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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- Paper IV - Abstract Group housing of non-lactating sows is becoming more and more widespread in commercial sow herds in several European countries as a result of changed legislations. Results from experimental studies suggest that group housing may lead to individual variation in feed intake, stress and fear, which may impair the reproduction performance. However, whether the individual variation in feed intake, stress and fear in sows group housed under commercial conditions is severe enough to impair the reproduction performance is not known. Therefore a detailed farm study including 14 herds (in total about 550 sows) with different layouts and management routines was carried out, and the relations between various indicators of feed intake, stress and fear and reproduction performance were studied. 11.4 % of all mated sows were re-mated and average litter size was 14.8 born piglets per litter. Positive correlations between back fat gain from weaning to three weeks after mating and chance of pregnancy (P
- Paper IV - 1. Introduction Group housing of non-lactating sows is becoming increasingly widespread in commercial sow herds in European countries as a result of changed EU-legislations (Council Directive 2001/88/EC amending Directive 91/630/EEC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs) and national extraordinary laws (Baustad & Lium, 2002; The welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003) initiated by elevated public concern of animal welfare. Although no legislation yet, similar tendencies are also seen in other parts of the world (Trezona, 2003). Impaired reproduction in the shape of reduced litter size or pregnancy rate has been observed in group compared to individually housed non-lactating sows in several on-farm studies (Hurtgen et al., 1980; Fisker, 1995; Peltoniemi et al., 1999; Hansen, 2000). Conversely, in other studies, no difference (England & Spurr, 1969) between grouped and individually housed sows or even opposite effects (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 systems and shows that group housing do not ‘automatically’ lead to poor reproduction performance. Results from experimental studies, not necessarily reflecting conditions seen in practice have indicated that the impaired reproduction performance seen under some circumstances in group housed non-lactating sows might be a result of social relations causing individual variation in energy intake (review by Kongsted, 2004b), fear and stress (review by Kongsted, 2004a). Further, registrations of various indicators of feed intake, stress and fear in sows group housed under various on-farm conditions suggest a large individual variation in these characteristics (Kongsted et al., 2004). However, whether these individual variations are severe enough to impair the reproduction performance in sows group housed in commercial herds is not known. Therefore, a detailed farm study including 14 commercial sow herds with different layout and management routines was carried out to investigate the relation between various indicators of feed intake, stress and fear and the reproduction performance in practice. 2. Materials and methods 2.1 Design and herds In 14 herds with group housed non-lactating sows, ten focal sows (F-sows) in each of four batches were observed from weaning to farrowing. The ten sows were randomly chosen in the lactation unit just before the sows were moved to the service unit. The F-sows’ back fat, 89
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: - Paper IV - Relation between repro
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?