Literature DB >> 15318743

The physical size of gestating sows.

J J McGlone1, B Vines, A C Rudine, P DuBois.   

Abstract

Two hundred ninety-six gestating sows were used to determine the physical dimensions of sows in commercial settings. Sows were examined from five farms within a single production model that included identical feed formulation, management practices, herd health, and similar, but not identical, genotypes. Sows were individually weighed, backfat thickness was determined by ultrasound, and body dimensions were determined. Sow body length, height, width (lateral length, left to right from mid-line), and depth (measured as distance from ventral to dorsal extremes) were also determined. Regression procedures were used to model the changes in sow body size in relation to parity, BW, and stage of gestation within and among genotypes. Farm-to-farm variation in sow dimensions for the same genotype was also determined. Least squares means, SD, and 95% upper confidence limits of this sample are presented. Sows increased (P < 0.001) in body dimensions by predicable levels with parity (r2 = 0.92) up to Parity 6, and with advancing pregnancy (r2 = 0.99). Sows of different but related genotypes differed (P < 0.01) in body length, width, height, and depth. Sows of the same genotype, fed the same feed formulation, differed in body dimensions when managed on different farms. Based on mean values and a 95% confidence interval, stall width would need to be at least 72.4 cm to accommodate all sows on the farm. These data and models can be used to design stall sizes and farm floor space needs to meet current animal welfare recommendations. To accommodate the body size of pregnant sows on commercial farms, stall sizes for the majority of sows would need to increase, as would the total floor space needed for a given number of gestating sows individually penned in conventional production systems to meet recently published guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15318743     DOI: 10.2527/2004.8282421x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  5 in total

1.  Welfare of pigs on farm.

Authors:  Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Julio Alvarez; Dominique Joseph Bicout; Paolo Calistri; Elisabetta Canali; Julian Ashley Drewe; Bruno Garin-Bastuji; Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas; Gortázar Schmidt; Mette Herskin; Virginie Michel; Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca; Olaf Mosbach-Schulz; Barbara Padalino; Helen Clare Roberts; Karl Stahl; Antonio Velarde; Arvo Viltrop; Christoph Winckler; Sandra Edwards; Sonya Ivanova; Christine Leeb; Beat Wechsler; Chiara Fabris; Eliana Lima; Olaf Mosbach-Schulz; Yves Van der Stede; Marika Vitali; Hans Spoolder
Journal:  EFSA J       Date:  2022-08-25

2.  Biochemical and proteomic analyses of the physiological response induced by individual housing in gilts provide new potential stress markers.

Authors:  Anna Marco-Ramell; Laura Arroyo; Raquel Peña; Raquel Pato; Yolanda Saco; Lorenzo Fraile; Emøke Bendixen; Anna Bassols
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 2.741

3.  Sow communication with piglets while being active is a good predictor of maternal skills, piglet survival and litter quality in three different breeds of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus).

Authors:  Marko Ocepek; Inger Lise Andersen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Effects of different space allowances on growth performance, blood profile and pork quality in a grow-to-finish production system.

Authors:  J C Jang; X H Jin; J S Hong; Y Y Kim
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 2.509

5.  Effects of Farrowing Stall Layout and Number of Heat Lamps on Sow and Piglet Production Performance.

Authors:  Suzanne M Leonard; Hongwei Xin; Tami M Brown-Brandl; Brett C Ramirez; Somak Dutta; Gary A Rohrer
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 2.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.