Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:06:22.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management strategies to maximize pigmeat output: effect of group size and split-marketing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. K. O'Connell ,
P. B. Lynch  and
J. V. O'Doherty
M. K. O'Connell
Affiliation:
Pig Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland Department of Animal Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. B. Lynch
Affiliation:
Pig Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
J. V. O'Doherty*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
†[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were completed with grower-finisher pigs to determine if pigmeat output, as measured by carcass gain per m2 per year, could be increased, by 1: increasing group size or 2: split-marketing pen groups. In experiment 1, 390 pigs (mean initial live weight 36·7 (s.d. 1·99) kg) were assigned to one of three treatments each with 10 replicates: 11, 13 or 15 pigs per single-sex group in pens measuring 11·04 m2. Space allowance was 1·00, 0·85 and 0·74 m2 per pig, respectively. Pelleted food was provided ad libitum. There were no differences (P > 0·05) between group sizes in growth rate, food intake, food conversion ratio, carcass growth and carcass food conversion ratio, backfat and muscle depth or carcass lean content. Pigmeat output per unit area increased with each increase in group size (234, 279 and 314 kg/m2 per year for 11, 13 and 15 pigs: P < 0·001). In experiment 2, 26 groups of 13 pigs (mean initial live weight 38·3 (s.d. 2·15) kg) were assigned to one of three treatments: 1D - group sold on 1 day (no. = 9), 2D - group sold over 2 days (14 days apart, no. = 10), or 3D - group sold over 3 days (each 7 days apart, no. = 7). Pigs were given a standard liquid diet three times daily. No differences (P > 0·05) were observed between treatments for overall growth rate, food intake, food conversion ratio, carcass weight, carcass lean content, backfat and muscle depth, carcass growth and carcass food conversion ratio or killing-out proportion of pigs. Split-marketing increased cycle length (67·7, 75·9 and 76·8 days for 1D, 2D and 3D, respectively; P < 0·001). Live and carcass daily growth rates per pig place decreased with increase in number of sale days (live: 772, 680, 670 g/day and carcass: 658, 575, 571 g/day; P < 0·001). Carcass gain per unit area decreased in split-marketed groups (358, 318, 312 kg/m2 per year for 1D, 2D and 3D, respectively: P < 0·05). Carcass weight variation (s.d.) within pen decreased with each increase in number of sale days (s. d. 5·28, 3·81 and 1·74, respectively; P < 0·001). In conclusion, pigmeat output, as measured by carcass gains per m2 per year, was improved with increase in group size and by marketing all pigs in a group on a single day.

Keywords

group sizemarketingmeat yieldpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , August 2005 , pp. 171 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Bates, R. O. and Newcomb, M. D. 1997. Removal of market ready pen mates improved growth rate of remaining pigs. Journal of Animal Science 75: (suppl. 1) 247 (abstr.)Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1991. The design of the feeding environment for pig. In Manipulating pig production III (ed. Batterham, E. S.), proceedings of the third biennial conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association, pp. 150–177. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. M. 1981. Ventilation and temperature control criteria for pigs. In Environmental aspects for housing for animal production (ed. Clark, J. A.), pp. 197–216. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumm, M. C. 1998. Pen space allocations and pelleting of swine diets. Nebraska swine report 1998, pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
Brumm, M. C. and Dahlquist, J. 1996. Effect of floor space allocation on barrow performance to 300 pounds. Nebraska swine report 1996, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2001. Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. EC Brussels.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Food (Ireland). 1994. S. I. no. 216 of 1994: European Communities ( Pig Carcase (Grading)) (Amendment) Regulations, 1994. DAF(I) Dublin.Google Scholar
Georgsson, L. and Svendsen, J. 2002. Degree of competition at feeding differentially affects behaviour and performance of group-housed growing-finishing pigs of different relative weights. Journal of Animal Science 80: 376–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, T. A., McGlone, J. J., Whisnant, C. S., Kattesh, H. G. and Norman, R. L. 1998. Behavioural, endocrine, immune and performance measures for pigs exposed to acute stress. Journal of Animal Science 76: 474–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hines, R. H., Fitzner, G. E., Nichols, D. A. and Hancock, J. D. 1991. Space requirements of finishing pigs fed to a heavier weight (removed individually). Kansas State University swine day 1991, pp. 95–96.Google Scholar
Hines, R. H., Nicholson, R. I., Goodband, R. D., Fitzner, G. E., Nelssen, J. L., Nichols, D. A. and Hancock, J. D. 1989. Space requirements of finishing pigs fed to an average pen weight of 250 pounds. Kansas State University swine day 1989, pp. 157–159.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y. and Ellis, M. 2002. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80: 568–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 23–33.Google Scholar
Lawlor, P. 2003. Issues with heavier pigs. Proceedings of the pig farmers' conference 2003, Teagasc, Dublin, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
Lundeen, T. 2001. Match sire line to operation: group size affects growth rate. Feedstuffs, 25 06, 2001, pp. 9–10.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, H. G., Mullan, B. P., Trezona, M. and Frey, B. 1999. A review – variation in pig production and performance. In Manipulating pig production VII (ed. Cranwell, P. D.), proceedings of the VIIth biennial conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association, pp. 13–26. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.Google 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. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1983b. A note on allometric relationships in Large White × Landrace pigs. Animal Production 36: 497–500.Google Scholar
Rhodes, V. J. 1995. The industrialisation of hog production. Review of Agricultural Economics 17: 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmolke, S. A., Li, Y. Z. and Gonyou, H. W. 2003. Effect of group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81: 874–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scroggs, L. V., Kattesh, H. G., Morrow, J. L., Stalder, K. J., Daily, J. W., Roberts, M. P., Schneider, J. F. and Saxton, A. M. 2002. The effects of split marketing on the physiology, behaviour, and performance of finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 80: 338–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, Y. and Miller, G. Y. 2002. Effects of marketing decisions on net present value of pork production for independent and allied swine producers. Review of Agricultural Economics 24: 181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2001. Statistical analysis systems. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tuite, P. 2003. What is the true price of pigs? Proceedings of the pig farmers' conference 2003, Teagasc, Dublin, pp. 77–82.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