Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effect of Individual, Group or ESF Housing in Pregnancy and Individual or Group Housing in Lactation on Sow Behavior
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effect of Individual, Group or ESF Housing in Pregnancy and Individual or Group Housing in Lactation on Sow Behavior
Weng, R.C.; Edwards, S.A.; Hsia, L.C.;
  PDF(new window)
To evaluate the effect of different housing systems on sow behavior, 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). Behavioral observations were carried out on a total of 16 animals per treatment at the following stages: first day of allocation to housing treatment, day of service, 80 days after service, 109 days after service on entry to farrowing accommodation, 24 h before farrowing, day of farrowing, 14, 27 and 28 days after farrowing, at weaning. On each occasion, individual animals were observed for a 24 period with one minute time sampling. There were significant differences (p<0.001) between stages of the reproductive cycle for all the behavior patterns in all treatments. On the first day in experimental housing treatments, sows spent more time rooting and dog-sitting. Activity and investigatory behavior decreased as pregnancy progressed. An activity peak was apparent just before farrowing, followed by a high level of inactivity on the day of farrowing. Time spent active, eating and drinking increased as lactation progressed, and greatest activity and locomotion was seen immediately following weaning. There were significant differences between housing treatments (p<0.01) for standing, moving, eating, drinking, dog-sitting and lying. During pregnancy SC sows spent more time standing, rooting, drinking and dog sitting, while EC sows spent less time rooting and drinking and more time lying. During lactation, GC sows spent more time standing, moving and eating, less time dog sitting and lateral lying. Nursing frequency was reduced in GC sows (p<0.001). The maternal and piglet behaviors were influenced strongly by environment during lactation. However, it was also shown that previous housing history can influence the maternal behavior in the pre-farrowing stage and during early lactation.
 Cited by
The Effects of Gilts Housed Either in Group with the Electronic Sow Feeding System or Conventional Stall, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2015, 28, 10, 1512  crossref(new windwow)
Effects of Gestational Housing on Reproductive Performance and Behavior of Sows with Different Backfat Thickness, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2015, 29, 1, 142  crossref(new windwow)
Bates, R. O., D. B. Edwards and R. L. Korthals. 2003. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 79:29-35 crossref(new window)

Broom, D. M., M. T. Mendl and A. J. Zanella. 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim. Sci. 61:369-385

Brouns, F. and S. A. Edwards. 1992. Future prospects for housing of non-lactating sows. Pig News Info. 13(1):47N-50N crossref(new window)

Edwards, S. A. and D. Fraser. 1997. Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. Pig Journal 39:77-87

Fraser, A. F. and D. M. Broom. 1997. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. 3rd. edition, Center of Agriculture and Biosciences International, Wallingford, UK

Jensen, P. 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free ranging domestic pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16:131-142 crossref(new window)

Jensen, P. 1988. Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in free-ranging domestic pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20: 297-308 crossref(new window)

Jensen, P., J. Rushen and B. Forkman. 1995. Behavioural strategies or just individual variation in behaviour?-A lack of evidence for active and passive piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 43:135-139 crossref(new window)

Kiley-Worthington, M. 1977. Behavioural problems of farm animals. Oriel Press, Stocksfield

Lammers, G. J. and A. de Lange. 1986. Pre and post farrowing behaviour in primiparous domesticated pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15:31-43 crossref(new window)

O'Grady, J. F., P. B. Lynch and P. A. Kearney. 1985. Voluntary feed intake by lactating sows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 12:355-365 crossref(new window)

Pettigrew, J. E., R. L. Moser, S. G. Cornelious and K. P. Miller. 1984. Feed consumption by lactating sows as affected by feeder design and corn particle size. J. Anim. Sci. (Suppl.) 61:107

SAS. 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC

Spoolder, H. A. M., J. A. Burbidge, S. A. Edwards, A. B. Lawrence and P. H. Simmins. 1997. Effects of food level on performance and behaviour of sows in a dynamic grouphousing system with electronic feeding. Anim. Sci. 65:473-482

Terlouw, E. M. C., A. B. Lawrence and A. W. Illius. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Anim. Behav. 42:981-991 crossref(new window)

Turner, J. 2000. The welfare of Europe's sows in close confinement stalls. Compassion in World Farming Trust, Hampshire, UK

Vestergaard, K. and L. L. Hansen. 1984. Tether versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity. I. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15:245-256

Weary, D. M. and D. Fraser. 1995. Calling by domestic piglets: reliable signals of needs? Anim. Behav. 50:1047-1055 crossref(new window)

Wechsler, B. and R. Weber. 2007. Loose farrowing systems: challenges and solutions. Anim. Welf. 16:295-307