Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:24:49.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance, lean meat proportion and behaviour of fattening pigs given a liquid diet at different animal/feeding-place ratios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. K. Rasmussen ,
R. Weber  and
B. Wechsler
D. K. Rasmussen*
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
R. Weber
Affiliation:
Agroscope FAT Taenikon, Swiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Economics and Engineering, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
B. Wechsler
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Sensor feeding is a liquid feeding system for fattening pigs that is operated with a restricted animal/feeding-place ratio (AFR). The aim of the present study was to quantify the effect of three different AFRs (4:1, 7:1 and 13:1, calculated with a feeding space of 33 cm per animal) on the performance and behaviour of fattening pigs (mean initial weight 26·3 (s.d. 3·3) kg, live weight at slaughter 102 (s.d. 5) kg). The pigs were housed in groups of 40 and each AFR was tested with seven groups (21 groups in total). The daily weight gain of the individual pigs was calculated from the beginning of the experiments until slaughter. Additionally, the lean meat percentage was recorded (AutoFOM). Feeding behaviour was observed by means of 24-h video recording at the ages of 14 and 17 weeks with scan sampling every 5 min. The daily weight gain decreased with increasing AFR ( P<0·01) and females had lower weight gains than barrows ( P<0·001). The lean meat proportion was influenced by the AFR ( P<0·01) and sex of the pigs ( P<0·001). Proportions were highest with the AFR 13:1 and in females. The average number of pigs feeding simultaneously was highest for the AFR of 4:1 ( P<0·01). Moreover, the ingestion rate per day (kg/min) increased with increasing AFR ( P<0·05). The average number of pigs waiting behind other pigs feeding at the trough was highest with the AFR 13:1 ( P<0·001).In conclusion, growth performance and pig behaviour were negatively affected by an AFR of 13:1, which cannot be recommended for use with this feeding system. With an AFR of 4:1 lean meat values were low.

Keywords

fattening performancefeeding behaviourliquid feed dispenserspigsspace requirements
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 575 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Botermans, J. A. M. and Georgsson, L. 2001. How does the feeding system and feeding regimen affect welfare in growing-finishing pigs? Proceedings of the international symposium of the second technical section of CIGR. on animal welfare considerations in livestock housing systems. Polish Committee of Agricultural Engineering. University of Zielona Gora and Agricultural University of Wroclaw, pp. 177–187.Google Scholar
Botermans, J. A. M. and Svendsen, J. 2000. Effect of feeding environment on performance, injuries and behaviour in growing-finishing pigs: group-based studies. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 50: 237–249.Google Scholar
Brøndum, J., Egebo, M., Agerskov, C. and Busk, H. 1998. On-line pork carcass grading with the autofom ultrasound system. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1859–1868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, N. D. 1990. Comparison of Duroc and British Landrace pigs and the estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters for growth and carcass traits. Animal Production 50: 141–153.Google Scholar
Fàbrega, E., Tibau, J., Soler, J., Fernàndez, J., Font, J., Carrión, D., Diestre, A. and Manteca, X. 2003. Feeding patterns, growth performance and carcass traits in group-housed growing-finishing pigs: the effect of terminal sire line, halothane genotype and age. Animal Science 77: 11–21.Google Scholar
Georgsson, L. and Svendsen, J. 2001. One or two feeders for groups of 16 growing-finishing pigs: effect on health and production. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 51: 257–264.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H. W. and Stricklin, W. R. 1998. Effects of floor area allowance and group size on the productivity of growing/finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1326–1330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, L., Hagelsø, 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 6: 341–350.Google Scholar
Hügle, T. and Heege, H. J. 1989. Die ad-libitum-Flüssigfütterung von Mastschweinen mittels Füllstandsmeldern. Schweinezucht und Schweinemast 37: 113–116.Google Scholar
Hicks, T. A., McGlone, J. J., Whisnant, C. S., Kattesh, H. G. and Norman, R. L. 1998. Behavioral, endocrine, immune, and performance measures for pigs exposed to acute stress. Journal of Animal Science 76: 474–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyun, Y., Ellis, M., Riskowski, G. and Johnson, R. W. 1998. Growth performance of pigs subjected to multiple concurrent environmental stress. Journal of Animal Science 76: 721–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kircher, A. 2001. Untersuchungen zum Tier-Fressplatzverhältnis bei der Fütterung von Aufzuchtsferkeln und Mastschweinen an Rohrbreiautomaten unter dem Aspekt der Tiergerechtheit. FAT-Schriftenreihe vol. 53, FAT, Taenikon.Google Scholar
Kirchgeβner, M. 1997. Tierernährung: Leitfaden für Studium, Beratung und Praxis. Verlags Union Agrar, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
Marks, M., Walgern, B. and Freisfeld, G. 2002. So vermeiden Sie niedrige Fleischanteile am Sensor. Schweinezucht und Schweinemast 3: 8–12.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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, B. L. and Lawrence, A. B. 1993. The effect of group size on the behaviour and performance of growing pigs using computerised single-space feeders. Pig News and Information 14: 127–129.Google Scholar
Oksbjerg, N., Sørensen, M. T. and Vestergaard, M. 2002. Compensatory growth and its effect on muscularity and technological meat quality in growing pigs. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 52: 85–90.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. and Blackshaw, J. K. 1987. A review of the factors influencing the aggressive and agonistic behaviour of the domestic pig. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27: 605–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proviande. 2003. Die neue MFA-Bezahlungsmaske , www.suisseporcs.ch/suisseporcs/uploads/MFA.Bezahlungsmaske.gifGoogle Scholar
Ramaekers, P. J. L., Swinkels, J. W. G. M., Huiskes, J. H., Verstegen, M. W. A., Den Hartog, L. A. and Van der Peet-Schwering, C. M. C. 1996. Performance and carcass traits of individual pigs housed in groups as affected by ad libitum and restricted feeding. Livestock Production Science 47: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, D. K., Weber, R. and Wechsler, B. 2006. Effects of animal/feeding-place ratio on the behaviour and performance of fattening pigs fed via sensor-controlled liquid feeding. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98: 45–53.Google Scholar
Thomke, S., Madsen, A., Mortensen, H. P., Sundstøl, F., Vangen, O., Alaviuhkola, T. and Andersson, K. 1995. Dietary energy and protein for growing pigs. 1. Performance and carcass composition. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 45: 45–53.Google Scholar
Turner, S. P., Dahlgren, M., Arey, D. S. and Edwards, S. A. 2002. Effect of social group size and initial live weight on feeder space requirement of growing pigs given food ad libitum. Animal Science 75: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, N. 1991. The effects on performance and behaviour of number of growing pigs per mono-feeder. Animal Feed Science Technology 35: 3–13.Google Scholar