-farm conditions, a study took place including 14 herds. The results showed that back fat-, skin lesions- and behavioural measurements might be relevant indicators of sows’ condition at herd, batch and individual sow level. For almost all indicators, the variation between herds was larger than the variation between batches. The betweensow variation in back fat was significant higher in group- compared to individual feeding systems. For some of the indicators, the effect of parity differed between different layouts. For instance, in herds without escape possibilities, first parity sows had the highest level of lesions, whereas in herds with escape possibilities, second and third parity sows had the highest level. Keywords: Farm study, skin lesions, eating behaviour, aggressions, group feeding, individual feeding 60
- Paper III - 1. Introduction The number of group housed non-lactating sows is increasing rapidly in Europe as a consequence of changed EU legislation (Council Directive 2001/88/EC amending Directive 91/630/EEC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs) combined with extraordinary national laws (Baustad & Lium, 2002; The welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003). However, since individual housing of sows has been the far most common system in commercial sow herds for many decades, most of the information available about sows’ production and condition arrives from studies with individual housing. Although the amount of scientific work related to group housing of sows has increased markedly in the last ten years, there is still a lot of unanswered questions concerning the function of the sows in commercial herds with group housed non-lactating sows. Several experimental studies indicated that group housing of sows might lead to individual variation in feed intake, social stress, and fear (reviews by Kongsted, 2004ab). This may constitute a welfare problem and in addition affect the reproduction results negatively (reviews by Kongsted, 2004ab). Most of the studies referred to in the mentioned reviews were performed under conditions that did not always reflect those circumstances seen in practice which are large group sizes (Nielsen et al., 2000), high stocking rates (Svendsen et al., 1990), constant introduction of new sows into dynamics groups (Svendsen et al., 1990), slippery floors (Hansen & Kongsted, 2002) and sows with locomotion problems (Gjein & Larssen, 1995; Nielsen et al., 2000; Hansen & Kongsted, 2002). In a few Danish on-farm experiments, level and variation of indicators of feed intake expressed as growth rate (Fisker, 1994; Nielsen, 1995; Fisker, 1999; Hansen, 2000) and stress expressed as adrenocortical response to additional stressors (Jensen et al., 1995) in group housed sows has been assessed. However, systematic information of variation in feed intake, fear and social stress in sows group housed in the entire non-lactating period under various conditions are lacking. This is most likely, to some extent, because traditional methods for assessing these factors are expensive and/or time-consuming and therefore difficult to employ under practical conditions in large scale. First of all, it is therefore necessary to identify indicators of energy intake, stress and fear suitable for use in practice. Based upon existing knowledge, a suggestion for such indicators has been put forward in Kongsted (2004a). However, whether these indicators are suitable for use in group housed sows under various on-farm conditions is not known. On this background the aim of this study is 1) to evaluate indicators believed to be suitable to gain information of variation in feed intake, social stress and fear in non-lactating sows 61
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: - Paper III - Indicators of feed in
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?