Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T00:07:22.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of hygiene of housing conditions on performance and health of two pig genetic lines divergent for residual feed intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2017

A. Chatelet ,
F. Gondret ,
E. Merlot ,
H. Gilbert ,
N. C. Friggens  and
N. Le Floc’h
A. Chatelet
Affiliation:
PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
F. Gondret
Affiliation:
PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
E. Merlot
Affiliation:
PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
H. Gilbert
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, ENVT, Université de Toulouse, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan cedex, France
N. C. Friggens
Affiliation:
UMR Modélisation Systémique Appliquée aux Ruminants, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 75005 Paris, France
N. Le Floc’h*
Affiliation:
PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Pigs selected for high performance may be more at risk of developing diseases. This study aimed to assess the health and performance of two pig lines divergently selected for residual feed intake (RFI) (low RFI (LRFI) v. high RFI (HRFI)) and housed in two contrasted hygiene conditions (poor v. good) using a 2×2 factorial design (n=40/group). The challenge period (Period 1), started on week zero (W0) when 12-week-old pigs were transferred to good or poor housing conditions. At week 6 (W6), half of the pigs in each group were slaughtered. During a recovery period (Period 2) from W6 to W13 to W14, the remaining pigs (n=20/group) were transferred in good hygiene conditions before being slaughtered. Blood was collected every three (Period 1) or 2 weeks (Period 2) to assess blood indicators of immune and inflammatory responses. Pulmonary lesions at slaughter and performance traits were evaluated. At W6, pneumonia prevalence was greater for pigs housed in poor than in good conditions (51% v. 8%, respectively, P<0.001). Irrespective of hygiene conditions, lung lesion scores were lower for LRFI pigs than for HRFI pigs (P=0.03). At W3, LRFI in poor conditions had the highest number of blood granulocytes (hygiene×line, P=0.03) and at W6, HRFI pigs in poor conditions had the greatest plasma haptoglobin concentrations (hygiene×line, P=0.02). During Period 1, growth rate and growth-to-feed ratio were less affected by poor hygiene in LRFI pigs than in HRFI pigs (hygiene×line, P=0.001 and P=0.02, respectively). Low residual feed intake pigs in poor conditions ate more than the other groups (hygiene×line, P=0.002). Irrespective of the line, fasting plasma glucose concentrations were higher in poor conditions, whereas fasting free fatty acids concentrations were lower than in good conditions. At the end of Period 2, pneumonia prevalence was similar for both housing conditions (39% v. 38%, respectively). During Period 2, plasma protein concentrations were greater for pigs previously housed in poor than in good conditions during Period 1. Immune traits, gain-to-feed ratio, BW gain and feed consumption did not differ during Period 2. Nevertheless, at W12, BW of HRFI previously housed in poor conditions was 13.4 kg lower than BW of HRFI pigs (P<0.001) previously housed in good conditions. In conclusion, health of the most feed efficient LRFI pigs was less impaired by poor hygiene conditions. This line was able to preserve its health, growth performance and its feed ingestion to a greater extent than the less efficient HRFI line.

Keywords

pigsgenetichealthgrowth
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , February 2018 , pp. 350 - 358
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Banhazi, T, Seedorf, J, Rutley, D and Pitchford, W 2008. Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 2. Airborne pollutants. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 14, 21–39.Google Scholar
Bruins, MJ, Deutz, NE and Soeters, PB 2003. Aspects of organ protein, amino acid and glucose metabolism in a porcine model of hypermetabolic sepsis. Clinical Science 104, 127–141.Google Scholar
Clapperton, M, Diack, AB, Matika, O, Glass, EJ, Gladney, CD, Mellencamp, MA, Hoste, A and Bishop, SC 2009. Traits associated with innate and adaptive immunity in pigs: heritability and associations with performance under different health status conditions. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collier, B, Dossett, LA, May, AK and Diaz, JJ 2008. Glucose control and the inflammatory response. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 23, 3–15.Google Scholar
Corrégé, I 2004. Le contrôle des lésions respiratoires du porc à l’abattoir Intérêt dans le suivi d’élevage et mise en œuvre pratique. Techniporc 27, 15–20.Google Scholar
Doeschl-Wilson, AB, Kyriazakis, I, Vincent, A, Rothschild, MF, Thacker, E and Galina-Pantoja, L 2009. Clinical and pathological responses of pigs from two genetically diverse commercial lines to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1638–1647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunkelberger, JR, Boddicker, NJ, Serão, NVL, Young, JM, Rowland, RRR and Dekkers, JCM 2015. Response of pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake to experimental infection with the PRRS virus. Livestock Science 177, 132–141.Google Scholar
Fablet, C, Dorenlor, V, Eono, F, Eveno, E, Jolly, J, Portier, F, Bidan, F, Madec, F and Rose, N 2012a. Noninfectious factors associated with pneumonia and pleuritis in slaughtered pigs from 143 farrow-to-finish pig farms. Preventive veterinary medicine 104, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fablet, C, Marois-Créhan, C, Simon, G, Grasland, B, Jestin, A, Kobisch, M, Madec, F and Rose, N 2012b. Infectious agents associated with respiratory diseases in 125 farrow-to-finish pig herds: a cross-sectional study. Veterinary Microbiology 157, 152–163.Google Scholar
Faure, J, Lefaucheur, L, Bonhomme, N, Ecolan, P, Meteau, K, Coustard, SM, Kouba, M, Gilbert, H and Lebret, B 2013. Consequences of divergent selection for residual feed intake in pigs on muscle energy metabolism and meat quality. Meat Science 93, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraile, L, Saco, Y, Grau-Roma, L, Nofrarías, M, López-Soria, S, Sibila, M, Callén, A, Bassols, A and Segalés, J 2015. Serum haptoglobin dynamics in pigs vaccinated or not vaccinated against porcine circovirus type 2. Porcine Health Management 1, 1.Google Scholar
Gilbert, H, Bidanel, J-P, Gruand, J, Caritez, J-C, Billon, Y, Guillouet, P, Lagant, H, Noblet, J and Sellier, P 2007. Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in growing pigs, with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3182–3188.Google Scholar
Guo, J, Liu, Z, Sun, H, Huang, Y, Albrecht, E, Zhao, R and Yang, X 2015. Lipopolysaccharide challenge significantly influences lipid metabolism and proteome of white adipose tissue in growing pigs. Lipids in Health and Disease 14, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasselquist, D and Nilsson, J-Å 2012. Physiological mechanisms mediating costs of immune responses: what can we learn from studies of birds? Animal Behaviour 83, 1303–1312.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y, Ellis, M, Riskowski, G and Johnson, RW 1998. Growth performance of pigs subjected to multiple concurrent environmental stressors. Journal of Animal Science 76, 721–727.Google Scholar
Kampman-van de Hoek, E, Sakkas, P, Gerrits, WJ, van den Borne, JJ, van der Peet-Schwering, CM and Jansman, AJ 2015. Induced lung inflammation and dietary protein supply affect nitrogen retention and amino acid metabolism in growing pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 113, 414–425.Google Scholar
Le Floc’h, N, Deblanc, C, Cariolet, R, Gautier-Bouchardon, AV, Merlot, E and Simon, G 2014a. Effect of feed restriction on performance and postprandial nutrient metabolism in pigs co-infected with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and swine influenza virus. PloS one 9, e104605.Google Scholar
Le Floc’h, N, Knudsen, C, Gidenne, T, Montagne, L, Merlot, E and Zemb, O 2014b. Impact of feed restriction on health, digestion and faecal microbiota of growing pigs housed in good or poor hygiene conditions. Animal 8, 1632–1642.Google Scholar
Le Floc’h, N, Melchior, D and Obled, C 2004. Modifications of protein and amino acid metabolism during inflammation and immune system activation. Livestock Production Science 87, 37–45.Google Scholar
Merlot, E, Gilbert, H and Le Floc’h, N 2016. Metabolic response to an inflammatory challenge in pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 94, 563–573.Google Scholar
Mersmann, HJ and MacNeil, MD 1985. Relationship of plasma lipid concentrations to fat deposition in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 61, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pastorelli, H, Le Floc’h, N, Merlot, E, Meunier-Salaün, MC, van Milgen, J and Montagne, L 2012. Sanitary housing conditions modify the performance and behavioural response of weaned pigs to feed- and housing-related stressors. Animal 6, 1811–1820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prunier, A, Heinonen, M and Quesnel, H 2010. High physiological demands in intensively raised pigs: impact on health and welfare. Animal 4, 886–898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauw, W, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, E and Grommers, F 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56, 15–33.Google Scholar
Sorensen, N, Tegtmeier, C, Andresen, LO, Pineiro, M, Toussaint, M, Campbell, F, Lampreave, F and Heegaard, PM 2006. The porcine acute phase protein response to acute clinical and subclinical experimental infection with Streptococcus suis. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 113, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Chatelet supplementary material

Chatelet supplementary material

Download Chatelet supplementary material(File)
File 15.8 KB