Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:55:20.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of drinker allocation and group size on the drinking behaviour, welfare and production of growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. P. Turner ,
S. A. Edwards  and
V. C. Bland
S. P. Turner
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
V. C. Bland
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
Get access

Abstract

Current Welfare Code recommendations suggest one nipple drinker per 10 pigs, while farmers have often used a ratio of one per 20 animals. This statement is based on information from pig farmers and advisors in the United Kingdom. Neither approach is based on empirical investigation. The use of larger group sizes in commercial herds raises further questions, since the relationship between group size and the appropriate number of drinking points cannot be assumed to be linear. The aim was to assess the two conflicting drinker allocations for their effect on welfare, as measured by drinking behaviour, social behaviour and performance, and any effect of group size on these. A total of 640 Large White × Landrace growing pigs were assigned to four treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement (60 pigs, three drinkers; 20 pigs, one drinker; 60 pigs, six drinkers and 20 pigs, two drinkers). Drinker provision had no significant effect on water use (5.10, 3.88, 4.99 and 3.45 s.e. 0.231 I per pig per day respectively) but in a larger group more water was used in less drinking time (P < 0.001). The diurnal pattern of water use was similar for each treatment. More aggression occurred at the drinker in large groups with a poorer drinker allocation (11.0 v. 3.8% of drinking bouts terminated by aggression for 60 pigs with three drinkers and mean all other treatments respectively, P < 0·05). Overt aggression (2.22, 2.27, 1.76 and 2.07 (s.e. 0.284) aggressive acts per pig per h, respectively) and lesion score counts of a sample of pigs from each pen suggested no difference between treatments. Providing one drinker per 20 animals, even in a large group, did not affect drinking behaviour, social behaviour or production. These findings should not be extrapolated to situations of different ambient temperature, water flow rate or feeding strategy.

Keywords

drinkinggroup sizepigswater intake
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , June 1999 , pp. 617 - 624
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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Technical review by an Agricultural Research Council working party, pp. 299–304. Published on behalf of the Agricultural Research Council by the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Al-Rawi, B. and Craig, J. V. 1975. Agonistic behaviour of caged chickens related to group size and area per bird. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 69–80.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997. When sows drink less. Pig International 27: 35–36.Google Scholar
Barber, J., Brooks, P. H. and Carpenter, J. L. 1988. The effect of water delivery rate and drinker number on the water use of growing pigs. Animal Production 46: 521 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Baxter, S. 1984. Intensive pig production: environmental management and design,pp. 212–237. Granada Publishing Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H. and Carpenter, J. L. 1993. The water requirement of growing-finishing pigs — theoretical and practical considerations. In Recent developments in pig nutrition 2 (ed. Cole, D. J. A., Haresign, W. and Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 179–200. Nottingham University Press, Leicestershire, UK.Google Scholar
Dorminey, R. W. and Arscott, G. H. 1971. Effects of bird density, nutrient density and perches on the performance of caged white leghorn layers. Poultry Science 50: 619–626.Google Scholar
Forkman, B. 1996. The social facilitation of drinking — what is facilitated, and who is affected? Ethology 102: 252–258.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Patience, J. F., Phillips, P. A. and Mcleese, J. M. 1993. Water for piglets and lactating sows: quantity, quality and quandaries. In Recent developments in pig nutrition 2 (ed. Cole, D. J. A., Haresign, W. and Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 201–224. Nottingham University Press, Leicestershire, UK.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. and Newby, B.E. 1994. Space requirements for finishing pigs in confinement: behaviour and performance while group size and space vary. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 331–338.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1991. Codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock — pigs. MAFF Publications, London.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.CrossRefGoogle 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. Proceedings of the fourth biennial conference of the Australian Pig Science Association (ed. Batterham, E.S.), pp. 85–87.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1993. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. S. H., Baxter, Baxter, M. R. and MacCormack, J.A. D.), pp. 103–120. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Ruggles, L. H., Anderson, D. L., Damon, R. A. and Grover, R. M. 1967. The effects of bird density, light intensity and diet on the performance of heavy type layers in cages. Poultry Science 46: 1313 (abstr.).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.Google Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B., Koolhaas, J. M. and Cockram, M. 1993. Relationship between feeding, stereotypies, and plasma-glucose concentrations in food-restricted and restrained sows. Physiology and Behavior 54: 189–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermeer, H. M., Peet-Schwering, C. M. C. van der and Wilt, F. J. van der. 1996. Factors influencing water intake of group-housed pregnant sows. Proceedings of the 30th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Ontario, Canada,p. 149 (abstr.). The Colonel K. L. Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar