Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:20:21.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of Spatial Behaviour of Pregnant Sows Housed in Pens With Various Feeding and Dung Disposal Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

N Walker  and
D J Kilpatrick
N Walker*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, County Down, BT26 6DR, UK
D J Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, County Down, BT26 6DR, UK Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Belfast, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Ninety-six pregnant sows, previously penned in individual stalls, were housed in groups of four in pens containing three zones: a) four individual feeding stalls without rear gates, b) a communal sleeping kennel and c) a dunging area between the stalls and kennel. The feeding stalls were either long (2m) or short (1m) with barriers made of wire mesh. The daily allowance of 2.5kg pelleted feed per sow was presented either all at once (dump) or at the rate of approximately 100g/min by a manual system (trickle). Dung disposal systems were either a pit füled with sawdust-based compost, a slatted floor, or straw on a sloped concrete floor. There were two replicates of the 2×2×3 factorial design. The location of sows was observed from time-lapse video recordings taken at regular intervals throughout the 31 day experimental period.

Use of the three zones of the pens was influenced by feeding method, barrier length and dung disposal system. Overall the feeding stalls were used more with trickle than with dump feeding (P<0.05); more with long than with short barriers (P<0.001), and most with slatted floors and least with the straw system (P<0.001). AU these treatments had the opposite effects on the use of the communal kennel The use of the dunging area was not affected by feeding method or stall length but was greater (P<0.01) on the compost compared with the other two dung disposal systems. Throughout the experimental period the use of feeding stalls decreased (P<0.001). Orcadian use of the pen zones interacted with barrier length and dung disposal system. Kennels were used most at night in pens with straw, exceeding 54minlh with half length (1m) stalls. The lowest night-time use of kennels, around 8min/h, was found in pens with full length (2m) stalls combined with either compost or slats. Ambient temperature did not have a major influence on use of pen zones.

The occupation of stalls, especially full length stalls, indicates that offering a choice between solitary and communal areas may improve the welfare of group-housed sows.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourpen designsows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , May 1994 , pp. 97 - 105
Copyright
© 1994 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Botermans, JAM and Andersson, M 1993 Pen function and thermal comfort in an uninsulated stable for growing-finishing pigs. In Collins, E and Boon, C (eds) Livestock Environment IV: Fourth International Symposium, University of Warwick England 6-9 July 1991 pp 851–858. American Society of Agricultural Engineers: MichiganGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F M R 1993 Development of an Ad Libitum Feeding Regime for Group-housed Dry Sows. PhD thesis, University of AberdeenGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J M 1990 Straw-flow: a high welfare system for pigs. Farm Building Progress No 102: 9–13Google Scholar
Close, W H and Cole, D J A 1986 Some aspects of the nutritional requirements of sows: their relevance in the development of a feeding strategy. Livestock Production Science 15: 3952Google Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1976 Towards an objective method of assessing welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S A 1992 Scientific perspectives on loose housing systems for dry sows. Pig Veterinary Journal 28: 40–51Google Scholar
Fraser, A F and Broom, D M 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Baillière Tindali: LondonGoogle Scholar
Graves, H B 1984 Behavior and ecology of wild and feral swine (Sus scrofa). Journal of Animal Science 58: 482–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, G D, Haskell, M J, Dickenson, L G and Slinger, D E 1993 Preferences of pregnant sows for wet and dry concrete floors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1988 Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in freeranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R M 1992 Trial highlights double edged sword of sawdust beds. Pig Farming July 1992: 48–50Google Scholar
Kay, R M and Smith, A T 1992 The performance of three consecutive groups of pigs finished on in situ composting sawdust beds. Animal Production 54: 484 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Kerr, SGC, Wood-Gush, DGM, Moser, H and Whittemore, C T 1988 Enrichment of the production environment and the enhancement of welfare through the use of the Edinburgh Family Pen System of Pig Production. Research and Development in Agriculture 5: 171–186Google Scholar
van Putten, G and van de Burgwal, J A 1990 Pig breeding in phases. In Electronic Identification in Pig Production. Proceedings of International Symposium 23-26 September 1990 pp 115–120. Royal Agricultural Society of England: StoneleighGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, A M B 1992 The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: a critical review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, J, Andersson, M, Olsson, A, Rantzer, D and Lundqvist, P 1992 Group housing systems for sows. 2: Group housing of sows in gestation in insulated and uninsulated buildings. Results of a questionnaire survey and farm visits. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 22: 163–170Google Scholar