You are here

Behavior and productivity of sows during year and different keeping conditions

It was conducted the research of studying of sows behaviour and productivity with different keeping conditions during four seasons of the year. It was determined that during all seasons the sows spent time for activity and standing 14,2-25,2 % of researching time. For feeding piglets they spent 11,6-13,4 % of the time during day. The most of the time during day sows had rest (lying) – 59,1-74,2 %. The most actively sows behaved in winter and spring (17,5-25,2 %). At the same time during hotter seasons of the year their activity was lower. In summer it was 14,2-18,4 %, in autumn – 15,6-19,9 %. And on the contrary the part of the rest time was higher during summer 69,5-74,2 % and during autumn – 66,7- 72,5 %.Time for the rest in winter was 61,9 % in brick pen of old design and 70,9 % in modern pen with polymeric grated floor. The sows which were kept in pen without fixation spent less time by 4,7-12,2 % for the rest (lying) in comparison with sows kept in modern pen with fixation. The difference in duration of resting time was the highest in spring – 12,2 % and the lowest in summer – 4,7 %.

The duration of active phase of sows behavior in pen of old design was 1,4-25,2 %, at the same time in  advanced  pen of modern design it was 14,2-17,9 %. Within activity time the most part was the feed intake – 40,4-77,5 %. In pen without fixation the activity time for feed intake was in winter – 40,4 % in summer – 70,1 %, in pen with fixation – 72,0 % in winter and 83,8 % in summer. For feeding piglets swine spent 10,8-13,4 % of the time during the day. It was observed the tendency for reducing the time for feeding piglets in pen with modern design in comparison with traditional pen. Time of the year didn’t have the influence on the time for feeding the piglets.

During all time of the year there was not essential difference between polycarpous, heavy litter and nest weight in different pen type.

The number of piglet, their safety, individual mass and nest weight at weaning were essentially different in different type of pen during year. The sows kept in modern premises during winter had safety index higher for 5,2 % (p<0,001) in comparison with sows kept in traditional premises. At that time of the year the nest weight at weaning was heavier for 13,2 kg (p<0,001) in comparison with sows kept in traditional premises.

At spring the average number of piglets at weaning in modern premises was higher by 8,7 % (p<0,05) in comparison with traditional premises which determined by higher safety by 6,1 %. The individual piglet weight at weaning in spring also was in average by 0,6 kg (p<0,05) or by 8,2 % higher in comparison with average piglet weight which was kept in traditional premises during the same season.

During summer piglet safety before weaning was higher by 2,9-3,2 % in comparison with winter and spring. Also the difference of this index was lower in premises of different  design and was 3,62 % in comparison with winter 5,2 % and spring – 6,1 %. The piglet safety at summer was higher by 3,9 % in comparison with winter and by 7,0 % in comparison  with spring.

It was determined that in autumn the prolificacy was essentially lower than in summer by 4,8 %. In traditional premises the tendency of reducing prolificacy was higher in comparison with modern premise. In modern premises the number of piglets at weaning was higher by 7,6 % (p<0.05) in comparison with traditional one. At this time of the year the piglet nests in modern premises were heavier by 9,3 % (p<0.05) in comparison with traditional one. 

The piglet safety before weaning was a little bit worse in comparison with summer and was almost at the level of winter and spring. Like at other time of the year it was better in modern premises by 5,9 %.

Thereby it was determined that the sows behavior depends on time of the year and constructive features of premises and farrow pens. In modern pens the sows had more rest by 6,8-19,0 % and were less active by 27,5-32,4 %

The new design features of the premises and equipment had no significant impact on the multiple pregnancy and large fetus of sows, but provided significantly higher by 3,4-7,0 kg (p<0,05) and weight of the nest of pigs at weaning and safety of piglets by 3,6-6,1 %. The time of the year also affects the safety of piglets.

Key words: sow, pig, prolificacy, safety, weight of nest, design features, pens for farrowing, behavior.

1. Arnautov V.I. Machines in pigsties-matochnikakh / V.I. Arnautov, V.A. Ivanov // Mechanization of agriculture. – 1979. – № 2. – P. 22.

2. Velikzhanin V.I. Methodical recommendations about studying of behavior of farm animals / V.I. Velikzhanin. – L.: VNIIRGZh, 1975. – 48 s.  

3. Hesse A. Otsenk various ways of the contents the podsosnykh of the sows / A. Hesse // Technician and construction in agriculture. Article 351 Dermshtadt-1991.

4. Kovalenko V. Introduction of new production technologies of pork / V. Kovalenko // Pig-breeding. – 2000. – № 6. – P. 13–14.

5. Ledin N.P. Intensive technology of pig-breeding at various equipment / N.P. Ledin. – M.: Rosagropromizdat, 1989. – 236 p.

6. Mykytjuk D. Promyslova tehnologija svynarstva / D. Mykytjuk, A. Loza, M. Gejmor // Propozycija. – 2008. – № 5. – S. 32–33.

7. Navozenko A.N. Razrabotka tehnologii vyrashhivanija svinej v fermerskih i krest'janskih hozjajstvah: avtoref. dis. ... kand. s.-h. nauk / A.N. Navozenko. – Belgorod, 2001. – 22 s.

8. Bates R.O. Sow perfotmance when housed either in groups with electronic sow feeders or stalls / R.O. Bates, D.B. Edwards, R.L. Korthals // Livest Prod. Sci. – 2003. – Vol. 79. – P. 29–35.

9. Lemback J. Comparison of Performance, Body Constitution and Behaviour of Sows in Different Housing- Systems.1. Performance and Body Constitution of Sows During Pregnancy / J. Lemback, R. Wassmuth, P. Glodek // Zuchtungskunde. – 1995. – Vol. 67. – P. 274–287.

10. Paul Vermeulen. Faktory, vlijajushhie na razmer pometa i ves porosjat pri rozhdenii [Jelektronnyj resurs]. – Rezhim dostupu do dzherela: hendrix-genetics.com; www.hypor.com.