Aggressive Behavior in Two Different Group-Housing Systems for Pregnant Sows

The study housed 120 pregnant sows from Day 29 of pregnancy to 1 week before parturition either in groups of 10 with trickle feeding (TRICKLE) or in groups of 20 with an unprotected electronic sow feeding (FITMIX). The study recorded aggressive interaction on 11 nonconsecutive days. Frequency of aggressive interactions was higher in FITMIX (p < .05); yet, intense physical contact was unusual in both systems (3% of the total interactions). Conflicts in FITMIX centered largely on the feeder (83% vs. 23% for FITMIX and TRICKLE, respectively [p < .05]); in TRICKLE, they occurred mainly in the resting area (13% vs. 48% for FITMIX and TRICKLE, respectively [p < .05]). Forty-six percent of the FITMIX sows (mostly gilts and subordinates) needed assistance to adapt to the feeding system. Eventually, 8.3% of the FITMIX sows failed to adapt and had to be removed. In conclusion, although aggressive interactions were mainly of low intensity, sequential feeding appeared to make FITMIX a more competitive feeding system.

[1]  J. Grant.  Whether or not to defend? The influence of resource distribution , 1993 .

[2]  Yen-Pai Lee,et al.  The social rank index as a measure of social status and its association with egg production in White Leghorn pullets , 1982 .

[3]  Edwards,et al.  The interaction of liveweight and the degree of competition on drinking behaviour in growing pigs at different group sizes. , 2000, Applied animal behaviour science.

[4]  Hans A.M. Spoolder,et al.  Assessing long-term behavioural effects of feeding motivation in group-housed pregnant sows; what, when and how to observe , 2004 .

[5]  P. H. Brooks,et al.  GROUP HOUSING OF SOWS - THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE , 2003 .

[6]  Richard M. Sibly,et al.  Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder , 1988 .

[7]  Xavier Manteca,et al.  Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems , 2010 .

[8]  Sandra A. Edwards,et al.  Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum , 1994 .

[9]  Colin T. Whittemore,et al.  Effect of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour, and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders , 1995 .

[10]  Xavier Manteca,et al.  Feeder Use Patterns in Group-Housed Pregnant Sows Fed With an Unprotected Electronic Sow Feeder (Fitmix) , 2008, Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS.

[11]  Sandra A. Edwards,et al.  Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow , 2001 .

[12]  M. Mendl,et al.  Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs , 1992, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  D. S Arey,et al.  Time course for the formation and disruption of social organisation in group-housed sows , 1999 .

[14]  John J. McGlone,et al.  Space requirements for finishing pigs in confinement: behavior and performance while group size and space vary , 1994 .

[15]  K. Bøe,et al.  The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows , 1999 .

[16]  G. McBride.  Crowding without stress. , 1971, Australian veterinary journal.

[17]  J. Langbein,et al.  Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods—a plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals , 2004 .

[18]  H. Gonyou.  Group housing: Alternative systems, alternative management , 2002 .

[19]  J. P. Signoret,et al.  Stereotypies in pregnant sows: indications of influence of the housing system on the patterns expressed by the animals , 1995 .

[20]  J. Rushen.  A DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT REDUCES FIGHTING WHEN UNACQUAINTED NEWLY WEANED PIGS FIRST MEET , 1987 .

[21]  Donald M. Broom,et al.  Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestating sows , 1996 .

[22]  Anna K. Johnson,et al.  REVIEWS: Compilation of the Scientific Literature Comparing Housing Systems for Gestating Sows and Gilts Using Measures of Physiology, Behavior, Performance, and Health1 , 2004 .

[23]  H.P.M. Bressers,et al.  Feeding order of sows at an individual electronic feed station in a dynamic group-housing system , 1993 .

[24]  P. Simmins.  Reproductive performance of sows entering stable and dynamic groups after mating , 1993 .

[25]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  The effect of dominance hierarchy on the use of alternative foraging tactics: a phenotype-limited producing-scrounging game , 1998, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  R. Byrne,et al.  Cognition studies with pigs: livestock cognition and its implication for production , 2002 .

[27]  J J McGlone,et al.  Evaluation of drop versus trickle-feeding systems for crated or group-penned gestating sows. , 2006, Journal of animal science.

[28]  B. L. Nielsen,et al.  On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint , 1999 .

[29]  J. Petherick,et al.  The use of partial barriers along the feed trough in a group housing system for non-lactating sows , 1987 .

[30]  D. Csermely,et al.  Agonistic behaviour in grouped sows. II. How social rank affects feeding and drinking behaviour. , 1990 .

[31]  M. Mendl.  Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function , 1999 .

[32]  P. Bateson,et al.  Measuring behaviour: Measures of behaviour , 1993 .

[33]  S. Edwards,et al.  The influence of drinker allocation and group size on the drinking behaviour, welfare and production of growing pigs , 1999 .

[34]  K. H. Jensen,et al.  Management factors affecting activity and aggression in dynamic group-housing systems with electronic sow feeding: a field trial. , 2000 .

[35]  Bakken,et al.  The effects of weight asymmetry and resource distribution on aggression in groups of unacquainted pigs. , 2000, Applied animal behaviour science.

[36]  C. Nicol.  Farm Animal Cognition , 1996 .

[37]  L. Green,et al.  Risk factors for vulva biting in breeding sows in south-west England , 1998, Veterinary Record.

[38]  Barroso,et al.  Social hierarchy in the domestic goat: effect on food habits and production. , 2000, Applied animal behaviour science.

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

[40]  Greg M. Cronin,et al.  Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs , 1992 .

[41]  M. Meunier-Salaün,et al.  Feeding motivation and stereotypies in pregnant sows fed increasing levels of fibre and/or food. , 2000, Applied animal behaviour science.

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

[43]  Paul S. Martin,et al.  Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide , 1986 .

[44]  R. Kilgour,et al.  Operant technology applied to solving farm animal problems. An assessment , 1991 .

[45]  Stig Einarsson,et al.  Postweaning grouped sows: effects of aggression on hormonal patterns and oestrous behaviour , 1993 .

[46]  D. Kramer,et al.  Conflict and cooperation: sociobiological principles and the behaviour of pigs , 1995 .

[47]  Donald M. Broom,et al.  A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. , 1995 .

[48]  Michael C. Appleby,et al.  Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: The effect of food restriction , 1988 .

[49]  G. V. Putten,et al.  Vulva biting in group-housed sows: Preliminary report , 1990 .

[50]  L. C. Drickamer,et al.  Predictors of social dominance and aggression in gilts , 1999 .

[51]  P. Orgeur,et al.  The influence of rearing conditions on the social relationships of young male goats (Capra hircus) , 1990 .