Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:03:40.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of single-space feeder design on feeding behaviour and performance of growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. L. Nielsen ,
A. B. Lawrence  and
C. T. Whittemore
B. L. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, SAC Edinburgh, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0QE
C. T. Whittemore
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Computerized food intake recording systems of various designs are used by research, centres and breeding companies to monitor the individual food intake of pigs kept in groups. In the present experiment, three feeder designs are compared in order to estimate the effect on performance and feeding behaviour. Ninety entire male pigs (34 (s.e. 0·6) kg) were allocated in three replicates to pens of 10 pigs; each pen containing one of three different feeder entrance designs: low (head-guard), medium (full-length standard race), and high (enclosed pneumatic race) protection against disturbance of the feeding pig. No significant differences were found between treatments in daily food intake, daily live-weight gain, food conversion ratio, number of visits per day and daily feeder occupation. Pigs with access to an enclosed race had longer visits than pigs on the two other treatments, and they also ate more per visit (4·8, 4·8 and 6·2 (s.e.d. = 0·37) min per visit; 172, 157, and 202 (s.e.d. = 11·1) g per visit; means of low, medium and high protection, respectively). The enclosed race was not only the most protective, it was also the most difficult to enter, and this decreased accessibility of the food may have given rise to the changed feeding pattern displayed by pigs using this type of race. Access to a feeder with low protection resulted in a faster rate of eating (36·9, 33·2, and 32·8 (s.e.d. = 0·82) g/min; means of low, medium and high protection, respectively) indicative of a more forced feeding behaviour.

Keywords

feeder designfeeding behaviourpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 575 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Haer, L. C. M. de 1992. Relevance of eating pattern for selection of growing pigs. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de and Merks, J. W. M. 1992. Patterns of daily food intake in growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 95–104.Google Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de, Merks, J. W. M., Kooper, H. G., Buiting, G. A. J. and Hattum, J. A. van. 1992. A note on the IVOG station: a feeding station to record the individual food intake of group-housed growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 160–162.Google Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de and Vries, A. G. de. 1993. Feed intake patterns of and feed digestibility in growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livestock Production Science 33: 277–292.Google Scholar
Kissileff, H. R. 1970. Free feeding in normal and ‘recovered lateral’ rates monitored by a pellet-detecting eatometer. Physiology and Behavior 5: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labroue, F., Guéblez, R., Sellier, P. and Meunier-Salaün, M. C. 1994. Feeding behaviour of group-housed Large White and Landrace pigs in French central test stations. Livestock Production Science 40: 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. Genstat 5. Rothamsted Experimental Station. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Levitsky, D. A. 1974. Feeding conditions and intermeal relationships. Physiology and Behavior 12: 779–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrow, A. T. S. and Walker, N. 1994. A note on changes to feeding behaviour of growing pigs by fitting stalls to single-space feeders. Animal Production 59: 151–153.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L. and Lawrence, A. B. 1993. The effect of group size on the behaviour and performance of growing pigs using computerized single-space feeders. Pig News and Information 14: 127N–129N.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A. B. and Whittemore, C. T. 1995. Effect of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livestock Production Science. In press.Google Scholar
Slader, R. W. and Gregory, A. M. S. 1988. An automatic feeding and weighing system for ad libitum fed pigs. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture 3: 157–170.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J., Bampton, P.R., Smith, S. and Close, S. P. 1990. Electronics in genetic improvement of pigs. Animal Production 50: 576 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Young, R. J. and Lawrence, A. B. 1994. Feeding behaviour of pigs in groups monitored by a computerized feeding system. Animal Production 58: 145–152.Google Scholar