Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:44:49.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability in feeding behaviour of group-housed sows using electronic feeders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. Eddison  and
N. E. Roberts
J. C. Eddison
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Food Studies, Seale-Hayne Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Land Use, University of Plymouth, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6NQ
N. E. Roberts
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Food Studies, Seale-Hayne Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Land Use, University of Plymouth, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6NQ
Get access

Abstract

The feeding patterns of sows using electronic feeders were monitored automatically (via a computer interface) over a period of 15 months. This paper reports on the variability in the size of the first meal of the day in relation to total daily food intake. The results demonstrated a pattern that bears some similarity to that observed by other workers, namely that sows tend to take all their daily food allocation in a single meal. In general, sows (79%) ate most of their daily allowance in a single visit to the feeders. However, on a significant minority of occasions (21%) this was not the case. The results also showed that there was a considerable number of sows (87% of the herd) that fed in a variable pattern, i.e. considerable variation in the proportion of their daily allowance taken in a single visit. This unpredictability was found throughout the sow herd. Some, but not all of this variability could be attributed to differences between parities (P < 0·001) and also there was some evidence that some sows, when newly introduced into the herd, were more variable in behaviour than more established sows. However, a large amount of variation remains unexplained. The need to provide flexible sow management to accommodate individual behaviour is discussed. Additionally, appropriate sampling periods of considerable duration are shown to be important in describing feeding patterns of group-housed sows.

Keywords

feeding behavioursows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 307 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Bengtsson, A.-C., Svendsen, J. and Andersson, M. 1984. Housing of sows in gestation: studies of behaviour in different types of group housing. Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology of farm animals (ed. Unshelm, J., Putten, G. v. and Zeeb, K.), pp. 214–216. KTBL, Darmstadt, Kiel.Google Scholar
Beynen, A. C., Katan, M. B., Zutphen, L. F. M. van 1987. Hypo-responder and hyper-responder: individual differences in the response of serum cholesterol concentration to changes in diet. Advances in Lipid Research 22: 115–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrell, E. von and Ladewig, J. 1987. The adrenal response to chronic stress is modified by individual differences in adrenal function of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 378 (abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressers, H. P. M., Te Brake, J. H. A., Engel, B. and Noordhuizen, J. P. T. M. 1993. Feeding order of sows at an individual electronic feed station in a dynamic group-housing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciszuk, P. and Lindberg, J. E. 1988. Responses in feed intake, digestibility and nitrogen retention in lactating dairy goats fed increasing amounts of urea and fish meal. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 38: 381–395.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R., Terlouw, E. M. C., Tazi, A., Koolhaas, J. M., Bohus, B., Koob, G. F. and Moal, M. le. 1988. The propensity for schedule-induced polydipsia related to differences in conditioned avoidance behaviour and in defense reactions in a defeat test. Physiology and Behaviour 43: 269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolf, C. 1986. Agonistic behaviour of dry sows in single stalls and group housing with special reference to the risk of resulting lesions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 193–194.Google Scholar
Eddison, J. C. 1992. Sows display individual preferences for electronic feeding stations. British Veterinary Journal 148: 157–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eddison, J. C. 1995. Animal welfare. In The agricultural notebook. 18th ed. (ed. Soffe, R. J.). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. In press.Google Scholar
Eddison, J. C. and Roberts, N. E. 1991. Investigations into the factors influencing the utilisation of computerised feeding systems by dry sows. In Applied animal behaviour: past, present and future (ed. Appleby, M. C., Horrell, R. I., Petherick, J. C. and Rutter, S. M.), pp. 84–85. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. 1985. Group housing for dry sows. Farm Building Progress 80: 19–22.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Armsby, A. W. and Large, J. W. 1984. An electronic individual feeding system for group-housed dry sows. Farm Building and Engineering 1: 25–26.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. and Riley, J. E. 1986. The application of the electronic identification and computerized feed dispensing system in dry sow housing. Pig News and Information 7: 295–298.Google Scholar
Garg, A., Helderman, J. H., Koffler, M., Ayuso, R., Rosenstock, J. and Raskin, P. 1988. Relationship between lipoprotein levels and in vivo insulin action in normal young white men. Metabolism 37: 982–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gravas, L. 1986. The behaviour of dry sows in groups with individual electronic feeding system. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals, Hungary. KTBL, Darmstadt.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
Hunter, E. J. 1989. The welfare of sows in computerised feeding systems. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Horsham.Google Scholar
Hunter, E. J., Broom, D. M., Edwards, S. A. and Sibly, R. M. 1988. Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Animal Production 47: 139–148.Google Scholar
Knowles, T. G., Eddison, J. C., Vranch, A. T. and Brooks, P. H. 1989. Sow behaviour in computerised feeding systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 85 (abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, R. J., Ellis, M. and Rowlinson, P. 1985. The effect of feeding frequency on levels of aggression and 24-h behaviour patterns of large groups of loose-housed dry sows. Animal Production 40: 546 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., Terlouw, E. M. C. and Illius, A. W. 1991. Individual differences in behavioural responses of pigs exposed to non-social and social challenges. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, D. M. 1989. Individual differences in temperament of dairy goats and the inhibition of milk ejection. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 269–282.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. M., Price, E. O. and Moberg, G. P. 1988. Individual differences in temperament of domestic dairy goats: constancy and change. Animal Behaviour 36: 1323–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, W. P., Rushen, J. and Passillé, A. M. de. 1991. Heart rate changes in loose and tethered sows around feeding. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs.Google Scholar