Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: Body condition, skin lesions, and performance

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 85, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1758-1769

  Salak Johnson, J L ^a   Niekamp, S R ^a   Rodriguez Zas, S L ^a   Ellis, M ^a   Curtis, S E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Body condition; Group; Lesion; Sow environment; Stall

Indexed keywords

SUIDAE;

ADIPOSE TISSUE; AGE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL HOUSING; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; BODY COMPOSITION; FEMALE; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; LITTER SIZE; MEAT; METABOLISM; NEWBORN; PARITY; PATHOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZATION; REPRODUCTION; SEX RATIO; SKIN; STANDARD; SWINE; WEIGHT GAIN;

ADIPOSE TISSUE; AGE FACTORS; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; ANIMALS, NEWBORN; BODY COMPOSITION; FEMALE; HOUSING, ANIMAL; LITTER SIZE; MEAT; PARITY; POPULATION DENSITY; PREGNANCY; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REPRODUCTION; SEX RATIO; SKIN; SWINE; WEIGHT GAIN;

EID: 34547317144     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2006-510     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anil, L., K. M. Bhend, S. K. Baidoo, R. Morrison, and J. Deen. 2003. Comparison of injuries in sows housed in gestation stalls vs. group pens with electronic sow feeders. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 223:1334-1338.
2. Barnett, J. L., P. H. Hemsworth, G. M. Cronin, E. C. Jongman, and G. D. Hutson. 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52:1-28.
3. Bates, R. O., D. B. Edwards, and R. L. Korthals. 2003. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 79:29-35.
4. Bracke, M. B., J. H. Metz, B. M. Spruijt, and W. G. Schouten. 2002b. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: Validation by expert opinion. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1835-1845.
5. Bracke, M. B., B. M. Sprujjt, J. H. Metz, and W. G. Schouten. 2002a. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: model structure and weighting procedure. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1819-1834.
6. Coffey, R. D., G. R. Parker, and K. M. Laurent. 1999. Assessing sow body condition. In Publ. ASC 158, University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Lexington, KY.
7. Curtis, S. E. 1985. What constitutes animal well-being? Pages 114 in Animal Stress. G. P. Moberg, ed. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD/Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
8. Curtis, S. E., R. J. Hurst, T. M. Widowski, R. D. Shanks, A. H. Jensen, H. W. Gonyou, D. P. Bane, A. J. Muehling, and R. P. Kesler. 1989. Effects of sow-crate design on health and performance of sows and piglets. J. Anim. Sci. 67:80-93.
9. Gjein, H., and R. B. Larssen. 1995. Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems-A field study. 1. Vulva and body lesions, culling reasons and production results. Acta Vet. Scand. 36:185-200.
10. Gonyou, H. W. 2001. The social behaviour of pigs. Pages 147-176 in Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. L. J. Keeling and H. W. Gonyou, ed. GABI Publ., Wallingford, UK.
11. Harris, M. J., E. A. Pajor, A. D. Sorrells, S. D. Eicher, B. T. Richert, and J. N. Marchant-Forde. 2006. Effects of stall or small group gestation housing on production, health and behavior of gilts. Livest. Sci. 102:171-179.
12. Johnson, R. W., S. E. Curtis, R. K. Balsbaugh, and I. A. Taylor. 1990. Sow behavior in a hinged free-pivoting sided gestation system. J. Anim. Sci. 68(Suppl. 1):263-264.
13. Karlen, G. A. M., P. H. Hemsworth, H. W. Gonyou, E. Fabrega, A. D. Strom, and R. J. Smits. 2006. The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls and large groups on deep litter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. doi:10.1016/j.applanim. 2006.0.014
14. Kongsted, A. G. 2005. A review of the effect of energy intake on pregnancy rate and litter size-discussed in relation to grouphoused non-lactating sows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 97:13-26.
15. Langendijk, P., N. M. Soede, and B. Kemp. 2000. Effects of boar contact and housing conditions on estrus expression in weaned sows. J. Anim. Sci. 78:871-878.
16. Marchant, J. N., and D. M. Broom. 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Anim. Sci. 62:105-113.
17. McFarlane, J. M., K. E. Bøe, and S. E. Curtis. 1988. Turning and walking by gilts in modified gestation crates. J. Anim. Sci. 66:326-333.
18. McGlone, J. J., and W. G. Pond. 2003. Pig Production: Biological Principles and Applications. Thomson Delmar Learning, Clifton Park, NY.
19. McGlone, J. J., B. Vines, A. C. Rudine, and P. DuBois. 2004b. The physical size of gestating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 82:2421-2427.
20. McGlone, J. J., E. H. von Borell, J. Deen, A. K. Johnson, D. G. Levis, M. Meunier-Salaun, J. Morrow, D. Reeves, J. L. Salak-Johnson, and P. L. Sunberg. 2004a. Review: Compilation of the scientific literature comparing housing systems for gestation sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance, and health. Prof. Anim. Sci. 20:105-117.
21. NRC. 1998. Nutritional Requirements of Swine. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
22. Peltoniemi, 0. A. T., R. J. Love, M. Heionen, V. Tuovinen, and H. Saloiemi. 1999. Seasonal and management effects on fertility of the sow: A descriptive study. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 55:47-61.
23. Tauson, R. K. 1995. Comparative evaluation and development of housing systems for laying hens. Pages 83-93 in Animal Behavior and the Design of Livestock and Poultry Systems. Northeast Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY.
24. Turner, S., M. Ewen, J. Rooke, and S. Edwards. 2000. The effect of space allowed on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes. Livest. Prod. Sci. 66:47-55.
25. Verstegen, M. W. A., and S. E. Curtis. 1988. Energetics of sows and gilts in gestation crates in the cold. J. Anim. Sci. 66:2865-2875.