Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:05:14.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Management factors affecting activity and aggression in dynamic group housing systems with electronic sow feeding: a field trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

K. H. Jensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark
L. S. Sørensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark
D. Bertelsen
Affiliation:
National Committee for Pig Breeding, Health and Production, Denmark
A. R. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark
E. Jørgensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark
N. P. Nielsen
Affiliation:
National Committee for Pig Breeding, Health and Production, Denmark
K. S. Vestergaard
Affiliation:
Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

A series of 24-h video studies on four commercial Danish pig herds investigated the behaviour of pregnant sows kept in dynamic groups (72 to 200 sows) with electronic sow feeding (ESF). The herds mainly differed with respect to provision of a layer of unchopped straw as bedding material, the frequency of introduction/removal of animals, space allowance in the lying area, group size and number of feeding stations, and starting times for the feeding cycle. All herds had one feeding cycle per 24 h. Six 24-h video recordings in the most settled period with respect to rank relationships (2 to 12 days after the last introduction) were collected from each herd and analysed according to activity and aggressive interactions. In two of the four herds recordings were collected in two separate periods with different starting times for the feeding cycle. In all herds peaks of activity in the morning and in the afternoon were evident. Furthermore, the diurnal variation was overlaid by an increase in activity at the start of the feeding cycle. The activity and aggression in the feeding area as well as the duration per sow of the period with high feeder occupation were lowest in herds where a layer of straw bedding was provided. Changing feeding start from day time to night time was accompanied by a reduced feeder occupation in the period following start of the feeding cycle. However, in herd 1 (characterized by no litter, high stocking density and high frequency of grouping) the level of aggression was reduced, whereas it was increased in herd 2 (characterized by straw in lying area, low stocking density, low frequency of regrouping). Number of regroupings and space allowance apparently had no obvious effects on the average frequency of aggression or the aggression per sow at risk in periods between introduction of new animals, but space allowance may have improved social function by weakening the association between activity and aggression. Due to the small number of herds included the present results were descriptive rather than conclusive. However, the study supports the suggestions that provision of unchopped straw as bedding material and starting the feeding cycle in the evening for overnight feeding may improve behaviour in dynamic group housing systems with ESF. However, the benefits of starting the feeding cycle in the evening may depend on low disturbance in daytime from other management procedures.

Type
Research Article
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

Bokma, Sj. 1990. Housing and management of dry sows in groups in practice: partly slatted systems. In Electronic identification in pig production. Proceedings of an international symposium, RASE, Stoneleigh, pp. 3745.Google Scholar
Buré, R. G. 1991. The influence on vulva biting of supplying additional roughage in an electronic sow feeder. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Berlin, PM2•9, (abstr.).Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Armsby, A. W. and Large, J. W. 1984. Behaviour of group-housed sows using an electronic individual feeding system. Proceedings of the international congress of applied ethology in farm animals, Kiel (ed. J. Unshelm, , Putten, G. van and Zeeb, K.), pp. 232235.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Simmins, P. H., Walker, A. J. and Beckett, M. P. 1986. Behaviour of 400 sows in a single group with electronic individual feeding. Proceedings of the international symposium on applied ethology in farm animals, Hungary, pp. 6973.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1975. The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 5968.Google Scholar
Gjein, H. and Larssen, R. B. 1995. Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems — a field study. 1. Vulva and body lesions, culling reasons and production results. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 36: 185200.Google Scholar
Hagelsø Giersing, M. and Studnitz, M. 1996. Characterisation and investigation of aggressive behaviour in the pig. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A 27: (suppl.) 5660.Google Scholar
Heege, H. J. and Baey-Ernsten, H. de. 1991. Servicestationen für Sauen. Gruppenhaltung von Sauen mit Abruffütterung — Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Landtechnik 46: 169171.Google Scholar
Hodgkiss, N. J., Eddison, J. C., Brooks, P. H. and Bugg, P. 1998. Assessment of the injuries sustained by pregnant sows housed in groups using electronic feeders. Veterinary Record 143: 604607.Google Scholar
Hunter, E. J. and Smith, A. T. 1991. Group housing for dry sows with electronic sow feeders. Farm Building Progress 105: 79.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1980. An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 341350.Google Scholar
Krause, M., Klooster, C. E. van’T., Buré, R. G., Metz, J. H. M. and Sambraus, H. H. 1997. The influence of sequential and simultaneous feeding and the availability of straw on the behaviour of gilts in group housing. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 45: 3348.Google Scholar
Lambert, R. J., Ellis, M. and Rowlinson, L. P. 1986. An alternative sow housing/feeding system for dry sows based upon a sow activated electronic feeder. Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Budapest, p. 589, (abstr.).Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., Appleby, M. C. and Macleod, H. A. 1988. Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47: 131137.Google Scholar
Moore, A. S., Gonyou, H. W. and Ghent, A. W. 1993. Integration of newly introduced and resident sows following grouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 257267.Google Scholar
Olsson, A. -C., Andersson, M., Rantzer, D., Svendsen, J. and Hellström, T. 1986. Group housing of sows in gestation: comparison of a computer-controlled individual feeding system with a group feeding system based on biological fixation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Farm Buildings, Division of Planning and Environment, Lund, vol. 51.Google Scholar
Pig Welfare Advisory Group. 1997. Electronic sow feeders (ESF). Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publication no. 9. MAFF Publications, London.Google Scholar
Putten, G. van and Buré, R. G. 1997. Preparing gilts for group housing by increasing their social skills. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 173183.Google Scholar
Putten, G. van and Burgwal, J. A. van de. 1990. Vulva biting in group-housed sows: preliminary report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 181186.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Müller, K., Stamer, S. and Ernst, E. 1997. Verhalten und Schäden tragender Sauen in Gruppenhaltung mit Abruffütterung (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Einsatzes von Stroh). KTBL-Schrift 373: 93103.Google Scholar
Spoolder, H. A. M., Burbidge, J. A., Edwards, S. A., Simmins, P. H. and Lawrence, A. B. 1995. Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 249262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, H. A. M., Burbidge, J. A., Edwards, S. A., Lawrence, A. B. and Simmins, P. H. 1997. Effects of food level on performance and behaviour of sows in a dynamic group-housing system with electronic feeding. Animal Science 65: 473482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT user guide, release 6•03 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Vermeer, H. M., Hartog, L. A. den and Backus, G. B. C. 1991. Evaluation of different housing systems for sows. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Berlin, PM2•5 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Vestergaard, E. -M., Jensen, K. H. and Vestergaard, K. S. 2000. Dietary fibre for pregnant sows: effects of large amounts of soluble and insoluble fibre on behaviour and profile of nutrient uptake in connection with the afternoon meal. Physiology and Behavior. In press.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K. S. and Hansen, L. L. 1984. Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity. I. Ethological observation during pregnancy and farrowing. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 245256.Google Scholar
Weber, R., Friedli, K., Troxler, J. and Winterling, Ch. 1993. The influence of computerized individual feeding system on the behaviour of sows. In Livestock environment IV. Proceedings of the fourth international symposium in Coventry, UK, pp. 495502.Google Scholar
Whittaker, X., Spoolder, H. A. M., Edwards, S. A., Corning, S. and Lawrence, A. B. 1997. The foraging behaviour of ad libitum compared with restricted fed sows housed in dynamic groups. Proceedings of the 31st international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Prague, 1316 August, p. 243 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Whittaker, X., Edwards, S. A., Spoolder, H. A. M., Lawrence, A. B. and Corning, S. 1999. Effects of straw bedding and high fibre diets on the behaviour of floor fed group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 2539.Google Scholar