Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Flooring
The type of floor and its condition have a direct effect on sow health, behaviour and
performance in group housing (Vermeer and Vermeij, 2014). An important aspect is
the presence of bedding (usually straw) on the floor. Positive effects of straw provision
were found on hoof lesions (Heinonen et al. , 2006) and on abnormal gait (Andersen et
al. , 1999). However, it was also noted that straw did not reduce the level of aggression:
the beneficial effect of straw was due to better 'grip' during the interactions. Salaün et al.
(2002) did find a reduction in aggression in group-housed sows using an ESF system,
when comparing different floor types. Sows were kept in small groups following weaning
and entered the large treatment group 6 weeks after insemination. On straw bedding,
there was more activity and more fighting, but less injuries and scratches and less time
spent looking for a resting place than in systems with slatted floors. Reproductive traits,
however, did not differ between the systems studied (Salaün et al. 2002). Barnett et al.
(2001) suggested that straw does not only provide better grip to claws, but also provides
more thermal and physical comfort. In addition, they suggested a reduction in stereotypic
and aggressive behaviour with the use of straw. Others suggested that hoof overgrowth
leading to lameness exists on smooth surface as well as deep litter systems. This is not
easily remedied by preventive claw treatment, which does generate substantial extra work
whilst the claws deteriorate rapidly following treatment anyway. Ehlorsson et al. (2003)
concluded that improvement of the housing conditions is the only key for better claw
health. Straw bedding is an option, if it is of good quality and if opportunities for normal
wear of claws exist in the pen. In preference studies, sows more often choose areas with
bedding materials such as straw, which seems to be almost as important to them as the
availability of food (Matthews and Ladewig, 1994).
Alternative solutions to provide lying comfort have also been tested. Elmore et al. (2010)
reported that sows in matted pens had a lower total lesion score than sows in concrete
pens. Lameness scores, however, did not differ between treatments. Yet, they did note
that environmental temperature needs to be considered when providing rubber mats, as
they may increase the level of fouling in the pen. Diaz et al. (2013) also investigated the
influence of rubber mats and found that sows on rubber slat mats had a reduced risk of
swellings and wounds during the two parities studied. These authors also reported that
pens with rubber slat mats were dirtier than uncovered pens. There was no association
between body lesion score and flooring type. Surprisingly, although increased claw
lesions were associated with the use of rubber mats, lameness was not.
3.3
Types of group housing systems
Sows can be kept in groups of 6 to 500 in a variety of systems. Group housing systems for
sows are often named according to the feeding system, indicating that the way of feeding
is crucial for their overall design. In this paragraph a number of common group housing
systems will be described: free access stalls, electronic sow feeding, floor feeding, long
trough feeding, trickle feeding and ad libitum feeding.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search