Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:23:06.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of social group size and initial live weight on feeder space requirement of growing pigs given food ad libitum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S.P. Turner ,
M. Dahlgren ,
D.S. Arey  and
S.A. Edwards
M. Dahlgren
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA, UK
D.S. Arey
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA, UK
Get access

Abstract

Feeder space allowance should be sufficient to ensure adequate access to food for all group members, irrespective of competitive ability. However, the influence of social group size on minimum feeder space requirement of pigs given food ad libitum is poorly understood. Performance, aggression and feeding behaviour were assessed over a 6-week period from 29·3 (s.e. 0·19) kg live weight, using four replicates of a 2 ✕ 2 factorial design with two group sizes (20 v. 80) (small and large) and two feeder space allowances (32·5 v. 42·5 mm per pig) (low and high). Food intake was significantly lower in the low feeder space allowance treatments (1·44 v. 1·56 (s.e.d. 0·050) kg per pig per day, P < 0·05) and group mean growth rate was reduced in the later phase between 41 and 56 kg live weight. There was no main effect of group size or interactive effect between group size and feeder space allowance on performance. Mean skin lesion score and the frequency of aggression given or received at the feeders was unaffected by treatment. Heavy weight pigs showed similar feeding behaviour in each treatment, but light pigs visited the feeder more frequently in groups of 20 (23·1 v. 16·0 (s.e.d. 2·04) visits per pig per day, P < 0·05) and spent the greatest time feeding when at a low feeder space allowance (5461 v. 4397 (s.e.d. 288·8) s per pig per day, P < 0·05). To avoid a depression in growth rate, pigs >40 kg should be allocated a minimum feeder space allowance of 42·5 mm per pig. There was little indication of a need to specify differential feeder space allowances according to group size.

Keywords

aggressioncompetitionfeed troughsgroup sizepigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , August 2002 , pp. 75 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Arey, D. S. and Edwards, S. A. 1998. Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56: 61–70.Google Scholar
Bornett, H. L. I., Morgan, C. A., Lawrence, A. B. and Mann, J. 2000. The effect of group housing on feeding patterns and social behaviour of previously individually housed growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 127–141.Google Scholar
Botermans, J. A. M., Georgsson, L., Westrom, B. R., Olsson, A. C. and Svendsen, J. 2000. Effect of feeding environment on performance, injuries, plasma cortisol and behaviour in growing-finishing pigs: studies on individual pigs housed in groups. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 50: 250–262.Google Scholar
Brouns, F. and Edwards, S. A. 1994. Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad-libitum . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. A. and Turner, S. P. 1999. Housing and management of pigs in large social groups. Proceedings of the Pig Veterinary Society, Market Bosworth, UK.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
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., Lee, J. H. and Liu, H. C. 1998. The effect of group size and feeding space on pig’s performance and behaviour under various seasons. Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology in farm animals, Skara, Sweden (ed. J.Unshelm, , van Putten, G., Zeeb, K. and Ekesbo, I.), pp. 194–201.Google Scholar
Hunter, E. J., Broom, D. M., Edwards, S. A. and Sibly, R. M. 1988. Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Animal Production 47: 139–148.Google Scholar
Lindemann, M. D., Kornegay, E. T., Meldrum, J. B., Schurig, G. and Gwazdauskas, F. C. 1987. The effect of feeder space allowance on weaned pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 64: 8–14.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J., Heald, T. E. and Hayden, S. L. 1983. Physical and behavioural measures of feeding space for nursery age swine. Journal of Animal Science 57: (suppl. 1) 140 (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. 1999. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 79–91.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Shi, X. S. and Dubois, S. 1993. Energy cost of standing activity in sows. Livestock Production Science 34: 127–136.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1983. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S.H., Baxter, M.R. and A.C.|MacCormack, J.), pp. 103–120. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. and Baxter, S. H. 1981. Modelling the static spatial requirements of livestock. Modelling, design and evaluation of agricultural buildings. Proceedings of the Commission Internationale du Genie Rural, Aberdeen, UK, pp. 75–81.Google Scholar
Petley, M. P. and Bayley, H. S. 1988. Exercise and postexerise energy expenditure in growing pigs. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 66: 721–730.Google Scholar
Spoolder, H. A. M., Edwards, S. A. and Corning, S. 1999. Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Animal Science 69: 481–489.Google Scholar
Stricklin, W. R. and Gonyou, H. W. 1981. Dominance and eating behavior of beef cattle fed from a single stall. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. P., Edwards, S. A. and Bland, V. C. 1999. The influence of drinker allocation and group size on the drinking behaviour, welfare and production of growing pigs. Animal Science 68: 617–624.Google Scholar
Turner, S. P., Ewen, M., Rooke, J. A. and Edwards, S. A. 2000. The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on deep straw litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66: 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, P. R. and Schouten, W. G. P. 1990. Mechanisms of coping in social situations. In Social stress in domestic animals. A seminar in the Community Program for the Coordination of Agricultural Research, Brussels (ed. Zayan, R. and Dantzer, R.), pp. 8–23. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wolter, B. F., Ellis, M., Curtis, S.E., Parr, E. N. and Webel, D. M. 2000. Group size and floor-space allowance can affect weanling-pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2062–2067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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