Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls

doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00119-7

Livestock Production Science

Volume 79, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 29-35

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00119-7 Get rights and content

Abstract

Lactation and reproductive performance of sows housed in groups with electronic sow feeding in gestation (ESF-G) and lactation (ESF-L) were compared to those housed individually in stalls in gestation (SG) and lactation (SL) in a commercial production system. No interaction between gestation and lactation housing was observed. Sows housed in ESF-G had a higher farrow rate than those housed in SG (94.3 vs. 89.4%; respectively). In addition, sows housed in ESF-G had subsequently higher litter birth weight (17.7 vs. 16.7 kg, respectively) and higher litter wean weight (57.1 vs. 56.2 kg, respectively) than those housed in SG. Gestation housing system did not influence the number born alive or weaned. Number weaned had a parity by lactation housing interaction. Parity 1, 3 and 5 sows housed in ESF-L weaned fewer piglets than sows housed in SL. In addition, SL sows had litter wean weights 2.9 kg heavier than sows in ESF-L. Gestating sows housed in groups with electronic sow feeding had either similar or improved performance compared to sows gestated in stalls. However, lactating sows had poorer litter weaning performance when housed in groups with electronic sow feeding compared to those housed individually in stalls.

Introduction

Most research that has evaluated the performance of sows housed in groups and individual stalls has compared animals housed and fed in groups to sows individually housed and fed. Electronic sow feeding (ESF) technology provides for individual feeding for group housed animals.

Several reports have evaluated the behavior and feeding patterns of sows housed in groups with ESF (Eddison and Roberts, 1995, Edwards, 1998, Spoolder et al., 1997). Others have reported behavior assessments of sows in stalls with various group housing systems (Broom et al., 1995, Jensen et al., 1995). However, few reports are available that compared performance of gestating and lactating sows housed in groups with ESF, to sows housed in individual stalls. Farm surveys that compared gestating sows housed in groups, including sows fed with ESF, to sows housed in stalls have reported mixed sow performance (MLC, 1994, Barbari, 2000). The objective of this study was to compare performance of sows housed in groups with ESF to sows housed in individual stalls in both gestation and lactation within a single commercial system.

Section snippets

Facilities

This study was conducted at the Osborne Industries, Demonstration Farm, Osborne, KS, USA. The farm is a one-site farrow to finish facility. The farm was designed to maintain 300 females and to farrow 12 per week. The gestation facilities consisted of two rooms. One room had concrete slatted floors and contained four rows of individual stalls (SG) with 32 stalls per row. Stalls had 1.2 m² of floor space. A trough was located in front of each row of stalls. Sows were individually fed once daily,

Results

Percentage return to estrus, return to estrus within 7 days after weaning and percent farrowed are reported in Table 2.

There were no significant treatment interactions for these response variables. All treatment comparisons were within either gestation or lactation housing treatment.

Gestation housing did impact return to estrus measures and farrow rate (Table 2). A greater percentage of sows housed in ESF-G remained pregnant after initial service and farrowed a litter as compared to SG females

Discussion

Gestation housing did favorably improve return to estrus within 7 days and farrow rate (Table 2). This conflicts with studies from the Netherlands (Backus et al., 1997) and Italy (Barbari, 2000), in which sows were housed in either stalls or group housing. Backus et al., 1997 reported that sows housed in stalls took fewer days to return estrus after weaning than group housed sows with electronic sow feeders (6.6 vs. 7.3 days, respectively). In an Italian survey of farms using stalls or

Conclusion

Gestating, group housed sows fed using ESF did have improved return to estrus and farrow rate performance compared to sows housed individually in stalls. In addition, group housed sows fed with ESF had higher litter birth weights and litter wean weights than those housed and fed in stalls. No difference was observed in the number born alive or weaned between either gestation housing treatment.

Litter size at weaning and litter wean weight was lower for sows which lactated in groups with ESF

References (19)

J.K. Blackshaw et al.
Comparison of behaviour patterns of sows and litters in a farrowing crate and a farrowing pen
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1994)
K. Boe
Maternal behaviour of lactating sows in a loose-housing system
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1993)
G.M. Cronin et al.
The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behavior and piglet survival and growth in early lactation
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1996)
A.B. Lawrence et al.
The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows
Appl. Anim. Behav.Sci.
(1994)
J.J. McGlone et al.
An examination of behavioral, immunological and production traits in four management systems for sows and piglets
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1987)
G.B.C. Backus et al.
Comparative study of four housing systems for nonlactating sows
M. Barbari
Analysis of reproductive performances of sows in relation to housing systems
R.M. Blair et al.
Electronic animal detection for controlling feed delivery and detecting estrus in gilts and sows in outside pens
J. Anim. Sci.
(1994)
D.M. Broom et al.
A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions
Anim. Sci.
(1995)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (65)

Effects of individual versus group housing system during the weaning-to-estrus interval on reproductive performance of sows
2021, Animal
Citation Excerpt :
Several studies and research groups suggested an overall improvement in reproductive parameters of sows weaned to individual crates (Klatt and Schlisske, 1975; Fisker, 1995; Peltoniemi et al., 1999; Hansen, 2000). An equal number of studies have shown no apparent changes in reproductive efficiency (England and Spurr, 1969; Schmidt et al., 1985) or described deleterious effects of individual housing on sows' reproduction (Knap, 1969; Fahmy and Dufour, 1976; Bates et al., 2003; Hansen, 2003). However, the results of experimental studies do not always reflect the conditions prevailing in the large-scale swine production facilities (Kongsted, 2006).
Selection of appropriate housing conditions for sows is critical for their physical health and long-term reproductive success. The present objective was to evaluate the influences of housing system postweaning (i.e., individual stalls (IS) or group pens (GP)), season and parity on piglet productivity of sows in a commercial setting. This study utilized 3 053 Polish Large White × Polish Landrace sows that were weaned at a rate of 20–30 animals per week at the median age of 4 weeks; 1 474 sows were moved into GP of seven to eight animals each, while 1 579 were placed in IS after weaning. Starting 2 days postweaning all animals were checked for estrus with a teaser boar and then artificially inseminated using 3 × 10⁹ spermatozoa per dose of an inseminate at the onset of heat and 24 h later. The proportion of sows showing the signs of standing heat at or before 6 days postweaning was greater (P < 0.05) for sows moved to GP compared with IS; this difference manifested mainly in second parity sows weaned in the summer and fall. Conception and farrowing rates were significantly higher (P < 0.01) and the weaning-to-estrus interval shorter in GP compared with IS sows in every season but autumn. Mean litter size was lower (P < 0.05) in IS groups in summer, autumn, and winter, and the number of live-born piglets/sow was lower (P < 0.05) for IS sows in the summer and fall. Beneficial effects of group housing on piglet productivity manifested up until the seventh consecutive farrowing and then began to wane. In summary, there was a significantly greater proportion of sows going estrus “on time” (i.e., < 7 days) in group housing compared to single stalls but this effect was confined to the second parity sows during the summer and fall months; these results suggest the existence of a seasonal and age-related aspect to sow fertility worthy of further investigation. While both housing systems have their pros and cons, our present results indicate that, in commercial settings, group housing postweaning improved nearly all reproductive parameters of sows.
Effects of group housing on reproductive performance, lameness, injuries and saliva cortisol in gestating sows
2018, Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
Still, this possibility cannot be ruled out, and therefore, future studies, with multiple farms are warranted. As compared to the literature, while some studies reported lower farrowing rate and smaller litter size (Kongsted, 2006; Johnston and Li, 2013), others found no significant difference in litter size and cycle length, or even a larger litter (Bates et al., 2003; Harris et al., 2006; Seguin et al., 2006; Bench et al., 2013b; Kim et al., 2016). Differences among studies can be explained by the substantial variability among herds for space allowance, stockmanship, feeding methods and general management (Kongsted, 2006; Johnston and Li, 2013).
In many countries sows are kept in individual stalls from insemination up to just few days prior to farrowing. The overall objective of this study was to examine group housing management system for sows during gestation as an alternative for individual confinement stalls, and the possible effects on their welfare, production and reproduction performances. Accordingly, the study included three specific objectives: (1) to compare parameters of production, reproduction, and welfare of sows housed in groups (either 30 or 7 sows/group; Large Group: LG, Small Group: SG, respectively) during gestation as compared to individual confinement stalls (IS); (2) to compare saliva cortisol of pregnant sows throughout gestation, when housed in groups of three different sizes (either 7, 15 or 30 sows per pen group); and (3) to compare sows' production and reproduction performances at the herd level, before, during and after practically transforming from a management of individual confinement stalls to a group housing system, in a large commercial swine farm over a six-year period. Mean cycle length (weaning-to-weaning) was shorter in group housing management as compared to individual stalls (P = 0.0110), but gestation length did not differ among the three groups. Overall farrowing rate (sows farrowed out of those inseminated) was higher (P ≤ 0.0134) for sows housed in groups (either SG or LG). Furthermore, there was a tendency towards a higher number of total born (P = 0.1033), and born alive piglets (P = 0.0862), in group housing system as compared to individual housing management; however, it did not differ between the LG and SG groups. Injuries and lameness index (ILI) of sows improved significantly over the gestation period in group housing management. Group saliva cortisol during gestation did not differ significantly among groups of 7, 15, or 30 sows, except on the first saliva sampling, just after sows were mixed into groups, where cortisol level was significantly higher in sows housed in a pen of 30 sows. Production and reproduction performances at the herd level, over a 6-years period- before, during and after transforming to a group housing system, improved significantly: shortened cycle length, increased farrowing rate, and increased number of total born and born alive piglets. In conclusion, group housing management during gestation was associated with better reproduction, productivity and welfare of sows, as compared to individual stalls. A welfare friendly housing system can be beneficial and effective for both the farmers and the animals.
Cortisol levels and health indicators of sows and their piglets living in a group-housing and a single-housing system
2018, Livestock Science
Citation Excerpt :
Here, the lower weaning weight of GH piglets was explained by the greater amount of missed nursing and more playful behaviour. This is in line with findings of Bates et al. (2003), they observed also lower weaning weights of GH piglets. Thus, the ad libitum feeding of the GH sows did not result in an increase in milk production which is shown in the lower weaning weights of the GH piglets.
Since the permanent fixation of pregnant sows is banned in Europe, it has become a matter of discussion as to whether the permanent fixation of lactating sows is still acceptable. A group-housing system for lactating sows offers the sows and their piglets the possibility to live in a more natural structure. The aim of this study was to compare sows from a group-housing system (GH; n = 80) with sows from a conventional single-housing system (SH; n = 64) with regard to health indicators and saliva cortisol levels. Data were collected in four batches with 20 GH sows and 16 SH sows per batch. All sows were moved one week before farrowing to the GH or the SH system, respectively. The nulliparous sows were housed separately from the multiparous sows during pregnancy. Thus, nulliparous and multiparous sows were unfamiliar when they moved to the GH system. The GH sows were housed in a group of ten sows and were separated into their individual free-farrowing pens from three days ante partum until six days post partum. A running area was shared by all sows and piglets. With regard to health indicators, the GH sows had fewer skin lesions of the udder and of the tail compared to the SH sows (p < 0.05). Moreover, the GH sows had more skin lesions on the body (p < 0.05) due to ranking fights and were dirtier (p < 0.05) because they used the running area as a resting and dunging area. Furthermore, the GH sows had a higher body condition after weaning (p < 0.05), which can be explained by ad libitum feeding and the fewer number and lighter weight of weaned piglets (p < 0.05). With regard to health indicators of the piglets, the interaction between housing system and batch showed that the GH piglets had fewer skin lesions of the face (p < 0.05). In addition, they had fewer skin lesions of the face one week post partum (p < 0.05) and did not differ from the SH piglets regarding their incidence of skin lesions of the face four weeks post partum. Furthermore, the GH piglets showed more skin lesions of the body compared to the SH piglets (p < 0.05) across almost all batches. With regard to the saliva cortisol levels, both the GH and SH sows did not differ in their basal levels two weeks ante partum. However, the GH sows had higher cortisol levels during lactation compared to the SH sows (p < 0.05). To conclude, no alarming health problems were documented for the GH sows and SH sows or their piglets. Moreover, the higher cortisol levels of the GH sows could be caused by factors as social interactions and increased physical activity.
Reproductive performance, offspring characteristics, and injury scores according to the housing system of gestating gilts
2018, Livestock Science
Citation Excerpt :
Most of the offspring characteristics (number of piglets born, piglets born alive, mummified fetuses, birth weight, and birth weight variation) were not influenced by the housing system during gestation, being in agreement with results of several other studies (Cassar et al., 2008; Harris et al., 2006; Johnston and Li, 2013; Karlen et al., 2007; Knox et al., 2014). However, greater number of piglets born alive in stall-housed sows (Den Hartog et al., 1993; Broom et al., 1995; Li et al., 2014) and heavier piglet birth weight in group-housed sows (Bates et al., 2003) have been reported. Embryonic losses prior to implantation and fetal pre-farrowing losses can result from elevated cortisol triggered by both acute and chronic stressors in group-housed sows (reviewed by Salak-Johnson, 2017).
The time of mixing is a key factor that influences the success of group housing system for gestating swine females. This study compared the effects of three gestation housing systems for gilts on body injuries, locomotion problems, farrowing rate and litter characteristics. The gilts were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 treatments: STALL = gilts housed in individual stalls throughout gestation; PEN7 = gilts group-housed in pens at 7 d after breeding, and PEN30 = gilts group-housed in pens at 30 d after breeding. Farrowing rate was different (P = 0.04) between STALL and PEN7 (89.7% and 83.2%, respectively) whereas an intermediate farrowing rate was observed in PEN30 (84.9%). Treatment did not affect pregnancy maintenance from 28 d to 55 d after AI or from 28 d till farrowing and, as well, the parameters such as the total number of piglets born, born alive, birth weight, the coefficient of variation of birth weight within the litter, and the proportion of piglets weighing less than 1000 g also remained unchanged. The gilts in the STALL group had greater weight and gained more weight up to 107 d of gestation compared to those in PEN7 and PEN30 groups (P < 0.001). A greater chance of increased injury score for skin and claws was observed at 3, 12, and 23 d after housing in PEN7 and PEN30 than in STALL. At 107 d of gestation, PEN7 and PEN30 groups had greater odds for skin injuries, claw lesions, and lameness compared to STALL (P < 0.001). There was no increase in the chance of lameness in STALL but PEN7 and PEN30 groups had greater odds (122.2 and 76.4, respectively) of lameness (P < 0.001) at the end (4.9%, 39.2%, and 26.7%) than at the onset of gestation (3.1%, 0.5%, and 0.5% for STALL, PEN7, and PEN30, respectively). The culling rate as manifested by locomotor problems was found to be greater in PEN7 group than in PEN30 and STALL groups (P < 0.001). In conclusion, mixing gestating gilts at 7 d after breeding compromised farrowing rate; however, mixing gilts on day 30 post-breeding did not impair reproductive performance or litter characteristics. Regardless of the mixing time (7 or 30 d after breeding), more sow injuries (skin lesions and lameness) were observed in the ESF system compared to the individual housing in stalls.
Comparing gestating sows housing between electronic sow feeding system and a conventional stall over three consecutive parities
2017, Livestock Science
This study was conducted to investigate the effects of gestating sows housed in groups with electronic sow feeding (ESF) system over three consecutive parities. A total of 83 pregnant gilts [Yorkshire×Landrace] were housed into ST: gilts housed in individual stalls, and ESF: gilts housed in groups with ESF system on the basis of body weight (BW) and backfat thickness (BFT) in a completely randomized design. Rice hulls were used as bedding material on the group housing floor. The same commercial gestating diet was provided daily at 2.0 kg, 2.2 kg and 2.4 kg/day in the first, second and third parity, respectively, in both treatments. All sows introduced farrowing crates five days before expected farrowing. BW and BFT of the sows were measured at d 35, and 110 of gestation as well as at 12 h and d 21 postpartum. Parturition time was recorded during farrowing. Reproductive performance, including total born, stillborn, mummy, born alive, mortality, weaning pigs as well as litter and piglet weight were recorded. Scratch incidence and locomotion scores in sows were assessed at d 36, 70, and 110, respectively. Ten sows in each treatment were randomly selected for blood sampling. Serum samples were analyzed for cortisol and oxytocin levels. In the gestation period, ESF tended to increase BW gain in the second parity (P=0.08), and consistently showed significance during the third parity (P<0.01), resulting in higher BW at d 110 (P=0.10, P<0.03 in parities 2 and 3, respectively). Similarly, BFT gain tended to be higher in ESF than ST (P=0.08, P=0.10 in parity 1 and 2, respectively). Estimated body fat contents changes are also higher in ESF regardless of the parities (P<0.01, P<0.02, P=0.10 in parities 1, 2, and 3, respectively). However, there were no significant differences on sow BW and BFT changes during lactation. There was a tendency of shorten duration of farrowing in the ESF treatment (P=0.07, P=0.09, and P=0.10 in parities 1, 2, and 3, respectively). In reproductive performances, higher piglet stillborn in ST was observed (P=0.06, P=0.07 in parities 2 and 3, respectively). In endocrinal analysis, ST higher serum cortisol was observed at d 110 of gestation (P<0.01 in parity 1), whereas no detectable difference was observed in the serum oxytocin level. Higher incidence of body scratch was scored in ESF treatment in early gestation in all parities (P<0.01). Likewise, ESF treatment were observed higher locomotor disorders in the middle and late gestation periods (P=0.07). In conclusion, our results suggested that the Group housing with ESF system showed higher growth performance and survival rate of piglets. However, more incidences of body scratch and higher locomotion disorder scores observed in the ESF sows was due to the combination of persistent fighting around the ESF machines and inadequate bedding materials. Consequently, it is necessary to consider an adequate space divider or barrier for gestating sows to avoid aggression in the group housing with ESF system.
Unlocking Sows’ Welfare: The Farm-Level Economic Impact of Phasing out Farrowing Crates for Sows in the European Union’s Pig Breeding Industry
2024, Agriculture (Switzerland)

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: The use of trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University or criticism of similar products not mentioned.

View full text

Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls☆

Abstract

Introduction

Section snippets

Facilities

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

Appl. Anim. Behav.Sci.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

Comparative study of four housing systems for nonlactating sows

Analysis of reproductive performances of sows in relation to housing systems

Electronic animal detection for controlling feed delivery and detecting estrus in gilts and sows in outside pens

J. Anim. Sci.

A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions

Anim. Sci.