English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Electronic sow feeding (ESF) systems are used to control feed delivery to individual sows that are group-housed. Feeding levels for gestating sows are typically restricted to prevent excessive body weight gain. Any alteration of intake from the allocated feeding curve or unusual feeding behavior could indicate potential health issues. The objective of this study was to use data recorded by ESF to establish and characterize novel feed intake and feeding behavior traits and to estimate their heritabilities. Raw data were available from two farms with in-house manufactured (Farm A) or commercial (Farm B) ESF. The traits derived included feed intake, time spent eating, and rate of feed consumption, averaged across or within specific time periods of gestation. Additional phenotypes included average daily number of feeding events (AFE), along with the cumulative numbers of days where sows spent longer than 30 min in the ESF (ABOVE30), missed their daily intake (MISSF), or consumed below 1 kg of feed (BELOW1). The appetite of sows was represented by averages of score (APPETITE), a binary value for allocation eaten or not (DA_bin), or the standard deviation of the difference between feed intake and allocation (SDA-I). Gilts took longer to eat than sows (15.5 ± 0.13 vs. 14.1 ± 0.11 min/d) despite a lower feed allocation (2.13 ± 0.00 vs. 2.36 ± 0.01 kg/d). The lowest heritability estimates (below 0.10) occurred for feed intake traits, due to the restriction in feed allocation, although heritabilities were slightly higher for Farm B, with restriction in the eating time. The low heritability for AFE (0.05 ± 0.02) may have reflected the lack of recording of nonfeeding visits, but repeatability was moderate (0.26 ± 0.03, Farm A). Time-related traits were moderately to highly heritable and repeatable, demonstrating genetic variation between individuals in their feeding behaviors. Heritabilities for BELOW1 (Farm A: 0.16 ± 0.04 and Farm B: 0.15 ± 0.09) and SDA-I (Farm A: 0.17 ± 0.04 and Farm B: 0.10 ± 0.08) were similar across farms. In contrast, MISSF was moderately heritable in Farm A (0.19 ± 0.04) but lowly heritable in Farm B (0.05 ± 0.07). Heritabilities for DA_bin were dissimilar between farms (Farm A: 0.02 ± 0.02 and Farm B: 0.23 ± 0.10) despite similar incidence. Individual phenotypes constructed from ESF data could be useful for genetic evaluation purposes, but equivalent capabilities to generate phenotypes were not available for both ESF systems.

Feed intake and feeding behavior traits for gestating sows recorded using electronic sow feeders