Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
3.3.7
Ad libitum
feeding
In
ad libitum
feeding systems a simple hopper is needed for a (sub)group of 10 sows.
Typical group sizes vary between 10 and 30 sows. The pen design can be simple with
feeders in the front corners on the solid floor and the floor plan is comparable with
that of floor feeding. The bulky feed often has a high proportion of fibre in the form
of dried sugar beet pulp to prevent overeating. However, the energy consumption is
generally 40% higher than for restricted-fed sows, especially for higher parity sows. Gilts
in their first pregnancy sometimes have a lower energy intake with
ad libitum
feeding
compared with gilts fed conventional feed. From a welfare point of view the systems is
positive, because the development of oral stereotypies (associated with chronic feeding
motivation) is strongly reduced compared with restricted feeding systems. Housing costs
per sow are low for this system, but the feed costs are higher. Reproductive performance
is not different from that of sows in restricted feeding systems.
3.3.8
Comparison of the housing systems
There is no such thing as 'the best' group housing system. Preferences for a system
are determined by the importance attached to certain aspects of it, such as labour
requirement, level of control over feed intake or sow aggression. The preceding
paragraphs have identified several aspects which are specific to the different group
housing systems presented. In Table 3.1 a summary is provided of all these aspect across
the housing systems.
Table 3.1. A comparison of aspects
1
of indoor group housing for seven systems commonly used (based on Van
der Peet-Schwering
et al.,
2010).
ESF, stable
groups, no
straw
ESF, dynamic
group, no
straw
ESF, dynamic
group, straw
Free access feeding
stalls, stable groups,
no straw
Ad libitum
feeding, stable
groups, no straw
Floor feeding,
stable groups,
no straw
Trough feeding,
stable groups,
no straw
Labour requirement
3
4
5
1
2
2
2
Labour circumstances
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
Skills
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
Welfare of sows
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
Animal health
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
Technology
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Investment and
exploitation
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
Reproduction results
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Societal acceptance
2
2
1
4
2
3
3
Management & control
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
The systems were compared for each criterium. The higher the mark, the lower the performance on a particular criterium, so the least favorite
this systems is for that particular aspect.
