Effects of Housing Systems on Welfare of Gilts and Gestation Sows

Received: 01-07-2017

Accepted: 09-08-2017

DOI:

Views

0

Downloads

0

Issue: Vol. 15 No. 6 (2017)

Section:

CHĂN NUÔI – THÚ Y – THỦY SẢN

How to Cite:

Giang, N., Hanh, H., Dang, P., Dung, V., Mirle, C., & Ton, V. (2024). Effects of Housing Systems on Welfare of Gilts and Gestation Sows. Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 15(6), 776–785. http://testtapchi.vnua.edu.vn/index.php/vjasvn/article/view/401

Effects of Housing Systems on Welfare of Gilts and Gestation Sows

Nguyen Thi Phuong Giang (*) 1 , Han Quang Hanh 1 , Pham Kim Dang 1 , Vu Tien Viet Dung 2 , Chetana Mirle 3 , Vu Dinh Ton 1

  • 1 Khoa Chăn nuôi, Học viện Nông nghiệp Việt Nam
  • 2 Oxford University Clinical Research Unit –Hanoi
  • 3 Humane Society International

    • Keywords

    Welfare Quality, housing system, group rearing, individual rearing, gilt, sow welfare

    Abstract


    An experiment was undertaken to assess the effects of housing system on welfare in gilts and gestation sows. The experiment was a factorial design with 20 F1 gilts (Landrace x Yorkshire) of similar body weight and age randomly allocated to two housing systems (group rearing vs. invidual rearing, 5 gilts per pen, two pens for each housing system). Welfare assessment was conducted at a fixed day every week in all 3 stages: gilt, from mating to 30 days, and from 31 to 100 gestation days according to recommendations of the Welfare quality® 2009 Protocol. The results showed that at the gilt stage, housing system significantly affected some criteria of animal welfare in gilts, suchs as percentage of feaces on the body, body wound, stereotypies, and exploratory behaviour. At the stage from mating to 30 days, howver, no influence of housing system on all parameters of animal welfare was observed. At the gestation stage from 31 to 100 days, housing system affected several parameters of animal welfare, including shoulder sores, lameness, percentage of feaces on the body, body wound, stereotypies, and exploratory behaviour. Raising sows under group rearing housing system helped to improve some parameters of animal welfare, health and behaviour. However, it was necessary to have solution to reduce aggressive behaviour among sows during initial days of grouping.

    References

    Andronie, I., Pârvu, M., Andronie, V. and Radu, A. (2010). The welfare of gestating sows in different housing, Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies,43(2): 280-283.

    Andronie, I., Nadronie, V. and Parvu, M. (2012). Behavior and productive performance of pregnant sows according to housing system, Bull Univ Agric Sci Vet Med Cluj Napoca,67: 12-16.

    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, Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,70(2): 128-136.

    Anil, S. S., Anil, L., Deen, J., Baidoo, S. K. and Walker, R. D. (2007). Factors associated with claw lesions in gestating sows, Journal of Swine Health and Production,15(2): 78-83.

    Bergeron, R., Badnell-Waters, A., Lambton, S. and Mason, G. (2006). Stereotypic oral behaviour in captive ungulates: foraging, diet and gastrointestinal function, Stereotypic animal behaviour: Fundamentals and applications to welfare,2: 19-41.

    Broom, D., Mendl, M. and Zanella, A. (1995). A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions, Animal science,61(02): 369-385.

    Conte, S., Bergeron, R., Gregoire, J., Gete, M., D'allaire, S., Meunier-Salaun, M. C. and Devillers, N. (2014). On-farm evaluation of methods to assess welfare of gestating sows, Animal, pp. 1-9.

    Coutellier, L., Arnould, C., Boissy, A., Orgeur, P., Prunier, A., Veissier, I. and Meunier-Salaun, M.-C. (2007). Pig's responses to repeated social regrouping and relocation during the growing-finishing period, Appl Anim Behav Sci.,105: 102-114.

    Damm, B. I. (2008). Loose housing of sows-is this good welfare?,Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica,50(1): S9.

    Enokida, M., Sasaki, Y., Hoshino, Y., Saito, H. and Koketsu, Y. (2011). Claw lesions in lactating sows on commercial farms were associated with postural behavior but not with suboptimal reproductive performance or culling risk, Livestock Science,136(2): 256-261.

    Eu (2001). Council Directive 2001/88/EC. The council of the European Union. Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri = CELEX:31999L0074&from = EN [Accessed 23 October 2001].

    Fraser, D. (2009). Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific approaches, Zoo Biology,28(6): 507-518.

    Greenwood, E. C., Plush, K. J., Van Wettere, W. H. E. J. and Hughes, P. E. (2016). Group and individual sow behavior is altered in early gestation by space allowance in the days immediately following grouping 1, Journal of Animal Science,94: 385-393.

    Harris, M. J., Pajor, E. A., Sorrells, A. D., Eicher, S. D., Richert, B. T. and Marchant-Forde, J. N. (2006). Effects of stall or small group gestation housing on the production, health and behaviour of gilts, Livestock Science,102(1-2): 171-179.

    Hobbs, A., Hobbs, J. E., Isaac, G. E. and Kerr, W. A. (2002). Ethics, domestic food policy and trade law: assessing the EU animal welfare proposal to the WTO, Food Policy,27(5): 437-454.

    Hsus (2013). Report on Gestation Crates for Pregnant Sows. The Humane Society of the United States. Available from http://www.humanesociety.org/ assets/pdfs/farm/HSUS-Report-on-Gestation-Crates-for-Pregnant-Sows.pdf.

    Hulbert, L. and Mcglone, J. (2006). Evaluation of drop versus trickle-feeding systems for crated or group-penned gestating sows, Journal of animal science,84(4): 1004-1014.

    Karlen, G. a. M., Hemsworth, P. H., Gonyou, H. W., Fabrega, E., David Strom, A. and Smits, R. J. (2007). The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls and large groups on deep litter, Applied Animal Behaviour Science,105(1-3): 87-101.

    Marchant, J. and Broom, D. (1996). Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength, Animal Science,62(1): 105-113.

    Marchant, J. N., Mendl, M. T., Rudd, A. R. and Broom, D. M. (1995). The effect of agonistic interactions on the heart rate of group-housed sows, Applied Animal Behaviour Science,46(1-2): 49-56.

    Marchant-Forde, J. (2010). Social behaviour in swine and its impact on welfare. Proceedings of the 21st International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) congress’. (Eds. S D’Allaire, R Friendship), pp. 36-39.

    Mcglone, J. J. and Salak, J. J. (2008). Changing from sow gestation crates to pens: Problem or opportunity. Proceedings Manitoba Swine Seminar, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, pp. 47-53.

    Mcglone, J. J. (2013). REVIEW: Updated scientific evidence on the welfare of gestating sows kept in different housing systems, The Professional Animal Scientist,29(3): 189-198.

    Norwood, F. B. and Lusk, J. L. (2011). A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions, Journal of environmental Economics and Management,62(1): 80-94.

    Ryan, E. B., Fraser, D. and Weary, D. M. (2015). Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs, PLoS ONE,10(11): e0141878.

    Salak-Johnson, J. L., Niekamp, S. R., Rodriguez-Zas, S. L., Ellis, M. and Curtis, S. E. (2007). Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: Body condition, skin lesions, and performance1, Journal of Animal Science,85: 1758-1769.

    Schoening, J., (2013). Group sow performance; comparing three group housed systems to conventional stalls. Proceedings. Feeding group-housed sows and the growing herd efficiency, 44th AASV Annual Meeting, pp. 127-130.

    Séguin, M. J., Friendship, R. M., Kirkwood, R. N., Zanella, A. J. and Widowski, T. M. (2006). Effects of boar presence on agonistic behavior, shoulder scratches, and stress response of bred sows at mixing1, Journal of Animal Science,84: 1227-1237.

    Stukenborg, A., Traulsen, I., Puppe, B., Presuhn, U. and Krieter, J. (2011). Agonistic behaviour after mixing in pigs under commercial farm conditions, Applied Animal Behaviour Science,129(1): 28-35.

    Terlouw, E., Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. (1991). Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows, Animal Behaviour,42(6): 981-991.

    Tönepöhl, B., Appel, A. K., Voß, B., König Von Borstel, U. and Gauly, M. (2013). Interaction between sows’ aggressiveness post mixing and skin lesions recorded several weeks later, Applied Animal Behaviour Science,144(3): 108-115.

    Tonsor, G. T., Olynk, N. and Wolf, C. (2009). Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: The case of gestation crates, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,41(3): 713-730.

    Tuyttens, F., Van Gansbeke, S. and Ampe, B. (2011). Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction of group housing systems for gestating sows, Journal of animal science,89(3): 845-855.

    Vieuille-Thomas, C., Le Pape, G. and Signoret, J. P. (1995). Stereotypies in pregnant sows: indications of influence of the housing system on the patterns expressed by the animals, Applied Animal Behaviour Science,44(1): 19-27.

    Welfare Quality (2009). Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs, Lelystad, Netherlands, pp. 40-41.

    Whittemore, C. (1994). Causes and consequences of change in the mature size of the domestic pigs, Outlook on agriculture.