Comparison of injuries in sows housed in gestation stalls versus group pens with electronic sow feeders

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Volumn 223, Issue 9, 2003, Pages 1334-1338

  Anil, Leena ^a   Bhend, Kristy M G ^b   Baidoo, Samuel K ^a   Morrison, Rebecca ^a   Deen, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN RIVER FALLS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; ANIMAL HOUSING; ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRONICS; FEEDING; FEMALE; INJURY; INJURY SCALE; NONHUMAN; PARITY; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTOR; SWINE;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; BODY WEIGHT; FEMALE; HOUSING, ANIMAL; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SWINE;

ANIMALIA; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 0242331754     PISSN: 00031488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/javma.2003.223.1334     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Jensen KH, Pedersen BK, Pedersen LJ, et al. Well-being in pregnant sows: confinement versus group housing with electronic sow feeding. Acta Agric Scand 1995;45:266-275.
2. Marchant JN, Broom DM. Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestating sows. Anim Sci 1996;63:105-113.
3. Anil L, Anil SS, Deen J. Relationship between postural behaviour and gestation stall dimensions in relation to sow size. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002;77:173-181.
4. Anil L, Anil SS, Deen J. Evaluation of the relationship between injuries and size of gestation stalls relative to size of sows. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:834-836.
5. McGlone JJ. Alternative sow housing systems: driven by legislation, regulation, free trade and free market systems (not by science). Available at www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/pdf/bab13s03.pdf. Accessed Jun 16, 2003.
6. Clowes E. Florida votes to ban gestation sow stalls. Bacon Bits 2003;17:1.
7. Gonyou HW. Selection of a sow group housing system for Prairie Swine Centre at Elstow. Available at www.albertapork.com/producers/whjournal/winter02/article15.htm. Accessed Sep 25, 2002.
8. Broom DM, Mendl MT, Zanella AJ. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim Sci 1995;61:369-385.
9. Van Putten G, Van de Burgwal JA. Vulva bitings in group-housed sows: preliminary report. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1990;26:181-186.
10. Simmins PH. Reproductive performance of sows entering stable and dynamic groups after mating. Anim Prod 1993;57: 293-298.
11. Lambert RJ, Ellis M, Rowlinson P. An assessment of electronic feeding system and 'dynamic' grouping in loose-housed sows. Anim Prod 1986;42:468.
12. Arey DS. Time course for the formation and disruption of social organisation in group-housed sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1999; 62:199-207.
13. Hodgkiss NJ, Eddison JC, Brooks PH, et al. Assessment of the injuries sustained by pregnant sows housed in groups using electronic feeders. Vet Rec 1998;28:604-607.
14. Martin WS, Meek AH, Willeberg, In: Veterinary epidemiology principles and methods. 1st ed. Ames, Iowa: State University Press, 1987;26-27.
15. De Koning R. Injuries in confined sows. Incidence and relation with behaviour. Ann Rech Vet 1984;15:205-214.
16. Petherick, JC. A note on allometric relationships in large white x landrace pigs. Anim Prod 1983;36:497-500.
17. Durrell J, Sneddon IA, Beattie VE. Effects of enrichment and floor type on behaviour of cubicle loose-housed dry sows. Anim Welfare 1997;6:297-308.