Effect of Individual, Group or ESF Housing in Pregnancy and Individual or Group Housing in Lactation on the Performance of Sows and Their Piglets

To evaluate different housing systems, 80 gilts were randomly allocated at puberty to four treatments: i) sow stall in gestation followed by farrowing crate (SC), ii) group housing with individual feeding in gestation followed by farrowing crate (GC), iii) ESF (Electronic Sow Feeding) system in gestation followed by farrowing crate (EC), and iv) ESF system followed by group farrowing pen (EG). The results showed that stalled sows had a longer interval between puberty and second estrus (p<0.001). The sows kept in the ESF system gained more body weight (p<0.01) and backfat (p<0.05) prior to service, and more backfat during gestation (p<0.05), but also had greater backfat losses in the subsequent lactation (p<0.01). Sows changing from loose housing to confinement at farrowing had longer gestation length (p<0.001 Total litter size did not differ significantly between gestation treatments, but the number of stillborn piglets was significantly higher in the SC treatment (p<0.01). After weaning, SC sows had the longest interval for rebreeding (p<0.001). Some EG sows came into heat before weaning, giving this treatment the shortest interval. These results indicate that gestation confinement in sow stalls had several detrimental effects on sow performance relative to group housing.

[1]  G. Randall Observations on parturition in the sow. I. Factors associated with the delivery of the piglets and their subsequent behaviour , 1972, Veterinary Record.

[2]  A. Fraser Farm Animal Behaviour , 1980 .

[3]  Sandra A. Edwards,et al.  Effects of food level on performance and behaviour of sows in a dynamic group-housing system with electronic feeding , 1997 .

[4]  G. Randall Observations on parturition in the sow. II. Factors influencing stillbirth and perinatal mortality , 1972, Veterinary Record.

[5]  A. Fraser,et al.  Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare , 1990 .

[6]  A. Lawrence,et al.  Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  L. L. Hansen,et al.  Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity. I. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. , 1984, Annales de recherches veterinaires. Annals of veterinary research.

[8]  R. L. Korthals,et al.  Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls , 2003 .

[9]  L. L. Hansen,et al.  Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity: II. Production results. , 1984, Annales de recherches veterinaires. Annals of veterinary research.

[10]  M. Verstegen,et al.  Effect of housing and temperature on metabolic rate of pregnant sows , 1984 .

[11]  S. Edwards,et al.  Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production , 1998 .

[12]  A. Lawrence,et al.  The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. , 1994 .