Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2026
06:30
Noninvasive, In-pen Approach Test for Laboratory-housed Pigs
Published on: June 5, 2019
Aggressive behavior in two different group-housing systems for pregnant sows
Núria Chapinal1, José Luis Ruiz-De-La-Torre, Alba Cerisuelo
1Animal Nutrition, Management and Welfare Research Group, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain. chapinal@interchange.ubc.ca
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science : JAAWS
|March 30, 2010
Summary
Electronic sow feeding systems (FITMIX) led to more aggressive interactions among pregnant sows compared to trickle feeding (TRICKLE). While intense physical contact was rare, FITMIX required significant sow adaptation, with some failing to adjust.
Area of Science:
- Animal Science
- Animal Husbandry
- Ethology
Background:
- Housing systems for pregnant sows significantly impact their welfare and behavior.
- Electronic sow feeding (ESF) systems are increasingly adopted, but their behavioral effects require evaluation.
- Understanding social dynamics and aggression in group-housed sows is crucial for optimizing management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the frequency and nature of aggressive interactions between two housing and feeding systems for pregnant sows.
- To assess sow adaptation and potential failure rates in an unprotected electronic sow feeding system (FITMIX) versus a trickle feeding system (TRICKLE).
Main Methods:
- 120 pregnant sows were housed in groups of 10 (TRICKLE) or 20 (FITMIX) from day 29 of gestation until 1 week pre-parturition.
- Aggressive interactions were recorded over 11 nonconsecutive days.
- Sow adaptation to the FITMIX system was monitored, noting instances requiring assistance or leading to removal.
Main Results:
- Higher frequencies of aggressive interactions were observed in the FITMIX system compared to TRICKLE (p < .05).
- Conflicts in FITMIX predominantly occurred at the feeder (83%), whereas in TRICKLE, they were mainly in resting areas (48%).
- 46% of FITMIX sows needed assistance adapting, and 8.3% ultimately failed to adapt and were removed.
Conclusions:
- Despite generally low-intensity aggression, the FITMIX system appears more competitive, leading to increased social conflict centered around the feeder.
- The unprotected electronic sow feeding system presents adaptation challenges for a notable proportion of sows, particularly gilts and subordinate individuals.
- Sequential feeding in FITMIX may contribute to its competitive nature, necessitating careful management for successful implementation.
