Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T11:03:25.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of group size on the performance of growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. Carol Petherick ,
A. W. Beattie  and
D. A. V. Bodero
J. Carol Petherick
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Medicine and Production, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
A. W. Beattie
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Medicine and Production, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
D. A. V. Bodero
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Medicine and Production, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Three replicates of three group sizes (six, 18 and 36) of grower pigs were housed with the same space allocation (0·66 m2 per pig), feeding and drinking space per animal. The animals were mixed and kept together for a period of 22 days. They were given food ad libitum, were weighed weekly and a record kept of the group food intake for the 22-day period. Weight at mixing had a significant effect on weight gains during the 1st week. There was a significant interaction between group size and replicates for weight gains; generally weight gains were lowest in the group size of 36 animals during the first 2 weeks, but in the 3rd week there was no difference between the group sizes. Sex had no effect on weight gains. The variation in weights between group members were significantly greater in the group size of 36 than in the group sizes of six and 18 at the start of the trial, but at the end of the trial there was no difference in the variances of weights in the three group sizes. There was no difference between the group sizes in the variances of the weight gains. There was a significant positive correlation (r = +0·36) between weight at mixing and weight gain for the group size of 18. Group size had no effect on food intake, but the food conversion efficiency of the animals in the group size of 36 was significantly poorer than in the group sizes of six and 18.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , December 1989 , pp. 497 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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

REFERENCES

Bartlett, M. S. 1937. Some examples of statistical methods of research in agriculture and applied biology. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 4: Suppl., pp. 137–170.Google Scholar
Beilharz, R. G. and Cox, D. F. 1967. Social dominance in swine. Animal Behaviour 15: 117–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ewbank, R. and Bryant, M. J. 1972. Aggressive behaviour amongst groups of domesticated pigs kept at various stocking rates. Animal Behaviour 20: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D. 1974. The behaviour of growing pigs during experimental social encounters. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L. L. 1977. The stability of the dominance hierarchy in growing pigs in different environments. CIGR Section II Seminar on Agricultural Buildings, As, Norway, August 8–12, Vol. 1, pp. 179–187.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. 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 8: 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, P. 1984. Gene action and maternal effects on social ranking and its relationship with other traits in pigs. Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals, Kiel, August, pp. 48–51. KTBL, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Knap, J. 1970. [Pigs ethology and efficiency of performance with regard to different number of pigs in a pen.] Vědecke Prāce Vyzkumného Ústavi Pro Chov Prasat V Kostelci Nad Orlici 3: 149–157.Google Scholar
McBridge, G., James, J. W. and Hodgens, N. 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. IV. Growing pigs. Animal Production 6: 129–139.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. and Wedderburn, R. M. 1972. Generalised linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 135A: 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1983a. 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 MacCormack, J. A. D.), pp. 103–120. Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1983b. A note on allometric relationships in Large White × Landrace pigs. Animal Production 36: 497–500.Google Scholar
Randolph, J. H., Cromwell, G. L., Stahly, T. S. and Kratzer, D. D. 1981. Effects of group size and space allowance on performance and behaviour of swine. Journal of Animal Science 53: 922–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheel, D. E., Graves, H. B. and Sherritt, G. W. 1977. Nursing order, social dominance and growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 45: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnebel, E. M. and Griswold, J. G. 1983. Agonistic interactions during competition for different resources in captive European wild pigs (Sus scrofa). Applied Animal Ethology 10: 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, K. 1966. [The behaviour of fattening pigs in large groups and its influence on the pen design] CIGR Section II Seminar on Agricultural Buildings, Lund, Sweden, August.Google Scholar
Tindsley, W. E. C. and Lean, I. J. 1984. Effects of weight range at allocation on production and behaviour ni fattening pig groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar