![\"\"](\"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/P1020787-300x225.jpg\" "\\"P1020787\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nLarge group floor feeding?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nSeveral farms in Ontario have adopted a novel floor feeding system that differs from most in three ways:\u00a0 the groups are large, and may include sows of different parities; the pen has a number of partial divisions in it that provides some separation of the multiple feeding sites; and, the feed is dropped in several (typically 6) drops per day, spaced 30 to 60 minutes apart.\u00a0 Large, non-uniform groups reduce the social tension in finisher pigs, but are not generally advocated for competitive systems such as gestating sows.\u00a0 The barriers provide sows some physical protection as seen in short-stall systems, but several sows still eat from the same feed drop.\u00a0 The key to the system may be the frequent feed drops that allow subordinate animals to eat from the later drops as the dominant sows feel satiated from eating from the first.\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nAlthough several farms are using the system, it has not been studied in comparative tests.\u00a0 As with any floor feeding system, some sows have to be removed.\u00a0 At least one producer does not include gilts with the sows.\u00a0 The system as a whole, and particularly the multiple feed drops, should be studied before being adopted.\u00a0 However, it illustrates that floor feeding can be managed in many different ways.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nUsing bulky, high fibre feed will extend the feeding time and reduce the incidence of stereotypic behaviours, but may contribute to more aggression.\u00a0 Similarly, feeding on a strawed floor will extend feeding periods and increase aggression (Whittaker et al. 1999).Feeding a bulky diet ad-lib allows the subordinate sows to avoid peak feeding times and consume normal levels of feed (Brouns and Edwards, 1994), but it must be bulky enough to limit total energy intake.<\/p>\n
Keys to successful floor feeding<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- \n
Sort sows by parity, size and body condition.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Use the time in breeding\/implantation stalls to even out body condition.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Spread feed as evenly as possible.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Use dividers within the pen.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Remove sows that fall behind.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Providing Protection: Non-Gated Stalls<\/strong><\/p>\nAs an alternative to floor feeding, producers should consider the use of feeding stalls in order to provide protection during eating.\u00a0 In this article we will only discuss non-gated (no back gate) systems, as gated stalls will be discussed as a type of non-competitive feeding system in a future article.\u00a0 Recalling the earlier statement on dominance, we note that dominant animals will exert themselves when resources are both limited and defendable.\u00a0 Defendable refers to the ability of the dominant animal to control more than their share of the resource.\u00a0 Non-gated stalls prevent the dominant animal from monopolizing the feed by allowing the subordinate animals to defend a small portion of the total feed available, that is, their share of the feed.\u00a0 However, with enough effort dominant sows will be able to force a subordinate out of a non-gated stall and thereby obtain more feed.<\/p>\n
Two Types of Problems<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nIf the performance of your sows in a competitive feeding system is below your expectations, it is very easy to blame the feeding system.\u00a0 That is not always the problem.\u00a0 Two types of stressors can affect animals in groups: competitive and general.\u00a0 To determine which is most likely within your system you need to determine the demographics of the problem.\u00a0 If the problem affects younger, smaller animals more than larger, older animals, that is, an uneven distribution, it is likely a competitive issue.\u00a0 A common problem in competitive feeding systems is the fat sow\/ thin sow syndrome, in which smaller sows get thinner and larger sows get fatter.\u00a0 In this case you should attempt to reduce the effect of competition during feeding.\u00a0 However, if your problem is just as common among larger sows as it is among smaller ones, then it is likely a general stressor that is affecting all of the pigs similarly.\u00a0 Examples of these types of stressors would include high temperatures, poor flooring, poor air quality or space restriction.\u00a0 The solution to these problems is quite different to that of a competition problem.\u00a0 In some instances, the problem may involve both general and competitive stress.\u00a0 For example, if poor flooring results in 10% of the sows becoming lame, evenly distributed across all sizes, the smaller lame sows may be at a greater disadvantage when they try to compete for feed.\u00a0 If you can identify that lameness was the initial problem, and improve the flooring, you will be more successful in correcting the subsequent problem caused by competition.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nNon-gated systems should make use of the social management techniques outlined for floor feeding (e.g. sorting by size and body condition).\u00a0 However, these systems also use physical methods to interfere with dominant sows attempting to displace subordinates from their feed.\u00a0\u00a0 Non-gated stall systems use feed troughs so that the feed can be delivered and limited to a defined area.\u00a0 These troughs are divided so that individual allotments of feed are dropped into each division.\u00a0 Stalls are added to these divisions to provide protection to each sow as she eats.\u00a0 The longer the stalls, which typically vary from shoulder length to full body length, the less aggression and more even intake of feed (Barnett et al., 1992, Andersson et al., 1999).\u00a0 Floor feeding gives a distinct advantage to the dominant sow.\u00a0 Partial stalls reduce this advantage and allow the subordinate animals to spend more time eating and achieve a higher intake.<\/p>\n
Shorter stalls, such as those that only extend back to the animal\u2019s shoulders, will not fully protect a subordinate animal.\u00a0 In systems with these stalls, it is common to see cuts and scratches on the sides of the lower ranking individuals where the dominant sows have attempted to displace them from the feed trough.\u00a0 Longer stalls will provide more protection, but some displacement may still occur.\u00a0 If longer stalls are better, then why would a producer use short stalls?\u00a0 It is a balance between protection during feeding and the amount of space the system requires.\u00a0 Group housed sows should have a sufficient amount of free space (outside of the stall) to move about freely.\u00a0 If a producer uses long stalls, additional space is necessary behind the stalls to provide this loafing area.\u00a0 Longer stalls also represent a greater capital expense, in addition to the increased floor space.<\/p>\n
Are there other means to reduce aggression and displacements among sows in non-gated stall systems?\u00a0 There appear to be at least two:\u00a0 increasing the eating speed of the sows will reduce the time required to consume their feed and decrease feeding associated aggression (Andersson et al., 1999).\u00a0 One of the easiest ways to increase the speed of eating is to provide wet feed, either as a slurry, or by adding water in the feed trough.\u00a0 By eating faster, the subordinate sows are nearly finished their feed by the time the dominant sow is able to displace them from the stall.\u00a0 Although reducing aggression and displacements, the rapid eating may increase other problems associated with short meals, such as increased stereotypic behaviour.<\/p>\n
Keys to successful non-gated stall systems<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Longer stalls will reduce aggression<\/li>\n
- \n
Wet diets take less time to consume and reduce aggression<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Trickle feeding prevents the accumulation of feed in front of slow-eating sows<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nFloor Space for Floor-fed Sows<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThe floor space allowance for floor fed sows should be fairly easy to define in terms of productivity, incidence of injuries and level of aggression.\u00a0 The system is basically an open pen with the proviso that sufficient solid floor area is provided for feeding.\u00a0 However, few studies have examined the question of floor space allowance.\u00a0 One such study, by Sequin et al (2007), reported no advantage in any of these measures among space allowances starting at 2.3 m2<\/sup>\/sow (24 ft2<\/sup>) and going up to 3.2 m2<\/sup>\/sow (34 ft2<\/sup>).\u00a0 Salak-Johnson et al (2007) reported problems at 1.4 m2<\/sup>\/sow (15 ft2<\/sup>) compared to 2.3 m2<\/sup>\/sow (24 ft2<\/sup>), but did not examine any intermediate levels.\u00a0 So 1.4 m2<\/sup> is not enough, and 2.3 m2 <\/sup>is sufficient; but there is a large range in between that has been poorly researched.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nIf we look to grower\/finisher pigs, who are also housed in open pens, we see effects on productivity below a space coefficient of k=0.034 (Gonyou et al., 2006) and lying posture (comfort) when k drops below 0.038 (Averos et al., 2010).\u00a0 Using weights from our facility for females near the end of gestation we see gilts at 220 kg and mature sows (3+ parity) at 310 kg.\u00a0 Applying the k values given above we see gilts requiring between 1.24 and 1.39 m2<\/sup>\/gilt (13 to 15 ft2<\/sup>) and sows between 1.56 and 1.74 m2<\/sup> (17 to 19 ft2<\/sup>).\u00a0 The European Union specifies different amounts of floor space for gilts (1.6 m2<\/sup>\/gilt; 18 ft2<\/sup>) and sows (2.3 m2<\/sup>\/sow; 24 ft2<\/sup>) (Mul et al., 2010).\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nWe require additional research on floor space allowances in the range of 1.4 to 2.3 m2<\/sup>\/sow (15 to 24 ft2<\/sup>).\u00a0 Until that research has been conducted we would suggest 1.4 \u2013 1.6 m2<\/sup>\/gilt (15 \u2013 18 ft2<\/sup>) and 1.7 \u2013 2.3 m2<\/sup>\/sow (19-24 ft2<\/sup>).\u00a0 Again, there must be sufficient solid floor area to feed the sows without excessive aggression.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nThe second method used to reduce displacements from short stalls is trickle feeding.\u00a0 Typically all of the feed for a sow is dropped into the trough at the same time.\u00a0 Faster eating sows consume their feed and then attempt to displace slower eating animals and steal their remaining feed.\u00a0 Trickle feeding meters the feed into the trough over an extended time, typically 30 minutes or so (Hulbert and McGlone, 2006).\u00a0 Ideally, the rate of feed supply should be as slow as or slower than the eating speed of the slowest eating animal.\u00a0 If a faster eating animal decides to leave its stall to displace a slower eating one, no feed would have accumulated in the slower one\u2019s trough.\u00a0 The advantage to displacing another sow is lost.\u00a0 However, if the drop rate is the same as the eating speed of thefaster eating sow, the slower eating animals will accumulate feed in their trough space and be vulnerable to attack from other sows.\u00a0 Trickle feeding has received mixed reviews.\u00a0 If it is well managed it may well reduce feeding associated aggression among sows.\u00a0 However, this is not always the case (Hulbert and McGlone, 2006).<\/p>\n
The Bottom Line<\/strong><\/p>\nChoosing Between Floor Feeding and Non-Gated Stalls<\/em><\/p>\nBoth systems are less expensive than the non-competitive gated stall and ESF feeding systems.\u00a0 Producers who use these systems are looking for a less expensive system and are prepared to accept more aggression and to give up some control over feed intake.\u00a0 If the producer is prepared to place a great deal of emphasis on social management, then they are more likely to choose floor feeding.\u00a0 It is the least expensive of all of the systems.\u00a0 However, if they find social management difficult, they may want to spend more and provide their animals with the partial protection of short, non-gated stalls.\u00a0 In larger operations, the decision may be based on the confidence the operator has in the ability of their staff to socially manage the animals.\u00a0 As in every system, better management will result in better production.<\/p>\n
References<\/strong><\/p>\nAndersen, I.L., Boe, K.E. and Kristiansen, A.L.\u00a0 1999.\u00a0 The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows.\u00a0 Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65:91-104.<\/p>\n
Aver\u00f3s, X., Brossard, L., Dourmad, J.Y., de Greef, K.H., Edge, H.L., Edwards, S.A. and Meunier-Sala\u00fcn, M.C. (2010). Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs.\u00a0 Animal 4:777-783.<\/p>\n
Barnett, J.L., Hemsworth, P.H., Cronin, G.M., Newman, E.A., McCallum, T.H. and Chilton, D.\u00a0 1992.\u00a0 Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs.\u00a0 Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34:207-220.<\/p>\n
Brouns, F. and Edwards, S.A.\u00a0 1994.\u00a0 Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum.\u00a0 Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39:225-235.<\/p>\n
Gonyou, H.W., Brumm, M.C., Bush, E., Deen, J., Edwards, S.A., Fangman, T., McGlone, J.J., Meunier-Salaun, M., Morrison, R.B., Spoolder, H., Sundberg, P.L. and Johnson, A.K. (2006). Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis.\u00a0 J. Anim. Sci. 84:229-235.<\/p>\n
Hulbert, L.E. and McGlone, J.J.\u00a0 2006.\u00a0 Evaluation of drop vs trickle-feeding systems for crated or group-penned gestating sows.\u00a0 J. Anim. Sci. 84:1004-1014.<\/p>\n
Jensen, P. 1982.\u00a0 An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows \u2013 aggression regulation through an \u2018avoidance order\u2019.\u00a0 Appl. Anim. Ethol. 9:47-61.<\/p>\n
Mul, M., Vermeij, I., Hindle, V. and Spoolder, H. (2010). EU-Welfare legislation on pigs.\u00a0 Wageningen UR Livestock Research Report 273:1-20.<\/p>\n
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 performance.\u00a0 J. Anim. Sci. 85:1758-1769.<\/p>\n
S\u00e9guin, M.J., Barney, D. and Widowski, T.M. (2006). Assessment of a group-housing system for gestating sows: Effects of space allowance and pen size on the incidence of superficial skin lesions, changes in body condition, and farrowing performance.\u00a0 J. Swine Health Prod. 14:89-96.<\/p>\n
Spoolder, H.A.M., Geudeke, M.J., Van der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C. and Soede, N.M. 2009.\u00a0 Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: A review of success and risk factors.\u00a0 Livest. Sci. 125:1-14.<\/p>\n
Whittaker, X., Edwards, S.A., Spoolder, H.A.M., Lawrence, A.B. and Corning, S.\u00a0 1999.\u00a0 Effects of straw bedding and high fibre diets on the behaviour of floor fed group-housed sows.\u00a0 Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63:25-39.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Science of Ethology, Volume 1, Issue 2 We define competitive feeding systems as those in which an animal can obtain more feed by winning a fight.\u00a0 However, this does not necessarily mean that you will observe a lot of fighting in such a system.\u00a0 Often, the majority of fighting will occur within a couple of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,928],"tags":[8855,4685,88,27099,640,4262,21163,1060,21185,22184,26884,12731,2349,2858,21352,21263,21386,27098,24570,21894,3814,21595,22072,24108,21877,21170,21895,1972,3965,2883,22171,357,4663,21364,5538,25182,24743,26078,22607,22564,22608,26096,25122,23164,27097,20691,27278,223,2826,25782,103,1468,22809,2851,46,1062,925,4178,108,5643,20470,27170,20462,26249,7863,21624,13289,1066,7756,171,24751,21919,5329,25400,25228,22416,8108,102,21422,105,21138,9413,21362,7857,109,26079,11659,21410,24317,271,333,15833,20002,26290,47,23345,24325,22211,21079,21431,13914,8827,23326,13370,21161,67,6258,21751,9597,9053,5381,8279,3261,22127,480,21406,22140,25310,24725,25986,21411,26441,21421,2891,21127,27229,324,25218,21271,21435,21062,4258,21169,3465,15459,21108,115,63,21090,1053,18179,21870,22808,24002,14,266,21111,15416,3229,16251,21206,21207,21652,21357,95,21264,21205,21083,5269,25532,21262,26406,25389,1533,21286,21414,26100,104,21053,23825,23826,7599,21323,96,5118,7438,4599,3283,21129,10101,21159,35,23186,99,26223,22019,18011,26234,14403,22053,4591,21312,6053,4384,660,69,21081,22151,22152,2802,21160,21373,27281,7022,21351,11771],"class_list":["post-14154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pork-insight-articles","category-welfare","tag-feeding-stalls","tag-access","tag-aggression","tag-and-farrowing-performance","tag-animal","tag-backfat","tag-backfat-sows","tag-barn","tag-barn-construction-standards","tag-barriers-for-group-housed-sows","tag-bio-plus-2b-breeders","tag-bioplus-2b","tag-breed","tag-capacity","tag-captive-bolt","tag-carcass-grade","tag-cfia","tag-changes-in-body-condition","tag-competition-feeding-animals","tag-competition-feeds-pig-ph","tag-competitive","tag-competitive-feeding","tag-competitive-feeding-systems","tag-competitive-feeding-systems-in-pigs","tag-competitive-feeding-technique","tag-composting-and-green-house-gas","tag-computition-feeds-pig-ph","tag-condition","tag-content","tag-cost-of-production","tag-de-sow","tag-digestion","tag-don","tag-donna-mitchell","tag-drinkers","tag-drop-feeding-for-sows","tag-drop-feeding-sows","tag-early-pregnancy","tag-eating-speed-of-gilts-in-trickle-feeding","tag-eating-speed-of-sow","tag-eating-time-of-gilts-and-sows-in-trickle-feeding","tag-edwards","tag-eet","tag-effects-of-sorting-pigs-by-weight-on-behavior-and-productivity-after-mixing","tag-effects-of-space-allowance-and-pen-size-on-the-incidence-of-superficial-skin-lesions","tag-effects-of-straw-bedding-and-high-fibre-diets-on-the-behaviour-of-floor-fed-group-housed-sows","tag-energy","tag-enzymes","tag-esf","tag-exit-weight","tag-farrowing","tag-farrowing-crates","tag-fast","tag-fat","tag-feed","tag-feed-efficiency","tag-feed-intake","tag-feeders","tag-feeding","tag-feeding-behaviour","tag-feeding-management-of-market-hogs","tag-feeding-problems-competition","tag-feeding-sows","tag-feeding-stalls-to-prevent-fighting-at-feed-time","tag-feeding-system","tag-feeding-system-finisher-pigs","tag-fenugreek","tag-finisher","tag-finishing-pig","tag-floor","tag-floor-feeding-sows","tag-floor-feeding-system","tag-floor-space","tag-floor-space-allowances-for-sows","tag-floor-space-requirement","tag-gated-stalls","tag-gestating-sow","tag-gestation","tag-geurts","tag-gilt","tag-glutamine-metabolism","tag-gonyou","tag-group-housed-sow","tag-group-housed-sows","tag-group-housing","tag-group-housing-during-early-pregnancy","tag-group-housing-sows-in-europe","tag-hair-analysis","tag-health-efficiency","tag-heat-exchanger","tag-heating","tag-heavy-hogs","tag-herbs","tag-housed-sows","tag-housing","tag-how-much-feed-sow-eat-in-a-day-in-kg","tag-how-to-reduce-competition-between-animals-at-feeding-time","tag-httpwww-prairieswine-comcompetitive-feeding-systems-volume-1-issue-2","tag-increased-shipping-weights","tag-ingredient-nutrient-specs","tag-jennifer","tag-jennifer-brown","tag-johnson","tag-ken","tag-lactation-length","tag-lameness","tag-large-group","tag-large-group-finishing","tag-lee-whittington","tag-leg","tag-light","tag-liquid-feed","tag-liquid-feeding","tag-loafing-feeding-stall-of-sow","tag-manure-treatment","tag-maternal-colostrum","tag-mature-swine-size-fed-ad-lib","tag-meal-pigs","tag-meaning-of-sow-feed-trough","tag-method-of-feeding-with-highest-competition-in-pigs","tag-mineral-deposition","tag-mixing-time","tag-most-out-of-feed","tag-mycotoxin","tag-new-characteristics-of-farm-chickens","tag-novel-feeding","tag-nursery","tag-odours-gonyou","tag-outlook-for-2012","tag-particel","tag-payland","tag-paylean","tag-paylean-payback","tag-pea","tag-ped","tag-pen-gestation","tag-pen-size","tag-performance","tag-ph-water","tag-phase-feeding","tag-phase-feeding-pregnant-sows","tag-physiology-evolution","tag-pic","tag-pics-of-wet-feeding-of-pigs","tag-pig","tag-pig-manure","tag-pig-out-event","tag-pomar","tag-potato","tag-prairieswine-com","tag-prem","tag-premkumar","tag-problems-with-competiton-when-feeding-animals","tag-protein-digestion","tag-quality","tag-r-l-t-markings","tag-raghavun","tag-recommended-code-of-practice","tag-report","tag-research-report","tag-ridglings","tag-roup-housing-of-sows-in-early-pregnancy-a-review-of-success-and-risk-factors","tag-short-feeding-stalls-sows","tag-size","tag-slaughter-capacity","tag-social-factors-of-milk","tag-soe","tag-sow","tag-sow-and-antibiotics","tag-sow-gestation-fedd","tag-sow-gestation-feed","tag-sow-housing","tag-sow-on-the-farm","tag-sows","tag-space-requirements","tag-staff","tag-stall","tag-stalls","tag-standard-measurement","tag-start","tag-stress-after-mating","tag-swine","tag-swine-com","tag-temperature","tag-the-effects","tag-the-influence-of-different-feeding-arrangements-and-food-type-on-competition-at-feeding-in-pregnant-sows","tag-tot","tag-trickle-feeding","tag-trickle-feeding-sows","tag-trickle-feeding-system","tag-tryptophan","tag-urine-content","tag-use","tag-vido","tag-waste-management","tag-water","tag-water-bowels","tag-water-supply","tag-water-supply-house","tag-weaning-age","tag-weaning-age-pig","tag-weighing-scales-for-swine","tag-welfare","tag-wet-feed","tag-widowski","tag-www-prairieswine-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14154"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15291,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14154\/revisions\/15291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/P1020787.jpg\" "\\"P1020787\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n