Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:46:37.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Daily food intakes and feeding strategies of sows given food ad libitum and allocated to two different space allowances in a communal farrowing system over parturition and during lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. Burke ,
P. H. Brooks ,
J. A. Kirk  and
J. C. Eddison
P. H. Brooks
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth, Seale-Hayne Faculty, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6QN, UK
J. A. Kirk
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth, Seale-Hayne Faculty, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6QN, UK
J. C. Eddison
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth, Seale-Hayne Faculty, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6QN, UK
Get access

Abstract

A total of 16 multiparous (range 2nd to 9th parity) Camborough sows were housed over parturition and during lactation in a group farrowing system. Two replicates of four sows were studied in the large pen (L) and two further replicates studied in the small pen (S) configuration, providing 13•4 m2 and 8•6 m2 per sow, respectively. A lactation diet providing 14 MJ/kg digestible energy (DE) and 180 g/kg crude protein was supplied ad libitum via a sow-operated feeder, adapted to facilitate the calculation of individual food intakes. The influence of environmental, physical, and production factors upon food intakes and feeding strategies was investigated. Daily food intakes of 7•69 (s.e. 0•31) kg and 7•72 (s.e. 0•35) kg were achieved during lactation by sows in the L and S pen configurations, respectively, accomplished by sows taking a series of small meals throughout the day. Sows in the S pen area made fewer visits to the feeder and spent less time per day feeding than sows in the L pen area. However, more food was consumed per visit by the S sows, resulting in similar daily food intakes in both treatment groups. There was a depression in lactation food intakes of sows housed at a mean daily ambient temperature of 17•5ºC compared with the other sow groups. The majority of sows consumed energy well in excess of their predicted requirements during lactation, whilst one sow in the L and two in the S pen areas had intakes within ±3•4 MJ DE of predictions. Only two of the L sows had food intakes that produced an energy deficit. In the L pen area, two distinct peaks of feeding activity occurred from 09:00 to 13:00 h and from 15:00 to 23:00 h that accounted for 0•77 of the total feeding time. In contrast, in the S pen configuration, one prolonged period of feeding occurred from 09:00 to 22:00 h accounting for 0•88 of total feeding time. The results show that S sows adapted their feeding patterns to maintain similar daily intakes to those of L sows, thus demonstrating that an ad libitum food supply enabled sows to obtain individual nutritional requirements in a communal farrowing system.

Keywords

farrowingfeeding strategyfood intakelactationsows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 2000 , pp. 547 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baxter, M. 1985. Social space requirements of pigs. In Social space for domestic animals (ed. Zayan, R.), pp. 116—127. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Mullan, B. P., Lorschy, M. L. and Giles, L. R. 1993. Lactation in the sow during heat stress. Livestock Production Science 35: 153—170.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K., Blackshaw, A. W., Thomas, F. J. and Newman, F. W. 1994. Comparison of behaviour patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 281—295.Google Scholar
Bøe, K. 1993. Maternal behaviour of lactating sows in a loose-housing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 327—338.Google Scholar
Cabrera, J., Schmidt-Koenig, K. and Watson, G. S. 1991. The statistical analysis of circular data. In Human understanding and animal awareness (ed. Bateson, P. P. G. and Klopfer, P. H.), pp. 285—306. Plenum Press, London.Google Scholar
Dourmad, J. Y. 1993. Standing and feeding behaviour of the lactating sow: effect of feeding level during pregnancy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 311—319.Google Scholar
Eastham, P. R., Smith, W. C., Whittemore, C. T. and Phillips, P. 1988. Responses of lactating sows to food level. Animal Production 46: 71—77.Google Scholar
Eddison, J. C. and Roberts, N. E. 1995. Variability in feeding behaviour of group housed sows using electronic feeders. Animal Science 60: 307—314.Google Scholar
Farmer, C., Robert, S. and Choinière, Y. 1997. Reducing ambient temperature in farrowing houses with a new controlled-environment system. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78: 23—28.Google Scholar
Friend, D. W. 1969. Self-selection of feeds and water by swine during pregnancy and lactation. Journal of Animal Science 32: 658—666.Google Scholar
Genest, M. and D’Allaire, S. 1995. Feeding strategies during the lactation period for first parity sows. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Science 75: 461—467.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. 1997. Controlled reproduction in pigs. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de and Merks, J. W. M. 1992. Patterns of daily food intake in growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 95—104.Google Scholar
Handley, G. 1995. The voluntary food intake of lactating sows in five commercial herds. In Proceedings of the fifth biennial conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association (ed. Hennessy, D. P. and Cranwell, P. D.), p. 127 Canberra, ACT. APSA, Werribee.Google Scholar
Hartog, L. A. den, Backus, G. B. C. and Vermeer, H. M. 1993. Evaluation of housing systems for sows. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1339—1344.Google Scholar
Hocking, R. R. 1976. A biometrics invited paper: the analysis and selection of variables in linear regression. Biometrics 32: 1—49.Google Scholar
Houwers, H. W. J., Buré, R. G. and Koomans, P. 1992. Behaviour of sows in a free-access farrowing section. Farm Building Progress 109: (July), 9—11.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. , Algers, B. and Ekesbo, I. 1986. Methods of sampling and analysis of data in farm animal ethology. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. F. and Collier, G. 1994. Meal patterns of rats encountering variable food procurement cost. Animal Behaviour 47: 1279—1287.Google Scholar
Keeling, L. J. 1994. Inter-bird distances and behavioural priorities in laying hens: the effect of spatial restriction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 131—140.Google Scholar
Koketsu, Y., Dial, G. D., Pettigrew, J. E. and King, V. L. 1996a. Feed intake pattern during lactation and subsequent reproductive performance of sows. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2875—2884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koketsu, Y., Dial, G. D., Pettigrew, J. E., Marsh, W. E. and King, V. L. 1996b. Characterisation of feed intake patterns during lactation in commercial swine herds. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1202—1210.Google Scholar
Lynch, P. B. 1977. Effect of environmental temperature on lactating sows and their litters. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 123—130.Google Scholar
Lynch, P. B. 1989. Voluntary food intake of sows and gilts. In The voluntary food intake of pigs (ed. Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 13, pp. 71—77.Google Scholar
Makkink, C. A. and Schrama, J. W. 1998. Thermal requirements of the lactating sow. In The lactating sow (ed. Verstegen, M. W. A., Moughan, P. J. and Schrama, J. W.), pp. 271—283. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Martin, J. E. and Edwards, S. A. 1994. Feeding behaviour of outdoor sows: the effects of diet quantity and type. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 63—74.Google Scholar
Martin, P. and Bateson, P. 1994. Measuring behaviour, second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Montgomery, G. W., Flux, D. S. and Carr, J. R. 1978. The feeding patterns in pigs: the effects of amino acid deficiency. Physiology and Behavior 20: 693—698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, B. P. , Close, W. H. and Cole, D. J. A. 1990. Predicting nutrient responses of the lactating sow. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D.J. A.), pp. 332—346. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1987. Swine. In Predicting feed intake of food producing animals, pp. 25—41. National Academy Press, London.Google Scholar
Neil, M. 1996. Ad libitum lactation feeding of sows introduced immediately before, at, or after farrowing. Animal Science 63: 497—505.Google Scholar
Neil, M., Ogle, B. and Annér, K. 1996. A two-diet system and ad libitum lactation feeding of the sow. 1. Sow performance. Animal Science 62: 337—347.Google Scholar
Newberry, R. C. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1984. The suckling behaviour of domestic pigs in a semi-natural environment. Behaviour 95: 11—25.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L. 1995. Feeding behaviour of growing pigs: effects of the social and physical environment. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Shi, X. S. and Dubois, S. 1993. Energy cost of standing activity in sows. Livestock Production Science 34: 127—136.Google Scholar
Passillé, A. M.de and Rushen, J. 1989. Using early suckling behaviour and weight gain to identify piglets at risk. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 535—544.Google Scholar
Petersen, H. V., Vestergaard, K. and Jensen, P. 1989. Integration of piglets into social groups of free ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 223—236.Google Scholar
Prunier, A., Dourmad, J. Y. and Etienne, M. 1993. Feeding level, metabolic parameters and reproductive performance of primiparous sows. Livestock Production Science 37: 185—196.Google Scholar
Rudd, A. R. and Simmins, P. H. 1994. Consequences of diet fed ad libitum to the farrowing and lactating crated sow. Animal Production 58: 465 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Schouten, W. G. P. 1986. Rearing conditions and behaviour of pigs. Ph.D. thesis, Landbouwhogeschool te Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. and Nicol, C. J. 1995. Changes in meal patterning by mice measure the cost imposed by natural obstacles. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 291—300.Google Scholar
Spitz, F. 1986. Current state of knowledge of wild boar biology. Pig News and Information 7: 171—175.Google Scholar
Stahly, T. S., Cromwell, G. L. and Simpson, W. S. 1979. Effects of full vs restricted feeding of the sow immediately postpartum on lacation performance. Journal of Animal Science 49: 50—54.Google Scholar
Teilland, P. 1986. Strategies alimentaires et statu social chez le sanglier en capivité. Behavioural Processes 12: 327—347.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. 1993. The science and practice of pig production. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex.Google Scholar
Yang, H., Eastham, P. R., Phillips, P. and Whittemore, C. T. 1989. Reproductive performance, body weight and body condition of breeding sows with differing body fatness at parturition, differing nutrition during lactation and differing litter size. Animal Production 48: 181—201.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis, third edition. Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar