Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T03:51:18.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trough half empty: Pregnant sows are fed under half of their ad libitum intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

E Read ,
EM Baxter ,
M Farish  and
RB D’Eath
E Read
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK
EM Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Science Research Group, SRUC, The Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
M Farish
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Science Research Group, SRUC, The Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
RB D’Eath*
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Science Research Group, SRUC, The Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence: rick.death@sruc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pregnant (dry) sows (Sus scrofa) are fed a rationed amount of feed to maintain healthy weight and production but this does not satisfy their hunger. This study measured the extent of feed restriction compared to sows’ desired intake. Forty-seven Large White × Landrace sows were housed in small groups with straw bedding and individual feeding stalls. Following three days on a standard ration of 2.5 kg, they were offered 10 kg a day of commercial dry sow feed for three days, split into four 2.5-kg meals a day which enabled individual intakes to be measured. This quantity was effectively ad libitum (maximum daily intake 9.4 kg). Mean (± SEM) intake per day over the three ad libitum days was 5.67 (± 0.24) kg, compared to the 2.5-kg standard ration. The ration thus provides less than half (44.1%) of sows’ desired intake. Behaviour on their third rationed day was compared with behaviour on the third day of ad libitum. Eating rate and the display of hunger-related behaviours, particularly following the morning feed, was greater under ration feeding; sows spent more time in the food stall and less in the straw bed, and more time active rather than resting. During ration-feeding sows also chewed and nosed more at straw bedding and pen equipment and used the drinker more after their morning meal than when they were fed ad libitum. Eating rate on the last rationed day was positively correlated with feed intake on each of the ad libitum days. Despite an EU requirement for fibre to be added to diets to ameliorate this problem, and the provision of straw bedding, hunger resulting from food restriction remains a welfare concern for dry sows.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioureatinghungerquantitative restrictionsows

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 151 - 162
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Appleby, MC and Lawrence, AB 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Science 45:103–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100036680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, RO, Samuel, RS and Moehn, S 2008 Nutrient require-ments of prolific sows. Advances in Pork Production 19: 223–236Google Scholar
Bergström, T 2011 Motivation for eating roughage in sows: as an indication of hunger. Master's thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Sweden. https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2315/1/bergstrom_t_110228.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F, Edwards, SA and English, PR 1995 Influence of fibrous feed ingredients on voluntary intake of dry sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54: 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00767-HCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, J 1998 Garth Pig Stockmanship Standards. 5M: Sheffield, UK. http://www.thepigsite.com/stockstds/23/body-condition-scoring/Google Scholar
Caudwell, P, Finlayson, G, Gibbons, C, Hopkins, M, King, N, Näslund, E and Blundell, JE 2013 Resting metabolic rate is asso-ciated with hunger, self-determined meal size, and daily energy intake and may represent a marker for appetite. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 97: 7–14. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.029975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, MD and Wrathall, JHM 2010 Assurance schemes as a tool to tackle genetic welfare problems in broilers. Animal Welfare 19(S): 51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 2008/120/EC 2008 Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18th December 2008 laying down minimum stan-dards for the protection of pigs. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/120/ojGoogle Scholar
Danish Pig Research Centre (PRC) 1999 Annual report. PRC: Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.pigresearchcentre.dk/About%20us/Annual%20reports.aspxGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2008 The science of animal suffering. Ethology 114:937–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01557.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS and Layton, R 2012 Breeding for better welfare: genetic goals for broiler chickens and their parents. Animal Welfare 21(2): 147–155. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.2.147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Jarvis, S, Baxter, EM and Houdijk, J 2018 Mitigating hunger in pregnant sows. In: Spinka, M (ed) Advances in Pig Welfare pp 199–234. Elsevier: London, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101012-9.00007-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Tolkamp, BJ, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 2009 ‘Freedom from hunger’ and preventing obesity: the animal welfare implications of reducing food quantity or quality. Animal Behaviour 77: 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbe-hav.2008.10.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Leeuw, JA, Bolhuis, JE, Bosch, G and Gerrits, WJJ 2008 Effects of dietary fibre on behaviour and satiety in pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 67: 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002966510800863XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Leeuw, JA and Ekkel, ED 2004 Effects of feeding level and the presence of a foraging substrate on the behaviour and stress physiological response of individually housed gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2003.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ, Theil, PK and Bach Knudsen, KE 2015 Hunger in pregnant sows: Effects of a fibrous diet and free access to straw. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 171: 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Appleby, MC and Macleod, HA 1988 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant-conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47: 131–137 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100037132Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Mendl, MT, Rudd, AR and Broom, DM 1995 The effect of agonistic interactions on the heart rate of group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 49–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00636-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC and Bolhuis, JE 2015 High-fibre feeding in gestation. In: Farmer, C (ed) The Gestating and Lactating Sow pp 95–116. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-803-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Edwards, SA and Robert, S 2001 Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90: 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00196-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, NE 1955 Shortcomings of food consumption as a measure of hunger: results from other behavioral techniques. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 63: 141–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1955.tb36553.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moustsen, VA, Lahrmann, HP, and D’Eath, RB 2011 Relationship between size and age of modern hyper-prolific cross-bred sows. Livestock Science 141: 272–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead, MR and Alexander, TJL 1997 Managing Pig Health: A Reference for the Farm. 5M: Sheffield, UK. http://www.5mbooks.com/managing-pig-health-a-reference-for-the-farm-2nd-edition.htmlGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC and Blackshaw, A 1989 A note on the effect of feeding regime on the performance of sows housed in a novel group-housing system. Animal Production 49: 523–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100032748Google Scholar
SEGES Danish Pig Research Centre 2017 Annual report. SEGES: Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.pigresearchcentre.dk/About%20us/Annual%20reports.aspxGoogle Scholar
Souza da Silva, C, Bolhuis, JE, Gerrits, WJJ, Kemp, B and van den Borne, JJGC 2013 Effects of dietary fibers with different fermentation characteristics on feeding motivation in adult female pigs. Physiology & Behavior 110-111: 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, AB and Ilius, AW 1991 Influences of feeding level and physicalrestriction on development of stereo-typies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80151-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VSN International 2015 GenStat for Windows 16th Edition. VSN International: Hemel Hempstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, CT, Fraser, D and Darroch, RL 1977 Aspects of ingestive behaviour which may influence the productivity of piglets and sows. British Veterinary Journal 133: 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1935(17)34193-3Google Scholar