Comparison of management options for sows kept in pens with electronic feeding stations

Canadian Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 445-452

  Li, Y Z ^a   Gonyou, H W ^a  

^a PRAIRIE SWINE CENTRE INC   (Canada)

Author keywords

Dynamic; Electronic sow feeder; Implantation; Sow; Static

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888247346     PISSN: 00083984     EISSN: 19181825     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4141/CJAS2013-044     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1993. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals: Pigs. AAFC, Ottawa, ON. Publ. 1898/E. 55 pp.
2. 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.
3. Arey, D. S. and Edwards, S. A. 1998. Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 56: 61-70.
4. Brambell Report. 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, UK. 85 pp.
5. Broom, D. M., Mendl, M. T. and Zanella, A. J. 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim. Sci. 61: 396-385.
6. Coffey, R. D., Parker, G. R. and Laurent, K. M. 1999. Assessing sow body condition. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. ASC-158.
7. Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
8. th IPVS Congress. Durban, South Africa.
9. Hemsworth, P. H., Stevens, B., Morrison, R., Karlen, G. M., Strom, A. D. and Gonyou, H. W. 2006. Behavior and stress physiology of gestating sows in a combination of stall and group housing. Proc. 40th Int. Cong. ISAE, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 111 pp.
10. 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.
11. Jensen, K. H., Pedersen, B. K., Pedersen, L. J. and Jorgensen, E. 1995. Well-being in pregnant sows: confinement versus group housing with electronic sow feeding. Acta. Agric. Scand. Section A: Anim. Sci. 45: 266-275.
12. Kemp, B. and Soede, N. M. 2012. Reproductive issues in welfare-friendly housing systems in pig industry: A review. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 47: 51-57.
13. Kirwood, R. and Zanella, A. 2005. Influence of gestation housing on sow welfare and productivity. National Pork Board Final Report, Des Moines, IA.
14. Krauss, V. and Hoy, S. 2011. Dry sows in dynamic groups: An investigation of social behaviour when introducing new sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 130: 20-27.
15. Li, Y. Z. and Gonyou, H. W. 2007. Effects of stall width and sow size on behavior of gestating sows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 87: 129-138.
16. Li, Y. Z., Baidoo, S. K., Johnston, L. J. and Anderson, J. E. 2011. Effects of tryptophan supplementation on aggression among group-housed gestating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 89: 1899-1907.
17. Marchant, J. N. and Broom, D. M. 1996. Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestating sows. Anim. Sci. 63: 477-485.
18. Marchant-Forde, J. N. and Marchant-Forde, R. M. 2005. Minimizing inter-pig aggression during mixing. Pig News Info. 26: 63-71.
19. Mendl, M. T., Broom, D. M. and Zanell, A. J. 1993. The effects of three types of dry sow housing on sow welfare. Livestock Environment IV. ASAE, 461-467. Am. Soc. Agric. Engin., St. Joseph, MI.
20. Moore, A. S., Gonyou, H. W. and Ghent, A. W. 1993. Integration of newly introduced and resident sows following regrouping. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 38: 257-267.
21. 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. Welf. 12: 239-249.
22. O'Connell, N. E., Beattie, V. E. and Moss, B. W. 2004. Influence of replacement rate on the welfare of sows introduced to a large dynamic group. Appl. Anim. Behav Sci. 85: 43-56.
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. C. and Svendsen, J. 1997. The importance of familiarity when grouping gilts, and the effect of frequent grouping during gestation. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 27: 33-43.
25. Olsson, A. C., Andersson, M., Botermans, J., Rantzer, D. and Svendsen, J. 2011. Animal interaction and response to electronic sow feeding (ESF) in 3 different herds and effects of function settings to increase capacity. Livest. Sci. 137: 268-272.
26. Simmins, P. H. 1993. Reproductive performance of sows entering stable and dynamic groups after mating. Anim. Prod. 57: 293-298.
27. 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 behavior of sows in a dynamic grouphousing system with electronic feeding. Anim. Sci. 65: 473-482.
28. Spoolder, H. A. M., Geudeke, M. J., Van Der Peet-Schwering, C. M. C. and Soede, N. M. 2009. Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: A review of success and risk factors. Livest. Sci. 125: 1-14.
29. Turner, S. P., Farnworth, M. J., White, I. M. S., Mendl, M., Knap, P., Penny, P. and Lawrence, A. B. 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav Sci. 96: 245-259.
30. Zurbrigg, K. and Blackwell, T. 2006. Injuries, lameness, and cleanliness of sows in four group-housing gestation facilities in Ontario, J. Swine Health Prod. 14: 202-206.