Effect of space allowance and mixing on growth performance and body lesions of grower-finisher pigs in pens with a single wet-dry feeder

Porcine Health Management - Tập 7 Số 1
Jordi Camp Montoro1,2, Laura Boyle2, David Solà-Oriol1, Ramón Muns3, J. Gasa1, Edgar García Manzanilla2,4
1Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Animal Nutrition and Welfare Service, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
2Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Fermoy, Ireland
3Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Co Down, UK
4UCD Veterinary Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background Low space allowance (SA) and mixing may result in reduced growth performance (GP) and animal welfare issues because of adverse social behaviours directed to pen mates. This could be exacerbated in pens with single space feeders owing to social facilitation of feeding behaviour. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of SA and mixing on GP and body lesions (BL) in pens with one single space wet-dry feeder. Results Two experiments were conducted on grower-finisher pigs from 10 to 21 weeks of age. In Exp1, pigs (N = 216) were assigned to three SA; 0.96 m2/pig (n = 6 pens; 10 pigs/pen; SA96), 0.84 m2/pig (n = 6; 12 pigs/pen; SA84) and 0.72 m2/pig (n = 6; 14 pigs/pen; SA72), in a randomized design. In Exp2, pigs (N = 230) were used in a 2 × 2 factorial randomized design considering SA and mixing as treatments. Pigs were assigned to two SA; 0.96 m2/pig (n = 10 pens; 10 pigs/pen; SA96) and 0.78 m2/pig (n = 10; 13 pigs/pen; SA78) and were either mixed or not at the entry to the finishing facility. GP was not affected by SA (P > 0.05) in either experiment. In Exp2, non-mixed pigs were 5.4 kg heavier (P <  0.001), gained 74 g more per day (P = 0.004), consumed 101.8 g more of feed per day (P = 0.007) and tended to have higher feed efficiency (P = 0.079) than mixed pigs from 11 to 21 weeks of age. Number of BL was affected by SA in both experiments. In Exp1, SA72 pigs had 74.4 and 97.4% more BL than SA96 and SA84 pigs at 20 weeks of age respectively (P <  0.01). In Exp2, SA78 pigs had 48.6, 43.6 and 101.3% more BL than SA96 pigs at 12, 16 and 21 weeks of age respectively (P <  0.05). Mixing did not affect the number of BL from 12 to 21 weeks of age in Exp2 (P > 0.05). Conclusion Mixing had a considerable effect on growth performance thus, strategies to avoid or mitigate mixing should be considered. Although space allowance had no effect on growth performance, high number of body lesions in the lower space allowance indicates that space allowances equal or below 0.78 m2/pig are detrimental to the welfare of pigs despite following the EU legislation.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Flohr JR, Dritz SS, Tokach MD, Woodworth JC, Derouchey JM, Goodband RD. Development of equations to predict the influence of floor space on average daily gain, average daily feed intake and gain : feed ratio of finishing pigs. Animal. 2017;12(5):1022–9.

Powell TA, Brumm MC, Massey RE. Economics of space allocation for grower-finisher hogs: a simulation approach. Rev Agric Econ. 1993;15(1):133–41.

DeDecker JM, Ellis M, Wolter BF, Corrigan BP, Curtis SE, Hollis GR. Effect of stocking rate on pig performance in a wean-to-finish production system. Can J Anim Sci. 2005;85(1):1–5.

Thomas LL, Goodband RD, Woodworth JC, Tokach MD, Derouchey JM. Effects of space allocation on finishing pig growth performance and carcass characteristics. Transl Anim Sci. 2017;1(3):351–7.

Kim KH, Kim KS, Kim JE, Kim DW, Seol KH, Lee SH, et al. The effect of optimal space allowance on growth performance and physiological responses of pigs at different stages of growth. Animal. 2017;11(3):478–85.

Carpenter CB, Holder CJ, Wu F, Woodworth JC, Derouchey JM, Tokach MD, et al. Effects of increasing space allowance by removing a pig or gate adjustment on finishing pig growth performance. J Anim Sci. 2017;96(7):2659–64.

Anil L, Anil SS, Deen J. Effects of allometric space allowance and weight group composition on grower-finisher pigs. Can J Anim Sci. 2007;87(2):139–51.

Schmolke SA, Li YZ, Gonyou HW. Effect of group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2003;81(4):874–8.

Wastell ME, Garbossa CAP, Schinckel AP. Effects of wet/dry feeder and pen stocking density on grow-finish pig performance. Transl Anim Sci. 2018;2(4):358–64.

Kyriazakis I, Whittemore C. Whittemore’s science and practice of pig production. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006.

Gonyou HW, Brumm MC, Bush E, Deen J, Edwards SA, Fangman T, et al. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. J Anim Sci. 2006;84(1):229–35.

Deen J. Effect of stocking density on the welfare and performance of grow-finish pigs. In: Research report: animal welfare. Des Moines: NPB (National Pork Board). 2005. https://www.pork.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/04-093-DEEN-UofMN.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020. .

Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality ® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Lelystad: Welf Qual Consortium; 2009. p. 1–123.

Vermeer HM, Dirx-Kuijken NCPMM, Bracke MBM. Exploration feeding and higher space allocation improve welfare of growing-finishing pigs. Animals. 2017;7(5):3–11.

Mkwanazi MV, Kanengoni AT, Chimonyo M. Interaction effects of pen environment and sex on behavior , skin lesions and physiology of Windsnyer pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2019;32(3):452–8.

Fu L, Li H, Liang T, Zhou B, Chu Q, Schinckel AP, et al. Stocking density affects welfare indicators of growing pigs of different group sizes after regrouping. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2016;174:42–50.

Tong X, Shen C, Chen R, Gao S, Liu X, Schinckel AP, et al. Reestablishment of social hierarchies in weaned pigs after mixing. Animals. 2020;10(1):1–12.

Dalmau A, Nande A, Vieira-Pinto M, Zamprogna S, Di Martino G, Ribas JCR, et al. Application of the welfare quality® protocol in pig slaughterhouses of five countries. Livest Sci. 2016;193(May):78–87.

Sutherland MA, Niekamp SR, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Salak-Johnson JL. Impacts of chronic stress and social status on various physiological and performance measures in pigs of different breeds. J Anim Sci. 2006;84(3):588–96.

Broom DM. Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public. J Vet Med Educ. 2010;37(1):83–8.

O’Quinn PR, Dritz SS, Goodband RD, Tokach MD, Swanson JC, Nelssen JL, et al. Sorting growing-finishing pigs by weight fails to improve growth performance or weight variation. J Swine Health Prod. 2001;9(1):11–6.

Hyun Y, Ellis M, Riskowski G, Johnson RW. Growth performance of pigs subjected to multiple concurrent environmental stressors. J Anim Sci. 1998;76(3):721–7.

Hyun Y, Ellis M, Johnson RW. Effects of feeder type, space allowance, and mixing on the growth performance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 1998;76(11):2771–8.

Street BR, Gonyou HW. Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables. J Anim Sci. 2008;86(4):982–91.

Calderón Díaz JA, Diana A, Boyle LA, Leonard FC, McElroy M, McGettrick S, et al. Delaying pigs from the normal production flow is associated with health problems and poorer performance. Porc Health Manag. 2017;3:1–6.

Council of the European Union. 2008/120/ EC - Laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Off J Eur Union. 2008;47:5–13.

O’Meara FM, Gardiner GE, O’Doherty JV, Lawlor PG. The effect of feed form and delivery method on feed microbiology and growth performance in grow-finisher pigs. J Anim Sci. 2020;98(3):1–11.

Averós X, Aparicio MA, Ferrari P, Guy JH, Hubbard C, Schmid O, et al. The effect of steps to promote higher levels of farm animal welfare across the EU. Societal versus animal scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare. Animals. 2013;3(3):786–807.

Johnston LJ, Rozeboom DW, Goodband RD, Moeller SJ, Shannon MC, Schieck SJ. Effect of floor space allowances on growth performance of finishing pigs marketed at 138 kilograms. J Anim Sci. 2017;95(11):4917–25.

Stookey JM, Gonyou HW. The effects of regrouping on behavioral and production parameters in finishing swine. J Anim Sci. 1994;72(11):2804–11.

Peden RSE, Turner SP, Boyle LA, Camerlink I. The translation of animal welfare research into practice: the case of mixing aggression between pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2018;204:1–9.

Peden RSE, Akaichi F, Camerlink I, Boyle LA, Turner SP. Factors influencing farmer willingness to reduce aggression between pigs. Animals. 2019;9(1):6.

Meyer-Hamme SEK, Lambertz C, Gauly M. Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs? Animal. 2016;10(1):142–9.

Godyń D, Nowicki J, Herbut P. Effects of environmental enrichment on pig welfare—a review. Animals. 2019;9(383):1–17.

Tennessen T. Coping with confinement - features of the environment that influence animals’ ability to adapt. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1989;22(2):139–49.

Botermans JAM, Svendsen J. Effect of feeding environment on performance, injuries and behaviour in growing-finishing pigs: group-based studies. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci. 2000;50(4):237–49.

Gonyou HW, Lou Z. Effects of eating space and availability of water in feeders on productivity and eating behavior of grower/finisher pigs. J Anim Sci. 2000;78(4):865–70.

López-Vergé S, Gasa J, Temple D, Bonet J, Coma J, Solà-Oriol D. Strategies to improve the growth and homogeneity of growing-finishing pigs: feeder space and feeding management. Porc Health Manag. 2018;4:1–9.

Averós X, Brossard L, Dourmad JY, De Greef KH, Edge HL, Edwards SA, et al. Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs. Animal. 2010;4(5):777–83.

Martínez-Miró S, Tecles F, Ramón M, Escribano D, Hernández F, Madrid J, et al. Causes, consequences and biomarkers of stress in swine: an update. BMC Vet Res. 2016;12(1):1–9.

Gimsa U, Tuchscherer M, Kanitz E. Psychosocial stress and immunity—what can we learn from pig studies? Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12(April):1–9.

De Groot J, Ruis MAW, Scholten JW, Koolhaas JM, Boersma WJA. Long-term effects of social stress on antiviral immunity in pigs. Physiol Behav. 2001;73(1–2):145–58.

Turner SP, Nevison IM, Desire S, Camerlink I, Roehe R, Ison SH, et al. Aggressive behaviour at regrouping is a poor predictor of chronic aggression in stable social groups. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2017;191:98–106.

Driessen B, Van Beirendonck S, Buyse J. The impact of grouping on skin lesions and meat quality of pig carcasses. Animals. 2020;10(4):1–11.

Wurtz KE, Siegford JM, Bates RO, Ernst CW, Steibel JP. Estimation of genetic parameters for lesion scores and growth traits in group-housed pigs. J Anim Sci. 2017;95(10):4310–7.

Foister S, Doeschl-Wilson A, Roehe R, Arnott G, Boyle L, Turner S. Social network properties predict chronic aggression in commercial pig systems. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):1–18.

Desire S, Turner SP, D’Eath RB, Doeschl-Wilson AB, Lewis CRG, Roehe R. Analysis of the phenotypic link between behavioural traits at mixing and increased long-term social stability in group-housed pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2015;166(1):52–62.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Porcine Health Management

Tập 7 Số 1

Thông tin tác giả