References
- Arey, D.S., 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Anim. Welfare. 2, 235-246.
- Barbari, M., 2000. Analysis of reproductive performance of sows in relation to housing systems. Pages 188-196 in Swine Housing. Proc. 1st Int. Conf., Des Moines, IA. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
- Bates, R.O., Edwards, D.B., Korthals. R.L., 2003. Sow performance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 79, 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00119-7
- Broom, D.M., Mendl, M.T., Zanella, A.J., 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim. Sci. 61, 369-385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800013928
- Chapinal, N., Ruiz de la Torre, J.L., Cerisuelo, A., Gasa, J., Baucells, M.D., Coma, J., Vidal, A., Manteca, X. 2010. Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems. J. Vet. Behav. 5, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.09.046
- den Hartog, L.A., Backus, G.B.C., Vermeer, H.M., 1993. Evaluation of housing systems for sows. J. Anim. Sci. 71, 1339-1344.
- European Union., 2001. Council directive 2001/88/EC amending directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official. J. Eur. Community. 316, 1-4.
- Fraser, D., Phillips, P.A., Thompson, B.K., 1997. Farrowing behavior and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00007-5
- Gonyou, H.W., 2001. The social behaviour of pigs. In: Keeling, L.J., Gonyou, H.W. (Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 147-176.
- Guy, J.H., Rowlinson, P., Chadwick, J.P., Ellis, M., 2002. Health conditions of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems: implications for welfare. Livest. Prod. Sci. 75, 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00327-X
- Jensen, K.H., Pedersen, B.K., Pedersen, L.J., Jorgensen, E., 1995. Well-being in pregnant sows: confinement versus group housing with Electronic Sow Feeder. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. 45, 266-275.
- Lyons, C.A.P., Bruce, J.M., Fowler, V.R., English, P.R., 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 43, 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(95)00050-U
- Morris, J.R., Hurnik, J.F., Friendship, R.M., Evans, N.M., 1998. The effect of the Hurnik-Morris (HM) system on sow reproduction, attrition, and longevity. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 2759-2762.
- Mouttotou, N., Hatchell, F.M., Green, L.E., 1999. Foot lesions in finishing pigs and their associations with the type of floor. Vet. Rec. 144, 629-632. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.23.629
- Olsson, A.C., Andersson, M., Botermans, J., Rantzer, D., Svendsen, J., 2011. Animal interaction and response to electronic sow feeding (ESF) in 3 different herds and effects of function settings to increase capacity. Livest. Sci. 137, 268- 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.10.014
- SAS Institute, 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
- Schouten, W.G.P., 1991. Effects of rearing on subsequent performance in pigs. Pig News Inform. 12, 245-247.
- Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1980. Statistical Methods (7th ed). Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.
- van de Weerd, H.A., Day, J.E., 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.001
- Vestergaard, K., Hansen, L.L., 1984. Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity.1. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Annales de Recherches Ve'te'rinaires. 15, 245-256.