한국축산시설환경학회지 (Journal of Animal Environmental Science)

한국축산환경학회 (The Korean Society of Animal Environmental Science & Technology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

돈방의 구조가 자동급이기를 활용한 임신돈의 섭식행동에 미치는 영향

The Effects of Housing Design on the Feeding Behaviors of Group Housed Pregnant Sow with Electronic Sow Feeder

  • 송준익 (천안연암대학) ;
  • 김지향 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 축산환경과) ;
  • 전중환 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 축산환경과) ;
  • 이준엽 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 축산환경과)
  • Song, Jun-Ik (Department of Animal Science, Cheonan yonam College) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hyang (Animal Environment Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Jeon, Jung-Hwan (Animal Environment Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Lee, Jun-Yeob (Animal Environment Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
  • 투고 : 2014.10.02
  • 심사 : 2014.10.26
  • 발행 : 2014.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study was conducted to evaluate the housing design on the feeding behaviors of group housed pregnant sows. A total of 65 sows (Landrace ${\times}$ Yorkshire) were employed into 2 experimental sow housing with different housing design. Lying area of one of sow housing was designed with concrete fence to give the shelter for weak sows. The other was floor type without any obstacles. Group housed sows were fed using electronic sow feeder (ESF) during gestation. Daily feeding pattern of sows was automatically recorded in ESF feeder program. Most sows ate all feed during night. Daily visiting frequency to ESF of sows in pig pen with the shelter was significantly lowered than sows in floor type pen. This study showed that the housing design of group housed sow pen could fairly impact ESF utilization of sow.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Andersen, I.L., Boe, K.E., Kristiansen, A.L., 1999. The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. 65, 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00058-1
  2. Anil., L., Anil, S.S., Deen, J., Baidoo, S.K., Walker. R.D., 2006. Effect of group size and structure on the welfare and performance of pregnant sows in pens with electronic sow feeders. Can. J. of Vet. Res. 70, 128-136.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Brouns, F., Edwards, S.A., 1994. Social rank and feeding behaviour of grouphoused sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39, 225-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90158-9
  6. Eddison, J.C., Roberts, N.E., 1995. Variability in feeding behaviour of group-housed sows using electronic feeders. Anim. Sci. 60, 307-314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980000847X
  7. 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.
  8. Hunter, E.J., Broom, D.M., Edwards, S.A., Sibly, R.M., 1988. Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Anim. Prod. 47, 139-148 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100037144
  9. 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.
  10. Jensen, K.H., Sorensen, L.S., Bertelsen, D., Pedersen, A.R., Jorgensen, E., Nielsen, N.P., Vestergaard, K.S., 2000. Management factors affecting activity and aggression in dynamic group housing systems with electronic sow feeding: a field trial. Anim. Sci, 71, 535-545. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800055260
  11. Lee, J.Y., Jeon, J.H., Kim, H.J., Song, J.I., 2013. The Effects of Different Housing with Automatic Feeder on Sow Performances and Growth Performances of Piglets during Gestation. J. Lives. Hous. & Env. 19, 141-148.
  12. Li, Y.Z., Wang, L.H., Johnson, L.J., 2012. Sorting by parity to reduce aggression toward first-parity sows in group-gestation housing systems. J. Anim. Sci. 90, 4514-4522. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4869
  13. 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
  14. Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1980. Statistical Methods (7th ed). Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.
  15. Song, J.I., Lee, J.Y., Cheon, S.N., Kim, D.H., Park, K.H., Jeon, J.H., 2013. Development of an electronic sow feeder for gestation sows. J. Lives. Hous. & Env. 19, 117-122.