Hierarchy formation in newly mixed, group housed sows and management strategies aimed at reducing its impact

Greenwood, E. C.; Plush, K. J.; Wettere, W. H. E. J. van; Hughes, Paul E.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2014.09.011

Cited by 50 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The group-adapted ad libitum feeding system remains to be further validated, this time taking into account the group sizes and management practices. The highest injury index was found on the 38 th day of gestation in the experimental system (i.e., 10 days after housing the sows together in a group, which is consistent with other studies) (Van Putten and Van de Burgwal, 1990;Arey and Franklin, 1995;Kress et al, 1995;Borberg, 2008, Greenwood et al, 2014. In particular, Borberg (2008) found that after grouping unknown sows, 78% of all agonistic interactions were completed within 48 h, and when grouping growing pigs, Arey and Franklin (1995) observed that over 85% of all ghts also took place within the rst 48 h. According to Arey (1999), the number of aggressive interactions associated with rank ghts fell steadily, and reached a stable level 1 week after grouping sows.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Group-Adapted ad Libitum Feeding vs. Conventional Restrictive Feeding: Impact on Health, Behavior, and Reproductive Performance of Group-Housed Pregnant Sows

Angermann

Wensch-Dorendorf

Frenking

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCommon feeding systems for pregnant group-housed sows meet the nutritional demand but do not sufficiently consider their natural feeding behavior. A new group-adapted ad libitum feeding system called “SWOF” (Hölscher + Leuschner GmbH & Co. KG®, Emsbüren, Germany) was developed to ensure that both optimal nutritional and behavioral needs are met. This feeding system comprises an activity and lying area and two areas with ad libitum liquid feeding on the basis of whole plant wheat silage. Passing through a sorting gate, sows could be given either a low- or high-energy diet according to their weight and parity. The study’s aim was to investigate the effects of this new system on sows’ body weight, health status (lameness), aggression parameters (integument injuries, vulva injuries, displacements at the trough), feed intake rhythm, and litter performance, and to compare these with restrictively fed group-housed sows, which is the common standard in Germany. ResultsIn the group-adapted ad libitum feeding system, significantly less risk for displacements at the trough and vulva injuries were observed, and sows followed their natural biphasic feed intake rhythm. This system also resulted in lower body weight and more integument injuries than the restrictively fed group-housed sows. However, these might be due to different management practices and group size between the two systems. No influence of the feeding system was observed, neither on lameness nor litter performance. ConclusionThe data reported here show the promising effects of the group-adapted ad libitum “SWOF” feeding system with regard to animal welfare, as sows can freely choose when and how much feed they want to consume without taking the risk of over conditioning. The “SWOF” feeding system remains to be further validated, also considering the group size and management practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Group-Adapted ad Libitum Feeding vs. Conventional Restrictive Feeding: Impact on Health, Behavior, and Reproductive Performance of Group-Housed Pregnant Sows

Angermann

Wensch-Dorendorf

Frenking

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Key factors to prevent aggression include a gradual familiarization of unfamiliar animals, sufficient space and pen structure during initial mixing (less aggression in rectangular pens than in squared pens), minimizing opportunities for dominant sows to steal food from subordinates, the provision of a good quality floor, environmental enrichment and the use of straw bedding [42, 43]. Stevens et al [44] found less aggression when mixing sows at day 35 of gestation compared to mixing them between day one and seven post-insemination.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of group housing of pregnant sows on health

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group housing of sows during gestation is mandatory in the EU since 2013. Compared to housing in individual crates, group housing allows the animals to express normal activity and behavior. The present paper discusses the impact of group housing on health, with emphasis on lameness, aggression and possible spread of infectious diseases. The prevalence of lameness is generally higher in sows housed in group than in sows housed individually. Floor space per sow, group size, pen design and flooring are the main factors of group housing involved in lameness development. Especially floor characteristics are important, and particular attention should be paid to the type, building material and quality of the floor, hygiene and the use of bedding such as straw or rubber mats. Aggression between sows is another critical issue in group housing systems. It occurs predominantly because of competition for access to a limited resource, or to establish a social hierarchy. Key factors to prevent aggression in group housing include gradual familiarization of unfamiliar animals, sufficient space and pen structure during initial mixing, minimizing opportunities for dominant sows to steal food from subordinates, provision of a good quality floor, environmental enrichment and use of straw bedding. Very scarce evidence-based information is available on the relationship between group housing and infectious disease. Compared to individual housing, sows in group housing have more nose-to-nose contact, and they have more oral contact with feces and urine. These factors could contribute to a higher or faster transmission of pathogens, but so far, there is no evidence showing more disease problems in group housing systems. In conclusion, in group housing systems, particular attention should be paid to prevention of lameness and aggression. Management is crucial but also feeding strategies, floor and bedding, and design of housing are very important as relatively minor adjustments may exert major effects on the animals.

show abstract

“…Many strategies to reduce aggression have been identified. Methods for growing pigs and sows were reviewed by Marchant-Forde and Marchant-Forde (2005), whilst other reviews focussed specifically on growing pigs (Petherick and Blackshaw, 1987) or sows (Arey and Edwards, 1998;Greenwood et al, 2014). Despite the amount of past and on-going research, aggression at mixing is largely undiminished in practice, which is partly evidenced by the on-going research efforts on this topic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The translation of animal welfare research into practice: The case of mixing aggression between pigs

Peden

Turner

Boyle

et al. 2018

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aggression between unfamiliar pigs at mixing is a major animal welfare problem in commercial farming. It has been studied since the 1970s and remains an important topic in animal welfare research. Methods to reduce pig aggression at mixing have been reviewed previously, but there has been little translation of the advocated techniques and building designs into practice. As a result, the problem persists on many commercial units. A similar situation exists for many other animal welfare issues. This article takes a new approach in not only reviewing the recent scientific literature, but also reviewing the evidence of uptake in industry. Firstly, the current state of aggression mitigation research is reviewed; including the most successful recent developments in breeding against aggression, early life socialisation, the use of pheromones and nutrition. Secondly, information is extracted from both peer reviewed and industry literature to establish the extent to which these strategies have been transferred from research to practice. Finally, we discuss why in spite of the amount of research on reducing aggression at mixing the problem has not reduced in intensive farming systems. The limited uptake in practice appears to be due to low prioritisation of the problem, the practicalities of implementation, lack of information on cost-effectiveness and ineffective communication of research to the farming community. To bridge this gap, industry must be involved in the design of practical solutions and the cost-effectiveness of these must be quantified. This approach should also be considered for other animal welfare issues under investigation. We recommend a better alignment between research questions and industry interests to increase the success of research efforts to improve animal welfare in practice.

show abstract

Hierarchy formation in newly mixed, group housed sows and management strategies aimed at reducing its impact

Cited by 50 publications

References 87 publications

Group-Adapted ad Libitum Feeding vs. Conventional Restrictive Feeding: Impact on Health, Behavior, and Reproductive Performance of Group-Housed Pregnant Sows

Group-Adapted ad Libitum Feeding vs. Conventional Restrictive Feeding: Impact on Health, Behavior, and Reproductive Performance of Group-Housed Pregnant Sows

Impact of group housing of pregnant sows on health

The translation of animal welfare research into practice: The case of mixing aggression between pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About