JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effects of Gestational Housing on Reproductive Performance and Behavior of Sows with Different Backfat Thickness
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effects of Gestational Housing on Reproductive Performance and Behavior of Sows with Different Backfat Thickness
Kim, K.H.; Hosseindoust, A.; Ingale, S.L.; Lee, S.H.; Noh, H.S.; Choi, Y.H.; Jeon, S.M.; Kim, Y.H.; Chae, B.J.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The present study investigated the effects of back-fat thickness at d 107 of gestation and housing types during gestation on reproductive performance and behavior of sows. A total of 64 crossbred sows () in their 3 to 4 parities were allotted to one of four treatments (n = 16) over two consecutive parities. During each parity, sows were assigned to two gestational housing types (stall or group housing) and two level of back-fat thickness (<20 or ) at d 107 of gestation. Gestating sows were transferred from gestational crates to stalls or pens (group housing) 5 weeks before farrowing. All sows were moved to farrowing crates on d 109 of gestation. At weaning, back-fat thickness changes were lesser (p<0.05) in sows having back-fat thickness <20 mm than that of sows with back-fat thickness at 107 d of gestation. Group housed sows had greater (p<0.05) feed intake and shorter (p<0.05) weaning-to-estrus interval than that of sows in stalls. At weaning, back-fat thickness changes were lesser (p<0.05) in group housed sows than that of sows in stalls. The number of piglets at weaning, growth rate and average daily gain were greater (p<0.05) in group housed sows than that of sows in stalls. During gestation, walking duration was more (p<0.05) in group housed sows. Group housed sows had lesser (p<0.05) farrowing duration and greater (p<0.05) eating time than that of sows in stalls. Result obtained in present study indicated that sows with back-fat thickness at 107 days had better reproductive performance. Additionally, group housing of sows during last five week of gestation improved the performance and behavior and reproductive efficiency of sows.
 Keywords
Back-fat Thickness;Behavior;Housing;Reproductive Performance;Sows;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Aherne, F., G. Foxcroft, and J. E. Pettigrew. 1999. Nutrition of the sow. In: Diseases of Swine. 8th edn (Eds. B. E. Straw, S. D'Allaire, W. L. Mengeling, and D. J. Taylor). Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA. pp. 1029-1043.

2.
Barbari, M. 2000. Analysis of reproductive performance of sows in relation to housing systems. In: ASAE proceedings, 1st International Conference on Swine Housing. Des Moines, IA, USA. pp. 188-196.

3.
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)

4.
Boyle, L. A. 2005. Reducing aggression in group housed Sows. In: Proceedings of the Teagasc Pig Farmers Conferences Pages, Teagasc Oakpark, Carlow, Ireland. pp. 10-18.

5.
Boyle, L. A., F. C. Leonard, P. B. Lynch, and P. Brophy. 2000. Influence of housing systems during gestation on the behavior and welfare of gilts in farrowing crates. Anim. Sci. 71:561-570.

6.
Calderon Diaz, J. A., A. G. Fahey, and L. A. Boyel. 2014. Effects of gestation housing system and floor type during lactation on locomotory ability; body, lim, and clow legions; and lying-down behavior of lactating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 92:1675-1683. crossref(new window)

7.
Charette, R., M. Bigras-Poulin, and G. Martineau. 1996. Body condition evaluation in sows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 46:107-115. crossref(new window)

8.
De Rensis, F., M. Gherpelli, P. Superchi, and R. N. Kirkwood. 2005. Relationships between backfat depth and plasma leptin during lactation and sow reproductive performance after weaning. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 90:95-100. crossref(new window)

9.
Den Hartog, L. A., G. B. C. Backus, and H. M. Vermeer. 1993. Evaluation of housing systems for sows. J. Anim. Sci. 71:1339-1344.

10.
Dourmad, J. Y., M. E'tienne, and J. Noblet. 2001. Measuring backfat depth in sows to optimize feeding strategy. Prod Anim, 14(1), 41-50. INRA Prod. Anim. 14:41-50.

11.
Gunn, H. and R. Friendship. 2003. Gestation sows housing in Ontario. In: Proceedings of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, Orlando, USA. pp. 61-65.

12.
Hemsworth, P. H. 1982. Social environment and reproduction. In: Control of Pig Reproduction (Eds. D. J. A. Cole and G. R. Foxcroft), Butterworths, London, UK. pp. 585-601.

13.
Hemsworth, P. H., M. Rice, J. Nash, K. Giri, K. L. Butler, A. J. Tilbrook, and R. S. Morrison. 2013. Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: Aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance. J. Anim. Sci. 91:4953-4964. crossref(new window)

14.
Houde, A. A., S. Me'thot, B. D. Murphy, V. Bordignon, and M. F. Pali. 2010. Relationships between backfat thickness and reproductive efficiency of sows: A two-year trial involving two commercial herds fixing backfat thickness at breeding. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 90:429-436. crossref(new window)

15.
Maes, D. G. D., G. P. J. Janssens, P. Delputte, A. Lammertyn, and A. de Kruif. 2004. Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livest. Prod. Sci. 91:57-67. crossref(new window)

16.
Martineau, G. P. and C. Klopfenstein. 1996. Body building syndromes in sows (BBS) thin sow syndrome, fat sow syndrome, accordeon sow syndrome. French Swine Research Days, January 30 to February 1, 1996. Paris, France. 28:331-338.

17.
McGlone, J. J., E. H. von Borrell, J. Deen, A. K. Johnson, D. G. Levis, M. Meunier-Salaun, J. Morrow, D. Reeves, J. L. Salak-Johnson, and P. L. Sundberg. 2004. Review: Compilation of the scientific literature comparing housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance, and health. Prof. Anim. Sci. 20:105-117.

18.
McKay, R. M. 1993. Preweaning losses of piglets as a result of index selection for reduced backfat thickness and increased growth rate. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 73:437-442. crossref(new window)

19.
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 10th edn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

20.
Rhodes, R. T., M. C. Appleby, K. Chinn, L. Douglas, L. D. Firkins, K. A. Houpt, C. Irwin, J. J. McGlone, P. Sundberg, L. Tokach, and R. W. Wills. 2005. Task Force Report: A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 227:1580-1590. crossref(new window)

21.
Serenius, T., K. J. Stalder, T. J. Baas, J. W. Mabry, R. N. Goodwin, R. K. Johnson, O. W. Robinson, M. Tokach, and R. K. Miller. 2006. National Pork Producers Council Maternal Line National Genetic Evaluation Program: A comparison of sow longevity and trait associations with sow longevity. J. Anim. Sci. 84:2590-2595. crossref(new window)

22.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2014. Swine 2012, Part I: Baseline Reference of Swine Health and Management, 2012. National Animal Health Monitoring System. Fort Collins, CO #663.0814.

23.
Von Borrell, E., D. M. Broom, D. Scermely, A. A. Dijkhuizen, S. Hylkema, S. A. Edwards, P. Jensen, F. Madec, and C. Stamataris. 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, European Commission, December 24, 1997. B3.

24.
Weng, R. C., S. A. Edwards, and L. C. Hsia. 2009a. Effect of individual, group or ESF housing in pregnancy and individual or group housing in lactation on the performance of sows and their piglets. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 22:1328-1333. crossref(new window)

25.
Weng, R. C., S. A. Edwards, and L. C. Hsia. 2009b. Effect of individual, group or ESF housing in pregnancy and individual or group housing in lactation on sow behavior. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 22:1574-1580. crossref(new window)

26.
Whittemore, C. T., J. Y. Dourmad, and M. Ettiene. 1995. Reproduction in primiparous sows nutrition and body condition in relation to productivity. 46th EAAP, Praha Czech Republic, 301.

27.
Whittemore, C. T. 1996. Nutrition reproduction interactions in primiparous sow: A review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 46:65-83. crossref(new window)

28.
Zaleski, H. M. and R. R. Hacker. 1993. Variables related to the progress of parturition and probability of stillbirth in swine. Can. Vet. J. 34:109-113.

29.
Zhao, Y., W. L. Flowers, A. Saraiva, K. J. Yeum, and S. W. Kim. 2013. Effect of social ranks and gestation housing systems on oxidative stress status, reproductive performance, and immune status of sows. J. Anim. Sci. 91:5848-5858. crossref(new window)