Influence of electronically controlled individual
feeding on behaviour and reproductive performance
of pregnant sows

Nowachowicz, J.; Michalska, G.; Kapelański, W.; Kapelańska, J.

doi:10.22358/jafs/68806/1999

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the modern systems for management of dry sows is combination which comprises group housing and individual feeding. Such a system permits maintai-46 BEHAVIOUR AND REPRODUCTION OF SOWS ning satisfactory sow well-being, undisturbed feed consumption and enables sow rations to be individually programmed (Lambert et al, 1985;Brooks and Eddison, 1994;Nowachowicz et al, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of electronically controlled individual feeding on behaviour and reproductive performance of pregnant sows

Nowachowicz¹,

Michalska²,

Kapelański³

et al. 1999

J. Anim. Feed Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behaviour of 31 to 43 pregnant sows housed in one pen was observed during 5 diurnal periods (the number of sows depending on the timing of parturition). On the basis of these behavioural observations the sows were distributed into 5 social ranks: dominants, subdominants, subordinated, selfpossessed and marginals. The reproductive traits studied were: number of live-born piglets, number of piglets alive at 21 days, and litter weight at 21 days. Reproductive performance evaluated in this way did not show any distinct differences according to the social ranks of sows. The average number of piglets born alive varied from 10.8 in selfpossessed to 12.7 in the two extreme ranks: dominants and marginals. The number of piglets alive at 21 days varied from 10.5 in self-possessed to 12.3 in marginals. Litter weight at 21 days varied from 58.0 kg in subdominants to 59.7 kg in marginals. It is suggested that the electronic feeding system is advantageous for the housing of pregnant sows. This feeding system enables maintenance of pregnant sows in one group and permits undisturbed and individual feed consumption irrespective of sows social rank.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of electronically controlled individual feeding on behaviour and reproductive performance of pregnant sows

Nowachowicz¹,

Michalska²,

Kapelański³

et al. 1999

J. Anim. Feed Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Group gestation sow housing with individual feeding—II: How space allowance, group size and composition, and flooring affect sow welfare

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social rank of pregnant sows affects their body weight gain and behavior and performance of the offspring1,2

Kranendonk

Mheen

Fillerup

et al. 2007

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies on group housing of pregnant sows have mainly focused on reproduction, but we hypothesized that the social rank of pregnant sows housed in groups could also affect birth weight, growth, and behavior of their offspring. Therefore, in the present study, pregnant gilts and sows were housed in 15 different groups (n = 7 to 14 animals per group) from 4 d after AI until 1 wk before the expected farrowing date. All groups were fed by an electronically controlled sow feeding system that registered, on a 24-h basis, the time of first visit, number of feeding and non-feeding visits, and number of times succeeding another sow within 2 s. Only in the first 6 groups (n = 57 animals), agonistic interactions were observed continuously. The percentage of agonistic interactions won was highly correlated (r(s) = 0.90, P < 0.001) with the percentage of displacement success (DS) at the feeding station, which was calculated as: [the number of times succeeding another sow within 2 s/(the number of times succeeded by another sow within 2 s + the number of times succeeding another sow within 2 s)] x 100. This allowed us to classify all sows (n = 166) according to their DS: high-social ranking (HSR) sows had a DS >50% (n = 62) and low-social ranking (LSR) sows a DS <50% (n = 104). Body weights before AI did not differ between HSR and LSR sows, but HSR sows gained more BW during gestation, and lost more BW and back-fat during lactation (P < 0.001). Maternal salivary cortisol concentrations at 2, 7, and 13 wk after AI did not differ between HSR and LSR sows, nor did gestation length, litter size, or percentage of live born piglets. During a novel object (NO) test at 3 wk of age, HSR offspring moved and vocalized more than LSR offspring (P < 0.05). In addition, the latency time to touch the NO was shorter in HSR offspring (P < 0.05), and HSR males spent more time near the NO than LSR males (P < 0.01). At weaning, HSR offspring weighed more than LSR offspring (P < 0.05), and at slaughter HSR offspring had more lean meat than LSR offspring (P < 0.05). Results indicate that the social rank of the sow during gestation affects her own BW gain and loss as well as the growth and behavior of her offspring. Pig breeders that apply group housing for pregnant sows should pay attention to reducing competition around the feeding area, which may reduce aggression among the sows and minimize differences between HSR and LSR sows.

show abstract

Influence of electronically controlled individual feeding on behaviour and reproductive performance of pregnant sows

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Influence of electronically controlled individual feeding on behaviour and reproductive performance of pregnant sows

Influence of electronically controlled individual feeding on behaviour and reproductive performance of pregnant sows

Group gestation sow housing with individual feeding—II: How space allowance, group size and composition, and flooring affect sow welfare

Social rank of pregnant sows affects their body weight gain and behavior and performance of the offspring1,2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About