Evaluating Sow Housing Decisions - Johnson - Discussion Panel, from the 2013 Iowa Pork Congress, January 23-24, Des Moines, IA, USA.
More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2013-iowa-pork-congress
Dr. Lee Briese - Details Matter (includes details about soil, equipment, cove...
Johnson - Discussion Panel - Evaluating Sow Housing Decisions
1. Recent published research
on gestation sow housing
A. K. Johnson
Associate Professor Animal Behavior and
Well-being
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA
E-mail: johnsona@iastate.edu
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
2. Search terms for the talk
Journal
Journal of Animal Science
Terms
Sow + gestation + housing
Time
January to December 2012
Search conclusion; n = 4 peer review papers
Salak-Johnson et al., 2012 – pen space and effects on behavior
and immunity
Li et al., 2012 – managing groups
Kirchner et al., 2012 – individual feeding in groups
Canaday et al., 2012 – lighting and temperatures for stalled
sows
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
4. Study objective
The primary objective of this study
was to determine the impacts of floor
space allowance for dry sows in pens
(group size constant) and floor
feeding on behavior and immune
traits. Differential effects of keeping
sows in individual stalls vs. pens on
traits were evaluated
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
5. Animals and housing
Cross-bred (PIC) sows (n = 217)
Pens vs. stalls Pens, flooring was
Parity breakdown partially slatted concrete,
with a section of solid
Parity 1 n = 69
concrete for feeding
Parity 2 = 62
Parity 3 = 44 Individual stalls had fully
Parity ≥ 4 = 42 slatted floors equipped
with concrete feeding
troughs
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
6. Treatments
5 sows were randomly allocated to one
of four treatments:
TRT ONE: 1.4 m2/sow PEN (15.07 ft2)
TRT TWO: 2.3 m2/sow PEN (24 ft2)
TRT THREE: 3.3 m2/sow PEN (35.54 ft2)
TRT FOUR: STALL (2.12 m long x 0.61 m wide) 1.34
m2/sow (14.42 ft2)
The EU standard of space requirement in group-
gestation housing is 2.23 m2 (24 ft2) for a mature sow,
and 1.67 m2 (18 ft2) for a gilt
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
8. Behavior measures
When comparing sows in stalls to all pen groups
regardless of space allowance; sows in stalls sat and
drank more and laid less
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
9. Take home from this study
Behavior serves as an interface between the
sow and its environment
Relationship is affected by internal and
external factors
Chief behavioral restraint of stalls is restriction
of movement
Laid less and sat more
ONF occurred most often when sows were
housed at 2.3 m2/sow
Energetically consuming
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
10. Take home from this study
Sows were able to initiate an appropriate
and adequate biological response to the
environment that enable them to adapt
without deleterious effects on health and
well-being
No one system compared in this study
excelled by improving or compromising
the sows health and well-being in
production agriculture
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
12. Study objective
Investigated effects of sorting by
parity on aggression, associated
stress, and performance of young
sows in a group-housed gestation
system
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
13. Animals and housing
Gestating sows and gilts (Yorkshire ×
Landrace) were group housed in a straw-
bedded hoop barn
Barn had 4 pens, which accommodated 15
animals/pen
Equipped with individual feeding stalls and a
bowl drinker with 2 drinking spaces
Space allowance in each pen was 3.7 m2
excluding the area occupied by feeding stalls
and the water drinker
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
14. Treatments
Control (sow-pen): observed in a
commercial setting (1st parity [n=4] and
multiparous sows [n=11])
Treatment (gilt-pen) (1st parity [n=4] and
gilts [n=11])
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
16. Injury Scores; 48-h after mixing
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
17. Aggression; First 72-h
Total duration s/h Frequency number/h
These numbers are for first parity sows
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
18. Aggression: First 72-h
Gilt-pen vs. Sow-pen
Fought more frequently
9 vs. 5.7 fight/h; P = 0.01
Tended to fight for a greater period of time
67 vs. 29.9 s/h; P = 0.08
More head-to-body fights
6.6 vs. 4.5 fight/h; P = 0.03
More parallel pressing
0.8 vs. 0.3 fight/h; P = 0.04
Tended to parallel press longer
43.9 vs. 14 s/h; P = 0.08
Won more parallel pressing fights
46.4 vs. 18.3 %; P = 0.04
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
19. Take home from this study
Most fighting involving first parity sows
occurred within the 6-h of mixing
First parity sows in gilt-pens at mixing (72-h)
Fought more frequently
Tended to fight longer
Won more fights parallel pressing
First parity sows in gilt-pens had fewer injuries
First parity sows in gilt-pens gained more BW
during gestation
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
20. Take home from this study
Suggest that farmers should consider
dividing their herd into gilt and first
parity groups and multiparous (2nd
parity+) and house the groups in
separate pens to improve well-being
and performance of first parity sows
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
21. Heads up
Checkoff funded
work – contact
1-800-PORK or
Sherrie Niekamp
Director Animal
Welfare
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
22. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Animal Science
Notas do Editor
All pens were 4.12 m long so pen widths for respective treatments were 1) 1.62 m, 2) 2.80 m, and 3) 3.98 m.
Behaviors was registered using a 5-min scan over six 4-h periods on d 95 ± 5 of gestation (only used for this comparison). All sows in each pen or stall were observed. Data were divided into six 4-h time periods across 24 h: periods 1 (0300 to 0700 h), 2 (0700 to 1100 h), 3 (1100 to 1500 h), 4 (1500 to 1900 h), 5 (1900 to 2300 h), and 6 (2300 to 0300 h). These time periods were chosen to reflect daily activity cycles of the sows. For comparison among sows kept in pens at 3 different floor space allowances a more detailed behavioral analysis was obtained. Behavioral frequencies and durations were registered using continuous sampling over a 24-h period on d 90 ± 5 of gestation using video records using a time-lapse video recorder from a subsample of sows (n = 15 sows/gestation space treatment).Three focal animals per pen of equal parity distribution were identified via unique paint markings and assessed over 2 consecutive parities. Both duration and frequencyof behaviors were analyzed from behavioral ethogram for these sows, which included drinking, eating, standing, sitting, lying, ONF on either pen floor or bars, sham-chewing,and aggressive behaviors.
Mean frequencies of behaviors are presented in Table 2. Lying, sitting, and ONF behavior were all affected by gestation space treatment (P < 0.05). Lying was greater (P < 0.05) among sows in pens at 3.3 m2 than among sows in stalls (Table 2). Sows in stalls had more frequent sitting bouts (P < 0.001) than did sows in pens at 1.4, 2.3, or 3.3 m2. Sows housed in pens at 2.3 m2 performed more (P = 0.01) ONF behavior compared with sows in pens at 3.3 m2 (1.3 ± 0.2 occurrences/h). All other behaviors were similar among sows across all space treatments. Sows housed in stalls were observed sitting and drinking more (P ≤ 0.001) and lying less (P = 0.01) than sows housed in pens, regardless of floor space treatment (Table 2).
The control group (sow-pen) was a typical sow group as usually observed in a commercial setting, consisting of first-parity and multiparous sows. Each penconsisted of 4 first-parity and 11 multiparous (parity 2 to 10) sows. The treatment group (gilt-pen) consisted of 4 first-parity sows and 11 gilts. Because familiarity to each other affects aggression among sows and gilts at mixing (Strawford et al., 2008), each pen had approximately two-thirds unfamiliar dyads (unfamiliar pairs of animals), and the proportion of unfamiliar dyads was similar between control and treatment pens. Unfamiliar is defined as sows and gilts that had not been housed in the same group at least during the last 4 wk
No differences in wean-to-mating intervals, gestation length, and litter performance were observed in first-parity sows between treatment and control pens (Table 3). First-parity sows in treatment pens had similar BW at mixing, were heavier (P < 0.01) before the subsequent farrowing, and gained greater weight (P < 0.01) during gestation than first-parity sows in control pens. The BCS and backfat thicknessat mixing and before farrowing were not different for first-parity sows between treatment and control pens.
No differences in injury scores were observed in first-parity sows between treatment and control pens before mixing (Table 3). After mixing, injury score for the body (P < 0.001) and total injury score for an individual animal (P = 0.03) were less for first-parity sows in treatment pens compared with their counterparts in control pens. No differences were observed in injury scores for head and shoulders after mixing in first-parity sows between treatment and control pens.
Frequency, duration, and outcomes (winner, loser, and unsolved) of fights were registered. The winner was defined as the sow that pursued a retreating pig followed by any form of submissive behavior performed by the opponent, and the winner did not receive renewed aggression from the loser for 5 s or more. The loser was defined as the sow that first stopped fighting, turned away from an attack, and tried to flee, and the loser did not show renewed aggression toward the winner for 5 s or more. An unsolved fight was defined as a standoff fight without a clear winner or loser. The intensity of aggression was assessed by parallel pressing, head-to-head knocking, and head to-body knocking. Parallel pressing was defined as sows that stand side-by-side and push hard with the shoulders against each other, generally performed with frequent bites. Head-to-head knocking was defined as a sow delivering rapid knocks with the snout against the head, neck, or ears of the receiver, generally performed with bites as accessory features. Head-to-body knocking was defined as a sow delivering rapid knocks with the snout against any parts of the body behind the ears of the receiver, generally performed with bites as accessory features. The intensity of aggression is greatest in parallel pressing, least in head-to-body knocking, and intermediate in head-to-head knocking. Total duration and frequency of pressing and knocking and outcomes of each fight during each period were calculated for all first-parity sows in each pen.The total duration (Figure 1) and frequency (Figure 2) of all agonistic interactions involving first-parity sows were greater during the first 6 h compared with other periods during the 72-h observation period (all P < 0.001).
Because no interactions between treatment and time after mixing for any aggressive interactions (both duration and frequency) were observed, treatment effect was tested for total duration and frequency of each agonistic interaction during the entire 72 h of the observation period (Table 4). Compared with control pens, first-parity sows in treatment pens fought more frequently (P = 0.01) and tended to fight for a greater period of time (P = 0.08). First-parity sows had more head-to-body fights (P = 0.03) in treatment pens than their counterparts in control pens. In addition, first-parity sows had more parallel pressing (P = 0.04), tended to engage in parallel pressing for a longer period of time (P = 0.08), and won more fights of parallel pressing (P = 0.04) in treatment pens compared with control pens. No differences were observed in the total duration of head-to-body and head to-head knocking, frequency of head-to-head knocking, or wins for knockings or defeats for all agonistic interactions between first-parity sows in treatment pens compared with first-parity sows in control pens.