|
Report no. 559:Anne Grete Kongsted 13.06.2002
Floor design in a service section with feeding and insemination stalls for group-housed sows
AbstractIn two herds, the following two types of floor design were compared in pens for group-housed sows with free access to feeding and insemination stalls:
Group 1: Deep litter in the area behind the
feeding and insemination stalls The sows were transferred to the gestation unit two to six days after service. The gestation units had electronic sow feeding and small nesting areas and one feeding stall per sow, respectively. There were no differences between the two groups in farrowing percentage and the total number of pigs born per litter. Sows in pens with slatted floor and solid floor had a significantly higher prevalence of leg problems than the sows in pens with deep litter. In one herd, the difference was expressed only as lame hind legs, while in the other herd all types of leg problems were present. The leg problems of the sows on slatted floor and solid floor were probably caused by the fact that the solid floor behind the stalls was very slippery. This increased the risk of tendencies to slip when the sows mounted each other upon initiation of heat. In the one herd there was apparently a connection between leg problems and rebreeders among the sows housed on slatted floor and solid floor in the service unit. The sows in the gestation unit were housed in dynamic groups with small nesting areas and large areas with slatted floor, and electronic sow feeding. It is therefore likely that the conditions in the gestation unit enhanced the effect of being housed on slatted floor and solid floor in the service unit as the strain continued in the gestation unit. There was no connection between leg problems and rebreeders among the sows housed on deep litter in the service unit. It is recommended to establish pens with deep litter in the service unit if the sows are housed in groups. |
