JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Effects of Housing Design on the Feeding Behaviors of Group Housed Pregnant Sow with Electronic Sow Feeder
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Journal of Animal Environmental Science
  • Volume 20, Issue 4,  2014, pp.167-172
  • Publisher : Korean Association for Livestock Housing and Environment
  • DOI : 10.11109/JAES.2014.20.4.167
 Title & Authors
The Effects of Housing Design on the Feeding Behaviors of Group Housed Pregnant Sow with Electronic Sow Feeder
Song, Jun-Ik; Kim, Ji-Hyang; Jeon, Jung-Hwan; Lee, Jun-Yeob;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the housing design on the feeding behaviors of group housed pregnant sows. A total of 65 sows (Landrace Yorkshire) were employed into 2 experimental sow housing with different housing design. Lying area of one of sow housing was designed with concrete fence to give the shelter for weak sows. The other was floor type without any obstacles. Group housed sows were fed using electronic sow feeder (ESF) during gestation. Daily feeding pattern of sows was automatically recorded in ESF feeder program. Most sows ate all feed during night. Daily visiting frequency to ESF of sows in pig pen with the shelter was significantly lowered than sows in floor type pen. This study showed that the housing design of group housed sow pen could fairly impact ESF utilization of sow.
 Keywords
Pregnant sow;Electronic sow feeder;Feeding behavior;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Andersen, I.L., Boe, K.E., Kristiansen, A.L., 1999. The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. 65, 91-104. crossref(new window)

2.
Anil., L., Anil, S.S., Deen, J., Baidoo, S.K., Walker. R.D., 2006. Effect of group size and structure on the welfare and performance of pregnant sows in pens with electronic sow feeders. Can. J. of Vet. Res. 70, 128-136.

3.
Bates, R.O., Edwards, D.B., Korthals. R.L., 2003. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 79, 29-35. crossref(new window)

4.
Broom, D.M., Mendl, M.T., Zanella, A.J., 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim. Sci. 61, 369-385. crossref(new window)

5.
Brouns, F., Edwards, S.A., 1994. Social rank and feeding behaviour of grouphoused sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39, 225-235. crossref(new window)

6.
Eddison, J.C., Roberts, N.E., 1995. Variability in feeding behaviour of group-housed sows using electronic feeders. Anim. Sci. 60, 307-314. crossref(new window)

7.
Gonyou, H.W., 2001. The social behaviour of pigs. In: Keeling, L.J., Gonyou, H.W. (Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 147-176.

8.
Hunter, E.J., Broom, D.M., Edwards, S.A., Sibly, R.M., 1988. Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Anim. Prod. 47, 139-148 crossref(new window)

9.
Jensen, K.H., Pedersen, B.K., Pedersen, L.J., Jorgensen, E., 1995. Well-being in pregnant sows: confinement versus group housing with Electronic Sow Feeder. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. 45, 266-275.

10.
Jensen, K.H., Sorensen, L.S., Bertelsen, D., Pedersen, A.R., Jorgensen, E., Nielsen, N.P., Vestergaard, K.S., 2000. Management factors affecting activity and aggression in dynamic group housing systems with electronic sow feeding: a field trial. Anim. Sci, 71, 535-545.

11.
Lee, J.Y., Jeon, J.H., Kim, H.J., Song, J.I., 2013. The Effects of Different Housing with Automatic Feeder on Sow Performances and Growth Performances of Piglets during Gestation. J. Lives. Hous. & Env. 19, 141-148.

12.
Li, Y.Z., Wang, L.H., Johnson, L.J., 2012. Sorting by parity to reduce aggression toward first-parity sows in group-gestation housing systems. J. Anim. Sci. 90, 4514-4522. crossref(new window)

13.
Olsson, A.C., Andersson, M., Botermans, J., Rantzer, D., Svendsen, J., 2011. Animal interaction and response to electronic sow feeding (ESF) in 3 different herds and effects of function settings to increase capacity. Livest. Sci. 137, 268-272. crossref(new window)

14.
Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1980. Statistical Methods (7th ed). Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.

15.
Song, J.I., Lee, J.Y., Cheon, S.N., Kim, D.H., Park, K.H., Jeon, J.H., 2013. Development of an electronic sow feeder for gestation sows. J. Lives. Hous. & Env. 19, 117-122.