The effect of management strategies and parity on the behaviour and physiology of gestating sows housed in an electronic sow feeding system

Canadian Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 88, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 559-567

  Strawford, M L ^a,b   Li, Y Z ^b   Gonyou, H W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^b PRAIRIE SWINE CENTRE INC   (Canada)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Electronic sow feeding system; Gestation; Sows

Indexed keywords

EID: 58949085860     PISSN: 00083984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4141/CJAS07114     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anil, L. 2004. Welfare indicators of sows housed in stalls at different stages of gestation. In 7th ISAE North American Regional Meeting. West Lafayette, Indiana. [Online] Available: http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/ herdmed/applied-ethology/isae/isaecanada/abstractsindiana04.htm#Anil.
2. Anil, L., Anil, S. S., Baidoo, S. K. and Deen, J. 2004. Injury levels in gestating sows housed in pens with electronic sow feeders. Page 701 in Proc. 18th Int. Pig vet. Soc. Cong. Volume 2. Hamburg, Germany.
3. Anil, L., Anil, S. S., Deen, J., Baidoo, S. K. and Walker, R. D. 2006. Effect of group size and structure on the welfare and performance of pregnant sows in pens with electronic sow feeders. Can. J. Vet. Res. 70: 128-136.
4. Arey, D. S. 1999. Time course for the formation and disruption of social organization in group-housed sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62: 199-207.
5. Barnett, J. L., Winfield, C. G., Cronin, G. M., Hemsworth, P. H. and Dewar A. M. 1985. The effect of individual and group housing on behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 14: 149-161.
6. Brouns, F. and Edwards, S. A. 1994. Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39: 225-235.
7. Burfoot, A., Kay, R. M. and Simmins, P. H. 1994. Level of skin damage in sows when mixed in groups in early pregnancy. Anim. Prod. 58: 438. (Abstr.).
8. Command Paper 2836. 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Systems. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, UK. 85 pp.
9. Cook, N. J., Schaefer, A. L., Lapage, P. and Jones, S. D. M. 1997. Radioimmunoassay for cortisol in pig saliva and serum. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45: 395-399.
10. deKoning, R. 1993. Sow welfare: Ekesbo assessment and planning. Pig Vet J. 30: 30-40.
11. Durrell, J., Sneddon, I. A., Beattie, V. E. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 2002. Sow behaviour and welfare in voluntary cubicle pens (small Static groups) and split-yard systems (large dynamic groups). Anim. Sci. 75: 67-74.
12. Edwards, S. A. 1998. Housing the breeding sow. In Practice 20: 339-343.
13. Hay, M., Mernier-Salaün, M. C., Bruland, F., Monnier, M. and Mormède, P. 2000. Assessment of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and sympathetic nervous system activity in pregnant sows through the measurement of gluccorticoids and catecholamines in urine. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 420-428.
14. Hemsworth, P. H., Stevens, B., Morrison, R., Karlen, G. M., Strom, A. D. and Gonyou, H. W. 2006. Behaviour and stress physiology of gestating sows in a combination of stall and group housing. Page 111 in Proc. 40th Int. Cong. ISAE, Bristol, UK.
15. Hodgkiss, N. J. and Eddison, J. C. 1995. Resting behaviour of group-housed sows. Pages 179-180 in Proc. 29th Int. Cong. ISAE. Exeter, UK.
16. 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. Vet. Rec. 143: 604-607.
17. Hoy, St. and Bauer, J. 2005. Dominance relationships between sows dependent on the time interval between separation and reunion. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 90: 21-30.
18. Hunter, E. J., Edwards, S. A. and Simmins, P. H. 1988. Social activity and feeder use by a 'dynamic' group of 40 sows using a sow-operated computerized feeder. Anim. Prod. 49: 643-644. (Abstr.).
19. Jensen, P. 1980. An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 6: 341-350.
20. Moore, A. S., Gonyou, H. W., Stookey, J. M. and McLaren D. G. 1994. Effect of group composition and pen size on behavior, productivity and immune response of growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 40: 13-30.
21. Mount, N. C. and Seabrook, M. F. 1993. A study of aggression when group housed sows are mixed. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 36: 377-383.
22. O'Connell, N. E., Beattie, V. E. and Moss, B. W. 2003. Influence of social status on the welfare of sows in static and dynamic groups. Anim. Welfare. 12: 239-249.
23. Olfert, E. D., Cross, B. M. and McWilliam, A. A. 1993. Guide to the care and use of experimental animals. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, ON.
24. Olsson, A. and Samuelsson, O. V. 1993. Group studies of lactating and newly weaned sows. Pages 475-482 in Livestock environments IV. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
25. Otten, W., Puppe, B., Stabenow, B., Kanitz, E., Schön, P. C., Brussow, K. P. and Nürnberg, G. 1997. Agonistic interactions and physiological reactions of top- and bottom-ranking pigs confronted with a familiar and an unfamiliar group: Preliminary results. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55: 79-90.
26. Parrott, R. F. and Mission, B. H. 1989. Changes in pig salivary cortisol in response to transport simulation, food and water deprivation and mixing. Br. Vet. J. 145: 501-505.
27. Puppe, B. 1998. Effects of familiarity and relatedness on agonistic pair relationships in newly mixed domestic pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 58: 223-239.
28. Sow Housing Task Force, 2005. A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 227: 1580-1590.
29. Spoolder, H. A. M., Burbidge, J. A., Edwards, S. A., Lawrence, A. B. and Simmins, P. H. 1996. Social recognition in gilts mixed into a dynamic group of 30 sows. Anim. Sci. 62: 630. (Abstr.).
30. 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. Anim. Sci. 65: 473-482.
31. Stookey, J. M. and Gonyou, H. W. 1998. Recognition in swine: Recognition through familiarity or genetic relatedness? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55: 291-305.
32. Webster, A. J. F. 1993. The challenge of animal welfare. In Proc. World Conf. Anim. Prod. 1993: pp. 513-524.