Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:38:08.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of straw amount on feed intake and weight gain in growing pigs housed in pens with partly slatted floor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2019

M. B. Jensen Open the ORCID record for M. B. Jensen [Opens in a new window] ,
M. S. Herskin Open the ORCID record for M. S. Herskin [Opens in a new window] ,
N. Canibe Open the ORCID record for N. Canibe [Opens in a new window] ,
B. Forkman  and
L. J. Pedersen
M. B. Jensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU-FOULUM, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. S. Herskin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU-FOULUM, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
N. Canibe
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU-FOULUM, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
B. Forkman
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
L. J. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, AU-FOULUM, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The provision of straw to pigs kept in conventional pens with concrete floor improves animal welfare, but the effects of straw on pigs’ performance are unclear. In two steps, we investigated the relationship between amount of straw provided to pigs and measures of performance in a set-up maintaining constant space allowance and controlled room temperature. From approximately 30- to 85-kg BW, pigs were housed in groups of 18 in pens (5.48 m × 2.48 m) with concrete floor (1/3 solid, 1/3 drained and 1/3 slatted). The pens were cleaned manually twice a week, and the designated amount of fresh uncut wheat straw was provided daily onto the solid part of the floor. In the first step, 48 pens were assigned to 10-, 500- or 1000-g straw per pig per day, while in the second step, 90 pens were assigned to 10-, 80-, 150-, 220-, 290-, 360-, 430- or 500-g straw per pig per day. Pigs were weighed at the start of the experimental period at approximately 30 kg and again at approximately 85-kg BW. The average daily gain increased 8.1 g (SEM 17) for every extra 100-g straw added daily (P < 0.001) resulting in 40 g higher average daily gain with 500 compared to 10-g straw per pig per day. The feed conversion ratio was not affected by the amount of straw provided, as the feed intake tended to be higher with increasing amounts of straw. Thus, between 10 and 500 g, the more straw provided, the higher the daily weight gain. As the nutritional value of straw is considered minimal, this result is likely due to improved gut health from the increasing amounts of straw ingested and increased feed intake due to increased stimulation of exploratory behaviour with increasing amounts of straw available, or a combination of these. The observed tendency for a higher feed intake supports this suggestion, but studies are needed to establish the impact of these two contributing factors.

Keywords

animal welfarefeed conversion efficiencyrooting materialtail lesionsproduction
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 8 , August 2020 , pp. 1659 - 1666
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019

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

Averos, X, Brossard, L, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, KH, Edwards, SA and Meunier-Salaûn, MC 2012. Meta-analysis on the effects of the physical environment, animal traits, feeder and feed characteristics on the feeding behaviour and performance of growing-finishing pigs. Animal 6, 1275–1289CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE and Moss, BW 2000. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1996. An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, van den Brand, H, Staals, S and Gerrits, WJJ 2007. Effects of pregelatinized vs. native potato starch on intestinal weight and stomach lesions of pigs housed in barren pens or on straw bedding. Livestock Science 109, 108–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, van den Brand, H, Staals, ST, Zandstra, T, Alferink, SJ, Heetkamp, MJ and Gerrits, WJ 2008. Effects of fermentable starch and straw-enriched housing on energy partitioning of growing pigs. Animal 2, 1028–1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, SRA, Wellner, N, Bordonado, IM, Harper, AL, Miller, CN, Bancroft, I and Waldron, KW 2014. Variation in the chemical composition of wheat straw: the role of tissue ratio and composition. Biotechnology Biofuels 7, 121Google ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 2017. Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable? Animal Production Science 57, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Lange, C, Van Milgen, J, Dubois, S and Noblet, J 2006. Energy cost of ingesting and excreting indigestible material in growing pigs is minimal. Animal Research 55, 551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Martino, G, Capello, K, Scollo, A, Gottardo, F, Stefani, AL, Rampin, F, Schiavon, E, Marangon, S and Bonfanti, L 2013. Continuous straw provision reduces prevalence of oesophago-gastric ulcer in pigs slaughtered at 170 kg (heavy pigs). Research in Veterinary Science 95, 1271–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, SL, Syszka, O, Stoddart, K, Edwards, SA and Kyriazakis, I 2015. Animal and management factors influencing grower and finisher pig performance and efficiency in European systems: a meta-analysis. Animal 9, 1210–1220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission 2016. Commission Staff Working Document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of enrichment materials to pigs (SWD (2016)49/F1). Retrieved on 1st March 2019 from http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=10102&year=2016&number=49&version=ALL&language=enGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, JA, Jørgensen, H and Just, A 1986. Comparative digestibility experiments with growing pigs and adult sows. Animal Production 43, 127–132.Google Scholar
Gentry, JG, McGlone, JJ, JR, Blanton Jr. and Miller, MF 2002. Alternative housing systems for pigs: Influences on growth, composition, and pork quality. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1781–1790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
German, RN, Thompson, CE and Benton, TG 2017. Relationships among multiple aspects of agriculture’s environmental impact and productivity: a meta-analysis to guide sustainable agriculture. Biological Reviews 92, 716–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JP and Ellis, M 2002. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of two genotypes of growing-finishing pigs in three different housing systems. Animal Science 74, 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herskin, MS, Jensen, HE, Jespersen, A, Forkman, B, Jensen, MB, Canibe, N and Pedersen, JL 2016. Impact of the amount of straw provided to pigs kept in intensive production conditions on the occurrence and severity of gastric ulceration at slaughter. Research in Veterinary Science 104, 200–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, KH, Jørgensen, L, Haugegaard, S, Herskin, MS, Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ and Canibe, N 2017. The dose-response relationship between the amount of straw provided on the floor and gastric ulceration of pars oesophagea in growing pigs. Research in Veterinary Science 112, 66–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, MB, Forkman, B, Herskin, MS and Pedersen, LJ 2015. Effect of increasing amounts of straw on pigs’ explorative behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 171, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Studnitz, M and Pedersen, LJ 2010. The effect of type of rooting material and space allowance on explorative and abnormal behaviour in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, A. 1982. The influence of ground barley straw on the net energy value of diets for growth in pigs. Livestock Production Science 9, 717—729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, HRC, Bruce, JM, English, PR, Fowler, VR and Edwards, SA 2000. Behaviour of 3-week weaned pigs in Straw-Flow, deep straw and flatdeck housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, MLV, Andersen, HM-L and Pedersen, LJ 2018. Which is the most preventive measure against tail damage in finisher pigs: tail docking, straw provision or lowering stocking density? Animal 12, 1260–1267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Foury, A, Mormede, P, Dransfield, E and Dourmad, JY 2006. Influence of rearing conditions on performance, behavioral, and physiological responses of pigs to preslaughter handling, carcass traits, and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2436–2447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littell, , Milliken, , Stroup, , Wolfinger, , 1996. SASR System for MixedModels. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Llonch, P, Haskell, MJ, Dewhurst, RJ and Turner, SP 2017. Review: current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal 11, 274–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR and English, PR 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinnon, AJ, Edwards, SA, Stephens, DB and Walters, DE 1989. Behaviour of groups of weaner pigs in three different housing systems. British Veterinary Journal 145, 367–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, CA, Deans, LA, Lawrence, AB and Nielsen, BL 1998. The effects of straw bedding on the feeding and social behaviour of growing pigs fed by means of single-space feeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, EK and Ingvartsen, KL 2000. Effects of cereal disintegration method, feeding method and straw as bedding on stomach characteristics including ulcers and performance in growing pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science 50, 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Herskin, MS, Forkman, B, Halekoh, U, Jørgensen, E and Jensen, MB 2014. How much is enough? The amount of straw necessary to satisfy growing pigs’ need to perform exploratory behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 160, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2009. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems 3. Hanging toy versus rootable toy of the same material. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, XS and Noblet, J 1993. Digestible and metabolizable energy values of ten feed ngredients in growing pigs fed ad libitum and sows fed at maintenance level; comparative contribution of the hindgut. Animal Feed Science and Technology 42, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staals, STM, Bolhuis, JE, van den Brand, H and Gerrit, WJJ 2007. Contribution of a straw bedding to digestible nutrient intake of pigs fed diets based on either native or pregelatinized potato starch. Livestock Science 109, 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thodberg, K, Herskin, MS, Jensen, KH and Jørgensen, E 2018. The effect of docking length on the risk of tail biting, tail-directed behaviour, aggression and activity level of growing pigs kept under commercial conditions. Animal 12, 2609–2618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, MH, Thygesen, A, Jorgensen, H, Larsen, J, Christensen, BH and Thomsen, AB 2006. Preliminary results on optimization of pilot scale pretreatment of wheat straw used in coproduction of bioethanol and electricity. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 130, 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations 2015. The 17 Sustainability goals. Retrieved on 1st March 2019 from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/Google Scholar
van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K and Edwards, SA 2006. Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2005. The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Fabrega, E, Blanco-Penedo, I and Dalmau, A 2015. Animal welfare towards sustainability in pork meat production. Meat Science 109, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed