Influence of rearing system on sows' prolificacy during gestation.
In females reared inindividual crates until early control of gestation and in common crates (8-16heads), prolificacy did not reach values that differ depending on the rearingsystem: there is a statistically insignificant difference in t-test(p>0.05). In gestating sows reared in individual crates, the difference wassignificant during the entire gestation period compared to group rearing:11.51±0.85 compared to only 11.13±0.68 in collective rearing. Though there arebetter results from the point of view of sows’ prolificacy when reared inindividual crates during the entire gestation, this rearing system is notrecommendable because of the high financial efforts caused by technology andbecause separation has negative influences on sows’ behaviour depending on reproductionand health state of gestating females.
HABITAT AS ENVIRONMENT IN SWINE
Biologically and psychologically, a habitat is an area inhabited by an animal, a group of animals, or a species; within it, the animal or animals, in our case, swine, find even, acceptable elements and life conditions to which they have adapted in time. A habitat impacts the body: it meets certain biological requirements â€“ protection against cold or heat, as well as against different hazards â€“ and psychological â€“ rest, safety, and relaxation. A habitat can have different sizes depending on the animalâ€™s biology and behaviour. Depending on the way in which changes take place, there are four types of habitat in swine, monotonous, periodical, erratic, and sequential.
Effect of nose ringing and stocking rate of pregnant and lactating outdoor sows on exploratory behaviour, grass cover and nutrient loss potential
Nose ringing of outdoor sows is practiced to reduce grass sward damage for environmental reasons but conflicts with natural behaviour considerations. We investigated effects of ringing pregnant and lactating outdoor sows on foraging and explorative behaviour, grass cover and nutrient deposition. The experiment included both ringed and unringed sows. For unringed sows the paddocks were either used continuously throughout the experiment or divided into two and sows were moved half way through the experimental period leaving the first used paddock for regrowth. Ringing did not prevent the sow’s rooting, but rooting was less pronounced, when sows were ringed. On average, ringing increased grass cover from 14% to 38% and from 64% to 81% in paddocks with pregnant and lactating sows, respectively. In paddocks with unringed sows kept at a double density and followed by a resting period, the grass cover in autumn was restored to a high degree in paddocks with pregnant sows. In lactating sow paddocks the level of inorganic N was high but with no significant relation to extent of grass cover. In pregnant sow paddocks the soil inorganic N content was significantly reduced by increased grass cover and at 60% grass cover soil inorganic N content was at a low level. From the experiment it was evident that although ringing did have a positive environmental effect, it was not the main factor influencing potential losses. Management choices in terms of feeding, animal density and nutrient distribution are considered to be at least as important. D 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.