Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:20:37.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

H. A. M. Spoolder ,
S. A. Edwards  and
S. Corning
H. A. M. Spoolder
Affiliation:
ADAS Terrington, Terrington St Clement, King’s Lynn PE34 4PW
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone, Bucksburn, Aberdeen ABI 9YA
S. Corning
Affiliation:
ADAS Terrington, Terrington St Clement, King’s Lynn PE34 4PW
Get access

Abstract

Compared with small groups, housing in large groups offers the pig more total available space, resulting potentially in an increased degree of control over its (micro) environment. For the producer, large groups require fewer pen divisions and offer more possibilities for the sharing of resources such as feeders and drinkers. However, whilst large groups may offer benefits to higher ranking animals in the group, there may be serious disadvantages for those further down the social hierarchy, who also need to compete for access to resources. This study investigated the interactive effects on welfare of food availability (one single space hopper per 20 or per 10 pigs) and group size (20, 40 or 80 pigs per pen), at constant stocking density (0·55 m2 per pig) in part-slatted pens. Groups provided with two feeding spaces per 20 pigs were less active than groups with one feeding space per 20 pigs. The number of aggressive interactions per pig at the food trough was not affected by group size but decreased with number of feeder spaces per 20 pigs. The number of skin lesions increased with group size. Average daily gain in the first half of the finishing period was negatively influenced by group size and positively by number of feeding spaces. No effect on weight gain was found subsequently. Within-group variation in growth was not affected by group size or number of feeder spaces. No differences between treatments were found in the number of pigs removed for health reasons. Interactive effects of the two treatments were found on some behaviours but not on any of the performance variables measured. It is concluded that, from a welfare point of view, the number of pigs per feeder space should be lower than 20, although performance levels appear acceptable at 20 pigs per feeder. Further research will have to identify whether the effects of group size on general aggression is common to all finishing pig systems, or whether the presence of straw can serve as a mitigating factor.

Keywords

animal welfarefeedinggroup sizeperformancepigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , December 1999 , pp. 481 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Rawi, B. and Craig, J. V. 1975. Agonistic behavior of caged chickens related to group size and area per bird. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 69–80.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1996. Big pens make for better meat quality? Pig Farmer October 1996: 43.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Phillips, P. A., Thompson, B. K. and Tennessen, T. 1991. Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. L., Hagelso, A. M. and Madsen, A. 1982. Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed “ad libitum” from one or several self-feeders. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 307–333.Google Scholar
Hsia, L. C. 1984. The effect of group size and feeding space on social and feeding behaviour of pigs. Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology in farm animals, Kiel 1984, pp. 117–121.Google Scholar
Hsia, L. C. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1983. Social facilitation in the feeding behaviour of pigs and the effect of rank. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 265–270.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1982. An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows — aggression regulation through an “avoidance order”. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 47–61.Google Scholar
Kelley, K. W., McGlone, J. J. and Gaskins, С. T. 1980. Porcine aggression: measurement and effects of crowding and fasting. Journal of Animal Science 50: 336–341.Google Scholar
Lumb, S. 1997. Big pens gain curtains. Pig International 27: 27–28.Google Scholar
Martin, M. and Bateson, P. 1993. Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Ewbank, R. 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, A. T. S. and Walker, N. 1991. The effect of number of single-space feeders and the provision of an additional drinker or toy on the performance and feeding behaviour of growing pigs. Animal Production 52: 577 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Morrow, A. T. S. and Walker, N. 1994. Effects of number and siting of single-space feeders on performance and feeding behaviour of growing pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 122: 465–470.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L. and Lawrence, A. B. 1993. Effect of group size on the behaviour and performance of growing pigs. In Manipulating pig production IV (ed. Batterham, E. J.), pp. 85–87. Animal Research Institute, Altwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Nix, J. 1997. Farm management pocketbook, 27th edition, p. 83. Wye College, University of London.Google Scholar
Peet, B. 1997. Space enough to choose. Pigs-Misset 13: 11–13.Google Scholar
Potkins, Z. V. and Lawrence, T. L. J. 1989. Oesophagogastric parakeratosis in the growing pig: effects of the physical form of barley-based diets and added fibre. Research in Veterinary Science 47: 60–67.Google Scholar
Turner, S. P. and Edwards, S. A. 1998. Production, behaviour and welfare of growing pigs as influenced by drinker allocation and group size. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1998, p. 114.Google Scholar
Wiepkema, P. R. and Schouten, W. G. P. 1990. Mechanisms of coping in social situations. In Social stress in domestic animals (ed. R., Zayan and Dantzer, R.), pp. 8–24. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar