Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:24:54.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of stocking density on the responses of growing pigs to dietary lysine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N.S. Ferguson ,
G. Lavers  and
R.M. Gous
G. Lavers
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural Sciences and Agribusiness, Discipline of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Natal, P Bag X 01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
R.M. Gous
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural Sciences and Agribusiness, Discipline of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Natal, P Bag X 01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to measure the effects of stocking density (increased number of pigs per pen) on lysine requirements of pigs grown from 25 to 60 kg live weight. Two hundred and sixty-four female Large White ✕ Landrace pigs were assigned at 25 kg to one of four dietary lysine treatments (13·3 (L1); 11·4 (L2); 9·5 (L3) and 7·6 (L4) g/kg) and either seven or 13 pigs per pen (or 1 0 and 0·5 m2 per pig, respectively). An additional treatment of one pig per pen (20 m2 per pig) was included to compare the responses of solitary- versus group-penned pigs. Animals were given ad libitum access to dietary treatments from a mean pen starting weight of 261 (s.e. 0·35) kg to a mean pen finishing weight of 63·4 (s.e. 0·61) kg live weight. There were no significant interactions between dietary lysine content and floor space per pig on food intake (FI), average daily growth rate (ADG), the amount of food per unit of gain (FCR) and the rate of protein retention (PR). Significant interactions were evident for body composition and the rate of lipid retention (LR). Over the weight range 25 to 40 kg there were significant differences in FI (P < 0·05) and FCR (P < 0·001) between dietary lysine treatments but most of these differences had disappeared over the 40 to 60 kg live weight. Individually penned animals had significantly higher (P < 0·05) FI and ADG than group-penned animals. However, there were no differences between seven and 13 pig per pen treatments. Stocking density had no effect on LR or body protein content but did cause a significant reduction in PR (P < 0·001) and an increase in body lipid content (P < 0·05) as the number of pigs per pen increased from seven to 13. Lysine requirements (expressed in g/day) therefore could be seen to be reduced with increasing stocking density. However, as lysine intake was reduced in group-penned animals, the reduced daily requirement does not necessarily warrant a reduction in the lysine content of the food. Feeding according to the requirements for maximum PR will still produce the best carcass and growth performance irrespective of the group size. The improvement in PR associated with higher dietary nutrient levels did not completely offset the adverse physiological effects of higher stocking density but may partly counteract the effect of reduced lysine intake. However, there were indications that feeding crowded pigs a lower dietary lysine concentration may not further reduce the already diminished protein (lysine) growth rate. An additional experiment was performed to test whether the number of feeder bins may have constrained food intake and therefore growth in group-penned animals. The results of this experiment showed that the number of bins had no significant effect on FI, ADG and FCR in group-penned pigs, and therefore a single feeder bin was not considered a constraining factor in pigs housed with limited floor space.

Keywords

lysinestocking densitypigs.
Type
Non-ruminant, nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 73 , Issue 3 , December 2001 , pp. 459 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Furnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 14th edition. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Baker, D. H. and Johnson, R. W. 1999. Disease, stress, cytokines and amino acid needs of pigs. Pig News and Information 20: 123N–124N.Google Scholar
Brumm, M. C. and Miller, P. S. 1996. Response of pigs to space allocation and diets varying in nutrient density. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2730–2737.Google Scholar
Bustamante, M., Jesse, G. W., Becker, B. A. and Krause, G. F. 1996. Effects of individual vs group penning on the performance of weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1457–1461.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1983. The influence of feeding level from 20 to 45 kg live weight on the performance and body composition of female and entire male pigs. Animal Production 36: 193–199.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1985. The influence of feeding level on the protein requirement of pigs between 20 to 45 kg live weight. Animal Production 40: 489–496.Google Scholar
Dyer, C. J., Touchette, K. J., Carroll, J. A., Allee, G. L. and Matteri, R. L. 1999. Cloning of porcine prepro-orexin cDNA and effects of synthetics porcine orexin-B on feed intake in young pigs. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 16: 145–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmonds, M. S., Arentson, B. E. and Mente, G. A. 1998. Effect of protein levels and space allocations on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76: 814–821.Google Scholar
Elsasser, T. H., Klesing, K. C., Filipov, N. and Thompson, F. 2000. Metabolic consequences of stress. In The biology of animal stress. Basic principles and implications for animal welfare (ed. Moberg, G. P. and Mench, J. A.), pp. 77–110. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1999. Growth and body composition. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.), pp. 181–197. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Oldham, J. D. 1988. Modelling of growth and nutrition in different species. In Modelling of livestock production systems (ed. Karver, S. and van Arendonk, J.A.M.), pp. 13–21. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S., Arnold, G. A., Lavers, G. and Gous, R. M. 2000a. The response of growing pigs to amino acids as influenced by environmental temperature. 1. Threonine. Animal Science 70: 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, N. S., Arnold, G. A., Lavers, G. and Gous, R. M. 2000b. The response of growing pigs to amino acids as influenced by environmental temperature. 2. Lysine. Animal Science 70: 299–306.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1993. Evaluation of pig genotypes. 1. Theoretical aspects of measuring genetic parameters. Animal Production 56: 233–243.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1997. The influence of heat production on voluntary food intake in growing pigs given protein-deficient diets. Animal Science 64: 365–378.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1995. Environmental factors affecting intake. In Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals (ed. Forbes, J. M.), pp. 332–353. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Gatel, F., Buron, G. and J., Fékéte 1992. Total amino acid requirements of weaned piglets 8 to 25 kg live weight given diets based on wheat and soya-bean meal fortified with free amino acids. Animal Production 54: 281–287.Google Scholar
Genstat. 1997. Genstat 5 release 4·1 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H. W., Chapple, R. P. and Frank, G. R. 1992. Productivity, time budgets and social aspects of eating in pigs penned in groups of five or individually. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de and Vries, A. G. de. 1993. Feed intake patterns and feed digestibility of growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livestock Production Science 33: 277–292.Google Scholar
Hahn, J. D., Biehl, R. R. and Baker, D. H. 1995. Ideal digestible lysine level for early- and late-finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 73: 773–784.Google Scholar
Heiman, M. L., Chen, Y. and Caro, J. F. 1998. Leptin participates in the regulation of glucocorticoid and growth hormone axis. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 9: 553–559.Google Scholar
Henry, Y., Colleaux, Y. and Seve, B. 1992. Effects of dietary level of lysine and of level and source of protein on feed intake, growth performance and plasma amino acid pattern in the finishing pig. Journal of Animal Science 70: 188–195.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y., Ellis, M., Riskowski, G. and Johnson, R. W. 1998. Growth performance of pigs subjected to multiple concurrent environmental stressors. Journal of Animal Science 76: 721–727.Google Scholar
Kornegay, E. T., Lindemann, M. D. and Ravindran, V. 1993. Effects of dietary lysine levels on performance and immune response of weanling pigs housed at two floor space allowances. Journal of Animal Science 71: 552–556.Google Scholar
Kornegay, E. T. and Notter, D. R. 1984. Effects of floor space and number of pigs per pen on performance. Pig News and Information 5: 23N–33N.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and McDaniel, R. 1993. Whole body amino acid composition of the growing pig. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 62: 29–33.Google Scholar
Matteri, R. L., Carroll, J. A. and Dyer, C. J. 2000. Neuroendocrine responses to stress. In The biology of animal stress. Basic principles and implications for animal welfare (ed. Moberg, G. P. and Mench, J. A.), pp. 43–76. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. A., Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A. B. and Mendl, M. T. 1999. Describing the social environment and its effects on food intake and growth. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.), pp. 99–125. CAB International Publishing, UK.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A. B. and Whittemore, C. T. 1995. Effect of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livestock Production Science 44: 73–85.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C., Beattie, A. W. and Bodero, D. A. V. 1989. The effect of group size on the performance of growing pigs. Animal Production 49: 497–502.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1993. The science and practice of pig production. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, UK.Google Scholar